THE
FORMING A CONTINUATION OF THE WORK ENTITLED
"THE PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY OF ENGLAND,
FROM THE EARLIEST PERIOD TO THE YEAR 1803."
PUBLISHED UNDER THE SUPERINTENDENCE OF
T. C. HANSARD.
New Series;
COMMENCING WITH THE ACCESSION OF GEORGE IV.
VOL. XI.
COMPRISING THE PERIOD
FROM
THE THIRTIETH DAY OF MARCH,
TO
THE TWENTY-FIFTH DAY OF JUNE, 1824.
LONDON:
Printed by T.C Hansard at the Pater-noster-Row Press,
FOR BALDWIN, CRADOCK, AND JOY; J. BOOKER; LONGMAN, HURST, REES; AND CO.; J. M. RICHARDSON; KINGSBURY AND CO.; J. HATCHARD AND SON; J. RIDGWAY AND SONS; E. JEFFERY AND SON; RODWELL AND MARTIN; R. H. EVANS; BUDD AND CALKIN; J. BOOTH; AND T. C. HANSARD.
1825.
THE
New Series,
VOL. XI.
All Communications for this Work, if forwarded to Mr. WRIGHT, No. 112, Regent-Street, or to Mr. T. C. HANSARD, Pater-noster-Row Press, will be carefully attended to; but, as an early publication of the proceedings of each Session is extremely desirable, it is respectfully requested, that such Communications may be forwarded with as little delay as possible.
Of the same Proprietors may be had, in Thirty-six Volumes,
THE
FROM THE EARLIEST PERIOD
TO THE YEAR 1803.
The Editor is preparing for the Press, to be comprised in Two Volumes,
I. A GENERAL INDEX to the Parliamentary History of England from the earliest Period to the Year 1803: and
II. A GENERAL INDEX to the Parliamentary Debates from the Year 1803 to the Accession of GEORGE THE FOURTH, in 1820.
The two Volumes will form a complete Parliamentary Dictionary, or ready Book of Reference, to every recorded Proceeding of importance that may, at any time, have come before the two Houses of Parliament.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NEW SERIES.
I. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
II. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
III. KING'S SPEECHES.
IV. PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.
V. PETITIONS.
VI. PROTESTS.
VII. LISTS.
I. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
Page
1824. Mar. 30. Slave Trade Piracy Bill
1
1824. April 2. Silk Trade Bill
67
Irish Tithes Commutation Bill
68
Unitarians Marriages Relief Bill
75
1824. April 6. Burials in Ireland Bill
174
1824. April 8. The Earl of Darnley's Motion on the State of Ireland
236
1824. April 13. Newfoundland Judicature Bill
392
1824. May 4. Silk Trade Bill
433
Unitarians Marriages Relief Bill
434
1824. May 6. Kensington Road Bill
527
Newfoundland Judicature Bill
527
1824. May 11. Alien Bill
628
1824. May 14. Alien Bill
749
Silk Manufacture Bill
750
1824. May 17. State of Ireland
753
1824. May 21. General Gas Company's Bill
790
Silk Manufacture Bill
792
1824. May 24. Restoration of Forfeited Peerages
815
English Catholics Relief Bill
817
1824. May 25. Joint-Stock Companies—Standing Orders relating thereto
856
1824. May 31. Roman Catholic Petitions
937
Welch Judicature
941
1824. June 1. Scotch Entails Bill
959
1824. June 2. Joint-Stock Companies
1076
1824. June 4. Welch judicature Bill
1088
Cruelty to Animals Bill
1089
1824. June 9. Game Laws Amendment Bill
1097
1824. June 10. Poor of Ireland
1098
Standing Orders respecting Joint-Stock Companies
1100
Irish Insurrection Bill
1102
Irish Tithes Composition Amendment Bill
1104
British Museum Bill—Mr. Payne Knight's Bequest
1165
1824. June 11. Game Laws Amendment Bill
1199
1824. June 14. County Courts Bill
1315
1824. June 15. Scotch Judicature Bill
1338
Equitable Loan Bill
1339
1824. June 16. Scots Jury Bill
1428
1824. June 17. Marine Insurance Bill
1430
New Churches Bill
1430
Cruelty to Animals Bill
1431
1824. June 18. Protest against the Irish Insurrection Bill
1454
Earl Marshal's Office Bill
1455
Marine Insurance Bill
1456
1824. June 19. Earl Marshal's Office Bill
1469
1824. June 21. Marine Insurance Bill
1470
1824. June 23. Dublin Equitable Loan Bill
1478
1824. June 24. Recognition of the Independence of South America
1479
Protest against the Earl Marshal's Office Bill,
1482
1824. June 25. The Speaker's Speech to the King
1505
The King's Speech at the Close of the Session
1507
II. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
1824. Mar. 30. Manchester Gas-Light Bill
8
Secret Societies—Orange Processions in Ireland
15
Courts of Justice in Scotland
18
Settlement of the Poor Bill
32
Salmon Fisheries
33
New Churches
35
1824. June 31. Usury Laws Repeal Bill
36
Burials in Ireland Bill
39
1824. April 1. Complaint of the Absence of the Attorney-General from the Isle of Man
41
Plymouth Breakwater
46
Legacy Duty
46
Burials in Ireland Bill
48
1824. April 1. Coal Duties
49
1824. April 2. St. Catherine's Dock Bill
95
Angerstein Collection of Pictures
101
Consuls to South America
104
Army Extraordinaries
105
Civil Contingences
107
Alien Bill
113
1824. April 5. Alien Bill
146
Repairs of Windsor Castle
147
1824. April 6. Salt Tax
178
Mr. George Lamb's Motion for allowing Defence by Counsel in Cases of Felony
180
Mr. Maberly's Motion respecting the Redemption and Purchase of the Land Tax
220
Poor in Scotland Relief Bill
226
Beer Duties
227
1824. April 8. Manchester Gas-Light Bill Committee
281
Usury Laws Repeal Bill
283
1824. April 9. Law of Libel—Case of Mr. Butt
319
Education of the Poor in Ireland
321
Admission to Westminster Abbey
325
Turkey Company
327
Building of New Churches
328
1824. April 12. Alien Bill
361
Building of New Churches
384
Game Laws Amendment Bill
389
1824. April 13. Dublin Coal Trade Bill
394
Hammersmith-Bridge Bill
397
Conduct of the Rev. J. Smith at Demerara—Petition from London Missionary Society
400
Roman Catholic Marriages in England
408
1824. April 14. Combination Laws
409
Hides and Skins Repeal Bill
410
1824. April 15. Corporate Rights—Roman Catholics of Drogheda
413
Sale of Mackarel on Sundays—Petition against
414
1824. April May 3. Standing Orders—Tees and Weardale Railway Bill
419
Irish Tithe Composition Amendment Bill
421
Customs (Coals and Linens) Bill
426
1824. April 4. Orange Lodges—Petition against
446
Distilleries—Petition from Lanark for a Free Trade in Spirits
448
Captain Maberly's Motion for an Advance of Capital to Ireland for the Employment of the Poor
450
Scotch Juries Bill
496
1824. April 5. Kensington Road Bill—Petition of Mr. Cobbett against
497
Tithe System in Ireland—Petition against Tithes Composition Bill
502
Tread-Mill—Petition of Sir J. C. Hippisley &c. against the Use of
509
Irish Militia
524
1824. April 6. Standing Orders respecting Petitions
528
1824. May 6. Irish Royal Mining Company Bill
529
Oaths—Petition of Separatists
530
Mr. Hume's Motion respecting the Church Establishment of Ireland
532
1824. May 7. Beer Duties Bill
588
The Budget
589
Saving Banks Bill
601
1824. May 10. Derry Cathedral Bill
603
Corporate Companies
608
West-India Company Bill
609
Mr. Maberly's Motion for the Repeal of the Assessed Taxes
617
1824. May 11. Petition of Joseph Swann complaining of Imprisonment in Chester Castle
643
Administration of Justice in Ireland—Petition of J. M'Cusker
647
Freedom of Election in Ireland—Petition from Cavan
652
Lord Althorp's Motion for a Select Committee on the State of Ireland
654
1824. May 12. Petition from the Separatists
724
1824. May 13. Superannuation Fund—Petition against
726
Mr. Whitmore's Motion for a Committee on the Sugar Bounties
730
Mr. Wodehouse's Motion respecting the Continuance of the Salt Tax
741
Salary of the Judges
748
1824. May 17. Parliamentary Reform
755
Law-Merchant Amendment Bill
756
Warehoused Wheat Bill
760
Marine Insurance Bill
766
1824. May 18. Derry Cathedral
775
Mr. Calcraft's Motion for the Repeal of the Leather Tax
776
Banking Establishments in Ireland
786
Mariners' Apprentices Settlement Bill
788
1824. May 21. Kensington Turnpike Trust—Petition of Mr. Cobbett
793
Seizure and Imprisonment in Jamaica—Petition of L. C. Lecesne and J. Escoffery
796
Wool Importation and Exportation Bill
804
Combination Laws—Resolutions of Select Committee on Artizans and Machinery
811
New Courts of Justice—Petition of Mr. Soane
814
1824. May 24. Alliance Assurance Company Bill
842
Beer Duties Bill
843
County Courts Bill
852
1824. May 25. Equitable Loan Society Bill
857
Liberty of the Press in India—Petition of Mr. Buckingham
858
First-Fruits Fund of Ireland
890
1824. May 26. Education of the Poor in Ireland—Petition of Mr. Owen
899
Usury Forfeitures Bill
900
Scotch Poor Regulation Bill
900
1824. May 27. Commitments and Convictions
902
Mode of Conducting the Private Business of the House in Committees above Stairs
910
1824. May 27. Irish Clergy Residence Bill
918
Warehoused Wheat Bill
919
1824. May 23. Marine Insurance Bill
920
Irish Butter Trade
933
Scotch Jury Bill
935
1824. May 31. Roman Catholic Claims—Petition of Catholics of Ireland
941
Roman Catholic Association—Petition from Ireland against
943
Game Laws Amendment Bill
956
1824. June 1. Equitable Loan Company Bill
960
Mr. Brougham's Motion Respecting the Trial and Condemnation of Missionary Smith at Demerara—The Debate adjourned
961
1824. June 3. Freedom of Discussion—Petition for
1078
Trial and Condemnation of Missionary Smith at Demerara
1079
New Churches Bill
1080
Vagrants Bill—Whipping
1081
Marine Insurance Bill
1086
1824. June 4. Corporation and Test Acts—Petition for Repeal of
1089
Earl of Mar's Restoration Bill
1090
Transportation of Offenders Bill
1091
New Churches Bill
1093
Horses Slaughtering Bill
1095
1824. June 10. Abolition of Slavery—Trial of Missionary Smith
1167
Roman Catholic Claims—Petition from Cork
1168
Small Debts Bill in Scotland
1170
Mr. Hume's Motion respecting the Impressment of Seamen
1171
Roman Catholic Association
1197
1824. June 11. Marine Insurance Bill
1202
Petition from R. Carlile, complaining of his Imprisonment
1202
Breach of Privilege—Mr. Gourlay's Assault on Mr. Brougham
1204
Mr. Brougham's Motion respecting the Trial and Condemnation of Missionary Smith at Demerara
1206
1824. June 14. Historical Painting—Petition of B. R. Haydon for encouragement of
1316
Breach of Privilege—Mr. Gourlay
1317
Reversal of Attainders
1318
Land Tax Redemption Bill
1320
Irish Insurrection Bill
1322
1824. June 15. Petition of Robert Bell complaining of being called upon by the War Office to pay Money as a Surety
1340
Recognition of the Independence of South America—London Petition for
1344
Abolition of Slavery—Petition from Carlow
1406
Roman Catholic Church Establishment in Ireland
1427
1824. June 17. Derry Cathedral
1432
Orange Processions—Petition of Mr. Lawless
1434
Petition of Bernard Coile, complaining of Sufferings during the Rebellion in Ireland
1435
Roman Catholic Association—Petition of, complaining of the Morning Chronicle
1438
Scotch Judicature Bill
1440
1824. June 17. East India Possessions Bill
1442
Superannuation Fund Bill
1451
1824. June 18. Abuses in the Isle of Man—Petition of House of Keys
1458
Irish Insurrection Bill
1463
Juries Empanelling Bill
1468
1824. June 21. Superannuation Fund
1473
Recognition of the Independence of South America—Petition from Manchester
1475
1824. June 24. Regulations of Surrey Magistrates—Petition of Debtors in Horsemonger-Lane Gaol
1493
Petition of Luke Carlos O'Callaghan complaining of Ill-treatment in the Surrey County Gaol
1501
III. KING'S SPEECHES.
1824. June 25. KING'S SPEECH at the close of the Session
1508
IV. PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.
Finance Accounts for the Year ended 5th January 1824 Ap. i
V. PETITIONS.
1824. Mar. 31. PETITION respecting the Burials in Ireland Bill
39
1824. April 1. PETITION—from the Proprietors of Collieries, respecting the Proposition for altering the Coal Duties
49
1824. April 6. PETITION from certain Jurymen, for allowing Defence by Counsel in Cases of Felony
180
1824. April 9. PETITION from Westminster, complaining of the power of Committal for Libel before Trial, in the Case of Mr. Butt.
320
1824. April 13. PETITION from London Missionary Society, respecting the Trial and Condemnation of the Rev. J. Smith at Demerara
401
1824. April 15. PETITION from London and Westminster, against the Sale of Mackarel on Sundays
415
1824. May 5. PETITION from Mr. Cobbett, against the Kensington Roads Bill
500
PETITION from Ireland, against the Tithes Composition Bill
502
PETITION of Sir J. C. Hippisley, &c. against the use of the Tread-Mill
511
1824. May 21. PETITION of Mr. Cobbett, respecting the Kensington Turnpike Trust
793
1824. May 26. PETITION of Mr. Owen, respecting the Education of the Poor in Ireland
899
1824. June 15. PETITION of the Merchants of London, for the Recognition of the Independence of South America
1392
1824. June 24. PETITION of Luke Carlos O'Callaghan, complaining of Ill-treatment in the Surrey County Gaol
1503
VI. PROTESTS.
1824. June 18. PROTEST against the Irish Insurrection Bill
1454
1824. June 24. PROTEST against the Earl Marshal's Office Bill
1482
VII. LISTS.
1824. Mar. 30. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Lord Archibald Hamilton's Motion for referring the Reports of the Commissioners of Inquiry into Courts of Justice in Scotland to a Committee
31
1824. April 2. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Second Reading of the Alien Bill
115
1824. April 5. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Grant for the Repairs of Windsor Castle
171
1824. April 6. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Mr. George Lamb's Motion for allowing Defence by Counsel in Cases of Felony
220
1824. April 8. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Usury Laws Repeal Bill
315
1824. April 12. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the third reading of the Alien Bill
384
LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Grant for Building of New Churches
389
1824. May 4. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Captain Maberly's Motion for an advance of Capital to Ireland
496
1824. May 5. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Irish Militia Bill
526
1824. May 6. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Mr. Hume's Motion respecting the Church Establishment of Ireland
588
1824. May 10. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Mr. Maberly's Motion for the Repeal of the Assessed Taxes
628
1824. May 11. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Lord Althorp's Motion for a Select Committee on the State of Ireland
723
1824. May 17. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Mr. Calcraft's Motion for the Repeal of the Leather Tax
786
1824. June 10. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Mr. Hume's Motion respecting the Impressment of Seamen
1197
1824. June 11. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Mr. Brougham's Motion respecting the Trial and Condemnation of Missionary Smith at Demerara
1313
1824. June 18. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the third reading of the Irish Insurrection Bill
1467
ERRATUM.
In the report of Lord Holland's Speech in the House of Lords, on the 3rd of February, which will be found in Vol. X. p. 31, his lordship's opinions, with regard to the resumption of Cash Payments, have been misapprehended. Instead of the words "Indeed, he felt the more "anxious to express this opinion, because "he had been one of those, who, when that "great measure was agitated in parliament, "most warmly opposed it. Appalled at the "possible consequences that might ensue, he "certainly had been far from friendly to the "execution of a measure which he did then "believe to be fraught with danger; and "which he now acknowledged to have been "thus instrumental in restoring prosperity to "the kingdom," the Reader will please to substitute the following—"Indeed, he felt the "more anxious to bear his testimony to the "wisdom as well as honesty of that measure, "because, though
he had always been a strenuous friend to it, as the Journals of the House
"would shew,
During the Fifth Session of the Seventh Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, appointed to meet at Westminster, the Third Day of February 1824, in the Fifth Year of the Reign of His Majesty King GEORGE the Fourth
1824.
1
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, March 30, 1824.
SLAVE TRADE PIRACY BILL.]
on the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill,
Earl Bathurst
said, that the bill to which he had to call their lordships' attention was one of very great importance, and it was also of importance that it should be passed into a law as soon as possible. Unless the bill should now pass, so that the news of its passing might arrive in America previous to the separation of Congress, the convention agreed to between this country and the United States could not be carried into effect, as the sanction of Congress was necessary. If it were not now obtained, it could not be had till November, and the measure would remain incomplete. Instead, therefore, of moving that the bill be now committed, he should propose that it should not go at all to a committee, but be now read a third time.
Earl Grosvenor
said, he would not object to the course proposed by the noble earl. He wished to see the bill passed as soon as possible into a law, that the convention might receive the assent of the United States, and that both countries might reap equal honour from passing such a law. He congratulated the House and the country on the progress which this measure had made since the question of the Slave Trade was agitated forty years ago; and he particularly congratulated the House at finding that after so long a period, some of those persons who first started forward in the good work,
2
3
4
Earl Bathurst
said, that as the noble earl had no objection to make to the measure then before their lordships, it was not necessary for him to take up the time of their lordships by making any remarks on that subject, and he only rose to answer the questions put by the noble earl with respect to slavery, and with respect to the future amelioration of the condition of the slave population. On the subject of the first question, he had been misunderstood. The noble earl seemed to think that he had, on a former occasion, entered into the question, whether the issue of slaves were to be free or not? and also to think, that he had stated, that until within the last four years the law on this point was uncertain, and that then an act of parliament had declared, that the issue or slaves should be also slaves. What he had stated was, that the proprietors of slaves had a right to their issue; and this principle was confirmed by all the statutes, which throughout recognised the principle, that the issue of a slave was the property of his master. He had stated this as a general principle, with reference to the registering of slaves. There was a clause in the Registry act, that no creditor having lent money on any particular estate, could have any hold on the slaves of that estate as a security for his debt, unless they were particularly mentioned in the mortgage. In those islands where the Registry act was in force, it was not possible to raise money on mortgage, unless the slaves, in whose labour the value of an estate consisted, were expressly mentioned. In the law referred to, the registering of the slaves was considered as one of the means therefore of securing property; and his observations, on the occasion alluded to
5
The Marquis of Lansdown,
while he thought it was natural that his noble friend should wish to obtain information respecting the state of the slaves and the future intentions of his majesty's government, agreed with the noble earl opposite, that it was better to refrain, at present, from entering into any detailed discussions on the subjects which had been agitated. He trusted, however, that the noble secretary of state had some solid ground for believing, that the islands in which the order in council was not to be immediately enforced, would be induced to take a more reasonable view of the subject than they had hitherto done. Indulging this hope, he certainly was disposed to let the question rest as it now stood. But if, unhappily, those islands should persist in the course they had hitherto taken, then the discussions which the
6
7
The Earl of Harrowby
stated, that the constitution of the United States required, that the treaty should have the sanction of congress before it could be ratified: for that reason it was proper to despatch the present bill as speedily as possible, one of the same kind having already passed the congress. Our bill and treaty were, however, measures independent of
8
The bill was then read a third time, and passed.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, March 30.
MANCHESTER GAS-LIGHT BILL.]
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, he had a petition to present from a Mr. William Walker, a solicitor of Manchester, which the House would be inclined to listen to-with attention, when he told them, that the petitioner complained, that his private and professional character had been attacked in the course of a proceeding under the sanction of the House, by charges which he had no opportunity of refuting, but which he was able to refute by evidence, and which he prayed to be allowed so to refute. He (sir J. M.) had no bias whatever on the subject of the proceedings, in which the matter complained of by the petitioner originated; or, if the names connected with it could give him any bias, it would rather be hostile to the party which the petitioner had espoused. The fact was, that a witness had been examined before the Manchester Gas-Light bill, who threw imputations upon the conduct of the petitioner, and subsequently before any evidence could be offered in refutation of this evidence, the committee adjourned sine die. Whether this adjournment was or was not within the words of the reference to that committee, he would not inquire; but when the petitioner stated, that by the imputations which he had been thus deprived of an opportunity of answering, his character would be taken from him, his professional prospects blasted, and himself reduced to utter ruin, if the House did not interpose, the petition could but receive the most favourable consideration. He moved that the petition be brought up.
Mr. Bright
rose to order. It was, he said, irregular for any member of that House to allude to the proceedings of a
9
The Speaker
said, it was clear that the petition referred to a matter of which the House had no cognizance whatever. This was the state of the case. The House had entertained a bill, and sent it to a committee up stairs. It having been so sent, the committee was bound, according to the strict forms of the House, to make a report; and, until the time had expired within which the committee had received directions to make their report, the House had no means of knowing that a report would not be made. At present, as there had been no order directing the minutes of the proceedings to be laid upon the table, the House could have no cognisance of what had passed in the committee, but must presume that every thing had been done correctly. In these days, it was very difficult to say what petitions should not be received, if they were properly worded; but it would be rather extraordinary to receive a petition which had been framed under such circumstances as that presented by the hon. and learned member for Knaresborough.
Mr. Hume
thought it extremely hard, that the petitioner should receive no redress for the injustice which he alleged to have been done to him by the committee.
The Speaker
was not quite sure that he had made himself perfectly understood. It was clear to him, that the case stated in the petition was not one for which there were no means of redress. All that he said was, that the House could have no knowledge of the circumstances mentioned in the petition. It was, however, competent to any member who knew that the committee was not sitting, to move that the minutes of their proceedings, up to the time when they ceased to sit, should be laid before the House. If such a motion were made and agreed to, the House would be cognizant of all the proceedings, and might then act upon any representation which should be made.
Mr. Bright
said, he was borne out by the orders of the House in declaring, that it was incompetent to any member of that House to speak of what had passed in a committee, before the minutes of the
10
The Speaker
said, he did not know that he had even now made himself understood. It would not, he thought, be safe for a person in his situation to go the length of saying that, under no circumstances, could any representation be made to that House by petition of what had passed in committee. The course of proceeding which he had pointed out would be more efficacious, and more likely to afford a remedy for any grievance, than any other which, under the present circumstances, the House could adopt.
Mr. P. Moore
observed, that until the report from the committee was made, no motion on the proceedings in the committee could properly take place. It was not to be presumed that the committee would strangle by an adjournment the bill which it was referred to them to consider.
Mr. B. Wilbraham
said, that the hon. member for Sussex had given notice of a motion for that day, on the subject of the adjournment of the committee, and he should therefore not detain the House on the subject. As to the supposed wrong done to Mr. Walker by the adjournment, he should merely state, that the committee on the bill had sat every day for a month; that every tittle of the evidence for the bill had been gone through, and in the course of the evidence against the bill, a fact had been incidentally spoken to, which bore on the character of Mr. Walker. The committee subsequently adjourned sine die; but it was evident to those acquainted with the course of proceedings, that if the committee had continued to sit, Mr. Walker would not have been allowed to offer evidence in reply to the evidence against the bill; because such a course was never followed, and would never bring the business on a bill to a termination. Evidence was first offered pro, and then contra, and the committee immediately after reported.—Such was the invariable practice.
Sir J. Mackintosh
in the understanding that the motion of the hon. member for Sussex would come on immediately, said, he should consent to withdraw the petition for the present.
Mr. Curteis
then rose, in pursuance of notice, to move, that the committee, to whom the Manchester Gas-Light bill was
11
Lord Stanley
rose to order, and objected to the reading of the minutes of evidence which had not been regularly laid before the House. He had been chairman of the committee, and he did not know that the minutes were yet regularly in the hands of a single individual.
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, that every member who had attended an open committee, might state in his place what had taken place there.
Lord Stanley
admitted that a member might state what had occurred, to lay a ground for the production of the minutes but to read those minutes before they were produced, was irregular.
The Speaker
confirmed the opinion of lord Stanley. It was difficult to lay down a strict rule, as to the statements which might be made of transactions in a committee, but the regular course was first to move the House, that the minutes be produced.
Mr. Curteis
said, that his only object was, to bring before the House the manner in which petitions from manufacturing and mercantile places were got up; that, when the House saw the hon. member for Yorkshire, or any manufacturing county, come down loaded with petitions like Atlas, for the abolition of slavery, and what not, they might know what value to give to them. He had no concern with Manchester, and scarcely a wish on the subject of the bill; he only wished to see these matters investigated.
Mr. Stanley,
in a maiden speech of much clearness and ability, opposed the motion. The bill which had been under investigation had, he said, excited so much interest among many members connected by no local concern in the affairs of Manchester, that he would
12
l
13
s
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, he had heard, with the greatest pleasure, the speech which had just been delivered by his hon. young friend behind him—a speech which must have given the highest satisfaction to all who heard it, and which afforded the strongest promise, that the talents which the hon. member had displayed in supporting the local interests of his constituents, would be exerted, with equal ardour and effect, in maintaining the rights and interests of the country. No man could have witnessed with greater satisfaction than himself an accession to the
14
Mr. Philips
thought, that as the committee had adjourned sine die, it was at present extinct, and the regular mode of proceeding would be to revive it. This course was justified by a precedent which occurred in the year 1816. A more gross and fraudulent attempt to impose upon a committee of that House had never been made. So far were the people of Manchester from concurring in this bill, that it had been promoted only by a number of ale-house keepers, a quack doctor, and other persons, who had no sort of connexion with the respectable inhabitants of Manchester.
Mr. T. Wilson
said, he had supported this bill in the first instance, because the company, in whose bands the lighting of the town of Manchester with gas had been for the last seven years, had only lighted one-fifth part of the town. He bad withdrawn his support from it, not because he did not think the object of the bill useful, but because it had been promoted by means which could not be justified.
15
Mr. Bright
thought the proceedings before the committee ought not to go forward, because this step would be attended with additional expense to the parties concerned. Whether some step ought not to be taken—such, for instance, as the appointment of a select committee to examine into the way in which these petitions were got up—he would not now inquire. Such a mode of getting up petitions was, undoubtedly, a high parliamentary offence, which might be visited with severe punishment. It had been declared, in the case of the Barnstaple petition, that it was highly unwarrantable, and a breach of the privileges of that House, for any person to sign the name of another person in any petition sent to that House. It was high time that the House should take some steps to put a stop to this dangerous and unjustifiable practice.
Sir I. Coffin
said, he should vote for the revival of the committee, because that measure would afford an opportunity of doing justice to all parties.
Mr. H. Sumner
said, that after what had fallen from hon. members, he had no wish for the revival of the committee. He thought, however, that the committee might have expressed some opinion in the form of a report, as to the nature of the evidence which had been brought before them.
Mr. Alderman Heygate
thought the main question was, whether a committee of that House should exercise the discretion of making no report on a bill, in disobedience to the order of the House —a discretion which would give them an enormous power, and which might seriously involve the fortunes and character of individuals concerned in private petitions. He gave no opinion on the merits of the bill; nor did he mean to cast the slightest reflection on the committee, or to say a word in favour of the mode in which the bill had originated.
SECRET SOCIETIES—ORANGE PROCESSIONS IN IRELAND.]
Mr. Dawson,
in presenting a petition from certain Freemasons in Ireland, praying to be exempted from the provisions of the law against Secret Societies, observed, that societies of this description had given rise to the greatest excesses and crimes in Ireland. Orange processions, and Orange associations, were pregnant with as much danger and mischief as Catholic proces-
16
Mr. S. Rice
thanked his hon. friend for the observations he had just made. He could not help thinking his present declaration as one of the most important which had been made this session. He trusted the recommendations of his hon. friend would be carried into effect, by all who possessed any influence in Ireland. The evil arising from Orange lodges was of late date; those associations had only been established within the last few years. He again begged his hon. friend to accept his acknowledgments for his present statement; a statement which, he trusted, would not be lost on the government with which he was connected.
Mr. Hume
said, he wished to make one remark upon the subject; and it was this: that the lord chancellor of Ireland should turn his attention to the question, and remove from the commission of the peace, all magistrates who gave a countenance to these processions. He understood that most of the meetings, of which they had heard, had been attended or countenanced by some of the magistrates. The government had it in their power to put down these processions; and they could not hope to do it effectually, unless they resorted to some strong and decided method.
Mr. Brownlow
said, he had another petition to present on the same subject, and he was desirous to say a few words. The petition which had just been presented was, in every way, deserving of consideration. It was a petition from certain Freemasons in Ireland, in which they stated that the Orange Societies have not been put down, although the Freemasons' Societies had been effectually
17
Mr. Abercromby
said, that having called the attention of the House to these secret societies in the course of the last session, no individual could feel more sincere satisfaction than he did, at the opinions which had been delivered by the gentleman opposite. He could not help remarking the great change which had taken place in the course of one year; for when he had given notice of his motion last year, he had been admonished, directly and indirectly, that the only effect of the proposition must be, to increase the strength of the Orange party. Gentlemen opposite now concurred in his opinion, that there was the most imminent danger to be apprehended from the con-
18
Mr. Monck
said, he was sure that all gentlemen must agree, that the more opportunities there were for Catholics and Protestants to meet on neutral ground, the better. Now, as the Freemasons admitted amongst their members persons of all denominations, he thought it deserved encouragement, and he hoped that, in the course of the session, some gentleman would introduce a bill to exempt the Freemasons from the operation of the law respecting Secret Societies.
Ordered to lie on the table.
COURTS OF JUSTICE IN SCOTLAND.]
Lord A. Hamilton
rose, in pursuance of notice, to move to refer the twelve reports of the commissioners of inquiry into courts of justice in Scotland to a committee of the Whole House. The noble lord observed? that so long as ten years ago; his right hon. friend, the member for Water-ford, had succeeded in getting commis-
19
l
l
20
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
21
l
l
l
l
22
l
l
l
23
The Lord Advocate
said, that as this subject could not be interesting to the majority of gentlemen present, he would make his statement as short as he possibly could. If the noble lord had moved that the twelve reports of the commissioners relative to the fees and emoluments connected with courts of justice in Scotland should be referred to a select committee, to declare what had been and what ought to be done, he could have understood that proceeding; but he was somewhat at a loss to know what the noble lord meant by submitting those documents to a committee of the whole House, although he could perhaps guess at the noble lord's object. The noble lord, it appeared, was anxious that he (the Lord Advocate) should defend himself from the charge of having neglected his duty, by not giving effect to the recommendation of the commissioners. Now, he must say, that the noble lord had been for some years most attentive to individuals holding the situation which he had the honour to fill at present; and it was a matter of great satisfaction to him, considering the various duties he had to perform, to find that the only matter of blame affecting him, which the noble lord could bring before the House, was his supposed neglect of the reports of those commissioners. He, however, denied that he harboured any disinclination to carrying into full effect the recommendations of the commissioners. He was not in parliament when the right hon. baronet, the member for Waterford, made the motion, in consequence of which commissioners of inquiry were appointed. He was, however, glad that the proposition had been carried because much valuable information excellent historical accounts of the different courts, and various important recommendations had arisen from the inquiry. Still, however, looking to the whole sys-
24
25
26
5l.
l
l
l
l
5
l
27
28
Mr. Abercromby
said, he rose hardly for any other purpose than that of expressing his satisfaction at the declaration with which the learned lord had concluded his speech. The learned lord's proposed reform in the manner of administering criminal justice in Scotland was a far greater consideration than the motion immediately before the House; and he most sincerely returned his thanks to the learned lord for the intention. For himself, he had long considered the large jurisdiction held by the sheriffs in Scotland to be a part of the Scottish law most especially requiring revision; because it gave a monopoly to the profession of the law, in the administration of criminal justice, to the entire, and most impolitic, exclusion of the country gentleman; and, what was worse, these high powers being too weighty to be born by the sheriff himself, the country gentlemen, who were deprived of them, had the mortification to see them in fact exercised by the sheriff depute. He did assure the hon. and learned lord, that he had listened with the highest possible pleasure to his suggestion, for increasing the qualifications of the magistrates of Scotland; and with no less, to his objection, that those magistrates should hold the power, in cases of debt above 5
l.
29
l
l
Lord Binning
declined following the noble mover through his speech, because he thought it had been sufficiently answered by his learned friend, the lord advocate. He rose for the purpose of thanking the learned lord, for his intention with respect to the magistracy of Scotland; and hoped the hon. member for Calne would not press the grand-jury question into the same inquiry.
Mr. Hume
admitted that the lord advocate had done more than his predecessors for the Scottish courts; but thought that that admission threw a very heavy blame upon those predecessors. He gave great credit to the noble member for Lanark for his perseverance, and hoped he would press his motion to a division.
Mr. Kennedy
felt so highly pleased with the intention of the lord advocate, with respect to the Scottish magistracy, that he wished to know whether it was meant to be proceeded with in the present session,
The Lord Advocate
said, he had not made up his mind whether he would pursue the suggestion which he had thrown out in this session or the next. He must first know a little of the feeling of the profession in Scotland upon the subject.
Mr. Abercromby
protested that from the manner of the learned lord, he had doubted whether he would not move for the committee before the House adjourned. The case was very much changed indeed, if the matter, which he had been looking
30
Mr. W. Courtenay
had felt much satisfaction at hearing the declaration of the lord advocate, and conjured him not to allow anything to divert him from prosecuting his view. There might be, and; would be, a division of opinion in Scotland upon the subject; but the view of the learned lord himself was decidedly the enlarged and the liberal one.
Sir R. Fergusson
said, that the lord advocate's speech had deceived the greater part of the House. Certainly, it had been understood that he meant to move for an immediate investigation. But, as the learned lord said, that he wished to consult the feelings of his countrymen upon the question, he begged to know who the parties were whom he wished to consult, and how and when their opinions were to be ascertained?
Mr. K. Douglas
said, that the measure which his learned friend proposed to introduce was one of great importance, and deserved the greatest consideration. If the learned lord could introduce the measure during the present session, he no doubt would do so; but if, on the other hand, the learned lord should find that he could not press the measure, the House, he trusted, would not withdraw their confidence, but would leave in his hands a question, which he had no doubt would be treated by the learned lord with all the consideration which its importance claimed.
The Lord Advocate,
in explanation, stated it to be his intention to go on with the inquiry, but would not pledge himself as to the time.
Lord A. Hamilton
in reply, expressed his surprise at the reluctance of the learned lord, after ten years of indecision, to fix the time. He took that opportunity of justifying his own parliamentary conduct from the aspersions of the learned lord. One assertion of the learned lord was most unjustifiable, and altogether unfounded. The learned lord had charged him with running away from his own country, at a time in which danger was expected from a general rising. This had been put forward in a newspaper, under the immediate sanction, if not di-
31
The House divided—For the motion 76. Against it 124. Majority 48.
List of the Minority
Abercromby, hon. J.
Buxton, T. F.
Allen, J. H.
Calvert, N.
Althorp, visc.
Campbell, hon. G. P.
Baring, sir Thomas
Clifton, visc.
Barnard, visc.
Colborne, N. W. R.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Corbet, P.
Benyon, B.
Creevey, T.
Bernal, R.
Crompton, S.
Bentinck, ld. W. H. C.
Cradock, S.
32
Denison, W. S.
Philips. G. H. jun.
Ebrington, visc.
Pym, Francis
Ellis, hon. G. A.
Rice, T. S.
Farrand, R.
Robarts, A. W.
Fergusson, sir R.
Robarts, G. J.
Fane, J.
Rumbold, C. E.
Graham, S.
Rickford, W.
Guise, sir B. W.
Scott, Jas.
Haldimand, W.
Sebright, sir J. S
Hobhouse, J. C.
Sefton, earl of
Honywood, W. P.
Smit, J.
Hume, J.
Smith, Wm.
Hutchinson, hon. C. H.
Smith, Robert
Jervoise, G. P.
Stuart, lord P. J. E.
Johnstone, W. A.
Sykes, D.
Lambton, J. G.
Taylor, C. M.
Leycester, R.
Taylor, M. A.
Leader, Wm.
Townshend, lord C.
Maberley, W. L.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Macdonald, J.
Warre, J. A.
Mackintosh, sir J.
Wharton, John
Marjoribanks, S.
Whitbread, S. C.
Martin, John
Whitbread, W. H.
Milton, visc.
Wilkins, W.
Monck, J. B.
Williams, Wm.
Moore, Peter
Wood, Matthew
Newport, rt. hon. sir J.
Wrottesley, sir J.
Nugent, lord
TELLERS.
Palmer, C.
Palmer C. F.
Hamilton, lord A.
Pares, Thomas
Kennedy, T. F.
SETTLEMENT OF THE POOR BILL.]
Lord Althorp
rose to more for leave to bring in a bill to abolish Settlement by hiring and service. The noble lord referred to the great evils which prevailed at present from the facilities given for procuring settlement by hiring and service. Though the weight of this grievance was sometimes averted by hiring for 51 weeks and by other devices, yet these cases were met by the judgment of courts, which frequently made the contract void. It might safely be asserted, that a change in the law was necessary, were it only to cut off the enormous and expensive litigation which sprung out of this particular claim of settlement. Another evil arising out of the law, as it now stood, was the difficulty which a poor man found in getting work out of his own parish. This would be, in a great measure, removed by his bill. At the same time, he was aware that some evil must arise from any change. It was, therefore, on a balance of the advantages and disadvantages, which he thought to be decidedly in favour of his plan, that he took leave to propose the present motion.
Colonel Wood
said, he did not mean to oppose the motion for leave to bring in the bill, but, as an isolated measure, he
33
Mr. Cripps
observed, that more litigation was occasioned by the claim of hiring and service than by any other ground of settlement, and as far as the noble lord's measure operated to remove that cause of dispute, it was likely to have a beneficial effect. He thought the fairest principle was, that the parish which had enjoyed the labour of the pauper should have the
onus
Mr. Lockhart
approved of the bill, because it went to encourage residence, and to cut off one great head of litigation, which now thrived upon the uncertainties of settlement by service.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
SALMON FISHERIES.]
Mr. Kennedy
rose to move for a committee to inquire into the existing laws relating to the Salmon Fisheries. The importance of the interests which were connected with it, and the number of petitions which had been presented to the House, sufficiently
34
35
Mr. C. Grant
agreed, that this subject was a more important one than it might at first sight appear to be. With it, however, were connected many private rights of a very ancient date, which ought to be kept sacred. The persons holding these private rights, which in Scotland were all derived from royal grants, entertained some apprehensions, lest the proposed committee should recommend an infringement of their privileges. He was satisfied that the hon. mover had no such intention, and he thought there was no ground for such apprehensions. It was a notorious fact, that the supply of fish in the rivers of England and Scotland had considerably diminished, and this was of itself sufficient to recommend a parliamentary inquiry, not for the purpose of violating any existing right, but to exclude certain injurious modes of fishing. He perfectly concurred with the hon. mover as to the expediency of such a committee.
The committee was then appointed.
NEW CHURCHES.]
Mr. Arbuthnot
having moved for leave to bring in a bill for the sale of stock and other purposes relating to the land revenue,
Mr. Grey Bennet
begged to take that opportunity of inquiring the name of the architect under whose directions the new church in Langham-place was constructing? Every body who saw it shrugged up their shoulders, and inquired who could be the architect who invented such a monstrosity? Rumours had gone abroad and several persons had been mentioned as the authors of the plan; and it was but fair, using a vulgar proverb, to place the saddle upon the right horse. He should like also to hear what this mass of deformity had cost. For one, he was resolved not to pay willingly a farthing towards its erection; on the contrary, he should be glad to see it referred to a committee to inquire into the propriety of pulling it down, and for that object, though he was not rich, he was not unwilling to subscribe a fair proportion of the expense. Among the many deplorable objects of the kind' in the metropolis and its neighbourhood, this was the most melancholy departure from the rules of good taste that he had yet seen. The spire was only to be compared to an extinguisher on a flat candle-
36
Mr. Arbuthnot
begged to assure the hon. gentleman, that he was not at all responsible; he disavowed any connection with the church in Langham-place and admitted that it was not the most ornamental in the metropolis. But if the new street built under the auspices of his right hon. friend was looked to as a whole, he apprehended that a general charge of bad taste could not be established. The church in question certainly would be better away, but it might not be easy to remove it. He would rather not name the architect [cries of name! name!]. If he were required to give up the architect, he must say that the church was built according to the plan of Mr. Nash. He might be allowed to add, that if this building was not very creditable to that gentleman's taste, there were many others in its neighbourhood that were eminently so.
Mr. Huskisson
said, that up to that hour he had never seen the church in question, and was consequently not prepared to offer any opinion as to the good or bad taste or design. Neither had he inspected the plan, which he concluded had been submitted to the commissioners and adopted by them.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, March 31.
USURY LAWS REPEAL BILL.]
Mr. Ellis
presented a petition from the chamber of commerce in Dublin, setting forth,
37
38
Sir H. Parnell
spoke to the respectability of the petitioners, and to their ability to judge upon this question. He hoped that the House would attend to the strong arguments which the petition contained.
Mr. Alderman Heygate
did not at all acquiesce in the doctrines of the petition. Among the landed interest the greatest alarm prevailed upon the question; and the further the bill proceeded, the more its opponents multiplied.
Mr. Curwen
said, he should oppose the measure.
Mr. Sykes
said, that the opposition to the measure must proceed upon the apprehension, that the rate of interest would be increased; but he was satisfied that any such fear was totally unfounded.
Sir T. Lethbridge
was of opinion, that the effect of the bill would be, to place borrowers at the mercy of lenders.
Mr. Philips
supported the change of the law, disputing the assertion of the hon. alderman, as to the increase of the opponents of the bill. There never had been such a coincidence of testimony among intelligent men, as upon this question. They all agreed that the existing laws were injurious both to borrowers and lenders.
Mr. Grenfell
was convinced that, even as the law now stood, money could never be obtained at a lower rate of interest than it was worth.
Mr. T. Wilson
argued, that such an alteration ought not to be made but at the request of the landed interest. Whenever other persons were paying 5 per cent, landed proprietors would be obliged to pay 7 per cent. The repeal of the present law would be beneficial to Ireland.
Mr. D. Gilbert
said, that the passing of the bill before the House would be highly advantageous to the landed interest.
Sir E. Knatchbull
observed, that money could not now be obtained on mortgage, at a less rate of interest than 4½ per cent.
Mr. Monck
remarked, that money on mortgage bore a higher rate of interest than money advanced on good bills, be-
39
Ordered to lie on the table.
BURIALS IN IRELAND BILL.]
Mr. Hutchinson
presented a petition, which, he said, he offered with pain and regret. It prayed, that the bill which had been brought in by the Attorney-general for Ireland, respecting the right of burial of the Catholics, might not pass into a law. He felt regret, because, whatever were the defects of the bill, if defects there were he had no doubt of the kind intentions of his right hon. friend, and of the Irish government on this subject; and he felt it his duty, as an Irish gentleman, to say that he considered Ireland deeply indebted to lord Wellesley for his unceasing anxiety to promote the welfare of Ireland, and that he was persuaded that if his excellency's administration had not succeeded to the extent of his excellency's wishes in restoring peace and quiet, it was not for want of his earnest exertions. The petition was from Mr. Devereux, a Catholic gentleman of great fortune, of the county of Wexford; and Mr. Eneas Macdonald, of the county of Mayo. It prayed that the bill might not pass into a law.
40
41
Ordered to lie on the table.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, April 1.
COMPLAINT OF THE ABSENCE OF THE
Mr. Curwen,
in rising, according to notice, to move for a copy of the appointment of the Attorney-general of the Isle of Man, said, that he was not at all influenced by any personal or local feelings, and that his only object was, to procure an equal administration of justice for all parties. The hon. member then went into a detail of the grounds of his motion. He said, that an opinion of the attorney-general of England, in 1789, had recommended, that the attorney-general of the Isle of Man should always be taken from the English bar; an opinion, of which every one who considered the situation of the Island would acknowledge the justness. The governor and lieutenant-governor of that Island sat under their commissions in the court of Chancery, and the attorney-general acted as their assessor. It was, therefore, of the utmost importance, that a person should
42
l
l
l
l
l
43
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that the course taken by the hon. member had not a little surprised him. He had moved for papers, which he (Mr. P.) had not the least objection to produce, and, before they were produced, he had entered into details on the subject, which shewed how little value he attached to the papers called for. The hon. member had, however, thus rendered it necessary for him to say a few words on the subject. The question was, what was the best arrangement for the appointment of attorney-general for the Isle of Man. The hon. mover admitted, that the attorney-general should not be an individual from the Manx bar; and indeed it was clear to every one that, with the important functions he had to perform, it was most desirable that he should be a lawyer versed in the liberal principles of English jurisprudence; which nothing but practice in the English courts would give. Being agreed on this point, in what way should they proceed? He must say, that in an island with so limited a revenue as the Isle of Man, expense was a material consideration, and though the hon. member was very liberal in his proposal of giving 1,000
l
l
l
l
l
l
44
l
l
Mr. Hume
said, that his hon. friend had not intended to blame the government for the system at present adopted; but he thought that the conditions on which Mr. Clarke got his appointment should be fulfilled by that gentleman, as
45
l
l
500
l
Mr. Peel
asked the hon. member, how it was possible that residence in the Isle of Man could be made an indispensable condition of Mr. Clarke's holding the situation of attorney-general, when it was notorious, that he had duties to fill at Liverpool as recorder?
General Gascoyne
said, that before Mr. Clarke held the office of attorney-general for the Isle of Man, it had always been considered a sinecure. The salary had, however, been recently increased, in order to obtain the occasional residence of that officer, which had been recommended by lord Sidmouth. Now, Mr. Clarke, from residing in Lancashire, was at no great distance from the Isle of Man, and was always willing to repair thither, whenever he thought his presence would be advantageous.
Mr. Huskisson
said, that the statement of his right hon. friend, as to the mode in which the duties of the office were executed, rendered it unnecessary for him to make a single observation. He would observe, however, that, in point of principle, he thought it desirable that the attorney-general should not reside personally on the island, as it excluded the possibility of that officer mixing himself up with the party differences, which prevailed in the island. If the office were to be vacant to-morrow, he would rather give it to a person of professional eminence, who might go occasionally to the island, than to a person who might be willing to accept it on the condition of permanent residence.
Mr. Curwen,
in reply, said, he should not have troubled the House with any observations; had he been aware that the right hon. gentleman would have assented to his motion, but as he had not felt secure of that assent, he had thought it necessary to lay before the House the grounds on which he deemed himself entitled to the production of the papers. He by no means meant to say that a salary of 400
l
l
46
The motion was agreed to.
PLYMOUTH BREAKWATER.]
Mr. Hume
l
Sir G. Clerk
said the expences of this establishment had been reduced to the lowest possible scale. He was sure the House would not think there had been any improvidence in the management of the funds for this great national work, when he stated that it was likely to be completed at a sum less by 200,000
l
Sir I. Coffin
said there had never been a work of so much importance conducted in so economical a manner. It had completely answered the public expectations; for one of the most unsafe anchorages with which he had been acquainted, had now become a perfect mill-pond. Ten thou-sand advantages had accrued from this great national undertaking, which had never been contemplated: and if it had cost half as much as the national debt, he should not have grudged it.
The motion was agreed to.
LEGACY DUTY.]
Mr. Hume
rose to call the attention of the House to a branch of the revenue which, though small in amount, was the source of great trouble and vexation to the persons on whom it was levied. He alluded to the legacy-duty on sums which did not exceed 100
l
l
l
47
l
l
l
l
l
s
d
s
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
48
l
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he had no objection to the motion. As to the other points to which the hon. member had alluded, he did not know that he could give him any answer, that the hon. gentleman would consider satisfactory. He had lately looked with some attention at the subject of stamps, and particularly at that part of it which involved the legacy duties. He had not, however, been yet able to satisfy himself, as to what he could and ought to do by way of relief. He admitted that the matters to which the hon. member had alluded deserved his most serious attention; but in saying so he begged not to be understood as holding out any expectations either one way or the other. After the statement which he had recently made to the House respecting the finances of the country, it could not be expected that he would willingly consent to any material diminution of the revenue; at the same time, it was no less his wish than his duty to give the community every relief in his power upon those minor matters which, without diminishing the revenue, were likely to render the raising of it less severely felt by the public.
Lord Binning
said, there was one point connected with this subject to which the hon. member for Aberdeen had not adverted. He alluded to the tax on legacies left for charitable purposes. He thought this part of the subject deserved the attention of the chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Lockhart
suggested, that considerable cxpence and inconvenience, to which legatees residing in the country were exposed, might be removed, if the arch-bishop of Canterbury were to appoint standing commissioners in the several counties.
Mr. Hume
said, it was his intention to move for a copy of the expenses attendant upon those proceedings.
The motion was then agreed to.
BURIALS IN IRELAND BILL.]
On
49
Mr. Hume
said, he had received a communication, calling on him to request the postponement of this measure until its contents were known in Ireland. Only a few days had elapsed since it was brought into the House, and it had since been hurried forward, before its object was known to the people of Ireland. Under these circumstances, he asked whether it would not be better to postpone the third reading for eight or ten days, until the opinion of the people of Ireland respecting it was ascertained.
Mr. Peel
said, as it was a subject which had already created much angry dispute, and, if not settled, was calculated to produce much more, he deemed it advisable to proceed with the bill. At present, one party in Ireland alleged, that another was doing that which was contrary to law; and as this bill would prevent all further doubt on the subject, it was proper to avoid unnecessary delay.
The bill was then read a third time, and passed.
COAL DUTIES.]
Sir M. W. Ridley
presented a petition from the proprietors of collieries on the rivers Tyne and Wear; setting forth:
50
s
d
s
d
s
d
s
s
d
s
s
51
The House having resolved itself into a committee on the coal acts,
Sir M. W. Ridley
observed, that the petition which he had just presented from the coal-owners of the North embraced the principle which he felt it his duty to support. The question he wished to bring under their consideration was extremely important; and he requested the attention of the committee, for a short time, while he laid down the grounds on which the proposition he intended to conclude with was founded. His object was, that the alterations proposed to be made by the chancellor of the Exchequer in the coal duties should be re-considered, before they were ultimately carried into effect. Those alterations would he was convinced, considerably injure the coal-trade of London, if not of the country at large, and were, as it appeared to him, founded on an absurd and unjust principle of taxation. He was sure that no one who had heard the right hon. gentleman, when he detailed to the House the financial situation of the country, or who had read the speech which he made on that occasion, could feel other sensations than those of pleasure at the recognition of the principles of free trade by which that speech was distinguished—principles which were then generally approved of and asserted. But in proportion as he felt pleased at that exposition, did he afterwards feel dissatisfied when he found that the right hon. gentleman had so soon forgotten the principles of equal taxation, and adopted a partial and unfair system with respect to two commodities of the same kind. When the right hon. gentleman, at the period to which he had alluded, expressed his intention of making an alteration in the duty on rum, he had said, "It is my intention to propose a reduction in the duty on rum, so as to relieve it from one of the peculiar difficulties under which it labours, by reducing that duty to the level of the duty on British spirits. No one, I presume, can think it desirable to reduce the duty on rum lower than the duty on spirits produced by British distillation. All that can be done with propriety is, to put them on the same footing! I propose, therefore, to make a reduction of one shilling and three half-pence a gallon in the duty on rum." Here was a principle of fair and. just taxation laid down in one instance; and he could not conceive why, in legislating on another, the right hon. gentleman had thought fit to
52
*
*
53
54
s
d
s
d
s
d
s
d
s
d
55
56
s
s
s
d
s
57
s
s
d
s
The first resolution having been moved,
Mr. Littleton
said, that if he thought that any benefit could possibly arise from the hon. baronet's recommendation, he would be the very last man to object to it. When the duty on coals carried coastwise was first projected, the principles of political economy were not so well known as they were at present. It was then felt, that coals borne by sea had a very great advantage over those which were carried by land; and it should be observed, that at that period the conveyance by canal was extremely limited. The sea was an open navigation; it afforded advantages not possessed by any other mode of conveyance, and therefore duties were imposed on that species of carriage. In 1805, when the Grand Junction canal was finished, it was deemed proper to place a heavy duty on coals carried through that channel. This he looked upon as a great injustice. If it were intended to place a tax on inland coals, why was it confined to only part of the inland trade, whilst every other portion of it was suffered to remain untaxed? There were hundreds of places where inland coal came in competition with the sea-borne coal. Here only it was excluded. If the right hon. gentleman did not repeal the tax in this solitary instance, the owners of inland coal had a much greater right to complain of injustice than the northern coal-owners This tax on inland coal was imposed in 1805. At that period, the Grand-Junction company had nearly completed their undertaking. The northern coal-owners, afraid that inland coal would be brought to their market by that canal, contrived, that a clause, which prevented the importation of such coal, should be introduced, under the mask of protecting the revenue. Those gentlemen, not content with preventing inland coal from coming into the London market, as the sea-coal did, procured the insertion of a provision in the bill, which gave to their coals a monopoly, not merely of the London market, but of the country, for seventeen miles round it.
58
l
l
l
59
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he felt himself bound, in justice to the hon. baronet opposite, and his friends, to say a few words in explanation of the remark attributed to him on a former evening. The words quoted against him, as to monopolies, were correct; but the spirit of them had been a little mistaken. They had been used, he believed, with reference to some part of a petition, complaining of combination, presented by one of the hon. members for the city of London; certainly, without any intention of casting a slur upon individuals. Because, in fact, if the legislature had given the northern coal-owners a practical monopoly, no one could blame them for availing themselves of it All he had said was this—that if they had by law the practical power of a monopoly, might it not be fit to alter the state of the law, whether they actually made use of that power or not? With respect to the reduction which he had proposed in the duty upon inland coal, he was desirous, in fact, only to rectify a kind of mistake that had been committed. The existing law restricted the importation of inland coal into London to annually 50,000 tons. It appeared, therefore, that the law thought that, with safety to the northern interests, 50,000 tons might actually be admitted: but the duty which this coal paid prevented 50,000 tons, or a tenth part of 50,000 tons, from being sent; so that, in fact, it made the resolution as to the quantity which might come altogether nugatory, and imposed
60
l
Mr. Cuthbert Ellison
denied the existence of any combination among the coal-owners of the north, and trusted that no one would continue to impute it to them, after the manner in which it had been disavowed. The reduction proposed by the chancellor of the Exchequer, in the duty upon inland coal, seemed to him not to be justified upon any sound principle. The fluctuation which took place in the price of coals in the London market, arose out of causes with which the pit-owners had nothing to do. They arose almost entirely in the pool, and might be checked, in a considerable degree, by a change of the city regulations.
61
Sir John Wrottesley
was sorry to see an opposition to the chancellor of the Exchequer's intention in favour of the inland coal, because most of the persons interested in that proposed measure had left town, not anticipating any resistance to it. At present, the House would see that the duty on inland coal amounted to a prohibition; for such a quantity as 900 or 1,200 tons in a year could have no view to general consumption, and, in fact, was only brought to London for certain specific purposes. Surely, if there was any likelihood of combination among the coal-owners of the north, the true way to defeat it was, to give every facility to the inland coal-owners; among whom the mode of working made combination impossible. He admitted, that very little of the inland coal, under any circumstances, would come into the London market; but it was fair to the coal-owner, as well as for the advantage of the consumer, that it should have the power, up to a certain point, of coming there. At present, however, the Staffordshire proprietors were actually in apprehension that the northern owners would not merely keep possession of London, but compete with them in their own markets.
Mr. Stuart Wortley
said, that the northern coal-owners asked for no advantage over the inland proprietors, except the advantage which they had received from nature. They had the best article to sell, and the cheapest; and all they required was, to be let alone with it. They asked for no duties to be imposed upon others; they only wished to be relieved from unreasonable duties which were imposed upon themselves. Now, hon. gentlemen talked of the antiquity of those duties. Certainly, they had lasted a great deal too long: but would any one argue that they had ever been imposed upon any thing like a principle of trade, or with any other view than that of extracting revenue from a commodity which was supposed to be well calculated to afford it? Was the House aware that the average price of coals was 13
s
s
s
s
d
62
Mr. W. Courtenay
wished that a tax so full of extreme hardship and impolicy, raised upon one of the essential articles; of life, could be entirely done away with He expatiated upon the benefits which a
63
Colonel Wood
said, that the argument had been almost entirely conducted, as if it only referred to a struggle or competition between the Staffordshire and the northern coal-owners about the monopoly of the London market. The fact was, that there could not, in the nature of things, be any such question. There was no competition, there could be none, between the two classes of coals; so great were the natural advantages on one side. As proofs of the truth of this assertion, the committee had only to notice what was the effect of the competition, slight as it was, which already existed. The northern coals which came into the ports of London ascended the Thames, charged with all these extraordinary and unequal duties, as high as the stone at Staines; they went on to Windsor, and even as far as Reading, where they met the inland coals, charged with no duty whatever. Now, let the committee observe the result of this conflict. The inland coals could not keep the markets into which the northern coals entered, charged with the heavy duties, and the extraordinary expense of freight incurred in ascending the Thames; but they were pushed back into their own domicile, where alone they could get and keep any steady rate of consumption. A good fire was, doubtless, a very comfortable thing: but, was not plenty of light also a very comfortable thing? For his part, if it were a matter of choice with him, he could not hesitate a moment in preferring light to fire. He would, therefore, prefer the repeal of the window-tax to the repeal of the coal duties. It was difficult to manage questions of this kind with the chancellor of the Exchequer. He well recollected the hon. member for Surrey saying, on a former occasion, with respect to the coal duties, that he had a substitute to propose in his pocket, but he would not take it out, for fear the chancellor of the Exchequer should not only retain the tax, but add the substitute to it. In all probability, that substitute was a duty at the pit's mouth; and if so, he advised all
64
Lord Milton
said, he would have given the preference to the repeal of either the window or malt duty. He could not compliment either the justice or the policy of this repeal. It appeared to him to be as objectionable to proceed by favour, in the repeal of taxes, as in their imposition. The right hon. gentleman seemed in this affair to have acted as if he had a surplus revenue of 100,000
l
l
Mr. N. Calvert
objected to the strange proposition of the noble lord, that because a tax of most unjust imposition had continued for a long time, it was not, therefore a less proper subject for repeal. He
65
Mr. Tremayne
supported the resolutions.
Sir T. Lethbridge
pressed for the repeal of the malt or window tax, in preference to the duty on coals, and complained, in strong terms of the monopoly enjoyed by the proprietors of coal pits.
Mr. Lambton
said, that having a great personal interest in the present question—a much greater interest, perhaps, than any of the hon. gentlemen who had preceded him—he certainly would best consult his own feelings by remaining entirely silent. He, however, rose in consequence of some observations that had been made, to state a few facts, in justification of the proprietors of coal mines in the North, He was induced to do so in consequence of what had fallen from the chancellor of the Exchequer, and, in still stronger terms from the hon. baronet below him. He would state, in the name of those gentlemen, that there was no foundation whatever for the charge, that the proprietors of coal mines in the North had entered into any combination to limit the supply of coals in the London market. Whatever resolutions they had entered into were not for the purpose of limiting the supply, but for the purpose of insuring to the city of London, a regular and constant supply of coals, at every season of the year. In confirmation of the truth of that assertion he would appeal to the increased supply of each year. On every market day there were more ships in the river than there were purchasers. The proprietors of the coal-mines in the North looked not for monopoly—they disclaimed all monopoly—they never aspired to it—the existence of monopoly was as odious in their eyes, as in the eyes of any member in that House. The monopoly which had been created, had been created by the government, for its own purposes, and not to serve the proprietors of coal-mines. Those gentlemen did not seek to retain any monoply. All they asked for was a clear stage and no favour. They wished to bring coals to the London market on fair terms. He thought it was hard that those gentlemen should be driven out of the London market without having an opportunity afforded to them of exporting their coals to foreign ports. There were no less than 400,000 chaldrons of inferior coals allowed to rot in the North
66
Sir T. Acland
supported the plan of the chancellor of the Exchequer and hoped that it would lead to the entire repeal of the coal duties.
Mr. Money
said, there were two points to which he hoped the attention of the right hon. gentleman would be directed. The first was, the importance of the coal-trade as a nursery for seamen, and as one of the chief sources of the strength of the British navy. The other was the advantages experienced by the port of London from the quantity of ballast which was taken from the bed of the river for the use of the colliers on their homeward voyages. He trusted that care would be taken that nothing in the operation of the proposed resolutions would affect cither of these important topics.
Mr. H. Sumner
thought the coal-trade had a paramount claim to relief, and trusted that the chancellor of the Exchequer would, whenever the opportunity should occur, extend it as far as possible beyond what was now proposed.
Mr. Alderman Bridges
said, an hon. baronet had been mistaken in supposing that the proposed reduction of the duty was considered by the city of London as a trifling matter. The reason which had induced them to wish that some part of the London port duty should be retained, arose from their wish to embellish and improve the city by widening streets and turning corners; to which purposes the sums raised by those duties were applied.
Alderman Wood
begged it might be understood, that the reduction in the duty was an advantage to the public, and not confined, as had been stated, to the coal owners. It had already had an effect on the bargains, and there could be no doubt that the public would be benefitted to the whole extent of the 3
s
d
The committee then divided on the first resolution: for the resolution 51 Against it 83. On the second resolution: for the resolution 54 Against it 80. On
67
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, April 2.
SILK TRADE BILL.]
The Earl of Liverpool
rose to move the second reading of this bill. The measure, he observed, was one of great importance; but, the more he considered the subject, the more he was satisfied that the effect of the proposed change would be advantageous to the country. He had been one of those who formerly entertained doubts of the propriety of permitting a competition in certain manufactures, but more mature consideration had convinced him of the impolicy of any restriction whatever. If it were possible for their lordships now to have any apprehension of injury from allowing the importation of foreign silk manufactures, that apprehension would, he trusted, be removed on learning, that in consequence of the change in the law proposed to be made by this bill, new silk manufactures were likely to be established in different parts of the country. Arrangements, he understood, were making at Manchester for the introduction of this manufacture, which would give employment to 30,000 or 40,000 persons. Indeed, there could be no doubt of the manufacturers of this country being able to compete with foreigners, without the protection derived from prohibitory laws. The principle of free trade, on which the bill was formed, would put the silk-manufacture on a fair footing; it was that of the quid pro quo; for the object of the bill was to reduce the price of the raw material, while it did away with the prohibitory system, and admitted the foreign-manufacture article under a protecting duty. The impolicy of prohibitions was now too obvious to be questioned. It was to be expected that foreigners would always obtain a superiority in some branch of manufacture or other, and this was not to be regretted. It was not desirable that other countries should not improve as we improved; for such reciprocal improvement was advantageous to all parties. Looking, however, at the silk manufacture on the extensive scale in which it was prosecuted in this country, in all its branches, he saw no reason to think that the competition of the English manufacturer would not be successful. In-
68
The Marquis of Lansdown
concurred most completely in the views which the noble earl at the head of the Treasury had expressed. They were, indeed, the same as those which he had himself long entertained on the subject. As to the last point on which the noble earl had touched, namely, the removal of the prohibition against the introduction of foreign silks, nothing could be more politic, or calculated to be more advantageous to the country. The principle of prohibition being once removed by this bill, he earnestly hoped it would never be permitted again to have a place in the British code. As to the effect of this bill, he retained the same sanguine opinion which he had formerly expressed. Whatever apprehensions some individuals might entertain, he had not the least doubt that, aided by the improvement of machinery, and the reduction of the duties on the raw material, the manufacturer of this country would be able to maintain his place against any foreign competition, The only question on which there could be any doubt was, that of the time to be allowed to the manufacturer. As the change was great, it was certainly but fair that a sufficient period for preparation should be granted.
IRISH TITHES COMMUTATION BILL.]
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, he had some petitions to present on the subject of the Irish Tithe Commutation Act, to which he wished to draw the particular attention of their lordships. In the last
69
70
71
72
The Lord Chancellor
rose to order. It was, he said, the first time he had ever heard the clauses of a bill in progress through the other House of parliament made the subject of discussion in their lordships' House.
The Marquis of Lansdown
considered that he was strictly in order, as he was speaking on a bill against which the petition he had to present was addressed. He was entitled to state—and he thought it but fair to call the attention of their lordships thus early to the subject—that the measure which was in progress in the other House of parliament, so far from being calculated to relieve the parties complaining of the act, would aggravate the evil under which they laboured. But, to avoid all dispute on the question of order, he would put the case hypothetically, and say he understood that so and so had been proposed elsewhere, which would come precisely to the same thing. He would state, that last year the average taken on the last seven years, had been considered too high, and it was thought right to correct it by giving the opportunity of an alteration at the end of three years. Notwithstanding this arrangement, it had been proposed, that when the average of the seven years should once be determined on, it should be irrevocable, and could not be altered at the end of the first three years. Such an enactment as that he had described, their lordships must perceive; would be no relief from the hardship complained of last session. He could assure their lordships, that in stating these objections to the measure, he was actuated by no opposition to the principle of the measure. He was most desirous of seeing it carried into effect, but wished the objectionable clauses of the bill to undergo amendment. In particular, he thought it due to the proprietors not liable to pay tithes, that they should be relieved from compulsion, and that whatever they did towards the execution of the measure, they should be permitted to do of their own free will. While the lay-holders and impropriators of tithes were not subject to compulsion in coming to an arrangement, he trusted their lordships would not be so unjust as to impose compulsion on those who hitherto had not been bound to pay tithes, and who surely were entitled to remain as free as the other party who received the tithes. He concluded by pre-
73
The Earl of Liverpool
said, he would not be induced by any thing the noble marquis had stated, to anticipate the discussion which would probably regularly come on, as to what alterations it might be proper to make in a measure now before the other House. Whenever that bill came before their lordships, it would be time to consider in what respect the bill of last session was defective, and what amendments it might require. What he wished now to explain was, the real state of the case with respect to the bill which was said to have failed. When he proposed the second reading last year, he had observed to their lordships, that neither he nor any person could expect the measure to be otherwise than imperfect, and that nothing more could then be expected than to establish the principle. It was under this impression that he stated his opinion of the effect which was to be expected from the bill last session; but that opinion was now completely changed. Many amendments were made with a view to compulsion, because it was supposed that without compulsion there would be no success. But, he was now prepared to say, that the measure had succeeded beyond the most sanguine expectation which any person had ever formed respecting it. He found that it had succeeded in more than one-tenth of the parishes. It had been carried into execution in 279 cases. It had besides been carried into effect in twenty-three cases since the meeting of that House, and fresh applications had been made for thirty-nine arrangements. With regard to what the noble marquis had stated on the subject of the clause, according to which, in some cases, the clergyman might receive more than had been paid on an average of seven years, he must observe, that the objection was far from being well founded. The reason of the provision obviously was, because the clergyman could not have received more than his right. There could therefore, be no reason for inserting a power to give him less than his due; but he might have received so much less than what he was entitled to, that in common justice it would be necessary to give an increase. Hence the necessity for the power which the noble marquis regarded as a mark of partiality. The measure had been carried into operation in a most li-
74
s.
d.
d.;
d.
d.
The Earl of Kingston
stated the fact, that in one parish there was no protestant church erected, the rector having objected to the expense of 75
l
Lord King
said, that after the many grants of public money for the erection of churches and glebe-houses, it must be very mortifying to the House to find their intention frustrated by those who ought to promote them. He had heard of a mercantile Hibernian reciprocity, but here was a clerical Hibernian reciprocity. Was the cure of souls a sinecure in Ireland, or would the Irish clergy content themselves with a mere salvage? Would they take the fee, and leave the sinner to work his own way to heaven as he could? The fact with respect to the clergy was as notorious as the sun at noon day.
The Earl of Clare
inferred from certain facts which had taken place in his own county, that, in some instances, the composition had been taken too high, but, generally, he maintained the right of the clergy to church property to be as valid as that by which their lordships held their estate, and the measure against which the petitioners remonstrated to be necessary to the salvation of the Church.
The Earl of Darnley
contended, that, though the clergy might be legally entitled to claim the full amount of their tithe, the right could not easily be insisted on after the statements of his noble friend, which remained uncontroverted.—His noble friend had made out a charge of gross neglect Was the unwillingness of a rector to pay a curate 75
l
The Earl of Kingston
said, there was not a single statement in the petitions relative to the non-residence and neglect of the clergy, which he could not esta-
75
Ordered to lie on the table.
UNITARIAN MARRIAGE RELIEF
On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, he should not have thought it necessary to have called their lordships' attention to this subject at any length, if it had not been intimated to him, that an opposition was intended to be made to the measure now before the House. The present bill originated in petitions which had been presented from the Dissenters in the last session of parliament, in which they complained of the necessity they were under, as the law now stood, of taking a share in the celebration of the marriage ceremony to which they could not in conscience assent. It was the first duty of the legislature, on civil grounds, to provide against the celebration of clandestine marriages; but, that being provided for, it was most important that marriage should be contracted with that solemnity which should give to it, in the eyes of the parties, the most lasting and binding obligation; When if it was the duty of the legislature to provide against clandestine marriages, it was equally their duty to give every facility which was possible, and to avoid every thing that had even the appearance of a violation of conscience; and on this ground, their lordships would find it necessary to adopt the proposition which he had now to submit to them. It had been said, that the present measure would include an alteration of the Liturgy. This was not the time to discuss whether such an alteration were desirable, as his proposition left that part of our church service entirely untouched. Their lordships, he was persuaded, would not think that persons who were tolerated by the law, ought in the ceremony of marriage, to be compelled to violate their consciences, and be brought into our churches, and appear to signify their assent to doctrines, which the law did not, in any other instance, call upon them to do. It was most important that marriage contracts should be entered into under all the circumstances most binding to the parties; and the object of the state being secured by publicity and solemnity being given thereto, that publicity and solemnity should take place in the manner which the parties thought proper. He there fore proposed, in the bill now before the House, that the class of Dissenters,
76
77
The Archbishop of Canterbury
said, that if the relief sought for, was to be obtained by removing the scruples from one description of men to lay them on another —from the smaller number to the larger— from the Unitarian dissenter to the members of the established church—he should certainly have objected to it. At the close of the last session of parliament, a bill was submitted to their lordships, proceeding on a very different principle; for whatever other faults it had, it was not charged with transferring to others the grievances which it assumed to redress. To that bill he had been adverse; and it was also opposed by others of their lordships, and was ultimately rejected. At that time there appeared a disposition in the House to give, in some form, relief to the Unitarians. That relief could only be given in one of two ways—either by enabling the Unitarians, under certain regulations, to intermarry in their own places of worship, or by an alteration of the form of the marriage ceremony in the church of England service. To the last he objected, and still did object; deprecating as he did any alterations of that kind. It might be said that it was only certain prayers that were to be omitted; but it would hardly be argued that as great alterations might not be brought about by omissions as by substitutions: besides, the omission was avowed to be in favour of persons who disbelieved the doctrine of the Trinity. If that measure had been carried, the Unitarians were to have made use of that form so mutilated; but it was rejected by the House, and he rejoiced that it was. The only mode of relief; then, was by this bill; the two-fold object of which was the ease of the Unitarian and the security of the church. The latter would be attended to in the committee, if their lordships should agree to the bill going to that stage. It had been said that it was extraordinary
78
The Lord Chancellor
declared, that no respect could be more sincere than that which he entertained for the most reverend prelate who had just addressed their lordships, although, on the present occasion, he felt that he could not conscientiously concur with the most reverend prelate on the important subject under their consideration. On the provisions of the bill he should not touch. They would be fit matter for the consideration of the committee, should the bill reach that stage of its progress. His present business was with the principle of the measure. In the first place, if he understood the principle of Unitarianism at all, it went to deny the doctrine of the Trinity. And here he begged leave to say, that he had nothing to do, on the present occasion, with the merits of the doctrines of the church of England. The church of England he was bound to support, without examining whether the doctrine of the Trinity was or was not a part of its doctrines. He belonged to that church: he always had supported it, and he trusted he always should support it. The first question that he had to ask, was, whether the measure should be preceded by some declaration to remove any doubts which might be entertained, and which he cer-
79
The Earl of Liverpool
said, he should vote for the second reading of the bill; but if it should come out of the committee
80
The Bishop of Chester
expressed his dissent from the bill, though he believed no noble lord was more decidedly friendly than he was to the principle of religious toleration. He agreed, that in the intercourse between the creature and the Creator, no restriction should prevail, but that it should be free as the air we breathed. But, this appeared to him not a question of religious scruples, but of civil jurisprudence; not of church doctrine, but of church discipline. It would be only to waste their lordships' time, were he to endeavour to shew the advantages of a national and established religion. Those advantages had been proved by many excellent writers; and among others by the excellent author of "Moral and Political Philosophy"—an author who required no praise of his, and to whom he was sure the noble lord opposite would be ready to pay the just tribute of his admiration. But, if it was clear that the establishment of a national religion was advantageous, it was equally clear, that that establishment must be upheld and
81
82
83
The Earl of Harrowby
declared, that if he thought the bill before their lordships would, in the slightest degree, affect the interests of the church of England, it would not meet with a more determined opponent than himself. Nothing he had heard, however, satisfied him that such was the case. With respect to the first passage in the marriage ceremony, in which the bridegroom took the bride to wife in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, it certainly did seem strange that the Unitarian should object to words which were introduced into his own form of prayer; although he understood that there was some slight difference, such as the substitution of "into the name" for "in the name." That, however, did not appear to be a rational objection on the part of the Unitarian. But he could easily conceive that a serious and, in his opinion, it well-founded objection might arise in the mind of the Unitarian to the expression "God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost;" because the Unitarian conceived that the attribute of
84
Lord Calthorpe
could not help feeling that the degree of relief which this bill afforded ought to be granted to the Unitarians, as offering them an opportunity of being married without any violation of their principles; for he thought the strength of the Church did not, and could not, arise from persecution. She loved to relieve the honest scruples of men, if, at the same time, she could satisfy herself, that the measure of relief was consistent with the interests of those great and important truths which those men denied. Considering the remarkable observance of the decencies and proprieties of life by the sect of Unitarian dissenters, and considering their regular and exemplary discharge of the duties of their situations, which afforded the church a sufficient guarantee for the due and proper performance of this solemn rite by their ministers, the church ought not to press her forms upon them too strictly. At the same
85
86
The Earl of Westmorland
felt it his duty to state the reasons on which he should be induced to vote against the bill. The first ground of his opposition was, that he absolutely and distinctly objected to the principle of the measure. When he said this, he did not wish it to be supposed that he was an enemy to toleration generally, when about to be extended to any man or set of men of any particular sect; but he objected to this measure because he considered it a complete alteration of the law of the land and of the church establishment. By the law of the land,
87
give
The Bishop of London
said, that at so late an hour of the night he would not take up much of their lordships' time, but would succinctly state what were the grounds upon which he intended to vote for this bill going into a committee. He thought the policy which had induced the legislature to place the solemnization of marriage in the hands of the church was a very wise one. It contributed to that publicity which was so desirable in its celebration; and thereby had a tendency to protect parties from having their ignorance or their credulity practised upon by the designing and the vicious. It secured the decent and solemn performance of that which the law held to have been, in its origin, a civil more than a religious contract. This might not be, indeed, a primary view of the subject; but it went to shew the wisdom of the policy which the legislature had pursued, in conferring upon it a certain distinction, by confiding it to the care of the church. It was in this view of the matter, that he thought no alteration ought to take place in the law, except upon very weighty reasons indeed.
88
89
90
Lord Holland
said, the principle on which this bill proceeded had been so well developed by the noble marquis who had proposed it, that he did not think it necessary to enter into any further discussion on that point. He considered it as a proof that the church of England deserved the praise for liberality which had been bestowed upon it, when he heard the head of the English church express himself as he had done, in such a liberal and truly christian manner. There had been but few objections urged to the
91
92
93
94
95
to
The House divided: For the second reading 35. Against it 31. Majority 4.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, April 2.
ST. CATHERINE'S DOCK BILL.]
Mr. Grenfell
rose to move the second reading of this bill, and stated, that he should have confined himself according to the usual practice, to moving the second reading, in order, when that motion was carried, to refer it to a committee up stairs
96
Mr. C. Calvert
said, he could not be influenced to oppose the bill by any interest in the existing Dock companies, as he was not a proprietor in any one of them; but he opposed it on this ground, that there was at present accommodation for hundreds of thousands of tons of goods more than were brought to this country. He alluded particularly to the warehouses in the parishes of St. Olave and St. John's, Southwark, where gentlemen had invested their fortunes in warehouses, and whose rights ought not to be interfered with without necessity. He moved, "that the bill be read a second time this day six months."
97
Sir Joseph Yorke
said, he should fire off his squib against this little blue-eyed nun of St. Catherine's. He understood this piece of business was supported by eighteen gentlemen and a half; that was to say, by eighteen gentlemen who put down 50,000
l
l
Mr. J. Smith
could not discover in the copy of the bill which he had seen, any sufficient necessity for the measure. This perhaps might be shown in the committee; but, unless that was done, he should object to interfere, to the extent that was proposde, with private property.
Mr. Hume
said, that sufficient notice had not been given. There were 10,000 people who were entitled to six or eight months notice under the standing orders. These orders, which were rules for the protection of private property, should not be slightly superseded. On this ground, he should oppose the second reading.
Mr. Manning
said, he had presented a petition from the London Dock company against the bill, in which it was stated, that they had foundations laid for ware-houses capable of containing 2 or 300,000 tons of goods, which had not been pro-
98
Mr. T. Wilson
supported the bill. It was not enough to say, that there was room in the present docks, to render the establishment of new ones inexpedient. If the new Dock company could carry on the business at a cheaper rate; if they could afford better accommodation; or if the probability of a new and growing trade was made out, there was a good reason for passing the bill. The bonded trade could not be carried on in the warehouses that were not within docks.
Mr. Bright
contended, that the standing orders ought to be enforced. Here was a whole town thrown into confusion' by a sudden project, of which the parties who were to be expelled from their homes had no notice until the 6th of March. If a new dock was required, why not give due notice? What necessity was there for pressing the bill until next year? The fact was, that the parties would, by the delay, be compelled to pay a larger price for the ground than its present value. They ought to uphold their standing orders, which enjoined due notice, or else abandon them altogether.
Mr. Alderman Heygate
said, that having presented two petitions against this bill, it should have his most determined opposition. He was surprised that his majesty's ministers should have given the measure any countenance by suspending the standing orders, when they found that its execution would be an act of tyranny and cruelty towards a large body of individuals. It was a cruel attack upon individual rights, without any paramount necessity. Let the supporters of the bill be called upon to show that the growing trade of the port of London indispensably required the new dock; but they knew that to attempt such proof was impossible, since it was notorious, that many of the existing dock companies had plenty of room unoccupied. There were in London at present six dock companies: two of them paid no interest; one paid 3½ per cent; the London Dock paid 4½ per cent; and two others, paid more than 5 per cent; because one of them had enjoyed a particular monopoly, which had just ceased, and the other had a monopoly which would expire in two
99
Mr. Haldimand
said, it was perfectly true, that if consols had not been at 95, this undertaking might not have been thought of; but, if the interest of capital was so low that it forced itself into new channels and reduced the rate of profit in old ones, was it not natural that docks also should feel the influence; and how could that happen but through the competition of new companies? He corrected the statement of the gallant admiral, that this ground had been refused to the London Dock company. The fact was, that company had been authorized to purchase it, but had preferred a spot lower down, where they would have to pay less compensation money. The warehousing system could not be carried on, except in docks in the situation of the proposed one. He was not ashamed to avow himself one of the "18½ gentlemen" mentioned by the gallant admiral; but he should not have subscribed to it had he not conceived it would be a public benefit.
Mr. Butterworth
opposed the bill, as a measure which would entail ruin on thousands.
Mr. Littleton
opposed the bill, on the same grounds as the hon. member for Bristol. Every bill of this kind was an invasion of private property, for an alleged public purpose; and the thousands of persons whose property and means of living were affected by the bill, were—at least—intifled to notice. There could be no better occasion than the present, for setting their faces against the session-ally increasing disregard of their standing orders.
Mr. W. Smith
said, that an extremely strong case had been made out against the violation of the standing orders, es-
100
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he was so far cognisant of this bill, that the parties interested in it had, in the early part of the year, come before his majesty's government, to know whether they would have any objection to the measure. The answer given by the government was, that, in point of principle, they saw no objection to the establishment of a new dock, if it could be shewn that benefit to the public would result from it. So far they had expressed acquiescence; but they certainly were not aware of all the circumstances of the case. When so many interests were affected, the question as to the standing orders became one of considerable importance; and undoubtedly, if the standing orders had been strictly enforced, the bill would not have arrived at its present stage. Under all the circumstances, he thought it would be better to allow the bill to be read a second time, and to investigate its merits in the committee. If it should then appear, that the bill could not pass without occasioning great hardship to a number of individuals, this would certainly constitute a ground for its rejection at the present time. On the other hand, it might turn out, that the case, as it affected those individuals, had been greatly over-stated. Most of them, for instance, might be tenants at will; and in that case, the degree of hardship would be much less, because they would be compelled to quit, if the proprietors of the soil were disposed to acquiesce in the propositions of the subscribers to the dock. He repeated, that in principle he had no objection to the measure of erecting a new dock, with a view to extended competition and increased commercial advantages; and he could not object, therefore, to the second reading of the bill.
Mr. Wallace
said, that with respect to the question as to the standing orders, those orders had been repeatedly dispens-
101
Mr. Grenfell,
in reply, said, that so far from 10,000 persons being exposed to inconvenience from this measure, the whole number of inhabitants within the precincts of the parish of St. Catherine did not amount to 5,000. He might add, too, that out of 11 or 1,200 householders, 300 had expressed their assent to the bill. Upwards of 1,100 of the principal mercantile gentlemen in the country had concurred in the expediency of the measure.
The House then divided: For the second reading 74. Against it 55. Majority 19.
ANGERSTEIN COLLECTION OF PICTURES.]
The House resolved itself into a committee of supply, On the resolution, "That 60,000
l
Mr. Agar Ellis
said, he could not refrain from expressing his thanks to his majesty's government for having purchased this valuable collection of pictures. He was sure that every person who was at all acquainted with the arts, would agree with him in saying, that no private collection of pictures could be better suited to form the basis of a national gallery. All the pictures were of the very first excellence. Indeed, there was not one of them which it would not be almost a calumny to call a moderate picture. He trusted that the present would form a new era in the history of the arts in this country, and that the advantage which was now given to our own school of painting, by placing before it first-rate models, would tend to
102
Mr. Bernal
said, it appeared that there was to be a keeper of the gallery, at a salary of 200
l
l
Sir C. Long
spoke in terms of the strongest praise of the pictures which formed the late Mr. Angerstein's collection. They were selected by the judgment of sir T. Lawrence, and appeared, on inspection, so exquisite to his majesty, that he it was who had first suggested the propriety of purchasing them for the nation. Indeed, they were generally considered the finest models of art that could be submitted to the contemplation of the artist. He agreed with his hon. friend, that the plan which the government ought to pursue in forming this gallery, would not, be to purchase whole collections, but to buy
103
Mr. A. Ellis
bore testimony to the qualifications of the gentleman appointed to superintend the collection. He wished to know, however who was to superintend the superintendent?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, the general control and superintendence would be in the Lords of the Treasury. He did not apprehend, however, that it would be necessary to exercise that control with any degree of violence.
Mr. Hume
said, that as it was at last determined to make a national gallery, and by so doing to rescue the country from a disgrace which the want of such an establishment had long entailed upon it, he trusted that responsible individuals would be selected to take care of the pictures which had already been purchased. Some regulation of that nature was rendered necessary, by the recollection of the injury which had been sustained in the British Museum by the want of it.
Sir C. Long
trusted, that he had convinced the committee, upon a former evening, that there was no reason to complain of the trustees of the British Museum. Indeed, he had cause to believe, that the hon. member for Shrewsbury who had brought forward the charge against them, was convinced that it did not rest upon any accurate foundations.
Mr. A. Ellis
was so far from thinking that there was any ground of complaint against the trustees of the British Museum, that he had been about to suggest, that they should also be made trustees of this national gallery.
The resolution was agreed to.
104
CONSULS TO SOUTH AMERICA.]
On the resolution, "That 34,450
l
Mr. Hume
rose to ask a question. Was it to be understood, that, after this grant was made to the consuls and vice-consuls in Spanish America, the British trade in that quarter of the globe was to be free from the imposition of any further toll, to them? He did not object to the amount of the salaries which it was proposed to give these gentlemen; for he thought that they would not get men of respectability to fill them, unless they were properly remunerated. He was, however, anxious, that our different consuls should be paid by the public, and should be debarred from receiving any fees, save such as were merely nominal, upon the delivery of certificates required in the course of trade. Whilst he was upon the subject, he would suggest a plan to his majesty's ministers, which several eminent merchants had informed him was calculated to obviatmany of the vexatious difficulties whice they sometimes experienced in foreign countries, owing to the uncertain nature of our consular fees. The plan was this— that the captain of any ship, on clearing out for a foreign port at the custom-house should be entitled to ask and receive a printed copy of the consular charges at all the ports at which he was likely to touch in the course of his voyage. It might be said, that such a plan could not be put into execution without some expense. He allowed that it would occasion some trifling expense; but it ought not to be regarded, when it was considered that it was incurred on behalf of the commerce of the country, and that that commerce was the chief source of its strength and revenue. He was certain that if our consuls were paid fixed salaries and were only allowed to receive certain small stated fees, many of the difficulties would be removed with which our commerce was at present impeded.
Mr. Huskisson
was, to a certain degree, of the same opinion with the hon. member for Aberdeen, with regard to paying our consuls out of the public revenue. He intended, within a short period, to bring in a bill to enable government to pay them
105
Mr. Hume
expressed himself well satisfied with the observations which had fallen from the right hon. gentleman, and said, that if there were any points on which he differed from him, they might be discussed when the right hon. gentleman brought his bill before the House. He would take that opportunity of expressing his thanks to the right hon. secretary for foreign affairs, for the attention which he had paid to a subject, in which, though he was not himself personally concerned, the public were largely interested. He alluded to our trade with the Brazils. He could not at present say what effect the regulations which the right hon. secretary had made might have produced abroad; but this he could not say, that they had given perfect satisfaction to all persons at home engaged in that trade. Before he sat down, he would suggest to the right hon. president of the board of trade, whether it would not be advisable, in any future regulation, to prevent consuls from deputing their duties at will to any person, they might choose to appoint as vice-consuls.
ARMY EXTRAORDINARIES.]
On the resolution, "That 620,000
l
Colonel Davies
objected to the item in this grant, charging 2,300
l
106
Mr. W. Horton
observed, that the item in question was a payment made on account of the government of the island of Malta. A special injunction had been given to that government to make inquiry whether the parties who received these pensions were entitled to be considered as knights of Malta. That inquiry was not in progress; and it was thought right not to withdraw the pensions until it was concluded? The pensions had been granted to the parties who now held them from motives of humanity, during the French revolution—an event which had reduced the greater portion of them from comparative opulence to the most wretched state of want and destitution.
Mr. Hume
wished to draw the attention of the committee to the very great expense to which this country was put, on account of the islands of Guernsey and Jersey. They were, so far as this country was concerned, altogether free from taxation: the revenue of the Crown was wasted; at least no part of it was appropriated to the service of the islands, and the people of England were constantly called on to meet every expense. He observed a charge of 4,471
l
107
Mr. Secretary Peel
understood the hon. member to say, that he could throw out some suggestions by which the expenses of Guernsey and Jersey might be lessened If the hon. member would favour him with those suggestions, they should receive the fullest attention. It was his duty to listen to such communications; and, if a curtailment of expense could be effected, that object certainly should not be neglected. When the hon. gentleman presented to the House the rather extraordinary document (for it was not a petition, but a two or three months' tour through Guernsey) to which he had alluded, he would read it with attention. With respect to the military part of the question, he might observe, that the constitution of these islands was of a very ancient date, and that no individuals were more jealous of their old customs than the inhabitants were. According to their laws, every male, from sixteen to sixty, was bound to military service. But it was deemed better to have a few expert soldiers, than an undisciplined rabble; which would probably be the case if they were left to clothe and arm themselves; and therefore it was necessary that a staff should be kept up.
CIVIL CONTINGENCIES.]
On the resolution, "That 106,507
l
108
Mr. Hume
directed the attention of the committee to an item of 1,810
l.,
Mr. W. Horton
said, the experiment was an important and a useful one. The commissioners who were now in the West-India islands had made a report on the subject, which would be laid before parliament. It would then be for the House to decide, whether this establishment should or should not be kept up.
Mr. Hume
said, he had stated, four or five years ago, that these slaves were perfectly competent to support themselves. In the possession of an individual, they would be a property; but in the hands of government they became an expense. If they were set free to-morrow they would maintain themselves, without assistance from this country. Such was the plain state of the case. He wanted no report from the commissioners to enable him to decide on a subject of which he could judge as well as themselves. He now begged leave to draw the attention of the House to a charge of 620
l
Mr. Secretary Canning
said, that as to the time, this honour was not of a recent date. It was conferred several years ago, when a similar mark of respect was bestowed on the king of Denmark, and
109
Mr. Hume
wished to make a few observations on the charge relative to foreign ambassadors. He had last year shown, that the expense, on an average of the five preceding years, was 300,000
l
grade
Mr. Canning
said, the hon member had been quite misinformed, if he supposed that such a request as he had alluded to had been made by his majesty's government. It did not follow, as the hon. gentleman seemed to think, that a reduction of expense should naturally attend a reduction in the rank of the ambassador sent to this court from Holland. He believed that for fifty years, it had been the constant policy of this country to have an ambassador of the first class at the Hague, even though the Dutch ambassador was not of equal rank.
Mr. Hume
observing a charge for ex-
110
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, the appointment took place in 1821, under an act of the legislature. At that time more fear was entertained of the danger which might be expected from the explosion of gas than at present. In 1817 and 1818 two acts were passed, which gave to the secretary of state the power of appointing an inspector. The appointment, therefore, was not in the crown, but in the secretary of state under the act of parliament. The hon. baronet had proved himself to be a most useful officer, and he received no more than a remuneration for the actual expenses he incurred. He had reported last year that the same degree of apprehension no longer existed as was formerly entertained; but still it was thought expedient, that the secretary of state should have an opportunity of knowing how the gas-works were going on; and he hoped, that next year, the same skilful individual would give him the benefit of his scientific knowledge. As this was not a new appointment under the Crown, it did not come under the ate of queen Anne; and of course did not vacate the hon. baronet'sseat.
Mr. Lambton
observed, that the hon. baronet, in his reports, had furnished suggestions of considerable importance; some of which had been acted upon. Every one who knew the extreme danger to be apprehended from the explosion of those gasometers, must be pleased to see the attention of a gentleman of so much science and knowledge directed to the subject. He thought that the right hon. secretary, in continuing the office, did nothing more than his duty. The salary paid to the hon. baronet, was, he thought quite inadequate to his services.
Mr. Hume
denied the assertion, that sir W. Congreve had made valuable reports on which the gas-companies had acted. He had, it was true, made reports, in which he spoke a great deal about the danger of our being blown up by the ex-
111
Mr. Lambton
said, that the hon. member for Aberdeen had treated him as an interested party in the present discussion, because he might be supposed to supply the article from which the gas was manufactured. The hon. member, however, if there were any force in his argument, would stand, in his own person, exposed to the effect of it; for, if he did not absolutely supply the gas companies with the material from which their smoke was produced, they might go to him, if they pleased, for the pipes which conveyed it.
Mr. Secretary Peel
observed, that Mr. Millington, to whom the hon. member had just adverted, said in his evidence, with respect to the danger from, the explosion of gasometers, that the blowing up of the one in Dorset-street would probably bring down all the adjacent houses in Fleet-street. Dr. Wollaston, too, had distinctly declared, that' his opinion as to the properties of gas had been altered by that very report of sir W. Congreve, to which the hon. member for Aberdeen objected. The most respectable chemical authorities, sir H. Davy among the rest, had spoken in strong terms of the danger likely to arise from the explosion of gas; and the House would say, under such
112
Mr. Leslie Foster
said, that the possibility of the explosion of gasometers was sufficiently proved by the fact, that one gasometer had exploded and done considerable, mischief. He certainly approved of the appointment of an inspector.
Mr. Dawson
defended the appointment of sir W. Congreve.
Sir W. Congreve
would only say, that he had accepted the situation in question, under a conscientious belief, that the duties of it were most necessary to be discharged. As far as his experience had gone, he thought inspection from time to time, very necessary. In one instance he had found a gasometer floating in coal tar, instead of water; coal tar being an article of the most combustible description. In other cases, large fires had been kept in the neighbourhood of the gasometers; which he considered unsafe. He had also recommended, as a general principle, the use of smaller gasometers; and in some quarters his suggestions had been adopted.
Mr. Alderman Wood
said, that he claimed from the secretary for the home department, in behalf of the city of London, that the gas-master, or general inspector, or whatever designation that wonderful person bore, should inspect the Mansion-house. There was a very large gasometer there, over which he himself had slept for two years. He spoke for the safety of future lord mayors, as it was most probable he should not, though he hoped frequently to dine, sleep there again. There was another gasometer, too, at the Bank, which perhaps would not be the worse for an occasional call, on the part; of the gas-master.
The several resolutions were agreed to.
113
ALIEN BILL.]
The order of the day being moved for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. Hume
said, that it had been the determination of a number of members of that House, who were decidedly hostile to the spirit and principle of the Alien bill, to allow no one stage to pass, but to resist its progress from its introduction. In consequence, however, of rumours that had transpired respecting certain views, supposed to be entertained by the right hon. secretary for foreign affairs, they were most solicitous to obtain the benefit of his information on the subject, and to hear, from such an authority, the arguments upon which he considered it expedient that such an unconstitutional measure should pass. On a former night it had been contended by the right hon. secretary for the home department, that the powers sought by this bill were powers which the kings of this country had, for centuries, in right of their prerogative, possessed. And yet there was a right hon. colleague of the right hon. secretary (Mr. Wynn) who had denied that such a power was vested in the throne. It was natural, therefore, between these two discordant authorities, sitting in the same cabinet, for members of that House to feel most solicitous to know the opinion of the right hon. the secretary for foreign affairs, and to be made acquainted with the views on which he recommended its adoption. What, he would ask him, did he discover in the internal state of our relations, or in the character of our foreign policy, to justify the passing of a bill, which was at variance with the ancient policy and acknowledged hospitality of the country? Could its adoption be accounted for under any other impression, than that there existed a secret understanding between our government and the absolute sovereigns of the continent, to act in concert against those whom these sovereigns were disposed to persecute; that whenever the emperor of Austria, or the king of France, were pleased to declare a foreigner obnoxious to them, he was to be expelled from our shores? If there was no such concert, no such secret understanding—surely the House had a right to be informed what the actual motives were, and to obtain the fullest explanation, before it agreed to continue an act so hostile to our national character. Was there no law on our Statute-book in favour of foreigners seeking the hospitality
114
115
Mr. N. Calvert
said, he was one of those who never would join in any language of abuse applied to the sovereigns of foreign states; because he could not stoop to do any thing so unfair as to attack those who, from distance, were disabled from defending themselves. He thought the practice, to say the least of it, might lead to great national mischief. He could not support the amendment, though he objected to the bill.
The Speaker
having again read the amendment, loud laughter followed, on account of the word "constitutional," which was then found in it.
Mr. Hume
said, there was no such word as "constitutional" in the paper; the words were "continental despots."
The Speaker
ordered the paper to be handed to Mr. Hume, who, upon reading it, presented another copy, in which the words stood as he proposed. The amendment was put, and negatived without a division. Upon the motion, that the order of the day for the second reading of the bill be now read, the House divided: Ayes 120; Noes 67.
List of the Minority
Abercromby, hon. J.
Lambton, J. G.
Althorp, visc.
Leader, W.
Allen, J. A.
Leycester, R.
Baillie col. J.
Maberly, W. L.
Barrett, S. M.
Macdonald, J.
Benyon, B.
Marjoribanks, S.
Bernal, R.
Martin, J.
Birch, J.
Milton, visc.
Byng, G.
Monck, J. B.
Calvert, C.
Moore, P.
Calvert, N.
Newport, sir J.
Cavendish, hon. C.
Nugent, lord
Clifton, visc.
Ord, W.
Colborne, N. W. R.
Osborne, lord F. G.
Creevy, T.
Palmer, C.
Crompton, S.
Palmer, C. F.
Davies, col.
Pares, T.
Dundas, hon. T.
Pryse, P.
Farrand, R.
Rice, T. S.
Pergusson, sir R.
Robarts, A. W.
Gaskill, B.
Robarts, col.
Haldimand, W.
Robinson, sir G.
Hamilton, lord A.
Russell, lord W.
Honywood, W. P.
Scott, J.
Huskisson, hon. H.
Sefton, lord
James, W.
Smith, W.
Jervoise, G. B.
Smith, R.
Johnstone, W. A.
Stanley, E. C.
Jones, J.
Sykes, D.
Kennedy, T. F.
Tierney, right hon. G.
116
Townshend, lord C.
Wood, Mr. ald.
Warre, J. A.
Wrottesley, sir J.
Whitbread, W. H.
TELLERS.
Wilkins, W.
Hume, J.
Wilson, sir R.
Hobhouse, J. C.
On the question being put, "That the Bill be now read a second time,"
Sir Robert Wilson
said, he rose to defend the right of the members of that House to express themselves freely upon the conduct of foreign potentates, and to repel the contrary principle implied in the observations of his hon. friend. They were bound to call things by their right names. If those sovereigns were tyrants, no gentleman could be wrong in designating them accordingly. It was not simply their right to do so; it was their duty to use that language towards them, which would best express the opinion the parliament of England entertained of their conduct, and to admonish the people of England of the steps which had been taken to give due expression to that opinion. When his hon. friend talked of those sovereigns having no means of defending themselves in that House, he seemed to forget that they were defended by their guards and armies—that irritated tyrants had reaching arms, and could strike those whom they never had seen. The House had no other means of exercising its power, but those strong expressions of the public feeling through its agency, which frequently had the effect of rescuing the victims of extreme and abused authority. He hoped his hon. friend would not attempt to deter the House from this important exercise of its duty. It was not using the language of abuse to those princes, but the language of solemn declaration in favour of liberty, and to prove to them incontrovertibly the general detestation in which the people of England held the crimes of tyranny. Upon the progress of the bill he would make only these observations. It had undergone very ample discussion—much more discussion than he had hoped for— and he should have concluded, that it was not likely that any thing more of weight could be added to it, but for that promise which fell from the right hon. secretary for foreign affairs the other day. He hoped that if the bill did pass, it would be presented to the public under more favourable circumstances of justification than those in which it stood at present. The argument was now con-
117
118
Mr. N. Calvert
explained. He said, he had not wished to dictate any rule to guide the conduct of the House: he had only prescribed a rule for his own behaviour with respect to foreign governments, and the princes at the head of them.
Mr. Serjeant Onslow
justified the conduct of government in the treatment of general Gourgaud, and the other members of the suite of Buonaparte, and argued
119
Mr. Secretary Canning
said, he rose rather in fulfilment of a pledge into which he had been seduced a few nights ago by the soft persuasion of the hon. member for Aberdeen, than from any admission that the question required more ample argument; and still less did he feel it necessary to rise for the purpose of making any acknowledgment that, on any former occasion of discussing the principles of this bill, his own sentiments required any, even the slightest qualification. The hon. member for Aberdeen, in a style half complimentary to him, and half composed of serious censure on the measure itself, had done him the honour to oppose the principle of the bill to that which he deemed to be the general character and genius of his (Mr. Canning's) policy. If, however, the hon. gentleman should find any thing contradictory to the opinions which he had formed of him, in the arguments he was about to use in support of the measure; if he should find any thing which he might conceive to be opposed to the opinions which he (Mr. Canning) had professed, he would enable the hon. gentleman to thread those differences, to reconcile those seeming contradictions in his expressions, by producing, in one word, the clue of the labyrinth—the shiboleth of his (Mr. C.'s) policy upon this and every other public question; and that word was "England." His wish was only that of being found siding, on all divisions of opinions, with the interests of his country.
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
Sir J. Mackintosh.
—I said, if any "considerable armament" were fitted out in Spain against South America, whilst that country was in the occupation of the French army, it ought to be considered as a French armament.
Mr. Secretary Canning.
—Well, any "considerable armament;" and, let them see, if the hon. and learned gentleman tried other powers fairly, by this rule. What we had a right to say of France, France and other countries had a fair right to say of us. They might declare, that they would consider any armament sailing from j the ports of England for South America as a British armament; and his hon. and learned friend would admit, that this kingdom was at least as responsible for what was done upon her own soil, as France was responsible for what was done in Spain. Now, he said, that the Foreign Enlistment bill alone prevented the fitting out of armaments in British ports, and that the Alien bill alone kept foreigners under control, and prevented their treasonable machinations. If you stripped the Crown of the powers thereby given, there was no physical impediment to any number of foreigners, whether beaten or triumphant, coming to Plymouth or Portsmouth, fitting out an armament there, and sailing with it for the conquest of South America, whether for Ferdinand or his enemies. If France were to place herself in such a situation, we. should instantly assert, that it afforded a ground for going
129
130
131
132
133
"London! the needy villain's general home;
The common sink of Paris and of Rome!"
134
Mr. Tierney
next addressed the House, but for some moments he spoke in a tone quite too low to be audible in the gallery. He observed, that he felt it necessary to offer a few remarks to the House after the extraordinary speech of the right hon. secretary, in which he had throughout defended the bill, and had nevertheless expressed his readiness to abandon it for a more mild measure. If ever he had heard a speech an hour and a half long in that House, in which the speaker more decidedly looked one way and rowed another, it was that which the right hon. gentleman had just delivered; and, if he were one of the right hon. gentleman's followers in that House, he should think that, on the present occasion, he might vote against his patron, without much risk of giving offence. The right hon. secretary had charged gentlemen on the Opposition side with the figure of speech called exaggeration; as if he himself had not condescended to borrow a little from fancy in the course of his address. Why, the right hon. gentleman's speech was full of fanciful images—of aliens coming over in thousands and thousands, fitting out armaments, and then taking (as the sailors say) a fresh departure, to conquer their own country. The House had heard these fanciful statements, and they had also heard the right hon. gentleman charge others with making too free a use of the figure called exaggeration! But the right hon. gentleman stated that his object in supporting this bill was to support the interests of England. The House, however, had all this at second-hand—the right hon. gentleman having already announced it at one of those travelling parties which he had got round him in his late tour. It was stated in the hearing of the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of Plymouth; and no doubt they must have been astounded at the declaration then, as the House was now. Now, he would take the right hon. gentleman's own text; and say,
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
Mr. Secretary Canning
said, he felt it necessary, in consequence of what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman, to declare, that government had not received their information on the subject of the plot of which he had spoken from any foreign power.
Mr. Tierney
begged to ask, whether the information had proceeded from any persons who had been employed by government to look after aliens?
Mr. Canning.
—"No."
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he would not have risen at all that evening, had it not been for the very pointed manner in which he had been alluded to by the right hon. gentleman opposite. It was, however, not a little gratifying to him to find, that, after all the blame which had been cast upon government, and after the many propositions which had been made for altering the constitution of that House, the right hon. gentleman himself was candid enough to acknowledge, that not only had the country been triumphant in war, but that with respect to her internal affairs, she was contented, happy, and prosperous. The right hon. gentleman's arguments against the bill were founded upon two assumptions; namely, those which refer to the motives of its first introduction, and to the objects to which it was to be applied, now that it had been introduced. The right hon. gentleman had said, that the Alien act was first proposed, in consequence of an understanding amongst the sovereigns of the continent, that liberty was every where to be put down. Now, he must say, that he had never heard of any such understanding, and that, for his part, no consideration on earth could ever have' tempted him, as an Englishman, and a minister of England, to propose a measure professedly for the internal security of this country, which had been either dictated or proposed by a foreign power. The object of the bill, according to the interpretation of the right hon. gentleman, was, to prevent the distressed from finding an asylum in this country. He could Only meet that assertion, by stating, the
144
145
146
Lord Althorp
said, there were some parts of the speech of the right hon. secretary for foreign affairs, which he had heard with satisfaction. He alluded particularly to that part of it in which he had stated; that this was the last time he should apply to parliament for these powers. The right hon. gentleman had stated, some what inaccurately, an observation which he (lord A.), had made on a former occasion. He had not stated, that he should prefer a specific act of the legislature for each particular case, but that he should prefer a general act of parliament, making such machinations as excited the apprehensions of the government illegal, to a continuance of the Alien act.
The House divided: For the second reading now, 172. For the amendment 92. Majority 80. The bill was then read a second time.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, April 5.
ALIEN BILL.]
Mr. Secretary Peel
hoped there would be no objection to passing the Alien bill through a committee without opposition, and taking the further debate on the third reading.
Mr. Hume
was unwilling to create a debate at present, and particularly as the right hon. secretary for foreign affairs
147
The House resolved itself into a committee on the bill, and Mr. Hume moved a clause, confining the duration of the bill to one year instead of two.
Mr. Secretary Peel
hoped that the declaration of his right hon. friend, which so materially altered the view of the bill, would induce the hon. gentleman not to press his motion.
Mr. Hutchinson
said, that nothing but the lateness of the hour when the right hon. secretary for foreign affairs spoke on a former night, prevented him from replying at the instant to a speech fraught with the utmost injustice to the emigrants who had sought an asylum in England. He should, therefore, on the third reading, state his sentiments generally upon this most obnoxious and unconstitutional bill, and upon the speech with which it was attempted to be so improperly forced upon the attention of the House.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, it would be certainly open to any hon. member to endeavour to throw out the bill on the third reading, and that allowing it to pass through the committee compromised no hon. member's opinion on the subject.
Lord Nugent
protested strongly against the bill, which should, in all its stages, have his most decided opposition.
Mr. Hobhouse
did not wish that any body should have the opportunity of saying, that this bill had received amendment from his side of the House. He would give all the honour of it to the other side, and would allow no part of it to be shared among his friends. He therefore in-treated his hon. friend to withdraw his amendment.
The amendment was then negatived, and the original clause carried without a division.
REPAIRS OF WINDSOR CASTLE.]
The House having resolved itself into a committee of Supply.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that early in the course of the present session he had given notice of his intention to call upon the House to grant his majesty a certain sum of money, which appeared to be within their means, to be applied to the purpose of making certain alterations
148
l.
149
detour,
150
l.
151
l.
152
153
154
l.
l.
Sir Joseph Yorke
thought, that nothing required more taste or greater delicacy, than the approach to a question like the present, in which the subject was, the residence of the sovereign, and in the discussion of which it might perhaps be necessary to throw cold water on the
155
156
Mr. Bankes
wished to impress on the House the necessity of proceeding cautiously and circumspectly on this occasion. The ill effects of haste and precipitancy were observable in the buildings now erecting in New Palace-yard, by which the beautiful entrance to Westminster-hall was absolutely disgraced. He believed there was not a man in that House who did not wish that those buildings had never been erected. With respect to Windsor Castle, he admitted the necessity of taking down some adjacent buildings, which were objectionable to the commonest and least scientific eye. If that fine edifice were intended to became, as he trusted it would, the permanent residence of the sovereigns of this country, he thought it ought to be repaired in a manner befitting the dignity of the Crown, and the grandeur of this great nation. In such a case, it would be proper to inquire, whether there was sufficient accommodation for the convenience of the sovereign in private, and whether the public apartments were possessed of that splendor which ought to distinguish a court. He believed the fact to be, that the private apartments were by no means commodious, and that those of a public character were not suited to the splendor of a court. A good deal of what had just fallen from his gallant friend struck him very forcibly. His gallant friend had accused him with having, on a former night, spoken slightingly of a certain architect; but, what his gallant friend had said on the present occasion was not much in that individual's favour. He (Mr. B.) was of opinion, that there was no modern architect whose works could be entirely commended. If, for instance, they looked to the new street, they would find some of the buildings remarkably beautiful, whilst others were not deserving of approbation. He conceived that, in forming those apart-
157
Lord G. Cavendish
was of opinion, that the whole responsibility of this measure ought to rest with his majesty's ministers, and with them alone. There was, undoubtedly, a certain sum proposed to be granted; but, who could say, that double or quadruple that sum would not be demanded before the works were finished? He thought it, therefore, unfair to call on gentlemen who were not connected with his majesty's government to lend their assistance, and they to become responsible, in some degree, for the expenditure of the public money. For his own part, he would recommend those who might be
158
Mr. Curwen
observed, it was very true they had the declaration of the right hon. gentleman that 300,000
l,
Mr. Hume
said, it had been recommended, long ago, by the report of a committee, that no money should be advanced for the purpose of erecting or repairing public buildings, unless a plan and estimate were previously laid before the House. Now, what plan or estimate had been produced on this occasion? They had nothing on which to act, except the statement of the chancellor of the Exchequer: and a more indefinite statement he certainly had never heard. He, therefore, was much surprised, that the hon. member for Corfe Castle should at once give his sanction to this measure. Ground, he understood, was to be purchased. He should like to be informed to what extent. He had been told the purchase of ground would require at least 150,000
l
in limine,
l
l
159
l.
Mr. Grey Bennet
begged leave to second the motion of his hon. friend. He felt no small alarm at the speech of the right hon. gentleman coupling it, as he did, with the observations of the hon. member for Corfe Castle. In making the alterations at Windsor Castle, which were now threatened, he hoped care would be taken not to disfigure the south front. It was one of the most beautiful specimens of Gothic architecture in the kingdom. It was admired by all as a perfect model of that species of the art, and ought to be preserved with the utmost care. He was, however, afraid, that in the rage for alteration, some unhallowed hand would deform and disfigure that noble piece of
160
l.
l.
l.
l.,
161
Sir C. Long
said, that those gentlemen who fancied that any intention of pulling down a part of Windsor Castle was entertained by his majesty's government, laboured under an entire mistake and misconception. He never heard that it was meant to pull down any part of that ancient edifice: he believed such a project never entered into the contemplation of any person. With respect to what had been said as to the responsibility which would be incurred by those whose services might be required in looking at the plans, a great mistake prevailed. In calling on them to examine the plans, it never was intended that they should be at all responsible for the expense that might be incurred. The responsibility, with reference to the expenditure of the public money, would attach solely to his majesty's ministers. His hon. friend, the member for Corfe Castle, appeared to think that Windsor Castle ought not only to be repaired, so as to afford the best possible private accommodation for his majesty, but that great regard should also be had to the splendor of the apartments, to render them fit for holding courts. He, however, never knew that his majesty entertained any intention to keep his court at Windsor. Occasions might arise, when it would be necessary for his Majesty to meet large assemblies there; but the idea of holding courts there never was promulgated. The hon. gentleman who last spoke condemned, in strong terms, any alteration of Windsor Castle, and more
162
l.
163
Lord J. Russell
quite agreed with the last speaker, that it was proper Windsor Castle should be rendered every way worthy of his majesty's residence. He believed it was at present in such a situation, as made it prudent to delay the necessary repairs as little as possible. Still, however, he should like to know what repairs or alterations were intended. They ought not blindly to vote this money, they knew not for what; with a chance, perhaps, that some part of this ancient edifice would shortly assume the external appearance of a Mahometan mosque. The right hon. knight observed, that the hon. gentleman on the floor was mistaken in supposing that his majesty meant to hold courts at Windsor; and he had also observed, that his hon. friend was in error, when he spoke of the pulling down of the south front. Now, the right hon. knight might be very well informed on this subject; but it was fit that the House also should have some regular information as to what was meant to be done. The vote, he thought, ought to be postponed until they knew the manner in which the money was to be disposed of The right hon. knight observed, that those gentlemen who would be selected to act on the commission, would not be answerable for the expenditure of the money, as the whole of that responsibility would rest on the Treasury. But, if there happened to be a call for more money, or if the building should be repaired in bad taste, there could be no doubt but that the commission would be blamed in a greater or less degree, although they were not lords of the Treasury.
164
l.
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Maberly
wished to know, whether the right hon. gentleman was prepared to say that the vote of 150,000
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
165
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
expressed his satisfaction at the ready disposition which appeared in the House to acquiesce in every thing which was necessary for the convenience and honour of the sovereign. Such a disposition was creditable in the highest degree to the House, and the exhibition of it could not fail to give much pleasure to every lover of constitutional monarchy. With reference to that which had just fallen from the hon. member opposite, nothing could be more preposterous, certainly, than for him (supposing he was doing such a thing) to be calling for sums on account of an expenditure which he believed to be indefinite. But, the view which he took of the thing was extremely different. He had stated on a former evening, that the sum to be laid out was 300,000
l.
l.
l.
l.,
166
l,
l.
l.
167
Mr. Ellice
observed, that the right hon. the chancellor of the Exchequer did those on his side of the House only justice, when he allowed that they had not expressed any objection to put Windsor Castle into a proper state for the residence of his majesty. He perfectly concurred in the expediency of that intention, and hoped that such plans and estimates would be formed respecting it, as would prove satisfactory to all parties. When such plans and estimates should be produced, he was prepared to vote a sum for carrying them into effect, whether the sum required was precisely 300,000
l.,
168
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the ground-rents to which the hon. member alluded, were not available to the Crown, but were paid into the consolidated fund. It could make no difference, therefore, whether they were sold to make the purchase at Windsor, or whether money were at once granted for that object.
Mr. Calcraft
thought, it still was not quite clear, that, with reference to the interest of money, a sale might not be advantageous. With respect to the main question, however, most decidedly he wished to see an estimate; because, it might so happen, that an architect, on hearing the sum to which he was limited, would say, that, to do the work properly, that sum was not sufficient. If the chancellor of the Exchequer would pledge himself distinctly not to embark in the work unless he found the 300,000
l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he could have no objection to answer the hon. member's question. Of course, it would be extremely unwise to embark in the present business, either as regarded purchase or building, if the architects represented that 300,000
l.
Lord Milton
said, that, as it seemed to him, the chancellor of the Exchequer must support the proposition of the hon. member for Aberdeen; because, the right hon. gentleman pledged himself, that he would not embark in the work, if it should appear upon inquiry that the sum allotted was inadequate to complete it. Then why not make that inquiry at once, and defer the vote until an estimate was prepared? Certainly, ministers ought not to take any money, until they could say that they had seen plans and estimates which led them to believe that the grant would be sufficient.
Mr. Secretary Canning
understood all parties to concur in a desire to further, up to any reasonable amount, the honour and convenience of the Crown. The question was, as to the most expedient mode of managing the transaction. This might be done, certainly, by calling for plans and estimates of expense; but, the
169
Mr. Tierney
said, that the right hon. secretary had only done justice to the gentlemen with whom he sat, in stating, that they were actuated by a common wish to do every thing that was necessary for the dignity and convenience of the Crown. But, the security which the right hon. gentleman offered upon the present occasion was such as he (Mr. T.) feared the House could not accept; because a grant of 150,000
l.,
l.
l.,
170
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Brogden
observed, that according: to the forms of the House, the amendment could not postpone the grant to any specific day. All that could be done was to move its postponement generally.
Lord Milton
only asked to have the House placed where the chancellor of the Exchequer meant to place himself—that it might not be called upon to take any step accompanied with expense, until it was ascertained that the 300,000
l.
Mr. Grey Bennet
said, that part of the work at Windsor Castle had already begun, and adverted to the change which had taken place at Windsor since the death of the late king. The park could not be shut up, for there was a public way went through it; but even the freedom of the park was not given as it ought to be, and the terrace was entirely shut up. He thought this was bad taste, and bad judgment in every way. Nothing-had tended more to the popularity of the late king than the freedom with which he used to walk upon the terrace, in the view of his subjects. He perfectly remembered the effect which the sight had produced upon him when a boy; and it had been one of the most pleasing, as well as of the most impressive description. He did not mean to say any thing offensive; but he thought that a hint should be given by ministers in the proper quarter upon tins subject.
Mr. Hume,
as he could not fix a specific day, was content to move the postponement of the grant in question generally. He hoped that in his division he should have the support of the hon. member for Corfe Castle, and of the member
171
Mr. Canning
said, that the terrace at Windsor was open to the public on Sundays, and they had the benefit of the band of music, the same as in time past. It was true, it had not been open to the public on the other days of the week; nor could it, with convenience to the party for whose use and benefit it had been laid out. There was not a foot of ground about the domain to serve for a promenade except the terrace; and certainly it could not be talked of as an innovation, seeing that, for ten years, it had been shut up altogether, and that from circumstances which no human prudence could control.
Mr. Abercromby
complained of the want of a plan and of estimates, to satisfy that proper jealousy which the House ought to entertain with respect to any grant of the public money.
The committee divided: For the resolution 123; for the amendment 54.
List of the Minority.
Abercromby, hon. J.
Macdonald, J.
Allen, J. H.
Martin, J.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Milton, visc.
Benyon, B.
Monck, J. B.
Bernal, R.
Normanby, visc.
Birch, J.
Nugent, lord.
Blake, sir F.
Ord, W.
Bright, H.
Oxmanton, lord.
Butterworth, J.
Palmer, C. F.
Calvert, C.
Philips, G. H. jun.
Colborne, N.
Rickford, W.
Crompton, S.
Robarts, A. W.
Curwen, J. C.
Robarts, G. J.
Ebrington, visc.
Robinson, sir G.
Ellice, E.
Russell, lord J.
Gordon, R.
Smith, J.
Hamilton, lord A.
Smith, W.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Tierney, right hon. G.
Honywood, W. P.
Tremayne, J. H.
Hurst, R.
Wells, J.
Hutchinson, hon. C. H.
Western, C. C
James, W.
Whitbread, S. C.
Jervoise, G. P.
Wilkins, W.
Johnstone, W. A.
Williams, O.
Kennedy, T. F.
Wodehouse, E.
Lambton, J. G.
Wrottesley, sir J.
Leader, W.
TELLER.
Leycester, R.
Hume, J.
BUILDING OF NEW CHURCHES.]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer having
172
Mr. Hume
wished to know, what was the nature of the resolution which the right hon. gentleman intended to propose.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the resolution was for granting 500,000
l.
Mr. Hume
complained, that no notice had been given of this vote which could have informed gentlemen of the nature of the proposition which it was the intention of the chancellor of the Exchequer to make. The invariable custom was, that an estimate should precede a grant; whereas, in this instance, there was no mention made of any sum of money, even in the notice of motion entered on the paper.
Mr. W. Courtenay
said, that the chancellor of the Exchequer had given notice of a resolution in the committee, and admitted that he had not given notice of any specific sum, but after his statement at the commencement of the session, and the notice of the present resolution, which was made a few nights ago, he put it to the House, whether the object of his resolution of to-night could be mistaken.
Mr. Hume
was so far from anticipating the nature of the resolution, that he really had been led by the secretary for foreign affairs to suppose, that the plan of building new churches was laid aside for the present, because the money was to be applied to the establishment of the new West-India churches.
Mr. Hobhouse
said, he was not aware of the nature of the proposition, and had been so far deceived by the explanation of the foreign secretary, that he had actually congratulated himself on being for the present rid of the discussion. He concurred with his hon. friend near him in considering this a most profligate mode of laying out the public money. He would be the last man to deny the people of England the means of worshipping according to the faith and discipline of the establishment. Wherever those means were now defective they ought to be fully provided; but not by extraordinary grants of the public money. It was his intention, if the chancellor of the Exchequer should persist in applying this "God-send" of
173
l.
Mr. J. Smith
did not like this mode of applying the public money in the present situation of the country. There were no petitions on the table in favour of building these churches. The public would subscribe towards building their own churches readily, if they could have any reasonable share of the control and appointment of the ministers. There were in many parts of the kingdom, the most scandalous struggles upon this subject. He did not profess to be accurately acquainted with the ecclesiastical law of presentations; but, if ministers could find a remedy for this part of the case, they need not come to parliament for grants of public money to build churches. The people would cheerfully tax themselves for that purpose. But how could the parliament apply money in this way, when they saw all around them thousands of unhappy wretches left to all the disorders and miseries attendant on an untaught condition. The first duty of every government was to provide instruction for its poor—a duty the execution of which would be more pleasing to the Almighty than the building of churches. To what better use could this money be applied than in furnishing the means of education to the poor of Ireland, a country torn with disorders for want of moral improvement and sound instruction? At any rate he would try this proposition against that of the right hon. gentleman in the committee.
Sir J. Newport
begged the House to notice a singular anomaly between the cases of Ireland and England. While the population of Ireland, composed five-sixths of Catholics, were taxed for the building as well as the repairing of churches for the one-sixth who were Protestant, the people of England, who were Protestants, were only called on to pay for the repairing of the churches, and the public at large were taxed for the building of them.
174
Mr. James
said, that a petition would shortly be presented to the House against this appropriation of the public money. No doubt there would be many more of a similar nature, particularly from the Dissenters, who entertained strong objections to a measure, in none of the benefits of which they were to participate. He therefore hoped the chancellor of the Exchequer would consent to postpone it for a short time.
Mr. Bennet
complained, that the estimates had only been in the hands of members eight hours, and that it was not reasonable to call on the House to come to a decision on a subject, respecting which they had so little information.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
regretted that the papers had not been delivered at an earlier period. He was, however, far from wishing to entrap the House into giving an opinion which they had not had due time to consider. Although, therefore, he had been desirous to explain to the committee the views he entertained on this subject, he would consent to its postponement until Friday.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, April 6.
BURIALS IN IRELAND BILL.]
Lord Holland
, before the order of the day was read, for this bill being sent to a committee, rose to present a petition on the subject which had been put into his hands. At present he wished to give no opinion on the bill, or to say any thing of the contents of the petition; for he knew nothing about the provisions of the bill which had been brought up from the other House; he knew nothing of the law of the case or of the facts on which the petition was founded. He understood the measure to be conciliatory, but to him it seemed strange, that a bill intended to sooth angry feelings should be hurried through the House before there was an opportunity for those most concerned to state their objections to it. The petition complained, that while the bill in its preamble recognized the right of toleration most fully, there was a clause in it encroaching upon that right, inasmuch as it gave to the clergyman of the Protestant church the power of refusing sepulchre to a Catholic. This was sowing the spirit of disunion and discontent, and particularly affected the city of Dublin by sanctioning those proceedings on the part of the
175
The Earl of Liverpool
merely wished to state the course pursued with regard to the bill. Their lordships must be aware, by the votes of the other House, that this matter had early, in the present session, been brought before its notice. There were evils which this bill was introduced to remedy, and it was introduced after the subject had been well Considered by the law officers for Ireland. The bill was brought up to their lordships on Friday, and had been printed; and he was not aware of any unusual haste in passing it through the House. None of the standing orders had been dispensed with, nor had any hasty proceedings taken place.
The Earl of Darnley
believed that this measure was intended solely to produce beneficial effects to Ireland; but there was one point which he thought worthy of their lordships consideration. No person need be informed of the violence of party spirit in Ireland; and he thought if a constant appeal must be made by the Catholics to the Protestant clergy for permission to: bury, this could only be productive of vexation and animosity. He would suggest whether it might not be possible to enact that the Catholics should be entitled to bury their dead in the church-yards, on giving notice of their intention. He would allow the Protestant clergyman a veto stating his reasons but he wished the right of burial, without asking his leave, to be granted to the Catholics. He merely threw this out as a suggestion which, perhaps, the noble earl opposte might be disposed to adopt.
The Earl of Carnarvon
did not think it was a good reason why their lordships should not discuss a measure, that it had been maturely considered in the other House. There were some measures which could be better examined by their lordships, than by the other House of Parliament. He did not wish to say much on the bill, not being particularly acquainted with that part of the country to which it applied. But it would appear as an objection to the measure, that in many parishes there was no church, and in still more, no resident minister. There was no place to affix a notice, unless it was posted on the ruins of a church. In some cases, the minister who would have to give this permission resided in England. As to the church-yards belonging to monasteries, he thought it might be possible
176
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that to the latter suggestion of the noble earl he had no objection, and should introduce a verbal amendment into the clause referred to. As to the suggestion relative to the absent ministers, and the want of Churches, there were numerous difficulties in the way which no legislative enactments could meet, without a mutual disposition on the part of the people; and if that disposition existed, the regulations of this bill would be as effectual as any which could be proposed. As to the suggestion of the other noble earl, it did not appear to him that it could be acted on. No doubt, as the law at present stood, the church-yard was a place over which the Rector or Vicar of the parish had full and complete authority It was his. But this applied to Protestants as well as Catholics; and protestant dissenters who wished to have a funeral service read over their dead were obliged to ask the permission of the rector. As the law stood, the rector was bound to perform the funeral service in his own church-yard; but this was altered by the present bill. The Catholics, as he understood, in general, performed the whole of the funeral service in their houses, and then removed the body to the church-yard. By the present bill, the Catholic clergy were permitted to proceed to the churchyard, and there perforin the service, if they pleased. And here he must be permitted to say one word of the most reverend archbishop, alluded to in the petition. Certain reflections were there thrown on that respectable primate which he by no means deserved. At the very lime when he was accused of interfering with the burial of the Catholics, he was at Leamington, for the benefit of his health, and had called on him (lord L.) and had shewn him the letters he had received on the subject. It was his wish, that no more distinctions should be preserved among the different classes of persons in Ireland than could possibly be avoided, and therefore he did not wish, by a legislative enactment, to give them different burial places. Either their lordships must legislate for every circumstance connected with funerals, or they must leave a discretion somewhere; and, after the fullest consideration, it had been thought most advisable to leave this discretion in
177
The Earl of Limerick
said, that the Catholics of Ireland had a strong desire to have burial places in the suppressed convents; and, if the existing law was altered, he had no doubt that arrangements would be made for that purpose with the proprietors.
Lord Holland
, after the explanation of the noble earl, expressed his hearty concurrence with the objects of the bill, which, he was convinced, were entirely conciliatory; but he still thought it was hurried rather too fast through the House.
Lord King
understood, he said, from the noble earl, that the clergyman was bound to accede to the request of the Catholics. He would suggest, therefore, whether it would not be proper to add a clause compelling him to grant it? By this act it was made lawful for the Catholics to be buried in the church-yards; but many things which in Ireland were lawful were not done. Much rancour and ill-will had already sprung from the right claimed by a foolish Protestant clergyman over a church-yard. He would remind the House of what was said by a learned divine, that if the Protestants wished to preserve the churches, they should leave the church-yards to the Catholics.
The Earl of Harrowby
stated, the objects of the bill were not only to relieve Catholics, but to give the whole body of dissenters the right of sepulture, by their own clergymen. As the clause stood relative to the clergyman's refusing the right, as he was bound to state his reasons
178
The bill was then committed.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, April 6.
SALT-TAX.]
Mr. Wodehouse
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
replied that he could not anticipate what would be the decision of the House upon the hon. gentleman's motion, of which he had given notice, for a continuance of this particular tax; but he had no difficulty is saying, that if it should be the wish of parliament to continue the present duty he hoped that some means might be devised for relaxing the restrictions which, arose out of the previous high duty, and which were considered necessary for the' preservation of the revenue. At all events, he should feel extremely anxious to try every possible means of relaxing the severity of the existing regulations; further than that he could not pledge himself.
Mr. Calcraft
rose to express a considerable degree of surprise at the notice which the hon. member for Norfolk had given yesterday. He did not at the time feel it decorous to animadvert upon that notice; but he rejoiced exceedingly at the present, opportunity of delivering his opinion upon the subject. He was astonished at the, attempt now to call upon them to break through a solemn compact, by which it was stipulated, that the present duty should expire on the 5th of January next. The way in which this notice was conducted, looked as if the hon. member had. some bargain to make for the public, which he deemed more useful than that to which the House stood committed, for the abolition of this tax. He was perfectly; astonished at the cool and calm manner in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to meet the hon. member's views. What were the people to depend upon, if
179
s
Mr. Wodehouse
complained, that the hon. member had thrown out a hint, that, in proposing the continuance of this tax, he was acting in accordance with the views of his majesty's ministers. He denied the insinuation, and had distinctly intimated, when he gave his notice, that he was acting with hon. members at both sides of the House in his view of this subject. He respected as much as any man the faith of parliament, but he disliked the use of the word as a mere bugbear. The faith of parliament could only be formed upon a deliberate view of the whole question.
Mr. Bright
conceived, that the oppressions under which the subject laboured from this tax two years ago, ought to have been entirely removed by this time. He wished to know what alterations the chancellor of the Exchequer had made in the excise regulations regarding salt since the duty of 10
s
180
Sir J. Wrottesley
trusted, that government would remit the remaining salt duties. He never knew any measure which had given greater satisfaction to the country, than the remission of that part of them which had been already abandoned.
Mr. W. Smith
said, that though the existing duty of 2
s
l
l
Mr. H. Gurney
spoke in favour of remitting the remaining salt duties.
Lord Milton
felt considerable apprehension respecting the continuance of this tax, because he was convinced that no other tax could be equally injurious to the country. He referred to the great increase which had taken place in the consumption of salt, as a proof of the benefit the country had derived from the remission of the 10
s
Sir M. W. Ridley
was of opinion, that the House, after reducing the duty of 10
s.,
The motion was agreed to.
DEFENCE BY COUNSEL IN CASES OF FELONY.]
Mr. George Lamb presented a petition from certain Jurymen, setting forth,
"That the petitioners, fully sensible of the invaluable privilege of Jury Trials, and desirous of seeing them as complete as human institutions will admit, feel it their duty to draw the attention of the House to the restrictions imposed on the prisoner's counsel, which they humbly conceive have strong claims to a legislative remedy; with every disposition to decide justly, the petitioners, have found by experience, in the course of their attendances as Jurymen, at the Old Bailey; that the opening statement for the prosecution too frequently leaves an impres-
181
After the petition had been read, and ordered to be printed,
Mr. George Lamb
rose to call the attention of the House to the motion of which he had given notice. The bill which he now meant to move for leave to introduce, although not a novelty in that House, yet did not entirely resemble that which had been introduced at different times by the hon. member for Galway. However, it was not on account of any difference of opinion with his hon. friend, that he now stood in his shoes. On the contrary, it was entirely with his concurrence; indeed at his particular request, that he now came forward with the present measure. His hon. friend had so dexterous a method of getting bills through the House, that he had, perhaps, done wrong in taking this bill out of his hands; but, as he had undertaken the office of piloting it through the House, he would shortly explain the points in which it differed from the bill formerly introduced by his hon. friend The principal points of difference were these. His hon. friend confined the allowance of counsel to such prisoners as were indicted for capital crimes: he extended it to all prisoners whatsoever. His hon. friend had in his printed bill inserted a clause, authorising the judge to assign counsel to the prisoner as in cases of treason. He (Mr. L.) made no assignment of counsel
182
183
184
*
185
186
*
*
187
188
189
Mr. North
said, that he always felt the administration of criminal justice in this country to be one of its noblest and proudest boasts; and if there was any particular department in that code which pre-eminently attracted admiration, it was the department to which the hon. and learned gentleman who introduced the subject had referred. Had he to discuss that subject with any enlightened foreigner, he should have felt it necessary to advert to topics which were unnecessary in addressing himself to the hon. and learned gentleman and to that House. He should have dwelt upon that guarded caution to obtain an impartial and indifferent tribunal; he should have proved to him the anxious care which characterised the law, to exclude, by the severest scrutiny, the possible operation, of any undue or pre-con-
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
Sir James Mackintosh
said, he had listened with great pleasure to the hon. and learned gentleman who had just stood in that House the severe test of his previous reputation. If he wished for a general vindication of the administration of criminal justice in this country, he would desire no more able and eloquent vindicator than the hon. and learned gentleman. But that was not the question which had been brought under the consideration of the House by his hon. and learned friend, the member for Dungarvon. No man could more highly praise the general administration of the criminal law than his hon. and learned friend had done. He wished the hon. and learned gentleman had favoured them by stating a little more forcibly the argument with the imaginury foreigner with whom he had held his imaginary dialogue on the English laws. The hon. and learned gentleman's dialogue was not like those masterly dialogues of old, in which each of the speakers maintained his opinions with all the force of which they weresusccptible. It was rather like those dialogues between A. and B. in which B. was evidently introduced for the purpose of giving an easy and inglorious victory to it. If he (sir J. M.) were to put into the mouth of an intelligent foreigner any objections, not to the administration of our criminal laws generally, for in praise of that no one would join more cordially than himself but to this particular branch of that administration, he would make him appeal to the natural principles of equity, he would make him appeal to the codes of all civilized nations, codes comprising the moral feelings and judgment of the human race. He boldly asked the hon. and learned gentleman to point out a single nation, ancient or modern, in which a prisoner brought to trial was refused the privilege of defending himself, either in person or by counsel, as he might seem to think fit? This pri-
199
200
*
*
201
*
202
203
204
205
The Attorney-General
admitted, that this was indeed no light and trivial question, but one of the deepest and gravest importance; but he, nevertheless, could not concur in the opinions delivered by his hon. and learned friends, on the other side. He could not support a proposition which had for its object an alteration of the established practice on trials for felony; because it was his opinion, that that alteration would not be serviceable, but injurious. The observations of his hon. and learned friend, the member for Knares-borough, with respect to the effects of professional habit, had put him on his guard; and he doubted his own opinions, from a fear that they were tinctured with that prejudice. His hon. and learned friend had gone back to the early history of the law, and had shown the defective state in which it once stood; and yet the House would do well to observe, that, great as those defects were, the then state of the law had its supporters against any innovation, the same as it had at this day. It should be recollected that, until the reign of queen Anne, no party accused of felony could call witnesses to be examined for the defence on oath; and, strange as it might appear, the old practice was vindicated in opposition to the new one introduced under the statute, on the grounds of humanity and tenderness to the prisoner. It was said then, that the accused had a great advantage in not being able to examine sworn witnesses, because the witnesses, not being bound by oath, could give their evidence more at large than the witnesses for the prosecution, whose oaths restrained their testimony. But the better opinion prevailed, that as the witnesses for the prosecution deposed
206
207
208
209
Dr. Lushington
said, he was not surprised at the line of argument pursued by the hon. and learned attorney-general, who had commented at large on the excellence of the present system, and had contended, that justice was now administered in a manner so satisfactory, that no change could be an improvement. In this respect, the hon. and learned gentleman had pursued a prudent course, and he had with equal judgment abandoned all arguments founded upon general principles; because he well knew, that all these general principles were against him; when a prisoner was allowed counsel incases of misdemeanor, he had still greater need of his assistance in cases where his life was at hazard. The real and only question was this:—how shall the criminal law be so administered as best to secure justice to all the parties concerned? The question was not, how a criminal on his trial shall most easily escape; but how innocence can be most certain of acquittal, and how guilt can be most sure of conviction. The attorney-general, in the course of his speech, had depreciated the law as it stood in one respect for the sake of shewing that the change suggested would be productive of inconvenience. He had taught the House to believe that, in misdemeanors, much disadvantage arose from the allowance of counsel, and that so far from the interests of justice being promoted by it, its ends were impeded. But was not this statement contrary to all experience? Did not every body know and feel, that the opportunity of defence was of the utmost importance; and did it not always meet with the full approbation of the by-stand-ders? Was it not a constant complaint, on the part of those who witnessed the proceedings of our criminal courts, that the same opportunity was not given in felony? Did not impartial people, in such cases, always exclaim, "We have heard the speech on one side of the question; but who can tell what a counsel in his favour could have made out, if he had been permitted to speak?" Such, too, was not merely the feeling of the ignorant and vulgar, but of the well educated and en-
210
211
212
213
The Solicitor-General
said, it was strange that the question should be now started for the first time; for there was no proposal of this alteration in the report of the committee on Criminal laws, though that report had been got up under the inspection of the hon. and learned member for Knaresborough. If the change were so desirable, it was extremely remarkable that not a syllable was said upon the subject in any report ever made to that House. The legal authorities, too, were all decidedly against the employment of counsel by prisoners in cases of felony. Sir M. Hale, sir M. Foster, and sir W. Blackstone were all in opposition to the course; at least in none of them was there any complaint that counsel were excluded. With regard to counsel for the prosecution, they never made any attempt to excite the passions of the jury, or if they did, it was, of course, reprobated by the presiding judge; so that, in truth, counsel on the other side could reply to nothing. For his own part, he would rather do away with the employment of counsel altogether, even for the prosecution, than consent to the change proposed in the bill, which the hon. member wished to introduce. After the best consideration he had been able to give the subject, he felt convinced, that no good would result from the extension of the practice of allowing counsel to plead for defendants. On the contrary, he believed that much mischief would ensue. He was
214
Mr. Denman
regretted, that he had not been in the House at an earlier period of the debate, and that he had consequently been prevented from hearing the speeches which had been delivered in the course of it. And more particularly was he sorry, that he had not heard the speech of that learned gentleman who had brought so much reputation with him into the House, a reputation the growth of which during that learned gentleman's practice at the Irish bar, he had watched with great pleasure, and upon no occasion had he been more gratified at its increase, than when, about a year ago, he had gained so much honour by his successful exertions in behalf of the liberty of the subject upon a state prosecution. It was somewhat singular that the learned gentleman should have been followed in his argument by his two learned friends (the Attorney and Solicitor General), both of whom were probably indebted for the honours they now enjoyed to the ability they had displayed in defending persons who were the objects of prosecution for high treason. He had thought, that his learned friends would, in their speeches, have furnished convincing arguments in favour of the proposed measure; but he could not regret that they had not done so, since their own examples gave a much more powerful proof of the efficacy and the necessity of the aid of counsel being extended to prisoners, than even their arguments could have afforded. It seemed, however, that, as cases of treason were excepted from the general practice, this was held to be a reason why counsel should not be allowed in other criminal cases. He thought that, besides the weakness of the reasoning, such a system was far from respectful to the judges by whom those other cases were to be tried. It had been said by one of his learned friends, that persons charged with felony should not be allowed to defend themselves by counsel, because this would have the effect of getting rid of that tranquillity and composure with which such
215
216
217
218
Mr. R. Martin
said, that if one case could be quoted of an innocent man having been condemned, wanting a counsel,
219
220
The House then divided on the question for leave to bring in the bill, when there appeared: Ayes 50; Noes 80; Majority 30.
List of the Minority
Allen, J. H.
Maberly, W. L.
Althorp, vis.
Macdonald, J.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Mackintosh, sir J.
Bernal, R.
Martin, J.
Birch, J.
Martin, H.
Buxton, T. F.
Monck, J. B.
Calcraft, J.
Mildmay, P. St. John
Calvert, C.
Normanby, visc.
Cradock, S.
Palmer, C. F.
Davies, T. H.
Parnell, sir H.
Denman, T.
Powlett, hon. W.
Downie, R.
Portman, E. B.
Dundas, hon. T.
Pryse, P.
Evans, W.
Rice, T. S.
Fleming, J. S.
Ridley, sir M. W.
Forbes, sir C.
Robinson, sir G.
Grenfell, P.
Rumbold, C. E.
Haldimand, W.
Sefton, earl of
Hobhouse, J. C.
Wharton, J.
Honywood, W. P.
Whitbread, S. C.
Hume, J.
Wilson, sir R.
James, W.
Wilson T.
Jervoise, G. P.
Wood, M.
Kennedy, T. F.
Leader, W.
Tellers.
Lennard, T. B.
Lamb, hon. G.
Maberly, J.
Lushington, S.
REDEMPTION AND PURCHASE OF THE LAND-TAX.]
Mr. Maberly
rose, to make his promised motion. The hon. gentleman said, that he would briefly state how the law in respect of the land-tax stood at present. In the 4th of William 3rd an act passed, by which the land was charged with 4
s
221
l
l
s
l
s
l
s
l
l
l
l
l
l
l.,
222
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
223
l
224
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that when the hon. member had before brought forward his opinions on this subject, not in the shape of a motion for a committee, but in the form of substantive resolutions, he had deemed it necessary to oppose those resolutions, as they appeared to him to be founded in no sound reason. On reconsidering the subject, he saw no cause to alter his opinion; and, he thought, if he consented to the committee, it would only end in disappointment; as it appeared to him impossible that the sanguine views of the hon. member, to which he seemed so closely attached, though he had met with no encouragement from the House, would be, in any degree, realized. As to the original measure for the redemption of the land-tax, as proposed by Mr. Pitt, if it had been brought forward in any other shape, or with any other view than the one with which it was proposed at the time, he should have felt it to be very objectionable, to make perpetual a tax which had never been considered as other than transitory. Neither was there any other advantage in the measure than the specific operation at the time in raising the funds which were as low as 47, and thus enabling the minister to borrow money on better terms. The measure, in point of fact, though called a redemption of the land-tax, was no such thing. The land-tax was not swept away; for though the tax might not be paid to the state, it was paid to an individual. For instance, if a man who was tenant for life of an estate, purchased the land-tax from the public, though during his life the tax might be said to be extinguished; yet, after his death it remained a burthen upon the state, payable by the remainderman to the purchaser's representatives. He did not know what inducement the hon. member proposed to hold out to accelerate the progress of the redemption, but he was so far not indisposed to meet his views, as not to be prepared absolutely
225
Mr. Monck
said, he should support the motion for a committee, not for the purpose of amending the acts for the redemption of the land-tax, but to put an end to them altogether. The plan was worse than illusory; it was mischievous. As sir W. Pulteney had said, it went to plant a perpetual irredeemable annuity, at five per cent, on the country. If they supposed the whole two millions of the land-tax had been redeemed, 66 millions would have been extinguished, and the effect would have been, that a redeemable annuity of two millions would have been extinguished, and a perpetual irredeem-able annuity of the same amount created. If, in the progress of time, the 3 per cents were reduced to 2 per cents, all the difference between the full and the reduced annuity on the amount of the tax redeemed would be lost to the public. It would be, therefore, most impolitic to sell the land-tax to buy up the unfunded debt; because the interest on this debt might be reduced, but the land-tax when sold would be irredeemable and irreducible. The whole system was at once illusory and mischievous, being the mere nominal transfer of a debtor and creditor account, which left the parties it affected to relieve in the same condition they were in before.
Mr. Hume
thought his hon. friend did not do justice to the plan for the redemption of the land-tax; for if there was an irredeemable annuity of 5
l
l.,
l
l
226
l
*
Mr. Maberly
replied. He said, he had abstained from going at any length into the details of this subject, because he had expected that the committee would not have been refused. However, since the right hon. gentleman would not go the length he had expected, he would be contented to take his proposition respecting the introduction of a bill; but he did hope, that if legal difficulties should occur in its formation, the right hon. gentleman would allow that legal assistance and advice which he had in his power. He would bring in the bill; but, in a matter of such weight and importance, he did hope for the indulgence of the House, Under the circumstance of his accepting the right hon. gentleman's offer, he would not, of course, press his motion further.
The motion was then withdrawn.
POOR IN SCOTLAND RELIEF BILL.]
Mr. Kennedy
was about to move for leave, pursuant to the notice, to bring in a bill "to regulate the Relief granted to the Poor in Scotland," when
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
expressed a hope that the hon. member would have the goodness to postpone it to some other day, as he had a measure which was of considerable importance to introduce; he meant the statement respecting the new duties on beer, which had been put off from day to day for some time.
Mr. Kennedy
said, he had every disposition to give way to the right hon. gentleman, but he hoped that, as he expected no opposition to his measure, the House would give him leave to introduce it at present, and at a future stage he would go into an explanation of its merits: the hon. member then made his- motion, and it was put from the chair, when
The Lord Advocate
said, he was placed in an awkward situation. The bill, he understood, went to alter the whole state
227
Mr. Kennedy
said, that if he had expected the hostility of the learned lord to the measure, he would have stated his views with respect to it; but the learned lord must have observed, that the course which he had pursued, was an amicable one, and with a disposition to accommodate the House. He could not, therefore, account for the tone of the learned lord and the tone of his remark.
The Lord Advocate
said, that his remarks were not intended in an offensive sense to the hon. gentleman, but he could not but express his surprise and regret that such an important measure should be thus introduced.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
BEER DUTIES.]
The House having resolved itself into a committee on the Beer Duties acts,
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that at that late hour he should feel it his duty to put his observations into as short a compass as possible; but still he feared that he should have to trespass on the attention of the committee longer than he could wish at such an hour. The subject of the beer duties was one which had been postponed for some time, and it was important to the country that the knowledge of the intentions of government with respect to them should not be longer delayed. The propositions which he should that night submit would relate; first to the duty on beer; next to the individuals who manufactured it; and thirdly, to those by whom it was sold. When, in an early part of this session, an hon. member (Mr. Maberly) had proposed, that the duties on beer should be transferred to the malt, he had felt an objection to the measure, because he thought at the time, and his opinion had not yet been altered upon the point, that such a plan would be only transferring the burthen from one class of persona to another, which he could not think advisable. But, at the same time, he was not insensible to the objections to the
228
s
s.;
s
s
s
s
s
s
s
229
s
s
s.,
s
s
s
s
s
230
231
l
s
l
l
l
s
l
l
s.;
232
l
l.,
l
l
l
l.,
l.,
l
s.,
l
s
l
l
l.,
l
l.,
l
l.,
l
l.,
l
l
s,
l
l
l
l
233
Mr. Bernal
wished to be informed, whether the resolutions, when printed, were to be discussed before or after the recess. They appear very complicated, and required serious consideration.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
thought the best course would be, that the resolutions should be reported, that he should have liberty to bring in the bill, and, after the bill should be printed, the discussion might be taken on the whole question.
Mr. Buxton
wished to know whether the right hon. gentleman proposed to lay the duty on the quantity of malt employed, or on the barrels of beer?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, the duty would be imposed on the barrels of beer. He assumed that a certain quantity of malt was employed in a given number of barrels.
Mr. Maberly
protested against this most unfair and unprincipled measure. The effect of the proposition was in fact to lay an additional duty on malt, upon this most vicious principle, that the poor man was compelled to pay it, while the rich man was left untouched. The measure afforded no relief whatever. It merely removed the duties from one description of beverage to another. The only part of the measure of which he approved was the reduction of the duties affecting licensed victuallers.
Mr. Hume
thought the proposed plan would but increase trouble and inconvenience, without being productive of any real good. Why not put the duty on the malt, and let the brewer make the beer as strong as he pleased, as was the case in Ireland?
Mr. F. Palmer
thought, that although the measure was not in every respect what he could have wished, yet it was still a very great improvement on the existing system. The hon. member for Aberdeen was not accurate in stating that the poor man was to pay 24
s
234
Mr. Wodehouse
wished to know if the saccharometer was to be used in estimating the duty?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, the saccharometer was to be used only as a means for detecting frauds; but the estimation of the duty would be, by compelling the brewer, in addition to the notice which he was at present obliged by law to give, to add at what rate he intended to brew the beer. When the measure came in the form of a bill, it would be seen, that a great many restrictions which at present existed would be removed.
Mr. Spring Rice
wished to know whether the right hon. gentleman meant to propose any thing respecting Excise licences in Ireland.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, the subject had not escaped his attention; but it was by no means an easy matter to deal with the licences in Ireland, the lawand regulations respecting them being so extremely unintelligible. But he hoped that, if not in the present session, he should soon be able to make some improvement in the system. At present they varied according to the towns; and he understood that in towns which sent members to parliament, they paid higher duties [a laugh]. He could not tell why, but so it was; and it was a proof of the existence of very absurd regulations.
Mr. Monck
thought the measure would operate a great improvement in the state of the beer trade. In the neighbourhood where he resided, it would, he was convinced, be received with very great satisfaction.
Alderman Wood
wished to know how the right hon. gentleman proposed, with such an extensive scale of duties, to protect the consumer from paying the higher instead of the lower duty.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he did not profess to attempt that. It could not, indeed, be done without such a number of inconvenient regulations, as would prevent persons from following the trade. The consumer must, under his proposed regulation, take his chance, as he did at present, for being supplied with a proper quality of beer. It would be competent for the brewer to supply him with a great many qualities, varying
235
Mr. Gordon
wished to know what would be the difficulty in levying the duty on the malt instead of on the beer, as he understood to be the case in Ireland? He supposed it was not to be conceived, that the brewers in London brewed from any other materials than malt and hops; and yet, from the right hon. gentleman's laying the duty on beer, it would seem as if he intended to catch those persons who brewed from some other article.
Mr. Calvert
said, if the hon. gentleman bad any doubt as to the articles of which London porter was composed, he would refer him to the evidence of Mr. Carr, given before a committee of that House, which would, he thought, afford him complete satisfaction.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he did not understand the hon. member to have intended to make a charge against any body, and certainly he himself had no such intention; but he did know officially, that such frauds had been practised, and that convictions by juries had followed. If the course of proceeding recommended by the hon. member for Abingdon were agreed to, he feared that the facilities for such frauds would be greatly increased; and one of his reasons, certainly, for adopting this duty was to render that mode of fraud more difficult. Without referring to any individual cases, it was clear that, in every exciseable article, frauds were committed, and, therefore, in framing the regulations, it was desirable to endeavour to prevent them.
Mr. Calvert
said, he did not imagine that his hon. friend had intended to make any charge; but he had spoken so enigmatically, that it might give rise to misconstructions.
Mr. Hume
said, that he did not see how, if the duty were on malt, this species of fraud could be more easily practised. He was far from believing it was done by any respectable brewers; but if it were practised, good beer could not be brewed; and then, according to the right hon. gentleman's own principles, the brewer would get no customers;
Mr. Huskisson
said, the hon. member appeared to forget, that the greater part
236
Mr. Buxton
said, as his hon. friend had risen to defend the brewers from an indirect charge, he must now rise to repel a direct one. It was not correct to state, that the greater part of the public-houses were in the hands of the brewers. The firm he was connected with supplied 700 houses, of which only 57 were in their own hands.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he thought that he had sufficiently guarded against any supposed imputation, by stating that the regulations were framed on general principles.
Mr. Huskisson
disclaimed the idea of making a charge against the brewers, but he would put it to any gentleman, whether the number of free public-houses in the country was not extremely small.
The resolutions were then agreed to.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, April 8.
STATE OF IRELAND.]
The order of the day being read,
The Earl of Darnley
rose, and spoke as follows:
237
238
original sin
239
mere Irishman
merus Hibernicus
240
241
242
243
*
*
244
"Ne, pueri, ne tanta animis assuescite bella;
Neu patriœ validas in viscera vertite vires:
Tuque prior, to parce, genus qui ducis Olympo;
Projice tela manu, sanguis meus:"
245
246
247
248
l
l
l
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that under any other circumstances he would have refrained from giving his opinion on this important question until he had heard those of noble lords who, from their local acquaintance with Ireland, possessed much more information on the subject; but he was afraid that, in his present state of health, he should be exhausted before that hour could arrive. He therefore rose at that early period of the debate. He would set out by saying, that if he thought that any practical good was likely to raise to Ireland, or to the empire at large, from the appointment of the committee for which the noble lord had moved, he would not oppose it; but he felt firmly persuaded, that not only could no benefit arise, but that much inconvenience would ensue from agreeing to the motion. He would therefore oppose the motion, because, however much—and he had no doubt the noble earl felt satisfied that much good would result from his proposition—might be an-
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
Lansdown
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
The Earl of Limerick
agreed with much that had fallen from noble lords on both sides of the House; but he felt it his duty to declare his concurrence in the opinion which had fallen from the noble earl at the head of his majesty's government, that no benefit could result from the appointment of the committee. With respect to poor-rates, they would be very agreeable to the Irish peasants; for they would never work if they could obtain support without it. The establishment of a system of poor-rates in Ireland would only create six millions of beggars.
The Marquis of Downshire
strongly pressed upon their lordships the necessity of an inquiry into the state of Ireland. One of the great faults in Ireland was the absence of a middle class, and the too great distance between the proprietor and the tenant of the land. This intermediate disadvantage the progress of education was calculated to remove. Religious distinctions had also had their powerful weight. From the Catholic population education had been long withheld by the system of the government. The unfortunate operation of such a system was not calculated to last: its only effect was, to create ill blood and consequent tumult. He hoped that an ameliorated plan of government would speedily remove evils which all good men concurred in deploring. He pointed out the remarkable fact, that in the north of Ireland the police and coercive acts were not brought into action, although they were in the south. In the latter, more attention ought to be paid to the component parts of the public establishment, and also to the situation of the people over whom these bills were called into action. In conclusion, he should express a hope that the increased interest taken in the affairs of Ireland would cause to be transferred thither a portion of that capital which was to be found in such abund-
277
Lord Carbery
said, that, living in a country unhappily subject to the Insurrection act, he could assert, in opposition to what had been said by the noble marquis, that the Insurrection act was felt to be the greatest benefit to the country by all the gentry and residents. Education was making rapid strides in Ireland, and though a few Protestants were zealous in making proselytes, the Protestant gentry in general were careful to avoid any attempt of the kind; and even in many places where there were Protestant children, Catholic school-masters were appointed. The Bible certainly was a sine quânon, and he hoped he should never see the time when a British parliament should exclude it from their schools. Let them look at Scotland, where the people had learned to read the Scriptures. A great part of the difficulties of Ireland arose from the excess of population beyond the means of employment. This evil was not to be remedied by one or two legislative measures; and as he saw no benefit likely to be derived from the committee, he should not support the motion.
The Earl of Roden
said, it was an imperative duty on the Irish gentry to reside in their country, and by their presence and example to rescue the people from degradation and ignorance. When a mo-lion respecting Ireland was brought forward in a calm and dispassionate manner, as it bad been that night by his noble friend, it would do much good by affording noble lords connected with Ireland an opportunity of stating their opinion of the causes of the evils under which it laboured. He could not concur, however, in the sentiments of the noble lord, that the delaying of Catholic emancipation was one of those causes. If emancipation were granted tomorrow it would not remove the evils; it could not, he was sure, root out the ignorance of the people. The ignorance that was to be deplored was not the ignorance of what passed in their lordships' or the other House of parliament; nor ignorance of the inflammatory speeches of the Catholic delegates in Dublin. It was ignorance of the sacred truths of God's word, which enjoined obedience to the law of the land—an ignorance which left them the tools of party—the easy dupes of the designs of demagogues, fomenting the pre-
278
279
The Marquis of Lansdown
explained, that he had never impugned the verdict of the jury at Cavan. He only stated that a murder had been committed, and no punishment ensued. With respect to the Catholic clergy, he had stated, that they were, as far as his experience went, friendly to education, where they were confident there was no view of converting their flock.
Lord Clifden
thought the system of proselytism which the noble lord had recommended, was contrary to the great principle of the Christian religion, to do to others as you would that others should do unto you. The Catholic priests were afraid of the attempts at conversion; and well they might be. The essence of the penal code was forced conversion. It was not a principle of the Catholic religion to allow their flock to read the Scriptures; and he did not see that it was justifiable to force them, under such circumstances, into their hands. He was happy to see that Mr. Peel, Mr. Goulburn, and other members of the government had stated that the object was, to instruct, and declare, that all plans inconsistent with this object should be discountenanced. In opposition to the noble earl who had last spoken, he thought the pacification of Ireland could never be hoped for, until Catholics and Protestants were placed upon a footing of perfect equality, and until they ceased to treat six millions of people as idolators not to be believed on their oaths.
The Earl of Carnarvon
said, that every speech they had heard had shewn the necessity there was for the committee. Who would say, judging from those speeches, what were the evils of Ireland, or what remedy could be applied to them. Every one agreed that evils existed. They were told by one noble lord, that the cause of those evils was, that the farms were small, and not laid out according to the plan of
280
281
The House divided: For the motion, 17; against it 57: Majority 40.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, April 8.
MANCHESTER GAS-LIGHT BILL COMMITTEE.]
Mr. Curteis
282
Lord Stanley
said, that, as chairman of the committee, he should be the last person to object to the production of the minutes of evidence taken before it. He could not help thinking, however, that if the hon. member had done them the favour to attend the committee, he would have seen ample reason for not bringing forward his present motion. He objected to the motion on no other ground, than that it would be extremely inconvenient, if the time of the House were to be taken up in considering matters which had passed before a committee, unless it could be shewn that some substantial public benefit was likely to result from it.
Mr. B. Wilbraham
admitted, that it would be proper to discourage the practice of improperly annexing signatures to petitions. At the same time, it was hardly possible to prevent it altogether in large and populous districts, and petitions were not generally, on that account, to be considered as at variance with the sentiments of the great majority of those whose signatures were annexed to them.
Mr. Grenfell
thought it would have been more proper in the hon. mover, if he had abstained from characterising the St. Catherine's Dock bill as a job, until that measure was brought regularly under discussion. The hon. member seemed to take a most extraordinary distinction between northern and southern petitioners, as if every petition that came from the north must be a job, while every southern petition was necessarily fair and orthodox;
Mr. H. Sumner
thought the subject deserved the serious attention of the House. He hoped that the persons who were charged with these practices would be brought to the bar, and if proved to be guilty, committed to Newgate.
Mr. W. Peel
thought it extremely questionable whether the evidence taken before the committee ought to be laid before the House. If it were, he was satisfied the consequence would be, that not one but four or five individuals would be sent to Newgate. The committee had adjourned their proceedings in mercy to those individuals, and hot with any view of saving themselves trouble.
Mr. Philips
thought it quite unworthy of the House, that their time should be occupied in examining evidence, to ascertain whether an Irish weaver had annexed a number of signatures to a petition, the
283
The motion was negatived.
USURY LAWS REPEAL BILL.]
The order of the day, for going into a committee on this bill, was moved by Mr. Serjeant Onslow. On the question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair,"
Mr. B. Cooper
said, he had examined with the greatest attention, all the arguments which had been advanced in favour of the repeal of these laws, and his opinion of the impolicy of such a course still remained unaltered. The only arguments he had heard in support of the proposition, were these; first, that as the laws were not now generally enforced, there was no necessity for their continuance: secondly, that other countries were not subject to these laws as we were; and thirdly, that the present rate of interest, of from 2½ to 5 per cent was sufficient to satisfy any money lender. Now, with respect to the first of these arguments, he must be permitted to say, that the mere infraction of a law was no argument for its abandonment: and, besides, it was the duty of the government of the country to see that the laws were not violated. With respect to the second argument, namely, that other countries did very well without these laws, he was inclined to think that this would not be found to be the case; for they did, to a certain extent, exist in all countries, and had done so from the earliest times. It was true that they were abandoned in France during the French revolution, but they were again revived under the Code Napoleon. Holland had been cited, on a former occasion, as an example; in which country it was stated, that the rate of interest varied from two and a half to thirteen per cent. He could only say, if that were the case, he was at a loss to know who would like to live in such a country with such a state of things? It had been contended, that these laws were introduced under the Jewish dispensation, at a time when very erroneous notions prevailed on this subject; but it was well known that they were in practice amongst the Greeks and Romans. A strong impression existed amongst the Romans as to the necessity of some laws on this subject. Different opinions had at all times existed in this country on political matters. Conflicting notions had been
284
Mr. Davenport
seconded the amendment, and maintained, that the repeal of these laws had been considered injurious in all ages. He thought the report which had been drawn up on this subject was a mere skeleton, compared with the magnitude of the question. The question lay in a small compass, and it might be brought before the House in a very few words. It was simply this—"Are we, or are we not, to give up the money-market to adventurers and speculators?" The situation of one class of men—the British merchants, who were the pride and stay of this country, and the admiration of Europe—would be altogether altered by this measure: for instead of embarking their capital in merchandize, they would turn to the more profitable pursuit of money speculations. In his opinion, the repeal of these laws would be productive of the greatest discord amongst families, and would break asunder the bonds of social intercourse. He therefore implored his majesty's ministers not to give their assent to a measure which was fraught with such injurious consequences.
Mr. Leslie Foster
said, it was one question as to the policy of having originally adopted a system of Usury laws, and quite another, now that they had been so long in use, whether they should be repealed. For nearly three centuries, the country had gone on under the present system: it has been raised to the most exalted state of prosperity; a greater mass of capital had been accumulated than ever before was possessed by any other state, and a far greater quantity of relations had arisen in the nature of debtor and creditor, than were to be met with in any other country. The question which chiefly pressed on him
285
286
287
Mr. Robertson
thought, if this measure were carried into effect, it would have a fatal influence on the prosperity of the country; but he principally wished to call the attention of the House to the superficial views in which it had originated. He had heard adduced, in support of the proposition, the production of Jeremy Bentham, in reply to Adam Smith; and he had heard, with astonishment, that work described as one of the ablest works that had proceeded from the head of man. He wished to direct the attention of the House to the evidence adduced before the committee, with a view to shew the kind of authority upon which the measure had been recommended. The first witness to whom he wished to refer was the late Mr. Ricardo. He was asked "Has your attention been called to the laws which restrain the rate of interest?" He answered "Yes." "Have you that experience, to say, or have you perceived whether those laws are beneficial or otherwise?—I think otherwise. In what respect do you think otherwise?—It appears to me from the experience I have had on the stock exchange." In fact all the experience which Mr. Ricardo had at that time was got on the stock exchange for he was not at that time a member of that House. But he went on; "It appears to me that, upon all occasions, those laws are evaded, and they are disadvantageous to those only who conscientiously adhere to them." But, he would ask, did government borrow to make a profit? Certainly not. Did the landed proprietors borrow with a view to profit? Certainly not. The whole of the error, as it appeared to him, consisted in this; namely, in supposing that money should be placed precisely on the same footing as all other commodities. This was a very great error. Money could not be bought and sold. You may lend
288
289
290
Sir Henry Parnell
said, he did not believe the House would refuse to concur with him in opinion, that the hon. member who had just sat down, had expressed most extraordinary doctrines, not only in respect to the usury laws, but to the whole science of political economy. He had been, at first, at a loss to account for the sentiments of the hon. member, and for the confidence with which he informed the House, that Mr. Ricardo knew nothing of political economy, and that Mr. Bentham was equally ignorant of the subject of the interest of money: but the difficulty he felt had been completely removed, so soon as the hon. member made it known to the House that he had studied the principles of political economy in the preambles of statutes of Henry the eighth and Elizabeth. When the hon. member referred to such authorities, it was no longer a matter of astonishment to him that he disputed the opinions of Mr. Ricardo and Mr. Bentham, and opposed the bill now before the House. The hon. member had not only told us, where to look for principles to govern our judgment, but had also favoured us with his advice, as to the best way of obtaining a knowledge of the facts that bore upon the question. He had passed over all the civilized and industrious countries that were similar to our own, and desired us to look at once to central India. He had said, there were no usury laws there, and that extortions and frauds were the consequence. But the hon. member had wholly overlooked the dissimilarity between central India and Great Britain in respect to civilization, opulence, and morals; and he had himself told us that central India was the worst-governed country in the world, whilst he paid the highest encomiums upon the government of this country.
291
292
293
Mr. Curwen
said, he was not disposed to interfere with the existing laws. No desire had been expressed on the part of the public for their repeal, and where it was possible that such important interests would be hazarded, he preferred the safer course of abiding by experience; he was also afraid that the proposed alteration would give rise to an immense deal of money-jobbing.
Mr. Sykes
said:—I rise, Sir, to take this opportunity of expressing my opinion on a subject confessedly of the greatest importance, and on which the most surprising misconception still prevails; as well as to answer some of the extraordinary sentiments of the hon. member for Grampound (Mr. Robertson). I cannot, indeed, pretend to follow that hon. member through the wide field of argument which he has taken, both on this and on a former night, to defend the usury laws; he has sought for examples and doctrines both in the polished and barbarous states of antiquity. The laws of Greece and Home have been ransacked for his purpose; and we are gravely told, that we ought to limit the rate of interest of
294
295
296
297
298
Mr. Lockhart
declared, that he had no intention of attacking the money-holders; for, independent of the respect which he personally entertained for many of them,
299
Mr. Philips
remarked upon the prepos-
300
maximum
minimum
l
Mr. Attwood
said, that he agreed with the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Sykes), who had observed, that this question ought to be decided on the ground of its justice rather than of its policy; a view of the subject, which had rather strangely been lost sight of in the course of the debate. But, first, as regarded the question of policy, and the influence of the present law on particular interests, he dis-
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
l
l
l
l
310
l
l
311
312
Mr. John Smith
said, that he had never heard the arguments on the side of the repeal of the usury laws so well put as they had just been by his hon. friend the member for Callington. He must, however, allow, that he had reason to believe that the proposed repeal of those laws was not viewed with a favourable eye by a great many persons concerned in money transactions. He nevertheless was firmly convinced, that the existing laws were injurious to the landed interest. They might as well endeavour to prevent water from rising to its level, as money from obtaining its real value. The law being unjust was necessarily evaded. He would not travel with the hon. member for Gram-pound into central India; but this he would say, that, practically speaking, there were no usury laws in the commercial state of Europe. In Holland there was nothing like the slavery which the hon. member dreaded of the debtor under the creditor. There was no country in which there was so much industry, frugality, and good conduct in the bulk of the population and so little misery, vice, and poverty; and yet there were no usury laws. He was afraid, however, that, by going further, he might weaken the effect of the excellent speech of his hon. friend the member
313
Mr. Alderman Heygate
said, that the proposed measure was fraught with difficulties, and thus much had even been admitted by the honourable members who were most favourable to it. Even such of them as had concluded that it ought to be adopted, had not denied these difficulties. For his own part, he felt convinced they were so great and so numerous, that they could not be got over. It was necessary, in contemplating this bill, to look at the state of the national debt, and the manner in which it had been contracted—at the existing mortgages on land—at family entails, and other settlements of property. Without taking such a view of the subject, it would be impossible to treat it wisely and justly; and it would be shortsighted in the extreme, to discuss it upon mere abstract grounds. He knew that in these times, when many gentlemen thought, and thought conscientiously, that they had made certain discoveries which had never before been dreamed of, it was an arduous undertaking to advocate the provisions of any ancient law. When those discoveries were backed, too, as in the present instance they were, by the influence of his majesty's ministers, the task became still more arduous. The arguments he had to offer in support of the law as it stood, would, perhaps, have little weight. Still he felt it necessary to express his conviction, that at the present moment it would be inexpedient to alter the existing regulations. No man could enjoy the land of which he was the owner without obeying such requisitions as the state chose to impose upon him. He was compelled to contribute to the support of the poor, to the maintenance of highways, and was called upon for other contributions. Why, then, had not the state a right to say to the owner of money, "you shall receive no more than a certain rate of interest, to be fixed by the authority of the legislature?" As to the question of policy which had been urged by an hon. member, he had to observe, that it had been held in all states to be better that the rate of interest should be low than high, and that it should be fixed. He had no doubt that, but for the usury laws, the
314
Mr. T. Wilson
declared, that nothing which had been advanced in the course of the discussion on the present bill had, in the slightest degree, altered the opinions which he had formerly expressed against the repeal of the law. He should, therefore, certainly vote for the amendment.
Mr. John Martin
suggested, that the objections of the hon. alderman to the penalties might be better urged in a committee than in the shape he proposed. He therefore thought the hon. alderman was pledged to vote for the committee, in which, too, the objections of other hon. members might be obviated.
Sir J. Wrottesley
deprecated the repeal of the existing laws, on the ground that such a measure would henceforth prevent the setting aside of many injurious contracts.
Mr. Serjeant Onslow
explained, and denied that any of the arguments which had been used in support of the bill had been refuted by the observations of those who were opposed to it.
Mr. Calcraft
felt called upon to deny the latter assertion. He admitted, that, in a theoretical point of view, he was not prepared to combat the bill of the learned Serjeant; but, if it were said, that the very material objection which had been brought against it on behalf of the owners of landed property had been refuted, he would maintain the contrary. The most able speech of the hon. member for Callington (Mr. Attwood), to the talent and ingenuity of which he was not insensible, applied to the commercial interests of the country. If the existing laws did affect
315
The House divided: For going into the committee 74. For the Amendment 58.
A list of the Majority of 74 who voted for the Speaker leaving the Chair
Allen, J. H.
Herries, J. C.
Alexander, J. D.
Horton, R. W.
Alexander, J.
Hodson, J.
Althorp, visc.
Hume, J.
Attwood, M.
Huskisson, right hon. W.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Benyon, B.
Ingilby, sir W.
Birch, J.
James, W.
Blair, J.
Kennedy, T. F.
Brown, J.
Kerrison, sir R.
Calvert, J.
Lambton, J. G.
Clerk, sir G.
Leader, W.
Colborne, N. W. R.
Lewis, W.
Coote, sir C. H.
Long, sir C.
Dalrymple, col.
Lushington, S.
Denison, J.
Maberly, J.
Douglas, W. K.
Maberly, W. L.
Ebrington, visc.
Macdonald, J.
Ellice, E.
Martin, J.
Ellis, C. R.
Mitchell, J.
Ellis, T.
Monck, J. B.
Ellis, hon. A.
Normanby, visc.
Ellison, C.
North, M.
Evans, W.
Ommanney, sir F.
Fleming, J. S.
Parnell, sir H.
Forbes, sir C.
Peel, right hon. R.
Gladstone, J.
Fhilips, G.
Haldimand, W.
Phillimore, J.
Hardinge, sir H.
Plummer, J.
316
Porcher, H.
Vernon, G.
Rice, T. S.
Vivian, sir U.
Robinson, right hon. F.
Walker, J.
Russell, lord W.
Whitbread, S. C.
Sebright, sir J.
Whitmore, W.
Smith, W.
Wood, M.
Smith, J.
Wynn, rt. hon. W. W.
Smith, R.
TELLERS.
Tierney, right hon. G.
Onslow, Mr. Serjeant.
Tindall, Mr.
Sykes, D.
The House having accordingly resolved itself into a committee on the bill,
Mr. Serjeant Onslow
said, that there was but one blank in the bill, and that related to the period at which its operation was to commence. That blank he proposed to fill up with the words,"1st of January, 1825."
Mr. Calcraft
observed, that the hon. and learned gentleman was very indulgent. The hon. and learned gentleman was willing to allow nine months to elapse, before he overset all the money transactions in the country, and placed them on another footing. Surely those who were the most wedded to this change in the law, would nevertheless wish for an extension of the proposed period. He appealed to the right hon. the chancellor of the Exchequer, who had allowed two years and a half before the commencement of the experiment on the silk trade, whether it was fitting that a question of the greatest importance, affecting all the money transactions of the country, should be hurried on at an earlier period than a question affecting only one branch of our trade? He trusted the House would not press the measure on the country before the people were aware of it. He said this from a firm persuasion, that the only reason it had not met with a stronger opposition was, that it was not sufficiently known. Fortunately, if the bill should pass that House, it would stand a good chance of being lost somewhere else.
Mr. Robertson
re-urged his objections to the principle of the bill.
Mr. Lockhart
implored the House to consider that, by repealing all the laws relating to the interest of money, they were taking away from the poor the protection which the law afforded them against the extortion of pawnbrokers. At present, that class of money-lenders were restricted from taking above a certain rate of interest: now, if all the usury laws were repealed, they might extort what interest they pleased. Did the learned serjeant contemplate this result from his measure?
317
Mr. Serjeant Onslow
observed, that no bill had ever been more delayed than the one then before the committee. As for the operation of the measure, it would but affect the Usury Jaws, not the acts respecting pawnbrokers.
Mr. Wkitmore
contended, that the bill would have no effect at all at the present moment.
Mr. Alderman Heygate
insisted that the landed interest of the country would be ruined by the bill.
Mr. Leslie Foster
said, that before they were called upon to pass a measure which would subject the landed interest to great injury, they ought to be told on the other hand, how it was proposed to get that interest out of the difficulty.
Mr. Hume
said, he would refer the hon. and learned gentleman to what had taken place during war time for an answer to his question. At that time the landed gentlemen borrowed money at 10 per cent, which, but for the existing laws, they could have borrowed at 8 per cent. Supposing a war to break out, government would be obliged to borrow at an increased interest as they had done before, and the landed interest must be satisfied to share the same fate. It was not fair that the monied proprietor should have a limit fixed to his per centage, and that the landed proprietor should let his land at as high a price as he could, without any limit being assigned. The fair course of proceeding was, to remove restrictions from all, and to let money be as free as any other article.
Mr. Calcraft
maintained, that the effect of the repeal would be, to excite competition between persons who borrowed money on mortgage and the government itself.
Mr. L. Foster
said, it now seemed to be agreed upon all hands, that the landholder would have more to pay for money, under the operation of the present bill, than heretofore. That was an evil for which it did not appear that any remedy could be devised.
Mr. Davenport
was of opinion, that the bill would prove the ruin of the landed interest, and hoped, as it was patronized by ministers, that, they would repeal the stamp duties on mortgages, which, as soon as the bill was passed into a law, would be shuffled about, like cards, from one hand to another.
Sir J. Wrottesley
observed, that if the
318
Mr. H. Sumner
begged to put a question to the Speaker. He wished to know whether it was consistent with the rules of the House for the chairman of a committee of the whole House, after he had received instructions to report progress and ask leave to sit again, to remain in the chair and put the committee to the necessity of expressing its opinion a second time, as to the propriety of the House resuming before he left the chair.
The Speaker
replied, that the instruction of a committee to its chairman to report progress and ask leave to sit again, was merely a declaration of its resolution to proceed no further at that time with the business which it then had under discussion. The chairman was therefore bound to remain in the chair until the question was put and carried "That I do now leave the chair." The first question, namely, "that the chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again," might be put in order to bring an unpleasant discussion to a close; and in the interval between the carrying of that question and the putting the second question, "that I do now leave the chair," he might he instructed to
319
Mr. H. Sumner
confessed that his opinion had been the other way; but he bowed willingly to the authority of the chair.
On the question, that the House do again resolve itself into a committee on this bill on Tuesday next.
Mr. Littleton
said, he would give the House another opportunity of expressing its opinion on this impolitic bill. He would move as an amendment, that the words "Tuesday next" be struck out of the motion, and that the words "this day six months" be inserted in their stead.
The House then divided upon this amendment, when there appeared. For it, 67. Against it, 63. Majority, 4. The bill was consequently lost.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, April 9.
LAW OF LIBEL—CASE OF MR. BUTT.]
Mr. Hobhouse
presented a petition from certain inhabitants of Westminster complaining of the power of committal for libel before trial, which had been exercised by a magistrate in the case of Mr. Gathorne Butt. The hon. member said, that the power of committing before trial in cases of libel was first given to magistrates by a bill which was introduced in 1808, as an amendment to the revenue laws. By that bill, authority was given to magistrates to commit individuals to prison who were accused of libel by the attorney-general, unless they could obtain bail. That bill passed through the House in four days without observation; doubtless because nobody supposed that a measure which professed to relate only to the amendment of the revenue laws could contain such an important provision respecting cases of libel. The bill went up to the Lords. It happened there that a very acute man, and one who had the good of his fellow-subjects sincerely at heart—he meant the late lord Stanhope—looked into the bill, and finding in it the clause conferring the powers to which he had adverted he drew the attention of the House of Peers to the subject. The bill was defen-
320
321
Ordered to lie on the table.
EDUCATION OF THE POOR IN IRELAND.]
The resolutions of the committee of Supply were reported. On the resolution, "That 22,000
l
Mr. Hume
said, that when this resolution was brought forward a few evenings since, it was discussed at so late an hour, that he had not an opportunity of noticing certain speeches which were delivered on that occasion. He now rose to enter his protest against the system which was pursued in the Kildare-street establishment—that establishment which had been so highly praised by a learned gentleman opposite (Mr. North). If the poor of Ireland, who were entirely Roman Catholics, were to be educated, he contended, that the public money devoted to that object ought not to be placed in the hands of the Kildare-street society. That
322
323
324
Mr. Butterworth
said, that the hon. member was certainly incorrect in his statement, that any controversy had existed in England, whether the Bible should be distributed with or without notes. He applauded the exertions of Mr. Allen, in favour of the education of the poor, and particularly praised his scriptural lessons, introduced throughout Russia, under the sanction of the Emperor. He was of opinion, that to give the poor of Ireland general instruction without Scriptural education, would be the worst and most pernicious thing that could be done. He had seen a petition from certain Roman Catholics, in which it was asserted, that if the Bible were placed without comment in the hands of youth, they might derive impressions from it that would have a mischievous effect on their minds. Now, he would ask, whether the poor of England, who had Scripture knowledge, were less moral than the poor of Ireland who had not? He looked upon the assertion to which he had alluded, as a gross libel on the word of God. How could any person assert, that the word of God was calculated to produce mischievous effects on the minds of youth?
Mr. Hume
said, he did not wish the population of Ireland to be brought up without religious instruction. Let not that instruction, however, interfere with their religious feelings. The Catholics said, "You attack our conscientious prejudices, and thus prevent us from accepting the boon of education." This declaration was sufficient for his purpose; since it showed, that little good could be effected under the Kildare-street system. With respect to the sentiments which the hon. member had quoted, they merely went to this—"Such are the doctrines taught in the Bible, that if read by children of tender years, without interpretation, they may be productive of mischievous consequences." The Catholics did not say that they would not have the Bible taught, but that they would have it taught in their own way.
Mr. Grey Bennet
said, it was not fair in the hon. member for Dover to throw out personal reflections, merely because the Catholic clergy professed a different faith.
325
Mr. Butterworth
was not aware that he had used any expressions that could be so construed; if he had, he wished to recal them. He spoke as a Protestant wishing to produce a moral generation. If the House were to compare the state of the lower orders in this country and in Scotland, with their condition in Roman Catholic countries, it would not long hesitate in deciding which system of education ought to be preferred.
The resolution was agreed to.
WESTMINSTER ABBEY.]
On the resolution for granting 60,000
l
Mr. Hume
wished to know whether any arrangement, with respect to the admission of the public to Westminster Abbey, had been made in consequence of what had fallen from the President of the Board of Control, relative to this subject, en a former evening? He understood the right hon. gentleman to say, that within his own recollection, the mode of admission was extremely easy, and the expense moderate; and he had been led to believe, that some negotiation was on foot, between government and those connected with the Abbey, to remove the difficulty of procuring admission which now existed. The public were, in fact, excluded from seeing monuments which were erected at their expense. Those monuments were the property of the public, and certainly were not placed in the Abbey to be concealed from public view. He was anxious to learn what measure had been or could be devised, to give the public full and free access to view them. If the charge now made for admission were an abuse, it ought to be rectified; if, on the other hand, the Dean and Chapter had a right to exact those fees, the public ought to buy their interest. There was an outcry on every side against the Dean and Chapter, for taking money to which they were not entitled. He wished to see all cause for such an outcry removed. Whilst, however, the present system continued, the people would talk; and therefore he called on ministers to make such an arrangement, as would secure to the public those advantages to which they were entitled, and thus put an end to all ground of complaint in future.
Mr. Ridley Colborne
said, he approved of the grant of 60,000
l
326
Mr. Wynn
certainly remembered the time when the greatest part of Westminster Abbey was open to the public. At the time to which he alluded a very small number of monuments were shut up, and even those were allowed to be seen for 6
d
s
Sir J. Wrottesley
said, that formerly what was called Poet's Corner was open to all. That passage formed a very great convenience to those who had to pass through one part of Westminster. It brought them at once from the cloisters to this part of the town. The whole space between the organ and the western door was open, and the north aisle also. The only part of the Abbey to which individuals could not go without paying an attendant was Henry the seventh's chapel, and that could be seen for the small sum of 6
d
s
327
Mr. Grey Bennet
would be glad to know whether it was not possible to remove those monuments from the Abbey. He thought it would be a fit subject for inquiry in a committee, whether those monuments, which the scandalous extortion of the clergy of the metropolis prevented the public from seeing, might not be removed. He would vote for their removal. Let a building be erected for them; let them be put up in any place where they could be seen. They ought to be rescued from the hands of that scandalous set of money-dealers the clergy of Westminster.
Mr. Monck
entertained some doubt whether the Dean and Chapter had any right to exclude the public. Up to the time of the Reformation, our churches were open all day, to allow the people to say their prayers; as was the case all over the continent at present. Nothing, he conceived, could be more shameful than for those persons to turn these public monuments to their own private advantage. It was a scandalous distinction between this and other countries.
The resolution was agreed to.
TURKEY COMPANY.]
On the resolution for granting 34,450
l
Mr. Hume
inquired whether the right hon. secretary, or his majesty's government, had turned their attention to the situation of the Turkey Company. When that company was established there might have been reasons for the proceeding; but the question was, whether any reasons could be advanced for continuing it. He knew it might be defended on the ground of chartered rights: but chartered rights ought always to be given with reference to the public good; and so long as they produced public good, they should be continued. But, if this establishment inflicted evils on commerce, instead of effecting benefit, he thought no delay
328
Mr. Canning
expressed himself fully sensible of the disadvantages of the pro-sent system, and intimated that the earliest opportunity would be taken to improve it.
BUILDING OF NEW CHURCHES.]
The House having resolved itself into a committee on the Building of Churches acts,
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
observed, that he had not anticipated that it would have been necessary for him to have prefaced his motion with any introductory observations, were it not for some remarks that had followed his original proposition, as to the grant for building churches from some hon. members on the opposite side. He confessed he felt not a little surprised at the opposition that was manifested to the proposition, and much more so at the reasons which were given for hostility to the proposed application. That persons who dissented from the doctrine and faith of the church of England—that persons who were indifferent to the religion of the state at all—that such persons should entertain a disinclination to such an application of the public funds was not surprising; but he must own, that in the legislature of a country which possessed a church establishment, and which establishment it was bound to maintain, he did feel considerable astonishment in observing an opposition to a plan, having for its object to afford facilities to the professors of the established religion to attend divine service. To give to the humbler classes of the community such a facility, was, in his opinion, not only unobjectionable, but prima facie, a great good. But, of all the objections that it was possible to anticipate, he did confess that he was not prepared for the objection, that to accede to a grant for facilitating the religious intercourse of the professors of the church of England was something almost amounting to blasphemy. He knew that, in legal minds, there
329
330
l
Mr. Hobhouse
. —To find some mode of administering to it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
. —Well! he knew of no mode except applying to the public purse. But, the fitness of meeting the necessity being granted, he came to prove the fact; and it would be found, upon inspecting the papers before the House, that in 179 places, containing 3,548,000 inhabitants, there was only church accommodation for 500,000 persons, which was for about one individual in seven, upon the bulk of the population. He admitted, that there must be deductions from this estimate of 3,548,000 souls; some would be sick, or old, or infants, and consequently persons not attending church; but still the amount of accommodation fell far below what was required. And, what was it that left it so far below? Why the increase in population of some parishes, to a degree which, as regarded providing places of worship, entirely overpowered all their means. It was utterly impossible—and the House would find it so—to leave matters in such a situation. Here were people most anxious to go to church, and who, so far as the means were within their reach, had done so, and still did so, with infinite benefit and consolation; and it was impossible to deny them the extended use of that privilege which they felt to be such a blessing. But, honourable gentlemen said—"500,000
l
331
l
332
l
l
Mr. Hobhouse
observed, that it was quite unnecessary, on the part of the right hon. gentleman, to state the importance of the subject to which he had been directing their attention. Of that importance the House of Commons must be fully aware. If the fact really was, that any deficiency existed in the country in the means of obtaining accommodation for religious worship, he was sure that it was impossible that any hon. gentleman could be found, who would not assist his majesty's government to the utmost of his power in devising a method of supplying that deficiency. He must also remark, and he was sure the right hon. gentleman would acknowledge the truth of his observation, that in the line which he was about to pursue on this subject, he was treading on very delicate ground. He was not, as had been imputed to him on a former occasion, representing the sentiments of any dissenting class, or of any persons hostile to the church establishment: he was representing the interests, the wishes, and the feelings of his constituents, the people of Westminster; and
333
l
334
l
l
335
336
337
338
l
339
l
340
l
341
l
Mr. Secretary Peel
felt himself bound to acknowledge, that nothing could be more fair than the principle on which the hon. member for Westminster rested his proposition, and nothing more liberal and more becoming the dignity of the subject than the mode in which the hon. gentle-
342
343
344
l
345
l
l
346
l
Mr. John Smith
said, that no man could feel more strongly than he did the importance of the present subject; but he was not one of those who thought that the building of churches was alone sufficient to improve the morals of the population. He was of opinion, that a grant of the public money, to be applied towards the purposes of education, would be much more desirable. He was by no means against the building of churches: but, might not churches be built without the aid of parliament? There might be some places which required churches, and, from local considerations, required the aid of parliament. In those particular cases, he would be the last to resist a vote for the building of churches. In Lancashire, and in some other places, it might be found necessary to build additional churches; and, for that purpose, he would have no objection to vote a sum of 100,000
l
l
Dr. Lushington
said, he could not accede to the arguments which had been used against the proposition before the committee. On the contrary, he thought the grant was not only required by the necessities of the people, but was demanded from the House, no less as a measure of justice than of expediency. The principal object in erecting new churches ought to be to provide seats in them for such persons as were unable, from their poverty, to pay any thing for such accommodation. To this point he had particularly directed his attention, and in considering it now he besought the attention of the House to the ancient law and principle by which it bad been governed. It must be in the knowledge of many honourable gentlemen, that there still remained unrepealed upon the statute books, several acts of the reign of queen Elizabeth, by which all persons who absented themselves, from the ap-
347
348
349
l
l
l
350
Mr. Hume
said, he was sorry to obtrude himself upon the attention of the House, but really, after the speech of the hon. and learned gentleman, he could not sit silent. He confessed he had never heard a speech with more regret, and at the same time a speech so little applicable to the subject. A more unfair allusion had never been made, than that of his hon. and learned friend to previous acts of parliament. He was greatly surprised to have heard a reference made to the acts of Elizabeth, by which Protestants were compelled to attend divine worship. Surely his hon. and learned friend must have forgotten the principle upon which those acts were founded. They were passed, in point of fact, to preclude persons of all denominations, from attending any place of divine worship, except the church of England. Did not his hon. and learned friend know that those acts were passed in support of the acts of Henry 8th after his separation from the church of Rome; and that they were directed against the church of Home alone? He was at a loss to discover how those statutes could be made to apply in the present day, unless his hon. and learned friend meant to resort to compulsion to procure attendance at divine worship. His hon. and learned friend had been equally unfortunate in a subsequent proposition which he had laid down. He said, that he wished the church to have fair play; and, in pursuance of that opinion, he had read some extracts from a pamphlet, or letter, for aught he knew, written by his hon. and learned friend himself. He did not mean to. say that that was the case in the present instance, but he really was at a loss to know for. what purpose that document had been read, unless his hon. and learned friend meant to commence a crusade against all dissenters. Had his. hon. and learned friend read what had been written of John Wesley by Mr. Southey? Mr. Southey had attributed all the reformation which Wesley had achieved, and all the
351
352
l
353
s
s
l
354
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
355
l
l
l
356
357
Dr. Lushington
, in explanation, begged most distinctly to disclaim every species of hostility to the dissenters, and to say, that it would be most painful to him if any misconception entertained by the hon. member for Montrose, should go forth to the public; but there had not been one word in his speech which, being justly interpreted or rightly understood, would bear any such construction as the hon. gentleman had put upon it. The paper he had read from was the third report of the Home Missionary Society, which he did not quote in any ill feeling towards the dissenters, but to show the
358
Mr. George Bankes
said, it had been stated by his hon. friend, the member for Westminster, that since the new church at Marylebone had been built, the price of pews in the old church had considerably risen. Now, to him this really seemed the oddest argument in the world against the necessity for new churches. The hon. member for Aberdeen had spoken of churches as being composed merely of four stone walls, and had asked, of what use could they be to religion? Why, he had heard of religious service having been performed in tubs in open fields; but he certainly thought that the government of every state was bound to provide for the decent performance of the religious rites which it professed to uphold. As for the general principle of building new churches, it certainly ought to be a main object with government to provide for the union of sexes (sects) [laughter]. That union had been an object much attended to in Ireland. It was an union that it was of the greatest consequence to keep up [renewed laughter]. He apprehended, from the laughter in which hon. gentlemen indulged, that he had inadvertently committed some verbal inaccuracy. He need hardly say that, on such a subject, he had no intention to speak with levity, and he begged to give his cordial support to the motion.
Mr. W. Smith
expressed his inability to support the grant until it should be ascertained whether the necessary funds could not be furnished out of the revenues of the established church.
Lord Palmerston
regretted the change which seemed to have taken place in the opinion of the House upon this subject. At a period when the finances of the country were not in so flourishing a state,
359
360
Mr. Gordon
said, that when the chancellor of the Exchequer first proposed this measure, he had thought it a misapplication of the public money; but on reflection, he had found reason to alter his opinion, particularly when he found from the papers, that there was such a want of church accommodation. He was induced to alter his opinion after hearing the speech of the learned civilian, and more particularly was he convinced of the necessity of it after having heard the speech of the hon. member for Aberdeen. Since he had had the honour of a seat in that House, he had never heard a speech with which he was more dissatisfied. [Hear, hear, from some members on the opposition side.] He always found that when a member happened to differ from those with whom he usually acted, they were much less tolerant to him than those whom he usually opposed. This, however, should not prevent him from giving his conscientious opinion on every occasion, whether it was in unison with, or in opposition to, that of his political friends. It had been truly stated by the hon. and learned gentleman, that a set of peripatetic missionaries were going about the country, from house to house, endeavouring to infuse what they called stricter notions of religion into the people. He feared that this was a canting and hypocritical age; and it was because he saw less of that cant and hypocrisy in the established church, than amongst the evan-
361
The committee then divided on the resolution, when the numbers were: For the motion 148; Against it 59. Majority 89.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, April 12.
ALIEN BILL.]
On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill,
Lord Normanby
rose to express his decided aversion to the measure. He said, he felt pleasure in hearing—not having been present on the former evenings of debate—that this was the last occasion on which the question would have to be agitated in that House; but he nevertheless felt it his duty to oppose it, even for the limited period to which ministers were desirous that it should be continued. It was a bill hostile to the principles of the British constitution, and in its operation outraged all those feelings with which, as Englishmen, we were bound to sympathise. Such a measure had never been resorted to by our ancestors, even when a Popish pretender resided at a foreign court, and was endeavouring, by his intrigues with foreigners, to overturn the government of this country. Having consolidated our own liberties, we exhibited too much indifference to the liberties of others. This Alien bill was evidently a connivance on the part of the British government with the members of the Holy Alliance. He readily allowed the mildness with which its provisions had been enforced by the right hon. gentleman opposite. But it was a question of feeling: and what must be the feelings of those gallant and honourable individuals who, having sacrificed their friends and their country rather than hold their liberties at the nod of a despot, and hoping to find security in a free country, were told, that it was a blessing on which they could not securely calculate, for that which we prized so highly ourselves we denied to others. Feeling the greatest objection to the bill, he would move, as an amendment, "That it be read a third time that day six months."
Mr. Leycester
observed, that as it was generally understood that the bill would expire at the end of two years, it could be continued at the present time only from habit; but it was a bad habit, and
362
Colonel Palmer
stated, that, being one of the half dozen individuals mentioned in a late speech, as opposing the general voice of the House and nation in praise of the measures of the government, he rose to defend his opinion, and declare his objection to this bill, considering it to be only a further measure of that weak and dishonourable policy, which aggravated the danger of the country. For what was the object of the ministers? It was not the security of their own government but those of the allied powers, and to conciliate those whose conduct they had reprobated in the strongest terms of indignation in the last session, but whom, in the present, they had not only flattered by their praises, but had actually invited to keep possession of the country of which they had so basely and treacherously made themselves masters. But, putting all honour, truth, or consistency out of the question, the effect of the measure totally defeated its intention; for the indignant, but honest language provoked by the discussion, and circulated throughout Europe by means of a free press, must goad the hostility of the allies, their hatred to England, and their efforts to destroy that liberty, incompatible with the principles they had established on the continent, and had pledged themselves to maintain The ministers, in the face of reason, common sense, and all the acts and declarations of both parties, still boasted of the good understanding betwixt them; but how was it possible these despotic powers could, be actuated by any more favourable sentiment than contempt for a government which, whatever might be its own feeling, was unable to control the feelings of the nation? For these reasons, and from a conviction of the hourly increasing danger of the country in this cause, which ad-
363
364
"By Heaven, me thinks it were an easy leap
To pluck bright honour from the pale-faced moon;
Or dive into the bottom of the deep,
Where fathom-line could never touch the ground,
And pluck up drowned honour by the locks.
But out upon this half-faced fellowship:"
365
"Yea, all that it inherit shall dissolve,
And like the baseless fabric of a vision,
Leave not a wreck behind."
366
367
"Who steals my purse, steals trash; his something, nothing;
'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands
But he that filches from me my good name
Robs me of that which not enriches him,
And makes me poor indeed."
368
369
370
Mr Denman
said, that he had opposed the Alien act ever since he had had the honour of sitting in that House, and the present circumstances under which it was introduced, as it seemed to him, strengthened every argument against it. He could have wished that his majesty's ministers, by giving up at once that which they confessed it would be proper to give up two years hence, had spared to themselves and the House the trouble of a long debate. The system of long debates, however, did sometimes extort from the right hon. gentlemen opposite concessions which could not be attained in any other way; and it was some consolation to those who had resisted the present bill from its first introduction, to discover that there no longer existed any pretence for finding the powers which it gave inherent in the Crown. He believed there no longer was any one in the House who could oppose the opinion pronounced by the hon. and learned solicitor-general, two years ago—that Blackstone was wrong, and that there existed no where any authority which vested the right of dealing with aliens as a circumstance of prerogative in the Crown; and that opinion, if it could need corroboration, would be corroborated past all question by the fact, that even in the 22nd of Henry 8th an act of parliament had been distinctly passed to deal with the persons called Egyptians, or Gipsies, who had "introduced themselves into the realm contrary to law," by way of banishment—not leaving even these people, who were the vilest of the vile, to the prerogative of the Crown, but distinctly giving the Crown a power by proclamation, to proceed against them. The right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Peel) said, that the sovereign authority of the state held the power, by right, to dispose of aliens. Why, no doubt; and the sovereign authority of the state had the power to dispose of all the subjects of the
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
s
s
s
380
381
382
383
Lord John Russell
said, that no man would venture to say that the government should be exposed to the demands from foreign powers to which this bill subjected them. The ground of a supposed conspiracy, against a foreign state, was a fallacy to terms. In a conspiracy there must be not only actors, but a subject to act against. In a conspiracy set on foot in England against a foreign state, there was only one of those ingredients. The conspirators, while they observed the laws of the country, transacted nothing; it was only conversation—it was the shadow of a conspiracy, without the substance. Government could have no right to inquire into a conversation between particular persons, merely because they happened to bear a particular national character. If so, what conversation would be safe? Every man might be made responsible, in turn, to some aggrieved foreign government. If a man were to speak ill of the supremacy of the Pope, he would be objected against by a government which maintained the Pope's supremacy. Government could have no other fair method of treating aliens than by the laws which subjected its own people. Foreigners must have the same liberty of speech as natives. It was only acts of hostility against a foreign government which could be properly resented—such as the marching of troops against them, and the preparing of armaments. This might and did happen in the invasion of Spain. But, it could never be charged against any
384
The House divided: For the third reading 93; For the amendment 43; Majority 50.
List of the Minority
Abercromby, hon. J.
Leader, W. L.
Allan, J. H.
Lennard, T. B.
Althorpe, visc.
Leycester, R.
Baillie, col. J.
Maberly, W. L.
Baring, sir T.
Mackintosh, sir J.
Benyon, B.
Martin, John
Bernal, R.
Monck, J. B.
Calcraft, J. H.
Moore, P.
Calvert, C.
Normanby, visc.
Calvert, N.
Nugent, lord
Carter, John
Palmer, col.
Clifton, viscount
Pelham, J. C.
Curwen, J.
Philips, G.
Davies, T.
Rice, T. S.
Ebrington, visc.
Rickford, W.
Evans, W.
Smith, W.
Fergusson, sir R.
Stanley, hon. E. C
Gaskell, B.
Warre, J.
Grattan, J.
Williams, W.
Gordon, R.
Whitmore, W. W.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Tellers.
Hume, J.
Denman, T.
Kemp, T.
Russell, lord J.
Mr. Denman
then proposed as an amendment in the body of the bill, that the words "two years" should be struck out, and the words "one year" inserted in their stead. The House divided on the question—"that the words proposed to be struck out stand part of the bill:" the numbers were, Ayes 111; Noes47; Majority 64.
The bill was then passed.
BUILDING OF NEW CHURCHES.]
On the motion of the Chancellor of the Ex-
385
Mr. Hume
said, be could not allow the report to be brought up, being, as he was, so little satisfied with the reasons which had been given in the committee in support of the grant. He had already stated his opinion, that the money should not be voted, and after the length at which he had explained the grounds of that opinion, he felt it only necessary to say that he should now oppose the motion. First, because it was admitted by ministers themselves, that the money would not be wanted for three years to come. There had been no instance, he believed, in which the House had granted money, unless it was to be applied to the service of the year. It might have happened, that money had not been applied within that time; but that had arisen from some accidental circumstances, and had never been avowed by the ministers on their asking for the money. Secondly, he objected to the grant, because he thought the money required might be raised without the aid of parliament. He considered that the only object of the vote was, to increase the church patronage and church influence, already too extensive. He thought, too, that there were churches enough; and he did not believe that the number of persons who frequented them was increasing; but, on the contrary, that the zeal and ability of the dissenters were rapidly reducing the numbers of those who belonged to the church establishment. Thirdly, he thought the money, if granted at all, might be applied to better purposes; and for these reasons he moved, "that the report be received this day six months."
Mr. Warre
had no hesitation in expressing his intention to support the vote. His hon. friend had spoken of a falling-off from the church; but had it never occurred to him, that this might proceed as well from the insufficiency of the churches, as from those qualities for which he gave the dissenters credit? He had reason to believe that there were many populous towns in which the people would eagerly attend the churches, if they had them, and if the duty were well done [hear!]. He said, "if the duty were well done," because he would not be understood to advocate the building of. churches, unless the pul-
386
Mr. W. Smith
said, the fact of the number of dissenters having so extensively multiplied, had been, he thought, too hastily assumed. He had known a parish; where there was no dissenting chapel, but where the church had been abandoned because it was badly served. In the city which he had the honour to represent, there were 37 churches, and yet there was no place in which there were so many dissenting chapels, and so well filled. This he believed, arose from no insufficiency, nor want of activity, in the clergymen of that city, who were in every way highly respectable; but he thought that, in this, as in every other case, it was caused by accidental circumstances, which applied to particular places. With respect to what had been said of the mode of appointing clergymen by election, he must observe, that he saw nothing objectionable in that mode. It had been said, that it was derogatory to the dignity of the
387
Sir R. Fergusson
declared, that the grant proposed was a most useless application of the public money. He knew, of his own knowledge, that in a parish of Edinburgh, where the population had rapidly increased, two new churches and a chapel of ease had been built by public subscription within these few years. The principle observed in these churches was, to admit mere paupers free of any expense, and to charge mechanics, and persons in decent employ, a shilling a year for a seat. He much wished that the parliamentary grant were let alone, and had no doubt of soon finding places of worship, wherever a real necessity existed for them.
Sir Isaac Coffin
, as an orthodox churchman, would vote for this grant. During the latter part of his life, he had found by experience, that there was a lamentable increase of those devil-killers, called methodists—such an increase as, he was sure must eventually undermine the church of England. These methodists were such rooting fellows, that let them once get into your house, they would soon get into the kitchen, from the kitchen they would get into the cellar—and the inevitable con-sequences among servants, were, prostitution and dishonesty [A laugh and cries of hear.]
Mr. Butterworth
said, he should vote for the grant, not on account of the increase of dissenters, but on account of the increase of infidelity. He was sorry to have heard, the other night, a most respectable society, he meant the Home Missionary society, spoken of in a harsh way by an hon. and learned gentleman (Dr. Lushington), whom he did not then see present. He knew that society to be a most useful and meritorious body. He knew that it sent missionaries to instruct
388
l
Mr. T. Wilson
thought the question was not, whether the existing churches were large or handsome enough, but whether they were adapted to the congregations they ought to hold. Any one who looked at the churches of our ancestors must be satisfied that they were built for the rich, and not for the poor. For the latter there was generally a solitary bench; while the former never experienced any. difficulty in obtaining seats and accommodation because they could afford to pay for them. The proposed system alone provided for the spiritual comfort of those who had been hitherto almost forgotten.
The House divided; For the original motion 144. For the amendment 34.
389
List of the Minority
Althorp, visc,
Maberly, J.
Baillie, col. J.
Maberly W. L.
Bernal, R.
Martin, J.
Birch, J.
Monck, J. B.
Bright, H.
Normanby, visc.
Calcraft, J. H.
Nugent, lord
Cavendish, C. C.
Pelham, J. C.
Colborne, N. W. R.
Philips, G.
Cradock, S.
Rice, T. S.
Davies, T.
Rickford, W.
Denman, T.
Robatts, A. W.
Duncannon, visc.
Sefton, earl of
Grattan, J.
Smith, W.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Wharton, J.
James, W.
Whitbread, S. C
Ingilby, sir W.
Tellers.
Kennedy, T. F.
Lambton, J. G.
Fergusson, sir R.
Leycester, R.
Hume, J.
GAME LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.]
The House having resolved itself into a committee on this bill,
Mr. S. Worthy
, upon the clause providing for the punishment of night poachers and persons found with guns by night, moved, that after the word" game," the word "rabbits" be inserted; which amendment was agreed to.
Mr. Mundy
observed, that in the case of the trial of these poachers, there was a prejudice, that the justices of the peace, being themselves sportsmen and game preservers, would strain the law in order to punish poachers. He therefore wished to take away a suspicion so injurious to the administration of justice. He had intended to transfer the jurisdiction, in all trials for the third offence (which subjected the poacher to transportation), to the justices of assize and gaol delivery, instead of the quarter-sessions. It had been objected, that many prisoners would rather be tried at once by the quarter-sessions, than lie in gaol till the assizes. He should, therefore, give them the option and would move an amendment to the following effect:—"Provided, that any person to be tried for such offence, shall, at the choice or option of such person, be bound over to be tried either at the general quarter-sessions of the peace, or before the justices of assize and gaol delivery."
Mr. S. Wortley
appreciated the object of the amendment, and thought that, if any impression of a want of justice on the part of the magistrates existed, it would be well to remove it by transferring the jurisdiction to the judges of the land; confident, as he was, that the latter
390
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. S. Wortley
said, that as the law stood at present, no person was allowed to appoint a gamekeeper but the lord of the manor. Now, he thought every proprietor who had land enough to make it worth his while to do so, ought to have this privilege. The quantity of land so to entitle him, he would fix at 500 acres; a quantity for which he found a precedent in an act that passed some time since, permitting the nomination of gamekeepers under certain circumstances, in Wales. The hon. gentleman then moved a clause to that effect.
Colonel Wood
was sorry to hear his hon. friend propose this clause, which, like some others in the bill, had thrown round it a great deal of unpopularity. It might now be fairly objected, that there would be ten lords of the manor for one. As to his hon. friend's precedent, the fact was, that in Wales there were large tracts of land that were not included in any manor whatever, and it became necessary to take care, by the appointment of gamekeepers, of the game upon them. For his own part, he believed, that at present there were no greater poachers than the gamekeepers themselves, and that so far from preventing poaching, they supplied half the game that was sold in London. The consequence of this clause would be, that every farmer of 500 acres, would nominate his own son his gamekeeper, and thus spoil a good farmer, and perhaps make a determined poacher. He saw no necessity for the clause.
Mr J. Wharton
thought the objections of the last speaker totally unfounded.
Mr. Monck
thought, that if the committee were aware of the extensive powers that were vested in gamekeepers, they would decidedly oppose this clause. The 5th of Anne had very properly confined the power of nominating these keepers to the lords of manors. The statute of Charles enabled them to seize guns and dogs, and search houses; but after that act, came the 4thand5th William 3rd, by which gamekeepers were expressly authorised to resist all nightly offenders, in the same manner as if the offence had been committed in an ancient forest. Now, that enactment expressly referred to the oppressive law, 21 Edward 1st, by which it was declared, that if a tres-
391
Mr. Peel
said, his impression was very strongly in favour of the omission of the clause. He thought that, as it stood, it was likely to be productive of considerable litigation. As the general voice seemed to be so strong against it, he would request his hon. friend to withdraw it.
Mr. S. Wortley
observed, that the power of the gamekeeper was limited by the first clause of the bill, yet he had no objection to withdraw the clause, as it seemed to be the wish of the committee.
Colonel Davies
objected to the clause, as it was at present worded. It would give the owners of small parcels of land contiguous to large estates, an opportunity of killing the game of their neighbours. He would propose, that the privilege of setting snares should be limited to persons possessing 100 acres, or entitled to the game on that quantity of land.
Mr. S. Worthy
said, that at the end of the clause there was an exception in favour of persons using snares on their own land. The clause only went to prevent the use of such snares on lands not belonging to the parties, they not being appointed as gamekeepers on such lands, and to empower parties to seize any such snares, except they were set by the owners of the land, or by his or their permission,
Colonel Davies
thought the clause still objectionable.
Mr. S. Wortley
said, the principle of the bill was, to make game property, and that being the case, it was but natural that the owner of the land should have the power of destroying the game on his own grounds. In some cases, this would no doubt be productive of inconvenience, but it was but just that the poor man, whose small parcel of land was contiguous to a great preserve, should have some means of remunerating himself for the injury done to his land by the game of his neighbour.
392
Sir J. Shelley
said, he had objected to the principle of the bill, because he thought its effect would be to destroy all the game in the country; but the privilege of setting snares would precipitate that destruction, and was therefore peculiarly objectionable.
Sir J. Sebright
denied that farmers were always remunerated by lower rents for the destruction caused by game. He wished those who fed the game, to have the property of it, and therefore hoped the clause would not be given up.
Mr. Peel
thought it erroneous to suppose that game would be destroyed by the effect of this clause. He had no doubt, that in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, the effect of it would be, a composition between the rich preserver of game and his poor neighbour, by which the former would give something for the injury done to the latter, and for the right of following and killing game on his land.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, April 13.
NEWFOUNDLAND JUDICATURE BILL.]
On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,
Earl Bathurst
rose, shortly to explain to their lordships the state in which the administration of justice at present stood in that island, and the alterations it was proposed to make by the present bill. Until the year. 1791, there had been no regular courts of judicature in Newfoundland, although that island had then been nearly two hundred years in our possession. In the early period, it had been so much an object to discourage a sederunt fishing establishment, that no care was taken to appoint courts for the administration of justice; and there had grown up; from the wants of the people, courts, over which persons presided, who were called admirals, vice-admirals, and rear-admirals. In 1791, however, a law was passed, establishing both civil and criminal courts; in the supreme court one judge presided, who decided both in civil and criminal cases, and in the latter he was
393
The Earl of Darnley
observed, that if certain alterations in the system of judicature had not been proposed to be made, he should have had a petition to present on the subject. He was happy to under-
394
On the suggestion of lord Holland, lord Bathurst agreed to divide the bill into two bills.
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, April 13.
DUBLIN COAL TRADE BILL.]
Mr. S. Rice
presented a petition from the merchants and traders of Dublin against the Dublin Coal bill. The petitioners considered the measure proposed by the hon. member for Dublin to be most injurious to their interests.
Mr. Ellis
maintained, that the bill was calculated to remedy a system of gross fraud and injustice, which had been long carried on in the coal trade of Dublin.
Mr. Curwen
presented a similar petition, signed by four hundred merchants and ship-owners, trading between Dublin and Whitehaven.
Lord Lowther
observed, that the opposition to the measure was by no means general. On the contrary, he believed, the bill met with the approbation of a majority of the persons interested.
Mr. Curwen
was surprised to hear the observations which had fallen from the noble lord. A petition against the bill would shortly be presented from Whitehaven, in which the same sentiments would be still more strongly enforced.
Mr. S. Rice
said, that this measure had created the greatest interest in the city of Dublin. The chamber of commerce, and other most respectable bodies, had petitioned the House against the bill, and not a single petition had been presented in its favour.
Mr. Grattan
said, that the strongest objections to the bill were generally entertained in Dublin.
Mr. Dawson
maintained, that the bill was calculated to rescue the inhabitants of Dublin from the fraudulent and iniquitous system on which the coal trade was conducted in that city.
Sir J. Newport
said, that if the hon. member would look to the signatures of the petition, he would find that it had been signed by the principal merchants and inhabitants of Dublin. He believed, in his conscience, that the bill had no other object than to legalise the exactions of the corporation of Dublin.
Mr. Kennedy
said, that the tax on coals levied by the magistrates was equal to
395
Mr. Ellis
, in moving the second reading of the Dublin coal-trade bill, said, that the great object of this measure was, to remedy a system of unheard of frauds in the sale of coals in that city. Most of the petitions against the bill came from a class interested in the continuance of that system, with the exception of the petition from the chamber of commerce, which was, undoubtedly, entitled to serious consideration, and some of the suggestions in which he had himself adopted. The coal trade in Dublin had been regulated by an act of parliament, brought in by his distinguished predecessor, the late member for that city, Mr. Grattan, and most of the provisions in the present bill, which was supposed to have excited so much alarm, were the same as those which had been suggested by that distinguished statesman. That bill, however, had been inoperative, in consequence of the impossibility of carrying into effect the severe penalties which it imposed, and it bad become necessary to introduce new regulations on sounder principles of commercial policy. The right hon. member for Waterford had expressed his conviction, that the real object of this bill was to legalise the exactions of the corporation of Dublin. He could only say, that if such had been the object of the bill, some other person must have been found to bring it forward in that House. He would no more lend his aid to the object of legalising the exactions of the corporation of Dublin than the right hon. baronet. So far was this, however, from being the object of the bill, that the effect of it would be, to diminish very considerably the power of the corporation. The real objects of the bill were three—first, to secure the quality of the coals sold, and to prevent them from being sold under false denominations; a species of fraud which was carried to a great extent in the city of Dublin. This would be effected by regulations requiring a strict designation of the port from which the coals came. The second object of the bill would be, to provide that the due weight of coals should be sold to the consumer. The third object which he bad in view was, to regulate the sale of
396
s
Mr. Grattan
said, the hon. and learned gentleman had made an allusion to a bill which had been introduced by his father; but the House must perceive that, although the penalties of that act were severe, it was very far indeed from conferring the summary powers which were proposed to be granted by the bill now before them; such as empowering the Lord Mayor, without bail or mainprise, to commit persons to prison. The proposed measure would throw impediments in the way of all the coal-dealers in the country, of the corporation of the city of Dublin, or of the hon. and learned gentleman who was their organ; but he thought that the House ought not to consent to a measure for the purpose of gratifying a party from which neither the country at large, nor the city of Dublin, would derive any benefit. He should therefore move that this bill be read a second time this day six months.
Mr. Dawson
said, he would take upon himself to affirm that this bill was looked forward to, with great expectation and satisfaction by the most respectable citizens of Dublin. The poor of Dublin were at present completely at the mercy of the coal-factors. The law gave them the power of going to the vessel's side to purchase coals, and also allowed the appointment of coal-meters, but he thought it would be a great advantage if the duties were confined solely to the coal-meters. Now, this was proposed to be accomplished by the present bill.
Sir H. Parnell
read an extract from the petition of the chamber of commerce, which stated that every clause in the bill contained a restriction, and every restriction was accompanied with severe penalties. This statement fully marked the objectionable character of the measure.
Mr. Philips
thought the measure most unwise, for it went to restore all the old prejudices of trade, against which the House had been so long contending. It proceeded upon the principle, that all the coal-dealers were knaves, and all the
397
Mr. Curwen
said, that as the learned gentleman had abandoned three-fourths of his bill, he would recommend him to abandon the remainder, and leave whatever regulations were necessary to the committee on local taxation, from whom it would be much more suitable that the bill should originate.
Sir R. Shaw
said, that although there were some clauses in the bill, to which, in their present state, be might object, still, with the explanations that had been given by his learned colleague, he thought it would be desirable to go into the committee.
The House then divided; For the bill 34. Against it 47.—Majority against the bill 18.
HAMMERSMITH-BRIDGE BILL.]
Mr. Byng
Mr. Serjeant Onslow
opposed the motion. The measure he considered to be perfectly uncalled for. There were already two bridges, Kew-bridge and Putney-bridge, within a mile and a half of the site of the intended bridge, which would lead to a part where there were at present hardly any inhabitants. Private rights ought not to be thus invaded; and, if this bill were passed, the rights of the proprietors of Kew-bridge would be materially injured. But, leaving private interests out of the question, this appeared to be a measure that was not called for by the public, either in Middlesex or Surrey, and therefore he should move, "that this bill be read a second time this day six months."
Mr. Hume
hoped the learned serjeant would be induced to wave his opposition to the measure. The learned serjeant did not, and could not, argue that bridges were not a great accommodation. All he said was, that there were already two bridges in existence, one above, the other below the place where it was intended to erect the new bridge; and he considered that the interest of the proprietors would be affected if an additional bridge was built. But, supposing that to be the fact, still it did not form an objection to the
398
Mr. Sykes
said, that the proprietors of Fulham-bridge had a right, if the present measure were carried, to come before the House and demand compensation for the bridge, which they had built for the accommodation of the public. Unless proper compensation would be afforded to those parties, he should certainly oppose the bill.
Lord Lowther
did not think that the individuals on whose behalf compensation was demanded, deserved that extensive remuneration for which gentlemen contended. They had taken good care to pay themselves handsomely, by the exaction of extravagant tolls. Persons frequently passing and re-passing Putney-bridge paid nearly as much in the course of a year, as they could rent a house for. He hoped the bill would be read a second time. The question of compensation could then be examined in a committee, and the parties interested would probably be induced to come to some compromise. At all events, it was most desirable that this bridge monopoly should be put an end to.
Mr. Denison
believed that the tolls alluded to did not amount to more than 9,000
l
l
l
Sir F. Ommaney
spoke in favour of the bill, and complained strongly of the insecure state of Putney-bridge. Not long since, a friend of his happened to be riding over that bridge, when the fore-feet of his horse sank into a hole, and both horse and rider were placed in a most perilous situation.
Mr. Lockhart
contended, that the interests of parties connected with the other bridges in the neighbourhood ought not to be neglected. Unless an assurance were given, that they would be properly compensated, he should give the bill every opposition in his power.
Mr. Curteis
was friendly to the measure.
399
Sir J. Yorke
opposed the bill. It might be very well to individuals to have good level roads to walk upon; or, to use a homely phrase, that they should have an opportunity of steering to any point of the compass they pleased; but it was really a heart-rending thing, when roads were cut in every direction round gentlemen's estates, which previously were quiet and retired. The House ought to consider this, and pause before they passed the bill.
Mr. Byng
defended the measure as one of great public utility. As to compensation, that was a point which could be best considered in the committee.
Sir J. Graham
said, the intended bridge would be of no use, unless new roads and approaches were made in its neighbourhood; and this could not be done without sacrificing property to a great extent, as was the case with the Southwark-bridge. It was a measure for which there was no necessity, since it would not save five hundred yards in the distance between London and Richmond, and therefore, in his opinion, it ought not to be countenanced by the House. They were told, that the question of indemnity to the parties whose interests would be affected might be settled in the committee: but, what indemnity could be derived from a bridge that would never pay a shilling to the subscribers? If indemnity were intended, it ought to be charged upon some certain substantial security. For his part, he thought it would be a mercy to the speculators themselves to prevent them from proceeding farther.
Sir J. Sebright
said, that if the arguments of those who opposed the bill were to prevail, no public improvement whatsoever could take place; because, in every instance, it must interfere in some degree with the property of individuals. If they looked to their own times however, they would find that such arguments were not received as sound ones. Improvements had succeeded each other beyond all precedent, because wealthy individuals found that to be the best mode for the employment of their capital. He was decidedly in favour of the present measure; for he detested monopolies of all kinds. They only tended to shut the door against useful improvements.
Mr. H. Sumner
advocated the measure as a necessary and proper one. It was
400
The bill was then read a second time without a division.
CONDUCT OF REV. J. SMITH AT
Sir J. Mackintosh
rose to present a petition from the London Missionary Society, formed for the propagation of Christianity in heathen and other unenlightened countries, composed of ministers of various dissenting denominations. It complained of the trial, proceedings, and sentence against the Rev. J. Smith, who it was but too well known had been a Missionary from this Society at Demerara. He did not intend to enter into any statement of the case, or to make any remarks that might lead to discussion, or call for animadversion, because such a course would be in the highest degree inconvenient and improper, on a matter so painful and important, before the House was fully in possession of all the facts connected with it. The delay in the printing of the trial had been such, that it was not yet in the possession of the members of the House. Another opportunity would be afforded for debating the question. He therefore not only abstained himself, but he suggested to other members the fitness of not entering into any premature discussion. In justice to the petitioners, he owed one single observation to them; it was, that he believed them to be worthy and excellent persons, liable, like all others, to be deceived, but incapable of practising intentional deception. On their part it was his duty further to state, that it was their most anxious wish to separate the object they had in view from all ques-
401
Mr. Wilmot Horton
said, he did not rise to oppose the reception of the petition. He concurred entirely in what had been just said on the impropriety of premature discussion, but he was bound in justice to express his regret, that this petition, stating facts, drawing inferences, and terminating in a prayer founded upon reasoning, had been presented, before the House was in a situation to form a judgment on the case. If, therefore, in compliance with the suggestion of the hon. and learned member, he now abstained from entering into any details, it was most distinctly to be understood, that be was not thereby to be precluded hereafter from pointing out the extreme inaccuracies with which the petition abounded. He concurred also in what had been said as to the character of the petitioners. No doubt they had no wish to deceive; but, on the other hand, he was called upon to express his firm belief, that, on some points, they had been grossly deceived. He doubted also, whether they had exercised a sound discretion in the course they had pursued.
l
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
Ordered to lie on the table.
ROMAN CATHOLIC MARRIAGES IN ENGLAND.]
Dr. Phillimore
rose to move for leave to bring in a bill to amend the laws regarding the Baptisms, Marriages, and Burials of Roman Catholics in England. After stating the great inconveniences to which the Roman Catholics were subject, as the law and usage at present stood, the hon. and learned gentleman proceeded to observe, that the
409
The Solicitor General
would not oppose the motion for leave to bring in the bill, but contended that the present law on the subject did not require alteration.
Mr. Monck
said, there was great public inconvenience in the present state of the law, on account of the number of poor Irish Roman Catholic children thrown upon some of the parishes, because, though born in Popish wedlock, they were not held by law legitimate.
Mr. D. Gilbert
said, it was an unnecessary hardship to require the Roman Catholics to be married in the Protestant churches. He thought that something might be done to legalize their marriages, after publication of bans in the Protestant church.—Leave given to bring in a bill.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, April 14.
COMBINATION LAWS.]
Lord Stanley
presented a petition from Bolton against the repeal of the Combination Laws.
Mr. Hume
expressed a wish that those persons who opposed the repeal of the Combination laws, would give evidence before the committee in support of their views. The committee had now sat a considerable time, and no evidence whatever had been produced in favour of those laws.
Lord Stanley
said, he had already presented two petitions, praying that the
410
Mr. Mansfield
said, he could not hear, without much regret, the observation of the hon. member, as to master manufacturers being intimidated by their workmen, and consequently prevented from stating their opinion of the Combination laws before a committee of that House. He begged to state, that no such feeling prevailed between masters and their workmen in the place which he had the honour to represent. The most respectable-master manufacturers in Leicester concurred in opinion with their workmen, that the Combination laws ought to be repealed. He was sorry to hear that such hostile feelings prevailed between masters and their workmen in any part of the country; and he was satisfied that they had been produced by the very laws which the workmen were anxious to repeal.
Mr. Philips
could not concur with the hon. member, that the ferocious character of the combinations in Lancashire had been produced by the Combination laws themselves. That those laws were ineffectual, as a remedy for evils against which they were intended to provide, he was ready to admit; but he could not agree that they were the cause of the enormities produced by combinations among workmen. Combinations did not, for the most part, take place while wages were low, but when wages were high. The most ferocious combinations had taken place in Glasgow and Manchester when the rate of wages amounted to from 30
s
s
Ordered to lie on the table.
HIDES AND SKINS REPEAL BILL.]
Mr. Lushington
rose to move for the repeal of certain acts relating to the Flaying of Hides and Skins. The considerations which induced him to move for the repeal of these acts were, that they were unnecessary, vexatious, expensive, and unjust; and he was sure they would appear so to any one who examined them. They
411
Mr. James
thought there could not be two opinions on the subject. The two acts ought by all means to be repealed.
Mr. Maberly
objected to the mode in which the hon. gentleman seemed disposed to proceed with respect to the repeal of these laws. His object seemed to be to exonerate the town trader, but to leave the laws respecting the country trader in all their oppressive operations. The best course to have pursued would have been to have moved for a committee up stairs. He would venture to affirm, that it would have been distinctly proved by evidence before that committee, that so far from those laws being unnecessary, they had been the means of. preserving one-fifth of the whole of this material. If what were called long stripes were wanted, the hides were frequently rendered unfit for the purpose of obtaining them in consequence of the negligence of the butcher. He was far from denying that the law, as it stood, did not require modification; but he contended, that no alteration in it ought to be attempted, until the whole question had been considered in detail.
Mr. Huskisson
said, that on looking at the acts which it was intended to repeal, he found that they were not public acts. He recommended his hon. friend, therefore, when his bill should come to the stage of the committee, to move that it be referred to the consideration of a select committee above stairs. Of this he was quite persuaded, that should the measure be discussed in a committee of the whole House, endless petitions would be presented against it, and much valuable lime would be lost.
412
General Gascoyne
observed, that the hon. mover had shown no reasons whatever for repealing the existing law. There could be no doubt, in his mind, that the measure ought to undergo a thorough investigation in a committee; and he was persuaded, that if the hon. gentleman's bill should pass into a law, a year would not elapse before the House would be glad to get rid of it. The general hostility entertained in the country to the proposed repeal, had been sufficiently manifested by the petitions which had already been presented on the subject, all expressing the decided conviction of the petitioners, that the repeal of the existing law would be attended by serious inconveniences.
Sir R. Fergusson
maintained the expediency of repealing the existing law. What did that law do? Fine a man for injuring his own property! Suppose, by any unfortunate accident, the gallant general who had just spoken, were to make a hole in his pantaloons, how would he like to be fined for the misadventure? The existing law proceeded on the ridiculous supposition, that the tanners did not know their own business.
Mr. Bright
wished to know whether the hon. mover of the bill would consent to its going before a select committee above stairs.
Mr. J. Martin
was also desirous to know whether the hon. gentleman would consent to allow the subject to be previously investigated before a select committee, or would send the bill to such a committee in its progress. The first course would, in his opinion, be the best. The proposal for repealing the existing law had created a great sensation among those who were interested in the subject; and it was due to them, that the expediency of the measure should be satisfactorily ascertained.
Mr. Lushington
expressed his persuasion, that if the subject were referred to a committee, so much delay would take place, that it would be impracticable to: get the bill through parliament in the course of the present session. Convinced as he was, that the matter was perfectly clear, he thought it was too much to ask him to submit to such an inconvenience.
Mr. Curwen
admitted that the existing acts were abominably unjust and injurious, but strongly recommended that the subject should undergo the previous examination of a committee.
413
Mr. Curteis
maintained, that the present law was most inconvenient and ridiculous. If a butcher's boy, in killing a pig, happened to make a mistake in the manner of doing it; and if the inspector on the spot declared that he had killed it improperly, then, according to the present law, a high tribunal was formed, consisting of eight and twenty persons; namely, seven butchers, seven tanners, seven curriers, and seven shoemakers, before whom the matter was brought for adjudication.
Lord Clifton
supported the repeal of the present law.
The House divided: Ayes 52; Noes 6.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, April 15.
CORPORATE RIGHTS—ROMAN CATHOLICS OF DROGHEDA.]
Mr. S. Rice
, in presenting a petition, signed by upwards of 2,000 respectable inhabitants of Drogheda, complaining of the exclusion of Roman Catholics from grand juries, corporations, &c. stated, that the petitioners expressed their gratitude for the relaxation of the laws in their behalf, but complained that the benefits of that relaxation were intercepted by local influence. Notwithstanding the act of 1793, authorising Roman Catholics to be summoned on grand Juries, from that time up to the present moment, not a single Catholic had ever been summoned on a grand jury in the town of Drogheda. The injustice of this exclusion was the more manifest, as the proportion of Catholics to protestants in Drogheda, with respect to numbers, was nine to one; and with respect to property, two to three. While Catholics of the first rank and respectability were excluded, individuals not resident, nor possessing an acre of land, in Drogheda, were placed on these grand juries. On the same principle of unjust exclusion, the freedom of the city had been refused to sir T. Esmond, a Roman Catholic baronet of the first rank and character, while it had been granted to individuals possessing no property in the town of Drogheda.
Sir J. Newport
observed, that in the city which he had the honour to represent, the act of 1793 had had a full and fair operation. A large number of Roman Catholics had been admitted both to serve on grand juries, and to a participation in the freedom of the city. It was disgraceful to the character of other corporations
414
Mr. Hume
thought this subject highly deserving the attention of the House. It was impossible that tranquillity could be restored in Ireland until full justice was done to all classes of his majesty's subjects in that country. He was aware there was a difficulty in interfering with corporate rights; but, if ever there was a case in which such a course could be justified, it was the heavy grievance of which these petitioners complained; and he sincerely hoped the king's ministers would turn their serious attention to the statements contained in the petition.
Ordered to lie on the table.
SALE OF MACKAREL ON SUNDAYS—PETITION AGAINST.]
Mr. Butterworth
said, that he had a petition to present from several fishmongers and poulterers in the cities of London and Westminster, to which he wished to call the serious attention of the House. The hon. member then recited the heads of the petition, from which it appeared, that the petitioners wished to obtain the repeal of a clause in the act of William 3rd, which permits the sale of mackarel on a Sunday, on the ground that the permission is abused to sell other fish upon that day. He maintained, upon the authority of several fishmongers, that mackerel might be kept as fresh for twenty-four hours as any other fish; and, as that was the case, he trusted the House would pay some regard to the prayers of the petitioners.
Mr. Hume
said, he would not object to the bringing up of the petition, because he was of opinion, that all descriptions of persons had a right to present their petitions to the House. He could not, however, refrain from observing, that it appeared most strange to him that the petitioners should call upon the House to interfere in a matter of this nature. The petitioners prayed the House not to compel them to do a certain act, which they needed not to do unless they chose. He would put it to the fishmongers themselves whether it would not be better for them to meet together and determine not to sell fish on a Sunday than to trouble the House with such a petition. Had he been one of the gentlemen who had a conscientious objection to selling fish on the Lord's day, he should never have dreamt of calling upon the House to com-
415
Sir M. W. Ridley
said, that a more ridiculous, absurd, and he would add, canting petition, had never been presented to the House [hear, hear]. If the petitioners really found a difficulty in the present practice, he would suggest to them a mode by which they could get rid of it. When the petition was printed, let their names be printed along with it. The public would then know who these conscientious and scrupulous fishmongers were, and would, perhaps take care not to trouble their tender consciences in future. If it were not irregular, he would move that the names of the petitioners be printed along with the petition.
Sir T. Baring
said, he could not treat the petition with the ridicule which the two last speakers had endeavoured to fling upon it. If it were just to vote away the public money for the erection of new churches, on the ground that it was sound policy to diffuse proper religious feelings through the community, surely it was just to adopt such measures as would prevent any improper profanation of the Sabbath. It had been asked, why did these fishmongers, who reprobated the present practice of selling fish on a Sunday, follow it themselves? The answer was easy. If they did not sell fish on a Sunday as others of their trade did, they would soon lose all their custom, and see their families reduced to ruin.
Mr. C. Smith
reminded the House, that the conscientious feelings, which prevented these scrupulous fishmongers from selling fish on a Sunday, could not by any possibility operate upon the Jews.
416
417
418
l
419
On the question that it be printed,
Mr. Butterworth
observed, that whilst the law permitted one description of fish to be sold upon a Sunday, very few fishmongers would dare to refuse to sell any kind of fish that their customers might require. It was on that very account that the petitioners wished the clause, allowing the sale of Mackerel on Sundays, to be repealed. They were aware, that even if the trade were to meet and to determine among themselves not to sell fish on a Sunday, they could not prevent it from being sold by the Jews and the low Irish. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. member for Newcastle, he would merely observe that the petitioners were anxious to have their names known, and were so far from wishing to conceal them, that they had actually printed and circulated their petition with their names attached to it. He would tell the hon. member for Newcastle, that his illustrious ancestor Bishop Ridley, who suffered in the cause of the Reformation, would not have treated this petition with the ridicule which he had bestowed upon it.
The House then adjourned to the 3rd of May.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, May 3.
STANDING ORDERS—TEES AND WEAR-DALE RAILWAY BILL.]
Sir H. Hardinge
rose for the purpose of moving, "That the committee on the above bill be discharged from proceeding thereon." This he did, because the standing orders which applied to private bills had not been complied with, in reference to certain individuals whose estates would be injured if the measure were carried. It was proposed that the railway should cross a road belonging to a noble friend of his (the marquis of Londonderry), and that it should be carried on for a considerable distance near his park. This would be a very great nuisance, and was the less justifiable, because any benefit which the railway was calculated to produce would be reaped by others whose estates would not be affected by the intended work. The standing orders relative to private bills ought to be strictly supported; and as the present measure had been clandestinely brought into the House, he would give it every opposition in his power.
420
Lord Lowther
defended the measure, as one which would be extremely advantageous to the country. He therefore wished the bill to be re-committed. It was said, that the landed proprietors were adverse to the railway; but the fact was, that the real ground of opposition sprang from the noble marquis to whom allusion had been made, although he was prepared to contend, that the proposed work would not touch an inch of that noble person's estate. The true reason of the opposition manifested against the measure was, a spirit of jealousy which existed in the north of the county of Durham, as to affording this additional facility for the conveyance of that valuable commodity, coals, to the metropolis and elsewhere. Being perfectly convinced of the utility of the railway, he should move, as an amendment, "that the report from the committee on the petition complaining that the Standing Orders had not been complied with, be re-committed."
Sir J. Yorke
rose to second the amendment. He did not wish to make use of hard words, but the opposition to the measure appeared to him to be so extreme a job, that he had quitted the committee altogether. The evidence of Mr. Wright, whose estate, it was said, would be affected by the work, seemed to be so wrong, so coquettish—now assenting to, and then dissenting from the measure that he could make nothing of it. His gallant friend had said a great deal about the hardship of carrying this road through a noble lord's estate; but, on other occasions, they heard nothing of the impropriety of making encroachments on private property, where a great public work required it. When it was proposed to erect a bridge at Hammersmith, the question of private property was not allowed to interfere with the measure. Here it was proposed to form a vast public work, by means of which a larger supply of coals would be furnished to the metropolis, and the existing monoply would be weakened. A great field was opened for the employment of capital for a useful purpose; and therefore he for one could not consent to the abandonment of the measure, on the plea that the road would pass near a nobleman's estate.
Lord Milton
said, the real question in this case was, whether the rivers Tyne and Wear should be the only outlets for the carriage of coals, or whether the Tees should not also be included? The
421
Colonel Wood
said, that none of the local proprietors were in favour of the measure. It was complained, that Mr. Wright had altered his opinion. The reason was, because the line of road which was at first communicated to him had been subsequently changed. With respect to him, it was quite clear that the standing orders had not been complied with, and therefore they ought not to proceed with the bill.
Mr. H. Sumner
could not consent to this summary mode of oversetting a bill which would unquestionably promote the public interest. If the proposed railway were formed, there would be a greater and a more rapid supply of coals in the London market.
Mr. Curwen
would vote for the re-committal of the report, under the assurance of the noble lord that the rail-road would not pass over Mr. Wright's estate.
Sir H. Hardinge
said, if the gentlemen who supported the bill would assure him that the railway would not go near the estate of the marquis of Londonderry, he should withdraw all opposition. He had no wish whatever to crush any rivalry or competition in the coal trade.
The House divided: For the amendment 114. For the original motion 69. A committee, consisting of members not connected in any way with the bill, was appointed, to examine whether any and what inconvenience had arisen from the non-compliance with the standing orders.
IRISH TITHE COMPOSITION AMENDMENT BILL.]
On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. Grattan
said, that he felt himself
422
Mr. Dennis Browne
justified the application of the powers given by the constabulary act, and assured the House, that in his own county the constables were impartially chosen, and that their conduct had given permanent peace to the district.
Sir J. Newport
wished the further consideration of the bill to be postponed until it could be entered upon more maturely. He had been disposed, in the first instance, to look at the measure in a favourable light, but was compelled upon consideration to arrive at the conclusion, that the present bill would augment all the evils of the act of the last session.
Lord Oxmantown
contended, that the agreement proposed in the bill was not fair towards both parties. The provisions of it were too much in favour of the clergy. Some more effectual measure of relief was necessary, and particularly with regard to the levying of tithes in kind. The bill was not only unequal towards the landed but towards the ecclesiastical interest; since it gave the extortionate clergyman a decided advantage, in any final arrangement by commissioners, over the liberal and considerate pastor. He was by no means in favour of the compulsory clause of last year, but he wished a fair option to be allowed.
Mr. Goulbourn
said, he was not desirous to shun any comments that might be made upon this measure by gentlemen on either side of the House; and was prepared, either now or in a later stage, to defend its principle, and to explain its details. The necessity of some amendment to the bill of last year was admitted on all hands, and those who wished to accomplish this object, as well as those who were desirous of correcting the errors and of supplying the deficiencies of the
423
l
424
Sir J. Newport
said, the question was not whether the act of last session required amendment, but whether the bill which the right hon. gentleman had introduced, really went to amend that act. He thought that the present bill, so far from amending the act of last session, was a deterioration of it. What was already bad was made worse by the proposed bill; and, on that ground, he thought it ought to be rejected. In his opinion, the only mode in which the bill of last session could be amended, would be to strike out every part of it, except the preamble, and substitute a new bill. It was idle to waste the time of the House in discussing a bill which was so essentially bad, that it did not admit of amendment. The object of the bill was, to shut out landed proprietors from the Vestries and to exclude them from all interference with concerns in which they were mainly interested.
Mr. Spring Rice
regretted that the discussion of this question should have taken place in the absence of many gentlemen who had taken a part in it, and who felt a peculiar interest in the topics connected with it. The right hon. gentleman opposite surely could not be serious in supposing, that because a particular act of parliament required amendment the House was bound to receive any amendment which he might propose. He objected to the principle of the bill, because it took away from landed proprietors the protection which was left to them under the bill of last session. The bill strengthened the hands and augmented the property of the Clergy, without giving any corresponding advantage to the landed proprietor. The act of last session gave to the inheritor of the land, if he were the occupant of the soil, an increased number of votes, in proportion to the amount of his property, but the present bill took away this privilege, and deprived him of that fair preponderance to which property was entitled. He would appeal to any landed proprietor in that House; whether
425
Mr. Secretary Peel
thought that the speeches of the right hon. baronet, and of the hon. gentleman opposite, would have been much more appropriate if addressed to the committee. Almost all the arguments advanced applied to the bill of last session, and were therefore in favour of the present bill, which proposed an amendment. But, let the House examine a little in detail the speech of his hon. friend, who spoke last. His hon. friend had said, with respect to the composition, that many of the parties had been entrapped into their agreements: but his hon. friend must admit, that the number of appeals to the lord lieutenant and council was the most conclusive evidence as to the truth of the fact. Now, there had been ninety instances of composition, and out of these there had been but five appeals. Was it not clear, then, that five per cent was the extent of dissatisfaction. If the House were to examine the bill now before them, they would find that a very small part of it indeed was open to objections. By voting for the second reading of the bill, no member would be pledged to support all the enactments it contained, nor would he be precluded from adopting any amendments that might be proposed. The arguments which had been advanced, clearly proved the great importance of the subject; but he differed altogether from his hon. friend, as to the extent of the responsibility attaching to an individual who introduced a proposition. Every one was at liberty to propose a measure; but, if sound and serious objections were made against it, and he still persevered, then began the responsibility. By the forms of the House, seve-
426
Mr. Grattan
said, that, with all his opposition to the bill before the House, and deprecating, as he did, the principle on which it was founded, because he thought it inimical to the landed proprietors of Ireland, he thought it might be better not to divide the House upon it in its present stage.
The bill was then read a second time.
CUSTOMS (COALS AND LINENS) BILL].
On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the House resolved itself into a committee, on the Customs (Coals and Linens) till. The right hon. gentleman said, his object was, to correct am error in the bill, and this had made it necessary that it should be recommitted. At present it was proposed in the bill, that the reduction of the bounty on linens should commence on the 5th of July, 1824. The date should be the 5th of January, 1825; and he now submitted a resolution to that effect,
Mr. Spring Rice
said, he hoped that, in endeavouring to prevail upon the chancellor of the Exchequer to alter his opinion, he should not be accused of inconsistency; for he had seen, on various occasions, gentlemen who were more pledged than he could be supposed to be by character or experience to the principles of free trade, to make exceptions in particular instances. He was persuaded, that if individuals interested in the linen trade had as frequent access to government, as those in the silk and other great manufactures, although he did not expect they could prevail on the chancellor of the Exchequer to abandon those principles
427
Mr. Dennis Browne
expressed his astonishment at the ignorance which prevailed in this country with respect to the real condition of Ireland. Gentlemen seemed no more to be aware of the consequence of taking off these bounties, than they were of the interests of the remotest part of America, although Ireland was, in fact, within a stone's throw of them. At one time he heard there were no exports of coarse linens, and that they drew no bounties. Both assertions were equally fallacious, and he was astonished that any minister could make so great a mistake. It had been said, that the chancellor of the Exchequer had made a great concession; but he maintained that he had no right whatever to interfere with these bounties. The people of Ireland had a chartered right to every possible advantage, until that branch of national industry had arrived to a state of perfection. This was a language which had been held by the British parliament, and echoed by the British king. No country had ever stood higher than England for a proud sense of honour and good faith, amongst foreign nations; but it was a monstrous violation of national faith with respect to Ireland, to interfere with her, or to meddle with her in any way: and it was quite absurd for the chancellor of the Exchequer to apply any of his rules of policy to her in her pre-
428
Sir H. Parnell
said, he would, in the first instance, examine the question with reference to facts only, and endeavour to show that the opinions of the member for Kilkenny were erroneous. The hon. member, and all those who, with him, advocated these bounties, conceived the system which governed the linen manufacture of Ireland, to be perfection itself: and whenever a part of it was touched, without taking much trouble to think about the matter, at once proclaimed the manufacture would be destroyed, and the country ruined. He had taken pains to find out how these bounties could secure the object of those who supported them. It was said, they were necessary to maintain and extend the manufacture of coarse linens in Ireland. But this manufacture had more to fear from other causes than the loss of the bounty. It had to contend against the English and Scotch manufacturer of coarse linens, who imported foreign yarn at 1
s
429
430
Mr. Hutchinson
regretted that he had to rise after the observations of the hon. baronet, but, in opposing his views, he spoke the sentiments of others better acquainted with the subject than himself. His hon. friend asserted, that the condition of the people engaged in Ireland, in this particular branch of manufacture was not improved by the continuance of the bounties; but those engaged in the trade entertained an opinion exactly the reverse, and the manufacturers in the south and west of Ireland strongly opposed the repeal of such bounties. There was ready for presentation a petition from the county of Cork, signed by 60,000 persons, which asserted the advantages to be derived from the operation of the bounties now
431
Colonel Trench
approved of the general principle; but the linen trade had always been a forced trade. It had been made by the bounties, and those bounties ought not now to be discontinued. He knew that much linen was made for the sake of the bounties; and however just the general principle on which it was proposed to repeal them might be, still something ought to be conceded to the fears of the people.
Mr. Dawson
said, he had made many inquiries on the subject, and had been informed by several manufacturers, that the taking off the bounties would have no effect on the trade. These gentlemen were well qualified to judge what would be the effect of the repeal. For his own part, he thought the repeal would be of no disadvantage. The trade was too well established to be hurt thereby. Linen to the amount of 2,500,000
l
l
l.
432
Mr. Hume
thought the hon. baronet had been quite misunderstood. It was his opinion, that the bounties were of no good to the peasantry, whatever they might be to the consumers. The reduction proposed was so gradual and trifling, that it was quite absurd to suppose that any evil could result from it.
Sir H. Parnell
replied to the observations of the member for the county of Derry by saying, that it was not a correct way of judging of the effect of the linen manufacture, to look only to the province of Ulster. There might be found other reasons which explained the prosperity of that part of Ireland, independent of the linen manufacture. What he was ready to maintain was, that the linen manufacture had not led to the improved condition of the lower orders; that their earnings were very low; that a great part of those earnings were absorbed in rent; and, on the whole, that there were many extensive tracts of country in Ireland, where the linen manufacture existed, without the operative manufacturers being in a state to command more than the most miserable subsistence, with bad clothing, and bad habitations. This was a proposition he was ready to go into in the detail, whenever a fit opportunity presented itself. As to the opinions contained in petitions, he paid very little attention to sweeping assertions of the improved condition of the people; and as to linens having been made for the sake of the bounties, that he knew had been the case, but greatly to the discredit and injury of the manufacture. On the whole, he begged the House to remember, that the bounties cost the country 300,000
l
The House resumed, and the report was ordered to be received to-morrow.
433
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, May 4.
SILK-TRADE.]
The Earl of Lauderdale
rose to call their lordships' attention to a bill which he meant to introduce for the repeal of certain laws relative to the Silk-trade. The bill he was about to submit to their consideration was the same as that which last session had passed the Commons, and come before their lordships from that House, with the exception of the manner in which the Irish acts were recited. The present moment was most favourable for proposing the measure, as those persons who were last year the principal supporters of the restrictions on manufactures and trade had materially changed their opinion. He might, therefore, have proposed this bill without saying a word on the subject, were it not that he thought it right to account for his own conduct in introducing it at this moment, by adverting to the change of opinion which had so generally taken place. If he was at all rightly informed with respect to the sentiments of the journeymen of Spitalfields, they would rather see all the laws on the subject of the silk-trade repealed, than experience the operation of an act, which relieved the master from the necessity of employing the whole of his capital. He certainly did not share the opinion of those persons who thought that the bill passed this session would produce the total destruction of the silk manufactures; but he agreed with those who would prefer the repeal of the whole restrictions at once to allowing the period fixed by the bill. The little knowledge he had of the silk-manufacturers was sufficient to convince him of this. He knew that the manufacturers looked up to the demand of the months of February, March, and April, as conclusive of the state of the trade. Hence it followed, that the first experiment which was to take place under the new act in 1826, would be made at the same time as the French importations.
The Earl of Harrowby
said a few words relative to the proceedings with respect to the former bill which had passed on the report of a committee. He also questioned the extent of the alteration in the opinions of the Spitalfields journeymen.
The Earl of Lauderdale
observed, that the report of the committee was in fa-
434
UNITARIAN MARRIAGE-BILL.]
The Marquis of Lansdown moved that this bill be committed.
The Bishop of Chester
, in justice to his own feelings and the importance of the question, thought it necessary to say, that after giving his most anxious attention to the subject of this bill, he was only the more confirmed in his opinion, that the Unitarians had no reasonable grounds for their objections to the marriage-ceremony of the Church of England. The words in question were the words of Scripture, the words of our blessed Lord himself, and could not be altered without compromising the doctrines and the dignity of the established church. That the Unitarians had no ground for objecting to the words used in the marriage ceremony was evident from this circumstance, that they themselves adopted the same words in their baptismal ceremony. If any noble lord would show him any just reason for the objection of the Unitarians, he would give his consent to the bill. In his opinion, the retaining the words was indispensable; for the church of England would be wanting in what was due to her dignity, if she did not take every proper opportunity to declare what her faith in Christ was. The character of the church of England had always been that of a tolerant church, and he admitted that their lordships were called upon to grant liberty of worship to all sects; but the church was not therefore to be required to give up her doctrines and discipline. If the marriage-ceremony was to be altered, it was not easy to see what might be the consequence of such encroachments. If one stone was to be removed after another, what would become of the building? He trusted that their lordships would not
435
The Bishop of Exeter
was of opinion, that persons who did not believe in certain doctrines ought not to be compelled to join in ceremonies depending on those doctrines, and would therefore vote for going into the committee forthwith. In that committee he should propose some amendments, the object of which would be to assimilate the bill as much as possible to the act for amending the marriag-act which passed last session, with respect to the prevention of clandestine marriages, by imposing certain penalties. He would also propose an amendment on the subject of registration of marriages. He thought that the Unitarians ought to be allowed to keep their own registers.
The Bishop of St. David's
supported the amendment. He observed, that the doctrines to which the Unitarians objected were those of the majority of Christians, and what all members of the church of England must consider to be essential to Christianity. He could not consent to the giving up of a point of so much importance, which involved the denial of the doctrine of the Trinity. The Scriptures themselves might as well be objected to, as the marriage-service of the church of England.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
said, it was certainly true, that the Unitarians denied the doctrine of the Trinity; but he wished those who opposed the bill to consider well what it was for which they contended. Was it their wish to enforce a seeming acquiescence in doctrines against the consciences of men? The consequence of maintaining such apractice must be, that ceremonies would be administered in one sense, and received in another. And what was this but a system of the grossest prevarication? For these reasons he was desirous of seeing the bill in the committee, where it might receive. such corrections as it was susceptible of.
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, he could not, suffer the bill to go into the
436
437
438
The Lord Chancellor
said, that the respect which he bore for the noble lord who had just sat down, as well as the high regard which he entertained for the right reverend prelate who had spoken in favour of this bill, made it impossible for him, after what had passed that evening, not to address their lordships, and to state the grounds on which he could never give his consent to this bill going into a committee. He would not say that it was impossible to frame a bill for the relief of the class of persons who were the objects of the present measure, but this bill contained principles to which, consistently with the protection of the established church, he could not consent. He did not wish to press his opinion on their lordships; but it was his duty, having spent the greater part of a long life in the service of the public, to state his conviction, that if ever this country should have the misfortune to lose the protection of the church of England, she would lose the best protection for toleration. On account of the dissenters themselves, therefore, he should feel it necessary to protest against every thing which would tend to degrade the established church. Religious toleration could not be liberally and extensively enjoyed, unless the church established was of liberal and enlarged principles; and such, in his opinion, was the character of the church of England. The noble marquis had found fault with him for raising some doubts as to the legality of the tenets of the Unitarians. But, what were the facts? By the Toleration act, persons denying the Trinity were deprived of the benefit of
439
440
Geo.
Lord Holland
said, that after the former long discussion which took place on this subject, he did not expect to hear so much warmth and anxiety expressed on the motion for going into the committee. On coining down to the House, instead of employing himself in considering the important bill before them, he had taken up a publication of the correspondence of
441
442
443
444
The Earl of Liverpool
said, he would support the principle of the bill, though he was convinced that no person who had attended to his public conduct could doubt his sincere attachment to the church establishment to which it was alleged, by some of their lordships, to be hostile. He could not conceive the possibility of danger or of injury to the established church from the provisions of this bill. What did they do? They merely placed a certain class of dissenters on the footing on which they were prior to the passing of lord Hardwicke's act. His noble and learned friend on the woolsack had contended, that the bill should apply to all dissenters as well as to Unitarians; but he had not attended to the fact, that the Unitarians in respect to the article from which they were to be relieved by the bill, stood in a different situation from other dissenters. It had been said in the course of the debate, that the compliance required by the church to the obnoxious parts of the marriage ceremony could scarcely be called a hardship; but of this the Unitarians were, as had been truly observed by the noble baron opposite, the best judges. They thought it a hardship; and he respected their religious scruples. He could not form a decided opinion with respect to the propriety of altering the law as it regarded other dissenters. A bill for general relief had been brought in some time ago. He had agreed to the second reading of that bill, on the prospect that it could be amended in a committee, though he agreed in some of
445
446
The House proceeded to divide on the Amendment. Contents, present, 55; Proxies 50–105. Not-Contents, present, 41; Proxies, 25–66. Majority in favour of the Amendment, 39 The bill was consequently lost.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, May 4.
ORANGELODGES—PETITION AGAINST.]
Mr. John Smith
said, he rose to present a petition that referred to a subject of the highest importance, and which called for the prompt and decided interposition of his majesty's ministers, or, if they declined to interfere, the immediate attention of the legislature. The petitioners complained, with great justice, of the numerous and aggravated mischiefs which were the natural effect of certain political societies existing in Ireland, known under the designation of Orange and Ribbon Lodges—societies held together by secret objects, founded on religious differences, and whose existence never ceased to interfere with the public tranquillity. The petitioners alleged, that in the fury of such conflicting associations, and in the state of outrage that followed their introduction, it was impossible, even for men most inclined to be peacable and obedient to act upon their wishes. Where the law was without power, it was impossible even for moderate men to remain neutral. The petitioners stated, that though the late law interfered with the secret oaths, yet it was notorious that the Orange Lodges had become more numerous, and had assumed somewhat of a legal character. They alleged that whenever and. wherever an Orange society was introduced, a Ribbon society was immediately formed. He regretted that he did not see in his place the right hon. Secretary for Foreign Affairs, because he well recollected the strong opinion that right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning) had given as to the character of these societies, when a motion was submitted from the Opposition side of the House, by the president of the Board of Control (Mr. Wynn). With that eloquence for which the right hon. Secretary was so distinguished, he had scouted with indignation the idea that, under any conjuncture of circumstances, such societies could be
447
Sir J. Newport
said, he participated in the satisfaction expressed by his hon. friend, at seeing the description of persons whose names were attached to the petition, approaching the House with their complaints and their prayers. Most truly did their petition describe the outrages to which the existence of these societies led. Again and again it had been his unsuccessful province to warn that House of the disastrous consequences which could not fail to follow the existence of these associations. It was impossible that one of these associations could be tolerated, without immediately producing, in the neighbourhood, a
448
Ordered to lie on the table.
DISTILLERIES—PETITION FROM LANARK FOR A FREE TRADE IN SPIRITS.]
Lord A. Hamilton
presented a petition from Lanark, praying that Scotch Spirits might be imported into England on the same footing as Irish Spirits. The noble lord observed, that the chancellor of the Exchequer had last year held out an expectation, that he would, in the course of the present session, introduce a measure for the purpose of remedying the injustice of the present law. He was very
449
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
replied, that it was perfectly true that, in the course of the discussions last year on this subject, he had given the distillers of Scotland, and the House, reason to believe that it was his intention in the present session to propose some definitive measure respecting it. It was not without great regret that he found himself unable to do so. But he could assure the House, that this omission did not arise in the slightest degree from any denial on his part of the allegations in the petition, or from any doubt of the injustice and unreasonableness of the law in its present state. He was quite as satisfied as the noble lord, that the law could not remain in its present inconsistent condition. It was unquestionably unjust that Irish spirits should be admitted into this country on certain terms, while Scotch spirits were excluded; but, the House would do him the justice to recollect, that the measure by which this anomaly was established, was not introduced by him. He found the law as it now stood, and as it had long stood. But he repeated his regret, that he could not, with a view to the satisfaction of the interests particularly concerned, and of those of the country at large, propose a definitive measure on this subject in the present session. It would be most unwise to do any thing prematurely with respect to it. The measure which he had last year introduced was partial; and he had introduced it only because the evil was one of so crying a nature as to require immediate remedy. As far as it went it had been successful: but it tended to produce an evil in an opposite direction. It was his most anxious desire to bring forward a bill, that should be completely and permanently satisfactory. All that he asked was, not to be forced into a premature and undigested measure, which would merely throw matters into a state worse than that in which they were at present.
Mr. Hutchinson
protested against the violation of the act of Union on this subject. His countrymen insisted on their right of bringing in every article, the produce of Ireland, to the English market, there to be saleable, without its undergoing any process whatever in this country. The raw spirit of England was deleterious; but the raw spirit of Ireland
450
Ordered to lie on the table.
ADVANCE OF CAPITAL TO IRELAND— EMPLOYMENT OF THE POOR.]
Captain W. L. Maberly
said:—Sir, in rising to move that the House should take into its consideration the propriety of addressing his majesty for an Advance of Capital to Ireland, I am sensible I am open to the charge of no small degree of presumption. It is not that I have been unaware of the importance of the subject, or have underrated its difficulties, that I have been induced to undertake a task, so arduous in its nature, so complicated in its details, I have approached it with far different feelings, and if I have been rash enough to embark in it at all, it has been solely from the consideration, that in the full conviction I entertained of the benefits that would result from it to Ireland, and in the absence of other members more competent to engage in it than myself, it became an imperative duty in me to press it upon the attention of the House. In discharging this duty, I am anxious to disclaim all motives of political hostility to the right hon. gentlemen opposite; I am actuated solely by a spirit of conciliation and a desire for the improvement of Ireland, and it will be my care, therefore, in going through the detail, into which it will he necessary for me to enter, cautiously to abstain from every topic that might arraign the Administration of that country, and that might wear the appearance of a wish to promote irritation or to impute misconduct.
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
l
463
464
l
l
l
l
s
465
466
467
l
l
468
469
470
471
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
commenced by complimenting the hon. and gallant member upon the temper and benevolent feeling with which he had introduced his motion. No man who knew any thing of the state of Ireland could conceal from himself the lamentable fact, that notwithstanding her soil, her climate, and the other favourable circumstances in which she was placed, she was far removed from that state of content and happiness to which she was entitled. It was impossible for any English member to listen to a statement which had in view the benefit of Ireland, without the utmost anxiety to promote that object. If, therefore, he rightly understood the proposition of the hon. gentleman, he could not without regret express an opinion, that it would not be advisable to adopt the course recommended—at least not in the mode now submitted. It was perfectly true, that parliament, on many occasions, had called upon the public to advance money for the relief of local distress, arising from peculiar circumstances. Within a very short period that principle had been acted upon, to a considerable extent, in Ireland. Two sums had been voted by the House, one of which was vested in the discretion of the lord-lieutenant, for the relief of distress, without any intention of ultimate repayment; the other had been advanced with the view that, at a specified period, it should be restored to the public. As to the first species of grant, the House would feel, that however desirable it might be under peculiar pressure, to make this
472
473
l
474
Captain Maberly
complained, that the right hon. gentleman had completely misunderstood him. He meant that money should be advanced to any manufacturer or other person engaged in trade, who could give the necessary security. He also wished the fisheries to be aided, precisely in the same way that sums were applied in England and Scotland, in the years 1817 and 1822.
Lord Althorp
agreed, that the want of capital in Ireland was one of the principal causes, though not perhaps the sole cause, of the present condition of Ireland. Every measure, therefore, which encouraged the influx of money, ought to be readily adopted. The general rule certainly was, that capital should not be forced out of the channel in which it would naturally flow; but, in this instance, it was to be remembered that capital had been unnaturally forced out of Ireland, and that some measures ought to be adopted to restore it. It was singular to see that while capital went to Mexico and Peru, and to every quartet of the world, it tur-
475
476
Mr. John Smith
said, he had never heard the right hon. the chancellor of the Exchequer so weak in his arguments, or so little eloquent in his mode of urging them, as on the present occasion. This he attributed to the difficulties in which the right hon. gentleman must have found himself placed in his opposition to the proposed measure. He was willing to give the right hon. gentleman credit for the goodness of his intentions and the liberality of his views towards Ireland, but, on the present occasion, he thought that his views were quite mistaken. The main objection which he had urged to the proposition of his hon. friend was, that it would encourage the people of Ireland to look up to government, and not to trust to their own resources. But let the House see what had been the effect of similar advances in this country. He was himself, at the present moment, a commissioner under an act of parliament for granting advances of money for the building of bridges, the making of roads, and other public works. The money was lent on good security, and sums to a considerable amount had been so granted. He had, on a former occasion, been a commissioner under a similar act of parliament; but he would ask, had it ever been heard that such advances had produced in the people of this country a disposition to depend on government rather than on their own resources? Why not, then, advance money to Ireland in a similar manner? Ireland deserved much from this country; and she had received but little. It was true we had materially assisted her in a time of scarcity, for which she was truly grateful; but we were bound to do more. If public money had been advanced with good effect in England to carry on several works, why might not the same result be expected from similar advances in Ireland? He had seen the good effect of such advances in many parts of this country. He knew many individuals who were gentlemen of fortune now, who were not gentlemen of fortune before such advances were made. He could not see, therefore, any weight in the objection of the right hon. gentleman to the present proposition. He had had an opportunity of knowing the good effects which had been produced by the loans advanced by the London Association for the advance of money by way of loan for the encouragement of agricul-
477
l
l
Mr. Goulburn
observed, that the hon. member for Midhurst had remarked, that his right hon. friend, the chancellor of the Exchequer, had not been as eloquent on this occasion as on others; and he had attributed it to the mode of argument he had
478
l
479
Mr. Spring Rice
said, there were several
480
481
l
s
s
l
l
l
l
482
Mr. Goulburn
denied that he had ever stated that the government should not interfere, except when the people were threatened with starvation. He had said that, considering that public works were at present going on in Ireland at the expense of the public, and which it was necessary
483
Mr. S. Rice
expressed his regret, if he had in any way misrepresented the right hon. secretary. He acknowledged that the right hon. secretary had shown meritorious zeal in the promotion of the employment of the poor; but he had conceived that his speech went not only to object to the motion of his hon. friend, but to impugn the principle of the right hon. secretary's own praise-worthy exertions.
Mr. Secretary Canning
said, that as he had been accidentally absent from the House during the conclusion of the speech of his right hon. friend, and the commencement of the speech of the hon. gentleman (the member for Limerick), he was not able, of his own knowledge, to state whether his right hon. friend had made the assertion imputed to him; but from all he knew of his right hon. friend's opinions, he was astonished at the description, by the hon. gentleman, of what had fallen, from him, and he had been gratified at hearing it explained in the manner in which he had taken for granted it had been uttered. The hon. gentleman had argued the question, as if the issue were, whether on any occasion, except under the pressure of absolute want, any pecuniary assistance should be afforded by parliament to the people of Ireland. But this was not the question. The question was, whether, on this occasion, the assistance should be afforded, and in the particular manner proposed by the hon. mover. Favourably as every proposition professing to have the relief of Ireland for its object was received, the proposition which had been submitted to them by the hon. gentleman was, both by the temper and the manner of his address—both by its conception and its execution—calculated to meet with more than ordinary favour. He was sure, however, that the same temper and good sense which the hon. gentleman had shewn, and which in a long career in parliament, would render, he hoped, his services most valuable to his country, would induce him to admit, that it was very possible to differ as to the application of a principle without dissenting from the principle itself. The hon. gentleman had stated most fairly, that unless he could shew that a peculiar crisis existed, and that the pecuniary assistance was calculated to afford the
484
l
l
485
486
Mr. Maberly
, in reply to the objection just urged by the right hon. secretary, said, that there had been repeated instances in which loans had been made by the government to individuals, with acknowledged advantages to the country; yet these individuals had been placed in that very position with respect to the Crown, which the right hon. secretary now contended was a sufficient objection to the plan of his hon. relative. The right hon. secretary had rested his objections on the supposition, that the plan was to lend money on landed security. Not so. It was a plan to advance money for specific purposes. His honourable relative had adverted to districts of Ireland, where the people were even now in a state of starvation—where rebellions had broken out—and where, if the people were not employed, rebellion would break out again. He had himself received letters from that country, which described the extreme misery in which the people existed. They could hardly be said to subsist. They were often unable to get the 5
s
s
s
d
487
Colonel Trench
said, he believed that the gentleman who had been so frequently alluded to that evening, was not an Irishman, but an English gentleman superintending an estate almost ruined by English attornies. If his example were followed by the male part of the Irish gentry, and if the example of his wife were imitated by the resident Irish ladies, the greatest blessings would arise to that country, and Ireland would soon be in a very different situation. It had been said, that a crisis would arrive. It should have been said, that the crisis had arrived, and that in every case where sympathy and kindness had been shewn towards the peasantry, the general situation of the parties had been materially improved. The Irish people had warm hearts and generous dispositions, and even the outrages of which some of them had been guilty, arose less from want of feeling, than from an overflow of warm feeling, goaded on to despair by distress and famine. The conduct of the resident gentry towards the lower class of the people had been productive of most mischievous effects. The people of Ireland enjoyed in no respect the same advantages as the people of England. The bank of Ireland would not lend out its capital in the same manner, nor at the same interest, as the bank of England. The distress of the Irish resident gentry was so great as to exceed belief. They were, in many instances, only the agents, and sometimes the ill-paid agents, of their own creditors. They were not able to adopt those improvements which were suggested for the employment of their tenantry, and for their own individual interest. On that ground only they wished for an advance of capital; but he much doubted, if it was, granted, whether they would be materially benefited by it, as they were not like the Dutch or Scotch; for though they were warm-hearted and generous, they wanted
488
Mr. Abercromby
said, that when he first entered the House, he had no intention whatever of uttering his sentiments on this subject, but from what had occurred, he felt bound to state some reasons for the vote which he should give that night. He was sorry to say, that he could not vote for the measure of his hon. friend, as it was now framed. It had been brought forward with great ability, and urged on the attention of the House, with such arguments, and in such a manner, as did infinite honour to the talents and temper of the gallant mover. It was with no inconsiderable pain that he should vote against this measure, because he was of opinion, that every proposition, that tended to relieve the distresses under which Ireland now laboured, deserved the most favourable attention. He was fully convinced, that Ireland owed less to the liberal policy of ministers than any other country in Europe. The present proposition came before the House under very peculiar circumstances. There was at this moment, a redundancy of capital in the English market—so great, indeed, that it could not be fully employed; and yet, though England was joined with a country containing an active population of six millions, who were greatly in want of capital, none of that redundant capital found its way into that country. Upon this statement it was asked of the government to do that which no individuals would do. If the House looked to what was, or at least ought to be, the best criterion of the value of property—land, what would they observe? Why, that though the price of land in Ireland was one-third less than in England, yet none of the English capital went there to purchase. What could be the cause of this? Did it not prove that in the state of things there was something so dreadful, as to offer no hope, no interest, no advantage to the speculating capitalist? To all other parts of the world did English capital go-—but not to Ireland. This fact seemed to him to place the subject in such a point of view, as called for the most serious consideration both of the ministers and the legislature. It was a state which could be the result of nothing but a series of acts of misgovernment. It proved, that both
489
490
Mr. Monck
observed, that the evils of Ireland arose from an excessive and redundant population, and from a want of the means to afford employment to the people. Of these the former was the greater, and he thought that, in some measure, it might be mitigated, by giving the people different habits of living.—At present, they lived, or rather existed, on the very lowest means; and when those failed, through an accidental bad season, they could have recourse to no other. Another evil produced by these low means of subsistence was, the prevalence of early and inconsiderate marriages; by which poverty and wretchedness were introduced into a family, and by which a man made himself and his children the slaves of the landlord. In this respect, the greatest difference was observable between Ireland and Scotland. The superficial extent of the two countries was the same, and yet in
491
Mr. Hutchinson
said, that he did not desire the improvement of his native country at the direct expense of any other portion of the empire; but he did put in a claim for justice and good faith towards Ireland. He was glad to see that English gentlemen were directing their attention to the state of Ireland, and he felt grateful for their exertions. He had been for twenty years vainly endeavouring to rouse the attention of government and the parliament to the consideration of the condition of his native country, and contending for that admission which was at length so freely given; namely, that the improvement of Ireland must conduce to the general welfare of the empire, and that her tranquillity would add to its stability. As long as persons and property were insecure in Ireland, so long would the peace and prosperity of Great Britain be marred and compromised. He bestowed his warmest commendations upon the hon. mover of this question, and asked its opponents, if they could deny that the employment of the peasantry was an indis-
492
Mr. Alderman Bridges
said, he was sorry to hear of the distressed situation of the Irish peasantry, which he hoped would meet with serious attention from the government. He could not but be struck with the singular and melancholy fact, that while loans could be had in England for people in the remotest corners in the world, not a shilling could be raised for Ireland.
Sir John Newport
said, he entirely agreed with his hon. friend that tranquillity must be restored, before capital
493
494
Mr. Secretary Peel
thought, that but a very small part of the right hon. baronet's speech had any bearing on the question before the House. All he should feel it necessary to observe on the present occasion—which he considered by no means the best that the right hon. baronet might have selected for that speech-was, that he fully coincided in the objections which his hon. friends had taken to the motion. The right hon. baronet had said, that one of the great obstacles to the importation of capital into Ireland, was, the present condition of the administration of justice in that country. He had particularly alluded to those officers who were engaged in the recovery of debts, and had asked, why no remedy was applied to the known deficiencies of
495
Sir J. Newport
, in explanation, remarked, that that commission was appointed to inquire into the fees and duties of the office of sheriff in Ireland, and could not, therefore, report any thing satisfactory upon the subject of his complaint as to the sub-sheriffs, under the present system; for he complained of the non-execution of their duty, and insisted upon the necessity of enforcing a proper discharge of that duty.
Captain Maberly
rose to reply. He said, that all parties seemed agreed as to the nature of the evils which agitated Ireland; the only difference appeared to be, as to the remedy which it might be proper to apply to them. He fully admitted the force of many of the objections that had been urged to his motion; but he thought that the advantages which would arise from encouraging manufactures in Ireland, from establishing habits of industry and civilization, and from providing permanent employment for the poor population of that country (for such relief could only be furnished by permanent, and not by temporary employment)—these advantages, he considered, would more than counterbalance any such objections. He had no doubt, from what had occurred in Scotland in 1817, where an advance of capital had enabled individuals to establish a new branch of the herring fishery, and beat the Dutch out of the market of Hamburgh, that if capital were advanced to Ireland, fisheries would be established in that country also. He was sorry the gentlemen opposite did not see the measure in the same light in which he did; but he should feel it his duty to divide the House on the question.
496
The House divided: Ayes 33. Noes 85.
List of the Minority.
Althorp, visc.
Nugent, lord
Brownlow, C.
Pelham, J. C.
Clements, J.
Power, R.
Clifton, lord
Rice, T. S.
Denman, T.
Smith, J.
Ebrington, visc.
Smith, hon. R.
Ellis, hon. G. A.
Stanley, lord
Foley, J.
Stanley, hon. E. C.
Handley, H.
Stuart, W.
Honywood, W. P.
Sykes, D.
Hutchinson, hon. C. H.
Talbot, R. W.
Lamb, hon. G.
Tierney, right hon. G.
Leader, W.
Westenra, hon. H. R.
Maberly, J.
Whitbread, S. C.
Maberly, captain
White, H.
Marjoribanks, S.
White, S.
Newport, sir J.
Wood, M.
SCOTCH JURIES BILL.]
Mr. Kennedy
, after apologising for the possible irregularity of his motion at this stage of the business of the session, moved the bringing up of the report on the Scotch Juries Bill.
The Lord-Advocate
said, he was not averse to the motion, but felt disposed, in fairness to his hon. friend, to point out those parts of his bill, to which he should at a future stage of it take some objections. No specific evil had been done, which this bill could remedy. It exposed the jurors to very unequal labour; and if it happened that a juror was taken from a wrong parish, which might be the case in places like Glasgow, where there were twelve parishes, and the boundary of each was not exactly defined, the whole panel was set aside. He objected also to the complexity of the Bill.
Sir G. Clerk
thought, that notwithstanding all the pains that had been taken with this bill, it was still in such a crude and imperfect state, that instead of being a benefit, it would throw the whole criminal law of Scotland into confusion.
Mr. Abercromby
complained of the manner in which his hon. and learned friend, as well as the people of Scotland, had been treated by the lord advocate. He was surprised that a man holding the situation of public prosecutor, should have allowed this bill to have gone thus far without having stated his objections to it. It was not dealing handsomely with the House to bring forward his objections in this indirect manner.
Lord Binning
said, he was ready to wave the selection of the jury by the judges; but he was not bound, on that
497
Mr. W. Courtenay
said, he should support the measure, because he thought the contemplated change would be productive of good.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, his only wish was, that if a change was to take place, it should be effected in the best manner. He felt the force of some of the objections to the bill, and would suggest the propriety of re-committing it, with a view to further consideration.
Mr. Scarlett
said, he was disposed to meet the question in the same spirit as the right hon. gentleman; but it was incumbent on the learned lord, not only to state his objections, but, as he agreed to the principle of the bill, to specify the substitute he would propose for the present system.
Mr. Kennedy
said, it was a thankless, hopeless, irksome task, to argue on the details of this measure, after what had occurred; but he must bear his testimony to the fairness with which it had been uniformly met by the right hon. secretary of state. He bad no objection to the re-commitment of the bill, on the understanding that the learned lord, and those who thought with him, would be prepared on an early day to meet the discussion.
The Lord Advocate
said, it was not his duty, but the duty of the hon. gentleman who had introduced the measure, to propose the amendments. He had thought the measure impracticable, and he thought so still; but any thing like hostility towards the hon. gentleman, was contrary to his intentions and feelings.
The bill was ordered to be re-committed.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, May 5.
KENSINGTON OR HYDE-PARK-CORNER
Mr. Hume
said, he had a petition to present from a gentleman who was very generally known—Mr. William Cobbett. It was probably known that this gentleman had for some time turned his attention to the abuses of the toll-gates. He was happy the subject
498
l
l
l.,
499
l
l
l
l
l
Lord Lowther
said, that the bill alluded to by the hon. member had already pass-ed the House of Commons, and was gone up to the other House for its sanction. He was most happy that an inquiry had been instituted, for nothing could be more enormous than the trusts of turnpikes in the neighbourhood of London. They amounted to 150,000
l
Mr. Hume
said, a bill had been passed, the preamble of which contained a gross falsehood. He wished to know from the Speaker, whether there was any precedent to direct them in a case like the present; or whether that House could adopt any measure on discovering that they had passed a bill containing a positive falsehood, while that bill was pending in the House of Lords?
The Speaker
said, that the bill was now entirely beyond the control of that House.
Mr. Hume
said, that some means ought to be taken to guard themselves against such an occurrence in future.
"General Statement of the Income and Expenditure of the Kensington, &c. Turnpike Roads, between the 1st of January and 31st of December, 1823.
Expenditure.
"To Surveyor's accounts of day-labour between the 1st day of Jan. and the 31st of Dec. 1823, for maintenance and repair of Roads, and watering the same
£.2,187
8
5
Team-labour for the same period, including water-carts, and cleansing the roads
745
1
6
Watching the roads
563
11
6
500
The petition was ordered to lie on the table. The following is a copy thereof:
"The Petition of William Cobbett, of Kensington, in the County of Middlesex,
"Most humbly sheweth—That there is now a bill before your Honourable House, intituled 'A Bill for more effectually repairing, widening, and improving the Road from Hyde-Park-Corner to Counter's Bridge, and certain other roads in the County of Middlesex, and for lighting, watching, and watering, the said Roads.'
"That, in the preamble to the said bill are the following words: 'And whereas the Trustees appointed by or in pursuance of the said two recited acts (meaning the two local acts) have repaired and. improved the said roads, and have made great progress in carrying into execution the powers and authorities thereby vested in them, and, although they have discharged and paid off part of the monies borrowed on the credit of the tolls authorised to be taken upon the said roads a considerable sum remains undischarged, and cannot be paid off, and the said annual sum of one thousand pounds be paid to the said committee of Paving for St. George Hanover-square; nor can the said roads be effectually amended, widened and im proved, and maintained in repair, unless the term and powers granted by the two first-recited acts be continued, and further provisions be made for that purpose:'
"That these words contain a barefaced falsehood, as will be seen by your honourable House in the following statement of the pecuniary affairs of this Road. That this statement has been obtained by your Petitioner, agreeably to the Act, from the Clerk of the Peace of the County of Middlesex; that your Petitioner is ready to prove at your Bar the authenticity of this statement, which is in the following words, to wit:—
501
Contractors' and workmens' bills for materials supplied for maintenance and repair of roads and foot-paths
4,774
13
5
Repair of toll-houses, gates, lamp-posts, and new toll-boards
258
1
0
Lighting the roads
684
17
11
Purchase of land for widening the roads, building a brick sewer under the surface of the road instead of an open sewer and a new fence to widen the road
938
11
6
Ten turnpike bonds paid off
1,000
0
0
Salaries and other payments of clerk, surveyor, and other officers
618
5
0
Printing, advertising, and stationery
48
11
0
Interest of bond debts
108
19
7
Annual sum paid to the Commissioners of paving of St. George, Hanover-sq.
1,000
0
0
Commissioners of Hans Town
140
0
0
Incidental charges
96
1
6
£.13,164
2
4
Income.
By balance in Treasurer's hands
£.3,147
17
4
Amount of one year's rent received from the Lessees of the Tolls
14,000
0
0
Composition in lieu of statue labour for the year
324
0
0
Incidental receipts
195
9
10
17,667
7
2
General Statement of Debts and Credits.
An account of the amount of Debt bearing interest (a 1,000
l
£.2,500
0
0
Accruing rent of Tolls
£.1,166
13
4
An account of interest due
50
0
0
Compositions due from parishes
228
10
0
An account of floating Debt.
875
9
0
£.3,425
9
0
£.1,395
3
4
(Signed)
GEORGE BARKER, Chairman.
"That, according to the foregoing account, these roads owe but 1,500
l
l
l
"That, therefore, the above quoted part of the preamble of this bill is wholly false; that the principal pretence for passing the bill is unfounded; that the present local act does not expire for two years yet to come; that a new act is not yet wanted; that if this bill pass, it will contain a flagrant falsehood, and will be greatly injurious to the public, and will encourage and foster a most scandalous job; and that, therefore, your petitioner most humbly prays, that the said bill may not pass. And your petitioner will ever pray.
"WM. COBBETT."
TITHE SYSTEM IN IRELAND—PETITION
Mr. Hume
said, he had a petition to present of considerable importance. It related to the question of tithes, and was in every respect deserving the serious
502
The following is a copy of the petition.
"The Petition of the Parishioners of the Parish of Blackrath, in the Diocese of Ossory, and County of Kilkenny:—
"Humbly sheweth—That in Ireland the tithes of every parish are valued by two tithe-proctors, who, instead of being respectable persons indifferently chosen, one by the parson and the other by the parish, are, in general, persons of the lowest description and worst characters, selected solely by the more wealthy and powerful of the two parties interested, whose wages they receive, and at whose pleasure they may be discharged. Your petitioners leave it to your honourable House to judge how far tithe-valuations,
503
"That by law the clergy themselves are bound to defray all the expenses, and incur all the risks of saving in the field, drawing home, preparing for sale, and carrying to market, the tenth of the crops; but, in point of fact, they contrive to impose all those risks and expenses on the farmers, in consequence of which two legal tenths, instead of one, are exacted from the poorest people in Europe by the richest clergy in the world:
"That the tithe owners, instead of informing the tithe payers of the amount of tithes charged against each of them, immediately after the view, which always takes place before harvest, keep it a profound secret till the settlement, which generally takes place after new-year's day, and then the parsons, instead of charging their parishioners the actual prices which the new crops bore in the next market at the time of severance (as bound by law), charge them the highest prices which either new or old had brought in any market of the county, from the day of the view till the day of the settlement, contrary to every rule of tithing, and every principle of justice, and, after the settlement, procure them to pass their promissory notes for the sums so illegally and unjustly charged:
"That though, in point of law, each and every cultivator in a parish has a right, from time immemorial, to set out the tenth of his crops in kind, yet, in point of fact, not one clergyman in a hundred allows his parishioners the general exercise of that ancient and undoubted right. On the contrary, should even twenty or thirty persons in a parish, containing five-hundred or a thousand tithe-payers, attempt to pay him in kind, the tithe owner refuses to receive the tenths under some captious and frivolous pretext, and when they have rotted in the fields, commences a suit for the recovery of the amount in the Bishop's court; and, whatever may be the pretext so alleged for refusing the tithes, it almost invariably happens, that the clergyman who presides in that court in all such cases, decrees in favour of his brother clergyman who brings the action, by which means the impoverished landholder is obliged to pay the same tithes twice over—once in kind, and again in
504
"That the consistorial courts, instead of remedying any of the abuses above stated, are themselves the great source of tithe grievances. It is only necessary to remind your honourable House, that in those courts the vicar-general, or his surrogate, a clergyman chosen, not by the Crown, but by the bishop, is, in tithe causes, at once judge and jury. How far such a person is likely to possess the necessary qualifications to fill properly the important office he undertakes, is sufficiently apparent. He is to decide on legal difficulties without having made law his proper study, and therefore cannot be a competent judge. He is to determine tithe causes in the very diocese where he is himself generally a tithe owner, and therefore cannot be a disinterested judge. In fact, so gross is the mal-administration of Irish justice in those tithe causes, that the peasantry of Ireland hold the court Christian in as much detestation as the scarcely less wretched people of Spain hold the Holy Inquisition. These tithe courts are, in fact, the great cause of tithe disturbances; and your petitioners submit to your honourable House whether some excuse is not to be allowed for a high spirited population, long remarked for their ardent love of equal and impartial justice, whether it be for or against themselves; if, instead of thus eternally submitting their unredressed wrongs to an appeal to law, they have sometimes sought to vindicate their violated rights by an appeal to arms.
"That this bad system is rendered still worse by rarely allowing any appeal in practice to a superior tribunal. It is true there exists an appeal in theory, but it is such an one as is a mere mockery of justice, an appeal, the costs of which are so enormously disproportioned to the sum in dispute, that no poor man could, and
505
"That any composition for tithes, however equitably intended, if founded on the system of extortion above described, cannot but be unfair and oppressive. But the tithe composition act of last session is objectionable in the highest degree, because it is at once unjust to the people and injurious to the government. It is unjust to the people for a double reason. First, because the annual incomes of the clergy at the commencement of the term of composition, are fixed at the amount of the respective averages of their annual receipts for the seven years, from 1815 to 1821, a period during which those reverend personages reduced not the rates of their tithes, even so much as one per cent, although a reduction of 300 per cent had in that interval taken place in the prices of tithable produce. And next, because the average price of wheat in the Dublin market (which is to regulate the future triennial increase or diminution of clerical income) is directed to be struck for these seven years, when the prices of grain had sunk nearly to the lowest, though the rates of tithes still continued fully to the highest; instead of the act directing the average income and average price to be fixed, as in justice and equity they ought, when tithe and grain were both at the highest, or both at the lowest. By this most inequitable provision, the average price of wheat affixed to every composition, is not much more than 30
s
s
506
"That the church lands of Ireland in the hands of ecclesiastical corporations, sole and aggregate, amount to nearly one million and a half of English acres. These lands, which were originally some of the best, are now, by a long course of mismanagement, some of the worst in the kingdom, the occupying tenants being called on generally every three years, to pay all the little capital they can accumulate for renewal fines, instead of being allowed to expend it to their own benefit, and that of the community, on the improvement of their respective farms. Of those territorial domains of the church, far the greater part are bishops lands. These lands the bishops lease to their tenants, not as they ought to do, without renewal fines, at the full and improved value, for the benefit of the church, but at a gross undervalue on large renewal fines, to the public injury of the church, and the private gain of their own families. Of these renewal fines, each primate receives, on an average, about 200,000
l
l
507
l
"Your petitioners beg leave respectfully to represent to your honourable House, that if the territorial revenues of the Irish hierarchy, instead of being improperly diverted to the enrichment of the families of particular churchmen, were honestly managed for the general emolument of the church; and if the Irish episcopacy, instead of being kept up to an establishment sufficient for a population of ten millions of Protestants, were reduced to the number necessary for half a million members of the established religion, the ample rents of these extensive church lands would form not only a sufficient fund, but a fund much more than sufficient to maintain the reduced number of six or seven prelates, and the full number of 1,275 beneficed clergymen in a proper and becoming style of christian competence. Were this desirable and necessary arrangement adopted, our oppressed and beggared peasantry might then be relieved entirely from the intolerable grievance of tithes; a grievance, if not the sole, at least the principal cause, of all that distress, disturbance, disaffection, and insurrectionary horror, which now renders Ireland a source of constant expense, as well as of incessant terror to England.
"Your petitioners therefore implore your honourable House in the first place to repeal the tithe composition act of last session; an act which, professing to lighten the heavy ecclesiastical yoke under which the people of Ireland groan, doubles its weight, and rivets it on their necks for ever.
508
"In the next place, your petitioners supplicate your honourable House, that the abuses of the tithe system be promptly and effectually reformed; that the two tithe valuators be appointed indifferently, one by the parson, and the other by the parish; that, as soon as the proctors shall have valued any person's tithes, they be obliged to give him a field ticket copied from their Held book, specifying the number of acres of tithable produce, the number of barrels or other measures in common use, of such produce valued to the acre; the prices charged both by the acre and by the barrel, and the total amount of the year's tithe; that, in all cases where tithes shall be set out in kind by the one party, and refused by the other, the tithe owner be obliged at the time to state in writing the reason of his refusal, and the tithe payer be authorised, in cases where the tithes so set out and refused shall not exceed the yearly value of 10
l
l
"And lastly, your petitioners conjure your honourable House, that after the demise of the present incumbents, whose life properties in their benefices your petitioners religiously regard as sacred and inviolable, their successors be paid entirely, from the ample revenues of the church
509
Ordered to lie on the table.
TREAD-MILL—PETITION OF SIR J.
Sir T. Lethbridge
rose to present a petition from two very respectable magistrates, sir J. C. Hippisley, who dicharged the duties of a justice of the peace in the county of Somerset; and Mr. Briscoe,
510
Mr. Denison
said, the labour of the tread-wheel had been received with approbation in four or five-and-twenty different counties. If it were not unanimously approved of by the magistrates, certain he was, that a great proportion of them were favourable to it; and, so far as it had gone, he believed it was the best mode of punishment that could be adopted. It kept the prisoner to hard labour, as the law authorised and directed, without breaking his spirit, or injuring his health. One of the petitioners, Mr. Briscoe, had certainly come before the magistrates at the last quarter sessions for Surry, and laid before them certain charges, which, in his opinion, and that
511
Mr. Hobhouse
said, the great object of the House should be, to prevent an abuse of the discretionary power which the existing act placed in the hand of magistrates. Now, they must be all aware that that power had been very much abused in one or two instances. He would not enter into the merits of the case alluded to by his hon. friend, but he could not help thinking, that magistrates, when intrusted with so arbitrary a power, ought to keep a very strict guard over their conduct. It was always an object in punishment to avoid degrading the culprit in his own eyes and those of others as far as possible; but certainly, no man could ever look upon himself as a man was entitled to do, after being made to run round like a dog in a wheel, for the amusement of those who might choose to stand and gaze at him. The tread-wheel might be a very fit and proper punishment to be inflicted for some offences, which now subjected those who committed them to transportation or to death; but, as applied at present, it seemed to him, to be in the last degree mischievous, cruel, and absurd.
The petition was then read, as follows:—
"The humble Petition of sir John Cox Hippisley, baronet, an acting magistrate in and for the county of Somerset, and of other counties, in which the subject of prison discipline has undergone much inquiry and practical investigation by the resident local magistracy; also of John I. Briscoe Esq., an acting magistrate of the county of Surry,
512
"Sheweth, That a considerable degree of expectation has been excited in the public mind, and which the petitioners, in their official characters, cannot but regard with the deepest interest, in reference to the progress of a bill now in your honourable House, having for its object an amendment of the general gaol act of the 4th of his present majesty, chap. 64.
"That the petitioners, in common with many other individuals with whom they have had communication, entertain a serious apprehension that the introduction, for the first time by name, of a novel method and machine of punishment into our Statute-book, may be construed into an implied recognition of tread-wheel labour, as a legalized employment for all prisoners who are not the subjects of particular exemption. And this apprehension is still more strongly awakened, by a practical adoption of the tread wheel in many of the gaols and prisons of the kingdom, as appears in the official communications addressed to the home department of his majesty's government:
"That the petitioners humbly entreat the attention and consideration of your honourable House to the extraordinary and important circumstances, that the punishment of the tread-wheel is altogether unknown to the common law of the land, and is neither named nor in any way designated in the Statute-book—the only authorities throughout the realm that can justify the use of any specific punishment or penal infliction; and that hence it never has, and, till some change take place in the law, never can form a specific part of any sentence passed by the judges at any assize upon a criminal; yet that this severe, and as they are ready to substantiate, painful and dangerous penalty, has been for several years past very generally inflicted on almost every class and description of offenders by local justices of the peace, who, in numerous instances, have sat in debate on the propriety or impropriety of employing this new punishment; in some instances have decided in favour of it, and in others against it; thus assuming to themselves a power equally unprecedented and alarming, and one which places magistrates on a supposed level with parliament, in which alone is vested the constitutional right of deciding and establishing the law of the realm, and elevates them above the judges of the land, whose inferiors in office, agreeably to the principles and provisions
513
"That the petitioners, as magistrates and members of society, regard it further to be their bounden duty, in the present crisis, to lay before your honourable House some of the practical and weighty grounds of objection which exist against this novel punishment, introduced by many of his majesty's justices of the peace, and which, in the opinion of the petitioners, seem to call for an immediate interference of the legislature. In the first place, they cannot but submit to your honourable House, that the tread-wheel, as a mechanical engine, is an unsafe, and even on this account, an unconstitutional mode of punishment; from the complication of its construction, the frequent irregularity of its revolutions, the extent and formation of its shafts, especially as applied in the most considerable prisons in the kingdom, and the enormous weight which it often has to sustain, in consequence of which it has actually broken, and that repeatedly in short periods of time, in various houses of correction: in some instances (where precaution is assigned to have been expressly taken) without accident, as stated by a visiting magistrate of Shepton-Mallet, in the last official returns to the office of the home department; in others, occasioning severe sprains and bruises to those prisoners who had been thereby thrown off the wheels, and precipitated to a depth of some feet, as at Coldbath-fields, which fact, though not appearing upon the face of the returns, the petitioners are prepared to verify. In one instance, the machinery has been the cause of a fractured limb, and in others of immediate loss of life, to such of the workers as have not been aware of its dangers, or not sufficiently on their guard against them. The former instance occurred at North Allerton, in the case of an untried prisoner, whose arm was shattered so as to render amputation necessary; and the latter cases at Leicester, where two men were killed while engaged at the wheel, and at Swaffham, where another prisoner was instantaneously crushed to death. And the petitioners beg also to observe, that from the evidence of engineers of the highest reputation, there appears to be no possible mode of obtaining an adequate security against many of these casualties, from the insuperable frangibility of the iron, whether cast or malleable, that
514
"The petitioners submit next, that this instrument of punishment is further objectionable from its injurious effects on the health of those who are sentenced to it. They are able to prove on oath before your honourable House, from a large mass of evidence from medical practitioners of name and reputation, from prison attendants, and very extensively from those who have suffered as prisoners from its infliction, but who are now at liberty, that it can rarely be employed at the usual rate of exertion for more than ten minutes or a quarter of an hour without causing some or all of the attendant symptoms of a prejudicial excitement and dangerous exhaustion of the animal powers, and particularly so violent and morbid an acceleration of the pulse, as to quicken its beat to nearly double its natural range, raising it from the ordinary rate of from sixty to seventy strokes in a minute, to an average of one hundred and twenty-three in the male, and one hundred and forty-four in the female prisoners, as has been proved by different medical practitioners of high respectability, and is confirmed by a minute entered on the prison journal at Brixton, by those represented to be magistrates favourable to this species of labour, and who therein refer to an experiment made on their own persons; that, together with so baneful an excitement it causes pains and aches in different parts and organs of the body, according to the peculiarity of different constitutions, or the circumstances under which the labour is inflicted; that women, who, from the comparative weakness of their sex, suffer with additional severity, have in many instances dropped off from the wheel in a swoon, have had their natural indispositions profusely and painfully aggravated, sometimes forced prematurely, and at others suddenly and totally obstructed; that when in a state of pregnancy, which, in its earliest and most dangerous stages, is not unfrequently undetected, they are in imminent danger of abortion, of which an instance occurs in the official report from the prison in Coldbath-fields; and that, as nurses, they cannot, without manifest injury and suffering to their infants, as well as to themselves, perform the office of suckling
515
"The petitioners beg leave also to submit, that a familiarity with this labour, instead of rendering it lighter and less mischievous, augments its injurious consequences to the health and strength in almost every instance, as well in men as in women: such effects increasing with the increasing debility of the frame. That the petitioners are aware that a different account of this penal infliction has been given in most of the official communications addressed by order to the home department of his majesty's government but they humbly beg leave to represent that they are unable to place the confidence they could wish in these communications, not only from the wide discrepancy of their own experience, but from the partial and irregular nature of the reports themselves, which contain no ac-count of the average proportion of labour, of the intervals of its cessation, of the rate of revolution of the wheels, of their dimensions or space between the treadles or steps, though all these circumstances materially influence the nature and effect of the task-work; and which are likewise returned from several places, as Pembroke and Haverford west, with the signature of a single magistrate, without any statement on the part of a surgeon, or notice of consultation with him on the subject, although such consultation is expressly directed in the official letter addressed by the secretary of "state to the visiting magistrates of the several gaols and houses of correction; while only twenty-one returns are printed, as laid before your honourable House: though it is capable of proof, that at least in fifty-three prisons, there are tread-wheels erected, or actually in operation, at the period of official inquiry.
"That the inability of the petitioners to confide in the above reports is not a little augmented by the utter and irreconcileable conflict which exists between their several statements, some of them admitting, by implication, the labour to be of so severe a nature, that the infliction for women has either never been allowed, or has actually been abandoned, or reduced,
516
"The petitioners beg further to submit, that the only medical committee (as they understand) which has hitherto been consulted by the home department of his majesty's government, has been limited in its inquiry to the effects of working female prisoners on the wheel; and that the report of such committee, in the opinion of the petitioners, recommends what is equivalent to a virtual renunciation of the punishment, by restricting its application, even for the young and robust, to two hours and a half of actual labour daily, and allowing intervals of entire rest to all for a whole week, once in every month, (exemptions unknown to, and unnecessary for healthy females in any of the usual species of hard labour performed by their sex, and which indisputably decide in the affirmative the question proposed by Mr. Secretary Peel to the committee—namely, whether the effects on the female constitution are greater than result from the ordinary occupations of women in the lower classes of society); while the same committee still further recommend a total prohibition of the wheel to the very great numbers who are in any respect infirm or diseased.
"The petitioners humbly represent, that the indiscriminate employment of an ignominious and corporal punishment, degrading to the mind and hurtful to the body of the prisoner, which destroys all due classification, and implies the same kind and measure of infliction to every degree of crime, and difference of age, sex, and habit of life, appears to them equally [hostile to justice, humanity, and sound
517
"That the petitioners, after extensive and cautious investigation, have reason to fear that the great and important hope at first indulged, that the discipline of the tread-wheel would materially diminish the aggregate of offenders, has completely failed; and that while it is fully ascertained that it promotes no habit of industry or means of earning a livelihood when discharged from gaol, they believe it both hardens the heart and demoralizes the mind, at the same time that it injures and enfeebles the body; and thus, by lessening the means and opportunities of amendment, by preparing the prisoner for crimes of greater magnitude, and rendering him indifferent as to the future, has a natural tendency to fill rather than empty our prisons, and to render them schools of growing crime and desperation, rather than of reformation and moral discipline. And in proof of this, the petitioners refer to the greater number of recommitments, that seem almost uniformly to take place where the tread-wheel is established, compared with those in houses of correction where it is not yet introduced, so as to give fearful and abundant evidence of the resistance opposed in the former to the influence of
518
"The petitioners beg leave to submit, on the other hand, that Mr. Howard, whose considerations and recommendations of the subject of prison discipline were formerly matter of parliamentary discussion and approbation, has enumerated no less than fifty-eight modes of prison employment, which are capable of being rendered subservient to the health and morals of a prison population, of engendering habits of industry, and consequently of promoting the means by which prisoners may be enabled to provide for themselves when liberated, and thus of carrying into effect the important and salutary remarks advanced by Mr. Justice Bayley in his late impressive charge to the grand jury at the Durham Assizes, in which he says—'he had always thought that the employment of prisoners ought to be as far as possible so regulated, that they could, afterwards obtain a livelihood by it.' Whilst at the same time it should be observed, that most of the methods of employment alluded to by Mr. Howard, may be rendered contributary to the severest degree of hard labour, in the proper and legitimate acceptation of the term, and will be found sufficiently to weary the workers without wasting their constitutional strength, as has been amply established in various houses of correction, which have had recourse to them long prior to the use of the tread-wheel, and particularly (as stated in the reports of the Prison Discipline Society) in those of Preston, Knutsford, and Maidstone, while the committee of this society has, with great truth and candour, remarked, in their publication 'On the Government of Gaols,' that 'preference should be given to those trades which require hard labour, the knowledge of which may enable the prisoners to earn their subsistence on their discharge from prison'—an observation which is followed by an enumeration of corresponding employments little short of that by Mr. Howard.
"And here the petitioners hope they may be permitted to remind your honourable House, that both the spirit and letter of the laws of our country have, from the earliest times, provided that no infliction of punishment ought to endanger the health of the body, or expose it to casualties, beyond the strict intent and bear-
519
"While the petitioners thus presume to avow their own humble opinions and conscientious fears, with reference to the adoption of the novel discipline herein objected to, they cannot observe without deep regret, the strenuous efforts which are making to extend its introduction into almost every considerable state of Europe. Whatever, indeed, is connected with the good of civil society, ought not to be confined within the boundaries of a single nation; but before experiments upon this important subject are lavishly recommended to the world, it seems most reasonable, that incontrovertible proof should be furnished, that the benefit of the community is thereby likely to be promoted. It does not, however, appear that the tread-wheel, with all the fostering support it has derived from the well-intentioned society that first brought it into notice, instituted in our metropolis and its vicinity under the auspices of many of the most distinguished characters in the kingdom, has been hailed with an equal approbation by various illustrious foreigners engaged in the same laudable pursuit, and availing themselves of every means of inquiry afforded by the institutions of our own country. The petitioners, in proof hereof, may be permitted to advert to the interesting report on the state of prisons in France, by M. le Marquis dc Barbé Marbois, as the organ of a similar society, constituted by an ordonnance of the king of France, of the 9th of April, 1819, and composed of twenty-four members, under the presidency of the Minister of the Interior, the majority of which are peers of France, while the rest are appropriately distinguished by their official stations in the government. Speaking in this report of the application of the tread-wheel, after a minute examination of this machine, by a deputation from the society in France, directly charged to observe its effects in England, and to obtain all practical information from our own Prison discipline Society, the noble marquis
520
"From the circumstances already adverted to by the petitioners, and none are mentioned but what they consider they have the most satisfactory means of proving at the bar, or in the committees of your honourable House, together with other weighty reasons which press upon their minds, they are themselves convinced of the inefficiency of any discipline founded on a principle of unmixed terror and degradation. They also feel great anxiety in respect to the interpretation of the clause respecting untried prisoners introduced in the bill now before your honourable House, as indirectly sanctioning a mode of punishment, against which,
521
"And your petitioner, sir John Cox Hippisley, begs leave to observe for himself, that he has individually under-taken, from the obvious exigency of the occasion, and stands also individually engaged to the county in which is his principal residence, for the completion, by prison labour exclusively, of one of the most considerable Houses of correction in the kingdom, situated in the vicinity of considerable manufacturing towns and villages, which are but too often in a state of great insubordination—and of a considerable colliery district, which has more than once called for exertions beyond the ordinary means of the civil magistrate: and consequently, that, should the principle at present so much encouraged and promoted by the majority of the magistracy charged with a visitation of prisons, find any countenance by a concurrent enactment of the legislature, every effort to persevere in the completion of the provincial house of correction at Shepton Mallet, by prison labour, must unfortunately be abandoned: concerning which prison, however, so far as it has advanced, the Society of Prison Discipline has been pleased to affirm, 'That it has afforded many instances of the reformation of individuals—that great benefits have arisen from the instruction there supplied, particularly in respect of juvenile prisoners—that a classification has long been adopted there to manifest advantage, and that many persons have been taught to work as masons, carpenters, tailors, and shoemakers, who are now maintaining themselves by the trades they have so learned.' To this testimony, and which is no other than the fact, the petitioner, who has long been occupied in the superintendence of the said prison, and is yet responsible for the execution of the works undertaken for its extension and completion in the terms of his contract, can add, from long experience, that an adoption of similar measures would be found to save,
522
"To render such efforts still more advantageous, and trusting that in the wisdom of parliament, such resources will not be abandoned, the petitioner ventures also to suggest, the great advantages derivable from a re-enactment of the act, chap. 56, of the 24th year of his late Majesty, the practical operation of which has expired, and by which one justice of assize, or two or more justices of the county, might remove any prisoners under sentences, and orders made by one or more justice or justices of the peace at their sessions, or otherwise, upon conviction in a summary way, without the intervention of a jury. If such a power were revived, and extended to convictions, when capital punishments did not attach, it is humbly conceived that great public benefit might result, by the visiting magistrates of prisons being empowered to concert with each other for the arrangement of removals for any of the purposes of the act, passed in the last session for the consolidating and amendment of the several laws relating to gaols and houses of correction.
"The petitioner also having presumed early to solicit the attention of some members of the committee of your honourable House to the restrictive clause, respecting the tread-mill, as it originally stood, ventures further to submit, that some practical inconvenience may eventually arise, should the enactment take place, even as it now stands, on the amendments ordered to be printed on the 15th of April; as, from a cursory reference to the bill, the title will still be found not to correspond with the enactment, nor to have any application whatever to the state of the largest house of correction in this kingdom, namely, that of Cold-bath-fields, where there are no tread-mills, as well as to many other considerable prisons.
"Under these circumstances, the petitioners beg leave to close this intrusion upon the patience of your honourable House, with humbly praying that for the reasons already stated, namely, the utter inutility of the work, as exercised in some places, the pain, the peril, and inequality of the punishment, its impropriety, inde-
523
"And the petitioners further pray, that the bill, as at present before your honourable House, may not pass into a law, and that such other relief may be granted in the said matter as to your wisdom shall seem expedient.
"The petitioner, sir J. C. Hippisley, begs leave further to observe, that while the preceding observations were drawing up, an incident occurred which seems to render the present application to your honourable House a duty of the most imperative necessity; and the more especially, as it is now occupied with a revision of the existing Gaol act. Under the 17th section of this act, it is provided, 'that any Justice of the peace, of any county, or other division, whether a visitor or not, shall, at his own free will and pleasure, and as often as he shall see fit, enter into and examine any prison of such county or other division; and the act requires of him, if he shall discover any abuse or abuses therein, that he shall report the same in writing, at the next General or Quarter Sessions; and that the abuse or abuses so reported, shall be taken into immediate consideration, and the most effectual means adopted for inquiring into and certifying the same.' In which enactment
524
"Under the authority of this provision, the petitioner, sir J. C. Hippisley, being at the time suffering under much indisposition, reported in writing, to the magistrates assembled in the late General Quarter Sessions of the peace for the county of Surrey, of which county he is an acting magistrate, the existence of certain abuses in houses of correction under their jurisdiction, which, in his judgment, demanded such a report to be made. His report was delivered in due time to the clerk of the peace; and from him he has received a letter, dated the 1st of the present month, informing him as follows:—'I laid your statement, or report, on the subject of the tread-wheel, before the court on the first day of the session, and was proceeding to read it, but the court declined hearing it, on the ground that it was contrary to the practice of the court to receive written statements from magistrates who did not attend themselves. I have therefore returned your paper. (Signed) C. J. LAWSON. So that while by the penalty of the tread-wheel the magistrates are introducing into our prisons, and even our poor-houses, a punishment unsanctioned by either common or statute law, by the practice of the above court of sessions they are directly contravening a distinct parliamentary enactment. It will hence, perhaps be felt necessary by your honourable House, that some measure should be adopted to ensure compliance with the enactment of so important a part of the statute, especially at a moment when the consideration of the House is drawn to a revisal of some parts of the act in question."
Ordered to lie on the table.
IRISH MILITIA.]
Colonel Davies
rose, to move for leave to bring in a bill, to alter the present state of the Militia establishment in Ireland. The expense of the Irish Militia staff, taken with reference to its extent, was rather more than a third greater in Ireland than in great Britain; and, unless a sufficient cause for that
525
l
Sir G. Hill
expressed his surprised, if such a motion ought at all to be made, that the hon. and gallant member had delayed it until after the annual provisions had been agreed to by the House. With respect to the proposition of the hon. and gallant officer as to the Quarter-masters, that arrangement had been already made. As to the charges under the head of fuel, lodging, &c. that might constitute a fair ground of discussion in the next session. The staff of the Irish militia during the late war, had been eminently serviceable. By their exertions many thousands had been induced to enter into the general military service of the country. It was hard that many of these meritorious individuals, who had been thus beneficially employed for the public, were turned adrift with their families on a pittance of five pence a-day. It had long been his opinion that they ought to be more adequately provided for. By the regiment which he had the honour to command, between three and four thousand men had been furnished for general service, in consequence of the exertions of the Staff. On the grounds which he had alleged, he should oppose the motion.
526
Mr. Hume
observed, that the main points in his gallant friend's speech had not been touched upon by the right hon. baronet. The charge for lodging, when barracks were standing empty, had not been justified or answered. He was far from agreeing, that the reduction had already been carried too far. On the contrary, he thought that the colonels who had resisted that reduction ought to have been brought to a court martial, and dismissed the service. He was distinctly of opinion, that the letters written upon that occasion would have justified such a course; and he could scarcely wonder at some recent instances of disobedience by officers, seeing that that course had not been adopted. The distress to which men might be reduced who were discharged from the militia, he regretted: although it should be remembered, that the noncommissioned officers, after twenty years' service, had a provision; but the plea of individual distress, however strong, he could not allow to operate; because the same objection might have been applied to a reduction of the army altogether.
Mr. Goulburn
justified the reductions which had been made in the Irish Militia, and expressed his surprise at the readiness of the hon. member for Aberdeen to place that constitutional force at the direction of the Commander-in-Chief, rather than the civil power. He eulogized the promptitude with which the militia staff had always stepped forth to the support of government in times of trouble and difficulty.
Mr. Hutchinson
acknowledged that the staff of the Irish Militia had, on many occasions, been eminently serviceable. He supported his hen. friend's motion, however, on the ground that he could not see why the Irish staff should be a third more numerous in proportion than that of England.
The House divided—For the motion 10; Against it 26; Majority 16.
List of the Minority.
Fergusson, Sir R.
Maberly, W. L.
Heron, Sir R.
Monck, J. B.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Pelham, J. C.
Hutchinson, Hon. C. H.
Sykes, D.
TELLERS.
Kennedy, F.
Davies, Colonel.
Lushington, Dr.
Hume, J.
527
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, May 6.
KENSINGTON ROAD BILL.]
Lord Holland
presented a petition from Mr. W. Cobbett against the Kensington turnpike bill, then under the consideration of the House. He was himself a friend to the object of the bill against the preamble of which this petition was directed. The gentlemen who signed the petition stated, that the preamble contained several false allegations, and prayed to be heard at the bar against the bill.
The petition—(see p. 497), was referred to the committee on the bill.
NEWFOUNDLAND JUDICATURE BILL.]
Earl Bathurst
stated, that he had adopted the suggestion of the noble lord (Holland), as to dividing the bill into two parts. He agreed that it would be proper to consider that part which related to the celebration of marriage separately. He then moved, that it be an instruction to the committee on the bill to divide it into two. The House having resolved itself into the committee, the noble earl proceeded to state the amendments he proposed to make in the bill relative to the judicature. The circuit courts were to have jurisdiction in criminal and in civil cases. In criminal cases, when no jury could be found, the judge and three assessors were to try the parties accused; but no person was to be found guilty, unless the judge and two of the assessors agreed in a verdict to that effect. In civil cases it was thought proper that the judge should try without any assessor. An appeal would lie from the circuit courts to the supreme court at St. John's. In cases where there had been a jury, the appeal would be confined merely to questions of law. In cases in which there had been no jury, the appeal might embrace both the law and the fact.
Lord Holland
thanked the noble earl for having adopted his suggestion. As to the amendments, they appeared to be founded upon the best principles. He thought, however, that it would be better to make the assessors perform the duty of a jury, and return a verdict independent of the judge. In civil cases they might be employed to decide upon facts. It was desirable that Newfoundland should have a constitution similar to the other colonies as soon as possible.
Earl Bathurst
considered Newfoundland by no means prepared for receiving a con-
528
Lord Holland
thought, that if the office was of utility in itself, a little ingenuity might enable their lordships to find a name for the persons who exercised it; so that they need neither be called jurors nor assessors.
The amendments were agreed to.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, May 6.
STANDING ORDERS RESPECTING PETITIONS.]
Mr. Lawley presented a petition for leave to present a petition to bring in a bill for the purpose of lighting the town of Birmingham with gas.
Mr. Bright
said, he was anxious to take that opportunity of expressing the strong sense he felt of the impropriety of violating the Standing Orders of the House. The session was drawing to a close, and yet, night after night, petitions were presented for private bills. Nothing could, in his opinion, be more improper than such a course of proceeding, and it was incumbent on the House to put a stop to it. If the practice were persevered in, he should not be surprised if, in a short time, even the ceremony of previously presenting a petition would be dispensed with. Notwithstanding the indifference with which their standing orders were suspended at present, they were watched by our ancestors with the utmost vigilance. He found in Mr. Justice Black-stone an authority in support of this opinion, and at the period of the Restoration, the same constitutional jealousy was observed. Lord Clarendon had strongly reprobated the practice, and pointed out the inconveniences which arose from it. These orders should never be dispensed with, except in cases of urgent necessity. He had intended to propose a resolution on the subject, and perhaps he should still do so.
Mr. Sumner
said, that next session he would propose a resolution, compelling those who applied to have the stand-
529
Sir James Graham
urged the impropriety of violating the standing orders.
General Gascoyne
said, that if it was done in this instance, he could see no reason why a similar application should be resisted on any future occasion.
Mr. Alderman Heygate
said, that in this instance the suspension of the orders seemed to have been called for as a matter of course. There might be particular cases, in which such a step would be very proper, but this was not one of them.
Mr. Ellice
agreed as to the propriety of some new regulation, but could not see why this particular case should now be opposed.
Mr. Huskisson
wished the hon. member to withdraw his petition. He decidedly thought that the standing orders should be obeyed. Cases might arise in which strict enforcement of them might be exceedingly injudicious; for instance, in the case of a bridge being swept away, and there being an immediate necessity to build a new one. But this was far from being one of those urgent cases. A feeling seemed to prevail at present, that any scheme, however visionary, would receive encouragement; but the House should not lend its assistance, towards advancing the fanciful projects of any corporation, or any individuals.
Mr. Bright
said, he would read the resolution which he had intended to propose. It was to this effect:—"That a more strict attention to the Standing Orders of the House with respect to private bills is essentially necessary to the security of the rights and properties of the subject, and that the House will not dispense with them except in cases of accidental occasion, or real necessity."
The petition was then withdrawn.
IRISH ROYAL MINING COMPANY BILL."]
Sir J. Newport
Mr. Huskisson
said, he did not know whether this bill was similar in its enactments to some others, all relating to Ireland, that he had seen. One of them, which he now held in his hand, contained some of the most extraordinary provisions
530
Sir J. Newport
said, that companies had been incorporated in various instances, and he saw no reason why the Mining company should be excepted. All he wished was, that the bill should be read a second time in the ordinary course, in the committee any objectionable clause might be struck out.
Mr. Ellice
fully agreed in the general principles laid down by the right hon. gentleman.
Mr. Dawson
said, he was also disposed to concur in the general principle; but, at the same time, the House could not expect that people would embark their property in speculations, if they were liable for more than the sum they had subscribed.
The motion was withdrawn.
OATHS—PETITION OF SEPARATISTS.]
Lord John Russell
rose to present a petition from a religious class of persons of Clara and other places in Ireland, denominated Separatists, who felt themselves forbidden by conscientious scruples to take oaths. They prayed, therefore, that the indulgence granted by the legislature to Quakers, should be extended to them; and that their affirmation, without swearing, might be deemed sufficient. From what he understood, the petitioners were highly respectable and moral persons; and he considered it the duty of the legislature to respect scruples founded on conscientious motives.
531
Sir J. Newport
spoke from knowledge of the meritorious character of the petitioners, and of the hardships to which, from the law they were exposed. There were instances of some of the most respectable clerks of the Bank being actually driven, after years of service, from the situations they held, because they refused, on conscientious grounds, to take the official oaths.
Mr. Hume
supported the prayer of the petition. A century and a half had now elapsed since the simple affirmation of the Quakers had been received in courts of justice; yet, in the whole of that period, there had been but one instance of a prosecution for a violation of the truth; as such violation was subject to a prosecution for perjury, the fact was a proof that such affirmation was as binding as an oath. Why should we not follow the example of the United States, and respect in our enactments the conscientious scruples of all denominations.
Mr. Secretary Canning
fully admitted the respectability of the names attached to the petition, but was at a loss to conceive how they could attach any consideration to the prayer of it, unless the House was prepared to say, that every man who might feel objections to taking an oath should be at liberty to refuse it. He did not wish to argue the question at present, but he could not conceive how any distinction could be taken in favour of the petitioners, which would not be equally applicable to any other parties choosing to decline an oath.
Lord J. Russell
thought the relief might be given to the petitioners on their assuming a certain designation; but, for his own part, he should prefer a general measure, which would relieve every man who had a conscientious scruple against taking oaths. He wished, however, to ascertain how the law operated in the United States, before he originated any such measure.
Mr. Spring Rice
referred to the relief given, on similar grounds, to the Quakers, and to certain seceders in the province of Ulster. Besides the inconvenience to the petitioners themselves, the rights of third parties were deeply affected thereby; as the members of this congregation could not take out probate, letters of administration, or any of those civil acts which required the administration of an oath. On what principle could the legislature, which respected, in its courts of law, the
532
Mr. J. Williams
observed, that his hon. friend the member for Aberdeen, was quite correct when he stated that there was but a solitary instance of prosecution for the violation of the Quakers' affirmation in the course of 150 years. There was a flagrant inconsistency in the law as it stood, in relation to that very respectable class of British subjects. Their affirmation was valid in civil cases, but it was not admissible in criminal prosecutions. Such an inconsistency ought not to remain, and it was his intention, next session, to introduce a bill to remedy such a glaring defect.
Ordered to lie on the table.
CHURCH ESTABLISHMENT OF IRELAND.]
Mr. Hume
rose for the purpose of submitting to the House the motion of which he had given notice, with regard to the expediency of inquiring whether the present Church Establishment of Ireland be not more than commensurate to the services to be performed, both as regards the number of persons employed, and the incomes they receive. The hon. member observed, that he was well aware that it was a subject respecting which many honourable gentlemen would be much more likely than himself to make an impression on the House. The opinions which he entertained respecting it were well known, and he was well aware that the extensive change which he thought desirable was not conformable to the opinion of the House and the country. He should have been glad, therefore, if any man of more moderate views than himself had undertaken to bring the question before parliament: but, finding that those who were the most competent were not the most willing to undertake the task, he had determined however reluctantly, once more to submit the subject to the consideration of the House. In doing so, he feared he should be compelled to draw largely on the patience of the House, but he assured them, that he would not detain them a single moment longer than was absolutely necessary, in order to place the real nature and situation of the church establishment of Ireland fully before them. He was perfectly persuaded that, up to the present moment, the church establishment of that country had had a more
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
l
l
l
544
l
l
545
546
547
548
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
549
l
l
550
l
l
551
l
l
l
552
l
553
554
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
555
l
l
l
l
556
557
558
559
Mr. Stanley
said, that, however painful he might find it, to be under the necessity of differing, in some measure, from many of those for whose public character he entertained the highest regard, he trusted this would be considered as some apology for his venturing, however inadequately, to state the grounds on which he founded his opposition to the present motion. Agreeing as he did, in many points, with the hon. member, he could not but consider the time and circumstances under which this motion was brought before the House, however well calculated to secure votes in its favour, as peculiarly unfortunate. The tendency, and indeed the avowed object, of the motion was, at one and the same time to lower the authority of the church establishment, and to alleviate the misfortunes of Ireland. The hon. member had endeavoured to secure in support of his motion, the prejudices of all those who had the interests of Ireland at heart. In a warm and zealous attachment to the interests and welfare of Ireland, he (Mr. S.) would yield to no man. It was but too well known that, within the last few years, attempts had been made by the press, and through the more dangerous channels of private insinuation, to cast odium on the established church. Her revenues had been commented upon with unjustifiable severity, and the private errors and vices
560
561
562
s
s
s
563
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
564
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
565
l
l
l
l
l
l
566
Mr. Dawson
concurred in the opinion, that great exaggeration prevailed respecting tin's species of property. The confusion which prevailed in the House prevented us from distinctly hearing the details into which the hon. gentleman entered, in order to show the comparative numbers of resident and non-resident clergy at different periods. In the year 1819, there were 901 incumbents actually resident on their benefices, or in the next adjoining parishes. The hon. member for Aberdeen had estimated them at 763 only; but the returns from which he was now quoting, he had caused to be prepared with the utmost care, and might be confidently relied on. If those returns were carefully examined, they would be found to establish in the most convincing manner this great truth—that wherever the Protestant church was most strongly established in Ireland, there the greatest prosperity, and quiet, and good order prevailed. Where there were the greatest number of glebe houses, there the greatest share of public industry, of commerce, and of happiness was enjoyed. The order of the provinces in these respects might be thus stated—Ulster, Leinster, Connaught, and Munster. Munster was the province in which, unhappily, the established religion was most neglected, or least followed. He begged, however, to bear testimony to the meritorious character of the Protestant clergy throughout Ireland. They were zealous in the discharge of their duties, indiscriminate in their charities, which extended to the professors of either faith, and in their own persons and morals afforded the best examples of conduct to their parishioners. As pastors, they were attentive to the spiritual welfare of their flocks; as landlords (and he said it confidently, notwithstanding all the clamour which had been raised against them), they were indulgent and moderate with their tenants. He would refer the most sceptical on these matters to the present state of the north of Ireland, in order to show, that what he said was the fact; and that in no part of the empire was the service of the Protestant church better performed. To his mind, no case had been made out for the necessity of changing the present establishment of that church, and he should therefore oppose the motion,
Mr. Dominick Browne
said, that as long as the revenues of the established church in Ireland were to be continued in their
567
l
l
l
568
Mr. Robertson
thought there were but two modes by which it was possible to restore peace and tranquillity to Ireland; and that of either of them the basis must be the union of Roman Catholics and Protestants themselves. One of these modes would be, to admit the Roman Catholic clergy to a participation of tithes. The other (which he had not yet heard alluded to in that House, but which did not seem impracticable, if his majesty's ministers would only dare to attempt it) might be found in the union of the Protestant and the Roman Catholic churches of the kingdom. This might seem at first sight impossible to some honourable gentlemen; but those who were acquainted with the events that had taken place in Europe during the last six years, would know, that more difficult unions of religious sects had been, in that interval, effected upon the continent. Let the government take measures, therefore, to ascertain what the differences of doctrine were, as between the established church and the Roman Catholic church of Ireland. It would be found, that there were no essential differences of faith; and that, in the main, the creed of one was the creed of the other persuasion. Archbishop Tillotson had stated, that the Apostle's creed, as it was expounded by the four first councils, was the faith also of the churches of Rome and England. Now the variations of religious doctrine, as between the Lutherans and the Calvinists, were more grave and weighty, possibly, than any between Romanists and Protestants. The one sect was totally opposed to the other; and yet, in 1817, the government of Prussia, being highly sensible of the advantages which must accrue to the country from their union, sanctioned that measure; and it had been carried into effect with the best consequences, not only in that kingdom, but in Hesse Cassel, Bavaria, and over the greater part of Germany. Archbishop Tillotson had once corresponded with France, in order to bring about some arrangement of the kind between the Protestant and Catholic churches; and the bishop of Durham had expressed an opinion as to the practicability of the scheme. He had stated, in an address to his clergy, that though it might be described by many as a hopeless project, it appeared to him, that there was more opportunity at present than at any former period. Would it not, then, he asked, be an undertaking well worthy
569
Mr. Grattan
thought that great advantage was likely to arise out of the motion, and under that impression he would give it his support. He well remembered that in the years 1808 and 1809, when the question of Irish grievances was fully debated, and his lamented father had taken a conspicuous part in the discussions, the general impression was, that the tithe system was the great evil of Ireland. Being satisfied in his own mind of the truth of that opinion, he should vote for the motion of the hon. gentleman, which was not brought forward in a feeling of hostility to the church, nor calculated to interfere with its interests; but, on the contrary, to promote them by leading to the correction of those abuses under which it suffered.
Mr. Plunkett
said, it was not his intention to have made any observations on the motion before the House, but having been so directly alluded to by the hon. mover, he was anxious to prevent the House from remaining under the delusion which the speech of the hon. gentleman was likely to create, if permitted to go uncontradicted. He thought he should not discharge his duty to the House and to himself, without, in the first place, making a few observations on the general subject in respect of which those opinions had been offered. And he should do so, rather for the sake of rescuing a cause to which he had always been conscientiously attached, but to which much allusion had been unnecessarily introduced into the discussion of this evening, and supported, he would say, by arguments of such a nature that they were calculated to do it the greatest harm, in the mind of every honest and well-judging person in the
570
571
572
573
Mr. Hume
, across the table, said there were 531.
Mr. Plunkett
, in continuation, said, that he feared he should hardly get credit with the House when he said, that if they struck off the 500 from that number, the remaining 31 would be a considerable exaggeration. He did not mean to accuse the hon. member of intentional mis-statement; for indeed he went painfully and elaborately to work, but on inaccurate grounds. Where there was a union of two parishes, he called the clergyman who had the union a pluralist, and an absentee if he did not reside on both the livings [a laugh]. What he was now about to state had been communicated to him by a person high in rank and talents, and more likely to obtain accurate information on all matters connected with the church than the hon. gentleman. That distinguished person had assured him, and he was incapable of making the assertion if it was not correct, that out of the whole number of the clergy, there were not twenty who did not reside on their parishes in Ireland. If the hon. gentleman still persisted in his oddity of 531, he (Mr. P.) could say, of his own knowledge, that, so far as he had witnessed the conduct of the clergy of the established church in Ireland, no men could be more assiduous in the performance of their moral and religious duties. It was true, that among them, as among all great bodies, there were some exceptions to be found; some, who, instead of attending to the performance of their duties, absented themselves from their parishes, and came to watering places in this country, where they were only anxious to cut a figure as bucks and swaggerers. But, generally speaking, the conduct of the established clergy of Ireland was unimpeachable, and their excellence appeared in a stronger light, from the contrast of such exceptions.—Another observation of the hon. member for Aberdeen was, that they had misconducted themselves in the misapplication of first-fruits; and, in his arguments upon that subject, he had charged the law officers of the Crown with countenancing this abuse, and had alluded to an opinion of his (Mr. P.'s) own, which he had represented as calculated to mislead them. The House would not expect that at that distance of time he could call to mind all the particulars on which his opinion was founded; but he would briefly state the nature of
574
Sir Francis Burdett
rose, and addressed the House to the following effect:—
575
576
577
578
579
l
580
l
l
l
581
582
Mr. Leslie Foster
said, the question appeared to be, how much or how little of the property of the church of Ireland was now to be confiscated? To accede to the present motion would be, to a great proportion of the people of Ireland, a positive infliction of evil, and to the remainder of it no benefit whatever. Indeed, he could not give his assent to the proposed inquiry, as he considered it to be demanded upon assumptions that were notoriously unfounded. The first assumption of the hon. member for Aberdeen was the total insignificance of the Protestant population of Ireland when compared with the Roman Catholic. The hon. member had said, that the number of Protestants did not exceed five hundred thousand. Now, the House was in possession of data which enabled it to judge of the correctness of that assertion. The population of Ireland consisted of six millions and three quarters of which two millions belonged to the province of Ulster. Now, every gentleman who was acquainted with the counties of Antrim, Down, and Armagh, would acknowledge, that in those counties the inhabitants were nearly all of them Protestants, or at least that the Protestant part of them was far more numerous than the Catholic. The same was the case in Londonderry. In Donnegal the Protestants were full as numerous as the Catholics. In Cavan they were rather, and in Tyrone they were much, less numerous. Indeed, he would be fully justified in stating, that five-eighths of the population of Ulster were Protestants—a calculation which would give 1,250,000 Protestants for Ulster alone. Though in the country parts of Leinster, as distinguished from the towns, the Catholics were much more numerous than the Protestants, still upon the whole, the Protestants were in proportion to the Catholics as one to five; in Minister, they were as one to twelve; and in Connaught, as one to twenty-four. This calculation would give about 300,000 Protestants to Leinster, 200,000 to Munster, and 40,000 to Connaught; and would make the total amount of Protestants in all the provinces of Ireland about 1,800,000. This calculation shewed, that the Protestants in Ireland were to the Catholics, not in the numerical proportion of one to fourteen, as the hon. member for Aberdeen had stated, but in the numerical proportion of one to four. If then one-fourth of the population of Ireland were
583
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
584
Mr. Hume
rose to reply. He contended, that the hon. member who spoke second, and who had accused him of making erroneous statements to the House upon the faith of anonymous publications, had himself made more erroneous statements to the House than he had ever contrived to put together. The hon. member had made a very long and a very able speech, which many members might suppose was an answer to the speech which he (Mr. H.) had previously delivered; but, it was no such thing. The hon. member had answered a speech which he had never made, and had refuted statements in a pamphlet which he (Mr. H.) had never seen. In the course of the debate he had been frequently accused of exaggeration; but he found that not more than three of his statements had been seriously contradicted, The first contradiction which he had received was
585
586
587
588
The House divided: Ayes 79. Noes 153.
List of the Minority.
Anson, hon. G.
Maberty, W. L.
Barrett, S. M.
Macdonald, Jas.
Becher, W. W.
Marjoribanks, S.
Benyon, Benj.
Martin, John
Bernal, Ralph
Monk, J. B.
Brougham, H.
Moore, Peter
Browne, Dom.
Newport, sir John
Belgrave, visct.
Normanby, viscount
Calcraft, John
Ord, W.
Calcraft, J. R.
Osborne, lord F. G.
Cavendish, C. C.
Palmer, C.
Glifton, visct.
Palmer, C. F.
Colborne, N. W. R.
Power, M.
Crompton, S.
Pryse, Pryse
Cradock, S.
Rice, T. S.
Davies, T.
Robarts, A. W.
Dennison, W. J.
Robarts, G. J.
Denman, Thos.
Russell, lord J.
Dundas, hon. Thos.
Russell, lord G. W.
Ebrington, viscount
Rickford W.
Ellice, Edward
Robertson, Alex.
Ellice, hon. A.
Scarlett, J.
Fitzgerald, Rt. hon. M
Scott, Jas.
Fergusson, sir R.
Sebright, sir John
Graham, S.
Smith, John
Gordon, Robert
Smith, hon. R.
Gurney, H.
Smith, W.
Hamilton, lord A.
Steward, W. (Tyrone)
Heron, sir Robert
Stuart, lord F. J. C.
Hill, lord A.
Taylor, M. A.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Townshend, lord C.
Honywood, W. P.
Webbe, Edw.
Hutchinson, hon. C. H.
Whitbread, S. C.
James, Will.
White, Sam.
Johnson, W. A.
Williams, John
Kennedy, T. F.
Wilson, sir Robert
Lamb, hon. G.
Wood, Matthew
Leycester, R.
Wall, Baring
Leader, W.
TELLERS.
Langston, J. H.
Hume, Joseph
Maberly, John
Burdett, sir F.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, May 7.
BEER DUTIES BILL.]
Several petitions were presented against this bill.
Alderman Wood
said, if it was suffered to pass into a law, it would be productive
589
THE BUDGET.]
The House having resolved itself into a committee of ways and means, to which the Balance Sheet, and the Annual Accounts of Public Income, of Public Expenditure, and of Consolidated Fund were referred,
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, it was not his intention to trouble the committee at any length in prefacing the motion he was about to make for the last grants to be called for this session. It was, however, the usual practice at such a period to enter into a kind of recapitulation of the state of our expenditure as provided for in the committee of supply, and also to explain to parliament the nature of any increase, and the manner in which such increase was to be provided for. The House bad already voted for the service of the year sums to the amount of 18,275,270
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
590
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
591
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
592
l
l
l
l
l
593
l
l
l
l.,
l
l
l
594
l
595
d
l
l
l
Sir Henry Parnell
said, he approved of the financial arrangements of the chancellor of the Exchequer. He thought he had acted with great advantage to the public in making use of his means of reducing taxation, in reforming our fiscal and commercial regulations in preference
596
d
l
597
l
l
Mr. Hume
said, he agreed in most of what had been said by the hon. baronet. The public would soon find, that the commercial or fiscal regulations would produce great advantage; that the outcry raised against it in the first instance was unfounded; and that the most sanguine anticipations would be realized. Convinc-
598
l
599
l
600
Mr. Robertson
trusted that the chancellor of the Exchequer would not be deterred from pursuing the simple and straight forward measure of a sinking fund; the consequences of which, he was satisfied, would be highly beneficial to the community.
Mr. Whitmore
expressed his regret, that the chancellor of the Exchequer had been induced to abandon his first resolution regarding the duty upon the export of wool and his hope that he would revert to the duty of one penny per pound, instead of persevering in laying on two-pence in
601
l
The resolution was agreed to.
SAVING BANKS BILL.]
The House having resolved itself into a committee on the Saving Banks Acts,
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, his first object in moving the resolution with which he should conclude, would be to assimilate the law of Savings Banks in England and Ireland. His next object
602
l
l
l
l
l
603
l
l
The resolution was agreed to.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, May 10.
DERRY CATHEDRAL BILL.
Sir George Hill,
on moving the second reading, said, that the bill had two objects. The first was to vest in the bishop, dean, mayor, and representatives of the city and county of Derry, subscriptions, which had been entered into, for the rebuilding of the spire, and repairing and embellishing the cathedral. The estimate of the expense
604
l.
l,
l.
l.
l.
Dr. Lushington
said, it was quite clear that since the erection of the cathedral there must have been some specific fund set apart for its repair, because it was impossible that it could have remained from that period up to the present, without receiving repairs. What, then, had become of that fund? Why should parliament be called on to furnish the means of repairing the cathedral, when it was clearly the duty of the bishop or the dean and chapter to do so? He defied the right hon. bart. to point out any instance in which parliament had been requested to tax the people at large for the sustentation of a church. The bishop had formerly built the spire. Now, it was clear, from this fact, that there was some regulation which bound him to do so; and the same regulation, he presumed, would apply to the repairs of the cathedral generally. He could not suppose that the building of the spire was a mere voluntary act. He could not suffer the
onus
605
Alderman Wood
observed, that the Irish Society felt considerable objections to this measure. That society had been reproached for not advancing funds for the repairs of the cathedral, but they had no right to appropriate their funds to that purpose. A series of resolutions had been agreed to by the corporation of Derry, which reflected on the corporation of London and the Irish society. Those resolutions charged the corporation with holding estates, in perpetuity, to the amount of 8,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
Mr. S. Bourne
could not agree to es-
606
Mr. Littleton
said, it was most disgraceful in those whose duty it was to repair the cathedral, to suffer it almost to fall, and then, with unblushing effrontery, to apply to parliament for assistance. The right hon. baronet had alluded to the cathedral of Lichfield; but the fact was, not only that bishop Cornwallis contributed to the repairs to almost the whole extent of his revenue, but that a great proportion of the chapter revenue, now and hereafter, was available for such repairs as were necessary. The dean and chapter of that cathedral would feel ashamed to come to parliament with such an application as the present.
Sir J. Newport
said, that in consequence of the carelessness of those who should keep those sacred edifices in repair, many of the most ancient of them had vanished. Funds which should have been applied to the repairs of cathedrals had too often been appropriated to purposes of private emolument; and then the House was called on to furnish money for repairs, because no inquiry was instituted as to what had become of those funds. Sums were levied on entire parishes for this purpose; but from those parochial proceedings the whole body of the Roman Catholics were excluded. They were liable to contribute their money; but they
607
Mr. Dawson
said, he feared the citizens of Derry would be left without a place of worship, unless the House came to "some prompt decision on this subject. At present, they had in fact no church; for it happened that the cathedral, which was in a dilapidated state, was the only church within the walls, and no service had been performed there for two years. The consequence was, that it was found necessary to apply to the Presbyterian congregation for the use of their chapel. The citizens were not able to repair the cathedral; and thus 7,000 or 8,000 people were without a regular place of worship. The difficulty of the case was, to devise some mode of giving them a church, without saddling them with the expense. A letter written by him had been alluded to. It was a letter written for a private and local purpose, and he was sorry that it had been published: but, as it had been given to the public, he was prepared to support the opinions therein stated. He thought the revenues of the church should, when it was necessary, be applied to the purpose of repairs. That this was not done, in the present case, was the more extraordinary, as the riches of that diocess were notorious. He concurred in the sentiments which had fallen from gentlemen. He trusted those sentiments would bring the dean and chapter to a proper sense of their duty. The intention of the bill was, to make the parishioners liable for present and future repairs; and he could wish, whether it was agreed to or not, that the House would take some step to see this ancient edifice put into repair.
Mr. Plunkett
expressed his entire concurrence in the opinions of the hon. members The church of Ireland ought to be vindicated from any participation in a measure of this kind. He was glad to have that opportunity of rendering justice to the bishop of Derry. It was but justice to
608
Sir George Hill
expressed his deep regret, that a measure which he had prepared in consequence of the unanimous vote of vestry, and a liberal grant of the corporation supported by a petition from the bishop, dean, chief magistrate, and principal inhabitants of Derry, and intended to accomplish so excellent and so necessary an object, should meet with such discouragement from the House as to prevent him from persevering in it. It was now clear, that the House disapproved of the measure, from an impression that the clergy had not done their duty. The occupation of some other place of worship than the cathedral could not be avoided, whilst the parishioners were putting on a new roof. The dean, who was a zealous, charitable divine, and constantly resident, was liable in this respect to no reproach. It having been believed, that Derry cathedral had no economy fund, and was no more than any other parish church in the diocess, this measure of creating one was resorted to. The diocess of Derry presented a body of clergy, not merely irreproachable, but, by their conscientious discharge of their professional duties, entitled to his humble praise. He did not believe there was in the whole diocess a single non-resident. With these explanations he would withdraw his motion.
The bill was withdrawn.
CORPORATE COMPANIES.
Lord Stanley having moved the second reading of the bill for incorporating the Manchester and Salford Loan Company,
Mr. Huskisson
said, that he should certainly object to bills of incorporation, unless where charter was first regularly obtained from the Crown. This was the old and the regular course of parliamentary proceeding.—Having obtained their charter from the king in council, the company came to the House of Commons
609
WEST-INDIA COMPANY BILL.
Mr. Manning moved the second reading of this bill.
Mr. Huskisson
did not mean to say, that there might not exist a strong case on the part of this particular company for incorporation; but he could see nothing at present which took it out of the rule which he had just laid down. Without attempting to question the policy of incorporating a West-India company, he took the objection which he had before urged generally—that the origin of it was irregular, and that the parties must be required to begin with obtaining first of all their charter from the Crown; and if it should be found that its powers were insufficient, they would then be intitled to come to parliament either for the enlarging or confirming of those powers.
610
Mr. Ellice
understood from the right hon. gentleman, that the gas bill to which he had referred had been granted conditionally; that was to say, if the company could not obtain a charter from the Crown then the powers of the bill were to be inoperative. Why not allow this bill to proceed upon the same conditions?
Mr. Huskisson
repeated his objection to allowing any bill for incorporation, which was not preceded by a charter obtained from the Crown.
Mr. Sykes
thought that the present bill could not be allowed to proceed to a second reading. He looked upon it as an aggressive and encroaching measure introduced under the modest garb of a private bill, to the great prejudice of the public interests. He could not at all conjecture how it tended to give any relief to the West-India proprietors, which they could not obtain quite as easily at present. His chief objections to it were on public grounds. He disliked the command which the accumulation of so large a capital as four millions would give the company over the West-India trade. He knew that no undertaking could be more hazardous than such an investment and it was a still stronger objection that the creditors of the company would have no security for their debts, excepting the property comprised in the act of incorporation. The separate members would be rendered individually irresponsible. Was it to be endured that the unfortunate people who might be induced to intrust them with their property without ever supposing that they were not responsible individually, should be left in a state so disadvantageous? He himself knew of parties who had sued a mayor and corporation and recovered from them: but still the mayor and corporation laughed at the success of the suitor, because their corporate property and responsibility only being in question, there was nothing upon which he could seize of sufficient value to meet his demand. Not one in a thousand who might deal with this company would be aware, that the members were not answerable individually for their debts. But they had more than this to dread. This influence of so formidable a company over the West-India trade would be extremely detrimental. What individual merchant could compete with a company possessing four millions of capital? Then it was to be observed, that this capital was to be divided into
611
l.
Mr. Grenfell
said, it was suggested, that the establishment of this company would tend to make the condition of negro-slavery in the West Indies worse than at present. If it should turn out, on examination of the subject at any future time, that he could be brought to that opinion, he would instantly withdraw his name from it. But as he thought there was a good opportunity for employing a portion of that capital which was now fleating about for want of some opportunity of' investment, he would support it; especially as he had heard nothing to induce him to believe that it would make the condition of slavery worse in the West Indies.
Mr. T. Wilson
defended the plan, as one of peculiar accommodation to the West-India proprietors, who would, but for this establishment, be obliged to go hawking about their securities, and by that means incur the disagreeable suspicion of being in insolvent circumstances.
Mr. W. Williams
would oppose the bill in every stage. How could a company carry on the business of plantations better than expert individuals? Did it become parliament to sanction the pretence of a more profitable investment of capital, which might sweep scores of help-
612
Mr. W. Whitmore
strongly opposed the bill, because it threatened the freedom and general interests of the sugar-trade, and tended to establish a baneful monopoly. It was well known, that the West-India sugar market had produced an excess of the article for several years past, which was now, however, rapidly diminishing. Let this company once be established, and not only would the excess be diminished to nothing, but the public might be called upon to pay from 50 to 100 per cent beyond the natural value of the commodity. He thought it extraordinary, after the lamentable example of the South-Sea scheme, that there should be any attempt to renew the experiment. There should be the most unquestionable proof, before granting the charter, that there was no mode of carrying on the trade so safe or convenient as by an incorporated company. For want of this precaution, Adam Smith, in commenting on the South-Sea scheme, had asserted on the authority of a French author, that from the year 1680, to his time, there had been no less than fifty-five joint-stock companies incorporated in Europe, every one of which had failed.
Mr C. R. Ellis,
though indirectly interested in this question, would only give his consideration to it upon public grounds, upon which grounds he wished it every success. The House had it in their power to pledge his hon. friend, either to obtain a charter before the bill should come out of the committee, or to withdraw it altogether. He approved of it as an admi-
613
Mr. W. Smith
said, that the system the colonies were pursuing, was one which must end in their complete ruin; and the effect of the measure now proposed would be, to involve them in far greater misery than what they now suffered. Looking at the proposed company only as a private one, he could not but think, that whatever advantages of local knowledge they might possess would be more than counterbalanced by the prejudices which might be supposed to actuate them. In nine cases out of ten, they would consider what might be the interests of the company rather than those of the planters. But there was another point of view in which this measure seemed still more objectionable. At present the West-India interests enjoyed the advantage of a monopoly of sugar, supported by a high protecting duty. Now, the only means by which this company could hope to gain any advantage from their enterprise must be by raising the price of sugar; and to this end they were to be allowed to buy and sell to the amount of four millions. This consideration, if it were the only one, ought to induce the House to pause before they agreed to the present bill.
Mr. Huskisson
said, that if he understood that the bill was to have the operation which the hon. gentleman had ascribed to it, he should think it highly objectionable on the general principle. The hon. gentleman had argued as if the effect of the bill would be, to secure the whole trade of the West Indies to the company proposed to be formed. He had stated, that it could not fail to raise the price of sugar, because the company were to become great dealers in it; and with a capital of four millions, to unite in themselves a monopoly both as planters and as traders. This was, however, not the intention of the company. They did not propose to trade at all. They never in-
614
615
Dr. Lushington
objected to the principle of the bill, and reminded the House that if they consented to give this company what they now asked, it would be easy for them to obtain the sanction of the Crown to become a corporation. The right hon. gentleman had not stated, in the course of his observations, what was too well known; namely, that the colonies had been a losing concern for some years back; and he had no less carefully abstained from stating his own opinion, that this proposed advance of capital would be enough to keep the system alive. The legal rate of interest on West-India property was now 6 per cent; but, was that the rate at which money was ever lent? Was not, in reality, the interest on advances of money by consignees, and the insurance of the stores, nearer to 10 per cent? It was said, that West-India property was insecure. True, it was so; and why? Because the returns of the estates were insufficient, and therefore advances were never made but under the circumstances, and upon the terms he had stated. And how was the proposed company to relieve this state of things? It must be either by raising the price of sugar, or by their becoming the holders of the West-India estates. If they should become the holders of those estates, they would, in their character of mortgagees, be unable to exercise all that privilege of manumitting the slaves, which was exercised by the proprietors, and which was, in every point of view, of the deepest importance. There were other grounds upon which he felt obliged to oppose the bill. It empowered the company to lend money in any part of the globe; there
616
Mr. F. Buxton,
after the length to which the discussion had proceeded, would, in a few words, enter his protest against the measure, as highly detrimental to the interests of the slaves. In the first place, by enhancing their value, it would make the chance of their manumission more remote; and in the second, by placing them in the power—not of their owners, but—of persons who would not have the power, even if they had the inclination, to give them their freedom, it would render their situation far more hopeless than it was at present. He should, therefore, feel it to be his duty to oppose the bill at every possible opportunity.
Mr. Wilmot Horton
was convinced that the bill would be rather beneficial than; injurious to the slaves. If by any means the value of West-India property was in-creased, and if at the same time the slaves were allowed to work out their freedom, the increased value given for their labour would the sooner enable them to accomplish their emancipation. His learned friend had contended, that the bill would cause a forced influx of capital into the West-Indies. Now, it would not cause an influx, but a transfer only. There was no difference, as regarded the quantity of capital, whether the mortgages of West-India property were in the hands of individuals, or of a corporation; but, if the West-India proprietors were pressed upon by the private mortgage, it might be a great relief to him to be able to transfer
617
Mr. Evans
said, he felt it his duty to throw every obstacle in his power in the way of the passing of this bill. The supporters of it professed to raise the value of West-India property. He could not conceive how this could be done, without raising the price of the produce; unless, which the projectors disclaimed, by lowering the duties on sugar. The bill gave to a greater number of persons in this country, an interest in the West-India colonies, and would thus render more difficult any improvement in the condition of the slaves.
Mr. Manning
supported the bill, and said, that it would only enable the company to do collectively, what the members of it might now do individually.
Mr. Sykes
apprehended, that the immense capital of the company, and the influence which it would consequently procure them, would enable them to obtain a monopoly of the market for West-India produce. The West-India merchants already possessed a monopoly of the home-market; there would, therefore, be a monopoly within a monopoly, an
imperium in imperio.
The House divided: For the second reading 102: Against it 30.
REPEAL OF THE ASSESSED TAXES.
Mr. Maberly
rose, to bring forward his motion for the Repeal of the Assessed Taxes. It was his intention, he said, to deal with this subject on the largest possible scale. He should first take a view of the financial statement of the chancellor of the Exchequer, and should then lay before the House his own views of the sinking fund, and endeavour to demonstrate the absurdity of continuing it. From the view which the right hon. gentleman had taken of the revenue and expenditure of the country for the next four years, it was evident that there was no chance of a repeal of taxation to any extent until
618
l.
d.
d.,
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
619
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
620
l.
l.
l.
621
l.
l.
l.
l.
622
s.
l.
l
l.
l.
623
The first resolution being put,
Mr. Leycester
said, he was anxious to abolish a system which had converted the sturdy squire into a pliant place-hunter. He looked upon the sinking fund to be as mischievous as the restrictions upon free trade. It might be necessary for Russia, Prussia, and Austria, whose despots would soon imitate the conduct of Ferdinand of Spain, to adopt such a system; but for this country, whose resources and public credit stood so high, to persevere in its continuance was absurd and mischievous. As to the debt, there were two ways of dealing with it. One way was, to diminish the debt itself; the other, to increase the wealth of the debtor. In neither of these ways would the keeping up of a sinking fund operate. It was an artificial proceeding altogether unworthy of this country, and therefore with great satisfaction he seconded the motion.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the hon. mover had merely agitated the same question, which had come under the consideration of the House about six weeks ago, upon a motion made by the hon. member for Westminster. Upon that occasion he had stated the reasons why he could not consent to the repeal of the assessed taxes, and nothing had since occurred to invalidate those reasons. The grounds upon which the hon. member for Westminster rested his motion were precisely similar to those which the hon. member for Abingdon had just advanced in support of his propositions. The hon. member for Westminster, however, had not been able to persuade the House to agree to his proposition, and he could see no reason why the efforts of the hon. member for Abingdon should be attended with a happier result. He was not quite accurate when he said that the motion of the hon. member was precisely the same as that which had been made by the hon. member for Westminster. The latter
624
l.
l
l.
l.
l.
625
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Hume
said, the right hon, gentleman had made some observations which had much surprised him. He had, on a former occasion, stated the reduction of debt to be 24,000,000
l.
l.
626
l.
Mr. Alderman Heygate
felt it his duty to state his reasons for not voting for the motion. He disliked the assessed taxes
627
Mr. N. Calvert
said, there was a general cry in the country at present for cheap labour, cheap bread, and cheap manufactures, and he did not know how these could be cheap, unless the things which the labourer consumed were cheap. He would therefore rather seethe taxes on soap, leather, and salt reduced, which particularly pressed on the lower clases, than the assessed taxes. He therefore felt himself compelled to vote against the motion.
Lord Milton
said, he would vote for the motion upon this principle—that the only chance there was of driving ministers to a general repeal of taxes, was by voting for the repeal of every particular tax that it might be proposed so to deal with.
After a short reply from Mr. Maberly, the House divided. Ayes 78: Noes 171.
628
List of the Minority.
Althorp, lord
Osborne, lord F. G.
Anson, hon. G.
Palmer, C.
Barrett, S. M.
Palmer, C. F.
Becher, W. W.
Pares, T.
Bernal, R.
Poyntz, W. S.
Birch, J.
Portman J. B.
Bond,
Proby, hon. G. L.
Blight, H.
Pryse, P.
Brougham, H.
Ramsay, sir A.
Calcraft, J.
Rickford, W.
Calvert, C.
Robarts, G. J.
Carter, J.
Robinson, sir G.
Caulfield, hon. H.
Rowley, sir W.
Cavendish, C. C.
Russell, lord W.
Chaloner, R.
Scarlett, J.
Cradock, S.
Scott, J.
Davenport, D.
Sefton, earl
De Crespigny, sir W.
Shelley, sir J
Denison, W. J.
Smith, hon. R.
Denman, T.
Stanley, lord
Dundas, hon. T.
Stewart, W. (Tyrone)
Folkeston, visc.
Stuart, lord J.
Gordon, R.
Sykes, Daniel
Grosvenor, hon. R.
Talbot, R. W.
Heron, Sir R.
Taylor, M. A.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Townshend, lord C
Honywood, W. P.
Tynte, C. K.
Hornby, E.
Warre, J. A.
Howard, lord H. M.
Western, C. C.
James, W.
Whitbread, S. C.
Jervoise, G. P.
Whitbread W. H.
Knight, R.
Williams, J.
Lambton J. G.
Williams, T. P.
Leycester, R.
Williams, W.
Maberly, W. L.
Winnington, sir T.
Marjoribanks, S.
Wood, M.
Maxwell, J.
Wrottesley, sir J.
Milton, visc.
TELLERS
Monck, J. B.
Maberly, J.
Moore, Peter
Hume, J.
Newport, sir J.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, May 11.
ALIEN BILL.]
Lord Holland
said, he had a petition to present, from the corporation of the city of London, praying that the Alien Bill might not puss into a law. The petitioners apprehended greater danger from passing this bill now than at any former period; for they were of opinion, that it was proposed on grounds likely to involve this country in war. They further objected to it, that it countenanced the charge, that the government of this country was a party in the general conspiracy of the continental despots against freedom.
The Earl of Liverpool,
on the order of the day for the second reading of the Alien bill, rose to address their lordships on that measure. He observed, that the subject
629
630
631
632
633
Earl Grosvenor
opposed the motion, on the ground, that to make aliens subject to any other laws than those which applied to natural-born subjects was unjust. He concurred with the Lord Mayor and Common Council in thinking the bill highly unconstitutional. Enormous as the power given by the bill was, he did not much apprehend that it would be abused; but, however mildly it might be exercised, it ought not to be granted. What he above all objected to was, the motive for introducing the bill. It could not be doubted, that it was brought forward in consequence of an understanding between his majesty's ministers and certain foreign governments. He had, on some former occasions, supported an alien bill, because he conceived, that the peace of Europe could not be consolidated without some measure of the kind. His opinion had been altered with the altered circumstances. The dangers that were now to be apprehended were dangers not to sovereigns but to their subjects. The conspiracies which were now formed were not conspiracies against legitimate government, but against civil freedom. Seeing this, he could not support the present bill. In compliance with the policy of foreign powers, we had, eighteen months ago, gone the length of advising the Spaniards to make a change in their constitution—advice which, if it had been followed, would have involved the persons at the head of the Spanish government in irretrievable ruin and disgrace. He He was against the interference of this government with that of any other state; and, for the same reason he would resist the claims of foreign powers to interfere
634
The Earl of Darnley
said, that he had on former occasions supported an alien bill as a war measure, but he now gave it his decided reprobation. It was disgraceful to continue a measure of this kind one day beyond a clear and well-proved necessity. While it offered no security or protection to the country, it alarmed foreigners who might be attracted to our shores, and justified foreign governments in their injurious treatment of British subjects. He could name a foreigner who had friends and connexions in England, and who being invited to come to pay them a visit, replied, "I shall never see England so long as your alien act exists." He rose, however, not to oppose the bill by arguments, but to ask of ministers, whether a pledge would be given that it would not be renewed after the end of two years? There seemed to him to be no danger to the peace and tranquillity of Europe, from the most unrestricted admission of foreigners into this country. Suppose among their numbers there should exist some persons disposed to enter into conspiracies against the peace of the states they had left, could not ministers suppress their attempts without an alien bill? In such extreme cases, could not the government act on its own responsibility, and trust to parliament for an indemnity? Would it not be better to make such instances an exception to the general law, than to legislate for such exceptions, and on account of the possible arrival of a few turbulent foreigners, to establish the character of "Britannos hospitibus feros," by subjecting all foreigners indiscriminately to apprehension, inconvenience, and vexation. The noble earl concluded by stating, that he would oppose the bill.
Lord Calthorpe
said, he had opposed the Alien bill on former occasions. He did not do so because he was afraid that its powers would be vexatiously exercised but because he saw no ground for their exercise at all. In this country, every proceeding of the government was so open to public animadversion, and every prero-
635
The Earl of Carnarvon
said, he was curious to know what could be the ground of the change in the noble lord's opinion. The noble lord seemed to begin his approbation of the measure, at the very time when ministers themselves proposed to abandon it. The noble lord had stated, that ministers had now become more liberal, and that they allowed no foreign power to interfere in our domestic policy; but when was a pretence of this kind wanting? on what former occasion, when the renewal of the Aien bill was proposed, were not the same statements made? If had been said, that the power given to
636
The Earl of Westmorland
expressed his surprise that noble lords should call upon the government to pledge itself to dispense with a measure after the present period, when it was impossible that they could foresee the circumstances that might occur. He would support the measure before the House on three grounds; first, for the preservation of tranquillity at home; second, on account of our relations with foreign countries; and thirdly, to prevent those disturbances in other countries which ultimately, though not immediately might involve us in war. Me could not conceive how governments could be at peace, while their subjects were at war—how the Lord Mayor of London, could be at open hostility with the Grand Seignor, while government professed itself a friend and ally. The bill was necessary to enable the country to be, what he trusted it always would be, a refuge for all persons, whatever their opinions might be, who were driven out of their own country; and so far from the bill being injurious to foreigners, it was, in his opinion, their best protection.
637
Lord Holland
said, the noble mover had begun his speech by observing, that this law had been so often under discussion, that little could be said, either for or against it, that had not been repeatedly urged. It was, indeed, irksome to travel over ground so perfectly beaten; and therefore he should not trouble their lordships with the many objections that, in the course of twenty years had been urged against this bill. But, when he considered that the noble earl who had just sat down had laid down grounds, new, and at variance with the grounds on which the bill was originally introduced, he did think that it became him to call the attention of the House thereto. That there was such difference, the noble mover must be aware, as he had alluded to the origin of the measure. It was, indeed, not so old in our Statute-book; it ran not beyond the memory of man; it was in 1792 that the bill was brought in, and their lordships would mark the preamble of it; and observe, that even in those times of passion, it was stated, that there existed an imperious necessity; it stated that, in consequence of the great increase of aliens resorting hither, much danger might arise to the tranquillity of this country. Soon after the bill was passed, war took place, and the bill was continued. However, then came the peace which was signed by the noble lord opposite; and the bill was then continued on the grounds (judging from the speeches of the noble earl opposite) that it was necessary to possess the power of excluding aliens, in order to possess a summary mode of preventing their revolutionary operations from destroying the tranquillity of this country. But he had better authority for what he stated than any speech. There was then a considerable number of aliens in this country, who were hostile to the government of France, with which we were then at peace; but we were suspected by that government of being favourable to the principles of those persons. They were very active here, and published some pamphlets, which he believed every candid man would acknowledge contained instigations to assassination and murder. M. Otto remonstrated upon it, and the noble earl opposite answered as became a British minister—"You may prosecute them in the courts of law of this country." Much correspondence took place, and at last M. Otto said, "But you have an alien act, under which you may proceed more sum-
638
639
640
641
642
—by Heaven destgn'd
To be the common refuge of mankind."
The Lord Chancellor
said, that if he had entertained any doubts before as to the expediency of this bill, the speech of the noble lord would have removed them. There was one point of considerable importance which had not been adverted to, and to which he wished to call their lordships' attention. If their lordships would take the trouble of comparing the provisions of the Alien bill for 1793 with those of the present, they would find that they differed entirely in character and extent. The provisions of the act of 1793 were proportioned to the danger which existed at that time; while the measures of 1816, 1818, 1820, and 1824, were proportioned to a less degree of danger, and consequently imposed a less degree of penalty and restriction. A noble lord had contended, that the sending Aliens out of the country was unconstitutional. He professed himself at a loss to understand this proposition; for he would re-assert what he had often before affirmed, that the right of sending Aliens out of the country was a part of the prerogatives
643
The House divided: For the second reading: Contents, present 46; proxies 34–80. Not-Contents, present 17, proxies 18–35. Majority 45.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, May 11.
PETITION OF JOSEPH SWANN COMPLAINING OF IMPRISONMENT IN CHESTER CASTLE.]
Mr. J. Williams
said, he rose to present a petition from an individual of the name of Joseph Swann, who was, he believed, the solitary remaining prisoner of those persons who were incarcerated and prosecuted in the year 1819. It was, though it had escaped his recollection, his lot to have prosecuted that individual. From the time that had elapsed, it was not to be wondered at that the circumstance had escaped his recollection. It appeared from the petition, that Mr. Swann had been a mechanic and artizan, residing at Macclesfield. In consequence of the very great distress that at that period prevailed throughout the manufacturing districts, the petitioner was compelled to change his means of exertion, and he became a vender of books and pamphlets. He was apprehended on the 21st of August, 1819, on a charge of selling blasphemous publications, and was detained in close custody till October, a period of eight weeks. Having been then discharged upon bail, he was a second time apprehended, on the 28th of December following, and detained at Middlewich to the January following. The petitioner stated, that during that latter period, he was chained with other prisoners. Without resting on the allegations of the petitioner, he (Mr. W.), reflecting on the temper of those times, believed there was reason to fear, that per-
644
645
Mr. James
observed, that for the severe punishment which this individual had experienced, and which arose out of the political agitations of 1819, the magistrates were deeply responsible. It was unwarrantable, and could scarcely be paralleled in the history of political persecution. The petitioner was innocent of all criminal acts. He had merely attended a public meeting, where he did not utter a syllable; but a Mr. Buckley made what was called an inflammatory speech. To shew that the magistrates were ashamed of what had been done, they had for twelve months been inducing the gaoler to endeavour to persuade Swann to petition for a remission of his sentence. He had not thought proper to comply with their wish. and was prepared to suffer the extent of his punishment, in order to afford a specimen of the severity with which an individual might be treated under a free government, which was said to be "the envy of surrounding nations, and the admiration of the world."
Mr. Secretary Peel
observed, that the learned gentleman who presented the petition had mentioned the subject to him only yesterday, when he (Mr. Peel) had observed, that as it related to circumstances which occurred two years before he was in office, he could of course have no knowledge respecting it; that therefore, if the learned gentleman presented the petition this day, he (Mr. P.) could not obtain any information as to those circumstances; but that if the learned gentleman postponed presenting the petition, he would obtain every necessary explanation. As the matter stood, the allegations in the petition were merely those of the petitioner himself; and it was singu-
646
Mr. Hume
observed, that the petitioner did not ask for mercy. That he was above doing. What he complained of
647
Mr. Sykes
expressed his hope that at least, considering the severity of the sentence in other respects, the petitioner would not be called upon for sureties.
Ordered to lie on the table.
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN IRELAND.—PETITION OF J. M'CUSKER.]
Mr. J. Smith
rose to present a petition which would be found to be of considerable importance. The petitioner was a poor man of the name of James M'Cusker, and he stated, that on the 15th of December, 1823, his cabin had been surrounded by forty or fifty persons, armed with guns, & c. five of whom burst into his dwelling, stabbed him in various parts of his body, broke his arm, cruelly ill-treated his wife and children, wounded his two brothers that came to his assistance, and finally set fire to his cottage. For some days, in consequence of the personal injuries he and his brothers received, he had been unable to apply to a magistrate, but afterwards went before lord Belmore who said that he could not properly interfere, as recourse ought to be had to some justice of the peace in the more immediate neighbourhood. The petitioner accordingly went before other magistrates,
648
General Archdall
vindicated the juries of the county of Fermanagh; and maintained that they were as conscientious a body as could be found in any part of the kingdom. As to the attack upon the cottage of the petitioner, it did not appear that it was made by the Orange or Protestant party; for the Orange and the Protestant party in Ireland were the same thing.
649
Lord Milton
lamented that the gallant general had thrown an imputation upon the great body of the Protestants of Ireland, of whom he (lord M.) was one; for he had been born in that country. The imputation was, that all Protestants were Orangemen; which was, in other words, to say, that they were all members of associations which it had been declared necessary to put down. Such associations were almost of a seditious nature; since they were calculated to promote dissention throughout the country.
Mr. Goulburn
said, he did not pretend to be cognizant of all the steps adopted in the case. He recollected that, on the eve of his departure from Dublin, he had received a statement of the case of M'Cusker. Directions were given to the Crown solicitor to inquire into the particulars of the transaction, and to bring the offenders to justice. There his (Mr. G's) knowledge ended. He had never heard of the trial, and did not know of its result, excepting from the statement of the petitioner.
Mr. Plunkett
remembered the case of M'Cusker, who had sustained a very gross outrage. When the facts were laid before him, he had directed that inquiries should be made into the whole affair. The Crown solicitor had been of opinion, that the parties ought to be prosecuted, and the defence before the magistrate was, in truth, rather an aggravation of the original crime. On the trial, the prisoners had proved alibis, and were acquitted. As to the subsequent distress for costs, that part of the transaction seemed almost impossible; and he could not help thinking that the hon. member had been misinformed respecting it. The gentleman complained of was not a county magistrate, but a justice of peace by virtue of his office; he was provost of Enniskillen, not removeable by the lord chancellor, but upon application to the court of King's-bench, on its being shewn that he was unfit for his situation. Although he (Mr. P.) had thought his conduct highly censurable, he had not believed that he acted wilfully and maliciously, and had therefore refrained from making any motion in the court of King's-bench to remove him.
Mr. J. Smith
thought the Irish government had not done all that it ought to have done, under the circumstances. If such a transaction had occurred in England, very different measures would
650
Mr. Dogherty
said, he did not think that any thing would have passed, even on the subject of Ireland, which would have overcome the reluctance he felt in rising for the first time. He was as yet a stranger, and if the hon. member for Midhurst had confined himself to the facts of the petition, however strongly he might have stated them, he should have remained silent. He begged it to be understood, that it was not his intention to offer any observations in vindication of the magistrate whose conduct had been called in question; of the attorney-general, who had prosecuted the offenders; or of the right hon. secretary for Ireland, who had directed an inquiry; but, coming newly from the sister kingdom, any imputation on the mode in which justice was administered there, sounded strange in his ears. It was under the superintendence of a body of great and good men, who acted with integrity and impartiality, and whose conduct would be an honour even to this country, where the law of the land was so nobly dispensed to all classes of the community. He had been provoked to open his lips by hearing statements made as of facts that could only have been tolerated in Spain or under some severer despotism. They would not be tolerated in Ireland. That they had occurred, he was not prepared to deny: they might have occurred in England, but they would have been followed by merited punishment. He begged leave to say, in anticipation of any future slur upon the administration of justice in Ireland, should any such be made, that his name could carry no further weight upon the subject, than that he had just come from Ireland, had just witnessed the manner in which the law was dispensed, and he could therefore say, without the slightest hazard of rebuke, that it would gratify the sincerest lover of the purest justice to witness the manner in which the courts were open to the rich and poor of all parties. Upon this subject he had had a professional experience of some seventeen years. He had been a diligent attendant in five counties of Ireland, and he could not charge his recollection with a single instance where
651
Mr. M. Fitzgerald
rose, to ask the right hon. secretary for Ireland, whether he would make any objection to the production of the judge's notes, as requested in the petition? What had fallen from the attorney-general rather strengthened the claim of the House in this particular. He had said, that before the magistrate the men accused vindicated themselves on the ground of justifiable revenge against M'Cusker, but that on the trial they had rested their defence successfully on an alibi. These were inconsistent; but, from the judge's notes, it would appear on what ground the jury had acquitted the prisoners. Some of the remarks of his learned friend who spoke last, shewed that he had not long sat in the House, or he would have known that the acknowledged candour and moderation of the hon. member for Midhurst little justified those remarks. He united the zeal and warmth of an Irishman to the acuteness and discrimination of an Englishman. Did his learned friend mean to extend his eulogium to the magistracy of Ireland; or, rather, did he not know that there was much in their conduct that deserved strong reprobation? Hence the recent inquiries and the recent sweeping exclusions by the lord chancellor. Was it not notorious that gross partiality had existed among them? He valued as much as any man the trial by jury; but because he valued it, and because he reprobated religious distinctions which were likely to deprive it of all its advantages, he would go so far as to say, that it might become a serious question, whether, for the sake of the tranquillity of the country, it would not be advisable to suspend even the trial by jury? Certain, he was, that in a case on which religious animosities prevailed, he
652
Mr. Peel
suggested, that, as the House was at present discussing the subject on imperfect information, it might be advisable to postpone the motion for printing the petition for a few days, during which time inquiries might be made, the answers to which would probably be satisfactory to the House. According to his recollection, the petitioner had omitted on the trial to bring forward an important witness.
Upon this, Mr. J. Smith postponed the motion for printing the petition.
FREEDOM OF ELECTION IN IRELAND—PETITION FROM CAVAN.]
Mr. Abercrumby
said, that he had been entrusted with a petition of such a nature that he felt himself called upon to present it that night. The petitioners were freeholders of the county of Cavan. The complaint was, that the freedom of election had been grossly violated by the partial and almost factious conduct of the sheriff. On the advancement of colonel Barry to the peerage, by the title of lord Farnham, a vacancy occurred for the representation of the county of Cavan, and a writ for the election had been transmitted to the high sheriff in due course. That officer, whose duty it was to conduct himself with the strictest impartiality, gave notice of the approaching election by a placard headed by an effigy of king William on horseback, with the orange colours, and an inscription, "To the glorious and immortal memory." These were well-known indications of the party to which he belonged. Under these inauspicious circumstances the election commenced, and it was conducted throughout in the same spirit. On the day of the opening of the poll, all the avenues of the court-house were crowded by persons professing the opinions of Orangemen, who conducted themselves through the day in the most intemperate manner. It was with the utmost difficulty that two gentlemen obtained a hearing, while they proposed Mr. Coote, the second candidate: they could not have put him in nomination at all, had they not called for protection upon that very sheriff who had so publicly recorded his own opinions. In fact, in the course of that night a murder had been committed—the life of a fellow-creature had been sacrificed to party violence. During the
653
Mr. Maxwell,
as member for the county of Cavan, deemed himself called upon to offer a few words. The charge against the high sheriff, of countermanding the proclamation which had been mentioned by the learned gentleman, was very unfairly repeated by the petitioners; for
654
Ordered to lie on the table.
STATE OF IRELAND.]
Lord Althorp,
in rising to call the attention of the House to the important subject of which he had given notice, begged to assure the House, that no man living could be more sensible than he was of the difficulties with which it was surrounded. He bespoke their indulgence, not merely because he should find it necessary to trespass upon their time at some length, but because he felt that his powers were inadequate to cope with the numerous difficulties which presented themselves to him. Most forcibly as he was impressed with this latter consideration, he was nevertheless encouraged to persevere in his intention, because he believed, even if he should fail to persuade the House to accede to the measure which he should have the honour to propose, that the mere discussion of the question would produce so much good, as amply to reward him for any exertion he might make, and console him for a disappointment, if he should be fated to encounter one. The difficulties of Ireland seemed to him to arise from a long course of unfortunate events. From the commencement of our connexion with her, it was not too much to say, that she had been treated, in every way, as a conquered country: and the evils which were necessarily attendant upon such a state of things, had, for the last two centuries of that con-
655
656
657
658
659
660
l.
661
662
663
664
Sir H. Parnell
said: Mr. Speaker; I rise thus early to address the House, from my anxiety to give every support in my power to the noble lord, by seconding the motion he has made; and, as a representative of Ireland, to express my great obligations to him for the excellent speech with which he has opened to the House the most important subject, I may say, of all domestic political subjects—the state of that country. The noble lord, on this occasion, as is his custom on all others, in which the interests of Ireland are concerned, has displayed a most laudable and useful zeal to improve its condition; and when it is considered how great the benefit is, that is conferred on Ireland, by having its affairs treated so ably and so liberally by the noble lord, and, I may also add, by so many other English members, so far, at least, whatever may be the doubts to which the noble lord has alluded in his speech, as entertained by some persons respecting the policy of the Union, there can be no reason for complaint, that the interests of Ireland are not attended to, or not discussed with all the advantages of the most anxious and sincere desire to serve them.
665
666
667
668
669
670
l.,
l.,
l.
671
672
673
674
675
676
*
*
Edinburgh Review,
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
Mr. Goulburn
said, that in the observations which he should feel it his duty to submit to the House, he would endeavour to confine himself to those questions which ought properly to be taken into consideration on the present occasion, and would avoid entering into the wide field of inquiry which had been opened by the noble lord. If the House would recollect the part which he had taken when questions of a similar nature had been discussed, they would have little doubt as to the course which he would pursue with respect to the present motion. He could not, consistently with his sense of duty, accede to the motion of the noble lord. But, when he stated this, he begged leave to say, that he felt no disposition to limit any inquiry into the state of Ireland, except so far as appeared necessary in order that any such inquiry might be attended with an advantageous result. The noble lord called for the appointment of a com-
684
685
686
687
l.
l.
688
Lord Milton
observed, that he fully concurred with the right hon. secretary for Ireland, that it was essentially necessary to inquire into the nature and extent of the disturbances which had so long prevailed in certain districts of Ireland; but, while he felt that necessity, he could not accede to the limited proposition of the right hon. gentleman, which endeavoured, by a side wind, to get rid of that general and comprehensive investigation, which was alone competent to put parliament and the country in possession of the real situation of the people of Ireland, the evils which afflicted them, and the correctives which such a continued state of distress and discontent required. One thing, however, was admitted by the speech of the right hon. gentleman, the admission of which, however to be regretted, was still an advantage in looking to the future. It was that at least in a part of that country there had been a long continued system of misgovernment. After six centuries, since the conqueror gave the law to a conquered people, the secretary to the Irish government had admitted, that though in some districts the condition of the people was favourable, yet in large, and opulent, and important districts of Ireland, such was its actual state of distress and insubordination, that at length the long-denied parliamentary inquiry was essentially necessary. But still it was necessary, that the powers of that House, in making such inquiry, should, in the view of the right hon. gentleman, be partial. He had presumed, that, by adding together the dif-
689
690
691
692
l.
693
Mr. North
perfectly agreed with the noble lord as to the necessity of investigation into the state of Ireland, and was persuaded that there could be no objection, on the part of his majesty's govern-
694
695
696
"Some safer world in depths of woods embrac'd,
Some happier island in the wat'ry waste."
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
Sir John Newport
said, that the hon. and learned gentleman had adopted a most extraordinary line of argument. While he called upon the people of England and Ireland to lay aside all prejudices, and while he lamented the ignorance which prevailed with respect to the state of Ireland, he proposed to leave them in that happy state of ignorance, by opposing a motion for inquiry. The hon. and learned gentleman called upon the legislature to abdicate its functions, and to leave it to the executive government to take up this question how they pleased, and when they pleased. Now, it was not because the present government had neglected the subject, but because it had been neglected by every government for a long series of years, that it was proper that the legislature should examine what was done, and point out those measures which were applicable to the state of Ireland, and those which were defective. That was the scope of his noble friend's proposition; while that of the right hon. secretary embraced only a small portion of the community, and referred merely to the administration of a single act of coercion—an act of renunciation of the benefits of the British constitution. Unless the House took up the question on the enlarged scale proposed by his noble friend, it was in vain to hope for any amelioration in the condition of the people of Ireland. Whenever it was proposed to inquire into the state of that country, they were constantly met by the objection, that the motion was either too large or too minute. When he saw mem-
704
Mr. Stanley
said, it was not his intention at that late hour, to make any extended observations on the main question before the House. He should merely express his entire concurrence in the motion which had concluded the able and statesman-like speech of his noble friend near him. If that motion needed any stronger support, it had obtained it in the statements which had been made in the eloquent speech which they had just heard from the other side of the House. The hon. and learned gentleman opposite (Mr. North) had drawn a most eloquent, melancholy, and, he feared, too true a picture of the state of Ireland. Deeply as he regretted the truth of that picture, he did not regret the force and eloquence with which it had been drawn, because, while he listened with the deepest attention to the speech of the hon. and learned gentleman, he felt at the time, that the hon. and learned gentleman was only proving the great and overwhelming necessity for a full and perfect inquiry. Amidst all the eloquence, however, of the hon. and learned gentleman, the only argument by which he had attempted to destroy his own arguments, was,) that the subject was so extensive, that no inquiry of the House could reach it, and that therefore it would be better to leave Ireland to her own solitary and disregarded misery. But, if it was true, as the hon. member contended, that no benefit could be anticipated from such an inquiry as that proposed by the noble lord, upon what possible principle was it that the hon. member supported the amendment of the right hon. secretary which still proposed an inquiry, but of a character incomparably more limited? His own object, however, in rising at so late an hour was, not to discuss the general merits of the present subject, but merely to account for the vote which he had given—and given reluctantly—against a motion for inquiry into the state of the church establishment in Ireland on a former evening. He had not given that vote because he felt any disinclination to inquiry. On the contrary, he thought that one of the greatest afflictions under which Ireland laboured was the ignorance of those who legislated
705
Sir John Sebright
supported the original motion, and objected entirely to trusting the inquiry to the management of the executive government.
Sir Francis Burdett
said, that, after the eloquent speeches of the noble lord and the hon. and learned gentleman opposite, and considering the various motives which were likely to operate on an occasion of so much importance as the present, he felt some surprise that the right hon. secretary opposite, who so often gave the House the benefit of his eloquence, should not have stated his views with respect to a subject of so much interest as the state of Ireland, and the evils which afflicted that unfortunate country. The speech which the House had just heard from the hon. and learned gentleman opposite (Mr. North) was unquestionably a very eloquent speech; but he thought he might venture to say without any want of fairness, and he hoped without any offence to the hon. and learned gentleman, that the eloquence of the speech was only equalled by its marvellous inconsistency. No doubt the speech was a very eloquent one, but it was a speech which no member could be called upon to answer. Indeed, he felt it necessary to apologise for trespassing at all on the patience of the House by making any observation with respect to a
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that this was the second occasion within a short period, on which the hon. baronet had expressed his dissatisfaction at the silence observed by his majesty's ministers. The hon. baronet, however, should in justice remember, that, upon the point of speaking, he had greatly the advantage over those of whom he complained. Coming down, after a long absence from the House, with a keen appetite for debate, he ought to consider that the feast would naturally be less tempting to those who were presented with it night after night, and sometimes, indeed, usque ad nauseam. The right hon. secretary then proceeded to regret, that the forms of the House prevented his hon. and learned friend (Mr. North) from going over the numberless points in which the hon. baronet had mistaken him; and, in coming to the question before the House, he observed, that it seemed to him to lay within a very narrow compass. The subject for discussion, as he thought, was much less the general state of Ireland, than the comparative merits of the two courses which were proposed by his right hon. friend near him, and by the noble lord opposite. Each party proposed a select committee; and it would be well to examine the difference between their views. The noble lord wished to inquire into the state of Ireland generally; his right hon. friend to confine the inquiry to the nature and extent of the disturbances which existed in certain districts. There was no question therefore as to the inquiry; the only question was, as to its extent. Here was Ireland, then, great part of which was
713
714
Mr. Secretary Canninig
said, that as the noble lord had alluded to him so distinctly towards the conclusion of his speech, he might be charged with want of courtesy if he permitted the question to go to a division without saying a few words. The lateness of the hour would, however, be a guarantee to the House, that he would not trespass longer on its time than was absolutely necessary. The noble lord, in winding up the different topics which he proposed for the consideration of the committee, had alluded to one which he thought it of the utmost importance that the House should accede to. For his own part he could not take such a view of that great question as to think that it required to be submitted to a committee. No committee could put the House into more complete possession of the important principles upon which that question was to be decided, or throw any new light on the subject. His own opinions, with
715
716
717
718
719
720
Mr. Tierney
apologized for detaining the House for a short time, being induced thereto by a few remarks of the right hon. gentleman, which touched him almost personally. With respect to the motion on Catholic emancipation, in the session of last year, he had said then, and he said now, that as the right hon. gentleman was nearly sure of a majority in this House, and as sure of the measure being in the minority in the House of Lords, although, for other purposes, the right hon. gentleman was prepared with as full a majority in one House as the other, he did consider the bringing forward that measure as little better than a mockery; yet, because he had always supported the question, he would not then withdraw from it, and for the sake of appearances only, he had given it the support of his vote. The right hon. gentleman has assumed, that it was impossible for him to have acquired for that question the support of government. He would ask the right hon. gentleman—did he ever try? [Hear.] Let not the House receive so easily the insinuation, that his noble friend had offered him the co-operation of his party if he would undertake to carry it. His noble friend had not done any such thing, nor would he, because, in fact, he had no such power. All that his noble friend addressing the right hon. gentleman, had said, amounted to something like this, "You are a fortunate man: you have risen to a situation in the government which, perhaps, you never expected to reach; your conduct in the course of this and the last session has made you many friends, go on and prosper; all you have to do is to hold to the principles which you have professed: don't forget your principles, and you may depend upon the support of parliament." All that was asked of the right hon. gentleman was, that he would try what he could do for the question. He might answer, that he had no hope of doing any thing without the help of the opposition. That was not his (Mr. T's) proposition. He referred to what the right hon. gentleman might have done of himself. Did he suppose that he was stopped from his emigration out of any strong respect or affection for him? Was he not aware, that there was one member in the cabinet—and that not
721
722
723
Mr. Canning
explained. He had not insisted on the fact, that the opposition were pledged to parliamentary reform. But, whether it were so or no, it was impossible for him to find a united government, had he joined them; since they must have been divided, either among themselves, or with respect to him, upon the question of reform in parliament.
Sir F. Blake
complained, that the ministry was composed of individuals of discordant opinions. If he were asked, what he would do with the present administration, he would say, "Do away with them." The liberal part of the cabinet were clogged in their movements by the drag-chain of their unwilling companions. The ultras in the cabinet would, he feared, never become liberal. The motion should have his cordial support.
The House divided: for lord Althorp's motion, 135; for Mr. Goulburn's amendment, 184: Majority 48.
List of the Minority.
Abercromby, hon. J.
Calvert, N.
Barnard, visc.
Carew, C. S.
Barret, S. M.
Carter, John
Beaumont, T. W.
Caulfield, hon. H.
Becher, W. W.
Cavendish, C. C
Belgrave, visc.
Chamberlayne, W.
Benett, John
Chaloner, R.
Benyon, B.
Clifton, visc.
Bernal, R.
Coke, T. W.
Birch, J.
Colborne, N. W. R.
Blake, sir F.
Cradock, S.
Brougham, H.
Creevey, T.
Browne, Dom.
Crompton, S.
Burdentt, sir F.
Davies, T. H.
Buxton, T. F.
Denison, W. J.
Byng, G.
Denman, T.
Calcraft, J.
Duncannon, visc.
Calcraft, J. H.
Dundas, hon. T.
Calvert, C.
Evans, W.
724
Farrand, R,
Ramsbottom, J.
Fergusson, sir R.
Rickford, W.
Fitzgerald, rt. hon. M.
Rice, T. S.
Fitzroy, lord J.
Ridley, sir M. W.
Foley, J. H. H.
Robarts, A. W.
French, A.
Robarts, G. J.
Gaskill, B.
Robinson, sir G.
Gordon, R.
Rowley, sir W.
Grattan, J.
Rumbold, C. E.
Grosvenor, hon. R.
Russell, lord J.
Guise, sir B. W.
Russell, R. G.
Haldimand, W.
Russell, lord G. W.
Hamilton, lord A.
Robertson, A.
Heathcote, G. J.
Scarlett, J.
Heron, sir R.
Scott, J.
Hill, lord A.
Sebright, sir J.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Sefton, earl
Honywood, W. P.
Smith, John
Hornby, E.
Smith, George
Hughes, W. L.
Smith, hon. R.
Hume, J.
Smith, W.
Hutchinson, hon. C. H.
Stanley, hon. E. C.
James, W.
Stanley, lord,
Jervoise, G. P.
Stewart, W. (Tyrone)
Johnson, W. A.
Stuart, lord P. J.
Knight, R.
Talbot, R. W.
Lamb, hon. G.
Taylor, M. A.
Lambton, J. G.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Langston, J. H.
Wall, C. B.
Leycester, R.
Warre, J. A.
Maberly, J.
Webb, E.
Maberly, W. L.
Wharton, J.
Macdonald, J.
Whitbread, S. C.
Mackintosh, sir J.
White, S.
Mahon, hon. S.
White, col.
Marjoribanks, S.
Whitmore, W. W.
Martin, Jas.
Williams, J.
Millbank, M.
Williams, W.
Milton, visc.
Wilson, sir R.
Monck, J. B.
Winnington, sir T.
Moore, P.
Wood, M.
Newport, rt. hon. sir J.
Wyvil, M,
Normanby, visc.
Wrottesley, sir J.
Nugent, lord.
TELLERS.
O'Callaghan, J.
Parnell, sir H.
Ord, W.
Althorp, viscount.
Osborne, lord F. G.
PAIRED OFF.
Palmer, C. F.
Ellice, Ed.
Pares, T.
Ellis, hon. G. A.
Pelham, J. C.
Sykes, D.
Power, R.
Williams, sir R.
Powlett, hon. W.
Portman, J. B.
Poyntr, W. S.
Lloyd, J. M.
Pryse, P.
Western, C. C.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday. May 12.
SEPARATISTS.
Mr. Brougham
presented a petition from the Separatists of Sligo, praying for such an alteration in the law as would enable them to enjoy those privileges which were within the reach of their fellow-subjects, without taking those oaths which they conscien-
725
The Hon. G. A. Ellis
observed, that the character, the sacrifices, and the sufferings of the petitioners entitled them to the relief which they sought, and which, he trusted, they would speedily obtain.
Mr. L. Forster
said, that the learned gentleman could not render those individuals a greater service, than by turning in his mind how it was possible to carry that which they requested into effect. The difficulty arose from those people having no distinguishing tenet, except this scruple of taking an oath. In the case of a Jew, a Mahometan or a Hindoo, the religious forms of the party were known, and, under the sanction of those forms, he might give evidence. But, in the absence of form, with respect to the Separatist, it was difficult to devise what course could be pursued.
Mr. V. Fitzgerald
thought the difficulty could easily be got rid of. It would be only necessary to enact, that, upon the Separatist's proving, by proper witnesses, that he belonged to that sect, he should be permitted to make his affirmation.
Mr. Lockhart
supported the petition. Looking to the conduct of the Quakers, be saw no reason to apprehend any danger from relieving such men as the petitioners from taking oaths.
Mr. Wynn
was well inclined to diminish the number of unnecessary oaths, but
726
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, May 13.
SUPERANNUATION FUND—PETITION
Mr. S. Worthy
presented a petition from the Clerks in the civil departments of government, complaining, that against the fair principles of justice, and the conditions under which they were admitted to serve the public, and against the provisions of an act of 1810, they were taxed to the amount of 5 per cent upon their salaries, for contributions towards the Superannuated Fund. The hon. Gentleman supported the petition, and declared the sense which he entertained of the injustice and impolicy of the act of 1822, under which this unequal tax was levied.
Mr. Calcraft
said, he took no blame to himself, as he had done all that he could to prevent the House from adopting the measure. He hoped that government would lose no time in taking off so oppressive a burthen from the shoulders of those who were so little able to bear it.
Mr. Secretary Canning
said, he had never approved of the measure. It was unjust, because it was a particular tax upon particular persons, with whose emoluments government could have no more right to tamper than with those of the army and navy, or any other class of persons. It was also unwise, because it operated to the changing of the tenure upon which the persons so taxed had been accustomed to serve. It went to give them a greater claim to retired allowances, than should ever be allowed to the subordinate clerks of the departments. Now, however, the mischief was done; and he was not prepared to say that he could devise any feasible measure for a substitute; though it would be very agreeable to him to hear that his right hon. friend was prepared with one.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that undoubtedly, it seemed a hardship to control the emoluments of those who were ill enough paid already, considering their merits and services; but, the House must look at the situation in which the question stood. In former times, the pay of the officers arose from fees, much more than from salaries. Those fees were very lucrative, and enabled the holders, by gra-
727
Mr. F. Buxton
said, it seemed very hard, after the reductions which had been made, that those regulations should be continued, by which the clerks were expected to continue their respective services for double the period formerly required, and that all the recompense they received in the way of superannuation allowance, should be from money which they had paid out of their own pockets. He had no connexion whatever with the petitioners, of whom he knew but three, and those only by sight. He trusted that their case would receive the consideration of the government, and that they would be restored to the footing on which they before stood, in 1818.
Mr. Secretary Peel
bore testimony to the ability, integrity, and fidelity of the persons spoken of. At the period of his coming into office as secretary of state, he found that the measure, against the effect of which the present petition was directed, had been agreed upon. He saw that if was intended to operate universally, and he could not, therefore, claim an exemption in favour of those who were to be employed under him. The House
728
Mr. Grenfell
said, that the sentiments of the right hon. secretary had his warm concurrence. He had long been of opinion, that the government officers, from the highest to the lowest, were very inadequately paid.
Mr. Watson Taylor
hoped, that the former decision of the House would not be suffered to prejudice the claims of the petitioners; but that justice would be done to a very deserving class of persons, who had endured considerable privation by the measure.
Mr. H. Sumner
said, the regulation had been adopted at a period when a very loud cry had been raised for universal retrenchment. In this and in other instances he thought it had been listened to unwisely and unjustly.
Mr. Hume
said, that the ground upon which the measure had been adopted, was the great increase which had been found in the superannuation list, and the amount of the expense which it brought upon the country. When the measure had been proposed, the late lord Londonderry objected to the clerks in public offices being left without any provision after age should have incapacitated them for further service. Upon that occasion, the House agreed that some provision ought to be made for them, and the regulations alluded to were adopted in consequence. He (Mr. H.) had himself proposed the 14th clause, by which it was provided, that in case of the death of any of these officers before he should be entitled to, or have enjoyed, the superannuated fund, the whole sums that he might have paid should be considered as his personal property, and handed over to his representatives. The superannuation system, therefore, was in the nature of a tontine, and was in no case a benefit to the public, but to the persons by whose contributions it was kept up. He thought the House ought not to suffer itself to be run away with by any fancied liberality, and should be cautious in undoing what had been done on very due deliberation.
Mr. Huskisson
would not have risen, but for the remark made by the hon. member for Aberdeen, respecting the increase in the superannuation list. That such an increase bad taken place at the period to
729
l.
Sir T. Actand
hoped, that the hon. member for Yorkshire would be encouraged by the favourable reception of the petition, to bring the subject again before the House.
Sir T. Baring
trusted that the prayer of the petition would be agreed to; as he thought that the officers of the Crown were not sufficiently paid.
730
Mr. T. Wilson
said, he would take his share of the odium which attached to the measure complained of, because he thought at the time it was carried, that the interests of the country required retrenchment in every practicable shape. He should now be no less willing to give the alteration suggested his fullest support, if it should appear expedient.
Mr. Sykes
said, that two years only had elapsed since the House was pursuing a rapid race of retrenchment and economy, and he begged to ask what reason had been given, why they should pursue a contrary extreme? He trusted that the subject would be fully discussed before any alteration was determined on.
Mr. James
said, that when the ministers had taken off all the assessed taxes, he should be glad to concur in the proposal to reward more amply the public officers. Until then, the intended liberality would be ill-timed.
Mr. S. Worthy
intimated, that he should probably, at an early opportunity, introduce the subject in another form.
SUGAR BOUNTIES.]
Mr. W. Whitmore
rose to bring under the consideration of the House, the subject of which he had given notice: namely, the Drawbacks, or Bounties, which were paid on the exportation of Sugar. His object was, to procure the appointment of a select committee, to consider the question; and he trusted that he should make it appear to the House, that such a measure was called for by peculiar circumstances. It would be necessary for him, at the outset, to show how the affair stood. In the first place, the West-India interest possessed a monopoly of sugar in the English market against all other countries in which sugar was produced, with the exception of the East Indies. But the sugar which was imported from the East Indies paid a duty of 10
s.
s.
s.,
s.
s.;
s.,
s.
s.
731
s.
s.;
l.
732
l.
733
734
735
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
736
737
Mr. Huskisson
said, that so large a portion of the able dissertation of his hon. friend had been addressed to the great question of slavery, and so small a portion of it to the very narrow question of which he had given notice; namely, the drawbacks on the exportation of sugar, that he thought the House would agree with him in thinking, that it would have been much more properly addressed to the House,
738
739
l.,
l.
l.
740
Mr. Whitmore,
in reply, observed, that he had the most conclusive evidence to shew the great difference of price which existed between the sugars of the British plantations, and foreign sugars of inferior quality, on bond. It was quite clear that some change of system must take place. When the right hon. gentleman
741
The motion was put, and negatived.
CONTINUANCE OF THE SALT DUTY.]
Mr. Wodehouse
rose to bring forward his promised motion for the continuance of the Salt Duty; and to enable the House to ascertain if some more substantial relief could not be obtained for the country by the diminution of an equal amount in some other part of the public burthens. He was aware that the great objection which had been urged, as it were in limine, on the consideration of this subject, was, that the faith of parliament stood pledged for the entire abolition of the salt duties [loud cries of "hear"]. He hoped he was not particularly prone to any laxity of principle; but he confessed he could not see how a vote of that House could be held indissoluble. Parliament was a collective body, its faith was its united pledge; perhaps this pledge might have been given when one third of the collective body were not present. But, be that as it might, his idea of the honour of parliament was, to measure its conduct by the present view of what it would be best for the true interest of the country to adopt, under all the circumstances of its present situation. Their duty, and the express order of their institution was, at the time of their being called upon to consider a proposition, to see what was then best for the interests of the country to adopt. What, then, was the best course for the House to take, under existing circumstances, with respect to the remaining salt duties? He was aware that the objection was not so much as to their present amount, as it was to the operation of the Excise regulations which still accompanied the payment of what remained; and the particular inconvenience of which was felt by the class less able to bear that infliction. It must be obvious to all, that the details of such a subject must be left practically to the individuals engaged in the regulations. He had, therefore, for information upon that point, referred to Mr. Carr, the solicitor of the Excise [cries of "hear," from the opposite benches]. He begged to inform the hon. gentlemen who had just cheered his refer-
742
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
s.
d.
l.
l.
743
s.
l.
l.
744
l.
l.
l.
745
"Vestibulum ante ipsum, primisque in faucibus Orci
Luctus et ultrices posuere cubilia curæ,
Pallentesque habitant morbi;"—
l.
l.
746
Mr. Carlwright
seconded the motion. He thought the duty, at its present amount, not oppressive, and that other taxes might be remitted, which would be mote beneficial to the people. The machinery, by which the salt-tax was collected, was not, he contended, more expensive than the machinery for collecting several other taxes. If the tax were remitted, he doubted whether it would go into the pockets of the people.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that standing in the particular situation which he did as a minister of the Crown, he was anxious, at that early period of the debate, to declare, without reserve, the opinion which he held with regard to the present motion. Honourable members would do him the justice to recollect, that in the statement which he had made to them, at the commencement of the session, he had distinctly informed them that if, in the course of it, there should be a general feeling that the cessation of this tax ought not to take place at the time fixed for it by law, it would not be a difficult task to find other means of affording relief to the public; but that he was of opinion that, as far as himself and the government were concerned, they were pledged—[great cheering.] specifically pledged—to adhere to the law as it now stood. He would not go so far as to say that parliament was pledged to stand by that law, if it were good that that law should be repealed; or that the government were bound not to repeal it, if the repeal of it were either good or useful to the public. He had, therefore, on formerly addressing the House, qualified the pledge which he had given in this manner—that there must be a strong general feeling in favour of this tax before he could venture to propose its continuance. If, therefore, any such feeling had been excited, he should have felt himself at liberty to support the motion of his hon. friend; for he agreed with his hon. friend in thinking, that the objections to the continuance of the 2
s.
s.,
747
l.
l.
748
SALARY OF THE JUDGES.]
Mr. R. Martin,
after a speech which was rendered inaudible in the gallery by the confusion prevalent in the House, moved a resolution of which the effect was "to increase the salaries annexed to the great offices of state, and to high judicial situations of the country, so as to render them more adequate to the labour and importance of the duties to be discharged, and more worthy of the justice and liberality of the nation."
The Speaker
asked, whether any gentleman seconded the motion?
Mr. R. Martin
said, that an hon. member had promised to second his motion, whom he did not at that moment see in the House.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that he rose as an officer of the Crown, but not to second the motion of his hon. friend. With regard to the first part of his hon. friend's proposition, he did not mean to say a single word; but with regrad to the second, he might be permitted to state, that the propriety of increasing the salaries of the judges had recently been, as indeed it deserved to be, under the consideration of the Crown. The emoluments of the judges were at present insufficient to support the situation which they occupied in the country, and fluctuated according to the fees which they received. Now, he thought that nobody would dispute this proposition—that the emoluments of the judges ought neither to be precarious, nor derived from uncertain fees. The public interest required, that such an addition should be made to the salaries of the judges, as would induce men in the prime of life and of mental vigour, to devote themselves to the discharge of their important duties.
Mr. Hobhouse
stated, that he should feel it his duty, if the suggestion of the right hon. secretary should ever be submitted to a committee, not only to oppose it, but also to submit another motion of very considerable importance to it, if that suggestion were adopted: namely, that in future, there should be no promotion on the bench. He would not now state his reasons for such a motion, but he had a motive for entertaining the intention; and he repeated, that if the suggestion of the hon. gentleman should travel to a committee, he would not shrink from explain-
749
Mr. Leycester
was favourable to an increase of the judges' salaries; and hoped the addition would be accompanied with a provision for a third assize.
As there was no motion before the House, the conversation here dropped.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, May 14.
ALIEN BILL.]
The bill was read a third time. On the motion, that it do pass,
Lord Gage
said, he had no objection to the principle of the bill; but he thought the power entrusted to the secretary of state to send foreigners not only out of the country, but where he pleased, required some limitations. As the bill now stood, the gallant Mina, and Alava, might not only be sent out of the country, but back to Spain. Suppose a Polish or an Italian refugee were demanded by the power, which at present domineered over Poland and Italy, would their lordships stand firm? And if the ambassador of either of those powers should make war or peace depend on our compliance, would their lordships prefer a war to giving up such an alien? He thought some clause should be introduced into the bill, limiting the power of the secretary of state as to sending aliens to other countries.
The Earl of Liverpool
said, it would be the duty of every British minister, to resist any such demand, and run the hazard of a war rather than comply with it.
Lord Clifden
agreed, that the power entrusted to the secretary of state was too great, and would no doubt be much abused, if it were not for the check in which ministers were held by a free press.
Lord Holland
was against the principle of placing confidence. Some persons entrusted with arbitrary power, abused it without knowing it and without wishing it; others abused it designedly. The whole principle of this bill was arbitrary, and it ought to be restricted as much as possible. As the bill now stood, it was impossible for parliament to see its enactments enforced. The secretary of state
750
Lord Gage
then moved, that the following clause be added by way of rider to the bill;—"Provided always, that no alien under the provisions of this act shall be transported, in any case, to any part of the dominions under the authority of his lawful sovereign.".
The Earl of Liverpool
objected to the clause as answering no good purpose. If it was right to give the power of sending an alien out of the country, this power must not depend on the alien going of himself, but there must be a power of sending him, and that power must employ force in carrying him away, if necessary. It was not possible, nor would it be judicious, to place any limits to this power. He should not wish to send a refugee Spaniard to Spain; but the power of sending aliens away must be left without limits.
Their lordships then divided on lord Gage's motion: Contents, 13; Not Contents, 25. The bill was then passed.
SILK-MANUFACTURE BILL.]
On the order of the day, for the second reading of this bill,
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, he had, on a former occasion, presented a petition from the Silk manufacturers of Dublin, complaining of the impediments thrown in their way by the Dublin Society, which, he understood, was a mixed company of ladies and gentlemen, who met as a board of trade, to settle the rate of wages, and sundry other matters. When parliament delegated a power to fix wages, and create regulations to the Dublin Society, it had, in fact, given that society as much power as it had itself. In a country like this, where freedom was regarded as the only sure basis of prosperity in trade, he was sure he had only to state these restrictions, to ensure support to the bill which was to repeal them. He did not expect, therefore, any opposition to its second reading. It was the same, in substance, as the bill which had been introduced to their lordships last year; and when he took into consideration the sound opinions as to freedom of trade, which prevailed on his side of the House, he was sure that there the bill would meet no opposition; neither did he expect it would be opposed by their lordships on the other side. Last
751
d
752
The Earl of Westmorland
opposed the motion. From every thing he had heard— and what he had heard was confirmed by the petitions on the table—as much alarm prevailed now among the industrious population of Spitalfields, as last year. It would be better to see what effect the law lately passed would have, before their lordships proceeded further. It was a very serious matter rashly to disturb the minds of great masses of people. The silk-trade was not said to be at present in a state of distress; consequently, there was no ground for immediate interference. To put an end to long-existing regulations was a thing which ought not to be
753
Lord Ellenborough
thought the present the best time for removing the restrictions, and intimated his determination to vote for the bill.
Their lordships divided: For the second reading: Contents 23. Not-Contents 8.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, May 17.
STATE OF IRELAND.]
The Earl of Liverpool
rose, to move for the appointment of a committee on the State of Ireland, similar to that recently appointed by the other House. When the Insurrection act was under consideration last year, ministers had promised, in the case of its being thought necessary to renew that measure, to give every necessary information to parliament on the state of Ireland. It was with a view to the fulfilment of this promise that he now moved, "That a committee be appointed, to examine into the nature and extent of the disturbances in those counties of Ireland now subject to the operation of the Insurrection act."
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, he experienced a melancholy satisfaction at finding that, however desirous ministers had hitherto been, to escape from all inquiry on the subject of Ireland, that now, after years of delay, an inquiry was forced upon them by what had occurred in another place. The measure, as limited by the terms of the noble earl's motion, was unfortunately of a very partial nature; still, it was gratifying to hear it proposed, even under those limitations, that something like an inquiry should at last be gone into. At the same time he must say, that, limited as the noble earl's motion was, he was afraid the inquiry would be very far from going to the root of the evil, and producing that full disclosure of its cause which could alone enable their lordships' to discover those constitutional remedies which they ought to apply instead of continuing that inefficient remedy to which they had already so often resorted. He, therefore, implored their lordships to consider, whether it was not their duty, to satisfy themselves as to the causes of the evil, and whether that satisfaction could be obtained by an inquiry into the state of only certain parts of the country. It was also his wish to enable those who might be of opinion that the inquiry
754
The Earl of Liverpool
denied that there had been manifested on the part of his majesty's government any indisposition to inquire into the state of Ireland. They had, in several instances, thought it proper that inquiry should be instituted; but they had always been of opinion, that in order to render inquiries useful, they should be definite in their nature. No advantage could be gained by adopting the noble marquis's amendment. The original motion was limited only as to locality; in every other circumstance, the inquiry was made as large as the noble marquis could desire. With respect to locality, their lordships would feel, that the inquiry, if gone into at all, could not fail to be conducted according to the terms
755
Lord King
thought, that some good might be done by the inquiry but wished, it had been more extensive. He was aware, however, that such an inquiry could not easily be obtained. The learned lord on the woolsack would resist any interference with one party. He would say, "These are my Orangemen, the only true Protestants." It was said, that Ireland had been but half conquered; and though we had now got a Union, things were not much better for that, as it seemed to be but half united. Some fatality appeared to mix in all affairs relative to Ireland. Two parties were constantly in a state of hostility, the one claiming rights which the other denied. He therefore feared that the inquiry which the noble earl was to set a-going would not be of much use.
The House divided on the amendment: Contents 20: Not-Contents 50: The committee was then appointed.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, May 17.
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.]
The Sheriffs of London presented a petition from the corporation, praying for a reform of parliament.
Mr. Alderman Wood
said, that the petition had been carried by a large majority in a court which was fully attended. The fact was, that neither the freeholders of London or Southward were represented at present in that House. With the present number of members it was impossible that the interests of their constituents could be properly attended to.
Mr. W. Smith
said, he very well recollected having given his feeble support to the celebrated petition for parliamentary reform brought up in 1792, and in all he had ever heard upon the subject, from that time up to the present, he had never heard the arguments of the petition answered. It was very truly said, that the metropolitan freeholders were not represented in
756
Mr. T. Wilson
could never promise his support to any measure of parliamentary reform until brought forward in a tangible shape, by way of complaint against some stated grievance or abuse.
Sir L. Coffin
thought, that the reform of the petitioners began at the wrong end. They should first reform themselves.
Lord J. Russell
said, that though he had not thought it expedient to agitate the question this session, he had not abandoned it, but intended early in the next session, to submit a motion upon the subject; as he considered a reform of parliament equally necessary to the protection of the people and the security of the House.
Ordered to lie on the table.
LAW MERCHANT AMENDMENT BILL.]
On the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill,
Mr. Robertson
said, that the monied men who were in the habit of making advances on goods, and who were the prinpal supporters of the bill, had no reason for introducing it into the House; because, when they made their advances, they had always the means of ascertaining whether the property which was pledged to them, was really vested in the party pledging it. Foreign countries held out the same security to Englishmen sending their goods thither for sale, as we, by this bill, were about to deprive foreigners of in England. He would ask merchants whether they would willingly consign goods to the continent, if the agents to whom they were consigned were allowed to pawn them; and, in the event of the failure of those agents, to be deprived of their property? The bill was calculated to destroy the warehousing trade of the country.
Mr. Huskisson
said, if he thought the bill injurious to the commerce of the
757
758
l
l
l
759
Sir J. Newport
thought the House and the country were greatly indebted to the right hon. gentleman for his exertions in promoting the commercial interests of the country.
Mr. Sykes
said, that the bill conferred no new powers, and gave no new privilege to the consignors of goods. The plain state of the case was this. There was a consignor who gave his goods to a consignee, who sold them to a third party in the market; and that third party became responsible for any default of the consignee to his employer, with whom he had no conference whatever in the business. Surely the loss, if any liability to loss occurred in consequence of the default or insolvency of the consignee, ought to fall on the consignor, who intrusted his goods to him, and not on the third party, who was the mere purchaser in the market, and who had paid for them in the way of trade.
The Solicitor General
also thought, that the consignor, who could qualify in any manner he thought proper his own mandatum, and protect himself from his consignee, ought to be responsible for the
760
Mr. J. Smith
said, that when the question was first introduced it was very intricate; but the right hon. gentleman opposite had obviated the difficulties which had obstructed his comprehension. What could be more unjust than the old plan which was, that if a man wanted 100 tons of hemp, and went to a broker who thought proper to sell for 38
l
l
The bill was then committed.
WAREHOUSED WHEAT BILL.]
Mr. Huskisson
Mr. Handley
said, that however beneficial this bill might be to the right hon. gentleman's constituents at Liverpool, still he was informed by competent judges that its effect would be very different on the general interest of the agriculture of this country; since it would hold out an encouragement to foreign countries to deluge the British market with their corn. Entertaining this opinion, he should move as an amendment, "that the bill be read a second time that day six months."
Mr. Denis Brown
said, that, considering the particular interests of Ireland, he would oppose the bill.
Mr. T. Wilson
said, he was disposed to promote the principle of the bill, if the right hon. gentleman would consent to discuss the last clause first: he alluded to the clause which regulated, that there should be 1961bs. of flour for every 5 bushels of wheat.
Mr. Huskisson
said, that an insinuation had been thrown out against him respecting this bill which he felt it necessary, in the first instance, to repel. Nothing could be more unfounded. He never had introduced, and never would introduce, a measure to that House—and he should be unworthy of his situation if he did so—at the instance of his constituents, which was at variance with the interests of the empire at large. He had given notice of this
761
762
s
s
s
763
Mr. Leslie Forster
agreed with his right hon. friend as to the principle of this bill, but was obliged to differ from him in some of its details. He was therefore in some difficulty as to the course which he should pursue. He did not like to oppose the second reading; but he had certain objections to it, which he must press if they were not obviated in the committee. He wished, at any rate, that this new trade should be founded upon correct principles; because he considered it to be one which in time of plenty, could be productive of no harm, and which in time of dearth might be productive of the greatest advantage."
Mr. Huskisson
observed, that he intend-
764
Sir E. Knatchbull
said, he was not disposed, when prices were rising, to withhold a liberal relief to the mercantile body, whose capital was employed in the warehoused wheat. Under these views, he should recommend his hon. friend to withdraw his amendment.
Sir J. Sebright
said, that after the clear statement of the right hon. gentleman, he had no wish to oppose a measure which, without injuring the agricultural interest, was to afford relief to another great class of the community.
Mr. Lockhart
expressed his determination to oppose any effort to disturb the corn-laws. It had been said—why not relieve so much British capital now locked up by the operation of the present laws Who could say it was British? Was it not likely to be foreign capital? It was his conviction, that the present bill, if suffered to pass, would deteriorate considerably the security of the land proprietor and cultivator, and destroy altogether their dependence on any future legislative protection.
Colonel Wodehouse
said, he should not give any opposition to the present measure; but, with reference to the whole question of the corn-laws, he trusted the House would exercise the greatest caution, and that it would not, from any quarter, take opinions upon trust; as he believed there was no question on which opinions, most confidently advanced, were so erroneous as on that of the corn-laws.
Mr. Cripps
observed, that, from the first moment the foreign corn was introduced, he was convinced the sooner it was got rid of the better for the agriculturist. The effect of its remaining undisposed of was, to produce great fluctuations in the price of home wheat.
Colonel Wood
thought the bill ought to be postponed until they knew the condition of the next harvest. Though the price of corn was higher at present than it had been for some time past, the capital of the British farmer was still in a very poor condition; and no measure was so calculated to deteriorate it still more, as breaking down the present system of our corn-laws.
Mr. Huskisson
begged to say, that he had not stated any intention on his part to change the corn-laws. All that he had observed on the general question was,
765
Lord Althorp
viewed the present measure as one of perfect indifference to the agricultural interest. The measure would not come into operation until the 15th of August; and if it should then appear that the harvest was not likely to be a good one, the bonded wheat would of necessity be thrown into the mass of foreign corn that would, on the opening of the ports, be introduced. As to the general question of the corn-laws, it was his opinion, that the present system of averages led to the fluctuations of price—one of the greatest evils that could affect agriculture.
Mr. Bright
said, that the bill had for its object to allow British merchants to turn a large capital to some purpose. He was sorry the right hon. gentleman had given way on the larger and smaller number of bushels. But he yet hoped to see this country the great granary of Europe, importing the wheat of all other nations, and exporting it to other countries, according to their respective wants.
Sir J. Newport
said, that with the modifications of the measure, and with the understanding that the corn-laws were not to be altered, until the public mind was more prepared for such a change, he should not oppose the bill.
Mr. Sykes
expressed his approbation of the plan, so far as it went: but was of opinion, that it did not go far enough. He trusted, however, that, at some future period, the right hon. gentleman would be prepared to carry it to a further extent.
Sir F. Burdett
said, he agreed with the hon. gentleman who had just sat down, and thought that the country gentlemen took a very wrong view of their own interest, in supporting the system of the corn-laws. The present, however, was not the occasion for entering into the large question. When that occasion did arise, he should certainly avail himself of it to point out the errors of their present policy. If any one trade required more than another to be entirely free, it was that very trade of corn. The more food was brought into the country, the better was it for our manufacturers. To augment the quantity of food was to increase the energies and to promote the industry of the country, and by that means to
766
Mr. Handley then withdrew his amendment, and the bill was committed.
MARINE INSURANCE BILL.]
Mr. Alderman Thompson
hoped, that Mr. Buxton would consent to postpone his motion on this subject at that late hour.
Mr. F. Buxton
said, he had no objection to bring in the bill then, and discuss the measure on the second reading.; but he would be guided by the opinion of the House.
Mr. Grenfell
objected to the bill, as having for its object to take away the rights of individuals, without giving them any compensation.
The House then calling on Mr. Buxton to go on,
Mr. Fowell Buxton
said, he would shortly describe to the House what the nature of the bill was; but, in the first instance he felt it necessary to state what the law was, as it now existed. At pre-
767
768
l
769
l
l
l
Mr. Plummer
said, the hon. gentleman had observed, that the privileges granted to those companies were confined to thirty-one years, and that they were then liable to be revoked. But he believed the fact was, that the grants were in perpetual succession, and subject to redemption. They could not be interfered with, unless the king, in council, notified that some inconvenience arose from them. In that case, the grants might be redeemed; but it was provided, in that event, that no similar privilege should be given to any other party. The hon. gentleman was also in error with respect to the sum of money advanced. Those two companies had paid the large sum of 150,000
l
l
770
Mr. Alderman Thompson
said, that the hon. mover had complained that both at these insurance offices, and at Lloyd's great difficulty existed in effecting insurances, and in recovering the sums underwritten. But from the report of a committee of that House in 1810, it appeared, that no less than 681,800
l
l
771
Mr. Huskisson
expressed his regret that the subject was brought forward in the absence of the chancellor of the Exchequer, who, although his opinion was on record respecting the monoply in the hands of the two chartered companies, yet ought to have an opportunity of hearing all that could be said by the opponents of the measure. The chartered companies in question must have been founded on this principle—that it was desirable to give the public a greater security by the incorporation of companies, than they could enjoy by the conduct of the business of marine insurance by individuals. The first question therefore was, whether this main purpose had been answered? What proportion of the business had these companies monopolized? It appeared by the report of the committee of 1810, that of the whole business of marine insurance, they carried on only four parts in a hundred. It thus appeared, that not only ninety-six out of one hundred were deprived of that better security which the charter contemplated, but were deprived of the ordinary security which they would have enjoyed, if the charters had never existed—because, in that case, the insurers would have had the higher security of partnerships and joint-stock companies. The result therefore was, that, although four out of one hundred had the higher security of a corporation, ninety-six out of one hundred were in a much worse relative situation than they would otherwise have been. The advantage being so small, and the disadvantage so great, it certainly was competent to the legislature to inquire by what mode a correction of the inconvenience might be effected. The law by which the charters were granted, specified, that if within thirty-one years after the incorporation of the two companies it should be thought desirable to dissolve them, two years notice should be given of such a determination, and they should be repaid the sum they had advanced, namely, 150,000
l
772
773
Mr. Grenfell
observed, that he did not stand there to justify the system on which such charters had been granted. He was a friend to liberal principles, but he stood there on the faith of an act of parliament. The two corporations in question had paid large sums of money for privileges, of which, he contended, they could not be deprived, unless by the king in council. This was the fourth attempt which, since his experience in parliament, had been made, and which he trusted would fail, as all the previous attempts had failed. In 1806, the Globe Insurance company brought in a bill upon the subject, which however was thrown out. In 1810, his hon. friend, the member for Taunton, had introduced another bill on the subject which had also been thrown out. In consequence of the report of a select committee, in 1811, a third bill had been introduced; and what was its fate? He (Mr. G.) had successfully moved its rejection; and in that effort had been seconded by Mr. Perceval, then chancellor of the Exchequer, by sir V. Gibbs, then attorney-general, and by sir T. Plumer, then solicitor-general, on the ground that the privy council, and not parliament, was the place to which application ought to have been made. In 1813, when the same parties brought the subject before the privy council, lord Ellenborough took so unfavourable a view of their case, that they did not venture to persevere; and from that time to the present, no stir had been made with respect to it. Now, under those circumstances it was, that the present bill was brought before the House. For himself, he had never compromised his principles upon any question; and therefore he felt himself bound to oppose a decided negative to the motion.
Dr. Lushington
said, that according to the doctrine laid down by the hon. member, the question under consideration was one not to be decided by the House of Commons, but to be referred to his majesty's privy council. He would call
774
Mr. T. Wilson
thought the present companies ought to be protected, unless it could be proved that they had been hurtful. He was of opinion there were but few insurances but what could be effected at the underwriters at Lloyd's, even without the two companies; and that at present the public had all the advantages of the respectable firms in the city; for either one partner signed for the others, or a broker at Lloyd's signed for the whole, With respect to the charge of 25 per cent by the broker, the hon. gentleman must be in error; for the charge was only 5 per cent. He thought there was nothing before the House to justify the assertion that these companies had been hurtful, and that therefore, under the words of the act of parliament, they ought to be protected. The proper mode would be, to move for a committee, to inquire if they had been injurious, or to refer it to some other competent tribunal.
The Solicitor-General
said, that without pledging himself to any ulterior opinion upon this question, he felt it necessary to state that, in granting the charters in question, parliament never intended to tie up its hands, and deprive itself of the power of granting new charters under any circumstances.
775
Leave was given to bring in the bill. It was accordingly brought in by Mr. F. Buxton, and read a first time.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, May 18.
DERRY CATHEDRAL.]
Sir J. Newport
, seeing a right hon. baronet in his place, begged to ask him, whether he was aware of the existence of any legal document to substantiate the claim of the bishop and dean of Londonderry, to certain lands, charged with the burthen of repairing the Cathedral Church of Derry.
Sir George Hill
, in reply to the question, felt it due to his own character, to the sincere respect he entertained for the House, and not less his duty to his constituents, the citizens of Derry, to answer the right hon. member's question clearly, explicitly, and without reserve. He had brought a bill into parliament, on the petition of the bishop and dean of Derry, and the parishioners of the parish in which the cathedral of Derry was situated. The grounds of this proceeding were, that no fund, except assessment by vestry, existed for the support of that cathedral. Of this fact he had been assured: he urged this reason to the House for proposing the bill to create a permanent fund. He had not anticipated the successful opposition which had been made to the second reading of the bill; and in order to be prepared to satisfy the committee upon the bill, that no fund at present existed, he had directed searches to be made in Ireland, to ascertain whether there was any record of land, tithe, or other property, having at any time been granted for the support of the Derry cathedral. Subsequent to the rejection of the bill, he received information, which induced him to believe, that funds at one period had existed for the support of that cathedral. He had communicated that information to his right hon. friend, the secretary of state for Ireland, to the bishop, dean, and chief magistrate, of Derry, and had the satisfaction to be assured by the secretary for Ireland, that the subject should be fully investigated, with a view to doing justice to all parties. He must add, that he was quite confident, not only that every facility would be given to the inquiry by the bishop and dean, but the most zealous assistance.
776
REPEAL OF THE LEATHER-TAX.]
General Gascoyne
, referring to certain evidence recently taken before the committee on the Hides and Skins bill, shewing, that if any, all the restrictions on the leather trade ought to be removed, asked if it would not be more expedient for the hon. member for Wareham to postpone his motion for the repeal of the Leather-Tax, at least for a few days?
Mr. Calcraft
said, he had already provided himself with as strong evidence in favour of the repeal of the Leather-tax, as could be furnished by the report of any committee. He therefore felt it his duty to forward his promised motion. His object was, to move the repeal of the whole of the duty on Leather. Should it be adopted, it was his intention to give such ample time for the change, as to render the payment of no drawback necessary; and to enable persons who might be disposed to do so, to make arrangements for combining the trades of currier and tanner. He should move "for leave to bring in a bill, to repeal the duty on Leather, from a time to be limited," meaning that time to be the 5th of July 1825. He thought this a moderate and reasonable course. He had taken up this tax because he thought that, in the whole list, there was none more defective in principle, or more injurious in application. It was defective in principle, because it interfered with the profitable application of capital, and prevented the union of trades which, for the interest of the community, ought to be combined; and, it was injurious in application, because it contributed so little to the Exchequer, and took so much from the pockets of the public. In consequence of the restrictions rendered necessary for the collection of the tax, while it yielded little more than 300,000
l
l
l
777
l
l
removed,
778
d
779
Mr. Curteis
seconded the motion. By the repeal of this tax less injury would be done to the revenue, and more benefit to the public, than by the relinquishment of any duty upon the Statute-book. He recommended as a substitute, that a license duty, of 50
l
Mr. Leycester
said, that one objection to the tax was, that it cut up our foreign trade, for it imposed restrictions which prevented all economy in the manufacture of leather, and the preventing economy raised the price, so as to shut out the foreigner from our market. It had the effect of driving capital out of the country; an effect which was strikingly illustrated in the town with which he was connected. There were formerly three tanners in that town who had considerable business. At present, there was only one tanner with an unimproved trade; the two others had gone to America, where they were now thriving, though they would probably have starved had they remained in this country. Another objection to this tax was, that it conveyed infinitely Jess into the Exchequer than it took from the pockets of the people. Could any thing be more repugnant to sound principles of legislation? A still stronger objection to this tax was, that it pressed with peculiar hardship on those who were least able to bear it. The poor man paid a most unequal proportion of the tax on his shoes, and the
780
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the hon. gentleman who seconded the motion had thrown out a bait to him, by proposing a substitute for this tax; which substitute could not be resorted to without doing quite as much prejudice in one direction as it would do good in another. The hon. gentleman had suggested a license duty on the tanner to the amount of 50
l
l
l
781
l
s
d
782
l
l
Lord Althorp
thought that one great
783
Sir J. Newport
entirely concurred in the necessity of the repeal of this tax, which drew from the pockets of the people a sum so much larger than it paid into the Exchequer. With reference to what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman respecting the extension to Ireland of these restrictions, he begged of him to consider what had been the progress of the leather tax in that country. Before the Union, the tax produced 51,000
l
Captain Maberly
said, that he had uniformly opposed what was called the sinking fund, believing it to be most prejudicial to the interests of the country. So long, therefore, as it was permitted to stand, he should be the advocate of a reduction of taxation to its amount. But, without touching this sinking fund, there was a mode of giving relief from this tax, without diminishing the present amount of revenue; and that was, by acceding to the motion of his hon. relation, for putting the tax upon beer on malt. That transposition would just save the amount which this tax covered, without diminishing the expenditure of the government. There was a special claim for reducing this tax. All taxes upon necessaries were declared to be bad by the ablest political economists. They tended to raise the price of labour, to diminish profit, and force capital to seek employment in foreign countries. This tax offended against one of the first maxims of taxation; for it produced only 300,000
l
l
784
Sir N. Colthurst
said, he should vote for the repeal of this tax, particularly, as it was intended to extend to Ireland the restrictions which were found so injurious in England, and generally, because of the desire he felt to have the commodity as cheap as possible for the people of his own country.
Mr. Maberly
entirely coincided in the reasons urged for the repeal, and thought the tax was one manifestly injurious to the public. He was particularly anxious to have all these restrictions abolished.
Mr. John Martin
defended the sinking fund, to the maintenance of which he thought parliament stood pledged in honour. He entirely approved of the measures taken by ministers for the reduction of taxes, and could not therefore vote for the motion.
Sir J. Yorke
expressed his astonishment that the chancellor of the Exchequer should have declared that he would sooner repeal the tax on tobacco, the use of which was so unnatural and which was offensive to the stomach, lungs, and nasal organs, than the tax on so necessary an article of consumption as leather, without which nobody could move. With respect to the effect of the reduction of taxation on prices, he must confess, that in the orbit in which he moved he had never had the good fortune to find any one article of consumption a jot cheaper. He would ask any gentleman who had a son at Eton or Westminster whether he found the slightest difference in the items of a tutor's bill. He should have been disposed to vote against the motion, had it not been for the statement, that white the tax on leather brought only 300,000
l
l
Sir G. Robinson
supported the motion, believing the tax to be an impolitic one.
785
Mr. Secretary Canning
thought it somewhat hard on his right hon. friend, the chancellor of the Exchequer, that he should be called upon to show, not only that every tax which he thought it expedient to maintain was not oppressive, but that there was something in it peculiarly amiable and lovely. His right hon. friend was called upon to show, not that the con tinuance of a tax might be necessary in a financial point of view, but that it was eminently delightful that such a tax should subsist among the institutions of the country. After his right hon. friend had laid before the House his view of the finances of the country, and that view had received the sanction of parliament, it was somewhat unfair, unless the House were disposed to rescind its former decisions, to Call upon his right hon. friend to remit, in addition to all the reductions he had proposed, any tax which any honourable member might consider inconvenient or oppressive. This was the fourth or fifth motion of the kind which had been made, after the whole finances of the country had been brought under the consideration of the House. The repeal of the window-tax, the house-tax, the whole of the assessed taxes, and the tax on coals, had in this way been successively recommended to the House. His right hon. friend had candidly stated, that he did not defend this tax on principle; that he was not responsible for its imposition; and that he would be happy to propose its repeal, whenever he could do so consistently with considerations of paramount importance. He confessed that he felt some little difficulty in following the exact line of argument which had been taken by his hon. and gallant friend, who had been convinced in the course of this debate, and who intended to support the present motion, partly from his horror of tobacco, and partly from his love of cheap learning. His right hon. friend had declared, that he would rather repeal the tax on tobacco, than the tax on leather; not from any particular affection which he personally entertained for tobacco, for he was not aware that any part of his right hon. friend's person was polluted by that vegetable in the way his gallant friend had described; but because the tax on that article was greatly disproportioned to the value of the commodity, and consequently operated as a great encouragement to smuggling. His gallant friend had argued, that the tax on leather ought to be repealed, because the
786
The House divided: Ayes 55; Noes 71; Majority 16.
List of the Minority.
Althorp, vis.
Johnson, W. A.
Anson, sir George
Langston, J. H.
Barnard, vis.
Lennard, T. B.
Barret, S. M.
Lethbridge, Sir T.
Becher, W. W
Leycester, R.
Benyon, B.
Lloyd, J. M.
Bernal, Ralph
Maberly, John
Boughton, sir W. E. R.
Milton, vis.
Monck, J. B.
Bright, H.
Moore, Peter
Browne, D.
Newport, sir J.
Cartwright, W. S.
Palmer, C.
Caulfield, hon. H.
Palmer, C. F.
Chaloner, R.
Pares, T.
Colthurst, sir N.
Pelham, J. C.
Cradock, S.
Poyntz, W. S
Curteis, E. J.
Proby, hon. G. L.
Davenport, D.
Pryse, Pryse
Davies, T. H.
Robinson, sir George
Dennison, W. S.
Rickford, W.
Ellice, Edward
Russell, Lord, J.
Fergusson, sir R.
Taylor, M. A.
Griffith, J. W.
Wells, J.
Guise, sir B.
Whitbread, S. C.
Gurney, R. H.
Wood, Matthew
Honywood, W. P.
Wyvill, M.
Hornby, E.
Yorke, sir Joseph
Hume, Joseph
TELLERS.
Hutchinson, hon. C. H.
Maberly, W. L.
Calcraft, John
BANKING ESTABLISHMENTS IN IRELAND.]
Mr. Dawson
rose to move for leave to bring in a bill "to repeal the Act 29 Geo. 2. c. 16, for the regulation of Banking Establishments in Ireland." The object of the bill was, to repeal those acts which impeded the formation of banking companies in Ireland. The great want under which Ireland laboured at present was the absence of capital, to call
787
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
assured the House, that the subject had not escaped the notice of government, but had for some time been under its serious consideration. He had received, some time ago, a request from the merchants of Belfast to allow the formation of a joint-stock banking company in their town. He had referred it to the law-officers of the Crown, to determine how far any alteration in the existing state of the law respecting banking establishments in Ireland would affect the contract which existed between the public and the Bank of Ireland. He was not prepared to assert that many of the objects recommended were not attainable without a breach of that contract; but as he could not yet tell what the opinion of the law-officers might be, he could not give more than a limited consent to the proposition. If the law-officers should report that, to
788
Mr. V. Fitzgerald
did not think the population of Ireland to be so concurrent and unanimous in favour of this measure, as his hon. friend had represented it to be. In many parts of Ireland there were great objections to establishments of this nature, in consequence of the results which had followed from establishments somewhat similar. In the south and west of Ireland, these establishments, instead of being either able or willing to advance capital upon new speculations, had swallowed up the greater part of the capital which had been acquired by old and successful commercial speculators.
Colonel Trench
expressed himself friendly to the object of this bill. Though it was a little irregular, he would take that opportunity of correcting a misrepresentation which had gone abroad, respecting what had fallen from him on a former night. A right hon. gentleman had quoted a Mr. Strickland, whom he stated to be an Irish landholder, as an example worthy the imitation of the other landholders of Ireland. He had risen to communicate to the House a point of which he was himself aware, namely, that Mr. Strickland was not an Irish country gentleman, but an agent appointed to superintend the embarrassed estate of a nobleman, who, from motives honourable to himself, had absented himself from the mansion of his ancestors. That nobleman had had the good fortune, and he would add the good sense, to place in the situation of his agent a gentleman whose example could not fail to produce a good effect. The nobleman to whom he alluded, as well as another nobleman to whom Ireland must always feel indebted-he meant the duke of Devonshire—had conferred a blessing upon their country, by substituting for their own presence, which they could not give, the presence, of such gentlemen as they had selected for their agents.
Mr. Dawson
said, he was quite satisfied to leave the subject in the hands of the chancellor of the Exchequer, and would withdraw his motion.
MARINERS' APPRENTICES SETTLEMENT BILL.]
Mr. Curteis
Mr. Monck
said, the bill was calculated to interfere with the law of settlements
789
Mr. C. Wilson
seconded the amendment.
Mr. Hurst
supported the principle of the bill, and thought the objectionable parts might be new modelled in the committee.
Mr. Bright
said, the principles of the bill were so defective, and the rules on which it proceeded so contrary to law, that he felt it necessary to oppose the measure.
The Solicitor-General
expressed his intention to meet the bill with a direct negative.
Sir M. W. Ridley
said, that the bill was of the utmost importance to the maritime districts of the country. It would have the effect of overturning the law of settlement, so far as it regarded sea-faring individuals. It would operate a partial repeal of the Jaw of settlement with respect to mariners' apprentices. It might, perhaps, be proper to alter the law regarding apprentices; but if that law were to be interfered with, it would be wiser to take the whole law of apprentices into consideration, instead of confining their views to the law of maritime apprentices only. He objected to the bill being brought in at that period of the session.
Mr. Bourne
wished the bill to be postponed; but thought the settlement of the apprentice should be in the port where the ship was registered.
Sir E. Knatchbull
felt that the law as it affected the settlement of mariners' apprentices required revision, but thought it would be better to remodel it in the committee, and then let it remain over till next session."
Mr. D. Gilbert
said, there were under the law as it now stood evils that required correction. He, however, did not press its immediate adoption.
Mr. Curteis
did not feel disposed to press the measure. All he asked for was, that it should be considered in a committee. If it was found impracticable, let it be abandoned. He was inclined to think that the port where the ship was registered ought to be made the place of settlement for the apprentices of mariners.
Mr. Fyshe Palmer
observed, that if the place of register was adopted, it would be
790
Mr. Monck
was so opposed to the measure in principle and detail, that he could not consent to withdraw his amendment.
The amendment was then carried without a division; and the bill of course lost.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, May 21.
GENERAL GAS COMPANY'S BILL.]
The Earl of Lauderdale
, on the order of the day for the second reading, being moved, said, that he intended to move that this bill be read that day six months. Throughout the whole country, there was no place which had heard of the bill which had not petitioned against it. He objected to the general principle of giving such powers to any corporate body as this bill purported to convey. The granting of a monopoly of this kind would take away all the check which arose from competition. The most advantageous mode of supplying gas to towns would be, to allow those who had an interest in their being well lighted to become the contractors.
The Earl of Limerick
supported the bill. It had, he said, been brought into the House of Commons on February, and no opposition was there made to the measure. The bill was, not to destroy competition, but to enable another company to enter into competition with those already established. Nor was it meant to injure other companies. An objection had been made to the bill, on the ground of its enabling the company, as a corporate body, to escape the bankrupt laws. He was authorised by those who introduced the bill to say, that they were ready to give up this protection; and were also willing that the name of any town where gas companies were established should be exempt from its operation.
The Earl of Rosslyn
objected to the principle of the bill, as he must to all bills which went to establish joint-stock companies, without a very strong case being made out. He saw no necessity for the present company, and no prudence in establishing it, contravening, as it did, the principles of the common law, that when
791
The Lord Chancellor
thought, that if their lordships understood the true state of the case with respect to this bill, it would be impossible for them to pass it. He was against the powers given to companies of this description; more especially I when they were not incorporated by charter. There was a practice, with respect to speculations of this kind, which called loudly for some legislative prohibition. Persons formed schemes for the establishment of a company, and while they speculated on obtaining a charter, went into the market with shares which were Sold at a given price, though they might, in the result, prove to be of no value whatever. This was a subject not undeserving of their lordships' attention: it was worthy of their consideration whether it would not he proper to annul, by a legislative act, all such contracts. The present bill was for the purpose of lighting all towns with gas, except London and ten miles round it. This measure, it seemed, had passed the House of Commons without opposition, which was very extraordinary: but that was no argument in its favour; for, the moment the public attention was called to it, numerous petitions were presented against it. The learned lord alluded to the circumstance which he had formerly noticed respecting the capital of the company. It was provided, that it should not exceed one million sterling; but how much it really was to be did not appear. In such cases persons subscribed certain sums; there was a name in one column of half a sheet of paper, and a certain sum in another: but the amount of the subscription did not show the state of the funds of the company, for their lordships were well aware that subscribing and paying were now-a-days two very different things. In going over the clauses of the bill, he saw none which afforded any efficient remedy against the company. There was one by which creditors might proceed to levy by distress; but the proceeding was one which would probably produce most distress to the creditor, for he would find nothing to carry away but a gasometer and inflammable air. It was said that the partners were to be made liable to the full extent of their subscription; but, how was the creditor to get at the parties? In these incorporating bills a clause was introduced,
792
The Earl of Lauderdale's motion was agreed to; and, of course, the bill was thrown out.
SILK-MANUFACTURE BILL.]
The Earl of Lauderdale
, in moving the third reading of this bill, observed that the noble lord opposite had charged him with bringing in this bill at a time when all was peace and quietness in Spitalfields in consequence of the subsisting regulations. Now, the fact was, that one half of the work in Spitalfields was not regulated.
The Earl of Harrowby
said, that some alteration had been made in the regulations respecting the narrow work, but there had been none as to the broad.
The Earl of Darnley
could not object to the principle of the bill. He, however, thought that it was not prudent to press the measure at the present time, and therefore would not vote either way.
The Lord Chancellor
was of opinion, that those who felt themselves most injured by the bill, did not rightly understand it. He was also of opinion, that the measure was premature, and that the arrangement which had been recently entered into ought not to be disturbed. Their lordships then divided; for the
793
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, May 21.
KENSINGTON TURNPIKE TRUST—PETITION
Mr. Hume
presented the following Petition:
The Petition of William Cobbett, of Kensington, in the County of Middlesex,
"Most humbly sheweth—That your honourable House have, since the first day of the present month, passed an Act for the more effectually repairing, widening, and improving the road from Hyde Park Corner to Counter's Bridge, and certain other roads in the County of Middlesex, and for lighting, watching, and watering the said roads.
"That this act contained in its preamble, the following words, to wit:— 'And whereas the Trustees, appointed by or in pursuance of the said two first recited acts, have repaired and improved the said roads, and have made great progress in carrying into execution the powers and authorities thereby vested in them, and although they have paid off and discharged part of the said monies borrowed on the credit of the Tolls authorized to be taken upon the said roads, a considerable sum still remains undischarged, and cannot be paid off, and the said annual sum of one thousand pounds be paid to the said Committee of Paving for St. George, Hanover-square; nor can the said roads be effectually amended, widened, improved, and maintained in repair, unless the term and powers granted by the said two first recited acts be continued, and further provisions be made for that purpose:'
"That the said act was sent by your hon. House to the right hon. the House of Lords; that it was read a first and second time in that right honourable House, and was then referred to a Committee; that the said Committee, after having examined witnesses for the Act, and after having also examined the accounts of the said roads, decided, that the preamble of the said act had not been proved; that, thus, the House of Lords declared hot to have been proved that
794
"That the Petitioners for the bill were—Samuel Everingham Sketchley, Chairman, George Vardy, Henry Rowed, William Forstein, Henry Wilmot, William Thornton, Richard Chase, Frederick Platt Barlow, John Groome, and George Barke; that these petitioners state in their petition, that they are Trustees of the said road; that the petitioner, S. E. Sketchley, states that he is the Chairman of the Trustees; that it was proved before the said Committee of the Lords, that he is also Treasurer of the said road:
"That all these petitioners ought to have known, and that the said S. E. Sketchley must of necessity have known, the true state of the pecuniary affairs of the said road; and that, nevertheless, they in their said petition make to your honourable House the following false statement, to wit, That although the Trustees have proceeded in the execution of the said trust reposed in them with the utmost care and frugality, yet they find, from the great increase of expense for labour and materials for repairing the said roads, the produce of the Tolls at present authorized to be collected is not more than sufficient to enable them to pay the said annual sum of one thousand pounds, and the remaining debt due as aforesaid, and effectually to amend, pave, and drain the said roads and foot-paths, and keep the same in good repair, and to light, watch, and water the same, as required by the said acts, and to effect certain improvements on the said roads and foot-paths which are necessary, by widening the same, and otherwise for the convenience and safety of the public,
795
"Your humble petitioner prays your honourable House to observe the following facts:—
"1. That these petitioners here assert, that the produce of the present tolls is not more than sufficient for the purposes of the road; and that those purposes cannot be fulfilled unless the present Tolls be continued by a new act:
"2. That their own surveyor, Mr. Francis, declared upon oath, before the said Committee of the Lords, that the road might not only be kept in proper repair, but that many houses might be pulled down, and several streets widened, and yet, that the present tolls might be considerably diminished; an oath in direct contradiction to the allegation of the trustees in their petition to your honourable House:
"3. That the bill, as finally passed by your honourable House, does, in one of its enactments, make a considerable reduction in the present tolls; an enactment in flat contradiction to the preamble of the bill itself:
"Your petitioner presumes not to express an opinion with regard to the punishment due to persons who have thus knowingly and premeditatedly employed statements for the manifest purpose of imposing upon your honourable House, and of inducing you to pass an act, the principal enactments of which are at irreconcileable variance with the preamble, while the preamble is at open war with the truth; but, as the means of protection, for himself and others, against dangers such as that which they have now narrowly escaped, he prays that your honourable House will be pleased to adopt such measures as you, in your wisdom, shall deem most meet for effectually preventing similar impositions in future. And your petitioner will ever pray.
"WM. COBBETT."
Mr. Byng
defended the conduct of the trustees, and contended, that there was no foundation for the charge against them; their only object being the improvement of the line of road under their superin-tendance.
Mr. Hume
replied, that his hon. friend must be wholly ignorant of the matter;
796
l.
Ordered to be printed.
SEIZURE AND IMPRISONMENT IN JAMAICA—
Dr. Lushington
rose to present a petition to which he requested the attention of the House, and particularly of ministers of his majesty's government. If the facts alleged were true, there never was a case which called more loudly for their interference; not only with a view to do justice to the oppressed, but also to punish the oppressors. The petition stated, that the petitioners are freemen of colour, natives of Kingston, in the island of Jamaica, where they had constantly resided; that they were married to women, also natives of that island, and had each four children—that they were engaged in business as liquor-merchants—that they held the rank of serjeants in the militia, in which they have served since the year 1813; and that they possessed property in the island, consisting of houses, land, and slaves: that about the latter end of September last, the petitioners underwent an examination before certain magistrates of Kingston as to the proofs they possessed of being British-born subjects, when they produced, in support of that fact, the certificates of their baptism, and other necessary documents— that on the 7th of October following, petitioners were apprehended, and carried to prison, for the purpose, as they were informed, of being summarily removed from the island of Jamaica, as aliens, and dangerous persons; but a writ of habeas corpus having been issued, on their application to the grand court of the island, their case underwent a full and minute investigation before Mr. Chief-justice Scarlett, and the two assistant judges, Mills and West, on the 25th of the same month; and the sentence pronounced by the court was, that the petitioners were both British-born subjects, and as such entitled to their discharge, and to the enjoyment of all their privileges as British citizens. He felt it incumbent on him to state to the House, that these petitioners were not persons of no estimation, in a low line of life, or un-
797
798
799
800
801
Mr. Wilmot Horton
said, he was not able to meet the statement of his learned friend, for want of particular information, as to the several matters contained in the petition. All that his majesty's ministers knew was, that the petitioners had been complained of to the magistrates of Kingston as being aliens, dangerous persons to the government, and engaged in a treasonable conspiracy against it. It was true that the duke of Manchester had put the alien act in force against them. It seemed to be equally true, that they had applied for writs of habeas corpus, which had been granted. But, his learned friend had admitted, that if these men were aliens, the magistracy of Jamaica were empowered by law to remove them from the island. The question, then, first seemed to be, whether the petitioners were or were not aliens. As to what had been stated of the proceedings in the court of King's-bench, that was merely an exparte proceeding, and the affidavits upon which the decision of the court of King's-bench had been formed could not be received as conclusive evidence of the fact of the petitioners being British-born subjects. He was ready to allow, that if it should appear they were not aliens, the government of Jamaica had incurred a most serious responsibility, and one in which it could neither be countenanced
802
Mr. Brougham
was truly sorry that the hon. gentleman was not prepared with a fuller explanation, if not a contradiction, of the statements contained in the petition. From the information of which he was in possession, it appeared, however, that the governor of Jamaica had arrested two persons, whose alienship had come in question before the supreme court of judicature in that island. And here he begged to set the hon. gentleman right in one of the facts he had stated. The inquiry before the court was not an exparte proceeding. The duke of Manchester was there present, represented by his attorney-general, to examine the proof which was offered. It was in the discretion of the court to pronounce upon the arguments against, as well as for the parties accused. Upon that inquiry, however, the certificates of the baptism of these supposed aliens were produced, and proved that they were born at Kingston. The attorney-general's objections were heard; and the court resolved, that the petitioners were not aliens, but British-born subjects. After the lapse of a few weeks, during which the duke of Manchester had acquiesced in the decision of the court: he, having heard some other matters alleged against the petitioners, as he (Mr. B.) was bound in charity to suppose he had, ordered them again to be arrested, and sent away from the island without permitting them to receive the ad-
803
Mr. Grossett
said, he had been informed by letters from Jamaica, that one of the petitioners (Lecesne) was supposed to be the person who had supplied the rebellious negroes with arms. It seemed that the negroes of the northern parts of the island had contributed money, as was supposed, for a missionary; but which was afterwards devoted to the purchase of about 20 stands of arms, conveyed across the island to the parishes of St. Mary and St. George; and there was at least a strong imputation against the petitioner that it was by him those arms hail been furnished.
Mr. W. Horton
explained, that between the first arrest and subsequent deportation of the petitioners, two facts had been established against them; first, that they were in truth aliens, notwithstanding what had appeared before the court of King's-bench; and, secondly, that they had been engaged in a treasonable conspiracy. The affidavits made in the first instance in favour of the petitioners might turn out to be false; and hence the court might have decided in error.
Mr. Brougham
asked, if the duke of Manchester had obtained subsequent information, why the question had not been brought again before the court of King's-bench? Suppose the subsequent information were true, why had not the parties been tried? Why send them off without a moment's warning? If the accused had confessed all that was laid to their charge, did it authorise the governor to send them away without trial?
Dr. Lushington
said, it was true that, on a subsequent trial in January, 1824, there was found a negro who stated that arms had been purchased of Lescesne.
804
Ordered to lie on the table.
WOOL IMPORTATION AND EXPORTATION
On the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill,
Mr. Curteis
insisted that the bill aimed a severe blow at the agricultural interest. The measure was the first-fruits of the new school of philosophy which had lately sprung up respecting free trade. All that he desired on the part of the agricultural interest was, that they might be protected against an inundation of foreign wool. He would therefore move, "that the bill be committed on that day six months."
Mr. S. Wortley
considered the principle of the hill to be ruinous to the agricultural interest. He was sorry to see that great interest neglected by gentlemen who were led away by their love of spinning-jennies. It was equally the interest of the manu-
805
Alderman Thompson
protested against the exportation of wool.
Mr. Benett
wished the duties on the importation and exportation of wool to be equalized.
Mr. T. Wilson
thought it unwise to allow the exportation of long wool to countries which showed no disposition to make concessions on matters of trade to us. Every pound of wool exported would be mixed with three or four pounds of other wool, not the produce of this country.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the principle of the bill was; first, whether the duty on the importation of wool should be reduced at all; and secondly, whether the exportation of wool should be allowed at all. He had fully explained the principle of the measure in February last, and his right hon. friend (Mr. Huskisson) had afterwards gone over the same ground. Under these circumstances, he thought it would be most advisable to go into a committee, where the details of the measure might be discussed.
Lord Milton
, from all that he had been able to collect on the subject, considered it one of the wisest measures that could be adopted. Those who represented the agricultural interest in that House took an erroneous view of the question. He believed that the free importation of wool into this country would be attended with the most beneficial results.
Sir G. Shiffner
supported the measure, and wished the landed and manufacturing interests to go hand in hand.
Mr. Hart Davis
contended, that the measure was both partial and unjust. If the exportation of long wool were permitted, the manufacturers of Germany would soon rival us in the manufacture of it. Indeed, several large orders for it had been already transmitted to this country from Germany, under the idea, that the laws prohibiting the exportation of this kind of wool would be immediately repealed.
The House having resolved itself into the committee,
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he should confine himself to making such observations upon each of the clauses of the bill as appeared necessary to him. His proposition was, to repeal the import duty of 6
d
806
d
d
d
Mr. Bright
complained, that the port of Bristol did not contain sufficient room for the warehousing of bonded wool, and called upon the chancellor of the Exchequer to frame a clause, which would make a distinction between wools in bonded warehouses, which had not paid the duty, and which would therefore come out duty free, and wools, which, being in merchants warehouses, must have paid the duty, and must consequently subject the owners of them to loss, if their case was not specially considered. He contended, that the chancellor of the Exchequer ought to pay back the duty upon such wool as was unsold in merchants' warehouses, on the days mentioned.
Mr. Hart Davis
contended, that gross partiality had been shown to the silk-trade, and gross neglect to the wool-trade, though it was the great staple of the country. 500,000
l
807
Mr. Benett
contended, that if the chancellor of the Exchequer consented to give the manufacturer a drawback upon the wool which he had on hand, he ought also to give the farmer a drawback upon the wool which he had on his sheep's back, and the linen-draper a drawback upon all the manufactured wool he had in his shop.
Mr. Curteis
hoped that the chancellor of the Exchequer, if he determined to repeal these duties, would not allow a drawback. He considered the manufacturers not to be at all entitled to it.
The clause was agreed to. On the clause for repealing the prohibition of the export of wool.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he considered this clause to be consistent with sound policy, and to be absolutely necessary to placing the trade of the country upon a sound principle. The 10th of December was the clay which he had fixed for the cessation of these laws, being the same day on which he intended that the minimum of import duty should commence.
Mr. W. Whitmore
felt persuaded, that if the principle of the proposed clause was carried into effect, it would give origin and support to a most beneficial trade, the advantages of which no man could anticipate. He meant the export of woollen yarn. The superiority of this country in machinery would give a strength and extension to that branch of manufacture which would be felt throughout the great interests of our agricultural and commercial system. The government of this country were proceeding on such sound and enlightened views, that he sincerely hoped the House of Commons would afford its concurrence, in order to enable them to carry into effect these propositions. There was, however, one mistake rather general through the House and the country, on which it was necessary that the fullest inquiry should be made, in order to correct it. It was assumed, that the prosperity of the woollen manufacture was owing to the prohibitory system; particularly of the exportation of the long wool. What did the history of
808
Mr. T. Wilson
said, he had listened with some impatience to hear a single argument infavour of the export of long wool. Indeed, it would be somewhat difficult to prove to the conviction of any man, that an article of home growth, essential to our own manufactures, and the whole of which was thus employed, could beneficially be sent to foreigners.
Mr. S. Wortley
asked, whether any gentleman in that House, having the feelings of an Englishman, would stand up and say, that this country, having a raw material by which she was enabled to supply the world with a particular fabric, should give that article up without re-
809
d
Lord Milton
said, that in his opinion, all classes would ultimately reap advantage from the measure. His hon. colleague objected to the measure, because he saw no reciprocity in it; since other countries did not show any disposition to extend to us the measure of liberality which we were about to extend to them; but, surely, there was not a merchant who would send any valuable commodity abroad, without bringing home something valuable in return. Thus it was that
810
Mr. C. Grant
said, that in adopting this measure, they were not departing from the ancient policy of this country, but were again returning to it. Until the period of the Restoration, it had been the almost in-variable policy of this country to allow wool to be exported, on the payment of a trifling duty. It was true, that at times prohibitions were introduced—sometimes to annoy sovereigns with whom we were at war, and at others, to allow our own sovereign to increase his private resources. But it was asked, why the regulation should be changed? Now, he contended, that the weight of proof rested with the gentleman who opposed this opening of the trade. Could any one reason be adduced for continuing the present system, except that stated by the hon. member for Yorkshire, that there was something so peculiar in the soil and climate of this country, that here only the long-woolled sheep could be reared? But, the was a fallacy. Twenty or thirty years ago, sheep, which it was supposed could only thrive on particular soils, had been reared on soils of a very different description. At one period, it was the general conviction, that the fine wool of the Spanish sheep could not grow in any country but Spain, and it was even asserted, that the long and painful journeys taken by those animals was essential to the excellence of
811
The committee divided; Ayes 180: Noes 20.
COMBINATION LAWS—RESOLUTIONS
Mr. Hume
brought up the Report of the Select Committee on Artisans and Machinery. In moving that it be printed, he said, that the committee had directed their attention chiefly to the subject of the combination laws, to the permission to artisans to quit the country, and to the permission to export machinery; upon which they had come to the following resolutions:—
1. "That it appears, by the evidence before the committee, that combinations of workmen have taken place in England, Scotland, and Ireland, often to a great extent, to raise and keep up their wages, to regulate their hours of working, and to impose restrictions on the masters, respecting apprentices or others whom they might think proper to employ; and that, at the time the evidence was taken, combinations were in existence, attended with strikes or suspension of work; and that the laws have not hitherto been effectual to pre-vent such combinations.
2. "That serious breaches of the peace and acts of violence, with strikes of the workmen, often for very long periods, have taken place, in consequence of, and arising out of the combinations of workmen, and been attended with loss to both the masters and the workmen, and with considerable inconvenience and injury to the community.
3. "That the masters have often united and combined to lower the rates of their workmen's wages, as well as to resist a demand for an increase, and to regulate their hours of working; and sometimes to discharge their workmen who would not consent to the conditions offer-
812
4. "That prosecutions have frequently been carried on, under the Statute and the Common Law against the workmen, and many of them have suffered different periods of imprisonment for combining and conspiring to raise their wages, or to resist their reduction, and to regulate their hours of working.
5. "That several instances have been stated to the committee, of prosecutions against masters for combining to lower wages, and to regulate the hours of working; but no instance has been adduced of any master having been punished for that offence.
6. "That the laws have not only not been efficient to prevent combinations, cither of masters or workmen; but, on the contrary, have, in the opinion of many of both parties, had a tendency to produce mutual irritation and distrust, and to give a violent character to the combinations, and to render them highly dangerous to the peace of the community.
7. "That it is the opinion of this committee, that masters and workmen should be freed from such restrictions, as regard the rate of wages and the hours of working, and be left at perfect liberty to make such agreements as they may mutually think proper.
8. "That, therefore, the statute laws that interfere in these particulars between masters and workmen, should be repealed; and also, that the common law, under which a peaceable meeting of masters or workmen may be prosecuted as a conspiracy, should be altered.
9. "That the committee regret to find from the evidence, that societies, legally enrolled as benefit societies, have been frequently made the cloak, under which funds have been raised for the support of combinations and strikes, attended with acts of violence and intimidation; and without recommending any specific course, they wish to call the attention of the House to the frequent perversion of these institutions from their avowed and legitimate objects.
10. "That the practice of settling disputes by arbitration between masters and workmen, has been attended with good effects; and it is desirable that the laws which direct and regulate arbitration, should be consolidated, amended, and made applicable to all trades.
813
11. "That it is absolutely necessary, when repealing the combination laws, to enact such a law as may efficiently, and by summary process, punish either workmen or masters who by threats, intimidation, or acts of violence, should interfere with that perfect freedom which ought to be allowed to each party, of employing his labour or capital in the manner he may deem most advantageous,"
Artisans
2. "That although the penalties which the laws inflict on artisans who disobey them, are not distinctly understood by the workmen, yet an unfavourable opinion is generally entertained by them of the partial and oppressive operation of these laws, as preventing them from taking their labour and art to the best market, whilst all other classes of the community are permitted to go abroad, and to take their capital with them, whenever they think proper.
3. "That it appears also by evidence, that many British artisans residing abroad have been prevented from returning home, from an erroneous opinion that they have, by going abroad, violated the laws of their country, and consequently incurred penalties under them.
4. "That, in the opinion of this committee, it is both unjust and impolitic to continue these laws; they therefore recommend their entire repeal, and that artisans may be at liberty to go abroad, and to return home, whenever they may be so disposed, in the same manner as other classes of the community now go and re turn."
Machinery.
814
NEW COURTS OF JUSTICE—PETITION
Mr. Littleton
presented a petition from Mr. Soane, the architect, complaining, that an undue responsibility had been cast upon him, respecting the for the new buildings in Palace had, and also that the arrangements which he had provided for those engaged in the new courts of law, would be rendered, in a great degree, nugatory, if the recommendation of the late committee were carried into effect. Mr. Soane stated, that by order of the lords of the Treasury, he made a survey for the new buildings in Palace-yard, in 1821, and sent in his plan to the Treasury soon after. That it was then referred to the judges of the respective courts, and, after some alterations, adopted in consequence of that reference, ultimately approved of by the lords of the Treasury, and ordered to be carried into effect. Mr. Soane was therefore anxious, for his own professional reputation, that it should be known that he had gone on, step by step, under the sanction of the lords of the Treasury; and with reference to the recommendation of the late committee, he had to point out, that if that were carried into effect, and particularly in the erection of what was called the Tudor tower at the corner, all the arrangements which he had provided for a law library, for barristers, and attornies, as well as for the judges themselves, would be impeded and rendered useless.
Mr. Scarlett
thought the exterior of the new building was a disgrace to the national taste, and ought to be taken down. He suggested, that the old bail court of the duchy of Lancaster might be rendered more commodious and available for some of the accommodations required by Mr. Soane, in the place of other arrangements, which he contemplated.
Mr. Bankes
wished to know if the hon. member meant to refer this petition to a select committee.
Mr. Littleton
replied in the negative, and said, that if he had been in the House when the late select committee was appointed, he should have opposed it; for he did not think that the public interests
815
Sir J. Yorke
said, that Mr. Soane's petition clearly showed, that he had acted under the authority of the lords of the Treasury.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he certainly entertained doubts of the propriety of a part of the plan, but still it should be recollected, that the object uppermost with the government was the speedy erection of courts for the due despatch of public business. As to the question of taste, where no two persons could be brought to agree upon one point he would not pretend to give an opinion. It was due to Mr. Soane to state, that the lords of the Treasury had sanctioned his design.
Mr. Denman
admitted that external propriety was a matter of great consequence as connected with the national taste. It was highly important, however, when they were considering this matter, to reflect upon the vote of 300,000
l
Ordered to lie on the table.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, May 24.
RESTORATION OF FORFEITED PEERAGES.]
The Earl of Liverpool
said, he rose, in obedience to his majesty's command, to lay on their lordships table several bills for restoring the honours of some noble families which had been forfeited by attainder. In that visit which his majesty had graciously been pleased to make to Scotland, which had never before been visited by any sovereign of his house, nor indeed by any sovereign on the throne, since the Revolution, it was natural that
816
The Earl of Lauderdale
, on hearing the last bill read, observed, that this was a measure with regard to which considerable doubts must arise. It would probably
817
The Earl of Radnor
thought, that the first thing to be done should be, to lay on the table the document on which the attainder was founded.
The Earl of Liverpool
assured their lordships that the course of proceeding he had adopted was perfectly regular. If they agreed to the bill at all, it was necessary that it should, in the first instance, be brought down signed by the Crown. They would afterwards have opportunities for the full consideration of the measure.
The Lord Chancellor
said, it was not necessary to produce any documents of the kind to which the noble earl had alluded, as the act of parliament by which the attainder had been effected was recited in the bill.
Lord Holland
said, he would always give every kind of encouragement to bills of this description. In the course of the further proceedings, it would be for their lordships to take care that due attention was paid to all the questions of law which the measure might involve.
The Earl of Lauderdale
had merely risen to make their lordships aware of the nature of an objection which might be brought forward at another time.
The Earl of Radnor
still considered the proceeding a very extraordinary one, and suggested that the bill should be printed.
The Earl of Liverpool
presented a bill for restoring William Nairn, esq., to the honours of lord Nairn, and moved that it be read a first time.
The bills were read a first time; as was also a bill for the reversal of the attainder of lord Stafford.
ENGLISH CATHOLICS RELIEF BILL.]
The Marquis of Lansdown
rose, to move the second reading of the two bills which he had introduced for the relief of his majesty's Roman Catholic Subjects in England. However sensibly he might feel the difficulty of the task he had undertaken, he knew that he might rely on the indulgence of their lordships. He must also observe, that he viewed the circumstances under which he now brought for-
818
819
820
821
822
823
Lord Colchester
said:—
824
825
826
827
*
*
1. That the Pope is the Vicegerent of God, who disposes of thrones, and is the Sovereign of sovereigns.—
Letter addressed to the Foreign Ministers resident at Rome, and signed Cardinal Pacca,
Nov.
2. That any State declaring itself independent of the church is in a state of Schism—
ib.
3. That the dependence of the episcopal order on the see of Rome is necessary to the unity of the Church.—
Circular Letter,
February
4. That no lay authority can translate from one bishopric to another.—
Circular Letter from Savona,
Dec.
5. That there is no hope of salvation out of the Church of Rome.—
Instructions to the subjects of the Holy See, signed Gabrielli,
May
6. Protest by the Holy See against the public toleration of other modes of Worship.—
Instructions,
Circular Letter to all the Cardinals,
Feb.
7. Power of the Pope to regulate oaths of Allegiance, and to determine how far they may be taken passively or actively, provided they are never to be prejudicial to the Church.—
Instructions,
Letter addressed to the Cardinals of the Papal territory,
Aug.
8. His condemnation of all marriages with Heretics as matter of detestation and abhorrence.—
Circular Latter to the Cardinals, Archbishops, Bishops, and Capitular Vicars of France, dated Rome,
Feb.
9. Power delegated to Archbishops and Bishops of France to grant absolution, indulgences, and give dispensations or marriage licences in cases of Incest, or of Adultery, provided neither party has been instrumental in the death of the deceased husband.—
Indulgences,
Feb.
signed Cardinal Michel de Pietro.
10. Obligation to preserve and promote the establishment of Religious Orders, and their
828
Catholic bishop of the midland district, doctor Milner, in 1813
*
On the continent also, the same spirit
actual restoration.—
Circular Letter to the Cardinals,
Feb,
and Papal Bull, Rome,
Aug.
Brief,
March
July
Letter of Cardinal Gonsalvi,
April
*
Dr. Milner's Brief Memorial on the Roman Catholic Bill,
May
defend
submit
† "What fills, at the present day, these Islands and Germany with the most frantic opinions, but the want of authority sufficient to coerce them."—
Dr. Doyle's Vindication of the Civil and Religious Principles of the Irish Catholics, &c. Dublin,
‡ "The whole body of the Catholics are impatient; their pride and interests are wounded; disaffection must be working in them, if they be men born and nurtured in a free state; and yet enslaved"—"The ministers of the establishment, as it exists at present, are and will be detested by those who differ from them in religion; and the more their residence is enforced, and their numbers multiplied, the more odious they will become."—"The Minister of England cannot look to the exertions of the Catholic priesthood; they have been ill-treated."—"If a rebellion were raging from Carrickfergus to Cape Clear, no sentence of excommunication would ever be fulminated by a Catholic Prelate." "The Catholics possessed of property, in Ireland, either cannot or will not render any efficient services to Government, if eventful times arrive."—"From such men, the Government, should it persist in its present course, has only to expect defiance or open thostility."
Letter to A. Robertson, Esq. M. P. dated Carlow,
May
signed James Doyle, published in the Morning Chronicle,
May
829
has been stirring within these few months. Such have been the machinations of the Roman Catholic clergy in the Netherlands, and their endeavours to set up a foreign supremacy in derogation of their local allegiances, that two of their societies, at Brussels and Utrecht, have been put down by royal edict, as dangerous to the public peace: and, even in Roman Catholic France, since the accession of the present pontiff, a pastoral letter of the cardinal archbishop of Toulouse has been issued from Rome, with the declared approbation of the Holy See,
*
My lords, admonished by these proofs, which rise up around us on all sides, and by these warnings of the ever intolerant and encroaching spirit of the church of Rome, I am persuaded that we shall best discharge our duty, by persevering upon this as upon former occasions, in the same steady and firm refusal to lessen or weaken the defences of our Protestant constitution. That we have not been called upon this year by many petitions to with stand these claims, is perfectly true, but this silence may be justly ascribed to the conviction entertained by the country at large, that they may securely rely upon the unalterable adherence of this House, to its former decisions; and in that confidence I hope they will not this day be disappointed. I shall therefore have the honour to propose an amendment to the motion of the noble marquis, by moving, "That these bills be read a second time, not now, but on this day six months."
The Earl of Westmorland
expressed his regret that he differed upon the present occasion from those with whom he concurred in opinion in resistance to the claim called Catholic emancipation. Their object was the same, but their view of the subject was different. His noble friends opposed this measure as tending to forward the object of Catholic claims. He supported it, as affording means of resistance to it. On the general question of giving to the Catholics political and parliamentary power, every day confirmed him in his resistance to it; and what was
*
Lettre Pastorale de S. E. Mr. Le Cardinal Archévêquc de Toulouse et Narbomie, &c. Rome, le
Oct
830
831
Lord Redesdale
opposed the bill. It must be evident, he said, to all impartial men, that every concession to the Catholics
832
833
The Bishop of Litchfield
[Dr. Henry Ryder] said:—
834
835
836
The Bishop of Balk and Wells
said, that the main and only question before their lordships was, whether they could grant the Catholics the privileges to which the bill would entitle them, without danger to our establishments In entering on this question, he was free to acknowledge, that exclusion of every sort was an evil. The exclusion, for instance of the noble duke from the exercise of his rights of earl marshal of England was an evil. The question then came to this—was the evil necessary, or not? He thought it was a necessary evil and he would state his reasons. Toleration was of two kinds; religious and political. Religious toleration, or the power of worshipping the Deity, as the reason and conscience of every man prescribed to him was a privilege which unquestionably ought never to be denied. But, the other kind of toleration was of a very different description. Government was for the general good of those who lived under it. If, therefore any sect entertained opinions subversive of the foundations of the social compact of any country, and were prepared to act upon such opinions, the legislature was bound to withhold from such a sect that degree of political power, which would enable them to carry their principles into successful operation. If any sect, for instance, held the tenet, that property should be equally divided, was government called upon to give that sect privileges which might enable it to realize its doctrine, or powers which might be turned against itself? Holding this as undeniable, let the House consider the doctrine of the Roman Catholics with respect to the Pope's supremacy. They believed that his holiness was the head of the church, and that kings only exercised with him a divided authority—"Divisum imperium cum Jove Caesar habet." The Roman Catholics also maintained the doctrine of indulgences, of exclusive salvation, and many others. The plain question was, whether they not only professed
837
838
The Lord Chancellor
said, he was sorry to differ from some of his noble friends on this occasion, but he felt that he could not yield to their views in a measure which he conceived threatened danger to the Protestant establishment. The bill for allowing Catholics to enjoy the elective franchise, he could not agree to. It was said to be introduced to remove an anomaly; but it made no provision for the Catholic of this country taking the same oaths as were required of the Catholic of Ireland. The right rev. prelate who had spoken last but one had argued, that a right to vote in a Catholic elector could have no influence on the minds of the persons sent to parliament. This did not appear to be very evident. But, upon what ground could the right rev. prelate grant the right of electing without that of being elected? From the Revolution downward no man had ever thought of giving in England the right of the elective franchise to Roman Catholics; nor had the anomaly been complained of since the Union of Ireland, till very lately. The right of calling on the elector to take the oath of supremacy was not limited to the Roman Catholic; and if the Irish Roman Catholic did not take it in the same form as Protestants, he was not exempted from an oath as binding. If the English Catholic, therefore, was to be admitted to the elective franchise to remove an anomaly, he should be required to give the same security as the Irish. By the bill of 1793, which conferred on the Irish Catholics that privilege, they were bound to take the oath of the 13th and 14th of the king and to bring a certificate that they had done so. The same right rev. prelate had contended, that the Roman Catholic had a right to vote at elections. If such a right existed, his principles ought to carry him a great deal further. The Irish Catholics, it should be observed, had, by various acts, obtained a right to various privileges which the bills on the table did not grant to English Catholics. The measure, therefore, before their lordships could not be supported on the principle
839
840
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that he had resisted, on former occasions the general claims of the Catholics, and their recent conduct, together with productions of theirs which he had observed within the last week, confirmed him more and more in the wisdom of that resistance. But, the question before the House had no reference to those claims. The noble marquis had introduced limited bills, which had no reference to Ireland, but granted certain privileges to the Catholics of England. He did not yield to his learned friend on the wool-sack, in his zeal to maintain the Protestant establishment, or the principle of the supremacy of the Crown; but, the bills now before their lordships involved only questions of degree. His learned friend hinted indefinite dangers. He (lord L.) required something intelligible and tangible. He thought that, in order to maintain the Protestant ascendancy, it was necessary to have a Protestant parliament, a Protestant council, and Protestant judges. He was aware that some of the noble lords opposite did not exactly agree with him in this; but they must admit, that the distinction was broad and intelligible between such high securities and those privileges granted by the present bills. Looking the question fairly in the face, most of their lordships would own, that there would be danger to the Protestant establishment, if a legislature, if judges and a council hostile to it, were permitted to be created. How, for instance, could the Protestant succession be maintained without a Protestant parliament? Such were his reasons fox resisting the higher claims of the
841
842
The House then divided, in favour of the first bill:—Present 63; Proxies 38; Total 101.—Against it, present 74; Proxies 65; Total 139.—Majority against it 38. In favour of the second bill; present 67; Proxies 42; Total 109—Against, it present 76; Proxies 67; Total 143. Majority against it 34.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, May 24.
ALLIANCE ASSURANCE COMPANY BILL.]
On the report of this bill being brought up,
Mr. Grenfell
begged to know what security the public had with respect to these companies? If, for instance, a Secretary or other public officer of such company were to be proceeded against, and a verdict obtained, he wished to know how far the company, individually or collectively, were liable?
Mr. Huskisson
said, that as he understood it, under these bills of incorporation, in case of judgments obtained against the treasurer, and their not being made good, the individuals who might obtain the verdicts would be at liberty to select
843
BEER DUTIES BILL.]
On the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill,
Mr. Maberly
opposed the motion. He said he was most anxious for the appointment next session of a committee, to consider fully the whole question respecting the beer trade. The present bill professed to have two great objects: one was, to put the duty more upon malt, and the other to open the trade for a free competition; still, however, the operation of the bill would be, that one class would be paying a duty of 55
s
s
844
Mr. Davenport
opposed the bill on account of the injury it would inflict on a numerous body of individuals, and because he thought it would lead to much immorality. Beer would be sold and drank in every lane and alley, and riot and disorder would be the consequence. At present the publican, in whose house beer was consumed, found it to be his interest to preserve peace and good order.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that as it was now agreed, that every thing that related to the change of duties, should be taken out of the bill, he should say nothing on that subject. Indeed, he was at a loss to know what should be discussed in the committee; because, as the price of beer would be lowered by the bill, that sufficiently established the advantages that would result from it. The mere fact, that the price would be lowered, proved that the beer was now at a higher price than was necessary. A committee was needed, it might be said, to show the loss to what had been called vested interests. He conceived it possible that some diminution of profit might be occasioned by the bill; but if that was admitted, was it to be a conclusive bar to an alteration of the law. The state of the law demanded some change; for it was extremely doubtful whether the brewers might not even now retail beer in the manner authorized by this bill. In the last session the hon. member for Reading (Mr. F. Palmer) had asked him, whether there was any obstacle to brewers selling by retail; and he had answered, that there was not, as far as the Excise was concerned. The same answer was given in a more formal manner, on an application to the Board of Excise. In consequence of that, a number of brewers had set up trade in that way; prosecutions were commenced against them, both at Reading and Brentford; and convictions were obtained. Without being a lawyer, he confessed he did not see how those convictions were sustainable on ground of reason. The convictions were brought by the parties concerned into the court of King's-bench, and were to have been argued the first term of this year, but were put off to the present term for further argument. Now, the state of the law was at. least so doubtful, that the
845
Mr. Lock hart
, as chairman of the committee to which allusion had been made, wished to say, that the chancellor of the Exchequer had stated very correctly the view which that committee had taken of the question. They recommended magistrates, whenever they saw brewers purchasing all the public-houses in a neighbourhood, and heard the people complain of being supplied with a bad article, to open free-houses, for the purpose of ensuring competition. He contended, that the poor derived benefit from the encouragement now given to
846
Mr. T. Wilson
said, if the bill only destroyed the monopoly of the brewers, he should concur with the hon. gentleman; but he thought the case of the licensed victuallers was entitled to every consideration. If they were relieved from the heavy duties and other burthens that pressed on them, the case might be different; but the advantages they enjoyed should not be taken away, while their disadvantages remained. He anticipated, too, considerable inconvenience from the assemblage at the doors of the brewers, of the persons who would resort thither for their beer, to the great inconvenience of passengers.
Mr. F. Palmer
said, he anticipated from this measure more good to the mechanics, tradesmen, and to the mass of the people, than from any other measure that could be introduced into the House. A strong proof of the advantages of retail brewing was to be found in the fact, that barley had risen in price ever since the practice began. The great brewers of this country were a most enlightened and powerful body of men: he respected them much, but he had a duty to the public to perform. It was a fact, that the licensed victuallers and wholesale brewers would still have an advantage of 8½ per cent, over the retail brewers, whose competition they dreaded. He had been told, that it was no matter whether there were public or private brewers; as there were enough of them to produce competition. In answer to this he would state a fact. The public brewers met at the town of Wokingham periodically, from all the range of country from High Wycombe, through Maidenhead and Windsor to Guilford, to regulate how much work they should run, and at what price they should sell their beer. What, in such a state of things, became of competition? It was denied, that in genera' the brewers had monopolized the public-houses. All he could say was, that in the part of the country with which he was most acquainted, it was very rare to find a free house. He allowed, that much of the evil had arisen from the monstrous neglect of the magistracy. Where they had done their duty,
847
Mr. Whitbread
said, that, being connected with one of the great. London breweries, he should, as a matter of taste, have abstained from voting altogether; but when he considered, that a great number of his constituents were licensed victuallers, who were most unjustly treated by the bill, he should, for their sake, and not for his own, vote against the bill.
Mr. Alderman Bridges
apprehended considerable inconvenience from the retail breweries. Persons would assemble to drink their beer in the neighbourhood of these retail shops, where they might commit disorders, which were less likely to take place in the houses of publicans, as they were under the control of the magistrates. He thought the bill was fraught with evils of great magnitude.
Sir J. Sebright
wished to see a fair competition in the beer trade. If a brewer brewed a good article at a fair price, he would be sure to obtain customers. If he did not, the public should have an opportunity of going elsewhere. Such a competition did not exist at present. In many districts the publicans were obliged to buy their beer from brewers, who, as there was no competition, had no inducement to make their article of a good quality. As a country gentleman, he returned his thanks to the right hon. gentleman for introducing a measure which would put an end to the existing monopoly.
Mr. C. Calvert
said, the licensed victuallers were deeply interested in this measure, and as it was calculated to injure them, he deemed it his duty to oppose it. He did not generally oppose bills when going into a committee; but the present was a peculiar case. The right hon. gentleman had altered the title; he had altered the preamble; and now it appeared that he meant to strike out one-half of the measure. Under these circumstances, the right hon. gentleman ought to have the bill printed, so that individuals might come properly prepared for the final consideration of the measure. As it new stood, it would be the total ruin
848
Colonel Davies
said, that a large capital had been embarked on the faith of existing acts of parliament; and, as a numerous class of persons would be ruined by the proposed measure, he should give his vote against it.
Sir E. Knatchbull
was of opinion, that the interests of the publicans, who had petitioned the House so strongly against the measure, ought to be fairly considered. When the right hon. gentleman first brought forward the subject, he had said, that he would considerably reduce the scale of licence duties. However, according to this bill, the publican would not be benefitted by the alteration in those duties. In two years' time the additional duties, which were laid on during a period of war, would expire of themselves; while the duties imposed by this bill were of a permanent nature.
Mr. Curwen
said, that when he considered the great advantages which the public at large would derive from this measure, it was impossible for him not to support the bill. The consequence of the existing monopoly had been such a deterioration of the malt liquor, as to render it almost unfit to drink.
Mr. Monck
said, it could not be fairly contended that this measure introduced an alteration of the law, which had not been duly considered, after the valuable report of the committee which sat on this subject. That report proved that the greatest abuses existed in the beer trade. Mr. Barclay, who gave evidence before that committee declared, that for his own part, considering the subject in an extended point of view, he was perfectly willing to assist in opening the trade. He served a great number of free houses. Many of these Houses were offered to him for purchase, which he declined, because he thought he had embarked sufficient capital in the trade, and they had been bought up by other brewers. The system of buying up free-houses had been carried by brewers to an extent, which operated most injuriously to the interests of the public. Mr. Barclay, in his endeavours to open the trade, had no other wish than to serve the public with a good article at a fair and reasonable price. The brewers themselves were interested in the success of the present measure; for their own characters would rise in proportion as the quality of their beer was improved. There was this difference between the English-and Scotch
849
Mr. Wodehouse
thought that a great deal of prejudice had gone forth with respect to the trade in beer. He should not
850
l
l
Mr. Alderman Wood
denied that the public had called for the present measure. Two petitions only, from Reading and Newbury, in favour of the bill, had been laid on the table of the House. Amidst so many millions, therefore, of which the population of this country consisted, no more than 2,000 persons had come forward in its support. He admitted that this bill would enable the public to get the article cheap, but as to its being good, that was quite out of the question. The doctrine which had been preached up about free trade was all very fine. All he wished was, that the right hon. gentleman would do justice. The right hon. gentleman had abandoned his first bill for reducing the duty on malt from 37
s
d
s
851
s
d
Mr. Monck
read an extract from the report, to show that the committee had stated that disgraceful practices existed in the beer trade.
Mr. C. Calvert
said, there was not a word in the evidence to bear out the assertion. There was no such practice as that of brewing two sorts of beer, one for the free houses, and the other for the brewers' houses.
Mr. Denison
thought the country indebted to the right hon. gentleman, for having introduced a measure, the object of which was to supply the public with a better commodity at a cheaper rate. At the same time, it ought not to be forgotten, that it was calculated to injure a great body of industrious individuals. A largo capital had been embarked in the beer trade, on the faith of existing acts of parliament. Why should not the vested rights of this class of tradesmen be considered? The hon. member for Abingden did not object to the measure in toto. He had merely recommended a committee which might inquire into the whole subject, and endeavour in the next session to reconcile the interests of the publicans with those of the public. He should, for these reasons, vote for the amendment.
852
Mr. Wells
was certain, that no London brewer would condescend to sell different sorts of beer to different classes of his customers. He was satisfied that this measure would not only be ruinous to a numerous class of tradesmen, but of no advantage to the public.
Mr. Curteis
expressed his determination to vote for the amendment.
Mr. Mansfield
said, it was his intention originally to have voted against the bill; but it had been so modified, as to remove the objections which he had to it. As it now stood, it would enable the labouring classes to drink a better commodity at a greatly reduced price.
Mr. Butterworth
observed, that great injury to public morals would arise from allowing persons to assemble for the purpose of drinking beer without the control of magistrates.
The House divided: For going into the committee 99. For the amendment 32.
The bill was then committed.
COUNTY COURTS BILL.]
Lord Althorp having moved, "that the bill be now read a third time,"
Mr. Scarlett
rose to oppose the passing of the measure. He gave full credit, he said, to the noble lord with whom it had originated, for talent and intention; and he was far from wishing to oppose any course which tended to the cheap and easy recovery of small debts; but he thought that the bill, in its present shape, was decidedly objectionable, and that if it went to get rid of some evils, it created evils which were greater. In the detail of the measure there were circumstances to which he objected. In the first place, it would entirety destroy the existing county courts. Those courts were held at present by the clerks of the peace for counties; but the fees taken in them were so trifling, that when the business was diminished, there would be no fund left sufficient to repay a competent person for doing the duty. This objection, however, he did not rely upon in so late a stage of the bill; nor even upon several others, which might fairly be taken to its operation in practice. The strong ground upon which he opposed its being read a third time, was his aversion to the principle upon which it proceeded. The effect of the bill was, to introduce into general practice that principle of examining parties in their own causes, which was most abhorrent to the
853
l
l
l
l
Mr. Sykes
said, he was not disposed to throw any unnecessary powers into the hands of government, but, looking at the immense benefits to be derived from the bill, he could not consent to its being thrown out. The revision of the existing county courts suggested by the learned member did not meet the main object of the present measure; namely, that of bringing justice home to men at their doors. A farmer in Yorkshire might now travel, even to a county court, a hundred miles, and carry an attorney and witnesses with him, to recover a debt of 5
l
854
Mr. J. Williams
contended, that the measure, besides being inadequate to the objects proposed by it, would have the effect not only of adding to the influence of the Crown (already too great), but of destroying the independence of that profession to which he had the fortune to belong. If the independence of the bar was of importance to the country, he implored the House to pause before they gave their sanction to this bill. Here was a measure which held out twenty lucrative places to young men of five years standing. If a calculation made a few days ago were true, one half of the barristers in England held appointments. Add, then, to these this fresh bait of 800
l
Mr. R. Smith
thought the House would acquit the noble mover of the bill of any intention to increase unduly the influence of the Crown; but the truth was, that it was better to give the patronage of the places in question to government at once, in its responsible capacity, than to leave them to be got at by jobbing.
Lord Althorp
admitted the difficulties with which the case was beset. As there were 150 places, however, already in the power of the Crown, to be given away among 300 practising barristers, the additional 20 would not materially increase the influence of government with the bar. The noble lord cited the recent case of a motion in the court of Common Pleas, "Emery v. Browne." In that case it appeared, that a poor widow had sought to recover a debt of 4
l
s
l
The amendment being withdrawn, the bill was read a third time.
Lord Althorp
said, he saw no necessity for compensation; and it seemed quite
855
The Attorney-General
thought that as the House had decided in favour of the clause of compensation, it ought not now to be called upon to exclude it. He had no knowledge of more than one of the parties whose names were introduced into the bill; but their offices had all the characteristics of freehold property. If a great public work were to be undertaken; if docks were to be excavated, or bridges to be built; persons having freehold property which was injured, had an acknowledged right to remuneration. The same reasoning applied to the bill upon the table; and he adduced the authority of the Finance committee to show, that the holders of freehold offices, for which they had given valuable consideration, had a just claim to indemnity. He found the clause he had proposed in several preceding bills; particularly in one for regulating the court of Exchequer in Ireland. These fees were freehold property, as much so as the estates of gentlemen in that House; and the right to them had been purchased under the sanction of the law. If the whole jurisdiction of the bench were abolished, it surely must be evident, that a compensation ought to be made to the officers; and as this bill went to take away part of the jurisdiction, there was a right to compensation, as far as the emoluments were destroyed.
Mr. Bright
admitted, that there might be precedents, both modern and ancient, for the proposition of the learned gentleman; but surely the House could not consent, on account of precedents, to give up its inherent power and right to modify the judicial institutions, without being bound to consult the convenience of those who held offices, which could only be properly held for the public advantage. But, were there not precedents also on the other side? What compensation did the legislature award to those who lost their fees and emoluments by the reduction of the Star Chamber? As to the particular clause, it had been brought in late in the proceedings on the bill, and contrary to the best practice of the House. The proper place for the discussion of it would have been in a committee, where the pow-
856
Mr. N. Calvert
also objected to the clause. It had been got up in haste, and names had been inserted at random.
The House then divided: For the amendment 41; Against it 47; Majority 6. The bill was then passed.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, May 25.
JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES—STANDING ORDERS.]
The Earl of Lauderdale
rose to move that the House be summoned for the purpose of taking into consideration the Standing Orders, with the view of proposing an addition to their number. The object of the standing orders he intended to move would be, to provide against mischief which was now going on with respect to Joint-Stock Companies: at least in so far as to take care that the companies of that kind should not be incorporated, without an assurance of their possession of a suitable capital. This was particularly necessary with regard to all such associations. Those which had for their object the making of canals, aqueducts, roads, or bridges, must always have a certain amount of capital in operation to enable them to carry on their works; but that was not the case with corporations for charitable, for gas-making, and for other purposes; because, with respect to them, it was possible that no part of the subscriptions of the individuals belonging to the company might be paid. He intended to move the addition of two resolutions to the standing orders—one relating to bills for incorporating companies by act of parliament, the other to cases in which companies already incorporated by royal charter applied for an extension of their privileges. By the first resolution he would propose, that every bill enabling persons to make any turnpike-road, aqueduct, tunnel, canal, or bridge; every bill for lighting, paving, watching, or cleansing any city or town, giving to the persons therein mentioned the right of suing or being sued; and every bill for any other purpose conveying to any number of persons such rights, should, after being read a first time, be referred to a committee, and should not be read a second time until that committee report it to be proved, that fourth-fifths of the capital of the said company is paid up and deposited in the
857
Their lordships were ordered to be summoned to-morrow, to consider of the said resolutions.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, May 25.
EQUITABLE LOAN SOCIETY BILL.]
Mr. Mansfield
presented a petition from certain Pawnbrokers of Leicester, praying that this bill might not be passed into a law: at least, not before the petitioners had been heard by their counsel against it.
Mr. S. Whitbread
presented a similar petition from 97 pawnbrokers of London and Southward. The hon. member moved, that the petitioners be heard by counsel against the bill.
Sir J. Graham
said, that the committee on the bill had already closed their labours and were about to make their report, and the hearing of counsel would only protract their sitting unnecessarily.
Mr. S. Whitbread
said, he should persist in the motion, and could not help expressing a hope that the hon. member for Aberdeen would persist in his motion, for preventing any member having an interest in a private bill from sitting on a committee upon it.
Sir F. Burdett
said, it appeared to him that great injustice would be done if the petitioners were not allowed to be heard by counsel against the bill. He looked with extreme suspicion at those companies where there was a pretence of benevolence mixed up with them. There was a kind of benevolent trading about them which he did not like. Some of the original subscribers, he understood had already turned their benevolence to good account, by selling their shares at a considerable premium. He was the more induced to look at the bill with jealousy, because it was directed
858
LIBERTY OF THE PRESS IN INDIA—PETITION OF MR. BUCKINGHAM.]
Mr. Lambton
spoke to the following effect:
859
l
l
l
l
l
860
861
862
l
863
864
l
l
865
Mr. Wynn
said, that the very able manner in which the hon. member had stated the petitioner's case, had rendered the subject even more intelligible than if the whole petition had been read to the House. He should follow the example of the hon. member, and confine himself strictly to the statements in the petition; for he held the general question respecting the press of India to be too extensive in its bearings to be dealt with in a discussion thus incidentally introduced, and when the House
866
867
868
Sir W. De Crespigny
bore testimony to the humane character of Mr. Adam. From his knowledge of that gentleman, he believed him to be incapable of behaving harshly towards any one.
Mr. Hume
was sorry the right hon. gentleman and the hon. baronet below him had taken the course they had done on this occasion. There was no necessity to adduce testimony to private character, since no private character was assailed. No one had attacked the character of the individual in his civil station; but complaint was made of public acts immediately proceeding from him. After a lapse of two years, during which this transaction had been known, no answer was given to the charge. All the right hon. gentleman said, was that when a court of justice had decided, then he would be ready to discuss the question. In his opinion, the interests of the whole population of India called upon that House to pronounce an opinion on the great question now brought before them, without waiting till those legal proceedings were finished. The petitioner denied that he had that redress in his power, which the right hon. gentleman contended he had. The agent, who was to have sent over evidence from India, was dead. Mr. Buckingham wished to procure various documents, to follow up with effect the action which he had given security to prosecute. It was impossible to imagine the effect which the exercise of arbitrary power, now complained of, produced in a settlement. In this instance, ruin had followed every person who had attached himself to Mr. Buckingham, or espoused his cause. He hoped most sincerely that the extraordinary power now vested in the company's servants would never be renewed. Why should not the same principles by which Englishmen were governed when they proceeded to other colonies be extended to India? Was it an answer to the injustice of the existing system to say, that the governor general had the power to send any person he pleased out of the country? He denied that he had
869
l
870
871
Mr. Astell
said, that the object of the hon. gentleman who presented the petition was, to point out Mr. Buckingham as a much injured individual, and to fix on Mr. Adam the charge of having acted from premeditated malice. Now, he would show, that Mr. Buckingham's deportation did not originate in malice on the part of Mr. Adam. The hon. gentleman had traced the history of Mr. Buckingham down from 1818. He was then at Bombay; and, not being licensed, the government would not allow him to remain. He, however, was anxious to stop in India; and, no sooner were his wishes made known, than the directors granted him a license as a free mariner. A free mariner, he would observe, was a person who was allowed to navigate from port to port in India, to proceed upon his lawful business as master or mate of a ship; but the license did not give him the right to remain on shore. Mr. Buckingham went out as a merchant, and in 1818 he again returned to India. In November, 1818, he became editor of the "Calcutta Journal," and in May, 1819, he was warned by the government of Bengal, that he was liable to be removed, on account of certain articles which had appeared in his paper. On that occasion he expressed sorrow for having forfeited the countenance of the government, and the matter was passed over. In January, 1820, he again transgressed, and he a second time made an apology to the government. In November, 1820, he published a paragraph of so offensive a nature, as caused a fresh warning to be given, and he found it necessary once more to throw himself at the mercy of the government. In July, 1821, he was again informed, that he had incurred the displeasure of the government by the publication of an improper article. During all this period,
872
873
Sir Charles Forbes
begged the attention of the House to the contents of two letters which he had received from a very intelligent and most respectable British resident at Calcutta, Mr. John Palmer, on the subject of the treatment that Mr. Buckingham had met with. With respect to the great question of the freedom of the press in India, he (sir C. F.) was not then prepared to say, that under all the circumstances, he would give his support to a wholly unrestricted press in that part of the British dominions. At the same time, he had no hesitation in saying that the present restrictions on public discussion, were as unnecessary as they were impolitic. It was indeed too true, that the governments in India were apt to look with considerable jealousy at any public discussion of their own acts. They considered it the height of arrogance and presumption in any person to dare to comment on what they thought proper to do. But, the extraordinary power of deportation was what he most complained of. And yet, it was too frequently held out as a menace, not alone to British residents, but to the natives of the country living under British law. He had known a native merchant menaced with the punishment of deportation on no other imputation than that of having made a beneficial bargain with the government of Bombay, and having refused to abandon his contract at the mandate of the government. With a spirit worthy of a man who valued the security of British law, the native of Bombay addressed himself to the governor of the presidency in these words:—"I have been threatened, without offence, with being sent away from this island. That such an order is untrue, I believe, for I know it is inconsistent with the rights of Englishmen, and the laws under which you govern." One word more on that tremendous power of deporting men from India. That power was originally granted with the view of preventing improper persons from getting into the interior of India and tampering with the Datives. He earnestly intreated the hon. member who had introduced the present question
874
Sir F. Burdett
commenced his speech, by deprecating, in the strongest terms, the wanton act of tyranny which had been committed against Mr. Buckingham. That gentleman's case, he was bound to say, struck him as one of the most cruel that bad ever come before the House; and his principle motive for rising was, to entreat his hon. friend near him, not to rest contented with pledging himself, in the next session, to discuss the general question of a free press for India, but to give the petitioner, during the present session, the advantage of his talents, in a motion specifically directed to the hardship of his case. The question before the House resolved itself into two considerations. There was the great question of a free press in India; but first came the obligation of investigating the severe
875
876
Mr. Secretary Canning
said, that he did not rise to detain the House by any discussion on a topic which, by common consent, was reserved for a distinct consideration. The House would agree with him, that the great question of the liberty
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
Mr. Denman
contended, that the concluding observations of the right hon. gentleman who had just sat down, and the opening observations of the right hon. the president of the Board of Control were founded on a complete fallacy. The right hon. gentleman had mistated both the law and the fact. He seemed to suppose that Mr. Buckingham had contravened the Jaw, and that it was in consequence of that contravention he had been expelled from India. That was not the fact. Mr. Buckingham had contravened no Jaw; he had not even contravened the marquis of Hastings's regulations: for their existence was not known when Mr. Buckingham published in the Calcutta Journal that which had occasioned his banishment from India. But, the great error of the two right hon. gentlemen was, that they supposed Mr. Buckingham was availing himself of the act of parliament, which, it was supposed, prescribed the means by which he might remedy the injustice that he had suffered. When first Mr. Buckingham returned to this country, he had done him (Mr. D.) the honour to ask his opinion, as to the course of proceeding which it would be expedient for him to pursue. If he did not most conscientiously believe that all Mr. Buckingham's legal proceedings were relinquished, he would certainly not support, his present petition. If, on the contrary, Mr. Buckingham persevered in them, he would say that he disgraced himself. In the petition which his hon. friend had presented from Mr. Buckingham, the latter disclaimed all legal proceeding. If, after so solemn a disclaimer, Mr. Buckingham should nevertheless proceed, he (Mr. D.) would in no way be legally concerned on the subject. But, the fact was, that the allegation that Mr. Buckingham continued his legal suit, was only one of the reasons which were always discovered by those who wished to get rid of the complaints of any injured individual. Mr. Buckingham had no connexion with the leading members of that House. He had never sat in the same cabinet or at the came table with them. Of course, there-
884
885
886
887
Mr. Lambton
felt that an apology was due from him to the House, for intruding upon them again, after the very able manner in which Mr. Buckingham's cause had been advocated by his hon. friends; but there were one or two points in the speeches of the right hon. gentlemen opposite which he should be wanting in duty to the individual whose petition he had undertaken to present to parliament if he were not to notice. With respect to any imputation on individuals, it was in the recollection of the House, whether at the very outset of his address to them on presenting the petition, and in the whole course of that address, he had not wholly disclaimed attributing corrupt or malicious motives to any one? He had stated the case with reference to its own merits. He had simply stated the facts which had occurred under Mr. Adam's temporary administration of the government of India without imputing to that gentleman, or to any one else, any improper motive whatever. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Canning) however, talked as if his speech had been full of personal inculpation. He had a right to complain also of the way in which the right hon. gentleman had treated another of his statements. He had told the right hon. the president of the Board of Control in private, that all legal proceedings had been dropped by Mr. Buckingham. He had also endeavoured to impress that fact upon the House this evening. The death of Mr. Buckingham's solicitor, in India, and the unaccountable circumstance that his counsel, Mr. Ferguson (recently appointed advocate general under Mr. Adam) had omitted to send him the necessary documents and evidence, added to other considerations, had induced him to decline all further proceeding. If that had not been the case, he (Mr. L.) would certainly have abstained from presenting the petition. It had been contended, that Mr. Adam had only administered the power which belonged to the existing system. That he (Mr. L.) positively denied. It was one of Mr. Buckingham's strongest complaints. The system which Mr. Adam found on his accession to the temporary government of India was the system which the marquis of Hastings had
888
889
890
Ordered to be printed.
FIRST-FRUITS FUND OF IRELAND.]
Sir John Newport
said, that the object of his motion, which respected the consideration of the First-Fruits Fund of Ireland, was to prevent a part of the legitimate revenue of the Irish church from sustaining further encroachments, after having been exposed to them through a long series of years. From the earliest periods of our history, the revenue called the First Fruits, had been paid by the clergy of the country; and this revenue was, by queen Anne, appropriated to the endowment and improvement of poor Irish benfices. These laudable and generous purposes would have been much better
891
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
892
l
l
l
l
s
d
l
s
d
l
s
d
l
s
d
l
l
l
893
The question being put on the first re-solution,
Mr. Plunkett
said, he rose to oppose the motion, because it went to attack, not only the revenues, but the character of the church of Ireland. He felt quite sure that his right hon. friend, in setting about a reform of what he conceived to be abuses in the church of Ireland, was actuated by the purest motives: and he felt equally sure, that he should receive his serious attention, while he endeavoured to shew, that the present charge was unfounded. The right hon. baronet had, throughout the whole of his speech, assumed a certain fact, and then argued upon that fact, as if it had been proved, He had taken it for granted, that the statute of Henry 8th, and the act of queen Anne, meant to give to this fund the full annual value of every ecclesiastical benefice. If this
894
895
896
Mr. Spring Rice
contended, that few speeches ever delivered within the walls of parliament were more ad captandum than that to which the House had just listened. No imputation rested upon the clergy of Ireland; and the right hon. baronet, neither by his speech nor by his motion, had intended to cast any imputation. The charge was not against the clergy, but against the government, which did not carry into effect the spirit and the letter of the statute. It was easy, indeed, out of doors to produce an effect, and in the House to influence a division, by inducing a belief that it was intended to fix a stigma upon a particular body; but, as one of the supporters of the motion, he denied any such intention directly or indirectly. He was as sincere a friend to the church establishment of Ireland as the right hon. and learned gentleman; and he thought he best proved his attachment to it, by advocating that species of reform which would extend the duties of the clergy. The attorney-general for Ireland had dwelt much upon the legal construction of the statutes; but if the interpretation he put upon them were correct, what was to become of the 950 benefices in Ireland, which at present did not contribute at all to the first fruits? Were they to be valued according to the rate of the reign of Elizabeth, or were they not to be valued at all? Up to a very late period it was perfectly clear, that the clergy of Ireland did not contribute to the support of the parochial schools. Was this usage good or bad, or was it consistent with the solemn oath that was taken?
897
Mr. Goulburn
said, that whatever explanation might be attempted by the hon. gentleman of the motion of the right hon. baronet, it was impossible not to see, that if it were not intended to convey an imputation upon the church of Ireland, it was at least very ill calculated to avoid it. It was meant to be said by it, that there was a default on the part of the church of Ireland; and in this respect it was contrasted and compared with the church of England. In the one country the clergy were niggardly; in the other, liberal. The real question before the House was a pure point of law. If the church of Ireland paid at present what the law required, it was free from imputation. The right hon. baronet had compared the sum paid by a benefice in Ireland with the sum paid by a benefice in England; but it was no more fair to put these in juxtaposition for the sake of drawing an injurious distinction, than it was fair to contrast the different amount of taxes paid by an in dividual of the same class in England and Ireland. Whatever the law was, it was the duty of the House to abide by it; and upon that point, he was content to rely upon the opinion of his right hon. friend. According to that opinion, the clergy of Ireland ought to be free from any further demands. He protested warmly against what had fallen from the
898
Mr. Hume
, in reference to what had been said by the right hon. and learned gentleman respecting the non-residents, as if he (Mr. H.) had made an erroneous report to the House, said he had only read the official returns made to the House by the bishops themselves. The supporters of the present motion denied that the clergy of Ireland had done what the law required. With regard to any supposed attack, he had never calumniated the ministers of the church of Ireland; he had objected merely to the existing system, and as it was bad, he was, of course, anxious for a change. The law might declare that the two churches should be the same; but, would any man of common observation and common sense affirm that there was no difference between them, in the manner in which the duty was performed, and a thousand other circumstances? The right hon. gentleman had concluded by saying, that the clergy of Ireland were never more zealous than at the present moment. "By their works shall ye know them." Had they added one proselyte to their flock? Had they not, on the contrary, year after year, so decreased in their numbers, that there was danger that they would, ere long, be reduced to nothing? Those who refused inquiry would, in the end, be found the worst enemies of the church.
The House divided: Ayes 71. Noes 87. Majority against the motion 16.
899
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Wednesday, May 26.
EDUCATION OF THE POOR IN IRELAND—PETITION OF MR. OWEN.]
Mr. S. Rice
presented a petition from Mr. Owen, of Lanark. The hon. member professed himself unable to see his way sufficiently clearly to warrant him in founding upon the petition any subsequent motion. He would, nevertheless, willingly lend his aid to any other hon. member who might feel inclined to do so.
The following is a copy of the petition:—
"The Petition of Rober Owen, of New Lanark,
"Humbly sheweth—That your Petitioner believes it to be universally admitted, that, if measures can be devised to relieve the suffering peasantry of Ireland from the distress in which it is on all hands acknowledged that they at present suffer, such measures ought to be zealously promoted by every individual who wishes well to his country, or who is interested in her government.
"That your petitioner has observed many proposals submitted to your honourable House to effect this great purpose, and has seen those proposals rejected— not, indeed, as being unnecessary or ill-timed, but as being impracticable or inefficacious.—That your petitioner, as the result of a long and extensive experience among the working classes, has been induced to conclude, that no projects for relief to Ireland can be practicable or efficacious, unless they propose to educate and to employ those to whom relief is to be afforded: and that no plan which shall in practice judiciously educate, and effectually employ the poor and ignorant and unemployed, can fail in effecting great and immediate improvement in their condition, to the gradual diminution of ignorance and poverty and idleness.
"That your petitioner believes it to be as practicable as it will be found to be advantageous to form arrangements for the double purpose of education and employment; and is prepared to submit proposals for that purpose to your honourable House.
"That these proposals have been so devised as to meet the opinion expressed by a committee of your honourable Housè, on plans submitted by your peti-
900
"ROBERT OWEN."
Sir W. De Crespigny
said, he had advised Mr. Owen never to bring his plan again before parliament.
Colonel Trench
contended, that this visionary plan, if adopted, would destroy the very roots of society.
Ordered to lie on the table.
USURY FORFEITURES BILL.]
Mr. Alderman Heygate
said, that in the debate on this subject, though there had been a great difference of opinion on the Usury Laws themselves, the opinion of the House was unanimous as to the injustice and ineffectiveness of the penalties provided for a breach of them. As the members of the legal profession to whom he had applied had declined the task, he had been induced to frame a bill to amend the law as far as related to these penalties. His principle was briefly this. By the existing law, the forfeiture, and penalty, amounting to three times the principal sum, was out of all proportion to the degree of the offence. For example, if a man took 5
l.
l.,
l.,
l.
l.
l.
l.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
SCOTCH POOR REGULATION BILL.]
Mr. Kennedy,
in moving the order of the day for the second reading of this bill, for the purpose of withdrawing it, said, he owed it to himself to give a brief explanation. In withdrawing the bill, he did not wish it to be understood that he was to be prevented by any clamour that might be raised from prosecuting his object; but, on a subject so delicate as the Poor-laws, when a feeling was raised, no
901
l.
902
Lord A. Hamilton
said, that with respect to the measure being a boon to the poor of Scotland, he could only observe, that the poor of Scotland themselves thought it a great grievance. The bill proposed by the hon. member was considered by all who had paid any attention to the interests of the poor, and who were in the habit of administering to their wants, to be most objectionable in principle.
The Lord Advocate
said, that the proposed measure had never received the slightest encouragement from any public body in Scotland; on the contrary, they all concurred in reprobating it. He strongly recommended the hon. member to pause before he again brought it forward.
Mr. W. Dundas
observed, that the poor of Scotland might be left wholly without resource if the system of assessments were abolished.
The second reading was put off for three months.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, May 27.
COMMITMENTS AND CONVICTIONS.]
Mr. Hume
said, he rose to bring forward his promised motion for a return of the Commitments by magistrates, in certain districts, together with the names of the magistrates by whom such commitments were made. He understood that objections were made to returning the names of the magistrates, unless in specified cases, where it could be shewn they were necessary. To this he answered, that there was an opinion abroad that a certain set of gentlemen in the magistracy were convicting magistrates—that was to say, that any culprits brought before certain magistrates stood little or no chance of escaping being committed. New, he felt, that if the commitment were a just one, no objection could be urged to giving the name of the magistrate, and if unjust, then the name of the magistrate became absolutely necessary. He wished to obtain correct returns, in order to ascertain the causes of the disproportion between the commitments and convictions in the city of London, and in the county of Middlesex, and which disproportion was highly to the credit of the former. The returns already on the table were very imperfect; but if they had been made out
903
904
905
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that he had expected to have heard from the hon. member a less objectionable motion than that with which he had concluded, and the returns to which would not, in point of fact, assist him in his ulterior object. The hon. member had said, that when these returns, with the names of the committing magistrates, were made, some individuals would be found who were unnecessarily rigorous in their commitments, and who were designated in their counties as "committing magistrates." He protested that be had never heard of such a distinct class of persons; but, what he principally rose to show was, that the returns called for would not raise the inference which the hon. member supposed, and would therefore be useless for his general argument. For instance, there were several prisons in England in which commitments in execution were only taken; and the hon. member must not confound such commitments in due execution of legal process with the summary commitments in the ordinary administration of magisterial duty. Then, again, the disproportion of commitments between one magistrate and another would not raise the inference of undue rigour in the committing magistrate. For instance, at this time of the year, whilst members were attending their duty in parliament, there must be other magistrates in the counties, whose returns in the discharge of their duty must necessarily be larger than those not so actively engaged, from local removals, without there being the slightest ground for supposing from the distinction, the undue exercise of power. When the hon. gentleman first brought this subject forward, he had said, that there was an immense disproportion between the commitments by police magistrates and by magistrates of the city of London. He (Mr. P.) had then thought, that a prima facie case had been made out against the stipendiary magistrates, and that they were the more responsible, be-
906
907
Mr. Denman
said, he concurred in many of the observations which had fallen from the right hon. gentleman, respecting the obscurity in which the larger question would still remain, after the returns, as now called for, were produced; but, it would be easy to make the distinction required in the returns, so as to show the commitments in execution, and also those by summary process. He could not, however, concur with the right hon. gentleman in throwing round the magistracy generally, that species of exemption from inquiry which he had talked of. On the contrary, he thought that when parliament were every year intrusting such extended powers to the magistracy, they were bound to investigate with a jealous eye their administration; and the more so on account of the liability to abuse in the exercise of all human power. He rather wished to see the public eye jealously fixed upon the conduct of magistrates, for the sake of bringing to bear upon their acts the wholesome control of public opinion; and he could not disguise from himself, that however meritorious as a body, there were many individual cases in the magistracy, which required revision and correction. It was singular that, the moment the slightest attempt was made in parliament to control or investigate the authority of the magistrates, it was met by the highest panegyrics upon their general honour and utility. This reminded him of the remark of a judge once at the Old
908
Sir E. Knatchbull
said, there was no class of persons who had performed more services to the country than the magistracy. Unless a strong case should first be made out, he could never give his assent to a motion of this nature. There was a sufficient jealousy amongst the magistrates themselves, which made them watch the proceedings of each other; and in this circumstance he saw the best security for the proper discharge of their functions.
Mr. H. Sumner
thought the motion would be ineffectual, unless the commitments were returned with a specification of the circumstances of each case; but no man would undertake the arduous duties of a magistrate if his character were to be subjected to this kind of suspicion.
Mr. Curwen
said, if he thought there was any intention of casting an imputation on the magistrates, he should not give the motion his assent.
Lord Stanley
said, he should like to know who were the individuals who were designated "committing magistrates." He thought it unfair to throw out a general aspersion of this nature.
Mr. Lockhart
thought that the motion should not be entertained, unless good reason were first shown.
Mr. Peel
said, that if the hon. member would point out any one instance in which there had been an improper committal, he would give him any explanation on the subject which he might require.
Mr. Hume
said, that all he wanted was sufficient data on which to form a just conclusion. A very unfair construction had been put upon what he had said respecting committing magistrates. He did not mean by that expression those who committed the greatest number of pri-
909
Mr. Peel
said, he felt it due to the magistrates, not to allow the motion to be withdrawn. It must be negatived.
The House divided: Ayes 8. Noes 81.
Mr. Hume
said, there was such an esprit de corps in the country gentlemen, that he never knew an instance of inquiry being called for into the conduct of magistrates, that they were not immediately up in arms to stifle all investigation. It had certainly been his understanding when he submitted to withdraw his motion, that the right hon. gentleman would give him the information corrected according to his own statement. He would now move for returns of the number of persons charged with criminal offences in Ireland, and committed in the years 1822 and 1823, excepting such as were committed under the Insurrection act.
Mr. Peel
denied that he had entered into any agreement with the hon. member as to any course which he should pursue in the event of the former motion being withdrawn.
Mr. F. Palmer
could not see that the motion cast any stigma on the magistrates. If there were any who did not do their duty, inquiry was desirable, to show who they were.
Mr. Denman
did think that his hon. friend had not been quite fairly treated. There appeared a considerable degree of soreness on the part of the magistrates; but this stolen march would not tend to raise them in the estimation of the country. It was said, that no case had been made out. Certainly, no case was made out, because no case was intended to be made out. There could be no case of general oppression against a most numerous body. The proposition of his hon. friend was, that a constant and regular return should be laid before the House; because the effect of such a return would be to create a powerful control on the actions of public men. Would it be denied, that such a control was necessary? Was it calumny to argue that magistrates were accessible to the common frailties of human nature
Mr. Twiss
observed, that as there was no charge against the magistracy, there was no necessity for the returns, to grant which implied an accusation.
910
Mr. T. Wilson
thought that no case had been made out for inquiry, and that when motions of this kind were made groundlessly, the result must be injurious. In defence of magistrates who were not members of that House, he should oppose the motion.
Mr. Hubhouse
was at a loss to understand on what grounds the returns were refused. Was it not material for that House to be put in possession of the proportion between the number of commitments and convictions? Much had been said in praise of the unpaid magistracy; but he must say he did not think so highly of them. He would prefer a stipendiary magistracy, who would not think it above them to render an account of their conduct, to those unpaid magistrates who exhibited, on all occasions, such a noli-me-tangere disposition.
Mr. Monck
said, that this information was necessary, if it were merely with a view to statistical information. It was desirable that the House should know the amount of crime, and whether it was on the increase or not. The number of summary convictions, too, was important; for as that mode of proceeding was a supersession of the common-law, it was essential to observe its operation.
The House divided: Ayes 34. Noes 71.
Another division took place on a motion for similar returns as regarded Scotland; when the numbers were, Ayes 3: Noes 75.
MODE OF CONDUCTING THE PRIVATE
Mr. Hume
rose, in pursuance of notice, to move a standing order, that no member having an interest in a Private Bill should be allowed to vote on the committee on that Bill. He had been strongly impressed with the impropriety of the existing practice, not merely during the present session, but for many sessions. It had gone on from worse to worse, until, at length, it had arrived to an extent of injustice and evil which could no longer be tolerated. The House were bound to interfere in order to do justice to the parties before them, and to render their proceedings respected. The business in committees above stairs was no longer a question of justice between the parties; it was one merely of canvas and influence. It was very common, even in the House itself, to see members remain out of it
911
912
913
l.
l.
l.
914
Mr. Secretary Canning
said, that if he entertained any doubt upon the expediency of adopting the hon. gentleman's recommendation with regard to the constitution of committees up stairs, it was not upon the soundness of the principle on which that recommendation was founded, for every body must concur with him in admitting that to the hon. gentleman; but he doubted very much whether a new standing order would at all remedy the evil complained of, and whether the adoption of the resolution submitted by the hon. gentleman would not rather leave the House in a worse situation, than establish it in a better, as to those committees. The right hon. gentleman then appealed to the chair in order to know, whether the rules of the House itself governed the proceedings of committees?
The Speaker
said, he held it to be quite clear, that all the rules by which that House regulated its own conduct continued in full operation in every committee that sat above stairs. The hon. gentleman who had opened this case had, in his judgment, very distinctly stated this as the ground of his proposition.
Mr. Canning
resumed. He said, he had always understood, that the rule of proceeding on committees, must depend, in a great measure, upon the circumstances of the individual case. The rule might exclude, he thought, in many cases where it could be shewn that the interests of members on a committee were concerned in the bill under their consideration; but the question—the difficult question— would always remain, as to who should be admissible members, and who should not? Now, he took it, that no order of the House could solve that difficulty; but that the matter out of which the abuse arose—and an abuse it certainly was, in the case put by the hon. gentleman—must be left generally to the honour and the feeling of members. So in questions of contested elections; he apprehended, that however members, almost all of them, might be imagined to be influenced on one side or the other, it was always to be supposed, that such questions would be decided upon principles of honour and justice There seemed to be no difficulty in supporting the mere theoretic principle, which was so properly contended for; but a vast deal of difficulty in enforcing its application. The principle, as he had
915
Sir W. De Crespigny
deprecated the system upon which committees above stairs were conducted, both as to the mode in which members on them permitted themselves to be canvassed, and in which the committees were got up: and particularly as to the way in which the wandering members were brought in and frequently voted, in utter ignorance of the anterior proceedings of a committee, and without the benefit of that knowledge of the business before it, which the regular members of such committee must necessarily possess.
Mr. S. Wortley
concurred in thinking, that the House would be rather diminishing the ground upon which it stood in regard to its committees of this nature, than gaining any better station, if it acceded to the proposition of the hon. gentleman. A popular feeling prevailed, that some al-
916
Mr. Grenfell
would beg to suggest to his hon. friend, after all that had been said, to withdraw his motion. But, at the same time that he suggested this, he would say, that the House and the country were indebted to his hon. friend for having brought it forward. From his own knowledge of the practice of one committee, at which he had attended for a considerable time, he would assert, that the mode of proceeding was not only a perversion, but a complete denial of justice. It was-quite hopeless, in many cases, to expect to carry anything against the views of particular parties. With the knowledge which the House now possessed on this subject, he did hope that some remedy would be speedily applied; and if the forms of the House, after the previous-question having been moved, would allow his hon. friend to withdraw his motion, he hoped he would do so, and move that a select committee be appointed to inquire into the evil, with the view of applying some remedy. Some such course was absolutely necessary to rescue the House of Commons from the disgrace which would otherwise attach to them, from the mode in which business was conducted in some of their committees up stairs. From what he had seen of the practice in some committees, he would say—Let a private bill be brought in on the first day of a session, and let that session be the longest known in the history of parliament, and he would undertake (provided he got money enough) to prevent that bill from passing, by the delays which he could, according to the present practice, occasion in its progress. He had known an instance, in a committee, of a counsel speaking for five hours and a half on one point, and another speaking two hours and a half on the same point; and let the House understand, that this mode of pro-
917
Mr. Ellice
also wished the motion to be withdrawn, and that his hon. friend should give notice of a motion on the subject for next session.
Sir M. W. Ridley
was of opinion, that a more strict attention to the standing orders of the House, with respect to private bills, would be the best remedy which could be applied to an evil, the existence of which was not denied. When there were sometimes forty committees on private bills sitting on the same day, how could proper attention be paid to them all?
Lord Stanley
thought that a great deal of inconvenience was created by the inattention of members who were nominated on private committees. He had recently witnessed the inconvenience produced by the non-attendance of members on private committees.
Mr. B. Wilbraham
recommended the hon. member to withdraw his motion, and to move for a select committee to inquire into the evil complained of. He would not, however, wish that such committee should be delayed till next session.
Mr. Scarlett
said, that if the House made the regulation, that no member in a private committee should vote upon a
918
Mr. Hume
said, that after what he had heard, he had no objection to withdraw his motion; and in lieu of it, to submit a motion for a committee to inquire into the subject.
Mr. Canning
said, he would withdraw his amendment, in order to give the hon. member an opportunity of withdrawing his motion; but he would recommend him to attend to give a notice of motion for next session, rather than the present, as the committee would then have sufficient time for going fully into the question.
IRISH CLERGY RESIDENCE BILL.]
The report of this bill being brought up, Sir J. Newport moved a clause, providing, that an incumbent should vacate his benefice in case of accepting Ecclesiastical Preferment to the amount of 400
l.
Mr. Goulburn
strongly opposed the clause, which could not, he said, be tacked on thus slightly to a clergy-residence bill, but ought, if adopted at all, to be made a specific subject of legislation.
Mr. Plunkett
said, he must object to the clause. Though he was strenuously opposed to any interference with the property of the church, he did not carry that opposition to the extent of denying that there might be a beneficial modification with respect to pluralities. Should his right hon. friend introduce any measure of that nature, he should be most happy to give it his support, so far as a sense of public duty would permit. But his right hon. friend must be aware, that his clause
919
l.
The House divided: For the clause 38. Against it 75.
WAREHOUSED WHEAT BILL.]
The bill being committed,
Mr. Ellice
Mr. L. Forster
objected to it, as a direct infraction of the spirit and letter of the corn laws, which were designed to protect the British grower against the competition of any grain coming from abroad, which had not been charged with a weight of taxation equal to that which fell upon wheat of British growth.
920
Mr. Huskisson,
thought under all the circumstances of the case, it would be wiser to adopt the proposed clause, and thus admit the Canadian wheat now in this country, by degrees, than to allow it to come all at once into the market, as it in all probability, must do by the 15th of August next.
The committee divided: for the clause 45. Against it 19.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, May 28.
MARINE INSURANCE BILL.]
Mr. Fowell Buxton
having moved the order of the day for the second reading of this bill, Mr. Grenfell reminded the House, that counsel were to be heard against the bill.
The Speaker
observed, that counsel were not ordered to attend against, but upon the second reading of the bill. If the House decided that the bill should not be read a second time, the opportunity for hearing counsel would never arrive.
Mr. Fowell Buxton
then rose to move the committal of the bill, and observed that the learned counsel who had been heard, had contended, that Joint-stock companies were entitled to no superior protection—a position in which he cordially concurred with them. They had also expressed an apprehension that if the present bill passed, Joint-stock companies would hereafter obtain those privileges. For his own part, he could see no reason for any such apprehension. To whom were such companies to apply? To the House? He believed not one member was
921
922
923
l
l
l
l
l
924
Mr. Grenfell
said, that his hon. friend had alluded to the Alliance Company, upon which subject it had been his intention not to have made any observation; but, as it had been introduced, he would speak of the individuals who composed it, in terms of the highest respect. No names, certainly, could be more respectable; but it was proper the country should know the principle on which that Company was founded. The principle was this: a certain number of most respectable merchants had formed themselves into a company, with a real capital of 500,000
l
l
925
926
Mr. Hudson Gurney
said, he had the greatest doubt whether any company ought to be allowed to effect marine Insurances, and, at the same time, Insurances on lives: the nature of the one being an insurance against immediate risk; and the other being a yearly payment for an eventual return to a man's family, calculated on different principles, and which ought not to be subjected to future hazards, which it was impossible for the insuring party to guard against, or to foresee.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that in considering this measure, the question he had asked himself was this: whether upon any principle of equity or justice he was bound to object to the course taken by the hon. gentleman opposite. And first, with regard to the policy of the measure, he had expressed a decided opinion in 1813, when he was in the Board of Trade; the question was then under the consideration of government, and he had given an opinion favourable to the repeal of the exclusive privileges of these two companies, and certainly did not think they had made out the strong case which the hon. member for Penryn seemed to suppose. They had undertaken to pay, in consideration of the exclusive privileges to be derived from their charter, the sum of 300,000
l
l
927
Mr. Thomas Wilson
said, he regarded this question as one of very great importance. He confessed he was a good deal surprised at the view which the chancellor of the Exchequer had taken of the subject. Now, if one half of an engagement were to be binding, he could not see why the other should be violated. He thought he was justified in saying, that if the House should pass this measure, they would be invading vested rights upon theoretic speculations rather than upon good sense and sound experience; and the more especially he thought so, after the cases alluded to by an hon. gentleman opposite, and the names which he had mentioned as supporting his view of the case. But, he should like to know what was the necessity for this measure. The hon. member who had introduced the bill had said, that if the measure should pass, we should have in this country the insurance trade of all the world; but this opinion appeared to him to be exceedingly ill-founded. All the foreign companies were falling to pieces. At Hamburgh, the scheme had been a failure altogether. In France, the Compagnie Royale took insurances only in Paris; and the shares of the Compagnie Generate, which had broken in upon its capital, were at a discount of ten per cent. The present system was approved of by the merchants of the country; and in his judgment, instead of looking out for public companies, they should look out for good underwriters. He therefore, thought it would be letting down the dignity of the House of Commons to interfere in the concern, when the act of parliament had pointed out the course which should be adopted; namely, an application to the king in council.
Mr. Hume
said, he had at first thought that the two companies had a claim for compensation, if their privileges were taken away; but, on further consideration, he had come to the conclusion that his first impression was incorrect, and he could only consider the two companies as
928
Mr. Alderman Wood
said, it was true, that ministers might recommend the revocation of the charter, if any injury had arisen in consequence; but, was there the slightest evidence of this in the present case? He bore his willing testimony to the correctness and honourable dealing of the gentlemen connected with Lloyd's Coffee-house, and the liberality with which they lent their aid to every charitable institution and benevolent object.
Mr. Alderman Thompson
contended, that the acceptance by the government of the 120,000
l
929
they
Mr. Buxton
said, that after the personal attacks which had been made upon him— [cries of "no, no."] He must contend, that it was a direct personal attack to say, that he felt and thought differently where his own interests were concerned. He
930
Alderman Thompson
disclaimed any idea of personal disrespect to the hon. member for Weymouth.
Dr. Lushington
said, he should consider the question in two points:—first, whether the repeal of the exclusive privileges of those chartered bodies was calculated to be generally advantageous; and next, whether, in effecting that repeal, any unjustifiable invasion of the legal rights of others was attempted? If he believed that those companies were, by their charters, legally entitled to and exclusive privileges, he would be the last man to rob them of their legal rights without full and adequate compensation. But, the reverse was the actual case, as it respected the claims of those companies. He had heard much of the opinions said to have been given by sir V. Gibbs and sir T. Plomer, as to the rights of those two companies. He owned he affixed little value to the opinions of lawyers, unless he was in possession of the precise case that was laid before them. Indeed, every man must know that the character and value of a legal opinion depended wholly on such statement, and that on the very same circumstances, they would get the conflicting opinions of counsel, if the case laid before them differed even in minute points. It was not in the power of the Crown to give to these companies the monopoly claimed. The very words of the act of parliament which recognised their existence, gave to the public the power, of revocation, after thirty-one years, on paying back the money advanced. He must be allowed to add, that judging from the inference that he drew, his hon. friend did not appear to him to understand the meaning and object of that clause. By that clause the Crown was enabled to destroy these charters, without the forms of a writ of inquisition, or scire facias, which was the ordinary process of the law, where the rights of other chartered bodies was impugned. The plain intention of this peculiar provision was to give, quoad,
931
932
l
l
Mr. Plummet
said, that although the advocates of the bill declared it was for the encouragement of competition, yet the effect of it would be to destroy competition; for if 50 or 60 joint-stock companies were formed, was it to be supposed the 1,500 or 1,600 individuals who were at present engaged in it could continue to carry on their trade? If these charters were only to be considered as leases for 31 years, why introduce the words "perpetual succession?" In that view, they differed from those other companies such as the East India and Bank, with whose provisions the legislature had interfered. The vested rights of private individuals were never invaded without granting adequate remuneration. The claims of companies secured by charters, stood on still stronger grounds. He thought the bill unnecessary to the public, most injurious to those whose interests were affected.
Mr. Lockhart,
in answer to the observation of these charters being granted in perpetual succession, showed, that by a subsequent clause in the act, they were made determinable by the authority of parliament. He supported the bill.
Mr. Manning
considered the measure unnecessary, from the reduced rate at which all risks were at present underwritten.
Mr. Robertson
entreated the House to look narrowly at this measure, so fraught with danger to the commercial interests of the country. Mr. Fox's famous India bill, which at one period agitated every trading town in the empire, was not so pregnant with danger to the state. What were the names that stood foremost upon the lists of this new company? Mr. Baring, Mr. Rothschild, Mr. Irving, Mr. Alexander, and others—the whole United money interests of the empire. A company thus formed was infinitely more dangerous than a chartered association of underwriters, personally responsible, and acting under limited restrictions. It would, in its branching out among the; shareholders, eventually engross to itself all the underwriting of this great city. Now, the commerce of the country was at present rather a great agency business-
933
The House divided: Ayes 51. Noes 33. The bill was accordingly committed for Monday.
IRISH BUTTER TRADE.]
Mr. T. Wilson
rose to
move
Mr. Hutchinson
urged the necessity of giving time to allow the bill to go to Cork in order to obtain the opinion of his constituents upon it.
Sir H. Parnell
was surprised that no
934
Mr. Huskisson
was quite ready to admit that the existing regulations were contrary to all sound principles, and that
935
Mr. S. Rice
was disposed to take the same view with the hon. baronet. He believed great practical injury was sustained by the farmers, and that it was well worthy of the consideration of the House, whether or not the whole of the existing regulations should be repealed.
Sir J. Newport
defended the act of 1812,
by
of
Mr. Maurice Fitzgerald
said, that these regulations had been productive of great vexation in the county with which he was best acquainted, and hoped that the president of the board of trade would carry into effect next session, the inquiry so much called for.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
SCOTCH JURY BILL.]
On the order of the day for the third reading of the Scotch Juries bill,
Mr. Home Drummond
said, he was sorry to be obliged to state, in this late stage of the bill, objections that went rather to the details than to the principle of the measure. But he had been deprived of the means of making these objections to the proper stage, when it was in the committee. He differed little in principle from the hon. member who brought in the bill, and he knew that the principles on which it was the object of the hon. and learned gentleman to legislate were approved of by the House. But
he
936
937
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, May 31.
ROMAN CATHOLIC PETITIONS.]
Earl Grey
rose to offer a petition which had been put into his hands, signed by certain Roman Catholics of Ireland. The petitioners stated, that the Union, instead of restoring them to their rights, had been of no benefit to them; and that they looked on it as having greatly aggravated all the evils under which the petitioners before suffered, and having in addition inflicted a greater evil still, by taking away from the country a resident gentry, and depriving the people of their natural protectors. The next object of which the petitioners complained, was the system of tithes, which was a more special injury to them, as seven-eighths of the people were Catholics, who contributed to these tithes for a church, from which they not only derived no advantage, but from the members of which, the petitioners stated, they met with nothing but contumely and insult. The petition also complained of the administration of justice, not in the upper
938
939
940
WELCH JUDICATURE.]
Lord Cawdor
rose to move certain resolutions relative to the administration of Justice in Wales. It had been, he said, in various periods of our history, frequently endeavoured to effect a reformation in the system of the judicature of Wales. It was to him unac-countable, that after petitions had been presented to both Houses of Parliament, complaining of the want of a due administration of justice—after committees of both Mouses had made reports, recommending an adequate reformation—it was to him unaccountable, that the executive government should remain indifferent to the subject. He should conclude with moving, that the House should resolve itself into a committee, for the purpose of entertaining the following resolutions: —First:" That, in the judicature of Wales, there exists not a due administration of justice: secondly, that such defect had arisen from the local and unlimited authority of the Welch judges: and, thirdly, that such an addition be made to the number of English judges, so as to include Wales in the English Circuits."
The Lord Chancellor
observed, that Under the present constitution of the judicature of Wales, there was an access to
941
The Marquis of Lansdown
was of opinion, that the noble mover had made out a strong case for the adoption of his resolutions. The mode in which justice was administered in Wales required immediate reform, and under such circumstances it was not surprising that the noble mover should propose a course of proceeding somewhat sudden and summary. In England, the judges were chosen for their legal learning, and high characters, and were independent of the Crown. In Wales, they were appointed, not for their professional attainments, but from political influence, and they were in general the creatures of the minister of the day. The proposition was supported by the sound principles of British law.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, May 31.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS—PETITION OF CATHOLICS OF IRELAND.]
Mr. Plunkett
rose to present a petition, from the "undersigned" Roman Catholics of Ireland, praying for relief from the penal laws which still oppressed them. He begged to state, in presenting this petition, that he entirely concurred in its contents, with the exception of one single paragraph or observation. The petition was, with the exception of the passage to which he had alluded, drawn up with temper and propriety. It stated truly, that the petitioners were not now under the necessity of making a parade of their attachment to the constitution, or their
942
943
Ordered to lie on the table.
ROMAN CATHOLIC ASSOCIATION—PETITION FROM IRELAND AGAINST.]
Mr. Brownlow
, in rising to present a petition, respecting the Roman Catholic Association of Dublin, said, that the subject, on which he had to address the House, was as well entitled to mature consideration, as any subject that had been brought before the House during the present session. He hoped, also, that it would attract the attention of his majesty's ministers—not an attention which produced a speech or two, soon uttered and soon forgotten, but an attention which would lead to the fearless and impartial
944
945
946
947
948
Mr. Plunkett
said, that the hon. member had more than insinuated, that a strong feeling was entertained that he (Mr. P.) had neglected his duty; he did not at all seem to think there was any imperfection in the law, but had expressed his astonishment, that those who had proceeded against the bottle-throwers at the theatre had left untouched the Catholic Association. Now, he could assure the hon. member, that any apprehensions which might be entertained, either by the hon. member himself or his friends, could not induce him to change that course of conduct which he had uniformly endeavoured to pursue, in the discharge of his duty. In every instance in which he had exercised his official powers, as attorney-general for Ireland, he had looked straightforward to his object, without any consideration as to sect or party. Whenever he had perceived a violation of the law which the public interest required to be prosecuted, he had fearlessly come forward to undertake the prosecution. Whether a candid construction had always been put upon his motives, it was for the House to judge. All that he would say was, that the same course which he had hitherto pursued he would still continue to pursue. He would pursue no left-handed justice; but he would, so far as the laws would enable him, whenever he met with a transgression of the law, from whatever party it might proceed, immediately visit it with punishment. The hon. member had professed himself, not only a vindicator, but a member of the Orange Association. He could assure the hon. member, that if he were furnished with satisfactory evidence, he would not be found backward in trying the strength of the law against a gentleman making that profession, and he would abide the consequences of the censure of those respectable persons, who blamed him for not prosecuting the Catholic Association. Neither the hon. member nor any other
949
Mr. M. Fitzgerald
said, it was matter of notoriety, that at the period of the king's visit to Ireland, whatever might be the provocation received, the Catholics had come to a resolution to bury their animosities in oblivion. In that resolution they persevered for two years; and if they had subsequently abandoned this pacific disposition, it had been with a view of opposing an assumed attitude of defence on the part of their opponents. Under
950
Sir T. Lethbridge
thought, that the petition deserved the minutest attention. It had been said, that the Orangemen had provoked the conduct of the Catholic Association; but the things complained of would never have occurred but for that association. Had they ever heard, on the part of the Orangemen, any of the overt acts now committing by the Catholic Association?
Mr. Hutchinson
said, he had heard the remarks of the attorney-general for Ireland with infinite satisfaction, and hoped that they had met with the approbation of all his colleagues. He trusted that ministers, individually and collectively, were determined to administer impartial justice in Ireland.
Colonel Trench
said, that whatever might be the intentions of the Catholic Association, the consequences of their proceedings had been most disastrous. He had looked into the proceedings of this self-constituted parliament, under the influence of its protector, O'Connell, and he found that a most insidious proposition had been issued, calling upon all parties to give their assistance in the collection of tithes in kind. Now, the construction which he put upon this proposition was, that its object was to prevent any diminution of that acrimonious feeling which existed on the subject of tithes. No man would be more happy than he should, that the Catholic clergy should have an adequate provision; but it was impossible to deny that the object of the association was, to establish Catholic supremacy. Even in that House he had heard it laid down as a principle, that the religion of a country should be regulated by the creed of the majority of the people. He firmly believed that there were men among the Irish Catholics, actuated solely by selfish views, and anxious, in order that those views might be gratified, to keep the country in constant disturbance.
Mr. Warre
declared that the Catholic population were by no means indifferent to Catholic emancipation. Of the association he would say nothing, but that he wished to see the cause of emancipation in other hands, and regretted that Catholics of birth, character, and influence, did not unite to place the cause under their own guidance.
951
Mr. Brownlow
expressed his astonishment that, on a question so important as the present, not one of his majesty's ministers had condescended to state whether or not he considered the association legal. All that the attorney-general had said was, that he was quite ready to use any information which he might obtain against him (Mr. B.) if he could establish that he belonged to an Orange association. He was ready to give the right hon. gentleman every information he might require respecting the Orange associations. They were composed of men of known principles, of great talents, and who had performed eminent services to their country, notwithstanding the cloud which, on every occasion, it was attempted to throw over them. But, the question before the House was, the character of the Catholic Association; and on that question not one of his majesty's ministers had thought proper to speak.
Mr. Plunkett
threw himself on the candour and fairness of the House, if any hon. member had a right so to press an individual holding the situation of public prosecutor. The hon. gentleman himself had said, that he was not sure that the Catholic Association, although violating the spirit, was not at the same time, cheating the letter of the law. Suppose he (Mr. P.) were of the same opinion— was he to state it in that House? or was he to declare, that, although their proceedings did not bring them within the letter of the law, he would nevertheless prosecute them? Would that be wise? He had no difficulty in declaring it as his opinion, that the Catholic Association should be narrowly watched; and if he once saw his way clearly in point of law, and in point of prudence, he would not shrink from his task. He certainly thought that the intemperance and folly of the association were more calculated indefinitely to postpone the success of the Catholic cause, than all the efforts of the most bitter enemies of the cause. Still, however, he must remonstrate against being unfairly pressed on the subject. He would not say whether the proceedings of the association were legal or illegal, but would reserve to himself the full exercise of his own discretion on the subject.
Mr. Secretary Canning
said, he came down expecting that the hon. member would follow up his motion for laying the petition on the table, by another motion, to refer it to the consideration of a com-
952
953
Feel
Mr. M. Fitzgerald
defended the character of the members of the Catholic Association. Than Mr. O'Connell a more able, zealous, and effective advocate never lived. He was a gentleman of large property, and therefore by no means interested in promoting the agitation of the public mind in Ireland. The learned individual in question was most enthusiastic in his character; perhaps somewhat indiscreet; but it was an indiscretion that was surely not censurable.
Colonel Trench
regretted having mentioned the name of Mr. O'Connell, but he did not retract one syllable of the observations which he had made on the character of the Catholic Association. If the Catholics were not so much under influence, and so capable of being worked up to the commission of the most atrocious crimes, he should not be averse to what was called their emancipation. But, when he saw that a set of artful, cunning unprincipled demagogues endeavoured by every species of craft and fraud, to inflame the Catholics of Ireland, and excite in their minds a hatred of the Protestants and of English connexion, he could not concur in any such proposition.
Mr. Brownlow
said, that he would withdraw his motion to refer the petition to a committee to-night, and give notice of the same motion for to-morrow.
Ordered to be printed.
954
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS—PETITION OF CATHOLICS OF IRELAND.]
Mr. Brougham
said, he rose to present a petition from a great number of individuals of the Roman Catholic persuasion in Ireland. That body formed a large class of his majesty's subjects in Ireland, a class much to be respected, not only for its great and still increasing numbers, but on other accounts; and on no account more than for that unshaken confidence which they had always reposed in parliament, notwithstanding it had so frequently defeated their hopes, and withered their expectations. As he differed from the petitioners in some of the points of the petition, he should use no other language but the very terms of the petition itself. The petitioners began by expressing their gratitude for a disposition which they thought prevailed in parliament to redress their wrongs. They next expressed their regret on a subject on which he certainly did not agree with them. They expressed their regret that the act of Union between the two countries had ever been adopted. At the same time they complained, and in that complaint he concurred, that none of the promises which had been held out to them at the time of the Union had been fulfilled. They stated, that the abuses of the local jurisdictions had not been suppressed—that the oppressive and injurious power of the corporate bodies had not been diminished—nor had the Catholic population, forming seven-eighths of the inhabitants, been restored to their just and lawful rights; but that on the contrary, the consequence of the Union had been, to withdraw from them the protection arising from their landlords residing in the country, and to leave them to the abuse of power—the extortion and oppression of agents. He wished it was in his power to negative that part of the petition, but he feared that it was beyond contradiction. They were also right in stating, that the Union had materially aggravated these evils. They also complained of the present system of tithes. They complained of its injustice, and not of the principle on which tithes were levied; of the right claimed by a small body of men to-have immense sums of money paid to them by the body of the people, in order to support a hierarchy which insulted and oppressed them. All legal measures of resistance, they said, seemed to be forbidden, and they therefore called on the House to give its most serious attention to the
955
956
Ordered to lie on the table.
GAME LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.]
Mr. Stuart Wortley
Mr. A. Smith
seconded the amendment. He thought the bill so completely absurd, that he knew of no better method than of getting rid of it altogether.
Mr. Lockhart
complained, that the hon. mover, in the recital of this bill, had overlooked at least twenty statutes, the objects or titles of which should have been recapitulated. Instead of doing as had been done with the bankrupt acts, whenever the bankrupt laws had been altered or amended, namely, reciting and consolidating them, and then stating the new enactments, the hon. member's bill specifically repealed, of all the numerous game laws now existing, so much only as regarded the matters of possession and qualification. Now, as it was no where stated in the bill what other parts of those preceding laws were to be still operative, or what repealed, he could not conceive an act, if the bill should pass into one, the extent and application of which could be more embarrassing to the people at large, to the magistrates, or the judges. The hon. member remarked on the danger of the clause permitting the sale of game, and the encouragement a measure would extend to poachers, and expressed his intention to support the amendment.
957
Mr. Cartwright
said, that although he was friendly to the principle of the bill, he should strongly recommend to his hon. friend, the expediency of withdrawing it for the present. He was quite convinced, from the opposition it had encountered, that it would be impossible to carry it in the course of the session.
Mr. W. Peel
opposed the bill, which he said could be advantageous to no other persons than the poachers and poulterers.
Mr. H. Twiss
also opposed the bill. There could be no doubt, he observed, that the restrictions which it added to those, already too numerous, of the present system of game laws, would considerably increase crime among the lower orders of the people. The provision which it was proposed to make against this consequence of the measure, by legalizing the sale of game would, he was satisfied, be found inefficient. Besides, if that provision were more operative than he believed it would be, its tendency would be to degrade the country gentlemen into hucksters, and he was therefore sure that it would never be sanctioned by them in practice. There were, however, other and more serious objections to the measure, which deserved the particular attention of parliament. It was admitted to be a subject of regret that the existing game Jaws were too severe, and their enforcement often evaded on that account. But, what did the bill before the House propose to do? Not to abate that severity, but to increase it to an unreasonable degree. At present, persons charged with offences under the game laws were held only to have committed a misdemeanour; but, by the proposed bill, their offence was made at once a felony. Now, bail might be tendered by the party accused, and no magistrate, however zealous for the preservation of game, could or would refuse to accept it. By the bill before the House, however, the liberty of the accused was at once forfeited, and he had no means of regaining it before trial, except by a writ of habeas corpus, the expense of which would make it, to the great majority of persons taken up under the bill, a remedy rather in theory than in practice. By this alteration in the character of the offence from a simple misdemeanour to a felony, the culprit would lose the privilege—to him an invaluable one—of addressing the jury; and thus the general operation of the bill would be, to increase the offence; and the opportunities of com-
958
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that the main question was, whether it was expedient or not, to attempt to alter the present system. He did not know whether his hon. friend, the member for Yorkshire, was disposed to accede to the suggestion which had been made to him of withdrawing his bill for the present session, but after the objections which he had heard, he was induced, if his hon. friend did not adopt that suggestion, to vote for its re-committal. The bill had at least the merit of providing for two great evils of the present system; the one by permitting the sale of game, without which he was convinced no permanent improvement could be hoped for; and the other, by altering the absurdity with respect to the qualification. As the law stood at present, a gentleman of large property, with six sons, could not qualify more than one of them, and yet he was called upon to enforce the very laws which his own family set the first example of violating. This was an anomaly, the existence of which ought not to be permitted. Objections had been raised to the severity of the measure; but, was it forgotten, that the present law was also severe, and that it was the cause of crime, the quantity of which the bill proposed to diminish? He, however, thought it would be better that the measure should for the present be postponed, and under this impression he repeated his intention to vote for its being re-committed, if his hon. friend should determine to press it.
Lord Milton
thought the House had nothing to do with the effect which the bill might have, either as to the increase or the diminution of game. It was not the duty of parliament to provide for the amusements of country gentlemen, but to legislate for the preservation of the morals of the country. The main effect of the
959
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, June 1.
SCOTCH ENTAILS BILL.]
The Earl of Aberdeen
l
The Lord-Chancellor
declared that some measure of this nature was both just and necessary. When he had recommended the decision which had altered the Scotch law, it was from no wish to make law, but because it was the best judicial opinion he
960
The bill was then read a third time.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, June 1.
EQUITABLE LOAN COMPANY BILL.]
Sir W. Congreve
Mr. S. Whitbread
said, he looked with great jealousy at the combination of gentlemen to destroy the trade of individuals. The number of pawnbrokers in the metropolis did not exceed 300, and the only difference was, that the pawnbroker lent 2
s.
d.
s.
d.
Mr. Hobhouse
supported the amendment for the sake of all tradesmen; for, if this bill were carried, there was no reason why joint-stock companies of butchers or bakers should not be established. The real object of the promoters of the bill was private profit, and by that profit the public would be losers.
Sir W. Congreve
said, that the pawn-brokers themselves were persons privileged by act of parliament; and, with regard to profit, the company would be satisfied with less than what was made by the pawnbrokers.
Mr. Monck
contended, that the bill, though christian in profession, was Jewish in principle, as the object of the speculators was, to monopolize the profits which the jews at present enjoyed.
961
MOTION RESPECTING THE TRIAL AND
After numerous petitions had been presented to the House, for an inquiry into the proceedings on the Trial of the late John Smith, in the island of Demerara,
Mr. Brougham
rose, and addressed the House to the following effect:—
Mr. Speaker
; I confess that, in bringing before this House the question on which I now rise to address you, I feel not a little disheartened by the very intense interest excited in the country, and the contrast presented to those feelings by the coldness which prevails within these walls. I cannot conceal from myself, that, even in quarters where one would least have expected it, a considerable degree of disinclination exists to enter into the discussion, or candidly to examine the details of the subject. Many persons who have, upon all other occasions, been remarkable for their manly hostility to acts of official oppression, who have been alive to every violation of the rights of the subject, and who have uniformly and most honourably viewed with peculiar jealousy every infraction of the law, strange to say, on the question of Mr. Smith's treatment, evince a backwardness to discuss, or even to listen to it. Nay, they would fain fasten upon any excuse to get rid of the subject. "What signifies inquiring," say they, "into a transaction which has occurred in a different portion of the world?" As if distance or climate made any difference in an outrage upon law or justice. One would have rather expected that the very idea of that distance; the circumstance of the event having taken place beyond the immediate scope of our laws, and out of the view of the people of this country; in possessions, where none of the inhabitants have representatives in this House, and the bulk of them have no representatives at all, one might have thought, I say, that, in place of forming a ground of objection, their remote and unprotected situation would have strengthened the claims of the oppressed to the interposition of the British legislature. Then, says another, too indolent to inquire, but prompt enough to decide, "It is true there have been a great number of petitions presented on the sub-
*
962
963
they,
they,
they
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
informed
980
reputed
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
the future!
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
they
996
997
998
999
Mr. Wilmot Horton
said:—
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
*
*
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
Mrs. Walrand
proceeds: "He (Mr. Forbes) said, how he envied Mr. Tucker his immediate death; and seemed in the most excruciating agony, but perfectly in his senses. I entreated the guard, in the name of every principle of humanity, just to let me send to Golden Grove, the next estate, to Dr. Goldie; I tried to get them to look at the dying, bleeding man, hoping the sight of his misery would move their compassion. Each of the guards, at different times, Murphy, Rodney, and others, refused. The man died at half past twelve that night. In the course of the forenoon of Tuesday, Murphy (the man since executed) came into the gallery of the sick-house, and was examining the house. I asked what was the meaning of all they had done, and what they wanted. He said, their freedom; the king had sent it out, and their owners would not give it. I asked, 'Who told you so?' he said, 'parson Smith preached it every Sunday.' I gave him my word most solemnly that I knew nothing of it; at least our negroes had received no such freedom. They seemed to think I was deceiving them. He said, parson Smith was put in the stocks also. They said, 'The negroes no want to put him in, but parson Smith said, they must put him in, if they put other whites in, for copy of countenance.'"
1026
1027
*
*
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
Sir James Mackintosh
said:—
Mr. Speaker
; even if I had not been loudly called upon, and directly challenged by the honourable gentleman—even if his accusations, now repeated after full consideration, did not make it my duty to vindicate the petition, which I had the honour to present, from unjust reproach—I own that I should have been anxious to address the House on this occasion; not to strengthen a case already invincible, but to bear my solemn testimony against the most unjust and cruel abuse of power, under a false pretence of law, that has in our times dishonoured any portion of the British empire. I am sorry that the hon. gentleman, after so long an interval for reflection, should have this night repeated those charges against the London Missionary Society, which, when he first made them, I thought rash, and which I am now entitled to treat as utterly groundless. I should regret to be detained by them for a moment, from the great question of humanity, of justice, before us, if I did not feel that they excite a prejudice against the case of Mr. Smith, and that the short discussion sufficient to put them aside leads directly to the vindication of the memory of that oppressed man.
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
heard,
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
*
*
1047
*
*
1048
1049
this man
1050
*
*
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
"That, ev'n his bones from insult to protect,
Some frail memorial, still erected nigh,
With uncouth rhimes and shapeless sculpture deckt,
Might claim the passing tribute of a sigh."
1067
1068
Mr. Scarlett
rose, and begged that a short time might be allowed him to express his opinion on this subject, and to state the reasons for the vote which he should give on the present motion. He expressed his warmest admiration at the talent and eloquence which had been displayed by the learned and honourable member who had brought forward the motion; but he doubted very much whether he ought to concur in a vote of condemnation proposed against individuals who had no advocate in that House, and proposed in language which described them as little better than murderers: for it was admitted, by both of his learned friends, that if the persons whose conduct was now under consideration had had the courage to carry into execution the sentence passed against Mr. Smith, the present proposition would have the effect of stigmatising them as persons who had committed murder. When called on to take part in such a vote, directed against individuals not before the House, he could not but wish, that, instead of passionate
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
Dr. Lushington
rose, but was nearly inaudible from the cries for adjournment. He said he thought there were many gentlemen most anxious to speak on this question, and he should, therefore, submit to the feeling of the House; ready now to proceed, but willing to defer the expression of his sentiments, if they should think it necessary.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, June 2.
JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES.]
The Earl of Lauderdale
rose to move his two resolutions relative to bills for incorporating Joint-Stock Companies. In addition to the amendments he had already made, he proposed to alter the amount of capital required to be paid up, from four-fifths to three-fourths, and with this amendment he now moved, that these resolutions be agreed to.
The Marquis of Downshire
hoped their lordships would exempt Ireland from the operation of these resolutions, or at least,
1077
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, that the noble marquis totally misunderstood the effect of the resolutions. Instead of preventing capital from being invested in mining speculations, the regulation, if adopted by the House, would cause it to be paid up. The stock of such companies would be no longer nominal, but real. So far from being hostile to the removal of capital from this country to Ireland, he wished to secure its transmission.
The Marquis of Downshire
was still of opinion, that the proposed regulation would have the effect of preventing the transmission of capital to Ireland. He did not mean to propose to exempt mining companies generally, but only those to be established in Ireland. He accordingly moved the insertion, among the exceptions, of the words "or relating to mines in Ireland."
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, June 2.
Mr. Alderman Wood
1078
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, June 3.
FREEDOM OF DISCUSSION.]
Mr. Hume
presented a petition from Stokesley, praying for Freedom of Public Discussion, both in speaking and writing. He said, he quite agreed with the petitioners in censuring the number of prosecutions for publishing books on religious topics; to which prosecutions new vigour seemed to have been given since the present Attorney-general had come into his office.
Mr. M. A. Taylor
did not oppose the bringing up the petition, but he would take leave to say, that if such opinions as those promulgated by Carlile and others were disseminated with impunity, the uninformed, and lower classes of society would be left without protection against the basest and most mischievous schemes. He had himself seen a House in Fleet-street, on which was an inscription stating, that it was the "Repository for the Deist and the Republican." He had no objection to every man's worshipping God in his own way; but he must denounce as highly dangerous such practices as these. There ought to be a Church Establishment in every state; but the attack now made was levelled against all religion.
Mr. Hume
replied, that nothing contained in the petition warranted the tirade just delivered by the hon. member. Such tirades were generally mere cant and hypocrisy. One of the cant words employed on these occasions was "Blasphemy," which even the hon. member would find it difficult to explain. The petition only prayed freedom of discussion. He moved, that the clerk should read it at length. It was read accordingly.
Mr. M. A Taylor
threw himself upon the candour of the House, to decide whether any thing he had said warranted the anger his hon. friend had expressed. In his opinion, the purport of the petition was, to prevent prosecutions for publications injurious to religion. No man was prosecuted for his opinions. It was lord Mansfield's doctrine, that if the Devil came into Court, he must have' justice; and even those who had impugned the Gospel and blasphemed religion, had met with
1079
Mr. W. Smith
admitted, that his hon. friend was as free as any man from cant and hypocrisy. Religion must stand upon truth only, and truth could only be discovered by discussion. He once had believed that the promulgation of certain opinions ought to be repressed; but he was now convinced that such a doctrine was equally dangerous to truth, and to the liberty of the subject. All experience tended to shew, that prosecutions for religion's sake were ineffectual.
Mr. Hume
explained, that he had not meant to apply the phrase, "cant and hypocrisy" to his hon. friend.
Mr. Warre
concurred with what had fallen from the hon. member for Durham.
Ordered to lie on the table.
TRIAL AND CONDEMNATION OF MISSIONARY SMITH.]
Dr. Lushington
Sir R. Wilson
took that opportunity of asking the secretary for the colonies, first, whether the minutes laid on the table of the House were the only official copy of the trial which the government had received; and secondly, whether the hon. gentleman was prepared to admit or deny the authenticity of the copy of evidence published by the Missionary Society? If there had been any suppression of evidence, it would be a great aggravation of the charge which had been made against the authorities of Demerara.
Mr. W. Horton
, in answer to the first question, said, that the minutes received by government had been printed without the omission or alteration of a single word. With respect to the second question, he could neither affirm nor deny the authenticity of the copy of the trial published by the Missionary Society. There were discrepancies between that and the official Copy, with respect to which he would leave gentlemen to draw their own conclusions.
1080
Mr. Buxton
said, that as some doubt existed as to whether the court had received hearsay evidence, he begged to state, that Mr. Elliott, a missionary, who was present at the trial, was now in London.
Mr. Lockhart
asked, whether the authorities in Demerara had issued a proclamation revoking martial law?
Mr. W. Horton
replied, that there could be no doubt that martial law had been repealed.
Mr. Brotigham
said, he had at first intended to propose the resumption of the debate to-morrow; but for the reasons stated by his learned friend, he consented to the postponement.
The order of the day for resuming the debate was then fixed for the 11th instant.
NEW CHURCHES BILL.]
On the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill,
Mr. James
said, he must protest against the uncharitableness of alleging, that all those who thought with him were hostile to the established church. In that religion he had been born and educated, and that religion he should continue to respect; but he was decidedly opposed to spending the public money on such purposes, whilst such ample revenues remained in the hands of the church. How was it that the Dissenters were able to build chapels and meeting-houses for the maintenance of religion? Were the Protestants less zealous? He believed the fact was, that the exertions of the Protestants were mainly impeded by ecclesiastical regulations. He would mention the circumstance illustrative of his opinion, which had occurred in Liverpool. There was in that town a reverend gentleman of the name of Bragge, regularly educated at Oxford, who built a chapel at his own expense. He was a most excellent reader and preacher, consequently he was much followed, and brought about him an extensive congregation, from which he derived a handsome property. This vocation he continued to follow for the space of twenty years; when the then bishop of Chester sent to him, telling him he would be very happy to come and consecrate his chapel. Mr. Bragge very respectfully declined the honour. Shortly after the bishop proceeded against him for preaching in an unconsecrated chapel; in consequence of which Mr. Bragge took out a
1081
Mr. Hume
seconded the amendment. He thought there never had been a measure so ill-timed, and particularly after the statement that no part of this money was to be applied for three years. Let churches be built by those who required them, and let the existing regulations with respect to building churches be revised, and there would be no necessity for calling on the public money.
The amendment was negatived, and the bill went through the committee.
VAGRANTS BILL—WHIPPING.]
On the motion of Mr. Estcourt, the House went into a committee on this bill. On the clause for "lewdly and obscenely exposing the person,"
Mr. John Smith
begged the House to reflect on the possible abuse which might grow out of such an enactment. To give a summary power of conviction to magistrates to punish men merely because witnesses were found ready to swear to the fact, might occasion the greatest perversion of justice. The very charge itself subjected the accused to the whole weight of public opinion, which in this country was decisive. If himself or any of his honourable friends were merely charged with such an offence, and no investigation were allowed, save the oath of an informer, they would never recover from the consequent depression of feeling during their lives. What also must be the sufferings of a respectable family, when the head of it was, on the oath of a solitary witness, accused of such an offence? The feelings of the honest and deserving classes ought not lightly to be exposed to such grievous imputations. At least they should be allowed that security which the intervention of a jury would afford them. There could be no objection, on the ground of a delay in the administration of justice, as a jury would go through the whole investigation in ten minutes. The offence was
1082
Sir J. Newport
also objected to a summary conviction before one magistrate, and on the oath of one witness, in a case where that conviction would necessarily consign a man to infamy for life. The higher the offence, and the more dreadful the consequences of conviction, the more necessary it was that the greatest caution should be used to guard against injustice. Trial by jury would undoubtedly be the safest proceeding. No man thought more highly than he did of the character of justices of the peace generally; but this was not a case which ought to be left to the decision of a single magistrate.
Mr. Estcourt
acknowledged, that in the first instance he was strongly against introducing this offence into the bill, and so were the committee; but, considering it expedient to obtain all the information they could upon the subject from magistrates, they found, after extensive inquiry, that some provision of the kind seemed absolutely necessary. In introducing that provision, they had endeavoured to guard it as much as possible from abuse. The offence was exclusively that of insult to a female. It had been stated by the magistrates, that the offence was so frequent, and it was so difficult to prevail upon females to overcome their natural delicacy, and prosecute the offender in a court of justice, that some summary punishment was almost indispensable.
Mr. Monck
contended, that as the liberty of appeal was given by a subsequent clause, it could not be said that a conviction under this bill depended on the decision of a single magistrate. If any party were discontented with the decision of a single magistrate on his case, he had full power to obtain upon it the decision of a bench of magistrates, before whom he would be able to have the assistance of counsel, and to derive all the benefit which he ought from the respectability of
1083
Mr. Secretary Peel,
while he admitted that the question was one of considerable difficulty and delicacy, supported the clause. It was only when the charge was made by a female, that the accused could be convicted of the offence; where the charge was made by a man there must necessarily be two witnesses. He was quite aware, notwithstanding all the precautions that could be taken, that it was a power that might be abused; and it would be advisable to have occasional returns laid before parliament of the convictions under the act, to ascertain from time to time, not only whether there had been any abuse, but whether there had been any suspicion of abuse? It might be also a subject for future consideration, whether or not, where the enormity of the offence was very great, it should not be liable to a punishment of greater severity.
Mr. Monck
argued against that part of it which empowered the magistrates to cause individuals convicted as incorrigible rogues to be whipped. In his opinion, twelve months imprisonment, and the labour of the tread-wheel, was a sufficient punishment. He never would consent to any measure that savoured of torture; which the practice of whipping did. Formerly, sturdy vagrants were punished by whipping, branding on the forehead, boring the ears, and slitting the nose. All these inflictions, except that of whipping, were now done away; and that remnant of a system of torture ought also to be removed. It degraded the individual; and instead of reforming his evil propensities, rendered him more determined in the pursuit of vice. Another great objection was, that nothing was said as to the mode of apportioning the quantity. If the punishment were persevered in, some criterion, such as the breaking the skin, or the drawing of blood, should be laid down for the direction of those who administered the punishment. He concluded by moving "that that part of the clause which related to the punishment of whipping be left out."
1084
Mr. Lockhart
said, there was something absurd in the idea of sending to the house of correction persons who were convicted of being "incorrigible" rogues. He strenuously objected to the practice of whipping. Wherever it was resorted to, it must lead to consequences diametrically opposite to those which it should be the object of all criminal legislation to produce. Suppose a man sentenced to twelve months' imprisonment, and, in addition, to a whipping. At what time was that whipping to be inflicted? Was it to be inflicted before the imprisonment commenced? In that case, the individual would go into gaol, exasperated against society, and more anxious for revenge than for reformation. Was the punishment to be administered at the end of six months? Why, during that period the morals of the man might have been improved, he might have repented of the evil of his ways; and therefore it was unjust to punish him. It was also unwise: for that punishment would, perhaps, drive him back to his old courses. Or, was the whipping to take place at the expiration of the twelve months? There, also, the danger existed of committing an act of injustice, by punishing an individual whose moral character had been improved. If whipping was at all resorted to, it ought to be as a summary punishment. The offender should be set at liberty the moment he was so punished.
Mr. J. Smith
objected to whipping, under any circumstances, as a punishment that could do no good. It was absurd to suppose, that by tormenting the body, they could reform and render more virtuous the mind. Severe punishments always had the effect of exciting our sympathies on behalf of the suffering individual. The horror which his crime should elicit was lost in the recollection of the protracted misery which he endured. No one could reflect without shuddering on the torments which Damien and Ravillac were compelled to endure. However atrocious the conduct of a criminal might be, the refinement of cruelty in punishing him always excited some degree of sympathy for him. He looked upon solitary confinement as a much more effectual punishment than whipping. On this point they might take a useful lesson from their French neighbours. There 30,000,000 of people were ruled without any corporal punishment, with the exception of marking on the shoulder, and that, he believed, was done
1085
Mr. Estcourt
said, that the present was an improvement on the old law. Formerly, vagrants, before they could be passed to their parishes, were obliged to undergo a whipping, and an imprisonment of seven days. By this act, however, whipping was confined to incorrigible rogues and vagrants only; That punishment was awarded, not in the hope of effecting reformation, but as a terror to others who were likely to transgress.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, it appeared to him that gentlemen had argued this question with reference to the general subject of whipping, instead of confining themselves to its immediate connexion with this clause. He could not coincide with those who were of opinion that corporal punishment should be entirely abolished. The knowledge of the fact that it might be inflicted for particular offences, produced a salutary terror, which checked the growth of such offences. It was not introduced for the purpose of effecting reform, but as an example to others. A learned gentleman had made a remark on the word correction as inapplicable to incorrigible offenders. The word had, however, two meanings. If it were taken to mean reform, it would certainly be absurd to apply it to those who were adjudged to be incorrigible. But here the word correction simply meant punishment. To show the necessity of having recourse to corporal punishment, he would state a fact which had occurred some time ago. The convicts in the Penitentiary had been removed on board the hulks, and were there subject to the same regulations as they had been governed by while within the walls of the prison. Those regulations, however, which answered very well in the Penitentiary, were found insufficient on board the hulks. The convicts became turbulent and refractory: they combined together, insulted those who were placed over them, and behaved badly in every respect. A bill was in consequence passed, placing them under the usual regulations that were observed on board the hulks. Those regulations authorized corporal punishment for refractory behaviour. The consequence was, that the terror of that punishment reduced the convicts from the Penitentiary to a state of perfect subordination and obedience.
1086
Mr. R. Smith
had no objection to visiting incorrigible rogues with this species of punishment, if those who ought tocome under the denomination of incorrigible were properly pointed out. The bill now before the committee set forth three classes of persons, as coming within the denomination of incorrigible rogues. 1. Those who break prison, before the term of their imprisonment under this bill. These were certainly fit subjects for additional punishment. 2. Those who were a second time convicted, as vagrants, under the provisions of the bill. He had no objection to the infliction of the punishment in cases of that nature. 3. Persons assaulting and resisting officers, while endeavouring to apprehend them as rogues and vagabonds. To this he could not agree; because officers might endeavour to arrest an innocent man. Such an individual, in a moment of passion and irritation, might resist and assault the officers. In that case, under this third portion of the clause, he must be considered an incorrigible rogue and vagabond, though, on inquiry, it might be found, that when the attempt was made to apprehend him, he was no rogue or vagabond at all. He therefore proposed, that the words "and being thereafter convicted as a rogue and vagabond" should be introduced.
Mr. W. Smith
said, it was true that this punishment might not reform the mind of an offender; but it would forcibly impress on his memory the inconvenience which must result from his adherence to those practices which occasioned such a painful and disgraceful visitation.
Mr. J. Smith
was happy to learn from the right hon. secretary that his mind was still occupied with the revision of the criminal code. They had gone on, exercising a great severity of punishment, for many years, with very little effect; and he was convinced that if a milder course were adopted, much good would result from it.
The amendment proposed by Mr. R. Smith was agreed to; after which the House resumed.
MARINE INSURANCE BILL.]
On the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill,
Mr. Alderman Thompson
rose to oppose the Speaker's leaving the chair. The hon. gentleman, after observing upon the mass of interests which the bill affected, stated that it was the desire of parties concerned
1087
Sir F. Ommaney
seconded the amendment.
The House divided: For committing the bill 29. Against it 25. On the question "that the Speaker do leave the chair,"
Mr. Robertson
observed, that there should be more caution exercised In infringing upon vested rights, and especially in the present case. Here was a company (that of Lloyd's Room) of long establishment, which had conducted marine insurances in the most advantageous manner for the whole country, as well as with profit and honour to themselves. They had extended and improved their establishment, until the advantages of it were felt by British navigators and merchants in every corner of the globe: they had, by their enlarged intelligence and active agency, become the centre of all information respecting maritime affairs; from them was drawn the knowledge which alone could enable any company to conduct insurances with safety: they were in possession of all particulars by which the hazards of different policies were distinguished. The dangers of particular seas, new discoveries with respect to sandbanks, by which nautical charts were improved, were delivered to them first. Their resources were such, that the two other companies, which were allowed by the act of George 1st. to effect marine insurances, were obliged to apply to this company for information to guide them in effecting policies. So far from breaking down monopoly by the present bill, it would more than ever promote it, by condensing the power of money capital, and placing the public interest at the entire disposal of the wealthy.
Mr. T. Wilson
contended, that this was an improper time to meddle with the subject, and that it would ruin both the underwriters and brokers of Lloyd's. He wished the hon. member who had brought forward the measure would allow it to lie over till next session. All such measures ought to emanate from the government. The measure would create ten monopolies.
Mr. Plummer
took the same view of the matter, and contended that, little losses were ever suffered by insuring at Lloyd's.
1088
Mr. Grenfell
said, the House could not take away the privileges of Lloyd's, without granting a compensation, as had been done in the case of the South Sea Company.
Sir C. Forbes
spoke also against the motion.
The House then divided: Ayes 33, Noes 22. Majority for going into a committee 11. The House then went into the committee.
Sir F. Ommanney
proposed, as an amendment, instead of the words "from and after the passing of this act," to substitute "from and after the year of our Lord, 2000"[a laugh]. The hon. member declared his intention of dividing the committee upon it, even if he stood alone.
The committee divided: For the amendment 12: Against it 33. Majority 21. The committee next divided on the clause for saving the rights of the two chartered companies. Ayes 37: Noes 12.
Mr. Alderman Thompson
proposed a clause for rendering each partner of any insurance joint-stock company liable to the insured, notwithstanding any clause in the policy or agreement to the contrary.
Mr. Huskisson
objected to the clause, as an interference with private contracts. If a party chose to take the more limited responsibility of a joint stock rather than have his remedy against each individual, he was averse from interposing against the exercise of such discretion.
The committee then divided on the clause proposed by Mr. Alderman Thompson, for compelling any joint-stock company to enregister the names of the partners in the court of Chancery. Ayes 7: Noes 30. The House then resumed.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, June 4.
WELCH JUDICATURE BILL.]
Lord Kenyon
Lord Cawdor
was unable to discover the principle of the bill. It introduced many anomalies, and he would therefore move, as an amendment, that the bill be read a second time that day six months, and that an humble address be presented to his majesty, praying him to grant a commission to inquire into the state of
1089
Lord Redesdale
supported the bill. The object of it was the improvement of the administration of justice in Wales. There might he objections to some of the clauses, but the present was not the stage for discussing them.
Their lordships divided on the amendment: Contents 8: Not Contents 29. The bill was then read a second time.
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL.]
Lord Calthorpe
The Earl of Rosslyn
was not aware of the existence of this bill, but he was far from approving of it. Under the provisions of the laws which were passing on this subject, it would soon be impossible to tame a horse. If a man were to cut a horse's tail or ears, according to this bill he would be guilty of a misdemeanour. He objected to the increase of the penal laws, and disapproved of the principle of teaching people humanity by law.
Lord Suffield
wished the bill to pass, because it limited the discretion at present possessed by the magistrates. As the law now Mood, a man could be fined 5
l
Lord Culthorpe
said, there was a great distinction between compelling men by law to be humane, and preventing them from being cruel.
The Lord Chancellor
disapproved of the bill and would oppose it in a future stage.
The bill was read a second time.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, June 4.
CORPORATION AND TEST ACTS—PETITION FOR REPEAL OF.]
Mr. Hume
presented a petition from the Protestant Dissenters of several denominations in Chichester, praying for the repeal of these acts.
Mr. J. Smith
said, that the acts were most absurd, and a disgrace to the Statute-book. He hoped to see more of such petitions, and that, at an early day next session, the subject would be brought before the House.
1090
Sir J. Newport
remarked, that dean. Swift, when speaking of the test and corporation acts, had expressed a strong opinion, that if those laws were repealed, the Dissenters would, in a short time, succeed in overthrowing the church establishment in Ireland. They were, however, repealed in the year 1782, by one of the shortest acts on the Statute-book. It was, however, well known, that they had been productive of no such effects as those dreaded by the dean. "To show," continued the right hon. baronet, "how little was known of the repeal of those acts by his majesty's ministers in this country, I may mention that, within these five years, I was speaking to one of his majesty's ministers on the subject of Catholic emancipation, and he told me that one of his greatest objections to that measure was, that if it were carried, it would be impossible to prevent the repeal of the test and corporation acts—a measure by which the Dissenters would be enabled, in a short time, to destroy the Protestant church of Ireland. I told him, that the measure of which he spoke with so much alarm had been already carried; that the test and corporation acts in Ireland had been repealed, so far as Protestant Dissenters were concerned, forty years ago. He would not believe the fact at first, and was only convinced by my producing the statute. Such is the effect of being led by prejudice, rather than by judgment."
Mr. W. Smith
concurred with the prayer of the petition; and at the same time gave notice, that soon after the holy-days, he would present a petition on the subject.
Mr. Bright
expressed himself favourable to the petition. The case of the Protestant Dissenters was very different from that of the Roman Catholics. The House should recollect how much of their civil liberties they owed to the ancestors of those Dissenters.
Lord John Russell
thought it disgraceful to our system of laws, that such degrading stigmas should be fixed upon so highly respectable and inoffensive a class of the community.
Ordered to be printed.
EARL OF MAR'S RESTORATION BILL.]
A message from the Lords announced that their lordships had passed an act dispensing with the taking of certain oaths by Mr. Erskine, previously to the passing of an act for the restoration of the title of
1091
Mr. Secretary Peel
MR. Brougham
fully concurred in the principle of the measure for restoring the forfeited tides which gave rise to the present bill; but there were certain limitations in those bills which would be the subject of remark when they came before the House. He concurred entirely in the propriety of not requiring the attendance at present of the very estimable individual whose family title was about to be restored.
The bill went through all its stages, and was passed.
TRANSPORTATION OF OFFENDERS BILL.]
Mr. Secretary Peel,
on moving that this bill be committed, stated the object of it. It was, he said, to renew the Transportation act, which would expire in the present year, and to simplify some of its enactments. Formerly convicts were transported from this country to North America, and it was the practice, before the sailing of any ship, for the king, by an order in council, to appoint the particular place to which the convicts on board were to be conveyed. It was, therefore, necessary, as the law now stood, that a council should be called before the sailing of every ship; but as this might not be convenient, the present act gave to his majesty a general power of nominating the place to which the convicts should besent, without the necessity of assembling a council for that purpose. This bill also did away with the necessity of a particular contract being entered into with every county for the transport of its convicts. It went, likewise, to regulate the treatment of convicts. Transportation was in itself a very unequal punishment. To a
1092
Mr. Scarlett
said, that the right hon. gentleman was introducing a new principle into our penal law, by vesting in the executive the power of increasing or diminishing the punishment. The Crown had certainly the power to remit the whole or any part of a sentence, but he objected to the principle that a sentence, not remitted in whole or in part, should be habitually modified by the Crown in the execution of it, so as to take away that certainty of punishment which was so desirable in every system of law.
Mr. Secretary Peel
observed, that the Crown had always exercised the power of determining the place and manner of transportation. The sentence of transportation was beyond the seas; the place to which the convict was sent was always left to the Crown; and it would be admitted, that if a person transported had not been, from his station in life, subjected to labour, the punishment would be improperly aggravated by subjecting him to the labour, which, for men of another description, would not be an improper accompaniment of the punishment. But whatever might be said of this discretion, it was not given by the bill before the House; it had been previously exercised, and the arrangements which he had spoken of only tended to make it more systematic.
Mr. Wilmot Horton
said, it had been complained, that, from the circumstances of the colony of New South Wales, the convicts employed as servants about the towns, suffered little by what was intended as a punishment. Under the arrangements now made, they would be spread over the agricultural part of the colony, and be made to labour; which would, to
1093
NEW CHURCHES BILL.]
On the order of the day for receiving the report of the committee on this bill,
Colonel Davis
opposed the motion. He adverted to the returns laid upon the table of the House to show that even under the late erections, no attention was paid to the accommodation of the people. He instanced the populous places of Manchester and Bristol in support of that inference. He had no hostile feelings towards the national establishment, of which he was a member; but he felt persuaded, that in guarding against such a profligate waste of the public money, he best proved his respect for its character. He then moved as an amendment, "that the report be received upon that day six months."
Mr. Leycester
supported the amendment. It was pastors and priests that the people wanted, and not edifices of brick and mortar. The people sought for spiritual bread, and the chancellor of the Exchequer gave them a stone. He objected to such demands from a richly endowed church upon their dissenting brethren. It could leave no other impression on the people, but a conviction of the cupidity of our establishment.
Mr. B. Cooper
defended the bill, as the best means of assisting the national church, and preventing the continuance of that want of accommodation which tended to wean so many from the established church and fill the congregations of the Dissenters. He had heard with regret the term profligate expenditure of the public money applied to the measure. That appeared to him most extraordinary language—and only applicable to brothers. If the law permitted Dissenters to sit in that House, good sense and good taste should induce them not to speak in such unmeasured and inappropriate language.
Mr. Hume
deprecated the language made use of by the hon. member. He defended the conduct of the Dissenters,
1094
Mr. Carus Wilson
contended, that the measure was highly acceptable to a majority of the community.
Mr. Hudson Gurney
asked, whether it was intended to empower these commissioners to supply the whole funds for building the churches which might be found wanting in populous districts, or whether they were simply to grant an aid to such districts, the principal expense being to be borne by the parishioners? He asked this question, because, if the first were intended, it seemed to him to be unfair to tax the country for building churches in the towns.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer,
in answer to the hon. gentleman, observed, that the commissioners under the bill had the discretion of distributing or lending the money according to their view of the means and securities of particular parishes.
Sir J. Newport
complained of the inconsistency of making the Catholic population of Ireland pay for building Protestant churches. The extension of the new churches in England ought to be made in a different manner from that provided by the bill. He was apprehensive that this grant would be abused here as a similar grant had been in Ireland. It was extraordinary to hear the advocates of the established church talking of the great liberality with which they treated their dissenting brethren, when it was an undisputed fact, that in France and Hungary, both Catholic countries, the pastors of the Protestant church were all supported at the expense of the state.
Mr. Grattan
took the same view of the
1095
Mr. Philips
felt that it was a disgrace to the House that no grant should be made for the religious instruction of the population of Ireland, where such aid was particularly wanted, and yet that 500,000
l
Mr. Monck
would support the measure, if he thought it would conduce to the interest of the established church. He could not, however, convince himself that it was required by the interest of the establishment, and he must therefore pause before he gave it his support. He complained that the church of England had not, at present, its root in the affections of the people; and attributed its unpopularity to a want of zeal in its teachers, who, however respectable they might be in other attainments, were certainly deficient in attention to the spiritual wants of their flocks. Adverting to the manner in which the money already granted had been expended, he observed that large sums had been advanced to parishes where the inhabitants were rich; but that nothing had been advanced to parishes equally large and populous, where the inhabitants were poor. He attributed this circumstance to the regulations of the bill itself, which were exceedngly faulty. He believed that if the Methodists were allowed to build churches, and to retain the patronage of them in their own hands, it would bring back a numerous and respectable class of Dissenters to the pale of the church. In conclusion, he wished the bill to be postponed till next session, in order that the subject of it might undergo the further consideration of government.
Sir I. Coffin
—I say, Sir, let us go on, and have the churches.
The House then divided: For the amendment 9: Against it 42. The report was then brought up.
HORSES SLAUGHTERING BILL.]
On bringing up the report of this bill,
Mr. Wynn
expressed his disapprobation of this species of legislative enactment. He thought it of very little use to insist on the knackers keeping a register from day to day of the fodder they gave their horses, as it was not to be supposed
1096
Mr. R. Smith
considered the measure as unnecessary. Under the bill to prevent cruelty to animals, cognizance might be taken of the offence against which this enactment was directed.
Mr. R. Martin
said, he had been solicited by a number of highly respectable persons to introduce this measure. One gentleman, a distiller of large property in the neighbourhood of Whitechapel, where these slaughtering houses were chiefly situated, informed him, that he was obliged to remove, with his family, four miles into the country, in consequence of the disgusting scenes which they were daily obliged to witness in those haunts of cruelty. Gentlemen mistook the matter greatly, if they supposed that it was a fit object for ridicule. Had they witnessed that which he had observed with his own eyes, they would not refuse their support to the bill. He had been to see this slaughtering-house in the neighbourhood of Whitechapel. He there beheld eight or ten horses, some with their eyes knocked out, others hopping on three legs, all miserably maimed, which had upon an average been kept there several days without food. He gave the man in wailing a few shillings to procure two or three trusses of hay, which were brought accordingly. The horses, instead of their natural deliberate way of feeding, ran at the hay, and gorged it greedily, like hounds. The man who was standing by said "There now, you'd much better gi'd me the money to drink." "I would see you d—d first," was his reply; upon which the ruffian said, "that he would trample down the hay, and make it impossible for the horses to eat it." This compelled him to compromise with the fellow, to whom he gave two shillings; but he took ample vengeance upon him afterwards, by sending more than 200 letters, appointing him to come to various parts of the town to bring away dead cows and horses. Surely every gentleman ought to be anxious to save the horse that had been instrumental to his use and pleasure, from so appalling a fate. For his own part, he never allowed a horse, over which he had once thrown his leg as its owner, to be sold: and he had left directions in his will for having them shot, if his successor should attempt to do so. The hon. gentleman related several other instances of outrageous cruelty practised
1097
The bill was ordered to be re-committed.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, June 9.
GAME LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.]
Earl Grosvenor
rose to introduce a bill for amending the present Game Laws. After expressing his regret, that the bill on this subject lately introduced into the other House had not passed, the noble earl stated that he thought it was the duty of his majesty's ministers to bring forward some measure calculated to settle a question of so much importance to the good order and morals of the country. Since, however, that had not been done, he had resolved to propose to their lordships the adoption of a measure which did not interfere with the state of the game laws generally, and which went no further than to repeal a number of statutes by which the sale and purchase of game was prevented.
The Earl of Lauderdale
did not object to the measure, but regretted that his noble friend had brought forward the bill at so late a period of the session.
Lord Suffield
approved of the noble earl's bill as far as it went. His only objection was, that it did not go far enough. The noble lord then specified several objects which be wished the bill to embrace, and intimated, that if nothing effectual was done this year, he should consider it his duty to bring forward a measure next session.
The Earl of Limerick
supported the bill.
The Earl of Carnarvon
also supported it, though from the state of the population of the country he did not expect that the measure would have all the effect which some noble lords expected from it. He approved of the repeal of the statutes to which his noble friend had alluded; for the laws against the sale and purchase of game did not prevent the offence of poaching.
The Earl of Liverpool
regretted, that the bill had been brought in at so late a period of the session, and thought it would be better to postpone it to next year.
The bill was then read a first time.
1098
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, June 10.
IRISH POOR.]
The Bishop of Raphoe
rose to call their lordships' attention to an important petition which he had to present—a petition which afforded satisfactory evidence of the harmony in which his majesty's subjects lived in that part of Ireland whence it came; namely, the parish of Kilmore, in the county of Armagh; for it was signed by the rector, the curate, the churchwardens, the Roman Catholic and Dissenting ministers, and a great part of the inhabitants. The object for which the petition prayed was, that their lordships would pass a law to enable the inhabitants of any parish in Ireland to maintain their own poor. The petitioners did not, however, wish that the enactment should be imperative. As the law now stood in Ireland, the poor, suffering from the infirmities of age or sickness, obtained no support but such as they might derive from the spontaneous charity of individuals, or from benevolent institutions. He should be doing great injustice to the Irish people, if he did nut acknowledge that they possessed a charitable deposition; but it was notorious that, notwithstanding the general exercise of charity, the extent of misery did not diminish. Though an alteration in the law was therefore desirable, he was, at the same time, ready to admit, that the introduction into Ireland of the system of poor-laws established in this country was by no means practicable; and if practicable, would by no means be desirable. The dread of the introduction of that system was consequently ideal; and he trusted that their lordships would not allow any apprehension of that kind to prevent them from giving their sanction to a measure of so much practical utility as that for which the petitioners prayed. Parish vestries in Ireland had frequently attempted to supply the wants of the industrious poor; but there existed no law by which they could properly accomplish that object. All that the petitioners prayed for was, that the power of attending to the distresses of the poor might be made, not a compulsory, but a legitimate part of vestry business. In the present state of the law, if a rate were to be agreed to at a vestry meeting, any of those fomentors of village discords with which the country abounded might oppose it, and render it nugatory. If the plan of every parish making a voluntary
1099
The Earl of Limerick
was greatly surprised that the introduction of such a measure as that recommended in the petition, should be proposed in their lordships' House; and he was still more surprised when he considered the quarter from which it came. That the establishment of a system of poor-laws should at this time be proposed for Ireland, was truly astonishing. He spoke in the hearing of many noble lords from that country, and he appealed to them whether they were not convinced, that such a proposition was calculated to spread horror and alarm from the apprehension of the consequences which must attend the adoption of any plan of the kind alluded to. He would, however, venture to suggest to his right reverend friend a course by which the object of his petition might be attained, without its experiencing that opposition with which the measure prayed for would be met. He had heard, that, according to the original institution of benefices, their profits were divided into three parts—one was for the incumbent; another was for the church; and the third was appropriated to the maintenance of the poor. Let this plan of distribution of the church revenues be tried before any new plan was proposed. He could not agree with the view taken of this subject in the petition; the only good thing in which was the union of the parties who had signed it.
The Earl of Darnley,
though he did not approve of the object of the petition, did not regard it with the same horror as his noble mend. He would have no objection to voluntary contributions, were the matter to stop there; but as it was not likely, that such contributions would produce much, it was probable that some
1100
Earl Fitzwilliam
disapproved of any attempt to introduce the English system of poor-laws into Ireland; but as it appeared that every person in a certain district prayed for the measure explained in the petition, he thought it might be tried there as an experiment.
Lord Clifden
was against transferring the English poor-laws to Ireland. He agreed with his noble friend that the Church of Ireland ought to furnish from its ample revenues something towards supplying the wants of the poor.
STANDING ORDER RESPECTING JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES.]
The Marquis of Downshire
The Earl of Lauderdale
wished to remind their lordships, that if they proceeded in the way proposed, they would violate the standing order which they had made only a few days ago, which required that every bill of this description, before its being read a second time, should be referred to a committee to report whether three-fourths of the capital of the company had been paid up. He would not oppose the motion.
The Earl of Harrowby
considered the suspension of the order in the present case highly proper. The noble marquis had already proposed to except Irish mines from the operation of the standing order, which he thought ought to be done, as those works were not to be classed with the numerous bubbles against which it was the object of their lordships to guard. As, in considering the state of Ireland, their lordships had thought it right for the purpose of securing the tranquillity of that country, to overlook those great principles of legislation by which they were usually guided, so it surely might be proper, for the sake of finding employment to a miserable population, to overlook some of those principles of political economy, the general advantage of adhering to which they acknowledged. He therefore did not regret that he should be the individual who, on the same night that he had to move the passing of the Insurrection act, had also to propose the means of facilitating the progress of a bill of the nature of that now before their lordships. He certainly did not think that this bill was
1101
l
The Marquis of Lansdown
expressed his full concurrence in the motion. If a few days ago he had thought that, upon the ground of peculiar circumstances, Ireland ought to be excepted from the operation of the standing order, he could not refuse his consent to the suspension of that order, for the purpose of forwarding the measure now before the House. However proper in principle the standing order might be, and however right its practical application might be in a country abounding in capital, he was convinced that it would be extremely wrong to enforce it with respect to a poor country. In Ireland, where the want of capital was so much felt, every facility to its transmission ought to be offered. But even with regard to this country, though the principle of the order could not be contested, he, with all respect for the judgment of their lordships, thought they would have done better not to have passed it. He could, indeed, see no reason why their lordships should not consider every individual case which came before them on its own merits. There could be no occasion for establishing so many general rules, unless it were wished, by their means,
"At once to get conviction in the lump,
And come to short conclusions by a jump."
1102
The Earl of Lauderdale
reminded their lordships of the grounds on which the order had been adopted, and adverted to the nature of the speculations against which it was directed. When such absurd and mischievous projects were afloat, he thought it high time for at least one, branch of the legislature to mark them with its disapprobation. The schemes, with respect to which the standing order operated, were very different from those companies which were excepted. The canal property of this country amounted to about 13,000,000
l
l
IRISH INSURRECTION ACT.]
The Earl of Harrowby
The Earl of Darnley
said, that nothing but the strongest necessity could have induced him to give his consent to the present measure; but undoubtedly something of this kind was necessary, and the necessity would continue unless the House would agree to probe the various evils of Ireland to the bottom. Whatever was done would be useless, unless it was bottomed on the great principle of making every individual in that country equal in civil rights, let his religious opinions he what they might.
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, that he found himself compelled to give his assent to the motion; and he should give it with even greater reluctance than he now did, if he felt that it was a measure for the security of the rich only; but he had all along felt that it was the duty of the legislature, with a view to the interest of the poor as well as the rich, to maintain the tranquillity of the country and the security of property: for as many of the evils of Ireland arose from the small portion of wealth in that country, what would be the state of it, if persons of wealth were compelled, from the insecurity of life and property, to withdraw and. become non-residents? He would, next session, propose an extension of the inquiry, not to the whole of Ireland, but-
1103
Lord Holland
said, that, after the repeated discussions on this measure, and the almost unanimous agreement of the committee in recommending the renewal of it, together with the concurring opinion of persons whom he had been accustomed to look up to with deference, he did not mean to press upon their lordships the objections to this measure which he deeply felt; but he should avail himself of his privilege of recording on the Journals his reasons against it. His objections to the bill were not founded on any doubt which he entertained of the disturbances in that country, but were such as were expressed by a member of that House nearly 30 years ago (then sir L. Parsons), that so far from such measures tranquillizing Ireland, they tended to perpetuate the disturbances which they pretended to allay. He objected to the bill, because it tended to make the gentry and magistracy look to the violation, instead of the maintenance of the law, for their security; and because it taught the wretched peasantry to regard the laws as a conspiracy of the rich against the poor. He admitted, that the administration of this law might be temperate and moderate, and that ministers by this inquiry had opened the door to a glimpse of hope for better things; but nevertheless, he would not give his consent to a measure which was a violation of all law, and was nothing more nor less than establishing a despotic government.
The Earl of Harrowby
said, that in omitting to make any statement to their lordships on introducing this bill, if he had been to blame it arose from a mistaken conception of his duty. Considering the composition of the committee, having for members of it many noble lords on the other side, and many who had great properties in the country, he had thought it best to leave the bill on the recommendation of that committee, without the expression of his own personal opinion. It was not his opinion, nor that of any noble lord on the committee, that this measure would tranquillize Ireland, or that it should make part of the permanent law of the land. It was a temporary evil to which they must submit, for the purpose of obtaining a permanent good.
Lord Prudhoe,
notwithstanding all that he had heard, could not give his support to the bill.
1104
Lord Gort
supported the bill.
It was then read a third time.
IRISH TITHES COMPOSITION AMENDMENT
The Earl of Liverpool
The Earl of Kingston
objected to the bill as a measure which was calculated to give the clergy what ever incomes they may be pleased to ask for, and to place them in a better condition than they wereat present.
The Bishop of Limerick
[Dr. John Jebb] rose, and addressed their lordships as follows:
*
*
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
*
*
1113
1114
c.
*
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
"more or less is treason against property."
1121
l
l
l
l
1122
l
1123
*
*
1124
l
l
l
l
l
1125
l
l
1126
1127
l
l
l
1128
l
1129
l
l
*
l
l
l.
l.
*
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
l
s.
d.;
l
s.
d.;
l
l
1137
l
l
l
l
1138
l
l
l
l
l
1139
1140
l
l
*
*
1141
1142
1143
"All earthly joys are less,
"Than this one joy, of doing kindnesses."
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
*
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
l
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
Lord King
said, that the right rev. prelate had not directed his views to those material parts of the case, which involved the question of first-fruits, tithes, and episcopal pluralities. He had, however, stood forward in defence of that long abandoned damsel, the church of Ireland, who had so long stood in need of a defender—aye, and of a reformer. He had, however, promised a ripe harvest of good effects for the future, provided there was no profane attempt to interfere with that establishment. Most completely did he differ from that right rev. prelate as to the uses and benefits of that establishment. He considered it rather in the light of a trade than a church. He thought it was literally what Mr. Burke had called it, when he had said—"Non est Ecclesia, sed magnum latrocinium." Such was the character which even the right rev. prelate's favourite authority had pronounced on that Church, which had been that night so lauded. The right rev. prelate, in passing his panegyric, had kept studiously out of view the whole process of the tithe system, the valuators, the proctors, the bailiffs, and the whole dramatis persona; of that cortège. The truth was, that the less that was said, as to the merits of that Church, the better. If it were as perfect as the right rev. prelate represented it to be, why the necessity for
1165
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that the remarks of the noble lord withdrew the veil. The friends of the establishment would know now what they had to expect. It was no longer the granting a few more political situations; nothing would satisfy but the total destruction of the church establishment in Ireland.
BRITISH MUSEUM BILL—MR. PAYNE
Lord Colchester
said:—My Lords; I beg leave to lay upon your table, a bill for giving effect to a splendid bequest which has been recently made to the British Museum. The late
1166
l
1167
c.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, June 10.
ABOLITION OF SLAVERY—TRIAL OF
Mr. Grenfell
presented a petition from Falmouth, complaining of the unwarrantable treatment of the late Mr. Smith, at Demerara. The hon. member observed, that it was too much the fashion now-a-days to apply the epithets of methodist, fanatic, and saint, to any body who thought proper to complain of the hardships of the negroes in the West-Indies. He was neither a methodist nor a fanatic, and most certainly not a saint; but, as a member of a religion, inculcating peace and good-will to all men, and teaching the
1168
Mr. Robertson
could assure the House, that there were many in the West-Indies who highly recommended the diffusion of instruction by missionaries, and who thought that the Christian religion could be best imparted to the negroes, by that meritorious class of persons.
Sir I. Coffin
said, that the blacks were contented and happy, as long as they were left alone, and without having their heads stuffed with nonsense, which they did not understand. He had seen thousands of negroes as fat and as jolly as the hon. member himself.
Mr. Warre
protested against the wanton cruelty which had been inflicted by the recent commutation, as it was called, of the sentences of some of the black prisoners. To give a man his life, and then to torture him to death, was a singular sort of commutation. Yet such was the fact. What else could be called the sparing a man from being hanged, to inflict upon him the military execution of a thousand lashes? He hoped that while the government at home were so laudably engaged in discouraging and abolishing that species of torture, they would express such an opinion upon its infliction in the colonies, as would prevent a repetition of these acts.
Mr. Manning
declared, that when he was in the West-Indies, he had seen no instance of the infliction of exorbitant punishments; and he could add, that pains were taken in the colonies to promote religious education.
Ordered to lie on the table.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS—CORK
Mr. Hutchinson
rose to pre-
1169
1170
Mr. W. Becker
supported the petition. He was glad of any opportunity of expressing his opinion on this great question, though this was not the occasion for entering into a full discussion of it.: All the friends of the question could do was, to induce the House to come coolly to the consideration of it, and to be in no manner prejudiced on account of the alleged misconduct of a few persons, on whom the injustice of the present laws operated most severely, and who could not be expected to feel or to express themselves respecting them, in the same manner as indifferent spectators. The manifestation of feeling on the part of these individuals was only an additional proof of the necessity of the repeal of the oppressive laws.—In a land of general freedom, no law could be made against a particular body of subjects which they would not be able with success to evade. What would be the conduct of the people of England, if the major part of the population laboured under the same disabilities as the Catholics of Ireland? If the people themselves were indifferent, would not persons of weight and consequence be found endeavouring to rouse them from a lethargy so disgraceful, and the most respected of those who now heard him would be branded with the name of agitators.
Ordered to lie on the table.
SMALL DEBTS IN SCOTLAND.]
Lord A. Hamilton
rose, for leave to bring in a bill for the extension of the small debts act in Scotland. In doing so, he observed, that he did not act from individual feeling. In the report of the commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of the courts of justice in Scotland, it was stated, that the commissioners and the justices of the peace were unanimous in wishing for the extension of the act. Numerous petitions had also been presented in favour of the measure; from which it appeared, that creditors in Scotland often gave up debts of moderate amount altogether, ra-
1171
l
l
The Lord Advocate
doubted, whether the feeling in Scotland was so favourable to the noble lord's measure as was supposed. The bill looked only to the interest of the creditor; but that of the debtor deserved also to be considered. Here was a new facility to be given to the recovery of small debts, carrying of course with it a fresh encouragement to the giving of small credits. More than three-fourths of the persons now imprisoned in Scotland were imprisoned for small debts; and the bill gave a power of summary confinement to the creditor, beyond that which he possessed already. He had no objection to the bill being brought in and printed: but, upon examination, it would be found, that heavy objections existed against it. It Was worth while to observe the mode of doing business in those courts, of which it was now sought to extend the jurisdiction.
Mr. Maxwell
was favourable to the principle of the bill, but wished that something could be done to get rid of the system of imprisoning for small debts.
Mr. Hume
wished to extend the jurisdiction of the courts in question to 15
l
Leave was then given to bring in the bill.
IMPRESSMENT OF SEAMEN.]
Mr. Hume
rose to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice. It was his intention, he said, to have moved for a select committee, as the best mode of inquiring into the means of remedying the evils of Impressment; but having, in the early part of the session, undertaken another inquiry in a committee, he; felt he could not have done justice to either had he brought both forward at the same time. He had been compelled, by the necessity of attending to his own convenience, and to the convenience of other members, to drive it off to this late period of the session; and he should not
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
s
s.
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
1182
1183
l
l
l
1184
1185
l
l
Mr. Robertson
said, he would second the motion, because he thought inquiry was a good thing; but he was by no means satisfied that such a committee as the hon. gentleman recommended would effect the purposes which he appeared to anticipate from it. For his own part, he was not sure that there was not much less disposition to desertion in the navy than in the merchant service. He did not believe it possible to do without the impressment of seamen; but being willing to see whether any thing, and what, could be done towards attaining the objects which the hon. gentleman had in view, he would support the resolution.
Sir G. Cockburn
said, he found great difficulty in following the hon. mover through the very extended range which
1186
1187
1188
1189
1190
1191
Sir Isaac Coffin
said, he should not have spoken on this subject if the hon. mover had not called the navy the "white negroes." Now, the moment an impressed man was brought on board ship there was no difference between him and a volunteer, and more volunteers ran from ships of war than pressed men. He could enumerate a number of eminent persons in the navy who had been originally pressed men. There was old admiral Bowater, he was a white slave. There was admiral Mitchell, he was a white slave. There was sir T. Trowbridge, he was a white slave. There was captain Butterfield, who was impressed in 1793, and was a captain in 1798. There was captain Cook, one of the first of navigators he was another; and there were, he had no doubt, 20,000 of these white slaves. If the men were not otherwise to be had, it was necessary to press them; and if they had a good bellyfull of victuals, coats on their backs, and medicine when they were sick, they could not be called slaves.
Mr. Hobhouse
said, that a man might have a good coat on his back, good victuals in his belly, and medicine when he was sick, and yet be the veriest slave that ever crawled. As to the expression which his hon. friend had applied to the navy, and which the gallant admiral had noticed, it was only intended to convey the assertion, that seamen were not in possession of the privileges of other Englishmen; an assertion which could not be otherwise than correct, while they were liable at any time to be taken from their family and friends, perhaps never more to be heard of. His hon. friend was not the first person who had found fault with the system of impressment. Hume had mentioned it as one of the three great anomalies of the English constitution—that an Englishman who was so free in the eye of the law, that the highest power in the kingdom could not arbitrarily imprison him for a moment, should be taken away
1192
1193
1194
Captain Gordon
defended the system at present pursued in the navy; at the same time admitting, that the impressment of sailors could only be justified on the ground of necessity. He implored the House to consider well before they deprived the navy of a power which was necessary to its greatness, and the removal of which might be a death-blow to its safety [hear, hear!].
Mr. W. Smith
said, that gentlemen opposite, while they admitted the evil, were determined to withhold the remedy. To him it appeared, that the discipline and interests of the navy were closely bound up with the present question. He would refer the House to what had been done for the army. The improvements made in that branch of our service were owing, not more to the exertions of the commander-in-chief, than to the eloquent addresses of the hon. baronet near him (sir F. Burdett). Not only the army, but the country generally were highly indebted to that hon. baronet for his unwearied exertions (hear, hear!]. He was decidedly in favour of his motion, as he felt that it could produce no harm, and was calculated to effect much good.
Sir G. Clerk
certainly thought the proposed inquiry would be most advantageously conducted by the Admiralty. The objections which the hon. member had started had not escaped the attention of that Board, and had been remedied as far as possible. With regard to the crying evil of pressing, he was ready to admit, that it could only be justified by necessity. But, how could they otherwise man a fleet in a case of emergency? It was objected to the impress system, that it dragged men to fight against their inclinations; but this objection would hold equally good against the most constitutional force of the country—the militia, into which every man, from eighteen to forty-five, was liable to be made to serve. As a proof, that men would not voluntarily relinquish their other employments and join the naval profession, he had only to state, that even now, in time of peace, there was not a sufficiency of men to fill up the merchant vessels, and to man the
1195
Mr. Warre
observed, that hon. gentle-men on the other side, had treated this question throughout as one entirely to be decided by the opinions of professional men, and as one in the discussion of which other individuals were incapable of participating. With that view of the question he decidedly differed; and though he acknowledged the benefit of such opinions, he did not think that to them alone the decision of the question ought to be entrusted. There had been inquiries on subjects similar to the present, conducted by unprofessional men, without any disadvantage. He alluded to the board of naval inquiry and the board of naval revision, at both of which several civilians had sat as members. But, even supposing the opinion of those hon. gentlemen he had referred to to be correct, still that was not an answer to the present motion, as there were several members of the House who would willingly give their professional assistance in the investigation of the subject. It was notorious, that according to the present practice of impressment, individuals who had never been at sea before, were often seized and sent on board a vessel. He had heard of an instance of that kind, which, however ludicrous it might appear, was nevertheless true. A coachman had been seized by a press-gang, and in spite of his representations and remonstrances, had been sent on board the tender, where he remained all night, and on the following morning actually appeared before the officers in his coachman's habiliments. There was another circumstance to which he wished to call the attention of the House, and that was, that this system was peculiar to England, and to England alone. Other countries had, like England, been distinguished for commercial enterprize and naval glory; one especially had sent large fleets to sea; and yet, as far as he was acquainted with the subject, he believed he might safely assert, that Holland had never resorted to this mode of manning her fleets. He regretted that any hon. gentleman should have introduced American affidavits, affecting the character of a highly meritorious officer, for he believed those affidavits were, at one time, an article of very frequent manufacture. One of these affidavits had lately been published by Mr. Cobbett in a number
1196
Sir E. Harvey
could testify, from his recollection of the first part of the American war, that the system of impressment was beneficial, in cases where it was necessary immediately to fill the complement of a king's ship. By that system having been then resorted to, many of the merchant vessels had been safely convoyed, which otherwise must have fallen into the hands of the enemy. He thought no probable good could arise from a committee of that House inquiring into a law of the land, which policy and long experience had fully justified.
Sir R. Wilson,
as a friend of the navy, could not refrain from expressing a few sentiments upon this question. It had been said by some hon. members, that impressed men made the best sailors. Now, he would put it to the consideration of any person, whether such a statement was not founded in mistake—whether it was at all probable, that men who had thus been forcibly seized, and compelled to enter into a king's ship would accommodate themselves to its discipline, and heartily engage in a service into which they had been unwillingly dragged? But, the House had to determine, whether, in consenting to continue this system, they were not consenting to that which was clearly a violation of right. He knew that, by a fundamental principle of the constitution, every man was bound, in case of necessity, to fight in defence of the country; but he knew of none which justified their being thus forcibly taken from their other occupations, and put on board a ship of war. It should be recollected, that the service of the navy was
1197
The House divided: Ayes 38. Noes 108.
List of the Minority.
Abercromby, hon. J.
Nugent, lord
Bernal, R.
Ord, W.
Blake, sir F.
Phillips, G.
Brougham, H.
Phillips, G. R.
Burdett, sir F.
Rice, T. S.
Bury, lord
Rickford, W.
Buxton, T. F.
Robertson, A.
Calthorpe, hon. F. G.
Robinson, sir G.
Evans, W.
Scarlett, J.
Gordon, R.
Smith, W.
Grattan, J.
Smith, John
Guise, sir W.
Stewart, W. (Tyrone)
Henywood, W. P.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Hutchinson, hon. H.
Warre, J. A.
Leader, W.
Webb, col.
Lennard, T. B.
Wilson, sir R.
Lushington, Dr.
Wood, ald.
Maberly, J.
Maxwell, J.
TELLERS.
Monck, J. B.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Newport, sir J.
Hume, Joseph
ROMAN CATHOLIC ASSOCIATION.]
Mr. Brownlow
rose, to move, that the petition which he had presented on a former evening, against the Catholic Association, be referred to the committee now sitting upon the state of Ireland. The ground of his motion was, that the Catholic Association was one of the principal
1198
Mr. Horace Twiss
said, he would support the motion, for the same reasons which would induce him to vote in favour of the motion of the right hon. baronet (sir J. Newport) for referring the petitions against the Orange associations to the same committee; namely, that he considered both associations to be, in some degree, connected with the disturbances of Ireland. He highly disapproved of the proceedings of the Catholic association, and declared his belief that if the association continued in existence, the number of votes in that House in favour of Catholic emancipation would yearly decrease. He entreated the members of the association, if they were friends to the cause they professed to advocate, to anticipate the acts of the government and dissolve themselves.
Mr. Secretary Canning
said, he would support the motion, because he considered the association to be one of the subjects to which that committee ought to direct their attention. The proceedings of the Catholic association were so nearly balanced between legality, and illegality, that they required to be narrowly watched. But he felt no hesitation in fraying, as a minister of the Crown, that, as at present advised, it was not the intention of the government to propose any new law with regard to the association. He, however, entirely concurred in the advice which had been given to the association. He thought they Were pursuing a most dangerous course, without considering how nearly they exposed themselves to the extremity of the law.
Mr. Hutchinson
said, he had the strongest objection to the motion. The object of the Catholic association was, to state the grievances of the Catholics. As to whether it was an illegal body or not, that was a
1199
Sir J. Newport
said, that if the motion should be agreed to, it would be impossible to refuse assent to the one which he should submit, for referring to the same committee the petitions against the Orange societies.
Mr. H. Sumner
said, that the Catholic association usurped the functions of government, and did other unconstitutional acts, inconsistent with the peace and security of the country. He thought the House ought not to separate without ascertaining from the law officers of the Crown, whether the law, as it stood, was sufficient to put an end to the evil; or if insufficient, whether it was the intention of government to introduce a bill for the purpose of correcting its imperfections.
Mr. Peel
said, it appeared to him a matter of course to send the petition up stairs as it had been alleged, that the present disturbances were in a great measure owing to this association, though it might be premature at present to express any opinion of its legality or illegality. He thought that all these secret societies should be put down, and would therefore support both propositions.
Mr. Spring Rice
gave his hearty support to the motion.
Sir F. Blake
called upon the hon. member for Armagh to use his influence in putting down the Orangemen, they having declared their determination to continue the same line of conduct.
Mr. Dawson
denied that any of the disturbances in Ireland arose from that body, and should give his consent to the motion, in order that the House might be satisfied of the fact.
The motion was agreed to: as well also sir J. Newport's motion for referring the petitions against the Orange lodges to the same committee.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, June 11.
GAME LAWS AMENDMENT BILL]
Earl Grosvenor,
in moving the second reading of his bill, for legalising the pur-
1200
The Lord Chancellor
contended, that no good could be accomplished by an attempt to pass this bill hastily during the present session. With regard to the property in game, in law it belonged to no man until it was reduced into possession. If game were, in fact, property, it might be bought and sold; for buying and selling was an incident of property. He admitted the great evil of poaching; but it would not be decreased by making it legal for the poacher to sell the game he had stolen, and which could not be identified. The gaols could be relieved in no way but by laying the property at so high a value as to hang the offender, or at so low a value as to transport him. Such was the mercy this bill was calculated to afford. Until he (the lord chancellor) was qualified, he had unquestionably been a poacher; and, since he had been qualified, he had been little capable of following game from field to field, over bush and brake, as he had been represented to do, without fatigue, He saw no sufficient reason for passing this measure in haste on the 11th of June, when he knew that others, after five months consideration had not been able to make up their minds upon its difficulties.
Lord Dacre
said, he was friendly to this or any similar measure, not for the sake
1201
Lord Calthorpe
supported the bill, as it appeared calculated to produce much good, tending, as it did, to diminish the mass of outrage, fraud, and violence, which at present prevailed. The change of the law was more gradual than had been contemplated by the measure which had been introduced in the other House of parliament; and it did not therefore follow, because that measure had never reached their lordships House, that the present bill would be objected to. Under all the circumstances he did not think that their lordships should delay the attempt to rescue the agricultural population from a state in which evil was in a manner forced upon them.
The Duke of Richmond
opposed the bill. If it were to pass he did not see the possibility of ever convicting a poacher.
The Marquis of Salisbury
would not oppose the bill in its present stage, though, unless great alterations were made in it, he should feel it his duty to do so on a future occasion.
The Earl of Carnarvon
argued, that the property in game ought, in reason and justice, to belong to the occupier of the soil; as it was maintained at his expense, so it ought to exist for his advantage. The test of demoralization on a people was not merely the number of petty punishments inflicted. His lordship recommended, that the further consideration of the subject should be postponed to a future session; though, if a division were pressed, he should vote for the bill.
Earl Grosvenor
expressed his intention, after what had fallen from his noble friends, of not pressing the bill pertinaciously on their lordships.
The bill was then negatived without a division.
1202
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, June 11.
MARINE INSURANCE BILL.]
Mr. F. Buxton
Mr. Robertson
hoped, that in the present state of the House, when so many were absent, who would, if present, be disposed to take a share in the discussion, the hon. gentleman would not persist to press it.
Mr. F. Buxton
said, that the Some objection had been made last night, and might be used again and again. If the opponents of the bill chose to absent themselves, he could not delay the bill on that account.
Mr. P. Grenfell
said, that the bill went to destroy the vested rights of Insurance Companies. How tender the legislature formerly had been in dealing with these vested rights, was seen in the case of the South Sea Company, which had a grant of an exclusive right of trading to the South Seas. Though this right had not been exercised for a hundred years, so tender was the House of interfering with it, that it would not take away that right without granting a compensation of 15,000
l
Mr. Alderman Wood
said, that the bill was intended to break up the Insurance business of 15 or 1600 persons, against whom no complaint had been adduced, and upon whose immense transactions there had been only a loss of three farthings in the pound.
Mr. Robertson
contended, that the commercial world would suffer considerably by the establishment of such a society as that now proposed: for when such a valuable institution as that of Lloyd's was once destroyed, it would be impossible to restore it again. The information which had been received in this country through the agents of Lloyd's, from all parts of the world, had been of the highest consequence to its commercial interest.
The House divided: For receiving the report 50. Against it 31. The report was agreed to.
PETITION FROM R. CARLILE COMPLAINING OF HIS IMPRISONMENT.]
Mr. Hume
presented a petition from Richard Carlile, at present confined in Dorchester gaol for the publication of blasphemous
1203
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, it was quite clear that the petitioner was not entitled to be treated as a Crown debtor, but ought to be subject to the rules of the gaol which applied to his original imprisonment. The petitioner had, from time to time, made complaints to him, of the ill-treatment which he received in the gaol. He had instituted inquiries on the subject; and he felt it due to the magistrates of Dorset to state, that, under the greatest provocation which it was possible for them to receive, he could not conceive that any persons could have acted with more forbearance. The petitioner complained of the restrictions to which he was subjected; but when the House heard, that his object was, to corrupt all his fellow prisoners, they would easily imagine that the magistrates were compelled to take precautions to prevent the contamination. Personal restrictions likewise became necessary, in consequence of the menaces which the petitioner had made use of Carlile had posted in the gaol a regular written notice, that after a certain day he would consider his imprisonment illegal, and would feel himself justified in' killing the first keeper he might see. Carlile had sent a similar notice to him. Out of regard to the lives of those persons whose duty it was to ensure Carlile's safe custody, and from regard to Carlile's own safety, he (Mr. P.) had declared, that he thought the magistrates were right in taking measures to prevent him from committing the crime which he meditated. He was satisfied that no person, under the circumstances which applied to Carlile's case, could have been treated with more indulgence than he had been. He would take that opportunity of stating, that Mary Anne Carlile, the sister of the petitioner, had received a free pardon, and was discharged from gaol.
Mr. Hume
said, he did not stand there to defend the petitioner's conduct, which had always been eccentric, and in the instance alluded to very violent. But the
1204
Mr. W. Smith
said, that the case of the petitioner involved a question of much greater importance than any thing that could regard him personally; namely, whether an individual was to be subjected to excessive imprisonment for non-payment of a fine, when his incapacity to pay it was evident.
Mr. Peel
observed, that in no instance was a person kept in permanent imprisonment who was incapable of discharging his fine. Prisoners in such a situation were always discharged by the Crown, after they had undergone a term of imprisonment which was considered commensurate with the fine which they had been sentenced to pay.
Mr. Portman
resisted the motion, on the ground that it contained false charges of excessive cruelty against the magistrates of Dorsetshire.
Mr. Hume
said, that the petitioner did not complain of any particular persons, but merely of general ill-treatment. He, however, would not press the motion for printing the petition.
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—MR. GOURLAY'S ASSAULT ON MR. BROUGHAM.]
The Speaker
rose and said, that he would take that opportunity, the House being then pretty full, to state to them a circumstance which deeply affected their privileges. Shortly after he had taken the chair, he was informed that an honourable member had been grossly assaulted by some individual in the lobby, or within the precincts of the House. He immediately directed the serjeant at arms to take the individual into custody. That had been done; and the prisoner now awaited the pleasure of the House. He understood that the name of the prisoner was Gourlay. The member who had been assaulted was the hon. and learned member for Winchelsea (Mr. Brougham). He wished to receive the directions of the House as to the course which ought to be taken.
Mr. Brougham
begged leave to inform the House of what he knew respecting the subject which the Speaker had brought under their notice. Shortly after the House assembled, he was passing through
1205
Mr. Hume
said, that Mr. Gourlay had been sent from Canada under a state of mental derangement. He had presented two or three petitions from him to the House, on the subject of the poor-laws. Some time since he proceeded to Wiltshire, where he had once rented a farm of the duke of Somerset, at 1,300
l
Mr. Wynn
said, that care ought to be taken that Mr. Gourlay should not commit a repetition of the present offence. He thought it would be unwise to discharge him out of custody.
1206
Mr. Canning
said, that the usual course of proceeding was, for the House to hear the person in custody at the bar, before they came to any resolution with respect to him. He suggested that that proceeding should be postponed, and the individual kept in custody until a future day, in order that information might be obtained with respect to the state of his mind; which would enable the House to form a just estimate of his conduct. In offering this suggestion, however, he begged it to be understood, that he did not undervalue the strict and summary exercise of the privileges of the House, in cases such as that which had been brought under their notice.
Mr. Brougham
repeated his belief, that Mr. Gourlay was insane.
The Speaker
said, he understood it to be the pleasure of the House, that Mr. Gourlay should be kept in custody until the House received further information respecting him.
MOTION RESPECTING THE TRIAL AND
The order of the day being read for resuming the adjourned debate on the motion made by Mr. Brougham, on the 1st instant, respecting the Trial and Condemnation of Missionary Smith at Demerara; and the question being again proposed, viz.
"That an humble address be presented to his Majesty, representing that this House, having taken into their most serious consideration the papers laid before them relating to the trial and condemnation of the late reverend John Smith, a missionary in the colony of Demerara, deem it their duty now to declare, that they contemplate with serious alarm and deep sorrow the violation of law and justice which is manifest in those unexampled proceedings; and most earnestly praying, that his Majesty will be graciously pleased to adopt such measures as to his royal wisdom may seem meet, for securing such a just and humane administration of law in that colony as may protect the voluntary instructors of the Negroes, as well as the Negroes themselves, and the rest of his majesty's subjects, from oppression,"
Dr. Lushington
rose, and addressed the House as follows:
Mr. Speaker
; never in the whole course of my public life, when I have had occasion to address a public assembly, have I felt a greater solicitude to discharge my
1207
1208
1209
1210
1211
1212
1213
1214
1215
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
1234
verbatim et literatim,
1235
—they do take our lives,
When they do take the means by which we live.'
—'like the base Indian,
Threw a pearl away richer than all his tribe.'
1236
1237
Mr. Tindal
said, that, in rising to oppose the motion of his hon. and learned friend, it was not his intention to offer himself either as the apologist or the defender of certain little irregularities which had, it appeared, crept into the proceedings before this court-martial. If his hon. and learned friend who had just sat down had called upon the House to consider what would be the effect of negativing this motion, he (Mr. T.) begged of them to consider what would be the effect of adopting it [hear, hear!]. The motion of his hon. and learned friend was for an humble address to his Majesty, stating, on the part of that House, that they had taken into their most serious consideration the papers submitted to them relative to the trial of Mr. Smith, and that they felt it their duty to declare, that they contemplated with feelings of
1238
1239
1240
1241
1242
1243
1244
1245
Mr. J. Williams
said: Mr. Speaker, my hon. and learned friend, for whom, on all accounts, I have great respect, and whose judicial and temperate manner forms so striking, and, so far as he is concerned, favourable a contrast to the violence of the proceedings which he undertakes to defend, began by observing, that the debate has this night assumed a new shape. I am at a loss to account for this observation; for surely the House cannot have forgotten, that my hon. and learned friend, who introduced this subject (Mr. Brougham), in a speech worthy of his abilities, arraigned the whole proceedings; the constitution of the court, the law under which they affected to act, their conduct during the trial, and the deficiency of the evidence upon which they undertook to convict. To my hon. and learned friend himself (Mr. Tindal) the observation may, with much greater truth, be applied. He, indeed, has introduced into the debate a perfect novelty. For neither the hon. member for Newcastle, connected with the colonial defiartment (Mr. W. Horton); nor my earned friend the member for Peterborough (Mr. Scarlett), who expressly abandoned the sentence, which my hon. and learned friend, by his new lights, steps forward to defend, ever thought of resting their palliation (for I cannot call it defence) upon those authorities which the fortunate adjournment for a week has enabled my hon. and learned friend to produce for the support and maintenance of the case. But, above all, never did those persons who had the conduct of the cause upon the spot, and who might be supposed to abound with precepts of colonial law, refer or allude to that recondite learning upon which now, for the first time reliance has been placed, as the foundation and justification of these proceedings. What said the deputy judge-advocate Mr. Smith?
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
The Attorney-General
said, that, in the observations which he proposed to address to the House, he should not occupy a great portion of its time; but, after the speech of his hon. and learned friend who had just sat down, he felt that he should not discharge his duty, unless he briefly expressed his opinion on this very important subject. He did not feel bound to admit, that he must take part with the honourable gentlemen opposite, unless he could affirm, that, if he had been obliged to sit in judgment on Mr. Smith, the proceedings against whom were the subject of the present discussion, he should have come to the same conclusion that the members of the court-martial had adopted. That, however, was not the question before the House. The persons composing that court must be allowed to have been as independent of the colony as he could pretend to be: they were acting under the sanction and responsibility of an oath: they came to their decision after deliberately hearing the evidence on both sides. He could not, therefore, take upon himself to say, because he should, perhaps, have come to a different conclusion; that they had acted erroneously; much less that they had acted cruelly, unjustly, and corruptly, and had been influenced by
1261
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
1267
1268
1269
Mr. Wilber force
said:—Sir, the course pursued by the learned gentleman who has just sitten down, in his endeavour, I will not say to defend, but to palliate, the decision of the court-martial which condemned the missionary Smith, I cannot but regard as somewhat unfair; and, at least, as very different from that which would have been dictated by the liberal spirit of the judicial proceedings of this country. To do Mr. Smith justice, the learned gentleman should have considered all the circumstances of his situation, and all the particulars of his conduct; whereas he has picked out of the great mass of evidence two or three passages, which, taken by themselves, may produce an unfavourable impression towards Mr. Smith, but to which an abundant answer would have been supplied by other passages, and still more by a general view of Mr. Smith's situation and character, and of the circumstances of the witnesses against him, as well as of their testimony. It should ever be borne in mind, that, from Mr. Smith's entrance into the colony, the public prints were incessantly labouring to render the Christian missionaries, and more especially Mr. Smith himself, the object of the most bitter jealousy and hatred. They were represented as the agents and correspondents of the Anti-Slavery party in this country, who were endeavouring, through them, to excite the most dangerous discontents among the slaves, indifferent to the interest, and even to the personal safety, of the white population. More especially the chief newspaper of the colony, called, if I mistake not, the Guiana Chronicle, abounded in these misrepresentations; and as no one undertook the defence of the calumniated individuals, it is not wonderful, that, except in the minds
1270
1271
1272
1273
1274
1275
1276
1277
Mr. Secretary Canning
said:—
1278
1279
1280
1281
1282
1283
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
Mr. Denman
assured the House, that the difficulty which he felt in expressing himself, in a manner adequate to his own feelings, was aggravated at this moment by following a speech so eloquent as that of the right hon. gentleman, and so full of statesman-like views, though leading, he thought, in the end, to a conclusion condemnatory of themselves. It seemed, indeed, extraordinary, that after the sentence of the court-martial had been given up as indefensible by every one who had spoken on the question; that, after the right hon. secretary had, as the climax, stated that the sentence had been annulled by the government; the House of Commons alone was to be prevented from expressing its disapprobation of if. But if, in point of fact, the sentence had not, up to this moment, remained unannulled, his learned friend (Mr. Brougham) would not have
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
Sir Joseph Yorke
said, that the learned doctor (Lushington), had advised every member of the House to read over the evidence on the trial of Mr. Smith before he gave his vote. He had read the evidence, and he declared conscientiously, that he saw no reason for finding Mr. Smith guilty of the crime with which he was charged, If he had been a petty-juryman, he would have acquitted Mr. Smith upon the evidence. A whole lunar month had been consumed by the court-martial in finding him guilty. On this subject he remembered a circumstance which took place in the early part of the revolutionary war. The present lord chancellor, then attorney general, had spoken for nine hours, to make out his charge of treason against Messrs. Tooke and Hardy. A witty friend observed to him at the time, that if such a sharp, shrewd chap as the attorney general, found it necessary to speak at such length, in order to substantiate his charge against the prisoners, they were sure to be acquitted. He could not help thinking, that the long period which Mr. Smith's trial occupied, proved the weakness of the case against him. The speech of the right hon. secretary for foreign affairs had not satisfied his mind it was a mere brilliant apology, and not a defence 'of the proceedings against Mr. Smith. He thought that that most bloody record ought to be blotted out; and, under that impression, he would vote with great pleasure for the motion.
Mr. Brougham
, in reply, said:—
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
List of the Minority.
Abercromby, hon. J.
Belgrave, visc.
Acland, sir T.
Benet, J.
Allen, J. H.
Benyon, B.
Anson, sir G.
Birch, J.
Astley, sir J. D.
Blake, sir F.
Barham, J. F.
Boughton, sir W.
Barret, S. M.
Brougham H.
1314
Brown, J.
Macdonald, J.
Brownlow, C.
Mackintosh, sir J.
Burdett, sir F.
Maddocks, W. A.
Bury, visc.
Marjoribanks, S.
Butterworth, J.
Maxwell, J.
Byng, G.
Monck, J. B.
Calcraft, J.
Newman, R. W.
Calcraft, J. H.
Normanby, visc.
Calthorpe, hon. F.
Nugent, lord
Calvert, C.
Ord, W.
Calvert, N.
Oxmantown, lord
Carter, J.
Palmer, C.
Cavendish, lord G.
Palmer, C. F.
Cavendish, C.
Pares, T.
Cavendish, H.
Parnell, sir H.
Chaloner, R.
Pelham, C. F.
Chamberlayne, W.
Philips, G.
Clifton, visc.
Philips, G. R.
Coke, T. W. jun.
Powlett, hon. W.
Corbett, P.
Poyntz, W. J.
Cradock, S.
Proby, hon. G. L
Creevy, T.
Pryse, Pryse
Davenport, D.
Pym, F.
Davies, T. H.
Ramsden, J. C.
Denison, W. J.
Rice, S.
Denman, T.
Rickford, W.
Dickenson, W.
Robarts, col.
Duncannon, visc.
Robinson, sir G.
Dundas, hon. F.
Rowley, sir W.
Dundas, C.
Rumbold, C.
Ebrington, visc.
Russell, lord G. W.
Ellis, hon. G. A.
Russell, lord J.
Ellison, C.
Ryder, rt. hon. R.
Evans, W.
Scott, J.
Farrand, R.
Sebright, sir J.
Fergusson, sir R.
Sefton, earl of
Fitzgerald, rt. hon. M.
Smith, A.
Fitzroy, lord J.
Smith, J.
Ford, M.
Smith, G.
Gaskill, B.
Smith, S.
Gordon, R.
Smith, hon. R.
Graham, S.
Smith, W.
Grattan, J.
Smyth, (Westmeath)
Griffiths, J. W.
Stanley, hon. E.
Grosvenor, hon. R.
Staunton, sir G.
Guise, sir B. W.
Townshend, lord C.
Gurney, R. H.
Tulk, C. A.
Heathcote, G. J.
Wall, C. B.
Heron, sir R.
Warre, J. A.
Heygate, ald.
Webb, E.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Wharton J.
Honywood, W. P.
White, col.
Hurst, R.
Whitbread, S.
Hutchinson, hon. H. C.
Whitbread, W.
Whitmore, W.
Inglis, sir R.
Wilberforce, W.
Jervoise, G. P.
Wilbraham, E. B.
Johnes, J.
Williams, J.
Kemp, T. R.
Williams, sir R.
Kennedy, J. F.
Williams, W.
Knight, R.
Wilson, sir R.
Lambton, J. G.
Wilson, W. C.
Lawley, T.
Wodehouse, E.
Leader, W.
Wood, alderman
Lennard, T. B.
Wrottesley, sir J.
Leycester, R.
Yorke, sir Joseph
Maberly, John
1315
TELLERS.
Newport, sir J.
Buxton, T. F.
Price, R.
Lushington, Dr.
Portman, E.
PAIRED OFF.
Taylor, M. A.
Coke, T, W. (Norfolk)
Tavistock, marquis
Grenfell, Pascoe
Stewart, W. (Armagh)
Gurney, H.
Stanley, lord
Milton, visc.
Hamilton, lord
Mostyn, sir T.
Browne, D.
Money, W. T.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, June 14.
COUNTY COURTS BILL.]
Lord Redesdale
Lord Ellenborough
opposed the bill; which was, he said, a greater mass of absurdity than ever before was formed into the shape of a law. The object of it was, quite unattainable. If it were attainable to enable a creditor to recover small debts at a little cost, he did not think it would be advisable. Such a law would only make tradesmen lax in giving credit, and the poor ready to take it, and thereby occasion a great deal of mischief to both. To give facility to recover debts would enable an unjust creditor to make debtors pay more than they owed, and frequently to compel others to pay sums which they did not owe. He besought their lordships to look well at the principle, as well as the absurd enactments of the bill, before they passed it into a law. He objected to the geographical divisions in it. Some of the assessors would have to be perpetually on horseback; and as the office was regulated at present, no respectable member of the bar would become assessor. He objected also to the bill, that it did not provide compensation for those whose interests were affected by it; and amongst others, the lord chief justice of the King's-bench, whose salary had not been raised with those of the other judges, in consequence of the very emoluments which the present measure would destroy. If ministers, however, approved of the bill, a committee should be appointed to arrange the compensations; but he thought it ought to be postponed until next session.
The Lord Chancellor
admitted, that some such measure as the present was necessary, but agreed in thinking, that an inquiry should take place, with a view to the compensation of those who had just
1316
Lord Redesdale
expressed himself willing to withdraw the bill on the understanding suggested.
Lord Ellenborough
then moved, that the bill should be read a second time that day six months, which was agreed to.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, June 14.
HISTORICAL PAINTING—PETITION OF
Mr. Lambton
said, he rose to present a petition on the subject of the fine arts, from Mr. Benjamin Robert Haydon, an individual known for his talents as well as his misfortunes. The latter, he believed, were occasioned by no fault of his own, but by an enthusiastic attachment to the branch of art to which he had devoted himself, but which, however, it might lead to posthumous fame, could never, in this country, under existing circumstances, be cultivated with profit. A learned friend (Mr. Brougham) had, on a former occasion, presented a petition from Mr. Haydon, directing the attention of parliament to the art of historical painting; and that which he was now about to present referred to the same subject. He would state the substance of the petition. It set forth, that historical painting was less encouraged than any other branch of the art, although the Royal Academy and the British Gallery were established for the purpose of fostering and encouraging it. It was impossible that historical painting could be cultivated, unless it received public patronage. In Greece and in Italy, historical painting obtained public as well as private patronage: in Holland it received private patronage only. It was unnecessary to point out the difference between the two schools. It was only since the foundation of the Royal Academy, that students in this country had been afforded the means of pursuing their studies to advantage. The late king had been a great encourager of historical painting, having introduced some work of that nature into every church or chapel over which he had any control. But, in the course of time, the want of patronage was so strongly felt, that historical painting had nearly fallen into entire disrepute. In 1804, the British Gallery was established by private subscription, upon the prin-
1317
Ordered to lie on the table.
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—MR. GOURLAY.]
The Speaker
said, he had to submit to the consideration of the House a letter that he had received from Dr. Munro and sir G. Tuthill, who, at his desire, had visited Mr. Gourlay, at present, by the orders of that House, in the custody of the Serjeant at Arms.
1318
Mr. Canning
said, that after what the House had just heard, it was hardly expedient to follow the usual course of calling the individual to the bar [hear hear]. A great difficulty from thence arose, respecting the manner of disposing of this unfortunate man. He apprehended, however, that the most humane course would be, to detain him, without making any further order upon his case, until his friends should be consulted.
REVERSAL OF ATTAINDERS.]
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that it became necessary for him, in the discharge of his duty, to move the first reading of five bills for the Reversal of Attainders, for which bills his majesty had been graciously pleased to signify his assent. The first bill was for reversing the attainder of lord Stafford, and with respect to that bill he wished it to be understood as the reparation for an act of injustice. The restoration of the other titles stood upon a different footing, for they were all acts of grace and favour. In addition to lord Stafford's bill, he had to propose the usual course of reading the bills for reversing the attainder of the earl of Mar, viscounts Kenmure and Strathallan, and baron Nairn.
Mr. Abercromby
said, that, as a native of Scotland, he could not allow this opportunity to pass of testifying his cordial approbation of the course taken by his majesty in reversing these attainders. The restoration of the earl of Mar to the ancient title of his ancestors would be hailed with gratitude by the people of Scotland.
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, that in the case of lord Stafford, his majesty was performing a memorable act of national justice, and in the case of the Scotch peers, one of royal clemency. There was something most affecting in the former, from
1319
Captain Bruce
regretted that, with the warmest approbation of the principle of these bills, he could not praise that selection which took the taint from the blood of the lineal descendants of the parties who had first suffered, while the collateral branches of others whose descent was pure in their own line were still thought fit to be excluded from his majesty's grace. Such was his own case: he was descended from a collateral branch of the family of lord Burleigh, and the attainder alone prevented that title from devolving upon him. When his majesty was in Scotland, he had felt it his duty to present a petition for the reversal of his family attainder; and he had never since heard why this partial restoration of honours was selected. He yielded to no man in loyalty to the House of Hanover, and most painfully did he feel the distinction by which he suffered on the present occasion. Though the blood from which he was collaterally descended from lord Burleigh, who died without issue, was pure and untainted, yet still was he, and those who were to succeed him, excluded from the royal grace. Was that exclusion to be perpetuated? [Cries of "hear."] He hoped that on some future occasion, his case, and that of others similarly placed, would be considered by the Crown with grace and favour.
Lord Binning
said, there was much worthy of consideration in what had fallen from his hon. friend, and he trusted it would meet with the attention it deserved in the proper quarter; particularly as, by the old Scottish law, the claims of a collateral branch were not estreated by forfeiture. Connected as he himself was with the peerage of Scotland, it was a source of unaffected pleasure to see the ancient and illustrious house of Mar restored to its honours.
1320
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, it was satisfactory to receive from all parts of the House the admission, that the selection was made without the remotest influence of party feelings. There remained but two modes of proceeding; either an indiscriminate reversal of all the attainders, or a Selection. To the first mode, there were found objections, almost insurmountable. Indeed, some of those, lineally descended, did not, on considerations of property, wish for the extension of the bounty to them. In making a choice, government found the necessity of selecting those respecting whom no doubt existed regarding the original patent, as well as those who were desirous of preferring their claims. As the restoration of blood was, in the language of the law, a matter of grace and favour, he should not enter into any further explanation on the Subject, except to observe, that no duty could be more pleasant than that which had thus devolved upon him. As accidentally, the bill for the reversal of the attainder of the earl of Mar was the last brought in, he begged just to remark, that that earldom was one of the most ancient in the kingdom; and, according to lord Hailes, existed before any records of parliament.
The bills were read a second time.
LAND TAX REDEMPTION BILL.]
Mr. Maberly,
in moving that the report oh this bill be brought up, took occasion to review the acts relative to the Land-tax from its first imposition, down to the period when it was made perpetual by Mr. Pitt. After condemning the act which fixed the land-tax on the landed interest in perpetuity, and after pointing out the impolicy of fixing the price of its redemption at an exorbitant rate, he proceeded to state, that the present bill was intended to reduce the price of the redemption to such a rate as would be consistent with the existing state of the money-market. It would also provide for the payment of that price in ready money, and not by instalments, and for its application not to the funded but to the unfunded debt. He contended that if his plan were adopted, the chancellor of the Exchequer would, in all probability, be able, in the course of the next two years, to apply 34,000,000
l
1321
Mr. Herries
rose, for the purpose of moving that the report be brought up this day six months. He should not enter into any details, but should oppose the bill on the broad principle which had been so ably stated on a former night by the chancellor of the Exchequer. He contended, that the views of the hon. mover were by no means practicable. The idea that they were so could only have arisen in the hon. member's mind from his not having understood the nature of the subject. Originally the scheme for the redemption of the land-tax had operated beneficially, owing to the existing circumstances of the country; latterly, however, it had ceased to be so productive, in consequence of a change in those circumstances. In all schemes for its redemption, a sacrifice must be made either by the public or the individual. Now, it was absurd to suppose that an individual would voluntarily accede to a plan which demanded of him a sacrifice; and it was equally absurd to suppose, that the government could accede on behalf of the public to such a sacrifice as the adoption of the present bill would render necessary on its part. He then went into an examination of the charges on the unfunded debt, for the purpose of proving that the calculations of the hon. member were erroneous. This scheme could not enable government to reduce the whole of the unfunded debt, inasmuch as it would only produce 33,600,000
l
l
l
l
Mr. Grenfell
could not support the bill, which he considered as very injudicious in many of its details.
Mr. Hume
said, that some measure ought to be devised to relieve the country from the expense of collecting the land-tax. He had shown, on a former occasion, that, by the present mode of collection, a sum of 2,000,000
l
1322
l
l
Mr. Monck
thought the House was much obliged to the hon. member for directing their attention to this subject; but was of opinion that the sacrifice proposed by him was too great. It would be giving up an annuity worth 40 years' purchase for 24 years' purchase.
Mr. Maberly
said, that viewing the measure in every possible point of view, he felt that it was wise and beneficial. He, however, would not divide the House on the question.
The amendment was then agreed to, without adivision, and the report of the bill was consequently put off for six months.
IRISH INSURRECTION BILL.]
On the order of the clay for the second reading,
Mr. Robertson
said, he was anxious to prove to the House the mischievous tendency of passing this bill, in the present state of Ireland. It would have the effect of aggravating their feelings, by making England appear to be leagued with one of the parties in Ireland, where it was notorious one party endeavoured to oppress and bear down another. He had recently received a letter from a person connected with one of those parties in Ireland, which was written for the purpose of showing him the determined hostility of the Roman Catholics against the Protestants there. The writer asserted, that the Catholics had taken an oath to exterminate the Protestants, man, woman, and child, on account of their religion. Now, there were 2,000,000 of Protestants in Ireland: and not one of them, he believed, had been put to death, except where some private feeling of wrong rankled in the mind of the party committing the outrage, and impelled him to transgress the law. The hon. member then read a paper, which was said to be sent forth by certain magistrates to whom the execution of the insurrection act had been intrusted. It was, he observed, one of the most inflammatory addresses ever published. After adverting to the frequent assemblage of
1323
1324
1325
Mr. J. Smith
did not believe that the bill would ever be made to agree with the institutions of a free government. He condemned the report of the committee as a mere garbling and collecting of evidence to excuse the passing of the bill. There should have been an extensive inquiry; and the subject warranted the calling great numbers of the best informed and least partial of the Irish community to give information upon it. He did not scruple to say, that there seemed to have been a premeditated neglect and delay upon this point, as if on purpose to carry the bill with the less molestation. It was useless to expect tranquillity from the
1326
Colonel Davies
wished to explain the reasons why he should support a temporary renewal of the Insurrection act. His general opinion as to the state of Ireland had not changed, but the conduct of the Irish government had changed; and as he thought they were well disposed to the mass of the people, he was inclined to intrust them with this act. There was evidence before the committee that tranquillity could not be maintained without it.
1327
Lord J. Russell
said, he should not oppose the bill as a matter of course at all times, and under all circumstances: for at the several periods when it had been proposed, he had not voted against it. When it was proposed in 1807, it was supported by Mr. Grattan, because a war then existed, and there was then a French party in the country; but, it was his decided opinion, that the measure was not called for by the actual state of Ireland, While the distresses which had prevailed in that country were the immediate causes of disturbance which rendered extraordinary measures necessary, perhaps the existence of the Insurrection act might have been permitted; but now that it was confessed on all sides, that there was no such urgent distress, he felt called upon to oppose the continuance of the measure; because, by consenting to it, he should admit, that whenever the mis-government of a country might have produced evils, the suspension of the constitutional law, or the introduction of measures foreign to that law, were to be applied as remedies. Sir Lawrence Parsons said of this act when it was first proposed, that it was a violation of the principles of a free constitution. He (lord J. R.) not only thought that it was such a violation, but that it was a clumsy contrivance, unworthy of an enlightened government. If we were told that in Austria, or Prussia, or Russia, a law was in operation, by which the people were confined without light in their houses for twelve out of the twenty-four hours, should we hesitate to pronounce such a law to be arbitrary and absurd? Upon referring to the evidence, it would be found, that many of the persons who had been taken up under the Insurrection act, were such as had staid out at the public houses until after 9 o'clock, while others had been in the pursuit of cattle or other no less lawful occupations. Even the benevolent intentions of the chancellor of the Exchequer, in diminishing the duty on distilleries, had been frustrated; because the poor people, thus encouraged to drink a little more whiskey, had been seduced into the clutches of the Insurrection act. A question had been asked Serjeant Lloyd, who had been employed in the administration of the act, whether the persons taken up under it, were not generally very desperate characters. He answered, that they were generally persons of good character, and poor helpless people, totally ignorant of the provisions
1328
1329
Mr. Goulburn
said, he felt as strongly as any man could feel, when it was his painful duty to propose this measure, that it was in some degree a departure from the principles of the constitution. He was quite aware that the severity of its enactments exposed it to be argued against as liable to abuse; yet he was conscious, also, that a state of things existed which called upon parliament to interfere with some means for the protection of property, and for putting down, even with extraordinary vigour, those lawless persons who were confederated to subvert the constitution. Those were the principles upon which he had formerly called for, and those were the grounds upon which he now rested the necessity of the measure. If any man would read over the evidence, he would feel satisfied that the state of things in Ireland required the application of some extraordinary measure. Previous to the introduction of the Insurrection act, the peaceable inhabitants of the county were compelled to have their houses barricadoed; and as soon as it had passed, the necessity for such precaution had ceased. Now, what gentleman would like to retire from the discharge of his public duties to such a country as that; or who would dare to reside in Ireland if parliament refused to pass the measure? It might be said, that this was a state of things which formerly existed, but that it was now at an end. He was ready to admit that the evil was not now in so aggravated a state; but, let it not be forgotten, that the decrease of disturbance was mainly owing to the Insurrection act. The question then was, should we or should we not continue this measure until the government had an opportunity of examining into all the causes of discontent, and of laying before parliament some measure for effecting the permanent tranquillity of the country. Much had been said of the present condition of Ireland resulting from centuries of misrule; and he would ask, whether there was any enthusiast so wild as to entertain an expectation, that the exertions of a few weeks could remove the evils of ages? He was convinced that this measure was essential to the security
1330
Mr. Abercromby
said, it was impossible that parliament, considering how often this law had been passed as a temporary measure, could consent to its re-enactment, without recording its own disgrace in sanctioning such repeated acts of misgovernment. In the view which he took of it, he regretted that he differed from the almost unanimous opinion of the committee. At the same time he was not at all disposed to undervalue the labours of that committee, as far as they had gone, they had been most important: a great deal of valuable information had been acquired by them which would, he had no doubt be of considerable service. Much, however, as he respected the exertions of the Committee, he could not be very sanguine in his hopes of the ultimate result of their labours. They, as a committee, could only recommend: they could not legislate. He was anxious, therefore, that too great expectations should not be raised. It was admitted on all hands, that a very strong necessity should exist to justify this bill. When he looked at the opinions of some most respectable individ-
1331
1332
1333
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he concurred with the opponents of the bill in admitting it to be unconstitutional and severe, and regretted its necessity; but as to its efficacy, he altogether differed from them. If it could be shewn that not only was the measure unconstitutional, but also inefficacious, then indeed the objections to it would be unanswerable; but he maintained, that every thing which had yet transpired on the subject, had proved its efficacy. It was the unanimous opinion of the members of the committee—men differing widely in their general political views—that it would be unsafe for parliament to separate without giving to the executive government in Ireland the
1334
1335
Mr. Trant
said, that convinced as he was, that Ireland would relapse into a state of anarchy and confusion if some such measure as the present were not adopted, he could not vote for the amendment, which would leave the peaceable and loyal inhabitants exposed to every species of outrage.
Mr. Spring Rice
said, that he was desirous of stating the reasons which induced him to vote for the renewal of the act, and he had the authority of his right hon. friend, the member for Waterford, for stating, that his assent to it was grounded on the same reason; namely, that the inquiry was still pending, and he had little doubt that the ultimate result would be, that such a case would be made
1336
Mr. Denman
considered, that the renewal of the Insurrection act was paying too much for this inquiry; more especially as it was doubtful whether the act was not inefficacious. The report of the committee did not, he thought, deserve such an implicit mark of confidence; and of the evidence, as it was before the House, they could judge for themselves. He had understood, at the commencement of the session, from the secretary for Ireland, that the clause should not be renewed which enacted, that any person found in a public-house, whether licensed or not, between the hours of nine in the evening, and six in the morning, at any season of the year, should be liable to be transported for seven years. Yet this clause was not omitted in the bill which had been sent down from the House of Lords. The evidence gave them a little insight of the causes of the discontents in Ireland. From that evidence it appeared, that the high rents and tithes extracted from the miserable inhabitants, were among the principal causes of those discontents which this bill was intended to suppress. He perfectly agreed with an hon. member, that the renewal of the Insurrection act was calculated to counteract all the moral effect which might otherwise be expected from the improvement of the police, the magistracy, and the nightly patrol and watch, as well as the advantages which might be anticipated from the introduction of a better system of education in Ireland. These were all moral causes, which would operate for the improvement of Ireland, if the baleful influence of this act did not prevent their activity. Was this the way to tranquillize a country, by bringing all under the act of accusation, and accounting as guilty all who were not able to prove their innocence? These were acts which ought not to be granted to any set of men. The government which wished to receive such powers showed that it did not know how to govern a great country on the principles of a free constitution. Under no circumstances would he give his consent to the passing of such an act as this.
Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald
vindicated the conduct of the magistracy, and contended that the law, which no one ever considered as a remedial measure, had been carried into execution with the least possible
1337
Mr. Maurice Fitzgerald
said, he did not oppose this measure from any idea that its powers had been abused, or that it had been improperly acted on, either by the government of Ireland, the assessors, or the magistracy. He believed that no human being could do more to restrain the powers of government within mild and moderate limits than the marquis Wellesley had done. But he must oppose the measure, because it placed the magistracy, whom it vested with enormous powers, in a most invidious situation, with respect to the people of Ireland. Multitudes had been imprisoned, and few punished, under this act; the consequence of which was, that much irritation was excited, and little benefit effected. At the same time, he was bound to allow, that the magistrates and gentry of Ireland called for some strong and effectual powers of restraint and repression. But he would prefer to the operation of an Insurrection act, the institution of martial-law, in those provinces where the disturbances prevailed. Such a system of martial-law, for example, as that which the marquis Corn-wall is established in Ireland, at the time when the enemy was in the country.
The House divided: for the second reading 112; against it 23.
MARINE INSURANCE BILL.]
Mr. F. Buxton
Mr. Alderman Thompson
opposed the motion. There were, he said, six hundred persons interested in the measure, who had nut had an opportunity of being heard by counsel against it.
Mr. Plummer
also objected to the bill.
Mr. Huskisson
regretted that the worthy alderman should offer any thing like a vexatious opposition to the passing of a measure, which had already been debated in every Stage. The two chartered companies who were interested in the bill had been heard by counsel against it, and he should certainly object to the hearing any more counsel,
Mr. Grenfell
could not admit that the bill had been sufficiently discussed.
1338
The House divided: for the third reading 559; against it 159.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, June 15.
SCOTCH JUDICATURE BILL.]
Lord Colchester
Lord Melville
approved of the bill, but thought there were some of the clauses which it would be better to postpone.
The Earl of Liverpool,
though no person in that House was less qualified than himself to give an opinion of the details of the measure now proposed, was nevertheless quite convinced that no greater boon was ever offered to a country. An experience of many years had shewn the inconvenience of the present system, and the legislature was not called upon hastily to adopt the present measure. A commission had been appointed to investigate the subject, composed of twenty-six persons, who stood high in the profession of the law. The report which these gentlemen had made was the foundation of the present bill. It was not, however, a law which could be neither repealed nor amended; and if experience should shew that errors had been committed, parliament might remedy them. The bill did not shut the door against further improvement.
The Duke of Athol
gave full praise to those who had introduced this measure; he knew they were actuated solely by a desire to confer on that part of the country a valuable boon. He was not, however, quite sure that those for whom it was intended, would see it in that light. He thought it would have been better if the bill had only been printed now, and allowed to stand over until next session.
The Earl of Rosslyn
gave the bill his support with great satisfaction, because it was nearly word for word what was recommended by the report.
The Lord Chancellor
did not think he should be doing his duty to his majesty's subjects in Scotland, if he did not state that this bill met with his cordial approbation.
Lord Redesdale
also supported the bill. The number of appeals which came from that part of the country, was a convincing proof that something was wrong in the administration of justice.
The bill was then read a third time.
1339
EQUITABLE LOAN BILL.]
The Earl of Hardwicke
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, that the bill was a most important one. By the first clause, the company, who, if the hand-bills could be credited, were only anxious to benefit the poor, exonerated themselves from the usury laws, and were to be enabled to lend money to any amount without being punishable by them. Those laws, were very injurious, and ought to be done away, but he saw no reason for granting to a single company the privilege of being exempted from their operation, He had presented a petition from certain: persons, praying to be beard at their lordships' bar against the bill. Their lordships had granted the prayer, and he had a petition to present, when the bill was read a second time, praying to be heard on all the clauses. Unless their lordships were prepared to shut their door against the people, they could not consent to the motion for discharging the order of the day.
The Earl of Liverpool
said, he was not in the House when this order was made, or he should have objected to it. His vote on the bill itself would depend on the clauses; for if it came out of the committee in its present shape, he should certainly oppose it. There was no reason for exempting the company from the operation of the usury laws. The bill was brought forward for a public object, and was of great importance. It was not their lordships practice to hear persons who advocated their individual interests at that stage of the bill. He thought their lordships should discharge the order and allow the bill to be read a second time.
The Earl of Lauderdale
thought the doctrine just held by the noble earl, was both novel and dangerous.
The Lord-Chancellor
understood this to be a private bill; and on such bills it was their lordships practice to hear counsel on the principle. He could not consent to discharge the order to hear counsel against the bill.
The House then divided: for the discharge of the order 26; against it 17.
The Earl of Lauderdale
opposed the second reading of the bill. It would deprive a body of men of their business, for the purpose of giving it to a company who were totally incapable of carrying it on.
1340
The Lord Chancellor
said, that if this bill came out of the committee as it now stood, there was hardly a sentence of it which he should not feel it his duty to oppose.
Lord Redesdale
could not consent to the second reading. There was one objection which struck him as decisively against it. Pawnbrokers could be punished criminally; but how could the company be punished? If a pawnbroker received stolen goods, he might be indicted and punished; but, how could the company be proceeded against in such a case? Their lordships should also be careful how they allowed so many companies with large capitals to be formed, as they might have a dangerous influence on the constitution and government of the country. He would exhort the noble earl at the head of the Treasury to give this point his serious consideration.
The Earl of Westmorland
expressed his perfect concurrence in the sentiments of the noble lord who had just sat down. The creation of so many companies might be dangerous to the state; and, so far from promoting trade, they only established monopolies, and ruined individuals. He would vote against the bill.
The House divided: for the second reading 17; against it 14.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, June 15.
PETITION OF ROBERT BELL, COMPLAINING OF BEING CALLED UPON BY
Sir James Mackintosh
said, he rose for the purpose of presenting two petitions to the consideration of the House. He should begin with that which adverted to a case of individual hardship, and subsequently submit the other, which referred to the general interests of the empire. The individual who made his complaint to the House, was aware that he could not obtain here a specific redress for the grievances of which he complained; but he trusted, that, under the extraordinary circumstances of the case, and the severity of the evil which, through no fault of his, was now about to be visited on him, he might be able, through the authority and; power of the House of Commons, to have extended to him the lenity and indulgence of the War-office. About twenty-five years ago the petitioner, Mr. Robert Bell, the proprietor and editor of "The Weekly
1341
1342
Lord Palmerston
said, he would state the circumstances of this case very shortly, that the House might see that it was not that case of hardship which the learned gentleman had described it to be. The petitioner, Mr. Bell, had become surety for Mr. Paymaster Workman; and it was only in consequence of his joining with another gentleman in a surety-bond, that the public money had ever been intrusted into that person's hands. As it was therefore by there own spontaneous act, that they had rendered themselves liable for Mr. Workman's deficiencies, he did not see what reason they had to complain of being now called upon to make them good. Now, Mr. Workman ceased to act as paymaster in 1800, and had then rendered his accounts. Any body who had heard the statement of the learned gentleman would suppose that, from the year 1800 to the year 1824, no step had been taken by government to examine those accounts, or to make Mr. Workman's sureties cognizable for the errors which they contained. Now, the reverse was the fact. In the year 1808, Mr. Workman's accounts were examined. The result of that examination was communicated to him immediately. Abstracts of the examination were also sent to the agent of the corps. The agent of the corps, in return, applied to the War-office, for information as to the residence of Mr. Workman's sureties. That information the War-office communicated, and the agent then wrote to the sureties, informing them of the sum in which Mr. Workman had left his accounts deficient. There was, therefore, no fault attributable to the War-office, for not having given the sureties the opportunity of settling these accounts with their principal. These accounts of Mr. Workman formed part of the arrears, which, owing to the multiplicity of accounts, accumulated during the war; and it was not till very lately that they had again fallen under the notice of the department with which he was connected. Upon finding them unsettled in 1824, he had ordered them to be revised, and had also directed application for the balance of them to be made to the sureties. In consequence of certain rules which he had laid down in his office with regard to the accounts of deceased pay-
1343
l
l
Mr. Hume
felt great pleasure that this subject had been taken up by his learned friend, especially as the case was only one of a very numerous class of grievances. He was of opinion that, after the lapse of a certain number of years, the government ought to have no stronger claim on a man's property than any of his private creditors. The noble lord had said, that communication had been made in 1808 to Mr. Workman's sureties, regarding the deficiency in that individual's accounts. Would the noble lord undertake to say that such communication had been received by the sureties, or produce any answer from them admitting the receipt of it? The noble lord had likewise said, that the sureties became so by their own voluntary act. He admitted it; but it ought not to be forgotten, that they became sureties under the idea that government would perform its duty, in regularly overlooking the accounts of the party for whom they engaged, and in communicating to them on the instant any deficiencies which it might discover in them, Now, it appeared from the noble lord's own statement, that Mr. Workman gave in his accounts in 1800, and that nothing was said to the sureties about any deficiency in them till 1808. How came it, too, that sixteen years had been allowed to pass over in silence since that notice was said to have been given? He thought it was a great oppression on the part of the government to bring forward this claim at this period against the sureties, who, by the negligence of government, had lost the opportunity which they once had of recovering the money of Mr. Workman. Mr. Workman had gone to America
1344
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, that Mr. Workman was a man of considerable talent, and had filled a high judicial station under the government of the United States of America. There was no account of his death. Indeed, within the last three years, he had received a law book written by him. He did hope, that the publicity given through the ordinary channels of the proceedings of that House would advise him, if living, of what had passed; and he had no doubt he would at once meet the claims of the government.
Ordered to lie on the table.
RECOGNITION OF THE INDEPENDENCE
Sir James Mackintosh
rose and said:
*
Mr. Speaker
I hold in my hand a petition from the Merchants of the city of London who are engaged in trade with the countries of America formerly subject to the crown of Spain, praying that the House would adopt such measures as to them may seem meet, to induce his majesty's government to Recognize the Independence of the states in those countries who have in fact established independent governments. In presenting this petition, I think it right to give the House such information as I possess relating to the number and character of the petitioners, that it may be seen how far they are what they profess to be; what are their means of knowledge; what are likely to be the motives of their application;
*
1345
1346
1347
1348
1349
*
*
Even Kluber, the publisher of the proceedings of the congress of Vienna, assents to the same doctrine, though he insidiously contrives the means of evading it by the insertion of one or two ambiguous words: "La souverainetéest acquise par un état, ou lors de sa fondation ou bien lorsqu'il se dégage légitimement de la dépendance dans laquelle il se trouvait. Pour être valide, elle n'a pas besoin d'être reconnue ou garantie par une puissance quelconque; pourvu que la possession ne soit pas vicieuse."—Kluber, Droit des Gens, Part i. c. i. s. 23. Stutgard, 1819.
Mr. Kluber would find it difficult to answer the question "Who is to judge whether the acquisition of independence be legitimate or its possession vicious?" and it is evident that the latter qualification is utterly unmeaning; for if there be an original fault which vitiates the possession of independence, it cannot be removed by foreign recognition, which, according to this writer himself, is needless where the independence is lawful, and must therefore be useless in those cases where he insinuates, rather than asserts, that foreign states are bound or entitled to treat it as unlawful.
1350
acquire the best means of cultivating friendly relations with important countries, and of cumposing by immediate negotiation those differences which might otherwise terminate in war. The first species of recognition is for the benefit of the state which is acknowledged. The second is for the benefit of the state which makes the acknowledgment. The first is the waiver of a legal pretension. The second, only the acknowledgment of a fact, together with a policy required by that acknowledgment. Are these new doctrines? Quite the contrary. They are founded on the ancient practice of Europe. They have been acted upon for more than two centuries by England, as well as other nations.
I have already generally alluded to the memorable and glorious revolt by which the United Provinces of the Netherlands threw off the yoke of Spain. Nearly fourscore years passed from the beginning of that just insurrection, to the time when, a recognition of independence was at last, extorted from Castilian pride and obstinacy.
The people of the Netherlands first took up arms to obtain the redress of intolerable grievances, and for many years they forbore from proceeding to the last extremity against their tyrannical king.
*
*
† March 15, 1580. Dumont, Corps Diplom. v. 368.
1351
Spain to have forfeited, by a long course of merciless tyranny, his rights of sovereignty over the Netherlands.
*
It was not till the 30th of January 1648, nearly eighty years after the revolt, nearly seventy after the declaration of independence, that the crown of Spain, by the treaty of Munster, recognised the republic of the United Provinces, and renounced all pretensions to sovereignty over their territory. What, during that long period, was the policy of the European states? Did they wait for eighty years, till the obstinate punctilio or lazy pedantry of the Escurial was subdued? Did they forego all the advantages of friendly intercourse with a powerful and flourishing republic? Did they withhold from that republic the ordinary courtesy of keeping up a regular and open correspondence with her through
*
1352
avowed and honourable ministers? Did they refuse to their own subjects that protection for their lives and properties, which such a correspondence alone could afford? All this they ought to have done, according to the principles of those who would resist the prayer of the petition in my hand.
But nothing of this was then done or dreamt of. Every state in Europe, except the German branch of the house of Austria, sent ministers to the Hague, and received those of the states-general. Their friendship was prized, their alliance courted, and defensive treaties formed with them by powers at peace with Spain, from the heroic Gustavus Adolphus to the barbarians of Persia and Muscovy. I say nothing of Elizabeth, herself proscribed as an usurper, the stay of Holland, and the leader of the liberal party throughout Europe. But no one can question the authority, on this point, of her successor, the great professor of legitimacy, the founder of that doctrine of the divine right of kings, which led his family to destruction. As king of Scotland, In 1594, fifty-four years before the recognition by Spain, he recognised the states-general as the successors of the houses of Austria and Burgundy, by stipulating with them the renewal of a treaty concluded between his mother queen Mary and the emperor Charles 5th.
In 1604, when James made peace with Spain, eager as he was by that transaction to be admitted into the fraternity of legitimate kings, he was so far curbed by the counsellors of Elizabeth, that he adhered to his own and to her recognition of the independence of Holland; the court of Madrid virtually acknowledging by several articles
*
*
1353
The policy of England towards Portugal, though in itself far less memorable, is still more strikingly pertinent to the purpose of this argument. On the 1st of December 1640, the people of Portugal rose in arms against the tyranny of Spain, under which they had groaned about sixty years. They seated the duke of Braganza on the throne. In January 1641, the Cortes of the kingdom were assembled to legalize his authority, though seldom convoked by his successors after their power was consolidated. Did England then wait the pleasure of Spain? Did she desist from connexion with Portugal, till it appeared from long experience that the attempts of Spain to recover that country must be unavailing? Did she even require that the Braganza government should stand the test of time before she recognised its independent authority? No: within a year of the proclamation of the duke of Braganza by the Cortes, a treaty of peace and alliance was signed at Windsor between Chas. 1st, and John 4th. which not only treats with the latter as an independent sovereign, but expressly speaks of the king of Castile as a dispossessed ruler; and alleges on the part of the king of England, that he was moved to conclude this treaty "by his solicitude to preserve the tranquillity of his kingdoms, and to secure the liberty of trade of his beloved subjects."
*
To these examples let me add an observation upon a part of the practice of nations, strongly illustrative of the principles which ought to decide this question. All the powers of Europe treated England under the commonwealth and the protectorate, as retaining her rights of sovereignty. They recognised these govern-
*
† Treaty of Lisbon, February 23, 1668. Dumont, vii. 70.
1354
ments as much as they had recognised the monarchy. The friends of Charles 2nd did not complain of this policy. That monarch, when restored, did not disallow the treaties of foreign powers with the republic or with Cromwell. Why? Because these powers were obliged, for the interest of their own subjects, to negotiate with the government which, whatever might be its character, was actually obeyed by the British nation. They pronounced no opinion on the legitimacy of that government; no judgment unfavourable to the claims of the exiled prince; they consulted only the security of the commerce and intercourse of their own subjects with the British islands.
It was quite otherwise with the recognition, by Louis 14th, of the son of James 2nd, when his father died, as king of Great Britain. As that prince was not acknowledged and obeyed in England, he interest of France required that Louis should maintain an intercourse or take any notice of his pretensions. A correspondence with the son of James 2nd could neither preserve peace between the two countries, nor protect the persons and properties of Frenchmen in England. That recognition was therefore justly resented by England as a wanton insult; as a direct interference in her internal affairs, as an assumption of authority to pronounce against the lawfulness of her government.
*
*
Mem de St. Simon
1355
who is without actual power, however just his pretensions to it may be believed to be.
I am aware, Sir, that our complaints of the interference of France in the American war may be quoted against my argument. Those who glance over the surface of history may see some likeness between that case and the present. But the resemblance is merely superficial. It disappears on the slightest examination. It was not of the establishment of diplomatic relations with America by France in 1778 that Great Britain complained. We now know from the last edition of the memoirs of the marquis de Bouille, that from the first appearance of discontent in 1765, the due de Choiseul employed secret agents to excite commotion in North America. That gallant and accomplished officer himself was no stranger to these intrigues after the year 1768, when he became governor of Guadaloupe.
*
*
† Ferrand, Trois Démembremens de la Pologne, i. 76.
‡ Martens, Recueil, i. 701, February 6,1773.
1356
cause. The division of the territories to be conquered was even provided for. Negligent and supine as were the English ministers, they can hardly be supposed to have been altogether ignorant of these secret treaties. The cause of war was not a mere recognition after a long warning to the mother country; after a more than generous forbearance shown to her dignity and claims, as it would be in the case with Spanish America; it was, that France, in defiance of the most solemn assurances of her ministers, and it is said of her sovereign, at length openly avowed those machinations to destroy the union between the British nation and the people of America—Englishmen by blood, and freemen by principle, dear to us by both ties, but most dear by the last—which they had carried on during so many years of peace and pretended friendship, and of which they themselves felt that this concluding act must produce war.
I now proceed to review the progress which we have already made towards the recognition of the states of Spanish America, as it appears in the papers before the House. I will not dwell on the statute 3 Geo. 4th, c. 43., which provides, "that the merchandize of countries in America or the West Indies, being or having been a part of the dominions of the king of Spain, may be imported into Great Britain in ships which are the built of these countries;" though that clause must be allowed to be an acknowledgment of independence, unless it could be said that the provinces separated from Spain were either countries without inhabitants, or inhabited by men without a government. Neither will I say any thing of the declaration made to Spain in November, that consuls must be immediately sent to South America, though I shall hereafter argue, that the appointment of consuls is as much an act of recognition as the appointment of higher ministers. Lord Liverpool indeed said, that it was "treating South America as independent," which is the only species of recognition which we have a right to make. I should be the last to blame the suspension of that purpose during the lawless and faithless invasion of Spain, then threatened, and soon after executed, which was undoubtedly a legitimate reason fordoing nothing, however otherwise just and desirable, which could tend to weaken the Spanish government. So strongly was I convinced of the sacredness of that duty,
1357
that I at that time declined to present a petition of a nature similar to that which now offer to your consideration. Nothing under heaven could have induced me to give the slightest aid to the unrighteous violence which then menaced the independence of Spain.
The dispatch of Mr. Secretary Canning to Sir Charles Stuart, of the 31st of March 1823, is the first paper which I wish to recall to the remembrance and recommend to the serious attention of the House.
*
The next document to which I shall refer is the memorandum of a conference between M. de Polignac and Mr. Secretary Canning on the 9th of October, 1823;† and I cannot help earnestly recommending to all persons who have any doubt with respect to the present state of this question, or to the footing on which it has stood for many months, who do not see or do not own that our determination has long been made and announced, to observe with care the force and extent of the language of the British government on this important occasion. "The British government," it is there said, "were of opinion that any attempt to bring Spanish America under its ancient submission must be utterly hopeless; that all negotiation for that purpose would be unsuccessful; and that the prolongation or renewal of war for the same object could be only a waste of human life, and an infliction of calamities on both parties to
*
† See Vol. x. p. 708.
1358
no end." Language cannot more strongly declare the conviction of Great Britain that the issue of the contest was even then no longer doubtful; that there was indeed no longer any such contest as could affect the policy of foreign states towards America. As soon as we had made known our opinion in terms so positive to the European and American states, the pretensions of Spain could not in point of justice be any reason for a delay of recognition. It would be absurd to speak of equal contest after declaring the event to be certain, or to consider any measure of ours as capable of lessening the probability of the success of Spain when we had pronounced that all her attempts must be utterly hopeless. After declaring that we should remain, however, "strictly neutral if war should be unhappily prolonged," we go on to state more explicitly than before, 'that the junction of any power in an enterprise of Spain against the colonies would be viewed as an entirely new question, upon which they must take such decision as the interest of Great Britain must require"—language which, however cautious and moderate in its forms, is in substance too clear to be misunderstood.
After this paragraph, no state in Europe had a right to affect surprise at the recognition, if it had been proclaimed on the following day. Still more clearly, if possible, is the same principle avowed in a subsequent paragraph, "that the British government had no desire to precipitate the recognition, so long as there was any reasonable chance of an accommodation with the mother country, by which such a recognition might come first from Spain. But that it could not wait indefinitely for that result; that it could not consent to make its recognition of the new states dependent on that of Spain; "and that it would consider any foreign interference, either by force or by menace, in the dispute between Spain and the colonies, as a motive for recognising the latter without delay." And here in a matter less important I should be willing to stop, and to rest ray case on this passage alone. Words cannot be more explicit. It is needless to comment on them, and impossible to evade them. We declare, that the only accommodation which we contemplate, is one which is to terminate in recognition by Spain; that we cannot indefinitely wait even for that result. We assert our right to recognise, whether
1359
I cannot quit this document without paying a just tribute to that part which relates to commerce—to the firmness with which it asserts the right of this country to continue her important trade with America, as well as the necessity of the appointment of consuls for the protection of that trade; and the distinct annunciation, "that an attempt to renew the obsolete interdictions would be best cut short by a speedy and unqualified recognition of the independence of the South American states." Still more do I applaud the declaration, "that Great Britain had no desire to set up any separate right to the free enjoyment of this trade; that she considered the force of circumstances and the irreversible progress of events to have already determined the question of the existence of that freedom for all the world." These are declarations equally wise and admirable. They coincide indeed so evidently with the well-understood interest of every state, that it is mortifying to be compelled to speak of them as generous; but they are so much at variance with the base and short-sighted policy of governments, that it is refreshing and consolatory to meet them in the acts of state: at least when, as here, they must be sincere, because the circumstances of their promulgation secure their observance, and indeed render deviation from them impossible. I read them over and over with the utmost pleasure. They breathe the spirit of that just policy and sound philosophy, which teaches us to regard the interest of our country as best promoted by an increase of the industry, wealth and happiness of other nations.
Although the attention of the House is chiefly directed to the acts of our own government, it is not foreign from the purpose of my argument to solicit them for a few minutes to consider the admirable, message sent, on the 2nd of December 1823, by the president of the United States to the Congress of that great Republic. I heartily rejoice in the perfect agreement of that message with the principles professed by us to the French minister, and
1360
Thus does that wise government, in grave but determined language, and with
1361
On the 25th of December 1823, M. Ofalia, the Spanish minister for foreign affairs, proposed to the principle powers of Europe a conference at Paris on the best means of enabling his Catholic majesty to re-establish his legitimate authority, and to spread the blessings of his paternal government over the vast provinces of America which once acknowledged the supremacy of Spain. To this communication, which was made also to this
1362
1363
The House can require nothing but to be reminded of these declarations. They are too explicit, precise, and even minute, to need the least explanation. The purport of the dispatch is, to warn Spain that the recognition cannot be delayed for many months; and the force of that warning is very much strengthened by the reasons which are assigned against delay. They distinguish it from a mere threat—and are of such a nature, that they render it impossible for a government to retreat from its declaration without sacrificing its honour, and incurring the imputation of being driven from its principles and interests by fear. I entreat the House to meditate on the grounds which are stated for early recognition. Are they not such, that, if they were sincerely and deliberately employed, they cannot be abandoned without dishonour, and without the danger which dishonour never fails to bring on great nations? But there can be no excuse for levity (if excuse in that case were possible), none for insincerity; for the dispatch of the 30th January is the consummation and conclusion of a series of measures and declarations which continued for nearly two critical and eventful years.
Subsequent to the 30th of January, I can have no official information, I have heard, and I believe, that Spain has answered this dispatch; that she repeats her invitation to England to send a minister to the proposed congress; and that she has notified the assent of Russia, Austria, France and Prussia to be parties to that proceeding. I have heard, and I also believe, that England on this occasion has proved true to herself; that, in conformity to her ancient character and inconsistency with her repeated declarations, she has declined all discussion of this question with the Holy or unholy Alliance. Would to God that we had from the beginning kept aloof from these congresses, in which we have made shipwreck of our ancient honour If that were not possible, would to God that we had protested at least by silence and absence against that conspiracy at Verona, which has annihilated the liberties of continental Europe! In confirmation of the review which I have taken of the documents, I
1364
As the case now stands, I conceive it to be declared by Great Britain, that the acknowledgment of the independence of Spanish America is no breach of faith or neutrality towards Spain; that such an acknowledgment might long ago have been made without any violation of her rights or interposition in her affairs; that we have been for at least two years entitled to make it by all the rules of international law; that we have delayed it, from friendly consideration for the feelings and claims of the Spanish Government; that we have now carried our forbearance to the utmost verge of reasonable generosity; and, having exhausted all the offices of friendship and good neighbourhood, are at perfect liberty to consult only the interest of our own subjects, and the just pretensions of the American states. The time allowed to Spain for consideration of this great question is expired. Generosity towards her would now be injustice to the rest of the world. Having thus excluded Spain from any influence on our future policy, we still more clearly protest against the influence of other states, who never had any right to be consulted or heard by us on a subject absolutely foreign to them. We have refused to be a party to any congress of the Holy or unholy Alliance; we have, I hope, at length dissolved our unnatural union with them; and having resolutely declared our determination not to be influenced by their counsels, we should certainly not endure their insolent injustice if they dared to require that we should abstain from recognizing the independence of Spanish America. I cast from me, therefore, with scorn and disdain, the supposition that any other power will presume to interfere in our policy, or to question our undoubted right to use the best means of cultivating friendship with the American states.
In adopting this recognition now, we shall give just offence to no power; and
1365
I will not say that such a state of the world does not require a considerate and circumspect policy. I acknowledge, and should earnestly contend, that there never was a moment at which the continuance of peace was more desirable. After passing through all the sufferings of twenty years universal war, and feeling its internal evils perhaps more severely since its close than when it raged most widely and fiercely, we are only now beginning to taste the natural and genuine fruits of peace. The robust constitution of a free community is just showing its power to heal the deepest wounds, to compose obstinate convulsions, and to restore health and vigour to every disordered function or disabled member. I deprecate the occurrence of what must disturb this noble process—one of the miracles of liberty. But I am also firmly convinced, that prudence in the present circumstances of Europe
1366
Having thus traced the progress of measures which have led us to the very verge of recognition, the question naturally presents itself, Why do we not now recognize? It is not so much my part to show cause for a new measure, as it is the duty of the government to tell us why they do not complete their own system. Every preparation is made, every adverse claim is rejected, ample notice is given to all parties. Why is the determination delayed? We are irrevocably pledged to maintain our principles, and to act on them towards America. We have cut off all honourable retreat. Why should we seem to hesitate? America expects from us the common marks of amity and respect. Spain cannot complain at their being granted. No other state can intimate an opinion or the subject, without an open attack on the independence of Great Britain. What then hinders the decisive word from being spoken?
We have already, indeed, taken one step more in addition to those on which I
1367
*
Where should we apply for redress, if a Columbian privateer were to capture an
*
"Le Consul doit présenter ses Lettres de Provision au Souverain du pays ou il va résider pour obtenir son approbation, son agrdment et ses ordresde le reconnoitre en cette qualityé; ce que l'on appellc Exequatur." Id. 58.
1368
English merchant-man? Not at Madrid, but at Bogota. Does not this answer decide the whole question? Docs it not declare that the government of Spain has lost the sovereignty of Caraccas, and that the government of Columbia has succeeded to it? From the moment when the cabinet of Madrid could afford no redress for wrongs done to an Englishman on the Rio de la Plata, it became lawful for the English government to seek that redress where alone it could be found, from the government of Buenos Ayres; and the government of Great Britain owed it to their own subjects to provide the means of obtaining that redress.
It could not be obtained at all without agents on the spot, secret or avowed, expressly or tacitly authorised and instructed by the British government. But British subjects have a right to expect not merely that their government shall provide some means of redress, but that they should provide adequate and effectual means; those which universal experience has proved to be the best; those in which long usage has taught all nations to place confidence. They are not bound to be content with the unavowed agency and precarious good offices of naval officers, nor even with the inferior and imperfect protection of an agent whose commission is limited to the security of trade.
The power of a consul is confined to commercial affairs; and there are many of the severest wrongs which the merchant suffers, which, as they may not directly affect him in his trading concerns, are not within the proper province of the consul. Merchants are insufficiently secured by a disguised, a clandestine, or a subaltern minister. The English trader at Buenos Ayres ought not to feel his safety less perfect than that of other foreign merchants. Why should he be condemned to envy the North American merchant, who feels that all his private as well as commercial interests are protected by a diplomatic minister who represents the Republic, and whose presence is a constant and visible pledge that her power every where protects her unoffending citizens? The American trader is not left to gather information, so essential to his comfort, from conjecture or reasoning: he daily sees it and feels it: he is assured of it by the view of those badges of national protection which mankind have in all ages regarded with veneration. The inferiority of the English trader is con-
1369
1370
Another circumstance will render our delay more surprising to them and to all mankind. We have long since advised Spain to acknowledge the independence of her late provinces in America; we have told her that it is the only basis on which negociations can be carried on, and that it affords her the only chance of preserving some of the advantages of friendship and commerce with these vast territories. But if we have spoken sincerely we must consider them now, we must have considered them a year ago, as ripe for recognition. There can be no obstacle to it in their internal state; for if there had, it would have as much stood in the way of Spain as in ours. Whatever rendered it right for Spain to recognise them, must also render it right for us. If we now delay, Spain may very speciously charge us with insincerity. "It now," she may say, "appears from your own conduct, that under pretence of friendship you advised us to do that from which you yourselves recoil. You advised us to abdicate a great empire, though you now treat it as containing not one government capable of keeping faith and observing justice. For the vile purpose of extending your own commerce, you would have betrayed Spain into a surrender of all her American subjects, to those whom by your acts you now
1371
They will not fail to discover, that all delay founded on the internal state of America is in another respect grossly inconsistent with our express declarations. We have declared that we should immediately proceed to recognition, either if Spain were to invade the liberty of trade which we now possess, or if any other power were to take a part in the contest between her and the American states. But do not these declarations necessarily imply that they are in fact independent? Surely no injustice of Spain, or France, or Russia could authorize England to acknowledge that to be a fact which we do not know to be so. Either, therefore, we have threatened to do what ought not to be done, or these states are now in a condition to be treated as independent.
One observation more on the peculiar circumstances of this case will perhaps be excused. It is now many months since it was declared to M. de Polignac, that we should consider "any foreign interference by force or menace, in the dispute between Spain and her colonies, as a motive for recognizing the latter without delay." I ask whether the interference "by menace" has not now occurred? M. Ofalia on the 26th of December proposed a congress on the affairs of America, in hopes that the allies of king Ferdinand "will assist him in accomplishing the worthy object of upholding the principles of order and legitimacy, the subversion of which once commenced in America would speedily communicate." Now I have already said that; if I am rightly informed, this proposition, happily rejected by Great Britain, has been acceded to by the allied powers. Preparations for the congress are said to be already made. Can there be a more distinct case of interference by menace in the American contest, than the agreement to assemble a congress for the purpose described in the dispatch of M. Ofalia? A case has therefore now occurred, in which we have pledged our national honour that we should immediately recognize the American states.
But it is said that we ought not to recognize where a contest is still maintained, or where governments of some apparent stability do not exist. Both these ideas
1372
To understand it rightly, we must consider separately what is often confounded in argument: the first question, Whether there be a contest with Spain still pending; and the second, Whether internal tranquillity be securely established. In the first, we must mean such a contest as exhibits some equality of force, of which, if the combatants were left to themselves, the issue would be in some degree doubtful. It never can be understood so as to include a bare chance, that Spain might recover her ancient dominions at some distant and absolutely uncertain period: for such a possibility must always remain; it is incident to all human affairs; and we must on that principle postpone our recognition indefinitely, which we have expressly and repeatedly declared that we will not do. Now, before I proceed to examine the facts, I must observe that we have already determined this question
1373
But, as an argument only conclusive against men who previously acknowledge certain opinions, and in which the whole effect depends on the rare occurrence of any men being consistent with themselves, must necessarily be of a partial and precarious character, I am willing to enter into the inquiry concerning the independence of America, and prepared to contend that, without waiting for the investigations of the commissioners, the result is decisively favourable to the measure which I recommend. Let me be allowed to offer a dilemma (not indeed so terrible a dilemma as that with which, in the late debate on Mr. Smith, the missionary, my learned friend (Mr. Brougham) so pressed another very acute and ingenious friend of mine (Mr. Tindal), that the latter with all his skill found it impossible to escape from being gored by either of its horns)—one of a more calm and more pacific, and I fear less severely logical, character—but which affords at least a commodious means of distinguishing the separate parts of this case clearly from each other, and of detecting the fallacy which lurks beneath the specious cover of general language.
When you inquire, whether any contest approaching to equality now subsists, do you consider Spanish America as one mass or do you apply your inquiry to the peculiar situation of each individual state? For the purposes of the present war you may view them in either light—in
1374
If I look on Spanish America as one vast mass, the question of the existence of any serious contest is too simple to admit the slightest doubt. What proportion does the contest bear to the country in which it prevails? My geography, or at least my recollection, does not serve me so far, that I could enumerate the degrees of latitude and longitude over which that vast country extends. On the western coast it reaches from the northern point of New California to the utmost limit of cultivation towards Cape Horn. On the eastern it extends from the mouth of the Mississippi to that of the Orinoco; and, after the immense exception of Guiana and Brazil, from the Rio de la Plata to the southern footsteps of civilized man. The prodigious varieties of its elevation exhibit in the same parallel of latitude all the climates and products of the globe. It is the only abundant source of the metals justly called precious, the most generally and permanently useful of all commodities, except those which are necessary to the preservation of human life. It is unequally and most scantily peopled by sixteen or eighteen millions, whose numbers, freedom of industry, and security of property must quadruple in a century. Its length on the Pacific coast is equal to that of the whole continent of Africa from the Cape of Good Hope to the Straits of Gibraltar. It is more extensive than the vast possessions of Russia or of Great Britain in Asia. The Spanish language is spoken over a line of nearly 6000 miles. The State of Mexico alone is five times larger than European Spain. A single communication cut through these territories between the Atlantic and Pacific would bring China 6000 miles nearer to Europe
*
After this faint sketch of the extent, the force, the resources and the prospects of Spanish America, it is time to ask what is the contest maintained for by Spain. I
*
1375
lay aside for the present all contending parties among the Americans, and inquire only who, throughout this vastempire, are in arms for the cause of Spain? What is the Spanish strength? A single castle in Mexico, an island on the coast of Chili, and a small army in Upper Peru! Is this a contest approaching to equality? Is it sufficient to render the independence of such a country doubtful? Does it deserve the name of contest? It is very little more than what in some of the wretched governments of the East is thought desirable to keep alive the vigilance of the rulers, and to exercise the martial spirit of the people. No impartial and well-informed man has the least disposition to believe that such revolts, though they may for some time be expected to prevail with occasional success and with constant mischief can have any tendency to restore the Spanish authority. There is nothing therefore now, which deserves the name of contest between Spain and South America considered as a whole. There is no present appearance that the country can be reduced by the power of Spain alone; and if any other power were to interfere, it is acknowledged that such an interference would impose new duties on Great Britain.
If, on the other hand, we consider the American states as separate, the fact of independence is undisputed with respect at least to some of them. What doubts can be entertained of the independence of the immense provinces of Caraccas, New Grenada and Quito, which now form the republic of Columbia? There, not a royalist soldier remains. A considerable Spanish army has been defeated. They have all either been destroyed, or expelled from the territory of the republic. Three congresses have successively been assembled. They have formed a reasonable and promising constitution. They have endeavoured to establish a wise system and a just administration of law. In the midst of their difficulties they have ventured (and hitherto with perfect success) to encounter the arduous and perilous but noble problem of a pacific emancipation of slaves. They have been able to observe good faith to their creditors, and thus to preserve the greatest of all resources in times of danger. Their tranquillity has stood the test of the long absence of Bolivar in Peru. Englishmen who have lately traversed their territories in various directions, are unanimous in stating that their
1376
The republic of Buenos Ayres has an equally undisputed enjoyment of independence. There no Spanish soldier has set his foot for fourteen years. It would be as difficult to find a royalist there, as it would be a Jacobite in England (I mean only a personal adherent of the house of Stuart, for as to Jacobites in principle, I fear they never were more abundant). It has not even been attacked by Spaniards since the declaration of independence: and its rulers are so conscious of internal security, that they have crossed the Andes, and interposed with vigour and effect in the revolutions of Chili and Peru. Whoever wishes to know the state of Chili, will find it in a very valuable book lately published by Mrs. Graham, a lady whom I have the happiness to call my friend, who, by the faithful and picturesque minuteness of her descriptions, places her reader in the midst of the country, and introduces him to the familiar acquaintance of the inhabitants. Whatever seeds of internal discord may be perceived, we do not discover the vestige of any party friendly to the dominion of Spain. Even in Peru, where the spirit of independence has most recently appeared, and appears most to fluctuate, no formidable body of Spanish partisans has been observed by the most intelligent observers; and it is very doubtful whether even the army which keeps the field in that province against the American cause, be devoted to the restored despotism of Spain. Mexico, the greatest, doubtless, and most populous, but not perhaps the most enlightened, portion of Spanish America has passed through severe trials, and seems hitherto far from showing a disposition again to fall under the authority of Spain. Even the party who long bore the name of Spain on their banners, were unassisted by her arms. They fought for the mother country, it is true; but being taught to
1377
If, then, we consider these states as one mass, there cannot be said to be any remaining contest. If, on the other hand, we consider them separately, why do we not immediately comply with the prayer of this petition, by recognising the independence of those whom we must allow to be in fact independent? Where is the objection to the instantaneous recognition at least of Columbia and Buenos Ayres?
But here I shall be reminded of the second condition (as applicable to Mexico and Peru), the necessity of a stable government and of internal tranquillity: without these advantages, we are told that no state has a claim to be recognised.—On what principle this doctrine rests I cannot discover. Independence and good government are unfortunately very different things. Most countries have enjoyed the former; not above three or four since the beginning of history have had any pretensions to the latter. Many grossly misgoverned countries have performed duties of justice and good-will to neighbouring states; I do not say so well as more wisely ordered commonwealths, but still tolerably, and always much better than if they had not been controlled by the influence of opinion acting through a regular intercourse with other nations.
We really do not deal with Spain and America by the same weight and measure. We exact proofs of independence and tranquillity from America. We dispense both with independence and tranquillity in Old Spain. We have an ambassador at Madrid though the whole kingdom be in the hands of France. We treat Spain with all the honours due to a civilized state of the first rank; though we have been told in this House, that the continuance of the French army there is an act
1378
On the other hand, we require from the new-born states of America, a condition incompatible with human nature, and which if they were able to fulfil, they would be unlike every other community that ever shook off the yoke of foreign or domestic tyrants. We refuse them the honour of formal admission into the society of independent nations, unless they shall immediately solve the awful problem of reconciling liberty with order; unless infant governments shall in a moment shoot up into manhood; unless all the efforts incident to a fearful struggle shall at once subside into the most perfect and undisturbed tranquillity. We expect that every interest which great changes have wounded shall yield without resistance, and that every visionary or ambitious hope which they have kindled shall submit without a murmur to the counsels of wisdom and the authority of the laws. Who are we who exact the performance of such hard conditions? Are we, the English nation, to look thus coldly on rising liberty? We have indulgence enough for tyrants; we make ample allowance for the difficulties of their situation; we are ready enough to deprecate the censure of their worst acts. And are we, who spent ages of blood in struggling for freedom, to treat with such severity the nations who now follow our example? Are we to refuse that indulgence to the errors and faults of other nations, which was so long needed by our own ancestors? The English people waded through despotism and anarchy, through civil war and revolution on their road to freedom. They passed through every form of civil and religious tyranny; they persecuted Protestants under Mary; I blush to add, they persecuted Catholics under Elizabeth. It was said by the great satirist, in those nervous invectives which he poured out against them for their love of liberty, that they were a people whom
"No king could govern, and no God could please."
1379
Within a few years after these invectives, this abused people established the first system of civil and religious liberty which had ever been attempted in. a great empire We justly revere our forefathers for having accounted all the evils through which they passed, as nothing in comparison with the high object which they pursued. We never think of these evils further than as they endeared to us the liberty of which they were the price. And shall we now inconsistently, unreasonably, basely hold that distractions so much fewer and milder and shorter, endured in the same glorious cause, will unfit other nations for its attainment, and preclude them from the enjoyment of that rank and those privileges which we at the same moment recognize as belonging to slaves and barbarians?
I call upon my right hon. friend-distinctly to tell us, on what principle he considers the perfect enjoyment of internal quiet as a condition necessary for the acknowledgment by foreign states of an independence which cannot be denied to exist lean discover none, unless the confusions of a country were such as to endanger the personal safety of a foreign minister. In such a case, indeed, there would be a sufficient reason for interrupting diplomatic intercourse till it could be safely carried on. Yet the European powers have always had ministers at Constantinople, though it was well known that the barbarians who ruled there would, on the approach of a quarrel, send these unfortunate gentlemen to a prison in which they might remain during a long war. Short of this extreme case, I see no connexion between diplomatic intercourse and the internal state of a country. As long as foreign ministers are secure, no confusion can be such as to require the interruption or to prevent the establishment of intercourse through them. But if there were any such insecurity in the new States, how do the ministers of the United States of North America reside in their capitals? or why do we trust our own consuls and commissioners among them? Is there any physical peculiarity in a consul, which renders him invulnerable where an ambassador or an envoy would be in danger? Is a consul bullet-proof or bayonet-proof, or do consuls wear coats of mail which secure them from violence? The appointment of consuls implies our belief that there are governments existing in
1380
I will venture even to contend, that internal distractions, instead of being an impediment to diplomatic intercourse, are rather an additional reason for it. An ambassador is more necessary in a disturbed than in a tranquil country, inasmuch as the evils against which his presence is intended -to guard are more likely to occur in the former than in the latter. It is in the midst of civil commotions that the foreign trader is the most likely to be wronged; and it is then that he therefore requires not only the good offices of a consul, but the weightier interposition of a higher minister. In a perfectly well ordered country the laws and the tribunals-might be sufficient. It is in a state where their operation is disturbed, that he cannot be safe without aid from the representative of his native country. In the same manner it is obvious, that if an ambassador be an important security for the preservation and good understanding between the best regulated governments, his presence must be far more requisite to prevent the angry passions of exasperated factions from breaking out into war. Whether, therefore, we consider the individual or the public interests which are secured by embassies, it seems no paradox to maintain, that if they could be dispensed with at all, it would rather be in quiet than in disturbed countries.
The interests here at stake may be said
1381
But the mass of private interest engaged in our trade with Spanish America, is so great as to render it a large part of the national interest. There are already at least a hundred English houses of trade established in various parts of that immense country. A great body of skilful miners have lately left this country, to restore and increase the working of the mines of Mexico. Botanists and Geologists and Zoologists are preparing to explore regions too vast to be exhausted by the Condamines and Humboldts. These missionaries of civilization, who are about to spread European and especially English opinions and habits, and to teach industry and the arts, with their natural consequences of love of order and desire of quiet, are at the same time opening new markets for the produce of British labour, and new sources of improvement as well as enjoyment to the people of America.
The excellent petition from Liverpool to the king, sets forth the value of the South American commerce very clearly with respect to its present extent, its rapid increase, and its probable permanence. In 1819, the official returns represent the value of exported British produce at thirty-five millions sterling; in 1822, at forty-six millions; and, in the opinion of the petitioners, who are witnesses of the highest authority, a great part of this prodigious increase is to be ascribed to the progress of the South American trade. On this point, however, they are not content with probabilities. In 1822, they tell us that the British produce exported to the late Spanish colonies amounted in value to three millions eight hundred thousand pounds sterling; and in 1823, to five millions six hundred thousand; an increase of near two millions in one year. As both the years compared are subsequent to the opening of the American ports, we may lay out of the account
1382
*
l
l
l
l
It is observed, that this last extraordinary statement relates to the comparative infancy of this trade; that it comprehends neither Vera Cruz nor the ports of Columbia; and that the striking disproportion in the rate of increase does not arise from the abatement of the North American demand (for that has increased), but from the rapid progress of demand in the South American market Already, then, this new commerce surpasses in amount and still more in progress, that trade with the United States which is one of the oldest and most extensive as well as most progressive branches of the traffic of this great, commercial country.
If I consult another respectable authority, and look at the subject in a somewhat different light, I find the annual value of our whole exports estimated in lord Liverpool's speech on this subject at forty-three millions sterling,
*
*
† See Vol, X. p. 993.
1383
The official accounts of exports and imports laid before this House on the 3rd of May 1824, present another view of this subject, in which the Spanish colonies are carefully separated from Brazil. By these accounts it appears the exports to the Spanish colonies were as follows. In 1818,735, 344
l
l
l
l
l
l
If it were important to swell this account, I might follow the example of the Liverpool petitioners (who are to be heard with more respect, because on this subject they have no interest), by adding to the general amount of commerce the supply of money to the American States of about twelve millions sterling; for though I of course allow that such contracts cannot be enforced by the arms of this country against a foreign state, yet I consider the commerce in money as equally legitimate and honourable with any other sort of commercial dealing, and equally advantageous to the country of the lenders, wherever it is profitable to the lenders themselves. I see no difference in principle between a loan on the security of public revenue, and a loan on a mortgage of private property; and the protection of such dealings is in my opinion a perfectly good additional reason for hastening to do that which is previously determined to be politic and just.
To use any further arguments to prove the importance of a trade which has been declared to be important by London,
1384
If I were further called to illustrate the value of a free intercourse with South America, I should refer the House to a valuable work, which I hope all who hear me have read, and which I know they ought to read—I mean captain Basil Hall's Travels in that country. The whole book is one continued proof of the importance of the free trade to England, to America, and to mankind. No man knows better how to extract information from the most seemingly trifling conversations, and to make them the means of conveying the most just conception of the opinions, interests, and feelings of a people. Though he can weigh interests in the scales of Smith, he also seizes, with the skill of Plutarch, on those small circumstances and expressions which characterize not only individuals but nations. "While we were admiring the scenery," says he, "our people had established themselves in a hut, and were preparing supper under the direction of a peasant—a tall copper-coloured semi-barbarous native of the forest—but who, notwithstanding his uncivilized appearance, turned out to be a very shrewd fellow, and gave us sufficiently pertinent answers to most of our queries. A young Spaniard of our party, a royalist by birth, and half a patriot in sentiment, asked the mountaineer what harm the king had done. 'Why,' answered he 'as for the king, his only fault, at least that I know of, was his living too far off; if a king be really good for a country, it appears to me that he ought to live in that country, not two thousand leagues away from it.' On asking him what was his opinion of the free trade, 'My opinion,' said he, 'is this—formerly I paid nine dollars for the piece of cloth of which this
1385
*
This simple story illustrates better than a thousand arguments the sense which the American consumer has of the consequences of free trade to him. If we ask how it affects the American producer, we shall find a decisive answer in the same admirable work. His interest is, to produce his commodities at less expense, and to sell them at a higher price, as well as in greater quantity. All these objects he has obtained. Before the Revolution, he sold his copper at seven dollars a quintal. In 1821, he sold it at thirteen dollars a quintal. The articles which he uses in the mines are, on the other hand, reduced —steel from 50 dollars a quintal to 16 dollars; iron from
25
It will perhaps be said, that Spain is willing to abandon the monopoly: but if she did, might she not by the same authority restore it? If her sovereignty be restored, she must possess abundant means of evading the execution of any concessions now made in the hour of her distress. The faith of Ferdinand is the only security for the observance of a stipulation for keeping open the trade, or any part of it. On the other hand, if America continues independent, our security is the strong sense of a most palpable interest already spread among the people. The interest of the miner of Chili in selling his copper, and of the
*
† Hall, ii. 47. This curious table relates to Chili—the previous anecdote to Mexico.
1386
*
But it is needless to reason on this subject, or to refer to the conduct of local agents. We have a decree of Ferdinand himself to appeal to. It bears date at Madrid on the 9th February, 1824. It is a very curious document, and very agreeable to the general character of his most important edicts, in which there is more than the usual repugnance between the title and the purport. As he published a table of proscription under the name of a decree of amnesty, so his professed grant of free trade is, in truth, an establishment of monopoly. The first article does indeed promise a free trade to Spanish America: the second, however, hastens to declare that this free trade is to be "regulated by a future law, that is to be confined to certain ports, and that it shall be subjected to duties which are to be regulated by the same law. The third also declares that the preference to be granted to Spain shall be regulated in like manner. As if the duties, limitations, and preferences thus announced had not provided such means of evasion as were equivalent to a repeal of the first article, the royal lawgiver proceeds in the fourth article to enact, that "till the two foregoing articles can receive their perfect execution, there shall be nothing innovated in the state of America:" which, as the court of Madrid does not recognise the legality of what has been done in America since the revolt, may be plausibly and perhaps reasonably interpreted to import a re-establishment of the Spanish laws of absolute monopoly, till the government of Spain shall be disposed to promulgate that code of restriction, of preference, and of duties, perhaps prohibitory, which, according to them, constitutes free trade. It is not said whether the innovation relates to law or to fact. Even on the
*
1387
But it will be said elsewhere, though not here, that I now argue on the selfish and sordid principle of exclusive regard to British interest—that I would sacrifice every higher consideration to the extension of our traffic, and to the increase of our profits: for this is the insolent language, in which those who gratify their ambition by plundering and destroying their fellow creatures have in all ages dared to speak of those who better their own condition by multiplying the enjoyments of mankind. In answer, I might content myself with saying, that, having proved the recognition to be conformable to justice, I have a perfect right to recommend it as conducive to the welfare of this nation. But I deny altogether the doctrine, that commerce has a selfish character—that it can benefit one party without being advantageous to the other. It is twice blessed—it blesses the giver as well as the receiver. It consists in the interchange of the means of enjoyment, and its very essence is, to employ one part of mankind in contributing to the happiness of others. It is absolutely impossible to conceive an instance of its permanent extension, as long as it is confined within the limits of morality, which does not render it the interest of a greater number of men to contribute to the subsistence or relief, or security or pleasure, or improvement or refinement, of a larger and larger body of their fellow men. What is the instrument by which a savage is to be raised from a state in which he has nothing human but the form, but commerce, by exciting in his mind the desire of accommodation and enjoyment, and by presenting to him the means of obtaining these advantages? It is thus only that he is gradually raised to industry, to foresight, to a respect for property, to a sense of justice, to a perception of the necessity of laws. What corrects his prejudices against foreign nations and dissimilar races?— Commercial intercourse. What slowly teaches him that the quiet and well-being of
1388
A delay of recognition would be an important breach of justice to the American States. We send consuls to their territory, in the confidence that their government and their judges will do justice to British subjects. But we receive no authorised agents from them to secure the attainment of justice here by their subjects, for that would be recognition. Until they shall be recognised by the king, our courts of law will not acknowledge their existence; so that these governments may have large dealings in this country, which are put out of the protection of the law. Our statutes allow certain privileges to ships from the provinces in America lately subject to Spain; but our courts will not acknowledge that these provinces are subject to any government. The effect of our present position is even to take away the protection of law from the dealings of British subjects with them or on their account.
A vast commercial property has not the advantage which is professed by enjoyed by all property in almost every state. If the maritime war which has lately commenced should long continue, many questions of international law may arise out of our anomalous situation, which it will be impossible to determine by any established principles. The law of nations never contemplates a case in which a vast empire is engaged, of which we do not recognise the government, or, in other words, of which
1389
It would not be neutrality, but gross partiality towards Spain, to withhold from the American States the advantages which would arise from our recognition, while we enjoy all the benefits of a secure and friendly intercourse with them. Recognition, indeed, confers no legal rights, but it gives great advantages in general opinion, which a recent government feels very sensibly, both at home and abroad.
These moral interests of a state may be as important as many of its positive rights. By withholding them without necessity from a struggling community, we may give the most effectual aid to their enemies. We teach their subjects and their enemies to despise them; we inspire a general distrust of their permanence; and we may discourage other nations from treating them with respect and good will. All that is thus taken out of their scale is thrown into that of their enemies.
The reception of a new state into the society of civilized nations by those acts which amount to recognition, is a proceeding which, as it has no legal character, and is purely of a moral nature, must vary very much in its value, according to the name and authority of the nation who, upon such occasions, act as the representatives of civilized men. I will say nothing of England, but that she is the only anciently free state in the world. For her to refuse her moral aid to communities struggling for liberty, is an act of unnatural harshness, which, if it does not recoil on England, must injure America in the estimation of mankind. The injury is aggravated by the reason assigned for the delay. If we wait till so vast a country, inhabited by so many various classes of men, all of whom have so little political experience, shall exhibit a scene of universal tranquillity, how many years may pass ere we adopt a measure which we have already declared must be done before many; months have elapsed!
This is not all: the delay of recognition tends to prolong and exasperate the disorders which are the reason alleged for it. Recognition is a proof of general goodwill and confidence, which will strengthen these governments, and consequently tends to shorten and mitigate the agitations of
1390
It is vain to expect that Spain, even if she were to conquer America, could establish in that country a vigorous government capable of securing an useful intercourse with other countries. America is too determined, and Spain is too
1391
To conclude:—The delay of recognition is not due to Spain. It is injurious to America. It is inconvenient to all European nations; and only most incon-
1392
The following Petition was then brought up, and read:
"To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned merchants of the City of London,
"Showeth—That your Petitioners aye engaged in trade with the countries in America formerly under the dominion of Spain:
"That the entire extinction of Spanish authority in the greater part of that Continent, and the encouragement by the government at home, induced your petitioners to embark in that extensive commerce, with full confidence that it would receive the most complete protection, and ultimately prove most beneficial to them-
1393
"In the session of 1822, an act of parliament was passed, cap. 43, authorizing the importation of goods, the growth, production, or manufacture, of 'any country or place in America, being or having been a part of the dominions of the king of Spain,' either in British ships or in ships the built of those countries. In the following year, consuls were appointed to proceed to the ports thereof, and subsequently there has been made public the declaration of his majesty's government, that in its opinion, the recognition of such of the new states as have established, de facto, their separate political existence cannot be much longer delayed.'
"Your petitioners further humbly represent, that many millions of capital have already been embarked in this trade; that large commercial establishments have been formed both in South America and at home: and that past experience affords the strongest ground for believing that this commercial intercourse will admit of great extension, the reciprocal demand for the productions of the respective countries being constantly increasing.
"Your petitioners consequently end themselves greatly embarrassed by those countries remaining 'without any recognised political existence.' Not a week passes but they are assailed with rumours of the most alarming kind, involving their proceedings in doubt, hesitation, and distraction, and grievously destructive of that confidence so essential to the success of all commercial undertakings. Your honourable House must be well aware that no commercial intercourse can be permanently carried on with security and advantage to those concerned, if it is rendered liable to fluctuation by constant alarms of political changes, necessarily producing sudden and excessive alterations in the value of the property embarked.
"That your petitioners are enabled to state, and to prove unequivocally to your honourable House, that in the several states of Columbia, Buenos Ayres, and Chili, there does not remain the smallest vestige of Spanish dominion in any shape: each state enjoying its own government separate and independent from all interference of a hostile force.
"That the revolution which has pro-
1394
"Your petitioners, therefore, humbly submit that these states have established, de facto, their separate political existence; and are, according to the practice of nations in former instances, entitled to be recognized as independent governments; but they would not have presumed to have addressed your honourable House on a question of this nature, if the continued delay in recognizing this political existence did not produce the most detrimental consequences to the commercial transactions in which they are concerned.
"Your petitioners, therefore, most humbly pray that your honourable House will take this question into its serious consideration, and adopt such measures as to its wisdom may seem fit, for promoting the immediate recognition of the independence of such of the states of South America as have, de facto, established the same. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray."
On the question that it do lie on the table,
Mr. Secretary Canning
said:—Unquestionably, Sir, I am very far from having any thing to complain of, either with respect to the tone or topics with which my hon. and learned friend has introduced his speech; and if the observations which I shall feel it my duty to make upon that speech, or the petition upon which it is founded, shall bear but a small proportion to his address, I hope he will do me the justice to believe, that it is not in consequence of any offence at what he has said, or any disrespect for his opinions. But, my hon. and learned friend must be fully aware, that though there are, in what he believed might be called the late Spanish colonies great questions involved, any thing which may fall from me on the part of his majesty's government would be likely to produce effects, which neither he nor I could wish to witness. I, therefore, must rather restrain every disposition
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1400
Mr. T. Wilson
said, that, as one of the members for the city of London, he thanked the hon. and learned member for the masterly manner in which he had discharged his duty to the petitioners.
Mr. Ellice
concurred with the hon. member for London, in the well-deserved praise which he had bestowed upon his hon. and learned friend for bringing this subject forward. Had parliament prorogued without some declaration or discussion upon this most important subject, that neglect must have imparted the greatest uneasiness to all the commercial ranks in the country. In the out-ports, no less than in the city of London, did the deepest anxiety prevail as to the assurances which might follow from the government upon the presenting of this petition. All that he would say for the present was, that the simple recognition of their independence by Great Britain would do more to quell the disturbances and restore order to the colonies, than the recognition by Spain herself. He trusted, therefore, that he was not wrong in expecting that recognition would speedily flow from the lips of the right hon. secretary himself, convinced as he was, that it was high time that the British government should think of some means for putting upon a safe and solid footing the very considerable mercantile transactions which were now transacting between this country and the Spanish American colonies. He felt more anxiety on behalf of the commercial persons whose interests were involved, than on account of those who had accommodated the new governments with loans; the first case being one, which, from the present extent of the transactions, must more or less affect all the mercantile interests of every species whatsoever in this country. The recognition ought, therefore, to be no longer delayed than was absolutely necessary to the security and peace of this country. Already government had appointed commissioners who were sent out to inquire
1401
Mr. Brougham
said:—I do not rise to prolong this discussion beyond a few minutes; but I cannot help expressing my gratitude to my hon. and learned friend, for the masterly and comprehensive view which he has taken of this question, second to none in the importance of the principles which it involves. I am exceedingly well satisfied also with a great part of the statement made by the right hon. secretary of state, and I rather think that the parties from whom this petition proceeds, as well as those whom they virtually represent, and whose welfare is so materially concerned in the security of commerce, will feel that they have no reason to complain. Nothing, undoubtedly, can be more satisfactory than the information conveyed in the sort of supplement made by the right hon. gentleman. To have consented to join in any congress would certainly, independent of other objections, have fettered the British government in its proceedings towards South America, including also the former Spanish province of Mexico. But, the most satisfactory portion of what fell from the right hon. gentleman I take to be this:—that though, from the want of official, not authentic, information (for I freely admit the distinction between authentic news that cannot be doubted, and official intelligence on which alone a government can proceed) the British cabinet cannot yet pronounce a formal acknowledgment of the independence of the states of South America; yet, when official assurance shall have been communicated to it from its accredited agents, that one of these great and now free countries is so established as to be able to maintain her own separate and substantive existence, then that formal recognition shall
1402
Sir James Mackintosh,
in moving that the petition be printed, said:—I feel great satisfaction that the hon. member for London, with the knowledge he must
1403
1404
Mr. Canning
said, he did not mean to throw the slightest blame on those who employed their capital in loans to the states of South America. All men had a perfect right to advance their capital in foreign governments, if they thought fit; but he honestly owned, that he could not understand how those who had so employed their capital, were not interested in the question of recognition. The House must allow him to say, that parties so engaged ought not to carry with them the force and influence of the British government, in order to compel foreign states to fulfil their contracts.
Sir J. Mackintosh
: —I wish to add one striking fact on the subject of recognition. The United States of America accompanied their acknowledgment with a declaration of their determination to adhere to neutrality in the contest between Spain and her colonies. A stronger instance cannot be adduced of the compatibility of recognition and neutrality.
Sir F. Burdett
said:—I confess I have been quite at a loss to collect any precise and distinct idea from the explanations of the right hon. secretary. He seems to me to have shown great ingenuity in heaping together a vast number of words with very little meaning; for nothing like positive information is to be gathered from what he has uttered. I will not follow him through his nice distinctions between one kind of recognition and another. It appears to me to be a very simple word, with a very plain meaning. Whatever it be, it is clear that it is withheld; and, unfortunately, the recognition by the British government is infinitely a greater boon than the recognition by the parent state—an event, by the by, very little to be apprehended. That Spain will ever be able to subdue her revolted colonies, and replace the yoke they have thrown off, is, I am happy to say, even less to be apprehended. It is by no means a question of little moment to Great Britain; for our commercial interests connected with South America have grown of late into an enormous size: it is our policy, our interest, to take the lead in recognizing her independence; and, in recognizing South America, we confer an obligation not less upon ourselves than upon the independent states. It seems to me, then, that there must be some reason in the back ground, why the recognition has not hitherto been made—some other cause than any that has been avowed—why the
1405
Mr. Hume
observed on the impolicy of this country in withholding a recognition of independence from states absolutely independent. He thought it extraordinary that government should persist in refusing to admit the independence of St. Domingo, which had been established upwards of twenty years. He recommended
1406
The petition was ordered to be printed.
ABOLITION OF SLAVERY—PETITION
Mr. Wilberforce,
in rising to present a petition for the Abolition of West-India Slavery, from the town and vicinity of Carlow, said:
1407
1408
*
*
1409
1410
1411
1412
1413
1414
1415
1416
Mr. Bernal
could not but complain, that at the close of the session, and after so many discussions on the subject had taken place, the hon. member should have thought proper to introduce it again to the House in this manner. He thought it a little hard that the hon. member should not have afforded to those who were connected with the colonies, the means of replying to the statements now brought forward. He could not but complain of the manner in which the colonies of Jamaica and Demerara had been blended together, when, in fact, no connexion existed between them. Did the hon. member think it consistent with his duty as a christian senator to charge the whole of the white population of Jamaica with acting severely towards the slaves, because, in a moment of distress and irritation, they had acted with apparent severity towards two individuals? If he did—if on that single act he chose to make a general sweeping charge against the whole population—he (Mr. B.) was fully prepared to deny the charge, and to assert, that every means had been adopted in that island to improve the condition of the slaves. The hon. member had spoken of delay, and seemed to wish that something should be accomplished in a few weeks, which
1417
Mr. Secretary Canning
said, he rose, in the hope of bringing this discussion to an end. It was well known, that after frequent deliberation, the House had last year decided, that it was expedient to pursue a certain line of conduct towards the colonies, which line of conduct they afterwards embodied in certain resolutions, and recommended it to be adopted by his majesty's government. The government acquiesced in the recommendation so made to them, and this year announced to parliament their intention to carry the plan into effect. His hon. friend knew too well the sincere respect he entertained for him, to believe that it was his intention to say any thing unkind towards him; but he felt compelled to tell his hon. friend, and those who entertained similar opinions, that they must make up their minds either to let the government pursue the course which parliament had chalked out for them, or else to propose some other plan, and bring it fairly before the House. But, of all the proceedings that could have been adopted, he thought that which his hon. friend had made choice of was the most unfortunate. He had taken that opportunity, at the end of the session, to express his dissatisfaction at the course which had been pursued, and to regret that some other had not been preferred. His hon. friend thought the government was slow in carrying into execution measures for ameliorating the condition of the slaves. To this objection, he would answer, that the evil which it was their ob-
1418
1419
Dr. Lushington
called the attention of the House to the statement he had made on a former evening, on presenting a petition relative to the case of Le Cesne and Escoffery. Now, to show the spirit which existed against the coloured people, he found, that after they had been deported to St. Domingo, one witness had accused Le Cesne of having himself sold arms to the conspirators, at the very time he was in custody. He trusted the hon. secretary would furnish the House with all the documents, to prove that it was proper that two individuals released by the court of King's-bench at Jamaica, should be taken up within six hours afterwards and sent off to St. Domingo.
Mr. Huskisson
wished to set the House right on one point, namely, that the insurrection at Demerara had not arisen in consequence of the cruel treatment of the negroes on the plantation "Success." Having been aware that his hon. friend, was the proprietor of a plantation there, he had asked him for some explanation of the transaction, and his answer was, that he was quite at a loss to know in what manner the statement could have originated. His hon. friend had transmitted positive instructions, that every measure should be adopted for the amelioration of the condition of the slaves on his property.
Mr. W. Smith
said, if his hon. friend had proposed that the extirpation of this enormous evil should take place in days or months, or in less than a course of years, long as he had acted with him, he should decline going further with him: but, there was a great difference between proceeding rapidly to a point, and receding from it. He thought there existed too little disposition in the colonies to afford protection to the free people of colour, and contended, that such a neglect on the part of the colonial governments could only have the dangerous effect of disposing those people to make common cause with the negroes, a circumstance which, if it ever did occur, would be productive of most
1420
Mr. F. Buxton
said, he did not rise to protract the discussion by any lengthened observations, but rather for the purpose of asking two or three important questions of the hon. secretary opposite. With regard to the charge against his hon. friend, who had been guilty of the grave offence of taking the present opportunity of expressing his feelings and delivering his conscience, he must say, that he thought it most desirable that there should have been some discussion. He thought it most fit and proper that the House and the country should know how far be and his friends were responsible for any irritation that prevailed. He admitted that to a certain extent they were responsible. They had used all their endeavours to advance that great and important question, the result of which would be, to raise seven hundred thousand of our fellow-beings from the lowest state of degradation. For himself he could say that he did not lament any part he had ever taken in these discussions. He considered that he and those gentlemen who acted with him were responsible for the measure until they had succeeded in bringing about a full and entire amelioration of the condition of the slaves. He did not expect that this was a result to which their exertions could hastily be brought; for neither he nor his friends had any other expectation than that those unhappy beings who were now slaves must continue so until the end of their lives; but he did think that, by a proper and timely application of the requisite means, the children of those slaves might be made capable of enjoying their freedom; that when so capable they should be allowed to enjoy it; and that the right should not be delayed beyond the time that they were capable of enjoying it. This he thought might be effected by his majesty's government; and so far they were answerable. For such efforts as were likely to bring about this desirable result, he and his friends were responsible. They were not however answerable for the violent language which had been recently held in the colonies. When they talked of flinging off their allegiance, and throwing their weight into the scale of a
1421
1422
Mr. Wilmot Horton
began by answering the last question of the hon. gentleman, and for this purpose read a copy of the letter which had been sent out to the government of Barbadoes, on the subject of the outrages committed there. In that letter, his majesty's high displeasure was conveyed, at the occurrence of such a violent breach of the laws, and the most positive orders were given, that every possible step should be taken to bring all persons guilty on that occasion to punishment. The result of that communication could not yet be known to the government here. With respect to the first question, as to the treatment of the free people of colour, he would say, that a legal commission was now in operation in the West Indies, for the purpose of making inquiries respecting the laws and institutions of some of the islands, and? one object of that commission was, to examine into and report upon the condition and situation of the free people of colour there. With respect to the other question, he would answer, that it was the intention of government to make the order in council applicable to all those colonies which had not a local legislature. He would not enter into the general question. He was only anxious to point out the bad effect of any and every word of discussion on this subject, and to say how much the re-action was felt in the office to which he had the honour to belong.
Mr. Brougham
said, he could not agree with those who censured his hon. friend for taking that opportunity, evidently the last which could occur in the session for expressing his opinion upon a series of measures which had never been discussed and upon some extraordinary incidents which had only recently come to his knowledge. But, were he and his friends to be accused of having too constantly
1423
1424
Mr. Butterworth
defended the missionaries from any disposition to interfere with the political concerns of the colonies; Their instructions were most positive against any such interference, and he believed that they were all disposed to adhere to such instructions.
Colonel Bagwell
observed, that cause and effect had never been more clearly connected in any case than they were in the resolutions which the House adopted in the last session of parliament, and in the recent insurrection of the blacks in Demerara.
Sir G. Rose
observed, that, under the present constitution of society in the West-Indies, with a population of 600,000 negroes, standing in need of religious instruction, and under the difficulty that existed, of getting clergymen of the church of England to go there, we should be grateful to those missionaries, who, under a sense of religious duty, devoted themselves to such a labour. As to the people of the West-Indies, the House was bound to look with great indulgence to their conduct, when it recollected how remiss this country had been in providing them with spiritual instruction.
Mr. Baring
observed, that if there had recently been a persecution of missionaries in the West-Indies, it had arisen from a sincere conviction in the minds of the planters, that they were not conducting themselves in the mild and gentle spirit of that religion of which they professed to preach the doctrines. He defied any person to point out any rational cause for the late insurrection at Demerara; which, if it had not been originally instigated, had certainly been much promoted by the proceedings of Smith. He complained, in strong terms, of the exertions
1425
Mr. Hutchinson
expressed great indignation at the term "manœuvres" being applied to the efforts made in that House to ameliorate the state of slavery in our colonies.
Sir F. Blake
was of opinion, that the House ought to enjoin the colonial legislatures to do what was right; and if they did not obey the injunction willingly, compel them to obey it. He was sorry to observe that the right hon. secretary of state could not abandon, even upon this subject, his darling scheme of neutrality: he meant, that he allowed both parties to do what they liked, without interfering to check the excesses of either. The right hon. secretary thought he could satisfy the people of England by saying, that slavery should be abolished. Now, he would tell the minister, that he for one was not satisfied with this declaration. He must know not only the year, but the month, the week, nay, the very day, when slavery was to be abolished, before he could be satisfied. The resolutions of the last session had neutralized expectation; and those of the present session had extinguished the last rays of expiring hope. It was the insertion of three little words that had doneall the mischief—those three words were, "the earliest period." It was clear that by those words, either something was meant or nothing. Now he thought that nothing was meant by them, and he would tell the House why. The words "the earliest period" were no better than the words "some time or other;" and every body knew that "some time or other" meant no time at all. The
1426
Mr. Evans
justified the conduct of the missionary society, and said it was highly improper to charge them with promoting schemes which were likely to end in insurrection, bloodshed, and death.
Sir C. Forbes
said, that the missionaries, if not narrowly watched, would cause our expulsion, not only from the West, but from the East Indies. In that opinion he knew he was not singular: nay, he would venture to say, that the majority of the House were of the same sentiments, if they had only the candour to avow them.
Mr. Baring,
in explanation, said, that he had never charged the missionary society with fostering schemes that were likely to end in insurrection and murder. On the contrary, he thought that the missionaries were likely to effect much good, supposing them to steer clear of all projects of ameliorating the political condition of the slave.
On the question, that the petition be printed,
Mr. Wilberforce
said, he had not thrown out any reflections upon the collective population of the island of Barbadoes. He well knew that the sentiments entertained by the higher orders of the planters in Barbadoes with respect to the treatment of their slaves differed very materially from those entertained by the lower orders; but, unfortunately, the assembly of the island was so constituted, that the sentiments of the lower orders generally prevailed in it, and there by prevented any great improvement in the state of the slave population. He likewise said, that he was only performing an act of justice to lord C. Somerset, the governor at the Cape of Good Hope, in observing, that he had exerted himself in looking at the religious education of the slaves in that colony, even before the subject was placed under his consideration by the vote of that House. The charges which had been brought against the missionary society were supported by no proof. From the bottom of his soul he believed that no person connected with the missionary so
1427
Mr. Baring
expressed his opinion that the minds of the members of the missionary society had become heated with respect to the subject of negro emancipation. They had organized establishments in every town in the kingdom, for the purpose of preparing petitions to parliament. The society viewed the West-India proprietors with the most deadly hostility, and had made up their minds to attain the object they aimed at, at the risk of creating a convulsion in the colonies. These were his opinions, and he would not shrink from declaring them. He imputed no improper motives to any gentleman in that House; but he could not help thinking that the hon. member for Bramber and some of his friends were incited to bring the question of slavery so frequently before the House, by some persons behind their backs.
Mr. Brougham
said, that so far from his hon. friend having brought forward motion after motion with respect to the question of slavery, this was the first time during the session, that he had introduced the subject. Neither had there been any petitions presented on the subject until the latter end of last session.
Ordered to be printed.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH ESTABLISHMENT IN IRELAND.]
Mr. Dominick Browne
said, he had been waiting ever since five o'clock to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice. At that late hour, however, he would decline to bring it forward, but would content himself with moving it, in order that it might be placed on the Journals, with the intention of renewing it next session. The hon. member then moved, "That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, to represent to his Majesty that, as Protestants, we regret that the Reformation has made so small progress in Ireland, notwithstanding the establishment of a reformed church in that country for nearly three centuries:—To express our opinion to his Majesty, that the adherence of so large a mass of the people of Ireland to the Roman Catholic church, however erroneous, is founded in their conscientious conviction of the truth of its doctrines, as the laws, for one century highly penal, have constantly excluded persons professing that religion from places of honour or profit, thereby offering the
1428
Mr. S. Rice
was of opinion, that the placing such a resolution on the Journals without any previous discussion, would create alarm in Ireland, and tend to defeat the object which the hon. member had in view.
Mr. Canning
thought it would be better to withdraw the notice.
Mr. D. Browne
said, that there had been an understanding between his right hon. friend opposite (sir G. Hill) and himself that he should be allowed to place his motion on the Journals.
Sir G. Hill
said, that his hon. friend had misunderstood him.
Colonel Trench
objected to the motion being put on the Journals.
Mr. Peel
observed, that no circumstances would induce him to agree to the motion.
The motion was, by leave, withdrawn.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, June 16.
SCOTS-JURY BILL.]
The Earl of Lauderdale
Lord Melville
could not agree to go into a committee on the bill. He allowed that the selection by the Judges, of the 15 composing the jury from the 45 names returned to the, court, was a practice which had better not exist. But, having, made that admission, it did not follow, that the present bill was the best mode of
1429
The Duke of Athol
said, that clauses which were impracticable had been introduced into the bill, because those who framed it were not sufficiently acquainted with the law of Scotland. He particularly objected to the clause relative to the alphabetical order of parishes, which, in the county with which he was more particularly connected, would render it difficult for a summoning officer to return a jury in less than six weeks.
The Earl of Rosslyn
could not understand why the noble viscount had pointed out the advantages afforded by the law of Scotland to a person accused, unless he meant to argue, that the security for his receiving justice was already too great, and that therefore more power ought to be given to the judges, or to the Crown, in returning the original list of jurors. He was ready to admit, that in cases where no particular feeling existed, in which no political question was involved, it was in general a matter of indifference how the jury might be chosen. It was certain, however, that cases did occur in which any improper selection of the jury should be guarded against, as well in the first return as in the second selection. Whether the mode to be adopted should be balloting or any other, he would not at present discuss. When the noble viscount said that no alteration in the mode of summoning the jury was necessary, he perhaps was not aware that the Court of Justiciary, in consequence of the same faces always appearing on juries, had passed acts of sederunt, directing an alteration in the mode of summoning; but these acts were not executed, and it required the force of law to produce a change.
The Earl of Aberdeen
was against the
1430
The bill was ordered to be read a second time that day two months.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, June 17.
MARINE INSURANCE BILL.]
After counsel had been heard against the bill,
Lord Bexley
said, he rose to move the second reading of the bill, notwithstanding the arguments of the learned counsel. The object of the bill was, to relieve the country from a monopoly established upwards of a hundred years ago. The capital which then was thought sufficient to carry on the Maritime Insurance of the country was not now sufficient. If the premiums now paid were as low as competition could make them, the companies complaining would not be injured by the measure; if they were not, the competition of other companies would reduce them. There was at present a practice, whether legal: or not he would not say, of parties mutually insuring their vessels; and it was a fact that such parties paid a much less sum than the amount of the premium at Lloyd's.
The bill was read a second time.
NEW CHURCHES BILL.]
The Earl of Liverpool
rose to move the second reading of this bill. Their lordships would recollect the measure passed some time ago for granting a million to build new churches. That act had fully answered the expectations. There was, however, a necessity to' add to the grant, as there were many parishes which had not churches for one-fourth of their inhabitants; it was thought proper, therefore, to take a sum of 500,000
l
Lord King
thought the latter part of
1431
The bill was read a second time.
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL.]
On the order of the day for committing this bill,
Lord Calthorpe
made several observations in support of the principle of checking wanton cruelty, and stated it to be his intention to move some amendments in the committee.
The Earl of Rosslyn
, being of opinion that legislation on this subject did great mischief, would oppose the bill. He dwelt on the injustice which might be done to the owners of horses and cattle, if this bill passed. On comparing the bill with that which it professed to amend, it would be found that all the provisions which limited the penalties to intentional cruelty were left out, so that no persons would be safe in the management of animals, on subjecting them to necessary operations. Any cutting even of the skin might be held to be cruelty under this bill. He would therefore move, that it be committed this day three months.
Lord Suffield
said, he would agree with the noble earl in his objections, if the execution of the bill were to be left to the magistrates; but when it was provided, that the cases should come before a jury, he thought there was no danger of the law being abused.
1432
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, June 17.
DERBY CATHEDRAL.]
Sir G. Hill
presented a petition from the parishioners of Templemore, of which parish the cathedral of Derry was also the parish church. This petition, he said, had been adopted at a vestry lately held, the dean of Derry presiding. The object and prayer of it were, to induce the House to institute an inquiry, whether any economy fund existed applicable to the repair of the cathedral. The petition stated that the parishioners had been for a length of time deprived of the use of the cathedral. This had produced a feeling of soreness and anxiety amongst as numerous and respectable a protestant congregation as belonged to any cathedral in the united kingdom. It had been repeatedly urged by the dignitaries of the diocess of Derry, that the cathedra], with respect to any claim of repair, was no more than any parish church in the diocess; the parishioners had accordingly assessed themselves, in the year before last, to an amount, sufficient to put an entire new roof on the cathedral, but further repairs were necessary, beyond the convenience of the parish to levy all at once. They, therefore, under the authority of an act of last session, proposed to the Board of First Fruits in November last, to rate themselves to the extent of 60
l
l
l
l
l
l
1433
l
l
Mr. Alderman Wood
charged the petitioners and the lessees of the estates near Londonderry, held under the Irish Society, with great ingratitude. The corporation had been uniformly good landlords. They built schools, and provided,
1434
l
Ordered to lie on the table.
ORANGE PROCESSIONS—PETITION OF
Sir James Mackintosh
said, he held in his hand a petition from Mr. John Lawless, the proprietor of a newspaper published in Belfast, and who in that capacity might be considered more than a single item in casting up the account of public opinion. The prayer of the petitioner was, that the legislature would put a stop to all religious processions in Ireland. That such a measure was desirable, he believed every member would willingly agree, though there would undoubtedly be differences of opinion as to the mode of carrying it into execution. That these processions widened the breach between the members of different religions, no man in his senses would now dispute. The petitioner stated, that all attempts to put an end to them, except by law, would be utterly useless; and he (sir J. M.) begged leave to add, that if it were thought of consequence to the country that parliament should avow its disapprobation of them, as it recently had done, there could be no harm done in promulgating that disapprobation in the shape of a law, prohibiting their future celebration. He had observed in a newspaper, that the Orange society of Dublin had recently published a notice to the different provincial societies, recommending them to discontinue the procession on the 12th of July next. He applauded the Orange society for what they had done upon this occasion; though, if the same degree of justice were meted out to them which they were in the habit of meting out to the Catholics, it might be said, that the notice which they had given was very much in the shape of an order, and
1435
Ordered to lie on the table.
PETITION OF BERNARD COILE, COMPLAINING
Sir James Mackintosh
said, he rose to present a petition from an individual who complained of a succession of the most unexampled wrongs, connected with those scenes which the tragic drama enacted in Ireland had exhibited for the last twenty-five years. It appeared from the petition, that Mr. Bernard Coile, about thirty years ago, introduced into the north of Ireland, a branch of the cotton manufacture from Scotland, where he was educated. It was the branch of the muslin manufacture. In giving to Ireland, above all other nations, any such boon as the introduction of a new manufacture, he was a benefactor to his country. About the years 1795 or 1796—when first the Orange system was introduced into the north of Ireland; and when the county of Armagh was in that state of anarchy and violence which had called forth the memorable declaration of lord Gosford—the petitioner was arrested under a warrant, certainly without a parallel in the judicial records of this country. In that warrant, Mr. Coile was described as a reputed Papist, and with having also given ball-cartridge to a soldier with the view of overturning the government of the country. On that serious accusation he was never brought to trial, and was subsequently enlarged. The malice of his enemies was not satisfied. Though enlarged, he continued to be annoyed by a series of petty vexations. The result was, that he was compelled to leave that very county in which he had introduced a new branch of manufacture, and went to reside at Dublin. Soon after broke out the rebellion of 1798. Yet, such was the conduct of Mr. Coile at that time, that he was not for a single hour deprived of his liberty. In 1803, he was arrested as a state prisoner, and sent to the gaol
1436
1437
Mr. Goulburn
observed, that as he had been in his present office only two years, it could not be expected that he should be able, at a moment's notice, to give an immediate answer to the allegations contained in the petition. He trusted, however, that the House would not argue, from his silence on the subject, against the character of any person whom the petition might be intended to implicate.
Mr. John Smith
observed, that the petitioner had applied to him to present the petition, but really, without having the strongest reasons for believing the allegations of the petition, he did not feel himself justified in presenting it. There were parts of the allegations so revolting to human nature, that he would not enter into them; but he agreed, that it was indispensable to the character of the House and of the country, that they should investigate the disgusting tale; for never in the worst of times had there been any thing more monstrous. If the petitioner made out his case, it would certainly be the duty of the House to take care that he should be fully compensated.
Mr. Secretary Peel
was not prepared to affirm or deny, at the instant, any of the allegations in the petition. He had had some experience of the conduct of Dr. Trevor, and from that knowledge he could be brought but very slowly to believe any thing to his disadvantage. It would be unjust to the accused person, that the charge against him should be generally dispersed, without any opportunity being offered for answering it. He trusted, therefore, that the learned gentleman would be content with laying the petition on the table. Early in the next session the subject might be properly investigated.
Mr. Hutchinson
hoped his majesty's government would pledge themselves to take the case of the petitioner into consideration. The prayer of the petitioner for remuneration for his great loss of property was wholly unconnected with the merits or demerits of Dr. Trevor. Having unfortunately resided in Ireland at the period to which the petition alluded, he begged leave to state, that the outrages in Ireland, from 1794, to the time of the rebellion, which rebellion, in his conscience, he believed those outrages
1438
Sir J Mackintosh
consented to withdraw the petition for the present session, with the view of bringing it forward as soon as the House should meet in the next, but not with any view of invalidating any allegation in the petition.
ROMAN CATHOLIC ASSOCIATION—
Sir F. Burdett
said, he rose to present a petition, which differed from the last in most of the particulars. It contained no painful references to those sad scenes of anguish and woe which went before, which accompanied, and which followed, the rebellion in, Ireland. It was couched in terms so appropriate; it stated views so accurate; it contained sentiments so correct and. just; that he had no hesitation in saying that the duty of offering it to the consideration of the House was as highly gratifying to him, as the putting it forward was creditable to the petitioners. The petition was signed by a number of gentlemen forming themselves into a Catholic association in Dublin; and they met for the just and laudable purpose, of instituting measures for recovering, by fair, legal, and constitutional means, rights which had, in. his opinion, been only too long and unjustly withheld from the people of that, country. The petitioners complained, that they had been most grossly misrepresented—if not in the speeches of some gentlemen in parliament, at least in those channels which were known generally to convey accurate information to the country of what passed within the walls. And though the petitioners would not pretend to any knowledge of what actually passed in the House, they complained that the representations of it tended in this instance, to injure their characters and feelings, and, what was of more importance to them, those interests of Ireland which it was their chief object to promote. The petitioners greatly desired to partici-
1439
of
1440
Ordered to be printed.
SCOTCH JUDICATURE BILL.]
Mr. Secretary Peel
, in moving the order of the day for the second reading of this bill, said, that in wishing that the bill should not proceed any further this session, he was not actuated by any hostility to the measure. He approved of the principle on which it proceeded, and had a high respect for the commissioners, on whose unanimous report it was founded. But as be understood that there was an anxious desire
on
Mr. Abercromby
confessed that he was much disheartened by the speech of the right hon. gentleman, as after the delivery of it, it would be a mere mockery to hold out to the people of Scotland the slightest hope that the bill would ever be passed
1441
The Lord Advocate
contended, that as it was not proposed that the bill should take effect till after the 11th of May, 1825, there would be ample time in the next session to pass it before that date. The report was unanimous, allowing for certain slight shades of opinion, which it was not held necessary to mark, and there had been no understanding, that its recommendations should not be carried into effect this year by the passing of the bill upon the table. He was persuaded that delay would not defeat it.
Mr. Kennedy
said, that if the House had been reduced to the necessity of postponing this bill, the conduct of government had placed it in that predicament. He was afraid that by the clamour which was raised, and the ignorant opinions which were expressed, the measure would ultimately be sacrificed.
Mr. W. Courtenay
regretted that the bill had not been brought forward earlier, but circumstanced as they now were, he was prepared to postpone the measure to another session. There certainly had been
1442
Lord Binning
thought the House ought to avoid the appearance of thrusting down the throats of the people of Scotland, a measure which they conceived to be second to none in importance since the act of Union. The proposed delay was essentially necessary to ensure the success of the measure.
Mr. Secretary Canning
said, he consented to the postponement of the measure out of a feeling of respect for the people of Scotland, who were at present greatly opposed to the bill. The conduct of government had been censured in this question; but let the House remember that, up to a very late period, there was no idea of the kind of feeling which existed on the subject. He would, however, venture to predict, in opposition to the predictions of gentlemen opposite, that in the course of the next session this bill would substantially pass into a law. In proposing delay, he had no other object in view than to soothe the present hostile feeling, and by soothing to overcome it.
EAST-INDIA POSSESSIONS BILL.]
Mr. Secretary Canning
said, that according to promise, in moving that the House should resolve itself into a committee on the bill, he proposed to state shortly the nature of the negotiations out of which it proceeded. He took the liberty of doing this, because, although the bill was more immediately in the hands of his right hon. friend the president of the Board of Control, the treaties from which it-emanated originated when he (Mr. C.) had the honour to fill the office which his right hon. friend now held. In order to form a correct judgment with respect to the transactions which he was about to detail to the House, the situation in which the Dutch were placed with regard to East-India possessions at the last general peace should be called to mind. At that period all the possessions which had been taken from the Dutch during the war were, by- treaty, restored to them. He was not now called
1443
1444
1445
l
1446
l
1447
Mr. Hume
was of opinion it would ultimately turn out that the concessions which this country had made were of greater importance than the right hon. gentleman would have them appear. He condemned the policy which the right hon. secretary's predecessor in the foreign office had pursued, with regard to our Indian possessions. The noble lord, by giving up the island of Java, had not only, broken faith with the natives, whom he turned over, bound hand and foot, to the Dutch, but had inflicted a deep wound on our commercial interests. The right hon. gentleman had said, that it was thought right, at the conclusion of the war, to favour the Netherlands government. But, if that were to be the excuse for surrendering Java, why had not all the Dutch possessions been abandoned on the same principle? Why did England retain the Cape of Good Hope, Demerara and Essequibo. The cession of Java, he maintained, took place in utter ignorance of the interests of England, and to the great surprise and joy of the Dutch. Notwithstanding the ridicule which the right hon. gentleman attempted to cast upon governor Raffles, if government had acted upon the plans of that officer, they would have avoided those blunders which they had committed. Every act of our government in the East Indies went upon the very same principle which the right hon. gentleman had that evening turned into ridicule. He could never agree to the present bill, because the treaty which it ratified violated almost every other treaty which we had made for years past with the native powers. It was idle to suppose that this treaty would put an end to the heart-burnings and jealousies which we had had for years past with the Dutch. It might allay them during a period of peace; but they would revive in full vigour whenever hostilities should take place?
1448
Mr. Robertson
condemned the treaty, and contrasted the negligence of the English negociators, with the precaution of the Dutch. By giving up Bencoolen we should greatly injure our China trade, which at present produced a revenue of three millions annually. The occupation
1449
Mr. Wynn
stated, that the passing of this bill would make no difference as to the execution of the treaty to which it referred, inasmuch as it had been already ratified, and guaranteed by the good faith of the country. The speech of the hon. member for Aberdeen referred rather to the treaty of 1814 than to the present treaty, as he did not seem acquainted with the places to which allusion was made in the latter treaty. He denied that, in case of war, our trade to China would be at the mercy of the Dutch. Bencoolen was not a fortification of any strength. When we were at peace with the Dutch, we were entitled by this treaty to friendly offices at Bencoolen; and when we went to war with them, he had no doubt we should be able to take it. He contended that we had not been guilty of any breach of faith to the native powers in ceding these islands to the Dutch, and further argued that the price of spices had not been increased, but, on the contrary, had been diminished by their cession.
Mr. Bright
opposed the bill, because he believed the treaty which it ratified to be a breach of good faith to the native powers and was only made by the Dutch for the purpose of being violated. He contended, that the islands ceded, were part and parcel of the property of the Crown of England, and that being such, they could not be ceded without the consent of parliament.
Mr. Astell
contended, that the treaty was calculated to put an end to all the differences which existed between the English and Dutch governments. He denied that it gave the command of the Straits of Sunda to the Dutch. As we had Prince of Wales's island at one end of them, Sincapore at the other, and Malacca in their centre, we had full command of those Straits, and therefore could not receive any material annoyance in our trade with China.
Mr. Trant
observed, that the arrangement which the treaty had sanctioned, had received the approbation of the commercial houses interested in the trade of the Indian Archipelago. The cession of the Dutch settlements on the continent of
1450
Sir C. Forbes
, in allusion to what had been said of the grasping spirit of the Dutch government in India, said, that in this respect there was not much difference between the Dutch and the English powers in that quarter. There were six of one, and half a dozen of the other. The ruling principle of both was rapine. In looking over this treaty he could consider it in no other light than as a division of spoil between the English and Dutch governments, in which no attention whatever was paid to the claims of the native powers. The arrangement had several advantages upon the face of it: but experience of the Dutch character had taught him to fear, that those advantages would not remain long in our possession. Indeed, he had that very day received information from Sincapore, containing an account of the success of the Dutch expedition against Borneo, which induced him to suspect that their designs upon that island would be quickly followed by similar designs upon Sumatra, and the other islands of the Archipelago which we had ceded to their tender mercies. Now he would ask the right hon. secretary whether, when he signed this treaty, he had any knowledge that the Dutch had sent an expedition against Borneo; and whether he would have signed it if he had known that fact? He regretted the precipitation with which our negociators had acted. If they had waited for the arrival of sir S. Raffles, which was daily expected, they might have escaped many of the errors into which they had fallen. He allowed that the intentions of our negociators were good, but contended that many of the provisions to which they had assented were not the most wise and prudent.
Mr. Money
highly approved of the treaty. In Borneo the Dutch had only a few military settlements at the mouths of rivers, and we were left at full liberty to trade with all that great island, abounding in the richest productions of the earth. The native trade to Sincapore, from the Eastern Archipelago, was very considerable. The; Dutch settlements on the
1451
The amendment was negatived, and the House went into the committee.
SUPERANNUATION FUND BILL.]
Mr. Fowell Buxton
1452
1453
Mr. Hume
reminded the House that the superannuation act had arisen out of a recommendation of his majesty to make a reduction in the salaries of the public officers proportioned to the change which had then taken place in the currency. The House accordingly did so, and he now called upon it not to be led away by erroneous principles of compassion. The noble marquis who brought that measure into parliament told them, that if a reduction of 15 per cent were made in the salaries of the clerks above 200
l
Mr. Bankes
seconded the amendment. This bill had not been sufficiently considered; and though it was very extensive of itself, the hon. member for Weymouth had wished to mix up with it another question totally independent of it. The reduction of salary to the higher officers of state was a voluntary measure, and was limited to a duration of five years. The reduction of salary to the inferior clerks was made perpetual. This bill would entail an annual expense of at least 20,000
l
Mr. Croker
observed, that before the superannuation bill was brought in, a committee, consisting of the heads of departments, had sat daily at the chancellor of the Exchequer's and had revised and reduced all the offices. In his own office every clerk had lost 50
l
l
l
Dr. Lushington
approved of the bill, and thought that the chief officers of state were under-paid.
Mr. C. Forbes
complained that the secretary to the Board of Control was the only public officer for whose services, however long, no provision was made by law. He recommended some proceeding to remedy that hardship.
Mr. Canning
was of opinion, that the
1454
The bill was then read a third time.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, June 18.
PROTEST AGAINST THE IRISH INSURRECTION
The following protest was entered on their lordships' Journals;
DISSENTIENT—First, because the arbitrary powers conferrred by this Bill, however cautiously administered by the government of Ireland have an obvious tendency to shake the respect due to the laws of a free country, and thereby to perpetuate the evils which have so long distracted a large portion of the kingdom of Ireland. The frequent recourse to harsh and un-constitutional expedients teaches the gentry and magistracy of the country to seek for authority as well as security in the suspension, rather than the preservation of law; and it countenances among the people an opinion fatal to all subordination, tranquillity, and happiness, viz. that they enjoy their privileges at the discretion and mercy of those who, by the operation of other laws, are in a great measure possessed of a monopoly of political power. Secondly, because the facility with which Parliament has hitherto granted such unconstitutional powers, has, in our judgment mainly contributed to the postponement of those healing measures, which can alone reconcile the people of Ireland to the connection and union with Great Britain, by extending to the great body of the community, in substance as well as in name, the full benefits of the English constitution. After repeated and unsuccessful experiments of coercive laws in Ireland—after the constant recurrence of alarms, disturbances, and outrages in that
1455
(Signed) "LEINSTER.
"VASSALL HOLLAND."
EARL MARSHAL'S OFFICE BILL.]
Lord Holland
rose to call their lordships' attention to a bill which he was about to introduce and which had for its object to enable the Earl Marshal or his deputy to execute that office without the necessity of taking certain oaths at present required by law. In offering such a bill at that period of the session he would briefly explain the reasons which induced him to bring it forward at the present moment. Their lordships were aware, that when a noble relation of his lately introduced a bill for the relief of the Roman Catholics of England, what he now proposed to do formed one of its enactments. The measure proposed by his noble relation had three distinct objects: 1st, to render Roman Catholics capable of executing the duties of justices of the peace; 2nd,to render them capable of serving as officers of the revenue; and 3dly to place any Roman Catholic Earl Marshal in such a situation as would enable him to execute his office. To making Roman Catholics justices of the peace, several noble lords objected on principle; but no objection on the ground of principle was made to the other objects, which were even considered proper. The repeal of the objectionable oaths with regard to revenue officers was confessed to be not only just, but desirable. In fact, a bill for that purpose was introduced by the noble earl opposite, and it had already passed. The object of the bill he now recommended was the same with that, the justice of the principle of which, had been acknowledged. It involved no principle which would lead their lordships' one step further than they had already advanced. He had in favour of his propositions the declarations and professions of many noble lords, most jealous on subjects of this kind. They had all owned that they conceived no danger could arise from carrying this object into effect. Indeed, how could it be supposed that there was more danger to
1456
The bill was read a first time.
MARINE INSURANCE BILL.]
On the order of the day for committing this bill,
The Lord Chancellor
said, their lordships were aware, that in the case of companies chartered by the Crown, should these charters become at any time hurtful, they might be abolished, under a proceeding by scire facias; but, if joint-stock companies, incorporated by act of parliament, should become injurious to the public, there was no way of abolishing them, as they were not liable to that process. Now, to make these bills, establishing joint-stock companies, as little injurious, or rather of as much benefit to the public, as possible, it was in his opinion proper that there should be clauses in them which he intended to propose on Monday. Their lordships would, he
1457
The Earl of Liverpool
entirely agreed with his noble and learned friend, but thought the clauses which he intended to propose would more properly come under their lordships' discussion as a general measure; and he could see no possible reason, in the case of all companies created by acts of parliament, why they should not be voided by the same process which was applicable to charters. A provision of that kind, he thought, would be just and proper.
Lord Redesdale
wished the learned lord had proposed his clauses now, as he apprehended there would be less difficulty in the way of their becoming part of the law of the land by being attached to this bill, than if they formed a separate measure.
The Lord Chancellor
said, he certainly should move the clauses; but not now, as it would be taking the House by surprize.
The bill then went through the committee.
1458
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, June 18.
ABUSES IN THE ISLE OF MAN—PETITION
Mr. Brougham
presented a petition from the Speaker, and several of the members of the House of Keys, in the Isle of Man, which, he observed, was deserving of the serious attention of the House, both from the nature of the subject, and the respectability of the individuals by whom it was signed. The Speaker was colonel Wilkes, a gentleman well known for his conduct in India, and the able works he had published respecting that quarter of the world; the second name was that of the hon. member for Cumberland; the third was a general officer; and so on. By the constitution of the island the members of the House of Keys were virtually the representatives of the people of the island, as much as the hon. gentlemen who surrounded him were the representatives of the people of this country. These were the parties, who, in the petition which he held in his hand, preferred their complaints to the House. They complained, first, of several institutions which had been improperly introduced into the island; and secondly, of the conduct of the governor under those institutions. Their first complaint was, that the members of the House of Keys were not allowed to form a part of the criminal court of Tynwald; a privilege to which they contended that they were fully entitled; and from the opportunities which he had had of investigating the subject, it appeared to him that their claim was well founded. Since the petition had been signed, however, an occurrence had taken place, which would, perhaps, give an opportunity of settling the question. Three persons had been tried in the island for felony; one of whom had been sentenced to death, and the two others to transportation. From these sentences, in consequence of what they conceived to be the defective consttution of the court, the prisoners had appealed to the king in council. But, even if it should be decided against them, high as that authority was, it would not preclude the House of Keys from still asserting what they conceived their right. The other ground of complaint urged by the petitioners was the general conduct of the governor of the island. That governor was the duke of Athol; and certainly, in consequence of a variety, of considerations, his grace
1459
l
l
1460
l
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he felt that many of the charges were, in fact, against himself, and not against the duke of Athol, and he rose with a confident expectation that he should be able to satisfy the House of his innocence. One accusation was, that the House of Keys had been deprived of their right of forming part of the criminal jurisprudence of the Isle of Man, and it was insinuated that he (Mr. Peel) had so excluded them, because they had displeased the governor. The question of their right to sit in the criminal court, and thus to control the jury, was disputed in 1823; and he had required
1461
1462
Mr. Bright
thought, that much of the grievance stated in the petition might be referred to the bickering and heat which prevailed in the island. But certainly the Keys should have been informed, not only of the reasons for the dismissal of their judge, but also on what grounds their right of forming a part of the criminal jurisprudence had been suspended. That it had been their right, was declared in the report of the commission of 1791; and the book of law, which was then for the first lime reduced from oral and uncertain precepts, issuing chiefly from the deempsters and the officers of the council, to a written and ascertained form, stated, that this right was of the very highest antiquity in the tradition of that law. He could not help feeling that government had proceeded too hastily in withdrawing that right, before the question had been solemnly argued in the presence of the privy council.
Mr. Hume
suggested the propriety of an inquiry being instituted into the fact, whether the interests of the duke of Athol were not, in some instances, incompatible with his duty as a governor. From the sentiments expressed by the right hon. gentleman, he was sure he would not advocate the continuance of such a state of things, if it were once found that this was actually the case.
The Attorney-General
said, the privy-council was the proper tribunal to which
1463
Mr. Brougham
in reply, contended, that the court of Keys had a right to sit on criminal cases without being summoned. He had heard that night, for the first time, of Mr. Vaughan's conduct, and could therefore say nothing to it. He felt it, however, to be his duty to bear testimony to the character of Mr. Robert Cunningham, than whom a more honourable young man was not to be found in the Isle of Man. It was true that this young man had, in a moment of intoxication, committed an act of imprudence; but it was no less true that, since that period, he had been elected one of the Keys, with the approbation of the duke of Athol. He was received into the houses of the most respectable persons in the island, and was universally treated in such a manner as showed that his offence was forgotten, and that his reputation was unimpaired. The only method of allaying the dissentions which existed in the Isle of Man would be by altering the form of the government, and by taking out of the hands of one individual the power which he held, and which his interests must occasionally prevent him from exercising for the purpose of its institution.
Mr. Peel
admitted the perfect respectability of Mr. Cunningham, and that the offence which had been alleged against him was an exception to his general conduct.
Ordered to lie on the table. On the motion that it be printed, Mr. Brougham expressed a hope that, during the summer his majesty's ministers would make an inquiry into the administration of justice in the Isle of Man, and take such measures as might seem expedient.
IRISH INSURRECTION BILL.]
On the order of the day for the third reading,
Mr. Hobhouse
said, that if this bill had come to them as an ordinary measure of government, he should have spoken with greater confidence; but seeing that it came from a committee, composed of nearly as large a proportion of independent as of ministerial members, he certainly felt some difficulties in standing up against it, But, even in the fact of such a committee being resorted to, he thought there
1464
1465
"O'Neil grand master"
1466
Mr. Calcraft
concurred with his hon. friend in thinking this bill odious and unconstitutional, and that it would be a blot and disgrace to our Statute-book, if it remained on it a moment longer than the situation of Ireland required it; but still he would support the measure, because in his conscience he believed, that, from the present temper of the people of Ireland, it would not be safe to let it remain without such an act. He would ask any man, whether he thought that Ireland could at present be left to the ordinary administration of the law; and if not, what measure could be more effectually applied to it than the one then before the House? This was a fair issue to rest the question upon; and he thought it would be most unwise to leave the country, in its present state, without some such protection; and this was the short history of his support of the measure.
General Hart
said, there was a very simple measure by which Ireland might be restored to tranquillity. It was merely, to surround the towns and large villages of that country with walls. He did not mean such walls as those of a regularly fortified place; but walls not much higher than our common park walls in this country. Let them be flanked with a few towers, with two or three guns on each, and by this means such protection would be afforded to the wives and children of the loyal and well-disposed inhabitants of the country, that they would have no hesitation in opposing themselves to the disaffected. Then government would know the strength of those who were disposed to support it, which was much greater than was imagined; but at present they were afraid to act, not having a sufficient protection for their families.
Sir F. Blake
said, he did not put so much trust in stone walls for the pacification of Ireland as the gallant general. He thought there was a much better remedy. He would advise—and he put the matter seriously to the liberal part of his majesty's ministers—that they should make the relief of the people of Ireland the sine qua non of their keeping office. If they did this, Ireland would soon be relieved, and her grievances redressed. He would advise them to press the question of Catholic emancipation session after session, and parliament after parliament, until they carried it by a triumphant majority; and as he could judge from the general tenour of his majesty's conduct, that he did not
1467
The House then divided; For the amendment 14. Against it 52. Majority 38. The bill was then read a third time.
List of the Minority.
Bennet, J.
Scarlett, J.
Bright, H.
Smith, W.
Brougham, H.
Stewart, W. (Tyrone.)
Burdett, sir. F.
Williams, J.
Denman, T.
Wood, ald.
Ellice, E.
Grattan, J.
TELLERS.
Mostyn, sir T.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Palmer, C.
Hume, J.
Mr. Denman
proposed the following clause as a rider to the bill:—That all offences under the Insurrection act should be tried by a jury." Mr Goulburn opposed, and Mr. S. Rice supported it. It was negatived without a division; as was also another clause by way of rider, proposed by Mr. S. Rice, giving to the prisoners the liberty of postponing their trials.
Mr. Denman
called the attention of the house to the clause whereby any subject of his majesty, not being a traveller or a resident, found in a licensed public-house between the hours of 9 o'clock in the evening and 6 in the morning, was rendered liable to transportation for seven years. The sting of this clause was, that the words "without lawful excuse" which were inserted in other parts of the bill,
1468
The motion was negatived.
Mr. Denman
referred to the 25th clause of the act, whereby it was enacted, that in case any person brought an action against a magistrate or constable for the malicious abuse of the powers of this act, and a jury awarded him damages proportioned to their sense of the injury inflicted, it should be lawful, on the Judge certifying on the record, that the party against whom the action was brought had probable cause for what he had done, to reduce the damages to
6d
Mr. Goulburn
contended, that the learned member had given the House an incorrect view of this part of the act, by reading only one half of the clause. He ought to have read the other half, by which it was enacted, that, in case the judge did not certify on the record, that the magistrate had probable cause, the plaintiff obtained not only the damages awarded him by the jury, but also treble costs.
The clause was rejected, and the bill passed.
JURIES EMPANELLING BILL.]
Mr. Secretary Peel
brought in a bill for the better Empanelling of Juries. The right hon. gentleman observed, that at that late period of the session it was not his intention to press the measure forward, as it was undoubtedly one of very great importance. Its object was, to consolidate
1469
Mr. Scarlett
felt great obligations to the right hon. gentleman for having introduced this very useful bill. But, whatever complaint might have been made with respect to the mode of striking special juries, he would say, that a man of greater integrity or ability than the master of the Crown office did not exist.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Saturday, June 19,
EARL MARSHAL'S OFFICE BILL.]
Lord Holland moved the second reading of this bill.
The Lord Chancellor
thought, that as this bill had come upon the House by surprise, it ought to be postponed to next session.
Lord Ellenborough
had not the slightest idea that there could be an objection to the principle of the bill. During the late discussion, the general impression of the House was certainly in favour of the measure.
Lord Holland
reminded their lordships, that the principle of the measure had, in the late debate, been completely acceded to. There had been some doubts as to the form in which it should be carried into effect, but none to passing an act in substance the same as that before the House. He had introduced the bill, because it was his opinion that the majority of the House wished to grant the boon it would confer; that this was the
1470
The House divided: Contents 24. Not Contents 10. The bill was read a second time.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, June 21.
MARINE INSURANCE BILL.]
On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill,
The Lord Chancellor
proposed the clauses, of which he gave notice on Friday, viz.
1 "Provided always, and be it enacted, that it shall not be lawful for any society or partnership, composed of more than six persons, from and after the passing of this act, to contract or agree for the insurance of any ship, or goods, or of any interest therein, until a memorial shall be enrolled on oath in the high Court of Chancery, containing the names and descriptions of the several members of such society or partnership; and that when a transfer is made of any share or shares of any member or members of and in the capital or stock of such partnership or society, a memorial thereof shall be enrolled in like manner within three months after such transfer, containing the names and description of the original member or members, and of the person to whom the shares or interest are transferred; or otherwise such transfer shall be null and void, and of no effect.
"2. Provided always, and be it also enacted, that any person or persons, a member or members of such partnership or society, whose name or names shall be expressed in any such enrolment as aforesaid, shall be, and shall continue liable in law and equity to all actions, suits, judgments, and executions for the performance of any contract, claim, or demand, made or arising whilst such person or persons was or were, members of such partnership or society as aforesaid, until a memorial or memorials of the transfer of the share or shares of such member or members shall have been enrolled in the high court of Chancery as aforesaid, and execution on any judgments or decree in any such action or suit obtained against any such member or members may be issued and
1471
"3. And whereas great difficulties may attend the effectually enforcing of just demands against such partnerships or societies as may be formed under the authority of this act, where the number of the members of such partnerships or societies is considerable; be it therefore enacted, that in all cases in which the number of members shall exceed and in which there shall be occasion to sue the persons forming such partnerships or societies, the plaintiff, in any action or suit in equity, shall not be obliged to make, as parties, defendants to any such action or suit, more than two persons whose names are so enrolled as aforesaid, and such two persons shall be deemed and taken in all courts of justice to represent the whole of the members of such partnership or society, for the purpose of carrying on effectually any such action or suit to a judgment or decree; and in case judgment or decree shall be obtained in such action or suit against any two persons, members of such partnership or society, it shall be competent for the person so obtaining judgment, to issue execution thereon, or to enforce the decree against all and each of the members of such partnership or society, in the same manner, and as fully and effectually, as if such members had been, together with the two other members, defendants in such action or suit.
"4. Provided always, and be it also enacted, that when any such partnership or society as aforesaid shall consist of more than six members, it shall be lawful for them to sue in law and equity by the secretary or any member thereof, on behalf of the partnership or society; and such suit shall be as effectual to all intents and purposes for the benefit of such partnership or society, as if the suit were carried on in the names of all the parties thereof: and the several members thereof shall, as well as such secretary or member in whose name such suit may be brought, be responsible to the defendant or defendants in such suit for costs, and in all other respects as if they had all been parties to such suit."
1472
His lordship declared, that his first wish was, that these clauses should now be agreed to. If the sense of the House was against him he did not mean to press it; but he desired it might be distinctly understood, that he would, next session, bring forward a general measure to put all companies under the restrictions which these clauses imposed.
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that this was a bill to do away with the monopoly of two insurance companies, and unless there was any point of good faith or strong motive of policy, he did not see any objection to the measure. The House had heard counsel on the part of the companies, and had determined, that there was no such ground, and that it would be right to leave the law as to insurances as it stood under the common law before these charters were granted. When their lordships should have passed this act, the law would be as it was before any monopoly existed; if, therefore, his noble and learned friend thought proper to bring in such a general law as he had mentioned, he could see no objection to the proposed enactments, but he did object to their being attached to a bill which did not go to grant any new monopoly, but to do away with a monopoly which already existed. He did not think there would be time to discuss the clauses at this advanced period of the session; he hoped, therefore, that his noble and learned friend would bring them forward in the shape of a separate measure in the next session.
Lord Redesdale
contended, that the provisions of this bill, did, in effect, make a new law. He was convinced of the necessity of the clauses, and firmly believed, that if they were not attached to the bill, they never would be passed until the mischievous effects resulting from the want of such restrictions should be severely felt.
Lord Bexley
contended, that no inconvenience could arise from postponing the clauses to another session. He supported the bill, and said, that peace, when premiums were not high, was the proper time for throwing open Marine insurances.
The Lord Chancellor
said, that if it were intended to establish any gigantic insurance company, the advice that a lawyer would have given to the parties would have been this—"Get these chartered companies demolished first, and then during the recess of parliament, you may establish your company wider what regu-
1473
The clauses were accordingly read and withdrawn, and the bill passed.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, June 21.
SUPERANNUATION FUND.]
Mr. Maberly
Sir Joseph Yorke
thought that, to use the peculiar phrase of a lamented marquis, the House were "turning their backs upon themselves," when they repealed the Superannuation act. As to any saving to secure the payment of the national debt, it was just as rational to attempt to bottle off the Atlantic Ocean. Then, as to the payment of public officers, what scale ought they to have? If upon comparative merits, and for real services, his right hon. friend, the secretary for foreign affairs ought to be paid double any of the rest.
Mr. S. Worthy
justified the repeal of the Superannuation act, and hoped that his majesty would also withdraw the order in council. The two measures were strictly opposed to the principale of justice, and. never would have passed but for the general alarm that prevailed in consequence of the necessities of the times.
Mr. F. Buxton
thought the restoration of the deductions a measure which justice commanded. He considered the high officers of state as greatly underpaid: and
1474
Mr. Calcraft
could not look at the salaries of ministers as a question of money. Men of no fortune, of middling fortune, and of large fortunes, were all equally anxious to fill these offices. Why, then, talk of stimulating their exertions by further pecuniary remuneration? The Crown had given up its thousands, and marquis Camden had done one of the most liberal acts ever recorded, by sacrificing 8,000
l.
Mr. Ellice
could not conceive on what rational ground any opposition could be made to the resumption of that which had been so liberally conceded in a moment of great public difficulty. He could not conceive what great additional burthen could be inflicted on the people by taking off the heavy and exclusive taxation on great public officers, and thereby enabling persons of talents and endowments to fill those high official situations, the adequate occupation of which was of so much importance to the country. For one, whenever the subject came under the consideration of the House, although by no means disposed to augment the burthens of the people, he should certainly feel it his duty to support it.
Mr. Grenfell
said, that, whenever the subject came before the House, he should express his decided conviction of the propriety of roinstating the great public officers in their whole salaries.
Mr. W. Smith
expressed himself in favour of the opinion laid down by the horn member for Wareham, that great offices of state were not sought after merely on account of emolument, but for a thousand reasons. He did most firmly believe, that
1475
The motion was agreed to.
RECOGNITION OF THE INDEPENDENCE
Sir James Mackintosh
said, he rose to present a petition from the President, Vice-President, and members of the Chamber of Commerce of Manchester, praying that House immediately to acknowledge the Independence of the states of South America. Although he had taken up so much of the time of the House, on a former evening, when he presented a similar petition, yet he felt it necessary to make a few observations on the present occasion. The Chamber of Commerce and Manufactures of the town of Manchester was, as its name imported, strictly a commercial association; and was, by one of its by-laws, precluded from political discussion. The petition to which that intelligent body had agreed, was voted at a very numerous and respectable meeting. It would have been most numerously signed, if the petitioners had not expected a speedy termination of the ses-
1476
1477
1478
Mr. W. Smith
said, that great advantages might be derived from an early recognition of South American independence, which perhaps might not be realized if the boon were tardily granted. So long as Spain refused to recognize the independence of those extensive provinces, so long was it important that they should be speedily apprized of those who did recognize their independence. If Spain, thought fit to recognize the South American states, there would be no favour in England pursuing the same course: but, if Great Britain led the way, such a friendly act might produce the most beneficial effects upon our commerce.
Ordered to lie on the table.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, June 23.
DUBLIN EQUITABLE LOAN BILL.]
The Duke of Leinster moved the third reading of this bill.
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, it was for their lordships to consider whether it would be proper to amend this bill, or to postpone it to another session. He was for the latter alternative; but, he thought it fair to acknowledge, that the parties had made more concessions than any of the other companies.
The Lord Chancellor
agreed in the propriety of postponing this bill to another session; but was of opinion, that in no session ought such a bill to pass without much and considerable amendments.
The Earl of Lauderdale
was glad to understand that the learned lord intended to introduce a bill, and that one of its objects was, the preventing the sale of the actions of such companies until an act of parliament for forming them had passed. If their lordships had all attended as closely as he had done to the committees on these bills, they would have no doubts as to the manner in which these companies were got up. The noble lord then referred to the examination of a witness, in which it came out, that he was invited to a meeting, at which every one who attended was made a director, a secretary, or appointed to some office.
The Lord Chancellor
said, he had in-
1479
The question was negatived; and the bill consequently lost.
HOUSE OF LODRDS,
Thursday, June 24.
RECOGNITION OF THE INDEPENDENCE
The Marquis of Lansdown,
before the order of the day was gone into, would take the opportunity of this last sitting of the House, to ask some information from the noble earl opposite on a very important object. Having, early in the present session, called their lordships' attention to the situation in which this country stood with respect to South America, and having heard the declaration made by his majesty's ministers on that subject, he had reason to expect, that that declaration would before now have been followed up by some public measure. But, after that declaration, four months had elapsed without any step having been taken towards the establishment of those relations with the states of South America which it was the general wish of parliament and the country to see formed. In the motion he had then made he did not rely on any other principles than those which were maintained on the question by his majesty's ministers; it was to be expected, that, in consistency with those principles, and with the declaration which ministers had made in January last, that no long time would have elapsed without a recognition of the independence of some of the states of South America. An opening had been left for Spain to take the priority in the recognition; but if Spain did not avail herself of that opening, it was understood that this country was relieved from the necessity of any longer delaying the taking of that step herself. It was a course which ought, above all, to be adopted, in consistency with those principles which in this country ought to make it desirable to establish intimate relations with those states which enjoy a system of liberty in every part of the world. Such had heretofore been the conduct of the government of this country with respect to the free states of Europe, and he thought it ought to be extended to America. He therefore now called
1480
The Earl of Liverpool
felt it necessary to say something on what had fallen from the noble marquis; and what he had to state would be perfectly plain, explicit, and distinct, as to the course which the king's government had pursued on this subject. When the noble marquis formerly brought this matter under the consideration of their lordships, he reduced the question to three points—1. Whether there was any connexion between this, country and any states of Europe (Spain excepted) which rendered it necessary to withhold the recognition of the South American states, At that time, he took
1481
1482
PROTEST AGAINST THE EARL MARSHAL'S BILL.]
Lord Holland
before' he proceeded to the motion of which he had given notice, was desirous that the minutes of the 18th, 19th, and 21st instant should be read. He could not but express his satisfaction at seeing, on the last day previous to the prorogation, that the delicate matter—for delicate he could not but call it—which he was about to bring forward, would receive the consideration of so full a House. He felt satisfaction also, that, if his recollection should fail him as to facts, he spoke in the presence of many noble persons who witnessed what had passed, and he was sure would acknowledge the correctness of his statements where they were correct, or set him right if he should in any respect be in error. But if there lordships should not agree to adopt his proposition, they would at least bear this in mind—that it was not impossible, even at the shortest notice, to procure a numerous meeting of that House. Their lordships had given a practical proof that at that very late period of the session, a full attendance of peers could be obtained on four and twenty hours' notice. Those persons, therefore, who had such a feverish apprehension on all subjects connected with this important bill as it was called, must have had full opportunity to attend if they pleased. He then moved that the minutes be read. [Here the minutes were read by the clerk.] His lordship also moved the reading of the following Protest.
1483
(Signed)
"NEWCASTLE
"ABINGDON."
Lord Holland
now rose to complain to their lordships of this protest. Their lordships would perhaps think it strange that he should consider himself called upon to make any animadversion on a protest, more than any other noble lord had who thought it his duty to be very free in tendering protests against the decisions of the House. Before he sat down he would conclude with a motion, conceived in words on hearing which he believed their lordships would acknowledge, that at no period in the last 120 years would such a protest have passed without a more severe censure. He complained of this protest on two grounds; in the first place, that it left a general impression on the minds of those who heard it exactly the reverse of what the facts accurately stated would produce; and that of the seven propositions which it contained, one only expressed a fair difference of opinion; and that the other six were misapprehensions of the orders and practice of their lordships' House, or proceeded from a want of right recollection of facts and circumstances, or constituted a direct attack on the honour of the House—an attack, which tended to subvert all respect for the laws of the country and those regulations upon which all deference to the proceedings of that House rested. He referred more particularly to these words —" And lastly, because at this very late pe-
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
1489
1490
The Earl of Abingdon
said, that as one of those who had signed the protest, he felt it incumbent on him to explain the principle upon which he had acted. Conceiving that the bill was perfectly unconstitutional, he had opened the Journals of the House to see if any protest had been entered against it, and finding that there was, he did not hesitate to affix his signature under a conviction that the bill was one which ought not to have passed. The object of the bill was, to enable the Earl Marshal to enter upon the duties of his office without taking the oath of supremacy —an oath which he (the earl of A.) conceived to be necessary to the protection of the constitution. In the oath of allegiance to his majesty, as taken by the Catholics, the words "he being Protestant" were left out, and great danger might arise hereafter from the omission of expressions that went to recognise and secure the Protestant ascendancy. If their lordships were to infer from what he had stated, or from what he had done, that he held the Roman Catholics in detestation, they would commit a great mistake. It was not from any feeling of animosity towards them, but from a disinclination to countenance any infringement of the constitution, that he had signed the protest which he had foundalready written. It was in this sense alone that he wished his protest to be understood, and he would
1491
The Duke of Newcastle
said, he rose with considerable embarrassment to address their lordships, being very little accustomed to speak in public. He would not enter at length into the various topics which the noble lord had introduced, but would confine himself altogether to the facts of the case. He wished, however, before he did so, to express his thanks to the noble lord for the temper in which he had brought forward his motion, avoiding every thing that could hurt his feelings, though intending to invalidate his protest. He could assure the House, on his own part, that he entertained no feeling inimical to the earl marshal, but directly the reverse. His objection to the bill was, not from any disrespect towards him, but because it was a favour, and a dangerous favour, granted to the Roman Catholics. It was, as he conceived, unconstitutional, and contrary to those principles which ought to be held most sacred. He begged to observe to the House, that every thing alleged in his protest he believed to be true; if he did not believe every word of it to be true, he was not the man who would wish to insert it on the Journals of the House. Like other men, he might have fallen into error. He might at present be labouring under an erroneous impression, though he did not think he was; but if such was the opinion of the House, he would willingly submit to the adoption of any course which they might think proper to recommend. He would take leave to repeat his opinion, that the bill had been hurried with indecent rapidity through its stages. It first came down on the Friday, on the Saturday it was read a second time, the committee having been dispensed with; and on Monday it was read the third time, and passed, as he thought, before five o'clock; but of that he could not be positive after what he had heard. It was passed however at an unusual hour, for a measure of such importance, and in the absence of many noble lords who wished to speak and to the against it. Convinced that what he had stated was right, he was unwilling to retract. But, if the general sense of the House was otherwise, he would not oppose himself to their opinions. Throwing himself, therefore, entirely on the mercy of their lordships, he would be directed by them.
The Duke of Richmond
said, that as he
1492
The Lord Chancellor
observed, that after a bill had once passed, the sense of the House must be considered as having been distinctly pronounced upon it; whatever might pass out of doors, such was the doctrine that must be maintained within. If upon any occasion the sense of the House was supposed to have been too hastily taken, there was one way of enabling them to retrace their steps—by moving for the repeal of the bill. He was far from insinuating that such a course ought to be pursued in the present case: his opinion was decidedly otherwise; and as for the question of hours, if their lordships thought proper to pass a bill at eleven o'clock in the morning, instead of five in the afternoon, still no one could deny that it would be the sense of the House. With respect to the oath of allegiance, he must say, as a lawyer, that it contained in it every thing included in the oath of supremacy: that the oath of supremacy was, in fact, added as an explanation of the oath of allegiance, or as lord Hale had expressed it, was passed to unravel the errors that had crept in. It was his intention to move an amendment, stating the facts more fully than they were detailed in the motion of the noble lord. Among other circumstances, his amendment would notice, that the Welch judicature bill stood before the Earl Marshal's bill on the orders. He did not mean to have it inferred from this, that their lordships were bound to take the orders in the succession in which they stood, but to shew that others might naturally fall into that mistake, on recollecting the usual practice of the House.
The Earl of Lauderdale
protested against the inference, that the House was bound by any rule in such cases.
Lord Holland
said, he should have no objection to the amendment suggested by the learned lord, but he should introduce one which he thought would meet with the concurrence of the House, especially after the candid manner in which one noble lord had explained the grounds of his protest. His lordship concluded by moving, "That the noble lords who had dissented, should be allowed to confine their dissent to such reasons, or parts of the reasons, as they thought proper."
The motion was agreed to nem dis.
1493
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, June 24.
REGULATIONS OF SURREY MAGISTRATES—PETITION OF DEBTORS IN HORSEMONGER-LANE GAOL.]
Mr. Hobhouse
said, he had a petition to present on a subject of considerable importance. It was from the whole of the debtors confined in the gaol for the county of Surrey; complaining of the regulations to which, under the orders of the magistrates of that county, the gaol was subjected. In the first place, the petitioners complained, that the act of the 4th of his present majesty, commonly called the Gaol act, laid down certain rules for the regulation of gaols, which were very undefined in their character. He was of opinion that the House ought to interfere, and to correct the indiscretions which, under this act, the unpaid magistracy of the country were prone to commit. It appeared that by the 4th and 12th sections of the act, the justices of peace assembled at the quarter sessions, were empowered to make such rules with respect to gaols as to them might seem expedient. It was impossible to know how far such a power might be carried. If the justices of peace, assembled at the quarter sessions, chose to direct that every prisoner should have only a single ounce of bread, and a single glass of water per day, there was nothing in the act of parliament to prevent them from issuing such an order. Although many of the Surrey magistrates were men of the highest respectability, and among them his hon. friend (Mr. Denison), and the noble lord opposite (Eastnor), who was recently the Chairman of the quarter sessions; yet, after the treatment which, by their directions, had lately been experienced by a gentleman, whose case had made a good deal of noise—he meant captain O'Callaghan—it was impossible not to look at their proceedings with considerable suspicion and jealousy. The petitioners complained that, in consequence of the regulations of the magistrates, only one hour in the day was allowed for the debtors to provide themselves with food, bedding, clothes, and other necessaries. Now, as many of the friends of the petitioners lived at a distance from the gaol, and were engaged in business of various kinds, it must frequently happen, that the hour appointed for the purpose which he had just mentioned, which hour was from eleven to twelve o'clock, was inconvenient and in-
1494
1495
Mr. Denison
said, that, in many points, he perfectly agreed with his hon. friend. He condemned the Gaol act: he hoped it would be repealed, and that the old law on the subject would be renewed. But, with many thanks to his hon. friend for the
1496
1497
Mr. Maberly
observed, that as the magistrates of Surrey had delegated their authority to the visiting magistrates, he hoped the error, if any, would be imputed to the latter alone. He should feel it his bounden duty, however, to bring the subject before the magistrates generally. They knew nothing of what had occurred. At least, he might say, as one of them, that he knew nothing about it.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that with regard to the existing law on the subject of
1498
l.
Sir R. Wilson
observed, that they were informed by the right hon. secretary, that he had asked lord Eastnor whether the court had taken into consideration the recommendation of the jury: but, there was another question which the right hon.
1499
Lord Eastnor
expressed his regret that he was not in the House when this petition was presented, but as he understood that a petition was to be presented from Mr. O' Callaghan, he would reserve any observations he had to make until that petition came before the House.
Sir F. Burdett
was sure, that his hon. colleague had not meant to cast any imputation upon the conduct of the noble chairman of the quarter sessions. He was likewise sure, that the humanity and liberality which always distinguished the conduct of his hon. friend, the member for Surrey, would lead him to mitigate the hardships of this prison law by every means in his power. He could not, however, help saying, that the case which was then before the House, showed that the alteration which had recently been made in the law of the country was a very grievous alteration; and he did not know how it was possible for any man with the ideas of a gentleman, to avoid experiencing the strongest disgust, on viewing the risk which he now ran of being subjected to the utmost degradation and insult for an offence which any of them might be urged to commit under the impulse of exasperated feelings. For his own part, he would declare, upon his honour, that he would rather be sentenced to be hanged at once, than to undergo the insults which captain O'Callaghan had suffered in the gaol to which he had been committed. He would ask whether any greater mental torture, any more flagrant mental degradation, could be inflicted upon any man who moved in the sphere of a gentleman, than to be placed behind iron railings, and to be compelled to communicate with his friends, not only upon the same terms, but also in the very company of a set of felons? He allowed that the present was an inconvenient time for entering into a discussion on the state of the prison laws; but, nevertheless, he could not refrain from expressing a hope, that the House would soon see the propriety of recurring to the old English law regarding gaols—of taking the management of them from the magistrates—of restricting the magistrates to their ancient jurisdiction—
1500
Mr. Hobhouse,
in reply, observed, that the law itself was so absurd and wicked, and gave so great a latitude to the magistrates by whom it was administered, that no man could be safe while it remained in the Statute-book. He was glad to find that his hon. friend, the member for Surrey, owned that three of the complaints made by the petitioners were well-founded. He had no doubt that in consequence of what had passed that evening, all those hardships would be remedied. Justice required it. He repeated that it would be much better to abandon the new-fangled system of gaol management, and to go back to the old practice, even with all the vices which belonged to it. As to the case of Mr. O'Callaghan, he would make only one remark. There was not a member in that House who did not recollect a C3se some years ago perfectly similar. He was far from meaning to say any thing personally unpleasant to the right hon. gentleman opposite. On the contrary, had he been in the situation of that right hon. gentleman's brother, on the occasion to which he alluded, he would have done just what he did. The act, however, was an assault similar to that which had been committed by Mr. O'Callaghan. But, what was the punishment? A month's imprisonment in the King's-bench. How different from the punishment of Mr. O'Callaghan! He had seen the prison, and the particular place in which the gentleman he alluded to was confined. He had his friends to dine with him every day, had any kind of food, had every indulgence he wished for, and walked about at his ease. But, Mr. O'Callaghan was shut up in a solitary cell twelve hours out of the twenty-four, compelled to live on bread and water, and, exposed to the most painful mental degradation. He knew the gentleman, and a more respectable man he never saw. The sentence, hard in itself, was rendered infinitely more so by the mode in which the gaoler thought he was called upon to carry it into execution. He had a right to say that the sentence was hard. Chief Justice Best had, the other day, declared, with reference to a respectable individual who had given another two slaps in the face, that the jury could not give more than a farthing damages. He would ask the
1501
Mr. Peel
said, the hon. gentleman ought to bear in mind, that, in the instance to which he had adverted, the sentence, besides a month's imprisonment, was a fine of 500
l.,
l.
Ordered to lie on the table.
PETITION OF LUKE CARLOS O'CALLAGHAN, COMPLAINING OF ILL-TREATMENT IN THE SURREY COUNTY GAOL.]
Mr. Abercromby
stated, that he had to present a petition from the individual whose name had been so often alluded to in the course of the late discussion; he meant Mr. O'Callaghan. The case of that gentleman had excited great public attention, and the only reason which he could find for its having done so was this—that when the public looked to the offence which Mr. O'Callaghan had committed, to the provocation which he had received, to the recommendation which the jury had given him for mercy, and to the treatment to which he had subsequently been subjected in consequence of his sentence, they saw that there was such a difference between the offence and the punishment, as compelled them to withhold their sympathy from the punishment, and to give it to the person on whom the punishment was inflicted. The petition was, in his opinion, well deserving the attention of the House; and he thought that the right hon. secretary, if he took it under his consideration, would see, that the petitioner had suffered a degree of punishment for the space of a week, which neither the noble chairman who passed the sentence, nor the bench who concurred in it, intended him to suffer. The hon. member then went into the particulars of Mr. O'Callaghan's case, reading them from the petition. After he had
1502
Lord Eastnor
assured the House, that he never undertook a more painful duty in his life, than that of presiding at the late quarter sessions for the county of Surrey. He undertook it not from any wish of his own, but at the request of his hon. friend the member for the county, in order to give the magistrates time to select a proper successor to their late worthy chairman, Mr. Harrison. He could assure them that he had given his best attention to this case, and that the rest of the bench had done so too. They did not wish to do any thing harsh, but they thought that they were bound by their sentence to mark their opinion of the assault which had been committed. He did feel that without a strong case, it was improper to allude in that House to what occurred before the judicial tribunals of the country; but, after what had fallen on the present occasion from hon. members, he felt himself bound to state, that the provocation which Mr. O' Callaghan received did not appear to be such as warranted, the assault he had made on the prosecutor.
1503
Mr. Maberly
trusted, that as there was to be a meeting of the Surrey magistrates to-morrow, they would resolve to appeal to the right hon. secretary to shorten the duration of captain O' Callaghan's imprisonment, in consequence of the aggravation it had received from the very hard discipline which they had imposed upon the prison. For the honour of Surrey, he hoped that nobody would in future suffer in any of the county gaols a greater punishment than that to which the bench intended to consign him.
Lord Eastnor
said, he was anxious to make one observation which had before escaped him. He was not, when the sentence was passed on this gentleman, aware of the precise nature of the prison regulations; and when he was told of the privations to which Mr. O' Callaghan had been subjected, he doubted the statement, and said, that there must be some mistake. He, however, learnt, that the statement was true. He was afterwards informed, that those restrictions were removed, and every fair and reasonable indulgencegiven, and he was glad of it.
1504
l.
1505
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, June 25.
THE SPEAKER'S SPEECH TO THE KING.]
At half past two o'clock, his Majesty, accompanied by the great officers of state, entered the House, and being seated on the throne, the Usher of the Black Rod, was directed to summon the Commons to attend his Majesty. In a few minutes the Speaker appeared at the bar, accompanied by about sixty members.
The Speaker then delivered the following speech:—
1506
"May it please your Majesty—We, your Majesty's faithful Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, attend your Majesty with our concluding bill of supply.
"It was indeed gratifying to us to learn from your Majesty, at the commencement of the session, that the agricultural interest, so deeply important as it is to our national prosperity, but to which parliament could at any time have afforded but very partial and imperfect relief, was gradually recovering from the depression under which it had so grievously laboured; and we confidently hope, that that improvement will be the more substantial and the more satisfactory, because it has continued and still continues.
"Equally gratifying to us, Sire, was your Majesty's declaration, that trade and commerce were extending themselves both at home and abroad; that increased activity pervaded almost all branches of manufactures; and that the growth of the revenue had been such as not only to sustain public credit, but, after providing adequately for the services of the year, to leave such a surplus as might be most satisfactorily applied to the reduction of some parts of our system of taxation.
"Sire, we did not hesitate to make ample provision for the augmentation of our establishments by sea and land, rendered necessary by" the distribution of your Majesty's naval force and the strengthening of your Majesty's garrisons in the West-Indies.
"Sire, after providing for the services of the year, it was a most acceptable duty imposed upon us; to consider in what manner the reduction of such parts of our taxation could be effected as would be best calculated to infuse fresh life and vigour into important branches of the national industry.
"Sire, two courses were obviously open to our consideration—the reduction of direct taxation, or the disencumbering the trade of the country of those restraints and impediments which are so utterly inconsistent with every enlarged and enlightened principle of trade, and which nothing but the exigencies of the state, or the infancy of trade, could at any time either recommend or justify.
"Sire, the latter alternative was adopted by your Majesty's faithful Commons; the field, however, was large before us, and to our exertions there was obviously this limit—the extent to which the re-
1507
"Sire, so far, then, as our means would admit, and so far as a due attention to the difficulty and delicacy of this alteration of system would allow, we have effected as we confidently hope, a vast and permanent advantage to the nation.
"Sire, in considering the state of Ireland, we have felt it, however painfully and reluctantly, our imperative duty to concur in the enactment for another year of the Insurrection act—not, Sire, deluding ourselves
with
"Sire, it would ill become me to enter into detail on the various other subjects which have engrossed our attention; but I may be permitted to express a perfect conviction, that your Majesty's faithful Commons, by their anxious deliberations to effect whatever may conduce to the permanent interests of the nation, have entitled themselves to the gracious approbation of your Majesty, and to the full and entire confidence of the public."
THE KING'S SPEECH AT THE CLOSE OF THE SESSION.]
The royal assent was then given to sundry bills, after which his Majesty delivered the following speech:
1508
"My Lords and Gentlemen,
"I cannot close this session of parliament, without returning to you my warmest acknowledgments for the diligence and assiduity with which you have applied yourselves to the several objects of public interest that have been submitted to your consideration.
"I deeply regret the painful necessity under which you have found yourselves of renewing, for a further period, measures of extraordinary precaution in Ireland.
"I entirely approve of the inquiries which you have thought proper to institute as to the nature and extent of the evils unhappily existing in the disturbed districts of that country, and I have no doubt that you will see the expediency of pursuing your inquiries in another session.
"I continue to receive from all foreign powers the strongest assurances of their friendly disposition towards this country, and you may rely on my endeavours being invariably directed to the maintenance of general peace, and to the protection of the interests and extension of the commerce of my subjects.
"Gentlemen of the House of Commons," I thank you for the supplies which you have provided for the service of the present year, and especially for the grants which you have so liberally made in furtherance of the interests of religion, and in support of the splendor of the Crown.
"I am fully sensible of the advantages which may be expected to arise from the relief you have afforded to some of the most important branches of the national industry.
"My Lords and Gentlemen," I have the greatest satisfaction in repeating to you my congratulations upon the general and increasing prosperity of the country.
"I am persuaded that you will carry with you into your respective counties the same spirit of harmony which has distinguished your deliberations during the present session; and that you will cultivate among all classes of my subjects those
1509
1510
After which, the Lord-Chancellor by his Majesty's command, prorogued the parliament to the 24th of August.
APPENDIX.
FINANCE ACCOUNTS,
FOR THE YEAR ENDED 5TH JANUARY, 1824.
CLASS.
I. PUBLIC INCOME.
II. PUBLIC EXPENDITURE.
III. CONSOLIDATED FUND.
IV. PUBLIC FUNDED DEBT.
V. UNFUNDED DEBT.
VI. DISPOSITION OF GRANTS.
VII. ARREARS AND BALANCES.
VIII. TRADE AND NAVIGATION.
No. I.—An Account of the ORDINARY REVENUES and EXTRAORDINARY RESOURCES,
IRELAND, for the Year
HEADS OF REVENUE.
CROSS RECEIPT.
Repayments, Allowances Discounts, Drawbacks, and Bounties of the nature of Drawbacks, &c.
NETT RECEIPT within the year, after deducting REPAYMENTS, &c.
Ordinary Revenues.
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
Customs
15,504,869
2
3¾
1,547,873
11
4½
13,956,995
10
11¼
Excise
29,308,986
17
3¾
2,370,603
8
11¼
26,938,383
8
4
Stamps
7,216,373
3
10¾
232,242
10
10¼
6,984,130
13
0½
Taxes, under the Management of the Commissioners of Taxes
6,595,820
2
5¾
8,485
5
4¼
6,587,334
17
1½
Post Office
2,154,294
17
11¾
82,791
17
7¾
2,071,503
0
4
One Shilling in the Pound, and Sixpence in the Pound on Pensions and Salaries, and Four Shillings in the Pound on Pensions
63,243
14
2½
63,243
14
2½
Hackney Coaches, and Hawkers and Pedlars
64,593
14
1
64,593
14
1
Crown Lands
312,336
11
9¼
312,336
11
9¼
Small Branches of the King's Hereditary Revenue
7,283
15
4
7,283
15
4
Lottery; Surplus produce after Payment of Prizes
27,400
0
0
27,400
0
0
Surplus Fees of Regulated Public Offices
39,718
17
4
39,718
17
4
Poundage Fees, Pells Fees, Casualties, Treasury Fees, and Hospital Fees
10,208
13
0¾
10,208
13
0¾
TOTALS of Ordinary Revenues
61,305,129
9
8¾
4,241,996
14
2
57,063,132
15
6¾
Other Resources.
Amount of Saving on the Third Class of the Civil List
11,018
19
2½
11,018
19
2½
Money brought from the Civil List on account of the Clerk of the Hanaper
7,218
2
7¾
7,218
2
7¾
Money received in repayment of the Loan raised for the service of the Emperor of Germany, per Acts 35 and 37 Geo. 3
766,666
13
4
766,666
13
4
Money received from the East India Company, on account of Retired Pay, Pensions, &c. of his Majesty's Forces serving in the East Indies, per Act 4 Geo. 4, c. 71
90,000
0
0
90,000
0
0
From the Commissioners for the Issue of Exchequer Hills, per Act 57 Geo. 3, c. 34, for the Employment of the Poor
116,733
15
5
116,733
15
5
Money received from the Trustees of Naval and Military Pensions, after deducting 175,000
l
4,675,000
0
0
4,675,000
0
0
Money received from the Bank of England, to pay Interest on 1,050,000
l
10,719
0
0
10,719
0
0
From several County Treasurers, and others in Ireland, on account of Advances made by the Treasury, for improving Post Roads, for building Gaols, for the Police, for Public Works, employment of the Poor, &c.
114,982
5
6¼
114,982
5
6¼
Imprest Monies, repaid by sundry Public Accountants, and other Monies paid to the Public
379,047
6
10¼
379,047
6
10¼
TOTALS, exclusive of Loans
67,476,515
12
8½
4,241,996
14
2
63,234,518
18
6½
Loans
2,400,000
0
0
2,400,000
0
0
TOTALS of the Public Income of the United Kingdom, including Loans
69,876,515
12
8½
4,241,996
14
2
65,634,518
18
6½
Whitehall Treasury Chambers, 11th March, 1824.
CLASS I.—PUBLIC INCOME.
constituting the PUBLIC INCOME of the United Kingdom of GREAT BRITAIN and
ended 5th January, 1824.
TOTAL INCOME, including BALANCES outstanding 5th Jan. 1823.
Charges of Collection, and other Payments out of the Income, in
its Progress to the Exchequer.
PAYMENTS into the EXCHEQUER.
BALANCES and BILLS outstanding on 5th January, 1814.
TOTAL DISCHARGE of the INCOME.
Rate per cent. for which the Cross Receipt was collected.
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
14,264,252
10
7¾
2,396,601
1
7
11,498,762
12
10¼
368,888
16
2½
14,264,252
10
7¾
10
2
3
28,620,941
8
1½
1,839,915
12
9½
25,342,828
1
10¼
1,438,197
13
5¾
28,620,941
8
1½
4
11
3
7,461,453
18
3¼
198,534
5
9¼
6,801,950
0
4¾
460,969
12
1¼
7,461,453
18
3¼
2
15
0
6,863,944
4
5¾
409,563
16
5½
6,206,927
8
9¼
247,452
19
3
6,863,944
4
5¾
5
12
9
2,292,358
19
4¼
615,981
6
11¾
1,462,692
6
2
213,685
6
2½
2,292,358
19
4¼
26
8
4
66,478
11
7¾
1,554
4
10
61,358
7
3¾
3,565
19
6
66,478
11
7¾
2
9
2
64,695
1
11
10,800
9
1
53,880
0
0
14
12
10
64,695
1
11
16
14
5
341,256
5
6½
263,580
15
5
966
13
4
76,708
16
9½
341,256
5
6½
14
5
3
10,312
17
7¼
3,470
11
9
4,274
4
11
2,568
0
11¼
10,312
17
7¼
20
3
11
27,400
0
0
2,590
17
0
24,809
3
0
27,400
0
0
7
6
0
39,718
17
4
39,718
17
4
39,718
17
4
—
10,208
13
0¾
10,208
13
0¾
10,208
13
0¾
—
60,063,021
7
11¾
5,742,593
1
8
51,508,376
9
0
2,812,051
17
3¾
60,063,021
7
11¾
6
13
11
11,018
19
2½
11,018
19
2½
11,018
19
2½
—
7,218
2
7¾
7,218
2
7¾
7,218
2
7¾
—
766,666
13
4
766,666
13
4
766,666
13
4
—
90,000
0
0
90,000
0
0
90,000
0
0
—
116,733
15
5
116,733
15
5
116,733
15
5
—
4,675,000
0
0
4,675,000
0
0
4,675,000
0
0
—
10,719
0
0
10,719
0
0
10,719
0
0
—
117,351
7
1½
108,219
1
11¼
9,132
5
2¼
117,351
7
1½
—
379,047
6
10¼
379,047
6
10¼
379,047
6
10¼
—
66,236,776
12
6¾
5,742,593
1
8
57,672,999
8
4¾
2,821,184
2
6
66,236,776
12
6¾
—
2,400,000
0
0
24,400,000
0
0
24,400,000
0
0
—
68,636,776
12
6¾
5,742,593
1
8
60,072,999
8
4¾
2,821,184
2
6
68,636,776
12
6¾
—
J. C. HERRIES
No. II.—An Account of the ORDINARY REVENUES and
EXTRAORDINARY
the Year ended
HEADS OF REVENUE.
CROSS RECEIPT.
Repayments, Allowances Discounts, Drawbacks, and Bounties of the
nature of Drawbacks, &c.
NETT RECEIPT within the year, after deducting REPAYMENTS,
&c.
Ordinary Revenues.
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
Customs
13,586,413
10
1¾
1,327,708
11
7½
12,258,704
18
6¼
Excise
27,568,026
11
0
2,325,486
0
1¼
25,242,540
10
10¾
Stamps
6,720,932
0
2¾
223,694
9
9¾
6,497,237
10
5
Taxes, under the Management of the Commissioners of Taxes
6,541,296
1
3½
6,568
18
7¾
6,534,727
2
7¾
Post Office
1,965,468
11
3¾
64,713
12
3½
1,900,754
19
0¼
One Shilling in the Pound, and Sixpence in the Pound on Pensions and Salaries, and Four
shillings in the Pound on Pensions
63,243
14
2½
63,243
14
2
Hackney Coaches, and Hawkers and Pedlars
64,593
14
1
64,593
14
1
Crown Lands
312,336
11
9¼
312,336
11
9¼
Small Branches of the King's Hereditary Revenue
7,283
15
4
7,283
15
4
Lottery, Surplus Produce after Payment of Prizes
27,400
0
0
27,400
0
0
Surplus Fees of Regulated Public Offices
39,718
17
4
39,718
17
4
TOTALS of Ordinary Revenues
56,896,713
6
8½
3,948,171
12
5¾
52,948,541
14
2¾
Other Resources.
Amount of Saving on the Third Class of the Civil List
11,018
19
2½
11,018
19
2½
Money brought from the Civil List, on Account of the Clerk of the Hanaper
7,218
2
7¾
7,218
2
7¾
Money received in repayment of the Loan raised for the Service of the Emperor of Germany,
per Act 35 & 37 Geo. 3.
766,666
13
4
766,666
13
4
Money received from the East India Company on Account of Retired Pay, Pensions, &c. of
his Majesty's Forces serving in the East Indies, per Act 4 Geo. 4, c. 71
90,000
0
0
90,000
0
0
From the Commissioners for the Issue of Exchequer Bills, per Act 57 Geo. 3, c. 34, for the
Employment of the Poor
116,733
15
5
116,733
15
5
Money received from the Trustees of Naval and Military Pensions, &c. after deducting
175,000
l
4,675,000
0
0
4,675,000
0
0
Money received from the Bank of England to pay Interest on 1,050,000
l
10,719
0
0
10,719
0
0
Imprest Monies repaid by sundry Public Accountants, and other Monies paid to the Public
310,110
4
7¼
310,110
4
7¼
TOTALS, exclusive of Loans
62,884,180
1
11
3,948,171
12
5¾
58,936,008
9
5¼
Loans
2,250,000
0
0
2,250,000
0
0
TOTALS of the Public Income of Great Britain, including Loans
65,134,180
1
11
3,948,171
12
5¾
61,186,008
9
5¼
Whiteall, Treasury Chambers, 11th March, 1824.
RESOURCES, constituting the PUBLIC INCOME of GREAT BRITAIN, for
5th January, 1824.
TOTAL INCOME, including BALANCES outstanding 5th Jan. 1823.
Charges of Collection, and other Payments out of the Income, in
its Progress to the Exchequer.
PAYMENTS into the EXCHEQUER.
BALANCES and BILLS outstanding on 5th January, 1814.
TOTAL DISCHARGE of the INCOME.
Rate per cent. for which the Cross Receipt was collected.
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
12,524,446
6
11½
1,777,431
12
7
10,406,437
19
9¼
340,576
14
7¼
12,524,446
6
11½
8
3
4
26,851,015
16
8¾
1,539,488
3
4¾
23,956,467
10
3½
1,355,060
3
0½
26,851,015
16
8¾
4
0
0
6,857,008
3
9¼
159,520
2
0
6,362,620
5
3
334,867
16
6¼
6,857,008
3
9¼
2
7
6
6,805,080
14
11¾
369,331
15
11¾
6,188,871
4
1¾
246,877
14
10¼
6,805,080
14
11¾
5
1
4
2,075,628
17
10
520,320
3
9¾
1,387,000
0
0
168,308
14
0
2,075,628
17
10
24
1
9
66,478
11
7¾
1,554
4
10
61,358
7
3¾
3,565
19
6
66,478
11
7¾
2
9
2
64,695
1
11
10,800
9
1
53,880
0
0
14
12
10
64,695
1
11
16
14
5
341,256
5
6½
263,580
15
5
966
13
4
76,708
16
9½
341,256
5
6½
14
5
3
10,312
17
7¼
3,470
11
9
4,274
4
11
2,568
0
11¼
10,312
17
7¼
20
3
11
27,400
0
0
2,590
17
0
24,809
3
0
27,400
0
0
7
6
0
39,718
17
4
39,718
17
4
39,718
17
4
55,663,041
14
4
4,648,088
15
10¼
48,486,404
5
4¼
2,528,548
13
l
55,663,041
14
4
5
13
9
11,018
19
2½
11,018
19
2½
11,018
19
2½
—
7,218
2
7¾
7,218
2
7¾
7,218
2
7¾
—
766,666
13
4
766,666
13
4
766,666
13
4
—
90,000
0
0
90,000
0
0
90,000
0
0
—
116,733
15
5
116,733
15
5
116,733
15
5
—
4,675,000
0
0
4,675,000
0
0
4,675,000
0
0
—
10,719
0
0
10,719
0
0
10,719
0
0
—
310,110
4
7¼
310,110
4
7¼
310,110
4
7¼
—
61,650,508
9
6
4,648,088
15
10¼
54,473,871
0
6¾
2,528,548
13
1
61,650,508
9
6
—
2,250,000
0
0
2,250,000
0
0
2,250,000
0
0
—
63,900,508
9
6
4,648,088
15
10¼
54,723,871
0
6¾
2,528,548
13
1
63,900,508
9
6
—
J. C. HERRIES
No. III.—An Account of the ORDINARY REVENUES and
EXTRAORDINARY
ended 5th
HEADS OF REVENUE.
GROSS RECEIPT.
Repayments, Drawbacks, Discounts, &c.
NETT RECEIPT within the Year, after deducting REPAYMENTS,
&c.
Ordinary Revenues.
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
Customs
1,918,455
12
2
220,164
19
9
1,698,290
12
5
Excise
1,740,960
6
3⅜
45,117
8
10
1,695,842
17
5⅜
Stamps
495,441
3
8
8,548
1
0½
486,893
2
7½
Taxes
54,524
1
2¼
1,916
6
8½
52,607
14
5¾
Post Office
188,826
6
8
18,078
5
4¼
170,748
1
3¾
Poundage Fees, Pells Fees, Casualties, Treasury Fees, and Hospital Fees
10,208
13
0¾
10,208
13
0¾
TOTAL of Ordinary Revenues
4,408,416
3
0⅜
293,825
1
8¼
4,114,591
1
4⅛
Other Resources.
From the Provost and Fellows of Trinity College, on account of Advances made by
the Treasury for completing the North Square of the said College, per Act 54 Geo. 3, c. 167
1,107
13
10¼
1,107
13
10¼
From several County Treasurers, and others:
On Account of Advances made by the Treasury for improving Post Roads in Ireland, under Act
45 Geo. 3, c. 43
19,576
6
7¼
19,576
6
7¼
On Account of Advances made by the Treasury for building Gaols, under Act 50 Geo. S. c.
103
24,101
4
3
24,101
4
3
On Account of Advances made by the Treasury, for Police in proclaimed Districts, under Acts
54 Geo. 3, c. 131, and 3 Geo. 4, c. 103
60,472
12
8
60,472
12
8
On Account of Advances made by the Treasury for Public Works and Employment of the Poor,
under Acts 57 Geo. 3, c.34 & 124, and 3 Geo. 4, c. 112
9,724
8
1¾
9,724
8
1¾
Imprest Monies repaid by sundry Public Accountants, and other Monies paid to the
Public
68,937
2
3
68,937
2
3
TOTALS, exclusive of Loans
4,592,335
10
9⅜
293,825
1
8¼
4,298,510
9
1⅜
Loans
150,000
0
0
150,000
0
0
TOTALS of the Public Income of Ireland, including Loans
4,742,335
10
9⅜
293,825
1
8¼
4,448,510
9
1⅜
Whiteall, Treasury Chambers, 11th March, 1824.
RESOURCES, constituting the PUBLIC INCOME of IRELAND, for the Year
January, 1824.
TOTAL INCOME, including BALANCES outstanding 5th Jan. 1823.
Charges of Collection, and other Payments out of the Income, in
its Progress to the Exchequer.
PAYMENTS into the EXCHEQUER.
BALANCES and BILLS outstanding on 5th January, 1824.
TOTAL DISCHARGE of the INCOME.
Rate per cent. for which the Gross Receipt was collected.
£
s
d
£
s
d
£
s
d
£
s
d
£
s
d
£
s
d
1,739,806
3
8¼
619,169
9
0
1,092,324
13
1
28,312
1
7¼
1,739,806
3
8¼
23
17
9
1,769,925
11
4⅞
300,427
9
4¾
1,386,360
11
6¾
83,137
10
5⅜
1,769,925
11
4⅞
13
10
0
604,445
14
6
39,014
3
9¼
439,329
15
1¾
126,101
15
7
604,445
14
6⅝
7
17
6
58,863
9
6
40,232
0
5¾
18,056
4
7½
575
4
4¾
58,863
9
6
73
15
9
216,730
1
6
95,661
3
2
75,692
6
2
45,376
12
2
216,730
1
6
50
13
3
10,208
13
0¾
10,208
13
0¾
10,208
13
0¾
—
4,399,979
13
7⅞
1,094,504
5
9¾
3,021,972
3
7¾
283,503
4
2⅞
4,399,979
13
7⅜
19
13
10
1,107
13
10¼
1,107
13
10¼
1,107
13
10¼
—
19,576
6
7¼
19,576
6
7¼
19,576
6
7¼
—
26,470
5
10¼
18,697
15
2¾
7,772
10
7½
26,470
5
10¼
—
60,472
12
8
59,112
18
1¼
1,359
14
6¾
60,472
12
8
—
9,724
8
1¾
9,724
8
1¾
9,724
8
1¾
—
68,937
2
3
68,937
2
3
68,937
2
3
—
4,586,268
3
0¾1/4
1,094,504
5
9¾
3,199,128
7
10
292,635
9
4⅜
4,586,268
3
0⅜
—
150,000
0
0
150,000
0
0
150,000
0
0
—
4,736,268
3
0⅜
1,094,504
5
9¾
3,349,128
7
10
292,635
9
4⅜
4,736,268
3
0⅜
—
J. C. HERRIES
No. I.—AN ACCOUNT of the TOTAL INCOME of the REVENUE of
GREAT BRI-
Repayments, Allowances, Discounts, Drawbacks, and Bounties of the
nature
DITURE of the United Kingdom, exclusive of the Sums ap-
HEADS OF REVENUE.
NETT RECEIPT as stated in Account of Public Income.
—
ORDINARY REVENUES.
£
s
d
£
s
d
Balances and Bills Outstanding on the 5th January 1823
-
-
-
2,699,888
12
5
Customs
13,956,995
10
11¼
Excise
26,938,383
8
4
Stamps
6,984,130
13
0½
Taxes
6,587,334
17
1½
Post Office
2,071,503
0
4
One Shilling and Sixpenny Duty on Pensions and Salaries, and Four shillings in the Pound on
Pensions
63,243
14
2½
Hackney Coaches and Hawkers and Pedlars
64,593
14
1
Crown Lands
312,336
11
9¼
Small Branches of the King's Hereditary Revenue
7,283
15
4
Surplus Produce of Lottery, after Payment of Lottery Prizes, &c.
27,400
0
0
Surplus Fees of regulated Public Offices
39,718
17
4
Poundage Fees, Pells Fees, Casualties, Treasury Fees, and Hospital Fees
10,208
13
0¾
57,063,132
15
6¾
60,063,021
7
11¾
Deduct Balances and Bills outstanding on 5th January, 1824
2,812,051
17
3¼
TOTAL Ordinary Revenues
57,250,969
10
8
OTHER RESOURCES.
Balances outstanding on the 5th January, 1823
2,369
1
7¼
The Amount of Savings on the 3rd Class of the Civil List
11,018
19
2½
Money brought from Civil List, on account of the Clerk of the Hanaper
7,218
2
7
Money received in repayment of the Loan raised for the service of the Emperor of Germany,
per Acts 35 & 37 Geo. 3.
766,666
13
4
By the East India Company, on account of Retired Pay, Pensions, &c. of his Majesty's
Forces, serving in the East Indies, per Act 4 Geo. 4, c. 71
90,000
0
0
By the Trustees of Military and Naval Pensions, after deducting 175,000
l.
4,675,000
0
0
By the Bank of England, to pay Interest on 1,050,000
l.
10,719
0
0
By the Commissioners for issuing Exchequer Bills for Public Works
116,733
15
5
Money repaid in Ireland, on account of Advances from the Consolidated Fund, under various
Acts, for Public Improvements
114,982
5
6¼
Imprest and other Monies paid into the Exchequer
379,047
6
10¼
6,173,755
4
7
Deduct Balances outstanding on 5th January, 1824
9,132
5
2¼
6,164,622
19
4¾
63,415,592
10
0¾
Balances, &c. in the hands of Receivers, &c. on 5th Jan. 1823
2,999,888
12
5
Balances, &c. in the hands of Receivers, &c. on 5th Jan. 1823
2,369
1
7¼
3,002,257
14
0¼
Balances, &c. in the hands of Receivers, 5th January, 1824
2,812,051
17
3¾
Balances, &c. in the hands of Receivers, 5th January, 1824
9,132
5
2¼
2,821,184
2
6
Balances less in 1824 than in 1823
181,073
11
6¼
Surplus Income paid into the Exchequer, over Expenditure issued thereout.
6,710,984
10
5½
Actual Excess of Income over Expenditure
6,529,910
18
11¼
CLASS II.—PUBLIC EXPENDITURE.
TAIN and IRELAND, in the Year ended 5th January, 1824, after deducting the
of Drawbacks; together with an Account of the PUBLIC EXPEN-
plied to the Reduction of the National Debt within the same period.
EXPENDITURE.
—
—
PAYMENTS OUT OF THE INCOME
in its progress to the Exchequer:
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
Charges of Collection
4,105,182
7
1¼
Other Payments
1,637,410
14
6¾
Total Payments out of the Income, prior to the Payments into the
Exchequer
5,742,593
1
8
PAYMENTS OUT OF THE EXCHEQUER.
Dividends, Interest, and Management of the Public Funded Debt, four Quarters to 10th October
1823, exclusive of 7,407,325
l
s
d
28,084,784
12
10
Interest on Exchequer Bills and Irish Treasury Bills, exclusive of 75,000
l
1,131,121
19
7
29,215,906
12
5
Issued to the Trustees of Military and Naval Pensions, &c. per Act 2 Geo. 4, c. 51
2,507,130
0
0
Issued to the Trustees of Bank of England, per Act 4 Geo. 4, c. 22
292,870
0
0
2,800,000
0
0
Civil List four Quarters to 5th January 1824
1,057,000
0
0
Pensions charged by Act of Parliament on Consolidated Fund, four Quarteres to 10th October
1823
377,776
2
4
Salaries and allowances
70,873
18
6
Officers of Courts of Justice
97,459
6
6
Expenses of the Mint
14,746
10
8
Bounties
2,956
13
8
Miscellaneous
214,735
11
9
Miscellaneous Ireland
305,257
17
8
2,140,806
1
1
Army
7,351,991
16
1¾
Navy
5,458,151
2
2
Navy Treasurer of Greenwich Hospital, to pay Out-Pensioners
155,000
0
0
Ordnance
1,364,328
5
7½
Miscellaneous
1,953,366
2
10
16,282,837
6
9¼
Money paid to the Bank of England, more than received from them, on account of Unclaimed
Dividends
52,720
6
11
By the Commissioners for issuing Exchequer Bills, per Act 57 Geo. 3, c. 34 & 124, for
employment of the Poor
165,200
0
0
Advances out of the Consolidated Fund in Ireland, for Public Works.
304,544
10
9
522,464
17
8
TOTAL
56,704,607
19
7¼
Surplus of Income paid into the Exchequer, over Expenditure
issued thereout
6,710,984
10
5½
63,415,592
10
0¾
Whiteall, Treasury Chambers, 16th March, 1824.
J. C. HERRIES
No. II—An Account of the Nett PUBLIC INCOME of the United
Kingdom of
the Expenditure thereout, defrayed by the several Revenue
Depart-
exclusive of the Sums applied to the Redemption
INCOME.
Applicable to the Consolidated Fund
Applicable to other Public Services.
Income paid into the Exchequer.
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
Customs
8,797,067
13
3¼
2,701,694
19
7
11,498,762
12
10¼
Excise
24,533,021
1
10¼
809,807
0
0
25,342,828
1
10¼
Stamps
6,801,950
0
4¾
6,801,950
0
4¾
Taxes under the management of the Commissioners of Taxes, including Arrears of Property
Tax
6,202,990
18
6¾
3,936
10
2½
6,206,928
8
9¼
Post Office
1,462,692
6
1¾
1,462,692
6
1¾
One Shilling and Sixpence Duty on Pensions and Salaries; and Four Shillings in the Pound on
Pensions
61,358
7
3¾
61,358
7
3¾
Hackney Coaches, and Hawkers and Pedlars
53,880
0
0
53,880
0
0
Crown Lands
966
13
4
966
13
4
Small Branches of the King's Hereditary Revenue
4,274
4
11
4,274
4
11
Surplus Produce of Lottery, after Payment of Lottery Prizes
24,809
3
0
24,809
3
0
Surplus Fees, regulated Public Offices
39,718
17
4
39,718
17
4
Poundage Fees, Pells Fees, Casualties, Treasury Fees, and Hospital Fees
10,208
13
0¾
10,208
13
0¾
TOTAL Ordinary Revenue
51,508,376
8
11¾
The Amount of Savings on Third Class of the Civil List
11,018
19
2½
11,018
19
2½
Money brought from Civil List, on account of the Clerk of the Hanaper
7,218
2
7¾
7,218
2
7¾
Money received in repayment of the Loan raised for the Service of the Emperor of Germany,
per Acts 35 and 37 Geo. 3
766,666
13
4
766,666
13
4
By the East India Company, on account of retired Pay, Pensions, &c. of his Majesty's
Forces serving in the East Indies, per Act 4 Geo. 4, c. 71
90,000
0
0
90,000
0
0
By the Trustees of Military and Naval Pensions, &c. after deducting 175,000
l
4,675,000
0
0
4,675,000
0
0
By the Bank of England, to pay Interest on 1,050,000
l.
10,719
0
0
10,719
0
0
By the Commissioners for issuing Exchequer Bills for Public Works
116,733
15
5
116,733
15
5
Money repaid in Ireland, on account of advances from the Consolidated Fund, under various
Acts for Public Improvements
108,219
1
11¼
108,219
1
11¼
Imprest and other Monies paid into the Exchequer
319,084
18
10¼
59,962
8
0
379,047
6
10¼
TOTAL paid into the Exchequer
49,180,336
12
2
8,492,662
16
2½
57,672,999
8
4½
Whitehall, Treasury Chambers, 16th March 1824.
GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND, in the Year ended 5th January, 1824, after
abating
ments, and of the Actual Issues or Payments within the same period,
of Funded Debt, or for paying off Unfunded Debt.
EXPENDITURE.
Nett Expenditure.
Dividends, Interest, and Management of the Public Funded Debt, four quarters to
10th October 1823, exclusive of 7,407,325
l
s
d
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
28,084,784
12
10
Interest on Exchequer Bills and Irish Treasury Bills, exclusive of 75,000
l
1,131,121
19
7
29,215,906
12
5
Issued to the Trustees of Military and Naval Pensions, &c. per Act 3 Geo. 4, c. 51
2,507,130
0
0
Issued to the Bank of England and Naval Pensions, &c. per Act 4 Geo. 4, c. 22
292,870
0
0
2,800,000
0
0
Civil List, four quarters to 5th January 1824
1,057,000
0
0
Pensions charged by Act of Parliament, upon Consolidated Fund, four quarters to 10th Oct.
1823
377,776
2
4
Salaries and Allowances 10th Oct. 1823
70,873
18
6
Officers of Courts of Justice 10th Oct. 1823
97,459
6
6
Expenses of the Mint 10th Oct. 1823
14,746
10
8
Bounties 10th Oct. 1823
2,956
13
8
Miscellaneous 10th Oct. 1823
214,735
11
9
Miscellaneous Ireland 10th Oct. 1823
305,257
17
8
2,140,806
1
1
Army
7,351,991
16
1¾
Navy
5,458,151
2
2
Navy Treasurer of Greenwich Hospital to pay Out-Pensioners
155,000
0
0
Ordnance
1,364,328
5
7½
Miscellaneous
1,953,366
2
10
16,282,837
6
9¼
TOTAL
50,439,550
0
3¼
Money paid to the Bank of England more than received from them on account of Unclaimed
Dividends
52,720
6
11
By the Commissioners for issuing Exchequer Bills, per Act 57 Geo. 3, c. 34 & 124, for
employment of the Poor
165,200
0
0
Advances out of the Consolidated Fund in Ireland, for Public Works
304,544
10
9
522,464
17
8
TOTAL
50,962,014
17
11¼
Surplus of Income paid into the Exchequer over Expenditure
thereout
6,710,984
10
5¼
57,672,999
8
4½
J. C. HERRIES
No. III.—An Account of the BALANCE of PUBLIC MONEY
remaining in the
to the FUNDED or UNFUNDED DEBT, in the Year ended 5th
January,
or for paying off the Unfunded Debt, within the same period;
and
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
Balances of the Exchequer on 5th January, 1823
7,797,020
4
9
Balances to the account of the Trustees of Military and Naval Pensions, towards
Payments becoming due from them on 15th January, 1823
175,000
0
0
7,972,020
4
9
MONEY RAISED
In the Year ended 5th January, 1824, by the creation of Funded or
Unfunded Debt.
FUNDED DEBT:
£.
s
d
Contributions to Loan, per Act 3 Geo. 4, c. 73
2,250,000
0
0
Contributions to Ireland per Act 3 Geo. 4, c. 73
150,000
0
0
2,400,000
0
0
UNFUNDED DEBT:
Exchequer Bills issued per Act 3 Geo. 4. c. 122.
6,492,900
0
0
Exchequer Bills issued per Act 4–4
20,000,000
0
0
Exchequer Bills issued per Act—100
7,633,600
0
0
Exchequer Public Works, per Act 57 Geo. 3, c.34 & 124
63,550
0
0
Exchequer Public Works, per Act 3 Geo. 4, c. 86
101,650
0
0
Exchequer Public Works, per Act 58 Geo. 3, c. 45
202,900
0
0
34,494,600
0
0
36,894,600
0
0
TOTAL
44,866,620
4
9
Surplus of Income paid into the Exchequer, over Expenditure
thereout
6,710,984
10
5¼
51,577,604
15
2¼
Whitehall, Treasury Chambers, 16th march 1824.
EXCHEQUER on the 5th January, 1823; the amount of Money raised by additions
1824; the Money applied towards the Redemption of the Funded,
the Money remaining in the Exchequer on the 5th January, 1824.
£.
s
d
APPLIED BY
The Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, in the
Redemption of Funded Debt.
Sinking Fund Interest on Redeemed
£.
s
d
Funded Debt
7,407,325
0
10
Unfunded Debt
75,000
0
0
Applied towards the Redemption of Funded Debt
7,482,325
0
10
UNFUNDED DEBT
Issued to the Paymasters of Exchequer Bills to pay off Unfunded Debt
34,674,000
0
0
42,156,325
0
10
Balances in the Exchequer at 5th January 1824
9,421,279
14
4¼
51,577,604
15
2¼
J. C. HERRIES
No. I.—An Account of the INCOME of the CONSOLIDATED FUND
arising in the
1824; and also of the Actual Payments on account
£.
s
d
The Total Income applicable to the Consolidated Fund
49,180,336
12
2
49,180,336
12
2
Whitehall Treasury Chambers, 16th March, 1824.
No. II.—An Account of the MONEY applicable to the Payment
of the CHARGE of the
1824, and of the several CHARGES which have become due
thereon,
charged upon the said Fund, at the commence-
£.
s
d
Income arising in Great Britain
45,981,208
4
4
£.
s
d
Income arising in Ireland
3,199,128
7
9¾
Add the Sum paid out of the Consolidated Fund in Ireland, towards the Supplies, in the
Quarter ended 5th January 1823
89,628
17
5¼
3,288,757
5
3
Deduct the Sum paid out of the Consolidated Fund, towards the Supplies, in the Quarter ended
5th January 1824
283,342
2
6¾
3,005,415
2
8¼
Total Sum applicable to the Charge of the Consolidated Fund, in the Year ended
5th January 1824
48,986,623
7
0½
Exchequer Bills to be issued to complete the payment of the Charge, to 5th Jan.
1824
1,541,928
11
1½
50,528,551
18
2
Whitehall, Treasury Chambers, 16th March 1824.
CLASS III.—CONSOLIDATED FUND.
United Kingdom of GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND, in the Year ended 5th January,
of the CONSOLIDATED FUND within the same period.
HEADS OF PAYMENT.
£.
s
d
Dividends, Interest, Sinking Fund, and Management of the Public Funded Debt, 4 Quarters to
10th October, 1823
35,492,109
13
8
Sinking Fund, Irish Treasury Bills
2,500
0
0
Interest on Exchequer Bills issued upon the Credit of the Consolidated Fund
19,901
0
0
Trustees for Naval and Military Pensions, per Act 3 Geo. 4, c. 51
2,507,130
0
0
Bank of England and Military Pensions, per Act 4 Geo. 4, c. 22
292,870
0
0
Civil List, 4 Quarters to 5th January, 1824
1,057,000
0
0
Pensions charged by Act of Parliament upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 10th
October, 1823
377,776
2
4
Salaries and Allowances by Act of Parliament upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 10th
October, 1823
70,873
18
6
Officers of Courts of Justice by Act of Parliament upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to
10th October, 1823
97,459
6
6
Expenses of the Mint by Act of Parliament upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 10th
October, 1823
14,746
10
8
Bounties by Act of Parliament upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 10th October,
1823
2,956
13
8
Miscellaneous by Act of Parliament upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 10th October,
1823
214,735
11
9
Miscellaneous Ireland by Act of Parliament upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 10th
October, 1823
305,257
17
8
Advances out of the Consolidated Fund in Ireland, for Public Works
304,544
10
9
40,759,861
5
6
SURPLUS of the CONSOLIDATED FUND
8,420,475
6
8
49,180,336
12
2
J. C. HERRIES
CONSOLIDATED FUND of the United Kingdom, in the Year ended 5th January,
in the same Year, including the Amount of EXCHEQUER BILLS
ment and at the termination of the Year.
HEADS OF CHARGE.
£.
s
d
Dividends, Interest, Sinking Fund, and Management of the Public Funded Debt, 4 Quarters to
5th January, 1824
33,104,108
7
2¾
Interest on Exchequer Bills issued upon the Credit of the Consolidated Fund
13,722
15
0
Trustees for Naval and Military Pensions, per Act 3 Geo. 4, c. 51
2,507,130
0
0
Bank of England and Military Pensions, per Act 4 Geo. 4, c. 22
292,870
0
0
Civil List, 4 Quarters to 5th January, 1824
1,057,000
0
0
Pensions charged by Act of Parliament upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 5th January
1824
378,556
13
3¼
Salaries and Allowances by Act of Parliament upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 5th
January 1824
68,620
6
4
Officers, Courts of Justices by Act of Parliament upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to
5th January 1824
98,089
10
6
Expenses of the Mint by Act of Parliament upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 5th
January 1824
14,746
10
8
Bounties by Act of Parliament upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 5th January
1824
2,956
13
8
Miscellaneous by Act of Parliament upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 5th January
1824
216,938
5
2
Miscellaneous Ireland by Act of Parliament upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 5th
January 1824
310,022
3
8¼
Advances out of the Consolidated Fund in Ireland, for Public Works
304,544
10
9¼
38,369,305
16
3½
Exchequer Bills issued to make good the Charge of the Consolidated Fund to the 5th January,
1823
5,928,354
13
3
44,297,660
9
6½
SURPLUS of the CONSOLIDATED FUND
6,230,891
8
7½
50,528,551
18
2
J. C. HERRIES
An Account of the State of the PUBLIC FUNDED DEBTS of GREAT
BRITAIN
the Debt created by
DEBT.
—
1. CAPITALS.
2. CAPITALS redeemed and transferred to the commissioners.
3. CAPITALS UNREDEEMED.
GREAT BRITAIN.
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
Debt due to the South Sea Company at £.3 per cent
3,662,784
8
6
3,662,784
8
6
Old South Sea Annuities at £.3 per cent
4,574,870
2
7
77,000
0
0
4,497,870
2
7
New South Sea Annuities at £.3 per cent
3,128,330
2
10
55,000
0
0
3,073,330
2
10
South Sea Annuities, 1751 at £.3 per cent
707,600
0
0
22,000
0
0
685,600
0
0
Debt due to the Bank of England at £.3 per cent
14,686,800
0
0
14,686,800
0
0
Bank Annuities, created in 1726 at £.3 per cent
1,000,000
0
0
1,695
9
7
998,304
10
5
Consolidated Annuities at £.3 per cent
365,517,888
8
0
2,444,616
6
1
363,073,272
1
11
Reduced Annuities at £.3 per cent
133,798,134
5
6
1,540,450
19
10
132,257,683
5
8
TOTAL at £.3 per cent
527,076,407
7
5
4,140,762
15
6
522,935,644
11
11
Annuities at £.3½ per cent
15,739,840
14
2
216,547
0
0
15,523,293
14
2
Consolidated Annuities £.4 per cent
74,866,408
12
4
43,940
11
11
74,822,468
0
5
New £.4 per cent Annuities
146,485,117
0
10
36,181
15
5
146,448,935
5
5
£
1,013,668
12
4
4,964
10
7
1,008,704
1
9
Great Britain
765,181,442
7
1
4,442,396
13
5
760,739,045
13
8
IN IRELAND.
(In British Currency.)
£
12 799,377
2
1
129,673
11
11
12,669,703
10
2
£
1,381,772
8
2
1,381,772
8
2
Debt due to the Bank of Ireland, at £.4 per cent
1,615,384
12
4
1,615,384
12
4
New
£
9,658,385
8
8
9,658,385
8
8
Debt due to the Bank of Ireland, at £.5 per cent
1,015,384
12
4
1,015,384
12
4
Ireland
26,470,304
3
7
129,673
11
11
26,340,630
11
8
TOTAL United Kingdom
791,651,746
10
8
4,572,070
5
4
787,079,676
5
4
—
STOCK.
£.
s
d
Note
481,501,735
17
1
CLASS IV.—PUBLIC FUNDED DEBT.
and IRELAND, and of the CHARGE thereupon at the 5th January, 1824,
including
7,500,000
l
CHARGE.
—
IN GREAT BRITAIN.
IN IRELAND. (In British Currency.)
TOTAL ANNUAL CHARGE.
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
Sinking Fund.
Part of the Annual Sum of 5,000,000
l
4,803,307
0
0
160,000
0
0
Annual Interest on Stock standing in the names of the Commissioners
127,061
17
10
4,538
11
6
Long Annuities on Stock standing in the names of the Commissioners
1,814
16
10
—
4,932,183
14
8
164,538
11
6
Due to the Public Creditor.
Annual Interest on Unredeemed Debt
25,132,675
19
1
1,000,430
10
11
Long Annuities, expire 1860
1,338,837
1
10
—
Life Annuities payable at the Exchequer, English
28,580
13
1
—
Life Annuities payable at the Exchequer, Irish
35,461
7
9
7,035
4
7
26,535,555
1
10
1,007,465
15
7
Annual Interest on Stock transferred to the Commissioners for the Reduction of
the National Debt, towards the Redemption of Land Tax, under Schedules C. & D. 53 Geo. 3, c.
123
(a)
5
1
—
Management
281,092
17
11
660
0
0
The Trustees of Military and Naval Pensions and Civil Superannuations
2,800,000
0
0
—
34,557,024
19
6
1,172,664
7
1
35,729,689
6
8
Note (a)
DEBT.
CHARGE.
LOANS TO THE EMPEROR OF GERMANY FUNDED IN GREAT BRITAIN.
Co. 1.—CAPITALS.
Co. 2.—CAPITALS transferred to the Commissioners.
Co. 3.—CAPITALS unredeemed.
—
—
ANNUAL CHARGE.
Imperial Annuities, £.3 per cent
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
4,656,717
6
8
34,778
13
3
4,621,938
13
5
Sinking Fund
Part of the Annual Sum of 5,000,000
l
36,693
0
0
Annual Interest on Stock standing in the names of the Commissioners
1,043
7
2¼
37,736
7
2¼
Due to the Public Creditor
Annual Interest on Unredeemed Debt
138,658
3
2¾
Management
1,571
9
2
177,965
19
7
Note
ABSTRACT.
—
CAPITALS.
CAPITALS transferred to the Commissioners.
CAPITALS unredeemed.
ANNUAL CHARGE.
Due to the Public Creditor.
MANAGEMENT.
SINKING FUND.
TOTAL.
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
Great Britain
765,181,442
7
1¾
4,442,396
13
5
760,739,045
13
8¾
26,543,748
6
11
281,092
17
11½
(a)
14
8
31,757,024
19
6½
Ireland
26,470,304
3
7
129,673
11
11
26,340,630
11
8
1,007,465
15
7¼
660
0
0
164,538
11
6½
1,172,664
7
1¾
Germany
4,656,717
6
8
34,778
13
3
4,621,938
13
5
138,658
3
2¾
1,571
9
2
37,736
7
2¼
177,965
19
7
796,308,463
17
4¾
4,606,848
18
7
791,701,614
18
9¾
27,689,872
5
9
283,324
7
1½
5,134,458
13
4¾
33,107,655
6
3¼
The Trustees of Military and Naval Pensions and Civil
Superannuations
2,800,000
0
0
2,800,000
0
0
30,489,872
5
9
283,324
7
1½
5,134,458
13
4¾
35,907,655
6
3¼
(a)
d
s
CLASS V.—UNFUNDED DEBT.
An Account of the UNFUNDED DEBT of GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND,
and of the Demands outstanding on the 5th January 1824.
—
PROVIDED.
UNPROVIDED.
TOTAL.
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
Exchequer Bills
710,450
0
0
34,031,300
0
0
34,741,750
0
0
Sums remaining unpaid, charged upon Aids granted by Parliament
4,337,080
13
10¼
4,337,080
13
10¼
Advances made out of the Consolidated Fund in Ireland, towards the Supplies which are to be
repaid to the Consolidated Fund, out of the Ways and Means in Great Britain
283,342
2
6¾
283,342
2
6¾
TOTAL Unfunded Debt, and Demands outstanding
5,330,872
16
5
34,031,300
0
0
39,362,172
16
5
Ways and Means
5,372,470
8
2
—
—
SURPLUS Ways and Means
41,597
11
9
—
—
Exchequer Bills to be issued to complete the Charge upon the Consolidated Fund
1,541,928
11
1½
1,541,928
11
1½
Whitehall Treasury Chambers, 16th March 1824.
J. C. HERRIES
An Account showing how the MONIES given for the SERVICE of the
United Kingdom of GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND, for the Year 1823, have been disposed of;
distinguished under their several Heads; to 5th January 1824.
SERVICES.
SUMS Voted or Granted.
SUMS Paid.
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
NAVY
5,361,290
6
8
3,878,307
10
7
ORDNANCE
1,451,176
12
5
879,378
17
8¼
FORCES
7,294,458
7
6
5,879,236
5
2¾
For defraying the CHARGE of the CIVIL ESTABLISHMENTS under-mentioned;
viz.
Of the Bahama Islands, for the year 1823
3,297
5
0
3,297
5
0
Of the Island of Dominica for the year 1823
600
0
0
300
0
0
Of Upper Canada for the year 1823
12,232
3
6
6,000
0
0
Of Nova Scotia for the year 1823
13,140
0
0
6,570
0
0
Of New Brunswick for the year 1823
6,757
10
0
3,000
0
0
Of Prince Edward Island for the year 1823
3,520
15
0
3,520
15
0
Of New South Wales for the year 1823
15,222
1
0
15,222
1
0
Of Sierra Leone for the year 1823
22,816
17
0
20,000
0
0
Of Bermuda's for the year 1823
1,522
l
4
1,522
1
4
Of the Island of Newfoundland for the year 1823
5,873
0
0
4,000
0
0
Royal Military College; from the 25th Dec. 1822 to 24th Dec. 1823
11,589
16
1
3,750
13
4
Royal Military Asylum; for the same time
26,075
16
7
13,641
1
1
The Sum of 39,192
l
s
d
l
59,192
16
6¾
9
4
7¼
Interest on Exchequer Bills
1,100,000
0
0
1,100,000
0
0
Expense of Works and Repairs of Public Buildings
40,000
0
0
—
Extraordinary Expenses that may be incurred for prosecutions, &c. relating to the Coin
of this Kingdom
5,000
0
0
—
Expense of Law Charges
25,000
0
0
18,000
0
0
Expense of confining, maintaining, and employing Convicts at Home
62,405
0
0
62,405
0
0
Bills drawn by his Majesty's Governors
et alia
40,000
0
0
40,000
0
0
For making good the Deficiency of Fee Fund in the Department of Treasury
22,650
0
0
17,875
13
2
Deficiency of Fee Fund in the Department of Home Secretary of State
15,000
0
0
11,947
12
5
Deficiency of Fee Fund in the Department of Foreign Secretary of State
20,538
0
0
17,186
13
10½
Deficiency of Fee Fund in the Department of Secretary of State for the Colonies
13,363
0
0
10,124
15
0
Deficiency of Fee Fund in the Department of Privy Council and Privy Council for Trade
16,086
0
0
11,617
4
8
Contingent Expenses, and Messengers Bill, in the Department of Treasury
10,000
0
0
5,000
0
0
Contingent Expenses, and Messengers Bill, in the Department of Home Secretary of State
10,996
0
0
9,794
7
6
Contingent Expenses, and Messengers Bill, in the Department of Foreign Secretary of
State
39,026
0
0
39,026
0
0
CLASS VI.—DISPOSITION OF GRANTS.
SERVICES&—
continued
SUMS Voted or Granted.
SUMS Paid.
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
Contingent Expenses, and Messengers Bill, in the Department of Secretary of state for the
Colonies
8,276
0
0
4,128
10
0
Contingent Expenses, and Messengers Bill, in the Privy Council and Privy Council for
Trade
3,277
0
0
2,274
15
4
Salaries of certain Officers, and Expenses of the Court and Receipt of the Exchequer
5,860
0
0
5,583
0
2
Salaries of Commissioners of Insolvent Debtors Court, and of their Clerks, and the
Contingent Expenses of their Office
9,040
0
0
4,320
0
0
Salaries or allowances granted to certain Professors in the Universities of Oxford and
Cambridge, for reading courses of Lectures
1,058
5
0
1,058
5
0
Expenses of the Houses of Lords and Commons
15,446
0
0
6,876
8
1
Salaries and Allowances to the Officers of the Houses of Lords and Commons
23,237
0
0
17,760
5
9
Extraordinary Expenses in the Department of the Lord Chamberlain, for Fittings and Furniture
for the two Houses of Parliament
4,800
0
0
2,776
9
0
Foreign and other Secret Services
50,000
0
0
30,299
6
9
Expenses incurred for Printing in 1823, by order of the Commissioners for carrying into
execution the Measures recommended by the House of Commons respecting the Records of the
Kingdom
10,147
13
11
10,147
13
11
Printing Acts of Parliament for the two Houses of Parliament, for the Sheriffs, Clerks of
the Peace, and Chief Magistrates throughout the United Kingdom, and for the acting Justices
throughout Great Britain; also for printing Bills, Reports, Evidence, and other Papers and
Accounts for the House of Lords
17,000
0
0
—
Printing 1,750 copies of the 78th volume of Journals of the House of Commons; for the
Session 1823
3,500
0
0
—
Printing the Votes of the House of Commons; for the Session 1823
3,500
0
0
3,500
0
0
Deficiency of the Grant of 1822, for defraying the Expense of printing the Votes of the
House of Commons, during the last Session of Parliament
88
8
0
88
8
0
Printing Bills, Reports, and other Papers, by order of the House of Commons, during the
present Session
20,000
0
0
—
Re-printing Journals and Reports of the House of Commons
3,000
0
0
—
For paying, in 1823, the usual Allowances to Protestant Dissenting Ministers in England,
Poor French Protestant Refugee Clergy, Poor French Protestant Refugee Laity, and sundry small
Charitable and other Allowances to the Poor of Saint small Charitable and other Allowances to
the Poor of Saint Martin's-in-the-Fields, and others
6,738
8
10
2,909
17
0
Civil and Military Establishments of the Settlements of the Gold Coast, for 1823
24,926
13
10
9,500
0
0
Salaries of the Officers, and Contingent Expenses in the Office for the Superintendence of
Aliens; and also the Superannuations or Retired Allowances to Officers formerly employed in that
Service
5,214
17
0
5,201
17
0
Bills drawn, or to be drawn, from New South Wales; for 1823
150,000
0
0
150,000
0
0
Expense of certain Colonial Services, formerly paid out of the Extraordinaries of the Army;
for 1823
2,442
10
0
2,442
10
0
Such Expenses of a Civil nature, as do not form a part of the Ordinary Charges of the Civil
List; for 1823
160,000
0
0
141,042
0
7
For carrying on the Works at the Royal Harbour of George the Fourth at King's Town (formerly
Dunleary); for 1823
45,000
0
0
29,538
9
2¾
Deficiency of the Grant of last Session, for printing 1,750 copies of the 77th volume of the
Journals of the House of Commons
2,350
2
10
2,350
2
10
Stationery, Printing, and Binding, for certain Public Departments, for 1823; including the
Expense of Stationery Office
59,760
0
0
30,000
0
0
Deficiency of the Grant of the last Session, for printing Bills, Reports, and other Papers,
by order of the House of Commons, during that Session
20,692
3
8
20,692
3
8
Expense of printing 1,250 copies of the 51st volume of Journals of the House of Peers, in
1823
1,525
3
0
1,525
3
0
Deficiency of the Grant of the last Session, for printing Acts of Parliament for the two
Houses, for the Sheriffs, Clerks o the Peace, and Chief Magistrates throughout the United
SERVICES—
continued
SUMS voted or Granted.
SUMS Paid.
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
Kingdom, and for the acting Justices throughout' Great Britain; also for printing Bills,
Reports, Evidence, and other Papers and Accounts, for the House of Peers
7,652
15
6½
7,652
15
6½
Expense incurred by the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in the North American
Colonies
5,850
0
0
—
To enable his Majesty to facilitate Emigration from the South of Ireland to the Canadas and
the Cape of Good Hope
15,000
0
0
10,000
0
0
The following SERVICES are directed to be paid, without any Fee or other
Deduction whatsoever:
Expense of Penitentiary House at Milbank; from 24th June 1823 to 24th June 1824
18,000
0
0
—
Notional Vaccine Establishment; for 1823
3,000
0
0
3,000
0
0
For the Relief, in 1823, of Toulonese and Corsican Emigrants, Dutch Naval Officers, St.
Domingo Sufferers, and others, who have heretofore received Allowances from his Majesty, and
who, from Services performed or Losses sustained in the British Service, have special claims
upon his Majesty's justice and liberality
16,150
0
0
9,150
0
0
For Relief of American Loyalists; for 1823
7,000
0
0
5,000
0
0
Expense of confining and maintaining Criminal Lunatics; for 1823
3,306
10
0
2,246
14
9
For defraying, in 1823, the Charge of the Allowances or Compensations granted as Retired
Allowances or Superannuations, to Persons formerly employed in Public Offices or Departments, or
in the Public Service, according to the provisions of the 50th of his late Majesty, and of the
3rd of his present Majesty
10,567
16
8
345
0
0
To complete Repairs of Henry the Seventh's Chapel; for 1823
499
18
3
499
18
3
Expense of Works carrying on at the College of Edinburgh; for 1823
10,000
0
0
10,000
0
0
Expense of sundry Works now executing at Port Patrick Harbour; for 1823
12,847
0
0
12,847
0
0
Towards completing the Works of the Caledonian Canal; for 1823
25,000
0
0
25,000
0
0
Expense of building a Court for the Commissioners of the Insolvent Debtors
5,300
0
0
—
Expenses of Building the New Courts of Justice in Westminster Hall; for 1823
30,000
0
0
—
For paying, in 1823, the Awards of the Commissioners established in London, in pursuance of
the 58th of his late Majesty, for carrying into effect a Convention between his late Majesty and
his most Faithful Majesty, to Claimants of Portuguese Vessels and Cargoes captured by British
Cruizers, on account of the unlawful Trading in Slaves; since the 1st June 1814
15,000
0
0
—
For paying, in 1823, the Salaries and Incidental Expenses of the Commissioners appointed on
the part of his Majesty, under the Treaties with Spain, Portugal, and the Netherlands, for
Preventing the illegal traffic in Slaves; and in pursuance of the 58th and 59th of his late
Majesty, for carrying the said Treaties into effect
18,700
0
0
—
To make Compensation to the Commissioners for inquiring into the Collection and Management
of the Revenue in Ireland, and the several Establishments connected therewith, for their
assiduity, care and pains, in the execution of the trust reposed in them by Parliament
6,250
0
0
6,250
0
0
For the Support of the Institution called "The Refuge for the Destitute," for 1823
5,000
0
0
5,000
0
0
Expenses of the British Museum; for year ending 25th March 1824
8,766
0
0
8,766
0
0
Towards defraying the Expense of Buildings at the British Museum, for the Reception of the
Royal Library, and for other purpose, and for providing for the Officers of the Establishment of
the said Library; for 1823
40,000
0
0
—
To be issued to Captain Manby, as a further Reward for his
SERVICES—
continued
SUMS Voted or Granted.
SUMS Paid.
£.
s
d
£
s
d
Invention for effecting a Communication with Ships Stranded, whereby 129 Lives have been
saved
2,000
0
0
2,000
0
0
Expense of Sundry Works executing at Donaghadee Harbour; for 1823
15,000
0
0
15,000
0
0
For enabling the Commissioners acting in pursuance of the 55th of his late Majesty, to
complete the Improvements which remain to be made on the Road from London to Holyhead; in
1823
29,114
9
3
29,114
9
3
For completing Sundry Works at Holyhead Harbour; in 1823
20,870
0
0
—
For defraying the CHARGE of the following Services in Ireland; which are directed to be paid
Nett in British Currency.
Board of Works in Ireland; for 1823
16,107
0
0
9,975
15
1¾
Printing, Stationery, and other Disbursements of the Chief and Under Secretaries Offices and
Departments, and other Public Offices in Dublin Castle and other places, and for Riding Charges
and other expenses of the Deputy Pursuivants, and Messengers attending the said Offices, also,
Superannuated Allowances in the Chief Secretary's Office; for one year ending 5th January
1824
17,301
0
0
12,137
15
10¼
Expense of publishing Proclamations and other matters of a public nature in the Dublin
Gazette, and other Newspapers; for the same time
6,500
0
0
5,797
4
6½
Printing and Binding several Copies of a folio Edition of the Public General Acts of the
present Session, for the use of the Lords, Bishops and other Public Officers, and 1,500 Copies
of a Quarto Edition for the use of the Magistrates in Ireland
3,700
0
0
2,412
1
5¾
Expense of Criminal Prosecutions (including the Apprehension of Offenders) and other Law
Expenses in Ireland
24,000
0
0
24,000
0
0
Deficiency of Grant of 1822, for Criminal Prosecutions in Ireland
13,000
0
0
13,000
0
0
Expense of Supporting the Non-Conforming Ministers in Ireland
8,789
10
9¼
6,603
13
10¼
Expense of Supporting the Seceding Ministers from the Synod of Ulster, in Ireland
4,034
15
5
2,017
7
8½
Expense of Supporting the Protestant Dissenting Ministers in Ireland
756
0
0
756
0
0
Salaries of the Lottery Officers in Ireland
1,151
7
1
927
19
4½
Works at the Harbour of Howth; for 1823
4,000
0
0
923
1
6½
Directors and Officers of Inland Navigations in Ireland, and for the maintenance of the
several Navigations; for 1823
6,100
0
0
6,100
0
0
Police and Watch Establishments of the City of Dublin
27,000
0
0
27,000
0
0
Salaries and Expenses of the Commission of Inquiry into the Land Revenue of the Grown in
Ireland
1,651
0
0
936
12
2
Salaries and Expenses of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Duties, Salaries
and Emoluments, of the Officers, Clerks and Ministers of Justice, in all Temporal and
Ecclesiastical Courts in Ireland
7,200
0
0
5,464
11
1
Salaries and Expenses of the Record Commission in Ireland
3,500
0
0
2,715
7
8¼
Retired Allowance to the Rev. Foster Archer, late Inspector General of Prisons in Ireland;
for two years
904
12
3
791
10
8¼
Expense of Building Churches and Glebe Houses, and of purchasing Glebes in Ireland; for one
year
9,230
0
0
9,230
0
0
Expense of the Trustees of the Linen and Hempen Manufactures of Ireland, for the same time,
to be applied in such manner as shall appear to them to be most conducive to promote and
encourage the said manufactures in Ireland
19,938
9
2¾
19,938
9
2¾
Expense of the Commissioners for making wide and convenient Streets in the City of Dublin;
for one year
10,000
0
0
10,000
0
0
Expense of the Royal Irish Academy; for 1823
300
0
0
—
Civil Contingencies in Ireland; for one year
15,000
0
0
10,574
15
10¾
Expense of the Protestant Charter Schools in Ireland; for same time
17,000
0
0
14,769
4
7¼
Expense of the Society for promoting the Education of the Poor in Ireland; for same
time
14,000
0
0
11,076
18
5¾
SERVICES—
continued
SUMS Voted or Granted
SUMS Paid.
£.
s
d
£
s
d
Expense of the Foundling Hospital in Dublin; for one year
27,667
0
0
27,667
0
0
Expense of Supporting the House of Industry, Asylum, and Hospitals; for same time
19,000
0
0
13,846
3
1
Expense of Supporting the Richmond Lunatic Asylum in Dublin; for same time
4,900
0
0
4,900
0
0
Expense of Hibernian Society for Soldiers Children; for same time
7,500
0
0
7,500
0
0
Expense of Hibernian Marine Society in Dublin; for same time
1,600
0
0
1,600
0
0
Expense of Female Orphan House in Dublin; for same time
1,930
0
0
1,930
0
0
Expense of Westmorland Lock Hospital in Dublin; for same time
2,680
0
0
2,680
0
0
Expense of Lying-in Hospital in Dublin; for same time
2,800
0
0
2,800
0
0
Expense of Dr. Steevens's Hospital in Dublin; for same time
1,400
0
0
1,400
0
0
Expense of Fever Hospital and House of Recovery; in Cork Street, Dublin; for same time
3,692
0
0
3,692
0
0
Expense of Hospital for Incurables in Dublin; for same time
300
0
0
300
0
0
Expense of the Establishment of the Roman Catholic Seminary in Ireland; for same time
8,928
0
0
8,928
0
0
Expense of the Royal Cork Institution; for same time
2,000
0
0
2,000
0
0
Expense of the Royal Dublin Society; for same time
7,000
0
0
7,000
0
0
Expense of the Farming Society of Ireland; for same time
2,500
0
0
923
1
6½
Expense of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and Bequests; for same time
500
0
0
500
0
0
For enabling the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to issue money from time to time in Aid of
Schools Established by Voluntary Contributions
7,000
0
0
601
12
3¼
Expense of the Association for Discountenancing Vice, and promoting the knowledge and
Practice of the Christian Religion in Ireland; for one year
8,385
0
0
4,615
7
8¼
17,037,517
19
2¼
12,986,651
18
6
To pay off and discharge Exchequer Bills, and that the same be issued and applied towards
paying off and discharging any Exchequer Bills charged on the Aids or Supplies for the years
1822 or 1823, now remaining unpaid or unprovided for (exclusive of 1,050,000
l
34,800,000
0
0
28,036,650
0
0
To pay off and discharge Exchequer Bills issued between the 5th of Jan. 1822, and 6th Jan.
1823, pursuant to the several Acts of the 57th and 58th of his late Majesty, and the 1st of his
present Majesty; for authorizing the issue of Exchequer Bills for the carrying on Public Works,
and Fisheries in the United Kingdom, and for Building and promoting the Building of Additional
Churches
144,150
0
0
51,981,667
19
2¼
41,023,301
18
6
PAYMENTS FOR OTHER SERVICES,
Not being part of the Supplies granted for the Service of the
Year.
Sums paid to 5th January, 1824.
Estimated further Miscellaneous Payments.
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
Grosvenor Charles Bedford, Esq. on Ins Salary for additional trouble in preparing Exchequer
Bills, pursuant to an Act 48 Geo. 3, c. 1
150
0
50
0
0
Bank of England, for Management on Life Annuities
2,023
17
0¾
—
Expenses in the Office of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt
1,600
0
0
—
Expenses in the Office of the Commissioners for issuing Commercial Exchequer Bills
2,000
0
0
2,000
0
0
Expenses in the Office of the Commissioners for inquiring into the Collection and Management
of the Revenue in Ireland
4,500
0
0
3,000
0
0
Expenses in the Office of the Commissioners for issuing Exchequer Bills for building
additional Churches, per Act 58 Geo. 3, c. 45
3,000
0
0
—
For defraying the Charges of preparing and drawing the Lotteries for 1823
17,000
0
0
Paid to the Bank of England, more than received of them, to make up their Balance on account
of unclaimed Dividends
52,720
6
11
—
65,994
3
11¾
22,050
0
0
65,994
3
11¾
TOTAL Payments for Services not voted
88,044
3
11¾
Amount of Sums voted
51,981,667
19
2¼
TOTAL Sums voted, and Payments for Services not voted
52,069,712
3
2
WAYS AND MEANS
for answering the foregoing Services.
£.
s
d
Duty on Sugar, Tobacco and Snuff, Foreign Spirits and Sweets, and on Pensions,
Officers, &c
3,000,000
0
0
Profits of Lotteries estimated at
200,000
0
0
Trustees for the Payment of Naval and Military Pensions, and Civil
Superannuations, per Act 3 Geo. 4, c. 51
4,800,000
0
0
East India Company, per Act 4 Geo. 4, c. 71
105,000
0
0
Estimated Surplus of the Consolidated Fund, per Act 4 Geo. 4, c. 21
8,700,000
0
0
Surplus Ways and Means, 1817, 1818, 1820, 1821 and 1822 c. 21
469,047
17
10½
Transfer of Ways and Means, 1817 and 1818, 1821 and 1822 c. 21
59,192
16
6¾
Interest of Land Tax redeemed by Money
89
9
5¼
Voluntary Contributions, per Act 4 Geo. 4, c. 3, sec. 27
42,101
0
6½
Repayments on account of Exchequer Bills issued pursuant to two Acts of the 57th
year of his late Majesty, for carrying on Public Works and Fisheries in the United Kingdom
121,233
15
5
17,496,664
19
10
Exchequer Bills voted in Ways and Means; viz. 4Geo. 4, c.4.
£.20,000,000
0
0
4 Geo. 4, c. 100.
14,700,000
0
0
34,700,000
0
0
TOTAL Ways and Means
52,169,664
19
10
TOTAL Sums voted, and Payments for Services not voted
52,069,712
3
2
SURPLUS Ways and Means
126,952
16
Whitehall, Treasury Chambers, 16th March 1824.
J. C. HERRIES
Mem
CLASS VII.—ARREARS AND BALANCES.
[This Head, which occupies 120 folio pages in the Parliamentary Accounts, is
here omitted, as not being of general utility.]
TRADE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM.
An Account of the VALUE of all IMPORTS into, and of all EXPORTS
from the United Kingdom of GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND, during each of the Three Years ending the
5th January 1824 (calculated at the Official Rates of Valuation, and stated exclusive of the
Trade between Great Britain and Ireland reciprocally).
YEARS ending 5th January.
VALUE OF IMPORTS calculated at the official Rates of
Valuation.
VALUE OF EXPORTS, calculated at the Official Rates of
Valuation.
VALUE of the Produce and Manufactures Exported
according to the Real and Declared Value thereof.
Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom.
Foreign and Colonial Merchandize.
TOTAL EXPORTS.
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
1822
30,792,763
4
10
40,831,744
17
5
10,629,689
5
8
51,461,434
3
1
36,659,631
3
0
1823
30,500,094
17
4
44,236,533
2
4
9,227,589
6
11
53,464,122
9
3
36,968,964
9
9
1824
35,751,688
7
0
43,804,372
18
1
8,603,904
9
1
52,408,277
7
2
35,458,048
13
6
Inspector General's Office, Custom House,
WILLIAM IRVING
London, 24th March 1824.
Inspector General of Imports and Exports.
FOREIGN TRADE OF GREAT BRITAIN.
An Account of the VALUE of all IMPORTS into, and of all EXPORTS
from GREAT BRITAIN, during each of the Three Years ending the 5th January 1824 (calculated at
the Official Rates of Valuation, and stated exclusive of the Trade with Ireland).
YEARS ending 5th January.
VALUE OF IMPORTS calculated at the Official Rates of
Valuation,
VALUE OF EXPORTS, calculated at the Official Rates of
Valuation.
VALUE of the produce and Manufactures Exported
according to the Real and Declared Value thereof.
Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom.
Foreign and Colonial Merchandize.
TOTAL EXPORTS.
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
VALUE exclusive of the Trade with Ireland.
1822
29,724,173
13
7
40,194,892
13
11
10,602,090
0
0
50,796,982
13
11
35,826,082
13
7
1823
29,401,807
10
10
43,558,488
13
9
9,211,927
16
10
52,770,416
9
7
36,176,896
13
11
1824
34,544,245
11
0
43,144,466
1
6
8,588,995
18
0
51,733,461
19
6
34,691,124
8
10
Inspector General's Office, Custom House,
WILLIAM IRVING
London, 24th March 1824.
Inspector General of Imports and Exports.
CLASS VIII.—TRADE AND NAVIGATION.
An Account of the Value of all IMPORTS into, and of all EXPORTS
from IRELAND, during each of the three Years ending the 5th January 1824 (stated inclusive and
exclusive of the Trade with GREAT BRITAIN).
—
VALUE of Imports into IRELAND, calculated at the
Official Rates of Valuation.
VALUE OF EXPORTS FROM IRELAND,
VALUE of the Produce and Manufactures of the United
Kingdom, Exported from Ireland, as compared at the Average Prices Current.
Produce Manufactures United Kingdom.
Foreign and Colonial Merchandize.
TOTAL EXPORTS.
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
£.
s
d
YEARS ENDING
VALUE inclusive of the Trade with GREAT BRITAIN.
5th January,
1822
6,407,427
15
8¾
7,703,857
11
8¾
77,795
4
3¼
7,781,652
16
0
9,808,057
19
7¼
—
1823
6,607,487
12
5½
6,771,607
2
3½
54,302
7
3
6,825,909
9
6½
7,871,237
10
9
—
1824
6,020,975
3
8
8,091,113
18
2
61,635
18
1½
8,152,749
16
3½
9,695,871
1
7¾
YEARS ENDING
VALUE exclusive of the Trade with GREAT BRITAIN,
5th January,
1822
1,068,589
11
3½
636,852
3
6½
27,599
5
7½
664,451
9
2
833,548
9
5
—
1823
1,098,287
6
6
678,044
9
7
15,661
10
1
693,705
19
8
792,067
15
10
—
1824
1,207,442
16
0¼
659,906
16
7¼
14,908
11
1½
674,815
7
8¾
766,924
4
8¼
Custom House, Dublin,
WILLIAM MARRABLE
12th March 1824.
Inspector General of the Imports and Exports of Ireland.
NAVIGATION OF THE UNITED KINGDOM.
NEW VESSELS BUILT.—An Account of the Number of VESSELS,
with the Amount of their TONNAGE, that were built and registered in the several Ports of the
BRITISH EMPIRE, in the Years ending the 5th January 1822, 1823, and 1824, respectively.
—
In the Years ending 5th January,
1822.
1823.
1824.
Vessels.
Tonnage.
Vessels.
Tonnage.
Vessels.
Tonnage.
United Kingdom
585
68,076
564
50,928
594
63,151
Isles Guernsey, Jersey, and Man
12
1,406
7
605
10
637
British Plantations
275
15,365
209
15,611
188
14,679
TOTAL
872
74,847
780
67,144
792
78,467
VESSELS REGISTERED.—An Account of the Number of VESSELS,
with the Amount of their TONNAGE, and the Number of MEN and BOYS usually employed in Navigating
the same, that belonged to the several Ports of the BRITISH EMPIRE, on the 30th September, in
the Years 1821, 1822, and 1823, respectively.
—
On 30th Sept. 1821.
On 30th Sept. 1822.
On 30th Sept. 1823.
Vessels.
Tons.
Men.
Vessels.
Tons.
Men.
vessels.
Tons.
Men.
United Kingdom
21,163
2,329,213
150,424
20,756
2,288,999
147,529
20,573
2,275,995
147,058
Isles Guernsey, Jersey, and Man
489
26,639
3,859
482
26,404
3,788
469
26,872
3,680
British Plantations
3,384
204,350
14,896
3,404
203,641
15,016
3,500
203,893
14,736
TOTAL
25,036
2,560,202
169,179
24,642
2,519,044
166,333
24,542
2,506,760
165,474
Inspector General's Office, Custom House, London, 24th March 1824.
WILLIAM IRVING
VESSELS EMPLOYED IN THE FOREIGN TRADE.—An Account of the
Number of VESSELS, with the Amount of their TONNAGE, and the Number of MEN and BOYS employed in
Navigating the same (including their repeated Voyages) that entered Inwards and cleared
Outwards, at the several Ports of the United Kingdom, from and to all Parts of the World
(exclusive of the intercourse between GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND respectively) during each of the
three Years ending 5th January 1824.
Years ending 5th Jan.
SHIPPING ENTERED INWARDS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM, (Exclusive of the
Intercourse between Great Britain and Ireland.)
BRITISH AND IRISH VESSELS.
FOREIGN VESSELS.
TOTAL.
Vessels.
Tons.
Men.
Vessels.
Tons.
Men.
Vessels.
Tons.
Men.
1822
10,805
1,599,423
97,485
3,261
396,107
26,043
14,066
1,995,530
123,528
1823
11,087
1,663,627
98,980
3,389
469,151
28,421
14,476
2,132,778
127,401
1824
11,271
1,740,859
112,244
4,069
582,996
33,828
15,340
2,323,855
146,072
SHIPPING CLEARED OUTWARDS FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM, (Exclusive of
the Intercourse between Great Britain and Ireland).
BRITISH AND IRISH VESSELS.
FOREIGN VESSELS.
TOTAL.
Vessels.
Tons.
Men.
Vessels.
Tons.
Men.
Vessels.
Tons.
Men.
1822
9,797
1,488,644
93,377
2,626
383,786
22,162
12,423
1,872,430
115,539
1823
10,023
1,539,260
95,998
2,843
457,542
25,394
12,866
1,996,802
121,392
1824
9,666
1,546,976
95,596
3,437
563,571
29,323
13,103
2,110,547
124,919
Inspector General's Office, Custom House, London, 24th March 1824.
WILLIAM IRVING
INDEX
TO VOL. XI.
align="center">
NEW SERIES
INDEX TO DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
A
Alien Bill, 628, 749
B
British Museum Bill, 1165
Burials in Ireland Bill, 174
C
Catholic Petition, 937
Catholics, English, Relief Bill, 817
Churches, New, Bill, 1430
County Courts Bill, 1315
Cruelty to Animals Bill, 1089, 1431
D
Dublin Equitable Loan Bill, 1478
E
Earl-Marshal's Office Bill, 1455, 1469, 1482
English Catholics Relief Bill, 817
Equitable Loan Company Bill, 1339
F
Forfeited Peerages, Restoration of, 815
G
Game Laws Amendment Bill, 1097, 1199
Gas Company's Bill, 790
J
Joint-Stock Companies, 856, 1076, 1100
I
Ireland, Burials in, Bill, 174
Ireland, State of, 236, 753
Ireland, Poor of, 1098
Irish Insurrection Bill, 1102, 1454
Irish Poor, 1098
Irish Tithes Composition Amendment Bill, 68, 1104
K
Kensington Road Bill, 527
Knight, Mr. Payne, his Bequest, 1165
M
Marine Insurance Bill, 1430, 1456, 1470
N
New Churches Bill, 1430
Newfoundland Judicature Bill, 392, 527
P
Poor of Ireland, 1098
R
Recognition of the Independence of South America, 1479
Restoration of Forfeited Peerages, 815
Roman Catholics, English, Relief Bill, 817
Roman Catholic Petition, 937
S
Scotch Entails Bill, 959
Scotch Judicature Bill, 1338
Scotch Jury Bill, 1428
Silk Trade Bill, 67, 433, 750, 792
Slave Trade Piracy Bill, 1
South America, Recognition of the Independence of, 1479
Standing Orders relating to Joint Stock Companies, 856, 1076, 1100
U
Unitarian Marriages Relief Bill, 75, 434
W
Welch Judicature Bill, 941, 1088
INDEX TO DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
A
Abolition of Slavery, 1167, 1406
Alien Bill, 113, 146, 361
Alliance Assurance Company Bill, 841
Angerstein, Collection of Pictures, 101
Army Extraordinaries, 105
Assessed Taxes; Repeal of the, 617
Attainders; Reversal of, 1318
B
Banking Establishments in Ireland, 786
Bell, Mr. R.; his Petition, 1340
Beer Duties, 227, 588, 843
Buckingham Mr.; his Petition, 858
Budget, 589
Burials in Ireland Bill, 39, 48
Butt, Mr.; Case of, 319
C
Carlile, Mr.; his Petition, 1202
Catholic Marriages in England, 408
Catholics of Drogheda, 413
Catholic Claims, 941, 954, 1168
Catholic Association, 943, 1197, 1438
Churches, New, 85, 171, 328, 384, 1080, 1093
Civil Contingencies, 107
Coals and Linens Customs Bill, 426
Coal Duties, 49
Coile, Mr. B.; his Petition, 1435
Combination Laws, 409, 811
Commitments and Convictions, 902
Committees above Stairs, 910
Consuls to South America, 104
Corporate Companies, 608
Corporation and Test Acts, 1089
County Courts Bill, 852
Courts of Justice in Scotland, 18
D
Defence by Counsel in Cases of Felony, 180
Derry Cathedral, 603, 775, 1432
Distilleries, 448
Dublin Coal Trade Bill, 394
E
East India Possessions Bill, 1442
Education of the Poor in Ireland, 321, 899
Equitable Loan Company Bill, 857, 960
F
Felony, Defence by Counsel in Cases of, 180
First Fruits Fund of Ireland, 890
Freedom of Public Discussion, 1078
G
Game Laws Amendment Bill, 389, 956
Gourlay, Mr.; 1204, 1317
H
Hammersmith Bridge Bill, 397
Haydon, Mr. B. R.; his Petition, 1316
Hides and Skins Repeal Bill, 410
Horses Slaughtering Bill, 1095
I
Impressment of Seamen, 1171
India; Liberty of the Press in, 858
Ireland; State of, 654
Ireland; Church Establishment of, 532, 1427
Ireland; Freedom of Election in, 652
Ireland; Advance of Capital to, 450
Ireland; Administration of Justice in, 647
Ireland; Banking Establishments in, 786
Ireland; First Fruits Fund of, 890
Ireland; Burials in, Bill, 39, 48
Ireland; Poor in, Education of, 321, 899
Ireland; Poor of, Employment of, 450
Irish Clergy Residence Bill, 918
Irish Militia, 524
Irish Butter Trade, 933
Irish Tithe Composition Amendment Bill, 421, 501
Irish Royal Mining Company Bill, 529
Irish Insurrection Bill, 1322, 1463
J
Jamaica; Seizure and Imprisonment of Individuals in, 796
Judges; Salary of the, 748
Juries Empanelling, Bill, 1468
K
Kensington Roads Bill, 497, 793
L
Land Tax, Redemption and Purchase of the, 220
Land Tax Redemption Bill, 1320
Law Merchant Amendment Bill, 756
Leather Tax; Repeal of the, 776
Legacy Duty, 46
Libel, Law of, 319
Liberty of the Press in India, 858
M
Mackarel, Sale of, on Sundays, 414
Man, Isle of, Abuses in the, 41, 1458
Manchester Gas Light Bill, 8, 281
Mar, Earl of; his Restoration Bill, 1090
Marine Insurance Bill, 766, 920, 1086, 1202, 1337
Mariners' Apprentices Settlement Bill, 788
M'Cusker, J.; Petition of, 647
N
New Churches, 35, 171, 328, 384, 1080, 1093
New Courts of Justice, 814
O
O'Callaghan, Luke Carlos; his Petition, 1501
Orange Lodges, 446
Orange Processions in Ireland, 15, 1434,
P
Parliamentary Reform, 755
Petitions, Standing Orders respecting, 528
Plymouth Break-water, 46
Poor, Settlement of the, 32
Poor in Scotland Relief Bill, 226, 900
Poor in Ireland, Education of, 321, 899
Poor in Ireland, Employment of, 450
Private Business of the House in Committees above Stairs, 910
R
Redemption of the Land Tax, 220
Roman Catholics of Drogheda, 413
Roman Catholic Marriages in England, 408
Roman Catholic Claims, 941, 954, 1168
Roman Catholic Association, 943, 1197, 1438
S
Salmon Fisheries, 33
Salary of the Judges, 748
Salt Tax, 178, 741
Saving Banks Amendment Bill, 601
Scotch Judicature Bill, 1440
Scotch Juries Bill, 496, 935
Scotland; Courts of Justice in, 18
Scotland; Poor in, Relief Bill, 226, 900
Scotland; Small Debts in, 1170
Seamen, Impressment of, 1171
Secret Societies in Ireland, 15
Separatists, 530, 724
Settlement of the Poor Bill, 32
Slavery, Abolition of, 1167, 1406
Small Debts in Scotland, 1170
Smith, Rev. J.; Trial and Condemnation of at Demerara, 400, 961, 1079, 1167, 1206
Soane, Mr.; Petition of, 814
South America, Consuls to, 104
South America; Recognition of the Independence of, 1344, 1475
Standing Orders respecting Petitions, 528
Standing Orders relating to Private Bills, 419
St. Catherine's Dock Bill, 95
Sugar Bounties, 730
Superannuation Fund, 726, 1451, 1473
Surrey County Gaol, 1493, 1501
Swann, Joseph; Petition of, 643
T
Transportation of Offenders Bill, 1091
Tread-Mill, 509
Turkey Company, 327
U
Usury Forfeitures Bill, 900
Usury Laws Repeal Bill, 36, 283
V
Vagrants Bill, 1081
W
Warehoused Wheat Bill, 760, 919
Westminster Abbey; Admission to, 325
West-India Company Bill, 609
Whipping, 1081
Windsor Castle, Repairs of, 147
Wool Importation and Exportation Bill, 804
INDEX OF NAMES—HOUSE OF LORDS.
A
Aberdeen, Earl of, 959, 1429
Abingdon, Earl of, 1490
Athol, Duke of, 1338, 1429
B
Bath and Wells, Bishop of, 836
Bathurst, Earl, 1, 4, 392, 527
Bexley, Lord, 1430, 1472
C
Calthorp, Lord, 84, 634, 1201, 1431
Canterbury, Bishop of, 77, 435
Carbery, Lord, 277
Carnarvon, Earl of 175, 279, 635, 1097, 1201
Cawdor, Lord, 940, 1088
Chester, Bishop of, 80, 434
Clare, Earl of, 74
Clifden, Lord, 279, 749, 1100
Colchester, Lord, 817, 1165
D
Dacre, Lord, 1200
Darnley, Earl of, 74, 236, 393, 634, 792, 1099, 1102
Downshire, Marquis of, 276, 1076
E
Eldon, Earl of,
see
Ellenborough, Lord, 753, 1315
Exeter, Bishop of, 435
F
Fitzwilliam, Earl, 1100
G
Gage, Lord, 749, 750
Grey, Earl, 937
Grosvenor, Earl, 1, 633, 1097, 1199
H
Harrowby, Earl of, 7, 83, 177, 433, 792, 1100
Holland, Lord, 90, 174, 177, 440, 527, 628, 637, 749, 817, 1103, 1455, 1482, 1492
K
King, Lord, 74, 177, 755, 1164, 1430
Kingston, Earl of, 74, 1104
L
Lansdown, Marquis of, 5, 68, 72, 75, 269, 279, 435, 753, 817, 941, 1101, 1102
Lauderdale, Earl of, 433, 750, 790, 792, 816, 856, 1076, 1077, 1097, 1100, 1102, 1339, 1428, 1478, 1479
Limerick, Earl of, 177, 276, 790
Limerick, Bishop of [Dr. John Jebb], 1099, 1104
Litchfield, Bishop of [Dr. H. Ryder], 833
Liverpool, Earl of, 67, 73, 79, 175, 176, 261, 444, 628, 749, 750, 753, 754, 815, 817, 840, 1097, 1165, 1338, 1339, 1430, 1457, 1472, 1480
London, Bishop of, 87
Lord Chancellor Eldon, 72, 78, 438, 642, 791, 792, 817, 838, 940, 959, 1200, 1315, 1339, 1456, 1470, 1472, 1478, 1492
M
Melville, Lord, 1428
N
Newcastle, Duke of, 1491
P
Prudhoe, Lord, 1103
R
Radnor, Earl of, 817
Raphoe, Bishop of, 1098
Redesdale, Lord, 831, 1089, 1315, 1338, 1340, 1457, 1472
Richmond, Duke of, 1201, 1491
Rosslyn, Earl of, 790, 1089, 1338, 1429, 1431
S
Salisbury, Marquis of, 1201
St. David's, Bishop of, 435
Suffield, Lord, 1089, 1097, 1431
W
Westmorland, Earl of, 86, 636, 752, 829
INDEX OF NAMES—HOUSE OF COMMONS.
A
Abercromby, Hon. James, 17, 28, 29, 171, 488, 496, 652, 1318, 1330, 1441, 1501
Acland, Sir T., 66, 729
Althorp, Viscount, 32, 146, 474, 654, 765, 782, 854
Arbuthnot, Right Hon. C., 36
Archdall, General, 648
Astell, William, 871, 1449
Attorney General (Sir John Copley), 205, 855, 1260, 1462
Attwood, Matthias, 300
B
Bankes, Henry, 156, 1453
Bankes, George, 358
Baring, Alexander, 1424, 1426, 1427
Baring, Sir Thomas, 415, 729
Becher, W., 1170
Benett, John, 807
Bennet, Hon. H. Grey, 35, 159, 170, 174, 324, 327
Bernal Ralph, 102, 233, 1416
Binning, Lord, 29, 48, 496, 1319, 1442
Blake, Sir Francis, 723, 1425, 1466
Bourne, Right Hon. S., 605
Bridges, Alderman, 66, 492, 847
Bright, Henry, 8, 9, 15, 98, 179, 412, 528, 765, 789, 806, 855, 1090, 1449, 1462
Brougham, Henry, 724, 801, 803, 954, 961, 1205, 1294, 1400, 1422, 1458, 1463
Browne, Dominick, 566, 1427
Browne, Dennis, 422, 427, 760
Brownlow, Charles, 16, 943, 951, 1197
Bruce, Captain, 1319
Burdett, Sir Francis, 574, 705, 765, 857, 874, 1404, 1437, 1499
Butterworth, Joseph, 99, 324, 325, 387, 414, 419, 1424
Buxton, Thomas Powell, 233, 236, 616, 727, 766, 920, 929, 1202, 1420, 1451, 1473
Byng, George, 399
C
Calcraft, John, 168, 178, 314, 316, 726, 776, 1466, 1474
Calvert, Nicholson, 64, 115, 118, 627
Calvert, Charles, 96, 235, 847
Canning, Right Hon. George, 108, 109, 119, 168, 171, 483, 531, 714, 726, 876, 914, 951, 1198, 1206, 1277, 1394, 1404, 1417, 1442, 1453
Cartwright, W. R., 746
Cavendish, Lord George, 157
Chancellor of the Exchequer (Right Hon. Fred. Robinson), 48, 59, 100, 103, 147, 165, 168, 178, 224, 226, 227, 234, 235, 328, 449, 471, 589, 601, 623, 726, 746, 780, 7S5, 787, 805, 807, 815, 844, 926
Clerk, Sir George, 46, 496, 1194
Cockburn, Sir George, 1185
Coffin, Sir Isaac, 15, 46, 387, 756, 1168, 1191
Colborne, N. R., 325
Congreve, Sir W., 112, 960
Cooper, B., 283, 1093
Copley, Sir John,
see
Courtenay, William, 30, 62, 172, 497, 1441
Cripps, Joseph, 32, 764
Curteis, E., 10, 281, 398, 413, 779, 789, 804
Curwen, John Christian, 38, 41, 45, 158, 293, 394, 397, 412, 421, 843
D
Davenport, D., 284, 317, 844
Davies, Colonel, 105, 391, 524, 848, 1093, 1326
Davis, Hart, 805, 806
Dawson, George, 15, 112, 394, 396, 431, 530, 566, 607, 786, 788
De Crespigny, Sir William, 868, 900, 915
Denison, W. J., 398, 510, 851, 1495
Denman, Thomas, 214, 370, 384, 815, 883, 909, 1288, 1336, 1468, 1469
Dogherty, Mr., 650
Douglas, Keith, 30
Drummond, Home, 935
E
Eastnor, Lord, 1499, 1502, 1503
Ellice, Edward, 167, 529, 610, 919, 1400, 1474
Ellis, Thomas, 394, 395
Ellis, Hon. George Agar, 101, 103, 725
Ellison, Cuthbert, 60
Estcourt, F. G., 1082
Evans, William, 617, 1426
F
Fergusson, Sir Ronald, 30, 387, 412
Fitzgerald, Maurice, 651, 949, 953, 1337
Fitzgerald, Vesey, 725, 788, 1336
Forbes, Sir Charles, 873, 1426, 1450
Forster, J. L., 112, 284, 317, 582, 725, 763, 919
G
Gascoyne, Isaac, 45, 412, 529
Gilbert, Davies, 38, 409, 789
Gordon, Robert, 235, 360
Gordon, Captain, 1194
Goulburn, Right Hon. Henry, 422, 477, 482, 526, 649, 683, 897, 1329, 1437, 1468
Graham, Sir James, 399, 529
Grant, Right Hon. C, 35, 810
Grattan, James, 394, 396, 421, 426, 569
Grenfell, Pascoe, 38, 95, 101, 282, 728, 773, 842, 916, 924, 1167, 1202, 1474
Grosset, J., R. 803
Gurney, Hudson, 926, 1094
H
Haldimand, William, 99
Hamilton, Lord Archibald, 18, 30, 448, 902, 1170
Handley, Henry, 760
Hardinge, Sir H., 419, 421
Hart, General, 1466
Harvey, Sir E., 1196
Herries, J. C., 1321
Heygate, Alderman, 15, 38, 98, 312, 529, 626, 900
Hill, Sir George, 525, 603 608, 775, 1432
Hobhouse, John Cam, 172, 319, 332, 511, 748, 910, 960, 1191, 1463, 1493, 1500
Horton, Wilmot, 106, 108, 616, 803, 999, 1092, 1422
Hume, Joseph, 9, 16, 29, 44, 46, 49, 97, 103, 104, 105, 106, 108, 109, 110, 113, 146, 158, 170, 172, 225, 317, 321, 321, 325, 327, 350, 385, 397, 409, 414, 432, 497, 502, 526, 532, 584, 597, 625, 646, 728, 811, 868, 898, 902, 909, 910, 927, 1078, 1171, 1202, 1205, 1321, 1343, 1405, 1447, 1453, 1462
Huskisson, Right Hon. William, 36, 45, 104, 411, 529, 608, 609, 610, 728, 737, 756, 760, 763, 771, 842, 920, 934, 1419
Hutchinson, Hon. C. H., 39, 147, 430, 449, 491, 526, 950, 1168, 1198, 1437
J
James, William, 174, 411, 645, 1080
K
Kennedy, Thomas, 29, 33, 226, 227, 394, 496, 497, 900, 1441
Knatchbull, Sir E., 38, 764, 789, 848
L
Lamb, Hon. George, 181
Lambton, J. G., 65, 110, 111, 858, 887, 1316
Lethbridge, Sir Thomas, 38, 65, 509, 950
Leycester, Ralph, 361, 623, 749, 779, 1093
Littleton, E. J., 57, 99, 319, 606, 814
Lockhart, J., 48, 298, 316, 398, 845, 932, 956, 1084
Long, Right Hon. Sir Charles, 102, 103, 161
Lord Advocate of Scotland (Sir W. Rae,) 23, 30, 226, 496, 902, 1171, 1441
Lowther, Lord, 394, 398, 420, 499
Lushington, Dr., 209, 346, 357, 604, 615, 773, 796, 803, 930, 1206, 1419
Lushington, S. R., 410, 412
M
Maberly, John, 164, 220, 226, 233, 411, 486, 617, 843, 1320, 1473, 1497, 1503
Maberly, W. L., 450, 474, 495, 783
Mackintosh, Sir James, 8, 13, 198, 400, 1033, 1318, 1340, 1344, 1402, 1434, 1435, 1475
Manning, William, 97, 617, 932, 1168
Mansfield, J., 410, 852
Martin, John, 314, 412, 784
Martin, Richard, 218, 748, 1096
Maxwell, Mr., 653
Milton, Lord, 64, 168, 180, 420, 627, 649, 688, 805, 809, 958
Monck, J. B., 18, 38, 225, 234, 327, 390, 409, 490, 788, 848, 960, 1082, 1083, 1095, 1322
Money, W. T., 1, 66, 1450
Moore, Peter, 10
Mundy, George, 389
N
Newport, Sir John, 173, 394, 413, 422, 424, 447, 492, 531, 606, 703, 759, 783, 890, 935, 1082, 1090, 1094, 1199
Normanby, Lord, 301
North, J., 189, 693
Nugent, Lord, 147
O
Ommaney, Sir F., 398
Onslow, Mr. Serjeant, 118, 314, 316, 397
Oxmantown, Lord, 422
P
Palmer, Charles, 362
Palmer, Fyshe, 233, 789, 846
Palmerston, Viscount, 358, 1342
Parnell, Sir Henry, 38, 290, 398, 428, 432, 595, 664, 933
Peel, Right Hon. Robert, 43, 49, 107, 110, 111, 143, 147, 341, 391, 425, 494, 497, 645, 652, 727, 748, 905, 955, 958, 1083, 1085, 1091, 1092, 1203, 1318, 1320, 1333, 1437, 1440, 1460, 1468, 1497, 1501
Peel, William, 282
Philips, George, 14, 38, 283, 299, 896, 410, 1095
Phillimore, Dr., 408
Plummer, John, 769, 932
Plunkett, Right Hon. W. C., 569, 607, 649, 893, 918, 941, 948, 951
R
Rice, Spring, 16, 394, 413, 424, 426, 479, 483, 531, 896, 1335
Ridley, Sir Matthew White, 51, 180, 415, 789, 917
Robertson, Alexander, 287, 568, 600, 756, 932, 1087, 1185, 1202, 1322, 1448
Robinson, Right Hon. Frederick,
see
Robinson, Sir George, 784
Rose, Sir George, 1424
Russell, Lord John, 163, 383, 530, 531, 756, 1327
S
Scarlett, James, 497, 814, 852, 917, 1068, 1092, 1469
Sebright, Sir John, 392, 399, 847,
Shaw, Sir R., 397
Shelley, Sir John, 392
Shiffner, Sir G., 805
Smith, C., 415
Smith, John, 97, 173, 812, 346, 446, 476, 647, 649, 760, 1081, 1084, 1325, 1437
Smith, William, 99, 180, 358, 386, 755, 1079, 1086, 1194, 1419, 1474, 1478
Smith, R., 854, 1086, 1096
Smith, A., 956
Solicitor General (Mr. Wetherell,) 213, 409, 759, 774
Speaker, The [Right Hon. Charles Manners Sutton], 9, 10, 318, 1204, 1317, 1506
Stanley, Lord, 11, 282, 409, 908
Stanley, Hon. E. G. S., 11, 559, 704
Stuart-Wortley, J. A., 61, 389, 390, 391, 725, 804, 808, 915, 1473
Sumner, Holme, 15, 66, 318, 399, 421, 528, 908, 1199
Sutton, Right Hon. C. M.,
see
Sykes, Daniel, 38, 294, 398, 610, 617, 730, 759, 853
T
Taylor, Michael Angelo, 1078
Taylor, Watson, 728
Thompson, Alderman W., 770, 928
Tierney, Right Hon. George, 134, 169, 720
Tindal, Mr., 1237
Trant, Mr., 1335, 1449
Trench, F. W., 431, 487, 788, 900, 950, 953
Twiss, Horace, 957, 1198
W
Wallace, Right Hon. Thomas, 100
Warre, J. A., 385, 950, 1168, 1195
Wetherell,
see
Wharton, J., 390
Whitbread, S., 847, 960
Whitmore, W., 600, 730, 740, 807
Wilberforce, William, 1269, 1406, 1426
Wilbraham, Bootle, 10, 282, 917
Williams, John, 532, 643, 854, 1245
Wilson, Sir Robert, 116, 1079, 1196, 1498
Wilson, Thomas, 14, 38, 98, 314, 388, 730, 756, 766, 774, 805, 807, 846, 927, 933, 1087, 1400
Wodehouse, E., 178, 179, 741, 849
Wood, Alderman Matthew, 66, 112, 234, 588, 605, 755, 850, 928, 1423
Wood, Colonel, 32, 63, 390, 421
Wrottesley, Sir John, 61, 180, 314, 317, 326
Wynn, C. W. W. 326, 865, 1095, 1449
Yorke, Sir Joseph, 97, 154, 399, 420, 784, 1294, 1473
END OF VOL XI.