HANSARD'S
FORMING A CONTINUATION OF THE WORK ENTITLED
"THE PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY OF ENGLAND,FROM THE EARLIEST PERIOD O THE YEAR 1803."
New Series;
COMMENCING WITH THE ACCESSION OF GEORGE IV.
VOL. XXIV.
COMPRISING THE PERIOD FROM
THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL,
TO
THE FOURTH DAY OF JUNE, 1830.
[Third Volume of the Session.]
LONDON:
Printed by T. C. HANSARD Pater-noster-Row,
FOR BALDWIN AND CRADOCK; J. BOOKER; LONGMAN, REES, ORME, AND CO.;J. M. RICHARDSON; PARBURY, ALLEN, AND CO.; J. HATCHARD AND SON;J. RIDGWAY; E. JEFFERY AND SON; J. RODWELL; CALKIN AND BUDD;R. H. EVANS; J. BOOTH; AND T. C. HANSARD.
1830.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NEW SERIES.
I. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
II. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF OMMONS,
III. PETITIONS.
IV. ADDRESSES.
V. PETITIONS.
VI. LISTS.
I. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
Page
1830 Apr. 26. Increased Duty on Spirits
29
Pensions to Converted Priests
30
East Retford Disfranchisement Bill
31
1830 Apr.27. East Retford Disfranchisement Bill
68
1830 Apr.28. Revenue of the See of London
122
1830 Apr.29. State of the Country
214
Duty on Corn Spirits
217
East Retford Disfranchisement Bill
225
1830 Apr.30. Greece
293
Terceira
294
East Retford Disfranchisement Bill
294
1830 May 3. East Retford Election Bill
322
1830 May 4. Hickson's Abduction and Marriage Dissolution Bill
354
Church Reform
358
1830 May 5. Tax on Leather
422
Sir T. Wilson's Estates Bill
423
Parish Registers—Scotland
424
1830 May 6. National Debt and Revenue
428
1830 May 10. Duty on British Spirits
498
Breach of Privilege
499
Tithe Composition Bill
499
1830 May 11. Stamps on Newspapers—Ireland
532
1830 May 11. Poor Laws for Ireland
533
Poor Laws in England
535
Hickson's Divorce Bill
542
East Retford Disfranchisement Bill
543
1830 May 12. British Spirits
594
1830 May 13. National Distress
659
1830 May 18. Greece
815
1830 May 21. Conscientious Scruples of the Military
918
Suits in Equity Bill
919
1830 May 24. King's Illness—Message from the Throne
986
Greece
989
Four-and-a-half per Cent Duties
998
East Retford Disfranchisement Bill
998
1830 May 25. The King's Indisposition—Sign Manual
1062
Conference with the Commons
1070
Four-and-a-half per Cent Duties
1070
1830 May 26. Sovereignty of Greece
1116
Suits in Equity Bill
1123
1830 May 27. Birmingham Grammar School
1131
His Majesty's Sign Manual Bill
1132
1830 May 28. Russian Tariff
1189
Papers relating to Greece
1189
Sign-Manual Bill
1191
1830 June 3. Greece
1256
1830 June 4. Sir Jonah Barrington
1346
State of Business
1346
II. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
1830 Apr. 8. Publicans' Licenses
3
Navigation of the Rhine
4
Blockade of Prevesa
8
Land Tax
8
Distress
10
Stamp Duties
10
Forgery
11
Timber
14
Sale of Beer
15
Tobacco Duties
26
1830 Apr.26. Tobacco
34
Death for Forgery
35
Madras Registrar's Bill
37
Watching and Lighting Parishes Bill
38
Poor Laws Amendment Bill
38
Galway Franchise Bill Committee
54
Deserted Children (Ireland) Bill
56
Usury Law Bill
56
1830 Apr. 26. Superannuated Allowances
64
1830 Apr.27. Irish Protestant Church
70
Vestries in Ireland
83
Administration of Justice
104
1830 Apr.28. Law of Divorce
124
Schedule of Taxation
125
Terceira
126
1830 Apr.29. London Bridge Approaches Bill
227
Insolvent Debtors
227
The Jews
236
Stamp Duties on Newspapers
237
Corporation Fraud
238
Solicitor General of Ireland
240
Law Reforms
243
1830 Apr.30. Scotch Judicature
294
Conscientious Scruples of the Military
298
Machinery
303
Beer Trade
304
Privy Council
304
Committee of Supply—Ordnance Estimates
305
1830 May 3. Beer Bill
323
Truck System
325
Tax on Steam Carriages
328
Forgery
328
Committee of Supply
329
St. James's Park
340
Windsor Castle
347
Navy Pay Office
352
Continuance of Offices on the Demise of the Crown
354
1830 May 4. Emancipation of the Jews
375
Petition of Indo Britons
377
Beer Trade
287
Law Relating to Forgery
389
Irish Constabulary Force
390
Catholic Charitable Bequests
394
Catholic Marriages
396
Beer Trade
401
1830 May 6. Sale of Beer Bill
446
Stamps on Irish Newspapers
448
Road from Waterloo Bridge to the north side of the Metropolis.
450
Petition of the Ship-owners of London
453
Conduct of Sir Jonah Barrington
484
Usury Laws
493
1830 May 10. Waterloo Bridge
502
Irish Stamp Duties
503
Business of Parliament
504
Greek Loan
504
Supply
506
1830 May 10. Deserted Children (Ireland) Bill
527
Demise of the Crown
530
1830 May 11. Police Trials—Ireland
545
Mr. Willis's Case
551
Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland
555
State of Newfoundland
580
Improvement in Chancery
593
Grand Canal—Ireland
593
1830 May 12. Doneraile Conspiracy,—Conduct of the Solicitor General—Ireland
596
1830 May 13. Mauritius Sugar and Slavery
672
Punishment of Death for Forgery
674
Interments in the Metropolis
680
Fluctuation of Employment among Manufacturers
682
Tax on Coals
696
Hackney Coaches
703
Apprentices
704
1830 May 14. Stamp Duties—Ireland
707
Forgery
708
Business of Parliament
709
Supply
710
Emoluments of the Privy Council
731
1830 May 17. Stamps—Ireland
760
Transmission of Bullion
762
National Distress
764
Poor Laws—Ireland
766
Petitions in favour of the Jews
767
Petition in favour of the Jews
769
The Mauritius
774
Parliamentary Reform—Birmingham Petition
774
Bill for the Removal of Jewish Disabilities
784
1830 May 18. Tithes
818
Imprisonment for Debt—Libel Law
826
West Indies
829
Distress
830
Case of James Kelly
830
Borris-o'-kane Trials
831
Business of the Session
831
British West India Colonies
834
First Fruits—Ireland
838
Court of Chancery
859
Frauds in Canal Subscriptions
859
Forest of Dean
863
King's Message—Administration of Justice
864
1830 May 19. Irish Constabulary Force
866
Judges of Wales
868
1830 May 20. Irish Constabulary Force
869
Algiers
871
1830 May 20. Mexico
875
Frauds in Soliciting Private Bills
907
1830 May 21. Committee of Supply—Four-and-a-half per cent Duties
922
Miscellaneous Estimates—Milbank Penitentiary
938
Sale of Beer Bill
951
1830 May 22. Sir Jonah Barrington
965
Breach of Privilege
979
Irish and Scotch Paupers
1000
The King's Illness—Message from the Throne
1001
Greece
1002
The Cape of Good Hope
1005
1830 May 24. Forgery
1014
Four-and-a-half per Cent Duties
1015
Mexico
1017
Supply
1029
Forgeries' Punishment Bill
1031
1830 May 25. Profanation of the Sabbath
1037
Sir Jonah Barrington
1075
Duty on Lead
1083
Dramatic Censorship
1085
Canada
1093
Tobacco Manufacturers
1111
Galway Franchise Bill
1115
1830 May 26. Liabilities of Stage-Coach Proprietors
1128
Paupers (Scotch) and Irish Removal Bill
1129
1830 May 27. Office of Registrar of Deeds—Ireland
1141
Interference of the Military at Rye
1142
Scotch Judicature
1145
Duties on Soap and Candles—Ireland
1146
The Royal Sign-Manual Bill
1148
Island of Ceylon
1155
Court of Chancery
1171
Administration of Justice Bill
1172
1830 May 28. Perth Navigation
1191
Clyde Navigation Bill
1192
Greece
1193
The Royal Sign-Manual Bill
1193
Court of Session Bill
1195
Stamp Duties—Ireland
1196
New Police
1199
Fisheries
1201
Small Debts Courts
1202
Assessed Taxes
1202
Freedom of the City
1204
Parliamentary Reform by Universal Suffrage
1204
Northern Roads Bill
1256
1830 June 3. Imprisonment for Debt
1258
Irish Vestry Act
1259
1830 June 3. Law of Divorce
1260
Poor Laws for Ireland
1294
Sale of Beer Bill
1333
Northern Roads Bill
1335
1830 June 4. New Street from Waterloo Bridge
1348
Scotch and Irish Vagrants
1351
Abolition of Suttees
1355
Ways and Means
1356
Four-and-a-half per Cent Duties
1356
Committee of Supply—Mint Coinage
1361
Law Expenses of the Crown
1368
Sale of Beer
1398
III. KING'S MESSAGES.
1830 May 24. MESSAGE from the Throne informing the House of his Majesty's Illness—House of Lords
986
Message from the Throne, informing the House of his Majesty's Illness—House of Commons
1001
IV. ADDRESSES.
1830 May 24. ADDRESS to the King on the Message from the Throne respecting his Majesty's Illness, from the House of Lords
987
Address to the King on the Message from the Throne respecting his Majesty's Illness, from the House of Commons
1001
V. PETITIONS.
1830 May 24. PETITION from the Bankers of many towns against the Punishment of Death for Forgery
999
VI. LISTS.
1830 Apr. 27. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Vestries in Ireland Bill
104
1830 Apr.28. LIST of the Minority in the House of Commons, on the Affair at Terceira
213
1830 Apr.30. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Ordnance Estimates
313
1830 May 3. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Committee of Supply—St. James's Park
345
1830 May 4. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Beer Trade
422
10. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Committee of Supply
526
1830 May 11. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Debate on the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland
579
LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the State of Newfoundland
593
1830 May 12. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Debate on the Doneraile Conspiracy, and the conduct of the Solicitor General for Ireland
659
1830 May 13. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Debate on the Tax on Coals
702
1830 May 14. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Debate respecting the Emoluments of the Privy Council
757
1830 May 18. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, respecting the First Fruits—Ireland
858
1830 May 21. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Committee of Supply, and four-and-a-half per Cent Duties.
937
1830 May 24. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Forgeries Punishment Bill
1060
1830 May 25. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Civil Government of Canada
1111
LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons on the Galway Franchise Bill
1116
1830 May 27. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Administration of the Island of Ceylon
1171
1830 May 28. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Parliamentary Reform, by Universal Suffrage
1254
LIST of the Minority in the House of Commons, on Lord J. Russell's Motion on the same subject
1255
1830 June 3. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Law of Divorce
1293
During the
of the
of
and
appointed to meet at Westminster the
th of February
in the Eleventh Year of the Reign of His Majesty
GEORGE THE FOURTH.
[Third Volume of the Session.
1830
1
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, April 8, 1830.
MINUTES.] The Royal Assent was given by Commission to the Officers' Indemnity Bill, the Smugglers' Families Bill, the County Palatine of Durham Bill, and several private Bills. The Tanjore Commissioners' Bill was read a third time and passed. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY laid on the Table Reports of the Irish Ecclesiastical Courts' Commissioners, and of the Irish Charities' Commissioners. Sir A. GRANT and others from the Commons brought up the Four-per-Cents Bill, the East Retford Witnesses' Indemnity Bill, the Haymarket Removal Bill, and some Private Bills.
Returns presented. An Annual Account of Superannuation Allowances:—An Account of Foreign and Colonial Wheat remaining under Bond on January 5, 1828, the Quantity entered for Home-consumption, the Quantity re-exported, and the Quantity remaining under Bond on January 5, 1830:—An Account of Wheat imported into Liverpool from Ireland or Coastwise, from July 5, 1828, to Jan. 5, 1830:—An Account of all Sums expended on Surveys for the Roads between London and Edinburgh, and London and Portpatrick:—An Account of Pensions and Salaries granted by the Company during the period therein mentioned.
Lord STRATHALLAN
Petitions presented. By Lord CALTHORPE, from the Females of Blackburn, and two Congregations of Protestant Dissenters of Blackburn, against Suttees. By Lord HOLLAND, from the Inhabitants of Woburn, praying for the Revision of the Criminal Code.
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Thursday, April 8, 1830.
MINUTES.] On the Motion of the CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER it was ordered that the House at its rising should Adjourn to Monday, April 26th.
Returns ordered. The Amount of Profit or Loss arising from the Manufacture of Small Arms, Gunpowder, &c. for the use of his Majesty's Service:—Of the Amount of
2
l.
An Address was ordered to be presented to his Majesty to obtain Copies of certain Letters written in March, 1827, relative to the Expenditure of the island of Ceylon, the Mauritius, and the Cape of Good Hope.
Returns presented. The number of Justices of the Peace in each County of Scotland:—The number of Bankrupts in every Month from January, 1825, to February, 1830:—Copy of Letter from the Secretary of State addressed to the Public Offices, recommending the use of Machinery in Sweeping Chimnies.
Petitions presented. By Mr. CHARLES CALCRAFT, from Mary Anne Lloyd, complaining that she had been defrauded by what were called Poyais Bonds, and praying the House to institute an inquiry into that scheme of fraud. By Mr. WILMOT HORTON, from the Manufacturers and others of New castle-under-Lyne, against the renewal of the East India Company's Charter:—By Mr. HUME, with the same prayer, from the Incorporated
3
PUBLICANS LICENSES.]
Mr. Sadler
, in presenting a Petition from the Licensed Victuallers of Sutton in Ash field cum Stuck wall under Huthwait, and other places against the proposed alteration of the Licensing System observed, that the subject was of great importance, both as affecting a large body of respectable tradesmen, who, shaping their operations by the existing law had invested considerable capitals in their business, and the public at large. He was opposed to the contemplated alteration because he thought, whatever evils might result from the present system, they were susceptible of being remedied without inflicting an injury on a large class of industrious men. The alteration proposed would, if carried into effect, instantly deteriorate the property of all Licensed Victuallers, many of whom had paid large sums for their business, while many of them had made that business by many years of uninterrupted labour, and un intermitted care. The petitioners also say, which in his opinion was well worthy of the attention of the House, that under the present mode of granting licenses, the magistrates exercise a salutary control over this class of tradesmen, and over the management of their houses and business, which is in the highest degree useful to the public. Its moral advantages were great, and they would be entirely thrown away if every man, on the payment of a trifling sum of money, be entitled to a license as a matter of course. He felt grateful, and was anxious to express his gratitude to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the remission of taxation already granted, but he begged leave to suggest to him that it would be far better to repeal the Malt than the Beer duties, which encourage domestic
4
Petition to be printed.
NAVIGATION OF THE RHINE.]
Mr. Charles Grant
said, he wished to take that opportunity to ask his right hon. friend, the Secretary for the Home Department, a question or two, which concerned not only the faith of treaties, but the commercial interests of this country. It was well known that the Treaty of Vienna, concluded in 1815, contained certain stipulations concerning the navigation of rivers. Amongst the Acts which formed part of the Treaty, the Sixteenth related expressly to this subject, and contained several stipulations with regard to the Navigation of the Rhine. He would take the liberty of reading the beginning of the first Article, which was quite explicit:—"The Navigation of the Rhine, from its source to the sea, shall be entirely free for all, on the payment merely of the dues which shall be necessary for preserving the police of the river." By these words all the Powers of Europe were entitled to the free navigation of that river. No vessels whatever were to be excluded, nor any duties levied, except such as were necessary for keeping up the police. The King of the Netherlands, however, had resisted that construction of the treaty, and had excluded all vessels from the navigation of the Rhine, by prohibitory duties, except vessels belonging to the Netherlands. In consequence of his conduct, a great deal of discussion had ensued, which was extremely interesting; but notwithstanding that, and notwithstanding the treaty of 1815, the navigation of the Rhine was still closed, except to the subjects of the Netherlands. The Treaty of Vienna had not, therefore, been carried into effect, which was a serious subject, calling for the attention of his Majesty's Ministers. The event had recently received a considerable accession of interest. About a year ago some of the Continental Powers resolved to make a common appeal to all Europe, and in this it was expected that England would take a prominent part. When he quitted office in 1828, he was persuaded
5
Mr. Secretary Peel
stated, that he was willing to follow the example of his right hon. friend, and give a short explanation as well as an answer. In 1815, a treaty was made at Vienna, which he thought, and in this he concurred with his right hon. friend, and all his predecessors in office, intended that the navigation of the Rhine should be open to all nations. A doubt, however, had arisen as to the meaning of the treaty, which was drawn up originally, he believed, in German, and not in French, and the King of the Netherlands contended that the words of the
6
jusqu' à la mer
projet
projet.
7
Mr. C. Grant
said, that the convention between Prussia and the Netherlands, mentioned by his right hon. friend, was different from what he described it to be. The
projet
Mr. Secretary Peel
replied, that he had stated what was, he believed, correct. He believed the
projet
8
projet
Mr. C. Grant
knew that an English vessel had proceeded up the Rhine, but be also knew that there was no disposition to repeat the voyage. The duties levied on her were so enormous, that they destroyed all profit, and no other vessel would make the same experiment.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, the Government would protest as strongly against prohibitory duties as against actual prohibition.
BLOCKADE OF PREVESA.]
Dr. Phillimore
took the opportunity to express a hope that the papers respecting the state of the negotiations on the subject of Greece, which were shortly to be laid on the Table of the House, would contain a satisfactory explanation of the cause of the Blockade of Prevesa, and those other events which were now so much a matter of conjecture. The imputation that Great Britain had been guilty of a violation of that law acknowledged throughout Europe, and which she had expended so much blood and treasure to uphold, ought to be removed.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that the papers would contain a full statement of the progress of the negotiations, but it should be understood there were circumstances such as the existence of an armistice between the parties, which would take the case alluded to by the learned Gentleman somewhat out of the ordinary law of nations.
LAND TAX.]
Mr. Hobhouse
, in presenting a Petition from the Parish of St. Paul, Covent-Garden, against the unjust and
9
s.
d.
d.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
s.
l.
s.
d.
l.
l.
s.
l.
l.
The Petition to be printed.
Mr. Hume
was of opinion that the Parliament ought not to interfere in this case. In many places the Land-tax had been redeemed, and the House had no right, after one person had redeemed his share of the Tax, to call on him to pay a part of his neighbour's share who may not have
10
Mr. Hobhouse
alluded only to the unredeemed Land-tax; in his opinion, Parliament ought to consider whether or not some more equitable mode of raising the unredeemed Land-tax could be adopted.
DISTRESS.]
Lord Stanley
presented a Petition from the inhabitants of Hastingden, in the county of Lincoln, the purport of which he was sorry to say was to represent to the House the great and general Distress which prevailed in that part of the country. Many persons the petitioners represented, had been reduced, by no fault of their own, from comparative wealth and happiness to poverty and destitution. They prayed for a reduction of taxation; but they stated that there was no way of relieving the Distress except the wages of labour were raised, or the price of the necessaries of life much reduced. The petitioners did not look for any rise in wages, owing to the continued increase of machinery; and therefore they thought that the Government was imperiously called on to make a large reduction of taxation so as to reduce the price of the necessaries of life. The clergyman who had forwarded the Petition to him had assured him that the distress of the petitioners was not exaggerated, and that although they had always borne their misfortunes with patience, they had been in a better humour with Government than before, since it had shewn a disposition to diminish taxation. When his Majesty's Government was thus informed that reduction of taxation, both relieved distress, and strengthened loyalty, he trusted that it would go on in the same wise course, and follow up the reductions of this year by still greater reductions hereafter.
Petition to lie on the Table.
STAMP DUTIES.]
Mr. Hume
, in presenting a Petition from the Provost and Magistracy of Brechin, complaining of the Stamp Duties on Inventories, said, that this was the ninth or tenth Petition he had presented during the last three years on the same subject. Nothing could be more vexatious than the manner in which these duties were levied in Scotland, for they took an inventory of every article of a deceased person, even to a night-cap, and that, too, before the body was removed from the house, if the property amounted
11
l.
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Stewart
saw no reason whatever, for continuing the vexatious Inventory tax, which to the people of Scotland was irksome beyond description, and of which they particularly complained, because they only were subject to it. They had long desired to be placed in this respect on the same footing as the inhabitants of England. He had been particularly requested by the people of the north to enforce this view on the attention of the Government, and took that opportunity therefore of doing so.
FORGERY.]
Mr. Lennard
presented a Petition from the Bankers, Merchants, and other inhabitants of Woodbridge, in the County of Suffolk, praying for the abolition of the punishment of death for the crime of Forgery. The hon. Member observed, that the Petition was most respectably signed; that the circumstance of its being signed by the bankers of the place was one deserving of the attention of the right hon. Secretary of State, and of the House. He knew that the feeling on this subject entertained by the bankers of Woodbridge was very general among bankers throughout the country, and he hoped that the same feeling would be evinced by the London bankers. He trusted that the time was approaching when the punishment of death for any description of Forgery would be expunged from our penal code.
Mr. Trant
said, that he knew a respectable banker, who having several years ago been obliged to prosecute an individual for Forgery, and having failed, after a conviction had taken place, in his efforts to save the life of the prisoner, he declared that henceforward nothing should induce him to institute a similar prosecution, and that he would rather lose his entire fortune than be the means of taking away the life of any man for such an offence. This banker also told him that such were the sentiments
12
Mr. F. Buxton
said, that he had received two letters on the subject—extracts from which he would take the liberty of reading to the House. The first was from a highly respectable clergyman at Glasgow, where a petition had been prepared, signed by all the bankers and respectable merchants in that city, praying for the abolition of the punishment of death for Forgery. The words of his correspondent were:—"The bankers, to a man, have been favourable; I am given to understand that there is scarcely a banker in town (if, indeed, there be even one), who has not been in circumstances in which he has forborne to prosecute rather than expose the offender to the certainty, or even the risk of death; and this forbearance has been exercised sometimes in circumstances of an aggravated nature." The other letter to which he alluded was from a banker at Newcastle. The writer said, "I now wish to offer you my testimony on the subject of Forgery, in confirmation of your sentiments expressed in the House. My mind has long been distressed with the present law. I gladly embraced the first opportunity to do what I could for its alteration, and lately took some pains in forwarding a petition from here, praying that in all cases the penalty should be short of the forfeiture of life. The leading partners of the banks in this town signed it, under the practical conviction that the severity of the law was not a protection to us, but tended to increase the crime. I also called on our principal merchants, who concurred in the same sentiments, and signed it. This opinion maybe said to be universal in this district." He (Mr. F. Buxton) objected to the punishment of death for Forgery, on the grounds stated in his correspondent's letter, and he also objected to it on higher grounds. He thought the legislature had no right to take away the life of any man for an offence against property. He was sure that a strong wish existed among the bankers, and other respectable classes of
13
Mr. Warburton
expressed his conviction, that a general impression existed throughout the country that the punishment of death for Forgery ought to be abolished. With respect to protection against the crime, the late alteration in the law, by which a person on whom Forgery was committed was permitted to be a witness in the case, afforded an incalculably greater protection against the crime than any severity of punishment. He was sure that public opinion would go with the right hon. Gentleman if he were to abolish the punishment of death altogether.
The Petition to be printed.
Mr. Western
rose to present a Petition from the Bankers and Inhabitants of the Town of Witham, in Essex, praying that the punishment of death in cases of Forgery might be abolished. He was able to say, having presented several petitions on this subject, that a great body of his constituents were averse to the punishment of death for this crime, and wished to see it abolished. He concurred with them in thinking that it ought to be abolished for the crime of Forgery; but he went further, and thought that there were many other cases in which it was now improperly inflicted. He was very much inclined to doubt if any legislators or rulers had a right to take away life from an individual in any case of crime in which the life of the suffering or offended party had not been put in danger. Many writers of great and deserved celebrity had maintained this opinion. He trusted that the whole of the penal code would undergo a further consideration. He was convinced that secondary punishments might, in point of preventing crime, be made more efficacious as an example than death. Solitary confinement might be applied in a manner most effective to its object, whilst it might be deprived of those objections that had been urged against it. He could not conceive that any danger could arise from vesting a discretionary power in the visiting magistrates, or the governors of gaols, as to solitary confinement. There was no danger in giving a discretionary power to mitigate punishment; though there might be, and the Legislature could not be too cautious in granting it, in a power to inflict punishment. He stated this, because he had paid great attention to the subject, and he believed that the aversion to inflict-
14
Petition to be printed.
TIMBER.]
Mr. Douglas
Mr. Warburton
expressed a wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite, whether he was aware that in consequence of a defect in one of the clauses in the bill on the subject, Timber might be brought to this country from Memel, without paying the duty on foreign Timber, by being first carried to Halifax? He knew that that had been done last year. One or more cargoes of Baltic Timber had, to his knowledge, been imported in that manner into Ireland. By the 10th of George 4th, the Timber, the growth of other countries, might be imported from our Colonies on paying only the small duty imposed on Timber the growth of the Colonies. People had profited by this, and had actually sent cargoes of Timber from the Baltic to Nova Scotia, and had then imported it into this country at an advantage. The evil of this practice, as it affected the regular trader, was very great. The prime cost of Timber in the Baltic was 20
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
15
Mr. Herries
was glad that the hon. Gentleman had put the question to him, as it afforded him an opportunity of stating what were the intentions of Government on the subject. The hon. Member had described very correctly the defect in the clause of the existing bill, which enabled persons to import Baltic Timber circuitously through Halifax, at a less rate than, owing to the duty which had been imposed for the protection of Timber, the produce of our North American colonies, it could be imported directly from the Baltic. He should be disposed to say, however, that if the existing law were carried into complete execution, he very much doubted if the parties in question could make their venture so successful a one as they had made it, and as, according to the hon. Gentleman's statement, they contemplated making it. He had been asked a question by some of them with respect to one point on which the expectation of making a successful voyage hinged. That question was, whether it would be necessary that a ship should be unloaded at Halifax, and then of course reloaded before her departure for England? If the officers at Halifax did their duty in this respect, he had reason to believe that the expense attending on that operation would very much diminish the chance of any profit arising from the speculation. He now, however, gave notice, that in order to prevent the evasion of what was undoubtedly the intention of the Legislature, he would, immediately after the recess, introduce a bill to remedy the defect in the existing Act, and to prevent any advantage from being taken of it.
SALE OF BEER.]
Mr. Calcraft
said, that being Chairman of the Committee appointed to inquire into the state of the laws respecting the Retail Sale of Beer, it was his duty, by the direction of the Committee, to move for leave to bring in a Bill to extend the privilege of selling that ar-
16
17
Mr. Charles Barclay
only wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to certain operations of the Bill, which he thought would render it incumbent upon him to modify it. The right hon. Gentleman would certainly have the opportunity of better considering the evidence during the recess; and if he went into it, and saw the very great and important interests alluded to in it, he hoped that he would be induced to modify the Bill very considerably. If any person without any limitations whatsoever, might be allowed to sell Beer by retail, anywhere and any how, without any restriction whatever—for the proposed licensing system would be no restriction—mischief and inconvenience would ensue, of which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be little aware. He begged to be particularly understood as not speaking on the part of
18
19
Mr. Charles Calvert
should defer his observations upon the Bill until the evidence taken before the Committee was duly before the House, but in the mean time he could not refrain from saying, that he could not agree with all that had fallen from his hon. friend who had just sat down. He felt that the brewers were so identified with the licensed victuallers of the metropolis, that any law which affected the one would, as a matter of inevitable necessity, affect the other. His hon. friend very well knew, and, indeed, it was notorious to everybody, that a very great capital was embarked by the great brewers of London with the licensed victuallers, and he wished he could say that the Bill would be beneficial to the former, for if so, they could act with consideration towards others. He believed, unfortunately, that the Bill now introduced by the right hon. Gentleman opposite would prove more destructive to property on a large scale, and more diffusive of ruin to persons not very wealthy, than any measure which the House had ever adopted. The Bill, he was convinced, would cause the absolute ruin of the great body of victuallers, whilst it would destroy the property of the manufacturers of Beer. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that his Bill would admit of no modifications; that his principles could not be carried into operation without effecting the ruin of such great and important interests, and of such very numerous classes? He had hoped that Ministers would have been content with trying one experiment at a time, and would have waited until they had seen the effects of taking off the duty upon Beer before they proceeded to such extensive innovations. He believed that taking off the Beer duty would prove highly beneficial to the public; but he was convinced that ail the benefit from the Chancellor of the
20
Mr. H Drummond
, in the present stage of the proceedings, would only avail himself of the opportunity of saying, that whatever opinions might be entertained of the Bill, he was extremely glad that it was not the intention of his Majesty's Ministers to extend it to Scotland. He did not think that it was requisite to interfere with the system at present prevalent in Scotland, nor that it would be deemed expedient, upon any pretence, to introduce such a bill as the present; for, in point of fact, the evil so much complained of in England—the monopoly of the Beer trade—had never existed in that part of the kingdom. Since he had risen he might be excused if he availed himself of the opportunity of briefly referring to a gross misrepresentation that had gone abroad respecting his conduct. It had been said, that he was the author of a bill which introduced into Scotland for the first time the evil of the English system of a monopoly of the Beer-trade. He denied that he was the author of any such measure. The Act he alluded to, the 9th of his present Majesty, gave magistrates a great power over brewers' certificates, the clause having been copied from the Act of 44 Geo. 3rd. The only alteration he had proposed was, to restrain the power of the magistrates, which, in the general opinion of the country, in which he fully agreed, had formerly been too unlimited. In making this declaration he was aware that he was speaking in the presence of many hon. Members who must have a recollection of all that had taken place, and would contradict him if he spoke erroneously.
21
Mr. Cutlar Fergusson
said, he could not hear what had fallen from the hon. Member that had just addressed the House without rising to say, that he was aware of the facts to which the hon. Member had thought fit to allude, and he could have no hesitation in corroborating the statement which the hon. Member had made. He believed that the hon. Gentleman had proposed to restrain, not enlarge, the powers of the magistracy with respect to certificates.
Mr. Stewart
intimated, that the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman was of such importance, that it ought not to be introduced in so thin a House, and he should avail himself of there not being forty Members present.
Sir John Sebright
thought that the course proposed by the hon. Member who had spoken last was altogether unnecessary and objectionable, for the only effect of it would be, to compel the right hon. Gentleman to bring in the Bill on another evening. It was then introduced for the convenience of Members, that they might acquaint themselves with its provisions during the recess. For his part, he could say of himself conscientiously, and without fear of contradiction, that there was not an honourable Member in that House who could regret more forcibly than he did, that reforms and improvements should be effected at the expense of numerous individuals. It was, however, in this case unavoidable. He could not help saying, although he had not intended to take any part in the discussion, that the laws under which the great brewers alleged that they had invested their immense capitals were not laws made for the protection of their trade, or of any trade whatever. They were laws having trade neither for their principle nor object, but made solely for purposes of police. The great brewers of the metropolis had availed themselves of those laws to promote their own interests, finding that, although they were meant for the good government of the poor, and for the decency of society, they might be converted into instruments of profit. He did not mean to say that the brewers had not acted fairly—that they had been guilty of anything improper; but he did mean to assert, that having availed themselves of the state of the laws, they had no right to come down to the House and demand that the laws should be made perpetual. If these laws were bad, if they no longer
22
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Fowell Buxton
could not suffer what had fallen in the course of the discussion to pass unnoticed, particularly as allusions appeared to have been made to the sentiments he had uttered, and to the line of conduct which, upon this occasion, he had thought it his duty to pursue. In the first place, he must repel the insinuation, that in any stage of the proceeding, or upon any occasion, he had ever said anything, or pursued any course, that could induce anybody to conceive that he had adopted the monstrous notion that the law was intended for the benefit of the brewers. There could not be any doubt that the law was passed for the advantage of the public, as a means of preserving order and decency among the lower classes of the community, The
23
l.
24
25
Mr. Hume
said, that he did not intend to enter at any length into the merits of the Bill, or into the mode of introducing it, for future opportunities would present themselves for all such considerations. He merely intended to confine himself to a few observations which had fallen from the hon. Member on the Ministerial Bench (Mr. Home Drummond). That hon. Member had not, in the slightest degree, impugned the principles of the Bill, or found the slightest fault with any of its provisions. He evidently intended to support it without objection or amendment; and yet he had risen in his place to express his hope that it should not extend to Scotland. This was incomprehensible to him; and he was not a little surprised that hon. Members should venture to utter so much of what seemed to him incomprehensible. If this measure were good for England, he was not aware why it should not extend to Scotland; at least it was for the hon. Member to show some substantial reason why a measure, which he acknowledged to be good for one part of the kingdom, should not be applied to the other. He agreed with the hon. Member, that the evils felt in England under the existing law were not so severely felt in Scotland, although this arose from causes extraneous to the law, but still there was a great case of hardship in that country. The hon. Gentleman was perfectly right in his efforts to put the Magistrates of Scotland under some control, for they needed it; but it was more easy to convince him of this, than persuade him that any reason existed why a Bill, founded upon such sound general principles, and expected to be bene-
26
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that it was not the intention of Ministers to extend the Bill now proposed to Scotland. He regretted to say, that from the period of the Session, only one day had been given to draw up the Bill for England, and that consequently, a sufficient lime had not been allowed to prepare the Bill for Scotland. The measure must, therefore, be tried in one part of the kingdom in the first instance; and if it were found beneficial, and to answer its intended objects, it might then be extended to the other.
Motion agreed to, Bill brought in and read a first time.
TOBACCO DUTIES.]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
Mr. Warburton
wished to take that opportunity of stating, that he was decidedly opposed to the principle of the Bill. Its object was, to encourage the cultivation of an article which could not be cultivated without a bounty, or such a reduction of duty compared with the duty on the imported article, as was tantamount to a bounty. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that his efforts had been directed to place the Tobacco grown at home on the same footing as that which was imported. That appeared to him most absurd. The question was, could the English grower compete with the Virginian planter? The attempt was as absurd as the system adopted in
27
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, the facts were somewhat different from the hon. Member's statement. He accused the measure of being a bounty on the growth of Tobacco, by the difference between the duty of 1
s.
d.
s.
d.
s.
d.
l.
Mr. Hume
was of opinion, that this measure gave a bounty to Tobacco grown in this country. He had no wish to impede its cultivation here, but it ought to
28
s.
s.
d.
Mr. Bright
was surprised to hear of the extent to which Tobacco was cultivated in Ireland, and under the circumstances of that country, when capital had been drove from its natural channels, it might perhaps be proper to give it the advantage which this measure would not confer but secure. At the same time, if Ireland were entitled to this indulgence—the colonies to the soil and climate of which the cultivation of Tobacco was congenial, had stronger claims to a similar boon. To the people of those colonies it would be a great advantage—and in their behalf he appealed to the House. He had before called its attention to the subject, but he thought it of such great importance, that he could not do otherwise than again press it on the consideration of the Government.
In answer to a question of Mr. Hume, the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated, that there were 500 acres of land under Tobacco cultivation in Ireland.
Mr. Hume
then said, that he would rather agree at once to vote a sum of money to pay them than consent to this measure. He did not know what answer could be made to fishermen and manufacturers who claimed bounty and protection duties if this measure were passed. He considered that it involved a departure from those sound principles which had lately been professed by the Government; and he therefore hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would postpone the measure till after the holidays, when it might be fully and fairly discussed.
29
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
, in the then state of the House, had no option—he was not his own master, and though he could not see what the hon. Member could gain by the postponement, he could not do otherwise than comply with his request.
Mr. Hume
intimated, that he did not mean to avail himself of a thin House to enforce his own views, and he should have proposed the postponement though the right hon. Gentleman had been supported by his usual majorities.
Resolutions postponed till April 26th.
Adjourned till April 26th.
HOUSE OF LORDS,
Monday, April 26, 1830.
MINUTES.] The Royal Assent was given by Commission to the East Retford Witnesses' Indemnity Bill, and several private Bills; the Lords Commissioners were, the Lord Chancellor, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Earl of Shaftesbury. The Four-per-Cents and the Haymarket Removal Bills were read a second time. Various Accounts were presented relative to the Trade of the Country, according to orders; as well as an Account of the Charges incurred by the East India Company at Canton.
Petitions Presented. For Opening the China Trade, by the Earl of DERBY, from Preston:—By the Earl of CASSILIS, from Ayr:—By Lord NAPIER, from Dumfries:—By the Earl of HAREWOOD, from Kingston-upon-Hull:—By Lord DURHAM, from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Sunderland, and Darlington:—
[The feeling of the petitioners his Lordship said, pervaded all the manufacturing districts, but he apprehended Ministers meant to renew the Charter for the East-India Company.
Lord Ellenborough
said, that nothing which had fallen from him, or any of his colleagues, could warrant such an inference.
Lord Durham
was glad to hear the noble Lord say so.]
By the Earl of ELDON, from Haverfordwest, Montgomeryshire, and other places in Wales, against any alteration in the system of Welsh Judicature. By the Earl of ESSEX, from the Irish Mining Company and from the Inhabitants of Marrick, praying for a Bounty on the Export of Lead. By the Earl of HAREWOOD, from Woolley, Wakefield, and other parts of Yorkshire, to have the Assizes removed to Wakefield:—By the Duke of NORFOLK, with a similar prayer from several places in Yorkshire. By the same noble Peer, from Sheffield, against the employment of Climbing Boys. By the Duke of BEAUFORT, from certain Magistrates of Gloucester, against the Truck System:—By Lord MELVILLE, from the Freeholders of the County of Edinburgh, against the imposition of the additional Duty of 1
s.
INCREASED DUTY ON SPIRITS.]
The Earl of Malmesbury
30
Lord Holland
said, that the West-Indian interests were severely depressed; but the noble Lord was in error when he supposed that the West-Indian proprietors had called for this new duty on corn Spirits, or indeed would benefit much from it.
The Earl of Malmesbury
was glad to have this statement from the noble Lord, because, as these new duties were not called for by the owners of rum, they ought not to be imposed upon corn Spirits. In his opinion, the measure would not augment the Revenue.
The Returns ordered.
PENSIONS TO CONVERTED PRIESTS.]
The Earl of Mountcashel
presented a Petition from the Rev. James Patrick Kenney, who had once been a Roman Catholic Priest, but had since become a Protestant. The petitioner stated, that he knew a number of priests of his former communion, who would abjure the errors of their church, provided they were allowed some means of subsistence. A Catholic priest became, upon conversion,
ipso facto
The Earl of Limerick
reprobated in the strongest terms any pecuniary encouragement for converts, or the buying men over from one religion to another: sure he was, that the class of converts hitherto obtained in this manner were a good riddance for the one church, and a disgrace to the other."
The Earl of Mountcashel
said, that the allowance, by the Act of Anne, was only 30
l.
31
Lord Holland
apprehended this petition could not be received—it prayed for a grant of money. Noble Lords might, if they pleased, give advowsons to converts of this kind, where they had such patronage, but he would not consent to give them public money.
The Earl of Rosslyn
said, that the petition was quite irregular. It was an application for public money, and made in an informal manner.
The Earl of Mountcashel
withdrew the petition. He gave notice, that on Tuesday week he would present the Cork Petition for a Reform of the Established Church, and on the same day submit a motion corresponding with the views of the petitioners.
The Marquis of Londonderry
wished to know from the noble Earl whether he meant to confine his motion to the Church of Ireland?
The Earl of Mountcashel
replied, that he did not: he meant it to include England as well as Ireland.
EAST RETFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT.]
The Marquis of Salisbury
Lord Durham
said, that the debate ought to precede the examination of witnesses.
The Marquis of Salisbury
said, the usual course was to hear the witnesses before the second reading.
The Earl of Rosslyn
concurred in this opinion, and counsel and witnesses were called in.
[Mr. Law, Mr. Adam, Mr. Alderson, and Mr. Stevenson, appeared as counsel at the Bar, and Richard Hannam was examined respecting his knowledge of the malpractices of the electors for the borough.]
Lord Durham
objected to the course of proceeding. No impropriety, as far as he could see by the examination which the case had already undergone in another place, could be charged against the present electors, but that they had suffered themselves to be treated; but that was the fault of the candidates. There were, he believed, but few Members of the House of Commons who had stood a contested election against whom the charge of treating might not be brought. He had been
32
l
The Marquis of Salisbury
maintained that it should be left to the discretion of counsel themselves, to decide on the course of proceeding which they might consider it most judicious to adopt with regard to the examination of witnesses.
The Earl of Malmesbury
said, that the merits of the case consisted in what took place at the last election, and therefore the corruption on that occasion ought to be proved first.
Lord Holland
thought, that they ought not to interfere with counsel. The most natural mode, he conceived, would be to commence with the rise of corruption in the borough, before they examined into any occurrences which had happened at subsequent elections, but that was a point for counsel to consider, who had the cause to manage, and not for their Lordships to control.
The House then divided: Content 12; Not content 23—Majority 11 against Lord Durham's Motion.
[The examination of Richard Hannam was about to be proceeded with, when the House, on the Motion of the Marquis of Salisbury, adjourned.]
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Monday, April 26, 1830.
MINUTES.] Henry Charles Sturt, Esq. Member for Dorchester, Henry Hope, Esq. for East Looe, Lord George Beresford for the County of Waterford, George Bankes, Esq. for Corfe Castle, and Daniel Callaghan, Esq. for the City of Cork, took the Oaths and their Seats. The Navy Pay Regulation and Consolidation Bill, the Leather Duties Repeal Bill, the Marriages Validity Bill, and the Malt Duties Bill, were read a second time. A Bill was brought in to Repeal the 55 Geo. III. c. 49, for procuring the Return of Persons Committed, Tried, and Convicted of Criminal Offences—the object of the Repeal Bill being to simplify the mode of making these Returns.
Returns laid on the Table. Average Price of Timber at each of the Royal Forests not supplied to the Dock Yards, and of Bark. The Number of original Causes, Pleas, and Demurrers, exceptions and further directions set down for hearing before the Lord Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor, and the Master of the Rolls. Exchequer Bills held by the Bank of England; Copy of its Contract with the City of London for a Loan to complete London Bridge; and dis-
33
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. BROUGHAM, of the Number of Causes in the Court of Chancery standing for hearing when the Great Seal was in Commission, from June, 1791, to February, 1792, and the Number of Causes decided by the Commissioners:—On the Motion of Mr. WM. O'BRIEN, of the Number of Persons who have Emigrated from the United Kingdom to any of the Colonies of Great Britain in each Year since 1820, distinguishing the Colonies, and the Sexes and Ages of the Emigrants:—On the Motion of Lord F. L. GOWER, the Nineteenth Report of the Commissioners to inquire into the Temporal and Ecclesiastical Courts (Ireland).
Petitions Presented, By Mr. MUNDY, from the Inhabitants of Derby, against Protestants in the Service of the Crown being compelled to attend the idolatrous Services of the Roman Catholic and Greek Church. Praying for the Abolition of the Punishment of Death in Cases of Forgery, by Mr. CRIPPS, from the Inhabitants of Circneester:—By Mr. HART DAVIS, from the Inhabitants of Axbridge:—By Lord ALTHORP, from Kettering, Northamptonshire:—By Mr. WARD, from the Ward of Bishopsgatc:—By Lord JOHN RUSSELL, from the Inhabitants of Bluntisham-cum-Earith, Huntingdonshire:—By Mr. HEATHCOTE, from Boston, Lincolnshire:—
[The petitioners, the hon. Member stated, were not visionaries, but practical men. It was signed by the bankers of the place.]
By Mr. RUMBOLD, from the Inhabitants of Great Yarmouth:—By Colonel DAVIES, from Worcester:—
[It was signed by almost all the bankers, and he cordially concurred with its prayer.]
From the Magistrates, Merchants, Bankers, and Inhabitants of Plymouth, by Sir T. B. MARTIN:—From those of Exeter, by Mr. BUCKE:—From Uxbridge, St. Mary, Newington, and the Congregation of China-terrace Chapel, Lambeth, by Mr. Alderman WOOD:—From the Minister and Congregation of Beresford-street Chapel, Walworth, by Mr. Alderman WOOD:—By Lord STANLEY, from Bolton, Lancashire. Against the practice of paying Wages in Goods, by Lord GEORGE SOMERSET, from the Working Colliers of Monmouth: from the Inhabitants of Trevethen; and from Joseph Davis, in the County of Monmouth. Against the alterations in the Duties on Tobacco, by Mr. WARD, from Tobacco Manufacturers of London. By Mr. O'CONNELL, from Aghado, Ballimakenny, and Munster Boy, against the Irish Vestry Act:—By Mr. SLANEY, from 130 Inhabitants of the Skinners' Estate, in the Parish of St. Pancras, against a clause in the general Lighting and Watching of Parishes Bill:—By Mr. ROBINSON, from certain Commissioners of the Skinners Estate, with the same prayer. By Mr. DENISON, from the Journeymen Paper-makers of the County of Surrey, complaining of Distress and the general employment of Machinery. By Lord F. L. GOWER, from the Fish-curers of Wick, Scotland, praying for a continuance of the Bounties now paid upon the curing of Salt-fish. Against the Sale of Beer Bill, by Mr. MUNDY, from Licensed Victuallers in Ilkeston (Derbyshire):—By Sir T. B. MARTIN, from the Licensed Victuallers of Plymouth and its neighbourhood. For the Opening of the China-trade, by Sir GEORGE MURRAY, from the Incorporated Trades of Perth, and from the Inhabitants of the Cape of Good Hope:—By Mr. KENNEDY, from the Merchant Company of Ayr and the Incorporated Trades of Ayr:—By Mr. LITTLETON, from the Inhabitants of Stoke and Fenton (Staffordshire):—By Lord G. SOMERSET, from Ponty-pool:—By Mr. DENISON, from Sunderland:—By Lord MORPETH, from Eccleshall, Bolton, and Pudsey, in the County of York. By Mr. HUSKISSON, from the Merchants and West India Planters of Liverpool, complaining of Distress, and pray-
34
TOBACCO.]
Mr. Hart Davies
presented a Petition from the Merchants, manufacturers, and Dealers in Tobacco in Bristol, against the measure for imposing so small a duty as 1
s.
d.
Mr. H. Grattan
observed, that the statement of the petitioners, as to the small expense of cultivating Tobacco at home, could be only attributed to their ignorance on the subject. The expense of cultivation was very great, and he knew himself an instance where the expense of cultivating one acre of Tobacco, in the county of Wick low, amounted to 10
l
Petition laid on the Table.
Mr. G. Moore
, in presenting a Petition from the cultivators of Tobacco, residing in the town of Enniscorthy (county of Wexford), praying that no duty might be levied on Tobacco grown in Ireland, and signed by nearly 100 gentlemen of respectability observed, that he had felt it his duty to make inquiries into the subject of growing Tobacco in Ireland, and he had not met with a single person who was not convinced that the amount of duty was such as would amount to a total prohibition of the cultivation. The petitioners stated, that they were ready to bring forward evidence to prove this point, and they observed, that to prohibit that culti-
35
Mr. O'Connell
supported the prayer of; the Petition, and declared that the duty would annihilate the cultivation of Tobacco in Ireland.
Petition to be Printed.
DEATH FOR FORGERY.]
Mr. N. Calvert
presented a Petition from the Bankers, Traders, and other inhabitants of Royston, praying for the abolition of the punishment of death in cases of Forgery.
Mr. Brougham
would take the opportunity to express his satisfaction at seeing the number of petitions coming in from such quarters for the mitigation of the severity of the forgery laws. It was most gratifying to observe, that those persons who had formerly thought it their interest to oppose any such measure, and more particularly the traders and dealers in a paper currency, were now becoming generally favourable to it. The bankers throughout the country were reviewing their former opinions, and getting gradually rid of the prejudice which had hitherto induced them to suppose that the punishment of death, in cases of forgery, afforded security and support to the credit of a paper currency. He had, within the last week, occasion to look through a very extensive correspondence upon the subject, from various parts of the country, and from persons situated as he had described, and he should soon have to present several petitions from bankers and traders, in which they express their con-
36
Mr. Secretary Peel
had no objection to the proposition of the hon. and learned Member. The discussion, as he proposed, might be taken in the committee; he wished, however, then to remark, that in proposing to reduce the number of cases to which the punishment of death should be applied, his bill did not go to create any new capital punishment. The principle of his bill was a consolidation of the criminal law with regard to forgery. For the convenience of hon. Members, he should not object to a postponement of the discussion upon the bill for a fortnight, but certainly not to a more distant period. The bill might now be read a second time, and the discussion would take place in committee upon the clause for retaining the punishment of death in certain cases of forgery.
Sir James Macintosh
had no objection to that arrangement, on the understanding that no Member was pledged to the principle of the bill by not opposing the second reading of it.
Mr. C. N. Pallmer
presented a Petition
37
MADRAS REGISTRAR'S BILL.]
Mr. Astell
presented a Petition from the East-India Company against the Madras Registrar's Bill. The petitioners complained that the principle of the Bill was most unjust, and they prayed to be heard by counsel against it. The hon. Member moved that the petitioners be heard by counsel at the Bar against the second reading of the Bill.
Sir J. Macintosh
would not oppose the Motion for the petitioners being heard against the Bill, but he merely rose to say, that this was a case of great hardship, in which a gentleman of advanced age and reduced fortune had been for thirteen years a suitor in the Court of the Directors, and in that House, for redress, on account of losses which he had suffered in consequence of the malversation of one of their public officers in India. At the same time, he could not recall to mind without great pain, the share which he had in creating that delay, and he should not willingly consent to postpone the Bill any further, so as to cut away the probability of it being passed during this year. In every thing short of that delay, he should be most happy to consult the convenience of the hon. Member who had just spoken. He candidly confessed that he wished to have this Bill sent up to the Lords before that period when a general massacre of all bills was committed by their Lordships on account of the old age of the Session. He had first thought of postponing the discussion of the Bill till Wednesday
38
Mr. Astell
wondered how the right hon. and learned Gentleman could reconcile it to himself to fix his bill for Wednesday se'nnight, after the strong and unanswerable reasons which he had given for not bringing it on at all on a Wednesday.
Motion agreed to, and the second reading of the Bill appointed for Wednesday, May 5th.
WATCHING, &C. PARISHES BILL.]
Mr. Portman
, on moving that this Bill be read a second time, said, that he wished to have it sent to a committee up stairs, in order to have the machinery of it properly regulated. He wished, also, to exempt from its operation the metropolis, the different parishes adjoining the metropolis, and all those parishes, in different parts of the country, which had the benefit of local acts for the same object.
The Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
POOR-LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.]
On the Motion of Mr. Slaney, the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Poor-Laws Amendment Bill. Mr. R. Colborne in the Chair. On putting a clause enacting that children whose parents are unable to support them may be provided for by parishes in places to be appointed,
39
Sir Thomas Baring
objected to this clause, stating, that it involved a question of the utmost importance, and which required the most serious consideration. He never remembered any similar clause in any former enactment, and he was afraid the Members were not aware of its import. Such a proposition had indeed been agitated in former committees, but never sanctioned, he believed, by a recommendation from them. It was one to which he never did and never would consent. It authorised the parish overseers to take away their children from the poor, and provide for them, and educate them. Good God! was it not enough that these people were poor? must the legislature also deprive them of their children? The great mass of the labouring classes were already too much degraded; and to take away their offspring from them would cut asunder all the ties which yet bound them to good behaviour, and connected them with the rest of the world. The clause was, in his opinion, so objectionable, so likely to be destructive of all good feelings in the poor, that he was bound to oppose it.
Mr. Robert Gordon
said, that he took shame to himself that he had not before made himself acquainted with the Bill. He had only read it after he had entered the House, and he must say, that he never remembered so improper an instance of legislative interference. The hon. Member who brought in the bill assumed that the poor married because they knew that their children would be provided for. He did not believe that assumption to be well founded; but if it were, he took the readiest method to encourage them to do so, for he expressly declared by this clause, that their children should be educated and provided for, though separated from themselves. The clause was not only objectionable on the score of cruelty, it was also impolitic, and would not answer the only end for which it was proposed. He should most certainly object to that clause, and unless it were omitted, he should oppose the Bill altogether.
Mr. Cripps
said, no person who was at all acquainted with the country, and with the habits and manners of the people, could support such a clause. The Gentleman who had introduced it could not, he was persuaded, know anything of the people he attempted to legislate for. He believed that it would promote early mar-
40
Lord Althorp
only wished to explain to the Committee how the clause was introduced into the Bill. The committee which sat up stairs to make inquiries into the state of the poor, had been informed by several persons who were examined—which was indeed a well-known matter of fact—that a great many of the poor were so very badly off, that they could not provide for their own children; they were brought up therefore at the expense of the parish, either at their own homes, or in the parish workhouse. Being neglected, therefore, receiving little or no education, these children when they grew up came, in their turn, to be the parents of beings as destitute as themselves. They, therefore, perpetuated the evil of pauperism, and it was supposed by the committee, that one means, and which appeared to the committee a feasible, a proper, and, he would add, a humane means of checking that evil would be, to take the children of such parents as were quite unable to provide for them, and by educating them, raise them above the miserable condition of their parents. This was the view of the committee; in this, he must say, he saw nothing cruel, nothing deserving the censure of hon. Members. It should be always remembered that the clause applied only to those children whose parents were quite unable to provide for them.
Mr. Wilmot Horton
expressed his satisfaction that a clause of the kind under consideration had been introduced into the Bill, because it involved that great principle of population which the House must sooner or later be called on to take into consideration. He was very much obliged to his hon. friend for having introduced the clause. The question the House would have to consider would be, the relation between the capital of the country and its population; between the means of employment, and the number of labourers, with a view of making them equal, and keeping one from outgrowing
41
Mr. Frankland Lewis
said, he thought Gentlemen who objected to this clause on the score of inhumanity, and who stated that it was unexampled in legislature—who, like the hon. member for Cricklade, had taken the Bill into his hands for the first time that evening, must be quite unacquainted with the fact, that the House had actually passed a bill with this clause in it, or one precisely similar in principle, in 1816. That bill was lost in another place. He did not mean, however, to state that the House, having before given its consent to such a measure, was then bound to support this clause. In fact, he could not vote for it, and he would state why: he knew that by the 43rd of Elizabeth, the overseers had the power of setting an able-bodied pauper to work, but they could not set his infant children to work; and as they were bound to give the means of supporting the children, they gave it to the father, being unable to give it to the children, so that for the maintenance of his children, though not on his own account, he did in fact obtain the money. To obviate this, it was proposed to establish institutions where pauper children were to be fed, and clothed, and educated; but he thought such a system could never be effected, because it broke through all those ties that nature imposed. It had been said, indeed, that the children of the rich were thus separated from their parents; but every one must perceive the difference between the master of an institution where the children were on principle taught to look to others than their natural protectors, and those nurses and schoolmasters whom the rich employed to bring up their children, and whose interest was most closely
42
43
Mr. Wodehouse
thought that the clause for separating the children from their parents, never could be carried into effect; and if it could, it would be productive of more harm than good.
Mr. Benett
, having acted as a magistrate in a large district for thirty years, begged to deny some of the statements that had just been made. With respect to the plan of bringing back the Poor-laws to the state in which they were in the reign of Elizabeth, he should approve of it if it were practicable; but he feared it was not, for the state of the country was much changed since that time. We were then an agricultural people, having no surplus labourers; now we were a manufacturing people, working by machinery, and having a large surplus population; and we were thus reduced to straits, from which we knew not how to escape, but by a better administration of the present system. An hon. Member had called some of the payments now made an assignment of wages out of the Poor-rates: he denied it. The value of labour was regulated by the proportion of the supply to the demand, and no law of this description could alter it. A pauper with several children could not support himself upon 8
s.
s.
44
Mr. Courtenay
was willing to assent to the Bill, provided it were accompanied with the clause recommended by the right hon. member for Ashburton (Mr. Sturges Bourne). That clause, a few years ago, had been brought forward in the shape of a separate measure, and the object of it was, to provide, instead of giving paupers increased wages when their families amounted to a certain number, that some of their children, if not wholly taken from them, should at least be supported and educated by the parish. The clause suggested did not necessarily require the separation of the parents from their children;
45
Mr. W. Horton
was anxious to preserve a moral check upon the poor man, in order to prevent his marrying until he was in a situation to maintain a family. At pre-sent, if a labourer married, he knew that his children must be supported by the parish, if he could not support them him- self. The principle of separating parents and children had been adopted in a clause already approved by the Committee, so that, if it were now objected to successfully, the Bill must be re-committed, in order to remedy the discrepancy. The Bill did not at all deprive the pauper of relief; it only declared that the relief should be given entirely as the parish thought fit, and not partly in a weekly allowance in money, and partly in educating and feeding his children. He was anxious that the Bill should be made prospective, and if it were rendered so he should give it his decided support.
Mr. Benett
observed, that as the law now stood, it allowed the separation of paupers and their children, for the purpose of being apprenticed by the parish; but that was quite a different thing to separat
46
Mr. Slaney
said, that if he thought the effect of his Bill would be to depress instead of elevating the character of the poor of this country, he would abandon it at once and instantly. He had read every report of every committee, and every work of reputation on the subject, and founding himself upon them, he had brought forward this Bill, in the hope of remedying acknowledged and existing abuses. After investigating all parts of the question, the committee, of which he had the honour to be Chairman, had come to the almost unanimous determination, that it was necessary to face the evil and to point out a remedy. That remedy was the Bill before the House, and he had proceeded cautiously, but steadily and firmly, in endeavouring to bring it into operation. The abuses of the Poor-laws were not, as some supposed, general; they were confined very much to the south of England, for in the North they were very beneficial in their operation. In the last Session an objection had been taken by the right hon. member for Ashburton (Mr. S. Bourne), and in order to obviate that objection, certain clauses were introduced, not recommended by the committee; but on the authority of the right hon. Chairman of the Committee of 1817, who had published one of the most valuable reports ever laid upon the Table of Parliament. The object of the present Bill was, to restore some parts of the south of England to the present condition of the North, as related to the maintenance of the poor. The magistrates of the south, in the teeth of the law, and acting upon a mistaken notion of humanity and benevolence, had apportioned the relief of the poor by the price of bread, and this principle had been introduced into about sixteen or seventeen counties. The effect had been in all those situations to degrade the poor, and to render them indifferent and dependent, while in the north of England, where no such practice prevailed, they were still independent, honest, and industrious. All that he asked was, that by this Bill a wholesome uniformity might, in this respect, be established. The hon. member for Radnor (Mr. F. Lewis) had contended, indeed, that the admitted evil was so extensive, that no remedy could be applied to it; but he (Mr. Slaney) hoped that this measure, if adopted, would accomplish
47
Mr. Cripps
gave the hon. Member credit for the ability and perseverance he had shown upon this subject, although he was convinced that it would be impossible to carry the Bill into effect, even if it were passed. He maintained that in Gloucestershire the magistrates had no choice but to regulate the degree of relief by the price of bread. No comparison could fairly be instituted between the South and. the North of England, inas-
48
l
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he was sorry that there had not been a preliminary discussion—that they had not discussed the principle of the Bill before they went into committee upon it. At present, instead of paying all that attention to the clauses which it was the practice of the House to pay in committees, they had occupied themselves chiefly with discussing the principle of the Bill; thus reversing the usual course of business, by leaving to the third reading the arrangement of the clauses, and occupying the time of the Committee with that which ought to be done at the third reading. He wished, therefore, that the hon. Mover would endeavour, in the Committee, to render the Bill as perfect as possible according to his own conception, and then let it take its fate on the third reading. The hon. Gentleman had expressed his readiness to do all in his power to meet the views of Members, and so to frame or alter the Bill as to obtain general support: in doing so, he more indulged his own good nature than did what was calculated to promote the success of the Bill. He really thought that the object of the hon. Member would be best effected by making the Bill as perfect as possible, according to his own conception, and not by endeavouring to accommodate it to the fancies of every hon. Member. Though he saw
49
50
51
Mr. Wilmot Horton
thought that many of the objections to the Bill would be obviated, if it were distinctly understood that its regulations were to be prospective. It was proposed to fill up the blank in the clause then under discussion with the words "four years," thus giving to the Overseers and Churchwardens the power objected to only over the offspring of the parties who might marry four years after the Bill was passed.
Sir T. Baring
said, that the hon. Member proposed to effect two objects by this Bill,—the one was, to raise the character of the pauper, the other to diminish the poor-rates. He thought the Bill calculated to effect neither of these objects. Was it raising the character of the pauper to insist that every man, himself and his family, should be maintained wholly by the parish if he came for relief at all? And could it be supposed that the very expensive machinery of this Bill would diminish the parish rates? He thought the Bill would degrade the pauper still farther, and increase the poor-rates.
Mr. C. Wood
said, that the Bill had been very much mistaken; and that, far from inflicting any hardship, it conferred a boon upon the poor, He looked upon it in a very different light from the hon. Baronet. By the law as it stood, the overseer might take the child of a pauper when it was nine years old and put it out as an apprentice; and all which this Bill did was to allow the overseers to take the child at an earlier period, making it, by education, more fit for the purpose of being bound to some trade.
Sir T. Fremantle
said, that the Bill did no more than make that practice legal which was at present carried on every day without law. The practice, it was said, also, would be inconvenient; but in fact it was now done without any inconvenience. In many parts of the country, as he knew the paupers were employed in gravel-pits, or at any suitable work for the joint benefit of those who were obliged to support them, and they received sufficient wages. He did not see any difference between such cases and what the hon. Member proposed to accomplish by his Bill. On the whole, he thought that the measure would be beneficial to the paupers, and though there might be some difficulties in carrying it
52
Mr. Estcourt
gave the hon. Member who brought in the Bill every credit for his meritorious exertions, but he thought the hon. Member was legislating on effects, not on causes. The practice prevailing in the north might be a very good practice there, but it might be a very bad one for the south, unless the conditions of the two were the same. The hon. Member appeared to him to have lost sight of one thing: there was a manufacture at one time in the south, which was removed afterwards into the north. At that time the population of the north was small, that of the south was large. The population of the north, it was true, had increased, but so also had the manufacture; while in the south, the manufacture was lost, and the large population remained to be provided for. Under such circumstances, what could be done but to get the farmers to employ as many as they could, and make those who contributed to the rates provide for the rest. He agreed that this system had a tendency to lower the rate of wages, but what else could be done? Many other circumstances too, such as the intervention of a person between the labourer and his employer, and the law of settlement, had been overlooked by the hon. Member. He did not think the plan would answer the object proposed, and he was afraid it would entail a great increase of expense on parishes. He therefore must oppose it.
Mr. Slaney
said, that the hon. Member who spoke last had made out a strong case in favour of the Bill, by admitting that the law was deviated from in the south, and by admitting also the injurious effects of such deviation. Wherever the practice prevailed against which the Bill was directed the poor were ill off, and where it was not found they were well oft". As to the manufacture which the hon. Member said had been transferred from the south to the north; what manufacture, he would ask, had Sussex ever had? And yet Sussex was lowest in the scale. What manufacture had Kent ever had? Wiltshire, it was true, had once a manufacture, but the fact was, that the mischiefs were the greatest in districts which were, and ever had been, merely agricultural districts. Thus in the county of Sussex, exclusively an agricultural county, young men of eighteen or twenty made no scruple of
53
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, the hon. Member was too hasty in supposing that he agreed with him in all the clauses of the Bill, because he did not object to them at present. He was anxious, however, to reserve any expression of opinion until he saw how the hon. Member proposed to carry his plan into effect, and he therefore hoped the Bill would go to a third reading.
Mr. Benett
said, one reason for the increase of the poor-rates in the south and west of England was, that manufactures of flannel and woollen had been all re-
54
GALWAY FRANCHISE BILL COMMITTEE.]
Mr. S. Rice
Mr. Daly
opposed the Motion, upon the grounds that the House had agreed to hear counsel against the Bill, and he had that evening, at eight o'clock, received a letter from Mr. Adam, the counsel, stating that he was unable to attend.
Mr. S. Rice
pressed the Motion. He thought, in the first place, whatever inconvenience it might be to a counsel to attend at the Bar, that should not be held as a sufficient reason for stopping the progress of a public bill; and secondly, he thought the case was not one in which counsel should be heard at all, because there was only one petition opposed to the prayers of a great number. He farther contended, that when the whole Bar of England was open to a man's choice, he had only himself to blame if he were left in any difficulty by the absence of a single person. He, for one, would move, "that the Speaker leave the Chair."
Mr. Daly
produced the letter, and declared he was not to blame. He saw Mr. Adam after receiving that intimation, and he had repeated the contents of that communication to him.
Mr. S. Rice
observed, that Mr. Adam had been in the House of Lords that evening.
Sir G. Hill
observed, it had been decided by the House, that counsel should be heard. The question then to be considered was, if the absence of Mr. Adam was sufficient to authorize a postponement.
Mr. S. Rice
remarked, that counsel might equally well be heard on the report,
55
Mr. Daly
asked if the hon. member for Limerick would say that Mr. Adam did speak in the House of Lords that night?
Mr. W. Wynn
thought they should not postpone the consideration of a public measure upon the simple assertion that it would be inconvenient for a counsel to attend. The principle would be highly injurious, as there was no public bill which might not be stopped if such excuses were suffered to prevail.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he apprehended that the petition was not opposed to the principle, but to certain clauses of the Bill; and he thought his hon. friend was not liable to the slightest blame. He had, at a late hour that very evening, received a letter from the counsel, stating that his state of health was such that he could not attend. And what was he then to do? He could not get another at that time, although he might certainly have previously chosen from the whole Bar of England. He considered that the hon. member for Limerick had a right to call upon the House to proceed with the Bill after such a manner as would prevent the possibility of any obstacles being thrown in its way that might have the effect of checking its progress for the Session, and he accordingly believed it would be well if his hon. friend acquiesced in permitting the Bill to go through this stage, upon the understanding that counsel should be heard upon the report; so that if a sufficiently strong case against any of the clauses were made out, his hon. friend might have the opportunity of moving the recommitted of the Bill, and thus be placed in the same situation in which he now stood. He would therefore submit, that the Bill should now be suffered to go on, upon the understanding that counsel should be heard on Wednesday next, when the Report might be brought up.
Mr. S. Rice
observed, that the petition was against the principle; he did not, accordingly, see how the Bill could be recommitted. He, however, was willing to agree to the arrangement.
56
Mr. Daly
having expressed his satisfaction in the arrangement, the Bill was passed through a Committee, and the Re port ordered to be received on Wednesday; counsel to be heard against it.
DESERTED CHILDREN (IRELAND) BILL.]
Lord F. L. Gower
rose to move the second reading of this Bill. He explained that it was his intention to remodel the Bill, so as to confine it to the first of the two objects it proposed to embrace, namely—a provision for Deserted Children, and an abolition of the Foundling Hospital. The other point, which was a favourite one with himself, he proposed for the present to abandon; and this he did the more readily, because there was a committee then sitting above stairs, which would, in all probability, take the subject into consideration, and make some suggestion respecting it. He trusted, therefore, that as he had divided this Bill under separate heads, he might have it now read a second time without opposition. He acknowledged that there would be great difficulties in the way of this second division of the Bill, which referred to illegitimate children, and therefore he had proposed it for further consideration.
Mr. O'Connell
observed, great difficulties would arise in the details. Children might be transferred from one part of the country to another, and a species of parochial questions would arise as to whether they had been properly abandoned or no. He thought it might, perhaps, be better if the entire subject was to lie over for farther consideration. He would not, however, oppose the second reading.
Bill read a second time.
USURY LAWS BILL.]
Mr. Poulett Thomson
wished to postpone the discussion on the second reading of this Bill; but the sense of the House was evidently against it. The hon. Member then proceeded to say, that in the present Bill he had endeavoured to meet the objections which had been made to the measure he had introduced last Session. These objections were directed to two points; namely, that in borrowing upon the security of real property, great inconvenience arose from persons tying themselves down to the payment of a rate of interest from which they were never afterwards able to relieve themselves; and secondly, that young men of good expectations were in
57
Mr. Heathcote
declared, that nothing should induce him to relax in his exertions to prevent the Bill from passing into a law. Even the reservations in the Bill were more injurious than would be the abolition of the Usury Laws altogether. His hon. friend proposed to exempt mortgages from the operation of the Bill. If money were lent on mortgage for more than five per cent, the borrower might bring the case into a court of law, and the lender could not recover more than five per cent. But of what advantage would that be to the borrower? For although the lender could not recover more than five per cent, he might recall the mortgage. Was the present a proper moment at which to bring forward such a proposition? If any interest in the country were at the present moment in a prosperous state, it was the monied interest. The low price of every article, the change that had taken place in the currency, had all been favourable to the capitalist, yet at such a time his hon. friend proposed to allow the capitalist to take what might be considered as unlimited interest. If it were true that the time for such a change was inexpedient as respected the state of the monied interest, it was still more true, that it was inexpedient as respected the state of the agricultural interest; oppressed as that interest was with want of confidence, and with other difficulties, which his hon. friend's Bill must tend to enhance. All bills of this description had hitherto had an unfortunate termination; and he would venture to prophesy that this measure would share the fate of its predecessors. As he was persuaded that the sooner it was got rid of the better, he should certainly divide the House upon the present Motion.
Mr. Gordon
regretted that his hon.
58
Mr. Calcraft
did not intend to trouble the House on the present occasion, but, as his hon. friend had called upon him, he had no hesitation in saying, that he maintained the same opinions upon the subject as he had formerly held. He had been induced to believe that the Bill of the hon. member for Dover was somewhat different in its provisions from the bill of the learned Serjeant. The hon. Member said, that the Bill would not affect mortgages, but in this he did not concur. He could not agree with him, that it would leave them in the same state in which it found them; since it legalized the loan of money at a higher rate of interest than five per cent. But he objected on general grounds to so great a change in the money system of this country. There already existed, he thought, sufficient anxiety and want of confidence in all money transactions; and the effect of suddenly changing the law concerning them would be to add considerably to the difficulties of every class in the country except that class which laboured under no difficulty at all. If his hon. friend had not called upon him he should not have troubled the House upon the question, as he had not read the Bill, and had not conceived that it tended to make so great an alteration in the money system of the country as he now found. He should therefore oppose the second reading, and continue to pursue the same course as formerly, which, though it might be called the result, of ignorance, he should persevere in, until some new light should be thrown on the question, and induce him to change his opinion.
59
Mr. Robinson
maintained that the present system operated most injuriously on large classes of commercial and trading-men. At the time when the existing laws were passed, there were reasons why money should not bear a higher interest than five per cent. Capital was at that period less abundant than it was at present; for it was a great mistake to suppose that capital was not at present abundant, not only in this country, but over the whole world. Under such circumstances, was it not a great hardship that both lenders and borrowers should be limited in their transactions? It was a great mistake to suppose that means were not at present resorted to, such as annuities and others, by which money was borrowed and lent at a rate greater than that which the law allowed. His hon. friend's Bill would do away with all the evils into which borrowers were driven by the absurd existing regulations. Having said so much in favour of the principle of the Bill, he must add, that he was decidedly adverse to that clause in it which, having allowed parties to borrow and lend at a greater rate than five per cent, held out a temptation to the borrower to go into a court of law for the purpose of violating his contract.
Lord Althorp
was of opinion, that if the Usury Laws were to be changed, there could be no more convenient time for the alteration than the present. As to the fraud which it was said the Bill would sanction, it should be remembered that the same means of fraud existed at present, nay greater; for if a party borrowing money at usurious interest brought the party lending into a court of law, he could refuse not only to pay the interest, but the principal also. He did not believe that the repeal of the Usury Laws would be disadvantageous to the landed interest; as it would not subject them to pay more for money than they did at present. He should support the Bill, as he had done all others of a similar description.
Sir C. Wetherell
was not surprised that the Bill should be supported by the laity; but should have been exceedingly surprised if any lawyer had supported a measure which contained so gross an inconsistency as a repeal of the Usury Laws, while it preserved a clause, which allowed a contract to be made for unlimited interest, but permitted the borrower to bring
60
Mr. O'Connell
rose, in answer to the assertion of the hon. and learned Gentleman that no lawyer would be found to support the Bill. His only objection to it was, that it did not go far enough; he wished to see the Usury Laws abolished entirely. All attempts to put a maximum price upon any commodity—and money was a commodity—were absurd. Laws of that description could not be executed; they had never been executed. He had known instances in Ireland in which annuities of fourteen, fifteen, or eighteen per cent had been granted for money, when, if there had been no violation of the law, eight or nine per cent would have been the utmost that would have been given for it. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that the cases of persons suffering from the law as it at present stood was extremely rare. He, however, could not agree to that, for he had known many cases of persons in Ireland who, by taking more than the legal rate of interest, had lost the principal, and in one particular instance he knew of a family having been ruined by such a circumstance. The law, as proposed by the hon. member for Dover, at least secured the principal. The only possible loss would be the additional bonus. But this was said to prove the absurdity of the proposition.
61
The Solicitor General
said, he had never been an advocate for the total repeal of the Usury Laws; but now, on further consideration, he doubted whether they ought not to be altogether repealed. At all events, however, they needed alteration; and then the question was, what that alteration ought to be. He agreed with the noble Lord, that if ever there was a happy moment for the alteration, the present was that moment, the interest on money being not above two per cent. To allow men to ask twenty when they would be obliged to lend at two, did not certainly appear to be a very great evil. With regard to mortgages, parties generally undertook to pay legal interest, and generally were enabled to borrow money at that rate, the evasions which occurred being only exceptions to the general rule. If, therefore, they should have a law, making the legal interest recoverable in a court of justice upon such contracts five per cent, the great majority of mortgages in this country would still be effected at that interest. If the House were not prepared to do that, and the matter were left open, the interest would be generally taken at the market price. The great evil of the Usury Laws was felt in times of pressure: and he must admit, that it fell heaviest upon those whom they were intended to favour. With these sentiments he should not divide against the Bill, though he did not think that it was one which would ever pass into a law. The learned member for Clare had adverted to that which had been long felt as an injurious consequence of the present Usury Laws—the cutting down of contracts which, perhaps, had been drawn up under the direction of the best lawyers, and where it was afterwards discovered that the interest taken was illegal.
62
The Altorney General
said, that he thought this Bill should fix a certain rate of interest for some transactions, by which a jury could be guided in their verdicts when such cases came before them; the Bill should, for instance, fix a rate of interest, say four, or five, or six per cent, where no specific contract had been made, as in the case of a bill of exchange, which, it is always supposed will be paid, up to the last day, when, if not paid, interest commences upon it. That rate of interest should be specified by the law. He, from the first time he had considered the subject, had always been an advocate for the repeal of the Usury Laws, and he
63
l.
l.
The House then divided. For the
64
SUPERANNUATION ALLOWANCES.]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
, in rising to move for a Select Committee on this subject, said, that this mode appeared to him to be the best and most unobjectionable one of providing for the old servants of the public. Till this system was adopted, they were either obliged to employ incompetent persons, or to keep back a portion of the salaries of persons as they came into office: but these modes he thought very objectionable. At all events, the appointment of a committee on the subject was very desirable, as in that case the circumstances would be looked into by those who were best able to judge of the matter, and who would propose to the House such alterations as were best calculated to prove beneficial. After the failure of the bill of the Session before last, which he had submitted to the House, the Government could do no more, till it found a spirit of economy reviving among hon. Members, and a disposition to allow the Government to carry into effect the recommendations of the Finance Committee. The Government had done all that was in its power. It had made a deduction from the salaries of all persons appointed since that recommendation, in order to form a superannuation fund. His object, therefore, in going into the committee would be, to inquire into what ought to be done in regard to those offices and salaries already in existence, and which were held before the recommendation. With a view to regulate those offices which might be hereafter created, or those appointments which might be hereafter made, he had a bill prepared, which he did not mean however to bring in till after the Committee had examined the subject. The Committee would then have the opportunity of examining the whole subject, and, according to its report, some permanent system of legislation might be established. It was not becoming the Legislature, to go on year after year, making new regulations on such a subject. It was due both to the public and individuals, that the whole matter should be regulated on some general principle, it was not right to enact a law one Session and repeal it the next; and it would be equally beneficial to the public and just to the individuals, to settle the principles on which every man entering the service hereafter
65
Mr. Robert Gordon
said, he never was more surprised in his life than he was at hearing the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman. The House would probably do him the justice to recollect that he had, a short time before brought forward a Motion on this subject, founded on the admitted fact, that a half-pay officer, on accepting a civil situation, was obliged to give up his half-pay; while an officer on full pay, on accepting such a situation, was allowed to retain all his emoluments. He had then mentioned several instances of the latter, and he had proposed, as an equitable rule, that officers on full pay should be subject to the same restrictions as officers on half-pay. He had withdrawn that motion in consequence of the right hon. member for Liverpool suggesting, that the whole subject ought to undergo inquiry and revision, and that if nobody else undertook the matter, that right hon. Gentleman stated that he would himself bring it before the House. He wanted to know, then, why the question of officers on full pay accepting civil situations was not included in the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer: and he was unfeignedly surprised that it was not included. Now finding, contrary to his just expectations, that it was not noticed at all, contrary too he thought, to the promise given by the right hon. member for Liverpool, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he would allow him to move an instruction to the committee, to extend its inquiries into the conditions on which officers on full pay, accepting civil situations, should receive their emoluments. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would permit him to move that the committee be instructed to inquire into the expediency of persons in the Military and Naval service,
66
l.
l.
Mr. Trant
seconded the Motion. The hon. Member observed, that no credit would be given to the Government out of doors, unless it began its economical reductions with its highest officers. He was
67
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
objected to the Motion. He had no wish to deny that it related to a subject of great importance, and well worthy of the consideration of the House. He objected to it, however, because it was not necessarily connected with the object he had in view. He had given no pledge to the hon. Member. The only pledge which had been given was, that the whole subject of superannuations and pensions should be inquired into,—and to redeem that pledge, his present Motion had been brought forward. The hon. Member might submit a motion on the subject of his instruction to the House, and it was well worthy of separate consideration; but he could not consent to the present committee entering into the inquiry proposed.
Mr. R. Gordon
said, he was move surprised, even at the opposition of the right hon. Gentleman, than he was at his omission. He had withdrawn his own Motion, on a distinct understanding that the Government would propose an inquiry—and now he found, not only, that it would not propose such an inquiry, but that it would not allow him, on a very fit and proper opportunity, to enter into it.
Motion negatived without a division.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, April 27, 1830.
MINUTES.] The Haymarket Removal Bill and the Four per-Cents Bill were committed.
Petitions presented. By Earl FITZWILLIAM, two from the Inhabitants of Places in the West Hiding of Yorkshire, praying that the Assizes might be held for that part of the County at Wakefield, By the Duke of SOMERSET, from Tomes?, in favour of the Emancipation of the Jews. Praying for the Abolition of the Punishment of Heath for Forger)', by Lord VERNON, from Derby:—By the ARCHBISHOP of CANTERBURY, from Margate:—And by Lord DURHAM, from Stockton-upon-Tees, and from Darlington. By Lord HOLLAND, from the Magistrates of the County of Lancaster, praying that the Imperfections of the Welch Judicature might be improved, but that its frame might not be destroyed. By Earl STANROPE, from Hastings, against the Renewal of the East India Company's Charter; and from the Agriculturists of Cireneester, complaining of Distress, and praying for Relief. And by the Duke of BUCCLEUGH, from the Dalkeith Farmers' Society, against the additional Duty on British Spirits.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Earl STANHOPE, Account of the Exports of British Manufactures, from 1798 to 1814, and from 1814 to 1830:—Also of Foreign and Colonial Produce:—Also similar Returns from Ireland:—And also Accounts of all the species of Imports during the same period:—Particular Accounts of the Imports and Exports of Cotton during the same period:—Account of the Money paid and payable to the Bank of England for the management of the Public Debt in 1829:—Balance of
68
EAST RETFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT
Witnesses were examined at great length on this Bill. The cross-examination of one witness by Mr. Stevenson, who was (with Mr. Adam and Mr. Alderson) counsel for the petitioners against the Bill, occasioned
The Lord Chancellor
to object to a third counsel being employed, it being contrary to the general practice and rules of the House to allow more than two counsel to be engaged on a side on any private bill.
On this question a conversation of some length ensued.
The Marquis of Salisbury
supported the same view as the Lord Chancellor.
Lord Durham
supported the propriety of allowing the third counsel to be heard. This was a Bill of Pains and Penalties; it had assumed a great degree of political importance, in consequence of having occasioned a division of the Cabinet; it was supported by several of the Cabinet Ministers, and therefore he thought it was the duty of their Lordships to relax the rule, even if it were a rule which they generally followed. He did not know that the rule had never been deviated from; and in a case like that, it would be proper in their Lordships to give the petitioners a more than usual latitude. If he were to consent to Mr. Adam's pursuing that cross-examination, which Mr. Stevenson was conducting so ably as to call the attention of their Lordships to him, he should recognise the principle, that only two counsel could be employed. He would therefore move that their Lordships should then adjourn the further consideration of the question, in order to give time to examine whether or not it were a general rule of the House that only two counsel should be heard.
The Earl of Carnarvon
said, that he had no objection to the greatest latitude being given; all that he was afraid of was, the longitude of the case.
The Lord Chancellor
said, that in the cases of Penryn, Grampound and Barn-staple, two counsel only had appeared at the Bar of that House. He would move that only two counsel on behalf of the petitioners against the Bill should be heard.
Lord Durham
69
The House divided—For the Lord Chancellor's Motion 10; Against it 3—Majority 7.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, April 27, 1830.
MINUTES.] Returns presented. Number of Commissioners belonging to the London Bankrupt List:—Fees of Conveyancing and general Law Business (Scotland):—The Nineteenth Report of the Commissioners of Judicial Inquiry (Ireland):—The Expenditure of the Consular and Diplomatic Establishments in the New States of America:—An Abstract of the Reports concerning Pauper Lunatics from the different Counties of England and Wales.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Sir JOHN NEWPORT, of any Money advanced by the Commissioners of First Fruits for the Purchase of the Rent reserved on the Glebe Land of Balymaglassan (County of Meath) in 1818:—Also, of Money advanced by the said Commissioners for the Erection of a Glebe House at the same place, specifying the time, &c.
Petitions presented. For the Abolition of the Punishment of Death in cases of Forgery—By Mr. WALROND from the Clergy and others of Sudbury:—By Mr. Alderman THOMPSON, from the Congregation of York-street, Wal-worth:—By Sir ROWLAND HILL, from the Clergy, Gentry, and other Inhabitants of Madely, Salop:—By Lord JOHN RUSSELL, from Newton, in the County of Bedford:—By Mr. R. PALMER, from the Mayor, Alder-men, and Burgesses of Maidenhead:—By Mr. DICKENSON, from the Inhabitants of Bath. Against any Alteration in the Welsh Judicature, by Sir JOHN OWEN, from the Inhabitants of Castle Martin; and from the Grand Jury of Cardigan:—By Sir W. W. WYNN, from the Grand Jurors of the County of Pembroke; and from the Freeholders of the County of Denbigh:—By Mr. PRYSE, from the Burgesses of Cardigan:—By Mr. HUGH OWEN, from the Burgesses of Pembroke:—And by Mr. RICE TREVOR, from the Inhabitants of Carmarthen. Against the Parish Matching and Lighting Bill, by Mr. BRIGHT, from the Commissioners of Paving (Bristol):—And by Mr. H. BATLEY, from the Commissioners for Improving and Paving St. Pancras (Middlesex). Against the additional Duty on Corn Spirits, by Colonel LYGON, from the People frequenting Worcester Market. Complaining of the Expense of Passing Vagrants, by Colonel LYGON, from S. Smith, Esq. Chairman of a Meeting of Justices in the County of Worcester. By Mr. W. SMITH, from the Inhabitants of Wick, praying for a continuance of the Bounties on curing Fish. Against a Free Trade in Beer, by Mr. MARSHALL, from the Licensed Victuallers of Sheffield:—By Mr. BERNAL, from Leamington.—By Mr. TYNTE, from the Licensed Victuallers of Bridgewater:—By Lord GEORGE LENNOX, from Chiehcster:—By Mr. MILDMAN, from the Licensed Victuallers of Winchester.
[The petitioners declared that it was impossible to get rid of the stock of Beer brewed for winter consumption, as well as the Beer brewed for summer consumption, within the time allowed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
, in reply to a question from Sir M.W. Ridley, said, his attention had been drawn to the propriety of allowing a drawback on the Beer remaining on hand; but he was satisfied, after mature consideration, that the Government would be liable to imposition by that method.]
70
IRISH PROTESTANT CHURCH.]
Mr. Robert King
rose, to present a Petition from the Inhabitants of the County and City of Cork, respecting the Established Church of Ireland, of his intention to present which he had last night given notice. The individuals by whom it was signed, in all 3,000, were all members of the Established Church. When the importance of the subject, and the number and respectability of the parties from whom the Petition had emanated, and who had intrusted it to him, were considered, he was persuaded that the House would deem it entitled to most serious attention. The objects which the petitioners had in view were, to effect a more equal distribution of the Church Revenues in Ireland, and to correct the abuses which existed in the administration of that Church. The petitioners declared, that they were convinced of the purity of the doctrines of the Protestant Church—that they were convinced of the purity of the Episcopal Establishments—that they were desirous of supporting the privileges of that Establishment—that they distinctly acknowledged the right of the Established Church of Ireland, as a body, to the Church Properly and Revenues—that they were far from considering that property and those revenues as superabundant, if they were more equitably distributed; and that they earnestly deprecated the application of any portion of the Church property to secular purposes, as tending to violate the principles of the Constitution, to endanger the connexion which ought to subsist between the Church and State, and to lead to national confusion and ruin. But while they were extremely desirous that the Church revenues should not be invaded for any temporal purposes, they contended that those revenues ought to be more equally distributed among the different classes of the members of the establishment. At present some of the dignitaries of the Established Church in Ireland enjoyed much beyond what the most liberal estimate would consider them entitled to, while on the other hand, those members of the Church on whom the most arduous and important duties devolved, received pittances insufficient for the supply of their most moderate wants, and entirely inadequate as a provision for those who performed services of so valuable a character. While, therefore, the petitioners admitted that a diversity of orders required a diversity of incomes,
71
On the Motion for bringing up the Petition,
Colonel Beresford
said, he did not intend to offer any opposition to the reception of the Petition, but he wished to state one or two facts. His hon. friend, in presenting the Petition, had spoken of it as being most respectably signed, as if it represented the sentiments of the entire Protestant population of Cork. But the fact was, that. out of a population of 30,000 Protestants, only 3,000 had signed this Petition; that though there were seven
72
Mr. Hume
observed, that many of the opinions expressed in this Petition, respecting the Established Church of Ireland, were similar to those which he had himself expressed in that House many years before. He had at that time reprobated the pluralities and the other abuses in the Church of Ireland, to which the Petition adverted. He regretted that he was not at the present moment in possession of the admirable remarks on the subject, which had been subsequently made by the noble Lord who presided at the meeting from which the Petition emanated. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, had denied that the Petition proceeded from the majority of the Protestant inhabitants of the County and City of Cork. But could he say that the averments of the petitioners were false? Could he deny the force of their statements? And was not a Petition, proceeding from 3,000 persons, fifty-eight of whom were Magistrates, and one a Peer, deserving the most serious attention of the House? As to its having been signed by only one Peer, it was not very extraordinary that few Peers should be found disposed to sign such a Petition, since it was their interest to keep the revenues of the Church at the disposal of the Ministers, who, as the noble Lord to whom he had already alluded stated, employed them for the purpose of bribing both Peers and Commoners. He knew the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman who had presented the Petition; and he claimed equal credit for sincerity when he declared that he entirely differed from the hon. Gentleman and the petitioners in their opinion, that the existing Established Church of Ireland was suitable to the present time, or fit for the country in which it existed. He had on a former occasion stated that a reform of that Establishment was loudly called
73
Mr. King
explained,—The statements
74
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
did not rise to enter into a discussion upon the subjects adverted to in this Petition, because he was of opinion that discussions upon the presentation of petitions were peculiarly inconvenient. He rose for the purpose of entering his protest against the supposition that his unwillingness to enter into those details now, argued an acquiescence, on his part, in the principles avowed by the hon. member for Aberdeen. That hon. Gentleman appeared to allude to some former contests with him upon this subject, and he seemed to intimate, that in those contests, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had uniformly attempted to defend, or to deny altogether, the abuses which were stated to exist in the Established Church in Ireland. Now, he was sure that those hon. Members who had done him the favour to attend to what had fallen from him with regard to those different subjects when under discussion, would recollect that he had uniformly expressed his opinion, in accordance with the sentiments of several of the most respectable Clergymen connected with the Church of Ireland, that several evils connected with the state of the Established Church in Ireland required correction. There had accordingly been much, he might say, done within the last few years, to place the Church of Ireland on the footing on which it ought to stand. There had grown up lately a desire in all ranks of people, and especially in the Church itself, to remedy those abuses which were admitted to exist, and which owed their existence not to any neglect or fault of the heads of the Church, but to the particular circumstances in which the Church itself was placed. He hoped that this subject would be discussed upon the principle of removing abuses where abuses were proved to exist, but not upon the principle of condemning the whole body of the Clergy because there had been sonic members of it who had misconducted themselves; still less upon the principle of appropriating the revenues of the Church, as was proposed, by the hon. Member op-
75
Lord F. L. Gower
rose for the purpose of saying a few words in consequence of the self-complacency with which the hon. member for Aberdeen referred to this Petition, signed by fifty-eight Magistrates of the county of Cork, as a confirmation of the peculiar views which he had himself; previously taken of the state of the property of the Church in Ireland. However valuable the hon. Member might conceive this Petition to be as a confirmation of his own arguments, he would venture to affirm, that there was very little concurrence in the main between these petitioners and the hon. Member. The Petition set out with a description of the advantages which the petitioners considered their country to have derived from the Established Church,—a point on which their opinion was much at variance with the opinions usually advanced by the hon. Member. Then, as to having the Church dealt with as the other establishments of the country were, by annual estimates, he must say, that he did not rely much on the prophecies which the hon. member for Aberdeen had made upon that head. On referring to that old almanack of which they had occasionally heard so much in that House, he found that there was no instance in which the property of the Church had been dealt with in the liberal fashion recommended by the hon. Member, where the property of individuals had been held sacred. If he should ever live to see the Church property thus dealt with, he should then deem his own property no longer safe. He would, therefore, oppose such projects to the utmost of his power. His conduct in so doing might not appear 'very meritorious, as it would be founded on a motive of self-interest, but he saw no reason why men should not consider their own interests, when the consideration of them tended also to the public benefit.
Lord Oxmantown
said, he differed entirely from the hon. member for Aberdeen, but he did not think the presentation of a petition the proper opportunity for entering into any extended discussion of the subject. He certainly was disposed to find fault with the system by which the Curates of the Church of Ireland were left entirely at the mercy of the incumbents of livings of which the Curates dis-
76
Sir John Newport
did not rise to prolong the discussion, but merely to remind the House, that it was not many days since it had presented an Address to the Crown, praying that it would appoint a commission to inquire into the abuses of the Ecclesiastical Establishments in Ireland. That commission had since been appointed, and he therefore was of opinion that, until the report of that commission was presented, any discussion like the present was both ill-timed and injudicious. When that report was laid upon the Table, they would see what abuses were clearly proved to exist, and what remedies were most easily applicable to them. For this reason, he should not trouble the House with any further observations on the present occasion.
Mr. Moore
would not have said a word upon the present occasion, had it not been for the extraordinary misapprehension under which the hon. member for Aberdeen appeared to labour. He would beg leave to remind that hon. Member that this Petition had been in preparation for some months before the meeting of Parliament. Those who had proposed it had challenged all the Protestants of Ireland to come forward in support of it. That challenge had not been answered,—a circumstance which, by itself, was a sufficient refutation of the allegations of the hon. member for Aberdeen, that his views with regard to Church property had met with the sanction of the great body of the Protestants of Ireland.
Mr. Baring
wished to enter his protest against the doctrine which had just been laid down by the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that in no case was it competent for Parliament to meddle with the property of the Church, which was to be considered as safe as any gentleman's private property. At the same time, he felt himself bound to declare, notwith
77
l.
78
Dr. Lushington
had no intention of speaking upon this Petition when he entered the House, but felt himself called upon to rise, in order to set right a statement which had just been made respecting some of our Bishops, and their mode of performing their duties. His hon. friend, the member for Callington, had stated to the House that the Bishop of Llandaff, who possessed but a small income from his diocese, resided constantly in London, owing to his being unable to provide himself with a suitable residence in his diocese in Wales. But he could inform the House, from his own knowledge, that that meritorious prelate had held it to be his duty to hire, at his own expense, a residence within his bishopric, and had gone down to it last summer, for the express purpose of performing his Episcopal duties. He should be extremely sorry if it went forth to the public that the Bishop of Llandaff had failed in the discharge of the functions of his station, when his conduct was of the most exemplary description. Next, as to the residence of the venerable Bishop of Hereford at Winchester. When the House considered that that Prelate was now past eighty years of age, and that he had discharged his duties in the most exemplary manner, as long as his strength and health permitted, it would hardly expect a man of his advanced age to do more than what he now did. It was only last year that he
79
l.
l.
l.
80
81
Lord Oxmantown
had no doubt that the learned civilian had correctly explained the law; but if the law respecting the licensing of curates were such as he had stated, it was never acted on, and he believed it was unknown in Ireland. He was himself acquainted with a case, in which a clergyman had faithfully performed the duties of a curate for five years; during the whole of that time he never could succeed in obtaining a license, and at the end of it he was dismissed by the rector who employed him, without any cause being assigned for his dismissal.
The Petition read.
Mr. Baring
said, that from the observations which had just fallen from his hon. and learned friend, he was afraid that he had unintentionally used expressions which reflected on the conduct of the reverend prelates whose names he had mentioned in his former speech. He assured the House, that if he had used such expressions, it was most unintentionally. No one could entertain a higher respect than he did for the Bishop of Hereford;
82
l.
l.
Sir R. Inglis
concurred in the observations which had been so pertinently made by the hon. and learned civilian who had just addressed the House. From every information which he had been able to acquire, the hon. and learned civilian was perfectly correct in the
maximum
83
Petition laid on the Table. On the question that it be printed,
Mr. Hume
took the opportunity of complaining that two of the right hon. Gentlemen on the opposite benches had strangely misrepresented what he had stated respecting Church property. He would never shrink from avowing any language which he had uttered; but he thought it a little too bad to hear language palmed upon him which he had never used. There was all the difference imaginable between the property belonging to Deans and Chapters and the property which private individuals had in advowsons. He wished that the vested interest of every incumbent, and of every advowson should be held sacred. His observations merely applied to Church property belonging to Bishops, Deans and Chapters, and other ecclesiastical corporations. The result of this debate satisfied him that some further inquiry was necessary, and he trusted that Ministers would institute it speedily.
Petition to be printed.
VESTRIES IN IRELAND.]
Mr. O'Connell
said, he wished to call the attention of the House to a Statute passed so recently as in the year 1827, which considerably affected the properly of his Majesty's subjects in Ireland. The voice of the country had been raised against it. This was abundantly evident from the numerous petitions which had been laid upon the Table of the House. He had himself presented at least thirty petitions against this Statute, and he was convinced that three times as many had been presented by other hon. Members. In a word, the Act gave universal discontent, and he considered that its provisions were well calculated to do so; but he relied not, however, upon his own judgment, nor did he wish the House to take the fact upon his simple assertion. He could bring forward, in support of what he had stated,
84
85
86
87
mandamus
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that as he was the person who introduced and conducted through the House the measure, against which the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman were directed, and which had been so often attacked, he might be allowed to say a few words in its defence. He would not enter into the subject with reference to any of the antecedent attacks which had been made against the measure, but would rather imitate the temper displayed by the hon. Gentleman upon the present occasion. He would proceed to show that the Act was not, as had been represented, an invasion of private property, and that it was not entitled to any of the appellations which had been bestowed upon it. When the Statute was passed, it was generally acknowledged to be an improvement of the law which had previously existed, and an alleviation of the burthens and obligations of that class whose cause the hon. Member particularly professed to advocate. It received the approbation of men who were as jealous of the interests of the Roman Catholics as the hon. Member himself; and amongst others, of Lord Plunkett, then. Attorney-general for Ire-
88
Mr. O'Connell
had only spoken as to the additional powers relating to the enlarging of churches and chapels.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
then understood the hon. Gentleman to say, that so far as related to the re-building and repairing of churches, the previous law gave the Vestry a right of assessment. Now, the hon. Gentleman had much insisted on the system of procuring funds for building churches in England and Ireland, and he had stated particularly the hardships to which he asserted the latter country was subjected. It was true that in England the Vestries were not bound to levy assessments for the building of parish churches; but it was equally true, that latterly in Ireland the parishioners were not assessed for that purpose. In Ireland the funds came from another source—namely, the First Fruits. Advances were made to parishes from that source, and the sum so advanced was afterwards repaid, without interest, by the parishes. In the same way, when there was a necessity for erecting a church here, a sum of money was advanced by the Com-missioners for Building Churches, and the
89
90
91
92
Mr. S. Rice
said, he agreed with much of the latter part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, but not with the early portion of it. The right hon. Gentleman had risen to vindicate his bill; but the real and practical object which it was the duty of the House to discuss was, whether or not a case had been made out, even by the admission of the right hon. Gentleman himself, which rendered it expedient and necessary, without looking to the feelings and views of those who framed the law, to alter and amend it. On the part of those immediately connected with individuals who were affected by measures of this character, he thought the House had a right to expect that a more distinct pledge should be given—and that, too, without loss of time—by his Majesty's Government, of their intention to propose some alterations in this measure. He confessed for one, without meaning any disrespect to the hon. member for Clare, that he should be glad to see the amendment of the law taken up by the Government of the country rather than by an individual. The hon. member for Clare appeared to agree with him in that sentiment; and therefore would acquit him of any disrespectful feeling. He should, with reference to the success of any new measure, wish to see it proceed directly from the Government, in preference to its being introduced by an individual unconnected with the Administration, because, coming from such a quarter, it was undoubtedly more likely to be carried. He entirely concurred in the sentiment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, whatever defects were to be found in the bill as it now stood, such defects were not to be imputed to those who introduced the measure to Parliament, or to those who endeavoured to improve it. The whole spirit which was manifested in the debates in Parliament on this subject, was evidently dictated by a desire to apply a remedy to an admitted evil; and he must say, that in many important points that remedy was afforded by the bill before them. But admitting that, was he to be precluded from voting for a measure to remove other defects? Certainly not. At the same time, he would vote with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, provided a pledge were given by the
93
94
Mr. Moore
said, the principle that Roman Catholics and other dissenters from the Established Church should be exempted from contributing to its support, had been very adroitly disclaimed by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite on this occasion, who, however, at the same time that he disavowed any intention of introducing that principle in his amended bill, spoke in such a manner, that he could not but believe, if the Bill were allowed to pass into a law, that the very next attempt of the hon. and learned Gentleman would be to introduce and establish that principle. The hon. member for Limerick gave up the remaining principle which the learned Gentleman sought to enforce, so that he (Mr. Moore) was relieved from going into the details of the subject. Of this he was satisfied, that infinitely more excitation would be produced in Ireland generally by an alteration of the law, as suggested by the hon. member for Clare, than could be compensated by the soothing effect which the learned Gentleman expected from the change in parishes where the numbers of dissenters from the Established Church predominated. It was well known that there were parts of Ireland where the Protestant inhabitants had no parochial place of worship. In such cases, the act of the 4th of Geo. 4th gave the Bishop of the
95
Sir J. Newport
said, the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down thought it right to refer the House to Burn's Ecclesiastical Law for the meaning of the terms "Rubric" and "Canons of the Church;" but the right hon. Gentleman opposite was content with issuing a circular as to what the Rubric required without referring to Burn's Ecclesiastical Law. What was the result of this letter? The result was, not only that many of the parishes treated it with levity, but several of the incumbents said, the right hon. Gentleman had no authority to send such a communication, and one individual went the length of saying he set it at nought. In one parish in
96
l.
Lord F. L. Gower
considered it his duty to oppose the Motion of the hon. member for Clare, and in doing so would take the opportunity to explain very briefly his views of the subject. When first he undertook the duties of the office which he now held, he entered upon them with impressions and notions as to this law, which had been considerably changed by what he had observed since he went to Ireland. He was prepared to find a case of remarkable failure and grievance, but he must say that his impression, arising from recent experience, and from what he had seen of the working of the law in the country, was, that it was a law which rather admitted than urgently required
97
98
Mr. Trant
said, the hon. and learned Member had told them how highly a Church could flourish without any provision; while he said, at the same time, that it was not his present intention to go further than the measure then before the House: but who could doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman's ultimate intention? No one who, like him, was an earnest and sincere member of the Roman Catholic Church, could reconcile it to his feelings, to omit bringing forward motions of that nature. He could not help endeavouring to make some progress—he hardly knew what to call it—in undermining what he could not but regard as an intrusive Church: it was perfectly natural, and so obvious, that all men had foreseen that the moment a Roman Catholic Member obtained a seat in that House, measures would be introduced for the purpose of overturning the Established Church in Ireland. This, in fact, was the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman, though he couched it under the name of an amendment in the Vestries Act. He should deeply regret to see the Church of Ireland regulated by a schedule in an Act of Parliament, as proposed by the hon. member for Limerick, instead of being-regulated by the Canons and the Rubric. There might be philosophers and economists in that House, but he trusted, the people would support him in maintaining the rights and privileges of the Church of England. He hoped and believed that the people of England would support him and other Members of that House, in watching, with the greatest vigilance, anything affecting the interests of the Established Church in Ireland.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he most fully
99
Mr. O'Connell
: Other Dissenters vote now.
Mr. Secretary Peel
resumed: If Roman Catholics were permitted to vote, he foresaw it must be productive of the most endless confusion in Ireland, and would lead to the destruction of that, peace and good-will now so happily prevailing in that country. The Church of Ireland was a branch of the Protestant United Episcopal Church of England, and the reform carrying on in the whole of that Church required an increased supply of places of worship, and he knew not how those were to be had otherwise than by taxing the possessors of land in Ireland. They could not expect England to pay for those churches; and if it turned out that the possessors of land in Ireland were not able to pay for them, then England must see that they were paid for from some other quarter, so as to keep the burthen, if pos-
100
mandamus
101
Mr. O'Council
claimed the privilege of saying a few words in reply. He objected to the payment of cess by Catholics, so long as they were denied the power of voting at vestries, and so long as the purposes for which the money was voted remained undefined. It was most unfair to charge him with making the present a question of religion—he had studiously avoided making it so—it was a question of pounds, shillings, and pence—it was a question about levying distress, and the pocketing of fees upon that distress—that was not religion, that was extortion, and the party guilty of it was an extortion, and no Christian at all. Those who had to observe upon what had fallen from him, and who felt themselves called upon to oppose his Motion, seemed much discontented at the manner in which he had introduced his Motion. He remembered once hearing a counsel say to a witness, "Why don't you say something that I can lay hold of?" Hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to be somewhat in that situation—they seemed to be amazingly discontented with him for not saying something that they could lay hold of. He should now come to another point. The great principle for which he contended was this—that no one sect ought to have the power of taxing another at its discretion, for the maintenance of an adverse system of religion. If the Protestants of England bore the same numerical proportion to the Catholics here, which the Catholics of Ireland bore to the Protestants there, he should feel but little respect for the Protestant body, if they allowed a few Catholics to tax them for the maintenance of
102
l.
No, no
l.
103
mandamus
104
The House then divided, when there appeared—For the Motion 47; Against it 177—Majority 130.
List of the Minority.
Althorp, Lord
Monck, J. B.
Buller, C.
Macintosh, Sir Jas.
Baring, Alex.
Macdonald, Sir James
Baring, B.
Marshall, John
Blandford, Marquis
Maberly, Colonel
Benett, J.
Martin, John
Clements, Lord
Macauley, W.
Clive, E. B.
Morpeth, Lord
Cave, Otway
Newport, Sir John
Cavendish, W.
Ord, William
Duncombe, Thomas
Philips, Sir G.
Dundas, Thomas
Power, R.
Dawson, Alexander
Parnell, Sir H.
Davenport, E.
Palmer, Fysche
Easthope, J.
Ponsonby, hon. F.
Ewart, T.
Robinson, Sir C.
Fazakerley, J. N.
Rice, Spring
Graham, Sir J.
Stanley, hon. E.
Guise, Sir W.
Talbot, R.
Grattan, J.
Tuite, H. M.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Wilson, Sir R.
Howick, Lord
Warburton, Henry
Knight, R.
TELLERS.
Kennedy, Thomas
O'Connell, Daniel
Lambert, Colonel
Hume, Joseph
ADMINISTRATION OK JUSTICE.]
The Attorney General
Mr. Jones
objected to proceeding with the Bill at that hour. The Bill itself was objectionable in most parts, particularly in those which referred to the Welsh judicature. It was divided into two parts, which were not at all necessarily connected, and between those was introduced a measure not connected with either—namely, the abolition of arrest for debt for any sum less than 100
l.
105
Mr. Secretary Peel
observed, that the opposition of his hon. friend to the Bill was certainly unfair. He raised objections to the measure, and then compared it to a measure on the Poor-laws which had been introduced by his hon. and learned friend some three or four years ago, with which, however, it had nothing whatever to do; and after having made a speech himself, he wished to prevent farther discussion by moving an adjournment. If his hon. friend had objections to parts of the Bill, the committee was the place to discuss them, and it would therefore be more proper to let the Bill go into committee, and discuss them there.
Mr. O'Connell
objected to the Bill, and the present was the proper time for making the objection, because it was too late an hour to enter upon the consideration of a measure of such importance There were parts of the Bill which had no connexion whatever with each other; one part relating to Wales, and the other to regulations at Westminster-hall. The appointment of the three Judges to the courts in Wales had no necessary connexion with the courts in Westminster; for if the business were equalized in the Courts of King's Bench, Common Pleas, and Exchequer,
106
The Order of the Day for the second reading was read.
Mr. T. P. Williams
The Attorney General
said, that if he postponed the Bill from to-night, he did not know on what night or day he could fix, and many Members expected that the Bill would be brought on to-night. The hon. and learned Gentleman who had shown so much zeal in defence of the Welsh judicature as to travel out of his way to make a personal attack on him, which certainly reflected very little credit on his good taste, had himself not pointed out any day on which the second reading could be fixed, if postponed from to-night. The fact was, the hon. and learned Gentleman wished to defeat the Bill altogether; but he might have taken a much more fair and manly course in meeting it on proper grounds. He had objected to the appointment of three Judges in Westminster-hall, as not connected with any alteration in the Welsh judicature, but their appointment would be rendered necessary by the removal of the eight Welsh Judges. He did not think the Bill perfect. He did not say it was so, but if the House would allow it to go into a committee, he had no doubt alterations could be made, which would remove every objection. He was quite ready to divide the Bill into two or three bills, if the House desired it; but even that could not be done until they went into committee. Under these circumstances he did not think it necessary to enter into the principle of the Bill, as he felt the House would not do the mea-
107
Mr. T. P. Williams
denied that his object in moving the adjournment was to defeat the Bill—his great objection at present was to the lateness of the hour at which it was brought forward.
Mr. F. Lewis
said, that as a Welsh Member he could not agree with the arguments of the other Welsh Members for the postponement of the measure. The House was now called upon to recognize the general principle of the Bill. As far as he had been able to ascertain the opinions of his constituents, they were willing to enter into the consideration of a measure founded on the allegation that it was desirable to make a change in the Welsh judicature; but then it was absolutely necessary that they should be informed what the proposed change was—what sort of judicature it was intended to introduce in lieu of that at present in existence. As the Bill at present stood, that could not be discovered. It was impossible that the measure could meet with their support unless the right hon. and learned Gentleman took an opportunity of stating the outline and detail of the measure which he intended to substitute for the present Welsh judicature. It was impossible to think of subverting the present administration of justice in Wales, and leaving that country exposed to the introduction of no one knew what in its place. Were the counties to be divided? To such a proposition many of the Welsh counties would object. That one which he had the honour to represent disliked parting with the Assize altogether. Let the plan, however, be distinctly explained to the House, and then only could it be fairly pronounced upon. That could only be done in the committee, when the details would be given, and it would depend upon them whether he supported or opposed the Bill.
Colonel Wood
was desirous, as a Member for a Welsh county, of saying a few words on the subject. He had no hesitation in declaring, that it was the decided opinion of the best-informed men, professional and unprofessional, in the county which he had the honour to represent, that the time had arrived, when an alteration ought to be made in the Welsh judicature, and when it ought to be assimilated to that of England. This was not a
108
109
110
Mr. Harrison Batley
maintained, that it was extremely desirable that the administration of justice in England and Wales should be uniform, and that a measure to render it so should be no longer delayed.
Mr. E. Davenport
was favourable to the principle of the Bill, but was apprehensive that the benefits of it were more than counterpoised by the mischiefs which accompanied it. The hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to give Cheshire the advantage of the Judges of Westminster Hall. So far, Cheshire was extremely obliged to him. It was certainly most desirable to withdraw that rat-trap, the Chief-justice ship of Chester—an office which had been but too frequently the re- ward of a postacy and tergiversation. If, also, the Chief Justice of Chester proved to be worth his purchase, he soon left that post, while, on the other hand, if he turned out a dear bargain, he remained in it for life. One point, however, seemed to him to require explanation. There were three Counties Palatine—Chester, Lancaster, and Durham—placed under nearly the same circumstances; and yet it was proposed to continue their courts to Lancaster and Durham, and to withdraw those of Chester. He wished the hon. and learned Gentleman would show some reason for this. He would not then press upon the House by detailing the privileges of which it was thus proposed exclusively to deprive the County Palatine of Chester; but they were very important; and yet, without the slightest reason assigned, it was proposed to abrogate them; and to substitute expensive and dilatory law at a distance, for cheap and prompt law near at hand. This would be a serious inconvenience; and he trusted that the hon. and learned Gentle- man would allow the County Palatine of Chester, like the other Counties Palatine, to be excused from the operation of his Bill. The petitions, which would presently pour in thickly, would sufficiently apprise him of the general feeling on the subject.
Mr. Jones
was not desirous of any unnecessary delay in the consideration of the measure: when he proposed the adjournment, it was far from being with any
111
The Attorney-general moved, "That the Bill be read a second time."
Mr. Jones
resumed—the hon. member for Brecon had talked of the practicability of removing a case to the nearest county. That, however, could not be done without a writ of
certiorari;
112
113
l.
l,
l.
114
Mr. C. Wynn
did not mean to follow the last speaker through all the details he had gone into, which he thought would form a fitter subject for discussion in the committee. Of the principle of the Bill, he completely approved, though he should wish to have a full explanation of the manner 'in which the Attorney General meant to carry it into effect. The principle was, to complete the union between England and Wales, and give to Wales the benefit of English judicature. At present it was impossible to obtain Welsh Judges without paying them salaries far exceeding the duties they performed. They only executed their offices three weeks in summer, and three weeks in autumn, and for this duty they were paid their whole annual salary, the country deriving no other advantage from them but the little duty they performed in those six weeks. Now he thought, that the only way to make a Judge efficient was, to give him constant employment; for unless he had constant employment, he was likely to forget whatever legal knowledge he might once have possessed. What his hon. friend (Colonel Wood) had said about the power of a rich suitor instituting his cause in one of the Courts of Westminster, had been completely misunderstood. His hon. friend did not mean that the suitor could remove his cause to
115
Mr. Rice Trevor
said, there were obviously great inaccuracies in the Bill before the House; and perhaps it would hereafter assume a very different shape; but he was bound to deal with the Bill as it stood, and so dealing with it, he must declare that he had insurmountable objections to it. It was said, that it was impossible to have three new Judges added to the twelve in Westminster Hall, unless the Welsh Judicature were given up, and so it was to be sacrificed for that change; but he could assure the House that the Principality did not think the change any benefit. It was then stated, that Wales could not, under the present system, have Judges such as she ought to have; but he begged to refer the House to the list of eminent Judges who had distinguished that country, and he would then ask if that assertion was true, If the Government chose to exert itself to find men competent to fill the situation of Welsh Judges, he had no doubt it would find, among the rising members of the bar, a sufficient number of individuals of talent to fill those situations. The removal of the Courts of Judicature would be a great inconvenience and additional expense to all parties concerned in law proceedings. The commissioners said, in their Report, that those who had local interests were not to be chiefly consulted; but if the House were legislating for Yorkshire or Kent, would it not appeal to the members for those counties? He was not one of those who thought very cheap law likely to be beneficial, particularly to the Welsh, who were very litigious; but certainly it ought not to be too dear, nor ought such impediments to be thrown in the way of administering justice, as to give the rich a monopoly of the Courts. Even the cost of letters backwards and forwards, between Wales and Westminster Hall would be found no inconsiderable expense—not
116
The Attorney General
could not help admitting that the Bill, in its present state, was very imperfect, but this imperfection arose from the mistake of the printers. Corrections had been made in the margin of the draft of the Bill, which the printer had forgotten to attend to. His design was, to have the Bill read a second time to-night, and to go into a Committee
fro forma.
117
118
119
120
Sir John Owen
could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman, that the sense of the majority of the inhabitants of the Principality was against his proposed measure; and he could also assure him that the advantage he expected to obtain in the nomination of proper persons to serve the office of Sheriff, would be of trifling moment, for at present there was no difficulty in procuring gentlemen of character and suitable station to serve that high office.
Mr. Owen Williams
concurred with the hon. Baronet, and felt himself obliged to oppose the Bill.
Mr. Hume
inquired if the hon. and learned Gentleman meant to continue the clause respecting arrests for debt; and if he did not, would he bring in any measure on that subject during the present Session?
The Attorney General
said, he knew that many persons were of opinion that arrests for debt should not take place for small sums, but he had not included the clause his hon. friend alluded to in this Bill. He had refrained from doing so, not as objecting to the principle it involved, but in consequence of some communications with gentlemen out of doors. A suggestion had also been thrown out, which he thought deserved attention, as it might prevent individuals from resisting the payment of just debts; that was, to make debts bear a legal interest. A clause he thought might be drawn to protect creditors against vexatious opposition; but whether or not he should introduce any general measure on this subject during the Session, must depend on the state of business in the House.
Mr. Brougham
rose merely to defend the Law Commissioners from the charge
121
122
Mr. O'Connell
thought this a piebald, patched-up measure, which would do no good whatever. Me objected to it on the very ground that the Attorney General supported it. He approved of local jurisdictions, and thought it was a great evil to have all law and all justice confined to Westminster Hall.
Bill read a second time.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, April 28, 1830.
MINUTES.] The Four-per-Cents Bill, and the Haymarket Removal Bill were read a third time and passed.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of HARDWICKE, from Wisbeach, praying that the Punishment of Death for Forgery might be abolished. By the Duke of BEAUFORT, from the Manufacturers engaged in the Woollen Trade in the County of Gloucester, against paying Wages in Goods. By the same noble Duke, from Bristol, against the Renewal of the East India Company's Charter:—By Earl GOWKR, a similar Petition from Stoke, in the Staffordshire Potteries. By the same noble Earl, from several Places in the Staffordshire Potteries, praying that Climbing Boys might be disused.
REVENUE OF THE SEE OF LONDON.]
On the Motion for the second reading of the Bishop of London's Estate Bill,
The Bishop of London
said, that he wished to take that opportunity of saying a few words with respect to some observations which had been made last night in another place concerning the Revenue of his own and of other Sees, which were so inaccurate that he thought he owed it to himself and the church of which he was a member, to lose no time in giving them a public refutation. At the same time he was sure that the hon. Gentleman who had made the statement had not willingly been guilty of misrepresentation; but he had spoken from imperfect data, which made it more necessary to refute the assertion. He would in a few words correct the statements which he had seen in the only source they possessed of such information of what was said to have been asserted in another place. The assertion was this:—"The Bishop of Rochester's income was not more than that of many of the parochial clergy, whilst other Sees possessed an immense amount of income. Some of the episcopal Revenues would amount in a short time to 100,000
l.
123
l.
l.
124
Bill read a second time.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, April 28, 1830.
MINUTES.] Petitions presented. For an Amelioration of the Criminal Code and the Abolition of the Punishment of Death for Forgery—By Mr. E. CLIVE, from Hereford:—By Lord BELGRAVE, from the Inhabitants of Chester:—By Mr. HUME, from the Inhabitants of Ross (Hereford):—
[The hon. Gentleman stated, that he for one was very desirous to see the punishment of death abolished in all cases, except murder and treason.]
And by Sir H. WILSON, from the Inhabitants of Spratton and Creaton (Northamptonshire). Against the Beer Bill, by Mr. PORTMAN, from Gillingham (Gloucestershire):—By Colonel LYGON, from the High Sheriff, Magistrates, and Corporation, of Kidderminster:—And by Sir JOHN WROT-TKSLKY, from the Magistrates of the County of Stafford; suggesting also that no person should be allowed to Have a License who did not produce a Certificate of good Character from the Churchwardens and Overseers of his Parish. Against the Truck System, by Mr. EOERTON, from the Inhabitants of Stockport (Cheshire). By Sir G. CLERK, from the Dalkeith Fanning Society, praying that no additional Duty might be imposed on British Spirits without a corresponding Duty being imposed on Rum. By Mr. RICE TREVOR, from the Magistrates and Grand Jury of the County of Carmarthen, against the Abolition of the Welsh Judicature. And by Sir F. BURDETT, from the Commissioners for Paving St. James's, Westminster, against the Watching and Lighting Bill.
LAW OF DIVORCE.]
Mr. Peach
having moved the Order of the Day for going into a Committee on Muskett's Divorce Bill,
Mr. Rice
took that opportunity to express a hope that the unanimous feeling of the country with respect to the law affecting Divorces would have a due weight with the Government, and that a repetition of those proceedings which they had recently witnessed on another Divorce Bill would be avoided by an immediate alteration of the law. It was the unanimous opinion both in the House and out of the House, that the House was not a fit tribunal to try such causes, and it would be more advantageous to the public, as well as more creditable to Parliament, if a particular tribunal were established, to decide and determine all such cases cheaply and expeditiously.
Mr. Hume
, before the Bill was disposed of, begged to say, that he regretted much no Member of the Government was pre-
125
Dr. Phillimore
said, that if the Government did not come forward with some proposition on the subject, it was his intention to move for leave to bring in a bill to amend the Law of Divorce.
SCHEDULE OF TAXATION.]
Sir J. Newport
complained of the non-performance of the promise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, viz. that an amended Schedule of the comparative Taxation of Great Britain and Ireland should be produced, and put into the hands of Members. It was hard to call upon the House to enter upon the discussion of the subject without having had the documents necessary to its elucidation. He complained also that in the Consolidation Bill, additional Taxes had been introduced, of which no notice or explanation had been given; and he considered the conduct of the Minister highly culpable in that respect.
Mr. Herries
, in the absence of his right hon. friend, explained the difficulties under which he had laboured on the subject; and expressed his persuasion that the paper in question would be presented as soon as possible.
Sir J. Newport
repeated his statement with respect to the introduction of additional Taxes into the Consolidation Bill; and declared his conviction, that as to the intended Taxes, they would have the effect of decreasing instead of increasing the Revenue. Ho never knew a Consolidation Bill introduced which did not, like this, augment the burthens of the people.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
[
having now entered the House
126
Dr. Phillimore
objected to the introduction into the bill of an indirect Taxation on law proceedings. He urged the speedy production of the Schedule.
Mr. Hume
concurred with his hon. friends, that many increases of Taxation had been made in various departments, of which no notice had been given. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had mentioned an increase of 110,000
l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
expressed his desire to give all the information that could be required.
TERCEIRA.]
Mr. Grant
commenced his speech by reading the Resolutions which it was his intention to submit Jo the House, and which were as follow:—
"That prior to the 12th of December, 1828, her Majesty the Queen Donna Maria 2nd had been recognized by his Majesty, and the other great powers of Europe, to be legitimate Queen of Portugal; and that at the period above-named the said Queen was residing in this country, and had been received by his Majesty with the accustomed honours of her royal rank.
127
128
129
130
de facto
de jure
de facto
de jure
131
de facto
de jure
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
Lord F. L. Gower
feared he might be charged with presumption in rising to address the House immediately after the eloquent appeal which had been made to it by the right hon. Gentleman; but he trusted his usual disinclination to trouble it, except in concerns connected with his office, and the zeal which he felt for the honour of the country, might be considered to form a sufficient excuse. He had for some time looked with considerable anxiety upon the laconic notice which had been so long on the Paper of the House, which was so well calculated by its obscurity to conjure up phantoms of cases, which individuals might suppose would be brought forward; he apprehended a great deal more from the experience and ability which the right hon. Gentleman was confessedly so able to bring forward in support of his view of the question, than from any conclusions which he could draw from the papers themselves. The right hon. Gentleman had entered into a subtle discussion respecting the difference between stipulated and voluntary neutrality. In this it was unnecessary to follow him, as neutrality had been, by his own confession, agreed upon as the policy of the State. It had also been remarked, that it was singular those Portuguese should have remained so long in this country without having attracted the notice of Government; but in fact, there was a disinclination to enter upon any obnox-
140
141
142
Dr. Phillimore
said, that he had been extremely anxious to ascertain how the person put forward by the Government on that great occasion, would deal with arguments as powerful, and combat propositions such as those which had fallen from his right hon. friend who had introduced this discussion, which appeared to him as incontrovertible; but, after paying the utmost attention to what had fallen from the noble Lord, he could not but complain that the noble Lord had declined the real argument in the case, and had confined his defence of the Government to the merely petty technical parts of the subject. The noble Lord had totally misapprehended the point at issue, which was, whether, on the papers now before the House, there was not enough to show that the Government of this country had been guilty of a gross violation of the law of nations? On all the principles of those laws, without going out of these papers to seek for evidence, without travelling either to the right or to the left out of the brief, if he might be allowed so professional an expression, which the Government had put into his hands, he feared he must answer that question in the affirmative. Since he had the honour of a seat in Parliament, no question had exceeded this in importance; inasmuch as for a century and a half since the reign of Charles the 2nd, up to this time, there had been no imputation on the public conduct of this Government
143
144
after the pacification of Europe
145
Positâ capitis pœnâ neque in mari vis fieret vel suis subditis, vel sociis vel peregrinis, sive belli sive alterius rei causâ intra conspectum a terrâ vel potius a portu.
Intellexit igitur imperium porrigi quousque e terrâ prospici datum est, et sunt auctores qui sic sentiunt, sed id nimis laxum vagumque esse ostendii, ratus imperium finir, ubi finitur armorum potestas.
rd Admiralty Reports,
th Admiralty Reports,
Terrœ dominium finitur ubi finitur armorum vis;
146
147
148
"I laugh, when those who at the spear are bold
And venturous, if that fail them, shriek and fear
What yet they know must follow—to endure
Exile, or ignominy, or bonds, or pain,
The sentence of their conqueror."
149
150
Idque in instrumentis bellicis comparandis vulgò servamus; utùt enim et ad utrumque amicum non rectè vendamus—sine fraude tamen vendimus utrique amico, quamvis invicem hosti, et quamvis sciamus alterum contra alterum his in bello esse usurum.
151
152
"Troës te miseri, ventis maria omnia vecti,
Oramus: prohibe infandos a navibus ignes,"
Mr. Harrison Battley
would oppose
153
Mr. Courtenay
said, that the arguments of his right hon. friend, and also of his learned friend, had failed to convince him that the conduct of the Government had been contrary to the laws of nations, and he was sure that those who supported an opposite view would find it difficult to extract from the papers on the Table the materials to warrant such a conclusion. He contended that the principle of neutrality was not new to the present Government; the Government of Mr. Canning had acted upon it; and the present Administration had only copied it from his. In support of that assertion, he could quote from numberless speeches of that right hon. Gentleman to show that such had been the principle upon which his government had acted. There could be no doubt that this country was in a state of the most perfect neutrality; and he put it to the House whether it would not be the grossest breach of that neutrality, and of the law of nations, as respected the conduct of neutrals, for this country to allow any one of the belligerents to fit out here an expedition, for the purpose of carrying on hostilities—if that were not a breach of neutrality, he confessed he was incapable of understanding wherein that breach could consist. The forces were in this country; they were about to embark, for the purposes of attack or relief, or the invasion of some part of the disputed territory; were they then at liberty to make this country a port from which to embark that which could not be called otherwise than a warlike expedition? It had been his chance to observe, as individuals, many of the persons composing that expedition; he had likewise viewed them as a body, and a more complete corps of men he had never seen. They could therefore be considered in no other light than as soldiers calculated to effect military objects. It was justly and naturally that the Marquis Palmella attached importance to their remaining at Plymouth in a collected form, as calculated to give encouragement to the party of Donna Maria; while, on the other hand, he regarded their dispersion as likely to bring despair and dismay among the friends of
154
Mr. Horace Twiss
:—I hope, Sir, that the House will grant me its indulgence if, in the silence of others who would be more competent than I am to the statement of this case, I endeavour to lay before them an outline of the facts on which the vindication of the Government rests. On the 15th of October, 1828, it was requested by the Marquis Barbacena, that the Portuguese refugees, who are the subjects of this Motion, should proceed to the Azores under a British convoy. The language he uses in this application is extremely different from that of his parliamentary advocates. He does not pray that the suffering individuals—the scattered wanderers of the Queen's followers, who were sojourners here, might be forwarded, after all their troubles, to a refuge and peaceful home in the little Archipelago of the Azores; but he plainly acquaints the Duke of Wellington, that the Secretary of the government of the Azores is come to London, authorised to demand with the greatest urgency, the immediate despatch of a part of the faithful Portuguese troops, whose presence in the above-mentioned islands would ensure their
155
ces secours
156
157
158
159
160
161
bonâ fide,
162
163
bonâ fide
164
de facto
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
locus pœnitentœ,
174
cheers
175
Lord John Russell
spoke to order, The hon. Gentleman appeared to him to have been reading a speech. He did not know whether that were the case—but if so, it was certainly against the rules of the House;
Mr. Twiss
said, that he certainly had not been reading his speech. It was true, that in the course of the day he had turned the matter over in his mind, and had made rather copious notes on the subject; at the same time he begged to state, that whenever he was aware that he should have occasion to address the House, he adopted a similar course. The practice of his profession necessarily inured him to extemporaneous declamation, and he therefore stood in no need of exculpation from such a charge.
Lord Sandon
said, that he did not mean to follow the learned Gentleman who had just addressed the House through the whole of the lecture he had read it on the laws of nations, he was content with the broad admission of the advocates of Government, that none of the texts or precedents to be found in those laws justified the conduct pursued towards the refugees. He would admit, for the sake of argument, but for the sake of argument only, that the Marquis Barbacena, and the Marquis
176
The Solicitor General
was of opinion that the Government of this country was not only justified, but was called on by every principle of the law of nations, to prevent armed troops going from this country for the purpose of attacking a belligerent. The first question to be considered was, whether or not the men arrested in their progress were a military body. The Portuguese minister always treated them as troops. He applied to the Government for a passage for them as troops in a British man-of-war, and this was also shown by General Stubbs going to Plymouth, and addressing them as troops. The latter circumstance had particularly attracted the attention of the Duke of Wellington; and to this was to be added,
177
178
Sir James Macintosh
said, that the question had been so well, and so ably discussed, that it required no aid from him; but he should consider himself disgraced if he abstained from delivering his sentiments on the subject on every occasion. Amidst all the singular circumstances belonging to the whole transaction, he knew of none more remarkable than the address of his hon. and learned friend, the Solicitor General. When a lawyer like him, holding such a high station in his Majesty's councils, standing in the first rank of his profession, having made his way to the exalted eminence on which he stands by the only means by which a man can rise to eminence in this country—the exercise of profound legal knowledge, and the possession of great talents; when a Gentleman in his station, and of his character and profession, rose to address the House on one of the most important questions of international law that ever was agitated within the walls of Parliament, it was certainly to be expected that he would have treated it in a manner becoming the gravity of his profession, and with the learning belonging to his high station. Hearing him say that the Government was called upon to act as it had done by the laws of nations, he heard words which might not have excited expectations of a serious sequel, if they had been uttered by any other person, more accustomed to popular speaking than to legal discussion; but hearing them fall from his hon. and learned friend, he did naturally expect that the learned Gentleman would have told the House where to find one single principle stated, laid down by any writer, acknowledged in any treaty, adverted to by any Judge, sanctioned by any authority, which could in any manner be made to justify what, in his conscience, he conceived to be nothing less than an act of lawless violence. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated, that it was justified because a fraud had been committed by certain Portuguese and Brazilian ministers, and that his Majesty's Government had thereby acquired a right
179
180
ratione et usu.
181
182
183
Mr. Croker
said, that the right hon. Gentleman had censured his hon. and learned friend, the Solicitor General, for treating this subject with levity, but the right hon. Gentleman himself had not observed a becoming and serious gravity. The right hon. Gentleman, too, assuming the tone and character of a grave expounder of the law of nations, said, that he would treat it with legal ratiocination; but he had conjured up a bloody usurper, and robed him in the most odious colours, to enlist the sympathies of the House against him and make reason be disregarded. There was, however, the highest authority for saying that the character of one of two belligerents ought not to influence the conduct of a neutral. The right hon. Member had a great respect for Bynkershoeck, and what did that learned civilian say on this very point:—"According to my judgment, the justice or injustice of the cause of the belligerents is no question for a neutral. It is not his business to erect himself into a judge between two parties who are arrayed in hostility against each other, and upon account of the justice or injustice of their respective causes, to give or to deny more to one than to another." The sentiment he observed was received with satisfaction
184
185
de facto
186
volenti non fit injuria.
The Times,
The Times,
187
188
189
de facto
de jure,
190
Mr. Charles Wood
contended, that it was ridiculous to call these men who came unarmed to this country, who left it unarmed, and who never had any arms, a military armament; what propositions had been made by the Marquis Barbacena or the Marquis Palmella, or what had been their acts, had nothing to do with the present Motion, which related wholly to the conduct of the British Government. The arguments of the right hon. Secretary of the Admiralty seemed to furnish additional ground of complaint; for according to his shewing, that interference, which had been refused at the request of the Marquis Barbacena, had been voluntarily undertaken against him when, after the refusal, he could not possibly anticipate that the Government would act on such a principle. That House was not bound to examine the conduct of foreign ambassadors, but it was bound to vindicate the country from the imputation of injustice. Unless some explanation should be given, much more satisfactory than any he had yet heard; unless some arguments should be stated, more forcible than he could conceive, he should continue to think that the Government of this country had committed an act of injustice, and that it would be becoming in that House to rescue the country, by its vote from the stigma cast on it by the act of the Government.
191
Sir Francis Burdett
complimented the right hon. Gentleman who had brought forward, the Motion, to whose exertions he said, every Englishman must feel himself indebted, and contended, that the right hon. Gentleman who had last addressed the House, had only stated a number of facts, foreign to the question at issue, from which he had himself forgotten to draw any inference. The professional Gentlemen who had addressed the House had not been successful; they lost sight of the general principles the question involved, and argued it on so narrow a foundation, that he was inclined to think it confirmed the observation usually made as to gentlemen of the long robe. It was said, that however ingenious they might be in argument, and however ready in debate, they seldom took a comprehensive view of any question, and Seldom threw much light on those questions of general policy which they sometimes undertook to discuss. One hon. and learned Member favoured the House with a well-considered and voluminous dissertation, delivered with a kind of maidenly modesty which seldom appertained to gentlemen of his profession and robe, going through the whole ordeal which he imposed on himself with singular dexterity and great memory, but with so little satisfaction or instruction to the House, that most of the Members, like himself, were at a loss to find out what part of the question then before the House the hon. and learned Member meant to elucidate, or whether he did not mean rather to confuse and perplex the whole, than illustrate any particular part of it. The noble Lord who had followed the hon. Member, had in a very plain and manly way stated every proposition, so that every Gentleman, whether he assented to it or not, could at least understand what the noble Lord meant—he had destroyed all those lucubrations which had employed the hon. and learned Member so long a period to prepare. The right hon. Gentleman who had last spoken had charged the Portuguese refugees with deceit in their endeavours to get back to their own country; but he had unjustly charged them, for they had been guilty of no deceit. They Hew to this country as an asylum in their misfortunes—they expected sympathy and support—and disappointed in this, they asked for a convoy to protect them beyond the reach of their enemies. When that
192
193
"Had'st thou but shook thy head, or made a pause,
When I spake darkly what I purposed,
Or turn'd an eye of doubt upon my face,
Or bid me tell my tale in express words,
Deep shame had struck me dumb, made me break off,
And those thy fears might have wrought fears in me.
But thou didst understand me by my signs,
And did'st in signs again parley with sin."
194
195
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that he felt great obligations to the hon. Baronet for the new light he had thrown upon the discussion. In a manner the most generous, if not the most discreet, he had disclosed the real tendency and object of the Motion. He flung to the winds the dry abstract question of the law of nations; away, he says, with your Vattels and your Bynkershoecks—away with all inquiries into the jurisdiction yon have exercised under the laws of nations; I impugn the policy of your neutrality; the principles which animated the patriots of Greece and Rome ought to have guided you; and you ought to have upheld the principles of liberty by making, war on Don Miguel. And that, however disguised, was the real ground for the attack now made on his Majesty's Ministers; their neutral policy was impugned through the affair which happened at Terceira. Like the hon. Baronet, he would not involve himself in legal subtleties—he would only appeal to the plain good sense and common understanding of hon. Gentlemen, having thus merely reminded those who were prepared to vote upon the abstract right of the question, what, according to the views of the hon. Baronet, ought to have been the policy of this country in order to promote the general principles of liberty. He was disposed to speak of the Portuguese refugees with sympathy for their sufferings, and respect for their misfortunes: they came to our shores claiming our hospitality, and they were kindly received; they had since left it, and perhaps all of them had not even yet found a place of refuge. When they came to this country, Government recollected the circumstances under which Don Miguel had usurped the government of Portugal—he repeated, usurped the government of Portugal—and though we consented to afford them a temporary asylum we resolved to maintain a strict neutrality. It was for the interest of Great
196
dc facto,
197
198
199
amor patriœ
ruse
200
201
202
203
Mr. Stanley
begged, though it was late, and the House was impatient, to be allowed to make a few remarks on the discrepancies in the speeches of those who opposed the Motion, some contending that there had been no breach of neutrality, while others avowed that there had been such a breach, which they justified; and others again, which was to him most marvellous, asserted that the breach had been committed in favour of the Portuguese. On a former occasion, the Government regretted that it could not submit to the House all the information respecting the state of our relations with Portugal; and if, by withholding the papers relating to the present subject, it could have silenced the voice of indignation, which was everywhere ready to break forth against Britain for its conduct in this transaction, he should have applauded the Government for having done so—but the papers were all before the House, and unfortunately they were as plain and as conclusive—if not as satisfactory as could be desired. He would endeavour to guide himself by these documents in the few brief remarks he meant to offer to the House. The right hon. Gentleman had taken credit to himself and the Government, for not having left the Portuguese refugees altogether at the mercy of Spain; but he could not have done that without exciting indignation from one end of the country to the other, which would have taught him, however high the station of Ministers, that they were responsible to public opinion—and to that they must bend. They dared not close England, the asylum of persecuted freemen, against those who, on account of political misfortunes, came here for refuge. The Under Secretary for the Colonies had referred to a communication from the Marquis Barbacena, to shew that the Portuguese went to the island of Terceira as a military body. He might have read the next passage in that communication, to prove that they would probably put an end to the dissensions of which the Ministers complained, and restore tranquillity to the island. The Marquis Barbacena, in requesting the interposition of our Govern-
204
205
206
ipsc dixit
207
de facto
de jure
Mr. Huskisson
said, that he was principally induced to trouble the House by what fell from his right hon. friend, the Secretary for the Home-Department, in reference to his late right hon. friend, Mr. Canning. His right hon. friend had admitted, that in our conduct we had not followed the laws of nations; and, therefore, that conduct was only to be justified, if it were dictated by necessity, and he thought that his right hon. friend meant to settle the whole question, by shewing that the conduct of the Marquis Barbacena had made our proceeding against the refugees unavoidable. But what did the Marquis Barbacena call upon the government to do? To commit he would reply a breach of neutrality, and was that, he would ask, a justification for actually committing a breach of neutrality against the opposite party? He thought not; on the contrary, the condemnation pronounced by the Ministers, on the acts requested to be done, was a condemnation of the act performed. His right hon. friend said, that the parties had contrived to evade the municipal laws of this country, and violated its neutrality by pro-
208
209
210
de facto
de jure,
211
212
Mr. Charles Grant
, in reply, said, he had to thank his right hon. friend for vindicating his notions of neutrality, and relieving him from the charge of founding his Motion on the character of Don Miguel, though his right hon. friend had not done justice to his opinions in supposing that he favoured one side more than another. He was no advocate for such left-handed neutrality, and condemned the case under consideration because the deviation from neutrality towards the side which we might be supposed most especially to favour, was a violation of the general principle. His right hon. friend had described the argument, urged in behalf of the Portuguese, from the arms going in one vessel and the men in another, as sophistry, but his right hon. friend had forgotten that all the arms at Terceira were not carried in the Brazilian frigate—they were exported in merchant vessels, which made the sending the arms, and the sending of the men not necessarily parts of the same transaction. He did not agree, therefore, with his right hon. friend, that cither separately was a breach of our neutrality, which we were bound to prevent, much less to punish after it had been accomplished in an unwarrantable manner. The right hon. the Secretary to the Admiralty seemed to think that it was enough to exonerate us from blame, that we warned the refugees of what we meant to do, as if a man could be exonerated from the guilt of a crime by giving notice that he meant to commit it. He observed that a case of this kind had lately actually occurred: a gentleman, who saw a man in his fields, gave him notice that if he intruded there again he would shoot him, and afterwards kept his word. According to the doctrine of his opponents, the gentleman was not to blame, but the man, who persisted, with obstinate imprudence, in coming to be shot; though he was afraid that the diplomatic argument would not avail the unfortunate gentleman before the tribunals of the country. Looking at the whole arguments of his opponents, he must say, that if he had wanted any more support than he had had the honour to receive; if he had sought any other arguments in favour of his propositions than had been stated by his friends, in order to carry conviction through the whole country, he should have found both support and arguments in the statement of his
213
The House then divided, when there appeared—For the Motion 78; Against it 191: Majority 113.
List of the Minority.
Acland, Sir T.
Easthope, J.
Althorp, Lord
Ewart, W.
Baring, F.
Fazakerley, J. N.
Baring, B.
Foley, J. H.
Blandford, Lord
Fyler, T.
Burdett, Sir F.
Grant, R.
Bernal, R.
Grattan, H.
Bourne, right hon. S.
Graham, Sir J.
Buller, C.
Guise, Sir Wm.
Canning, S.
Gordon, R.
Cavendish, C.
Heathcote, E.
Cavendish, W.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Clements, Lord
Howick, Lord
Cave, O.
Howard, H.
Cradock, Colonel
Huskisson, rt. hon. W.
Clive, E. B.
Inglis, Sir R.
Crompton, J.
Knight, A.
Calthorpe, F.
Labouchere, H.
Calthorpe, A.
Lamb, G.
Dundas, J.
Lascelles, W.
Davies, Colonel
Laugston, G. H.
Denison, E.
Lambert, J. S,
214
Macauley, T. B.
Strutt, Colonel
Marshall, W.
Tennyson, C.
Marjoribanks, S.
Thompson, B.
Morpeth, Lord
Webb, Mr.
Macdonald, Sir J.
Wilbraham, G.
Milton, Lord
Warrender, Sir G.
Macintosh, rt. hn. Sir J.
Wall, B.
Nugent, Lord
Wynne, Sir W. W.
Ord, W.
Wynn, C
O'Grady, F.
Warburton, H.
Price, Sir R.
Wood, C
Pryse, P.
TELLERS.
Ponsonby, G.
Grant, right hon. C.
Philips, G. R.
Phillimore, Dr. PAIRED OFF
Pendarvis, E.
Phillimore, Dr.
Carter, B.
Palmerston, Lord
Colborne, R.
Robinson, Sir George
Davenport, E.
Rice, S.
Ellis, A.
Rumbold, J. C.
Fortescue, Hon. G.
Russell, Lord J.
Newport, Sir J.
Stanley, Lord
O'Connell, D.
Stanley, E. G. S.
Philips, Sir George
Sandon, Lord
Slaney, R. A.
Smith, V.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, April 29, 1830.
MINUTES.] Petitions presented. By Lord de DUNSTANVILLE, from the Merchant Seamen at Falmouth, against a Deduction from their Pay for the Support of Greenwich Hospital. By Lord NAPIER, from Dumfries, for throwing open the Trade to India. By the ARCHBISHOP of YORK, from the Protestant Dissenters at Pontefract, for the Abolition of Slavery. By the Earl of DARNLEY, from Chatham and Gillingham, praying for the extension of Poor-laws to Ireland.
Accounts presented. The rate and amount of Duty paid on Flour and Meal entered for Home-consumption between July 5, 1828, and January 5, 1830:—The Duties paid during the last Ten Years on China-ware, Earthen-ware, Cotton, Glass, Iron, Lead, Gloves, and various other Foreign Manufactures.
STATE OF THE COUNTRY.]
Earl Grey
said, he had a Petition to offer, which purported to have emanated from a Meeting of the County of Northumberland, and to be signed by the High Sheriff. He believed, however, that in point of form it could be only received as the petition of the individual subscriber, the House not sanctioning, in a legal sense, that the act of the High Sheriff was, in this respect, necessarily that of the county at large. It was right he should state that this petition was, as he had understood, adopted unanimously by the meeting; but it had been left at his house, where he found it upon his arrival in town, unaccompanied by any other communication or instruction than that which the petition itself conveyed. He knew it to be a fact, however, that there had been a county meeting in Northumberland; he knew it to be a fact that the High Sheriff was requested to
215
216
217
Laid on the Table.
DUTY OX CORN SPIRITS.]
The Earl of Malmesbury rose
to present a Petition from a most respectable body of individuals connected with the trade of the country,—he meant the Distillers of the United Kingdom,—to which he entreated, generally, the attention of the House, but more particularly that of the noble Viscount opposite (Lord Goderich), who had been Chancellor of the Exchequer in the year 1825. These petitioners would not have trespassed upon the Legislature were it not for the late circumstance which had come to their knowledge, that it was intended to abrogate a solemn agreement which had been made with them, and to levy an additional duty of 1
s.
s.
s.
d.
s.
d.
218
s.
s.
d.
s.
s.
219
s.
s.
d.
d.
d.
d.
s.
s.
d.
220
l.
d.
s.
d.,
s.
221
s.
s.,
ad valorem
l.
l.
Lord Goderich
said, that he was ready to give every information in his power, not only to the petitioners, who were most interested, but with reference to the general principles of policy which were involved in the topics which had been touched upon.
222
s.
s.
s.
d.
223
s.
d.
s.
s.
s.
s.
d.,
l.,
l.,
224
d.
225
The Earl of Malmesbury
had no objection to conferring a benefit on the West-India interest, if a fair case were made out to warrant it; but he must protest against it being made in the way of a bonus to that interest at the expense of others. Let any measure of relief to the West-India Body be brought forward in a direct manner, and not as in the present indirect way, and he should give it his best consideration. He thought, however, that that body had no great reason to complain, so far as the consumption of Rum was concerned; for he found that that consumption had increased 55-per-cent since 1825.
Petition laid on the Table.
EAST-RETFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT
On the Motion of the Marquis of Salisbury, the examination of witnesses on this Bill was resumed.
[George Paltryman deposed, that forty guineas was the regular price of two votes at the elections of East Retford.
Thomas Appleby gave testimony to a similar effect. In the year 1812, he received ten guineas for his vote; in 1818, two packets were transmitted to him, containing twenty guineas each, and subsequent to the election of 1820, two packets, with similar contents were left at his house, as he understood, in consideration of his vote.
Samuel Buckstone stated, that he was promised ten guineas in 1812, on condition that he would vote for Mr. Osbaldeston. At two several times he received twenty guineas for his vote upon subsequent Occasions.]
In reference to some questions which were put by Lord Durham to the last witness,
Lord Ellenborough
observed, that it was contrary to the usage of the House for any noble Lord to interrogate a witness while sitting. He thought that a deviation from the customary practice induced a conventional tone and manner which tended to tender an examination so conducted inaudible in a remote part of the House.
Lord Durham
stated, in reply, that he believed it was competent for him to cross-
226
The Lord Chancellor
decided, that it was not irregular to put incidental questions, while sitting, although, in a formal examination, it was usual for noble Lords to stand.
[William Hodson, the next witness, gave evidence to a similar effect, stating, that he had received forty guineas at each of the elections in 1818 and 1820.]
Further consideration of the question postponed till to-morrow.
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Thursday, April 29, 1830.
MINUTES.] Returns presented. Papers relating to the Grand Canal, Ireland:—The Persons employed under the Commissioners of Public Records, and the Expenditure:—The number of Distributors of Stamps, and the Poundage allowed to each in the United Kingdom, with the Percentage at which Money is remitted from Scotland:—The number of Vessels belonging to the British Empire, ex-elusive of the Colonies; and the number of Steam-boats:—The details of the Expenditure of the Civil Contingencies:—The number of yards of Calico printed, stained, or dyed in Great Britain during the last three years, and the number of yards exported:—The amount of Revenue remitted from Scotland:—The expense of the Office of Receiver-general of Taxes (Scotland):—The expense of erecting a Patent Slip at North Wall, Dublin:—Fees taken by the Officers of the Court for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors.
Returns ordered. Account of the Stamp Duties levied on Newspapers in the Empire, on the Motion of Mr. SPRING RICE and Lord STANLEY:—On the Motion of Mr. MONCK, the Rates and Allowances as Pensions to the Widows of Officers and Men in the Civil and Military branches of the Public Service in 1792 and 1829; with the total Amount of such Allowances in 1792, 1802, 1812, 1822, and 1829:—On the Motion of Mr. O'CONNELL, the Sums Assessed in the Parishes of Dublin, Youghall, and Cork, by Vestries holden in Easter-week, 1830. distinguishing the purpose of Assessment, and whether the Catholic inhabitants were present or not at the Vestries.
The Leather Duties Repeal Bill was read a third time and passed. A Bill to promote the Employment of the Poor by free Hiring and adequate Wages, was read a first time.
Petitions presented. Against the Punishment of Death for Forgery—By Mr. M. A. TAYLOR, from the Inhabitants of the City of Durham:—By Mr. Alderman THOMPSON. from Applcby:—By Mr. BYNG, from Uxbridge. Against the Sale of Beer Bill—By Captain BRADSHAW, from the Publicans of Runcorn:—By Mr. DAVENPORT, from the Licensed Victuallers of Chester:—By Mr. STANLEY, from the Common Brewers of Wigan and Warrington: and from the Licensed Victuallers of St. Helens (Lancashire). Against assimilating the Stamp Duties of Ireland to those of England, by Mr. O'CONNELL, from the Letter-press Printers of Dublin. Against the Insolvent Debtors Act, by Alderman THOMPSON, from the wholesale and retail Ironmongers of the City of London. Against the Stamp Duties on Policies of Insurance, by Lord STANLEY, from the Manchester Fire and Life Assurance Company. Against the Watching and Lighting Bill, by Mr. BYNG, from Islington; and from the In habitants of the Old Artillery
227
LONDON-BRIDGE APPROACHES BILL.]
On the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of this Bill—
Sir E. Knatchbull
Mr. Alderman Wood
opposed the Clause, because it took the parties by surprise.
Mr. Tennyson
took the opportunity to ask the right hon. Gentleman, the Master of the Mint, whether it was intended to continue the coal duties after the payment of the debt now contracted?
Mr. Herries
said, that it was his opinion, that at the termination of the debt on the Orphan's Fund, these duties ought entirely to cease. Some legislative measure, therefore, would be necessary, but he thought it ought not to form part of the present Bill. There was no necessity for haste, for it was not probable that the debt on the Orphan's Fund could be discharged before twenty-eight years had elapsed. As to the proposition then before the House, on which he had been consulted, he had given no opinion, and with it Government was not disposed to interfere.
The Clause agreed to, and Bill read a second time.
INSOLVENT DEBTORS.]
Lord Althorp
presented a Petition for the amendment of the law respecting Insolvent Debtors, from Mr. Henry Dance, a respectable individual, who having for some time held an official situation in the Insolvent Debtors' Court, was thereby rendered peculiarly competent to express an opinion upon the subject. The prayer of the Petitioner was, that a Debtor, instead of being arrested, should have power to apply to the Insolvent Court for permission to divide his property among his creditors; and also, that creditors should have power to compel an imprison-
228
Mr. Alderman Thompson
was convinced that the time had arrived when it was absolutely necessary that something should be done on this important subject. The gross amount of the debts for which insolvents had been discharged was eleven millions sterling; and upon those debts
229
Sir John Newport
declared, that he was every day more and more convinced of the necessity of some material change in the law upon this subject. It had been said that the retail trader would have no protection unless he had the privilege of arresting his debtor. That he denied. But if the tradesman had no such privilege, he would look more closely to the character of those whom he trusted. The amount of debts for which insolvents had been discharged, and the small dividend which creditors had received, as stated by the hon. Alderman, were principally owing to trades men having given credit to those to whom they ought not to have given credit, and to whom, were there no arrest for debt, they would not have given credit. It was said, that the trade of the country could not be car-vied on unless the creditor possessed
230
Mr. Alderman Waithman
declared it to be his opinion, after a great deal of experience on the subject, that there never was any thing so pernicious as the Insolvent Debtors' Act. It operated as an encouragement to fraudulent persons, who found themselves just as well off if they paid only the smallest fraction of their debts as if they had paid the whole. It operated as a legal oppression on an honest man, who was unwilling to recur to the same moans of relieving himself from inevitable embarrassment which were resorted to by the individual who incurred large debts, well knowing that he had not sixpence to pay them with. So strong was this feeling that he had known persons rendered insolvent by unforeseen calamity, who had declared that they would suffer death rather than take the benefit of the Act. It was known, that all the dividends which had been paid under the Insolvent Debtors' Act would not defray half the salaries of the Commissioners of the Insolvent Court. Was that a system to be endured? During the last year 4,000 persons took the benefit of the Act; and probably as many more obtained a release from their creditors under the threat that they would do so. The practice of living in prison on the property of creditors was also carried on to a most scandalous extent. He lived in a situation which enabled him to observe persons who were within the rules of the Fleet; and among others he had seen a person who had lived ten years within those rules, rather than divide his property among his creditors; his father allowing him 400
l.
l.
231
l.
The Attorney General
was unwilling to go into any detailed statement of his opinions on the subject at the present time, as it was not customary or convenient to do so on such an occasion as the present. At the same time, the noble Lord knew that he had no prejudice in favour of arrest. Of the expediency of the proposition for empowering the debtor, without arrest, to apply to the Commissioners for power to divide his property among his creditors, he had considerable doubts. As to that which went to enable creditors to compel their debtors, living in prison, to divide their property among them, if the noble Lord would prepare a clause for the purpose of introducing it in the bill then in progress, he should be happy to give it every possible consideration. As to a Committee of Inquiry, he should be happy to accede to any proposition for the appointment of one. He would not pledge
232
Mr. Bright
was glad to find that the hon. and learned Gentleman had no objection to an investigation by a Committee. Under those circumstances, he thought the House ought merely to re-enact the former bill for the present, leaving all new provisions to be considered after the appointment of the Committee. Alteration ought certainly not. to precede inquiry. The city which he had the honour to represent was exceedingly alarmed at the proposed alteration with respect to the amount for which a debtor might be arrested. It was well known that nine-tenths of the debts contracted with retail traders were under the amount of 100
l.
Mr. D. W. Harvey
was very desirous that a committee should be appointed to examine the state of the law respecting debtor and creditor, and concurred with the hon. member for Bristol, that until the result of that inquiry should be ascertained, the best course would be to re-enact the present Bill for a short period. Such a subject could never be satisfactorily discussed in a popular assembly. It ought to be referred to a committee composed partly of professional and partly of commercial men. The present law held out no inducement to honesty: it held out no inducement to humanity; for the creditor who was the most pressing was paid, while the creditor who refrained witnessed the extinction of the means of satisfying his claim. As to the amount of the debts of insolvents during the continuance of the Act being eleven millions, it ought to be remembered that the amount of each debt was repeated in the schedule two or three times, it was true that the dividends were trivial; but that was because the debtors had no temptation to make them greater. If they had, they would disclose their insolvency, and make a division of their properly at an earlier period. Why not hold out to insolvents the same temptation as to bankrupts? If a bankrupt, by an early disclosure of his
233
s.
l.,
l.
The Solicitor General
said, that as at present advised, he had no objection to consign the consideration of the subject to a committee. Though he had no doubt that there was humanity enough in that House to protect the unfortunate debtor, it ought never to be forgotten that the creditor was the party best represented in it. He was afraid that the proposition for allowing a man to declare himself voluntarily an insolvent, would strike at the root of that credit which was so necessary to the transaction of the ordinary business of daily life. He was therefore not prepared to go along with that proposition. He agreed with the noble Lord, that it was incumbent upon them, whilst they gave every proper facility to the debtor, to take care that he was not permitted to set his creditor at defiance. He could not agree with the hon. Member opposite, that every debtor who was unable to pay 20s. in the pound to his creditor ought merely to be considered in the light of a trustee for his creditors. Morally speaking, undoubtedly he was so,—but how injurious would, it be to give every creditor
234
s.
Mr. Hume
heard with pleasure the declaration of the Solicitor General, that he considered it desirable to have the whole subject of the debtor and creditor law of the country submitted to investigation. He was convinced that the abolition of arrest would not of itself be productive of good. Along with the abolition of the system of arrest,—that system which had spread so much demoralization throughout the country—the House should introduce some plan for the more easy and expeditious recovery of debts. Unless the House combined these two measures, it would only outrage the feelings of those who thought that they had an interest in maintaining the law as it now stood. Hundreds of solicitors and traders had informed him, that they would make no objection to the first measure, provided they were sure of obtaining the latter. He thought that a great many of the provisions of the Scottish law on the subject of debtor and creditor might be introduced into the English law with great advantage, particularly that which gave the majority of an insolvent's creditors the power of giving him a conditional discharge, provided they deemed the offer made to the body of creditors fair and equitable.
Mr. O'Connell
complained of the present system of law, by which a debtor could postpone the period of settling with his creditors for three, six, or even nine months, by setting up fictitious defences. Was it not disgraceful that a defendant was not brought at once before a judge, and called upon to state immediately the
235
l.,
Mr. Doherty
could not conceive how several of the topics on which the hon. and learned member for Clare had touched bore upon the subject then under discussion. The hon. and learned Member was fond of declaiming about the legislative union of the two countries; but he would take that opportunity of informing that hon. and learned Member, that whenever he should bring forward his threatened motion upon that subject, he should be prepared to meet him.
Mr. Baring
thought that a settlement between debtor and creditor could never be attained without some power of arrest for debt. He was not aware of any country having entirely abandoned the principle of imprisonment for debt. Much had been talked of fraudulent debtors, and unfortunate debtors, but the shades of difference between them were innumerable, and even tinged by improvidence, profligacy, want of care or of knowledge, and other circumstances. He believed the instances of creditors pressing upon debtors were few, and the fault was rather the other way.
The Petition read. On the question that it be laid on the Table,
Mr. O'Connell
said, that he had not spoken at all that evening about the legislative union of the two countries; all that he had said was, to express a wish that there was the same code of laws in England and Ireland relating to bankruptcy. At present there were two codes, or at least it was doubtful whether there were not two. Some years ago the bankrupt law of England was altered, but the alterations, either designedly or unintentionally, had not been extended to Ireland. The first clause of the Act making those alterations repealed all prior laws affecting
236
Mr. Doherty
concurred in the wish of having the law of England and Ireland assimilated on this subject. He happened to know that it was intended to amend the bankrupt law in England; and till that was done, it would be folly to introduce the English system into Ireland.
Lord Althorp
said, that he should never advocate a system by which the fraudulent debtor should be allowed to go scot free, but some measure ought to be adopted to exempt the unfortunate from incurring the same punishment as the guilty.
Petition laid on the Table.
THE JEWS.]
The Solicitor General
presented a Petition from one Lewis Levi, a Jew, praying that the House would pass a declaratory law, in order to remove all doubts which might at present exist as to the power of the Jews to hold landed property in fee. He concurred entirely with the petitioner in thinking such a law was necessary. The petitioner had informed him, that neither he nor those Jews with whom he was acquainted, wished for the elective franchise. They merely wanted the rights of property.
Mr. Cutlar Fergusson
said, that the petitioner, it appeared, wished the rights of property to be secured to him, but was indifferent to all civil privileges. He had the right to say this for himself, but not to utter this opinion on behalf of others. Of his own knowledge he could say, that there was a general expectation and hope among the Jews, that the same justice would be extended to them as to other persons dissenting from the Church of England. He was prepared to support their wishes by his vote, for he thought no disability should attach to any man on account of his religious opinions.
Mr. Spring Rice
thought, that in the bill for the emancipation of the Jews, a clause might be inserted to continue to the petitioner all the benefits of his present disabilities, with which he seemed so contented. He was cure that this indi-
237
Mr. Hume
said, that if the petitioner had stated the opinions of other persons in his Petition, he would oppose it being laid on the Table.
The Solicitor General
assured the hon. Member that he would not have presented the Petition if it had contained any thing of the sort. He had only repeated what the petitioner had verbally said to him.
The Petition to lie on the Table.
STAMP DUTIES OX NEWSPAPERS.]
Mr. Spring Rice
said, he would take the liberty of informing the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that it was his intention to move for certain Returns respecting the Press of Ireland. He wished the right hon. Gentleman to consider well before he proceeded further in his proposed measure of taxation; and he hoped he would see reason to abandon it altogether. In saying this, he begged to be understood, not as contending against, but in favour of, an increase in the Revenue. And he was anxious to impress it upon the English Members, and on the right hon. Gentleman himself, that in proceeding with this subject he would not only lose revenue, but extinguish revenue altogether, and also take away the means of existence from a large class of his Majesty's subjects; for, in fact, the Press of Ireland could not survive the new duties. The hon. Member concluded by moving for a return of the amount of Stamp duties received for Newspapers in Ireland during each of the last twenty years; and also for a similar return of the Duties on Advertisements.
Mr. O'Connell
was satisfied that the right hon. Gentleman was misinformed respecting the state of Ireland when he proposed to augment the Stamp duties. He was fortified in this opinion by the statements respecting the distress prevailing in that part of the kingdom, which had been made during the Session. The present measure was, in his opinion, decidedly calculated, though he hoped not intended, to extinguish the expression of public opinion in Ireland. Within a few years the duty on Newspapers had diminished from 25,000
l.
l.
238
Sir J. Newport
expressed his sorrow at perceiving that it was the intention of government to add to the duties already existing in Ireland. The system of increased duties had been tried in Ireland, had failed, and been abandoned. He believed that, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer should persist in his measure, he would reap, not a harvest of revenue, but only a harvest of discontent. He had on a former occasion proposed a reduction of the rate of duty, with a view to increase the revenue, and his expectations had been fully answered. When the duty on Spirits was 5
s.
d.
l.
s.
d.
l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
The Returns ordered.
CORPORATION FRAUD.]
Mr. O'Connell
presented a Petition from the Traders, Manufacturers, and Artisans of the Town of Galway, in favour of the Galway Franchise Bill. The petitioners stated, that that bill would have the effect of restoring them to those rights which their ancestors had exercised, and they prayed that a petition which had been presented, as from the Mayor and Corporation of the Town of Galway, might be dismissed—the petition not deserving that character, for though the Corporate Seal had been affixed to it, the petition had not been agreed to at a Corporate Meeting.
Mr. Hume
said, the statement made in this Petition, if truly made, and capable of being substantiated, was one that considerably affected the privileges of that House. If the Mayor had really been guilty of affixing the Corporate Seal to the petition without the authority of the Corporation, he had been guilty of a fraud on the House, and deserved its severest reprehension. He trusted that
239
Mr. North
agreed with the hon. member for Aberdeen, that if the statement made were true, a fraud had been practised on the House; but he must confess, that he was inclined to refuse credit to that allegation in the Petition; first, from his personal knowledge of the Mayor of Galway, who was a most respectable man; but further, because the petition referred to, from beginning to end, was in spirit a Corporate petition—substantiating, maintaining, and asserting, the rights of the Corporation itself. He agreed however, that an inquiry ought to be instituted into the truth of the allegations.
Sir J. Newport
also thought, that the matter was worth inquiring into; for if the Corporate seal had been affixed without the knowledge or authority of the Corporation, it was certainly an improper proceeding on the part of the Mayor. He would not use such harsh language as to say that it was a fraud, but it was very wrong. It was possible that he might have done it under a misconception of his duty; but if he had, it was fit he should be warned of the impropriety of his conduct.
Mr. O'Connell
admitted, that the allegation ought by no means to be taken as true, till it had been examined and proved; but it certainly deserved inquiry; and he pledged himself that the Mayor should have the full opportunity of repudiating the charge; for he would, at an early opportunity, make a Motion on the subject.
SOLICITOR GENERAL OF IRELAND.]
Mr. Doherty
said, that the conduct of the hon. and learned member for Clare, with respect to the Petition reflecting upon the Mayor of Galway, which he had just presented, was most fair and honourable. He had no doubt that the hon. and learned Member would act with equal candour towards another individual, and he therefore begged to ask, when he meant to present those petitions, copies of which he had sent to the Secretary for Ireland, and which reflected strongly on the character of the individual who was then addressing the House?
Mr. O'Connell
said, he had sent the copies of the petitions to the Secretary for
240
Mr. Doherty
observed, that the conduct of the hon. and learned Member would be quite becoming and proper, if he had not already made the charges contained in these petitions matter of such notoriety, and if he had not forwarded the petitions to the Irish Government. But the hon. and learned Member had even gone further, for, unless the press of Ireland had most grossly misrepresented him, he had, at the late assizes in Ireland, most directly and positively asserted that his (Mr. Doherty's) conduct or misconduct should be made the subject of parliamentary inquiry. Under these circumstances, the hon. and learned Member, having gone so far, was bound to go further, and give him the opportunity of clearing his character.
Mr. Hume
submitted, that the hon. and learned member for Clare, having answered the question put to him, and having declared what was the line of conduct he should pursue, the hon. and learned Member opposite had no right to press him further.
Mr. O'Connell
did not know what the Irish newspapers had reported of him; but what he knew was, that his statements had been made on the authority of communications made to him. If the facts were as they had been represented to him, he should certainly bring the matter forward; but he should not do so till he was assured as to the truth of these facts. The discussion of the Irish Estimates would give him the opportunity of calling for other returns, which would enable him to decide upon the propriety of the allegations in the petitions, and to determine whether he would bring them forward or not. At present he was not in possession of sufficient evidence to justify him in calling the attention of the House to the subject.
Sir C. Wetherell
did not think that any man's character ought to be thus as it were kept afloat on the authority of mere allegation in a petition. It was unjust towards any man to suspend charges over
241
Mr. O'Connell
had a right to reply to the liberal or illiberal discourse of the hon. and learned Gentleman who was now liberal enough in assailing him, and would have been liberal enough to keep him out of that House if he could. He had, however, been returned, and being there, had the same privileges as the hon. and learned Gentleman. He would ask whether the petitions contained one single particle against the hon. and learned Solicitor General? It was not his fault if the complaints that had been stated to him were unfounded—and whether they deserved consideration or not, he had felt he could not bring them forward in the absence of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He wished to add, that since the petitions had been given to him, a report of the trial had appeared, edited by a most respectable Barrister, and the reading of that report had given him a different view of the subject, and he should, therefore, abstain from presenting the petitions till he had evidence to show him that the former accusations were just, and that that book was incorrect. He had some reason to think that the book was not incorrect, as the author of it was a gentle-
242
hear, hear
The Speaker
decided in the affirmative.
Mr. Doherty
would not press the former question further, but he wished to put another to the hon. and learned Member. After the trials which had lately taken place in Cork, the hon. and learned Member stated, at a public meeting, that he should avail himself of the power he possessed as a Member of that House, to drag him (Mr. Doherty) to its bar to answer for his conduct. He now wished to ask the hon. and learned Member whether he intended to bring forward any accusation respecting those trials?
Mr. O'Connell
said, it was his intention to do so when that House had furnished him with the fitting documents. The question he should then submit to the House involved this important question—how far Counsel for the Crown were justified, when they had in their possession documents which proved a witness for the Crown to be perjured, in proceeding for a conviction on his testimony? He could not move for the documents he now referred to before the close of the last Cork Assizes; they were now over, and
243
[Further conversation on this subject was prevented, by the evident unwillingness of the House to permit it to proceed; and though Mr. North afterwards referred to it again, he was called to order, and the subject was finally dropped.]
LAW REFORMS.]
Mr. Brougham
:—I have now, Sir, to call the attention of the House to a subject which I brought under its notice upwards of two years ago; and I ought, perhaps, to begin by explaining why I did not renew the consideration of it at an earlier period than the present. In consequence of the motion I then made, two Commissions were issued for the purpose of instituting inquiries into the state of the Common Law and of Equity. Both commissions have since made reports on the subjects referred to them. The Equity Commissioners have made one report, and a second may, I understand, soon be expected from them. The Common Law Commissioners have made two reports. If I had pursued the subject after the first Report had been published, I should have done it under every disadvantage; for the commissioners then disclosed their doubts and difficulties on several questions, and announced their second Report, in which they said that many of these questions would receive their decision. Of course it was impossible for me to know what to do, till I knew what course they would adopt. Let it not here escape notice, that I am anxious to express my perfect and entire satisfaction at the manner in which the commissioners have discharged their duty—They have proceeded with the greatest possible deliberateness, and although much remains to be performed, the portion of the subject they have investigated is unquestionably of paramount importance. I therefore do not complain that they have treated the question before them too lightly, and certainly I do not complain of the inadequate execution of the duties imposed upon them. I hold their inquiry to have been conducted in. a proper spirit, pursuing a middle course between rashness and subserviency—neither setting too much at naught the long-pondered decisions of authority, nor evincing that overstrained respect for existing institutions which too often de-
244
l.
l.
l.
l.
245
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
246
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
247
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
248
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
s.
s.
s
d.
l.
s.
l.
249
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
250
l.
s.
d.
l.
251
252
l.
l.
l.
l.
253
254
s.
l.
Regiam Majestatem
Regiam Majestatem.
255
256
tort.
l.
foro contentioso.
257
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
s.
l.
s.
l.
s.
258
l.
l.
s.
l.
l.
l.
s.
s.;
l.
l.
l.
s.
l.
l.
s.,
l.
l.
s.
259
s.
s.
l.
l.
260
261
262
l.
l.
l.
tort,
l.
l.
l.
263
264
l.
265
l.
l.
266
l.
l.
267
l.
l.
l.
Juges de paix,
l.
l.
Premiere Instance,
Arrondissements.
268
l.
l.
Cour de Cassation,
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
269
Manuel
270
271
272
273
"False honour charms, and lying slander scares,
Whom? but the false and faulty."
274
The Attorney General
said, he did not rise to oppose his hon. and learned friend's Motion, but to make a few observations on what had fallen from him in the course of his able and eloquent speech. In the first place, he begged to disclaim any participation in the charges which his hon. and learned friend stated had been brought against him for the course which he had thought proper to pursue. Though he was not aware that any such reproaches had been cast on his hon. and learned friend, he was sure that no man in the House was less deserving of them, or more deserving the gratitude of the country, on account of his zeal and discretion in promoting reform, than his hon. and learned friend. The House would not expect that he should follow his hon. and learned friend into the ample field which he had entered on the present occasion, more particularly as he did not come prepared, by the terms of the notice, to hear so profound and learned a discussion. The proposition submitted to the House appeared to him very important, and he thought it was due, both to the subject and, to his hon. and learned friend, to allow him to introduce his Bill. His hon. and learned friend's object appeared to be, not to alter, but to add to the Constitution; and to add to it by re-
275
276
Mr. Cutlar Fergusson
said, that his hon. and learned friend had prefaced his admirable address by an apology to those who had acted with so much credit to themselves in the commission of law inquiry, and stated, that he had taken up this subject because they had not touched upon the points which formed the main subject of his address. It was not competent for them to enter into the subject of any new courts, but to examine into the old; their attention being solely confined to measures for improving the practice of the superior courts of law. In their second Report those learned persons had made several suggestions for improving the practice in the common-law courts, to which, if the learned Gentleman opposite (the Attorney General) would turn his attention, he would find that they would tend much to render the practice in those courts more efficient, and less expensive than at present. He concurred with the
277
278
279
l.
Mr. Secretary Peel
only wished to address a few words to the House upon the main subject under consideration. It could not be necessary for him to say that it was not his intention to offer any impediment to the introduction of the Bill proposed, for he had placed on record his concurrence in so much of the principle and detail of the proposition, that it was quite impossible for him to dissent from the Motion, though the hon. and learned Gentleman's plan differed in some respects from the considerations he had submitted to the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman went farther than he had been disposed to go, but both measures were based on the same principle; and in the principle of the proposition he cordially concurred. The time had arrived when it was desirable to facilitate the recovery of small debts, and bring justice in this respect as near as possible to the homes of the people. Expenses should be lessened, and he felt no objection to the establishment of Local Courts. He was aware of the objections which applied to exclusive and corporate jurisdictions, but it would be very easy to establish Local Courts to execute the general law of the land, and to steer clear of the evils which applied to local jurisdictions guided by local rules. Much had been said with reference to the inexpediency of cheap justice. If by cheap justice they were to understand bad justice, he acknowledged that nothing could be a greater evil than to make that cheap; but the introduction of cheap and good justice was not open to the objections by which cheap and bad justice might be assailed. He was well aware that it was desirable to keep down a litigious spirit amongst the population, but there was much less evil in that, than in a total denial of justice, for the purpose of preventing such a spirit. It was difficult to define what was a litigious spirit. The sums trifling to one man might be important to another, and he who appealed for the recovery of his wages, the amount of which might appear to some of little concern, might feel the loss of seven
280
l.
l.
281
l.
l.
l.
282
l.
s.
s.
sine qua non,
l.
283
Lord Althorp
remarked, that the difficulty attending his hon. and learned friend's proposition was peculiarly this, that a Judge ought always to act in the face of a large and intelligent bar; for thus was a pure and correct administration of justice best secured to the suitors in a court. The suggestion of an appeal to the Assizes, from the decision of this local Judge, was different from any he had ever heard, and he thought it presented many advantages. It was not an expensive appeal; it was within the reach of any of the suitors; and the consciousness that his decisions might be examined and revised by the Judge of Assize, was likely to exercise a salutary influence upon the local Magistrate. It would prevent partiality, and even the suspicion of partiality, from the Judge being in the neighbourhood, and removed all the objections which had been made to the plan, from its analogy to the Welsh system. He was of opinion that this Judge ought decidedly to be a practising barrister; and he thought, that the disadvantages which might result from any diminution of practice would be recompenced by the reporting of cases to the superior courts, by which his knowledge of the law, as it actually stood, would be always kept alive. For these various reasons, he trusted the
284
The Solicitor General
acknowledged, that the evils arising from a variety of practice would be mitigated, by an appeal to the superior courts; but in most advantages there was some corresponding evil; and here if was evident that the poor suitor would not be able to prosecute his appeal, and therefore, that the administration of justice would not be altogether equal. He had already expressed his opinion against Local Courts, and he saw no reason to change it; still he had no objection to these Local Courts for the recovery of small debts. But then, as under all circumstances, the jurisdiction must be local, and therefore the Judge would be resident. Now this would at once let them into many difficulties. The Judge could not be a practising barrister, because, if he attended to his judicial duties, his practice must dwindle away; and if the contrary, his judicial duties must be neglected. In the next place, it was to be considered, that this officer would, if he might be allowed the expression, degenerate from year to year. And with respect to the appeal to the Judge of Assize, with whom he was to sit during the hearing, he thought nothing could be more objectionable, because nothing could more strongly tend to lower this local Judge in his own opinion, or in that of the persons amongst whom he administered justice. For suppose that any unfortunate gentleman, acting in this capacity, had fallen into errors, and that his hon. and learned friend were the superior Judge to explain to him what the law of the case was, in what a pitiable situation would not this local dignitary be? As to the amount of salary, he was of opinion it could not be less than 1,500
l.
285
Mr. Fergusson
explained, that he had a high sense of the talents of many of the Judges who sat in the Privy Council, but he thought it was a mockery when men professed to decide according to a law of which they were ignorant.
Mr. O'Connell
said, it was late, but as the subject was one of vital importance, he trusted he might be allowed to offer a few observations to the House. The alterations proposed by the hon. and learned Member were of undoubted utility. Their object was, to bring home justice to the door of every man in the country.
286
l.
l.
Hamlet,
287
Mr. C. Wynn
approved of many of the principles laid down by the hon. and learned Mover, but could not entirely agree with all his suggestions. Much had already been done, and more might be effected; but every thing could not be gained now and at once. The right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for the Home Department, to whom he was happy to have that opportunity of expressing his obligations, was the first Minister of this country who had opened this career of improvement, and he trusted it would be followed until the whole body of the law was reviewed, and all necessary and proper alterations made in it. That was the only method of legal reform our institutions would permit. They could not be changed at once, but must be modified in detail as necessity required. The hon. and learned member for Clare had complained of what he called the constant alteration of the Judge-made law, but no codification could prevent that evil; for though the clearest rules might be laid down, it was impossible to make them applicable to every case that might arise. Their application must depend too on the individuals who administered the law. That was shewn to be the case in France.
Mr. O'Connell
said, they had no code in France, it was only half a code.
Mr. C. Wynn
answered, that there was a code, but it did not meet, and it was impossible to make a code to meet every case. He was opposed to the establishment of local tribunals, for he feared the operation of partialities and prejudices on the minds of the Judges who must compose such tribunals; besides which, the want of emulation would operate powerfully upon them, for whether one of these Judges did well or ill he was not capable of advancement, and the system would not produce any eminent men.
Mr. Ewart
expressed his obligations to the hon. and learned Gentleman who had introduced the Motion.
Mr. Brougham
in reply, said, that many of the observations which had been addressed to the House upon the difficulties
288
289
viva voce
Leave given to bring in a Bill to establish Local Judicatures in certain cases in England.
290
CANADA.]
Sir G. Murray
291
Mr. Labouchere
said, he did not mean at that time to enter into details, but he wished to state, that unless the Bill were materially altered he should be under the necessity of opposing it. Any measure which, like this, tended to deteriorate the condition of the Judges in Canada, would do injury; but what he wished to insist on was, that before the House legislated for that colony, it was necessary that its
292
Mr. Hume
put in his claim, in the next stage, to state his opinions upon the question at length; and observed, that the right hon. Gentleman had not by this Bill redeemed all his pledges.
Lord Sandon
feared, that the Bill would not tend to put an end to the divisions in the colony.
Leave was given, and Bill brought in.
HOUSE OF LORDS,
Friday, April 30, 1830.
MINUTES.] Accounts ordered. On the Motion of Lord DURHAM, the Sums of Money paid by the Treasury on account of Inquiries ordered by Parliament into the Boroughs of Penryn and East Retford, up to the present time.
293
Accounts presented. The average price of British Wheat between July, 1828, and February, 1830:—Of British Cloths exported to China between 1811 and 1829.
Petitions presented. By Earl FITZWILLIAM from Kolvedon, Yorkshire, against the Punishment of Death for Forgery; and from certain Dissenters of Shefield, for the Abolition of Slavery. By Visc. MELVILLE, from the Merchant Company of the City of Edinburgh, against the additional Duty on home-made Spirits. By the Karl of HARDWICKE, from the Inhabitants of Cambridge, against the Bill for extending exemption from Arrest for Debts to sums less than 100
l
GREECE.]
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, that he had just returned from France, where he had learned, that a Prince connected with this country was nominated Sovereign of Greece by the Allied Powers. It was some time since the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs had promised to lay papers on their Table relating to the negotiations with Greece. If they were concluded, why leave Englishmen to learn the particulars of this and other parts of their foreign policy from the governments of the Continent? He likewise wished to know whether a reclamation had been made to the Prince alluded to, to forego his position of naturalization in this country? The foreign policy of the noble Secretary was singular: he had raised Don Miguel, while others wished to knock him down. No time ought, in his opinion, to be lost in clearing up the foreign policy of Great Britain. It was twenty-two months since the papers relative to Greece had been promised to their Lordships, and if they were not speedily laid on the Table, he should feel it to be his duty to make a motion on the subject.
The Earl of Aberdeen
trusted, that in a very few days it would be in his power to bring down the papers relating to Greece. Though the noble Marquis had alluded to Don Miguel, he had put no question on Portuguese affairs, and he should therefore say nothing upon that subject.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, my question is plainly and simply this,—Is Prince Leopold appointed sovereign of Greece, by virtue of a treaty concluded by the Allied Powers? Has he been asked to forego his naturalization in Great Britain, in order to accept this new Sovereignty?
The Earl of Aberdeen
did not think it incumbent upon him to answer whatever questions the noble Marquis thought proper to put, yet he had no objection to state, that his Royal Highness Prince Leopold was the personage to whom the Allied Sovereigns had offered the Sovereignty of
294
The Duke of Wellington
.—"To the other part of the noble Marquis's question, relative to the naturalization, I have no hesitation in giving an answer in the negative."
TERCEIRA.]
The Marquis of Clanricarde
wished to know whether his Majesty's Ministers had received official notification of the establishment of a regency at Terceira by the lawful Queen of Portugal; and, if they had, whether any steps had been taken by them in consequence?
The Earl of Aberdeen
replied, that the Ministers were aware of the fact of the establishment of such a Regency; hut they had no official relations with the persons composing it.
EAST RETFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.]
On the Motion of the Marquis of Salisbury, their Lordships proceeded to hear counsel and examine witnesses on this Bill, which occupied them for several hours.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, April 30, 1830.
MINUTES.] Returns presented. The number of Meetings under Commissions of Bankruptey.
Petitions presented. In favour of the Sale of Beer Bill, by Mr. DENISON, from the Retail Brewers of Surrey. Against that Bill, by Mr. BRAMSTON, from the Licensed Victuallers of Dunmow:—By Mr. EGERTON, from the Licensed Victuallers of Northwich:—By Sir K. KNATCHBULL, from Ashford, Milton, and Hamsgate:—And by Mr. BELL., from the Brewers and Publicans of Shields. Against the Punishment of Death for Forgery, by Mr. BRAMSTON, from the Inhabitants of Saffron Walden; and the Magistrates, Clergy, and Inhabitants of Braintree and Bocking:—And by Lord GRANVILLLE SOMERSET, from Newport, Monmouthshire. Against levying a higher rate of Duty on Hum than on Corn Spirits, by the Marquis of CHANDOS, from the West-India Merchants and Planters. Against levying a higher Duty on Corn Spirits, by Sir E. KNATCHBULL., from the Farmers frequenting Bristol Corn Market. For an increased Duty on Foreign Flour, by Mr. BRAMSTON, from a number of individuals engaged in the Manufacture of Flour in Essex. And for an increased Duty on Foreign Lead, by Mr. BELL, from the Mining Districts of Derwent.
SCOTCH JUDICATURE.]
Sir M.S. Stewart
presented a Petition from the Writers and Conveyancers of the Towns of Greenock and Port Glasgow, and Practitioners before the Sheriff Court of Renfrewshire, to which he requested the particular attention of the Lord-Advocate; for he was confident, if the learned Lord gave it his attention, he must also give his consent to the just and equitable prayer of the petitioners. The
295
l
l.
296
cessio bonorum;
ad valorem
297
Mr. Maxwell
said, that when this Petition was disposed of, he had two petitions of a similar nature to present. He took that opportunity of informing the learned Lord, that there was little or no hostility felt in Scotland to the improvements which he had recently proposed to make in Scotch-law, and of declaring that he was most desirous to render justice more easy and accessible to his fellow-subjects in that part of the United Empire. With this view he would suggest that the present system of appeal should be done away, and that instead of parties having to come to London, as at present, the final appeal should be to a court established in Scotland, like the twelve Judges in England.
The Lord Advocate
was happy to hear that no hostility was entertained in Scotland to his bill, as he must confess that he had been apprehensive of a different result. The measure which he had recently proposed to the consideration of Parliament was quite as large as any measure which had ever been hitherto proposed for the reformation of Scotch law. He wished the House to deal with his measure on its own merits in the first instance, and afterwards to take into consideration the other suggestions which had been made to it, adopting them where they were useful, and rejecting them when they were shown by argument to be likely to prove detrimental.
Mr. Kennedy
said, that if the bill for the transference of heritable securities, which he had brought into Parliament in the year 1823, had been passed at that time, it would have proved highly beneficial to the people of Scotland, and he had no doubt that it would prove equally beneficial to them if it were passed at present. As he had been so pointedly called upon by his hon. friend, he would now declare, that if he thought that it would be agreeable to the House and to the country, he would introduce that same bill again into Parliament during the continuance of the present Session.
Mr. H. Drummond
said, that he had found such difficulty in dealing with the amount of compensations which it would be necessary to make on passing his bill for the better regulation of seisins, that he must decline bringing it again under the notice of Parliament. He believed that it would be a most useful measure: but it was in vain for any individual to hope to carry it, unless the matter was taken up with the cordial consent of Government.
298
Mr. Hume
hoped that, the hon. Member would not be deterred by the difficulty which he had mentioned, from proceeding with his very useful and necessary measure. It was a shame to let the extravagant claims of public servants stand thus in the way of great and important public benefits. If the hon. Member would undertake the management of such a measure, he would have more time than the members of Government to superintend its progress, and to bring it to a successful termination.
Petition to be printed.
CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES OF THE MILITARY.]
Sir R. Inglis
presented a Petition from certain Clergymen of the Established Church, who were formerly officers in the Army, praying that the House would take measures to prevent the compulsory attendance of Protestant soldiers at the religious ceremonies of persons of a different persuasion. The hon. Member observed that a few years ago, Roman Catholic soldiers were relieved from the necessity of attending Protestant worship, and he only asked that the same privilege should be extended to Protestant soldiers. Adverting to the case of Captains Aitchison and Dawson, who were tried by a Court Martial at Malta six years before, because they refused to take part in a religious ceremony, the hon. Baronet inquired if at present there was any disposition to review that case, in, a manner favourable to these officers. "He wished that there should be no contest between a man's duty to his God and a soldier's duty to his commander." That principle was, however, sometimes violated, and soldiers who were of the Church of England were compelled to attend on the ceremonies of Catholics. When our troops were last in Portugal, for example, an officer in a small town ordered two officers and sixty men, with the band of the regiment, to parade round the town for several hours, in honour of some patron saint. The commanding officer, he believed, had no evil intention, but he might have hurt the consciences of his men.
Sir George Murray
begged leave to remind the hon. Baronet, that a few years ago, all the soldiers of the British Army, though they might be Catholics or Presbyterians, were compelled to attend the service of the Church of England. That was no longer the case, but even so late as when he held the command of the army in Ireland, instructions were received,
299
300
"
Mondego Bay, July
"It is also most essential to the success of the Army, that the religious prejudices and opinions of the people of the country should be respected, and with this view the General desires:—1st. No officer or soldier belonging to the Army is to go to any place of religious worship, during the performance of divine service in such place, excepting with the permission of the officer commanding his regiment, and the general officer commanding the brigade to which he belongs:—2nd. When an officer or a soldier shall visit a church or any other place of worship, from motives of curiosity at periods when divine service is not performed, he is to remain uncovered while at church:—3rd. When the Host passes in the street, officers or soldiers not on duty are to halt and front it, the officers to pull off their hats, and the soldiers to put their hands to their caps; when it shall pass a guard, the guard will turn out and present arms; when a sentry, the sentry must present arms."
In compliance with that order he had frequently taken off his hat himself, and he was quite convinced that our army would not have triumphed, though it was contending for national independence and individual liberty, had that respect not been paid to the religious feelings of the allies who were united with us in that great contest. Our soldiers were always enjoined to show the utmost respect to the religious rites of other sects, but he knew of no instance in which they had been compelled to take part in their ceremonies. At Malta all the military duties connected with religious ceremonies were performed by the Maltese Fencibles. The only exception to this practice was on the occasion of the demise of the last Pope, when some British soldiers assisted at the ceremonies, but they were exclusively Catholics. With respect to the officers alluded to, he could hold out no hope that the sentence of the Court Martial by which they had been punished, and which had received his Majesty's sanction would be reviewed or the punishment remitted. He stated that with the more confidence, because he held in his hand, at that moment a letter of his late Royal Highness the Duke of York, in reference to that very case, in which the distinction was drawn, in the strongest and clearest manner, between the attendance of a soldier, in obedience to orders, as a part of his military duty, and his attendance upon a religious service.
Sir E. Knatchbull
said, he understood
301
Mr. O'Connell
thought the prayer of the Petition a very reasonable one. Protestant soldiers ought not to have violence done to their consciences by being compelled to assist at the ceremonies of another religion. The Protestants had been called on by the law to swear that a ceremony was idolatrous, and they were compelled by the same law, to fire salutes and do homage in honour of that very ceremony. Men would not be the worse soldiers for being good Christians, and therefore he should recommend the Petition to the consideration of the Government.
Mr. Trant
also supported the prayer of the Petition. There was throughout the army he said, a strong feeling on the subject to which the Petition referred, which the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman would by no means satisfy. A clergyman of the Church of England had lately informed him, that he had seen our soldiers, in the island of Corfu, obliged to hold randies in their hands in honour of the Holy Ghost. As his hon. friend had made no impression on the right hon. Baronet, he would, he hoped, prosecute the matter in some other manner. It was proper he thought, for our troops to respect all religions, but that was very different from taking an active part in their ceremonies. At present British officers were obliged to pay respect and homage to a religion which they thought erroneous, and that was a footing on which, in his opinion, such matters ought not to be placed. He regretted, that the recommendation of the governor of Malta, in regard to having all
302
Sir George Murray
said, that carrying candles was quite optional; people going along put candles into the hands of those men near them, but they might carry them or not as they pleased. The only instance of an attempt at compulsion, of which he had heard for a long time, was that of the Scotch regiment in Ireland to which he had alluded.
Petition laid on the Table.
Sir Robert Inglis
, in moving that it be printed, stated, that he did not wish the religion of any man to be treated with disrespect, but he must, on that very principle, contend that it was wrong to compel our conscientious soldiers to pay homage to religious ceremonies which they disapproved of. He saw nothing in the Orders quoted by the gallant officer to complain of, but he disapproved of our men being obliged to pay more than negative respect to the religious observances of other countries. He did not ask for the revision of the sentence of a Court Martial, but that the officers he had alluded to might, by his Majesty's bounty, be restored to the service. He did not think this too much to ask, because the orders of the Marquis of Hastings, abolishing the practice for not complying with which these officers were punished, was a condemnation of that practice and particularly because their offence was considered to be so slight, that they continued in the discharge of their ordinary duties more than six months after the offence was committed till orders went, out from England to try them by a Court Martial. All that he wished was, that the conscience of the Protestant officer and soldier should be as much protected as the conscience of the professor of a different religion; and that no man, whether he were of the Greek, the Catholic, or the Protestant Church, should be compelled to join in any worship of which his conscience disapproved. If an English regiment were ordered to go to a Roman Catholic Cathedral, and there salute the Host on its elevation, and if any of the officers or men were to be punished for not obeying, that would, in his opinion, be as much compulsion as if they were driven into the Cathedral at the point of the bayonet. The principle involved in this case, therefore, was one of the highest importance, and he could not but say that he had heard with great satisfaction the sentiments which
303
Mr. Maxwell
said, that the officers alluded to, had fallen a sacrifice to the prejudices of the Government; and that if the hon. member for Oxford would bring forward a motion for granting them compensation, he would-cordially support it. He knew that, many persons would consider the obligation of soldiers to attend any religious ceremonies but those of their own church as very wrong, and that it would debar them from sending their children into the army.
Petition to be printed.
MACHINERY.]
Sir E. Knalchbull
presented a Petition from the Journeyman Paper-makers of the county of Kent, against the excessive use of Machinery in the manufacture of Paper.
Mr. Wells
supported the prayer of the Petition; because, he thought the distress of the petitioners arose from the excessive use of machinery, and what was called Free Trade.
Mr. Hume
said, he had been requested, by a deputation from the petitioners, who had favoured him with a copy of their Petition, to support its prayer, but he had declined to do so, because he was certain that a compliance with their wishes would add to, instead of diminishing, the general distress. The petitioners could only hope for more employment, by being able to manufacture Paper at a cheaper rate than other people, and they could only do that by employing Machinery. What kept up the price of their produce and kept down their wages was taxation. He had therefore advised these people to petition for a repeal of the tax on Paper, and for the abolition of the Corn-laws. Had these two remedies been applied, their disease would soon be cured. He would not then undertake to shew that the member for Maidstone was in error, he would merely observe, that to renew the restrictions on our trade, or to extend them, would augment the distress of the country tenfold. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer wished, as he believed he did, to alleviate the burthens of the people, he would suspend the vexatious interference of the Excise, which, without adding to the revenue of the State, did most severely aggravate the miseries of the people. If he would abstain from interfering with the mode of manufacturing various commodities, employment would be so much increased that he might levy a greater revenue than
304
Petition to be printed.
BEER-TRADE.]
Sir E. Knatchbull
in presenting a petition from Mr. James Best, common-brewer, of the county of Kent, against throwing open the trade in Beer, observed, that he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would abandon that measure, and in lieu of it repeal the duty on Malt. The publicans and other parties now engaged in the Beer-trade, would suffer very great hardship by the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposed measure. They had embarked large sums of money in their business, which would be deteriorated or entirely destroyed by the Bill under consideration. The measure had excited much disapprobation throughout the country, and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not persevere in it.
Mr. Benett
said, he agreed with the hon. member for Kent, and was of opinion, that the measure would inflict a serious injury on the publicans and common-brewers. He must therefore beg leave to unite his voice to that of the hon. Baronet, and request the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give up his Bill. He could also inform the right hon. Gentleman, that he was not more lucky with Spirits than with Beer, and his measure for augmenting the duty on Corn Spirits had given universal dissatisfaction to the distillers.
PRIVY COUNCIL.]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he hoped the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Graham) would not press his motion for an account of all salaries and emoluments received by the Members of his Majesty's Privy Council, on going into the Committee of Supply. All the information which the hon. Baronet
305
Sir J. Graham
said, he was anxious to have an opportunity of stating his view with respect to the question of superannuations, of full military pay enjoyed by officers having civil allowance, and on another point of great importance—he alluded to sinecures being held by individuals, who otherwise received large allowances. If, however, the returns alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman were satisfactory, it would not be necessary for him to proceed with his motion, but if they were not so, he certainly would persevere, and under that feeling he consented to postpone his motion until the eleventh of May.
Mr. Hume
said, he was unfortunately absent when the right hon. Gentleman moved for the appointment of a committee to inquire into the existing superannuations. If he had been present, he would have opposed such a mockery. It appeared to him, that since the dissolution of the Finance Committee, Ministers had done every thing to prevent proper inquiry. In the formation of this new committee, an hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Parnell) the ablest man, he would say, that ever sat on any committee, had been most unaccountably excluded.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the hon. Baronet referred to, had been inadvertently, and not intentionally, excluded; for his own part, he had no objection that the hon. Baronet should be placed on the committee.
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.—ORDNANCE ESTIMATES.]
Mr. Perceval
In the Committee, Mr. Perceval moved, that a sum not exceeding 82,046
l.
Mr. Hume
objected to the grant, and stated that the force was too great. In 1792 there were only fifty officers of Engineers, while at present there were 250. The number of Engineer officers was greater now than in 1802, although at that time Bonaparte wielded the power of France, and
306
l.
Mr. Perceval
said, that the hon. Member was mistaken in saying that the Engineer officers were more numerous now than in 1802. The fact was, that if the increase of places where they were required, and the different distribution of their duties were taken into account, their number would be found to be proportionately less than at that period. The number then required for the Colonies was sixty-nine, but at present no more than sixty were employed. The whole establishment of Sappers and Miners was under the command of Engineer officers, and these, together with the number employed upon surveys and in the Irish districts, and those required in the barrack department, fully accounted for the apparent increase of the number of this corps. To all these circumstances he might subjoin the number of Colonies added since the time referred to, and when every thing was considered, he was justified in saying, that comparing the different services they now performed, the number was less than at that period. He might also mention, that the Engineer corps must be kept up in time of peace for the instruction of young officers.
Mr. O'Connell
said, that additional taxes were about to be imposed on Ireland, if, indeed, the people did not, in a constitutional manner, so strongly oppose the measure as to prevent the right hon. Gentleman from carrying it into effect. He wished to prevent the necessity of this, by reducing the establishments, for Ireland was, with respect to her power to bear taxation, a very poor country, and really not able to support the burthen of any more direct taxes. If, therefore, the hon. member for Montrose would propose any reduction of the Irish expenditure, he should have his hearty support.
Colonel Trench
defended the Engineer corps, which, he said, was incessantly employed, and the officers of which supplied the place of jobbing architects and surveyors' clerks, and being paid 2
l.
d.
307
Lord Edward Somerset
said, that this establishment must necessarily be kept up, for if it were destroyed, its re-organization would be extremely difficult, not to say impossible, when circumstances should call for it.
Mr. Hume
did not think these men were profitably employed; they only wasted the materials, for their work itself was not wanted. Having the men we were compelled to find them employment. A sum of 389,000
l.
l.
Resolution agreed to.
Mr. Perceval
l.
l.
Mr. Hume
said, that notwithstanding the recommendations of the Finance Committee, that this corps should be reduced—it was now to a man as numerous, and to a pound as expensive, as it was before those recommendations had been made.
Lord E. Somerset
defended the vote, on the ground that the new Colonies required more artillery. The new Driver corps, also did the duties of Artillery men.
Mr. Hume
denied, that these things were sufficient to justify this increase of expense in time of peace. By keeping up so large a corps we did but add to the claims on our Pension List. The Lieutenant Commandants were continued, although they could not perform their duty. At least the Government said so, for they insisted on maintaining the office of Lieutenant General of the Ordnance, on the ground that he alone could perform the duty of inspecting the Artillery. Surely both branches of expense were not necessary. He had often been accused of entertaining extravagant ideas, but no ideas he had ever entertained were half so extravagant as those of the Government, who spent the public money without the slightest remorse. He thought the reduction in this department ought to be to the extent of 2,000 men.
Resolution agreed to.
The next Vote proposed by Mr. Perceval was for a grant of 37,111
l.
308
Mr. Hume
defied human ingenuity to point out the real utility of the Rocket Troop in time of peace.
Lord E. Somerset
observed, that the same objection would apply to every other corps. A scientific troop of Rocket-men could not be framed in a day, upon a temporary emergency.
Mr. O'Connell
suggested that the Engineers might soon be converted into Rocket-men. It was admitted that this body of men was of no present use, but it was assumed that the country must bear the expense, as it might be of use at some future period. This sort of proceeding and argument indicated a total absence of sympathy between the extravagant Government and the suffering people.
Lord Howick
said, that efficient economy was not promoted by these trifling objections. These corps ought to be kept up in peace, that they might be ready in war.
Mr. O'Connell
did not feel lessened by the reproof of the noble Lord any more than he should feel exalted by his praise. The objections to these votes were founded upon a due regard to the interests of the people, who still sent some Members to Parliament, though the noble Lord might not be one of them.
Sir H. Hardinge
remarked, that the Rocket Troop consisted of only eighty-six men, who performed all the duties of horse artillery.
Mr. Maberly
said, that it was almost a farce to submit these votes to the House, if, when the sums were small, objections to them were deemed insignificant, and when they were large, resistance was considered an attack upon the great and important interests of the country. In his opinion all these establishments were too numerous and too expensive.
Mr. Doherty
said, he thought the hon. member for Aberdeen was the last person who ought to object to the maintenance of a small but effective corps, for the hon. Member himself belonged to a body which made up by activity for its want of strength and numbers.
Vote carried.
Mr. Perceval
proposed a Resolution for granting 1,223
l.
Mr. Hume
wished to know what were the duties of the Director? and
Mr. Perceval
replied, by reading a description of them from the Report of the
309
Vote carried.
The next Resolution was for 9,127
l.
Mr. Hume
begged to know whether the recommendations of the Finance Committee on this subject had been attended to?
Lord E. Somerset
answered in the affirmative.
Mr. Maberly
thought that the department might be abolished altogether without injury to the service.
Sir H. Hardinge
observed, that the establishment at Woolwich would be dispensed with by degrees, and as fast as the present members were diminished by the course of nature and other causes.
Resolution carried.
On the question that 3,402
l.
Mr. Hume
inquired how many young men were there educated, and how many had been admitted last year?
Lord Downes
replied, to the first branch of the question 124; and to the last twelve.
Mr. Hume
wished further to be informed how many of the Cadets were the sons of Artillery Officers?
Lord Downes
added, that twenty were the sons of Artillery Officers, and ten or twelve the sons of Officers of the Line.
Mr. Hume
contended that this fact showed that the Military Academy, instead of being applied to the education of the sons of meritorious officers, was made the nursery for favourites who had no claim upon the country, and who were educated at the public expense, like paupers at a charity school.
Sir H. Hardinge
repelled this charge, and denied that the young gentlemen ought to be considered in the light of paupers educated by public charity; they were entitled to the bounty they received on devoting themselves to the service of their country. He added, that the promises made by Lord Anglesea and his predecessors were fulfilled by Lord Beresford, so far as the cadets were concerned.
Mr. Maberly
thought that the country
310
Sir H. Hardinge
said, he was not understood in what he had said. In 1829 there were thirty-two cadets admitted, eighteen of whom were sons of officers, and in 1828, out of twenty-four cadets, eleven were sons of officers. He conceived that a system which cost the country only 3,300
l.
Mr. Hume
called the attention of the Committee to the fact, that medical men entering the army were not educated at the public expense, and their education was as expensive as that of any other officer in the army, belonging to any branch of the service. What he wished to see was this—that young men should be educated at their own expense, or that of their friends, up to a certain point, and that such scientific education as the service required might be imparted to them at the public expense. Let the public, by all means, give them the scientific information they might require as artillerymen; but he must say, so long as they remained pensioners of the State, by putting it to unnecessary expense for their education, he could not but call them paupers—he called all persons paupers who took the money of the State without giving value for it. Those might not be very courtly terms, but his sense of truth and justice compelled him to use them—there was no Lord nor Lady who had an undeserved and unnecessary pension who was not a pauper. What had the public to do with the education of the Army? There was no education that he knew of requisite for the Army. The general feeling was, that when a young man was fit for nothing else, he ought to be put into the Army or into the Church.
Sir Henry Hardinge
would affirm, that the hon. Member was most unfairly stigmatising those young men. They were just entering into life, and he was calling them paupers without the slightest foundation. Having now treated that observation with the contempt it deserved, he should proceed—
Mr. Hume
rose to order. The language of the gallant Officer opposite was altogether unbecoming his situation.
311
Lord Millon
did not hear the term contempt applied to his hon. friend the member for Aberdeen, or to any other Gentleman; it was perfectly competent to any Member to speak contemptuously of any remark made: the contempt had nothing personal in it.
Sir Henry Hardinge
had never meant to attach any tiling personal to his observations. He merely desired that it should go forth to the public that he felt contempt for the stigma which had been cast, or rather attempted to be cast, upon those young gentlemen. He had no intention of offering any offence to the hon. member for Aberdeen, who, throughout the whole of the discussions relating to those Estimates, canvassed them with so much good humour, that nothing could be farther from his wish than to treat the remarks of the hon. Member with any undue severity. The gallant Officer then proceeded to say, that what the hon. member for Aberdeen had said respecting the education of medical men was not of much weight, for their education could not fail of being serviceable to them out of the army; whereas that of artillery officers could be of no value to them except in that service. If they wished to keep the corps of Artillery, they had better look to the preservation of the Academy of Woolwich.
Lord Howick
concurred in much of what had fallen from the hon. member for Aberdeen. He thought that in this case the public ought to provide the means of education, and that the individuals profiting by it ought to pay for the advantages so afforded to them.
Mr. R. Gordon
defended himself and his friends from the accusation of offering indiscriminate opposition to the votes proposed for the public service. Such accusations were exceedingly improper and undeserved. The first and highest duty of the representatives of the people was scrupulously to watch the expenditure of the public money. He wished to know why the Academy at Woolwich could not be placed upon the same footing as the Military College. The students there paid not only more than was necessary, but enough to defray the charges of all the gratuitous education connected with the establishment The hon. member for Aberdeen had said that none but those who were fit for nothing else went into the army; that was, he conceived, quite a mistake: every prudent man in these times would send his son into the army—it was the high road to promotion:
312
Sir Henry Hardinge
said, that the fact of young gentlemen being educated at Woolwich, fixed upon them a prohibition, or rather excluded them from serving his Majesty in any other capacity than as artillery officers. Placing them under that disability he thought was enough, without adding to it a charge for an education useless for any other purpose of life.
Mr. R. Gordon
professed that this explanation was any thing but satisfactory.
Mr. Warburton
thought, that if the gratuitous education were removed, there would be no necessity for restricting those persons to one branch of the service.
Lord Downes
said, the expense of this stablishment had been greatly reduced since 1821.
Lord Althorp
said, that though our artillery might be excellent, he believed it would be admitted that our Navy was as good as any in Europe, yet our College at Portsmouth paid its own expenses.
Mr. Baring
contended, that it would be no hardship to oblige those young men to pay for themselves.
Mr. Hume
contended, that the expense of this establishment was not merely 3,000
l.
l.
Sir J. Wrottesley
advocated the principle of permitting parents to educate their children for the service at their own expense, and therefore opposed the present vote.
Mr. Hume
objected to the impropriety of having employed the pay appropriated for sixty lieutenants to the support of sixty-four additional cadets.
Mr. Maberly
said, that the accounts on this subject required explanation, and the vote must be postponed until the accounts were amended.
Mr. Hume
said, there was no question but that the vote must be postponed.
313
Mr. Perceval
, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Sir H. Hardinge declared, that a saving had taken place, and that the application of the money was justified by his Majesty's warrant
Mr. Hume, Mr. Maberly
, and others, denied that his Majesty's warrant could override the Act of Parliament, which expressly pointed out the application of it.
List of the Minority.
Althorp, Lord
Lester, B.
Bankes, H.
Maberly, J.
Baring, F.
Morpeth, Lord
Bentinck, Lord G.
Marshall, W.
Benett, J.
Marjoribanks, S.
Buck, L. W.
Martin, J.
Carter, J. B.
Mostyn, Sir T.
Cave, O.
Milton, Viscount
Cavendish, W.
Monck, J. B.
Clements, Lord
O'Connell, D.
Dawson, A.
Power, R.
Davies, Colonel
Philips, G. R.
Dickinson, W.
Poyntz, W. S.
Du Cane, P.
Ponsonby, Hon. G.
Ebrington, Viscount
Robinson, G. R.
Encomb, Viscount
Robinson, Sir G.
Euston, Earl of
Rickford, W.
Fortescue, Hon. G.
Ridley, Sir M. W.
Graham, Sir J.
Sibthorp, Col.
Grattan, H.
Slaney, It.
Gordon, R.
Sykes, D.
Guest, J. H.
Strutt, Colonel
Honywood, W. P.
Taylor, M. A.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Thomson, P.
Howard, H.
Warburton, H.
Howick, Lord
Webb, Colonel
Kennedy, F.
Wilbraham, G.
Knatchbull, Sir E.
Wood, Alderman
Labouchere, H.
Wood,.J.
Lambert, J. S.
TELLER.
Langston, J. H.
Hume, J.
The next Resolution was for the sum of 587,108/. for defraying the Extraordinaries of the Office of Ordnance for the year 1830, after a deduction of 167,547
l.
Mr. Maberly, Mr. Hume, and Mr. R. Gordon
opposed taking the votes in this shape, and contended that it should be taken in five separate items; while the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir H. Hardinge, and Mr. Perceval, maintained, that this was the most convenient mode for taking it; and after a longcon versation upon that point, the Chancellor of the Exchequer consented to withdraw the vote, and so to shape it as to meet the views of the hon. Members opposite.
314
l.
Lord Milton
said, he rose to state the objections which he entertained to these Estimates generally. He was desirous to take this opportunity to enter his protest against the whole military system of this country. If he had not long entertained such a sentiment, the remarks which he had heard that evening from the military bench opposite, would induce him to adopt it. A gallant Officer opposite had said, that having been in Paris in 1814, he saw the deficiency of the Artillery there compared with ours, and he asked, would we now break down such a superior establishment? The fact was, that his Majesty's Ministers seemed to take for granted that, in time of peace, England should be prepared for war, not in the way in which our ancestors would keep her prepared, but according to the new-fangled doctrines which a desolating war of a quarter of a century's duration had introduced. He meant to contend, that we ought not to keep up a large standing army in time of peace. Our insular situation protected us against the danger of an attack. It was upon that our ancestors depended for defence, and upon our free institutions, and the spirit of our people which grew out of those institutions. He had to complain not only of the Government but of that House, for maintaining the present extravagant military establishment of this country. He took no blame to himself on that head, for ever since the peace he had voted for a reduction of these estimates; and, in the calamitously prosperous years of 1824 and 1825, when hon. Gentlemen appeared to think they could not vote away the public money fast enough, he was proud to say, that he had gone out in a division of seven upon those estimates. He was opposed to the whole military system of this country. Ministers had made a great noise and parade about the reductions which they proposed to make, but the distress of the country would force them to make still greater reductions. If those who were far from that place could depend on the rumours which went abroad of what passed within it, it was not the declared intention—and if it had been the intention it would have been declared—of
315
316
Vote agreed to.
The next grant was for a sum of 300,245
l.
Mr. Hume
took that opportunity of asking the right hon. Secretary at War whether, at the present moment, there was any sub-lieutenant of artillery on half-pay.
Sir H. Hardinge
said, that there was no sub-lieutenant on half-pay, except such as were disabled and unfit for active service.
Mr. Hume
said, that he would take that opportunity of praising the conduct of Government in bringing every officer on half-pay of the Artillery and Marines into full-pay, instead of appointing young men to new commissions. A system, the very reverse of this, had been adopted in the army, by which the country had lost several hundred thousand pounds every year for some years back.
Grant agreed to.
The next grant was for a sum of 62,655
l.
Mr. Hume
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was intended to allow the Committee which had been recently appointed to examine into the subject of Superannuations, to inquire into the amount of Superannuations already granted, and into the degree in which persons to whom such Superannuations had been granted could be brought back to the public service.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that it was not intended, when that committee was appointed, to allow it to inquire into the superannuations which had been already granted. As to the propriety of bringing back superannuated persons to the public service, that was decidedly one of the objects to which its inquiries would be directed.
Mr. Hume
explained the motives which led him to put that question. About six weeks ago he moved for a return of the number of persons who had been admitted for the first time to civil offices
317
l.
Sir H. Hardinge
had a very short answer for that question. Since he had been in the War-office, not a single appointment had been made in it. He believed that since the year 1815, not more than four or five clerks had been appointed altogether by his noble predecessor (Lord Palmerston).
Mr. Hume
.—But has there been any appointment of temporary clerks?
Sir H. Hardinge
said, that the hon. Member was most likely aware, that some laborious operations had been conducted by the War-office during the last year. Seven or eight of the principal clerks had been sent round to the head-quarters of the different regiments to get in various accounts. During their absence other clerks had boon appointed to perform their duties at a salary of 5.9. a day each. As soon as those inquiries were terminated, those temporary clerks would be dismissed.
Mr. Hume
supposed that this was the foundation of the story which had reached him.
Grant agreed to.
78,455
l.
The next grant proposed was 66,122
l.
115,413
l.
The next grant proposed was 10,4,335
l.
Mr. Hume
asked why we should pay 7,000
l.
318
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
319
Mr. R. Gordon
observed, that it had been stated that all the expenses of barracks and fortifications in the West Indies ought to be paid out of the 4½-per-cent duties. Now those duties had been misappropriated for a long time past, under various pretexts. His hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen, had moved for a return of the sums thus obtained during the last few years, and that return had been put into the hands of hon. Members that morning. All persons who held West-Indian property had recently been great sufferers from the depreciation which it had undergone; and as those 4½-per-cent duties were paid in kind, he was afraid, that owing to the depreciation of West-Indian produce, the Crown would not be able to pay the pensions which it had granted upon them. To his great surprise, however, he found, that in the last two years they had doubled, and nearly trebled, their former amount. They used to amount to about 28,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the Act of Parliament prevented Government from imposing any charges upon these 4½-per-cents in the West Indies, except for the payment of the Church, and some other services. This was the opinion of the law officers of the Crown. The remainder of the expenditure was made up from the general colonial funds.
Mr. Hume
said, that the sugar duties had, however, come regularly in, and been carried as usual into the funds of the Exchequer. In 1817, they left a surplus of 2,000
l.
l.
320
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that these receipts had been regularly accounted for.
The Resolution agreed to.
In answer to a question from Mr. Hume,
Sir H. Hardinge
said, that the expense of the barrack department had been reduced 42,000
l.
Mr. Perceval
l.
[Some conversation ensued upon this Resolution, respecting the expenditure of the Ordnance survey of Ireland, from which it appeared that the Irish grand juries had requested to have the maps made on a particular scale, they contributing part of the expense; the maps were in progress accordingly, but no money had been paid.]
The Resolution was agreed to, as well as another of 2,600
l.
Mr. Maberly
said, he would, on a future occasion, oppose this mode of receiving with one hand and paying with another in the public accounts.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he would have the subject examined next year.
Mr. Hobhouse
wished to know whether the barracks at the Mews at Charing Cross, were to be still upheld, to deform the new and expensive improvements made in the same neighbourhood.
Mr. Perceval
said, that quarters would be kept there for the original number of soldiers.
Mr. R. Gordon
objected to these barracks, more particularly as it was intended to billet soldiers on those who sold beer under the new regulations. This would, from the great increase of such traders, take away the excuse for having these barracks for military accommodation.
The Resolution agreed to.
The House resumed: the Report to be received on Monday.
SCOTCH COURTS OF SESSION.]
The Lord Advocate
321
Sir Charles Forbes
gave notice, that he would propose an augmentation of 1,000
l
Mr. R. Gordon
pointed out the distinction between the duties of the Scotch and English Judges, which was greatly in favour of the former, from the better division of labour. He said, the salaries of the Scotch Judges were raised in 1810, when the articles of life were sold at very high prices, and they had so continued ever since. Considering the present value of money, and the labours of the Judges, he was convinced they were sufficiently paid.
Mr. Cutlar Ferguson
Ferguson was much obliged to the Lord Advocate for having introduced this Bill, and he hoped he would carry it through. In his opinion the Scotch Judges ought to receive an additional remuneration.
Bill read a second time; to be committed on the 20th of May.
HOUSE OF LORDS,
Monday, May 3, 1830.
MINUTES.] The Royal Assent was given by Commission to the Four-per-Cents Reduction Bill, the Haymarket Removal Bill, and several private Bills.
Returns presented. The Fourth Report of the Commissioners of the Metropolis Turnpike Roads:—A List of Hong Merchants at Canton, stating their powers and privileges.
Petitions presented. Against the opening of the Beer Trade, by Lord WHARNCLIFFE, from the Publicans of Elland and Sheffield. Against the Punishment of Death for Forgery, by the same noble Lord, from the Inhabitants of Haworth, near Bradford:—And by the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, from Chipping Norton, Luton, and Boston. For throwing often the India Trade, by the Earl of ROSSLYN, from the Magistrates and Burgesses of Kinghorn; and from the Inhabitants of Barnard Castle and Stockton-upon-Tees:—And by Lord HOLLAND, from the Inhabitants of Nottingham. Against the increased Duty on Spirits, by the Earl of ROSSLYN, from the Justices of the Peace, Commissioners of Supply, and Freeholders of the County of Fife:—And by the Earl of ALBEMARLE, from the Norfolk Agricultural Society. For the Abolition of Slavery, by the Duke of NORFOLK, from Protestant Dissenters at Sheffield. For holding the Assizes of the West Riding of Yorkshire at Wakefield, by Lord WHARNCLIFFE, from the Inhabitants of Wakefield. For removing the Disabilities of the Jews, by Lord BEXLEY, from the Jews of Bath. For a reformation in Parish Accounts, by the Duke of RICHMOND, from George Gunning, of Frindsbury. Praying for Relief, by the Duke of DEVONSHIRE, from the Weavers of Bandon. Against the employment of Climbing Boys, by Earl GOWER from the Inhabitants of Newcastle-
322
l
l
[The noble Marquis said, the inhabitants of the district from which he presented these Petitions were suffering great and unexampled distress, and not being able to find any other employment than mining, they had no means of obtaining the least relief. They had been gradually sinking into ruin since 1825, when the import duties on Lead were lowered to 2
l
l
s
EAST RETFORD ELECTION BILL.]
On the Motion of the Marquis of Salisbury, their Lordships proceeded to the further hearing of evidence for this Bill. Mr. Evans, who had been formerly the sitting Member, was examined. His evidence went to establish the fact of the sums employed to secure the votes at the elections for East Retford.
Further proceedings postponed until this day week.
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Monday, May 3. 1830.
MINUTES.] Mr. R. COLBORNE brought up the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the merits of the Election for the County of Limerick: the Committee reported that S. O'Grady, Esq. was not duly elected to serve as Knight for the County of Limerick; that J. H. M. Dawson, Esq. was duly elected, and ought to have been returned to serve as such Knight,—that neither the petition of J. H. M. Dawson, Esq. nor the opposition of S. O'Grady, Esq. was vexatious or frivolous.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. HUMES of the number of Officers and Professors at the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich, with their Salaries and Allowances, with the Charge for the Company of Gentlemen Cadets, their number in 1816, the number admitted since, and the number sent into the Artillery and Engineer Corps; also the Expense incurred for Buildings and Repairs at that Academy:—Of the Rates of Duties paid on Articles imported from the British Possessions cast of the Cape of Good Hope:—Of the number of Registers of Seisins established in Scotland, stating where each is kept:—Of the number of Hornings and Captions issued through the Signet-office, Edinburgh, in 1828 and 1829, with the Expense of each:—Of the number of Notaries Public admitted in Scotland in 1828 and 1829:—Of the Emoluments of the Clerks of the Peace; of the Keepers of the Registers of Seisins; and of the Sheriffs' Clerks of each of the Counties of Scotland, stating the sources whence their
323
Petitions presented. For the Repeal of the Malt and Beer Duties, by Sir E. KNATCHBULL, from the Inhabitants of Yalden, Hunton, East Peckham, Hougham, and several other parishes in Kent. Against the Sale of Beer Bill, by Sir E. KNATCHBULL, from the Licensed Victuallers of Gravesend and Milton:—By Mr. BRAMSTON, from the Brewers of Saffron Walden; and the Licensed Victuallers of Uttersford, Clavering, and Freshwell:—By Mr. BASTARD, from the Proprietors of Licensed Houses in Plymouth, Stonehouse, and Devonport:—By Mr. BUR-RKLI., from the Inhabitants of Brighton:—By Lord STANLEY, several Petitions from Licensed Victuallers in different parts of Lancashire:—By Mr. MUNDY, from certain Persons in Derby:—By Mr. CURTEIS, from the Licensed Victuallers of the Lower Division of the Lathe of Scray, Kent:—By Mr. EGERTON, from the Publicans of Macelesfield:—By Mr. HODSON, from the Inhabitants of Wigan:—-By Mr. HUME, from G. and W. Everith, in the County of Somerset:—By Mr. DENISON, from certain Householders of Epsom:—By Sir W. GUISE, from the Proprietors of Public Houses at Stroud:—And by Mr. LITTLETON, from the Publicans of Godmanchester and Huntingdon. Against the Punishment of Death for Forgery, by Sir W. GUISE, from the Inhabitants of Stroud and Nailsworth:—-And by Mr. FYLER, from the Inhabitants of Leominster. Against the Stamp Duty of 10
l
BEER BILL.]
Mr. Portman
asked, whether it was the intention of Government to prevent Beer sold by persons who might take out Excise licenses under the provisions of the Bill before the House from being drunk on the premises where it was sold?
Mr. George Dawson
said, that in the absence of some of his colleagues, who could more properly have answered the question of the hon. Member, he had no hesitation in declaring, that it certainly was the intention of Government to act upon the recommendation of the committee, and to permit Beer to be consumed on the premises where it should be sold. Government felt that if it should come to any other decision on the subject, it would be completely nullifying all the benefit to be derived from the project of throwing open the trade.
Mr. Heathcote
suggested, that no persons
324
Mr. Benett
wished a clause to be introduced in the Bill, rendering it compulsory on the keepers of the new public-houses to shut up soon at night, and open late in the morning.
Mr. George Dawson
thought, that hon. Members should reserve their suggestions until the Bill was in committee.
Mr. Portman
said, that he would take the sense of the House with respect to the point to which he had referred on the second reading of the Bill.
Mr. Bright
said, that he considered the Bill before the House only a half-measure, because it did not repeal the duty on Beer. He wished to know whether it was the intention of Government to introduce a separate Bill to repeal the Beer duty.
Mr. George
Dawson replied, that such was the intention of Government.
Mr. Monck
could assure the members of his Majesty's Government, that several clauses in the Bill were viewed with much alarm, and certainly they would inflict serious injury on the brewers and publicans. The Bill in its present state, would be an act of spoliation and confiscation of individual property. He certainly should, when the Bill was in a committee, move a clause to restrain those persons who might take out Excise licenses, from allowing the Beer they sold to be drunk on their premises. It was the intention of the legislature to make the trade in Beer free, but not to create an unlimited number of alehouses.
Mr. Hume
trusted, that the Government would persevere in carrying this measure through, which he conceived would be highly beneficial to the community, not-withstanding the opposition excited against it by interested persons. He admitted that private property might suffer to some extent; but not equal to the benefit which would accrue from destroying an odious monopoly.
Lord Stanley
could also inform the Ministers, that a considerable degree of alarm and apprehension prevailed in the county of Lancaster, where it was supposed that much mischief would ensue from these new houses not being under the control of the magistrates. He was of opinion that, as the Bill then stood, it would cause considerable inconvenience; and he hoped that it would receive several modifications before it was passed into a law.
325
Mr. Denison
expressed his hope, that when the Bill came before a committee, some means might be found to prevent effectually those scenes of drunkenness and debauchery which it was to be apprehended would ensue, from one end of the kingdom to the other, if the Bill were passed in its present state.
Mr. Slaney
hoped, that such restrictions would be introduced as would prevent the occurrence of those scenes which many Gentlemen anticipated, if the measure were allowed to remain in its present shape; but he wished at the same time, that the spirit of free competition in the Beer-trade should be preserved.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, his object was, to have a free trade in Beer, without any restriction as to its being drunk on the premises where it was sold. At the same time, he was willing and ever anxious to hear any suggestions which would tend to make the Bill more palateable to those whose interests ought to be considered; so far as that could be done without infringing on the principle of the measure.
TRUCK-SYSTEM.]
Lord Stanley
in presenting a Petition from the Manufacturers, Tradesmen, and others of Heaton Norris, against the Truck-system, stated, that this system gave great advantages to a few rich men, who acquired immense profits at the expense of the labourers. On a former occasion, he had supported a Bill brought in by a friend of his, to put a stop to this system; but the operation of that Bill was limited to two years. At present, the masters had joined the workmen, in complaining of this system; which was as injurious to the manufacturers who did not adopt it, as to the workmen who were its more immediate victims. He heartily concurred in the prayer of the Petition, and he would give the measure of his hon. friend, the member for Staffordshire, all the support in his power.
Mr. Bright
said, that the benefits of the proposed measure were so obvious, that the lower classes, ranged under their natural protectors, the clergy of the country, were coming forward to entreat the legislature to support it. In his opinion, it would be impossible for the country to go on for any considerable period with the labourer deprived of his wages, and exposed to be continually fleeced by those who were bound to be his protectors. Who would believe, were it not explicitly stated, that when labourers who were in want of subsistence applied to their masters for wages,
326
Sir John Newport
thought, that the House would never get through its business, if the Members all chose to make long speeches, and get up debates on presenting
327
Mr. Littleton
stated, that though the Bill stood for discussion that evening—it was not likely that he should be able to bring it before the House. As the means of carrying its provisions into effect were of great importance, it had been printed and circulated through the country, and so many suggestions had been received that it must be revised. He thought it would be most advisable to refer it to a committee up stairs; and he hoped the hon. member for Aberdeen would not oppose the motion he should make for that. There was no measure then under the consideration of the House of such importance as the bill for putting an end to the Truck-system.
Mr. Hume
would not oppose that motion, not because he had abandoned his opposition to the Bill—but because it was his wish that the machinery of the Bill might he made as perfect as possible, before he stated his views on it. He was much surprised by the observations of the hon. member for Bristol, who seemed ready to legislate on any principle, or even on no principle at all. He would, however, wait till next week before he would state his reasons at length for opposing the Bill.
Mr. R. King
concurred in the views of the hon. member for Staffordshire, and he was sorry to be obliged to inform the House on the authority of his private letters, that the baneful Truck-system was extending to Ireland. A magistrate of the county of Cork, who lived in Bandon, and attended the petty sessions there, had informed him, that the operatives made numerous and distressing complaints, on account of this unjust practice. "A manufacturer," he says, "generally keeps a shop of dry goods, the poor workman is paid in full at one counter, but he is obliged to go to the other, (by a private understanding, that if he does not he will not be employed) where he receives a shawl, or a gown-piece, or a coat, or something that is useless to him, and at one-third more than he could buy it for, with his money at another shop; what he receives, he takes to the Pawn-office immediately, and pledges for half the amount he was obliged to give for it, and most probably he never afterwards redeems it—he being ground down in his weekly
328
Mr. O'Connell
hoped the hon. Member did not wish for an assimilation of taxation, as that would only aggravate the evils of Ireland.
Petition to be printed.
TAX ON STEAM-CARRIAGES.]
Lord Stanley
presented a petition from certain owners of stage-coaches, calling on Parliament either to repeal the act by which licenses are required to be taken out by stage-coach proprietors, or to extend its provisions to carriages carrying passengers or goods for hire, and moved by Steam. He wished to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to introduce any provision with respect to this subject?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that it was his intention to propose a measure by which stage-coaches, whether drawn by horses or impelled by steam, would be placed on an equality.
Petition to be printed.
FORGERY.]
Mr. Liddell
presented a petition from the Clergy, Bankers, Merchants, and Inhabitants of North Shields, against the proposed alteration in the law relative to Forgery. The petitioners were of opinion that the bill, if passed into a law in its present form, would defeat the object which it was meant to effect, and, instead of decreasing, would increase the crime of Forgery.
Sir J. Macintosh
said, he believed, and indeed he knew, that this Petition would be followed by many others of a similar nature. He gave notice, that whenever the proposition to commit the Forgery-bill should be
329
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he was in such a situation, that however anxious he was to comply with the wishes of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, he could not make any promise on the subject. There was so much public business to be proceeded with, that it was not in his power to give any pledge to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
Petition laid on the Table.
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
The question was put, that the Speaker leave the Chair.
Mr. R. Gordon
said, that any observer of the proceedings of the House, not thoroughly acquainted with its constitution, might sometimes be surprised at the manner in which Members voted away the money of their constituents. Most hon. Gentle-men, when the question of Supply came
330
331
ex his disce omnes,
l
l
l
In 1803 it was
£40,000
In 1828
27,000
In 1829
28,000
l
l
332
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
annus mirabilis
l
l
l
333
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
334
l
l
l
335
Lord Rancliffe
said, he would support the hon. Member in objecting to the items he had mentioned.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that his hon. friend had gone so much into details, that he thought it would be better to answer his observations on each item, as it came before the Committee.
Lord Althorp
concurred in the observations of his hon. friend, and thought that the principle upon which Government proceeded was wrong. Public works, if they were really required, ought to be carried into effect at once, and not executed piece-meal, from a false economy; on the contrary, if they were not required, they ought never to be commenced under any pretence whatever. By not attending to these principles, immense sums had been wasted. The Breakwater at Plymouth—a really useful undertaking—had, by being carried on through so long a period of time, been made unnecessarily expensive to the public. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman that it would be better to allow the House to go into a committee, postponing such items as were objectionable, for the purpose of its being examined into by a committee up stairs.
Sir John Newport
said, that he also concurred in the propriety of first going into a Committee of Supply, and then, referring every item of the Estimates that was in the least objectionable to a committee up stairs. The House had been repeatedly drawn into voting money, under the idea
336
Mr. O'Connell
complained of the very heavy charges incurred in some of those Estimates. At a time when taxation was reduced in England, but when it was increased in Ireland, when great distress prevailed in that country, and was every day becoming more severely felt, it was intolerable that a sum of 160,000
l
l
l
Mr. Hume
was of opinion, that a Committee of Supply was not the place for entering into the facts of a case; one assertion was always met by another, and nothing further could be got at. He contended that the sums proposed to be voted under the heads of the five numbers now to be submitted to the Committee, amounting to 1,625,000
l
337
Cries of "Order".
338
Sir M. W. Ridley
could not consent to the proposition of sending the Estimates to a select committee up stairs, because he thought the responsibility of Ministers ought not to be thus delegated to a body of men who were not responsible. Where inquiry was shown to be necessary on a particular vote he would not object, but he was opposed to the principle of sending the whole Estimates for inquiry, which ought to be presented to the House on the responsibility of Ministers. He was not disposed to follow the example of America, for from what he heard of the proceedings with respect to public works there, he was not disposed to think them very free from jobbing and corruption.
Colonel Davies
would be glad if his hon. friend (Sir M. W. Ridley) would point out any one instance of practical responsibility on the part of Ministers. Let the House look at the whole conduct of Government—at its foreign and domestic policy, carried on against the opinions of the people,—at Ministers coming down to that House, proposing and carrying any measure they pleased,—at their disregard for the recommendations of committees, and their continuance of appointments of which those committees had recommended the abolition—and then say what became of responsibility. When they thought themselves weak, then, indeed, they were all candour and deference to the opinion of the public; but when they saw any symptoms of division or doubt in their adversaries, then they speedily assumed again their tone of arrogance and defiance. Let them only look at the Lieutenant-generalcy of the Ordnance. Twice had a Committee recommended the abolition of that office, and still was it kept up, though he had no hesitation in pronouncing it a most gross job.
The House then went into the Committee of Supply.
Mr. G. Dawson
said, before addressing the Committee relative to the items which he should have the honour to propose to them, he would make a few remarks on what had fallen from his hon. friend (Mr.
339
l
l
Mr. R. Gordon
, interrupting the hon. Member, said, that to save him trouble, he would state, that he was right as to the increase, but was mistaken as to the date. He should have said increased in 1829, as compared with 1828.
Mr. G. Dawson
would state the cause of that difference: the increase over the Estimate of 1828 was from having added the amount of taxes for paving and lighting and watching the different public-offices and houses of Parliament. In reference to these objections, it was only due to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer to state, that since his accession to office, no public work had been undertaken of which an estimate was not previously made, in order to form a judgment as to the expenditure it was likely to induce. Since the year 1824, the Miscellaneous Estimates had been gradually declining in amount, and
340
l
l
l
Mr. R. Gordon
said, he could only repeat the statement he had already made, which was correct in every particular but one. He should have taken the year 1828 instead of 1829. The item ought certainly to be referred to a committee above stairs.
Mr. Dawson
observed, that a saving in respect to furniture for public-offices, and repairs amounting to 12,000
l
ST. JAMES'S PARK.]
Mr. Hobhouse
wished to ask the noble Lord opposite whether it was the intention of his Majesty's Government to grant the public access to St. James's Park by Waterloo-place? He had on a former occasion stated, that if they did not do so, he should feel it his duty to move an address to the Crown. Existing circumstances prevented him from carrying that now into effect, but although deferred for the present, it should assuredly be fulfilled in the event of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests persevering in their determination. That public works should be exempted from public inspection, was a principle at once unconstitutional, unjustifiable, and repugnant to common sense. It was in the highest degree absurd, to pretend that Government should peremptorily decide on the mode in which the public works of a great and powerful metropolis, like London, were to be carried on, without any reference to the opinions or wishes of the inhabitants. Were their complaints to be silenced with the answer, that they were not entitled to exercise any control over matters in which they were so essentially interested,—that this was not a fit subject for interference or inquiry, but should be left to the responsibility of men in office? He quite agreed with the hon. member for Cricklade, in thinking that a fairer question could not be laid before a committee, and he should vote with him accordingly. The object, however, which he had more immediately in view, was the entrance to St. James's Park, already alluded to, with respect to which he would
341
"Diruit, ædificat, mutat quadrata rotundis."
342
Belle colonne! che fatevi qui?
Mr. R. Gordon
then moved, that the vote should be 10,000
l
Sir J. Newport
said, he could see no objection to the items being deferred to a future occasion, on the same principle that the preamble to a bill was disposed of.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
observed, that the present case, and that of the preamble of a bill, were not at all similar. The preamble of a bill was postponed for the purpose of passing it after the clauses of the bill had been discussed and agreed to; but no other opportunity might be afforded for passing a resolution in the Committee of Supply, if it were once passed over. Adverting to the vote itself, as compared with that of 1829, he maintained that the arrangements which had been made by Government had been productive of a large saving of the public money, amounting to
343
l
Mr. R. Gordon
had heard the vaunts of the right hon. Gentleman, that the public interest had not been overlooked in the plan of the improvements still in progress in St. James's-park with no little surprise; for one might infer, from the right hon. Gentleman's tone, that permission to frequent the parks was conferred by the Crown on the public as a boon. He begged leave to ask the right hon. Gentleman, who paid for the improvements in the parks? Was it not the public? He would further ask, who had a right to have their interests considered in the plan of those improvements, if not that public which paid for them? Within the last five years, he repeated, not less than 125,000
l
Mr. Arbuthnot
begged leave to remind the Committee, that he had, in his evidence before the committee on public works, of which the hon. member for Dorsetshire was chairman, stated, that an ingress by a flight of steps, or otherwise, into the park from Pall-mall, constituted no part of the plan of the recent alterations in the neighbourhood of the site of Carlton Palace. While he stated this he was free to admit that he also added, that no indisposition existed in the minds of those who acted under the Treasury to consult public convenience by having such an ingress. He was sure that his right hon. friend had not meant to say, that the public had not a right to frequent the parks—and to share
344
Sir M. W. Ridley
could also inform the Committee, that no promise had been given by the Government, that a passage should be made for the public in the place alluded to by hon. Members. It was, on the contrary, expressly stipulated in the leases of the houses which had been erected on the line of terrace from Carlton-gardens towards St. James's Palace, that no thoroughfare of the kind mentioned, public or private, should be permitted into the Park at the cud of Waterloo-place. And when a private entrance was proposed, it was very properly refused, on the ground that if there should be any ingress at that place it should be one for the public. There were circumstances of a peculiar nature connected with the matter at present, which must operate to prevent any further proceedings in it on the part of the Woods and Forests. He need not do more than allude to those circumstances, as every hon. Member, he was sure, understood what he meant. With respect to the hon. member for Westminster's animadversions on the present arrangements in St. James's-park, all he should say was, that they formed no part of the plan of the architect, and that the blame—for at least some of the defects complained of—lay with the Treasury.
Mr. Hume
suggested the propriety of postponing the vote, on the ground that it was contrary to a recommendation of the Finance Committee—that no residences should be allowed to public functionaries, except they were essential to their duly discharging their public duty. If the expenditure of the public money in public works were properly inquired into, he was sure it would be found that not less than a half or even three-fourths of the sum laid out in official residences might be advantageously saved to the public.
Mr. Protheroe
wished then to say, that there was great room for improvement in the arrangements concerning the Records. There was a valuable collection at no great distance from that House that was at any time liable to be destroyed by fire.
Lord Milton
was surprised to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer the doctrine that the public had no right to dictate or interfere with the arrangements of
345
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
did not deny the right of the public in the sense alluded to by the noble Lord, and only contended that a certain decorous deference was due to the Crown in the management of the Crown property.
Lord Milton
expressed himself satisfied with the right hon. Gentleman's explanation.
Mr. Hobhouse
, in reply to what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, begged to say, that whether a passage into the Park from Waterloo-place were or were not a part of the original plan, a passage had been actually made which was subsequently closed up, as every hon. Member might any day satisfy himself. The matter, however, was then at the disposal of the Committee; let it vote in a majority against the grant as it stood, and the Park would be thrown open; if did not, the promises which had been made to the country, on which some persons had actually set about building, would be unfulfilled.
The Committee divided.
The numbers were—for the Resolution 139; Against it 123,—Majority in favour of the Resolution 16.
List of the Minority.
Althorp, Lord
Brougham H.
Baring, F.
Brownlow, C.
Baring, B.
Burden, Sir F.
Bastard, C. P.
Calvert, C.
Bankes, H.
Carter, B.
Belgrave, Lord
Calthorpe, Hon. F. G.
Bernal, R.
Cavendish, W.
Bentinck, Lord G.
Clive, E. B.
Birch, J.
Clements, Lord
346
Clinton, F.
Morpeth, Lord
Cholmeley, M. J.
Nugent, Lord
Colborne, N. R.
Newport, Sir J.
Cripps, J.
Osborne, Lord F.
Crompton, S.
Ord, W.
Davenport, E. D.
O'Connell, D.
Dawson, A.
Parnell, Sir H.
Davies, Colonel
Palmer, F.
Denison, W.
Pendarvis, E. W.
Dickinson, W.
Palmer, R.
Dundas, Hon. T.
Poyntz, W. S.
Easthope, J.
Power, R.
Ebrington, Lord
Ponsonby, Hon. G.
Ellison, C.
Pryse, P.
Euston, Lord
Price, Sir R.
Fane, J.
Philips, G. R.
Fergusson, R. C.
Protheroe, E.
Fazakerley, I. N.
Rumbold, C.
Fitzgibbon, Colonel
Rancliffe, Lord
French, A.
Rickford, W.
Fyler, T. B.
Ridley, Sir M. W.
Gordon, R.
Robarts, A.
Grattan, J.
Robinson, Sir G.
Graham, Sir J.
Rochford, G.
Guise, Sir W.
Sibthorp, Colonel
Guest, J. J.
Smith, V.
Harvey, D. W.
Smith, W.
Howard, H.
Sykes, D.
Howick, Lord
Stewart, Lord J.
Honywood, W. P.
Taylor, M. A.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Tomes, J.
Hulse, Sir C.
Trant, W. H.
Ingilby, Sir W.
Thomson, P.
Jephson, C. D. O.
Tufton, Hon. H.
Knight, R.
Vaughan, Sir R.
Knatchbull, Sir E.
Vyvyan, Sir R.
Kennedy, T. F.
Warburton, H.
Kekewich, S. T.
Western, C. C.
Killeen, Lord
Westenra, Hon. H. R.
Lamb, Hon. G.
Webb, E.
Langston, J. H.
Wilson, Sir R.
Lambert, J. S.
Wilbraham, G.
Lennard, T. B.
Williams, O.
Labouchere, H.
Whitbread, W.
Lawley, F.
White, Colonel
Lester, B.
Wood, C.
Marshall W.
Wrottesley, Sir J.
Maberly, John
TELLERS.
Maitland, E. F.
Hume, J.
Maxwell, J.
Dawson, G. R. PAIRED OFF.
Martin, John
Marjoribanks, S.
Portman, E. B.
Macdonald, Sir J.
Waithman, Alderman
Milton, Lord
SHUT OUT DURING THE DIVISION.
Mildmay Paulet,
Mostyn, Sir T.
Wood, J.
Monck, J. B.
Sebright, Sir J. S.
7,000
l
8,000
l
20,000
l
347
WINDSOR CASTLE.]
100,000
l
Mr. R. Gordon
opposed the Vote; he complained that the original estimate submitted to the House had been 300,000
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
Mr. O'Connell
observed, that many hon. Members who had Irish constituents, voted for the last grant, and this at a moment when the Chancellor of the Exchequer had it in contemplation to impose 300,000
l
l
l
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the measure of repairing and improving the ancient seat of the Kings of England was, when first proposed, popular, not only in Parliament, but throughout the country. He stated that the causes which had led to the estimates being exceeded had been frequently detailed to the House; and he observed, that there was infinitely more difficulty in calculating the expenses required for repairing an old building than in deciding upon those which might be necessary for the erection of a new one. He could declare that many unexpected diffi-
348
Mr. Brougham
said, I rise with unfeigned reluctance to express my opinions on this subject. For reasons to which I will not now more particularly allude, there is no time at which I would more willingly find it possible, if it were consistent with my public duty, not to say one word upon the question. But I cannot do so, and I shall, therefore, briefly and simply as possible, state the reasons why I, for one, shall vote for the motion of my hon. friend. If I could think that the question now submitted to this Committee was what the right hon. Gentleman has once and again stated it to be, I would vote for him. If it were put to me, "Shall the present buildings at Windsor Castle, with all the improvements which have been undertaken and are in part executed on this ancient and magnificent structure, the residence of our Kings-be completed, or shall they stop short where they now are?"—I say, if the question put to me were merely this, I should not hesitate before I said that these buildings ought to be completed. But I take that not to be the question. I take the question to be, whether we shall vote 100,000
l
l
l
l
l
l
349
l
l
l
l
l
l
350
l
Sir J. Sebright
thought there would be no limit to such extravagance unless that House fixed a limit by a decisive resolution, Some Members had no constituents. He had, and always voted to the best of their interests, and he felt that he should not do so if he did not vote against this grant. He should be much surprised if the hon. Member did not obtain a majority.
Mr. R. Gordon
said, his object was not to refuse the vote, but to refer it to a Committee of Inquiry, and as he had moved that 10,000
l
An hon. Member was of opinion that some competent person should give the House an estimate of the sum that was really wanted, before the money was voted.
Sir M. W. Ridley
recalled the attention of the House to the fact that the original estimate was 300,000
l
Mr. Hobhouse
believed that the case in favour of his hon. friend's Amendment was made much stronger by the hon. Member, one of the commissioners for these works, who had just spoken. Like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that hon. Commissioner was quite unable to answer for the future demands that might be made on ac-
351
Lord Sandon
thought, an inquiry was necessary, and he would support the Amendment.
Sir T. Acland
had ever been disposed to vote for a liberal expenditure to provide a residence worthy of the sovereign and of the people of England, but until he heard some satisfactory explanation as to the amount of the sum which would be finally required, he could not vote for this Estimate. If he were satisfied that a delay in making the grant would be detrimental to the contemplated improvements, he should hesitate in voting for it; but he did not fear any such result. The House had not the full estimate before them, and when he saw a crippled estimate he suspected something was wrong. He thought that it would be more worthy of the House, and more satisfactory to the public, if the Government would do what it ought, and give a more distinct explanation of the whole case before this vote was proposed. Under such circumstances, he felt it his duty, though it was most exceedingly painful to be obliged to do so, to vote against the grant, and in favour of the Amendment.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
quite agreed with those hon. Members who said, that there were circumstances at the present moment which rendered a discussion on this subject exceedingly painful indeed. He was ready to say, that if it were the general feeling of the House that this Estimate should be referred to a committee, he should no longer resist that feeling, and he did not think that he showed any undue deference to the opposition which had been raised on this occasion, if under such circumstances he consented to have this vote referred to a committee, for the purpose of ascertaining what might be the ultimate expense necessary for the completion of Windsor Castle. He did so, he confessed,
352
Mr. Gordon
was rather inclined to persevere in his Amendment, as he should have, in case of its being carried, the appointment of the committee up stairs, which would be otherwise with the right hon. Gentleman, who, he must say, was not most happy in forming his committees. However, if it were the feeling of the majority of the Members, he would withdraw his Amendment, and he trusted a proper committee would be appointed to investigate the subject.
Mr. Brougham
said, the right hon. Gentleman was quite correct in assuming that he made no undue deference to the opinion of the House in withdrawing this Estimate, for that opinion had been too decidedly expressed to allow any such vote to be passed; and he (Mr. Brougham) would venture to say, that neither the right hon. Gentleman, nor the whole power of the Government, could any more have succeeded in carrying this vote on the present occasion than they would have succeeded in carrying a vote for 10,000,000
l
The proposed grant withdrawn.
On the Motion of Mr. Hume, that the Chairman do report progress, the House, after some conversation, resumed.
NAVY-PAY OFFICE.]
Mr. F. Lewis
In answer to a question from Mr. Hume, the right hon. Gentleman explained, that he might be obliged to employ a person under him, as a deputy, not being able with
353
In reply to a further question put by Mr. Hume, the right hon. Gentleman stated, that it was not intended, he believed, to make any new appointment by which a fresh salary would accrue to any individual, but he must at the same time state, that there never was an office in which so much business was done, as that of the Treasurer of the Navy, without an immediate deputy or clerk, possessing an adequate salary to assist the Treasurer. When he considered the business likely to devolve on him after the abolition of the office of Paymaster, he thought he should be obliged to ask for some assistance, though he would not do so till he found that it was not possible to go on without it. The President of the Board of Trade had always had a secretary, and he did not think the most rigid economist of the public money would wish to deny to the Treasurer of the Navy the assistance of a secretary. He did not wish to trumpet forth his own praise—but it did afford him pleasure to state, that since he had held the office of Treasurer of the Navy, he had been enabled to make a saving of 3,000
l
In answer to a further question from Mr. Poulett Thomson, the right hon. Gentleman stated, that under all circumstances, the Treasurer of the Navy, and not any deputy he might appoint by power of attorney or otherwise, would be answerable for the public money.
Bill went through a committee.
CONTINUANCE OF OFFICES ON THE
Mr. Hume
354
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
suggested to the hon. Member the propriety of postponing the Motion, from motives of delicacy to which he need not more particularly allude.
The Attorney General concurred in this recommendation.
Mr. Warburton and Mr. O'Connell
supported the Motion.
HOUSE OF LORDS,
Tuesday, May 4, 1830.
MINUTES.] The Malt Duties Bill was brought up from the Commons. The Earl of ELDON presented a Bill for amending the Bankrupt Laws, which was read a first time.
Returns presented. The aggregate Amount of all Balances of Public Money in the Hands of the Bank of England on the 1st and 15th day of each month for 1829:—Bank of England Notes in circulation on February 26th and August 26th in each year, from February, 1819, to February, 1830:—Advances made by the Bank of England to Government on Exchequer Bills, and other Securities, on August 28th, 1829, and February 28th, 1830:—Money paid or payable at the Bank of England for the Management of the Public Debt in 1829:—The quantity of Corn Spirits of Home-distillation, and of Rum which paid Duty for Home-consumption in the four years ending January 5th, 1826, and in the four years ending January 5th, 1829:—Of Exports and Imports from I798 to 1820:—Evidence taken before the Committee relative to Coin in 1828:—Coals shipped from the Port of Cardiff.
Petitions presented. For throwing open the China-trade, by the Duke of PORTLAND, from the Magistrates of the Burgh of Ayr and Kilmarnock:—By the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from the Incorporated Trades of Glasgow. For holding the Assizes of the West Riding of the County of York at Wakefield, by Lord WHARNCLIFFE, from Pontefract. For an alteration in the Tithe-laws, by the Duke of RICHMOND, from Mr. James Hantler. Praying for Relief under Distress, by the Earl of RADNOR, from the Inhabitants of High Holder, of Great Yarmouth; and the operative Stone-masons of London and Westminster:—And by Earl.STANHOPR, from several Parishes in Kent. For the Abolition of Death as the Punishment of Forgery, by the Earl of RADNOR, from Bolton, Lancashire:—And by the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from Portsmouth. Against the Duty on Coals imported into Ireland, by the same Nobleman, from the Inhabitants of St. Audeons, Dublin, and of Drogheda. Against the additional Duty on Spirits, by the same Nobleman, from the Magistrates, Farmers, and others of Upper Ossory:—And by Vise. MELVILLE, from the Farmers attending Edinburgh Market. Against the proposed alteration in the Welsh Judicature, by the Earl of ELDON, from the Inhabitants of Haverford west, of Cardigan, and of Pembroke.
HICKSON'S ABDUCTION AND MARRIAGE
The Bishop of London
said, he rose to present to this House, according to the notice which he had already given, the Petition of Mary Anne Wayte, (mother of Elizabeth Hickson,) and George
355
habeas corpus,
356
The Bishop of Lichfield
seconded the Motion.
The Earl of Eldon
was of opinion, that the subject then before their Lordships was one which required very serious consideration. No cases, in the view of the law, were more complicated than those which related to clandestine marriages. Conspiracies of this kind were frequent, and when he had the honour of holding the Great Seal, they were often brought before him, and he had to dispose of them in the same manner as his predecessors had done. He was aware that when the banns have been fraudulently performed, a clause in the Marriage Act declared the ceremony to be null and void; but he was also aware, that the subsequent clause which forbade the circumstances of such marriages from being given in evidence, counteracted the means of establishing the nullity, so as to bring it under the previous clause. If the marriage be null and void, he wished their Lordships to see whether the parties could not have their remedy at common-law without coming here; if they had not, then their Lordships must see whether the special circumstances of this case resembled those upon which the legislature had heretofore acted. It would be their duty, when they came to consider the case, not to confine
357
358
The Petition read, and referred to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.
CHURCH REFORM.]
The Earl of Mountcashell
said, he had a Petition to present from New Ross, in the county of Wexford, signed by several magistrates and men of property in that county, praying for inquiry into the means of remedying the existing abuses of the Established Church in Ireland; and also a Petition to the same effect, that originated from a meeting of the friends of the Church of England in the county of Cork, which was signed by upwards of 3,000
bonâ fide
The Earl of Mountcashell
proceeded to say, that pursuant to his express intention, he should then submit to their Lordships a motion founded on the prayer of these petitions, of which he had already given their Lordships notice. In doing so, he begged leave to assure them that he never felt more deeply embarrassed on account, he could sincerely say of a conscious want
359
360
361
Gibson's Codex,
Gibson's Codex,
362
a laugh.
Codex
363
364
365
366
l.
367
368
l.
l.
s.
d.
369
370
371
ignis fatuus
l.
372
Motion negatived without a division, there appearing only the voice of the noble Mover in its favour.
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Tuesday, May 4, 1830.
MINUTES.] On the Motion of Sir J. GRAHAM, the Clerk of the Crown attended and amended the Return for the County of Limerick, by substituting the name of J. H. Massey Dawson, Esq. for that of Colonel O'Grady, who had been declared unduly elected. On the Motion of Sir H. PARNELL, a Select Committee was appointed to inquire into the Receipt; and Disbursements of the Holyhead
373
Returns presented. The quantity of Sugar exported from the Mauritius since 1825:—The Sums of Money voted by the House of Assembly in Jamaica, and applied to the payment of the King's Troops:—Copies of Instructions or Letters relative to the operation of the 5 Geo. IV. c. 51 and 57 in Newfoundland:—Copy of Conditions for granting Land in New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land:—Copy of a Letter dated April 8, 1830, from W. R. Hay, Esq. relative to Revenues and Expenditure of the Cape of Good Hope, and other Colonies:—Copy of the Laws and Ordinances of the Governor and Council of New South Wales:—Copy of Correspondence relative to the Supply of the Metropolis with Water:—Persons holding Offices in the Colonies not in the execution of their Duties.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Sir H. PARNELL, Hides imported, and from whence, between 1810 and 1815, and 1824 and 1829:—Quantities of Cinnamon, Mace, Nutmegs, Cloves, and Cayenne, and other Peppers, entered for Consumption, with the Hates of Duty payable on each, and Revenues derived from them in each year since 1818:—Quantities of Hemp imported, the Hates of Duty, and the Amount of Revenue derived from it during each of the last five years:—Quantities of Cheese, Butter, and Eggs imported in each year during the last seven years, the Rates of Duty on each Article, the total Amount of Revenue obtained from it in each year, and the country whence imported:—The number of Watches stamped each year at Goldsmiths' Hall since 1811:—Rates of Duty on Tallow, Wax, and Spermaceti Candles, the qualities produced, and Revenue derived from each in each year since 1800:—On the Motion of Mr. FOWELLL BUXTON, the number of Persons executed for Forgery during each of the last ten years, describing the nature of the Forgery. On the Motion of Mr. O'CONNELL, Monies received as fines by the Dublin Police, and paid into the Rank of Ireland for the last twenty years, with the Accounts of the Receivers of the Police of Dublin. On the Motion of Sir R. WILSON, all Prosecutions instituted under that clause of the Stamp-act which relates to entering Pamphlets.
Petitions presented. Against the Sale of Beer Bill—By Mr. Alderman WOOD, from the Inhabitants of St. Botolph, Aldgate; and from the Licensed Victuallers of Beccles, Suffolk:—By Mr. GUEST, from the Publicans of Merthyr Tydvill:—By Mr. BIRCH, from those of Nottingham:—By Mr. CROMPTON, from the Inhabitants of Derby:—By Mr. HUSKISSION, from the Burgesses and others of Liverpool:—By Mr. J. MARSHALL, from the Publicans of Bradford:—By Mr. RICKFORD, from those of Aylesbury:—By Sir C. HASTINGS, from those of Ash by de la Zouch:—By Lord STANLEY, from the Clergy and Magistrates of Blackburn:—By Mr. LEGH KECK, three Petitions from Parishes in Leicester:—By Mr. FLEMING, from a Parish in the Isle of Wight:—By Sir W. HEATHCOTE, from Fareham, Hams:—By Lord C. MANNERS, from a person named Watts; and from the Licensed Victuallers of Wisbeach.—By Mr. N. CALVERT, three Petitions from Hat-field, Bishop Stortford, and a Parish in Hertfordshire:—By Sir J. ASTLEY, two Petitions from Bradford and Trowbridge:—By Mr. RUMBOLD, from Publicans at Yarmouth:--By Sir T. FREMANTLE, from the Licensed Victuallers of Amersham; and from St. Mary's, Teddington:—By Mr. WARD, from those of St. Luke's, Bethnal Green:—By Lord Viscount MILTON, from the Publicans of Leeds, Huddersfield, and Halifax:—By Mr. O'CONNELL, from the Publicans of Kidderminster;—By Mr.
374
375
EMANCIPATION OF THE JEWS.]
Mr. Bright
in presenting two Petitions—the one from British-born Jews resident in Bristol, the other from a great number of Christian inhabitants of Bristol, of every denomination, praying that the Jews might be placed on an equality in respect of civil rights and privileges with their fellow-subjects—took occasion to observe, that the general feeling at Bristol was greatly in favour of the Emancipation of the Jews. The petitioners affirmed, that they knew the Jews to be distinguished for their loyalty and good conduct, and they thought this persecuted people were entitled to be placed on an equality, in respect to civil rights and privileges, with their Christian fellow-countrymen. Whenever the question should conic before the House he would be most happy to assist in removing the greater part, although, perhaps, not all of the disabilities under which the Jews at present laboured.
Mr. Protheroe
begged to call the attention of the House to both these Petitions, as well deserving of it. As the argument against the Emancipation of the Jews seemed to have taken a religious tone, he must be allowed to observe, that the character of the inhabitants of Bristol was a; religious as that of any other body of individuals in the kingdom, and yet that there was a strong feeling among the intelligent classes in that city in favour of the emancipation. If they had the least apprehension that it would expose the Established Church, or the Constitution to any danger, they would be the last people of the Empire to petition in favour of it Whenever the subject came regularly be fore the House he should certainly vote for full and entire emancipation.
Mr. Huskisson
said, he also had a Petition to present on the same subject, to which he begged shortly to call the atten-
376
General Gascoyne
observed, that although he most readily bore testimony to the number and respectability of the individuals who had signed the Petition, and agreed fully with his right hon. colleague that for many years no petition had been more numerously and more respectably signed; nevertheless, feeling as he did, that the principles which induced him to oppose the introduction of the Roman Catholics into an entire participation of the civil privileges of their fellow-subjects equally operated on his mind with reference to the Jews; he felt himself bound to say so. His right hon. friend acted consistently with the principles which induced him to vote for Catholic emancipation, in supporting the emancipation of the Jews; a proposition which it had been last Session foretold would be made before a year had elapsed. On the broad principle of an established religion being necessary, he should oppose the bill in every stage. After having voted against the Catholics it would be paying them a very bad compliment now to vote in favour of the Jews.
Mr. O'Connell
thought that, so far from an opposition to the bill being a compliment to the Catholics, the only compliment the gallant Officer could make to them would be to vote for this bill, and for every
377
Sir John Brydges
would give the bill all the opposition in his power whenever it came before the House.
Mr. Huskisson
thought that those who had voted against the Catholics might consistently support the bill for emancipating the Jews.
Petitions to be printed.
PETITION OF INDO-BRITONS.]
Mr. Wynn
said, that he regretted that the duty of presenting the Petition which he then held in his hand had fallen upon him, in consequence of the indisposition under which his noble friend, the member for Woodstock (Lord Ashley) was labouring. He regretted that the Petition, when presented by him, would lose that weight which it would have derived from being presented by the noble Lord, not merely on account of his official character as one of the Commissioners for the Affairs of India, but also on account of the great diligence and attention which he was in the habit of bestowing upon all subjects connected with that country. He had to observe that the Petition was very numerously signed by the Christian, and he might call them very respectable inhabitants of Calcutta and the provinces comprised within the Presidency of Fort William, descended on one side from the European subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, and on the other from natives of India, who might therefore be denominated Indo-Britons, though they were more generally known by the title of half-castes. The grievances of which the Petitioners complained were numerous, but might, he believed, be comprised under two heads. Whilst they lived in Calcutta, within the limited jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, they were ruled in their civil relations by the laws of England; but the moment they passed beyond that jurisdiction, they complained that they were placed beyond the pale of all civil law, whether British, Hindoo, or Mahomedan. They likewise complained that they were excluded from all superior offices in the civil and military services of the East-India
378
379
380
381
382
Mr. Stuart Wortley
thought that as the whole subject of the government of India was at present undergoing the consideration of a committee above stairs, the present was an unfit opportunity to enter into a discussion of the situation of that class of persons from whom the Petition purported to come; yet, after what had passed, he should not feel himself justified, if he suffered the Petition to be brought up, without presenting a few observations to the notice of the House. The principal object he contemplated, in rising to address the House, was to assure the right hon. Gentleman, the House, and the petitioners, that the half-castes were not looked upon with any of that contemptuous feeling which they attributed to the government of India. He assured the House that there existed every disposition on the part of the Government to pay proper attention to the wishes and interests of the class of persons to which the petitioners belonged. Government was always ready to relieve them from any grievances under which they might suppose themselves to be labouring, provided it could be done consistently with the good government and safety of our Indian possessions. Amongst the grievances alluded to in the Petition, there were some such as the laws relating to marriage and succession, which might be remedied—there were others which required much caution and deliberation, because they involved important considerations respecting the government and even the safety of our possessions in India. He considered also, that it would be inconvenient to enter into any discus-
383
Sir J. Macintosh
said, he had had an opportunity of observing the conduct and character of that class of persons whose petition was then under discussion, and he had inquired and reflected much respecting them. He had heard much too, of the natural inferiority of particular races—that there was one race born to command, and another to obey; but this he regarded as the common-place argument of the advocates of oppression; and he knew there was no foundation for it in any part of India. This, he declared, he spoke upon due consideration, because he had observed boys of all races in places of public education. He had observed the clerks in counting-houses, and even in the Government offices, for some were admitted to the subordinate situations, and thus allowed to sit in contact as it were with all the objects of their ambition, though they were only tantalized by the vicinity of that which they could never attain. He was convinced that there was no race, not actually in a state of slavery which
384
385
Mr. Cutlar Fergusson
said, that shortly after he had obtained the honour of a seat in that House, he had called its attention to the hardships suffered by the class of half-castes in India. He was happy to be able to say, that a liberal system was gradually making its way in India, and he was convinced that, in point of policy, the British Government must draw more largely than it had done on the intelligence of the native inhabitants of India. There were some statements in this petition that were questionable; but at the same time it was quite true that those per-
386
Mr. W. W. Whit
more supported the Petition, and expressed his satisfaction that it had been brought forward, as it would show the Indian population that the House of Commons felt interested in their condition.
Sir C. Forbes
concurred with all that had been said as to the justice and propriety of removing the disabilities of the half-caste of Indo-Britons. He had been seventeen years in this country, after having been twenty-two years in India; the more he saw of the old country the better he liked the natives.
Mr. C. W. Wynn
said, in reply to the observations of the hon. Secretary to the Board of Control, begged leave to stale that the highest office held by any of the class whose petition he had presented, did not yield more than 700
l.
Mr. Stewart
Wortley was not aware that these exclusions were contained in the instructions sent out by the directors, or in the appointments which emanated from them.
387
Mr. John Stewart
also bore testimony to the merits of this class of native population in India, and he hoped the Government would remove the disabilities under which they now laboured. He was glad even of this hasty discussion, and he did not think the opportunity an improper one, for the more the question was discussed the better would the House be able to legislate on the subject of India, when it was formally brought before it. He agreed in the representations made in the Petition. The petitioners by being excluded from European society, were treated with contempt by the natives, and were thus subject to more causes of irritation than were perceptible in the regulations.
The Petition laid on the Table.
Mr. Wynn
BEER-TRADE.]
Mr. C. Culvert
presented a Petition, not from brewers or publicans, but from the Vicar, Curate, Churchwardens and Overseers of the Parish of Isleworth, against the Bill now brought in to allow the sale of Beer in houses without regard to the character of the occupier, the wants of the public, or the wishes of the neighbourhood, and without consideration for the ruin of those who had already invested their capital in public-houses. The petitioners stated, that they viewed the progress of this Bill with alarm, and were convinced, that if it became a law, it would be productive of much mischief. For his own part he believed that the House would soon regret the ruin it would be sure to occasion, and the country gentlemen who were now so anxious to support the measure, would, ere long, rue the day in which they gave it their assent. The same hon. Member, presented another petition from three hundred persons, Inhabitants of the Parish of Paddington, against the said Bill; and a third Petition from one Stanley Gainer, of Seacombe, in the county of Chester, who complained, that having laid out the sum of 3,000
l.
l.
388
Mr. Byng
presented a Petition, signed by 5,000 persons, occupiers and owners of public-houses in London, and its vicinity, against the Bill, and observed, that if it were passed into a law, it would decrease the ease and comfort of all gentlemen who lived in the country, and would be the ruin of many respectable men who had advanced their capital on speculations in public-houses.
Mr. Alderman Thompson
begged leave to support the prayer of the Petition, many of the petitioners being among his constituents. He regretted very much that it was the determination of the Government to persevere in promoting this Bill; and he hoped, even in that case, that the part which allowed Beer to be drunk on the premises where it was sold would be struck out. He was of opinion that that part of the Bill would have a most pernicious effect on the morals of the lower classes. He had no objection, neither had the petitioners, to Beer being sold by a greater number of persons than at present, but they objected to those persons, without a license or any guarantee for their character, being allowed to supply parties with accommodation for drinking it on their premises. He was of opinion, that a great deal of mischief would result from the change, and he therefore wished that it should be made gradually—for example, it would be better to wait and sec what would be the effect of abolishing the duty on Beer, before allowing every body who chose, to set up a public-house. For his part he could not give his assent to so great and sudden an alteration as was contemplated by that Bill. He was glad that the member for Reading meant to move an amendment to it, for if everybody were allowed to sell Beer, every gentleman might be subject to the annoyance of having a public-house at his door, where the most abominable characters might plan the commission of every species of crime. He believed that all the vigilance of the new police would be insufficient to counteract such temptations to disorder. Moreover, the Bill set aside a number of Acts of Parliament, which, whether for good or evil, had secured to certain parties a monopoly, and induced them to buy and sell under that restriction, which gave a fictitious value to property. Were the owners of property that might be depre-
389
Mr. Alderman Waithman
thought, the call for compensation was made too soon, nor could he sec the analogy between opening the trade in Beer, and regulating the County Courts. The existing system was very bad; the alteration of the law was intended for the public benefit, and he therefore was favourably disposed towards it.
At
Mr. Benett
was in favour of the bill, conceiving that the monopoly of public-houses by common brewers was a great evil, which would be remedied by the present measure. He saw no other vested rights endangered by it but those of the brewers, which ought not to be protected. Every poor man who had no other home than the public-house, should be allowed to enjoy himself freely there, and should not be taxed to support opulent brewers and publicans. He wished he could prevail on the right hon. Gentleman opposite to abolish the Malt-tax as well as the Beer-tax; the article would then be made much cheaper and the poor be proportion-ably benefited.
Petition to be printed.
LAW RELATING TO FORGERY.]
Mr.
390
on presenting Petitions from Darlington, Kirk by Kendall, and Kings-bridge, against the severity of the law against Forgery, even as it was proposed to be amended, said that he did not mean to make any observations on the subject, but he begged leave to read the following extracts of letters from highly respectable bankers:—
"
Sunderland Bank, April
st,
"The inefficacy of the existing law is most glaring, and bankers, who, perhaps, see more infractions of this law than all others put together, have long and keenly felt upon this subject. Between fifty and sixty years have elapsed since our first establishment, and dining the whole of this period, although numberless forgeries have passed under our observation, yet in no instance, excepting one, have we dared to prosecute, because we should have hazarded the life of a fellow creature; and in that one instance two individuals in all probability would have forfeited their lives, but for our withholding the fatal evidence."
"
Banbury Bank, April
"If the Home Secretary were made acquainted with the sentiments of the banking interest generally on this subject, he possibly might be induced to propose a less sanguinary punishment for offences of this description."
"Wakefield, Yorkshire, April
"I am largely interested, as a banker, in the West Riding of this county, in the towns of Wakefield, Done aster, and Pontefract. After a long experience I can declare, that I shall rejoice to see the new law with milder penalties, conceiving myself now placed out of the protection of law, as I feel it impossible to prosecute offences where such a penalty is assigned."
IRISH CONSTABULARY FORCE.]
Mr. O'Connell
rose to move for a return of the number of persons who had been killed by the Police in Ireland since the passing of the Act for the establishment of the Constabulary Force in that country. The effect of that establishment had been, that whenever the people resisted the police, they were put to death by them. In England, resistance to the police was a misdemeanor; but in Ireland it was punished with death. As he was desirous to know how many persons had so fallen, he moved that an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he would be graciously pleased to order that there be laid before the House an account of the number of persons in Ireland that had been put to death by the police in that country since the passing of the Act
391
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
remonstrated with the hon. and learned; Gentleman on the form of his Motion. The hon. and learned Gentleman must surely be aware of the very great mischief which a return to such a motion would be calculated to produce. If the hon. and learned Gentleman persisted in his Motion he must oppose it.
Mr. O'Connell
said, that he was indifferent as to the form; all that he wanted was to get at the facts. He did not mean to impute any blame to the police; he only wanted to know how many lives had been sacrificed by them. However, he would withdraw his Motion for the present, for the purpose of bringing it forward in another shape.
Mr. Doherty
said, that his right hon. friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had adverted to the extraordinary form of the hon. and learned gentleman's Motion; he (Mr. Doherty) begged to say a few words with respect to the comments by which that Motion had been accompanied. The hon. and learned member for Clare, if he (Mr. Doherty) had not misunderstood him, had stated broadly that in Ireland it was the practice, whenever resistance was made to the police by the people, for the police to put the people to death. Now really he was at a loss to conjecture how it could happen that a person of the hon. and learned Gentleman's knowledge and experience, accustomed as he was to measure his expressions, could make such an assertion as that, and subsequently declare that he meant no offence by it! If the fact were really as the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated it; if the police in Ireland were constantly in the habit of putting to death all persons who made any resistance to them, it was the hon. and learned Gentleman's bounden duty to submit the subject immediately to the solemn consideration of Parliament. He was the more surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman had indulged in such observations in making a motion, of which he had not given any notice, when he might have had such abundant opportunities of substantiating his charges, if they were capable of being substantiated, by producing the petitions against him
392
393
Mr. O' Connell
was surprised that the hon. and learned Gentleman had expatiated so largely on the subject, as there was no opportunity at the present moment to go into the facts of the case. His (Mr. O'Connell's) only object in the Motion which he had just made was, to elicit facts, and to ascertain how many lives of his Majesty's subjects in Ireland had been sacrificed by the employment of an armed police. When he spoke of the lives which had been lost in resistance to the police, he spoke of evil resistance; and he did not mean to say that lives were lost on all occasions. If, however, a single life were lost in resistance to the police, he had no sympathy with those who did not contemplate with compassion the tears of the orphans and the widow thereby created. Whatever men high in office might think of such occurrences, by him they would always be deeply lamented. He did not know to what the hon. and learned Gentleman alluded when he spoke of his (Mr. O'Connell's) assertions respecting him. What he had asserted was derived from persons who had put their assertions into the shape of petitions, and said they were ready to prove them. He had been prevented from bringing the subject forward, because it appeared that, as far as the hon. and learned Gentleman was concerned, he had been guilty only of mismanagement, and if so that mismanagement had been favourable to the prisoners;—If the hon. and learned Gentleman had erred, he had erred only in favour of the prisoners. After he had sent the petitions to the noble Lord, a book was published, which gave a different account of the affair from that which he had originally received, and that induced him to pause until he could ascertain which was the right view of the case. The hon. and learned Gentleman courted investigation. He (Mr. O'Conncll) had not, however, made any declaration in
394
CATHOLIC CHARITABLE BEQUESTS.]
Mr. O' Connell,
in moving for leave to bring in a Bill to place the Charitable Bequests and Donations of Roman Catholics in Great Britain on the same footing with those of Protestant Dissenters, observed, that the necessity of the measure was obvious, and the propriety of remedying the evil which existed equally obvious. In Ireland, the Bequests or Donations of Roman Catholics, for charitable or benevolent purposes were fully protected, and with the exception of some expense for the renewal of the names of Trustees, when the former ones died or retired, they enjoyed the same privileges as the Protestants or Dissenters. In England the case was very different. Here the Legislature, in the repeal of various penal laws which affected the Catholics, as well as in the great Relief Bill itself, had proceeded on the principle, not of repealing the Acts, but of repealing the oaths imposed by these Acts, and substituting other oaths to be taken in their place. The consequence was, that in various Statutes, and particularly in those which related to Charities, and what were in former times called superstitious uses, the penalties remained, and the grievances under which the Catholics laboured did not come under the provisions of the Relief Bill. The result was, that although
395
Sir C. Wetherell
did not intend to oppose the learned Gentleman's Motion; but he could have wished to know what description of charitable bequests he desired to have protected—whether they were for the purpose of building chapels, or increasing monastic institutions? The hon. Member had not, in fact, told them whether he did not propose to support donations for superstitious uses, nor had he explained what those superstitious uses meant. He was willing to allow the Bill to be brought in, but he reserved any opinion on its merits until he had a fuller explanation of the details.
The Solicitor General
understood the Relief Bill to be intended to place the Catholics on the same footing as other Dissenters, but. not as Protestant Dissenters. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wished by this Bill to go further, and confer on them new rights, then the question was one of great importance, and required due consideration.
The Attorney General
also guarded himself against any assent to the principle of the Bill by suffering it to be brought in, and declared his ignorance of the precise meaning which the learned Gentleman attached to the words superstitious uses.
Mr. O'Connell
in reply, said, he merely wished to protect the donations of the benevolent for charitable purposes, and he could assure the House it had no reference to monastic institutions, for the Relief Bill forbade it. His intention was, to have the Bill printed, and if it were then opposed, he should not press it for the present Session, but take the sense of the House on it in the ensuing Session.
Leave given to bring in the Bill.
396
CATHOLIC MARRIAGES.]
Mr. O'Connell
rose, he said, to move for leave to bring in a Bill to render valid, in certain cases, the marriages of Roman Catholics in England by a Catholic Clergyman, and to abolish in Ireland certain penalties imposed on Catholic Priests for celebrating marriages between Catholics and Protestants. He wished, if possible, to earn the approbation of Gentlemen on the other side, or at least to avoid their censure, by being very brief upon this subject at present, trespassing on the attention of the House only to an extent sufficient to make his intentions understood. The object of the proposed measure was, to render valid, in certain cases, the marriage of Roman Catholics in England, and to abolish the penalties imposed on Catholic Priests in Ireland for solemnizing marriages between Protestants and Catholics. There were two different points for consideration, on which the House might be disposed to come to different decisions. The House might be ready enough to amend the law of Ireland, without wishing to interfere with that of England. He did not refer to a law making the marriages of Roman Catholics valid in themselves; in that respect but little alteration was desirable, for marriages celebrated by a Roman Catholic priest, between Roman Catholic parties, were perfectly valid at present. Such marriage entitled a female to dower, and conveyed the ordinary interest in property to the children. That law extended in Ireland also to marriages celebrated between Protestant Dissenters by clergymen of their own communion. There were three distinct laws relating to marriages in Ireland:—first, for marriages celebrated by clergymen of the Established Church; secondly, for marriages by Protestant Dissenting ministers; and thirdly, for marriages celebrated by Roman Catholic priests, which are valid only when both parties are Roman Catholics. That being the slate of the law, his object was to mitigate the penalties for any violation of that law by a Roman Catholic priest. There was no penalty on clergymen of the Established Church for marrying persons of different religious persuasions, none on Dissenters—upon the Roman Catholics alone was any penalty inflicted. He would briefly notice some of the statutes which authorised these penalties. The first Act to which he would allude, was passed for the purpose of preventing the taking away and marrying
397
398
l
399
malus animus
The Solicitor General
expressed his satisfaction at hearing that it was not the intention of the hon. and learned Member to disturb in any manner the Catholic
400
l
Lord Leveson Gower
said, it was not his duty to oppose, but to promote the hon. and learned Gentleman's Motion. He wished, however, to reserve his opinions on the subject, till a subsequent stage of the Bill, and he should certainly offer no opposition to it in that stage.
Sir J. Brydges
said, he would not oppose the introduction of the Bill, but conceiving that after what was called the obsolete Statutes were repealed, there would be some motion to enact different laws, he should certainly oppose the Bill at its subsequent stages.
Mr. North
supported the Motion. The Bill was to amend the civil law respecting marriage, and nobody who knew what that law was, whatever political opinions he might profess, would oppose that Bill. The hon. and learned Member, as he understood, did not intend to alter the law. But at present, the punishment to which a Catholic clergyman was supposed to be liable for celebrating illegal marriages was nothing less than death. In the opinion of many celebrated men, and in the opinion of an humble individual, himself, though his was a very conscientious opinion, the Relief Bill passed by the Irish Parliament in 1793 repealed the law inflicting this punishment. The punishment was no longer death—it was not
401
l
Mr. Croker
was in hopes, that ere long something would be done to make the marriage law similar throughout the three kingdoms. It was, in his opinion, a most monstrous anomaly, that the marriage law, which was the very foundation of society, on which depended the rights and fortunes of all classes of citizens living under the same general scheme of policy, subject to the same system of Government,—it was a monstrous anomaly that this law, the foundation of the whole society, should not be the same for every part of the kingdom, and every description of persons. At present, however, this law was so extravagant, and so extraordinary, that there was now a case of marriage pending, as the learned Gentleman opposite knew, which, after the highest court of Scotland had declared the couple to be legally married, and their children legitimate, was about, he believed, to be set aside by a still higher authority here; and the children were to be declared illegitimate. He did not mean to enter into the question as to Ireland, but he did hope that his Majesty's Ministers, or some Gentleman of talents and weight in the House, would bring the state of the marriage-law under discussion, and would enable the people to know, at all times and places, whether they were legally married or not, and whether their offspring were legitimate or illegitimate.
Leave given to bring in the Bill; and Mr. Q'Connell and Mr. Jephson were ordered to bring it in.
BEER TRADE.]
Mr. Calcraft
said, in rising to move the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Beer Bill, that he
402
403
404
405
406
Mr. Portman
rose to move that the Bill should be read a second time that day six months. He felt that it was necessary to make an apology to the House and to his hon. friend, from whom he was at any time sorry to differ, particularly as he had obtained much of his political knowledge from his hon. friend, for the course he was taking. He begged however, distinctly to disclaim having any feelings on this subject in common with the brewers and publicans; his opposition to the Bill being founded on general principles. His object was to stop the further progress of a Bill which he considered would prove most injurious to the people, in the hope that the right hon. Gentleman might be then induced to repeal a portion of the Malt-tax, which would confer far greater benefit on the country, or else that he would directly relieve the people by taking off the Excise-duties from soap and candles. The Bill the right hon. Gentleman proposed was not, in his opinion, what it professed to be. It was a Bill to establish a certain species of retail Beer trade, but it did not entirely relieve the publicans from magisterial control. Now he considered, that if magistrates were to have any authority at all, they should have sufficient authority to preserve order, as they were bound to do by the tenour of their oaths. The right hon. Gentleman, should either relieve them completely from the responsibility, or else invest them with befitting powers. He now opposed the Bill, because he thought it fairer to do so at that, the second reading, than to endeavour to stultify it by the introduction of some clause in the committee. He on tended there was no control in the provisions of this Bill against the use of dele-
407
408
Mr. Dickenson
rose to second the Amendment. He gave the right hon. Gentleman credit for good intentions, but thought his Bill would be highly injurious. It would not be any bonus to the common people, who were now in a most deplorable state, and who were nevertheless, he regretted to add, in the habit of expending more money upon Beer than upon food. He did not think the brewers would produce a better liquor under the new regulations. He deprecated the destruction of property which would ensue, and the deterioration of the morality of the people which would be caused. Under these impressions he would support the Amendment.
Mr. Benett
said, he entirely differed from the hon. Gentleman who had spoken last, and consequently felt it his imperious duty to support the Bill. The three parties who, it was argued, would be injured by it were the common brewers, the publicans, and the public at large, whose morality was to be compromised. As to the first, he had simply to observe, that there was a tax of three millions and a half taken from Beer, and that therefore this must increase the consumption of the article. This would be materially the case with respect to brewers' Beer, because it was the common brewers who paid the tax, and not the individuals who brewed their own Beer, who, even with this advantage, were not able to compete with the others in the quality of the article. Accordingly the common brewers would now derive a benefit from the taking off
409
Mr. Heathcote
said, he thought Government had exercised a sound discretion
410
411
Mr. Sadler
agreed with his hon. friend, the member for Dorset shire, in thinking the Government would have acted wisely in preferring the repeal of the Malt-tax to the repeal of that tax now proposed. Considering, however, the present measure us one of relief, he objected to it as partial. In many of the rural and agricultural districts of England, which were the most distressed, the people wore in the habit of brewing their own Beer. To them, consequently, the Bill brought no relief. The consumption of Beer on the ale-bench might be augmented, whereas the consumption at home would not be increased. He regretted that the Bill held out no inducements to private brewing, but on the contrary, by diminishing its comparative advantages, tended to encourage the trade of the brewer. Hitherto the arrangements connected with the supply of Beer to the public had been connected with the magistracy, and he would take upon himself to say, that they had always exercised the power which the law had put in their hands with credit to themselves, and with benefit to the community. No one could attempt successfully to carry on the business of a publican, without having obtained for himself a good character; and the great security for maintaining that previous good character was, that it was his interest to do so. It likewise appeared to him, that the supervision of the Excise was another security for the good quality of the Beer supplied to the public; though he would not enter further into that branch of the subject. The proposed system appeared to him to be nothing more nor less than offering a bonus to tipplers, with no likelihood of affording advantage to the body of the people. But besides the injury to arise to the community, the greatest damage would, by this measure, be inflicted on the vested interests of those most concerned in the measure. That publicans and brewers had gone on embarking their property in the trade was the fault of the Legislature, for it was the Legislature that, by its previous conduct, had persuaded the publicans that there
412
"An hour's importance on the poor man's heart,"
Mr. Fowell Buxlon
had always thought that the hon. member for Newark was the advocate of the poor. He therefore had been not a little surprised when he heard him advocate the repeal of the Malt-tax, in preference to that on Beer. Taxation ought to apply equally to the rich and the poor; or, if there were any distinction, it ought to be in favour of the poor. But how did the case stand with respect to the Malt and Beer taxes? If any body brewed his own Beer, it was some man who was comparatively opulent; the poorer classes, particularly in towns, were one and all obliged to buy Beer. Those who brewed their own Beer paid only the Malt-tax; those who bought their Beer paid also the tax on Boer. Barley was 35
s.
413
s.
s.,
414
Sir C. Burrell
thought, that the hon. member for Weymouth was wrong in his argument. If the Malt-tax were taken off, every man would be able to brew his own Beer, and would be encouraged to do so, while the removal of the Beer-tax appeared to be a benefit in favour of the rich, to the disadvantage of the poor. A parallel case to the present was that of the Leather-tax, in which it had been contended, that on its removal every shoemaker would become a tanner; but to prepare the under-leather for shoes required three years, and consequently a large capital. The same was the case with regard to Beer; the large brewers would still have the advantage of capital, and would monopolize the whole trade of the country. He did not intend to deny that the intention of Government, in the removal of the Beer-tax, was good: but it certainly appeared to him that they were proceeding upon fallacious grounds. They should consult practical men before they brought forward measures for the relief of the country, for otherwise they run a risk of bringing forward measures like the present, which would not be followed by the effects which they anticipated. They might as well try to learn in the depths of the sea, as in the streets of Lon-don, what would be beneficial to the country at large.
Mr. Maberly
would vote in favour of the Bill, the general principle of which he approved of, though he thought that something ought to be done in behalf of the publicans. He admitted that they had no claim upon the consideration of the House on the score of vested interests, but they had strong claims, on other grounds, to its consideration. They had embarked an immense capital in this trade, under a system which had continued for years, and which, at the time they embarked their capital, they had no reason to suppose would be disturbed. Ministers now turned round on them and said, that that system was founded entirely upon principles of bad legislation. He would, therefore, throw out a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman, that the permitting
415
Mr. C. Culvert
agreed with the hon. member for Weymouth in all that had fallen from him, and he should support the measure of the right hon. Gentleman. But when the House was in a committee, he hoped that something would be done for those persons whose property they were about to destroy, to an extent of which the House was not probably aware. As to any claims for vested interests, he, in behalf of the London brewers, disdained all such idea. Neither had the London victuallers claimed one farthing of compensation. The hon. member for London had not said a word to that effect which he had heard, and he had listened attentively to what had fallen from that hon. Gentleman. It however rested with that hon. Gentleman to explain what he had said.
Mr. R. Palmer
said, he should have preferred the reduction of the Malt-duty, and thought the present measure went too
Mr. C. Barclay
said, that the hon. Baronet had contended that the taking off this duty would afford little relief to the poor in comparison with the removal of the Malt-tax. He was not of that opinion; and to bring the thing within the comprehension of every body, he would just state that the removal of the Malt-tax would save the public only a halfpenny per pot in the price of beer, while the removal of the Beer-tax would lower the price one penny. The result of taking off the Malt-tax would be that private brewers would pay no duty whatever, but hat would be of little benefit to the public at large; for it appeared that during the last year, the quantity of malt consumed was twenty-nine millions of quarters, of
416
Lord Milton
said, that this Bill ought to be considered, not as a separate measure, hut as a part of that system of finance which the government had introduced in the present year. Looking at it under that aspect he was not disposed to object to it, but there were other considerations which would induce him to vote against it. He did not like the ambiguous support given to the Bill by the hon. members for Weymouth and Southwark, especially when he recollected that the former had confidently stated that the skill and capital of the brewers would save them from the effects of competition. The hon. member for Southwark would find that he had been mistaken in supposing the publicans did not claim compensation, for if he looked into the evidence of Mr.
417
Mr. C. Culvert
explained, that alderman Brown was not the agent of the publicans, and they were no more answerable for what he said than a client was for the
418
Mr. Houldsworth
said, that the cider-houses in the West of England were great evils; but that the regularly licensed alehouses were well conducted; and he feared that the beer-houses to be created by this Bill would be like the cider-houses of the West. He objected particularly to a clause which went to mix up the jurisdiction of the county and borough magistrates.
Lord Granville Somerset
supported the Bill, and did not think it would be found liable to the objections made by the hon. Member. He should vote for the Bill, because he thought the peculiar circumstances of the times and the bad quality of the liquor now sold by publicans required some alteration. He did not, however, impute the bad quality of the liquor to the great brewers. The provisions of this Bill were, in his mind, more likely to prevent the improper conduct of persons keeping ale-houses than were any of the enactments of the old law. He did not mean to find fault with the magistrates—it was their duty to be strict in granting licenses, but it was also well known, that the decisions of different magistrates in different parts of a county did not always harmonise with each other. He believed that the old system had occasioned much of the adulteration of beer and the habit of gin-drinking, and he therefore objected to it. The present Bill went upon the principle of substituting good beer for an abominable adulteration and for gin, and he thought it was well calculated to effect that object. He could not conceive why the noble Lord opposite should imagine that the Bill would only be of advantage to artisans in towns, and not to labourers in the country. It was said that the vested interests of brewers and publicans would suffer from this Bill, but just in the same proportion was it clear that the public would be benefitted by it. He should, therefore, cordially give it his vote.
Colonel Sibthorp
said, that the great point which he thought the House ought to consider in this case was, whether the proposed measure would be a relief to the poorer classes. Now one noble Lord had said it would be but a partial relief to them. In his mind the relief to them by this Bill would be but as a flea-bite. He
419
Mr. Brougham
said, that with respect to this question he stood in a peculiar situation. In the year 1822 he introduced a bill on the subject, which went the length of a second reading. In the year 1823 he introduced a similar bill, which reached the same stage. Into that bill he introduced a restrictive clause, more in deference to the opinion of others than from any conviction of his own mind; but the bill was thrown out. As to the present measure, there were those who thought that the restrictive clause would have been an improvement to it. He expressly added that clause, because he found that, in the then state of men's minds, there was no chance whatever of its otherwise obtaining the concurrence of anything like a majority of that House. He expressed his confident belief, that not only would the present measure afford great relief to the landed interest, by the increased consumption of malt, but that it would be a substantial improvement to the condition of the humbler classes, by producing an improvement in the quality of the article supplied; that improvement in the liquor, he considered, would be a great and valuable relief to that class; and he marveled much that his hon. friend, the member for Dorset did not see the matter in that light. To open the trade must be attended with the inevitable consequence of improving the quality of beer, for whereas brewers and publicans were, up to the present time, without competition, when that alteration was made which the Bill proposed to effect, brewers on a small scale and of moderate capital could get into the trade and promote competition. But it was more important to recollect that there would also be less adulteration of the liquor, for he believed that all the adulteration of the liquor took place at the publican's. The brewer was subjected to the visits—he might more properly say the visitations—of the excise officer, and he was also open to the influence of the informer. The publican was
420
421
422
Mr. Bransby Cooper
approved of the general principle of the Bill, but disapproved of the clause allowing Beer to be drank on the premises where it was sold.
[The remaining observations made by the hon. Member were rendered inaudible by universal cries of "Question."]
The House divided, when there appeared—For the original Motion 245; Against it 29—Majority 21G.
List of the Minority.
Bell, M.
Knatchbull, Sir E.
Burrell, Sir C. M.
Milton, Lord
Byron, T.
Rick ford, W.
Chandos, Marquis
Sadler, M. T.
Drake, T. T.
Sibthorp, Colonel
Drake, W. T.
Tynte, C. K.
Fane, J.
Vyvyan, Sir R. R.
Foley, E.
West, F. R.
Fremantle, Sir T. M.
Wells, J.
Gordon, R.
Williams, O.
Heathcote, R. E.
Williams, T. P.
Heatheote, Sir W.
Willoughby, H.
Hodgson, H. A.
TELLERS.
Inglis, Sir R. H.
Dickinson, W.
Keck, L.
Portman, E. B.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, May 5, 1830.
MINUTES.] The Malt Duties Bill was read 3 second time.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of the Earl of MALMESBURY the number of Bushels of Malt on which Duly was charged in each year from the earliest period the Return can be made out, with the Hate of Duty:—The quantity of Beer, Porter, and other small Liquors that have paid Duty each year, from the earliest period the Return can be made out.
Petitions presented. By the Marquis of TWEEDALE, from the Freeholders of Roxburghshire, for an increased Duty on Rum. By the Marquis of ANGLESEY, against the pro-posed alterations in the Welsh Judicature, from the Inhabitants, and from the Grand Jury of the County of Anglesey; and from the Inhabitants of St. Michael's and St. John's, Dublin, for a Repeal of the Duty on Coals.
TAX ON LEATHER.]
On the Order of the Day for the third reading of the Leather Tax Repeal Bill,
The Earl of Malmesbury
expressed a hope that the repeal of the Duty on Leather would prove beneficial to the great body of the people; but he understood that the harness-makers, and other workers in the material, were not of opinion that they would obtain it for a less price than before.
The Bill was read a third time and passed.
423
SIR T. WILSON'S ESTATE BILL.]
On the Order of the Day for the second reading of this Bill,
The Earl of Mansfield
objected to its further progress, as it would prove exceedingly injurious to the town of Hampstead, and to all those who held property in its vicinity. The father of Sir T. Wilson had, by will, limited the power to grant leases to the term of twenty-one years—the son now required leave to let the ground for building on leases of ninety-nine years; and the simple question was, whether Parliament would interpose to alter the avowed and express object of the testator. The grounds on which Sir T. Wilson might be supposed to apply for the interference of the Legislature to set aside the will of his father were, either the occurrence of something which the testator had not anticipated, the omission of something which he should have done for the improvement of the estate, or such an altered state of circumstances as rendered it imperatively necessary to make new arrangements. No such reasons were, however, given by Sir T. Wilson; and it was plain, from the fact of his father allowing him to let one estate for ninety-nine years, and restricting his power in another, that he did not intend that Hampstead Heath should be let in the manner desired by the present tenant for life. The House might think it unreasonable, but the power of the father to make the arrangement was unquestionable; and he contended from this, as well as from the injury it would inflict on the copyholders of Hampstead, that the House ought not to interfere for the purpose of altering the will, which limited Sir T. Wilson's powers to dispose of the property.
Lord Arden
supported the Bill. He believed that their Lordships had uniformly given their consent to bills of this description, and he saw no good reason for departing from the usual custom on that occasion. Within a few years several hundred bills of this description had received their Lordships' approbation.
Lord Tenterden
was understood to say, that it was customary in law not to suppose in any holders of property for life a power to let it, unless that power was given to them by the testator. In this case, by such a power having actually been given to the present Sir T. Wilson over his Woolwich estates, while no such power was conferred over his estate at
424
Their Lordships, divided, when there appeared: For the second reading 7; Against it 23—Majority against the Bill 16.
PARISH REGISTERS (SCOTLAND).]
Lord Napier
said, that in calling the attention of their Lordships to a measure which involved not only the interests of private individuals, but the public concerns of the kingdom, he had to acknowledge that he found himself surrounded with difficulties which could only be removed by the superior wisdom and experience of their Lordships. Those difficulties arose out of certain differences of opinion which might possibly exist among their Lordships, but prevailed to a great extent among the ministers of the Church of Scotland, who would be more particularly intrusted with the administration of the law which he was about to propose for their Lordships' consideration. For his own part he should never have thought of interfering in any manner with this important business, had it not been from the personal observation of the most gross and scandalous mismanagement and neglect on the part of those intrasted with the care of the Registers of the parish in which he resided; but incase their Lordships should be of opinion that one solitary instance of neglect was not a sufficient ground for parliamentary interference, he would refer their Lordships to the Population Abstract, published in 1801, wherein it appeared, that out of 850 parishes in Scotland which made returns under the Population Act, only 99 were in possession of regular Registers, the rest having made only occasional entries therein, or keeping no Register whatever. This great abuse had long ago awakened the attention of the very learned and industrious Deputy Clerk Register in Edinburgh, who not only mentioned it in his reports to the Court of Session, but made such a communication to the general assembly of the Church of Scotland, as caused that reverend body to appoint a committee of their own members to prepare an overture concerning parochial Registers, wherein it is stated:—" That whereas great inconveniency and loss has been experienced in many parts of the country, either from no parochial
425
426
427
428
Viscount Melville
admitted the necessity of introducing conformity into the mode of keeping Registers in Scotland, and therefore cordially concurred in the principles of his noble friends Bill. There might, perhaps, be some objection to the machinery, but he should reserve his objections to the next stage of the measure.
The Earl of Rosebery
also stated, that there was a total want of uniformity in the mode of keeping parish Registers in Scotland; he therefore gave his cordial concurrence to the principle of his noble friend's bill. He hoped that the amendments which were to be introduced when the Bill went into a committee would make it satisfactory to all parties.
The Bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Monday.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, May 6, 1830.
MINUTES.] Returns presented. Of Foreign Corn admitted for Home consumption between July, 1828, and July, 1830, and at what Rates of Duty:—Coals shipped at Newport for Bristol and Bridgewater:—And Money paid by the Treasury on account of the Inquiry ordered by the Parliament concerning the Boroughs of Penryn and East Retford.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of Derby, from Lancaster, against the Renewal of the East India Company's Charter. By the Earl of ELDON, from Richmond, in Surrey, praying a Revisal of the Insolvent Debtors' Act. By Lord TEYNHAM, from the Com Inspectors of Dublin, praying for a better intercourse between the Inspectors of the two Countries, in order to improve the Method of taking the Averages. By the Karl of ORPORD, from King's Lynn, Norfolk, praying the Abolition of the Punishment of Death for Forgery. By Lord Clifford, from various places in Devon, and from Chertsey, complaining of the Coast Duties on Coals. By Earl STANHOPE, from the Paper-makers of Kent, praying the imposition of a Duty on Machinery; and also from the Paper-makers of Surrey. By the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from Norfolk, against the Malt Duties. By Lord WHARNCLIFFE, from the Seamen of the River Tyne, complaining of Dues exacted from them for the Support of Greenwich Hospital; and also from Baptists at Farsley, praying for the Abolition of Slavery. By the Bishop of LITCHFIELD, from the Inhabitants of Alton, praying for the Abolition of the use of Climbing Boys. And by the Earl of DARNLY, from Tullamore, in King's County, praying that Poor-laws might be extended, to Ireland.
NATIONAL DEBT AND REVENUE.]
Viscount Goderich
said, after the time of
429
430
431
432
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
433
l
l
l
434
The Duke of Wellington
said, that by a reduction of the rate of interest on Exchequer bills there would also be a saving.
Viscount Goderich
, in continuation: That made the argument he was stating so much the stronger; but without including that, the reduction of the charge on the National Debt for the next year, as compared with 1816, would not be less than 4,689,000
l
l
l
l
435
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
436
437
l
l
l
l
l
l
438
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
439
l
l
l
l
440
441
"Our castle's strength would laugh the siege to scorn."
The Duke of Wellington
said, he considered that the Government and the people were under the greatest obligation to his noble friend for having introduced the subject to their notice, and for the manner in which he had treated it. He would not weaken the effect of the admirable speech of his noble friend, either by commenting upon its matter, or by repeating over again anything that he had said. In general he agreed with all that had fallen from his noble friend, and he congratulated their Lordships in having had laid before them so admirable a statement of the true state of the National Debt, and of the interest paid by the nation on that debt. There was only one part of the statement of his noble friend to which he must confess he could not give his entire concurrence. The part to which he alluded was that in which his noble friend had, with his customary candour, commented upon that topic which usually went by the name of the Equitable Adjustment. His noble friend had admitted that an increase of the Debt was occasioned by the depreciation of the currency, and had stated the amount of that at twenty per cent. It was certainly true that there was a large increase in the price of commodities during the depreciation of the currency; but the allowance that his noble friend had made appeared to him to be a very large allowance indeed. His noble friend had admitted too much he thought in stating the annual increase of the charge on account of the Debt contracted in a depreciated currency at 3,500,000
l
442
l
l
The Earl of Stanhope
said, he felt himself called upon to say a few words on this question, and to declare that his views of it were totally different from those taken by the noble Duke on the opposite side, and other noble Lords on this side of the House. Instead of the triumphant statement made by the noble Viscount (Gode-
443
444
s
445
Lord Bexley
observed, that the noble Lord near him contended that the country could not go to war without a Bank Restriction so long as the war might last. Now he thought that nothing could be more impolitic than such a measure; for it would be the most effectual means of crippling the resources of the country.
Lord Carnarvon
said, that that credit which the just confidence of mercantile men enabled them to give each other in this country, which was the surest means of keeping the capital of the country in a state of activity, would admit of a paper currency, and would give us an advantage over the nations of the continent. A paper currency however was perfectly distinct from a Bank Restriction Act, nor did the former necessarily require the latter.
Motion agreed to.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, May 6, 1830.
MINUTES.] The House, at its rising, was adjourned till Monday. A Hill was brought in to alter and amend the Laws relative to the removal of Scotch and Irish Poor.
Returns presented. The Sums of Money paid during each of the last three years into each of the Masters of Chancery's Office, for the Sales of Estates, and the amount of Money received by them and their Clerks:—Fourth Report of the Commissioners of Metropolis Roads:—Duty paid on Hoots and Shoes imported:—Number of Surcharges under the Assessed Taxes Acts:—Quantity of Butter and Cheese imported:—Of British Wool exported:—Of Corn Spirits and um which paid Duty:—Of Grain, Malt, and Flour exerted from Ireland to England or Scotland:—Sums received from the several Stamp Duties in 1829:—Copies of Memorials submitted to the Treasury by the Corn Distillers of Ireland, Scotland, and England:—Of Communications on the subject of the Shubenacadic Canal:—Hemp, Flax, Linen, and Machinery exported:—Rum imported:—Expenditure on account of Diplomatic and Consular Establishments in the New States of South America:—Expenses incurred and Reports presented by all the Commissions of Inquiry, &c. issued in 1829.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Sir J. NEWPORT, the Sums of Money paid into the Exchequer during the last five years on account of the Duty on Probates of Wills, and the Legacy Duty: on account of the Duty on Newspapers and Advertisements; and on account of the Duties on Powers of Attorney. On the Motion of Lord STANLEY, the number of Persons committed for Forgery during the last ten years, specifying the nature of the crime, and how the Criminal was disposed of.
Petitions presented. By Mr. DUNCOMBE, from the Woolmanufacturers and other Inhabitants of a place in Yorkshire, against the employment of Machinery. By the same Gentleman, from the Inhabitants of Fulstone, praying that the Assizes for the West Riding of Yorkshire might be held at Wakefield:—And by Lord MILTON,
446
SALE OF BEER BILL.]
Colonel Wilson
said, he rose to present a Petition from the
447
448
Petition read, and to be printed.
STAMPS ON IRISH NEWSPAPERS.]
General Hart
presented a Petition from the Letter-press Printers of Londonderry, against the proposed increase of the Stamp Duties on Irish Newspapers. The gallant Member supported the prayer of the Petition, which he conceived well worthy of the attention of the House.
Sir J. Brydges
also supported the prayer of the Petition. The proposed assimilation of Stamp-duties, he conceived, should be effected, not by raising the duties in Ireland, but by lowering them in England. The petitioners stated, that this proposed increase of duties would destroy the Irish press, and he believed they were correct in that statement. They also stated, that any restrictions on the press were very objectionable, but he (Sir J. Brydges) would confess, that he did not agree with them in that opinion, for he thought that at the present moment the press was a little too licentious. The petitioners, however, he was satisfied, were good and loyal subjects, and he trusted their representations would be attended to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. G. Moore
gave his cordial support to the prayer of the Petition. His hon. friend, who had just sat down, had objected to the licentiousness of the press, but in his (Mr. Moore's) opinion, if the press were licentious, the press itself was, generally speaking, the best corrector of the licentiousness of the press. Several petitions were on their way for presentation to the House, similar to the present,
449
Mr. S. Rice
said, he had a Petition to present this evening, similar to the one just presented, but he would take this opportunity to express his sentiments on the subject. The proposed measure was in every respect most objectionable, and he would tell the English Members in that House, that if they supposed the measure in question would be productive of benefit to the Revenue, they were quite mistaken. So far from an increase, a diminution of revenue would follow the imposition of additional duties upon the Newspaper press of Ireland. Under the existing scale of duties, the revenue arising from the duty upon advertisements in Ireland had diminished latterly from 26,000
l
l
Mr. O'Connell
supported the prayer of the Petition. The measure in question would annihilate the Irish press; and if that were the object which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had in view, he would undoubtedly succeed in accomplishing it; but if his object were an increase of the Revenue, the very contrary effect would follow this measure. An additional duty of 1
s
s
Mr. Cutlar Fergusson
, though he had not the honour to belong to the country from which this Petition had come, felt warmly interested in the question, and he should certainly protest against the imposition of any additional tax upon Ireland. If assimilation was the object in view, there were two ways of accomplishing that—either by raising the duties in Ireland, or by lowering them in England; and he would certainly oppose the former, while he would support the latter mode of attaining that end.
Petition to be printed.
450
Sir John Newport
presented a similar petition, and stated that if the duties were decreased instead of being increased, there would be an increase of Revenue, and a large increase in the number of publications. In Ireland the latter was particularly wanted, on account of the distance of the people from their Representatives, which required that they should, by the press, be able to control their conduct. He deprecated in the strongest manner the attempt to impose additional Stamp-duties on Ireland.
Mr. George Lamb
said, he was quite confident, whether that were the object in view or not, that the additional duty would ruin the press of Ireland. If, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman should persevere in his plan, which he hoped he would not, he should oppose him to the utmost of his power, which he hoped would be done by every well-wisher to his country.
ROAD FROM WATERLOO-BRIDGE TO
Lord Belgrave
said, he had a Petition to present, which he thought was entitled to the attention of the House. It was from the inhabitants of the parish of St. Paul, Covent Garden. The petitioners complained of the present very inadequate communication between the northern and southern parts of the Metropolis, which was confined to Chancery-lane, a narrow and crooked street quite unfit for a great thoroughfare; and they suggested that the opportunity which the destruction of the English Opera-house presented, should be taken to open a street opposite Waterloo-bridge, for the purpose of affording the necessary public accommodation. He trusted that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Lowther) would attend to the suggestions of the petitioners.
Mr. Hobhouse
said, that the improvement recommended by the petitioners would be productive of great public advantage, and he trusted it would be carried into effect. He understood that applications had been made to the noble Lord opposite and to Government on the subject, and that no difficulties had been raised by them to the proposition, provided Parliament would give its sanction. There was a very natural objection in the first instance to appropriating the public money to measures of the kind, as such heavy expenses had been already incurred for other improvements; but he was sure, that
451
Lord Lowtther
was not disposed to deny that great public ad vantage and convenience would arise from making the proposed street, and the only difficulty seemed to be as to the party who should bear the expense of the projected improvement. The funds placed at the disposal of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests were forestalled for several years, so that they could not contribute to the work. He believed that the days of prejudice had gone by, and that there was one general opinion in favour of improvements, such as were now in progress at Charing-cross. But it was to be recollected, that the improvements which had been made in Regent-street, and which were in progress at Charing-cross, were upon Crown property, and that the proposed line of street in this instance would not be upon property belonging to the Crown. The Crown property in Regent-street actually returned at present 2½ per cent. and he was sure the improvements at Charing-cross would be equally profitable to the Crown. The property here, however, did not belong to the Crown; it was not, therefore, for the department over which he presided, more than any other, to interfere with regard to the proposed improvement. There was a small portion of Crown property just contiguous to it, and he believed that some of the houses in the line of the improvement could be exchanged for it, at a cost of about 2,000
l
l
Sir J. Yorke
had given notice of his intention to present a Petition on this subject to-night; but as it was before the House, he might as well take that opportunity to state the opinion of the proprietors of Waterloo-bridge with respect to it. The House was aware that upwards of 1,000,000
l
452
l
l
s
l
453
Sir James Graham
observed, that as the noble Lord opposite had said the funds belonging to the Woods and Forests were forestalled for some time to conic, he hoped that part of them were set aside for the repayment of the 250,000
l
l
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that he did not expect to have been questioned, upon presenting a petition relating to Waterloo-bridge, about arrangements which had sprung out of the Treaty of Paris. He would at present simply state, that he hoped in a short time to be able to submit a measure to Parliament, for the purpose of carrying into effect some such measure as his hon. friend contemplated.
Lord Lowther
felt as strongly the necessity of repaying this sum as the hon. Baronet; and, as a proof of it, stated, that within the last few weeks they had paid on account of it a small sum into the Treasury: when circumstances permitted the whole would be paid.
The Petition to be printed.
PETITION OF THE SHIP-OWNERS OF LONDON.]
Mr. Alderman Waithman rose
, he said, to present a Petition which was very important and well deserving of the attention of the House, it being a Petition from the Ship-owners of London, very numerously signed, and by men for whose respectability he could vouch. The petitioners complained of the heavy grievance they suffered, from being obliged to enter into competition with the shipping of other countries not so heavily taxed as this country. He could not pretend to do justice to their claims by any language of his own, and he would therefore state their case to the House in their own words. The petitioners say that "They approach your hon. House, to represent that, in the general distress which affects all classes of the Empire, there exists none more intense and unmitigated than that of the Ship-owners, and to pray that the Legislature will grant them that encouragement and protection from foreign
454
455
456
457
British Ships.
Decrease.
Foreign Ships.
Increase.
1827
5,099
6,901
1828
4,426
673
8,821
1,920
1829
4,790
309
8,676
1,775
Total Decrease
982
Total Increase.
3,695
Average Decrease of last two years compared with 1827
491
Average Increase of two years
1,847
458
Vessels.
Tons.
Decrease in Ships.
Decrease in Tons.
1826
1,719
207,088
1827
1,440
163,946
279
43,142
1828
1,135
128,752
584
78,336
1829
1,005
110,681
644
96,407
Shewing a Total Decrease in Ships and Tonnage since 1826.
1,507
217,885
Official Value.
Real Value.
Excess.
Jan. 5, 1815.
17,655,378
20,033,132
2,377,754
Real Excess Official Ditto.
Jan. 5, 1830
37,269,395
17,394,584
19,871,811
Total depression in value since 1815, considerably more than cent per cent. £23,252,565
The depression in value in the last year only, was about three millions and a half, or about 17½ per cent.
459
l
l
460
461
l
d
462
Mr. Sadler
supported, the Petition, and bore testimony to the sufferings of the Ship-owners. The Ship-owners, Shipbuilders, and others interested in this important branch of our national industry, had frequently approached the House with petitions for redress, as at present did the Ship-owners of the greatest mercantile port of the world. They were not like other bodies of men, who came forward to complain of the course adopted by the Legislature, without themselves pointing out any different course. The Shipowners had most clearly and distinctly stated what was the course which they thought the Government ought to pursue, and their recommendation was fully deserving of attention. It was almost an insult to talk to British Ship-owners of the benefits of Free Trade. It was impossible that this country could go on under a system of Free Trade, while it was oppressed, with burthens much greater than were felt by any of the nations on the Continent. He did not mean to deny that the amount of British tonnage had increased within the last three years—he admitted that to be fact—for the English merchants had done all that English skill, industry, perseverance, and activity could effect, but. still they were unable to carry on a competition with foreign nations with any hope of success. He should make no apology for trespassing on the patience of the House while he stated a few prominent facts, prefacing them by the observation, that he had not entire confidence in the documents on the Table in the shape of Returns. The hon. member for Worcester, on a former occasion, had stated the depreciation and di-
463
Magna Charta
464
465
Mr. Liddell
remarked, that if Members did not take advantage of the opportunity of speaking when petitions were presented, they would have to wait long before they had an opportunity of expressing their opinions. He should, therefore, state his conviction that extension of trade was the only mode by which relief could now be given to the shipping interest in its present depression. He earnestly hoped that the intercourse with the East Indies would be thrown open. Then means might be adopted of restoring the prosperity of other branches so as to render emigration needless, which only weakened our own country, while it strengthened the United States. He trusted, before this discussion
466
Mr. Rumbold
believed that the shipping interest looked entirely for relief to the reduction of taxes, and the removal of East India monopoly. He hoped that, in the next year, Government would be able to give them some relief with respect to the first point.
Mr. Stewart
said, he should have great pleasure in supporting the Petition which had just been presented by the hon. Alderman opposite. He did not feel himself competent to enter so minutely into the subject as he had done, nor indeed would it be necessary for him to do so, as it was impossible to transact business, or hold communication with respectable shipowners, or to look at the state of the shipping now lying in the river Thames, without being convinced that the shipping interests of the country were reduced to the lowest possible ebb, and although the more opulent ship-owners might still for a time be able to struggle on, the poorer class must, he feared, at no very distant period, be reduced to utter ruin, unless some favourable change speedily took place. In corroboration of what was stated by the hon. Member opposite, as to the state of the building establishments at Whitby, he would beg to read a short extract of a letter from that place to a most respectable ship-owner in the city of London, from whom he received it a few days ago. It was written the middle of last month, and was as follows:—"There are four new ships lying here without purchasers; four out of seven of the extensive ship-building establishments are laid down; a vessel has sailed with part of our population for America, and another goes in May." This, he had reason to believe, applied to most of the ship-building establishments in the kingdom. What might be the best remedy for this state of things, he certainly felt diffident in suggesting, but he entertained strong doubts as to the expediency of the reciprocity system now in force; indeed, he doubted much if there could be any fair reciprocity between a country overwhelmed with debt and taxation and other independent states whose burthens were comparatively light and trifling. At all events, it seemed certain, that under the present system, the British ship-owner was unable to enter into suc-
467
468
Mr. Herries
said, that he was glad he had not risen before the hon. member for Hull, because the observations of that hon. Member would relieve him from saying anything on one part of the argument that had been used by the hon. Alderman and the hon. member for Newark. In the situation, however, in which he was placed, he felt that he should not do his duty, and that he should be deficient in proper respect to the hon. Alderman, who, after so many postponements, had gone at such great length into this very important subject, were he entirely to abstain from making any observations upon it. Into the wide field of our general commercial policy he would, however, by no means enter. The hon. member for Newark had frankly allowed that opinions were by no means unanimous on the subject. If the hon. Alderman had been equally diligent in his inquiries, he would have found that the same was the case with respect to his constituents. He (Mr. Herries) had been informed, that many of the hon. Alderman's constituents had declined signing the Petition, because they could not concur in the opinions which it contained. Among the topics lo which the hon. member for Newark adverted, he was very much astonished to hear the article of timber mentioned. The very name called up the recollection of the particular duties levied on that article with a view solely to give employment to our shipping; and yet that was one of the articles on which the hon. member for Newark had rested his argument against Free-trade. He was at a loss to know whether the hon. member for Newark gave credit to the public accounts or not; as he sometimes appeared to doubt them, and sometimes founded his argument upon them. He, however, was quite prepared to vindicate those accounts. He believed them to be honest, faithful, and accurate. The hon. member for Newark had compared two years without reference to any antecedent period. It would have been more fair had he taken a series of years, some before and some after that change in our commercial policy which he supposed to be the cause of great commercial evil. To set this matter right he would go further back, and show the comparative activity of our shipping at different periods. He would go back to the period of three years before the peace; and he would state the average amount of our shipping
469
470
471
472
473
Mr. Robinson
said, the right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to answer complaints as to the falling-off in the amount of British tonnage built and registered, by a reference to the amount of British and foreign tonnage entering inwards. This was any thing rather than a satisfactory-answer. The right hon. Gentleman talked of increased activity in the shipping interests,—a fact not denied by those who supported the Petition, but arising, as the ship-owners said, from the necessity of entering more strongly into competition with foreigners. Would the right hon. Gentleman like the same argument to be adduced as a proof of the prosperity of the other interests of the Empire? Would the right hon. Gentleman, for instance, like it to be said that the agriculturists were prosperous, because they were compelled to give two or three crops in order to contend against the effect of the introduction of foreign corn? In the river Tyne, the hon. member for Northumberland well knew, that since the use of steam vessels for the purpose of assisting the
474
Mr. Herries
was proceeding to explain the manner in which the number of British ships and the amount of tonnage was apparently reduced, by the new system of registration adopted in 1825 or 1826, when an Act was passed directing the
475
Sir J. Newport
rose to order, and deprecated the continuance of such a discussion as this at such an hour, and brought on merely by Petition, when there was so much business appointed for the House.
Mr. Herries
accordingly gave way to.
Colonel Wilson
, who rose, he said, to confirm the statements of the hon. member for Newark. He did not mean to gather stories from the moon, but to state a few plain facts, which he found in the letter of a gentleman from Hull, who had been fifty years in trade. The hon. Member accordingly read the following Letter:—
"Proceeding to reply to the subject of your letter at once, of so momentous a nature, I feel great delicacy in hazarding or shaping my answer. I shall confine myself lo a brief statement of a few simple facts, that in the course of my experience have come under my own knowledge, and first:—The deplorable condition of British Shipping. I am owner of two British ships and one Foreign ship; the former, since the Reciprocity Act, I have been unable to employ without loss, the latter has invariably left me a remunerating profit. I pay wages 60
s
s
d
d
l
l
s
l
l
l
s
l
s
l
l
s
d
d
l
l
l
l
476
"P. S. I will just state, in addition to the above, a conversation I happened to have the other day with a merchant of Dantzig. I observed to him the strong probability of some relief to our suffering Ship-owners, by an extensive traffic in grain, of which this country will need a large supply before the next harvest. His answer was, 'I have obtained many orders for wheat, but we charter our own Prussian ships for grain; we only take British ships for loading timber, timber-deals, staves, &c.' Now I have seen the day when British ships not only commanded the preference in all valuable cargoes, but it was a common rule to pay them 6
d
s
477
Mr. Poulett Thomson
expressed his sincere regret that a subject of such immense importance, so deeply affecting one of the greatest interests of this country the Shipping interest, should have been brought on in such a manner, and at such a time as the present. He regretted it, because he was convinced that the question, if it had been allowed a fairer and more ample discussion, would have afforded a triumph to many of those Gentlemen, who had not been, but were now, of the same opinions as himself. He regretted it too because the subject ought, to be more amply discussed than it could be when there was only partial attention given to it; and he regretted it also, because it was neither fair towards the particular interests concerned, nor to the credit of their supporters; and still less was it fair towards the House, to bring such a question before it, at a time when it was not possible fully to discuss it. That the petitioners should come before this House with their petitions he was the last man in the world to complain, but he would ask those hon. Members who conceived that the views of the petitioners were correct, and their statements well founded, whether some time and some manner more fitting than the present, ought not to have been chosen for the discussion of the question. If the hon. Member who presented this Petition, which represented, as he thought, a case of very great hardship, would introduce a motion into this House for a Committee of Inquiry, or state, what is far more important, what such committee is to do, he would be acting more in consonance with
478
479
480
l
Waithman
481
l
l
482
483
l
l
484
Mr. Sadler
said, if he refrained from answering the somewhat uncourteous observations of the hon. member for Dover, it was only in obedience to the wishes of the House. He begged, however, to say that what he had remarked about the public documents was, that they were not always to be trusted. With respect to the silk manufacture, the President of the Board of Trade had stated that it was in great activity, and he had proved that by documentary evidence, though it was contradicted by complaints of the manufacturers. Notwithstanding such evidence, he could positively state, that our shipping had decreased fifteen per cent, while that of other countries had increased twenty per cent.
Mr. Fyler
also observed, that he knew from evidence which he valued more than documentary evidence, that the silk trade was not flourishing—the exports having fallen off nearly a million sterling, and the trade being at that time condemned to make a desperate struggle in order to continue in existence.
Petition to be printed.
CONDUCT OF SIR JONAH BARRINGTON."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
485
Mr. O'Connell
said, that he had been intrusted with a Petition from Sir Jonah Barrington, praying that he might be heard at the bar. That Petition containing some extraneous matter, he had thought it his fluty to send it back to Sir Jonah, in order that it might be amended. He had since received a communication from Sir Jonah, stating that he was seriously indisposed; and one of Sir Jonah's family was, he believed, in attendance, to certify that fact. He thought it his duty to state these matters to the House before going into a committee on this subject.
Lord F. L. Gower
said, that he had received a similar communication; but from the importance of the subject and the absence of the certificate of a physician, he thought it incumbent on the House not to delay going into committee. At the same time he should wish to be guided, not by his own view, but by the sense of the House.
The House went into a committee.
Lord F. L. Gower
said, that in bringing this subject before the Committee, he should first refer them to two documents which had long been in the hands of hon. Members. Those documents contained the facts of the case, and the grounds of the proposition he was about to submit to them,—a proposition respecting the purity of the administration of justice, which, highly to the credit of the country, had hitherto been unassailed. The first of these documents was the Eighteenth Report of the Commission for Judicial Inquiry into the various Courts of Justice in Ireland, which report regarded the Admiralty Court of that country. That report of the commissioners had, upon a motion of his, been referred to a Select Committee of the House, and the report of that Committee was the second document to which he referred. He need hardly say, that the duty he had performed on this occasion was not a pleasant one: nor need he remind the Committee that, fortunately for the character of the country, he had no precedents by which he could frame his proceedings. He would begin by detailing, as briefly as he could, the facts which appeared in these documents respecting the conduct of Sir Jonah Barrington. The noble Lord then entered into a detail of
486
"1. Resolved—That, in consequence of an Address from the House of Commons, his late Majesty was graciously pleased to issue a Commission under the Great Seal, for examining the salaries, duties, and emoluments of the several officers, clerks, and ministers of justice, within that part of the United Kingdom called Ireland, and that the commissioners so appointed have laid before Parliament eighteen several Reports, the eighteenth of which relates to the High Court of Admiralty in Ireland. That, on the faith of such reports, divers acts of the Legislature have been passed, and are now in force.
"2. That the office of Judge of the High Court of Admiralty in Ireland is an office of dignity and importance, on the impartial and uncorrupt execution of which the honour of the Crown and the protection of the rights and interests of many, both of his Majesty's subjects and of Foreigners, engaged in maritime pursuits, greatly depend.
"3. That, by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of Ireland, bearing date the twenty-third of May, 1797, Doctor Barrington, now Sir Jonah Barrington, was appointed to the said office of Judge of the High Court of Admiralty in Ireland,
487
"4. That it is stated in the aforesaid eighteenth report that statements were made to the commissioners upon oath, and confirmed by documents produced to the said commissioners, by which it appeared that, in two several derelict cases, which were adjudicated in the said High Court of Admiralty, the Judge who then presided, the aforesaid Sir Jonah Barring-ton, had appropriated to his own use certain portions of the proceeds.
"5. That it is stated in the aforesaid eighteenth report that it appeared, from the oral and documentary evidence before the commissioners, in the first of these cases, 'the Nancy derelict,' that Sir Jonah Barrington appropriated to his own use, out of the proceeds, 482
l
s
d
l
l
s
d
l
s
d
"6. That it is stated in the aforesaid eighteenth report, that, in the second of those cases, that of the 'Redstrand derelict,' on the 12th of January, 1810, the sum of 200
l
l
488
l
s
d
l
l
s
l
s
d
l
l
s
d
"7. That it is stated, in the aforesaid eighteenth report, that Sir Jonah Barrington having represented his inability to attempt a journey to Ireland, an extract from the minutes of the proceedings of the Commissioners was transmitted to him, containing everything, at that lime deposed to, by which his character might be affected. That, subsequently, sundry communications were received from him, which, with the several letters, addressed to him by the Commissioners in reply, are printed in the appendix to the aforesaid report. That assertions of general denial contained in these and subsequent letters, are the only contradiction or explanation of the foregoing facts, given by Sir Jonah to the Commissioners, which contradiction would have had much weight with the Commissioners had the alleged facts been supported only by the parole testimony of the officer who stated them, but that when the Commissioners found the hand-writing of Sir Jonah Barrington himself supporting the statement of the witness, they could not avoid giving credit to his (the witness's) evidence. That the Commissioners resumed the examination of the Registrar, and that the said Registrar, though aware that the Commissioners had been in communication with Sir Jonah Barrington, who might, if he swore falsely, have suggested means of contradicting him, persisted in his former evidence, and furnished other documents tending to confirm his testi-
489
"8. That the said eighteenth report of the Commissioners, so founded on evidence taken on oath, and on documents, together with the depositions forwarded to the Commissioners by Sir Jonah Barring-ton, and other papers connected with the conduct of Sir Jonah Barrington, in the discharge of his judicial functions, was, by order of the House, referred to a Select Committee, in the last Session of Parliament.
"9. That the Select Committee so appointed, did take into consideration the matters so referred to them, and that Sir Jonah Harrington, having, in a letter to the Chief Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant, expressed his wish to come over to this country to be examined, whenever a Committee should be appointed to consider the report of the Commissioners, the Committee did afford him that opportunity of meeting allegations which so seriously affected his character.
"10. That the Committee, after full investigation of the whole subject submitted to their inquiry, and after examination of witnesses, and of documentary evidence, came to a report, which has been laid on the Table of this Mouse; from which report it appears, that on the whole, the Commission were of opinion that Sir Jonah Harrington, as Judge of the High Court of Admiralty in Ireland, did, in the years 1805 and 1806, under colour of his official authority, apply to his own use two sums, amounting to 500
l
s
d
l
"That it appears to this Committee that the opinion so expressed in the aforesaid report of the Select Committee, is fully warranted by the evidence, and is entitled to the concurrence of this Committee.
"That it is, therefore, the opinion of this Committee, that Sir Jonah Barring-ton has been guilty of serious malversation in the discharge of his office of Judge of the High Court of Admiralty, and that it is unfit and would be of bad example, that he should continue to hold the said office."
The Resolutions were then put
seriatim
After the first three had been agreed to,
Mr. D. W. Harvey
suggested, that as Sir J. Barrington had expressed an inten-
490
Lord F. L. Gower
said, he could not object to the Resolutions being printed.
Mr. C. Wynn
said, Sir Jonah Barrington had already had one opportunity of explaining his conduct. The only question was if the House would afford him another?
Lord F. L. Gower
would beg to read a letter dated April 27, which he had written in answer to one from Sir J. Barrington, containing the wish to be examined by counsel or at the bar of the House. His Lordship's letter stated, that he had nothing to add to the announcement he had already made respecting the course he intended to pursue in his motion that stood for Thursday. He suggested, that if Sir Jonah Barrington was anxious to be heard at the bar of the House, the proper course for him to pursue would be to present a petition to that effect. He mentioned this to put the House in possession of the fact.
Mr. O'Connell
said, he had been intrusted with a Petition from Sir Jonah Harrington upon this subject, but it contained so much extraneous matter, that he had declined presenting it, and had sent it back to have it abbreviated and revised; but this Sir Jonah was, from illness, incapable of doing. He stated this positively, having seen the certificate of the medical men in attendance. The question accordingly seemed to him to be, whether this should be considered a sufficient reason for delaying the vote upon these Resolutions?
Sir J. Newpor
t said, that after the Resolutions had been passed through the Committee, and had been printed, it would be time enough to hear Sir Jonah's defence, which might be upon bringing up the Report.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
thought that if a proper opportunity for defence had not been afforded by the Select Committee, Sir Jonah would be entitled to any reasonable indulgence before the Resolutions were passed, but as he had already had ample opportunity, he apprehended the best course would be to let the Resolutions pass now, and when they
491
Mr. R. Gordon
rose to express his surprise at the easy manner in which the evidence had been suffered to pass off. He was astonished that no indignation had been expressed. He did not wish to press hard upon Sir Jonah Barrington, but he wished to call the attention of the House to the system that prevailed in Ireland, which permitted a Judge to appropriate the public money without immediate detection. Much had been said about the Judge, but he had heard nothing about Pineau, the King's evidence, who was, according to his own confession, guilty of most unjustifiable conduct. Here the hon. Member read a passage from this person's evidence, in which he stated that he had marked on an order, in large letters, 482
l
Mr. S. Rice
thought the hon. Member had generalized too much in attacking the whole judicial system of a nation on account of a particular act of delinquency. He considered the House would carry the feeling of the country much more with it by deliberating calmly, and deciding fairly, than by indulging in the exaggerations of the hon. Gentleman. He contended that the proper course to pursue was, to punish the particular offender, and not to deprive themselves of the right of so doing by arraigning the entire system.
Mr. R. Gordon
complained of the tone assumed by the hon. Member, who seemed to think that nobody but Irish Members had a right to touch upon Irish abuses. If, however, he fancied that British Members of Parliament were to be thus put down when they rose to express their conscientious opinions, he would be much
492
Mr. S. Rice
did not object to British Members interfering with Irish business, indeed he was always glad to have the assistance of Gentlemen in any discussions on Ireland who were not biassed by local prejudices. All he objected to the hon. Member was, that he drew a general conclusion from an individual instance. He did not complain of his observations as unparliamentary, but illogical.
The Attorney General
, in reply to those Gentlemen who had complained of the Government not having proceeded earlier and more seriously with the investigation, said, that the delinquencies could not be known till they were discovered, which was at a comparatively late period. The committee which then investigated the business made a report in very just terms, and if the evidence had not been confirmed by Sir Jonah Barrington's own admissions, it would not have been strong enough to proceed on; hence it had been decided to bring the matter before Parliament. Sir Jonah Barrington had been informed of that intention, and he had ample time to have petitioned if he had chosen. He was sure that every Member would be glad if that Judge could disprove the charge. The anxiety was, that he might be acquitted, not condemned; and all the Members would be glad if Sir Jonah, by coming forward, would relieve them from their painful situation.
Lord F. L. Gower
stated, in reply to the hon. member for Cricklade, who had accused him, as he thought, of not having indulged in declamation, that it was his imperative duty on such an occasion not to do so. If he had discovered these charges—if he had to explain them for the first time to the House, he should have thought himself bound to go more at length into the subject; but in the present case he was not justified in adding asperity to the charge. The Report from which he derived his principle knowledge of the business had been some time printed, and was in the hands of all the Members, who might, therefore, be supposed to have already formed their opinions on the conduct of Sir Jonah Barrington.
493
The Resolutions agreed to, and the Report to be brought up on Monday next.
USURY LAWS.]
Mr. Poulett
Thomson moved the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House on the Usury Laws.
The Solicitor General
said a few words, which were not audible in the Gallery, but were understood to imply an assent to the Motion, not pledging himself to support the Bill.
Mr. Gilbert J. Heathcote
declared, that it was his intention to oppose the Bill at every stage of the proceedings. The former laws, it had been said, were made by the borrowers; this Bill, it was evident, was drawn up by the lenders. Never did he see a measure that, in its enactments, carried more distinct marks of its parentage. He considered it, contrary to what the hon. Member had stated that he meant it to be, as a Bill hostile to the landed interest, and therefore he should oppose it at every stage.
The Attorney General
supported the Bill. The old laws, he admitted, had been made by borrowers; but they were necessitous and unjust, as well as injurious borrowers. He did not agree in the opinions of his hon. friend, who had declared it to be his intention to oppose the Bill. He begged to call the attention of his hon. friend to the principles of that legislation from which the country was just emerging; and which was the delight of our ancestors, and of which the Usury Laws were parts. It was once supposed that the Legislature could regulate the price of articles; but it was now well known that prices were beyond its control. In pursuance of that principle, however, the Legislature made laws regulating the prices of many things, such as labour and bread; and the practice of making such laws was continued down to the time of Elizabeth. Then the Usury Laws were held to be sacred, like a part of religion. Then, too, laws were made regulating the price of food and other things, which, notwithstanding the terrors of the country gentlemen, the Legislature had been obliged to abandon. All laws made for such purposes were made by the buyers, and not by the sellers, as they all had for their object to keep down prices. For his own part, he saw no reason why any restriction should be laid on the use of
494
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
Mr. Sykes
also supported the Bill, be-
495
Sir C. Wetherell
opposed the Motion. The provision proposed by the hon. Member's Bill, by which no higher than a certain rate of interest was to be recoverable in a Court of Law, was most extraordinary. It was neither more nor less than enacting that a good, valid, and legal contract should be no better than waste paper. After having given the question much of his attention in that House, and in his private lucubrations, he had come to the conclusion, that the repeal of the Usury Laws would be attended with much mischief. As the law now stood, if money were lent to the trader, and the lender took more than his legal interest, he was, in the event of a bankruptcy, looked upon in the light of a partner, and became liable to the creditors. But the effect of the proposed alteration in the law would be to do away with this most salutary check. Then, if they looked at the landed interest, the case was no better. He believed that he was not exaggerating the fact when he stated, that half the rental of all England went to pay the mortgages that were existing on that property. What, then, would be the drag upon the landed proprietor whose estate was mortgaged, if, in the first rise in the value of money, the mortgagee was to come upon him for a higher rate of interest? The answer was obvious. He could not do otherwise than consent to any rate that was proposed, and his estate would soon become irretrievably involved. As soon as war, or any other unfortunate concurrence of circumstances, should have tended to raise the value of money in the market, he would be entirely at the mercy of the lender, and could have no alternative but that of acceding to his terms, however extortionate. The great oversight of the Bill was, that it forgot that the borrower was not, like the lender, in a state of free agency; for it was not till the debt was already contracted in some other way that he came into the market to raise money on such security as he might have to offer. But there was another point of view at which they ought
496
Lord Milton
was happy that this was not a
Parliamentum indoctum,
497
The Solicitor General
disapproved of the Usury Laws as they now stood, and was ready to assist in altering them, but he did not think the laws ought to be entirely done away with. In the first place, he would prevent the existing penalties from attaching in
bona fide
498
Lord Althorp
expressed his intention of supporting the Motion.
Mr. Maxwell
said, that if he agreed to the committal of the Bill, he wished to reserve to himself the right of afterwards resisting it.
On the question that the Speaker do leave the Chair, the House divided; when the numbers appeared—For the Motion 41; Against it 23—Majority 18.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, May 10.1830
MINUTES. Further evidence was heard on the subject of the East Retford Disfranchising Bill.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of ELDON, from the Gentry, Clergy, and Freeholders of Denbighshire, against the Welsh Judicature Bill; also a Petition from the Inhabitants of certain premises in the neighbourhood of London Bridge, complaining of the loss of business which the making of the approaches to the New London Bridge, by means of an arch, would occasion to them, and praying for compensation. By the Archbishop of YORK, from Haworth, in Yorkshire, praying for the abolition of Negro Slavery:—By Earl FITZWILLIAM, two Petitions from Protestant Dissenters at Halifax, with the same prayer. By Lord ROLLE, from Collumpton, Devon, praying for the abolition of the Punishment of Death in cases of Forgery:—By the Duke of BEAUFORT, from Gloster, with the same prayer. For opening the Trade to India, by the same noble Duke, from the Inhabitants of Renfrewshire:—And by the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from Warrington. By Lord CALTHORPE, from the Physicians, Surgeons, and Students of the Westminster Medical Society, praying for some Legislative Measure to facilitate the Study of Anatomy. By the Duke of NORFOLK, from an Inhabitant of St. James's Parish, praying for the establishment of a Deaf and Dumb Institution. By Lord KING, from Aglis, in the County Cork, praying for a Reform in the Established Church. By Lord DURHAM, from the Ship-owners and Seamen of Sunderland, complaining of Distress, and praying for an alteration of the Navigation-laws; and from the Protestant Dissenters of South Shields, praying for a general registration of Births, &c. By Lord GODERICH, from the Hop-planters of Wadhurst, Sussex, praying for a Repeal of the Hop Duties.
DUTY ON BRITISH SPIRITS.]
The Duke of Montrose
presented a Petition from the Noblemen, Gentlemen, and Freeholders of the county of Stirling, against any further increase of the Duty on Homemade Spirits, and praying that the relief which was intended for the colonial interests should be afforded in another way; namely, by a reduction of the duty on Sugar. The petitioners stated, and in that
499
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.]
The Earl of Malmesbury
l
[Mr. Gepp was accordingly called in, and having expressed his contrition for the delay which had occurred in the production of the returns, and having explained the circumstances which had occasioned it, he was suitably reprimanded by the Lord Chancellor, and ordered to be discharged.]
TITHE COMPOSITION BILL.]
The Archbishop of Canterbury
rose to present the Bill, of which he had given notice, to facilitate the Composition of Tithes. His Grace commenced by explaining the causes which had prevented him from bringing the measure at an earlier period of the Session under the consideration of their Lordships. So much nicety and deliberation had been required in framing many of the clauses of the Bill, that he had found it impossible to select an earlier opportunity of laying it before their Lordships; and, seeing the great importance of
500
501
The Earl of Eldon
said, that the measure was certainly susceptible of improvement, both with respect to the clergy and the laymen, but it was one which deserved the serious attention of the House; and he returned his thanks to the most Rev. Prelate for having introduced it.
Bill read a first time.
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Monday, May 10.1830
MINUTES.] The Right Hon. M. Fitzgerald took the Oaths and his Seat as Member for Kerry; and G. G. W. Piggott, Esq. took the Oaths and his Seat as Member for St. Mawes. The Navy Pay Acts Amendment Bill was passed.
Returns ordered. Sums advanced for the Repairs and Alterations of Buckingham Palace, and Estimates of the Sums that will be required to complete it.
Petitions presented. Against the Stamp and Spirit Duties, by Mr. KNOX, from the Inhabitants of Newry:—By Colonel ARBUTHNOT, from Kincardine:—By Sir G. WARRENDER, from Haddington. Against the Punishment of Forgery by Death, by Lord STANLEY, from the Merchants, Bankers, and Manufacturers of Manchester and Salford.—By Mr. Alderman WOOD, from the Inhabitants of Gloster:—By Mr. BIRCH, from Bankers and other Inhabitants of Nottingham. The hon. Member also presented a Petition, with from 3,000 to 4,000 signatures, from Merchants, Manufacturers, and other Inhabitants of Nottingham, against the Monopoly of the East India Company.
502
l
WATERLOO BRIDGE.]
Mr. Wallace
presented a Petition from the Waterloo Bridge Company, praying that a street may be made from Waterloo Bridge to Tottenham-court-road, &c.
Sir J. Yorke
observed, that when on a former evening he wished to present a similar petition, he was prevented from making some observations in consequence of the long discussion that took place on another petition, which embraced four different points,—community, unity, navigation and trade,—which were ably discussed by the hon. Alderman, one of the members for London, by the hon. member for Newark, and the hon. member for Yorkshire. The consequence was, that he could not edge in a single word on that occasion. Now he contended that this was a Petition well worthy of the attention of the House. A street from Tottenham-court-road to Waterloo-bridge would, in conjunction with the improvements at Charing-cross, be a great convenience. Various reasons might be adduced in favour of such an opening. One of them was, that it would facilitate the approach to Somerset-house, and various other public establishments. At present there was no outlet to the northern parts of the metropolis, except those very narrow and extraordinary streets through which gentlemen were obliged to drive at present. He thought that a sum of money might, with great advantage, be laid out in carrying a plan of this kind into effect—and he was sure that it would ultimately pay the public. He could see no reason why money should be voted for im-
503
The Petition was laid on the Table.
IRISH STAMP DUTIES.]
Mr. Brownlow
presented two Petitions from the Letterpress Printers of Belfast, against the proposed increase of Duty on Stamps on Irish Newspapers, and on Advertisements inserted in them. The petitioners, as might naturally be expected, were much alarmed at the right hon. Gentleman's statement when he brought forward his Budget, that he meant to propose additional Stamp Duties on Ireland. At the moment that the Government took credit to itself for reductions, it was planning schemes for increasing the existing imposts. Ministers talked of liberality, and attacked that branch of our manufacture, if he might call newspapers a manufacture, which an enlightened Ministry would be the last to attack. He did not attribute to Ministers a cold-blooded desire to ruin the Irish press, but that would be the result of their proceedings. The circulation of all the newspapers would be injured by these new imposts, and some of them would be utterly annihilated. The newspaper trade in Ireland was already a declining one. In 1812 the duty on an advertisement was 1
s
d
l
s
d
l
504
Mr. Jephson
concurred with the petitioners, but thought that they did not go far enough. He would have the English Members unite with the Irish to resist the extension of Stamp duties in Ireland, and to reduce the duties on advertisements and on newspapers in England to a level with the duties in Ireland.
Mr. Hume
said, that if Ministers would reduce the rate of duties both in England and Ireland, the Revenue would be rather increased than diminished.
Sir H. Parnell
was also of opinion, that there was no tax, the reduction of which would so much benefit the people of England, while that reduction would, he believed, increase the Revenue on the Stamp-duties on Newspapers and Advertisements. The subject was so important that it ought to be considered generally and not locally with reference to Ireland alone.
Petitions to be printed.
BUSINESS OF PARLIAMENT.]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
[Several Members objected to this, as there were yet Petitions to be presented. It was represented to them by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it was half-past eight o'clock, and there was much public business to be carried through, which could not possibly be accomplished if so much time were occupied in presenting petitions. Various suggestions were immediately thrown out as to the manner of disposing of this part of the business; but as the conversation ended in nothing, the Editor thinks it right not to occupy his space by inserting it. He is obliged however, to notice the fact, because it was the first distinct beginning of the complaints, that were frequently made by the Ministers before the close of the Session, that they could not transact the public business on account of the time occupied by presenting petitions and making speeches on them.]
GREEK LOAN.]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
wished to ask the hon. Gentleman opposite, when he proposed to present the petition from Birmingham, as it was desirable that his right
505
Mr. E. Davenport
said, that he would postpone it till Monday, when he understood the right hon. Secretary would he ready to attend. The right hon. Gentleman having asked him a question, he would beg leave to ask one in return. It should be remembered that the Parliament was getting old, and indeed it was not expected to survive the year, and it was therefore right that the country should be informed on the subject on which he meant to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman;—this subject was a Protocol, which was said by an Evening Paper to have been signed by the Ministers of France, England, and Russia, and which purported to be an engagement on the part of those three Powers for guaranteeing a loan to the Greek government. The amount was understood (but that did not appear from the document) to be between two and three millions, each Power being answerable for one-third, viz. 800,000
l
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
hoped the hon. Gentleman would not hold it as any disrespect to himself if he stated that he considered it inconvenient in the extreme to enter into any of the points of a negociation that was unfinished, on account of any statements that might appear in foreign or domestic newspapers. He thought it more prudent to give no answer to the question of the hon. Gentleman, and he loss regretted it, because the papers which related to the whole transaction would be laid on the Table of the House in a short period, when the Members would have an opportunity of knowing what was the real state of the whole transaction.
Mr. Hume
said, that the question of the responsibility of this country for any loan to Greece ought to be fully understood; and before they proceeded to vote any further Supplies, they ought to have the whole liabilities of the year before them.
506
The Speaker put the question for the Committee of Supply.
Mr. Hume
said, that he must move the postponement of any further Supplies [
cries of "No, No!"
Sir M. W. Ridley
said, that they had lost half-an-hour in discussing what they should do next. He had three or four petitions to present, and should be glad to take his turn. He did not see that there was anything more indecorous in receiving Petitions than there was in voting money at a late hour.
SUPPLY.]
The House then resolved itself into a Committee of Supply.
The first item was a grant of 6,000
l
Mr. R. Gordon
wished to know, whether there was not to be some statement made relative to the distribution of the former grants made under this head, and how the present grant was to be appropriated.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the greatest part of that explanation was already on the Table of the House. Those grants had been made in consequence of what had taken place in 1825, with the view of improving the condition of the negroes, and were, he thought, in unison with the unanimous wish of the House at that time. Salaries were appropriated to Bishops and other clergymen—and other measures were taken for the moral improvement of the population of the Colonies, which had, he believed, fully succeeded. By the arrangements then made, the Colonies were to be at half the expense for erecting chapels, churches, &c. and the Government was to be at the other half. In compliance with this understanding, the Government had frequently submitted votes to Parliament, and sums had been continually granted. The money advanced by the Colonies for this object amounted to 23,930
l
l
l
l
507
l
l
l
Mr. R. Gordon
admitted the correctness of the right hon. Gentleman's statements as to what had been the wish of the House, and he expressed his satisfaction at hearing that means had been taken to improve the Negro population; but he did not know in what papers to find the accounts to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded; unless, indeed, they were to be found under the head of Army Extraordinaries; for it was there that he had once found an account of the expenses of the Bishop's House at Barbadoes. As he conceived, notwithstanding the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, that Parliament ought to have more information on the appropriation of what had been, and what was to be voted, than simply "For building Churches so much," he should oppose the grant.
Sir James Graham
rose to ask, as he saw a sum of 508
l
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that this charge was for the rent of a house before the present one was built. It was a charge which would not be repeated in future.
Mr. Hume
wished to know, why the people of England should be obliged to pay for erecting palaces for the Bishops of the West-India islands? An end ought to be put to such extravagance. He should certainly oppose such votes. He wished to know why there was every year to be an additional expense under these heads, and he trusted the House would not sanction it by its vote.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the Bishops had been appointed, with the approbation and wish of the House for the ecclesiastical government of the West Indies. At first they were obliged to hire
508
l
Mr. Wilmot Horton
was surprised at the notice that was now taken of the expenditure on this subject. The building of churches in the West Indies, and the sending out of Bishops was an arrangement called for by the West Indians themselves, as well as the people of this country. If the colonists would undertake to be at all the expense of subsequently supporting these establishments, they were told the Government would consent to the appointment. The proposition had come from the West Indians, and had met with the support of Parliament. It was thought to be of great importance, and the Government was called on to give it its support.
Sir James Graham
said, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. Horton) would confer a great favour on himself and other Members, if he would point out to them where they could find an authentic account of the Colonial expenditure. He confessed that he had sought after this with some diligence, but he had been unable to discover any correct source whence he could learn what was the whole amount of our Colonial expenditure. His right hon. friend would not be surprised at this, when he reminded him of a document recently published—an authentic document, signed by the present Master of the Mint. He was not aware that any change had taken place in the Colonial management since that letter was written. He would, with permission of the House, read the letter, which had been printed at his request. It was a letter from the present Master of the Mint, who was then Secretary of the
509
Treasury Chambers,
th March,
"Sir:—I am commanded by the Lords Commissioners of his Majesty's Treasury to transmit to you the accompanying papers, being statements prepared by the Auditors of Colonial Expenditure, showing the Income and Expenditure of Ceylon, the Mauritius, the Cape of Good Hope, Trinidad and Malta, for periods of ten and more years for each of them respectively, preceding the latest date up to which the accounts are in the possession of the Auditors, and I am to request that you will lay the same before Lord Bathurst, and call the serious attention of his Lordship to the results which are exhibited by these papers. His Lordship will perceive that the collective expenditure of these several Colonies has so greatly exceeded the Colonial Revenues, applicable to the discharge of it, as to have constituted a deficiency, amounting altogether to 2,524,000
l
l
l
510
l
(Signed) "J. C. HERRIES."
511
Mr. Wilmot Horton
said, his hon. friend must be aware that the answer to the document he had read had been moved for: and he was surprised that it was not yet laid on the Table of the House. When that answer was laid on the Table the two documents might be considered together; but it was hardly fair to discuss one without the other. He would only observe, that the Colonial Auditors were not appointed by the Colonial Office, but by the Lords of the Treasury. It was, however, of more importance to consider what ought to be, than what had been done, and though there were many official difficulties in the way of the proposition of his hon. friend, he agreed with him in thinking that a regular Estimate of Colonial expenditure ought annually to be submitted to Parliament.
Mr. Herries
said, as he was the author of the letter alluded to, he would say a few words, though he was convinced that it would be proper to postpone the discussion till the other document was laid on the Table. He would, in the first place, say, that the hon. member for Cumberland
512
Mr. Hume
said, that the letter quoted was dated in April, 1828, and there had been certainly some accounts laid before the Finance Committee. He had urged the Government to have these accounts printed and laid before the House; and he had understood that it was to be done. He was surprised, indeed, that they had not already been laid on the Table; and he could only account for it by supposing that at the Colonial office little or nothing was done. Three weeks had elapsed since one letter was ordered, and it was not yet ready, which was a pretty good specimen of the negligence at that office. Till the accounts he had mentioned were laid on the Table, he, for one, should be unwilling to vote a shilling for the Colonies. The Report of the Commissioners ought, indeed, first to be laid on the Table before any money was voted. The Colonies were loaded with unnecessary officers, with large salaries; they were unable to support their own expenditure, and the country was accordingly called on to support their expensive establishments. He was afraid that Government was tardy in submitting the documents to the House because they would not justify its extravagant expenditure.
Sir J. Graham
said, as he had not been a member of the Finance Committee, he could not judge of the improvement made in the management of the Colonies by the documents submitted to that Committee; but he saw before him the Chairman of that Committee, and he had lately given to the public, in an authentic form, the result of its labours. Within two months the judgment of that hon. Baronet was, that the Colonial accounts were in a state of unintelligible confusion. It was at that hon. Baronet's suggestion that he had taken the liberty of inquiring into the
513
Sir George Murray
admitted that it would be very proper to have Colonial Estimates, both of the expenditure and the receipts of the Colonies; and he should have no objection to prepare such documents, if it could be accomplished in future, though he believed that there would be many difficulties in the way. With respect to the observation of the hon. member for Aberdeen concerning the documents submitted to the Finance Committee, it happened that those documents were very incorrect, and the remoteness of the Colonies had prevented him from obtaining the corrections necessary to make them fit to be submitted to the House. With regard to the letter which had been read, the other document connected with it was about to be laid on the Table, and then the two might be considered together.
Mr. Warburton
wished to say a few words on the vote before the Committee. The Government desired to have a large Church establishment and extensive patronage, with Bishops, and fine churches; and in order to have these, it had been anxious to get rid of the Moravians, who were far better qualified to teach both the negroes and the whites of the West-Indies religion than the members of our Established Church. The Moravians were humble men, who lowered themselves to the humble intellect of the people they undertook to instruct. So long, however, as the House voted money, so long would there be Bishops, and churches to be paid for.
Mr. Bernal
denied that the West-Indians had demanded the establishment of Bishops in the West-Indies, but he remembered that expressions reflecting on the religion of the West-Indians had been used in that House, and he remembered that a Church establishment had been described by several hon. Members as a desideratum in the Colonies, and that the West-Indians
514
Mr. Wilmot Horton
maintained, that the West-Indians had desired the appointment of the Bishops, and complained that he had been exposed to the attacks of both parties. He had been censured by one writer, a Mr. McQueen, who had received, it was said, 3,000
l
Mr. Maberly
thought it would be better that the documents alluded to by the gallant Officer should be printed and laid before the House, although they were incorrect, rather than that the House should be left without any information.
Sir G. Murray
said, that those docu-
515
Mr. Maberly
inquired how long it would probably be before those documents would be ready? If they were not likely speedily to be ready, he should move that the inaccurate documents be printed.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
objected, that it would be a pity to print inaccurate accounts, when no harm could arise from a short delay, particularly as any Member who chose might have access to those accounts in their present state.
Mr. Trant
wished that the Colonial budget should include India, as the accounts of the finances of that country were formerly laid before Parliament regularly, and with great advantage to both countries.
Sir James Graham
was of opinion, that a commission appointed by his Majesty would be better to inquire into the Colonial expenditure than a committee of that House: but as the efficiency of such a commission would depend altogether on the persons who composed it, he begged leave to ask the right hon. Gentleman the names of the commissioners.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the commissioners were the Earl of Rossyln, the member for Kerry, Sir W. Gordon, Lord Eliot, and himself, and they were disposed to prosecute every requisite inquiry.
Mr. Portman
was anxious to hear the Government pledged to bring forward next year a sort of Colonial budget, and to declare that he Could not consent to vote any more public money for the Colonies till a pledge of that kind was given.
Sir George Murray
said, if it should be his duty to perform such a task next year, he would willingly bring forward a Colonial budget.
Lord Howick
wished to know if the grant were to be expended upon churches already begun, or if they were not commenced?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the works were generally commenced upon the faith of receiving these grants from Parliament.
Mr. Gordon
objected to the grant being at the disposal of Government, as there was no uniformity of system in the application of the money voted for the service
516
Mr. Brougham
said, the Committee was voting away money in the dark: he would not vote even 6
l
l
l
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the Treasury did not give the money until they received a certificate from the Bishops, that the funds voted by the Colonies were in course of expenditure.
Mr. Brougham
wished to know when the statement that the money had been raised in the Colonies had been received; and how the 6,000
l
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
stated, that the certificates from the Bishops had been sent home at various times, the last came, he believed, in the autumn. He could not specify the particular churches the 6,000
l
Mr. Hume
thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to be prepared with more circumstantial information before he came down to the House to ask for a grant of money.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the money was chiefly to be expended in Antigua and Barbadoes.
Mr. Stanley
wished for the details of the expenditure.
Lord Howick
was for suspending the vote till next Session.
The Question was put and carried.
The next Vote was for 8,000
l
Mr. Hume
thought that it would be
517
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the subject had been investigated by a committee in 1827, and that committee reported, that in order to facilitate the communication between England and the South of Ireland a landing place was necessary, and in pursuance of that recommendation the plan was adopted for which money was then required.
Mr. O'Connell
complained of the tardy and circuitous rout of the post under the existing regulations. Although the expense had been incurred, Ireland derived no benefit from it.
Mr. Rice Trevor
said, that an excellent road had been made for a considerable distance, but there was no means of getting a gentleman's carriage to it. The sum proposed was necessary to complete the communication with the South of Ireland, which would be of great utility to both kingdoms.
Lord Ebrington
having been a member of the committee mentioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer felt himself bound to confirm the statements of that right hon. Gentleman.
Vote agreed to.
12,000
l
Mr. Hume
said, he did not object to the grant. He thought, however, the situation selected for this office had been ill chosen.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
contended it was most convenient, on account of its proximity to the public offices.
Mr. J. Wood
complained of the unprotected stale of the records in Westminster Hall. He suggested that no time should be lost in their removal.
Mr. Ewart
wished to inquire if any alterations were to be made in the entrance and interior of the courts of Westminster Hall, which, in their present state, were found to be extremely inconvenient. He had presented a petition on the subject, and was desirous of obtaining information as to the intentions of the Government concerning it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he was extremely anxious to effect the removal of the records, and he was happy to tell the hon. Member who had asked the question, that the records of the Com-
518
Lord Milton
suggested to the right hon. Gentleman the propriety of providing some secure place also for the records preserved in Doctors' Commons, on which so much of the property of the country depends.
Vote agreed to.
4,700
l
10,000
l
30,500
l
Mr. Hume
said, it would be extremely desirable that the House should have a detailed account of this Estimate, which seemed very large; and before the report was brought up he should endeavour to get some correct information laid before the House.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the sum then moved for was absolutely necessary in addition to the fees received by the officers of both Houses. The little difference between this and former estimates on the same account, arose from a fluctuation in the amount of fees.
Vote agreed to; as was a vote of 17,000
l
519
It was proposed that 24,000
l
Mr. R. Gordon
wished to have the Estimate drawn up in a different form in future years. He did not object to the vote; but as the Estimate now stood it was impossible to know how the money was to be applied.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
would have no objection to meet the wishes of he hon. Member, and in future would take care that the manner in which the different sums, composing the whole of this vote were appropriated, should be set forth.
Mr. Portman
said, it had been his intention to move that a reduction of one-tenth should be made in all salaries above 200
l
l
Sir James Graham
said, that the Government had intimated its intention to him of opposing the motion which he proposed to bring forward to-morrow night; in which, if he succeeded, he could pledge himself to the hon. member for Dorsetshire that he would show him the amount of all the principal salaries. And this he knew would answer the hon. Member's purpose, who was as little disposed as himself to stoop to ignoble game, while flights of voracious birds of prey were gloating in the upper regions of the air. They would direct all their efforts against these, and urge them by every argument,
ad invidiam
ad verecundiam
cries of "Lord Camden"
520
cries of "Mr. Moore"
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
complained, that the hon. Baronet, notwithstanding all his professions, did not act with that frankness towards his political opponents for which he was disposed to take credit. The hon. Baronet, in saying that Government had declared its intention of opposing his motion, had only given half the statement that was made to him, because it was added, that the hon. member for Lincoln had moved for a series of Returns so ample that they would embrace all the hon. Baronet proposed, and, consequently, that Government would find it necessary to oppose the granting of any partial Returns. He therefore denied any wish to exclude the House from information on the subject of those salaries. He also thought it extremely hard that he, who honestly, though perhaps inefficiently, discharged his duties in an office for which he received that remuneration bestowed on his predecessors, had been designated as a bird of prey, rather than the hon. Baronet, who enjoyed the income derived from the territorial possessions of his ancestors.
521
Sir J. Graham
admitted, that he had, when speaking on this subject, employed a metaphor which had drawn an expression of feeling from the right hon. Gentleman that he was very sorry to observe. He was bound to apologise for the metaphor, which he could assure the right hon. Gentleman he had not meant to be personal in any manner, or offensive to him, when he indulged in it. The right hon. Gentleman had certainly soared into the higher regions with much industry, but without any stain whatever on his character. Having thus apologised for the form of the expression, he must, with every possible deference to the right hon. Gentleman, adhere to its spirit, and must contend that it was unworthy of the Government to cut down the salaries of inferior clerks, while the great officers of the State, possessed of private fortunes, wealthy connections, and ten thousand other advantages which these clerks did not enjoy, were allowed to remain with undiminished salaries. He begged to state now, that he should submit a motion on this subject to-morrow; and he wished to observe, that the motion of the hon. member for Lincoln, which went to obtain a Return of the salaries of all the officers of the Government, from the highest to those who had only 200
l
Colonel Sibthorp
also thought, that the two motions would not interfere with each other, and he should certainly support that of the hon. member for Cumberland, believing that it would not render his own unnecessary.
Mr. Hume
wished to recall the Committee to the consideration of the vote before it, and to the whole subject of which it was a part. The vote was to make good the deficiency in the Fee Fund, part of that going to pay the public servants of the Treasury, who derived their emoluments from no less than fifteen dif-
522
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that Mr. Stewart's predecessor had other allowances which the present possessor of the office did not enjoy. At the same time his labours were so great, that they were not more than paid by 2,500
l
Mr. Hume
replied, that Mr. Hill, the former holder of the office, had been a man of long experience in business, and yet the same salary was now given to the present officer, perhaps because he was a military man. If Treasury Minutes were to be so violated, he did not see of what use they were.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
observed, that the salary was not kept up to 2,500
l
523
Mr. Gordon
said, it was disagreeable when these discussions were made personal. The question did not relate to the individual who held the office, and who might fully deserve the encomiums that had been passed on him—but to the pledge which the Government had given that the successor of Mr. Hill should not have more than 2,000
l
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that Mr. Hill, who had been appointed alter that Treasury Minute was made, had 2,500
l
Lord Milton
observed, that it appeared from the right hon. Gentleman, that this place was, in fact, made a means of remunerating individuals—a practice which he thought quite improper, after that House had recommended, and a Treasury Minute had directed, a reduction of the salary attached to it.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
agreed that it would be improper to make the place a means of remunerating individuals, but he denied that it was so, and asserted that the great duties of the office, and the great merit of the two individuals, made such a salary not more than sufficient.
Lord Milton
remarked, that the result of this was, that in 1830, the right hon. Gentleman thought fit to pay 2,500
l
524
l
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
observed, that the Treasury of 1824 thought that the office could not be paid for by less than 2,500
l
Lord Milton
answered, that these facts only showed that the Lords of the Treasury had twice violated the principle of their own Minute.
Mr. C. Wood
said, that after the successive appointments of two individuals at a salary greater than the Treasury Minute of 1821 declared to be sufficient, he could not understand what the right hon. Gentleman meant by saying that it had been the constant attempt of the Government to adhere to that Minute, and to reduce as much as possible the expenses of the Treasury. The question was, whether the House would agree with the Treasury in what they had thus done. He would put that question to the proof, by moving that the vote be reduced by 500
l
l
Mr. Hume
said, that the Treasury Minute had equally recommended the reduction of the salaries of the chief clerks. He wished to know if that recommendation was to be adhered to?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
answered in the affirmative, and added, that to show how anxious the Government had been to adopt economical principles, it had reduced a Commissioner of Stamps, whose salary was 1,000
l
l
Lord Milton
said, this was more extraordinary than ever, for it showed that the Government reduced salaries where the reduction was not recommended, in order to be able to continue those which not only that House but the Treasury had recommended should be reduced.
Mr. Stanley
was also of opinion that the Ministers could not justify their conduct in maintaining the one salary against
525
Mr. F. Lewis
opposed the Amendment, on the ground, which had been over and over again stated in debates of this kind—that nothing could be more unwise or impolitic than for Government to put itself in the situation of not being able to obtain the services of those who were most capable and efficient. Mr. Burke had especially dwelt upon this principle in his celebrated speech upon Economical Reform. Mr. Stewart had been Chairman of the Board of Stamps with a salary of 2,000
l
l
l
Lord Howick
suggested that the salary of the Chairman of the Board of Stamps clearly ought to be reduced, if, as the hon. Member who last spoke had said, the duties of the Assistant-secretary of the Treasury were ten times more laborious and twice as responsible. Supposing the Assistant-secretary properly paid by 2,500
l
Mr. E. Davenport
adverted to the altered circumstances of the country, and observed, that if justice were due to public officers, some little justice was also due to those who paid them.
Mr. Maberly
felt himself placed in a difficult situation: if he voted according
526
l
Mr. Maurice Fitzgerald
bore testimony to the extraordinary and most severe labours of the Assistant-secretary of the Treasury: it would be false economy to reduce his salary, especially in the face of the principle established by the Report of the Finance Committee. The Assistant-secretary was the working and controlling-authority of the department, and his responsibility, as well as his labours, was great. To reduce the just rewards of faithful and efficient officers of the State would not be greater injustice to the individual than to the public.
Mr. C. Wood
said, that he should persevere in his Amendment, and take the sense of the House upon it. He gave more weight to the Treasury Minute, deliberately made, than to the speeches of right hon. and hon. Members who wished that it should go for nothing. His Amendment was to reduce the vote of 24,000
l
l
Sir G. Warrender
supported the original vote, on the ground of justice to Mr. Stewart.
The Committee then divided—For the Motion 178; For the Amendment 106—Majority 72.
List of the Minority.
Althorp, Lord
Crompton, S.
Baring, F.
Clive, E. B.
Baring, Sir T.
Calvert, C.
Baring, B.
Cavendish, W.
Belgrave, Lord
Colborne, R.
Beaumont, T. W.
Clements, Lord
Benett, J.
Davenport, E. D.
Bernal, R.
Davies, Colonel
Birch, J.
Duncombe, T.
Blandford, Marquis
Dundas, T.
Bright, H.
Dawson, A.
Brougham, H.
Dickinson, W.
Brougham, J.
Denison, J. E.
Brownlow, C.
Ebrington, Lord
Buck, L. W.
Encombe, Lord
Carter, J.
Ewart, W.
527
Euston, Lord
Pendarvis, E. W.
Fazakerley, N.
Palmer, F.
French, A.
Price, Sir R.
Fane, Hon. J.
Rumbold, G. E.
Fyler, T. B.
Rice, S.
Guise, Sir B. W.
Ridley, Sir M. W.
Gascoyne, General
Rancliffe, Lord
Gordon, R.
Robarts, A.
Grattan, J.
Robinson, Sir George
Graham, Sir J.
Rickford, W.
Guest, J. J.
Sibthorp, Colonel
Howick, Lord
Stanley, Lord
Honywood, W. P.
Stuart, Lord J.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Stewart, J.
Heathcote, Sir W.
Slaney, A.
Jephson, C. D. O.
Sadler, M. T.
Kennedy, T. F.
Stanley, Hon. E. G.
Killeen, Lord
Thomson, P.
Knight, R.
Trant, W. H.
Langston, J. H.
Tomes, J.
Lambert, J. S.
Wilson, Sir R.
Lester, B.
Wyvill, M.
Lennard, T. B.
White, Colonel
Labouchere, H.
Wilbraham, G.
Lawley, F.
Wrottesley, Sir J.
Lamb, Hon. G.
Warburton, H.
Milton, Lord
Whitbread, S.
Morpeth, Lord
Whitmore, W. W.
Monck, T. B.
Western, C. C.
Maberly, J.
Webb, Colonel
Macauley, C.
Wood, Alderman
Macdonald, Sir J.
Wood, J.
Marshall, W.
TELLERS.
Nugent, Lord
Hume, J.
O'Connell, D.
Wood, C. PAIRED OFF
Ponsonby, W.
Portman, E. B.
Denison, W. J.
Philips, G. R.
Ferguson, Sir R.
Parnell, Sir H.
Fortescue, G. M.
Phillimore, Dr.
Harvey, D. W.
Power, R.
Rowley, Sir W.
Poyntz, S.
The House resumed: the Chairman reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on Wednesday.
DESERTED CHILDREN (IRELAND) BILL.]
Lord Leveson Gower
Mr. O'Connell
said, that at that hour of the night it was impossible that the public business could be well done. He admitted that more business was gone through at that hour than at an earlier hour, but not done—at least, not well done. If there were really so much business before the House, why did not the Session begin at an earlier period of the year, and why did it not continue to a later period? Hon. Gentlemen had a great anxiety to be returned to that House, but had they an anxiety to do
528
Mr. Maberly
seconded the Amendment.
Mr. Doherty
said, his noble friend the Secretary for Ireland had moved that the Speaker do leave the Chair, and that the Bill in question be re-committed, with a view to its being printed. It was of great consequence to Ireland that that Bill should pass, and the House could not help observing that the hon. member for Clare had taken that opportunity of attempting to arrest the progress of the Bill, by moving an adjournment; but he had not stopped short there—he had read the House a lecture, and it was to be expected that he should teach them by his precepts and his example a better performance of their duty than they could yet boast of. He had told them that speeches had been made in that House which deserved further notice. Yes, it was true, speeches had been made there which did demand a reply; but until that reply had been made, the hon. and learned member for Clare would do well to refrain from lecturing the House in the tone which he had then thought proper to assume.
Mr. Slaney
said, that the hour was not late, nor the number of Members present small, and he hoped, therefore, that the hon. member for Clare would not press his motion.
Lord F. L. Gower
observed, it was the intention of the Government to reduce the expenses of the Foundling Hospital in Dublin; but as to the present Bill, it did not commit the House to anything. His object merely was, by printing the Bill, to put Members in possession of its contents. Mr. Rice would support the adjournment if the motion before the House com-
529
[No division took place, the hon. member for Clare not pressing his motion, and the House resolved itself info a committee.]
Mr. O'Connell
said, that he did not wish to revive topics connected with the late condition of Ireland, but they had been forced upon him. Recent feelings were no doubt acute, but still more recent circumstances had tended to mitigate them. For himself, he had but one wish, which was, to bury the whole in oblivion; but instead of being met by a reciprocal sentiment, such direct attacks were made upon him, that even the English Gentlemen around, whose knowledge of him must necessarily be imperfect, felt the justice of extending their reproof to the violence of that assault. Though unwilling to press such a subject, he could inform them that he was prepared to bring forward such proofs as would establish every assertion he made, there or elsewhere, respecting the trials that had been alluded to. He confessed he was unwilling to introduce into Parliament that Irish squabble; but after what had occurred, he thought it incumbent upon him to state, that to-morrow he would present petitions relating to the trials at Borrisokane, and to what was called the conspiracy at Doneraille. He had looked at some of the newspapers, and he declared himself perfectly ready and able to support anything he had ever said, and even much of what had been imputed to him. He possessed evidence which there was only one way of avoiding, and that was by the House refusing to give him an opportunity of laying it before them; for every fact he stated he could produce the testimony of the most trustworthy persons; and he had no doubt that the result would be, that the House and the public would feel that those trials were mismanaged, to say the least. On the present occasion his object was to aid, as far as his power permitted, in doing away with the practice of carrying through business at a late hour, particularly business which related to a country in which people had been silenced in more ways than one, including the despotic power possessed by the Irish government.
530
Lord F. L. Gower
said, the hon. and learned Member should recollect that he had indulged in assertions in Ireland that might do mischief, and could not at the moment be answered. As to the latter observation of the hon. and learned Member, he could only say that he was ready to vindicate every act of the Irish Government.
Mr. Doherty
inquired if Mr. O'Connell gave notice for to-morrow.
Mr. O'Connell
said, he gave notice that to-morrow he should give the names of the petitioners and of the witnesses. He had said nothing that he would not readily repeat. He was sorry that the subject had not been brought forward at an earlier period of the Session, and then the House could perhaps have formed a better judgment. The fact was, that the people of Ireland had become reconciled to each other without the aid of the Government, and contrary to the effect of its measures. He regretted to say that the government of Ireland had done nothing to make the Relief Bill effectual. The gentlemen of the bar, he thought, had some reason to complain: not one Catholic barrister having been elevated to the rank of King's counsel. He did not allude to himself: he had been too long in opposition to the Ministers to admit of their stooping to offer him anything—they would have done wrong in making such a submission as appointing him. If he had not already brought forward the question alluded to, it was from his unwillingness to raise the question of Protestant and Catholic Juries.
The Bill passed through the Committee, and to be further considered on Monday.
DEMISE OF THE CROWN.]
Mr. Hume
said, that at that late hour he would refrain from remarks, and simply move for "Leave to bring in a Bill to render perpetual the Act 57 Geo. 3, c. 45, to continue every person in office at the demise of the Sovereign, until removed or discharged there from by the succeeding King or Queen of this Realm." The Bill he wished to bring in was similar to that passed in 1817; but that was a temporary measure, and his object was to make a permanent law.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
opposed the Motion, on the ground that such a regulation would be imposing a most invidious task on the Sovereign, as it would take from him the privilege, now appertaining to him, of not renewing the
531
Colonel Davies
supported the Motion. He thought it was very hard that individuals like Lieutenants of the Army or Navy should have to pay fees for the renewal of their commissions on the demise of the Sovereign. If the fees could be provided for, he had no doubt there would be no objection to the measure, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not oppose it as a mere matter of form, but on account of the fees.
Colonel Dundas
thought, that a bill of that description ought not, at that time, to be introduced, and he would therefore move, as an Amendment, that the House do now adjourn.
Mr. Wynn
said, that the proposed bill did not stand upon the same ground as the bill it was intended to renew. He did not say that the object proposed was not a good one, but he thought the bill should be made prospective only. At present certain persons had probably a claim for the fees which the bill would take away, and he was not ready to deprive them of their right.
Colonel Wood
was of opinion that the fees were paid, not to individuals but to the Treasury, and the Treasury could have no desire to retain them. He wished the fees paid by the officers of the Navy and Army to be remitted, but he thought the bill unnecessary.
Mr. Hume
said, that the right hon. Gentleman had mistaken his object, which was simply to prevent the renewal of fees on the demise of the Crown. If that right hon. Gentleman would suggest some modification of the bill that would meet his own views, he would readily adopt it. He was willing to follow any course that was agreeable to the House, and that would attain his object of avoiding the payment of fees.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that he must object to the bill, though the hon. Member might probably attain his object by some other means.
532
Mr. Hume
had no objection to withdraw his Motion, in order to introduce a bill agreeable to the views of the right hon. Gentleman.
Motion withdrawn.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, May 11, 1830.
MINUTES.] Accounts ordered. On the Motion of Lord TEYNHAM, the amount of Hop Duty between 1820 and 1829 inclusive:—Of Hops imported in each year:—Of Acres of Land under Hop Cultivation in each year:—How often the payment of the Duties had been deferred during the same period, and arrears of Duty at present.
Petitions presented. For the opening of the Trade to India, by the Earl of DERBY, from the Inhabitants of Prescot; and from the Inhabitants of Belfast. Against the Punishment of Death for Forgery, by Lord AUCKLAND, from the Inhabitants of Great Yarmouth; and of Great Bardfield. Against increasing the Duty on British Spirits, by the Marquis of ANGLESEY, from all the eight Baronies of Wexford:—By the Earl of MANSFIELD, from the Clackmannan Agricultural Association:—And by the Karl of CHARLEVELLE, from the Inhabitants of Tullamore.
STAMPS ON NEWSPAPERS (IRELAND.)]
The Marquis of Anglesey
presented a Petition from the proprietors of thirteen Newspapers in Ireland, against the pro-posed increase of the Stamp-duties upon Newspapers in that country. The noble Martinis expressed his entire concurrence in the prayer of the petitioners, and added, that he thought their Petition was a document well worthy of the serious attention and consideration of their Lordships. The facts which they stated fully proved that the proposed measure would be perfectly useless as one of revenue, while one certain effect of it would be, the almost total destruction of the Irish press, which was already in a declining state. The measure in question went to lay on an additional duty of eighty-three per cent upon Newspapers, and forty per cent on advertisements, while it imposed a duty of 3
s.
d.
l.
l.
533
Petition read, and to lie on the Table.
POOR-LAWS FOR IRELAND.]
The Earl of Darnley
presented a Petition from the city of Dublin, signed by 2,000 Artisans, Shopkeepers, and other industrious inhabitants of that metropolis, in favour of the introduction of a system of Poor-laws into Ireland. The noble Lord said, that it was absolutely necessary that some compulsory provision for the poor should be established in Ireland, in order to relieve the middle classes, and the description of persons who signed this Petition, and upon whom the support of the poor in that country was at present thrown. It was objected to such a measure, that the poor of Ireland were already supported by charity, which was perhaps true; but that did not exonerate their Lordships from the duty of relieving the middle classes from exclusively bearing that burthen. The gentry of the country, those who drew from it large revenues without ever seeing it, ought to be made to contribute their share. The necessity of such a measure he believed would soon force itself upon their Lordships' attention. For his own part, he had long advocated the introduction into Ireland of a legal provision for the support of the aged and infirm, but from circumstances and statements which had latterly come to his knowledge, he was led to believe that it would be necessary for the Legislature to go much further than that. He did not wish to introduce into Ireland the abuses of the English Poor-laws, but he believed that nothing short of a system founded on the principles of those laws could save that country from much misery.
The Earl of Limerick
said, that he could assure their Lordships that they would not hear a speech on the subject of the Poor-laws from him on that occasion. His noble friend had been kind enough to apprise him of his intention to present this Petition, and he thought it his duty to attend. He was not astonished at the statement of his noble friend, that this Petition was signed by 2,000 persons, for he was convinced that his noble friend might readily find in this metropolis, or any other city, more than 2,000 persons of the lower classes, who would be extremely desirous to be supported and maintained at the expense of the superior orders of
534
535
The Earl of Darnley
explained, that he had hitherto advocated the introduction into Ireland of a compulsory provision for the aged and infirm only, but late circumstances had induced him to doubt whether it would not be necessary to go much further.
POOR-LAWS IN ENGLAND.]
Lord Teynham
said, he rose to claim their Lordships' attention to several Resolutions which he had to propose respecting the Poor-laws and their administration. Their Lordships, he was sure, would agree with him in thinking that the subject was of great magnitude and consequence, and they would permit him to occupy a portion of their time, while he explained his views regarding it, and presented to their notice the suggestions which appeared to him calculated to remedy the evils which all persons now admitted to be interwoven with the existing system of those laws. They look their rise in England in 1601, by the Act of the 43rd of Elizabeth, which laid the foundation of that system which had since prevailed in this country. There had been, however, in the reign of Edward 6th, a beneficial principle in action for giving relief to the aged and infirm poor, and also to provide labour for those who were unable to find it; but this last part of the system it was found impossible to carry into execution, and the magistrates and overseers substituted the practice of giving the distressed labourers money and food, instead of finding them work. The Act of Elizabeth was an extension of this system to the whole kingdom. It was from this practice of giving money, thus early begun, that at length the operation of the Poor-laws became intolerably oppressive. At present, from every part of the country there went forth the most grievous complaints. In fact, these laws were now used to measure out the means of subsistence to the labouring classes, whose wages were made adequate to their maintenance by payments from the Poor-rates. In the year ending the 5th of April, 1830, the average assessments on account of these rates was equal in some places to the whole produce
536
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
537
s.
d.
s.
d.
l.
s.
538
l.
s.
d.
l.
l.
l.
l.
539
l.
l.
540
De Laudibus Legum Angliœ,
541
d.
d.
542
The Duke of Wellington
did not rise to express an opinion on the many points touched upon by the noble Lord, but to suggest the propriety of his withdrawing his Resolutions, and bringing forward, should he feel so inclined, a substantive motion, in relation to the very important subject of the Poor-laws. The noble Lord could not, perhaps, confer a greater benefit on the country than a revision of those laws, and should he propose any plan of amendment, he (the Duke of Wellington) would give it his best consideration. But the Resolutions which the noble Lord then proposed, went, instead of directing their Lordships' attention to the practical defects, and the practical remedies for the defects, of the existing Poor-laws, to the considering a number of important questions and measures, each of which required minute investigation. The noble Lord first proposed, as a resolution, that they should relieve all the poor—a resolution, no doubt, very desirable, if it could be accomplished;—next, that they should have a new system of County-rates; that they should have a new system of Poor-rates, a subject of vast importance, and which should be disembarrassed as much as possible from every other;—that they should have a new system of road-making, so far as the employment of the poor in the formation of roads was concerned;—that they should have a new system of parishes;—and that they should have a new compulsory system of friendly societies—all subjects of importance, each well worthy of their Lordships' attention; but as such very unfitting to be presented in the gross in the manner of the noble Lord's Resolutions. He trusted, that without further remark, the noble Lord would see the expediency of withdrawing his Resolutions, and, if he would, of bringing the subject before the House in a more substantive form.
Lord Teynham
said, that he would act on the suggestion of the noble Duke, and withdraw his Resolutions.
HICKSON'S DIVORCE BILL.]
The Bishop of London
obtained leave to bring in a Bill to Dissolve the Marriage between Elizabeth Hickson and Thomas Buxton. The case was one, he said, of such a peculiar
543
The Lord Chancellor
said, the facts contained in the Petition were of such a nature as to call upon their Lordships to interfere. The question as to the nullity of the marriage would remain to be decided hereafter.
The Bishop of Bristol
cordially concurred in the propriety of bringing in the Bill as the only means by which the conduct of the parties could be investigated, but if it should turn out that the marriage had been legally contracted, he saw no ground on which their Lordships could be authorised to declare it null and void.
EAST RETFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.]
The hearing of evidence on this Bill was resumed, and the examination of witnesses continued till nine o'clock. Several witnesses, freemen of the borough, deposed to their having received packets, containing twenty guineas each, for their votes at East Retford, and to the evidence of general corruption.
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Tuesday, May 11, 1830.
MINUTES.] Mr. HUME brought in a Bill to abolish all Fees and Stamp Duties chargeable on the renewal of appointments on the Demise of the Crown. The Bankrupt Laws Amendment Bill was read a second time. Mr. O'CONNELL brought in a Bill for the better securing the Charitable Donations and Bequests of Roman Catholics in England and Wales—Read a first time.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. BYNG, of the Sums received and expended in 1827, 1828, and 1829, by the Commissioners for Watching and Lighting the various Hamlets, and Districts, and Estates in the neighbourhood of St. Pancras:—On the Motion of Mr. J. WOOD, all Fees payable for the renewal of Commissions or Warrants on the Demise of the Crown, specifying to whom the Fees are paid, and to what purposes they are applied:—And on the Motion of Mr. D. W. HARVEY, the number of Informations filed in the Courts of Equity by the Attorney-General at the instances of the Commissioners appointed to inquire concerning Charities in England and Wales, from the 1st of March, 1829, to the latest period; specifying the names of
544
Petitions presented. For the abolition of Slavery in the Colonies, by Lord MILTON, from Protestant Dissenters at Halifax, Leeds, Warley, Wakefield, Wortley, Kirby Moorside, Farsley, and at Sheffield. Against the renewal of the Insolvent Debtors Act, by Mr. ROBINSON, from Worcester. Against Suttees, by Mr. EASTHOPE, from Protestant Dissenters at Sheffield. In favour of the Jews Relief Bill, by Lord EDRINGTON, from the Inhabitants of Exeter. For the abolition of the Punishment of Death for Forgery, by Lord MILTON, from the Merchants, Bankers, and Manufacturers of Huddersfield:—By Mr. EASTHOPE, from Protestant Dissenters at Sheffield:—By Lord BRECKNOCK, from Bath:—By Mr. MONCK, from Reading. Against the employment of Children in Spinning Factories, by Mr. HOBHOUSE, from the Inhabitants of Great and Little Bolton, and from those of Oldham:—By Mr. W. SMITH, from the Spinners of Lees. Against the Duties on Coals imported into Ireland, by Mr. S. RICK, from the Manufacturers of St. Michael's and St. John's. Dublin. Against the Duty on Coals carried Coastwise, by Sir T. D. ACLAND, from the Inhabitants of Teignmouth. For a protecting Duty on Foreign Lead, from certain Inhabitants of Tavistock, by Lord EBRINGTON. Against the Poor-law Amendment Bill, by Mr. W. SMITH, from the Guardians of the Poor at Norwich. Complaining of the regulations with respect to Surgeons in Ireland, by Mr. S. RICE, from the Surgeons of Clonmel. Against the Sheriffs' Courts, Scotland, by Lord ALTHORP, from John Denny. For a better distribution of Poor Rates, by the same noble Lord, from the Rate-payers of Kettering. For an inquiry into Corporation Property (Ireland), by the same noble Lord, from Thomas Flanagan. Against the increase of Duty on British Spirits, by Mr. H. DRUMMOND, from the Freeholders of Stirlingshire; and from the Clackmannanshire Agricultural Society. Against the renewal of the East India Company's Charter, by Sir C. HASTINGS, from the Inhabitants of Leicester:—By Lord EBRINGTON, from the Inhabitants of Buckfastleigh and Dean Prior. Against Distillation and the Licensing System, by Mr. If. DAVIES, from Lieut.-General R.P.Clayton:—By Mr. C. FERGUSON, from certain Spirit Dealers in Scotland. For the improvement of the Vagrant Act, by Mr. EGERTON, from certain Justices of Peace in Cheshire. For establishing Poor-laws in Ireland, by Mr. EGERTON, from Hungerford. Against the Duties on Soap, by Mr. HUME, from a Soap Manufacturer at Glasgow, Against Church Patronage in Scotland, by Mr. HUME, from Lis-
545
POLICE TRIALS—IRELAND.]
Mr. O'Connell moved for a copy of the Coroner's Inquest upon the body of Daniel Naylan, for whose alleged murder in Miltown Malbay, county of Clare, on the 29th of June, 1829, a policeman, named William Ferguson, was tried and acquitted.
Mr. Doherty
said—Sir, in the absence of my noble friend, the Secretary for Ireland, I cannot permit this Motion to be put without offering a few observations. I am much surprised to see that the hon. and learned Gentleman should bring it forward as a matter of course, and that he should call upon the House for these documents without laying down the grounds upon which they should be granted.—This Motion, Sir, has come upon me without notice; I was altogether unprepared for it; still I must raise my voice against it, for it would tend to convert this House into a Court of Appeal, in all criminal cases, from the decision of Juries in Ireland, and
546
547
548
Mr. O'Connell
said, the Motion he brought forward referred to an occasion upon which one of the King's subjects lost his life; and, continued he, I should have been ready to explain all the circumstances connected with the case, as well as my object in submitting the Motion to the House, if the hon. and learned Gentleman had asked me a question on the subject,
549
cries of Order from all parts of the House.
550
551
Mr. WILLIS'S CASE.]
Lord Milton
said, that he thought this not an unfit time for him to draw the attention of the House, and of his right hon. and gallant friend opposite, to the case of Mr. Willis, who had intrusted him with a Petition. That gentleman had held the office of Judge in Upper Canada, and had been suspended and removed by the Governor, in consequence of an opinion he had expressed relative to the constitution and power of the Court of which he was a member. By the Act which established that Court, it was provided that it should consist of one Chief Justice, and two Puisne Judges. Soon after Mr. Willis joined the Court, the Chief Justice obtained from the Governor leave of absence from the colony, and accordingly quitted the country, leaving the duties of the court to be performed by the two Puisne Judges. In the course of the performance of his duty, it occurred to Mr. Willis to inquire into the legal constitution of the Court, and whether the Judges could legally carry on business without the presence of the Chief Justice. Whether the conclusion at which Mr. Willis arrived were correct or not, he meant to
552
553
Sir George Murray
said, that the House would, he hoped, excuse him for trespassing on its attention for a short time, while he gave an explanation of this subject; for in his mind there was no circumstance of more importance than one which affected the conduct and treatment of a Judge. It appeared to him that the respect due to the judicial station and to the abilities and learning of men who were selected to undertake it was such, that the removal of any one of them from his high office rendered it proper that the circumstances occasioning it should be brought under the consideration of the House. He was happy that this Petition of Mr. Willis had been placed in the hands of the noble Lord opposite, whose character and conduct were so highly and so deservedly respected by the House, and who was able to give every effect to a petition thus intrusted to him. It might be proper for him to enter a little into the history of Mr. Willis. That gentleman had been recommended to his office by Sir C. Wetherell, at that time Attorney-General. Soon after he went out to his office as a Judge, in Upper Canada, the Chief Justice, who had been there for seventeen years, and was suffering much from ill health, asked leave of absence from the Governor, for the purpose of returning home. During the first Term that occurred after the departure of the Chief Justice, Mr. Willis regularly discharged his duties; but between the first and second Terms he came to the opinion that the Court was incompetent to sit unless all the three Judges were present, as the Statute said that the Chief Justice and two Puisne Judges should preside there. Mr. Willis intimated his intention, on the first day of the Term of making this opinion public. The other Puisne Judge differed from him on the subject, and
554
555
The Petition read and to be printed.
LORD-LIEUTENANCY OF IRELAND.]
Mr. Hume,
in rising, pursuant to notice, to bring forward his Motion respecting the office of Lord-lieutenant of Ireland, enlarged upon the importance of the subject, and claimed the indulgence of the House while he briefly stated the grounds on which he sought to rest his Motion. In the year 1823 he brought forward a motion upon the same subject, which, unfortunately, did not then receive the attention to which he thought it entitled. The present time, however, would prove, he trusted, more propitious. Few who had attended to the state of Ireland but had made up their minds as to the causes of its distress; and with the view of impressing his own opinions upon the House did he then address them. He would not go back antecedently to the period of the Union, but rather confine himself to the time which had elapsed since then. Comparing the time when his former motion was brought forward with the present, he could not help congratulating the House on having gotten rid of one great impediment to the progress of salutary legislation in Ireland. When the former motion was under discussion, the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not say that the time might not come when that Officer and his establishment should be withdrawn from Ireland; his objection was, that the time had not then come, and since then it was gratifying to think that a fortunate change had taken place,
556
557
558
559
560
561
l.
l.
562
563
564
Lord F. L. Gower
commenced by adverting to the different line of argument, on which the hon. Member had rested a similar motion in the Session of 1823, from that which he had thought proper to adopt upon the present occasion. His proposition had been then grounded on the existence of the Catholic disabilities; but it was now recommended on account of the political circumstances of the country, as well as by economical considerations. Yet he was entirely at a loss to discover the proofs by which the hon. Gentleman established his assumptions. He had asserted, that the defects and abuses existing in the charitable institutions of Ireland would have been remedied, but for the continuance of the office of Lord-lieutenant since the Union, but he had not supplied the House with one proof of his assertion. As to the estimates to which the hon. Member had alluded, he requested the House to suspend its judgment till he should have an opportunity of explaining the whole of the reductions contemplated, and the reasons why they were carried no further. It was not judicious, in his opinion, to debate the present subject so soon after the settlement of the Catholic Question, involving as it did, a great difference of opinion amongst the wise and moderate of all parties in Ireland. He did not pretend to say, that it was a question which the House might not with propriety take into consideration, and still less was he inclined to affirm, that the hon. Member had adduced arguments which deserved to be treated with inattention or disrespect. He was not, however, prepared to assent to his inference, that the subversion of the executive power in Dublin, and its resurrection at the Home-office, shorn of its usual attributes, would be productive of benefit to Ireland. The hon. Member had, moreover, shown his ignorance of the habits and feelings of the Irish public when he appealed to their national pride, assuming that it was violated by submitting to what he termed the degradation of a colonial government. In reality no such prejudice had been ever for a moment entertained by Irishmen of any class whatever. The court of the Lord-lieutenant had not
565
566
Mr. Spring Rice
had heard nothing from his noble friend that could create any rational idea that the question was not fit for parliamentary discussion. The proposition was not for the abolition of the office of the Lord-lieutenant, but merely for an address to the Crown to consider whether the present system of local government in Ireland was necessary to be continued. The hon. member for Aberdeen had made out a case to warrant an inquiry, first, upon the ground of good government; and, secondly, upon that of economy. He did not believe that his Motion would be unpopular in Ireland, not even in Dublin, except with those immediately in connexion with the expenditure of the Castle. The time was not distant when Government would be obliged to come down to the House with some such proposition, and it was fitting to hasten its motions. The early tendency had been to localize everything in Ireland, but the present tendency was to assimilate the two countries. Nothing could be more injurious to Ireland than the system of constant shifting and changing in the government. Chief Secretary had followed Chief Secretary, and every one seemed to have been selected with the view of contrasting him with his predecessor. Let the House look at the long list of Chief Secretaries
567
568
Mr. George Moore,
adverting to the statements which had been made by the hon. member for Aberdeen respecting the amount of buildings, shipping, &c. in Dublin, observed, that although, since the Union, the prosperity of Dublin had increased only a fifth, the population, and, he believed, the wealth of Ireland had doubled. Much of the prosperity of Dublin was undoubtedly to be attributed to the increased expenditure which the Court occasioned. The inhabitants of Dublin had not petitioned against the proposition of the hon. member for Aber-
569
Sir H. Parnell
said, he would shortly state the grounds on which he agreed with his hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen. As to the benefit which the people of Dublin derived from the expenditure of 30 or 40,000
l.
Lord Oxmantown
was surprised to hear it said that the people of Ireland were favourable to the abolition of the office of Lord-lieutenant. He was in Ireland three weeks ago, and was frequently present when the proposition of the hon. member for Aberdeen was discussed, and he had
570
Lord Althorp
said, that it was perhaps doubtful whether this office ought to be abolished; but, for himself, he had nearly made up his mind that it ought. Nothing was, in his opinion, more useful than unity of government, particularly in governing a country difficult to be governed—and such was Ireland. Besides, the peculiar advantages of a monarchical government was always supposed to consist in its steadiness; which, it was contended, more than compensated for the great difference existing between its expense as compared with that of a republic; although, in fact, the trappings of Royalty cost more than all the establishments of a republic. But in Ireland they had only the trappings, and not a single advantage of a monarchical form of government, since they had that perpetual change which was considered so destructive. Besides, there was no more reason for supporting a separate local government in Ireland than in any one of the northern counties of England, for the communication between them was just as easy; and if Lord-lieutenants of Counties were established, as in this country, all the difficulties urged against the measure might be met, except that respecting the administration of justice. As the hon. member for Aberdeen, too, had so clearly stated, there would be a great saving effected by the
571
Sir G. Murray
said, that he was induced to offer a few observations to the House upon this subject in consequence of the great interest which he took in all questions which were connected with the condition of Ireland. In reply to the observation of the noble Lord, that there was a continual change in the system of governing Ireland, owing to the frequent change of its Lord-lieutenants, he would merely say, that the system of government in Ireland did not depend upon the individual who was Lord-lieutenant, but on the administration in England to which he owed his appointment. The vacillation observable in the policy pursued by the different Secretaries of State for Ireland was not attributable to the individual character of the different noblemen who had acted as viceroys, but to the system adopted by the administration in England. That vacillation was now at an end, for a new system had recently been adopted with respect to Ireland, which would be beneficial, he trusted, not merely to that country but to the empire at large. It had been stated by the hon. member for Limerick, that the government of the Viceroy was of no importance, for that, although there were a Lord-lieutenant and a Chief Secretary, the authority was not in their hands, but in the hands of a nameless body to which he alluded, but which he said was too contemptible to be named, and could not be known to the House. If the hon. Gentleman would point out to the House how that body could be removed he would cordially give him his support, or if the hon. Gentleman could prove that the existence of this body was the necessary and unavoldable accompaniment of a Lord-lieutenant, he would admit that he had made out a case for the removal of the vice-regal government. Another objection to the office, made by the hon. Gentleman, was founded on the supposition, that if the Lord-lieutenant concur in the views of the Government, his presence was not necessary in Ireland—they could do as well without him. He did not agree with the hon. Gentleman in that opinion. The viceregal government in Ireland was, in
572
573
574
Mr. O'Connell
remarked, that if it were known in Ireland that it was seriously intended to bring this motion forward, the House would have heard of it in a very different way from the sentiments uttered by the hon. Member who opposed the question. He submitted, that it was not wise to legislate for a country against the feelings of the inhabitants, and the Irish were universally opposed to this; and with good reason; for it would assuredly increase absenteeism. He was not, and had no right to be, the eulogist of past governments; but he hoped that, under the improved feeling, a person of high rank filling the office of Lord-lieutenant would have an influence over factions which it would be in vain to expect from a government of clerks. He would strenuously oppose the motion.
Mr. Brownlow
said, that from what he had heard, he believed the motion was entitled to his humble support, and to the consideration of the House. No substantial or satisfactory arguments had been used to show why the office of viceroy of Ireland should not be abolished; and in the speeches of the noble Lord and the right hon. Secretary, he had been pleased to observe that they had placed the question before the House simply as one of time; they raised no objection upon principle. But he asked, Why was it not time now? There was nothing to justify the continuance of the office on principle; and if, as was universally acknowledged, a great saving could be effected by the abolition, was it not their duty, as Members of Parliament, to press it on the consideration of the Ministry? He thought the time had arrived. The proceedings of the last thirty years had been founded upon a system of assimilation. First, the parliaments of the two countries had been assimilated; and then in succession various Boards; and, to complete the system, it was only necessary to assimilate the government of the two kingdoms; so that an English cabinet might take the power from the hands of a Lord-lieutenant, who was sometimes with and sometimes
575
Lord Castlereagh
denied that there had been expressions of public opinion in Ireland upon this subject. As a county member, he felt himself bound to say that he should be sorry to see the office of Lord-lieutenant abolished without some more cogent reasons for the abolition than any he had heard that night; and he should, therefore, in the absence of any direct instruction from his constituents, whose opinions on the subject were to be regarded, deem himself bound to oppose the motion of the hon. member for Montrose.
Mr. Jephson
also opposed the motion, because he was satisfied that, if the office of Lord-lieutenant were abolished, some person, under some other name, must be sent to Ireland, in order to fulfil those duties which were required of the Government, and which could not be efficiently performed by any officer in this country.
Sir Joseph Yorke
said, the arguments of the hon. member for Montrose were unanswerable, and he had no doubt they had produced a very considerable effect on the understanding of all the members of that House. For his part, the very reason given by some persons for opposing the motion was the reason which induced him to support it. It was because Ireland was no longer to be considered a colony, but an integral part of the empire, that he desired to see the distinction of a Lord-lieutenant abolished. Ireland was now an integral portion of the empire; and he should vote for her being considered so by the abolition of this useless and expensive office. The government of Ireland had ever been a most corrupt one, celebrated for jobbing and chicanery, and
576
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that he should be unwilling to allow this question to go to a vote, without expressing his entire concurrence with the statement which had been made by his right hon. friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies. In declaring that it was his intention to oppose the motion of the hon. member for Aberdeen, he begged leave to exempt himself and the government of Ireland, with which he had formerly the honour of being connected, from the accusations which his hon. friend (sir Joseph Yorke) had made, of general corruption in those who formed the administration of that country. For his own part, he could confidently state, that he knew nothing of any such corruption; and he could appeal to all those who were in any way acquainted with the government of Ireland to say, whether the corruption of which the hon. Member had spoken, had any existence, except in his own imagination? From his former connexion with that government, and from the knowledge which his present situation had enabled him to acquire concerning it, he could conscientiously say, that no government had ever a greater desire to promote the interests of a people than the government of Ireland. After these preliminary remarks, he begged leave to make a few observations upon the question then under discussion. In the first place, it appeared to him that the hon. member for Limerick had argued it upon grounds to which his right hon. friend had perhaps offered a sufficient reply. That hon. Member appeared to draw a nice distinction as to the effects of the motion. He contended that it did not call upon the House at once to abolish the office of Lord-lieutenant of Ireland; but merely recommended the propriety of taking the subject into consideration, and of addressing the Crown to ascertain whether it might not with propriety be abolished. He did not admit that distinction. He knew that there were different modes of shaping a motion, in order to attract and to gain over some particular votes; but he was very much mistaken indeed, if the present motion had not been so framed, rather to catch a few votes of persons professing different
577
578
579
Mr. Hume,
in reply, said, that he had not heard a single argument from any member of his Majesty's Government, which did not go to support the Motion. All the difference between him and them was, as to the point of time at which the change was to take place. They were told the people of Dublin would not like the change; but was that House to consider the feelings of the people of Dublin, when opposed to those of the rest of Ireland, and the whole of the empire? The great argument urged against his proposition was, that it would make more absentees than at present; but in his opinion the office of Lord-lieutenant was the cause of absenteeism, and it was to put an end to a faction, and destroy a source of mismanagement, which drove liberal men out of the country, that he called on the House to give its assent to the Motion.
The House divided—For the Motion 115; Against it 229: Majority 114.
List of the Minority.
Althorp, Lord
Dering, Sir E.
Anson, Hon. G.
Dick, Q.
Attwood, M.
Denison, W. J.
Astley, Sir J.
Ducane, P.
Baring, F.
Duncombe, Hon. W.
Belgrave, Lord
Dundas, Hon. G.
Bernal, R.
Dundas, Sir R.
Benett, J.
Encombe, Lord
Birch, J.
Ebrington, Lord
Bentinck, Lord G.
Ellison, Cuthbert
Blake, Sir F.
Ewart, W.
Blandford, Lord
Fazakerley, J. N.
Brougham, H.
Ferguson, Sir R.
Brougham, J.
Foley, J. H. H.
Brownlow, C.
French, A.
Butler, C.
Fyler, T. B.
Buxton, T. F.
Gordon, R.
Colborne, R.
Guest, J. J.
Coke, T. W.
Guise, Sir W.
Calvert, C.
Harvey, D. W.
Crompton, S.
Heron, Sir R.
Cavendish, H. F. C.
Heathcote, R. E.
Cavendish, C. C.
Howick, Lord
Cavendish, W.
Hoy, B.
Cholmeley, M. J.
Honywood, W. P.
Cave, O.
Howard, H.
Davies, Colonel
Howard, R.
580
Hobhouse, J. C.
Ramsden, J. C.
Knight, R.
Rickford, W.
Kennedy, T. F.
Stanley, Hon. C.
Kemp, T. R.
Smith, W.
Labouchere, H.
Stuart, Lord J.
Lambert, J. S.
Sykes, D.
Langston, J. H.
Tennyson, C.
Latouche, R.
Townsend, Lord C.
Lawley, F.
Thomson, P.
Lennard, T. B.
Tufton, Hon. W.
Macdonald, Sir J.
Tynte, C. K.
Marshall, W.
Vyvyan, Sir R.
Marshall, J.
Warburton, H.
Marjoribanks, S.
Warrender, Sir G.
Maberly, J.
Waithman, Ald.
Macauley, C.
Webb, E.
Milton, Lord
Western, C. C.
Morpeth, Lord
Wemyss, J.
Monck, J. B.
West, J. R.
Ord, Wm.
Wilson, Sir R.
Palmer, F.
Wilbraham, G.
Parnell, Sir H.
Wood, Ald.
Pendarvis, E.
Wood, C.
Philips, Sir G.
Wood, J.
Philips, G.
Wrottesley, Sir J.
Ponsonby, Hon. T.
Wyvill, M.
Protheroe, C.
Yorke, Sir Jos.
Poyntz, W. S.
TELLERS.
Pryse, P.
Hume, J.
Rancliffe, Lord
Rice, T. S.
Rowley, Sir W.
PAIRED OFF.
Robarts, A. W.
Portman, E. B.
Robinson, Sir G.
Whitmore, W. W.
STATE OF NEWFOUNDLAND.]
Mr. Robinson
said, he rose, in pursuance of the notice he had given, to move for a Committee of Inquiry into the state of the Colony of Newfoundland. He would not trouble the House if he did not feel the subject to be of considerable importance, and worthy of the serious consideration of Parliament. There was, he believed, no one of our Colonies of which the condition was so little known as that of Newfoundland, though the Members of that House legislated for it. The few Acts of Parliament brought into that House for the regulation of its affairs, were concocted at the Colonial Office, proposed by some individual connected with the Colonial Department, and passed into laws by those majorities which the Ministers could always command. They were introduced probably at a late hour, and hurried through the House without explanation or remark. Under such circumstances he had a right to claim the attention of the House while he stated the complaints of the inhabitants of Newfoundland. They complained, and he thought they had a right to complain, of the line of policy which had been pursued by the Government of this country
581
582
583
584
585
586
de facto,
587
588
589
l.
Sir G. Murray
was of opinion, that the hon. Member had not made out a case that rendered it necessary for a committee of that House to inquire into the state of Newfoundland. The original policy of the Government was to make that colony a nursery for seamen. That system, however, had been altered, and colonization, though it was never encouraged, had gone on to a considerable extent. The consequence was, that there was now a population of 80,000 or 90,000 souls. The old system having been abandoned, they could not return to it, and all they could do was, to give to this nucleus of population every possible support, and that he contended
590
591
Mr. Bernal
was of opinion, that the hon. member for Worcester had made out a case that required the immediate and serious attention of the Government. The Colonial Department was called on to decide upon some plan for the improvement of the colony, which could no longer be regarded, as a mere fishing station. If it were considered in the light of a colony, it became the duty of Government to do every thing in its power to assist it. It appeared to him that the disputes about the right of fishing on the coast of Labrador ought to be immediately set at rest. If the hon. member for Worcester could, however, get an assurance from Government that it meant, without delay, to procure some explanation from the American government on this subject, he would advise him to leave the business in the hands of Ministers. If he could bring Government to declare that these complaints should be investigated,—that they should not be laid on the shelf like an old musty record,—he would advise the hon. Member not to press his Motion.
Mr. Labouchere
could not coincide in the advice which had been given to the hon. member for Worcester, not to press his Motion. He thought that if a committee were appointed, it would be attended with beneficial effects. He could not see why there should be so much delay in arranging the concerns of 80,000 persons at Newfoundland, and it was notorious that no attempt had been made to redress the grievances of that colony. This alone was a sufficient ground, if there were no other for demanding a committee, and he had no doubt that its labours, if one were appointed, would be satisfactory to the colonists.
Mr. Hume
charged the Colonial Department with negligence in its conduct towards this colony; and contended that, the labours of a committee could alone remedy the evils occasioned by that negligence. If a committee were appointed, it might investigate many important points, and especially how it happened that Newfoundland had lost its fisheries; and how it happened that the fishermen,
592
Sir George Murray,
in explanation, said, that the Governor of that colony had been put in possession of the fullest information, on the point alluded to by the hon. member for Montrose by his predecessor, the late Secretary for the Colonial Department.
Mr. Warburton
thought, that the Newfoundland fishery admitted of great extension. Those individuals whom he had the honour to represent, depended almost entirely on the manufacture of ropes, lines, and other things used in the fisheries, and it was of great importance to them, and to other persons residing in different places, employed in a similar manner, that the utmost encouragement should be given to the fisheries.
Mr. Robinson
in reply, observed, that the answer of the right hon. and gallant General was directed entirely against the form of his Motion. He had not said a word in answer to the case which he had made out. A committee of the House would, if not in this Session, at least in
593
The House then divided, when there appeared for the Motion 29; Against it 82;—Majority against the Motion 53.
List of the Minority.
Althorp, Lord
Marshall, J.
Baring, F.
O'Connell, D.
Beaumont, T.
Peachy, General
Bernal, R.
Ponsonby, Hon. W.
Bright, H.
Protheroe, E.
Brougham, H.
Rice, T. S.
Clements, Lord
Stewart, Sir M. S.
Dawson, A.
Thomson, C. P.
Denison, E.
Uxbridge, Lord
Ebrington, Viscount
Warburton, H.
Gordon, R.
Ward, J.
Graham, Sir J.
Whitmore, W. W.
Hume, J.
Wyvil, M.
Jephson, C. D. O.
Tellers.
Lamb, Hon. G.
Labouchere, H.
Lester, B.
Robinson, G. R.
IMPROVEMENT IN CHANCERY.]
Mr. Brougham
observed, that in the last Session, a bill had come down from the other House, for effecting an alteration in the existing system of the Court of Chancery. That bill disappeared almost immediately. He now understood that another bill which had been in the present Session introduced into the other House, was also about to be withdrawn. In this situation of uncertainty, those who in that House wished to make some reform in the law knew not how to shape their course. He therefore begged leave to ask, if one Chancellor of his Majesty's Government could inform him whether the measure introduced by another Chancellor was likely to proceed?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he knew nothing whatever of the rumour to which the learned Gentleman alluded.
Mr. Brougham
—Oh! then, I suppose I am to consider the report as utterly groundless.
GRAND CANAL (IRELAND).]
Lord Tullamore
l.
594
Mr. Alexander Dawson
represented the work to be of great public utility, and described the opposition of the noble Lord as the result of a rivalry between him, the proprietor of the town of Tullamore, and a Mr. Lambert, the proprietor of the town of Kilbeggan.
Lord F. L. Gower
defended the loan, as made solely with a view to the public advantage, and denied that there was any jobbing in the transaction, or in any other with which the Government was connected.
Motion negatived without a division.
HOUSE OF LORDS,
Wednesday, May 12, 1830.
MINUTES.] Lord SKELMERSDALE presented a Petition from the Inhabitants of Stockport, against the East India Monopoly.
On the Motion of the Bishop of LONDON, the Bill for dissolving the marriage between Thomas Buxton and Elizabeth Hickson was read a first time.
BRITISH SPIRITS.]
The Earl of Rosebery
presented a Petition from the Justices of the Peace and the inhabitants of the county of Linlithgow, against the proposed increase of the Duty on British Spirits. The noble Lord remarked, that when the measure to which this petition referred was first introduced in another place it was entirely upon financial grounds, and for the purposes of revenue; but if the operation of the measure went to afford an undue protection to the West India interests, and if it interfered with that arrangement which was made, in 1825, by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lord Goderich), so as to give an unfair advantage by an alteration of the proportion of protection to one party over the other, it was a measure which ought to meet with the most serious consideration before it was adopted. He quite concurred in the prayer of the petition.
[The noble Earl presented similar Petitions from the Members of the West
595
The Earl of Malmesbury
said, he was extremely happy to see such a number of petitions presented against this measure. He had, their Lordships would recollect, adverted to this subject on a former evening, and he gave notice that it was his intention, in case the new duties should be pressed, to oppose the measure.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, May 12, 1830.
MINUTES.] Mr. HOBHOUSE brought in a Bill for the Regulation of Parish Vestries. The Lord ADVOCATE brought in a Bill to facilitate Criminal Trials in Scotland.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. A. ELLIS, the number of Persons convicted of Forgery on the Bank of England between 1791 and 1829, distinguishing the number of capital convictions, executions, and mitigated punishments:—On the Motion of Mr. F. BUXTON, Copies of Information received from Jamaica, respecting the treatment of a Female Slave by the Rev. Mr. Bridges, with the Minutes of the Evidence taken on the occasion:—Of information relative to the illicit removal of Slaves from one Colony to another, and prosecutions instituted in consequence:—The Record of the Court of King's Bench, Antigua, in the case of a free man of colour named Parker, and the correspondence on that subject between the local authorities and the Colonial Department:—Abstract of the Returns of the Slave Population in each Colony since 1816.
Petitions presented. Against the Beer Bill, by Mr. PORTMAN, from the Clergy, Gentlemen, and others of Blandford:—By Mr. CURTEIS, from Hailsham:—By Mr. SYKES, from the Licensed Victuallers of Kingston-upon-Hull:—By Mr. CHAPLIN, from the Inhabitants of Market Deeping; and from the Licensed Victuallers of Oaken-Gates:—By Mr. B. CARTER, from the Publicans of Petersfield:—And by Lord STANEY, from the Publicans of Ashton-under-Line. For the Repeal of the Malt Tax, by the ATTORNEY GENERAL, from Peterborough. Against the proposed Stamp Duties (Ireland), by Mr. PONSONBY, from the Inhabitants of Youghall. For the repeal of the Duty on Hops, by Mr. CURTEIS, from the Inhabitants of Mayfleld. Against inflicting the Punishment of Death in cases of Forgery, by Mr. S. BOURNE, from Ashburton:—By Mr. PENDARVIS, from the Corporation of Falmouth:—By Mr. R. GORDON, from the Inhabitants of Malmesbury:—By Mr. F. BUXTON, from the Inhabitants of Sutton (Isle of Ely), Stourbridge, Dorking, Sunderland, Milford, Bishop Wearmouth, and Monk Wearmouth, and from Protestant Dissenters at Bristol and Exeter:—By Mr. S. RICE, from the Provincial Bank of Ireland at Clonmell:—And by Sir C. COLE, from the Bankers of Swansea. Against the Truck System, by Mr. MUNDY, from the Tradesmen of Ashby Wold. Against the proposed Duty on British Spirits, by Sir J. SEBRIGHT, from the Farmers frequenting Ware Market:—By Sir T. GOOCH, from the Farmers of Suffolk:—And by Mr. A. HAY, from the Magistrates of Linlithgow; and from the Members of the West Lothian Agricultural Association. Against Suttees, by Mr. J. WOOD, from Dissenters at Preston:—And by the same Gentleman, from 1500 Inhabitants of Preston, for a Reform in Parliament. Against altering the Welsh Judicature, by Sir T. MOSTYN, from the Grand Jury of Flintshire:—And by Mr. BLACKBURN, from the Inhabitants of Warrington. Against compelling the Merchant Seamen to contribute to Greenwich Hospital, by Lord W. POWLETT, from the Seamen of Sunderland:—And by Mr. PENDARVIS, from the Seamen of Falmouth. Fox the repeal of the Duty on Coals carried
596
DONERAILE CONSPIRACY—CONDUCT
Mr. O'Connell
spoke to the following effect: Before I proceed to bring forward the Motion of which I have given notice, I wish to observe, that the notice for this day which appears on the paper, relative to the homicides at Borrisokane, must have got there by some mistake, for which I cannot account, as my notice relative to that affair was for Tuesday next. This I am at a loss to explain, as there was no mistake on the subject in the public papers. The notice which I gave for this day, and upon which I rise now to move, is one for the production of documents which I deem necessary in order to enable the House to judge correctly upon a matter of serious importance as connected with the administration of justice, and to make it as probable as possible that I may obtain them, I shall limit the number as much as is consistent with the objects I have in view; and I will begin by stating, that although my notice is for the depositions of all the witnesses examined on the Special Commission at Cork, I shall now limit myself to moving, in the first place, for the depositions of but one witness, Patrick Daly; and, secondly, for the notes of the learned Judges who presided at these trials. Each of these Motions require a different consideration, but in both I shall lay grounds plainly and distinctly, to entitle me to the information I require. Before moving for these documents I shall state the specific subjects of each, and then I shall show how they are to be applied. The object I have in view is that of bringing before the House a complaint of the mode of preparing criminal cases for trial in Ireland, by Magistrates taking depositions without the knowledge of the parties charged; which appears to me a bad, a dangerous, and an unjust practice. I shall, for this purpose, instance the particular case of the Doneraile Conspiracy,
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
"omni exceptione major."
604
Mr. Hume
seconded the Motion.
Mr. Doherty
said, that if the hon. and learned Gentleman had occasion to apologise to the House, and to thank the Members for their patient attention, he sincerely felt that he himself had much greater occasion for their indulgence, compelled as he found himself, to enter at considerable length into all the circumstances of those trials, the hon. and learned Member had
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
to to
Cheers.
618
619
620
621
622
623
loud cheers
hear, hear, hear
624
"Oft has his voice my captive fancy led,
I loved him living, I adore him dead"—
625
Mr. Jephson
said, when he came to the House he did not intend to make any observations on the subject of the debate; but being a resident in the county in which those trials took place, and having been present at them, he felt himself bound to come forward and declare, that he cordially concurred in the statements made by his hon. friend, the member for Clare. The hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland, had charged his hon. and learned friend with dexterity; but had he shewn no dexterity himself? In order to bring down a few dull cheers from the benches behind him, he had gone into a variety of topics—indulged in sneers and sarcasms—and followed his hon. and learned friend through every tavern and meeting in Ireland, in order, by quoting his speeches, to excite a feeling against him. But that was diverting the attention of the House from the real question. Was it not to draw away their attention that he flung out his sarcasms against his hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen, whom the hon. and learned Gentleman designated an unlearned Member? Would to God there were a few more such unlearned Members, and then the triumphs would not be always on the side of venality and corruption. The real charge made by the hon. and learned member for Clare was, that the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Solicitor General for Ireland, when he sought to convict these men, had evidence before him which made their criminality doubtful, and on which no jury would have found them guilty. How had he met that charge? First, by throwing it off himself on the learned Judge, and asserting that he also had the depositions under his hand on the first and second trials, though he only drew the attention of the Jury to them on the third trial; and, secondly, by underrating the evidence of Daly, and treating lightly the contradictions and discrepancies between it and his depositions. He was himself present when the learned Judge handed down the depositions, and from his look and manner it appeared, that they had come upon the Court, as they certainly did upon him and the counsel for the prisoners—completely by surprise.
626
Lord Althorp
said, that the real question was, whether there was any foundation for a charge against the Law-officers of the Crown in Ireland having neglected to put forward a document by which the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution would have been submitted to a proper test, and the case of the accused parties been placed in its true light. When first the hon. and learned Gentleman had approached the subject of the charge, he confessed he thought it appeared to him that he had very indirectly approached it, and the result promised to be any thing but satisfactory in the way of exculpation of his conduct. The explanation, however,
627
hear
Mr. North
, in answer to what had fallen from the hon. member for Mallow, maintained, that wherever calumny was uttered, whether at taverns, at public meetings, or elsewhere, there the calumniator ought to be sought after and exposed. The hon. and learned member for Clare professed to approach the subject with great moderation; his hon. and learned friend also wished to approach it with great moderation, and what they objected to in the hon. and learned member for Clare was, that he had one tone for Ireland, and another for that House; that he reserved all his violence for one side of the channel, and all his moderation for the other. His hon. and learned friend was charged with
628
629
630
631
Mr. Hume
said, he had never listened to any statement made with more temper and moderation than that of his hon. and learned friend, the member for Clare; a temper and moderation strongly contrasted by the pomposity, and he might almost say insolence of manner, of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken. He regretted to observe the cheers with which the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks had been received by those Members who sat in his neighbourhood; for he had hoped that Ministers would have had the good sense to soothe rather than to increase any exasperation arising out of the occurrence in question. Was there a word, he would ask, which fell from his hon. and learned friend, which called for the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman? They might talk of his hon. and learned friend's tone and manner being sometimes like those of a lion, and sometimes like those of a puny dog; but he would not advise his hon. and learned friend to take
632
633
634
635
Mr. Doherty
explained, that it was a mistake to suppose that the depositions were not in the hands of the Judge on the trial, and had been brought by Mr. Creagh. They were returned to the Crown-office three months before the trial. Baron Penne father had asked him if the discrepancy had attracted his notice, and it had, but he thought the omission strengthened rather than weakened the testimony of Daly, and therefore, if he had noticed the circumstance, it could not have been in any manner favourable to the prisoner.
The Attorney General
said, as he had read neither of the speeches in question, nor the trial that gave rise to them, he might be considered in the light of an impartial person, and he must, in that character, say, that the charge so calmly and moderately brought forward by the hon. and learned member for Clare, appeared to have been founded on a mistake, and that, therefore, his hon. and learned friend, the Solicitor General for Ireland, had no occasion to enter at length into his own vindication. The hon. and learned member for Clare had been influenced,—naturally influenced,—to a certain degree, by the fact of having been counsel for the prisoner; but, notwithstanding the calmness of manner with which he brought
636
637
638
639
Mr. D. W. Harvey
said, he could not avoid expressing his surprise at the strange construction the hon. and learned Member opposite had put upon this Motion. He had throughout his speech regarded it as an attack upon himself; but he did not look upon it in that light, nor had it been brought forward upon such grounds by the hon. and learned member for Clare. Certainly it should not have his support if it were a mere personal attack upon the hon. and learned Gentleman. That hon. and learned Gentleman had exhibited a laudable anxiety to free himself from the charges which might attach to him, in reference to this affair, but had not exactly adopted the course best calculated to establish his innocence; for he granted to the hon. and learned member for Clare a
640
641
642
643
vivâ voce
644
Mr. D. Callaghan
said, that having acted as one of the jurors, on the second of the trials which had been referred to, he felt bound to bear his testimony to the propriety of the course which had been followed on that occasion by the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland. The jury, of which he formed one, could not agree, they did not differ as to the guilt of the prisoners, but merely as to the degree of credit due to some of the witnesses, and the gentleman who held out (Mr. Morrogh) acted, as he was well aware, from the purest and most conscientious motives. He conceived that it was absolutely necessary to institute those prosecutions at the time, and in the conducting of them the learned Gentleman did not travel out of the line of his public duty, but on the contrary, pursued a perfectly correct and humane course, and one which did not in any respect justify the charges which had been made against him.
The Solicitor General
assured the House that he should occupy its time but for a few moments with the observations which it occurred to him to make upon this Motion. In the first place he should enter his decided protest against it, being of so general and indefinite a nature, that it aimed at every thing and might be applied to any body. The hon. and learned member for Clare had eulogised the learned Judge who tried the cause, as being above suspicion for his conduct; but soon after
645
646
Lord F. L. Gower
said, that he came down to the House totally ignorant of the course the debate would take; but under all the circumstances of the case, and with his feelings and knowledge of the subject, a necessity was imposed on him to resist the Motion of the hon. and learned member for Clare, and particularly that part of it which related to the production of the Judge's notes. As good and satisfactory reasons, in a legal point of view, had been adduced to the House against the productions of them, by the hon. and learned Gentleman on the Treasury bench, it would be presumption in him to engage in a discussion on that part of the subject. It was his lot to enter upon the question entirely un endowed with that learning which the hon. member for Colchester disclaimed,—but which it was impossible for that hon. Gentleman, either upon this, or any other occasion, entirely to divest himself of. It had been his duty, however, to look into all the facts of this case; and his hon. and learned friend knew that he had most laboriously endeavoured to investigate them. When he found the case was put forward,—either upon the ground mentioned by the hon. member for Colchester, or on the fact of the deposition of the 29th of April, so often alluded to in the course of these transactions having been kept back; and when he found that it was assumed that the production of that deposition in Court would necessarily have proved the witness, whose evidence was in question, to be perjured; he could not hesitate at once to oppose the Motion, the assumptions being totally void of foundation. There was no discrepancy of importance, between the evidence brought forward on the trial, and the deposition so often mentioned. The evidence contained
647
648
Mr. O'Connell
—Sir, I avail myself of my right to reply, and I am able to subvert the sophistry by which the learned Gentleman is sought to be protected. Let me set myself right as to some of the assertions that have been made. In the first place the hon. and learned Gentleman has stated my definition of perjury. My opinion is, and I so stated it on the trial, that the breaking of a lawful oath, or the taking of an unlawful oath, is perjury. I was talking to the witness of the nature of perjury; and I then said, that if he had broken a lawful oath, or taken an unlawful oath, he was equally guilty of perjury. Secondly, the hon. and learned Gentleman, by going through a speech of great length, and which was rendered sufficiently ludicrous, notwithstanding its unwieldy length, by the tragic tone in which it was delivered, has arrived at the Sub-letting Act. The Sub-letting Act in this discussion! I cannot conceive how the Subletting Act can form a part of the Solicitor General's defence of his conduct; but he has the happy talent of introducing matters quite irrelevant. Why, Sir, he might as well have introduced any other event that
649
Lord Leveson Gower returned to his seat.
650
arbiter elegantiarum
A cry of Mil-borne Port—Mr. North.
651
652
Several Members named Lord Kilwarden.
653
654
655
656
657
Mr. O'Connell took up the Parliamentary Debates and read
658
659
Mr. Perceval
rose to defend the conduct of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Long after party feelings had ceased, he said his solicitude for the welfare of that country would be recollected with sentiments of gratitude. His character would stand high in the favour of the people of Ireland, when the attacks of the hon. and learned Gentleman were forgotten.
The House then divided. The numbers were—For the Motion 12; Against it 70—Majority 58.
List of the Minority.
Blandford, Marquis.
Jephson, C. D. O.
Cave, R. O.
Tomes, J.
Cholmeley, M.
Warburton, H.
Trench, A.
Wood, J.
Grattan, J.
TELLERS.
Harvey, D. W.
Heathcote, R. E.
J. Hume.
Hobhouse, J. C.
D. O'Connell.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, May 13, 1830.
MINUTES.] Petitions presented. Against any alteration in the Welsh Judicature, by the Earl of ELDON, from the Gentlemen of the County of Carmarthen; and from certain Inhabitants of the County of Montgomery. For throwing open the Trade to China, by Lord KING, from the Inhabitants of Tavistock, of Dean Prior, and Buck-fastleigh, and of the Clothing District of Gildersome:—By the Marquis of BUTE, from the Inhabitant); of New Mills, Henfield, and Glossop; the Merchants of Glasgow; the Provost and Burgesses of Calton; the Manufacturers of Wilsden: and from the Cotton Spinners and others of Ashton-under-Lyne. For a protecting Duty on Foreign Lead, by Lord KING, from the Owners and Workers of Lead Mines at Tavistock:—And by the Marquis of CLEVELAND, from the Inhabitants of Stanhope and Walsingham, in the County of Durham. For a commutation of Tithes, by the same Nobleman, from the Inhabitants of Gainsford, Wycliff, Hutton, Ovington, and Seargill. Against inflicting the Punishment of Death for Forgery, by Earl BATHURST, from the Inhabitants of North Shields. Against the Sale of Beer Bill, by the Marquis of LANSDOWN from the Inhabitants of Frome, Selwood. For the Abolition of Slavery, by the same Nobleman, from the Inhabitants of Knottingley. For higher Import Duties, by Earl STANHOPE, from Joseph Ponsent. Against compelling Merchant Seamen to Contribute to the Funds for Greenwich Hospital, by the same Nobleman, from the Seamen of Whitby.
NATIONAL DISTRESS.]
Earl Stanhope
presented a Petition from the riband-weavers of Coleshill, Warwickshire, complaining of Distress. The Petition, the noble Lord remarked, was signed by 2,400 persons, who stated that they were involved in the deepest distress. They stated that riband-weaving had been reduced full fifty per cent; that, the workmen's wages on an average did not exceed 4
s.
660
SHIPPING INTEREST.]
Earl Slanhope
said, he now rose to present to their Lordships the Petition which the Ship-owners of London had done him the honour to intrust to his care. He thought it was a Petition which well deserved the most serious attention of their Lordships, and he should make a few observations upon it, as he conceived that it related to a subject of extreme importance, not only to the petitioners themselves, but to the general interests of the country. In doing so he should abstain, on this occasion, from entering into any detailed statements, because he did not consider this a proper or fit occasion for them, and because he intended presently to move for certain papers, which, when produced, would furnish their Lordships with most important information on this subject, and would tend to remove many of the delusive errors and mistaken notions which were abroad regarding this question. It would be in the recollection of their Lordships, that when the present new-fangled principles of commerce were first introduced,—at the. time when those new and mischievous principles were proposed by a Minister of the Crown, who had since retired from office, but whose pernicious principles appeared still to sway the councils of his Majesty's Government,—it would be in the recollection of their Lordships that at that period the Ship-owners of London, and indeed of every other port in the kingdom, strongly protested against the measure, and expressed their opinion—an opinion repeated in the present Petition—that the change introduced by that measure would be followed by the most detrimental consequences to their own interests, and to the interests of the country at large. A melancholy experience of the effects of that measure had fully verified those predictions, for the result was, that that measure had been productive of the most disastrous consequences to the shipping and commerce of this country. It was in vain to expect that British Shipping, taxed as it was with such a variety of expenses, could hope to compete with foreign. For building and wages the British Ship-owners paid nearly double. Now what was the effect of the alteration of the Navigation-laws, on which
661
662
The Duke of Wellington
said, that he felt as acutely as any noble Lord for the distress of any class of the community, but he could prove from official details that his noble friend was entirely in error respecting his view of the present condition of the Shipping-interest of Great Britain, and that our merchant vessels had increased since the adoption of the new measures to which the noble Earl had ascribed an injurious operation. He spoke upon this point from official details. In the year 1814; the number of British ships entered inwards was 8,975, in the next three years they averaged 9,959, and then from 1820 to 1823, they averaged 11,056; the same augmented average was observable in the years 1821., 1825, and 1826, when it was 12,574; and in 1827, 1828, 1829, the number averaged 13,409, being near 5,000 more ships in that year than in 1814, and 1,200 more than the average number for the three years preceding the reciprocity treaties to which such injurious consequences had been ascribed. In the last year the entries were 13,659, and the tonnage 2,184,535, being the greatest number ever known in the commercial history of this country. He begged their Lordships to remark, that the increase was gradual and progressive, occurring year after year. It was not therefore the result, as the noble Earl might suppose, of the ancient laws, nor had it been impeded by the new laws. In conjunction with this gradual increase of British shipping, he would wish their Lordships to observe what had been the progress of foreign shipping. In 1814, when the number of British ships entering inwards was 8,975, the number of foreign ships was 5,286; in 1817, when the average number of British ships was 9,959, the number of foreign was 3,974, shewing a large decrease in the latter. In 1820, the number of foreign ships was 4,639; in 1823 it was 3,573; in 1826 it was 6,116; and in 1829 it was 5,218, shewing that the relative increase of shipping was altogether on the side of this country. In fact, there had been rather a decrease of foreign vessels, and a great increase of British ships engaged, as the noble Earl would have it, in a sadly losing trade. All this, however, and every thing of the same kind, went for nothing with the noble Earl. It was perfectly true that the increase of trade with those countries to which we were bound by reciprocity treaties had not been so great as their Lordships might desire, but still there had been an increase, Again,
663
In 1814 the number was
733
In 1815 the number was
949
In 1816 the number was
866
In 1817 the number was
766
In 1818 the number was
761
In 1819 the number was
797
In 1820 the number was
635
In 1821 the number was
597
In 1822 the number was
571
In 1823 the number was
604
In 1824 the number was
837
In 1825the number was
1003
In 1826 the number was
1037
In 1827 the number was
911
In 1828 the number was
857
In 1829 the number was
734
664
s.
s.
Earl Stanhope
said, he hoped their Lordships would allow him to make a few observations in reply to what had fallen from the noble Duke. The noble Duke had said, that the increase of tonnage necessarily proved the prosperity of the Shipping-interest. In the course of the observations he had already made, he had protested against any such inference being drawn from the amount of tonnage. On that subject he would repeat what he had said last year. In 1814, 1815, and 1816, (he did not quote from written documents) there was a decrease of tonnage. In 1817 and 1818 there was a considerable increase in the number of ships and tonnage. In 1819, 1820, and 1821, there was a decrease in the number of ships and the amount of tonnage, although these were years of comparative prosperity. In the year 1826 there was a great decrease, and in the years 1827 and 1828 there was a progressive increase. According to the noble Duke, the Shipowners could not be in a state of great depression, because the various circumstances referred to shewed an increase in the amount of tonnage. This view of the subject was, however, fallacious, and it was necessary that the accounts should be laid before the House, in order that they should be accessible to all who were anxious about the
665
666
667
l.
The Duke of Wellington
.—The Shipowners were relieved in proportion.
Earl Stanhope
admitted that the Shipowners were relieved in one way, but they were burthened in another by the taxes to which they were obliged to contribute for compensating all these corporations. It was not, however, his intention to enter into minute details—but to take such a general view of the subject, as would authorize him to conclude by moving for certain returns calculated to throw light on it.
Lord Ellenborough
said, it was very prudent of the noble Earl to enter into a general discussion on the subject, and to assume as facts, matters which the papers he was about to move for would disprove, After the explanation given by the noble Duke, it was unnecessary to offer any observations whatever upon this subject; but he was desirous of noticing some of the statements made by the noble Earl; it was true, as staled by the noble Earl, that it was impossible to ascertain the exact amount of tonnage in any one year, because the number of voyages made by the same ship was not specified in the accounts; but they would enable their Lordships to draw a companion between one year and
668
Tons.
5th January, 1822, was
1,599,274
5th January, 1823 was
1,664,186
5th January, 1824, was
1,740,859
5th January, 1825, was
1,797,320
5th January, 1826, was
2,144,598
5th January, 1827, was
1,950,630
5th January, 1828, was
2,086,898
5th January, 1829, was
2,094,357
5th January, 1830, was
2,184,535
Tons.
In 1814, 1815, and 1816, carried
114,630
In 1827, 1828, and 1829, carried
166,595
Shewing an increase of
51,965
669
l.,
l.
Earl Stanhope
said, he thought that the question had been unfairly argued by the noble Lord who had just addressed them. It would have been preposterous if he had argued, that the increase of the shipping of some states was not followed by a diminution of the shipping of others. When he called for documents, he was not to be met by accounts pulled out of the pocket of a Cabinet Minister, which might perhaps hereafter be described as such document had before been, as nothing more than private memoranda. When an account was produced of the declared value of articles exported, we were told that it was impossible to obtain a correct account, because on some occasions the value was
670
671
The Marquis of Londonderry
thought the present low state of the Shipping-trade well worthy of inquiry, with a view to devising a remedy; and that the thanks of the country were due to the noble Earl (Stanhope) for his zealous endeavours to bring the case of the Ship-owners before Parliament.
The Duke of Buckingham
said, that the British shipping had increased since, and in consequence of the Reciprocity Treaty Acts; and that the statements made by his Majesty's Ministers were complete answers to the complaints of the noble Earl. He did not object to the production of the documents, but he thought they were perhaps more voluminous than was requisite.
Earl Stanhope
in reply to the noble Duke, his relation, observed, that the statements of the Ship-owners were more worthy of credit than the public documents. Their distress could not be doubted in the teeth of their own assertions, and indeed it was proved by the necessity they had been laid under, of entering into competition with foreigners, who could build, victual, man, and repair their ships at so much less cost than they could.
The Returns were ordered.
[The further examination of witnesses on the East Retford Disfranchisement Bill was proceeded with.]
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, May 13, 1830.
MINUTES.] Returns ordered. On the Motion of Sir J. WROTTESLEY, Money due to the Bank of England on
672
c.
c.
c.
Petitions presented. In favour of the Jews Relief Bill, by Mr. C. GRANT, from the Inhabitants of Brighton:—By Mr. KEMP, from the Jews of the same place:—By the Earl of SURREY, from the Inhabitants of Worksop:—And by Mr. W. SMITH, from the Inhabitants of Norwich. Against the increase of Duties on Home-made Spirits, by Mr. KENNEDY, from the Commissioners of Police, Leith:—And by Lord KILLEEN, from the Landlords of the Parishes united to Skryne. Against the Duty on Coals carried Coastwise, by Sir T. D. ACLAND, from the Inhabitants of Newport and Bishopstawton, of Newton Abbott, and Newton Bushell, and of Chudleigh. Against the increased Stamp Duties (Ireland), by the Earl of BELFAST, from the Newspaper Proprietors of Belfast:—By Mr. O'CONNELL, from the Letter-press Printers of Dublin; and from the Merchants and others of Dublin. Against the Administration of Justice Bill, by Sir C. GREVILLE, from the Inhabitants of Warwick. For a Commutation of Tithes, by Colonel CRADDOCK, from the Inhabitants of Wycliffe Hutton, and other places in Yorkshire. In favour of the Landlords' Liability Bill, by Mr. STANLEY, from the Select Vestry of Preston:—And by Mr. SLANEY, from the Parishioners of Sedgeley. For giving Poor-laws to Ireland, by Mr. C. GRANT, from John Lawless. For the abolition of Slavery, by Mr. LITTLETON, from Dissenters at Great Driffield. Against taking Apprentices for a less period than Seven Years, by Mr. FYLER, from the Ribbon-weavers of Coventry. Against allowing Tobacco to be grown in this Country, by the same hon. Member, from the Tobacco Manufacturers of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. For an amendment of the Laws relative to Landlords and Tenants, by the same hon. Member, from the same place Complaining of the Conduct of Sir Edward Barnes, the Governor of Ceylon, by Mr. STEWART, from Mr. Bennett, formerly an Assistant Collector of the Revenue at Ceylon. Against the Sale of Beer Bill, by Mr. CHAPLIN, from the Inhabitants of Sleaford:—By Mr. T. ESTCOURT, from those of Marlborough:—By Mr. J. FANE, from the Publicans of Wallingford:—By Mr. WODEHOUSE, from those of Diss, Grimshoe, and East Derehum:—By Lord EBRINGTON, from the Overseers of the Poor of St. Paul's, Covent Garden:—And by Mr. DICKENSON, from the Inhabitants of Frome Selwood. For the Abolition of the Punishment of Death for Forgery, by Lord EBRINGTON, from the Inhabitants of Tavistock:—By Mr. DICKENSON, from the Inhabitants of South Brent, and of Winscombe:—By Sir T. D. ACLAND, from the Inhabitants of Moreton, Hampstead, and of Collumpton:—And by Mr. BROWNLOW, from the Directors of the Provincial Bank at Belfast. For the abolition of the East India Company's Monopoly, by Lord EBRINGTON, from Tavistock.
MAURITIUS SUGAR, AND SLAVERY.]
Mr. Stanley
, in presenting a Petition against the monopoly of the East-India Company, took the opportunity to inquire whether the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies was aware what portion of the
673
Sir George Murray
replied, that if Java Sugar were so imported into the Mauritius, and re-exported to England, it was done contrary to law, and it could not be done unless there were connivance and criminality on the part of the Custom-house officers at the Mauritius. He was not however aware that any such thing had occurred. A limited quantity of foreign Sugar might he occasionally introduced there by a vessel having sustained damage at sea, when she might be allowed to land part of her cargo, and dispose of it to pay the expenses of her repairs; but if more than that were introduced, it must be effected by fraud. The increased quantity of Sugar imported into this country was to be accounted for by the increased cultivation of sugar-cane in the island. The Mauritius having been placed on the same footing in our markets as the West-India islands, the planters had given up the cultivation of Coffee for the cultivation of Sugar. The great advantages also accruing from that cultivation had at one period led to the importation into the Mauritius of persons who were then Slaves, or were afterwards enslaved, in violation of the law, and that importation had extended the cultivation of Sugar.
Mr. W. Smith
thought the admission of the right hon. Secretary, relative to the importation of Slaves into the Mauritius, of great importance, as that fact had formerly been strenuously denied, and the statements of his hon. friend, the member for Weymouth, were declared to be entirely destitute of foundation.
Mr. Bernal
wished that the right hon. the member for Liverpool had been present, because he was interested both in the quantity of Sugar imported from the Mauritius, and in the fact of Slaves having been imported into that island. He certainly did not calculate on such a large quantity of Sugar being brought from that country, and as it was alleged to be partly Java Sugar, the subject was worthy of the consideration of the Government.
674
Sir G. Murray
concurred in the opinion that this subject was of importance, and the attention of the Custom-house officers ought to be directed to it. With respect to the illegal importation of Slaves, to which he had alluded, he begged leave to add, that it took place in 1819 and 1821.
Mr. Fowell Buxton
was deeply interested in the admission of the right hon. Secretary, for he had been exposed to much obloquy for making a similar assertion, and his statement had been flatly contradicted.
Mr. Irving
stated, that the late governor of the Mauritius, when the investigation took place, admitted that there had been an importation of Slaves, but he proved, to the satisfaction of all candid men, that the practice was suppressed as soon as he had the power to suppress it. The charge made against him was groundless, and if the committee had continued its labours, he had no doubt that his hon. friend would himself have admitted that.
Petition to be printed.
PUNISHMENT OF DEATH FOR FORGERY.]
Sir J. Macintosh
, in presenting a Petition from 697 of the inhabitants of the City of Edinburgh, praying for the abolition of the Punishment of Death in cases of Forgery, stated, that the signatures of a considerable number of the petitioners were those of men of the most distinguished ability in Edinburgh. There were Clergymen of all denominations, the leading Professors of the University, the chief members of the Bar, and eighteen Bankers, in a city the chief business of which was banking. The latter body of petitioners especially stated their insecurity under the present system of law. He thought that the nature of these petitions, and the classes of men who had signed them, showed that the people of this country were ripe for the abolition of the punishment of death in case of Forgery.
Mr. Williams
said, that on every occasion when this question was discussed, he should support the abolition of the punishment of death; for he was persuaded that it was not for the interest of the bankers that it should be maintained.
The Lord-Advocate
bore testimony to the high respectability of the petitioners, and said, that if the House should be of opinion that the law ought to be altered in this country, he should certainly do his best to introduce the alteration into Scot-
675
Mr. Baring
said, the question was one of great importance, affecting the general feelings of the people on one side, and the interests of very numerous classes of men on the other; and any alteration of the law that should destroy the security of signatures, as respected bills and notes, would be most mischievous. His decision upon the question would depend on what the advocates of the abolition of the punishment of death offered in the way of a secondary punishment. Transportation for seven years would be treating it with too much levity, and transportation for life was a less punishment than for a shorter period. If the remedy were imprisonment, with hard labour, or any other punishment which, in the opinion of mankind, would not convert the offender into a pitied sufferer, he might, perhaps, support it, especially if the offender were taught not to look for an early remission of his punishment. He did not say, that he wished the punishment of death to be inflicted for Forgery, but he would say, that a punishment ought to be inflicted sufficiently severe to operate as a terror to those who would otherwise be inclined to violate the laws, and to attack private property. He must, however, observe, that if this alteration were made in the criminal law, it must be extended further: for he could not see, if they removed the penalty of death from Forgery, how they could retain it in other cases, that of sheep-stealing for instance.
676
Sir M. W. Ridley
believed the fact to be well known to those who had inquired into the matter, that it generally happened that individuals going out of the country under sentence of transportation, were in a short time better off than they would have been had they remained at home. If transportation were the punishment finally fixed upon in cases of Forgery, he trusted it would be rendered a punishment to be dreaded. Those who committed Forgery were ordinarily of a higher rank than the majority of other offenders: they were persons sensible to the pleasures of society, and in the habit of enjoying amusements: and the House ought to take away from them those pleasures and amusements which formed their enjoyment, and the extravagant use of which probably led to their crimes. He could not dissent from the observation that doubts might be fairly entertained, whether, in a great commercial country like this, the punishment of death in cases of Forgery could be safely done away with. At the same time he admitted the great disinclination which every man who was a sufferer by Forgery felt at prosecuting a fellow-creature for a crime, the punishment of which might be death; and that, he also admitted, made the subject difficult of decision.
Mr. F. Buxton
said, the great object of punishment in cases of Forgery should be the protection of property; but there were hundreds of cases of' Forgery which were not prosecuted, because the punishment was death, which would be prosecuted if the penalty were less: therefore, upon the simple principle of taking the most effectual measures for the protection of property, and not upon any vague idea of humanity, he was a friend to a mitigation of the present punishment. He had in his possession a Petition, signed by 400 individual Bankers, belonging to 200 firms, in which, on the principle of affording further and more efficacious protection to property, they asked for a remission of the punishment of death in cases of Forgery.
Sir J. Newport
admitted, that transportation was a most unsatisfactory punishment in cases of Forgery, as not carrying with it, to the persons likely to commit that offence, those terrifying consequences which a punishment intended to prevent a crime of such magnitude should. Certainly the reluctance at present felt to prosecute would be removed if the punish-
677
Sir T. Baring
thought, that Forgery was an offence which might be suppressed more effectually than at present, by what we were in the habit of considering inferior punishments,—transportation or solitary confinement for any great length of time. If so, the purposes of humanity would be attained, and crime checked. His hon. relative was mistaken in his opinion of the nature of transportation, which, however, he believed to have been formerly what was described. Transportation was then regarded by the lower classes as a change from misery to comparative enjoyment; but now the case was different: convicts were put to hard labour, and their condition was rendered anything rather than too comfortable. He believed that nine persons out of ten who committed. Forgery escaped through the feelings of the sufferers, and their reluctance to enforce a severe law.
Lord J. Russell
agreed with the hon. Baronet, that at present transportation was a punishment very different from what it once was, and thought it might be rendered a punishment of great severity. Certainly it was no sufficient excuse for a government to adopt the punishment of death, because it had not succeeded in making transportation severe enough. He was satisfied that, under proper regulations, it would be a more efficacious punishment for Forgery than the punishment of
678
Mr. O'Connell
supported the prayer of the Petition, and stated, that he had been long of opinion, that the punishment of death should be abolished in all cases of offences unaccompanied by actual violence. He should give his decided support to any measure for the abolition of capital punishments in cases of Forgery.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, it had been stated that the severity of the law prevented prosecutions in cases of Forgery; but many persons might be deterred from the commission of the crime by apprehensions of the severity of the punishment. The effect might be injurious to property if the law were too suddenly relaxed. On this point he admitted it might be difficult to form a precise opinion, but the experiment would certainly be hazardous in a country where such a large amount of property was at stake. In his opinion, his right hon. friend (Sir R. Peel) acted wisely in proposing gradually to remit the punishment of death, first abolishing it as applicable to one class of forgeries, thus giving an opportunity to conjecture what might be the effect of withdrawing capital punishments in other cases of the crime, by observing the consequences of the mitigation in a single instance. This was the safest, and, he was sure, would ultimately prove the most humane course.
Mr. Hume
said, if it were considered desirable, with respect to one branch of forgeries, to mitigate our sanguinary law, he could not see why we should make trial of one portion, and leave the other untouched. The mischief of our laws consisted in the uncertainty of punishment, arising from their unusual severity. He was of opinion, that the punishment of death should not be inflicted except for murder or treason, which latter crime might involve many deaths. The right hon. Gentleman, who had effected so many improvements in the criminal law, ought to carry the principle still further. If evil should arise from a mitigation of the present system, we had the power of reverting
679
Mr. Lennard
observed, that the right hon. Gentleman had only to look at the petitions proceeding from the monied interests which had been presented in favour of the abolition of capital punishments in cases of Forgery, in order to see how ill-grounded were his apprehensions. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the hazard of relaxing our present system, but did he perceive no danger in statements being made, as they had been, and would be, on the part of bankers, expressive of their determination not to prosecute in cases of Forgery while the law continued in its present state? Was there no danger that such declarations and such a practice (both growing out of the seventy of our code) might increase the crime of Forgery? He thought that the statement made by the Lord Advocate furnished an argument in favour of a mitigation of punishment. The learned Lord said, that during twelve years, the crime of Forgery had not increased in Scotland; and he also stated, that although the punishment of death in such cases nominally existed in that country, yet that it was, in point of fact and practice, abolished. Did this state of things furnish any grounds for apprehensions, that the monied interests would be less protected than at present, if capital punishments in cases of Forgery were abolished? He had no doubt we might substitute a more effectual preventive for the crime of Forgery than was afforded by the punishment of death. He should have a variety of petitions to present on the subject, calling for the abolition of capital punishment, and he had received letters from many bankers, expressive of their disapproval of the existing system.
Mr. M. A. Taylor
said, that the present law was equally impolitic and inhuman; it prevented prosecutions and encouraged the offence. Whenever a motion should be made to do away with capital punishment he should support it.
680
Mr. Warburton
said, the present law was decidedly bad, because it was contrary to the feelings of the people; even bankers would not carry it into execution. There was a committee of bankers established, before which, every banker who was a member of it was expected, as a matter of duty, to bring all forgeries that might be committed upon him, in order that the culprits might be prosecuted, but he knew that bankers did not act up to the spirit of this regulation, and why did they not? It was because the punishment was too great. Every day's experience proved, that the law as it stood was bad. It was the certainty, not the severity of punishment, that prevented crime.
Sir Charles Forbes
expressed his concurrence in what had fallen from the Lord Advocate as to Scotland, and begged leave to take that opportunity of expressing his approbation of the manner in which that learned Lord executed the duties of his office.
Mr. Robinson
said, that it was the opinion of merchants, bankers, and others most interested, that the law did not afford protection to the banker and commercial man,—because the severity of it prevented prosecutions. For this reason, if for no other, the severity of the law ought to be mitigated.
My. Marry at
knew from observation and personal experience that the severity of the punishment prevented prosecutions in nine cases out of ten. The case of the bankers was a hard one. Their feelings would not allow them to prosecute while the penalty of the offence was death; and thus they were without protection against this dangerous crime of forgery.
Mr. Brownlow
said, that he concurred in what had been stated in favour of the abolition. He had a Petition to present from the Bankers of Belfast, who expressed similar opinions. They stated that they had a great interest in preventing the crime of forgery, but that in consequence of the severity of the punishment, they were prevented from prosecuting. Thus the law afforded no protection whatever to property.
Petition to be printed.
INTERMENTS IN THE METROPOLIS.]
Mr. Spottiswoode
said, that he had to present a Petition respecting the present mode of Interment in the Metropolis. It was from George Frederick Carden, Bar-
681
Lord Lowther
agreed with the petitioner as to the impropriety of the present system. In St. Martin's church-yard, the only place over which he had any control, he had had catacombs dug under ground, and he hoped to see the example followed in other places.
Mr. Protheroe
said, it would have been better if the noble Lord had removed the burial-place out of the metropolis altogether.
Lord Lowther
admitted that the suggestion of the hon. Member would have
682
Mr. Hume
said, that there ought to be an Act prohibiting all burials in the metropolis for the future. Decency and the health of the inhabitants called for such a measure.
The Petition to be printed.
FLUCTUATION OF EMPLOYMENT AMONG
Mr. Slaney
, in bringing forward, pursuant to notice, his Motion for a Select Committee to consider the means of lessening the evils arising from the Fluctuation of Employment amongst manufacturer, said, he should have been much surprised at the thinness of attendance, if he were not aware of the character of the House. He knew the subject was not a pleasant one, and he must throw himself on its indulgence while he went into some details. If they looked to the humble portion of their fellow-countrymen, they would see them divided into large classes—both distinct from each other, and both in their present situation demanding the attention of the Legislature. The first of those, the agricultural class was affected by circumstances entirely distinct from the circumstances which affected the second; and the agricultural labourers of the south were in quite a different situation from those of the north of England. Incidentally he might observe, that the people of the south were some time since in a worse situation than at present; and he hoped they would speedily improve, and be in as good a condition as their brethren of the north. Before he should proceed to consider the situation of the other great class, the manufacturers, he begged to say that he feared there existed, with respect to them, some prejudice, some fear, lest the manufacturing class might be extending too far; but if those who indulged such a prejudice would only allow themselves to take a large and liberal view of the interests of society, they must perceive that the interests of both classes were closely united—that they were inseparable, and that the advancement of one must always depend upon the success of the other. For the purpose of establishing some of the positions for which he contended, it would be necessary for him to enter somewhat into detail. He should begin by calling the attention of the House to the relative amount of the agricultural and manufacturing population at
683
684
685
686
l.;
l.;
l.;
l.
l.
l.
687
s.
s.
s.
s.
d.
s.
s.
s.
688
s.,
s.,
s.
c.
689
s.
690
Mr. Marshall
seconded the Motion. He did not anticipate all the benefits from it that his hon. friend expected, but he thought at least that some valuable information might be obtained. He was happy to say, that the average wages of workmen in the manufacturing districts were now as great as at any former period,
691
Mr. Cripps
said, he did not mean to enter into the subject at any length, and he should detain the House but a very few minutes by his observations. He did not rise to throw cold water on the hon. Member's Motion, but to guard the House against supposing that the plan of the hon. Member would be as advantageous as he supposed. He admitted readily, that nothing was more beneficial to the working classes than Benefit Societies, and he could say that he had, on many occasions, witnessed the advantages they had conferred on the members of them. But the House was aware that many benefit societies had been destroyed, by not acting on the recommendations of an hon. Member below him, in becoming enrolled. When the hon. Member, however, assumed that the House might look to the extension of the principle of such societies, to equalise the fluctuations in trade, he was afraid that the difficulties would be far greater than the hon. Member expected. He wished that the committee might find men with an amount of earnings sufficient to subscribe to such funds. The hon. Member had stated correctly the earnings of several classes of workmen, but they seemed to him so moderate as to preclude the workmen from making those weekly allowances which were necessary to support a Benefit Society. At present the wages of workmen were extremely low, and it was impossible that out of their scanty earnings they could raise, by weekly subscriptions, a fund to support their brethren who might be out of employment. The amount necessary for that could hardly be calculated, but it would certainly be beyond their means. The hon. Member had alluded to the southern counties of England, but he could not be blind to the difference between them and the northern counties. He could not suppose, looking at the situation of the people in the southern counties since 1825, that it would at anytime have been possible for the workmen to club 6
d.
692
s.
s.
Mr. Robinson
only rose to say a word on a subject connected with the town which he represented. The hon. Member stated the quantity of gloves before and subsequent to the change in our commercial policy, when the prohibition to import gloves was removed. The hon. Member had stated that more gloves were made since than before. He wished to know whence he obtained his information. There were statements laid on the Table which informed the House what quantity of gloves was imported or exported, but he did not know how the hon. Member could have ascertained what quantity was made. He wished to be informed how that information was obtained. The hon. Member had stated, that it was fair play to the glove-trade to let in foreign-made gloves. He could understand that it might be expedient, that it might be good policy, but -he could not understand how it was fair play. He could not understand why the glove-trade was to be estimated by the quantities made, and other trades were to be estimated by the price of their produce. If the principles of Free Trade were to be acted on, why were they not extended to
693
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he entertained some doubts as to the utility of the results of appointing the proposed committee. His doubts were as to the advantages of the hon. Member's plans, but he supposed the committee might be a means of obtaining some very useful information, and with that view he should not oppose the Motion. He could not hope that the object of the hon. Member would be accomplished, but he hoped to obtain through the committee some valuable information. In admitting the advantages of Benefit Societies, he had some doubts whether they could be so extended—which was what, he believed, the hon. Member meant—as to meet all the fluctuations in trade. That was an object he was afraid it was not possible to obtain. As far as these societies were
694
695
Sir George Phillips
said, that though he could not hope to obtain the same advantages from the committee as the hon. Mover, he did not mean to oppose the Motion; but at the same time he looked upon Savings Banks as more likely to be beneficial to the working classes than Benefit Societies. What they could place in the Savings Banks they could at all times look on as their own; it belonged to themselves, and they were encouraged by that consideration to take care of it. He was happy to confirm the statement of the hon. member for the county of York (Mr. Marshall), that the people employed in factories—and there was a general tendency to employ all the manufacturers in factories—were much better off than those not employed in factories. He believed, too, that he might state that the workmen employed in factories were a great deal better off than workmen were thirty or forty years ago. Owing to the great quantity of machinery now employed in our manufactures, the workmen were continually employed, for the necessity of keeping the machinery at work compelled the manufacturer to employ his men. At present he believed too that the workmen were generally employed at full wages. The hon. Gentleman opposite said, that it was impossible that the men in the manufacturing districts could contribute anything to such a fund; but at present he believed the manufacturers were not in so bad a condition as the hon. Member supposed. He had visited Lancashire during the holidays, and had learned, both from observation and information, that wages there had lately risen, and that few persons were out of employment.
Mr. Alderman Waithman
said, that the House appeared fond of meddling with what did not concern it, and of neglecting what it ought to perform; it would not grant a committee to inquire into the distress which was complained of in so many petitions; and as the House would not inquire into the truth of the allegations in these petitions, he should look on a committee appointed on this Motion as a mere delusion. It could lead to no good whatever.
Mr. Slaney
696
l.
Committee appointed.
TAX ON COALS.]
Mr. Spring Rice
presented a Petition from St. Mary's, Dublin, against the Duty on Coals imported into Ireland. The hon. Member then proceeded to say, that in making the proposition which he should submit to the House, he had the satisfaction of knowing that it was a proposition which, though advantageous to Ireland, and meant to be so, would also be a great benefit to England. He considered that the increased consumption of coals which would take place in Ireland if the duties were removed, would be no inconsiderable benefit to the coal districts of England. To Ireland the remission of the duties would be a great relief. He begged leave to remind the House that he had cheerfully voted for those reductions of taxation in England which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had proposed. He rejoiced in those reductions; and he had even voted for the reduction of some taxes, as that on Salt, which it was supposed the interest of Ireland required should be maintained. His proposition, he would also remind hon. Gentlemen, would not deprive the Revenue of any great sum. The amount of revenue raised by the tax on coals in Ireland did not exceed 50,000
l.
l.,
697
l.
l.
698
l.;
l.,
Lord Killeen
seconded the Motion.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
regretted that he was obliged to oppose the Motion. There was no disposition upon his part to create an unequal pressure of taxation in Ireland, but there were peculiar circumstances which compelled him to adopt the course he had proposed; and looking at the general pressure of taxation on the country, he did not see what other he could have pursued. And, taking this tax, as affecting the two portions of the United Kingdom, he found that in Ireland it was only 1
s.
d.
s.;
l.
699
General Gascoyne
supported the Motion. The tax was originally intended only to be a war-tax, and as it was most partial and oppressive it ought to be repealed.
Mr. Warburton
also supported the Motion, and said, that a tax on Canadian timber, which would be just and proper, and would yield 1,500,000
l.
Mr. O'Connell
supported the Motion. There was no tax the repeal of which would give so much relief to Ireland. It had been promised at the time of the Union to repeal this tax, and that ought now to be done, if it were wished that the Union should be advantageous to both countries. He called on the House to answer this appeal of the Irish people, and show that those were calumniators, who said that the House had no sympathy with the distresses of the Irish.
Mr. Baring
wished to hear no more of the proportion of taxes to be paid by England and Ireland, than to be paid by Yorkshire and Kent. The only consideration for the House was, to raise the necessary Revenue with the least possible inconvenience. He would support the Motion, because, from the smallness of the amount, the repeal of the tax would not be unfair towards England, and it would confer a great benefit on Ireland. The introduction of steam into manufactures had made Coal indispensable in almost all branches of manufacture, and the condition of Ireland could not be improved by becoming a manufacturing country, unless she had free access to the market for Coals. He presumed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have some difficulty in passing his Beer-bill, and therefore he would recommend him to change it to a Coal-bill, abolishing the whole duty on Sea-borne Coal, which should have his hearty support.
Mr. George Moore
hoped, that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not repeal the tax, he would, at least, exempt from duty all coal used in manufactures.
Mr. E. Wodehouse
regretted that the Government would not accede to the Motion. The tax could not be supported by argument, and he should bring the general subject forward on a future occa-
700
Lord Milton
differed, with the greatest regret, from the hon. member for Callington, and could not but think that, however the price of Coals might be diminished to the consumer, it could never be so much reduced as to enable people to establish manufactories in other parts of the kingdom than those which were at a moderate distance from the place where the Coal was obtained. He could not but view this question differently from some of the hon. Members, for, in his opinion, a tax on Sea-borne-Coals was a tax on an article of commerce; but a tax imposed on Coals at the pit's mouth would be a tax on a necessary of life, and on one which the people in the Coal districts had immemorially enjoyed at a very moderate price. Any person acquainted with the manufacturing districts, must see at once how heavily such a tax would fall on the manufacturers. The tax on Sea-borne-Coals did not amount to more than one-eighth or one-ninth of the price of the article, and the repeal of that tax would not so much benefit the people as would the reduction of some other taxes, which, though they hardly produced more to the Revenue, were more oppressive in their operation upon the people.
Mr. P. Thomson
regretted that he was obliged to oppose the Motion of his hon. friend; but he could not avoid doing so when he observed that it was a Motion j which went to benefit one class or body of the people at the expense of another. If the measure had been more general—if it had been for the repeal of the duty, not in one, but in all parts of the kingdom—it should have had his support; for he considered that policy and expediency, as well as justice, called on them to abolish a duty which the manufacturers along the whole eastern coast of England felt was one that disabled them from a fair competition with the foreigner.
Lord Castlereagh
was aware that the Coal-tax was very unpopular in Ireland, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer entertained certain projects, with regard to Ireland, which were still more unpopular than the Coal-tax. In the hope that by allowing that right hon. Gentleman to retain the Coal-tax, he would not push his equalizing measures of taxation through
701
Sir T. D. Acland
supported the Motion most cordially. He had presented several petitions in favour of the total repeal of the duty, and he would now support its partial abolition. If it were true that manufactories could not be established in parts of the kingdom distant from those where the Coal was obtained, they at least ought not to add a legislative disadvantage where there were but few natural advantages for their establishment. He must confess his astonishment at what he had heard from the noble Lord, the member for Yorkshire, who seemed to-night to have appeared as the advocate of restrictions on trade, because they were in favour of Yorkshire, though they operated against Devonshire, and all the Southern parts of the country. He should vote with pleasure for the Motion, especially as it went to the relief of Ireland, and as it was, by the confession of his right hon. friend opposite, the commencement of the operation of a principle, which he trusted would soon be extended to the repeal of the whole tax.
Lord Althorp
said, that this was an English question, because it was an Irish question, for the interests of the two countries were the same. The system of agriculture now employed in Ireland was to create large farms, by which the small agriculturists were driven from the country into the town, where they were now suffering severely from want of employment. If this tax were repealed, though possibly no new manufactures could be established, yet the increase of those which had been long in existence would be materially promoted. He believed that as far as the Revenue was concerned, the abolition of the tax might safely take place, and as that would be very much for the benefit of the consumer, he should therefore now vote even for its partial reduction.
Sir C. Cole
supported the Motion to take off what he must call a most inquitous tax upon the poorer classes of the community.
Mr. Spring Rice
, in reply, said, that he disagreed with his hon. friend the member for Dover, as to this being a partial measure for the benefit of one portion of the people; or, if it were so, he could not see that by the people of Ireland being still made to suffer by this tax, the people of Norfolk or Kent would be benefitted. He should
702
The House then divided—For the Motion 120; Against it 187—Majority 67.
List of the Minority.
Althorp, Lord
Killeen, Lord
Acland, Sir. T.
King, Hon. R.
Anson, Hon. G.
Knight, R.
Archdall, General
Knox, Hon.—
Blandford, Marquis
Kekewich, S. T.
Brownlow, C.
Kennedy, F. T.
Baring, Alex.
Lester, B. L.
Baring, B.
Labouchere, H.
Baring, F.
Lamb, Hon. G.
Baring, Sir T.
Langston, J. H.
Blake, Sir F.
Macaulay, T. B.
Bernal, R.
Maberly, J.
Buck, L. W.
Marjoribanks, S.
Brougham, H.
Macdonald, Sir J.
Bastard, J.
Moore, G.
Benett, J.
Monck, T. B.
Bell, Matthew
Marshall, W.
Bentinck, Lord G.
Nugent, Lord
Birch, J.
O'Hara, J.
Cavendish, W.
O'Connell, D.
Chichester, Sir A.
Oxmantown, Lord
Clements, Lord
Poyntz, S.
Carter, J. B.
Protheroe, E.
Cole, Sir C.
Pendarvis, E. W.
Cole, Hon. A. H.
Palmerston, Lord
Callaghan, H.
Portman, E. B.
Clive, E. B.
Philips, G. R.
Dick, Q.
Palmer, F.
Dundas, Hon. T.
Parnell, Sir H.
Dundas, Hon. G. H. L.
Pryse, P.
Dundas Sir R. L.
Ponsonby, Hon. G.
Denison, W. J.
Ponsonby, Hon. F.
Denison, J. E.
Ponsonby, Hon. W. F.
Dawson, A.
Ramsden, J.
Drake,—
Robarts, A.
Euston, Lord
Rochfort, G.
Ebrington, Lord
Russell, Lord J.
Ewart, W.
Robinson, Sir G.
Featherston, Sir G. R.
Rumbold, C. E.
French, A.
Smith, V.
Fyler, T. B.
Somerville, Sir M.
Fitzgibbon, Hon. R.
Stanley, Hon. C.
Guise, Sir B. W.
Stanley, Lord
Gascoyne, General
Stuart, Lord J.
Gordon, Robert
Talbot, R. W.
Grant, Right Hon. C.
Tomes, J.
Grant, Robert
Townsend, Lord C.
Graham, Sir J.
Trant, W. H.
Grattan, J.
Tuite, H. M.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Tennyson, C.
Hume, Joseph
Thomson, P.
Handcock, Richard
Vaughan, Sir R.
Honywood, W. P.
Waithman, Ald.
Hutchinson, J. H.
Wyvill, M.
Hill, Lord Arthur
Whitbread, S.
Howick, Lord
Whitbread, W. H.
Jephson, C. D. O.
Western, C. C.
703
West, F. R.
PAIRED OFF.
Wood, C.
Power, R.
Wood, Alderman
TELLERS.
Wood, J.
Rice, T. S.
Wodehouse, E.
Warburton, H.
HACKNEY COACHES.]
Sir J. Wrottesley
rose to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the duties, Salaries, and Emoluments, of Hackney-coach Commissioners, and the present state of public carriages in the Metropolis. The hon. Baronet prefaced his Motion by stating the inconvenience which arose from the present system, and the necessity which existed for some change for the public advantage: he conceived that that necessity must be apparent to every person who had had an opportunity of observing the present state of things. By the appointment of a Select Committee to investigate the subject, a fair opportunity would be afforded to all parties interested to state their case. Should a change be determined upon with regard to the present system, a considerable change, he was sure, would be recommended by the committee: it would be open to any individuals to prefer claims for compensation; but, if it should appear that they had not done their duty, he did not conceive that they could be entitled to any compensation. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving—"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the Duties, Salaries, and Emoluments of the Commissioners for the regulation of Hackney-coaches within the Bills of Mortality, and into the state of the public Carriages within the said Bills, and to report the evidence, and their opinion thereon, to the House; and also to inquire into the state of the Law affecting the same, and to report their opinion thereon to the House."
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
did not rise to give any opposition whatever to the Motion of the hon. Baronet—on the contrary, he was extremely glad that the hon. Baronet had moved for this Committee. This was a question which, however trifling it might appear, had occupied for a considerable period much of the attention of the department over which he presided, and the only difficulty which appeared opposed to that change which seemed so desirable, consisted in the adjustment of those claims for compensation which individuals filling certain public situations might set up with re-
704
Motion agreed to, and Committee appointed.
APPRENTICES.]
Mr. Fyler
said, he rose for the purpose of moving for leave to bring in a Bill to do away with the present system of Half-pay Apprentices in the Manufacturing Districts. His Motion was founded on the reports of two
705
1.
l.,
706
Motion agreed to.
HOUSE OF LORDS,
Friday, May 14, 1830.
MINUTES.] Positions presented. By the Duke of RICHMOND, from Chichester, against allowing Boys, under fourteen years of age, to be put Apprenticed to the Trade of Chimney-sweep; and from the Hop-growers of Mayfield, Sussex, against the Hop Duty. By Lord LYTTELTON, from a Society of Surgeons in London, praying the Legislature to pass a measure for facilitating the study of Anatomy. By the Earl of CARNARVON, from the Freeholders and House holders of Randwick, in Gloucestershire, complaining of Distress, and praying for Relief, By the. Duke of WELLINGTON, from the Magistrates of the County of Roscommon, against the introduction of the Poor-laws in Ireland. By the Earl of BRADFORD, from Walsall, Staffordshire, in favour of a Free Trade to India and China:—By the Duke of RUTLAND, with a similar prayer, from Leicester and its neighbourhood; from the Licensed Victuallers of Derby, against the proposed alteration of the Licensing System; from the Seamen of Scarborough, praying to be freed from Contributing to the Funds of Greenwich Hospital; and from the Ship-owners of Scarborough, complaining of Distress, and praying for Relief. By the Marquis of LONDONDERRY, from Belfast, praying that Foreign Grain in Bond might be permitted to be ground into Flour. Against the Punishment of Death for Forgery, by Lord DE DUNSTANVILLE, from the Mayor and Corporation of Falmouth:—By the Earl of CLARK, from the Directors of the Provincial Bank of Ireland:—By the Marquis of CLANRICARDE, from the Directors of the Athlone Bank:—By Vise. LORTON, from the Bankers of Sligo:—And by the Earl of CARBERRY, from the Bankers of Cork. By Lord KING, from the Freeholders of Devonshire, in favour of an alteration of the Tithe Laws. By the Marquis of ANGLESEA, from the Inhabitants of St. Paul's, Dublin, against the Duty on Coals imported into Ireland, and against the additional Duty on British Corn Spirits; also a similar Petition to the last, from Athlone:—And by Lord CALTHORPE, from the Protestant Dissenters of the Baptist Persuasion of Ipswich, against Sunday Labour.
Their Lordships again proceeded to examine Witnesses on the East Retford Disfranchisement Bill.
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Friday, May 14, 1830.
MINUTES.] Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. Bright, the quantity of Tobacco imported into Great Britain and Ireland in 1829, distinguishing whence it came, and in what state imported:—On the Motion of Mr. Hume, the manner in which the sum of 30,500l. voted to defray Salaries and Allowances to the Officers of the Houses of Lords and Commons; and the sum of 17,000
l.
Petitions presented. For the Abolition of the Punishment of Death for Forgery, by Mr. S. RICE, from the Directors of the Provincial Bank of Ireland at Limerick:—By Lord G. BENTINCK, from the Inhabitants of King's Lynn:—By Sir J. NEWPORT, from the Managers of the Provincial Bank of Ireland at Cork:—By MR. SCOTT, from the Burgh of Hawick:—By Mr. LATOUCHE, from the Managers of the Provincial Bank of Ireland at Sligo. Against the Administration of Justice Bill, by Mr. JONES, from the Magistrates of Pembroke:—By the Earl of UXBRIDGE,
707
STAMP DUTIES, (IRELAND).]
Mr. Moore
in presenting a Petition from an industrious and meritorious class of his constituents, the Gold and Silver Operatives of the city of Dublin, observed, that they had seen with dismay the proposal assimilation of duties in their trade with those at present existing: in England, and they prayed that this House would pause before it sanctioned such assimilation. He could not help saying that the case of the petitioners was one of peculiar hardship, and entitled to the serious attention of the House. He believed that, of all the classes of Dublin artisans who had suffered so severely by the Act of Union, there was none on whom that measure pressed so intensely as the petitioners. They were a class whose industry could look for demand solely from those who were comparatively opulent, and the withdrawal from the metropolis of most of the nobility of Ireland, and a large proportion of the gentry, had reduced their calling to a slate of continued struggle and progressive decline. In this condition he would call the attention of the House to the proposed enormous increase of taxation on their industry by the proposed assimilation of duties on the manufacture of gold plate; that proposed increase was at no less a rate than 1,600 per cent on the present duty, the latter being but 1
s.
s.
708
Lord Morpeth
thought the case of the petitioners very hard, and that they were deserving of the most favourable consideration. As the Legislature had deprived them of much of their trade, it should rather seek to lighten than increase their taxation.
Mr. Jephson
said, that these manufacturers were already reduced to the lowest ebb of distress, and any attempt to impose additional burthens on them, would infallibly ruin them. He hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would desist from such a project.
FORGERY.]
Mr. John Smith
presented a Petition from three individuals whose names and character need but be named to be known as amongst the highest in the commercial world. The Petition was for the abolition of the punishment of death for the Forgery. The first name to the Petition was that of Mr. Rothschild, the greatest merchant in the world, and one through whose hands more Bills of Exchange passed than through those of any twenty firms in London. The second was that of the firm of Overend, Gurney, and Co., through whose hands bills of Exchange to the amount of 30,000,000
l.
709
l.
l.
Petition laid on the Table.
BUSINESS OF PARLIAMENT.]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
Sir J. Graham
said, he was unwilling to stop the course of public business; and had accordingly a proposition to make to the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He felt it his imperative duty to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice: he was most anxious to do so; but still he was unwilling to bring it forward as an Amendment upon the Motion of the House resolving itself into a Committee of Supply. It was his undoubted right to introduce the question in this manner; but he considered it a right which should be cautiously and sparingly exercised—one, in short, which should only be asserted upon great and important occasions. He was accordingly anxious to avoid making his Motion as an Amendment, and, with the consent of the hon. member for Aberdeen, who had been good enough to allow him precedence, he would propose to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the House should go into the Committee of Supply, on the understanding that no vote should be proposed after ten o'clock, but that he should be then allowed to bring forward his Motion.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
felt great difficulty in replying to the hon. Baronet's proposition. He gave him credit for not wishing unnecessarily to obstruct the public business; but at the same time he allowed him less free will in the matter than was altogether satisfactory, since he had only the choice of going into Committee for four hours or not going into it at all.
Mr. Hume
was willing to give the hon. Baronet's Motion precedence; but he wished to state that he did not concur with him in the opinion that the right of moving such questions as amendments to a motion for going into a Committee of Supply was one that ought to be sparingly used. He thought it was the legitimate course of the House that motions concerning the people's grievances should be
710
Sir J. Yorke
said, it was a perfectly plain-sailing question, and he wondered that his right hon. friend should think of opposing the hon. Baronet's proposition.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he intended to grant the hon. Baronet's wish, with a very slight difference of form, which was perhaps scarcely worth discussing.
Sir J. Newport
observed, he was a Privy Councillor, and could not see why the Motion should be opposed.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, his objection to the Motion was, that it applied to a class: he had nothing to oppose to a motion for the total amount of salaries, or to the salaries enjoyed by particular persons, as public officers. He objected to the Return being made
quoad
quoad
SUPPLY.]
The House then resolved itself into a Committee of Supply.
12,000
l.
17,000
l.
Mr. Hume
said, that the expenses of this department had doubled since 1797. The establishment at the office cost 27,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
Mr. George Dawson
justified the expenditure in consequence of our being
711
Resolution agreed to.
The next Resolution was for the sum of 17,500
l.
Mr. Hume
said, if the Government would leave the colonies more to them-selves,—if they would leave them more free in their actions, and not keep them in leading-strings, as they did, this expense might be spared. In 1796, the whole expense of this department was 9,000
l.
l.
l.
Mr. S. Rice
said, there was no person acquainted with the business of the Colonial-office, but must admit that the services of Mr. Stephen, the standing counsel, were invaluable. While he was on his legs, he would call the attention of the House and the Government to the alteration which had been made in the military department of the Home-office. By the extensive reduction of the yeomanry and the militia, nothing could be more certain than that the military duty of the Home-office had been considerably lessened. He might be told that the business of the criminal branch had increased. He admitted that it had increased; but, taking the two branches together, he thought that there could be, and ought to be, effected, a reduction in the expense of that office. He would call the attention of the House to another office connected with the Home Department, in which a saving might be made. The charge was not, indeed, a very great one; but where-ever an expense was incurred, without producing any benefit to the public, that
712
Mr. Hume
was sure, that the subject could not be in better hands than those of his hon. friend; for his own part, he had quite enough to do already; but if his hon. friend would move for the repeal of the Alien Act, he would vote with him. He would take that opportunity of stating, that it was most preposterous that several of the clerks in the Home Department not only received salaries for their services in the office, but derived further emoluments as agents for different colonies.
Sir G. Murray
did not, generally speaking, advocate the propriety of appointing clerks as agents to colonies. It was a practice that ought not, perhaps, in all cases, to be pursued; but in these particular instances it was necessary. The business was well done, and the expense was not greater to the colonies than if it were performed by other parties.
Sir J. Newport
adverted to the danger of allowing balances to accumulate in the hands of those agents, and instanced the case of Mr. Chinnery, who, at the very time that Parliament was voting large sums of money to meet Bills of Exchange that were drawn on account of New South Wales, had very considerable funds in his hands. He was ultimately a defaulter to the amount of 18,000
l.
l.
713
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
stated, that care had been taken to provide against such an occurrence in future.
Mr. W. Smith
did not approve of insinuations being thrown out with respect to individuals who were not present. Allusion had been made to Mr. Stephen, whom he knew to be as conscientious and trustworthy an officer as any under the Crown.
Colonel Davies
said, the hon. Member laboured under an error. His hon. friend never threw out any reflection whatever on Mr. Stephen. He only said—and he (Colonel Davies) agreed with him—that the salary for standing counsel ought to be dispensed with. He believed that Mr. Stephen did a great deal of duty, but he also believed that that duty ought to be done by others.
Mr. Hume
wished it to be understood that he had not the least idea of making any insinuation with respect to Mr. Stephen. He objected to the fact of giving a salary to a standing counsel, and of allowing the clerks in public offices, to receive salaries as agents for the colonies.
Mr. George Dawson
said, the vote in the hands of the Chairman was to defray the Salaries of the Secretary, Under-secretary, and Clerks of the Colonial-office. It had nothing to do with the payments of those clerks as agents. If, therefore, the hon. Member objected to their receiving separate allowances, it would be better to make a separate motion when those grants were called for. The House was not then called on to vote any of those sums.
Resolution agreed to.
The following Votes were agreed to without observation:—
16,850
l.
8,000
l.
8,045
l.
The next Resolution was for 34,750
l.
Mr. O'Connell
said, he should move that this vote be reduced by 4,000
l.
714
Mr. Hume
.—You may as well move that the grant be reduced by 10,000
l.
Mr. O'Connell
then moved, that the vote be reduced to the extent of 10,000
l.
Mr. George Dawson
assured the hon. and learned Member that great inconvenience might arise to the public service from the proposed diminution of the vote, as Government possessed no means of making up the deficiency if the vote should prove too small to cover the expenditure. If the grant exceeded the outlay, of course the balance should be refunded. The expenses in question were paid in ready money; there was no credit in that branch of the public service, and any deficiency would be inconvenient. The hon. and learned Member must himself perceive, that if he would only put a moderate share of confidence in the Foreign Department, there would be no necessity for pressing his amendment.
Mr. O'Connell
said, he was just as much indisposed to put confidence in Government on a point of expenditure as any genuine Representative of the people ought to be. The people had sent him to that House, and no Representative of their's ought to repose confidence in any Ministers when the expenditure of the public money was concerned. However, he had no inclination to press his Motion if it were the wish of the Committee that it should be withdrawn.
Vote agreed to.
On the Motion that a sum, not exceeding 10,500
l.
Mr. Hume
inquired what the Colonies wanted with Messengers?
Sir G. Murray
explained, that more than half the amount of the grant (namely, a sum of 5,500
l.
l.
l.
l.
715
Mr. Hume
said, he was quite willing to consent to the expense of making out returns, provided they were properly prepared; but the misfortune was, that he never could get the returns he moved for.
Resolution agreed to.
3,725
l.
Mr. G. Dawson
l.
Colonel Davies
said, he had no doubt that these Gentlemen had discharged their duty with great benefit to the public. He was aware that they had made several valuable reports, and many useful suggestions, with respect to the subjects of their inquiry, particularly as related to certain departments in Ireland; but it should be recollected at what an expense these objects had been effected. The first payment to the Commissioners took place in 1823, and amounted to 6,255
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
716
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, the annual saving effected by the Commissioners in the collection and management of the public income considerably exceeded the aggregate amount of the payments made on account of their services. The labours of the Commissioners had now closed, and this was the last vote which the House would be called upon to grant them; but although Parliament would hear no more of the Commissioners of Revenue Inquiry, in the matter of voting money to them, it would have frequent opportunities to bear in mind the benefit derived from their labours.
Mr. Hume
asked, what was the subject of the Commissioners' inquiry in the present year?
Mr. Dawson
said, they would submit another report on the state of the Post-office.
Mr. Hume
was aware of the general importance of the labours of the Commissioners, but their proceedings with regard to the Post-office had met anything rather than his approbation. What he wished was, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would try and effect a complete revision of the laws relating to the Post-office. Although the general feeling was, that the Post-office was the best conducted department in England, he entertained a very different opinion on the subject.
Resolution agreed to.
Mr. Dawson
l.
Mr. R. Gordon
wished to make a few observations relative to this vote. He was of opinion that if we assented to it, we should continue to sanction the recorded follies and acknowledged absurdities of an antiquated system. The Exchequer was divided into seven different departments; the Tellers' department, the department of the Pells, the Auditor's office, the Tally court, and three others, viz. the Pipe-office, the department of the King's Remembrancer, and that of the Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer. He should take the Pipe department which had seven subsidiary absurdities: among these were the Clerk of the Nichils, the Clerk of the Estreats, the Cursitor Baron, and the Foreign Apposer;
717
718
l.
719
720
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
Mr. George Dawson
complained that the hon. Member should have delivered such a speech on the present occasion,
721
l.
l.
l.
s.
d.
l.
Lord Althorp
thought, his hon. friend (Mr. Gordon) had taken a very proper opportunity of bringing forward the constitution of the Court of Exchequer. For his own part, he felt great disappointment in finding that no change had been made in the system of keeping the public accounts. This was a matter for which the Ministers were responsible; and the more so, because it was agreed in the Finance Committee that the system should be changed without delay. With respect to the charge for Messengers, his hon. friend had very properly called the attention of the Committee to the fact, that instead of being brought forward as one item, it was scattered over various parts of the Estimates. He must also add, that taking into consideration the sums charged for Messengers in other places, it did appear to him most exorbitant.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that so many difficulties had occurred in attempting to carry the recommendations of the Finance Committee, as to the mode of keeping accounts, into effect, that it had not been possible to accomplish its wishes; it might, however, be satisfactory to the House to know, that they would be complied with as far as possible, and that, in the mean time, every care was taken to prevent every species of extravagance.
Mr. Hume
said, that as this sum was asked to pay the salaries of certain officers of the Court of Exchequer, he could not understand what the Secretary for the Treasury (Mr. G. Dawson) meant by saying it had nothing to do with that Court. For ten years past he had complained of the constitution of that Court, and though every Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised, every year, that the system
722
Mr. Herries
said, that a change in the system was still in contemplation, and would be carried into effect as soon as possible.
Mr. R. Gordon
said, that he should not divide the Committee. He was content with having called attention to the subject; but he must say, that he was much susprised that even the recommendations of the Treasury Commissioners had not been carried into effect. It was six years since the report was made.
Mr. Hume
said, that after what they had heard of the necessity and importance of Messengers, he begged to ask one question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Was it true that a Messenger had been sent to the Duke of Buccleuch, to ask him to come up and second the Address?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he really could not carry in his recollection each individual service performed by the Messengers. He could not tell whether a Messenger had been sent to the Duke of Buccleuch or not.
Mr. Hume
had learned, upon very good authority, that a Messenger had been sent on this errand to the Duke of Buccleuch.
Mr. Poulett Thomson
complained of the expense of Foreign Messengers. There was a Messenger sent every week to Paris. This person travelled post with four horses, and his expenses were treble what they ought to be. Why could not a Government Messenger travel, like the commercial couriers, on horseback? But the worst of it was, that this Messenger's real employment was smuggling. The Messenger was employed in bringing over gowns, and gloves, and shoes; and his bag was full, not of despatches, but of smuggled goods.
Resolution agreed to.
"The sum of 958
l.
s.
The Resolution "That the sum of 13,778
l.
s.
723
Mr. Warburton
said, that while they had such an expensive bankruptcy establishment, he did not see why they should be called upon to pay such a sum as this for the support of an Insolvent Debtors' Court. In a work lately published by a Commissioner of Bankrupts, the expense of the Bankruptcy Establishment was estimated at 250,000
l.
The Solicitor General
said, it would be impossible that the business of the two Courts could be managed by the same set of commissioners. If the Bankrupt Court were to be made permanent, it would entail a vast expense on the country, and the commissioners could not obtain constant employment. The employments of the two Courts were quite different. The Bankrupt Commissioners had to decide upon important points of law, and to distribute a great deal of property; whereas the commissioners of the Insolvent Court had no points of law to decide, and no property to distribute. The legal knowledge necessary in Commissioners of Bankrupts, and practical acquaintance with the business they had to do, would compel the country to give them large salaries if permanently employed, and would create an immense expense.
Mr. O'Connell
admitted, that the constitution of the two Courts was different, and that the Bankrupt Courts had to decide important questions in law and equity, which would require considerable legal experience; but in looking at the selection made of Commissioners of Bankrupts in a country with which he was acquainted, it would not be found that these acquirements were exactly the qualifications for which they were chosen. Good political or family connexions, and little or no experience, seemed, in many instances, to have been made the grounds of choice. They were generally practising barristers, and it was not uncommon to obtain by a fee, substituting feigned names, their opinion on cases to be afterwards brought before them as commissioners. Altogether, the abuses under the present system were horrible, and he trusted that they might be remedied, If
724
Mr. Warburton
said, that in objecting to the present system he spoke not his own opinions, but those of the most eminent barristers, who recommended that a total change should be made in the constitution of the Bankrupt Court.
Sir M. W. Ridley
thought, that if the Insolvent Debtors' Court had neither to decide important points of law, nor to distribute any considerable property, means ought to be taken to reduce the expense at which it was maintained. He was also of opinion, that the number of Commissioners of Bankrupts might be reduced one-half.
Mr. P. Thomson
said, that there was not a mercantile man in London, who would not accept 5
s.
s.
s.
Lord Althorp
said, that although the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Solicitor General) did not exaggerate the importance of the Commissioners of Bankrupts, yet he seemed to undervalue that of the Insolvent Debtors' Court. He thought that the value of the Court ought to be estimated, not merely by the amount of money distributed by it, but by the compositions of which it was the cause. The present system was bad, as it held out temptations to insolvents to spend their money in prison, and left nothing to distribute.
Mr. Batley
thought, the business of the Court would be much better discharged, if the commissioners had permanent salaries, and were men of a certain standing at the bar. He did not think it beneficial that the Judges in that Court should be practitioners in Chancery, for they gave up more time to seek profit in their profession than to discharge their duties as commissioners.
Mr. Sykes
complained of the enormous amount of the fees, and trusted that this branch of the law would be soon revised.
Mr. J. Wood
said, that both barristers and solicitors felt that a great alteration ought to be made in the law. To merchants and traders it was ruinous and
725
Mr. Hume
said, that the Bankrupt Law was one of the greatest nuisances with which the country was afflicted, and yet the hon. and learned Solicitor General came forward to eulogise the Bankrupt Court. The evil mentioned by the hon. member for Clare was not confined to Ireland, for here also Commissioners of Bankrupts practised as pleaders in other Courts. The Attorney General, on a former occasion, said, that law was cheap in England, compared with other countries. What would he say to the fact of the Bankrupt Court having cost 250,000
l.
The hon. and learned Gentleman shook his head.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that his hon. and learned friend, the Solicitor General, had pronounced no eulogy upon the Bankrupt Commissioners, but merely said that the duties of that Court, and of the Insolvent Debtors' Court, were so dissimilar, that they could not be performed by one set of commissioners.
726
The Solicitor General
said, that whatever accusation might be made against him by the hon. Gentleman, he doubted whether any of the responsibility attached to his office: he had no more control over the Commissioners of Bankrupts than the hon. Gentleman himself. He did not intend to retract anything he had said; he never meant to eulogise that Court: all that he had done was, to show that one set of commissioners could not perform the duties of both Courts.
Mr. Alderman Waithman
said, he did not object to the individuals who were the Commissioners of Bankrupts, but he objected to the office, and the number of those commissioners. There were seventy-two of them, some of whom were both commissioners and advocates, and the most skilful of them were frequently employed to protect, before other commissioners, the greatest scoundrels. He had known an instance in which one of these commissioners gave an opinion, that an individual was subject to the Bankrupt Laws, and that very commissioner afterwards argued, before other commissioners, that the individual was not subject to the Bankrupt Laws, and defeated him (Alderman Waithman), by which he lost 1,000
l.
Mr. D. W. Harvey
said, he knew no difference between an insolvent and a bankrupt, except that which the law made. They were both persons who could not pay
727
s.
s.
Mr. Bright
said, that the whole question of the Bankrupt and Insolvent Debtors' Laws was far too important to be discussed on that occasion. He did not know a subject in which the whole community was more interested than these laws, the whole of which needed revision. Let any of the Members go to Guildhall, and there they would see three or four commissions working at the same time; three or four barristers examining as many witnesses, a great number of attornies consulting a number of clients, and altogether such a scene of confusion as never was seen in any other court of justice. It was not a question of a single debtor, or a single creditor, but a question that involved the welfare of the whole mercantile community. The interference of the Government to provide a remedy for this state of the law was necessary. At present no man who could avoid it went before the Commissioners of Bankrupts—he took what he could get from his debtor; but when he did go, he never left the Court without being affronted and ashamed at the abominable conduct of the commissioners. The Insolvent Debtors' Acts were worse, if that were possible, than the Bankrupt Laws. The dividend of the debtors liberated under them was, he believed, nothing. The attorneys and clerks of the Court were well paid, and they throve on the general distress, but the clients got nothing. Those persons
728
Mr. Monck
was of opinion, that the Judges of the Bankrupt Court ought to be permanent, and ought not to be allowed to practise as barristers.
Vote agreed to.
4,034
l.
The next Vote was for 6,882
l.
Mr. Lennard
complained that the Acts regulating the Superannuation Allowances were very unjust in their operation. They gave a large portion of their income, as a superannuation, to those who had large incomes, and only a small portion to those who had small incomes. He considered that the Acts ought to be amended.
Sir John Newport
expressed his concurrence in these views. The regulation pressed hard on those who had small in-comes, and was liberal to those who were amply provided.
Lord Althorp
said, that he would not enter into the subject, as a committee had been appointed to inquire into it. There was, however, a point connected with that committee, to which he wished to advert. It had been some time appointed, at the
729
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, the delay in the meeting of the committee was attributable to the circumstance of most of the Gentlemen on it being actively engaged on other committees. As soon as he could get an adequate number of members together, he should be most happy to meet them, and submit the views of his Majesty's Government on the subject to the committee.
In reply to an observation made by Mr. Gordon,
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, measures had been taken to prevent all persons appointed to public situations, subsequent to last July, from having any claim on the public for Superannuation Allowances.
Mr. Maberly
called the attention of the Committee to the provision included in this vote for retired stamp-masters, and other officers of the Linen Boards of Scotland and Ireland. The Boards were so useless, that the Linen Board of Scotland did not know what to do with the money confided to its care for the encouragement of the linen manufacture; and it had actually been obliged to advertise, in order to find means how to employ it. He thought, therefore, that it was high time to put an end to these Boards, and all their dependents and charges for superannuations.
Mr. George Dawson
said, that the Superannuation Allowances of all kinds had been so amply discussed last year, and a committee had been appointed to investigate them this Session, that he could not think that it was necessary to defend the vote he proposed.
Mr. Maberly
thought it strange that the House should continue to vote a sum for the encouragement of arts and manufactures in Scotland, and that, in the absence of any object to which it could be applied, the trustees should write begging letters, soliciting suggestions for the employment of the money. He thought the proper course would be, to recal the grant, now that it was found to be unnecessary.
Mr. H. Drummond
observed, that the grant was made originally to encourage the growth of flax in Scotland, but that it
730
Mr. Hume
observed, that the doctrine laid down by the hon. Gentleman was inadmissible. The money voted for a specific purpose was public money, and necessarily reverted to the public when it was not applied to the purpose for which it was given. Connected with this question he wished to ask, whether the office of Secretary, with a salary of 600
l.
The Lord Advocate
maintained, that the fund was applicable to Scotland alone. It had been voted for the improvement of that country at the time of the Union, as an equivalent for the introduction of the Excise and Customs of England. With respect to the question put by the hon. Gentleman, he was able to state, that another Secretary had been appointed, but he was to do the duty without a salary.
Mr. Hume
expressed his surprise, that the noble and learned Lord should have appealed for a sanction of the grant. He would ask the noble and learned Lord, whether the Union called upon Parliament to expend so much money as had been expended upon Scotch roads and Scotch bridges—whether it called upon them to lay out a million of money upon the Caledonian Canal? He should be very willing to strike a balance with the noble and learned Lord.
Mr. Maberly
was of opinion, that the Trustees had no right to appropriate the money, and said, that the manner in which superannuations were allowed, and in which the Secretary had been appointed, were as gross jobs as ever were known.
Mr. Hume
condemned the principle of superannuations altogether; and as an instance of the abuse to which it was liable, quoted the case of a young man named Anstey, 27 years of age, who, on the abolition of an office, the salary of which was 120
l.
l.
731
Vote agreed to.
13,647
l.
s.
2,500
l.
3,000
l.
Mr. Alderman Waithman
opposed this grant, upon the ground that the charity was misconducted.
Mr. Alderman Atkins
defended the charity.
Lord Howick
reminded Ministers of the pledge given to his hon. friend (Sir J. Graham), and suggested that the vote should be withdrawn for the present.
Vote withdrawn.
EMOLUMENTS OF THE PRIVY COUNCIL.]
Sir James Graham
732
733
734
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
735
l.
l.
l.
l.
s.
s.
736
l.
s.
s.
l.
l.
l.
737
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
738
l.
l.
l.
739
l.
l.
740
"——cur indecores in limine primo
Deficimus? Cur ante tubam tremor occupatartus?"
741
742
✶
*
743
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, if I rose, Sir, to address the House under the feeling that I was about to propose anything to obstruct the inquiry which the hon. Baronet is desirous of instituting; if I rose to interpose any obstacle to a plan of general reduction of expenditure or abolition of sinecures—for the better regulation of the half or full pay—or if I intended to deny the hon. Baronet the means of bringing before the House this particular question, I might present myself to your notice with feelings of greater diffidence than I do at present. But, Sir, I have not, and the hon. Baronet knows I have not, any such intention. I am prepared to grant him a Return, or more than one return, which would fully satisfy him, and which will more distinctly and fully give him the means of attaining the object which he desires. Let me, Sir, now state the causes of the difference of opinion between us. The hon. Baronet, with that courtesy which distinguishes him, and which is most conducive to the easy and convenient transaction of public business, stated to me the motion he was about to make, and asked me whether I had any objection to it. I told him that I did not object to give the information, but that I objected to the particular form in which he demanded it. I told him that there were Returns already ordered, and likely soon to be upon the Table of the House, which appeared to me sufficient to answer the purpose he required. The hon. Baronet said, that these Returns contained a large mass of information, from which it would be difficult to collect the particular instances he adverted to. I met this objection by telling him that I should most readily concur in granting Returns of any limited number of offices, the amount of the salaries paid, and also that there was no member of the Government, whose emoluments he wished to ascertain, the account of which should not be laid distinctly and clearly on the Table of the House. Is there, then, in this, Sir, any evidence of a disposition to conceal from him, or from Parliament, the amount of the emoluments he says he wishes to discover, and which he is anxious to reduce? Is there in that any wish to withdraw from observation those emoluments, so as to deprive him of the means of applying that priming-knife which he deems these emo-
744
745
Sir J. Graham
: I exclude them.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
: There is no such exclusion in the Motion.
Sir J. Graham
: The Motion is confined to members of the Privy Council holding offices either Civil or Military, under neither of which heads, at least, as I conceive, can these most rev. Prelates be included.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
continued: The hon. Baronet knows that the first Judges in the land are included in his Motion. They have received their salaries from Parliament; yet still they are brought in for their share of the obloquy cast upon the Privy Council by this Motion; and their emoluments serve to swell the list which the hon. Baronet has so circumstantially enumerated. In the next place, it includes the men who are receiving rewards for services performed for this country—men whose names are recorded in the page of our history, and the recollection of whose services will descend to our latest posterity; and yet these men, too, are, by this Motion, held forth as undeserving of public emoluments; and they,
746
Sir J. Graham intimated Unit this was a
747
mistake.
748
749
Sir James Graham bowed in acceptance of the apology.
750
l.
Lord Milton
accused the Chancellor of the Exchequer of wishing to defeat the object of the Motion by the Amendment. He maintained that the House of Commons had not only a peculiar right, but an imperative duty, to inquire into the salaries and emoluments of the Privy Council—a body recognised by the Constitution, and responsible to Parliament. The object of the Motion, he contended, was to ascertain whether the Ministers had meted the same measure of justice to persons in high stations that they had meted to individuals in subordinate capacities. It was not directed
ad invidiam
751
Sir G. Cockburn
said, I did not rise before, because I took it for granted that the hon. Baronet meant to bring forward all the cases in a distinct shape when he had obtained the information he seeks by his Motion: as, however, the noble Lord has thought proper to call upon me, and to call upon me in no very delicate terms—in a manner in which I should be extremely sorry to address myself to his Lordship—the House will forgive me if I obtrude myself on its notice in order to state the nature and amount of my emoluments. Those emoluments will appear in the Return when it is laid upon the Table. I am by no means ashamed of them, because I have endeavoured to earn them by a conscientious discharge of the duties attached to my office. The situation of a Sea-Lord of the Admiralty, it is well known to most hon. Members, though, perhaps, not to the noble Lord, has always been considered worth 1,500
l.
l.
l.
l.
752
l.
l.
Mr. Hume
explained the difference between the Motion of his hon. friend (Sir J. Graham), and the Amendment of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Motion required a statement of the Emoluments of all the members of the Privy Council: the Amendment went no further than to give a return of the Emoluments of Public Officers. There might be many Privy Councillors who received public money, but were not public officers, and thus only half the information desired would be supplied, and it would not show the extent of the influence of the Crown in the Privy
753
Sir J. Yorke
complimented the hon. Baronet on the tone and temper of his speech, which did him the highest honour. He rose principally to state, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have no possible reason for concealing what was required, if all the Privy Councillors receiving emoluments could make out as good a case as his right hon. and gallant friend (Sir G. Cockburn). He could perfectly understand why the House should wish to possess the returns moved for, and it had a right to know that the salaries paid out of the pockets of the people were earned. He agreed with the hon. member for Aberdeen, that the Amendment would only give half or two-thirds of what was wanted, and he should therefore sup- port the original Motion. A libel had gone forth generally, that all the taxes levied upon the people were lavished upon the aristocracy, and it would be highly advantageous that the notion should be satisfactorily contradicted.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that he was perfectly ready to amend his Amendment by expunging the words "public officers" and substituting "all persons."
Mr. E. Davenport
apprehended, that the return, as required by the Amendment, would be so voluminous as to occasion a delay of two or three months, when the House would have been dismissed for the Session. He wished to know when it was likely that it would be laid upon the Table?.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
replied, that an abstract could be speedily made from documents already prepared.
Sir H. Hardinge
thought it justice to Mr. Browne, a most deserving individual in the department of the War-office, to mention, that he had served the public for five- and-forty years, and that all the emoluments he now received, as a supposed pluralist, had been allowed to him while he was private secretary to General Fitzpatrick: his whole salary, from whatever quarter derived, had been assigned to him by a Minute of Treasury of the year 1806.
Lord Althorp
observed, that the importance of the Motion had been raised in his eyes by the promulgated intention of Government to resist it; it looked as if there was something to be concealed.
754
Mr. Huskisson
would not trespass upon the time of the House for more than a few minutes. He rose to state, that, in his opinion, the information to be gained by the Amendment would not be equal to that which was asked by the Motion. He entreated the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give way upon this point, and he would tell him upon what ground. The right hon. Gentleman had said, that the production of the information would expose individuals to public obloquy. Now, if the hon. Baronet's statement went forth to the world, as go forth it must, without means being afforded of correcting that statement by the production of the correct returns, the Privy Council would indeed be held up to public obloquy. It would be said out of doors that the Privy Council, as a body, received in the whole so much of the money of the nation, and that certain members of that body, who were also Members of the House of Commons, received; so much out of the taxes raised from the people. All this might expose the parties to unmerited obloquy, and this obloquy would best be removed by the publication of authentic information on the subject. There could be no obloquy in receiving a just reward for services performed, and it became the character of the Privy Council to avow that there was no mystery, and no necessity for concealment upon the subject. As an individual member of that body he had no objection to any disclosure—he was not ashamed of his emoluments—but without the alteration
755
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
explained. He had not intended to state that the Motion would have the effect of throwing obloquy in any direction.
Lord Howick
supported the Motion. He stated, that it was the understanding of the House, that the Superannuation bill had been withdrawn for the Session only, but the right hon. Gentleman had not again brought it forward.
Mr. Portman
hoped, that the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would not press the question to a division. It was a general impression amongst the public at large, in which he participated, that many of the highest class of the public officers were much more largely paid than officers of a lower class, whose duties were more laborious. He wished, then, that the Return might be agreed to as a means of removing that error, and he had no doubt that it would be productive of that effect.
Mr. W. Smith
was understood to say, that he would vote against the Motion of the hon. Baronet, for he thought that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman gave all that the hon. Baronet could desire. Thinking that the purposes of the Motion were fully answered, he saw no reason why it need be further pressed. At the same time he thought it due to the hon. Baronet to say, that he was entitled to the thanks of the country.
756
Sir James Graham
, in reply, said, that he heard what had fallen from the last speaker with surprise and regret. That hon. Member had sat in that House thirty years, had been the companion of Fox and of the old Whigs, and it was with sorrow and disappointment that he viewed that hon. Member departing from the general tenour of his past life. On a great question of that nature—a great constitutional question, wherein the House of Commons called upon a certain class of the public servants, with their hands in the public purse, to state their own emoluments—it was, he repeated, cause of sorrow and disappointment to him, that an old Member of the old Whig opposition should turn upon a young Member of the new Whig opposition, who at an humble distance, and with a slow pace was endeavouring to follow and to imitate the great example which those brilliant characters had held out to him. It was lamentable that the hon. member for Norwich should throw the weight of his vote into the scale against such a Motion as that then before the House. What he complained of in the Ministers was, that they gave too much—more than he required. He asked for one thing and they gave him another. He asked for a list of about 175, and they gave him a list of 1,500 or 2,000. He asked, as it were, for a glass of wine, and they gave him a glass of wine, certainly, but diluted with a bottle of water. His Motion referred to the great Officers of State, and his object was to ascertain what their emoluments were, in such a manner as that they should stand out clearly and distinctly apart from any other class of the public servants. The Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman included them with many others, and would be useless for the purposes he had in view. Suppose he were trustee of an estate, and that he demanded from the steward or agent of that estate a return of a certain class of the upper servants of the establishment, and that, instead of complying with his requisition, the steward should give him a list of the whole establishment, agricultural labourers, grooms, lacqueys, and all, would not such a proceeding fill the mind of the trustee with suspicion? He had been charged with being factious, but he would tell some of those who made that charge, that he had learned a pretty lesson in that way from certain Ex-ministers, not above three years ago; on that memorable oe-
757
General Grosvenor
said, that the hon. Baronet ought to have been the last man in that House to have brought forward such a motion—a motion of that vexatious and agitating kind. He said, but a very short time since, that between him and his Majesty's Government there was but one question on which a difference could arise, and that, he believed, was the currency.
Sir James Graham
said, that at the commencement of the Session his Majesty's Ministers gave certain pledges, and upon those pledges, and upon the faith of their being redeemed, he professed his willingness to give them his support, with the single exception, he believed, of the currency; but they had departed from much of what they had led the House to expect, and accordingly, the points of difference between them and him were increased. He had only to add, that he believed the gallant General had taken the glass of wine without having diluted it with the bottle of water.
The House then divided, when there appeared, for the Amendment moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, 231; For the original Motion 147—Majority 84.
List of the Minority.
Anson, Colonel
Clive, E. B.
Attwood, M.
Colborne, R.
Baring, F.
Coke, T. W.
Beaumont, Thos.
Davenport, E. D.
Bernal, R.
Davies, Colonel
Benett, J.
Dawson, A.
Bentinck, Lord G.
Denison, W. J.
Birch, J.
Dick, Q.
Brougham, H.
Ducane, P.
Bright, H.
Dickinson, W.
Brownlow, C.
Dundas, Sir R.
Byng, G.
Dundas, Hon. T.
Blandford, Lord
Drake, W.
Buck, L. W.
Duncombe, T.
Canning, S.
Ebrington, Lord
Carter, B.
Ellison, C.
Calthorpe, F.
Encombe, Lord
Cavendish, Lord G.
Euston, Lord
Cavendish, W.
Fane, J.
Cavendish, C.
Fazakerley, J. N.
Cavendish, H.
Fortescue, Hon. G.
Calvert, C.
Frankland, Robert
Cholmeley, M. J.
French, A.
Clements, Lord
Fyler, T.
758
Gordon, R.
Pryse, P.
Grattan, J.
Portman, E. B.
Grant, R.
Poyntz, W. S.
Grant, Right Hon. C.
Protheroe, E.
Guise, Sir B. W.
Ramsden, J. C.
Guest, J. J.
Rickford, W.
Harvey, D. W.
Ridley, Sir M. W.
Handcock, R.
Rice, Spring
Heron, Sir R.
Robinson, Sir G.
Heathcote, R. E.
Robinson, G. R.
Howick, Lord
Robarts, A. W.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Rowley, Sir W.
Honywood, W. P.
Rumbold, C. E.
Hoy, N.
Sadler, M. T.
Howard, H.
Smith, V.
Hutchinson, J. H.
Stanley, E. E.
Hume, J.
Stanley, Lord
Huskisson, hon. W.
Stewart, Sir M. S.
Jephson, C. D.
Stuart, Lord J.
Kemp, T. R.
Sykes, D.
Keck, G. A.
Thomson, P.
Kekewich, S. T.
Townshend, Lord C.
Kennedy, T.
Trant, W. H.
Lamb, Hon. G.
Tynte, C. K.
Lambert, J. S.
Tuite, H. M.
Labouchere, H.
Tomes, J.
Latouche, H.
Tufton, Hon. H.
Lawley, F.
Uxbridge, Lord
Langston, J. H.
Vyvyan, Sir R.
Lennard, T. B.
Vaughan, Sir R.
Lister, B.
Wall, B.
Lloyd, Sir E.
Warburton, H.
Marjoribanks, S.
Waithman, Alderman
Macauley, T. B.
Warrender, Sir G.
Maberly, W.
Wells, J,
Morpeth, Lord
Wetherell, Sir C.
Mostyn, Sir T.
Webb, E.
Monck, J. B.
White, Samuel
Milton, Lord
Whitmore, W.
Marryatt, J.
Wood, Alderman
Macdonald, Sir J.
Wood, J.
Marshall, W.
Wood, C.
Marshall, J.
Wilson, Sir R.
Nugent, Lord
Wrottesley, Sir J.
Ord, W.
Wyvill, M.
O'Connell, D.
Yorke, Sir J.
Parnell, Sir H.
TELLERS.
Pendarvis, E. W.
Althorp, Lord
Palmer, F.
Graham, Sir J. PAIRED OFF.
Palmerston, Lord
Phillimore, J.
Ingilby, Sir W.
Ponsonby, Hon. T.
Slaney, R. A.
Ponsonby, Hon. G.
Power, R.
Price, Sir R.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, May 17, 1830.
MINUTES.] Petitions presented. By Lord DE DUNSTAN-VILLE, from Falmouth, praying the removal of the Civil Disabilities affecting the Jews:—By the Earl of DARNLEY, a similar Petition, from the Jews of Canterbury. By the Earl of RADNOR, from a Reform Society, against the East Retford Disfranchisement Bill, and in favour of a general Reform in Parliament. By Lord ROLLE, against the Punishment of Death for Forgery, from the Inhabitants of Teignmouth (Devonshire); and from Crediton, in the same County. By the Earl of RADNOR, from an Association for the Inmate of, Knowledge, in favour of Mr.
759
The Examination of Witnesses in support of the East Retford Disfranchisement Bill was proceeded with on the Motion of the Marquis of SALISBURY. Several Witnesses proved they had received packages, containing twenty Guineas each, subsequently to the Elections of 1812, 1816, &c., but by whom the Money was delivered they were ignorant.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, May 17, 1830.
MINUTES.] Lord PALMERSTON, as Chairman of the Rye Election Committee, reported to the House that Philip Pusey, Esq. was not elected for that Borough, and ought not to have been returned, and that Colonel De Lacy Evans had been duly elected, and ought to have been returned. The Deputy Clerk of the Crown ordered to attend and amend the Return. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER brought in a Bill to authorise the issue of a certain Sum in Exchequer Bills, for the purpose of paying off those persons who had dissented to the conversion of Four per Cent Stock into a Stock of another denomination, which was read a first time. The Parish Watching and Lighting Bill was read a third time and passed.
Petitions presented. Against the increase of Stamp Duties on Newspapers, by Mr. H. HUTCHINSON, from the Inhabitants of Cork; and from the Letter-press Printers of Cork:—By Mr. HUSKISSON, from the Letter-press Printers of Liverpool:—By the Earl of BELFAST, from the Inhabitants of Belfast:—By Mr. RICKFORD, from the Inhabitants of Cashell:—By Mr. COOTE, from the Inhabitants of Clonmel:—And by Captain WEMYSS, from the Inhabitants of Forfarshire. For the improvement of the Law relative to Landlord and Tenant, by Mr. OTWAY CAVE, from Leicester. For the Abolition of Slavery, by Lord MILTON, from Protestant Dissenters at Stainland. Against the Sale of Beer Bill, by Lord CLIVE, from the Magistrates of Ludlow. Against the Truck System, by praying that nothing might be done to make paying Rent by Instalments illegal, by Lord STANLEY, from the Cotton Spinners of Manchester. In favour of the Emancipation of the Jews, by Mr. P. THOMSON, from the Freeholders and Inhabitants of Margate:—By Mr. HUME, from Uxbridge:—By Sir H. PARNELL, from Canterbury:—By Lord MILTON, from Sheffield and its Vicinity:—By Mr. C. CAVENDISH, from Clergymen and Members of the Established Church at Cambridge:—By Mr. B. CARTER, from a great number of respectable Inhabitants of Portsmouth:—By Mr. LAWLEY, from Birmingham:—By Sir G. PHILLIPS, from Manchester:—By Mr. RUMBOLD, from Great Yarmouth:—By Sir R. WILSON, from Norwood, Surrey:—By Mr. O'CONNELL, from Clontarf, near Dublin; and from certain Inhabitants of Dublin:—By Mr. BENETT, from the Inhabitants of Warminster and Woolwich:—By Mr. MARSHALL, from Lewis:—And by Mr. PENDARVIS, from Falmouth. Against the renewal of the East India Company's Charter, by Mr. H. CAVENDISH, from New Mills, Peafield, and Glossop:—And by Captain WEMYSS, From Forfarshire. Against the Punishment of
760
STAMPS—IRELAND.]
Mr. P. Thomson
presented a Petition from a number of Newspaper Proprietors in Ireland, praying that no additional duty might be laid on Newspaper Stamps in that country. The petitioners stated, that if such a measure were resorted to, the revenue, instead of being increased, would be reduced to little more than one-half of its present amount. That, however, appeared to be the least important part of the subject, for he believed that an additional impost would strike at once at the root of the whole newspaper press of Ireland; and, in his opinion, the existence of such a press was, to a country placed in the situation of I re-land, of the utmost importance. He thought that the press of Ireland, in making known abuses, was most advantageous to the people of that country, and therefore he should oppose any measure that was likely to be prejudicial to it. It appeared to him that the Irish press had been greatly instrumental in effecting the all-important measure which had recently been sanctioned by the Legislature,—a measure which, more than any other, was calculated to restore and to preserve peace and tranquillity in Ireland. He had himself no connexion with that country, and he supposed that the petitioners would have intrusted their petition to some hon. Irish Member, who might have done it more justice than he could, if they had not thought that the proposition which they opposed ought to be looked to as a general measure—as a measure not confined to Ireland, but one which would affect the whole of the United Kingdom.
Mr. O'Connell
said, he had been Requested to support the prayer of this pe-
761
Mr. G. Moore
observed, that he also was requested to support the prayer of the petition; and he would say that, no measure was more likely than that now proposed to destroy the press of Ireland—no project could possibly have a greater tendency to produce that effect. It would at the same time not only injure the Revenue derived from newspapers, but it would materially lessen the Revenue which flowed from other sources connected with the newspaper press.
Mr. J. Grattan
said, the proposed assimilation of Stamp-duties was a very harsh and unfair proceeding towards the press of Ireland, and he trusted that Ministers would not force it on that country. In the course of the last year the newspaper press of Ireland had taken a tone which was calculated to do much good, by preserving peace and harmony in the country. He very much doubted if the measure of the right hon. Gentleman would produce any accession of revenue, and, in other respects he was quite certain that it would operate mischievously.
Sir J. Newport
said, he had very serious doubts as to this measure being of such a nature as to produce any other effects, except loss of revenue, discontent, and dissatisfaction; and therefore he wished to impress on the House the extreme importance of the subject. The existence of the press of Ireland was very important to the welfare of that country, So far from its
762
Sir H. Parnell
strongly objected to any additional duty on newspapers; and the placing of a heavier duty on the Irish press would, in his opinion, be especially mischievous. It would have the effect of checking the habit of reading, the encouragement of which would do much to tranquillize Ireland. He was sure, that at present, a great deal of evil originated in the non-existence of the habit of reading amongst the lower classes in that country.
Petition to be printed.
TRANSMISSION OF BULLION.]
Mr. Huskisson
said, he was about to present a Petition of very considerable importance, on which he begged leave to say a very few words, and he trusted that his right hon. friend near him would favour him with his attention while he did so. The subject to which the petition related was of great consequence to those merchants who carried on trade with South America and other parts of the world, and who were obliged to import large quantities of Bullion. The petitioners stated the great loss and injury to which the trade was exposed, in consequence of the high rate of freight charged by King's ships and Government packets, whenever, for safety, Bullion was sent home in these vessels. By an order
763
l.
l.
l.
l.
764
NATIONAL DISTRESS.]
Mr. Alderman Wood
presented a Petition from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Livery of London, in Common Hall assembled, complaining of Distress, and praying for a reduction of the Public Expenditure, and a Reform of Parliament. The hon. Alderman stated that the petition was unanimously agreed to by the meeting at which it originated. One of the prayers of the Petition was for a reduction of the salaries of officers of Government, in proportion to the advance that had taken place in these emoluments since the year 1792, in consequence of the high price of provisions: it was now sought to reduce those salaries, on the ground that the cost of the necessaries of life was considerably diminished. A resolution was passed by the meeting, directing him (as senior Representative) to bring forward a proposition for such a reduction; but until the returns of the emoluments of public officers (ordered the other evening) should be laid upon the Table, it would be premature to introduce the subject.
Mr. Alderman Thompson
said, that he
765
Mr. Ward
also supported the petition. He thought that giving Representatives to the large towns would strengthen, not endanger, the Constitution.
Mr. Hume
would be happy to see the City of London begin that reform at home which she demanded in the House of Commons: when she should have admitted all her own citizens to equal privileges, she could come before the House and urge the request with a better grace.
Mr. Heathcote
wished that the retail dealers of the City would reform their prices, for although wholesale prices were diminished, there was not a proportionate reduction in retail prices. Taxes had been taken oft', but still retail prices were kept up in a way that was quite abominable.
Mr. Alderman Wood
said, it had been carried in a Court of Common Council, on Friday last, that Jews be considered eligible to become freemen of the City, on taking the freemen's oath, according to the forms of their own religion. There was a majority of fifty-four to twenty-seven in favour of the proposition. As to retail prices, he could not agree with the hon. Member who complained of their extravagance. There was competition enough to keep them down, and they were kept down accordingly. The fact was, that retail traders suffered so much from the general distress as to be obliged frequently to sell at a loss. It was true, the Leather-tax had been taken off, and some persons imagined that the price of shoes was not lowered in proportion to the reduction in the price of leather; but he could show his hon. friend places where he might buy boots at a sufficiently low price—at from 14
s.
s.
s.
766
POOR LAWS (IRELAND).]
Mr. French
presented a Petition from the county of Roscommon, against the introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland.
Mr. Grattan
said, that there were efforts made in many parts of Ireland to get up petitions against the introduction of Poor-laws. He believed also, that the committee sitting up-stairs on the subject were directing their attention to make out a case against the applicability of Poor-laws to Ireland. The fact was, that some counties in Ireland did not pay much to support their poor, and did not like to be compelled to it; while other counties—such as Wicklow—supported all their Poor. His desire, in getting Poor-laws, was to equalise the charge. He was sorry that his hon. friend (Mr. S. Rice), the Chairman of the committee on this subject, was not in his place, as he would be able to inform the House what progress the committee had made in its inquiries.
Lord Althorp
, in the absence of the hon. member for Limerick, assured the hon. Gentleman that the committee was inquiring into the question impartially.
Sir J. Newport
said, persons both for and against the introduction of Poor-laws in Ireland had been examined before the committee. Within the last few days a gentleman was examined who had gone over to Ireland to inquire into the land-revenue of the Crown in that country, and who remained there a considerable time. This individual stated, that he went over to Ireland friendly, from what he had heard and read, to the introduction of Poor-laws; but he was now of a decidedly contrary opinion, after having been in some of the wildest parts of the country, and where there was the greatest number of paupers. So far from promoting the interests of the poor, this gentleman thought such a system would be highly injurious to them; and that instead of preventing or diminishing, it would augment the influx of Irish labourers into this country.
Mr. Monck
said, that every nation had found it necessary to make some provision for the poor, in order to prevent vagrancy and mendicity; and he was sure that Ireland, where both prevailed to such an alarming extent, must sooner or later do the same. There was at present no means of distinguishing between the really distressed and those who were only idle, and asylums supported by the county, in which those who were able to work, but chose to
767
Mr. O'Connell
said, that the Act for establishing such asylums in Ireland, had contributed to make many people rich, but it did not relieve the poor. That some measure ought instantly to be adopted he was however convinced; nothing could be more frightful and horrible than the state of the poor in Ireland. No less than 8,000 persons in Dublin were without the means of support. Disease must follow upon famine, and then the rich as well as the poor would suffer. He had always advocated the principle of the Poor-laws his only difficulty was, in what way they should be applied.
Mr. Trant
complained, that in the formation of the Committee on this subject the name of the Gentleman who had first brought it forward was omitted. The names of Gentlemen who formed committees were read so rapidly, that no one had time to object to any of them, or to add others. He should bring forward a motion, rendering it necessary that the names of the Gentlemen, whom it was intended to appoint on Committees, should be before the House a reasonable time before the appointments took place.
The Petition to be printed.
PETITIONS IN FAVOUR OF THE JEWS.]
Sir R. Wilson
said, he had to present a Petition, most numerously and respectably signed, from the Borough of Southwark, in favour of the Jews. In that borough, the first battle was fought and the first triumph obtained in favour of the Catholics and Dissenters at the last general election; the inhabitants of that borough now asked that the Jews might be allowed to possess the same rights as themselves.
The Solicitor General
said, that he had presented a petition, on a former night, from a gentleman named Levi, and that he had then stated what the petitioner represented to be the sentiments of the Jews upon the measure which had lately been brought in. Mr. Levi had since publicly disclaimed those sentiments. He begged to say that he knew nothing of Mr. Levi. He had received the petition from Mr. Bicknell, solicitor to Greenwich Hospital. He rose now merely to state the authority upon which he had made the representation he had given to the House—namely, that the Jews did not wish for seats in Parlia-
768
Mr. Brougham
begged to know, merely out of curiosity, who this Mr. Levi was who took upon himself to answer for all his brethren, and to say that they wanted neither elective franchise nor seats in Parliament. He had never heard of him before, but that perhaps only argued himself unknown.
Sir R. Wilson
said, that the Jews already exercised the elective franchise, whether by law or not; certain it was that they had that franchise practically, for they exercised it.
The Solicitor General
said, that if the Jews were in the practical enjoyment of the elective franchise, one of their complaints fell to the ground. As to who Mr. Levi was, he had already said he knew nothing about him.
Dr. Lushington
said, he could hardly suppose his learned friend, the Solicitor General, to be serious, when he said that the practical enjoyment of a right ought to satisfy men. Such an enjoyment was liable to be disputed, and would, of course, be disputed where the vote was of any importance. No rational man, surely, could be satisfied with this.
Lord Killeen
, in presenting a Petition from certain Catholics of Ireland, in favour of the Jews, stated, that he had great pleasure in expressing his concurrence with the petitioners.
Mr. Martin
, in presenting a similar Petition from Roman Catholic gentry of the county and city of Worcester, observed, that the petitioners expressed their gratitude for the measure of last Session, by which they were restored to their rights, and thought they could not display that gratitude in any better way than in petitioning for the extension of those rights to their fellow-subjects, the Jews. He hoped this petition would have, at least, the effect of proving that they who had been stamped as bigots did not really deserve that character: and he begged to say that he heartily concurred in the views which the petitioners had taken of this subject.
769
Mr. Protheroe
said, that he could bear testimony to the disposition of the Roman Catholics, in that part of the country with which he was connected, to extend to others that civil and religious liberty which they themselves had recently obtained.
PETITION IN FAVOUR OF THE JEWS.]
Mr. A. Baring
said, that he had to present to the House a Petition from the Merchants, Bankers, Traders, and other inhabitants of the city of London, in favour of the Bill for the admission of Jews to an equal participation of civil rights with other British subjects, to which he was anxious to call the attention of the House. As the subject would be brought under full discussion that evening, it was not his intention to take up the time of the House by any lengthened remarks, yet he should not do justice to the petitioners if he did not state who they were, for the purpose of making the House aware of the importance which ought to be attached to their Petition. It was signed by upwards of 14,000 persons; and, including a large number of the bankers, and a large proportion of the most respectable commercial houses in the city, and of other respectable individuals, it might be said to contain as large a number of signatures as had ever been placed to any petition from London presented to that House. There were signed to it the names of 2,600 merchants, twenty-seven bankers, eleven Bank-directors, 1,100 doctors of medicine and other medical practitioners, 500 attornies, and if the names of no barristers were affixed, it was because they had chosen to present a petition from their own body, which he understood would be presented by his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Brougham). It was therefore a most important testimonial in favour of the Jews, because it was from the great body of those amongst whom they resided; who, however they might differ amongst themselves in opinions upon other points, were agreed in this—that from their habits and conduct as British subjects, the Jews had a strong claim to admission to equal rights with others. Of the Jews dwelling in this country there were 18,000 resident in London; and it was, he repeated, a high testimony in their favour that those to whom they were so well known should come forward in this public manner on their behalf. It was a proof of the good-will borne by them to
770
General Gascoyne
did not rise to object to the Petition being brought up, though he owned that he was decidedly hostile to its prayer. It was said, that there were no petitions from any part of the country against the Bill; but the reason was, because the people did not believe that the House had any serious notion of carrying it; for if they had, no doubt the petitions against it would have been numerous enough before now. Hon. Members seemed now to attach great importance to petitions from the city of London and other places; but when petitions from those places were presented last year on another subject, they were not received with the same cordiality or respect; on the contrary, they were said to be the result of ignorance and bigotry. He would not, however, enter further into the subject; except to remark, in reference to what had been stated by a noble Lord, namely, that he should be able to prove that the admission of the Jews to equal rights would promote Christianity, that he should be glad to hear the noble Lord's proofs, and he had no doubt that he should derive much information from his discussion of the subject: but he would find
771
Mr. O'Connell
observed, that what the noble Lord said was, that he should be able to show that the admission of the Jews to equal rights would promote the principle of Christianity; and he (Mr. O'Connell), who agreed in religious feelings with that noble Lord, agreed with him also in that principle. As to the opinions with respect to the petition presented last year, to which the hon. and gallant Member alluded, they were very different in their character from those presented in favour of the Jews. He would not say broadly that they were founded in ignorance, but they certainly betrayed a want of knowledge, and had some tinge of bigotry about them. He regretted that so many should have been presented to exclude a portion of the subjects of the realm from political power, on account of a difference in religious opinion; but he had the satisfaction to think that many by whom those petitions were signed had since found cause to alter their opinion, and had the candour to avow it.
A Member
, whose name we could not learn, expressed his concurrence in the prayer of the Petition, and observed, that there was this difference between the petitions presented this year and the last—that this year they were all on one side. There seemed, as far as the House could yet judge, to be only one feeling amongst the people on the subject of the present Bill, and that was favourable to it. The hon. and gallant Member opposite thought it would be a difficult task to prove that the admission of the Jews would promote the principle of Christianity. Now he thought it would be a still more difficult task to show that that admission would be repugnant to Christian principles.
The Petition to be printed.
Mr. Brougham
said, that he had a similar Petition to present from a very considerable number of highly respectable individuals in the metropolis professing the Christian religion. Amongst the signatures were the names of 150 barristers, including some of the most distinguished men in the profession, not of one court, but of practitioners in all the courts,—not of one sect of Christians, but of Protestants, Dissenters, and some of the most respectable Roman Catholic members of the bar. Among them were to be found, Mr. Den-man, Mr. Treslove, Mr. Broderip, Mr. Al-
772
Mr. N. Calvert
said, that he was always friendly to the principle of religious toleration, and he therefore did not object to the bill before the House, as far as it went; but he thought it did not go far enough. He had some difficulty in giving his assent to a measure which admitted Jews to equal privileges, while it left still excluded from the same privileges a considerable body of Christians.—He alluded to the members of the Society of Friends, who, though professing Christianity, were excluded from civil offices. That the claims of that body were as just as those of any others in the community, it was hardly necessary for him to attempt to prove. He believed it would be admitted, that in individual character and respectability they were not exceeded by any other class of men. In their endeavours to promote the welfare of their fellow men, and in their general attachment to civil and religious liberty, they were conspicuous amongst their countrymen; they were, therefore, as fit objects of admission to equal rights as any class of men in the community. It might perhaps be said, that they did not petition for those rights; that might be true, and he admitted that they were an unambitious people, but that did not hinder the application of the principle, for he thought that, with the admission of it in the case of the Jews, it would be a disgrace to the legislature to continue the exclusion of the Quakers.
Mr. Brougham
agreed that it would be wrong to mark their disposition in
773
Mr. N. Calvert
said, that it had been his intention to move, as an amendment to the measure before the House, to inquire how far oaths might be dispensed with as qualifications for civil offices, and for seats in Parliament. It appeared to him that a declaration would be equally binding on an honest man, but an oath would not bind a dishonest one where he could find means to violate it with impunity. He had, however, abandoned his intention of moving an amendment,—he had been so unfortunate in his amendments; they had been the means of so much trouble to himself and inconvenience to others, that he was not disposed to venture on one again in the present case. He thought, however, that it would be absurd and unjust to pass a measure for granting the full privileges of the Constitution to the Jews, and at the same time continue the exclusion of so deserving and meritorious a class of fellow Christians as the Quakers.
Mr. R. Grant
said, after what had fallen from the hon. member for Hertfordshire with respect to the Quakers, he could entertain no doubt that it was his intention to bring in a bill for giving them the same civil rights as those now enjoyed by so many other Dissenters from the Church of England. On this subject he would only say, that whenever that measure came forward, it should have his cordial concurrence; and if the hon. Member would favour him with his vote in support of the bill for the Jews, he should be most happy
774
THE MAURITIUS.]
Mr. Otway
Cave presented a Petition from the inhabitants of Bassingbourne, Cambridge, for the abolition of Negro Slavery.
Sir G. Murray
hoped he might be allowed to avail himself of that opportunity of removing an erroneous impression as to what fell from him on Thursday last. In answer to a question put to him by an hon. friend, he was told he had been understood to have said that the increased production and exportation of sugar from the Mauritius arose from the great number of slaves illegally introduced into that colony. In this view of what he said he had been misunderstood. He had not attributed it to that circumstance. The illegal importation alluded to took place between the years 1814 and 1821; and the stimulus given to the increased growth of sugar was by the Act of 1825, which encouraged the cultivation of sugar where coffee had been grown before. It was also in a considerable degree to be attributed to the improvement in the machinery used, and to the application of the steam-engine. He was anxious to set himself right on this point, and he hoped that what he now said would remove the erroneous impression.
Petition to lie on the Table.
PARLIAMENTATY REFORM.]
Mr. E. Davenport
said, that he had the honour to present to the House a Petition, which, whether they considered the subject to which it referred, the place from whence it came, or the great number of signatures attached to it, would, he was sure, be admitted to be one of considerable importance. For himself, he had to entreat the indulgence of the House—the more particularly when he considered how many of those hon. Members by whom he was surrounded would have done the subject much greater justice than it was in his power to do it—while he entered into some few details connected with the topics to which the Petition referred. This Petition was from one of the greatest commercial towns in the world: it was signed by 25,000 of the inhabitants of that town, and it prayed for a Reform in the Com-
775
776
l.
l.
777
l.
l.
Mr. Trant
rose to order. He must object to the hon. Member entering into so many statements on presenting a Petition [
Cries of "Order!" and "Chair, Chair.!"
Mr. E. Davenport
, in continuation, said, he did not know whether the hon. Mem-
778
779
Secretary Sir Robert Peel
*
*
780
Mr. E. Davenport
said, he would save him the trouble.
Sir Robert Peel
said, he did not want to be saved the trouble. He wanted the hon. Member, and all other hon. Members who complained of the effects of that Bill which bore his name, and who continually stated that it had been productive of evil to the country—he wanted those hon. Members to hear the facts which disproved their assertions. He had stated on a former occasion, that the number both of two-wheeled and four-wheeled carriages had increased in Birmingham; and he had quoted that increase to show that the people had increased in comforts and luxuries, which he took to be an indication of increasing prosperity. In order to obtain, the information, he had applied to the Ex-
781
782
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
783
l.
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Robinson
said, he could not agree with the right hon. Baronet in the conclusion he drew from these statements, and he protested against the system of answering all complaints on such subjects, by reading a few isolated and unauthenticated documents. He knew, however, in defiance of these documents, that the families receiving parochial relief in the town of Birmingham had increased from 2,469 in 1826, to 3,878 in 1830, and that there was an increase of distress in that town, to the amount of at least fifty per cent, since the year 1826. He feared it would be found, even if he admitted the correctness of the right hon. Baronet's statements, that the comforts of the poor were diminishing, as the luxuries of the rich were increasing, and that the want of employment was severely felt, notwithstanding all the boasts of prosperity.
Mr. E. D. Davenport
, in reply, said, the only conclusion to be drawn from the right hon. Gentleman's statements was, that the 25,000 petitioners had put their signatures to a string of falsehoods. He denied, however, that the right hon. Gentleman had disproved any portion of them, although he admitted that he was mistaken in that part of the argument which related to the consumption of butchers' meat. He repeated, however, his assertion, that the boasted increase of trade on the Worcester Canal was the result of peculiar circumstances; and he
784
BILL FOR REMOVAL OF JEWISH DISABILITIES.]
Mr. Robert Grant
said, before the House went into a consideration of the Bill thus designated, the second reading of which stood for that evening, he would take leave to present some Petitions, which he considered entitled to the attention of the House. The Solicitor General had, in the early part of the evening, referred to a petition from a person named Levy, in which he stated the Jewish people in this country to be indifferent to the result of the application now made to Parliament in their behalf, and to feel no desire for a relief from the disabilities under which they laboured. The petition he now presented was signed in a very short period of time by 592 of the Jews resident in London, comprising among them most of those who were distinguished by their wealth, their respectability, and their attachment to their religion; and they, in the strongest manner, implored the House to remove those disabilities which Mr. Levy took it on himself to declare were with them an object of indifference. He thought that this testimony was a sufficient answer to all statements on that point. He had another Petition to present from a Priest of the Jewish persuasion, living in Huntingdonshire. This gentleman placed the question on prophetical grounds; but whatever difference of opinion there might be on that question, he conceived that the petitioner's deductions would be found to be sounder than those of his opponents, inasmuch as he contended for humanity and good feeling in opposition to bigotry and exclusion. He had also a Petition in favour of the Jews to present from Mr. Robert Owen, a highly respectable individual, well known to many of the Members of that House.
Sir John Wrottesley
said, it was not to be supposed that an humble individual such as he was could expect to obtain a hearing in the course of a debate so important as that about to take place; he should take that opportunity therefore to
785
Petitions laid on the Table.
Mr. R. Grant
, in moving the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Jews' Relief Bill, said, that it was unnecessary for him to reply to the objection of the hon. Baronet at that time. An assent to the second reading of the Bill for the Relief of the Jews did not pledge any Member to the details of the measure. It merely declared that they thought the Jews should be relieved, and left all objections to the details to be taken in that subsequent stage, when they, with more propriety, came under consideration. The hon. Member then moved that the Bill be now read a second time.
General Gascoyne
declared his determination to oppose the Bill if it proposed to confer on the Jews the privileges already granted to the Roman Catholics. The Constitution was a Protestant Constitution, and it was necessary for its support and protection that the institutions which made it so should be maintained. If any man had a few years ago asserted that, in the course of two Sessions, that House would repeal the Test and Corporation Acts—remove all the political disabilities of the Roman Catholics—and then entertain the question of relieving the Jews—he apprehended that his friends would have thought him a person it was necessary to keep a tight look after. For his part, he entertained no very favourable opinion of religious liberty. He thought it was little better than a mere union of sects. He could not for his life understand how any man who opposed the admission of the Catholics could vote for the relief of the Jews. The Catholics, indeed, had some claims to that which was conceded them. They possessed considerable property, an immense population, and they professed the religion once held by our ancestors. It was
786
Lord Belgrave
expressed his sorrow at being obliged on this occasion to differ from many hon. Members whom he was accustomed to agree with in public and private. He felt it his bounden duty, however, to oppose the measure, and in doing so he did not think he was departing from the principles he had professed upon a former occasion, because he considered a man might hold the most liberal sentiments in general and support the claims of the Roman Catholics, and yet adopt a different course in respect to the Bill now before the House; for he believed that those claims were founded on justice, reason, and truth—he considered that the Roman Catholics had clearly shown that the privileges they demanded would not be abused; and he felt that it was but fair to concede advantages to those who had never flinched from the support of the State. Now, there were two points on which he objected to the measure in. favour
787
opes irritamentum malorum
788
Lord Darlington
said, that although a friend to liberty in general, and to parliamentary reform, he should oppose this Motion, as he considered it uncalled-for. He did not see that it could be advocated as necessary, either upon grounds of justice or state policy; and therefore, although unwillingly, he must raise his voice against it, now that the measure was fully before the House; it was plain that a stress was specifically laid by the mover of this Bill, upon the necessity of admiting Jews into Parliament. He objected to such a doctrine:—first, because the admission was uncalled-for by any necessity of doing justice, or by reasons of state policy; secondly, because, as professors of the religion of Christ, the Legislature ought never to admit unbelievers to have any control or management of Christian institutions. Upon the non-necessity of the measure, and on that account alone, if there were no other, the House ought not to adopt it. He would quote, to support this view, the words of the right hon. member for Liverpool (Mr. Huskisson), when he opposed, two years before, the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts. The right hon. Gentleman, to whom he was then opposed, as he believed he was now opposed to him, gave reasons for voting against the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts which appeared peculiarly applicable to the present Bill. His words, as reported, were these. "He doubted whether the motion was calculated or directed to remove, or to repress any urgent grievance. If an oppressive grievance existed, if a wrong of some kind or other were committed, would they have failed to remonstrate against the continuance of the system. The fact could not
789
*
*
790
Merchant of Venice,
Shy lock
"Fair Sir, you spat on me, on Wednesday last;
You spurned me such a day; another time
You call'd me dote;"—and so on.
Antonio
"I am as like to call thee so again,
To spit on thee again, to spurn thee too.
If thou wilt lend this money, lend it not
As to thy friends (for when did friendship take
A breed of barren metal of his friend?)
But lend it rather to thine enemy;
Who, if he break, thou may'st with better face
Exact the penalty."
Mr. Mildmay
said, that unfortunately on this subject his mind was not in unison with the opinions of his constituents. Still, however, he should not abandon principle for interest; for if he did, he was well aware that he should not only inflict pain on himself, but that mode of conciliating the good will of his constituents would occasion him to lose their respect. He should therefore give his support to this measure. It was insinuated that those who favoured the measure now before the House, wished to overturn the Constitution. He yielded to no man in a wish to support and maintain the Church of England in all its purity; for he believed that in doing so he should best contribute to the welfare of the people in this world, and should most truly promote their happiness in the next. He was anxious to discover a rag, a scrap of an argument—nay, even a pretence for an argument against this measure; but, so help him Heaven, be had not been able to do
791
Lord Belgrave
explained, that his objection to the Jews was, that they were scattered over the face of the earth, united to each other, and destitute of those local attachments which constituted the patriotism of other people.
Sir E. Deering
saw no danger in admitting Jews to the right of practising in all professions, and even of enjoying seats in corporate bodies, and filling corporate offices, but he should ever be against seeing them take their seats within that House. How was it possible that the two religions of Jews and Christians could ever be in accord with each other, when the object of the professors of the one was, to trample on the divine Author of the other? It had been represented by some hon. Members, that the Jews were, and always had been, the persecuted race, and never had been the persecutors. He wished to remind such Gentlemen that for the last eighteen centuries the Jews had not been in the possession of power, and when they did possess it, he would venture to assert that no sect had ever suffered so much from another as the Christians had suffered
792
Sir Robert Wilson
meant to give the measure his most cordial support. He saw no danger in it, nor could he well conceive what objections could be made to it. It was said, that the Jews of different countries would not amalgamate with the natives of the countries in which they resided. Was that statement true? Did not the noble Lord know that the Jews, who were admitted to the possession of rights, liberties, and privileges in France and the Netherlands were as distinguished and useful members of the community as any others? He would ask whether this country was to be exclusively Christian [
Hear, hear, hear! from all sides of the House
793
Mr. O'Connell
said, he was proud of the opportunity of supporting the measure. He supported it both on principle and sympathy. The time had but recently gone by, when the Catholics were assailed by clamours which he would refute that very evening by his conduct. They had been assailed by a cry, which might be very satisfactory to some Christians, who thought that no others were right in argument or good sense but themselves. The cry then raised was Protestant—now it was Christian. To persons who now raised that cry against this measure, he would say that they avoided or evaded the true principles of Christianity, which were liberality and charity. On the former occasion, these persons said that the Catholics were the advocates of bigotry. Who were the advocates of bigotry now? Christian charity, with such people, was a good thing to talk of, but when they came to the point they refused to put it in practice. Who were before the House now in the character of claimants for rights? They were not foreigners—they were not Poles—nor Russians—nor Turks—nor French-
794
Côté Gauche,
Côté Droite,
795
796
Mr. Trant
said, he was disposed, on many grounds, not much to favour the Bill, and he could not be pleased to find it in the hands of the same hon. Member who presented a petition from Mr. Robert Owen, who, if not in plain terms, at least in an implied sense, signified that Christianity was an imposture. Let the present Motion be glossed over as it might, it went to repeal that which our ancestors enacted and stood by, and the Legislature was departing from the principles which gave it birth, when it abandoned that Christianity which was interwoven with the Constitution itself. He heard it stated, with some surprise, that in the present situation of this kingdom, the Jews should not be considered as Jews separate from the bulk of the people, but as Christians united with them. It was said, that if Christianity was the law of the land, the Jews who preferred the Scriptures which formed the basis of Christianity were equally professors of our religion, and members of our civil community; but he could never be convinced by such sophistry, and his conscience told him to disclaim that Jews were Christians in any sense or construction. He was persuaded that the opinion of the great mass of the people of this country was opposed to the measure, though he was told that the bankers and the merchants, and the traders, were in its favour. A few persons who were in a situation to be affected by a connection with Jews, might assert that opinion was strongly with them; but he knew the mass of the people too well to suppose them willing to desert the principles which gave birth to the Constitution and the liberty they enjoyed. In 1753 a partial Relief Bill for the Jews was brought in, but the very next Session the people called on the Parliament not to pass it. The people of England were, perhaps, not much disposed to be pleased with the measures which it passed last year; but though they might be reconciled to the admission of Roman Catholics and Protestant Dissenters to a community of political freedom, they were
797
Lord J. Russell
was surprised at the opposition this Bill had experienced, for neither in point of policy nor expediency did it demand the attention and opposition it had experienced. The admission of thirty or forty thousand Jews to the privileges of the Constitution could make but little difference in its chance of future existence; and when he heard hon. Members talk of danger to that Constitution, he could not but wonder in what that danger
798
799
"—Unam minimamque relinque,
De multis minimam posco, clamavit, et unam."
Mr. G. Bankes
was understood to declare, that he had heard no satisfactory reasons, to induce him to consent to so new and inexpedient a measure. The hon. and learned member for Clare had said, that the arguments urged against the Catholic Relief Bill, were not suitable on this occasion. He thought so too, but he felt that the reverse of the proposition was equally true, and that the arguments which were used in favour of that Bill were not adapted to this measure. It had been said, that while the law excluded the Jew, it gave admission to the Deist or the Atheist; but he denied that such was the fact. Certainly an Atheist, who had the hardihood to despise all oaths, might take those prescribed by the House, and thus gain admission to the Table; but, in his opinion, there was a moral power in the House which would strip him of all influence, and reduce him to utter insignificance. It had been asked whether, after the Jews had acquired property and knowledge, it was fit to withhold from them political privileges? Mr. Burke and others had said that "the supreme is the legislative power," and for that supreme power they were not qualified as long as they continued enemies to Christianity. He had no idea of admitting Jews, who differed in principles from the very foundation of the law of the land, to a control over the legislative powers. In other states, in which the Jews were admitted to civil and political rights, the legislative power, which they were allowed to share, was not so extensive and comprehensive as it was in England. It was, in fact, rather administrative than legislative power they were allowed to share. When he considered that in the House of Commons,
800
Mr. Huskisson
said, that knowing the ability and power of argument which distinguished the hon. Gentleman who brought forward the Motion, and believing that his attempt would be crowned with success, he had come down with the intention of supporting him only by a silent vote; but he was tempted to break through that resolution by the speech of his gallant friend, the member for Liverpool, and by that of the noble Lord who had referred to him and to the petition which he had presented from Liverpool on this subject. His gallant and hon. friend had admitted that the petition was numerously and respectably signed; but he added, that several of the signatures were obtained under the influence of the Jews, and the noble Lord said, with regard to the petition of the bankers and merchants, that the Jews could dispose of the feelings of the trading classes of society as they pleased. In his opinion, these statements were much overcharged, and he could assure the House, that in Liverpool the Jews were retail dealers, and constituted a very small and uninfluential class. The sentiments in the petition were the genuine opinions of those who signed it, and they should be taken as the sentiments of the Christians of Liverpool on the subject—His hon. and gallant colleague said, he was an enemy to all innovation, and that our ancestors would never consent to innovation. His hon. friend had, indeed, confessed that the Roman Catholic religion was entitled to some favour, because it was an ancient religion; but he hoped his hon. friend would not consider the Jews less entitled than the Catholics to favour on the score of antiquity. And when he said that our ancestors were enemies to innovation, he seemed to have forgotten that they introduced a Reformation—that they produced a Revolution—and that they expelled a King because they suspected him of a design to destroy the then new religion of the country. The noble Lord had taunted him with a speech he had made some time since on the subject of the admission of the Protestant Dissenters to the State; but the noble Lord misunder-
801
802
Sir Robert Peel
spoke as follows. I shall endeavour, Sir, to condense into the shortest possible compass what I have to say on the present occasion. As I had not the advantage of being here on the former discussion, I hope the House will bear with me should I trouble them with any thing that they might have heard before. I must set out by saying, that I cannot support this Bill. I do not admit the principle of the Bill, nor can I help objecting to the mode in which it is sought
803
804
805
hear!
806
hear!
No, no, no.
à fortiori,
807
Mr. Brougham
said, that he differed altogether from the right hon. Gentleman, although he admitted that, taking the views he did, they were argued with fairness. He had not appealed to violence or to passion—he had not, like one Member, reminded us that these people were the descendants of those who had crucified our Saviour—nor, like another, that they practised usurious dealing—nor like another, the gallant General, who had certainly given a novel and extraordinary gloss on Christianity—namely, that of altering the command "Do ye unto others as ye would they should do unto you," into this, "Do ye unto others as they would do unto you." This was an innovation, in the nineteenth century of the Christian era, which would certainly lead to a most wonderful alteration in the whole system of the Christian dispensation. He begged pardon; he did not ascribe these words to his hon. friend, he only took the liberty of putting the gallant General's argument in his own words. In the course of the debate a number of
808
809
810
hear, hear from Mr. Bankes
laughter
811
812
ipso facto
813
Cheers and calls for "Question.
814
Mr. Perceval
rose to address the House amidst loud calls of "Question;" but, after an ineffectual attempt to make himself heard, he resumed his seat.—We understood the hon. Member to be desirous of stating his reasons for opposing the measure.
The House divided,—For the Second Reading 165; Against it, 228—Majority against the Bill 63.
HOUSE OF LORDS,
Tuesday, May 18, 1830.
MINUTES.] Petitions presented. By Lord ROLLE, from Tiverton, against the East India Monopoly. By Viscount
815
GREECE.]
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, that, with the leave of the House, he was anxious, seeing a noble friend of his (Lord Aberdeen) in his place, to say a few-words with respect to a motion of his which stood for Tuesday next. His object in giving notice of that motion was, to induce the noble Earl (Aberdeen) to bring forward to the House some explanation of the foreign policy of this country. Two years had now elapsed since the accession of that noble Lord to his present office, and their Lordships had not been able as yet to discover the principles upon which the foreign policy of this country was carried on. He alluded more particularly to the circumstances connected with the settlement of Greece. They had been told that that settlement was now nearly brought to a conclusion; and if that were the case, the papers respecting it should be laid before them. He wished to know whether these papers, the production of which the noble Lord had promised more than two months ago, were on the point of being laid before the House. If they were about being laid before the House, as he did not wish at all to embarrass any negotiation that might be going on, or to give any embarrassment to his Majesty's Government, he should most probably not persevere in his motion. When the papers were in the hands of their Lordships, it would be for them to see whether that settlement had been adjusted upon principles honourable and satisfactory to the country, and it would be open to any noble Lord who chose to do so, to take up the question, and to bring that, or any other part of our foreign policy, under their Lordships' notice. He should be determined by the answer of the noble Lord on this occasion as to whether he should bring forward the motion of which he he had given
816
817
The Earl of Aberdeen
said, he was sure the House would scarcely expect that he should follow the noble Lord through the observations which he had made, the more especially as the noble Lord stated that he had risen merely to put a question. That Question he was prepared to answer, and on this occasion he should do no more than answer it. He begged to state that these papers were in the hands of the printer, and that he should be prepared to lay them on the Table of the House on Monday next; and he had only to add, that he should do so, not in consequence of the Motion of which the noble Marquis had given notice, and still less in consequence of the publications in the foreign Gazettes, but solely because the transaction had now
818
The Marquis of Londonderry's notice of Motion for Tuesday discharged.
[The House then heard further evidence on the East Retford Disfranchisement bill.]
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Tuesday, May 18, 1830.
MINUTES.] Accounts ordered. On the Motion of Mr. A. ELLIS, of the number of Persons convicted of Forgery on the Bank of Ireland between 1791 and 1830, distinguishing the nature of the Crime and the Punishment:—On the Motion of Mr. BERNAL, the quantity of Corn Spirits annually consumed in the United Kingdom since January, 1800, with the Rate of Duty each Year:—The quantity of Rum annually exported from the British West Indies since 1812:—On the Motion of Lord CLEMENTS, the number of Fines levied at Quarter Sessions in Ireland during the last five years.
Petitions presented. For abolishing the Punishment of Death for Forgery, by Mr. A, ELLIS, from the Magistrates and Clergy of Evesham:—By Mr. LENNARD, from a Congregation of Independents at Exeter; from certain Inhabitants of Ipswich; and from Tewkesbury:—And by Sir E. KNATCHBULL, from the Bankers of Margate and of Ashford. Against the Truck System, by Mr. SLANEY, from Shiffnall. For exempting Waste Lands from County Assessments, by Mr. H. MAXWELL, from St. Mary, Newton Barry. Against the proposal alteration in the Stamp Duties, by Mr. WALLACE, from the Letterpress Printers of Kilkenny. Against the Insolvent Debtors Bill, by Colonel LYNN, from the Inhabitants of Kidderminster. Against the Sale of Beer Bill, by Sir E. KNATCHBULL, from the Publicans of Tonbridge:—And by Mr. DENISON, from the Publicans of Working and Chertsey. Against the Administration of Justice Bill, by Mr. EGERTON, from the County Palatine of Chester. Against the renewal of the East India Company's Charter, by Lord G. SOMERSET, from the Iron-masters of Monmouth:—And by Mr. J. MAXWELL, from the Manufacturers of Staley Bridge. In favour of Poor-Laws for Ireland, by Mr. O'CONNELL, from Whitechurch and Garrocloyn. Against allowing the Cultivation of Tobacco in England and Ireland, by Lord BELGRAVE, from the Tobacconists of Chester. Against the Use of Machinery, by Mr. WODEHOUSE, from the Paper-makers of Norfolk. Complaining of the injury done to Trade by the Spanish Expeditions against Mexico, by Lord STANLEY, from the Chamber of Commerce, Manchester:—And by Mr. C. BUTLER, from the Merchants of Glasgow. Against the proposed alteration in the Spirit Duties, by Mr. T. KNOX, from Dungannon:—By Mr. V. SMITH, from the Members of the Chamber of Commerce of Tralee:—And by Mr. Mr. HUME, from the Distillers of Aberdeen.
TITHES.]
Mr. Hume
presented a Petition from certain owners and occupiers of land in the neighbourhood of Rochester, in the county of Kent, which was, he observed, of a very important nature. It related to the subject of Tithes, and therefore interested, not merely the petitioners, but all persons in the community. On this account it was certainly worthy the serious attention of the House. A very great change had taken place in the minds of men, of late years, with respect to this subject, as the hon. Baronet near him, who was present at a public
819
820
821
822
823
824
Sir R. H. Inglis
protested against the doctrine of the hon. Member, which he had then advanced with more than his usual hardihood. He denied that the clergy were to be considered, like the military, the stipendiaries of the State, and denied that the State had the power of dealing with their incomes as it might deal with the pay of soldiers. He asserted that the one-tenth of the produce of the land was as much the property of the Church as the remaining nine-tenths were the property of the owners of the soil. One-third of the Tithes, however, was the property of lay impropriators, and that was exacted with more rigour than the two-thirds which were in the hands of churchmen.
Mr. Protheroe
admitted, that the clergy were not under the control of the State exactly like soldiers, but he thought, nevertheless, that they were liable to be called to account by the public for their management of Church property. He was not prepared to argue against a Church Establishment, and on that account was anxious that the clergy should obviate objections, by discharging their duties properly, in proportion to the amount of the salaries which they received.
825
Sir E. Knatchbull
said, that there was no body of men who discharged their duties more conscientiously than the clergy of the Established Church, as far as he was acquainted with their character. He denied that the petition agreed to at Penenden-heath expressed the sense of the county of Kent on the subject of Tithes. If the Tithe-system required amelioration, there was a bill before Parliament to effect that object, and it would be more appropriate to take the discussion on that bill, than upon the presentation of a petition.
Mr. F. Palmer
said, that the proportion of Tithe to rent was much more than one-tenth, which the hon. Baronet claimed for the clergy. He knew an instance in which, four years ago, the rent of a farm was 600
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Baring
said, on a former occasion he had put a hypothetical case, namely,—that if the revenues of certain sees (he had those of London and Canterbury in his eye, although he did not name them) became worth upwards of 100,000
l.
l.
826
Mr. Estcourt
concurred in what had fallen from the hon. Baronet, but as there would be more fitting occasions to discuss the merits of the Church than on the presentation of a petition, he should say nothing on the subject.
Mr. Hume
could not see anything delicate in the question, and certainly clergymen never had any delicacy in the collection of their Tithes. No body of men in the country were more indelicate than the clergy. They had no scruple in exciting ill-will, and took one-third, and not one-tenth, of the property of the country with the greatest coolness. They had certain duties attached to their situations, which they swore to discharge, and when they did not discharge those duties, they were guilty of a fraud, and received money upon false pretences. He wanted to see the Church of England put upon the same footing as the Church of Scotland, and then he should be satisfied. To the hon. Baronet, the member for Oxford, he should only reply, that if he did not like discussions of this sort upon petitions he (Mr. Hume) was quite ready to fix an open day for bringing the subject forward upon regular motion.
Mr. Protheroe
wished the House to remark, that there was a broad distinction between the clergy and religion. If anybody talked of dilapidated churches, neglect of duty in the education of the poor, or the exaction of Tithes, then it was a matter of great delicacy. Religion might be attacked with much less ceremony.
IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.—LIBEL
Mr. Hume
presented a Petition from persons confined for Debt in the Borough Gaol of Liverpool, against Imprisonment for Debt. The hon. Member admitted, that the clause in the Attorney General's bill, which restricted arrests on mesne process to sums of 100
l.
827
The Attorney General
said, that he was not called upon to state his opinion upon the subject of imprisonment for debt. Whatever that opinion might be, as long as the public opinion was divided on the subject, and a majority of that House was against the abolition of arrest for Debt on mesne process, it would not be consistent with the duty of the situation which he held to attempt to force upon the country a measure which would subvert a system that had now existed for so many years. He would take this opportunity of putting it to his noble friend, the member for Morpeth (Lord Morpeth), whether he would persevere with his motion which stood for that evening, viz.—"To repeal so much of 60 George 3rd, c. 8, as subjects persons, upon the second conviction for libel, to banishment." It was his intention to move for leave to bring in a bill, which would effect precisely the same object which his noble friend had in view. His measure would also contain a clause to facilitate the recovery of damages for Libel; but still it would do all his noble friend proposed to do; and he took this opportunity, therefore, of putting it to his noble friend, whether it would not be better for him to withdraw the motion of which he had given notice?
Lord Morpeth
said, that as he had already postponed this motion at the request of his hon. and learned friend, he thought he should be justified in calling upon his hon. and learned friend to state more explicitly the nature of the accompanying measure before he acceded to the suggestion now made to him.
The Attorney General
said, that the measure would apply, not to existing newspapers, but only to newspapers which should be hereafter established. The object of it was to call upon the proprietors of all newspapers established
de novo
l.
l.
828
Lord Morpeth
said, that since a part of his hon. and learned friend's measure would effect all that he proposed to do, he felt that he should not be justified in refusing to resign the matter into such hands. At the same time he must express his deep regret that his hon. and learned friend had not contented himself with simply repealing this disgraceful act; for with respect to the accompanying measure which his hon. and learned friend had now explained, he could look upon it only in one light—he could consider it only as another restriction on the liberty of the press. This was his present impression; and if, on consideration, he saw nothing to induce him to alter the opinion he now expressed, he should certainly move, when they went into a committee on the Attorney General's Bill, that the whole of it should be struck out, except that part of it which repealed the act of George 3rd.
Mr. Bright
did not rise to offer any opinion upon the proposed measure, but to allude to one which the Attorney General had already brought in. He objected to so many important subjects being mixed up in one bill, especially when, as in the present case, they had no connexion with each other. The clause respecting arrest on mesne process ought to be struck out and discussed by itself.
Mr. Cutlar Ferguson
differed from the hon. Member who had just sat down, and thought the clause respecting arrest was very properly admitted into a bill the professed object of which was to improve the administration of justice. With respect to the proposed measure of his hon. and learned friend, he begged also to express his regret that his hon. and learned friend had not contented himself with repealing at once that act which was a disgrace to our Statute-book, instead of accompanying the repeal with another measure of questionable propriety.
Mr. O'Connell
protested against the principle on which the Attorney General
829
Mr. C. Barclay
hoped the proposed alteration in the law of arrest would be maturely considered before the House agreed to it.
Lord Morpeth
withdrew his Motion.
WEST INDIES.]
Lord Chandos
begged to ask the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department whether it was the intention of the Government to oppose the motion of his hon. friend (Mr. Keith Douglas) for a committee to inquire into the distressed condition of the British West India colonists?
Sir R. Peel
said, that as he had not yet heard the terms of the reference to the committee, it was hard for him to answer the question of his noble friend. While he could not say that the Government were altogether prepared to resist the motion, yet he must put it to his noble friend and to the hon. mover, whether any public advantage could result from the appointment of such a committee at this late period of the Session. He thought it, too, well worthy their consideration, whether much public inconvenience might not arise from such a committee making recommendations which there was no chance of their being able to carry through Parliament in the present Session. He could assure his noble friend that the Government were deeply impressed with the importance of the subject, and that they felt much that distress which it was understood existed in the West India colonies.
DISTRESS.]
Mr. O'Connell
presented a petition from Journeymen Silk-weavers of Spitalfields. The petitioners stated that there was too much money spent in building churches and palaces; that there was a German prince who had 50,000
l.
830
l.
Mr. Fyler
supported the prayer of the petition, and bore testimony to the sufferings of the petitioners. They were obliged to work sixteen hours a day, and that was not enough to obtain them the means of subsistence. It was a mistake to suppose that any improvement had taken place in the silk trade; and the petitioners complained, with justice, of the foreign competition and high price of provisions against which they had to contend.
Petition to be printed.
CASE OF JAMES KELLY.]
Mr. O'Connell
presented a petition from James Kelly, late lieutenant of the revenue police, complaining that he had been dismissed without trial, and praying the House to take his case into consideration.
Mr. G. Dawson
said, that the petitioner had been dismissed for claiming and receiving the reward for services which had never been performed. So far from having been dismissed without trial, the petitioner had been confronted with the witnesses, his case had been fully heard, and the charges had been completely proved against him.
Lord Clements
said, the petitioner had received so high a character from persons of the greatest respectability, that he thought his case ought to be reconsidered, at least the papers connected with the case ought to be produced to the House.
Mr. G. Dawson
said, that the petitioner had had every opportunity given him of exculpating himself, and that he had failed entirely.
Mr. C. W. Wynn
protested against that House being made a court of appeal for the reconsideration of cases already decided by the competent authorities.
Mr. O'Connell
said, that he knew nothing of the petitioner or of his case before the present occasion, but he had seen testimonials, the most satisfactory, as to his conduct, and all he was anxious to press upon the House was, that the case of the petitioner should be again revised, so as to give him the opportunity he prayed for, of bringing forward such proofs as would be sufficient to exculpate
831
On the question that the petition do lie on the table,
BORRISOKANE TRIALS.]
Mr. Doherty
said, he would take that opportunity of putting a question to the hon. and learned member for Clare, with respect to the course he intended to pursue as to the two petitions of which he had given notice on the subject of the Borrisokane trials. These petitions referred to the course which he had pursued on the trials arising out of that transaction. The hon. and learned Member's notice had stood on the books for some time, and was now further postponed. At nearly two o'clock the preceding morning, as he found from the votes, the notice for presenting the petitions was withdrawn, and no day was fixed for bringing them before the House. Under these circumstances, he should wish to know from the hon. and learned Member whether he was to understand that he was to banish the subject altogether from his mind, for it was extremely unpleasant to have a matter of this kind hanging over him. He wished to know now what course the hon. and learned Member intended to take.
Mr. O'Connell
said, it was true the notice was taken out of the orders, as the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated, but the intention of presenting them was not wholly given up. His own wish on the subject was, that, under all the circumstances, the matter should not be further pressed, but it did not rest wholly with him. He had written to the parties from whom the petitions came, advising them to allow him to withdraw the petitions altogether, or to confide them to the care of some other hon. Member. To that letter he had not received a reply, and could not before Saturday; and on Monday he should be able to give the hon. and learned Gentleman a definitive answer.
BUSINESS OF THE SESSION.]
Mr. C. W. Wynn
wished to know what course his right hon. friend intended to take with respect to the resolutions which had been
832
Sir Robert Peel
replied, that the public interest required that some steps should be taken in that case; but in the present state of public business in the House, he hardly knew what day to name for taking the resolutions into consideration, with any hope that they could be brought forward at a reasonable hour. Indeed, such was the state in which the public business now stood, that he felt it would be necessary to introduce some measure for regulating it in the next Session. It was now half-past seven, and that which, properly speaking, was the public business of the evening,—he meant the motions or orders of the day,—had not been commenced, owing to the number of petitions, and the discussions which took place on them. He did not lay the blame on any person, or say that those petitions should not be presented and considered, but some arrangement must be made, by which the fixed business of the day should be brought forward at an early hour. With respect to the case of Sir Jonah Barrington, to which his right hon. friend had referred, he thought it would be extremely inconvenient, and not consistent with what was due to the public interest, to postpone it to the next, or delay it to a very late period in the present Session. Under these circumstances, and considering the state of other business in the House, he thought they should be justified in departing from their ordinary course, and fix it for an early hour on Saturday. He would say, to meet at two o'clock on that day, in order that they might be able to get through it, with the understanding that they should take no other business on that day.
Mr. Hume
said, that he could have no objection to the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, on the subject of the state of business in the House. He, for one, had no objection that the public business—the fixed business—the Orders of the Day or motions—should commence at an earlier hour—say seven o'clock—but that it should also close at a much earlier hour than it did at present—he would suggest twelve o'clock, which he thought was late enough. It was impossible that even the most powerful constitutions should not feel exhausted by the very late hours to which debates were protracted night after night. He would mention, for instance,
833
Sir Robert Peel
observed, that the suggestion which he had made did not refer to the convenience of Ministers more than to that of other Members. Considering the business to be done, he did not think, if the House sat the whole year, and transacted public business only from seven to twelve each evening, that the time would be sufficient to get through it. To fix the latter hour as that of adjournment each day would often be attended with great inconvenience. It would occasion frequent adjourned debates, which would render the bringing forward any business fixed for the following day as uncertain as at present, when so many matters stood for the same evening. For instance, if the debate of last night, which lasted till nearly three o'clock, had been adjourned at twelve o'clock, it would have been found much more inconvenient than
834
Mr. Huskisson
thought, that much of the time of the House might be saved if hon. Members, in presenting petitions which related to bills before the House, would abstain from making any remarks on them until the proper time arrived for the discussion. Much of the time of the House was consumed in desultory observations which led to no result. He was aware that he spoke this with a bad grace, as he should have to occupy the House at some length on the subject of the petition which he should have to present on Thursday; but there was a difference between that and the ordinary run of petitions relating to bills—for the subject which he should bring forward was one to which the House could not immediately apply a remedy; though great benefit, which he expected would be the case, might arise from the discussion of it. In the other cases, however, much time might be saved, and greater facilities given to the despatch of the general business of the House, if desultory remarks were avoided.
Lord F. L. Gower
said, that he would now move that the Resolutions respecting Sir Jonah Barrington be taken into consideration on Saturday.
Motion agreed to.
BRITISH WEST-INDIA COLONIES.]
Mr. K. Douglas
, referring to what had fallen from his right hon. friend (Sir Robert Peel) respecting his motion on the state of the West-India Colonists,—namely, that no practical good could be expected to result from its introduction at so late a period of the Session,—observed that it was not in his power to have brought it forward earlier. He was sensible of its urgency, but the state of business had been such that he had no option. He wished, however, that it might be understood that he was not a volunteer on the occasion. He and his noble friend (the Marquis of Chandos) had been selected twelve months ago by the West-India Colonists to represent their interests to that House. They had made themselves acquainted with the subject, having got
835
Mr. Herries
said, that if his hon. friend wished to know whether the Government were disposed to do all in its power to alleviate any evils connected with the subject to which he referred, and to take it fully into its consideration, he could assure him that he and those with whom he acted would not be found wanting in a disposition to comply with his desires as fully as possible in that respect. At the same time he could assure the hon. Member, that however Government might be disposed to relieve the commercial relations of the West-Indian interest from embarrassment, any immediate remedy for the evils complained of was impossible.
836
The Marquis of Chandos
observed, that it had long been a subject of lively regret to many as well as himself that in a question of such vital interest to this country—namely, the prosperity of the West-India Colonies—their interests had not been taken up as they ought to have been by his Majesty's Government: he was connected with those Colonies himself, and feeling, as he did, that they were a suffering and overburthened part of this great empire, their interests, he thought, imperatively called on the Administration to take up their affairs, with a view to afford that portion of our dominions advantages equivalent to those enjoyed by other portions of our colonial establishments. If Ministers, in that spirit, would consent to pledge themselves to take up the subject, with a view to their relief, he should recommend his hon. friend to leave it in their hands, otherwise he should prefer the adoption of some other parliamentary mode of inquiry.
Sir Robert Peel
said, that the proposition made by his hon. friend was different from that made by his noble friend who had just spoken. His noble friend said, that Government must give a pledge to bring forward some measure of relief; but he put it to his noble friend, if it were either the interest or the duty of Ministers to pledge themselves to any specific measures. If his noble friend reflected for a moment, he would see the propriety of Government being sparing in its pledges, and slow to contract engagements, but careful to fulfil all those it contracted. If he were unable to pledge the Government to any measures of relief, he could assure his noble friend it was not from want of consideration of the West-India interest, but from a wish not to enter into engagements which it might be impossible to fulfil. He was convinced, unfortunately, of the depression of the West-India interest, but he did not see how any measures could be undertaken for its relief during the present Session. His hon. friend, who had spoken before his noble friend, seemed content to acquiesce in the recommendation that Government should take the matter into its consideration. He would so far pledge the Government, that
837
Mr. K. Douglas
said, if he understood his right hon. friend correctly, he undertook for the Government that it would examine into the Question, admitting that the West-India interest was in a state of difficulty and distress; that he would make an investigation, and be prepared, before the next Session of Parliament, to notify to the West-India interest the views of the Government after such investigation. Being perfectly satisfied that the Government would undertake the inquiry with sincerity and determination, he should find it his duty to accede to the proposition of his right hon. friend.
Sir A. Grant
expressed his satisfaction at the matter being left in the hands of Government, as it was both able to investigate the subject thoroughly and apply a practical remedy. He begged leave, however, to call the attention of his right hon. friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the state of overwhelming distress in which the West-Indies were involved, and to ask if some practical remedy might not be found in equalizing the duties on sugar. At present the duties pressed most unequally, because they were the same on the finest as on the coarsest sugars. He was perfectly aware of the difficulties of the subject, but still he thought it might be possible to levy an
838
ad valorem
ad valorem
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, though he was not in general a very orderly person, yet he must, on this occasion, set an example of order to his hon. friend who, though at times the preserver of order among others, had, on this occasion, been most disorderly—he must show his sense of what was due to the usual course of proceedings, by refusing to enter into the subject, as there was no Question before the House.
Mr. Hume
protested against this manner of disposing of the Question. When the Government and the Legislature undertook to protect different interests, the public was sure to suffer. He wished to see the public protected, and he recommended that the duty on sugar should be reduced, which might be done without injury to the Revenue, and would give time to investigate the matter thoroughly, so as to lead to some permanent measure. He wished the people to understand what the Colonies cost them, and if the noble Lord and the hon. Gentleman would not bring forward their Question, he should not We sorry if they obtained no relief.
FIRST FRUITS—IRELAND.]
Sir John Newport
rose to bring forward a Motion that would make a large Revenue, that was once at the disposal of the Crown, and had been appropriated by it for the service of the Church of Ireland, but much misapplied, again effective to the public service. He had brought forward, in 1808, a motion similar to the present, and it was then rejected by a majority of 17. He had again submitted the subject to the House in 1824, and then it had been negatived by a majority of only 12.
839
s.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
840
l.
l.
s.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
s.
l.
l.
l.
841
"Dublin Castle, 20th January, 1823.
"Sir:—The Lord Lieutenant has received from the Board of First Fruits, a memorial, in which they state, that you acting for yourself and the other patentees of the office of First Fruits, have since the month of May last, uniformly contrived to refuse, from the Archbishops and Bishops who have been appointed by the Crown, and from the several beneficed Clergymen, who have been instituted or entitled to institution since that time, the First Fruits payable by a valuation upon the records and books now remaining in the Court of Exchequer, upon the pretence of certain powers vested in you, by your patent; and as it appears that you have been put in the possession of the opinion of the Attorney General, in which he states the course pursued by you to be not justified by law, I have received the Lord Lieutenant's commands to desire that you will no longer oppose obstacles to the due institution of the several Clergy concerned, or continue by your refusal to receive the First Fruits, to impair the fund committed to the charge of the board."
842
843
844
l.
l.
l.
s.
l.
l.
l.
s.
l.
l.
d.
l.
s.
d.
l.
l.
845
On the question being put,
Lord Francis Leveson Gower
said, if he should offer nothing very luminous to the House on the subject, it would find an apology for him in his want of legal qualifications, and if he should fail to make any original observations, the House would remember the circumstance to which the right hon. Baronet adverted at the opening of his address, namely, that the subject had been twice or thrice before under discussion. In his opinion, the whole question turned upon the point, whether it were incumbent upon or lawful in the commissioners of First Fruits, to institute from time to time an inquiry into the value of the benefices of Ireland, and to take the First Fruits, not according to the original valuation, but according to the improved or reduced value, as the case might be. In his humble opinion, the affirmative of this proposition could not be legally made out. That there had been differences of opinion upon this subject between professional men he was aware, and he did not presume to decide concerning the relative qualifications of the two learned individuals who had given different opinions on the subject. Of the qualifications of one of them he was totally ignorant, but the person to whom he was opposed was no less than Lord Plunkett. There had been, and were still, persons in the House able to speak on any question, so as to render a discussion, even of a legal nature, not only clear but interesting. He had unfortunately no such qualification; but Lord Plunkett had left behind him a weapon which, however inefficiently he should wield it, would yet be sufficient to enable him to repel the attack of the right hon. Baronet. He meant to do little more than recapitulate some of the arguments made use of by him in 1824.
846
l.
847
Mr. Spring Rice
observed, that this was not the first time this question had been discussed in Parliament, and that he had had the honour and the satisfaction of supporting the propositions of his right hon. friend, when opposed upon grounds somewhat similar to those taken on the present occasion. His noble friend who had just sat down had, however, very considerably narrowed those grounds; but although he thought he could refute those grounds, it was by no means upon them alone that he rested his advocacy of the present Motion. He begged to call the attention of the
848
l.
l.
849
valeat quantum,
850
851
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
852
853
854
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, as he had before had occasion to argue a question, if not precisely of this kind, at least of the same tenour and import, he should not trouble the House with many observations upon this Motion. He was likewise relieved from the trouble of answering
855
856
l.
l.
857
l.
858
Sir J. Newport replied.
The House divided—for the Motion 69; Against it 94—Majority against it 25.
List of the Minority.
Baring, F.
Davies, Colonel
Bentinck, Lord Geo.
Du Cane, P.
Benett, John
Euston, Lord
Bland ford, Marq. of
Fergusson, Sir R.
Brougham, Henry
French, A.
Brownlow, C.
Fazakerly, J. N.
Carew, R.
Gordon, Robert
Cave, Otway
Graham, Sir James
Clarke, Hon. Butler
Grattan, James
Clements, Lord
Guise, Sir Wm.
Clive, E. B.
Harvey, D. W.
Colborne, R.
Hume, Joseph
Davenport, E.
Heron, Sir Robert
Dawson, Alex.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Denison, Wm. Joseph
Ingilby, Sir W.
859
Jephson, C. D. O.
Thomson, P.
Lamb, Hon. G.
Townsend, Lord C.
Langston, J. H.
Talbot, R. W.
Monck, J. B.
Taylor, M. A.
Martin, John
Tomes, J.
Marjoribanks, S.
Warburton, Henry
Milton, Lord
Westenra, Hon. R.
Newport, Sir John
Wilson, Sir R.
Pendarvis, E.
White, Henry
Price, Sir R.
White, S.
Pallmer, C.
Wrottesley, Sir J.
Power, R.
Wyvill, M.
Phillimore, Dr.
Wood, John
Philips, G.
Whitbread, W. H.
Ponsonby, Hon. W.
Whitbread, W. R.
Ponsonby, Hon. F.
Whitmore, W. W.
Protheroe, Edw.
Rickford, W.
PAIRED OFF
Russell, Lord W.
Ebrington, Lord
Russell, Lord John
Rumbold, C. E.
TELLERS.
Robinson, Sir Geo.
Althorp, Lord
Sefton, Lord
Rice, Spring
Sykes, D.
COURT OF CHANCERY.]
Mr. Brougham
asked, if it was the intention of the Attorney General to give the House an opportunity of discussing the subject relating to the Court of Chancery? For one year it had been put oft" in hopes of the Lord Chancellor's bill. This bill came down and was then withdrawn. He made this inquiry because, if there was not some reasonable prospect of this measure reaching the House, it would be necessary for some hon. Member at his side of the House to bring forward a motion, with a view to discuss the question.
Mr. M. A. Taylor
stated, that he had not brought forward his motion, in the hope that the measure would be brought forward by the Attorney General. He concurred in the expectation of his hon. and learned friend, that this great and important question would be brought under the consideration of the House.
Sir Robert Peel
said, he expected the bill would come down to-morrow or Thursday. He had been in the country for some days and was not precisely aware of what progress had been made in preparing the Bill. He believed, however, that it would be brought down on Thursday, and if it were not, any hon. Member might originate a motion upon the subject.
FRAUDS IN CANAL SUBSCRIPTIONS.]
Mr. Dugdalesaid
, he rose to move the Order of the Day for the taking the report of the committee on the Birmingham and London Junction Canal Company into con-
860
l.
l.
861
Mr. Benson
approved of the resolutions so far as they went, but in his opinion they did not go far enough, and he could not help expressing his surprise that some more decided course had not been taken to meet a case of such vital importance. There could not be a doubt but that a fraud had been contemplated to a great extent on the 19th of February, when the list was lodged. In the committee, Mr. Eyre Lee, the solicitor, was called on to produce a list, which he did, and which he gave in. There were two members of the committee who cautioned him against persevering in the attestation of the list, because they were aware that it was a fabricated and fallacious list. They were also aware that the declared consent of" several persons was fallacious, and letters were read to that effect; and he (Mr. Benson) knew from one nobleman that his name had been made use of as assenting to the bill without his sanction, and
862
The Speaker
said, as he had been referred to by the hon. member for Stafford, to determine whether the present was a question of privilege or not, he could only say that the subject was before the House, and it was for the House to determine, whether any party was censurable or not, and to what extent that censure ought to go, and whether more time was necessary before the House came to so strong a decision.
Mr. Benson
said, in order to put the question in a tangible shape, he would move that Mr. Thomas Eyre Lee, Solicitor to the London and Birmingham Junction Canal Company, be called before the House, for the purpose of being reprimanded.
The Speaker
said, he hoped the hon. Member would allow him to suggest to him that such a motion ought to be made, independently of the resolutions which were proposed by the hon. member for Warwickshire. It should not be made as an adjunct to those resolutions, but the hon. Member was not precluded from making a distinct motion.
Mr. Hume
said, he had paid attention to the case; but of course he could not know as much as the members of the committee, and he recommended that some time should be given for inquiry, and to allow Members to make up their minds on so important a proceeding.
Colonel Peel
said, the motion of the hon. member for Warwickshire should be taken by itself. It was distinct from that of the hon. member for Stafford, which contemplated the redress of a gross violation of the privileges of the House.
Mr. Hume
863
Mr. Benson
was not inclined to assent to the postponement of his resolution.
Sir R. Peel
begged the hon. Gentleman to understand that his motion was perfectly distinct from the resolution; and that he was at liberty to press it or adjourn it as he pleased.
Mr. W. Wynn
deprecated the idea of deciding so strong a point without notice having been given, and he recommended the hon. Member to give notice, and withdraw his motion for the present.
Mr. Benson
then proposed to adjourn his motion till Thursday next.
Mr. Wynn
suggested that the best way would be, to move that the report be taken into consideration on that day.
After some farther conversation, it was agreed that the whole question should be postponed till Thursday.
FOREST OF DEAN.]
Lord Lowther
rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to ascertain the boundaries of the forest of Dean, which he said might be made a very valuable property. It contained 23,000 acres of land well calculated to grow forest timber. It contained also coal, lime, and iron stone, in abundance; but these were of little value to the Crown, because the inhabitants of the surrounding districts claimed a right to dig for them, and carried that right so extensively into practice, that the revenue derived by the Crown from this large tract did not exceed 800
l.
Mr. D. W. Harvey
did not mean to oppose the motion, but he would suggest that an ordinary commission of perambu-
864
Mr. Wynn
thought that the bill was a private bill and required notice to be given to all the parties interested.
Mr. Brougham
inquired how many places would be created by the bill, and who was to have the patronage?
The Attorney General
could not answer till the bill came into Parliament, but he would be happy to accept the services of his hon. and learned friend, and of the hon. member for Crick lade, as commissioners. It was, however, a work which ought to be well done, and he could not therefore suppose that it ought to be done for nothing.
Leave given, and Bill brought in.
KING'S MESSAGE—ADMINISTRATION
On the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Order of the Day was read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee to take into consideration the King's Message relative to the Administration of Justice.
On the Motion, "That the Speaker do leave the Chair,"
Mr. O'Connell
objected to proceeding with such important business at that late hour.
Mr. Brougham
deprecated delay. The House had been accustomed to sit much later.
Sir Robert Peel
said, that his Majesty's Message had been sent down to Parliament three weeks, and had not yet been taken into consideration. The proceeding then would be altogether preliminary. He must object to the practice of only devoting four hours every day to public business, as tending to create much mischief.
Mr. D. W. Harvey
complained that the House was proceeding with the measures to improve the Administration of Justice, and so many projects for this purpose were on foot, that he thought it was necessary first of all to take a general view of the subject. There was one part of the suggestion of the right hon. Secretary which he considered as very important, and might, perhaps, be unnecessary, if the Local Courts suggested by the hon.
865
Mr. Brougham
said, that a part, and an essential part of his plan was, that Westminster Hall should remain the chief source of justice, and should control and revise the proceedings of the Local Courts.
Mr. O'Connell
declared that he would decidedly oppose further proceedings.
Mr. Benett
complained of the conduct of the hon. member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Portman), in forcing on the third reading of his bill for the Watching and Lighting of Parishes, last night. He, as well as many others, had gone home under the assurance from the hon. member for Dorsetshire that there was not the slightest chance of the bill being discussed, and he certainly thought he had good ground of complaint. Having said so much, he was not disposed to resist the present motion, at which every one was present, or ought to be present, who had any interest in the question.
The Attorney General
, having then stated that the business of the evening was merely formal, and that by agreeing to the clauses the House did not pledge itself to anything, but merely put the Bill into a fit state for future discussion—
Mr. O'Connell
withdrew his opposition, and the House went into a committee, Sir Alexander Grant in the chair.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
l.
Mr. Hume
complained of the largeness of this salary in the present distressed state of the country, and expressed his regret that he had once been induced to grant so large a sum as 5,500
l.
l.
866
Mr. O'Connell
said, it was extremely desirable that the retiring salary of the judges should more closely approach the full allowance, in order that there might be less apology for judges retaining their offices after they became unable to fill them with effect.
Mr. Hume
then postponed his opposition until the recommitment of the Bill, when he hoped to have the opinions of a larger number of the Members of the House.
The Resolution granting the sum of 5,000
l.
HOUSE OF LORDS,
Wednesday, May 19, 1830.
MINUTES.] Lord Viscount LORTON presented a Petition from the Inhabitants of St. Mary, Newtown Barry, against Grand Jury Presentments.
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Wednesday, May 19, 1830.
MINUTES.] De Lacy Evans, Esq. was sworn, and took his Seat as Member for Rye. Mr. Alderman THOMPSON brought in a Bill to declare in what cases Charitable Institutions shall be liable to pay Local Rates.
Petitions presented. In favour of Poor-Laws in Ireland, by Mr. BROWNLOW, from the Labouring Classes of Dublin, who stated that there were in that City 17,000 men anxious, but unable, to support themselves by their labour. Against the Punishment of Death for Forgery, by Sir T. ACLAND, from Chudleigh and Teignmcuth:—By Lord MILTON, from Leeds:—By Mr. DALY, from the Managers of the Provincial Bank of Ireland at Galway:—By Mr. KNOX, from the Managers of the Provincial Bank at Colcraine:—By Mr. BROWNLOW, from the Managers of the Provincial Bank at Armagh:—By Mr. TRANT, from the Managers of the Provincial Bank at Ballina Mayo, also stating that the Bill for amending the Criminal Law did not go far enough. Against the Sale of Beer Bill, by Mr. ASHURST, from the Inhabitants of Henley-upon-Thames. Against abolishing the separate Jurisdiction of the County Palatine of Chester, by Mr. EGERTON, from the Inhabitants of Congledon. Against the renewal of the East India Company's Charter, by Sir T. ACLAND, from the Inhabitants of Ermington. For a repeal of the Excise Duty on Candles, by Sir G. CLERK, from the Candle Manufacturers of Edinburgh. Against the proposed assimilation of Stamp Duties, by Mr. CAREW, from the Inhabitants of New Ross. Praying for a Repeal of the Stamp Duties on Newspapers and Advertisements, by Mr. J. SMITH, from the Members of the City of London Literary and Scientific Institutions. Against the proposed Duty on Com Spirits, by Mr. RUMBOLD, from Growers of Barley in the Neighbourhood of Great Yarmouth. Praying to be relieved from the Duty of Discharging Insolvent Debtors at Quarter Sessions, by Mr. C. WYNN, from Wm. Owen, Chairman of the Sessions of the County of Montgomery.
IRISH CONSTABULARY FORCE.]
Mr. O'Connell,
in pursuance of the notice he
867
Mr. Doherty
said, that there was no objection on the part of the Government to give the hon. and learned Gentleman the Returns which would effect the object he had in view; and when the question came before the House he should be prepared to give his opinion upon it. It seemed to him that there were some objections to the terms of the Motion, which, as now framed, would not bring the intended question fairly before the House. He therefore proposed that the Returns should be of the persons who had lost their lives, or were wounded, in affrays with the Police since its establishment, distinguishing what inquests had been held, and what were the verdicts on those inquests—what bills of indictment had been framed, and how they had been disposed of; and also a Return of the Constables killed in such affrays within the same period. Such a Return would fairly raise the question. He begged to be permitted to express his deep regret, and that of the Government, for the fatal occurrences which had taken place, and their anxious wish to prevent their recurrence.
Mr. O'Counell
said, that the Returns of men killed in affrays alone would not be sufficient, for several had been shot in endeavouring to escape; and in order to meet those cases he had put in the word "otherwise." For the same reason, it was important to know the nature of the warrants that were to have been executed. As he found the Government were disposed to meet the question fairly, he would, with the permission of the House, withdraw his Motion now, and bring it forward again to-morrow, amended by the suggestions of the hon. and learned Gen-
868
JUDGES OF WALES.]
On the Motion of the Chanceller of the Exchequer, the House went into a Committee of Supply.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
Sir C. Wetherell
said, the Resolution was prejudging the question. Perhaps the bill for abolishing the Local Jurisdictions might not pass.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
did not intend by the Resolution to prejudice the question at all. He only wanted, according to the recommendation of the commissioners, to bring the whole matter before the House at once.
Sir C. Cole
said, he represented the largest county in the Principality, and there was in that county but one feeling on the matter, and that was favourable to the bill.
Mr. O'Connell
protested against any one being pledged by the Resolution, as he himself was against the very principle of compensation in such a case. No man could have a vested right in an abuse. A public system ought only to continue while it worked well for the public.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
reminded the hon. Member, that some of these Judges had been appointed for life.
Sir C. Cole
: And one of them especially, as a reward for past public services. He asked the right hon. Gentleman whether the compensation was to be bestowed on all, whatever might have been the terms of their appointments?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
: Certainly not.
Resolution passed; the House resumed; the Report to be received to-morrow.
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Thursday, May 20, 1830.
MINUTES.] The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER obtained leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Church-Building Act. Mr. H. MAXWELL obtained leave to bring in a Bill to regulate the applotment of County Rates and Cesses in Ireland, in certain cases. The ATTORNEY GENERAL obtained leave to bring in a Bill to repeal so much of the Act of 60 Geo. III. cap. 8, s. 4, as relates to the Sentence of Banishment for the second offence, and provide some further remedy against the abuse of publishing Libels. Lord MORPETH obtained leave to bring in a Bill for the purpose of appointing a Commission to inquire into the best method of shortening the road between London and Edinburgh.
869
Petitions presented. Against the assimilation of Stamp Duties (Ireland), by Mr. FITZGIBBON, from John F. Fitzgerald, High Sheriff of the County of Limerick:—By Sir J. NEWPORT, from Waterford, and from the Manufacturers of St. Michan, Dublin:—And by Mr. S. RICE, from the Inhabitants of Limerick. Against the Sale of Beer Bill, by Mr. BARING, from the Inhabitants of Thetford. For a better mode of passing Sheriff's Accounts, by Sir W. HERON, from W. A. Johnson, Esq. Sheriff of Lincoln. For a Repeal of Assessed Taxes, by Lord ALTHORP, from Persons in the County of Northampton. Complaining of Distress, by Mr. DUNCOMBE, from certain Persons residing in Yorkshire. For the Repeal of the Parish Vestries Act (Ireland), by Mr. O'CONNEL from the Inhabitants of Bandon and Douglass. For introducing Poor-Laws into Ireland, by Lord CASTLEREAGH, from the Vestry of Saintfield (Down). For the abolition of the Punishment of Death for Forgery, by Mr. C. DAVENPORT, from Shaftesbury. For the Admission of Foreign Grain in Bond to be ground into Flour, by Lord CASTLEREAGH, from the Inhabitants of Belfast. Against the Renewal of the East India Company's Charter, by Mr. K. DOUGLAS, from the Inhabitants of Annan; from the Incorporated Trades of Dumfries; and from the Royal Burgh of Dumfries. Against the Payment by Merchant Seamen of 6
d.
CONSTABULARY FORCE, IRELAND.]
Mr. O'Connell rose
to move for the returns of the numbers killed and wounded in affrays with the police in Ireland, in the shape proposed by the hon. and learned Solicitor General. He was glad to see that hon. Gentleman in his place, as he would be able to contradict a report that had been circulated in the county of Clare. In a letter he had that morning received it was stated that persons had been fired at by the police because they did not immediately stand when challenged. A boy was shot through the back, and died instantly. In vindication of this barbarous act, the police alleged that they had received orders to fire on all persons found out at night who did not immediately give an account of themselves. He trusted that no such orders had been given, which in Ireland would be most cruel and would inevitably lead to much bloodshed. The hon. Member concluded by moving for the following returns: "Of the number of persons who have lost their lives in affrays or otherwise by the Constabulary in Ireland in each year since the formation of that body; specifying the place where homicide occurred, and also the nature of the warrant, if any, which the Constabulary had to execute at the time of such homicide; and also stating what was in each case the verdict of the coroner's inquest, and in which of those cases bills of indictment were preferred and the manner in which the same were disposed
870
Mr. Doherty
thought it unnecessary to state that no such orders as those referred to by the hon. Member could have been given, and he could affirm from his own experience that the Government of Ireland was anxious that the policemen should do their duty so as to offend and injure the people the least possible. With respect to the returns moved for, he had no objection to their being produced, as he was desirous of having the subject of the Irish police calmly and dispassionately discussed. For himself, however, he must say, it was his decided opinion that such a force as the police was necessary for Ireland. He doubted if the returns could be made correctly, but such as could be procured he was prepared to consent to their being laid on the Table.
Mr. Jephson
was convinced that these returns would not show that proper precaution was used by the police, who were armed in an improper manner. In one; district several of them were furnished with rifles, and it appeared from some circum- stances which had come to his knowledge, that they were very ready to use their arms. A party of them was sent some time ago to arrest some fellows, and apprehensive of their escape they fired at them as men would hunt out and fire at wild beasts. He blamed the policemen, however, much less than those who instructed and commanded them.
Mr. Doherty
deprecated such a discussion, particularly as the law was open to those who had been injured. The fact was, that the spirit of hostility against the police on the part of the peasantry was so
871
Mr. Hume
thought, this animosity was a proof that the system was a bad one, and he should look at the Returns and attend to the inquiry which he hoped would take place, with considerable interest.
Mr. O'Connell
said, his object was to discuss the merits of the system, not the faults of individuals. He knew of one attack made by the peasantry on a police barrack, but that was in 1822, when the south of Ireland was almost in a state of insurrection. At that very time, however, the peasantry behaved with great kindness towards the regular troops, avoiding to attack them, and even succouring them after a rencontre with themselves. If the returns answered his expectations he should be able to prove that more individuals had fallen by the hands of the police than by the sword of the law, and to make out a case that called for the interference of Parliament. He did not believe that such a force was necessary for Ireland, unless it were necessary to keep up irritation, and occasionally shed blood. The whole country was in fact tranquil, except that now and then there was an affray with the police constables; as that body was constituted, instead of preserving peace it provoked disorder and riot.
Mr. James Grattan
said, that in the part of the country where he resided the police maintained order without having recourse to fire-arms.
Returns ordered.
ALGIERS.]
Sir R. Wilson
said, he would take that opportunity to ask a question of the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department. It was understood that a frigate had been sometime since despatched to Algiers, with a view of removing from that city the British Consul and all other British subjects resident there. When, however, the frigate arrived off the coast, the commander of the French blockading squadron, it was said, prevented the vessel from approaching Algiers, and she was obliged to proceed to Malta Now, he asked if any mode had beer adopted to carry the original intention of Government into effect, or whether the
872
Sir R. Peel
said, he could give the hon. and gallant Member a very satisfactory answer. It was well known that a blockade of Algiers had for some time been undertaken by a French squadron: and, when it became notorious that France was fitting out a very considerable expedition against that place, the British Government thought it right to despatch a frigate to remove the wives and children of British subjects from Algiers, in order that they might not be present during the siege. The British frigate arrived there, and took on board all the women and children, except the wife of the Consul, who was unable to leave the place in consequence of illness, and could not therefore, take advantage of the opportunity. On leaving Algiers a communication took place between the captain of the British ship of war, and the officer who had the chief command of the French blockade flotilla. That individual intimated a doubt to the commander of the British frigate, whether he could, consistently with his instructions, permit him to return to take away the wife of the British consul; but he said that he would state the circumstance to his Admiral, and ask his orders. The instructions, in all cases of blockade, were, he believed, the same; but it was customary to admit exceptions in the case of packets, and certain ships of friendly nations. Previously, however, to the French Admiral giving his opinion on the subject, the French government itself heard of the circumstance, and immediately interfered. There was no necessity for making any further application, as the French government stated at once that the officer had misconstrued his instructions, and that there was not the least intention of interrupting the usual system which prevailed between friendly nations. Even before the British Government had sent the ship of war to remove the women and children to this country, the French government had taken measures to secure the safety of all Europeans in Algiers.
Sir R. Wilson
said, he was perfectly gratified and delighted with the statement of the right hon. Secretary.
DISTRESS OF THE COUNTRY; PETITIONS.]
Mr. E. Davenport
presented a Petition from Mr. James Thick, of Cloudesley
873
The Petition laid on the Table.
Mr. E. Davenport
said, that as the statements contained in the Petition were very important, he would move "that it be printed."
Sir R. Peel
said, he thought it right to print petitions emanating from large bodies of men, but he would not encourage the printing of petitions coming from individuals. It was quite proper to receive them, but the printing of them stood on other and very distinct grounds. As the hon. member was a friend to economy, he hoped on that account, though the expense was trifling, that he would not press his Motion.
Mr. E. Davenport
declared that he would persist in his Motion.
Sir R. Peel
subsequently observed that his attention had been drawn to a petition presented on the 14th of May, from Thomas Ryan, of Thurles, in the county of Tipperary, and it was spread over three pages of the votes of Parliament. The printing of that petition cost at least three guineas, and the greater part of it was perfectly ridiculous. The petitioner among other things called on the Ministry, and a "better never directed the empire," to request of the Earl of Glengall to come over to his country and audit the county accounts one month at least previous to the Assizes, and entered into a variety of wild and extravagant matter. Now, he did not mean to contend that in no case should the petition of an individual be printed, but he certainly thought that the public
874
Mr. Alderman Waithman
was of opinion, that every hon. Member should be responsible for the petitions which he presented. Such petitions as that which had just been referred to were calculated to bring petitions in general into disrepute.
Sir M. W. Ridley
observed, that a considerable saving might be effected, not only with respect to the printing of petitions, but with reference to the printing of returns, many of which were useless; for example, a document had lately been laid before Parliament, consisting of 270 folio pages, which contained nothing else than the names of individuals, without one scrap of information concerning them. The document related to the burning of Hindoo widows.
Mr. E. Davenport
would be glad if some rule were laid down, by which Gentlemen might judge of what petitions were, and what were not, fit to be printed.
Mr. D. W. Harvey
said, that in many instances, where returns were called for, copies were printed of an entire series, when, in fact, a continuation of the documents already printed was alone necessary. There should be some office where Members might easily ascertain what documents were already laid before Parliament.
Sir Robert Peel
said, the librarian would at any time give Gentlemen that information.
Mr. Hume
was in favour of printing petitions and returns, from which much information was derived. They ought not to be so squeamish about a few pounds laid out in this manner, when, night after night, they voted thousands of pounds for less worthy purposes.
Sir Robert Peel
did not object to printing petitions as a general principle, but to printing any nonsense which an individual might choose to call a petition to that House.
Mr. O'Connell
said, he knew the petitioner Ryan, and he was really astonished that a man so discreet should have drawn up such a petition, but there were some points in it connected with the Grand Jury system in Ireland, a system which was loudly exclaimed against by almost every person in that country, which deserved attention, although coupled with matter that ought to have been omitted.
Mr. C. W. Wynn
said, if the Gentle-
875
MEXICO.]
Mr. Huskisson rose
to present a Petition, of which he had given notice on a former occasion. It was upon a subject of great interest, and was connected with the well-being and interests of an important class of the community. He trusted that this would afford some apology for him if he ventured to detain the House longer than was usual, or generally speaking, acceptable, upon the presentation of petitions. The Petition was that of the merchants resident in the town of Liverpool who had dealings and commercial intercourse with the state of Mexico; and he believed that the sentiments expressed in it were entertained by those individuals of Glasgow, Manchester, and London, whose manufacturing or commercial pursuits gave them an equal interest in the condition of the new States of America. The Petition stated, that since Mexico became an independent state, its trade with this country had increased, and it was susceptible, under favourable circumstances, of a still greater increase. However, that trade had unfortunately been exposed to various interruptions, losses, and uncertainties, in consequence of occasional military enterprises undertaken against Mexico from Cuba. They had been the cause of interruption to commerce, of considerable disorders in Mexico, and of expense and loss, which fell mainly upon neutral commerce,—indeed, upon the commerce of his Majesty's subjects, who had embarked their capital on the faith of solemn treaties. The Petition also stated, that last summer an expedition was despatched from Cuba, which entailed great losses upon British subjects, and the petitioners had reason to believe that other expeditions of a similar nature were fitting out. Of the importance of the subject there could not be two opinions, when we looked at the actual population
876
877
"The success of the enterprise is by no means improbable. Their (Colombia and Mexico) proximity to the Islands (Cuba and Porto Rico), and their armies being perfectly acclimated, will give to the united efforts of the republics great advantages. And if with these be taken into the estimate, the important and well-known fact, that a large proportion of the inhabitants of the island is predisposed to a separation from Spain, and would therefore form a powerful auxiliary to the republican arms, their success becomes almost certain."
"The fall of the castle of Saint Juan de Ulloa, which capitulated on the 18th day of last month, cannot fail to have a powerful effect within that kingdom (Spain). We are informed that when information of it reached the Havannah, it produced great and general sensation, and that the local government immediately despatched a fast-sailing vessel to Cadiz to communicate the event, and, in its name, to implore the King immediately to terminate the war, and acknowledge the new republics, as the only means of preserving Cuba to the monarchy."
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
*
Sir R. Peel
said, he felt that he should not only be excused but that he should
*
Sept.
887
888
889
890
No, no," from Sir R. Wilson.
891
892
893
894
Sir R. Wilson
said, that the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech had afforded him much satisfaction; but with respect to the course pursued by England in 1825 he could not entirely concur. It was certainly very generally understood, that the expedition proposed by Mexico and Colombia was abandoned in consequence of what Mr. Canning had said. Indeed, he had the best authority for knowing that Bolivar had determined on attacking Porto Rico, and that the British minister in Colombia (Mr. Cockburn) communicated to him the objections that there were to the expedition, founded on the former communication of Mr. Canning. He was able to state this positively, because he had received a communication from Bolivar himself to that effect. And so strongly did this impression prevail, that for the last two years the Colombian minister had been required to do all in his power to remove the interdict which it was presumed still existed. At length Mexico, however, determined to make the attempt,
895
896
897
898
899
Mr. Baring
said, he was very glad to find the important subject of the new States of South America brought under discussion, though he should rather have seen it come before the House in a substantive form, than be brought on from presenting a petition. He believed that there was no question more important than this to the whole commerce of Great Britain. The country was alive in every part, and busy in petitioning against the West-India Monopoly, the East-India Company's Charter, and various other things; but the subject then before the House exceeded in importance all these questions in reference to the commerce of the country. It was impossible to overstate the consequences of this subject to the best interests of this country. It had been stated by his right hon. friend, and in that he concurred, that the interests of this country were involved in maintaining the independence of the new States of America. The probability, as had been stated, that Great Britain might not have free access to the Gulf of Mexico, unless a balance of power were preserved in that
900
Sir R. Peel
interposed to explain, that the hon. Member had misunderstood him. What he said was, that there never was a time when Spain and this country were on more friendly terms than at present. From this circumstance he inferred the greater probability of a satisfactory settlement.
Mr. A. Baring
proceeded to say, that he should not have risen to trouble the House, except for the purpose of enforcing the great importance of this subject, with which the mass of the country gentlemen were but little acquainted. It, however, they would cast their eyes over the exports of this country, they would see at once that the new States of America consumed our manufactures to the amount of 9,000,000
l.
901
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
902
903
Lord J. Russell
admitted, that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel) had clearly established the fact that this country was not under an obligation to interfere, as far as the declarations of Mr. Canning were concerned. There could be no question that an armament fitted out by Colombia, composed of blacks, officered by blacks, and bearing a proclamation which called on the slave-population of Cuba to rise against their masters, was one which the Government of this country could not view with indifference, and that Mr. Canning consulted the interests of England, when
904
Mr. Alderman Thompson
said, that if the merchants of London had not pressed the case on the attention of the Government by petition, like their brethren of Liverpool, it was not because they did not feel less sensibly the evils of the present situation of affairs, and the strong and urgent necessity of some immediate interference on the part of this country. They had not, however, been wholly silent—they had repeatedly pressed the case on the attention of his Majesty's Ministers, and they received repeated assurances that Spain had been urged to come to an arrangement on the subject. That they were not inattentive to the state of those provinces of South America might be gathered from the circumstance, that there were at least twenty-six millions of the capital of British merchants embarked at this moment in the trade of those countries, and dependent on their welfare. It was well known, indeed, that the merchants of this country had no better market for their goods, and that there was no better remunerating trade than that carried on with Mexico. He rejoiced, therefore, in the prospect of something being done to put an end to the interference of Mexico with Cuba, or of Cuba with Mexico, for nothing could be more pernicious to British interests
905
Mr. Bright
also complimented the right hon. Gentleman on the statesmanlike manner in which he had explained the course of policy this country was bound to follow with reference to the South American States, and expressed his conviction, that if remonstrance failed, we were bound to go to war to prevent the continuance of that system which Spain and America were pursuing. He was convinced, indeed, that if the States of North America were not stopped in their course of aggrandizement, that they would soon absorb the whole of South America. Mexico, it should be recollected, was of the greatest importance to this country. It was the great fountain of mineral wealth; and when it was remembered how materially the supply of the precious metals affected the prices of all commodities, he thought the advantage of preserving that country could not be too highly estimated.
The Petition read.
Mr. Huskisson
, in moving that it be printed, took occasion to express the pleasure with which he listened to the language of his right hon. friend (Sir R. Peel), with respect to these States; and declared his cordial concurrence in all that he had uttered. Referring to the letter which Mr. Canning had written to Mr. Dawkins, when he set out to attend the Congress of Panama, he was quite ready to admit according to its language that he had laid no express interdict on the invasion of Cuba, by Mexico and Colombia; but yet it was impossible for any one who knew anything of diplomatic expressions to be ignorant of the meaning which must be attached to the declaration, that the Government viewed with pain and regret the nature of the meditated invasion, and that it could
906
907
Petition to be printed.
FRAUDS IN SOLICITING PRIVATE BILLS.]
Mr. Benson
said, that since he had given his notice upon this subject, a Petition had been presented by a noble Lord
908
909
Mr. Speaker
suggested that, in the first instance the Order of the Day should be read for the further consideration of the Report of the Committee.
The Order of the Day was read accordingly.
Lord Clive
then rose, and said, that in deference to the opinion of those whom he had consulted on the subject, he would vary the terms of the Motion of which he had given notice, and instead of moving that Mr. Lee be heard by his Counsel, he would move that he be heard in person; and he would therefore now move, that Mr. Thomas Eyre Lee be called to the Bar for that purpose.
Motion agreed to; and on Mr. Lee's appearance at the Bar,
Mr. Speaker
informed him that the House had resolved he should be heard on the subject matter of his Petition.
910
Mr. Lee
having finished his defence, was ordered to withdraw.
Mr. Benson
contended, that nothing which Mr. Lee had said had altered the case, and he moved "That Thomas Eyre Lee, Solicitor of the London and Birmingham Canal, had deposited in the Private Bill-office of that House a list of subscribers to that Canal, and which list had been attested by him, and that the said list was false and culpably deposited; that Mr. Lee had therein been guilty of a breach of the privileges of this House, and that he be called to the bar of the House and reprimanded."
Lord Clive
contended, that the error of Mr. Lee had arisen from the laxity with which the Standing Orders of the House were attended to, and as a measure was to be brought forward, in order to prevent a recurrence of the practice, he did not see any necessity of pressing a vote of censure.
Colonel Peel
observed, that the committee, of which he was a member, was perfectly justified in the two first clauses of its Report, which stated that the subscription-list had been fraudulently made out and deposited. The question was, how far Mr. Lee was culpable. This list was attested by Mr. Lee on the 23rd of February. On the 9th of February Mr. Lee had been fully warned of the incorrectness of the List On the 10th of February Mr. Morgan had showed him that the names on the list were fraudulent; and on the 22nd of February, the day before he attested that list, he had said, "I shall soon ascertain whether the persons on that list are proper persons or not." Before the committee he had been warned by the hon. member for Stafford, that the
911
Mr. Alderman Waithman
maintained, that the question was of a serious nature, and concerned the character of the House and the interest as well as the morality of the public. Mr. Lee had made a defence upon the ground of his ignorance, and yet he was the person who introduced the question, and he came forward as a responsible person for a projected company which was to raise on the public 450,000
l.
Mr. Harvey
said, it had been whispered, rather than stated, that he had shewn a more than usual degree of activity in the part he had taken in this committee, of which he had accidentally become a member. He appealed to the committee whether that insinuation were true, and whether he had exhibited an uncommon degree of recollection of what had passed on a previous occasion when Mr. Lee himself had been a petitioner to this House. The question before the House was, not whether this company was or was not a bubble company, but whether Mr. Lee was acquainted with the fact of its being so before the 11th of March. That was the question put by Mr. Lee himself, who denied that he knew before that time that any person in that list was either unable or unwilling to make up his subscription. Now, in answer to that, he (Mr. Harvey) thought he could show that Mr. Lee was conversant with the character of that list before the 20th of February. On the 10th of February, the active author of the company, Mr. Levi, was dead, and at that time, in consequence of being informed of
912
l.
Sir J. Wrottesley
said, that the voluminous evidence taken before the committee was more calculated to mislead than to enlighten the House, and putting the question on the same point as the hon. Member who had just sat down, he came to a directly opposite conclusion. The hon. Baronet read the evidence of a person named Kendall, who began by stating, that Mr. Lee had promised him the office of private secretary to the Company, and who then went on to speak to conversation between himself and Mr. Lee, which, he said, had occurred in the presence of Mr. Robson. Now, in the first place, Mr. Robson had not been called to confirm these statements, and in the next, Kendall's evidence was totally incredible, because he spoke of having been promised an office which never existed in a canal company, and if he meant by secretary, the official manager of the company, he
913
Here a considerable interruption occurred, and the hon. Baronet, turning sharply round, demanded
l.
914
Mr. Slaney
said, the question really was, whether Mr. Eyre Lee had a guilty knowledge of these transactions which had been blamed by the Committee? He thought he had not, and he came to this conclusion after a detailed examination of the evidence, and particularly that of Mr. Kendal. He did not consider Mr. Kendal worthy of credit, and he remarked that he had been exasperated by Mr. Lee's refusing him 152. He admitted there was a want of caution in Mr. Lee, and something of even a culpable negligence, but he asked why this gentleman should be punished for an inadvertence as if it were a crime? He was decidedly of opinion that Mr. Lee did not deserve the reprimand of the House.
Mr. Fyler
concurred in the views and opinions of the hon. Member who had last spoken.
Sir Henry Parnell
contended, it was not right to treat this canal speculation as a bubble scheme; and that he did not think it was the intention of the committee to pass such a resolution as might induce the House to decide upon severely reprimanding Mr. E. Lee. The character of Mr. Lee was excellent, and he believed that he was negligent, but not criminal.
Mr. C. W. Wynn
said, Mr. Lee's conduct deserved the censure of the House, although it did not deserve many of the terms which were applied to it. If this gentleman possessed a guilty knowledge of the fallacious nature of this list, the censure of the House would be a poor and inadequate punishment. Offenders like him, were he guilty, should be committed to Newgate, and confined there for a considerable time. He must, however, acquit him of this guilty knowledge, and he considered his offence was not so much in depositing the original list, as in persisting in it after his attention had been drawn to the nature of it. He did not think Mr. Kendal's evidence wholly unworthy of credit, for it was corroborated by other
915
Mr. Brougham
said, that if there were anything in the evidence laid before them which could warrant the House in adopting the second resolution, then he had not the slightest difficulty in saying, that merely reprimanding Mr. Eyre Lee would be a very inadequate punishment; but as he was of opinion that the evidence did not justify the House in arriving at the conclusion set forth in that resolution, so he was not one of those who was prepared to say that any punishment beyond an admonition ought to be inflicted; and he was not quite sure that the House ought to go even that length. It should be remembered that the House had not seen any one of the witnesses upon whose testimony it was sought to establish the alleged delinquency of Mr. E. Lee. They must recollect the whole of this testimony was given to them at second hand. He did not mean to deny the power or the right of the House—it was fully supported by precedents—to decide upon evidence taken before another tribunal; but he would beseech of them to pause before they adopted a resolution condemnatory of a gentleman circumstanced as Mr. Eyre Lee was—before they robbed a hitherto respectable professional gentleman of his character, on evidence at least only second hand—not on evidence, but on minutes of evidence taken before a committee. It had frequently been said, that the proceedings in our civil-law courts were most unsatisfactory; and that mode of proceeding was found in Scotland so inconvenient, that it was proposed to adopt the jury system rather than continue the evil of having one court arrive at a decision founded upon testimony given in another. Now in this country it was Parliament alone that received evidence at second hand, and it was, therefore, that he thought Parliament was especially bound to exercise a caution beyond other courts. The resolution charged, that a false and
916
Mr. John Williams
observed, there was no denying that the gentleman in question had been guilty of hasty, inadvertent, and improvident answering, and that was what the House could not overlook—yet, if the second resolution were true, the House should not content itself with a reprimand,
917
Mr. Lawley
supported the Motion.
Mr. O'Connell
did not consider that wilful falsehood had been established against Mr. Lee, but he thought him guilty of culpable neglect, not of innocent neglect. He said the list was a correct list, without knowing it to be so, when it was his business to possess that knowledge.
Sir Robert Peel
said, that though the neglect was culpable, yet, as the resolution coupled the neglect with falsehood, he should be averse from pronouncing a condemnation of that nature upon a gentleman against whom no falsehood had been proved. There seemed to be a general disposition to acquit Mr. Eyre Lee of the intended and wilful falsehood; and, therefore, he (Sir R. Peel) should acquiesce in the qualified censure, as not imputing guilty knowledge.
Colonel Davies
thought Mr. Eyre Lee ought to be severely reprimanded. He had connected himself with a person of notoriously bad character.
Mr. John Wood
said, a noble Lord, high in office, was in correspondence with that very individual who had been described of notoriously bad character to whom the last speaker alluded, and received from him several presents and wrote him friendly letters, three of which he (Mr. W.) then had in his possession; so that Mr. Eyre Lee was not the only person deceived in the character of Mr. Moses Levi. There were in this matter three degrees of guilt: first, the concoctors of the scheme; second, those by whom it was adopted when abandoned by its authors; third, but at a great distance, came Mr. Eyre Lee, who was imposed on by the other parties. It was originally not a bubble company—that was evident; and Mr. Eyre Lee, instead of a severe reprimand, might, he thought, be dismissed with an admonition, for others were more guilty than he was.
918
After considerable conversation, embracing a variety of verbal amendments, the following Resolutions were agreed to:—
"That it appears by the Minutes of Evidence before the Committee to which this subject was referred, that the subscription-list was a false and fictitious list.
"That Thomas Eyre Lee, though warned as to the suspicious character of the said list, did nevertheless, as agent to the Bill, attest its truth, without due inquiry into the circumstances to which his attention had been specially directed.
"That the said Thomas Eyre Lee, for the said offence, be called to the bar of this House, and reprimanded by Mr. Speaker."
[Mr. Thomas Eyre Lee was accordingly called to the bar, and having been reprimanded by the Speaker, was discharged.]
HOUSE OF LORDS,
Friday, May 21, 1830.
MINUTES.] Petitions presented. Against the imposition of any additional Duty on Corn Spirits, by the Earl of HARDWICKE, from the County of Wigton:—By the Earl of CLARE, from the County of Limerick; and also from the Mayor and Citizens of the Town of Limerick:—And by the Duke of DEVONSHIRE, from the Mayor and Citizens of Waterford. By Earl GROSVENOR, from the High Sheriff and Grand Jury of the County of Flint, against the Welch Judicature Bill; and from Liverpool, against the present mode of levying Assessed Taxes. For the Abolition of Slavery, by the Earl of WILTON, from the Protestant Dissenters of Heckmondwicke in Yorkshire.—By Lord HOLLAND, from the Protestant Dissenters of Stroud, Charlton, Great Driffield, Kirbymoorside, Thirsk, and Wakefield:—And by Lord WHARNCLIFFE, from the Protestant Dissenters of Leeds. For a repeal of the Stamp Duties on Newspapers, by Lord HOLLAND, from the Literary and Scientific Institution of the City of London; and from the Journeymen Letter-press Printers of Liverpool. By the Marquis of SALISBURY, from Hoddesdon, for the Abolition of Death as the Punishment of Forgery. By the Karl of BROWNLOW, from the Publicans of Old and New Sleaford, against the Beer Bill.
CONSCIENTIOUS SCRUPLES OF THE MILITARY.]
The Earl of Winchilsea
said, that in presenting a Petition from the Loyal Free Barons of the Town and Port of Dover, complaining of the cruel situation in which Protestant Officers and Soldiers were placed in being compelled upon foreign stations to join in the superstitious rites of the Greek and Roman Catholic Church, he would take the opportunity of asking the noble Duke opposite, whether it was the intention of Government to issue an order giving the relief sought for by the petitioners.
The Duke of Wellington
.—Until the petition is read, I cannot tell what that relief is.
919
On the Petition being read,
The Duke of Wellington
observed, that he certainly could not say that Government had given any order to put an end to the military practices complained of in the Petition. There were many statements in the Petition which he knew to be untrue, more particularly that which declared that Pagans and others did not attend on the ceremonies of the Protestant Church of England. That attendance he had himself witnessed.
The Earl of Winchilsea
did not mean to conceal from the House, that this petition was founded upon circumstances which had come out upon a recent court-martial. He would not enter, at present, into the merits of that court-martial, nor would he say one word upon its judgment. He had, however, a sincere hope that Protestants would be placed forthwith upon an equality with their Catholic fellow-subjects who were not compelled to participate in, nor be present at, any ceremonies of the Church of England, which were repugnant to their feelings. Attendance at ceremonies of the Greek or Roman Catholic Church must necessarily be repugnant to the feelings of any man who conscientiously professed the Protestant religion. He hoped that some measure would be speedily adopted to relieve the scruples of tender consciences.
SUITS IN EQUITY BILL.]
The Lord Chancellor
The Earl of Eldon
said, that though this Bill had been already read a second time, and had gone through a committee, he had not been able to attend on either of those occasions; but he must add, that his absence was entirely his own fault, and not at all attributable to the noble and learned Lord who had introduced the Bill, who had given him due notice of the several stages of its progress. His opinions with regard to it might be brought into a narrow compass, but he should not at present enter upon a detail of them, as he trusted that the third reading of the Bill would be postponed for some days longer. He thought the Lord Chancellor had judged very rightly in not pressing at an earlier period the third reading of this Bill. He was of opinion, that their Lordships should not decide finally upon this Bill without first knowing what would be done with a great many other bills which
920
The Lord Chancellor
said, he had taken care to have the usual notices sent to the noble and learned Lord of the second reading of this Bill, and of the committal of it. The noble and learned Lord's absence he understood had been accidental, and the noble Lord only did him justice in stating that it was not attributable to any fault of his. He should feel extremely happy indeed in communicating with the noble and learned Lord on the subject, as he was of opinion that there; was not an individual in the country who was more capable of giving sound and wholesome advice with regard to every thing connected with the administration of justice, both in the Court of Chancery and in that House, than the noble and learned Lord. As the noble Lord had stated that he would communicate with him in private on the subject, he should
921
Order of the Day discharged, and the third reading of the Bill fixed for Tuesday next.
Their Lordships proceeded with the examination of witnesses in the East Retford case.
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Friday, May 21, 1830.
MINUTES.] Mr. W. HORTON brought in a Bill to direct certain Returns to be made to Parliament from Parishes in England and Wales, and to enable Parishes to raise Money for certain purposes therein set forth upon terminable annuities charged in their Poor-rates. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER brought in a Bill to Repeal so much of the GO Geo. III. as related to the Sentence of Banishment for the second offence of Libel, and to provide other remedies against the punishment of Libel.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. R. GORDON, Fees received by Persons holding Offices in the Court of Exchequer in 1829, except those filling judicial offices, the Names of the Parties, and the aggregate amount of the Fees:—The nine items of charge for Printing for the Chief Secretary of Ireland, at Dublin Castle, from the 5th of January, 1829, to the 5th of January, 1830:—The Sums necessary to pay the Expense of the Record Commission, Ireland:—On the Motion of Mr. HUME, the Names and Emoluments of the Individuals holding Situations in the Court of Chancery.
Petitions presented. Against giving Poor-Laws to Ireland, by General ARCHDALL, from the Landowners of Fermanagh:—By Mr. SANDERSON, from the Landowners of Cavan. Against the assimilation of Stamp Duties (Ireland), by General ARCHDALL, from the Proprietor of the "Fermanagh Reporter":—By Lord KILLEEN, from the Benevolent Society of Kilkenny. Against the Irish Constabulary Bill, by Sir II. PARNELL, from the Magistrates of Queen's County. By Sir J. WROTTESLEY, from Staffordshire, against Slavery. By Mr. HUSKISSON, from Liverpool, against the House and Window Tax. By the Marquis of CHANDOS, from Buckinghamshire, against the Irish Paupers' Removal Bill. By Mr. CURTEIS, from Wadhurst, Sussex, against the Malt-Tax. By Mr. BELL, from Alnwick, against the Duty on Tobacco. By Lord G. BENTINCK, from Cambridgeshire, against the Beer Bill. By Mr. Alderman THOMPSON, from the Soap Manufacturers of London, against the Excise Duty on Soap. By Sir J. GRAHAM, from certain Magistrates of Cumberland, complaining of the Expense attending the Removal
922
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY—FOUR-AND-A-HALF PER CENT DUTIES.]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
Mr. Hume
said, that before the Speaker left the chair, he wished to call the attention of the House to a subject which he felt was of very great importance to the revenue of the country. It appeared to him, that 30,000
l.
923
s.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
924
l.
l.
l.
925
l.
l.
l.
s.
s.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
926
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he had no doubt that he should be able to offer a satisfactory explanation on the subject touched on in the hon. Member's speech. Indeed, he thought he might (if he felt so disposed) claim credit for presenting returns of the 4½-per-cent duties, increased considerably in point of amount. It was wrong in the hon. Member to say that the amount was concealed till it came out incidentally upon his motion for papers. The fact was, that accounts were annually laid upon the Table, in which the 4½-per-cent duties formed one of the items, and in those accounts the augmentation had appeared. The hon. Gentleman inquired the reason for deviating from the practice adopted for a great number of years, and argued as if Ministers had robbed the revenue of the country to enrich the revenue of the Crown. He argued as if the management and direction of the 4½-per-cent duties had not undergone a considerable alteration of late years; as if the Crown had not, in point of fact, abandoned its claim to them, and placed them under the control of Parliament. By the Act of the 6th of his present Majesty, it was directed that the salaries of the Bishops and clergy in the West-India islands, should in future be paid out of the 4½-per-cent duties, which were thus devoted to the payment of our colonial governors, bishops and clergy. The sum paid to the bishops and clergy amounted to 25,000
l.
927
Mr. Baring
said, if the opinion of the legal advisers of the Crown in this case were consonant with law, it was law of such a tendency, and which might be attended with such consequences in a constitutional point of view, as to render it well deserving of the serious consideration of Parliament. The position of the right hon. Gentleman appeared to be this,—that there were sugars belonging to the Crown which were brought to this country from the West-India islands, and which being the property of the Crown, were not liable according to the opinion of the law-officers of the day to pay duty. It was singular enough that nearly two centuries should have passed (during which duty was paid upon these sugars) without this notable discovery of the exemption of Crown sugars from duty having been made. Would his hon. and learned friend (the Attorney General) tell him that the Crown might import into this country merchandise free of duty for sale? Yet this was what the right hon. Gentleman's position amounted to. The principle was the same as in the present case: these sugars were admitted without payment of duty, because they were the property of the Crown. But the Crown might have purchased the sugars; that would not alter the transaction. Was the law to be laid down that the Crown could import any article as merchandise for sale in this country? He had always understood that the exemption of the Crown from the payment of taxes was for the maintenance of the royal dignity. The tax-gatherer was excluded from the palace of the Sovereign, because his entrance would be considered derogatory to the dignity of the Crown. A similar exemption was extended to the ambassadors and ministers of foreign Sovereigns, probably for nearly the same reason. It was true the King might import French wines for his own consumption, free of duty:
928
The Attorney General
said, there could be no moral or legal doubt that the sugars in question were exempt from duty, as being the property of the Crown. The non-payment of duties by the Crown was amongst the oldest of our law maxims. If hon. Gentlemen would only look into any one act for the imposition of taxes, they would there see that that maxim was uniformly recognised and acted on. Taxes were granted by the Commons to the Crown—they could only be granted off the property of the people—not off the property of the Crown itself. With respect to the Motion of the hon. member for Aberdeen, for the production of the opinions of the law-officers of the day upon the point, he did not see the use of it. Without denying the power of the House of Commons to call for any documents whatever,—for he could suppose a a case in which it might call for a minute of the proceedings of a Cabinet Council,—he must say, it would be rather hard upon the Attorney and Solicitor-general to have their opinions, which were given in confidence to the Government, reviewed and debated in Parliament. In this particular case it could be of no importance to have the opinions of the law-officers of the Crown, and he hoped that a precedent for the production and discussion in the House of Commons of such opinions, might not be established, by agreeing to the present Motion. He could easily conceive a case in which an Attorney-general might not like to have his opinions discussed in Parliament, though this was not such a case. Whatever the hon. Member meant to do, he could accomplish as well upon the information already before him, without calling for these documents. He
929
Mr. Baring
asked the Attorney General, whether the law went to such an extent, that the Crown could import merchandise for sale free of duty?
The Attorney General
said, it might be difficult to answer the question in the abstract. The hon. Member must put a case. It was undoubtedly true that, in the time of the Henrys, when our monarchs had possessions and revenues abroad, wines were imported by the Crown free of duty, which might have been, and probably were, imported for sale.
Mr. Bernal
observed, that the doctrine was strange in practice if not in law, that the Crown might import commodities for sale. It might, then, become a great trader, and ruin all the merchants in the kingdom.
Mr. Bright
said, he could not but imagine that there was some ulterior view in the alteration made by Ministers. Whether it were to get a larger sum out of the 4½-per-cent fund—a fund which was burthened with debt—whether there were pensions of which Parliament knew nothing charged upon it,—he could not tell, but he confessed the change did appear to him very suspicious. What induced the Chancellor of the Exchequer to take the opinion of the law-officers of the Crown on the subject—what was the right hon. Gentleman's object in mooting an ancient point of law, which had lain hid for a space of 170 years? Certain charges were to be paid out of the proceeds of the 4½-per-cents; but salaries falling in, and the fund being augmented by exempting the sugars from duty, the amount would become so large as to exceed the demands upon it for the support of the church in the West Indies. What became of the surplus? In it Ministers had discovered a fund out of which they might grant new pensions and allowances
ad infinitum.
930
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
Nullum Tempus
931
Sir C. Wetherell
said, that if Government should consent to the production of the opinions of the law-officers of the Crown in this case, he should state his conviction as a lawyer, that no Attorney or Solicitor General ought ever again to give an opinion in writing, upon any case submitted to them by the Crown. [An hon. Member asked, Why?] He would tell the hon. Member why. It had been laid down by the highest authority, that no Minister had a right to produce the opinion of the law-officers of the Crown, for the purpose of its being reviewed and discussed in that House; that that House had the right to see those opinions, he took the liberty to deny; for himself, he would not have accepted office on the servile and submissive condition of having every one of his opinions laid upon the Table of that House. The independent ground upon which office could be accepted was, an adherence to the present practice. He utterly dissented from the proposition that the House of Commons had a right to see the private and confidential advice of the law-officers of the Crown. With respect to the question of the liability of Crown property to taxation, there was no lawyer who would not at once admit that it was altogether exempt from taxation, and that these sugars might come in free of duty. If the Crown had a specific right in any thing, only an express Act of Parliament could subject it to taxation. This was the opinion which he had expressed, and he should never shrink from it. If he objected to the production of the written document, it was rather from a feeling for the hon. member for Aberdeen than for himself that he objected; because he should put the hon. Gentleman in the wrong by producing it. Of all clear propositions this was the clearest,—that the Crown was not liable to pay taxes. But if there was to be a prospective alteration of
932
Sir R. Peel
concurred with the hon. and learned Gentleman, that it was not expedient in the present case for the House to call for the opinion which the learned Gentleman, when Attorney General, had delivered upon this subject. However, he did not agree with the learned Gentleman in thinking, that in no case should Parliament call for the production of opinions given by law-officers of the Crown. If there were a suspicion that they had acted under undue influence, or an imputation against them of straining a point in favour of the Crown, the law-officers would be justly liable to have their opinions called for, and their official acts investigated. But probably the learned Gentleman did not speak of such cases as these, but rather of the general rule of Parliament in ordinary cases; and in the expediency of that general rule, which was, not to demand the opinions of the Crown lawyers, he (Sir R. Peel) fully concurred. Nothing could be more convenient for Government, than to lay the opinions of its legal advisers before Parliament, and shelter itself under their sanction and authority; but such a proceeding might be fairly objected to by hon. Members opposite, on the ground that it involved an attempt to overbear the exercise of the free judgment and opinion of the House. Would the House allow the opinions of the Attorney and Solicitor General to guide it? Certainly not. He knew that in the case of a discussion on the Alien Act, a legal opinion of one of the Crown lawyers was inadvertently produced by a member of the Government, in order to show that we possessed the power of banishing aliens; and the production of this opinion being objected to, it was admitted that it was wrong to quote it, under the idea of controlling the House. It was fit that the Government should be the party to be held responsible, and that it should not be permitted to hold up the opinions of its law-officers, as a sanction to acts for which it was itself accountable.
933
Sir J. Newport
thought, that there did exist that degree of peculiarity in the present case, which had been mentioned by the right hon. Baronet as justifying the production of the opinions of the law officers of the Crown. The peculiarity consisted in the circumstance of Ministers calling for the opinion of their legal advisers, and departing from a custom in which the Crown had acquiesced for a period of 170 years. When the hon. and learned Member told them that he should think it a degradation to give, as Attorney General, an opinion which was to be subjected to the inspection of that House, the hon. and learned Member showed that he was totally unfit to hold the situation which he had formerly filled. And so much for that—[
"Hear," from Sir C. Wetherell.
Sir C. Wetherell
, in explanation, called on the House to bear witness that he had never said that the law-officers ought not to be responsible to that House. The servility of which he had spoken was servility to the Minister, not to the Parliament. All he had said was, that if there had been any thing wrong, the Government ought not to cast the blame on the law-officers.
The Solicitor General
said, that he had understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to have spoken exactly as he had stated he had. The hon. Baronet therefore must, he thought, have misunderstood
934
Lord Althorp
must confess, that he had understood the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir C. Wetherell) very differently, He had understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say, that he should consider it a degradation, if an opinion of his, given as Attorney General, were canvassed in that House. With respect to the production of such opinions, he agreed that it might be sometimes attended with inconvenience, and that a special case ought to be made out to warrant the House in calling for the opinions of the law-officers. That the House under such circumstances had a right to call for the opinions of the law-officers, he took to be perfectly clear; and he thought it a monstrous doctrine to say that the law-officers were not responsible to that House. In the present case he had heard no valid objection, and he could conceive none, against the production of the opinions; and he should therefore vote for the Amendment, especially after the doctrines that had been laid down that evening.
Sir C. Wetherell
regretted that he should have been misunderstood by so accurate a person as the noble Lord, and was sorry to be called upon to explain a second time. The hon. and learned Gentleman then repeated his former explanation.
Lord Althorp
said, he had not doubted, after the explanation before given by the hon. and learned Gentleman, that he had misunderstood what had fallen from that Gentleman in the course of his speech. He had only stated the fact that he had misunderstood him, because the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think it strange that the hon. Baronet had misunderstood him.
Mr. R. Gordon
wished, after the four or five explanations that had been given, to be allowed to say a few words upon the question. He agreed with his noble friend, that the present was one of those special cases in which it was admitted that the opinions of the law-officers of the Crown might be called-for,—opinions on which was founded the departure from a
935
l.
l.
l.
l.
936
l.
l.
l.
Sir R. Peel
was sure the House would do him the justice to recollect, that he had not said that the law-officers or their opinions were beyond the reach and control of that House. As for instance, where there was imputation either upon the Government or upon the law-officers, the House would doubtless be justified in calling for those opinions. All that he contended for was, that grounds must be shown for the production of such documents. He could not conceive what ground there was in the present case, where the law it was admitted was consistent with the opinions given by the law-officers. He thought the hon. Member who had just sat down had shown the weakness of his cause by saying, "It is the case I want; not the opinion."
Mr. O'Connell
said, that in this instance a usage of sixty years standing had been departed from. If such a
937
"No, no," from Sir C. Wetherell, and a cry of "Order."
Mr. Maberly
apprehended that this diversion of money had been made in consequence of the funds for the payment of the pensions having diminished. He thought the opinion ought to be produced.
A division took place, when the numbers were:—
For the Amendment 32; Against it 78; Majority against the Amendment 46.
List of the Minority.
Althorp, Lord
Monck, J. B.
Attwood, M.
Milton, Lord
Bentinck, Lord G.
Newport, Sir J.
Baring, Sir T.
O'Connell, D.
Bright, H.
Poyntz, W. S.
Brownlow, C.
Rice, T. S.
Cavendish, W.
Rickford, W.
Crompton, S.
Waithman, Ald.
Calvert, C.
Warburton, W.
Calvert, N.
Western, C. C.
Davenport, E.
Whitmore, W. W.
Davies, Colonel
Wood, M
Dawson, A.
TELLERS.
Easthope, J.
Bernal, R.
Fazakerley, J. N.
Hume, J. PAIRED OFF.
Graham, Sir J.
Gordon, R.
Carter, H.
Guest, J.
Denison, J. W.
Heathcote, J. E.
Wood, J.
Jephson, C. D. O.
The question was again put, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply.
Mr. Hume
objected to the Motion. He said, that the Ministers had, by this measure which they had adopted upon the opinions of the law-officers, transferred 30,000
l.
938
l.
The Speaker
said, that the forms of the House would not allow the hon. Member to take that course.
Mr. Hume
said, that, in that case, he would meet the question before the House by a direct negative, and that he would renew his opposition on every vote of supply being proposed throughout the Session. Yes, he would: he would not listen, as he had listened before, to such language as this,—"You are impeding the public business without answering any good end." He thought the proceedings of Ministers, in refusing to produce the opinions of the law-officers, had been most unconstitutional. The Ministers by this refusal had treated both the House and the country with disrespect, and no further supplies should be granted with his consent. He would not divide the House on the question, as it had already expressed its opinion; but, for the present, he would content himself with giving the Motion for going into the committee a negative.
The House then went into a Committee of Supply.
MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES—MILBANK PENITENTIARY.]
Mr. G. Dawson
l.
Mr. Hume
said, that he had on a former occasion objected to this vote, and it having then been postponed on account of the absence of the Secretary of State, he would now state his reasons for objecting to it. The establishment was at first only an experiment, and was warmly opposed in 1811, when it was first erected. It was then held that England ought to try an experiment which was said to have been eminently successful in the United States, and he had then given a conscientious support to the plan. The expense of the establishment, however, had been far greater than the estimate. In the first place, it had never contained much above one-half of the persons whom it was calculated to accommodate. It was
939
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
940
l.
941
Sir R. Peel
rejoiced in the opportunity afforded him by the hon. Member, of entering into some explanations on this subject. He confessed he felt as deeply as the hon. Member, the importance of the subject, not more from the circumstances connected with it to which he had adverted, than from others to which he had not directed his attention. The whole question was so connected with that other most important question—the infliction of secondary punishments—that he really thought it worthy of the strictest investigation; and that investigation he courted, not to relieve himself from any responsibility, but in order that the best information might be
942
l.
943
Mr. Maberly said, "give it to them; make them a present of it.
944
l.,
l.;
l.
945
l.
l.
946
Colonel Davies
, having commenced by saying that the right hon. Gentleman had changed his opinions on this subject, because he had formerly rejected all inquiry into the general management of County Penitentiaries—
Sir R. Peel
denied, that he had expressed any opinion with respect to them now, and observed that any meddling with the management of county jails by the local magistracy, after the counties had been persuaded to expend 20,000
l.,
l.
Colonel Davies
, in continuation, said, that the right hon. Gentleman had totally misunderstood him. His object was, to have an inquiry into our system of secondary punishments, which it was admitted wanted improvement. Every day, complaints were made of the rapid increase of crime, which was to be attributed to our secondary punishments, as they were called, holding out inducements to its commission. The state of our prison-discipline was such, that a man of the labouring class who committed an offence, and was confined for it, had better food, better clothing, and less work to perform, than whilst he was at large, and he was free from the taint of crime. He should like to have it ascertained how far the existing prisons might be made subservient to a better system. He was the last man who would wish to, put the country to expense, his feeble efforts had always been pointed to its diminution; but he wished for an inquiry, to see whether a more rigid discipline could not be enforced, and prisons made what they ought to be, places of punishment, instead of places of refuge and recreation. The work of captain, Basil Hall
947
s.
948
Sir George Murray
observed, that the hon. member for Aberdeen had spoken of the system adopted in New South Wales, as one of favouritism, but he could assure him that it was not so. If the Committee considered the nature of the population of that colony, it would be sensible how likely it was, that there should at all times be complaints made against persons in authority there; and those who fancied that they had complaints to make, were encouraged to prefer them by the readiness of the hon. member for Aberdeen to bring them forward in that House. He did not complain of that readiness, on the contrary, he was glad that there should be, at all times Gentlemen in the House willing to bring forward any grievances, as the best way of making them known, and getting a remedy applied: but the hon. Gentleman ought not to bring forward sweeping accusations without proof against the Government of that or any other colony. As to the convicts being distributed on a principle of favouritism, the fact mentioned by the hon. Member who had just sat down, of the great anxiety of parties to obtain them, might account for the accusation. It was impossible that all could be satisfied; it was natural that those who were disappointed should complain, but as it was absolutely necessary that a certain control
949
Mr. Maberly
said, that the 500,000
l.
l.
l.
950
l.
l.
l.
Sir R. Peel
said, there was no analogy between the situation of a Colonel in the army and the Governor of a prison; he had experienced great difficulty in getting a gentleman of the attainments and character he deemed necessary, to fill the situation.
Mr. Wilmot Horton
said, the subject of secondary punishment was one of considerable importance, and deserved the best attention of the House.
Mr. Ross
observed, that great reductions had been already made, and more were in contemplation. The estimate for this year was 600
.
Mr. Hume
objected to the salary of 400
l.
Sir T. Freemantle
remarked, that many persons had been restored to society by means of the Penitentiary.
Sir T. Baring
said, the charge for
951
Vote agreed to.
The House resumed. The Report to be taken into consideration on Monday next.
SALE OF BEER BILL.]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
Mr. Monck
said, that the principle of the Licensing system was not what some Gentlemen supposed, a new law, but was a part of the old Common Law of the country. It was laid down by all the writers on the Criminal Law, that indictments might be maintained against public-houses as public nuisances, not only because they were disorderly, but whenever they were inconveniently multiplied, or when they were opened in an inconvenient situation. The principle of the licensing system was preventive instead of corrective—it was, in fact, a system of previous inquiry, rather than of subsequent punishment. The evils which an unregulated system would introduce, had not been dreaded in vain. All the Statutes passed up to this time had proceeded on the principle of the Common Law. The 2nd of George II., especially stated, that many in- conveniences had arisen from the number of common public-houses; and in making that declaration it only adopted the words of the Common Law. The principle of the Common Law was openly contradicted by this Bill, for the Common Law said that public-houses might be inconveniently multiplied: but this Bill went on the presumption that there could not be too many. The Common Law said, that houses of this sort ought not to be erected in low, retired, and improper situations; but this Bill said, in effect, that no situation was improper, if the man dealing in the article paid two guineas a year to the Excise. What, he wished to know, would be the operation of this Bill with respect to Mr. Estcourt's law? That law had been well considered, and he did not think that its provisions ought to be lightly set aside. Let them suppose a person who had conducted his house in the most disorderly manner, when he came before
952
953
Sir T. Gooch
said, he had been one of the first to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the reduction of the Beer-duty, because he had thought it one of the best proofs of the intention of the Ministry to have recourse to practical economy; but if all men were now to be allowed to sell Beer, and it might be consumed on their premises, England, from one end to the other would be one great ale-house. He wanted perfect freedom in the sale of Beer; but let the Magistrates have some control over it [
laughter
Mr. Slaney
could not consent to consider this question by itself. It was in fact connected intimately with many others, and it must be viewed with reference to them. It was a curious fact, that while the consumption of every other necessary of life had increased in this country, the consumption of Malt, which was a neces-
954
955
Mr. Barclay
contended, that the various reductions in the duty on Malt had not been followed by a corresponding augmentation of the revenue; and he denied also that the brewers had been benefitted by the change. In reference to what had fallen from the hon. member for Shrewsbury, he insisted that there had been at no time a combination between the London brewers and the distillers, adding, that he had himself always been an advocate for a free trade in Beer. He had been one of the first to point out the injuriousness of the licensing system, both to the public and to the publicans; and in his evidence before a committee of the House, twelve years since, he had asserted, that it would be an increasing evil. That prediction had been fulfilled according to the confession of all sides; and he now asserted, without fear of contradiction, that as far as the interests of the London brewers were concerned, the freer the trade in Beer was rendered, the better for them. With their great capitals, and the means of applying them, they need fear no competition. The country brewers were, however, differently circumstanced, and to
956
Mr. Western
was decidedly hostile to the Amendment, and supported the Bill, because it would destroy the arbitrary and injurious power now enjoyed and exercised by Magistrates under the licensing system. Clauses might be introduced, establishing useful regulations, but he did not see what claim publicans could have to compensation, when at any he they might be deprived of their licenses by the will and pleasure of the Quarter Sessions. Even if they were to be injured, private interests must be sacrificed to a great public advantage. He was satisfied that when the Bill came out of the Committee with the clauses intended to be introduced, many who now objected to it would give it their most hearty support.
Sir E. Knatchbull
called upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in fairness, and for the convenience of proceeding, to state his views, and to open the amendments he proposed to insert.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that he was at all times extremely ready to attend to the wishes of any hon. Member, relative to any measures of his own or of others, upon public business, and that he must of course be anxious to explain, in the fullest manner, any bill which it was his duty to submit to the consideration of Parliament; and if he had not done so on the present occasion, it was because he felt the proposed amendment to be so directly at variance with the principle of the Bill of his right hon. friend, that he thought it proper to ascertain what was the sense of the House upon such a proposition, before he proceeded to discuss the other details of the measure, which were comparatively unimportant.
957
958
959
960
Mr. Estcourt
was a friend to a free trade in Beer, but then that trade must be
bona fide
Mr. Cripps
wished the poor man to be enabled to buy his Beer wherever he chose, which it was the object of this Bill to effect, but he knew that there were reasonable apprehensions entertained in many parts of the country, that the measure would increase the number of public-houses unnecessarily. That the poor man should
961
Mr. Maberly
thought that the publicans had a right to have their case fully heard. He assented to the principle according to which the clause in the Bill was drawn up, but he had two objections to the Bill. He did not think it contained police regulations of sufficient force; and it gave no time to persons who had embarked immense capitals in the Beer-trade to retire safely from it. He had always deprecated the licensing system, but after the House had sanctioned its continuance for so long a time, and thereby induced individuals to embark property in the Beer-trade, he did not think that the House would be acting right in agreeing to any measure which would bring those individuals to ruin. At least they ought to be allowed time, and he thought five years not too much to withdraw from the trade. He felt himself therefore bound, though favourable to the principle of free trade, to vote for the Amendment.
Mr. R. Colborne
was of opinion, that if all the duty on Beer was to be repealed, a perfectly free trade in that article ought to follow, which, though at first it might create great fluctuations, would ultimately settle itself, like all other trades. He should therefore support the Bill as it was now brought forward. He wished the measure to have a fair trial, and next Session, if it were found to require some modifications they might be made. Instead of seeing the whole duty taken off Beer, he confessed he should have preferred if only 5
s.
s.
Mr. F. Buxton
, while admitting that the fears entertained of this measure, as far as the brewers were concerned, had been greatly exaggerated, contended that the loss to the publicans would be as great, if not greater, than was anticipated. There had only been one or two instances of petitions
962
l.
l.
s.
Mr. Huskisson
, who rose amidst loud cries of "Question," promised that he would not trespass more than five minutes on the patience of the House. He reminded the Committee, that when the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, informed the House, that the whole of the Beer-duty, amounting to 3,000,000
l.,
963
Mr. Brougham
did not think he should trouble the House so long as five minutes; but he could assure the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Huskisson), that he had never known a promise, such as he had, made so accurately kept before. He was perfectly ready to admit that the bill respecting Beer introduced about six years ago, contained a clause expressly prohibiting the consumption of Beer on the premises where it was sold; but the ground on which he allowed the introduction of that clause was, because he had not the slighest chance of carrying any part of the measure, unless he had consented that that clause should form a portion of it. He, however, protested against it, considering that it created a great defect in the measure, and he had not altered his opinion on the subject.
Lord Milton
thought, the House should not come to any conclusion on the proposition of the hon. member for Reading, until more information was afforded as to the mode in which the scheme of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer was to be carried into effect.
Mr. Monck
said, that the clause he proposed seemed to him to leave the trade sufficiently open; and he did not think that the objections of the right hon. Gentleman were as weighty as had been contended.
Sir E. Knatchbull
hoped the hon. member for Reading would postpone his Amendment until the Bill was presented to the House in a more complete form. In all large towns, the result of the measure might have been correctly stated by its advocates; but in country districts he was sure it would lead to the opening of public-houses, not for the purpose of selling Beer, but for the sale of spirits, and those too not brought legitimately into this country. Before two years should pass over, the right hon. Gentleman would come down to the House with a proposition to amend his Bill. For these reasons, and in consideration of the immense property embarked in the Beer-trade, he should support the Amendment.
Mr. Monck
said, he saw no advantage
964
Lord Milton
contended, that it was the duty of the Ministers before they proceeded further, to state fully the whole of their intentions.
A division took place—for the Amendment 142; Against it 180—Majority against Mr. Monck's Clause 38.
The Commitee then proceeded to take the other clauses of the Bill into consideration.
Mr. Bright
said, that he could not refrain from stating his opinion. He looked on this as only a half measure, which, instead of making the trade free would merely extend the licensing system. There was a part of it which levied fines for the use of drugs in making Beer, and for using any other materials than malt and hops, and he did not see how these clauses could be carried into effect, without continuing all the excise regulations and restrictions. He contended, as the duty was taken off, that there would be no temptation to use deleterious ingredients, particularly if the duty on malt were also taken off, and therefore, he objected to continuing such sestrictions which would be very injurious, and would henceforth have no good effect whatever. Indeed if they were acted on, they would henceforth be doubly vexatious. Many shopkeepers and little retail dealers would sell Beer under the new Bill, and it would require a great additional number of excise men to look after them, though no number, however great, would be sufficient to prevent them from adulterating Beer if they thought proper to do so. He must object to this, then, as a species of impracticable law-making. Competition was the principle of the Act, and to that, not to these restrictions, ought the House to look to give efficacy to its provisions.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
explained that the hon. Member would find all the Excise-laws, as far as they related to the sale of Beer, repealed in the Bill for abolishing the Beer duties. At the same time he contended that restricting the brewers to the use of malt and hops in making Beer, was necessary for the sake of the Beer-drinker. The restriction on the manufacture so far he supported. He also thought that unless the prohibition against adulteration were preserved, the people would be supplied with a worse liquor than ever.
Mr. Benett
supported the clause. If a
965
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
explained, that the sale of Cider was to be put on the same footing as Beer.
Sir Thomas Acland
declared, that it would be impossible to place Cider-cellars under the same regulation as Beerhouses.
Mr. Hume
trusted, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would reconsider this opinion, and leave those who dealt in Cider as they were.
Bill, with Amendments, reported to the House.
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Saturday, May 22, 1830.
SIR JONAH BARRINGTON.]
The Order of the Day for the further consideration of the report of the Committee appointed to take into Consideration the Conduct of Sir Jonah Barrington, having been read,
Counsel for Sir J. Barrington, were ordered to be called in.
Mr. Denman
appeared at the bar, and addressed the House for Sir J. Barrington. He observed, that he was instructed not to enter upon the merits of the case, but to confine himself solely to the course of proceeding which had been adopted. It had now, he said, become a constitutional principle that no Judge should be removed from his situation unless a clear charge of malversation could be made out against him. Then, supposing the suspicion of malversation to exist, the question was, what course of proceeding was to be adopted in order to ascertain the fact. He believed that the course which had been pursued with respect to Sir J. Barrington was quite unprecedented. The misconduct of Judges had frequently come under the consideration of Parliament. Two Select Committees of the House of Commons had each made a report condemnatory of the conduct of the present Chief Baron of Ireland for increasing his Fees; but the House refused to interfere, on the ground that it was not bound by the decision of a Select Committee. He understood, that on the present occasion, the Select Committee had pursued the investigation in
966
scire facias
Counsel withdrew.
Lord F. L. Gower
observed, that he could not agree in the view taken by the learned gentleman. There was a great difference between the case of the Irish Chief Baron and the one under consideration; for in the former there were strong doubts entertained as to the degree of criminality, whilst in the present case there were none. He could not agree with the learned Counsel, that it was necessary to have
967
Sir R. Wilson
said, that when any inquiry, whether of a civil or criminal nature, took place in our courts of law, the defendant had the advantage of examining and cross-examining witnesses. He hoped that the same course would be pursued in this case, and that the House would not exercise its power, and call for the dismissal of the learned Judge without first hearing his witnesses.
The Solicitor General
said, that having carefully examined the evidence, he was certain that he came to a safe conclusion when he averred, that a case was never more directly or distinctly made out against
968
Sir R. Wilson
.—He wished to brave it.
The Solicitor General
said, those who had felt it to be their duty to investigate this business were not to be guided by what the learned Judge wished, but by their own view of what was most proper to be done. The question was, whether the present was or was not the most proper course of proceeding that could be adopted? In a case susceptible of doubt, he should be inclined to proceed differently; but there was no doubt here. The investigation, both by the Commissioners of Inquiry and by the Committee, clearly proved the truth of the charges. And why was a prosecution now demanded? Precisely for the same reason which had induced the learned Judge heretofore to throw every obstacle in the way of a speedy decision. The learned Judge was anxious for delay; but he hoped the House would feel that sufficient indulgence had already been extended towards him.
969
Sir C. Wetherell
could not accede to the doctrine that the House ought to send this case before a Jury. If it did so, it would be a virtual surrender of the great privilege which the Constitution had conferred on the Commons of England. There was, however, another question, on which he entertained considerable doubt, namely, whether the proceedings before the committee were of such a nature as ought to be acted on judicially by the House. He felt so much doubt on that point, that he was induced to wish that the noble Lord's resolution should not be pressed at the present moment. It should be observed, that in cases of equal and of superior importance which had been brought under the cognizance of the House, the uniform practice had been to examine witnesses at the bar. This was the course which had been taken in the case of the Duke of York, and in many other instances. Indeed, it was quite unusual to take a condemnatory step against a public officer, without first hearing evidence at the bar. A proceeding of that kind did not imply a disbelief, on the part of the House, of the evidence given before a committee, or a doubt as to the propriety of its report; it was merely the carrying into effect a great constitutional principle.
Mr. Harrison Batley
said, the evidence, as it stood, was conclusive, as to the delinquency of the learned Judge; but if evidence were called, and subjected to cross-examination, a very different case might be elicited. He was therefore in favour of hearing witnesses.
Mr. C. W. Wynn
said, that there were both advantages and disadvantages connected with the examination of witnesses at the bar. Cross-examination, he admitted, was a very considerable advantage; but there was this great disadvantage, that many Gentlemen left the House after having heard the first part of the evidence, and others came in, who were thus only in possession of the latter part. In such cases, very few Members were acquainted with the whole of the evidence when they were called on for their decision. Besides, a spirit of party was often observable in an examination before a committee of the whole House, which tended to pervert the course of justice. He had, on some such occasions, seen men whose conduct was generally impartial, led, by the feeling of party spirit, into acrimonious dissensions, which diverted their minds from the real bearings
970
971
Mr. D. W. Harvey
said, that in the able address delivered by Counsel at the bar, it was maintained, that Parliament had not the power to proceed by address to the Crown for the removal of Sir J. Barrington. Now, without going into the merits of this argument, considered in a constitutional point of view, he must dissent from it as inapplicable to the present case, inasmuch as it was at variance with the prayer of the petitioner, which was to be heard at the Bar, in order to disprove the charge; Sir J. Barrington thus recognizing the authority to investigate it,—an authority that would be altogether nugatory, if the House could not afterwards proceed to address the Crown for his removal. The hon. Member proceeded to quote, from the fourth report of the Commissioners of Inquiry into the state of the Temporal and Ecclesiastical Courts in Ireland, a part of the remarks applicable to the Admiralty Court. In reference to the emoluments of Mr. Pineau, the registrar of that court, the commissioners stated, that his average receipts in three years, ending 1814, were 216
l
s
d
972
ad captandum
Nancy
Redstreak.
973
Mr. C. Wynn
said, that the hon. Gentleman would observe, that the documents referred to were interlined by the Judge. The hon. Member, too, thought that if the Registrar might lend the money of the suitors, the Judge might borrow it. Such a state of things would be monstrous enough; but it was not necessary to deal with this argument, because Sir Jonah Barrington, if he had borrowed the money, had borrowed it as gentlemen borrowed purses on Hounslow-heath. He made a peremptory order on the Registrar which subordinate officer to the Judge was bound to obey.
The Solicitor General
again referred to the evidence to shew that Sir Jonah Barrington had appropriated the money to his own use.
Sir R. Inglis
said, that the prayer of Sir Jonah Barrington's petition had been practically granted, and that the evidence taken before the Select Committee had been virtually admitted by Sir Jonah, by the course which his Counsel at the bar had thought proper to follow. Whenever a tribunal had been appointed to investigate this case, Sir Jonah Barrington had avoided going before it, and seemed to look out for another tribunal. The time for appealing to the Court of King's Bench, or to the House of Lords, had, he thought, gone by last year, and he should therefore support the Motion.
Sir R. Peel
said, he thought the more convenient course would be, to consider the propositions before the House separately. His hon. and gallant friend (Sir R. Wilson) proposed, that they should abandon the proceedings before the House,
974
975
Sir R. Wilson
contended, that Sir Jonah Barrington ought not to be punished until he had been legally tried. With few more than fifty Members in the House, and on an unusual day, they ought not to proceed to vote this Resolution; and he should therefore move, as an Amendment, "That Sir J. Barrington be called to the Bar, and asked what is the nature of the evidence he is desirous to produce." The House would then be able to judge respecting the admissibility of the evidence, and what ulterior measures should be adopted.
Lord F. L. Gower
opposed the Amendment, on the ground that it would create further and unnecessary delay.
Mr. A. Dawson
said, the reason why he seconded the Motion was, that he wished to have no vague mention of other evi-
976
Mr. D. W. Harvey
said, if it should appear, when Sir Jonah Barrington was called to the bar, that his object was delay till the next Session, he, for one, would not consent to it; but if he wished
bona fide
l
l
l
Sir R. Peel
said, that at the time of the correspondence to which the hon. Member alluded, Mr. Lamb could have known nothing of the transactions in which the present case originated. Mr. Lamb's letter was dated 12th May, 1828, and the report of the law-commissioners on the subject of these transactions was not made till January 1829. As to the remarks of the hon. Member, respecting the understanding about the compensation from the Droits of Admiralty, the hon. Member himself must see, that, if urged as a defence, they must involve an admission of the fact of appropriation.
Mr. D. W. Harvey
had only mentioned
977
The Solicitor General
had understood the hon. Member to urge the fact in vindication of Sir Jonah.
Mr. W. Harvey
: Not in vindication; he vindicated nothing. He only repeated what was urged by Sir J. Barrington in his vindication.
Sir J. Newport
remarked, that at the time of the correspondence with Mr. Lamb, there was nothing known of any charge of corruption against Sir Jonah Barrington.
Mr. Alderman Wood
thought it but fair that Sir Jonah should be heard before he was condemned. Any prisoner at the Old Bailey, before receiving sentence, was asked what he had to urge why sentence should not be passed on him. No feeling of inconvenience to the House should prevent the accused from being heard.
Lord F. L. Gower
did not speak of any inconvenience to the House. What he said was, that it would be inconvenient to public justice to let the matter stand over to the next Session.
Mr. Dundas
said, the course proposed would be unusual after Counsel had been heard.
Sir R. Wilson
: The Counsel argued the question only on constitutional grounds.
Mr. C. W. Wynn
said, that when a party was heard by Counsel, he was bound by the defence set up for him. If he chose to have called witnesses, that was the time to urge the claim; but Counsel having retired without making any such demand, it was now too late.
The House divided:—For the Amendment 4; Against it 56—Majority 52.
The original question, that the first Resolution [for which see
ante,
On Lord F. L. Gower moving the second Resolution,
Sir C. Wetherell
said, that as a constitutional question, he thought the address to the Crown, for the removal of a Judge from his office, ought to be founded on evidence taken at its bar, and not before a select committee. There were, he was ready to admit, circumstances in the present case which would justify a departure from the general rule for which he contended, as the charges here were mainly dependent on the written documents of the party accused; but then
978
Resolution agreed to.
At moving the third Resolution.
Mr. C. W. Wynn
suggested, that as this was a serious malversation in office, a stronger expression ought to be used in the Resolution as applying to it.
Sir Robert Peel
said, the difficulty in the adoption of the suggestion was this—that as the accused party had no notice, it would not be fair to him to alter the character of the delinquency now by any description different from that of which he had received notice. He was fully impressed with the importance of the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir C. Wetherell,) whose very able view of the case entitled his suggestion to much weight. As a general principle, he would certainly admit that the hearing of evidence at the bar would, in a case like the present, be proper; but there were circumstances in it, particularly the evidence being chiefly documentary, which justified the departure from that principle in this case. It appeared to him that the case had legitimately concluded when the Counsel retired from the bar, and that the House would be fully warranted in leaving the special circumstances to be collected from the record.
The rest of the Resolutions were agreed to
seriatim.
Lord F. L. Gower
then moved, "that an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, requesting that he would be graciously pleased to cause the said Sir Jonah Barrington to be removed from the office of Judge of the High Court of Admiralty in Ireland."
Mr. S. Rice
objected to the Motion, on the ground that no previous notice had been given to the House that it was the noble Lord's intention to move such an Address immediately on acceding to the Resolutions.
Sir R. Peel
observed, that it was quite impossible to put Resolutions of this nature on record without following them up forthwith by an Address to the Crown as a necessary consequence. It would, of course, be requisite to give time to the committee which should be appointed to prepare an address in conformity with the Resolutions.
979
Mr. C W. Wynn
thought it inexpedient that Sir J. Barrington should be permitted to remain in office an hour longer than the proper forms would allow, after having been stigmatized by the House of Commons in such a manner as to render his continuance as Judge of the Court of Admiralty incompatible with the public interests.
Motion agreed to, and Committee appointed to carry it into effect.
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.]
At this stage of the proceedings a person in the Strangers' Gallery started up, and flung down a number of copies of a printed document on the heads of the Members in the body of the House. He was in the act of dispersing similar papers amongst the spectators in the gallery, when the Speaker ordered that he should be brought to the bar by the Serjeant at Arms. The offender, on being arrested, observed, with great composure, that he "cared little for that, as he had only done his duty." He was then placed at the bar, and interrogated as follows:—
The Speaker
.—What is your name?
Prisoner
.—William Clifford.
The Speaker
.—Do you know this paper?
Prisoner
.—I do.
The Speaker
.—What induced you to be guilty of the offence of throwing a number of such papers into the body of the House?
Prisoner
.—I have watched the effect of the laws passed by your hon. House for twenty-six years, and have perceived a great inconsistency between your laws and your professions. It has become impossible for an honest man to live in the country.
[The concluding words of his answer were quite unintelligible in the gallery.]
The Speaker
then ordered him to withdraw.
Sir R. Peel
, observing that there seemed to be no alternative but to order that he be committed to the custody of the Serjeant at Arms—made a Motion to that effect.
Sir R. Wilson
suggested, that it was possible he might not have designed to offend the House, and recommended that he should be recalled and questioned further, with a view to elicit whether his motive was improper.
Mr. Sadler
intimated his opinion that
980
Sir R. Peel
reminded the hon. Member that it would be difficult to ascertain that point at the moment, and as they could not act on mere presumption, he thought the best course would be to let him remain in custody, at least until Monday, when the question as to his further disposal might be more easily decided.
Mr. J. Wood
was understood to express his assent to this arrangement.
Motion agreed to.
The following is a copy of the papers distributed.
"THE INIQUITOUS CAUSE OF POOR-RATES, PAUPERISM, AND CRIME EXPOSED.
"To the Judges, Magistrates, Clergy, and Gentlemen of the Vestry of the United Parishes of St. Giles in the Fields and St. George, Bloomsbury.
"My Lords and Gentlemen,—Both yourselves and the industrious inhabitants of these united parishes have lately experienced great and vexatious litigation, and other most evil consequences, all arising out of the cruel circumstances attending our present dreadful state of pauperism; but it will appear fully clear, upon a little reflection, by the statement which your petitioner is about humbly to lay before you, that the real and iniquitous cause of pauperism and poor-laws is but too successfully concealed from your view. You have just caused laws to be passed by the Legislature, the nature of which is, to compel the industrious housekeeper, whether father of a helpless family, a widow, or orphan, to give up a part of his or her dear-gained profits of industry to provide a miserable pittance for a degraded host of paupers, without having at all taken into consideration that the cause of pauperism may be ascribed to a monstrous conspiracy against the remaining free institutions of your once free, prosperous, and happy country! If this conspiracy had been known to have existed for sixteen years—at least—you would certainly have paused before you added another unjust weight of oppression to the already too monstrous pile of iniquity which is crushing the industrious community to the earth—first, in the name of taxes, excise, rates, rent, &c., and then by the most wicked and oppressive system of laws that ever degraded and demoralized a nation:—you could not have been sensible that it may be owing to this diabolical conspiracy that our laws place persons in power to watch till the industrious trades-person gains a few pounds by honest labour, which is no sooner discovered than those in power seize upon the industrious victims, and compel them to give up either the profits of industry or housekeeping, till at last they retire to a room—and from thence they continually become paupers, and are, after gross
981
"My Lords and Gentlemen, the important information which your petitioner wishes to communicate is to the following effect:—He served as an active volunteer in the late war; and, through the nature of his rank and activity he ventured into the enemy's camp, and from thence he joined the camp of the allied powers just as they had crossed into France in the year 1814. By this means he gained the confidence of many noble chiefs of the allies; and one of these noble chiefs declared the following important fact to your petitioner—namely, that "it was the firm resolution of the allies not to lay down their arms until they had established such a system of laws and religion as should for ever prevent the people of any country from opposing their governments!" &c.
"Now, my Lords and Gentlemen, your petitioner will lay before you so much information relative to the above "firm resolution," as will not fail to open your eyes, and move your hearts and souls in behalf of the suffering poor of these realms. Your petitioner need not
982
s
d
"Your humble petitioner was one of those loyal subjects—just then grown to years full of credulity and inexperience, but too young to understand any thing of the deep-laid schemes of governments, he enrolled his name to serve as a volunteer in any part of Great Britain and Ireland, but was not to go abroad, nor to be retained in the service any longer
983
"Your petitioner now calls your humane attention to the treatment and circumstances relative to the soldiers who served as the instruments under that God to whose mighty throne the supplications of this kingdom were offered up to avert the dreadful scourge of war!
"Those soldiers who went as volunteers under the above conditions were taken to the Isle of Wight, Jersey, Guernsey, or some other dépôt, where measures were resorted to, to induce them to enlist for life. Another bounty was offered them, and full time to spend it in drunkenness, or any other way they liked best; but if they refused to enlist for life under these encouragements, they were then tyrannized over, and flogged under the least possible pretences; and this tyranny produced most fatal consequences during the whole time of the war. It was thus our Government managed to obtain soldiers and waste money, and to admit persons into a participation in the reins of Government which have ever since caused the springs of justice to be directed into a corrupt channel, where wisdom, humanity, and patriotism lie obscured, and can only be discovered through a loathsome thick slime of base hypocrisy; and this is the reason why Castlereagh had wound up all the powerful advantages which might have resulted to England out of the late war, and made them completely over to the detestable and impious Holy Alliance, to enable it—as it is "resolved" on doing—to establish a system of laws and religion which shall for ever prevent the people from opposing their governments—that is, in fact, to prevent and oppose the wisdom of God communicated to man—to create his own happiness, and glorify his wise Creator in works of wisdom, knowledge, prosperity, content, and freedom! But the designs of God are not to be thus frustrated, though his wisdom be opposed. This nation and America, and yet powerful France, still retain sufficient of that godly wisdom to crush this monstrous league, called Holy Alliance. The Duke of Wellington, Mr. Peel, and the
984
"Thus your petitioner having, as he trusts and hopes, effectually drawn your serious attention towards the cause of our monstrous state of pauperism and crime, he will now solicit your attention to a subject relative to this election of assistant overseer. Thirty respectable candidates have offered themselves with strong testimonials, some of whom have held the important and high offices of church warden and overseer. Four only of those candidates have been fortunate, but as all were in want of employment, what means of support is devised for the unfortunate ones? The claims of your petitioner are as follow:—He was one of the first volunteers against Bonaparte when he threatened the overthrow of these realms. Your petitioner sailed in the first expedition against him; he served in the escort and protection of the King and Royal Family of Naples, to and in Sicily;—he fought at the battle of Maida, the first gained over the Emperor's army in the late war;—he fought in driving his armies out of Portugal and Spain, in which service he was made a prisoner of war; and this afforded him an opportunity to obtain intelligence which gained him the confidence of the Chiefs of the Royal Alliance, whence he derived the important information he has just had the honour of communicating to this vestry. Your petitioner was offered the protection and favour of the Emperor of all the Russias; but he thought proper to reserve his humble services for the use of his own Sovereign and country; and your petitioner was then appointed to accompany his Excellency Count Orloff to England, in bearing those important
985
l
986
*
WILLIAM CLIFFORD,
One of the approved Candidates for the
situation of Assistant Overseer,
May 7, 1830."
To the Rev. J. E. Tyler, Chairman of
the Vestry held May 12, 1830.
*
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, May 24, 1830.
MINUTES.] Petitions presented. By Lord TEYNHAM, from the Occupiers of Land in Leddlescombe, Sussex, against the Hop Duty. By Earl GREY, from the Cultivators of Tobacco in Waterford, against the proposed Duty on Tobacco grown in Ireland. By Lord DACRE, from Great Yarmouth, in favour of the Bill for removing Disabilities from the Jews. By Earl DARNLEY, from the Benevolent Society of Kilkenny, against the proposed increase of Stamp Duties (Ireland). By the Bishop of WINCHESTER, from Southampton, for the abolition of Slavery.
KING'S ILLNESS—MESSAGE FROM
The Duke of Wellington
stated, that he had a Message, signed by his Majesty, to lay before their Lordships. His Grace then placed the Message in the hands of the Lord Chancellor, who read as follows:—
"GEORGE R.
"His Majesty thinks it necessary to inform the House that he is labouring under a severe indisposition, which renders it inconvenient and painful to his Majesty to sign, with his own hand, the Public Instruments which require the sign manual.
"His Majesty relies on the dutiful at-
987
The Duke of Wellington
then rose, and spoke to the following effect:—My Lords, I consider it will be the anxious wish of your Lordships, to take the earliest opportunity of returning an answer to the Message which I have just had the honour of communicating to your Lordships by the King's command. I am confident that your Lordships will feel that sorrow which is common to all his Majesty's subjects on account of the lamentable indisposition with which, it grieves me to say, he has for some time past been afflicted. My Lords, I propose to defer to a future opportunity the motion that his Majesty's Message be taken into consideration, with a view to deciding upon the mode in which the desired relief may be afforded to his Majesty. I am convinced it will be your Lordships' wish not to allow a moment to pass, without expressing your Lordships' sorrow for his Majesty's indisposition, and your anxious hope that his health may be re-established at an early period. I am also satisfied that your Lordships will be anxious to express to his Majesty, your earnest desire to relieve him from the pain and inconvenience he has informed you he labours under in signing those public instruments and documents which require the sign manual. I do not apologize to your Lordships for bringing this matter now before you; but rather take credit to myself for seizing the earliest opportunity of proposing to your Lordships to concur with me in an humble address to his Majesty, in answer to the Message he has intrusted to me. My Lords, I will not take this opportunity of entering into a discussion as to the measure which his Majesty's Government may deem it advisable to propose, for the purpose of affording his Majesty that relief which he requires. This will be done by the Lord Chancellor to-morrow, and I shall accordingly now content myself with moving "That a humble Address be presented to his Majesty, to assure his Majesty that this House deeply laments that his Majesty is labouring under severe indisposition, and to assure his Majesty that this House earnestly and anxiously hopes that by the favour of Divine Providence
988
Earl Grey
said: Your Lordships will hardly imagine that I rise with the intention of opposing in the slightest degree the Address we have just heard read—in every word of which I sincerely and painfully concur, so far as it relates to the expressing of our deep regret for the lamentable indisposition of the Sovereign; and in saying this I am well assured I speak the common sentiments and feelings of this House; for the regret experienced in consequence of his Majesty's illness is deep and universal, and the hope of his recovery is cherished with the utmost earnestness by all ranks and classes of his subjects. So far I concur entirely with the Address; and I also concur in the course proposed by the noble Duke, of giving an immediate answer to his Majesty's Message, expressing those sentiments respecting his illness to which I have already alluded, and declaring our readiness to proceed as soon as possible to the consideration of the important measure which is to follow. My Lords, I feel the deepest and the most poignant regret for the illness of his Majesty, and I entertain sincere disposition to relieve his Majesty from everything which might render painful the last moments of his life, or which might in the least tend to throw any impediment in the way of that recovery to which all Englishmen so anxiously and earnestly look; but we are to consider that we have a very important duty to perform towards the public. I do not now mean to question the noble Duke as to the mode of proceeding which he means to adopt, to comply with his Majesty's request. This, we are informed, will be stated by the Lord Chancellor to-morrow. I cannot, however, help declaring, that I shall consider it my duty to take the first opportunity that presents itself of explaining my views upon the subject. The question is one which should be entered upon with all due feeling and respect for his Majesty, but at the same time we must enter upon it with a strong impression of its deep importance
989
The Address, as moved by the Duke of Wellington, was voted unanimously.
GREECE.]
The Earl of Aberdeen
said, that he had the honour to present to their Lordships the information referred to in his Majesty's Speech at the commencement of the Session, relating to the pacification and final settlement of Greece. He could not lay those papers on the Table of the House without taking the opportunity of expressing the sense which he entertained of the forbearance which the House had shown throughout the whole of these transactions. Not only had very natural curiosity been repressed, but discussion
990
991
992
993
994
Lord Durham
rose, to enter his earnest protest against the unfairness of the noble Earl's proceeding. So far as regarded the noble Earl's historical relation of the contents of the papers which he had presented, he was perfectly satisfied; but the noble Earl, had gone further, and entered into a statement which amounted to neither more nor less than an accusation against Prince Leopold, founded on papers which were in his possession alone. He wished to learn from the noble Earl whether the grounds of hesitation urged by Prince Leopold, were not derived from intelligence received from Greece. He would not then enter into more detail, but he called on the House and the public to pause before they pronounced an opinion unfavourable to his Royal Highness. He
995
The Earl of Darnley
thought, that, in justice to Prince Leopold, the additional papers should be produced as speedily as possible. He wished the noble Earl to name the day when he thought they would be ready.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, that when he proposed a question on a former night, upon the subject of Greece, the noble Earl seemed to think that he was not treating the Government with the forbearance which was called for. Had the noble Earl then treated Prince Leopold with the forbearance which was due to him? His Royal Highness agreed to accept the sovereignty of Greece on certain conditions: had those conditions been complied with? It was also essential to know whether Austria, who had been a party to the Treaties of Paris and Vienna, by which the balance of power was settled, had consented to the arrangement. He wished the papers should be communicated in an ungarbled form. The inference to be drawn from the noble Earl's statement was, that it was merely a question of money with Prince Leopold. His Royal Highness had conducted himself in a most honourable manner since his cennexion with this country, and had decided, he thought, correctly in refusing to accept the sovereignty of this new State. He was sure that his Majesty's Ministers could never establish any sort of kingdom there which would not, in the end, become the prey of Russia, and be divided or partitioned as Poland had been. The establishment of such a kingdom, he was convinced, would only lead to future wars, and he was very much deceived if he did not see those wars already in embryo. The consequences which would arise to this country, therefore, he apprehended would be of fearful moment. He should like to have the papers laid on the Table, in order to learn whether Russia, as he had stated upon a former evening, was the Power which had brought Turkey to agree to the arrangement, and whether she had not remitted a million of ducats out of the sum which Turkey was bound to pay her, in order to induce the Porte to consent to a settlement to which it was
996
The Earl of Aberdeen
said, that the noble Marquis put so many questions, that he could not conveniently answer them at present. He would repeat what he had already stated,—that it was only late on Friday night that ho. received the information from his Royal Highness that he renounced the Sovereignty. Their Lordships might rest satisfied that they should have all the papers connected with this negotiation, from the commencement till the present period, laid before them; that not a syllable should be kept back, and that every atom of information that might be necessary should be afforded to them. But he would entreat their Lordships not to enter upon the discussion of this affair until all the documents were fully before them, and he trusted that no noble Lord would infer from any thing that had fallen from him, that he had pronounced any opinion upon the conduct of Prince Leopold. What he had stated, he had felt bound to state in justice to himself. It was only a short time ago that he had declared to their Lordships, that nothing prevented the final completion of this arrangement but matters of minor importance, and therefore lest their Lordships should suppose that he had been guilty of the grossest falsehood, and in order to set himself right with their Lordships, he felt bound to state that it was only within the last few days that a difference had arisen, and had been taken up on grounds with which he was not, of course, acquainted at the time he made that declaration. When the whole of the papers were in the hands of their Lordships, he should be able to give an explanation of the whole transaction, and until then he would entreat their Lordships to suspend their opinion on the subject.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, that
997
The Marquis of Lansdown
was not willing to put any question that was not necessary, where the interest of an illustrious and excellent individual was concerned; but his noble friend having accompanied his presentation of these papers with a statement which might create prejudices, it became necessary that he should be clearly understood. He wished to inquire therefore whether the refusal of Prince Leopold was founded upon money transactions; or upon other circumstances arising out of the situation of Greece.
The Earl of Aberdeen
replied, that before his Royal Highness had agreed to accept the dignity, a discussion had taken place, which terminated on the 20th of February, by his Royal Highness's acceptance of the offered Kingdom. Subsequent to that time, up to the last week, no question was agitated with his Highness but that of money; but in the last week new grounds of difference arose, and the resignation had reference to them, as the noble Marquis intimated.
The Earl of Darnley
thought this statement would cast reflections on a high personage, and he wished to know when the papers could be produced.
The Earl of Aberdeen
would produce them as speedily as possible, and probably by Friday next.
The Earl of Winchilsea
thought, that the fair course would have been, for the noble Earl to have abstained from all statements until the papers were before the House.
The Marquis of Bute
had clearly understood the noble Secretary of State to say, that the Prince's resignation was totally distinct from any question of a pecuniary nature.
Earl Grey
could not but regret that the noble Earl had not refrained from saying anything on the subject until he had all the papers ready.
Ex-parte
998
The Earl of Aberdeen
had every disposition to give all the papers; but at present he had no intention of founding any motion upon them.
Lord Holland
asked, if the noble Earl did not intend to found any motion, either upon the papers already produced, or that were to be produced?
The Earl of Aberdeen
replied, certainly not.
FOUR AND A HALF PER CENT
The Marquis of Lansdown
wished to ask the noble Duke, whether he had any objection to produce the warrant or order under which, for the last two years, the 4½-per-cent duties levied upon Sugar, had been remitted?
The Duke of Wellington
had no objection to give the information, if the noble Marquis would move for it regularly.
The Marquis of Lansdown
gave notice that he should move for it to-morrow.
EAST RETFORD.]
On the Motion of the Earl of Shaftesbury, the House resolved itself into a Committee upon the East Retford Disfranchisement Bill, and examined witnesses thereupon.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, May 24, 1830.
MINUTES.] William Clifford, who committed a breach of privilege on Saturday, May 22, was discharged, on petitioning the House, without the payment of any fees.
A Bill was brought in by Mr. WM. PEEL, to suspend, for a limited period, the Ballotting for Militia.
Petitions presented. Against the increase of Duty on Corn Spirits, by Lord OXMANTOWN, from the Landed Proprietors of Warrenstown and Cootestown:—By Sir J. SEBRIGHT, from the Farmers attending the Tring Corn Market:—By Sir J. MACKENZIE, from the Freeholders of the County of Ross. Against the punishment of Death for Forgery, by Lord OXMANTOWN, from the Managers of the Local Bank at Athlonc:—By Lord ALTHORP, from Richard Payne:—By Mr. R. SMITH, from Chesham:—By Mr. DICKENSON, from Glastonbury:—By Mr. A. ELLIS, from the Congregation of Bury-street Chapel, St. Mary Axe; and the Protestant Dissenters of Windsor Chapel, Salford:—By Lord CLIFTON, from Canterbury:—By Mr. DENISON, from Camberwell—By Sir M. S. STEWART, from Glasgow:—By Dr. LUSHINGTON from Stockton, Macclesfield, Bristol, Spalding, Holstein, Woburn, Reading, Farringdon, and Halstead:—By Mr. LENNARD, from Coggeshall:—By Mr. PROTHEROE, from Neath:—By Mr. PENDARVIS, from Redruth:—By Mr. F. BUXTON, from Bridgwater, Lothbury, Basingstoke, Rochdale, Great Yarmouth, Blackburn, Clonmel; from the Protestant Dissenters of Brighouse; from the Lewisham-street Chapel, Westminster; from Ryegate, Chudleigh, Monmouth, and the Inhabitants of London and Westminster:—By Mr. BROUGHAM, from Newport, in the Isle of Wight, Stockton-upon-Tees, Wakefield, Craven, in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and from Bankers established in the Cities and Towns of Edinburgh, Dublin, Glasgow, Manchester, Liverpool, Chester, Belfast, Birmingham,
999
"That your Petitioners, as Bankers, are deeply interested in the protection of property from Forgery, and in the conviction and punishment of persons guilty of that crime.
"That your Petitioners find by experience that the infliction of death, or even the possibility of the infliction of death, prevents the prosecution, conviction, and punishment of the criminal, and thus endangers the property which it is intended to protect.
"That your Petitioners, therefore, earnestly pray, that your honourable House will not withhold from them that protection which they would derive from a more lenient law."
Against the Marriage Act, by Lord Viscount MILTON, from Free-thinking Christians at Dewsbury. For holding Assizes at Wakefield, by the same noble Lord, from Heckmondwike, Dewsbury, and Burstall. Complaining of the manner of electing Grand Juries in Lancashire, by Mr. J. WOOD, from the Inhabitants of Liverpool. For an alteration of the Law relative to the Conveyance of Parcels, by Sir T. D. ACLAND, from the Coach Proprietors of England and Wales. Complaining of the Conduct of the Police of Ireland, by Mr. O'CONNELL, from Lawrence Sinnane. For the repeal of the Parish Vestries Act (Ireland), by the same hon. Member, from St. Mary, Cork; and Cloyne, Priest, and Butler's Town. Against Tithes, by the same hon. Member, from Butler's Town. Against the Duty on Coals carried Coastwise, by Lord W. POWLETT, from the Ship-owners of Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Shields. Against the Governor of Madras continuing to hold the situation of Representative for Canterbury, by Mr. P. THOMSON, from the Freemen of Canterbury. In favour of the Liability of Landlords Bill, by Mr. FYILER, from the Overseers of the Poor of St. Michael; and the
1000
IRISH AND SCOTCH PAUPERS.]
The Sheriff of London
appeared at the bar, and presented a Petition from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Commons of London, in Common Council assembled, against the Bill for the removal of Scotch and Irish Paupers. The Petition was read on the Motion of
Mr. Alderman Wood
, who said, that in supporting its prayer he was sorry not to see in his place the noble Lord who had introduced the Bill, against which the Petition was directed, but he hoped the noble Lord would not persevere in it. Many of the Irish poor were employed about London, and if the parishes there were compelled to send them to their native land, it would occasion very considerable expense. No provision was made against their return, and the consequence would be, that they would get a passage in a caravan or a mail-coach, and a steamboat to Ireland, with the advantage of a pedestrian excursion to bring them back. As to punishing these people, as he understood was proposed, who came here honestly to earn their bread, that was what he never would consent to. But he believed that the Irish Pauper was too cunning not to escape through the meshes of the law. At present he raked together a little money in various places, and carefully concealing it, whenever he could get no more he got himself sent back to his own country at the public charge. In 1816 he had sent great numbers of them to prison, and they had been sent home, but they had soon found their way back. Already the expense occasioned by these Paupers bore very heavy on many parishes in the city, and he hoped that the House would not pass a Bill which would increase their burthens.
Sir John Wrottesley
thought, that the parishes about London, which had the benefit of the Pauper's labour, should pro-
1001
Colonel Davies
thought the present system injurious. The Irish labourer came to this country, and underworked the English labourer, and when he was tired of stopping, or could gain no more, he got. passed back to his own country, taking care to conceal his money or obtaining a bill for it which was paid in Ireland. He would say, that the best way would be, not to interfere with them, and as they found their way here so let them find their way back. An English Pauper could get no relief in Ireland, and he would treat the Irish Pauper in England as the English Pauper was treated in Ireland.
Petition to be printed.
THE KING'S ILLNESS—MESSAGE FROM
Sir R. Peel
brought up a Message from his Majesty, which was read by the Speaker, and for which see the Debate in the House of Lords [
page
Sir R. Peel
then said: I am confident that I shall be acting in concurrence with the unanimous feeling of the House, if I proceed immediately to move an Address, expressive of the deep regret of his Majesty's faithful Commons at the intelligence just communicated, respecting the indisposition under which his Majesty is labouring, and conveying to the foot of the Throne the earnest prayer of the House of Commons that his Majesty may be speedily restored to health. The Address I shall propose will, in addition, merely pledge the House to take into consideration, with the least practicable delay, the means which may enable his Majesty to provide for the attachment of the royal signature to the public instruments that require it. Perhaps it may be convenient to state that the bill for effecting the object in view will originate in the House of Lords, and it will therefore not be necessary to move immediately that the Message be taken into consideration. I beg to move "That an Address be
1002
Mr. Brougham
said, I beg to second the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman; and in doing so I consider that I adopt a proceeding by no means inconsistent with my deep impression of the great importance of the Motion. The course we have to pursue is, I believe, unprecedented. We shall derive no light upon it from the practice of former times, in either House of Parliament. I deem it consistent with the last part of the Address, which expresses the determination of the House, speedily to provide for supplying the defect in the discharge of the Royal functions, in the way best adapted to the exigencies of the public service, to state that we ought to take those steps most cautiously and deliberately, and in a manner best calculated to prevent any rashness on our part from being drawn into precedent. I wish to abstain, for obvious reasons, from making a single remark not necessarily called for; but all must be aware of the danger, in cases of this sort, that may arise from rashness of proceeding, and the necessity of never adopting a course which hereafter may be employed in a manner which, while adopting it, we are far from contemplating. When driven to a necessity like that which now unfortunately exists, we must guard, most scrupulously against the possibility of a door being opened which our successors may have cause to wish had for ever remained closed.
The Address was carried
nem. con.
GREECE.]
Sir R. Peel
brought up and laid upon the Table, by command of his Majesty, Papers relating to Greece. In moving (he said) that they do lie upon the Table, I feel it my duty, as the House has bad no opportunity of becoming
1003
Mr. Brougham
said, that he had heard without the least surprise what had just fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, for, from certain tokens that he had observed, and certain documents he had seen, he was prepared to expect it. He would, for the present, abstain from further observations, as the papers were not in the hands of hon. Members. The documents laid on the Table, as the House would see, were very voluminous; but if the short account which he had read was to be relied on, the documents were much more voluminous
1004
Mr. Hume
wished to inquire of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, if those papers contained any information relative to the sums which this country might be called on to pay by any guarantees it had entered into connected with those transactions?
Lord John Russell
wished also to ask a question, relative to the difference between Prince Leopold and the Allied Powers—it was said that there were some points of difference between them on the subject of a loan—some bartering about money. Rumours of that nature were injurious to the honour and character of the illustrious personage in question, and, therefore. it was material that the matter should be set right with the world. It was also said, that the proposed territorial limits of Greece formed matter of dispute. Now, he wished to know which of these, or whether it was on both, that the difference arose, that brought about the unfortunate termination of those negotiations?
Sir Robert Peel
said, he laid the documents on the Table of the House, and in doing so he conceived it was proper to state what they were, but strictly to avoid any comments upon them until they should be in the hands of hon. Members. He thought he was bound to observe that course in fairness to the House, and to the parties interested, he being now acquainted with their contents, and other hon. Members not having that advantage. As to the questions which had been asked, he should willingly reply to them, but in doing so he wished to avoid all discussion. In answer to the question of the hon. member for Aberdeen, he had to state, that full information would be found in those Papers respecting the pecuniary engagements of this country, arising out of the negotiations to which the papers he had just laid upon the Table of the House referred. The noble Lord opposite inquired whether differences respecting loans, or a disagreement relative to the proposed territorial limits of Greece, formed the grounds on which the negotiations were broken off. On a former
1005
Mr. Agar Ellis
was desirous of knowing whether it was information recently received from Greece that decided Prince. Leopold in breaking off those negotiations?
Sir Robert Peel
said, that in the communications between Prince Leopold and his Majesty's Government, his Royal Highness stated, that in despatches received from Greece, he certainly had received information which had decided his conduct on the matter of his resignation.
Mr. Brougham
, adverting to what fell from his noble friend behind him, in which the resignation of Prince Leopold was spoken of as 'unfortunate,' confessed that he considered it as anything but unfortunate. He should rejoice in any- thing calculated to promote the honour and glory of that illustrious personage, but he could not help considering it an excellent thing that his resignation enabled this country to avoid the entanglement which the acceptance of that Sovereignty might eventually have brought about.
Sir Robert Peel
again recommended the postponement of any further discussion until hon. Members were in possession of the papers.
Lord John Russell
explained—he used the term 'unfortunate' in the usual way in which that term was applied to ne otiations terminating unsuccessfully.
THE CAPE OF GOOD HOPE.]
Lord Milton rose
to present a Petition from British Settlers and others resident at the Cape of Good Hope, praying for a Representative Government. After calling the attention of the House to the importance of the question which the Petition raised, the respectability of the parties petitioning, and the obligation there lay upon the Legislature to protect the inhabitants of that colony from the effects of arbitrary
1006
1007
Sir George Murray
felt, that he should be wanting in respect to the noble Lord, and in that due attention to the colonists which he wished at all times to manifest towards them, if he did not state a few of the considerations which rendered the establishment of a representative system of government at the Cape of Good Hope extremely inexpedient. The Petition, the House would perceive, came from only a portion of the colony, and from that portion, too, in which slavery did not exist—and that made a material difference—indeed there was no country where slavery existed in which the expediency of introducing a representative legislature might not most seriously be doubted. The state of that colony, with reference to population and civilization, ought also to be taken into account. Its extent was nearly equal to that of the United Kingdom—about 600 miles long and 300 wide. The colonists amounted to only 119,966 souls, of whom the slaves amounted to 31,000, the free blacks to 35,000 and the whites to 53,996. A population so scattered, and so circumstanced, could but poorly exercise the privileges and powers of representation. Again, the whites were divided into Dutch and British, and if they had a Legislature, that body would be divided into two parties—the Dutch party and the British party—and thus one of the most important benefits of representation would be counteracted. Then the House, he hoped, would not lose sight of the difficulty which Parliament had always experienced in its attempts to ameliorate the condition of the slaves wherever a colonial legislature existed, and until something satisfactory could be done for the slaves at the Cape of Good Hope, he should be unwilling to see a representative government established there. Something had been said in disparagement of the successive governments at the Cape of Good Hope; but he must take leave to say, that the Hottentots would not have been put upon the same footing with the colonists if the Cape had
1008
Mr. Wilmot Horton
admitted, that the colonists of the Cape were not at the present moment prepared for representation, but he looked forward to the time when they would be capable of appreciating and exercising that privilege, and every other to which those who were accustomed to live under the British Constitution were accustomed. If the noble Lord were not to follow up the Petition by a motion to carry its prayer into effect he should oppose it, but he should be most happy to co-operate in the measures necessary to render the Colonists fit to enjoy the advantages which they sought.
Mr. Marryat
said, that the statements in the Petition presented by the noble Lord from the Cape, were equally applicable to all the colonies under the care of the Crown; a similar vicious system of government existed in all of them; and it was not possible to remove the grievances complained of but by granting the prayer of the Petition, and thus giving the colonists some control over their taxation and expenditure. These colonies were peculiarly situated. They had no independent local legislatures of their own, nor were they represented in the Imperial Parliament; but were under the immediate patronage and control of the Crown, by whom the taxes were levied and revenues appropriated. They presented, indeed, a practical example of the effects of taxation without representation. The colonists themselves had no control whatever over their expenditure, and though the produce of the taxes raised in the colony could not by law be appropriated to any but colonial purposes, yet
1009
l
1010
Mr. W. Smith
expressed his regret that the right hon. Secretary had not stated out of what materials a representative government could be formed.
Mr. Labouchere
complained of a practice which had existed for a long time in the Colonial Department, of sending out men of broken fortunes to occupy situations in the colonies, by which many serious evils arose to the colonies themselves. He thought that if the names of all persons appointed to colonial situations were inserted in the Gazette for some time before they went out, the evil might be avoided, because a means would thus be obtained of coming at a correct knowledge of the character of the parties, and of their fitness for the appointments. He did not mention this as arising out of any appointments which had been made since the right hon. and gallant officer came to the head of the Colonial Department, for, to do him. justice, he believed that since then no persons had been sent out who were not properly qualified for the situations they had, to fill; but the subject was one to
1011
Mr. Hume
did not think, that the right hon. and gallant officer had given very satisfactory reasons why the prayer of the Petition presented by the noble Lord should not be complied with. The complaint of the petitioners was, that British subjects, who had been accustomed to live under the free institutions of their own country, should, when they went out to settle in a colony, be at once brought under the dominion of arbitrary power. The nature of that government exposed it to great abuses, and the result was, that wherever it existed the improvement of the colony was greatly retarded. This had been as strongly illustrated in the Cape of Good Hope as in any colony he could name. The hon. and gallant officer had said, that he did not think this colony would be fit for a representative system of government whilst slavery existed; but he begged to ask him, when did he expect that slavery would cease there? When would that portion of the inhabitants be free? When would they be fit for a representative government? The right hon. Gentleman had, he thought, removed the period of freedom to an indefinite time. The right hon. and gallant officer's next objection was, he thought, as little satisfactory as the other,—namely, that of the distance to which the population was scattered. Now in the Canadas it was well known the inhabitants were scattered over a vast extent of country, and that was not found to be a serious objection to the establishment of a representative government. When the Floridas were ceded to the United States, they were at once incorporated into the national union, with a representative government, the distance at which many of the inhabitants were scattered from one another being no obstacle, because arrangements were easily made for meeting in the most central part of the state. It was at present a just cause of complaint, that England was taxed to pay for the expenditure of colonies which would willingly support themselves, if allowed to do so under a representative system; but instead of this, large sums were annually drawn from the pockets of the people here to meet expenses which we ought not to be called upon to pay. Give the colonies a representative system, and they would willingly pay their own expenses; though they would not pay
1012
Dr. Lushington
concurred in the general principle, that a representative form of government would be the best for the colonies, where circumstances permitted; but at the same time he fully agreed with; the right hon. and gallant Secretary, that that system could not at present be adopted for the Cape of Good Hope without great danger to the best interests of that colony. He admitted that the government should be for the benefit of the many, and not for the few; but he did not think, that that
1013
Sir G. Murray
in explanation, begged to say, that though he had the good fortune of having had the opportunity of carrying the measures for improving the condition of the Hottentots, to which the hon. and learned Member had alluded, into full operation, yet it would not be doing justice to others if he did not state
1014
Mr. Robinson
was decidedly of opinion, that free institutions ought to be given to the settlers at the Cape, and to all other colonists, as soon as they were fit to receive them, and capable of appreciating their value. He by no means understood the noble Lord as recommending the immediate adoption of a measure such as the petitioners prayed for—all he urged upon the consideration of the House was, the necessity of speedily turning its attention to the subject, and taking such preliminary steps as might forward the object in view. There could be no doubt that flagrant abuses had existed in that colony, but they were not chargeable upon the present government—which was not to blame. There had existed a most scandalous carelessness with respect to colonial functionaries. Not long since a person was sent out as Chief-justice of Newfoundland who contrived to swindle the people of that colony out of a very large sum; and an Attorney-general was sent to the same place, who, though a person of better character, was totally unfit for the office.
The Petition read.
Lord Milton
, in moving that it be printed, said, he was sorry to learn that an improved system of government at the Cape was to be postponed until slavery should be abolished.
Sir George Murray
wished the House to analyse the composition of society at the Cape. The number of females was 55,000, males 64,000; from those deduct the Slaves, the Dutch, the Hottentots, and the persons under age; and the number of British colonists capable of exercising the elective franchise would be found exceedingly small.
Mr. Hume
observed, that persons of Dutch descent, resident at the Cape, were as much British subjects as any men could be born in any colony.
Petition to be printed.
FORGERY.]
Mr. Brougham
said, he had a Petition to present, which, as he considered it of peculiar importance, he would solicit the attention of the House to circumstances which, in his opinion, imparted to it considerable weight. It was a Petition signed by Bankers, and none but Bankers; they were residents of
1015
Sir Robert Peel
requested the House to suspend its judgment till the facts were fairly before them.
The Petition to be printed.
FOUR-AND-HALF PER CENT DUTIES.]
Mr. Hume
said, it had been his intention
1016
Sir James Graham
seconded the Motion. He could not avoid taking that opportunity of expressing his extreme satisfaction at the vigilance of his hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen, who had with great patience exerted himself in attracting the attention of the House to this subject, which he considered as of vital importance. It was of importance not only as regarded the disposal of the duties of the Customs without the sanction of Parliament, but as involving on the part of the Crown-lawyers a claim for a more arbitrary and monstrous exercise of prerogative—in which light, perhaps, his hon. friend would not regard it as so important—than had been known since the accession of the House of Brunswick to the Throne. It was such a violation of constitutional principles that he should think he did not discharge his duty to the public if he did not support his hon. friend. If the Ministers did not give notice of their intention to bring in a bill, before the close of the Session, to limit and restrain the prerogative on this point, he should consider it his duty to move a Resolution to that effect on the motion for the House to go into a Committee of Supply. If the Crown were advised to stand on the extreme of its prerogative, nothing more could be done but that, following its example, the House must stand on the extreme of its privileges, and withhold the supplies by a motion of adjournment. If his hon. friend would turn the matter over to him, he would endeavour to bring it before the House and the public in a plain and intelligible shape.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Hume
then moved "That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he would be pleased to lay before the House an account of the proceeds of the 4½-per-cents during the
1017
Sir James Graham
thanked his hon. friend for abandoning the subject to him. His hon. friend, however, would excuse him if he did not bring forward the subject in exactly the same form as he (Mr. Hume) would have done. His motion would be a Resolution something to the effect of what he had already stated.
Motion agreed to.
MEXICO.]
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
Sir Robert Wilson
rose to call the attention of the right hon. Baronet to the important subject on which a Petition was presented to the House on Thursday, and which concerned the credit, the interest, and the prosperity of the country. He was then glad to hear from the right hon. Baronet, that it was the determination of his Majesty's Government not to infringe that system of neutrality it had always acted on towards Spain and the new States of South America. The right hon. Gentleman had then stated, that if it ever were proved to him that Great Britain had interfered to restrain those new states in the exercise of their belligerent rights, he should feel himself bound to give them protection against any operations directed against them from the points we had prevented them, from attacking. The right hon. Gentleman had then stated, however, the reasons why he did not believe that this country had ever laid any interdict, or intended to lay any interdict, on the warlike operations of those States. The reasons assigned by the right hon. Baronet were rather inferences than facts, and they were all derived from the circumstance that there was no correspondence between Mr. Canning and the South American ministers on this subject in the Foreign
1018
1019
pour arrondir son indépendence,
provoquer
coup de main;
1020
1021
eludio la requesta.
1022
1023
1024
1025
Mr. Planta
could assure the hon. and gallant Member, that he had no recollection whatever—and he was in the Foreign-office at the time of the projected attack on Cuba—of any language, written or oral, of Mr. Canning, which warranted the inferences of the Mexican and Colombian ministers. He recollected, indeed, a conversation which he had with M. Michelana on the subject; but he thought it right to request of that gentleman to put his statement in writing, in order that it might be laid before Mr. Canning; and from that day he had never heard another word on the matter from Mr. Michelana.
Sir Robert Peel
was sorry that his hon. friend had renewed the discussion on this subject, and he was confident that the hon. Member and the representatives of the States of Mexico and Colombia were not consulting the true interests of those countries, by wishing to fasten on England an engagement to enter into a defensive alliance with them against Spain; an alliance which no Minister of this country ever contemplated, and which, he repeated, it was injurious to the interests of those States for their representatives to insist on, through any construction put on the correspondence of Mr. Canning. There never, indeed, was anything clearer than that Mr. Canning had not, by any language in any public document, interdicted Mexico and Colombia from the fair aggression of belligerents against Spain, and that he had not entered into any obligation, either formal or moral, to assist those States against Spain in consequence of their refraining from their contemplated attack on Cuba. What, however, had his hon. friend done? He had produced no authenticated document from the Foreign-office—no paper bearing the signature of Mr. Canning; but he
1026
1027
1028
Sir R. Wilson
said, that the blockade was prevented.
Sir R. Peel
—the blockade was prevented by internal dissensions among the States, but not by the interference of England. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by repeating his former declarations, that there was no obligation, either moral, or imposed by treaty, on Great Britain, to protect. Mexico from attacks on the side of Cuba; and he protested against the reception of unauthorised memoranda of conversations in the discussion of a question of this kind, for the purpose of establishing a claim to a defensive alliance, which never was contemplated by any member of the Government of this country.
Sir R. Wilson
intimated an opinion that it was only in March last that Mexico received permission to invade Cuba.
Sir R. Peel
repeated, that the South American States knew they were at liberty to do so throughout the whole period, and that in 1826 they showed a disposition to act on that opinion. Some stress had been laid on the supposition that Mr. Canning advised the Mexicans not to invade Cuba. He denied that Mr. Canning did so; but if he had, he (Sir R. Peel) was prepared to contend, that at the time when Mr. Canning was endeavouring to prevail on Spain to recognise these States, he had a perfect right to advise the Mexicans to abstain from offending Spain by an attack on Cuba.
Mr. Huskisson
saw no inconsistency between the statements of his right hon. friend and the documents produced by the gallant General, although they proved to demonstration that Mexico and Colombia, in deference to the feelings and wishes of Great Britain, had abstained from the course they had previously determined to pursue. He would be one of the last to say, however, that the deference then paid to the wishes of this country bound it to any defensive alliance. God forbid, that he should argue anything of the kind. All he wished to impress on the House and the Government was, that the conduct of Mexico at that time gave her a claim now on our
1029
SUPPLY.]
The House then went into a Committee of Supply.
Resolutions, granting 3,000
l
l
l
On the Resolution that 5,712
l
Mr. Hume
begged to ask in what manner the sum of 1,695
l
Mr. Dawson
replied, that many of the persons in question were in great distress, and that the money was distributed among them with the utmost impartiality by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lord Chancellor.
Mr. Hume
was of opinion that the payments might be gradually discontinued.
Resolution agreed to; as also Resolutions for granting 45,000
l
l
On the Resolution for granting the sum of 8,000
l
Mr. Protheroe
expressed his hope that
1030
Mr. Hume
wished to know on what authority a charge was made at the Tower for inspecting the Public Records?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the fees on that account were of very old date, and that there had been no increase in them.
Mr. Hume
considered them as prohibitory of information.
Resolution agreed to.
On the Resolution for granting 96,850
l
Mr. Hume
adverted to the items of 190
l
l
Mr. Gordon
also expressed his surprise at the item for the Penitentiary, which was nearly a third of the amount of the expense of Stationery for the Office of the Secretary of State.
Mr. Maberly
observed that, by an error in the mode of abolishing the establishment of the Lottery, persons who had held situations in that department were pensioned on the Consolidated Fund. He knew one person who had retired on a pension of 300
l
l
Mr. Dawson
observed, that he had himself thought the item for the Penitentiary large; but, on inquiry, he found that many of the prisoners were exercised in writing. The 25
l
Mr. Gordon
objected likewise to the item of 150
l
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
ob-
1031
Sir Thomas
Baring objected to the item of 1,200
l
Mr. Hume
said, that there were many objectionable items in this Grant. There was the Royal Military Asylums, 295
l
l
l
l
l
Resolution agreed to; the House resumed the Report to be received on Wednesday.
FORGERIES' PUNISHMENT BILL.]
Sir Robert Peel
, adverting to the intended Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, for an instruction to the Committee on the Forgeries' Punishment Bill, wished to ask, what course the hon. and learned Gentleman meant to pursue. He suggested that it might be a preferable course simply to move an Amendment in the Committee.
Sir James Mackintosh
thought that it would be better to move an instruction to the Committee.
Mr. Speaker
said, that when instructions were given to a Committee, it was generally to do that which they would not have the power to do without those instructions; but the instruction which the hon. and learned Gentleman wished to move was, to do what the Committee had the power to do without such instruction, and therefore would restrain their power, as showing the prior judgment and opinion of the House.
Sir J. Mackintosh
bowed to the opinion of the Chair. The only object for which he wished to move an instruction to the Committee was, to give full and fair notice on that sole point on which any important difference was likely to occur. He would, however, relinquish that course, and would move an amendment as soon as the House should go into the Committee on the bill.
On the Motion of Sir R. Peel the House then went into a Committee upon the Forgery Bill.
On the reading of the clause, declaring
1032
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, that he should, according to the suggestion of the Speaker, proceed to act in that Committee as he should have done, with respect to the instruction he was about to move, in the House itself; and as there had yet been no full debate upon this great measure, he hoped the Committee would excuse him, if he considered himself in the same situation, now that they were in Committee, as he should have considered himself if he had brought on this discussion upon the motion for the second reading. In making the observations that occurred to him upon this subject, he should confine himself, as narrrowly as possible, within the limits of the question before the Committee? but at the same time he must declare, that it was impossible to consider that question, without considering the general principles of legislation, and especially those principles which were more peculiar to this important class of offences. It was needless for him to enter into the history of the various parliamentary controversies in which, since the time when that great man, Sir Samuel Romilly, first brought the subject under the notice of Parliament, they had often been engaged.—He could not compare—or, rather, he could not contrast—the temper and opinions of these two periods without a strong feeling of exultation, which he had no language adequate to convey as powerfully as he was affected by it to the House. He remembered reading of those times when the most ancient, the most barbarous punishments were resorted to without reprobation, and when even the lifeless remains of those who had been no worse than adventurers in the troubled sea of politics were exposed to the perpetration of every horrible indignity; when Llewellyn, Prince of Wales, and Wallace of Scotland, were insulted in this manner, because they had been noble enough to stand up bravely in defence of the liberties of their country. He recollected the time too when the most respectable men in the country, both as statesmen and as lawyers, were against that for which he now asked, and would have contended as boldly for the preservation of those old and barbarous modes of punishment, the worthless remnants of barbarous times, as for that of Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights.
1033
"Prisca, juvent alios; ego me nunc denique natum jactabor."
1034
1035
1036
contrefa÷on des billets de Banque;
1037
Cour de Cassation
1038
1039
1040
aut cito mors, aut victoria lœta.
1041
1042
1043
On the question being put,
Sir Robert Peel
rose and said, that if he had expected, when he came into the House that evening, to find the question of forgery treated as a party question, and as one by which the fate of a Ministry might be decided, such an impression would have been removed by the great, not to say lavish, encomiums bestowed on his humble exertions by the right hon. Gentleman. But he entered the House with no such impression, knowing, and he rejoiced at it, that the time was at length come when they could consider all the questions connected with the criminal law of the country, as no party questions, nor be liable in discussing them to have their attention diverted from the sound reasons which ought to determine their conduct, and from the interests of those classes for which they were called on to legislate. He wished to defer to the views of the right hon. Gentleman and the great body of the petitioners; and if he had been compelled to adopt a conclusion different from theirs, he could assure them that it was after deliberate consideration that he had attained to the honest conclusion, that it would be better to preserve the punishment of death for forgery than abandon it. He had no motives to make him wish to differ from them, and he had no previously-formed theories which he was anxious to support. From the right hon. Gentleman's general doctrines respecting the punishment of death he did not dissent; but he wished to state his opinion, with the reasons and the facts on which it had been formed, on the question whether the punishment of death ought to be preserved or abandoned. There were no reasons, that he knew of, nor any circumstances in his situation, why he should not be ready to adopt the views of the right hon. Gentleman. By the bill which he had introduced into the House he proposed to meliorate one part of our criminal code, and his course had uniformly been towards the mitigation of its severity. When he came into office, seven years before the present period, the criminal law of Great Britain exceeded in severity the criminal codes of every other part of Europe, and he had then thought it ought to be meliorated. He made it, since he had been in office, the great object of his ambition, not to set the example
1044
1045
l
l
particeps criminis;
1046
1047
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1048
l
l
l
l
1049
1050
l
1051
Mr. Martin
begged pardon for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman; but although he was a member of the association, he never understood that it was binding on them to make any communication to the secretary or solicitor, unless they thought proper to do so.
Sir R. Peel
said, he did not wish to mention names, but he had been assured of the fact on very good authority. Returning, however, to this association, he found, by returns which he had received, that at the Clearing Office of these Bankers there were paid, on the 13th, 14th and 15th of the month of May, bills and checks to the number of 45,800, and the money value of this amazing number of drafts and bills, all of them liable to Forgery, amounted to 10,095,000
l
l
l
l
l
l
1052
1053
1054
Mr. Brougham
said, he felt bound, from the very same arguments, to come to a different conclusion from that adopted by the right hon. Gentleman. It was said that the number of prosecutions by the Bank of England was daily diminishing, and that as there could be no such desire to avoid the infliction of capital punishments in the minds of the Directors of the Bank of England, that unflinching prosecutor, as was visible in others,—as they were free from any scruples on that point, that therefore, the offence of forging was not so often committed, and the law required no alteration, because it worked well for the protection of the bankers and the public. The right hon. Gentleman also contended that secondary punishments were not safe to rest on for security; and he contended that they were at all times of too unsatisfactory a nature to deter from the commission of crime. Now, that was just his (Mr. Brougham's) difficulty in this case. How was it that the law performed its office well? Why, because of this very secondary punishment, which the right hon. Gentleman attempted to demonstrate was inefficient and insupportable, and almost impossible to be executed. He would just beg of the House to look a little at the real state of the case. In the last seven years there had been 217 convictions for Forgery—that is, 217 persons sentenced to death, independently of those who were compelled to suffer minor punishments for minor offences of the same nature. And how many had been subjected to the unsatisfactory and ineffectual, and all but impracticable secondary punishments which the right hon. Gentleman describes? Why, of this 217, just twenty-four were executed: just nine, to one therefore, had been subjected to the secondary punishment alone. If, therefore, there was only one criminal hung out of every ten, the punishment of death, upon which
1055
1056
1057
l
1058
1059
Mr. F. Buxton
observed, that at that late hour he would trespass upon the patience of the House with but very few remarks. The law, as it at present stood, encouraged instead of discouraging crime; it was an encouragement to perjury on the part of jurors, grounded on a tenderness for human life. There was much to justify this tenderness. If he were told that a criminal would be subjected to some ignominious punishment, that he would be condemned to hard labour or transportation for life, he might be induced to spare no pains to bring him to justice; but the case was different when he knew that the result of bringing a criminal to justice might be putting him to death, and sending him to the awful tribunal of another world with all his guilt on his head. Let the House recollect that a petition had been that day presented in favour of abolishing the punishment of death for Forgery, signed by above 1,000 bankers. That was not like an ordinary petition. No object could be so important to such petitioners as the prevention of Forgery. Hundreds of millions of money passed through their hands; and they were therefore most deeply interested in the adoption of such measures as would guard them from loss; but they declared by their petition that in their opinion the infliction of death for the crime of Forgery was not calculated to effect that object. It was formerly said that the friends of the abolition of the punishment of death for Forgery were theoretical. Now, however it was distinctly stated by large bodies of practical men, that the punishment of death for Forgery prevented prosecutions and convictions, and thereby left their property unprotected. The difficulty of obtaining convictions, naturally prevented bankers from prosecuting; for it was obvious that there were many reasons to disincline bankers from letting the world know that Forgeries had been committed upon them, unless they could feel tolerably sure of being able to convict the persons by whom those Forgeries had been perpetrated. There were many other points on which it would be easy to dilate; but he would abstain from troubling the House any further at that late hour.
1060
Mr. C. W. Wynn
highly complimented his right hon. friend on the efforts which he had made, and was making to ameliorate the Criminal Code of the country, although he could not agree with him on the present question. His right hon. friend had stated, that country bankers were not sufferers by Forgery; but by the returns on the Table, it appeared, that there were more convictions for Forgery at the county assizes than in London and Middlesex. It was demonstrated that the severity of the threatened punishment did not check the increase of the offence. Though he was disposed to pay great deference to the opinion of his right hon. friend, he must vote for the abolition of the punishment of death. Was it not worth while to try the experiment of abolishing it? If the experiment failed, the public feeling would then be reconciled, however reluctantly, to the re-enactment of the capital punishment. In his opinion, the last and severest punishment that it was in the power of man to inflict ought to be reserved for offences of the greatest moral guilt.
Mr. J. Martin
was persuaded that, upon the whole, it was desirable to try what effect the abolition of the punishment of death would produce.
Sir J. Yorke
was of opinion, that if the law were once altered, it would not be easy to bring it back to its present state. Having more faith in the judgment of his right hon. friend than he had in that of a 1,000 bankers, he should vote for the Bill as it stood.
Sir T. D. Acland
supported the Amendment.
After a few words from Mr. Brougham and Sir Robert Peel, the Committee divided—For the Amendment 118; Against it 134—Majority 16.
List of the Minority.
Acland, Sir Thomas
Browne, Jas.
Althorp, Lord
Brownlow, Charles
Anson, Hon. Geo.
Byng, George
Batley, H.
Benett, John
Bayley, Col.
Barclay, D.
Baring, Sir Thomas
Barclay, C.
Baring, B.
Bentinck, Lord G.
Baring, F.
Carter, J. B.
Bell, M.
Cavendish, Wm.
Bernal, R.
Chichester, Sir A.
Blandford, Marquis
Colborne, R.
Bramston, T.
Crompton, Samuel
Brougham, H.
Calthorpe, Hon. A. G.
Buck, L. W.
Calthorpe, Hon. F. G.
Buxton, F.
Corbett, P.
Buller, C.
Clements, Lord
1061
Calvert, N.
Ponsonby, Hon. G.
Calvert, Charles
Ponsonby, Hon. Wm.
Davies, Colonel
Protheroe, Edward
Denison, W. J.
Poyntz, W. S.
Dickinson, W.
Robinson, G. R.
Dundas, Sir Robert
Robinson, Sir G.
Dawson, Alex.
Ridley, Sir M. W.
Easthope, John
Rice, Spring
Ebrington, Lord
Russell, Wm.
Ewart, W.
Russell, Lord John
Fergusson, Sir R. C.
Rumbold, Chas. E.
Fortescue, Hon. G.
Sebright, Sir John
Fyler, J. B.
Slaney, R. A.
Grant, Robert
Shelley, Sir J.
Graham, Sir James
Smith, Robert
Grattan, Henry.
Smith, William
Grattan, James
Stanley, E. G.
Guise, Sir W., Bart.
Tennyson, C.
Gooch, Sir T.
Townshend, Lord C.
Harvey, D. W.
Talmash, Hon.—
Heneage, G. F.
Trant, W. H.
Horton, Rt. Hon. W.
Villiers, J. H.
Howick, Lord
Wall, C. Baring
Huskisson. Rt. Hon. W.
Ward, John
Honywood, W. P.
Warburton, Hen.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Whitmore, W.
Jephson, C. D. O.
Western, C. C.
King, Hon. Robert (Roscommon).
Westenra, Hon. H. R.
Wood, Charles
Kennedy, T. F.
Wood, Alderman
Kekewich, S. T.
Wynn, Right. Hon. C.
Kemp, T. R.
Wynn, Sir W. W.
Lawley, Francis
Wilson, Sir Robert
Lennard, Thos. B.
Wrottesley, Sir John
Legge, Hon. A. C.
TELLER
Lushington, Dr.
Thomson, Poulett
Macauley, T. B.
PAIRED OFF.
Marjoribanks, S.
Attwood, M.
Monck, J. B.
Beaumont, T. W.
Morpeth, Lord Visct.
Bireh, Joseph
Marshall, John
Cave, Otway
Marryatt, Joseph
Davenport, E.
Martin, John
Dundas, Hon. Thos.
Milton, Lord
Ellis, Agar
Macintosh, Rt. Hon. Sir James
Gordon, Robert
Hume, Joseph
Nugent, Lord
Phillimore, Dr.
O'Connell, Daniel
Power, R.
Ord, W.
Russell, Lord Wm.
Oxmantown Lord
Stanley, Lord
Parnell, Sir Hen.
Sykes, Dan.
Pallmer, C. N.
Thompson, P. B.
Palmerston, Lord
Wood, John
Pendarvis, E. W.
Wyvill, M.
The various clauses of the Bill then went through the Committee.
Mr. F. Buxton
gave notice that, on the bringing up of the report, his right hon. And learned friend would move that the punishment of transportation or imprisonment should be substituted for the punishment of death.
The House resumed; the report to be received the next day.
1062
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, May 25, 1830.
MINUTES.] Petitions presented. By the Earl of HAREWOOD, from Dewsbury, in favour of the Removal of the Assizes for the West Hiding of Yorkshire from York to Wakefield; and from the Landowners of Septon, to the same effect. By the Marquis of ORMOND, against the additional Duty on Spirits, from Kilkenny. By Viscount CLIFDEN, from the Directors of a Provincial Bank in Ireland, against the Punishment of Death for Forgery. By the Bishop of LONDON, from Chelmsford, for the Abolition of Slavery in the Colonies. By the Marquis of CLEVELAND, from the Shipowners of South Shields, against the Duties on Coals. By Earl BEAUCHAMP, from the Magistrates, Clergy, and Inhabitants of the City of Worcester, against the Punishment of Death for Forgery. By Lord WHARNCLIFFE, from a Dissenting Congregation near Leeds, praying the Abolition of Slavery. By the Marquis of CLEVELAND, from the Shipowners of New-castle-upon-Tyne, for the reduction of the Duty on Coals. By the Duke of DEVONSHIRE, from the City of Water-ford, complaining of Taxation, and praying Relief. By Earl GOWER, from Ross, against the increased Duty on British Corn Spirits.
THE KING'S INDISPOSITION—THE SIGN MANUAL.]
The Order of the Day for taking into consideration his Majesty's Message was then read.
The Message was then read by the clerk, [
see the debates of May
The Lord Chancellor
rose and said, that he presented himself to their Lordships, in consequence of the notice given yesterday by the noble Duke at the head of the Government, in conformity with the recommendation and suggestion contained in his Majesty's most gracious Message, to state the nature and outline of the measure which it was the intention of his Majesty's Ministers to propose to the House for their adoption, in order to give effect to the royal wish. He deeply lamented the occasion which called for that measure, and in the expression of that feeling he was sure he carried with him the sympathies of their Lordships, as he did those of every individual throughout this loyal nation. He was thoroughly and deeply sensible of the delicate and difficult nature of the measure which he had to submit to their Lordships. It was of the utmost importance, as the necessity of the case required that some measure should be adopted for carrying his Majesty's wishes into effect. At the same time the measure must be adopted in such a shape and form as not to occasion any detriment to the public service. He felt deeply the importance of the recommendation offered by the noble Earl (Grey) who took part in the conversation last night, that with respect to a measure of that
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
The Earl of Eldon
suggested it was not necessary to read the Bill at length at present, as it was to be read a second time to-morrow.
Earl Grey
said, he willingly bore testimony to the fairness and candour of the statement which the noble Lord on the
1068
1069
The Duke of Wellington
stated, that the circumstances of the case rendered it advisable for them to press forward the measure with as much celerity as was consistent with the forms of the House. He had no objection to defer the second reading till Thursday, but on this express condition—that this Bill was to be passed through all its remaining stages on that one day.
The Earl of Eldon
made an observation which was not audible below the Bar.
The Lord Chancellor
Earl Grey
remarked, that he was urged to press this upon the noble and learned Lord, from his strong feeling that it was a matter of much importance that it should be within their immediate power to amend or alter the Bill, if it were deemed necessary, before the close of the present Session.
The Bill was then read the first time, and read at length.
The Lord Chancellor
Earl Grey
The Motion was agreed to, and the following Peers appointed to compose the Committee:—The Lord President (Earl Bathurst); The Lord Privy Seal (the Earl of Rosslyn); The Marquis of Lansdown; Earl Grey; The Duke of Wellington; The Duke of Montrose; Lord Holland; The Marquis of Camden; The Archbishop of York; The Archbishop of Canterbury; The Bishop of London; the Duke of
1070
CONFERENCE WITH THE COMMONS.]
A Message was received from the Commons, requesting a conference with their Lordships in the Painted Chamber, on a matter of high importance to the administration of justice. Their request was granted. A committee of their Lordships was appointed to conduct the said conference. On their return from the Painted Chamber, the Lord President reported that they had received from the Commons a copy of certain Resolutions agreed to by the Commons for the removal of Sir Jonah Barrington from the office of Judge of the Admiralty in Ireland. On the motion of the Duke of Wellington, these Resolutions were ordered to be taken into consideration on Friday se'nnight.
FOUR-AND-A-HALF PER CENT DUTIES.]
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, that he rose to move for a document connected with the application of money for the public service; and though he did not anticipate any objection to his Motion, as a similar motion had been acceded to elsewhere, subsequently to the period when he gave notice of his intention to bring the subject forward in that House, he hoped that their Lordships would indulge him with their attention for a few moments, whilst he briefly stated the reasons which induced him to disapprove of the nature of the proceeding which had been adopted, and to think that if it were not noticed by Parliament, it might lead to unfortunate consequences hereafter, in cases of a similar character. For though what had recently been done, had been done without any improper views or intentions, it had set aside the unvaried usage of 170 years, by which the 4½-per-cent-duties, or the articles paid in kind for those duties, had been subjected, in common with all other merchandise imported into the country, to the duties imposed by Parliament. It appeared that of late, by cover of the royal prerogative, they had been exempted from duties, and thus formed a fund for the Crown, not applicable to any purposes recognized by Parliament. He admitted that under the common law it was one of the Royal prerogatives, that all things
1071
1072
The Duke of Wellington
said, that he did not rise to object to this Motion, but to express his sense of the noble Marquis's candour in not imputing any thing improper to his Majesty's Government in making the remission of which he complained. He would not, as the House had other business before it, enter into a history of the 4½-per-cent-duties. It was well known that those duties were paid in kind in the West-Indies. It was therefore clear, that the articles on which those duties were so paid were the property of the Crown; and there could be no doubt that it was a constitutional principle, that the property of the Crown was not liable to pay duty on importation into the country. He did not contend that it was always prudent to put that principle in practice, but he did mean to contend that it was not imprudent to put it in practice in this case, because there were peculiar circumstances attached to it, which were not likely to be found in any other case. In the year 1825, the Act of the 6th Geo. 4th was passed, which rendered this fund of the 4½-pcr-ccnt-duties liable to the payment of certain stipends to the clergy in the West-Indies; and that Act not only required that that fund should be so applied, but also recognized its application to the salaries of certain officers in the West-Indies, and to the payment of certain pensions, saying, in express words, that after these were paid, the surplus of the fund was to be applied to defray the stipends of the clergy. Under these circumstances, he contended that these funds were taken out of the hands of the Crown, were applied under the control and superintendence of Parliament, and could never be abused for any purposes whatever. The noble Duke then read a clause from the Act to support his view of the subject. It was clear, he said, from the words of that clause, that the fund was a public fund, and that it could not be abused to any of the purposes which the noble Marquis supposed, when he mentioned spices and cinnamon. On these grounds he contended that the measure stood entirely upon its own grounds, and that it could never be used injuriously as a precedent.
The Marquis of Lansdown
made a few observations in reply, in which he con-
1073
Motion agreed to.
Their Lordships then proceeded to examine witnesses further on the East Retford Disfranchisement Bill.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, May 25, 1830.
MINUTES.] Petitions presented. For an alteration in the Hackney Coach Act, by Mr. HOBHOUSE, from certain Inhabitants of London. For the Abolition of Slavery, by the same hon. Member, from Chichester and its vicinity:—By Mr. D. PENDARVIS, from Camborne, Cornwall. For the abolition of the East India Company's Monopoly, by Sir M. S. STEWART, from Merchants of Greenock and from Port Glasgow. Against the Use of Machinery, by Mr. O'CONNELL, from the Members of the British Association for promoting Co-operative Knowledge. For the repeal of the Irish Vestries Act, by Sir J. NEWPORT, from the Inhabitants of Glenmore:—By Sir M. SOMERVILLE, from Screen (Meath):—By Mr. JEPHSON, from Buttevant:—By Mr. O'CONNELL, from five Parishes in Clare. Against the Stamp Duties, by Mr. R. KING, from Landowners and Occupiers in the County of Cork:—By Sir J. BRYDGES, from Colcrainc:—By Mr. BLAIR, from the Dean of Faculty and Members of the Society of Writers, Ayr. Against the Irish Constabulary Act, by Sir M. SOMERVILLE, from the Magistrates of Meath. In favour of Mr. Owen's Plan, by Mr. HUME, from the Members of the Co-operative Trading Association. Against the Poor (Irish and Scotch) Removal Bill, from the Rector and Churchwardens of St. Mary's, Whitechapel:—By Mr. R. COLBORNE, from the Governors of the Poor of St. George's, Hanover-square:—By Mr. BYNG, from the Overseers of Paddington, and St. George's, Middlesex. For the abolition of the Punishment of Death for Forgery, by Mr. GUEST, from Honiton. For extending Corporation Privileges to all Inhabitants of Corporate Towns, by Mr. O'CONNELL, from Cork. Against the Sale of Beer Bill, by Sir R. VVYYAN, from Stratton, Cornwall. Against allowing Tobacco to be Grown in the Kingdom, by Mr. LIDDELL., from the Tobacco Manufacturers of Alnwick. Against the increased Duty on Spirits, by Mr. TALBOT, from the Distillers of the County of Perth; and from the Agricultural Society of Perth.
PROFANATION OF THE SABBATH.]
Mr. Hobhouse
presented a Petition, signed by 7,000 or 8,000 Journeyman Bakers employed in London, Southwark, Westminster, and in different other places within ten miles of the Metropolis, praying that the House would adopt some measure to prevent the necessity of their pursuing their worldly avocations on the Lord's Day.
Sir T. Baring
observed, that this Petition, coming as it did from a large body of Christians, who felt themselves called on to pray for relief from a Christian legis-
1074
Mr. Alderman Thompson
supported the prayer of the petition; and hoped that the hon. member for Westminster would move for a committee to inquire into the subject.
Mr. Hume
said,he entertained a different opinion. No inquiry nor consideration was necessary, nor could the House afford any remedy to the alleged evil. To legislate on it would be most useless, and he hoped the House would be better employed than in making the attempt. The master bakers had the remedy in their own hands. They might, if they pleased, shut up their shops on Sunday.
Mr. Alderman Wood
presented a similar petition from seven or eight hundred Master-bakers of London and the parts adjacent, praying for the repeal of the existing law, by which they were compelled to bake dinners within certain hours on a Sunday, and were thus prevented from attending divine service.
Sir T. Baring
1075
Mr. Slaney
wished to ask the hon. Members who were pressing these petitions on the House, whether the measure they proposed, of absolutely preventing Bakers from baking dinners on a Sunday, would not be more injurious to those who were, by the present custom, enabled to send their humble provisions to be baked on Sundays, than it could be beneficial to the Bakers? Not only would these poor people be put to much inconvenience, but they would, by being obliged to stay at home to cook their own dinners, be prevented from going to church, as they were now accustomed to do. So that, even the measure now proposed was meant in favour of religion, it was one of the most short-sighted measures that could have been imagined. It reminded him of an attempt, made in a similar spirit, to prevent the barbers from shaving on a Sunday morning, by which, if successful, the advantage of hundreds would have been sacrificed for the ease of one.
Petitions laid on the Table.
SIR JONAH BARRINGTON.]
Lord F. L. Gower
The Address was read as follows:—
Most Gracious Sovereign:—We your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons, in Parliament assembled, beg leave humbly to represent to your Majesty, that the office of Judge of the High Court of Admiralty in Ireland is an office of dignity and importance, on the impartial and incorrupt execution of which the honour of the Crown, and the protection of the rights and interests of many, both of your Majesty's subjects, and of foreigners engaged in maritime pursuits greatly depend. That by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of Ireland, bearing date the 23rd of May 1797, Doctor Barrington, now Sir Jonah Barrington, was appointed to the said office of Judge of the High Court of Admiralty in Ireland. That it appears to your faithful subjects that Sir Jonah Barrington, as Judge of the High Court of Admiralty in Ireland, did in the years 1805 and 1816, under colour of his official authority, apply to his own
1076
l
s
d
l
On the question "That this Address be read the second time,"
Mr. D. W. Harvey
addressed the House in behalf of Sir Jonah Barrington, whose case he described as one of very considerable hardship and severity. The hon. Member read several letters from Mr. Lamb (now Lord Melbourne) to Sir Jonah Barrington to shew that Mr. Lamb, when Secretary of Ireland, knew of the testimony which could be adduced against Sir Jonah. The first letter, he said, he would read was as follows, and was dated
"Whitehall, March 12th, 1828.
"Sir,—I beg leave to acknowledge your letters of the 2nd and 7th, with the enclosures contained in the latter; and, having read and attentively considered the whole of these documents, I still remain of opinion, that no explanation could be given which would prevent the House of Commons from instituting an inquiry into the causes of the absence of a Judge, for many years, from the country in which his judicial duties are to be performed."
"It appears to me, that independent of the general principle which must govern all such cases, there arises upon the face of all the public documents connected with the Admiralty Court of Ireland a strong presumption, that the Legislature contemplated the personal discharge of the duties of the office by the Judge, although the instrument of his appointment has provided for the case of his occasional and necessary absence, by giving the power of nominating a deputy in such contingencies. Actuated by the same feeling which dictated my first communication, I will explicitly state the course which the Government feels itself called upon to pursue. The remedy for the alleged grievance, arising from the con-
1077
"I am desirous of explaining myself at once, in such a manner as to leave no possible room either for present or future misapprehension. In case of your retirement from your office, I can have no objection to submit to his Majesty's Ministers any memorial which you may think proper to present; but I must be distinctly understood as not, by becoming the instrument of such communication, giving the slightest countenance or encouragement to any claim whatever, nor can I hold out the least hope or expectation that any allowance will be granted in addition to that pension which is assigned to the Judge of the Court of Admiralty upon his retirement, by 40 Geo. 3rd c. 69, s. 2."
"Sir,—I beg leave to acknowledge your letters of the 25th ult. and 3rd instant; and in compliance with your request, I have directed the returns made from the Court of Admiralty in Ireland to be forwarded to you, according to your directions, at the British Consul's at Calais. I can assure you that when, in consequence of your repeated communications to
1078
"My Dear Sir Jonah:—By a letter which I have just received from John Carroll, I find that he has had the pleasure of seeing you and Lady Barrington, and I can with truth assure you it has made me happy to hear you are both well. I recollect with gratitude the kindness I at all times experienced from you here, and the hospitality with which you were so good as to receive me in France. Carroll mentions that he had some conversation with you on the subject of your office in this country, but I am not able to collect from his letter precisely what passed; it is therefore that I am induced to trouble you, to request that you will have (he kindness to write to me, and freely, confidentially, and without reserve, let me know your views and wishes on that subject. You are of course aware how your court is now situated from the death of Jameson and the illness of Mabaffy. As to your resigning the office, I take it for granted that that is out of the question, the retiring pension (400
l
1079
Lord F. L. Gower
could not see very clearly what he had to do with the conduct of his predecessor in office, even if the hon. member for Colchester had made out any case against that predecessor. But the hon. Member had made out no case against Lord Melbourne. Instead of it being true that Lord Melbourne had been conversant with the evidence of Mr. Pineau, the fact was directly the reverse. Part of Mr. Pineau's evidence had, indeed, been taken in March 1828: but that was a very unimportant part, relating merely to fees and to the practice of the court. It was not until the month of May that that part of Mr. Pineau's evi-
1080
Sir J. Newport
could not understand why a private and confidential letter, written from one friend to another, should have been dragged forward on this occasion. He wished to state, that inquiry originated in consequence of representations made by the mercantile interest of Cork, as to the mode of conducting business in the Admiralty Court. Certainly, in the investigation which ensued, it had been established that Sir Jonah Barrington had made an improper use of the suitors' money, and after that fact it was impossible for the Government to proceed otherwise than it had done.
Mr. O'Connell
thought, nothing could be more unjust than to attribute any thing improper to the noble Lord, who had conducted this business. This was not—how could it be, or how could any one say it was—a party question, or that party feelings were in any way mixed up in it? All that could be said upon it, and it did not lie in Sir Jonah Barrington's mouth to say it, was, that the proceedings had been carried on too slowly and with too much lenity. Allow him, as a member of the Irish bar, to protest against the production of that confidential letter which had been read by the hon. member for Colchester. He agreed that the contents of that letter were creditable
1081
Mr. D. W. Harvey
Mr. Doherty
could assure the hon. Member that he did not object to the production of that letter. When Gentlemen considered the distressing situation of the individual in whose possession the letter was, how could any one object to the production of it, if that individual fancied it could do him any good? When he first joined the profession, Sir Jonah Barrington was at the head of his circuit. Sir Jonah had always treated him with a degree of kindness and friendship which he could not forget—which made him rejoice that he was not called upon to take any very active part in these distressing, but, he must add, just and necessary proceedings.
On the question that the Address be agreed to,
Mr. D. W. Harvey
said, he had a Petition to present from Sir Jonah Barrington. It expressed the petitioner's regret that his counsel at the Bar should have confined himself, in his speech to constitutional
1082
Address agreed to; Lord F. L. Gower to carry the same to the Lords, and to desire their concurrence therein at a conference.
Mr. D. W. Harvey
said, he had a question to put to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel) opposite. An address for the removal of Sir Jonah Barrington had been agreed to, and a noble Lord was now on his way to the other House to request the concurrence of their Lordships to it. Suppose both Houses sanctioned the address, then the Crown would have, on deliberation, to determine whether the request contained in the address should be granted. The question, therefore, which he had to ask, and he asked it merely for information, arose out of the very delicate matter which had last night been communicated to the House. Would his Majesty exercise the royal consideration with respect to this address; or was it intended that the persons who were to be appointed in consequence of the message of last night, should exercise the royal deliberation as well as the performance of the mechanical office of signing public documents?
Sir R. Peel
said, that the hon. Member appeared to him to mistake altogether the object of the message of last night. His Majesty was perfectly capable of exercising discretion and deliberation, and the message of last night merely stated that bodily indisposition made it inconvenient and painful for his Majesty to sign with his own hand those public instruments which required his sign manual. No Minister would presume to attach his Majesty's signature to any document upon which the pleasure of the Crown had not been taken; much less to an instrument for the removal of a Judge. His Majesty's pleasure would be taken upon this, as it was taken upon every other case; for he had the satisfaction of assuring the House, that his Majesty was at that moment as competent to exercise his mental faculties as he had ever been at any other period of his life.
Mr. D. W. Harvey
presented the Petition from Sir Jonah Barrington; read and to be printed.
Lord F. L. Gower
reported, in answer
1083
A committee was appointed to manage the conference: and to consist of the Members appointed to draw up the address for the removal of Sir Jonah Barrington, with other Members.
After a lapse of twenty minutes,
Lord F. L. Gower
reported, that the committee had had a conference with their Lordships; and had delivered the Address agreed to by the House, which their Lordships promised to take into consideration.
DUTY ON LEAD.]
Sir J. Graham
presented a Petition from the Lead Miners and others engaged in the manufacture of Lead, in the parishes of Alston and Allendale, Northumberland, complaining of the distress they suffered from the competition of foreign manufacturers of Lead, and praying for a higher protecting duty. The hon. Baronet entered into some details, showing the changes which had taken place in the duties on copper, tin, and lead, since 1825, when a new scale of protecting duty was arranged respecting them, different from the
ad valorem
l
l
s.,
l
l
s.,
l
l
1084
Mr. Liddel
supported the prayer of the petition, and contended, that if these persons were put out of employment, they would be thrown back on the market for labour, and thus increase the difficulties of the working classes.
Mr. Herries
said, it was not his intention to follow the hon. Baronet into all the topics he had introduced, and this was the less necessary, as the question to which the petition referred was now under the consideration of the Government. The greatest attention must be paid to it before any decision was come to. He hoped, however, in the course of a week to have a better opportunity of addressing the House on the subject, and therefore he would forbear saying anything further at present.
Mr. Warburton
hoped that nothing would be done to give advantages to Lead miners, beyond the regular course of trade; and protested against taxing the rest of the community to the amount of 90,000
l
Mr. Huskisson
said, that the Lead-mines of this country not only supplied the home consumption, but sent some thousands of tons abroad; of course the price abroad must be settled by foreign competition, but as long as the miner supplied the home consumption, it was all that he could claim or pretend to; and, indeed, unless they could shut up the Spanish mines altogether, the price in foreign countries must be regulated by competition.
Lord Milton
said, that the root of all the mischief was in the high protecting duty on corn, which in one way or another amounted to from forty to fifty per cent;
1085
Lord W. Powlett
complained that the Lead ore had never been sufficiently protected like other ores, and that, in consequence of this want of protection, the export trade had dwindled down to 5,000 tons annually.
Mr. A. Baring
said, he did not see that the petitioners suffered any peculiar hardship, although he regretted their distress. They had a monopoly of the home market, and were able to send some thousand tons abroad; and if the price had fallen, the protection had risen with the fall. Lead, too, was not a mineral on which he was disposed to allow much protection, because it did not enter into many of the articles of exportation to other countries.
Mr. Hume
said, that in the last six years the country had exported 59,000 tons, being an average of 10,000 tons a year. His hon. friend said, the quantity produced was 45,000 tons a-year; and, therefore, he could sec that nearly one-fifth was sent out of the country. The price of that quantity was, of course, regulated by the price in the foreign market; and the price at which it could there be sold, as we had more than we required, regulated the price at home; no relief, therefore, could be obtained by a protecting duty, and the only way in which the Lead owners could hope for relief was, by persuading the Government to lower the price of labour, and so put the English in the same state as the Spanish labourer.
Mr. P. Thomson
entreated the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pause before he yielded to the representations of the petitioners on this subject; because, by increasing the duty from 10
s
s
Petition to be printed.
DRAMATIC CENSORSHIP.]
Mr. Lennard
rose to move for leave to bring in a
1086
pleno jure
1087
Golden Rump
1088
Hamlet
1089
"Segnius irritant animos demissa per aurem,
Quam quæ sunt oculis subjecta fidelibus."
Polly
Sophonisba"
1090
Mr. George Lamb
observed, that as he had been connected for a considerable period with one of the great theatres, he wished to say a few words on the present occasion, although he was extremely reluctant to do that when the press of business was so urgent. The hon. Member was misinformed when he stated that compromises took place between the patentees of the large, and the owners of the minor theatres. No such thing occurred, and each of them stood upon his own rights. He could also assure him that the Patent Theatres had no wish respecting his Motion one way or the other. He was sorry not to see in his place, the Paymaster of the Forces, for he would be
1091
l
l
s
1092
Sir Robert Peel
concurred in the observations which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. Looking at the state of the stage before and after the passing of the Act, there was nothing to induce the House to remove the censorship. He confessed he had not the confidence which the hon. Mover had in the good taste of the public; and was by no means satisfied that, but for the Censorship, immoral and blasphemous dramas would not be received with applause; neither did he believe that the
1093
Mr. O'Conncll
could not understand why the stage was not to be supposed to have become sufficiently purified to be left without Censorship. In all other branches of literature a purification of taste had taken place. Of this the celebrated novel of
Tom Jones
Sir Robert Peel
having intimated that he would not object to the hon. Member for Maldon's bringing in a bill at as early a period in the next Session as he might think proper,—the Motion was negatived without a division.
CANADA.]
Mr. Luhouchere
1094
l
1095
1096
1097
l
1098
Lord Sandon
said, that he rose to second the Motion of his hon. friend with the greatest pleasure, from the perfect concurrence which he felt in his views. The principal difficulty he experienced in arguing the point was, to anticipate by what arguments the adoption of the Resolutions could be opposed. The principles they enunciated were become so much axioms in the science of politics, as to have been long since placed, in this country at least, beyond dispute. They affirmed the importance of separating the legislative and executive from the judicial functions; the importance of giving independence to judges, and a national character to the higher branch of the legislature of a free colony. Upon the first point, he should content himself with the authorities of Paley and Blackstone; the former having said, "The first maxim of a free state is, that the laws be made by one set of men, and administered by another; in other words, that the legislative and judicial characters should be kept distinct." The words of Blackstone were equally impressive:—"Nothing is more to be avoided in a free constitution, than uniting the provinces of a Judge and Minister of State." This much-reprobated union of incompatible characters prevailed in the greatest degree in Canada. As the House had heard from his hon. friend, the same person advised in the morning in the Executive Council, that certain laws should be proposed, voted upon them in the afternoon in the Legislative Council, and administered them in the evening on the bench. Nor was that merely a theoretical evil,—the greatest practical evils had already resulted from it—the Judgeshad been converted into active political partizans;—they talked in the legis-
1099
1100
Sir George Murray
addressed the House, in vindication of the conduct of his Majes-
1101
1102
Lord Viscount Howick
did not by any means agree in the conclusion to which the- right hon. Secretary had come on this subject. On the contrary, the whole tenor of his speech went to support the
1103
1104
Mr. Wilmot Horton
did not wish to prolong a discussion on which so little substantial difference seemed to have arisen. It was his intention to do no more than express his satisfaction at the statement just made by the right hon. the Secretary for the Colonies. As a member of the Canada Committee, he begged to remind the House, that when the Committee recommended that Judges should not hold seats in the Legislative Council, it intended that the principle should be brought progressively into operation; and not that those Judges, now holding seats, should be immediately removed. That principle had been fully recognised by his Majesty's Government. The right hon. Secretary said, he concurred in the recommendation of the Committee, and he must congratulate Canada upon that declaration, as it was a pledge that his Majesty's Government meant to act on the recommendations of the Committee. He felt himself pledged to the resolutions proposed, because they embodied the principles of the Report agreed to by the Committee; but he did not wish those resolutions to be passed, because he thought with the right hon. Gentleman, that they conveyed a censure on the Government which it did not deserve. He should be sorry to see those resolutions passed, because, although they expressed the unanimous feelings of the House, and the opinion of Government as to Canada, yet he felt himself called upon to vote against them on the grounds stated by the
1105
Lord Althorp
thought, the way to preserve the important line of coast which we possessed in Canada was, not by fortifications, but by conciliating the people. He thought the people of that colony entitled to all the advantages of a connection with this country, and all the benefits of local Governments combined—they ought to have a free and independent Constitution. Their Government was formed upon the model of the British Constitution, and means should be taken to assimilate it to that of this country, by connecting the Legislative Council with the people of the colony. Now, it was impossible that the people of Canada could look with confidence to a Council composed of persons in the service of the Crown, and removable at pleasure. Notwithstanding what might be said to the contrary, he would maintain that those Resolutions were founded upon the Report of the Canada Committee, and for that as well as other reasons they should have his support. He thought it most desirable that the House should adopt them.
Mr. M. Fitzgerald
conceived, that the House ought to be satisfied with the assurance given by Ministers. When any reasonable doubt could be entertained of their professions, it would be time enough to call in the authority of the House; he therefore recommended that, for the present, the Resolutions should be postponed; They would, he feared, mar the good effects of the measures of Government in Canada.
Mr. J. E. Denison
thought, that the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman had referred to the Resolutions proposed by his hon. friend, demanded some observation. He thought it would be difficult for any person to object to these Resolutions who did not object to the principle; and accordingly, the right hon. Secretary did not object, either to the principle or the Resolutions; but he objected to the time when they were brought forward. The principle contained in them involved nothing less than the existence of a free constitution in Canada. The sooner the House distinctly declared its opinion on that subject the better, and every moment that was delayed was improperly lost. The House was at length called upon to act in the true
1106
1107
Mr. C. Grant
thought, that the thanks of the House were due to his hon. friend, for having brought forward his Resolutions, and to his right hon. friend, for the manner in which he had shown his willingness to carry the Resolutions of the Committee into effect. It was essential that those Resolutions should be followed up, in order to show that there was no intention of having one government at home and another abroad; and he trusted that they should never again hear it contended that the Colonies were not to enjoy the principles of our Constitution, He main-
1108
cries of "Question, Question
Mr. Sheart Worthy
said, he would take that, opportunity of expressing a hope that no more time should be lost, for every moment that was lost reduced the chance of doing good. With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, however, he thought that it was but justice to say, that he seemed to have done every thing that the time would permit. To pass the Resolutions would be unfair towards the Government; he regretted that they had been proposed, and he hoped that they would not be adopted.
Mr. Hume
said [amidst many marks of impatience in the House] he hoped his hon. friend would press his Motion to a division, for the purpose of satisfying the people of Canada that there was a party in that House that took an interest in their welfare. He said this, because he knew that the eyes of the people of Canada were turned on that House. Some hon. Members might not take that interest which he and others did in this matter, but as he held in his hand an address
1109
Lord Milton
suggested to the House, whether it would not be better to take such a course as would induce the people of Canada to look, not to any particular individuals who might happen to be in office, but to the people of England as represented in that House. He therefore trusted that his hon. friend would persist in his Motion, not for the purpose of holding out to Canada that there was a party ready to take their case under its protection, but to show them that there was a principle in Parliament, and a general feeling also, that the grievances of the Canadians ought not to be less considered in that House than the grievances of the people of England.
Sir Robert Peel
said, he had been asked, whether he did not think that the Judges ought to be independent of the Crown? This was a difficult question to answer in general, as much depended on the nature of society, on the state of the Colony, and on the nature of the inducements held out to men to accept judicial situations. The great point to be aimed at was, a pure and impartial administration of justice in the Colony. The Mover and Seconder of the Resolutions that had been proposed to the House, had supported them in a manner which indicated that it was necessary to force his right hon. friend to adopt the recommendation of the Committee; but it had already been pointed out by his right hon. friend, that he had not only adopted the principle, but had actually carried it into practice, by seizing the opportunity afforded by three vacancies to appoint the successors in accordance with the suggestion of the Committee. As the Resolutions were meant to apply a stimulus to the Government, which his right hon. friend had shown that the Government did
1110
Mr. Labouchere
The House then divided on the First Resolution—For the Motion 94; Against it 155—Majority against the Motion 61
1111
List of the Minority.
Althorp, Lord
Milton, Lord
Baring, Sir Thomas
Macdonald, Sir J., bt.
Baring, F.
Morpeth, Lord
Baring, Wm. B.
Maxwell, John
Bernal, Ralph
Monck, J. B.
Benett, J.
Normanby, Lord
Blake, Sir F.
Ord, Wm.
Blandford, Marquis
O'Connell, Daniel
Brownlow, Charles
Poyntz, W. S.
Brougham, H.
Phillimore, Dr.
Carter, John
Protheroe, E.
Cavendish, Wm.
Philips, Sir G., bt.
Calvert, Charles
Ponsonby, Hon. F.
Carew, Richard
Ponsonby, Hon. W.
Cholmeley, M. J.
Philips, G. R.
Clifton, Lord
Parnell, Sir H.
Clive, Edward B.
Price, Sir Robert
Compton, Samuel
Pendarvis, E. W.
Dawson, Alexander
Rumbold, Chas. E.
Denison, W. J.
Russell, William
Denison, J. E.
Russell, Lord John
Du Cane, Peter
Rice, T. S.
Dundas, Sir Robert
Robinson, Sir G. R.
Dundas, Hon. T.
Robarts, A.W.
Dundas, Hon. H.
Stanley, Lord
Easthope, John
Stanley, Edward
Ebrington, Lord
Smith, R. Vernon
Foley, J. h.
Stewart, John
Fergusson, Sir R. C.
Stewart, Sir M. S., bt.
Fazakerley, John N.
Thompson, P. B.
Guise, Sir B. W., bt.
Thomson, C. P.
Gordon, R.
Townsend, Lord C.
Graham, Sir James
Webb, Col. Edw.
Grant, Rt. Hon. C.
Western, C. C.
Grattan, Henry
Wood, C.
Howard, H.
Wall, C. B.
Howick, Lord
Wilbraham, G.
Hume, J.
Wilson, Sir R.
Honywood, W. P.
Wood, J.
Huskisson, Rt. Hn. W.
Warburton, H.
Heron, Sir R.
TELLERS.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Labouchere, H.
Jephson, C. D. O.
Sandon, Lord PAIRED OFF.
Kemp, T. R.
Killeen, Lord
Beaumont, J. W.
Knight, R.
Birch, J.
Kennedy, T. F.
Davenport, Edward
Lambert, J. F.
Ellis, Hon. Agar
Lennard, T. B.
Grant, Robert
Lamb, Hon. G.
Guest, J. J.
Lawley, F.
Ponsonby, Hon. G.
Martin, John
Whitbread, Wm.
Marshall, W.
Wood, Alderman
TOBACCO MANUFACTURERS.]
Mr. Chas. Calvert
in moving that the Petition from the Tobacco Manufacturers of London, Westminster, and Southwark, praying for Repayment of the Duty which had been paid on Stock prior to July 5, 1825, and presented on February 17, be referred to a Committee, observed, that he made that Motion from a conviction impressed on his mind, as well as on the minds of the
1112
s
s
s
s
s
1113
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he was far from thinking that a Select Committee was necessary in this case, and he hoped that he should satisfy the House, that the question lay in so narrow a compass, and the facts were so plain and simple, that it might come to a decision at once, without the intervention of a committee, as to whether the prayer of the petitioners ought to be granted. As his hon. friend had stated, in the year 1825, by an accident, the duty on Tobacco, which it was intended to continue at 4
s
s
b
1114
s
d
b
s
s
d
s
s
s
s
s
b
s
l
l
s
s
Mr. Charles Calvert
said, that he was not a little surprised at the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had met this Motion. He alleged, as a reason for doing injustice in 1825, that no additional charge had been made on the manufacturers for the stock in hand, when the duty was raised from 3
s
d
s
1115
l
l
Motion negatived without a division.
GALWAY FRANCHISE BILL.]
Mr. Spring Rice
Mr. J. Daly
opposed the Bill, and moved, as an amendment, that it be read a third time that day six months.
Mr. Spring Rice
argued in favour of the Bill. It was only intended to carry into complete execution the principle adopted by that House of admitting Catholics to the offices of the State as well as Protestants.
Mr. Trant
opposed the Bill, as giving the whole power of the Corporation of Galway into the hands of Catholics.
Mr. North
objected to the Bill, that it robbed the corporation of a portion of its privileges. The Charter of that town was violated by the Act of George 1st, and this
1116
The House divided: for the Amendment 59; Against it 77—Majority 18.
List of the Minority.
Beresford, Lt.-Col. M.
Jones, John
Bernard, Thomas
Knox, Hon. John
Bankes, George
Lowther, Viscount
Burrard, George
Lewis, Right Hon. F.
Buck, Lewis W.
Martin, Sir Byam
Courtenay, Rt. Hon. T. P.
Maitland, Hon. Capt.
Moore, George
Croker, Rt. Hon. J. W.
Murray, Sir G. Bart.
Corbett, Panton
Owen, Hugh O.
Campbell, Archibald
Prendergast, M. C.
Cust, Hon. Captain P.
Peel, Wm. Y.
Cust, Hon. Major E.
Peel, Rt. Hon. Sir R.
Cockburn, Rt. Hon. J.
Planta, Joseph
Clerk, Sir George
Perceval, Spencer
Calvert, John
Ross, Charles
Dundas, Hon. H.
Rae, Rt. Hon. Sir W.
Drummond, Home
Saunderson, Alex.
Dawson, G. R.
Sibthorp, Col. C. D.
Doherty, John
Stopford, Lord
Estcourt, J. H. jun.
Scott, Sir W., Bart.
Fyler, Thomas B.
Spottiswoode, Andrew
Freemantle, Sir T. T. P.
Sturt, Henry Charles
Twiss, Horace
Fitzgerald, Rt. Hon. M.
Trench, Colonel F. W.
Garlies, Viscount
Trant, Wm. H.
Gordon, Hon. Capt. W.
Talmash, L.
Grant, Sir Alexander
Vyvyan, Sir R. R.
Goulburn, Rt. Hon. H.
Wortley, Hon. J. S.
Hill, Sir George
Hardinge, Sir Henry
TELLERS.
Herries, Rt. Hon. J. G.
Daly, James
Hodson, J. A.
North, J. H.
Inglis, Sir R. H.
HOUSE OF LORDS,
Wednesday, May 26. 1830.
MINUTES.] Earl Pomfret took the Oaths and his Seat. Earl BATHURST laid on the Table the Report of the Committee appointed to search for Precedents respecting a Substitute for the Sign Manual. The Masters in Chancery, the Register of Chancery, and the Criminal Returns' Bills, were read a second time.
Petitions presented. Against Slavery, by Lord CALTHORPE, from certain Dissenters in Yorkshire:—And by the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from Camborne, Cornwall. By Viscount MELBOURNE, from Leeds, against the Punishment of Death for Forgery. By the Duke of GORDON, from Elgin, against the increased Duty on British Spirits. By Lord FARNBOROUGH, from the Miners of Allendale and Alston (Northumberland), complaining of Distress, and praying for an additional Duty on the importation of Foreign Lead. By Lord HOLLAND, against a Clause of the Birmingham Free Grammar School Bill, from the Dissenters of that Town; and from Dublin, against the increased Duty on Stamps in Ireland. By Lord KING, against the Window Tax, from the Parish of St. Luke, Middlesex. By the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from the County of Dublin, against the increased Duty on British Spirits.
SOVEREIGNTY OF GREECE.]
Lord Durham
said, he rose to ask the noble
1117
1118
The Earl of Aberdeen
said, nobody could wish more ardently than he wished, that the fullest information should be given to the House upon this subject; and he was persuaded that the more the conduct of the Ministers was examined, the more their Lordships would be satisfied that they had done their duty. He did not propose to enter into a discussion respecting all the papers upon the Table of the House. Those to which the noble Lord had alluded, were Protocols of the Conferences between the three Plenipotentiaries in London; the last of which was held on the 14th of May. On that day the Plenipotentiaries received the assent of the Porte and of the Greek Government to the propositions of the Allies; and on the same day these papers were transmitted to his Royal Highness, the Sovereign Prince of Greece. But on the 15th his Royal Highness sent the Plenipotentiaries three letters received from Count Capo d'Istrias; two of them were dated the 6th of April, and the third on the 22nd of April. Those of the 6th described the state of Greece as one of great apprehension and alarm, and held out no very flattering prospects to his Royal Highness. But the letter of the 22nd contained the adhesion of the Greek Government to the propositions of the Allies, and they of course concluded that the assent of the Greek Government ought to have dissipated all the alarm created by the President's previous letters. These were the feelings of the Plenipotentiaries on the 15th. He then came to explain the mistake into which he thought the noble Baron had fallen. He had not, on the former evening, stated that up to Friday last they had no reason to apprehend any change in his Royal Highness; but what he did say was, that he had not been made acquainted with his determination to resign until 12 o'clock on Friday night. And he had also said, that up to a very
1119
The Earl of Malmesbury
complained that the papers had not been distributed. There were only 150 copies, and he was not fortunate enough to obtain one. In his view any discussion on them must be premature. Entertaining a very high opinion of Prince Leopold, he should be very slow to form any suspicions derogatory to his integrity, and would wait till all the information was before him to make up his mind on the subject.
Earl Grey
contended, that the noble Earl had introduced a premature discussion of the question founded on an
ex-parte
1120
The Earl of Aberdeen
said, it was not in his power to produce all the papers alluded to by the noble Earl. He had no authority to produce papers and confidential letters addressed to Prince Leopold by Count Capo d'Istrias. They were not official documents connected with the conferences. He had produced to the last syllabic all that had been transacted at the conferences. The noble Earl then repeated that he had never denied having received from Prince Leopold an announcement that he was likely to abdicate; but that announcement was founded upon the letters of Capo d'Istrias, dated before the assent of the Greek Government. The assent entirely changed the character of those letters, and that was the reason which induced him to think that his Royal Highness, either would or ought to have changed the intention which he had formed in consequence of the letters.
Earl Grey
said, he did not complain that the noble Earl had not produced the papers to which he had referred, but only that he had produced the others without them. Why were not the papers produced which accompanied the assent of the Greek Government?
The Earl of Aberdeen
said, he could not have produced those papers, because Prince Leopold had not thought proper to give them to him until after he had sent in his resignation. It would, perhaps,
1121
Lord Durham
said, that the reason why Prince Leopold did not send in the papers referred to until after his resignation was, that he did not receive them from the French Ambassador until after Friday. With respect to the letters from Count Capo d'Istrias, the latter of which, the noble Lord said, ought to have changed his Royal Highness's determination, that letter announced indeed the acquiescence of the Greek government, but added, that the determination of the Allies was received by the Senate in deep silence. His Royal Highness had, therefore, no reason to suppose from that letter, that his government would be popular, and he was justified in resigning.
Lord Ellenborough
thought it was impossible to read the papers without coming to the conclusion that the Greek government, as a government dealing with another government, and not appealing to the universal suffrage of the people which created them, but acting on their own responsibility, distinctly acquiesced in the proposals of the Allies. He could not understand the whole of those documents in any other light than that of making Prince Leopold Sovereign of Greece, and of showing that he acquiesced in that arrangement. Noble Lords had, unwisely he thought, discussed this question, as if it were one of personal consideration to Prince Leopold and his Majesty's Government.
Earl Grey
protested that there was no desire on his part to make the personal conduct of Prince Leopold the subject of discussion; and if it had been made so, it was entirely owing to the noble Lords opposite, who had brought forward such a case against Prince Leopold as made it necessary for his friends to remove forthwith the impression that might make, by contrary declarations. Whatever inconvenience had arisen upon this subject was owing to the incomplete manner in which these papers had been laid upon the Table.
The Duke of Wellington
entreated their Lordships to suspend their judgments until they had the other papers before them, and had read those which were already on the Table. This discussion had arisen out of a recent practice—very irre-
1122
Lord Holland
admitted that the practice of asking questions of the Ministry might be inconvenient to the noble Lords who composed it: at the same time he felt it necessary to remind them, that it was an inconvenience to which all their noble predecessors had submitted. If he were called upon to select any period when there had been an uncommon forbearance of the practice of asking these questions, he would say that it was during the administration of the noble Duke. Indeed, the noble Earl had thanked their Lordships for the forbearance which they had displayed upon this very subject, and had said that it had proved very conducive to the settlement of the question. What he complained of was, that the noble Earl should have laid papers enough upon the Table to create an unjust impression against Prince Leopold, and should have withheld those which were calculated to remove it. Those noble Lords who had such a horror of
ex-parte
1123
ex-parte
Lord Ellenborough
observed, that the mere fact of the noble Baron's having condemned the conduct of Government without having read the papers in explanation of it, was sufficient to show the fairness with which he would form his opinion upon it after he had perused them.
SUITS IN EQUITY BILL.]
The Lord Chancellor
having moved according to the Order of the Day the third reading of the Suits in Equity Bill.
Lord Eldon
begged leave to trouble the House with a few remarks on the subject. It. appeared to him that it would be advisable to be more deliberate on the present question, in consideration of the great changes which it was understood were projected in the Administration of Justice in England and Wales. It appeared to be in contemplation to appoint an additional Judge in the Court of King's
1124
1125
The Lord Chancellor
regretted that the noble and learned Lord had not been able
1126
1127
The Earl of Eldon
explained, and added that he understood the opinion of the Vice-Chancellor to be, that no new Judge was necessary in Equity.
The Lord Chancellor
said, that it was very strange that the Vice-Chancellor should have expressed such an opinion without intimating it to him. When the
1128
The Earl of Eldon
answered, that he had received a letter from the Master of the Rolls, stating that he and the Vice-Chancellor thought a new Judge in Equity was not necessary.
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Wednesday, May 26, 1830.
MINUTES.] The Four-per-Cent Dissentients Bill was read 3 third time and passed.
Petitions presented. For a protecting Duty on the Importation of Foreign Lead, by Lord W. POWLETT, from Sum-hope, Wolsingham, Dufton, Hilton, and Merton:—By Sir E. LLOYD, from the Miners of the County of Flint, For Measures to give Security to Ireland, by Mr. G. MOORE, from Sir Harcourt Lees. Against the Scotch and Irish Paupers Removal Bill, by Mr. C. CALVERT. from the Overseers of St. Saviour, Southwark:—By Mr. DENISON, from the Overseers of St. Mary, Newington:—By Mr. BYNG, from St. Leonard, Shoreditch. Against the Select Vestries Bill, by Mr. BYNG, from the Inhabitants of Paddington. Against Poor-Laws for Ireland, by Colonel BERNARD, from the Freeholders of King's County. For a revision of the Friendly Societies Act, by Sir W. GUISE, from John Garlick Ball. Against an increase of Stamp Duties (Ireland), by Colonel BRUEN from Carlow. Against the increase of Duty on Corn Spirits, by Mr. R. GRANT, from the Freeholders of the County of Elgin; and from the same Persons, against the Inventory Duty. Against the Administration of Justice Bill, by Mr. E. DAVENPORT, from the Freeholders of the County Palatine of Chester; and from the Inhabitants of Sandback. For the Abolition of the Punishment of Death in cases of Forgery, by Mr. LAWLEY, from the Inhabitants of Rugby. By Mr. C. W. WYNN, from Mr. Dixon, of Dumbarton, complaining of the Votes of the Committee of the House of Commons, on the Clyde Navigation Bill, and praying that the matter might be referred to a Select Committee of Seven Members of the House, agreeable to a Standing Order lately made by the House.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. BROWN LOW, amount of Duties collected on Glass in Ireland during the last Ten Years:—On the Motion of Sir M. S. STEWART, Copies of all Acts of Sederunt, regulating the Fees of the Writers to the Signet (Scotland):—On the Motion of Mr. HUME, the Number of Persons convicted of Forgery in Scotland, from 1791 to 1829:—On the Motion of Mr. KENNEDY, the number of Causes decided in the different Sheriffs' Courts (Scotland), since the passing of the 6th of Geo. IV.:—On the Motion of Mr. LAWLEY, expense incurred by the Manufactory of Small Arms at Enfield, including Pensions, &c since Jan. 1st, 1812.
LIABILITIES OF STAGE COACH PROPRIETORS.]
Sir T. D. Acland
1129
l.
l.
Motion, after a few words from Sir T. Freemantle and Mr. N. Calvert, agreed to.
PAUPERS (SCOTCH AND IRISH) REMOVAL BILL.]
Lord Stanley
Mr. Sturges Bourne
did not mean to oppose the Motion, but he had an objection to one of the clauses of the Bill. He confessed he felt some surprise that such a Bill should have been brought forward in the absence of the Secretary for the Home Department. It made an important alteration in the law, and ought to receive the most mature consideration.
Mr. Hobhouse
said, that the principle of the Bill was monstrous, and he was quite certain that it could not pass in its present form.
Mr. Alderman Wood
said, that when those poor persons came to the parishes they must be relieved. Now the effect of this Bill would be to refuse them relief, and therefore, against such a Bill he conceived that every sort of opposition was perfectly fair. He had presented several petitions against it, and was resolved to divide the House rather than allow it to pass.
Mr. Denison
said, he also had presented petitions against the Bill, and he hoped the worthy Alderman would take the sense of the House upon it.
Mr. N. Calvert
said, that in the parishes with which he was more immediately connected, they were often put to an expense of several hundreds a year for the removal of these paupers. He did not think the Bill so objectionable as his hon. friends did.
Mr. Littleton
saw no reason why the more distant counties should not have the benefit of the Act—the Bill ought to place all upon the same footing of equality. Perhaps it might be found advantageous to try the experiment of leaving those paupers without any parish relief; if due notice of such a system were given, it would be found that their
1130
Mr. James Grattan
thought, that if a sufficient provision were made for the Irish poor in Ireland, such a Bill as the present would be unnecessary—it was in effect a Bill to deprive England of the benefits of Irish labour.
Mr. Estcourt
understood the object of the noble Lord to be, to have the Bill read a second time and submit it to a committee, for the purpose of seeing if any measure of relief could be devised. So far he meant to support the Motion.
Sir E. Knatchbull
anticipated, that in the course of next Session some provision would be made for the Irish poor, but he thought that the present Bill would have the effect of imposing a heavy burthen upon one part of the country at the expense of another; it might be as well to wait and see what measure the necessities of Ireland can into existence.
Sir T. Freemantle
opposed the waiting. Even if they did wait, the counties still might be left without relief.
Mr. Byng
said, that he looked upon the Bill as so injurious to the metropolis that he should vote against it.
Sir John Wrottesley
thought it a very fair proposal of his noble friend, that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. That would pledge the House to nothing further than an examination of the Bill.
Colonel Wood
was convinced, that the large populous parishes of Middlesex had very unnecessarily taken alarm at the Bill; and if it were sent to a committee it might be shown that no such evil would accrue.
Sir R. Inglis
supported the Motion. The principle of the Bill might be hereafter discussed should the Select Committee recommend it.
Mr. Maxwell
said, that though he would not refuse to give his consent to the second reading, yet he was desirous that it should have reference to the kingdom at large rather than to any particular parts.
Mr. A. Dawson
said, that they ought to inquire into the cause of the evil: that cause was the want of employment; and by finding employment for the people the evil would be removed. He therefore wished that country gentlemen would give
1131
Sir C. Burrell
found fault with his brother Magistrates for not putting the Vagrant Act in force; he contended that sending vagrants to the House of Correction, especially in cold weather, was no punishment at all. A little timely rigour sometimes made the blind see, and the lame walk.
Mr. Alderman Wood
persisted in dividing the House, but there not being forty Members present, the House was counted out.
HOUSE OF LORDS,
Thursday, May 27, 1830.
MINUTES.] Petitions presented. By the Duke of BUCCLEUCH, from Dumfries, against the proposed increase of Duty on British Spirits. By Earl FITZWILLIAM, from certain Dissenters in Yorkshire, against Slavery. By the Marquis of BUTE, from Stroud, against the renewal of the East India Company's Charter:—By the Marquis of CAMDEN, a similar petition, from Otley. By the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from Rugby, against the Punishment of Death for Forgery.
BIRMINGHAM GRAMMAR SCHOOL.]
Earl Grey
presented a Petition from the inhabitants of Birmingham, complaining of a clause in the Birmingham Free School Bill, altering the principles on which the School was governed, which before was open to Dissenters; and which prevented Dissenters from being governors of this School. This was most unadvised, he thought, in the present temper of mankind.
The Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry
only had to request, that noble Lords would suspend their judgment till the whole case was before them; of the gentlemen who had promoted the Bill, he could assure their Lordships there was a complete justification.
The Earl of Eldon
explained, that the clause in question formed part of the scheme for the government of the School, submitted to the Lord Chancellor, by whom it was referred to the Master, and afterwards confirmed by the Court. He did not advocate the continuance of the clause; but he was afraid that it could not be altered without affronting the first law authority. He would beg leave to suggest to the Lord Chancellor, to withdraw the committee, by which the difficulty he felt on the subject would be obviated.
The Lord Chancellor
said, that he had
1132
Lord Holland
expressed his satisfaction at perceiving a general inclination to alter the clause complained of.
Lord Calthorpe
said, that the Dissenters had done no more than assert their just rights on the present occasion. An attempt had been made to take advantage of the feeling excited on the subject, to turn it to party purposes, which was effectually resisted by the Dissenters.
HIS MAJESTY'S SIGN-MANUAL BILL.]
The Lord Chancellor
The Lord Chancellor
The Earl of Winchilsea
assured their Lordships that when he entered the House that evening he had not the slightest intention of trespassing upon their notice. But entertaining, as he did, a strong opinion of the importance of the Bill, and of the prejudicial consequences to the best interests of the country which might ultimately arise from it, he felt himself compelled to crave the attention of their Lordships whilst he made two or three observations upon it. Most fully did he participate in the heartfelt anguish which pervaded the breast of every one of their Lordships, and the heart of every loyal man in the kingdom, on hearing the painful communication of Monday last, which had led to the measure on which their Lordships were then assembled to deliberate. Most sincerely and solemnly did he hope, that through the blessing of Divine Providence his Majesty would soon be restored to health and to the performance of those functions which the House was now going to delegate to others, and that this Bill, which was to sanction such delegation, would be of short, very short duration. He could assure their Lordships, that if he had consulted his private feelings, he should not have obtruded himself upon their attention at present,—for he felt the delicacy of the subject on which he had to speak, and he trusted that no word would fall on this occasion from his
1133
1134
The Duke of Wellington
confessed, that he felt great astonishment at the objection which the noble Earl had just taken to the measure proposed by his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack. His Majesty had now been afflicted by a severe disorder for more than six weeks. During that time he had been attended by some of the most able, learned, and experienced persons in the medical profession, who, as far as their knowledge permitted, had stated the nature of his Majesty's disorder; and there had not been the least hint given by or through them, of that additional misfortune to which the noble Karl had just alluded. His Majesty himself, under his Royal sign manual, had stated to their Lordships, that he desired them to consider of the indisposition under which he laboured, and of the best mode of giving him relief, in order that he might still carry on the public service. The Minister who upon that occasion had taken his Majesty's pleasure and sign manual—and he left it to the noble and learned Lord opposite to say whether he was right or not—was responsible to the House and to the country, that the indisposition to which the noble Earl alluded had no existence whatever at the time when he had the honour of taking his Majesty's commands regarding the late Royal communication. Under these circumstances, he was astonished that the noble Earl should even hint such a subject to the House and to the country. His Majesty had asked their Lordships to grant him relief. "We, His Majesty's servants," continued the noble Duke, "propose to your Lordships a measure guarded in every way which
1135
The Earl of Winchilsea
appealed to the House whether he had used any such expressions as the noble Duke had just attributed to him. The noble Duke had entirely misunderstood him: he never could have expressed, for he had never entertained, any doubt as to the vigour of the Royal mind; and he should be extremely sorry if an impression that he had either expressed or entertained such doubt, should remain upon their Lordships' minds. All he had meant to state was this,—and here he would just observe in passing, that he differed entirely from the noble Duke as to the fact of the medical attendants having told the public the character of his Majesty's disorder,—all he meant to state, he repeated, was this,—that this Bill was establishing a precedent for putting great power into the hands of individuals without any evidence having been produced at their bar as to the nature and extent of the indisposition of the Sovereign. He thought that such a proceeding was fraught with danger, for if a future Minister were to come down to the House, praying it to pass a similar bill under an indisposition of a different character from the present, on the part of the Monarch, and should state that their Lordships had granted the relief now asked for without any inquiry as to the necessity of granting it, this proceeding might prove prejudicial to the best interests of the country.
The Marquis of Lunsdown
said, that though he had listened with the greatest care and attention to the observations which had fallen from the noble Earl, he had not collected from them that the noble Earl either meant to make, or had made, that allusion which the noble Duke, under an unintentional mistake, had supposed him to have made. What he understood
1136
1137
The Lord Chancellor
interrupted his observations, to remark that his noble friend near him (the duke of Wellington), had had a conversation with his Majesty yesterday, for a considerable time, and could inform their Lordships that his Majesty had suffered no inconvenience in sustaining his share of it.
On the clause authorising his Majesty to appoint one or. more persons to affix in his presence, and by his command, the royal signature to public instruments,
Earl Grey
was understood to suggest that a party of rank and station in the country, for instance a member of the privy council, should be appointed to affix the royal signature.
The Lord Chancellor
contended that such a provision was unnecessary. It was already provided that the person affixing the royal signature to any document, must affix it in his Majesty's presence, and by his Majesty's command: and that before he affixed it, there must be endorsed on the document a memorandum, describing its nature and object, signed by three members of the Cabinet. These provisions rendered it, in his opinion, unnecessary to appoint any fixed person to apply the stamp.
Earl Grey
contended that a person of rank and station ought to perform this important duty. As the Bill was at present worded, it might be performed by a mere domestic.
The Earl of Eldon
concurred in the noble Earl's opinion. The fixing the
1138
The Lord Chancellor
observed, that from what had just fallen from the noble and learned Lord, it was quite evident that he had not read this Bill with his usual attention, else he would have perceived that the stamp could not be affixed without a memorandum in writing previously endorsed thereon by three members of the Cabinet. If he looked to a subsequent clause, he would also find that it could only be affixed in the presence of certain high officers of state, who were there named, and were ordered to attest it. Three privy councillors must give authority to affixing the signature, and one at least must be present to attest it.
Earl Grey
declined to press his suggestion.
The Lord Chancellor
Amendment agreed to.
Earl Grey
suggested that there should be endorsed on each document, to which the royal stamp should be affixed, a memorandum, signed by three members of the Cabinet, stating that the nature and object of each document had been separately explained to his Majesty.
The Lord Chancellor
conceived this amendment to be unnecessary, on account of the securities which were already provided in the Bill for preventing any improper use of the royal signature. Besides, there were different modes in which the nature of the document might be explained to his Majesty. It might be read over to his Majesty by one of his attendants, or his Majesty might read it over himself, or might be made acquainted with its contents by an abstract of them, or by conversation respecting them, or in various modes unnecessary for him to
1139
The Earl of Malmesbury
thought this amendment not required, now that it was rendered necessary for the person affixing the signature to receive his Majesty's command to do so, not by his mere assent, but by word of mouth. He rejoiced that this Bill was to be of short duration, and contended that on that account it could never prove prejudicial as a precedent. He therefore hoped that the noble Earl would withdraw his amendment.
Earl Grey
thought that their Lordships could not take too much care when the power of affixing the royal signature to certain documents was thus delegated to subordinate individuals, to provide that his Majesty should clearly understand the nature of the documents to which he was to command his stamp to be affixed. Therefore it was, that he had proposed that a memorandum in writing should be endorsed on every document, stating that its nature had been properly explained to his Majesty before he gave a command, even by word of mouth, to any of his personal attendants to affix his signature. In conclusion, the noble Earl intimated his intention to meet the wishes of the House by withdrawing his amendment.
The Lord Chancellor
1140
Clause agreed to.
The Earl of Eldon
proposed some verbal amendments, which were agreed to. He likewise suggested the expediency of enacting, that in cases where the sign manual was affixed to every sheet of the instrument, the affixing of the royal signature by the King's command in any one sheet should be held sufficient.
The Lord Chancellor
thought that such a clause was unnecessary, as it was intended to affix the royal signature by this Bill in all cases where the sign-manual was now required. He intended to alter the last clause of the Bill, as it was now printed. That clause provided that this act should continue in force until the expiration of one month after the meeting of the next Session of Parliament; but it was now his intention to propose to limit the duration of it to the present Session; so that if the illness of his Majesty should continue, it would be necessary for Ministers to make a fresh application to Parliament during the present Session for a prolongation of the powers given by this act, and if it ceased before that time, the act would expire of itself and become unnecessary.
Earl Grey
said, that though he had expected that a shorter period would have been named for the duration of the Bill, he had no objection to extend it to the time now proposed.
Clause agreed to. The House resumed; and on the report being received, was adjourned during pleasure.
At twenty minutes after seven o'clock the Bill was returned engrossed; and upon the motion of Viscount Melville, it was read a third time and passed.
The Bill was sent to the Commons by two judges (Parke and Gaselee).
The House proceeded with the examination of witnesses on the East Retford case.
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Thursday, May 27, 1830.
MINUTES.] The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER brought in a Bill to amend the Church Building Act.
1141
Petitions presented. Against the Parish Vestries Bill, by General GASCOYNE, from the Corporation of Liverpool:—By Mr. CAPEL, from the Governors and Guardians of the Foundling Hospital. Against the Sale of Beer Bill, by Mr. MONCK, from a Publican of London. Against the Scotch and Irish Paupers Removal Bill, by Mr. Alderman WOOD, from the Overseers of Christ Church, Surrey. Against the renewal of the East India Company's Charter, by Lord EBRINGTON, from Cornworthy and Harburton. Against the Duty on Coals carried Coastwise, by the same noble Lord, from Pilton. For the repeal of the Select Vestries and Sub-letting Acts Ireland, by Mr. O'CONNELL, from several Parishes in the County of Cork. Against the increase of Stamp Duties (Ireland), by the same hon. Member, from the Proprietors of the Dublin Morning and Weekly Registers:—By Sir J. NEWPORT, from the Inhabitants of Glanmore. For a repeal of the Union with Ireland, by Mr. O'CONNELL, from Shacroom, Ahinia, and other places. For the Abolition of Slavery, by Lord MILTON, from Protestant Dissenters at Bawtry. And for an increased Duty on Foreign Flour, by Mr. POTTER MAC-QUEEN, from the Millers and Fanners of Bedfordshire.
OFFICE OF REGISTRAR OF DEEDS,
Sir John Newport
, seeing the right hon. Secretary of State (Sir. Robert Peel) in his place, wished to draw his attention to a recent occurrence of public interest. By the death of Lord Kilwarden the office of Registrar of Deeds in Ireland had become vacant. He (Sir John Newport) considered the present a very fit opportunity for the Government to show its disposition for retrenchment, by abolishing the office of Registrar altogether, as it was a mere sinecure, and there could not be any noise about vested interests, which were now extinct. He wished to see the regulation of these offices on the same footing throughout the United Kingdom, and he considered that the excellent regulations adopted in the Register Office in Scotland afforded an example worthy to be followed. He therefore hoped that the Government would pause before it filled up the appointment; and, if it really were intended to continue it, that the House would previously have the opportunity of expressing its opinions on the expediency of its continuance.
Mr. O'Connell
condemned the present regulations of the Irish Register Office, and stated that since the passing of the new Act more expense was incurred, and confusion created, than formerly.
Sir R. Peel
stated his impression to be that the sinecure office was already abolished by law, and that there were no vested interests existing. He could assure the hon. Baronet and the House that before the office was filled up ample opportunity should be given for taking the subject under consideration. He felt assured that there was no disposition on
1142
Sir John Newport
said a few words in explanation in a low tone of voice, and the conversation dropped.
INTERFERENCE OF THE MILITARY AT
Colonel Evans
presented a Petition from certain inhabitants of Rye, complaining of the Interference of a military armed force, under the direction of Herbert Curteis, Esq., on the occasion of a recent disturbance at that place between certain landowners and other persons, relative to the sluices which served to clear the harbour. The hon. Member entered into a detail of the disturbance which took place there on the 26th ultimo., he justified the conduct of the people and considered the interference of the military as illegal.
Mr. Burrell
maintained, that Mr. Curteis acted with great discretion and firmness. If the rioters had been allowed to proceed with the work of destruction, a great deal of valuable land would have been ruined.
The Solicitor General
stated the proceedings that took place in the Court of Chancery upon an application about the sluice. There was ultimately a decree of the Court, to the effect that the sluice was a nuisance. It was, however, unjustifiable in the people of Rye to take the law into their own hands. Their going by night to destroy the sluice was, in his opinion, an aggravation of their improper conduct.
Mr. Hume
found fault with the hurried manner in which the late bill for Rye and other private bills were passed through the House. He could not approve of the conduct of those who proceeded riotously to break down the sluice; but it ought to be considered that they had provocation, seeing that the Court of Chancery did not enforce its own decree, and that the Commissioners disregarded it. That was the state in which the petitioners were. He hoped that the Admiralty, as the general conservator of ports and harbours, would take notice of the case, and would not let the bill pass through Parliament, but would see that the decree of the Court of Chancery was carried into effect.
Sir Edward Knatchbull
said, that the landholders near Rye had no bad feeling towards that town. There was no opposition made to the bill as it was passing
1143
Sir Robert Peel
said, that he would not give any opinion on the question between the people of the town of Rye and the Commissioners. He absented himself from voting on the bill, upon the principle that it was better for a Minister of the Crown not to interfere in giving an opinion on a private bill. The time for making repairs in the sluice would not, by law, expire till 1831, and yet, at ten o'clock at night, about 500 persons, preceded by a band of music, went to level it by force, and so destroyed the communication between Rye and Dover. He felt it his duty to say, that the magistrate (Mr. Herbert Curteis) acted with promptitude and temperance. The men in the Preventive Service were called to assist in putting down the rioters. Rye was not a place from which the Blockade Service could be safely drawn away, and, in order to let them attend to their own duty, he (Sir R Peel) ordered troops to go in aid of the civil service. There was no alternative but to give protection to property. He hoped the gallant Colonel would interfere with his constituents, and advise them on their conduct in this matter. The Magistrate was perfectly right in preventing the destruction of the sluice by night and by violence.
Sir Charles Burrell
agreed with what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, and bore testimony to the proper conduct of Mr. Curteis.
Mr. Otway Cave
said, that one reason why there was no opposition to the bill in going through the House was, that there was no Member then in the House to represent the interest of the town of Rye. The Court of Chancery decreed the sluice to be a nuisance, and yet a new bill was brought in, in the face of that decree; by which bill only seven feet of water would be left in the harbour. He was not much surprised, under all the circumstances, that the people took into their own hands the execution of the decree of the Court of Chancery.
Petition brought up and read.
Colonel Evans
in moving that it be printed, contended that it was a very dangerous precedent to allow the Magistrates to call in the military whenever they
1144
Sir E. Knatchbull
maintained, that the hon. and gallant Member was misinformed in stating that the market had been removed to Winchelsea, and he explained, that what he said about giving security was, that the troops would be withdrawn whenever security was given that the peace of the town should not be disturbed.
Mr. Otway Cave
observed, that the great object appeared to be for certain landed proprietors to consult their own immediate interests at the expense of the people and harbour of Rye.
Mr. Burrell
said, it was quite a mistake to suppose that the landowners in the neighbourhood of Rye desired the ruin of the harbour.
Mr. Hume
would suggest to the hon. and gallant Member not to press the printing of the Petition, as the subject was now under consideration. At the same time he thought it the duty of the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Deparlment, to oppose to the utmost extent the
1145
Sir Robert Peel
said, it was no part of his duty to interfere with the progress of any bill that was before the other House of Parliament; neither did he think that he was called upon to interfere officially with private bills in any respect. Presuming even the alleged grievance to exist, he still thought that it ought not to be redressed in a tumultuous manner. If the parties should find that they had a right to abate the nuisance by law, there would be no opposition whatever offered on his part.
Colonel Evans would not press the motion to print the Petition.
Ordered to lie on the Table.
SCOTCH JUDICATURE.]
Mr. Brougham presented a Petition from the incorporated Society of Solicitors of the Consistorial Court of Scotland against the Scotch Judicature Bill.
Mr. Cutlar Ferguson
briefly supported the prayer of the Petition. The proposed measure would very much increase the expense.
Mr. John Stewart
said, the provisions of the Bill were very little known in Scotland, and that if they were well known there would be many petitions against it.
Mr. Brougham
then said, that he had a Petition to present on the same subject from the Dean and Faculty of Advocates of Edinburgh, and he felt highly flattered in having been selected for the purpose of presenting the Petition by so distinguished a body. In the present instance all that the petitioners asked was, that the measure might be allowed to stand over till the next Session, suggesting that all the improvements of which it was susceptible might then be made. They wished not to be understood as being by any means unfavourable to the principle of the Bill, for, on the contrary, they were all, with seven or eight exceptions, most favourable to it—the only thing they desired being some further delay, so that the details might be duly considered.
The Lord Advocate
felt very happy at seeing such a spirit of honourable independence evinced by the learned body from whom this Petition came, more especially when he considered that one great object of the Bill was to do away with a number of useless places, which the mem-
1146
Mr. Cutlar Ferguson
could not see that the learned Lord had any occasion to be in a hurry on that account, as the Jury bill would not expire before the end of the next Session.
Sir C. Forbes
was opposed to the principle of making it obligatory upon Scotch Juries to be unanimous in their verdicts. From the information he had received, he believed that the people of Scotland were by no means favourably disposed to the measure.
Mr. Kennedy
supported the Bill, and said that much inconvenience would be experienced if it were not carried through as soon as possible.
Sir R. Peel
said, he felt bound to commend the liberality of the learned professions, not only in this, but in all other instances that had come to his knowledge. There was no error more vulgar than that which would impute interested motives to the members of those professions when the public good was concerned. He was enabled to state from experience that he had received essential assistance from members of the legal and medical profession in some public measures upon which he had consulted them.
Mr. Brougham
said, he felt pride in bearing testimony to the liberality with which the parties were actuated on the present occasion. Though all their personal interests would be directly injured by the proposed measure, yet they never once suffered their minds to be warped in the conclusion at which they had arrived with regard to it. This was a test to which the members of the legal profession in England had not yet been put, but he hoped that, when they were put to it, they would follow the example of their brethren in Scotland.
Petition to be printed.
DUTIES ON SOAP AND CANDLES—
Sir John Newport
, in rising to move for some Returns relative to the Duties on Soap and Candles, observed, that, under the present state of the law, as the manufacturer of these articles in England was allowed a drawback on exporting them, he was able to undersell the manufacturer in Ireland, after paying the
1147
s
s
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he meant to offer no opposition to the Motion, and he expressed his cordial concurrence in the principle laid down by the right hon. Baronet. He had long felt the evil of having different duties in the different countries, and he should be glad to see a general scale of duties adapted to all parts of the country. We might then get oft' drawbacks, and certainly we might get rid of many frauds. Since he had been in office he had endeavoured to equalize the duties, and had carried this object into effect with very beneficial consequences as to glass. He hoped that he should be able to do something of the same kind with other duties.
1148
Mr. Hume
hoped, that the right hon. Gentleman would carry into effect his views as to Soap and Candles, and at the same time reduce the duty on them. The quantity of smuggling, at present carried on in these articles, as he should be able to prove when the motion of the hon. member for Hull came before the House, was enormous. The duties at present amounted to 4½
d
d
d
Motion agreed to.
THE ROYAL SIGN-MANUAL BILL.]
A Message was brought down from the Lords, stating that their Lordships had passed a Bill, intitled "An Act to enable his Majesty to appoint certain persons to affix the Royal Signature to instruments requiring such signature," in which they desired the concurrence of the House of Commons.
Sir R. Peel
said—"Sir, in moving the first reading of a Bill intended to make a temporary provision for enabling his Majesty to affix his Royal Signature to those public instruments which require that formality, I must repeat, in concurrence, I am sure, with the unanimous feeling of the House, and of this nation, my deep regret at the circumstances which have rendered this application to Parliament necessary. It is, as his Majesty has informed the House by his gracious Message, on account of the indisposition under which he is labouring, painful and inconvenient to the King to attach his sign manual to the multitude of official instruments which require the Royal Signature to give them validity. I must at the same time state that, under all circumstances, when application has been made to his Majesty for his signature to any instrument, the completion of which was necessary to the public service, particularly instruments connected with the administration of justice and pardons, when it was thought fit to extend mercy to those who had received a penal sentence; on all such occasions, whatever pain or in- convenience affixing the Signature might have subjected the King to, his Majesty never suffered those considerations to stand in the way of his desire to facilitate the administration of justice, or to exercise his Royal prerogative of mercy, and
1149
1150
1151
Lord Althorp
said, that it must be the wish of every hon. Member present to do whatever was in his power to alleviate the sufferings of his Majesty, under the unfortunate circumstances in which he was placed. The only difficulty in the case was, the necessity of using great caution in establishing a precedent, which might be so important in its consequences. To the statement of the right hon. Baronet, so far as his own opinion went, he saw no objection. He only wished to suggest, whether it would not be proper, before the Bill was finally passed, to have some evidence that his Majesty was in such a state, as to render a measure of this nature necessary. It was to the possible abuse of the precedent hereafter that his hesitation applied. They ought to be particularly cautious to prevent any application of it without a sufficient necessity. He did not mean to object to the reading of the Bill at present, but before it was finally passed he hoped the House would have some proof of its necessity.
Sir Robert Peel
said, he was sure that when the noble Lord thought of the circumstances under which the Bill was proposed, he would not press his proposition. The House had his Majesty's distinct assurance, in his gracious Message, that he was labouring under indisposition which rendered it painful and inconvenient to sign the various official documents presented for that purpose. He entirely concurred in the opinion that it was necessary to be cautious in a step of this nature; but when the House had the Royal Message, saying that it was painful and inconvenient to his Majesty, he thought it would not be respectful to imply a doubt of the fact.
Lord Althorp
did not mean to press for any specific information. He merely threw out the suggestion.
Sir C. Wetherell
said, that there certainly were precedents of kings of this realm having, instead of their own hand-writing, used a stamp, impressed with their own hands; but no cases had occurred, he believed in which the King had issued a commission to authorise persons to sign for him by a stamp. It was necessary to advert to this distinction; if his Majesty used a stamp with his own hands the only difference was between the impression being made with the stamp and with the pen.
1152
1153
Mr. Bernal
said, that there could be no danger arising from the precedent established in this case. It was admitted that no other measure could have been adopted in the present emergency. With respect to the danger of forgery, he thought that none could arise. As so many safeguards were provided, he could not conceive a scintilla of danger to exist. If he understood the right hon. Gentleman correctly, there must be the indorsements of three out of seven of the Cabinet Ministers, so that it would be necessary to forge not only the impression, but also all these different hand-writings. It could not be denied that the Government had, in this instance, discreetly fulfilled its duty. If the addition of the clause suggested by the hon. and learned Member would not delay the measure, he saw no objection to it; but he hoped that it would not be made the means of any delay of the Bill.
Sir Robert Peel
said, that he had not thought it necessary to trouble the House with any further details before, but there was a precedent for a commission to authorise a party to attach a stamp, instead of the Royal hand. It was in the reign of Mary, and it was really curious and remarkable how closely the precautions adopted on that occasion coincided with those provided by the present Bill. The precedent had only been discovered yesterday, after this Bill was prepared, and if the House had any curiosity, he would read it. The right hon. Baronet then read an extract from the 5th and 6th
1154
Mr. Lennard
begged merely to observe on the subject of the punishment of the forgery of this stamp as an act of treason, that he hoped the number of treasonable offences would not be extended.
The Bill read a first time.
Sir R. Vyvyan
expressed a wish that
1155
Sir R. Peel
said, that it would be printed by a very early hour in the morning.
Bill read a second time, and Committee appointed for the following day.
ISLAND OF CEYLON.]
Mr. John Stewart
, in moving for a Select Committee to inquire into the Revenue and Expenditure of the Island of Ceylon, said, that he wished 1o put the House in possession, by that means, of some information in addition to that which had been already afforded it through the Finance Committee. By a Return on the Table of the House, made up to the 1st of December, 1824, it appeared that the debt of the Island of Ceylon of every description, amounted at that period to the sum of 463,201
l
l.,
l
l
l
l
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
"By order of the Council," &c.
"May it please your Lordship, we, the undersigned, respectfully beg leave to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's very kind and condescending letter of the 10th instant, accompanied with the eighth and ninth reports of the African Institution, the perusal of which we did not delay, in consequence of the honourable distinction which your Lordship has shewn in addressing us on so important a subject, with the laudable and humane view of directing our attention to the measure which your Lordship has heretofore proposed in the year 1806. We sincerely beg leave to assure your Lordship, that the proposal conveyed by your Lordship's letter is gratifying to our feelings; and it is our earnest desire, if possible, to disencumber ourselves of that unnatural character, of being proprietors of human beings; but we feel regret in adding, that the circumstances of every individual of us does not allow a sudden and total abolition of slavery, without subjecting both the proprietors and the slaves themselves to material and serious injuries. We take the liberty to add, that the Slaves of the Dutch inhabitants are generally emancipated at the death of their owners; as will appear to your Lordship, on reference to their wills, deposited in the records of the Supreme Court; and we are confident, that those who are still in a state of slavery, have likewise the same chance of obtaining their freedom. We have therefore, in following the magnanimous example of those alluded to in the afore-
1161
l
1162
Sir George Murray
said, that he had not expected that so many observations, not strictly referring to the question itself, would have grown out of the hon. Gentleman's Motion. To many of those observations he should feel it unnecessary to advert. He was very willing to admit that the finances of the Island of Ceylon had been labouring under considerable difficulties—difficulties arising from the expenses which had attended the Kandian war—and from other circumstances. The hon. Gentleman had, by implication at least, recommended the introduction of the principles of free trade into the Island of Ceylon. Those principles had been tried there with respect to cinnamon; and the result was, that, in the course of a single year, the revenue had fallen off 50,000
l
1163
Mr. O'Connell
was of opinion, that the hon. member for Beverley had made out a case which demanded inquiry, for he had shown that there existed in this interesting colony the very worst system of government; nor had his statement of the evils under which it laboured been at all answered by the right hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member below had stated, that the revenue of the colony was less than the expenditure, to the amount of 100,000
l
l
ex post facto
1164
1165
Mr. Hume
could not allow the question to go to a division after the very insufficient reasons brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman for opposing the Motion, without expressing his opinions on the subject. The way in which it was attempted to slur over and excuse every instance of abuse in our colonies was not to be borne. In his opinion this was a case crying for inquiry and reform, not only as related to the pecuniary affairs of the colony, but as to its trade, its judicial administration and its government. The speech of his hon. friend did him great honour, and it would find its way where it would be sure to take effect. So gross a case had not been brought before the House for the last two years. There had been a vast increase of the judicial and all public establishments in all the colonies during the time that Lord Bathurst was Colonial Secretary. Five years ago 350,000
l
1166
l
l
l
l
l
1167
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1168
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1169
l
l
l
1170
l
Sir C. Forbes
supported the Motion because he believed that great abuses existed in Ceylon, which the committee might be the means of remedying.
1171
Lord Althorp
thought, that the state of the colony required examination before a committee, and suggested that the word "commerce" ought to stand first in the Motion, in order that, if it were carried, the committee to be appointed might first investigate that part of the subject, so as not to anticipate the Report of the Commissioners, which might be expected in July.
Mr. Trant
observed, that it would be convenient, while the General Committee was sitting upon Indian Affairs, to have another distinct committee on the state of Ceylon, and whatever the recommendation of the committee might be they might afterwards be considered.
Mr. Stewart
adopted the recommendation of the noble Lord (Althorp), and altered his Motion accordingly.
The House divided—For the Motion 38; Against it 82—Majority 44.
List of the Minority.
Althorp, Lord
Monck, J. B.
Bernal, R.
Morpeth, Lord
Brougham, H.
Milton, Lord
Benett, John
O'Connell, Daniel.
Birch, Jos.
Pendarvis, E.
Bankes, Henry
Protheroe, E.
Bright, Henry
Phillips, G. R.
Crompton, Samuel
Phillimore, Dr.
Clive, E. B.
Palmer, C. F.
Carter, J.
Rickford, Wm.
Du Cane, Peter
Robinson, Sir G.
Davenport, D.
Robinson, G. R.
Davenport, E.
Sykes, Daniel
Ferguson, C.
Trant, Henry
Forbes, Sir Charles.
Tufton, Hon. H.
Gordon, Robert.
Townshend, Lord C.
Graham, Sir James
Thomson, C. P.
Grattan, James
Vyvyan, Sir R.
Harvey, D. W.
Whitbread, W.
Jephson, C. D.
Wynn, Right Hon. C.
Knatchbull, Sir E.
Wilbraham, G.
Kennedy, T. F.
Waithman, Alderman
Lennard, Thos. B.
Wilson, Sir R.
Lester, B.
Tellers.
Lloyd, Sir E.
Hume, Joseph.
Labouchere, H.
Stewart, J. (Beverley)
COURT OF CHANCERY.]
The Solicitor General
, referring to the Bill brought from the House of Peers for the regulation of the Court of Chancery, said that he intended to propose that it should be read a first time to night, and that the second reading should be fixed for the 10th of June, when the discussion might be taken. He hoped that this arrangement would be satisfactory to the House, and that it would allow him to name the same day
1172
Mr. Brougham
was of opinion that this important subject well merited a separate day's discussion. The subject of the Court of Chancery had been postponed in that House for two Sessions, in consequence of the expectation of the bill which had just made its appearance from the House of Lords. Why it had been so long delayed he knew not, but
per tot discrimina rerum
Mr. Cutlar Ferguson
took this opportunity of urging the Lord Advocate to fix some early day, prior to the 10th of June, for the debate on his measure, which had excited great attention in Scotland, and was, in fact, of the highest importance to that country.
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE BILL.]
The Attorney General moved the further consideration of the Report on the Bill for the better Administration of Justice in England and Wales.
Mr. Edward Davenport
said, he was surprised, when he reflected that this Bill had been framed by a learned Gentleman, who had passed the greater part of his political life on the Opposition benches. So far as the wants and wishes of the people were consulted by that Bill it might have been drawn up by the Grand Vizier, and would then have been quite as well adapted to the people as the Bill that had been drawn up by the King's Attorney General. What did this Bill do? In the first place, it multiplied all the difficulties which the inhabitants of the county of Chester and the Welch counties now complained of, and it changed the character of their system of judicature. He should have been quite ready if the Bill had been for the advantage of Chester, to waive his objections to a great many clauses of it;
1173
ipse dixit
1174
sic volo, sic jubeo, stat pro ratione voluntas
1175
l
l
1176
pro tanto
Mr. Wilbraham
meant to confine the few observations he was about to make entirely to the operation of the Bill on the county of Chester, with which he was particularly connected. The Bill went to alter the whole machinery connected with the Administration of Justice in that great commercial county. The Courts established there had, for many centuries, independent rights, and were not identified with the Courts of Westminster-hall. They possessed as ample a jurisdiction in the county of Chester as any of the Courts at Westminster in any part of England. Having existed so long, it was not surprising that they should want some little amendment; and his hon. friend, who had just addressed the House, must admit that they required reform in various particulars. In the course of time they had acquired various defects, like the other courts in the kingdom. He would not enter into a detail of those defects, but undoubtedly amongst the advantages of the system, some defects had blended themselves, and become parts of it. In some points therefore, reform was necessary; and he would not say that no advantage could be derived from the changes proposed by the Bill. He considered that it would be a great advantage to have the Judges from Westminster-hall to preside in the Courts of Cheshire. It was notorious that the Chief Justice of Chester had generally been appointed from different motives, and upon different principles from those acted upon in the appointment of other Judges. In this point of view, therefore, there would be a decided advantage to the county of Chester; but
1177
The Attorney General
said, that his object was to accomplish what he was persuaded would prove a great national benefit, with as little opposition as possible, and therefore his aim had been, to remove from the Bill, as far as possible, everything to which objection might be taken. In doing that, however, it was scarcely to be
1178
l
1179
distringas;
1180
Sir C. Wetherell
said, that the Bill, when he first saw it, was but the skeleton of a bill. It was now considerably altered; that was to say, limbs had been amputated, and features had been added, so as completely to change its appearance; and what with the additions which had been tagged on, and what with the parts which had been detruncated, it was quite something else from what it had originally been. It seemed to him to be chiefly divided into
1181
l
pro hâc vice
1182
Colchus an Assyrius, Thebis nutritus an Argis.
Mr. Davies Davenport
opposed the Bill. The great complaint against the law of this country was its expense; and it appeared to him that the present measure was rather calculated to increase than diminish that.
Mr. Sadler
wished to say a few words on this occasion, chiefly because he had been intrusted with the presentation of a Petition against the measure now under consideration, from a most important town in the county of Chester, the populous town of Macclesfield. He intended to present that petition this evening, but had not an opportunity of doing so; he therefore begged to state that the inhabitants of Macclesfield were decidedly against the measure, and no parties were more deeply interested in its progress. Their petition ought to be attended to; and on such a subject the humblest petition which came from the county, or the smallest remonstrance which it sent forth, on a subject of vital consequence to its interests, ought to receive the most serious consideration. All the large towns in the great and wealthy county of Chester were opposed to the Bill. It was not to be supposed for one moment, that the well-
1183
1184
1185
Mr. Owen
said, that the Welsh Administration of Justice required amendment, but he objected to taking away the whole Welsh jurisdiction. That, the Welsh regarded as one of their greatest privileges, to which nothing offered by that or any other bill could possibly be an equivalent.
Lord Belgrave
said, he believed that the feelings of the great majority of the inhabitants of Chester were, as the hon. Member who had already spoken, said, decidedly hostile to the measure. He was happy to hear that some of the points recommended to the consideration of the Attorney General were likely to meet his favourable consideration, and he hoped they might do something to make the Bill more palatable to the people of that county. He hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not unite the large and populous county of Chester, containing 100,000 inhabitants, with the small counties in its neighbourhood. On the whole, he was glad that the Bill had been amended, but he could not yet give it more than a very languid support.
Mr. John Williams
expressed his regret that there was not time to enter into a full discussion of the measure then before the House, which he considered very important,
1186
1187
Mr. Bernal
complained of the manner in which the Bill had been brought in, and thought that it was such a mixture of different things that it must be divided into three Bills. He objected also, as there were no petitions praying for such an alteration for Wales, to taking away the local jurisdictions from that country. He was of opinion that the Bill could not well he passed this Session, and he hoped the Ministers would reconsider the measure.
Sir Robert Peel
said, that it was usually considered the most painful duty of a government to oppose reform;—but here, the greatest difficulty the Government lay under was, when they attempted to effect improvement. The object was to render law cheap and expeditious; and for such an object local distinctions ought to be sacrificed. Hon. Gentlemen, on this occasion, had altogether omitted the principle, although this was the stage for discussing it, and had involved themselves in details which would be properly considered in committee. He appealed to the House whether there were not alterations needed in the Courts here, so as to equalise the business; and if three additional Judges were necessary, what objection could the people of Wales have to the presence of these three Judges to despatch their business, instead of the present number of eight, who were gentlemen practising at the bar, and perhaps Members of that House. It should be recollected that the people of Wales had often complained that their Judges had not salaries adequate to make them independent; and this, if there were no other reason, ought to satisfy them with the appointment of independent Judges, whose time would be altogether directed to the administration of justice. He would not go into the details of the Bill, but repeated his wish that it might be allowed to go into committee.
Sir William Vaughan
declared himself hostile to the measure, in principle
1188
Colonel Wood
had many objections to the details of the Bill, but would vote for going into a committee.
Mr. Brougham
concurred with the Home Secretary, and thought that no Member had a right to oppose the Speaker's leaving the chair on the ground of objection to details instead of principle. He asked, was there any one who was satisfied with the present number of Judges or with the present state of the Welsh Judges? Was there any one who wished that these Judges, practising at the bar, and influenced, perhaps, by political motives, should be not of the same class, of a different stamp, and of another character, from the other Judges who were to administer the laws of the land? There was a great cry throughout the land for a reform of the law, but directly the Government tried to carry any reform into execution, one Member cried out "dont touch this," anoother cried out "dont touch that;" one cautioned the Government against meddling with the ancient jurisdiction of a Principality, and another talked of the rights of a county palatinate, and if they were to go on so, all reform would turn out to be idle declamation. Hon. Members made various objections to the measure, but at all events they ought to go into the committee.
Mr. Fyshe Palmer
opposed the measure, and especially the union of Welsh and English counties. It would be better for Government to remedy the abuses of the Court of Chancery than meddle with the Welsh Judicature, which was well administered.
The question was then put and agreed to.
On the question that it be re-committed "now,"
Sir Charles Wetherell
hoped that the Attorney General would not press that stage at present.
1189
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, May 28.1830
MINUTES.] Petitions presented. By Lord KING from Harburton and Cornworthy, in the County of Devon, in favour of an open Trade to India and China. By the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from Persons engaged in the Cotton and Woollen manufactories of Manchester, praying for an Alteration in the Measure which regulates the hours of Labour of Children employed in similar Factories. By Lord CALTHORPE, for the Abolition of Slavery, from Rochester, Chatham, and other Places.
The Lord CHANCELLOR informed their Lordships that he had received a Letter from Sir T. Tyrwhitt, the Gentle-man Usher of the Black Rod, acquainting him of the resignation of Mr. Quarme, the Yeoman Usher, and of the appointment of Mr. Pulman to that Office.
The Karl of SHAFTESBURY proposed an humble Address to his Majesty, recommending Robert Quarme, Esq. for his long and meritorious services—he and his father having filled that situation for Forty-three years—to his Majesty's grace and bounty—Agreed to.
THE RUSSIAN TARIFF.]
The Earl of Malmesbury
l
l.
l
l
Ordered.
PAPERS RELATING TO GREECE.]
The Earl of Aberdeen
said, he had the honour of laying on their Lordships' Table the Supplemental Papers relating to Greece.
Lord Durham
rose to ask the noble Secretary of State for the Foreign Department, what was the date of the first Paper now submitted to Parliament, in reference to this subject? and also whether the Papers contained a Copy of the Memorial
1190
The Earl of Aberdeen
replied, that the extreme anxiety shown by noble Lords opposite for the most ample information on this subject had induced him to lay on the Table all Papers that had passed between his Royal Highness Prince Leopold and himself, except such Letters marked "private," which his Royal Highness had done him the honour to address to him. In answer to the question put by the noble Lord, he begged to say that the first Paper now on the Table was a Letter of his dated January 31st, and the last was the memorial from the Greek Senate.
Lord Holland
wished to observe, not however with a view of raising any captious question, that he never recollected any similar Papers being presented in a printed form to the House. The first page of the copy was manuscript, but the remainder was printed.
The Earl of Aberdeen
said, that it was usual from his office, when Papers were presented by command of his Majesty, to have them presented in a printed form.
Earl Grey
remarked, that the practice had always been such as stated by his noble friend (Lord Holland). He never knew it otherwise.
The Earl of Aberdeen
observed, that the other course would certainly not cause so much delay in the delivery, for the printing took up considerable time. He knew not how long the practice had been to present Papers in a printed form; but he knew of late that such had been the course.
Lord Holland
said, that there was always a motion to have Papers printed when they were laid on the Table; and when they were printed, noble Lords used to receive copies as they entered the House. He repeated, that he never before knew of printed Papers being presented to the House.
The Earl of Aberdeen
said, that the practice had not been altered by him. He found the course he had pursued, in that and other cases, in existence in his office. But he would, if it were the pleasure of their Lordships, withdraw the present Papers, and present a copy in manuscript.
Lord Holland
said, that as far as he was concerned, he had no objection to the Papers being presented in their present
1191
Earl Bathurst
observed, that the Papers he had presented to their Lordships had always been in manuscript.
The Earl of Harrowby
said, that it had certainly been customary sometimes to present printed Papers, and in that form they were most accessible and useful to their Lordships.
Lord Ellenborough
suggested that probably it would be better to withdraw the Papers now on the Table, and present written copies.
Earl Bathurst
SIGN MANUAL BILL.]
After a few minutes, the Lord Chancellor again took his scat on the Woolsack, when Sir Robert Peel, with a large body of Members of the House of Commons, brought up the Sign Manual Bill, which had been agreed to without amendments.
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Friday, May 28.1830
MINUTES.] Petitions presented. Against the assimilation of Stamp Duties (Ireland), by Mr. BATTIE, from Thurles:—By Mr. TALBOT, from Freeholders of the County of Dublin. For a Reform in Parliament, by Mr. HOB-HOUSE., from Calne, Lancashire:—By Mr. O'CONNELL, from Nairne. For Relief under Distress, by Mr. Wm. SMITH, from Norwich. For an alteration of the Duty on Foreign Flour, by Mr. BRAMSTON, from Millers in the neighbourhood of Colehester:—By the Earl of DARLINGTON, from the Millers of Stockton-upon-Tees:—By Mr. BRIGHT, from Millers near Bristol. Against Slavery, by Mr. BRAMSTON, from the Inhabitants of Chelmsford:—Against the Vestry Acts (Ireland', by Mr. HUTCHINSON, from Cloneen, Tipperary. Against the Roman Catholic Charities Bill, by Mr. G. MOORE, from Sir H. Lees. Against the Pauper Removal Bill, by Mr. PALLMER, from the Overseers of St. Giles's, Cambenvell. For the repeal of the Duties on Malt, and Sea-borne Coals, and against imposing a further Duty on Spirits, by Mr. E. WODE-HOUSE, from the Fanners and others attending Hailesworth and Beccles Markets.
PERTH NAVIGATION.]
Colonel Lindsay
On the Clause appointing the Commissioners being read,
Mr. Hume
Colonel Lindsay
observed that, if this
1192
The House divided on the Question, when there appeared:—For the Original Motion 76; For the Amendment 59—Majority for the Original Motion 17.
The Report agreed to, and the Bill ordered to be engrossed.
CLYDE NAVIGATION BILL.]
Mr. C. Wynn
Mr. Home Drummond
stated, that this Petition was for the appointment of a second committee to hear an appeal against the decision of the first. He objected to the proposition because both those who had to receive and those who had to pay the sums of money directed by that committee were satisfied with its decision; and the only opposition proceeded from the petitioner. That person had long ruled the Corporation of Dumbarton, which had no just claim to any compensation; and now wished to get compensation, and to have that money paid to the creditors of the Corporation, of whom he himself was the most important.
Sir J. Graham
argued, that it was never intended that the appeal committee, when appointed, should try questions of this sort
de novo
Sir R. Inglis
contended, that the resolution of the House would not bear the construction put upon it by the hon. Baronet, and that all that was required for the appointment of an appeal committee was the making out of a
prima facie
Mr. William Dundas
begged the House to pause before it opened the door to unnecessary appeals, for the sake of vexation and delay. He opposed the application.
Mr. Sykes
observed, that the House could not be too cautious in granting the prayers of petitions of this sort. He verily believed that substantial justice had been done by the committee, and he was sure that every member of the committee was anxious only to do justice. He should not oppose the appointment of the committee of appeal, because the original
1193
Mr. Kennedy
believed that the inhabitants of Dumbarton were entirely satisfied with the decision of the committee, but nevertheless, he wished the appeal to be allowed.
Sir F. Freemantle
thought that sufficient grounds had been laid for the appointment of a committee of appeal, on two grounds, first, that the original committee had given compensation to the extent of 16,000
l.
Mr. John Campbell
was of opinion that the first committee had exceeded its powers, and that the appeal ought to be allowed.
Mr. C. W. Wynn
replied, and insisted that the present was exactly the case contemplated in the Standing Order. Substantial justice might have been done, but the parties were, and had reason to be, dissatisfied.
The House then divided:—Ayes (for the Appeal) 24; Noes 17—Majority 7.
GREECE.]
Sir R. Peel
presented papers, being communications between his Majesty's Government and Prince Leopold, respecting the Sovereignty of Greece.
THE ROYAL SIGN MANUAL BILL.]
Sir R. Peel
Lord Althorp
said, that when the subject was before the House yesterday, he had expressed a wish that the physicians should be examined; and though they were informed of the King's health upon the responsibility of those who, from their situations, were bound to be scrupulous, yet he still confessed he should rather have had the testimony of the physicians. Upon reconsideration, however, he thought that as the intended duration of the Bill was very short, he would not press for the hearing of evidence by the House; but should it become necessary to renew the Bill between this and the close of the Session, he should feel it proper to call upon the House to hear the testimony of the physicians: at present he should not give the Bill any opposition.
1194
Lord John Russell
said, the only question that called for any remark was the effect of the Bill as a matter of precedent. As the indisposition under which his Majesty at the present moment unhappily laboured did not affect the Royal mind, he considered that the safeguards establish-ed offered sufficient security. As forming a precedent, care should be taken to guard against its being used as a pretext under which, in the event of the Royal mind suffering in any future reign, the Ministers for the time being might keep the King away from the members of his family, or otherwise abuse so great and important a power. He should have thought, therefore, that the examination of the physicians would have been advisable, and in all future cases that course, in his opinion, ought to be pursued. He was perfectly satisfied with the securities provided by this Bill; and if at any future time valid objections should be raised against it, the means of obtaining further securities would be still accessible. The Bill was now understood to pass under the full conviction of Parliament, that it had been informed, upon the responsibility of Ministers, that the Royal mind was not affected by the malady under which his Majesty was suffering, so as to incapacitate him from signifying his pleasure in any case where the Royal signature was necessary.
Mr. C. W. Wynn
entirely concurred with the noble Lord who had just sat down, in thinking that the present Bill was chiefly important in the light of a precedent. It was important to mark the distinction between a new method of signifying the Royal pleasure and a delegation of the Royal authority. It was important, too, that the Bill should not be made to extend beyond a mere case of bodily incapacity for affixing the Sign Manual, and by no means to reach a case wherein the Royal mind might be affected, nor even a case where it might be necessary to delegate the Royal authority in consequence of its being thought material to the recovery of the Sovereign that he should altogether withdraw his mind from business. In such a case it would, of course, be quite right that the Ministers should call for the aid of Parliament in such delegation; but that was a remedy perfectly distinct from the present. As to the existing state of the Royal mind, they had abundant evidence in the form of the Bill, that it was not affected, while that form prevented
1195
Sir Robert Peel
wished to say in reply to an observation made last night, respecting the crime of forging the Royal Signature stamp, that in the Regency Act there was a clause, enabling his present Majesty, then Prince of Wales, to sign "George, Prince Regent," and the Act did not make the forging that signature treason, but forgery. On the present occasion, the precedent afforded by that Act, was strictly followed; and most hon. Members, he had no doubt, would consider the punishment of forgery abundantly sufficient for such a possible offence. The other precautions contained in the Bill better provided against forgery than would any extraordinary severity which they might introduce in the nature of a penal enactment.
The Bill was passed, and immediately carried up to the Lords by Sir R. Peel.
COURT OF SESSION BILL.]
Sir M. S. Stewart
presented a Petition from the Society of Writers at Dundee, and from the Society of Procurators before the Courts of Law in Perth, in favour of the Bill before the House respecting the Administration of Justice in Scotland.
Mr. Cutlar Ferguson
objected to the Bill, as forcing a Jury-trial upon parties, whether they desired it or not. He was friendly to the Jury system in Scotland, but he wished to see the qualification raised.
The Lord Advocate
said, that the qualification of jurors presented considerable difficulty. The jury system was not sufficiently understood in Scotland to give that weight to the opinion of the Judge which it ought to have. If the whole working of
1196
Mr. Robert Grant
inquired if the learned Lord intended to introduce bills in the course of the present Session, redeeming the pledge he had given for regulating the police of the Scottish Burghs, and for regulating gaols in Scotland.
The Lord Advocate
said, he intended to lay a Bill on the Table of the House relative to Burghs, and afterwards submit it to a committee above-stairs. He also intended to introduce a gaol-bill this Session, to be discussed in the next.
Petition to lie on the Table.
STAMP DUTIES, (IRELAND).]
Mr. G. Moore
said, he had several Petitions to present against the proposed scale of Stamp Duties. One was from a meeting of Bankers held in Dublin, comprising men of all parties, and which was most respectably attended. These petitions pointed out how very injurious that measure would be to the interests of society, and they stated their conviction, that as a measure of finance its practical result would be, not the improvement of the Revenue, but the distress and dissatisfaction of the people. They represented also the inevitable consequences of the proposed alteration in the Corn-spirit duties, as involving the ultimate ruin of the Irish distilleries, and as calculated to give a fatal blow to the agricultural interests of Ireland. They stated their cordial satisfaction at the relief afforded to the people of Great Britain by a considerable remission of taxes; but they could not help deprecating the endeavour to supply the deficiency of revenue attending that relief, by imposing additional burthens on Ireland, at a time when she sustained with difficulty those already pressing upon her. They therefore prayed the House not to sanction any measure calculated to increase the taxation of Ireland. He should next present Petitions to the same effect from several of the municipal bodies of Dublin, and he must be permitted to say, that, from the unshaken loyalty to the British Crown, and firm attachment to British connection which have always characterised these portions of his Majesty's subjects in Ireland, he had a right to claim from every friend to both an attentive consideration of
1197
1198
Mr. H. Grattan
supported the prayer of the petitions. The proposed Duties were not assimilating duties, but Revenue annihilating duties; and he was surprised that so soon after passing the Act of Emancipation, the Ministers, most of whom had been Secretaries in Ireland, should make this attempt upon the pockets of the Irish people.
Mr. Bright
wished to know when it was, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to give the House the proposed Stamp Act, as it would require several days' attention before the House could be called on to give its decision on the subject. When the Stamp Act came under discussion, he should feel it his duty to move that two penny, three penny, and sixpenny stamps should be repealed, as they were found most vexatious by the poorer classes of the country. He also objected to the Act because, as he understood, it re-enacted all the former penalties which were most oppressive.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that he was perfectly ready to submit the measure on any open day; but he really had not yet had any opportunity of bringing it forward.
Mr. H. Grattan
said, that he had received a letter from Dublin that day, respecting communications that had been made by some one to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and which stated, that the Petition presented from the Chamber of Commerce did not really represent the sentiments of that body. He had also
1199
Mr. H. Grattan
receiving no reply said, I shall conclude the Chancellor of the Exchequer has had such a correspondence.
The Petitions were ordered to be printed.
NEW POLICE.]
Sir R. Vyvyan
in moving for a Return of the number of persons employed in the Police of the Metropolis, said, he took this course from understanding that there were about 6,000 persons employed under that Act. It appeared to him that the measure altogether was one inconvenient to the public, and he trusted that when those papers were laid on the Table there would be such an expression of the sentiments of the country, that the Ministers would refrain from further increasing that body of men. All the parishes mentioned in the schedule of the bill were, he believed, already under its operation, and Government had the power of extending it ten miles round the metropolis. He hoped however, before there was any Order in Council to that effect, Ministers would allow the country to reconsider the subject. The hon. Baronet concluded, by moving "That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, that he would cause to be laid before the House the number of men employed in the Police of the Metropolis under the Police Bill of 1829, distinguishing the grades of the persons so employed, and the specific number of each grade, together with the Pay and Allowance of all the persons employed; and also all the General Orders issued by the Secretary of State since the formation of the Establishment."
Mr. Spring Rice
seconded the Motion. He was persuaded that the more the subject was considered, the more the country ought to rejoice in the changes that had been made; and with respect to expense, the property that was saved was more than equivalent to any additional expense by which the measure had been attended. He considered that this was a most constitutional force, and that the force it had superseded was one of the most anomalous, inefficient, and useless that had ever existed. He was not averse from the Motion, for he was satisfied that the more information we obtained concerning the Police, the more the public would be convinced that the
1200
Mr. Lennard
supported the Motion. He admitted that the new establishment had already been more useful than he had anticipated, but he was yet to learn that the old system could not have been so modified as to have produced equally beneficial effects. The hon. Baronet was, perhaps not in the House when the Police Bill passed, or he would have recollected that the hon. member for Bristol, and himself, had given to that Bill a strenuous, though ineffectual opposition. He was ready to acknowledge that this force, which was a sort of military body, might produce no mischief under the present Secretary of State, but in the hands of a different Minister it might be dangerous. It was a force on which the House ought to look with constitutional jealousy, and he hoped that the hon. Member who had now moved for these Returns, and other hon. Members who had opposed the Bill, would keep a watchful eye over it, or it might turn out very disadvantageous. As long as it was in the hands of an honest Minister like the present, it might do no harm; but in other hands it might be made the instrument of evil.
Motion agreed to.
Sir Robert Peel,
who came into the House as these observations were concluded said, if he had been in the House when the hon. Baronet moved for these Returns, he should have taken that opportunity of stating that on this subject he was prepared to give the House the fullest information. All the orders which had been issued, both general as well as secret—if there were any, but in fact there were none,—he should be most willing to lay on the Table of the House. There was no sort of information connected with the Police that he was not ready to give. In order, however, to make the Returns to be laid on the Table complete, the House ought to know to what extent the Police had been brought into operation, and what was the extent of the districts it guarded. He would therefore move for an account of the number of districts to which the Metropolis Police had been extended, specifying the number of parishes, and the population of each parish according to the last Population Returns, with the total amount of the population embraced within the districts of the Police.
Mr. Lennard
said, he had made no al-
1201
Sir Robert Peel
said, if there had been any he should have been glad to have produced them, for he was convinced that the efficiency of the Police would be increased in proportion as it was exposed to the scrutiny of the House.
Lord Encombe
said, if the Metropolitan Police were to be conducted on the same principles ns that at Brighton, it would be purely a military body.
Sir Robert Peel
knew nothing of the Brighton Police, except having seen the men. He had readily given all the assistance in his power to such towns as chose to form a police like the Metropolitan Police; but he had taken no other part in their proceedings, though he hoped, that every provincial town would form such a Police.
FISHERIES.]
Mr. W. Duncombe
presented a Petition from the Deep-Sea Fishermen and Fish-curers of the North Riding of Yorkshire, praying for a continuation of the Bounties on Fishing. He hoped the President of the Board of Trade (whom he saw in his place) would be able to state that he meant to give the industrious class, whose petition he had presented, the protection and encouragement they prayed for.
Mr. Herries
said, that on a former occasion he had stated, that he was well aware of the importance of the Deep-Sea Fishery, and that the Government had determined to take the subject into consideration. He had stated at the time that there were great difficulties belonging to it, and that he saw no reason to encourage the hopes of those who asked for the continuance of the bounty. After consulting with the other branches of the Government, particularly that branch of it which regulated the finances, he was prepared to state that it was not the intention of the Government again to propose the continuance of the bounty on the taking and curing fish. It would be his duty shortly to introduce a bill to continue, for a limited time, that part of the establishment which had for its object the marking, and assorting, the cured fish. The utility of continuing that for some time longer was admitted, but beyond that he must say, that it was not the intention of his Majesty's Government to propose any further encouragement for the fishery,
1202
Sir R. Vyvyan
was exceedingly sorry to hear that such was the determination of his Majesty's Government. If there were one branch of industry which was an exception to the doctrine, that bounties ought not to be given, it was the fishery.
Mr. W. Smith
was understood to say that the bounty of 1
s
s
Mr. Pendarvis
agreed with his hon. colleague in expressing regret at hearing the determination of his Majesty's Government. There was a vast deal of capital employed in the Fisheries, which would be injured by that determination.
Mr. W. Duncombe
also expressed his regreat the determination of the Government, which would throw a number of industrious people out of employment.
The Petition was read and ordered to be printed.
SMALL DEBT COURTS.]
Mr. Lennard
inquired of the right hon. Gentleman opposite whether the Bill for establishing Courts for the recovery of Small Debts was again to be brought forward?
Sir Robert Peel
said, he was convinced of the utility of such a measure, and the reason why he had not again brought forward a bill on the subject, was the great difficulty of making compensation to the different persons who held freehold offices. There was at present a bill in progress for compensating all the holders of such offices, and when that was passed into a law, he should be ready to bring forward his bill again, or to support the more extensive bill of the hon. and learned member for Knaresborough.
Mr. D. W. Harvey
suggested the propriety of reviving Courts that already existed for the recovery of Small Debts, which would do away the necessity of compensation.
Sir Robert Peel
objected that the Local Courts alluded to by the hon. Member had not sufficient jurisdiction.
ASSESSED TAXES.]
Mr. Alderman Waithman
presented a Petition from the Inhabitants of the Parish of St. Luke, praying for the Repeal of the House and Window-tax. That Tax, if repealed, he believed, would give much more relief than the Repeal of the Taxes proposed by the
1203
l
Mr. Bright
supported the petition. He believed, from calculations he had made, that there were not less than 170,000 surcharges within the last two years; but even taking the smaller number stated by the hon. Alderman, it was a proof of a most oppressive system. These Taxes ought to be repealed. The composition for them even had been productive of evil effects—it had separated the opulent classes, who compounded for these Taxes, from their poorer neighbours, and deprived them of all interest in procuring the Repeal of them. By the present system, the rich escaped, and the small shop-keepers were ruined. The abolition of the Shop-tax had augmented the rent of houses, and the House-tax being levied on the increased rent, that abolition had given little or no relief to the small shop-keepers. But so it ever was in this country. The aristocracy threw the burthens of taxation off their own shoulders on the shoulders of the humbler classes.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
did not mean, he said, to argue the question of the Assessed-taxes with his hon. friend; he only rose to remark one inconsistency in his statement. His hon. friend impugned the Composition Act, because it gave relief to the rich; but why did not the poor embrace the same opportunity of compounding? The way was open to them as well as to the rich; and if they did not compound it was their own fault. It would be his duty to introduce a bill, after the holidays, to continue the Composition Act.
Mr. Monck
said, that the Assessed-taxes
1204
l
l.
l.
The Petition to be printed.
FREEDOM OF THE CITY.]
Dr. Lushington
presented a Petition from the Inhabitants of the Ward of Castle Baynard, complaining of the present restrictions on the right of voting in the City of London, and praying the House to adopt some measure for the extending the Franchise to all Freeholders.
Alderman Wood
said, he was satisfied that none of the representatives of the City of London would object to an extension of the number of voters, although they were compelled to pay their respects to upwards of 14,000 in every three or four years, when an election took place. The prayer of the petitioners, if granted, would extend that number to 5,000 more, because it was undoubtedly true, that a very great number of the freeholders had it not in their power to become Liverymen. He was sure, however, that the Members for the City could have no objection to make them so, and he did not think there would be any great opposition to the measure on the part of the Liverymen themselves.
The Petition to be printed.
PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.]
Mr. O'Connell
said, that in conformity with a notice of long standing, he rose to apply for leave to bring in a Bill, for securing an effectual and Radical Reform of the Commons House of Parliament. Although he did not anticipate any very great degree of success to a motion of that kind, in a place where he feared there were but a very few Radical Reformers; and although he felt he did not possess such a degree of weight in that House as would enable him to enforce those great principles of constitutional right, of which he was about to attempt to be the humble advocate, yet he possessed the gratifying conviction, that those principles were widely spreading, and exclusively adopted by the most numerous and influential classes of society—that every day increased the advocates of those principles, and brought home conviction to every mind of their overwhelming necessity; and he was not more sure that to-morrow's sun would
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
l
1210
1211
1212
1213
s
l
l
1214
s
s
1215
s
1216
Mr. John Wood
seconded the Motion.
Mr. Robert Dundas
said, if in rising to oppose the Motion of the hon. member for Clare, he offered no apology for trespassing on the attention of the House, he hoped that he should not on that account be considered deficient in that feeling of respect which would always influence his conduct whenever he ventured to take part in public debates. Had the House been called upon to deliberate on a subject of ordinary importance, he should have felt it more becoming, as on other occasions, to have remained silent. But, there were times and questions, like the present one, which involved the first principles of the Constitution—when it was the duty of every representative of the people, openly to declare his sentiments; and that was the more necessary on the present occasion, because this question of Parliamentary Reform was a second time brought before the House during the present Session, and because there was a disposition throughout some parts of the country to make it appear that the House was every day becoming less popular in its construction, and less careful of the rights of the people. As an advocate for popular rights, as a representative of the people, not chosen by that kind of influence which the hon. member for Clare so decidedly condemned,—he thought it was his duty to oppose the Motion. In the first place he did not think that the measures proposed would remedy the inconveniences of which the hon. Member complained. In the second place, so great a change as those measures would effect, with regard to what may be considered the most important branch of the Legislature, might injure the stability of the whole system of the Constitution. He would readily admit that the right of
1217
1218
s
s
Chronicum Preciosum
s
l
l
l
1219
1220
1221
Lord John Russell
spoke as follows:—I cannot but feel, Sir, considerable em-
1222
1223
1224
1225
1226
l
l
1227
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1228
l
l
1229
Mr. Stuart Wortley
was understood to say, that he would, on all occasions, give a decided and unqualified vote against Reform. He complained that the hon. member for Clare's speech was of the same temper and character with those which he had made in other places, and the tendency of which was, that all property should be excluded from any influence in the House of Commons. It was, in his opinion, a fundamental principle of the Constitution, that property should be represented, and he was convinced it had a most beneficial influence on the House. The experiment of representing numbers and not property had been tried elsewhere without success, and in 1780 an American of high character and talents, who had been since elected to the Presidency (Mr. Madison) inquired if the principle adopted by the States, of representing persons only, was a wise one, and he demanded if it were not a more just idea that property should be represented. The hon. Gentleman argued at length against the introduction of universal suffrage, and of voting by ballot. He contended that the popular voice alone would have prevented every improvement which had taken place in the legislation of the country; that if universal suffrage had been in existence at the time of the Revolution of 1688, we should still have had the Stuarts on the Throne,—that if it had been in existence in 1715, the Protestant succession would have been set aside,—and that if it had been in existence last year, the Catholic Relief
1230
Lord Althorp.
—Sir, with respect to the Motion before the House, although I agree in part with the hon. and learned member for Clare as to the abuses, yet with respect to the remedy for them, and more especially with respect to the mode in which that remedy is to be applied, I confess I have for some time laboured, under very considerable difficulty. Sir, the hon. and learned Gentleman has moved for leave to bring in a bill, and in doing so he has stated his objects, and the principles of his intended bill. The first principle he proposes to introduce is that of triennial Parliaments; the second is that of universal suffrage; and the third is the election by ballot. So far as respects triennial Parliaments, I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I should be most glad to see a return to that practice. During the time, Sir, that this practice did prevail, the country flourished; no objection was raised against it, and the change to septennial Parliaments was merely the consequence of temporary causes which are no longer in existence. Every one who looks to the conduct of every Parliament at its beginning and towards its end must see at once that triennial Parliaments would give the people a powerful influence, and an influence that, would be manifested in the most proper way. Actual experience of the system has proved, that triennial Parliaments were not attended with any danger; and that plan is not therefore a new experiment, but has been tried with success; and believing that if we restore it now it will increase the influence of the people, I am prepared to support a motion for the purpose, as I have heretofore done when a proposition for returning to triennial Parliaments came before the House. With respect to another point, that of election by ballot, I have already, in the course of the Session, expressed my opinion. I am still, after every consideration I could give the subject, of the same opinion—namely, that election by ballot would greatly diminish the expense of elections; that it would do away with improper influence upon the electors; and that it would allow them to give their votes as they pleased, subject, of course,
1231
1232
Lord Viscount Valletort
did not approve of the manner in which the hon. And learned Gentleman had brought forward this Motion. He did not wish to argue more than one question at a time, but, for all that, he must make a few remarks on the Motion of his hon. friend. When the comparison was instituted between a House of Commons with 257 placemen in it, and the present House of Commons, and the House was told that Parliament was subservient to the Ministers, they must suppose, as the subserviency had become greater as the number of placemen had been diminished, that if there were no placemen whatever in the House, things would be still worse. This argument reminded him of the old verse,—
My wound is great because it is so small;
Had it been greater there were none at all.
1233
1234
Mr. William O'Brien
also opposed the Motion. He did not think any advantage would arise to the community from the change proposed. The cases of republics were cited as affording proofs of the advantages of popular representation; but when we looked abroad and saw the greatest amongst them, he could not, he confessed, see much to envy in all that she enjoyed. He wished to say a few words in favour of the borough-system, against which so many and such violent attacks had been made, and by means of which it was alleged that so many branches of noble families found their way into that House. If it were true that so many did find their way into that House in the manner stated, as belonging to that class, he must be allowed to say that the other House of Parliament had constant accessions from that House, of men who had distinguished themselves in many instances as advocates of popular rights—and thus a practical compensation was established. It was indisputable, that no Administration could bear up against a system which would oppose to them a constant scene of factious riots and democratic violence and combination, where the best test of integrity would be held to be opposition to the Minister for the time being. The hon. Member then adverted to the influence of public opinion in that House, and concluded by expressing his deep sense of the unworthiness of the advocate, who endeavoured to support so great
1235
Mr. Hobhouse
assured the House, he should trespass upon its attention for a very short time, and say as little as his duty would allow. He should feel little embarrassment in stating the vote that he should give on the present occasion. In giving that vote he should be governed by a precedent derived from the conduct of a great man, a very great man, Mr. Fox, when voting upon a question of Reform introduced by another great man, Mr. Pitt, in the year 1785, when he brought forward a motion like the present, that the House should resolve itself into a committee of the whole House for the purpose of considering a bill, the object of which would be to effect a reform in the representation of the Commons House of Parliament. So completely, however, did Mr. Fox dislike the plan of Mr. Pitt, that were it any other case, excepting that of Parliamentary Reform, nothing would have induced him to support it; but rather than give a handle to the enemies of that cause, he did vote for it; so completely was he the friend of reform. Even if he, therefore, differed from the hon. and learned member for Clare, which he did not, he should still support his Motion for the reason given by Mr. Fox. In the speeches of the hon. Gentleman and noble Lords who spoke on the other side, the Members had heard their own praise sounded—a task that must have been pleasing to the individuals by whom it was performed, and which could not have proved unacceptable to the House itself—for who was there who did not desire to hear his own praises sounded? The hon. Gentleman who had spoken last described himself as unworthy to be the advocate of such a cause. Now, there he differed altogether from the hon. Gentleman; for he thought the advocate and the cause extremely well matched. He had done for the cause exactly what it deserved, which was just nothing at all, but he had all the merit of good wishes. Nothing could have been more remarkable and peculiar than the nature of that hon. Gentleman's advocacy; he pitched upon the case of the much calumniated boroughs; would he permit his recollection to be refreshed respecting those boroughs? He must have dipped into history sufficiently
1236
in flagranti delicto
deprendi miserum est
1237
l
l
1238
1239
Vidi lecta diu, et multo spectata labore,
Degenerare tamen; nî vis humana quotannis
Maxima quæque manu legeret. Sic omnia fatis
In pejus ruere, ac retro sublapsa referri.
sed hic non est locus
1240
Sir R. Peel
said, the question was already so much exhausted, that he would not trouble the House with any general observations upon the matter at issue, but confine himself to the motions which had been made. There were two specific propositions before the House. The one was the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and the other the Amendment of the noble Lord. The Motion of the learned Gentleman embraced three topics—Triennial Parliaments, Vote by Ballot, and Universal Suffrage. The Act which altered Triennial Parliaments into Septennial, had been designated by the learned Gentleman a gross usurpation, and he had, on that ground, claimed the going back to triennial Parliaments; but he begged to observe, that the usurpation extended only as far as that one Parliament was concerned, which was elected for three years. With respect to future Parliaments, it had just as much right to make them septennial, as the present
1241
1242
1243
1244
Mr. Brougham
said, that the question of Reform had been so often discussed, that it was in vain to hope to be able to throw any new light on the subject, and he should therefore, as the right hon. Secretary had done, confine himself strictly to the two propositions before the House. With respect to the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman, to the greater part of it he could not agree; and as he did not find that there was any intention of dividing it into parts, he should be reluctantly compelled to vote against it. With two parts out of the three he could not at all concur, and therefore he was reluctantly compelled—he said reluctantly, because he was always sorry, reformer as he was, to vote against any measure of Reform—he was reluctantly compelled to oppose the Motion of the hon. and learned Member. In the proposition, however, of his noble friend, he entirely concurred, as he also did in the bulk of his Resolutions, which he apprehended to be both moderate and safe. He did not materially differ from what had fallen from the right hon. Secretary on the point of pecuniary compensation to disfranchised boroughs, for he saw great difficulty as to the way in which that principle was to be applied. He could not at all comprehend how the money was to be paid, or to whom it was to be given: perhaps the noble Lord might have some propositions on that subject which he had not yet brought forward; but as he (Mr. Brougham) was at present advised, he should be reluctantly compelled to differ from that part of the Motion. With respect to the other portions, however, they appeared to him to be moderate, reasonable, and eminently practicable; and he totally differed from the right hon. Secretary in the objections which he had taken to them. The first objection brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman was, the supposed difficulty that there would be in their application. Now he could not at all see that difficulty; and if there were points left unexplained in detail in his noble friend's proposition, it was no doubt with the view of explaining them in a committee, where alone those details could be fully entered into. But that there was any confusion as to what towns were to have the franchise, or which of their inhabitants were to vote, he could not believe, and he must say, that he had never heard a more chimerical ob-
1245
l
l
1246
1247
1248
1249
1250
1251
hear, hear, from Mr. O'Connell
Lord Milton
: The landlord may turn them out for not voting at all.
Mr. Brougham
proceeded—What his noble friend said was very true; but all that he wanted particularly to urge was, that the secret was sure to be betrayed, and must, at some time or other, come to the cars of the landlord. All these facts showed very clearly, how groundless was the expectation that election by ballot would accomplish the purpose in view. But here he might be permitted to ask, with much deference to his hon. and learned friend, and those who agreed with him on the subject, whether, though it must fail in this respect, it might not, at the same time, fully accomplish one of the blackest and foulest purposes of any that could debase and destroy the character of man? Whether it would not make a hypocrite of a man throughout the whole period of his existence? Whether it would not, as was forcibly described by an eminent writer, make him exist as a person whose
"Whole life was one continued lie?"
1252
1253
Mr. O'Connell
rose amid cries of
"Question."
1254
Mr. Brougham
said, in explanation, that his observations, upon which the hon. and learned member for Clare founded the argument, that he would make the people slaves, proceeded on the supposition that the tenant had a harsh landlord, who would be disposed to enforce his power against him; not that he believed the people would suffer such power to influence them against their conscience and their rights. He admitted that slavery was worse than hypocrisy, except that the worst proofs of slavery were falsehood and hypocrisy.
The House then divided, and the numbers were—For the Motion 13; Against it 319—Majority 306.
List of the Minority.
Blandford, Marq. of
Rancliffe, Lord
Dawson, Alex.
Waithman, Alderman
Euston, Lord
Wood, Alderman
Grattan, Henry
Wood, John
Hobhouse, J. C.
Wyvill, M.
Marshall, John
TELLERS.
Marshall, William
Joseph Hume
Pallmer, C. N. (Surrey)
Daniel O'Connell
Lord John Russell
then moved as a Resolution, "That it is expedient to extend the basis of the Representation of the People in this House."
For the Motion 117; Against it 213—Majority 96.
1255
List of the Minority.
Althorp, Lord
Macdonald, Sir J.
Baring, Francis
Milton, Lord
Beaumont, Thos. W.
Monck, J. B.
Belgrave, Lord
Morpeth, Viscount
Benett, T.
Normanby, Lord
Bernal, Ralph
Nugent, Lord
Blandford, Marquis
O'Connell, Daniel
Brougham, Henry
Ord, William
Brougham, James
Pallmer, N.
Brownlow, Charles
Palmer, Charles F.
Byng, George
Pendarvis, E. W. W.
Calvert, N.
Philips, George R.
Carter, B.
Ponsonby, Hon. W. F.
Cavendish, William
Ponsonby, Hon. F.
Cholmeley, M. J.
Ponsonby, Hon. Geo.
Clifton, Lord
Poulett, Lord Wm.
Clive, Edward B.
Poyntz, William S.
Coke, Thos.
Prettie, Hon. F. H.
Craddock, Col.
Price, Sir Robert
Crompton, Samuel
Protheroe, Edward
Davies, Col.
Power, R.
Dawson, Alexander
Ramsbottom, John
Duncombe, Thos.
Rancliffe, Lord
Dundas, Hon. Thos.
Rickford, Wm.
Dundas, Sir Robert
Rice, Thomas Spring
Easthope, John
Robinson, Sir George
Ebrington, Lord
Robinson, George R.
Ellis, Hon. Agar
Rumbold, C. E.
Evans, Col.
Russell, Lord John
Euston, Earl
Russell, Lord Wm.
Fazakerly, John N.
Sebright, Sir John
Fergusson, Sir R. C.
Slaney, R. W.
Fitzgibbon, Hon. R.
Smith, Wm.
Fortescue, Hon. G. M.
Smith, John
Fyler, Thos.
Stanley, Edward
Gordon, R.
Tavistock, Marquis
Graham, Sir James
Talbot, R. W.
Grattan, James
Tennyson, Charles
Grattan, Henry
Thomson, C. P.
Guise, Sir William
Thompson, P. B.
Harvey, D. W.
Townsend, Lord Chas.
Heron, Sir Robert
Tufton, Hon. H.
Honywood, W. P.
Waithman, Alderman
Howick, Lord
Ward, John
Hume, Joseph
Webb, Colonel
Hutchinson, J. H.
Westenra, Hon. H. R.
Jephson, O. D.
Whitbread, William
Kemp, Thos. R.
White, Henry
Kennedy, T. F.
Wilbraham, George
Killeen, Lord
Wood, Alderman
Labouchere, Henry
Wood, Charles
Lambe, Hon. George
Wood, John
Lambert, J. S.
Wyvil, M.
Langston, James H.
TELLERS.
Latouche, Robert
Hobhouse, J. C.
Lennard, Thos. B.
Russell, Lord John PAIRED OFF.
Lloyd, Sir E.
Lock, John
Anson, Hon. Colonel
Lushington, Dr.
Birch, John
Macauley, J. S.
Calvert, Charles
Martin, John
Davenport, E. D.
Marjoribanks, Stewart
Denison, W. J.
Marshall, John
Dundas, Captain Geo.
Marshall, William
Guest, J. J.
Marryatt, Josh.
Lester, Benjamin
Maxwell, Harry
Leycester, R.
1256
Mackintosh, Sir James
Robarts, A. W.
Newport, Sir J.
Sykes, Daniel
Phillips, Sir George
Taylor, M. A.
Ramsden, J. C.
Wilson, Sir Robert
Rowley, Sir William
Wrottesley, Sir John
NORTHERN ROADS BILL.]
Lord Morpeth
Lord Lowther
Lord Morpeth
said, as there was likely to be a debate on the subject, and it would be an injustice to the Bill to take the debate at that hour, he should move that the debate be adjourned.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned till Thursday.
HOUSE OF LORDS
Friday, May 29, 1830.
MINUTES.] The Royal Assent was given by Commission to the Royal Signature Bill, the Malt Duties Bill, the Leather Duties Repeal Bill, the Navy Pay Bill, and to one hundred and one private Bills.
HOUSE OF LORDS,
Thursday, June 3. 1830
MINUTES.] Lord Combermere, on his creation as a Viscount, was introduced by Viscount Lorton and Viscount Beresford, and took the Oaths and his Seat.
Petitions presented. By Lord KINNOUL, from the Agricultural Society of Perthshire, against an increase of the Duty on British Spirits. By the Bishop of LICHFIELD and COVENTRY, from Coventry, against the Punishment of Death for Forgery:—By Viscount LORTON, from Reading:—And by Lord DURHAM, from Northampton. By Lord TEYNHAM, from Burwash and Salehurst, against the Malt and Beer Duties. By the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, from Henley-upon-Thames, against the Punishment of Death. By Lord KING, from Oldham, in Lancashire, praying for a Reform in Parliament.
GREECE.]
The Marquis of Londonderry
observed, that although the papers now before the House afforded a mass of information upon the subject of the proceedings of the Allied Powers with regard to Greece, yet, as there had been diplomatic transactions of three years standing, it was quite clear they could not furnish all the information which the nature of the subject demanded. There were some parts which he wished to be clearly made out, especially with respect to the conduct of Russia towards Turkey, and he, therefore, wished to ask the noble Earl, whom he saw in his place, whether there was any objection to give the House copies of the Despatches of our Ambassador at Constantinople, relating to the mode in which
1257
The Earl of Aberdeen
answered, that the reason why the copies of all the conferences had not been given was, that the. substance of them was embodied in the Protocols that had been laid on the Table of the House. As to the copies of the despatches, he could not give any answer till he had had time to consider how far the interests of other powers, as well as of this country, would be affected by laying them on the Table.
The Marquis of Londonderry
said, that the noble Earl must perceive it was essential to arrive at the point to which he had already referred, namely, whether Russia had abandoned so large a portion of the compensation she claimed from the Turks, merely in order to induce Turkey to concede what was demanded from her by the Allied Powers, or whether Russia had other motives for that concession.
Lord Holland
asked the noble Earl opposite, whether he was clearly to understand it to be the noble Earl's intention to lay before the House copies of the conferences that had taken place at Poros. He wished to know whether the fullest information would be afforded with respect to the disputes relating to the boundaries of Greece; and also whether any person had been specially deputed by his Majesty's Government to attend the discussions upon that subject.
The Earl of Aberdeen
said, that he believed in the copies of the Conferences at Poros the noble Lord would find all the information he required. A very full report of the discussions referred to would be found in them. No person had been specially deputed to make such a report, but he believed the noble Lord would find the papers very full upon that subject.
Lord Holland
had asked the question, because, having attentively gone through the mass of those papers already before the House, he really was unable to divine the reasons which had induced the Allies to change the boundaries of Greece as settled by them on the 22nd of March. Now, as that change was one of a most important nature, he really was most anxious to know the reasons which had induced the Allied Powers to make it.
1258
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Thursday, June 3, 1830.
MINUTES.] James Hewett Massy Dawson, Esq. took the Oaths and his Seat as Member for the County of Limerick.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. HUME, the Salaries and Allowances received by each of the Judges of the Courts of King's Bench, Common Picas, and Exchequer, in the year 1792 and in the year 1829, stating the sources from which the same were paid:—The Salaries and Allowances received by the Commissioners of the General Assembly of Scotland, staling the sources from which the same were paid:—And the Sums paid to the Clergy of Scotland in the year 1829, stating for what purposes and from what sources the same were paid, with the amount to be paid in the present year.
The Fees Abolition Bill was passed. A Bill was brought in to regulate the Salaries and Emoluments of the Masters in Ordinary of the High Court of Chancery; and a Bill to regulate the Office of Registrar and Keeper of the same Court.
Petitions presented. Against the Stamp Duties (Ireland), by Sir H. PARNELL, from the Freeholders of Queen's County. In favour of Poor-Laws for Ireland, by Mr. BENETT, from Mr. B. Wells. Against the Vestry Act (Ireland), by Mr. O'CONNELL, thirteen Petitions. For the more speedy recovery of Small Debts, by Colonel DAVIES, from the Inhabitants of Worcester. For the Repeal of the Hop Duties, by Mr. CURTEIS, from Seddlescombe, Sussex. Against the Parish Vestries Bill, by Sir G. COCKBURN, from the Overseers of Plymouth. Against the Scotch and Irish Pauper Removal Bill, by Mr. Alderman WOOD, from the Overseers of St. Giles's, Cripplegate:—By Mr. SYKES, from the Overseers of Kingston-upon-Hull:—By Mr. HUSKISSON, from the Overseers of Liverpool:—By Mr. WM. SMITH, from the Overseers of Norwich. Against the Assessed Taxes, by Mr. HUME, from J. L. Schroder, of Isleworth. For a Reduction of the Duties on Sugar, by Mr. HUSKISSON, from the Merchants of Liverpool. Against the Northern Road Bill, by Lord LOWTHER, from certain Innkeepers and Coach Proprietors:—By Lord T. CECIL, from the Mortgagees of the Tolls of Wansford Bridge and Stamford Turnpike Road:—By Colonel SIBTHORPE, from the Inhabitants of Grantham:—By Mr. T. CHAPLIN, from Proprietors of Estates near Stamford:—By Mr. HEATH-COTE, from the Mortgagees of certain Turnpike Tolls. For Parliamentary Reform, by Mr. O'CONNELL, from Oldham, Lancashire. For the Abolition of Slavery, by Mr. SYKES, from the Unitarians of Kingston-upon-Hull. In favour of the Jews, by the same hon. Member, from the Unitarians of Kingston-upon-Hull. For the Abolition of Slavery, by the same hon. Member, from the Unitarians of Hull.
IMPRISONMENT FOR DEBT.]
Mr. Hume
presented a Petition from an individual of the name of Joseph Henry George, complaining of the hardship of Imprisonment for Small Debts. The petitioner stated, that he was confined under sentence of the Borough Court of Requests, for a trifling demand, to the great injury of himself and his large family, and instanced cases of individuals being imprisoned one hundred days for debts of 64
s.
s.
1259
l.
Mr. Alderman Wood
said, there could not be more respectable men than the commissioners of that court. He agreed that the present system of Imprisonment for Small Debts was extremely mischievous.
Mr. C. Calvert
said, that if the worthy Alderman could find any city fund out of which such debts could be paid, his constituents would be very thankful for the discovery.
IRISH VESTRY ACT.]
Mr. O'Connell
, in presenting Petitions from Parishes in the County of Cork, against the Vestry Act, said, that the petitioners all complained of the oppressive operation of this Act, the imperfection of which was admitted by Ministers, yet they refused to amend it.
Sir R. Peel
said, the hon. and learned Member was quite mistaken—Ministers did not refuse to amend the Act. They refused to pledge themselves to adopt a particular remedy, on the offer made for the withdrawal of the hon. and learned Member's motion on the subject; but they expressed themselves willing to take the whole question into consideration, with a view to the amendment of the Act.
Mr. O'Connell
, in moving that the petitions do lie on the Table, begged to say, that he was right in both his positions: first, that Ministers admitted that the measure required a remedy; and, secondly, that they—he would not say refused, but they did that which looked very like a refusal—they strongly declined to take measures to amend it.
Sir R. Peel
would assert, that Government neither refused nor declined to amend the Act. They admitted that it required consideration, and that they were disposed to consider it; but they refused to pledge themselves to a particular course, which was suggested by the hon. member for Limerick, as a condition on which the hon. and learned Member's motion on the subject was to be withdrawn.
The Petitions were ordered to lie on the Table.
Mr. O'Connell
, in presenting a similar Petition from Ballybay, said, that the Go-
1260
LAW OF DIVORCE.]
Dr. Phillimore
said, that the subject which he had to bring forward was one of great importance, for the Law of Divorce in this country was different from that of any other country in Europe. By the Roman Catholic Church, marriage was elevated into a sacrament; and, by a canon, rendered indissoluble even in the case of adultery. But in Protestant Europe the pronouncing of a divorce at once gave the parties concerned the right of marrying again. In England the case was very different. The Ecclesiastical Court could only pronounce a divorce
a mensa et thoro
a vinculo matrimonii
a mensa et thoro
1261
à vinculo matrimonii
à vinculo matrimonii
a mensa et thoro
a thoro et mensa
a mensa et thoro
a vinculo matrimonii
1262
1263
1264
1265
1266
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1267
a mensa et thoro
a vinculo matrimonii
1268
Quœ ab exiguis profecta initiis ex creverint ut jam magnitudine laborent sua
Sir Charles Wetherell
began his remarks by objecting generally to commissions to inquire into the law, contending that the appointment of them involved an admission of something requiring to be remedied. He had never approved of commissions to reform any abstract point of law. His hon. and learned friend, with all his talents, had failed to suggest a remedy, and so had other learned men of great talents. The evil arose out of our Constitution, which did not permit any court to exercise legislative power, which granting a Divorce implied. The hon. and learned Member entered into a brief history of the marriage law in England, and its difference from the marriage law of other countries, remarking that marriage was indissoluble in Roman Catholic countries. In Rome there was a tribunal called the Holy-office, which did grant Divorces for certain cases, in which the parties were held incapacitated to contract marriage, but never granted it for adultery. The Pope had sometimes granted Divorces on political grounds, but up to the time he was speaking, the Pope had never, he believed, granted a Divorce on account of adultery. The Pope did, however, grant a Divorce to our Henry 8th in former times, and he had more recently granted a Divorce on
1269
a vinculo matrimonii
Pie Poudre
a vinculo matrimonii
1270
1271
Mr. O'Connell
said, he agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, in opposing the Motion, though he differed from him in the grounds of his opposition. He wished with the hon. Mover that the poor should be placed upon the same footing with the rich in regard to divorce, but he would accomplish that, not by giving it to the poor, but by refusing it to the rich. He thought the better way would be to make the marriage tie perfectly indissoluble. It was so by the common law; for up to the time of the Reformation no marriage could be dissolved. It was so by the rule of the Catholic Church, and by that of the Protestant Church also. It was true that divorces had been ganted in the Catholic Church, but not
a vinculo matrimonii
ab initio
1272
ab initio
Mr. Spring Rice
rose to support the Motion of his learned friend, Dr. Phillimore. If he considered the question as one of law only, it would be, indeed, presumptuous on his part to interfere in the discussion; but he felt that the proposition involved many other considerations, some of which went beyond, and others were infinitely above, any questions purely of a legal character. There were two objections taken to the Motion by the learned Gentleman who had preceded him. If the objections were admissible, he was bound to confess they were conclusive. But he differed in essentials from the doctrines lately advanced. If, indeed, there were persons who believed, with the learned member for Clare, that the marriage contract should be indissoluble under all circumstances, this class were not only bound to oppose the present Motion, but to oppose every proposition for a single divorce. He did not anticipate, however, that this doctrine would find many supporters in the House or in the country. Again, if with the learned member for Plympton, persons were really contented with the legislative tribunal which at present decided their cases, they were undoubtedly warranted and justified in resisting any change. But when he considered the events of the present Session—when he recollected, that during the progress of every Divorce bill there had been on all sides one universal
1273
1274
The Solicitor General
said, that it was his intention to trespass on the attention of the House with only a few observations. He would first remind his hon. and learned friend who brought forward this question, that the commission to which he proposed to refer the consideration of this most important subject was appointed simply to inquire into the state of the Ecclesiastical Courts. Such being the case, the House ought not to assume that that commission could conveniently enter into the consideration of another subject. It would not be right for the House to induce that commis-
1275
1276
Dr. Lushington
did not think that it was consistent with his duty to remain silent altogether on this most important subject. It was not his intention, however, to enter into a discussion on many of the important subjects which had been referred to as connected with this question, but rather to direct the attention of the House to the proposition of his hon. and learned friend, which went to refer the whole subject of the law relating to divorces, to the Ecclesiastical Commission.
1277
1278
1279
1280
à vinculo
1281
Mr. C. W. Wynn
said, that if he thought, with his hon. and learned friend who last addressed the House, that no beneficial result would arise from referring this subject to a Commission, which should report to the King and Parliament, the considerations that might occur to the commissioners on the present, state of the law; and the various remedial measures which might suggest themselves; leaving it to Parliament to pronounce which of those remedial measures it should consider best-calculated to meet the existing evils; if he thought no benefit would result from that, he should advise his hon. and learned friend to withdraw his Motion. If the commission were to do nothing more than inquire, in his opinion great and most important advantages would
1282
â vinculo
1283
1284
1285
1286
Sir Robert Peel
said, the House had some reason to complain of the imperfect notice which the hon. and learned Gentleman had given of this measure—all-important as that was. He was, therefore, rather taken by surprise in being called upon to give an opinion upon it at that moment. He was sorry to be compelled to give a vote on so extensive a subject without the fullest consideration. The question, as it appeared to him, was this:—Was a case of necessity made out for a change in the existing law? and, secondly, was the proposed the best mode of legislating upon the subject? As to the first part of the question, he would
1287
l.
Mr. O'Connell
said, he was not opposed to Divorces a
mensa et thoro.
Sir Robert Peel
said, his argument applied to both species of Divorce. It was well to make it the general rule that there should be no Divorce; but there must be exceptions; yet those exceptions ought to
1288
Lord L. Gower
, when he saw one of the members of the commission in question placing himself in an attitude of supplication, to entreat the House not to throw the burthen of this subject upon that commission, felt himself compelled, however reluctantly, to oppose the Motion. He must distinctly, however, object to the principle of the hon. and learned member for Clare, that there should be no Divorce.
Dr. Phillimore
observed, that although at the commencement of the discussion he had trespassed on the attention of the House at some length, yet he hoped he might be allowed, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, to offer a few observations in reply. He begged to assure those hon. Gentlemen who were so impatient, that he would trespass on their attention as briefly as possible. If the right hon. Baronet had been present at the examination, and during the discussion which took place on the case already referred to, which he was not, he would suggest that this Motion should be given up. He had brought the subject forward with great reluctance, at the suggestion of many hon. Gentlemen who felt, as he felt, how very difficult it would be to originate any legislative measure. He was asked, why not bring in a bill? Unfortunately he had some experience of that course. He had brought in a bill on another subject; and after four or five years toil and trouble, he had the satisfaction of seeing the principle of that bill adopted: but he had sufficient experi-
1289
*
*
1290
l.
l.
1291
â vinculo matrimonii.
1292
1293
The House divided:—For the Motion, 45; Against it 102—Majority 57.
List of the Minority.
Browne, J.
Grant, Right hon. C.
Baring, Sir T.
Grant, Robert
Crompton, S.
Graham, Sir J.
Carter, J. B.
Harvey, D. W.
Cave, O.
Hume, J.
Clive, E. B.
Honywood, W. P.
Calthorpe, Hon. F.
Huskisson, Rt. Hn. W.
Colborne, R.
Kennedy, T. F.
Ewart, T.
Lambert, J. S.
Eastern, Lord
Lumley, S.
Ebrington, Lord
Lennard, T. B.
Guest, J. J.
Martin, J.
Gordon, R.
Morpeth, Lord
Grattan, H.
Macaulay, T. B.
1294
Nugent, Lord
Wood, Alderman
Norton, G. C.
Waithman, Alderman
Ord, W.
Warburton, H.
Russell, Lord W.
Wilbraham, G.
Sandon, Lord
Wynne, Sir W. W.
Smith, W.
Wynn, Rt. Hon. C.
Sykes, D.
Ward, J.
Tufton, Hon. H.
TELLERS.
Talbot, R. W.
Rice, T. S.
Tennyson, C.
Phillimore, Dr.
POOR-LAWS FOR IRELAND.]
Mr. Sadler
rose and said, that in addressing the House on a subject which he had at length obtained an opportunity of bringing under its consideration, he felt that it was little probable that he should be able to do anything like justice to its acknowledged importance;—a subject involving at once the highest principles and best feelings of humanity; one, not merely of a theoretical and abstract nature, but necessary, practical, and operative; not affecting a particular order or small part of the community merely, but bearing first on a numerous though unfortunate class of our fellow-beings, and through them upon the rest, however affluent and elevated; and lastly, Sir, a subject on which opinions the most various, and indeed opposite, are entertained, and each dictating a policy as essentially different—demands for its due and full consideration those qualifications in which (continued the hon. Member) I am as sensible as any one that hears me of my deficiency. Then, Sir, the circumstance of this House having so often entertained questions of the nature I have now the honour to submit to its attention, and to very little purpose; having passed, I think, hundreds of laws in reference to it, many of which, it is now confessed on all hands, were little reconcilable in their operation with their professed object—that of amending the condition of the poor, or the laws made in their behalf,—will render the House, I fear, little disposed to continued projects of a similar nature; while the fact of two or three committees now sitting, I believe, on matters bearing on the question to which I am about to address myself, may render my present course apparently the less necessary to be pursued. Sir, in approaching this subject, I feel forcibly these great discouragements; but I am still more deeply impressed with the duty I have ventured to undertake—that of attempting a general measure, the object of which will be, to better the condition of the
1295
1296
1297
1298
1299
1300
1301
1302
1303
1304
1305
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
1311
1312
1313
1314
1315
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
argumentum ad crumenam,
1321
1322
1323
1324
Question" from two or three Members.
1325
Da pretori, da deinde tribuno,
1326
"Safe in the love of heaven an ocean flows
Around our realm, a barrier from the foes;
'Tis ours the sons of sorrow to relieve,
Cheer the sad heart, nor let affliction grieve,
By Jove the stranger and the poor are sent,
And what to these we give to Jove is lent."
"Come like shadows, so depart,
Show their eyes, and grieve their heart—"
1327
On the question being put,
Lord F. L. Gower
rose, to oppose the Motion, which he did not mean to do, he said, with any asperity of language or feeling, though he had much reason to complain of the hon. Member's course of proceeding. He had no other means of judg-
1328
1329
Mr. Trant
observed, that the constitution of that committee, from which the member for Wicklow had been excluded, who had first brought the subject of the Poor-laws for Ireland under the notice of the House was such, that it was plain that the consideration of the propriety of adopting Poor-laws for Ireland was excluded from its inquiries. He thanked his hon. friend, therefore, for having brought the question before the House with such great ability.
Mr. W. Horton
complained of having been kept in town by the hon. Member having given notice of a general bill for the relief of the poor, which had turned out to be nothing more than a Resolution relative to Poor-laws for Ireland. The hon. Member admitted the necessity of making the poor provident, and he proposed to do this by supplying their wants, whether they were provident or not. Nothing but inconvenience could be expected from adopting the Resolution, till the report of the committee was made, and, therefore, he should oppose the motion.
Mr. S. Rice
would not detain the House if it were not that, were he not to say one word, he would seem to acquiesce in what had been said against the committee, which he, as an humble individual, had procured to be appointed. He was bound to defend that committee from the observations of the hon. member for Dover. It was a very fair committee; and one of the names he had placed on it was that of the hon. member for Newark, and he had only
1330
Mr. J. Grattan
said, from the speech of the hon. member for Limerick, when he proposed the committee, as well as from the persons of whom it was composed, ten or eleven out of the twelve Members having expressed themselves hostile to the introduction of Poor-laws into Ireland, he certainly thought that the committee was appointed to make out a case against adopting Poor-laws in Ireland. Being of that opinion, he thanked his hon. friend for the Motion; and should he persist in dividing the House on it, he would certainly vote with him, though he must say, that he did not expect from his hon. friend's notice, a motion of that nature. He was satisfied that Poor-laws must ultimately be adopted in Ireland, and therefore he would support the Motion.
Sir R. Wilson
thought the hon. member for Newark was perfectly justified in bringing forward his Resolution at that period of the Session, in order to allay the apprehensions which were entertained on the subject. In his opinion there must, sooner or later, be a provision, in the nature of Poor-laws, for the people of Ireland.
Mr. W. Duncombe
contended, that the
1331
Mr. Monck
said, that the application of Poor-laws to Ireland was an act of justice and right, and not of charity; and therefore he felt bound to support the Motion of the member for Newark.
Mr. Slaney
thought the time was not distant, when they should be compelled to apply to Ireland a system of Poor-laws, but a system very different from that in force in England. The question, however, required the most mature deliberation; and as there was a committee sitting at present to inquire into the subject, he was disposed to await the result of its labours before he assented to any proposition such as that of the hon. member for Newark. He felt it necessary to say this, that his vote might not be mistaken.
Mr. Sadler
said, he wished to offer a few observations in reply to what fell from the noble Lord opposite, in reference to his not having more distinctly specified the nature of his Motion when he gave notice of it. The fact was, that he (Mr. S.) was proceeding to explain the course which he meant to pursue, and that it was his intention to propose, in the first place, the introduction of a system of national charity into Ireland, when on that occasion he was interrupted by a call to order, otherwise he should have opened his intentions on that occasion most fully. He begged leave, however, to remind the noble Lord, that when so interrupted, and he was sure most properly, he immediately went and acquainted him, most distinctly, of his intention. He had again, as his hon. friend, the member for Yorkshire, had mentioned, explained his intention that day week. So much for his not having given due notice,—an answer which might apply equally to the remarks of the right hon. member for Newcastle, as well as to those of the noble Lord. Then as to the remark that the national charity of the Poor-law being not deserving of the name, because it was not voluntary, he begged leave to deny that position. As it respected the legislative
1332
l.
l.
1333
Lord F. L. Gower
denied the views ascribed to the Committee by the hon. Member.
Sir C. Wetherell
disapproved of the proposition for adopting Poor-laws in Ireland, when they gave so little satisfaction in their method of working in this country. He recommended his hon. friend to withdraw his Motion.
Mr. Sadler
withdrew his Motion.
SALE OF BEER BILL.]
The House went into a Committee on this Bill.
Mr. Monck
proposed a clause as an Amendment, requiring every householder who takes out a license to be assessed at 15
l.
l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he had considered a proposition of that kind before; but he found it would press so unequally in large towns, that he was compelled to abandon it. He had no objection to consent, that the seller of Beer should be a person rated to the Poor and Assessed taxes; but if he consented to fix a limit of amount, it would destroy the principle of the Bill.
Sir R. Vyvyan
On this question the Committee divided—For the Motion 59; Against it 101.—Majority 42,
1334
The clause proposed by Mr. Monck was negatived without a division.
The other clauses of the Bill were then proceeded with.
Sir R. Vyvyan
objected to any license being required at all, and complained that the Bill transferred the authority of the county magistrates to the Commissioners of Excise.
Mr. Slaney
proposed, that all persons applying for a license should be required to produce testimonials as to character, from persons resident on the spot where the license was to be used.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that plan had been already tried, and found unavailing. The securities provided by the Bill would, he believed, be more efficacious than certificates of good behaviour.
Mr. Slaney
declined to press his Motion.
Mr. Hume
objected to the clause requiring publicans to close their houses at ten o'clock. The Bill was called a Bill for the Free Sale of Beer; and every clause was a restriction on those who might desire to engage in the trade.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, the object was only to give the greatest possible freedom to the sale of Beer that was consistent with good order. The restrictions of which the hon. Member complained were only necessary precautions.
Mr. Robert Gordon
said, that the present mode of taking off the taxes was the most ungracious that could have been devised. The Bill gave universal dissatisfaction, except to a few great brewers.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
would regret if his efforts to give relief were as unpopular as the hon. Member represented them. He knew, however, that in many parts of the country the Bill gave great satisfaction.
Sir R. Wilson
said, that the hon. member for Cricklade had given a very incorrect representation of the feelings of the people. It was a great boon to them to reduce the price of Beer by 1½
d.
Mr. W. Duncombe
said, that the Bill was objectionable, both as injuring the morals and the comfort of the people. The trifling advantage of lowering the price of Beer would be compensated by a host of evils, and if it were not too late, he would join his voice to that of other hon.
1335
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he was extremely unfortunate, for he could not please Gentlemen when he laid on a tax, nor could he please them when he removed a tax.
Mr. Fowell Buxton
said, that hitherto the poor man had paid 50
s.
s.
Mr. Sadler
said, that he too had received several communications from Yorkshire, condemning the Bill in strong terms.
Clause agreed to, and the House resumed.
NORTHERN ROADS BILL.]
Lord Morpeth
Mr. Robert Gordon
objected to the Motion at that time of night.
Mr. W. Duncombe
said, the Bill was of very inferior importance compared to that which had just been disposed of.
Lord Morpeth
said, that he was sorry it was not in his power to comply with the request for postponement, but to do so at that period of the Session would be equivalent to withdrawing the Bill, and as there was a full attendance of Members interested in it, he should move that the Bill be read a second time. In making this Motion, having had an opportunity of hearing the objections against this Bill, it would be respectful to the House to state very shortly, but distinctly his inducements for bringing it forward; first, with regard to the objection relating to the expenditure of money supposed to be involved by the Bill, he must state that it was his intention, if allowed, to go into a committee, that those parts of it which might induce such expenditure should be omitted, leaving them to be brought forward here-
1336
1337
Lord Lowther
said, notwithstanding the noble Lord had taken some pains to explain his views, that the Bill still appeared to him very unsatisfactory. Had the noble Lord given the House information upon two points, it would have been much better able to go into the discussion. In the first place, he had not told the House how he meant to pay the commissioners; in the second place, he said that the Bill invested them with no new powers; but by the Bill they were to have all the powers of the Holyhead Road Commissioners transferred to them. Now, putting aside the fact that the House was thus thrown into a perplexity of Acts, which it was almost impossible to unravel, there were actually two Bills in the House to amend the Holyhead Road Acts. He never saw such liberties taken in legislation. The noble Lord said, that the line of deviation was not so great in England as in Scotland; and that, therefore, there were more Scotch than English Members on the Committee; but there was no concealing the fact that this was a downright Scotch job, to enable Scotchmen to mend their own roads with English tools, that they might walk up from Edinburgh to London by a shorter way than at present. There might, however, be another reason for this measure, there were some individuals in Northumberland who had obtained an Act for carrying a road from
1338
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
1339
Sir Henry Parnell
was quite certain that the least fault with which the Bill was chargeable, was that of concealment, for it stated all the objects in view in the plainest manner. With regard to the expense attendant upon the appointment of the commission, none of any consequence could arise, for all the surveys had been made, and the clause, giving power to make others, was only precautionary, in case they should be wanted. The business concerning the Northern Roads would be confined to holding meetings. It was his firm conviction, that if this Bill were passed on the principle of consolidation, the sum of money voted for the Holyhead establishment would be quite sufficient to pay the expenses of the new commission. The noble Lord said, that the Bill extended the powers of the Holyhead Commissioners to the Northern Roads; but his noble friend, on moving the second reading, stated, that the whole of the latter part of the Bill was to be omitted, so that no such power as the noble Lord supposed would be given. With respect to what the noble Lord had said relating to the estimates of the Holyhead road, he denied both the accuracy of his statement, and of his conclusions. The subject had been under the consideration of a committee, and its report would be shortly before the House.
1340
l.
l.
l.
Lord Lowther
said, his statements were taken from the returns.
Mr. Heathcote
said, that the little evidence that was taken before the committee on this Bill, and the manner in which it was composed, gave him great doubts as to its propriety; but now that his noble friend himself proposed to strike out half his measure, he was convinced that there must be something very objectionable in it. The better way perhaps would be for his noble friend to withdraw the Bill altogether, and introduce a fresh one, in order that the House might know what it was discussing, for surely he could not think of calling upon the House to affirm a great number of positions which he himself proposed to abandon. His noble friend had stated, that Stamford and Grantham were to be continued in the road; but upon referring to the Bill, he found that the road running through them was only spoken of as one that might be altered. The Bill appointed commissioners, but when the House considered how difficult it was to get rid of commissioners when once named, it would
1341
Colonel Sibthorp
said, the hon. Member recommended a Select Committee, but he would advise that the Bill be cast out at once, as a measure utterly unworthy to he entertained by the House. He was well acquainted with the line of road in question, and knew that the travelling upon it was easy, and that every where comfortable accommodations were to be met with; and he could not help looking upon the proposed scheme as a fancy measure of Mr. Telford's, whom he took to be one of those visionary gentlemen who expected to feed upon the public. The most advisable course for the noble Lord to pursue would be to withdraw his Bill, print it if he thought proper, and bring it forward in some intelligible shape.
Mr. Liddell
said, that it ought to be considered that this Bill contemplated an improvement of no less benefit than that of bringing the capital of Scotland thirty mites nearer to London. When the House
1342
Mr. Robert Gordon
could not allow that opportunity to pass without thanking the noble Lord opposite (Lord Lowther) for the very excellent sentiments he had uttered. He congratulated the Treasury benches upon having such a Member, and he hoped that the noble Lord would allow him to remind him of what he had just said when the noble Lord brought forward estimates himself. He had stated, that estimates were always exceeded, and that the House ought to be cautious how it commenced any public work, and he trusted that his hon. friend (Mr. Hume) would take an early opportunity of trying whether these sentiments extended to all estimates. But what was the object of the Bill? The noble Lord said, that it was to appoint Commissioners of Inquiry; but he had also said, that the plans and estimates were already prepared; what then could be the use of appointing a commission? Could not the Postmaster-general send down a surveyor to report which was the best line of road? That
1343
Mr. Kennedy
said, it was objected to the Bill, that public money was called for by it, but he saw none whatever called for, nor did he believe that it was intended to call for any. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Lowther) said on a former occasion, that this was a bill to obtain English money for Scotch roads. That was not the case, for he could state on his own knowledge, that there were roads in progress in Scotland, along which the intended line was to run, to defray the expense of making which no public money would be called for, although it might be considered desirable to place them under the control of an impartial commission. With respect to the opposition from the neighbourhood of Grantham, he was surprised at that, for there was no system of road-making so bad as that which prevailed in that neighbourhood; and never was
1344
Sir M. W. Ridley
said, that had it not been for the explanation of his noble friend, he should have been inclined, with the noble Lord opposite, to have opposed the second reading of this Bill; but after the explanation which had been given, he thought that the House ought to allow it to pass that stage, that it might be put into the desired shape. He objected to the Bill, but as it was to be separated into two parts, one of which was to empower a commission to inquire into the state of the roads, and the other to carry into further execution the powers vested in the Commissioners of the Holy-head-road, he would not oppose the second reading. The mail, he might remark, arrived in Edinburgh at three o'clock in the day, and did not leave till eight the next morning.
Mr. George Lamb
said, that it was clear that the hon. Baronet agreed to the second reading of he knew not what, since he wished it to be put in such a shape in a committee as would enable him to understand it. If the hon. Baronet comprehended the Bill, he (Mr. Lamb) did not, for he did not know what was to be kept in, and what struck out. From reading it, he could not say whether the Liverpool road was or was not to be included in the Bill, whether the commissioners were to raise money or not, or what roads from Litchfield to South Mims, and from London to Edinburgh were to come under consideration. It skipt about in the most extraordinary manner; and, in short, was such
1345
omnium gatherum
Lord Morpeth
said, as there was only one specific point in the Bill, he could not see any occasion to refer it to a Select Committee.
The House divided. Ayes 35; Noes 27—Majority 8.
HOUSE OF LORDS,
Friday, June 4, 1830.
MINUTES.] Petitions presented. By Lord HOLLAND, from Chorlbury and its vicinity, and from the Baptist Congregation assembling in South-street, Exeter, against the Punishment of Death for Forgery. By the Duke of RICHMOND, from the Chymists and Druggists of Norwich, against the Patent Medicine Stamp Duty. By Lord CALTHORPE, against the Birmingham Free-School Bill. By the Marquis of LONDONDERRY, from the Inhabitants of Grantley, in the County of Salop, against the Punishment of Death for Forgery. By Earl GREY, from the Inhabitants of Clonmel, against any addition to the Duty on Spirits and Stamps in Ireland; and a similar Petition from another place in Ireland. By the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from certain Inhabitants of Dublin, against any increase of the Duty on Stamps; from the Chamber of Commerce at Manchester, against the Punishment of Death for Forgery; from the Directors of the Provincial Bank of Ireland, in Tralee, to the same effect; from the Landowners of the Queen's County, against any additional Duty on Irish Spirits; from several Parishes in the County of Cork, against any additional Duty on Spirits and Stamps in Ireland; from the same Parishes, against the Irish Vestry Act; from the Roman Catholic Inhabitants of the Parish of Skreen, County of Meath, for the Abolition of Tithes; from the High Sheriff and Inhabitants of the County of Kerry, against the Equalization of Taxes between England and Ireland; from the Lord Mayor, Sheriffs, Bankers, Merchants, and Solicitors of Dublin, against any increase of Taxation, particularly with reference to Stamps; from Mr. Carden,
1346
The Parishes general Lighting and Watching Bill was read a second time.
Witnesses were further Examined on the East Retford Disfranchisement Bill.
SIR JONAH BARRINGTON.]
The Earl of Westmorland
presented a Petition from Sir Jonah Barrington, Judge of the High Court of Admiralty, Ireland, praying to be heard by Counsel and Witnesses at their Lordships' bar, in order that he might have an opportunity of disproving the charges that had been brought against him. The noble Earl said, that he presented the Petition on two grounds; first, because he held it to be the duty of every Peer to present the petition of any man who thought himself aggrieved, and asked for a fair hearing; and secondly, because he had long known Sir Jonah Barrington, and ever found him honest, faithful, and zealous. He was sure that a fair and impartial hearing would be afforded the petitioner, and he hoped that it would restore him to his rank in society.
The Duke of Wellington
Ordered.
STATE OF BUSINESS.]
The Marquis of Downshire
A short conversation took place, with respect to the propriety of withdrawing the Bill altogether for the present Session, on account of the impossibility of rendering it an effectual and palatable measure before Parliament broke up; in the course of which,
The Earl of Darnley
took occasion to
1347
Lord Wharncliffe
said, that the manner in which the business was regulated was fraught with inconvenience. He felt as great a respect for the privileges of the other House as any man could feel, but he must say that the doctrine which was held relative to money-clauses in bills had latterly been carried to an extreme point. The Commons insisted, that a clause in bills imposing penalties was a money-clause, because possibly money might be levied under it. He, however, was at a loss to know how such a clause could be so interpreted. The result was, that no bill, with a clause imposing a. money penalty, could originate in that House, although it was a place peculiarly fit for the consideration of measures connected with penalties; for instance, bills for the regulation of police, or bills for the regulation of law proceedings. The consequence of this system was, that all such bills began in the Commons, who were overlaid with business, and hundreds of accumulated orders. Ultimately, the bills were sent up to that House at a period of the Session when it was utterly impossible for the House to consider them properly. This matter struck him very forcibly, and he had some communication with the Members of the House of Commons on the subject, and he was glad to say, that a general feeling did exist, that the Commons had carried the point to which he had adverted too far. He now gave notice that it was his intention to bring this subject forward, in some shape or other, at a future day, in order that their Lordships might inquire whether a practice which was productive of so much delay should be persevered in.
1348
The Bill to be read a second time on Tuesday next.
HOUSE OF COMMONS,
Friday, June 4, 1830.
MINUTES] Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. O'CONNELL, an Account of the number of Proof-gallons of Spirits imported from Guernsey and Jersey, with the Duly paid there since l826:—On the Motion of Mr. HUME, Contracts concerning the reserved Crown Lands in Canada.
Petitions presented. To Postpone the Court of Session Hill to another Session, by Mr. W. DUNDAS, from the Writers to the Signet, Scotland. For encouragement to Historical Painting, by Mr. A. ELLIS, from B. R. Haydon. Against the Paupers (Irish and Scotch) Removal Bill, by the same hon. Member, from the Overseers of the Parish of St. Marlin's-in-the-Field:—By Lord STANLEY, from the-Constables and Borough-reeve of Manchester. Against the Monopoly of the Apothecaries in Dublin, by Mr. GRATTAN, from Robert Cassidy, an Apothecary at Bray:—By Mr. O'CONNELL., from the Apothecaries of Clare. Against the Employment of Persons by Night in Cotton Factories, by Sir M. S. STEWART, from curtain Cotton Weavers of Glasgow. Against the Sale of Beer Dill, from the Publicans of Uttoxeter. For Freedom of Trade to China, and the Abolition of all Monopolies, by Mr. JOHN WOOD, from the Members of the first Co-operative Society, Liverpool. Against the Administration of Justice Bill, by the same hon. Member, from places in the County Palatine of Chester. Against the Northern Road Bill, by Mr. N. CALVERT, from the Trustees of the Wadesmill Road. Against Stamp Duties (Ireland), by Lord KILLEEN, from a Society at Kilkenny:—By Mr. O'CONNELL, from two Societies in Dublin; from the Inhabitants of Ballybay and Tullycorbet; and from the Inhabitants of St. Catherine's, Dublin. For restricting the Sale of Spirituous Liquors, by Lord STANLEY, from the Salford Temperance Society. For obtaining the Freedom of the Borough of Carlow, by Mr. O'CONNELL, from certain Inhabitants of that place. In favour of the Emancipation of the Jews, by Mr. JOHN WOOD, from the Unitarians of Walmesley, near Bolton. For the Abolition of all Regulations relative to Cotton Factories, by the same hon. Member, from the Spinners of Preston. Against the Medicine Stamp Act, by Colonel PEEL., from the Druggists of Norwich. For the abolition of the Punishment of Death for Forgery, by the same hon. Member, from the Common Council of Norwich.
NEW STREET FROM WATERLOO-BRIDGE.]
Mr. Agar Ellis
presented a Petition from Samuel James Arnold, the proprietor of the late English Opera-house, in favour of a New Street from Waterloo-bridge to the northern part of the Metropolis. The hon. Member took that opportunity to inquire of the noble Lord (Lowther) what were the views of Government with regard to the subject. In doing so, he did not mean to impute any blame to the noble Lord, who was himself a great improver, for being reluctant to take up the matter. At the same time he was strongly in favour of opening a New Street, to commence at Waterloo-bridge, and extend towards the northern part of the town. The feeling of the public generally, but particularly of the immediate inhabitants of the metropolis, was decidedly in favour of such an undertaking.
1349
Lord Lowther
said, he was sensible of the advantage of making the proposed opening, and felt strongly the beauty and convenience that would result from it. However, there were reasons which induced Government to hesitate as to aiding the undertaking in the manner required. The first principle on which Government had acted with respect to improvements in the metropolis was, as far as possible, to confine its exertions to the property and estates of the Crown. This had been the case with regard to Regent-street. An application was made to him in reference to a new street from Waterloo-bridge northward, and he had been induced to represent the matter to the Board which possessed the superior control in such affairs. The members of it conceived, that the only mode in which they could properly lend their assistance would be, with regard to that part of the proposed improvement which might be contiguous to Crown property; and he thought that he might have ventured to propose to the House to advance a sum of 25,000
l
1350
Mr. Hobhouse
, having already presented a Petition from the parish of St. Paul Covent Garden in support of the project, could not but express his regret, that it had not received more encouragement from the noble Lord. The noble Lord must be aware, that unless Government came forward with assistance, partial even though it might be, the undertaking could never be effected, and that if it were not accomplished now, it never could. In consequence of the English Opera-house having been consumed, an opportunity was afforded of making an opening which would be equally useful and ornamental to the metropolis; but if the theatre were allowed to be rebuilt on the original site, the object would be defeated. He must object to his constituents being rated as proposed by the noble Lord; they were taxed quite enough already; the extra rates to which parishes in the metropolis had been subjected amounted to very large sums—too large to admit of any addition, even for the accomplishment of an object so useful as that now proposed. The establishment of the metropolitan police (an exceedingly useful object, he admitted) had added heavily to the parochial rates. The parish of St. George, Hanover-square, in addition to a rate of 76,000
l
l
1351
Mr. J. Wood
believed that the noble Lord mistook the feeling of the public upon the subject, if he thought that they would not willingly devote a part of their revenues to so beneficial an undertaking. They looked with great anxiety to the commencement of the work, which would be most useful as well as ornamental.
Mr. Warburton
hoped, that Government would feel disposed to consider the sum small that would be required to effect the object, and the public convenience great, that must result from it when accomplished; and that such being the case, it would lend its assistance to the undertaking. He was peculiarly and personally interested, but he thought that being so did not bias his opinion in declaring that the measure would be very advantageous.
Sir R. Inglis
trusted, that at least there would be no objection to the appointment of a committee to consider the conditions and security upon which Government might advance a certain sum for the completion of the plan. At the same time he admitted that Government was justified in pausing and weighing the matter well previous to taking any step.
The Petition to be printed.
SCOTCH AND IRISH VAGRANTS.]
Mr. C. Calvert
presented a Petition from St. Olave, Southwark, against the Bill for the removal of Scotch and Irish Vagrants. The hon. Member took the opportunity to say, that he was happy to hear that the noble Lord (Stanley) had postponed the measure until next Session, and he should be still happier if he would abandon it entirely.
Sir R. Wilson
supported the prayer of the Petition. The time would soon come when Ireland must sustain some part of the burthen of the maintenance of her poor.
Mr. H. Grattan
said, that the bill of the noble Lord was not to be tolerated. If it were entertained, it would have the effect of sending back to their own country all the Irish poor, and ought to be followed up by a bill to send back all the Irish rich. Since 1811 no less than 1,150,000
l
Mr. N. Calvert
said, the question at issue, which this bill was to solve to the
1352
Mr. S. Bourne
remarked, that the existing system grew out of the report of a committee of the House, as long since as the year 1817. It had appeared to that committee, that paupers might be removed like vagrants, by passes, and for some time the plan worked well; indeed so well, that a magistrate of Shadwell Police-office had assured him, that the effect had been to compel seventy families in that district to support themselves, instead of coming upon the rates. In time, however, it became liable to abuse, and the result was, the evils now the subject of such general complaint. The proposed remedy of the noble Lord was, however, no remedy at all, and he (Mr. S. Bourne) had made a suggestion to the Secretary for the Home Department, which he thought would be effectual; and that was, that the overseers of every parish should be allowed to give relief to any persons who applied, who seemed to be fit objects of charity, let them belong to what parish they might. This would, of course, preclude compulsory relief upon the orders of magistrates, as it would render them needless. Paupers might then be permitted to go to and fro, from parish to parish, without being interfered with; and a provision being made for the necessitous in every parish, the expense of passing paupers to their places of settlement would be avoided. It seemed to him by far the most equitable principle that residence (say for five years) should give a settlement, and he was confident that the parish authorities would be desirous of affording relief in all cases where it was deserved, without any further compulsion than that of circumstances.
Mr. Doherty
said, considerable misapprehension existed in Ireland—in Dublin among other places—with respect to the provisions of the bill. It appeared to be supposed, that the bill would introduce a different degree of power with respect to Scottish and Irish Vagrants and their removal, from that at present granted by the existing law; whereas, in point of fact,
1353
Lord Stanley
rose, to explain the course he intended to take with respect to his bill. His intention was, to give up the measure for the present year. In the next Session he should bring forward another measure on the same subject, which, if the House would permit him, he should read a second time, and then refer it to a select committee up-stairs.
Mr. O'Connell
was sure, that the noble Lord had no intention of reviving the practice of whipping Irish vagrants, but that certainly would be the effect of his bill, if any body chose to carry it into execution, for it went to repeal the comparatively recent Statute, which made whipping no necessary part of the operation of send-
1354
Mr. Littleton
thought, that the measure might be further matured this Session, and even referred to a select committee, in order that it might pass at an early period of the next Session. It was now the season of the year when the Irish labourers came to this country, and the bill, in order to be brought into just and effectual operation, ought to be made known to the parties interested before they left their native country. He therefore recommended the noble Lord to advance the measure further before he allowed the present Session to pass away.
Mr. J. Grattan
expressed his satisfaction that the bill was to be given up, for he was prepared to give it his most strenuous opposition.
Mr. G. Dawson
thought it very unfair that the Irish and Scotch poor should be saddled upon the English landholder. He thought the only way to prevent this was to pass a declarative act, to the effect that such poor should not be of right entitled to relief here. If the emigrants from Ire-
1355
Sir G. Philips
thought that the measure proposed by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Bourne) opposite would meet all the difficulties of this subject.
Mr. Estcourt
was of opinion that the suggestion thrown out by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Bourne) ought to be attended to.
Mr. R. Palmer
concurred in the proposition of his right hon. friend (Mr. S. Bourne), and thought that a measure on that principle should be introduced this Session.
Mr. C. Calvert
was glad to hear that the noble Lord intended to postpone this measure. With respect to the measure of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. S. Bourne) he could not, until he heard more of it, pledge himself to support it.
Mr. S. Bourne
, after repeating the nature of his proposition, said, that the learned member for Clare was quite mistaken in supposing that the Act respecting whipping would be revived by the bill of the noble Lord. That Act was altogether repealed, and no case of whipping could possibly arise, even if the noble Lord's bill, as it now stood, should pass into a law.
Lord Stanley
was glad to hear that the hon. and learned member for Clare was wrong in his law on this subject, because nothing could have been further from his (Lord Stanley's) intention than to revive such enactments. Under all circumstances, he thought the course he had already mentioned would be the best he could follow—namely, to withdraw the bill for the present, and to refer a measure of the same nature to a select committee in the next Session.
ABOLITION OF SUTTEES.]
Mr. S. Wortley
1356
Mr. F. Buxton
congratulated the House and the country on the abolition of this barbarous custom, and thought the noble Lord at the head of the government of India was entitled to great credit, for his humanity and firmness in doing that which other Governors-general had been afraid to attempt.
Motion agreed to.
WAYS AND MEANS.]
On the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Order of the Day was read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of Ways and Means.
FOUR-AND-A-HALF PER CENT DUTIES.]
Sir James Graham
said, that as he was anxious at all times not to impede the public business, and most anxious at all times not to obtrude his observations unnecessarily on the House, not having in any motion of his any factious object, or any merely party purposes, and being convinced that the Motion he intended to submit to the House related to a great constitutional question—before he brought it on, he wished to make a proposition to the right hon. Gentleman. His proposition was this:—That his Majesty's Ministers should undertake, without loss of time, to bring in a bill to limit the prerogative of the Crown to import commodities free of duty, to such commodities as were for the use of the Crown, and not allowing it to import commodities free of duty, for sale, particularly the sugar which was sent here in payment of the 4½-per-cent-duties, from Barba does and the Leeward Islands. If Ministers would accept his proposition, and bring in such a measure, it would take away the necessity of making the Motion of which he had given notice, though he should reserve to himself the right, if he were not satisfied with the measure, to bring forward a Motion on the subject hereafter.
Sir Robert Peel
was glad of the opportunity of making that statement before going into the committee, which his right hon. friend would have had to make. It appeared, that according to the principle of the Constitution, nothing was more clear than that it was the prerogative of the Crown to bring into the country any commodities without the payment of any
1357
Sir James Graham
said, he should not consult the feelings of the House if he did not accept the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman. He hoped, when his Majesty's Ministers brought in a measure to limit the prerogative, that it would be such as would command the assent of Parliament. He was glad to see the Ministers undertake this from a sense of what was due to constitutional principles; and in particular the measure gave him satisfaction, as it prevented him from trespassing on the House at some length. It would be more satisfactory to the House and the public also to see the Ministers do this, not from compulsion but a sense of duty.
Mr. John Stewart
took the opportunity to call the attention of the Colonial Minister to the monopolies which existed in Ceylon. They had been adverted to the other evening, and must be, he was quite sure, inimical to the prosperity of the colony and. destructive of its revenue,
1358
Mr. Huskisson
expressed his unfeigned satisfaction at what he had heard from his right hon. friend, the Secretary of State, and that it was his intention to bring in a bill to avoid trying the question of extreme right. With his right hon. friend he held that the right was clear and unqualified in the Crown to bring in all the articles that were required for the consumption of the Crown, free of duty. Such was unquestionably the prerogative of the Crown; but it was one thing to state that prerogative as a question of a constitutional character, and another to stand on the exercise of an extreme right, when that might tend to public inconvenience. It was clear that by the law the sugar sent in. payment of the 4½-per-cents might be exempt from duties, but he denied that the order given two years ago, to exempt those sugars from the payment of duty, was consistent with the public advantage. Let the House look at the practical result of such a measure. A person went into the market and bought some of this sugar that was sent here in payment of the 4½-per-cents; he would buy it at the market price, and he would pay for it what was called the long price, which included the duty; the broker who sold the sugar would hand over the proceeds, duty and all, to the agent for the 4½-per-cents, but the purchaser might go immediately afterwards to the Custom-house, and, if he exported that sugar, demand the whole drawback. That was a state of things that was open to many inconveniences, and ought not to be suffered to continue. He hoped, therefore, that the measure would limit the right to import commodities duty free to such as were for the use of the Sovereign himself.
Sir Charles Wetherell
contended, that the Sovereign had the right to import whatever he pleased for his own use, duty free. He had several other rights of property of this kind, such as the right to the Droits of Admiralty, to wrecks, and others—and the Ministers, if they pleased, might give up these and all other rights, but he hoped they would not give up his opinion. To contend that the Sovereign had not the right to import commodities without paying duties, was to say that his Majesty must not travel from London to Windsor without paying tolls on his own roads. The House could no more levy duties on the articles for the Sovereign's use, than it could make him pay a shilling or a six-
1359
Mr. Bright
thought the prerogative of the King in this respect was much more extensive than the hon. and learned Gentleman had described it to be; and, although it was not always exercised, there could be no doubt of its existence. He was very much afraid that the bill now announced to the House, so far from limiting that prerogative, might, perhaps, enable the Crown to devise new means for its being called into operation, and therefore, he now gave notice of his intention to watch its progress, and examine thoroughly its details.
The Attorney General
could assure the hon. Member, that the bill meant neither to encroach on the prerogative nor to extend its privileges; its object was to adjust that portion of the royal privileges by which certain commodities were imported, and might subsequently be sold, duty free, to the level of existing usages and institutions. The sugars alluded to stood on a different ground from other articles which the Crown might import free of duty.
Mr. Baring
had, from the very first, looked on this exercise of the prerogative of the Crown with great jealousy, and he rejoiced at the prospect of a full and complete settlement of all the questions to which it gave rise. Notwithstanding what the hon. and learned Gentleman said, in this
1360
Sir Robert Peel
said, he had always endeavoured, as much as possible, to support the just prerogative of the Crown, but he could not conceal from himself, that the exercise of a power of this kind should be dispensed with, and that it was necessary to put an immediate termination to all the speculations or suspicions which it might call forth.
Mr. Brougham
, approved of the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel), and declared, that a proper limitation of the prerogatives of the Crown was the surest method to fix them on a permanent basis.
Mr. Hume
thought, that the time was come, when the exercise of prerogatives of that kind should be put an end to for ever. He did not see, too, on what principle the ambassadors of this country, who were so well paid for their services, should possess a privilege beyond the rest of his Majesty's subjects, and he hoped that the practice with respect to them would also be abandoned. The right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) admitted that he had received 50,000
l
l
Sir C. Wetherell
said, in explanation, that the only object he had in view in the few observations which he had addressed to the House was, to vindicate the official law opinion which he had delivered with respect to the West-India sugars, which, he still maintained, the Crown was entitled to import and sell duty free.
The House went into a Committee.
1361
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
l
The House then resolved itself into a
COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY.—MINT COINAGE.]
Mr. G. Dawson
l
Mr. Poulett Thomson
submitted to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the propriety of making some alteration in the present mode of doing business at the Mint. At present there was no charge for seignorage, and the expense of coining for individuals from bullion was defrayed by the public. He thought it would be much better were some charge affixed which would save the public this expense, and at the same time not hold out a bounty to melting the coin of the realm. He should object, however, to any seignorage exceeding the cost of the coining, as that would be
pro tanto
Mr. Warburton
did not agree with his hon. friend, the member for Dover, that there ought to be the imposition of this seignorage, for such a charge would be equivalent to a depreciation of the intrinsic value of the coin of the realm to the amount so imposed. In the French Mint, a charge amounting to 100,000
l
Mr. Poulett Thomson
explained, that he was misunderstood by his hon. friend. He had never intended to impose an expense calculated to depreciate the coin; but merely required a payment, in the shape of seignorage, equivalent to the expense incurred by the public in performing the work of coining for individuals.
Mr. Davies Gilbert
had a great objection to any plan of seignorage, for the effect would be, that the amount, be it one or two per cent, or whatever other sum, would fall on the last holder of the coin, in addition to his loss by the depreciation of weight.
Mr. Hume
wished to know in what manner the profit of eight-and-half to ten per-
1362
l
Mr. Herries
replied, that there had not been of late any silver coinage, except about 100,000
l
l
Mr. Baring
looked upon the present plan at the Mint as not only one by which the public sustained an unnecessary loss, but as furnishing likewise a premium to the party who brought his bullion to the Mint for coinage, at the expense of the country. The question of seignorage was, he knew, a difficult one; and there were many different opinions concerning it, but he believed that there could be but one opinion of the plan followed at our Mint. Whenever parties took bullion there they immediately received coin in its place, so that if the market price of bullion were equal or a little lower than the settled price given at the Mint, the owners of the bullion made a large immediate profit at the public expense. This was absurd. At least, those who carried bullion to be coined should wait till it was coined, and not receive money for it immediately. To keep a large quantity of money ready coined to meet such demands was a great expense. The system ought, in his opinion, to be altered.
Mr. Herries
said, that the business of the Mint was governed by fixed regulations, which were deemed salutary for the public. Formerly the mode of transacting it was such that the Bank of England became the sole great importer or monopolist of bullion, and enjoyed from that situation a profit upon procuring coin for individuals.
1363
l
s
d
l
s
d
Mr. Baring
explained, that even this advantage was given to individuals at the expense of the public; and why, he again asked, should the latter be called upon to
1364
s
s
s
s
1365
Mr. Herries
explained, that there had not been within the last three or four years any new silver coinage, except that for the Colonies. The coinage alluded to was that prepared after the passing of the bill for putting an end to small notes and to facilitate its operation for the public. He was at the same time willing to admit that he believed there was at present a larger silver coinage than the wants of the country required, and he apprehended the surplus was accumulated at the Bank, for there was none in the Mint. As to the rumour that there existed a spurious silver coinage which had found its way into circulation he meant not a counterfeit or false coin but one of silver, of the same quality and fineness as the Mint coinage, which was supposed to have been fabricated in a foreign country and introduced into this to secure the profit which might be derived from the difference between the nominal value of the coin and market price of the silver. He had not the leas reason to believe there was the smallest truth in this supposition; indeed, from all the information which he could obtain, he thought there was no truth in the rumour, and for this reason, a quantity of silver coin had been selected as spurious, and sent to the Mint, where it underwent a careful examination, when the result was, that every single piece was ascertained to be the genuine fabrication of the Mint He had no other reason than this for disbelieving the rumour, and he knew that pot a single piece other than the legitimate
1366
Mr. Huskisson
did not mean to argue that the expense of this Mint process was greater than the advantage derived from the increased facilities afforded to the public in the manner mentioned by his right hon. friend; but he quite agreed with the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Baring) that great public benefit would be derived from decreasing the expense which was at present attendant upon conveying the precious metals into this country. By increasing the facilities of transport a real advantage would be derived, and a saving of at least one half per cent assured for the importing merchants. Why should the merchants who speculated in the import of bullion have a duty of two per cent, and sometimes, if the vessel touched at Jamaica and other places of 3 or 3½-per-cent imposed upon them for its conveyance in Government packets or ships of war? He knew for a certain fact, that the importation would have been infinitely greater from South America, if it had not been for the existence of this tax. Merchants were quite ready to pay the same freight as was paid for public treasure brought in the King's ships.
Sir G. Cockburn
said, that the tax was not so great as the right hon. Gentleman had stated. Its average was formerly only about one and a half per cent, it was at present at most two per cent. The reason of the imposition of the tax was, because the naval officers had often to make good great losses to the merchants. He
1367
Mr. Huskisson
said, that any naval officer carrying public treasure would consider himself well paid at one per cent. He therefore thought that the freight paid by merchants ought to be much lowered. In the case mentioned by the gallant Admiral, the captain had himself to blame, as it was his duty to see that the bullion shipped accorded with the invoice. He did not think that the responsibility of the commanders of packets would be found of much avail, should the treasure they were intrusted with be found deficient.
Sir G. Cockburn
observed, that there was a great difference between officers carrying money for the Crown and for merchants. If an officer used every proper care of the money intrusted to him on the part of the Crown, but should by misfortune lose it, the Crown would absolve him from repayment. But in cases of money intrusted to him by merchants, he was responsible to the whole extent of his fortune for its safety.
Mr. Alderman Thompson
complained of the high rate of freight imposed on merchants, inasmuch as there was an invariable agreement that the naval officer should only be responsible to the amount of one quarter of the sum intrusted to him. As to the other points brought under discussion—the advantage of individual importers of bullion—that was much exaggerated. The advantage which the Bank gained was trifling, as it was always obliged to keep a large balance in hand.
Mr. Maberly
thought the Government had a right to charge a freight for money imported in King's ships, but he thought that the profit ought to be put in the public purse.
1368
Mr. Hume
reminded the House how often he had pressed the subject upon the Government. If a naval officer were a Member of the House, or connected with Government, he was immediately put into a fast-sailing frigate, which sailed along the coast of South America, took in one or two millions of dollars, and thereby put into the pocket of the officer 20,000
l
l
Mr. Baring
remarked, that the only return for British manufactures from South America was gold and silver, and unless bullion were brought home upon fair terms, the effect would be, to destroy the trade.
Vote agreed to.
LAW EXPENSES OF THE CROWS.]
Mr. Dawson
l
Agreed to.
On the question, that a sum not exceeding 15,000
l
Mr. Gordon
wished to know whether these expenses were incurred by the Treasury, for the prosecutions, or rather persecutions of the Press during the last year. In 1829, the sum voted for fees of Counsel was only 2,289
l
l
Mr. Dawson
said, that the sum for fees of Counsel was lower this year than last. The vote for this year was not proposed upon a calculation of the probable expenses, but upon the average expense of the three preceding years. With respect to the number of counsel employed, probably his learned friend (Sir J. Scarlett) would give the House a good reason for that. He must, however, state, that the fees paid by the Solicitor of the Treasury were much lower than those paid by private individuals.
1369
The Attorney General
thought he was bound, on the occasion of the prosecution which had been adverted to, to give his Majesty the benefit of the Counsel whom he considered most efficient. He was perfectly ready to show, that the charges in this instance were usual and reasonable, and he was ready to meet any motion which the hon. Member might bring forward on the subject. It was a matter of great, and he might add, indispensable convenience to the Attorney General to have the assistance of King's Counsel in cases of this description. He and the Solicitor General were often called out of Court on such public occasions, when it was important that they should be present, and it was necessary in such instances to have Counsel ready to take upon them the management of the case. If the hon. Member himself should happen to be engaged in an important suit, and if such an humble individual as he (the Attorney General) should be fortunate enough to be employed as his Counsel, and if he should be called out of the Court at the critical moment, as he frequently was, to attend his public duty in the House of Lords, in the Court of Exchequer, or before the Privy Council, the hon. Gentleman might then find the necessity and convenience of having Counsel employed to assist him and to take his place in his absence; now what the hon. Member would think right and proper in his own case, he should concede to be right in the case of Government. As to the number of Counsel, it was not greater than was usually employed in such cases. That was his answer to the hon. Gentleman, and it was all the answer he was prepared to give to him on the subject. As to the fees that had been paid in these cases, they were not equal to the fees which were often paid in private prosecutions. He thought he had now answered all the questions and the statements of the hon. Gentleman. He might be allowed, however, to tell the hon. Member, that if he was anxious to make personal attacks upon him, he ought to do so in the regular way, by bringing a specific motion before the House. Let him do that, and he would be then ready to meet him. Let him do that, and not assai him by those side-wind attacks, and by calling prosecutions, which he in the discharge of his duty felt himself bound to institute, "persecutions." He thought it
1370
1371
l
l
s
Mr. R. Gordon
would in the first instance say a word as to what had been said by the hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for the Treasury, as to the amount of those fees to Counsel charged in this estimate. The hon. Gentleman had said, that 3,139
l
l
l
l
l
1372
1373
Mr. D. W. Harvey
said, that they had been told, that a portion of this money had been issued for the payment of fees in suits. He inferred from that statement that the suits in question were suits in Chancery; and he was anxious to obtain information as to the number of suits of this description which had been instituted by the Treasury, and the amount of property which had been thus acquired for the Crown. It was well known that all the effects of persons who were born illegitimate, and who died intestate, devolved to the Crown. He believed that large estates of that character had devolved to the Crown. His attention had been called to the subject by a professional gentleman, who acted as solicitor for an individual who claimed as the legal descendant of the deceased, but who was defeated. In that case the sum of 90,000
l
1374
his fiat
1375
The Attorney General
trusted, that on the present occasion he was entitled to claim the attention of the House, while he replied to the statements made by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. With regard to the subject of charities he had this to say—the power of investigating and regulating public charities was vested in the Crown, and that power was delegated to his Majesty's Attorney General; and whether it were right that such a power should be so delegated or not, he would not now say; but this he would say, that so long as it was vested in him, as it was, he would keep that right, and he would not allow the hon. Member or any other person to take it from him. If the hon. Gentleman should choose to apply to file an information in the case of a charity, and have the certificate of a Counsel in support of it, and if the facts should not afterwards appear to warrant such an information, he should only be doing his duty by preventing him from filing it. He
1376
1377
Mr. D. W. Harvey
said, that the learned Gentleman had made a strange exhibition on this occasion. To any Gentleman who heard him it must have been evident that the Attorney General appeared to be under the impression that he was in a court of law, and not in that House, for he seemed to think that he might deal out to individuals here the same treatment which he did to the unfortunate parties who came under the lash of his forensic talents in a court of law. The hon. and learned Gentleman had complained of what he called the sarcasms of the hon. member for Cricklade. He (Mr. Harvey) would not accuse the hon. and learned Gentleman of employing sarcasms against him, for that would be giving him credit for wit which he did not possess, but he had certainly dealt out a great quantity of coarseness against him, which the House might estimate as it deserved. It was rather odd that the learned Gentleman, who put forward assumptions to a purity of intention which he would not concede to others, should have on this occasion so completely perverted the spirit of a printed letter which could scarcely have been misunderstood if it had been read to the House. In doing that, the hon. Gentleman with his usual dexterity, had diverted the attention of the House from that point with regard to which he (Mr. Harvey) had required an answer from him. He alluded to the amount of fees charged for those suits with respect to charities in Chancery, in which suits the hon. Member had been in the habit of taking fees for doing nothing, though it had been recommended by the law-commissioners as one remedy for the abuses in courts of justice, that learned Counsel should confine themselves to the court, and not go into other courts to scramble for fees for doing nothing. That was what the learned Attorney General had done, for he had taken fees in those suits in Chancery where he could do nothing, as his practice did not lie in that Court. But the hon. Member alluded to a circular letter which had been sent round to the trustees of charities. He (Mr. Harvey) gloried in being the author of that letter. He would venture to say, that the Attorney General would never be the author of such a letter.
1378
Laughter and cheers from the Ministerial benches.
s
d
l
l
l
l
The Attorney General
said, if the hon. Member were prepared to bring forward any
1379
The Solicitor General
hoped that the House would allow him to say a few words in reference to the case of the Ironmongers' Company, to which allusion had been made by the hon. member for Colchester. He begged leave to say, that as to the result of that case, the hon. Member appeared to be entirely mistaken. No pretence existed to justify any one in stating to the commissioners that there was any intention on the part of the Ironmongers' Company to mismanage or misapply this money; on the contrary, it was shown that all their regulations with regard to it were framed to meet the intentions of the original founder. The only difficulty was with regard to the application of the money, so as to comply with the conditions specified by the founder. He must say, that it appeared upon investigation, that the money had been managed by the Ironmongers' Company in the best possible manner. The hon. Member had no reason whatever to take credit to himself, for having by his vigilance obtained the proper application of that fund. With regard to the controlling power possessed by the Attorney General as to the filing of informations in cases of charity, he would observe, that when the Legislature thought proper to confide that power to the Attorney General, without the authority of a
relator
1380
1381
Mr. Alderman Thompson
defended the conduct of the Ironmongers' Company, and contended that they had not been guilty of any misapplication of their funds. He wondered how the hon. member for Colchester could bring forward charges in that House, when he knew that the whole case must shortly undergo judicial investigation elsewhere. The hon. Member had told the Committee that a bill had been filed against the Ironmongers' Company. Why had he not told the committee that the Company had put in its answer, and that the Lord Chancellor had ordered that the funds in question should be distributed
pendente lite
l
Mr. Hume
said, that if any person were justly liable to the accusation of irregularity upon this occasion, it was his Majesty's Attorney General, who had introduced a letter into the discussion which had not the slightest connexion with it. The hon. and learned Gentleman had been asked, why he condescended to take fees for suits instituted in his name in the Court of Chancery, when he never went into that Court, or took any part in conducting them. It was a plain question, and admitted, as he (Mr. Hume) thought, of as plain an answer. But the hon. and learned Gentleman, instead of giving the Committee a plain answer to a plain question, did not vouchsafe to give it an answer at all, but endeavoured to divert attention to a very different subject, by going into a letter of which he hinted, more than
1382
1383
The Attorney General
wished to confine himself to a simple answer to the question which had been put to him by the hon. member for Aberdeen, inasmuch as he was convinced that all who were acquainted with his private character would do him the justice to believe that he was not likely to feel gratification at the ruin of any man. The expenses incurred in the prosecutions instituted on behalf of the Lord Chancellor, after it had been taken up as a public prosecution were, he had no doubt, included in this item. He could not positively say of his own knowledge that they were, because he had not the drawing up of this estimate. To the remainder of the observations made by the hon. member for Aberdeen, he would only reply, that he did not know till that evening that in pro-
1384
Mr. Dawson rose
for the purpose of stating that the expenses of the
ex-officio
Mr. D. W. Harvey
denied that he had made any such attack upon the Ironmongers' Company as justified the remarks which had been made upon his conduct by the hon. member for the City of London. He believed that the members of that Company thought that they had done as well as the members of other companies of "the great Corporation;" and he did not mean to say that they had done worse. All that he had complained of was, that they had had a large sum of money unemployed for years, or if employed, employed on no visible object save that of eating and drinking. It appeared to him that the learned Solicitor General had upon this occasion run wild very unnecessarily. The learned Gentleman had accused him of adopting his present course for the purpose of gaining popularity; and if he might judge from the exhibition which he had just seen, the learned Gentleman was rather envious of the honour which he fancied was acquired by a reformer of abuses. He certainly, and he was ready to acknowledge it, did wish for some popularity, and he believed that the Solicitor General, much as he disguised the fact, was equally anxious to obtain a share of that; else how was it that an inflated account had been published of certain journies made from Lincoln's Inn to the Fleet Prison, and of certain accounts then and there taken of the sufferings endured by a certain class of prisoners? He repeated what he had said before, that so far was the attempt to remedy the abuses of charitable institutions from deserving attack in that House, that he believed that whoever made it was undertaking a work of great utility. The twenty-two volumes of Reports on Charitable Institutions, which had cost the country upwards of 300,000
l
l
1385
l
Sir E. Knatchbull
rose, for the purpose of repeating the question which had been already put by the hon. member for Montrose. He thought that he had heard that question answered in the affirmative. If it had been so answered, he, for one, wished to have a further explanation.
Mr. Dawson
repeated, that the expenses incurred by Lord Lyndhurst in prosecuting an individual for a libel against him as Lord Chancellor, had been included, as the prosecution was taken up by the Crown, under the charge of law expenses for the last year.
Sir E. Knatchbull
wanted to know the grounds on which such a resolution had been adopted. A great constitutional principle was here at stake, and he should like to hear some satisfactory reason, if such a reason could be given, for so unprecedented a proceeding.
Sir C. Wetherell
said, that unless some of his Majesty's Ministers explained to the Committee, before this estimate was put to the vote, why Lord Lyndhurst's application for a criminal information was abandoned, and an
ex officio
ex officio
1386
ex officio
ex officio
The Attorney General
hoped, that the Committee would feel that he was now most unexpectedly called upon to address it at some length upon a subject that was pointedly personal to himself. He had had no previous notice given to him that a question as to the propriety of his official conduct would be that evening raised in Parliament. Not one of the hon. Gentlemen who had that evening thought fit to pass such sweeping censures on his conduct, had had the courtesy to intimate to him that they intended to bring under the notice of the Committee of Supply, that part of his public conduct which had already undergone discussion once, and which was to undergo a discussion a second time, whenever the hon. and learned member for Plympton should think fit to bring it on by moving for leave to introduce a Bill to prevent the
1387
Hear, from Sir E. Knatchbull
Confusion, and cries of "Order."
ex officio
ex officio
1388
1389
ex officio
ex officio
Mr. Baring rose
to order, but was so inaudible, that the Members called upon him to "speak out." He was understood to protest against the irregularity of this discussion. The Committee had already lost more than two hours in the discussion of a subject which had nothing whatever to do with the estimate then before it. In former times it was not usual to talk so much; the consequence was, that they
1390
ex officio
Mr. Brougham
also rose to order. He was sure that his hon. friend, the member for Callington could not have heard, or if he had heard, could not have attended to the whole of this discussion. He agreed that upon this occasion the Committee had wandered widely from the real question before it, and he was sorry to observe that that was a practice which was daily becoming more prevalent, both in that and the other House of Parliament. If, however, his hon. friend had determined to call the House back to the question, he thought that he ought to have carried his determination into effect before his hon. and learned friend, the Attorney General had been put upon his defence. He contended that his hon. and learned friend, the member for Plympton had put his hon. and learned friend the Attorney General upon his defence by his mode of proceeding that night. The question which his hon. and learned friend the member for Plympton had raised was this—" I will not vote the expenses of filing the
ex officio
ex officio
Mr. Baring
: If there be any question of constitutional law at issue between the two learned Gentlemen, it is hard upon the Committee, which has met for business, to have its time wasted in settling it now.
The Attorney General
proceeded to state, that no one felt more strongly than he did, the inconvenience which had arisen
1391
ex officio
l
ex officio
ex officio
ex officio
ex officio
ex officio
1392
ex officio
Sir E. Knatchbull
had not been aware, that in discussing the estimates it was requisite to give a previous notice of any topic to be discussed: it was the first time he had heard so monstrous a doctrine. The question arose out of matters which could not be known to him till he was in
1393
ex officio
The Attorney General
did not complain of the course pursued by the hon. Baronet. The hon. and learned member for Plympton had said, that unless some explanation on the subject was given to the Committee, he should propose an Amendment, rejecting the vote; and he remarked, that in a matter somewhat personal to him (the Attorney General), he thought the courtesy observed in the House called for some previous notice of it. In answer to the question which had been proposed by the hon. Baronet, he stated that the expenses of all the
ex officio
Mr. Wigram
said, that he could not vote for the estimate: the Lord Chancellor, in his opinion, was in the same situation, when attacked in his private capacity, as another individual, and should defend himself in the same manner.
Mr. O'Connell
hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir C. Wetherell) would bring this question to a decision, by moving his Amendment to strike out of the Estimates the expenses of the Lord Chancellor's prosecution. It was a most unnecessary waste of the public money, not because a foul libel had not been pub-
1394
ex officio
Sir R. Peel
said, that whatever might be the opinion of the House on the question now before it, he was certain that no other Member would be prepared to give his vote on the same grounds as the hon. and learned member for Clare. He had said that the prosecution was vindictive: if so, let the House mark its sentiments, by reprobating the conduct of the Attorney General; but Jet it not degrade itself by such a paltry mode of reprobation as that of reducing the votes on the Estimates. Was there ever such a miserable mode of dealing with a great constitutional question? Was there ever an instance of an attempt to subject a Lord Chancellor and an Attorney-general to censure, by diminishing a vote of 100
l
1395
No, no.
1396
Sir E. Knatchbull
was satisfied with the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman. It would then be for the House to decide on the sufficiency of the explanation.
Mr. Sadler
stated, that the reason why he had not brought forward his motion might be seen in the state of the Vote-paper. The hon. Member was proceeding to refer to the subject of Ship-money in the reign of Charles 1st, when he was interrupted by violent coughing, and obliged to discontinue.
Sir C. Wetherell
would withdraw his intended Amendment, as the proposal of the right hon. Secretary he thought was a fair one. The information he wanted was, whether any instance could be cited in which a private information had been commenced and abandoned in order to give an opportunity for the institution of a public one. The hon. and learned Gentleman, and the right hon. Secretary, seemed rather to be retiring from this question. He maintained that no such instance had ever occurred in Westminster-hall, and if no such case was brought to light, he should persist in proposing a reduction of the vote,
1397
Sir R. Peel
explained, that he had never contended that a committee might not discuss great constitutional questions; but he had contended that, in a Committee of Supply, and on a vote, it was generally customary for the Committee to confine itself to the pecuniary part of the business.
Mr. Bright
expressed a hope, that the House would look into the question, with a view to ascertain whether a power should be put into the hands of the Ministers of the Crown to vindicate themselves against whatever charges might be brought against them, at the expense of the country.
Mr. Hume
said, that as the right hon. Gentleman opposite had fairly admitted an explanation to be necessary with regard to these charges, and promised to give it before the report should be agreed to, he would not offer any further opposition to the vote on the present occasion, it being understood that it was allowed to pass
pro forma.
Resolution agreed to.
The next Resolution, for a grant of 107,986
l
l
On the Resolution for a grant of 18,700
l
Mr. Hume
wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman opposite, whether he could not make arrangements to do away with this expense in part, if not altogether?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, the commission grew out of treaties made with foreign powers with a view to abolish the Slave-trade, a circumstance which constituted the difficulty of receding. As to the amount of expense incurred on this account, the Estimates bore witness that whenever vacancies occurred, the opportunity was taken to reduce the expense of the commission as far as practicable.—
Agreed to.
On the Resolution for a grant of a sum of 28,000
l
Sir J. Graham
observed, that this vote and the next to it were liable to great objections. He hoped, as it was his wish to take the sense of the House on the subject, that the Chairman might be permitted to report progress and ask leave to sit again, reserving the discussion upon these items for an earlier hour and a fitter
opportunity.
1398
Sir R. Peel
had no wish to press these particular Resolutions at present, as they were objected to, but trusted that hon. Members would allow the subsequent votes to be proceeded with.
Mr. Hume
said, that almost every vote that followed would be objected to.
Resolution postponed.
On the Vote of 16,690
l
Mr. Hume
objected to going into the Resolution at that hour, on the ground that the Commissions were likely to entail upon the country a perpetuity of expense.
Mr. Brougham
said, he could not allow such an observation as perpetuity of expense to be applied to the Law Commissioners, without declaring his intention to share the responsibility incurred by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir R. Peel). It had indeed been, in some measure, through his instrumentality that the expense was incurred, and so far from its being perpetual, he believed that a period of little more than a year, certainly not so much as two years, would be required for the full completion of their labours. The Commissioners had already made a Report embracing all the heads of the subject of their inquiries. This they had done in about a year and a half, and he was confident, if they went on as they had done, that another year and a half would be more than sufficient for the full completion of their labours.
Mr. D. W. Harvey
said, many most valuable suggestions were contained in the reports presented, but not one of them was yet carried into execution. Why were not the useful improvements suggested carried into effect? The only measure yet brought into the House on the recommendation of the Commissioners was the bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General), and that suggestion was the first seized upon because it was attended with expense to the country.
Sir R. Peel
agreed to postpone the remaining votes, and the House resumed.
SALE OF BEER BILL.]
On the question that the House do resolve itself into a Committee on the Sale of Beer Bill,
Mr. Bright
objected to proceeding further with the present measure till the nature of that for effecting an alteration
1399
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
objected to entering into a discussion of one measure, at a time when another measure was before the House. When the present Bill should have been disposed of, he would go into the other, and afford his hon. friend an opportunity of discussing it.
Sir M. W. Ridley
asked, whether the public-houses now in existence, and licensed according to the present system, were to be put under the direction of the Excise in the same manner as was provided with respect to the new houses to be opened under the authority of this Act?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, the law would be, that those who sold Beer only as provided by the Bill, should be licensed by the Excise; and that those who combined with the Beer-trade a trade in Wine and Spirits should continue to be licensed as at present.
Mr. Brougham
said, it appeared to him that those who had the spirit-licences would thereby possess such a preference as would give them a very fair chance, he might almost say a certainty, of keeping their ground.
The House went into Committee.
On the clause being read, restricting the brewers of Porter and Ale from using any other material in the process of brewing than malt, hops, and water,
Mr. Bright
proposed, as an Amendment, that individuals should not be thus restricted. As the Chancellor of the Ex-
1400
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
observed, that the great object of the Bill was to supply the public with a wholesome and nutritious malt beverage; and it was evident that that object would be defeated, if individuals were allowed to concoct liquor from quassia, coculus indicus, and other deleterious drugs.
The Amendment negatived without a division.
Sir T. Freemantle
proposed a clause to enact that any person applying under the Act for a license, should give a notice to be put up for three successive Sundays on the church-door, containing his name and address; and that it should be lawful for any three rated parishioners to apply to a magistrate, and give security to enter an appeal against the granting of the license; and that the magistrates should not be authorized to grant the license if the applicant had been convicted of a felony, or was a man of notoriously bad character, or if the place where the public-house was to be kept was 100 yards from any public road.
The Committee divided: For the clause 42; Against it 72—Majority 30.
INDEX TO VOL. XXIV. NEW SERIES.
SUBJECTS OF DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
B
Barrington, Sir Jonah, 1346
Birmingham Grammar School, 1131
Business, State of, 1346
C
Church, Reform of the, 358
Commons, Conference with the, 1070
Country, State of the, 214, 659
D
Debt, National, 428
Distress, National, 659
E
Equity, Suits in, 919, 1123
F
Four-and-a-half-per Cents, 998, 1070
G
Greece, 293, 815, 989, 1116, 1189, 1256
H
Hickson's Marriage Bill, 354, 542
K
King, Indisposition of the, 1062
L
Leather, Tax on, 422
London, Revenue of the See of, 122
M
Message from the Throne, 986
Military, Conscientious Scruples of, 918
N
Newspaper Stamps (Ireland), 532
P
Poor Laws (England), 535
——(Ireland), 533
Priests, Converted, Pensions to, 30
Privilege, Breach of, 499
R
Reform of the Church, 358
Registers, Parish (Scotland), 424
Retford East, Disfranchisement of, 31, 68, 225, 294, 322, 543, 998
Revenue, 428
S
Sign Manual, 1062, 1132, 1191
Spirits, Duties on, 29, 217, 498, 594
T
Tariff, Russian, 1189
Terceira, 294
Tithes, Composition for, 499
W
Wilson, Sir T's. Estate Bill, 423
SUBJECTS OF DEBATE IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
A
Algiers, 871
Allowances, Superannuated, 64
Apprentices, 704
B
Barrington, Sir Jonah, 484, 965, 1075
Beer, Sale of, 15, 304, 323, 387, 401, 446, 951, 1333, 1398
Birmingham Petition, 774
Borris-o-kane Trials, 831
Bullion, Transmission of, 762
C
Canada, 1093
Canal, Grand Irish, 593
——Subscriptions, Fraud in, 859
Catholic Charitable Bequests, 394
Ceylon, 1155
Chancery, Improvement in, 593, 859, 1171
Children, Deserted (Ireland), 56, 527
Clyde Navigation, 1192
Coaches, Hackney, 703
Coals, Tax on, 696
Constabulary Force (Ireland), 390, 866, 869
Corporation Fraud, 238
Crown, Demise of, 530
D
Dean, Forest of, 863
Debt, Imprisonment for, 826, 1258
Debts, Small, Courts, 1202
Debtors, Insolvent, 227
Distress, 10, 764, 829
Divorce, Law of, 124, 1260
Doneraile Conspiracy, 596
Dramatic Censorship, 1085
E
Employment, Fluctuation in, 682
Estimates, Miscellaneous, 938
F
First Fruits (Ireland), 838
Fisheries, 1201
Forgery, Punishment of, 11, 35, 328, 389, 674, 708, 1014, 1021
Four-and-a-half-per Cents, 922, 1015, 1356 Freedom of the City, 1204
G
Gal way Franchise Bill, 54, 1115
Good Hope, Cape of, 1005
Greece, 1002, 1193
Greek Loan, 504
I
Indies, West, 829, 834
Indo-Britons, 377
Interment in the Metropolis, 680
J
Jews, 236, 375, 767, 769
Judicature (Scotch), 294, 1145
Justice, Administration of, 104, 864, 1172
K
Kelly, J. Case of, 830
King, Illness of the, 1001
L
Land Tax, 8
Law Reform, 243
Law Expenses of the Crown, 1368
Lead, Duty on, 1083
London Bridge Approaches, 227
Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland, 555
M
Machinery, 303
Madras Registrar's Bill, 37
Marriages, Catholic, 396
Mauritius Sugar and Slavery, 672, 774
Mexico, 875, 1017
Milbank Penitentiary, 938
Military, Conscientious Scruples of, 298
N
Navy Pay Office, 352
Newfoundland, State of, 580
Northern Roads, 1256, 1335
O
Officers, Continuance of, 345
P
Parliament, Business of, 504, 709, 831
Paupers, Irish and Scotch, 1000, 1129, 1351
Perth Navigation, 1191
Police Trials, (Ireland) 545
Police, New, 1199
Poor Laws, Amendment of, 38
——(Ireland), 766, 1294
Prevesa, Blockade of, 8
Privy Council, 304, 731
Private Bills, Frauds in, 907
Privilege, Breach of, 979
Protestant Church (Ireland), 70
Publicans, Licenses of, 3
R
Reform in Parliament, 774, 1204
Registrar of Deeds (Ireland), 1141
Rhine, Navigation of, 4
Rye, Military Interference at, 1142
S
Sabbath, Profanation of, 1037
Session, Court of, 1195
Ship-owners, Petition of, 453
Sign Manual, 1148, 1193
Soap and Candles (Ireland), 1146
Solicitor General (Ireland), 240
St. James's Park, 340
Stage Coach Proprietors, Liability of, 1128
Stamp Duties, 10, 237, 448, 503, 707, 760, 1196
Steam Carriages, 328
Suffrage Universal, 1204
Supply, 305, 329, 506, 710, 922, 1029, 1361
Suttees, Abolition of, 1355
T
Taxation, Schedule of, 125
Taxes, Assessed, 1202
Terceira, 126
Timber, 14
Tithes, 818
Tobacco Duties, 26, 34
——Manufacturers, 1111
Truck System, 325
U
Usury Laws, 56, 493
U
Vagrants (Scotch and Irish), 1351
V
Vestries (Ireland), 83, 1259
W
Watching and Lighting Parishes Bill, 38
Waterloo Bridge, Road from, 450, 502, 1348
Ways and Means, 1356
Welsh Judges, 868
Willis, Mr., Case of, 551
Windsor Castle, 347
MEMBERS WHO HAVE SPOKEN IN DEBATE—LORDS.
A
Aberdeen, Earl of, 293, 817, 989, 996, 997, 998, 1118, 1120, 1189, 1190, 1257
Anglesey, Marquis of, 532
Arden, Lord, 423
B
Bexley, Lord, 445
Bristol, Bishop of, 543
Buckingham, Duke of, 671
Bute, Marquis of, 997
C
Calthorpe, Lord, 1132
Canterbury, Archbishop of, 499
Carnarvon, Earl of, 68, 445
Chancellor, Lord, 68, 226, 543, 920, 1062, 1069, 1125, 1127, 1131, 1137, 1138, 1139, 1140
Clanricarde, Marquis of, 294
D
Darnley, Earl of, 533, 995, 997, 1346
Durham, Lord, 31, 68, 225, 994, 1116, 1121, 1189
E
Eldon, Earl of, 356, 501, 919, 1125, 1131, 1140
Ellenborough, Lord, 225, 667, 1121, 1123
G
Goderich, Viscount, 221, 428
Grey, Earl, 214, 988, 997, 1067, 1069, 1119, 1121, 1131, 1137, 1139
H
Harrowby, Earl of, 1191
Holland, Lord, 30, 31, 32, 998, 1122, 1190, 1257
L
Lansdown, Marquis of, 997, 998, 1070, 1135
Limerick, Earl of, 30
Lichfield and Coventry, Bishop of, 1131
London, Bishop of, 122. 354, 542
Londonderry, Marquis of, 31, 293, 671, 815, 995, 996, 1256, 1257
M
Malmesbury, Earl of, 29, 30, 32, 217, 422, 499, 595, 1119, 1139, 1189
Mansfield, Earl of, 423
Melville, Viscount, 428
Montrose, Duke of, 498
Mountcashel, Lord, 30, 31, 358
N
Napier, Lord, 424
R
Rosebery, Earl of, 428, 594
Rosslyn, Earl of, 31
S
Salisbury, Marquis of, 31, 32
Stanhope, Earl, 442, 659, 660, 664, 669, 671
T
Tenterden, Lord, 423
Teynham, Lord, 535
W
Wellington, Duke of, 441, 662, 919, 986, 987, 1069, 1121, 1134, 1346
Westmorland, Earl of, 1346
Wliarncliffe, Lord, 1347
Winchilsea, Earl of, 918, 919, 997, 998, 1132, 1135
MEMBERS WHO HAVE SPOKEN IN DEBATE—COMMONS.
A
Acland, Sir T.D. 351, 701, 1128
Advocate, the Lord, 297, 674, 730, 1145, 1195, 1196
Althorp, Lord, 40, 59, 227, 236, 283, 312, 335, 570, 626, 701, 721, 724, 728, 753, 934, 1105, 1151, 1193, 1230
Arbuthnot, Mr. 343
Astell, Mr. 37, 38
Attorney-General, 62, 106, 116, 120, 231, 274, 492, 493, 635, 827, 864, 928, 1177, 1359, 1369, 1375, 1378, 1383, 1386, 1390, 1393
B
Bankes, Mr. G. 799
Barclay, Mr. C. 17, 415, 955
Baring, Sir T. 39, 51, 677, 1073, 1074
Baring, Mr. 76, 81, 235, 675, 699, 825, 899, 927, 929, 1359, 1362, 1363, 1368, 1389, 1390
Baring, Mr. A. 769, 900, 1085
Batley, Mr. H. 110, 152, 724, 969
Belgrave, Lord, 450, 786, 791, 1185
Benett, Mr. 43, 45, 53, 304, 389, 408, 865, 965
Benson, Mr. 861, 862, 907, 910
Beresford, Colonel, 71
Bernal, Mr. 513, 591, 673, 1153, 1187
Bourne, Mr. Sturges, 1129, 1352, 1355
Bright, Mr. 28, 232, 325, 375, 727, 828, 905, 929, 964, 1198, 1203, 1359, 1397, 1398, 1399
Brougham, Mr. 35, 120, 243, 288, 348, 352, 419, 593, 768, 771, 772, 807, 8.59, 915, 963, 1002.1003, 1005, 1014, 1054, 1145, 1146, 1172, 1188, 1244, 1254, 1360, 1390, 1398, 1399
Brownlow, Mr. 503, 574, 680
Brydges, Sir J. 400, 448
Burrell, Sir C. 414, 1131
Burrell, Mr. 1142
Buxton, Mr. F. 12, 22, 390, 412, 674, 676, 961, 1059, 1335, 1356
Byng, Mr. 388
C
Calcraft, Mr. 15, 58, 401
Callaghan, Mr. 644
Calvert, Mr. C. 19, 387, 415, 417, 1111, 1114, 1129, 1259, 1351, 1355
Calvert, Mr. N. 772, 773, 1351
Castlereagh, Lord, 575, 700
Cave, Mr. O. 1143
Chancellor of Exchequer, 26, 27, 29, 64, 67, 74, 87, 88, 125, 238, 304, 316, 319, 325, 329, 342, 347, 351, 391, 453, 484, 490, 504, 505, 506, 507, 519, 520, 522, 523, 524, 530, 576, 678, 693, 698, 703, 709, 710, 716, 721, 722, 725, 729, 745, 838,
854, 864, 865, 868, 956, 964, 1113, 1147, 1198, 1203, 1333, 1334, 1335, 1397, 1399, 1400
Chandos, Marquis of, 829, 836
Clements, Lord, 830
Clive, Lord, 909, 910
Cockburn, Sir G. 751, 1366, 1367
Colborne, Mr. R. 961
Cole, Sir C. 701, 868
Courtenay, Mr. 44, 153
Cripps, Mr. 39, 47, 691, 960
Croker, Right Hon. J. W. 183, 401
D
Daly, Mr. 54
Darlington, Lord, 788
Davenport, Mr. Davies, 1182
Davenport, Mr. E. 110, 505, 525, 774, 872, 1172
Davies, Mr. Hart, 34
Davies, Colonel 338, 531, 713, 715, 946, 1001
Dawson, Mr. G. 323, 324, 338, 710, 713, 714, 715, 716, 720, 729, 830, 1030, 1304, 1368, 1384, 1385
Dawson, Mr. A. 594, 975, 1130
Deering, Sir E. 791
Denison, Mr. 325, 1105
Dickenson, Mr. 408
Doherty, Mr. 235, 236, 239, 240, 242, 308, 391, 528, 545, 604, 635, 831, 867, 870, 1081, 1352
Douglas, Mr. K. 834, 837
Drummond, Mr. H. 20, 298, 729, 1192
Dugdale, Mr. 859
Duncombe, Mr. 1201, 1202, 1330, 1334
Dundas, Mr. R. 1216
E
Ellis, Mr. 1005, 1348
Encombe, Lord, 1201
Estcourt, Mr. 52, 826, 960, 1130, 1355
Evans, Colonel, 1142, 1143
F
Ferguson, Mr. C. 21, 236, 276, 285, 449, 828, 1172, 1195
Fitzgerald, Mr. M. 526, 1105
Forbes, Sir C. 321, 386, 680, 1170
Freemantle, Sir T. 51, 1193, 1400
Fyler, Mr. 484, 704, 830
G
Gascoyne, General, 376, 699, 770, 785
Gilbert, Mr. D. 1361
Gooch, Sir T. 953
Gordon, Mr. R. 39, 57, 65, 67, 311, 319, 321, 329, 340, 343, 347, 350, 352, 491, 506, 507, 519, 523, 530, 716, 722, 934, 1030, 1334, 1342, 1368, 1371
Gower, Lord, F. L. 56, 75, 96, 139, 400, 485,
Graham, Sir J. 305, 453, 507, 508, 512, 519, 521, 709, 731, 745, 756, 757, 1016, 1017, 10S3, 1192, 1356, 1357, 1397
Grant, Sir A. 837
Grant, Mr. C. 4, 7, 8, 126, 212, 1107
Grant, Mr. R. 773, 784, 785
Grattan, Mr. H. 34, 1198, 1199, 1351
Grattan, Mr. J. 761, 766, 1130, 1330
H
Hardinge, Sir H. 309, 310, 311, 312, 317, 320
Hart, General, 448
Harvey, Mr. D.W. 9, 232, 639, 726, 863, 864, 874, 911, 971, 976, 1076, 1081, 1082, 1202, 1373, 1377, 1384, 1398
Heathcote, Mr. 57, 409, 493, 765, 1340
Herries, Right Hon. J. C. 15, 125, 227, 468, 474, 511, 722, S35, 1084, 1201, 1362, 1365
Hobhouse, Mr. J. C. 8, 340, 345, 350, 450, 1235.1350
Horton, Mr. W. 40; 45, 51, 508, 511, 514, 1008, 1104, 1329
Houldsworth, Mr. 418
Howick, Viscount, 311, 525, 755, 1102
Hume, Mr. 9, 10, 25, 27, 28, 29, 72, 83, 120, 124, 126, 234, 238, 298, 303, 305, 307, 309, 310, 312, 316, 317, 319, 324, 327, 336, 344, 505, 507, 512, 521, 522, 531, 555, 579, 591, 631, 678, 709, 710, 711, 713, 716, 721. 722, 725, 730, 752, 753, 765, 818, 826, 832, 838, 862, 865, 871, 874, 922, 937, 938, 1004, 1015, 1016, 1029, 1030, 1031, 1074, 1085, 1108, 1142, 1144, 1148, 1165, 1191, 1252, 125S, 1334, 1360, 1361, 1368, 1381, 1397
Huskisson, Right Hon. W. 207, 375, 754, 762, 800, 834, 875, 905, 962, 1028, 1084, 1358, 1366, 1367
I
Inglis, Sir R. H. 82, 298, 302, 824, 973, 1192, 1351
Irving, Mr. 674
J
Jephson, Mr. 504, 575, 708, 870
Jones, Mr. 104, 111
K
Kennedy, Mr. 297, 1343
Killeen, Lord, 768
King, Mr. 70, 73, 327
Knatchbull, Sir E. 227, 301, 303, 304, 825, 963, 1130, 1142, 1144, 1385, 1392, 1396
L
Labouchere, Mr. 291, 591, 1010, 1093, 1110
Lamb, Mr. G. 450, 1344
Lennard, Mr. 11, 679, 728, 1085, 1154, 1200
Lewis, Mr. F. 41, 107, 352, 525
Liddell, Mr. 465, 1084, 1341
Littleton, Mr. 327, 1129, 1354
Lindsay, Colonel, 1191
Lowtber, Lord, 451, 453, 681, 863, 1337, 1349
Lushington, Dr. 78, 768, 1012, 1276.
M
Maberly, Mr. 308, 310, 414, 514, 525, 729, 730, 949, 961, 1030
Macintosh, Sir J. 36, 37, 178, 328, 383, 674, 1031, 1032
Marryat, Mr. 680
Marshall, Mr. 690
Martin, Mr. 768, 1051
Maxwell, Mr. 297, 303
Mildmay, Mr. 790
Milton, Lord, 311, 314, 344, 416, 496, 523, 524, 551, 670, 750, 963, L005, 1084, 1109
Monck, Mr. 324, 766, 951, 963, 1203, 1331, 1333
Moore, Mr. 34, 76, 94, 448, 568, 699, 707, 761.1196
Morpeth, Lord, 708, 827, 828, 1335
Murray, Sir G. 290, 298, 302, 513, 514, 553, 571, 589, 592, 673, 674, 712, 714, 774, 948, 1007, 1014, 1162
N
Newport, Sir J. 76, 95, 125, 229, 238, 239, 326, 335, 450, 676, 712, 728, 761, 766, 838, 933, 1080, 1141, 1146
North, Mr. 239, 400, 627, 1115
O
O'Brien, Mr. W. 1234
O'Connell, Mr. 56, 60, 83, 101, 105, 122, 234, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 285, 301, 306, 308, 336, 347, 376, 390, 391, 393, 394, 395, 396, 449, 485, 527, 529, 530, 548, 574, 596, 648, 678, 699, 713, 714, 715, 723, 760, 767, 771, 793, 828, 829, 830, 831, 866, 867, 868, 869, 871, 874, 917, 936, 1080, 1093, 1141, 1163, 1204, 1253, 1259, 1271, 1353, 1393
Owen, Sir J. 120
Owen, Mr. 1185
Oxmantown, Lord, 75, 81, 569
P
Pallmer, Mr. C. N. 36
Palmer, Mr. F. 825
Peach, Mr. 124
Parnell, Sir H. 504, 569, 762, 914, 1339
Peel, Secretary, 5, 7, 8, 36, 48, 53, 98, 105, 279, 779, 802, 829, 832, 833, 836, 859, 864, 872, 873, 900, 910, 917, 932, 936, 941, 946, 950, 973, 976, 978. 980, 1001, 1002, 1004, 1005, 1025, 1028, 1043, 1051, 1082, 1092, 1109, 1141, 1143, 1145, 1146, 1148, 1151, 1153, 1187, 1195, 1200, 1201, 1202, 1240, 1259, 1286, 1356, 1360, 1394, 1397, 1398
Peel, Colonel, 862
Pendarvis, Mr. 1202
Perceval, Mr. 306, 308
Phillimore, Dr. 8, 125, 142, 1260, 1288
Philips, Sir G. 1355
Planta, Mr. 1025
Portman, Mr. 38, 323, 406, 519, 755
Powlett, Lord W. 1085
Protheroe, Mr. 344, 375, 769, 824, 826, 1030
R
Rice, Mr. Spring, 54, 124, 236, 237, 449, 491, 556, 696, 701, 711, 847, 978, 1115, 1199, 1272, 1329
Ridley, Sir M. W. 338, 344, 350, 506, 676, 724, 874, 1344, 1399
Robinson, Mr. 59, 473, 580, 592, 680, 692, 783, 1014
Rumbold, Mr. 466
Russell, Lord J. 175, 677, 797, 903, 1004, 1194, 1221
S
Sadler, Mr. 3, 411, 462, 484, 979, 1182, 1294, 1331, 1396
Sandon, Viscount, 175, 1098
Sebright, Sir J. 21, 350
Sibthorp, Colonel, 418, 521, 1341
Slaney, Mr. 46, 52, 325, 682, 695, 914, 953, 1010, 1075, 1331, 1334
Smith, Mr. J. 708
Smith, Mr. W. 673, 713, 755, 1202
Solicitor General, 61, 176, 233, 236, 284, 395, 497, 644, 723, 725, 767, 768, 933, 967, 1142, 1171, 1274, 1379
Somerset, Lord E. 307, 308
Somerset, Lord G. 418
Speaker, The, 862
Spottiswoode, Mr. 680
Stanley, Lord, 10, 324, 1129, 1353, 1355
Stanley, Hon. E. G. S. 203, 325, 328, 524, 672
Stewart, Mr. 11, 21, 466, 1155, 1357
Stewart, Sir M. S. 294
Sykes, Mr. D. 467, 495, 724, 1192
T
Taylor, Mr. M. A. 679, 859
Tennyson, Mr. 227
Thompson, Alderman, 228, 388, 764, 904, 1074, 1367, 1381
Thomson, Mr. P. 56, 477, 700, 722, 724, 760, 1085, 1361
Trant, Mr. 11, 67, 98, 302, 767, 796, 1171, 1329
Trench, Colonel, 300
Trevor, Mr. 115
Tullamore, Lord, 593
Twiss, Mr. H. 154, 175
V
Valletort, Viscount, 1232
Vaughan, Sir R. W. 1187
Vyvyan Sir R. R. 1154, 1199, 1202
W
Waithman, Alderman, 230, 389, 453, 480, 695, 726, 874, 911, 1202
Warburton, Mr. 13, 14, 26, 513, 592, 680, 699, 723, 724, 1084, 1351, 1361
Wells, Mr. 303
Western, Mr. 13, 956
Wetherell, Sir C. 59, 240, 395, 495, 931, 933, 934, 969, 977, 1151, 1180, 1268, 1333, 1358, 1360, 1385, 1396
Whitmore, Mr. 386
Wigram, Mr. 1393
Wilbraham, Mr. 1176
Williams, Mr. T. P. 107
Williams, Mr. O. 120, 674
Williams, Mr. J. 916, 1185
Wilson, Sir R. 767, 768, 792, 871, 894, 967, 968, 975, 979, 1017, 1330, 1334
Wilson, Colonel, 446, 475
Wodebouse, Mr. 43, 699
Wood, Mr. C. 51, 190, 524, 526
Wood, Colonel, 107, 531, 1130
Wood, Alderman, 764, 765, 977, 1000, 1074, 1129, 1204
Wood, Mr. J. 724, 917, 1351
Wortley, Mr. Stuart, 382, 1108, 1355
Wrottesley, Sir J. 703, 784, 912, 1000, 1130
Wynn, Mr. W. 55, 114, 287, 377, 386, 531, 831, 874, 914, 969, 973, 979, 1060, 1194, 1281
Y
Yorke, Sir J. 451, 502, 575, 710, 753, 1060
END OF VOL. XXIV.