THE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES, New Series, VOL. XIII. All Communications for this Work, if forwarded to Mr. Wright, No. 112, Regent-Street, or to Mr. T. C. Hansard, Pater-noster-Row Press, will be carefully attended to; but, as an early publication of the proceedings of each Session is extremely desirable, it is respectfully requested, that such Communications may be forwarded with as little delay as possible. Of the same Proprietors may be had, in Thirty-six Volumes, THE The Editor is preparing for the Press, to be comprised in Two Volumes I. A GENERAL INDEX to the Parliamentary History of England from the earliest Period to the Year 1803: and II. A GENERAL INDEX to the Parliamentary Debates from the Year 1803 to the Accession of George the Fourth, in The two Volumes will form a complete Parliamentary Dictionary, or ready Book of Reference, to every recorded Proceeding of importance that may, at any time, have come before the two Houses of Parliament. THE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES: FORMING A CONTINUATION OF THE WORK ENTITLED Printed by T. C. Hansard at the Pater noster Hom Press, FOR BALDWIN, CRADOCK, AND JOY; J. BOOKER; LONGMAN, REES, ORME, AND CO.; J. M. RICHARDSON; KINGSBURY AND CO.; J. HATCHARD AND SON ; J. RIDGWAY AND SONS; E. JEFFERY AND SON; RODWELL AND MARTIN; R. H. EVANS; BUDD AND CALKIN; J. BOOTH; AND T. C. HANSARD. 1826. TABLE OF CONTENTS Debates in the House of Commons. King's Speeches. King's messages. Parliamentary Papers. Petitions. Lists. I. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS. 1825 Apr. 19. Quarantine Laws 1 1825 Apr. 21. Roman Catholic Claims 61 1825 Apr. 22. Treason Forfeiture Repeal Bill 123 1825 Apr. 25. Roman Catholic Claims 138 Corn Laws 142 1825 Apr. 26. Equitable Loan Bill 164 1825 Apr. Corn Laws 165 1825 Apr. 28. Corn Laws 247 1825 May 5. Roman Catholic Claims 373 1825 May 9. Game Laws Amendment Bill 449 1825 May 11. Roman Catholic Relief Bill 562 1825 May 13. Roman Catholic Claims 582 1825 May 17. Roman Catholic Claims 649 1825 May Roman Catholic Relief Bill 662 1825 May 26. Oaths of Naturalization, and Reversal of Attainder 824 Treason Forfeiture Repeal Bill 825 1825 May 27. King's Message respecting the Duchess of Kent and Duke of Cumberland 898 Equitable Loan Bill 899 1825 May 31. Bonded Corn Bill 952 1825 June 2. Burials in Ireland Bill 1011 1825 June 3. Unitarian Marriages Bill 1025 1825 June 7. Law of Merchant Bill—Principal and Factor 1058 Equitable Loan Bill 1061 1825 June 14. Colonial Intercourse Bill 1152 Equitable Loan Bill 1154 1825 June 17. Rate of Interest in India 1207 1825 June 22. Rate of Interest in India 1270 1825 June 23. Judges Salaries Bill 1280 1825 June 24. Equitable Loan Bill 1349 1825 June 27. Judges' Salaries Bill 1378 Rate of Interest in India 1380 1825 June 30. Customs Consolidation Bill 1461 1825 July 4. State of Ireland—Catholic Question 1477 Combination of Workmen Bill 1478 Country Banks 1479 1825 July 5. Unitarians 1480 1825 July 6. The King's Speech at the Close of the Session 1487 II. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. 1825 Apr. 19. Roman Catholic Claims—Petitions for and against 2 Roman Catholic Relief Bill 21 1825 Apr. 21. Breach of Privilege—Forgery of a Petition 63 Roman Catholic Claims 64 Roman Catholic Relief Bill 71 1825 Apr. 22. Elective Franchise in Ireland 124 Butter Trade in Ireland 125 Elective Franchise in Ireland Bill 126 Spirit Duties 132 British Museum—Mr. Rich's Collection 137 1825 Apr. 25. Combination Laws 149 Corn Laws 150 Case of Mr. Gourlay 161 County Transfer of Land Bill 162 Delays in the Court of Chancery 163 1825 Apr. 26. Corn Laws 171 Roman Catholic Claims 172 Elective Franchise in Ireland Bill 176 1825 Apr 28. Corn Laws 249 Coronation Oath 252 Mr. Whitmore's Motion for a Committee on the Corn Laws 252 1825 Apr. 29. Combination Laws 298 Game Laws Amendment Bill 300 Lord F. L. Gower's Motion for a Provision for the Roman Catholic Clergy of Ireland 308 1825 May 2. Roman Catholic Relief Bill 336 1825 May 2. Bonded Corn 337 Protestant Dissenters Marriages Bill 353 1825 May 3. Combination Laws 353 Roman Catholic Claims 361 1825 May 4. Combination Laws 362 1825 May 5. Mr. Maberly's Motion for the Repeal of the Beer Duties 371 Wrongous Imprisonment and Delays in Trials in Scotland Bill 386 Cattle Ill-treatment Bill 418 Abuses and Mismanagement of Bradford Castle 419 Working Hours of Children in Cotton Mills 421 1825 May 6. Roman Catholic Relief Bill 422 1825 May 9. Elective Franchise in Ireland Bill 453 1825 May 10. Roman Catholic Claims 480 Roman Catholic Relief Bill 486 1825 May 11. Votes of Members in Private Committees 563 1825 May 12. Elective Franchise in Ireland Bill 565 Payment of Labourers' Wages cut of the Poor Rates 571 Assimilation of the Currencies of Great Britain and Ireland 573 1825 May 13. East India Judges Bill 586 Roman Catholic Claims—Rev. Dr. Doyle 589 Warehoused Corn Bill 590 Grant to Mr. M'Adam 593 County Courts Bill 599 Quarantine Laws Bill 601 16. West-India Company Bill 605 Judges' Salaries 611 Cotton Mills Regulation Bill 643 1825 May 17. London Tithes Bill 768 Mr. Hobhouse's Motion for the Repeal of the Window Tax 771 Slave Trade in the Mauritius 781 1825 May 18. Private Committees—Welch Iron and Mining Company Bill 783 Roman Catholic Contribution to Protestant Church—Petition from Taghadoe 785 1825 May 19. Quarantine Laws Bill 788 Salmon Fishery Bill 792 1825 May 20. Leith Docks Bill 792 Forgery of a Petition—Breach of Privilege 796 Juries Bill 798 Judges' Salaries 801 1825 May 26. King's Message respecting the Duchess of Kent and Duke of Cumberland 836 Petition of B. Coile complaining of Imprisonment 837 Forgery of a Petition—Breach of Privilege 838 London College Bill 840 Mr. Spring Rice's Motion on the State of Ireland, with regard to Religious Animosities 841 1825 May 27. Elective Franchise in Ireland Bill 902 Conduct of Lord C. Somerset at the Cape of Good Hope—Petition of John Carnall 903 1825 May 27. Provision for the Duchess of Kent and Duke of Cumberland 909 judges' Salaries 927 1825 May 30. Provision for the Duchess of Kent and Duke of Cumberland 931 1825 May 31. Mr. John Williams's Motion respecting Delays in the Court of Chancery 959 Cotton Mills Regulation Bill 1008 1825 June 2. Private Committees—London and Westminster Oil Gas Bill 1012 Law of Merchant—Principal and Factor 1011 Imprisonment for Religious Opinions—Petition of R. Carlile 1015 Repeal of the Bubble Act 1018 Judges Salaries 1023 1825 June 3. Western Ship Canal Company Bill 1032 London College Bill 1033 Quarantine Laws Bill 1036 Mauritius Trade Bill 1039 1825 June 6. Hindoo Widows—Female Immolation 1043 Duke of Cumberland's Annuity Bill 1047 1825 June 7. Constitution of Committees on Private Bills 1063 Writs of Error Bill 1063 Mr. Sykes's Motion for the Reduction of the Duties on Soap and Tallow 1064 Sir Francis Burdett's Motion respecting Delays in the Court of Chancery 1068 1825 June 9. Flogging in the Navy 1097 Charter Schools of Ireland 1110 Duke of Cumberland's Annuity Bill 1118 Corn Trade—Canada Corn—Warehoused Corn 1118 Buckingham House 1120 1825 June 10. Duke of Cumberland's Annuity Bill 1121 1825 June 14. Exportation of Machinery 1135 Conduct of' Mr. Kenrick, a Surry Magistrate—Petition of M. M Canfor 1138 Mr Hume's Motion on the State of the Church Establishment in Ireland 1149 1825 June 16. Conduct of Lord Charles Somerset at the Cape of Good Hope—Petition of Mr. Bishop Burnett 1166 Dr. Lushington's Motion respecting the Deportation of Messrs Lecesne and Escoffery from Jamaica 1173 Buckingham House Bill 1205 1825 June 17. Judges' Salaries Bill 1209 Case of Sir Robert Wilson 1211 Customs Consolidation Bill 1215 1825 June 20. Shooting and Stabbing (Scotland) Bill 1245 1825 June 21. Conduct of Mr. Kenrick 1247 Unitarians—Toleration Act 1250 Cruel Treatment of Cattle Bill 1252 Spring Guns Bill 1254, 1825 June 22. Petition of F. Jones, complaining of Country Bank Notes not being paid in Gold 1271 Conduct of Lord Charles Somerset, at the Cape of Good Hope 1274 1825 June 22. Newspapers Bill 1275 Navigation Laws—British Shipping Bill 1277 Partnerships Societies (Scotland) Bill 1279 1825 June 23. Mr. Fowell Buxton's Motion on the Expulsion of Mr. Shrewsbury, the Missionary, from Barbadoes 1285 1825 June 24. Conduct of Mr. Kenrick, in the Case of Canfor 1350 1825 June 27. Petition of F. Jones, complaining of Country Bank Notes not being paid in Gold 1381 Combination of Workmen Bill 1400 Conduct of Mr. Kenrick in the Case of Franks 1407 1825 June 28. Deccan Prize Money 1407 Conduct of Mr. Kenrick, in the Case of Franks 1403 Conduct of Mr. Kenrick, in the Case of Canfor 1010 Law of Merchants Bill—Principal and Factor 1433 1825 June 29. Combination of Workmen Bill 1458 Spring Guns Bill 1459 1825 June 30. Combination of Workmen Bill 1462 1825 July 1. Deccan Prize Money 1465 Military Occupation of Spain 1472 South America—Foreign Enlistment Bill 1473 Conduct of Lord Charles Somerset at the Cape of Good Hope 1483 1825 July 5. South America 1485 III. KING'S SPEECHES. 1825 July 6. King's Speech at the Close of the Session 1487 IV. KING'S MESSAGES. 1825 May 26. King's Message respecting a provision for the Duchess of Kent, and Duke of Cumberland, 836 V. PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS. Finance Accounts for the Year ended 5th of January 1825.. Appx. VI. PETITIONS. 1825 June 14. Petition of M. M. Canfor, complaining of the Conduct of Mr, Kenrick, a Magistrate of Surrey 1138 1825 June 16. of Mr. Bishop Burnett, complaining of the Conduct of Lord Charles Somerset, at the Cape of Good Hope 1168 1825 June 22. of F. Jones, complaining of Country Bank Notes not being paid in Gold 1381 VII. LISTS. 1825 Apr. 28. List of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Mr. Whitmore's Motion for a Committee on the State of the Corn Laws 298 1825 May 5. of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Mr. Maberly's Motion for the Repeal of the Duties on Beer 386 1825 May 10. of the Majority and Minority, in the House of Commons, on the third Reading of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill 558 1825 May 17. of the Majority and Minority, in the House of Lords, on the second Reading of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill 766 of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Mr. Hob-house's Motion, for the Repeal of the Window Tax 780 1825 May 20. of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Judges' Salaries Bill 824, 1825 May 27. of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Provision for the Duke of Cumberland 927 1825 May 30. of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Grant to the Duke of Cumberland 951 1825 June 6. of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Duke of Cumberland's Annuity Bill 1051 1825 June 7. of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Sir F. Burdett's Motion respecting Delays in the Court of Chancery 1097 1825 June 9. of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Mr. Hume's Motion respecting Flogging in the Navy 1110 During the sixth Session of the Seventh Parliament of the United Kingdom of Graet Britain and Ireland, appointed to meet at Westminister, the Third Day of February 1825, in the Sixth Year of the Reign of his Majesty King GEORGE the fouth. 1 HOUSE OF LORDS. Tuesday, April 19. QUARANTINE LAWS.] The Earl of Darnley rose, to call their lordships' attention to this subject; but as his intention was only to move for certain papers, to the production of which he expected no opposition, it would not, he said, be necessary to trespass long on their lordships' attention. A committee of the House of Commons had made a report on the subject of the Quarantine laws, in consequence of which, an alteration had been proposed in laws which had preserved the health of this country for more than a century. Some ships, he had heard, had lately arrived from Alexandria, laden with cotton, which had been admitted immediately to pratique. He knew that these ships had clean bills of health. By the former practice, ships with foul bills of health were obliged to remain forty days in quarantine, and those with clean bills, twenty-one days: by the system now to be adopted, ships with foul bills of health, were to remain only fifteen days in ,quarantine, while those which had clean bills of health might be admitted immediately to pratique. This he thought was a delicate and important subject, and required that all the information possible should he laid before their lordships. He would, therefore, move, for copies of the report made to the House of Commons by the committee, and also the number of vessels, with their names, which have arrived from Alexandria, and been immediately admitted to pratique; as well as the orders in council for so admitting them. 2 The Earl of Liverpool said, that the alteration which had been suggested, after a full consideration, was not to do away the Quarantine laws; but, by some new regulations on the old system, to relax the severity of those laws. It was the opinion of persons the best qualified to form an opinion, that these laws were not necessary in all their rigour, to preserve the health of the people; and that they were very inconvenient and injurious to the trading interests of this country. He had no objection to the production of the documents moved for by the noble lord, but their lordships would have an opportunity of fully discussing the question, when the bill on the subject came from the other House. Lord Holland was ready to admit, that, if any abuse existed, derived from the Quarantine laws, it ought to be remedied. But he hoped their lordships would recollect, that the plague frequently devastated every country in Europe, before the present system of Quarantine was generally established; and that since the Quarantine laws had been in existence, its return had. been comparatively rare. It was the case not only with England, but with every country in Europe; and he hoped their lordships would consider the delicate and important subject with the fullest attention, and not hastily sanction any departure from the present system. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Tuesday, April 19. ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS— PETITIONS FOR AND AGAINST.] Numerous 3 Mr. Leycester avowed it as his opinion, that the persons who had so strongly expressed sentiments hostile to any further concession to the Catholics, had done so in profound ignorance of the subject, and labouring under great mistakes as to the religious belief of the Roman Catholics. His own errors on the subject were of the same description, until the investigation of the committee on Irish affairs had thrown a new light upon the question. Until that information had been communicated, he had believed, that all those monstrous mummeries, so long attributed to the Popish faith, were articles of faith with all Roman Catholics. That was now entirely denied. But all denial was useless; the opinions which the Catholics entertained centuries ago were supposed by the petitioners against their claims to be the opinions which they still cherished. Their cry was— Delicta majorum immeritus lues, Romane. Mr. Bright denied that the opinions of the petitioners had been formed in the ignorance attributed to them by the hon. gentleman. The petitioners had read—what the hon. gentleman seemed to have neglected, the history of this country and the Christian world. In that history they had seen the real character of Catholicism. Could the Protestant people of this country forget the times that were past? When had the Catholics shown themselves favourable to the religious and civil liberties of the people of England? Never. And as to intolerance, let the House observe on which side it lay. Whenever a petition was presented unfavourable to the Catholic Claims, with what accuracy was it not criticised, with what scorn was it not treated? Let the House look back to what had taken place on the continent but a few years after the peace. Let them recollect the motion made in the year 1815, by a learned and lamented individual, sir S. Romilly, with respect to the prosecution of the Protestants at Nismes. Did not that event show that persecution was the essence of popery, whenever popery was restored to power ? If the hon. gentleman who had just spoken had looked to general history, instead of the ex-parte examination of individuals before the committee on Irish 4 Mr. A. Smith presented a petition from Portsmouth and Portsea, against further concessions to the Catholics. Mr. Carter begged to say a few words as to the mode in which this petition was produced, in order to show that the declaration that these anti-Catholic petitions generally spoke the sense of the country was unfounded. In the original advertisement to call together a meeting for the purpose of framing this petition, the mayor of Portsmouth had introduced an expression intimating that the meeting was for the purpose of "discussing" the question. As the day of meeting, however, approached, discussion was thought to be dangerous to the cause of anti-Catholicism; and an attempt was made to prevent the meeting. It took place, however, and a counter resolution was carried, expressive of the sense of the meeting, and, he firmly believed, the sense of the great majority of the population of the country, that it was inexpedient to express any opinion on the subject; and that it might be safely left to the wisdom of the legislature. Mr. A. Smith observed, that the petition was most numerously and respectably signed. Colonel Johnson rose,to present a petition from a Roman Catholic gentleman of the name of Newton, residing in the county of Lincoln, against the pending bill for the relief of the Roman Catholics. The petitioner begged to represent, that if such a bill should pass into a law, it would not materially benefit the condition of the Roman Catholics, at the same time that it would certainly be most degrading to them as a body. The hon. gentleman took that opportunity of' declaring, that were he himself a Roman Catholic, he certainly could not take the oath to be enjoined by the bill in question. Sir Robert Heron, in presenting two petitions in favour of the bill, complained of the manner in which a petition from Grantham had been got up, that was presented on Friday. That petition did not at all represent the sense of the inhabitants of the town. Mr. Brougham begged to thank his hon. 5 6 Sir M. Cholmeley was here about to address the chair, but was called to order. Mr. Brougham resumed. He had his information from a party of whose accuracy he had no doubt, and who could not be mistaken. He understood that every one of these 198 persons [a cry of "No"]—perhaps the hon. baronet knew them all, and could distinctly state whether such was the fact or not—every one of them had made his cross. Possible it was that they could write; but, at any rate, they had not chosen to favour the, House with a specimen of their penmanship. Surely the hon. baronet knew as well as he did what a marksman was; and thus, therefore, he must allow, that as marksmen 198 of these petitioners were disposed of. In respect of the other four, he dared to say that the hon. baronet could give his negative evidence, at least to the character of those two housekeepers whom he had before named; if not, it did not follow that other gentlemen might not have been in their houses, and be able to speak more directly to the matter. Altogether there were in this way 242 Out of the 439 petitioners' names accounted for; leaving a per centage of somewhat less that 5 per cent as upon the whole population, whose sentiments this petition affected to represent. Sir Montague Cholmeley said, that he knew of no such proceedings, in the manufacture of the petitions in question, as had been just stated. He could only say for himself, that he had never entered a house of the description mentioned by the hon. and learned gentleman [a laugh]. He was very sure that the attack which had been made by the hon. and learned gentleman and the hon. baronet was most unjust as to the petitioners, and most unfair in the absence of the hon. member who had presented their petition. For his own part, he was rather warm at present; and, though he felt disposed to speak upon the subject of the Catholic 7 Lord Nugent said, he had received similar information to that which his hon. and learned friend had submitted to the House, from a person of high respectability, whose name, he was sure, must be well known to the hon. baronet ["name, name!"]. He was not authorized to declare who the individual was; but he would communicate his name with pleasure to the hon. baronet. Mr. Brougham said, that in his information the 198 persons who had signed with a cross were marked "illiterate;" by which he conceived he was to understand, either that they could not write their names, and had therefore put a cross, or that some person had signed for a great number of others. Mr. Secretary Peel said, he had been surprised when he heard the statements made by hon. gentlemen on the other side, and, conceiving that they must have gone upon information on which they could rely, he had felt it necessary to send for the petition itself. That petition he held in his hand; and, after strict examination, he could find no more than one name to which a cross was affixed [hear, hear!]. Sir R. Heron said, it was not his intention to make any observation upon the nature or the signatures, nor the manner in which they had been obtained, as he did not know whether the parties had signed themselves, or had procured others to sign for them. This, however, he could say, that be it as it might, it was never dreamt of to impute the slightest blame to the hon. member who presented the petition, or those who supported it. Lord Nugent said, lie wished to take that opportunity of explaining to the House an error into which he had been led ,with respect to the petition. Having heard what had been stated, lie had felt it his duty to apply to the party for information, and he found that it was totally incorrect. He regretted that he had led the House astray upon such information. Mr. Brougham said, it had been originally his intention to look into a petition, 8 Mr. Secretary Peel said, he had several petitions to present against this bill, all of which had been forwarded to him under the circumstances he had mentioned on the preceding evening. One of these he begged particularly to call the attention, of the House to. It was from the ministers, elders, and provincial synod of Glasgow, and was signed by Mr. M'Farlane, their moderator; and a written claim had been transmitted by that gentleman to have this petition considered, not as that of the individuals by whom it was so signed, but as that of a part of the established church of Scotland. Now, he was not exactly certain whether the House could, in point of form, receive this petition with this single signature, though he found a similar one entered as received upon their Journals in 1813. Perhaps the House made a distinction between corporate bodies having seals, and corporate bodies, like that from which the petition in his hand professed to emanate, having no seal. The Speaker thought the safer course would be, to be governed by the precedent on their Journals, upon the understanding, that though this corporation did not possess, like either of the universities, a common seal, their petition was to be received as the petition of a corporation, but of a corporation having no seal Mr. Wynn coincided in the opinion of the Speaker Mr. J. P. Grant stated, that, to render the petition fit to be received by the House, it was not necessary that the body presenting it should possess a seal. Many 9 Mr. W. Smith said, be did not object to the exercise of the right of petition on the part of any of those individuals who had thought proper to address the House on this occasion, whether Dissenters or others, whatever their opinions might be. Neither did he object to any thing they had done, in order to show their feelings with reference to the Catholic question. It certainly did, however, happen yesterday, that his learned friend (Mr. Brougham) was so far mistaken, as to attribute to the Protestant dissenters a strong feeling against the bill for the relief of the Roman Catholics, Now, he believed, that up to yesterday, not more than nine or ten petitions from Protestant dissenters had been presented. He had that morning looked over an alphabetical list of 2,000 congregations in England; and amongst those be could find but five or six congregations that had appeared before the House. Gentlemen might easily calculate how small a proportion this number bore to the general mass of Protestant dissenters. He held in his hand a list (comprising the period from the year 1732 down to the present time) of Protestant dissenters, properly so called. These were divided into three classes—Presbyterians, Independents, and Baptists. When they agreed on any public act, that act was performed by a number deputed from the general body. In that list he found ninety-seven congregations. He had dissected the list of petitions as well as the time would allow him, and he could discover no more than five which came from persons who could be said to belong to the sects he had mentioned. There were great number of persons who belonged to the class of Methodists ( which was chiefly divided into the Whitfieldite and Wesleyan connexion), who were sometimes confounded with the Protestant dissenters, but did not in reality belong to them. He meant to cast no reflection on those parties. He merely wished to put every gentleman on his guard, lest he should be led. to suppose that, because twenty petitions, emanating from this heterogeneous mixture, had been presented against the Catholic Claims, that therefore tire grew body of Protestant dissenters were opposed to them. They had, in fact, expressed no opinion about it. He would maintain, that not one in a hundred of the 10 Mr. Spring Rice said, he held in his hand a declaration in favour of the Catholic Claims, which had emanated from a most respectable body of the Protestant dissenters of Ireland. The Presbyterians of the north of Ireland were as ready as any set of men to admit the claims which the Catholics had on the justice of that House. They were as liberal a body of men as any in the empire. He said this, because an idea had gone forth, and was, indeed, embodied in the evidence given relative to the state of Ireland, that the Presbyterians of the north of Ireland had become more than ever adverse to that claims of the Catholics. He had that day, in contradiction to that assertion, to lay before the House a statement (for the parties had not time to put it in the shape of a petition) from the ministers and elders of the Presbyterian profession in the county of Down and Belfast, to which they requested him to call the attention of parliament. Those individuals said, 11 Mr. Scarlett said, that the petition which he rose to present, in favour of the bill for removing the disabilities under which the Roman Catholics laboured, was signed by 163 individuals; and he believed that a greater mass of intelligence than was to be found amongst the petitioners could not be met with amongst those who affixed their names to many other petitions, though the number of signatures might be ten times as great. There were not 163 gentlemen in that House, or out of it, who could form a more competent judgment on the subject of this petition than those individuals to whose sentiments he begged leave to call the attention of the house. No body of men were better fitted to give an opinion on this momentous question, uninfluenced by any of those motives which might be supposed to attach themselves to other petitions which 12 13 Mr. Brougham observed, that he should not discharge his duty to that illustrious body, the professors of the law, whose importance to the constitution, to the preservation of the rights of the subject, and to the stability of the government, as well as to the due administration of justice, was undoubted, if he did not join his testimony to the clear and forcible statement of his learned friend. With regard to the petition itself, he wished to add one or two particulars, in his view, of some moment. His learned friend had justly observed, that it was set on foot and signed, before it was known to him, and to those who might be termed the leaders at the bar, that such a project was entertained. Afterwards it had been adopted by others of more distinguished 14 15 Lord Nugent moved for leave to bring up the petition of the Roman Catholics of Great Britain, a most considerable, exemplary, and deeply aggrieved portion of the community; considerable in number and station, exemplary in character and conduct, and deeply aggrieved, by being shut out from many of the most valuable privileges, which both by right of birth and title they ought to enjoy. They approached the House on the present occasion with renewed, and he did not disguise it, with most sanguine hopes of success—hopes founded on the justice of their claim, and on the increased prevalence of liberal and enlightened principles—hopes also increased and confirmed by the progress of the bill upon the table, placed as it was in the hands of the one man in this country, whom, in his conscience, he believed best qualified to carry it through the House [hear, hear!]. The Catholics of Great Britain felt, that the cause of humanity, justice, and liberality must be advanced under his auspices: the sincerity, the energy and ability of his proceedings could only be equalled by the spirit of moderation and forbearance to which it was known he had made most important sacrifices [hear, hear!]. Whatever might be the result of the bill this year, it must triumph ere long: he said this year, because he agreed with those who said, that the opposition to it was reduced to a mere calculation, whether for one, two, or three more sessions it might still be possible to protract the expiring life of this extensive and hazardous injustice. Whatever, therefore, he repeated, might be the result this year, the hon. baronet (sir F. Burdett) might enjoy the proud satisfaction of knowing how much he had contributed to advance the cause of Catholic Emancipation. He had advanced it, he believed, in the opinion even of a majority of the House, not by any compromise of his own feelings or principles, but by raising the popular sentiment upon this question a little nearer to the level of his own virtue [hear!]. The petition he had to offer was signed by upwards of 32,000 persons, but he did not state the number for the sake of any impression to be made by it; because was easy to conceive that, out of the gross amount of the Catholic population of Great Britain, exceeding 200,000, the, mere circumstance, that a few thou- 16 17 18 19 Mr. John Smith feared it was not generally known of what materials the body of the British Catholics was composed. He could assure the House, that for moral conduct, for integrity of principle, for property and industry, they were not exceeded by any body of men in the kingdom—excepting, perhaps, only the Quakers, with whom he believed no sect could be put in competition. The question was, whether the House would be justified in preventing such men as he had described, from enjoying those rights which were freely possessed by all their fellow subjects. Mr. Robertson said, the House were already aware of his sentiments upon this subject. He had before stated, that he considered every concession ought to be made to the Irish. Catholics, and he had given his reasons for saying, that their 20 Mr. Coke said, he had to present a petition in favour of the Catholic claims from the archdeaconry of Norwich, and seventy clergymen of that diocese. He should be extremely happy if he should be able to congratulate that great and good man, the present bishop of Norwich, on the success of the measure, which that right reverend prelate had so long and so ably advocated. The petitioners would not have intruded themselves upon the notice of the House, but that they saw some of their clerical brethren using every exertion to get up petitions against the claims of the Catholics. The exertions of the persons to whom he alluded had not been suspended even in Passion Week; and on Good Friday—perhaps they thought the better day the better deed—they had been peculiarly active. Under these circumstances, the petitioners had felt it their duty to come forward. He should not now say more than confirm what had been stated by the hon. member for Norwich; namely, that the Dissenters of Norfolk entertained the most sincere wishes for the extension of civil and religious liberty to all classes of their fellow subjects. He could not better express the opinions of the petitioners than by reading a part of the prayer of their petition: "As ministers of the church of England, we are not behind any of our brethren in attachment to that church, and in anxious regard for its prosperity and welfare; but we consider its true strength to consist in the purity and excellence of its doctrines, rather than in any restraint imposed upon those who may differ from them." A petition founded on such a spirit of toleration offered a worthy example for all the ministers of time established church to follow. Colonel Wodehouse bore testimony to the extreme respectability of the petition- 21 Lord Milton took that opportunity of adding his thanks to those of the hon. gentleman, for the sentiments contained in this petition. It had been too much the practice of those who advocated the pre-eminence of the Protestant religion, instead of founding it upon its own high grounds, to endeavour to establish a system of exclusion which was degrading to its purity and dignity. Friend as he was to Catholic emancipation, he was not blind to the corruptions of the Catholic church. He thought that those clerical petitioners had a very unbecoming sense of the excellence of the religion they professed, who, instead of leaving its defence and protection to its own excellence, and to the piety and learning of its ministry, called in the assistance of the strong arm of the law, and would punish all who dissented from its doctrines, by depriving them of political advantages. The law as it stood at present had this operation, and degraded the church of England, by making it a pretence for persecuting other sects. The word "persecution," might sound ill in the ears of some gentlemen, but what less than persecution was it, to deprive men of those political rights to which, as citizens, they were entitled, on no other ground than that of religious dissent? ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.] Sir Francis Burdett moved the order of the day for the second reading of this bill. Mr. Brownlow said :—I rise on this important question at a crisis as eventful, as any which has ever yet balanced the fate of Ireland, with, I hope the feelings of seriousness that should attend a man presuming to bear a part in so momentous a discussion, and with an anxiety, as far as it is possible for an Irishman to feel it, to treat this subject on its own peculiar merits, 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Mr. Bankes said, that, objectionable as the measure was in its original state, it was ten time, more so when accompanied by the two measures which had been just alluded to. The disfranchising the forty-shilling freeholders would be a most tyrannical exercise of power. From what fund was the provision for the clergy to be drawn? Ireland was not able to pay the interest of her own debt; it was therefore out of the revenues of Great Britain that these large stipends for the Catholic clergy were be paid. And, while all the odium of the tithes would be thrown upon the Protestant clergy, the Catholic would be paid by the state. Allowing 600 l l 30 Mr. William Peel rose, to second the amendment. It had been urged, he said, that there was a change in the public mind on this question; but, if he might be allowed to judge of that fact from the opinions held in Staffordshire, the county with which he was more immediately connected, he should say, that the people of that county were as decidedly against granting further concessions to the Roman Catholics as ever they were. For himself, after listening to the arguments that had been adduced in its favour by men of the most splendid and most eloquent talents, he had no hesitation in saying that, so far from being converted, the longer he lived the more danger he saw in granting to the Catholics emancipation. But, even if he had been generally friendly to the cause of Catholic emancipation, he should consider the present time a most unfit one for carrying the question. It would really be putting too high a premium upon faction and violence, to let it be supposed that the late proceedings of the Catholic Association had tended to promote any thing in the way of concession from parliament or the country. God forbid that the British legislature should be intimidated in the performance of its duty by the violence of that or of any other Association. He granted that it was not just to make the many suffer for the errors of the few, but the Catholics of Ireland had, in fact, recognised the Association as the public organ of its proceedings and opinions, and they had, therefore, made themselves a party to all that might be done by that Association; they had adopted the leaders of that body as their chiefs, and made themselves parties to 31 Colonel Bagwell supported the bill. He trusted that, by a seasonable concession of the just claims of the Catholics, 32 Mr. Dawson said;— Often as the subject has been discussed, and tired as the public attention might be supposed to be from repeated debates, yet, strange to say, the Catholic Question seems to acquire a new interest every day. In England, from the peace and prosperity of the country, from the unvarying success which has pursued all public measures adopted by the present Parliament, it is viewed as the only question which portends a doubtful result, and it is considered and discussed by all classes with that caution and judgment which is so peculiarly national; it seems, however, to be the great political question of the day; all parties have their opinions, differing in character and discordant as to the result, but all agreeing the great importance and the vast changes which the alteration of the present law must introduce into the constitution of the country. In Ireland the interest created by this question is intense beyond description the ordinary business of life is suspended in order to give an undivided attention to this great question; every individual becomes a politician, and before the question is settled, there will be found to be as many opinions as there are individuals. In cities, in towns, in villages, the interest is equally intense; the press is exclusively devoted to it; orators are found without number to inflame, both in public and private, the passions of the people, to work upon those passions at the expense of their judgment, and to unite the people into one great mass of discontent, for objects, the attainment of which will neither confer universal good, nor relieve individual suffering. The clergy of all persuasions, of the Established Church, Presbyterian and Catholic, are equally zealous in propagating and supporting their own opinions; in short, no class of persons is neuter, and the whole of conversation in private life, and or discussion in public meetings, is engrossed in this one great and overwhelming subject. Nor is the interest confined to these islands; throughout Europe a general expectation prevails upon the subject; and both the friends and enemies of England are look- 33 34 35 36 37 Mr. O'Connell then proceeds to describe the effect which the laws have had in checking the evil habits of the peasantry in these counties; and no wonder that he is much disappointed in their result. Laws are made to regulate and guide society, to guard against the frailty of human nature, to protect the weak against the strong, and to give a practical evidence of the advantages of order and regularity over force and lawlessness; but, in order to be useful, laws must be kindly administered, and unless there are agents to carry them into execution, it would be just as well to have no laws at all. Such is the unfortunate condition of this part of the country; the material for executing the laws is so bad, that justice is a total stranger to these districts; the laws which have been found good in more favoured parts, are here the very cause of tyranny and oppression. The unfortunate people seem to labour under a political curse; the order of nature is reversed, and the vine-tree is made to produce the thorn, and the fig-tree to bear the thistle. Mr. O'Connell says, that every act of Parliament passed since the peace, has had the effect of depressing the people, and rendering their condition worse; nor does he confine himself to the laws passed since the peace; he seems totally to forget that it is the 38 l 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Quater ipso in limine portæ Substitit, atque utero sonitum quater arma dedere. Instamus tamen immemores, cæcique furore, Et monstrum infelix, sacratâ sistimus arce. Lord Milton said, that the desire which he felt for the accomplishment of this great question was in no wise diminished by the speech of the hon. member who had just sat down, and he felt great pleasure in having, in support of his view of the subject, the authority of the hon. member for Armagh, who had very properly expressed a hope, that we should forget past times and look only to the future. He did not stand there as the apologist of the Catholic church, the Catholic prelates, or the Catholic advocates. He had nothing to do with reconciling the opinions of J. K. L. with the evidence of the bishop of Kildare, or to explain away the differences between the sentiments of Mr. O'Connell in Ireland, and Mr. O'Connell before the committee. 51 52 Mr. North said, he did not rise in the vain hope of being able to add any thing to the persuasive eloquence, which, on various occasions, had been displayed on this important question. Feeling as he did, most strongly, that Catholic concessions were essential to the security of the empire, no less than to the tranquillity of Ireland, it was impossible he could content himself with a silent vote. Entertaining those opinions, he could not express the lively feelings of satisfaction and delight with which he had heard the speech of the hon. member for Armagh. He rejoiced to witness in that speech the power of truth obtaining triumphant victory over error of the most pure and honourable kind. And at the same time, while he admired the perfect candour and manliness of that statement, he was also prepared to give his entire assent and acquiescence to all his arguments. He confessed it was to him a matter of surprise, that his hon. friend (Mr. Dawson) should by the same eloquence, which was so satisfactory to the hon. member for 53 54 55 56 57 Colonel Forde addressed the House, in a very low tone of voice. We understood him to say, that, like the hon. member for Armagh, he had been lately made a convert to this cause, but that he now earnestly supported it. He felt the whole force of all that had been said by that hon. member. Some alterations were necessary; for the penal laws could not remain as they were. Lord Ennismore said, that he intended to vote against the second reading of this bill. He had voted in favour of the motion for going into a committee on this subject, in the hope that some arrangement might have been devised in it, which would have been satisfactory to all parties. No such arrangement was visible in the present bill. If, however, when it went into the committee, clauses should be introduced, providing for the Catholic clergy and regulating the elective franchise, he should have no objection to vote in favour of the third reading. Mr. James Daly expressed great surprise at the inconsistent conduct of his noble friend who had just sat down. His noble friend ought to vote for the second 58 59 Sir N. Colthurst said, he should vote in favour of the measure, because he conceived it unjust to exclude any class of men from the benefits of the constitution, without the existence of an adequate necessity, or of some great danger being fully proved. Now, he thought that a necessity was proved for their admission into the pale of the constitution; and that great danger would arise if they were any longer excluded from it. He would also vote in favour of this measure, because he was convinced that by so doing, he should diminish the number of Catholics, and consequently increase the stability of the established church. Things could not remain long in the situation in which they were at present. The question must be settled in some way or other; and in no other way could it be safely settled, than by conceding to the Catholics the rights 60 Mr. Goulburn said, that if he could be induced to believe, that by acceding to the present bill, the House would produce general conciliation and tranquillity in Ireland, he should have no hesitation in following the honest and manly course of the hon. member for Armagh, and in giving to it his decided approbation. He could not, however, bring himself to entertain such a belief; and he must therefore repeat the objections which he had formerly urged against this measure. He could not agree in the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for the county of Galway. To tell him that the Catholics of Ireland demanded these concessions, and that if they were refused, they would take them by force, was not an argument to which he could listen. He was willing to yield to the voice of reason, but he would be the last man to give way to any thing like a threat on a question of this nature. He had been hostile to this measure on former occasions, on the very same grounds that he was now. He held it to be inconsistent with the British constitution, which was indissolubly united with the church establishment; he held it to be inconsistent with the first principles of that constitution, to admit those within its pale, who were actuated by religious feelings of the most bitter hostility to the church of England. He agreed with the hon. member for Corfe-castle in thinking, that if they should give their sanction to this bill, they would depart from the ancient recognized principle of the constitution. The constitution was built upon this principle— to exclude every thing that was dangerous to its existence, and to guard against any evil which it foresaw, by checking its operation. Now they were told to neglect that principle, and to trust to the securities which had been formed to neutralize the effects of the evil apprehended in the present instance. He was not disposed to take that advice; but felt inclined to adhere to the old principle, and not to desert it for the new. His hon. and learned friend behind him (Mr. North), in one part of his speech, had doubted whether any danger could arise from granting these concessions to the Catholics; and yet, in another part of his speech had admitted, that he did behold some danger, but a danger that was remote in its operation. 61 Mr. Peel complained of the interruption which was given to his right hon. friend. His right hon. friend had had no opportunity of declaring his sentiments upon this question, and had been anxious to declare them on the present evening. If it should be the opinion of the House that the time was now come at which they ought to adjourn, he had no objection to it, provided it was understood, that his right hon. friend was in possession of the House on the next evening. Mr. Brougham said, that from the manner in which hon. members were leaving the House, it was evident that it would be very inconvenient to proceed further at that moment. He believed that no disrespect was intended to the right hon. secretary, but that gentlemen were leaving the House because they were aware that their votes would not be wanted on the present evening. He fully concurred with Mr. Peel, that the right hon. gentle man should be considered in possession of the House, when the debate should be resumed on a future evening. HOUSE OF LORDS. Thursday, April 21. ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.] A petition having been presented against the Catholic Claims, from the Protestant Dissenters of Margate, Lord King said, he thought it somewhat strange, that the Dissenters should stand forward as they had done, against the Catholics, and in support of an establish 62 Lord Holland said, that with respect to the petition which had been just presented, he was not sufficiently acquainted with the sentiments of the dissenters generally to presume any opinion upon it. He knew there were many dissenters who did not come under any of the three great denominations which were in some respect sanctioned by government; but he had not heard that any of these denominations had sent up petitions against the Catholic Claims. On the contrary, he had himself had the honour to receive petitions from them in favour of those claims. It was, therefore, too much to say that the Protestant dissenters were generally adverse to any further concessions to the Catholics. The Bishop of Chester said, he had a petition to present, singular in its nature, and remarkable from the circumstance of its having been confided to his hands. It was the petition of the minister, deacons, and congregation of the Protestant dissenting chapel in Jewry-street, London. Their lordships were aware that each congregation of the dissenters formed a church of their own, and their petitions expressed only the opinion of those who signed them. The petition of one congregation was not supposed to express the opinion of the whole body of the dissenters. The petition had excited his surprise; for it not only deprecated the removal of any restrictions to which the Catholics were subjected, but it expressed the entire satisfaction of the petitioners, that such restrictions were imposed on them. The petitioners were anxious that no change should take place which might in any way endanger the safety of the church of England, which they considered the great bulwark of the Protestant religion. While that church was secured, their religion was placed on a rock. He was persuaded that the great body of Protestant dissenters viewed with no dissatisfaction the church of England, and were sensible that under no other were they likely to enjoy the large and liberal toleration which they enjoyed under it. He had great satisfaction in presenting a petition of this nature; and was glad to see the dissenters alive to the dangers of the Protestant religion. 63 Lord Calthorpe observed, that, from all he had heard, he did not believe, however numerous the signatures to the petitions might be, that the great body of Protestant dissenters were hostile to the claims of the Catholics. On the contrary, he was persuaded that those among the dissenters, who, from their education and rank in life, were best qualified to form an accurate opinion on the subject, were decidedly favourable to concession. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Thursday, April 21. BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—FORGERY OF A PETITION.] Sir John Newport took that opportunity of stating, that in consequence of inquiries he had made concerning the fabrication of a petition from Ballinasloe, it had now been traced to its fountain head. He held in his hand a declaration on the part of persons concerned, stating that he was aware of the getting up the petition, and that he was ready to testify on oath that no Catholic was concerned in, or a party to the act. In answer, therefore, to the persons who framed the petition presented by the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department, which stated how miserable must that cause be which could thus stoop to the adoption of such foul expedients, he would say, that the cause of those must be foul indeed, who could attempt to throw on parties not concerned the blame of having fabricated this petition. The whole business was before a committee. To that committee he would deliver up the document he now held, and there, he trusted, the matter would be traced to its origin, and whoever had been guilty of it would be visited with the punishment of the House. He thought it right to state thus much, to take off the impression which the assertion, that the petition was fabricated by Roman Catholics, might have made upon the House. Mr. Peel said, he believed no gentle- 64 Roman Catholic Claims.] Sir J. Mackintosh said, he held in his hand a petition from the merchants and bankers of Glasgow, in favour of the Catholic Claims. He would not occupy a single minute of the time of the House at that moment, were it not that he considered the petition in question to be entitled to a more than ordinary share of consideration. The House could not form a juster notion of the real nature of the petition, than that which they might derive from a description of it in a letter which he had received from a gentleman, not long ago a member of that House—he meant Mr. Kirkman Finlay; a gentleman, whose character was too well known to require any testimony from him. In that letter, Mr. Finlay assured him, that no endeavours had been used to have the petition numerously signed; that the only wish entertained by the supporters of the petition was, to give an opportunity to gentlemen resident in Glasgow to state what had long been their deliberate opinion upon the great subject at issue; that the names affixed to the petition were those of persons of the highest respectability; many of them differing very widely on political questions. He had been informed, that the number of signatures might have been tenfold, had the slightest exertion been resorted to. As it was, the list comprehended most of the first merchants in Glasgow, many of them zealous political supporters of the present administration. The sentiments of the petitioners did them so much honour, that he would repeat them in their own words. [Here the hon. and learned gentleman read several extracts from the petition.] These petitioners formed a very fair representation of Glasgow as to intellect, property, and education; and in saying this, he was fully aware that he was speaking of the second city in point of magnitude in Great Britain. This petition was signed by a hundred merchants and bankers of Glasgow, who were at least as much entitled to respect as the company of butchers and corporation of hammermen, who had petitioned against the Catholics. The hostility against the Catholics in Scotland was 65 Mr. Hume observed, that this petition, so respectably signed, would have the effect of removing the impressions which were created by the other petitions from Glasgow. The opinions of the well-informed classes of Glasgow were decidedly in favour of the Catholic claims. Mr. Hutchinson said, he had never heard a more important petition than that which had been introduced by the hon. and learned gentleman. He had, however, to complain of the very indecorous language which was stated to have been made use of in the synod of Glasgow, on a recent occasion, in respect to this question; for some parties in that synod had dared to denounce the peasantry of Ireland as the most turbulent and barbarous of all peasantries; and to depreciate the character of their clergy, who were, however, the most conscientiously assiduous in the discharge of all their clerical duties of any clergy in the empire. Mr. Maxwell bore a willing testimony to the great respectability of these petitioners. With regard to the complaint just made by the hon. member for Cork, he would fairly state, that he did regret some part of the language which he understood to have been held on the occasion in question; but, the hon. member was bound to make considerable allowance for the anti- catholic feeling which prevailed in Scotland, on account of the persecution which was attributed by the people generally to the Roman Catholic 66 Mr. J. P. Grant contended, that the change of opinion for which the hon. and learned gentleman gave Scotland credit, in respect to religious toleration, was not a change of recent date; for, in 1813, a petition was presented to parliament from the general synod, calling upon the legislature to extend such relief to the Roman Catholics as might be compatible with the safety of the state. Mr. Carus Wilson vindicated the conduct of the clergy of the established church in regard to this great question. Their motives were surely entitled to as much respect as those of any other body of petitioners; even if it should appear, that they were opposed to the bill now pending. Mr. Hume presented a petition from Mr. John Lawless, objecting to the pending bill for the relief of the Roman Catholics, on the principle that, in its present form, it was incumbered with a variety of conditions derogatory to the character and claims of those to whom it applied; and particularly with the provisions for abolishing the franchise of the forty-shilling freeholders, and for paying the Roman Catholic clergy. The hon. gentleman begged to observe, that, in his view of the bill, it was not incumbered with either of the provisions alluded to by the petitioner: but, whenever they came before the House, that they should receive from him the fullest consideration. At the same time he thought it would be most injurious to the great cause of Catholic emancipation, if the present discussions were at all interrupted by the consideration of those provisions. Mr. Alderman Thompson rose to present a petition from the inhabitants of London and Westminster, and the borough of Southwark, which was numerously and respectably subscribed by about 3,000 persons, praying that no further concessions may be granted to the Roman Catholics. As some erroneous impression seemed to have got abroad in respect to this petition, he would state the manner in which it had been got up. It did not proceed from any public meeting but a number of highly respectable persons having agreed to meet together, in order to petition parliament against further concessions to the Catholics, a 67 Mr. J. Martin said, he wished to put the House in possession of a few facts, relative to the real history of this petition. On Saturday last, a friend of his had called upon him, and stated, that the day after this petition was agreed to, he was passing the City of London Tavern, at the door of which there stood a boy, dressed in the ordinary dress of a charity-school-boy, who begged him to walk in and sign the petition. "What petition?" asked his friend, "Oh, Sir," said the boy, "a petition against the Roman Catholics." Here upon his friend was induced to go in to see it. On a table in the room into which he was shown, there were four sheets of parchment, pen and ink, and the names of one or two persons written on the parchment. His friend observed, that these sheets were without any prayer attached to them; and asked, if he could see the petition? "Dear me, no—Sir" was the reply; "the petition is not here." The gentleman asked, if they could chew him any copy of the petition; but he was answered in the negative. He then asked whether the original petition had been agreed to, at any public meeting? Still the answer was "No;" but a waiter informed him that some gentlemen had met together, and agreed to it; and that if his friend was so inclined, he was at liberty to pay 5s. towards defraying the expenses incurred on that occasion. Having received this information, he and his hon. friend, the member for Midhurst, repaired to the City of London Tavern; and at the door they were accosted by the same charity-boy, who requested them to walk in and sign the petition. They demanded a sight of it: no such thing was there. Having stated these facts, he left it to the House to determine how far the petition was entitled to be considered the petition of the inhabitants of London and Westminster, and Southwark to boot? No person asked him at the tavern, whence they came, or who they were; so that it was impossible for the parties who conducted the business to know who or what the persons might be who subscribed their names. He had no 68 Mr. John Smith confirmed the statement of his hon. friend, and reprobated the means that were resorted to for signatures of such petitions. Some persons, acting under the delusions, or some worse motive, chose to revive the fears and prejudices of the people, by talking of the fires of Smithfield being about to be rekindled, and by always dealing with this simply as a question of religious principles, keeping out of view altogether its immense importance as a political question. Such disingenuous artifices he could not too strongly deprecate. Mr. Alderman Wood was satisfied, that. the great majority of the citizens of London were favourable to the pending bill—an assertion which he felt called upon conscientiously to make, and which he might be supposed to make the more advisedly, because in a few months, probably, he might have again to meet his constituents as a candidate once more for their favour. So strong, however, was his conviction of the immense importance of the measure of relief now contemplated, that he should continue to give it his support, even if such a course should involve the forfeiture of the seat which he had the honour to fill in that house [cheers]. Mr. Brougham, as a sincere friend to religious toleration, begged to return his thanks to the worthy alderman, who had just now distinguished himself, by an honest, manly, and conscientious avowal of his opinions on this great question, If every hon. gentleman who had been threatened with the loss of his seat as the consequence of a similar line of conduct, would act tile same open and manly part, he would soon discover that he would run no danger whatever by adopting such a course. The danger, in fact, existed only in the mouths of those who uttered 69 Mr. Alderman Thompson stated, that he had just discovered, that upon the occasions to which the members for Midhurst and Tewkesbury had alluded, the individual, in whose custody the petition was lodged, had been most unavoidably out of the way. He could not at all agree with the worthy alderman opposite that the majority of the citizens of London were in favour of further concessions to the Roman Catholics. He believed directly the reverse. Mr. Carus Wilson thought, that the opinions of these petitioners were dealt with, by some gentlemen who were advocates for toleration, most intolerantly. Mr. Calcraft considered it perfectly ridiculous to affect to consider a petition signed by no more than 3,000 persons as the petition of the inhabitants of London and Westminster, and the borough of Southwark besides. He was quite satisfied, that the parties who met to agree to a petition would have called a public meeting for that purpose, if they could have been sure, as formerly, of a majority in their favour. He recollected attending a public meeting himself, in 1813, when the public feeling was strong against the Catholic claims. No meetings of the kind being now called, he naturally inferred, that the public feeling had greatly altered on this subject. Sir E. Knatchbull defended the meetings of individuals at which petitions like that now before the House had been agreed to. What were they who were adverse to the Catholic claims to do? If they met in this private way in districts adjoining their residences, they were charged with unfairly getting up petitions: if they called public meetings, they were taxed with raising the cry of "No Popery." Some hon. gentlemen really dealt most unfairly with them. Mr. Baring wished the House to consider how far this petition could be received, as representing the opinion of the great mass of the inhabitants of London, Westminster, and Southwark. Let gentlemen look to the manner in which it was got up, and then consider what weight was to be attached to it. No doubt it contained the representations of many persons who entertained very honest and conscientious feelings on this 70 Mr. R. Martin differed entirely from the hon. baronet, the member for Kent, as to the necessity of having petitions agreed to at private meetings. On the contrary, he would suggest, that every means should be used to excite public discussion and investigation, by which course truth was sure to be elicited, and the real feelings of the people were certain of being made known. If those meetings were held openly, there were numbers of gentlemen from Ireland, who were perfectly well able to tell their own story on this question, and who would not fail to attend them. Mr. Abercromby denied that any gentleman on his side of the House had ever complained of the conduct of individuals who had endeavoured fairly to collect the sense and feelings of the people on any particular question. What he and others complained of was, that appeals should be made to the prejudices and to the worst passions of the people. In the present instance, this system had been resorted to. An attempt had been made to raise a "No popery" cry, on allegations that were unfounded. It was but the other day that he had read an account of a meeting, at which a rev. gentleman was described as having asked, "Are you prepared to see Protestants burned by the Catholics, as was the practice formerly?" It was this sort of unfair conduct to which he objected. He did not complain of any honest appeal to the judgement of the people; because, on their judgement, when they were suffered to exercise it without influence or bias, he most confidently relied. But when appeals were made to the passions of the people—when every thing was done to awaken their worst feelings, 71 ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.] Sir Francis Burdett moved the order of the day, for resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment proposed to be made to the question, "That the bill be now read a second time; which amendment was, to leave out the word 'now, and at the end of the question to add the words 'upon this day six months,'" Mr. Goulburn proceeded to address the chair. He said he had, on the former evening, endeavoured to impress on the minds of gentlemen, that the contents of the bill now before the House afforded evidence that they would incur danger by adopting the course that they were now called upon to pursue. He had stated then, and he would repeat it, that he could not comprehend the necessity of introducing all these securities, unless danger was apprehended. He proposed now to examine the nature of those securities, to see how far they were applicable to meet the danger which they were intended to guard against, and to inquire in what degree they were calculated to afford protection against the risks which were likely to be incurred. Those securities were of three descriptions:—first, the declarations which were contained in the preamble of the bill; second, the oaths required to be taken in certain cases; and thirdly, that which was considered the great security, the commission for the purpose of assuring the Crown of the loyalty of those who were hereafter to hold high situations in the Roman Catholic church, by superintending and controlling the correspondence between the catholic bishops and foreign powers. With respect to the first class of securities—those contained in the preamble of the bill—they did not appear to him to be in any degree valid. The first part of the preamble relates to the Protestant Succession to the throne of these realms, which it sets forth was "established permanently and inviolably." At present, the Protestantism of the throne, and also the Protestantism of parliament, were provided for; but, the moment this bill was passed, the Protestantism of the Crown being preserved, it was declared, that it would be of no consequence what was the religious persuasion of those who filled high politi- 72 73 in 74 75 76 77 78 Mr. J. W. Maxwell rose at the same time with Lord Binning, but the latter gave way. We understood the hon. member to say, that he had changed his opinion upon the question of granting further concessions to the Catholics, and that under that feeling he should give his vote in favour of the bill. Lord Binning said, that although he had given way to the hon. member who had just sat down, under the mistake that it was the first time he had risen to address the House, he was not sorry for it, because it gave him an opportunity of seeing how much the power of conviction had gained upon the gentlemen of Ireland, in reference to the question now before the House. In the course of his parliamentary life, he had never experienced more pleasure than that which he had derived from the speech 79 80 81 82 Mr. Wallace said, that, upon a question of so much importance as that which was 83 84 Mr. Portman gave his support to the measure, because he felt that it was called for by imperious necessity. In Ireland there was no encouragement for industry. The Catholic peer, or Catholic gentleman, had no incitement to give employment to the people; and he felt that this measure was calculated to remove that evil, as well as to promote the tranquillity of Ireland, and the prosperity of the empire. "Noscitur a sociis" was a proverb often used against Catholics; but he would employ it in their defence; and when he saw the Catholic soldier and Catholic sailor fighting bravely and fearlessly beside their Protestant comrades in defence of their common country, he would call in another proverb to their aid, and say, "Amicus certus in re incerta cernitur." He should therefore give the measure his most hearty concurrence; because he felt that its accomplishment would confer glory on parliament, and infuse new vigour into the constitution. Lord Valletort said, that he had to avow himself another amongst the many converts that had been made in support of this question; and he felt proud of the triumph which his reason had enabled him to achieve over the strong and early prejudices which he had unjustly entertained. He felt persuaded, if others would act with equal sincerity, that there would be many more deserters from the opponents of the bill; and he entertained a perfect conviction that, although the measure might be delayed for a season, it would ultimately succeed. Mr. Secretary Canning rose, amidst general cries from all sides of the House, and spoke to the following effect:— 85 86 have 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 primâ facie primâ facie 94 95 96 —Who but felt of late, With what compulsion and laborious flight We sunk thus low? The ascent is easy, then. Th' event is feared! 97 98 99 100 101 —"Non tamen irritum * Mr. Canning was labouring at this moment under a severe attack of the gout; which afterwards confined him to his chamber for some weeks. 102 instituting 103 them 104 Regium Donum 105 is Regium Donum 106 Mr. Secretary Peel said, that the House would, he was sure, believe him, when he stated that nothing would have been more gratifying to himself individually, than to have been spared the painful duty of addressing it upon this occasion. The subject, though important in itself, was one on which he had so often obtained an indulgent hearing from the House, that he 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 Small by degrees, and beautifully less, 119 120 121 Mr. Brougham rose, amidst loud cries for the question. He said, that after the unanswerable speech of the right hon. Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—a speech which replied, as by anticipation, to all the arguments of the right hon. gentleman who had just sat down—the House must consider it wholly unnecessary to listen to a single further sentence on the question; and he could assure them, that it would be as irksome to him to address them upon it as it would be to them to hear him. He rose merely to make two or three observations, for his own sake and for the sake of other hon. members, on a very important feature of the subject which had been mixed up, and especially by the right hon. gentleman who had just sat down, in the latter part of his speech, with the proper discussion of that night. In the first place, then, he declared, that in voting for the bill now before the House, he voted for a known and definite measure—a measure for granting relief to his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects. As to any ulterior measures, to operate as securities, or as alleged securities, they might be very fit subjects for consideration in the committee, but they had nothing to do with the principle of the bill, which was the question to be then determined. With regard to the two bills, one of which was to be introduced to the House to-morrow, and the other next week, having never yet formed any part of the Catholic bill, and being in their essence perfectly novel, it would be the unfairest thing in the world to suppose that any hon. member, by his vote of that night, either directly or indirectly expressed his sentiments, or insinuated what would be his opinion upon them. That those measures were of great importance—of importance hardly inferior to the bill before the House—he most readily admitted. But, novel as they were, and difficult as they were in themselves, they were rendered still more difficult, by the various opinions that were entertained respecting them. He could not find that those persons who were best fitted, by their local knowledge, to form an opinion as to the expediency of those bills, were able to give him any of that light, as to their nature and probable effect, of which he stood so much in need. Those who were connected with the ecclesiastical in- 122 123 HOUSE OF LORDS Friday, April 22. TREASON FORFEITURE REPEAL BILL.] Lord Holland rose, pursuant to notice, to bring in a bill to Repeal the Law of Attainder and Forfeiture, in so far as the rights of others besides the persons offending were prejudiced. It was not necessary for him to state to their lordships what the law was; but, the state of public opinion was such, as induced him to think that the proper time for altering the law was now arrived. The object of the bill was, to prevent forfeiture in cases of treason 124 HOUSE OF COMMONS. Friday, April 22 ELECTIVE FRANCHISE IN IRELAND.] Sir R. Wilson said, that some misunderstanding had arisen in consequence of a conversation between the hon. member for Staffordshire, and the learned member for Winchelsea as to the course meant to be pursued respecting the bill for altering the Elective Franchise in Ireland; and as it was his intention to oppose the principle of the measure, he was desirous to know what course it was intended to follow? Should the discussion take place that evening upon it, it was his determination to take the sense of the House. Mr. Lyttleton said, that some misunderstanding had certainly arisen on the subject, in consequence of which, several gentlemen who had intended to take a part in the discussion, and particularly those who meant to oppose it, were not then in their places. But, it was impossible he could lose that opportunity of taking some step in the business, and he should be contented simply to ask leave to bring in the bill, and let the discussion take place on a future day. He should be sorry to be called on to make any statement, unless he had an opportunity to make a complete one. He therefore trusted the House would allow him to bring in the bill now, and take the discussion on Friday. Mr. Brougham suggested the necessity of as early a discussion as possible, in order that that explanation might be given which would either remove or confirm the doubts which were entertained of its 125 Mr. Calcraft, said, he was no party to this arrangement. The bill required an explanation: its object was perfectly misunderstood, and it ought to be made intelligible to the people both of England and Ireland. The bill was generally thought to enact the disfranchisement of the forty-shilling voters, but that was not its object. If it were, he would be the last to give it his support. Even those who were in the habit of daily conversing with Irish members, entertained a complete misapprehension the objects of the bill. How strong, therefore, must be the misconceptions upon the subject in the minds of the people in general. BUTTER TRADE IN IRELAND.] Sir H. Parnell presented a petition from the Butter-makers of Doonane, in the Queen's County, praying for a repeal of the laws for regulating the Butter Trade of Ireland. Mr. Hutchinson hoped, that if a committee were appointed to investigate this subject, due notice of its formation would be given, so as to afford those who were interested in the trade an opportunity of stating their sentiments. Mr. Grattan said, that the abuses in the trade appeared to be so great, that he hoped a committee would be appointed in the present year to examine the evil, and to recommend measures for its correction. Sir G. Hill was of opinion that no new measure should be adopted respecting this trade, without a very serious and extended inquiry. Mr. S. Rice said, that the subject might be full y discussed, without altering the law this session. Mr. L. Foster felt that the subject was one of deep importance. If any alteration were made it the law, it ought to be preceded by a vary minute inquiry. Sir J. Newport said, he had no objection to inquiry; but, in his opinion, it ought to take place at the commencement of next session. If the examination were now set on foot, it would have a great effect 126 Sir H. Parnell said, that the corrupt practices carried on under the butter act were a most severe infliction on poor and industrious people. Complaints were particularly made of the butter-tasters. It had been represented to him, that those persons were often induced to neglect their duty for a bribe; that they sometimes attended to perform their functions in a state little short of intoxication; and that they often decided on the quality of the butter, not as it really deserved, but in proportion to the emolument which they were to reap from their corrupt practices. He had inquired into these points; and had found the allegations well-founded. In one instance, five guineas had been given to the wife of a butter-taster to induce her husband to certify that butter of second quality was of first quality, that it might be exported in this fictitious character. Parliament were called upon to inquire into this subject; and he could see no reason why that inquiry should not commence now. Mr. C. Grant said, that ministers were quite ready to go into the committee, either in this, or the next session. ELECTIVE FRANCHISE IN IRELAND BILL.] Mr. Littleton said, he now begged leave, on the understanding to which the House had come last night, to move for leave to bring in a bill " to regulate the exercise of the Elective Franchise in Ireland." He would, in consequence of the understanding to which he had alluded, abstain from making any observations on the introduction of this bill. He hoped, however, that an early day would be fixed for reading it a second time, when gentlemen would have a full opportunity for the expression of their opinions. To himself, it was a matter of no importance whether he opened the grounds on which he introduced this measure on the present occasion, or reserved his statement for a subsequent period. The House had come to an understanding on that point early that morning, and that understanding had been renewed this evening. The consequence was, that a vast number of members had left the House. Amongst them were many who were especially unfavourable to the views 127 l Mr. Brougham observed, that, in consequence of the understanding to which it was stated the House had acceded, a number of gentlemen had undoubtedly gone away. This being the case, it would be inexpedient to go into a discussion of the measure now: but, it ought to be stated, that on this occasion, leave to bring in the bill was only called for. If there were any hon. members who wished to defeat the measure at once, they would have an opportunity of stating their arguments against it on the first reading. Mr. Bankes said, that this was a measure of so alarming a nature, that the attention of the House, and of the public, ought to be particularly called to it. He would take the first opportunity, when this bill was brought forward, to divide the House upon it; and he should therefore 128 Mr. Grattan said, he looked upon this as a very alarming proposition. Mr. Secretary Peel merely rose to say, that, in acquiescing in the motion for leave to bring in the bill, he made no concession whatever. The rule of the House formerly, was different from that which now prevailed. It was now customary to grant leave to bring in a bill, merely for the purpose of considering what its effect was likely to be. Afterwards its contents were debated; and it might be rejected on the second reading. In consequence of the understanding which was come to last night, he would not offer any objection to the present motion: but his opposition to the measure should be precisely as decided in the stage when it came to be debated, as if he opposed its being brought in originally. Mr. Brougham trusted, that he might be understood, after what he had stated that morning, as not having pledged himself to Support this measure. On a future day he should take an opportunity of stating his opinion on this question. Mr. Calcraft said, that if ever there was a bill brought into parliament which required the most minute detail, it was this identical bill. This he would assert, that if members in the House understood it, very few persons out of the House did. He, for one, did not understand it in detail; and therefore he was anxious for explanation. Sir T. Lethbridge said, that in his opinion, the bill which it was proposed to bring in was not at all calculated to answer the expectations which it had raised. A great deal had been said about relief to the people of Ireland; but, he could not see what relief they would find in being deprived of privileges which were really valuable, and which made them of some importance, and in receiving instead of privileges, an imaginary good. An hon. friend of his, whose conversion had created so great a sensation in the House, had said, that he would not vote for the bill which had been discussed last night, unless the bill now before the House, and that for providing for the Catholic clergy, should also be carried. Now, in the common course of proceedings in parliament, 129 Mr. Calcraft rose to order. He submitted that it was neither parliamentary nor delicate to allude to the words of a past debate and particularly when the member by whom those words were supposed to have been used was not present. Sir T. Lethbridge thought he was perfectly justified in alluding to the declaration made by his hon. friend, the member for Armagh. He thought he had much more reason to complain of the interruption of the hon. member, which imputed to him an intention to speak of the declaration made by his hon. friend in an injurious manner—an intention which he altogether disclaimed. Mr. Wynn said, it was beyond all question contrary to the practice of parliament to allude to expressions which had been used in a debate that was past, and still more so in the absence of the member by whom they had been used. It was true, that the House allowed a great latitude beyond the strict letter of its orders; but he believed, that in no instance, after the objection had been taken, a member had been permitted to persist in violating the established custom of parliament. Mr. Secretary Peel said, there could be no doubt that a direct reference to the words of a debate was not parliamentary; but, the hon. baronet had not done this. He had referred only to an intention expressed by the hon. member for Armagh, by which that hon. member had said he should regulate his conduct. This was very different from quoting the words in which that intention had been conveyed. Whether to do this were delicate or not, was another question, which each individual must decide for himself, but of which house, he conceived, could take no notice. Mr. Wynn said, he thought that to refer to a declaration, as the hon. baronet had done, was not less irregular than to refer to the precise words in which it had been made; and for this reason—?that the person by whom it had been made being absent, he could have no opportunity of explaining or justifying what he had said. The Speaker rose amidst loud cries of " Chair." He said, that having been so 130 Sir T. Lethbridge bowed to the decision of the Chair; but he could not avoid observing, that it was some consolation to him to know, that if he had been out of order, he was not so alone, the whole discussion being, as the Speaker had said, irregular. Still he contended, that, if the House should give the hon. gentleman leave to bring in his bill upon no other statement than that which he had made, they would do a very uncommon thing: and admit a bill, of the principle of which no one had said a word in recommendation. Dr. Phillimore said, he believed there was a general understanding, that in consequence of the late hour to which the debate of the preceding night had extended, the discussion of the principle of this bill should be postponed. For his own part, be had no doubt that the measure which it proposed to carry into effect was calculated to do away a great abuse, and to confer a lasting benefit on Ireland. 131 Sir J. Newport said, that notwithstanding the sentiments which the hon. baronet had expressed, he did not believe that the Catholic freeholders of Ireland would give him any credit for the new-born-zeal which he seemed to feel for their interests. They would rather be inclined to suspect that he intended, by throwing obstacles in the way, to defer the passing of that other and greater measure, of which he had been so long the opponent. For his own part, he confessed that he was most anxious to see this bill passed and, notwithstanding the assertion of the hon. baronet, that it was hostile to the interests of the people of Ireland, he was ready to go before that people in competition with the hon. baronet, and abide their decision on the subject. He should support the measure, because he believed it would materially aid the success of the other and more important one of emancipation, and because it would prevent the demoralization of the lower orders, of which the present system was the cause. Mr. Wodehouse said, he had seconded the motion of his hon. friend the member for Staffordshire, and he saw no reason for withdrawing the support which he had given to this measure. Mr. Secretary Peel deprecated any partial discussion of a measure, which, at a proper time and season, would come regularly under the consideration of the House. Mr. Littleton said, he had the bill now ready to present to the House. He proposed that leave should be given for it to be printed; and he would take any day that it might be convenient for the debate on its second reading. He hoped the House would not oppose any difficulty in the way of this proposition, otherwise he must be under the necessity of meeting the dilemma in which he was placed by now giving notice of a motion on the subject. Mr. Bankes would only beg, that, if any, an early day might be appointed for the discussion of the subject. Mr. Hutchinson said, he had never required any security for passing the great bill for emancipating the Catholics. Although it has been asserted, that the 40s. freeholders of Ireland were degraded men, he nevertheless felt it his duty to protect them, with as much regard to their civil rights as the highest commoners. In the instance of his own constituents, he could say, that he had found as honourable and 132 Mr. S. Rice did not wish to prolong the discussion; but there were two important points on which he wished to be informed. The first was, whether his hon. friend meant to confine the disfranchisement of the 40s. freeholders only to those counties where corruption and fraud had existed? The second was, whether he considered this bill as strictly conditional upon the passing of the Catholic Relic f bill. Mr. Littleton answered both these questions in the affirmative. Mr. Hume considered the bill as a matter of expediency. He wished the principle of the measure to be discussed; but, to admit the bill without discussion, was to admit also the principle. He objected to bringing in the bill that night, because the greater portion of the members had left the House, on an understanding that no discussion would take place on the subject. Lord Althorp trusted, that the bill to be brought in would prove of the greatest advantage. The 40s. freeholders had not independent votes. He therefore considered it quite consistent with his wishing for a reform of the representation, to deprive of the right of voting those who had no independent votes. SPIRIT DUTIES.] The House having resolved itself into a committee on the Spirit Duties Acts, 133 l s d s d s s 134 s d s Sir J. Newport expressed his satisfaction at the statement of the right hon. gentleman. Great advantages must be the result of a free intercourse. He hoped that with this measure, all the trammels that now interrupted the commerce between England and Ireland would end, and that full scope would be given to the exercise of the industry and energies of both countries. Ireland and Scotland should be considered as much a part of England, as Essex or Kent. He therefore gave his cordial approbation to measures, which equally tended to advance the interests of all parts of the united kingdom. Mr.W. Smith opposed the measure, and said that it would, in his opinion, contribute more to the disadvantage of England, than any measure that could have been adopted. The immorality of the thing was beyond all question; for there was no necessity to enable a man to get drunk for a shilling; he could do that easily enough already; and as to the proposition laid down by the right hon. gentleman, he considered it as fallacious, as if any one were mathematically to assert, that by adding unequals to equals the result would be equals. In the report on the Police of 135 Mr. Hume strongly recommended the Chancellor of the Exchequer to equalise, to a greater degree than lie had proposed, the duties between England, Scotland, and Ireland, and also to reduce the duties on malt. He could not agree with the lion. member for Norwich, as to the 136 The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he had felt great difficulty it determining what should be the amount of reduction of duty. He admitted that it would have been very desirable to approximate still further than he had proposed towards a complete equalization of duties. He should not have feared to reduce the duty in England still lower, if he had felt himself warranted in increasing the duty in Ireland and Scotland. If he had lowered the duty still further in England, the revenue would have suffered too much, if he had not increased the duty in Scotland and Ireland; and such an increase of duty, immediately after the success of the recent experiment, would I have operated as a fresh encouragement to smuggling. As to the apprehensions of the hon. member for Norwich, that the country would be deluged with drunkenness, in consequence of the reduction of the duty on spirits, he thought that hon. member's 137 Mr. Hutchinson supported the resolution, and trusted the right hon. gentleman would adopt tie suggestion of the hon. member for Aberdeen by reducing the duty on malt. [BRITISH MUSEUM—MR. RICH'S COLLECTION.] The House having resolved itself into a committee of Supply, The Chancellor of the Exchequer, adverting to the report of the committee appointed to consider the expediency of purchasing for the British Museum the collection of coins, antiquities, and manuscripts of the late Mr. Rich, observed, that that report was so explicit and satisfactory, that it was quite unnecessary for him to trouble the House with any details or arguments on the subject. Nor could it be necessary for him to impress Upon the House how highly honourable it was to the country, to make every effort for the due cultivation of literature and the arts. The collection in question was one of undoubted value, and was declared by competent judges to be well worth the sum required for it. He would therefore move, " That a sum not exceeding 7,500 l Mr. Hume cordially supported the motion. He said he would take the present opportunity of expressing his regret at the condition in which many of the valuable monuments in the country now were, and of asking the right hon. gentleman if he would hate any objection to the appointment of a committee to inquire what was the state of the monuments which had bean erected to the memory of our distinguished countrymen, where 138 Mr. Bankes admitted that the expense which the public were put to in the erection of those monuments gave them a fair claim to inquire how the funds received for exhibiting them were applied; but he thought the onus of such inquiry ought not to be thrown upon the chancellor of the Exchequer. The subject was, he granted, a fair one for inquiry. Mr. Hume disclaimed the slightest imputation on the right hon. gentleman. All that he wished to know was, whether government would sanction the appointment of such a committee as he had alluded to; as otherwise, any proposition for its appointment would be nugatory. Sir C. Long did not know any thing of the fund to which the right lion. member bad alluded, as being provided for the care of the monuments in Westminster Abbey. He could assure the hon. gentleman that his majesty's government had no other wish on the subject, than that the public should have the full benefit of the money that had been expended upon it. As to the present vote, there could be no difference of opinion about the value of the collection which it was to secure; and he thought it but common justice to observe, that there had never been any collection offered to the trustees of the British. Museum, in a more fair, liberal, and handsome manner. HOUSE OF LORDS. Monday, April 25. ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.] His 139 York 140 141 142 CORN LAWS.] The Marquis Camden presented a petition from several Land-owners and Land-occupiers, against any alteration of the Corn Laws. The subject, he said, was one involving very important interests, and required that their lordships should proceed with great caution. The Earl of Lauderdale, seeing the noble earl opposite in his place, rose to ask what were the intentions of his majesty's government on this subject? He did not mean to enter, in the smallest degree, into the general question; but he could assure their lordships, that there prevailed a great degree of agitation on the subject; and as long as the question was left open, numerous petitions would be sent to their lordships. Not only the agriculturists and the manufacturers were interested in it, but the monied men in the City, as every body must know who attended to the state of the exchanges, were affected by this question being kept open. He, therefore, hoped the noble earl would state whether his majesty's ministers meant to propose any alteration in the corn laws during the present session. The Earl of Liverpool said, he had no objection to give as satisfactory an answer as possible, to the question of the noble earl. At the same time, he could not, consistently with the importance of the subject, and the duty which he owed to the public, answer the question of the noble earl without troubling their lordships with a few observations. Their lordships were aware, that the last time 143 144 s 145 146 The Marquis of Lansdown said, he had a petition to present from the city of London, praying for a revision of the Corn laws, which he should submit to their lordships to-morrow. He concurred in much of what had fallen from the noble earl opposite; at the same time, he must observe, that the result of much deliberate and serious reflection on this subject had brought him to the conclusion, that it would be ultimately impossible for parliament to continue a system of restrictive Corn laws. It would, therefore, be the duty of parliament to look forward to the doing away of the system altogether. He agreed with the noble earl, as to the difficulty of fixing a duty which would not be found very inconvenient in periods of scarcity or abundance; but, at the same time, he regarded such a plan as the best calculated to prevent scarcity. While, however, he entertained this opinion as to a fixed duty, he was far from regarding parliament to be now in a situation to determine the average price, which would afford a sufficient guarantee to the British cultivator, and next the average rate of productiveness on the continent. He was sure that most erroneous notions prevailed as to the average cost and price of agricultural produce on the continent, and that there was great difficulty in determining what it was likely to be, in such a way as to enable their lordships accurately to fix a rate of duty. In coming to a determination, it would be their lordships' duty to endeavour to conciliate all the interests in the country, and to take care that the balance should not incline too much to the one side or the other. Their great object should be, to arrive at something fixed and permanent; for, bad as the present system was, he would rather retain it with all its faults, than change it for one still liable to fluctuation. It was obvious that if too high a price were fixed, the manufacturing interest would have just reason to complain of the dearness of provisions, which must raise the price of every kind of labour. If the price were fixed too low, the landed interest would he injured, and with it, as recent events had most strikingly proved, every other interest in the country would be seriously affected. Their lordships would then be assailed with a clamour, and parliament would be again compelled to raise the 147 The Earl of Lauderdale thanked the noble earl for the exposition he had given of his views on the Corn laws. It was not his intention then to deliver any opinion, as to any particular plan which it might be proper for parliament to adopt; but, he must remind their lordships, that while they were considering the subject, speculation would be at work. It was therefore necessary to delay their determination as little as possible, and to make the new system one of more certainty than the present. A fixed and permanent arrangement ought to be adopted, suited to a time of peace. The noble earl had stated, that under the present system, corn was in this country twice the price at which it was sold for on the continent; but, he should recollect, that when the last arrangement was made, the agriculturists were told that 80 s s 148 The Earl of Liverpool wished to make one observation more, in consequence of what had fallen from the noble lords opposite. He fully agreed with them in the importance of a careful investigation, and that if a change of system were made, it should be one of as permanent a nature as possible. But, if they were to look to the price of grain in this country and abroad, they would find that nothing could be of a more varying nature. To be convinced of this, they had only to refer to the prices of the last thirty years. The different rate of taxation in this and other countries necessarily caused a great difference of price, and rendered it difficult to come to a decision on the question of duty. The variation in the weight of the taxation, too, from seventy to forty millions, was a cause of fluctuation. Prussia, Poland, and other countries, from which foreign corn was usually imported, were all poor; but, as they increased in wealth and civilization, their power of supplying us would become less. These were all circumstances hostile to that permanency which was so desirable. Their lordships would have to consider, whether they would adhere to the present system, or adopt one of protecting or fixed duties; but, in whatever way they might proceed, it appeared to him, that they never could expect to obtain that certainty which would enable them to fix an unalterable price. Lord King said, he wished a determination to be come to on this subject as speedily as possible; for, in consequence of the agitation of the question, bargains between individuals must be at a stand, until a settlement took place. He was glad that the noble earl opposite was to call the attention of parliament to the subject; and he hoped that an understanding would be brought about between the landed interest and the manufacturers. Wheat in some of the continental ports was 18 s s s 149 The Earl of Rosslyn hoped, that nothing would be done in this matter without a complete inquiry, and without having the whole subject sifted to the bottom. The burthen of proving the necessity of change lay upon those who proposed to alter the present system. As the change would affect the state of every contract throughout the country, the intended investigation would require great caution and delicacy. Lord Calthorpe, after expressing his opinion in favour of the proposed investigation, presented a petition from the Chamber of Commerce of Birmingham, praying for a revision of the Corn laws. The Earl of Darnley was glad to hear that this important subject was to be inquired into. He always regarded the landed and commercial classes of the country as hiving one common interest. Of this he was certain, that if the landed interest was injured by any change in the corn laws, the British manufacturers would lose their best customers. He approved of the plan of coming to no decision until next session. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Monday, April 25. COMBINATION LAWS.] Mr. Hobhouse presented a petition from a deputation from the weavers of Rochdale, who had arrived in London, praying that they might be examined before the committee to whose consideration the Combination Laws had been referred. The hon. gentleman observed, that in the course of the evening a petition would be presented from above 4,000 weavers of Rochdale, praying that the act for the repeal of the Combination laws, which had passed last session, might not be rescinded. It was evident that even the repeal of bad laws, if those laws had been long in existence, might, in the first instance, have an unfavourable tendency; and therefore that it would be extremely unjust to pronounce upon the expediency of such a repeal after only six months' experience. He confessed that he was astonished when he heard the other evening, the president of the Board a Trade complain of the enactments of last session upon this subject, as if he had not been a party to them. Now, he had attended the committee upon it pretty regularly, and he considered the 150 Lord Stanley presented a petition from the operative woollen manufacturers of Rochdale, against the re-enactment of the Combination laws. Mr. Sykes observed, that, on a former evening, remarks had been made on the conduct of the committee of last year, on the Combination laws, which, had he been present, he certainly would have answered. He thought that committee had been very hardly used. It was a committee composed of a number of most intelligent gentlemen, with the exception of one; and they had most carefully investigated the subject. Some evils did undoubtedly arise from the operation of the new law; but those evils were nothing, when compared with the state of things which existed before the law was altered. By that measure hundreds of thousands of people had been released from the unjust shackles which had before been imposed on them. He was not so much surprised, under the circumstances of the case, that a few acts of violence had been committed, as that they were so small in number. If an attempt were made to reenact those laws, it would, he was sure, be prejudicial to the peace and tranquillity of the country. Sir M. W. Ridley thought it right to say, that the committee had no such intention, as that to which the hon. member had alluded. They had only considered what the effect of those laws had been. To that simple inquiry they confined themselves, without indulging in any idea as to what their future conduct should be. They had opened their doors to petitions from all quarters; they had endeavoured to get as much information as possible; and, whatever they might ultimately recommend to the House would depend entirely on that evidence. CORN LAWS.] Mr. T. Wilson rose to present a petition, signed by a numerous and respectable body of the merchants, bankers, ship-owners, and other inhabitants of the city of London, amounting to 151 152 153 s s s Mr. Gooch said, that the petition was certainly entitled to the attention of the House, as it came from a most respectable body of individuals. He should not, therefore, object to its being received; but, if any subject ought to be less tampered with than another, it was this very subject. He would ask, was there, before the hon. member for Bridgenorth gave notice of his motion, a single petition on the subject of the Corn laws? Did not every class of his majesty's subjects appear contented? Did not his majesty, in his gracious speech from the throne, declare that tranquillity and happiness reigned in every part of the country? If this was the case, he must call on the hon. member for Bridgenorth to state a much stronger case than he had yet made out, before he could assent to the intended alteration. He did not mean to say that the Corn laws did not want revision. The time might come when it would be necessary to revise them. But that time had not arrived. At present, corn was only kept up to a fair price. 154 Mr. Huskisson said, that the hon. gentleman wished to know whether it was the intention of his majesty's government to propose any general measure of relief with respect to the state of the Corn laws in the present session, and he had no difficulty in stating to him in answer, that his majesty's government had no such intention. If it had been contemplated in the present session to introduce such a measure, he thought it would have been the duty of those to whom it was intrusted to have taken an earlier opportunity for bringing it forward. But, viewing all the circumstances connected with the present state of those laws, and all the considerations which were embraced in so extensive a subject, it would, he thought, take up much more time than was convenient, if he entered into any detail, until the question was fairly before them. He would himself suggest to parliament, at an early period of the next session, the propriety of entering on a general revision of the state of the laws for regulating the trade in corn between this and foreign countries. If the hon. member for Bridgenorth brought forward his motion on Thursday, he would have an opportunity of stating the reasons which had induced him and 155 Mr. Heathcote earnestly hoped, that the hon. member for Bridgenorth would not bring this question forward. The subject was now agitating the country in an alarming degree. Why should they go into this question now, when they were told that they would have it all over again next year? Mr. Whitmore said, he was sorry it was not in his power to comply with the suggestion of the hon. gentleman. He was persuaded that considerable advantages would arise from the discussion of this very important subject; and therefore he should bring it forward on Thursday. So far from creating that degree of alarm which gentlemen declared had been produced by the notice on this subject, he felt a firm conviction that the statement he should make on the occasion would considerably allay any unpleasant feelings which existed at present. A few words had fallen from his right hon. friend, as to the late period of the session, which he held to be a reason for not bringing the subject before the House at present. That, however, was not his (Mr. Ws.) fault; as he had given notice of his motion at a very early period of the session. But it had been postponed on two different nights, to make way for the Roman Catholic Relief bill. He hoped the House would come to the discussion on Thursday, fully and firmly resolved to investigate it with that temper and coolness which he was persuaded it deserved. Mr. Curwen said, that, although he should not probably agree with the hon. member for Bridgenorth in his whole view of the subject, there was one point in which he would agree with him; and that was, in the conviction, that there was not a sufficient quantity of grain to serve the country until another harvest arrived. He was satisfied that they had been for some time consuming more in proportion than they grew. He was therefore favourable to inquiry. 156 Mr. Alderman Thompson wished to know whether his right hon. friend meant to persevere in his intention of bringing in bills for the repeal of the duties on foreign manufactures? If he did, the present state of the Corn laws would, inevitably prevent our manufacturers from competing with those of foreign countries; particularly if protecting duties; were to be reduced from 60 to 10 and 15 per cent, as was contemplated. Mr. Baring said, that the House and the Country could not possibly be placed in a more unpleasant situation than that in which it would assuredly be plunged by the course which government intended to take on this occasion. The hon. member for Suffolk had asked a question, as if he had a right not only to an answer, but to such an answer as he wished himself. The right hon. gentleman had said, in return, that the government would do nothing this year, but that they would, early in the next session enter into an examination of the whole subject of the Corn laws. Now this was the most disadvantageous step that could be taken. The hon. member for Boston had told them, that there was a considerable ferment in the county of Lincoln; and the course his majesty's ministers were about to adopt was calculated to produce a state of excitement throughout the entire country. Whilst this question remained undecided, no landlord could tell what his lease, what his agricultural property, was likely to be worth; for it was an undoubted fact, that the value of the lease depended on the scale c f protection which was extended to the growth of corn. In such a state of things, landed gentlemen could not make settlements and arrangements regarding their property. They could not tell what provision they might make for themselves, or for those who were to come after them. All this depended on what would be done to regulate the price of corn, When the right hon. gentleman said, that nothing would be done now, but that next year the question should be looked into, did he not perceive that, during all the intermediate period, he was keeping up a clashing of interests? It was saying, "You shall go through the whole year under a vicious system, which government intends to cure next year." The hon. member for Suffolk had admitted, that the law was most unsatisfactory; but then he said, "O you must do nothing with it." 157 Mr. Alderman Wood said, that the meeting at which the petition was got up, had assembled at a very recent period. He could not, therefore, conceive how their proceedings could have disturbed the country. When so many measures were adopted in furtherance of the principles of free trade, it was fitting that an alteration should be made in the corn trade. The country would be placed in a most unfavourable situation, if, when the duties were lowered on foreign manufactures, the price of bread was continued at its present high rate. Under such circumstances, it would be impossible for England to compete with foreign countries. Sir E. Knatchbull expressed a hope, that the hon. member for Bridgenorth would see the expediency of putting off for the present the motion of which he had given notice. He deprecated any alteration in the existing laws, until the necessity of such alteration had been proved by the actual experience of some inconvenience. After the declarations which had been made by ministers, that it was not their intention to propose any alteration in the course of the present session, to procure the appointment of a committee would be altogether useless. Lord Milton said, that, as he had presented so many petitions to the House on both sides of this subject, he could not allow the opportunity to pass without making some remarks upon it. The petitions to which he alluded came from two classes of the people. One was, that of the landed proprietors, who wished for no alteration in the laws; the other was, the class comprising the manufacturers, who felt that the price of food was enhanced by the existing regulations, and who therefore wished them to be abrogated. The first class of petitioners complained, that they were just recovering from a state of great depression, and that 158 Mr. Wodehouse expressed his dissent from the view which had been taken of this subject by the petitioners. Mr. Frankland Lewis said, that as for any idea which might be entertained of setting this subject at rest without a very full discussion, it was wholly out of the question. The matter was too important and too generally interesting to admit of any other mode of disposing of it. The law, as it existed, was bad, because it was placed upon a very inconvenient footing; and it was also wrong in two points; first, because the degree of protection was fixed in a depreciated currency, and it was 159 Mr. Calcraft thought, that ministers were bound to fix the earliest day for the decision of this important subject. His complaint against them was, first, that they had not done so; and, secondly, that they had not given the House timely intimation of their intention not to touch the question during the present session. He maintained that it was not too late to to enter into a revision of our Corn laws; and if it were, he agreed with his hon. friend, in thinking, that the session ought to be extended, in order to afford time for doing so. It was well known that the country was imposed upon by frauds in taking the averages, and that a remedy for the evil was loudly called for. He thought originally, and thought still, that the protecting duty was too high; but, notwithstanding this, and the great facility given to fraudulent returns of the prices, the right hon. gentleman was not inclined to go even so far as the averages. The course adopted by his majesty's ministers was, to say the leastof it, the most inconvenient that they could possibly have hit upon. The House and the country had a right to find fault with them for not having taken an earlier opportunity of making known their intentions on the subject. He hoped, at least as far as the averages were concerned, that ministers would consider their decision and immediately do something to correct the evils of the system. Sir T. Lethbridge said, that the landed interest had nothing to do with the bring- 160 Mr. Huskisson hoped that the House would allow him, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, to go beyond the strict limit of an explanation, The hon. member for Wareham had complained, that ministers had not given notice that it was not their intention to bring forward any measures regarding the Corn laws this session. Now, he appealed to the experience of every member who heard him, whether it was at all the custom for government to give notice, not only of what they did, but of what they did not intend to do. He had said, however, that it was not his intention to take up the subject until next year; he had made no secret of it, but had undisguisedly told every member who chose to ask him the question. Another hon. member had inquired, whether the hon. gentleman had given his notice in concurrence with the wishes of the ministers? That question had been already answered. The hon. member for Taunton had complained of the present state of the Corn laws, as if it had been now for the first time admitted that they ought not to be permanent. He would, however, take that opportunity of observing, that, so far from the present laws being permanent, it was expressly stated in this report of the committees, in 1821 and 1822, to be only a temporary arrangement. He felt obliged to throw himself on the candour of the House, in the situation in which he found himself. He had entered the House at the close of the speech of the hon. member for the city, and had scarcely heard one word of it, when the question had been put to him, out of which the present discussion had arisen. He had replied —and it was the 161 Mr. T. Wilson expressed his satisfaction at the last part of the right hon. gentleman's speech, though he thought he had been guilty of some little inconsistency with respect to the Corn-laws, as compared with his other commercial regulations. MR. ROBERT GOURLAY.] Mr. Hume presented a Petition from the parish of Forfar, praying that a commission might be appointed to inquire into the case of Mr. Robert Gourlay. The petitioners were impressed, like many others, with an opinion, that Mr. Gourlay had been severely and unjustly treated. Mr. Peel wished it to be understood, that Mr. Gourlay was not detained at the instigation of government. He was merely under the operation of the laws. If any person could be found to give security for his peaceable demeanour, he would not be detained one hour longer. Mr. Brougham concurred with the right hon. gentleman, but observed, that 162 Mr. Peel said, that the petitioner was treated in the same way as any person who was detained under similar circumstances. He was originally detained for a breach of privilege in assaulting a member in the lobby of the House, in doing which he had declared that he was only imitating a high example—of scourging sinners out of the temple. Mr. J. Williams said, that Mr. Gourlay had given him a petition to present to the House, in which he complained of the manner in which he was treated with regard to the food which was given him; but, at the same time, he spoke with the greatest respect of the magistrates, and particularly of the humane conduct of the govenor of the House of Correction. COUNTY TRANSFER OF LAND BILL.] Mr. F. Palmer moved the second reading of this bill. 163 Mr. Peel characterized the bill, as a very important measure, and declared himelf in favour of its principle. He wished, however, the hon. member would, after it had been committed, allow it to stand over, to afford opportunity for local inquiry on the subject. The Solicitor-General was also of opinion, that the measure was one of considerable importance. The object of the bill was, to enable magistrates of counties to purchase isolated parcels of land which belonged to other counties from those in which they were naturally placed, and thus caused much inconvenience, with respect to the administration of justice, the collection of taxes, the raising of the militia, and other matters. There was, he believed, a piece of land of this description in Berkshire, which belonged to the county of Wilts, and there were many others in other parts of England. He was of opinion, that it would be intrusting magistrates with too great an authority, to enable them to determine what parts of counties, as at present existing, should be annexed to others. The principle of the bill was too important, and the details too complicated, to allow of its being carried into effect, except by a committee of the House of Commons. Sir T. Acland said, he was much interested in the measure; which he hoped the hon. member would withdraw for the present session. COURT OF CHANCERY.] Mr. J. Williams begged leave to ask the right hon. the Secretary for the Home Department, whether there was any prospect of the report of the commission appointed to inquire into the practice of the Court of Chancery being laid before the House? Mr. Peel said, he was not prepared to give a satisfactory answer to the question. He could have no official communication with the commissioners until the report was made. As to the progress made in the inquiry, or the approximation towards the completion of the report, he really possessed no official information. He would advise the hon. member to address his inquiry to the hon. member for Exeter, or some other member of the commission. Mr. Brougham expressed his surprise, that the commission had not yet laid any information before the House, as to their proceedings; particularly as the Solicitor- 164 Mr. W. Courtenay said, it would be improper for him to attempt to fix any time at which the report of the commission would be made; but, this he would state most distinctly, that the commissioners had not been idle. There was, he could assure the House, no wish, on the part of any member of the commission, to create the least delay as to the presentation of the report. He believed he might say, that the report would be presented in the course of the session; but he would not be understood as pledged to that declaration. He was sure the House would see the propriety of his speaking thus guardedly, when they recollected, that the object of the commission was, to inquire into the practice which had existed for centuries in the highest court of judicature in the kingdom. Whatever his hon. and learned friend might think on the subject, the commissioners were of opinion, that no alteration should be made in the practice of that court, without full and deliberate discussion. The commissioners had reviewed the whole practice of the court from its very commencement; and before they could be prepared to recommend any improvement of the present system, they must take time to consider the subject deliberately. HOUSE OF LORDS. Tuesday, April 26. EQUITABLE LOAN BILL.] The Earl of Lauderdale presented a petition against this bill from the sugar-bakers of London. He would take that opportunity also of calling their lordships' attention to the present state of the bill. The bill had been brought before their lordships and read a first time; but no noble lord had yet given notice of any intention to move the second reading, unless a private information he had received from a noble friend behind him might be considered as such a notice. Since the measure had been introduced, he had employed himself in laying before their lordships all the information connected with the subject, which could enable them to come to a right decision, and form a correct judgment of the petitions which stated that the company was illegal. He had moved that these papers should be printed; and 165 Lord Dacre rose to give notice, that he intended to move the second reading of the bill; but he should wait until the papers were printed. CORN LAWS.] Lord Melville presented a petition from the commissioners of supply, justice of the peace, and freeholders of the county of Edinburgh, praying that no alteration might be made in the present system of the Corn Laws. The Earl of Roseberry presented a similar petition from the commissioners of supply and freeholders of the county of Ross. He was happy to hear that the opinion of the noble earl opposite was, that some change was necessary; but, entertaining such an opinion, he could but regret that the general question should not have been gone into during the present session. He was not himself prepared to say what change was desirable. There were many and great difficulties connected with a fixed duty; but, at the same time, the present system, by which corn was altogether excluded until it reached a certain price, was very injurious. He was happy, however, to see that ministers, by the introduction of the two measures, relative to Canada corn, and corn in bond, had taken precautions which would prevent the ports from being open. These were both good measures; and he hoped no person connected with the landed interest would feel any jea- 166 The Marquis of Lansdown rose pursuant to notice, to present a petition, praying for the revision of the Corn laws, from the merchants, bankers, manufacturers, and others, of the City of London. It was his intention to have called their lordships' attention to the subject on presenting their petition; but, after what had been elicited from the noble earl opposite yesterday, he felt that he should only be trespassing on the House to go into the general question at any length. At the same time he felt it a duty which he owed the petitioners to say, that the petition was most respectably signed, having attached to it 6,000 names, and among them those of the principal bankers, merchants, and commercial men of London. It was also his duty to state, that while the petition prayed for an alteration in the Corn laws, it by no means contained an unqualified demand of free trade. It called for importation under a protecting duty, capable of counterbalancing the burthens imposed on the British cultivator; and the petition could not, therefore, be said to come from persons who were led away by abstract principles, or theories. —He had already stated his own opinion of the necessity of some alteration in the Corn laws; and he fully concurred with the noble earl opposite, as to the impossibility of doing any thing on the subject at this late period of the session; but here he must observe, that he was convinced the alteration could not be long delayed without great danger. The keeping up the present system with the avowed determination to alter it, must be attended with great inconvenience, from the incitement it would give to speculation. It was impossible to look at the prices of corn in this country compared with the rest of Europe, without entertaining the apprehensions of their being run up here to 85 s s s 167 The Earl of Limerick agreed in opinion with the noble marquis, as to the mischievous consequences of a sudden opening of the ports, but could riot concur with him in what he had said, as to the admission of corn from Canada, and the releasing of the bonded corn in warehouses. The consequence of the admission of Canadian corn would be to afford an inlet to the corn of the United States. There being only a river between the two territories, it was impossible to prevent smuggling; and the corn of the United States would, in future, be brought to this country, under the name of Canadian, as the timber of those states now was. The Earl of Lauderdale did not rise to discuss the important question to which their lordships' attention had been called, 168 Lansdown 169 The Earl of Liverpool observed, that when the object was, to ascertain the cause of any difficulty, it was not unusual with inquirers to run into speculative extremes. In the present instance, his opinion was, that the truth lay between the noble marquis and the noble earl. He agreed, that one great cause of the alteration in the rate of exchange was the demand front the continent for manufactures which we paid for in cash; but he did not believe that the noble lord was correctly informed, when he alluded to the possibility of the ports being opened without producing any great effect. There were at the present moment, as he was informed extensive speculations going forward on the continent, in the article of corn but things must take their course, and these speculations should not be permitted to alter the proceeding which parliament might think proper to adopt. As to the propriety of attempting no alteration at the present session, he would rest it upon this consideration—that it was not probable they could come to any conclusion in the course of the session. As to the apprehension that was expressed on the subject of the exportation of corn from the United States of America, he thought it was considerably over rated; for if they looked to an account of the corn brought from the United States in the shape of flour, and all the corn was brought in that shape, their lordships would see that there existed no reasonable ground of alarm. They would find that the great supply in times of scarcity came not from America, but from the countries bordering on the Baltic. The immense expense of conveyance, and the long passage from the United States, would always operate as a sufficient check in that quarter; even if they had such immense supplies as seemed to be anticipated by those who were fearful of the amount of exports from America. That objection being removed, and there being other means of checking the interference of the United States, Canada was entitled to a preference as a part of the British dominions, above all other countries, if it should be found and necessary to give encouragement to any. Lord Ellenborough thought it was impossible to legislate permanently on the subject; for that could only lead to absolute freedom or absolute prohibition. 170 Lord King observed, that the noble earl opposite had stated that some change would take place. Undoubtedly some change must take place. And, why must it? Because corn was too dear. Now, if that was the case, a great injustice would be done to the consumer by not adopting it without delay. Why should it not be adopted this year, instead of next year? The delay was injurious to the landed interests, now that it was announced that a change was to take place; seeing that it was calculated to unsettle their bargains and other transactions. He conceived that the landed interest, who paid poor rates, and church rates, and tithes, had a right to call for a protecting duty. About 10 or 12 s Lord Dacre wished to abstain from giving any opinion upon this subject, until it came fairly before the House; nor should he now have offered any observations upon it, but for the manner in which his noble friend had just spoken of it. His noble friend had said, that 10 or 12 s 171 HOUSE OF COMMONS Tuesday, April 26. CORN LAWS.] Mr. Huskisson presented a petition from the merchants of Liverpool, praying for an alteration in the Corn Laws. Mr. Baring said, he would take that opportunity of asking the right hon. gentleman in what shape, and at what period, he meant to bring forward the propositions of which he had given notice respecting bonded corn? Mr. Huskisson replied, that he would take the first open day for the purpose, and would move that the subject be referred to the consideration of a committee. It was certainly expedient that the bonded corn in question should be introduced into consumption between the present period and the next harvest. Mr. Bright expressed the regret which he felt at the determination of ministers not to propose any general measure with respect to the Corn laws, in the course of the present session. He implored the House to interfere between ministers and the country on the subject; and to endeavour to set so important a question at rest. Who that had observed any thing of the disposition of the lower classes of the people in this country, was not aware that there was no topic calculated to operate upon them so mischievously, or to be so productive of agitation, as any question connected with a scarcity of corn? If any unpleasant consequences should result from the determination of ministers not to bring the subject under consideration before the next session, they would incur the heaviest responsibility. He must say, that, with respect to the commercial regulations which they had introduced, however desirable they might be in themselves, ministers seemed to him to have begun at the wrong end; and had regulated a variety of other matters while they abstained from any regulation respecting that article, on the proper regulation of which all our trade and manufactures depended. He trusted, however, that the numerous petitions which had and would be presented, would compel ministers to pay immediate attention to this important subject. He was quite sure that the eye of the country was fixed upon them; and he trusted, that the people would not permit the question to stand over to the next session. 172 ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.] Sir W.W. Wynn presented a petition from the Clergy and Inhabitants or Wrexham, praying that no further concession might be granted to the Roman Catholics. The hon. baronet declared his own opinion to be strongly in favour of the measure before the House for the relief of the Catholics; a measure to which he had always been friendly, but which, after what had fallen from an illustrious duke in another place yesterday evening, he was exceedingly anxious to see adopted with as little loss of time as possible; lest, by some unfortunate contingency, the country might be placed in the painful and dangerous situation of finding the sovereign directly opposed to the two Houses of parliament on one of the most important questions that could agitate the public mind. Sir T. Lethbridge said, that he considered the declaration alluded to as a source of the greatest consolation to the House and the country. He had read the evidence taken before the committee, and he considered it all ex-parte evidence. The House could not legislate upon evidence which was only on one side of the question. Sir John Brydges said, that he congratulated the House and the country on the patriotic, open, and manly declaration made last night by an individual, a most illustrious member of the Upper House. [Cries of order, order!] The Speaker informed the hon. member, that it was entirely out of order to allude to any discussions that might have taken place in the other House of parliament. It was impossible to anticipate any thing irregular; but it was desirable, that any thing of the kind, if mentioned, should not be proceeded in. Sir John Brydges said, that he had adverted to the subject as other hon. members had not been stopped. Not having been a member of that House when, at any former period, this question had been brought before it, he wished briefly to state his opinion of the measure, in order to justify the vote he should give upon the occasion. In doing so, he should not take up the time of the House by going at large into this momentous question, which had been so fully discussed, but advert generally to what had fallen from some honourable members who were friendly to the measure, in order to weaken, in some degree, any 173 174 175 Mr. Wells presented a petition from Maidstone, against any further concessions to the Catholics. The hon. member expressed himself inimical to any further grants to the Catholic body. Mr. Robarts said, that, although the petition was carried at a very respectable meeting of the inhabitants of Maidstone, he was able to state, that a vast number of the people in that town entertained opposite sentiments with respect to religious toleration. He had formerly been adverse to what was commonly called Catholic emancipation, but, after having heard the speeches of the Attorney-general for Ireland, and of the Secretary of state for foreign affairs, his views had been entirely changed, and he much regretted that he had ever voted against the Catholic claims. So firm were his sentiments upon the subject, that as long as he should have a seat in that House, no consideration whatever would induce him to withhold his support from the measures intended to relieve the Catholics from their political disqualifications. Mr. John Smith regretted that his hon. friend who presented this petition should oppose the claims of the Catholics, as the question was rather political than religious, and both his hon. friend and himself had had personal opportunities of wit- 176 ELECTIVE FRANCHISE IN IRELAND BILL.] Mr. Littleton, in rising to move the order of the day that this bill should be now read a second time, the indulgence of the House, while he stated the nature of the measure, and the advantages which he thought were likely to be derived from it. His motive for bringing it before the House arose from a conviction which he had long entertained, that the present mode of exercising the elective franchise in Ireland was fraught with great evil, as it regarded the property of the country and the morality of the people. He thought that any measure which tended to alter the system that now prevailed in Ireland with respect to the elective franchise, that tended to check the mode by which vast numbers of available votes coming from the most ignorant class of Irish peasantry, for the greater part Roman Catholics, were procured, would receive the approbation of the Protestant community, at the moment when that community was called upon to extend important political rights to the higher orders of the Catholic body. it 177 s s 178 s s s 179 s 180 s s s s s s s 181 s s 182 s s s s s s 183 s s s s 184 185 186 s s l l l l l l s 187 l l l s 188 s l l s 189 s s l l 190 s l s l l s l l l 191 192 193 Mr. Leslie Foster said, that after the appeal which had been made to him by the hon. gentleman who had just sat down, he trusted he should be forgiven for obtruding himself upon the House at that early period of the debate. The evidence to which the hon. member alluded, had been given by him in another place, under the sanction of so solemn an obligation, that it must necessarily express the precise opinions of his mind on the subject to which it related. He had no hesitation in repeating here that of which he was fully convinced; namely, that the existing state of the elective franchise in Ireland was a great evil. But, when he said this, it by no means followed that he was prepared to go the same lengths with the hon. gentleman, or to adopt the measure which he had. proposed. The existence of the evil was admitted, but the path which was intended to lead out of it might be so replete with danger as to be worse than the evil itself. If the hon. gentleman was prepared to apply his remedy to every description of fictitious freeholds in Ireland, he was ready to go along with him. But, if the measure which he proposed was calculated, like the present, not to accomplish the end which it had in view, but to place matters upon a footing more objectionable and more unconstitutional than they were now, and to give place to greater immorality than even at present prevailed, then he felt compelled to with- 194 s 195 Mr. Brougham rose, after having been repeatedly called for. He said, he was unfeignedly sorry that this question had been interposed between the discussion of the other bill. He approached it with all the anxiety which the insufficient information he possessed on the subject must necessarily occasion; but he was induced to do so from a consideration of the awful circumstances — he did not exaggerate when he applied to them that epithet—in which the House was placed. He felt, that as a sincere and fervent friend to Catholic emancipation, he had great reason to complain,that he and those who thought with him on that important subject, should be called, whether they would or no, to the discussion of this collateral question, which—and this was "the head and front" of his complaint—had no necessary or natural connexion with that of Catholic emancipation; but which was brought in as if it were part and parcel of the bill of his hon. friend the member for Westminster, and made to proceed pari passu with it. It had been read the first time immediately after that bill had been read the second time; and it was now to be read a second time, just before that bill was to go into a committee; and it was to come out of that committee just at the time the other would be reported. He understood, too, that it was intended to 196 197 s 198 l s s s 199 s s s s 200 s s 201 l l s 202 l 203 204 205 206 207 208 Mr. Plunkett rose, admidst tremendous cheering from some parts of the House, and cries of order from other parts. As soon as silence was restored, the right hon. and learned member said he rose to order. The reason he had not taken an earlier opportunity of calling his hon. and learned friend to order, and putting a stop to such a discussion was, that his hon, and learned friend, in alluding to what had passed on former occasions, in the early part of his speech, had declared, that he would only allude to such passages historically. When he found, however, that his hon. and learned friend was proceeding to allude to what had recently passed in the other House of parliament, and to designate the person to whom his observations applied, in terms which could not be misunderstood, he felt it to be a duty which he owed to that House, to the illustrious personage alluded to, and to that great cause in which even now he did not cease to think his hon. and learned friend sincerely interested, to prevent him from continuing a course of observations in his present heat of temper, which, he was satisfied, he would in his calmer moments regret. The Speaker said, he was certain that the House would pardon him for addressing a few words to them a that moment. If the inference drawn by the right hon. gentleman who had last addressed them was correct—if his anticipation of what was coming from the hon. and learned 209 Mr. Brougham said, he doubted not that the right hon. and learned gentleman meant nothing but kindness to him, and also to the Catholic question. At the same time, it seemed to him, that after what had fallen from the Chair, he was entitled to say that the right hon. and learned gentleman had proceeded somewhat prematurely. He had interrupted him before the proper period had arrived. No member had a right to interrupt another because he himself expected that that other member was going to be disorderly. Good God! was ever such a thing heard of? In the parliament to which the right hon. and learned gentleman formerly belonged, such a course might have been pursued; but it was the privilege of a member of an English parliament to go on free from all interruption, until he said something disorderly. If he did any thing disorderly, he did it at his peril. His words might be taken down; and he would never utter in that House, or in any other place, any thing which he would have the least objection to be taken down. He spoke for the privileges of the House; but he also spoke for the consistency, credit, and character of the House. Why, this was like the perjury question, of which they bad heard that night. Had no man ever before heard of an allusion to another place? Scarcely a debate took place in which sonic allusion was not made to it; sometimes under the flimsy shelter of the phrase, "another place which it is not allowed me to name." His right hon. friend the member for Knaresborough, not long ago alluded to the bishops directly. Why, it was only that very evening, that another hon. member had made an allusion to the same incident. But, was not this base spirited on the part of the House? If the 210 quia timet Mr. Wodehouse rose to order. He said that the hon. and learned gentleman was out of order still. If he was not, let him explain what those two words, quia timet Mr. Secretary Peel said, he would put it to the hon. and learned gentleman himself, whether, engaged, as the House was, in the discussion of a measure of great importance, he would introduce a topic likely to unfit the House for the immediate business before it? Would not the hon. and learned gentleman, upon cool reflection, feel that it would be better, at all events, to abstain from any such allusions? Mr. Brougham said, that any recommendation coming from the right hon. gentleman was entitled to his best attention; but he could not disguise from himself, that the fact to which he had alluded formed a most important feature in the question before the House. The cry of the advocates of the present measure had been, "Carry this bill—carry the disfranchisement of the 40 s 211 212 213 Sir J. Newport warmly supported the present bill, which he deemed to be one of vast importance, independently of its connection with the great question of Catholic emancipation, and one which was calculated to contribute to the safety and happiness of Ireland. He certainly felt some surprise, after the declaration of his hon. and learned friend who spoke last, that he was entirely without information on this subject, at the decided manner in which he had expressed his opposition to the bill. The policy of the measure had been fully investigated before the committee; where every opportunity had been given to gentlemen of the most opposite political opinions, to give information on this subject. The ruinous effects of the existing system upon the morals and happiness of the country had been fully established be fore that committee. His hon. and learned friend had characterised the measure, as one of disfranchisement; but it was no such thing. It did. not disfranchise one single individual; it preserved their existing rights to all. It merely said, that no such enrolment of freeholders should take place hereafter. He had often stated his conviction of the necessity of the measure. He had now but to repeat that opinion. His hon. and learned friend would injure the great question by separating the present measure from it. He wondered how any friend to the cause of emancipation could act as his hon. and learned friend had acted. He would carry the all-important measure on its own single merits if he could; but, if he could not carry it alone, he would try to carry it accompanied by another measure. He earnestly entreated every man who wished well to the peace of the country, to support the measure before the House as an auxiliary to the main measure of conciliation, Catholic emanci- 214 Mr. Plunkett rose and said:— shall not detain the House long; and I confess, Sir, that I never rose to address the House with more painful feelings than at the present moment. I am particularly glad that my right hon, friend, whom indisposition has just compelled to leave the House, has preceded me on the present occasion; because I feel greatly cheered by the reflection, that the sentiments of one of the best and most tried friends of, his country differ, in almost every particular, from those of my hon. and learned friend. I am desirous of explaining to the House the ground on which I took the liberty of calling my hon. and learned friend to order. I do not regret the course that I took; on the contrary, I feel its propriety still more strongly, after what has fallen from the hon. and learned member since I adopted it. I do not either from my habits in the Irish parliament, to which my hon. and learned friend thought proper to allude, or from the little experience I have acquired in this House, think he was entitled to say that I called him to order before he had really committed a breach of it. He seems to have interpreted rather too largely the declaration from the Chair, because Sir, you delicately avoided telling him in direct terms, that he was grossly out of order. I am fully aware that though it is not strictly regular to allude to what passes in the other House of parliament, it would he absurd to watch over-anxiously particular instances of deviations from strict regularity, provided they remain within reasonable and proper limits. But, I will call to the recollection of any body who heard my hon. and learned friend, whether this was not an occasion on which mischief' was about to be done, and on which I was warranted on an interference, which, on another occasion, might have appeared punctilious anti pedantic. In one sentiment which fell from my hon. and learned friend I agree entirely. I agree in the necessity of passing this measure; and of passing it without the delay of an hour. I must take the liberty, however, of saying, that many of the sentiments which fell from my hon. and learned friend were, in my judgment, eminently calculated to defeat this measure of emancipation. I agree with my hon. and learned friend, 215 216 217 218 219 s 220 s s s 221 s l l 222 223 224 Mr. Bankes said, he was unwilling to trespass on the attention of the House; but he could not avoid, alter the direct manner in which his name had been introduced, saying a few words, for the purpose of repelling the charges that had been made against him. He begged to deny that he had ever said he would rather lose 225 s Mr. Secretary Peel said, that, after the excitement raised by what had fallen from the hon. and learned gentleman opposite and his right hon. and learned friend, he regretted that he could not hope to attract the attention of the House as he intended to confine himself to the merits of the bill before them, without reference to any other question. Taking a view of it upon its abstract merits, and without, looking at it as contingent upon another bill, which he also disapproved, his observations would be very brief. His right hon. and learned friend seemed to think, that there was some inconsistency between the opinions he expressed is 1817, and those which he 226 s l l 227 s l s l l s s s s 228 s s s s 229 l s l s s 230 s Sir H. Parnell said, he would support the bill as being calculated to remove many of the evils of Ireland, especially when taken in conjunction with the great measure of relief. He referred to certain practices which had taken place in his own county and in others with which he was acquainted, under the present system; and contended that the bill would be attended with the most beneficial effects, by operating as a remedy both to evasion and artifice. Upon the whole of this question he perfectly concurred in the sentiments expressed by the late Mr. Fox, in his speech on Mr. Grey's motion for a reform in parliament, in May 1797. The sentiments of that great man were so applicable to the present occasion, that he could not better support his own views than by quoting them to the House. The hon. member then read the following extract from Mr. Fox's speech: —"I have always deprecated universal suffrage, not so much on account of the confusion to which it would lead, as because I think that we should in reality lose the very object which we desire to obtain; because I think it would, in its nature, embarrass, and prevent the deliberative voice of the country from being heard. I do not think you augment the deliberative body of the people by counting all the heads, but that 231 Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald declared his intention to vote for the second-reading of the bill. His only objection was, that the qualification did not appear to him to go high enough. He was surprised to hear any person who knew any thing of the state of Ireland contend, that some measure of reform was not necessary in the elective franchise. Even if this bill was not to be accompanied with the one for the relief of Roman Catholics he should be prepared to support it. No regulations hitherto proposed had been found effectual. He would not now pledge himself to the amount of qualification. He should be better pleased if it were higher. The only effect of raising it to 10 l 232 Mr. Butler Clarke said, he would vote for the bill. If ever there was a measure calculated to ruin the country, it was the system of 40 s Mr. Martin of Galway, said, that in voting for this measure, he certainly did not consult his own interest in a very material degree. In justice to those who had brought it forward, and to the attorney-general for Ireland, he must say, that it was forced upon their consideration, by some who would not be otherwise disposed to vote in favour of the concession. There was no popular print in Ireland that had not expressed an Opinion favourable to it. For his own part, he should be the last man that would support it if he did not think it would forward the Catholic claims. He was not at all disposed to concur with those, who cast a stigma on the 40 s s 233 Mr. Brownlow said, he could not allow the House to come to a division without thanking the hon. member for Staffordshire for bringing in this bill, and without offering his evidence, that no measure could be produced more intimately connected with the future welfare and prosperity of Ireland. He had never met with any person who objected to this bill out of doors—of course he was not speaking of any person who objected within them—who was not actuated by private motives rather than by the public good. He would give the House a case in point, to show how the system worked. A gentleman, of large landed property in Ireland, and a man possessed of every virtue save that of residing on his estates in that country, was called upon by the government to discharge the duty of high sheriff, in the county in which his property was situated. He endeavoured to get rid of the duty imposed upon him, but not finding it possible, he said, "By G—d, if I am obliged to go to Ireland by the government, I will make myself an M. P. to vex them." The consequence was, that he took with him to Ireland 2,600 leases, and when he got there, parcelled out his estate into 2,600 subdivisions, so minute, that to live upon them would be complete beggary. He now said, "I will walk into parliament without asking the vote of a single man in the independent county in which I have the honour to reside." The cause a evils like this was the low qualification for the elective franchise—the remedy, the augmentation of that franchise, and the consequent increase of the independence of the voter. But, it was said, that hundreds of thousands would be thereby disfranchised: he admitted that this would follow in the case of these 40 s s 234 Mr. Hutchinson paid the highest tribute to the candour, honour, and integrity of the hon. gentleman who had spoken last; but regretted that he could not concur with him in disfranchising so large a portion of the population of Ireland. He felt, indeed, the mortification of differing on this occasion from many Irish friends, to whose opinions he was in general warmly attached; but he could not consent to make such a change in the elective franchise for Ireland as would effect a sweeping disfranchisement of this nature, upon a mere vote, without the ceremony at least of a previous inquiry. He was sorry to trespass on the attention of the House, whilst he protested against this deprivation of power from nine-tenths of the people; besides, if the precedent were set in Ireland, where was it to stop? Did the people of England feel nothing for the result? [Here the hon. member was interrupted with loud symptoms of impatience.] He vehemently insisted upon his right to be heard, or else he would say that that was a disgraced assembly. He declared that he would not be silenced by clamour; and repeated, that the interruption could not affect him, although it would disgrace those who resorted to such a mode of stifling argument. He begged, as the firm advocate of the Catholic question, to disclaim the incidental aid offered by the promoters of this bill; for what, after all, did this bill call for? For a remedy which the gentry of Ireland had already in their hands; namely, to abandon the practice of corruption among their tenants. Let them correct their own disgraceful conduct in creating these 40 s 235 Mr. Goulburn rose, also amidst loud cries of "question." He said he could assure the House he did not mean to detain them; but he was desirous of saying a few words, lest the vote he should give might be misinterpreted. He would oppose the bill; for he thought the security it offered no security at all. They were called upon to encounter an immediate danger; and as a security against it they were offered a remedy which was only prospective, and would not come into 236 s s s s s 237 l s l s Lord Milton confessed, that the present was a subject which he did not approach with any great satisfaction. He agreed very much with what had fallen from the hon. member for Galway; and under the circumstances of the case, he should at least vote for forwarding the bill through its present stage, although he owned that it was no great favourite with him. He concurred also in much that had fallen from the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department. Acknowledging as strongly as any man the evil that arose in Ireland from tie 40 s 238 Mr. Grattan declared, that the bill now proposed was so contrary to the spirit of the constitution, so material a change in the law of the country, so extraordinary an invasion of popular rights, that he could not bring himself conscientiously to give it his support. Its principle was tremendous. Let that principle 239 s l l l s Sir F. Burdett began by paying a high compliment to the splendid talents of the right hon. and learned Attorney-general for Ireland—talents which that right hon. and learned gentleman was employing in the promotion of the prosperity, honour, and glory of Ireland, or rather of the empire; for it was in vain to talk of separating the interests of the two countries. What was beneficial to Ireland must he beneficial to England. With respect to the measure immediately under consideration, it had been opposed by his hon. friend who had just sat down as an enemy to reform. He did not before know that his hon. friend was an enemy to reform, but whether he was an enemy or a friend to reform, this measure had no connection with what was generally understood by that name, and ,could not he connected with it. Nor was he himself less attached to the cause of reform than he had always been. It was 240 241 242 243 Mr. Denman said, he could not refrain, consistently with his feelings, from explaining the reasons which compelled him to dissent from the bill before the House. To him it appeared to be a most unnatural proposition, coupled with the other great measure on principles utterly inconsistent with the progress of that measure; which he was sure would prosper better if it got rid of this unaccountable incumbrance. He must say, that it was with surprise he heard his hon. friend the member for Westminster, talk of the operation of the present bill as trifling; for if it were trifling to interfere with and destroy the rights of electors, he was at a loss to know what could be justly deemed important. Nor was his opposition to the measure founded on the ground of its reference to Ireland alone: he dreaded it as an example to this country. He dreaded lest, in some future combination of circumstances, it might be adduced as a precedent for some fatal inroad on the constitution. It appeared to him, that the inference attempted to be drawn was, that if the Catholic disabilities could be removed, it mattered not under what system of laws Ireland should be governed. He would make no such concession. The question did not belong to Catholic more than to Protestant; nor to Ireland more than to England. It belonged to them all and they ought to view it with equal alarm. He was not to be told that they could found upon it no precedent for invading the franchise of England; because be knew on what slight pretences things of this sort were raised into precedents. He would arm against the most distant approach of a theory so pregnant with evil consequences. Why did not this subject commence with an examination in a committee? The measure as it stood was totally different from that which the hon. member for Stafford had at first proposed. He entreated the attention of the House for a few moments. If the majority of the House should prove to be in favour of the measure in its present stage, he would not 244 l l l 245 s Mr. Abercromby said, that at any time he would have considered this measure as a boon to Ireland, if emancipation had not accompanied it: not but that he would have supported the bill for emancipation in the first instance; because it would be unjust to deprive Ireland of one iota of her seeming rights until justice were done to her people. His firm conviction was, that in supporting this measure, he was stripping an oligarchy of a power which they ought not to possess. He should vote for it under the impression, that by so doing, he should deprive various classes of the Irish gentry of the means of jobbing—a system which was most disgraceful to them, and most ruinous to the country. It was a system that must ruin the independence of general elections; and therefore he should support the measure. But, above all, he would support it, because if that system continued, it would ultimately exclude persons of the middling classes of society from all real share in elections. He appealed to those who were best acquainted with Ireland, 246 s s Mr. Lambton said, that, notwithstanding the resolution he thought he had taken of not interfering in this discussion, except by a silent vote, he felt compelled to address a few observations to the House, which, he could assure it, would occupy but a very short time. Nor should he have trespassed on its attention at all, but for the observations which had fallen from his hon. friend, the member for Westminster, who had been pleased to proscribe every one who had the misfortune to differ with him in opinion upon the merits of his bill. The hon. baronet had at least said, that, for the future, he should consider it unsafe to act with those who possessed "this beautiful virtue" in such a degree, and so inflexibly that it would not accommodate itself to circumstances. Now, he acknowledged that he was of this proscribed number; and, however painful it might be to be thus opposed to his hon. friend, with whom he had been so long accustomed to act, yet, if, as the consequence of his declaration, he was to separate from the hon. baronet that night and for ever, he must protest that he could not conscientiously support this bill [cries of " Question"]. He trusted the House would allow him to state in a very few words—and even under the penalty of that ban under which the hon. baronet had placed him—what his own views were upon this question. From any thing that be had heard that night, he did not believe that the 40 s 247 Mr. Littleton after what had just fallen from the hon. member for Durham, was only anxious to declare, that his hon. friend was quite mistaken in supposing that he had acted in this matter otherwise than as a volunteer; no individual having advised with him on the subject, or influenced him in determining to introduce this measure, although he had availed himself of the best information he could consult in its preparation. In every respect it was his own measure; he alone was responsible for it. HOUSE OF LORDS. Thursday, April 28. Corn Laws.] Lord King said, he had a petition to present from a town in Devonshire, praying for a revision of the Corn Laws. It was respectably signed by three hundred persons; but perhaps the noble lord opposite would say, that it would disturb the peace of the country, as it was of a different nature from a petition which he had presented. In presenting this petition, he could not help saying, that he hoped the noble lord 248 s s l s Lord Rolle said, he was in favour of a revision of the Corn laws, but he did not think this exactly the period for entering into the investigation of so important a subject. The Earl of Lauderdale could not allow one observation of the noble lord behind him to pass unnoticed. Nothing was more calculated to disturb the peace of the country than to state, that if the noble earl at the head of the Treasury continued the present system of the Corn laws, an unjust tax would be imposed on the people. He would ask the noble lord, where he had learned that the price of corn was so high as to constitute this tax? The noble lord was present at the commencement of the session, when his majesty's Speech described the prosperous state of the agriculture of the country; but the noble lord had then said nothing about the high price of corn, and had made no complaints of the poor suffering by the Corn laws. If the noble lord really wished to canvass for petitions, he had taken the right way to get them. He would now have them in abundance from the most ignorant parts of the country. He had thought it his duty to say thus much, because the observations of the noble lord were of a nature to excite no slight agitation throughout the country. Lord King said, he had been asked, where he had learned that the price of corn was high? He had learned that fact from the petitions on the table; one of which was signed by 5,000 bankers and merchants of the city of London. He had learned it from the petitions from Manchester, Liverpool, and various parts of the country. He had learned it from the rise of prices since the commencement of the session; which prices had so increased, that there were apprehensions of the ports being thrown open. He was glad that the subject was to be taken up by 249 The Earl of Lauderdale denied that any petitions relative to the price of corn had been presented, either in that or the other House of parliament, until after notice had been given of a motion on the subject. The noble lord, it seemed, had learned the high price of corn from the petitions of merchants; but those petitioners were not corn consumers. All that they cared about corn was, that they might have opportunities to speculate, and put large profits in their pocket. The Earl of Limerick said, he had a few days ago ventured to express an opinion, that if Canadian corn was admitted into this country, it would be impossible to prevent the corn of the United States from being introduced along with it. He little expected that he should have so soon been able to confirm his opinion; but he had that day seen a letter in an American paper, in which a merchant, writing to his correspondent, stated that the price of corn was very low; but, as England was to allow importation from Canada, it would soon rise, because the Americans would be able to pour in the corn of the United States. The Earl of Rosslyn said, it was incumbent on parliament to recollect, that numerous contracts had been entered into on the faith of the present system, which it was understood would be permanent. He could not but think that the expectation of an alteration would create considerable alarm. It would have a great effect in Scotland, where the ministers' stipends were partly paid according to the price of grain in the market. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Thursday, April 28. Corn Laws.] After numerous petitions, both for and against a revision of the Corn Laws, had been presented to the House, 250 Mr. Brougham took occasion to suggest, that in proportion as hon. gentlemen really wished well to that momentous question, so soon to be brought before them by his hon. friend, in exactly the same proportion would they do well to abstain from saying any thing on presenting their petitions, or anticipate the discussion of the evening. He had never failed to observe, that when petitions were to be presented in great number, on a subject appointed for debate on the same night, the observations which were usually made upon them, occurring over and over again with each separate petition, had the effect of anticipating much of what might be more conveniently reserved for the principal debate; so that when the debate at last came on, those observations were found to have completely stifled it; or, to use a common phrase, to have thrown a wet blanket upon it. This being the case, he should himself follow his own doctrine. A petition most numerously and respectably signed by the inhabitants of the county of Durham, praying that no alteration might take place in the existing Corn laws, had been forwarded to him, and the petitioners had done him the honour, certainly, to confide it to his charge; but for the reasons he had already stated, he did not intend to present it that night, but would bring it in to-morrow. In the mean time the petitioners had all the benefit of the declaration which he now made, that the whole population of Durham were decidedly averse to any alteration of the Corn laws. Sir E. Knatchbull remarked on the inconsistency of the hon. and learned gentleman, who deprecated other gentlemen's making comments on the subject of the petitions they might have to present, and yet had himself gone out of his way to remark on a petition that was not to be brought up until to-morrow. Mr. W. Gordon, in presenting the petions from Kincardineshire, said he could not help thinking, notwithstanding the hon. and learned gentleman's observations, that that was the very moment for such remarks as hon. gentlemen might desire to offer on the subject. Mr. Alderman Wood said, it was not often the lot of the common council to re 251 Mr. T. Wilson was happy to be able to concur in what had fallen from his worthy colleague; which it was by no means his good fortune to do every day. Mr. C. Calvert desired to call the attention of the House to the enormous expense which the country was put to for the printing of all these petitions. There were many of the less important kind that it would be quite sufficient merely to enter on the Journals, in such a manner, however, as to distinguish their prayer and object. Hon. gentlemen, in some cases, might content themselves with having them read, as an hon. friend of his, for example (Mr. W. Gordon), had just now presented about a dozen petitions on the same subject from the same county, the greater number of which were most likely verbatim et literatim the same. Mr. Bright thought that this objection ought not to have been taken just now, on so important a subject. His hon. friend had surely begun at the wrong end; seeing that the city of London was the chief city of our commerce, and, indeed, of the commerce of the world. Mr. C. Calvert said, he never meant to oppose the printing of a petition from the city of London, like that now before the House; which, of all others, it was most important should be printed. His observations applied to such cases as that which 252 Coronation Oath.] Mr. Egerton presented a petition from Chester, against any further concessions to the Roman Catholics. Mr. Grenfell said, he was the last man in the House to allude to what had taken place elsewhere with reference to any matter done or to be done by that House; but, something had been said elsewhere which induced him to express a hope that, before the conclusion of the session, some member of weight and talent and character in one of the Houses of parliament, would bring under their consideration the propriety of altering the Coronation Oath [hear, hear!]. Corn Laws.] Mr. W. Whitmore rose and aid:* * 253 254 255 s s s s 256 s * 257 lbs lbs lbs without an import of foreign corn for three or four years, notwithstanding an annual deficiency of a 1,000,000 quarters, provided, from any circumstance, speculation had been repressed, and that the sole object was, to live from hand to mouth, without reference to a future period: that such has been our situation for the last five years is my decided conviction. The dealers in grain had suffered so much in their speculations during the depressed state of agricultural produce, that they lost all confidence, and confined their view to the immediate, not the remote and contingent demand; such a Corn law as now exists in this country, must ever produce a similar effect. It should be remembered, that all the great scarcities in this country have arisen from low stocks, conjoined with deficient produce. 258 cwt qrs lb cwt qrs lbs cwt qrs lbs cwts cwts qrs lbs cwts qrs lbs * * 259 dities from one part of the country to another, arising from the want of roads; when there existed a prejudice, as well as a legal penalty against what was called forestalling and regrating, the fluctuations in price were immense. In 1286, at one period of the year, wheat sold at 2 s d s l s l s d l l s d 260 * 261 262 s s s d s d d s s d s d s s d s s d s s d s s 263 s s s s d d £ The Poor Rates, including county rates and other payments, amounted in 1823 to about 7,000,000 Tithes 5,000,000 Land Tax 1,210,127 Highways, &c. 2,000,000 £15,210,127 l * s * 264 £ 14,000,000 quarters wheat, raised in price by a duty of 10s. per quarter 7,000,000 14,000,000 barley, duty, 5 s 3,500,000 20,000,000 oats, duty 3 s 3,000,000 Grass produce, vegetables, &c. 5,000,000 £ 18,500,000 s l The high rate of what is called the remunerating price in this country, provided the whole quantity of food required for our consumption were raised at home, would be owing to the inferior description of soil thus forced into cultivation, and which could not be cultivated unless a high price were obtained for its produce. Under a system of free trade in corn, these inferior soils would not be forced into corn cultivation; Or rather, would not be subject to the regular rotation of crops, which the high price arising from duty payable on the import of foreign corn would produce: there is, perhaps, no soil so inferior now in cultivation which might not occasionally be broke up for one or two crops of grain, but with moderate prices the inferior soils Would not be stimulated to an unnatural produce by a large expenditure of capital, in the shape of artificial manure and great labour, but allowed to rest until nature had again invigorated them for a similar process of cropping. I need not mention to those acquainted with agricultural pursuits, that these inferior soils would bear some species of herbage when not ploughed. It is also true that the better descriptions of soil would be stimulated to greater produce by a large expenditure of capital, when prices were high than when low. 265 s d s s *The prices were as follows: 1815 47s 8¼d 1820 36s 10½d 1816 60s. 11d. 1821 33s 5d. 1817 93s. 3d. 1822 29s. 9½d. 1818 66s. 8d. 1823 30s. 3d. 1819 46s. 6½d. 1824 32s. 10½d. 266 s s s s s *The wheat of the United States is of Superior quality. The average quality of Odessa Wheat is stated to be inferior by one sixth to that of English growth. ‡The probability is, it would be higher, and that as a larger quantity were required for the increasing consumption of this country, it would sustain a slight but gradual augmentation of price owing either to the greater distance or diminished fertility of soil from whence it would be drawn. 267 s s s s 55 to 50 15 per quarter. 50–45 20 ditto. 45–40 25 ditto. s s s d s d qrs qrs s d 268 s Qrs. Wheat. £. S. 1800 1,263,771 110 5 1801 1,424,241 115 11 1810 1,439,615 103 0 1817 1,030,829 94 0 1818 1,586,030 83 8 s 269 270 271 Mr. Gooch said, it did not appear to him that the hon. member had made out a case sufficiently strong to justify him in calling upon the House to accede to his proposition. For the last six years, the average price of wheat had been 58 s d 272 s s s s 273 Mr. Curwen said, it could not be disguised, that, upon this question, the agricultural and manufacturing interests were directly at issue. To decide between them was a delicate task; but the question was, whether the agricultural interest was to be entirely sacrificed? The hon. member proposed by enlarging the supply, to keep down the price; but did he consider the ultimate result of such a measure? A depreciation of price must necessarily throw a quantity of land out of cultivation in this country, and we should then be reduced to depend on foreign supply. Could the hon. member guarantee such a continuance of that supply as would prevent the disastrous consequences of a dearth in this country? He had no objection to bring the average down to 60 s s Lord Oxmantown supported the amendment. He said he foresaw a multitude of inconveniences in the hon. member's plan. If it were adopted, it would place us in a situation of complete dependence on supplies of corn from abroad. It would also throw much of our tillage lands out of cultivation, and thereby diminish the numbers of that hardy population the agricultural labourers, which it ought to be our interest to encourage: seeing that they constituted the strength of the empire. Upon these grounds, he was opposed to the proposition for altering the Corn laws. Mr. Huskisson said, it was not his intention, in rising to address the House, to make any observations on those facts which his hon. friend, the member for Bridgenorth, had, with such meritorious 274 275 s 276 277 s 278 279 s s 280 281 282 s 283 s s s s s s s s 284 desideratum s s s 285 286 287 288 Mr. Baring began by observing, that if there was so much evil in the present system of our Corn laws, the right hon. gentleman was partly to blame for it. He had protested against that system on its first creation in 1815, when the right hon. gentleman was found among its foremost sup 289 290 291 292 s s s s s s s l s s s s s s 293 294 Mr. Philips was proceeding to offer to the House his sentiments; but cries of "Question! question! adjourn! adjourn!" were so loud and incessant, that the hon. gentleman sat down. Colonel Wood said, he would trouble the House with a very few words on the subject. Both the hon. mover and the right hon. gentleman had argued the question, as if the existing system was attributable to the act of 1815. Now, it had nothing to do with that act. The present system, under which foreign corn was totally excluded, when corn was below a certain price in this country, was the consequence of the report of the committee of 1822. That when corn was at 80 s s s s s s s s Lord Althorpe thought, that if the question were to remain until next session undecided, it would be a serious evil; and that if the government intended to revise the laws, it was their bounden duty to do it now. The great object acknowledged by all the advocates of the corn system, was to have a steady price, but it was impossible, with the uncertainty of seasons, to have any consistent or permanent price under the present laws. The government had given no reason for not submitting a motion upon the subject during the present session. The right hon. gentleman had said, that it was unreasonable to call upon ministers to explain measures of which they had not given any notice; but equally unreasonable was it for the government to admit, that they contemplated a great and radical change in an important question, and to 295 Mr. Stuart Wortley concurred in the view taken by the hon. mover, who should have his vote if he pressed the question to a division. At the same time, he hoped the hon. gentleman would not press the motion so far, after what had passed in the course of the debate. He entreated the government to pledge themselves to an early consideration of the whole question, at the beginning of next session; for, until that took place, there would be no comfort for the landed interest. Mr. Wodehouse said, that he had always supported the average system, from his conviction of its being the best. He admitted that the present mode of collecting the averages was susceptible of great improvement; and he wished an inquiry into it to take place in a spirit of fairness. When he said this, he must at the same time protest against the mischievous fallacy of forming an estimate (as had been done) on the prices at Dantzic, where, for a series of 49 years, which were averaged, they had been found to be at 45 s Mr. Calcraft regretted exceedingly that the government had not taken a more decided course on the present occasion. The speech of the right hon. gentleman was, from its vague nature, calculated to excite the greatest alarm throughout the country; for it recommended the postponement from favourable, possibly to unfavourable times, of a question which could never be better discussed than at the present moment. He should entreat his hon. friend, when things were left in this state to press his motion to a division, unless the government pledged themselves to take up the subject immediately. He was aware that those who thought with him would be left in a minority; but, he was too much accustomed to that to be disheartened, and he knew 296 s s s The Chancellor of the Exchequer insisted, that it was the hon. gentlemen opposite who were to blame, and not his right hon. friend, if uneasiness followed the agitation of a question which they had themselves prematurely forced into discussion, although the hon. member who had last spoken had admitted that the existing system had worked well for the last six years. Had the government taken up the question of the Corn laws in the present session, they would, from the very nature of the subject, and its probable operation upon other matters connected with the affairs of the country, have been disabled from introducing and perfecting those other measures, which were universally acknowledged to be of the most 297 Mr. Bright complained that the government had not determined to take up the consideration of this question during the present session. He was the representative of a large city, and was anxious to protect the interests of his constituents. Therefore it was, that he wished for an alteration now. In the changes of our commercial regulations, the article of corn should have been first noticed. He hoped, therefore, that his majesty's ministers would be compelled to take up the subject before the close of the present session. [Cries of Question! Adjourn! No, no!] Colonel Johnson moved an adjournment of the question to this day week, in consequence of the great anxiety which it had created throughout the country. Mr. Peel said, that the better plan, to avoid anxiety, would be to go on. The division would best tell the opinion of the House. The proposed course would certainly be very inconvenient, and could 298 Mr. T. Wilson said, there was urgent reason for deciding upon this question during the present session. Every possible information was now within their reach, why, then, delay the question? Mr. Whitmore said, in reply, that so far from taking any blame to himself for bringing on this question, he was determined to renew it in every sitting of the parliament, until the law should be settled upon a satisfactory foundation. List of the Minority. Althorp, visct. Maxwell, J. Baring, A. Milton, visc. Bentinck, lord W. Monck, J. B. Bernal, R. Nugent, lord Bright, H. Palmer, C. F. Buxton, T. F. Philips, G. Calcraft, J. Robinson, sir G. Calcraft, J. H. Robarts, A. W. Calthorpe, hon. F. G. Robarts, G. J. Calthorpe, A. Sefton, earl of Calvert, Ch. Smith, W. Corbet, Panton Sykes, D. Cradock, col. Thompson, ald. Davies, T. H. Tierney, rt. hon. G. Denman, T. Williams, J. Evans, W. Williams, W. Glenorchy, lord Wilson, T. Grenfell, P. Wilson, sir R. Gurney, Hudson Wood, ald. Heron, sir R. Wortley, J. S. Hobhouse, J. C. TELLERS. Hume, Joseph Gascoyne, I. James, W. Whitmore, W. W. Leader, W. PAIRED OFF. Lester, B. L. Mansfield, John Littleton, E. J. Pares, T. Maberly, W. L. Wyvill, M. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Friday, April 29. COMBINATION LAWS.] Mr. Hume presented a petition from the fustian-cutters of Manchester and its vicinity, on the subject of the Combination Laws, setting forth, that very great benefit had arisen to the trade in general by the repeal of those old oppressive laws, and that a much better understanding between master and man had been established, in consequence, than heretofore; which advantages, however, the petitioners feared would be destroyed in consequence of what had recently been said on the sub- 299 Mr. Maberly begged to call the attention of the House to a subject which he thought had not been sufficiently attended to by the House, but which was strongly suggested by the last petition. His majesty's ministers had lately adopted a variety of regulations relative to the encouragement and opening of our commerce, and a free trade in our manufactures. The result of all those arrangements would be, to let in the cheap labour of the continent to cope with our cheap labour. But, how could that cheap labour long continue in England, while the prices of food were so excessive as they now were? How was it possible that our manufactures should long be able to contend with the manufactures supplied by the cheaper labour of the continent, while the high duties on imported corn were kept up at their present standard? He maintained, that ministers should have paused before they ventured upon adopting such regulations in respect of our trade and manufactures. They should have considered the Corn laws in the first place; and should now consider them, before they took any other steps in regard to our commerce. If this course were not immediately adopted, some very considerable evil would be sure to follow upon its neglect. The manufacturing gentlemen would soon discover the manufactures of the country not to be in so flourishing a state as they now were. We 300 GAME LAWS AMENDMENT BILL.] Mr. Stuart Wortley moved the order of the day for the third reading of this bill. Sir John Shelley said, he thought that this subject had not been very fairly treated on former occasions, either by his hon. friend who had introduced the bill, or the right hon. Secretary of State for the Home Department, who had spoken upon it. The argument which was urged in support of this bill seemed to be two-fold: first, that the existing game laws filled our gaols with criminals; and secondly, that the paining of the bill would do away entirely, or very nearly, with the crimes for which persons offending against such existing laws were now so frequently committed. This he did not believe to be the case. The greatest number confined under the existing laws was 1,200. That was in the years 1818, 1819, and 1820. In his opinion, this was owing, not to the actual system of game laws, but because, at the period alluded to, agriculture was at the lowest state of depression, and many who could not procure employment betook themselves to poaching. The number of those imprisoned for this offence was now reduced to 520. This striking fact enabled him to deny that these laws were impolitic, and had filled the gaols. He objected to the clause in the bill which gave the lords of free warrens and chases a property in them, and enabled them to let or demise these privileges to others. From this and other features in it, he could not help looking at this bill, which professed to be for the advantage of the many against the present restrictions of the few—this popular, this democratic bill, as he might almost term it—as a bill which, in effect, was more ultra-aristocratical than any of the existing game statutes. He would therefore move, by way of amendment, that the bill be read a second time that day six months. 301 Sir John Brydges said, that, having so fully expressed his opinion of this bill, he should now detain the House with only a few observations. None of the alterations in its clauses had operated on his mind to make the measure more palatable; and he continued as much opposed to the principle as ever. And as to the details of the bill, he was sure, if it passed, they would be inoperative. Honourable members argued, that the game laws were productive of much demoralization, and therefore it was requisite that an alteration should be made in them. He had no objection to emend, where amendment was required but he did object to destroying them; that was, to alter them, so as to make them of a different nature. If a house wanted repairing, he was ready to repair it: if imputation of a limb was necessary, it should be accomplished; but to bring about this object, it was not requisite to destroy the body. He did not mean to say that the hon. member who had brought in this bill was not actuated by the best; motives, and was not, in every respect, qualified for the task he had undertaken; but he thought, that though a liberal policy upon all occasions was desirable, yet that we were going too far in attacking institutions, so as fundamentally to destroy them, instead of, by judicious reforms, to improve them. He considered this radical remedy as a relic of the French revolution, the principles of which, upon all occasions, went rather to abolish old institutions altogether, than, by proper amendments, to ameliorate them. He must think that this bill, as it was now offered to the House, was not borne out in its title: that, instead of being denominated "a bill to amend the Laws for the preservation of Game," it should he entitled" a bill to disfranchise a certain order in the state of privileges which they have immemorially possessed, and at the same time to aid the destruction of Game." Believing, then, that this measure was wrong in principle; but, even if it was not so, that it would increase rather than diminish poaching; and thus add to the demoralization of the lower orders, he should give it his decided negative. Mr. Cripps supported the bill. The complaint made against one of its clauses, requiring the Poacher to give security for his good conduct before he was liberated from prison was unfounded. It would have the effect of diminishing the number of those who would expose themselves to such a difficulty. 302 Mr. J. Douglas said, he felt an entire confidence that this bill would not pass through parliament; if it did, it would inevitably carry with it the gradual abolition of all sporting. Mr. H. Sumner opposed the bill. By its provisions, the House would only change the denomination of the crime. They would, if the measure succeeded, have the gaols filled with as many thieves as they were previously filled with poachers. He therefore trusted that the bill would be thrown out by a large majority. Mr. B. Colborne observed, that the provisions of the bill diminished, or rather entirely removed, the danger of detection, and provided a certain market for the poacher. As the law at present stood, it favoured an interchange of civilities between the landlord and his tenant: if the latter preserved the game, the former was in the constant habit of presenting him with it in return. But, if this bill should pass, there would be an end to these civilities. His view of the question was, he knew, unpopular; but that circumstance should not deter him from stating it openly. If the measure now introduced would do away with poaching, then he would say, agree to it by all means; but, as he conceived that it would have no such effect, and at the same time that it was calculated to produce various evils, he would oppose it. Mr. Tennyson said, that although he thought it would be more discreet to proceed to the proposed result by a series of measures, whereby the habits and prejudices of the country would be gradually prepared for and accommodated to the projected change of system, yet he was decidedly friendly to that change, and approved the general character of this bill. He entertained objections to some of its provisions, and had urged them in the committee, but they were not such as to prevent his voting for it. The bill proceeded upon just and wholesome principles; it recognized game as a profitable produce of land, and established it as the equal property of the landowner. The hon. gentleman who had just sat down seemed to fear, that by legalizing the sale of game, a wider field would be opened to poachers than at present existed. Now the anxiety which he (Mr. T.) felt on behalf of this measure, was grounded on the conviction that an opposite effect would be produced. He did not know whether the hon. gentleman had perused 303 l 304 305 Sir G. Chelwynd said, he had taken considerable pains in looking at the statutes on this subject, and he really could not find what acts were and what were not repealed. The indefinite and anomalous character of the measure would, in his view, prevent its ever being carried into 306 Sir H. Vivian expressed his hostility to the bill, the provisions of which, he thought, would tend to increase, and not to diminish, the evil. He admitted that it was unjust that a man who possessed 5,000 l 307 Mr. Stuart Wortley, in reply, observed, that all the evils mentioned as likely to flow from this bill, were precisely those which he had most anxiously endeavoured to guard against. Many of the objections now urged, particularly those of the hon. baronet, the member for Stafford, ought rather to have been advanced in the committee. With respect to the objection which that hon. member had advanced against the service of a warrant in the first instance, that provision might, even now, be altered. He had no objection to the substitution of a summons, if it were deemed preferable. His great object was to introduce a law which would protect game, without creating all the evils which manifestly attended the present system. Whether, under this measure, there would be a little more, or a little less game, was, he conceived, a matter of minor importance. The law, as it now stood, occasioned most men to look upon a poacher as one who ought not to be condemned, but to be pitied; and he knew no way of removing that feeling, except by altering the legal denomination of game, and making it property. It had been said by the gallant general, that stolen game might be sold to the salesman. That was very true; but it was equally true with respect to the poultry. He hoped if this bill passed, that ultimately measures would be taken for permitting the sale of game just like any other commodity. With respect to the interference of this measure with fox-hunting (which, after all, appeared to be the great objection against it, in the minds of several hon. members), he never could treat the argument seriously. He was a fox-hunter himself, and he respected fox-hunters, and therefore would do nothing to destroy that sport. But, he must say, that it did not depend on the preservation of game, but on the fitness of the country for it, and on the estimation in which a gentleman was held. He had heard no argument to induce him to change the opinion he entertained relative to the game laws; and he declared, that if his bill were lost, he would, so long as the law continued to be the intolerable nuisance which it was, labour strenuously to have it removed. 308 ROMAN CATHOLIC CLERGY OF IRELAND.] Lord Francis Lawson Gower rose, he said, for the purpose of moving a, resolution, which should record the opinion of the House, that it was expedient that a provision should be made by law, towards the maintenance the Secular Roman Catholic clergy exercising religious functions in Ireland. If, during the period which had elapsed since he had given notice of his intention to bring this subject before the House, he had felt considerable anxiety, and even apprehension, at having pledged himself to the execution of a task far beyond his humble powers, the circumstances which had occurred since the recess had not tended to diminish that anxiety. When he had heard an hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Brougham) on a recent occasion state it to be his opinion, that this question was in importance scarcely inferior to the great question of Catholic emancipation, he could not but feel his own confidence rise in proportion to the magnitude of the subject. Differing as he did from that hon. and learned gentleman in degree, but not in principle, he did not despair, that he would do him the honour to go with him, and that the discussion would have the benefit of the eloquence and talents of one with whom he had nothing in common, but a sincere wish for the welfare of the sister country. The measure which he was about to propose appeared to him to be inseparably connected with the welfare and the good government of Ireland. It had been advocated by men whose authority still possessed the weight it deserved, although their exertions were now lost to their country for ever. The names of Pitt, of Castlereagh, and of Cornwallis were found among the first of those who had recommended a provision for the Roman Catholic clergy. He had also great pleasure in finding, that the opinions which he entertained on this subject were backed by those of an hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. L. Foster) whom he now saw in his place, and whose laborious research into all matters connected with the affairs of Ireland was every where entitled to serious attention. He would take the liberty of reading to the House an extract from the debate in the year 1812, on Mr. Grattan's motion for a committee on the Catholic question, in which the hon. member had said—" Had the parliament of Ireland at that time contemplated the, question in all its bearings—had they said 309 310 311 312 "And with a sweet, oblivious antidote, Cleanse the foul bosom of the perilous stuff That weighs upon their hearts." l l. l l l. l l 313 Colonel Bagwell said, that he rose to support the motion of the noble lord, from a feeling that in so doing he should facilitate the question of Catholic emancipation. The great opponents of that question were the clergy of the established church; a class of men whose opinions, from early feelings and associations, he was bound to respect. He was born and educated in that church. For the purity of its doctrines, and the excellence of its institutions, he had the highest esteem; and nobody could appreciate more highly than he did the exemplary conduct and the unostentatious piety of those venerable persons of whom that church was composed. However, therefore, he might differ with them upon the present occasion, he was bound to respect their motives. He nevertheless could not help observing, that the opposition was confined to the clergy of England, and that not a single petition against the Catholic claims had been presented upon the part of the Pro- 314 Mr. L. Foster said, he was anxious to take 315 316 Mr. Hume said, he could not give a silent vote upon so important a proposition. The two questions, this and Catholic emancipation, were totally separate; and 317 l 318 l l l l l Mr. W. J. Bankes said, that the proposition of the noble lord appeared to him excessively unreasonable. He had himself admitted that he did not know whether it would meet the approbation of the Catholic clergy. There prevailed a great difference of opinion on that point amongst the witnesses examined before the committees of the two Houses. One of the Catholic bishops had stated, that possibly the clergy might be brought to agree to a stipendiary allowance, but another had declared, that he had much rather remain as he was. It was admitted on all hands, that the measure was not very agreeable to the lower orders of the Irish Catholics, who would never consider it a boon. It had been said, that any measure which went to make the clergy less dependent 319 l l 320 Mr. Thomas Courtenay said, he had always supported the great question of Catholic emancipation, on the broad ground, that there ought to be no political exclusion because of religious differences, and because there was no objection raised against the Catholics, which was not equally applicable to all other Dissenters. It was one thing, however, to restore all the king's subjects to an equality of rights, and another to take the clergy of any particular sect into our pay. The payment of the Catholic clergy might be just and necessary; but he should require other reasons to induce him to vote for it, than those adduced in support of Catholic emancipation. There was more affinity between the Protestant and the Catholic church than between the tenets of the Protestants and the Dissenters. The Catholics were not enemies to the Protestant establishment on abstract principles. He thought that they would not seek to subvert the Established Church, unless they hoped that they could substitute their own in its place [a laugh]. That was more than he could say for the Dissenters; who would destroy it if they could, even though they might not be able to substitute their own in its stead. But, he certainly thought, that the acquiescence of the House in the measure before it, would give the Roman Catholics reason to hope, that their church would, in time, become the established religion in Ireland. It 321 322 Lord George Cavendish said: —The hon. gentleman who has just sat down, has predicted of this proposition, that it would array the Catholic priesthood of Ireland in more formidable opposition to the Established Church. Now, if I thought that the Catholic priesthood had any intention of ever coping with the ministers of the national church—if I thought that there was a disposition to bring, for a moment, the great, splendid, overweening, or rather extended hierarchy of the Catholic persuasion in competition or collision with, I would be as backward as that hon. member in supporting this measure. I look to it only as a maintenance for the Catholic clergy. And; will any man say, that the question is not, whether six millions of Irish Catholics—the great proportion of the population of that country—are for ever to remain in a state of ignorance? I think that by giving their clergy, I do not say an ample, but a proper provision, you make them more enlightened, and enable theta more to enlighten their flocks. As you cannot put down the Catholic religion in Ireland, you ought to have proper pastors; and the best way to procure them, is to make such a provision for them as will render them respectable. In that view I support this, in common with the other measures, from which I expect the happiest results. The particular manner in which this measure is to be carried into effect has not yet been decided upon; but care will, of course, be taken to obviate the objections of preponderance on the one side or the other. You attribute much of the disorders of Ireland to the unenlightened state of the lower orders. Make their clergy respectable, and nothing can tend 323 Mr. Secretary Peel said, he had imagined, that all parties would agree in treating the present measure as totally distinct from the proposition for removing Catholic disabilities; and he, therefore, regretted that any attempt had been made to connect or couple the two questions together. What he should say on the subject would be extremely short. It was proposed, without—as he thought—any explanation, for the House broadly to declare, that it was expedient to provide by law for the future maintenance of the secular Roman Catholic clergy. We were to pay 250,000 l 324 1 l l 325 Mr. Wynn said, he thought that one of the great recommendations of Catholic emancipation was, that it was to be accompanied by some measure of this kind. There were many honourable members who supported the former for the sake of the latter; and, so convinced was he of the necessity of the great question, that if he thought he could make even one convert to it by the passing of the present measure, he would most cordially support it, and give precedence to this in order to pass it first, as an inducement to honourable members to consent to the other. His eight hon. friend had asked, why the two measures should be connected? He answered—the connexion was most politic. It was a connexion which 326 327 Mr. Marlin, of Galway said, that from what had fallen from the noble lord who had moved this question, and from some comments which had been made on his speech, one would naturally imagine that he had presented a petition from the Roman catholic archbishops, bishops, and clergy of Ireland, supplicating the House to make some provision for their support, out of the public purse. The fact was, however—and he spoke from a personal knowledge of the sentiments of most of the higher order of the Irish Catholic clergy—that they were by no means desirous of any such provision. They had much rather be without it; and, if they did consent to accept it, it was not on their own account, but from a wish that the general measure affecting their lay brethren might not be retarded, in consequence of any opposition on their part to one of its contingent arrangements. They themselves did not wish to be indebted to parliament for any grant whatever. This was the language of every member of the Irish Catholic hierarchy, and of all the clergy with whom he had conversed on this subject. In supporting this motion, therefore, he did not feel himself called upon to answer all the objections which had been urged against it. It was not his proposition: it was not the proposition of the supporters of the Catholic question: it was, in many instances, the measure of those who had previously opposed any concession to the Catholics, and who were disposed to withhold that concession, unless it should be accompanied by this measure. He did not, therefore, feel himself called upon to say what might or might not be its effects, That the Catholic clergy were sincere on this subject, he could not doubt, for they would lose by it a great portion of the influence which they now held over their flocks in Ireland; and, if they consented to any measure which would have that effect, it was because they felt it would forward the general measure of emancipation. The Catholic priesthood at present received 328 Mr. Spring Rice said, he would give his vote for the noble lord's motion; first, because he thought the Catholic clergy were more powerful in their influence than any other body of men in Ireland, and he should therefore wish to have them placed in amicable relation to the state; and next, because he thought the Catholic laity were poor, and ought to be relieved from the burthen of supporting their own clergy, being already by law bound to contribute so largely to the support of the Established Church. As a measure of finance, he thought it would, in this respect, be a most seasonable relief to the poor Catholics, by taking from them so heavy a burthen. He wee not one of those who thought it better to have no religion than the Catholic religion. He respected that mode of worship, not because it was Roman Catholic but because it was Christian; and he was anxious that where it existed, its moral precepts should be carefully inculcated by means of general instruction; and that instruction was, in a great degree, debarred by the want of funds among the Catholic clergy. As a friend to emancipation, he should wish to see this question carried; but as a friend to civil liberty, he would oppose it, if he thought its object was to give the government unlimited control over the Catholic clergy. In that case, the influence of government would be too great, and the influence of the priests for the purposes of instruction would be reduced. However, he did not believe that the pro- 329 Mr. Goulburn said, he did not mean to advert to the question with reference to the expense which it would entail on the country, as ha did not think that the sum of 250,000 l 330 l 331 Mr. Calcraft said, that if he entertained any doubts upon this subject, before he entered the House, they would have been removed by the right hon. gentleman who spoke last, and by the right hon. the Secretary for the Home Department. He now saw how thoroughly this measure connected itself with the great one of Catholic emancipation. The opposition of the two right hon. gentlemen must have arisen from thinking that the failure of the motion would contribute to the overthrow of the bill before the House, for the relief of the Catholics. The reason for confining the provision to the secular clergy was quite obvious; it was because they were the officiating parochial clergy of Ireland. He was prepared to vote for the great measure, unaccompanied either with this, or the other, relating to the franchise. It was, however, much better to take them together as a general arrangement. It was most singular that the two right hon. gentlemen should be the most craving for further information relative to the affairs of Ireland; they who, from their official situation, must have had the very best opportunities of obtaining it [hear! from Mr. Goulburn]. The right hon. gentleman said, "hear!" but, if there was any one man who discovered more ignorance than another of the affairs of Ireland, it was that right hon. gentleman. He had been left, the other night, in the greatest minority of Irish members, on a subject connected with that country, that was ever recollected in that House. As to the sum, it was trifling compared with the importance of the object to be obtained. So anxious was he to complete these measures of conciliation, that there was hardly any thing that could deter him from making the experiment. From the evidence in the report, and from the conversations he had had on the subject with many who were best acquainted with it, he had no doubt that these measures would be the seal and bond of tranquillity. in Ireland. If this measure had been proposed alone, sure he was, that many of 332 Mr. Creevey said, that he rose to oppose this resolution, for a reason which had not hitherto been adverted to in the course of the debate. He felt deeply for the wretched situation of the lower orders of the Irish peasantry, and for the aggravation which their poverty received, in consequence of the various sums they were called upon to pay to the Roman Catholic clergy. He should have no objection to see the Roman Catholic clergy properly remunerated; but to paying that remuneration out of the taxes of the Protestant people of England, he for one could never consent. He thought that the Roman Catholic clergymen might easily be paid out of the funds of Ireland itself. When he recollected that in Ireland there were six millions of Catholics, and that the remaining million of its population was equally divided between the established church and the dissenters, he did not see any reason why the funds of the established church should not be applied to the payment of its Catholic clergy. Why should great families be allowed to send their relations and their tutors out to Ireland, and to quarter them upon the rich livings of that country? He never would consent to make any provision for the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland, unless it were made out of the property of the established church. He would leave the two sects to settle the division between themselves. He would have nothing to do with it; but, this he would again say, that to tax the Protestants of England for any such object as was contemplated in this resolution, he never would for one moment give his consent. When he voted for Catholic emancipation, he voted for it, not as a favour, but as a matter of right. Mr. Brougham commenced his observations by apologizing to the House for trespassing upon its attention at that late hour, after the many protracted and exhausting debates to which they had listened during the last week. From the deep interest which he felt in the success of the Catholic cause, and from the part which he had taken in opposing the elective franchise bill, he deemed it necessary, in justice to the cause, and also to his own 333 334 335 336 Mr. Plunkett rose amid deafening cries of "question." He said, that he had only one observation to make to the House, and that he should not presume to make it at that stage of the debate, if it did not appear to him to possess some weight, and not to have been noticed by any of the speakers who had preceded him. With a great deal of what had fallen from his hon. and learned friend he fully concurred; and particularly with his last observation, that it was not dealing fairly with the Catholic question to consider this measure as a security against danger likely to accrue from conceding Catholic emancipation. He begged gentlemen who were anxious to support the Protestant ascendancy to listen to what he was now going to say. The hon. member for Aberdeen had, to a certain point, supported his opinion. He said, that he was sensible of the injustice and impolicy of leaving six millions of people without an adequate provision for their religious instruction. He agreed that these instructors ought to be paid. All that he objected to was the mode of paying them; and maintained, that the provisions shouldcome from the funds of the established church. Now, the advantage of this measure was, that it would be an answer to those who said it was most unfair that the Protestant clergy should be supported from tithes paid by the Roman Catholics. Because, if the Roman Catholics made such an objection, would they not have here a direct answer? Might they not say, "We, the Protestants, contribute to the maintenance of your church." Those, therefore, who might be alarmed as to the effect of concession on the established church in Ireland, should feel, that this measure would operate as a buttress to support it. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Monday, May 2. ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.] Mr. Plunkett rose to move the postponement of the order of the day; for the commitment of the Catholic Relief Bill. The House would give him leave to state the reason of this proposition. He begged, then, to say, that his hon. friend the member for Westminster (sir F. Burdett) was unable to attend in his place that night, in consequence of severe indisposition; but he was in every expectation of being able 337 Mr. Littleton wished to have his bill relative to the elective franchise of Ireland postponed to the same day as that which had just been mentioned. Lord Binning rose to correct a mis-statement which had gone abroad of what he had said on the second reading of the Catholic Relief bill. It had been stated, in several Edinburgh newspapers, that he had said, that, in his opinion, the destruction of the Protestant church in Ireland would be no great evil. He certainly had uttered no such sentiments; nor did he entertain them. He trusted the House would excuse him for setting himself right on this point, because nothing was more likely to injure him in the opinion of his countrymen, than a supposition that he felt any lukewarmness with respect to the Protestant church. Mr. Calcraft said, he was present when the noble lord had spoken on the occasion alluded to, and could undertake to say that he had uttered no such sentiments as those which had been attributed to him. BONDED CORN.] On the motion of Mr. Huskisson, that the House should resolve itself into a committee on the Importation of Corn acts, Mr. Curwen said, he would take that opportunity of calling the attention of the right hon. gentleman to some points which he had intended to suggest to him on a former evening when this subject was before the House. He wished to remind him particularly of the fact stated in almost all the petitions which had been presented, that there was a sufficient quantity of corn now in the country for the consumption of the present year. He trusted that the right hon. gentleman, in proposing to the House any measure on this subject, would state, either from some information on which he could rely, or from his own belief, or upon some other satisfactory grounds, that a want of corn was likely to be experienced; as that could alone, in his opinion, justify an alteration in the present system. Unless the right hon. gentleman should be able to do this, he, however reluctantly, must oppose his resolutions. He had no doubt that any regulation which should have the 338 Mr. Curteis said, it was the general opinion here and in Ireland, that the produce would be amply sufficient for all the wants of the country in the present year. To propose any alteration which should have the effect of reducing the present price of corn would, he thought, under such circumstances, be a breach of faith with the farmers. In the present state of the House he should be sorry to have a topic of this importance decided; but, he should be very glad to hear what the right hon. gentleman had to propose, and to take it into consideration on some future day. Mr. Huskisson said, that after the discussion which this subject had undergone in the course of the last week, it would not be necessary for him to enter into any long discussion upon it. He wished only to bring before the consideration of the House, the law relating to foreign corn as it now stood, and the facts which were connected with that law, in order that they might both be distinctly understood. They were, then, simply these. In the year 1815, an act was passed, by which all foreign corn was prohibited from being admitted into the ports of Great Britain whenever the average prices should be under 80s. per quarter. A subsequent act of 1822, left the last act unaltered; but it provided, that foreign corn should be admitted when English corn had reached 70s. per quarter, upon payment of 17s. per quarter. This was the state of the law at the present moment, with regard to this description of corn. It had occured to him, and also to others who had paid attention to the subject, that under the present circumstances, looking to the high price which corn had reached, and to the deterioration which the corn now in the warehouses and under bond was likely to suffer, it was desirable that some facility should be afforded to the admission of that corn for home consumption, until the supply which the next harvest would afford should be available. This view was taken, not for the benefit of the individual 339 340 341 Mr. Baring contended, that his opinions with respect to the Corn laws had undergone no alteration since the period to which the right hon. gentleman alluded. What he objected to at that time was, not a due protection of the landed interest, but an undue increase of that protection. 342 343 Mr. J. Benett approved of the project of bringing the bonded corn to market, but objected to a duty so low as lOs., on the ground that the importers would put the difference between that and the present importing duty into their own pockets. The difference from 10s. to 17s. on the stock in hand had been calculated at 140,000l. Now, he saw no reason for giving such a boon to the holders of bonded corn. If they were allowed to bring the corn at all to market, it ought to be on terms as little prejudicial as possible to the agricultural interests. He deprecated a reduction of the duties, under any apprehension of a rise of prices, for that he regarded as very improbable. An allusion to such apprehension was often attended with bad effects in the market; and if it was stated in that House, that it would be difficult to provide corn until the new corn came in, it would tend to raise the price of corn. He saw no reason for departing from the present duty of 17s., and should, therefore, suggest that that duty should not be altered. Mr. Leslie Foster believed that the letting in the bonded corn at that moment, at any and at whatever duty, would be the best thing that could be done for the benefit of the home grower. For, if once the ports were opened, which would certainly be the case if this measure did not pass, the whole six years' accumulation of wheat which was now lying in the ports of Poland would be poured in upon us, and give a shock to the landed interest which it would be years in recovering. The corn to which he alluded was now selling on the continent for 20s. a quarter: freight and insurance included, it could 344 General Gascoyne supported the admission of the bonded corn, and contended that it was an aid given to the land-owners, rather than any benefit to the public. No man in that House would say, there was a sufficiency of corn in the country, to supply the home market till the next harvest. He was of opinion that, even at l0s duty, the corn let in would not be brought to market, but would be kept to take the chance of higher prices. He therefore moved as an amendment, that the admission duty should be 8s. only. Mr. J. Benett said, in explanation, that his only objection was, to give this great boon to the corn importers. Mr. Sykes approved of the principle. Considering the losses which the importers must have sustained, they were entitled to this permission to dispose of their corn. The revenue was not sought to be benefitted by this measure; end he therefore saw no reason why the best terms should not be given the corn-holders. The duty of 10s. appeared exorbitant. He thought 5s. sufficient. Sir Mountague Cholmeley in reply to what had fallen from the gallant general, who had asserted, that no man in this House would venture to say there was a sufficiency of corn in the country to supply the home market till the next harvest said: I rise to assure the hon. House, that I entertain no apprehension on that subject. I will now give the House my reasons. I live in a corn country, where I have resided the greater part of the last winter amongst a very intelligent body of agriculturists who have assured me, that the late harvest was superabundant; was considerably more than an average crop, and would exceed the supply of former years. We know by the returns made to this House, that, during the last six years, the average price not exceeding 5Ss. the supply has been equal to the demand, and no importation has been allowed. Whence, then, arise any apprehensions now? It is the practice in the county of Lincoln, and those counties more distant from the metropolis, to defer thrashing out their wheats, till the counties nearer the great mart fur corn are exhausted. In aid of 345 346 Relief Mr. Alderman Thompson protested against a high duty, on the ground that whatever the duty was, it attached to the price of the article, pro tanto, and, in effect, fell upon the consumer. It appeared to him that a duty of 5s. ought to serve all purposes. Besides the consideration of keeping down the price of corn, by bringing this bonded grain to market, there was another which struck him as forcibly, recommendatory of this measure, and that was the capital, estimated at a million, locked up in this corn. Upon that ground alone it was the duty of the House to take measures for putting that large capital into circulation. He concluded by moving, as a second amendment, the reduction of this duty to 5s. Mr. Farrand saw no reason why there should be any duty at all imposed on this corn. Whatever the duty was, it fell eventually upon the consumer. He moved, as a third amendment, that the corn be taken out of bond duty free. Colonel Wood objected to a reduced duty, as it looked like a beginning to make an alteration in the Corn laws. He was quite sure that if the corn rose to 70s., these holders would bring their stock to market. He protested against any alteration in the Corn laws, and recommended gentlemen to withdraw all the amendments. Mr. Cripps supported the resolution. He had not a doubt the effect would be, that the whole of the bonded grain would come into the market as soon as the law allowed the operation. It was true that corn had risen within the last few days, and that event was naturally to be attributed to the result of the decision on the motion of the hon. member for Bridgnorth. There was every prospect, from the weather and the state of the crops, of a good harvest. He wished the hon. members would withdraw their amendments, and allow the resolution to pass unanimously. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that as far as be could judge of the sense of the House, it was in favour of making 10s. the rate of duty. As the measure proposed was intended as a boon, he did not think that the holders of the bonded corn lad any right to complain. If he thought the duty of 10s. 347 Mr. Handley expressed his concurrence in the proposition of the right hon. gentleman, as far as the 10s. duty on bonded corn; but he could not approve the plan for importing wheat from Canada at the intended low duty. Mr. J. Maxwell said, that though he was a county member, and connected with the agricultural interest, he would never support, in that House, a protecting duty, which was detrimental to the interests of the other great classes of the community. Looking, however, at the farmer as a manufacturer of grain, he did not think him so entitled to the same protection against foreign competition, as other manufacturers received. He thought he ought to be protected to the extent of the poor rates, and the particular duties drawn from agriculture. Mr. Monck said, he understood the high duties to be sought for, for the protection of the country gentlemen; because, as the House was informed, they were men who lived on their estates, spent their money in the country, and were also most valuable to the state by acting as unpaid magistrates. Truly, all these were most important services; but he did not see that they were altogether unrequited. From the calculations which had been made, it appeared, that the effect of the present Corn laws was, to raise the price of the quarter of wheat to 70s., and that without them it would not exceed 50s. Now, taking our consumption at 11 millions of quarters, as was contended by some hon. members, here was a duty upon the great body of the people of 14 millions, for the benefit of the country gentlemen. He did not mean to say that their services were overpaid; but after this, lie hoped no man would assert that they were wholly unpaid. He should support the original resolution, because he felt that the country in general would derive benefit from it. Mr. Huskisson said, he had not adverted to the quantity of corn in the country. He had most cautiously guarded himself 348 Mr. Western said, that if he concurred in the proposition at all, it would be in the terms of the original resolution. On the general question of the Corn laws, he would observe, that on the whole their practical consequences had been beneficial to the country. It had been prognosticated, that after the passing of those laws, corn would never be under 80s. a quarter. The events that had occurred were the most conclusive answer. Besides, notwithstanding the numerous imputations thrown out against the landed interests, rents had been, since that time, consider- 349 Mr. Hume positively denied that the whole country was satisfied with the present state of the Corn laws. In the name of the manufacturing interest, he protested against any such assumption. Mr. Leslie Foster observed, that the resolution stood on a very different footing, from the last. The question to be determined was, what was the amount of duty that ought to be imposed? Now, the proposed resolution assumed at once, that 5s. a quarter on Canadian wheat was the fit and proper duty. It might be so; but some previous investigation was surely necessary. If we were prepared at once to say, that 5s. a quarter was the proper duty on wheat imported from Canada, why were we not prepared to settle the whole corn question, and to say that 10s. or 15s. was the proper duty on wheat imported from Dantzic? It was said, that the average price of wheat in Canada was 38s., the freight would be 12s.; and it was now proposed to add a duty of 5s., making altogether only 55s. And, besides, how did they know that 38s. was actually the average price of wheat in Canada? It might turn out, that the average price was much less. Parliament ought to have evidence on these points, before any thing was determined upon. With regard to the question respecting the duty on foreign wheat, it would be necessary first to ascertain the price of foreign wheat. He had a document in, his possession which would show what had been the experience on that point of some of our neighbours. Rotterdam lad been for some years supplying itself with corn wherever it could get it cheapest. It was a fair conclusion, that whatever was the price of wheat at Rotterdam, was the price at which foreign wheat, if not subject to any duty, might have been sold in London; the expense 350 The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that his hon. Friend expressed himself at a loss to comprehend on what principle Canadian corn was to be allowed to be imported into this country on terms different from those required with reference to the corn of other countries. The principle was clear: Canada was a colony belonging to this country; the Canadians were our fellow-subjects, and were entitled to our peculiar favour and protection. If his hon. friend's argument were good against Canada, it would have been good against Ireland in 1806. If the subject was to be looked at in so narrow a point of view, the free importation of corn from Ireland in 1806 ought to have created great alarm. But, had we no motives to induce us to deal liberally by our colonies? Did his hon. friend forget the state of the different colonies in the world? Did he forget what had led to the alienation of the Spanish colonies from the mother country? Among the principal causes of that alienation were the measures adopted by the Spanish government to prevent the cultivation of the vine, and to cramp colonial industry. By such policy Spain had lost 351 Mr. Newman said, he was favourable to the importation of corn from Canada, but great precautions ought to be taken to prevent our receiving the corn of the United States instead of that of our own colony. He was informed, that, in contemplation of the present measure, cargoes of corn had been sent from Europe, in order to be reshipped from Canada to this country. Any attempt of this kind ought to be strictly watched. Colonel Wood said, he could not give his assent to the present resolution. If we adopted it, although only with reference to Canada, there was an end to the principle of our Corn laws. At present, according to those laws, when our wheat rose to 67s. a quarter, our ports were open to wheat from Canada: when it rose to 80s. to wheat from foreign countries. Instead of breaking down this principle, let the price of 67s. if it were thought too high, be lowered. Let it be lowered to 50s., or to any other sum; but let us not entirely depart from the present system of our Corn laws, by enacting, that whatever may be the price of wheat in this country, our ports shall be open to Canadian wheat at a duty of five shillings a quarter. All that the agriculturists wanted was a fair protecting duty; and it was the interest of all classes of the community that they should have it. 352 Mr. Baring supported the resolution, on the grounds which had been so well stated by the chancellor of the Exchequer. There was no fear that European corn would go to Canada, to be sent from thence to this country: as the freight would be too high to render such a speculation profitable. Nor would there be any difficulty in preventing the importation of corn into Canada, from the United States, as it must pass a broad river, and any attempt of the kind might easily be detected. Mr. Huskisson could not admit the existence of any of the dangers which hon. gentlemen seemed to apprehend. As to Canada, what was the situation of that colony four years ago? They sent us corn in return for our manufactured goods; but their bills were protested, for we put their corn under lock. Was it to be expected that the inhabitants of the colony, having the feelings of Englishmen, could submit to a continuation of such treatment? It was our interest to behave towards them with the utmost liberality. He confessed himself the more surprised at the alarm which had been expressed by hon. members with respect to the object of this resolution, as it was six weeks since he had mentioned his intention of submitting it to the House; and as not the slightest apprehension had been expressed on the subject in a single petition among the many which had been presented from all parts of the kingdom. Mr. Newman said, be had been informed that a vessel had been chartered at Hamburgh with corn to go to America, and then return to England, bringing that corn into the English market. The idea, therefore, of corn being exported to Canada and imported into England was not wholly void of foundation, as the hon. gentleman seemed to imagine. Mr. Lockhart opposed the resolution, and contended, on the authority of Tacitus, that it was not the interest of the mother country to extend too much protection to the agriculture of a colony. That historian, related that, during a famine in the reign of Claudius, it was discovered that there were only fifteen days' provision in Rome. This created considerable consternation, and Tacitus in describing it mentioned, with great regret and indignation, that in consequence of certain immunities granted to the colonies, Italy, which had formerly exported corn to all her provinces, was left at the mercy 353 DISSENTERS' MARRIAGES BILL.] Mr. W. Smith moved the further consideration of the report on this bill. On the motion that, the Speaker do now leave the chair, Mr. Robertson opposed it. He contended, that the Protestant Dissenters were not entitled to the privileges which this bill would bestow upon them, because they were not even so much of Christians as the Mahometans. These Protestant, Dissenters denied the divine mission of Christ, which the Mahometans admitted; in proof of this position, the hon. member read several passages from the Koran. He then proceeded to show that even the Jews were better Christians than the Dissenters, and concluded by moving, that this report be taken into consideration this day six months. Mr. W. Smith in the committee, said he would not reply to the hon. member's observations, for the hon. member shewed himself equally unacquainted with the measure before the House, and with the principles of the Dissenters. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Tuesday, May 3. COMBINATION LAWS.] Mr. Cartwright rose to present a petition from the master boot and shoemakers of the town of Northampton, relative to the Combination Laws. The petitioners complained strongly of the insubordination of the workmen. They stated, that, some weeks ago, many of the workmen struck for an advance of wages, and remained out of employment for five weeks. The masters then complied with their demand, and all went on satisfactorily for a short time. Since that arrangement, however, the journeymen had struck for a further advance. They had formed themselves into clubs and societies; made various 354 Mr. Huskisson said, that the hon. gentleman had asked him, whether it was intended to propose any measure this session on a subject which, he agreed with the hon. member, deserved the serious attention of the House—he meant the present state of the country, with regard to the conduct of the workmen, whose practices in forming combinations, were extending themselves to every part of the kingdom. The House were aware that a committee was sitting up stairs, for the purpose of investigating the effect produced by the law of last session. That committee was pursuing its labours with all proper vigilance, and would, he trusted, make a report to the House without the intervention or any great delay. He admitted, with the hon. member, that it was a subject which pressed for decision. It was not his wish, nor that of any gentleman on that committee, to interfere with the meetings, or combinations, as they were called, of those individuals, so far as related to the amount of their own wages. They were at liberty to take all proper means to secure that remuneration for their labour to which they conceived they were entitled—considering the circumstances of a greater demand for labour, or a greater expense incurred in the purchase of provisions. Under circumstances of this nature, they might reasonably ask for larger wages; but they did not stop here. They combined for purposes of the most unjustifiable description: they combined to dictate to their masters the 355 Lord Althorp said, that in the amended law of last session, there was an important omission. It had been forgotten to define clearly what should be the nature of those threats, held out either to masters or to journeymen, that would enable the parties who conceived themselves aggrieved to prosecute. He believed the insubordination was not confined to Northampton. It had extended to Daventry; and, indeed, all over the country. Some alteration should be made in the law, to secure from the effects of threats those workmen who were willing to labour, but who were prevented by an influence of which the present law did not take cognizance. 356 Mr. E. Ellice said, that a report would come down in the course of a few days, from the committee who were investigating this subject; the suggestions contained in which, would, no doubt, have their due weight with the House. Nothing could be more satisfactory than what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman, who had stated, that no intention existed to re-enact the combination laws. Much of the conduct of those people was, he allowed, perfectly unjustifiable. The House ought, however, to recollect the state from which they had been so suddenly relieved; and if the subject were fairly considered, it could not be doubted that the alteration had, in some instances, created great inconvenience, before a just idea of all the effects of the new system could be formed. He was happy to find that it was not intended to call for the re-enactment of the combination laws; and he hoped that whatever measure might be proposed, the interests of the workmen would be well weighed and protected, and that they would not, as before, be exposed to the oppression of the masters. General Gascoyne said, he was not quite satisfied with the statement of the right hon. gentleman. He said, that no intention of renewing the combination laws existed; but, there were other points on which the working classes were equally, if not more anxious. A strong sensation had been produced by a rumour which had gone forth that it was the intention of the committee to interfere with societies and associations called Benefit Societies. Such a measure would excite a much stronger sensation than the mere re-enactment of the combination laws. In many of the petitions which had been presented to the House against the re-enactment of those laws, the petitioners denied that they had taken any part in the illegal combinations that had been spoken of; and they very fairly called upon the House not to visit the errors of the few upon the many. Now, he would ask, was it not justifiable, fair, and legal, if men thought they were entitled to larger wages than they received, to unite together for the purpose of accomplishing their object? Had they not a right to assemble in order that they might the more effectually solicit an increase of wages, provided they committed no act of outrage or violence? In his mind, they had a just right to express their 357 Mr. Maberly was sure that what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman would be satisfactory to the House, and to the public at large. Undoubtedly the working-classes had a right to ask for wages in proportion as the price of provisions was enhanced, or as there was a greater demand for labour; but, it was equally true, that they had no right to combine for the purpose of dictating to an employer how he should select his workmen, what number of apprentices he might employ, or whether he might employ an apprentice at all. He understood that a notice had been sent round to the manufacturers in Aberdeen, forbidding them to take any apprentices whatever. If this were the case, it was a most unjustifiable proceeding. It had nothing to do with the rate of wages, but was a dictation to the master, as to the way in which he was to conduct his business. Mr. Philips said, it had been asserted, that when the combination laws were re- 358 Mr. Hume said, he believed that what the House wanted was impartial information on this subject. They had as yet received tales from one party, and from one party only; and he would take upon himself to say, that so far as the committee had gone, every inquiry tended to do away with the impression which had been previously made on that House. No excesses had been committed except in Dublin, and there, instead of twenty, only two lives were lost. He would leave Dublin out of the question, and would say, that the evidence before the committee proved that the character of the combination amongst the workmen was entirely changed. Instead of outrage and violence, peace and order appeared in their proceedings. He wished to see the workmen act properly, and therefore lie condemned, in the strongest terms, their interference with apprentices, as being entirely contrary to the principle of that freedom of action which they themselves demanded, and which they had gained. Much had been said about the combination of the men; but, was a combination amongst them ever heard of, without there being also a combination amongst the masters? Would not any landholder in that House, who was selling his wheat for 45 s. s. s. s d 359 s d Mr. Philips in explanation, said, that in consequence of the repeal of those laws, great excesses had occurred. He was an advocate for altering them; but he was at the same time of opinion, that the repeal of the laws would not put an end to all combinations, and his opinion was correct. The hon. gentleman had said, that no acts of violence had been committed. Need he remind him of what had taken place at Glasgow. Sir M. W. Ridley said, he could not allow it to be asserted that the committee had uniformly arrived at that opinion which the hon. member seemed to suppose they entertained. He wished the labouring classes to get as much as they, could, by fair and proper means. They had a right to do so. He would not regulate labour, either by a maximum or a minimum. It was fair that individual labour should have its just reward: but it was another thing, if the workmen proceeded by threats and intimidation. It was a very different matter, if they stepped out of their sphere, and compelled people to work by such and such rules as they pleased. When they adopted that system, it was high time for the House to interfere. He did not wish to forestall the debates to which this question must give rise, nor to state the evidence given before the committee; but he must observe, that those who demanded a quick decision on this subject, ought to recollect that it was necessary to hear both sides. It was necessary, after they had heard those who were complaining, that they should then hear the workmen in their own behalf. With respect to what the gallant general had said, he would merely observe, that not a word about regulating benefit societies had occurred in the committee. What the committee might hereafter recom- 360 Lord A. Hamilton said, he was surprised when gentlemen declared that they had heard of no violence. To his knowledge, one man was now at the point of death, in consequence of the beating he had received from the colliers of Stirling, because he had ventured to take lower wages than the members of the combination thought fit to accept. One of the weavers of Glasgow had also been sentenced to a public whipping, and to transportation for life, for an attempt at assassination. The learned judge before whom he was tried stated, that if lord Ellen-borough's act had extended to Scotland, he would have been sentenced to death. He was a friend to the workmen; and he now spoke in behalf of that large body of individuals, who had taken, or who were ready to take, less wage than the associators thought they should. He called on the House and the country to protect them in the right—a right which was denied them by the combined workmen—of appreciating what their labour was worth. He could not see what was going on in Stirlingshire, Renfrewshire and Lanarkshire, between two classes of workmen, without feeling the necessity of adopting some measure for the protection of those who were now oppressed by their fellows. On the principle, that every man had a right to bring his labour to the best market, he stood up in defence of a class of persons who were not permitted to do so, but were kept back by threats and violence. On the very same principle which hon. members had advanced when they demanded the repeal of those laws, did he now call on them to protect this wronged class of persons, who were not suffered to work, because they were willing to accept a smaller remuneration than those who were combined together. The combination was not only injurious to the liberties of a large body of workmen, but was exceedingly prejudicial to the interests of the masters, and of the country in general. Mr. Baring expressed his hope, that his right hon. friend would not give any answer to the question which had been put to him; because at that moment the inquiry, on which any future proceeding would be founded, was going on in the committee. The measure of last year had passed through the House with a very 361 ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.] Mr. Denman said, he held in his hand a petition in favour of the Catholic Claims, from the corporation of Nottingham; whose members, in common with many gentlemen in that House, had been made converts to that cause by the lights and information which had been recently afforded on that question. It was well known that this was a whig corporation, and that it had been at the Revolution the very first corporation to congratulate king William on his arrival in this country. He was happy, therefore, to see such a body petitioning parliament for the removal of those laws, which might have been rendered necessary by the circumstances of the time, but Which there was no longer an excuse for continuing. They prayed the House, that the Catholics should be admissible to the fullest possible extent of privileges which the constitution could confer; and, as they claimed the right of serving their country in every station which they shall be found fit to fill, so would they open the door equally to all classes of his majesty's subjects to do the same. The petitioners were quite satisfied that the penal laws now in force were unjust and unnecessary. They discovered danger only in the withholding of the measure. They called for no securities, being perfectly persuaded that none were required. Should any measures of regulation be thought necessary by parliament to accompany the bill of relief, they would leave it to the legislature to provide those measures. But, whatever might be the opinion of parliament, on that point, they should not change their conviction of the necessity and policy of granting the mea- 362 HOUSE OF COMMONS. Wednesday, May 4. COMBINATION LAWS.] Sir M. W. Ridley presented a petition, numerously signed by shipwrights and mariners of Kingston-upon-Hull, against the Combination laws, and praying that the petitioners might be heard before the committee appointed to inquire into the effect of their repeal. Mr. Sykes heartily concurred in the prayer of the petitioners. It would, indeed, be great injustice, if the committee now sitting up stairs, and taking a great deal of evidence from the masters, should take none from their journeymen. At present, these shipwrights and seamen were in a state of the most cruel alarm. 363 General Gascoyne said, he had several petitions to present on the same subject. The petitioners stated, that no combinations existed among them now, of a character different from that which usually attached to former combinations. They complained of the necessity which the high price of corn imposed upon them, of demanding proportionate wages for their labour; and expressed an apprehension, that parliament intended to examine into their funds. Now, upon this intention, which he thought it would be exceedingly impolitic to act on, he had put a question to his right hon. colleague, and having received no answer to it, he was rather disposed to listen to the apprehensions of these petitioners. He could not go the whole length with the petitioners, as to the rights claimed by them. On the other hand, he did think that journeymen or seamen, if they thought they did not receive sufficient wages, had a right to strike, and carry their labour to a better market; but he could not allow that they had any right to dictate to their masters what men they should employ, or the wages they should give. Sir M. W. Ridley begged it might be distinctly understood, that in the committee up stairs, the question of benefit societies, to which the gallant general had made allusion, had never been discussed. 364 Mr. Denman rose to present a petition from the mechanics of Walsall, praying that the House would not re-enact the combination laws. As it hail been stated, that no intention existed to bring those laws again into operation, he should not say any thing on that subject; but he begged to call the attention of the House particularly to that part of the petition, in which the petitioners stated that they believed many of the allegations made before the committee now sitting were not true; and requested, even supposing that they were true, that the errors of the few might not be visited on the many. He conceived that a more just request could not be preferred to parliament. On a former occasion he had stated, that, in his opinion, the statutory provisions created by the combination laws, which had been repealed, were unnecessary for the punishment of the offence of combination, where it was so conducted as to call for punishment. To that opinion he still adhered. He thought that the common law of' England was quite sufficient to punish any substantive offence committed by the workmen against their employers. It seemed to him to be of importance that the House should not appear to prejudge this question, on one side or on the other; and therefore he had heard with great pleasure, on the preceding evening, the declaration made by several gentlemen, that they would keep their minds perfectly free from prejudice. But, he confessed he was a good deal surprised when an hon. member (Mr. Baring) spoke of the repeal of the combination laws, as a most crude and hasty measure, and one that was calculated to create immense evil. This, he conceived, was advancing a very hasty opinion on what had been done, and indicated a readiness to prejudge the question. The measure adopted, it should be observed, was not adopted in a hurry. A long and serious consideration was given to the subject, before the committee decided that those laws ought to be repealed. His opinion was, that, combina- 365 Mr. Hume said, that the proposition for a summary process did not originate with him: so far as regarded himself, he 366 Mr. Secretary Peel observed, that as this subject was now before the committee, he should offer no remarks on what ought to be done. It was infinitely better, he thought, to postpone any observations on the prospective measures, until the report of the committee, and the evidence on which it was founded, were laid before the House. He certainly never inferred from what the learned gentleman had stated, that it was his opinion, that the common law of the land was sufficient for punishing any offence which the workmen might commit in endeavouring to 367 Mr. Scarlett said, he had always been of opinion, that the House should have paused, and most maturely weighed the measure, before they agreed to the repeal of those acts. When his hon. friend the member for Aberdeen, consulted him on this subject, he stated it to be his opinion, and to that opinion he still adhered, that the common law provided sufficiently for putting down combination, properly so called. But, when he afterwards looked at the act which had been passed last 368 Mr. Baring said, that after what had fallen from his hon. friends, he felt it necessary to request the attention of the House for a few minutes. He certainly still retained the opinion which he had expressed on the preceding evening; namely, that the sudden repeal of the combination laws, considering; particularly the terms in which they were repealed, had been productive of the greatest possible mischief. It was impossible not to see, from what was going on in the world, that instead of the system of combination being mitigated by that repeal, it had been extended to a degree which seriously threatened not only the peace of the country, but the destruction of all its great interests. No person, with his eyes open, could doubt this. Many of the workmen who had been examined before the committee up stairs were most respectable persons. More prudence, sense, and good conduct, he never raw displayed in his life, than was manifested by them; and the manner in which they gave their evidence proved how far information had made its way amongst that class of the community. But, they seemed to think it a praiseworthy thing to loin in those combined bodies, and to direct their masters how to carry on their trade. Now, surely, it could not be expected that men in business would submit to this. Whether the mere restoration of the common law would be sufficient to meet this evil, 369 Mr. Hudson Gurney said, it had been most clearly proved before the committee, that the combination laws did not prevent the evils complained of. He could not, therefore, be of opinion, that the repeal of those laws could have had the effect of increasing combination. Mr. John Williams said, he would not pronounce any opinion as to the propriety of permitting the ancient common law of the country to be revived with reference to this subject. If it were true, that since the repeal of the combination laws there had been an increase of combination through the country, he could only draw one conclusion from the circumstance;— namely, that all legislative interference was vain. It appeared that offenders were still liable to punishment, where they broke out into acts of violence. Now, he did not believe one word of the state- 370 Mr. Sykes defended the conduct of the last committee from the charge of precipitation, which had been brought against it, by the right hon. Secretary. He begged leave to warn the House how they legislated on this subject; since, so long as there was human society, combination would undoubtedly exist. Mr. Secretary Peel denied that he had attributed precipitation to the committee. They had sat for fifty days, which was a proof that they were not precipitate. 371 Sir J. Newport said, the great ground of complaint was, that those parties not only regulated what they would take themselves, but wished to compel others to do precisely as they did. Now, this was any thing but freedom of trade. It was true they used no violence; but they resorted to such inducements as effectually prevented a free decision on the part of those to whom they applied. Let the House look to the extent to which this system was carried in Ireland. When any body of men combined there for wages, and wished to prevent others from working, they did not use their own individual force to effect that object, but employed branches of other trades who were not in immediate action, and made them the instruments for punishing those who refused to obey their orders. Such a state of things could not exist without doing material injury. Every person should be at liberty to demand the value of his own labour; but no individual had a right to say, "I will not work under such a rate of wages, and therefore you, though willing, shall not." He could not help thinking, that the clause which had been referred to contained very soft words, which would almost have the effect of inducing individuals to combine, and to withdraw themselves when they pleased from the contracts they had entered into. The system which was now carried on would not only be injurious to those who were forced to quit their employment, but to the interests of the parties who combined. if men combined, and demanded wages, 372 Mr. Denman expressed his concurrence in what had been said regarding the word inducement used in the report. He thought it far better to leave the matter to the old common law, since legislation appeared totally useless. Mr. Scarlett said, that in Yorkshire he had often been consulted en the subject, and had always advised the parties to proceed by the common law. He agreed, that none of the statutes, giving summary remedies, had answered the purpose for which they were intended. Mr. Hume was of opinion, that combination ought to be allowed, while it was unattended with violence or intimidation. The whole bar, in fact, conspired only to take a certain rate of fees. If any barrister consented to take less, he was immediately sent to Coventry by the whole profession. Such instances had occurred, and with one at Bombay he had been particularly acquainted. Mr. Secretary Peel said, it was quite obvious that some regulation was necessary. Not two hours elapsed in any day that he did not receive a communication on this subject. As a specimen of them, he would state the last which had just come to his hands. It was a set of resolutions adopted, on the 13th of November 1824, by the operative coal-miners, who, after appointing a regular delegated body, ordained, that no person should be allowed to work as a coal-miner, unless he had been engaged in the trade from the age of sixteen. This, and other resolutions, were said to be adopted in order "to support the welfare of the profession " [a laugh]. This was an abominable assumption of power, the effect of which was opposed to the interests of the country generally, and would eventually bring down ruin on the manufacturers themselves. Mr. Hume presented a petition from 6,000 operative mechanics of Birmingham, against any change in the Combination laws. He admitted that the proceedings to which the right hon. gentleman had referred, were extremely ridiculous, and might prove very detrimental to the interests of the parties, He felt satisfied, 373 HOUSE OF LORDS. Thursday, May 5th. ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.] After numerous petitions had been presented to the House, both for and against the Concession to the Catholics, Earl Grosvenor said, he would call their lordships' attention to the petition from Portland, which he had not an opportunity of doing sooner. That petition had been brought forward, as he was informed, by persons who had taken a great deal of trouble to procure petitions against the Catholics. It purported to speak the sentiments of the inhabitants of the island of Portland, but it did no such thing. The recorder of Weymouth, Mr. Bankes, had been exceedingly active in the business. The people were hastily summoned on a Saturday evening, and told that they must sign the petition immediately, in order that it might be forwarded. It was, however, signed but by a very small proportion of the inhabitants of the island; and some who had been frightened by the ghost of the bloody queen Mary to put their names to the petition, now very much regretted their weakness. Indeed, according to the information he had received, this petition might, with much more propriety, be regarded as the petition of the earl of Eldon and Mr. Bankes, than that of the inhabitants of Portland. The Lord Chancellor said, that the course adopted with respect to the Catholic claims was not a little singular. Some time ago, because no petitions were presented, it was said that the people of this country took no interest in the question; but now, because not only the table was covered with petitions, but the repositories of the House filled with them, until it was almost impossible to tell how to dispose of them, it was asserted that they did not express the opinion of the public. Some noble lord every night repeated an account he had received of the manner in which some petition had been got up; but it generally proved, as he believed was the case in the present instance, that the information was incorrect. He had on a 374 HOUSE OF COMMONS. Thursday, May 5. REPEAL OF THE DUTIES ON BEER.] After sundry petitions had been presented against the Duties on Beer, Mr. Maberly rose, pursuant to notice, to submit to the House a proposition for the repeal of the Duties on Beer. He observed, he said, with satisfaction the many applications which had been made to the House, praying that those duties should be removed; but, if there were not a single petition before the House on this subject, still he thought parliament was bound to alter the system which now prevailed, and to grant relief to the great body of the people. It was the duty of the legislature to act with impartiality; and he would say, that if ever there was a statute passed that was partial in its operation and contrary to justice, it was that which imposed the existing duties on beer. He had heard the chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. the pre- 375 s l l s s s s 376 s s d l l 377 l s s 378 d d 379 Mr. Brougham said, that in rising to second the motion of his hon. friend, he could add little to what had been so ably urged by him. He felt, however, compelled to mention once again, in addition to the hardship on the poor man of paying 50 s s 380 The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he had been compelled to oppose the former motions of the hon. gentleman, because there was nothing in the subject which required an examination by a com- 381 l l s 382 383 s d l Mr. Bernal supported the motion. He maintained, that private brewing was very little resorted to by the peasantry of this country; and that the beer consumed by the operative classes throughout the kingdom, was furnished by the public breweries. There was no ground, therefore, for one of the arguments on which the right hon. gentleman had relied. He called upon the chancellor of the Exchequer to bring to the consideration of this subject, that candour and fairness which he exercised upon every other, and he had no doubt that he would soon see the necessity of carrying the measure of his hon. friend. Mr. Wodehouse said, he still maintained the position for which he had always contended, that the transfer of the duty to the malt would not cheapen the article to the poor man, owing to his want of skill and capital. This he would prove by the test of cows and pigs. Let the grains of a private brewer, suppose of the hon. gentleman opposite, and those of the public brewer be placed before cows or pigs, and they would go to the grains of the hon. gentleman, because they contain more nourishment, and of course the beer less. So would the poor man naturally drink the beer of the public brewer; be- 384 Mr. Hume contended, that consistently with the principles avowed by the right hon. the chancellor of the Exchequer, the duty on malt was one of the first taxes to the reduction of which he ought to have directed his attention. He was inclined to try the experiment; and he thought the Exchequer would rather be benefitted than injured by the plan; at the same time that it would have the effect of putting the rich and the poor on an equality. Colonel Davies said, he should prefer a reduction of the duty of 5 s l Mr. C. Smith deprecated the adoption of any measure that had the effect of causing the poor to pay more than the rich. Mr. J. Benett objected to the shifting of the tax, and would much rather hear of a proposition for a reduction of it; and if a deficiency should take place, the chancellor of the Exchequer might find out a mode of supplying it, by looking to the sinking fund. He could not see that any benefit would arise to the poor from the proposed plan. Mr. Herries expressed his opinion, that any extension of the system of drawbacks should be avoided as much as possible. He considered it a most important object to the public, at least throughout the parts of the country remote from the competition of the metropolis, that every individual had the power of brewing his own beer. In such an article of general consumption that power was a great security against the evil consequences of monopoly. In answer to what had fallen from the hon. member for Aberdeen, he begged to say, that his right hon. friend the chancellor of the Exchequer, did not pledge himself to bring forward the subject next session, in the view taken of it by the hon. member for Abingdon. Mr. Alderman Wood contended that the humble classes of society were entitled to the same consideration, in point of the remission of taxes, as the opulent. They had reduced the duties generally on foreign wines. On that principle, then, could they deny a reduction of the duties 385 Mr. Monck agreed in the suggestion of the worthy alderman, and trusted his hon. friend would amend his motion, and propose the duty to be five shillings per barrel on beer. Should the chancellor of the Exchequer acquiesce, he was persuaded the revenue would be a considerable gainer, in consequence of the increased consumption. Another advantage would follow the reduction, that scarcely any beer would be brewed at home; where in general a more imperfect extract was obtained than at the public breweries. Mr. Robertson deprecated any reduction of the sinking fund in the present state of the world, when both France and the United States of America were endeavouring to reduce the public debt. Mr. Cresset Pelham opposed the motion; not, however, from any greater indifference to the wants of the poor than of the rich, but because he did not think the bulk of the people would be much benefitted by the proposed reduction of the duty on beer. The price of wages would be depressed in a corresponding, or perhaps a greater ratio, and possibly the labourer would be more distressed than at present, whilst the state would be a sufferer in its revenue. Mr. John Smith said, he had uniformly supported the propriety of upholding the sinking fund, and he was still attached to the same opinion. Yet he trusted that the chancellor of the Exchequer would accede to the reduction of the impost on beer, as he could supply the vacuum, if any occurred, by another tax. For his own part, he should have no objection that the whole of the deficiency should be laid on malt generally. It was true the condition of the poorer classes in this country had been considerably ameliorated: yet they still stood in need of much relief. If the chancellor of the Exchequer would consent to send the question to a committee for the purpose of examining the question in all its details, he was 386 Mr. Maberly stated, in his reply, that he should not trespass long on the attention of the House. He regretted to see so very thin an attendance of members. Not one word had been said to disprove the injustice which he attributed to the present system. He maintained, in opposition to the right hon. gentleman, that nearly the whole, if not the whole amount of duty, would be saved to the country in the event of its repeal. Feeling that he should not stand properly in the eyes of the country if he consented to withdraw his motion, he should take the sense of the House upon it; although he owned he had little doubt that the result would afford an additional proof of the benefit which the people would derive from some measure, which should secure to them a more just, fair, and equal representation in parliament. List of the Minority. Allen, J. B. Monck J.B. Bernal, R. Palmer, C. F. Calvert, C. Poyntz, W. T. Cradock, col. Pryse, P. Davies, col. Smith, J. Denman, T. Smith, C. Grant J. P. Smith, W. Hobhouse, J. C. Western, C. C. Honywood, W. P. Wilson, sir. R. James, W. Wood, alderman. Langston, J. H. TELLERS. Leader W. Maberly, J. Maberly, W. L. Hume, J. WRONGOUS IMPRISONMENT AND DELAYS IN TRIALS IN SCOTLAND.] Mr. J. P. Grant rose, pursuant to notice, and spoke as follows:* *From the original edition printed for J. Ridgway, Piccadilly. 387 388 389 390 391 392 * The private prosecutor in this case, whenever an action of damages was brought against him, sued out a process of cessio bonorum, as being utterly insolvent. 393 394 * "In regard to the grounds and form of the warrant to apprehend, it may be fitting in some cases, and this in England seems to be the usual course of practice, that the warrant be granted after examination only of the informer upon oath; but this is not invariably, nor even ordinarily observed with us, in proceeding on the information even of a private individual; and, in cases of complaint, at the instance of the Procurator Fiscal, or other public officer, who could only swear to his belief of the information which has been brought him, it has never been our custom to make use of any such precaution. It is further to be noted, that although it be very proper, where the circumstances of the case allow it, to support the warrant with a written petition, or examination of the party who applies for it; yet the want of this formal evidence is no wise any impeachment of the strength or virtue of the warrant, and shall neither countenance the party charged in any resistance of it, nor of itself be a ground of asking damages, if it shall be executed against him."—3 Hume, Crim. Law † "With this view, if the witnesses are not attending at the time, so as to be examined without delay, it is lawful for the Magistrate to commit the prisoner to gaol, there to remain for further examination, or until a precognition shall be taken; and against a warrant of this form, he is not entitled to his relief by bail as a matter of right, though, in cases of petty crime, he is often indulged with it; for, in terms of the Act, 1701, cap. 6, that remedy applies only to a settled state of imprisonment, that which is 'for custody in order to trial,' and not to this temporary and uncertain detention."—3 Hume "In the case of Fyfe against M'Laren, 29th July, 1762, where, on a charge amounting to wilful fire raising, and after a precognition had been led, a warrant was granted by the Justices of Peace of Forfarshire to incarcerate till further examination. One of the prisoners was soon thereafter liberated; and another, having applied for bail, the Justices refused his petition, but, on application to the Court 395 of Justiciary he was liberated, after being twenty-four days in prison. Both the parties afterwards commenced an action of wrongous imprisonment, on the Act 1701, and also upon the common law, against the party who had applied for the warrant, and the Justices of Peace who granted it; but the defenders were assoilzied (acquitted): and from the report of the case, it appears, that so far as the action was laid on the Act 1701, the decision proceeded on the ground that the commitment was till further examination. "The same point occurred, and was fully considered, in the case already mentioned of Andrew against Murdoch, 20th June, 1806, where, although a considerable difference of opinion occurred among the Judges with regard to the fact, whether the warrant on which the commitment proceeded was to be held as a warrant of commitment till further examination, or in order to trial; a great majority of the Court held, the former did not fall under the provisions of the Act 1701."— Burnet's Crim. Law "The late lord Newton, however, declared himself decidedly of a different opinion;—upon this ground, that otherwise the statute would cease to afford any real security to the lieges, since every commitment might be put on the footing of its being for examination. And he further mentioned, that he had access to know, that the same construction of the Statute was adopted by the late Mr. Crosbie."— Hutchinson's Just. of Peace * "It is not, however, by any means to be understood respecting the Magistrate, that it is unlawful for him, de plano, to give order for commitment (i. e. for trial) in his warrant to apprehend, in cases where he is already possessed of strong grounds of suspicion against the prisoner, or where, on any other account, he cannot previously be examined. And, indeed, this is the ordinary tenor of warrants, obtained from the Lords of Justiciary, to whose office it does not pertain to examine the prisoner, or to set on foot a precognition concerning his guilt."—3 Hume "The application for this purpose (commitment for trial) is made, for the most part, in a petition, or other complaint, signed by the Procurator Fiscal, or a party; and praying for commitment of the person, or persons 396 named, as at his suit or instance. There seems, however, to be nothing in either the words or the spirit of the statute, that should confine the magistrate to the use of this sort of information only, which cannot always be obtained at the time. In itself the affidavit, signed declaration, or even letter of the party concerned, or having cause of knowledge, if it properly describe the fact, and be duly referred to in the warrant, seems to be an equally sufficient ground for commitment; and, indeed, unless he can show cause for distrusting it, the Magistrate could not safely decline to commit upon a charge of this description. In those instances where the Procurator Fiscal applies, his information will protect the Magistrate, who commits in pursuance of it, so far as to take the case from under the letter of the statute 1701. And in any complaint which may nevertheless be made against that officer, or against him and the magistrate jointly, for rash, partial, or malicious proceedings, they have to defend themselves upon the ground of the private information lodged with them."—3 Hume "The most complete and perfect information, so far as regards the magistrate, is obtained by a regular precognition, which contains the signed declarations of the persons who have been examined, and points out the person accused, or some other individual, as guilty of the crime alleged. But, though a precognition ought generally to precede a warrant of commitment for trial, this is not necessary, nor is it always observed. The first information, even by a private party, may be so complete and satisfactory to the Magistrate, as to warrant an immediate commitment in order to trial."— Burnett "Though it is not the of ordinary course of proceeding, yet still, in those cases, wherein, from popular favour towards the prisoner, or towards the offence, the truth cannot otherwise be obtained, it is lawful, and has often been practised, to put the witnesses upon their oath; which, if they shall refuse, they are, for this contempt, liable to be imprisoned. To obviate, also, any danger of improper prac- 397 tices with them, on the part of the accused, or his friends, neither he, nor any one for him, need be admitted to these proceedings. It was one of the directions given by the Court, for the taking up of dittay, 4th March, 1709. Item, That none be present with the Clerk, at the examination of the persons cited by the Sheriff, to give up dittay. At whatever period these examinations are taken, and whether in the form of oath, or otherwise, they are merely preparatory to the libel, and can never, in any shape, be made use of against the witnesses; and, indeed, they may call for them if they please, and see them cancelled before they give their evidence in the trial."—3 Hume * It cannot be doubted, that the spirit of this act was binding on all other magistrates who had the power of committing on accusations of crimes; and it seems difficult to hold that the precautions contained in it, to prevent frivolous committals, were repealed by implication, by the act 1701, made expressly for better securing the liberty of the subject. 398 i. e. * 3 Hume Hume † "But, though a Magistrate may not, in every case, be justifiable, even on an ex facie information, to issue a warrant of commitment, the general rule and usage, certainly is, to look chiefly, if not solely, to the terms of the application, and the relevancy of the charge there made; and to grant the warrant, unless it appear clearly, that no proper Point of Dittay" ( i. e. 399 of commitment was applied for to the Court of Justiciary, by the Magistrates" ( i. e. Burnett In the case of William Murray Borthwick, the petition of the lord advocate's depute, in his lordship's name, merely set forth the allegation of a capital crime having been committed, without saying one word as to the grounds of the accusation, or the nature of the information he had obtained; and thereupon he craved warrant to commit, de plano, for trial, which was accordingly granted; and Borthwick, who had no knowledge of the proceeding whatever, was immediately apprehended, and so committed. Upon this he presented a petition to the Court of Justiciary, which was followed by answers by the advocate depute, and a judgment by the lord justice clerk. He was accordingly, kept in confinement till the 24th of April, when he was brought to the bar of the Circuit Court at Glasgow, to be tried.—But on the motion of the advocate depute the diet was deserted, pro loco et tempore, by which the trial was adjourned, and the prisoner was re-committed on a new warrant of the same Court, 400 proceeding as before on the same allegation, without any statement of facts and circumstances, or of the nature of the information received; and he was as of course, re-committed. He had been running his letters of intimation to the lord advocate to bring on his trial meanwhile; and the forty days from his re-commitment under this new warrant having expired, he was, on the tenth of June, on his petition ordained to be liberated. But, on the same day, a new warrant of commitment for trial was granted by the lord justice clerk against him, on the petition of a private individual, the same Robert Alexander, who pretended right to the goods in question, with concourse of the lord advocate, obtained of course, though the lord advocate had declined to proceed himself in the prosecution; which petition was in the like general terms. The justiciary warrant was granted in the same manner, de plano, without investigation of any sort, or opportunity of any sort, allowed the prisoner to be heard; which if he had been, the warrant could not possibly have been granted; the application being by one partner, as alleged against another partner, accusing him of stealing what was alleged to be their joint property, and the question being, whether the partnership was dissolved, and the property truly joint or several, and consequently, whether there was a trespass. Borthwick was, however, kept in gaol till the 12th of June, when he was liberated, ex proprio motu of his new prosecutor; his trial having been first fixed for the 10th, and postponed to the 17th of June. It is obvious, that, under these decisions, and according to this practice, any person, of what character and station soever, may be kept in gaol under a charge of theft, however preposterous, without the possibility of bringing on his trial for a hundred and forty days, although the public prosecutor shall be satisfied there are no grounds for trying him, as long as persons may be found to pretend any property or right of possession, qualified or absolute in goods, which they may choose to accuse him of stealing; and so mutatis mutandis under a charge of any other crimes, which private persons may pretend a legal title to institute a criminal prosecution for. * 3 Hume, 136, Sup. Cit. 401 * "This clause (the general clause of the act as to 'all confinements') has given rise to various questions, whether it was meant to apply, 1st, to confinements irregular, no doubt, and oppressive, but proceeding on signed informations and written warrants; 2nd, To irregular confinements, by private persons, not Magistrates, nor in authority; and, Lastly, To confinements by magistrates not for custody in order for trial, but in the way of simple arrest, or for examination. "Respecting the first, the question occurred in the case of Archibald Campbell against Ramsey, a baillie of Kelso, 26th November, 1736; who had, on a signed information, but founded on a frivolous, or, at least, improbable story (viz. that he had clandestinely carried away a person of the name of M'Kenzie from his wife and family, and had prevailed on that person to abstract several of the writings of his estate), granted a warrant of imprisonment against Campbell, until he should find bail not to proceed further in the delinquency imputed to him, and to answer to the competent court for what he had already done. The defender maintained, from the preamble of the statute, that it was meant to apply merely 'to the abuse of commitments, without expressing the cause,' and had nothing further in view than to correct abuses in the form of commitments, in refusing bail, and in the modes of setting at liberty; and that the general clause here noticed was meant to apply to all these forms of written warrants and signed informations, to every sort of confinement, whether in a gaol, properly so called, or in a private house or chamber; and that the exception introduced in this very clause of confinement, consented to by the party, or inflicted after sentence (where there is no need of signed informations), shews, that such was the meaning of the clause. The pursuer, on the other hand, founded on the object and scope of the act; and that being intended to prevent wrongous imprisonment in every case, and to protect the liberty of the Subject, it ought to be applied to all irregular confinements, without exception. The court, while they were of opinion that the baillie's conduct had been illegal and oppressive, found, at the same time, that the case did not fall under the act. "The second point occurred in the case of Patterson, 14th December, 1736, where the 402 incarcerator was no magistrate, and had, besides, given a mere verbal order of commitment. The defender argued, that the whole scope of the act was to correct the abuses of magistrates, judges, and other officers of the law, in the undue exercise of their authority, that having been the evil most loudly complained of; while the pursuer argued on the general expressions used in this clause, and on the preamble of the act, which declares, 'that it is the interest of the subject that the liberty of his person be duly secured' The court found, that the act did apply to the case,. and decerned for the penalties. The justice of this decision, however, may be doubted. We incline to agree with Mr. Hume, in thinking, that the statute 'relates only to acts of power and authority, and not to the masterful and lawless violence of private persons, as to which there was no need of any new or extraordinary provisions.' This interpretation is accordingly justified by what we know as to the abuses which gave rise to the enactment, as well as by the decision of the case, sir Alexander Anstruther, March and April 1720, referred to by Mr. Hume; and where, as appears from the papers in that case, the import of this general clause was fully argued."— Burnett "The process for these forfeitures, or any of them (for so I construe the words, process for wrongous imprisonment in the act), is confined to the space of three years, computed from the last day of the prisoner's confinement; and to this limitation effect was given in the court of Justiciary, in the case of sir James Dunbar, in 1714, where the wrong seems not to have been a proper incarceration in any known gaol, but rather an irregular confinement of the person, in some strong room or dungeon in the tower of Aikergill, the property of sir James, who, by his authority as a baron, had shut up the pursuer there. The injury fell, therefore, under that clause of the act, which extended those provisions of the law 'to all confinements, not either consented to by the party, or inflicted by trial after sentence,' and which was intended, as I conjecture (though certainly the passage is obscure), to reach confinements of this irregular description. I think, however, it is doubtful whether the statute applies in such cases, unless the confinement be ordered by a magistrate, and be under pretence of complaint made to him, or proceeding held by 403 him in that capacity; for this ordinance seems to relate only to acts of power and authority, and not to the masterful and lawless violence of private persons, as to which there was no need of any new or extraordinary provisions, and which will not, therefore, be affected by the prescription of three years, and may be the ground of prosecutions in the court of Justiciary for the pains of common law. Of this description was the wrong libelled in the case of sir Alexander Anstruther and others, (March and April 1720), who were accused of carrying off, in a boat, and afterwards confining somewhere at land, certain persons who were meant to be called as witnesses against these panels, for some offence against the revenue. The libel was laid both at common law, and on that clause of the statute 1701, which has relation to confinements; and concluded, for fine, deprivation of office, and incapacity of public trust; but the court found the libel relevant generally to infer an arbitrary punishment, damages, and expenses; proceeding herein, as I take it, on the common law alone."—3 Hume * "As the magistrate must determine the degree of the offence by the letter of the law, so must he take the charge, in the ordinary case, as he finds it on the face of the commitment. But, although this be true generally, yet still it is not to be understood, that every magistrate or every informer has, therefore, the uncontrolled licence of stating the crime in his information or warrant, in such terms, and applying to it such denomination, as he pleases. Certainly, in those (it is to be hoped extraordinary) situations, where the evident 404 malice of the party, and his perversion of the facts, require such an interposition, the supreme court, upon complaint being made to them, will call for the precognition, or other grounds of the commitment, and will judge for themselves, how far the matters there appearing, if true (and at this period they must be held to be so), amount to, or warrant the sort of charge, which has been raised upon them. As the sheriff might control his fiscal on such an occasion, if he should state a mere trespass as a robbery, or magnify a common assault into a hamesucken; so the Supreme Court will control the sheriff, or other inferior magistrate, and exercise their own judgment as to the propriety and the soundness of the views on which he has proceeded. Thus James Gremin was released on bail, though committed on a charge of cursing and beating parents (a capital crime by the law of Scotland), because it appeared that the facts were not of that atrocious degree, nor related with that distinctness, which might justify the statutory and capital accusation. It is, no doubt, true on the other side, that in any instance where this comes to be a nice and critical question, or where the plea of the prisoner against the capital charge is of that kind, which seems only fit for deliberate trial in the way of debate upon the relevancy of a libel, here the charge must be held and taken in the meantime as it is written in the commitment. "Let me add one observation more; that although the statute has declared the privilege of bail, with regard to all charges not affecting the life of the offender, yet it has not deprived our supreme judges of that discretion which naturally belongs to them, of extending this sort of relief to cases even of capital accusation, when they shall find reason for such an indulgence in the extraordinary circumstances of the fact. Such a trust is necessary to be reposed with them for the ends of justice, and the advancement of the public service; since otherwise a magistrate, or other person in public office, who has been constrained to kill (for instance) in the necessary performance of the duty of his station, might undergo a long confinement, and perhaps at the very season which most requires the continuance of his exertions, on a groundless charge of murder, brought by the kindred of the persons who have fallen a sacrifice to their own obstinacy in the perpetration of their crime."—3 Hume * "There is a case recorded which shews, 405 that, even when the warrant is, ex facie, defective, the process of liberation has not always been considered so much of course, as one would suppose from the words of the act. There is, besides, a declaration in the act, that any warrant, granted as above, shall be void and null; which evidently implies, that the party imprisoned is entitled to be immediately, or in the speediest manner, liberated, on application to a judge. In the case of the warrant not expressing the cause, he seems entitled to be immediately liberated, without even intimation to the party concerned in the commitment, it being a defect apparent on the face of the warrant; and which, therefore, is instantly verified by the production of the warrant. Notwithstanding this, in the case of O'Neil, 19th June, 1716, who applied to be liberated on the ground of the warrant against him not expressing the particular cause, the petition was ordered to be seen by the advocate depute, and this even by a distant day; and it was only on no objection being stated by him, that the liberation was granted."— Burnett 406 i. e. 407 * "Now, there are more than one sense, in which we may understand the words made use of in the Act, 'to fix a diet for the trial within sixty days after the intimation.' The meaning may either be, that the prisoner shall be served with a libel, calling him to a diet of trial, which diet is within the sixty days, or it may be more favourable to the prosecutor—that within the sixty days he shall serve the prisoner with a libel, calling him to appear for trial at some future diet, no matter whether such diet be within the sixty days or not; but although, in themselves, the expressions are equivocal, yet on a complete view of the whole law, and taking the clause as to the sixty days in connexion with the clause last recited, which limits the endurance of the trial to forty days more, I think it is clear that the legislature meant to provide only this security for the prisoner, that he should not be confined for more than one hundred successive days in all; and that under this ultimate limitation, together with the special one of obliging the prosecutor to execute his libel within the first sixty days, it was meant to leave him quite at large, with respect to the diet of compearance. Indeed, it is to be observed, that the opposite construction would not in the end be of any material advantage to the prisoner, because, though the prosecutor call his libel on the sixtieth day (and by no interpretation of the statute can he be obliged to call it sooner), yet still, if he be not ready to proceed on that day, he may obtain continuations of the diet thenceforward, for reasonable causes, from time to time, until it suit him; under this limitation only, that he bring the trial to an issue within forty days more. Now, this is as great a latitude as arises under the other seemingly more favourable construction of the Act."—3 Hume 408 But it is obvious, that there is this material difference in the situation of the prisoner—that by the one construction he is at the mercy of his prosecutor for forty days after the sixty are expired by the other, he is in the hands of the Court, who are bound not to defer the trial, but on reasonable cause shewn. Again, by ordinary grammatical construction, the words sixty days refer to the words diet for the trial. Further, if this be otherwise, then is there, by the words of the Act, no limitation of time within which the diet must fall, and consequently no limitation of time within which the case must be determined by final sentence; since the limitation of forty days for final sentence, obviously, and by necessary construction, relates to the insisting in the libel when the judge shall put the same to a trial. The words of the Act are these:—"And the diet of trial being prefixed, the Magistrates of the place, &c. shall then be obliged to deliver the prisoner to a sufficient guard, that the prisoner may be sisted before the Judge competent; and his majesty's advocate, &c. shall insist in the libel, &c. the Judge put the same to a trial, and the same shall be determined by a final sentence within forty days." So that, by this construction, the prosecutor being only bound within sixty days to fix the diet, may fix a diet which shall fall on any day, however distant; the only security remaining to the prisoner, being, that after the diet has taken place, and the judge has put the libel to a trial, final sentence must be pronounced within forty days more, whenever these may expire. Accordingly, this is the next question. * "But here arises another and a still more important question. If, as already said, all that the prosecutor need do within the sixty days, be to execute his libel, is he absolutely at large as to the diet of compearance which he shall name, how distant soever? or has he allowance only for beginning and finishing his trial of forty days at most, immediately succeeding to, and connecting with the sixty. This, though a very material question, and such indeed, in my humble opinion, as tends to affect the benefit of the whole series of provisions in this part of the statute, is still an undecided one, though it occurred some years ago, and was then the subject of an argument at the bar. 409 This was in the case of Alexander M'Ewan and Isabel Butcher, prisoners in the gaol of Perth, upon a charge of theft. On the 1st February, 1776, these persons had made intimation, in terms of the statute, to the procurator Fiscal of the county of Perth. On the 30th of the succeeding March, just as the sixty days were about to expire, they were each of them served with a libel, at the instance of the lord advocate, calling on them to take their trial at the ensuing circuit, to be held at Perth on the 25th of May. At that diet, besides other objections, it was pleaded in bar of process, that it behoved the trial to close within forty days computed from the expiration of the sixty; and that here the whole term of one hundred days had expired, before even the calling of the libel. The prosecutor maintained, that the forty days ran only from the diet of compearance on the libel, and that this he might fix earlier or later, at his pleasure. The judges on the circuit referred the case for the consideration of all their brethren, who ordered informations; and on advising these, thought it proper to direct an inquiry into the state of practice. But hereupon, the lord advocate consented that the prisoners should be dismissed, on anoint, he said, of the long confinement which they had already suffered, and the further time that must be spent in obtaining such a report. The prisoners were dismissed accordingly, but under an express reservation of the right of the lord advocate again to insist on the same plea, at the convenient season, if he should see cause. "It may, however, be conjectured, from this desertion of so capital a point, that the prosecutor had not been sanguine in his expectations of success; and, certainly, there are considerations of no little weight, which may be urged against his construction of the enactment. This in particular, which some may think is of itself decisive of the whole controversy, that truly such a construction would utterly defeat the beneficent intention, and render vain and nugatory the whole, wise, and excellent provisions, of this valuable law. For to what purpose have the legislature so anxiously ordered, that the magistrate shall intimate to the informer within twenty-four hours, and the informer execute his libel within the sixty days, and the prosecutor bring the trial to an issue within forty days, if the term from which this last period is to be computed has been left entirely at the prosecutor's 410 Mr. Hume thinks this not a very reasonable construction, but within the letter of the act. I think it is so, but it has never been so decided, though it is, as I understand, frequently adopted in practice* discretion, to be fixed as late as he shall choose? If this be so, as well might all the other periods have been left at his discretion too. And in truth, according to this interpretation of the law, there is no time limited for insisting (a phrase which is repeatedly made use of in the statute), since the prosecutor may refrain from beginning to insist as long as he please. "But with respect to the prisoner who is served with his libel just at the end of the sixty days, according to the construction which I am now disputing, not only has he no means of bringing his trial to a close, but not even to a commencement, within forty days more, nor within any limited period whatsoever; but he must remain continually in gaol, perhaps for several months more, as the prosecutor shall determine, before the calling even of the libel. Accordingly in the case of M'Ewan, there were fifty-five days between the execution of the libel and the diet of compearance."—3 Hume * "Let us now inquire, what is the consequence of that desertion of the diet, which takes place under the clause of the statute last recited, where the prosecutor, after duly executing his libel within the sixty days, either does not insist at the diet thus named, or fails to bring the trial to a conclusion within the space of forty days? Is it merely the release of the prisoner for the time, but subject to re-commitment and a second trial? Or, has he a protection thereby, against all further challenge and question for that offence? It is very clear, that in all those instances where, before the expiry of the forty days, the libel has so far been insisted in as to be remitted to a sworn assize, the desertion of the diet afterwards is equal to an absolution of the charge. If the prosecutor has so managed matters, that verdict is not returned, or sentence not pronounced, within the forty days, certainly this blameable remissness on his part cannot purchase for him a dispensation from that rule of our law, which says, that no man shall thole an assize twice 411 for the same crime; but even where the diet is deserted at an earlier period of the process, or perhaps at the first calling of the libel, on account of the failure to insist, these reasons may be alleged why the panel should have his full discharge of this accusation—1st, The statute has said, that the diet is here to be deserted, simpliciter; whereas, if the prosecutor may still insist in a new action, the proceeding truly amounts to a desertion pro loco et tempore.—2ndly, According to any other construction, this part of the enactment is in some measure ineffectual and imperfect. For Wherein is it any material advantage to the accused, that his trial under the first libel must come to a close within forty days, if the prosecutor can again bring him into jeopardy, and add a new term of forty days more to his confinement, by the simple expedient of deserting that libel, and raising another?—3rdly, It may be argued, that if received in any other sense, the provisions of the statute for the several cases and situations mentioned in it are unequal and capricious. One against whom no libel is raised within the sixty days, can in no event be confined for more than a hundred days in all. But, according to the construction now spoken of, one who is served with his libel on the sixtieth day may be kept in gaol, and under trial for forty successive days; and then he may have to suffer confinement for forty days more under a new libel, raised after desertion of the first one.—4thly, The prosecutor suffers no hardship in being obliged absolutely to conclude his process Within the forty days, a space of time which is almost always sufficient for that purpose. "Notwithstanding these considerations, which, in themselves, may seem to be of some weight, we shall find reason, perhaps, in the expressions of the statute, and the arrangement of its several clauses, to doubt, at least, whether they are decisive of this question."—3 Hume * "In the case of Robert Thomson, in June, 1739, it was debated, but not decided (neither has the question occurred since), whether the forty days must be free days, that is, preclusive of the day on which the trial began."—3 Hume 412 * "It may deserve to be considered whether the limitation of the forty days at all applies to the new process, if instead of seeking warrant of re-commitment on his libel, the prosecutor leave the accused at large, either in reliance on his disposition to appear, or on free acceptance of his offer of bail, in a case, where by law, he cannot ask to be released on these terms. By the express words of the act, the forty days are to be counted from the date of the new commitment; and it is plain, that the single object and purpose of this limitation is only to shorten the prisoner's confinement. If, therefore, he be at large all the while, he is not in the case which is provided for by the act."—3 Hume 413 * The efficacy of the remedy afforded by the Act 1701, is well illustrated by a case mentioned by Mr. Hume, in 1754, and by the later case of Mackinlay, either of which cases may, under the existing law, be that of any man in Scotland. "Duncan Clark had been imprisoned on a charge of murder, had run his letters, and been discharged at the end of the sixty days. Soon after, he was committed for theft, ran his let- 414 ters for that offence, and was served with a libel, calling him to a diet near the end of the forty days. That libel was deserted, and he was of new committed, on a charge of wearing the Highland dress. And finally, he was brought to trial on the original charge of murder, of which he was acquitted. This appears from Minutes of Debate, 10th June, 1754. The evidence on the trial is curious in one particular: for one of the chief witnesses against the panel details the discovery of the dead body and of the manner of the murder, by means of intelligence received from the ghost of the deceased."—3 Hume Andrew Mackinlay was apprehended on the 22nd of Feb. 1817, on a charge of high treason, and also for administering unlawful oaths, contrary to 52 Geo. III. 104. He was brought before the sheriff of Lanarkshire for examination, and committed to Glasgow gaol for trial. On the 17th of March, a petition was presented to the lords of Justiciary by the lord advocate, which set forth, that he charged Mackinlay, and one William Edgar. with high treason William Edgar was brought up for trial on the 9th of April, when a debate took place on the relevancy of the indictment, on which the court expressed very serious doubts, and ordered informations (printed arguments). The diet ( i. e. 415 dictment; and the first indictment being deserted by interlocutor, he pleaded not guilty, and objected to the relevancy. The court, intimating an opinion against the relevancy, but desiring to have informations, the lord-advocate moved to desert the diet on the second indictment, pro loco et tempore reserving to him to raise a new indictment for the same offence. Interlocutor, as of course, was pronounced accordingly. The lord advocate instantly presented a petition, reiterating the original charge of treason, and craving warrant to commit to the castle of Edinburgh, as before; which was granted, as of course. On the 7th of June, a third indictment was executed against him, for administering unlawful oaths; and being brought to the bar on the 23rd of June, he pleaded not guilty, and objected to the relevancy of the third indictment; on which informations were ordered, and the diet continued till the 14th of July. Informations were put in accordingly, and judgment was pronounced by the court on the 18th of July, sustaining the indictment by a majority—Lord Gillies dissenting. He was tried on the 19th, when, after one witness had been cast and four examined, the lord-advocate threw up the case, and the prisoner was acquitted, having been in prison five months.— Trial of Andrew Mackinlay, printed at Edinburgh. 416 The Lord Advocate said, he did not mean to oppose the bringing in the bill, but at the same time he thought that great caution should be observed in interfering with a law which had existed for upwards of one hundred years, and which might be considered the habeas corpus act of Scotland. The learned lord then proceeded to call the attention of the House to the advantages of the present law, and contended, that the act of 1701 afforded a 417 l l Mr. Abercromby rejoiced that his hon. and learned friend had introduced this important subject to the consideration of parliament. At the same time he was quite aware that it was one which required great deliberation, and he was persuaded that his hon. and learned friend was prepared to concede as much delay in the progress of the measure, as could be justly demanded for that purpose. He also concurred with the learned lord, that it would be better that the avowed object of the bill should be to alter and amend rather than to repeal the existing law; for although he thought the act of 1701 very susceptible of improvement, and that it ought to be improved, yet it was an act which had been extremely useful, and which was associated, in the minds of the people of Scotland, with the liberty of the subject. It was agreed on all hands, that the subject was a weighty and important one; and it was desirable that what was done should be done effectually and permanently. The public at large were, therefore, greatly indebted to his hon. and learned friend for the opportunity thus afforded by him of accomplishing so desirable and object. The Solicitor-General expressed a hope, that no alteration would be made in the law without consulting those who were best acquainted with it. He was ready to admit, upon his own knowledge, that the law was chargeable with many uncertainties and discrepancies which called for improvement. Mr. Denman complimented the learned lord on the conciliatory tone in which he had met the motion of his hon. and learned friend, and stated that he should be very happy to give his humble support towards amending any defects which should be proved to exist in the act of 1701; an act 418 Mr. J. P. Grant in reply, said, that he would comply with the suggestions which had been made to him, and would alter the title of his bill from "a bill to repeal," to "a bill to alter and amend," the act of 1701. CATTLE ILL-TREATMENT BILL.] Mr. Martin, of Galway, rose to move for leave to bring in a bill to extend the provisions of the act 3 Geo. 4th., cap 71, to prevent the cruel and improper treatment of cattle. His bill was, he said, an exact copy of a bill which had been drawn up by the Attorney-general, and which had formerly undergone discussion in another place. The object of it was, to render the cutting and maiming of animals maliciously, punishable as a misdemeanor. Formerly, that offence was punishable under the Black act as a capital felony; but the repeal of that act had brought the whole law again into force, which punished the cutting and maiming of cattle with transportation, provided it could be proved that the party guilty of such cutting and maiming was actuated by malice against their owner. Now, he wished to give to animals the right of protecting themselves; or rather to give to any person who chose to act as their prochain ami, the right of covering them with the protection of the law. With that view he submitted to the House the draught of a bill which had formerly been drawn up by the hon. and learned gentleman, who now filled the high situation of his majesty's Attorney-general. Mr. Secretary Peel said, he would not oppose the introduction of the bill, on the contrary, he was rather desirous to see it, as it purported to come from his hon. and learned friend, the Attorney-general. He wished the hon. member for Galway would introduce into one bill all the objects of his compassion; because, if he did not, the Statute-book would soon be increased to a very inconvenient bulk. He likewise wished that the hon. member would define more clearly what he meant by the word "malice." Was it malice against the animal, or malice against the master, which he wished to punish? Mr. Martin. —Both, but particularly malice against the animal; who ought to have his remedy at law in such cases. 419 Mr. Peel. —Was it, then, to be considered as malice against the animal, if any person cropped a dog's ears? If the dog was to be the judge, he would certainly deem it malice against himself that led any person to mutilate his body. If he understood any thing of the hon. gentleman's bill, it would certainly tend to put down several practices which at present were very prevalent in our mode of treating brute animals, and would go further than the House would be likely to sanction. He would, however, reserve what he had to say for the future stages of the bill. Mr. F. Palmer read the preamble of the act which this bill was introduced to extend, and contended, that from the very large terms of it, any extension of its powers must be quite unnecessary. He had intended to have opposed the introduction of the measure; but he would forego his intention, in consequence of what had fallen from the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department. Mr. Martin replied, that he had made nothing an offence in his bill, which had not been previously declared such under the Black act—an act under which several men had been hung, and repeatedly executed. It might be a very good joke—though, for his life, he could not see the wit of it—to ask him whether he meant to make the cropping of a dog's ears a misdemeanor. He had, however, a very triumphant answer to give it. It was not declared a hanging matter under the Black act to crop a dog's ears; and, it would not, therefore, under this act be declared a misdemeanor. His bill would not prevent any gentleman from bestowing on his dog that punishment which was necessary to remind it of the discipline it ought to follow in the field. He might whip it if he pleased from sunrise to sunset; but he must not cut it, or maim it wantonly, because such cutting and maiming could neither improve it as a setter or a beagle. In the committee, if this bill should ever get so far, he should propose several additional clauses; but at present he should content himself with introducing it as it had been prepared by his hon. friend the Attorney-general. ABUSES AND MISMANAGEMENT OF BRADFORD GAOL.] Mr. John Smith, in rising to bring forward a motion relative to Bradford Gaol, paid the lord lieu- 420 421 Mr. Secretary Peel certainly did not mean to oppose the motion. If such abuses were committed, he would not take on himself the task of protecting the guilty parties. The papers would be found to reflect the highest credit on the lord lieutenant of the West Riding; for, as soon as he had heard of the matter, he had made it his business to inquire into it, and transmitted the whole account to him at the Home Office. He had thought it his duty to refer the matter to the Attorney-general, and one of the parties had been prosecuted and punished. He was aware of many of the evils arising from these local jurisdictions, and had himself brought in a bill last session. to enable the magistrates of such jurisdictions to send these prisoners to the county gaols. He believed that, when the matter should be inquired into, it would be found that most of them had taken advantage of the provisions of this bill. In Essex this had long been the practice. He wished, however, to go further than this bill, and should not be sorry if there were no local jurisdictions whatever. He should be well pleased to see all crimes tried by the regular judges and all the local jurisdictions abolished. Mr. Abercromby complimented the right hon. gentleman for the sentiments he had just expressed, and hoped he would not stop short in his career. He entirely concurred with the right hon. gentleman as to local jurisdictions; and thought, if the right hon. gentleman referred to their origin and mode of administering justice, that he would not hesitate as to the course which he ought to pursue. At least, all crimes involving capital punishment, should be tried by the judges. The best mode of proceeding would be the appointment of a commission to visit the different places, and report concerning them. CHILDREN IN COTTON MILLS.] Mr. Hobhouse said, he would not at that late hour trespass on the House with any observations; but, merely move for leave to bring in a bi!l, the object of which would be, to regulate the working hours for Children employed in Cotton Mills. Mr. J Smith highly approved of the measure, but thought it would be better to make it more general, and extend it to 422 Mr. Hobhouse said, he had found so much difficulty in making regulations for cotton mills, that he thought that single object was enough for a single person. If the House was disposed to make it a general measure, he should have no objection. Mr. C. Wilson also wished to see the measure made general, and applicable to children employed in all such mills. Mr. Peel said, he had no objection to the hon. member's bringing in his bill: but he entreated the House to pause before it entered too extensively into this field of legislation. The present bill was like one to which he had before given his support; but the House must take care and not carry this sort of legislation too far. If they made the regulations too severe, the masters might refuse to employ any children. Mr. W. Smith was in favour of the bill. He thought the former measure was inoperative, because the visiting magistrates were not empowered to inspect the cotton mills. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Friday, May 6. ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.] Mr. Brougham moved the order of the day that the House should resolve itself into a committee of the whole House on the Roman Catholic Relief bill. On the question, that the Speaker do now leave the chair. General Gascoyne rose and said, that his opinions as to the impolicy of this measure having remained unchanged, he was anxious to avail himself of the earliest opportunity of entering his protest against the bill now before the House. He had opposed this measure when it was introduced alone, and discussed solely on its own merits; but he was the more determined to oppose it when he found it accompanied by its adjuncts—the clergy provision bill and the elective disfranchisement bill—both of which he was bound to consider as component parts of the measure itself. Looking at it in all views, he could not help thinking, that if passed, the whole measure would be one of the most milk and water kind that ever proceeded from parliament. That part which related to the elective franchise in Ireland, 423 424 425 Sir T. Lethbridge objected strongly to the motion for committing the bill, but he rose more for the purpose of recording his opinion than with any other object. He was decidedly of opinion that a division ought to be taken in the present stage, though he could not but admit that his hopes of success were faint. He would state shortly his views upon the question. This attempt at legislation depended upon the institution of oaths, and it went to repeal that oath which every member had taken in the face of the House and the country—the oath of supremacy. Although, no doubt, every hon. gentleman well remembered it, he begged that the clerk might read it. [The clerk read the oath accordingly, as taken at the table.] If, then, resumed the hon. gentleman, it should turn out, that the bill before the House would have the effect of violating the oath which had been just read, he need not say what would be its effect on all hon. members who looked at this subject in the same way as he did. There were two points of view from which this question might be contemplated. The first was, that every member who was returned to that House as a representative of the people of England, entered it upon the condition, implied if not expressed, that he would preserve the British constitution in church and state, as it had been handed down to us by our forefathers. This condition, according to his apprehension, no member was at liberty to get rid of. The persons by whom these hon. members had been returned were well aware of the nature and effect of this oath; and he was glad of the present opportunity of telling the House, that those persons were neither so ignorant nor so careless about it as 426 427 428 429 430 431 Sir John Sebright rose to thank the hon. baronet for having repeated the expressions he had used on a former evening. He would again say, that he was ashamed to see a House of Commons at that time of day discussing this question. He would not add one word to this; because he thought that none of the arguments which had been urged against Catholic emancipation required any answer. Mr. Secretary Peel said, that the general impression amongst members certainly was, that the sense of the House would not be taken on the measure in its present stage. He had himself tended to create that impression, by stating that he would take the sense of the House on the third reading. He was therefore unwillling that any thing should be done in contravention of what appeared to be the general understanding. He had heard with satisfaction that it was not the intention of the gallant general, nor of the hon. member for Somersetshire to divide the House at that stage, because such a pro- 432 Mr. Butler Clarke supported the motion. No one, he observed, had ventured to state, that Ireland and England could remain in the same situation that they were at present. The only way for them to continue the system would be by the aid of a military government; but, how long would that remain? Was it on the chance that the spirit of the Catholics would break down? But, until that did take place, no one would venture to invest his capital in the country, nor would any one live there who could live out of it. On the other hand, if the present measure was passed, he would venture to say that they might safely withdraw every soldier from the country. He had invariably supported the measure; because he thought it was the only to render Ireland serviceable. As he had voted for the putting down of the illegal associations, he had thought it right to say thus much on the present subject. Colonel Trench said, he was of opinion, that the unhappy situation of Ireland had resulted from the system of misgovern- 433 434 Mr. W. J. Bankes wished that his acquiescence to the proposition for going into the committee should not be misconstrued into a change of opinion. The resistance to the bill should be open and manly. It would perhaps, be modified in the committee; but no modification, no shape in which it could be presented to him, would please him. The third reading was the stage in which to take the sense of the House. The Speaker rose he said, to occupy the attention of the committee but for a very short time. After the recent and very elaborate discussion which this subject had undergone, he much doubted whether any person could say any thing new with regard to it, and he certainly was not prepared to arrogate to himself the capability of doing so. He was perfectly aware, that, according to the strict rules and forms of the House, the present stage of the bill under consideration was neither the most convenient, nor the most regular occasion, for any member to state his opinion with regard to it; but, as his opinion on the question remained entirely unchanged, and as this was the first opportunity, and perhaps it might be the last, on which he should be enabled to address the House on the measure, he trusted he might be permitted to say a few words. Nothing, then, which he had heard or read had relieved his mind from the serious apprehensions with which it was filled, with regard to this great, and, as he thought, most dangerous measure. Having said thus much, he could assure the committee, that he had no amendment to propose, nor did he wish to press a division; particularly after the opinion of the House had been so decidedly expressed on that point. However painful it might be to him to differ from the ma- 435 Mr. Peel observed, that in 1821, when a bill similar to that now before the House was under discussion, various propositions were submitted to the House—some for the purpose of restricting the offices to which Catholics should be admitted, and others for continuing their exclusion from parliament, and the governments of the colonies. He rose for the purpose of stating, that it was not his intention to submit any propositions of that kind to the committee on the present occasion, the sense of parliament having been fairly declared on those points. Sir H. Parnell took that opportunity of stating, that the hon. member for Somersetshire, in reading the oath taken by Roman Catholic bishops, had omitted a very important passage, in which they stated, that their relations with the pope could in no way shake their fidelity to the king and royal family. Mr. Peel thought that the oath which the Catholic bishops at present took was highly objectionable. The House ought to have had some assurance, that it would be modified, before they pledged themselves to grant a provision for the Roman Catholic clergy. Sir H. Parnell replied, that what appeared to be the objectionable parts of the oath, had been explained to be harmless by high Catholic authorities. 436 Mr. Plunkett objected to the alteration, on the ground that casuists might call it an admission, that there was some other established church, besides the Protestant, existing in England. The right hon. gentleman further observed, that the oath already was any thing rather than such as was called for by the friends of the Catholic bill. It called for a disavowal by the Catholics of doctrines which no man in his senses could suspect them of entertaining. But, the fact was, that in 1821, the Catholic advocates had been taunted by their adversaries for not employing the long and formal oath provided in 1793; and, in order to satisfy as far as possible all scruples, that oath of 1793 was now returned to. Mr. Secretary Peel concurred in the objection of his right hon. and learned friend to the proposed verbal amendment. With respect to the form of the oath, he was perfectly willing to admit, that if an objection had been made to some parts of it, he should have agreed in the propriety of such an objection. That part of it, for instance, which called upon the Roman Catholic to disclaim the doctrine of its being lawful to murder or destroy any person under pretence of his being a heretic or an infidel, he could not but consider most objectionable; because he could not for a moment impute such principles to the Catholics. Mr. Brougham said, that the observation just made by the right hon. Secretary was every way worthy of the candid and manly course which he had pursued throughout the discussion of this question. His opposition had never been a captious or invidious opposition; but it had been uniformly frank, candid, manly, and honourable. As to the verbal amendment which had been proposed, he agreed with his right hon. and learned friend, that the substitution of the word "Protesttant" might be misinterpreted. It might be argued by captious and subtle persons, that indirectly, the legislature were admitting an established religion other than the Protestant. The form of the oath was undoubtedly liable to the same objection, as all the forms in which we abjured Catholicism; which were neither more nor less than insults on our Catholic brethren. He should agree, however, 437 Mr. B. Cooper could not understand how a Roman Catholic could sincerely and conscientiously take an oath, which went to the abjuration of some of the main doctrines of his religion. He was quite sure, that if he was a Roman Catholic, he could not take such an oath. In fact, oaths of this description had been expressly declared by the pope, to be invalid and nugatory. Mr. V. Fitzgerald observed, that the very oath which to the mind of the hon. member for Gloucester appeared impossible for the Catholic to take, had been actually the law of the land for a considerable time, and was administered to every Catholic upon various occasions. It was known as Dr, Duigenan's oath. If the bishops abstained from taking it, so long as they were forbidden by the pope, it was a proof of their sincerity; and the fact of their afterwards taking it proved, either that the pope's opinions had been changed, or that the Irish bishops disclaimed any authority, on the part of the see of Rome, to interfere with them in matters of a temporal nature. In either case, their having once abstained from it. through principle, and subsequently subscribing to it, afforded strong evidence of their sincerity. Sir J. Newport said, that the oath in question had been framed by Dr. Duigenan, with the most scrupulous attention to the minutest prejudices of the opponents of the Catholics, and with no disposition to relieve the latter from the disagreeable task of disclaiming any imaginable objectionable doctrines. He was astonished that an oath, framed by that learned person, should have been cavilled at by any one else. Upon the point of scruple it was only necessary to say, that the heads of the Catholic church in Ireland approved of, and subscribed to, this form of oath at the present moment. There could be no doubt that it was originally framed with a view to outrage their feelings, by the learned doctor to whom he had referred; but it was also framed in total ignorance of the principles 438 Mr. Goulburn said, it appeared to him there was no necessity to adhere so closely to the oath of 1793; and particularly when it was rendered needless by the subsequent evidence which had been received. Mr. Sumner suggested the omission from the oath of invidious passages, such as the disclaimer of "a right to murder, &c." Mr. Plunkett gave the hon. member credit for the good faith and generosity with which he made the proposition, but it did not appear to him likely to advance the success of the measure to accede to it. If the objections of this House only were to be encountered, he should have no hesitation; but, he feared the effect which the omission might have in another place. If the bill should come down from the Lords, he would receive the suggestion as a favour on behalf of the Catholics. At present he could not. Mr. Brougham said, that the oath was required to be taken only by those who were called to exercise some public function. If they should not undertake the office, there would be no necessity of taking the oath. Some honourable members objected to the oath as an insufficient security, in consequence of what was supposed to be the absolving power of the pope. But, he begged to ask what other security had they at present but that of an oath? What was there to hinder his learned friend Mr. O'Connell, from taking his seat in that House at the present day but an oath? There were many parts of Ireland—he would not name them, lest he should give alarm to some of the Irish members)—where, if Mr. O'Connell presented himself as a candidate, his election would be certain. There were also some places in England in which, if he presented himself, his return would be secure. What was it that prevented him, but an oath? "Oh, but," said the opponents of this bill, "the pope may absolve him from that oath." "No," replied Mr. O'Connell, "I do not believe that he or any other authority has that power, and therefore I will stay out of parliament because I cannot conscientiously take it." Why, the thing was quite plain, and he did not 439 Mr. Peel was anxious to know whether the hon. and learned gentleman intended to propose any amendment, in that part of the oath to be taken by Protestants, as far as respected the actual authority of the pope in this country. Mr. Brougham said, that when the clause repecting the commission came to be discussed, he would propose an amendment, but not in the point to which the right hon. gentleman adverted. Mr. Peel without meaning to anticipate the discussion on the clause, said, that when they relieved the Catholic from taking the oath of supremacy, they should also consider the situation in which they might leave the conscientious Protestant with respect to it. By the very fact of exonerating the Catholic from the oath, an admission was made, that the pope had 440 Mr. Plunkett did not think the Protestants would be in a worse situation after the passing of this bill than they were before it, with respect to the oath of supremacy. Why, his right hon. friend knew—every body knew—that the pope did at the present moment exercise a spiritual authority in this country. But, those who took the oath denying any such authority, did so with great safety, because they meant, and the oath meant no more, that no such authority or control existed over the person taking it. If the oath was intended to convey, that no such authority existed any where this country, then all those who swore that, must swear to what was false. If, however, his right hon. friend wished to have a bill to relieve the tender consciences, of any individuals with respect to the oath, he should have no objection whatever to such a course. Mr. Peel did not consider the explanation of his right hon. and learned friend satisfactory. It was true in one sense, the situation of the Protestant would not be worse than at present if this bill should pass; but, in another it would, because by this bill, the spiritual authority of the pope would, to a certain extent, be legalized; which it was not at the present moment. We were now about to grant salaries to Roman Catholic archbishops. and bishops, which would be recognizing the Catholic church as legally established, which it was not at present. Mr. Brougham observed, that after the able statement of his right hon. and learned friend, he should despair of convincing the right hon. gentleman opposite; but still he could not avoid saying a few words. If the oath of supremacy was to be understood in the sense in which the right hon. gentleman took it, no man could swear it without swearing falsely, because no man could deny, that the pope had a spiritual authority, recognized in this country by a large portion of our fellow-subjects. He had taken the oath, and he had done it safely. He had sworn not that. the pope 441 Mr. Peel did not admit that the Catholic bishops were recognized in their prelatical capacity. They were called most reverend, and right reverend; but their titles as archbishops and bishops was not admitted. Sir J. Newport asked, why were the titles "most reverend "and" "right reverend" given to the Catholic archbishops and bishops, if not to distinguish their rank from that of the other orders of Catholic priesthood? The time was, when Catholic priests were hunted down wherever they were found in this country. That time was now gone by for ever. Was it intended to re-enact those penal laws, and reduce the Catholic priest to his former state? If not, why deny the Catholic hierarchy that rank to which they were by ordination entitled? When his present majesty was advised by his ministers to receive the Catholic bishops, and did receive them, at his levee in Ireland, he fully recognized them as such. It was not quite decent in a minister of the Crown now to deny that which his sovereign had publicly acknowledged. Mr. Peel said, he was not recurring to the subjects which the hon. member had introduced, nor had he any wish to proscribe the Catholic clergy. All he contended for was, that they were now about to make an alteration inconsistent with the existing law; and that some other law would be required to reconcile the oath of supremacy to the conscientious feelings of many individuals. Mr. L. Foster said, that when he took the oath of supremacy, he had done so with the understanding that the pope had not any legal authority in these countries; but the case would be different if this bill were passed. Lord J. Russell said, the time was, when the exercise of the Catholic religion in this country subjected the party to 442 Mr. Plunkett said, that as the right hon. Secretary was not satisfied with the instance of the college of Maynooth, he would furnish him with another precedent, which in his mind was conclusive. He alluded to that act of the Irish parliament, which relieved the Roman Catholics from the penalties of recusancy, on the condition that they should attend Catholic places of worship. Was not that a legal recognition of the spiritual influence of the pope within the realm? Mr. Brougham said, that he had an amendment to propose upon this clause. After reading the following words of the clause, "And whereas it is expedient that such precautions should be taken, in respect of persons in holy orders professing the Roman Catholic religion, who may at any time hereafter be elected, nominated, or appointed to the exercise or discharge of episcopal duties or functions in the Roman Catholic church in Ireland or to the duties or functions of a dean in the said church, as that no such person shall at any time hereafter assume the exercise or discharge of any such duties or functions within the United Kingdom, or any part thereof, whose loyalty and peaceable conduct shall not have been previously ascertained, as hereinafter provided"—he said he wished to add to them these words—"And whereas, it is fit and requisite to regulate the intercourse between the subjects of this realm and the see of Rome, be it therefore enacted, that it shall and may be lawful for his 443 Mr. Secretary Peel said, that as the authority of bishop Horsley had been referred to in the course of the debate, he could wish hon. gentlemen would refer to the reverend bishop's speech for the arguments contained in it. The re- 444 "The child, whom many filters share, But seldom boasts a father's care;" 445 Mr. Plunkett said, that he should have no objection to throw these securities overboard, if by so doing he could ensure the company of his right hon. friend to the conclusion of his voyage; but, as he could not flatter himself with a hope of such a consummation, and as he knew that the abandonment of these securities would deprive him of the support of several of the crew with whom he was then embarked, he felt bound to keep them at all hazards. For his own part, he thought these securities to be effectual securities, and to be essential to the success of the bill. Still, is he deemed them as useless as he believed them to be serviceable, he would abide by them, for two reasons; first, because they tended to make the bill more likely to succeed; and secondly, because they tended to conciliate towards it the Protestant feeling of the country. In spite of the taunts of his right hon. friend, that these securities had not the good fortune to possess a father, he would avow that he was the person on whom this bantling had a claim for support. When he recollected that all former securities had been similar in nature to the present, and especially those which considered oaths and commissions;is admissible, he could have no reason to disown his connexion with it. Indeed, he saw a strong necessity for granting these, securities in the fact, that they recognized, for the first time, the admissibility of Catholics to the privileges of the constitution. It was also known, that Catholics lived under the spiritual control of their priests; were influenced 446 447 Mr. Bankes thought the proposed securities were quite inadequate. They were, as compared with the ones offered in 1821, merely the form contrasted with the substance. Mr. Peel complained, that it had no reference to the English Catholic ecclesiastics, who were really more dependent on the pope than the Irish. Mr. Plunkett was really at a loss to see what danger could be apprehended from the Catholic hierarchy in England. Mr. Brougham concurred in this view Of the absence of all danger from such a body. Sir F. Ommanney complained that the homage paid to these bulls, ought not to be encouraged; it was contrary to the second commandment, which prohibited idolatry [A laugh]. Mr. Brougham assured the hon. gentle- 448 Lord Ennismore hoped that this bill would not be pressed to a third reading, until the clergy provision bill was passed; as several members had agreed to the former, on the condition of its being accompanied by the latter. Sir John Newport said, that though the bill had not yet been brought in, a resolution had been agreed to which ought to be quite sufficient for the noble lord and his friends. The clergy provision bill was to be viewed as an adjunct to the present bill; and it was fitting that the principal measure should be disposed of, before going into the details of the other. Mr. Brougham said, he would willingly have made a reasonable sacrifice to conciliate the noble lord; but, he entreated the noble lord to consider how completely the condition he proposed would go to nullify some of the most gracious labours in which the House had ever been engaged. It went to make the passing of this bill depend upon the pissing of another bill, which was not yet in existence—which was not even in contemplation at the time this measure was chalked out with the concurrence of a majority of the House. Let the noble lord only consider what it was to make a bill, which had gone through the committee, depend upon the multiplied forms of passing another bill, which might be checked and thrown out in any one of its stages, Surely there was sufficient security for these measures of a provision for the clergy, in the majority which had voted for the resolutions of the noble lord, and the clause in the bill of the hon. member for Stafford, which made the passing of that bill to depend upon the fate of the bill now before the committee. Mr. Sumner said, that they had heard nothing from his majesty's ministers as to what was likely to be the reception of the measure which was to follow upon the resolution of lord F.L. Gower. He thought it was trifling with the House to keep it in ignorance upon that point. Mr. Brougham said, that every man of them agreed that the measure for a pro- 449 Lord Ennismure consented to withdraw his proposition. HOUSE OF LORDS. Monday, May 9. Game Laws Amendment Bill.] Lord Dacre, in moving the second reading of this bill, said that its expediency was so apparent from an inspection of the present game laws, as well as the notoriety of facts, that it would be a waste of their lordships' time to go into any minute inquiry upon the subject. The evil consequences of the present law were fully evinced in its effects upon the habits and morals of the agricultural population; indeed, it was impossible that any question could come before the House which more deeply involved the happiness, nay, the very existence of that class of people. Game was originally the property of the proprietor of the land; and if, in subsequentages, the legislature took it from him, it now behoved their lordships to restore it to its former owner. The noble lord then quoted several decisions of lord Coke, lord Kenyon, and other authorities, to prove that game was formerly considered the property of the owner of the soil: and observed upon the various legislative enactments by which the law on this subject was changed. These enactments excluded all small proprietors and owners of personal property from the enjoyment of game. This exclusion worked a double injustice towards the small landed proprietor; for, whilst it shut him out from the enjoyment of game, it authorised the large proprietor, who was his neighbour, to accumulate such a number of hares and other animals, as to threaten his crops with destruction. If the present bill passed, it would be followed by such mutual arrangements between the large and small proprietors, as would have the effect of completely checking the depre- 450 The Earl of Westmorland opposed the motion. When a measure like this, affecting the rights and privileges of so many of the king's subjects was proposed, it required, he said, very serious consideration. The preservation of game, in a country so highly cultivated as ours was, was an object of high importance. If the noble lord proceeded with the measure, he would find himself involved in much contradiction and absurdity. It was introduced under the pretext of supporting popular rights: but whoever examined the bill, would find it to be the most despotic act that ever was framed; and that, in fact, its principles were the same as those from which the horrors of the French Revolution were partly drawn. Its tendency was to benefit men of extensive landed property, and to deprive all other classes of every species of rural amusement. It went to declare game, feræ naturæ, to be private property. It 451 The Earl of Malmesbury objected to the expressions, "unjust, impolitic, and unprincipled," as too severe, when applied to an existing law which had been so long in operation. He never remembered the alteration now proposed, to have been taken up by the great statesmen in 452 The Earl of Darnley supported the bill. The system of poaching was he said, carried to so great an extent, that some measure was necessary to correct it; and though, perhaps, the bill before the House was not the most perfect, yet it was calculated to do away with a large portion of the evils of the present system. As to the observation, that the present laws were calculated to act as an inducement to country gentlemen to reside on their estates, he must say that they would have the same inducement under the proposed law; for the fact of game being made property could not hinder gentlemen from preserving it less than they did before. He should, therefore, give his cordial support to the bill. Lord Calthorpe expressed himself favourable to the principle of the bill. If it had no other effect than that of legalizing the sale of game, it would be productive of the most important benefits to the country; for he believed that the greatest and most fruitful source of the evils flowing from the existing laws was to be found in the prohibition of the sale of game. On these grounds he would support the bill; and he conceived it would be a peculiarly invidious act to reject it. Notwithstanding that it had been said, that any measure like this passed in the other House would be thrown out in this, he was satisfied that their lordships would consider that they were not sitting there as land-holders merely, but that other considerations and other duties ought to influence them in deciding upon this most important question. Lord Suffield contended, that the present system of the game laws was prolific of crime. He denied that the bill under consideration tended to the establishment of a new description of property. The game was at present the property of the owner of the soil. No statute had ever declared to the contrary. It had always been held so; and all that had been done 453 The House divided on the Amendment:—Contents 38; Not-contents 23; Majority 15. The bill was consequently lost. HOUSE OF COMMONS Monday, May 9. Elective Franchise in Ireland Bill.] Mr. Littleton moved the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill. On the question being proposed, "That the Speaker do now leave the Chair," Mr. Grattan rose to enter his solemn protest against entertaining the measure. He contended that it was impossible for the House to agree to a bill of such importantance without thoroughly understanding it. 454 l s Mr. V. Fitzgerald supported the motion for going into a committee, as he was satisfied the proposed measure would cause an important improvement in the state of Ireland. He contended that this bill, so far from endangering existing franchises, would confirm them, inasmuch as no more franchises could in future be created. He wished to make this a measure of general reform of the system of voting in Ireland. He objected to the bill, therefore, for containing an exception in favour of the fee-simple 40 s s 455 Mr. Littleton observed, that it was inconvenient to enter into a discussion of particular clauses at present; as that would be more properly the business of the committee. As to the proposed extension of disfranchisement to holders in fee, he should oppose it with all his might, and he expected every gentleman of England would join him in that opposition. He wished to disfranchise 40 s s Mr. L. Foster said, he had voted for the second reading of the bill, from a hope that in the committee it might be so framed, as to become a remedy for some of the evils which afflicted Ireland. He, however, could not avoid expressing his apprehension, that it would generate evils which it professed to suppress, and, that it would afford temptations to the commission of perjury by the peasantry, when changing the old tenures into the new. All he was anxious for was, the repeal of the act brought in by the member for the Queen's county. But, in reference to the holders of land in fee, it was worthy of being remembered, that the very measure which reduced the number of fraudulent 40 s 456 s s s Sir John Newport rose or the purpose of deprecating discussion on this question at present; as all the grounds must be gone over again in the committee, in which alone a satisfactory result could be come to. Sir John Wrottesley contended, from the principles of' human nature, which evinced a desire to obtain political power, that the Irish Catholics must it be dissatisfied with the present measure. He thought Catholic emancipation necessary to the solid union of the kingdoms; but must object to the disfranchisement of 200,000 freeholders, as a great measure of parliamentary reform proposed on the slightest evidence. Mr. Dawson objected to going into a committee too precipitately. He said, that the hon. member for Staffordshire could blame nobody but himself for this delay, as he had himself deprecated any discussion on the second reading of the bill, by announcing his intention of offering a clause altering the whole nature of the bill. He had therefore passed the bill through a stage" when it was usual discuss the principle, and having now changed the principle by the introduction of new matter, he could not be surprised that those, among whom he was one, should 457 458 459 s l 460 l l s 461 Lord Ebiiigton said, that though he was warmly a tacked to the cause of parliamentary reform, he would vote for the present bill because it would confer a valuable boon on the people of Ireland, and would conciliate to the cause of emancipation many persons who would otherwise remain hostile to it. Lord Corry said, he was convinced of the inexpediency of granting Catholic emancipation, but felt that the evil of such a measure would be much mitigated by the passing of the present act. Mr. Carus Wilson condemned this measure, because it took from the lowest classes of the community a privilege of inestimable value. In allusion to what had fallen from an hon. and learned gentleman the other night, about the practice of a certain powerful individual in a northern county, he could only say, that he understood it to have been that person's practice, long before an election for the county in question was supposed to be a probable matter of contest, to let his property from year to year. And he ( Mr. W.), who had property in the same county, had adopted the same plan. It was due to the individual thus alluded to to state, that he had never heard of a single instance of even the poorest peasant on that person's estates having been in any way molested or disturbed, on account of the vote he might have chosen to give on the occasion in question. Under all the circumstances, he did think that the present measure for disfranchising so many freeholders was founded only on a certain contingency, which it was not clear had happened. Considered as a measure good in itself or otherwise, he should be extremely reluctant to support it. If the hon. mover could satisfy him that it would improve the independence of those whose state of dependence it considered as an evil, he would vote for it; but if not, he must decline to do so. Mr. Hume observed, that he rose to take a course on this question different from that adopted by every other member. [a laugh]. He meant to say, that nobody had as yet concluded his speech by putting any specific motion into the hands of the Speaker. Now, that was what he meant to do before he sat down. This measure he considered to be, perhaps, the most important of any which had ever been brought forward, since he had had the honour of a seat in that House; and yet, a number. of hon. gentlemen had 462 s 463 s s 464 465 466 Colonel Johnson protested against the House legislating so decidedly, and upon so important a subject, without even the form of an inquiry into the abuses which they pretended to correct. He had been stationed in Ireland, and had seen many elections; but he had never witnessed anything, which would justify the depriving the people of their elective franchise. He deprecated the measure as an ,expedient by which it was sought to deprive a certain class of people of their rights, merely to enhance the privileges of others. The measure was a wanton destruction a popular rights; for all the evils which it pretended to remedy, might be obviated, by adopting the principle of taking the votes by ballot. Mr. Martin, of Galway, said he was opposed to the measure, if considered abstractedly from the general one of emancipation; but being deemed essential to the success of that great question, he would give it his reluctant assent. In adverting to the cases of the corrupt boroughs, which had been alluded to it the course of this discussion, the hon. gentleman said, that parliament did not disfranchise in those cases until it had the clearest and fullest evidence before it, that every one of the electors was absolutely corrupt. Could any man, upon no better case than had been made out in the present instance, consent to vote, in the lump, for the disfranchisement of all the 40 s 467 s s 468 Mr. Daly complained of the attack which had been made upon him by his hon. colleague, who had assured him, not fifteen minutes ago, that he had no intention of making any allusion to him. Still he preferred this open attack in his presence, to that reference which his hon. colleague had made to him on a former evening, when he was absent. He wished to trouble the House with a few remarks upon the contested election alluded to by his hon. colleague. He was advised upon that occasion by both parties, to preserve a strict neutrality, and he was promised the support of both. He accordingly dismissed his agents. He gave directions that no freeholder should be solicited for him; and he agreed that if any tenant upon his estate came forward to vote for him he would give his hon. colleague two votes for one in every such case; in order to prove that the neutrality was not broken with his consent. Five of his own tenants came forward to vote for him, and he felt bound in honour to give ten votes to his hon. colleague. And 469 s Mr. Martin explained, that he did not attribute to his hon. colleague any guilty fore-knowledge of what occurred. He was sure he had not. Mr. Daly expressed himself perfectly satisfied with the explanation. Mr. Spring Rice observed, that it seemed the two hon. gentlemen who had just addressed the House had lost sight of the main question, and had entered into a long dialogue respecting local transactions; but he congratulated the House at having heard their conversation, as it was the very best illustration of the necessity of the bill which had been introduced by the hon. member for Staffordshire. If we were without evidence before, we had sufficient evidence now to proceed upon. Those two hon. members, "Arcades ambo," had favoured the House with an Amaboean dialogue, which he doubted not would be sufficient to satisfy the most distrustful mind of the necessity of passing the bill. When the House heard the phrases of "freeholders breaking loose,"and of" exchanging two votes for one," it was perfectly clear that much freedom of choice could not be exercised by the parties themselves. Before he applied himself to the amendment before the House, he wished to make a few observations on an expression which had fallen from his hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen. That hon. gentleman had said, that the leaders of the Catholics of Ireland— that the men whom the Catholics had respected, whose talents they admired, and in whose virtues, and probity, and public spirit, the country had confided —that these men had betrayed their trust, and had compromised the interests of their countrymen. He would say that this statement was not correct, and that the Catholics of Ireland would not believe this statement, Although it came from the hon. member for Aberdeen. The conduct of Mr. O'Connell and his friends, he was sure, was such as would at least place them 470 s 471 s s 472 s s s l 473 s s l s s 474 Mr. M'Naughten declared himself to be altogether opposed to the bill. It was one of disfranchisement; but, who were, to be disfranchised? Not the delinquents; not they, whose acts justified the proceeding; but the liberties of those who were unborn were to be strangled. It was an unconstitutional, an absurd, and an unjust measure. It was to cut off both hands of a man, in order that he might the better be able to defend his person. 475 Sir F. Blake supported the bill on the principle that it tended to produce a very salutary reform. The 40 s Captain O'Grady said, he had heard with as much astonishment as any English member, the description which had been given of the conduct, appearance, and character of the 40 s Mr. Dominick Browne said, he would support the bill upon its own merits. He believed that the 40 s Colonel Trench supported the bill on its own merits, and totally apart from its connexion with any other measure. He considered it to be an honest, useful, and effective bill; and one, that, if passed into a law, would confer a great blessing on Ireland. Lord Milton said, he would support the bill, not so much on its own merits, which he thought had been exceedingly exaggerated, but because its success would conduce to the success of the main measure of emancipation. The 40 s 476 Mr. M'Naughten, in explanation, declared that the noble lord was quite wrong in what he had stated respecting him; for that it was not the fact that he ceased to be a member for the county of Antrim when the heir of a noble family came of age. He ceased to be member for the county of Antrim on grounds best known to himself, and which had been approved of by all his friends. Lord Milton explained. He had not said the heir, but a member of a noble family. Mr. Becher supported the bill, upon the ground, that whatever objection there might be to it in theory, it would be found, in its practical results, to favour purity of election. But he principally, supported it, because it facilitated the great measure of Catholic emancipation. The principle of the present bill was called for by Protestants; it was agreed to by Catholics; and opposed only by those who were without any practical knowledge on the subject. 477 Mr. Lambton declared that if the bill before the House, and the bill in favour of the Catholics were to be considered as necessarily connected, his mind was made up to vote against the latter. Mr. Hobhouse entreated his hon. friend, to reconsider what he had just said. He thought that, as his hon. friend had made his opinions known on the disfranchisement bill, he might with greater safety still continue his support to the great measure of Catholic emancipation. If there was any error in combining the two bills, the error was not his hon. friend's; and it would be only playing into the hands of the antagonist of the Roman Catholic question to vote against that measure, because it was coupled, in appearance, with one not so agreeable to his feelings. Mr. Hume saw no reason why his hon. friend should not maintain his consistency as a friend to parliamentary reform, by voting against the bill. For his own part, if the two measures of Catholic emancipation and disfranchisement were identified, he would rather vote against the Catholic emancipation, than against the disfranchisement of the 40 s Mr. W. Smith said, that ever since he had been a member of that House, he had always voted both for parliamentary reform and Catholic emancipation. It would hardly be supposed that, at the present moment, he could feel any inducement to resign his claim to consistency; but as he could see no inconsistency in voting for the present measure, he would do so with all his heart, as the means of obtaining great and permanent advantages for the Catholics. Mr. Brougham said, he would, on every principle of public duty to which he had been attached during his political life, support the Catholic Relief bill. On the principle of right, as well as of political expediency, it should receive his best assistance; and if he had any weight with his esteemed friend, the hon. member for Durham, and with the hon. member for Aberdeen, he would entreat of them to receive what he was now about to say with that kindly consideration, which he hoped it would be found to deserve. He had not, it should be observed, given, by his vote, any sanction to this measure. He had, on the contrary, with great pain 478 479 Mr. Lambton observed, that the hon. and learned gentleman who had just spoken, and the hon. member for Westminster, had seemed anxious to take the opportunity of attacking him and his motives in consequence of what he had stated. The hon. member who had just sat down was quite mistaken as to the reasons on which he (Mr. L.) grounded his proceeding. It was not in consequence of being in a minority on this Elective Franchise bill, that he had determined to vote against the other bill. He had announced his opinion some time since, that he never could vote for the Catholic question when disfigured by this bill. He considered it so intimately connected with the Catholic question, that they were one and the same thing. He had heard nothing to induce him to alter his opinion. He never gave a vote from interested motives; but from a sincere conviction, that by so doing he best served the principles which he supported, and it would not be the misfortune of differing from any hon. friend, which would induce him to alter that course. If the House were to carry emancipation, accompanied by the Elective Franchise bill, he thought it would be doing greater evil than leaving the thing as it was at present. In thus expressing his sentiments, he had not expected to have been called upon to retract. What he had done was what he conceived the best course for the good of the country. He was not to be browbeaten into another course; and so help him God! he would pursue the same course, even though with the loss of the dearest friendships he enjoyed in the world. 480 Mr. Brougham wished to put it to any hon. member—it was a large challenge, as he believed there were nearly three hundred present —whether he would get up and say, that there had been any thing in the tone of what he had ventured to submit which could be considered as an attempt to browbeat? If any hon. member would say, there was any thing beyond affectionate and respectful remonstrance, then he would admit that he had been guilty of a great offence against good feeling, and good manners. Colonel Johnson repeated, that he did not think Catholic emancipation was worth the price of this bill. Mr. James said, that although he was an advocate for universal suffrage, he would vote for the present bill; because he looked upon its consequences as no disfranchisement at all. The freeholders were voters in name, but not in reality. Mr. Littleton said, that it so late a period of the night, he did not think it advisable to propose any amendments to the bill. He would merely suggest, that the blanks should be filled up, and that it should be recommitted for Thursday. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Tuesday, May 10. ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.] Mr. Doherty said, that the right hon. the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, being unable to attend in his place that night, had requested him to present the petition which he held in his hand. It was the petition of the Protestant nobility, magistrates, and gentry, of the county or Galway, in favour of the bill now pending for the removal of the disabilities under which their Roman Catholic brethren had so long, and, in their opinion, so unjustly laboured. The House would judge of the respectability of the signatures to the petition, when he stated that amongst them were to be found those of the marquis of Sligo, and lord Clanricarde. He moved that the petition be brought up. Mr. V. Fitzgerald begged to assure the House that there was not a Protestant nobleman or gentleman of rank in the county, who was not decidedly favourable to the claims of the Catholics; and it was worthy of remark, that this petition came from a set of noblemen and gentlemen who resided in a county peculiarly Catholic, 481 Mr. Doherty said, that as that was in all probability the last petition from the Protestants of Ireland before the decision of the question, he was anxious to say a few words upon the whole number of petitions which had come from Irish Protestants, either for or against the question. He was the more anxious to do this, as the Irish Protestants were the best able to appreciate the propriety and expediency of such a measure as that to be discussed that night. Against the bill no more than nine petitions Lad come from Irish Protestants. Of these nine it was not his wish to say much, but he must observe, that four of them came from parishes in a county not the most likely to view the subject impartially, as, unfortunately, party spirit and party feelings were two prevalent there. On the other hand, he found that seventeen petitions had been presented from Irish Protestant bodies in favour of the bill, making a majority nearly equal to the whole number on the other side. He was aware that the number of petitions in its favour was small compared with the entire Protestant population; but the House must bear in mind, that if the feeling of the great body of Protestants had been against the measure, the majority of petitions would have been infinitely greater the other way. He was one of those who had ever thought it impossible to conciliate the Roman Catholics without also conciliating the Protestants. This, it appeared to him, they had now the power to do; and if the House in its wisdom should think with him, he called upon them to do both by carrying the bill now before them. Mr. S. Rice observed, that the feelings of the Protestants of Ireland were daily and hourly becoming more favourable to the interests of their Catholic brethren. The feelings of the Irish representatives were decidedly in its favour; and if the present bill were lost, it would be lost in consequence of British feelings and British interests being opposed to it. He implored the House to weigh seriously the alarming consequences of such an opposition. It would be looked upon as nothing less than applying the axe to the root of British connexion and British intercourse. 482 Mr. Butterworth could not agree with hon. members, that the feelings of the Protestants of Ireland were in favour of the Catholic Relief bill. He had received letters from Ireland, which informed him, that the feeling was strongly the other way, and that several of the signatures to the Protestant petitions in favour of the Catholics had been obtained through fear and intimidation. Mr. V. Fitzgerald begged, as an Irish gentleman, and an Irish representative, to put his personal knowledge and experience in opposition to the communication made to the hon. member for Dover. He took leave to give the utmost latitude of denial to the statement, but most of all, to that part of it which said that the signatures of Protestant gentlemen had been obtained through menace. If the Protestants of Ireland were opposed to the bill, instead of sending seventeen petitions in its favour, they would have covered the table with petitions against it. He assured the House, that the feeling in its favour was daily increasing in Ireland; but chiefly amongst those who were best calculated to form a correct opinion upon it. Lord Althorp was glad that the hon. member had put his personal knowledge in opposition to the anonymous information of the hon. member for Dover. It was to him somewhat singular, that they should now have heard of that information for the first time. The hon. member must have been aware that a Committee had been sitting up stairs, and that he might, if he had so pleased, have called any number of witnesses before it. He would not take upon himself to say, that the Protestants who signed the petitions in favour of Roman Catholics had done so through intimidation; but he would say, that the Protestant gentlemen who gave their evidence before the committee, had not been in any way intimidated, and he appealed to every member present, whether they were not decidedly in favour of the bill? He could not help thinking, that the hon. member had been misinformed, and that the answer given by the right hon. member opposite, was that which the House ought to rely upon. Mr. Sykes said, that the hon. member had made his statement from a letter which he had not read, and upon an authority which he had not named. He was bound, in fairness, to read the letter and name its author; in order to give the 483 Mr. Robertson said, that he had always supported the Catholic Relief bill; but, if it was to be coupled with the Disfranchisement bill, it was a question with him how far its supporters on former occasions were bound to advocate it under such circumstances. Mr. Butterworth said, he had not made his observations lightly, nor without consideration. He had not gone upon the evidence of a solitary letter. Being anxious to satisfy himself, he had sent a circular to all parts of Ireland; and the answers were such as he had described. Such being the case, he felt it his duty to communicate his information to the House. He had not, it was true, made his inquiries of members; as they were likely to be under particular obligations to their constituents [hear, hear! and a laugh]. Mr. N. Doherty said, that as the hon. member had made his statement upon the authority of letters without a name, he trusted that he, too, might be allowed to state that he had received letters—many letters—from men of high rank and professional character in Ireland, men who had heretofore been opponents to this bill, earnestly praying that it might pass into a law. From men, too, who certainly had not been solicited by him to give their opinions: and he must take leave to say, that opinions thus spontaneously expressed, were, to say the least of them, of as much weight as those elicited by the hon. member's circular. He could not pretend to say what were the precise terms of the hon. member's inquiries; but he trusted the hon. member had asked, whether the Protestants of Ireland were favourable to the Catholic cause, and at the same time, expressed a hope that they were so. Mr. M. Fitzgerald assured the House, that the Protestants of Ireland were not to be intimidated; and it was but a poor compliment paid to them by the hon. member for Dover, in his over zeal for the Protestant religion, to say that their signatures had been obtained by menace. The hon. member had sent his circular, and had detailed to the House the answers returned to him. If any hon. member were to open a shop in this country for the reception of tales of bigotry and hypocrisy and intolerance, there was no doubt 484 Mr. Peel presented a petition from eleven magistrates and 28,000 inhabitants of Manchester and Salford, against further concessions to the Roman Catholics. Mr. Phillips said, that this petition was not to be taken as expressing the sentiments or the inhabitants of Manchester generally, but of a certain party, who had not dared to call a public meeting. All sorts of contrivances had been used to obtain signatures to it. It had even been exposed in the public streets, and a gentleman was now in the lobby of the House, who had seen boys affix their names to it. Constituted as the magistracy of Manchester was, consisting of persons of one political faith only, he did not expect that they would set an example of superior liberality in principles, opinions, or practice. Some of them, indeed, had been zealous advocates for the establishment of Orange Societies in Lancashire, in order, if possible to introduce into that county the religious animosities that at present disturbed Ireland. Application had been made by the leaders of the Anti-catholic party to Methodistic and Calvinistic ministers, to receive the petition into their chapels; but in the Methodist chapels only, he was happy to say, had signatures been appended. In fact, the document deserved no other epithet than that of a "hole and corner" petition. Since it had been got up, application had been made to the boroughreeve to call a public meeting, to consider of the propriety, of petitioning parliament in favour of the Catholic claims; and after five hours discussion, it was resolved in the affirmative by a majority of at least three to one. He rejoiced that the town of Manchester had set this exam- 485 Mr. Secretary Peel said, that it had been his practice to present to the House the various petitions intrusted to him without comment; as none of them had been prepared or subscribed at his instance or suggestion. In justice to the petitioners who had now confided the statement of their sentiments and wishes to him, it was, however, absolutely necessary for him to say a few words. Of course he knew nothing personally; but he was instructed positively to deny the allegations of the hon. member. The petition did not profess to be more than "the petition of the undersigned inhabitants of Manchester and Salford," and it did not arrogate to itself to express any thing more than the opinions of those who had subscribed it. When the hon. gentleman said, that it had been got up by those who had not dared to call a public meeting, he ought to have added the reason why a public meeting against the Catholic claims had not been convened. The promoters of the petition had applied to the boroughreeve for the purpose of having a meeting; and when that gentleman addressed the assembly, which was subsequently called, with a contrary object, he had done the present petitioners the justice of saying, that it was by his advice that a public meeting had not been held: the consequence was, the private meeting at the Bridgewater Arms, in deference to the opinion of the boroughreeve. He had also been informed, that several sheets had been withheld by the petitioners because they were found to contain the signatures of boys. In order, if possible, to procure the rejection of 486 Sir T. Lethbridge observed, that between two or three thousand signatures had been left in Manchester, which could not be subjoined to the large roll about to be laid upon the table. At the public meeting, it was true that a petition in favour of the claims had been voted, but the fact, he understood, was, that the benches had been so filled by Roman Catholics, that the Protestants could not obtain admittance in order to hold up their hands to the contrary. He was convinced that the strongest possible feeling animated the inhabitants of Manchester generally, against the bill. Mr. B. Wilbraham saw no reason why the other magistrates of Manchester should be stigmatized, because some of the body might have wished for the establishment of Orange lodges in Lancashire. They were all satisfied that concession at that moment would be dangerous. Lord Stanley objected to the signatures of the magistrates, who had put their names to the petition in their magisterial as well as in their private capacity. Those individuals had hitherto not mixed themselves with political questions, and he therefore saw with more pain and regret that they stepped forward on this occasion, to oppose the further progress of a bill which was necessary for the tranquillity of Ireland, and for the safety of the empire. But for the subsequent public meeting, and the resolutions then adopted, the petition presented by the right hon. Secretary would have appeared to be the petition generally of the inhabitants of Manchester and Salford. The noble lord then presented a petition from certain inhabitants of the town of Manchester, convened in public meeting, in favour of the Roman Catholics. ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.] The order of the day being read, "That this bill be now read the third time," 487 Mr. Curwen rose and said, that although he had sat in that House for many years, he had seldom taken a part in the discussion of the question then before them. He trusted, however, that upon the present occasion, he might be permitted to obtrude himself upon their attention for a very few moments. It had been the policy of those who were opposed to the measure of Catholic concession, to represent the great body of the people of England as hostile to that measure. For his own part, as far as his experience went, he could confidently assert that such a representation was erroneous. He had the honour to represent a large county, and so far from the existence of any hostile feeling amongst his constituents, he could say, that a great and decided majority of them were favourable to the Roman Catholics—a feeling in which he himself most heartily concurred. He would go further and say, that there were none more attached to Protestantism than the inhabitants of the north of England, and he was certain that if by the passing of this measure they anticipated any danger to the established religion, they would be the last to support it. But they foresaw that by granting emancipation, they were affording the most effectual security to the Protestant religion. Was it nothing he would ask, to conciliate six millions of people, and convert them from enemies into friends? He had always been accustomed to consider the restrictions upon the Roman Catholics as resulting from political and not religious motives. They were entered into originally for the protection of a prince, who was called to the throne of these realms by the voice of the people, and to prevent the return of another prince who had been excluded from that throne. But the political reasons which existed for those restrictions had long since ceased, and if, at the period of their enactment, they had not been looked upon as a security for the Protestant religion, still less were they called for at the present moment. There never, he contended, was a period, when alarm ought less to prevail than at the present moment, for there never was a period when the church was in higher favour, or when its ministers discharged their duty in a more exemplary manner. It was, therefore, with considerable pain that he saw the members of that respectable and venerable body coming forward with petitions against the Catholics. If such was the conduct of the en- 488 489 Sir R. H. Inglis rose and said:— 490 is is not at this time 491 * donec corrigatur. Decret Apr †Milton. Il Paradiso Perduto. Poema Inglese, tradotto in nostra lingua, da Paolo Rolli. Decr Januarii 492 * * nisi fuerint correcti juxta emendationem editam anno Decr Maii †Des Cartes Opera Philosophica; donec corrigantur. Decr Nov ‡Galilei Galileo. Diologo sopra i due masimi Sisteme del Mondo Tolemaico, e Copernicano. Decret Augusti 493 * Quesnel Quesnel * †Letters on the Re-union of the Churches; p. 24 494 495 in Cathedrâ connived permitted * 496 * *Relation de ce qui s'est passé à Rome dans I'Envahissement. des Etats du St. Siège par les François. 3tom. Lond. 1812. †Si pretende la libertà d'ogni culto con publico esercizio, e questo articolo siccome opposto à canoni ed ai concili, e alla religione cattolica, al quieto vivere, ed alla felicità dello stato, per le funeste consequenze che ne deriverebbero, lo abbiamo pure rigettato. Relation ‡Relation, tom. i. p. 193. 497 semper eadem 498 magnum latrocinium 499 * * †Letters, p. 4. 500 at this day 501 the mass who thought for them * †Committee of Secrecy, p. 50. ‡Committee of Secrecy, p. 52. 502 the few 503 504 toleration power in the exercise of their religion Mr. Horace Twiss said, that although the opposition to this bill had been rested mainly on the ancient grounds, that the proposed alteration would be repugnant to the constitution, and upon that remarkable theory of the honourable member for Corfe Castle, that this constitution is in its genius exclusive, yet the friends of the bill had hitherto taken little notice of this line of argument; perhaps, because it had, in various ways, been often answered before, and had confined themselves almost wholly to topics of temporary interest and urgency. But, it would be to be regretted, if the country should thence infer that the advocates of concession had given way upon the main constitutional ground; and he would therefore solicit the observation of the House to one general constitutional view of the question, which he believed had not before been presented, at least, not connectedly, or in its clearest light. 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 l 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 Mr. Hart Davis said, he was anxious to address the House not only from a feeling of the importance of the subject before them, but because of the deep interest which is constituents had always manifested in regard to it. The main question rested on this foundation; namely, that the British Constitution was essentially Protestant, and that it was therefore necessary to have a Protestant king. Under these premises, it would be a waste of time to endeavour to prove the necessity of both Houses of parliament being Protestant. The advocates for the Roman Catholic claims allowed that the constitution was Protestant, and that it was not only necessary to have a Protestant king on the Throne, but that the king's advisers should be Protestant, and that the great 525 526 Mr. C. Grant said, he was not disposed to go at any great length into the discussion of the present question, after the able manner in which it had been already argued. The subject was now nearly exhausted; but, without going into the general details, he could not resist the opportunity of stating his opinion of its necessity, for the sake of the tranquillity of Ireland. He regretted that the question had been viewed with so little reference to its effect upon the condition of that country—that Ireland, the great element in the consideration of the case, had been so little alluded to. It was to all intents an Irish question. Its chief bearing was upon that country. He was sorry, therefore, that his hon. friend (sir R. H. Inglis) had not grappled with the question—how were they to deal with Ireland, if this bill was not passed? This was the real, the most important point for the consideration of the House; and he would beg to ask any honourable member prepared to give his vote against this bill, what was to be done with Ireland in case of its rejection? Some honourable members seemed to think, that a partial concession would secure the tranquillity of that country—that the eligibility of a few Catholic barristers to the honour of a silk gown would have that effect: but, when they had to deal with six millions of people, seeking for the restoration of their civil rights, it was a mockery to rest upon a point of this kind. It was not on this point that the supporters of the bill rested. They took their ground on the broad constitutional principle, that every man should be admitted to an eligibility to that rank and office which he might claim as a British subject. The opponents of the measure made their stand on the exception to that principle. He was not bound, as a supporter of the general principle, to answer all the objections, which rested on consequences resulting from the exception; but, he would ask the supporters of the exception, what had they done to secure the tranquillity of Ireland? Had they succeeded to the extent, that they might now rely with confidence in the affection of the people 527 528 529 "Spiritus intus alit, totamque infusa per artus Mens agitat molem, et magno se corpore miscet." 530 531 532 The Solicitor-General commenced his speech by adverting to the miraculous conversion of the hon. member for Armagh from a bitter enemy into a warm advocate for Catholic emancipation. He noticed the reasons which that hon. member had given for his conversion, and stated, that they were by no means strong enough to produce a similar change in his mind. He contrasted the extemporaneous evidence of Dr. Doyle before the committees, with the deliberate writings of that individual under the signature of J. K. L., and stated, that with all the respect that he felt for a Catholic bishop, he could not believe him as a witness, when he heard him uttering sentiments directly in the teeth of all that he had written. In Dr. Doyle's opinion, a possession of forty years would create a title in lands sequestrated from the church 533 l 534 s 535 536 537 538 539 Mr. Huskisson said, that after the ample, frequent, and, above all, the able discussions this question had received—after the powerful and interesting speech made by his hon. and learned friend who had just sat down, the greater part of which referred to the subject which occupied their attention last night—he felt he owed to the House some apology for trespassing .upon them at all; but it might afford gentlemen some satisfaction to be assured that he would confine himself to the smallest bound of discussion upon the subject. It was, however, impossible for him to give a silent vote upon a question of such importance. With regard to those events which were gone by, there were no circumstances of his long parliamentary life which he could review with more sincere pleasure and satisfaction than the conscientious votes which he had given, upon many occasions for the restoration of the Catholics to their constitutional rights, and for the partial or total repeal of those disabilities under which they laboured. The motive of this conduct was not because he would extend more favour to Catholics than he would to others; and he would now state, that, with all deference to the talent and ability displayed by the hon. baronet, the member for Dundalk, he could scarcely help supposing, when he heard the hon. baronet's arguments, that the question was, whether the Catholic religion was to be established, or merely to be tolerated by the law of the land. He had nothing whatever to do with the spirit, or the tenets, or the doctrines of that religion. In the practices and intentions of the Romish hierarchy he could see nothing to dread were they even wickedly inclined. He owed the Catholics no favour whatever, He differed from many members in that respect. He was under no political obligation of any kind to them; but, he owed it to justice to vote for the removal of their disabilities. He thought it but justice that those penalties and disabilities which afflicted them should be removed, when the evils for which they were supposed to be the remedy had ceased to exist. This feeling alone would influence his vote; but he also thought he owed it to his country to support the measure, for other important reasons. By withholding the privileges sought for, we should be acting dangerously, as we retarded the prosperity of the country, in time of peace; by so doing we rendered that peace less permanent 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 s Mr. Secretary Peel said, he intended to address but a very few words to the House on this occasion. He was sure the House would, in the first place, allow him to advert to something which 547 548 549 550 l l l 551 Mr. Brougham rose, amidst cries of question, and began by assuring the House, that after so many nights' discussion—due, however, to the great interest at stake, and due to the Catholics—it was not his intention to trespass on the House at any length: but he felt himself called upon to make a few observations as to something which fell from him on Friday evening, and which had drawn forth an observation from the right hon. Secretary; and he should add a few words as to the measure itself. The hon. and learned gentleman then entered into an explanation relative to what he had said of bishop O'Byrne. It bad been understood, he said, that the bishop had, in the early part of his life, received orders from the Pope, which had been afterwards repealed. This was not a solitary instance; as he understood a gentleman, at present a very popular preacher, had never received any but a foreign ordination. If bishop O'Byrne had not received popish ordination, it was singular that this should have been so generally credited. He (Mr. B.), in saying so, only said what was generally understood., His friends denied it, and he was himself satisfied. It was probable the mistake might have arisen from the brother of bishop O'Byrne 552 553 554 555 556 557 Sir F. Blake rose, amidst tremendous shouts of "Question," which continued during the whole of his speech. He supported the bill; and as well as we could bear, declared that he would always be at his post. He stood up at that moment the unsolicited advocate of the 558 Colonel Forde amid cries of "question," and "withdraw!" spoke briefly in support of the bill, and expressed his approbation of the measures which had been appended to it. List of the Majority and Minority. MAJORITY. Browne, D. Abercromby, hon. J. Browne, J. Abercromby, hon. G. Browne, rt. hon. D. R. Brownlow, C. Acland, sir T. D. Bruen, H. Allan, J. H. Burdett, sir F. Althorp, vise. Burgh, sir U. Anson, sir G. Bury, vise. Bagwell, rt. hon. W. Byng, G. Baillie, J. Calcraft, J. Baring, sir T. Calcraft, S. H. Baring, A. Calthorpe, hon. F. G. Baring, H. Calthorpe, hon. A. Barnard, visc. Calvert, C. Barrett, S. M. Calvert, N. Becher, W. W. Campbell, hon. G. Bective, earl of Carew, R. S. Belgrave, visc. Carter, John Benett, J. Caulfield, hon. H. Bentinck, lord W. Cavendish, lord G. Benyon, Ben. Cavendish, H. Bernard, Thos. Cavendish, C. Binning, lord Chaloner, R. Blake, sir F. Clarke, hon. C. B. Bourne, rt. hon. W. S. Clarke, sir G. Brandling, C. Clifton, visc. Brecknock, earl Cocks, J. Brinkman, T. Coffin, sir I. Brougham, H. Coke., T. W 559 Colborne, N. R. Kennedy, T. S. Colthurst, sir N. Kingsborough, visc. Compton, S. Knight, R. Coote, sir C. Lamb, hon. G. Courtenay, T. P. Lascelles, hon. W. Courtenay, W. Latouche, R. Cradock, R. Lawley, F. Crosby, J. Leader, W. Daly, J. Lester, B. L. Dawson, J. H. M. Leicester, R. Denison, W. J. Lewis, T. F. Denman, T. Littleton, E. Doherty, John Lloyd, sir E. Douglas, W. R. Lloyd, S. J. Drummond, H. H. Lockhart, E. Dundas, hon. T. Lushington, S. East, sir E. H. Maberly, J. Eastnor, lord Maberly, W. L. Ebrington, visc. Macdonald, J. Ellice, E. Mahon, hon. S. Ellis, C. R. Marjoribanks, sir J. Ellison, C. Marjoribanks, S. Evans, W. Martin, J. Evelyn, L. Martin, R. Fergusson, sir R. C. Maule, hon. W. Fitzgerald, rt. hon. V. Maxwell, J. Fitzgerald, rt. hon. M. Milbank, M. Fitzgerald, lord W. Mildmay, P. St. John Fitzgibbon, hon. R. Milton, visc. Folkestone, visct. Monck, T. B. Forbes, lord Moore, Peter Forde, M. Morland, sir S. B. Frankland, R. Mostyn, sir T. Freemantle,rt. hon. W. Mountcharles, earl of French, A. Money, W. T. Gaskill, B. Newport, rt. hon. sir J. Glenorchy, visc. North, T. H. Gordon, R. Nugent, lord Gower, lord F. L. Nugent, sir G. Graham, sir S. O'Brien, sir E. Grant, rt. hon. C. O'Callaghan, J. Grattan, J. O'Grady, Standish Grenfell, P. Ord, W. Grosvenor, hon. R. Oxmantown, lord Grosvenor, hon. T. Paget, hon. sir C. Guise, sir W. Pakenham, hon. R. Gurney, H. Palmer, C. Gilbert, D. G. Palmer, C. F. Harding, sir H. Palmerston, visc. Harvey, C. Pares, T. Hawkins, sir C. Parnell, sir H. Heathcote, G. J. Phillips, G. R. Heron, sir R. Phillips, G. Hill, lord A. Phipps, hon. E. Hobhouse, J. C. Plummer, J. Honywood, W. P. Plunkett, rt. hon. W. Hornby, E. Ponsonby, hon. F. C. Howard, hon. W. Portman, E. B. Howard, hon. S. G. Power, R. Howard, H. Powlett, hon. W. Hume, J. Poyntz, W. S. Hurst, R. Prendergast, W. G. Huskisson, rt. hon. W. Price, R. Innes, sir H. Pringle, sir W. James, W. Prittie, hon. F. Jolliffe, H. Pym, F. Knox, hon. T. Ramsbottom, J. 560 Ramsden, S. C. Williams, J. Rice, T. S. Williams, O. Ridley, sir M. W. Williams, T. P. Robarts, A. W. Wilmington, sir T. Robarts, G. Wilmot, R. Horton Robertson, A. Wilson, sir R. Robinson, hon. F. Wodehouse, E. Robinson, sir G. Wood, alderman Rowley, sir W. Wortley, J. S. Rumbold, C. Wrottesley, sir J. Russell, lord J. Wynne, C. W. W. Russell, lord J. W. Wynne, sir W. W. Russell, R. G. TELLERS. Scarlett, J. Duncannon, visc. Scott, J. Phillimore, J. Sebright, sir J. Shaw, sir R. PAIRED OFF. Smith, G. Anson, hon. G. Smith, J. Balfour, J. Smith, W. Bent, J. Smyth, W. M. Bernal, R. Somerville, sir M. Boyd, W. Stanley, lord Cockburn, sir G. Stanley, hon. E. Croker, S. W. Staunton, sir G. Cumming, G. Stewart, A. Curwen J. C. Stuart, lord J. Dunlop, J. Stuart, hon. J. Edwards, hon. E. H. Stuart, J. Ellis, hon. G. A. Sykes, D. Fitzroy, lord C. Talbot, R. W. Fleming, S. (Saltash) Tennyson, C. Gladstone, J. Tierney, right hon. G. Grant, col. Titchfield, marquis Grant, G. M. Twiss, H. Gurney, R. H. Tynte, K. K. Haldimand, W. Upton, hon. A. Hamilton, lord A. Valletort, lord Heathcote, sir G. Vernon, G. G. Ingleby, sir W. Wall, C. B. Lloyd, J. M. Warrender, sir G. Mackintosh, sir J. Wellesley, R. Mostyn, sir T. Western, C. C. Scudamore, R. P. Wharton, J. Smith, R. Whitbread, W. H. Tavistock, marquis Whitbread, S. C. Thynne, lord H. White, H. Warre, S. A. White, S. Williams, sir R. Whitmore, W. Wyvili, W. MINORITY A'Court, E. Blackburne, E. Archdale, M. Bond, J. Ashurst, W. A. Bonham, H. Astell, W. Boughton, sir W. Astley, sir J. D. Bouverie, hon. B. Baker, J. Bridges, G. Bankes, H. Bright, H. Bankes, W. Brudenell, lord Barne, M. Brydges, sir J. Bastard, E. P. Buchanan, J. Bastard, J. Burrell, sir C. Belfast, earl of Burrell, W. Bentinck, lord F. Butterworth, J. Beresford, lord G. Buxton, J. Beresford, M. Byron, T. Bernard, visc. Campbell, A. 561 Cartwright, R. W. Herries, J. C. Cawthorne, J. F. Heygate, W. Chandos, marquis Hill, right hon. sir G. Chaplin, C. Hill, sir R. Chetwynde, G. Hodson, J. A. Chichester, sir A. Hodgson, F. Cholmley, sir M. Holford, G. Clements, hon. J. Holmes, W. Clinton, sir W. Hotham, lord Clinton, H. F. Hulse, sir C. Clive, visc. Inglis, sir R. H. Clive, hon. H. Lines, J. Clive, H. Irving, J. Cole, sir C. Jenkinson, hon. C. J. Collett, E. J. Jervoise, G. P. Cooper, E. S. Jones, J. Cooper, R. B. Kerrison, E. Cooper, J. H. King, hon. H. Copley, sir J. King, sir J. D. Corry, visc. Knatchbull, sir E. Cotterell, sir J. Legh, T. Crawley, S. Legge, hon. H. Cuffe, J. Lennox, lord G. Curteis, J. E. Leslie, C. P. Cust, hon. E. Lethbridge, sir T. Cust, hon. P. Lewis, W. Curzon, hon. R. Long, sir C. Dalrymple, A. J. Lowther, visc. Davenport, D. Lowther, hon. H. C. Davies, H. Lowther, sir J. Dawkins, J. Lowther, J. Dawkins, G. Lopez, sir M. Dawson, G. Lucy, G. Douglas, J. Lushington, col. Duncombe, W. Luttrell, J. F. Duncombe, C. Lygon, hon. H. Dugdale, D. S. Macnaughten, E. A. Dickinson, W. Magennis, R. Dowdeswell, J. C. Manners, lord C. Drake, W. T. Manners, lord R. Drake, T. T. Manning, W. Egerton, W. Mansfield, J. Ellis, T. Martin, sir B. Estcourt, T. G. Maxwell, J. W. Fane, J. Maxwell, B. Fane, T. Maxwell, sir W. Fane, V. Morgan, sir C. Farquhar, J. Morgan, G. G. Farrand, R. Munday, F. Fellowes, W. H. Mundy, G. Fetherstone, sir G. Musgrave sir P. Fleming, J. Newman, R. W. Foster, J. L. Nightingall, sir M. Foley, J. H. H. Noel, sir G. Forbes, C. Ommanney, sir F. Forrester, F. O'Neill, hon. J. Gascoyne, I. Owen, sir J. Gipps, G. Palk, sir L. Gooch, T. S. Pechell, sir T. Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Peel, rt. hon. R. Graham, marquis Peel, W. Graves, lord Peirse, J. Greville, hon. sir C. Pelham, J. C. Grossett, I. R. Pennant, G. Hart, G. V. Percy,— Harvey, sir E. Pitt, W. M. Heber R. Pitt, J. 562 Pole, sir P. Westenra, hon. H. Pollen, sir J. Wigram, sir R. Poilington, visc. Wilbraham, E. B. Porcher, H. Williams, R. Powell, E. Willoughby, H. Rae, right hon. sir W. Wilson, sir H. Raine, J. Wilson, W. C. Rice, hon. G. T. Wodehouse, hon. J. Rickford, W. Wyndham, W. G. Rogers, E. Wynne, O. Rose, rt. hon. G. Yorke, sir J. Ross, C. Rowley, sir J. TELLERS Russell, J. W. Lushington, S. Ryder, right hon. R. Wetherell, sir C. Scourfield, W. PAIRED OFF. Shelley, sir J. Blair, J. Shiffner, sir G. Bradshaw, J. Smith, S. Brogden, J. Smith, A. Curtis, sir W. Smith, T. Divett, T. Smyth, R. Downie, R. Sneyd, R. Elliot, lord Somerset, lord E. Grant, A. C. Somerset, lord G. Grant, A. Sotheron, F. F. Handley, H. Stanton, J. Hope, hon. sir A. Stopford, visc. Hope, sir W. Strutt, J. H. Hudson, H. Stuart, W. Keck, G. A. L. Suttie, sir J. Mackenzie, sir J. W. Taylor, G. W. Mitchell, J. Thompson, J. L. Monteith, H. Thompson, W. Montgomery, gen. Thynne, lord J. Nicholl, rt. hon. sir J. Tindall, N. C. Northey, W. Townshend, hon. H. Onslow, A. Trant, W. H. Paget, hon. B. Trench, F. W. Pellew, hon. P. Tudway, J. P. Price, R. Ure, M. Seymour, H. Vivian, sir H. St. Paul, sir H. Vyvyan, sir R. Sumner, H. Wallace, rt. hon. T. Walker, J. Warren, C. Walpole, hon. J. Webbe, E. Wildman, J. Wells, J. Wilson, T. Wemyss, J. Worcester, marquis HOUSE OF LORDS. Wednesday, May 11. ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.] Sir John Newport, Mr. Brougham, Mr. Wynn, lord Milton, Mr. Spring Rice, and a large number of members from the Commons, brought up this bill. Sir John Newport, in handing it to the Lord Chancellor, said, that the Commons had passed a bill for the relief of his majesty's Catholic subjects, and prayed that their lordships would concur with them in the same. The Earl of Donoughmore moved, that the bill be read a first time; which being 563 HOUSE OF COMMONS. Wednesday, May 11. VOTES OF MEMBERS IN PRIVATE COMMITTEES.] Sir G. Clerk having brought up the report of the Leith Docks Bill, Mr. Kennedy objected to the measure, as being uncalled for in its present state. He was not, however, indisposed to entertain a compromise on the subject. Mr. Abercromby strongly condemned a practice, too prevalent in private committees; namely, that gentlemen should conceive themselves qualified to decide on the right of parties, without listening either to the counsel employed, or the evidence adduced on the respective subjects. Such a practice, as it affected members of that House, was scandalous, and as it regarded the interests of the persons whose rights were under the deliberation of the committee, was fraught with gross injustice. Mr. Brougham agreed with his hon. and learned friend in reprobating the practice of voting in committees up stairs, without attending to the evidence requisite to form a correct opinion of the merits of the case. He did not wish to use harsh expressions; but he must designate such a practice as careless; aye, and even corrupt too [hear, hear!]. The fact being indisputable, it was high time that the opinion of the House should so decidedly stigmatise such scandalous conduct of private committees, as to terminate a mode of proceeding so disgraceful to the House, and so unjust to the public. 564 Sir G. Clerk agreed with the hon. and learned gentleman; and he thought also, that nothing could be more improper than for honourable members to come down to the House and indulge in general reflections upon a subject, with the facts of which they were not fully acquainted. The members of the committee in question had been pretty regular in their attendance. At the final division, there were twenty-five in favour of the bill, and five against it. Sir R. Fergusson said, that some of the members of this committee were gentlemen from the sister kingdom; others from the centre of England, who had no knowledge of the sea-ports, nor the interests connected with them. Of these gentlemen fourteen or fifteen came into the committee-room just before the division, and voted without having heard the evidence. It was, in his opinion, as unfair a committee as he had ever known. Mr. Wynn thought that every person acquainted with any unfair practices did their duty in coming to the House and openly stating them. There could be no doubt that the House had the power, when it saw reason for doing so, to send back a report to another committee. In the present instance, however, it appeared that the majority of the gentlemen who had voted had heard the evidence. He therefore saw no reason why such a course should now be adopted. He thought that members for Ireland were as competent as any others to decide upon a question of policy, like that of the bill before the House. Sir J. Marjoribanks said, he could assure the House, that there was no jobbing in the committee; if there were, he might be considered the chief jobber, as he had a great property embarked in the Leith Dock. Mr. J. P. Grant, as one of the committee, thanked his hon. and learned friend for his notice of the subject, not merely in reference to this particular case, but as it regarded the general regulation of private committees; the abuses in which imperatively required some effectual alteration. Mr. Croker said, that from the fact of the committee having adjourned for two days, in order to obtain the attendance of a member of the committee who was opposed to the bill, and that of many of the members having heard the whole of the evidence, the report before the House 565 Mr. Stuart Wortley said, he was glad that this subject had been brought before the House. The prevalence of such practices could only be checked by an appeal to the feelings of hon. gentlemen; and there was no method of making that appeal more effective than by a statement of the facts to the House. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Thursday, May 12. ELECTIVE FRANCHISE IN IRELAND BILL.] Mr. Grattan rose to present a petition from the freeholders of the county of Monaghan, against the bill brought in by the hon. member for Staffordshire, which would have the effect of disfranchising the 40 s Mr. Spring Rice said, that the opinion of the petitioners was founded on an entire misapprehension of the question. If what the petitioners stated were fact, he would at once agree with them: he would say, that the 40 s s Mr. Grattan contended, that the petition spoke facts, and nothing but facts. When they raised the qualification of voters above 40 s 566 Mr. Hume wished his hon. friend, the member for Limerick, to show how it was possible to pass this bill, without depriving individuals, at a future period, of rights which they now expected to enjoy ultimately. By the practice of Ireland, every holder of a lease of 40 s Lord Althorp said, that the opponents of this bill objected to it because, in their opinion, the extent of popular election in Ireland would, if it were carried, be more limited than it was at present. Now, he would vote for it, because he thought it would give the popular interest greater force and power than it could now command. At the present moment, gentlemen of large property, by subdividing their estates, were enabled to overpower the middling and better-informed classes. But, by the operation of the bill now before the House, the weight of the independent freeholders would be greatly increased; and instead of lowering the right of popular election, it would place the counties of Ireland, which were now nothing but close boroughs, in the same free situation which they held in England. Mr. Littleton said, that by the bill which 567 Sir J. Newport said, that as the practice now stood, men of real substance, of bona fide property, refused to attend at elections. In many instances, individuals of respectability would not qualify themselves to act as electors. They knew that they would be completely overpowered by those fictitious freeholders; ant therefore they viewed the elective franchise as a privilege not worth having. It was to him most extraordinary, that any man who had looked into the evidence given before the committee, or who was personally acquainted with the practice could oppose a measure which would put down an evil of such magnitude. Mr. S. Bourne said, that besides the strong ground—that of purifying the 568 Mr. W. Becher spoke in favour of the bill, because he thought its tendency was to remedy existing evils in Ireland. Mr. Monck said, he considered the 40 s s 569 Sir George Rose said, that the occurrence alluded to by the hon. member, could not have taken place at Southampton, as the voters must at least be made a year before the election. Mr. Monck said, he would not vouch for the statement. He had read it in a newspaper: it might have been inserted for election purposes. Lord Milton admitted that the bill deprived certain persons of a right to vote, but he was so fully convinced that that right gave rise to great evils, that he should vote in favour of the bill. He took that opportunity of asking the hon. member for Staffordshire whether it was his intention to proceed with this bill, or to postpone it until the final determination of another measure, on the success of which its operations must ultimately depend. Mr. Littleton said, he was quite ready to comply with whatever might be the wish of the House on the subject. He would either wait the decision which might be come to in the House of Lords, or he would proceed that evening; but he was particularly desirous to avoid doing any thing which might be construed into a breach of faith. He was willing that the wishes of the members for Down and Armagh, both of whom he saw in the House, should be complied with relative to the postponement. Colonel Forde said, he was indifferent whether the elective franchise bill should be disposed of now, or postponed to a future day, provided it was distinctly understood, that if the great measure of Catholic emancipation should be carried in another place, this bill should be persevered in aid pressed forward as rapidly as was consistent with the forms of House. Mr. Brownlow rose to address the House, but was for some time wholly inaudible, owing to the subdued tone in which he spoke. He alluded to the opinion he had recently given on the subject of 570 Mr. Littleton said, that it was his intention, if the Catholic Relief bill should be carried in another place, to proceed with all possible alacrity to press on the elective franchise bill. On the contrary, if the former bill should be lost, he would certainly abandon the latter. Sir F. Burdett said, that he rose principally to express his admiration of the manly and candid course taken by the hon. member for Armagh. What that hon. gentleman had stated had had a considerable influence on his mind. In looking at the question of Catholic emancipation with a view to conciliate the minds of the people of Ireland, he could not put out of view, that a portion of that people was Protestant; and on their behalf he also felt a strong interest. It was fit, therefore, in conceding the claims, to grant them in such a way as would be acceptable to the Protestant mind; or the House would, in fact, be doing little more than changing the sides of the difficulty. The great object was, to consolidate the whole power of the empire; and that could not be attained without conciliation. With reference to the elective franchise bill, he should be prepared to defend it upon every principle—upon a principle of reform. He should be able to show that the same principle applied to particular parts of the elective franchise in this country would be beneficial, and tend much to the independence of parliament and the liberty of the subject. Having, however, accepted the support of several members on the great question, which support had been most honourably given, he should feel bound to support the minor bill, which had for its object to increase the qualification of voters in Ireland, even if he could not find reasons for it in all 571 Colonel Trench was desirous of expressing his regret, that by the loss of the present bill, Ireland would be deprived of the benefit of a measure of great importance [cries of "no, no"]. Mr. R. Martin thought that this bill would be one of the greatest visitations ever inflicted on Ireland, if it should pass into a law, without being accompanied by Catholic emancipation. He had no doubt that it would produce a commotion, perhaps a rebellion, in Ireland; and this he was ready to prove on a proper occasion. WAGES OF LABOURERS OUT OF THE POOR RATES.] Mr. Monck moved for leave to bring in a bill to prohibit in certain cases, the payment of any part of the Wages of Labourers out of the Poor Rates. The hon. gentleman observed, that this practice of rendering every agricultural labourer partially a pauper, went not only to annihilate all independency of principle among the lower classes, but to incumber the country with a population which it had no means of providing for. The law, as it stood, amounted absolutely to a bounty upon idleness. A labourer who, by day-work, earned, say 8 s s s s. s 572 Mr. J. Benett was not disposed to oppose the bringing in of this bill, though he doubted much whether the good results would follow which the hon. member predicated of it. He always viewed with alarm any approach towards an alteration in the poor laws; as hitherto such alterations had been but rarely for the better. The complaint was not so much against the law as its administration; and the governors of the poor were charged with too much liberality in applying the funds destined for the use of the poor. But surely, when the agricultural people were themselves the largest contributors to the poor rates, nobody could quarrel with them for dispensing their own money too generously. The shop-keepers might contribute a portion; but they also gained by the better condition of the poor, in an increased sale of their goods. No man was more anxious than he was to see the poor of this country comfortably provided for; but, in his conscience, he believed it was not in the power of this House to legislate effectually upon the subject. Sir George Chetwynd undertook to affirm that it was not legal to pay labourers' wages out of the poor's rates. He was aware that such a practice existed in some places; but he had never heard it justified by a lawyer in that House. It appeared to him, therefore, unnecessary to pronounce, by a new bill, upon the illegality of that which had never been defended. 573 Mr. Monck in reply, stated, that he was still of opinion that under the statute of Elizabeth, it was lawful to apply the poor rates in aid of wages. By that act the overseers were bound to provide for the poor, and of course to supply such deficiency in their wages as would enable them to subsist. He hoped the House would entertain the subject, as it appeared to him not inferior to that of Catholic emancipation, or any other that might be brought before that House. ASSIMILATION OF THE CURRENCIES OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND.] The House having resolved itself into a committee, Mr. Wallace rose. He stated his object to be, to do away one of the most important distinctions, remaining between Great Britain and Ireland, and, at the same time, to remove one of the greatest practical inconveniences Ireland was now subject to, by assimilating the currencies of the two parts of the United Kingdom. The object, he said, was neither new to the House nor to those who, by property, by commercial transactions, or even by official situations, were connected with Ireland—all had felt the inconvenience arising from the difference of the currencies, and all had been anxious that, whenever practicable, the removal of it should be effected. This, if any were necessary, was his apology for bringing forward the present motion, that concurring in that general feeling, he thought that the time was peculiarly favourable for such a measure. That although the evil was then most felt, it was not in periods of great fluctuation, but when the exchange was, as it had been for a considerable time, steady, when the currencies were bearing their due proportion to each other, that such a change could be undertaken with advantage and with safety. 574 575 576 Ending January 1727: £ £. To Great Britain 504,492 Foreign Countries 540,051 1,044,543 Ending January 1792: To Great Britain and Colonies, 4,180,000 Foreign Countries 1,207,000 5,387,000 Ending January 1823: To Great Britain and Colonies, 7,850,000 Foreign Countries 302,547 8,152,547 577 l l s d 578 579 "That the pound sterling in Great Britain and Ireland respectively is, according to the currency of each, divisible into twenty shillings; and that the shilling in Great Britain and Ireland respectively is, according to the said currency of each, divisible into twelve-pence; but that the silver coin which represents a shilling of the money of Great Britain, is paid, accepted and taken as representing one shilling and one penny of the currency of Ireland, and the pound sterling of the currency of Great Britain, is, at the par of exchange, paid, accepted and deemed as equivalent to one pound one shilling and eight pence of the currency of Ireland; and that any sum of British currency, is at the same par of exchange, paid accepted and deemed as equivalent to an amount of pounds shillings and pence of the currency of Ireland, greater by one-twelfth part than the amount of pounds shillings and pence, of the currency of Great Britain contained in such sum; and that any sum of Irish currency is, at the same par of exchange, paid, accepted and deemed as equivalent to an amount of pounds shillings and pence of the currency of Great Britain, less by one-thirteenth part than the amount of pounds shillings and pence of the currency of Ireland contained in such sum. "That as great complexity of accounts between persons residing within the different parts of the same United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and other inconveniences, arise from the said difference of currency, it is the 580 "That it is expedient that the values of the monies of account in Ireland, and monies of account in Great Britain, should in all cases whatever be assimilated to each other. "That it is expedient that all duties constituting the public revenues of Ireland, should be calculated and received, by the several departments under which they are collected, in the currency of the United Kingdom; and that all books and accounts kept in relation to such duties, and all accounts in which the public have any interest, should be kept and stated in the said currency of the United Kingdom, and in no other. "That it is expedient that the public debt in Ireland should cease to be estimated in Irish currency, and that in all accounts thereof the same shall be stated at its amount in the currency of the United Kingdom; and all sums payable for interest in respect of the said debt, should be calculated and paid in the said currency of the United Kingdom. "That it is expedient that all existing salaries, allowances, pensions, duties and debts, and all contracts, agreements, and stipulations for the payment of money, having reference to Irish currency, shall be deemed to be fully discharged and satisfied by payment according to the amount in British currency, calculated at the rate of twelve thirteenth parts of the amount stipulated to be paid in Irish currency. "That it is expedient, that from and after the period of assimilating the Irish to the British currency, all contracts, agreements, and stipulations, involving or implying the payment of money, should be held to be entered into in reference to money of the value arid description of that now circulating in Great Britain, unless the contrary be made to appear. "That it is expedient, that in pursuance of any proclamation to be issued by his majesty, the several coins of Great Britain should circulate in Ireland at the same nominal as well as at the same real value as in other parts of the United Kingdom. 581 "That it is expedient that all copper coin of the currency of Ireland, be permitted to be brought to the Bank o Ireland, in pursuance of any proclamation to be issued by his majesty, and that there be deliverd at the said Bank of Ireland a sum in the current copper coin of Great Britain, after the rate of twelve-pence of the English copper coin for thirteen pence of the Irish copper coin." Sir J. Newport expressed his concurrence in the principle of the measure, though he feared it would be attended with considerable difficulty in the execution. It might certainly excite some degree of alarm, and ought therefore to be accompanied with such modifications as might allay any feelings of apprehension on the part of the people of Ireland. Mr. L. Foster approved of the principle of the measure, and thought there would be no difficulty in getting over the obstacles opposed to it. He believed that in two months after it should pass into a law, it might be brought into practical operation. Sir H. Parnell thanked the right hon. gentleman and the government for having brought before parliament a subject, which was so well calculated to facilitate the commercial intercourse between England and Ireland. Mr. Grenfell approved of the plan, and thought the present was the best time for carrying it into effect. The copper coin of Ireland was circulating, at nearly double the value of copper in the market; holding out the greatest temptation to counterfeit money. A new copper coinage would increase the size of the Irish pence and halfpence; and that alone would reconcile the lower orders in Ireland to the present measure. Mr. M. Fitzgerald returned his thanks to the right hon. gentleman opposite for the very salutary measure of which he had just stated the outline to the committee. He did not anticipate any of those practical difficulties from it, which had been mentioned by some of his hon. friends. On the contrary, he was certain that it would tend much to the simplification of the present system; and by so doing, would greatly benefit the commerce of Ireland. Mr. John Martin suggested to the right hon. gentleman the expediency of issuing a coinage of silver threepences. We had formerly had silver pence and silver twopences; and the recurrence to such a 582 HOUSE OF LORDS. Friday, May 13. ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.] The Archbishop of York presented a petition from the clergy of the East Riding of Yorkshire against granting further concessions to the Catholics. Lord King said, he could not assert that the opposition at the meeting at which this petition had been voted was numerous, but it certainly was very respectable, and that the arguments urged against the petition had been distinguished for good sense and sound reasoning. It was worthy of remark, that but few petitions had been presented from the clergy of those dioceses which were large and rich, such as Canterbury, York, Winchester, and Durham; whereas they came in great numbers from those parts of the country in which the dioceses were small; in short, from those places from which translations might be desirable. He must, however, say, that for his part, he preferred the steady and venerable fixtures of a House to those pieces of furniture which were moveable and liable to change. Lord King replied, that as to the noble baron saying that any thing which fell from him was or was not a calumny, that was what he heartily despised; but if the noble lord meant to say, that what he had just stated respecting the quarter from which the greater part of the petitions came was not the fact, he must give him a flat denial. The fact notoriously was, that the petitions had been numerous from the counties where the dioceses were small, and that comparatively few had 583 Lord Kenyon did not mean to deny or assert that the petitions were numerous or few from any quarter; but he did say that it was a calumny to state that those which had been presented were procured by the clergy from interested motives. Exeter Hereford The Lord Chancellor did not rise from any wish to oppose the kind of observations in which the noble baron so often indulged. He had already said, and he was confident of the fact, that their lordships owed a great proportion of the petitions with which their table was covered to the observations of the noble lord; for the people of this country did not wish to be held up as indifferent on this important question. Let, then, the noble lord go on; because if he did, between that day and the day on which the measure was to be discussed, short as the time was, many more petitions against the Catholics would be laid on the table. 584 Lord Rolle asserted, that the petitions against the Catholic bill fairly expressed the sense of the country, and deprecated the throwing of reflections on the lower classes for exercising their right of petitioning. Lord Holland was glad to hear this doctrine which was now held with respect to petitions. Whether the petitions against the bill were numerously signed or not, he was glad to find it admitted, that the voice of the people ought to be listened to. He felt, however, some difficulty in reconciling the assertion, that those petitions expressed the sense of the country, with what had fallen from several right reverend prelates and the noble and learned lord on the woolsack; namely, that the great body of the people were hostile to the object of the bill which had now, for the second time, been brought up from the other House, and to which the Commons had twice solicited their lordships' assent. According to what he had always understood of the theory of the constitution, this could not be the case. At least, whenever the influence of certain secret parts of the constitution had been alluded to, he had been told, that in theory the House of Commons was the real representative of the people. This he had always been told, and he had assented to the theory. But, it seemed that he, in common with many of their lordships, had been labouring under an error. The Commons were no longer the representatives of the people. That House was, on the contrary, to be regarded rather as an oligarchy, as it had often been described by men who were called visionary reformers—as a body to which might be applied what a noble lord lately said which he somewhat whimsically compared to the French revolution; namely, that it was an ingenious contrivance to deprive the many of their rights in order to confer them on the few. It had sometimes been said, that there was no proper vent for public opinion; but that complaint could no longer be made, for now a voice had been found for democracy in that House; and the right reverend members of the opposite bench, and the noble and learned lord on the woolsack, had constituted themselves the organs of the people. The noble and learned lord now looked to the bar, or to Palace-yard, for those whose opinions most deserved to be listened to on the subjects which came under the consider- 585 586 HOUSE OF COMMONS. Friday, May 13. EAST INDIA JUDGES BILL.] The House having resolved itself into a committee on this bill, Mr. Hume adverted to a provision contained in the bill, by which the Recorder of Prince of Wales's Island was liable to be removed from his situation, at the pleasure of his majesty. He wished to know, why the person appointed to the Recordership should be placed in a situation different from any other judge? Other judges held their appointment for life, unless they behaved improperly in office; and so ought the Recorder of Prince of Wales's Island. Mr. Wynn said, the provision in question was not a new one, but was strictly in conformity with the act or charter under which a recorder had been originally appointed. He wished now to state the reason why an alteration was made in the payment of the judges. The salaries of the Madras judges had formerly been paid in pagodas, at 8 s Mr. Hume said, he objected to the appointment of a judge who was removable at pleasure. If the right hon. gentleman could show him any charter in which such a provision was to be found, he would be satisfied—not of the propriety of the thing, but that it was not a novelty. Such a system was most dangerous, since it tended to shake the independence of judges, who might act according to the dictates of those in power, for fear of losing their situations. The House, perhaps, was not aware, that Indian governors had sometimes punished even jurors, because they had done their duty. In one case, because a jury had acted contrary to the feelings of sir G. Barlow, that individual had displaced every man who sat on it. If a judge were also liable 587 Mr. Wynn said, that the words of the act or charter of 1807 were followed in this bill. That charter, which appointed a recorder for Prince of Wales's Island, provided that the individual should hold the situation during his majesty's pleasure. Mr. Hume said, he would be satisfied if the right hon. gentleman would state that this bill made no alteration in the general law, and that the Indian judges were to be placed in the same situation as those of England ["no, no."]. Then, he contended, it was a question which called for the most serious consideration. The system of intimidation was carried to such an extent, that no man who differed from the government could hope to escape proscription; and the degree of despotism to which the executive power in India had arrived, was unexampled, even by that of the Stuarts. Many persons had been banished; and, within the last month, two indigo planters had arrived in England, having been deported from India without notice or trial. It became the duty of the House to consider whether such a system ought, or could safely, be allowed to endure. The half-castes were not allowed to sit on juries, and yet they were allowed to hold land; while Englishmen, who possessed the former privilege, were wholly precluded from the latter. It was quite necessary that some system should be established for securing the independence of the judges in India, and interposing the protection of a jury between British subjects and the public authorities. Mr. Robertson said, that any alteration in the law, as far as regarded the judges, appeared to him unnecessary. Mr. Wynn said, that the judges were in fact independent of the local authorities, and could only be removed by the Crown. 588 Sir C. Forbes said, it was impossible that the people of India, having the knowledge they had of the blessings and spirit of the British constitution, could long endure the tyranny of their governors. He thought the natives of India were not less entitled to protection than any other British subjects. Mr. Sykes said, it was quite clear, notwithstanding what had been asserted, that the judges in India were not as independent as those in England, and that nothing could be more objectionable than that any confusion should exist between the executive and judicial authorities. Dr. Phillimore said, that the judges were removable at the pleasure of the Crown, but not at the pleasure of the local government. He thought there was great wisdom in retaining this power for the Crown; because the distance between this country and India, rendered it impossible that a prompt inquiry should be had into cases which might arise, and which might require an immediate remedy. If any alteration were necessary, it must be provided for by another bill. The one now under discussion contemplated nothing but a change in the judges' salary. Mr. Hume had no objection to the judges' salaries being raised, but, he complained that the most important interests of India were neglected, while such paltry considerations as these occupied the attention of the House. The governors acted as umpires over the judges, who were therefore not independent. The half-castes, though much more numerous than Englishmen, were degraded and deprived of the right to set upon juries. The hon. gentleman read an extract of a letter from India, setting forth the evils of the present system; and concluded by asserting, that it was necessary to restrain, without delay, the power which the governor at present possessed, of transporting any individuals who might become obnoxious to him. Mr. Wynn asserted, that the judges of India were as honourable and independ- 589 Mr. Hume had no doubt of the ability of the judges in India, but they ought to be as independent as they were able. He suggested the appointment of a temporary judge in cases of vacancy, in the same manner as was provided in case of vacancy among the members of council. Mr. Wynn saw several objections to the proposed change. He had never heard of the case of the Indigo planters to which the hon. gentleman had alluded. Mr. Hume objected to the clause, empowering the authorities of India to transport offenders to Prince of Wales's Island, or any other place to which they might at present be sentenced, because the climate of that island was such as to ensure the death of almost any European who should be condemned to hard labour there. Sir C. Forbes proposed, that the salaries of the judges should be raised from 58,000 to 60,000 rupees, and moved an amendment to that effect. Sir C. Cole seconded the amendment. Mr. Wynn said, that the great loss of life rendered it necessary to offer every temptation to persons properly qualified to fill these offices. The proposed alteration amounted to not more than 200 l ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS—REV. DR. DOYLE.] Sir J. Newport said, that his hon. and learned friend, the member for Winchelsea, had received a letter from Dr. Doyle, which, in justice to that rev. gentleman, whose feelings had been wounded by something which had passed in the House, he would take the liberty of reading. The right hon. baronet then read the letter, in which the writer complained, that it had been attributed to him that the opinions expressed in the writings published under the signature of J. K. L., and those delivered in his evidence before the parliamentary committee, were inconsistent with each other. He denied that 590 WAREHOUSED CORN BILL.] Mr. Huskisson moved the third reading of this bill. Sir M. W. Ridley expressed an opinion, that the duty of 10 s Mr. Wodehouse apprehended that much corn of the United States would be fraudulently imported, under the denomination of Canadian corn. Mr. Huskisson observed, that he had no objection to fix the duty at less than 10 s s s s 591 Mr. H. Sumner wished a clause to be introduced into the bill, to limit the importation of Canadian corn in any one to a hundred thousand quarters. Sir E. Harvey approved of the suggestion of the hon. member for Surrey. Chancellor of the Exchequer Sir I. Coffin said, there was no ground to suppose that American corn could be fraudulently introduced into this country. Sir J. Wrottesley did not think the importation of American corn was so difficult as the right hon. gentleman had represented it to be. Mr. W. Horton said, that the inhabitants of Canada were as much interested in preventing the importation of American corn as the English farmers. Mr. Sykes expressed himself favourable to the lower rate. He would rather it should be 5 s s s Sir E. Knatchbull could not concur in either a high or low rate. He did not think any alteration in the Corn laws necessary. 592 Mr. Curwen said, he did not think bonded corn would be brought into the market, except at the lower rate. Mr. Whitmore said, he should be extremely glad, if the right hon. gentleman would concede the lower rate of duty. He agreed with the hon. member for Cumberland, that the bonded corn was not likely to come into the market at so high a duty as 10 s Mr. Huskisson said, that, with a view of removing all cause for alarm, and giving an adequate security against the fraudulent introduction of Canadian wheat, he should propose a clause, by way of rider, that there should be the same certificate of origin as in the case of sugar. This provision, which was found a sufficient security with respect to sugars, must be still more satisfactory in regard to so bulky an article as corn. With respect to the suggestion of the hon. member for Surrey, for limiting the quantity to 100,000 quarters, he should have no objection to adopt it, if he thought there was any probability that such a limitation would be necessary. If the increased importation should be so rapid as to give an average of so large an amount for five years, he should then consider that there was some evasion of the law, and the interposition of parliament would, under such circumstances, become necessary. Sir M. W. Ridley moved, as an amendment, that the duty on bonded corn be reduced from ten shillings to seven shillings. Mr. Wodehouse supported the amendment. On behalf of the agriculturists, he was enabled to say, that they had no objection to the foreign corn being taken out of bond free of duty altogether. Mr. Bright supported the amendment, as the low duty was due to the holders of bonded corn, in compensation for the losses they had already sustained. Mr. Huskisson said, he would most willingly concur in any thing which would relieve the importers of the bonded corn, who, he believed, had already lost con- 593 s s s GRANT TO MR. M'ADAM.] The House having resolved itself into a committee of supply, Chancellor of the Exchequer l l 594 l l 595 l Mr. Hume, although he by no means denied the public services of Mr. M'Adam, was of opinion that the proposed grant was not warranted by the circumstances of the case. He perfectly agreed with the chancellor of the Exchequer, that no claim of this nature ought to be allowed unless on the most satisfactory grounds; and he would appeal to the right hon. gentleman and to the House, whether what had been done by Mr. M' Adam justified a departure from that general rule. He by no means thought that the evidence taken before the committee appointed to investigate Mr. M'Adam's claims, warranted the report of that committee. Mr. M'Adam had made a statement of expenses which he had incurred for a long period of years, during which, he was prosecuting his experiments; but he understood that for a large portion of that time, Mr. M' Adam was employed in other affairs, and by no means devoted his sole attention to the subject of roads. Among other items, Mr. M' Adam stated that he had expended 5,019 l 596 Mr. N. Calvert supported the grant, on account of the great improvements which had been made on the line of roads submitted to the management of Mr. M'Adam. Sir M. Cholmeley said, that if it were true that Mr. M'Adam had already received 4,000 l 597 Sir T. Baring spoke in support of the grant, and contended, that the House, in passing it, would not be establishing any new precedent, inasmuch as there had been upwards of twenty similar grants for similar public benefits in the last twenty years. Mr. H. Sumner acknowledged the great merit of Mr. M'Adam's system, but could not look upon it as a new invention, as the roads in his neighbourhood had been made upon it for the last fifty years. He thought that the greatest national benefits might be compensated at a rate cheaper than the current expenses which the services of this family had cost to the country. He would admit that Mr. M'Adam, in bringing the system into general operation, was entitled to reward; and he had received it in the liberal remuneration which himself and family had had from the several public trusts. He must say, that the present demand was one of the most dangerous attacks on the public purse that he had ever remembered. Mr. M'Adam's sense of private advantage had led him and three of his sons to embark in an object, and the success that had attended their speculation had yielded to them all the most liberal remuneration. Out of different public trusts, for the last five years, they had drawn no less a sum than 41,000 l l Mr. Maberly denied that Mr. M'Adam had intruded himself on the Post-office. On the contrary, that department had sought him. Lord Chichester in an interview with that gentleman, had asked for the fullest information. Mr. M'Adam furnished him with the whole of his plan, keeping nothing back; and though no specific compact took place, the noble lord at the head or the Post-office had declared that he would be entitled to a public reward. The hon. member for Surrey denied the merit of invention; and 598 Mr. F. Palmer considered the services of Mr. M'Adam as much over-rated, and that the chancellor of the Exchequer had been too easily prevailed upon to accede to a proposal for remuneration. Mr. Hart Davis declared his willingness to support the present vote. Many of the roads repaired by Mr. M'Adam had fallen under his own observation; and he could assure the House, that several which had been the worst roads in the West of England, had, by Mr. M'Adam's exertions, been converted into the best possible state. Sir E. Knatchbull said, that if he could feel assured that the present sum was to be the liquidation of Mr. M'Adam's claims upon the public, he should feel little difficulty in supporting the grant: but Mr. M'Adam had already received the sum of 4,000 l l Sir Robert Wilson thought, that what had been said respecting Mr. M'Adam's not fulfilling his contract was irrelevant to the present question, as he was amenable upon that ground to an action at law. He was able to bear the most unequivocal testimony to the services which Mr. M'Adam had rendered to the public. He did not, however, estimate those services by any quantity of road that Mr. M'Adam had laid down, or even by any quantity that had been laid down by others upon his principles, but he appreciated his merits in introducing a system of improvement, and in originating a series of observations and experiments which had almost brought our roads to an equality with the old Roman roads. As to the objections made against Mr. M'Adam, upon the ground that he was not the inventor of the present system of road-making, he had as clear a right to the merit of invention, as could, from the nature of the case, he established. It was exceedingly difficult, 599 Sir T. Acland bore testimony to the great services derived to all the active classes of society, by the improvements which Mr. M'Adam had introduced into the system of making roads, and keeping them in repair. These improvements were a source of economy to all who had to bear the expenses of making or repairing roads; and the increased facility of communication which they afforded, was obviously a source of profit to the manufacturing and commercial interests. Mr. M'Adam had received nothing from the trustees of roads; and was, therefore, the more entitled to remuneration from the public at large. That gentleman had not received 4,000 l Mr. Estcourt declared, that Mr. M'Adam's exertions had proved any thing rather than beneficial to the roads in the neighbourhood of Devizes. He had left the roads in a much worse state than that in which he had found them. He had also thought proper to asperse the conduct of the trustees of those roads in a manner highly unjust, and in every respect unwarranted by facts or circumstances. COUNTY COURTS BILL.] The resolution of the 3rd. instant being reported, 600 Lord Althorp argued against any compensations being granted to officers of courts of justice, for the loss of fees arising out of the reforms made in the courts by the present bill. The compensations proposed were to be granted for the loss of professional profits, against all the known chances and vicissitudes of professional life. He objected to any compensation being made to any individual who could not prove an actual loss arising out of the present bill. Mr. Bright thought the compensations proposed objectionable in principle, and pernicious in their example to the officers of all the other courts. He should hereafter think it is duty to take the sense of the House upon the measure. Mr. Hume wanted to know whether, if compensations were given to those who suffered in the present instance, gentlemen were prepared to support the principle of giving compensations to all who, in any case, should suffer a loss of fees under any bills of reforms and improvement? The claims in the present case were grounded upon the argument, that the claimants were injured in offices which they had acquired by purchase. For his part, he thought that the sale of offices in courts of justice was in itself a great evil, and that the first step ought to be, to prohibit any such sale, and thereby to prevent any claim for losses sustained by a reform of purchased offices. The whole system of fees was pernicious in the extreme. As to the compensations claimed in the present instance, upon the same principle might compensation be claimed for losses by any manufacturer who had established his manufactory upon the faith of laws and treaties, and had sustained injury by a breach of those treaties, or by an alteration of such laws. But for one or two individuals in that House, the compensations would never have been heard of. The noble lord, who originated this measure, would never have consented to the compensations, but for a knowledge that, without his acquiescence in the demand, his bill would not pass. What a state were they reduced to, if they were obliged to vote away the public money, merely to prevent the opposition to a useful measure by a party personally interested in the abuses which that measure was intended to obliterate! He saw no end to the claims that might be made upon the House, if the present were acceded to. 601 Mr. Grant thought, that claims to compensation in cases like the present rested upon their own individual merits more than upon any general principle. He should support the motion. Mr. Wynn begged the hon. member for Aberdeen to reflect that places, if not purchased by money, might often be said to be purchased by the sacrifice of other professional fees and lucrative practice. He conceived the principle of compensation which this measure embraced to be unobjectionable, and should give it his support. QUARANTINE LAWS BILL.] The House having resolved itself into a committee on this bill, Mr. John Smith observed, that the question before the committee was one of the utmost moment. It could not be denied by candid and inquiring men, that the present system of our Quarantine laws was a mass of absurdity and folly. In a commercial point a view, the circumstance was the more to be regretted; because it was a system affecting our trade with the Mediterranean, a sea, whose shores were, of all others, the richest in productions. There were in that system obvious anomalies to which he felt it a duty to object. So ineffectual, moreover, was it to accomplish its ostensible objects, that it was notorious that cargoes were frequently brought from countries up the Levant to Holland, where a very different and milder system of Quarantine laws prevailed, in order to effect the introduction of such goods with the greater facility into England; and yet in Holland the plague had not made its appearance for a long period of time, notwithstanding the great amount of imports into that country; nor in France or England for upwards of a hundred years. However much he had been attacked by hon. members in that House, and subjected to newspaper attacks, as a man who had declared the plague to be not contagious, the fact was, that he had never ventured to give any opinion whatever on the doctrine of contagion; neither, placed in the circumstances he was, would it have become him to have given any such opinion. In the few observations he should now submit to the House, he did not mean at all to enter into the history of this question; but he might be allowed to notice, that in the year 1819, several medical or experiences 602 603 Lord Althorp said, that, as far as the present measure went, it had his cordial concurrence. It was a strong fact, that the expurgators were scarcely ever infected with the plague; but, considering all the differences of opinion on the subject of contagion, he thought it ought to be further inquired into. Mr. Huskisson said, he was one of those who felt that, if the public mind could be completely satisfied, and if it could be established beyond a doubt, that the Quarantine laws were unnecessary, it would be the greatest relief to those who attended to the execution of those laws. Among the many duties which devolved on himself and his hon. friend near him, from the situations they held, there was none which they discharged with more difficulty than that of deciding on the cases of foul bills from the Levant. But, when hon. gentlemen considered the consequences of any accident arising from the removal of the Quarantine laws, it was impossible they could weigh the present inconvenience with the probable evils. Whether the plague was or was not contagious, he would not offer an opinion. There were very strong facts to show, that, in certain climates, and under certain circumstances, it was contagious. It was impossible to look at the Report of the committee on the Quarantine laws, and see the circumstances under which the plague had been introduced into Malta, without being convinced that contagion was the mode in 604 605 Mr. D. Gilbert proposed that goods should be subject to a temperature of from 110 to 120 degrees of Fahrenheit, which would effectually destroy contagion. Under all the circumstances, he was glad that government had adopted the present measure. Mr. Wilmot Horton said, he had documents from the colonies which he could lay before the House, which incontestibly proved the contagion of the plague. It was not to be wondered at that persons employed in packing goods were not subject to the plague, since one peculiar characteristic of the plague was, that it destroyed entirely the strength of the person infected, and rendered him incapable of any exertion. The goods were also packed under the influence of the sun, which might have the effect of the temperature alluded to by the hon. member who spoke last. These circumstances accounted for no infectious matter being brought over in cotton goods. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Monday, May 16 [WEST-INDIA COMPANY BILL.] Mr. 606 moved the order of the day for the third reading of this bill. Mr. Evans objected to the bill, because it placed the slaves in a worse condition than they were formerly. He thought, at the same time, it would ruin the individuals who were connected with it. He would therefore move, "That it be read a third time that day six months." Mr. T. Wilson contended, that the company would always have the means, and, he trusted, the inclination, to protect the slaves. There never was a better time than the present for the establishment of this company, which would afford relief to the distressed planters of the West Indies, and contribute to the improvement of the condition of the negroes. Dr. Lushington felt himself bound, in duty, to resist the passing of this bill. Should the plantations in the West Indies become vested in a company, instead of remaining the property of individuals, the consequence would be, that the whole management of the slaves would be intrusted to agents. Hence the slaves would be left at the mercy of an inferior class of persons, and be subjected to many new sufferings. Another objection to this bill was, that new difficulties would be thrown in the way of manumission. In the hands of a company, the slaves would become as it were vested in mortmain. The bill was also likely to impede the beneficial change in the West Indies, which parliament had frequently endeavoured to promote. Mr. Hume did not think the measure open to the objections just urged. He was not aware that it would produce the slightest change in agency in the West Indies, or impede manumission. The distresses fell equally on the slaves and the proprietors, and this bill would relieve both classes. Sir I. Coffin said, he was satisfied that this was a very good bill, and he hoped it would pass. Mr. Sykes opposed the third reading of the bill, to which he urged three prominent objections. First, it would prevent manumission, and the exercise of kindly feelings towards the slaves; secondly, it confirmed the existing system in the West Indies, and enlisted forty thousand additional enemies to the liberation of the negroes; thirdly, the price of West-India produce would be augmented by the capital and influence of the company. Of 607 Mr. R. Gordon contended, that the main object of the bill was to enable West India proprietors to borrow money of a company instead of individuals, and on more advantageous terms. Sir J. Yorke could not understand what was the use of this bill, as mortgagors would not obtain money at a lower rate of interest after the passing of the bill than before it. Mr. F. Buxton admitted, that there was a reduction in the value of slave property, and the operation of the bill would be to prevent persons from investing capital in the purchase and sale of human flesh. It was clear, from every principle of Christianity, that human beings ought not to be trafficked in. This bill certainly did give great power to the West-India interests. Mr. Fox had said, many years ago, that there was no interest so well represented in that House as the West-India interest; and even in a recent Jamaica paper, it was asserted that the West-India interest could put forth a phalanx of two hundred members in the House of Commons. He was persuaded that his majesty's government would not be able to resist this powerful interest; and he would therefore call on them, and on every independent member to consider well before they decided on this momentous question. Mr. Wilmot Horton was satisfied, that whether we looked to the experience of past times or to analogy, it was clear that the prosperity of the master must have an obvious effect on the slave, and that as the profits of the master increased, so would the condition of the slave under him be ameliorated. He referred to the speech of Mr. Wilberforce on the subject of the Slave Trade in 1789, in support of his opinion. Mr. Brougham said, he certainly entertained a decided objection to this bill-an objection which no change in its details could remove. His objection was not founded on that general slowness with which he was inclined to incorporate joint-stock trading companies; though he always felt repugnant to joint-stock companies, considering that they were mischievous when not placed under tight and close restrictions; but, his objection was grounded on the nature of 608 609 Mr. Baring differed from the view taken by the hon. and learned gentleman who had just sat down. The object of this bill was not to purchase West-India estates; but merely to form a company for the purpose of becoming mortgagees of West-India property. The hon. member for Weymouth had stated, that such a project was encouraging slavery. He 610 Mr. W. Smith said, that when the very important interests which were involved in the bill were considered, he could not help saying, that, in his opinion, it ought to have been brought forward as a public and not as a private bill; because, in that case, it would have received the consideration which it deserved. He was glad to hear his hon. friend disclaim any personal interest in the measure; although he was far from agreeing with him in the view which he took of it. He could not help thinking with his learned friend, that the object of the bill was, to vest the proprietorship of West-India property in a company. The hon. member had said, that this company would be responsible to the public, to whom they would be obliged to render an annual account of their proceedings. He had, however, looked in vain for any clause in the bill, which rendered it imperative on them to render any such account. The prospectus stated, that the company would divide a profit of five per cent. This was in contradiction to the opinion of Mr. Bryan Edwards and sir W. Young, who had left it upon record in their writings, that the average of such profits could not amount to more than four per cent. He was therefore inclined to oppose the bill, if upon no other ground than this, that it 611 Mr. C. R. Ellis said, he could assure the House, that he was as anxious to contribute to the welfare of the slaves as any man. If he thought the bill could, by any possibility, affect their welfare or comfort, he should be just as adverse to it as the most strenuous of its opponents. But, he could not contemplate any such result. One hon. and learned member had said, that the object of the bill was, to create a number of absentee proprietors. It was no such thing. The object of the bill was, to create a company, who were to carry on the business of West-India merchants; and hon. gentlemen knew very little of the business of West-India merchants, if they believed that it was confined to the purchase of West-India estates. The hon. gentleman proceeded to contend, that the situation of the negro would be benefitted, rather than injured by the bill. Some hon. gentlemen had asked, what were the real objects of the measure? His answer was, that the West-India proprietors had, from a series of distresses, been necessitated to borrow money of the merchants, on their estates, and these, in turn, feeling extreme inconvenience from the non-payments of those advances, the present bill was now proposed, and was fully calculated to relieve both parties, and at the same time to leave to the subscribers a handsome profit on their advance. JUDGES SALARIES.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the order of the day, that the House should resolve itself into a committee on the act for regulating the Salaries of the Judges. The Speaker having put the question, Mr. Leycester said, he thought this was not the precise time to increase the salaries of public officers, when the President of the Board of Trade was going to make corn cheaper than it had been for a long time. He thought that a third assize might be established without any increase of labour on the part of the judges. He could not see why four judges should sit together in the court of King's-bench, 612 The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he felt it quite unnecessary to preface the motion which he was about to submit to the committee, with any protracted observations on the importance of the subject to which he wished to call their attention. It had always been deemed an object dear to parliament, and most interesting to the people of this country, that offices of so much dignity and importance as those of judges of the land, should be filled by persons high in the public estimation, and fully competent to discharge the great trust reposed in them. Parliament had repeatedly manifested the sense it entertained of the great importance of this subject, by affording to the judges the means of maintaining their just dignity, and by removing from that office every thing which tended to diminish the respectability of the judges, and their weight and character in the eyes of those for whose benefit the laws were administered. To these two points he should call the attention of the House, for he did not intend to enter into the general topics which had been adverted to by the hon. gentleman opposite, who, if he had done him the honour to wait, until he had made his statement to the House would have found that he did not propose to touch at all upon the office of the Welch judges. His first object would be to carry into effect a most important recommendation of the commission which had been appointed for the purpose of inquiring into the fees and salaries of the officers, of courts of justice; namely, the prevention of the future sale of various offices, which 613 614 l l l l 615 l l l l l 616 l l l l l l 617 l 618 Mr. Denman said, there was so much of the principle of the statement of the chancellor of the Exchequer, to which he assented, that he should first address himself to the part of the proposition which was free from all objection. With regard to the abolition of all emoluments arising from the sale of offices and fees, there could be no doubt of its propriety. He was quite ready to make an adequate compensation to the chief justice of the Kings-bench for the loss he might sustain in consequence; but, beyond that he was not willing to go. Let them estimate the chances and probabilities attendant on the office, and state what the amount of compensation should be, and he was willing to accede to it; but he could see no other principle for the alteration. The same remark would apply to the Common Pleas; but he could see no reason for the necessity of approximating the two offices. It appeared to him they had nothing to consider but the mere question of compensation; and he thought an amendment should be proposed, that the chief judges should receive an "adequate compensation" for the loss of their fees. With respect to the Master of the Rolls, he understood the right hon. gentleman to have stated the salary to be 4000 l The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that from the fees, and the civil list, and various other sources, the salary amounted to about 4,000 l Mr. Denman. —That rate of salary arose solely from the distinguished conduct of one eminent judge; but, if sir W. Grant had chosen to accept a salary equal to the vice-chancellor, the House was at that time ready to grant it; and he certainly thought the Rolls-court should be placed on a footing at least equal to that creation of an act of parliament, the vice-chancellor, which was an office of inferior rank. With respect to the other judges, he thought no case whatever had been made out. It might appear strange, that a person in his situation should oppose the proposition in opposition to the interests of those most respectable persons with whom he was in habits of daily in- 619 620 l 621 Dr. Lushington regretted the being obliged to differ from any of those friends with whom he was in the general habit of voting. He, however, entirely differed from his hon. and learned friend, and it was because he thought that the dignity of the bench would be increased by the proposed addition to the salaries, that he supported the motion. It was said, that the judges had not complained of their present salaries. It was true they had never disgraced themselves by a petition to the House or to government for an increase; but, if it was meant to be asserted that they did not feel the inadequacy of their present salaries, he meant to give it a direct and flat denial. It was for the interests of justice that the government should be enabled to engage the talents of the most learned men at the bar at a time when those talents were in their prime, and when the corporeal faculties of those who possessed them were still vigorous and unimpaired. What, he would ask, was the consequence of pursuing a contrary system? Why, that when the government appointed individuals to the situation of judges at the miserable pittance which was now assigned to them, they often remained in harness until they were quite incompetent to discharge the business of the public. Such an occurrence was an evil of a serious nature; and he would rather see judges appointed at an early period of their life, retiring at the first moment when their bodily faculties began to deny, than see them promoted to the bench at the very moment when they were least able to perform the duties of it. It might be said, that there was no difficulty in getting individuals to undertake the office of judges under the present system. Allowing that to be the case, still it was no objection to the view which he was taking of this question. The dignity of the situation was certainly calculated to render it an object of desire to many members of the profession; but, was that a reason why an individual should be allowed by the public to sacrifice in its service that time and that talent, which every man ought to render advantageous to the interests of his family? It was an unjust barter to make any man give up to 622 623 l 624 625 Mr. John Williams commenced his observations by expressing his regret, that the right hon. gentleman opposite, in the measure he had just detailed to the committee, had not proposed any correction for any of the evils of the present system. His hon. and learned friend below him, who had supported the measure, had proposed several important alterations in our judicial system, which he should have been most happy to have seen proposed, or even countenanced, by the right hon. gentleman opposite. The unequal distribution of business in the three courts—the cause of that unequal distribution—the late period of life at which the judges were appointed—these and many other points, which deserved quite as much attention as the mere payment of the judges, had all been passed over by the right hon. gentleman without notice. With respect to the salaries proposed to be given to the chief justices of the King's-bench and of the Common Pleas, it appeared to him to be extremely reasonable, that an ample compensation should be made to those two magistrates for the loss of the emoluments they now received from what was thought an objectionable quarter. But, the scale upon which that compensation should be made was quite obvious—it should be measured by the loss which they absolutely sustained from the deprivation of the fees to which they had hitherto beer entitled. With respect to the addition which it was proposed to 626 627 Mr. Secretary Peel said, that the committee must feel indebted to the hon. and learned member for Ilchester for the very able though concise speech which he had made in support of the present measure. An hon. and learned gentleman opposite had said, that the most important part of this resolution was that which related to the situation of the puisne judges. At 628 l l l l l 629 630 l l Mr. Scarlett addressed the committee at some length; but in a tone of voice so indistinct, that only a few detached sentences of his speech reached the gallery. We understood him to say, that 10,000 l 631 l l l l 632 633 l The Attorney-General remarked, that his hon. and learned friend, the member for Lincoln, had not, when he spoke of the judges of the court of Exchequer, done justice to the business which they were called upon to discharge. He seemed to have forgotten that they had other and heavy business besides revenue causes to adjudicate. Had they not their sittings in equity in Gray's-inn-hall after term? With respect to the observations which had fallen from his hon. and learned friend who had last spoken, he begged of him to bear in mind, that he (the Attorney-general) was not the author of the bill which had altered the mode of doing business in the court of King's-bench, although he perfectly well remembered the circumstances which had led to that measure. They were these. In 1813, while lord Ellenborough presided in the court of King's-bench, there was an immense accumulation of business in that court. Some provision became necessary to obviate the serious inconvenience thereby occasioned; and the judges of the court, sacrificing their own comforts and convenience, and influenced by an anxious desire to facilitate the public business, as far as their strength would permit them to do so, volunteered to sit out of Term, and actually did sit day after day in Serjeants' hall, for that purpose. Notwithstanding all their exertions, however, when the present lord chief justice took his seat, the arrear business was greater than ever. The judges persevered in their efforts. But there was one inconvenience which they felt; namely, that they could not pronounce judgment, or dispose of business of a particular description; and it was to remedy this defect, that the bill alluded to, was brought in. It was there- 634 l l l l 635 l 636 637 Sir M. W. Ridley said, that as a country gentleman, he felt disposed to give his unprofessional opinion on this important subject, and he would simply ask those who had ever any thing to do in the courts of law, and who had there witnessed the labours of the judges, whether they could reconcile it to their notions of propriety, to see men of such abilities, and intrusted with the performance of such high duties, so ill-requited for their services? He did not think the present salary of the judges sufficient. It did not allow them the means of raising any fund for their family. He trusted the committee would agree to the resolutions. It was a question in which the feelings of every man in the country ought to be interested. Sir C. Forbes said, he fully concurred in the proposition. He trusted, however, that the increase of salary would not stop here, but that the proposed regulations would be extended to Scotch and Irish judges. He could not speak as to Ireland, but it was his belief that not one judge in Scotland received any fees. He believed, further, that, with one exception, there was no legal office in Scotland that was disposed of for money. The salary of the puisne judges in Scotland, he meant the lords of sessions, was only 2,000 l 638 l Mr. Hume said, he had paid great attention to the whole debate, and must confess, that he did not recollect any question proposed to the House, which had received so little of satisfactory elucidation. The introducer of the measure had laid no grounds whatever for his proposition: he had not stated that any one judge had been dissatisfied with his remuneration, or had made any claim upon the public. Why should they give larger emoluments to public servants, who made no complaint of their being insufficiently remunerated? He should really like to know how the giving larger salaries to the judges would afford them any relief from the mass of business with which it was said they were overwhelmed. But, he objected to the measure upon a general ground. The moment the House began to augment the salaries of one class of public servants, they would find themselves called upon to extend their measure throughout the other departments of government. If he saw any difficulty to obtain great talents, or sufficient industry on the bench, at the present rate of remunerating the judges, he might support the measure; but, as it was notorious that the reverse was the case, he should give it his decided opposition. In fifty years, only one instance had been produced of a lawyer declining to accept the office of judge, on the ground of its rate of remuneration being inadequate. If any commission had been appointed to ascertain the value of the places which the judges had a right to sell, the House would then have had some data to proceed upon, but at present they were called to vote away the public money, and to establish a dangerous precedent, without any evidence or ground to proceed upon. By Mr. Abbot's report, it appeared that there were forty offices under the patronage of the chief justices of the King's-bench and Common Pleas. Some of these were allowed to be sold, and the rest were in their gift. The House ought not to come to any decision until this, and all other points relating to the subject, had been examined into, either by a committee or before a commission. The step from 3,200 l l 639 Mr. Tremayne cordially concurred in the motion, and would also promote any increased facility for enabling judges, under certain circumstances, to retire from the bench. Mr. Denman then said, that he would adopt the suggestion of proposing an amendment. No grounds had been laid for this motion, except inasmuch as related to the impounding the fees of the chief-justiceships of the court of King's-bench and. the Common Pleas. There was no reason shown for altering the salaries of the puisne judges, except the single exception of Mr. Justice Dampier's case. Now, it struck him as extraordinary, that while the government avowed such a desire to encourage men in the prime of life to undertake the office of judges, they should have so recently appointed a chief baron who was seventy years of age. He deprecated this great interference in the administration of justice on such futile grounds, and thought it at once assailed the independence of the bench, and the public purse. With respect to the connexion between the payment and the administration of the duties, he would say this—that the best paid part of the administration of the justice of this country was by far the worst administered, and in the inverse ratio, the contrary was the case. He should conclude by moving an amendment, "that no part of the emolument or salaries of the two chief justices of the court of King's-bench and Common Pleas should in future be paid out of fees or the sale of offices; and that a reasonable compensation should be allowed the same in lieu thereof; and also that the office of Master of the Rolls should be put in point of salary, upon the same footing as the vice-chancellor." Mr. Home Drummond thought that he might well recommend the Scotch judges 640 The Chancellor of the Exchequer thought that all the objections against the measure had been replied to most satisfactorily. He did not mean to say, that there were not good grounds to consider the case of the Scotch judges; but he was not prepared to look at that question at present. One judge of Ireland had had his salary increased since any similar increase had taken place in England. He alluded to the increase granted to the Master of the Rolls in 1812. He did not view this measure as the hon. member for Aberdeen had viewed it, as a link in a chain of augmentations. He considered simply whether a set of public servants were or were not adequately paid for their labour. If other public servants were hi the same condition, he should not hesitate to bring in a bill for their relief. Colonel Bagwell observed, that the puisne judges in England were to receive 6,000 l l Sir John Wrottesley said, he had come down to the House determined not to vote for the proposition of the chancellor of the Exchequer, unless it included a plan for doing away with the disgraceful practice of judges making money of their offices as part of the emoluments of their station. He had heard with great satisfaction what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman on that head; and in the arrangements which had been proposed, he congratulated the public upon laving so good a bargain. He thought that the salary of the Master of the Rolls ought to be equal to that of the vice-chancellor. He thought 6,000 l l Sir F. Burdett said, that, on so important a measure, they were invited to proceed too hastily, when they were asked 641 642 The Chancellor of the Exchequer thought the hon. baronet was mistaken in one respect. He seemed to suppose there was no information upon the subject. Now, there were two most elaborate reports upon the subject, and his measure respecting fees would be in conformity to the advice of the commissioners. Mr. Scarlett thought it would be better to propose, as an amendment, that the salaries should be grounded upon the estimated value of the situations for the last twenty years. By this means he thought the public would be a gainer. He asked if the average for the last twenty years would not be a fair mode of now deciding? This measure was to regulate all future times, and certainly some consideration was necessary. He hoped the House would consider him as a disinterested witness; and he had rather that a liberal salary should be allowed the judges than the reverse. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he owed it to the chief justice of the court of King's-bench to state, that that learned lord was totally ignorant of the salary which it was proposed to allow him in lieu of all fees, &c. The reason why an average rate had not been made was, that there were certain offices and fees, which, though emolumentary, would not come into the gift, of the present lord chief justice. Mr. Hobhouse said, that the rest of no gentleman had, he believed, been inter- 643 l l Mr. T. Wilson thought 6,000 l COTTON MILLS REGULATION BILL.] Mr. Hobhouse moved the order of the day for the second reading of this bill. Mr. Hornby objected to the bill on account of the interference it went to effect in the apportionment of labour. It was proposed by this bill to reduce the hours of working at present assigned to the children by one-twelfth. At present they laboured in the mills twelve hours on each of the six days of the working week; and this bill went to reduce the twelve to eleven hours. But it was to be observed, that if they reduced the labour of the children, they must reduce that of the adults too; so intimately were their labours connected with, and dependent on, each other. The consequence of this alteration and reduction of the hours of labour would be a diminution in the value of the total annual production of two millions and a half. He thought the House should pause before they took any such step. For his part he protested against the measure, and should move, by way of amendment, "that the bill be read a second time that day three months." Mr. Hobhouse contended, that the House had already recognised the principle upon which his bill was founded. They had legislated to protect those who could not protect themselves. A bill of the same tendency had been introduced in 1819, by sir Robert Peel; and on that occasion the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department had properly described it as being perfectly ridiculous to say that 644 645 Mr. Secretary Peel said, he could not support either the original motion or the amendment. He doubted the policy of limiting the number of hours for labouring, as proposed by the hon. member for Westminster. He saw several objections to sending a bill to the Lords altering the number of hours, on the mere statement of the hon. gentleman, however unexceptionable. He concurred thus far; namely, that it was expedient to try the experiment, by rendering what was termed sir R. Peel's bill effectual, and he would give to magistrates a power to summon parties before them, and compel the attendance 646 Mr. W. Smith observed, that sir Robert Peel's bill, as amended by the Lords, did not allow seventy-two hours in the week, but sixty-nine; the time for Saturday being nine instead of twelve hours. This act had been evaded in the most shameless, barefaced, and inhuman manner. Admitting the whole statement of the adversaries of the bill, there was abundant evidence to warrant the proposed reduction from twelve to eleven hours a day. He was glad that these poor children had found so active and eloquent an advocate, as his hon. friend the member for West, minster. Mr. Tulk supported the bill. Mr. Philips said, that the whole course of his experience induced him to believe, that this bill would in no degree improve the condition of the labourers. He contended, that those persons who were acquainted with the management of cotton-factories were much better able to judge of what regulations were fit to be adopted, than those who knew nothing about the practical effect of the existing laws. The provisions of sir Robert Peel's act had been evaded in many respects: and it was now in the power of the workmen to ruin many individuals, by enforcing the penalties for children working beyond the hours limited by that act. He was satisfied that the condition of the people working in the factories was much better than that of persons who worked out of them. He had heard only that morning, that the weavers out of doors did not receive more than one-third of the wages paid to the persons in factories; and the latter were besides provided with more convenient and wholesome places to work in. It would be well to limit the hours of children's working, if it were possible; but that was not possible without limiting the labour of adults. The only effect of the measures now attempted would be to deprive the children of work altogether. He was satisfied that no such number of hours as had been asserted were ever used for the employment of children. The evasions of the acts which had already taken place had happened, it was true, in the least respectable mills, where the owners were wholly regardless of public opinion. It was a great mistake to suppose that the labourers of Lancashire were under the domination of their masters, or that they had no will of their own. 647 Sir F. Burdett said, that he could not but feel the deepest commiseration for the situation of the poor children who were the chief objects of this measure. He agreed with his hon. friend who spoke last, that no legislative interference ought to take place in merely commercial transactions; and that the sale of labour by the workman, and the purchase of it by the master, should be left wholly to their own operation. But, this did not apply to the subject before the House. His hon. friend, and others, who like him were connected with the manufactories, did not like to be interfered with; and yet they could not deny, that before the passing of sir Robert Peel's act, the greatest abuses existed in the manufactories. The result of that act had been to better the condition of all who were employed in them. But, even allowing all that his hon. friend had said in its fullest extent, still there was an end to his principle altogether as applied to children. It could not upon any grounds be contended, that these helpless children should be sacrificed to the avarice and cupidity of their unfeeling parents, and of those by whom their labour was purchased. Those parents, whatever their right might be to receive the profits of their children's labour, had no right to sell them. We heard of slavery abroad; but, good God! had we ever heard of any such instance of overworking, as had been published with respect to the labour of the children in the cotton manufactories? These wretched little beings were, in many instances, employed, day after day, for more than twelve hours at a time. Why, had any man a horse that he could think of putting to such toil? It was shocking to humanity; and it became still more odious, when it was considered that these children, if they chanced to be overpowered by sleep, were beaten by the spinners until they awoke 648 Sir P. Musgrave said, that he would oppose the bill, as far as the four first clauses were concerned; but to the clause which had for its object to render the present law operative he should give his support. Dr. Lushington strongly supported the bill, which went to remove a most crying evil. No man, he was sure, who cherished the feelings of humanity, could oppose such a measure, or refuse to rescue the helpless beings, for whose protection it was intended, from the operation of the barbarous system of which they were the innocent victims. The hoe. baronet had said, that he would oppose the four first clauses, but that he would give his support to that which went to render the present law operative. What, however, were those four clauses? The third clause, ran thus—"And be it enacted that from and after the passing of this act, no child under six years of age shall be compelled to work more than eleven hours a day." Now, he put it to any man, who had the least spark of humanity in his bosom, whether he could sincerely oppose such a clause as this. In 1819, a system of things was proved to the House revolting to humanity, and to every principle of British justice. He believed the same still continued. Adults might be permitted to do as they pleased; but he would never consent that children should be devoted to labours which unfitted them for the exercise of the duties of their more mature years, and in many instances brought on premature death. 649 Mr. J. Smith agreed, that many of the manufacturers paid the utmost attention to the health and recreation of the children they employed; at the same time, legislation was necessary to prevent malpractices among those who were not restrained by the same feelings of humanity. Mr. Evans agreed that, the bill was loudly called for, and, as the proprietor of a large manufactory, admitted that there was much that required remedy. He doubted whether shortening the hours of work would be injurious even to the interests of the manufacturers; as the children would be able, while they were employed, to pursue their occupation with greater vigour and activity. At the same time, there was nothing to warrant a comparison with the condition or the negroes in the West Indies. HOUSE OF LORDS Tuesday, May 17. Roman Catholic Claims.] Numerous petitions, both for and against granting the claims of the Roman Catholics were presented to the House. The Lord Chancellor having presented a petition against the Catholic Claims from the congregation of Percy-street chapel, Lord King said, he could not forbear stating how this petition had been got up. He was informed, on respectable authority, that the minister of Percy-street chapel had addressed his congregation before the conclusion of the service, and told them that a petition was lying in the vestry for signature, and as the House of Peers was influenced by numbers, he recommended all the females to sign it. The clergy, it was said, had taken a religious view of this subject; but if this were true, they indeed took a religious view of it, and mixed it up with divine service, leaving to their congregation, along with other doctrines, to mark, learn, and inwardly digest it. The Bishop of London vindicated the minister of Percy-street chapel. The subject had been communicated to him, and, he had not found any reason to censure the clergyman. All who knew him were persuaded that a more worthy and pious man did not exist. The Lord Chancellor said, that as the right reverend prelate was satisfied with the conduct of the minister of Percy- 650 The Earl of Carnarvon rose to express his astonishment at the conduct of this minister, and to say, that if such a proceeding were to be adopted as a precedent—if clergymen were on all questions of political importance—or of divided opinion—to mention them in the pulpit, and mingle them up with the service of religion, all respect for the established church would cease. He did expect, when the subject was alluded to, that the right reverend prelate would have expressed his disapprobation of the proceeding; but to his astonishment and dismay, the right reverend prelate had excused the clergyman, coupled his excuse with a panegyric on the man, and added reasons of his own in vindication of the proceeding. If political questions were to be mingled with the worship of God—if the clergy were to enter upon political disquisitions in the pulpit—they might expect that some individuals in their congregation should reply to them; brawling would ensue, and the place of worship would be turned into a debating society. If the bishops did not feel ashamed of such conduct, it was the more necessary for their lordships to take the regulation of the church into their own hands, and rescue it from that ruin which the neglect of its professed guardians seemed to threaten it with. The clergy had taken an active part in getting up the petitions against the measure. At first a few petitions came in from the archdeaconries; afterwards there came a few from the clergymen and some of their parishioners; and at length, growing more bold, they procured a few from the great cities of the empire. This capital, which had formerly been almost roused to sedition and rebellion by the mention of the subject, had been perfectly quiescent, or, as far as its opinion bad been exposed, was in favour of the measure. He hoped the learned prelate would say one word deprecating such conduct. The Bishop of London said, he was not, called on by any thing which had happened, to censure the minister. He had not introduced any political discussion into the pulpit. As to the quiescence o, the capital, he could only say that he had presented several petitions front different parishes of it, against the measure. Had he used any influence, or taken an active 651 Earl Spencer said, he had a high respect for the right reverend prelate, but he could not sit still, and hear him say that he was not called on to censure the minister for conduct so very disgraceful and shameful. He had heard yesterday of the proceedings of the minister, and had felt shocked at them; but he was still more shocked by what he had just heard. If the clergy of the established church were to be allowed to give notice from the pulpit, and in the body of their sermons—[cry of no, no!] He had understood in the body of the sermon. The minister gave the notice of the petition at the end of the sermon, but before pronouncing the blessing with which every sermon concluded. This aggravated the case; and he should be glad to hear that his information was incorrect. He was sure no sincere friend, to the church of England, could approve of such conduct. This was the first time he had heard of such a circumstance, and he hoped it would be the last. Lord Rolle said, the Catholic priests always addressed their flocks from the altar, and the greater part of them for the purpose of inflaming their flocks against the Protestants. Lord Clifden said, the noble lord was grossly misinformed. The Catholic priests did not urge their flocks against the Protestants. There never was a grosser calumny. The Protestant clergy, indeed, had not set them a very good example, for they had endeavoured to light up a flame; and they might have succeeded, but they found a flame already lighted up by the two shillings and ninepence, levied in London under a statute of that tyrant Henry 8th. An old friend of his late majesty, lord Barrington, used to say, that, whenever a parson talked politics in the pulpit he ought to have his ears fastened to the altar. The Archbishop of Canterbury said, he had before heard nothing of this. He mightly disapproved of the conduct of the minister, it was both irregular and improper. Lord Calthorpe presented a petition from Birmingham, in favour of the measure. He was sure the great majority of all the well-educated classes of the community, except the clergy, were in favour of the measure. The Marquis of Downshire presented a petition from the Protestant inhabitants 652 The Bishop of London presented a petition from the parish of Hornsey, in the county of Middlesex, against time bill. The Marquis of Londonderry presented a petition from Darlington against any further concessions to the Roman Catholics. His lordship said, he would avail himself of that opportunity to deliver his sentiments on the important subject which was soon to occupy their lordships' attention. He preferred delivering his sentiments then to waiting until those who were better qualified than himself to speak should be induced to come forward on the regular question. Having been bred up in the principles of that beloved relative whose estates in Ireland he now inherited, the House would probably forgive him for avowing those opinions at a moment when, in obedience to his parliamentary duty, he was presenting a petition that was contrary to those opinions. Their lordships would also forgive him for saying, that as he knew the sentiments of that statesman, who was one of the most efficient and honest that ever the country possessed—as he knew them better than almost any other individual—he was able to state, that of all questions, this was the one which he was most anxious to see brought to a happy termination. It was a matter of deep regret with him through the whole of his political life, that he had not been able to accomplish what he had so much desired, with respect to that question. When under the direction of that great man, Mr. Pitt, he undertook to propose the question of a union with Ireland, the confident impression on his mind was, that, without the concurrence of the Catholics, the success of such a measure was impossible. Having communicated that conviction to the government here, an understanding was entered into, which, if it did not amount to a positive pledge, was something so near it, that parliament was bound to redeem it. This he knew to be the opinion of his noble relation, and he hoped that his mind still so far actuated the cabinet of England, as to lead them to take the same view of the subject. 653 Lord Dudley and Ward presented a petition from the Protestant Dissenters o the town of Dudley, in favour of the bill His lordship observed, that though he regretted, he was not surprised, to see the clergy of the established church presenting petitions against their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, but it filled him both with surprise and disgust, when he sale Dissenters petitioning against the extension of that toleration to others, which was extended to themselves, and therefore he felt happy in presenting the present petition, as being more worthy a their character, and of the times in which they lived. The Duke of Sussex said, he had a petition to present to their lordships in favour of the bill, which though not very numerously signed, contained some respectable names that must have an influence upon any assembly. The opinions of the petitioners perfectly conincided with his own. The persons who had signed it had none of them changed one religion for another. They were, the archdeacon of Sudbury, and three other eminent persons, with whom he was intimately connected. His right reverend friend the bishop of Norwich, could bear witness to the respectability of the signatures. The Marquis of Lansdown presented a petition from several members of the universities of Cambridge and Oxford, in favour of the Catholic claims. It was signed, he said, by two heads of colleges, a majority of the professors, and 80 or 90 other members of Cambridge university; but it was not so numerously signed by members of the other university, because the petition could only receive the signatures of such of the latter as were in London, there not having been time to send it to Oxford. Connected as he was with the university of Cambridge, it was with the greatest gratification that he beheld attached to this petition the names of the professor of Greek, of Arabic, of geology, of anatomy, of astronomy, in short of all that was distinguished for learning and enlightened talent in that great university, thus giving a bright example of liberality to the country.—The noble marquis presented a second petition, to the same effect, signed by 100 graduates of Oxford and Cambridge. His lordship then sated, that he had to present another petition, which possessed strong claims on the attention of the House. Their lordships would remem- 654 The Duke of Devonshire said:—My lords, I rise for the purpose of presenting to your lordships two petitions in favour of the bill now pending in this House, it favour of the Roman Catholics. The first is from the Protestant inhabitants of the county of Waterford; the other is from the inhabitants of the town of Bandon, in the county of Cork. My lords, the petitioners in both cases humbly pray that your lordships will be graciously pleased to remove the disabilities under their Roman Catholic fellow subjects at present labour. They pray this, first, because they conceive that no religious opinions ought to operate as a ground of exclusion from political rights and privileges; and secondly, they pray it as the only means by which permanent peace and prosperity can be diffused throughout Ireland. My lords, the petition from Waterford is signed by a, large majority of the Protestants of that county, and may be fairly considered as expressive of the opinion of all the Protestants most distinguished for rank and property in that part of the country. The other petition is, as I have already stated, from the Protestant inhabitants of a town heretofore distinguished for its hostility to the claims of the Roman Catholics, and yet such is the liberal and enlightened feeling which prevails, that the most opulent and leading Protestants of that town come forward and beseech your lordships to remove those disqualifications under which the Catholics have so long and so unjustly la- 655 656 Earl Grey after presenting several petitions in favour of the Roman Catholic claims, said:—I have now, my lords, to present to this House a petition of a 657 658 659 660 661 662 Roman Catholic Relief Bill.] The Earl of Donoughmore, in moving the order of the day for the Second reading of the Roman Catholic Relief bill, commenced his observations in a very low tone of voice. If Roman Catholics, he observed, were, on account of their religious opinions, to be deprived of those privileges which were enjoyed by other subjects of the state, then there was an end to the freedom of the British Constitution. Englishmen talked of liberty and freedom, and so forth, more than any other country of Europe, while they deprived six millions of Catholics of their liberty of conscience. On their behalf he now moved the second reading of this bill, reserving those observations which he had to make upon it to a future opportunity. Lord Colchester rose and said:—My Lords: My view of this important measure is so different from that of the noble earl who has opened this debate, that although he has abstained from offering any arguments in support of his motion, I am, nevertheless, desirous of taking the earliest opportunity of stating the particular grounds of my opposition to it. 663 * * 664 * "Hi ad nos gladiatorio animo affectant viam." See as to marriage laws, O'Connell's evidence, ut supra, p. 106, 107; and as to registration of oaths, ibid. p. 109–111. 665 * 666 * could not swear to maintain, support, and defend it * † See Dr.Doyle's evidence, Lords' Rep. p. 500, and Dr. Murray's, ibid. p. 412. 667 extermination of heretics * † See Lords' Rep. p, 329. and 429. ‡ See Hist. des Variations Sixième Avertissement, and Livre X. And his Oraison Funèbre on the chancellor Le Tallier. 668 * * 669 * † See Encyclical letter of Leo 12th 1824; and Dr. Murray's evidence, Lords' Rep. p. 429. 670 * * 671 672 673 * 674 s * * 675 Anglesea 676 677 678 "January 10th, 1797—At the time the army was ordered to March the weather was unusually severe, I therefore ordered them a proportion of spirits on their route, and I directed an allowance of 4 d 679 "With regard to Ireland, a part of the empire which will give you, and whoever may succeed you, more trouble and anxiety than any other portion of it, believe me, there is, at present, no system to be pursued but that of endeavouring to crush the rebellion which subsists in it. The Dissenters of the north are Republicans, and seriously and systematically are pursuing that object. The Catholics are jealous of English influence, and no concessions ought to be made to them whilst the kingdoms are separate. There is a measure which can alone render this country and Ireland so united, that it should be an advantage to it, instead of a point dreadfully vulnerable in all future wars:I mean a Union.—Never suffer Catholic emancipation to be conceded in a hurry, or as an expedient to procure temporary relief. The other concessions were so made to the Catholics; but after an Union, such concession may be made a measure of general conciliation. I cannot conclude this letter without giving you my opinion upon our actual situation in Ireland. I have great confidence in the army, a change is taking place in the minds of the gentry, who are in sonic degree relieved from the system of terror which had been infused, and the rebels in their turn, are becoming alarmed." 680 681 682 683 684 s 685 686 687 688 The Earl of Longford observed, that living constantly among a Roman Catholic population, regarding them highly as individuals, and respecting them as a body collectively, it would be readily imagined that he was most anxious to meet the views of the Roman Catholics of Ireland with as much favour as any man. But after very mature consideration, he could not bring himself to think that this bill would answer the sanguine expectations of those by whom it had been introduced into parliament, or that it was a measure that could be put into execution without manifest danger to the constitution. In giving his most decided opposition to this measure, he begged at the same time distinctly to state, that he was actuated by no spirit of hostility to the Roman Catholics. But, while he repeated that he held them in very high regard, he must take leave to say, that he could not at all see why they were to be admitted to a participation with Protestants of certain civil rights and political power in a free Protestant country. It had been rather imputed to those who, like himself, were unfriendly to such admission, that they wished to visit with penal consequences their peculiar doctrines: but he desired to observe, that they did not in any degree wish to interfere with the religious opinions, nor did they at all presume to measure the speculative tenets, or to regulate the doctrines of the Roman Catholics; but they were determined that the Roman Catholics should not interfere with theirs. The reason of their refusal of such admission was founded upon the political consequences that would follow upon their assent—political consequences that always had ensued, and that in his conscience he believed always would ensue, upon conceding those privileges to Roman Catholics which were now claimed by them. Those consequences led to the perpetual interference of the papal au- 689 690 691 692 693 The Bishop of Llandaffrose and said:— * * 694 695 696 697 698 "The queen's majesty bath the chief power in this realm of England, and other her dominions, unto whom the chief government of all estates of this realm, whether they be ecclesiastical or civil, in all causes, doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign jurisdiction.—Where we attribute to the queen's majesty the chief government (by which titles we understand the minds of some slanderous folks to be offended), we give not to our princes ministering either of God's word, or of the sacraments: the which thing the injunctions also lately set forth by Elizabeth, our queen, do most plainly testify; but that only prerogative which we see to have been given always to all godly princes, in holy scriptures, by God himself, i. e. that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be ecclesiastical or temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evil doers.—The bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England." 699 700 * 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 The Bishop of Norwich rose and said:— 709 710 has 711 Lord Carberry referred to the evidence of Dr. Doyle, and expressed his warm desire that his majesty's government would take up this great question as a measure of state, and see how far the policy of the British constitution, and the principles of the church of Rome, were reconcileable. Of this he was quite convinced, that there could be no permanent peace in Ireland, as long as the subject was left unsettled. The Bishop of Chester rose and said: 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 l Altum Dominium; that ratio ultima paparum 726 727 728 Limerick 729 l The Bishop of Chester explained. He said, that nothing was further from his intention than to have cast an imputation on the landed proprietors of Ireland. He merely meant to say, that it might with as much propriety be cast upon them as upon the clergy. The Earl of Harrowby here moved for an adjournment; but the general feeling of their lordships not appearing favourable thereto, it was not pressed. 730 The Marquis of Lansdown began by observing, that on this momentous occasion he felt bound to state to their lordships his reasons for giving his earnest support to the present bill; but, before he entered on the general merits of the question, he would say a few words upon the arguments urged on the other side by the right reverend prelate (the bishop of Chester). The right reverend prelate had laid it down, that the enjoyment of every civil right ought to be regulated by expediency; and here he must observe, that if the right reverend prelate rested his objections on the ground of expediency, he was, in all the other arguments which he had used, combatting with a shadow; for if the ground of political expediency existed, the discussion on the theological grounds was not necessary; but if; as he had often contended, and was again prepared to contend that night, the expediency of excluding six millions of people from their civil rights had long ago ceased to exist, it must follow that they ought to be admitted to the enjoyment of those rights which were theirs in common with all other British subjects. He would contend, that the expediency of exclusion, if it were even well founded, had long since ceased, and that a regard for the security of property, for the peace of the country, and for the stability of the church itself; dictated the propriety of putting an end to the system of exclusion, which had proved one of the greatest evils that Ireland ever experienced. The right reverend prelate had said, that in the course of his recent studies, he had found reason to change his opinions on this question, in consequence of evils existing, connected with the state of Ireland: but, he had not informed their lordships how many of those evils had arisen out of the nature of the Catholic disabilities, nor how the great statistical remedy (a word which the right reverend prelate seemed to have borrowed from sir John Sinclair) should be applied, without removing those disabilities:—he had not stated how they were to acquire in Ireland a Catholic gentry and yeomanry without a system by which the one and the other might be protected and conciliated. The right reverend prelate, in enumerating the causes which produced the disturbed state of Ireland, had overlooked one circumstance which he might have remembered; namely, that in that country there was the singular anomaly of a church establishment which was 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 The Earl of Liverpool said, that, late as the hour was, he could not suffer the speech of the noble marquis who had just sat down, to pass without troubling the House, and he feared at some length, with some observations in reply to it. He was ready, for himself, at once to meet the question as a question of expediency —to look fairly at the advantages which were expected from it, and at the evils to which it might give rise. But, he could not do this without first calling the attention of their lordships to the situation in which the House stood with respect to the question—a situation which, in his judgment, was equally novel and inconvenient. In consequence of events in Ireland which had transpired prior to the assembling of parliament, parliament had found it necessary to pass an act putting down the body called the Catholic Association, and also to institute an inquiry, by both branches of the legislature, into the state of the sister kingdom generally. Now, even if he had been favourable to the concession of the Cathodic claims, he should certainly, under such circumstances, have thought it right to await the result of the inquiry so instituted, and at all events to legislate only upon a full investigation of the subject. No such course, however, it seemed, was to be adopted by the promoters of the present measure. The bill was brought in without one moment waiting for intelli- 740 741 742 743 The noble marquis had stated, that the conduct of the Roman Catholic clergy had nothing to do with the practical discussion of this question. He could not agree with the noble marquis in that opinion; as he thought that the conduct of the Roman Catholic clergy mainly influenced that of the Roman Catholic body; and this necessarily arose from the nature of the relations existing between them. With respect to the duty of confession, for example—it had been asserted by some noble lords, that we Protestants also recognised the duty of confession. He admitted that we did, but mark the difference between the Roman Catholic and the Protestant. We did not require the performance of it as an indispensable duty. We did not even invite, much less require its performance; and, although we believed that absolution, or forgiveness of sins was the result of sincere repentance and reformation of life, we did not, as the Roman Catholics did, insist upon an annual confession, nor maintain that what was called the absolution of the priest, amounted to a sort of white-washing of the sinner [hear]. He had not, however, done with the evils of this system of confession, as practised by the Roman Catholic. And here he must again request their lordships' attention to the evidence given before their committee. From parts of that evidence it appeared that if the person who confessed were to disclose the commission of the most enormous crime, the priest was bound to secrecy [hear]. Neither was this bond of secrecy confined 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 The Earl of Harrowby began by saying, that he did not rise at so late an hour, in order to enter into a full discussion of a subject so frequently debated, or to repeat arguments which had so often been better brought forward, but because it was impossible for him to give a silent vote upon this question, after the speech of his noble friend and colleague. Continuing to differ from him as widely as ever, more widely indeed, than he thought they had differed, he owed it both to him and to himself, however painful to his feelings, to express the ground for the continuance of that difference, and to attempt at least to reply to his arguments, not because they had made any impression upon his own mind, 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 The Lord Chancellor said, that, at that late hour he would not enlarge in his observations to the House, and he would altogether pass by the merits of what was called the Catholic question. But there were one or two circumstances which he felt it to be his duty to himself and to the country.not to overlook. He confessed himself at a loss to understand how the bill came before their lordships in its present shape and form. From the votes of the House of Commons it appeared, that another bill had been brought into that House to disfranchise a great number of freeholders in Ireland; and also that a resolution had been agreed to, that it was expedient that a provision should be made for the Roman Catholic clergy by the state. Now there was no man but must see that there was an intimate connexion between these propositions and the bill under their lordships' consideration. Yet their lordships were called upon to pass the measure under their consideration, without having any means of anticipating what would be the fate of the other two propositions. That, he would say, was not a proper mode of legislating; and if he had no other reason for opposing the bill now before their lordships but the single circumstance to which he had adverted, he would make his stand on that ground; for it was impossible for him to satisfy his mind as to the probable effect of the bill on the interests of the Protestant establishment, without knowing what would be done with those other propositions. He would not now allude to what had taken place at the Union. He was, nevertheless, glad to hear a noble marquis say, that there was no pledge given at the period of the Union that the Catholic claims would be granted,although there was an understanding to that effect. He had never heard the great man, of whose administration he formed a part at the period, speak of the Catholic claims, without declaring that they could not be agreed to without complete securities for the Protestant establishment. His duty personally to that great man, and many other considerations, induced him frequently to endeavour to ascertain what those contemplated securities were; but, notwithstanding all his inquiries, lie could never learn. At one time the Veto was 763 764 s 765 Earl Fitzwilliam said, that he could not let the question go to a vote without declaring, that from deliberate conviction and much experience, he was the firm advocate of admitting the Roman Catholics to a full participation of the blessings of 766 List of the Majority and Minority. MAJORITY.—PRESENT. Duke of York Charleville Lord Chancellor Clanbrassill(Earl Roden Lord Privy Seal Duke of Beaufort Colchester Dorset Combermere Newcastle Dalhousie (Earl) Richmond De Clifford Rutland De La Zouch Wellington Delamere Marg. of Anglesea Dufferin Aylesbury Dynevor Exeter Falmouth Hertford Gambier Lothian Gifford Northampton Grantley Salisbury Grey Thomond Harewood Winchester Hawke Earl of Abergavenny Kenyon Abingdon Kinnoul Aylesford Lonsdale Bathurst Mansfield Rigby Meldrum (Earl Aboyne) Enniskillen Home Middleton Liverpool Montagu Longford Northwick Macclesfield Orford Mayo Penshurst O'Neil Powis Pembroke Ravensworth Pomfret Redesdale Radnor Rodney Rochford Rolle Scarborough Saltersford (Earl Courtoun) Shaftesbury Stamford Sheffield Strange Stanhope Viscount Beresford Stuart (Earl Moray Exmouth Lake Teynham Lorton Verulam Sidmouth Walsingham Sydney Willoughby de Broke Lord Arden Beauchamp Archbp. of Armagh Bexley Canterbury Bolton York Boston Bp. of Bath and Wells Brownlow Bristol Carbery Chester Cathcart Chichester 767 Down Oxford Elphin Peterborough Ely St. Asaph Exeter St. David's Gloucester Worcester Lichfield Lichfield Lincoln PAIRED OFF. Llandaff Lord Bayning London Braybrooke PROXIES. Duke of Clarence Coventry Cumberland Dormer Manchester Douglas Marlborough Douglas (Earl Morton) Marquis of Cholmondelay Fisherwick(MarDonegal) Earl of Cardigan Carrick Forbes Chatham Forrester Chichester Glenlyon Clancarty Gordon (M. of Huntley) Craven Egremont Gort Errol Harris Ferrers Le Despencer Graham (D. of Montrose) Loftus (Marquis of Ely) Harcourt Manners Howe Newburgh Kellie Oriel Malmesbury Ribblesdale Manvers Rivers Mount-Edgecumbe Ross (Earl Glasgow) Nelson Saltoun Norwich (D. of Gordon) St. Helena Stowell Paulett Tyrone (Marq. Of Waterford) Plymouth Romney Vernon Stradbroke Wodehouse Talbot Bishop of Bangor Wemyss Carlisle Winchelsea Durham Viscount Arbuthnot Hereford Carleton Waterford Lord Bagot Brodrick(Midleton) Winchester MINORITY.—PRESENT. Duke of Sussex Earl of Aberdeen Lord President Albemarle Duke of Argyll Breadalbane Buckingham Bristol Devonshire Caledon Grafton Carnarvon Leinster Charlemont Portland Clare Marq. of Bute Clar end on Camden Cork Conyngham Cowper Downshire Darlington Lansdown Darnley Londonderry Donoughmore Queensberry Essex 768 Fitzwilliam Hereford Fortescue Maynard Gosford Melville Grey Torrington Grosvenor Lord Abercromby Hardwicke Auckland Ilchester Calthorpe Jersey Cawdor Kingston Dacre Lauderdale Dundas Limerick Ellenborough Minto Foley Morley Gage Ormond Grantham Oxford Holland Rosebery Howard of Effingham Rosslyn Somers Howard of Walden Spencer St. Germain's King Suffolk Lilford Tankerville Lynedoch Wicklow Montford Wilton Napier Vis. Clifden Selsey Down Suffield Dudley and Ward Yarborough Duncan Bishop of Norwich PROXIES. Duke of Bedford Lucan Hamilton Mulgrave Somerset Waldegrave Marquis of Headfort Viscount Anson Sligo Granville Stafford Melbourne Tweeddale Lord Alvanley Wellesley Amherst Earl of Belmore Belhaven Besborough Carrington Blesington Churchill Buckinghamshire Clinton Crewe Carlisle Ducie Carysfort Erskine Cassilis Grenville Cornwallis Gwydyr De La Warr Hill Derby Hutchinson Egremont Maryborough Elgin Saye and Sele Garnard Sondes Harrington Bishop of Rochester Hopetoun HOUSE OF COMMONS. Tuesday, May 17. London Tithes Bill.] Mr. Alderman Wood moved the second reading of this bill. The parishioners, he said, were willing to raise the tithes to 1 s s d 769 d d s Mr. W. Courtenay considered this was an extraordinary attempt to interfere with the rights of individuals: By an act of the 37th Henry 8th, it was enacted, that a decree therein mentioned should be enrolled, after which it should have the effect of a statute. By that decree, a rate of 2 s d Mr. Alderman Bridges supported the bill, and he hoped that, notwithstanding the instances adduced by the hon. and learned gentleman, the House would do justice to the numerous individuals who had so feelingly appealed to it. 770 Mr. Wynn said, that if this bill was allowed to pass through another stage, it might shake the foundation of all private property. The impropriator claimed under the law of the land, the security of an act of parliament, and the finding of a jury more than one hundred and fifty years ago. It was therefore difficult to imagine a less objectionable title. The House was not to erect itself into a court of justice, to decide private claims. If the decree had been improperly obtained, it had been open to the parties to reverse it in the House of Lords. In all cases where an invasion of this kind had been allowed, it was only where a great public benefit was to be secured by making a more than full compensation to the party deprived. Mr. J. Smith said, that the incumbents had a good and perfect right to enjoy the 2 s d Mr. Calcraft said, he had been informed, that upon the trial to which the learned member for Exeter alluded, the enrolment had not been brought into question. He thought it was at least fair, that a new issue for the trial of that question should be granted. He agreed that it was of the last importance to preserve the rights of property and to maintain old and settled decisions. In the case of the fire of London, the parliament had dealt with the property of the church for the benefit of churchmen; he thought, therefore, that they might now do so for therelief of the parish. Last year he had carried a bill providing a compensation, for the rector of St. Andrew's, Holborn, and having the concurrence of the excellent duchess of Buccleuch, and of the bishop of London, he had experienced no difficulty. He wished for the trial of an issue, for the purpose of ascertaining the question of the enrolment, upon which the whole subject turned, and which would put an end to all litigation. Mr. Courtenay referred to the report of the case tried in 1647, in which the question of the enrolment had been raised, and decided in the affirmative. Mr. Secretary Peel felt it unnecessary, after the explanation given by his learned friend, to say more than a very few words on this subject. He could not but shrewdly suspect, that this bill had been drawn by the hon. Alderman (Wood) himself. At the period of passing the act the clergy made the same complaint as 771 Mr. W. Smith agreed that the principle of the bill could not be supported. Mr. Alderman Wood said, that the measure before the House had not been resorted to until all means of obtaining the trial of an issue had been attempted and had failed. REPEAL OF THE WINDOW-TAX.] Mr. Hobhouse rose, pursuant to notice, to bring forward his motion for the Repeal of the Window-tax. He began by stating, what he thought was clear to the whole country, that notwithstanding the general approbation of the House and the people, of the measures of his majesty's ministers, considerable dissatisfaction was evinced that greater relief had not been afforded from direct taxation. After the immense exertions they had made—after the unparalleled weight of taxes they had borne, and had borne patiently—they certainly had a claim to relief, which had not been extended so widely as it could and ought to have been. The speech of the right hon. the chancellor of the Exchequer on the subject of taxation, was equally memorable for the talent it displayed and the disappointment it had created. The House had been told of the " giant smuggler," whom, it was said, the right hon. gentleman could not lay, if he was called upon to make any further reduction. Reference had frequently been made to Ireland, and to the taxes imposed upon her; and yet the window-tax had been removed from that country, though it was continued in this, and that relief had been afforded by a ministry less willing to yield than the one now in power; but, it was 772 l 773 l 774 s 775 l l l l l 776 l The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, that he would not go the length of saying, that because the estimates were voted and the expenses -of the year incurred, the House were therefore incapacitated from making such seductions as they should deem expedient. But this was a question which had been already decided by the House, on the motion brought forward by the hon, member for Abingdon. The only difference between that motion and the present was, that the one called for an immediate reduction, and the other went to pledge the House to a reduction next year. Now, any one who attended to the principle upon which he had proposed the reduction of taxes to the amount of 1,500,000 l l l l 777 l 778 Mr. Leycester said, the effect of the tax was, to render the Houses of the people dark, uncomfortable, and unwholesome. He would therefore support a motion for the repeal of such an injurious tax. Mr. Calcarft said, he saw his way so clearly, in the present prosperous state of the country, that, consistently with the conduct which he had formerly pursued, he would support the motion of his hon. friend. He conceived that the abolition of the window-tax would be much more beneficial to the country, than the partial reduction of those duties with respect to wine, coffee, spirits, &c., which had been already ameliorated; seeing that that amelioration did not prevent smuggling. In fact, the coast of Kent was now patrolled by sentries armed with cutlasses and pistols, as if we expected an hourly invasion. Mr. Herries opposed the repeal of a tax that pressed so lightly on the community, and defended the course adopted by ministers in the reduction of indirect taxation. Mr. Maberlysaid that ministers set their own individual opinions in opposition to the sentiments of the whole country. Sir F. Burdett supported the motion. There was no tax that he knew of that was attended with more ill consequences, or that was more unequal in its presure, than the window-tax. No regard was 779 Mr. Huskisson opposed the motion. He contended, that the same motion had been brought before the House by the hon. member for Abingdon, and negatived. The hon. baronet had been somewhat indiscreet, he thought in proposing that the window-tax should be added to the house-tax. There had been a meeting of the inhabitants of Westminster, to consider of the propriety of petitioning parliament for the repeal of the window-tax. Let the hon. baronet call another meeting of his constituents, and propose the union of the two taxes, and see in what manner they would receive such a proposition. Colonel Palmer said, that notwithstanding the rebuke given upon a former night to a worthy alderman, he agreed with his hon. friend in supporting all motions for relieving the burthens of the people; as the ministers on their side invariably opposed them, whilst in every instance of the repeal of a tax being carried, they had contrived to go on just as well without it. This, at least, was more consistent than the conduct of another worthy alderman, who, upon the same occasion, had praised to the skies, the ministers and their sinking fund, whilst he voted against them, and reprobated in the strongest terms the injustice and oppression of the assessed taxes. For his own part, looking to the principles of free trade, at length adopted by the ministers, he had considered the measures of the chancellor of the Exchequer to be best calculated for the general interests of the country; nor was it against them, but the system of the government, that his opposition was directed. The right hon. gentleman had said, in his former speech, that he could not do all at once; but, looking to the burthens of the people, he had, in fact, done little or nothing to relieve them, nor could, without a change of system. Let the ministers only consent to that, and they would find in him as warm a friend, as he was an enemy: but, being convinced that the country was never yet in greater danger, which the ministers might at once remove, by adopting the 780 List of the Minority. Abercrornby, hon. J. Lethbridge, sir T. Allen, J. H. Leycester, R. Althorp, visc. Lockhart, J. J. Astley, sir J. D. Maberly Baring, A. Maberly, W. L. Barrett, S. B. M. Macdonald, J. Benett, J. Marjoribanks, S. Bernal, R. Milbank, M. Bernard, visc. Mildmay, P. St. John Bright, H. Milton, visc. Burdett, sir F. Monck, J. B. Byng, G. Newman, R. W. Calcraft, J. Normanby, visc. Carter, J. Nugent., lord Chaloner, R. O'Callaghan, J. Coffin, sir I. Osborne, lord F. Colborne, N. R. Palmer, C. Crompton, S. Palmer, C. F. Davies, col. Pares,, T. Denman, T. Portman, E B. East, sir E. H. Price, R. Fane, J. Pryse, P. Fitzroy, lord C. Ramsden, J. C. Grattan, J. Ridley, sir M. W. Guise, sir B. W. Robarts, G. J. Heron, sir R. Robinson, sir G. Honywood, W. P. Rowley, sir W. Hotham, lord Rumbold, C. Hume, J. Scott, J. Ingilby, sir W. Tynte, C. K. Jervoise, G. P. Warre, J. A. Johnstone col, Webbe, E. Kemp, T. R. Whitbread, S. C. Knight, R. White, H. Leader, W. White, S. Lester, R. L. Williams, T. P. 781 Williams, J. Denison, W. J. Wilson, sir R. Dundas, H. T. Winnington, sir T. Fergusson, sir R. Wood, ald. Glenorchy, lord Wrottesley, sir W. Maule, hon. W. TELLERS Rice, T. S. Gordon, R. Robarts, A. W. Hobhouse, J. C. Stanley, lord Taylor, M. A. PAIRED OFF. Wharton, J. Creevey, T. Williams, W. Davenport, D. Wilson, C. Qqarter Sessions Misdemeanour.] Mr. Denman rose, in pursuance of a notice he had given to bring in a bill to remedy a grievance which existed in the criminal courts. If a person was indicted for a misdemeanour at the quarter session, he could not remove it without an expensive and troublesome process, while the prosecutor could do so almost as a matter of course. Several instances had recently occurred to show the extreme hardships of this upon the defendants. The hon. and learned gentleman alluded particularly to the case of a person who had committed an assault upon an attorney in Cornwall, and had been brought up to London at a very great expense; and to a prosecution by the Constitutional Association, when the indictment was in Lancashire, where the same trick was played. The object of the present bill was, that where the indictment should have been removed by certiorari, as it often ought to be, the judge might pass sentence at once. Slave Trade In The Mauritius. On the motion of Mr. Huskisson, the House resolved itself into a committee on the Customs Consolidation act. It was his intention, he said, to put the produce of the Island of Mauritius on the same footing as the produce of the colonies of the West-Indies. Mr. Bernel took that opportunity of complaining, that the House was at present in total ignorance respecting the extent to which the slave-trade was carried on in the Mauritius, owing to certain returns not haying been made. He therefore wished the motion to be postponed until the.House should be possessed of that information. Mr. Huskisson said, that these paper would soon be printed, and that an opportunity would occur, on the general consolidation bill, for discussing this point; 782 Dr. Lushington hoped the right hon. gentleman would not proceed until the information alluded to should be before the House. Mr. Bright hoped the measure would be brought forward in a substantive shape, and not as a part of the general consolidation bill. Mr. Wilmot Horton said, that the papers moved for had been laid upon the table, and that the delay in printing them was not to be charged against the government. Sir R. Farquhar said, that the papers that were ordered to be printed contained the most convincing proofs, that since early in the year 1820, no slave-trade had been carried on in the Mauritius. In regard to the rumours on this subject, they were common to the West-India islands for many years after the abolition; but he felt satisfied, that there was no more truth in them respecting the Mauritius, than there was with regard to the West-India islands. A colony's interests and character were not to be sacrificed on the ground of vague rumour, which never, in any single instance, had stood the test of inquiry or investigation. So far as the Mauritius was concerned, therefore, he had no hesitation in vouching, in the most solemn manner, that there had been no slave-trade in the island for the last five years at least; and in making this assertion, it was gratifying to him to be borne out by the most satisfactory and conclusive letters, both public and private, to the Secretary of State, from his gallant and hon. successor, who would disdain to lend his authority to the fancied existence of such practice, merely for the purpose of obtaining the credit of having suppressed them; and he therefore did hope, that a measure equally called for by justice and good policy, and one so eloquently described on a late occasion by the right hon. the chancellor of the Exchequer in the analogous case of Canada, would no longer be deferred, and that the inhabitants of the Mauritius, after all their losses, and the disappointment of their just hopes and expectations—more especially in this House last year, when the bill for the relief of the Mauritius had undergone two readings—would not be debarred another day even from the enjoyment of the full benefit of the proposed measure. 783 Dr. Lushington made some observations respecting the landing of some slaves from a French vessel at the Mauritius. Sir R. Farquhar observed, in reply to the learned gentleman, that the case alluded to, was that of a French vessel from Mozambique, which it was suspected intended to make a depot of slaves for Bourbon in one of the uninhabited islands of the Archipelago, to the north-east of Madagascar; but there was no landing, and the vessel was intercepted close to one of those uninhabited islands, by the exertions of captain Moresby. He put it to the candour of the hon. gentleman, whether this could be construed into a slave-trading with the Mauritius. HOUSE OF COMMONS Wednesday, May 1825 Private Committees—Welch Iron And Mining Company Bill.] Mr.Littleton called the attention of the House to a subject which he deemed of considerable importance. On the 21st of April a complaint had been made to the House by the hon. member for Yorkshire, that a day had been appointed for the meeting of the committee on the above bill, and that, though all the parties interested in opposing the bill, with their counsel, had appeared, and incurred great expense, yet no committee took place. Another meeting had then been appointed for that day, and a like circumstance took place. The hon. member, after adverting to the inconvenience and expense which parties were thus put to, moved, "That the order for the committee on the said bill be discharged." Lord Milton seconded the motion. The parties opposing the bill had been, he said, most inconveniently and expensively kept in town, and had received no notice of postponement in either instance. The Speaker said, he had paid great attention to the private business, in order, if possible, to remedy the inconvenience arising from the great pressure of it this session, and that it might be better regulated for the general benefit of the public. But, whatever might be the complaints of parties as to their agents, or as to their being delayed in town, yet if the gentlemen who constituted the committee absented themselves, and never attended, as had been the case on the present occasion, it was quite idle to think that any regula- 784 Sir J. Wrottesley thanked the Speaker for the attention he had paid to this subject. He hoped that what had taken place with respect to this company, would put the House on its guard as to the character of such companies as these; and that persons who were the dupes of such companies would be a little more careful in making inquiries before they risked their property. He thought that something like recognizances, might be necessary to compel the attendance of persons introducing private bills of this kind. Mr. Jones impressed upon the House the extreme inconvenience to which parties were exposed by such misconduct. Mr. M. A. Taylor said, that unless some steps were taken to remedy the inconvenience arising from the quantity of private business, and the manner in which it was conducted, the public would have a right to complain of neglect. He had been on several committees, and lamented the expense that persons were put to, in order to protect their property against the many schemes which were brought forward. In one committee which he had attended, a gentleman, whose ancestors had held a property of 2,000 l l Mr. S. Wortley declares he had never seen so gross a case of neglect as the present. The company had not only no committee, but had not even given notice that they meant to adjourn. Mr. Hume suggested, that the only likely mode of reforming the present evils would be, to allow the public papers to report the proceedings of private committees. Roman Catholic Contribution To Protestant Church—Petition From 785 presented a petition from the Roman Catholic inhabitants of Taghadoe, praying that, as the proportion of the Roman Catholics to Protestants in that parish was three hundred to one, they might not be obliged to build a church for Mr. Grierson, a member of the Protestant establishment. A more humble or reasonable request never was made to this or any other public body. The petitioners stated, that t lit re was a very good church in the neighbourhood, in which Mr. Grierson had a free pew; that whereas he required a sexton, sextoness, pew-opener, clerk, and others, in all six people, to attend to the salvation of his spirit; they prayed that he might open the pew himself, that he might dig his own grave, and perform the other duties in his own character. This was the request these individuals made; and a more fair and reasonable one never was made. As this was a petition from Roman Catholics, he could not help adverting to an event which had occurred since the House had last met; he meant the rejection of the Roman Catholic bill by the House of Lords. He deplored the rejection of the bill by a majority, which, if not altogether unexpected would prove a source of bitter disappointment to millions of subjects. He hoped that before the present session passed aver some palliative might be administered for such a disappointment. While Ireland was Ireland it never could be set at rest, except by the two House together with the Crown, concurring to give to Ireland equal and impartial justice. The bill had had the aspirations of six millions of loyal subjects. How long a constant renewal of hope and a perennial disappointment could be endured and how soon despair might take place, let the Lords determine; for the House of Commons had done its duty. Not Only had the bill the aspirations of six millions of fellow-subjects, but it had the support of the greatest men, Burke, Romilly, Whitbread, and others; and greater than all, Fox and Grattan, who were the fathers of this measure. The wisest men of the present generation were the constant, zealous, friends of this measure. Great lawyers were in its favour, he meant not men on this side of the House—not men great in their own estimation, but great in the estimation of a higher authority—he meant great in the estimation of the lord high 786 Sir T. Lethbridge said, that if the observations of the learned gentleman had not been said by him to be parliamentary, he should have thought them quite out of order. If any portion of the community were disappointed by the vote of the other House, he hoped they would still be distinguished for that loyalty by which they had been hitherto characterized. He was sorry that his right hon. friend had not been in the House when the learned gentleman made his speech; a speech which seemed prepared for the occasion, and which was certainly exceedingly well got up. He was surprised that the learned gentleman should have had the bad taste to come down and question the decision of last night. The petition seemed to have been kept back for the occasion. Mr. Spring Rice rose for the purpose of setting the hon. baronet right with respect to the circumstances under which his learned friend had presented the petition. He could assure the hon. baronet that he was quite mistaken in supposing his learned friend had had it in his possession for a month or even for a day; as it had been handed to him only a few hours back, and five minutes after he had received it he had confided it to his learned friend. If, therefore, all the hon. baronet's inferences were drawn from similar premises, he could hardly think them deserving of much attention. He had, however, to thank the hon. baronet for one part of his speech; and it was that in which he had praised the people of Ireland. Ha believed the hon. baronet did not exaggerate when he so eulogised them. They 787 Sir R. H. Inglis rose, to correct a mistake of his on a former night; not that his own experience led him into an error, when he stated that no place of worship was granted to the Protestants at Rome, but a right hon. friend had since informed him, that permission was granted within the last year. He disapproved of the allusion of the hon. and learned gentleman to a noble lord in another place, and he put it to him whether it was consistent with common sense or good feeling to make allusions to a noble lord in his absence. 788 Mr. Brougham said, that he quite agreed with his hon. friend, the member for Limerick, in the constitutional view he had taken of their right to allude to what occurred in another place. But even that House bad been treated cavalierly and disrespectfully by the other House; at which he confessed that he felt much pain as one of its members. The hon. baronet charged him with an attack upon a noble lord in his absence, and he did it precisely because he was not in that House. Besides that noble lord was not only a member of the House of Peers, but he was the lord chancellor, and a minister of state; a minister, by the way, who was paid twenty-thousand pounds a-year for bearing with these attacks. Was not lord Liverpool, or any other member of the government to be attacked, because he was absent and could not be in that House, if his conduct deserved it? He would put it to the hon. baronet if, in his experience, he had ever committed a greater blunder than in saying that a noble lord ought not to be attacked because he was absent? Mr. Peel said, it so happened that he did not hear a word of the speech of the learned gentleman, and he only inferred what it was from the allusions of the hon. baronet who last spoke, and the hon. member for Somersetshire. He was not sorry that he had not been present, because he should have been sorry to have been provoked to say any thing which could add to the disappointment which was likely to be produced by the vote of last night. But he must Say, that if any of his colleagues with whom he was bound in friendship, as well as by the ties of office, were attacked in his presence, he should vindicate them from the charge. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Thursday, May 19. Quarantine Laws Bill.] On the order of the day for bringing up the report on the above bill being read, Sir I. Coffin said, he felt it his duty to make a few observations on the present occasion. He could, from his own personal observations, state, that the plague was contagious. When he was at Malta, the disease was brought to Valetta by a shoemaker through the medium of some leather. The man died, and so did the family with whom he resided. The disease was soon pronounced to be the 789 Lord Belgrave said, that to prove that the plague was contagious, no more was necessary than to refer to the case of Dr. M'Lean, who went to Constantinople to endeavour to ascertain the fact. He ex- 790 l l 791 Mr. Bernal cautioned the House against hastily adopting any measure upon so serious and important a subject. Mr. Charles Grant said, that the bill, properly looked at, was open to none of the objections which had been taken to it. The committee of foreign trade had sat last year on the subject of the Quarantine laws. Having received a variety of complaints as to the difficulty and impediment which those laws placed in the way of our commerce, the committee had applied themselves to consider, not whether the plague was or was not contagious, but whether, assuming it to be contagious, any part of the existing restrictions could be dispensed with without danger. He wished that hon. gentlemen had read the report of that committee before they made up their minds on the subject; for the committee bad actually set out by assuming, that the plague was contagious, and had refused even to examine any evidence to the contrary effect. It was the opinion of sir Gilbert Blane, and of several other physicians, decided advocates for the theory of contagion, that, admitting the plague to be contagious, all the provisions of the present bill might be carried into effect with perfect safety. The effect of the bill had been entirely misunderstood by those who opposed it. It did nothing more than go on the principle of the plague being contagious; merely relaxing those parts of the former law which its most strenuous supporters thought consistent with safety. Indeed, he did not think that the House would be justified in proceeding one step further. Lord Belgrave said, he did not mean to oppose the bill. His object was to protest against the opinion which prevailed both in and out of the House, that the plague was not contagious. Mr. John Smith said, that, as far as this bill went, it had his entire concurrence. The fact was, that the Levant trade, which was very considerable, could not be carried on, unless the tiresome and vexatious regulations of the Quarantine laws were, in some degree, relaxed. After what had been said by the right hon. gentleman, he should not argue the question of contagion; but he could not sit down without saying that his conviction of the non-contagious nature of the plague was undiminished. 792 Mr. Trant was decidedly of opinion, that precautions against the plague could not be disused without exposing the country to the consequences of a most frightful experiment. It had been said, that the plague never passed beyond certain boundaries; but he could contradict that, by stating, that the plague travelled into Arabia, which was near the Red Sea, and into Upper Egypt. SALMON FISHERY BILL.] Mr. Kennedy moved the second reading of this bill. Mr. Abercromby requested his hon. friend to postpone this bill to the next session, as from the high interest which it excited, particularly in Ireland, it was not likely to give satisfaction if it appeared to be a measure which had not undergone the most mature consideration. In the interval before next session, gentlemen would have more opportunities of considering the evidence which had been taken before the committee. Mr. Hutchinson concurred in recommending the postponement, on account of the local interests in Ireland involved in the measure. Mr. Kennedy said, he could not withstand the appeal made to him, although he had hoped to be able to carry the bill through this session. It had been already two years before the House. Mr. C. Grant eulogized the exertions of the hon. member upon a subject which certainly required some legislation; but expressed his doubts whether he could could carry the bill throngs during the present session. Mr. Kennedy said, he was desirous that the blanks should be filled up in the committee, to make the measure as intelligible as possible. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Friday, May 20 LEITH DOCKS BILL.] Sir G. Clerk having moved the order of the day for the further consideration of the report of this bill, Lord A. Hamilton said, that owing to the importance of this measure, as well on account of its principle as for the pe- 793 l Mr. Hume wished to know how far ministers were responsible for this measure, which they seemed to have taken under their patronage. It was one of the most shameful and barefaced jobs that had ever been brought before the House. He wished, if the ministers had been in the House, to Know distinctly whether lord Melville had not promised the sanction of the government to the measure. On the part of those who sent him to parliament, and on that of the whole community of Scotland, he protested against its further progress. He contended, that the corporation, as trustees, had violated the trust which had been reposed in them for the public benefit, by making sale of this right to themselves. Instead of borrowing the money they wanted at 4 per cent., 794 Sir G. Clerk said, that the two honourable members who had opposed the measure had not attended the committee on the bill for a single day. It was not surprising, therefore, that they were ignorant of the measure, which was really deserving of the support of the House. The corporation of Edinburgh had acted throughout the transaction in the most fair and open manner. The real facts of the case were shortly these: some years ago the city of Edinburgh incurred a debt of 250,000 l 795 Mr. J. P. Grant said, that his opposition to this bill did not rest upon anything which had come out in the committee, but on the broad principle of law. The magistrates of Edinburgh, as trustees of the harbour of Leith, had, in violation of their duty, sold the trust property, and Sold it, too, to themselves, and afterwards disposed of their interest on shares at a premium of 15 per cent. Such a proceeding would, he was certain, be declared illegal in the court of Chancery. It was a proceeding which came within the scope of the Bubble act, for the corporation had clearly speculated on the getting of an act of parliament to sanction their conduct. The community of Leith, and of every town on the Leith coast trading with that port, had petitioned against the bill. He therefore called upon the House to reject the unjust and iniquitous measure, and to protect the law of the country, and a portion of the community which was not represented in that House. Mr. W. Dundas supported the bill, and said that the corporation of Edinburgh resorted to the bill only to provide for the excess of expenditure above the receipts of the harbour of Leith. Lord Glenorchy protested against the manner in which these Scotch jobs were managed in the committes up stairs, which were, when a Scotch bill was the matter in question, generally composed altogether of Scotchmen. Mr. Abercromby thought the question before the House a most important one. He had two objections to the bill. The first was, that it proposed to transfer the docks to an irresponsible body of persons, who had no interest in the prosperity of the trade of Leith. The second was, that the conduct of the magistrates could be defended on no principle of law or equity. They had entered into the transaction for their own benefit, and had been guilty of a gross breach of trust. No member could, in his opinion, vote for the bill, unless he was prepared to maintain, that persons acting as trustees had a right 796 Captain Wemyss said, he had attended the committee on the bill at every sitting, and could conscientiously declare, that a more gross job had never come under his knowledge. Mr. T. Wilson said, he had heard enough to satisfy him that the corporation had acted most improperly. He would therefore vote against the bill. Wood FORGERY OF A PETITION FROM BALLINASLOE—BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.]Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald brought up the report of the committee on the Ballinasloe Petition. This was the case of a petition presented by sir John Newport on the 17th of March, in favour of the Catholic Claims, and purporting to be signed by a number of persons at Ballinasloe. Subsequently it was discovered that the document was a forgery, got up by a person named Robert Poer French Pilkington; and the persons at Ballinasloe whose names had been subscribed to it, presented a true petition, praying that the House would take the fraud into consideration. The Report of the committee was as follows: "The Committee to whom the petition of the inhabitants of Ballinasloe, and of the parishes of Creagh and Kilclooney, complaining of the forgeries of their names to a petition in favour of the Roman Catholic claims, was referred to examine the matter thereof, and to inquire into the circumstances under which a paper, professing to be a petition from the Protestant parishioners of the town of Ballinasloe and the united parishes of Kilclooney and Creagh, was presented to this House on the 17th of 797 Mr. Secretary Peel said, it was an unpleasant duty to recommend any measure of severity; but the proof of the fact was so clear, and the offence of so heavy a description, that he felt himself compelled to move that Mr. Pilkington be committed to Newgate. Mr. Brougham wishing, in every case of breach of privilege, to act in such a way as would secure unanimous concurence, was desirous that Mr. Pilkington should be called in, and that the House might hear what he had to say. Mr. Peel had no objection to that course, but doubted if it would be quite regular. The offender had admitted the fraud in the inquiry before the committee, and offered nothing in extenuation of it. The Speaker thought it right to call the attention of the House to the precedent which he found existing on the subject. In the year 1736, a bill being pending in the House touching some duties upon spirituous liquors, it was complained, that a pamphlet had been published out of doors setting forth the provisions of that bill, and commenting upon it. A committee was appointed to examine, which discovered, from the evidence of witnesses, that this pamphlet had been published by a certain servant named Abraham Riley, from the house of a printer named Wm. Rayner. On this report from the committee, the House resolved nem. con, that W. Rayner and Abraham Riley be taken into custody of the Ser- 798 Mr. Brougham was rather unwilling to take up, in the way of precedent, a case which turned upon that very severe law, as to the liability of printers. No doubt the law was clear; but it was hard that a man should be answerable for that which his servant might do when he was a hundred miles off; or in gaol. And, besides, the cases were different, for the House had only committed Rayner to the custody of the Sergeant-at-arms without hearing him; it was now meant to send Mr. Pilkington to Newgate. Mr. V. Fitzgerald observed, that the offender had been heard already before the committee, and that he had nothing to say in his defence. Mr. Brougham admitted that the examination before the committee rendered a hearing by the House less imperative, but was still anxious that it should be afforded. The Speaker said, he understood the case to stand thus—the House had acted upon the report of the committee as to the establishment of the offence; it was now a question as to the nature of the punishment; and upon that the party was to be heard in extenuation. Mr. Peel had no objection to calling in the offender; but thought it not right to press for a sort of apology, when an apology, without some punishment, could not be accepted. JURIES BILL.] On the order of the day being read, Mr. Secretary Peel said, that before the House went into the committee, he wished briefly to restate the principal objects of the Bill. The first object was, to consolidate the several statutes, about sixty in number, which were now in force, for regulating and determining the qualifications of jurors serving at Assizes. These, which were spread over the Statute book, it was proposed to bring into one act, and also about twenty statutes on the subject of empanelling juries. Another 799 l Mr. Scarlett said, he should not do justice to his feelings if he did not offer the tribute of his sincere applause to the right hon. gentleman for the introduction of this most useful measure. It was of the utmost importance that the trial by jury should be made as perfect as possible. One of the greatest blessings resulting from the free constitution of this country was, that the people had, as jurors, the administration 800 Mr. Secretary Peel observed, that he felt great pleasure at the manner in which this measure had been received by the House. He had to acknowledge the cordiality with which it was met by honourable members on both sides, without any reference to party feelings. The alteration proposed would, he felt persuaded, be productive of good effects to the country. There were, besides those to which the bill related, other points connected with the administration of justice, which he thought would bear to be calmly inquired into; and with the encouragement he had already received, he hoped at no distant period to bring them under the consideration of parliament. Mr. Brougham after enumerating the objects of the bill, observed, that that part which went to alter the present mode of selecting special juries, more particularly in Crown cases, was most important, and would produce the best results; for, let the selection be made with the most scrupulous impartiality, it would still leave a suspicion not favourable to the due administration of justice. No matter who was the officer who might select, it would be looked upon, in some degree, as a selection under some influence. Of the present excellent individual who so worthily filled the situation of Master of the Crown-office, Mr. Lushington, no man who knew him could ever harbour a suspicion of the slightest improper bias in the discharge of his duty; but still the selection by any public officer would not give such satisfaction as that proposed by the bill. Indeed, when this subject was first mooted about three years ago, the Master of the Crown-office had declared, that 801 JUDGES' SALARIES.] On the order of the day for receiving the report on the resolutions relative to the Judges' Salaries, Chancellor of the Exchequer l l l l l l 802 Mr. Scarlett said, that he would, on grounds of delicacy, refrain now, as he had done on a former occasion, from pronouncing any opinion as to the amount of salary of the puisne judges, but he could not forbear from noticing the proposed arrangement for retiring allowances. Now, he thought, when they considered how seldom such retirements were called for,—he hardly remembered more than two together in his time—that that branch of the consideration was of far less consequence than the settlement of the full salary. If a judge, then, were to receive 5,500 l l l l 803 804 Chancellor of the Exchequer The Speaker said, that no alteration by way of increase of salary could be proposed in this stage of their proceedings. Mr. Brougham rose to bring forward the subject of which he had given notice, respecting the proposed arrangement of the salaries, and the translation of the judges from one judicial office to another—in fact, to re-open the whole question. He agreed, without a single exception in all that had just fallen from his hon. and learned friend, whose great experience, varied opportunities, and profound knowledge upon such matters, justly entitled him to great weight in this discussion. It was, he could assure the noise, the universal opinion at the bar, that the retiring salaries of the judges ought to bear a nearer proportion to their full emoluments. He was therefore one of those who thought the proposed scale was a bad one, and particularly as it respected the arrangement for the chief justice, who was to give up so much valuable patronage for so inadequate a compensation as 800 l 805 806 l l l l l l 807 l l l l l l 808 Mr. Scarlett —"No, indeed, you shall not." [a laugh]. Mr. Brougham —Well, then, he must do it himself. Let him not be told of the refusal of professional gentlemen to ascend to the bench for such a salary. It was easy for a lawyer to say, "I would not take it;" but there were two ways of making the offer, which reminded him of an observation of a humorous friend, who was also of the profession, who had said, that it was one thing to ask a man to take a dram when the bottle was on the table before him, and another to say "Sir, will you allow me to send to the cellar for a flask to refresh you?" A man who refused the dram in the latter case would be very apt to take it if he saw it before him. To speak seriously, it was the most idle pretence to say that the profession of the law would generally, or even commonly speaking, refuse the bench, even at the present rate of remunerating the puisne judges. He knew of no such refusal. Judge Buller had been raised to the bench at a very early age, before he had had any time to make a fortune by private practice at the bar. He had been created a judge, he believed, at the age of thirty-two, and had, nevertheless, contrived to accumulate a very large fortune in his office. He felt convinced that a salary of 5,000 l 809 810 811 812 Attorney-General 813 814 815 Mr. Scarlett said, he could not reconcile the inconsistency of his right hon. and learned friend in saying that there ought to be no resolution, with the conduct of the chancellor of the Exchequer in proposing a resolution. If it were inexpedient, then why was any resolution proposed? He could perfectly understand the design of his hon. and learned friend near him, who wished to propose the sentiment of the House (and which he must take leave to say was that of the public generally) in a way which would hand it down to posterity for the guidance of their conduct. But he invited his right hon. and learned friend to consider the effect of what he had uttered. He allowed no qualification whatever: he declared every resolution of the kind to be unwise and inexpedient. Again, let him only remark the inconvenience of intrenching himself behind individual cases. How was it possible for his opponents to argue with him while he remained in such perfect safety? They took general and abstract grounds, to which the right hon. and learned gentleman without any reasoning upon them at all, opposed individual circumstances. Of course there could be no argument on those terms. Suppose he were to take up the statements of the right hon. and learned gentleman and put a particular case. In the time in which Mr. Garrow was Attorney-general there were no less than three vacancies—two as chief baron, and one as chiefjustice of the Common Pleas. Were either of these offices tendered to Mr. Garrow? Was he not a man of eloquence equal to any man—of consummate talent in his profession—of high legal attainments? What objection could there have been to his appointment? Would it be pretended that he was like some other great men who had preferred ease and retirement? The fact was the other way. He solicited and obtained the situation of puisne judge. It was impossible to offer an objection to his appointment; and yet three chief judgeships were vacant, and not one was offered to him. 816 817 Mr. Secretary Canning said, that though gentlemen of the legal profession were much better judges of the subject than he could pretend to be, yet he could not refrain from offering a few observations upon it. And, conceding all that had been urged by the hon. and learned gentleman who spoke last, he felt bound to come to the conclusion, that the resolution proposed by the hon. and learned member for Winchelsea ought not to be adopted; seeing that the adoption of that resolution would lead to a discussion on the propriety or impropriety of every judicial appointment which the Crown might hereafter make. If such appointments ought not to be vested in the Crown, let a specific act of parliament be introduced to that effect. But, if the Crown was to exercise a discretion in the appointments, he would say with his hon. friend the Attorney-general, let that discretion be free and unfettered; subject however, to the opinion of that House in the event of any abuse. Such a course would be open and straight forward; but the proposed resolution would have the effect of attacking, by a side wind, every appointment of the Crown, while it made parliament share with the king, or his ministers, the duty and responsibility of each appointment. He was most anxious that the judges should be free and independent, but he was also anxious, that they should be so placed as to enjoy the confidence and favour of the people. He could illustrate his argument by alluding to what had taken place upon the Regency Bill. It then became a question as to the latitude to be allowed to the prince Regent in creating peers, and it was proposed that he should only have the power of extending the peerage to men of extraordinary military merit. Now, there was scarcely a man in the House, be his opinion right or wrong upon the general question, who did not perceive at once the folly of such a restriction. It might be right or it might be wrong to give this power to the prince Regent; but it was felt by all that the proposed measure would cast upon the House of Commons 818 Lord Althorp expressed his cordial concurrence in the motion of his hon. and learned friend. The right hon. gentleman had contended, that if the resolution was correct it ought to be followed by an act of parliament. That, however, did not follow necessarily; for the House might choose their own course, whether to proceed by bill or by resolution, even if it was their opinion, as he would confess it was his own, that the discretion alluded to ought to be taken from the Crown. He did not feel himself competent to enter at any length into a subject of that nature. He would, however, state it as his decided opinion, that the removal of such discretional power would he attended with great advantage to the justice of the country, and to the character of the judges themselves. Mr. Secretary Peel was ready to admit, that if it was the intention to follow up the resolution by an enactment, the observations of the noble lord would apply; and that, he thought, a complete answer to the general spirit of his observations. The hon. and learned gentleman on the other side had said that there was an inconsistency between the argument of his learned friend, the Attorney-general, and the motion of his right hon. friend the chancellor of the Exchequer, the former having objected to the mode of proceeding by resolution, and the latter having adopted that mode. But there was no inconsistency in this; for there might be, as there was, an objection to it in the one instance, and not in the other. His right hon. friend had said, that if they increased the salaries of the puisne judges, persons in the prime of life would be found to accept the office. But that would be no reason for adopting the proposition, that no judge should be appointed under the age of forty- 819 Mr. Brougham said, across the table, that his observations were applied to the chief justiceship of the King's-bench exclusively. Mr. Secretary Peel in continuation, observed, that the discretion of the Crown in these matters ought to be left altogether unfettered, unless it was meant to be proposed to take it away altogether; in which case a bill for the specific purpose must pass through both Houses of parliament. The present resolution provided matter merely for the preamble. Its 820 Mr. Hume expressed his entire concurrence in the motion. It was necessary that the House should take some step to prevent appointments which were likely to produce dissatisfaction in the public mind. If such a resolution had stood upon the Journals, they would never have witnessed the appointment of Mr. Best to the chief justiceship of the Common Pleas; an appointment which there was not one individual at the bar who did not deprecate. It was most unpleasant to the country, and most disgraceful to those who recommended it to the Crown. Mr. Serjeant Onslow declared, that the hon. member for Montrose, so far from speaking the sentiments of the bar of England relative to the appointment of chief justice Best, was uttering those that were exactly the reverse of them. While at the bar, not only was this eminent judge one of the ablest men in Westminster-hall, and at the head of his circuit, but sought after in all the other courts. Since he had become a judge, he had manifested the same integrity, application, and extensive knowledge of his profession that had marked his former career. He knew it was much the habit to attack that learned judge, in consequence of his having presided at a political trial which excited a good deal of interest at the time. But there was not a judge on the bench more competent to the duties of his office, whatever prepossessions might be entertained against him. Mr. Denman said, he did not mean to enter into any discussion of the kind upon which the learned serjeant had just ventured, although it might be fairly objected, that this proposition, had a direct tendency to draw the House into such a discussion. He agreed with his hon. friend in thinking that the right hon. and the hon. gentlemen who had spoken from the other side were inconsistent. When it was said, that if the Crown should make an improper appointment, it would be open to the House to address the Crown for its retraction, he begged to ask, whether it would be possible, in the case of an untried judge (against whom there might exist every objection, but who had not yet proceeded to the exercise of his 821 822 Mr. Wynn confessed that he drew a very different inference from that which the hon. and learned gentleman arrived at, from the circumstance of there being no instance in a period of 120 years of the removal of an English judge; for he concluded from such a fact, not that parliament had neglected its duty, but that the judges had faithfully discharged theirs. A good deal had been said about Mr. Kenrick's case. Why, Mr. Kenrick, as yet at least, had only been prosecuted as a private individual; and he had also been proceeded against as such. There was no indictment against him as a judge; how, then, by possibility, could the Crown have interfered with him in his judical capacity? By a reference which he had taken the trouble to make, it appeared that from the year 1700 to the present time, there had been sixteen chief barons appointed. Now, how many of these did the House suppose had been appointed without being previously puisne judges? Only five. With regard to Mr. Serjeant Lens, he had long enjoyed the honour of his friendship; and he could state that some years ago the chief justiceship of Chester was offered to him, and he declined it. Again, when the vacancy of the appointment that had so often been mentioned that night occurred, he could state that the health of serjeant Lens had already began to fail him. He did not know whether the chief justiceship of the King's-bench was ever actually offered to the learned serjeant by the administration of the day, but he was very sure that at that time his health was in a condition that would have compelled him to refuse any such offer. Upon the whole, he really thought that if the resolution proposed by the hon. and learned member had gone on to declare, that under no circumstances of superior talent, or merit even, should any puisne judge be hereafter appointed a chief justice, it would 823 Mr. Denman believed that at the time the chief-justiceship vacancy occurred, Mr. Serjeant Lens was in good health. He knew that the serjeant had refused the political offices of solicitor-generalship, and the chief-justiceship of Chester; but were these refusals reasons why the chiefjusticeship of the court of King's-bench should not have been given him? Mr. Brougham said, that Mr. Serjeant Lens had expressly stated that he refused the solicitor-generalship on political grounds only. Mr. Abercromby said, there could be no doubt as to what the modern practice was, when they saw that two out of the three of the present chief justices had been appointed to the situation of puisne judges. It was easy to imagine cases in which great dissatisfaction might be felt, and great want of confidence on the part of the public, and yet no one would undertake the task of moving a resolution such as the right hon. gentleman would hold out as their best security against the abuse of the prerogative. He contended there would be no difficulty whatever in stating as a reason for the liberal grant they were called on to make to the puisne judges, the probability of their never attaining a higher situation. There was nothing in this unusual or unconstitutional. He was surprised at the doctrine of the right hon. gentleman as to Mr. Kenrick. He had himself been asked several times, Would no member of the House of Commons make a motion for the removal of Mr. Kenrick? And the reason why it was not done was the difficulty of doing it. Though Mr. Kenrick could not be removed, because that gentleman had done nothing in his magisterial capacity, what would be the feelings of criminals who might know of the conduct of that judge? He thought that this was a case in which something should be done, and in which it was almost impossible for any member to act on the right hon. gentleman's suggestion. In fact, unless in very extraordinary cases, which the vigilance of the public prevented. It was never possible for the House of Commons to move an Address to the Throne for the removal of a judge; and yet there were numerous trifling circumstances which might justly deprive a judge of all confidence.—Before he sat down, he wished to direct the 824 List of the Minority Allen, J. A. Lushington, Dr. Althorp, lord Martin, John Bernal, R. Palmer, Fyshe Boughton, sir R. Rice, S. Brougham, H. Robinson, sir G. Carter, John Scarlett, J. Crompton, S. Smith, W. Denman, T. Sykes, D. Fergusson, sir R. Warre, J.A. Guise, sir W. Webbe, col. Heron, sir R. Western, J.C. Honywood, W. P. Williams, sir R. Hume, Jos. Wilson, sir. R. Jones, J. TELLERS Kennedy, F. T. Abercromby, hon. J. Lamb, G. Grant, J.P. HOUSE OF LORDS. Thursday, May 26. Naturalization Oaths.] Lord Melville rose, to move the second reading of the bill he had lately introduced, for amending the law relative to the Oaths taken on Naturalization and on reversal of attainder. According to the law as it now stood, foreigners naturalized, or subjects restored to honours, were obliged to appear at the bar of the House to be sworn, and to have taken the test according to the forms of the church of England. This was on high authority held to be the law, under an act which passed in the reign of James 1st. about a century before the Union with Scotland. It was understood at the Union that no test should be required of the natives of Scotland; but, notwithstanding the stipulation on that subject, the law had since been differently interpreted, so that the great age of the earl of Mar could not excuse him from coming to that House, and he was obliged to comply with the usual practice of taking the test. It was very unreasonable that the sacramental 825 Treason Forfeiture Repeal Bill.] Lord Holland, after the act of queen Anne and the subsequent statutes realative to attainder had been read, proceeded to call the attention of their lordships to the bill he had introduced. In submitting the motion lot the second reading of this bill though convinced that it was founded on justice and sound policy, and called for by a regard to good faith, he still thought some apology necessary for his undertaking to bring the measure forward. He was conscious that he was attempting to procure the alteration of a law which some of the greatest and the best men of former times had made the subject of their consideration, and which had occupied the attention of lord Somers, Dr. Burnet, and Mr. Justice Blackstone. If the interests of the people of Scotland, the influence of their peers in their lordships' House, and their representatives in the other, had as yet brought about no change of this law, it might be considered presumptuous in him, unaided by any authority, and standing there alone, to expect to accomplish so great an object. But, he trusted, their lordships would excuse his endeavour, when he stated that he was induced to 826 827 828 829 *Nec vero me fugit, quam sit acerbum, parentum scelera filiorum pœnis lui. Sed hoc præclarelegibus comparatum est, ut earitas liberorum amiciores parentes reipublicæ redderet. 830 Lord Colchester said: My lords, as the bill of which the second reading is now moved by the noble baron, is directed to the repeal of a law which I had the honour to propose in the other House of parliament about six and twenty years ago, it may be not unfit that I should state to the House, whether I still continue to hold the same opinions upon this subject which I then entertained; and more especially after the arguments which we have heard this day. 831 * Stat. 7 Anne, c. 21. † Stat. 17 Geo. 2, c. 39. ‡ Considerations upon the Law of Forfeiture. 832 * Stat. 7, 8, Will. 3, c. 3. 833 The Earl of Rosebery supported the bill. He said he believed that if noble lords knew all the grounds upon which it came recommended, they would not withhold from it their approbation. To continue the existing law was, he insisted, a direct breach of the 18th article of the act of Union. That it was a grievous infringement upon private rights would not be denied, since it deprived men of the power of bequeathing their property by will—a power which they had enjoyed long previous to that law which, upon pretexts to him wholly indefensible, restricted it. Even if it was thought right still to continue the law in England, where it had of old been the law of the land, yet it ought not to exist in Scotland; because it was an innovation upon the law of that country, and had been forced upon it only as a temporary measure. Was there any man in the present day who would be so bold as to propose—was there any parliament cruel enough to adopt—such a law? Confident as he was that these questions must be answered in the negative, why, he would ask further, was so unjust and unnecessary a law suffered to continue? No man abhorred the crime of treason more than he did; but his wish to see this law repealed was because it * Stat. 54 Geo. 3. c. 145. 834 Lord Melville said, he viewed the subject very much in the same light as the noble baron on the cross-bench (Colchester). The chief ground on which the advocates for the measure relied was, that it was a breach of faith—an infringement of the provisions of the act of Union; but he apprehended that both the noble mover and the noble earl who spoke last had much overstated the case, and had carried their argument to a length by no means warranted by the facts of history. As to forfeiture of property, down to the year 1690, it was the ancient common law of Scotland, that a traitor fofeited not only his lands, but his honours. He made this statement on the authority of a most distinguished lawyer, baron Hume, and he had no doubt that it was correct. From that principle he felt no inclination to depart; for it seemed to him, that forfeiture of lands and honours, on the part of a traitor, formed a part of the punishment of treason, and was extremely salutary, as it deterred others from pursuing the same projects of rebellion. He fully admitted, at the same time, that the law, as far as regarded corruption of blood, was not defensible; and he should have been glad to have given it is support, if the measure introduced by sir S. Romilly in 1814, had included petty treason and murder as well as high treason. He was not prepared to go quite the length of the noble mover on this point; but, allowing that some change was expedient, he contended that it was fit to adhere to the ancient law of Scotland; at least as far as regarded the forfeiture of property. Lord Redesdale said, that it was almost impossible to frame any law of public policy which did not in some degree affect or infringe private rights. The legislature in former times had wisely adopted every measure to prevent the commission of the crime of treason. Such had been the original object of the law of forfeiture; and, in his opinion, it had been attended with the desired effect. If it were not likely to produce that consequence, why 835 The Lord Chancellor felt the importance of the measure before the House, and, entertaining a very sincere respect for the noble lord by whom it was introduced, he regretted that he could not approve of it as it stood. The law of forfeiture and corruption of blood, as applied to cases of high treason, afforded a vast security to the public peace. With respect to other crimes to which the same penalties attached, he was not prepared to say that he thought the law might not be safely and judiciously altered. If their lordships would take the trouble to read this bill, they would see that it was extremely doubtful whether, under the terms of it, corruption of blood was taken away. Of honours to which it was evidently meant to apply, no mention occurred until the latter end of the bill; and, although it was evident that honours were meant to be included, no lawyer would say, that the words "lands, tenements, and hereditaments" could be made to ex- 836 HOUSE OF COMMONS. Thursday, May 26. Message From The King—Duke of Cumberland, &c.] The Chancellor of the Exchequer presented the following Message from the King: 837 Petition of B. Coile complaining of Imprisonment.] Mr. J. Smith presented a petition from Bernard Coile, of the city of Dublin, complaining of the oppression to which he had been subjected, and of the sufferings he had endured in the gaol of Armagh, to which he had been committed twenty years ago, as a reputed papist. The hon. member said, he would not vouch for the accuracy of every part of the statements in this petition, but he had reason to believe that there was too much foundation for the petitioner's complaints. He thought his case eminently entitled to the attention of that House. Mr. Goulburn said, that when the case of this petitioner was first mentioned to him, he had never even heard of his name. He had since taken an opportunity of investigating the grounds of his complaints. The House should remember, that there was no transaction referred to in that petition subsequent to 1806; and it was thirty years since the ocurrence of the first transaction of which the petitioner complained. With respect to the complaint founded on the committal of the petitioner to gaol, against the magistrates, it was open to him to apply to the courts of law; and he freely admitted, that if the facts stated in the petition were true, the conduct of those concerned could not be too strongly reprobated; but he protested against this appeal to the House of Commons against public officers, because this was not the proper tribunal, and particularly after such a lapse of time. 838 Mr. Abercromby said, it had been his lot to have had occasion to refer to such histories as could be found, containing the subject of Mr. Coile's complaint, and the impression left upon his mind was, that he had never heard of any man, more grossly oppressed, or cruelly treated, than this petitioner. Making all due allowance for the violence of the times, and the exaggerations on both sides, he had sought for some one fact that could turn the scale, and he would state what the fact was that had formed his judgment. What he referred to was the prosecution instituted against the magistrate, Mr. Greer; and when he found that Mr. Coile, in those troublesome times, and with such infinite hazard to himself, had prosecuted this magistrate, and obtained a conviction, that when he found that the government of the day had interfered between the magistrate and the execution of the sentence of the court, he was disposed to think that a great deal of what Mr. Coile stated was too true. He had never seen Mr. Coile; but his conviction was, that he had been most cruelly oppressed. Mr. Secretary Peel said, he had no personal knowledge of the facts of the case, but the House should remark, that some years ago, when an inquiry was instituted, the facts in the petition had been disproved. Mr. Hutchinson said, that. Mr. Coile was a most oppressed individual, and was universally considered so in Ireland. He had never seen any statement contradictory of the details contained in the petition; and he thought it would by no means redound to the credit of the government to refuse an investigation into the case of the petitioner. Forgery of a Petition—Breach of Privilege.>] The Serjeant-at-Arms having reported that he had taken Robert Poer French Pilkington into custody, pursuant to an order of the House, Mr. Peel moved that he be called to the bar. The Speaker then addressed him:—"Robert Poer French Pilkington; you have been examined before a committee of this House, and have acknowledged yourself the author of a petition, purporting to be from the Protestant inhabitants of Ballinasloe, in favour of Catholic emancipation; and this House has resolved, on the report of that committee, that you, 839 Mr. Secretary Peel said, he was at all times disposed to support the privileges of the House, and this was a case in which they ought to be asserted; but at the same time he hoped the House would concur with him in thinking, that the readiness with which the person who had just left their bar had come forward and confessed himself the author of the petition in question, should be taken as such an extenuation of his fault as might induce the House to relax the severity with which it might otherwise visit it. His conduct, it was true, involved a high breach of the privileges of the House, and was calculated to lessen the confidence with which members would receive petitions coming from Ireland, and other distant parts of the empire; but, looking at all the circumstances of this case, at the individual's state of health, and at the readiness of his confession, he thought that, without being drawn into a precedent, the privilege of parliament would be sufficiently asserted by allowing the prisoner to remain in custody; and tomorrow he would move that he be discharged on Monday. Sir J. Newport concurred in the view taken of the case by the right hon. gentleman. He thought that the readiness with which the person at the bar had confess- 840 Mr. Brougham would suggest, that as it was not the practice of the House of Commons to commit for a certain time—a practice peculiar only to the other House—it would be better to let the prisoner remain in custody until further orders. London College.] Mr. Brougham moved for leave to bring in a bill to incorporate a college in or near the city of London. The object of this university was, to bring the advantage of education within the reach of those who could not afford to send their children to the universities of Oxford or Cambridge, for the benefit of improvement. Be assured the House that it was not the intention of the promoters of this bill to throw the slightest imputation on the conduct, the acquirements, the capacity, the talents, or the principles of those who devoted their time to the instruction of youth in those two learned establishment. That was so far from being the case, that many of the promoters of this bill were distinguished ornaments of the two universities. He then moved for leave to bring in a bill "to incorporate certain persons for the establishment of a college in or near to the city of London." Mr. Secretary Peel acquiesced in the motion, but said that in so doing he reserved the declaration of his opinion until a future stage of the bill. As he understood that no discussion of its merits was to take place now, he merely rose to guard against the possibility of his being supposed to favour the bill because he had not opposed it in its present stage. Mr. Brougham allowed that the right hon. Secretary had a right to guard himself from misconstruction in the manner 841 l l Mr. Peel said, that all he had intended to do by his remarks, was to reserve the declaration of his opinion until the details of the bill were fairly before the House. State of Ireland, with Regard to Religious Animosities.] Mr. Spring Rice, in rising to make the motion of which he had given notice, disclaimed the intention of occupying any considerable portion of the time of the House, and declared that he would endeavour to avoid every thing calculated to excite irritation. If he departed from that rule, it would be unwillingly, and he entreated the House to interfere and correct him, if he should be found in any manner deviating from that calmness of discussion which such a subject as the present ought to meet. It was absolutely necessary, however, that he should advert to what had taken place elsewhere, on the subject with which his motion was connected, in order to lay a parliamentary ground for the motion itself. He admitted, that if nothing had occurred on that subject since the commencement of the session, or that if they were at the commencement of a session, it would be exceedingly improper on his part to make the proposition which he was about to submit to the House, and exceedingly unwise on the part of the House to accede to that proposition. But, with reference to what had taken place on the subject, he trusted he should he able to show, not only that it would be wise, but that it was necessary, that the House should take some such step as that he was about to call upon them to take. 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 "Fair Sir, you spat on me on Wednesday last; You spurned me such a day—another time You called me dog—But, for these courtesies." 850 851 852 853 854 * See Parl. Hist. v. XIV. p. 1365. 855 * Parl. Hist. v. XIV, p. 1431 856 857 858 Sir T. Lethbridge assured the hon. member, that he was never more mistaken than when he imagined that opinions were held by him derogatory to the loyalty of the Roman Catholics, he never had entertained any such opinions. On the contrary, he had always felt the greatest respect for many members of that persuasion. The hon. member had gone a little out of his way in speaking of the clamour of the people of England against that measure. The opposition which they had manifested did not deserve the name of clamour. Instead of being so, it was a steady expression of feeling manifested from one end of the kingdom to another, in a stronger manner than on any former occasion. He knew nothing of this supposed clamour; but he believed he might say, that it would be difficult for the hon. member to bring in any measure which could or ought to pass that House, when it excited so strong a feeling of disapprobation among the people as that had done. That hon. member was deceiving himself, if he imagined that by renewing the question in any shape, a different feeling would be manifested by the country. It had been said, that great hopes had been 859 Mr. Goulburn said, he should not think it necessary to repeat the opinions he had formerly expressed on this subject, nor to detain the House by a detail of the reasons which had induced him to give his vote against the measure which had been proposed. He must however say, that he thought the hon. mover had argued the question improperly, when he argued it only as a question relating to one part of the empire. For himself, he must always consider it as a great political question—as one involving the great constitutional principles upon which this government had existed for the last two hundred years, and which was of the utmost importance to the interests of both countries. He could not, therefore, suffer that the feeling of one part of the kingdom should be taken as a decisive argument in favour of the measure, when that of the other part of the kingdom was decidedly against it. It had been said, that it was a question on which the feelings of one portion of the people had been considerably excited. That might be true; but he should wish to add this observation, that the other portions might feel just as excited on the same subject, though in a different manner. The feeling which the people of England had manifested on this subject, was, he believed, very much like that which he himself entertained. It was founded on the fullest conviction of the inutility, and even of the impropriety, of the measure; but while it was fixed and positive, it had not been arrived at but by a painful effort. He felt, and he had no doubt the people of this country 860 861 Sir J. Newport said, he could not refrain from speaking on a question, which intimately regarded the peace, happiness, comfort, and security of five or six millions of the king's subjects. The right hon. Secretary thought there was no ground for the motion. In that opinion he essentially differed from the right hon. gentleman, as he conceived that it was essential to the happiness of that country, that the legislature should be informed of the opinions of a man so highly gifted as the marquis Welesley, who had so long been acquainted with Ireland, and who had succeeded, with the assistance of the Roman Catholic body—(in spite of what had passed he would not relinquish that phrase)—in effecting so much towards the tranquillization of Ireland. It was the duty of the House to ascertain what measures that noble person held to be most eligible for permanently quieting that country. For his own part he disliked the easy slothful temper in which some of his majesty's ministers looked upon this subject. He disliked "things as they were" in Ireland. He was not easy 862 "—Ignes 863 864 Mr. Curteis said, he was anxious to explain why he voted as he had done on this question. The general opinion in the county which he represented was against the Catholics. He had had a great many petitions to present against the measure, and not one for it; and it would have been treason against his constituents if he had voted for the measure of Catholic emancipation. Mr. Brownlow said, it seemed to be the opinion of some hon. members, that this motion placed the supporters of the Catholic question in an awkward dilemma. This might be the case; but he would extricate himself from it, by giving his decided support to the motion. He would vote in this way, because he was most anxious to procure all the information in his power respecting the state of Ireland. During two sessions they had been engaged in obtaining all possible information on the affairs of Ireland, from all classes and denominations of Irish subjects—from the judges on the bench to the meanest officer of their courts, from the highest dignitaries in the Roman Catholic church to its humblest minister—from grave ecclesiastics—from general officers—from all who were in the least likely to furnish any thing to the general stock. He thought it, then, neither wise to themselves nor courteous to the individual, to leave out the lord lieutenant of Ireland, whose high situation, eminent talents, and great influence, were likely to produce more of that information than could be derived from any other source. At all times must he have been anxious to know the opinion of the lord lieutenant of Ireland upon any question affecting the well-being of Ireland; but he was more particularly anxious for it at a time when inquiry had become the order of the day, and when the lord lieutenant was the marquis Wellesley. The right hon. Secretary had said, that the House knew the noble lord's opinions sufficiently, because he had voted by proxy for the bill. The consequence was not so plain as it would thus appear. Many noble lords—the custom prevailed among Irish lords— 865 "'Regions of sorrow, doleful shades, where peace And rest can never dwell, hope never comes, 866 Mr. Secretary Peel said, he entirely 867 868 869 870 Mr. Brownlow explained. He had not intended to accuse the right hon. gentleman of want of uniformity. On the contrary he was prepared to admit it. The want of uniformity of system, so manifest in the conduct of the government on this question, was what he complained of. Lord John Russell said, that the explanation which had just been offered by the hon. gentleman had done away with the necessity, for the greater part, of the observations he himself had intended to submit to the House. The right hon. gentleman had accused the hon, member of speaking as if he supposed himself to be infallible. Mr. Peel. I am sure I never said any such thing." Lord John Russell At any rate the right hon. Secretary had said, that the hon. gentleman was reading the House a lecture, or something to that effect, intimating some dissatisfaction with the tone of his speech. Now, he must declare that he had never heard a speech which had been less characterized by any thing like a dic- 871 872 Colonel Bagwell said, he could not describe the feelings with which he should return to his native country, after the rejection of the Catholic claims. He thought that the prime minister, when he dismissed the question, should have pointed out some substitute for tranquillizing Ireland [cheers!]. One noble lord had, indeed, suggested a remedy, but to him he would apply the old proverb, "There's nothing like leather" [a laugh]. But it was incumbent on the noble lord at the head of the administration to state what remedy he would provide. Lord L. Gower said, he felt extreme 873 The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that if he thought the production of these papers would tend to the advancement of the general measure, he should not resist the motion; and he should be equally disposed to accede to it, if he thought it would allay the irritation which might naturally arise from the defeat of the Catholic claims. He considered that to be the main ground on which the motion was founded; for although it had been stated, that the absence of the supposed information in the documents would incur a censure against the marquis Wellesley, he was quite convinced that his hon. friend had no indirect view of that kind in bringing forward his motion. But, he really could not see how the effect of tranquillizing the country would be produced by consenting to the motion. As his right hon. friend had observed, it was quite improbable that there should not be mixed up in the correspondence referred to, details of various kinds connected with the condition of that unfortunate country (for so he must call her) which being published, would unavoidably produce effects and sensations the very opposite to those which the hon. member for Limerick contemplated. On that ground alone he should think it inexpedient to comply with the motion. But, the very line of argument which had been taken on this occasion by his hon. friend was much more likely to conciliate and assuage the angry feelings which he deprecated, than any papers would be that his motion could include. He was anxious to do justice to his hon. friend for the tone and manner with which, at a moment of peculiarly angry feel- 874 875 Lord Graves thought it his duty to defend his noble relative, the marquis of Anglesey, from the insinuations which had been made against him, His gallant relative did not state that he wished to turn his sword against Ireland. He had merely stated, that although he had voted for the Catholics on a former occasion, and had every desire to remove the disabilities of his fellow subjects in Ireland, yet he thought they appeared in such a threatening attitude, that it was his duty to oppose them in that instance—that was to say, to oppose their admission into the House of Peers and the House of Commons. The expressions he had used were technical, and ought to have been taken in a civil sense. His gallant relative had disinterestedly, fought his country's battles, and would never draw his sword unless it was to repel foreign invasion. Mr. Brougham said, that he should but partially imitate the example of those who seemed to make the immediate subject of the motion a question of secondary importance, and, after despatching the matters recently touched upon in a very short digression, proceed at once to state his views of the arguments by which the success of the motion was attempted to be marred. The grounds upon which the right hon. gentleman opposite had taken his stand, he understood to be these; first, he asked, why the House was to be called upon to go back to an indefinite period, at which the correspondence was supposed to exist, and why the hon. mover had left the House so much at sea upon the subject? To that he should say, that if the right hon. gentleman had been sincere in his objection, it was quite competent to his parliamentary skill to apply an effectual remedy to the defect, by limiting the motion to some precise period. He (Mr. B.) as a friend to the motion, was willing to tender his aid for that purpose, by proposing to insert certain words; and he was sure his hon. friend the mover would have no objection to adopt the words "twenty-four, eighteen, 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 Mr. Secretary Canning rose to order, and observed, that as no answer could be given to the question of the hon. and learned member, he must perceive the 883 Mr. Brougham said, he would pursue the matter no further. His object had been to show, that the scruples of the sovereign, which rendered the question a difficult one in the late reign, did not apply to the present. He could not help feeling regret that those members of the cabinet who were favourable to the measure should compromise with their colleagues who were opposed to it. He hoped to see the day, however, when a stand would be made for the question of Catholic emancipation. Let the friends of that question make that stand when they might—and he feared that they would not make it until later than they ought to do—it was an act which must cover them with glory in the eyes of the House and of the country. If it so happened that they left office, they would, indeed, be quitting the smile of the court, but they would quit it for the gratitude of the nation, and for the still more delightful and imperishable reward, the applause of their own hearts and self-approving consciences. To address himself, however, to those—if any there were—who might treat recompenses like these as visionary things—who might consider the applause of a country, and the feelings of self-approbation, as topics pleasant to declaim about, but not in practice, very profitable or desirable—to those gentlemen he would suggest, that there would not be much risk in making the stand which he adverted to; for he did not think that the sacrifice of places would be demanded. He should not be suspected of overrating either the weight or the value of the persons now in office; but it was not taking too sanguine a view of their strength to tell them, that they might carry the Catholic question, if they put that strength to a proper and determined use. It would not be found desirable, whatever their demerits were, to have them in opposition—and in an opposition, too, backed by the opposition already existing, countenanced by friends in the cabinet, and supported by the whole country. He did not much expect—although he had in his time seen strange things—to see an administration formed out of the hon. member from the West of England, and the hon. member for Somersetshire, to co-operate with the right hon. Home Secretary. He could 884 Mr. R. Martin said, he rose to supplicate his hon. friend not to let the question go to a division, as if a large majority was obtained against it, it would appear as if the Catholic cause was receding in that House. He would, however, vote for the motion in case his hon. friend should insist upon having it put. Mr. Plunkett said, that as the object of his hon. friend, in making the present motion, was to advert to the Catholic question, under the circumstances in which it was now placed, and as he had succeeded in that object, he agreed with his hon. friend who had just sat down, that it would be much better not to press the motion to a division. As far as he could understand his hon. friend's motion, the despatches were not required with reference 885 886 887 888 Mr. Secretary Canning rose, evidently labouring under severe indisposition, and spoke, for some time, in a tone so low as to be scarcely audible. He began, by expressing a hope, that a very little persuasion was necessary, to induce the hon. member for Limerick not to press the motion which he had introduced to the House. There were, however, he said, some topics which had been alluded to in the course of the debate, with regard to the subject in which that motion had originated, which the House would, perhaps, excuse him, if he briefly referred to, in his turn. 889 890 891 892 893 894 Sir F. Burdett said, he must confess, that the speech of the noble lord, which. had been so often alluded to in the course of that night's debate, had struck him as a most extraordinary effusion. He believed that a speech had never yet been made by any public man which produced an effect on the country more unexpected, and more painful to those who supported the great question of Catholic emancipation. They had been encouraged to hope that there was at least some mitigation of the hostility with which that noble lord had hitherto met the Catholic claims; and, at the very moment when the country expected, if not his support of the question, at least a very mitigated opposition, he had adopted, for the first time, a tone of uncompromising violence, to which he had never, upon any previous occasion, resorted. He (sir F. B .) however, agreed with the right hon. and learned gentleman opposite, the Attorney-general for Ireland, in the view which he took as to the ultimate success of the question, while he felt great satisfaction in the belief that it had been more advanced by the discussion during the present session than at any former period. He could not agree with the right hon. Secretary, that there was any thing like a strong feeling against the Catholic claims, in any class of the community. He knew not whether it arose from a more sanguine temperament, or from his anxiety for the advancement of the cause; but he certainly did think that he perceived a very different feeling with regard to this question among the public at large; not only among the enlightened, liberal, and informed classes, but even among that uninformed portion of the public, in which an indolent and bigoted prejudice prevailed for a long period in this country. The strongest proof of this was, that whenever the question had been brought before large bodies of the public, they had uniformly supported religious freedom, and opposed that bigoted and intolerant spirit which resisted the admission of the Catholics to a participation in 895 896 897 898 Mr. Spring Rice said, that the main object which had induced him to bring forward this question; namely, that of drawing the attention of parliament to the situation of Ireland, had been answered by the present debate, and he should not therefore press his motion to a division. The Catholics of Ireland, and of England too, were united and strong; and he hoped they would show that strength, by temperance and moderation. He trusted that the Catholic bill would be carried next session by a still larger majority; and in that hope he would withdraw his motion. HOUSE OF LORDS. 1825 Friday, May 27 KINGS MESSAGE RESPECTING DUCHESS OF KENT AND DUKE OF CUMBERLAND.] The Earl of Liverpool observed, that he would trouble their lordships with only a few words on .his majesty's most gracious Message. He need not inform their lordships that the young princess, the daughter of the late duke of Kent, 899 l l l The Earl of Darnley expressed his warm approbation of the proposed measure with respect to the duchess of Kent. He should do injustice to his feelings, if he refrained from declaring, that he considered her royal highness to afford an example of prudence and excellent conduct. EQUITABLE LOAN BILL.] Lord Dacre rose to move the second reading of this bill. The Earl of Lauderdale reminded the 900 Lord Dacre said, he intended to oppose the hearing of counsel. The object of the bill was merely to enable a company to sue and be sued by one of their clerks; a portion of their capital being invested in a manner calculated to afford considerable relief to the poor. This being the object of the bill, he could not think that their lordships would consent to have their time taken up with hearing counsel on such a question. The Equitable Loan Company proposed to act as pawnbrokers, in a way most favourable to the interests of the poor. Surely this was not a point on which their lordships could think it necessary to hear counsel. No question of law was at issue, which required the learning of counsel to clear up. As the affairs of the company were now conducted, no legal objection could be made to their transactions. The company was formed in imitation of several very laudable institutions on the continent; and had been promoted by laudable men distinguished by their talents and attainments. He was sure there must be some interested motive at the bottom of the opposition which this had received. That opposition came from the pawnbrokers; and he thought this should operate with their lordships, as an argument, in favour of the bill. He should oppose the motion for calling in counsel. The Earl of Lauderdale thought he had reason to complain of the conduct of his noble friend, in opposing the hearing of counsel. His noble friend had said, that he was not present when the order was made for hearing counsel; but he had been present since, and he might have made a motion for rescinding the order on any day. His noble friend had, however, waited until a number of noble lords were collected together on another question; and he thus expected to obtain a support for his present purpose, which he knew he otherwise could not have found. He reminded their lordships' that this company now presented themselves before them in the character of an illegal association. He contended, also, that the illegality of it had been already proved by the decision of a court of justice; and for this reason, he thought the House could not refuse to hear counsel. The Lord Chancellor said, that as his own opinion on this subject had been 901 902 HOUSE OF COMMONS. 1825-05-27Friday, May 27 ELECTIVE FRANCHISE IN IRELAND BILL.] Mr. Littleton moved, that the order of the day for the further consideration of the report on this bill be discharged. The rejection of the Catholic Relief bill, in the other House, rendered such a step, on his part, necessary. Were the Elective Franchise, bill to pass without the other, it would produce great dissatisfaction. Colonel Davies expressed a, hope, that 903 Sir J. Newport hoped, that the suggestion of the last speaker would not be attended to. It would be most disgusting to the people of Ireland to pass such a bill unaccompanied by any measure of relief. Colonel Palmer rose and proceeded to comment upon the conduct of ministers, and the speeches made by Mr. Canning. The Speaker interrupted the hon. member, to inform him, that it was irregular to found his observations upon what had been said by a member in a former debate. Colonel Palmer said, that having given notice of his intention on a former night, he had conceived that he was strictly in order. Mr. Hutchinson expressed his regret for the cause which had induced the hon. member to withdraw his bill; although he rejoiced that the measure was got rid of in any way, conceiving it to be most mischievous and unconstitutional. OPPRESSION AT THE CAPE OF GOOD HOPE-PETITION OF JOHN CARNALL.] Mr. Hume rose, to present a petition from a person of the name of Carnall, complaining of a series of acts of oppression to which he had been subjected at the Cape of Good Hope. When an Englishman went to any of our colonies, he imagined that he carried with him the rights of a British subject, but in this expectation he was sorry to say that he would, for the most part, find himself entirely deceived. The will and pleasure of the governors of colonies became the law of the land, and if any individual was unfortunate enough to incur the displeasure of a governor, he was almost sure to be made the victim of the most arbitrary and tyrannical oppression. Of this truth, the circumstances detailed in this petition, which were supported by the affidavit of the petitioner, afforded a striking illustration. The oppression to which this petitioner had been subjected, was of such a nature as to call loudly upon the legislature to institute an inquiry into the general system of our colonial governments, by which the liberty, the property, and even the lives, of his majesty's subjects were made dependant on the arbitrary will of the governors. It was necessary to state to the House, 904 905 906 Mr. Wilmot Horton said, it was not his intention to enter into the merits of the particular complaint which had just been stated by the hon. member; but the hon. member had inculpated the colonial department, and to that part of the case he begged to address himself. The hon. member complained, that the petitioner had been subjected to certain punishment, having been convicted in a court of justice 907 908 Sir M. W. Ridley said, be had received information respecting one of the commissioners, who had been in such a state of health as entirely to unfit his mind for pursuing the inquiry. If the whole country were, searched for a man of the utmost assiduity, ability, and integrity, he did not know of one more qualified than Mr. Commissioner Bigg. Mr. Hume said, that the government at home should insist, that whenever a complaint of this nature was made, in which the rights of a British subject had been violated; the governor should be bound to send home all the documents 909 PROVISION FOR THE DUCHESS OF KENT, AND DUKE OF CUMBERLAND.] The House having resolved itself into a committee on the King's Message, The Chancellor of the Exchequer rose. He said, that as the House of Commons had never been found wanting in inclination to manifest its attachment to the Crown upon occasions like the present, he should not think it necessary to preface what he had to offer, with any appeal to the dispositions of the House upon that subject. In the year 1818, a message had been brought down from the throne, announcing the intention of his late royal highness the duke of Kent to marry, and recommending that the House should take into its consideration what would be requisite for the dignity of the reigning family, and the honour of the country, upon such an occasion; and the House had then proceeded to make a grant of 6,000 l l l 910 l l l 911 l Mr. Brougham said, that the right hon. gentleman, in submitting his motion, had not deviated from the strict line of usage adopted onsimilar occasions, and had done no more than justice to the feeling which actuated the House. He was ever desirous not only to uphold the maintenance of the splendor and dignity of the reigning prince, but the splendor and dignity of all the other branches of the royal family. And if, in the whole of such a consideration, there was one point that was pre-eminently desirable, it was, to provide for the suitable education of the younger branches of that family. The proposition of the right hon. gentleman, was undoubtedly, extremely liberal. Still, he was not prepared to say, that on that account he should stand out against it. He was disposed most certainly to afford the fullest provision for that young princess, who was the presumptive heiress of the British throne. With respect to the refusal of former grants to the duke of Cumberland, he begged to set the right hon. gentleman right. It was not on account of the marriage of his royal highness, that the House of Commons refused the former proposed grants. If the marriage was improper, why was it not prevented by the advisers of the Crown, by the marriage laws: or, if it was felt to be unsuitable, why was it sanctioned by any subsequent offer of a settlement? But, it was not the marriage [hear, hear!]. He believed it was a rotoed dislike, whether ill-founded or well-founded he was not called upon to say; but he believed it to be a rooted dislike which procured the rejection of those grants. There most certainly existed a prejudice against that royal duke throughout the whole country—it was felt by man, woman, and child [hear, hear!]. The duke of Cumberland, it would be recollected, bad already 18,000 l l 912 l l l 913 Mr. Hume said, he must enter his protest against the principle of paying the debts of any member of the royal family, who was already provided with a most liberal income from the state. He had no objection to the provision for the princess, the daughter of the duchess of Kent. He thought that, in place of the large grant now asked, an addition ought to have been made three years ago, and gradually increased from that period. But though even he stood alone, he should oppose and take the sense of the House upon the grant to even the duke of Cumberland. After the two former decisions of that House, it was monstrous to have such a proposition introduced. At all events, let the young prince be brought to this country. He would undertake for 100 l l l l l Sir I. Coffin expressed his hope, that the chancellor of the Exchequer would soon bring down a message from his majesty, recommending to the House to make a provision for the payment of the debts of the heir presumptive. To his knowledge his royal highness owed 12,000 l 914 Mr. Monck said, that if it were true that the heir presumptive was in such distress, and if a proposition was made for a grant for him, he would vote for it, because he wished to support the splendor of the Crown. He could not, however, agree to this grant of 6,000 l l Sir C. Forbes said, he should vote for both grants; and expressed his surprise that they had not been brought forward sooner. He had always thought it most disgraceful to the country, that prince Leopold should have been allowed to take upon himself any part of the expenses of his royal sister, in consequence of the insufficiency of her allowance. With respect to the duke of Cumberland, it was certainly true that he lived abroad, but it was also true that his income was no greater than when he was a bachelor. Why did he live abroad? Because he could not live in this country on his income. He hoped that the allowance would be made to the duke which ought to have been made to him at his marriage, and that the arrears from that period would be paid to him. He could not help expressing his astonishment at the dark insinuations that had been thrown out in the House against this prince; insinuations which would have been scouted, bad they been levelled at any other individual. If any one had a charge to make against the duke of Cumberland, his royal highness was a subject of the realm, and amenable to the law. There seemed to be a disposition not only to condemn the duke unheard, but to punish him unheard. Sir J. Marjoribanks expressed a hope that a message would be brought down, recommending to the House to make provision for the payment of the debts of the heir presumptive. There was no man more beloved as the soldier's friend, as the friend of the soldier's widow, as the 915 Mr. T. Wilson was willing to give his assent to the first proposition; but had some doubt with respect to the second. With respect to the duke of York, no man in the country was more respected, or was more disposed to do all the good in his power. He was persuaded that such a message from his majesty as that which had been adverted to, would give universal satisfaction. Mr. Bernal said, that nothing could be more injurious to the members of the royal family than the attempts of injudicious friends to excite a feeling which, from circumstances, could not possibly be universal. When the proposition for adding to the allowance of the duke of Cumberland was formerly brought before that House, after much discussion, the proposed grant was refused. His royal highness, however, enjoyed 19,000 l l Chancellor of the Exchequer 916 l l Mr. J. Martin said, that if he consented to add 6,000 l l 917 Mr. Secretary Peel observed, that the absence of the hon. members was a pretty satisfactory proof that they considered the proposition by no means unreasonable, otherwise they would have been in their places to oppose it. With respect to the proposed grant to the duchess of Kent, it seemed to be generally admitted that it was necessary to enable her royal highness to continue to discharge her maternal duties in the exemplary manner in which she had hitherto fulfilled them. With respect to the grant, for the education of the son of the duke of Cumberland, he really thought the House could not seriously object to it, although the hon. member for Montrose had declared that he could provide an adequate education for the young prince for 100 l Sir E. Knatchbull said, he gave his most cordial support to the resolutions. But he was so anxious that the education of the young prince should take place in this country, that he wished to see some stipulations annexed to the resolutions by which that object would be secured. He wished also to know whether the enforce- 918 Sir E. Knatchbull wished to ask, whether if the young prince remained five or six years abroad, and then repaired to England to commence his education, that would be considered as a compliance with the condition which was understood to be coupled with this resolution? Chancellor of the Exchequer 919 l l l l 920 Mr. Secretary Canning protested against the course adopted by members, of discussing the rights of persons hypothetically. He thought that an illustrious person had been most unfairly dealt by. His royal highness had abstained from bringing his private affairs before parliament, and it was a most unkind reward for such forbearance, to moot the point by supposititious arguments, whether if he did apply to the House, he would be deemed a fit object of relief. It was not by any person professing friendship for the duke of York that his name had been introduced; and yet the conduct of his royal highness had been discussed, as freely as if he had sued, in forma pauperis, for relief. With reference to the duchess of Kent, all parties agreed in the propriety of the grant, and if government had any thing to answer for on this point, it was for having so long delayed bringing it before the House. There could not be a greater compliment to her loyal highness than to state the quiet, unobstrusive tenor of her life, and that she had never made herself the object of public, gaze, but had devoted herself to the education of her child, whom the House was now called upon to adopt. —With respect to the other resolution, let the committee treat it as one that would give a provision, not to the duke of Cumberland, but t o his child, who was next in importance to, the object of the first vote. Two objections were taken to this grant, which appeared to him to destroy each other. It was said that the duke of Cumberland, with his son, resided abroad, and nothing, it was thought, could be more contaminating for a prince who might one day have to sway the destinies of this nation, than that he should receive his education in a foreign kingdom. It was then said, that the duke of Cumberland found it necessary to stay abroad; that he was so odious as to have been refused, in two discussions of that House, the benefit of an application made in his behalf. Now, the object of this vote was to secure the domestic education of the son, who was in a situation to become one day a successor to the Crown of England. The grant was asked for the use of this prince; not because he Was the son of the 921 922 Sir C. Forbes gave his assent to both the resolutions. He recollected a conversation which he had with a member of the opposition, when the former proposal to increase the income of the duke of Cumberland was under the consideration of parliament. He was asking, how it was that so many members had come up three or four hundred miles from the country to vote against the proposition, and he was told that it was because the duke had assisted in outsting the administration of all the talents. He trusted that at present no such vindictive motive operated upon the mind of any individual, and complained, that the House had shown itself at all times too niggardly in making provision for those royal individuals whom it was bound to support. Mr. John Williams wished the hon. baronet to reconcile, if he could, the empty benches of the opposition at that moment, with the unworthy motives he had assigned for their conduct. There was one objection to this resolution which he did not see how to obviate. The duchess of Kent had only 6,000 l l l Mr. Cripps proposed, as an amendment, that after the word "education," the words "in Great Britain" be added. Chancellor of the Exchequer 923 Mr. Cripps said, that in proposing the amendment, he had no intention to treat the pledge which the right hon. gentlemen had offered with any disrespect. As far as they were concerned he had no doubt that it would be religiously redeemed; but at the same time he must say, that if he were a minister of the Crown, he should be glad to have the words inserted in the resolution. Mr. J. P. Grant said, he would not support the amendment, if he thought it implied any doubt in the sincerity of the ministers; but he should like to know what security the House had, that the present administration would keep their places, or that their successors would follow in their footsteps? If some future House should be disposed to act upon this subject, where in the journals would they find any record of the assurances of the present administration? If the amendment was not carried, the pledge now given to the House would not be recorded at all, and could not in future be acted upon, if the present administration should be dissolved. He should therefore support the amendment. Mr. R. Martin said, he would vote for this grant unfetterred by any condition, on the ground, that the augmentation 924 Lord Binning said, that the amendment implied a want of confidence either in the government, or in the duke of Cumberland. If it were carried, there would be no possibility of the young prince ever going out of Great Britain; and he thought no such condition should be imposed Sir J. Newport said, he placed great confidence in the pledge offered by ministers; but could not see any reason why they should refuse to accede to the amendment. He would not consent to make the slightest augmentation to the income of the duke of Cumberland, without a distinct pledge that his child should receive a perfectly British education. Ministers were able to give pledges for themselves; but what right had they to do so for the duke of Cumberland It was said, that there was no intention to sever the child from the parent; and yet they had not been told that the duke intended to return home. Combining these two circumstances together, it appeared to him that the education of the child must necessarily take place abroad. He therefore wished to have some entry on the journals descriptive of the circumstances under which this vote was given. Mr. Huskisson could not support the amendment, He contended, that as the prince of Cumberland was not far removed from the Throne, and as he might one day sit upon it, his education ought to be provided for accordingly. If the amendment were agreed to, it would become part of the law of the land, and the young prince could not he removed for any purpose from the country without the leave of parliament. If he left England, the officers of the Exchequer would be no longer justified in paying to his father any part of his allowance. Now, suppose it were thought advisable at some future period to send this prince abroad, either for his health, the benefit of his education, or for fleshing his maiden sword on the enemies of his country. That object could not be accomplished if the amendment was agreed to. Parliament had au interest in watching over the manner in which the young prince was educated; but the parents had a greater. He thought the purpose of the grant would be adhered to without the amendment; which was adding an unnecessary restriction. 925 Dr. Lushington said, he was prepared to give his confidence to the present chancellor of the Exchequer; but as the right hon. gentleman could not pledge himself that six-months hence a " no-popery" administration might not be in existence, and as he would never place the slightest confidence in such an administration, he must look for some stronger security than the word of a minister liable to removal, that the prince of Cumberland should be educated in England. A new minister might say, "It is for the interest of the Crown to have this boy educated abroad. I know nothing of any pledge which my predecessors have given. I go by the letter of the act." The leader of a "no-popery" administration might, out of mere gratitude to the duke of Cumberland, be anxious to take such a course, if it were true, that he had been formerly instrumental in ousting an administration favourable to the Catholics. He must, therefore, to guard against such consequences, vote for the amendment: for, a "no-popery" administration he would trust with nothing. The object of the resolution was, not to vote a sum of money to the sovereign to educate the prince, but to vote it to the sovereign to enable the duke of Cumberland to do so. He would vote that money with pleasure to the king; but on no account would he vote it to the king for the duke of Cumberland to dole it out as he chose for the education of his son. It was worthy the representatives of a great nation to see how the education of its future princes was conducted; but the present resolution would reduce the Crown into a mere conduit-pipe to supply the duke of Cumberland with money professedly for the education of his son, but really and truly for his own expenditure. He would trust to a resolution of the House; but he could not, and he would not, trust to the duke of Cumberland. That royal personage had not the confidence either of the House or of the country. He would not go back into any distant recollections of his conduct. The royal duke stood now in the same situation as he did in 1815. He had done nothing to alter the opinion parliament then entertained of him. All the ministers had abstained from saying that he had. They would not give him the money; they gave it for the education of the prince. It was intended, however, for the duke. Had it been asked in his name, ministers knew they would not 926 l l l l l l l Mr. T. Wilson thought it ought to be fixed determinately how the money was to be spent, and where, or they would stultify their votes in 1815 and 1818. He must support the amendment. Mr. Wynn said, he had opposed the grant in 1815, and in 1818, and as he meant to vote for the present resolution, he wished to show that there was no inconsistency in the two votes. On the former occasions it was stated that the duke had no children, and that a larger income might be necessary if he had any. He thought the House was only redeeming the pledge thus given by now voting a sum for the education of the young prince. He objected to the amendment, as not giving the House one jot more security than they now had. It was not in their power to bind down their successors. He wished to see even the education of princes conducted under the eye of their parents. It was right that the Crown should be intrusted with a power of interference in cases where the parental authority was abused; but the exercise of it on this occasion appeared to him both unwise and unnecessary. After the debate of that night, could any man doubt that the education of this child would take place in England. Mr. Warre supported the amendment, because there would otherwise be no security that this child would receive an English education. Mr. Secretary Peel suggested, that the object of securing the education of the child in England could be as well secured by inserting a declaratory sentence in the preamble of the bill, as by the proposed 927 Mr. Calcraft contended for the necessity of a clear understanding that the child should be educated in England. List of the Minority. Acland, sir T. Lushington, W. Allen, J. H. Maberly, W. L. Bailey, col. Macdonald, James Bent, J. Martin, John Benyon, B. Marjoribanks, S. Bernal, R. Mildmay, P. S. Bright, H. Monck, J. B. Brougham, H. Newport, sir J. Carter, John Osborne, lord F. Coke, T. W. jun. Phillips, G. Colburn, R. Phillips, G. R. Corbett, P. Price, R. Crompton, S. Rice, T. S. Denman, T. Rickford, W. Farrand, R. Robinson, sir G. Fergusson, sir R. Townshend, lord C. Fitzgerald, lord W. Tulk, G. A. Grant, J. P. Scarlett, J. Grattan, J. Shelley, sir J. Griffiths, J. W. Smith, T. A. Guise, sir W. Stanley, E. G. Heathcote, J. G. Smith, W. Heron, sir R. Wemys, J. Hobhouse, J. C. Whitbread, S. C. Ingleby, sir W. Williams, J. Knatchbull, sir E. Wood, ald. James, W. Leader, W. TELLER. Lewis, W. Hume, J. Judges' Salaries.] The report being recommitted, with an instruction to make provision for retired allowances, the chancellor of the Exchequer moved the first resolution, "That the several nett annual salaries herinafter mentioned shall be granted to the undermentioned justices of his majesty's courts at Westminster, in lieu of all salaries, fees, and emoluments, now received by them; and that there be issued and paid out of the consolidated fund of the united kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, such sums as, with the sums now payable to the said justices respectively out of his majesty's civil list revenues, will make up to each of the said justices the sum hereinafter mentioned; that is to say, to the chief justice of the court of King's-bench, the nett annual salary of 928 l l l l Mr. Scarlett said, that, in his opinion, the House ought not to accede to the proposition because it was connected with a proposition for taking away the fees attached to the office of chief justice. The offices out of which those fees grew were incidental to the situation of chief justice, and had existed for centuries. It was from these that he derived the greater portion of his recompense, and of the legitimate reward of his labours. Chief justices had as much a vested right in these offices as any archbishop of Canterbury could have in the see which he had not yet become absolutely possessed of. If it were proposed, for instance, to make an alteration in the leases of that see, and to give the present possessor a smaller sum in lieu of the loss he might sustain, how much would it excite the disapprobation of that sacred profession. If an alteration were proposed, there should at least be a fair average of the loss sustained by it, and compensation to dint amount. But, what did they now propose to do? To increase the salaries of the puisne judges from 4, to 6,000 l l l 929 l 930 l l Chancellor of the Exchequer l l l l 931 Mr. Scarlett said, in answer to the argument respecting abstract rights, he would ask this question :—Take the case of the revenues of a bishop, and imagine it to be proposed, that the income of the successor of the present bishop should be diminished by 2,000 l l Mr. Secretary Peel said, that his mind was relieved when he found it admitted that they were not dealing harshly with the present chief-justice, for the main consideration when dealing with vested interests should be a provision for the losses the individual might sustain. It therefore appeared to him that they were now at perfect liberty to consider what ought to be the proper salary of future judges. He differed from the learned gentleman in thinking that this measure was objectionable in principle. He thought it better that the judges should have a fixed salary out of a fixed fund, than an uncertain salary out of uncertain and fluctuating fees. It was upon the same principle that the salaries of the offices of state had been fixed. Chancellor of the Exchequer Mr. Hume asked, whether it was in- 932 Chancellor of the Exchequer Mr. Hume also begged to know, whether it was intended to give the lord chancellor a fixed salary, instead of allowing him all his enormous and abominable fees? He saw no reason why the lord chancellor should form the only exception in this new and wholesome arrangement. His lordship derived pecuniary advantages from the very delays which he himself occasioned. Chancellor of the Exchequer l l l l l l l l l l l 933 Mr. Hume said, he would rather give the lord chancellor 15,000 l l The Solicitor-General said, that nothing could be more unfounded than the charge, that the lord chancellor had it in his power to regulate fees as he pleased, and thus put money into his own pocket. The accusation, that he derived pecuniary advantages from the postponement of causes was most calumnious. A more calumnious or groundless statement had never been hazarded. What pretence was there for it? Whence could the hon. member have derived his information? Mr. Hume —So far from the attack being calumnious and groundless, I challenge the Solicitor-general to lay upon the table a return of the fees and emoluments of the lord chancellor, and I will prove the whole of what. I have asserted. Mr. Twiss had no doubt that the hon. gentleman would be disappointed in the result, if the return were produced. He only rose to add one fact, of some import- 934 HOUSE OF COMMONS. Monday, 30th May 1825. KING'S MESSAGE—PROVISION FOR THE DUCHESS OF KENT, AND DUKE OF CUMBERLAND.] The report on the King's Message was brought up, and the resolution for granting 6,000 l l Mr. Hume said, that he was sorry not to see a right hon. baronet, the member for Waterford, in his place, who had given notice of an amendment upon this resolution. In his absence, he should propose to negative the motion o altogether. He thought ministers ill-advised in recommending his majesty to make such a demand on the liberality of parliament, and he was persuaded that no measure proposed by them during the session would give less satisfaction to the nation. The public would consider it a mere waste of its money, and a waste without all precedent. On Friday night the chancellor of the Exchequer had refused to provide that the boy should be educated in England [no, no]. He did not understand what those negatives meant, unless that the proposition was negatived by them on a division. The House had already refused a vote to the duke of Cumberland himself, and therefore the 935 l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l 936 The Chancellor of the Exchequer l 937 l l l l 938 Dr. Lushington said, that since the last discussion on this subject he had referred to the debates which took place in that House in the years 1815 and 1818, on the proposed grant to the duke of Cumberland. He felt great reluctance in making any observation which might be considered personal to any branch of the royal family; he felt it his duty, however, to declare, that after a full consideration of all that passed in the years 1815 and 1818, he had come to the decided opinion, that the decision of the House on both these occasions was, in every point of view, just and proper. He did trust, therefore, that this House, would not retrace its former steps, and by consenting to this allowance of 6,000 l 939 l 940 l l l l 941 l 942 Mr. Creevey declared, that he could not agree to pass either the original motion, or the amendment which had been proposed by the hon. and learned gentleman who spoke last. During all the time that he had sat in parliament, he had never witnessed so gross an outrage as that which was now put upon the good sense and consistency of the House, by this attempt to get 6,000 l l l Mr. Cripps expressed himself to be friendly to the principle of the amendment. He should be perfectly satisfied with the assurance of the right hon. gentleman and those who acted with him on this subject; but as they might not always retain their places, and as human life was uncertain, he thought there could be no impropriety in introducing the words proposed as an amendment. Some allusion had been made to the difference in amount of the two sums which were the subject of this resolution; but when the difference between the manner in 943 Mr. Creevey said, that nothing was further from his intention than to say any thing disrespectful of the duchess of Kent. On the contrary, he had intimated that the friends of the duke of Cumberland had put forward the case of the duchess of Kent for the purpose of supporting their application; that this proposition was by no means agreeable to the duchess of Kent and her family; and that she had no wish to have her claims mixed up with those of the duke of Cumberland, though he duke had good reason for wishing to make her claims subsidiary to his own rejected pretensions. Mr. Cripps said, that nothing was further from his thoughts than to insinuate that there was any improper understanding between the two illustrious individuals; but he thought that, as the grounds of the claims of each were very nearly similar, they had properly come together before the House. Mr. Hudson Gurney said, that he perfectly remembered what had passed during the former debates on an increased allowance to the duke of Cumberland. He then thought, that the duke had been treated with great unfairness; and he thought so still [hear, hear!]—the only possible claim on the country being as provision for the sons of the sovereign; and when the provisions of the dukes of Clarence and Cambridge were increased, those of the dukes of Cumberland and Sussex ought, in common reason and justice, to have been increased in the same manner. On this ground, he should vote for the motion, and not on the ground of its being required for the education of his son. As to the observations which had been made on his royal highness's habitually residing out of the country, the duke of Cumberland had a right to live where best it pleased him; to educate his own son where he thought most convenient; and the House of Commons had nothing to do with the matter [coughing and laughter]. The great and necessary evil attendant on the education of all princes was, their being, from the first, surrounded by sycophants. An 944 Sir G. Rose said, that having lived for some years so near the person of the duke of Cumberland as to enjoy frequent opportunities of ascertaining his character, and observing his conduct, he could not remain silent. With respect to the absence of the duke from England, that, it should be remembered, was in consequence of the treatment he had received here. It was impossible for any person to find himself the object of universal dislike, and treated with disrespect, and even insult, which he knew to be undeserved, but which he had no means of preventing, and yet subject himself to the repetition of them. His acquaintance with his royal highness had continued for four years and a half. Upon the commencement of it some of his friends had remonstrated with him on the danger which he might run from the bad repute in which his royal highness was held. To which he had replied, that he saw his royal highness surrounded by men of the most distinguished probity, of the most scrupulous delicacy of conduct, and as such he would not believe the disadvantageous reports which he had heard. Subsequent experience had convinced him that the opinion he had formed was correct, He had never known any man behave, upon all occasions, in a manner more becoming his station, or with more kindness and consideration to all who were about him. This behaviour of his royal highness was not purchased on his (sir G. Rose's) part by any servile compliance; on the contrary, he had upon some occasions felt himself obliged to differ from his royal highness, and on those occasions the duke had acted with the greatest fairness. During his residence at Berlin, he had constant opportunities of observing the duke in his family, and he must say that he had never seen a more affectionate parent, and that the child, the subject of the resolution before the House, as far as from his age he was capable of manifesting it, seemed to return that affection. He had come forward to say thus much, because he was 945 Sir W. Congreve said, that he had known the duke of Cumberland for a long while, during which his conduct had been unexceptionable; and no one could be more punctual in the payment of his debts. Mr. Alderman Smith said, that his royal highness had been-the victim of malevolence, and was driven out of his native country by innuendos and misrepresentations. Whatever the House might think proper to do with respect to the education of the child, he thought these attacks against;the father should not be persisted in. Mr. Secretary Peel said, that, however various the views were which had been taken by hon. members in the course of this debate, still he thought there was an universal feeling, that nothing could be more unpleasant than the allusions to which it had given rise. He should, therefore, in the very little he had to say on the subject, avoid any reference whatever to those topics. He could not concur with the hon. gentleman(Mr. Gurney), who regarded the resolution before the House as an attempt to redress an injustice which had formerly been done. The proposition came simply upon its own grounds; and, so material a change had taken place, that the House could consistently agree to this, even though it were convinced that the grounds of its former refusal were correct. The way in which it had been put by an hon. and learned gentleman opposite was, he thought, a fair one. First, was this vote necessary; and secondly, what was the proper mode of making it secure? The hon. member for Montrose had said, that every man was bound to educate his own children. As applied to private life this was quite true; but, in the case before the House, the interest it had in this child made its education a matter of national importance; and since we thought fit to take upon ourselves the burthen of that education, we had a right to require, if we saw reason, that it should be carried on in England. Something had been said as to the adequacy of the sum; and it was insinuated, that as the duchess of Kent found her allowance of 12,000 l l 946 Mr. Brougham said, he was sorry to intrude himself on the attention of the House, for he agreed with the right hon. gentleman, that as the subject had been pretty thoroughly discussed, the sooner it was put an end to the better. He agreed also with the right hon. gentleman, in not caring by what form the principle of an English education was secured; and he agreed still further with him, in admitting that in private life every man was bound to educate his own child, and nobody had a right to interfere—so long as the father paid the money. The difference between that case and the one under discussion was so obvious, that he need say no more about it. With respect to the terms of the grant, all were agreed tonight; and that good, at least, had grown out of the former discussion. If the grant were really to be made, he should not object to those terms; but he was prepared to oppose it altogether; and in 947 l l 948 Mr. Secretary Canning in consequence of the turn which the discussion had taken, wished to have it understood that the vote before the House was not proposed as an atonement for any former decision which it had come to, but grew merely out of the circumstance of a child whose education it was now the time to begin, and in which education, from the nearness of that child to the throne, the country was interested. Without going back, then, to blame or to justify the duke of Cumberland for his residence abroad, the House, he believed, would agree, that his child must be educated, not because it was his child, but because the duty of educating it devolved upon the state, of which it might one day be so important a member. What was now proposed, therefore, was, that by a resolution the most extended and most coercive, it should be provided, that this education should be carried on at home, and that the royal parent should either return to England himself, or send hither his child, as he might think proper. Thus would be avoided that harsh interference, which would on all accounts be inexpedient. The condition, however, 949 Sir F. Burdett said, that when he came down to the House, he supposed that the question which was to be decided was whether or not the duke of Cumberland should have 6,000 l l 950 l Chancellor of the Exchequer 951 Mr. Brougham observed, that as it was allowed on all sides, that security ought to be taken for compelling the proper appropriation of the grant, he would recommend his hon. and learned friend to withdraw his amendment, for the purpose of allowing the House to come to a distinct vote on the first and simple proposition. Dr. Lushington said, he had no objection to do so, if the right hon. gentleman opposite would pledge himself to the introduction in the bill of a security for the education of the child in England, and of a control over the mode of payment. Mr. Secretary Canning replied, that he could not give any other pledge than that which he had already mentioned. Mr. Brougham gave notice to the House, that, on the constitutional grounds which he had stated, as well as because he perceived a disposition in the House to take advantage of a temporary and accidental coldness, on the part of the people, respecting questions of economy, and a tendency to spend the people's money, as if there was never to be a want of it again, he should continue to give the measure his strenuous opposition in all its stages. List of the Minority. Abercromby, hon. J. Cavendish, H. Allen, J. H. Coffin, sir I. Astell, W. Coke, T. W. (Derby) Baillie, J. Corbett, P. Baring, A. Creevey, T. Baring, sir T. Davies, T. Barrett, S. M. Denison, W. Benett, J. Denman, T. Benyon, B. Drake, T. T. Bernal, R. Dundas, hon. T. Blake, sir F. Ellice, E. Brougham, H. Evans, W. Buxton, T. F. Fane, J. Byng, G. Ferguson, sir R. Calcraft, John. Foley, J. H. H. Calcraft, J. H. Gaskell, B. Calvert, C. Glenorchy, vise. Carter, J. Grattan, J. Cavendish lord G. Grenfell, P. Cavendish, C. Guise, sir W. 952 Handley, H. Ridley, sir M.W. Heron, sir R. Robarts, A.W. Heygate, W. Robarts, G Hobhouse, J. C. Robinson, sir G. Hughes, W. L. Russell, lord J. Hume, J. Scarlett, J. Hutchinson, hon. C. H. Scott, J. James, W. Sebright, sir J. Johnstone, W. A. Sefton, earl of Kennedy, T. F. Smith, A. King, sir J. D. Smith, J. Knight, R. Smith, S. Leycester, R. Smith, hon. R. Lushington, S. Smith, W. Marjoribanks, S. Taylor, M. A. Martin, J. Tierney, right hon. G. Maule, hon. W. R. Townshed, lord C. Maxwell, J. Tremayne, J. H. Monck, J. B. Webbe, E. Newman, R. W. Western, C. C. Nugent, lord. Whitbread, S. Ord, W. Williams, J. Osborne, lord F. Williams, T. P. Palmer, C. F. Wilson, sir R. Pares, T. Wood, M. Parnell, sir H. Wrottesley, sir J. Pelham, J. C. PAIRED OFF. Price, R. Portman, E. Pryse, Pryse tellers: Rice, T. S. Burdett, sir F. Rickford, W. Duncannon, vise HOUSE OF LORDS. Tuesday, May 31. Bonded Corn Bill.] On the order of the day for going into a committee on the Bonded Corn bill, The Earl of Malmesbury objected to that part of the bill which allowed of the importation of corn from Canada at a reduced rate of duty. He feared that corn from the United States would be introduced into this country as Canadian corn. He would therefore move, "That it be an instruction to the committee to leave out of the bill all that part which related to the alteration of the duties on wheat, the produce of the British colonies in North America." Earl Bathurst contended, that the best policy this country could adopt was, to shew her colonies that they were under the protection of a country which considered their interests. The great objection to that part of the bill against which the amendment was directed, was the supposed clandestine importation that would take place from the United States. But, the importation from Canada was restricted to corn in grain, and not in flour; the latter being the usual way in which the American States exported; and the very bulk of the grain being sufficient to expose 953 The Earl of Lauderdale thought that the bill ought to be divided. There was no reason that he could see for making the questions of the bonded corn, and the importation from Canada, parts of the same bill. Of the effect which the importation from Canada would be likely to have, they had at present no means of judging; for no return of the price of grain had been received since 1820. It was legislating in the dark, to encourage importation from a country, with the average produce of whose grain they were utterly unacquainted. The Earl of Liverpool observed, that the two subjects were united in the bill, as the bill referred to another measure in which both subjects were included in the year 1815. As to the merits of the question itself, he looked at it in an inverse ratio from the view which his noble friend the mover of the amendment seemed to have adopted. He considered that part of it which affected the bonded corn objectionable, because he considered all temporary measures objectionable in principle; but, under the present circumstances of the country, it was an advantage both to the consumer and to the landed interest, that it should be resorted to; for, in the first instance, it would prevent any immediate rise of price, and ultimately it would operate against that extreme depression which an extraordinary advance would produce, by throwing open the ports and causing a glut in the market. As to the other provision, for admitting the introduction of Canadian corn, it was in the spirit of the changes which they were already occupied in making. They had been occupied during 954 s d s s s s d s 955 The Earl of Rosslyn said, that this was no present boon to the Canadians, for the ports were now open to Canadian corn, and no one could say when they would be shut. But the noble earl had contended, that it was the principle that was of value. What, then, was the principle? It was that of doing away the present system of the Corn laws. The noble earl had spoken out candidly, and the direct inference from his speech was, that this was the first step towards the abrogation of the whole system of the Corn laws. He should not enter into the danger arising from excessive importation from Canada, as he had no information to direct him to any opinion on that subject. If the bill passed, it ought to contain a clause to destroy all existing leases and bargains previously formed, as this was the first step towards the destruction of the system under which they had been formed originally. As to the low rate of taxation to which Ireland was subject, he thought it rather a grievance than a favour, that the misgovernment from which she had suffered, should have rendered her incapable of paying her fair proportion towards the 956 The Earl of Liverpool said, that the noble lord had completely misunderstood his argument. He had not contended for the adoption of the measure as opposed to the principle of the Corn laws, but had called upon their lordships to agree to it as a favour to our own colonies, even if we should resolve to maintain our present system of Corn laws against all the world. The Earl of Limerick opposed the bill, the operation of which, he believed, would be no less injurious to the landed interest than to other national interests, which would, perhaps, engage more of the consideration of the House. The shipping interests, and the useful nursery for seamen which our coast-trade at present formed, would be destroyed by the admission of foreign corn in the way that was now proposed; and, at some future time, when perils threatened the country, we should look in vain for that host of able defenders who had heretofore made our navy the pride of England and the terror of the rest of the world. He saw no grounds upon which this measure was recommended, excepting by a vote of a public meeting in the city of London. Now, with all the highest opinion of the respectability of the persons composing that meeting, he thought, from their habits, and from the motives by which they were swayed, that they were not the fittest judges upon the subject. As little was he disposed to coincide with the crude opinions of the professors of political economy, no two of whom agreed as to the doctrines of their sect. He resisted this measure, because he considered it as the advanced guard of an attack hereafter to be made on the general Corn laws of the country. He could not regard any alteration in those laws otherwise than as an evil of the deepest dye in England, and as absolutely ruinous to Ireland. It pained him to see Ireland and Canada placed in juxta position. Between those two countries, in point of importance, there was no resemblance. The con- 957 Lord Ellenborough expressed his dissent from those noble lords who viewed a departure from the Corn laws, as injurious to the interests of the country. The present question was not, however, necessarily mixed up with that; and he could give it his support, without committing himself to any particular course when the general question of the Corn laws came to be discussed. This bill had two objects; the first one almost of humanity, that of giving facilities to certain persons who had speculated in the Corn trade, or bringing to market corn, of which there was otherwise no chance of their disposing. The quantity of corn so situated was too small to have any sensible effect upon the relations of landlord and tenant. Of this proposition he entirely approved; but of the second, he approved more warmly. The question seemed to resolve itself into this; "Shall we or shall we not keep Canada?" The time appeared particularly well chosen, as it was most important not to displease the Canadians by treating them illiberally, whilst we were acknowledging the independance of states in South America. He rejoiced to see the trade of Canada assimilated with that of Ireland. He did not apprehend the same consequences from the assimilation, as a noble lord who had just sat down. But it surprised him to hear the noble earl opposite express fears for the effect of commercial restrictions in Canada, and be so indifferent to the effect of civil restrictions in Ireland. If he really dreaded a separation of that colony on account of commerce, it was a little strange that he had no apprehensions from a people whose attachments were likely to be affected by the bereavement of every thing that rendered life dear and valuable. He concluded by guarding himself against giving any pledge on the general question of the Corn laws. 958 The Earl of Enniskillen saw in this bill, the ominous forerunner of a change in the Corn laws. He deprecated any alterations in that system as calculated to extinguish the small efforts which Ireland was making towards a resuscitation. The farmers of Ireland had been living upon borrowed money; but they would never be able to recover themselves, if they were exposed to competition with Canadian corn. He called upon the agriculturists to resist this bill. If they did not, there was every prospect of their being borne down by the monied interest altogether. The Earl of Carnarvon said, he did not object to a partial alteration of the Corn laws, particularly such an one as would substitute a permanent duty on imported corn, in lieu of the inconvenient mode of opening and shutting the ports occasionally. The importation of American corn could not, under any circumstances, be brought into question until next session, and therefore, as many serious considerations were mixed up with this question, he would suggest its postponement for the present. Lord Redesdale said, it appeared to him, that one very important point had been kept out of their lordships view. The constitution of this country was founded upon, and could never be separated from, the landed interest. To talk, therefore, of a free trade in corn, was at once absurd and dangerous. It was impossible that such a free trade could ever exist, consistently with the safety and prosperity of the kingdom. As to what had been said with respect to our trade with Canada, he had every wish that the interests of that colony should be attended to; but, he could not consent to advance them at the expense of the interest, of Great Britain. If the principle of admitting the corn grown in Canada into this country were once adopted, it must be carried to its fullest extent; and, were they, he would ask, prepared to state that they would give an unqualified admission to the corn of that colony? The landed interest of England were connected with the very spirit and essence of the British constitution, and could not be separated from it. It was, therefore, their duty to take care that those interests were not injured. Landed property, it was well known, had been assessed beyond any other kind of property. This he conceived incorrect, and he should always oppose himself to every measure which would have the effect 959 HOUSE OF COMMONS. Tuesday, May 31. DELAYS IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY.] Mr. John Williams, in rising to present certain petitions complaining of Delays, and other grievances to suitors in the court of Chancery, said, that though it was competent to him to submit a distinct motion on the subject to which those petitions referred, yet, from the length of time that had elapsed since he had before introduced the question, and from the circumstance that no one good had resulted from the measures adopted respecting it, there might exist some difference of opinion as to any other course than that he was now pursuing, he abandoned for the present the idea of another motion. If, however, he should hereafter think it worth his while to introduce the subject as a distinct motion, it would not be until every man out of that House (which was already the case), and every man in the House, was firmly convinced that the time when the commission appointed to inquire into the proceedings in the court of Chancery should have made its report, was long since elapsed. The commission, like the court to which it was appointed, was at least very deliberate in its proceedings; owing, probably, to the great degree of patience which some men were known to exercise with respect to the sufferings of others. When he first ventured to express his suspicions that no good would result from the appointment of that commission, he had, perhaps, in 960 961 l l 962 963 964 l l 965 l 966 l l "—Deals in destiny's dark counsels, And sage opinions of the moon sells;" "'Tis true 'tis pity, and pity' tis 'tis true." l 967 l 968 969 l 970 l s d l s d l l Dec. 6. 1824. Attending court, £ s.d. three petitions in the paper for judgment, when the lord chancellor went partially into the matter, and requested to be furnished with the repealed local Act, which he said he would read, and give his judgment to-morrow. 2 0 0 7. Attending court all day, three petitions in the paper, when his lordship said," he had to leave 971 early, but would not fail giving his judgment to-morrow morning" 2 0 0 8. Attending court all day, three petitions in the paper for judgment, when the lord Chancellor adverted to the question of jurisdiction, which he desired to be again spoken to, and requested that the dean and chapter of Canterbury, they being the lords of the manor of Walworth, should attend him, and appointed Saturday next for that purpose; and requested to be informed as to the mode of appointing overseers at the time the charity was founded. 2 0 0 11. Attending court all day, three petitions, when the same were called on; and Mr. Shadwell applied, on the part of the dean and chapter of Canterbury, to let the petitions stand over, and the same were ordered till the first seal before Hilary term, to give the dean and chapter an opportunity of considering what course they should take 2 0 0 Jan. 11. 1825. Attending court on three petitions, when Mr, Shadwell, on the part of the dean and chapter, stated, he was not prepared to go on; and the lord chancellor ordered the same to stand for this day fortnight peremptory 2 0 0 25. Attending court all day, three petitions on the paper, but same not called on 1 10 0 26. The like attendance this day 1 10 0 27. The like attendance this day 1 10 0 28. The like attendance this day 1 10 0 29. Attending court, three petitions in the paper; same called on, and ordered to stand for Tuesday next, for the dean and chapter to prove themselves entitled to interfere in this matter as visitors 2 0 0 Feb. 1. Attending court all day; three petitions in the paper, but same not called on 1 10 0 4. Attending court all day; three petitions in the paper, but same not called on 1 10 0 5. The like attendance in court this day; three petitions in the paper 1 10 0 9. The like attendance this day 1 10 0 10. The like attendance this day 1 10 0 11. The like attendance this day 1 10 0 23. Attending court, when the lord chancellor directed the registrar to put the petitions in the paper for Tuesday next 0 6 8 s d l l s March 1. Attending court on three 972 petitions; same in the paper, and called on, when the various points suggested by the court were again argued at some length, and his lordship promised to give his judgment this day week 2 0 0 8. Attending court, but the lord chancellor did not give his judgment according to his promise 0 6 8 l 973 l l 974 l l l 975 l 976 l l l l 977 "Would bring her o'er to be his wife, Or make her weary of her life."—[A laugh.] 978 "Purpureus late qui splendeat unus et alter—Assuitur pannus—" 979 980 981 982 Mr. Denison wished to bear testimony to the character of Mr. Palmer, one of the petitioners, with whose respectability, probity, and honour, he had long been acquainted. He considered the public much indebted to the learned member, for bringing the subject before the House; for, whether the cruel delays of the court of Chancery proceeded from the system, or the numerous avocations, legal and political, of the dignified individual who presided in it, it was clear that the time had arrived, when some remedy ought to be applied to such enormous grievances. Mr. John Smith said, that in presuming to address the House upon this occasion, he meant not to cast the slightest reflection upon the lord chancellor as an individual, still less to discuss the professional merits of the system under which he acted, and of which—speaking of its technical merits—he could not affect to be a judge. He only wished to state his opinion generally of the grievances which the people of this country, especially those engaged in commerce, laboured under from the practical operation of the existing administration of justice in the court of Chancery. The system of it was looked upon with terror by men of business: indeed, it was not an uncommon practice when individuals differed in commercial transactions, to threaten to file a bill in Chancery; which was such a threat, that he had known many instances of parties suffering the greatest impositions rather than incur. He could state a fact in illustration of this feeling, which had happened to himself. In the course of his pecuniary dealings, he had lent a sum of 4,500 l l l 983 l l 984 985 Mr. Ellice said, he had listened with great attention to what had fallen from his honourable friends who had preceded him. He had himself been long aware of the grievances attending; the system of carrying on business in the court of Chancery: and, bad as those cases were which had just been brought to light by his hon. friend near him, he believed they were comparatively trivial to those which could be brought forward by many individuals connected with the trade and industry of the country. He was also quite convinced with his hon. friend, than no good could arise from the labours of the commission appointed to inquire into the affairs of the court of Chancery. That commission was imperfectly constituted; besides having persons of legal knowledge, it ought to have been composed of men of business likewise. As to the case of the bankrupt assignee quoted by his hon. friend, he could assure them that it was not one of a solitary description for such cases were, he feared, too common. Why did not the court of Chancery, in matters of account, adopt the practice of the civil court of which his hon. and learned friend near him (Dr. Lushington) was so distinguished an ornament? for there such matters were referred to the registrar, assisted by mercantile characters, who sat once and continuously until they made their report. If an improvement could be made in the administration of the af 986 l 987 l l The Solicitor-General said, that before he noticed the observations of his hon. and learned friend, respecting the constitution of the court of Chancery, he would advert a little to the five petitions upon which he had chiefly founded his speech. His hon. and learned friend had, properly enough, carefully abstained from vouching for the accuracy of the statements in those petitions; and, indeed, would have disparaged his understanding, had he done otherwise. He would devote a few remarks to each of these petitions. That of Mr. Palmer related to some alleged abuse of what was called "the Elephant and Castle charity," which was let for 600 l 988 l l l l l 989 l 990 991 Dr. Lushington said, he wished to add some reasons to those advanced by the Solicitor-general, to justify the delay of the report of the commissioners. The House would recollect, that they were almost all men engaged in the duties of judicial situations, or the practice of their various courts. Few were the days which any of them had free from their avocations, and fewer those upon which they could collect a full meeting. Another circumstance had tended to delay the report of the commissioners. Scarcely had they commenced their labours, when the vice-chancellor was taken ill; and many months elapsed before he was able to return to the performance of his judicial duties, or attend at the sittings of the commission. As a member of that commission, he (Dr. L.) declared his conviction, that it was the anxious desire of all the commissioners to fulfil their duties with as much expedition as the nature of their own avocations, and the difficulty of the undertaking in which they were engaged, admitted. He was anxious, however, that the House should not expect from the commission more than it could possibly effect. The commissioners were invested with certain limited powers: but, the objects of the inquiry, and the nature and tenor of their commission, would not enable them to take into their consideration many important subjects which bad been touched upon by his hon. and learned friend. They had no power to inquire whether the present system of jurisdiction which prevailed in the court of Chancery was right or wrong [hear, hear!]. Their inquiry was confined to an examination of the practice which had hitherto prevailed in the court of Chancery. The object of inquiry was, not the law which governed the decisions of the court, but the practice which prevailed in the court, from the commencement of a suit until it was brought to a final hearing. Their investigations could never, by possibility, produce any of the extraordinary effects which some persons expected from them. Another object of the inquiry was, to as- 992 l 993 994 Mr. M. A. Taylor said, he had, many years ago, endeavoured to awaken the attention of parliament to the existence of great and alarming evils in the system of the court of Chancery, and of the appellate jurisdiction in the House of Lords. It was now long since he had first attempted to prove that those evils and defects amounted to a denial, and indeed a complete subversion, of justice. If hon. gentlemen were disposed to look at the reports of the committee appointed to inquire into those evils, and of which committee he was chairman, they would find it stated that so rapidly were causes accumulating at that time in the jurisdiction in question, that it was judged they could not be disposed of in less than five-and-twenty years. At that time, however, he found it difficult to convince people of the enormous injury that resulted to individuals from the consequent delays in causes and appeals. Of the eminent individual who presided both in the House of Lords and in the court of Equity, he had never uttered a single word but in the spirit of perfect good feeling and respect for his distinguished probity and talents; but he had an objection, on the noble and learned lord's account, to offer to the commission that had been appointed. To him it appeared, that the public had been seriously wronged and aggrieved by the proceedings of the court of Chancery. 995 l l 996 The Solicitor-General observed, that it had only been before the court for two years. Mr. M. A. Taylor : —Well, for two years! And, did the learned gentleman consider that no grievance? The Fleet and other prisons of the metropolis, which he had visited, contained numerous victims, without clothes, and in a state of despair, who would not have been in those melancholy abodes, but for the injuries they had suffered through the court of Chancery. Perhaps the House were already aware of that affecting case of the two widow ladies, sisters, who were interested in a property, the proceedings about which, being in Chancery, the attorney managed to hang them up there until, after a long lapse of time, a writ of error was obtained against him. Pending the proceedings, one of the ladies died at the age of 81, nine years after she became invested with the right to a beneficial interest in that property. Her sister, too, survived her only by about half a year. Last summer, when looking over a list of Chancery cases, he actually found some that were depending as long ago as when he himself was at the bar. If the commission which had been appointed did not speedily report, he pledged himself to come down to the House and demand a parliamentary inquiry into the whole details of this ques-tion. With respect to the inefficiency of the commission, and the causes assigned for the long delay of its report, he would only say, that if some of the members were incapacitated from attending it properly by reason of professional or any other engagements, they ought never to have been put upon it. Until this inquiry was granted, and the abuses remedied, he hoped the subject would never be allowed to rest. In his view of the matter, the 997 Mr. Secretary Peel said, that after the very able manner in which this subject had been discussed, he would not have said a word upon the question but for the direct allusions which had been made to him in the course of the debate. In one part of the learned opener's speech he had directly adverted to him, as if he wished to impede or defeat the objects of an inquiry into the delays of Chancery. The learned gentleman had said, that the appointment of the commission, was a mere parliamentary manœuvre to stifle effective inquiry. This he positively denied. He wished for full and effective inquiry. He denied that any inference could be drawn unfavourable to full inquiry, from the nature of the commission. It was only on the preceding night that he had heard the commission which had been appointed to inquire into the Scotch judicature praised very highly. No commission ever gave greater satisfaction, it was said. But that commission was composed of lawyers, whom the learned gentleman thinks unfit to conduct such inquiries; and moreover, six members of that commission were judges of the court to be reformed. He certainly held the conscience of a lawyer in higher estimation than the learned gentleman who was so well qualified to judge of it, and he thought an honourable minded man was better qualified for being a member of such a commission because he was a lawyer. It had been stated in the course of the debate, that a master in Chancery ought not to investigate accounts, because he was not an accountant; and yet it was stated in the same debate, that a lawyer was not fit to inquire into abuses in courts of law, because he was a lawyer. But, what possible object could he be Supposed to have, if not a full and candid examination of this subject? He would fairly own, that he had hoped ere this, that the report of the commissioners appointed last session would have been made. He thought, too, that it would have been much better if they had determined to report in the first place on some isolated and specific branch of their inquiries, instead of waiting to prepare their general report upon the whole of the topics embraced by the commission; because it was quite evident, that any such general report on the court of Chancery must of necessity be postponed for a considerable 998 999 1000 Mr. Hume begged to refer to a passage from Mr. Miller's book on the abuses of Chancery. That author stated, that it was in vain to hope for any reform or improvement in the system, so long as the power and patronage of a vast number of offices, such as the six clerks, masters, cursitors, &c. remained in the hands of the lord chancellor, who thus disposed of numerous posts, some of them mere sinecures, the united salaries of which amounted to not less than between 200,000 l l Sir M. W. Ridley professed his willingness to attend to the suggestion of the right hon. gentleman, and would certainly not bring forward his motion. He was thoroughly persuaded, however, of the necessity of reforming our penal code; and he should reserve to himself the power of bringing forward the measure, if he should see that no progress was made in consolidating our penal statutes. Mr. Hobhouse rose only to say, that, judging by the bill which the right hon. Secretary had brought into the House, the measure of reforming our criminal code could not be in better hands. The country would long be grateful to him for the Jury bill, and if he carried his benevolent designs into execution, he would add to the high character he already enjoyed throughout the kingdom. On the subject of the debate before the House, he wished only to ask, and the right hon. Secretary, or his hon. and learned friend below, might inform him, what had been done with regard to those informations which had been filed in consequence of the inquiries of the commissioners into the abuses of charities? He should like also to know what progress had been made by these commissioners. 1001 Mr. Brougham said, he should be very happy to answer his hon. friend to the best of his power; but his information on these subjects stopped short at a certain point, or line of demarcation, which separated, as it were, light from darkness. As to the proceedings against the trustees in Chancery, beyond the institution of them he knew nothing—neither did any body else. As to the commissioners for inquiring into the abuses of public charities, they had published many reports which contained much valuable matter. Those reports were contained in some twelve or thirteen rather unsightly and decidedly bulky folios. The commissioners, he must say, had done very considerable service. They had inquired into a groat many charities; and, he might be permitted to add, that those charities which demanded inquiry were far more numerous than would at first sight be imagined. The task was more difficult, more extensive, and more operose, than, on a superficial view of the case, might be supposed. Owing to the reluctance of individuals to come forward, to the remote period at which many of those charities were founded, and to various other difficulties which the commissioners had to encounter, those reports were delayed longer than had been expected. The information obtained by them was, however, of infinite value, and exceedingly curious. No person who wished to obtain a knowledge of the charitable foundations, lay and ecclesiastical, which were established in former times, could consult more satisfactory authority than the information which had been brought into one body by those commissioner& Where matters of a various and extensive nature were to be examined into, for the purpose of pointing out what ought to be done, in order to check some specific grievance, such an inquiry was, he conceived, best carried on by a commission. But, where the business to be disposed of appeared in the form of a series of statutes, which it was intended to consolidate, or where it was meant to act on the information obtained by a commission, in those cases he thought the work would be better performed by the hands of an individual. The unimpeded labour of an individual—(and it should be remembered, that a man always worked more pleasantly and agreeably if left to take his own course)—would do more towards a digest of the statutes than the unequal efforts of a 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 Mr. J. Williams said a very few words in reply. He again referred to the authority of Mr. Justice Blackstone, to prove that the ancient law-writers did not allow that extent of authority to the court of Chancery which was now contended for. He objected strongly to the two jurisdic 1008 The petitions were ordered to be printed. Cotton Mills Regulation Bill.] The House went into a committee on this bill. Mr. Hobhouse said, that at the suggestion of others, he had been induced to alter a little his original purpose. It was his intention to reduce the hours in the day which children were compelled to work in cotton mills. When he found that no workman in any robust employment, nor even those persons who having incurred the penalties of the law were sentenced to hard labour, were compelled to work for so many hours, it grieved him to find that any opposition should be given to a proposition, that children should not be forced to work in cotton mills for more than eleven hours out of the twenty-four. Within the last few days he had inquired the number of hours that men worked at other trades, and he found the following to be the fact:—The machine-makers, the moulders of the machinery, house-carpenters, cabinet-makers, stone-masons, bricklayers, blacksmiths, mill-wrights, &c., worked no more than ten hours and a half per day; and some of them, in winter, only eight and a half. There was one circumstance which distinguished cotton-manufacturers from all others; namely, the high state of the temperature, and the variations of heat and cold. An objection had been thrown out, that in cases of this description it was ridiculous to legislate. It had been said, "Will you not let the mothers regulate their children?" He remembered, when he was at school, having read a similar argument against the abolition of the slave trade; but, did not the House legislate in that case. What he should propose was, that the children should work for five days in the week" twelve hours a day; and how could any man have the face to ask for an extension? On the Saturday, he should propose to take off three hours, in order that they might prepare for the repose of Sunday. He could assure the House, that masters who employed among them l5000 operatives, were as anxious for these amendments to be made as he was, Sir Robert Peel's bill had been 1009 Mr. J. Smith said, he was sorry that his hon. friend felt it necessary to make an alteration as to the time. He believed that the custom of making children work for so many hours was prejudicial to the interest of their masters. In Mr. Owen's manufactory, the hours of employment had been decreased from 11½ hours, to 10½; and he knew, that as much work was done in the latter, as had previously been done in the former number of hours. He believed the state of the flax-mills called quite as much for investigation, as that of the cotton. Mr. Huskisson said, he would not give up one point of his opinion as to the impolicy of attempting to regulate free labour; but, as parliament had thought it right to interfere with respect to the cotton-mills, certainly the more fully the provisions of a former bill were carried into operation the better. For this reason, he agreed in the propriety of enabling magistrates to compel the attendance of witnesses, where that law was supposed to have been violated; but he by no means believed, that the children generally in cotton-mills worked fourteen hours a-day. He was glad of the alteration that had been introduced as to the hours; for the committee that had investigated the question had recommended twelve hours; and although, perhaps, other children might not have to labour so many hours, yet the intensity of their labour made it as fatiguing. Take, for instance, the children that laboured in agriculture. He had no doubt that, if they investigated every species of labour, they would find much that they could wish to alter; but, what would become of those children if they were not so employed, and what would they do for the food, clothes, and comforts that they were at present receiving? Any alteration that should induce the masters to withdraw those comforts, would be only an aggravation instead of a relief to the children. Mr. W. Smith said, that as to the sad condition of the children in these cotton-mills, it was enough to see them once to be convinced of it. The House had already evidence upon that point, which it was impossible to doubt. The necessity of this excess of labour he denied. The people at the Lanark-mills worked only 10½ hours a day; and those mills paid sufficiently, and gave employ to 3,500 1010 Mr. Secretary Peel was of opinion that the most valuable part of the present bill was the power which it gave to magistrates to enforce the provisions of the existing one. He should not oppose the clause limiting the labour; but he should have been better pleased to have had no alteration made at all as to the labour, without a commission first appointed to investigate the facts. Mr. Tulk thought the existing system one of atrocious cruelty, and would move, as an amendment, a return to the hon. member for Westminster's original proposition, eleven hours and a half for the daily labour instead of twelve. Sir F. Burdett expressed his apprehension that with that clause, the bill might be lost, perhaps, altogether. Mr. Philips believed, that the effect of reducing the hours of labour for the children would be to throw them out of employ altogether. The present complaints were got up by a most formidable combination, which called itself "The Grand Union of Operative Spinners." There were several unions formed for the purpose of raising funds to be used against their employers. An hon. friend of his said, "So they ought" [hear, hear]. He was not to be put down by "hear, hear." He was personally acquainted with the effects of those unions, and if his hon. friend knew them as well as he did, he would oppose them. He did not object to the limitation of hours in the day, if he could be convinced that it was called for by circumstances; but those circumstances had not been made out. Mr. Gordon thought, that the children should be defended, not more against the severity of their masters, than the avarice of their parents. The children were not free agents, and required the protection of the legislature as much as the slaves of the West-Indies, for whom regulations had been made, not only as to what work they should do, but what allowance of food they should receive. The fears of those who were alarmed lest the cotton trade should be destroyed by these regu- 1011 Mr. Huskisson wished to know whether Mr. Tulk would withdraw his amendment; for, after what was said as to the risk which it would occasion to the bill, no good could be answered by persevering in it. As to his own opinion, he would say that he had supported the bill, on his own view of it, and without any communication with any of the parties connected with either side of the question. HOUSE OF LORDS Thursday June 2. BURIALS IN IRELAND BILL.] The Earl of Radnor after the clerk had read the act of last session which makes provision for burials in Ireland, addressed the House in support of a bill for repealing that act. The noble lord said, that his objection to this act was founded altogether on a religious question. He then entered into a history of the introduction of the bill on which the act is founded, and of the transactions in Ireland which gave occasion to its introduction. The act which he now proposed to repeal was a protection for all sorts of heresies. The language of it was inaccurate. Referring to the act of king William, it was enacted, that the same "shall stand and be repealed." The act seemed intended to enable every sect to disturb the church. In order to correct this impropriety, he would submit to their lordships for a first reading, a bill "for regulating interments in Ireland in a more decent and orderly manner." The Earl of Liverpool said, he could not consent to such a bill. The noble lord had truly said, that this was a religious question. Whether there was any thing ungrammatical in the bill he could not say; but certainly, no measure had ever received more consideration; and it had produced public quiet and peace on a subject which had previously been a source of disturbance. The noble lord objected to the words "stand and be re- 1012 HOUSE OF COMMONS. Thursday, June 2. PRIVATE COMMITTEES—LONDON AND WESTMINSTER OIL GAS BILL.] Mr.H. Whitbread presented a petition from the directors of the London and Westminster Oil Gas Company, complaining of the manner in which that bill had been got rid of by the committee above stairs. After a long and laborious inquiry in the committee, of which he was chairman, and in which fifteen or sixteen counsel were heard from day to day, a number of persons, most of whom were interested in the Coal Gas companies, and not one of whom had attended for a single hour during the progress of the 1013 l Mr. T. Wilson concurred in the necessity of a reform in the mode in which private business was conducted in committees. Mr. W. Smith agreed, that the manner in which business was conducted, by committees above stairs called loudly for reform. So much did he disapprove of the practice pursued, that he had not entered a private committee room for many years. Mr. Tremayne concurred in the necessity of such a reform. Mr. Calcraft that the general system undoubtedly stood in need of reform; but it could not be denied that it was a matter of considerable difficulty. The practice of deciding on the merits of a question, without hearing it argued, was one of daily occurrence in that House. He by no means, however, meant to set up one vicious practice as a defence for another. He had not himself matured any plan of reform, but he thought the best precedent they could follow would be the Grenville act, the provisions of which had been found to be an effectual remedy for the abuses which prevailed in Election committees. He should recommend the appointment of a special committee by ballot, whose duty it should be to consider and report on the merits of private bills. The conduct of private committees above stairs, had given great dissatisfaction to the public. Mr. Sykes that in the present instance a measure of great public advantage had been thrown out by a majority of members, who had a direct private interest in opposing it, and who had voted against it without hearing a syllable of the evidence. He had never met with a case of more gross injustice. Mr. Littleton expressed his astonishment, that any individual, who had the slightest pretension to the character of a gentleman, or a man of common honesty, could venture to conduct himself in the manner in which some of the members of this committee had acted. That any member who had not heard a tittle of the 1014 Mr. Trant concurred in reprobating the conduct of private committees above stairs. For his part he was resolved never again to enter the door of a private committee room, until the business was put on a different footing. Mr. J. P. Grant said, he had abstained from voting on this committee, because he had been unable to attend it. Though there must be a great number of members in the House who voted on that committee, and who now heard their conduct reprobated, not one of them had ventured to contradict the statement. Mr. Bright recommended the immediate appointment of a committee. LAW OF MERCHANT AND FACTOR.]Mr. J. Smith rose to present a petition on the subject of the law of Merchant and Factor. The petition was signed by the whole of the principal merchants of London, except one, who refused to sign it, because he was unwilling to sign a petition to the House on any subject. The petitioners complained of the Operation or certain laws relating to merchant and factor, which they described as most injurious to the general interests of the commerce of this country. It had fallen to him, sometime since, to introduce a bill on this subject; but, from circumstances which occurred in another House, his object was defeated. Another measure was then introduced, applying to the same question; but it was imperfect, and wholly inefficient to remedy the evil. Mr. Serjeant Onslow thought the country was indebted to the hon. member for calling the attention of the House to this important subject. Mr. T. Wilson said, the subject was most important to the commerce of the 1015 Mr. Huskisson said, he was not at all indifferent to its importance, and if any measure should be introduced respecting it, he was disposed to give it his best consideration. Mr. Scarlett hoped, that if any measure should be introduced, it would be so intelligible as to be understood by all. For his own part, he did not understand the bill of last year. He would not object to any measure which might be for the general benefit of the commercial body; but he hoped that it would not embrace that objectionable clause, which took the entire control of a man's property from him, and gave to another the power of raising money on it. IMPRISONMENT FOR RELIGIOUS OPINIONS—PETITION OF R. CARLILE.] Mr.Brougham presented a petition from RichardCarlile, and six other individuals. The petitioners stated, that they had been prosecuted, and were immured in different prisons of the country, for not being Christians, and for stating their reasons why they were not so. They prayed that the House would rescind the various sentences which had been passed against them, and admit them to the same toleration that was enjoyed by other Dissenters. No one who knew him (Mr. Brougham) would suppose that he was inclined to patronize any species of indecent ribaldry against the institutions of the country, He considered such ribaldry to be a crime in itself, and the very worst mode of propagating any kind of opinions. For, suppose the party who held such opinions to be right, and the rest of the country to be in the wrong, the expression of then in ribald or indecent language was calculated to affront the feelings of those whom he ought to conciliate rather than offend if he wished to make them proselytes. At the same time, he thought that the law ought not to press too heavily upon them, because they appeared to be, in certain degree, enthusiasts and fanatics and toleration, as well as expediency required that they should not be subjected to that degree of punishment which would entitle them to be considered a martyrs to the principles, such as the were, that they professed. if they, had 1016 Mr. Secretary Peel agreed, that prosecutions should not be instituted on the score of religious opinions, so long as those opinions were expressed in fair and temperate language; but, he contended, that as soon as they vented themselves in scurrilous attacks on established institutions, they deserved the attention of the civil authorities. He maintained that the libels published by Carlile and his fellow, petitioners were revolting to the feelings of every moral man in the country, and were therefore properly selected for prosecution. He did not see how Carlile could be held up as an object of mercy. So far from expressing any contrition for the offence he had committed, he gloried in it, and not only boasted that he would continue to repeat it, but actually carried his boast into execution. To his sister, the mercy of the Crown had been extended; and she had shown herself not undeserving of it, by refusing to participate any further in the blasphemous publications of her brother. Mr. Monck ridiculed the idea of defending religion by prosecution. There was no law in America against blasphemy, and yet no country in the world was more free from blasphemous publications. Sir F. Burdett contended, that all prosecutions for religious opinions were inexpedient. It was agreed on all hands, that religious opinions ought to be tolerated so long as they were expressed in temperate language; but it was now argued, that as soon as those opinions were so expressed, as to disgust every honest mind, then they ought, to be visited with 1017 Mr. Brougham said, that so far was the punishment inflicted on these petitioners from having put down publications of this obnoxious character, that they were now sold openly in all parts of the town [hear]. It had been said, that if the discussion of religious truths were calmly conducted, it ought to be permitted. A wonderful admission truly; Why, where would be the use of the discussion of religion, if the argument was to be all on one side? He then pointed out the glaring inconsistency of denying to the poor the right of reading any discussion upon the truths of Christianity, and of allowing to the rich the privilege of having in their libraries the works of Gibbon, and all such writers. Mr. Hume said, that this was the only country in Europe where individuals were imprisoned for religious opinions. If our prisons continued to be filled with individuals suffering for religious opinions, England would succeed to the vacant post of inquisitor-general for Europe. Mr. Peel said, it was ridiculous to talk of the prisons of the country being filled with sufferers for religious opinions, when there were not more than eleven persons confined for blasphemous publications; and of that number five had been prosecuted since his accession to his present office. The Attorney-General contended, that the prosecutions had been effectual in suppressing blasphemous publications; and argued, that it was unfair to blame ministers for keeping these individuals in prison, when they were consigned to it by a sentence of the court of King's bench, arising out of those prosecutions. They were most of them imprisoned for 1018 Mr. Brougham did not blame the law-officers for prosecuting these individuals, but rather for leaving them unprosecuted, until their offences had risen to such a height as to be thought fit ground for altering the old statute law of the country. He blamed them for bringing down six new acts upon the country, without trying the efficacy of those which were in existence. Long before those acts were passed, Benbow had kindly offered the throats of several individuals to the knife. Why had he escaped prosecution? If any man deserved prosecution, it was that individual, but the government abstained from indicting him, and others who were equally culpable with him, in order that they might repeat their offences, and so afford a pretext for innovating upon the constitution. It had been said, that prosecutions were not instituted because juries would not convict. He had always said, that, though juries might not be inclined to convict for libels against the government, they would be ready enough to convict for libels inciting to assassination. With regard to "Palmer's Principles of Nature" he would undertake to say, that it was not half so bad as any publication of Hume or Gibbon. Voltaire's works were full of ribaldry and indecency, and yet they had not been prosecuted for corrupting the morals of the ladies and gentlemen at the west end of the town. If works of this description were to be prosecuted, the prosecutions should be directed to the works read by the rich, instead of being confined to works read exclusively by the poor. REPEAL OF THE BUBBLE ACT.] The Attorney-General rose, for the purpose of moving for leave to bring in a bill to repeal so much of the act of the 6th Geo. 1st cap. 18., commonly called the Bubble Act, as related to Joint-stock companies. He would shortly state to the House his object in introducing this bill. The act to which it related had of late excited considerable discussion in the courts of law and equity, and it appeared to be 1019 1020 Colonel Davies approved of the motion, but feared that the learned gentleman's bill might encounter opposition in another place, from a learned lord who had already 1021 Mr. Huskisson said, that the proposition of his learned friend was one which he concurred in, because he was satisfied that the interests of commerce required the proper encouragement and. protection of joint-stock companies. When the gallant member said that if lord Ellenborough's decision had not been called in question, the proposed bill would not have been necessary, he showed that by the possibility of that decision being disturbed, it was highly expedient to have the law made certain. That decision was, that all companies not prejudicial to the public interests were legal. But, where there were so many companies, was it fit that this question should be left to the consideration of the jury ? Where persons had embarked large properties in a speculation, ought they not to be guaranteed by some secure provision of the law, instead of having their interests left to the eloquence of a counsel, or to the discretion of a jury? He had no reason to doubt that lord Ellenborough's interpretation of the law was correct; but the law itself was still left in a state of uncertainty, and the object of his learned friend was, to remove that uncertainty. The impulse which had recently been given to commerce, and which would in all probability be extended much further, called for some further protection than that which existed. The mere provision, that parties should sue and be sued was not enough, as the inconveniences which were every day experienced, abundantly proved. His learned friend, in bringing in this bill, had done that for which the commercial world and the whole community would be infinitely indebted to him. Parties would in future be enabled to enter 1022 Mr. K. Douglas was glad to see this subject engaging the attention of the House. There were several companies in Scotland, which had subsisted for many years under an impression that they were legal, and without the least notion that they were incurring the penalties of an act which had become a dead letter. In sonic recent cases, however, great inconvenience had been experienced by the parties, in consequence of the objections arising under this act. The Attorney-general said, that the bill he proposed to bring in, was for the repeal of the Bubble act, which applied only to England. He believed it was intended to propose measures in the other House respecting Scotland. Mr. Denman could not agree with his gallant friend, as to lord Ellenborough's decision, because it left the law just in this state—the persons composing a company were liable to be indicted, and there were two points to be decided; the first by the jury, whether the object of the company was beneficial or injurious to the public; and the second what interpretation the judge might think fit to put upon the words of the act. Both these points were, in his opinion, very unfit to be left either to judge or jury. Since the passing of the act, only two cases had arisen upon it, in which the jury had found that the objects of the companies were beneficial; but it was nevertheless a subject which, in its nature, admitted of so much variety of opinion, that it was unfit to be left to the decision of a jury. The act to be repealed was a specimen of the inexpediency of occasional legislation. It was not passed until after the evils which, it pretended to remedy were over, and at the end of a century it was the cause of serious inconveniences, to obviate which another application to the legislature had become necessary. As to the power proposed to be given to the Crown to grant charters, he questioned the propriety of it. 1023 JUDGES' SALARIES.] The House having resolved itself into a committee on the English Judges' Salaries, The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, it would be necessary for him to explain to the committee the state in which the question was left by the last discussion. The original resolution was met by an amendment for a further increase of the salary of the lord chief justice. That amendment was lost, and the resolution was carried, comprehending an increase of salary for the chief justices, puisne judges, master of the rolls, and vice-chancellor. He proposed subsequently to make a reduction of 500 l l l l l Mr. J. Williams enlarged on the advantages of arranging the salaries and pensions, so as to induce the best men to accept the office of judges, and to leave them no temptation to remain on the bench after the decay of their faculties 1024 l l Mr. Denman thought no case had been made out for an increase of salary; but, as it was important that judges should retire when they were no longer competent to discharge their duties, he thought it necessary to make an addition to the retired allowance. Mr. Secretary Peel said, that the proposed scale of allowance was in perfect accordance with the sums granted to the lord chancellors of England and Ireland, on their retirement. Dr. Lushington thought, that an adequate allowance ought to be given to the judges, whose infirmities required that they should retire. He declared, upon his honour and conscience, that he had seen judges preside on the bench, who were totally unfit to hold the situation. And when they considered the extreme injury caused by one wrong decision, they could not be too cautious in preventing any such decisions from being pronounced. But, in cases of life and death, a judge should, above all things, be in the full and entire possession of his faculties. The increased sum proposed to be given to the judges, would be more than counterbalanced by the benefits it would confer on the community. Those who looked to economy in this way, forgot that while they were saving hundreds, they were squandering thousands upon thousands in another way. The Attorney General was induced, upon mature reflection, to support the amendment. It was of the utmost importance to take away all inducement to judges to keep on the bench when their incapacity had made their retreat a matter 1025 l Mr. J. P. Grant approved of the amendment, and said, that in Scotland they were not without instances of judges clinging to their pieces after the failure of their mental and bodily faculties. He thought fifteen years too long a period to exact, to entitle a judge to the retired allowance. Mr. Whitmore supported the amendment. Mr. Secretary Peel said, that the amendment seemed to meet the general feeling of the House, and no duty could be more gratifying than to give way on a point of this nature. The discussion proved that the inclination of the judges had not been at all consulted in bringing this measure forward. In deed, he had made a point of not communicating with any one of them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed his readiness to adopt the amendment of the hon. and learned gentleman. The scale of retired allowances for the other judges would, however, require some corresponding increase. l l HOUSE OF LORDS. Friday, June 3. UNITARIAN MARRIAGE BILL.] The Marquis of Lansdown rose, to move the second reading of this bill. He reminded their lordships, that last year he had proposed to them a bill to the same effect as the present, which had been brought up from the Commons. That bill had been thrown out on the second reading; but now a bill for the some object had passed that House without: a division in any of its stages. The present bill differed in some respects from that of last session. Much pains had been taken to improve it. Ministers of the established church had 1026 1027 The Archbishop of Canterbury said, he had voted for the bill of last session, and would give his support to the present, because its tendency was equally to relieve Unitarians and ministers of the established church. The scruples of the Unitarians he believed to be sincere; but he was chiefly anxious to remove the difficulties in which ministers of the church were involved by Unitarian marriages. By this, or some other measure, he wished to do away with that unhallowed equivocation which, sanctioned by law, now took place at the foot of the altar. The Bishop of Bath and Wells said, that having stated his sentiments at some length upon this subject when it was before the House last year, he would trouble 1028 1029 The Bishop of Lichfield considered the opinions of the Unitarians as utterly destitute of any foundation in the word of God; but still he looked upon their present complaint as well founded, and considered the bill entitled to their lordships' support, as calculated to deliver the church of England from the scandalous profanation of such a compromise at the altar. He was a friend to toleration; but he did not conceive that the present bill would operate as any encouragement to sectaries. The Lord Chancellor would be glad if any one would inform him what was meant by the word Unitarian; for, if a Unitarian was a person who denied the divinity of Christ, their;lordships, before they passed this bill, must first pass an act rendering it lawful for him so to do. His lordship referred to the act of William, to show that the denial of the divinity of our Saviour was declared to be a crime, which subjected the party guilty of it to a severe punishment. The act of toleration did not repeal the law as it stood before. It only excepted the parties, in some cases, from the consequences of that which was a crime at common law before the passing of that act..lf it was a crime at common law to deny the divinity of Christ, their lordships should begin with repealing the common law, and not with passing an act of parliament in the teeth of it. The Jews and Quakers. had marriage ceremonies of their own, and he should not be sorry to see a bill introduced, declaring their marriages to be valid; for, although they were excepted in lord Hardwicke's act, yet in a case which had lately come before him,, considerable doubts had been raised as to the validity of Quakers' marriages. He considered the doctrines of. the Unitarians as calculated to work essential mischief, and therefore called upon the House not to sanction that which the judges of Westminster-hall must deny in judgment. The Earl of Liverpool observed, that his noble and learned friend had said, that, notwithstanding the act of toleration, the 1030 1031 The Bishop of Chester said, there could be no question as to the importance of this subject to the Unitarians. If they really considered that by submitting to the ceremony of marriage in the church of England, they were brought to worship the Trinity, he certainly thought them entitled to relief. He was ready to admit their sincerity; but they were spurred on to their present complaint by a sect who called themselves "Free-thinking Christians." As, however, there was no very great grievance imposed upon their consciences, he thought they might submit for one year longer to the privation of what he considered a right. He agreed that the present measure would afford not only relief to the Unitarians, but to the clergy of the church of England; and he would therefore put the former on the same footing with the Quakers, and all the other Dissenters, before the passing of the marriage act. He was not for imposing the doctrine or the discipline of the church of England upon those who could not conscientiously entertain them; but the Unitarians were not prepared at present to give the necessary securities against clandestinity, and therefore he was impelled to oppose this bill. Lord Redesdale opposed the bill. Lord Calthorpe contended, that it was unfair to place the Unitarians on the same footing as any other Dissenters. To other Dissenters who did not deny the doctrine of the Trinity, the marriage ceremony was no hardship, but it was to Unitarians a very great one. He would not impugn the legal argument of the learned lord on the woolsack; but the present law, admitting it to be correct, afforded, in his mind, a strong reason for passing the bill. The church could not promote her true interests better than by conforming herself to the increasing knowledge of the age. Nothing could be more injurious to her than to place her in opposition to liberal ideas. The church was able to rely on her own strength, and might, without fear, appeal to the augmented learning and assiduity of her clergy, to the increased number of her churches, and to the two great Universities, which year after year sent forth distinguished champions to uphold her rank and maintain her security. He supported the measure, because it would add to the dignity and character of the church of England. 1032 HOUSE OF COMMONS. Friday, June 3. WESTERN SHIP CANAL BILL.] Lord Folkestone opposed the bringing up of the report of the Western Ship Canal Company bill, on the ground that the standing orders had not been complied with. He maintained, that the list of subscribers was, in effect, a fabricated list; the names of any persons being inserted as holders of one hundred and two hundred shares, who did not hold more than thirty and fifty; and many persons being inserted in the list as shareholders, among whom were several members of that House, who declared that they had nothing whatever to do with the speculation. For a project, requiring a capital of 1,700,000 l l The Speaker observed, that, in point of form, the report must be received, but that it would be competent to the noble lord to oppose the bill in a future stage. Lord Folkestone withdrew his opposition to the receiving of the report, but declared that he should oppose. the bill when it next came before the House. Mr. Baring trusted that the House would not be prejudiced by any thing which had fallen from the noble lord. He had never known a committee more regularly attended than that which sat on this bill; and the circumstances adverted to by the noble lord had been fully considered by the committee before they agreed to the report. Mr. Brogden thought the measure likely to be beneficial, and that though there might be some mistakes in the list of subscribers, nothing had been shown to sanction the supposition that it was a fabricated list. Sir T. Lethbridge maintained, that the standing orders had been complied with. Sir J. Yorke said, than if the names of. persons who had nothing to do with. the transaction were inserted in the list of subscribers, it was, to all intents and purposes, a fabricated list. In his opinion, the whole concern had been got up in a very suspicious manner. 1033 Sir T. Acland thought there was no ground for the supposition of the noble lord. Mr. W. Williams maintained, that the list of subscribers was got up in a way calculated to mislead the public. It was the duty of the House to discourage speculations of this description, in which petty shopkeepers and others, imagining that they would only be liable to the extent of the deposit of one pound for every hundred, were tempted to embark their little capitals, and expose themselves to utter ruin. The Speaker thought it right to observe, that there could not be a greater mistake than to suppose that persons embarking in these speculations were liable only to the extent of the deposit of one pound for every hundred pounds. By one of the standing orders it was expressly provided, that all such shareholders should be liable for the whole cent per cent. LONDON COLLEGE BILL.] Mr. Brougham said, that as, upon consideration, it appeared that the London College bill came within the description of a private bill, he should move for the discharge of the order for the second reading of the bill on Tuesday next, with the intention of taking it up as a private measure. As gross misapprehensions had gone forth on the subject, he would shortly state, what the nature of the intended bill was, and what it was not. The only object of the bill was, to enable a certain number of persons to form a corporate body, with power to sue and to be sued. Its object was not to create a joint-stock company; except in so far as it was proposed to incorporate the individuals in question by law, to enable them to transfer their shares, to sue and be sued, and to purchase lands as a corporation. It would not give power to any individual to withdraw himself from the responsibility of the whole amount of the debts that the corporation might incur. With respect to the institution itself, it was not intended to apply to parliament for any exclusive privileges; it was not intended that degrees should be given, fellowships or scholarships conferred; or, in short, any of those exclusive privileges be required, of which the two universities were at present in possession. The object of the proposed measure was, that whereas in London, there were many hundreds of 1034 l 1035 l l l l 1036 QUARANTINE LAWS BILL.] On the order of the day for the third reading, Mr. C. Grant said, he wished to make a few remarks, in consequence of the many misrepresentations that had gone abroad upon the subject. The present bill was founded upon the report of the committee of Foreign Trade, which sat last session. From what had been circulated abroad, it would seem that the committee had investigated the subject of contagion, and had denounced the established system of guarding against its introduction from abroad. So far from this being true, the bill adopted as a principle, that the present system of Quarantine laws was to be adhered to. The last committee had altogether avoided inquiry into the subject of contagion, but had taken their data from the report of the committee of 1819. That report assumed, as a datum, that a system of caution should be observed, and the recent object of inquiry was, how far the present system could be modified with advantage? The committee had gone against the advice of those medical men, who declared that contagion was not a subject of apprehension. The former punishment for violating the Quarantine laws was death; and it had struck the committee that a milder punishment would tend to the better enforcement of the law. In point of fact, the committee had recommended nothing more than had been advised by the medical gentlemen who had been consulted upon the subject. One medical gentleman was of opinion, that during six months of the year the Quarantine laws might be greatly relaxed; and others went so far as to say, that during three months they might be done away with. altogether. Dr. Granville was of opinion that sixty days, including the voyage, would afford sufficient security against that disorder. But, no matter how the opinions of the medical men varied upon certain points, upon one they were all agreed; namely, that it was right to modify and amend the 1037 Sir Isaac Coffin said, his object in rising was, to do away with the idea that the plague never manifested itself to the northward of Cape Finisterre. Every man acquainted with history must know, that the plague had made its appearance in England four times, and had swept away 116,000 persons. His own apprehensions about the possibility of its re-appearance in these parts of the world had been more than once (as we understood) seriously excited. The gallant admiral read a letter of a physician, in which the writer stated that a friend of his, a strong noncontagionist, had thought proper during his sojourn at Malta to shut himself up in the island of Gozo, when the plague had declared itself there. in a few days his temerity cost him his life. He was surprised that the same fate did not overtake Dr. Maclean, who ventured to reside in the pest-house at Constantinople, among the plague patients confined there. Mr. Secretary Canning said, he was anxious that the House should understand that the doctrine of non-contagion had not received any countenance from his majesty's ministers. The mischief which had been produced by the unreserved declarations that had been made by the disciples of this doctrine, was much greater than gentlemen were aware of. Already at Marseilles, Genoa, and Naples, a much longer quarantine was imposed on British shipping, than on the shipping of other European nations. Under these circumstances, he hoped these gentlemen would keep such opinions a little more to themselves; or, if they would continue their experiments, he trusted they would be made in corpore vili, rather than upon subjects which involved the general welfare of the community. 1038 Mr. Hume agreed that the mischief adverted to had been considerable, and he thought it was but right that ministers should do every thing in their power to contradict the opinion that had gone abroad, that our present Quarantine laws were about to be repealed. But, he had to complain that this declaration was not made when the bill was first introduced. He could not help observing on the lecture which had been read by the right hon. gentleman, to the hon. member for Westminster (Mr. Hobhouse) and others who thought with him on the subject of contagion; in respect to whom the right hon. Secretary had expressed a wish that they would keep their opinions to themselves. Now, he was himself by no means satisfied that the principle of contagion did exist, to the degree in which it had been long supposed to exist; at any rate, he believed that the discussion of the question could not be productive of any harm. With regard to the appointment of the medical officer, he thought it ought not to be left to the discretion of any one man to replace, in this respect, that system of examination which had gone on so well for so long a time. Mr. Huskisson felt assured, that if the hon. gentleman would only consider the responsibility which attached to the Board of Trade, he would see that it was desirable they should have the assistance of some officer, possessing the advantage of having visited countries where the plague raged; and whose observation and judgment might guide the board in all questions of quarantine. For his own part, he thought this sort of appointment a most important object. He regretted that reports and loose assertions had gone abroad, that government intended to do away with all precautions. He had also read in the newspapers, that a lazaretto was established in Sheerness, in consequence of the contagion having been communicated; when, in point of fact, all the crews were in perfect health. This intelligence spreading to the continent, induced foreign governments to put the Quarantine laws in force against us. Mr. Denman said, he rose merely for the purpose of stating the opinion of an individual on the subject, which might have some weight with the House. He had had the opportunity of looking over the papers of the late Dr. Baillie, and amongst them he found one which showed that he had examined the subject with 1039 MAURITIUS TRADE BILL.] On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill, Mr. Bernal said, it was proposed by this bill, to place the Mauritius sugar on the same footing with that of the growth of the West-India colonies. It was contended, that this measure would not injure the West-India planters; first, because the distance of the West Indies from this country was so much less than that of the Mauritius; and next, because the quantity of sugar grown in the latter colony was so inconsiderable. Now, it appeared from the papers laid on the table, that though at that moment the inhabitants of the Mauritius did not carry on an illicit trade in slaves, yet that they had done so up to the year 1821. This being an admitted fact, he could see no reason for granting the benefit at present proposed to those who, long after the legislature had prohibited the traffic, thought proper to indulge in it. Such a measure was very hard towards the colonists of the West-India islands, who had done their utmost to discourage the slave-trade. The island of Mauritius had, in the first instance, requested to be considered as a port within the limits of the East-India Company's charter. For five or six years they enjoyed the advantages of a free port; they then turned round, and stated, that they no longer desired to be entitled to the advantages of a free port, but that they wished to be placed on the same footing as the West-India islands. The fact was, however, that the trade of the Mauritius stood on an entirely different footing from that of the West-India colonies. He could not conceive on what principle the sugars of the Mauritius were to be admitted on the same footing as those of the West-India colonies, while the sugars of the East-Indies were in effect prohibited. Mr. W. Horton said, that at the time the Mauritius was captured, it was stipulated that they should be placed in the same situation as our other colonies. It was a mere accident that it was contained within the limits of the East-India Company's charter, and that could not take away its right to enjoy the same privileges as the West-India colonies. As to the alleged inconsistency of the inhabitants 1040 Mr. G. R. Ellis contended, that the condition of this island was regulated at the period of the peace, and ought not to be altered, unless special grounds for doing it could be shewn. He contended, on the authority of the African institution, that the slave-trade had been carried on in the Mauritius, and that the inhabitants had taken an active part in it. He gave great credit to sir R. Farquhar, for his meritorious exertions in suppressing that trade; but he attributed his success to his treaties with the native princes, and not to the co-operation of the inhabitants. What, he asked, would be the effect of this measure on the minds of the inhabitants of the West-India islands, when they saw the inhabitants of the Mauritius, who had carried on this trade in spite of the laws, rewarded for it by the government, to the ruin of the West-lndia islands? The moral effect could not be other than injurious. Mr. Huskisson said, that in the last session it had been proposed to reduce the duty on Mauritius sugar; but the answer of the West-India interest: had then been, that the Mauritius enjoyed commercial advantages in which the West-India islands did not participate. That plea was now taken away; the restrictions which had operated upon the West-India islands, and which did not affect the Mauritius, had been removed; and both interests being now, as regarded commercial ad- 1041 Mr. Bright contended, that, at the period of the capture of that colony, it was entirely commercial; now, it had become essentially agricultural; and, in a tropical climate, this great change could only have been effected by an increase of slaves. The produce of the island had, within the last five years, increased three fold; so that there must have been a slave-trade since 1820 to have produced this increase. For the assurances as to the cessation of the practice, we had the same assurances in 1816. Sir Robert Farquhar said, that the House would excuse his intruding himself on its attention, as he naturally felt a strong interest in the prosperity of a colony whose affairs he had so long administered. In 1810, he proceeded with the expedition to the capture of the Isle of Bourbon, accompanied by that meritorious officer, captain Willoughby, who had shed his blood so often in the service of the country, who distributed the proclamations which held out to the inhabit- 1042 1043 Mr. Gordon would vote for the bill, if it were postponed until 1828. Mr. Plummer opposed the bill, and moved, as an amendment, that it be read a second time that day six months. Mr. Hume was favourable to the taking off the restrictions from the trade of the Mauritius, but thought that the state of the West-India colonies should be considered also, and the duties unfavourable to those interests remitted. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Monday, June 6. Hindoo Widows—FEMALE IMMOLATION.] Mr. Hume rose, to call the attention of the House to a subject which, he regretted to say, had not been noticed in an earlier part of the session. He alluded to the government of India, per- 1044 Mr. F. Buxton said, he had been restrained from bringing this question before the House, chiefly by the political state of affairs in India. He proposed to do so in the first week of the next session. He remarked, that in five years, there had been, in the province of Bengal alone, 3,400 females burnt on the funeral piles of their husbands. The real amount, in all probability, went far beyond the official returns. Gentlemen conversant with India had assured him, that the real numbers were nearer 10,000. He feared that the conduct of government had unintentionally promoted this wickedness. To say the least, the natives had not been made acquainted with the feelings of the British legislature, by any declared disapprobation of the practice. The police of the Indian government were required to attend the burnings; but they were directed not to interfere to prevent them. This was construed into a silent acquiescence in these abominations. Now, what rendered these facts the more melancholy was, that the practice itself was not absolutely enjoined by the Hindoo religion. some of the most active of the local magistrates and judges had recorded their opinions, that the practice might be put a stop to by the mere expression of the will of the British government, and that the natives would be gratified with the change. Mr. Trant said, that haying had considerable experience in this matter, from a long residence in India, he could not refrain from giving some expression to his sentiments on this occasion. He observed, that Bengal exhibited a greater number of these sacrifices than any other province of India. It was, in fact, the chief seat of Hindoo superstition. Why it was so, he did not pretend to determine. But, sure he was, that it would be highly 1045 Mr. Wynn thought it was highly desirable to put an end to such ceremonies, or if not, to check them as much as possible. But, it was a subject which must be treated with much caution and delicacy. In. his opinion, no legislative measure could remedy the evil. Its abolition must be the work of time and circumstances. They must not think of legislating for India as if it were a confined district, to the inhabitants of which our laws, habits, and manners were perfectly familiar. If they wished to succeed, it must be by acting gently and progressively upon the feelings of the people; and this could only be done by the local authorities. Sir C. Forbes said, that when lord Wellesley was in India, he might, with one stroke if his pen, had he not been restrained, have put an end to the practice. He applauded the government of that great man in India, which was nearly as perfect in mildness, wisdom, and firmness, as could be expected from the defects of our common nature. That nobleman had put a stop to infanticide, which was as stoutly defended on the score of superstition as this horrid practice of burning widows. The case had materially altered since then. The religious jealousies of the people had been awakened. Shoals of missionaries had been allowed to go in among them; and their feelings had taken a posture of hostility which before they would not have experienced. Still, he was of opinion that the British government would do well to compel the Directors, and through them the local authorities, to interfere. It was absurd to suppose that the love of life was less powerful in the bosom of a Hindoo woman than in any other person. The sacrifices were not voluntary. They were the effect of persuasions from the Brahmins and the relatives of the women. The 1046 Sir Hyde East was convinced, that the sacrifices had been considerably increased by the repeated discussions in parliament on the subject. He attributed many of them to the growing jealousy which the natives entertained of the interference of government, and of the shoals of missionaries who had mingled with them. If these men merely preached the gospel, he would have no objection to their residence there. They might persuade the unfortunate widows that it was "better to marry than burn." Mr. W. Smith said, that so far from thinking that parliament ought not to interfere, he felt convinced that nothing effectual would be done towards quashing this abominable idolatry by the local authorities, until they were compelled by law. Mr. Hume said, that the hope of effecting the extirpation of these cruel rites by the mere disposition of the court of Directors, and their instructions to the local authorities, might be judged of from this fact—that from 1787 down to the end of 1820, there had not been one line, not even a word of disapprobation expressed by the Directors to those authorities. The first movement of the kind took place in consequence of the motion of the hon. member for Weymouth. He was convinced, that the business must be effected by a committee of that House. No half measures would do here. All that the government and the court of Directors had hitherto done, had only had the effect of legalizing the murders in the eyes of the natives. They ought first to inquire in a committee as to the safest and most efficacious means of suppressing them; and then to adopt a law for the peremptory enforcement of those means. Sir I. Coffin said, that the readiest way to lose India would be to interfere with the superstitions of the people. Sir Hyde East applauded the local authorities for their successful efforts in reducing the number of sacrifices. Mr. F. Buxton was obliged to the hon. member for doing away in his second speech with the charge which he had made in his first. He had first charged him with increasing the number of immolations: in 1047 Mr. Money said, it was in the power of the government to suppress the practice without offending the native population. He referred the House to several instances, wherein the local magistrates had, by mere persuasion, prevented the burnings. DUKE OF CUMBERLAND'S ANNUITY BILL.] On the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill, Mr. Brougham said, he should propose an amendment, with a view of affording every member an opportunity of delivering his sentiments on this subject. It had been truly said on a former night, that there never was a question on which the general feeling of the country was more completely in unison with the opinion which the House had twice recorded, and which they were now in effect called upon to retract. The ground on which the question stood was simple, obvious, and capable of being stated in a very few words. They were not now called upon to consider the adequacy or the inadequacy of the provision formerly granted to the duke of Cumberland, but they were called upon, by an indirect, circuitous, and by no means a frank, candid, or honourable way, to rescind a former vote of that House. If any member thought that vote a wrong vote, he might have called upon the House to review its decision, and retrace its steps. That would have been a manly, candid, and honest way of proceeding. If any member still thought so, let him now, in God's name, stand up and say so. He doubted whether there was a member in that House who would do so. He had no doubt of the way in which the House would dispose of such a motion; but, if any hon. member took that course, it would at least be a fair, manly, and direct course. But, let not any man vote for a provision for the duke of Cumberland by a side wind. If no man had the manliness to attempt to get rid of the former vote in a plain, direct, and honest way, let not the House be ensnared into a reversal of their former decision, under the flimsy pretext of a provision for the child of the duke of Cumberland. He should move therefore, as an amendment, "that the House do resolve itself into the said committee upon that day six months." 1048 Mr. Coke thought it was preposterous to demand an annuity of 6,000 l. l Mr. Davenport thought the House would be guilty of gross inconsistency, if they now voted for a proposition which they had twice before rejected. This child for whom an annuity of 6,000 l Mr. H. Sumner said, that if this vote were agreed to, he could look upon it in no other light than as a retractation of the votes given some years since. In opposing the present vote he felt a great degree of delicacy, became he was actuated by motives, the grounds of which he could not, with propriety, develope to those whom he now addressed. If the duke of Cumberland, chose to settle abroad, a grant might be made for the education of his son in this country. But, in that case, 2,000 l l l Mr. J. Benett congratulated the House on the burst of honest indignation which this grant had excited. When he saw gentlemen of different political sentiments uniting on a question of this nature, it almost made him doubt the necessity of a parliamentary reform. Sir G. Warrender said, that when the grant to the duke of Cumberland was be- 1049 Sir J. Sebright said, let this question be placed on its true grounds, and what did the proposition amount to but this—to give the duke of Cumberland 6,000 l l The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that the proposition was not made on the ground that the present income of the 1050 l Sir J. Sebright said, his expression was, that where only a necessary provision was called for, he would not look to the personal conduct of the individual; but that where more was demanded he certainly would. Mr. T. Wilson said, he would vote for the grant, on the ground of confidence in the government. Here was a prince born, in whom they must all take a deep interest; and he conceived that every means should be afforded for his proper education. 1051 List of the Minority. Abercromby, hon. J. Knatchbull, sir. E. Acland, sir T. Knight, R. Allen, J. H. Lamb, hon. G. Baring, A. Langston, J. H. Bennett, J. Lester, B. L. Bernal, R. Leycester, R, Bernard, T. Lloyd, sir E. Birch, J. Lushington, S. Blake, sir. F. Macdonald, J. Bright, H. Mahon, hon. S. Brougham, H, Marjoribanks, S. Burdett, sir F. Martin, J. Buxton, T. F. Maule, hon. W. Calcraft, J. Maxwell, John. Calcraft, J. H. Monck, J. B. Calvert, C. Mostyn, sir T. Chaloner, R. Newman, R. W. Chetwynde, G. Normanby, visct. Coffin, sir I. Ord, W. Coke, T. W. Osborne, lord F. Coke, T. W. jun. Palmer C. F. Colburne, N. R. Parnell, sir H. Corbett, P. Pelham, J. C. Creevey, T. Phillips, G. Crompton, S. Phillips, G. H. Davenport, D. Poyntz, W. S. Davies, T. Pryse, Pryse. Denison, W. Pym, F. Denman, T. Rice, T. S. Drake, T. T. Rickford, W. Drake, W. T. Robarts, A. W. Dundas, C. Rowley, sir W. Dundas, hon. T. Rumbold, C. Ebrington, visct. Scarlett, J. Ellice, E. Scott, J. Ellison, C. Sefton, earl of Evans, W. Smith, S. Fane, J. Smith, W. Fergusson, sir R. C. Smith, hon. R. Fitzroy, lord J. Sumner, H. Foley, J. H. H. Sykes, D. Frankland, R. Tavistock, marquis Gaskell, B. Tennyson. C. Glenorchy, visct. Tierney, right hon. G. Gordon, Rt. Townshend, lord C. Grant, J. P. Tremayne, J. H. Grattan, J. Western, C. C. Griffith, J. W. Wharton, J. Guise, sir B. W. Whitbread, S. C. Hamilton, lord A. Whitmore, T. Heron, sir R. Williams, W. Hobhouse, J. C. Williams, sir R. Hume, J. Williams, J. Hurst, R. Wood, ald. Ingleby, sir W. Wrottesley, sir J. James, W. TELLERS. Johnstone, col. Duncannon, lord King, hon. H. Sebright, sir J. On our re-admission to the gallery, the House being then in a committee on the bill, we found Mr. Brougham on his legs. He said, that there was upon the face of the bill an evident inconsistency, inasmuch as it 1052 l l l 1053 l l Sir C. Forbes said, the learned gentleman had thrown out an insinuation, as if he had said that with closed doors, which he would not say with the doors open. He was ready to acknowledge that he spoke to the House, and not to the newspapers; and he thought, if that mode were generally adopted, the House would have shorter speeches and more business. If the learned gentleman meant, however, that he had taken an opportunity of saying with the doors shut what he would not say with open doors, he would say for himself, that he was as incapable of doing that as any member of the House. In his opinion, the duke of Cumberland would not have justice done him unless he received all the arrears of the 6,000 l The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he had stated, that it was bonâ fide the intention of government that the prince should be educated in England, and he had given a proof of the sincerity of this statement, by shewing that he was prepared for introducing into the bill a clause for this purpose. With the same view, he felt no indisposition to insert in the grant that it was to be confined to the minority of the young prince; for the 1054 l l Mr. H. Sumner disclaimed all intention of expressing any hostile feeling towards the duke of Cumberland, or of throwing out any insinuations against him. He would, however, support the amendment. Mr. Brougham contended, that as the law now stood, the power was vested in the king, of controlling and directing the education of the prince, and that giving the sum he had proposed to his majesty, would not alter the law. The children of prince George were taken from under his Control in the reign of George 2nd, and ten out of twelve of the judges then held that this was agreeable to the law of the land, on the ground, that the king had the control over all his issue, as long as they were minors. The late king also had exercised a control over the education of the princess Charlotte. She was taken from the mother, not from the paternal right being stronger than the maternal, but from the king's power extending to all his offspring, of which he was to have the custody. The clause he proposed, did not alter the law, nor imply that the king should exercise the right of directing where the prince should live, any more than he did under the present law. He prayed the House to consider what they were about to do. Their avowed object was to provide for the education of 1055 Mr. Secretary Canning said, that the proposition made by the chancellor of the Exchequer was so fair and liberal, that he did not see upon what grounds the House could refuse to concur in it. He had stated, that the purpose of the grant was solely for the education of the son of the duke of Cumberland, and that in order to make this more secure, he would consent to the introduction of any words which would suffice to render that intention more clear. It was difficult, perhaps impossible, to say what degree of confidence or distrust was to be exercised towards the father in that child's education, without entering into a subject which was at once painful and delicate. It would be inexpedient, on all accounts, to do this. The persons who thought thus must give effect to their opinions by their vote; for nothing in the course of the discussion could be expected to turn them. But it was at the same time not to be expected that those who avowed no such distrust of the duke of Cumberland,—nay, more than distrust, dislike—nay, more than dislike, persecuting detestation; should conform to the opinions of others. What might be the ground for those hostile feelings, he could not pretend to say; but those who voted for taking the education of the son out of the hands of his father, and for diminishing the amount of the allowance, were only bringing to the test the opinions which had been so lavishly avowed towards the duke of Cumberland. The justice of those opinions was not a fit subject for discussion in that House. Every man must act as he pleased, and it was in vain to attempt to combat by argument what had not been fairly brought forward as substantial objections. Beyond the concessions which the government had already made, it was impossible to go. His majesty's ministers had no right to inflict upon the duke of Cumberland an opprobrium, which, if he could have deserved, they would have forgotten their duty to the country in bringing his name before the House [hear, hear]. So 1056 Mr. Brougham rose, just to submit, that whatever might be the case with respect to the decisions of the House, it would be no breach of privilege to comment upon the conduct of a committee. Then, having a right to observe on what had passed, he did feel himself bound to declare, that there never had been a vote, in his opinion, passed by any committee less calculated to raise that committee in the estimation of the country, than that which had just declared in favour of giving 6,000 l l l l l l l l 1057 l Mr. T. Wilson complained of the freedom with which the learned gentleman had attacked the committee, and thrown dirt upon every individual who had voted 1058 Mr. Brougham assured the hon. gentleman that he did not allude to him in what he had said; because he thought him the wisest, the honestest, and the most patriotic individual upon that side of the House. HOUSE OF LORDS. Tuesday, June 7. LAW OF MERCHANTS BILL-PRINCIPAL AND FACTOR.] The Earl of Liverpool rose, to move the second reading of this bill. In the first place, he wished to call their lordships' attention to a petition in favour of the alteration in the law now proposed to be made. That petition was signed by almost all the respectable merchants of the city of London—by persons who represented every kind of commercial interest; so that there never had been among merchants a more general concurrence in favour of any measure. It was now his duty to call their lordships' attention to the question which this bill involved. The subject was somewhat abstruse, and to a person who, like himself, was little acquainted with the details of commerce, presented some difficulties. He should, however, endeavour to state as briefly as possible the general grounds on which be wished to recommend the bill to their lordships' consideration. It was to be expected, in the present state of the trade of this country, that many cases would arise, in which the operation of laws enacted at an early period would prove embarrassing—laws which, however proper and politic in their origin, had become totally incompatiblewith the present complicated state of commerce and society. Nevertheless, in any alteration of the law, their lordships would take care not to give their sanction to any thing inconsistent with the general principles of equity, or the existing relations of commerce. With regard to the law of merchant and factor, if the mere principle of the contract of these parties with each other were considered, there could be no doubt that the agent ought to be bound to the principal: but, a new question 1059 1060 1061 The Lord Chancellor thought that the first question to be disposed of was, whether this company was a legal company or not. It. was confessed on all hands, that its legality could not be supported before it had. executed the deed of partnership. It was still a question whether the execution of that deed made it legal. If it was not legal, their lordships, by hearing evidence of its utility, would acknowledge that on that ground they were about to make a law, granting privileges to an illegal body, to enable it to serve the public., It was a totally different question whether, if they applied to be made a legal body, the House would agree to a bill for that purpose. They assumed that they were a legal body in coming before the House, and on that ground they asked the privilege of suing and being sued by their officers. Their lordships ought, therefore, first to determine whether this pretension was founded in truth. With regard to the hearing of evidence against the conduct of the pawnbrokers, an objection of another kind 1062 The Earl of Lauderdale concurred in this opinion. Lord Dacre thought, that by proving its public utility, it would establish a claim to the privileges which it solicited. Mr. Fonblanque the recorder of London, and Mr. Andrews, were then heard on the part of the pawnbrokers. After which a conversation ensued between their lordships, on the course which ought now to be pursued. The Lord Chancellor gave it as his opinion, that the evidence tendered on the part of the company ought not to be received. The Duke of Atholl said, he hoped that something might be done for the poor, whose interests the bill professed to consult. It might be liable to objections, but its object was benevolent. He could not concur in the coarse charges thrown out against its supporters, in which they were treated as little better than swindlers. He had looked at the names subscribed to the deed, and he found them honourable. In proposing to reduce the interest of money lent on pledges to the poor one half, they would do a public service. The Earl of Lauderdale said, that the company did not propose to lower the interest on their advances so much as the noble duke had stated. He, likewise, had looked over the names of the subscribers; and he could cite two foreign gentlemen for whose respectability, probably, the noble duke would feel a little difficulty in vouching, who owned more of the stock than the whole Board of Directors. The Lord Chancellor informed the counsel that the evidence tendered to prove the beneficial nature of the company could not be received. He then asked the counsel for the bill, whether 1063 HOUSE OF COMMONS. Tuesday, June 7. CONSTITUTION OF COMMITTEES ON PRIVATE BILLS.] Mr. Littleton said, that after all they had lately heard respecting the conduct of Committees on Private Bills, he was satisfied the House would receive favourably any attempt to remedy so great and so universally admitted an evil. With that view, it was his intention to submit to the attention of the House a measure, which he thought would place the private business of the House upon a footing favourable to the House itself, and advantageous to the interests of the country [hear, hear!]. He would, therefore, move, "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the constitution of Committees on Private Bills, and to report their observations and opinion thereon to the House." Mr. S. Bourne seconded the motion. He considered that the great fault of Private Committees was their being so numerous. He trusted that in future they would more resemble juries of the country, sitting to decide on the rights of their fellow-subjects. Sir I. Coffin thought a rule ought to be made, that no member should vote in any committee, who had not attended the whole of the discussion. WRITS OF ERROR BILL.] Mr. Secretary Peel said, he rose to move for leave to bring in a bill for the purpose of placing obstructions in the way of parties suing out frivolous writs of error. Under the existing practice, it was open to parties against whom a judgment was obtained, to sue out a writ of error, in order to supersede the judgment, or to gain delay. It would be found, that in the years 1817, 1818, and 1819, the number of writs of error sued out of the Court of King's-bench into the Exchequer chamber, amounted to 1,197. Of these writs, there were 158 on which no proceedings had been taken. There were 702 where the judgments were affirmed; and 336 where the proceedings were very soon abandoned. 1064 DUTY ON SOAP AND TALLOW.] Mr. Sykes rose, to call the attention of the House to the Duty on Soap and on Tallow Candles. He was quite ready to confess his concurrence in the general principle of the financial arrangements for the year. It was by no means his intention to disturb those arrangements. All that he required the House to do was, to agree to a pledge, that whenever circumstances would permit, they would reduce the duty to which he had alluded. He really felt that he could not go down to the country without being able to tell his constituents that something, however little, had been done by parliament to relieve their burthens. If he were to tell them that the duty on wine had been diminished, they would answer "The poor drink no wine." If he were to say, that the duty on spirits had been reduced, they would reply, "We have no wish to burn up our livers; give us clean hands and clean linen; and we leave to others red noses and bloated bodies." It had always been the opinion of the wisest statesmen, that those taxes ought to be the soonest repealed which pressed most on the industry of the people. The duty on salt and leather had been diminished, because those articles were necessaries of life; but the duty on soap and candles still remained, although the expediency of repealing them rested precisely on the same grounds. It was one of the great vices of all taxes of this kind, that a much larger sum was wrung from the consumer than went into the Exchequer. The expense of collection and the mode of collection were both evils; but the greatest evil of all was the encouragement which the high duty gave to contraband trade. Smuggling was an 1065 l l 1066 The Chancellor of the Exchequer in answer to what the hon. gentleman had said of the expediency of diminishing taxation, would observe, in the first place, that taxes to the amount of 1,500,000 l 1067 l l lbs lbs Mr. Hume complained, that the chancellor of the Exchequer had mis-stated the data of all the calculations he had just been making, and of the inferences which be had drawn from them. The right hon. 1068 Mr. Alderman Wood put in a strong claim for the proposed measure, on the part of the Cornish miners, who were obliged to work day and night by candlelight. If the right hon. gentleman could throw away 6,000 l Lord A. Hamilton bore witness to the extent of the illicit trade, in consequence of the tax upon tallow. The tax was also extremely objectionable, from the disproportion between the sum levied, and the amount paid into the Exchequer. DELAYS IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY.] Sir F. Burdett moved, pursuant to notice, "That an humble address be presented to his majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, the evidence already taken by the commissioners 1069 Mr. Secretary Peel said, he would briefly state the reasons which induced him to oppose the proposition. He resisted it solely upon public grounds, and without the intervention of any personal feeling. He hoped that the time would come when the whole of the evidence taken by the commissioners might be laid upon the table; for a report of opinion merely, with out accompanying testimony, would certainly not be satisfactory. If the inquiry could be concluded in the present month,it might be presented, but not printed until next session. He believed it was without precedent for the House to call upon the Crown to present evidence merely, unaccompanied by any explanation or report of opinion; and unless some strong ground were laid, he should consider it an unnecessary interference with the course of proceeding marked out by the Crown, and not yet completed. He contended that no public object could be gained by complying with the motion. If the evidence that had been taken could be laid upon the table, no public measure could be founded upon it this year. The commission had sat 70 days, and had examined 45 witnesses; so that some time must elapse in copying out that evidence in a state to be presented to the House. When presented, it must be printed; and when printed, it could not be weighed and digested in a moment; so that the adoption, or even the proposition, of any measure founded upon it was out of the question. He considered the inquiry as a most important one, and he utterly disclaimed any opposition founded on the mere purpose of preventing investigation. Indeed, it was his hope, that before long some efficacious remedy would be proposed for these delays; which, without attributing the slightest personal blame to any individual, he could not but confess, as an honest man, was highly necessary [hear, hear!]. It was his belief, that the report of the commissioners would be produced very early, and that it would prove to be ample in every particular of a case which centered within itself such immense importance. He had had very lately a communication with the noble and learned individual, who might, perhaps, be supposed to feel most interested in the question; and he could assure the House, that he found, on the part of the lord chan- 1070 Sir F. Burdett observed, that so long a time had elapsed since the commencement of these inquiries, that it became highly important that something should be done. The object that he had in view was, that another year should not be wasted without any thing being done. He did not mean to impute any blame to the commissioners; for he felt that their time was so much occupied with extraneous matter, that it was impossible for them to devote themselves sufficiently to the inquiry. But, when he said that, he must add, that he had not expected any thing at their hands; more especially when he found the lord chancellor at their head; who, he must say, without intending to impute any sinister motives to that learned lord, appeared to him to be the unfittest person in the world to place at the head of a commission to inquire into evils which for so many years he had seen growing under his eye, and which, therefore, he would be the less likely to consider as 1071 1072 1073 Mr. Hurst said, that his family had long been engaged in a suit which they had at length recovered; but out of every 10 l l Mr. W. Smith complained of the practice of the court of Chancery from his own experience. His father had called him to him on his death-bed, and told him, that he was happy to inform him that, in the course. of that week, a very long law-suit that he had had, had come to a termination by the death of his opponent. This suit, be it observed, had lasted two and-thirty-years [hear!]. Mr. Secretary Peel said, he would willingly lay before the House a copy of the commission, by which the hon. baronet would at once sees the extent of its powers, and the variety of matters which it had to inquire into. He hoped, there- 1074 Mr. Denman observed, that the circumstance to which the right hon. gentleman had last alluded was, in fact, favourable to the present motion. The bill of which he had spoken was not founded on the report of any commission, but was brought in on account of the notoriousness of the evil which it was meant to correct. Now, those who supported the present motion, knew that the evils of the existing system in Chancery were notorious, and they wished, independent of that notoriety, to have formal evidence of the fact before them, without waiting for a report. The right hon. gentleman was willing to favour the House with the terms in which the commission was appointed. The commissioners were to inquire into the practice and the process of the court of Chancery. Of these terms he complained, because they were not sufficiently explicit. It might be true, that no such proceeding as that now submitted by his hon. friend, had ever before been resorted to in that House: but, the question was, whether the circumstances did not fully justify it? Was there ever a case, when the practice of the court of Chancery was touched, which did not induce gentlemen to start up and charge that court with delay and ruinous malversation? An hon. member had stated, that he had been charged nearly 8 l s d l 1075 1076 1077 l Mr. Peel it explanation, said, he had only seen the lord chancellor for the purpose of ascertaining the probability of the commissioners making a report at an early period. His lordship, had not the 1078 Mr. W. Courtenay said, that he was quite ready to admit the importance of the subject now before the House; and his object would be, before he sat down, to state the case as it really existed. In doing that, he was aware that it must be dull and disagreeable to several hon. gentlemen; and he had, therefore, to hope for the usual courtesy, while detailing the course of inquiry confided to the commissioners, from whose exertions he anticipated much greater benefits to flow than seemed to be calculated upon by hon. gentlemen at the other side of the House. He wished the House to see the matter fairly and impartially, and not to look at it with prejudiced or jaundiced eyes; and he was sure, that if he could succeed so far, he would be able satisfactorily to state, first, the effects of the inquiry intrusted to the commissioners; secondly, the progress they had already made; and, thirdly, the remedies which they felt themselves called upon to propose. When first these matters were brought before the notice of the House, they heard great complaints of the delays in the House of Lords and the court of Chancery. For himself, be never denied the existence of some abuses in the court of Chancery, although he had resisted the appointment of a committee of that House to inquire into them. But, why had he done so? Because such a mode of inquiry could lead to no useful or beneficial result; and, therefore, he felt it his duty to oppose it. Besides, it had, for a long time, been the fashion, as it were, to look at this question in that confined point of view which lawyers too often adopted, while no one, who fairly and comprehensively viewed the matter, could deny, that the complaints made against the court of Chancery were of such a nature as to show that remedy should rather be applied to particular parts, than to any general alteration of its powers or constitution. Petitioners stated, and they stated very truly, that they were engaged in a suit for many years; that the expenses they incurred were heavy; that they suffered in their pockets and their time; that the forms of proceeding tended to their injury: but it was only of late days that some hon. gentleman broadly stated, not that these 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 Dr. Lushington expressed his intention of supporting the motion, and said, that in all he had heard from his brother commissioner, he saw no reason to depart from the true and universal principle, that publicity was in all cases calculated to elicit the truth. He wished that the evidence should be published, in order that it might undergo a full discussion in every possible shape, by pamphlets, reviews, and otherwise; because this discussion would, among its other good effects, afford assistance to the commissioners themselves, and the more the subject was examined, the more likely was it that the great object of the inquiry would be obtained. He was anxious also that it should be produced, that it might prove that the commission had been mindful of their duty, and had discharged with faithfulness and impar- 1084 1085 1086 Mr. Lockhart thought, it would be better to wait till the whole evidence was taken and the report drawn up, before any part of it was published. The House would then have before it the remedy suggested for the abuses, if any. Mr. Abercromby said, that if the House was sincere in wishing for a reform :of abuses, they would vote for the motion. It had been stated by several members, that no harm could come from publishing the evidence, while he, and those who voted with him contended, that much good would arise from making it known. By now publishing the evidence, the House would save a whole year. It would also spew the public what the commission had been doing, and enable them, by sifting it, to come to a just conclusion. It was idle to say, that any reform would ever be effected, unless the public pressed it. Inquiry had been postponed as long as possible. It was the public who had forced it on, and it was the public who would effect the reform. The people took a deep interest in it, for many of their most valuable interests were involved in it. Let the public, then, have the evidence; let them sift it; let them see where the evil lay; and let them elicit the truth amidst those discrepancies which were said to exist. He was quite convinced, that upon this subject no man could give a better or sounder opinion than lord Eldon. As far as high attainments in his profession went, that judge was inferior to none. But here he must stop. The loudest complaint which had. been made— others, if they would, might call it clamour, but he called it reasonable and well-founded complaint—was against lord Eldon himself, and the manner in which he administered the justice of his court. The gravamen of the numerous petitions on this subject was the inconvenience which suitors experienced, in consequence of the practice of putting causes day after day in lord Eldon's paper, purporting to contain, the business of each day, and which causes did not come on. They were postponed over and over again, and each postponement was attended with a considerable expense; and even when causes had been decided, the judgment was delayed sometimes for weeks, sometimes for months, sometimes for years. These were-among the heavy complaints made against lord Eldon, and he asked whether the commissioners had examined into them? Whether any thing 1087 Sir M. W. Ridley said, it was not the court of Chancery alone which required reform. Let the House look also to the court of Exchequer, and the other courts; for they all required to be looked after. He had had a cause twelve years in the court of Exchequer. He had then got a decree in his favour, and gained by it 40 l l l Mr. James said, that the court of equity ought to be called a court of robbery, and that there could be no reasonable hope of its being reformed until the House itself should be reformed. Mr. Brougham said, that having so lately had an opportunity of delivering his sentiments on this subject, he did not now intend to detain the House. With respect to the lord chancellor he would say, that in the amiability of his habits, and in his courteous manner in all public business, he far surpassed every other judge, from the highest to the lowest, that he had ever seen. This it was that caused him to feel, whenever it was his duty to make any charge against lord Eldon, a considerable pain at being obliged to use harsh expressions against one, who never used harsh expressions to any one. He spoke of him as a judge not as a politician. He had heard the late sir S. Romilly over and over again avow the same repugnance, 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 Dr. Lushington explained. He believed he might state it as a fact, that the lord chancellor had been present only on two out of the forty days of the examination. Undoubtedly, the point to which his learned friend principally adverted had not yet been considered in the commission. The reason was, that it was necessary to follow up the investigation in the order of the instructions to the commission, commencing with an inquiry into the practice of the court of Chancery, and then seeing if, on any public ground, the conduct of the lord chancellor could be justly made a subject of separate consideration. The inquiry was not closed; and when that part of the question came to be investigated, he could assure his learned friend, that no cause papers, which might be necessary for its illustration, should be wanting. His learned friend had adverted to a question put to a witness, who was then ordered to withdraw, and to whom, on his return, the question was not repeated. He was not aware of such an occurrence. But, the question of the cause of the delays in judgment had been put over and over again. On that point it was impossible to go further, without changing the investigation from a fair, honest; impartial inquiry, into an inquisitorial proceeding. Mr. Tindal claimed, for the commissioners, the edit of an honest, faithful, and careful inquiry into the merits of the case. They had gone on gradually, but surely; and they were still going on. Although it was impossible that they could say they would make their report on any given day, yet it certainly was his own entire belief, that the report would be ready to be presented to his majesty before the commencement of the next session. What was there, then, to induce the House to accede to a proposition so completely at variance with all precedent, as to call for the evidence on which a report was to be founded, before the report itself was in readiness? if the present motion were agreed to, how could the commissioners proceed unbiassed and unfettered? There was another important consideration. If the evidence were now to be proclaimed to the world, such a step would provoke communications from all quarters; some in the shape of answers to the evidence, others in the shape of statements of opinion. If the commissioners were to receive these communications, where would be the end of their labours? If they re- 1094 Mr. Secretary Canning said, he was desirous of shortly stating the grounds on which his vote in opposition to the motion was founded. Throughout the whole of the very able and very entertaining speech of the learned member for Winchelsea there prevailed one error. It was of such a nature that, when exposed, the whole fabric of the learned gentleman's argument must fail to the ground. The learned gentleman seemed to think, that the commission was instituted by the House, and that it was considered by the country, as a criminal inquiry. No such thing. He was sure that no man in that House voted for the appointment of the commission with that view; and he was equally sure that it was not considered in that view by the members of the commission themselves. The learned gentleman bad talked of its having been in former times the usage of the House and of the country, cautiously to avoid all inquiry into systems, and to look for errors in men alone; and of its being the usage in the present times to avoid all inquiry respecting men, and to search for errors in systems only. He (Mr. Canning) was quite convinced, that there was no desire in any quarter, to shield any man if guilty of improper conduct. But, what he and the House and the country understood it to be the duty of this commission was, not to pronounce on the guilt or innocence of individuals, but to put the House in possession of the result of their inquiries; in order that the House might determine whether it was tile system itself; or the administration of it, which was faulty. The learned gentleman assumed, that it 1095 1096 1097 List of the Minority. Abercromby, hon. J. Leader, W. Allan, J. H Lloyd, sir E. Benett, Lushington, S. Bentinck, lord W. Maberly, W. L. Bernal, R. Macdonald, J. Birch, J. Marjoribanks, S. Blake, sir F. Martin, J. Brougham, H Maule, hon. W. Byng, G. Milbank, Mark Calcraft, J. Monck, S. B. Calthorpe, hon. A. Newman, R. W. Calvert, N. Normanby, viscount Carter, J. Palmer, C. F. Cavendish, C. Poyntz, W. S. Cavendish, H. Price, Rt. Cavendishion G. Pym, F. Chaloner, R. Rickford, W. Coke, T. W. Robarts, A. W. Creevey, T. Robinson, sir G. Davies, T. Rowley, sir W. Denison, W. J. Russell, lord W. Denman, T. Rumbold, C. Duncannon, viscount Scott, J. Dundas, hon. T. Sebright, sir J. Ellice, E. Sefton, earl of Fergusson, sir R. Smith, W. Fitzgerald, rt. hon. M. Taylor, M. A. Foley, J. H. H. Townshend, lord C. Gaskell, B. Wall, C. B. Gordon, R. Western, C. C. Grant, J. P. Whitbread, S. C. Griffith, J. W. Whitmore, W. Guise, sir W. Wilson, sir R. Hamilton, lord Wood, M. Hobhouse, J. C. Wrottesley, sir J. Hume, J. Hurst,J TELLERS. James, W. Burdett, sir F. Knight, R. Williams, John HOUSE OF COMMONS. Thursday, June 9. FLOGGING IN THE NAVY.] Mr. Hume said, that having, in the course of the last session, called the attention of the House to the subject of Flogging in the Navy, he had intended to follow the same course, but in a different form, at an early part of the session, but was prevented by the pressure of business. Instead of a committee to consider the subject, his present 1098 1099 l. s. s. l. l. 1100 Sir F. Burdett seconded the motion. Sir G. Cockburn thought he had some reason to complain of the hon. gentleman's want of courtesy, in not apprizing him that it was his intention to introduce into this great national question a personal charge against himself; in which case he would have been prepared to rebut it. He really could not recollect all the circumstances that occurred to him five-and-twenty years ago, but he remembered that it was about that time that a reform was beginning to take place in the discipline of the navy. Previous to that period, it was the practice for the boatswains and boatswains' mates to carry sticks, for the purpose of immediately starting any of the men. The only point that he recollected, with reference to the subject, was, that he had given instructions that that practice should be discontinued on board the ship which he commanded, and that a lieutenant who had disobeyed those instruc- 1101 l. s. s. l. 1102 1103 Sir I. Coffin opposed the motion from a conviction of its impolicy. He was not disposed to attach much credit to the hon. gentleman's opinion on maritime affairs, and would recommend him to remember, the old saying "Ne sutor ultra crepidam." Mr. Robertson said, that the want of discipline in the naval service more often arose from a want of qualification in the officers, than from misconduct in the men. He had been in a ship of the worst possible equipment as to crew; but in which the men had been kept in subordination without any corporal punishment. Sir Joseph Yorke protested, that the punishment inflicted upon seamen, arose solely from the necessities of the service, and that it was administered cautiously and conscientiously, and not according to passion and caprice. Punishment might be more formally inflicted by sentences of the courts of law, and the regular tribunals; but it was impossible it could be inflicted with more deliberation and decorum than it was upon the quarter deck of a man of war. The charges of cruelty and of caprice, amounted to an attack upon a highly-meritorious and gallant class of individuals, the officers of the navy. Were naval officers less sensible than other men of the influence of reason and humanity? And how but upon the notion of their insensibility could such a question as this be supported? As to the crews, he did not deny but some two-thirds were good: of the remainder he would from his professional experience declare, that so far from moral lectures about personal character operating upon them, they might as well talk to pigs. Some of them were as insensible as brutes, 1104 Sir F. Burdett said, that the subject was one of a highly serious nature, involving matters of great national importance. However brilliant the faculty of wit might be which any member possessed, it should not be displayed on so grave an occasion. To say the least, there was bad taste in being facetious upon questions which affected the sufferings of others. The best defence which could be set up for such jocularity was, that the speaker, like the gallant admiral who had just sat down, had been carried away by the flow of animal spirits, Now, as he understood the question, his hon. friend merely proposed to do that which had been the declared opinion of many able and intelligent men. The alterations which he proposed had been over and over again recommended, by captains, commanders, and other experienced persons; nor had one single statement of his hon. friend received the slightest answer. His hon. friend contended that there was no necessity to engage force on the side of government to man the fleets, if they would only proceed by the known motives of human conduct; namely, by holding out sufficient inducements for those who were to be invited to encounter the perils which hung upon the lives of those devoted to the maritime defence of the country. What was there to which any man could seriously object in this? And on what a mis-timed occasion did the argument of public economy, the only one which could be rationally opposed to it, occur? The ministers were pompous in their description of our growing resources and increasing mercantile prosperity. To hear them talk, one might be led to suppose that the Treasury was overflowing with wealth, and that the difficulty was in finding proper objects on whom to bestow it. When the House reflected upon what the government had thought proper to do, with respect to augmenting the salaries of the judges, and of another high personage; when they reflected that these augmentations were only the precursors of similar impositions upon the public, he was at a loss to conceive how 1105 1106 1107 1108 Sir George Clerk thought, that the hon. mover ought to have laid before the House some specific plan of amendment in our naval system, before he ventured to propose that which had been truly designated as a question which involved the whole interests of the navy. This he had not done, and therefore he should oppose the motion. The hon. baronet proceeded to point out the mistakes made by the hon. mover, with respect to the articles of war, and contended that even if the whole act of Geo. 2nd were repealed, still the captain would, by the common law possess the power of flogging his men, for the preservation of discipline. He next adverted to the inconvenience of holding a court-martial in a ship upon every offence of disobedience, drunkenness, or petty theft, committed by the sailors, and observed, that if such a system were established, the number and severity of the punishments would be much increased. At present, the captain inflicted punishment upon his own responsibility, and subject to the opinions of the board of Admiralty, who inspected the monthly returns with great caution, But, let the punishment be once inflicted by court-martial, and the case would be altered. The captain would not be responsible, and as the offences complained of were almost always against the officers on duty, and not against the captain himself, the officers would take care to punish the offenders in every case. It was proposed to delay punishment. It was at present delayed more than twenty-four hours after the commission of the offence" and then it was attended with the greatest solemnity; the ship's company were called up, the articles of war were read, and the punishment was then publicly inflicted. It was said by the hon. baronet that beardless boys had the power of inflicting such punishment. He could only assure him that no such case had come to the knowledge of the Admiralty, and that if it had it would have been visited with deserved severity. He had never heard 1109 s. d. l. Sir F. Ommaney said, that the hon. mover had persuaded the House to repeal the combination laws, and now every town in the kingdom swarmed with insubordinate workmen standing out against their employers. He complained of the injustice done to all the gallant officers of the navy by this motion. As to prize money and wages, it was quite plain that the seamen and petty officers had more by half than they could spend. At a 1110 Mr. Hume in reply, observed, that the very able speech of the hon. baronet (sir F. Burdett) left him scarcely any thing to add. He, however, wished to observe, that if allowed to bring in his bill, he would lay before the House such documents as would make a case to satisfy those who opposed him upon this occasion. Mr. Sykes bore testimony to the evils occasioned by impressment. Murders, assaults, and other offences, were frequently caused by it. A workman in his employ had left his axe at a distance, and two of his sons having played with it, the one cut off two fingers from the right hand of the other. The father was greatly grieved, but at length he consoled himself by the reflection, that the boy, when grown up, could not be impressed into the navy. List of the Minority. Allen, J. A. Hutchinson, C. H. Bernal, R. James, W. Blake, sir F. Lushington, Dr. Burdett, sir F. Monck, J. B. Cole, sir C. Newport, sir John Evans, Wm. Palmer, F. Forbes, sir C. Rice, S. Glenorchy, lord Robertson, A. Graham, sir S. Warre, J. A. Grattan, J. Western, C. C. Grenfell, P. TELLERS. Hobhouse, J. C. Hume, J. Hurst, Rt. Sykes, D. CHARTER SCHOOLS OF IRELAND.] Sir John Newport adverting to the motion which he was about to submit to the House, said, that the whole question lay in a very narrow compass. It regarded the propriety of taking some legal measures against a set of men who had, in the discharge of their functions, done every thing that was unjust, oppressive, and unwarrantable. Upon the management of those institutions which he was going to advert to, it had been his fate, for twenty-one years past, to address the House on a variety of occasions. In every case wherein he had exposed instances of the most gross mismanagement, and flagrant perversions of the public bounty, as connected with the Charter-schools of Ireland, he had been combatted, either with evasive promises or direct denials. In the 1111 l. l. l. l. 1112 1113 l. s. 1114 Mr. Goulburn begged to state most distinctly, that there were no sentiments of regret and indignation at the acts which the right hon. gentleman had detailed in his speech, in which he did not most entirely concur. In making this distinct avowal, he was relieved from travelling through all the painful details. He was not relieved, however, from other difficulties arising from the period at which the report had been laid on the table, and from the circumstance of its being unaccompanied with those details to which the commissioners referred. If he were driven to the alternative of deciding whether the system of cruelty of which the commissioners complained should continue, or the resolution proposed by the right hon. baronet should be adopted by that House, he for one should certainly concur in that resolution. He thought, however, that it would be a much more expedient course to leave the remedy of these abuses to those whose official duty it was to inquire into them. The report had only been on the table of the House five or six days, consequently there had been no opportunity for the government here to have had any communication with the Irish government, as to the course which it might be expedient to adopt. The commissioners referred, in almost every page of the report, to the appendix. The real state of the Charter-schools could only be correctly appreciated by a careful perusal of that document. If, however, it should be the opinion of the House, that a sufficient case had been made out to justify the interposition of parliament, and that they ought to agree to this resolution, notwithstanding the assurance given by the government, that they had every disposition to bring the offenders to punishment, he for one should not raise his voice against it. As far as he was acquainted with the opinion of the noble marquis who presided over the government in Ireland, there was every probability that the recommendations of the commissioners would be attended to; but so attended to, he trusted, as to preserve the unhappy individuals concerned, from the evils which must necessarily result under either alternative, of a continuance of the present system, or of a change which might throw them upon the world in a state of helpless destitution. Mr. S. Rice said, if he understood the 1115 Mr. Goulburn said, he should not oppose it, but he recommended the right hon. baronet not to press it. Mr. S. Rice said, the House was bound not to overlook the case which had been made out. If this were a motion specifically criminating the master of Sligo, or any other individual, then there would be some reason why the House should wait for other documents. But, all that the House was called upon to declare by this motion was, that a primâfacie case had been made out sufficient to warrant them in requiring that legal proceedings should be instituted by the law officers of the Crown against the persons guilty of these atrocities. He was not disposed to leave this matter in the hands of the executive. The whole inquiry had been forced upon the government by parliament. If ever a document had been laid upon the table, which called for the interference of parliament, it was this report. The system of Charter-schools was a specimen of the old exclusive Protestant system in Ireland. It should not be forgotten, that the system of Charter-schools had been repeatedly praised and recommended by lords lieutenants of Ireland, and supported in that House; and that any opposition to that system had been constantly met by charging the opponents with hostility to Protestantism. The whole mischief of the system of Charter-schools had arisen out of the exclusive system on which it was founded. The report of Mr. Howard in 1787 had developed as great abuses as that now before the House; and the report of Mr. Thackery in 1817 exhibited scenes of still greater atrocity; yet no steps had been taken to bring the offenders to punishment. No less than 1,000,000 l. l. 1116 Mr. Goulburn said, that there had been a decrease of the grant for Charter-schools since he came into office, from 29,000 l. l. Mr. Secretary Peel said, that the committee was not forced upon the government, for he had himself set forward the inquiry while secretary for Ireland, and had named the committee. In selecting the gentlemen, he had only regard to their qualifications. Mr. Glascock was unknown to him, but he was induced to appoint that gentleman, on account of the activity and zeal manifested by him on another occasion. Feeling that it was right to have a Roman Catholic on the committee, he had appointed Mr. Blake, an intelligent and active man, with whom he had no acquaintance. Mr. Grant he had never seen in his life; and, in adding the name of his hon. friend (Mr. Frank-land Lewis) to the list, he had given an additional proof that impartiality was the great object he was anxious to attain. Two questions arose out of the case at present under consideration The first was, as to the policy of continuing the system; and the second, as to the propriety of punishing those who were concerned in the abuses. Whit he was anxious for was, that the consideration of the question should be postponed until they had the appendix to the report. He had no difficulty, however, in stating, that from the report itself, the inference was inevitable, that the system of the Charter-schools was one that did not admit of correction. That it was one which ought to be extinguished altogether, as soon as possible. The House would be glad to hear, that the report was nut two days in the possession of government before an order was sent, desiring that they should not admit any more into the schools, but should take steps to reduce the numbers, without interfering with any of those who were already admitted. He was sure the right hon. baronet would admit, that the commission of 1806 was more favourable to the system of the Charter-schools than the present report, and that the commission was a sufficient warrant for a man in office to act upon. If prosecutions were to follow, he would not suffer himself to make any comment that could, by possibility, prejudge the question. If it could be judicially proved, that cruelties were exercised, such as the committee had reported, it would not be sufficient that the individuals should be dismissed; they 1117 Sir F. Burdett said, that the candid manner in which the right hon. gentleman had met the question, would, in all probability, satisfy his right hon. friend and the House. Mr. Frankland Lewis observed, that there were no less than thirty documents relating to the transactions before the House. That fact would, he thought, be sufficient to prevent them from acceding to the resolution. The masters had been already dismissed from some of the schools; I and seeing that they had been already punished, he would submit whether it would not be unjust to punish them again. Mr. J. P Grant thought the House would not consider the dismissal of the schoolmasters sufficient, without adopting prosecution. If prosecution was determined on, every expression should be excluded from the motion which had the slightest tendency to prejudge the cause of the individuals. But, the House might feel it necessary to back the government, by a distinct expression of their feeling; Next to the horror which he felt at the practices which the committee had discovered, was the surprise that they had been so long permitted to continue. Mr. C. Grant said, that he had always entertained a strong opinion, that the system of the Charter-schools must ultimately work out its own destruction. He did not certainly suppose that such enormities as were detailed in the report were in existence, because the system was so strictly under the superintendance of the clergy and the most eminent men in Ireland. But there were evils inherent in the system, such as those of separation from parent and child, and proselytism under suspicious circumstances. At length, however, there was but one opinion entertained respecting its merits. That which had so long been considered the bulwark of the Protestant establish- 1118 Mr. J. Smith thought, that the ragged and half-starved schoolmasters, bad as they were, were not the most guilty persons; but that inspectors of the schools deserved that character. Mr. F. Lewis said, that the inspectors were deceived by the false statements of the masters. Mr. Grattan congratulated the House, that the facts had at last been made public, and thought the commissioners deserved the thanks of the country. Mr. V. Fitzgerald concurred in all that had fallen from the Secretary for the Home Department; but, should the right hon. baronet press his motion to a division, he should be ashamed not to give it his support. Sir J. Newport then withdrew the motion, and the following was agreed to nem. con., "That an humble Address be presented to his majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions to the law-officers of the Crown in Ireland to institute criminal proceedings against the persons concerned in the cruelties detailed in the Report of the Commissioners on Education, so far as they may be amenable to law." DUKE OF CUMBERRLAND'S ANNUITY BILL.] On the motion, that the report of this bill be now received, Mr. Warre said, that, having been prevented by illness from expressing his decided disapprobation of the proposed grant; he would now move, as an amendment, "that the report be received this day six months." CORN TRADE—CANADA CORN—WAREHOUSED CORN.] Mr. Huskisson said, it was his intention, in the bills which he proposed to bring in, to give effect to the alteration which had been agreed to in the laws with respect to Canada corn, and to give an opportunity for bringing into the market a quantity of corn which had been rotting for several years in the warehouses. There was nothing in the first measure calculated to excite the jealousy of the English corn- 1119 s. Mr. Ellice expressed his decided opinion, that it was impossible that such a quantity of corn could be imported from Canada as to justify any jealousy on the part of the corn-growers of England. He suggested that this corn should be admitted duty free. Mr. Whitmore said, that if the government did not redeem its pledge next session, of doing something on the subject of the corn-laws, he should himself bring forward a measure with respect to them. Mr. J. Bennett thought it would be better to let the existing law take its course. Mr. Huskisson felt every desire to attend to the suggestion of the hon. member for Coventry; but, if the corn averages should get below 67 s. Mr. Sykes thought the measure was a bonus to Canada, and would be of primary importance to the consumers of this coun- 1120 BUCKINGHAM HOUSE.] The House having resolved itself into a committee on the Buckingham-House Land Revenue act, The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that he should he able to put into very few words all he had to address to the House upon this subject. Carlton-palace was at the present moment in a very dilapidated state. It was, in fact, so far unsafe to inhabit it, that, whenever a large assembly was held in the upper rooms, it became necessary to prop up the lower ones. As the expense attendant upon the necessary repair under circumstances would, of course, be considerable, it was conceived that it might be more convenient to abandon Carlton-house entirely, and make Buckingham-palace the royal residence in future, Now, there was one immediate desideratum which would be attained by this arrangement. On part of the ground which Carlton-house now occupied, a new building for the Royal Academy might be erected; and probably it would also afford one for the intended National Gallery. It would be easy, upon other portions of this site, to erect a series of handsome dwelling-houses, the value of which would cover a considerable part of the expense to be incurred; but, as this must be a matter for profit hereafter, and money was wanted immediately for the repair and fitment of the new residence, it would be requisite for parliament to take measures with respect to that supply. He would therefore move, "That it is expedient to authorize the application of part of the Land Revenue of the Crown for the repair and improvement of Buckingham House." Mr. Ellice trusted that the new palace, when completed, would do credit to the national taste, and not be such a building as had been erected at Brighton and other places. There was one circumstance to which he decidedly objected, and that was the encumbering the ground upon which Carlton-house and gardens now stood with new houses. We were already out-built all over the west-end of the town; and he deprecated any arrangement which should take away the little space and air that still remained. With reference to the expense, he would just suggest, whether it might not be met 1121 The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, it was not intended to cover Carlton-house gardens with buildings, but there were some offices attached to the house, the site of which could not be applied to a better purpose. HOUSE OF COMMONS Friday, June 10. Duke OF CUMBERLAND'S ANNUITY BILL.] On the order of the day for the third reading, The Marquis of Tavistock said, that as this was the last opportunity the House would have of discussing the subject, he rose to state the grounds upon which he objected to this grant. He objected to it upon three grounds; first, because it was more than was wanted for the purpose to which it was to be applied; secondly, because it established a bad precedent; and lastly, and more than all the rest, because it was demanded for one purpose, and was going to be applied to another. If the grounds on which this grant was called for, were not as he had stated, he called upon the chancellor of the Exchequer to state that the whole of it would be required for the education of the young prince of Cumberland. If the right hon. gentleman would lay his hand upon his heart and say, that he believed that the whole of the grant would be so expended, he would believe it, though at the same time he must think that the expenditure would be most extravagant. He was, however, sure, that the right hon. gentleman would not make any such declaration. He had a high opinion of the integrity of the right hon. gentleman, and was sorry that he had not fairly faced the real question, and asked of the House to make an additional grant of 6,000 l 1122 General Palmer said, he had hitherto taken no part in the question, as he could not give a silent vote, and was unwilling to trouble the House with his opinion; but further consideration, and justice to the party whose honour and interests were at stake, determined him to combat his reluctance to address it. He was one of those, who, in the former instance had supported the motion for the same increased allowance to the duke of Cumberland that was voted to his brothers under the same circumstances; and had always considered the rejection of that measure an act of injustice to his royal highness, and an insult to the honour and feelings of the Crown. It was, therefore, solely upon that ground that he must vote for the present bill, condemning it in all other respects. He had before declared, and now repeated his conviction, that the only real enemies of the Crown were its own ministers; nor, since he had been in parliament did he remember a single question wherein its honour and interests were concerned, that all the discredit brought upon it was not solely to be imputed to them. They, and not the people, were its constitutional advisers, and their neglect compelled others to the painful and invidious task of doing their duty for them. Either they dared not tell the 1123 l 1124 The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, he must still maintain the necessity of placing additional means at the disposal of the duke of Cumberland, for the education of his son. Over and over again, he must declare, that this grant was not intended as an addition to the income of his royal highness; and that, if that son had not been born, the proposed addition would not have been made. The king's ministers, upon contemplating the necessity of securing for the royal child an education in England, felt that the means of effecting such a purpose should be placed at the disposal of the father, and more particularly as his royal highness did not enjoy the addition of 6,000 l Mr. Tierney said, he could not allow the bill to pass, without expressing the reasons which influenced him to oppose the grant. He begged of the House to believe him, when he declared, that in judging of this proposition, he threw out of his mind the former transactions relating to the duke of Cumberland. Were his royal highness the most popular prince in England, still he should oppose such a motion as this, from the unwarrant- 1125 l l 1126 l l l 1127 Mr. Secretary Canning said, that among the topics introduced by the right hon. gentleman, he had principally dwelt upon the form of the bill, and complained that it left his majesty without that due control over the application of the money, which had been interwoven in all former grants to the royal family. Now, he denied that the right hon. gentleman had put a fair construction upon the meaning of the bill; for, as the bill was drawn, the House had a sufficient guarantee for the application of the money to the purpose for which they had intended it. For it was provided, that two things should be ascertained before a single payment was made by virtue of the bill: first, whether it pleased his royal highness to reside with his family in England, and superintend in person the education of the young prince; for in that case there was no doubt the money was intended immediately to pass into the hands of the royal duke. But, supposing it did not please the duke of Cumberland to take up his residence in England, and that he determined still to reside abroad—and really upon that point his majesty's government were at present without any information to guide their opinions—then, unquestionably, it would be the duty of his majesty's government, before they issued the money, to take such steps as would ensure the application of it according to the conditions upon which the grant was framed. So that in either alternative, the House had the assurance that their intentions could not he frustrated. Why it now pleased the duke of Cumberland to select a foreign residence, it was not their province to inquire; and while, on the one hand, it would be harsh to make this grant the positive condition of his return, so on the other they had every chance of tempting him to reside in this country. But, in any view of the 1128 1129 Mr. Brougham said, he gave the right hon. gentlemen opposite entire credit for their declaration, that they were on this occasion uninfluenced by sinister motives. And it was further due to them to say, that they had at length put this question upon its fair issue, and had frankly avowed, that the only reason for conferring this grant upon the duke of Cumberland, was, because his royal highness had not obtained this 6,000 l 1130 l s l 1131 1132 HOUSE OF LORDS. Tuesday, June 14. COLONIAL INTERCOURSE BILL.] Earl Bathurst in moving the second reading of this bill, entered into a history of the law respecting Colonial Intercourse, and stated the object of the present measure. After describing the dispute which had arisen with the United States on the subject of trade with the British colonies, he observed, that in all former measures for regulating the colonial trade, prohibition was the rule, and admission the exception; whereas, in the present bill admission formed the rule, and prohibition the exception. Besides the regulation of the colonial trade, the extension of the warehousing system was another object of this bill. The part which related to that object allowed all goods to be warehoused either for importation or exportation, and authorized re-exportation, without subjecting the merchandise to any additional duty. There were certain articles which after importation could not be exported without paying a duty imposed for the protection of British trade; but it was not thought necessary that this protection should any longer exist. Warehouses might therefore be established on a more extensive system than the former state of the law authorised. Their lordships would observe that this was a complete abandonment of what had hitherto been regarded as the English colonial system; but it was an alteration which the changes in the political and commercial relations of other nations with respect to this country required. The trade of the colonies would, by this bill, be identified with the trade of the mother country. Formerly, no trade was allowed between the colonies and this country, except in British ships; no trade was allowed between one colony and another, except in British ships; and, in the same manner, no trade was allowed between one port of this country and another, except in British ships. It could no longer be said that we placed our colonies in a worse situation with respect to trade than the United States. The colonies would now not only enjoy the same advantages as the United States, but colonial vessels would be entitled to all the advantages of British ships. In short, the colonies were now placed in the same situation, with respect to trade, as if they formed parts of the mother country. The changes which Europe and the new 1133 The Marquis of Lansdown said, that the present bill, which proposed to make a most important revolution in the navigation-law of this country, had his cordial assent. He owned he felt great satisfaction at seeing this measure brought forward; not merely because he had long entertained the opinions which it was at last proposed to sanction, but because he himself had endeavoured to carry the same principle into practice. He had, in the other House of parliament, recommended a more liberal intercourse between our colonies and America; and now, after the lapse of nineteen years, that course was about to be adopted. The measure which he recommended was, indeed, compared with the present, weak and partial; but, feeble and inefficient as it was, it was the subject of repeated divisions in parliament, and out of doors; it was denounced, solely on the ground that it had a tendency to do what this bill proposed to do. The friends and present supporters of the noble earl opposite cried it. down, because it led to that freedom of intercourse which ministers now took credit to themselves for establishing. Their lordships must now perceive that if they wished to retain the colonies, the best way would be to render them, as far as possible, capable of engaging in every kind of trade, and susceptible of every advantage which would be open to this country. He was aware, that, upon whatever principle they proceeded with respect to the colonies, it was still possible that a crisis would arrive that a separation must take place; but it was their duty to try to endeavour to retard it to a distant period. At the same time, while they were sensible that it could not be prevented, they ought to make provision that when it did occur, it should take place with circumstances as little injurious as possible. Of the good effects of what had already been done they had an example in the increase of trade— 1134 The Earl of Liverpool thought that the bill had been wisely introduced. A measure had been brought forward on this subject when the noble marquis was chancellor of the Exchequer; and he had felt it his duty to oppose it, thinking that the time and circumstances, in which it was brought forward were unfavourable to its adoption. Now, however, circumstances were much changed. South America had nearly effected its independence; and when that was once established our colonies would cease to exist as such, and must be considered as integral parts of Great Britain, as much as London, or Liverpool. By placing them on that footing, we secured their attachment; and, if at any future time they should be separated from us, that separation would thereby be rendered much less dangerous. The bill before their lordships could not be looked upon as an infringement of the navigation-laws. It allowed foreign ships to bring to the colonies only the produce of their respective countries, and take back to their own countries the commodities of the colonies; but it did not admit such ships to any part of the carrying trade, so as to take the produce of the colonies between nations to which such ships did not belong. EQUITABLE LOAN BILL.] Lord Dacre moved the second reading of this bill. The Earl of Lauderdale expressed his surprise, that after all that had fallen from counsel on the subject of the illegality of this bill, his noble friend should have moved the second reading, without stating any one ground why it should be so read. However, he would consent to the bill being sent to a committee, in order to have the deed made a part of it; and, on 1135 The Lord Chancellor observed, that if this company were not illegal, it might be for their lordships to consider whether it would be useful to the community to grant them the privileges for which they sought; but, if they were illegal, it might be asked on what ground did they claim any privileges at all? It was admitted, that until the signing of the trust-deed, the company was unquestionably illegal. He had no objection to allow the trust-deed to form a part of the bill. After it had passed the committee, it would be competent for their lordships to discuss whether the bill, as it would then stand, was or was not a fit measure for legislative sanction; and he would take care that the twelve judges should be summoned to give their opinion as to its legality. He begged to be understood distinctly as neither admitting or denying the legality of the company, until the deed formed a part of the bill. Lord Dacre expressed a hope, that when the deed was embodied in the bill, their lordships would give the measure all that consideration to which it was so well entitled. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Tuesday, June 14. EXPORTATION OF MACHINERY.] Mr. Littleton said, he presented a petition from the inhabitants of Nottingham, stating that they had heard, with great alarm; that a select committee had been for some time deliberating on the expediency of allowing the free exportation of machinery, and praying that the House would not repeal the existing laws on that subject. The petition detailed, with great clearness, the progress of machinery in this country, and the immense advantages which the 1136 Mr. Birch perfectly concurred in the sentiments of his hon. friend. Mr. Huskisson observed, that he had listened with great attention to the statements of his hon. friend, on a subject which was certainly of great importance. The final report of the Select Committee, which had been appointed in the last session, and renewed in the present, for investigating how far it might be expedient to repeal all the prohibitory laws in our Statute-book, had not yet been made. For himself, he was certainly inclined to think, that such a repeal would be very advantageous, but he well knew that a strong persuasion existed among a large body of the manufacturers that it would be attended with the greatest injury to their interests. He had no doubt that the further reports of the committee would throw great light upon the subject; and enable it to be more distinctly seen how far the superiority of our manufacturers was attributable to machinery, and how far to other causes. It ought to be recollected that we had already permitted the free exportation of labour. Our mechanics might go whither they choose. Why the exportation of machinery should be placed on a different footing he was at a loss to conceive. 1137 Mr. Hume agreed with the petitioners that it was a question of great importance and one on which greater prejudices existed among the manufacturing community, than on any question whatever. On that account, he was anxious not to press forward the question of repeal in any manner that might have the appearance of precipitation. He was convinced that the preeminence of the manufactures of this country, might be attributed to many other causes besides machinery. Nor did it appear to him to be less evident, that notwithstanding the apprehensions of the manufacturers were great, they had not adduced a single fact, or advanced a single cogent argument to show, that those apprehensions were well founded. He trusted the committee would soon be able to lay a report on the table of the House; although throughout the session they had not obtained any very extensive information on the subject; which was extraordinary, when it was considered that those individuals, who like the present petitioners were hostile to the exportation of machinery, had been requested to send to the committee persons to explain their views, and to point out what were the particular articles of machinery, from the exportation of which they apprehended so much injury. The fact was, that, at present, by means of smuggling, machinery of all kinds was very extensively exported. The Board of Trade now gave licenses for the occa- 1138 Mr. Baring was glad to find, that there was no disposition in any quarter to hurry the decision of the question. If any rational doubt existed, the interests of our manufacturers ought certainly not to be risked. It was clear, however, that many articles of machinery might be exported without any danger to the interest of the manufacturers. It was necessary that a discretionary power should be reposed somewhere, and he did not know where it could be so well reposed as in the Board of Trade. With regard to the weight of the existing duties of the Board of Trade, no man could be more ready than himself to acknowledge the unwearied diligence of the right hon. gentleman and his colleague, and the great benefit which the country had derived from their exertions. It might, however, be desirable to extend the Board for this particular purpose, by the introduction of some persons capable of forming a judgment with regard to the descriptions of machinery, the exportation of which ought to be either restrained or permitted. In a short time a body of precedents would be formed which would serve as a guide to all parties. As he had adverted to the Board of Trade, he would express his surprise that there was no public provision made for its members. Discharging as they did the most arduous duties, it was extraordinary that they had no public provision. He should cordially concur in any proposition that might be made to that effect by the chancellor of the Exchequer, from whom it could with more propriety come than from any other quarter. CONDUCT OF MR. KENRICK, A SURREY MAGISTRATE—PETITION OF M.M. CANFOR.] Mr.Denman in presenting a petition from a person named Martin Can for, thought it incumbent upon him to call the attention of the House to the contents of that petition, which appeared to him to contain matter, and to involve consequences of the utmost importance. In consequence of some mistake, the notice he had given upon the subject had been construed into a notice relating to the body of the magistracy in Surrey; but the petition was only against one individual magistrate, 1139 1140 Mr. Denison said, he had the honour to represent the county of which Mr. Kenrick was a magistrate, and he was also a neighbour of that gentleman. He was therefore acquainted with his private and public character, and he could bear testimony to the propriety of his conduct in private life. Mr. Kenrick had personally communicated to him his most earnest wish, that his conduct should undergo the strictest examination; that the affidavits should be printed; and that the whole business should be brought forward. But it certainly was the wish of Mr. Kenrick that the affidavits should not be printed before the matter was in a course of investigation. Mr. Secretary Peel complained, that the learned member had not given any notice of the probability of his calling upon the House to exercise their functions of addressing the Crown for the removal of a judge. The course adopted by the learned gentleman was perfectly correct—to bring up the petition, and not to notice it until all parties should have had an opportunity of examining it. He was far from wishing to throw any obstruction in the way of fair investigation; and he only complained that the learned member had not given sufficient notice of his intention to move for the affidavits. The first question in his mind was, whether the affidavits would contain a correct, impartial, and entire statement of the case? His other objection was, the advanced state of the session. If there were no probability of prosecuting the subject in the present session, he put it to the House, whether it was quite fair to present charges against an individual six months before the case could be investigated? 1141 Mr. Denman thought, that the present session would afford sufficient time for all the necessary proceedings upon this case. He did not maintain that the affidavits were sufficient; he only moved for them as documents that ought to be attended to by the House. Their production would not put Mr. Kenrick in a worse situation than that in which he had for some time stood; for the substance of those affidavits had appeared in all the newspapers, and they had been discussed fully in the court of King's-bench. The Attorney-General denied, that the merits of this case could be ascertained by any thing that had passed in the court of King's-bench. The defence of Mr. Kenrick had never been heard; his counsel had not been allowed to address the court in his favour en account of the case going off entirely upon a point of form. The counsel were heard in opposition to Mr. Kenrick. One of them alluded to an affidavit, by. which it appeared that Mr. Kenrick, in reference to an article in "The Morning Chronicle," had made an objectionable statement in the Stamford newspaper. Upon this the court interposed, and would not interfere with reference to the publisher of "The Morning Chronicle." Mr. Kenrick's rule was discharged, but the opposite party did not obtain the costs. The court had passed no opinion upon the subject of Mr. Kenrick's conduct to Franks, nor ought any member to pass his judgment, until an opportunity had been afforded of investigating every part of the case. With respect to the case contained in the petition, the trial never did take place. The plaintiff's counsel had agreed to a compromise; and the House might judge of the serious nature of the charge, when they were informed that the terms of the compromise were, that Mr. Kenrick should pay the sum of five pounds, with the costs, as between attorney and client. Mr. Scarlett thought it would be an act of great injustice to Mr. Kenrick to have the affidavits printed, unless the House were to enter immediately upon an investigation of the case. Mr. Kenrick, by the rules of the court, had had no opportunity of replying to these affidavits, nor could he now reply to them if they were to be printed by the House. If the affidavits were true, Mr. Kenrick was certainly a very improper person to hold the office he did hold; but they might not contain all the truth, and even the truth they 1142 Mr. Secretary Peel expressed a hope, that the learned member would not press for the production of the affidavits; but that he would bring the measure forward in the shape of a specific charge. Mr. Denman said, he was anxious to give the learned gentleman the fullest opportunity of defending himself. The papers he sought to bring forward were not the affidavits on the other side, but the documents produced by Mr. Kenrick, and upon which the court of King's-bench refused to make absolute the rule for a criminal information against "The Morning Chronicle." He took the case as it appeared in the affidavits. If the allegations therein contained were true, then Mr. Kenrick was unfit to hold a judicial situation; if they were false, then the most effectual way of contradicting them was by an inquiry, such as that which he now proposed. Mr. Wynn pointed out the expediency of following the course pursued in the case of Mr. Baron Page, against whom charges had been preferred, and who was allowed to be heard at the bar. If the charges against Mr. Kenrick were to be made upon oath, he would have no opportunity of denying them with the same solemnity, unless the matter went to a committee, in the same way that the charges against the chief baron of Ireland did. Sir M. W. Ridley said, it would be showing great kindness to the individual in question, to proceed with all possible despatch, as he was most anxious to have the imputations cast upon him removed as quickly as possible. Indeed, that gentleman felt that he could not, with propriety, proceed to the exercise of his functions as a judge, until those charges were satisfactorily cleared up. Mr. Secretary Canning thought, that after the appeal of the hon. baronet, the case ought to he investigated as speedily as possible. But the difficulty was this—the learned member proposed to the House to receive, not the substance of the case, but the sworn affidavits presented against Mr. Kenrick in the court of King's-bench. Now, if this were done, he knew of no course which would enable the accused party to oppose to those statements a negative of equal authority or solemnity. As the only negative—the House not having the power to examine upon oath— 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 Mr. Denman said, he wished to explain to the House the disadvantageous situation in which he was placed. If he had not founded his motion upon affidavits, he would then have been told, that he rested his case upon hearsay, and unfounded report. But now that he took a different course, he was told that the grounds upon which he went were too grave and solemn to be met by the simple denial of Mr. Kenrick. All he wanted was the production of the affidavits of Mr. Kenrick, upon which the court of King's bench refused to make absolute the rule for a criminal information against "The Morning Chronicle." Mr. Baring said, that the sort of objections urged on the other side would almost lead to the suspicion (undoubtedly unfounded) that it was the desire of ministers to screen the individual against whom the charge was made. They incurred a heavy responsibility in the course they now pursued, and he thought merited reprehension for not themselves bringing the case before the House. It ought not to have been left to his learned friend, from a sense of public duty, to submit a motion upon it. The first information he (Mr. B.) had obtained of the case was from the speech of the Attorney-general in the newspapers; and after that speech, censuring as it did the conduct of a judge of the land, it seemed strange that he should be allowed still to preside without inquiry, in some shape or other, into his case. Had the power, as formerly, remained with the Crown, it would have been unquestionably the duty of ministers to have investigated the subject; but, though the power was now vested in parliament, ministers ought not to have waited until a volunteer on the opposition side of the House called its attention to the misconduct of the judge. Yet that judge had been allowed to go his circuit in Wales as usual, even after the speech of the Attorney-general. [The Attorney-general said, across the table, that he had not made that speech in his official capacity.] He was aware of that circumstance, but the charge was aggravated, and it was pressed by the Attorney- 1149 Mr. Denman then moved for a copy of the affidavits filed by Mr. Kenrick in support of a rule for a criminal information against William Innell Clement, and the affidavit of Mr. James, filed to prove Mr. Kenrick the author of a letter printed in the "Stamford News"; which was agreed to. ESTABLISHED CHURCH IN IRELAND.] Mr. Hume, in rising to submit a motion relative to the present state of the Church Establishment in Ireland, said, he was fully aware of the importance of the question, and of the responsibility attaching to any individual who introduced a proposition of this consequence into parliament. But, being strongly impressed with the opinion that much of the evils which had so long afflicted Ireland arose from the present condition of its church establishment, and that that establishment, so far from promoting the welfare and happiness of the people, produced a precisely contrary effect, he had determined to bring this most important subject fully before the House. He would have declined to do so, but that he believed, so long as that establishment 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 d. d. 1157 Mr. Secretary Canning said, that whatever fault he might be disposed to find, either with the motion or the speech of the hon. gentleman, at least he could not impute to him any concealment of his views, or any design to keep out of sight the fullest explanation of his motives. In justice to the hon. gentleman he must say, that he had fully stated his object. But before he proceeded to apply himself to any part of his speech, he must request of the Clerk to read the 5th article of the act of Union. Mr. Canning resumed. It was, he said, an advantage, that in coming to the consideration of the question, the House were placed in no circumstances of uncertainty. The sense of the legislature on the subject was not to be gathered from statutes, the construction of which might be doubtful, but they had a clear distinct authority, only twenty-five years old, to compare with the hon. member's resolution, and to help them in coming to a decision, as to whether it was possible to pass that resolution, consistently with that statute. He thought he should have the admission of the hon. member himself; that the statute to which he had referred stood in his way. The hon. member had, to be sure, expressed his disapprobation of the settlement made at the Union; but, with respect to the state of the law, there could be no dispute. The compact which had been 1158 1159 Sir F. Burdett contended, that the right hon. gentleman had not applied himself to the facts stated by his hon. friend; neither had he made out the two propositions with which he had commenced. The right hon. gentleman set out with saying, that to accede to the motion would be a violation of one of the articles of the Union. But, in the words of that article, he found nothing to warrant the argument founded on them by the right hon. gentleman. There was not a single word in it respecting tithes: the article only said, that the established church (meaning the religion) of England should be maintained in Ireland. Now, he would contend, that even had the words of the article applied more closely to the subject under discussion, it was competent to parliament to alter or annul such article, if necessary, for the benefit of the country: for it would be absurd to contend, that articles should be held inviolable, the effects of which were the direct contrary of those intended by the contracting parties. The article in question was not entitled to any very great veneration; for the Union itself was the produce of the most shameful, scandalous, indeed, shameless corruption, that had ever disgraced the annals of a nation. One parliament sold its country—another parliament became the purchaser—and the sale was made good by the assistance of military power. The article of the Union, therefore, by no means bore out the right hon. gentleman in his first argument. With respect to the other branch, the sacredness of property, it was easy to prove that it was not tenable; for he was sure it would not be contended, that the legislature had not the power to effect a modification of private property, if necessary to the public welfare. For the same reason, he did not consider that the property of the church should be held more sacred; but less so; for it was, to all intents and purposes, public property; and, therefore, more liable to be dealt with for the public good. The payments to the clergy of the church of Ireland were enormous; while the duties of that church were ill performed. He denied that the Catholic question was connected with that before the House. They stood on differ- 1160 Mr. Trant said, that the hon. mover had stated that the existence of the church of Ireland was incompatible with the happiness and welfare of Ireland. Now, he for one, thought the hon. member who meddled with all sorts of things, and who did not know much of Ireland, was not a good authority, and he should not rely on him. He had done the question of Catholic emancipation more harm by his resolution than he had ever done it good. Mr. Alderman Wood said, that his hon. friend did not wish to despoil the church, but for a more equal distribution of its amazing wealth. Mr. Secretary Peel said, that the hon. baronet had not shaken a single argument of his right hon. friend. The hon. baronet said, that the argument of his right hon. friend, founded upon the article of the Union, was not tenable there being no mention made in it of tithes. But, there were other subjects similarly omitted in special articles. which were, nevertheless, recognized in subsequent ones. The act of Union settled the mode by which Ireland should be represented in the House of Peers, fixing the manner of their election, and specifying that four of the Irish prelates should sit there in rotation. The present constitution of the Irish church was thereby distinctly recognized; and he wished to remind the hon. baronet, that in the bill lately introduced by the hon. baronet himself, the church of England and Ireland, as by law established, was declared inviolable. With 1161 Mr. Brougham said, he did not mean to enter into the general question, but he wished to say a few words, both to guard himself from its being supposed that he differed from his hon. friend, and to shew how much beyond accuracy those who maintained that the church property was inviolable, had pushed their principle. As to what had been stated by the hon. baronet, that the legislature might make the same declaration as to private property which it was proposed to make as to church property, he fully agreed, that the legislature had the power of disposing even of private property, when it was necessary for the safety of the state. But, God forbid, that he should contend that the church had the same power over its property that individuals had over theirs. He admitted the existence of a church known to the law as a corporate body having rights, and to which wrongs might be done. But he contended, that both the mode of establishing church property and the mode of dealing with it, were very different both in argument and in practice, from the mode of establishing and dealing 1162 1163 1164 1165 l. 1166 HOUSE OF COMMONS. Thursday, June 16. CONDUCT OF LORD CHARLES SOMERSET—PETITION OF MR. BURNETT.] Mr. Brougham said, he had a petition to present from Mr. Bishop Burnett, of the Cape of Good Hope, which stated sundry proceedings regarding the government of that colony, which were highly deserving the consideration of the House. He would open to the House the facts stated in the petition, and would then lay it on the table premising thus much—that he did not intend to make himself liable for the truth of the petitioner's statements. He had, however, made such inquiries of the petitioner respecting his statements as had convinced him, from the tests to which he had put the petitioner's accuracy, that he was at least consistent in the story he told. He would state the facts of the petition as they had been stated to him, and would then leave the House to deal as it chose with the allegations of the petitioner. [The learned gentleman then stated the facts of the petition, which will be found subjoined.] Assuredly this was a subject which ought to be inquired into. Indeed, if he believed that he had evidence to prove any of these allegations, he should feel it his duty to impeach lord Charles Somerset. But, he could not help believing that Mr. Burnett must be altogether mistaken. Undoubtedly, however, he had told him the same story that he told in the petition. He would add only one observation. A commission had been appointed to go out to the Cape of Good Hope, for the purpose of inquiring into the alleged grievances of that colony. Unfortunately one of the members of that commission had been prevented by illness from taking a part in the inquiry. This circumstance had, of course, occasioned some delay. He hoped, nevertheless, that it would not be long before they should 1167 Mr. Wilmot Horton said, that the case of the petitioner was one of some notoriety, and in all probability the report of the commissioners would refer to it. If the charges were true, in God's name let them be regularly made and proved. There seemed to be a certain degree of conspiracy prevailing against lord C. Somerset. But the petition professing to be against the governor went against the constituency of all the judicial authorities; and it was unfair not to distinguish, in such a complaint, between the acts of the governor and the defects of the Dutch law. He was not responsible for the want of facilities for complaints against the law and authorities before the commissioners. They were sent out to inquire, not into every case of grievance, but to discover the easiest and safest method of bringing about a speedy amelioration of the whole system of government in that colony. The House ought to be aware of petitions urged on individual suggestion against persons holding high and responsible situations under the government, and within the regular control of parliament. Mr. Baring said, that the allegations of the petition were of so grave a nature, that it was the duty of government to ascertain their truth or falsehood. What he rose especially to draw the attention of the House to, was the sort of government to which some of our colonies, were at present subject. The principles on which those colonies were governed were those of the Spanish, and not those of the English law. While the government of the Cape was administered upon the existing despotic principles, whether lord C. Somerset or any other individual were the governor, the system of government must be a bad one. It was indispensable to consider and revise those principles; and among the various instructions which had been given to the commissioners, he hoped it was one, to examine and report how far it might be expedient and practicable to establish something like representation in the colony. Mr. Ellice said, that government ought certainly to effect a revision of the colonial law. Most of the colonies were governed by some system now got into disuse in the countries from which the laws were derived. In the French colonies, the old Bourbon law prevailed, though that was rejected at home in favour of the code 1168 Mr. Brougham said, that, by moving to refer the petition to a select committee, it seemed that he should be doing that which best suited the views of all parties. Lord C. Somerset ought not to be the sport and victim of charges loosely ventilated in that House. Lord C. Somerset ought to challenge investigation, and government ought to wish for it. He would for the present content himself with having the petition laid on the table and printed. "To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled. The Petition of Bishop Burnett, of the Cape of Good Hope, Gent. 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 DEPORTATION OF MESSRS. LECESNE AND ESCOFFERY FROM JAMAICA.] The Speaker having called on Dr. Lushington to bring forward his motion relative to the Deportation of two persons of colour from Jamaica, Mr. Wilmot Horton rose, and addressing the hon. and learned member across the table, inquired what were the precise nature and objects of the motion. Dr. Lushington said, that his object was, to move for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the grievance of which he complained; and he did not think that after the discussions already had upon it, his hon. friend could have been ignorant of the course which he meant to pursue. The hon. and learned member then proceeded with his motion. The papers for which he had moved, had, he said, been printed some ten days ago, and he felt justified in fixing the earliest open day after that, for the discussion of this question. It was of the first importance to our colonies in general, and to the island of Jamaica in particular, that the most scrutinizing and impartial investigation should take place in the case to which he was about to call the atten- 1174 l 1175 1176 1177 Mr. Lecesne and Mr. Escoffery the two individuals on whose behalf he now addressed the House, had signed the petition to the House of Assembly. On this and on no other account, the two unfortunate men, whose cause he advocated, were torn from their families, their fortunes, and their friends, and sent into banishment [hear, hear!]. Those two persons had resided, from their infancy, in the Island. This was a fact, stated in all the affidavits, and no one had presumed to deny it; and the question agitated was this—Whether, having enjoyed the privilege of free men for many years; having served as serjeants in the militia; having resided, one for twenty-eight years, and another for twenty-five years, in that Island, they should at once, and, as they conceived, without any assignable ground, be banished under the provisions of the Alien act? For himself he must say, without entering into the merits of that act, that even supposing these men to have been aliens, the present was a gross abuse of its powers. It might be right to invest the government of Jamaica with such a power, or it might not;but, it surely never was intended to extend its operation to persons who had resided on the Island from their infancy, and who could not of themselves tell whether they were or were not born in that country [hear, hear!] 1178 1179 1180 1 1 1181 1182 immediately 1183 1184 1185 1186 "The Secret Committee, in submitting the preceding documents to his grace the governor, beg at the same time to express their unanimous opinion, that the evidence which has been adduced before it, has most distinctly established, that three persons by the name of Lecesne, Escoffery, and Valmore, are natives of St. Domingo; and that they are considered persons of most dangerous description to remain in this colony, from the very active and prominent part which they have severally taken in the communications which are proved to have existed between this Island and St. Domingo." 1187 1188 1189 1190 Mr. Mitchell having soon found, that the could make nothing of Pierre, had his brother and fellow slave, named Sanon, taken up, and the same methods of bribery, intimidation, and coercion, were resorted to in his case, and with similarsuccess. Sanon was kept in confinement, though not so closely as his brother, for ten months. During the whole of this long imprisonment, Lecesne's wife and family were deprived of the means of subsistence they would have derived from the labour of Pierre and Sanon, and were in consequence reduced to the greatest indigence and distress. One of these individuals, Pierre, was now in this country. He (Dr. L.) had seen him; he had himself examined him: he was now ready to appear at the bar of that House, and he would venture to say, that no man could hear him, without being convinced of the veracity of his statements. 1191 1192 "That a Select. Committee be appointed to examine into the Deportation of Lewis Lecesne and John Escoffery, from Jamaica; and to report their observations thereupon to the House." Mr. Wilmot Horton said:— 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 Mr. Scarlett said, that he should be very unwilling to support the motion, if be conceived that it implied any blame on the duke of Manchester; but this was not either the intended object or the necessary result of his hon. and learned friend's proposal. It appeared probable to him, however, that the duke of Manchester had been misled in this transaction, either by an incorrect statement of facts, or by the persons whose duty it was to advise him; and he understood the arguments of his hon. and learned friend to apply rather to those individuals than to the duke personally, who could not be supposed to be actuated by any thing but a desire to do justice in the administration of the trust reposed in him. 1199 1200 1201 1202 Mr. Secretary Canning said, that, under all the circumstances, however he might have been disposed to prefer the course suggested by his hon. friend, the under secretary for the colonies, he should not now oppose the appointment of a select committee. The short question upon the present charge, as it applied to the conduct of the duke of Manchester, was, whether the duke had or had not treated British subjects as aliens only could lawfully be treated: that was a simple question, and one easily capable of proof, but one which certainly was neither proved nor disproved by the evidence already before the House. In one admission, however, all parties must agree; namely, that when the duke of Manchester came forward, offering to wave the privilege which his absence gave him, and submit to clear his conduct by a trial at law, he did entitle himself, so long as the question was pending, to the suspension of every thing 1203 1204 Mr. Brougham rose, to request his hon. and learned friend to accede to the proposition of the right hon. Secretary opposite, which he thought, the state of the session considered, was the best calculated to obtain the ends of substantial justice. As the evidence stood, the transaction was a most iniquitous one. These three points would have to be made out: first, that there had been proof that the complainants were aliens; secondly, that there had been the sedition imputed; and thirdly, that there had been ground for sending them away without being heard in their defence. Now, as the case stood, it was nonsense to talk of conflicting evidence; the proof of the birth was as clear as could be desired. What might arise out of the papers further to be produced, he could not judge; but the matter stood as he described it at present. With reference to the postponement of the Committee, he would further observe, that it was only just to take the case of the individuals into the consideration of the House. They were highly respectable men; they had been ruined by their banishment; and had hitherto been supported by the contribu- 1205 Mr. Sykes deprecated the idea of adjourning the inquiry for another year; but if such were the wish of the House, he would not be positive in opposing it. This, however, he would say, that it was the duty of the House to provide for the maintenance of the complainants during that time, as they were totally without funds, and supported by the charity of friends. Mr. Grossett said, he took a different view of the case from the gentlemen opposite. He thought these persons might be guilty, and he denied that they were entitled to be provided for. Mr. W. Smith hoped the House would support these injured individuals, without any reference to the view just thrown out by the hon. member. Mr. Browgham reminded the hon. member, that all his statements were derived from private letters, and that all the evidence which had been brought before the House by his hon. and learned friend had been taken on oath. Sir C. Forbes thought this a case of greater oppression than any he had ever heard of in the East Indies. Dr. Lushilgton then replied, and animadverted with great warmth on a pamphlet, published by an hon. member (Mr. Grossett), stigmatizing the character of the unfortunate petitioners in the most unwarrantable manner. He had read that pamphlet with the utmost disgust, and with contempt the most unmitigated. He would accede to the proposal of the right hon. Secretary for postponement, but he called upon the House, in the mean time, to consider the destitute condition of the parties; and he relied upon the right hon. Secretary, for the institution of a full, entire, and free inquiry, in the next session, and to facilitate his exertions to obtain justice for the parties concerned. BUCKINGHAM HOUSE BILL.] On the order of the day for the second reading, Mr. Bankes expressed his regret, that a site had not been chosen on which a palace might be built more accordant with the opulence of the country and the dignity of the sovereign. He thought 1206 The Chancellor of the Exchequer, admitted, that it would be desirable to have a palace in which the dignity of the Crown and the personal comforts of the sovereign might be consulted; but it was not the wish of his majesty, in the arrangements now in contemplation, to infringe on the conveniences of the public, by any encroachments on the parks. It would, no doubt, be desirable to have a site for a palace, in which accommodation might be afforded, not only for his majesty, but for the different branches of the royal family, the ambassadors, and the great officers of state. He had seen the splendid plans of Inigo Jones, for a royal palace, which he could wish to see erected; but it could not be accomplished in any of the royal parks, without infringing materially on the comforts of the public. Hyde-park would therefore be an injudicious selection, as far as the public was concerned, and as respected the sovereign himself; for though it might be desirable to have the residence of the king public, to a certain degree, it was also necessary that it should afford the means of privacy. If the palace were built in Hyde-park, it would be necessary to have enclosures round it, and if plantations were now made, it would take some twenty years before they were of sufficient growth to secure that degree of privacy which would be desirable; and even this, if it could be acquired, would be a great encroachment on the accommodation of the public, whether it was in Hyde-park or Kensington-gardens. It would be found, also, that the Regent's-park would be at an inconvenient distance for the despatch of public business. With respect to Buckingham-house, there might be inconveniences, but there were advantages belonging to it which could not be found elsewhere. As to the abandonment of Carlton-house, it did not arise from any capricious taste on the part of his majesty. It might be said rather, that instead of his majesty wishing to leave that house, the house seemed disposed to leave his majesty. The lower part of the house consisted originally of offices, but was now changed to apartments where his majesty resided; and when his majesty had company in the upper, they were obliged to be propped up. The house had not been furnished for these thirty years, and was quite unfit in many other respects for a royal residence. He did not give any 1207 l HOUSE OF LORDS Friday, June 17. RATE OF INTEREST IN INDIA.] The Marquis of Hastings rose, to introduce a bill to explain the clause of the act of the 13th of George 3rd, which had been supposed to limit the rate of interest on loans made in India to 12 per cent. He objected, we understood, in the first place, to the opinion given by the law officers of the Crown on the construction of the clause of this act. He paid the greatest deference to their opinion; but he must dissent from it, when he found it in contradiction with the system which had been acted on for half a century in India. It surely could never be maintained that the simple opinion of 1208 1209 HOUSE OF COMMONS. Friday, June 17. JUDGES' SALARIES BILL.] On the order of the day for the third reading, Mr. Brougham said, that his opinion remained unchanged as to this bill, which he believed to be unjust and uncalled-for. Let the House only look at the progressive increase of the salaries of the puisne judges. A few years ago their salary was but 3,000 l l l Mr. John Williams concurred in the observations which had been made by his learned friend, and regretted that ministers had persevered in carrying the measure through the House. He knew the difficulty of making any general regulation for the particular age at which a judge ought to retire; for some men were as competent to transact business at 70 years of age as others were at 60. It was, however, painfully remarkable to notice the 1210 l l Mr. Secretary Peel said, that nothing would be more absurd than to establish, as a general regulation, that a judge should not be appointed until, or should retire at, a certain age. Considering the bodily labour to which a judge was subject, provided at the age of 45 he had a character in his profession and sufficient professional qualification, he saw no reason why want of age should be a disqualification. He had no such impression on his mind, that 60 was a proper age. The effect of this increase would be, to induce men to undertake office who had sufficient bodily power to undergo its fatigues. Mr. Hobhouse thought the augmentations had been carried to an extent beyond all reasonable endurance. Why should the judges be paid more than the Secretaries of State? He was one of those who thought that the dignity of a judge was not dependent upon the amount of his salary. Nor could he see the propriety of stimulating the judges to move out of their present quiet circle of society, and rear the younger branches of their families at the west end of the town. Besides, he had to complain that several useless offices were still maintained about these courts. So decidedly opposed was he to the proposed augmentation, that he meant to move, as an amendment, that the salaries of the judges be reduced from 5,500 l l Mr. N. Calvert thought there was still a great disproportion between the full salaries and the retiring allowances of the judges, which must have the effect of inducing men to cling to office at a time of life when they were unfit for its duties. He had seen judges on the bench who were labouring under two of the disqualifying infirmities of old age—deafness and peevishness. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that if he were disposed, he could not now increase the amount of the retired allowances, although it was competent for the 1211 Mr. Serjeant Onslow said, that he personally knew the efficiency with which the judicial business was performed by the oldest judges on the bench, who were neither deaf nor peevish. SIR ROBERT WILSON.] On the motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply, Mr. Abercromby said, that as the Speaker was about to leave the chair, he begged to call the attention of the House to a subject of much interest, and to which he was sure the House would lend a favourable ear. He wished to call the attention of the House to the condition of one of its members—a person who had performed the most meritorious services to his country, and on whom foreign princes had conferred the highest honours—he meant his hon. and gallant friend the member for Southwark. He would first state, most distinctly and unequivocally, that he did not wish to attach the least blame to the persons at whose instance his gallant friend had been removed from the army, and still less would he say any thing which could cast the least reflection on his royal highness the commander-in-chief; nor would he call in question the authority by which he had been removed, nor impose restrictions on the prerogatives of the Crown. Far was it from his intention to complain of any opinions of hon. gentlemen upon this subject; nor did he intend, in the slightest degree, to invite a revision of the past. His object was, to persuade the House to do honour to itself, by shewing a sympathy with one of its members, the tenor of whose life, and his public services, had reflected equal honour upon himself and his country. That gallant individual was endowed in the most eminent degree with noble sentiments. His errors, if they were errors, had arisen from the excess of an ardent mind, and from an extreme zeal in the service of his country. It was unnecessary for him to say that the military 1212 1213 Mr. Littleton said, he could not avoid expressing the gratification he felt at what his learned Friend had offered to the House. To refer back to the errors of the hon. and gallant officer, if errors they were, would shew both bad taste and bad feeling on his part; as, whatever they were, they were now forgotten, by a recollection of the great personal gallantry and devotion which that hon. officer had always shewn to the honours and interests of his profession. His restoration would be hailed by the whole country, and by none more than by those who might at the time, have approved of his removal. Colonel Wodehouse was sure, that more welcome proposition could not have been made to that House. The learned member had not suggested any course, but had left it to the grace and favour of his majesty, who was known to feel pleasure in passing acts of grace and favour, The military services of the gallant officer, coupled with his great private worth, and supported by the opinion of that House, would, no doubt, have considerable weight in that quarter, where grace and favour were known to dwell. 1214 Lord W. Bentinck said, it was the opinion of the army generally, that there was no officer in the service, whose bravery and conduct had shed greater lustre on the British arms, or had rendered more essential services to his country than sir Robert Wilson. He would make no apology for his errors, nor question the prerogative of the Crown in dismissing officers from the army, but he thought that if the gallant officer were restored to his former rank, the deed would be approved by the whole nation. Mr. C. Calvert said, it was not his intention to touch upon the military character or services of his hon. colleague, as both were too well known to require any comment from him; but he trusted that the recommendation of the House would meet with a favourable reception in the highest quarter. Sir M. W. Ridley hoped, that the unanimous feeling expressed by the House in favour of his gallant friend, would induce an extension to him of the royal grace and favour. He had been long intimately acquainted with him, and in no man had he ever discovered greater integrity, spirit, gallantry, or honour. If the gallant officer had committed errors, they were errors arising from the best feelings, and they must be forgotten in the recollection of his former brilliant services. If the royal favour should be in unison with the opinion of that House, it would restore him to that service to which he was an ornament, and the honour and character of which, he would never tarnish. Sir R. Fergusson said, he had often, and at a distant period, served with his gallant friend, and would venture to say, that no man in the British army had more invariably distinguished himself for gallantry and bravery than sir R. Wilson did. The restoration of his gallant friend to a service of which he had been so great an ornament, would be received by the whole army, as well as by the House, with the greatest possible satisfaction. He hoped that some gallant officers opposite, would bear their testimony to the military character of his hon. friend. Sir G. Murray said, he could not refrain from bearing testimony to the military character and services of the gallant officer. No man possessed those qualities suited to the military service more than that gallant officer; and it would give him great pleasure to see him restored to the service. If his gallant friend would confine his ta- 1215 Mr. Mansell said, that whatever errors the gallant officer might have committed, he had been sufficiently punished for them, and he thought that they ought to be buried in oblivion. He was sure the House and the country would rejoice at seeing him restored to his rank. Mr. W. Lamb said, he was one who had voted against the inquiry into the gallant officer's conduct; but he was as anxious as any hon. member could be to see him restored to his station in the army. Mr. Brougham said, that only one opinion seemed to actuate all parties. He wished to add his testimony to the character given of his gallant friend, in regard to his conduct on a former very trying occasion. He was the professional adviser of the gallant officer, and he had the most positive knowledge, that the utmost exertion of human forbearance had been manifested by his gallant friend. He had seen documents which, perhaps, no one besides his gallant friend could have refrained from publishing, but not one word of them would his gallant friend divulge, notwithstanding the aggravating situation in which he was placed. CUSTOMS CONSOLIDATION BILL.] The House having resolved itself into a committee, to consider further of the report of this bill, Mr. Huskisson begged to remind the committee, that on the 25th of March last, he had submitted to their consideration a variety of resolutions, tending to effect very important changes in our system of Duties and Customs, and applying, not only to the manufactures of this country, but to manufactured articles imported from foreign states. He had, on that occasion, entered at great length into a statement of the grounds upon which it was proposed that these alterations should be introduced into our commercial policy; and they were formally recommended in the resolutions brought in. At the same time, in effecting such extensive alterations in a system of duties and customs that had existed through so long a succession of years, he had felt most desirous 1216 1217 1218 1219 1220 l s l l l s l 1221 s d l l 1222 d s d s Sir Henry Parnell expressed himself willing to adopt the recommendation of the right hon. gentleman, to consider the proposed schedule of Customs-duties rather as a measure to form the founda- 1223 1224 * * 1225 1226 1227 l l 1228 d 1229 1230 1231 l l 1232 l l 1233 l l l l l l l l l 1234 l l l l l 1235 l l d d d s d s l 1236 l l 1237 l 1238 l 1239 1240 l l l l 1241 l s d d l l l s d s d l l 1242 Mr. Maberly was of opinion, that the hon. baronet had not treated the plan of the right hon. gentleman fairly. He had argued it on principle, instead of looking to the expediency which must be connected with the proposed alterations. If the hon. baronet had attended to the opening speech of the right hon. gentleman, he 1243 1244 Mr. T. Wilson expressed his approbation of the modifications which had been introduced. He had not, perhaps, adopted the ideas of free trade quite so rapidly as some other gentlemen; but he felt confident that, by surrendering some apparent advantages, we should ultimately derive solid benefit from the course of policy which the government was pursuing. Mr. Bright suggested that it would be advantageous to the West Indies if facilities were afforded to the introduction of the productions of the warmer climates. He instanced almonds, grapes, and currants, which he had no doubt would thrive in the West Indies; and thus a valuable branch of commerce, at present confined to the countries bordering the Mediterranean, might be transferred to our own colonies. He thought, also, that the matting of the West Indies, instead of being charged at 20 per cent, should be much reduced. Mr. C. Ellison recommended a reduction of the export duty on coals. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, the reason why he had not reduced the export duty on coals would apply equally to a number of other articles; namely, the imprudence of attempting to deal with every thing at once. He had, however, introduced a very material alteration. By the present law, all coals carried coastwise were chargeable with a duty of 6 s s 1245 HOUSE OF COMMONS. Monday, June 20. SHOOTING AND STABBING (SCOTLAND) BILL.] On the order of the day for the third reading, Mr. J. P. Grant said, he had no objection to the extension of lord Ellen-borough's act to Scotland; but the bill now went a great deal further, and created, in the last clause, quite a new law. It was there enacted, that if any person threw vitriolic acid on the person of another, for the purpose of doing him any bodily harm, that act should be deemed a capital offence. This provision was introduced in consequence of certain proceedings that had recently taken place in Glasgow. Vitriolic acid, it appeared, had been thrown on the clothes, and sometimes on the Persons, of individuals who refused to join the workmen in their unlawful proceedings. It was fit that this practice should be put down; but the way to put it down was not by enacting a penalty at which the public mind revolted. There was, too, a strange anomaly in this bill. By lord Ellenborough's act it was provided, that if A fired a pistol with intent to kill or maim B, and that, in doing so, he missed his object, and killed or maimed C, he should be subjected to the penalty of death, just as if he had succeeded in h s original intention. But here, if A threw vitriolic acid at B, and deprived C of sight, he was not liable to the penalty, since it was only the absolute act, and not the intent, that was punished; and he believed that there would not be found in the legislation of this or of any other country a measure which did not visit the intent with punishment, except where it succeeded. He should therefore move the third reading this day six months. The Lord Advocate of Scotland said, 1246 Mr. Secretary Peel said, he was about to suggest to the learned lord the propriety of restricting the measure to a cer- 1247 Mr. Hume said, that the forbearance shown by the learned lord, when he was called on to legislate on this subject, did him the greatest credit; and any hon. member who looked to the evidence taken before the committee on the Combination laws, would see that the best possible results had been attained by that forbearance. Mr. J. P. Grant said, that as this was to be a temporary measure, he was willing to withdraw his opposition. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Thursday, June 21. Conduct of Mr. Kenrick.] Mr. Denman said, that as the papers respecting Mr. Kenrick's case were now before the House, he wished to give notice, that he would submit a motion for bringing to the bar, on Friday next, five witnesses, to give evidence of the allegations against Mr. Kenrick. The letter, not yet printed by the House, was that which was published by Mr. Kenrick in a Lincoln paper, and was inconsistent with the facts as developed in the affidavits before the court of King's-bench, as well as with the statements of all the other parties. When these witnesses were examined, then he should have done all that could be reasonably expected of him; for of it he knew nothing except from these sources. It had been intimated, that he ought to bring forward a written charge. But, how could he do so without imputing a legal offence? All the written evidence which he could adduce was, the letter which reflected so strongly upon John Franks. That letter, together with the statements of the witnesses, was of such a nature as, if uncontradicted, was calculated to make out a strong case of malversation, partiality, and oppression, against Mr. Kenrick. Should that prove to be the case, it would remain for the House to decide what course they ought to take. At present, he should merely move, "That John Franks and Esther his wife, Edward Arnold, Henry Peters, esq., and Martin Money Canfor, do attend this House upon Friday next." Mr. Secretary Peel observed, that the object of the hon. and learned gentleman 1248 Mr.S. Bourne wished only to give Mr. Kenrick the advantage which the meanest offender would have before the lowest magistrate; namely, that of having the charge specifically stated, with a proper opportunity to be heard in his defence. Mr. Abercromby said, that there were two propositions which no man would dispute. First, that the House ought not prematurely to go into the inquiry; secondly, that they ought not to proceed in it without furnishing the accused with a knowledge of the charge to be preferred against him. But both of those objects had been already attained. The first was effected by the petition of Canfor, which contained the whole matter of the charge. As to the second, a friend of Mr. Kenrick's had stood up in his place in that House, and stated, that it was his anxious desire that there should be full and prompt inquiry. The only question left for the House was, how soon they ought to go into it? The petition of Canfor was before them: affidavits had been prepared by Mr. Kenrick for another place. If evidence were necessary, the House would hear and dispose of it. But, of all cases he had ever known, this was the clearest; and Mr. Kenrick himself courted prompt inquiry. Mr. Secretary Peel said, he did not speak in reference to Mr. Kenrick, but to the forms of the House, and the principles of justice. The House had not determined on inquiry. The learned gentleman might, between this and Friday, reduce his charge to a specific form in writing. Mr. Wynn said, it was the duty of the 1249 Mr. Tierney said, if he understood rightly, there was no charge against Mr. Kenrick as judge, but only as magistrate. If the charge affected him as a judge, then undoubtedly it must be reduced to writing; but the petition, which really contained the charge, only affected him as a justice of the peace. His learned friend did not make any charge; he only presented the petition. It was an odd way of going to work to fix the responsibility upon a member of instituting, by a settled form of his own, a charge contained in a petition; when they ought rather to choose to hear the petitioner themselves, that in case of his not making his charge good, he might be, made answerable. What his learned friend proposed was, that the petitioner should be heard. In the event of proving his charge, it would become the duty of the House to address the Crown for removing Mr. Kenrick from the commission of the peace. Then it would afterwards become a question, how far it could be proper to retain a man in the office of a judge, who was found unfit for the magistracy. The Solicitor General said, that if the motion was agreed to, the House would be going into evidence, without having before it the matter to which the evidence applied. Mr. Brougham was surprised at the doctrine laid down, that a complaint was not to be entertained, unless the House cramped itself by an impeachment or a written charge. He had understood, that the proposition of his learned friend was grounded in parliamentary enactment, and that this mode of proceeding was a statutory provision to enable the House, in particular cases, to do something which was not so light as a mere complaint, nor so weighty as an impeachment. There had been already two instances of this same kind of proceeding in this session, and yet no demand had been made of a 1250 Mr. Denman consented to withdraw his motion. After which, it was ordered, 1. "That the matter contained in the petition of Martin Money Canfor be taken into consideration upon Friday next.—2. That a copy of the said petition, together with the above order, be communicated to Mr. Kenrick.—3. That Martin Money Canfor do attend this House upon Friday next.—4. That Mr. Kenrick have leave to attend this House, by himself or counsel, on Friday next." UNITARIANS—TOLERATION ACT.] Mr. W. Smith rose, to present a petition signed by a small number of individuals who were, however, well known and of great respectability, complaining of the situation in which they were placed by the present state of the existing laws affecting the profession of certain religious opinions. He had heard that it had been stated in a very high quarter in another House, in respect to the laws affecting the Unitarians, that before any act could be passed for relieving them from the operation of particular statutes, it would be well that some bill should be passed previously, to protect them from the penalties to which they were still subject at common law. At the same moment, and from the same high and learned quarter, there proceeded an appeal which it was impossible not to perceive to be directed and addressed to him (Mr. Smith) personally, and which went to remind him, that at the time a bill which he had been instrumental in carrying through parliament was passed—such bill having for its object to protect Unitarians, in certain cases, from the legal consequences that might attach to the impugning of the doctrine of the Trinity—he had made a declaration to the noble and eminent person in question, whereby he agreed, as to all cases not provided for by such statutes, to leave the Unitarians liable to all the visitations that they might be still 1251 1252 Mr. Robertson expressed himself decidedly adverse to the prayer of the petitioners, and cautioned the House to be aware how they encouraged too much the prevailing spirit of innovation. CRUEL TREATMENT OF CATTLE BILL.] Mr. R. Martin moved the second reading of this bill. The Attorney General said, that three years ago a bill had been introduced by his learned friend, the member for Knaresborough (sir J. Mackintosh), which rendered it a felony punishable with transportation, to wound or maim cattle. Previously to the introduction of that bill, the wounding or maiming of cattle was, under the act of Charles, made a felonious offence, in those cases only where the guilty party was proved to have acted from a malicious motive towards the owner of the cattle. As the law now stood, however, maiming or wounding cattle, whether it originated in a malicious design or otherwise, was viewed as a felony against the owner. In the course of the last session, the hon. member (Mr. R. Martin) had brought in a bill, which passed that House, but was thrown out in 1253 Mr. R. Martin said, he would maintain, that this was a bill of the Attorney-general's, save and except that part to which allusion had been made. The bill which the Attorney-general had formerly consulted with him in drawing, for preventing the ill-treating of cattle, was nearly the same as the present. When he applied to the Attorney-general on the subject, the learned gentleman said he saw no objection to such a measure, and he brought in a bill pretty much in the form of the present. He afterwards saw the Attorney-general in the library, who took down the black act, and declared that he had no objection to his bill, if it contained the words, "wantonly cutting, maiming, or wounding." And it was not a little remarkable, that the point to which the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department chiefly directed his attention in opposing the bill, when he laughed at the idea of legislating on the cutting off the ears of a puppy-dog, arose entirely from the emendation of the Attorney-general. That bill passed through the committee, and was read a third time; and he would now say, in the presence of the Attorney- 1254 The Attorney-General said, if the hon. member could reconcile the first and the last clauses of the bill, he would be satisfied to support the measure. SPRING GUNS BILL. On the order of the day being read, Mr. C. Tennyson said, that in rising to move the second reading of this bill, he found himself more embarrassed by the facilities which all natural reasoning afforded in support of it, than by any of the difficulties which frequently attended a new project of legislation. The question for the decision of parliament was, whether any individual who pleased, might be allowed to vindicate the inviolability of his property by means which mankind in general hesitated to em- 1255 1256 justifiable 1257 1258 1259 Polufloisboio 1260 1261 1262 1263 —durissima regna Castigatque-auditque. 1264 1265 1266 Mr. S. Wortley denied, that spring guns were used only by lords of manors for the protection of game. They had been long used by persons of inferior rank, for the protection of various descriptions of property. It was not, therefore, as seemed to be generally argued, a question between the rich and the poor. He contended, that spring guns were not unlawful. According to the law of the land, a man had a right to set them for the protection of his property, provided he gave due notice of his doing so. That had been over and over again determined by the judges on the bench. There were no doubts on the subject: but the bill professed to be for the removal of doubts. It was founded, therefore, on a false principle; and, were it on that ground alone, he would vote against it. The other House was in the habit of criticising bills which they received from the House of Commons. It was but fair to look closely in return at the bills received from the other House; and he would say of this bill, that the preamble was false, and that the clauses were contradictory and unintelligible. In support of his opinion of the legality of the practice, he quoted the opinions of several of the judges, especially that of Mr. Justice Bailey, one of the most humane men living. If spring guns were illegal, then all kinds of property had been up to this time illegally defended. One of the main benefits of the use of spring guns was, that they not only acted as a great discouragement to poaching, but tended to prevent the dreadful evils which resulted from the affrays and fights between bodies of game-keepers and poach- 1267 Sir F. Burdett observed, that there was scarcely any instance on record, of spring guns having taken effect on the persons against whom they were planted. Their general operation was on innocent persons; and was something very like assassination. After adverting to the decision of the court of King's-bench on the subject, he observed, that previous to that decision the judges of the court of Common Pleas were divided in opinion respecting it; so that the assertion in the preamble of the bill, that doubts existed respecting the legality of the practice of using spring guns, was well founded. The English law was so tender of human life, that it did not permit it to be taken, except when property could not be otherwise defended. Yet here was a mode of taking life operating principally upon the innocent, and which, even if it operated upon the most guilty, would inflict upon them a punishment more than adequate to their offence. Those upon whom it principally operated were children straying into the woods to pick up sticks or flowers; or travellers, wandering out of their road. It was allowed, on all hands, that the use of spring gulls would be illegal, were it not accompanied by due notice; now, from the very nature of the case, due notice could not be given. But, the greatest evil attendant on spring guns was, their being applied to the protection of game. He could not coincide with those who thought so discreditably of English gentlemen, as to believe that the preservation of game was indispensable to their residence in the country, and their performance of the various duties of their situation. To call such an argument in aid of the use of spring guns was a proof of the weakness of the cause. The Game laws generally 1268 Mr. R. Colborne observed, that he was one of those who objected to the bill, not because they were admirers of spring guns, but because they preferred that mode of preserving game and other property, to other measures which might be adopted. As to humanity, he could not highly applaud the humanity of persons, who objected to spring guns, but who prepared well-organized bodies of armed men, to turn out and fight with the poachers. It was his firm opinion, that if the quantity of blood spilt in the nightly conflicts to which he alluded, could be compared with the quantity of blood spilt accidentally by spring guns, the tide of opinion would not run so strongly as it did in opposition to the latter mode of defence. Mr. Hudson Gurney said, he thought the country under great obligations to the noble lord with whom this measure originated in the other House; who was himself a great proprietor, and had more game than any other individual in the county of Norfolk. The infamous practice of setting spring guns was, he said, of very modern introduction; the victims of it were generally the innocent. Unhappily, it had of late been very much on the increase. He believed himself that it was entirely unlawful, and trusted it would ever remain so. Lord Binning was in favour of the principle of the bill, as it applied to the question of game, but there were some clauses in it to which he could not assent. Mr. Scarlett observed that by the law of England, game was not property. If it were, the setting of spring guns might, be the more excusable; but after the decision in the courts, some revision of the law was requisite. He should therefore vote for the second reading, in the hope of accomplishing it. 1269 List of the Majority and Minority. MAJORITY. Allen, J.A. Marjoribanks, S. Benett, J. Monck, J. B. Bentinck, lord W. Mundy, F. Binning, lord. Phillimore, Dr. Browne, D. Plummer, W. Burdett, sir F. Rice, T. S. Cooper, Bransby Russell, lord. J. Corbett, Panton Scarlett, J. Denman, T. Sefton, earl of Evans, W. Stuart, lord James Forbes, sir C. Trant, W. H. Gurney, Hudson Tulk, F. A. Hardinge, sir H. Twiss, Horace Haward, Henry Wilson, C. Hendley, H. Wilson, sir R. Hume, Jos. Wodehouse, hon. col. Hutchinson, C. H. Jones, J. TELLERS. Lamb, W. Hobhouse, J. C. Lockhart, J.J. Tennyson, C. MINORITY. Bankes, H. Percy, capt. Bridges, Ross, C. Clerk, Seymour, H. Douglas, J. Somerset, lord G. Fellowes, N. Townshend, col. Gordon, hon. W. Tremayne, J. H. Green, Thos. Wharton, J. Joliffe, J. Wigram, W. Lovain, lord Wilson, Thos. Lowther, J. Wortley, J. S. Lowther, lord TELLERS Lushington, S. R. Manners, lord R. Colburn, Ridley Milbank, M. Shelley, sir John ASSESSORS AT ELECTIONS' BILL.] Mr. H. Twiss moved the committal of this bill. Mr. Hobhouse said, that the bill had been before the House almost as many sessions as he had been a member of it; and yet he had hardly heard any reason in its support. The learned mover seemed to think that there was a want of lawyers at elections; now, he thought the evil was of an opposite character—from what he had seen, there were too many lawyers at elections. But without adverting to the provisions of the bill, he had to express the hope that at so advanced a period of the session, the bill might be withdrawn. Mr. H. Twiss said, that the fault was not his that the bill had not been brought on earlier; nor was the situation of his bill peculiar; others, not originating with the government, being similarly circumstanced; so that it would seem, as he had brought the bill before the House four 1270 HOUSE OF LORDS. Wednesday, June 22. RATE OF INTEREST IN INDIA.] The Marquis of Hastings rose to move the second reading of the bill he had introduced to explain the clause of the act of the 13th of Geo. 3rd, relating to interest payable in the East-Indies. He observed, that as the learned judges were now present, as well as several noble lords who were not in their places when he introduced the bill, he should recapitulate the arguments which he had addressed to the House on that occasion. His bill was intended to define the true scope and meaning of the limitation of interest contained in the clause. The opinion which the law officers of the Crown had given was now before their lordships, and they would find, that that opinion was contrary to the understood meaning of the clause in India, and to the practice which had always been followed there. The bill he introduced, therefore, declared in express terms, that the clause in the 13th Geo. 3rd did not extend to persons within the territories of an independent sovereign. The law officers of the Crown, whose opinions were asked on this clause, had been under the necessity of extracting some meaning or other from it; but they had fallen into an error in conceiving that it extended beyond the British dominions in India. If they had looked into former statutes, they would have found that, in the greater part of those statutes, the words "East-Indies" were exclusively applied to the possessions of the East-India company. The noble marquis then reiterated what he had before stated respecting the practice of the Indian government, and repeated his argument, that offences committed in an independent state could not be prosecuted in any of the three presidencies, since the courts of those presidencies did not even take cognizance of offences committed within the jurisdiction of each other. In the paper on the table, their lordships would find a reference to the 37th of the late king; but that act threw no light on the clause in question; and it would, indeed, have been very extraordinary if twenty years had been suffered to elapse without this 1271 HOUSE OF COMMONS. Wednesday, June 22. PETITION OF F. JONES, COMPLAINING OF COUNTRY BANK NOTES NOT BEING PAID IN GOLD.] Mr. Hume said, he had a petition to present from Mr. Frederick Jones, of Bristol, on a subject of great importance—the laws respecting our currency. The House were aware that a great increase had taken place in the price of all the necessaries of life, and that it was held as a general principle by many political economists, that where such a great rise took place in all the articles of consumption, it was chiefly attributable to some change in the state of the currency. There were different opinions on this subject; but, as it appeared by the petition which he was about to present, that a large portion of the currency of the country was not immediately convertible into gold, it was very possible that that circumstance might have had a considerable effect in producing the rise to which he had alluded. After a brief history of Mr. Peel's bill, and of the subsequent measure by which country bankers were permitted to issue small notes, the hon. member proceeded to state the contents of the petition. It appeared that the petitioner, having occasion for some gold, presented six one pound notes at the Castle Bank at Bristol, for which he demanded gold; when he was told by the clerk, who tendered him Bank of England notes, that the gold was locked up, and that he could not comply with his request. When, again, he presented forty-five one pound notes of the same bank for payment in gold, gold was again refused; and Bank of England notes were again tendered. On applying to his attorney, he was informed that his only remedy was an action at 1272 Mr. J. Smith said, that never in the course of his experience had he heard a more singular petition. Country banks were now placed on the same footing as the Bank of England, and if a country banker refused to pay on demand he was liable to an action. He thought, however, that in case of a great run, country bankers ought to be allowed time to get their specie from London. It might have happened that a house might have been so indiscreet as to refuse payment; but he knew there was not a respectable country banker in England who would refuse to pay notes in gold if demanded. He never knew a petition less necessary, less called 1273 Mr. Brougham said, that country bankers were by law bound to pay their notes on demand, and this petitioner knew it, because he said in this petition, that after applying for legal advice, he found he had no remedy but an action at law. If any other act was to be passed, that could only give a remedy by an action at law. The hon. gentleman who spoke last had said, that perhaps time ought to be given to bankers to send to London in case of a run. Surely he could not mean seriously to say that a banker had a right to wait till he sent to London for cash. The banker was bound to pay every farthing at his own risk. If there was a run, he must do what he could to meet it. To pass an act, giving bankers a time, within which to pay what by law they were bound to pay instanter, would be injurious to every rank in the country, and grossly insulting to the legislature which passed such an act. Mr. J. Smith in explanation, observed, that in point of fact, the law to which he alluded was an ancient law, by which it was enacted, that if a country banker did not pay in three days, he might be compelled to pay by a summary proceeding before a magistrate. He repeated, that no country banker did or could keep by him gold sufficient to satisfy all the notes he might have in circulation. Mr. Hart Davis could not help thinking there was some mistake which might be explained. Mr. Hume said, that when the petition was put into his hands, he had inquired why the individuals complained of had not been arrested, and he was informed that an interpretation had been given to the act which precluded them from immediate arrest. Mr. Huskisson said, there could be no doubt that every banker who issued bank notes, payable on demand, was liable to pay them the same as he was before the bank restriction, and in the same manner as the Bank of England was bound to pay all its notes. Sir J. Wrottesley hoped that the hon. member for Aberdeen had inquired well into the character of the petitioner from whom he had received the petition; otherwise, as the contents of the petition had a tendency to affect the credit of a mercantile establishment in a very important point, by a recent decision, the parties in- 1274 Mr. Hume said, he had reason to believe that the petitioner was correct in his statements; for it had been delivered to him by persons in whom he could repose confidence. He did not know the parties against whom the petition complained, but had taken up the case upon a general principle, and upon the belief that the petitioner was deprived of his remedy at law. Mr. T. Wilson said, the petitioner might be some mischievous individual who wished to injure the name and character of the parties referred to. Unless the hon. member knew the individual, he ought to withdraw the petition rather than let it lie on the table. Mr. Hume consented to withdraw the petition until he had made further inquiries concerning the facts, and the parties concerned. CONDUCT OF LORD CHARLES SOMERSET AT THE CAPE OF GOOD HOPE.] Mr. Brougham postponed his motion for taking into consideration the petition of Mr. Bishop Burnett against the governor of the Cape of Good Hope until the beginning of the next session. Upon consideration, he found it would be improper to open charges which could not be answered that session. Mr. Secretary Canning said, that the circumstances had been referred to the commissioners of inquiry sent out to the Cape of Good Hope. Leave of absence had also been forwarded to lord C. Somerset, that he might, if he thought fit, return to meet the charges made against him. But, whether his lordship came home or not, the commissioners would prosecute their inquiry at the Cape. Certain it was, that the office had not sufficient means of information to warrant the House to undertake the investigation at present. Neither would it be consistent with fairness and justice, since the government had sent out a leave of absence, to proceed, until it was seen whether or not lord C. Somerset would avail himself of it Mr. Wilmot Horton took that opportunity, in reply to a question put to him the other day, to state, that Edwards was an escaped felon from New South Wales, and was at the Cape, but had had no concern in these transactions. 1275 Lord E. Somerset said, that feeling interested in the character and reputation of his noble relative, against whom such serious charges had been brought, he was naturally anxious to take the earliest opportunity to assure the House, that the noble lord, so far from shrinking from an inquiry into his conduct, was desirous of submitting his whole proceedings to the fullest and most complete investigation. A commission was now engaged in inquiries into all the measures of his noble relation, and it was the object of that noble lord to give every facility to the proceedings of that commission. The more the conduct of his noble relative was inquired into, the more satisfactory would that conduct appear to the world, and the more completely would he be rescued from those abuses and attacks to which he had been lately exposed. Anonymous publications had been circulated against his noble relation, and the utmost pains had been taken to diffuse such slander throughout the Cape. Some of these charges were of the most atrocious nature; but at the same time, their inconsistencies with each other destroyed the credibility of the whole of them. He conjured the House to suspend its judgment until the report of the commissioners had arrived, and until his noble relative should return to England, if he thought it necessary, to avail himself of the leave of absence which had been offered to him. Mr. Brougham said, he had never read one line against lord C. Somerset, except the petition of Mr. Burnett, and a case relating to his professional duties at the bar. He was totally unprejudiced against lord Charles, but nevertheless he thought that the charges against him ought to be investigated. Of all men on earth lord Charles, if he were innocent, ought to be the most desirous for that investigation. One charge was, that the noble lord had fixed the criminality of a publication upon Mr. Burnett, whereas the real culprit was the notorious Oliver, the spy. NEWSPAPERS BILL.] The report of this bill being brought up, Mr. Hume entreated the chancellor of the Exchequer to listen to his proposal for reducing the duties on newspapers, which he might do without injury to the revenue. The doing away the restriction as to the size of the paper was good; so was the reduction of the stamp on sup- 1276 d. l. d. l. l. d. d. s. d. d. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that if he were about to sell an estate, he should not for a moment object to the hon. member's guarantee; but where half a million of public revenue was at stake, he must excuse him if he looked for some greater security. Besides, the newspapers were satisfied with the benefits they were to derive from the proposed regulation. The hon. member objected, that lessening the duty on supplements would benefit only a few, and was an injustice to the other papers. To this he answered, that he lessened a particular duty upon those who were obliged to pay it, and this surely could be no hardship upon persons not subject to that duty. When he considered the variety of taxes they had dealt with during the session, and the number of reductions which had been made; he could not consent to any further reductions. 1277 NAVIGATION LAWS—BRITISH SHIPPING BILL.] On the order of the day for the third reading, Mr. Robertson begged to call the attention of the House to the great decrease of shipping in this country, and its increase in other countries, from which the right hon. gentleman near him had lately removed the operation of our old Navigation Laws. From papers which were before the House, it appeared that the increase of foreign shipping engaged in the Baltic trade with us, since the removal of those restraints which formerly existed upon it, was no less than 150,000 tons; and the decrease of British shipping trading to the ports of those vessels was 28,000 tons. The whole foreign commerce that was carried on by this country, and which, during the prevalence of our old navigation laws, was confined almost exclusively to British bottoms, was now transacted, the major part of it at least, in foreign vessels. The proportion between the two descriptions of shipping might be very shortly stated thus—the foreign trade of Great Britain employed of British shipping 660,000 tons; of foreign ditto, 680,000. He did, therefore, earnestly exhort the House to consider well the inevitable consequences to which the measures lately pursued by ministers must tend. Twelve years ago only, what would have been thought of a statement that such was the condition of our trade? How would gentlemen have been alarmed, if it had been stated that our foreign commerce was carried on by vessels of other nations than our own? It was true that our coasting trade was very flourishing, and, including that of Ireland, employed a tonnage of near 1,000,000 tons. The trade with the United States, however, like our foreign commerce, exhibited the same alarming appearances; for it employed British shipping to the amount of 42,000 tons only; but shipping of the United States to the amount of 126,000 tons. He must call such a condition of things most alarming. Let it be remembered that America possessed about an equal share with ourselves of the trade with the continent; and that a very large coasting trade was carried on in her own vessels upon her own coasts. The natural tendency of that trade to increase, presented to his mind the prospect of additional changes to our own trade hereafter. If the right hon. gentleman who had so warmly advocated the fatal alterations in 1278 PARTNERSHIPS SOCIETIES (SCOT- 1279 On the order of the day for the third reading, Mr. J. P. Grant said, that the bill had been brought in without due consideration. Its preamble recited that to be true which was manifestly false; and declared that to be law which the decision of the House of Lords, in a recent case, had declared not to be law. If this bill should pass, it would hold up this House to absolute ridicule. The bill set forth, that, by the law of Scotland, partnerships, or commercial associations of individuals, might sue and be sued in respect of debts, bonds, &c.: but, so far from this being the case, decisions of the courts of session in Scotland had repeatedly held, that such partnerships could neither sue nor be sued. The Lord Advocate contended, that, by the law of Scotland, as it had existed for upwards of a hundred years, partnerships might sue and be sued. Authority, too, was given by the same law to record bills of exchange, in further extension of the principle that partnerships might sue and be sued. The records of parliament would show innumerable instances of appeals carried on in the names of such joint partnerships. He would further observe, that this was not a declaratory but a prospective bill. The measure was one of the utmost importance to the commercial interests of Scotland; and he might say, that they would be excessively alarmed if they heard that the question had been made matter of doubt. Mr. T. Wilson supported the bill, and was so convinced of its beneficial tendency, that he should be glad to see a similar measure introduced into our own commercial law. Mr. Scarlett would be sorry to see any such thing introduced into the law of England. It would lead in its operation to a great deal of fraud; for if all partners in a partnership were able to sue or to be sued, what would be the condition of a defendant, who having been proceeded against by all of them, should have judgment in his favour? What would he do, in very many cases, for his costs? How would he be able to recover them? It was to be hoped, therefore, that no such measure would be engrafted upon the law of England. As to the bill itself, it was clearly declaratory. Mr. Baring said, that the learned lord had intimated, that in Scotland the bill was absolutely necessary; a learned friend of his had just declared, that he should be 1280 The Attorney General said, it had been considered by those who introduced this bill, that they were proceeding upon what was law, and had been considered to be law in Scotland for a hundred years and upwards. At the suggestion of some commercial men, he himself had lately entertained some thoughts of proposing a similar measure in respect to England; but when he came to look more carefully at its necessary operation in this country, and to consider how wide a difference the very existence of such a court as the court of Chancery made between the two kingdoms in respect of the expediency of such a law (which court Scotland did not possess), he was convinced that it was not advisable to introduce any such measure into the law of England. The present bill did not establish any new principle; but was only brought in for the purpose of removing any doubts about that which was already law in Scotland. HOUSE OF LORDS. Thursday, June 23. JUDGES' SALARIES BILL.] The Earl of Liverpool in rising to move the second reading of this bill, said it was one of several bills relating to the same subject, and which he would move should be read separately. The first bill which he should notice was one for abolishing the sale of offices in the court of King's-bench, it being thought more advisable that a regulated 1281 l. l l l l. l. The Marquis of Lansdown said, he approved of the bill, as it did away the sale of offices, which, as a mode of paying the judges, he thought very objectionable. It tended to affect the situations of those eminent officers, and the better plan certainly was, to give them a simple salary. Another great object provided for by this bill was, to raise the salaries of the puisne judges to an amount adequate to the rank they held. But, upon this point, he had heard different opinions expressed; for it was thought by many, that by this bill the salaries were somewhat too low, and the retired allowances were somewhat too high. A principal consideration should be, to induce the most distinguished lawyers to accept those situations freely, by rendering it worth their while to do so. At the same time, it was not proper that any office should be over-paid; for, in that case, it became an object of political solicitation; the effect of which was to degrade the office, instead of raising it in the public estimation. He found it asserted in a work, published some time ago by M. Cottu, a French writer, that the government of this country were inexorable in demanding the most precise political opinions from those who were appointed as judges. If this was so, it was a great misfortune; and though no such subserviency was observable in the conduct of the judges, yet their lordships must see, that to hold out high inducements tended to it. With respect to the Welch judges, the 1282 Lord Ellenborough thought this bill altogether inefficacious for the ends proposed. With respect to fees, those in the office he held, which was the highest in the court of King's-bench, were as small now, if not smaller, than they were two hundred years ago. He denied that this bill provided an adequate remuneration for the chief justice of the court of King's-bench. The higher offices in that court had never been sold; though, as there was no objection to the sale of an advowson to a living, there ought not, in his opinion, to be any objection to the sale of a ministerial office. There could be no reason for lowering, as this bill did, the proportion which the salary of the chief justice had previously borne to the salaries of the puisne judges. It was desirable, in many instances, that the chief justice of the court of King's-bench should be a member of that House; but no man could in prudence accept a peerage who had only a salary of 10,000 l. 1283 l. l. l. l The Earl of Liverpool explained, that after the passing of the bill, no office was to be sold; but it was never intended to have a retrospective effect on those offices which had already been sold. There were two modes of proceeding in dealing with vested interests: they might be bought up, or they might be allowed to expire. Either of these was equally just; but if the government had bought up these vested interests, it might have given rise to many disputes. It was therefore thought better to allow these interests to expire. As to the salary of the judges, it was the general feeling of the country that they should not be rewarded by the sale of offices. That mode had, indeed, been sanctioned by long practice, and he would not say it was wrong at the time it was adopted; but now, when the courts were to be re-modelled, it was the general opinion, in which he concurred, that the judges should not be paid by the unseemly practice of selling offices. As to what the noble lord said about the salary of the chief justice, the question was, what could be considered as a fair remuneration for the chief justice, taking into consideration the dignity of his office, and the duties he had to perform? And he thought 10,000 l. l. Lord Cawdor rose to complain of the little which had been done to remedy the evils of the system of Welch judicature. As long ago as 1798, the House of Com- 1284 The Lord Chancellor expressed his satisfaction, that the sale of places in the courts of law was now to be prohibited. He was convinced, that it was far better, in principle, to pay the chief justices by a fixed salary. Not that he supposed that the chief justices had ever made an improper use of this power to dispose of offices: he was convinced they had not; but it was proper that the people should be satisfied they had not; and they never would be satisfied of this, as long as the chief justices had any such power. It was necessary to keep the administration of justice clear of all suspicion. There was another reason why he was pleased with the abolition of the sale of offices. It often happened, that those who purchased offices opposed reforms in the courts, because they might operate to their prejudice. He believed that every chief justice was above attending to a consideration of this nature; but it was of importance that the public should be satisfied that they were, and there was no better way of accomplishing this, than by abolishing the sale of all offices. As to the puisne judges, they had done their duty, and he believed always would do their duty, though their salaries were ten times the amount. The great security for good conduct in the judges was, that the public view was constantly cast on them. Their lordships would, he thought, commit a great mistake were they to be niggardly in rewarding them. At present, gentlemen at the bar, who were only third-rate lawyers gained, and deservedly gained, more than the salaries of the puisne judges. He put it, therefore, to the good sense of their lordships, if the puisne judges should not be so paid as to enable the government to select them from among the gentlemen who were eminent at the bar. If they did not pay them well they would narrow their choice; and no man of eminence, while he was able to go through the fatigue of a barrister, would accept the situation of a puisne judge. As to the abolition of all sinecures, he was as desirous as any one among them for all sinecures to be abolished. The office which he had himself coveted most, and from which he had afterwards retired, namely, that of chief justice of the Common Pleas, did not produce him one-third of the income he receiv- 1285 HOUSE OF COMMONS Thursday, June 23. EXPULSION OF MR. SHREWSBURY, THE MISSIONARY, FROM BARBADOES.] Mr. Fowell Buxton rose, and addressed the House to the following effect:— Mr. Shrewsbury was, for some time, a Methodist minister in England; and conducted himself entirely to the satisfaction of those with whom he was connected. In the year 1816, he was sent as a missionary to Tortola. He remained there two years; and on his departure, Mr. Porter, then senior member of Council, now president 1286 Tortola April Mr. Ross, of Clarke's Court, Grenada, —than whom, I understand, there is not a more respectable man in the West Indies —the proprietor of one large estate, the manager of twelve others, and having under his superintendence a body of between two and three thousand negroes, —having daily opportunities of witnessing Mr. Shrewsbury's conduct while in that island, thus wrote of him, in a private letter, at the time : —" Mr. Shrewsbury is a superior man, who would do honour to any church or society of christians." This same Mr. Ross happened to be in England, when the news arrived of the disturbances in Barbadoes, and he had the generosity to write this testimony : — 1287 Mr. Shrewsbury had devoted himself laboriously to the improvement of the negroes, and with the best effects. Instruction was gaining ground; marriages became more frequent; the marriage tie was held more sacred; a more orderly and moral deportment was observed among the negroes; and, in short, many of those changes so much desired by this House —so ardently looked forward to by the people of England—but not more ardently, I feel it but justice to say, than by many benevolent and respectable planters, followed his ministry. But, while he had devoted himself to the improvement of the negroes, he had won the confidence and esteem of the planters; and left the island with the love of the slaves, the approbation of the masters, and universal testimonies of regret at his departure. 1288 1289 1290 Mr. Shrewsbury remained in the Island three years and three quarters. During the first three years and a half, he had to, endure the common lot of a methodist missionary—some persecution, or, if that be too hard a term, some annoyance, some detraction, some bitterness of spirit, evincing itself in petty insults. For example: some of the gentry of Barbadoes felt it to be their duty to walk into his chapel on Sunday, during the time of service, with their hats on, whistling a tune, and keeping time to their own music, by drumming against the benches. In short, something of that little pitiful, spiteful; ignominious warfare, with which men of paltry minds love tovex those whose stricter lives are a comment and a reproach to their own. Of all this I make but little. The man who undertakes the high character of a missionary must be prepared for trifles of this kind : his is an office; than which none is more truly honourable; but, before he embraces it, he should count the cost, and remember that, accepting it, he must be prepared to accept also pains and perils abroad, shame and contempt at home. For these slight insults Mr. Shrewsbury had full compensation, in an increasing and improving congregation—in a very large school for mulatto and negro children—in the favour of several respectable planters—and in the approbation of the clergy; from many of whom he received at all times, but more particularly in the moment of trial, demonstrations of kindness, which ought not to be forgotten. 1291 1292 1293 1294 1295 Mr. Shrewsbury did not apply to the magistrates. And, as this is the only occasion in which there is any pretext for charging him, even with an error of judgment, I shall inquire whether he ought to have applied to the magistrates. To which of them should he have gone? To Mr. Haines, who said he would lead the way, and pull down the chapel at noonday? To Mr. Moore, who summoned him before the court, where to appear was to perish? To the magistrate, at whose shop the bottles were prepared? To Mr. Newsome, the lawyer, or to Mr. Walton, jun., of whom I will say something presently? To address himself to these, was to address himself to the bitterest of his enemies. And, if it be pretended that, had he gone to them, he would have received protection, I answer distinctly, that it is clear he would not, for this reason—they afterwards, by their own confession, knew that the mob had assembled, were pulling down the chapel, and, for aught they knew, murdering the preacher; and their own account of their conduct is, that they went home and went to bed. Now, will it be believed, that those magistrates, who did not interfere when the rioters 1296 did 1297 where when 1298 Bridgetown, Tuesday, Oct. 1299 Bridgetown,Barbadoes, October 1300 l 1301 1302 1303 1304 1305 1306 1307 is 1308 1309 Mr. Smith made no communication to the governor—the time and the distance rendering it physically impossible. The magistrates are asked, "Did you make any communication to the governor on the subject?" "I made no communication to him," is the answer of them all. 1310 1311 Mr. Wilmot Horton said:—He should not attempt to follow the hon. member into the details of the complaint which he had just submitted to the House, but should endeavour to confine himself to such a statement as would put the House in possession of the knowledge of the real condition of the island to which the motion of the hon. member referred, at the time when the facts in question had occurred, in order that the House might be enabled to form a correct judgment of the original causes which had led to so unfortunate a result. In fulfilment of this duty, however, he should endeavour to offer such observations as might be calculated to conciliate angry feelings on either side, and to prevent the recurrence of such evils for the future, rather than attempt to follow, step by step, the minute and substantially-accurate statement of facts, which the hon. member had just made. 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 l l l 1317 Mr. William Smith said, that, not merely for the sale of the Wesleyan missionaries, or the religious instruction of the colonies, but for the honour of this country, he considered the motion of his hon. friend as highly important. It was absolutely necessary, that a lesson should be read to the inhabitants of Barbadoes; who had displayed, throughout this transaction, as well as upon other occasions, so dangerous and outrageous a spirit; and whose language was little short of rebellion. He was happy to find, that the hon. Secretary for the colonies had allowed their conduct to be wholly unjustifiable; though he seemed desirous of finding some ground for it, in the conduct of the Missionary Board, or of :Mr. Shrewsbury. For his own part, he had no hesitation in saying, that there was not a shadow of a charge against Mr. Shrewsbury. The obnoxious letter, of which so much had been said, contained no reflections on the white population of the colony, half so strong, as 1318 1319 1320 Mr. Butterworth said, that being connected with the Wesleyan Missionary Society, he must request the indulgence of the House, while he made a very few observations on the case now under consideration. The honourable Colonial Secretary, at the commencement of his speech, had stated, that all these subjects relative to missions in the colonies, should be treated in a spirit of conciliation, and not with hostility. He could assure the honourable gentleman, that a spirit of conciliation had uniformly been manifested by Mr. Shrewsbury and the rest of the missionaries, as well as by those who had the management of the Wesleyan Missions. Nothing could more directly prove this, than the conduct of Mr. Shrewsbury, when, after the destruction of his house and property, for no offence—when he had been forced to escape for his life out of the island of Barbadoes, with his wife, at the very moment she expected to be confined, ha sat down as soon as he landed in St. Vincent's, and wrote that most judicious and conciliatory pastoral letter to his distressed flock in Barbadoes, which had been alluded to by the honourable mover. In this letter he entreated them not to resent the unprovoked injury which they had sustained, but to bear with meekness and patience every insult, and not to render evil for evil. Nothing could be more conciliatory, nor better evince the Christian spirit of forbearance, than that admirable letter. 1321 1322 1323 deeply implicated 1324 Mr. Secretary Canning observed, that as it was evident that no possible advantage could result from prolonging the present debate, he did not offer any apology for addressing himself thus early to the House, for the purpose of stating the course which his majesty's government were prepared to take upon the hon. gentleman's motion. He begged, however, in the first place, to advert to an expression which had been made use of by the hon. member who spoke last, in referring to the speech of his hon. friend behind him, the Secretary for the Colonies, as an intended justification 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 Mr. Butterworth observed,—That he was quite sure that the amendment of the right hon. gentleman who had just sat down would afford ample satisfaction to the Wesleyan Mission Committee. They had no feelings of resentment to gratify. All they wanted was protection for their Missionaries, while they conducted themselves properly. With regard, however, to what the right hon. gentleman had stated, that Mr. Shrewsbury's letter of 1820 was very proper for him to write to the committee, but most injudicious in the latter to publish, and that it was like throwing a firebrand into the colony—he must confess that he thought very differently. It was an accurate description of the moral condition of the island; and, unless the subscribers to the missions were made acquainted with the actual state of those countries to which the missionaries were sent, whether to our own: colonies or to heathen lands, they could not be expected to support the missions. In respect to the letter being like "a firebrand," it certainly was a very cold one; for it had lain publicly in the colony for three years, without producing any light or heat, until it was kindled by the flame which arrived from Demerara, and by gross misrepresentations in Barbadoes. Mr. Brougham said, that, after the course taken by the right hon. Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the few observations which he should feel it his duty to offer would be of little importance. He was happy to say, that he highly approved of the amendment; which, unlike many other propositions bearing that name, and .proceeding from the other side of the House, was, in truth as well as in name, an amendment of the original motion. But, he would now, as he did upon all other 1332 1333 1334 1335 1336 1337 1338 Mr. Bernal said, that, after the great temper and moderation which had been shewn in the early part of the discussion, he could not help thinking it a little hard, that the hon. and learned member should have excursed into so wide and sweeping a field of invective. Those hon. members, who were either West-India proprietors, or were otherwise connected with the colonies, had not had any previous notice given to them, that they would thus be put upon their trial. Could any one have expected, after hearing the terms of the original motion, and the judicious and discriminating amendment of the right hon. Secretary for Foreign Affairs, that those proprietors would have been exposed to the unsparing abuse of the hon. and learned gentleman? From authority which was unquestionable, he could boldly state, that the hon. and learned gentleman was not warranted in the attack which he had thought proper to make on the House of Assembly in Jamaica. He denied, that the bill which that House had passed to prevent the arrest of slaves on a market-day was so much for the benefit of the master, as it was for the slave. The legislative Assembly of Jamaica had not been 1339 Mr. Manning said:—Mr. Speaker, I am very desirous of being permitted to say a few words, in consequence of what has fallen from the hon. member for Weymouth, respecting the inhabitants of the island of Barbadoes. The hon. member 1340 1341 1342 l Mr. Secretary Canning said, by way of explanation, that it appeared to him, that, the hon. gentleman who had just addressed the House, considered the amendment as comprehending the whole of the population of Barbadoes, and as casting a censure upon them all. This, however, was not the case. It reflected upon nothing but the act; for one of the difficulties, and, indeed, the great difficulty of the present case was, that the actors were not known, and therefore could not be brought to justice. The hon. gentleman had also. alluded to the riots which had taken place in London, in the year 1780. There was, however, this distinction between that and the present case—the law, for a time, had certainly been defied; but, every exertion: had afterwards been made, by the community to bring the offenders to justice, and many of them had been so brought to justice. Such had not been the case at Barbadoes: a great outrage had been there perpetrated; and, although it must have been committed within the knowledge of half the 1343 Dr. Lushington said, it appeared to him, that the hon. member for Lymington, (Mr. M.)had failedin making out a defence for the extraordinary conduct of the white population of Barbadoes; whose supineness, under what had occurred, placed them in a situation very little better than that of accessories after the fact. The magistrates of that island had not only manifested a culpable remissness in the discharge of their duty, but had evidently shewn a disposition to secure impunity to those who had committed the most disgraceful outrages against the laws of the island, and the peace of the community. It was not negligence, but wilful misconduct, that he imputed to some of those magistrates. It appeared, from the papers on the table of the House, the correctness of which was not disputed, that two of their magistrates, though cognizant of the outrage about to be committed, had concealed from the government the knowledge of the illegal acts intended to be done; and they had thereby prevented the timely interference that might have stopped the commencement of the riots, or have enabled the governor to suppress them before the object was accomplished, and to have detected and brought to punishment the guilty: nor had the local authorities, after the disapprobation of the governor had been publicly declared, redeemed their character, by any zealous exertions to bring to trial the delinquents. He was satisfied that the magistracy of Barbadoes had no just feeling of the atrocity of these transactions, and that their errors were wilful.—The utter inefficiency of the magistracy was not more to be censured, than the morbid state of feeling in the white inhabitants was deserving of reprobation. In what way had the Barbadians expressed their abhorrence of those scandalous acts? They had expressed no such abhorrence at all; and were, consequently, guilty of a criminal acquiescence in the 1344 1345 Mr. Fowell Buxton rose to reply, and spoke as follows:—I hardly know, that it is necessary for me to trouble the House with any reply. No defence of the conduct of the rioters has been offered. The hon. under Secretary has borne testimony to the accuracy of my statement; and, the right hon. Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has, with his usual manliness, given vent to feelings of indignation in language at least as strong as any that I used. Upon what, then, have we now to dispute? The facts are confessedly true—the inference is undeniable. The right hon. gentleman alters a phrase or two of my resolution. With this I am abundantly contented: for he has left me—and that is all I care for—the declaration of the Commons of England, that we will have religious toleration in the West-Indies.—I rejoice that the discussion has taken place. It has given an opportunity to my hon. and learned friend (Mr. Brougham) to state the course he will pursue in the next session; and every man who is interested in the welfare of the negro population will join me in considering his pledge, and the dedication of his most extraordinary talents to the cause, as the greatest matter of congratulation which we have yet enjoyed. I would hope, however, that the planters will avert the necessity of his interference. I would entreat them to take warning, before it is too late; I would say to them, "You have interests greater far than any other class; and interests which will be decided by your conduct now. The Abolitionists would pretend, that such enormities as those which I have described, are natural to slavery. We do insinuate, that, in a state of society where one class are masters and the other slaves, there must be, and will he, cruelties, and blood, and a deadly hatred of all those who would impart knowledge or Christianity to the negro. But, it is your part to dispel the delusion, if it be one—to separate slavery from these its wretched accompaniments—to sever your system from a system of fierce persecution—to give the people of England the satisfaction of knowing, that there is law and justice for the negro and his teacher. You 1346 1347 REGISTRY OF SHIPS' BILL—COMBINATION OF WORKMEN.] Mr. Huskisson moved the third reading of this bill; and then proceeded to state, that he had a clause to propose by way of rider. By the law of this country at present, no British ship could be repaired except in the ports of this country, unless the owner could show that the ship had met with some accident which rendered the repairs in a foreign port necessary; and then, so jealous had been the law on this subject, that he was only to have repairs done to a certain amount per ton. At present, in consequence of a combination among the shipwrights, carpenters, and other persons employed in building and repairing ships, it was impossible to get any ship repaired in the Thames. For Several months past there had been no work done in the port of London, in consequence of those combinations which had been entered into, not in reference to the rate of wages, but in reference to the mode of employment. During that part of the year, in which the men were most actively employed, the ships had been lying idle and going to decay, because the necessary repairs could not be procured. If these parties entered into combinations with a view of dictating to the masters the mode of employing their capital, and of imposing a certain line of conduct on other shipwrights; if they listened to delegates, and had permanent sittings; it was high time to show them the folly of their proceedings, by enabling the ship-owners to procure those repairs for their ships elsewhere, which were refused them in London. That this was not a combination for a rise of wages was evident, from the president of the delegates having told the master ship-wrights, that it was a contest between capital and physical strength, and that the latter must succeed. It became the House, under these circumstances, to protect those who were suffering under this combination. He should propose, then, to add a clause 1348 Mr. Ellice entirely concurred in the measure of the right hon. gentleman, but, he regretted that it was not carried further. He could not understand, why a ship-owner should not, at all times, be allowed to have his ship repaired, at the cheapest place. Mr. Robertson opposed the measure. The House was about to give up our Navigation laws, and sacrifice our maritime superiority, because some of our people combined, and it did not know how to put a stop to this combination. He had always opposed the measures of ministers; for he foresaw they would lead to discontent. They had thrown open our trade, and had allowed ships to come here with cargoes, and afterwards to engage in our trade. The people of this country saw the cheaper labour of 1349 Mr. Hume thought the hon. member completely misunderstood the nature of the measure. Nobody in that House wished to reduce the pittance of the labourer. When individuals interfered to prevent other persons from taking work, or following their own inclination, the law should give them protection. Mr. Bright contended, that this clause introduced an entire new principle into our law, and wished it should be postponed, and made the subject of a separate measure. HOUSE OF LORDS. Friday, June 24. EQUITABLE LOAN BILL.] Lord Dacre moved for the third reading of this bill. The Lord Chancellor in opposing the motion, said, he did so without the slightest intention of casting any imputation on the persons who composed this company; many of whom he knew were highly respectable. The learned lord then proceeded to show that the company was instituted on unfair pretensions. It was proposed, that it should lend on pledges sums under 10 l 1350 Lord Dacre said, that as to the advantages of the bill, surely, to lend small sums under 10 l HOUSE OF COMMONS. Friday, June 24. CONDUCT OF MR. KENRICK, IN THE CASE OF CANFOR.] The order of the day being read, for taking into consideration the petition of Martin Money Canfor, presented on the 14th [see p. 1143], the 1351 Martin Money Canfor was called in; and examined as follows. Mr. Denman. In the course of last summer, were you a farmer at Charlwood in Surrey?— Yes. 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 l Gurney. 1357 l l Examined by the Committee. By Mr. Denman. —Is that the note given you by Mr. Kenrick?—[The same being shewn to the witness.]—This is the note that Mr. Kenrick gave to me to take to Beale. By Mr. Peel —Was the ram, when you found it, in an open fold?—In an open field; it was inclosed in a fold. 1358 1359 By the Attorney General. —Did you mention to Mr. Kenrick that you had seen a man of the name of Hugget, who had seen Beale lead away this ram from the common by a string?—Certainly not, he did not go into the detail of facts; I told him I had a chain of evidence; that I had clear proof he had taken my property; that I had been to his fold and I had seen the ram. 1360 By Mr. Brougham. —What did Hugget tell You he had seen Beale do with the seep?—That he had seen him take it. 1361 By Mr. M. A. Taylor. —Did not Adams come into the room with a search-warrant which Adams had written out for Mr. Kenrick to sign?—Adams, left the room, and came in with a printed paper; Mr. Kenrick says, "What have you got there?" he said, "Sir, it is the form of a search-warrant;" Mr. Kenrick said, "this note I am writing will answer the purpose," or word; to that effect. By Sir R. Wilson. —After you had made Beale acquainted with your intention to charge him with a felony might he not have destroyed that mark by which you proved the felony, if he had been conscious of being guilty of theft?—He had destroyed it; I mean to say, he had pulled it all to pieces. Solicitor-General 1362 By Mr. Goulburn. —How came you to have sheep on Westwood-common?—That I do not know, that is what I want to find out. By Mr. Peel. —When Beale produced the fleece, you had no doubt whatever it was the fleece of your ram?—I knew it was my fleece, he said it was from that ram. By Mr. W. Lamb. —How came you to petition the House of Commons upon this subject?—There was no other place I could apply to that I knew; I had done every thing; I had brought him to a court of justice, and he had pleaded guilty to the charge I had laid against him, and there was no other place where I could get protection; I did it to let the country see that though a man is poor, if he has got spirit and money, the great will be brought to justice as well as the poor. 1363 By Mr. Brougham. —Did you offer to make a deposition to Mr. Kenrick on oath?—I did. I told him I had seen the ram, and was come there to swear to it. By Mr. Peel. —With respect to the compromise with Mr. Kenrick, was that by your directions?—No; Mr. Gurney can tell you all about that.—I was out of court; I knew nothing about it till I came in. l 1364 Attorney-General 1365 l By Sir R. Wilson. —You have stated that Mr. Kenrick had said, he would ruin you; on what authority is that stated?—It was common talk in the neighbourhood; and in fact it was said to my wife, and my wife was ill for six months through it, she was frightened. By Mr. Denman. —Were you told by your counsel or your attorney, after the compromise had been made, what the terms of it were?— I was not told at all, no further than my instructions to Mr. Thessiger was, that if I was to be at a farthing loss the business should go on. 1366 1367 1368 l l 1369 Mr. Gurney then spoke in the following terms:—"I should have thought I might have rested the case of Mr. Kenrick on his own statement of it, were it not for that part of the transaction in which I was personally concerned. Mr. Kenrick intrusted his defence against Canfor to Mr. Bolland and myself, and when the trial was called on, I understood that the object of Canfor was only to obtain his costs. Certainly, I was of opinion, that Mr. Kenrick had not a legal defence, and that a verdict must pass against him, which would carry costs. I suggested, therefore, to the counsel on the other side, that if such were really the object of Canfor, that object might be attained by taking a verdict, which we should not resist. The plaintiff was accordingly called, and he and his, counsel consulted, and with his perfect approbation the arrangement was made. The costs, of curse, would remain to be taxed by the officer of the court, who would necessarily take into his consideration the terms of the arrangement; and who would allow costs to the full extent according to those terms. Such being the fact, it will remain for this House to determine whether, after the party has been disappointed in the amount he expected to receive, the petition has not been resorted to rather as a measure of revenge than of justice. What other meaning could be given to the phrase, that Canfor would again "tackle" Mr. Kenrick, if he were not able to obtain from him a larger sum of money than the officer of the court awarded? The case appears to be this, and this only. A perfect stranger waits upon Mr. Kenrick as a magistrate, and charges a man of a respectable station and character with a felony. He states, that a number of his sheep had strayed, and that a part were found upon Westwood Common; that Beale had taken one of them;—that he found it in his fold with others, and that it was shorn like others. The farmer insisted that it was his own ram, which he imagined had strayed from his flock, and which had been marked by some other person, in order to deceive him as to his property. The farmer did not pretend that it was his mark, and he produced the fleece; but, if the manner and deportment of Canfor were then at all like what they have been this evening, it will not be difficult to imagine that it occasioned some little degree of reluctance on the part of Beale, the party accused. The question was presented to Mr. Kenrick as one merely of disputed property: two different men claimed the same sheep and one of the parties claiming required a search-warrant against the other as for a felony. I apprehend that it will hardly be laid down as an axiom, that a search-warrant is to be granted on every occasion, merely because it is asked for. If so, the situation of a magistrate will be rendered very different from what it is at present. Gentlemen of rank and learning will no longer be required for this important office, to decide under what circumstances they will invade the security of a man's dwelling, or infringe the personal liberty of the 1370 1371 Lord Eastnor then rose, and said, that residing in the neighbourhood of Mr. Kenrick, he was able to give the same testimony to his character and conduct which had been borne on a former night by the hon. member for Surrey. He also knew Beale, and had always looked upon him as a worthy and honest man. A search-warrant ought not to be granted but in cases of grave suspicion, and no felonious intent had been at all made out against Beale. Mr. Nash, the individual to whom reference had been had by the parties, was a highly respectable farmer, much employed in valuing land and in settling disputes between private parties. Mr. Canning said, he apprehended it was quite impossible to proceed with the case, in its present state. They had, on one side, evidence given at their bar, which would be printed; on the other side, they had the speech of a learned counsel, which was evanescent. They certainly could not proceed unless some motion was made. Mr. Denman said, he would move that the evidence be printed. Mr. Canning thought it would be unfair to assent to a motion of this kind, the evidence being all on one side. He was ready to go to a verdict on the case, as it now stood; and, if no other person would make a specific motion on the subject, he would. Mr. Denman said, the course he intended to pursue was a plain and clear one. Charges had been brought against an individual at the bar, and a witness had been heard. Individuals had been mentioned who, if it were necessary, might have been examined on the other side. As those persons had not been called, how could the House dispose of the business except by printing the evidence, and adjourning it. A most able, ingenious, and eloquent speech, had been delivered by the counsel for Mr. Kenrick. There were many novelties connected with this case, and amongst them, perhaps, the greatest was the proposition laid down by the right hon. gentleman, when he asked, why should the evidence be circulated without the speech of the learned counsel? He should like the right hon. gentleman to point out any precedent where a speech delivered by counsel, or by any other person in that House, or 1372 Mr. Peel said, that the speech of the learned gentleman was entirely beside the real question. He began with a charge against Mr. Kenrick, and those who really wished to investigate the matter called on him to bring forward some written specific accusation. The learned gentleman declined that course, declaring that the petition of Canfor contained the charge. The question, therefore, was, whether the evidence given by Canfor had produced such an impression on the House as to render it necessary to proceed further. It appeared to him, that no persons were so fit to judge of the merits of this case as those who had just heard the evidence given at their bar. Having attended to all that had been stated by Canfor, he was perfectly ready to move, "that the House having read the testimony adduced by Mr. Canfor in support of his petition, do not think it necessary to institute any further proceedings." Mr. Abercromby said, that they wished the judgment of that House to give satisfaction to Mr. Kenrick, and to the public at large, the course proposed by the right hon. gentleman would not effect that object. The proper mode of proceeding 1373 Mr. Canning said, that the motion appeared to be for a dissolution of the committee, without taking any further proceedings, and without any pledge that they would take further notice of the subject. He thought it would be better not to dismiss it in this way. If it would not interfere with the learned gentleman's convenience, the subject might be resumed tomorrow, or any other day he might appoint. Certainly, some motion should be made on the subject. The learned gentleman might do so so soon as the evidence was printed. He thought means might be adopted, not only to meet to-morrow, but to meet at an early hour, in order to take this question into consideration. Mr. Denman said, his intention certainly was, that the evidence should be printed. After hearing that evidence, and a long cross-examination of the witness it would not raise the character of the House summarily to dispose of the case. He thought it would not be a prudent course to meet to-morrow; because it was necessary, if they wished to form a right judgment of tie case, to weigh that evidence maturely which they had only heard viva voce. The Speaker said, the impression on his mind was, that some specific resolution ought to emanate from the committee. What he said related only to the form of the proceeding, and had nothing to do with the merits of the case. That resolution, when laid before the House, was in their hands, and they might deal with it as they thought fit. Mr. Peel said, he retained the opinion which he originally professed; namely, that the course most consistent with justice was, that the committee should come to a resolution, that there was not sufficient matter to put Mr. Kenrick upon his trial. Mr. Western perfectly agreed with the right hon. gentleman in the sentiments which he had just expressed. Mr. J. Williams said, that a full opportunity had been afforded to Mr. Kenrick of making a complete defence. He could not concur, therefore, in the opinion of the right hon. Secretary, that Mr. Kenrick had not been heard. Mr. Secretary Peel observed, that what 1374 Mr. J. Williams said, the counsel had been asked, whether they wished to call any witnesses in behalf of Mr. Kenrick, and they had declined to do so. Evidence had been heard in support of the charge, and Mr. Kenrick's counsel had been heard in his defence. The main question, then, before the committee was, when, and in what manner, the committee should come to a decision on the merits of the case? He certainly thought it would be premature to come to a decision before the evidence was printed, and put into the hands of members. Mr. Denison said, he was prepared to vote with the right hon. Secretary. Of Mr. Kenrick he had little knowledge. Though they were neighbours, they were opposed in political matters; but no private feeling should ever prevent him from doing what he conceived to be his duty. Knowing the party against whom the search-warrant was sought to be obtained, he thought Mr. Kenrick was right in not bringing that individual before him for a felony. His conduct in getting back the note from Canfor was, he thought, wrong; but he saw no reason for proceeding further in the case. Sir J. Wrottesley said, that they ought to come to some desicion on this case, and he was not unprepared to do so. The individual who petitioned the House had been examined and cross-examined most strictly. The learned counsel had stated that they had no evidence to bring forward. This constituted a fair trial; and he would say that the committee had an opportunity of gaining as correct a judgment now as they would at any future period. With respect to the conduct of Mr. Ken rick, when the charge was made against a respectable farmer, he should have been exceedingly cautious as to the course which he adopted, and taken very nearly the same course that Mr. Kenrick had done. When a warrant was applied for to search a man's premises, very strong circumstances should be adduced before he would grant it. To issue such an instrument lightly was a most unwarrantable abuse of authority. While he admitted this, he could not excuse Mr. Kenrick's conduct, to Canfor when he went into the magistrate's room: that could not be passed over without censure. On that point the learned counsel had never opened his lips. 1375 Mr. Secretary Peel observed, that all he had said was, that the evidence before the committee did not warrant them in instituting any further proceedings. The charge brought against Mr. Kenrick was, undoubtedly, a heavy one. It was no less than that of having suppressed and defeated a charge of felony, on account of the supposed connexion between the party accused and a servant of his own. This charge had been entirely refuted; for it was shown that Mr. Kenrick had no wish to screen the offender. The subsequent part of Mr. Kenrick's conduct was, undoubtedly, extremely injudicious; but it was impossible for the House to throw out of its consideration, that an action had been brought against him on account of this conduct, and that he had been put to the expense of 200 l Mr. Maberly thought the House was bound to embody in its resolution, an expression of its disapprobation of the conduct of Mr. Kenrick. If this course were not adopted, the people would not believe that that House was inclined to interfere when magistrates were proved to have acted improperly. Mr. Wynn said, that the proposition of his right hon. friend was far from involving any approbation of the conduct of Mr. Kenrick. Could it be said that Mr. Canfor was without redress? By no means. He had received the redress which the law allowed him; and if any gentleman was of opinion that, on the testimony received, this was a case to justify an address to the Crown, praying the removal of Mr. Kenrick from his situation, it was quite competent for such member to submit such a proposition; but for himself, he 1376 Mr. Baring thought that, in the present state of the opinion of the committee, it was not necessary to carry this discussion any further now. If it were so, he should agree that he had never seen a witness whose examination was less calculated to substantiate the charge he was brought to make out. There could be no doubt that Mr. Kenrick's conduct had been indiscreet and reprehensible; but the question now was, whether it had been so much so as to justify the House in addressing the Crown for his removal. He must confess that he saw no ground for doing so. At the same time, he thought the case was not one on which the House should come to a precipitate decision, or in which the usual forms should be cut short. There was no reason why the evidence should not be printed. @@@This could not be done by to-morrow, but by Monday he thought it might. The learned member might then state the case as the evidence disclosed it, and propose any measure he thought necessary. Mr. Canning said, his opinion was, that the question which had been referred to the committee required the decision of the committee. He would not say what that decision ought to be but, if the motion suggested by his right hon. friend should be put, the learned gentleman, if he had any thing criminatory to propose, might move it by way of amendment. The whole of the case, it seemed, had been gone through. At half past seven o'clock it was said, that there was nothing further to state against the accused; and it was now proposed to break up the committee and take further time to consider what decision it should come to. If it were thought necessary that time should be taken for this purpose, he was content that the postponement should take place. He had received an intimation, that the evidence could not be printed in time for to-morrow He was therefore willing that the committee should be adjourned until Monday with the understanding that the learned gentleman should be then prepared to say what he thought ought to be done. Mr. Denman gladly accepted this proposal. He was not now prepared to move any particular resolution on the subject. If was possible that he might, upon further consideration, think it unnecessary to say any more upon the subject; although, 1377 Mr. Canning said, that when the subject came again before the House, he should be prepared to vote against any further proceedings in this matter. The charges against Mr. Kenrick appeared to be two. The first was one which had already been tried, and for which he had paid the penalty in a civil action. The second was a charge of refusing a warrant, not one tittle of evidence in support of which was to be relied on. Mr. Peel was still of opinion, that the committee ought at once to have discharged the duty imposed upon it. He could not understand upon what pretext it could be said, that the committee ought not now to do that, which was always done in every branch of the administration of criminal justice in the country. Grand juries came to a decision upon deliberations not longer, and common juries sent criminals to execution upon an immediate view of the case, and after evidence had been heard. He however consented to the postponement; not for the reasons which had been urged in support of such a step, but because several members of the committee had not stayed to discharge the duty which they had entered upon. Mr. Hume thought nothing could be more suitable to the justice of the case, than that the House should deliberate before they come to a decision. He should be sorry if any notion were to get abroad, that the committee had not done their duty in postponing this question. He thought, on the contrary, that the course 1378 Mr. Goulburn thought, that an immediate decision might have been come to consistently with the justice of the case. Those who had heard the evidence were much more competent than any other persons to come to that decision; because although others might read the evidence when printed, they could know nothing of the manner in which that evidence had been given. HOUSE OF LORDS. Monday, June 27. JUDGES' SALARIES BILL.] On the order of the day for the third reading, Earl Grosvenor took that opportunity of making some observations on sinecure offices. The office of lord justice general of Scotland, though of that description; was still maintained. With respect to the sale of offices in courts of law, he was glad that practice was to be put an end to. He also objected to the unnecessary increase of salaries. The learned lord who approved of the bills on the table must surely wish that they had been introduced ten years ago. He understood, however, that it was not intended to extend the inquiry to the court of Chancery. The Earl of Liverpool said, that the object of the regulations was, that wherever there was business, the duties should be performed by efficient officers. As to the office filled by his noble and learned friend, the salary derived from it was before the House, and there was no man who knew the duties which attached to that office would think the reward sufficient. The situation of the lord chancellor was different from that of the chiefs of the other courts; for no sale of offices was allowed in Chancery. With respect to the puisne judges, with a knowledge of the labours they had to perform, could any one think them too highly remunerated by 5,000l. a-year? The Lord Chancellor complained of the misrepresentations and calumnies which had gone forth respecting the emoluments of his office, although the amount of its profits had been already given in accounts before the House of Commons. Perhaps it was thought that this mode of calumnious misrepresentation was the way to 1379 1380 RATE OF INTEREST IN INDIA.] The Marquis of Hastings moved, that the opinion of the judges be heard on the construction of the act for regulating the interest of money in India. Lord Chief Justice Best accordingly delivered the opinion of the judges in favour of the bill on the noble marquis. The act for restricting the interest of money to 12 per cent was, he said, to be interpreted according to its letter, as it was a penal statute; and by its literal interpretation it was only to be enforced in the dominions of the company. It could not be construed as extended to Foreign states in alliance with the British power. It could not regulate the transactions of borrowers 1381 HOUSE OF COMMONS. Monday, June 27. PETITION OF F. JONES COMPLAINING OF COUNTRY BANK NOTES NOT BEING PAID IN GOLD.] Mr. Hume reverted to the petition which he had presented to the House on the 22nd instant, from a person named Jones, complaining that a bank at Bristol had refused to pay him in cash, on demand, the amount of their notes, which he presented for that purpose. He had since had an interview with the petitioner, and, after every requisite inquiry, he found that the statements contained in the petition were perfectly correct. The notes that had been presented were for 6l. and 45l. He held in his hand the very identical notes. He had been informed, that the refusal on the part of the bank, had arisen from an idea, that the bankers were not compellable to pay the amount of their notes in cash. A great misunderstanding prevailed with respect to provincial notes. In this case, the bank had offered to substitute Bank of England notes for its own, but had refused to pay them in gold, and this was the precise point which he wished to bring before the House. A country banker's refusal to give gold for his notes was, in his opinion, as bad as a refusal to pay a promissory note when due. In order to keep the currency of the country in a healthy state, care should be taken that the supply lid not exceed the demand, as whenever it did it had the effect of causing a rise in the prices of articles of every description. This was an evil which it was the duty of ministers to guard against as carefully as possible, and when it did take place, to remedy without delay. By the 37th of Geo. 3, c. 32, commonly called the Cash Suspension bill, it was provided (sect. 3), "that if any person, being liable for the payment of any such notes and draughts as might be issued in pursuance of that act, should object to 1382 Mr. Hart Davis observed, that it was unnecessary for hint to say, that the firm in question was as respectable a firm as any in the country. He apprehended that the subject matter of the present case arose out of the circumstance of some intemperate warmth having been displayed by the party complaining, in demanding payment of his notes; which circumstance had occasioned the display of a little warmth of the same kind on the 1383 Lord Folkestone said, he thought that the hon. member for Bristol had viewed this matter as if it had been a question merely between the bankers and the petitioner; but if he (lord F.) had rightly caught what had fallen from his hon. friend, the petition contained matter of very grave consideration on much more general principles. It stated a fact that he could not help considering to be a grievance of very great magnitude, and one which called for a speedy and effectual remedy. When Mr. Peel's bill was passed, it was understood that the country was about to return to a sound, good, and proper currency: that was, that every man might get gold in exchange for bank-notes if he pleased. But, whether through a mistake upon the part of the bankers, or a defect in the law, it now appeared that such was not the fact. It was said, that the petitioner had come before the House with a bad grace after having sought his remedy at law. But what, he asked, was the nature of the remedy which the law afforded? This Mr. Jones, the petitioner, it appeared, wished, either from necessity or caprice, it mattered not which, to obtain gold from a bank for their notes. That the bank was respectable he did not pretend to deny; but that formed no part of the argument. Well, Mr. Jones asked for gold for a certain sum in notes; the bankers refused him, and then he was to bring his action for debt. Now, he (lord F.) did not understand much about law and its quirks, but he had been told, that the action, should the party ever choose to to bring one, could not be tried for some eight or nine months; and that, at the expiration of that period the bankers might bring their writ of error, and so put off the payment of the demand for a year and a 1384 Mr. Hudson Gurney said, he considered that the noble lord (Folkestone) was somewhat incorrect in his statement of the facts of the case. It appeared, that these bankers had refused sovereigns, and tendered bank notes; first, for six pounds, and then for forty-five pounds of their own paper. Now, the amount was nothing. The proceeding was one of a very singular stupidity; but, the inconvenience accruing was not, as the noble lord stated, of a person having to go through a process of nine months, in 1385 1386 Mr. Ellice said, he entirely concurred in all that bad fallen from his hon. friend (Mr. Gurney), and considered with him, that our circulation was in a most unsatisfactory, if not in a critical and alarming state. So much so, that if the least unforeseen difficulty should arise, or any 1387 1388 Mr. John Smith said, he differed entirely from his hon. friend, and from the noble lord, who considered that 99l. out of every 1001. in the circulation of the country, consisted of 1l. notes of the country bankers. He really hardly knew how sufficiently to express the surprise with which he had listened to that, statement. In the first place, a very large proportion of the circulation of the country was in 5l. and five guinea notes; though less so, probably, in the vicinity of London than in other parts of the kingdom. He would venture to state—and circumstances had enabled him to form some opinion on the subject—that 5l. and five guinea notes therefore, and not 1l. notes, comprised a very large proportion of our circulation. The case set cut in this petition originated, he believed, as had been stated by the hon. member for Bristol, in a quarrel between the petitioner and the bankers at Bristol, who most unjustly, most illegally, and most imprudently, he must say, refused to give gold to the party in, exchange for the notes of the 1389 1390 Mr. Abercromby thought this was not a question that properly involved all those extrinsic considerations into which hon. gentlemen had so largely entered. The main question here was, indeed, very important; and if the facts were such as were stated in the petition, undoubtedly they were very deserving of the attention of government. It was the case, as he understood it, of an individual meeting difficulty or obstructions in obtaining gold for certain notes which he tendered to those who had issued them; and it would seem, that that difficulty had arisen solely from some misunderstanding or quarrel between the parties, but that subsequently gold was offered to the petitioner for his notes. Now, if the bankers refused to pay in gold when asked for it, they might have occasioned a good deal of inconvenience and injury, no doubt, to the individual; and such a practice, were it to grow into one, would be highly injurious, and inconvenient to the country. If the existing law was defective as to that clause of the 37th of Geo. 3rd which his hon. friend had pointed out, the country banker, to be sure, could be little apprehensive of 1391 Mr. Secretary Peel perfectly coincided in the remark with which the hon. member for Calne had prefaced his speech, that this was not a question properly involving the numerous extrinsic considerations which had been gone into by the hon. gentleman who preceded him. At the time, he apprehended that the House was about to be drawn into a debate of the most delicate kind, without sufficient information, inquiry, or reflection—more particularly as there was not one person connected with the Bank of England then present. One gentleman so connected had, indeed, subsequently come in; to 1392 Mr. Abercromby wished to know whether the right hon. gentleman meant to say, that he entertained a doubt as to the proviso of the act of 1797 having been repealed; and if not, whether he thought that it ought to be repealed; and whether 1393 Mr. Peel said, the learned gentleman had asked him this question rather on the sudden; namely, whether, if a person asked a banker to pay in gold, he ought not to have a summary process to compel him to pay in a week, for instance, or two or three days? Now, that was a question which he was not competent to answer. What he had all along contended for was, that there was a liability, under the existing state of the law, to pay in gold. If the banker did not so pay, the law would compel him. But, if he were asked, at what period, after demand, the banker was obliged to pay in gold, he must at once say, that, he was not prepared to answer the question. Mr. Maberly said, that if the complaint of the petitioner were received, the House would be bound to receive the petition of every tradesman who chose to make application to that House, because he could not, on the moment, procure gold for a bank-note, or for any legal written instrument, promising to pay a certain sum of money on a certain day. His learned friend had called on the House to enact a summary measure immediately. But, did he not know that any such measure would alter the whole of the law between debtor and creditor? And, would he cell on the House to change that most important portion of the law before they separated this session? This was one of the most monstrous propositions he had, ever heard; and especially so, as it came from a member of the legal profession. He did not think that the House ought to receive this petition, which appeared to him to contain very doubtful allegations. They ought, at all events, to have it very attentively read, before they received it. Mr. Secretary Canning said, that the learned gentleman certainly had a right to draw the attention of the House to the doubts which he entertained, even though his opinions might not be correct on this subject. For his own part, lie had not the shadow of a doubt on his mind, that, as the law at present stood, the country banker was as much liable to pay his one pound bank-notes in gold, as the Bank of England was to pay its notes of any amount in specie. With this feeling, he thought that an attempt to legislate on that which was at present so clear, would only have the effect of creating doubts 1394 1395 Mr. Baring said, that the holders of notes certainly had not now the advantage of that summary process which they formerly enjoyed. He was aware that they might compel payment in gold, under the law as it at present stood; but if he were obliged to resort to a long legal process, he might lose twenty or thirty times the amount of that for which he contended. If they admitted the existence of those 1l. and 2l. notes, why not revive the summary process for the recovery of the amount in gold? He said this, more on account of the principle involved in the question, than with reference to any practical advantage that would accrue from the continuance of the old system. There was, however, in point of principle, a difficulty connected with the present state of the law; and therefore he thought that some degree of advantage would be derived from the summary process. His hon. friend (Mr. Maberly) talked of the impropriety of interfering with the law between debtor and creditor; but, when they gave to bankers the privilege of issuing to the bearer one pound notes, it was nothing more than their duty to see that he had a summary process to compel the bankers to pay in gold. The state of their dealings in specie must greatly fluctuate; Day, it must be liable to be thrown into convulsions, if the country was not more saturated with gold than it was at present, The quantity was now too small, and it 1396 Mr. Huskisson said, he concurred entirely in the last sentiment; uttered by the hon. member with respect to the mischief of tampering with the currency. Nothing could be more unjust to parties who had formed contracts, than the unsettling the standard of value by which they had regulated such contracts; and no change of circumstances would induce him again to resort to the system so recently abandoned. He was also of opinion, that the question before the House, though it. might be fit matter for consideration, was not one of such importance and urgency, as to render it necessary, in the present state of the session, to dime; the attention of the House to the investigation of a subject of so extensive a nature When the Bank resumed its payments in specie, it was found highly desirable, for public convenience, to continue, in some degree, the issue of small notes. The question was not now, whether those ins les should be allowed; but the hon. member for Aberdeen argued the necessity of giving a special remedy to the holders of those notes. He ought, however, to recollect, that the power to issue small notes, under 1397 1398 Mr. Serjeant Onslow contended, that the renewal of the summary process would be an evil, instead of a benefit. Mr. J. Smith was favourable to the summary process, and wished government to turn their attention to the subject. Mr. Canning said, the 1l. note was precisely that which, if paid at all, must be paid in cash. The 5l. note might be paid in five one-pound notes; and it might be proper to prevent the larger note from being exchanged for the smaller: but, as there was no note for less than 1l., it must be paid in cash, if paid at all. Mr. Hume maintained, that the present state of the paper currency subjected the country to great inconvenience, and said, that if his majesty's government did not take some steps to place the holders of notes in a better situation, he should feel it his duty to submit a motion on the subject early in the next session. Mr. Canning observed, that he had already expressed some doubt as to the expediency of the minor currency. He thought, however, it would be batter to suffer the present system, in respect to those notes, to come to an end, as it probably would ere long, than to aid its continuance by any specific enactment. Mr. Maberly said, if he conceived that the allegations in the petition were true, he would willingly refer it to a committee. 1399 Mr. Hume said, he had no objection to seeing the country deluged with paper to the heart's content of his hon. friend. What he wished for was, that it should be convertible into specie; and for that purpose be thought a summary process was necessary. 1400 COMBINATION OF WORKMEN BILL.] Mr. Wallace having moved the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill, said he would briefly state the ground on which the present measure was founded. The statement made on a former night by his right hon. friend (Mr. Huskisson), though it had not been substantiated in all its particulars by the evidence, yet was so far borne out, as to the general extent, and nature of the combinations that existed, and the effect of 1401 1402 1403 1404 Mr. Robertson declared, that the repeat of the combination laws would, in his view, be attended with the most mischievous consequences to the workmen themselves. Mr. Hume said, that the right hon. gentleman had given the workmen any thing rather than fair play. None of the abuses of which the master; complained so loudly were at all proved in the evidence before the House; and at least the existing system had this ad vantage over the state of law which was gene by, namely, that there were no more uses of illegal oaths, no more secret societies. No doubt there had been faults on both sides; but the masters were at least as much to blame as the mechanics; a he denied that any proof of violent conduct, to any material extent, had been given. In the 1405 Mr. Calcraft objected, generally, that sufficient investigation had not been given to the subject. It was, further, a fault in his opinion, that in the preamble of the bill, there was no declaration of the opinion of the House against combinations altogether, whether of masters or workmen. Art act of legislation had passed in the last session. That act, he would admit, had been introduced with the best intentions, but it had not produced the effects expected from it, and therefore they were now called upon to consider the measure 1406 Mr. Mansfield objected to it, and observed that as he had heard the workmen object to it in strong terms, and as he had not heard any defence of it on the part of the masters, he should oppose it. If it were to be carried, he did hope that the power of enforcing it would not be left to the discretion of a magistrate, but that all offences under that clause would be left to the decision of a jury. Mr. Hobhouse opposed the clause as being too undefined. It was the more objectionable, as the decisions upon it were to be left to the discretion of a magistrate, and not to a jury. He could not concur in the remarks which had been made upon the committee of last session. That committee had proceeded in the most deliberate manner. It was unfair to say, that they had come to a hasty conclusion on the subject of their inquiries. Mr. Huskisson said, that the bill of last year was not calculated to give such full effect to those resolutions as was intended by the present measure. He bad no intention of acting harshly towards the operative mechanics. If any hon. member would point out any clause of this bill which operated with unnecessary severity upon any class, he would oppose it. The object of the bill was, to protect the weak against the strong—to afford to the man who chose to give his labour for a certain value, that protection against the combination of large bodies to which every man was entitled. Sir F. Burdett objected to this bill, first, because sufficient time had not been allowed for a trial of the bill which it was intended to amend and repeal; secondly, because its language was vague and indefinite; and thirdly, because it deprived 1407 Mr. Denman moved, that in place of conviction before two magistrates, it should be by the verdict of a jury. CONDUCT OF MR. KENRICK IN THE CASE OF FRANKS.] Mr. Denman in his place, charged Mr. Kenrick, one of his majesty's justices of Great Session in Wales, a justice of the peace for Surrey, and recorder of Dover, " that he preferred before a neighbouring magistrate a charge of felony against a poor man named John Franks, without any sufficient proof of the same; on which charge the said John Franks was committed to prison, where he remained till he was discharged at the .sessions by the verdict of a jury, acquitting him instantly on the same evidence which had been adduced by Mr. Kenrick as the ground of his commitment:—That, during the imprisonment of the said John Franks, Mr. Kenrick made repeated offers to procure a lenient sentence to be passed upon him, provided he would plead guilty to the charge; and applied to the clerk of the Peace, and the chairman of sessions, to permit him to withdraw the prosecution, alleging Franks's good characteras a reason for wishing to do so:—That shortly afterwards, in answer to some public animadversion on his own conduct, he wrote and published a libellous letter against the said John Franks, calumniating his character, and imputing to him crimes of which he was not guilty." HOUSE OF COMMONS. Tuesday, June 28. DECCAN PRIZE MONEY.] Mr. Hume presented a petition from lieut.-colonel Fitz-Simon, complaining of delay in paying the Deccan prize-money. 1408 The Chancellor of the Exchequer explained some circumstances which, by taking this booty out of the general law of prize; and thereby causing a particular appeal to the lords of thet Teasury, had, of necessity, delayed the distribution far beyond the usual time. He eulogized the assiduity of the duke of Wellington and Mr. Arbuthnot, to whom the Treasury had referred the business for final regulation. It was not till the 1st June that the persons interested had furnished the list of claimants; upon which alone any distribution could take place. Dr. Lushington said, there had never been an instance in which the distribution of prize-money had been so conducted. No sooner were the duke of Wellington and Mr. Arbuthnot appointed trustees, than they took the steps the best calculated to cause delay. In all other cases, trustees of prize-money had kept up a constant Communication with the claimants. The parties had great reason to complain of the contempt and disregard shown to them by the duke, whose conduct, especially in the impudent letters sent by him in answer to sir T. Hislop, .one of the chief claimants, was contrary to all precedent. He knew the facts of this case, having professionally advised with many of the parties. He put it to ministers to say, if there was not at one time an intention of appointing the son of Mr. Arbuthnot as agent; and if that intention had not been put aside upon an opinion given by the law officers of the Crown against the legal capacity of the young gentleman to discharge that duty. The Chancellor of the Exchequer begged to say, that the son of Mr. Arbuthnot was never appointed an agent in this case. The Attorney-General said, that as the Crown had relinquished its share of the prize-money in favour of the army, it had a right to appoint what trustees it pleased for the management of the property. The trustees had been extremely anxious to effect the distribution, and nothing but the complexity of the business had led to the delay. CONDUCT OF MR. KENRICK IN THE CASE OF FRANKS.] Mr. Tremayne rose to present a petition from Mr. Kenrick, stating that he had been taken by surprise by the order of the House to examine witnesses upon a charge against him, and praying the indulgence of the House for time 1409 Mr. Denman said, he was by no means certain, that the petition ought to make any difference in the course which he intended to pursue. The examination of the witnesses was relative to certain papers before the House, and of which he had given due notice a fortnight ago. With reference to Mr. Kenrick, he wished to throw no impediment in the way of his having every advantage in drawing up instructions for his counsel. He should therefore propose, that the witnesses should attend on Thursday. It had been intimated to him last night, that it was Mr. Kenrick's intention to call witnesses in his behalf. There would be no time to proceed in such a course during the present session; and if this were the wish of Mr. Kenrick, it would certainly lead to a different arrangement. But he did not think it ought to postpone all inquiry until the next session; it ought only to postpone his answer, and in the mean time the inquiry ought to proceed. It was not certain, that after hearing the whole case, Mr. Kenrick would feel it necessary to call any witnesses at all. Great inconvenience might arise from postponing the examination of witnesses, for it was possible that they might not be forthcoming next session. The papers upon which these proceedings were grounded had been, for a long time, in the hands of members, and must have been well known to Mr. Kenrick. He should therefore move, that the witnesses be called in on Thursday. Mr. Secretary Peel thought the question important, whether the House ought to institute any inquiry upon the charge and affidavits. It might not, however, be necessary to have any discussion upon that point; but, the most important question: was, that as the charge involved two accusations, each of which might be tried before the ordinary tribunals, whether the House ought to institute any proceedings. If Mr. Kenrick did prefer any charges against Franks from malicious motives, that alone would subject him to prosecution. If Mr. Kenrick had published a malignant libel against Franks, why did not Franks institute legal proceedings against Kenrick? Would it be consistent with justice, for the House to institute a Prosecution against Mr. Kenrick, which would compel him to disclose his defence, while he was still open to a criminal prosecution at law? Until one o'clock that 1410 Mr. Denman expressed his desire to meet, as far as he could, what appeared to him to be the prevailing sentiment of the House, as to the inconvenience of proceeding further in this case during the present session. Under this feeling he should withdraw his motion; although he thought it was hardly possible for the right hon. gentleman to preserve his countenance, when he asserted that Mr. Kenrick had that day, for the first time, been made acquainted with the charge. He should, however, certainly bring it forward next session; unless, in the mean time, circumstances should occur very materially to, change his view of the case. CONDUCT OF MR. KENRICK, IN THE CASE OF CANFOR.] The House having resolved itself into a committee of the whole House, upon the petition of M. M. Canfor against Mr. Kenrick, Mr. Denman said, the committee for which he moved some time ago in order to examine into the case of Mr. Canfor 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 l 1419 Mr. Secretary Peel said, he entirely acquitted the learned gentleman of being actuated by any undue motives in bringing this case forward. The high and manly character which he had always maintained, would form a sufficient vindication against any such charge. At the same time, he must observe, that the course which he (Mr. Peel) meant to take on this occasion did not arise from any undue bias towards Mr. Kenrick, with whom he had no acquaintance. He was only anxious that they should decide in the manner most consistent with the forms of parliament, and, above all, agreeably to the principles of equity and justice. In the outset he called on gentle- 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 l 1425 Mr. Tierney said, he was glad to hear from the right hon. gentleman, that it was impossible to approve of the conduct of Mr. Kenrick. He went, however, a little further, and thought that the House would lower itself in the estimation of the public, if it did not, in the most unequivocal manner, mark its sense of the outrageous conduct of that gentleman. The first part of the case made out against him, was his refusal to grant a search-warrant on Canfor's application; the second was his imprisonment, of that person in consequence of his refusing to give up the fleece. The right hon. gentleman said, that all attempts to prove any corrupt motives on the part of Mr. Kenrick had failed. Now, it was not necessary to prove any such motive; but, whether any such corrupt motives really existed, or not, still it was obvious, that Mr. Kenrick was unfit any longer to remain a magistrate and a judge. The right hon. gentleman said, that Canfor's manner was calculated to provoke the magistrate. He said, he had rode 500 miles after his ram, until the blood ran out of his breeches-knees. It was no wonder, then, that he should be chafed a little, when he applied to the magistrate: but, when he was imprisoned, he showed no symptoms of violence, he was then extremely temperate, and the violence was all on the side of the magistrate. Let the House consider whether the man had not some excuse for being a little out of temper. He told the magistrate that he had lost his ram, and after going a long time in search of it, he had at length found it 1426 1427 1428 l 1429 Mr. Secretary Canning said, he fully concurred in the last sentiment of his right hon. friend: but, before the House came to the conclusion which he would press upon them, they would do well to consider whether the case was of so grave a nature as to justify the course proposed by the learned gentleman. Nothing could be more untrue than that, because ministers were not prepared to go all lengths in censuring the conduct of Mr. Kenrick, they therefore admired and approved of it. The question was, whether the case called upon the House to exercise that highest and most transcendent power which parliament possessed; and, if it did not (as he thought it did not), whether they ought to pursue an intermediate course, which would brand Mr. Kenrick with an imputation which would render him powerless in the high office he held, and thereby produce a great public mischief. Without going into the details of the case, he was decidedly of opinion that neither of these courses should be adopted. He had no acquaintance with Mr. Kenrick; he believed he had never been in the same room with him: he was sure he had never exchanged a word with him: he had no partiality in his favour; and yet he must say, that the case appeared to him the most trumpery that was ever heard of. The whole extent to which it reached proved only that Mr. Kenrick had been guilty of a discreditable and culpable want of temper, in his interview with Canfor. With respect to the search-warrant, that part of the charge was abandoned. All that remained was Mr. Kenrick's conduct on the second interview. That he had suffered his temper and his discretion to be overcome, could not be denied, nor could it be justified; but, the complaint and the punishment must be taken together. Was the loss of temper in an interview with that most unprovoking of mankind, who had lately appeared at the bar of that House, so great a crime that it could only be sufficiently punished by removing the person who had committed it from his high office of judge? He could not, in his conscience, say that it deserved any such punishment; and, as 1430 Mr. H. Sumner said, that, however disgusting the demeanour of Canfor might have been, the allegations in his petition had been substantially proved, and those allegations were perfectly consistent with the statement which had been made to him ten days after the occurrence took place. He was astonished to hear the right hon. Secretary characterize this as the most trumpery case he had ever heard of. Mr. Kenrick had directed an act to be done, which, in the first instance, led to an assault, and which might have led to much more serious consequences. For his part, he could not conceive a case which called more imperatively, for the interference of that House. Mr. Kenrick had called no witnesses to character, but his hon. colleague and a noble lord had represented him as a good husband, father, and friend. So he had always understood him to be; but private character had nothing to do with the matter; although, if he were asked whether Mr. Kenrick were a good neighbour, he should say, no such thing, but a very bad one. [Here the hon. member was about to relate an anecdote of Mr. Kenrick, to illustrate the opinion he had expressed of him, when he was called to order by Mr. 1431 Mr. Denison said, that, as Mr. Kenrick's near neighbour, all he knew of that gentleman was in his favour. On the first night of the present charge being brought forward, Mr. Kenrick had requested him to state to the House, that he was most anxious for the fullest investigation. In the refusal of the search-warrant, he thought Mr. Kenrick had been justified. The taking Canfor into custody was reprehensible. But, as far as warmth of temper was concerned, seeing what the House had seen of Canfor at the bar, if no man was fit to be a magistrate but such as could have patience with that person, very few, he believed, would be in a state of qualification. On the whole he did not quite agree in either of the courses which had been recommended. That suggested by the learned member, he thought, went too far; while the other did not convey that degree of censure which the case deserved. Sir F. Burdett said, he took the short question to be—a question which the House was bound to pursue in any shape, and by all available inquiries—whether Mr. Kenrick had or had not exhibited such qualities of character as deserved to preclude him from filling two such high offices as those of justice of the peace, and judge upon a circuit. In his opinion this had decidedly been the case. He by no means looked at the transaction in the light in which it was attempted to be presented by the gentlemen opposite. But, seeing that it was too late in the session to obtain all the evidence which Mr. Kenrick might think necessary to his justification, he should advise his hon. and learned friend to rest satisfied with the opinion which the House had already expressed; leaving upon ministers the responsibility of deciding how far, upon their own investigation, the resolution moved 1432 Mr. W. Courtenay said, that the proposition of the hon. baronet appeared to be very extraordinary, as coming from so staunch a champion of constitutional rights. Was it not very singular that the hon. baronet, of all other members, should call on ministers to remove an individual from his offices, whose case had been submitted to the consideration of the House, without their passing any opinion upon it? [Sir F. Burdett said, across the House, that he only called for the dismissal of Mr. K. from the magistracy.] Then, the proposition of the hon. baronet, was still more objectionable; because it supposed the propriety of allowing an individual, who was dismissed for misconduct from the magistracy, to continue unmolested in the exercise of the far more important functions of a judge. The learned member contended, that this was a case in which the House was not called on to interfere. Mr. Denman said, that as nothing like a defence had been set up for Mr. Kenrick, the case of that gentleman might be considered one, respecting which there existed no difference of opinion. "Reprehensible" was the mildest phrase applied to the conduct of Mr. Kenrick. That Mr. Kenrick's conduct was open to great censure no man denied. Indeed, the right hon. gentleman fully admitted it, for although be called this a trumpery case, he had followed up that statement by saying that Mr. Kenrick had displayed "a most discreditable want of temper," and that his conduct was "a fit object of censure." Why was it "discreditable," if he was not unfit for his office, why was he "a fit object of censure," if he did not deserve to be removed. Was there any gentleman in that House who, if lie were asked on his honour or oath whether the charge contained in the resolution had been fully substantiated, would hesitate to admit it; or would deny for a moment that the charge was perfectly true? Under these circumstances, if it was the wish of the House, he should content 1433 Mr. Croker said, that however blamable Mr. Kenrick might have been for his warmth of temper respecting the fleece and the note, still his motive was praiseworthy; namely, to produce them in evidence in a cause which was then considered to be pending; and the best proof that such were his motives was, that they remained in the possession of the constable until the day of the trial. Mr. Lockhart said, there was a great inconvenience in including gentlemen's names in the commission of the peace, who held judicial appointments; and he trusted that in future it would be avoided. Mr. Wynn admitted, that there had been some haste and intemperance in Mr. Kenrick's conduct in the present case, but declared that his conduct as a judge in Wales had given the highest satisfaction. With respect to the strictures upon Mr. Kenrick's private character, he thought they might as well have been omitted. As to the charge of intemperance, that was one to which, unfortunately, many persons were liable. What would the hon. member for Surrey think of any member of that House who should be so intemperate as, in a private committee, to resort to personal violence against another hon. member? He believed there had been many excellent judges, whose conduct would not have borne the inquiry which had been inflicted on Mr. Kenrick. If it had been proved that Mr. Kenrick had acted from corrupt motives, that would have been a sufficient ground for addressing the Crown to remove him; but no such fact had been established, and the case, as it at present stood, was too slight to be met by the censure of that House. LAW OF MERCHANTS BILL—PRINCIPAL AND FACTOR.] On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill, Mr. Scarlett rose and said:— 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 v 1439 v 1440 right actual 1441 * v 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 Mr. Huskisson combatted the arguments of the hon. and learned gentleman. He entered, at considerable length, into the details of the bearing of the law as it at present stood, and stated the absolute necessity of altering it; a necessity the more pressing, as England, under the warehousing system, was now becoming the dépôt of the merchandize passing between the two worlds; and unless they were prepared to renounce all the advantages of that system. Every security ought to be given to advances made on the goods so warehoused. The consign. ors were, in numberless instances, not the owners, but drew their bills against goods, the property of different individuals who employed them to ship them. if, therefore, any person was to come forward and only have to state his ownership to enable him to invalidate the pledge on which money had been raised to enable the consignee to transact the business to the consignors' advantage, it was evident, that an entire bar must be placed to the raising money on any goods whatever; as no one could ascertain the real owner. The bill certainly did place the bill of lading in the situation in which Exchequer bills stood at present; as negociable securities; but the parties might always make the bill of lading special, if they chose so to do. As to the objection of trusting the clerks of brokers and merchants, it was well known that property to an immense amount was daily trusted to the clerks of bankers, from which no inconvenience resulted. Mr. J. Smith said, that this bill originated with the merchants of London, who were exposed to the greatest frauds. For instance, he would suppose a merchant at Calcutta to ship 50,000 l l 1458 Mr. Huskisson said, the extension of the period was necessary, that all the parties whom it might affect should have notice of it. Mr. J. P. Grant opposed the bill. Mr. Baring supported the bill, both on account of its obvious necessity, and on the custom of merchants. All agreed in the inconvenience which resulted from the present state of the law. Mr. T. Wilson supported the bill, and stated that it originated with the merchants of Liverpool two years ago. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Wednesday, June 29. COMBINATION OF WORKMEN BILL.] On the order of the day for bringing up the report, Mr. Hume contended, that this bill did not go to do equal justice between the masters and the men; and ought not, therefore, to pass. The numerous petitions that had been presented against the combination laws ought to have been examined into. As it was, the petitioners might as well have kept their petitions to themselves. If it were shown that, by reason of any defects in his bill of the last session, any disturbances had happened in the country, he would not object to such alterations as might be proposed in the way of remedy. Out of 97 petitions that had been presented to the House on the subject of the combination laws, there were seven from masters, calling for an extension to them of a power to coerce their workmen. Into those petitions and allegations, it was the duty of the House to have entered. This bill, in its present shape, could not fail to work much injustice and conduce to much oppression. The masters might at all times prevent combinations against working, by contracting with the journeymen for a certain 1459 SPRING GUNS BILL.] Mr. Tennyson moved the third reading of this bill. The bill was accordingly read a third time. Mr. R. Colborne then proposed a clause to legalize the use of spring guns in the night, which after some discussion the hon. gentleman agreed to withdraw. Lord Binning moved an amendment, to 1460 Mr. Tennyson begged to have it understood, that the motion did not procede from him. He would not be instrumental in moving that so anomalous and mischievous a measure as this had now become, should pass the House.—After a pause, Lord Normanby moved the passing of the bill. Mr. Tennyson said, that although he had conducted the bill to that point, he now felt it his duty to vote against it. The measure had been changed from one declaring the use of spring guns to be altogether unlawful, into one of mere regulation, and which, to a certain extent, was to legalize the practice. As the bill now stood, homicide by a spring gun was declared to be manslaughter on one side of the hedge, while on the other, it was for the first time to be sanctioned by law. He had rather leave the question with all the uncertainty, which, in the opinion of some, might belong to it, until another session, than be guilty of voting for a measure which, in its present shape, would give a legal existence to the very principle which it had been designed to stifle in its birth, as repugnant to reason and humanity and to the rule of law on which homicide had hitherto been alone justifiable. Neither would he ever have to charge his conscience with voting for any bill which was to authorize and recommend to the people of this country the brutal practice of employing these diabolical machines for the protection of any species of property whatever, be it what it might—his object had been, to put an end to it altogether; instead of which, it was now to a certain extent, to be legalized and established, perhaps for ever, and the new and frightful principle thus introduced might at a future period be indefinitely extended. If that House sanctioned the bill as now all altered, he trusted the Lords would reject it. If it passed into a law it would be an eternal disgrace to the British legislature, and as he was anxious to rescue the House of Commons, and himself individually, from the odium and responsibility which would justly attach to them if they sanctioned it, he should vote against the passing of the bill. 1461 HOUSE OF LORDS. Thursday, June 30. CUSTOMS CONSOLIDATION BILL.] The Earl of Liverpool moved the second reading of this bill. The main principle on which the measure was founded was, he said, the doing away with prohibitory duties, and introducing certain regulations. There were, however, some exceptions: for instance, the bill did not interfere with the corn laws, nor with cattle now prohibited. He hoped, however, that this part of the subject would be brought, at another opportunity, under the consideration of parliament, as French cows were introduced under the name of Alderney, and this fraud was accomplished by means of the grossest perjury. A considerable change had been made with respect to the silk trade, the prohibition being removed, and a protecting duty of 30 per cent substituted. In mentioning cotton, he reminded their lordships of the remarkable circumstance, that the British manufacturer could undersell the natives of India in their own market, though the price of labour was here 2 s d d l s l s l s l s 1462 l s l l s l The Marquis of Lansdown concurred with the noble earl in every word he had stated. He regarded the measure as forming a very great and a very salutary revolution in the trade of the country. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Thursday, June 30. COMBINATION OF WORKMEN BILL.] The bill being read a third time, a clause for directing that justices should transmit to the sessions a copy of the commitment, and another, allowing appeal to the quarter session, were added to the bill, on the motion of the Attorney-general. Another clause, "that every master of workmen, and the father and son of such master, be rendered incapable of acting as a justice of peace in cases of complaint under the act," was offered by Mr. Hume, and negatived. On the question, that the bill do pass, Mr. Hume said, that no individual, however high or low, ought to be coerced or controlled by combinations; but he was satisfied that nine-tenths of the recent disturbances had arisen from a want of conciliation between the parties; often, he 1463 Mr. Secretary Peel denied, that there had existed any disposition to bear hard upon that class of persons, which, in point of fact, formed the main strength of the community. They had a right to be protected, and to receive impartial justice. Ministers had never felt the slightest inclination to attend to the interests of the masters, and to neglect those of the workmen. He had never heard in the committee or in the House, expressions regarding the combinations of the operative classes half so strong as some of those used by the hon. member for Aberdeen himself. They did him great credit, though they were not in exact conformity with his subsequent declaration. He alluded to a letter addressed to J. Allen, ship 1464 Mr. Ellice coincided with the sentiments expressed in the extract from the letter of his hon. friend. If combination attended with violence were continued, the destruction of the manufacturing interest must be the result. Mr. Maxwell said:—In the attempt to compete with foreigners, whose manufactures are not subject to equal taxes, the master is induced to reduce wages for the purpose of preserving his profits. The abundance of labourers enables him to obtain his object, but his success is injurious to the workmen. They combine to prevent such injury, and to make him share the burthen of taxation, by payment of such wages as the taxes render absolutely necessary for the welfare and independence of themselves and families. When food and clothing are protected from the effects of high taxes, justice demands that labour should not be excluded from similar advantages; and combination must therefore be rendered legal, or a minimum of wages established. But capital may leave the country altogether, or cease to be vested in trade; and you must therefore provide such regulations as will prevent the total loss of profit on the one side, as well as the total inadequacy of remuneration on the other. Entire success is probably impossible; but you may effect a happier distribution of the profits of all trades, and preserve the workmen from the consequences of the excessive supply of labour which war, misapplied poor rates, and Irish elective franchise, have given birth to. Your legislation is surrounded with obstacles, and the master and workman, adverse in other things, unite in jealousy of your enactments, violence to masters or fellow-workmen is incompatible with the prosperity of every trade, and prejudicial to the nation. The executive government cannot refrain from arresting a system which invades the first principles of civil society, and degrades the character of the national institutions, with whose fame and preservation it is specially intrusted; and now that the appeal from summary decisions is conceded, the bill we are called upon to render law does not appear to 1465 HOUSE OF COMMONS. Friday, July 1. DECCAN PRIZE MONEY.] Colonel Lushington presented a petition from certain officers of the Indian Army relative to the Deccan prize-money. The petitioners stated their satisfaction at the conduct of the trustees. The hon. member said, he thought the claims of the army, in many respects, so extravagant, as to operate to the prevention of any speedy settlement of the business. The army 1466 l The Chancellor of the Exchequer was glad to hear the expressions of the petitioners, Never were men so severely treated as the trustees had been. They knew well what obloquy would attend the discharge of a duty so difficult. They were aware, that the most extravagant expectations were entertained, by both officers and men, as to the amount of the booty. Any other men would have shrunk from such a responsibility. The duke of Wellington had been advised to have nothing to do with it; but with a magnanimity not surprising in him, he considered that no man in the service could be better acquainted with the whole of the circumstances of the capture, than himself. From first to last, since he had taken the subject into his hands, he had been met by nothing but reproaches and calumnies, the most unfounded and undeserved. Dr. Lushington persisted in the assertion, that the behaviour of the duke of Wellington and Mr. Arbuthnot, as trustees of that booty, had been most unprecedented. The expectations of all the claimants could not have been so extravagant as had been represented. Many of those expectations had been founded upon sound principles. The claimants had a right to have their claims investigated fairly and openly, and not to be settled behind their backs, as the trustees had attempted. Amongst the claimants were to be found the commander-in-chief and his staff; and these persons, surely, could not be supposed to have acted irregularly in setting forth their claims. Every thing desired might have been easily obtained, if the trustees had condescended to hold communication with the agent or solicitor of the army. Sir H. Hardinge complained of the mis-statements and calumnies of an anonymous pamphlet published against the duke of Wellington. The fact was, that until 1823 the trustees had nothing to say to the distribution of the prize-money. Since then, sir T. Hislop had been required to give in a list of the claimants, which was not delivered till the 5th of June. So far the fault of the delay was attributable to sir T. Hislop. The fact was, that 1467 Mr. Hume said, that the conduct of the duke and his colleague had been most extraordinary; for they had expressed to the solicitor of the claimants their determination to receive all the information which he might think proper to give, but to afford him no information whatever upon any point. He denied that the petitioners had advanced claim to the amount of 2,000,000 l l Sir H. Hardinge said, that the duke of Wellington never had refused information. On the contrary, he had informed sir T. Hislop that the papers were at his service to inspect them at the office; but he would 1468 Mr. Spring Rice said, that the words attributed to the learned member, had never been used by him. It was, therefore, to be regretted that his gallant friend had not ascertained this fact, before he had entered upon the subject. Sir H. Hardinge said, that the words had been printed in the newspapers, and as the learned member had not denied them, and had not found fault with the reporter, he was responsible for them. The Speaker said, it was most disorderly for any member to refer to what had been uttered in a previous debate; but it was still more out of order to derive that information from a source, the existence of which was itself a breach of the privileges of the House. Mr. Brougham said, he could not but condemn the conduct of any member who, from what he had seen in a newspaper, came down to that House and gave vent to his feelings, before he had asked his opponent whether he had really made use of the words attributed to him. He must tell the gallant gentleman, that neither the high station of the duke of Wellington, nor the interest the country held in him, could ever deter either himself or his friends from expressing their opinions frankly upon his public conduct. The duke of Wellington and Mr. Arbuthnot were public men, clothed with a public trust, and there was public money concerned in that trust; and as honest stewards to the public, he and every one in that House was bound to scrutinize the duke's conduct. He had been consulted professionally by the attorneys appointed by those who were interested in the booty. Mr. Arbuthnot's son might be of age now; but was he not a minor at the time of the appointment before alluded to? ["No, no."] Be that fact as it might, he had given his opinion to the claimants that the appointment of young Arbuthnot to be the agent would have been illegal, and that by the provisions of the Prize Act, a penalty of 500 l 1469 Mr. Secretary Peel could not help expressing his surprise at the course which this conversation had taken. For himself, he had heard no offensive expression 1470 Mr. Secretary Canning said, he had been endeavouring to recollect the precise words used by the learned member. He thought the epithet "insolent," or the substantive "insolence," had been made use of by him, not, however, as applied to individual character, or meant privately, but directed against a letter in which the words "the said W. Harrison," instead of "the said Mr. W. Harrison," had been used. In explanation of which mistake it was enough to say, that the word "Mr." was inserted in the original manuscript, but by accident omitted in the copy. And while he agreed that it was no part of the duty of a member to stand up and deny a charge made upon such loose authority, he hoped the learned gentleman would not feel the same objection to stating whether he (Mr. C.) was right in his impression of what had been said on the occasion alluded to. Dr. Lushington said, that after the appeal which had been made to him by the right hon. Secretary, he felt justified in stating, that which he would have never uttered,—which he would sooner have parted with life than have spoken a word upon, in answer to what he conceived a most wanton and unfounded attack upon him. The hon. member for Durham had commented on his conduct, being at the time cognizant of the error into which he had been led, as he held in his 1471 Sir H. Hardinge said, that if any expression used by him was offensive or unparliamentary, he was ready to explain in the fullest manner. He admitted that his manner was vehement; but he declared that he was not conscious of having used, or intended, any expression offensive to the learned gentleman. The Speaker said, he was anxious to bear testimony to the fact, that no offensive language had been used. Had any thing been said which called for his interference, it would have been unpardonable in him to have remained silent, A mistake had certainly taken place, and the learned member had done honour to himself, and justice to him (the Speaker), in giving the explanation which the House had just heard. Dr. Lushington said, he certainly had been pained at having insolence imputed to him; but as the gallant officer had declared that he was unconscious of having used or intended any thing offensive, he was satisfied. 1472 MILITARY OCCUPATION OF SPAIN.] Mr. Brougham said, he rose for the purpose of proposing a question to the right hon. Secretary upon a subject of the most serious nature—he meant the military occupation of Spain, by France. He had hitherto abstained from asking a single question, fearful that discussion would be productive of mischief, and of making worse the situations of those gallant characters who were now imprisoned martyrs in the cause of liberty, and who had lost in that glorious cause all bet their honour. But now, at the close of the session, he thought he might venture to propose one question. It had been long since stated, that when Ferdinand was fully restored to power, the French troops were to be withdrawn from Spain. That time had arrived, and still the French troops remained; nay more, they had fortified Cadiz; in addition to which, they held St. Sebastian and several other places. He underderstood that thirty or forty thousand French troops still remained in Spain. Were they to remain in Spain as long as the king of France, or as Ferdinand self wished for their presence? If such was the case, then it became the duty of England to interfere. In a short time Ferdinand might say that the French troops should remain in his territories, so long as Spain was at war with her South American colonies. The policy at present pursued by France had a tendency to destroy the balance of power in Europe. He would ask, what would be our situation, in the event of another war with Ireland, exposed to the iron coast of Spain, guarded, not by Spaniards, but by Frenchmen, continued in that country under various pretexts? He would, therefore, ask the right hon. Secretary, whether there was any reason to hope that the French troops would shortly evacuate the Spanish territory? Mr. Secretary Canning said, that the point to which the learned member had alluded, had long occupied the attention of the government, and was still pressing upon that attention. He was prepared to say, that ministers had received from the French government, from time to time, such assurances as satisfied his mind that there did not exist the slightest shadow of an intention to occupy the fortresses of Spain, after the French army should have been withdrawn. He was able to 1473 SOUTH AMERICA—FOREIGN ENLISTMENT BILL.] Mr. Baring said, he rose for the purpose of asking a question relating to a matter of considerable importance. A treaty between this country and one of the newly recognized states of South America had been laid on the table. But, it was a remarkable fact, that a most honourable person, an individual of the most deserving description, who had been regularly accredited from one of these states, had not been presented to his majesty. It was rumoured, that this circumstance arose from the interference of certain foreign powers, who were anxious that the recognition of the South American states should be of a mitigated description. Now, he wished to know from the right hon. gentleman whether this omission was merely accidental, or whether it was, as rumour had stated, intentional. A treaty had been laid on the table; but, the minister of the country to which it related had not been received at court. He made this application without the slightest interference of the person to whom it related. While he was on his legs, he wished to ask another question, which was of considerable interest as it affected the feelings of a most gallant and, meritorious class of people—he meant 1474 1475 Mr. Secretary Peel said, he was extremely sorry that the hon. gentleman had put his questions during the absence of his right hon. friend (Mr. Canning). He could not state the circumstances which had prevented Mr. Lempriere from being presented to his majesty, but he could assure the hon. gentleman that the course hitherto pursued by his majesty's government was not, and would not be, in the slightest respect, altered by the interference of other powers. With respect to the other point, he thought it was perfectly fair that his majesty should have the power of preventing the enlistment of British officers in the service of foreign states, and he did not think that the right to punish them which was given by the act referred to, was at all improper. It was quite clear, that they had not suffered much under the law; for, he believed, not a single instance had occurred in which the power of laying an information had been acted on. 1476 PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE.] Mr. Baring wished to put another question to the right hon. gentleman, touching a subject which he had mentioned in the earlier part of the session. A suggestion had been made by him, and in that he was glad to find a concurrence in the feelings of gentlemen on every side of the House, that the services of a right hon. gentleman at the head of a certain department, to whose labours the country had been so much indebted; he meant the president of the Board of Trade (Mr. Huskisson), had not been sufficiently rewarded by the public [hear, hear]. The accidental absence of that right hon. gentleman afforded him an opportunity of recurring to the subject, which delicacy to him would have forbidden in his presence; but now that he had the opportunity, he would take upon himself to say, that there was a general feeling of regret, that that individual should be slaving as he was, in the service of the public, without any adequate reward. This he stated sincerely as his opinion, and without any concert or communication with the right hon. gentleman in question. What he wished to know of the right hon. Secretary was, whether government had turned its attention to the subject? Mr. Secretary Peel replied, that he had not heard the subject formally mentioned, but the justness of the hon. member's observations was so apparent, and the hardship of expecting a man to discharge the arduous duties of a laborious office, without adequate and direct compensation, was so manifest, that he had no hesitation in saying it was a subject worthy of consideration. The remuneration of the president of the Board of Trade, whose duties were many and arduous, ought not to be given indirectly. He thought there could be no objection in placing that office, in performing the duties of which the individual sacrificed almost the whole of his time, on a different footing. Instead of that, however, his right hon, friend was placed in another office (treasurer of the navy) to which a salary was attached. His right hon. friend stood in this situation: he filled two offices, in one of which he had little to do, but was paid for it; while in the other he was entirely occupied, but without any remuneration at all. There was no doubt but that the mode of requiting such services, should be amended. HOUSE OF LORDS. Monday, July 4. 1477 STATE OF IRELAND —CATHOLIC QUESTION.] The Earl of Harrowby laid on the table a copy of the Report of the Committee on the State of Ireland. The Earl of Darnley said, he could not suffer the report to be laid on the table, or the session to close, without some observations. As a member of the committee he had concurred in the Report; for it certainly contained many useful suggestions, on several of the minor points of the inquiry. On the great and important subject, however, which he must always consider paramount to every other, and without a settlement of which all other attempts to ameliorate the condition of Ireland would be ineffectual, the committee had abstained from offering any opinion. In that also he had acquiesced, from a conviction that the members of the committee could never come to any agreement on the subject. He must, however, take that opportunity to repeat the opinion which every day's experience more and more confirmed, that, sooner or later, the claims of the Roman Catholics must be conceded, and that without a settlement of that question, Ireland never could be permanently tranquil, prosperous, or happy. He deeply lamented the rejection of the bill lately sent up by the Commons, and could not help expressing his surprise and regret, to see the noble earl at the head of the government assume, on that occasion, a more decided tone of opposition to the measure than he had ever before manifested; and he was the more astonished by the noble earl's speech, from his knowledge of the attention which had been paid by that noble lord to the evidence given before the committee. Let not the noble earl suppose, however, that his opinion, or the decision of the House itself; had put the question at rest. A popular cry had been raised in England; and, as far as England only was concerned, the question might be supposed set at rest: but, far different was the case in Ireland, the part of the empire most interested in the decision. In that country, so far from the question having been set at rest, it was becoming, not so much a Catholic, as a national question. The Protestants of Ireland were impressed with a daily increasing conviction, that they were, if possible, more interested in the settlement of it, than the Catholics themselves. 1478 The Earl of Liverpool said, that though it was irregular to refer to the sources in which his opinion was to be found, if the noble earl did refer to them he would find that he had not expressed a stronger opinion this session on the Catholic question than on former occasions. With respect to any recommendation on the subject to which the noble lord had alluded from the committee, it would have been contrary to all practice. The business of the committee was to report information. COMBINATION OF WORKMEN BILL.] On the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill, The Marquis of Lansdown said, he had several petitions to present against the bill. He expressed his regret, that the House should be called upon, within two days of the prorogation, to pass a bill which was of so important a nature. In addition to this precipitation into which they were driven, their lordships were not sure that the information necessary to enable them to come to a proper decision was on the table of the House. Under these circumstances, it was with great reluctance that he gave his assent to the measure. The petitions he had to present prayed that counsel might be heard against the bill; and, if there were time, it would be their lordships' duty to accede to this prayer. The Earl of Liverpool thought there was sufficient time for any discussion which could be necessary. The measure arose almost entirely out of the bill of last session, which had been hastily passed. He had not been aware of its extent, and did not, until it came into operation, know its provisions. There were, as their lordships knew, many old statutes for the regulation of labour, which had an injurious influence on trade. Had the bill been confined to the repeal of those statutes, it would have been a very proper measure. But what did it do? It, at one sweep, repealed the whole of the common law a respecting the relations of master and servant. Soon after it passed, disturbances and acts of violence took place in different parts of the country; and it became absolutely necessary to pass some act on the subject before the session closed. Though brought in at a very late period of the session, he had no difficulty in saying, that he considered it indispensably necessary. Even if there were defects in the measure, the allowing them to pass could not be 1479 The Marquis of Lansdown agreed, that some measure of this kind was necessary, and more particularly that it was necessary to protect the workmen against themselves. He wished every facility to be given both to masters and workmen to consult about the rise or fall of wages; but it was obvious, that no manufacture could be carried on, if workmen could dictate to the masters who should be employed, and prevent men from exercising their right of labouring on whatever terms they might please. This was what never could be tolerated in a free country. Such a practice never could be sanctioned by law; and what the legislature would not be authorized to do, surely ought not to be allowed to be done by individuals. If the interference of workmen with each other were permitted to go on, trade would be forced from one place to another, until it would at last be driven out of the country. However, if any body of persons should, after the bill had passed, continue to think themselves aggrieved by it, he should next session vote for their being heard by counsel against the act. The Earl of Rosslyn concurred in the necessity of protecting workmen from the effect of combinations among themselves. COUNTRY BANKS.] Earl Grosvenor said, he could not allow the session to close without calling the attention of their lordships to a subject of great importance. 1480 The Earl of Liverpool said, that the holders of notes had a better remedy than could be given by any new act, in the law and the practice of banking credit as it now stood. There could be no doubt that country bankers were bound to pay in the current coin of the realm; and the responsibility of not doing so threatened consequences to a banking establishment of good credit, much more weighty than a new act of parliament could enforce. Lord Clifden complained of the conduct of the Bank of Ireland, which paid its notes in guineas, instead of sovereigns, in order to discourage the demand for gold. The guineas were not current at present; and those who received them were at a loss how to dispose of them. HOUSE OF LORDS. Tuesday, July 5. UNITARIANS.] The Marquis of Lansdown rose to present a petition most respectably signed, praying, that their lordships would institute an inquiry into the state of the law relating to Unitarians. He expressed his astonishment, that it should still be wished to exclude the petitioners from the benefits of the constitution, without there being on record any case in which their competence to discharge the duties of good subjects could be questioned; and the more so, as the objection to them was founded on inferences drawn from scattered judgments and the words of old acts of parliament, without any proof that the opinions of those persons were of a nature to sanction such exclusion—without its being even pretended that they did not believe in a future state and the doctrine of rewards and punishments. It was scarcely credible that, while it was not pretended that the petitioners held any opinion inconsistent with the safety of the state, they should, now, several years after an act had been passed for their protection, be told that they were still liable to the penalties which it was the object of that, statute to repeal. Yet the lord chancellor had ex- 1481 The Lord Chancellor said, that if the law turned out to be as it was supposed to be, he would rather pass a law for the benefit of those persons than otherwise. When the question of what the law was, came to be regularly discussed, he would state the grounds of his opinion respecting it. Lord Holland observed, that the learned lord seemed to have forgotten that he had already twice spoken upon this subject in the course of the present session. He would not venture to say, that the learned lord had stated what the law was; but he had stated, that it was such as ought to induce the House to pause before they passed an act for the relief of the Unitarians on the subject of marriage. The petitioners had taken the only manly course which they could adopt; and if the learned lord had followed the same example, he would have stated what really was the law, and not left it to be understood that he still believed them liable to be punished under the common law. This was a subject 1482 1483 The Lord Chancellor said, he had given no opinion of his own on the subject of the law as it applied to the Unitarians. He had merely stated what had actually passed in the courts of law in West-minster-hall. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Tuesday, July 5. CONDUCT OF LORD CHARLES SOMERSET AT THE CAPE OF GOOD HOPE—PETITION OF MR. BISHOP BURNETT.] Mr. Brougham presented the following petition from Mr. Bishop Burnett, of the Cape of Good Hope. The contents of the petition were as follows:- 1484 1485 Mr. Hume observed, that this petition contained grave charges, and he wished to know whether there would be any facilities afforded by government to the petitioner to return to the Cape, for the purpose of collecting evidence to substantiate them? Mr. Canning was at a loss to conceive upon what ground government could be called upon to assist with money every person who chose to prefer complaints against public functionaries in that House. Mr. Hume said, that the right hon. gentleman misunderstood his object. Mr. Burnett had been banished from the Cape by lord C. Somerset; and it was necessary that he should return to obtain evidence in support of his petition. Would he be permitted to do so? Mr. Wilmot Horton said, it was not at all essential to the case of this petitioner that he should go to the Cape for evidence. At least, hitherto it had not been shown that such evidence was necessary. When it had, then would be the time for entertaining the question of permitting him to return. Every statement which he had hitherto made, had turned out to be unfounded. SOUTH AMERICA.] Mr. Secretary Canning said, he had come down to the House, in order to answer certain questions which had been put, on a preceding evening, by the hon. member for Taunton (Mr. Baring), whom he did not now see in his place. The hon. member had remarked, that an individual of great respectability, accredited to this country by the state of Buenos Ayres, had not been presented at the last levee; and, from that fact, the hon. member had inferred, that some interference had been used by foreign powers to prevent that gentleman's being so received. This suggestion he desired to say was wholly void of foundation. No attempt had been made on the part of 1486 1487 HOUSE OF LORDS. Wednesday, July 6. THE KING'S SPEECH AT THE CLOSE OF THE SESSION.] After the royal assent had been given to sundry bills, the Session was put an end to, by Commission. Upon which occasion, the Lord Chancellor delivered the following speech: 1488 APPENDIX. i FINANCE ACCOUNTS. FOR THE YEAR ENDED 5TH JANUARY, 1825. CLASS. I. PUBLIC INCOME. II. PUBLIC EXPENDITURE. III. CONSOLIDATED FUND. IV. PUBLIC FUNDED DEBT. V. UNFUNDED DEBT. VI. DISPOSITION OF GRANTS. VII. ARREARS AND BALANCES. VIII. TRADE AND NAVIGATION. ii FINANCE ACCOUNTS: No. I.—An Account of the ORDINARY REVENUES and EXTRAORDINARY RESOURCES, IRELAND, for the Year HEADS OF REVENUE. GROSS RECEIPT. Repayments, Allowances, Discounts, Drawbacks, and Bounties of the nature of Drawbacks, &c. NETT RECEIPT within the Year, after deducting REPAYMENTS, &c. Ordinary Revenues. £. s. d. £. s. d. £. s. d. Customs 15,491,158 10 7¼ 1,937,125 8 6¾ 13,554,033 2 0½ Excise 30,779,302 13 8¼ 2,338,385 8 2½ 28,440,917 5 5¾ Stamps 7,672,411 0 9½ 246,005 4 11¾ 7,426,405 15 9¾ Taxes, under the Management of the Commissioners of Taxes 5,228,197 8 0½ 6,857 0 8½ 5,221,340 7 3¾ Post Office 2,255,239 15 7½ 86,388 6 8½ 2,168,851 8 11 One Shilling in the Pound, and Sixpence in the Pound on Pensions and Salaries, and Four Shillings in the Pound on Pensions 62,534 5 11 62,534 5 11 Hackney Coaches, and Hawkers and Pedlars 67,837 14 8 67,837 14 8 Crown Lands 282,126 0 8 282,126 0 8 Small Branches of the King's Hereditary Revenue 9,869 2 1 9,869 2 1 Lottery; Surplus Produce after Payment of Prizes 252,213 2 6 252,213 2 6 Surplus Fees of Regulated Public Offices 39,888 8 4 39,888 8 4 Poundage Fees, Pells Fees, Casualties, Treasury Fees, and Hospital Fees 9,748 11 0¼ 9,748 11 0¼ TOTALS of Ordinary Revenues 62,150,526 13 10¾ 4,614,761 9 1¾ 57,535,765 4 9 Other Resources. Amount of Savings on the Third Class of the Civil List 7,827 5 2 7,827 5 2 Money brought from the Civil List on account of the Clerk of the Hanaper 1,100 0 0 1,100 0 0 Money received in repayment of the Loan raised for the service of the Emperor of Germany, per Acts 35 and 37 Geo. 3 1,733,333 6 8 1,733,333 6 8 Money received from the East India Company, on account of Retired Pay, Pensions &c. of his Majesty's Forces serving in the East Indies, per Act 4 Geo. 4, c. 71 60,000 0 0 60,000 0 0 From the Commissioners for the Issue of Exchequer Bills, per Act 57 Geo. 3, c. 34, for the Employment of the Poor 125,273 9 0 125,273 9 0 Money received from the Trustees of Naval and Military Pensions 4,660,000 0 0 4,660,000 0 0 From several County Treasurers, and others in Ireland, on account of Advances made by the Treasury, for improving Post Roads, for building Gaols, for the Police, for Public Works, employment of the Poor, &c. 160,901 9 5½ 160,901 9 5½ Imprest Monies, repaid by sundry Public Accountants, and other Monies paid to the Public 411,949 19 10¾ 411,949 19 10¾ TOTALS of the Public Income of the United Kingdom 69,310,912 4 1 4,614,761 9 1¾ 64,696,150 14 11¼ Whitehall, Treasury Clambers, 10th March 1825. iii CLASS I.—PUBLIC INCOME. constituting the PUBLIC INCOME of the United Kingdom of GREAT BRITAIN and ended 5th January, 1825. TOTAL INCOME, including BALANCES outstanding 5th Jan. 1824. Charges of Collection, and other payments out of the Income, in its progress to the Exchequer PAYMENTS into the EXCHEQUER. BALANCES and BILLS outstanding on 5th January, 1825. TOTAL DISCHARGE of the INCOME Rate per cent for which the Gross Receipt was collected £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. 13,932,079 19 1⅛ 2,234,424 0 10¼ 11,327,741 6 2¾ 369,914 12 9⅛ 13,932,079 19 1⅛ 9 8 9 29,879,114 18 11⅝ 1,707,764 5 10½ 26,768,039 19 11½ 1,403,310 13 1⅝ 29,879,114 18 11⅝ 4 5 8 7,887,375 7 11 217,309 18 7¾ 7,244,042 7 0½ 426,023 2 3 7,887,375 7 11 2 16 7 5,468,218 2 2 329,704 0 5¼ 4,922,070 3 10¾ 216,443 17 10 5,468,218 2 2 5 15 8 2,382,536 15 1 655,914 9 4½ 1,520,615 7 8¼ 206,006 18 1 2,382,536 15 1 26 12 6 66,100 5 5 1,433 19 10 61,374 12 10 3,291 12 9 66,100 5 5 2 5 9 67,852 7 6 10,703 9 8 57,134 10 0 14 7 10 67,852 7 6 15 15 6 358,834 17 5½ 246,008 11 9¼ 966 13 4 111,859 12 4¼ 358,834 17 5¼ 18 1 6 12,437 3 0¼ 3,191 18 6 5,189 16 3 4,055 8 3¼ 12,437 3 0¼ 12 1 4 252,213 2 6 7,006 13 3 245,206 9 3 252,213 2 6 0 15 10 39,888 8 4 39,888 8 4 39,888 8 4 — 9,748 11 0½ 9,748 11 0¼ 9,748 11 0¼ — 60,356,399 18 6 5,413,461 7 5½ 52,202,018 5 10 2,740,920 5 3 60,356,399 18 6 6 7 8 7,827 5 2 7,827 5 2 7,827 5 2 — 1,100 0 0 1,100 0 0 1,100 0 0 — 1,733,333 6 8 1,733,333 6 8 1,733,333 6 8 — 60,000 0 0 60,000 0 0 60,000 0 0 — 125,273 9 0 125,273 9 0 125,273 9 0 — 4,660,000 0 0 4,660,000 0 0 4,660,000 0 0 — 160,091 9 5½ 160,901 9 5½ 160,901 9 5½ — 411,949 10 10¾ 411,949 19 10¾ 411,949 19 10¾ — 67,516,785 8 8 5,413,461 7 5½ 59,362,403 16 0¼ 2,740,920 5 3 67,516,785 8 8¼ — J. C. HERRIES iv FINANCE ACCOUNTS No. II.—An Account of the ORDINARY REVENUES and EXTRAORDINARY the Year ended HEADS OF REVENUE. GROSS RECEIPT. Repayments Allowances, Discounts Drawbacks, and Bounties of the nature of Drawbacks. NETT RECEIPT within the Year, after deducting REPAYMENTS, &c. Ordinary Revenues. £. s. d. £. s. d. £. s. d. Customs 13,643,528 7 11½ 1,703,852 6 4 11,939,676 1 7½ Excise 28,813 17 9¼ 2,324,155 1 11 26,489,028 15 10¼ Stamps 7,155,508 0 0½ 238,913 15 5¾ 6,916,594 4 6¾ Taxes, under the Management of the Commissioners of Taxes 5,228,197 8 0¼ 6,857 0 8½ 5,221,340 7 3¾ Post Office 2,055,636 17 1½ 66,717 9 0 1,988,919 8 1½ One Shilling in the Pound, and Sixpence in the Pound on Pensions and Salaries, and Four Shillings in the Pound on Pensions. 62,534 5 11 62,534 5 11 Hackney Coaches, and Hawkers and Pedlars 67,837 14 8 67,837 14 8 Crown Lands 283,126 0 8 282,126 0 8 Small Branches of the King's Hereditary Revenue. 9,869 2 1 9,869 2 1 Lottery, Surplus Produce after Payment of Prizes 252,213 2 6 252,213 2 6 Surplus Fees of Regulated Public Offices 39,888 8 4 39,888 8 4 TOTALS of Ordinary Revenues 57,610,523 5 1 4,340,495 13 5¼ 53,270,027 11 7¾ Other Resources. Amount of Savings on the third Class of the Civil List 7,827 5 2 7,827 5 2 Money brought from the Civil List, on Account of the Clerk of the Hanaper 1,100 0 0 1,100 0 0 Money received in repayment of the Loan raised for the Service of the Emperor of Germany, per Acts 35 and 37 Geo. 3 1,733,333 6 8 1,733,333 6 8 Money received from the East India Company on Account of retired Pay, Pensions, &c. of his Majesty's Forces serving in the East Indies, per Act 4 Geo. 4, c. 71 60,000 0 0 60,000 0 0 From the Commissioners for the Issue of Exchequer Bills, per Act 57 Geo. 3, c. 34, for the Employment of the Poor 125,273 9 0 125,273 9 0 Money received from the Trustees of Naval and Military Pensions 4,660,000 0 0 4,660,000 0 0 Imprest Monies repaid to sundry Public Accountants, and other Monies paid to the Public 202,825 18 0¼ 202,825 18 0¼ TOTALS of the Public Income of Great Britain 64,400,883 3 11¼ 4,340,495 13 5¼ 60,060,387 10 6 Whitehall, Treasury Chambers, 28th February 1825 v CLASS I.—PUBLIC INCOME. RESOURCES, constituting the PUBLIC INCOME of GREAT BRITAIN, for 5th January, 1825. TOTAL INCOME, including BALANCES outstanding 5th 1824 Charges of Collection and other Payments out of the Income, in its Progress to the Exchequer. PAYMENTS into the EXCHEQUER. BALANCES and BILLS outstanding on 5th January, 1825. TOTAL DISCHARGE of the INCOME Rate per cent. for which the Gross Receipt was collected. £. s. d. £. s. d. £. s. d. £. s. d. £. s. d. £. s. d. 12,280,252 16 2¾ 1,715,058 1 7¼ 10,239,741 19 1¾ 325,452 15 5¾ 12,280,252 16 2¾ 8 0 5 27,844,088 18 10¾ 1,400,928 9 7½ 25,113,283 5 7 1,329,877 3 8¼ 27,844,088 18 10¾ 3 16 0 7,251,462 1 1 180,087 13 1¼ 6,753,097 0 4 318,277 7 7¾ 7,251,462 1 1 2 10 4 5,468,218 2 2 329,704 0 5¼ 4,922,070 3 10¾ 216,443 17 10 5,468,218 2 2 5 15 8 2,157,228 2 2 550,139 4 11 1,444,000 0 0 163,088 17 3 2,157,228 2 2 24 7 10 66,100 5 5 1,433 19 10 61,374 12 10 3,291 12 9 66,100 5 5 2 5 9 67,852 7 6 10,703 9 8 57,134 10 0 14 7 10 67,852 7 6 15 15 6 358,834 17 5½ 246,008 11 9¼ 966 13 4 111,859 12 4¼ 358,834 17 5 18 1 7 12,437 3 0¼ 3,191 18 6 5,189 16 3 4,055 8 3¼ 12,437 3 0¼ 12 1 4 252,213 2 6 7,006 13 3 245,206 9 3 252,213 2 6 0 15 10 39,888 8 4 39,888 8 4 39,888 8 4 — 55,798,576 4 9 4,444,262 2 8½ 48,881,952 18 11½ 2,472,361 3 1 55,798,576 4 9 5 12 6 7,827 5 2 7,827 5 2 7,827 5 2 — 1,100 0 0 1,100 0 0 1,100 0 0 — 1,733,333 6 8 1,733,333 6 8 1,733,333 6 8 — 60,000 0 0 60,000 0 0 60,000 0 0 — 125,273 9 0 125,273 9 0 125,273 9 0 — 4,660,000 0 0 4,660,000 0 0 4,660,000 0 0 — 202,825 18 0¼ 202,825 18 0¼ 202,825 18 0¼ — 62,588,936 3 7 4,444,262 2 8½ 55,672,312 17 9¾ 2,472,361 3 1 62,588,936 3 7 — J. C. HERRIES vi FINANCE ACCOUNTS: No. III.—An Account of the ORDINARY REVENUES and EXTRAORDINARY ended 5th HEADS OF REVENUE. GROSS RECEIPT. Repayments, Drawbacks, Discounts &c. NETT RECEIPT within the year, after deducting REPAYMENTS, &c. Ordinary Revenues. £. s. d. £. s. d. £. s. d. Customs 1,847,630 2 7¾ 233,273 2 2¾ 1,614,357 0 5 Excise 1,966,118 15 11 14,230 6 3½ 1,951,888 9 7½ Stamps 516,903 0 9 7,091 9 6 509,811 11 3 Taxes, repealed by Act 4 Geo. 4, c. 9 Post Office 199,602 18 5¾ 19,670 17 8¼ 179,932 0 9½ Poundage Fees, Pells Fees, Casualties, Treasury Fees, and Hospital Fees 9,748 11 0¼ 9,748 11 0¼ TOTAL of Ordinary Revenues 4,540,003 8 9¾ 274,265 15 8½ 4,265,737 13 1¼ Other Resources From the Provost and Fellows of Trinity College, on account of Advances made by the Treasury for completing the North Square of the said College, per Act 54 Geo. 3, c. 167 1,107 13 10 1,107 13 10 From several Country Trustees, and others: On Account of Advances made by the Treasury for improving Post Roads in Ireland, under Act 45 Geo. 3, c. 43 6,036 6 8½ 6,036 6 8½ On Account of Advances made by the Treasury for building Gaols, under Act 50 Geo. 3, c. 103 24,172 13 3¾ 24,172 13 3¾ On Account of Advances made by the Treasury, for Police in proclaimed Districts, under Acts 54 Geo. 3, c. 131, and 3 Geo. 4, c. 103 89,011 13 7¾ 89,011 13 7¾ On Account of Advances made by the Treasury for Public Works and Employment of the Poor, under Acts 57 Geo. 3, c. 34 and 124, and 3 Geo. 4, c. 112, and 3 Geo. 4, c. 84 40,573 1 11½ 40,573 1 11½ Imprest Monies repaid by sundry Public Accountants, and other Monies paid to the Public 209,124 1 10½ 209,124 1 10½ TOTALS of the Public Income of Ireland 4,910,029 0 1¾ 274,265 15 8½ 4,635,763 4 5¼ Whitehall, Treasury Chambers, 10th March 1825. vii CLASS I.—PUBLIC INCOME. RESOURCES, constituting the PUBLIC INCOME of IRELAND, for the Year January, 1825. TOTAL INCOME including BALANCES outstanding 5th Jan. 1824. Charges of Collection, and other Payments out of the Income, in its Progress to the Exchequer. PAYMENTS into the EXCHEQUER. BALANCES and BILLS outstanding on 5th January, 1825. TOTAL DISCHARGE of the INCOME. Rate per cent. for which the Gross Receipt was collected. £. s. d. £. s. d. £. s. d. £. s. d. £. s. d. £. s. d. 1,651,827 2 10⅜ 519,365 18 6 1,087,999 7 1 44,461 17 3⅜ 1,651,827 2 10⅜ 19 17 8 2,035,026 0 0⅞ 306,835 16 3 1,654,756 14 4½ 73,433 9 5⅜ 2,035,026 0 0⅞ 11 6 11 635,913 6 10 37,222 5 6½ 490,945 6 8½ 107,745 14 7¼ 635,913 6 10 7 4 0 — 225,308 12 11½ 105,775 4 5½ 76,615 7 8¼ 42,918 0 9¾ 225,308 12 11½ 49 12 3 9,748 11 0¼ 9,748 11 0¼ 9,748 11 0¼ — 4,557,823 13 9 969,199 4 9 3,320,065 6 10½ 268,559 2 1¼ 4,557,823 13 9 16 0 1 1,107 13 10 1,107 13 10 1,107 13 10 — 6,036 6 8½ 6,036 6 8½ 6,036 6 8½ — 24,172 13 3¾ 24,172 13 3¾ 24,172 13 3¾ — 89,011 13 7¾ 89,011 13 3¾ 89,011 13 7¾ — 40,573 1 11½ 40,573 1 11½ 40,573 1 11½ — 209,124 1 10½ 209,124 1 10½ 209,124 1 10½ — 4,927,849 5 1 969,199 4 9 3,690,090 18 2½ 268,559 2 1¾ 4,927,849 5 1 — J. C. HERRIES. viii FINANCE ACCOUNTS: No. IV.—AN ACCOUNT of the TOTAL INCOME of the REVENUE of GREAT BRI- Repayments, Allowances, Discounts, Drawbacks, and Bounties of the nature DITURE of the United Kingdom, exclusive of the Sums ap- HEADS OF REVENUE. NETT RECEIPT, of as stated in Account of Public Income. — ORDINARY REVENUES. £. s. d. £. s. d. Balances and Bills outstanding on 5th January 1824 2,820,634 13 9 Customs 13,554,033 2 0½ Excise 28,440,917 5 5¾ Stamps 7,426,405 15 9¾ Taxes 5,221,340 7 3¾ Post Office 2,168,851 8 11 One Shilling and Sixpenny Duty on Pensions and Salaries, and Four Shillings in the Pound on Pensions 62,534 5 11 Hackney Coaches, and Hawkers and Pedlars 67,837 14 8 Crown Lands 282,126 0 8 Small Branches of the King's Hereditary Revenue 9,869 2 1 Surplus Produce of Lottery, after payment of Lottery Prizes 252,213 2 6 Surplus Fees of regulated Public Offices 39,888 8 4 Poundage Fees, Pells Fees, Casualties, Treasury Fees, and Hospital Fees 9,748 11 0¼ 57,535,765 4 9¼ 60,356,399 18 6 Deduct Balances and Bills outstanding on 5th January 1825 2,740,920 5 3 TOTAL Ordinary Revenues 57,615,479 13 3 OTHER RESOURCES. The amount of Savings on the Third Class of the Civil List 7,827 5 2 Money brought from Civil List, on account of the Clerk of the Hanaper 1,100 0 0 Money received in repayment of the Loan raised for the service of the Emperor of Germany, per Acts 35 and 37 Geo. 3 1,733,333 6 8 By the East India Company, on account of Retired Pay, Pensions, &c. of his Majesty's Forces, serving in the East Indies, per Act 4 Geo. 4, c. 71 60,000 0 0 By the Commissioners for the issue of Exchequer Bills, for the employment of the Poor, per Act 57 Geo. 3, c. 34 125,273 9 0 By the Trustees of Naval and Military Pensions 4,660,000 0 0 Money repaid in Ireland, on account of Advances from the Consolidated Fund, under various Acts, for Public Improvements 160,901 9 5½ Imprest and other Monies paid into the Exchequer 411,949 19 10¾ 7,160,385 10 2¼ 64,775,865 3 5¾ Balances, &c. in the hands of the Receivers, &c. on the 5th January 1824 2,820,634 13 9 Ditto on the 5th January 1825 2,740,920 5 3 Balances less in 1825 than in 1824 79,714 8 6 Surplus Income paid into the Exchequer, over Expenditure thereout 6,587,802 17 3 Actual Excess of Income over Expenditure 6,508,088 8 9 Whitehall, Treasury Chambers, 10th March 1825. ix CLASS II.—PUBLIC EXPENDITURE TAIN and IRELAND, in the Year ended 5th January 1825, after deducting the of Drawbacks; together with an Account of the PUBLIC EXPEN- plied to the Reduction of the National Debt within the same period. EXPENDITURE. — — PAYMENTS OUT OF THE INCOME in its progress to the Exchequer: £. s. d. £. s. d. Charges of Collection 3,967,641 14 11½ Other Payments 1,445,819 12 6 Total Payments out of the Income, prior to the Payments into the Exchequer 5,413,461 7 5½ PAYMENTS OUT OF THE EXCHEQUER: Dividends, Interest, and Management of the Public Funded Debt, four Quarters to 10th October 1824, exclusive of 5,150,059 l. s. d. 27,979,068 7 11 Interest on Exchequer Bills 1,087,283 13 2 29,066,352 1 1 Issued to the Trustees of Military and Naval Pensions, &c. per Act 3 Geo. 4, c. 51 2,214,260 0 0 Ditto - - Bank of England, per Act 4 Geo. 4, c. 22 585,740 0 0 2,800,000 0 0 Civil List - - - four Quarters to 5th January 1825 1,057,000 0 0 Pensions charged by Act of Parliament on Consolidated Fund, four Quarters to 10th October 1824 371,644 1 10¾ Salaries and Allowances 70,212 10 6 Officers Courts of Justice 96,265 4 11 Expenses of the Mint 14,748 7 0 Bounties 2,956 13 8 Miscellaneous 808,982 15 2 Ditto - Ireland 300,102 10 8½ 2,721,912 3 10¼ Army 7,573,026 2 7¾ Navy 6,161,818 3 10 Ordnance 1,407,308 2 10¼ Miscellaneous 2,449,148 19 4¾ 17,591,301 8 8¾ Money paid to the Bank of England, more than received from them on account of Unclaimed Dividends 48,424 4 2 By the Commissioners for issuing Exchequer Bills, per Act 57 Geo. 3, c. 34 & 124, for the employment of the Poor 219,200 0 0 Advances out of the Consolidated Fund in Ireland, for Public Works 327,411 0 10¾ 595,035 5 0¾ TOTAL 58,188,062 6 2¼ Surplus of Income paid into the Exchequer, over Expenditure issued thereout 6,587,802 17 3½ 64,775,865 3 5¾ J. C. HERRIES. x FINANCE ACCOUNTS: No. II.—An Account of the Nett PUBLIC INCOME of the United Kingdom of INCOME. Applicable to the Consolidated Fund. Applicable to other Public Services. Income paid into the Exchequer. £. s. d. £. s. d. £. s. d. Customs 8,580,882 13 2¾ 2,746,858 13 0 11,327,741 6 2¾ Excise 26,496,882 16 5½ 271,157 3 6 26,768,039 19 11½ Stamps 7,244,042 7 0½ - - - 7,244,042 7 0½ Taxes under the management of the Com 4,919,248 9 8¾ 2,821 14 2 4,922,070 3 10¾ Post Office 1,520,615 7 8¼ - - - 1,520,615 7 8¼ One Shilling and Sixpence Duty on Pen 61,374 12 10 - - - 61,374 12 10 Hackney Coaches, and Hawkers and Pedlars 57,134 10 0 - - - 57,134 10 0 Crown Lands 966 13 4 - - - 966 13 4 Small Branches of the King's Hereditary 5,189 16 3 - - - 5,189 16 3 Surplus Produce of Lottery, after Payment of Lottery Prizes - - - 245,206 9 3 245,206 9 3 Surplus Fees, regulated Public Offices 39,888 8 4 - - - 39,888 8 4 Poundage Fees, Pells Fees, Casualties, 9,748 11 0¼ - - - 9,748 11 0¼ TOTAL Ordinary Revenue - - - - - - 52,202,018 5 10 The amount of Savings on Third Class of 7,827 5 2 - - - 7,827 5 2 Ditto brought from Civil List, on account 1,100 0 0 - - - 1,100 0 0 Ditto received in repayment of the Loan 1,733,333 6 8 - - - 1,733,333 6 8 By the East India Company on account of - - - 60,000 0 0 60,000 0 0 By the Trustees of Military and Naval - - - 4,660,000 0 0 4,660,000 0 0 By the Commissioners for issuing Exche - - - 125,273 9 0 125,273 9 0 Money repaid in Ireland, on account of ad 160,901 9 5½ - - - 160,901 9 5½ Imprest and other Monies paid into the 385,147 15 9 26,802 4 1¾ 411,949 19 10¾ TOTAL paid into the Exchequer 51,224,284 2 11½ 8,138,119 13 0¾ 59,362,403 16 0¼ Whitehall, Treasury Chambers, xi CLASS II.—PUBLIC EXPENDITURE. GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND, in the Year ended 5th January, 1825, after abating EXPENDITURE. Nett Expenditure. £. s. d. £. s. d. Dividends, Interest, and Management of the Public Funded l. s. d 27,979,068 7 11 Interest on Exchequer Bills 1,087,283 13 2 29,066,352 1 1 Issued to the Trustees of Military and Naval Pensions, 2,214,260 0 0 Ditto Bank of England 4,Geo 4, c. 22 585,740 0 0 2,800,000 0 0 Civil List, four quarters to 5th January 1825 1,057,000 0 0 Pensions charged by Act of Parliament, 371,644 1 10¾ Salaries and Allowances Ditto 70,212 10 6 Officers of Courts of Justice Ditto 96,265 4 11 Expenses of the Mint Ditto 14,748 7 0 Bounties Ditto 2,956 13 8 Miscellaneous Ditto 308,982 15 2 Ditto "Ireland" Ditto 300,102 10 8½ 2,721,912 3 10¼ Army 7,573,026 2 7¾ Navy 6,161,818 3 10 Ordnance 1,407,308 2 10¼ Miscellaneous 2,449,148 19 4¾ 17,591,301 8 8¾ TOTAL - - - 52,179,565 13 8 Money paid to the Bank of England more than received from 48,424 4 2 By the Commissioners for issuing Exchequer Bills, per Act 219,200 0 0 Advances out of the Consolidated Fund in Ireland, for Public 327,411 0 10¾ 595,035 5 0¾ TOTAL 52,774,600 18 8¾ Surplus of Income paid into the Exchequer over Expenditure thereout 6,587,802 17 3½ 59,362,403 16 0¼ J.C. HERRIES. xii FINANCE ACCOUNTS. No. III.—An Account of the BALANCE of PUBLIC MONEY remaining in the £. s. d. Balances in the Exchequer on 5th January 1824 9,421,279 14 4¼ MONEY RAISED In the Year ended 5th January 1825, by the creation of £. s. d. Exchequer Bills issued per Act 4 Geo. 4, c. 100 5,951,800 0 0 Ditto 5 2 15,000,000 0 0 Ditto 5 115 10,890,900 0 0 Ditto to pay off £ 5,502,000 0 0 Ditto Public Works 3 Geo. 4, c. 86 219,200 0 0 Ditto Churches 58 Geo. 3, c. 45 194,600 0 0 *37,758,500 0 0 TOTAL 47,179,779 14 4¼ Surplus of Income paid into the Exchequer, over Expenditure thereout 6,587,802 17 3½ 53,767,582 11 7¾ £. s. d. *Exchequer Bills charged upon Supplies 32,256,500 0 0 Ditto Sinking Fund per Act 5 Geo. 4, e. 45 5,502,000 0 0 37,758,500 0 0 Whitehall, Treasury Chambers, xiii CLASS II.—PUBLIC EXPENDITURE. EXCHEQUER on the 5th January, 1824; the amount of Money raised by additions £. s. d. APPLIED BY The Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, £. s. d. Sinking Fund on Redeemed Funded Debt 5,000,000 0 0 Interest on Ditto 150,059 18 1 5,150,059 18 1 Bank of England to pay off £. 5,502,000 0 0 Applied towards Redemption of Funded Debt 10,652,059 18 1 FUNDED DEBT Issued to the Paymasters of Exchequer Bills to pay off Unfunded Debt 33,563,000 0 0 44,215,059 18 1 Balances in the Exchequer at 5th January 1825 9,552,522 13 6¾ 53,767,582 11 7¾ J. C. HERRIES. xiv FINANCE ACCOUTNS: No. I.—An Account of the Income of the CONSOLIDATED FUND arising in the £. s. d. The Total Income Applicable to the Consolidated Fund 51,224,284 2 11½ 51,224,284 2 11½ Whitehall, Treasury Chambers, 1st February 1825. No.II.—An Account of the MONEY applicable to the Payment of the CHARGE of the £. s. d. Income arising in Great Britain 47,534,193 4 9 £. s. d. Incoming arising in Ireland 3,690,090 18 2½ Add the Sum paid out of the Consolidated Fund in Ireland, 283,342 2 6¾ 3,973,433 0 9¼ Deduct the Sum paid out of the Consolidated Fund, to- 254,356 14 0¼ 3,719,076 6 9 Total Sum applicable to the Charge of the Consolidated Fund, in the Year ended 51,253,269 11 6 Exchequer Bills to be issued to complete the payment of the Charge, to 5th January 1,550,031 5 6½ 52,803,300 17 0½ Whitehall, Treasury Chambers, 1st February 1825. xv CLASS III.—CONSOLIDATED FUND. United Kingdom of GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND, in the Year ended 5th January, HEADS OF PAYMENT. £. s. d. Dividends, Interest, Sinking Fund, and Management of the Public Funded Debt, 33,129,128 6 0 Interest on Exchequer Bills issued upon the credit of the Consolidated Fund 1,267 16 8 Trustees for Naval and Military Pensions, per Act 3 Geo. 4, c. 51 2,214,260 0 0 Bank of England per Act 4 Geo. 4,.c. 22 585,740 0 0 Civil List, 4 Quarters to 5th January 1825 1,057,000 0 0 Pensions charged by Act of Parliament upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 371,644 1 10¾ Salaries and Allowances do. 70,212 10 6 Officers of Courts of Justice do. 96,265 4 11 Expenses of the Mint do. 14,748 7 0 Bounties do. 2,956 13 8 Miscellaneous do. 808,982 15 2 Do. Ireland do. 300,102 10 8½ Advances out of the Consolidated Fund in Ireland, for Public Works 327,411 0 10¾ 38,979,719 7 5 SURPLUS of the CONSOLIDATED FUND 12,244,564 15 6½ 51,224,284 2 11½ J. C. HERRIES. CONSOLIDATED FUND of the United Kingdom, in the Year ended 5th January, HEADS OF CHARGE. £. s. d. Dividends, Interest, Sinking Fund, and Management of the Public Funded Debt, 33,131,051 11 7¾ Interest on Exchequer Bills issued upon the credit of the Consolidated Fund 1,267 16 8 Trustees for Naval and Military Pensions, per Act 3 Geo. 4, c. 51 2,214,260 0 0 Bank of England per Act 4 Geo. 4, c. 22 585,740 0 0 Civil List, 4 Quarters to 5th January 1825 1,057,000 0 0 Pensions charged by Act of Parliament upon the Consolidated Fund, 4 Quarters to 370,456 9 3¾ Salaries and Allowances do. 72,220 2 6½ Officers of Courts of Justice do. 95,926 8 6½ Expenses of the Mint do. 14,748 7 0 Bounties do. 2,956 13 8 Miscellaneous do. 930,682 2 5 Do. Ireland do. 305,749 8 6½ Advances out of the Consolidated Fund in Ireland, for Public Works 327,411 0 10¾ 39,109,470 1 2¾ Exchequer Bills issued to make good the Charge of the Consolidated Fund to the 5th 1,541,928 11 1½ 40,651,398 12 4¼ SURPLUS of the CONSOLIDATED FUND 12,151,902 4 8¼ 52,803,300 17 0½ J. C. HERRIES. xvi FINANCE ACCOUNTS: An Account of the State of the PUBLIC FUNDED DEBTS of GREAT BRITAIN the Debt created by DEBT. — 1. CAPITALS. 2. CAPITALS 3. CAPITALS UNREDEEMED. GREAT BRITAIN. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. Debt due to the South Sea Company at £ 3,662,784 8 6 - - - 3,662,784 8 6 Old South Sea Annuities do. 4,574,870 2 7 226,000 0 0 4,348,870 2 7 New South Sea Annuities do. 3,128,330 2 10 146,000 0 0 2,982,330 2 10 South Sea Annuities, 1751 do. 707,600 0 0 35,000 0 0 672,600 0 0 Debt due to the Bank of England do. 14,686,800 0 0 - - - 14,686,800 0 0 Bank Annuities, created in 1726 do. 1,000,000 0 0 452 10 9 999,547 9 3 Consolidated Annuities do. 369.763,675 11 7 5,198,203 7 11 364,565,472 3 8 Reduced Annuities do. 132,772,669 11 5 2,700,705 2 3 130,071,964 9 2 TOTAL at £ 530,296,729 16 11 8,306,361 0 11 521,990,368 16 0 Annuities at £ 15,457,969 14 2 233,047 0 0 15,224,922 14 2 Reduced Annuities do. 74,698,208 12 4 5,873,659 8 7 68,824,549 3 9 New £ 146,186,398 18 3 52,169 18 0 146,134,229 0 3 £. 5 per cents 1797 and 1802 997,650 2 4 3,771 9 3 993,878 13 1 Great Britain 767,636,957 4 0 14,469,008 16 9 753,167,948 7 3 IN IRELAND. Irish Consolidated £. 3 per cent Annuities 401,119 14 5 - - - 401,119 14 5 Irish Reduced £ 995,400 0 0 - - - 995,400 0 0 £ 13,249,448 2 1 293,399 13 3 12,956,048 8 10 Reduced 3½ per cent Annuities 1,381,772 8 2 366,938 19 3 1,014,833 8 11 Debt due to the Bank of Ireland at £ 1,615,384 12 4 - - - 1,615,384 12 4 New £ 9,957,103 11 5 - - - 9,957,103 11 5 Debt Due to the Bank of Ireland at £ 1,015,384 12 4 - - - 1,015,384 12 4 Ireland 28,615,613 0 9 660,338 12 6 27,955,274 8 3 TOTAL United Kingdom 796,252,570 4 9 15,129,347 9 3 781,123,222 15 6 — STOCK. £ s d Note. 484,408,884 19 9 xvii CLASS IV.—PUBLIC FUNDED DEBT. and IRELAND, and of the CHARGE thereupon at the 5th January, 1825, including 7,500,000 l CHARGE. — IN GREAT BRITAIN. IN IRELAND TOTAL ANNUAL CHARGE. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. Sinking Fund. The Annual Sum of 5,000,000 l 4,840,000 0 0 160,000 0 0 Annual Interest on Stock standing 456,733 13 2 23,111 17 0 Long Annuities do 6,808 12 4 — 5,303,542 5 7 183,111 17 0 Due to the Public Creditor. Annual Interest on Unredeemed Debt 24,496,505 13 5 1,044,545 4 3 Long Annuities, expire 1860 1,333,843 6 4 — Long Annuities payable at the Exchequer, English 27,704 10 5 — Do. - Irish 35,461 7 9 7,035 4 7 25,893,514 18 0 1,051,580 8 11 Annual Interest on Stock transferred to the 8,467 5 2 — Management 279,360 9 9 752 6 2 The Trustees of Military and Naval Pensions and Civil Superannuations 2,800,000 0 0 — 34,284,884 18 7 1,235,444 12 1 35,520,329 10 9 xviii FINANCE ACCOUNTS: ABSTRACT. — CAPITALS. CAPITALS Transferred to the Commissioners. CAPITALS unredeemed, ANNUAL CHARGE. Due to the Public Creditor. MANAGEMENT. SINKING FUND TOTAL. £. s. d. £. s. d. £. s. d. £. s. d. £. s. d. £. s. d. £. . . Great Britain 767,636,957 4 0¾ 14,469,008 16 9 753,167,948 7 3¾ 25,901,982 3 2¾ 279,360 9 9¾ 5,303,542 5 7 (a) Ireland 28,615,613 9 0 660,338 12 6 27,955,274 8 3 1,051,580 8 11¼ 752 6 2 183,111 17 0½ — 796,252,570 4 9¾ 15,129,347 9 3 781,123,222 15 6¾ 26,953,562 12 2 280,112 15 11¾ 5,486,654 2 7½ — The Trustees of Military and Naval Pensions and Civil Superannuations 2,800,000 0 0 — — — 29,753,562 12 2 280,112 15 11¾ 5,486,654 2 7½ 35,520,329 10 9¼ Non-assented £ £ 6,197,012 11 11 (a) Chargeable with £ s d s d Purchased with the Sinking Fund 6,844,690 13 3 Transferred for Life Annuities 1,098,212 0 0 Stock Unclaimed, 10 years and upwards 209,690 2 10 And also with Payment of £ s d £ Purchased with Unclaimed Dividends 497,500 0 0 Transferred for Redemption of Land Tax under Schedules C. & D. 282,242 1 3 TOTAL transferred to Commissioners, as above 15,129,347 9 3 National Debt Office, 9th February 1825. S. HIGHAM, Compt. Gen. xix CLASS V.—.UNFUNDED DEBT. An Account of the UNFUNDED DEBT of GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND, and of the Demands outstanding on the 5th January 1825. — PROVIDED UNPROVIDED. TOTAL. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. Exchequer Bills, exclusive of £ £ 1,984,650 0 0 30,413,800 0 0 32,398,450 0 0 Sums remaining unpaid, charged upon Aids 3,906,077 1 2½ - - - 3,906,077 1 2½ Advances made out of the Consolidated Fund 254,356 14 0¼ - - - 254,356 14 0¼ TOTAL Unfunded Debt, and Demands outstanding 6,145,083 15 2¾ 30,413,800 0 0 36,558,883 15 2¾ Ways and Means 6,584,250 5 1½ — — SURPLUS Ways and Means 439,166 9 10¾ — — Exchequer Bills to be issued to complete the Charge upon the Consolidated Fund - - - 1,550,031 5 6½ 1,550,031 5 6½ Whitehall, Treasury chambers, 1st February 1825. J. C. HERRIES. xx FINANCE ACCOUNTS: An Account showing how the MONIES given for the SERVICE of the United Kingdom of GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND, for the Year 1824, having been disposed of; distinguished under their several Heads; to 5th January 1825. SERVICES. SUMS SUMS £ s. d. £ s. d. NAVY 5,668,643 2 6 4,678,835 7 9 ORDNANCE 1,504,294 0 0 850,723 3 2 FORCES 7,403,287 17 3 6,143,182 8 6¾. For defraying the CHARGE of the CIVIL ESTABLISHMENTS Of the Bahama Islands 3,287 0 0 3,287 0 0 Of the Island of Dominica 600 0 0 300 0 0 Of Upper Canada 8,299 0 0 4,000 0 0 Of Nova Scotia 9,197 0 0 4,600 0 0 Of the Province of New Brunswick 5,194 0 0 2,500 0 0 Of Prince Edward Island 3,318 0 0 3,318 0 0 Of New South Wales 15,294 0 0 8,000 0 0 Of Sierra Leone 22,594 0 0 22,594 0 0 Of the Island of Newfoundland 4,830 13 0 3,500 0 0 To defray the Charge of the Civil and Military Establishments 43,926 18 0 36,927 11 0 Charge of the Convict Establishment at Bermuda 9,827 0 0 4,000 0 0 Interest on Exchequer Bills 1,050,000 0 0 1,050,000 0 0 Charge of the Royal Military College 11,423 19 1 1,510 17 3 Charge of the Royal Military Asylum 23,864 5 3 11,429 4 6 Expenses of Works and Repairs of Public Buildings 40,000 0 0 18,692 8 10 For carrying on the Works at the Royal Harbour of George the 41,O00 0 0 29,230 15 4½ To make good the Deficiency of the Fee Fund in the Department 25,500 0 0 17,403 15 8 To make good the Deficiency of the Fee Fund in the Department 15,000 0 0 10,146 1 8 To make good the Deficiency of the Fee Fund in the Department 20,538 0 0 14,824 12 11½ To make good the Deficiency of the Fee Fund in the Department 14,500 0 0 10,898 14 1½ To make good the Deficiency of the Fee Fund in the Department 15,422 0 0 11,293 11 2 Contingent Expenses, and Messengers Bills, in the Department 8,000 0 0 2,500 0 0 Contingent Expenses, and Messengers Bills, in the Department 9,737 0 0 7,875 5 6 Contingent Expenses, and Messengers Bills, in the Department 38,450 0 0 38,450 0 0 Contingent Expenses, and Messengers Bills, in the Department 7,500 0 0 3,074 18 0 Contingent Expenses, and Messengers Bills, in the Department 2,964 0 0 2,073 5 10 Salaries to certain Officers, and Expenses of the Court and 5,665 0 0 5,493 11 11 Salaries of the Commissioners of the Insolvent Debtors Court, of their Clerks, and the Contingent Expenses of their Office 8,640 0 0 5,338 12 6 Expenses of the Houses of Lords and Commons 11,966 0 0 10,133 7 6 Salaries and Allowances to the Officers of the Houses of Lords 21,619 0 0 12,457 17 6 xxi CLASS VI.—DISPOSITION OF GRANTS. SERVICE— continued. SUMS SUMS £ s d £ s d Extraordinary Expense in the Department of the Lord chamberlain, 4,800 0 0 1,992 18 4 salaries of the Officers, and the contingent Expenses of the 4,872 0 0 4,872 0 0 Allowances to Protestant Dissenting Ministers in England, poor 6,512 7 10 3,456 3 11 Charge of printing Acts of parliament for the two Houses of Parliament, 17,000 0 0 — Deficiency of the Grant of 1823,for printing Acts of Parliament 7,831 2 4¾ 7,434 5 9¾ Expenses incurred for printing, by order of the Commissioners 4,047 12 10 4,047 12 10 Expense incurred in 1823, for printing and delivering Copies 849 9 4 849 9 4 Expense of printing Bills, Reports, and other Papers, by Order 20,000 0 0 —. Deficiency of the Grant of 1823, for printing Bills, Reports, 13,433 18 6 13,433 18 6 Expense of printing 1,750 copies of the 79th Volume of Journals 3,500 0 0 — Deficiency of the Grant of 1823, for printing 1,750 copies of 1,597 4 6 1,597 4 6 Deficiency of the Grant of 1822, for re-printing Journals and Reports of the House of Commons 670 18 6 670 18 6 Expense of printing the Votes of the House of Commons during 3,500 0 0 3,500 0 0 Expense of providing Stationery, Printing, and Binding for the 96,310 0 0 50,240 0 0 Expense of Law charges 17,000 0 0 10,000 0 0 Expense attending the confining, maintaining, and employing Convicts at home 60,754 0 0 60,754 0 0 Salaries or Allowances granted to certain Professors at the 1,171 6 9 1,171 6 9 For his Majesty's Foreign and other Secret Services 38,000 0 0 33,675 7 3 Extraordinary Expenses that may be incurred for Prosecutions 5,000 0 0 — Extraordinary Expenses of the Mint in the Gold Coinage 10,000 0 0 10,000 0 0 To make good the loss upon the Irish Silver Tokens already 100,000 0 0 100,000 0 0 Charge for Civil Contingencies 206,507 0 0 205,930 1 3 Amount of Bills drawn or to be drawn from New South Wales 150,000 0 0 100,000 0 0 Expense of certain Colonial Services formerly paid out of the 2,442 10 0 2,442 10 0 Charge of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in the 15,532 0 0 8,400 0 0 xxii FINANCE ACCOUNTS SERVICE— continued SUMS SUMS £ s. d. £ s. d. Bills drawn from abroad, for the Expenses incurred under the 45,000 0 0 45,000 0 0 Charge of Purchasing, and the Expenses incidental to the preservation 60,000 0 0 59,711 9 9 To defray that part of the Expense of rebuilding the Bridge at 3,000 0 0 — The Following SERVICES are directed to be paid, without any Fee or other Deduction whatsoever: Works carrying on at the College of Edinburgh 10,000 0 0 10,000 0 0 Works executing at Port Patrick Harbour 13,855 0 0 13,855 0 0 For completing the Works of the Caledonian Canal 25,000 0 0 25,000 0 0 Towards defraying the Expense of Building the New Courts 30,000 0 0 — Towards defraying the Expense of Buildings at the British Museum 40,000 0 0 — To defray the Expense of sundry Works executing at Donaghadee Harbour 14,467 11 0 14,467 11 0 Expense of the Establishment of the Penitentiary House at Milbank 23,000 0 0 10,000 0 0 To make compensation to the Commissioners for inquiring into 6,000 0 0 6,000 0 0 Expense of the National Vaccine Establishment 3,000 0 0 1,500 0 0 Charge of Allowances or Compensations granted or allowed 10,910 6 8 1,837 10 0 To enable his Majesty to grant relief, in the year 1824, to Toulonese 16,520 0 0 10,700 0 0 For the Relief of American Loyalists 6,500 0 0 4,000 0 0 Expense of confining and maintaining Criminal Lunatics 3,306 10 0 2,592 12 11 To pay, in the year 1824, the Salaries and Incidental 17,425 0 0 56 8 0 For the Support of the Institution, called "The Refuge for the 5,000 0 0 5,000 0 0 British Museum, for the year 1824 4,847 0 0 4,487 0 0 Expense of the New Building at Whitehall, intended for the 17,000 0 0 1,930 12 5 Expense of improving and rendering more safe the Navigation 5,000 0 0 5,000 0 0 Outstanding Charges for Outfit and Salaries to his 34,450 0 0 23,250 16 5¼ Towards defraying the Charge which may be incurred, in the 23,500 0 0 23,500 0 0 xxiii CLASS VI.—DISPOSITION OF GRANTS. SERVICES—continued. SUMS SUMS £ s. d. £ s. d. Castle, and for the Purchase or Exchange of certain Lands adjoining thereto 150,000 0 0 5,000 0 0 For defraying the CHARGE of the following Services in Ireland; Expense of the Board of Works in Ireland; for the year 1824 16,800 0 0 8,384 0 9¼ Expense of Printing, Stationery, and other Disbursements of 16,000 0 0 11,970 14 4½ Expense of publishing Proclamations and other matters of a 6,500 0 0 5,362 18 2¼ Expense of Printing and Binding Public General Acts, for the 5,000 0 0 5,000 0 0 Expense of Criminal Prosecutions and other Law Expenses in Ireland 24,000 0 0 24,000 0 0 Deficiency of the Grant of the year 1823, for the Expense of 5,200 0 0 5,187 18 2¼ To defray the Expense of supporting Non-conforming Ministers in Ireland 8,843 0 0 6,557 10 9¼ For the Support of the Seceding Ministers from the Synod 4,234 0 0 2,017 7 8¼ Expense of supporting the Protestant Dissenting Ministers in Ireland 756 0 0 756 0 0 Salaries of the Lottery Officers in Ireland 1,072 12 4 1,072 12 4 Expense of improving and completing the Harbour of Howth 4,000 0 0 — Civil Contingencies in Ireland 15,000 0 0 7,397 2 7¼ Expense of the Directors and Officers of Inland Navigations in 4,500 0 0 4,500 0 0 Expense of the Police and Watch Establishments of Dublin 27,000 0 0 27,000 0 0 Salaries and Expenses of the Commissioners for inquiring into 7,140 0 0 5,665 4 7 Salaries and Expenses of the Commissioners of Enquiry into 1,651 0 0 1,348 13 10¼ Salaries and Expenses of the Record Commission in Ireland 5,100 0 0 2,715 7 8¼ Retired or Superannuation Allowances to Public Officers 1,116 18 5 837 13 10¼ Expense of Improvements on the Road from London to Dublin 10,000 0 0 — Expense of commencing a Trigonometrical Survey of Ireland 5,000 0 0 — Expense of the Commissioners of Wide Streets in Dublin 10,000 0 0 10,000 0 0 Expense of the Royal Irish Academy 300 0 0 300 0 0 Expense of the Linen Board of Ireland 19,938 9 2¾ 19,938 9 2¾ Expense of the Protestant Charter Schools of Ireland 21,615 0 0 21,615 0 0 Expense of supporting the House of Industry Hospitals, and 18,790 0 0 14,615 7 8¼ Expense of supporting the Richmond Lunatic Asylum in Dublin 4,900 0 0 4,900 0 0 Expense of the Hibernian Society for Soldiers' Children 7,500 0 0 2,769 4 7¼ Expense of the Hibernian Marine Society in Dublin 1,600 0 0 1,600 0 0 Expense of the Female Orphan House in Dublin 1,878 0 0 1,200 0 0 Expense of supporting the Westmorland Lock Hospital in Dublin 2,445 0 0 2,445 0 0 Expense of the Lying-in Hospital in Dublin 2,900 0 0 2,900 0 0 Expense of Dr. Steevens's Hospital in Dublin 1,400 0 0 1,400 0 0 Expense of Fever Hospital and House of Recovery in Dublin 3,692 0 0 3,692 0 0 Expense of the Hospital for Incurables in Dublin 350 0 0 350 0 0 Expense of the Roman Catholic Seminary in Ireland 8,928 0 0 8,928 0 0 Expense of the Royal Cork Institution 2,000 0 0 2,000 0 0 Expense of the Royal Dublin Society 7,000 0 0 7,000 0 0 Expense of the Farming Society of Ireland 2,500 0 0 2,500 0 0 xxiv FINANCE ACCOUNTS SERVICES— continued. SUMS SUMS £ s. d. £ s. d. Expenses of the Commissioners of Charitable Donations and 500 0 0 500 0 0 Expense of the Society for discountenancing Vice in Ireland 4,473 0 0 3,000 0 0 Expense of the Society for promoting the Education of the Poor 22,000 0 0 22,000 0 0 Expense of the Foundling Hospital in Dublin 27,667 0 0 27,667 0 0 In aid of Schools established by Voluntary Contributions 10,000 0 0 1,652 6 0 17,784,714 13 4½ 14,209,057 0 10¾ To pay off and discharge Exchequer Bills, and that the same 33,663,200 0 0 To pay off and discharge Exchequer Bills issued between the 368,100 0 0 51,816,014 13 4½ 42,405,857 0 10¾ xxv CLASS VI—DISPOSITION OF GRANTS. PAYMENTS FOR OTHER SERVICES, Not being part of the Supplies granted for the Service of the Year. — Sums Paid Estimated further £ s. d. £ s. d. Grosvenor Charles Bedford, Esq. on his Salary for additional 150 0 0 50 0 0 For the purchase of the remaining third part of the Annuity of £ 200,027 15 6 Expenses in the Office of the Commissioners for inquiring into 5,000 0 0 Expenses in the Office of the Commissioners for issuing Exchequer 2,000 0 0 Expenses in the Office of the Commissioners for issuing Exchequer 3,000 10 0 Paid to the Bank of England, more than received of them, to 48,424 4 2 To pay Interest on Exchequer Bill, issued per Act 4 Geo. 4, c. 102 30,000 0 0 288,601 19 8 50 0 0 288,601 19 8 TOTAL Payments for Service not voted 51,816,014 13 4½ TOTAL Sums voted, and Payments for Services not voted 52,104,666 13 0½ WAYS AND MEANS for answering the foregoing Services. £ s. d. Duty on Sugar, Tobacco and Snuff, Foreign Spirits and Sweets, and on 3,000,000 0 0 Trustees for the Payment of Naval and Military Pensions, and Civil Superannuations per Act 3 Geo. 4, c. 51 4,620,000 0 0 East India Company, per Act 4 Geo. 4, c. 71 60,000 0 0 Sum to be brought from the Consolidated Fund, per Act 5 Geo. 4, c. 42 14,600,000 0 0 Surplus Ways and Means, per Act 5 Geo. 4, c. 42 41,597 0 0 Interest on Land Tax redeemed by Money 41 6 7½ Repayments on account of Exchequer Bills issued pursuant to two Acts of the 57th 208,273 9 0 22,529,911 15 7½ Exchequer Bills voted in Ways and Means; viz.5 Geo. 4, c. 2 £ 0 0 5 Geo. 4, c. 115 15,000,000 0 0 30,000,000 0 0 TOTAL Ways and Means 52,529,911 15 7½ TOTAL Sums voted, and Payments for Services not voted 52,104,666 13 0½ SURPLUS Ways and Means 425,245 2 7 Whitehall, Treasury Chambers, 1st February 1825. J. C. HERRIES. Mem £ xxvi FINANCE ACCOUNTS CLASS VII.—ARREARS AND BALANCES. [This Head, which occupies 110 folio pages in the Finance Accounts, is here omitted, as not being of general utility.] TRADE OF THE UNITED KINGDOM. An Account of the VALUE of all IMPORTS into, and of all EXPORTS from the United Kingdom of GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND, during each of the Three Years ending the 5th January 1825 (calculated at the Official Rates of Valuation, and stated exclusive of the Trade between Great Britain and Ireland reciprocally). YEARS ending 5th January. VALUE OF IMPORTS into the United Kingdom, calculated at the Official Rates of Valuation. VALUE OF EXPORTS FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM, Calculated at the Official Rates of Valuation. VALUE of the Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom Exported therefrom according to the Real and Declared Value thereof. Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom. Foreign and Colonial Merchandize. TOTAL EXPORTS. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. 1823 30,530,663 0 6 44,236,533 2 4 9,227,589 6 11 53,464,122 9 3 36,968,964 9 9 1824 35,798,707 5 1 43,804,372 18 1 8,603,904 9 1 52,408,277 7 2 35,458,048 13 6 1825 37,547,826 15 4 48,735,551 2 5 10,204,785 6 4 58,940,336 8 9 38,396,300 17 3 FOREIGN TRADE OF GREAT BRITAIN. An Account of the VALUE, as calculated at the Official Rates, of all IMPORTS into, and of all EXPORTS, from GREAT BRITAIN, during each of the Three Years ending the 5th January 1825; showing the Trade with Foreign Parts separately from the Trade with Ireland; and distinguishing the Amount of the Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom Exported, from the Value of Foreign and Colonial Merchandize Exported:—Also, stating the Amount of the Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom Exported from GREAT BRITAIN, according to the Real and Declared Value thereof. TRADE OF GREAT BRITAIN WITH FOREIGN PARTS: YEARS ending 5th January VALUE OF IMPORTS into Great Britain, calculated at the Official Rates of Valuation. VALUE OF EXPORTS FROM GREAT BRITAIN, calculated at the Official Rates of Valuation. VALUE of the Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom Exported from Great Britain, according to the Real and Declared Value thereof, Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom. Foreign and Colonial Merchandize. TOTAL EXPORTS. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. 1823 29,432,375 14 0 43,558,488 12 9 9,211,927 16 10 52,770,416 9 7 36,176,896 13 11 1824 34,591,264 9 1 43,144,466 1 6 8,588,995 18 0 51,733,461 19 6 34,691,124 8 10 1825 36,141,339 8 3 48,030,036 11 4 10,188,596 9 2 58,218,633 0 6 37,573,918 0 0 Inspector General's Office, Custom House, London, 22nd March 1825. WILLIAM IRVING xxvii CLASS VIII.—TRADE AND NAVIGATION. TRADE OF GREAT BRITAIN—continued. TRADE OF GREAT BRITAIN WITH IRELAND: YEARS ending 5th January VALUE OF IMPORTS into Great Britain, calculated at the Official Rates of Valuation. VALUE OF EXPORTS FROM GREAT BRITAIN, Calculated at the Official Rates of Valuation. VALUE of the Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom Exported from Great Britain, according to the Real and Declared Value thereof Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom. Foreign and Colonial Merchandize. TOTAL EXPORTS. £ s d £ s d £ s d £ s d £ s d 1823 4,873,610 2 0 2,894,125 0 11 1,298,593 7 10 4,192,718 8 9 3,386,548 8 3 1824 5,821,036 1 11 3,141,825 11 0 1,359,376 6 5 4,501,201 17 5 3,488,591 0 8 1825 5,588,146 9 6 3,688,570 6 4 1,318,069 0 8 5,006,639 7 0 4,261,113 11 10 TRADE OF GREAT BRITAIN WITH ALL PARTS: YEARS ending 5th January VALUE OF IMPORTS into Great Britain, calculated at the Official Rates of Valuation. VALUE OF EXPORTS FROM GREAT BRITAIN, calculated at the Official Rates of Valuation. VALUE of the Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom Exported from Great Britain, according to the Real and Declared Value thereof. Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom. Foreign and Colonial Merchandize TOTAL EXPORTS. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. 1823 34,305,985 16 0 46,452,613 13 8 10,510,521 4 8 56,963,134 18 4 39,563,415 2 2 1824 40,412,300 11 0 46,286,291 12 6 9,948,372 4 5 56,234,663 16 11 38,179,715 9 6 1825 41,729,485 17 9 51,718,606 17 8 11,506,665 9 10 63,225,272 7 6 41,835,031 11 10 Inspector General's Office, Custom House, London, 22nd March 1825. WILLIAM IRVING xxviii TRADE OF IRELAND. An Account of the VALUE of all IMPORTS into, and of all EXPORTS from IRELAND; during each of the Three Years ending 5th January 1825 (calculated at the Official Rates of Valuation, and stated exclusive of the Trade with GREAT BRITAIN); distinguishing the Amount of the Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom Exported, from the Value of Foreign and Colonial Merchandize Exported:—also stating the Amount of the Produce and Manufactures of the United Kingdom Exported from IRELAND, according to the Real or Declared Value thereof. — VALUE of Imports into IRELAND, calculated at the Official Rates of Valuation. VALUE OF EXPORTS FROM IRELAND, calculated at the Official Rates of Valuation. VALUE of the Produce and Manufactures of the Ireland, according to the Real or Declared Value thereof. Produce and Manufacture of the United Kingdom. Foreign and Colonial Merchandize. TOTAL EXPORTS. YEARS ENDING £ s d £ s d £ s d £ s d £ s d VALUE exclusive of the Trade with GREAT BRITAIN. 5th January 1823 1,098,287 6 6 678,044 9 7 15,661 10 1 693,705 19 8 792,067 15 10 — 1824 1,207,442 16 0½ 659,906 16 7¼ 14,908 11 1¼ 674,815 7 8¾ 766,924 4 8¼ — 1825 1,406,487 7 1¼ 705,514 11 0¼ 16,188 17 2¼ 721,703 8 3 822,382 17 3 Custom House, Dublin, 26th February, 1825. WILLIAM MARRABLE xxix CLASS VIII.—TRADE AND NAVIGATION. NAVIGATION OF THE UNITED KINGDOM. NEW VESSELS BUILT.—An Account of the Number of VESSELS, with the Amount of their TONNAGE, that were built and registered in the several Ports of the BRITISH EMPIRE, in the Years ending the 5th January 1823, 1824, and 1825, respectively. — In the Years ending 5th January. 1823. 1824. 1825. Vessels. Tonnage. Vessels. Tonnage. Vessels. Tonnage. United Kingdom 564 50,928 594 63,151 799 91,083 Isles Guernsey, Jersey, and Man 7 605 10 637 38 2,136 British Plantations 209 15,611 243 22,240 174 21,968 TOTAL 780 67,144 847 86,028 1,011 115,187 VESSELS REGISTERED.—An Account of the Number of VESSELS, with the Amount of their TONNAGE, and the Number of MEN and BOYS usually employed in Navigating the same, that belonged to the several Ports of the BRITISH EMPIRE, on the 30th September in the Years 1822, 1823, and 1824, respectively. — On 30th Sept. 1822. On 30th Sept. 1823. On 30th Sept. 1824. Vessels. Tons. Men. Vessels. Tons. Men. Vessels. Tons. Men. United Kingdom 20,756 2,288,999 147,529 20,573 2,275,995 147,058 20,803 2,321,953 149,742 Isles Guernsey, Jersey, and Man 482 26,404 3,788 469 26,872 3,680 477 26,361 3,806 British Plantations 3,404 203,641 15,016 3,500 203,893 14,736 3,496 211,273 15,089 TOTAL 24,642 2,519,044 166,333 24,542 2,506,760 165,474 24,776 2,559,587 168,637 Inspector General's Office, Custom House, London, 22nd March 1825. WILLIAM IRVING xxx VESSELS EMPLOYED IN THE FOREIGN TRADE.—An Account of the Number Of VESSELS, with the Amount of their TONNAGE, and the Number of MEN and BOYS employed in Navigating the same (including their repeated Voyages) that entered Inwards and cleared Outwards, at the several Ports of the United Kingdom, from and to all Parts of the World (exclusive of the intercourse between GREAT BRITAIN and IRELAND respectively) during each of the three Years ending 5th January 1825. Years ending 5th Jan. SHIPPING ENTERED INWARDS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM, BRITISH AND IRISH VESSELS. FOREIGN VESSELS. TOTAL. Vessels. Tons. Men. Vessels. Tons. Men. Vessels. Tons. Men. 1823 11,087 1,663,627 98,980 3,389 469,151 28,421 14,476 2,132,778 127,401 1824 11,271 1,740,859 112,244 4,069 582,996 33,828 15,340 2,323,855 146,072 1825 11,731 1,797,089 108,686 5,655 759,672 42,126 17,336 2,556,761 150,812 Years ending 5th Jan. SHIPPING ENTERED OUTWARDS FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM, BRITISH AND IRISH VESSELS. FOREIGN VESSELS. TOTAL. Vessels. Tons. Men. Vessels. Tons. Men. Vessels. Tons. Men. 1823 10,023 1,539,260 95,998 2,843 457,542 25,394 12,866 1,996,802 121,392 1824 9,666 1,546,976 95,596 3,437 563,571 29,323 13,103 2,110,547 124,919 1825 10,156 1,657,270 103,085 5,025 746,729 38,782 15,181 2,403,999 141,867 Inspector General's Office, Custom House, London, 22nd March 1825. WILLIAM IRVING INDEX INDEX TO DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS. Bonded Corn Bill, 952 Burials in Ireland Bill, 1011 Catholic Claims, 61, 138, 373, 582, 649, 1477 Catholic Relief Bill, 562, 662 Colonial Intercourse Bill, 1132 Combination of Workmen Bill, 1478 Corn Laws, 142, 165, 247 Country Banks, 1479 Cumberland, Duke of; King's Message respecting a Provision for, 898 Customs Consolidation Bill, 1461 Equitable Loan Bill, 164, 899, 1061, 1134, 1349 Game Laws Amendment Bill, 449 India; Rate of Interest in, 1207, 1270, 1380 Ireland; Burials in, Bill, 1011 Judges' Salaries Bill, 1280, 1378 Kent, Duchess of; King's Message for a provision for, 898 King's Speech at the close of the Session, 1487 Law of Merchants Bill, 1052 Naturalization Oaths, 824 Oaths of Naturalization and Reversal of Attainder, 824 Principal and Factor, 1058 Quarantine Laws, 1 Rate of Interest in India, 1207, 1270, 1380 Roman Catholic Claims, 61, 138, 373, 582, 649, 1477 Roman Catholic Relief Bill, 562, 662 Treason Forfeiture Repeal Bill, 123, 825 Unitarian Marriages Bill, 1025 Unitarians; Laws relating to, 1480 INDEX TO DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS. Assessors at Elections Bill, 1269 Assimilation of the Currencies of Great Britain and Ireland, 574 Beer; Repeal of the Duties on, 374 Bonded Corn, 337 Bradford Gaol; Abuses in, 419 Breach of Privilege, 63, 796, 838 British Shipping Bill, 1277 British Museum, 137 Bubble Act; Repeal of, 1018 Buckingham House, 1120, 1205 Butter Trade in Ireland, 125 Canada Corn, 1118 Cape of Good Hope, 903, 1166, 1274, 1483 Carlile, R.; Petition of, 1015 Catholic Claims, 2, 63, 172, 480, 784 Catholic Clergy of Ireland, 308 Catholic Relief Bill, 21, 71, 336, 422, 486 Cattle Ill-treatment Bill, 418, 1252 Chancery; Delays in the Court of, 163, 959, 1068 Children in Cotton Mills, 421, 643, 1008 Coile, B.; his Petition, 837 Combination Laws, 149, 298, 353, 362 Combination of Workmen Bill, 1400, 1458, 1462 Cotton Mills Regulation Bill, 421, 643, 1008 Corn Laws, 150, 171, 249, 252, 1118 Country Bank Notes, 1271, 1381 County Courts Bill, 599 County Transfer of Land Bill, 162 Cumberland; Duke of, 836, 909, 934, 1047, 1118, 1121 Customs Consolidation Bill, 1215 Deccan Prize Money, 1407, 1465 Deportation of Lecesne and Escoffery from Jamaica, 1173 Dissenters' Marriages Bill, 353 East India Judges Bill, 586 Elective Franchise in Ireland Bill, 124, 126, 176, 453, 565, 902 Established Church in Ireland, 1149 Exportation of Machinery, 1135 Female Immolation in India, 1043 Flogging in the Navy, 1097 Foreign Enlistment Bill, 1473 Forgery of a Petition, 63, 796, 838 Game Laws Amendment Bill, 300 Gourlay, Mr. Robert, 161 Hindoo Widows, 1043 Jones, F.; his Petition respecting Country, Bank Notes, 1271, 1381 Ireland; Elective Franchise in, 124, 126, 176, 453, 565, 902 Ireland; Roman Catholic Clergy of; 308 Ireland; State of, with regard to Religious Animosities, 841 Ireland; Butter Trade in, 125 Ireland; Charter Schools in, 1110 Ireland; Established Church in, 1149 Judges' Salaries Bill, 611, 801, 927, 1023, 1209 Juries Bill, 798 Kenrick, Mr.; Conduct of, 1138, 1247, 1350, 1407, 1408, 1410 Kent, Duchess of, 836, 909, 934 Law of Merchant and Factor, 1014, 1433 Lecesne and Escoffery; Deportation of, from Jamaica, 1173 Leith Docks Bill, 792 London and Westminster Oil Gas Bill, 1012 London College, 840, 1033 London Tithes Bill, 768 Mauritius; Slave Trade in the, 781 Mauritius Trade Bill, 1039 M'Adam, Mr.; Grant to, 593 Machinery; Exportation of, 1135 Navigation Laws, 1277 Navy; Flogging in the, 1097 Newspapers Bill, 1275. Partnerships Societies (Scotland) Bill, 1279 Petition; Forgery of a, 63, 796, 838 Poor Rates; Wages of Labourers out of, 571 President of the Board of Trade, 1476 Private Bills, 1063 Private Committees, 563, 783, 1012 Quarantine Laws Bill, 601, 788, 1036 Quarter Sessions Misdemeanour Bill, 781 Registry of Ships Bill, 1347 Rich, Mr.; his Collection, 137 Roman Catholic Claims, 2, 63, 172, 361, 480, 784 Roman Catholic Clergy of Ireland, 308 Roman Catholic Relief Bill, 21, 71, 336, 422, 486 Salmon Fishery Bill, 792 Spain; Military Occupation of, 1472 Shooting and Stabbing (Scotland) Bill, 1245 Shrewsbury, Mr.; his Expulsion from Barbadoes, 1285 Slave Trade in the Mauritius, 781 Soap and Tallow, Duty on, 1063 Somerset, Lord C.; Conduct of, 903, 1166, 1274, 1183 South America, 1473, 1485 Spirit Duties, 132 Spring Guns Bill, 1254, 1459 Unitarians, 1250 Votes of Members in Private Committees, 563 Wages of Labourers out of the Poor Rates, 571 Warehoused Corn Bill, 590, 1118 Welch Iron and Mining Company Bill, 783 West India Company Bill, 605 Western Ship Canal Bill, 1032 Wilson, Sir Robert, 1211 Window Tax; Repeal of the, 771 Writs of Error Bill, 1063 Wrongous Imprisonment, and Delays in Trials in Scotland, 386 INDEX OF NAMES—HOUSE OF LORDS. Anglesea, Marquis of, 675 Atholl, Duke of, 1062 Bath and wells, Bishop of (Dr. Law), 1027 Bathurst, Earl, 952, 1132 Calthorpe, Lord, 63, 149, 452, 651, 1031 Camden, Marquis, 677 Canterbury, Archbishop of, 651, 1027 Carbery, Lord, 711 Carnarvon, Earl of, 650, 958 Cawdor, Lord, 1283 Chester, Bishop of (Dr. Blomfield), 62, 711, 729, 1031 Clifden, Viscount, 651 Colchester, Lord, 662, 830 Dacre, Lord, 165, 170, 449, 900, 1135, 1350 Darnley, Earl of, 1, 149, 452, 682, 899, 1477 Devonshire, Duke of, 654 Donoughmore, Earl of, 562, 652 Downshire, Marquis of, 651 Dudley and Ward, Viscount, 653 Eldon, Earl of, see Ellenborough, Lord, 169, 957, 1282 Enniskillen, Earl of, 958 Exeter, Bishop of (Dr. Carey), 583 Fitzwilliam, Earl, 765 Grey, Earl, 656 Grosvenor, Earl, 373, 1378, 1479 Harrowby, Earl of, 752 Hastings, Marquis of, 1207, 1270 Holland, Lord, 2, 62, 123, 584, 825, 1481 Kenyon, Lord, 582 King, Lord, 61, 148, 170, 247, 248, 582, 649. Llandaff, Bishop of (Dr. Van Mildert), 693 Lansdown, Marquis of, 146, 166, 168, 653, 730, 1025, 1133, 1281, 1478, 1479, 1480 Lauderdale, Earl of, 142, 147, 164, 167, 248, 249, 900, 953, 1062, 1134 Lichfield, Bishop of, 1029 Limerick, Earl of, 167, 249, 728, 956 Liverpool, Earl of, 2, 142, 148, 169, 739, 898, 953, 956, 1011, 1029, 1058, 1134, 1280, 1283, 1378, 1478, 1480 London, Bishop of, 649, 650 Londonderry, Marquis of, 652 Longford, Earl of, 688 Lord Chancellor Eldon, 373, 583, 649, 762, 835, 900, 1029, 1061, 1135, 1284, 1349, 1378, 1481 Malmesbury, Earl of, 451, 952 Melville, Lord, 824, 834 Norwich, Bishop of (Dr. H. Bathurst), 708 Radnor, Earl of, 1011 Redesdale, Lord, 834, 958 Rolle, Lord, 248, 584, 651 Rosebery, Earl of, 165, 833 Rosslyn, Earl of, 149, 249, 955 Spencer, Earl, 651 Suffield, Lord, 452 Sussex, H. R. H. the Duke of, 653 Westmoreland, Earl of, 450 York, H. R. H. the Duke of, 139 INDEX OF NAMES—HOUSE OF COMMONS. Abercromby, Hon. James, 70, 245, 417, 421, 563, 792, 795, 823, 838,1086, 1211, 1248, 1372, 1390, 1392 Acland, Sir Thomas, 163, 599 Althorp, Viscount, 294, 355, 482, 566, 600, 603, 818 Attorney General (Sir John Copley), 633, 812, 1017, 1018, 1024, 1141, 1252, 1280 Bagwell, Colonel, 31, 313, 640, 872 Bankes, Henry, 29, 127, 138, 224 Bankes, W. J., 318, 434 Baring, Sir Thomas, 597 Baring, Alexander, 69, 156, 288, 341, 352, 360, 368, 609, 1032, 1138, 1148, 1167, 1279, 1376, 1395, 1473 Becher, W. W., 476, 568 Belgrave, Lord, 789 Benett, John, 343, 384, 572, 1048 Bentinck, Lord W., 1214 Bernal, Ralph, 383, 781, 791, 915, 1039, 1338 Binning, Lord, 78, 337, 924, 1268, 1459 Blake, Sir F., 475, 557 Bourne, Rt. Hon. Sturges, 567, 1063, 1248 Bridges, Alderman, 769 Bright, Henry, 3, 171, 251, 297, 600, 1041, 1244 Brogden, James, 1032 Brougham, Henry, 4, 7, 13, 68, 121, 124, 127, 161, 163, 195, 209, 250, 332, 379, 436, 438, 442, 448, 477, 551, 563, 607, 785, 788, 797, 798, 800, 804, 840, 875, 911, 946, 1001, 1017, 1018, 1033, 1047, 1051, 1054, 1056, 1087, 1129, 1161, 1166, 1204, 1209, 1215, 1249, 1273, 1274, 1331, 1468, 1472 Browne, Dominick, 475 Brownlow, Charles, 21, 233, 569, 864 Brydges, Sir John, 172, 30 Burdett, Sir Francis, 239, 570, 640, 647, 778, 894, 949, 1016, 1068, 1070, 1104, 1159, 1267, 1406, 1431 Butterworth, Joseph, 482, 1320, 1331. Buxton, Thomas Fowell, 607, 1043, 1046, 1285, 1345 Calcraft, John, 69, 125, 128, 159, 295, 331, 770, 778, 1013, 1405 Calvert, Nicholson, 596, 1209 Calvert, Charles, 251, 1214 Canning, Rt. Hon. George, 84, 817, 888, 920, 948, 1037, 1055, 1094, 1127, 1142, 1157, 1202, 1274, 1324, 1342, 1371, 1373, 1376, 1377, 1393, 1398, 1429, 1470, 1485 Carter, John, 4 Cartwright, R. W., 353 Cavendish, Lord George, 322 Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rt. Hon. Frederick Robinson), 132, 136, 137, 295, 346, 350, 380, 591, 593, 612, 640, 776, 801, 872, 909, 915, 918, 922, 930, 932, 936, 950, 1023, 1050, 1053, 1066, 1120, 1124, 1244, 1276, 1466 Chetwynd, Sir George, 305, 572 Cholmeley, Sir M., 6, 344, 596 Clarke, Hon. C. B., 232, 432 Clarke, Sir George, 564, 794, 1108 Cockburn, Sir George, 1100 Coffin, Sir Isaac, 591, 788, 913, 1037, 1016, 1063, 1103, 1206 Coke, T. W., 20, 1048 Colborne, N, R., 302, 1268, 1459 Colthurst, Sir N., 59 Congreve, Sir W., 945 Cooper, B., 437 Copley, Sir John, see Corry, Lord, 461 Courtenay, William, 164, 769, 1078, 1432 Courtenay, Thomas, 320 Creevey, Thomas, 332, 942, 943 Cripps, Joseph, 301, 346, 923, 942, 943 Croker, John Wilson, 564, 1433 Curteis, E., 338, 864 Curwen, John Christian, 155, 273, 337, 487 Daly, James, 57, 468 Davenport, D., 1048 Davies Colonel, 384, 902, 1020 Davis, Hart, 524, 598, 1273, 1382 Dawson, George, 32, 456 Denison, W. J., 982, 1140, 1374, 1431 Denman, Thomas, 243, 361, 364, 372, 417, 618, 639, 781, 820, 918, 1022, 1038, 1074, 1138, 1141, 1142, 1148, 1247, 1371, 1373, 1376, 1407, 1409, 1410, 1432 Doherty, John, 480, 481 Douglas, K., 1022 Douglas, Sir John, 302 Drummond, Home, 639 Dundas, W., 795 East, Sir Hyde, 1046 Eastnor, Lord, 1371 Ebrington, Lord, 461 Ellice, Edward, 356, 985, 1119, 1120, 1167, 1348, 1386 Ellis, Charles Rose, 611, 1040 Ellison, Cuthbert, 1244 Ennismore, Lord, 57, 448 Estcourt, T. G., 599 Evans, W., 606, 649 Farquhar, Sir R., 782, 783, 1041 Farrand, R., 346 Fergusson, Sir Ronald, 564, 1214 Fitzgerald, Maurice, 483, 581 Fitzgerald, Vesey, 231, 437, 454, 480, 482 Folkestone, Viscount, 1032, 1383 Forbes, Sir Charles, 588, 637, 904, 922, 1045, 1053 Forde, Colonel, 57, 558, 569 Foster, J. L., 193, 314, 343, 349, 456, 581 Gascoyne, Isaac, 344, 356, 363, 422 Gilbert, Davies, 605 Glenorchy, Lord, 795 Gooch, Thomas, 153, 271 Gordon, R., 607, 1010 Gordon, W., 250 Goulbourn, Rt. Hon. Henry, 60, 71, 235, 329, 837, 859, 1114 Gower, Lord F. Leveson, 308, 872 Grant, Rt. Hon. C., 526, 791, 1036, 1117 Grant, J. P., 8, 66, 386, 564, 795, 923, 1014, 1024, 1117, 1245, 1279 Grattan, James, 125, 238, 453, 565 Graves, Lord, 875 Grenfell, Pascoe, 252, 581 Gurney, Hudson, 369, 943, 1268, 1384 Hamilton, Lord A., 360, 792 Handley, H., 347 Hardinge, Sir H., 1466 Heathcote, G. J., 155 Heron, Sir Robert, 4, 7 Herries, J. C, 384 Hill, Sir George, 125 Hobhouse, John Cam, 149, 421, 477, 642, 643, 771, 1000, 1008, 1269, 1406 Hornby, E., 643 Horton, Wilmot, 591, 605, 607, 906, 1039, 1167, 1192, 1274, 1311 Hume, Joseph, 65, 66, 135, 138, 298, 316, 349, 358, 365, 372, 384, 461, 477, 566, 586, 587, 588, 590, 595, 600, 638, 793, 820, 903, 913, 933, 934, 1000, 1038, 1043, 1046, 1067, 1097, 1137, 1149, 1247, 1271, 1274, 1275, 1349, 1377, 1381, 1404, 1458, 1462, 1467 Hurst, R., 1073 Huskisson, Rt. Hon. William, 154, 160, 273, 338, 347, 352, 354, 539, 592, 603, 779, 924, 1009, 1021, 1038, 1040, 1118, 1119, 1136, 1215, 1273, 1347, 1396, 1406, 1457 Hutchinson, Hon. C. H., 65, 125, 234 James, William, 480, 1087 Inglis, Sir it. H., 489, 787 Johnson, Colonel, 4, 297, 466, 480 Kennedy, Thomas, 563, 792 Knatchbull, Sir E., 69, 250, 591, 598, 917 Lamb, Hon. William, 1215 Lambton, J. G., 246, 477, 479 Lethbridge, Sir Thomas, 128, 129, 159, 171, 425, 486, 786, 858 Lewis, Frankland, 158, 1117 Leycester, Ralph, 3, 611 Littleton, E. J., 124, 126, 131, 176, 247, 455, 566, 569, 783, 902, 1013, 1063, 1135, 1213 Lockhart, J. I., 352, 1086, 1433 Long, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles, 138 Lord Advocate of Scotland (Sir W. Rae), 416, 793, 1245, 1279 Lushington, Dr., 606, 621, 648, 925, 938, 991, 1024, 1083, 1093, 1173, 1205, 1343, 1408, 1470 Maberly, John, 299, 357, 374, 386, 597, 1242, 1375, 1393, 1398 Mackintosh, Sir James, 64 Macnaughten, E. H., 474, 476 Manning, William, 1339 Mansfield, J., 1406 Martin, James, 67, 916 Maclin, Richard, 70, 232, 327, 418, 419, 466, 571, 923, 1253 Marjoribanks, Sir J., 564, 914 Maxwell, J. W., 65, 78, 347, 1164 Milton, Lord, 21, 50, 157, 237, 475, 569, 783 Monck, J. B., 347, 385, 568, 571, 573, 914, 1016, Money, W. T., 1047 Murray, Sir G., 1214 Musgrave, Sir P., 648 Newman, R. W., 351, 352 Newport, Sir John, 63, 125, 131, 134, 213, 371, 437, 441,:567, 581, 589, 839, 861, 924, 1110, North, John, 52 Nugent, Lord, 7,15 O'Grady, Captain, 475 Ommaney, Sir F., 1109 Onslow, Mr. Serjeant, 820, 1014, 1398 Oxmantown, Lord, 273 Palmer, Charles, 779, 1122 Palmer, Fyshe, 419, 598 Parnell, Sir Henry, 126, 230, 435, 581, 1222 Peel, Rt. Hon. Robert, 7, 8, 106, 129, 161, 163, 225, 323, 370, 372, 418, 421, 422, 431, 435, 436, 440, 443, 485, 546, 627, 645, 770, 788, 797, 798, 800, 818, 839, 866, 917, 931, 945, 997, 1010, 1016, 1063, 1069, 1073, 1116, 1140, 1160, 1246, 1247, 1248, 1372, 1375, 1377,1391, 1393, 1409, 1419, 1463, 1475 Peel, William, 30 Pelham, C., 385 Philips, George, 357, 484, 646, 1010 Phillimore, Dr., 129, 588 Plunkett, Rt. Hon. W. C., 208, 214, 336, 436, 438, 44.0, 445, 884 Portman, E. B., 84 Rice, Spring, 10, 132, 328, 469, 481, 565, 786, 841, 1114 Ridley, Sir M. W., 150, 359, 363, 637, 908, 1000, 1087, 1142, 1214 Robarts, A. W., 175 Robertson, Alexander, 19, 353, 385, 1103, 1250, 1277, 1348, 1404 Robinson, Rt. Hon. Frederick, see Chancellor of the Exchequer. Rose, Sir George, 569, 944 Russell, Lord John, 441, 870 Scarlett, James, 11, 367, 372, 630, 642, 799, 802, 813, 928, 931, 1015, 1141, 1198, 1268, 1279, 1433 Sebright, Sir John, 431, 1049 Shelley, Sir John, 300 Smith, C., 384, 945 Smith, John, 19, 68, 175, 385, 420, 601, 649, 791, 837, 982, 1014, 1272, 1388, 1398, 1457 Smith, William, 9, 134, 477, 610, 1009, 1013, 1073, 1250, 1317 Solicitor General (Sir C. Wetherell), 163, 417, 532, 933, 987, 1249 Somerset, Lord .E., 1275 Speaker, The (Rt. Hon. C. M. Sutton), S, 129, 208, 434, 783, 797, 838, 1033, 1471 Stanley, Lord, 486 Stuart-Wortley, J., 295, 307, 565, 1266 Sumner, Holme, 302, 448, 597, 1048, 1054, 1430 Sutton, Rt. Hon. C. M., see Speaker Sykes Daniel, 150, 344, 362, 370, 482, 588, 606, 1013, 1064, 1100, 1205 Tavistock, Marquis of, 1121 Taylor, Michael Angelo, 784, 994 Tennyson, Charles, 302, 1254, 1460 Thompson, Alderman W., 66, 69, 156, 346 Tierney, Rt. Hon. George, 1124, 1249, 1425 Tindal, Mr., 1093 Trant, Mr., 792, 1014, 1044, 1160 Tremayne, J. H., 639, 1013, 1408 Trench, F. W., 475, 571 Tulk, C. A., 1010 Twiss, Horace, 504, 933, 1269 Valletort, Lord, 84 Vivian, Sir H., 306 Wallace, Rt. Hon. Thomas, 82, 573, 1400 Warrender, Sir G., 1048, Warre, J. A., 926 Western, C. C., 348 Wetherell, Sir C., see Whitbread, S., 1012 Whitmore, W., 155, 252, 592 William, John, 161, 163, 369, 625, 922, 959, 1023, 1209, 1374 Williams, William, 1033 Wilson, Sir Robert, 598 Wilson, Thomas, 150, 251, 606, 915, 926, 1057, 1244, 1274 Wilson, Carus, 66, 124, 461 Wodehouse, Colonel, 20, 1213 Wodehouse, E., 131, 158, 295, 383, 590 Wood, Alderman Matthew, 6, 8, 157, 200, 384, 768, 1068, 1160 Wood, Colonel, 294, 346, 351 Wrottesley, Sir John, 456, 640, 784, 1273, 1374 Wynn, C. W. W., 129, 172, 325, 564, 586, 770, 822, 926, 1045, 1142, 1248 1375, 1433 Yorke, Sir Joseph, 607, 1032, 1103 END OF VOL. XIII