THE
FORMING A CONTINUATION OF THE WORK ENTITLED
"THE PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY OF ENGLAND,
FROM THE EARLIEST PERIOD TO THE YEAR 1803."
PUBLISHED UNDER THE SUPERINTENDENCE OF
T. C. HANSARD.
New Series;
COMMENCING WITH THE ACCESSION OF GEORGE IV.
VOL. XII.
COMPRISING THE PERIOD
FROM
THE THIRD DAY OF FEBRUARY,
TO
THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF APRIL, 1825.
LONDON:
Printed by T. C. Hansard at the Pater-noster Row Press,
FOR BALDWIN, CRADOCK, AND JOY; J. BOOKER; LONGMAN, HURST, REES, AND CO.;
J. M. RICHARDSON; KINGSBURY AND CO.; J. HATCHARD AND SON; J. RIDGWAY
AND SONS; E. JEFFERY AND SON; RODWELL AND MARTIN; R. H. EVANS;
BUDD AND CALKIN; J. BOOTH; AND T. C. HANSARD.
1825.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NEW SERIES.
I. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
II. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
III. KING'S SPEECHES.
IV. PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.
V. PETITIONS.
VI. LISTS.
I. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
Page
1825 Feb. 3. Address on the King's Speech at the Opening of the Session
1
Joint-Stock Companies
31
1825 Feb. 7. State of Ireland
126
Clerk of Parliament
126
Scotch Judicature
127
Joint-Stock Companies
127
1825 Feb. 8. The Marquis of Lansdown's Motion for Copies of Despatches from the Lord Lieutenant, relative to Unlawful Societies in Ireland
128
1825 Feb. 10. Committee on the State of Ireland
160
1825 Feb. 21. State of the Navy
591
1825 Feb. 24. Spring-Guns Bill
641
Petition of the Roman Catholics of Ireland
642
Petition of the Protestants of Dublin in favour of Catholic Emancipation
644
1825 Feb. 28. Scotch Juries Bill
711
Unlawful Societies in Ireland Bill—Petitions for and against
711
Mining Speculations
751
1825 Mar. 3. Unlawful Societies in Ireland Bill
854
1825 Mar. 4. Spring-Guns Bill
922
1825 Mar. 7. Roman Catholic Claims
936
Spring-Guns Bill
937
1825 Mar. 7. Unlawful Societies in Ireland Bill
942
1825 Mar. 9. Roman Catholic Claims—Petition from Kilkenny in favour of
964
1825 Mar. 15. Spring-Guns Bill
1014
1825 Mar. 25. Equitable-Loan Bill—Joint-Stock Companies
1194
1825 Mar. 29. Roman Catholic Claims—Petitions of the Clergy against
1270
1825 Apr. 13. Roman Catholic Claims—Petitions for and against
1326
1825 Apr. 14. Roman Catholic Claims
1335
Conduct of Judge Kendrick
1336
1825 Apr. 15. Equitable-Loan Bill
1350
1825 Apr. 18. Roman Catholic Claims
1361
II. DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
1825 Feb. 3. Address on the King's Speech at the Opening of the Session
31
1825 Feb. 4. Address on the King's Speech at the Opening of the Session
82
Unlawful Societies in Ireland—Call of the House
124
1825 Feb. 7. The King's Answer to the Address
128
1825 Feb. 8. Usury Laws Repeal Bill
150
County Courts—Small Debts Bill
152
Irish Marriage Acts
152
1825 Feb. 10. Roman Catholic Association
166
Unlawful Societies in Ireland Bill
168
1825 Feb. 11. Unlawful Societies in Ireland Bill
275
1825 Feb. 14. Navy Estimates
348
Unlawful Societies in Ireland Bill
352
1825 Feb. 15. Roman Catholic Association—Petition against
422
Unlawful Societies in Ireland Bill
424
1825 Feb. 17. Petition of Catholic Association of Ireland against Unlawful Societies in Ireland Bill
522
Game Laws Bill
528
Turnpike Trusts
529
Usury Laws Repeal Bill
531
1825 Feb. 18. Thames Quay
540
Unlawful Societies in Ireland Bill—Petitions for and against
542
Unlawful Societies in Ireland Bill—Mr. Brougham's Motion for hearing Roman Catholic Association at the Bar of the House
544
1825 Feb. 21. Navy Estimates
592
Unlawful Societies in Ireland Bill
598
1825 Feb. 22. St. Catherine's Docks Bill
612
County Transfer of Land Bill
614
Parish Vestries in Ireland Bill
617
Landlords and Tenants in Ireland
621
Justices of Peace in Ireland
624
Unlawful Societies in Ireland Bill
626
1825 Feb. 23. Votes of Members on Questions in which they are personally interested
635
1825 Feb. 24. Unlawful Societies in Ireland Bill—Petitions for and against
646
1825 Feb. 24. Norfolk Assizes
648
Export of Tools and Machinery
651
Removal of British-born Subjects from India
652
Bear-baiting Prevention Bill
657
Navy Estimates
661
1825 Feb. 25. Standing Orders—Isle of Dogs' Railway
662
British Museum
664
Unlawful Societies in Ireland Bill
666
1825 Feb. 28. Joint-Stock Companies
717
Financial Situation of the Country
719
London Water Company Bill
752
Call of the House
753
Roman Catholic Priests—Petition of John Kirby
754
Roman Catholic Claims—Petition of the Catholics of Ireland for an Equalization of Civil Rights
757
Sir Francis Burdett's Motion for a Committee on the Claims of the Roman Catholics
764
1825 Mar. 2. Standing Orders—Liverpool and Manchester Railway Bill
845
1825 Mar. 3. Unlawful Societies in Ireland—Orange Lodges
899
Mr. Maberly's Motion for the Repeal of the Assessed Taxes
901
1825 Mar. 4. Army Estimates
925
1825 Mar. 7. Game Laws Bill
950
Army Estimates
957
1825 Mar. 9. Peruvian Mining Company's Bill
965
Metropolitan Fish Company Bill
965
Juries Regulation Bill
966
1825 Mar. 10. Mr. Hume's Motion respecting Votes of Members on Questions in which they have a pecuniary Interest
973
Reduction of Duties on Foreign Spirits, Tobacco, and Tea
986
1825 Mar. 11. Saint Catherine's Docks Bill
990
Metropolitan Water-Works Company
992
Quarantine Laws—Petition of Dr. Maclean
993
Duties on the Importation of Iron, Copper, &c.
996
Army Extraordinaries—Cape of Good Hope—Lord Charles Somerset
998
Mutiny Bill
999
Cruelty to Animals Bill
1002
1825 Mar. 15. Metropolitan Fish Company Bill
1020
Thames Quay
1022
Roman Catholic Claims—Petition of the University of Cambridge against
1030
Canadian Waste Lands Bill
1033
Irish Bankers Co-partnerships Bill
1039
Irish Butter Trade
1045
1825 Mar. 16. Peruvian Mining Company Bill
1048
1825 Mar. 17. Clergymen holding Offices in Corporations
1073
1825 Mar. 18. Joint-Stock Companies
1074
Irish Miscellaneous Services
1076
Irish Linen Board
1078
1825 Mar. 18. East India Sugars
1081
1825 Mar. 21. Civil Contingencies—Diplomatic Expenditure
1090
Colonial Policy of the Country
1097
Police Magistrates Bill
1128
1825 Mar. 22. Private Committees—Want of Accommodation
1132
Roman Catholic Relief Bill
1134
Irish Poor Relief Bill
1136
Law of Settlement
1138
Wine Duties Bill
1139
Caledonian Canal Bill
1143
1825 Mar. 23. Roman Catholic Relief Bill
1143
1825 Mar. 24. Ill-treatment of Animals Bill
1160
Threatening Letters Punishment Bill
1162
Felonies Pardon Bill
1162
Indian Army
1167
1825 Mar. 25. Foreign Commerce of the Country
1196
Dissenters Marriages Bill
1236
1825 Mar. 28. Corn Laws
1245
Roman Catholic Claims
1246
Roman Catholic Clergy
1246
Irish Elective Franchise
1246
Miscellaneous Estimates
1257
Public Buildings
1257
British Museum
1264
1825 Mar. 29. West India Company Bill
1278
Joint-Stock Companies
1279
Repeal of the Bubble Act
1279
Petition of R. Carlile
1285
Combination Laws
1288
1825 Mar. 30. Joint-Stock Companies—Mr. Buxton and Mr. Robertson
1314
Quarantine Laws Bill
1315
1825 Apr. 14. Breach of Privilege—Forging of Names to a Petition
1338
Linen Trade of Ireland
1340
Episcopal Unions and Pluralities in Ireland
1341
State of the printed Reports of the House, &c.
1347
Sierra Leone
1349
1825 Apr. 15. Thames Quay Bill
1351
Combination Laws
1351
Grant to Mr. M'Adam
1352
The Custom-House—Mr. Peto
1354
Irish Miscellaneous Estimates
1355
Emigration from Ireland to the Canadas
1358
1825 Apr. 18. Roman Catholic Claims
1363
Scotch Jurors Bill
1372
1825 Feb 14. ADDENDUM.—Unlawful Societies in Ireland Bill.—A more correct Report of the Speech of Mr. Dawson than the one given at p. 357
1373
III. KING'S SPEECHES.
1825 Feb. 3. KING'S SPEECH on Opening the Session
1
IV. PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS.
1825 Feb. 28. Resolutions of the Commons, in a Committee of the whole House, on the Claims of the Roman Catholics
844
1825 Mar. 23. Copy of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, as brought in by Sir Francis Burdett
1151
V. PETITIONS.
1825 Feb. 17. PETITION of the Roman Catholic Association of Ireland against the Unlawful Societies in Ireland Bill
523
1825 Feb 28. PETITION of the Roman Catholics of Ireland for an Equalization of Civil Rights
758
1825 Mar. 11. PETITION of Dr. Maclean for a Repeal of the Quarantine Laws
993
1825 Apr. 13. PETITION of the Clergy of the Archdeaconry of Totness against the Roman Catholic Claims
1328
PETITION of the Rev. John Pike in favour of the Roman Catholic Claims
1331
VI. LISTS.
1825 Feb. 15. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Mr. Goulburn's Motion for leave to bring in the Unlawful Societies in Ireland Bill
521
1825 Feb. 21. LIST of the Minority in the House of Commons, on the second reading of the Unlawful Societies in Ireland Bill
611
1825 Feb. 25. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the third reading of the Unlawful Societies in Ireland Bill
710
1825 Feb. 28. LIST of the Majority, and also of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Sir Francis Burdett's Motion for a Committee on the Claims of the Roman Catholics
840
1825 Mar. 3. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Mr. Maberly's Motion for a Repeal of the Assessed Taxes
921
1825 Feb. 7. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on the Army Estimates
964
1825 Feb. 24. LIST of the Minority, in the House of Commons, on Mr. Hume's Motion respecting the State of the Indian Army
1193
During the Sixth Session of the Seventh Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, appointed to meet at Westminster, the Third Day of February 1825, in the Sixth Year of the Reign of His Majesty King GEORGE the Fourth
1825.
1
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, February 3, 1825.
THE KING'S SPEECH ON OPENING
This day the Session was opened by Commission. The Lords Commissioners were, Lord Chancellor Eldon, the archbishop of Canterbury, and the earls of Westmorland, Harrowby, and Shaftsbury. The usher of the black rod having been ordered to require the attendance of the House of Commons, he withdrew. In a few minutes after, the Speaker, accompanied by a considerable number of the members, having appeared at the bar, the lord chancellor opened the Session with the following Speech to both Houses:—
"My Lords and Gentlemen;
"We are commanded by His Majesty to express to you the gratification which His Majesty derives from the continuance and progressive increase of that public prosperity upon which his Majesty congratulated you at the opening of the last session of parliament.
"There never was a period in the history of this country, when all the great interests of the nation were at the same time in so thriving a condition, or when a feeling of content and satisfaction was more widely diffused through all classes of the British people.
"It is no small addition to the gratification of his Majesty, that Ireland is participating in the general prosperity. The
2
"Industry and commercial enterprise are extending themselves in that part of the United Kingdom. It is, therefore, the more to be regretted, that associations should exist in Ireland, which have adopted proceedings irreconcileable with the spirit of the Constitution, and calculated, by exciting alarm, and by exasperating animosities, to endanger the peace of society, and to retard the course of national improvement.
"His Majesty relies upon your wisdom to consider, without delay, the means of applying a remedy to this evil.
"His Majesty further recommends the renewal of the inquiries instituted last session into the state of Ireland.
"His Majesty has seen with regret the interruption of tranquillity in India, by the unprovoked aggression and extravagant pretensions of the Burmese Government, which rendered hostile operations, against that state unavoidable.
"It is, however, satisfactory to find, that none of the other native powers have manifested any unfriendly disposition, and that the bravery and conduct displayed by the forces already employed against the enemy, afford the most favourable
3
"Gentlemen of the House of Commons;
"His Majesty has directed us to inform you that the Estimates of the year will be forthwith laid before you.
"The state of India, and circumstances connected with other parts of his Majesty's foreign possessions, will render some augmentation in his military establishments indispensable.
"His majesty has, however, the sincere gratification of believing, that, notwithstanding the increase of expense arising out of this augmentation, such is the flourishing condition, and progressive improvement of the revenue, that it will still be in your power, without affecting public credit, to give additional facilities to the national industry, and to make a further reduction in the burthens of his people.
"My Lords and Gentlemen;
"His Majesty commands us to inform you, that his Majesty continues to receive from his Allies, and generally from all Princes and States, assurances of their unabated desire to maintain and cultivate the relations of peace with his Majesty, and with each other; and that it is his Majesty's constant endeavour to preserve the general tranquillity.
"The negotiations which have been so long carried on through his Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople, between the Emperor of Russia and the Ottoman Porte, have been brought to an amicable issue.
"His Majesty has directed to be laid before you, copies of arrangements which have been entered into with the kingdoms of Denmark and Hanover, for improving the commercial intercourse between those States and the United kingdom.
"A treaty, having for its object the more effectual suppression of the slave-trade, has been concluded between his Majesty and the king of Sweden, a copy of which treaty (as soon as the ratifications thereof shall have been exchanged)
4
"Some difficulties have arisen with respect to the ratification of the treaty for the same object which was negociated last year between his Majesty and the United States of America.
"These difficulties, however, his Majesty trusts, will not finally impede the conclusion of so beneficial an arrangement.
"In conformity with the declarations which have been repeatedly made by his Majesty, his Majesty has taken measures for confirming by treaties the commercial relations already subsisting between this kingdom, and those countries of America which appear to have established then-separation from Spain.
"So soon as these treaties shall be completed, his Majesty will direct copies of them to be laid before you.
"His Majesty commands us not to conclude without congratulating you upon the continued improvement in the state of the agricultural interest, the solid foundation of our national prosperity; nor without informing you, that evident advantage has been derived from the relief which you have recently given to commerce by the removal of inconvenient restrictions.
"His Majesty recommends to you to persevere (as circumstances may allow) in the removal of similar restrictions; and his Majesty directs us to assure you, that you may rely upon his Majesty's cordial co-operation in fostering and extending that commerce, which, whilst it is, under the blessing of Providence, a main source of strength and power to this country, contributes in no less a degree to the happiness and civilization of mankind."
The Commons then withdrew. After which, the Speech being again read by the Lord Chancellor, and also by the Clerk at the Table,
Viscount Dudley and Ward
observed, that in rising to move an humble Address to his Majesty, in answer to his gracious Speech, he trusted that any apology was rendered less necessary by the advantageous circumstances under which he
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Lord Gort
said, that in seconding the address, he felt that few observations would be expected from him, after the able manner in which it was introduced by his noble friend. He would therefore confine himself to the expression of his opinions on that part of the royal speech which referred to the state of Ireland. It gave him pain to observe some of the proceedings of the Catholic body in that part of the empire. The noble marquis at the head of the Irish government had conducted his administration in a temperate, wise, and impartial manner, so as to gain the confidence, and merit the approbation, of every moderate and unbiassed mind. He could not, indeed, satisfy all parties, but he satisfied all those whose wishes deserved to be consulted. On the one hand, there were the violent agitators of the Catholics, who wished to turn the discontent which they created to their own advantage: and on the other, were the no less violent opponents of their claims. Lord Wellesley, in conducting his government on reasonable principles, and in a temperate manner, had shown that he consulted
16
17
Lord King
said, that he perfectly approved of those measures which had for their object the promotion of the industry and commerce of the country.
The Earl of Lauderdale
here reminded the House, that the address was not yet known to their lordships; that it had neither been read by the noble mover or seconder, nor from the woolsack, nor by the clerk; and that the debate could not formally proceed until their lordships knew on what they were debating.
Lord King
observed, that he agreed with the address of the noble lords, that the resources of the country had been relieved, and its industry stimulated and improved. He gave his cordial approbation to those measures by which this result had been produced. It was the
18
19
"Cheer him, cheer him, brother Hiley,
Cheer him, cheer him, brother Bragge."
20
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, that he would not have troubled their lordships with any observations, unless in order to express his dissent from one part of the address. With regard to most of the general topics which had been discussed that night, there could not be much diversity of opinion. The country could not fail to feel the justice of the sentiments expressed generally by his noble friend who moved the address, even though they had not been enforced with so much eloquence—an eloquence which he should always hear with pleasure, from whatever side of the House it came. He gave his hearty concurrence to all that had been said about the internal prosperity of the country, and the wisdom of its foreign policy in the recognition of the independent states of South America. As he gave his hearty approbation to this last measure, he would not stop to refer to the time or the circumstances in which it had taken place, or to decide whether it ought not to have been adopted earlier. He thought
21
22
23
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that he should not have addressed any observations to the House, but for some of the statements made by the noble marquis who had just taken his seat. When a spirit of general satisfaction seemed to pervade the country, and when the noble marquis himself appeared to join in it, and admitted that it had increased in prosperity, no difference of opinion existed between them. After the eloquent description that had been given by the noble mover upon the state of the country, he should not weaken its effect by attempting to say any thing upon that subject; but he could not pass one topic relating to it upon which he peculiarly congratulated himself, and that was, that after ail the difficulties which England had contended with successfully during the progress of the war, she had found that difficulties scarcely less trying remained yet to be surmounted in a state of peace. The same question which circumstances had brought into discussion frequently before, was now agitated again, and with redoubled violence. Vast numbers of persons concurred in thinking, that the country could never again return to a metallic currency, and yet keep faith with the public creditor. The House could not but fully recollect these opinions, connected as they had been with the difficulties sustained by the country in its transition from a war of twenty years' duration to a state of entire and absolute peace. Their lordships knew the clamour which had been raised—the numerous publications which had issued from the press upon this subject. In the midst of distress and difficulty, government had been called upon to reduce the burthens of the people—bur-
24
25
26
27
28
The Earl of Donoughmore
said, it gave him extreme pain to rise in opposition to what had fallen from the noble lord; particularly as the Speech from the throne had his approbation, with the exception of only one particular passage. In addressing their lordships, he should speak as an individual who had taken the strongest part in the administration of justice in Ireland, and whose endeavours to administer the laws with impartiality had not been altogether without effect. In the present tranquil state of Ireland, and after that country had been so long without disturbance of any sort, the coercive measures alluded to by his majesty's ministers ought not to be resorted to. He maintained that the Catholic Association had produced no evil, but, on the contrary, had effected much good. The Catholic priesthood had been most active in discouraging sedition and tumult, and their efforts had been attended with more than ordinary success; for he would ask, in what other period would that country have proceeded so tranquilly in the pursuit of such an important measure, and when was she in a more tranquil situation than at present? The government ought not therefore to pass a Convention act against six millions of people, who were in a state of tranquillity, and had done nothing to render such severity necessary. While the people of Ireland were submissive to the laws, was it not prudent to leave them alone? And that they were in such a state, was acknowledged in the Speech from the throne. He was really surprised at one clause in the Speech, and upon which the noble earl had said that he would explain himself to the House in the course of a week. Now, he thought
29
The Earl of Roden
rose to express his satisfaction at the hope held out in his majesty's speech, and repeated in the speech of the noble earl at the head of the treasury, that ministers would propose measures for putting down the Roman Catholic Association, which had, for upwards of twelve months, been allowed to pursue their dangerous course without molestation. He spoke in the presence of persons who had passed the winter and summer in Ireland, and who could bear testimony to the baneful effects which the Association had produced on the minds of the peasantry. The time had arrived, when it became necessary for parliament to show that they would not be dictated to by the Roman Catholic Association. It was by decisive measures alone that the agitators could be made to crouch, and not by weak and variable proceedings, such as had lately been exhibited in Ireland—he meant the prosecution of this and that individual, which tended to keep up the irritation which already was, unfortunately, but too prevalent in that country.
Viscount Clifden
felt himself compelled to address a few words to their lordships upon the subject of the Catholic Association. He had perused the address of that Association, which had been read from the pulpit of every chapel in Ireland; he had
30
31
The address was then agreed to nem. con.
JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES.]
The Lord Chancellor
said, that at the close of the last session, he had taken the liberty of stating, that he would, in the course of the present session, move for leave to regulate a system which was now going on to a most mischievous extent—he meant Joint-Stock Companies not yet formed, and which never might be formed, and where, before their formation, the shares of the persons adventuring therein were made the subject of sale, to the enormous profit of those who set such companies afloat. It was his intention to ask their lordships to consent to a bill to check that sort of proceeding. He had thought it right to mention the subject on the first day of the session, because he intended that the operation of the bill should affect all sales of interest on shares in those companies which might be proposed to be established, but not yet formed, from and after the first day of the present session. After having thus stated his intentions, there could be no ground for complaint with respect to the want of notice, supposing their lordships should think proper to approve of the bill. With respect to the past, he would either leave it to be dealt with according to the common law as it at present stood, or he would introduce into the bill a declaration as to what he conceived to be the intent of the common law on the subject.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, February 3, 1825
ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH AT
The Speaker having reported the Speech of the Lords Commissioners, and read it to the House,
Lord Francis Leveson Gower
spoke to the following effect:—
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
*
*
41
42
43
Mr. Alderman Thompson
rose, and addressed the House to the following effect:—Mr. Speaker; I rise to second the address, which has been moved by my noble friend; and in presenting myself to the notice of the House, I feel conscious that I stand in need of a greater portion of its indulgence than it has usually been called upon to extend to any individual upon similar occasions; at the same time, I must, in justice to the noble mover, acknowledge, that the very able and eloquent manner in which he has illustrated the various important topics
44
45
46
47
48
l.
l.
l.
49
l.
l.
50
l.
51
"Nil oriturum alias, nil ortum tale fatentes."
Mr. Brougham
regretted to state, that he was under the necessity, not only of expressing his dissent from, but also of entering his solemn protest against, some, and those not the least important, parts of the Speech which had just been read to them. He felt, however, great satisfaction in being able, before he stated them, to take notice, which he should do as shortly and clearly as he could, of those parts of the address to which he could give his most cordial and willing assent. In giving that assent, and in joining his congratulations to those contained in the address upon many of the points noticed in the Speech, he could not claim for himself any extraordinary stretch of candour. He was rather withheld, as indeed were many of the friends around him, by a feeling of modesty, from giving their due meed of praise to the measures alluded to, since those measures which were now the theme of so much praise and so many congratulations, were measures which the gentlemen on his side of the House years ago had urged, but in vain, upon those who at that time were intrusted with the administration of the country. He was rather restrained by this feeling of modesty, from praising the wisdom and vigour of the legislature in
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
"——make the worse appear
The better reason, to perplex and dash
Maturest counsels: for his thoughts are low."
s
66
67
68
69
70
Lord F. L. Gower
, in explanation, disclaimed any thing like an intention to cast ridicule upon any of the gentlemen who were considered orators in the Catholic Association.
Mr. Brougham
rejoiced that he had given the noble lord an opportunity of explaining a matter which had been misapprehended both by himself and some friends who sat round him.
71
The Hon. William Lamb
said, he would not have intruded himself so upon the House were it not for the observation that had been so pointedly directed against him by the hon. and learned gentleman. The cheer to which the hon. and learned gentleman alluded had been drawn from him for no other reason but this, that he thought the hon. and learned gentleman's language somewhat too exaggerated when speaking of the effect that would have been produced in the times preceding those of Charles 2nd if any person dared to talk of scruples in a high quarter. This he had thought tended to weaken the hon. and learned gentleman's argument; and that was his only motive for expressing what he felt, in the usual manner, by a cheer. The hon. and learned gentleman was pleased to observe, that he had tried all parties and opinions. He was not aware on what facts this assertion was founded. As he had never been one of those who despaired of the resources of the country, even when most depressed, so he did not wish to encourage a too sanguine feeling with respect to the extent to which our prosperity was likely to go. In the one case, as in the other, he would recommend moderation, both in aclation and in expectations. With respect to the Catholic Association, he begged to observe, that he conceived a case was likely to be made out against it, sufficiently strong to induce him to vote for its regulation, if not suppression. There were, it was true, other Associations of a nearly similar description, but they differed in this, that they did not interfere in political subjects. If an assembly of persons met, and, under the pretence of seeking redress for particular grievances, proceeded to discuss the whole political affairs of the empire, then he maintained, that such a society was a fit subject for legislative interference. Again, subscriptions for particular public purposes were perfectly legal; but, if he found that the Roman Catholic clergy were actively engaged in collecting what was called Catholic rent, he should say that it was a symptom to be viewed with great alarm. When it was considered, that the Roman Catholic clergy arrogated to themselves the power of absolution—the power of totally for living sins—then he maintained, that their operations ought to be looked to with great caution, and only tolerated hen directed to purposes purely spiritual, notwithstanding these opinions, however,
72
Mr. Secretary Canning
said, he considered the speech of the hon. and learned gentleman opposite as directed rather against errors, supposed or imputed, which were not of so serious a nature as to tempt him to violate the unanimity which at present prevailed. It might be taken in the light of notices for discussion for the future, of the various topics upon which he touched. The hon. and learned gentleman had reviewed the principal topics of the Speech from the throne, visiting some with no very gracious approbation, and treating others with no very sparing reprobation. With respect to one subject—that of Catholic emancipation—professing as he had at all times to support it, he must still reserve to himself the right of judging as to the time the most proper for giving effect to that support; nor could he on any account consent to take his instructions from the hon. and learned gentleman. Upon that part of the Speech from the throne which referred to the Catholic Association, he had no hesitation in expressing his entire accordance with his hon. friend who spoke last—that, so far from the Association being identified with the interests of the Catholic people, its institution, and the conduct of its members, more resembled the scheme of an enemy, who had devised this as the best invention for throwing back and thwarting the further progress of the question of emancipation. It the worst enemy of Catholic emancipation had purposely sat down to devise means to exasperate the people against that measure, he could not have hit upon means more certain—he could not have imagined a plan so successfully mischievous—as the institution and conduct
73
74
"Doris amara suam non intcrinisceat undam."
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
The Address was unanimously agreed to, and a committee appointed to draw it up.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, February 4, 1825
ADDRESS ON THE KING'S SPEECH AT THE OPENING OF THE SESSION].
Lord F. L. Gower
brought up the report of the Address in answer to the King's Speech.
Mr. Hobhouse
said, he could not allow the report to be brought up, without expressing his hope that the House would indulge him in one or two observations. It had been for some time so much the fashion to consider his Majesty's Speech at the opening of the session, as a mere matter of form, and that no member of the House was pledged by any assent he might appear to give to it, that it was unnecessary to divide the House on points which might appear, and which to him certainly did appear, of the utmost importance. Were it not for the prevalence of this opinion, he was sure there were very few gentlemen on his side of the
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
Mr. Pelham
addressed a few words to the House, which were quite inaudible in the gallery.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
observed, that at the very moment that the hon. member for Westminster had made his appeal and put his question to him, he had furnished him (the chancellor of the Exchequer) with the answer which it would be his duty to give. The hon. member had said, that it had now been the practice for many years to frame his majesty's Speech, and also tike reply to it, in such a manner
90
91
92
Colonel Palmer
said, that, notwithstanding the speeches he had heard upon the address, he rose with exactly the same feelings which he had stated to the House when last he ventured to address it, and which he must still avow in the face of all the praises which had since been showered upon the government, and especially upon the right hon. gentleman who had been declared to be its brightest ornament, and the object of the esteem and admiration of all parties: for if such praises had been merited, his own opinions were as unjust as illiberal, and he owed to the right hon. gentleman, his colleagues, and himself, to defend the language he had held, or to acknowledge his error. And first, as to the right hon. gentleman: what had been the ground of the unqualified applause bestowed upon him, in the last session, by hon. and learned friends, whose talents and political integrity had given the greatest weight to their opinion? The right hon. gentleman was said to have done himself the greatest honour, by the way in which he had spoken of a gallant member of the House, because his language had been a severe rebuke to the governments who had endeavoured to degrade that gallant individual; but, if the right hon. gentleman's language had been a rebuke to other governments, how much greater to his own, who, in that very instance, had set the others the example? Nor could he help telling the right hon. gentleman, as he had told him in the case of her late majesty, that as a minister he would have acted more consistently by the Crown and by his colleagues, as well as by the interests of the
93
94
95
96
97
"Oh England! model to thy inward greatness,
Like little body with a mighty heart;
What might'st thou do, that honour would thee do,
Were all thy children kind and natural!"
98
99
100
Sir John Newport
complained of the manner in which the condition of Ireland had been treated in the Speech from the throne. What was mainly stated as a fact respecting Ireland in that Speech, he absolutely and of his own knowledge denied. He denied that the Catholic Association had tended to disturb the peace of the country. On the contrary, he believed that that body had tended, and most efficaciously, to tranquillize Ireland, and had powerfully co-operated with the Irish government in producing that salutary effect. As, however, the government unfortunately thought otherwise, he now desired to know in the first place, when it was intended by ministers to bring in any bill on the subject of Ireland; for it was fit and right that, upon so momentous an occasion, all the members of that House should be in their places to speak their mind upon the proposed measure, for they must all feel that every measure now affecting Ireland must equally affect England, and therefore called for the fixed attention of the imperial parliament. It was important that ministers should at once state what they intended in this respect, unless, indeed, they were disposed to frame a measure for Ireland in a shape so odious, as they would not dare to frame for the people of England: it was essential, he repeated, that the House should
101
102
103
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that he would
104
105
Mr. Brougham.
—I did not mean you.
Mr. Peel
said, he did not wish to separate himself from his colleague, the lord chancellor of England, to whom the observations he alluded to were understood to apply. Of that eminent individual he could not speak in terms of adequate praise. He believed his name would go down to posterity, as that of a man of great and exalted merits, and that notwithstanding the failings imputed by some men to some of his acts, he would go down to posterity as being the most consistent politician who had ever held the
106
Mr. Hutchinson
warmly defended the Catholic Association, which, he contended, had done more than any body previously constituted, to promote the tranquillity of Ireland. Let them be talked of as a representative body or not, still this salutary consequence had, most certainly, attended their proceedings; and the Catholics, as a body, would feel that any blow aimed at the Association was directed against themselves. Upon the impolicy of ministers in their policy towards Ireland, he entirely concurred in every word which had fallen from his right hon. friend, the member for Water-ford. For years he had deplored this fatal policy towards his country, and marked, step by step, the affliction of which it had been the cause. It was painful to have to repeat such sentiments on the occasion of an address to the throne, when the
107
108
109
Sir Thomas Lethbridge
said, that being as anxious as any man could be for the peace, security, and happiness of Ireland, he could not refrain from applauding most sincerely the measures which his majesty's government had declared it to be their intention to introduce. He was firmly convinced that, for the sake of the Irish Catholics themselves, the Catholic Association ought to be put down; and being so convinced, he felt that he should not do his duty, if he did not stand up in his place, and thank his majesty's ministers for the course they were adopting. Unless something had been proposed by government, it would have been utterly impossible for a single week of the session to have passed over without notice having been given of a similar measure. This was rendered the more necessary, if, as he understood, the Catholics of England had united with the Catholics of Ireland in their proceedings. The Catholic Association might be considered as a second parliament. But, as two parliaments were not contemplated by the British constitution, he trusted that this new parliament, which had commenced its functions by levying money, taken out of the pockets of the poorest of their constituents, would be put an end to. A body which trenched so much on the spirit of the constitution ought no longer to be permitted to exist. As a representative of the people, he had felt it incumbent on him to take the earliest opportunity of thanking his ma-
110
Lord Nugent
observed, that the right hon. gentleman opposite began his speech by a most unfortunate attempt to draw a parallel between the Roman Catholic Association, and the body once kown in this country by the name of the Constitutional Association. And this parallel the right hon. gentleman accompanied by a taunt against those who had implied, that in their opinion the latter was illegal. But, did not the right hon. gentleman perceive that the weapon he was using was double-edged? Good God! Had not those who were of opinion that the Constitutional Association was illegal, a right to say to his majesty's government, "If you think the two societies on a par in point of legality, and if you maintain that the Catholic Association is illegal, why did you not institute proceedings against the Constitutional Association, which, according to your reasoning, must be illegal also?" No proceeding was ordered to be instituted against that Association by the attorney-general. It was true, that a bill had been found against it; but, under the direction of the judge, the proceeding terminated in an acquittal. But if, as was asserted by the opponents of the Catholic Association, that Association was illegal, why not put the existing laws in force against it, instead of proposing new ones? He should not, however, have risen on the present occasion, had it not been for some observations which fell from the hon. baronet who immediately preceded him. That hon. baronet had talked of the unanimous feeling that existed between the Catholics of Ireland and the Catholics of England. He begged leave to bear his public testimony to the correctness of the supposition, that such a unanimity existed. The hon. baronet was perfectly right. He believed he was justified in stating, that the Catholics of Great Britain were disposed to concur entirely, in feeling and in spirit, with the Catholic Association in Ireland: and agreed with them in the propriety of the policy they were now pursuing. He was informed that he should very shortly have
111
Mr. Secretary Peel
rose to explain. He disclaimed having stated that the hon. and learned gentleman opposite had said that the Constitutional Association was illegal. The learned member for Peterborough had, he believed, doubted its illegality. The noble lord misunderstood the sense in which he meant to apply the word "illegal." He merely meant to say, that the hon. gentleman opposite had contended, that the Constitutional Association was an Association inconsistent with the spirit of the constitution, and that all the objections which could be urged against any society confederating to institute prosecutions, applied with still greater force to the Catholic Association. That was the whole extent of his observations.
Mr. Trant
said, that in his opinion the apprehension expressed by the hon. member for Cork was without foundation. The hon. gentleman seemed to think, that if measures were instituted to put down the Association, it would have the effect of preventing capital from flowing into Ireland. He had attended a meeting that day, at which the establishment of provincial banks in Ireland was the subject under consideration; and, so far from the contemplated measure of putting down the Association having thrown any damp on the business, it had on the contrary had a favourable effect. He should rejoice if some of that capital which began to overflow here could find its way to Ireland. It would be productive of the best effects.
Mr. Denman,
adverting to what had just fallen from the hon. gentleman, observed, that a decision which had taken place that morning in the court of King's-bench, namely that a similar company was in direct contravention of the letter of an existing law, might, perhaps, affect the company to which the hon. member
112
113
114
115
116
Mr. Martin
, of Galway, assured the House, that the Catholic Association possessed the entire confidence of the Roman Catholic population. This was a feeling predominant in every county in Ireland. But, while he said this, he felt bound, in justice to the Roman Catholics, to state, that they did not agree in all the sentiments uttered in that Association. No man lamented more sincerely than he did the degraded state in which the Roman Catholics of Ireland were kept; but he must observe, that they owed their present situation, and their present feelings, to no less a personage than the Lord Chancellor of England; for did they not see that that high personage had taken the lead in refusing the Catholics of England an equality of privileges with their Irish fellow subjects? Having witnessed this, they felt convinced, that if his lordship were possessed of the power, he would deprive them of those privileges which they now enjoyed, and bring back every proscription and punishment formerly in force against popery. This was a natural and a just feeling. How, indeed, could they argue otherwise, when they saw the Catholic population of England, the most loyal body of persons in England, still restricted even from the privileges extended to those who were falsely designated as factious and disloyal subjects in the sister kingdom. He could assure the House, that on returning to his own country, he had found that a great many gentlemen, who had previously avoided all public matters, had determined to co-operate for the purpose of rescuing themselves from the disabilities under which they laboured. He wished to advert to another point, upon which a serious error prevailed in this country: he meant the impression, that the Roman Catholic Clergy were in the habit of forgiving sins. He assured the House that there was not a more fallacious idea. The Catholic priests, in giving what was called absolution, did nothing more than was done by the Archbishop of Canterbury upon similar occasions; aye, and precisely in the same words; that was to say, they promised forgiveness to those who declared themselves penitent, and expressed a wish and hope to be forgiven. That forgiveness was pronounced by the Protestant and Roman Catholic clergy, precisely in the same words, and the same spirit.
117
Sir Henry Parnell
rose to confirm what had just fallen from the hon. member for Galway, with respect to the confidence reposed by the Catholics of Ireland in the Association, He felt it important to dwell upon this point, because they had been told, that his majesty's ministers intended to introduce the measure for the suppression of the Catholic Association upon their own responsibility, and that public rumour and report were the only grounds to be advanced in favour of its necessity. Upon this the right hon. gentlemen on the other side rested their case. An hon. gentleman had told them, that the Catholic Association represented the feelings and interests of the great body of the people of Ireland. If so, upon what grounds could they pretend to pass those bills. He cautioned them to take care how they aroused sentiments of a more serious nature in the minds of the Irish people: he implored them to be careful how they drove that ill-fated country to the last extremity. That House was bound to weigh well the consequences of the step they were about to take; to consider that that step, once taken, would be looked upon by the Catholics of Ireland as an act of aggression. He would go further than many gentlemen who had preceded him, and assert that it was not in the power of ministers, to support the allegations contained in his majesty's Speech. He defied them to the proof; and, upon a conviction that that proof could not be adduced, he was determined to oppose every measure which had for its object a restriction of the rights and privileges of the Catholics of Ireland.
Mr. Maurice Fitzgerald
said, that though that was not the proper time for a regular discussion of the question, he could not avoid rising for the purpose of warning his majesty's ministers against taking a step so fatal to the interests and welfare of Ireland. It had often been his fortune to witness the ignorance which his majesty's government displayed with respect to the affairs of Ireland; but never did he perceive a greater degree of ignorance upon their parts than upon that occasion. If any danger existed from the Catholic Association, he agreed that it ought to be abolished; but, if such danger did exist, if the Association was illegal, it could be put down under the Convention Act, without even the intervention of his majesty's attorney-general. They had been told, and truly
118
119
l.
Mr. Brougham
wished to explain an ex-
120
Mr. Butterworth
begged to contradict most unqualifiedly the assertion, that the Methodists levied a tax upon the members of their society. Whatever sum was raised consisted of mere voluntary contributions. The Methodists were influenced by no compulsion, and great numbers of them did not subscribe at all. The right hon. member for Kerry did not seem well informed upon the subject, more particularly if he thought that missionary Smith belonged to that body. The Methodists had never interfered in any political question, and the objects of the subscriptions were entirely religious. Now, he knew it for a fact, that a considerable number of Protestants in Ireland had suffered very materially in their circumstances, because they had not contributed to the Catholic Rent. Their business had fallen off in consequence; for secret influence was at work to injure them. Thus the innocent and inoffensive had been punished because they would not accede to what was arbitrary and illegal. He was satisfied also, from the most respectable authority, that in the interior of Ireland the Catholic Association had created the utmost alarm, and many families had been obliged to leave the country, and to take up their residence in towns. He thought that ministers would be extremely negligent of their duty, if they did not at once put down the Association. He called upon the right hon. member for Kerry to prove, if he could, the fact he had asserted; and on his own part, he totally denied that the society of the Methodists had any political tendency.
Mr. M. Fitzgerald
expressed his regret that the hon. member should have so misunderstood him. In alluding to the Methodists, he intended to say no more than that the collection of the Catholic Rent in Ireland was, in every respect analogous to the Methodist contributions in this country; both these payments having the common property of being voluntary, awl not being made under any compulsion.
121
Mr. Butterworth
repeated, that the conference money was collected only for religious purposes, while the Catholic Rent was devoted to the employment of newspapers, and perhaps the bribery of individuals, to support certain political notions.
The report was then brought up. On the question that it be agreed to,
Mr. Hume
remarked, that it had been his original intention to have moved an amendment, but the debate had taken so beneficial a turn, that he was not disposed to lessen its effect, by interfering with the solemn farce of the Address, for such the right hon. secretary for foreign affairs had himself admitted it to be. His amendment would have stated, that the address contained assertions false in point of fact; for ministers had been convicted of putting the grossest misrepresentations into the mouth of the sovereign. He had never seen a cabinet so degraded and humbled. The attorney-general for Ireland had been bearded in vain: he knew the pitiful figure he already cut before the world, and was unwilling to add to it by attempting and failing in his vindication. A libel upon the whole Irish nation (for the Catholics, were the nation) had been pronounced from the throne, repeated in the address, and reiterated in the speech of the foreign secretary. The Association had been formed for the assertion of rights: it had asserted the just rights of the Catholics, who had been too long quiet and had now come forward in a constitutional manner. He trusted yet that they would be heard; that persecution would be at an end; and, anticipating such an event, he had rejoiced last year to hear that it was the intention of the Irish government to administer the laws equally between Protestants and Catholics. In what way was the measure now projected consistent with such a declaration? On what pretence was the Catholic Association to be put down, or why was it more obnoxious than the Dissenters' Association, which had existed for many years, for purposes, as the annual report testified, very similar to those of the Catholic Association? Oppression could only be borne to a certain point, beyond that point there was a remedy, to which our ancestors had resorted, and to which it was the pride and boast of their successors that they had appealed. Ministers
122
123
Sir C. Forbes
lamented that the additional force about to be despatched to India, was so much smaller than the occasion required. Instead of sending out men in driblets, 40 or 50,000 ought to be embarked at once, to put a speedy termination to the war with the Burmese; for if it were not soon concluded, circumstances might arise out of it, to shake the security of the whole of our Indian possessions. Whatever reinforcements were destined to that quarter of the world, ought to be conveyed thither as quickly as possible. The grossest ignorance had been betrayed in the distribution of the force which was under the command of the governor-general. The troops had been quartered in unhealthy places, and the season of action had been allowed to expire before they commenced operations against the Burmese. It was the duty of the board of control, but this had not been done for these fifteen years past, to lay before the country an annual budget, containing a description of the real state of India. He lamented the want of this document at present; since it would have shewn how precarious was our situation, when war was raging on every side.
Mr. Wynn
said, that papers were now in the press which he should be able shortly to lay before the House, containing a body of information on the subject alluded to, and which papers it was necessary that hon. members should be in possession of before any discussion should be entered upon. The war had begun in consequence of the unprovoked aggressions of the Burmese, and their extravagant pretensions, which could have been resisted by no other means than those which had been adopted. When the House should be acquainted with the particulars relating to this affair, he should be ready to enter upon the case of lord Amherst, as fully as the papers might
124
Mr. Alderman Heygate
said, that unless the Catholic Association were speedily put down, it must govern Ireland. There was no alternative. No government could safely tolerate an establishment, holding its sittings daily, levying money by intimidation, and prosecuting those who opposed them. He was also highly gratified at the recognition of the independence of the South American states, and the manner in which it had been effected, so as to maintain the tranquillity of the world. As to the reduction of taxation, he hoped that ministers would do away with the assessed taxes altogether. The independence of the people was more affected by what were called direct taxes, than by any other species of contribution, because they were brought more immediately into collision with the tax-gatherer. He was sure the feelings of the country, with respect to this class of taxes, were so unequivocal, that if the question of a reduction of duty on French wines, or the cessation of these taxes were put in issue, nineteen out of twenty would hold up their hands for the latter. He had said thus much, because he thought the ministers had the interest and prosperity of the country at heart. They were justly popular now, and he hoped they would continue to be so.
The address was then agreed to.
UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES IN IRELAND—CALL OF THE HOUSE.]
Mr. Goulbourn
gave notice, that he would, on the 10th instant, move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend certain Acts relating to Unlawful Societies in Ireland.
Mr. Brougham
hoped that, upon his humble representation, the right hon. gentleman would be induced to postpone the notice he had given for a week. He
125
Mr. Goulbourn
could really see no reason for the postponement. He had already informed the House, that it was intended the bill should be discussed in every stage. The motion of which he had now given notice was only for leave to bring in the bill. Its principle and its details might be discussed when it should be before the House.
Mr. Brougham,
in the hope of inducing the right hon. gentleman to accede to his request, would offer a compromise. He had well observed, that at present the House was not acquainted with the form in which the measure would be submitted to them. He (Mr. B.) hoped that what had passed last night would have the effect of modifying and reducing its shape. Perhaps, in the mean time, if delay were allowed, some other papers might be laid on the table. [Mr. Goulbourn said across the table, he had no intention of doing so.] Then there was to be no information between the exposition of the measure and the debate on the principle of the bill. Perhaps he might find it expedient to delay the call of the House, if the measure were to be postponed for a fortnight.
Mr. Peel
proposed that the call of the House should not take place until the second reading of the bill, which might be fixed for Tuesday week.
Mr. Brougham
said, that would hardly give him time enough. He was disposed still to press for a delay of a fortnight. If ministers considered a couple of days of such paramount importance in the passing of the bill about to be introduced, they ought to have called parliament together sooner. He then moved that the House be called over on that day fortnight.
The motion was agreed to.
126
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, February 7, 1825
STATE OF IRELAND.]
The Marquis of Lansdown
wished to ask the noble earl opposite two questions. The noble earl had given notice of a motion for a committee to inquire into the State of Ireland. Last year, when a similar committee was appointed, he (lord Lansdown) had proposed, that the inquiry should be extended to the whole of Ireland, and not be confined to the disturbed districts. The powers of the committee of last year were, however, limited, and he was afraid that that example might be followed on the present occasion. He therefore wished to know, whether it was the intention of the noble earl to limit the committee he was about to move for in the same way as that of last year.
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that the motion he intended to make would not be the same as that of last year. He would propose that the inquiry should extend to the whole of Ireland, or, in other words, that no part of Ireland should be exempt from the investigation of the committee.
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, he apprehended, from what had passed on Thursday, that it was not the noble earl's intention to lay on the table any papers connected with that part of his majesty's Speech which related to Ireland.
The Earl of Liverpool
observed, that he did not intend to lay on the table any papers relating to the state of Ireland.
The Marquis of Lansdown
being so informed, gave notice that he would tomorrow move for copies of all despatches received from the lord-lieutenant of Ireland relating to the origin, progress, and consequences, of the political and religious societies in that country.
CLERK OF PARLIAMENT.]
Lord Colchester laid on the table the report from the committee appointed to inquire into the duties of the Clerk of Parliament.
Earl Grosvenor
congratulated the House on the result of the labours of the committee. By it, there had been a considerable saving made, and the service would henceforth be more efficiently performed. It was not his object in abolishing sinecures, merely to save expense, but to have the service better performed; but, when the two objects were both attained by the same measure, he thought it a proper subject of congratulation.
127
SCOTCH JUDICATURE.]
The Lord Chancellor
called to their lordships' recollection a bill for regulating the Judicature of Scotland, which had passed that House in the course of the last session. Before that bill was brought in, a commission of inquiry had been appointed. The commissioners were selected from among the persons best qualified and able to give information on the subject. A report was made by the commission to the House, and a bill conformable to the recommendations of the report was introduced and passed, and sent down to the Commons, where it received considerable amendments in consequence of some Scotch publications on the subject. It was not thought fit by their lordships to adopt the amendments thus made, and the bill was lost. He intended, therefore, to bring in a new bill in precisely the same form as that of last session, and if any further light could be thrown on the subject, that bill might undergo alterations when before their lordships' committee.
JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.]
The Lord Chancellor
said, that as he was now on his legs, he would address to their lordships a few words relative to Joint Stock Companies, on the subject of which he had, on Thursday last, given notice that it was his intention to bring in a bill. He did not mean to go further than he had then stated: but he thought it right to observe, that in point of fact he was not aware, that a suit which related to the subject to which he proposed to call their lordships' attention was actually pending before the court of King's bench, and that the lord chief justice gave judgment on that on the very day on which he had addressed their lordships. He did not mean to say what the law was; but, whatever it might be—and he did not wish it to be understood that he had not made up his mind upon that point—the public ought not to be left in the present state of uncertainty on the subject. His lordship then proceeded to state, that his bill would not apply to companies already constituted, or which might be constituted by charter or act of parliament. But, whatever might be the existing law, it could never be intended, that the public should stand in this situation—that before the authority of the Crown or of parliament shall be given to constitute a Joint Stock Company, persons should be permitted to sell at
128
The Earl of Lauderdale
wished the learned lord to consider what the House ought first to do, in order to ascertain the law. The regular mode of proceeding in such a case would be, to ask the judges what was the law, and upon their answer, a declaratory bill might be introduced.
The Lord Chancellor
did not think that declaring the law would answer the purpose he had in view, as the penalties inflicted by the 6th Geo. 1st. were so severe. The transgression of the statute might be allowed to go on; because, the effects of premunire, or loss of goods and chattels, were so enormous, that it was probable nobody would be disposed to enforce them. His object was, to prevent persons out of doors from transgressing the law with impunity; which would not be accomplished by a declaratory law.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, February 7, 1825
THE KING'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.]
His Majesty's Answer to the Address of the House was reported, as follows:
"I receive with the highest satisfaction this loyal and dutiful Address. Your cordial concurrence in the principles which I have declared, and your assurances of co-operation with respect to the objects which I have recommended to your attention, afford me the surest pledge that I shall be enabled, under the favour of Divine Providence, effectually to uphold the honour and interests of my subjects, and to preserve the blessings which they enjoy."
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, February 8, 1825
UNLAWFUL ASSOCIATIONS IN IRELAND.]
The Marquis of Lansdown
rose, in pursuance of notice, to move an humble Address to his Majesty, praying that he would be graciously pleased to lay before the House any despatches which may have been received from the Lord Lieutenant
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
Crom a boo
Butler a boo.
136
137
The Earl of Liverpool
said, that when any individual in that or any other assembly was about to make a motion respecting a particular proceeding, it would be as well if he would take the trouble to inform himself of the nature of that proceeding. If the noble marquis had thought proper to wait two or three days, he might have fully satisfied himself with respect to the proceeding to which his motion referred. It was perfectly true, that in the Speech from the throne, his majesty after congratulating parliament on the tranquil state of Ireland, alluded to certain political associations, stated to be pregnant with the worst consequences, and called on their lordships to consider whether any remedy could be applied to those evils. It was also perfectly true, that their lordships had carried up an address to the throne, wherein they stated, that they would take the subject into consideration, and endeavour to ascertain whether any remedy could be applied to the evil pointed out by his majesty. There the matter rested at present. The noble marquis might know, from the votes on the table, that it was the intention of his majesty's ministers, in a few days, to introduce, elsewhere, a measure applicable to the subject which had been brought under their notice by his majesty's Speech; and he conceived that it would have been the proper and regular course for the noble marquis to have waited to have seen, before he made his motion, what that measure was, with respect to which he appeared to be completely mistaken. But, he would argue the question on the supposition of the noble marquis. The noble marquis said, that no attempt ought ever to be made to abridge the liberty of the subject, without an inquiry being instituted on information laid before parliament. If the noble marquis meant, that no measure having for its object to abridge the liberty of the subject ought ever to be adopted without their lordships
138
139
140
141
142
Earl Grosvenor
said, he should give his decided support to the motion. It seemed to him that the noble earl had altogether misunderstood the drift of his noble friend. He had forgotten that the motion, which he referred only to a future bill, had arisen out of the Speech of his majesty. The noble earl had assumed that the Association was destructive of the peace and happiness of Ireland; but he should recollect that there were many persons, both in and out of parliament, who had avowed it as their opinion, that instead of producing mischievous effects, it was calculated to secure the peace and advance the prosperity of that country. For his own, he would say to the Catholics of Ireland, "Persevere, and do not relax in your legal endeavours to obtain your just rights and to secure the blessings of equal law for yourselves and your posterity."
Lord Holland
observed, that the noble earl opposite had commenced his speech by an argument on the course of proceeding. The noble earl conceived that his noble friend had submitted a motion which had reference to some measure about to be introduced to that House, and he was so prodigiously pleased with the discovery that he had ended his speech with a recapitulation of what he had said about it at the beginning: but, both at the commencement and the end of his speech, and through the whole course of it, the noble earl had very carefully and prudently abstained from stating to their lordships what the motion was, or from giving any reasons why the information which it sought should not be granted. He had contented himself with saying, that the motion had reference to something of which the House knew nothing. Now he (lord H.) said, that the motion had refer-
143
144
145
146
147
——"Penitusque in viscera lapsum
Serpentis furiale malum, totamque pererrat."
148
Earl Bathurst
said, his noble friend had not contended for the proposed measure, except upon such public information as would leave no doubt of its necessity. He, however, must despair of the vote of the noble baron opposite, if, looking to the spirit of the proceedings of the Catholic Association in Ireland, he did not consider it essential to the tranquillity of that country that such an Association should not be permitted to exist. His noble friend had stated, that he would not be drawn into a premature discussion of the means by which associations were to be put down. When the bill should be brought forward, their lordships would have an opportunity of judging whether the means suggested were adequate to the end proposed on the one hand, or trenched too much on the liberty of the subject on the other. The individual who was to bring forward this bill was the secretary for Ireland. It was, therefore, to be considered strictly as an Irish measure, recommended by the government of Ireland.
The Earl of Carnarvon
stated, that he was surprised that the noble lord on the other side should oppose the motion, after so many things had been brought forward by his majesty's ministers, which they were pleased to call statements; though he could not find that any thing had been stated. The noble lord refused them information, although he wished to persuade them that there existed in Ireland something dangerous to the constitution, and that it was that something that had induced them to put into his majesty's Speech words for the purpose of inducing the House to adopt measures likely to trench on the liberty of the subject. In what a situation were they placed by the noble lords? For his own part, he supposed, that as the cabinet was made up of members of very diversified opinions, so, in type of the disarrangement contained therein, the Speech had been organized by each putting in a sentence, some of which were contradictory of others, and the address that had been returned in answer to the Speech, was, as usual, an echo of what it contained. To that address he
149
150
The lords then divided; for the motion 20. Against it 42. Majority against the motion, 22.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, February 8, 1825
USURY LAWS REPEAL BILL.]
Mr. Serjeant Onslow
rose, in pursuance of notice, to submit to the consideration of the House, a subject which, in the course of the last session, had met with considerable support, the numbers in favour of the second reading of the measure being 120, and the amendment having only had the support of 23 hon. members. Recollecting the manner in which the Speech from the throne had approved of those liberal measures which the House had adopted, respecting free trade; recollecting the unanimous address of the House favouring the removal of all those absurd restrictions which had been heaped upon commerce, he could not but anticipate, in favour of his proposition, the strongest support. If ever there was a system of laws founded, he would not say in bad policy, but in no policy at all, it was the system of regulations respecting usury. But he had so often had occasion to enter into arguments on the subject, that he thought it unnecessary to fatigue the House at present. In the course of the discussion last year, no objection had been made to the principle of the measure, but they had heard many predictions of the evil consequences likely to arise therefrom. Now, in the first place, he would take leave to say, that the fear of some inconveniences was no answer to his argument. In legislation, we must look at the greater and the lesser evil; and it appeared to him, that there never was a period more suitable for such an alteration in the law as he proposed, than the present. No one could deduce an objection from the present state of the money market. Many contended that no alteration ought to be
151
Mr. Davenport
opposed the motion, on the ground that it would involve the landed interest in ruin; and expressed his determination to take the sense of the House upon it.
Mr. John Smith
expressed his regret at the disposition he perceived to resist the introduction of this very beneficial measure. It was certainly in the hon. member's power to do so, though the practice was now extremely rare. Indeed, he looked upon this species of opposition as a triumphant proof of the excellence of his learned friend's bill, which had been supported by arguments which he had never heard answered. He trusted that his hon. and learned friend would not pursue the course which he did last year. That course—he spoke it without the slightest intention to blame his hon. and learned friend—had led to the ultimate defeat of his bill. His hon. and learned friend had deferred his measure, not once or twice, but a dozen times at least, to meet the convenience of the gentlemen who opposed it; and the result of his conciliatory conduct had been, that they had assembled one night, when no discussion was expected, in numbers sufficient to throw it out. He hoped that if his hon. and learned friend carried his motion that night, he would bring forward the second reading of his bill on a very early day, when there was certain to be a full attendance of members. He was convinced that the opposition which was threatened by the landed interest, originated entirely in mistaken notions on the subject.
Mr. Curwen
said, that he was one of those who had invariably opposed the measure, and with his views upon the question he did not think that he should have performed his duty if he had not stated, and acted upon, his sentiments. He thought that the present was a most injudicious period for bringing forward the subject, when the money market was so overstocked, and speculative theories
152
Mr. Serjeant Onslow
considered the argument just advanced by the hon. member for Cumberland, to be the most extraordinary of all he had ever heard in support of the usury laws. If the hon. member for Cheshire thought fit to take the sense of the House upon his motion, it was, though not very courteous, certainly parliamentary for him to do so.
The House then divided; for the motion 52. Against it 45. Majority, 7.
COUNTY COURTS—SMALL DEBTS
Lord Althorp
, rose to move for leave to bring in a bill, "for preventing delays and expenses in the proceedings of County Courts, and for the more easy and speedy Recovery of Small Debts in England and Wales." He observed, that after the former discussions on the principle of the proposed measure, it was not necessary to enter into any details, as the bill he should have the honour to introduce, was precisely the same as that of last year, with one exception. It was in the recollection of the House, that the reason of the rejection of that bill was, that it did not provide compensation for the sinecure offices. It certainly was his individual opinion then, that such officers should not be compensated, and that conviction he still entertained. As, however, the want of such a provision hazarded the passing of the bill, and as he felt that the value of the principle was more than an equivalent for the exception, he should introduce a clause granting such compensation. He should, however, propose the appointment of a select committee, with the view of ascertaining how many officers were entitled to compensation, and he believed that the inquiry would prove that the number was smaller than was apprehended.—Leave was given to bring in the bill.
IRISH MARRIAGE ACTS.]
Dr. Lushington
rose to move for the copy of a committal of four persons to the gaol of Londonderry, on an alleged violation of the Irish Marriage Acts. It appeared, from the statement of the circumstances
153
154
l.
l.
Sir G. Hill
did not rise to oppose the motion, nor yet to discuss the policy of those statutes, which made it highly penal for a Popish priest, to celebrate marriage between Protestants and Roman Catholics. They might be too severe; they might afford doubts respecting the extent
155
156
l.
157
Mr. John Smith
begged leave to ask the right hon. baronet what he meant, when he charged the Catholic Association with an attempt to excite rebellion and hatred against the magistrates who acted in this affair? What language had they made use of, or what were those particular acts, which shewed any wish to excite the Catholic population to vengeance? He had read their speeches, and observed their conduct, and his memory did not supply him with any thing that could be construed into a threat of personal vengeance. It was true that they shewed a disposition to apply part of the funds they had collected to prosecute individuals where circumstances seemed to warrant it, against injustice. Such an object appeared to him not only right, but most excellent. He saw no better way in which their money could be disposed of, than in affording the means of protection against injustice and personal oppression.
Mr. Dawson
said, that if the hon. gentleman had paid sufficient attention to this particular case, to the events that were passing last summer in Ireland, and the effects produced by the speeches and conduct of the Association, he would not have found it necessary to put such a question to his right hon. friend. He would tell the hon. gentleman that the Association did excite the people to feelings of hatred and hostility against their Protestant fellow-subjects, and those worthy magistrates in particular. In their debates the names of these gentlemen were held up to reproach, by one of the most furious of their demagogues. The reports of his speeches were published and sent down to that part of the country in which these gentlemen resided. They were read by the Roman Catholics; and the consequence was, that they who before were held in the highest estimation and respect, and were on the best footing with their Roman Catholic neighbours, could not stir from their houses without being assailed with expressions of hatred, and menaces of violence from the Catholic population. Previous to this time they were so much respected among all classes,
158
l.
159
Mr. North
said, that happening to know the state of the case, he would take upon himself to declare that few offences were of more serious consequence than the transactions in question. For as, by the law, all such marriages were invalid, the children by them were of course illegitimate, and in nine cases out of ten the women were abandoned, and left to destitution. The joke of the learned doctor, that a man might be hanged first, and fined 500
l.
Mr. Grattan
was so far from considering that the conduct of the Catholic Association had been injurious in Ireland, that he was persuaded the country was never quieter than at present. He was acquainted with facts which proved, that if any disturbance had occurred, it was attributable to that party to which the hon. under-secretary was attached. He put it to the hon. gentleman, whether it was quite fair to attack, as he had done, individuals who were not present to defend themselves. Those individuals were men of high character. With respect to
160
Dr. Lushington
said, that notwithstanding what had fallen from a learned gentleman opposite, considerable doubts existed whether or not the penal statutes that had been alluded to were absolutely repealed. No one could deny, that to compel the parties to give evidence against those whom they had induced to commit the offence, was a gross violation of the laws of God and man. The right hon. baronet opposite had pronounced a splendid panegyric on the magistrates in question. He (Dr. L.) had never attacked them. But, so it always was. Let the slightest imputation be thrown out against an individual, and immediately they were overwhelmed with the praises of the whole body to which he belonged. It was singular enough, that in this case, where the magistrates were represented to be popular with the Catholics before this act, they became the reverse afterwards; which was a conclusive proof of the impolicy of the statute that could lead to such a spirit of animosity.
The motion was agreed to.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, February 10, 1825
COMMITTEE ON THE STATE OF IRELAND.]
The Earl of Liverpool
rose, in pursuance of the notice he had given, to move the appointment of a committee to inquire into the State of Ireland in a more extended manner than the inquiry which took place last session. In doing this, he did not think it would be necessary for him to trouble their lordships with many words; but he should beg leave first to slate the general object of the motion, and the course of proceeding which he thought ought to be followed. Their lordships were aware, that last session a committee was appointed by their lordships, to inquire into the state of certain disturbed districts in Ireland, which were subject to the Insurrection act. The principal ground for appointing that committee was, to enable the House to judge of the necessity of continuing that act, and the inquiry was very properly confined to the counties which were then subject to the operation of the act; and likely to remain so. But, though the inquiry was, in point of form, limited as to
161
162
The Earl of Darnley
reminded their lordships, that twelve months had not elapsed since he had, in vain, pleaded for that general inquiry into the state of Ireland which the noble earl now proposed. Upon that occasion the importance of the subject procured a very numerous attendance of their lordships, and his motion was negatived by a great majority; sixteen only having thought fit to support it. In stating this, he did not mean to claim the present motion as "his thunder." On the contrary, he assured their lordships, that he was perfectly well content to leave the thunder in the hands of the Jupiter who had undertaken to wield it. If, however, the noble earl meant to inquire into the state of Ireland without making the Catholic question his main object, and obtaining information respecting that question from those most capable of furnishing it, his inquiry would be useless. Their lordships would recollect, that when he brought forward last session the motion to which he had alluded, the Catholic question was the principal ground on which he founded it. Indeed, to overlook the Catholic question in an inquiry into the state of Ireland, was to imitate the strolling company who advertised the performance of the tragedy of Hamlet, with the part of Hamlet, for that night, omitted. The more their lordships examined the subject, the more would they be convinced that Ireland never could be satisfied, until the just claims of the Catholics were satisfied. It would be well for ministers now to look the question fairly in the face. He was not surprised that they wished to check the Catholic Association. That was only the consequence of their own neglect. If that body had become, as was said, dangerous to the state, the fault was theirs, who, in defiance of common sense and common justice, had uniformly refused to listen to the just claims of the Catholics.
The Marquis of Lansdown
did not rise to oppose the motion, which in so far as
163
The Earl of Liverpool
understood the report was in a state of considerable forwardness. He was anxious that the report should be presented as soon as possible; but from the great importance of the subject, he did not think it consistent with his duty to press for its completion with a haste which would not allow time for its proper digestion.
Lord Holland
believed there would be an unanimous vote in favour of the motion, but, considering that the noble earl had always shown himself so fastidiously critical on the subject of parliamentary inquiry, he could not help thinking it strange that the noble earl should consent to the present investigation, without assigning any reason for so extraordinary a change of opinion. Instead of laying any new ground for his motion, the noble earl had merely stated his disposition not to limit the inquiry. Now, their lordships would recollect, that many persons whose rank, wealth, talents, and intimate connexion with Ireland entitled their opinion to respect, had repeatedly urged the noble earl to agree to a general inquiry into the state of Ireland, but without success. A motion for that object, made by his noble friend last session, had been rejected; and the only inquiry to which the noble earl would consent, was one which was limited to the disturbed districts. The disturbances in those districts was then ground for inquiry; but now that their lordships had come to the present session, what did they learn?—that there was no disturbance at all: so that the only ground which the noble earl had for his former inquiry, was cut from him. But, upon looking further at the subject, we find there is one thing in the state of Ireland—the situation of the Catholics—one evil for which a remedy is required. Oh, he! we have got it now. Here is something to inquire about! "No," says the noble earl, "that is not to be inquired into. In appointing the committee, no reference must be made to that subject. Those laws which
164
165
The Earl of Harrowby
was persuaded that the noble baron had totally misunderstood his noble friend. The House would recollect that the last committee was not appointed for a general inquiry, but that the proposed renewal of the Insurrection act was the only reason for its institution. The intended measure rendered an inquiry necessary into the nature and extent of the disorders which appeared to call for the continuance of the act. There was far from being any difference of opinion between his majesty's ministers who had seats in that committee, and the other members who composed it, as to the extent of the inquiry. He and his noble friends did not attempt to confine the investigation to the geographical limits specified in the motion. There was no question of importance in the slate of Ireland, of which some evidence of its consideration was not to be found in the proceedings of that committee. In the very short report which was presented to the House, the committee stated, that they had not completed some points of their inquiry, and expressed a hope that the House would allow them to renew it. The House, then, in compliance with that recommendation, and the recommendation from higher authority contained in his majesty's Speech, were called on to renew the committee. As to his noble friend's observation on leaving out the Catholic question in his motion, their lordships would recollect that his noble friend had distinctly stated that he had no objection to the inquiry being so extended, that every fact bearing upon that question might be introduced; and he would on his own part state, that he had no objection to the introduction of evidence of opinions, for that would also be fact, as it would prove the existence of certain opinions held by certain persons. He, however, did not think that their lordships would do right to refer the question of Catholic emancipation to any committee.
Lord King
thought this a very singular
166
The motion was then agreed to.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, February 10, 1825
ROMAN CATHOLIC ASSOCIATION.]
Sir George Hill
presented a petition from the gentry, clergy, magistrates, and freeholders of the county of Londonderry, praying for the suppression of a certain assembly in Dublin, calling itself, "The Catholic Association." He should at present abstain from making any comments on the various evils arising from that most mischievous body, and should confine himself chiefly to stating the origin of this petition. Great alarm was naturally felt in the county of Londonderry at the assumption of the Catholic Association to rule and govern the population of Ireland, taking them under their special protection, and alienating their affections from the constituted authorities of the country. Still, however, the inhabitants of Londonderry had come to a determination to confide in parliament, and not interfere, until an attempt should be made to collect the Catholic rent; and a circumstance occurred which rendered further abstinence impossible. It was this: a person in the neighbourhood had prevailed upon the inhabitants to subscribe a sum of money for erecting a Catholic school-house: but instead of appropriating it to its proper purpose, he sent it to the Association. In consequence of which, the inhabitants of Londonderry thought it high time to express their sentiments. Accordingly, a requisition was signed by 340 most respectable freeholders. A meeting was held, at which the petition was voted, and in a short time it
167
Mr. Abercromby
said, that, as the right hon. baronet was in the act of extolling the moderation of the good inhabitants of Londonderry, perhaps he would favour the House with an accurate report of the speeches delivered by some of those gentlemen previous to the voting that petition [hear].
Mr. Dawson
said, that nothing could exceed the moderation and forbearance evinced by the Protestants of Londonderry. No single individual, holding the sentiments he did with respect to Catholic emancipation, had done a single act to cause a difference with their Catholic fellow-countrymen. As the Catholics themselves had thrown down the gauntlet, they must abide by the consequences. The Protestants remained tranquil, until the Catholic Association set on foot the collection of that abominable "rent" in Londonderry, and then they felt it their duty to come forward, to deny the bold and impudent assertion of the Catholic Association, that the Protestants of Ireland were favourable to their claims. The Protestant feeling was not in their favour. In Londonderry, for instance, the Protestants were, in point of numbers, two to one; and as to property, intelligence, and industry, they were a thousand to one; and, when the Catholics thought proper to make this boast, he felt it his duty boldly to proclaim, that the Protestant feeling of Ireland was decidedly opposed to any further concessions to the Catholics.
Sir H. Parnell
said, he hoped the House would pause before they placed implicit confidence in the statements of the hon. member. The petition just presented was the only petition offered to the House on this subject from Ireland, and he was not aware that any other was in contemplation. The hon. member had thought proper to assert, that the Protestant feeling of Ireland was opposed to Catholic emancipation. It was painful to hear such assertions: but when they were made, he was under the necessity of rising to make an assertion of a completely opposite nature. Two thirds of the representatives of Ireland had voted for emancipation. Now, if they did not represent the feeling of the country, it cast a great stigma on the state of the representation in Ireland. And, with re-
168
Mr. Maxwell
said, in opposition to the statement of the hon. baronet, that he had presented a similar petition in the course of the evening, from his constituents, containing, 4,700 signatures.
Mr. Abercromby
said, he had one remark to make, to which he should not add a single comment. A requisition had been presented to the sheriff of Waterford, containing, amongst others, the signatures of many respectable magistrates, calling upon him to convene a meeting for the purpose of petitioning in favour of Catholic emancipation. The sheriff refused to call the meeting, and it was for that gentleman to state his reasons for so doing.
Mr. Denis Browne
said, the only permanent foundation for the prosperity of Ireland, was a total relinquishment of all civil distinctions founded upon religious differences. For a long period he had advised the Roman Catholics in his neighbourhood to place their trust in the wisdom of parliament. For some time they had done so; but at length, when the proposition for placing the Roman Catholics of England on the same footing with the Irish was rejected, they asked him how it was possible they could have a chance, when that measure failed, notwithstanding the support of the prime minister of England? He was unable to give them an answer, and they then joined the Catholic Association.
Ordered to lie on the table.
UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES IN IRELAND BILL.]
Mr. Goulbourn
rose, pursuant to his notice, to move for leave to bring in a bill to amend certain acts relating to Unlawful Societies in Ireland. He had truly felt, at the close of the last session, a most confident hope—a hope in which the House participated—that from the character of the measures which the government pursued, and the parliament recommended—from the mild, and temperate, and impartial manner in which they executed the high trust reposed in them, and the result of which was practically felt in the most beneficial effects throughout Ireland; he had undoubtedly felt, as he before said, confident hopes, that a far different duty would have been imposed upon him than that which he then rose to discharge. He sincerely
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
Mr. John Smith
said, that as an individual intimately connected with the Irish society of London, he felt it incumbent on him to deliver his sentiments on this momentous question. He could assure the House that, in all he meant to say, he followed no other dictate than that of a sincere sense of public duty. A great part of the right hon. gentleman's speech related to the conduct—the atrocious conduct, as he had termed it—of the Catholic Association. The right hon. gentleman had given the House many details and statements on that subject. If he were to decide on mere statement and detail, then certainly he should be as much satisfied with the statements and details of the right hon. gentleman as he could be with those of any individual he was acquainted with. This would be very justifiable in a private case. But when a great public measure was connected with those statements, then he could not rest satisfied with any details which came from the right hon. gentleman, unless they were borne out and corroborated. He would, on this occasion, take the same course which had been adopted on others; he would call for some evidence to prove that the step intended to be pursued was just and proper. He regretted the scenes which took place in 1791;at the same time, he did not wish to enter into that subject. But, as the right hon. gentleman had touched upon it, he would call on him to look at the transactions of 1795. These were matters of historical recollection, and might be spoken of with propriety. Did the right hon. gentleman remember the frightful cry of "To Hell or Connaught!" fulminated against the Roman Catholics? Did he recollect the conflagration of their houses, and the burning of their property? The Orange party
187
188
189
190
191
Mr. Abercromby
said, he came to the discussion of this subject with the greatest possible sorrow, because it had been his conviction, subsequently confirmed by the candid avowal of the right hon. gentleman, that the House would be called upon a career of conduct and a course of measures, the effect of which would be to sap the foundation of the peace and prosperity of the realm, and to sow the seeds of discontent and sedition. If the question had been as to the provisions of the bill, in common candour he would have deferred the discussion of their merits or defects. But, to the principle he objected; and therefore, whether the enactments were mild and circumscribed, or severe and extensive, was on the present occasion, of no import. He was prepared to contend against it on reason; and he thought he should be able to dispute it upon experience. Were he asked if he disapproved of the Association, his answer would be clearly in the affirmative. He regretted its existence, though the grounds of that regret might be different to those of the right hon. gentleman. To many it was, no doubt, highly objectionable, because it brought into weekly and daily observation the just grievances of the Catholics; for if the Association had not been backed by just grievances, it would never have tempted the interference of parliament. No doubt some persons might, with apparent reason, complain of its proceedings, because they brought to light disagreeable truths; but he (Mr. A.) disliked its existence, because that very existence afforded an undeniable proof of misgovernment and maladministration.
192
193
194
195
196
197
will
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
Sir Henry Parnell
spoke to the following effect
*
Mr. Speaker
; I shall commence the observations that I am about to address to the House by following the example of my hon. and learned friend who has just sat down, and declaring the great regret with which I feel myself obliged to oppose any measure proposed by his majesty's ministers respecting the affairs of Ireland. I have been, and still am, ready to believe, that in regard to Ireland they are actuated by the best motives, and that the general principles upon which the government of Ireland has been of late conducted, is deserving of being supported. But, when a measure is proposed to the House which I think must be followed, if carried into a law, by the most pernicious consequences to the interests of the empire; a measure that I consider to be the first of a series of measures of more violence on the part of the Catholics, and of more coercion on the part of government, that must terminate in general confusion and rebellion; I feel
*
205
206
207
208
209
*
*
210
Six-mile Bridge, and in open court, stated in the highest terms the approbation of the whole bench of magistrates, of. Mr. O'Gorman's conduct, who had been sent down by the Association.
211
212
213
214
215
l.,
l.
216
217
218
219
220
*
*
221
222
223
224
*
*
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
*
*
232
233
Mr. Leslie Foster
said, he was anxious to avail himself of the earliest opportunity of expressing his opinion as to the conduct of an Association, which was at that moment exercising all the functions of parliament in Ireland [cries of "No, no"]. The House would see presently how that question stood. The members of the Association, had, he would admit, avoided the form, but they had secured all the reality of representation. They differed from other delegated bodies in this respect—that they inspired sentiments in those whom they represented, which were reflected back to themselves. They superadded to their legislative capacity the functions of the executive power, which were so wisely separated by the British constitution; and in this respect he agreed with an hon. member opposite, that they were unlike a regular parliament. It was true that they acted with an appearance of openness. They set apart one day in every week for open dis-
234
235
236
l.
l.
237
l.
238
239
240
Mr. John Williams
said, he was convinced that, within his own moderate experience of parliament, there had never been a question of such vital importance to the Irish people, and indeed to the whole empire, as the present. And, if it had been necessary for those who thought with him to wait for the full development of the measure now proposed to the House—if it was not enough for them to know that the principle of that measure was vicious, and that no sort of composition or qualification could make amends for this defect in the principle of such a bill; it would certainly have been but reasonable for them to wait, and see whether the workmanship would surpass the material. But having recognised upon the face of the speeches which had been that evening made upon the subject, nothing which, could warrant a hope of such a kind; and not anticipating (for nothing had occurred that could warrant him to anticipate) any good from the old system of new legislation on one side, to meet the violence offered on the other—(though he
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
Mr. Secretary Peel
rose to state a few of those grave considerations by which his vote of that night would be directed. He would first notice an argument that had been made use of, in the course of this discussion, by an hon. member, the effect of which, if it were well founded, would be to take away from government, or from parliament rather, all right of interference in the case of associations that might be deemed illegal. The hon. gentleman had expressly said, "he would not vindicate the acts of the Catholic Association; he thought them to be, in many respects; indefensible, and he could not stand forward as their advocate". But still that hon. gentleman conceived, that the hands of the House were tied up—that these people laboured under such a grievance, as took from the House all right of interference with their proceedings; those proceedings being admitted, by the hon. gentleman himself, to be indefensible. Why, if this were so, there was an end of all their deliberations in that House, on this or on any other subject. If that doctrine was to prevail, it must follow that
248
249
250
*
*
251
*
*
252
*
*
253
254
*
*
† Ibid. p. 1499.
255
256
257
258
259
260
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
261
262
Mr. Denman
rose amid loud cries of "Adjourn." After apologizing for presenting himself to the notice of the House at that late hour, he said that he had been so far misled by vanity as to suppose, that the argument which ministers attempted to derive from the Constitutional Association had been completely disposed of on a former evening. As that argument, however, had now made its second appearance, he would promise, if he was not able to give it two or three more decisive answers, to give his vote for the right hon. gentleman's proposition; which he conceived to be full of danger to the country, and to be such as would cover the House with disgrace, if it obtained its sanction. The right hon. gentleman had referred, and with great kindness, to the manner in which he (Mr. Denman) had expressed himself three years ago on the Constitutional Association. At that time the Constitutional Association had been three years in existence, and its proceedings and actions were well known to the public. Did that Association meet to repel attacks made on itself? or to complain of the unequal administration of justice among its own members? or to volunteer the office of attorney-general, and undertake the prosecution of various state offences? On the contrary they acted as if the attorney-general was either blind, or negligent of, or inadequate to his duty; and thinking themselves very superior persons, when, in point of fact, they were very inferior ones, instituted a series of jobs, which they called prosecutions against individuals for offences, for which, if they had been guilty, they ought to have been attacked by the attorney-general with ex-officio informations. The Catholic Association, on the contrary, subscribed only to prosecute those who had injured Catholics, and to repel aggressions under which, he trusted,
263
264
265
266
267
l.
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
The debate, at two in the morning, was adjourned till to-morrow.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, February 11, 1825
UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES IN IRELAND BILL.]
On the order of the day being read for resuming the adjourned debate on Mr. Goulburn's motion, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to Amend certain Acts relating to Unlawful Societies in Ireland,"
Mr. C. Pelham
addressed the House in a tone of voice which was inaudible in the gallery. He said, that although he was desirous of steering clear between both the parties principally involved in this discussion, yet he was averse to the introduction, in a time of profound peace, of any measure which had a tendency to restrict popular rights.
Mr. Grattan
declared it to be his conviction, that all the evils, even if true, which honourable gentlemen affected to apprehend from the existence of the Catholic Association, were to be attributed to the really unlawful societies which had so long existed in Ireland. The right hon. Secretary for the Home Department had last night stated, that if that Association was not put down, counter societies would be formed. But, what was the fact? It was this—that the Catholic Association was the counter society, and had been brought into action by the Orange insti-
276
277
Captain Maberly
declared, that he viewed with the deepest regret—no, not regret—with the deepest indignation, the introduction of the proposed bill. He charged his majesty's ministers with bringing forward this most ruinous measure on the flimsiest pretexts. Notoriety was said to be its basis. Notoriety! when even those who supported the proposition were not agreed as to the facts on which they pretended to found it. The right hon. Secretary for Ireland said, that the Catho-
278
279
280
281
282
283
l.
l.
l,
l.
284
Sir N. Colthurst
said, he could not give his consent to the continuance of an Association, whose objects were inconsistent with the constitution, and incompatible with the well-being of Ireland. He was ready to make every fair allowance for that effervescence of feeling and expression, which frequently occurred at such meetings; but, when he found in the Catholic Association a systematic interference with the administration of justice in Ireland—when he found that they called upon the people to confide in them, and had formed a tribunal to which they invited every grievance, real or imaginary—when he found that they proceeded to levy money upon the people, and used the most despotic means for its collection, even to the extent of denouncing those who refused to pay it—when he found all this, he felt it his bounden duty to give his vote in favour of a measure calculated to suppress such an Association. He had been informed, that a respectable gentleman, residing in the south of Ireland, had cautioned his tenantry not to pay any money towards the Catholic rent. In a short time, he received a letter from the parish priest couched nearly in the following terms: "Dear Sir; It has been reported to me that you have cautioned your tenants against contributing to the Catholic rent. I know that this report is without foundation; yet, as it has had the effect of decreasing the rent in this quarter, I hope you will allow me to contradict it, particularly as I am obliged
285
Colonel Davies,
in opposing the present motion, said, he was willing to admit, however unwilling to legislate on particular cases, that cases might arise in which government were bound to depart from the ordinary course, and provide an extraordinary remedy for a growing evil. And, if it could be shown to him that the Catholic Association was a body of this description; if it could be once proved to him that they wished to usurp the powers of the constitution, then he would say, that the House would, not do its duty, if it did not enact new measures for their suppression: nay more, if it did not follow up those measures by the power of the Sword, if necessary. Now, he did not feel that such was the case, and therefore he was opposed to the bill; but he was further opposed to it because of its inutility. If the bill went only to put down meetings which continued to meet beyond a certain time, whilst it tolerated
286
l.
l
287
288
Mr. Doherty
said, it had been his lot more than once to have heard it said, that the Catholic body in Ireland had never been encountered with a greater enemy than the Catholic Association. If he had ever entertained a doubt as to the truth of the observation, it would have been removed by the two speeches last delivered. The gallant colonel who had just taken his seat had said, that he had been systematically opposed to the Catholic claims, yet he gave his very able and not less strenuous support, to the Catholic Association. His hon. friend who spoke last but one, the distinguished representative of the city of Cork, had been the invariable and consistent advocate for emancipation, yet he now came forward with great reluctance, and with little ostentation, to give his vote for putting down the Catholic Association. Could there be a better practical proof of the light in which the body was viewed, not only by the friends of the Catholic population at large, but by its steady and persevering foes. For his own part, he never had an opportunity in parliament, of giving any opinion upon the great question of Catholic emancipation. Out of parliament he had purposely abstained from doing so; not that he did not hold it a matter of great weight and importance; not that his wishes had not been strongly excited regarding it—the Catholics had his heartfelt wishes that the result of calm reasoning might at length be, to throw wide the doors of admission to every member of the excluded body. Whenever the question was introduced again, let it be brought forward by whom it might, he trusted that nothing would intervene—that no obstinate perverseness on the part of enemies and would-be representatives, should prevent his feeling himself conscientiously at liberty to give his vote to allow the Catholics a full participation in all the benefits of the British constitution. On this point he claimed no merit to himself; he believed that it was the anxious desire of all the hon. gentlemen round him to be able to concede to the Catholics; if every man could vote consistently with his wishes, he felt assured that every man would much more willingly take the popular side of that great question, than
289
290
"Hunc, Macrine, diem numera meliore Lapilio."
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
Mr. Dominick Browne
apologised for rising so soon after the learned gentleman who had just sat down; but there were some remarks which he had made relative to Catholic jurors which he felt it his duty to notice. First, perhaps, he should say, that he did not know how the Association could be put down; or what utility there would be in doing so, if it could be effected. Generally speaking, there could not he said to be a denial of justice to the Catholics; the fault was not in the law, but in the System which placed the Catholic and the Protestant in a false position towards each other: and men must be more than men usually were found to be, if their prejudices had not some operation upon them, either in the jury box or elsewhere. In the faults of so vicious a system he attributed no blame to lord Wellesley or to his right hon. friend the attorney-general for Ireland. They had effected a beneficial
298
299
Mr. William Williams
remarked, that, of all those who had spoken in favour of the Catholic Association no one had gone the length of completely justifying it. For his own part, he looked upon that body as being most inimical to the interests of the Catholics of Ireland. Having expressed those sentiments with respect to the Association he would shortly state
300
Mr. Dennis Browne,
in allusion to an observation which had fallen from Mr. Dominick Browne, said, that religious feelings in Ireland were not carried by the parties into courts of justice. Throughout the whole of his experience, and that of many individuals, upon whose statements he could rely, this had never been found to be the case.
Mr. Martin,
of Galway, said he was perfectly ready to admit all that was said by the right hon. Secretary for Ireland in submitting his motion to the House; he was ready to accede to all the deductions from the arguments laid down by the right hon. gentleman; he was also prepared to concur with the hon. member for Louth as to the magnitude of the evils resulting from the state of Ireland. But he did not think it to be his duty, notwithstanding all this, to assent to the proposed bill, because he knew perfectly well that it would fail in its operation. He did not approve of all the proceedings of
301
302
Mr. Warre
observed, that there was no denying that Ireland was in a deplorable state, but he believed that the disease proceeded from causes that required a very different remedy from the one proposed. Much boast had been made of the salutary effects of the Insurrection act, which, as far as he could find, was without foundation; since, in the course of the year 1823, 497 persons had been apprehended under that act in the county of Tipperary, of which number no less than 461 had been acquitted. That was a strong instance of the abuse of those unconstitutional powers. He had heard nothing from the king's ministers to convince him, that if the Catholic Association were put down by strong measures, it would not be revived and renewed in some other shape. It was the expression of the feelings and sentiments of six millions of people; and, as long as they remained in the anomalous and irreconcileable state they were in at present, they would, to borrow the language of government, "give a dangerous expression of their feelings." He would have been very glad if the state of Ireland had been different from what it was; but, looking at its present condition, he could not help expressing it as his firm and unalterable conviction, that there was only one remedy. He could not but remember in the late Hanover question, the triumphant way in which the right hon. Secretary had read the new Federation of Germany, and had appealed to the excellence of its formation. There was likewise a speech of lord Liverpool's against the Catholic question on record, in which that noble earl had laid it down as a dictum, that it was absolutely necessary that there should be an exclusive religion, and had cited Holland in proof of his assertion. It was true, that old Holland bore him out in what he had advanced; but, what was now the state of religious feeling in Holland? One of the express articles of the new constitution of that country was, that no religious persuasion should disqualify an individual from serving in a public capacity; and even in the union between Holland and Belgium, in which there was much bickering and discontent, and where they were continually differing in the articles of commerce and taxation, religion was the only thing on which they did not quarrel. It
303
Mr. Wynn
said, he certainly was of opinion, that this measure was not likely to tranquillize Ireland, if it was not accompanied with the great measure that had so long been in agitation. It was to that alone that he looked for the restoration; but he did not therefore agree, that when the main question could not be carried—when the grand remedy for existing evils in Ireland could not be obtained—therefore the House should sit still supinely, let those existing evils take their course, and not apply to the more pressing of them the best remedy that lay within its power. He hesitated not to declare, that he had always felt the passing of that great measure absolutely necessary and, heregretted the conduct of the Catholic Association, chiefly for the mischief which it had done to the Catholic cause. That Association had done more harm, more real harm, to the Catholics, than any other body which had at any time existed. It had not harmed their cause in his mind, because whatever their conduct might be, he was still convinced of the necessity of granting their claims, the more so, because he felt assured that the very granting of those claims would weaken the power of the ill-disposed among them, and put strength into the hands of those who had the prosperity of their cause at heart. But still, if it was out of his power to carry the best measure into effect, was he therefore bound to do nothing? Mischievous as the operations of the Catholic Association had been thus far, the country might rely upon it, that the worst effect of those operations was yet to come. He would not dwell upon the state of exasperation into which such a body, left to act, would at last provoke itself: let the House look at the effect, in the way of exasperation, which such a body would produce upon others. It was a well known principle in natural philosophy, that action and re-action were the same; but in political matters that was not the case, the re-action
304
305
*
* See Howell's State Trials, Vol. XIX. p. 11.
306
Mr. Calcraft
said, he never recollected a question of deeper importance, and which affected more nearly the vital interests of the empire, than that which was now under the consideration of the House. He was satisfied, that if it were attempted to stifle the voices of the Catholics, by this or any other measure, and if the just rights of that body were not conceded, visitations would be perpetually occurring, in the shape of conventions, Catholic boards, and Catholic Associations. Notwithstanding the professions of the right hon. gentleman, he must say, that he could not put much faith in the sincerity of those who, while they expressed their desire to
307
308
309
l.
310
Mr. Plunkett
said, he stood in a situation which required the utmost indulgened of the House. The subject before the House had been so fully discussed in a! its parts, that he felt it impossible for his to add to the arguments that had already been adduced in its favour; and he should not have obtruded himself on the House in the course of this debate, if it we not to declare his view of the state of that country to which this question immed
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
Mr. Tierney
said, he had no desire to occupy the attention of the House after the able speech of the right hon. and learned gentleman; but he wished to avail himself of the earliest opportunity of stating his opinions upon a subject of such vast importance. It had so happened, that he had never once opened his lips in any debates on the question of Catholic emancipation. He had given that measure the support of his vote, and every other support in his power, except the slight one of speaking upon it; nor should he have thought it necessary to do so at that moment, did he not consider the present to be a crisis of great danger to the empire. The proposed measure was one, which, as it appeared, the right hon. and learned gentleman would rather resort to than another which would render it wholly unnecessary; but as that other could not, in his opinion, be obtained, he preferred the present to the having none at all. The cabinet, it would seem, could not agree among themselves upon a measure which would have the effect of a general conciliation: so, in lieu of it, they hit upon the happy expedient of proposing one which was to have directly the contrary effect. Was it not somewhat strange that this cabinet could never pull together, except when some privilege of the people was to be invaded? Upon such measures they were happily unanimous; but the moment it was proposed to enact a law which would have the effect of general conciliation to a numerous class of the king's subjects, then the right of each minister to judge for himself was recognized, and nothing was agreed upon except not to agree upon any thing which had a pacific tendency. He did not rise on the present occasion as the advocate of the Catholics: for any thing he might have done for them, they owed him nothing. What he had done in favour of their claims, he did for the general benefit of the country. His principles, habits, and opinions, did not lead him to become the advocate of the Catholics. He was not blind to the imperfections of the church of England, and no man would be more zealous than himself to oppose any measure called for by the Catholics, if he thought it in the slightest degree calculated to produce the mischief which some persons thought would arise from it. On the present occasion he was not called upon for any such opposition; but he was called upon to oppose a measure pregnant with dan-
332
Mr. Plunkett
observed, that what he had said was, that out of the inquiries of that committee might come facts on which something might be founded.
Mr. Tierney
continued. If that something was to be understood as relating to the Catholic claims, no facts were necessary to be sought through a committee or any other source. There never was a question discussed in that House, which was less a question of facts. It was solely a question of reasoning. It was not a little singular that the learned gentleman was willing to concede inquiry where facts were not wanted, and to refuse it where every kind of information was most desirable. It was, he thought, unprecedented in the annals of parliament, that they should proceed to legislate against a particular body, without having a single fact before them, that the acts of that body
333
334
335
l.
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
It being now half past one o'clock, Mr. Brougham moved "That the debate be now adjourned." Upon this the House divided: Ayes 70. Noes 252. A second division took place on the motion, "That this House do now adjourn:" Ayes 76. Noes 231. The minority declaring their resolution to persist in dividing the House, it was agreed that the debate should be further adjourned till Monday.
348
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, February 14, 1825
NAVY ESTIMATES.]
The House having resolved itself into a committee of supply to which the Navy Estimates were referred,
Sir George Clerk,
in rising to move the Navy Estimates, observed, that it could scarcely be necessary for him to remark, that it was proper that we should have a portion of our naval force in every part of the world, more especially in the neighbourhood of our new foreign relations, in order to prevent inconveniences which might otherwise arise from the contending parties at war. In the West Indies, the nest of pirates on the coast of Cuba had been considerably diminished: yet we must not flatter ourselves that it was utterly destroyed, or that, if any relaxation in our efforts were to take place, it would not revive. There were other circumstances also which had added to the charges beyond the amount of last year, increase had been rendered necessary. In the course of that year material changes had been made in the mode of victualling the navy, for the purpose of adding to the comforts of the seamen. Amongst these was the abolition of banyan days, and an increase in a small degree of wages in consequence of a diminution in the usual allowance of grog. These changes, he believed every naval officer would pronounce advantageous. An excess of spirits had the effect of rendering the men quarrelsome, and of course increased the necessity for punishment. In order, however, that there should be no just ground of complaint, it had been determined, that the saving on rum should be paid to the men in the shape of an addition to their wages. It had been calculated that that saving would amount to about two shillings a man per month; and this addition had in consequence been made to all the seamen and petty officers, but not to the warrant or commissioned officers. A small addition had also been made to the pay of the men when on foreign stations. In order to carry these alterations into full effect, it was necessary that his majesty's government should have the sanction of that House; and the treasurer of the navy would shortly bring in a bill for that purpose. In the mean time, it was intended that the two shillings additional pay a month should be issued to the men, on the responsibility of government. The great;
349
Sir J. Yorke
was very desirous that the committee should know how far the seamen liked the exchange of a portion of their grog for tea; which it seemed probable they would consider as little better than clover dust. Had any broils or dissentions taken place upon this diminution of the allowance of grog to the seamen? He also thought that the doing away with the banyan days required some explanation.
Sir G. Cockburn
said, that from all the naval stations, except one, the accounts with respect to the manner in which the change was received by the seamen, were most favourable; in fact, they cheered when it was announced to them. The distribution of tea had nothing to do with the seamen's grog. The portion of grog stopped from the men they were paid for to its full value. This was done, because it was found that when men went into port without money, they were frequently induced to run away; whereas, by giving them a little pocket money, they were enabled to amuse themselves without being liable to any such temptation. With respect to the banyan days having been done away with, that also had met with the approbation of the seamen. Before that arrangement took place, they were nominally allowed 6lbs of beef per week, while in reality they only received 4lbs, a quantity of flour being substituted for the remainder. Again they were allowed large quantities of pease, enough, in fact, to serve a hog-stye, but they never ate them, and so that article, or at least its value, went into the pocket of the purser.
Sir I. Coffin
was surprised that his hon. friend should object to the new arrangement, as he must be aware that grog was injurious to the men, and that they were paid for the quantity stopped from them.
l.
350
l.
l.
Mr. Hume
thought a more explicit account ought to be laid before the House of the expenditure of the former year, so that they might compare it with what was proposed for the present. They ought to be informed what was the amount of articles made use of, and what was the expense of wear and tear for each ship.
Sir G. Gockburn
said, the expense which might be incurred for wear and tear of vessels at sea was quite uncertain. The vote of last year having been found short, 2
s.
Sir J. Yorke
observed, that the sweeping phrase of "wear and tear," meaning the wear of hulls, masts, and spars, and the tear of canvas, had been in use for many years. Now, he could see no reason why the commissioners at the dock-yards could not give a more detailed account of this sort of expenditure. They might state what had been the wear of hulls and masts, and the tear of sails, for any given period. He did not know why the particulars of this expenditure should be wrapped up in these old-fashioned words.
Mr. Croker
said, the wear and tear included the consideration of the size of the ships, the service on which they were to be employed for the current year, and other matters of so high a political nature as to render it inexpedient to adopt the mode suggested. This vote of wear and tear was, in some degree, a vote of confidence to government. The estimate of the last year was always made the foundation of the new estimate. But he doubted whether it would be very convenient to make public the scheme of our naval force all over the world; which would be the effect of making such a disclosure as had been alluded to. He submitted to the hon. member, whether, taking an enlarged view of the question, without any reference to the present pacific state of Europe, it would not be impolitic to disclose the state of our naval force.
Mr. Maberly
never before heard such an explanation given in that House. What did the hon. Secretary say? He stated, that this was a sum voted in confidence to his majesty's ministers. Now, he
351
Mr. Hume
asked, what could be the danger of furnishing a detail of the wear and tear of the navy, when it was known that there was a person named Murray, who published a list which gave a detailed account of the amount and rate of our naval force, together with the station of each particular vessel? He wished for nothing which would in any way impede our service, or interfere with political subjects; but surely it was not too much to expect, that, when a large grant was to be voted, they should be furnished with those details, which were given in the expenditure of the army, and other branches of the public service. As to granting money in confidence, he protested against it. Where money was to be expended, he had no confidence in any man or set of men.
The resolution was agreed to.
On the resolution, "That 94,250
l.
Mr. Hume
said, he observed an item "for boats hired at Queenborough 23,000
l.
l.
s.
Sir G. Clerk
said, that the sum proposed was found to be the lowest for which ordnance for the sea service could be supplied for the current year.
352
Mr. Maberly
said, it was a complete annuity to become a freeman of Queenborough, for he was sure of getting one of these boats, to sail up and down the Thames, half-employed and half idle. With respect to this vote, if every item was enumerated, a considerable saving might be effected.
The resolution was agreed to.
UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES IN IRELAND
The order of the day being read, for resuming the adjourned debate on Mr. Goulburn's motion, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend certain Acts relating to Unlawful Societies in Ireland,"
The Hon. George Lamb
said, that the proposed measure, notwithstanding all the details connected with its provisions, which they had heard from time to time, still appeared to him to be exceedingly obscure and mysterious. It was, it seemed, intended to be an alteration of the Convention act which was passed in 1793. Whether that act deserved all the censure that was cast upon it by the hon. and learned member for Nottingham, he would not stop to inquire; but certainly the person who framed it appeared to have a proper feeling of veneration for the constitution of his country. He found that act concluded with a careful proviso, "that nothing therein contained should apply to persons meeting for the redress of grievances." That salutary provision was now, he understood, for the first time, to be violated—this protection was to be wrested from the subject. This was matter of deep and serious concern; for, whatever intemperance of language the Roman Catholics might have been led into—whatever violence might have been manifested by the Catholic Association— still it should never be lost sight of, that the redress of grievances was the foundation of that society. It was founded in that spirit; and therefore be lamented that the government did not follow up, rather than abandon, the feelings which actuated the framer of the Convention act, when he introduced the constitutional provision to which he had referred. Ireland, it was said, was perfectly tranquil; but they were called on to prevent future and contingent dangers. He did not like this prophetic spirit of evil, which often created the mischief against which its warnings were directed. They were admonished, that this Association was contrary to the spirit of the constitution; and that it would
353
354
355
356
357
Mr. Dawson
said, that no man acquainted with the Irish character—no man who had watched the progress of events for the last thirty years—could conscientiously support Associations of any kind. From the earliest period, Associations had been the curse of Ireland; party had followed party, and faction faction. The whole history of the country represented a series of bloodshed, massacre, and misery, the fruit of the prevalence of hostile parties. He had, therefore, great satisfaction in reflecting, that the bill now proposed would put down all Associations. All the popular assemblies in Ireland, with one exception only, had been productive of evil consequences. That exception was the Convention of 17S2. Yet even then the national restlessness would have broken forth, but for the prudence and discretion of lord Charlemont. What had been the result of the Catholic Committee of 1793 —of the United Irishmen in 1796 and 7? A rebellion that raged from north to south, in which much blood was shed and many valuable lives were lost— amongst others who fell on that occasion was lord O'Neill. What was the result of the Catholic Board in 1812 and 1813?
358
359
"Hereditary bondsmen! know ye not
Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow?"
360
361
362
363
Mr. Carew
was happy to have an opportunity of expressing his sentiments on a subject of such importance, more particularly as he should not wish that his opposition to the measures proposed by the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, should be construed into an approval of all that had passed in the Catholic Association during the last six months. There had been many speeches made by its members which, as a friend to the Catholics and to the country, he could have wished unuttered. All societies which had their origin in religious politics were, more or less, injurious; but he had a
364
Mr. Spring Rice
said, he could not conceive any two speeches more truly indicative of the real state of Ireland than the last but one which the House had just heard, and that of his right hon. and learned friend, the Attorney-general for that country. He would ask, with what reason could it be expected that the violence of party feeling could be put down, when in the cabinet itself the same violent difference was exhibited by those who personified the conflicting opinions? Was it not obvious, that the violence of the Catholics would look for its justification from that part of the cabinet in which a similar feeling was displayed? Was it
365
366
367
368
369
370
Mr. Brownlow
said, that he rose to give as much aid as he was able to the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, who had with
371
372
373
374
375
376
*
Sir James Mackintosh
said, that he listened on all occasions with pleasure and respect to the hon. gentleman who had just spoken, as well as to the hon. member for Derry (Mr. Dawson), considering them as the avowed and able advocates of a party which he lamented was, unfortunately, too powerful in Ireland. He did not chiefly rise on the present occasion to observe on what had fallen from them—not from any want of respect, but because much of what they had said was necessarily, on account of their situation, somewhat more tainted by the acrimony of Irish party, and somewhat more influenced by the anger of Irish factions, than a member for Great Britain could bring his mind to consider as worthy of much importance, when he came to discuss a question of such great interest to the whole empire as that at present under consideration. But he would not entirely pass over the observations of the last speaker, one of which he considered to be the most important that had fallen from any member of that House during the three nights' discussion which had taken place. He had seized the first opportunity of returning strength and of
*
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
may!
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
Mr. North
began by observing, that as a friend to the Catholics of Ireland, he rose to give his support to the proposed measure, which would have the effect of freeing them from the odium which they might incur by the violence and folly of the Catholic Association. He was surprised that the hon. and learned gentleman who had just sat down, had not confined himself to the question immediately before the House. Instead of that, he had entrenched himself in the strong bulwark of the Catholic question, from which he had scarcely deigned to look down on the actual subject in debate. Instead of following the hon. and learned gentleman through the course of his extended arguments on other points, he would go at once to that with which he had set out. The hon. and learned gentleman had stated, that he would contend for the principles of liberty and free inquiry established at the Revolution in 1688. Those principles he would not deny; but he thought it only fair to examine how far they were consistent with the proceedings of the Catholic Association. According to the principles of the Constitution then established, the Commons House of Parliament were to be the sole representatives of the people. If this were so, it followed as a necessary consequence, that any other assembly chosen, or elected, or adopted, or in any other manner constituted, affecting to represent the people, must be illegal. He wished the hon. and learned gentleman had examined and compared the acts of the Association with the spirit of the constitution; and he was satisfied he would have found them wholly at variance. The Convention act was passed for restraining the abuse of that principle, and it was most wisely enacted. An hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Denroan) had said, that the House of Commons and Peers were excepted from the operation of that act. Now, he apprehended that no such exception was to be found in that act. The Houses of parliament were mentioned only as showing the necessity of the law, and pointing out the offence. The question, then, was, did the
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
Dr. Lushington
rose amid cries of
409
410
411
412
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that exhausted as he thought the House must be with the protracted discussion that had taken place on this subject, and hopeless as he must feel that it would be in his power to add any thing to those full and powerful arguments which had already been adduced; he yet felt some anxiety to express his own sentiments on the question. And that anxiety he felt, not merely in consequence of the peculiar importance that must, in the opinion of every member, attach to the subject, but also upon some grounds applying personally to himself. He had observed —and with no ordinary satisfaction, that in what had fallen, even from those hon. gentlemen who had warmly opposed the measure in question, very little attempt—he might almost say no attempt—had been made to vindicate either the existence, or the acts, of the Catholic Association. Honourable gentlemen had said, indeed, that the existence and the acts of the Catholic Association were perfectly natural; and that they arose inevitably from the situation in which the Catholics of Ireland were placed: but no one that he had heard, had attempted decidedly to defend either the Association or its pro-
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
Mr. Hume
observed, that so much had been elicited by that day's debate, that he did not think the subject was half exhausted. He should therefore move an adjournment.
422
Mr. Secretary Canning
said, that although he was perfectly satisfied with the state of the question, and would have no objection to go instantly to a division, yet, as he should be sorry to preclude any hon. member from delivering his sentiments, he would not object to an adjournment, on the distinct understanding that the debate was to be resumed tomorrow, and was to take precedence of all other business.
The debate was further adjourned till to-morrow.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, February 15, 1825
ROMAN CATHOLIC ASSOCIATION—
Mr. Dickinson
said, he held in his hand a petition to present from the archdeacon and clergy of the archdeaconry of Bath and Wells. The petitioners imputed to the church of Rome tyranny, superstition, and violence, and viewed with alarm any further concession to the Catholics, as pregnant with danger both to the established church and the constitution. They rejoiced that the attention of parliament had been drawn to the proceedings of the Catholic Association, and particularly that most dangerous feature in the conduct of the Association, the collection of a rent. He held in his hand a similar petition from the householders of Bath and its neighbourhood. The petitioners expressed themselves hostile to any further concession to the Catholics, and complained that insult and intimidation had been held out by the Catholics towards their Protestant fellow-subjects. He would merely state, that he fully concurred in the sentiments expressed. It was his firm opinion, that no administration could succeed in procuring for the Catholics what they demanded; so strongly was the sense of the bulk of the people of England opposed to it. For himself, he had quite made up his mind against any further concession upon that subject.
Sir T. Lethbridge
said, it was his firm conviction, and in it be was joined by the great bulk of the people of England, that the Catholic question ought not to be conceded. When he spoke of the great bulk of the people, he meant not that portion which had been in that House described as low, and vile, and senseless, but men whose sentiments were entitled to the highest respect.
423
Sir M. W. Ridley
was sorry to see a petition emanate from so respectable a body, couched in such language as the petitioners had thought fit to use. He lamented that they should have allowed their feelings to have so far got the better of their judgment, as to have put their names to a petition framed in language so violent, intemperate, and unjust. How could they assert, that the Catholics of Ireland had insulted and ill-used their Protestant brethren? He certainly regretted some of the proceedings of their Association, not because they had done any injury to their Protestant fellow-countrymen, but because they were calculated to retard the progress of their own cause.
Mr. Hutchinson
said, he should abandon his duty to his country, and the empire at large, if he suffered so gross a libel to be presented, without protesting against its crying injustice. It was impossible for him to conceive a petition more fraught with falsehood, and more marked with indecent and unprovoked attack upon the Catholic population of Ireland. If petitions of this nature were to be presented, nothing but exasperation could ensue; and the consequence must be a scene of violence and religious animosity calculated to shake the kingdom to its foundation. He solemnly denied that the conduct of the Irish Catholics, either now or at any other time, had been marked by insult and ill-usage of their Protestant brethren.
Mr. Dickinson
denied that this petition contained libels or falsehoods. It was couched in firm and strong language, such as the occasion called for. As a proof that the Protestants of Ireland had been insulted, he would refer to the language used by Dr. Drumgoole, who had said, that the Protestant religion had had its time, and, like all other anomalies, would in a short time pass away.
Sir T. Lethbridge
defended the sentiments of the Petitioners. It was high time to hold firm and strong language with respect to the demands of Roman Catholics.
Sir R. Heron
defended the people of England from the calumnious charge of being hostile to the Catholic concessions, and consequently enemies to civil and religious liberty. He was convinced the great majority were most anxious to render justice to their Catholic fellow-subjects.
Mr. Mansfield
believed that the opinion
424
Ordered to lie on the table.
UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES IN IRELAND
The order of the day being read, for resuming the adjourned Debate on the motion made by Mr. Goulburn, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend certain Acts relating to Unlawful Societies in Ireland,"
Sir Robert Wilson
said, he did not know that he should have taken an active part in the discussion before the House, had it not been for an assertion frequently made by hon. gentlemen opposite, and again strongly insisted on last night by the right hon. the chancellor of the Exchequer, whose candid and ingenuous manner gave to every thing advanced by him a peculiar degree of importance. That right hon. gentleman had repeated the assurance given by those who went before him, that the people of England were hostile, not only to the existence of the Catholic Association, but also to the more important and more extensive measure commonly called the Catholic Question. This assertion was of the utmost importance, with reference to the existing state of Ireland; and it behoved those who entertained a different opinion, and especially the representatives of popular places, not to content themselves with a silent vote, either of implied hostility or tacit acquiescence, but to stand forward, to put themselves pre-eminently before their constituents, and to submit their opinions and sentiments to the judgment of the House and of the public. The right hon. the chancellor of the Exchequer had insisted, with an air of triumph, that none of the gentlemen on the opposition side of the House had ventured to assert the constitutional character of the Catholic Association. Neither was it his intention now to enter into the question, whether or not it was a constitutional body. But, the right hon. gentleman, and his majesty's ministers, had no right to taunt them with their silence on the subject, because it was a subject which they had rendered it impossible accurately to investigate. Government ought to have laid on the table those papers and documents, which alone could elucidate the question. They ought to have communicated the marquis Wellesley's dispatches respecting it. How
425
426
427
l.
428
429
430
Mr. Lockhart
said, it was a well-known maxim, that to levy money from the people without the authority of parliament was unlawful. Now, the Catholic Association had done this. They had collected money from all quarters. They had directed an instrument to be drawn up on the subject, pointing out the mode of collection, and the priests had gone round and received money from the members of their different congregations. It was an ancient practice in this realm to levy money by the same means; and, although it appeared to be a voluntary gift, it could not, if all the circumstances were considered, be fairly viewed in that light. The poor-rates, before the 43rd. of Elizabeth, were levied through the exhortation of the priests in the church. If this private levying, under the Association, were not actually compulsory it approached as near it as possible. The ignorant part of the community might think, when this rent was demanded, that they were under the same sort of compulsion as our ancestors, when they received the exhortation of the priests. The hon. member for Southwark admitted that there was danger, but he advised the legislature to put it down by conciliation. "Give them every thing they demand," said the hon. member. But he would ask what was the character of the Association, according to the description of their chief advocate? What had he said? He had told the world plainly, that the law would be evaded. Every effort of human ingenuity would be made to evade the letter of the law—while they acted against its spirit. What was to prevent this body, so resolute in breaking the law, from pressing their views further than they had thought proper to declare? What was meant by proposing to pay no church-rates in parishes where there were no Protestants? What was this but the indication of a desire to overturn the whole frame of the Protestant constitution of this realm? Gentlemen complained of the want of information on this subject. For his part, he saw no necessity for documentary evidence. The notoriety of the system was quite sufficient to justify that House in putting down the Association. They knew of the Association: they knew of its meetings; and, if these meetings were allowed to go on
431
Mr. Bankes
jun. complained that throughout the present discussion, the question of Catholic emancipation had been too much mixed up with that of the constitutional or unconstitutional nature of the Catholic Association. He hoped that the same confusion of objects would not extend itself to the legislative measure, whatever that might be, which was about to be brought before the House. Whatever opinion the House might entertain of this Association, it was gratifying to know, from recent occurrences, that its ultimate decision would be received with respect by those who were most nearly affected by it. In the debates of former nights, gentlemen had objected to the dissolution of the Association, under an apprehension, that ill consequences would follow from that measure, in consequence of the tone of intimidation adopted by that body. But the Association had declared themselves willing to submit to the law; so that the objection of intimidation should be abandoned. This declaration did them great credit; and he particularly admired the temperate speech of lord Killeen, the chairman, who was a nobleman of an excellent and upright character. An hon. and learned gentleman on the other side (sir J. Mackintosh) had endeavoured to justify the Association upon two heads of charge made against them, but without effect. First, in reference to the expression of "hatred to Orangemen;" and, secondly, that the courts of justice in Ireland had been interfered with by the Association. The first the hon. and learned gentleman endeavoured to defend
432
Sir John Brydges
said:—It appears to me, Sir, that the question now before the House is plain and simple. Are the proceedings of the Association legal orillegal? It matters not whether its members be Catholic, Protestant, or of any other faith; if this House is persuaded they are legal, we must not disturb them; if, on the contrary, it believes them to be illegal, we must amend the law, which at present is insufficient to reach them, else parliament and this kingdom must submit to be overruled by a power at present unknown and unconstitutional. But, Sir, learned members on the opposite benches astonish me when they argue, allowing at the same time that they are not enamoured with the Association, that it is nugatory and useless to put it down, because the same spirit will re-appear in another shape. Sir, am I tamely to submit to an evil this day, because, if I do not, it can but be delayed until to-morrow? Let me ask
433
Mr. Grenfell
said, that if the Catholic question was put upon the issue, of whether or not the House would interfere, when it was admitted, on all hands, that the pure stream of justice in Ireland was perverted from its course, by one influence or another, to whatever party that influence might belong, he would most decidedly take that course which prevented so unconstitutional an application of the funds of any society. So far, therefore, as the bill now before the House had that object, it should have his support; but further than this general support he did not pledge himself to give the bill, or any of its provisions, until he had made himself fully acquainted with their whole import. And now (said the hon. member), having explained the course which I propose to pursue on this particular question, I wish, in the clearest manner, to dissociate that course from the one which I shall feel it my duty to take upon the great and general question of Catholic emancipation. So long as I shall continue to have a seat in
434
Mr. Robertson
was of opinion that government should give to this subject the most mature deliberation, before they committed themselves by any decisive step. It was a measure which would be productive of the most important consequences, in one respect or another. The question was, whether the existence of the Association which this bill proposed to suppress, was not less pregnant with danger than the suppression of it, under the present circumstances of Ireland? If this proposition was proved, he thought that the law ought to be suffered to sleep. But if, on the other hand, the Association was ascertained to be the greater danger, then ought it to be put down. It was admitted upon all sides that the Catholics were fairly entitled to the rights, for the restitution of which they were exerting themselves. The Attorney-general for Ireland had characterized their claims as the claims of justice, and had defied any man to prove the contrary. But it was said that they had taken objectionable means to obtain the recognition of their claims. If the question had been asked him, whether an abstract assembly like the Catholic Association was or was not constitutional, he should not be disposed to contend for the affirmative; but every case ought to be tried on its own merits. It was impossible to look at
435
436
437
Sir John Newport
said, that, after the length to which the debate had already proceeded, he could hardly hope that any thing he could say would afford the House any information on the subject which engaged its deliberations, or have much weight on the conclusion to which it might come. He was, however, induced to trespass for a short time upon their patience, for the purpose of stating, that
438
439
Mr. Goulburn
disclaimed having made the statement which the right hon. baronet alluded to.
Mr. Plunkett
said, he had stated, that there were 2,500 priests ready to put themselves at the head of 30,000 collectors; but not for any mischievous purpose. He had stated also, or ought to have done, that one of the evil consequences of the proceedings of the Catholic Association had been, to divert the valuable services of those priests from the true interests of their parishioners for its own political purpose.
Sir J. Newport
resumed. The opinions of the right hon. gentleman were, at least, contradictory; and those opinions formed the parole evidence on which the House was called upon to legislate. He should be sorry to misrepresent any hon. gentleman; and still more so to misrepresent persons for whom he had a very sincere respect. He would take that opportunity of alluding to a gentleman whose name had been introduced into the debate of last night—a Mr. Devereux. That gentleman had lately become a member of the Catholic Association, and because he was one of the Catholic delegates in 1792, he was said to be an unfit person to join the existing society. The House ought, however, to know, that in the year 1793, that gentleman was one of the five persons delegated by the Catholics of Ireland to wait on his late majesty; by whom he had been most graciously received. After
440
441
"Our state of war is like a summer morn,
When waning clouds contend with growing light."
Mr. V. Fitzgerald
said, he was unwilling to give a silent vote on a question so momentous as that before the House, or to leave unexplained the grounds upon which that vote was founded. He thought it better, for every reason, that the past should be buried in oblivion. He would be unwilling to criticise with too great seventy the language which had been used by the members of the Catholic Association; but, when that language came to be adopted by the whole Catholic body, then it became necessary to look into it with more scrupulous attention. With respect to the abuses in the administration of justice, much had already been done, although he was free to confess that much still remained to be done. Two cases had been alluded to by his right hon. friend, which he did not think had been quite fairly treated. The pur-
442
443
Lord Althorp
said, he had listened with the utmost attention to the speech of the right hon. gentleman, but had not heard him advance a single argument in support of the bill to be brought forward. He had stated, that the object of the bill was to put down the Catholic Association, but he had not advanced a single argument to prove that the mode in which the Association ought to be put down, was by a bill of pains and penalties. It was incumbent on the right hon. gentleman, to shew that a bill, which was an infringement on the liberties of the people, was not only the best, but the only mode in which the Association could be put down. Now, it could not be denied that there was another mode of putting down the Association, and that was, redressing the wrongs of the Catholics. Parliament might put down the Association, but as long as the union of Catholic feeling continued, and he should be sorry to see that union dissolved, some other means would infallibly be discovered of shewing that there were six millions of discontented subjects in Ireland. With respect to the Association, he freely admitted that he considered its existence a great inconvenience; but it was one of those inconveniences which was the necessary consequence of the state of the law, and it was only by a change in
444
The Hon. William Lamb
characterized the attempt of the hon. and learned member for Knaresborough (sir J. Mackintosh), on a former evening, to explain away the effect and meaning of the phrase in the Catholic proclamation, which had been the subject of so much observation, as the most subtile, most sophistical, most Jesuitical he had ever heard. The direct and immediate tendency of such sophisti-
445
446
447
Sir Francis Burdett
, on his rising, was inaudible for some moments, from the rush of members into the House, and to the front of the side galleries. When we could catch the hon. baronet's meaning, we found him declaring, that he had been much struck, as he doubted not the House had been, with the eloquence and vigorous fancy of the speech of the hon. member for Hertfordshire; but at the same time, it was quite impossible that every one should not have been still more astonished at the extreme inconsistency and want of argument in that address, from the beginning to the end of it. The hon. member had kept his word, most certainly, with the persons whom he addressed, that he would detain them but a short time upon the question before the House; seeing that three-fourths of his speech had been consumed, if he might take the liberty of saying so, in the discussion of facts and of topics entirely extraneous to it. And first, the hon. member set out, as pretty nearly all the other supporters of the question had done before him, with noticing the particular words of which the utterance was made matter of reproach to Mr. O'Connell. Those who pressed this reproach seemed never to suppose such a possibility as that it might be—far less, was—extremely unfair to take disconnected sentences from the speeches or writings of any man, and form a judgment upon them, without giving him the opportunity of explanation. Was it common justice—was it common reason—to take a dozen of a man's words, which he had not the power of explaining; to put the worst possible construction of which they were capable upon them; and then to hold him convicted of the intent which that construction imputed. Why, there was no book that ever had been written—not even the book which we all held the most sacred, and in the highest reverence—the very Bible itself—which would bear that test which gentlemen talked of subjecting the writings of Mr. O'Connell to. Englishmen, surely, would not forget what had been the situation, on this very point, of one of the noblest names that ever graced their annals? They would not forget that most scandalous interpretation which a corrupt judge, and an infamous jury, had combined, to put upon the writings of Algernon Sidney—a mean-
448
449
"An open candid foe I could not hate,
Nor ev'n insult the base, in low estate;
But thriving malice, tamely to forgive—
'Tis somewhat late to be so primitive."
"By oppressions, woes, and pains,
By your sons in servile chains!"
"Be thou a spirit of health, or goblin damned,
Bring with thee airs from heaven, or blasts from hell,
Be thy intents wicked, or charitable."
450
451
452
453
454
455
——"where eldest Night
And Chaos, ancestors of Nature, hold
Eternal anarchy amidst the noise
Of endless wars, and by confusion stand.
For hot, cold, moist, and dry, four champions fierce,
Strive here for mastery, and to battle bring
Their embryo atoms; they around the flag
Of each his faction, in their several clans
Swarm populous.
To whom these most adhere
456
He rules a moment; Chaos umpire sits,
And by decision more embroils the fray
By which he reigns; next him, high arbiter,
Chance governs all" [loud cheering].
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
Mr. Secretary Canning
rose and said:
*
*
464
465
466
animus
animus,
467
hatred
468
fulcrum,
his
only
469
is
470
471
472
Sir F. Burdett
here rose to explain. He begged to state, that he had never said that his information came from the Catholic body. It came from a source which was also open to the right hon. gentleman,—the newspapers, in which the proceedings of the Catholic Association were reported. He begged to refer the right hon. gentleman to the language of their own petition, in which the petitioners expressly declared their intention to submit implicitly to the law, if the bill should pass into one; but in the mean time they expressed a hope that they might be heard by counsel against the bill. That, he be-
473
Mr. Canning.
—The hon. baronet has the advantage of me. I have not read any thing similar to what is now cited.
Sir F. Burdett
stated, that his information was derived from sources that were quite as open to the right hon. gentleman as to himself.
Mr. Canning
. I do not happen to have seen any newspaper statements at all, excepting those of the most general kind, upon the subject. The declaration which is now alluded to, I am to understand, then, to be conditional.
Mr. Brougham
, referring to the language of the petition, declared, that the petitioners affirmed most positively, that as soon as the bill had received the royal assent, and passed into a law, they would yield all obedience to it; but that in the meanwhile—
Mr. Canning
. It appears, then, that this profession of intended obedience is coupled with conditions. Now, to those conditions (without, for the present, proceeding in any manner to argue them) the House may or may not be prepared to assent.
Mr. Brougham
(reading from the petition itself) said, they proposed to render unconditional submission to the bill whenever it should have passed into a law; reserving to themselves, in the mean time, the right to adopt, with the permission of the House, the best and most legal method of representing their grievances, namely, of being heard by counsel at the bar against the bill.
Mr. Canning
. Then I am to understand that this is a promise of unconditional submission?
Mr. Brougham
. Most undoubtedly.
Mr. Canning
. —The fact then, Sir, is clearly stated, that the Catholic Association means to submit to the law; and after this information, I repeat, I will not persevere in the course of argument, which, had the intentions of the petitioners been at all doubtful, I should have thought it necessary to pursue. I meant to shew to the House, that the very circumstance of the Catholic Association being, (as it was boasted to be) in possession of an entire mastery and controul over the Catholic body, afforded a cogent reason, not for refusing to allow this bill to be brought in, but on the contrary, for passing it without delay. This opinion, Sir, I formed on two grounds; the first embracing that general
474
475
476
is established permanently and inviolably,"
which the said United Church forms an essential part,"
477
public properly,
at the disposal
and for such other purposes
478
479
480
481
when
not
resisting
grant
present
482
483
did
484
were
in
out
485
*
*
Extract from lord Castlereagh's speech the same night. "With respect to the vote I shall give to night, my right hon. friend (Mr. Perceval) has truly stated that the cabinet are unanimous in this opinion that the question of concession to the Catholics could not now be conveniently agitated, nor any enquiry gone into upon the subject of the legal disabilities of his majesty's Catholic subjects in Ireland, with the hope of coming to any ultimate and satisfactory arrangement."—See First Series of this work, Vol. xxii. pp. 956 & 1004.
486
resist
consideration
487
consideration
united
488
against
consideration
against
not
united against
created to carry
489
*
united against
*
Lord Castlereagh said in answer, That upon a former occasion, they had thought, inclusive even of those who had been favourable to the measure, that the present was not the time for discussing that question: but that it had been resolved upon as a principle, that the discussion of this question should be left free from all influence on the part of the government, and that every member of that government should be left to the free and unbiassed suggestions of his own conscientious discretion. [See First Series, Vol. xxii. pp. 394 and 395.]
490
*
*
to the stability of the Protestant Establishment;
491
present
492
493
494
495
Laudo manentem;"
"I can applaud her,—while she's kind;—
But when she dances in the wind,
And shakes her wings and will not stay,—
I puff the prostitute away."
496
—"Stetimus tela aspera contrá
Contulimusque manus: experto credite, quantus
In clypeum assurgat, quo turbine torqueat hastam."
497
"Ex illo fluere, ac retro sublapsa referri Spes Danaüm."—
Mr. Brougham
spoke to the following effect:—I can assure the House, that in rising at the close of this long and protracted debate—not protracted, however, a moment beyond what the vast importance of the subject required—and after the splendid eloquence which has been displayed on the question before us, I feel the necessity of compressing my remarks into as short a space as possible; and the more so, as I have for some days been so busily engaged elsewhere, that I am by no means disposed to make any exertion greater than that which the due discharge of my duty in this House demands. It is my intention, therefore, to grapple at once with the main bearings of the question; to strip it of every thing extraneous; to decline all those advantages resulting from the introduction of incidental subjects, of which my predecessors have so freely availed themselves; and, above all, to refrain from any
498
499
500
501
502
503
"———Arcades ambo, Et cantare pares et respondere parati."
504
505
"My wound is great because it is so small;"
"Then 'twould be greater were it none at all."
506
507
508
509
d.
d.
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
Mr. Plunkett
here interrupted the hon. and learned member.—I stated, in my speech, that the argument from the other side was this: "Why do you pass this bill when you can avoid it by granting emancipation?" I replied, that the first question was, whether emancipation could be obtained; but I did not say that that was the only question; I did not state, that emancipation would dispense with the putting down of the Catholic Association. Neither did I assert, that emancipation was never to be granted. On the contrary, I observed, that my apprehensions of a long postponement were not so great as others had expressed.
Mr. Brougham
.—The correction given by the right hon. and learned gentleman makes little or no difference. I thought he said, that if Catholic emancipation were granted, this bill would not be necessary; and he does not now take upon himself to state, that if the claims were conceded, it would be required. His argument is this; "My reason for voting for this bill is, because I feel its paramount importance: because Catholic emancipation being, for the present, out of the question, it is necessary to provide against the consequences of refusing it." This, I repeat, is most ominous for the future tranquillity of Ireland. Had lord Londonderry been alive, feeling that concession could not be made, and that convulsion must be the result of refusal, he would at once have recommended the adoption of military measures to meet the threatened danger; and I know not whether I would not rather see precautions of that kind adopted, which at all events must be temporary, than witness the passing of a bill like the present, which makes so violent an inroad on the constitution. Ministers say this, "Because we do not chuse to do what is right—because we choose to withhold the real cure—because the grievances of the Irish are not now, and therefore never, to be remedied, we will put down the Association—we will choke the language of complaint, and, instead of redressing the wrong, we will stifle the language of resentment." I say redress the wrong, and the complaint will cease. The Attorney-general says,
518
519
Mr. Butterworth
rose, notwithstanding the reiterated cries of "Question!" and persisted in attempting to obtain a hearing. We could only collect, that he accused Mr. Brougham of having fallen into a great mistake, respecting the Methodist conference money. The committee he had mentioned had been appointed with a specific object. The money was devoted to a different purpose; and no collection had been made since 1811. The hon. member, produced a letter, which he held up to the House for some time, amid cries of "question, question," and "read, read." The hon. member commenced the reading of the letter; but he had not proceeded far before a laugh was excited by some member exclaiming "Amen." Mr. B. persevered, and read part of the
520
Mr. Goulburn
rose to reply. He had, he said, been charged with having made a false statement respecting two transactions to which he had alluded in his speech. He had mentioned them, to show the ground upon which he disapproved of the principle of the Catholic Association, which, contrary to the old maxim of English jurisprudence, presumed people to be guilty before they were tried. He was, however, charged with having misrepresented one of these, because he had not stated, that Mr. Blackburn, the judge before whom that trial was had, had complimented Mr. O'Gorman for his conduct in the prosecution. Now, he had said nothing against Mr. O'Gorman; and his conduct, whatever it had been, did not alter the proceeding against which he had objected.
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, he complained only of the right hon. gentleman's having concealed that fact.
Mr. Goulburn
resumed. The hon. and learned gentleman, then, thought it was a fact necessary to be stated, that the counsel for the prosecution had conducted himself well. The House should, however, hear Mr. Blackburn's report of that trial. He said, "A trial of unusual interest has been held before me, in which a soldier was charged with having administered illegal oaths. It lasted seven hours, and at the conclusion of it the man was acquitted by the unanimous verdict of forty-three magistrates. I regret to say that the evidence for the prosecution appeared to be a foul conspiracy, to accuse and criminate the soldier, and that the most abominable means were resorted to for effecting the object of the conspiracy" [cheers]. If any gentleman had before this, supposed that he (Mr. Goulburn) had given any colour to this case, he asked them now to acquit him, on the evidence of Mr. Blackburn's report. With respect to the other case alluded to by the learned member for Winchelsea, he did not know from what source it was the learned gentleman obtained his information. He as-
521
Mr. Brougham
said, he had it from the leading counsel on that prosecution.
Mr. Goulburn
said, it was impossible to answer such assertions off-hand; but he doubted the fact altogether: first, on account of the well-known character of the judge; and secondly, because there had been no allusion to it, in any of the proceedings of the Catholic Association, although six months had elapsed since the trial.
Mr. V. Fitzgerald
said, that he was present at the trial of the soldier, and could state that there was no division of sentiment amongst the magistrates as to the innocence of the party.
The question being then put, "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend certain Acts relating to Unlawful Societies in Ireland," the House divided: Ayes 278: Noes 123. Majority 155. The bill was then brought in, and read a first time; and at half after three in the morning the House adjourned.
List of the Minority.
Abercromby, hon. J.
Crompton, S.
Althorp, vise.
Curwen, J. C.
Barham, J. F.
Davies, T. H.
Baring, A.
Denman, T.
Baring, H.
Dundas, hon. T.
Baring, sir T.
Ebrington, vise.
Barnard, visc.
Ellice, E.
Barrett, S. B. M.
Ellis, hon. G. A.
Beaumont, T. W.
Evans, W.
Bective, lord
Farrand, R.
Benett, J.
Fitzgerald, rt. hon. M.
Bennet, hon. H. G.
Fitzroy, lord C.
Bentinck, lord W.
Foley, J. H. H.
Benyon, B.
Folkestone, visc.
Bernal, R.
Frankland, R.
Birch, J.
French, A.
Brougham, H.
Graham, S.
Browne, Dom.
Grattan, J.
Burdett, sir F.
Guise, sir B. W.
Bury, visc.
Gurney, H.
Calcraft, J.
Gurney, R. H.
Calcraft, J. H.
Hamilton, lord A.
Calvert, C
Heron, sir R.
Carew, R. S.
Hill, lord A.
Carter, J.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Caulfield hon. H.
Honywood, W. P.
Cavendish, H.
Howard, H.
Cavendish, C.
Hume, J.
Chaloner, R.
Hurst, R.
Clifton, lord
Hutchinson, hon. C. H.
Coffin, sir I.
Colborne, N. W. R.
Johnson, W. A.
Cradock, S.
Kingsborough, lord
522
Knight, R.
Robarts, G. J.
Lamb, hon. G.
Robinson, sir G.
Lambton, J. G.
Rowley, sir W.
Leader, W.
Robertson, A.
Leycester, R.
Rumbold, C. E.
Lushington, S.
Scarlett, J.
Maberly, J.
Scott, S.
Maberly, W. L.
Sefton, earl of
Macdonald, J.
Smith, J.
Mackintosh, sir J.
Smith, G.
Mahon, hon. S.
Smith, W.
Marjoribanks, S.
Stuart, lord P. J.
Martin, R.
Sykes, D.
Maxwell, J.
Talbot, R. W.
Monck, J. B.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Moore, P.
Wall, C. B.
Newport, sir J.
Warre, J. A.
Normanby, visc.
Whitbread, W. H.
O'Brien, sir E.
Whitbread, S. C.
Ord, W.
White, col.
Palmer, C.
White, S.
Palmer, C. F.
Wilson, sir R.
Parnell, sir H.
Winnington, sir T. E.
Pelham, J. C.
Wood, M.
Phillips, G. sen.
Wrottesley, sir J.
Phillips, G. It. jun.
Wyvill, M.
Ponsonby, hon. F. C.
TELLERS.
Power, R.
Duncannon, visc.
Powlett, hon. W.
Nugent, lord
Poyntz, W. S.
PAIRED OFF.
Pym, F.
Haldimand, W.
Rice, T. S.
Robarts, A. W.
Ridley, sir M. W.
Wilkins, W.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, February 17, 1825.
PETITION OF CATHOLIC ASSOCIATION
Mr. Brougham
rose to present a petition which seemed to him to be entitled to the most serious attention of the House. It was signed by a great number of persons who, although they were members of the Catholic Association, approached the House only in their individual capacity, the forms of parliament not allowing them to petition in any other form. This, then, although it was the petition of the Catholic Association of Ireland, came before the House only as the petition of the individuals by whom it was signed. They consisted of a large number of peers, a larger number of persons of distinguished though inferior rank, six prelates of the Roman Catholic church, three archbishops, and three bishops, and a very numerous class of other individuals of distinction, as regarded their fortune, their talents, and their influence over the great body of the Roman Catholic population. These petitioners humbly represented, that they had learned, with deep apprehension, that it was in contempla-
523
524
525
526
527
Mr. Hume
said, that the promoters of the most atrocious bill ever introduced into parliament, had grounded the measure mainly upon two or three words in an address from the Catholic Association, The words were "by the hatred you bear the Orangemen." On bringing in the bill, the right hon. Secretary had read these words as if they meant by the hatred the Catholics bore to the whole of the Protestant community in Ireland. The words had reference to the practices of the Orange party to entrap the ignorant Catholics into the commission of crimes, for which they were afterwards visited with the penalties of the law, and which practices had become so notorious as to justify the declaration which had been made. He was instructed to represent to the House, that every statement which had been made to the disadvantage of the Catholic Association could be proved on oath to be totally groundless.
Ordered to lie on the table.
Mr. Brougham
then presented a petion against the Unlawful Societies bill, from Newry, and gave notice, that he would, to-morrow, move, on behalf of the
528
GAME LAWS.]
Mr. S. Wortley
Sir J. Shelley
wished that a clear fortnight should be allowed to elapse between the introduction of the bill and the third reading.
Sir J. Brydges
objected to the principle of the bill, and said, he would endeavour to strangle the measure in its infancy.
Mr. R. Colborne
thought the present game laws were open to so many objections, and that any attempt to amend them ought to have a fair trial.
Mr. Curwen
said, that the evils of the present system were obvious. The gaols were filled with poachers; game was destroyed to a considerable extent, and was, in many places, openly sold, notwithstanding the penalties. He highly approved of the general principle of the bill.
Mr. Secretary Peel
was also favourable to the measure. It would have a beneficial effect in diminishing poaching. He wished, however, that the hon. member had confined himself to legalizing the sale of game, and giving the owner of the ground a property in them, without extending his views to any alterations of the qualification for sporting. It was an attempt to do too much last year, that the failure of the bill was to be attributed.
Mr. Tennyson
also recommended a more gradual reform in the Game laws. This bill went too far. He sincerely hoped, that the illegality of traps to catch the unwary as well as the guilty would be put beyond all doubt.
Mr. Lockhart
deprecated the use of traps for the protection of game. They were a disgrace to the country.
Mr. H. Sumner
would resist the bill, as he wholly disapproved of its object.
Mr. Bright
was favourable to this alteration of the law, and lamented that the right hon. gentleman should have said any thing in favour of spring guns.
Mr. Peel
denied that he had done so. On the contrary, the practice of setting spring guns in open woods for the preservation of game, met with his decided disapprobation.
Sir R. Heron
was for limiting the bill to legalizing the sale of game.
529
Mr. Cripps
was of opinion that the bill as proposed went too far.
Mr. Benett
, of Wilts, supported the measure. He did not believe that spring guns were set in any woods by game preservers in the West of England. He should hold himself guilty of murder, if life were lost on his grounds, in consequence of the employment of these engines.
Mr. F. Palmer
approved of the bill, and attributed the recent increase of poaching to the low wages which labourers received [hear].
Mr. S. Wortley
, speaking from experience, was of opinion, that the setting of spring guns prevented scenes which would be ten times more fatal than any which could result from them. If the question was narrowed to the sale of game, he would wash his hands of the bill. His first principle was, to give every occupier of land a right to the game thereon, and protection against the poacher and trespasser. His second was, to make the sale of game legal.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
TURNPIKE TRUSTS.]
Lord Lowther
, in pursuance of notice, moved for the appointment of a select committee to inquire into the receipts, expenditure, and management of the several Turnpike Trusts in the county of Middlesex. In order to shew the necessity of investigation, the noble lord entered into some statements regarding the trusts in the neighbourhood of the metropolis. For three miles and a half of road to the north of London, there were three acts of parliament, three sets of commissioners, and ten turnpike-gates. Not less than 200,000
l
530
l
Sir E. Knatchbull
admitted, that the noble lord had made out a case requiring investigation. If the object was, to throw the turnpike trusts into the hands of government, or to place all the roads under the superintendence of Mr. M'Adam, he should decidedly resist such a course; convinced that it would only lead to corruption and jobs, which he always had opposed.
Mr. Sumner
said, that the greatest injustice would be done to individuals, if they were not allowed to vindicate themselves before a committee from the charges brought against them. He therefore should not oppose the motion.
Mr. Hume
thought the inquiries of the committee should be extended to all turnpike trusts within ten miles of the metropolis. Turnpikes existed in all directions, from the very centre of the town, and it was highly desirable that the committee should take into its consideration the expediency of removing them to a greater distance, if not of doing away with them altogether. The expense levied upon the public within four miles of the metropolis amounted to not less than 200,000
l
l
Mr. Maberly
thought the public indebted to the noble lord for having brought this subject under the consideration of parliament. He was persuaded
531
Sir T. Baring
approved of the noble lord's motion. The tax on the public from this source amounted to no less than a million and a half, which sum was disposed of by irresponsible persons, amenable to no tribunal. When a turnpike bill passed that House, the number of respectable names introduced into it, appeared to afford a sufficient security for the proper expenditure of the money; but the fact was, that the actual disposal of the money devolved on persons of a very different description, who too frequently applied it to their own purposes.
The motion, as amended, was then agreed to.
USURY LAWS REPEAL BILL.]
Mr. Serjeant
Onslow moved the order of the day for the second reading of this bill.
Mr. Calcraft
said, he felt it his duty to oppose this measure, which had now, for some time been annually brought under the consideration of parliament. The present prosperity of the country, and the convenient state of the money market, furnished of themselves, in his opinion, a strong argument against the repeal of the existing laws. It had been said, that it was impossible to oppose this measure on general principles of policy, for that it was the soundest policy to allow every man perfect liberty to dispose of every description of property in any manner he thought fit. In the expediency of that general principle he was disposed to concur. But, to this principle they had numerous exceptions daily before their eyes. For instance, a man in building a House was compelled to build his wall of a particular thickness to guard against fire. A man was not allowed to keep a gambling table. Both the gamblers and the keepers of those Houses were restricted by law. Only a few days ago the court of King's-Bench had imposed a fine of 5,000
l
532
Mr. Hume
said, he was clearly of opinion that the House would do well to adopt the recommendation in the king's Speech, and remove all those restrictions which interfered with commercial transactions. He remembered, that when it was proposed to remove the restrictions on the trade between England and Ireland, it was argued by some gentlemen, that to do so would be ruinous to the country. But, the consequence was, that when only a part of them had been removed, the beneficial result was so manifest, that the Irish merchants petitioned for the entire removal of the restrictions; and this cause, perhaps more than any other, had enabled Ireland to bear that full tide of prosperity which was now flowing in and upon her. The hon. member next alluded to the measure said to be in progress in the other House, with respect to the speculations now afloat in the city. His hon. friend had described the proposed measure to be the project of a wise man; but he must state, that it appeared to him exceedingly absurd, and it would surprise him very
533
s.
l
534
Mr. Cripps
said, he should oppose the bill. The country had experienced the benefits of the Usury laws. Under them it had attained its present height of prosperity and glory. Would they, then, with a rash hand, break down a system which had been attended with such beneficial consequences?
Mr. John Smith
said, that the argument of the hon. gentleman was a curious, and to him an inconclusive one. Because, during the existence of these laws the country had prospered, therefore it would be unwise to touch them. Surely, the hon. gentleman did not mean to say, that every law which was in operation during the period when the country was in a flourishing state, was so perfect, that it would be endangering that prosperity to alter or repeal it. A noble lord had just made a proposition respecting turnpikes and tolls, which he was satisfied would prove of benefit to the community. Now, would it not be deemed an irrational mode of proceeding, if some gentlemen were to say, that, because the country was in a flourishing state during the existence of the turnpike laws, it would be very hazardous to interfere with them. The only question was this—will the repeal of these laws be useful or hurtful to the community? AH other arguments were idle. In his opinion, the restriction was mischievous. Money was a commodity which would be sure, like other commodities, to obtain its value; and if a law settled the rate at which the use of it was to be paid for below its value, its owners would find means of evading that law. Take, for example, the case of a tradesman who was pressed for money, and supplied his immediate wants by drawing a bill, and had not the means of taking up the bill when it became due. This was a case which frequently occurred, and as the law was imperative on him, what did he do? Why, he went to the banker or holder of the bill, requested him to keep it another week, and offered to give nine or ten guineas for the accommodation. If this man could have borrowed the money of his neighbour, at six or seven per cent, he might have been saved from this sort of ruin. This question had been agitated several years ago, out of the House; and there, at least, it had been finally settled. Mr. Bentham had
535
The Solicitor-General
began by saying, that he meant to propose, by way of amendment, that the bill be read a second time this day six months. He had read the works mentioned by the last speaker twice over; he had also read the evidence and the report of the committee, and he had come to the conclusion, that the repeal of the Usury laws would be injurious. He did not say, therefore, "continue these laws, because the country has prospered under them;" but, "continue them because the repeal would be injurious." If it could be proved to him that the repeal would be beneficial, he would give his vote for it. He met the hon. member, therefore, entirely on the ground of utility, and would endeavour to shew that on this ground the law ought not to be repealed. The borrowers might be divided into three classes —mercantile borrowers, landed borrowers, and persons who did not belong to either of these classes, and who might be considered as general borrowers. He would first take the case of mercantile borrowers, and, if the law applied only to them, he would not deny that the repeal would be injurious. Mercantile borrowers generally obtained a loan to make a profit of it. They did not borrow of necessity, but they borrowed to trade; and if they could make 10 or 12 per cent on the money borrowed, he saw no reason why the lender might not ask them to pay him 7 or 8 per cent. But if they were allowed to demand this, was there any landed gentlemen so ignorant, did any member of that House possess so foggy an understanding, as not to see that, if the monied man could lend to the trader, at a higher rate than five per cent, he would not lend to him at that sum? It was one advantage to the lender, that he could recal his capital at pleasure, or get it back at a short notice. Now, when a man lent
536
537
l
l
s.
Mr. Serjeant Onslow
combatted the illustration of the Solicitor-general, drawn from the corn laws, and contended, that this was meant not as restriction against, but in favour of, the landed interest. He hoped his learned friend would not raise this argument in favour of the corn laws, as he would find it not very palatable to the country gentlemen. His learned friend had talked as if money-lenders were men who never looked but at the rate of interest promised them. Such a class of men had never existed. All who had money to lend, looked both at the rate of interest and the security for paying it; and it had long been the case, that men with a less certain security, such as mercantile men,
538
539
Mr. Robertson
opposed the proposed repeal, and contended that it would be highly impolitic to do away with a fixed rate of interest. Such a principle was at variance with the doctrine of Adam Smith, which it had of late been too much the fashion to condemn. He would lay down a rule which he thought would satisfy all who were conversant with this subject. There was in every country a certain rate of profit in commercial transactions. In this country he took it to be about 7 per cent. In retail trade it was, of course, more. Now, a man who borrowed at 5 per cent had 2 per cent profit; but if he gave 7 per cent interest, he must be inevitably ruined. Yet if the usury laws were repealed, he would be induced to do so; and once driven into that condition, there would be no escape for him. It was the duty of the legislature to protect this class, and he should therefore vote against the repeal. He contended, that all civilized nations had found it necessary to protect their subjects from usury, and fix the rate of interest. It was a departure from this salutary principle, in some of the free states of the continent, where a higher rate than 5 per cent had been allowed by the law, which had caused their ruin.
Captain Maberly
supported the bill, because he considered the present system of laws to be unjust, impolitic, and open to constant evasion.
Mr. Alderman Heygate
opposed the bill, as injurious to the various interests of the country, and especially ruinous to the small traders. The present law was not constantly evaded. If it were, this bill would not have been deemed necessary by those who had now pressed it upon the House.
Mr. Maberly
maintained the necessity of a repeal of the usury laws.
Mr. T. Wilson
contended that no case had been made out for the bill; and that, if carried, it would unhinge all the existing pecuniary relations in the country.
Mr. W. Smith
contended, that the bill would not be detrimental to the interests of the country, since none of the ministers, who were the guardians of those interests were present to oppose it. He looked upon their absence to be a convincing proof that there was no danger in the measure.
Mr. Wynn
said, he had so often stated his sentiments to be favourable to this bill, that he should not have risen to say a word in defence of it, had it not been for
540
Mr. Bright
was exceedingly afraid of the removal of these laws, not on account of the country gentleman or merchant, but the influence they had on the comforts of the middling and lower classes.
The House divided: For the amendment 45. Against it 40. Majority 5. The second reading was accordingly put off for six months.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, February 18, 1825
THAMES QUAY.]
Colonel Trench
presented a petition for a bill for the erection of a Quay on the banks of the river Thames.
Sir Joseph Yorke
observed, that the House were, perhaps, not aware that this petition regarded the Quay which his hon. friend, by whom it was presented, had projected. He trusted, however, that his hon. friend would not sacrifice the substance for the shadow, or allow his taste utterly to supersede his judgment. He was a great admirer of his hon. friend's talents. No man wrote better; few men
541
The petition was referred to a committee.
UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES IN IRELAND
Mr. Spring Rice
presented a petition from the Catholics of Limerick, against the bill. The petitioners declared, that the Catholic Association had contributed, in the greatest degree, to the tranquillity of Ireland. In the prayer of the petition, he most heartily concurred.
Sir J. Newport
presented several petitions in favour of the Catholic Association. The English members, he said, might satisfy themselves that the bill would not affect Ireland merely; but would establish a principle on which the liberties of Englishmen might, at some future period be invaded. The measure was called temporary; but it was evident that it would be co-existent with the unjust denial of Catholic rights.
Sir T. Lethbridge
said, he had been commissioned to present the petition of about 3,000 inhabitants of the city of Wells, and its vicinity, stating their alarm at the proceedings of the Association, and that, although they were friends of religious toleration to its utmost extent, they were averse to granting political power to papists: they contended also, that the tendency of the proceedings of the Association was, to bring about a revolution in the country, and they prayed, therefore, that measures should be persevered in for putting it down. In that prayer he entirely concurred, and he was quite sure, that if the bill were not passed, the table would be covered with petitions from all parts of the kingdom, expressing the fears of the inhabitants of the dangers likely to arise from the continuance of the Association. He saw nothing in the pro-
542
Mr. Brougham
wished to take that opportunity of putting the House in possession of some information regarding the petition which the hon. baronet had presented. The mode in which a petition had been got up, and the arts used to obtain signatures to it, would not influence his vote on the question of receiving it; since it was the undoubted right of the subject to petition. That under consideration was one of the very few on behalf of the foolish clamour of "No Popery," and "the church in danger," and a few anecdotes respecting it would serve to shew the weight the invaluable document deserved. His information upon this subject came from a gentleman of consider-able rank in the neighbourhood of Wells, and not very likely to misrepresent the facts. The petition had been sent forth from the office of an attorney, the agent of the hon. baronet. He did not say that the petition was prepared by the attorney in his capacity of agent, but it certainly issued from the office, or perhaps, more properly, officina of a respectable solicitor, who happened also to be the agent of the hon. baronet. His correspondent further mentioned, that this individual had interested himself in the matter as agent also of the Wells' party, which was raising the cry of "No Popery!" to serve an electioneering purpose against the present members, Messrs. Tudway and Taylor. It appeared that this agent had ridden many miles to get signatures to the petition. In one instance, "said the writer of the letter," he stopped at a school close to my gate, and asked the master of it to get him all the names he could, without even giving him a copy of the petition. The schoolmaster to oblige him, agreed to do it, and forthwith put down all the names of the scholars who could not write, and induced those who could write to affix their signatures. Some of the boys afterwards went home bragging that they had signed for brick and
543
Sir T. Lethbridge
felt great surprise at the contents of the letter from which the learned gentleman had derived his information. He was not aware of any unworthy practices in getting up the petition; and it was rather extraordinary that the learned gentleman had not given the name of his correspondent. It might be found that his anecdotes were derived from no better authority than a country school-master, or, perhaps, one of his pupils. The petition which he had just presented had been signed, to his knowledge, by magistrates and clergy, and by some of the most respectable yeomanry in the neighbourhood of Wells.
Mr. Brougham
fully acquitted the hon. baronet of all knowledge of the proceedings to which he had adverted. The letter was written by a person of rank, fortune, and high connections, and not by a school-master.
544
Mr. M. Fitzgerald
presented a petition from Kilnemana, in favour of the Catholic Association. It was signed by persons of rank and of great landed property, and, among others, by lord Kenmare, who was descended from ancestors distinguished for their devoted loyalty. Several of his near relatives, after having bled for their country in her battles, had returned to Ireland on the peace, and had put themselves at the head of their tenantry to preserve tranquillity. The appearance of the name of this nobleman to a petition in favour of the Association, was a proof that it possessed the general confidence of the Roman Catholics.
Sir F. Burdett
said, that he had been intrusted with a petition from several members of the Catholic Association, praying a hearing at the bar against a penal enactment which affected all their fellow-subjects, and inflicted upon them an unmerited stigma. As the subject was about to be discussed, he should content himself with saying, that justice to the petitioners, and even to the House, required that before sentence were passed, the parties accused should be heard.
UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES IN IRELAND
Mr. Brougham
said:— In rising to submit to the House the proposition of which I gave notice last night, I feel the anxiety naturally to be expected in an individual who, in the absence of a more powerful advocate, undertakes to call the attention of the House to one of the most important subjects that has ever been brought forward. At almost any other period, and with almost any ordinary measure, so far from regarding the motion with which I shall conclude as matter of argument and grave moment, I should rather have considered it a mere matter of course. In all common cases it seems to have been consistent with the forms and practice of the House, and befitting its wisdom and its justice, never to condemn any party until they have been heard. If accusation has been brought forward, the course, I apprehend, has been, not to refuse the party an opportunity of refuting what had been laid to his charge. But, from some symptoms of a disposition to hurry and impetuosity, which I fancied I discerned in the manner in which the measure against the Catholic Association was propounded, my mind has received
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
Sir F. Burdett
seconded the motion.
Mr. Wynn
objected to the motion, on the general principles of the usage which affected all these questions. The learned gentleman appeared to suppose that the opposition to his motion would arise from a desire on the part of ministers to press the bill with unusual speed. He hardly thought that a fair conclusion, after the patience that had been exhibited during the protracted debate of four nights, and though he did not attach any blame to those gentlemen who had so prolonged the debate, yet, he might fairly use it as an argument, to shew that there was no inclination in government to press the bill. Even after that debate, the second reading had not been immediately pressed, but a notice of a week had been given, and at the suggestion of the learned gentleman, a further delay had been consented to. The chief complaint of the petitioners was, that they were to be condemned unheard; but, if he had found
552
553
Sir Joseph Yorke
observed, that though he had not been accustomed to speak on the affairs of Ireland, he had thought much about them. If, indeed, the learned gentleman could prove to him, that by hearing counsel, the two countries would shake hands, never to separate, he would sacrifice every thing to such a result; but he had happened to hear the same thing repeated many times these thirty years, and had never yet witnessed any effects springing from it; neither did he think, that if it were rejected, it would cause any sensation in Ireland. In 1798, during the disturbances in Ireland, he had commanded a frigate off Cape Clear, for the purpose of preventing foreign supplies being landed on that island; and it had been observed to him, that that country would never be quiet until it had been twenty-four hours under water. In fact, much had been done for Ireland. Out of the fifty-four millions that were raised for the support of the state, only one-seventeenth part fell upon her; and a few years ago, when her population was in a state of starvation 500,000
l
554
Mr. Hobhouse
was certainly surprised at what had fallen from the last speaker, though he was at the same time glad to know to what lengths he was inclined to go, knowing, as he did, how good a heart the gallant admiral possessed. It appeared to him, that the measure about to be adopted was extremely ill suited to the time, and he began entirely to despair for that ill-fated people, though he begged leave to inform the gallant admiral, that the manner in which he had supported the bill was not one for which the right hon. Secretary for Ireland would thank him. It was not the language that had been used by that right hon. gentleman, nor by the Attorney-general for Ireland, nor by the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, whose opinion must be taken in some degree as to the justice necessary for the Catholics of Ireland. He did not mean justice in its fullest extent, but the justice that was to be allowed by the Protestants to the Catholics of Ireland. Had the Catholic Association done nothing more than the promoting the present inquiry, it would have done much for its suffering country. It had been urged against them, that they had used every method to call the attention of government, and, was this to be a reason for not attending to their prayers? He thought that, instead of finding fault with such endeavours, they were rather deserving of the highest praise at the hands of the House, for their continued exertions. He had not been aware that the gallant admiral had been engaged in the cruizing party off Ireland; but such being the case, he could not but think it was a pity that his cruizing had not been to a little more purpose, for the French, in spite of all the skill displayed by the gallant
555
556
557
The Solicitor-General
contended, that no sufficient ground had been shown for acceding to the prayer of the present petition; and that it ought not to be acceded to if it could be proved that there was such a basis of facts as warranted the House in legislating against the Catholic Association. Now, there were many facts which were admitted, or which no attempt had been made to deny. In the first place, his hon. and learned friend opposite had admitted, that the Association virtually represented the people of Ireland. Next it had not been denied, that the avowed purpose for which the Association had been formed, was the redress of all grievances, local or political, which affected the Catholics of Ireland. Consequently, the existence of a body acting not indeed in form, but virtually and substantially, for the redress of all local and general grievances, was a fact admitted on both sides. The hon. member for Westminster had taunted the government with legislating upon a mere allegation of words spoken; but this he denied. The resolutions of the Association, which had been ventilated through all parts of Ireland, furnished decisive evidence of this fact. In the next place it had been substantially admitted that the Catholic Association had appropriated to themselves a perfect financial character; for he considered the distinction which had been taken between
558
559
560
561
562
Mr. Spring Rice
said, he could assure the House and the hon. and learned gentleman, that if they would accede to the motion before them, very different evidence would be adduced from any thing they had yet heard; he was authorised to say that there were at that moment in London most respectable witnesses willing to submit to the most rigorous cross-examination, and whose evidence would prove that there was nothing in the acts of the Association to justify the passing of this law, not a single document proposed or accepted by the Catholic Association, from the first moment of its institution up to the present hour, that was not at present within reach of the House; and he implored the House as they valued their own characters, not to rest satisfied with the worst evidence when they had it in their power to obtain the best. His right hon. friend (Mr. Wynn) had said, that if this bill was levelled directly and solely at the Catholic Association, the petitioners might then have some right to apply to be heard: he thanked his right hon. friend for the admission, which was conclusive in favour of the motion, for he would appeal to the House, and to every
563
564
565
566
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he should studiously avoid those topics which were connected with the general question that had occupied their attention for four nights. He must first ask himself, is the claim of the petitioners founded in justice? Is it consistent with parliamentary usage? Is it demanded in equity? and if he should find that the demand was not supported on either of these grounds, he was prepared to resist it. He wished to meet the question fairly; was the claim consistent with justice, with parliamentary usage, or was a compliance required to supply the defects of evidence? With respect to precedents, although he did not think this should be conclusive, yet, if he found they ran in one uniform stream, it was a strong implication that the general conduct of the House had been regulated with a due regard to the interests of the country. The gentlemen opposite had, in his judgment, completely failed in adducing a precedent strictly applicable to the case. He conceived the general rule to be this —if a general measure be introduced, in which parties feel their pecuniary interests affected, they have a right to be heard; the House is then like a court, adjudicating on civil rights, and they would not proceed without hearing the parties. The splendid precedent adduced by the learned gentleman, of the hawkers and pedlars, which crowned the climax of his authorities had, in his opinion, completely failed. What was the fact? A bill was introduced, affecting the interests of a certain class of subjects, and they prayed, to do what? to be exempt from certain penalties that all the rest of the community were subject to? No, but which actually deprived them of bread. But, so far from this being a case in point, the House refused to hear them.
Mr. Brougham
said, the petitioners
567
Mr. Peel
, having referred to the journals, said, that he admitted his mistake; but this had no reference whatever to the present question, for that was a measure to impose a great additional duty upon a certain class of persons, and in conformity with the usage of the House, the parties were heard. If the present prayer was complied with, it would be impossible hereafter to refuse when any measure was proposed for the tranquillity of the country. When it was proposed to suspend the habeas corpus act, a similar application might be made. The consequence would be, that instead of discharging their deliberative functions, the time of the House would be occupied in hearing the eloquent speeches of counsel. It was well known, that the paramount object with every counsel was, not any general interest, or any enlarged principles, but the interests and designs of his client. The propriety and absolute necessity of this practice had been very emphatically enforced by the learned gentleman himself, on the occasion of the proceedings against the late Queen. He would not stop to dispute such doctrine; but, if that principle were acted upon, what would be the situation of independent members of that House? They who were not accustomed to discussion would be overborne by the eloquence of counsel. As to the advantages that would result from such a practice, he might refer the House to what took place last year, on the occasion of the Marine Insurance bill. He should not easily forget what he felt on entering the House and beholding six counsel, with large wigs, ranged at their bar. If he were to proceed by the rule of three, he should say, if the Marine Insurance company required the attendance of so many counsel, how many would the Catholic Association require? However, on the occasion to which he referred, after four counsel had been heard, there were some very supplicating looks to the remaining two counsel; but those looks were all in vain: they said that their duty to their clients compelled them to offer their sentiments to the House; and in that several hours were occupied. But, although it had been the practice to hear counsel at the bar on private bills, if this practice were applied to public matters, what would be the consequence? He remembered having heard it urged in that House, that if the House received Mr.
568
569
570
571
572
573
l
574
575
Mr. Hutchinson
said, he should not have addressed the House, had it not been for the introduction into the right hon. gentleman's speech of the names of individuals who were not present to defend themselves. The right hon. gentleman had introduced into his speech the name of Mr. Hamilton Rowan. He was in Dublin when Mr. Rowan was obliged to leave the country, and he would say for him, that there was no man more respected or beloved. Ireland he thought did not possess a better man, or one more respected, for the integrity of his public principles, and the virtues of his private life. He had not the honour of his personal acquaintance, but he spoke what was the general feeling of Ireland; and when the Catholic Association enrolled Mr. Rowan among its members, it did so, he was sure, in accordance with the opinions of all the Catholic population. He was not there to justify any man condemned by the law; but the men condemned in 1793, to which the right hon. gentleman had alluded, were men highly respected in Ireland. They met to carry an object into effect which would have been of the greatest benefit to that country—to give it the benefit of a liberal system of government. There could be no more righteous aim kept in view by any men than that professed by these gentlemen, of wishing to amend a system which had brought on rebellion. The virtue of such an action did not depend on its success; though that might make it legal or illegal. Let the House recollect that Sydney, Hambden, and Russell, who were now called virtuous patriots, would have been stigmatised as traitors, had not the cause of liberty, for which we all were thankful, flourished here, and if that despotism had triumphed in England which had been continued in Ireland up to this hour. Had these men succeeded in Ireland in 1793,
576
The Hon. C. B. Clarke
said, he never
577
Sir John Sebright
said, he felt it necessary to support the measure for putting down the Catholic Association. He thought that measure necessary; but he also thought that it was a disgrace to a British House of Commons to have a measure of this nature now to discuss. The question was one of vital importance, and would not now have arisen, but for our prejudice, injustice, and cruelty, towards the Catholics. He would vote for the petitioners being heard at the bar; for he was sure the Association had done nothing which every member of that House might not have been proud to have done in vindication of their insulted and oppressed Catholic brethren. The right hon. Secretary for Foreign Affairs had stated, that the people of this country were against Catholic emancipation. He believed they were; but there were public questions, on which it behoved statesmen to combat public opinion, or rather public prejudice. To hear the petitioners at the bar, was required by a regard to justice.
Mr. Scarlett
said, he should not have risen if the right hon. Secretary had not quoted a speech of his on a former occasion, and made it a reproach to the members on his side of the House, that they contended against the Constitutional Association, and for the Catholic Association. Now, he did not think that any body could confound these two societies; but, since the right hon. gentleman could not extract the distinction which actually existed between them, he would endeavour shortly to do it for him. The Constitutional Association did not prosecute offences committed against individuals, but offences committed against the state. It assumed the functions of the Attorney-general, and prosecuted for crimes against the state.—Crimes and libels, which the Attorney-general considered ought not to be prosecuted, were prosecuted by the society. He highly commended the conduct pursued towards the Constitutional
578
579
The Attorney-General
observed, that after the powerful speech of his right hon. friend, the Secretary of state for the Home Department, it was not his intention to go at length into the merits of the question, but to limit himself to that branch of it Which went to show that the conduct pursued by the Catholic Association as to criminal prosecutions was a direct interference with the impartial administration of justice. But first he should reply to the observations of his learned friend, who appeared wholly to have misapprehended the right hon. Secretary. His learned friend assumed that the grounds on which the right hon. Secretary defended the bill were questionable; that the facts he brought forward might or might not be true; and therefore that inquiry was necessary. Now, it was in the recollection of the House, that the right hon. Secretary had actually thrown out of his view all evidence of an ambiguous character, and had founded his just deduction on documents which the petitioners could not disprove, because they were their own recorded resolutions. "What evidence have we before us? said his learned friend. The answer was easy. They had before them facets admitted by the Association themselves. His learned friend had drawn a distinction between the Constitutional and Catholic Associations. There certainly did exist a very great distinction; though he differed from the conclusion which his learned friend had drawn. He had always contended, that the Constitutional Association was strictly legal, although he also felt that such interference of individuals in instituting prosecutions was by no means prudent. But, compare with the influence of that body the influence that the interference of the Catholic Association must necessarily have produced, and then there was no similarity in the result of their endeavours. The Constitutional Association consisted of a few individuals: some, no doubt, of great respectability; but the means of carrying their object into effect were committed to persons comparatively obscure, who conducted the prosecutions that they instituted, in a manner not calculated to entitle them to confidence. Indeed, so convinced of that
580
581
Mr. Brougham
rose to reply. He said, he never rose to discharge his duty with greater anxiety, than at that moment. The right hon. the Secretary for the Home Department had, most undoubtedly, stated his objections in a very able and very powerful speech—a speech that was calculated to make a considerable impression, not alone from its own attractive nature, and the very sincere tone in which it was delivered, but because it was singularly contrasted both in argument and manner, from the speeches of such of his hon. colleagues as had discussed that great subject. But, impressive as it certainly was, he trusted he should be able to show that it did not drive him one inch from the ground he had taken. With respect to the hawkers and pedlars being heard by counsel, notwithstanding the denial of the right hon. Secretary, he begged to say that he was supported by the Journals of the House. He was equally borne out in the other precedents. On the Massachusets bill, a bill which, for state purposes, went to interdict the whole trade and intercourse of New England with Great Britain, and her other colonies, the parties aggrieved were heard by their counsel and agents. Not only the parties aggrieved were heard, but the traders of London and Poole: and not only these parties, for their own interests about to be affected, but the society of Quakers also, who appealed to the justice of parliament in favour of their fellow subjects of America, upon the principles of an enlarged humanity hear!]. He thanked his hon. friend (Mr. Spring Rice) for another precedent, completely in point, and which he had overlooked. It was a precedent of the Irish parliament, and which, since the
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
The House then divided—For the motion 89; Against it 222; Majority 133.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, February 21, 1825
STATE OF THE NAVY.]
The Earl of Darnley
said, he held in his hands a petition relative to the State of the Navy. He presented it the more readily, as it would give his noble friend an opportunity to clear up a suspicion which very generally prevailed, of the navy not being in that state of efficiency in which it ought to be kept. That such was its state was asserted by the individual who had preferred this petition; but he believed the assertion was far from being correct. Being himself desirous of inquiring into the state of the navy, he had found that in many instances the reports of the bad state of certain ships was totally unfounded.
Lord Melville
said, that as far as regarded any general decay, he could most positively contradict the representation which had been made of the state of the navy. Some partial instances of decay there always must be; but beyond what was to be expected in the ordinary course of things, it was untrue that there was any decay in the navy. The petition came from a person who pretended that he had discovered a nostrum for curing the dry rot, which had erroneously been alleged to exist to a great extent in the navy. Instances of ships which had been pointed out in support of this allegation of dry rot, had been inquired into, and the state of those ships had been proved to be the reverse of the representation made. More attention had, within these few years, been paid to the subject than was ever paid before, in consequence of the notice which the reports had excited. A strict investigation had been instituted, and the most ample details as to the state of every ship in the navy had been obtained. The result was, that if they were to take any period of our history, and compare it with the present, they would select the latter as that period in which the greater number of ships were to be
592
Ordered to lie on the table.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, February 21, 1825
NAVY ESTIMATES.]
Sir G. Clerk
, in bringing forward the Navy Estimates, observed, that, on the extraordinaries of the navy, there was an increase in the present year, as compared with the last, of 120,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
593
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
s.
d.
594
Mr. Hume
could not understand why so large an expense was incurred on account of the navy. If the promises held out by those who were at the head of the government, in former years, were worthy of the smallest attention, that expense ought now to be very sensibly diminished. In 1816, a committee was appointed to examine into the probable expense of the navy for that and subsequent years, and they made their report to the House accordingly. And now, in the year 1825, instead of the aggregate amount of the expense being reduced, it was actually greater than it was in 1817. So that, though a reduction was made in one or two years, they were now increasing the charge very considerably. In 1817, the estimate was 5,242,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
595
l.
596
l.
l.
Mr. Robertson
said, that when their commerce was increasing in every quarter of the globe, it was proper that a very large naval force should be kept up, for the purpose of protecting it. He contended, that they ought not to cease from building ships, since they were necessary to the welfare and security of the country. The hon. member had, in his opinion, recommended the most mischievous policy that could possibly be devised. Formerly, our commerce was confined to Europe, the Mediterranean, and the West-Indies; but there was not a country on the face of the earth where our ships were not at anchor. If a new rupture occurred, was it not necessary that a great naval force should be ready to protect them? He trusted that ministers would not shrink from their duty, but would extend the navy as much as possible.
Mr. Hume
said, he was as anxious as any man to have the navy in such a state that it might cope with the world; but the mischievous policy of which he complained was, the system of building ships merely to rot.
597
l.
s.
d.
Sir E. Knatchbull
complained, that many shipwrights and other artificers had been discharged from the dock-yard at Chatham, while none were removed from Portsmouth or Plymouth. The consequence was, that as the men could procure no employment, many of them, with their families, were thrown on the parish.
Sir G. Clerk
said, that at the end of the war, it was found that there was not sufficient work for all the men employed in the several dock-yards. To avoid the necessity of discharging them, it was offered to continue them at such work as there might be for them to do, but at a lower rate of wages. The men received this as a boon, and gladly continued in the dock-yards upon the terms offered them. In the course of last winter and autumn, they expressed some dissatisfaction at the amount of their wages, and were told they were at liberty to seek employment wherever they could obtain better pay. Some of them did so, and the reason why this happened to have taken I place in Kent, more than in Plymouth and other places, was, because, on the men at Plymouth being told that they were kept in employment at the reduced wages only to keep them from distress, they said they were content and continued their places, As to the families of the shipwrights discharged from the dockyards in Kent having become chargeable to the parish, that was their own fault. There was plenty of work for them to do in the: private docks, but they had entered into a combination, and placed themselves under the direction of a committee, who fixed certain prices, which the masters would not give.
Mr. Huskisson
said, he had reason to know, that there was at this time a great demand for workmen in the private yards, and that all the men who had left the public docks would have found employment there, but for the mischievous spirit of combination which influenced them. Since the repeal of the combination laws, the workmen in this and other trades had committed such excesses as, if they were continued, would compel the House to resort again to the former laws, the repeal of which he feared had prejudiced some
598
Mr. Hume
was so far from blaming the government for the course which they had adopted towards the shipwrights, that he thought it extremely humane to keep them at low wages, until the arrival of the merchant trade should have furnished them with full employment. That time had now arrived. He was sorry to add, that the conduct of the workmen, in all parts of the country since the repeal of the combination laws, which he had laboured so much to procure, had been highly blameable. They had attempted to impose upon their masters—regulations, far more arbitrary and degrading than those which they had themselves so much complained of. He hoped the recent successes of the masters who had withstood these attempts, would teach the workmen, that this ungracious and impolitic conduct of theirs would drive their best friends to wish for the re-enactment of the old laws.
The resolution was agreed to.
UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES IN IRELAND
After several petitions had been presented to the House both for and against the passing of this bill, Mr. Goulbourn moved the order of the day for its second reading.
Lord Nugent
said, he should begin by stating, that he should move that the bill be read a second time that day six months. And, if he felt no other objections to this measure, he should have found sufficient reason for opposing it in every stage, in the singular and remarkable circumstance, that with respect to a bill which, from the commencement of the session to the present hour, had occupied more of the attention of the House than any measure perhaps ever did, hardly two of his majesty's ministers had been found to agree as to the state of the country to which it referred, the motives for proposing it to parliament, or the results which might be anticipated from it. If the right hon. Secretary, and the right hon. Attorney-general for Ireland, were right in
599
600
601
602
Sir E. Knatchbull
gave his hearty support to the bill. He thought that a body which possessed such power as the Catholic Association ought to be put down; for although, as it was said, they had only hitherto exercised it for good, they might exercise it for harm. He had always, from conscientious motives, opposed the
603
Mr. Maurice Fitzgerald
, the knight of Kerry, said, he would endeavour to avoid those topics which had already been touched upon in the course of the discussion which had taken place on the subject, and confine himself to suggesting some practical considerations which bore upon the question, and were, he thought, worthy of the attention of ministers. The ground on which it was proposed to pass the bill was, the danger of suffering such a body as the Catholic Association to exist. He had already acknowledged the danger of the existence of a body which had it in its power to wield the mass of the people. If he were to attempt to contradict that position, he should only be abusing the patience of the House. But, the question was, were ministers taking a proper course to correct such a state of things? It appeared to him, that ministers had taken the effect for the cause. The Association was not the cause of the present danger, but the state of things which threw the population into the hands of such a body; and that was the effect of the postponement of that justice to the people of Ireland which they had been looking to parliament for during twenty-five years. He attributed the present state of things in Ireland to Mr. Pitt's administration. That minister told the people of Ireland, that by consenting to a Union with England, they would open a door to a fair discussion of their claims. The hopes of the Catholics were raised, and they looked forward with confidence to the justice and wisdom of the United Parliament. They were disappointed; and from that period did he date the commencement of that unhappy state of things which at present prevailed in Ireland. What had gentlemen on his side of the House been telling ministers for the last twenty years but that dissatisfaction would increase in Ireland every year, until it would arrive at a pitch which would be fearful to contemplate? There was nothing in the character of the measure before the House to allay the danger of the slate of Ireland. The danger was not the Association in Dublin, but that the Catholics were united. The bill would not remove the danger, though it might drive it to other modes of expression. Was this bill to be the only measure of slate policy with regard to Ireland? Min-
604
605
606
607
608
Colonel Trench
said, that instead of occupying the time of the House with any observations of his own, he would read a catalogue of what had been done for the improvement of Ireland within a few years; and on the other hand he would shew, by way of contrast, the conduct of the Association. He would then leave it to the gentlemen of England to decide whether this Association ought not to be put down. He would rather that they should decide the question than those who were, like himself, connected with Ireland. All that parliament could do had been done. The main evils of Ireland were not within the reach of legislation; but the legislature had sown the seeds of happiness, peace, and tranquillity, from which might be expected a harvest of comfort and contentment. But the baneful and counteracting influence employed was equally clear. The good would have been felt but for the blighting influence of the Association, led on by the ambitious views of individuals who would be sorry to see peace in Ireland. The first benefit, he had to point out was, the new organization and better establishment of the sheriffs in Ireland. The right administration of the law had been enforced. The next benefit was the improvement of the Customs and Excise. This had been felt in the remotest part of Ireland. Another benefit was the total repeal of the Assessed taxes. The Distillery laws had in the same way been modified and improved, by which smuggling was repressed, and young men who had lived in hostility to the government were rendered sober and industrious Manu-
609
Mr. Sykes
expressed his astonishment
610
"Be to their virtues very kind,
Be to their faults a little blind."
Mr. Grenfell
wished to explain an observation which he made on this subject the other night, and which seemed to have been wholly misunderstood. He had said, after hearing the statement of the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, that if this Association interfered with the administration of justice, it ought not to
611
Mr. Philips
denied that the existence of the Association had prevented Englishmen from embarking their capital in business in Ireland. The manufacturers of Lancashire were not at all afraid to send over their cotton-twist into that country, and that trade was extending every day. He believed that as long as tranquillity continued in Ireland, whether produced by the measures of government, or the influence of the Association, Englishmen would not object to send their capital to Ireland; but though the country was now tranquil, he was convinced that its tranquillity would not be permanent, unless it rested upon an amicable settlement of the Catholic question. That he could hardly hope for, so long as he saw the Cabinet divided upon this important question. He was almost ashamed of the name of Englishman, when he reflected on the degradation to which England was exposed throughout Europe, even in the eyes of the Holy Alliance, by her illiberally on the ground of religious differ-rence.
The House divided: For the second reading of the Bill, 253; For the Amendment 107; Majority, 146.
List of the Minority.
Abercromby, hon. J.
Cavendish, lord G. A. H.
Althorp, visc.
Anson, hon. G.
Cavendish, C.
Benyon, B.
Coke, W. T. (Norfolk)
Benett, J.
Bentinck, lord W.
Colborne, N. W. R.
Birch, J.
Cradock, S.
Brougham, H.
Crompton, S.
Browne, Dom.
Davies, T. H.
Bury, visc.
Denison, W. J.
Byng, G.
Dundas, hon. T.
Calcraft, J. H.
Ebrington, visc.
Calvert, C.
Ellice, E.
Carew, R. S.
Evans, W.
Carter, J.
Fergusson, sir R.
Caulfield, hon. H.
Fitzgerald, rt. hon. M.
612
Folkestone, visc.
Palmer, C. F.
French, A.
Parnell, sir H.
Glenorchy, visc.
Phillips, G.
Graham, S.
Phillips, G. R. jun.
Grattan, J.
Power, R.
Grenfell, P.
Price, R.
Guise, sir B. W.
Pym, F.
Gurney, R. H.
Ramsden, J. C.
Hamilton, lord A.
Rice, T. S.
Heron, sir R.
Ridley, sir M. W.
Hill, lord A.
Robarts, A. W.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Robarts, G. J.
Honywood, W. P.
Robertson, A.
Hornby, E.
Robinson, sir G.
Howard, H. G.
Rowley, sir W.
Hume, J.
Rumbold, C. E.
Hutchinson, hon. C. H.
Scott, J.
Sefton, earl of
James, W.
Smith, J.
Johnson, W. A.
Smith, G.
Kingsborough, lord
Somerville, sir M.
Knight, R.
Stanley, lord
Lamb, hon. G.
Stuart, lord P. J.
Lambton, J. G.
Sykes, D.
Leader, W.
Talbot, R. W.
Leycester, R.
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Lushington, S.
Townshend, lord C.
Maberly, J.
Wall, C. B.
Maberly, W. L.
Warre, J. A.
Macdonald, J.
Webbe, E.
Mackintosh, sir J.
Whitbread, S. C.
Mahon, hon. S.
Whitbread, W. H.
Marjoribanks, S.
White, S.
Martin, J.
White, col.
Martin, R.
Wilson, sir R.
Milton, visc.
Wood, M.
Newport, sir J.
Wyvill, M.
Normanby, visc.
O'Brien, sir E.
TELLERS.
Ord, W.
Nugent, lord
Osborne, lord F. G.
Calcraft, J.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, February 22, 1825
ST. CATHARINE'S DOCKS BILL.]
Mr. Grenfell
Mr. Calvert
said, he would, at a proper time, object to gentlemen who were interested in the measure giving their votes in favour of it. Never was a bill brought into the House in so barefaced a manner as that of last year. Persons holding shares to the amount of 50,000
l
Mr. Manning
saw no necessity for these docks. The London Dock afforded sufficient accommodation to the commercial world, and if more were required, they could furnish it.
Mr. Wallace
supported the bill. The parties wanted no exclusive advantages.
613
Sir J. Yorke
said, he would advise gentlemen to keep their money against a rainy day, instead of trying to ruin each other by embarking in all sorts of projects. He wished to give every protection to the mercantile marine of this country, but he thought there was sufficient dock-room already. When he saw the number of bills which were called for, he felt that there was a clashing of interests, which was likly to end in the ruin of different parties. There were companies of all descriptions: companies to bring salt water from Brighton, and air from Bognor— companies to "bring airs from Heaven, and blasts from Hell." When he saw this, he fell back on his own resources, on the principles of his own unconquered mind, and seriously asked himself, whether the gentlemen who thus employed their capital were in the right. In his opinion they were not; and therefore he should oppose the bill.
Mr. Sumner
thought that competition was a very good thing; and had no doubt that if the proposed docks were laid aside, the existing companies would raise their prices.
Mr. Grenfell
said, that the only opposition to the measure had proceeded from those who were interested in the present dock companies.
Mr. Monck
objected, not to the principle of the bill, but to the particular place selected for the erection of the docks. The parish contained 8 or 10,000 persons, who were chiefly employed in the lighters on the river, and they would be deeply injured if it were carried into effect. He objected also to the sacrilegious exhumation of the ashes of the dead, which must be a consequence of it.
Alderman Thompson
said, that, a large number of the inhabitants had consented to the measure, and almost the whole body of merchants and ship-owners were unanimously in favour of it.
614
Sir R. Fergusson
said, there was not an out-port in the country which did not, with good reason, complain of the accommodation in the London docks. He saw no possible objection to the bill.
Alderman Heygate
said, there was at present as much competition as was advantageous without any new docks.
Mr. Ellis
said, he was instructed from Dublin, the merchants of which port had not at present sufficient accommodation in the London Docks, to support the bill.
The House divided: for the second reading, 118: against it, 30.
COUNTY TRANSFER OF LAND BILL.]
Mr. Fyshe Palmer
rose to move for leave to bring in a bill to empower magistrates at quarter sessions to effect Exchanges between counties of insulated Parcels of Land, for the more convenient administration of justice. To provide a remedy for the inconvenience and perplexity which resulted from having certain parcels of land belonging to particular counties situated at a considerable distance from those counties, was the object of his bill. The best method of prevailing upon persons to apply a remedy was, to prove the existence of the evil. That he would endeavour to do, by stating a few short facts. In the first place he would remind the House that Holy Island, which lay off the coast of Northumberland, did not, as one would naturally suppose from the situation, belong to that county, but to the county palatine of Durham. Another place belonging to Durham, called Crake, was situated in the centre of Yorkshire, fifty miles from the courts of the county of which it was called a part. Its inhabitants voted for members of Parliament for the county of Durham, whilst the assessments for land were made in, and men were raised and embodied for, Yorkshire. In the same way a part of Derbyshire was to be found in Leicestershire: and a part of Huntingdonshire in Bedfordshire. From the town of Oakingham, a tract of land belonging to Wiltshire ran into Berkshire, for about four miles in length. It was, in some places, two miles in breadth, and in others not half a mile; and there was no notorious mark by which the boundaries of the two counties could be defined. In like manner Swallowfield East, and Swallowfield West, both belonging to Wiltshire, were situated in Berkshire. He had the authority of all the magistrates on the Oakingham bench for
615
616
617
Mr. Secretary Peel
had no intention of opposing the motion; on the contrary, he would give the bill every consideration, although he could not at present pledge himself to support it. As it struck him, there would be some difficulty as to the, detail of the measure. The hon. gentleman, for instance, had not stated what he intended to do as to the elective franchise. Again, what arrangement was to be made with respect to county rates, assessed for works which were already completed, but not paid for? The bill, further, only proposed to give the power of exchange to counties; it was not provided, what a county should do which desired to take, and had nothing to offer in return.
Mr. F. Palmer
said, that with respect to the elective franchise, it would be impossible to make any new arrangement at the eve of a dissolution of parliament. His view was, that no alteration should take place until one year after the next general election. For the matter of county-rate, the sum at stake would be so trivial that it might be easily disposed of.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
PARISH VESTRIES IN IRELAND BILL.]
Sir John Newport
618
l
l
l
l
619
l
l.
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
s.
l
l
620
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
s.
l.
l
l.
s.
l.
l.
621
l
l
Mr. Goulburn
felt no disposition to oppose the bill; for, to satisfy all parties, the readiest course was investigation. The established church must be maintained in Ireland; and maintained, as to all expenses that were necessary, by the population; but, as far as the correction of abuse could go, if abuse existed, the present measure should have his best assistance. With respect to the particular instances, he was not prepared to go into them; but he had already looked through the returns, and, before any further discussion took place, would endeavour to attend to them more fully.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
LANDLORDS AND TENANTS IN IRELAND.]
Sir Henry Parnell
, pursuant to notice, rose to call the attention of the House to the acknowledged defects of the law of Ireland, concerning Landlords and Tenants. He did not intend to propose any thing to the House by way of giving more power to landlords to recover rent; his object was, to remove those impediments which were in the way of landlords improving their estates, and to check that habit of subdividing farms which had so much contributed to the excessive population of Ireland. If the causes of the misery and destitution of the people were properly explored, they would be found all to concentrate into one—
622
623
624
Mr. Hume
feared, that the proposition would go to the extent of compromising the principle laid down by the House, of hot interfering with the disposal of property. If he understood the hon. baronet, his object was, to limit the landlord and tenant as to the disposal of their property.
Sir J. Newport
said, his hon. friend was quite mistaken. The object was, to enforce the performance of contracts between landlord and tenant, which had been hitherto frustrated by courts of law and juries. In support of the necessity of the projected measure, he could mention instances wherein land leased out twenty-five years ago had been infinitely deteriorated, in consequence of the transmission through various branches of families.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
JUSTICES OF PEACE IN IRELAND.]
Sir H. Parnell
rose to submit another motion, of which he had given notice, to move for leave to bring in a bill to regulate the office of Justice of Peace in Ireland. He did not intend to enter, on this occasion, into any detail as to the conduct of the magistracy of that country, but he thought that some measure was necessary to follow up and enforce the excellent regulations respecting the magistrates which had been introduced by the marquis Wellesley. One of the great evils which that noble lord had tried to remedy was, that of magistrates acting in their private houses, instead of holding courts of petty-sessions; a practice from which the most injurious Consequences had proceeded. Independently of this, he thought it necessary that the number of magistrates
625
Mr. Goulburn
said, he would not oppose the motion, but he begged that his assent on this occasion might not be considered as a pledge to support the measure when introduced. Indeed, there were some clauses in the intended bill to which, if report spoke truth, he could not give his assent; as he did not think they would benefit that country. This was a subject which had been under the consideration of the Irish government. Persons had been sent into the different counties with instructions to make inquiries. Their reports had been submitted to the judges of the land; and the reason why no measure had been introduced upon them was, that it was not considered expedient at the present time. But, he could assure the House, that where any case had occurred which called for the interference of the lord-chancellor of Ireland, he had discharged the difficult and invidious task in a manner highly beneficial to the interests of justice.
Sir J. Newport
begged to suggest in the proposed bill the substitution of lieutenants and deputy-lieutenants, instead of the governors and sub-governors of counties in Ireland. He wished to see the plan assimilated to that of England, where the lord-lieutenants of counties were answerable to the Home office.
Mr. S. Rice
said, that if by this bill it was intended to introduce paid officers among the magistracy, he should deprecate it as having a most injurious tendency.
626
Mr. Grattan
said, that as far as he understood the present bill calculated to produce a regular attendance at petty sessions, he would give it his support.
Mr. L. Foster
did not much admire the practice of introducing specific measures into the House, upon which a committee up stairs was sitting, and upon which it had not yet reported. With respect to the effect of the proposed bill, if it sanctioned the introduction of a paid officer as an assistant to the magistrates at petty sessions, that officer not being a magistrate, it would have a most injurious effect.
Lord Milton
expressed his surprise that any member should object to the introduction of a particular measure with respect to Ireland, because there was a committee on the general state of that country sitting up stairs. Such a doctrine would place the whole government of Ireland in the power of the committee for the time being.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES IN IRELAND BILL.]
On the order of the day for going into a committee on this bill,
Mr. Hume
rose for the purpose of submitting a resolution by way of instruction to the committee. He had, from the first introduction of this measure, felt that it was unjust towards the Association against which it was directed, and cruel to the great body of the people of Ireland. One of the evils by which that unhappy country was afflicted was, the practice of introducing bills on every occasion. They had bills on all sides of the House to patch up some part of a bad system, instead of adopting a general measure which would go at once to the root of the mischief. The present was one of those patching bills. No one had attempted to say that it would remedy the present system in Ireland. It was introduced without any evidence of its necessity. The only evidence given were the verbal statements of one or two members on one side of the House, which were most flatly contradicted in every part by hon. members on the other. It was stated, amongst other things, that this Association had caused great alarm in Ireland. He denied the fact. If any alarm was felt, it must have been by the small faction who had so long held the ascendancy in that country, and the undisturbed monopoly of place and power. The representations made by the advocates of the bill, were of a very contrary
627
628
629
Mr. Goulburn
resisted the motion. The principle of it was, to call upon every officer to take an oath, not merely that he was not guilty of a particular offence, but that he would not at any future time be guilty of it. If this were a fit principle to proceed upon, why did the hon. member call for such a declaration with regard to a minor offence, punishable only by fine and imprisonment, and neglect it with regard to greater offences, for which severer penalties were inflicted? Was it just to call upon an individual to take an oath, when, by refusing to take it, he gave indirect evidence that he was a member of a society denounced as illegal? He knew of no case in which such a test had ever been required from public officers; and he did not see any reason why it should be demanded from them in the present case. The object of the motion would not be answered, even by the success of such a clause as he had proposed. If any Orangeman was at present in the employment of the Irish government, it was because the constitution of those lodges had been so completely altered as not to transgress the existing laws. Should any servant of the government be discovered to be a member of an illegal Orange lodge, he would not only be dismissed from his situation, but handed over to the law, to suffer the punishment which it affixed to the offence. For these reasons, he should oppose the motion.
Mr. G. Lamb
observed, that no man was bound to take office against his will; and argued, that as every man had to take some oaths before he entered upon office, he saw no reason why the test recommended by his hon. friend should not be added to those already in existence. He defended the Association from the attacks which had been made upon it, and said that he could not find any thing in the language used by its members half so violent as that which had been used regarding it by several members of that House. If they wished to give a triumph to neither of the two parties into which Ireland was divided, and to hold the balance impartially between them, they would not send this obnoxious bill to that country without adding to it the clause recommended by his hon. friend.
Mr. Hutchinson
said, that in the hope of either shaming or terrifying ministers out of this bill, he should again express
630
631
Mr. Plunkett
said, he as much approved as the hon. member for Aberdeen could do, of the broad principle that no person, being a member of any illegal society, should be admitted into office; but the hon. member must allow him to say, that the effect of his proposed instruction was quite irreconcileable to law or common sense. What was it that he proposed?
632
Mr. Denman
was, in principle, opposed to the amendment, because it was adding another test, and he was opposed to all tests. But, if the present bill passed, he should then vote for the proposition of his hon. friend, as a means of showing the people that this measure was to be an impartial one. The bill ought to be framed so as to apply equally to Orangemen as well as others. The right hon. and learned gentleman argued, that its enactments would not affect a person acting in ignorance; and had asked how his hon. friend could propose to make a man swear to a point of law and a point of fact that could not be within his knowledge? Why, in the first place, the very objection that he (Mr. D.) most strongly felt to the bill was, that it did affect those who might be connected, even through ignorance, with an association that was illegal. [Here the learned gentleman read the clause of the bill relating to the "Punishment of persons becoming members of any unlawful society."] Here was
633
Mr. Secretary Peel
thought, that the hon. and learned gentleman would do well in future to read bills before he discussed them. Surely it was not too much to ask of a learned judge, like the hon. and learned member, at least to hear the defence of a prisoner before he pronounced his condemnation. It seemed to be insinuated, that government were desirous of passing this bill without sufficiently discussing it. Now, after it had, during five nights, been largely discussed, and every hon. gentleman who had risen to oppose the bill, had been followed by some hon. member who was friendly to it, the course that had been pursued did not very much indicate a desire to evade discussion. The fertility of the proposition of the hon. member for Aberdeen had been already so well exposed that it was unnecessary for him to offer any further observations on the subject. If the bill in question should be passed into a law, the Jaws that would affect societies in Ireland would be these—that there should be permitted in Ireland no societies bound together by secret and illegal oaths; that those who might thereafter enter into those mysterious engagements should become liable to certain punishments. To the penalties of this bill? No; but to transportation. Now, the hon. gentleman's proposition went to make a man
634
Lord Althorp
said, he thought that measures of this kind had always a tendency to produce bloodshed and confusion; but he did trust, that the good sense of the Catholics would prevent any fatal consequences. It afforded him great pleasure to hear from the right hon. Secretary, that no Orangemen would be permitted to hold office. This single declaration from the right hon. gentleman would do more to put down all illegal societies in Ireland than this bill or any other measure. On this account, he was glad that his hon. friend had submitted his proposition to the House.
Sir R. Wilson
, alluding to the absolute necessity of conceding to the Catholics their claims, begged to ask the right hon. gentleman opposite whether he was prepared to resist Catholic emancipation until it should be wrung from him by the Irish people? Was he prepared for all the miseries attendant on a separation of Ireland from the empire; for all the miseries of a civil war; and for the imposition of new taxes to support it? These were questions which the right hon. gentleman ought seriously to ask himself.
635
The amendment was negatived without a division, and the House resolved itself into a committee, in which the blanks of the bill were filled up.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, February 23, 1825
VOTES OF MEMBERS ON QUESTIONS IN WHICH THEY ARE PERSONALLY INTERESTED.]
Mr. Byng
having presented a petition against the Isle of Dogs Railway,
Mr. Grenfell
lamented the absence of the hon. member for Montrose. He wished it to be directly understood whether or not the principle which was laid down last night respecting hon. members interested in private bills was to be uniformly acted upon. What he was anxious to know was, whether it was his hon. friend's intention to bring forward a specific proposition to the effect, that persons so interested, directly or indirectly, should not be allowed to vote; if not, he would take the earliest opportunity of doing so himself. He had this object in. view—an object indispensable to the honour and consistency of the House—namely, not only that the votes of members having a direct interest in the bills under consideration, should be disallowed; but that the votes should also be disallowed of those members who had a direct interest in any undertaking that might be prejudiced by such bills.
Mr. Brougham
said, that the mode of voting on private bills was so scandalous in its nature, that he had made it a rule never to vote upon a private bill, nor had he ever voted, except upon one, which was not in his estimation, a private bill, but a bill of considerable public interest, the Highgate chapel bill. That was in itself a corrupt job of an attorney, not out of zeal for the welfare of the church, or any excess of piety, but out of a corrupt love of jobbing, for his own bill of charges. But the House would not go half fat-enough if it stopped at the exclusion of those who had an interest either in supporting or opposing the bill. Why should a member be prevented from giving his own vote, and be left at liberty to obtain
636
637
Mr. Baring
agreed with much that had fallen from his learned friend. Every man
638
Colonel Davies
protested against the doctrine which had been advanced with respect to the right of voting When
639
Mr. Calcraft
allowed, that where a member had a direct interest in a private bill, he ought to abstain from voting upon it; but, further than that, it appeared to him to be difficult to go. He did not well see how canvassing in the committees could be prevented. In every concern between man and man interest and influence must operate; and if hon. members were not fit to be trusted with the private, they must be still less fit to be trusted with the public and more important business of parliament. But really, notwithstanding all that had been said, he had seldom heard any complaint made of the way in which private bills passed through, that House. For, let the committee be as jobbing as it might, the bill came back to the House, and might there be thrown out. Then again, it went to the other House of parliament. Surely, let the conduct of committees be as criminal as it had been declared to be, there were sufficient checks upon it. Besides, if any bill, when passed, was found to be impolitic or injurious, nothing was more easy than to propose its repeal: this was the course which he proposed on a former occasion, when he found a bill injurious in its operation. What did the objections amount to, but to this—that, while the whole of the great public business of the nation was to remain in the hands of the House of Commons, its members were to be declared unfit to manage its private and less important matters? If this was in reality the case, in God's name, let them go about their business, and leave it to the country to return more fit and proper representatives! He had often
640
Mr. Bright
agreed that it would be wrong to allow business of this nature to be decided by any other tribunal. But he was not of opinion, that the private business of that House was conducted with perfect purity. That he must deny. Decisions were very often made by persons who knew nothing about the business on which they voted. This showed that the private business was not carried on in such a way as to give satisfaction to the country and the suitor. The hon. gentleman said, that if any injustice was done, parties might come to the House and have the obnoxious bill repealed. This was not altogether so certain; besides, they should not lose sight of the expense which it entailed upon the aggrieved parties. The hon. colonel had said, "What are we to do? we are sent here by our constituents, and are bound to vote in support of their interests." He agreed with the gallant officer, that being sent there, they were bound to do their duty; they were bound to attend to the interests of their constituents in preference to their own; and when a member found that the being a shareholder would prevent his doing his duty, he ought to give up his shares and attend to the interests of those constituents. This was the course which he would advise; for he was decidedly of opinion, that no member who had a direct interest in a private bill ought to vote upon it. There were, in his view of the subject, many ways of checking the evil; for instance, the vote by ballot, and also by reducing the number of the committee. He hoped the hon. member for Aberdeen would introduce some measure upon the subject.
Mr. Hume
said, that he intended on Friday to propose an inquiry as to how far the custom of parliament went to disqualify those directly interested from voting on private bills. For himself, he had no hesitation in stating, that the practice of the House would be found such as to preclude the necessity of any new enactment on the subject. There was, how-
641
Sir M. W. Ridley
said, that the practice alluded to, however theoretically bad, was found to be productive of little practical injury. There could be little difficulty in coming to a decision upon the first point; but there would be great difficulty in preventing those who had an indirect interest either way from voting on such occasions. Last year a committee recommended a vote by ballot, and various other remedies; but he thought the best way would be, to leave it to the honourable feelings of the House; for no member could hesitate what course to adopt, when he found his interests opposed to his honour. He had received letters, some of which he had then in his pocket, upon the subject of private bills, which, if published, would, if he might so express himself, blow those bills out of the House; and it would depend upon circumstances, whether he should or should not detail some of them to the House. It was to him astonishing, that agents should so far forget the feelings of men as to lend themselves to such applications.
The petition was laid on the table.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, February 24, 1825
SPRING GUNS.]
Lord Suffield
rose, pursuant to the notice he had given, to move the first reading of a bill to declare it unlawful for persons to set Spring-guns, or any other instruments which were dangerous to life, or liable to inflict bodily harm. He understood the forms of their lordships' House did not usually permit of discussion on the first reading of a measure as it provoked objections which were generally reserved for the second reading of a bill. He hoped the same courtesy would be extended to him, and therefore he should only state the object of the bill, and his reasons shortly for offering it to their lordships. The object of the bill had been, however, stated already in its title, and he did not know that he could add any thing on that subject. The reasons which had operated with him for bringing in the measure, were principally those reports which he had lately read in the newspapers, of various accidents resulting from the use of spring-guns, to innocent persons. It
642
Earl Grosvenor
hoped the bill would receive the attention of their lordships; as he was satisfied that it was likely to do a great deal of good.
The bill was read a first time.
PETITION OF THE ROMAN CATHOLICS
The Earl of Donoughmore
rose, pursuant to notice, to present to their lordships the petition which had been confided to him by his Catholic brethren of Ireland, and the value of whose confidence he fully appreciated. In rising to present their petition, he could not state its object better than in their own language. It was calmly and firmly to ask the restitution of their rights from the legislature. It was impossible for him then to enter into the merits of the subject of petition, or discuss the question to which it related, either directly or indirectly, as he meant to call on their
643
644
PETITION OF PROTESTANTS OF DUBLIN IN FAVOUR OF CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION.]
The Marquis of Lansdown
said, he had to submit to their lordships a petition in favour of the same object, from the Protestant land-owners, merchants, and bankers of Dublin and its neighbourhood. Though not so numerously signed as the petition which had been presented by his noble friend, it was entitled to the most serious consideration of the House. It expressed the opinion of the most respectable and wealthy portion of the Protestant inhabitants of that part of the country from which the petition came, on the claims of their Catholic fellow-subjects. The first name was that of the duke of Leinster; the next was the earl of Meath, the two greatest landed proprietors in that part of Ireland. These names were followed by the signatures of the marquisses of Downshire and Westmeath, the earls of Limerick and Charlemont, lords Glengal, Riversdale, Forbes, and many other noble names. After these came the names of wealthy capitalists and opulent merchants. There were to be seen among the bankers and merchants, the name of Latouche, and the names of the descendants of men who had fled from religious persecution in another country, and had found an asylum in this. Their ancestors, who were the victims of an act of great injustice committed by an ambitious tyrant, abandoned
645
646
Ordered to lie on the table.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, February 24, 1825
UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES IN IRELAND
Mr. Hutchinson
rose to present the petition of the Roman Catholics of Cork, against the bill for the suppression of the Catholic Association. The petitioners denied that the contribution, known by the name of the Catholic rent, was in any way extorted from the people. It was a voluntary gift, contributed for the moral and religious education of their poor, and in order to obtain redress for the many grievances under which the calumniated peasantry of Ireland laboured. The petitioners hoped parliament would at least allow the Catholic Association to be heard at the bar. This petition came from the largest county in Ireland, and had been agreed to at an aggregate meeting held in Cork, by a body of men as numerous and as respectable as any that had ever assembled. The petitioners felt indignant at the unwarrantable attacks which had been made upon the Catholic Association. That Association had already achieved much good both to Protestants and Catholics, and, with the aid of the priesthood, was the means by which, whilst the people were guarded against oppression on the one hand, they would be kept from expressions of irritation and discontent on the other. A measure like this must be obnoxious at any time; but above all at a period like the present, when peace and tranquillity existed in Ireland. The opponents of the Association argued the question, as if that body and the Roman Catholics generally, were opposed to the Protestants. This was a cruel misrepresentation. It was true that they were opposed to the Orangemen, but they were few in number compared to the thousands who formed the great body of the Protestants of Ireland, and who were as earnest in their prayers for Catholic emancipation as the most zealous Catholic could be.
Mr. Abercromby
presented a petition from the parish of St. Andrew, Dublin, against the bill; and adverted to a petition from certain Presbyterians of Tyrone, complaining that the Association were the authors of the rapine, and murders and bloodshed in Ireland. Now, the petition
647
Sir J. Newport
adverted to a document in the possession of the House of Lords, stating, on the authority of the viceroy of Ireland, that the peace of that country was to be attributed to the exertions of the Catholic Association. He stated that such a document existed, on the authority of the marquis of Lansdown. He should move to-morrow that it be laid before the House.
Mr. Peel
said, that under any circumstances it would be laid before the committee on the state of Ireland.
Mr. Denman
presented a petition in favour of the Association, asserting that the Association had been productive of the present tranquillity in Ireland. The learned member expressed his conviction that the Association, as far as the administration of the law was concerned, had done much good and no injury.
Sir T. Lethbridge
was not so much surprised at the statements of petitions, as that hon. members should coincide with them. In his opinion, both reckoned without their host, when they said that the tranquillity of Ireland was owing to the Association. Who could say to what extent the Association might go, if ministers, in mercy to the whole Catholic body, did not put a stop
to
Mr. Hume
said, that, notwithstanding all that had been said by the right hon. Secretary, and which had had the effect of having the walls partially placarded, the more the question of emancipation was understood by the people of England, the more was it likely to succeed. An attempt had been made by the speech of the right hon. Secretary, to raise a cry against the Roman Catholics; but fortunatety that attempt had not succeeded.
Mr. Peel
denied that he had sounded an alarm on the subject of the emancipation of the Catholics, and that through his interference the walls of the metropolis had been placarded. He had never encouraged the presenting a single petition against the claims of the Catholics in the whole course of his life; and never wished to see a petition, on that or any
648
NORFOLK ASSIZES.]
Colonel Wodehouse
rose to submit to the House a motion respecting the removal of the Spring Assizes for Norfolk from Thetford to the city of Norwich. The grounds upon which this motion was made were already before the House in a petition which had been presented from the county. The main grievance complained of was, that the petitioners were under the necessity of carrying the prisoners a distance of SO miles from the gaol to the place at which they were to be tried, and if they happened to be convicted, the same distance back again to the gaol. This evil had existed for a length of time, and representations of it had frequently been made, but without procuring any alteration. There was, however, no time at which the desired alteration could be more properly made than the present. A large and commodious gaol had lately been erected in Norwich, at an expense of 50,000
l
649
Sir J. Sebright
supported the motion. He bore testimony to the insufficient state of the gaol at Thetford, and thought that the circumstance of the prisoners being carried a distance of SO miles to take their trial, was in itself enough to induce the House to grant the prayer of the petition. The due administration of justice was immediately concerned in this affair. The question, in fact, was, the borough of Thetford against the county of Norfolk; or borough interests against the principles of morality and public convenience.
Mr. N. R. Colborne
opposed the motion. The same application had been, he said, repeatedly made, and had always failed. The assizes for Norfolk had been held at Thetford for more than six centuries. Unless a very strong case could be made out, no alteration should be attempted. He thought there could not be a more direct attack upon the prerogative, than was meditated by this measure. It would be no less so, than it would be to interfere with the appointment of lord-lieutenants or the sheriffs of counties. He should content himself with having called the attention of the Secretary of state for the Home Department to this point, and here leave it. The petition which he had presented, prayed that the House would not permit any interference in the ancient practice which had prevailed. That petition was signed by 48 magistrates of the county, eight of whom had served the office of high sheriff; snd it was impossible to collect names entitled to more weight on such a topic.
Mr. F. Buxton
said, that as the petition in favour of the proposed removal of the assizes proceeded from the lord-lieutenant, the sheriffs, and a large body of the magistracy, it might reasonably be supposed to convey the sentiments of those who were best qualified to pronounce on the expediency of the proposed measure. The important question for the House to consider was, however, whether the administration of justice was impeded by the assizes being held at Thetford? The general convenience of the county would be, as it ought to be, more considered
650
Mr. Baring
objected to the motion, because if it were adopted in this instance, it must also be applied to a great many other counties.
Mr. Secretary Peel
objected to the motion, on the ground, that the House had no proper jurisdiction in the case. The question had been referred to the chancellor and the judges, who had decided against it. He was of opinion that the consideration of questions such as the present, with which local interests were mixed up, could not be left in better hands.
Dr. Lushington
complained, that the right hon. Secretary had not stated the grounds upon which the decision of the judges was founded. It appeared to him, that there was no just reason for holding the assizes at Thetford. The present plan was calculated to promote the interests of the few to the disadvantage of the many. The assizes were originally held at Thet-
651
Mr. Huskisson
said, that the House of Commons was not the place for appeals of this description. The law had vested the necessary power in the hands of the lord chancellor and the judges. As for the distance of Thetford, as an assize town, almost every. county in England stood in the same situation. Prisoners were brought much further to York, and to Lancaster, than they could be from any part of the county of Norfolk to Thetford.
Mr. W. Smith
said, that the only argument which had been urged against the measure was, that the same inconveniences existed in other parts of the kingdom. Now this was, in his opinion, one of the strongest reasons for inquiring into the subject.
The House divided: Ayes 21. Noes 72.
EXPORT OF TOOLS AND MACHINERY.]
Mr. Hume
652
Mr. Huskisson
said, he should give his concurrence to the motion, first, because he thought that any laws which could not be executed ought not to continue in force, although it might be a question; whether such laws should be wholly abrogated, or only amended; and, secondly, because he quite agreed, that it would be improper to press any legislative measure, in opposition to the sense and feelings of those whose interests might be affected; At the same time, he was bound to say; that those parties greatly overstated the consequences which, in his judgment, were likely to ensue. He had taken upon himself to exercise a discretion which, although perhaps not strictly legal, he hoped the House would not consider criminal, in allowing the export of some articles of machinery, such as the Hydraulic presses, and others, against the prohibition of which all mankind agreed. At present, so great was the demand for machinery, in many branches, that, with all the hands that could be procured, the orders could not be executed for eighteen months to come. Upon these grounds, he thought the re-appointment of the committee would be a great advantage; and he requested the hon. member, who would naturally take a leading part in the proceedings of that committee, to turn his earnest attention to all those points in which parties felt that their interests would be principally affected.
The motion was agreed to, and a committee appointed.
REMOVAL OF BRITISH-BORN
Mr. Hume
rose to submit the motion of which he had given
653
654
655
Mr. Wynn
said, it was not his intention to follow the hon. member through the extensive field over which he had travelled. The important question of the civilization of India was too extensive to be taken up collaterally. Whenever it was submitted to the House, he should not hesitate to declare his opinion. With respect to the present question, the House were bound to respect the laws as they now existed. By the act of 1793, it was declared a misdemeanor for any man to be in India without the licence of the East India Company. The act of 1813, which opened the trade of India very considerably, reserved the same power, and commanded the same prohibitions. As the law existed, a governor-general was bound, when he permitted a European
656
The motion, as amended, was agreed to.
657
BEAR-BATING PREVENTION BILL.]
Mr. Martin, of Galway
, rose to move for leave "to bring in a bill to prevent Bear-baiting, and other cruel practices." He submitted his motion with perfect confidence of its success; because, in the interval which had elapsed since the last session, he had conversed with every alderman of the city of London, with almost every police magistrate in the metropolis, and with many magistrates in different parts of the country, and had collected from their conversation that it was their unanimous opinion, that these cruel practices ought to be put down. He had been told by them, that nothing was more conducive to crime than such sports; that they led the lower orders to gambling; that they educated them for thieves; and that they gradually trained them up to bloodshed and murder. The reason why the police could not meddle with these practices was, that they were not in general exhibited for money. He held, however, in his hand an affiche, which would bring the sports under the notice of the police, since it fixed a price upon the ticket which was required for admission to them. It announced that "Billy, the phenomenon of the canine race, and superior vermin-killer," would go through his wonderful performances on Tuesday next, and that the receipts of the pit would on that evening be presented to the distressed widow of Billy's late proprietor. It then stated, that "a dogfight—a turn-loose match with two dogs and two fresh badgers—and a drawing match," would follow this astounding spectacle; and that several dogs would then be tried at a bear previous to their being sent out upon their travels to foreign climes. The doors were to be open at seven, the performance to begin at half-past, and the admittance to be 3
s.
658
659
Sir M. W. Ridley
could not but express his horror at the incidents narrated; but he thought the hon. member had in-
660
Mr. Martin
said, that all the magistrates of the metropolis called for a law to put down these practices as a nuisance. Was not their call entitled to some respect? It was discreditable to any member, to rise and say, not that he would negative the bill when it was brought in, but that he would not permit it to be canvassed at all in parliament. Would any man get up and boldly say, "I am such an amateur of cruelty, that I will not even allow a measure to be discussed which tends to abolish it?" Such language no man would dare to utter; and yet, what had been said that evening approximated to it. He was afraid he should be defeated upon this bill; but if he was, the glory would be with him, and the disgrace with those who vanquished him. He was, however, confident that at some future period it would be passed into law. He would not say that it would meet with that success whilst under his direction; but if the gentlemen opposite would take it up, as they had done his bill for giving counsel to prisoners accused of felony, he would willingly surrender it into their hands.
Mr. Gordon
said, he must consider this a degree of petty legislation, when questions of so much more importance were before the House.
Mr. F. Buxton
did not think the subject so insignificant as not to deserve the notice of the House. The hon. mover had conferred an essential benefit upon the community by his continued exertions in the cause of humanity. His former bill had already produced a beneficial change in the manners of the lower orders, and was far from having produced that unnecessary litigation which some gentlemen had anticipated. The prosecutions which had been instituted under it were 71 in number; and in 69 cases convictions had been obtained. He had heard from those who attended Smithfield-market, that a great revolution had taken place in it, owing to the exertions of the hon. member. Even those who were the first subjects of
661
Alderman Bridges
supported the bill, and gave his concurrence to the statements of the hon. mover.
Mr. Butterworth
hoped the hon. member for Galway would extend the powers of his bill to the savage, abominable, and unchristian practice of prize-fighting, which had led in many recent instances to the loss of life.
The House divided: Ayes 41. Noes 29.
NAVY ESTIMATES.]
The House resolved itself into a committee on the Navy Estimates. On the resolution, "That 54,886
l
Sir J. Yorke
wished to ask, why the salary of the private secretary to the first lord had been increased from 300
l
l
l
l
On the motion for agreeing to that part of the report which recommends granting the sum of 538,306
l
Mr. Hume
complained of going on, year after year, expending millions of money in building ships, only to lie and rot. It was not proper to pass such estimates. For the years 1823, 1824, 1825, the amount had been the same as 1817. The expense of buildings in the dockyards, &c. ought to be checked. Since 1811, we had expended on the dock-yards 4,853,000
l
l
l
662
l
l
l
Sir G. Cockburn
did not believe the hon. member could be correct in his statements. Peace was the time for putting our dock-yards, in a good state: during war it was impossible to do it.
On the resolution for granting for the Naval college, the sum of 6,252
l.,
Sir J. Yorke
inquired if it was intended to keep that college up to its full extent, as he understood that one of the pupils, Mr. Bonnycastle, had left this country and gone to America. He approved of science being taught, but charity, he thought, began at home; and we ought not to pay for the education of young men who were to carry their scientific acquirements to another state.
Mr. Croker
replied, that every student was obliged to give a bond of 500
l
The resolutions were agreed to.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, February 25, 1825
STANDING ORDERS—ISLE OF DOGS RAILWAY.]
A petition was presented from the Regent's Canal Company, complaining that a petition had been presented to the House, praying for leave to bring in a bill to empower a certain company to construct a railway from the Isle of Dogs into one of the most populous districts of the metropolis; although the standing orders of the House had not been complied with respecting the notices, &c. it appearing that the rail-way was intended to cross the Regent's Canal, immediately below one of the locks, of which intention the proprietors of the Regent's Canal had been apprized only last week.
The Speaker
said, that, as this petition
663
664
BRITISH MUSEUM.]
Sir Charles Long
presented a petition from the trustees of the British Museum, the statement contained in which he begged permission to repeat to the House. Mr. Rich, who had been in the service of the East India Company, as their resident at the court of the pacha of Bagdat, had made, during the many years which he resided in India, a very extensive and valuable collection of manuscripts, medals, and antiquities. It was the wish of that gentleman, who was since dead, that this collection should be in the possession of the British Museum, in order that, by being opened to public inspection, it might be the means of facilitating the discoveries and studies of persons of science. His widow, in pursuance of this desire of her late husband, had offered the whole of his collections to the trustees of the Museum at a reasonable price, to be fixed upon by persons who were acquainted with its value. The trustees, when this offer was made to them, felt bound to make an inquiry into the value of the collection. They procured the opinions of Dr. Macbride, Dr. Nicholls of Oxford, Dr. Leigh of Cambridge, and of Dr. Young. They gave their concurrent testimony, that it was highly valuable, and would form an important acquisition to the British Museum. The collection consisted of 900 volumes of manuscripts, in the Persian, Turkish, Chaldaic, Syriac, and Arabic languages. They contained commentaries on the scriptural writings, and were likely to afford very important illustrations of the sacred text. Another part of the collection was composed of Oriental and Greek medals, the value of which would be satisfactorily proved to the House when he told them, that they were held in the highest estimation by the late Mr. Payne Knight, who had carefully examined
665
l
l
l
l
The House being in a committee of supply, Mr. Bankes moved "That 15,416
l
Mr. Croker
rose, not for the purpose of opposing the vote, or to repeat an observation which he had made last year respecting the price at which the catalogue of the Museum was sold. A catalogue was, as it were, the key of the Museum, and highly necessary to the persons who wished to consult the books. The price
666
Mr. Bankes
said, the price of the catalogue was four guineas, but-that, he was aware, was too large a price.
Mr. Hume
wished to know whether there was any objection to adding one or two days in each week to the three on which the Museum was open to the public.
Mr. Bankes
said, that there were only two days at present reserved for private inspection of the Museum, and this reservation was made with a view to accommodate foreigners and other curious persons, and whose object would be frustrated by the admission of a crowd.
Mr. W. J. Bankes
reminded the House of the circumstance of the collection which had been ceded by Mr. Salt to the British Museum; 4,000
l
The vote was agreed to.
UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES IN IRELAND BILL.]
Mr. Goulburn
having moved the order of the day for the third reading of this bill.
Mr. Leycester
said, that, in his opinion, the society ought to be tolerated by the government, because, if it were put down, it would give rise to other societies which would be far more formidable than this, and which no human power would be able to put down. He was sure that the Association had contributed to preserve the peace of Ireland; and he could not doubt that it would continue to do so. He believed, too—and this was another reason which would make him regret to see it put down—that Catholic emancipation would be hastened, and rendered more certain, by means of the Association. It was wholly incompatible with Orange Associations and Orange triumphs; and by annihilating these, which had always been the destruction of public tranquillity in Ireland, it would produce real and lasting benefits to the country. It was said of a great man of old, that he could,
667
Mr. Spring Rice
said, he did not mean to occupy the attention of the House at any length, for though he was prepared to defend the legality of the Catholic Association, and to controvert the truth of every charge that had been brought against that body, still he felt that branch of the subject to have been so amply discussed as not to require any further argument on his part. He would, therefore, take leave of the Association, admitting it to be evidence of a lamentable society in any country where any association, whether Protestant or Catholic, could, to a considerable degree, assume and exercise the functions, and wield the whole population at its will and pleasure. The objections which he was now prepared to make to the bill before the House had not, as yet, been touched upon. They were founded upon the unconstitutional principles of the measure proposed for the adoption of parliament. For the first time the imperial legislature was called upon to adopt the principles of the Irish Convention act. Not only were they called upon in the recitals of the present bill to adopt that most unjustifiable statute, but to declare (for the act was declaratory), that a delegation for the purpose of effecting a redress of grievances was illegal. This he denied; he knew that at former times the names of Chatham, Portland, and Fox, were known to parliament as the names of delegates. In Ireland, the illustrious men whose exertions had procured liberty for their country— Charlemont and Grattan—they were delegates; and if the Convention act was true to its declaration, these true patriots ought to have been met, not by a vote of thanks from parliament, but by an information or an indictment at the suit of the Attorney-general. If the Convention act was true in its declaration, then parliament informed the people of Ireland, that it was from illegal societies, for which the members were liable to pains and penalties, that freedom of constitution, and freedom of speech had both proceeded. Was this a safe or a salutary lesson? Did it not lead to dangerous inferences? Again,
668
"Because we are clearly of opinion, that the laws, as they now stand, are amply sufficient to curb licentiousness of every sort, and to prevent or punish all such crimes as may be injurious to the state, or subversive of public tranquillity.—Because that, as this bill assumes to itself the style and character of a declaratory as well as an enacting law, we cannot enough testify our disapprobation of the dangerous principle of grounding a declaration of law upon old statutes, fallen into disuse from the increasing spirit and wisdom of the times, and esteemed by all sound and constitutional lawyers the disgrace of the Statute-book.—Because we conceive it improper and indecent that this law should be brought forward when this House is ill-attended, and deprived of its best and wisest members."
669
670
mayor, sheriff,
good reason
671
l
672
673
674
675
676
Mr. Doherty
rose and said:—Sir, I do with the most unaffected sincerity assure you, it is impossible for this House to estimate the degree of reluctance with which I presume to intrude upon its attention, after the indulgence with which they have recently received me on a former night of this debate. Nothing but a desire to give some explanations of the many observations in the speech of the hon. member who has just sat down, which apply to me personally, could have conquered my disinclination to address you on the present occasion.
Mr. S. Rice
, in explanation, said, he never meant to impute to the hon. And learned member, that he had been actuated by personal feelings.
677
Mr. Doherty
resumed.—I feel conscious that facts would enable me to clear up every apparent inconsistency, but yet I much mistrust my own ability to do so at the present moment—the allusion which has just been made to me is at once so unexpected and so very embarrassing. Upon a former night, the same hon. member did certainly betray some disposition to assail me, but it was reserved for him to-night to commence his premeditated and prepared attack, by endeavouring to prove my inconsistency, from a comparison of my declarations in this House, with sentiments contained in speeches said to have been delivered by me as a barrister on circuit, now nearly two years ago. Sir, if I have been guilty of what he insinuates, if he does not distinctly charge, I am undeserving of the appellation of friend, with which he has so kindly honoured me, and unworthy of retaining my seat in this House [cries of no, no]. I say, Sir, that the import of the hon. member's words on a former night, which I have accurately noted down, are not to be mistaken. The hon. member then expressed a wish that I had given the House the benefit of my own experience as a barrister on the Leinster circuit, instead of referring to the evidence of others; and added, that this experience in another capacity which he and I know, might have taught me the impurity of justice in Ireland. Why, Sir, give me leave to ask, what is this but to insinuate, if not directly to charge, that I have sought to wield the evidence of others to create an impression in this House, different from that which I had myself reason to entertain, from that which ought to have been the fair result of my experience as a lawyer, and in some other capacity known to the hon. member and to me?—If, Sir, I have endeavoured to do so, I admit indeed that I have been guilty of an offence for which I ought to blush—but if the House will bear with me for a short time, I trust I shall be able to free myself from this foul imputation. I trust I shall be able to convince them, that though I admit myself to be a barrister, I leave my advocate's gown, without the threshold of this door, and endeavour, when I enter it, to assume a conduct and character more befitting the high station of a senator—to throw off the zeal, and warmth, and prejudice of the advocate, and assume the coolness, the candour, and sincerity which best become a member of this House.
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
Mr. Spring Rice
declared, that he never meant to impute to the learned member any thing like being actuated by personal feeling. All he contended for was, that the magistrates of Ireland were not fit to be intrusted with the new and inordinate powers vested in them by the present bill; and, to sustain that proposition, it was not necessary to discuss the question, how far justice could or could not be done in that country between Protestant and Catholic.
Mr. Baring
feared, in the present state of party feeling in Ireland, that the pure and impartial administration of justice in that country was impossible; and that, although he believed more honest, more able, more upright, more honorable men never presided over the administration of justice in any country than those intrusted with it in Ireland, yet it was, in his opinion, quite impossible, while such excitement and irritation continued to exist, to restore to it that confidence which prejudice, founded on such a state of things naturally produced. He would refer to two instances of recent date to show that even in this country, where popular excitement was comparatively rare and innoxious, to prove that a cool and just decision could not be expected under such circumstance: these were the coroner's inquests which followed the transactions at Manchester in 1819, and the deaths of Honey and Francis at the funeral of the late Queen in 1821, in neither of which cases did a satisfactory result ensue—a consequence solely attributable to the state of party feeling which prevailed among the lower classes of society. In Ireland, cases of recent notoriety might be cited if
687
Mr. W. Courtenay
said, he had for thirteen years constantly supported the claims of the Roman Catholics; feeling, as he had always done, a conviction that the acqui-
688
689
Mr. Sykes
said, he objected to the bill, because it was providing a remedy for evils which had been already guarded against by the existing laws. If the Association met for the purposes imputed to it by the supporters of this measure, it could be put down by the law as it stood. If it interfered, with the decision of juries, there were enactments already in force to remedy that evil. Money collected in churches or taverns, for purposes not legal, might be punished by the common law. Why proceed to enact a new law, when those which existed were suffi-
690
Sir J. Newport
said, he could not allow that opportunity to pass, without saying a few words at the present stage of the bill. It was, he maintained, an oppressive measure, introduced to put down by force an Association which had necessarily grown out of the system so long pursued towards Ireland. He denied that this Association had the effect of interfering with the regular course of justice. The aid they afforded to the peasantry to obtain justice for acts of oppression, was by no means unnecessary; for though there might be a few instances where the poor peasant obtained justice, there were thousands of cases in which innumerable difficulties were thrown in his way in endeavouring to procure it. It had been proved before a committee up stairs, that magistrates were in the habit of receiving presents in kind from those to whom they administered justice. The witness who gave that evidence explained his meaning of "presents in kind," by saying, that the magistrate who dealt out justice to the poor farmers had his corn reaped, his turf cut and drawn home, and other acts of service done by those poor individuals. Was this a system consistent with the due administration of justice? But he would not confine himself to this. He had the authority of no less a personage than lord Redesdale, who had the best opportunities of knowing the state of Ireland, that there was in that country, "one law for the rich and another for the poor, and both equally bad." With respect to the effects which the passing of the present bill might produce in Ireland, he could assure the House that they were anticipated with no slight degree of alarm, by those who were best acquainted with the real state of that country. He held in his hand a letter from a most respectable individual, a Protestant, residing in one of the most populous, and most disturbed districts in Ireland. The letter stated, that the papers announcing the first night's division on the present question had arrived in that country, and had produced in the minds of the people the most intense anxiety. He added an expression of his own great surprise, how any man who really knew the state of the country could vote to put down an Association, which
691
Mr. Goulburn
said, he could not allow this last opportunity to pass without making a few remarks in reply to some of the objections which had been urged against the bill for the first time that evening. It had been asserted, that this was partial legislation, and that the government had made no attempt to put down associations of a different description. He denied the fact; and he appealed to the Statute-book for proof, that the House had legislated to put down other societies. Did hon. members forget the act passed in the year 1823, to put down associations of a particular description, by which Orange societies, though not mentioned by name, were particularly aimed at? The right hon. baronet had said, that there was one law for the rich and another for the poor in Ireland. If that was meant to convey to the House, that there was in that country a denial of justice to the poor man, he begged to deny the fact; but, if it meant only, that great inconvenience was felt by a poor man in prosecuting a suit at law, it was no more than was felt in this country, and was incidental to the condition of the poor in every state. With respect to magistrates, he could assert, and he defied contradiction, that there was no such thing as a disposition among them to take bribes for the administration of justice to the poor. There might have been cases of injustice and oppression on the part of the magistrates; but, whenever a case of the kind came fully before government, there was no indisposition to exercise the authority with which they were invested, of removing such persons from the commission.
692
693
Mr. Brougham.
—I made the charge on the authority of one of the counsel engaged in the prosecution.
Mr. Goulburn
—The learned gentleman had said, that the learned judge had not only forborne to defer a trial, the name of which was not mentioned, till the counsel engaged in it was sent for from another court, but had also refused to read over to him the evidence of the witnesses who had been examined previously to his coming into it. The right hon. gentleman here read a letter from the learned baron, stating, that as the name of the case had not been mentioned, he could not meet the charge made against him with as positive a denial as he had done the former charge, but adding, that he had no recollection of such a circumstance having occurred on the circuit, and that he believed no such circumstance had occurred, as it was in direct contravention to the conduct which he had long been in the habit of pursuing towards the bar. After such a statement, he did not suppose that any one would again impute to the learned baron the glaring and criminal misconduct which had been attributed to him by the learned gentleman. He was sure the learned gentleman would be the first to regret that he had been led by false information to employ the weight of his great eloquence in bringing such unfounded accusations against a judicial character; and he trusted that it would teach him to abstain from depicting him in future as a person who was half a tiger and half another animal, which the learned gentleman had named, though the word had not reached his ears. Such language was scarcely defensible when used towards an individual convicted of crime, but was
694
Mr. Denman
said, he had waited with impatience for some explanation of the learned baron's conduct in the two cases which had been brought before the notice of the House; and now that the explanation had been given, he must observe that to him it appeared to be any thing but satisfactory. The learned baron had met the first charge with a positive denial. This was no more than might naturally be expected from a person in his situation. A learned counsel had, however, pledged his professional character to the truth of the charge; and he could not see any reason why the judge was to be credited merely because he was on the bench, or why the barrister should be disbelieved merely because he was below it. If a man were to be considered innocent merely because he denied the accusation brought against him, why should not the Catholic Association have the benefit of the same doctrine? It had certainly every claim upon their indulgence: it had challenged inquiry into its conduct: it had offered evidence of its proceedings: that evidence had been rejected, and its guilt had been taken for granted, not only without producing any facts to establish it, but after shutting out from the public view every document, except those miserable statements, which were now poured infrom every quarter to blacken the conduct and objects of the Catholic Association. Gentlemen on the other side had told them that they ought not to attack the absent. He wished they would follow the advice they gave, and before they poured out the vials of their wrath on the Catholic Association, would recollect that they had driven its members from their bar, and had not allowed them to refute the charges they had produced, against them. It was, however, quite ridiculous to talk of not attacking the absent, when it was of chancellors and of judges that they had to speak. Those persons could not hold seats in that House; but it was the duty of those who did hold them to remark, and to remark by name, on their conduct if it were objectionable.
695
Colonel Forde
said:—Sir, as a country gentleman, and not as a lawyer, I rise to give my testimony to the high character which baron M'Clelland so deservedly bears in Ireland. I have seen him in the county which I have the honour to represent, administering justice most impartially, in those very trials which have been denominated party trials; and I have heard him utter sentiments in reprobation of the spirit of party, which redounded highly
696
Mr. Hutchinson
rose, amid loud calls for the question. He expressed a hope that the House would not disgrace itself by an attempt to cry down such members as dared be honest in the worst of times. He stood there to exercise his right as a member of parliament, and they should hear whatever it was his pleasure to submit to the House. [Calls of Question]. By the course they were now pursuing, they would only compel him to remain ten times longer on his legs than he intended. He had listened with much attention to the arguments adduced on the other side, and could conscientiously declare, that he had not heard one which ought to induce the House to vote for the odious and abominable measure before them. The Speech from the throne acknowleged that at present all was peaceable. Even the priests, that much-abused-body, were now selected for euiogiuro, and as having mainly contributed to the tranquillity of that country. And yet that moment of peace and harmony was selected as a proper period for the renewal of the Convention bill of 1793. The hon. member then proceeded, amidst much confusion, to reiterate his opposition to this measure, which he considered full of mockery and insult. He trusted that, if it were carried into a law in that House, the Catholics would not only petition the House of Lords to throw it out, but in case it passed there, would petition the Throne to withhold from it the royal assent. The measure was a mockery—an insult to the Irish people. It had been said, that the Rent was torn from the people; that he would contradict flatly. He could assure the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues, that they were undertaking the most awful responsibility. If they looked to history; they would find, that, though governments might succeed in suppressing the spirit of the people for a short period, they were unable to extinguish it altogether, or to
697
Mr. Secretary Peel
assured the House, that he would detain them but for a very short period indeed, if they would bear with him for that time. He was anxious to set himself right in some points, wherein what he had stated on a former evening was more or less directly concerned. In the first place, he entirely acquitted the hon. gentleman who spoke last, of any intention to intimidate him personally on a former night; and when the hon. gentleman threatened to bring all the members, almost, on his side of the House to the block, he never supposed for a moment that the hon. gentleman meant any thing more than to speak of them in a general way, in their capacity of ministers. But, most undoubtedly, in what-
698
699
700
701
702
*
*
703
Mr. Brougham
hoped the House would excuse him, even at that late hour, if he offered a few observations upon what had fallen from the right hon. Secretary. The right hon. gentleman commenced his speech in the most open and candid manner. He appealed to him and to the House with the utmost simplicity—nay, he even quoted his (Mr. B's) speech on a former night, with as much candour and strictness as his recollection of it could enable him to do—and he repeated the terms "rash, indiscreet, equivocal," as applied to the conduct of the Catholic Association, in such a manner, that if no gentleman in that House had heard his (Mr. B's) speech, the right hon. gentleman's statement would have perfectly answered his object. But in his (Mr. B's) recollection rested an impression of words of a very different nature from those now used by the right hon. Secretary—words,
704
705
706
707
708
"Non meus hic sermo est, sed quæ præcepit Ofellus
Rusticus, abnormis sapiens, crassâque Minervâ."
709
Mr. Peel
, in explanation, denied that he had used any tone of peculiar harshness or vehemence. He now calmly re-asserted every expression that had fallen from him on last Friday. In the course of his observations on that evening, he had read a passage from the report of the secret com-
710
The House then divided: For the third reading 226. Against it, 96. Majority 130. The bill was then read a third time, and passed.
List of the Minority.
Abercromby, hon. J.
Maberly, W. L.
Althorp, visc.
Macdonald, J.
Becher, W. W.
Mackintosh, sir J.
Bective, lord
Mahon, hon. S.
Benett, J.
Marjoribanks, S.
Brougham, H.
Martin, R.
Browne, Dom.
Martin, J.
Burdett, sir F.
Milton, visc.
Bury, visc.
Monck, J. B.
Byng, G.
Moore, P.
Calcraft, J.
Newport, sir J.
Calcraft, J. H.
Normanby, visc.
Calvert, C.
Nugent, lord
Carew, R. S.
O'Brien, sir E.
Caulfield, hon. H.
Ord, W.
Cavendish, C. C.
Palmer, C. F.
Cavendish, lord G. A. H.
Pares, T.
Parnell, sir H.
Cavendish, H.
Philips, G., sen.
Chaloner, R.
Philips, G. R. jun.
Clifton, lord
Power, R.
Colborne, N. W. R.
Poyntz, W. S.
Cradock, S.
Price, R.
Creevey, T.
Ramsden, J. C.
Davies, T. H.
Robarts, A. W.
Denman, T.
Robarts, G. J.
Dundas, hon. T.
Robinson, sir G.
Ebrington, visc.
Scarlett, J.
Evans, W.
Sefton, earl of
Fergusson, sir R.
Smith, J.
Fitzgerald, right hon. M.
Smith, G.
Smith, W.
Folkestone, visc.
Somerville, sir M.
French, A.
Stuart, lord P. J.
Gaskell, B.
Sykes, D.
Glenorchy, visc.
Talbot, R. W.
Graham, S.
Taylor, M. A.
Grattan, J.
Tierney, right hon. G.
Guise, sir B. W.
Warre, J. A.
Hamilton, lord A.
Webbe, E.
Heron, sir R.
Whitbread, W. H.
Hill, lord A.
White, S.
Hobhouse, J. C.
White, col.
Hume, J.
Wilson, sir R.
Hutchinson, hon. C. H.
Wood, M.
Johnson, W. A.
Wyvill, M.
Kingsborough, lord
TELLERS.
Knight, R.
Duncannon, visc.
Lamb, hon. G.
Rice, T. S.
Lambton, J. G.
PAIRED OFF.
Leycester, R.
Ponsonby, hon.F. C.
Lushington, S.
Rowley, sir W.
Maberly, J.
Wilkins, W.
711
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, February 28, 1825
SCOTCH JURIES BILL.]
Lord Melville
rose, pursuant to notice, to introduce a bill for better regulating the mode of choosing Juries in Scotland. It would be in the recollection of their lordships, that, on more than one occasion, when a bill for altering the present manner of choosing Scotch juries was formerly before the House, he had objected to it, on account of the complexity and inefficiency of the proposed remedy. The machinery of the bill brought from the Commons was very inconvenient; even more inconvenient than the one now in use. At that time, he had stated that he would, with the concurrence and assistance of persons in the northern parts of the united kingdom, well informed on the subject, undertake to prepare a bill, having the same object as that which had been rejected. That bill he had now the honour to tender to their lordships. As to the alterations, in the first place, their lordships were aware that at the union the law of high treason was assimilated throughout Great Britain; but, though the law on this subject was the same in Scotland as in England, it had been found difficult to render the mode of choosing the jury exactly alike. In England, assizes were held in each county; but in Scotland the circuits were held for districts, consisting generally of four counties. He therefore meant to propose, that, in cases of high treason, the lists of grand and petty jurors should be returned from districts, and not from counties. In the second place, it was to be recollected, in regard to ordinary trials, that the assize in Scotland was not at all regulated in the same manner as in England. The prisoner received a list of the names from which his jury was struck, fifteen days before trial; and he proposed, in addition to this, to make the mode of selecting the jury more conformable to the practice of this country. These were the general principles of the bill; and he had only to add, that he proposed to alter the present mode of choosing juries, which was left to the judge, and make them be chosen by ballot, leaving both to the prisoner and the prosecutor an equal right of challenge.
The bill was read the first time.
UNLAWFUL, SOCIETIES IN IRELAND
712
Numerous petitions were presented to the House, both for and against this bill.
The Earl of Darnley
presented a petition from the parish of St. Catherine, Dublin, against the bill. He stated, that the petition expressed the sentiments of a very large proportion of his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects. He did not wish to be understood as standing up there in defence of every thing which had been said or done by the Association. Many things might be said in public assemblies for which it would be necessary rather to offer apology than defence. That, however, did not alter his opinion of the injustice and impolicy of the measure now before the House.
Lord Holland
said, he had a petition to present against the bill. The petition contained some strong reasons against passing it. By some noble lords these reasons might not appear objections to the bill, but arguments for it. If the objections to the Catholic Association were, that it spoke the sentiments of the whole Irish nation; if it were an objection to that Association, that it endeavoured calmly but firmly to procure the redress of an intolerable grievance; then he was afraid that these petitions and these objections would only appear to some noble lords as arguments for the bill. These petitions, as expressing the common opinion and feeling of the country, were entitled to the serious consideration of the House. He trusted, therefore, that their lordships would give to them their most serious attention.
The Marquis of Lansdown
, in rising to present some petitions of a similar nature, wished to state, that since he had presented the Protestant petition in favour of the Catholic claims, he had received letters from the marquis of Sligo and lord Ashtown, expressing a wish that their names should be affixed to that petition. It was too late for him to comply with the request, but, out of courtesy to these noble lords, he thought it due to them to state their intentions. The noble marquis said, he had several petitions to present, which gave him great satisfaction. From what he had heard of the bill, it would be both inefficient and unconstitutional.
Lord Clifden
said, he had a number of petitions to present from Protestants as well as Catholics, against the bill. With respect to that measure, he did not think that much effect could be expected from ft. It would be recollected, that about two
713
The Bishop of Bath and Wells
presented a petition in favour of the bill, from the archdeacon and clergy of the diocess of Bath and Wells. It intimated in one passage, that the Catholics had covered their designs with a cloak of loyalty, which they had now thrown off, and were proceeding to threaten.
Earl Fitzwilliam
condemned the language which the petitioners used, on account of its impolicy as well as its illiberality and injustice. He must object to petitions from the clergy for the exclusion of others from constitutional privileges, as coming from an interested body. If a rich corporation petitioned for objects which were supposed to favour its interests, why might not the army be allowed to petition in the like manner? He condemned all penal laws for opinions; all attempts to control the consciences of men. Such conduct was flying in the face of heaven; and it was dreadful to think of the consequences which might follow from thus persisting in inflicting severe penalties on six millions of human beings. The only pretext for this manner
714
The Bishop of Bath and Wells
was surprised to hear what had fallen from the noble earl respecting the language of the petition. What had been stated, however, consisted altogether of general assertion, which he could only answer by a general negation. In his opinion, the sentiments contained in the petition reflected credit on those from whom it came. He was not aware of any improper language in it; if there was, the noble earl had not pointed it out. He could not see why petitions against a measure should not be received by persons whose interests might be affected by that measure; and, in the present case, he thought the clergy had as good a right to petition as any other class of his majesty's subjects. If any thing could show the unreasonableness of this exception, it would be the reception of a petition which professed to come from the whole body of the Catholic priesthood of Ireland.
Lord Holland
observed, that, always inclined to open the widest door to the applications of the people, he would make no objection to the reception of this petition. He would receive it notwithstanding the absolute falsehoods and the gross allegations of improper motives with which it was filled, and the spirit and temper which it displayed. The petitioners came before their lordships "humbly" representing their views and their fears; but, what evidence did they give of christian humility in their arrogant denial of equal privileges to their christian brethren? They professed their regard for christian establishments, but showed none for christian charity. His noble friend had objected to the petition, that it contained imputations of motives which the petitioners could not prove, and asserted facts, of which the Catholics could establish the falsehood. When this was denied, his noble friend had justified his assertions by an appeal to the words of the petition. It broadly stated, that the Catholics avowed the doctrine of the Pope's supremacy in civil matters—an assertion which the Catholics denied. It next asserted, that the real object of the Catholics was to overthrow the Protestant Church establishment, and possess themselves of its revenues; and this the Catholics denied. It did not become a body of men profess-
715
The Bishop of Chester
[Dr. Blomfield] said, he was unwilling to hear any imputations upon any portion of the clergy, for a want of charity. As to the supremacy of the Pope, the Catholics were too wise to allude to it in any document submitted to that House, because the maintenance of such a doctrine would be unlawful. But he would inform their lordships, that in a Catholic journal circulated throughout his own diocess by the Catholic priests, such doctrine was advanced. In December last, the editor of that journal, who had been repeatedly thanked by the various branches of the Catholic body, in speaking of a late ordinance of the king of France, disapproving of the conduct of a cardinal for compromising the liberties of the Gallican church, said, that he could not agree with the views of the French government on that occasion, because the king had no title to interfere with the conduct of the church, to the injury of the indefeasible rights of his holiness the Pope. The same doctrine was asserted by the Roman Catholic priests of Lancashire. They made no scruple to say, that the churches of this kingdom had been theirs once; and that they expected they would be theirs again. The noble baron imputed a want of charity to the petitioners for suspecting the designs of the Catholics, and had found fault with some allegations in the petition. He himself did not entirely approve of all the expressions in the petition. There were some that he would have been glad to see expunged; but it would be hard to refuse conscientious men the right of making known their fears, and raising their voices in defence of our establishments, though they might, in their sincerity and honest conviction, employ a greater severity of terms than the occasion warranted. If he wanted any further ex-
716
The Earl of Carnarvon
did not disapprove of churchmen petitioning on public measures; but he objected to their separating themselves from the great body of the people in their applications. If he were a clergyman, he should feel a distrust of his own impartiality in a matter which had reference to the establishment; and would not petition, lest he might be actuated by prejudices which rendered his opinion of no value. The petitioners had not shown this prudent distrust; but had completely justified its necessity. They evinced the strongest bias, and were actuated by prejudices which led them to distort facts. The petition prayed that the House would protect the established religion, which was threatened with spiritual tyranny and oppression. What man could look around him, and say that the Protestant body were threatened with spiritual oppression and tyranny from the Catholics? He had always heard, that the tyranny and oppression was not only threatened, but inflicted, from the other side. However this might be, there certainly was spiritual coercion. He regretted that the petitioners should have thrown such discredit on their order, by uncharitable allegations, and the falsehood of their assertions. They had justified lord Clarendon's character of churchmen; who had said, that of all classes of men, the clergy were, on general subjects, the least informed, and took the most incorrect view of public affairs.
Lord King
expressed his belief, that such a petition could not have come from any other corporation, or place in the kingdom, than from the wise men of the dioceses whence it issued. Such a mass of bigotry and nonsense could no where else have been concocted. The clergy in that town were entirely in the dark. They read, and knew nothing. They had not even perused the tolerant proclamation of the tolerant king of Hanover. He wished the right rev. prelate of the dioceses would
717
Ordered to lie on the table.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, February 28, 1825
JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES.]
On the motion, that the Welch Iron and Mining Company Bill be read a second time,
Mr. Grenfell
objected to the practice of granting to Joint-Stock Companies the privilege of suing and being sued by their secretaries. If, as it was alleged, many companies now in progress had no real foundation, and were only formed with a view of deluding the public, their power of deluding would be considerably increased, by their being enabled to hold out to the world that they possessed any thing like parliamentary sanction.
Mr. Huskisson
admitted, that some of the new companies possessed the character which the hon. member said was ascribed to them. Parliament had very properly put an end to the system of gambling by lotteries; but many of these companies led to much more destructive consequences than even that. With reference to what the hon. gentleman had said, he must ask, how it was possible for the House to know whether certain companies were or were not formed on sound plans, and whether their capital was subscribed? He believed, indeed, that if it should appear that the capital of the companies had not been subscribed—that it was only a pretended capital— they would experience great difficulty in getting their bills through all their stages in another place. There were, he understood, some standing orders in the other House, which rendered it necessary for companies wishing to obtain the sanction of parliament to prove that they possessed substantial means.
Mr. Hobhouse
expressed his pleasure at the attention of the House having been directed to the subject, which he considered one of great importance. When the proper time came, he should be able to prove that there was no pretence whatever for some of the projects of the pre-
718
Mr. Baring
said, he would not venture, in the present stage, to pass an opinion whether the projects were or were not chimerical; but, with regard to the mining speculation to which his hon. friend had referred, it seemed to him to stand upon as good a foundation as the others. Whatever the comparative merits of different schemes might be, the House ought not to pass any bills of the kind incautiously, because the probability was, that they would be rejected elsewhere. A good deal had been said on the subject of a general measure to restrain the spirit of speculation in mining and other shares, to be introduced in another place. Whether the intention had been abandoned, or was to be persevered in, he knew not; but, if he had not been led to expect that such a bill would be brought forward early, he should, ere now, have said something on the subject. He did not see that any great injury would be done by merely granting the power to companies to sue and be sued by their secretary. He cautioned the House against adopting such a tone upon this subject, as might obstruct a great deal of useful spirit of enterprise. He hoped that his right hon. friend (Mr. Huskisson) had made up his mind, as to the course which it would be advisable for him, in his official capacity, to pursue. It was, in his opinion, the duty of the House to adopt some general measure, applicable to all undertakings of the kind, without bestowing particular censure upon individual schemes, that might or might not be publicly advantageous.
Mr. Huskisson
wished, as he had been addressed in his official capacity, to add a few words to what he had already said upon this subject. It was difficult, if not impossible, for him to ascertain, and decide upon, the merits of any of the plans at present afloat; and to all of them
719
Mr. Hume
contended against the position, that the House ought to lay down some general rule upon this subject. He, for one, should be sorry to see it meddle with any thing of the kind. When hon. members talked of delusions, he should be glad to know whether Waterloo Bridge was not as gross a delusion and as ruinous a delusions as had ever been practised upon the public? Yet that project was supported and countenanced, and had ended in the complete distress of a great many of the parties. These evils, as far as they were so, ought to cure themselves. It was not the duty of the House to throw impediments in the way of speculation, as long as it communicated no peculiar privileges. Individuals ought to be allowed to do as they pleased with their own property.
The bill was read a second time.
FINANCIAL SITUATION OF THE COUNTRY.]
The House having resolved itself into a committee of Ways and Means,
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
rose to make his promised Exposition of the Financial situation of the Country, and addressed the Committee as follows:—
*
720
Mr. Brogden
;—Although I cannot for bear to congratulate the House upon the auspicious circumstances under which we are called upon to review the state of our finances, I can truly say that I do not do so for the mere purpose of making a flourish, nor with any desire to induce the country to indulge in an unreasonable exultation as to the present, or an extravagant anticipation as to the future. But although I have no such object in view, and although there may be in this country, and unquestionably are in other countries, persons, who, either jealous of the eminence of our station, or ignorant of the causes which have placed us there, may represent our present prosperity as the forerunner of our ruin, and may wish to represent us as having merely hastened
————"numerosa parare
Excelæ turris tabulata, unda altior esset
Casus, et impulsæ præceps immane ruinæ,"
l.
l.
l.
721
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
722
l.
l.
l.
723
An increase upon Auctions
of
12 per cent.
An increase upon Beer, (Strong)
—
15 per cent.
An increase upon —— (Table)
—
20 per cent.
An increase upon Bricks
—
40 per cent.
An increase upon Tiles
—
15 per cent.
An increase upon Candles, (Tallow)
—
9½ per cent.
An increase upon —— (Wax)
—
8 per cent.
An increase upon Coffee
—
2½ per cent.
An increase upon Cocoa Nuts
—
6½ per cent.
An increase upon Glass
—
20 per cent.
A decrease upon Glass Bottles
—
20 per cent.
An increase upon Cyder and Perry
—
12 per cent.
An increase upon Leather Tanned
—
10 per cent.
An increase upon —— Skins
—
15 per cent.
An increase upon Licenses
—
7 per cent.
An increase upon Malt
—
3 per cent.
An increase upon Paper, 1 and 2 Class
—
12½ percent.
An increase upon —— Mill Board
—
15 per cent.
An increase upon Pepper
—
10 per cent.
An increase upon Printed Goods, Calicoes
—
24 per cent.
An increase upon —— Stained Paper
—
20 per cent.
An increase upon Soap, (Hard)
—
7½ per cent.
An increase upon —— (Soft)
—
12½ per cent.
A decrease upon Starch
—
3 per cent.
An increase upon Spirits, British
—
66 per cent.
An increase upon — Foreign
—
25 per cent.
An increase upon Stone Bottles
—
15 per cent.
An increase upon Sweets, &c
—
45 per cent.
An increase upon Tea
—
1¼ per cent.
An increase upon Tobacco and Snuff
—
3½ per cent.
A decrease upon Vinegar
—
9 per cent.
An increase upon Wine
—
5 per cent.
An increase upon Wire
—
½ per cent.
An increase upon Wrought Plate
—
15 per cent.
I now come to the Stamps. I estimated last year that it would produce 6,800,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
The Post-office I took at 1,460,000
l.
l.
724
exhibits the following satisfactory results.
ture to adopt the same principle in framing my present estimates.
I have now to state to the committee, my calculations for the present year, and to explain the grounds upon which they are formed. I assume the produce of 1825, including every thing, at 56,445,370
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
725
Receipts of 1825
£11,327,000
Diminution of bounties
50,000
Stock of silk in hand
460,000
£11,837,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
The estimate for the Excise I state at 26,400,000
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
Customs
£11,350,000
Excise
26,400,000
Stamps
7,100,000
Taxes
4,875,000
Post Office
1,500,000
Miscellaneous
750,000
Trustees of Half Pay
4,470,370
£56,445,370
l.
l.
726
The other class of expenditure is that which arises from the annual supplies voted by parliament, and the two together comprehend the ensuing items:
Consolidated Fund.
Interest of Debt
£27,233,670
Do. of Exchequer Bills
40,000
Civil List, &c.
2,050,000
Half Pay Annuity
2,800,000
Sinking Fund
5,486,654
£37,610,324
Supply.
Interest of Exchequer Bills
820,000
Army
7,911,751
Navy
5,983,126
Ordnance
1,376,641
Miscellaneous
2,300,000
£56,001,842
l.
Deducting then the total charge of 56,001,842
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
727
s.
s.
s.
s.
l.
s.
It thus appears that the surplus of the years ending with 1827 will be as follows:
Surplus of 1824
£1,437,744
1825
443,528
1826
864,676
1827
1,254,676
Total
£4,000,624
728
First, then, as to the extension of our intercourse with foreign nations. The House, I am happy to say, has gone along with me in promoting this great object, and I trust that the country is by this time convinced of the good sense which dictates the policy of getting rid both of positive prohibitions and of prohibitory duties. Much has already been done upon this subject, but much remains to be done; and it is the intention of my right hon. friend near me (Mr. Huskisson) to take an early opportunity of submitting to the House a plan for reducing, within moderate and reasonable bounds, all the
729
l.
s.
l.
s.
730
l.
The next item to which I wish to call the attention of the committee is in Coffee,
731
West India
1
s.
East India
1
s
d.
Foreign
2
s.
d.
I do not mean to say that these rates of duty are very high, or that they press with great severity upon the great mass of consumers in this country; it is, nevertheless, true, that the consumption of coffee, particularly since the imposition of the last duty in 1819, has by no means kept pace with the increased population and ease of the country; from which we may reasonably infer that the high rate of duty has contributed not a little to curtail it. It is, besides, a matter of great importance to give every facility to the cultivation, in the West Indies, of every species of tropical produce as well as sugar: and, as it is well known, that the labour of cultivating coffee is much less severe than that which is necessary for the production of sugar, I flatter myself that the increased consumption of coffee which I anticipate from this reduction, will, in that respect, be of much utility in that part of his majesty's dominions. I propose to extend this reduction to cocoa, and, taking both articles together, the revenue will probably be diminished to the amount of 150,000
l.
I come now to a matter which, in reference to the principle which I have just laid down as to the effect of the high duty upon coffee in curtailing its consumption, has long occupied my attention, and has upon various occasions, during the last two years, been under the notice of the House. I allude to the article of wine; and when upon former occasions I have been asked whether the government contemplated any change respecting it, although I did not then feel myself enabled to take that subject in hand, I never argued against the principle of reduction, and could not shut my ears to the notorious fact, that the consumption of wine in the united kingdom had not only not increased, but had, in truth, greatly fallen off. I may perhaps be here told, that wine is a mere luxury, that the duties upon it fall exclusively upon those who are best able to pay them, and that the poorer classes of the community will derive no benefit from their diminution; Sir, I cannot admit that these are conclusive objections in some sense, it is true, wine
732
French
1801
8
s.
9
d.
1802
8
10
1803
8
10
Not French
1801
6
5
1802
6
6
1803
6
6
Gallons.
Of French Wine
274,000
Of all other Wine
7,396,000
Now the consumption of 1824, after the lapse of more than twenty years, notwithstanding the great increase of our population and of our general opulence, has been so far from keeping pace with that increase that it did not exceed 254,268 gallons of French wine, and 4,847,976 gallons of other wine. How is this to be accounted for? I may be told, that the habits of the country are changed; that it is not now the fashion to drink so much wine as formerly; this may, to a certain extent, be true; but one obvious reason for the
733
Duty in
Present Duty,
Proposed Duty.
French
1801,
8
s.
9
d.
per gall.
11
s.
d.
6
s.
1802,
8
10
1803,
8
10
Not French
1801,
6
5
7
s.
d.
4
s
1802,
6
6
1803,
6
6
Now, Sir, it is possible that a reduction to the scale of 1801 might be sufficient to bring back the consumption to the rate of that period; but as it would be highly imprudent to reduce the duty at all, unless it were done effectually, I have thought it better to descend at once to the point which I have mentioned, and which will be a reduction of nearly half of the present amount, being at the rate of 1
s.
d.
s.
734
l.
The division of the subject to which I have now arrived, is one of peculiar importance. It refers not only to the principle to which I have just been alluding, of giving relief to the consumer, but to one of a higher order, and which is essentially connected with the morals and happiness of the people; I mean the prevention of smuggling. Smuggling, Sir, I conceive to be one of the greatest domestic evils that can afflict a country. Its active instruments haunt us wherever we go; they hover round our coast, they penetrate our harbours, they traverse the interior; they invade the splendid palace of the noble, and the humble cottage of the poor: they offer their temptations in every quarter, and I fear that all classes of society yield to the seduction. Surely this is an evil of tremendous magnitude: confounding all notions of right and wrong, and sapping with incessant and increasing power the very foundations upon which obedience to the law is built, it brings the law itself into disrepute, and the violation of it into universal credit. We have endeavoured to check the progress of this mischief by the most rigorous measures; we have surrounded the coast with ships and guards as with a wall of brass; we have imposed penalty upon penalty, and inflicted punishment upon punishment, but all in vain. Why? Because the cause of the evil is the law, and the alteration of the law has not yet been tried. Let us try it now; let us apply to England that change which has had such triumphant success in Ireland and in Scotland. Gentlemen may perhaps recollect, that when I proposed to make a great change in the distillery law of Ireland and Scotland, there were not wanting persons who exclaimed, "What; reduce the duty upon spirits? Make all the people drunk. For God's sake abstain from so fatal a measure." The measure was nevertheless taken; and what has been the consequence? So far from any evil having resulted from this step, tranquillity, order, and harmony, have superseded the disturbances, the confusion, and the ill-blood which arose from the desolating extension of illicit distillation. Why, then, should we not try in England a system of which experience has proved to us the advantage? Every motive of
735
736
737
s.
d.
s.
s.
d.
s.
s.
s.
d.
s.
s.
738
l.
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
l.
739
"Incipit ipsorum contra te stare parentum
Nobilitas, claramque facem præferre pudori."
740
741
l,
l.
l.
l.
742
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
s.
d.
743
l.
l.
l.
Reduction upon Hemp
£.100,000
Reduction upon Coffee
150,000
Reduction upon Wine
230,000
Reduction upon British Spirit and Rum
750,000
Reduction upon Cyder
20,000
Reduction upon Assessed Taxes
276,000
£.1,526,000
l.
l.
744
Sir H. Parnell
said, that he felt perfect satisfaction at the statement of the right hon. gentleman, and particularly as it regarded Ireland.
Mr. Maberly
hoped the committee would not, by admitting the propriety of many of the general principles upon which the right hon. gentleman had founded his able statement, be considered as pledging themselves to his details, and particularly where his practice was at variance with the system which he advocated. He begged also not to be considered as admitting that the right hon. gentleman's disposal of his surplus revenue was the best. The increase of the revenue he had always anticipated as the natural consequence of the introduction of sound commercial principles, they had given fair play to the industry of the people, and hence followed more comfort, and, as a necessary consequence, an augmentation of the national revenue.
Mr. Sykes
said, that the reduction of the duties on hemp and iron would be a great relief to the shipping interest, and of no detriment to the revenue. He was no friend to bounties. He would suggest the reduction of the duties on whale oil also, which would occasion a loss to the revenue of only 13,000
l.
Mr. Bright
complained of the comparative inattention afforded to the West-India interests, and the necessity of further time for consideration, before the committee decided upon the right hon. gentleman's statement. Parliament had seriously interfered with the value of West-India property and interests, without giving the owners any thing like a fair equivalent. By the proposed reduction of bounties upon sugar, the great refining trade would be infallibly lost; and by the reduction of the duty upon homemade spirits, rum would be removed at a still greater distance from the British market. It was last year affected considerably by the introduction of Irish and Scotch whisky; and some hopes were
745
s.
s.
l.
Mr. W. Smith
said, he would put in his claim for a future hearing on this subject, as the House was not at that moment properly prepared for the discussion.
Colonel Daives
said, that the House would, to-morrow week, have an opportunity of considering the tobacco and other duties, in consequence of a motion of which he had given notice. He was not without hopes, that the chancellor of the Exchequer would carry his admirable principles further into practical operation, and still further diminish the public taxation.
Mr. Hobhouse
thought it would have been better to have equalized the wine duties, than have made them in the proportion as six to four; and he was quite sure the country would not be satisfied with his inadequate reduction of the assessed taxes. The sinking fund on the present plan was, he thought, quite ridiculous.
Mr. John Smith
thought the sinking fund essential to the maintenance of the national faith and honour. The West-India interests had been exceedingly oppressed; and he thought that a reduction of the duties upon sugar would have a very beneficial operation.
Mr. Hart Davis
complained that the tobacco duties were not reduced. They now amounted to 1,200 per cent upon the original value of the article. He had expected a reduction of one half at least of these duties. Notwithstanding the very great export from America, the revenue in this article was not improved.
Mr. Alderman Thompson
concurred in
746
Mr. Hume
noticed the immense military establishment which was still to be kept up. It amounted to 17 millions, including the miscellaneous estimates; 15 millions and a half being for the army, navy, and ordnance. In 1816, they were told they had not yet come to the full reduction of their peace establishment; and yet they had been going on increasing the amount every year since. He entirely concurred in the opinion that they would never make an impression upon smuggling, and reduce the expense of the preventive service, until they diminished the tobacco and brandy duties. As to the general commercial principles upon which the right hon. gentleman had acted, he gave him the fullest credit for their utility and liberality, and only wished him to carry them further. He must also say, that the promise held out to the West-India interests had not been redeemed. It was a breach of faith to the colonies not to put them upon a comparative footing with the general home trade. He was struck with two facts in the right hon. gentleman's statement — that whilst the general increase of the revenue amounted to 15 per cent upon some articles, and averaged 5 per cent on the greater number, yet that in the malt and tobacco duties the increase was only at the rate of 3½ per cent. He was quite persuaded that if the right hon. gentleman made the reduction in these articles 50 per cent, he would, out of the increased consumption, preserve a revenue equal to the present, and at the same time save an enormous expense to prevent smuggling. The sinking fund was at present quite a delusion, and he would, in a few days, demonstrate that fact to the House.
Mr. Huskisson
said, it was a subject of much congratulation to his right hon. friend, to find the praise bestowed, from all sides of the House, upon the commercial principles on which he was acting, and the reduction of the public burthens which he had at the same time afforded. He was
747
s.
d.
d.
s.
d.
s.
748
Mr. Ellice
said, he was greatly, though not entirely, satisfied with the statements of the chancellor of the Exchequer. He agreed with the opinions of his hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen, about the sinking fund, but that measure ought to be discussed by itself. He was sorry that foreign iron should be the only article selected by ministers, out of the numerous others on which the duties were so high as almost to amount to a prohibition. Brass, lead, tin, &c. had thus risen to a price extremely disadvantageous to the consumer. It
749
s.
s.
750
Mr. Whitmore
wished to see the duty on East-India sugar placed on an equality with other sugar. He was sure we might look to that country for a great extension of our commerce, and that it was impossible this measure, which was one of justice, could long be delayed. He wished, before the duty on wines had been so much reduced, that it had been equalized on all wines. There was a system of monopoly existing in Portugal, which would completely deceive the calculations of the chancellor of the Exchequer. There was a more absurd monopoly of Port wine, than any he knew of. This was equally injurious to England and Portugal; and he hoped some endeavours would be made to get rid of it. The heaviest burthen, however, which the people of this country laboured under was the corn laws. He hoped, when he brought this subject before the House, it would meet that serious attention which its importance demanded.
Mr. Bernal
wished to know if the right hon. gentleman had determined not to deviate from his resolutions respecting the duty on rum? He knew that particular interests must give way to general; but, in this instance, he thought the general interest would be advanced by consulting that of the West Indies. It was surely desirable that such a reduction of duty should take place in rum, as would place West-India and British spirits on an equal footing. Was it likely the poorer classes would purchase rum, on which the duty was 8
s.
s.
751
Mr. H. Vivian
, referring to the reduction on foreign iron, wished to have such an equivalent, in the way of duty, for the produce of the Cornish mines, as would reimburse them for the difference of charges caused by taxation at home.
Sir C. Forbes
was astonished, amidst all the reductions on articles of foreign growth and produce, that no reduction had been proposed on East-India commodities.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
, in reply to the suggestions of the hon. member for Rochester, wished to give a reason why he did not conceive rum entitled to an equal reduction with British spirits. The price of grain, from the natural operation of the corn laws, put the distiller under a necessity of paying a price for his malt, beyond that which be would have to pay if there were no such restrictions. In rum, the first material was not subject to that specific charge. The prime cost of the malt spirit was so much more than rum, that the latter article could more easily bear 8
s.
s.
The several resolutions were agreed to.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, March 1, 1825.
MINING SPECULATIONS.]
Earl Grosvenor
rose, to address their lordships, on the subject of some reports which had been circulated respecting himself. Their lordships were aware, that there were numerous Mining speculations afloat, which might be attended with ruinous consequences to many; and which, to the individual who had then the honour to address their lordships, had already occasioned some unpleasant circumstances. While he was in the country, he had been told, that it was confidently reported that he had made, by speculations in the mining projects, a sum of 60,000
l.
l.
752
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, March 1, 1825.
LONDON WATER COMPANY BILL.]
On the motion of Mr. Buxton, that the bill be now read a second time,
Mr. W. Williams
Mr. Fremantle
said, that having been personally alluded to, he felt it necessary to say a few words. When he went into that committee, he was of opinion, that the conduct of the Water companies was extremely wrong: he thought they abused the public, and obtained too great a profit on their capital; but, after six weeks close investigation, he found he was wrong; that there was a plentiful supply of good water at a cheap rate; and that while the expense and risk were enormous, the profits were too small. There was no
753
Mr. F. Buxton
thought, that any measure, which had for its object the supply of good water at a cheap rate, could not be injurious to the public. An increase of population was the ground upon which a new Water company was established in 1810. That was an equally good ground at present; for in the fourteen years which have elapsed, there had been a proportionate increase of the population. A great deal had been said on the advantages and disadvantages of competition; and, although it was admitted to be beneficial to the public in all other undertakings, it was contended that in that most important necessary of life, water it was prejudicial. The fact was this; that when, in 1810, competition among the Water companies began, the price of water fell 25 per cent; whereas, in 1815, when competition ceased, the price rose to the same amount. The hon. member then noticed the case of a schoolmaster at Stratford, who had been recently compelled to pay 200 per cent above the sum he formerly paid, merely because he had ventured to remonstrate against an advance of 100 per cent.
Mr. T. Wilson
contended, that it was not fair to quote a particular instance as a proof of a general proposition. He was of opinion that competition was injurious in the cases both of Water and Gas companies. He therefore should resist the further progress of the bill.
The House divided: Ayes 69; Noes 30: Majority for the second reading 39.
CALL OF THE HOUSE.]
Mr. Brougham
The Speaker
said, there was no order of the day for calling over the House, but there was an order that every member should be in his place on this occasion. A difficulty would arise as to what was a strict compliance with that order. According to the letter, any attendance during the evening would be an attendance in fulfilment of the order. According to the spirit, the attendance must be on the subject of the hon. baronet's (sir F. Burdett's) motion. Under these cir-
754
The list of absentees was then called over again.
ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIESTS—PETITION OF JOHN KIRBY.]
Mr. Brownlow,
in rising to present to the House a petition which he considered to be of great importance, begged to say, he had not the slightest wish to delay the consideration of that subject, which the hon. baronet, the member for Westminster, was about to bring before the House. It was a petition which came to him from the county of Kerry, at the close of the last session, and he could not conceive why it was placed in his hands. He had, however, employed himself during the vacation in examining its allegations, and found they were too well justified by the truth, to be passed by without consideration. It was the petition of John Kirby, an individual who had for fourteen years been a schoolmaster at Blenner-Ville, in the county of Kerry, and who had conducted himself, as appeared by the certificate of a parish priest annexed, in so exemplary a manner, as at one time to call forth the friendship and admiration of all his neighbours. The Hibernian School society had opened a school, of which the petitioner was appointed schoolmaster, in consequence of his good character. That school had not been opened many weeks, before there was a numerous attendance of scholars, and upwards of one hundred children were sent to it by their parents. In a short time after, the rev. John Quill, the coadjutor of the parish priest, called upon the petitioner, and told him to desist from teaching any more; alleging, that his system of instruction would tend to make the children Protest-
755
Mr. Frankland Lewis
concurred with the hon. member in deprecating the con-
756
Mr. M. Fitzgerald
perfectly concurred in the observations of the hon. member who spoke last.
Mr. Plunkett
complained, that the hon. member had brought down this petition, after having had, as he said, a year to consider of it, and examine into the truth of its allegations, for the purpose of producing an effect on the question which was to become the subject of discussion that night. He felt himself entitled to say, that the House was bound in justice, in candour, and in fairness, to suspend its judgment, until every gentleman had the same opportunity with the hon. member, of examining into the statements contained in this petition; and he hoped it would have the opposite effect to that which it was intended to produce.
Mr. Dawson
thought his hon. friend, had pursued a course which was strictly parliamentary. He sent to Ireland to get information on the subject of this petition, and when he had got proofs, which warranted him in believing the allegations were well founded, he presented the petition. Plow would he have been situated if he had presented it, without being in possession of the facts of the case? He would then have been accused of practising a delusion upon the House.
Mr. Grattan
said, that the question arising out of the petition appeared to be simply this, whether the Protestants were to teach the Catholic children, or whether
757
Sir T. Lethbridge
conceived, that the hon. member who had presented this petition, was entitled to the best thanks of the House. Upon the great question which was about to be brought before the House, it was highly desirable that every member should hear all that could be said for and against the Catholics.
Mr. Brownlow
said, he had thought proper to delay the presentation of this petition for the ascertainment of facts: but he begged to add, that at the commencement of this session, he was not certain whether he should present it or not; and that it was not until he received another application by yesterday's post, urging him to present this petition, that he felt himself called upon to bring it before the House.
Mr. Bright
presented a petition from the merchants, traders, and bankers, of Bristol, on the subject to which the attention of the House was about to be called. The petitioners were persons of the greatest respectability. He was sorry he could not agree, to the full extent, with the petitioners. He was ready to admit Protestant Dissenters to an equal participation of civil rights, but he must take a distinction between the case of Dissenters and Catholics, when he looked back to the principles on which the revolution was established, which was emphatically a Protestant revolution; and when he considered the deplorable effects which the Catholic religion had produced in this and all other countries where it had predominated.
The several petitions were then ordered to be laid on the table of the House, and also to be printed.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS—PETITION
Sir Francis Burdett
said, that, before he brought forward the important question which stood for that night's discussion, he had a petition to present for the Catholics of Ireland, praying for an equalization of civil rights with his majesty's other subjects, which was signed as he
758
759
few
760
761
762
763
764
Ordered to lie on the table.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.]
Sir Francis Burdett
rose, and addressed the House to the following effect:—
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
"—where Ignorance is bliss,
"Tis folly to be wise."
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
Mr. Croker
, rose, for the purpose of seconding the motion, and of offering one or two words on the general question. The hon. baronet had viewed this question as it affected the civil rights of the Roman Catholics, and he concurred with him in thinking, that those rights ought not to be longer deferred; but at the same time he could consent to no arrangement which did not include the Roman Catholic clergy, and embrace a provision for them. Without that he could not support the question of emancipation; and, if the hon. baronet's motion of that night were carried, which he hoped it would be, he pledged himself, that, if no individual more worthy were found, he himself would move that such a regulation should form part of the bill.
Mr. Leslie, Foster
addressed the House to the following effect:—There appears to be an impression, Sir, in the House, that no persons in Ireland but the society of Orangemen are hostile to the prayer of the present petition. This impression is most erroneous. There are many, very many individuals in that country never connected with that society, who are steadily opposed to the measure before the House. of those numerous opponents, I, Sir, am one. But haying made mention of that society, I shall take this opportunity of expressing, my regret at its existence, and my anxiety to see it put an end to. However, Sir, I must confess that I cannot see the, motion of the hon. baronet so divested of ail its dangers. All who have attended. to the advocacy of this question of late years must perceive a very great change in the tone of its supporters. Formerly they declared, that the Irish church establishment should remain inviolate; that the concession of the Catholic claims would bring no danger to it. But lately that tone has been altered: and now we hear of nothing but how unsuitable the Protestant church is to the disposition of the Irish people, and how beneficial the abolition of it would prove to their most important interests. True, the hon. mover has not uttered these sentiments in the course of his speech, but other hon. members, on other occasions, have not placed themselves under similar restraints. Nay, there is a notice, at this moment pending, of a motion on the state of the Protestant church establishment in Ireland. But, what is a more important proof on this point is, the distinct. and open avowal lately made
786
787
788
789
790
791
Mr. Secretary Canning
then rose to address the House. He leaned upon his stick, and appeared to be labouring under considerable indisposition. The tone of his voice, too, was so Feeble, that many of his remarks were inaudible in the gallery. He said, it was not his intention to tres-
792
793
794
795
The Solicitor-General
declared himself hostile to any further concessions to the Catholics, and contended that if any gentleman had, upon former occasions, made up his mind to yield them, he ought now, from their recent conduct, to alter his resolution. Claims which had been denied to reason, argument, and quiet solicitation, ought never to be yielded to menace, terror, or intimidation. He would also refuse them, because he could never find out what the Catholics proposed as their ultimatum. Former concessions were made the groundwork of future demands, and were used as arguments for conceding those demands also. Whatever adoration he might feel for the talent of his right hon. friend the Attorney-general for Ireland—however he might feel his own inferiority, and he knew that he was "impar congressus".—still he must oppose him upon this subject, and rebut the arguments which he continued to bring forward in this sanctuary of legislation. His right hon. friend had said, "You gave the Roman Catholics political power when you gave them the elective franchise; why, then, do you hesitate to give them more?" He would ask his right hon.
796
797
Mr. Stuart Wortley
said, he was anxious to offer a few words in support of the principle which he had advocated in the year 1812—a principle of concession to
798
799
Mr. W. J. Bankes
felt himself particularly called on to answer what had fallen from some hon. members, as to no petitions having been presented against further concession to the Catholics. This was occasioned by there not having been time for petitions to be presented. He was quite certain this was the case as to the learned body he represented. The vice-chancellor of that university had convened the senate of that body for that purpose; and, as he was a layman, the assertion that none but clergymen petitioned was refuted. When he alluded to the time when this question was brought before the House, he did not mean to complain of the little opportunity which was thereby allowed for the introduction of petitions. On the contrary, perhaps it was better that the consideration of parliament was brought calmly and dispassionately to the subject, in the absence of any irritability put of doors, which might have been the consequence of popular debates upon a measure so pregnant with excitation. With respect to
800
801
Mr. Plunkett
said, that after the repeated discussions, year after year, which this question had undergone—after the recent protracted debates upon Irish affairs—and more particularly after it had fallen so often to himself individually to claim the indulgence of the House upon this very subject, he should have been strongly disposed, on the present occasion, to have repeated his opinion by a silent vote. There were, however, peculiar circumstances which compelled him, though reluctantly, not to allow this debate to pass without giving the reasons which still governed his vote. In doing so, he still felt that it would be bad taste to increase his trespass on their kindness by taking a wide range of observation on this occasion, or
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
Mr. Secretary Peel
said:—Notwithstanding, Sir, the length of time occupied by my right hon. and learned friend, I feel such confidence in the indulgence of the House, or rather in its justice, that I have no doubt it will allow me to state, as briefly as I can, the grounds upon which I dissent from the proposition of the hon. baronet, and the reasons why, after all the arguments I have heard, I do not find them sufficient to induce me to deviate from the course I have hitherto uniformly pursued upon this question. I will attempt to follow, as closely as I can, the different branches of the very able, and not less effective, because temperate and conciliatory speech of the hon. baronet. I think that he introduced this question for discussion on its true grounds, and I will apply myself to answer the questions put by him to the opponents of further concession. I apprehend that I state his case with perfect fairness, when I say that he rested his proposition upon three grounds; first, positive treaty; second, natural right; and, third, prudence and policy. All the arguments he employed may be included under those heads, and in that order I propose to consider them. If, in the first place, the hon. baronet could prove to me that there really existed a claim on the part of the Roman Catholics, established upon a solemn treaty between them and the Crown, I should be disposed to treat it with the utmost deference. The hon. baronet, and I believe the petition which he presented, demand the fulfilment of a treaty. I have, Sir, on previous occasions, considered the effect of the treaty to which they allude, and I am again prepared to deny, that the Roman Catholics can claim any privilege on the foundation of the treaty of Limerick. It is, no doubt, important for the House to consider whether, in with-holding what is now required at its hands, it is violating the terms of a solemn treaty; and I beg to ask the hon. baronet, whether he has referred to the articles of that treaty, and whether he really thinks, not that it has been infringed at any former period of our history, but whether any privilege; is re-
815
816
817
818
*
819
l.
l.
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
"Still to new heights their restless wishes soar;
Claim leads to claim, as power advances more."
Mr. Brougham
said, he could not allow the speech of the right hon. gentleman, nor the new topics which had been introduced in it, to pass unnoticed, notwithstanding the late hour of the night. The arguments which those who supported the motion had urged, remained untouched by any thing the right hon. gentleman had said. The speech of the right hon. the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whom he did not now see in his
828
829
830
831
832
few
833
834
835
panacea
836
837
838
839
Sir C. Forbes
rose amidst cries of "Question." He said, he had for thirteen years supported the Catholic claims, while they were urged in a temperate manner, but he now felt it his duty to oppose them, when he found the Catholic Association threatening that House that if parliament did not accede to their demands they would compel them to grant them.
Sir F. Burdett
said a few words in reply. He thanked the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Peel) for the candid manner in which he had declared, that his objection went to the principle, and not to the details of the question of Catholic emancipation. The right hon. gentleman talked of danger; but, what was the danger which he apprehended, compared with the consequences which would result from refusing to grant the just claims of the Catholics? On one side was the real danger, which arose from suffering Ireland to remain in its present state; and on the other side, that imaginary danger which filled the right hon. gentleman with so much alarm—the danger of admitting a few Catholic
840
The House divided—for the motion 247; against it 234; majority 13. The announcement of the numbers was received with acclamation.
List of the Majority, and also of the Minority.
MAJORITY.
Abercromby, hon. J.
Coke, T. W.
Abercromby, hon. G. R.
Coke, T. W. jun.
Colborne, N. R.
Acland, sir T. D.
Colthurst, sir N.
Althorp, visc.
Cooke, sir C.
Anson, sir G.
Courtnay, T. P.
Anson, hon. G.
Cradock, S.
Arbuthnot, rt. hon. C.
Creevey, T.
Bagwell, rt. hon. W.
Croker, J. W.
Baillie, J.
Cumming, G.
Baring, sir T.
Daly, J.
Baring, A.
Dawson, G.
Barnard, visc.
Denison, W.
Barrett, S. M.
Denman, T.
Bective, earl of
Disbrowe, E. C.
Becher, W. W.
Doherty, J.
Belgrave, visc.
Don, sir A.
Benett, J.
Drummond, H. H.
Benyon, B.
Dowglas, W. R. K.
Bent, J.
Dundas, hon. T.
Bernard, T. jun.
Dunlop, J.
Binning, lord
East, sir E. H.
Birch, J.
Eastnor, visc.
Blake, sir F.
Ebrington, visc.
Bourne, rt. hon. W. S.
Edwards, hon. E.
Ellis, hon. G. A.
Brandling, C. J.
Ellis, C. R.
Brinkman, T. H.
Ellice, E.
Brougham, H.
Ellison, C.
Browne, Dom.
Ennismore, visc.
Brown, right hon. D.
Evans, W.
Brown, J.
Evelyn, L.
Bury, visc.
Farquhar, sir R.
Byng, G.
Fergusson, sir R.
Calcraft, J.
Fitzgerald, lord W.
Calcraft, J. H.
Fitzgerald, rt. hon. V.
Calthorpe, hon. F. H.
Fitzgerald, right hon. M.
Calvert, C.
Calvert, N.
Fitzroy, lord C.
Campbell, F.
Fitzroy, lord J.
Carew, R. S.
Fitzgibbon, hon. R.
Caulfield, hon. H.
Folkestone, visc.
Cavendish, lord G.
Forbes, visc.
Cavendish, H.
Frankland, R.
Cavendish, C.
Fremantle, W.
Chaloner, R.
French, A.
Chichester, sir A.
Gaskell, B.
Clark, sir G.
Gladstone, J.
Clark, hon. C. B.
Glenorchy, visc.
Clifton, visc.
Gordon, R.
Cocks, J.
Gower, lord F.
841
Graham, S.
North, J. H.
Grant, C.
Nugent, lord
Grant, F.
Nugent, sir G.
Grant, G.
O'Brien, sir E.
Grant, J. P.
O'Grady, S.
Grattan, J.
Onley, C. S.
Grenfell, P.
Ord, W.
Grosvenor, hon. R.
Osborne, lord F.
Grosvenor, T.
Paget, sir C.
Guise, sir W.
Pakenham, hon. R.
Gurney, H.
Palmer, C.
Hamilton, lord A.
Palmer, C. F.
Hardinge, sir H.
Palmerston, visc.
Hawkins, sir C.
Pares, T.
Heathcote, sir G.
Parnell, sir H.
Heathcote, G. J.
Phillimore, J.
Heron, sir R.
Philips, G.
Hill, lord A.
Philips, G. jun.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Plunkett, rt. hon. W. C.
Holdsworth, T.
Honeywood, W. P.
Ponsonby, hon. F. C.
Hornby, E.
Power, R.
Howard, hon. W.
Powlett, hon. W.
Howard, H.
Poyntz, W. S.
Hume, J.
Prendergast, M. G.
Hurst, R.
Price, R.
Huskisson, right hon. W.
Pringle, sir W.
Prittie, hon. F.
Hutchinson, hon. C. H.
Pym, F.
Ramsbottom, J.
Hyde, J.
Ramsden, J. C.
Ingleby, sir W. A.
Rice, T. S.
Innes, sir H.
Robarts, A. W.
James, W.
Robarts, G.
Johnson, col.
Robertson, A.
Kennedy, T. F.
Robinson, right hon. F.
Kingsborough, lord
Knight, R.
Robinson, sir G.
Knox, hon. T.
Rowley, sir W.
Lamb, hon. W.
Rumbold, C.
Lamb, hon. G.
Russell, lord G. W.
Lambton, J. G.
Scarlett, J.
Lawley, F.
Scott, J.
Leader, W.
Sebright, sir J.
Lester, B. L.
Sefton, earl of
Lewis, T. F.
Shaw, sir R.
Leycester, R.
Smith, G.
Littleton, E.
Smith, J.
Lloyd, S. J.
Smith, W.
Lushington, S.
Smyth, W. M.
Maberly, J.
Somerville, sir M.
Maberly, W. L.
Stanley, lord
Macdonald, J.
Staunton, sir G.
Mackintosh, sir J.
Stewart, A.
Mahon, hon. S.
Stuart, lord J.
Marjoribanks, S.
Stuart, hon. J.
Martin, R.
Sykes, D.
Martin, J.
Talbot, R. W.
Maxwell, J.
Tennyson, C.
Milbank, M.
Tierney, right hon. G.
Mildmay, P. St. J.
Titchfield, marquis
Milton, visc.
Twiss, H.
Monck, J. B.
Upton, hon. A.
Moore, P.
Valletort, visc.
Morland, sir S. B.
Vernon, hon. G.
Newport, rt. hon. sir J.
Wall, C. B.
Normanby, visc.
Warre, J. A.
842
Warrender, sir G.
Duncannon, visc.
Wellesley, R.
PAIRED OFF.
Wharton, J.
Whitbread, W. H.
Baring, H.
Whitbread, S. C.
Canning, rt. hon G.
White, H.
Cockburn, sir G.
White, S.
Courtenay, W.
Whitmore, T.
Crespigny, sir W.
Williams, T. P.
Crompton, S.
Wilmot, H. R. J.
Curwen, J. C.
Wilson, sir R.
Dundas, C.
Winnington, sir T.
Gurney, R.
Wodehouse, E.
Lloyd, J. M.
Wood, ald.
Markham, adm.
Wortley, J. S.
Phipps, hon. E.
Wrottesley, sir J.
Ridley, sir M.
Wynn, sir W. W.
Russell, R. S.
Wynn, C. W. W.
Smith, R.
Wyvill, M.
Tavistock, marquis
TELLERS.
Taylor, M. A.
Burdelt, sir F.
Wilkins, W.
MINORITY.
A'Court, E. H.
Clive, H.
Alexander, J.
Cole, sir C.
Apsley, lord
Cooper, R. B.
Archdale, M.
Copley, sir J. S.
Ashurst, W. H.
Corry, visc.
Astley, sir J. D.
Cotterell, sir J. G.
Atwood, M.
Cripps, J.
Baker, E.
Cuffe, J.
Bankes, H.
Curteis, J. E.
Bankes, W. T.
Curzon, hon. R.
Bastard, E.
Cust, hon. E.
Bastard, J.
Cust, hon. P.
Bathurst, hon. S.
Dalrymple, A. J.
Belfast, earl of
Davenport, D.
Bentinck, lord F.
Davies, H.
Beresford, lord G.
Dawkins, J.
Beresford, M.
Dawkins, H.
Bernard, visc.
Dawson, G. R.
Blackburne, J.
Deerhurst, visc.
Blair, J.
Dickenson, W.
Bonham, H.
Divett, T.
Bright, H.
Domville, sir C.
Brogden, J.
Douglas, J.
Brownlow, C.
Downe, R.
Brydges, sir G.
Drake, W. T.
Buchanan, J.
Drake, T. T.
Burrell, sir C.
Egerton, W.
Burrell, W.
Eliot, lord
Butterworth, J.
Ellis, T.
Buxton, J. J.
Estcourt, T. G.
Calvert, J.
Fane, J.
Cartwright, R. W.
Fane, J. T.
Cawthorne, J. F.
Fane, V.
Cecil, lord T.
Farrand, R.
Chandos, marquis
Fellowes, W. H.
Chaplin, C.
Fetherstone, sir C.
Cherry, G. H.
Fleming, J.
Chetwynd, G.
Foley, J. H. H.
Cholmeley, sir M.
Forbes, sir C.
Clements, hon. J. M.
Forde, M.
Clinton, sir W.
Forrester, F.
Clinton, H. F.
Gascoyne, I.
Clive, hon. H.
Gipps, G.
Clive, lord
Gooch, T. S.
843
Gordon, hon. W.
Paxton, W.
Gossett, W.
Pearse, J.
Graham, marquis
Peel, right hon. R.
Grant, A. C.
Peel, W. Y.
Green, T.
Pelham, J. C.
Greville, sir C. T.
Pellew, hon. P. B.
Handley, P.
Pennant, G. H. D.
Hart, G. V.
Penrudduck, J. H.
Harvey, sir E.
Percy, W.
Heber, R.
Pitt, W. M.
Herries, J. C.
Plumer, J.
Heygate, W.
Pole, sir P.
Hill, right hon. sir G.
Pollen, sir J.
Hill, sir R.
Pollington, visc.
Hodgson, F.
Porcher, H.
Holford, G. P.
Powell, W. E.
Holmes, W.
Price, R.
Horrocks, S.
Rae, right hon. sir W.
Hotham, lord
Raine. J.
Hulse, sir C.
Rice, hon. G. T.
Inglis, sir R. H.
Rickford, W.
Irving, J.
Roberts, W. A.
Jervoise, G. P.
Rogers, E.
Kerrison, E.
Rose, sir G.
King, hon. H.
Ross, C.
King, sir J. D.
Rowley, sir J.
Knatchbull, sir E.
Ryder, right hon. R.
Legge, hon. H.
Scott, hon. W. H. J.
Lennox, lord G.
Scourfield, W. H.
Leslie, C. P.
Seymour, H.
Lethbridge, sir T.
Shelley, sir J.
Lewis, W.
Shiffner, sir G.
Lindsay, hon. H.
Smith, S.
Lindsay, lord
Smith, A.
Lockhart, J. J.
Smith, T. A.
Long, rt. hon. sir C.
Smith, C.
Lowther, visc.
Smyth, R. (West-meath)
Lowther, sir J.
Lowther, J.
Somerset, lord E.
Lowther, hon. C.
Sotheron, F. F.
Lushington, S.
Stanton, R.
Luttrell, J. F.
Stopford, visc.
Lygon, hon. col.
Strathaven, lord
Macnaghten, A.
Strutt, J. H.
Magennis, R.
Stuart, W. (Armagh)
Manners, lord C.
Stuart, sir J.
Manners, lord R.
Sumner, G. H.
Mansfield, J.
Taylor, G. W.
Maxwell, J. W.
Thompson, J. L.
Maxwell, B.
Thompson, W.
Miles, P.
Thynne, lord J.
Mills, C.
Tindall, H. C.
Mitchell, J.
Townshend, lord C.
Monteith, H.
Townshend, lord J.
Montgomery, J.
Townshend, hon. H. G.
Morland, sir C.
Morgan, G. G.
Trant, W. H.
Mundy, F.
Tremayne, J. H.
Mundy, G.
Trench, F. W.
Musgrave, sir P.
Tudway, J. P.
Newman, R. W.
Tulk, C. A.
Nightingal, sir M.
Ure, M.
Noel, sir G.
Uxbridge, earl of
Ommanney, sir F. M.
Vivian, sir H.
O'Neill, hon. J. B. R.
Vivian, sir R.
Onslow, A.
Walker, J.
Palk, sir L.
Wallace, right hon. T.
844
Warren, C.
Wetherall, sir G.
Webbe, E.
PAIRED OFF.
Wells, J.
Beresford, lord
Westenra, hon. H. R.
Bouverie, hon. B.
Whitmore, T.
Brydges, sir J.
Wigram, W.
Collett, E.
Wilbraham, E. B.
Crawley, S.
Wildman, J. B.
Curtis, sir W.
William, R.
Dowdeswell, J. E.
Willoughby, H.
Farquhar, J.
Wilson, T.
Hope, sir W.
Wilson, W. C.
Hudson, H.
Wodehouse, hon. J.
Innes, J.
Worcester, marquis
Manning, W.
Wyndham, W.
Martin, sir T. B.
Wynn, O.
Nicholl, rt. hon. sir J.
Yorke, sir J.
Paget, hon. B.
TELLERS.
St. Paul, sir H.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H.
Walpole, hon. J.
The House having accordingly resolved itself into the said committee, sir Francis Burdett moved the following Resolutions:
1. "That it appears to this committee, that by certain acts passed in the parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland respectively, certain declarations and affirmations are required to be made, as qualifications for the enjoyment of certain offices, franchises, and civil rights therein mentioned.
2. "That such parts of the said oaths as require a declaration to be made against the belief of transubstantiation, or that the invocation or adoration of the virgin Mary, or any other saint, and the sacrifice of the mass, as used in the church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous, appear to this committee to relate to opinions merely speculative and dogmatical, not affecting the allegiance or civil duty of the subject, and that the same may, therefore, safely be repealed.
3. "That it appears to this committee, that in several acts passed in the parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland respectively, a certain oath, commonly called the oath of supremacy, is required to be taken as a qualification for the enjoyment of certain offices, franchises, and civil rights therein mentioned.
4. "That in the said oath and declaration is contained, that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within these realms.
5. "That it appears to this committee, that scruples are entertained by his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects, with respect to taking the said oath, merely on account of the word 'spiritual' being in-
845
6. "That it is the opinion of this committee, that such act of repeal and explanation should be accompanied with such exceptions and regulations as may be found necessary for preserving unalterably the Protestant succession to the Crown, according to the act for the further limitation of the Crown, and better securing the rights and liberties of the subject, and for maintaining inviolate the Protestant Episcopal Church of England and Ireland, and the doctrine, government, and dicipline thereof: and the Church of Scotland, and the doctrine, worship, government, and discipline thereof; as the same are by law respectively established."
The Resolutions being agreed to, were reported; and a bill was ordered to be brought in thereupon by sir F. Burdett, Mr. Plunkett, Mr. Tierney, Mr. C. Grant, sir J. Mackintosh, Mr. Secretary Canning, viscount Palmerston, Mr. Wynn, sir J. Newport, sir H. Parnell, Mr. Abercromby, and Mr. Spring Rice.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, March 2, 1825
LIVERPOOL AND MANCHESTER RAIL-WAY BILL—STANDING ORDERS.]
On the order of the day for resuming the debate, on the motion for the second reading of this bill, Mr. Macdonald presented a petition from Mr. John Shaw Leigh, complaining that the Standing orders had not been complied with.
General Gascoyne
objected to the presentation of a petition in this stage of the measure.
The Speaker
said, that in any stage of a private bill it was competent for the House to receive a petition, complaining that the first step which ought to be taken, with respect to measures of this kind,
846
Mr. Macdonald
said, the petitioner complained that the standing orders had not been complied with. When notice was given that this bill was about to be brought in, he proceeded to London to examine the sections of the bill in the Private Bill-office, and he found that some of them differed from the sections of the bill which had been deposited with the clerk of the peace for the county. At this time, the committee appointed
to
The Speaker
suggested, whether it would not be better, for the convenience of the House, as the original question was, that "this debate be resumed," to urge the contents of the petition as arguments against the second reading of the bill. The statements contained in it might form extremely good grounds for opposing the second reading. If this course were pursued, a motion might be made, after the present question was disposed of, for referring the petition to a committee.
Mr. Macdonald
acquiesced in this arrangement, and the debate proceeded.
Sir J. Newport
said, he had nothing whatever to do with any canal or railroad company, and therefore what he was about to state was perfectly disinterested, and founded on the best view he could form of this measure. In proportion to-
847
Mr. Green
opposed the second reading of the bill. There were, at present, three canals between Liverpool and Manchester. They were rival companies, interested in opposing each other, and the competition produced a reduction of
848
Mr. Huskisson
agreed in the sentiment, that the legislature ought not to sanction the invasion of private property, without being satisfied that the case was one of imperious necessity. On this occasion, if he looked only to the interests of private individuals—if he looked only to the interests of those whose fortunes were connected with the canals between Liverpool and Manchester—if he consulted only his own private feelings—he should be rather inclined to oppose the second reading of this bill; but, like the right hon. baronet, he stood there unconnected with any railway company, or any canal company. He stood there as a public man, considering what was best for the public interest, and he would state the reasons why he did not feel himself called on to oppose this measure. He did not support it as railway opposed to canal. He had no preference, except that which was connected with increased facility, despatch, and economy, in removing merchandise from one place to another. He did not support this measure because it was a profitable thing to those by whom it had been projected. It was nothing to him whether they had embarked their money in it for profit or loss. But he would say, that those who subscribed to it seemed to have a higher object in view, than the mere accumulation of wealth through this channel. They were not, perhaps, likely to obtain very high profits; but they would certainly render a great commercial benefit to the country. The subscribers were the bankers, merchants, traders, and manufacturers of Liverpool and Manchester. They had agreed, that no person should hold more than ten shares each; and if gentlemen, would consider what amount of interest could be realized from so small a number of shares, they would perceive that the profit could not be an object. It was the great interest of the trading community, and not the profits that might be derived
849
850
l
l
Mr. W. Peel
viewed this measure, not as one exclusively beneficial to Liverpool, but as calculated to serve the commerce of the country generally, and more particularly the commerce of Ireland. If this should fail, it would be in vain for any projector, however good the plan laid down, to hope for success. There was about as much reason in the complaints of those who were connected with canals, and who therefore wished to stifle this measure, as there was in the petition of the inn-keepers on the Kent-road, who objected to the steam-packet navigation, because it interfered with their profits. In the neighbourhood of the place where he resided, from twenty to thirty waggons were formerly employed in the carriage of goods; but he believed scarcely one was
851
Mr. Philips
observed, that this was a great public measure, and he hoped the House would give it the most serious consideration. It appeared, that there was a large body of landed proprietors, through whose estates this rail-way was to be carried; and they complained of it as likely to prove a great annoyance and nuisance. They said that, before such a measure was determined on, a strong case of public necessity and advantage should be made out. They asserted, that such a case had not been made out. On the other side, it was argued, that the measure was required by the public necessity, and that it would be productive of great public advantage; for, though there were three communications by water between the two towns, yet they were not sufficient to meet the immense business which was daily transacted on the line between Liverpool and Manchester. They further stated, that there was, in fact, a monopoly amongst the parties who navigated those canals, and that there were not arrangements sufficiently extensive, for the prompt management of the business which was constantly in progress. It was also said, that the distance between the two towns, by the canals, was 50 miles, while the distance by the rail-road would only be 33 miles. They likewise asserted, that the time spent in conveying goods from Manchester to Liverpool, and vice versa, was not less than 36 hours; whereas, by the rail-road, not more than six hours would be occupied, being a sixth part of the time required by the canal conveyance; and Mr. Saunders, who had been very active in forwarding the measure, and who had written a pamphlet on the subject, asserted, that the goods would be conveyed by the rail-road at one-third of the present expense. The friends of the project further added, that the same advantage was possessed by rail-roads over canals, that the latter possessed over common turnpike-roads. Now, if these assertions and representations were founded in fact, he should certainly be an advocate for the rail-road. Thus he had always determined; and when he came up to
852
853
Mr. Doherty
said, he should vote for the second reading of the bill, because he thought the assertions on one side were as much to be relied on as those advanced on the other. He was, therefore, desirous that the truth of those assertions should be investigated before a committee of the House. The commerce of Liverpool had
854
Mr. Macdonald
recommended gentlemen not to commit themselves hastily on a subject which had elicited statements so diametrically opposite. He felt obliged to say, out of respect for the memory of the late duke of Bridgewater, that he had ventured in the most generous manner all the property he possessed, for the accomplishment of a great and useful public purpose, and that he was entitled to a grateful and honourable remembrance.
Mr. Calcraft
agreed with what had been said respecting the late duke of Bridge-water. The objection was not one which could detract from his memory, but that those who had come after him had increased the tolls to an unjust extent. He should vote for the committee.
Mr. Brougham
said, he had great satisfaction in supporting the present bill. No one could say there was any thing objectionable in a proposal to carry goods cheaper, easier, and quicker than they could now be carried. He entirely concurred in the hope, that gentlemen would consider this to be an exception to the ordinary practice on private bills, and would once for all try to redeem their credit with the country, and not job the matter. They should look upon it as a great public question, and not vote on it because a shareholder, or Mrs. Such-a-one, the wife of a great canal shareholder, asked their vote. He hoped they would attend the committee from day to day, and that those only would vote who had so attended. He pledged himself, if a contrary course were followed, that he would bring the matter before the House. He bore testimony to the great benefits which the public had derived from the project of the duke of Bridgewater. He felt it to be a duty, since that great benefactor of the country was no more, to take care that his memory should not be impugned.
The bill was read a second time; and the petition was referred to a committee.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, March 3, 1825
UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES IN IRELAND BILL.]
The Earl of Carnarvon,
before the House proceeded to the order of the day, wished to present a petition, signed by several respectable Irish Roman Catholics now in London. Before the me-
855
The Earl of Liverpool
said, he had no hesitation in stating, that, under the circumstances of the case, he thought the petitioners were not entitled to be so heard.
The Earl of Carnarvon
then rose to state his reasons for supporting the prayer of the petition. He conceived, he said, that, like all individuals who were about to be affected by a proceeding before the House, the petitioners were entitled to be heard by counsel against the present bill. This was a principle which had always governed their lordships' proceedings, and which should always be strictly adhered to by that House, which was the highest tribunal of justice in the kingdom. What was the nature of the bill before their lordships? Need he put that question? It was the measure indicated, at the commencement of the session, in his majesty's speech: the very measure which their lordships' had pledged themselves, from the first day of the meeting of parliament, to take into their serious consideration. Now, if it was the measure thus directly pointed out in the king's speech, let him ask, how the members of the Catholic Association stood affected by the bill? The speech from the throne contained a charge of a most serious nature against certain individuals. It charged the members of the Catholic Association, if not with an illegal, yet with a most enormous offence. It stated, that industry and commercial enterprise were extending themselves in Ireland, and then came the following passage—"It is therefore the more to be regretted, that associations should exist in Ireland, which have adopted proceedings irreconcileable with the spirit of the constitution, and calculated, by excitingalarm, and by exasperating animosities, to endanger the peace of society, and to retard the course of national improvement." Now, he would ask their lordships, was not this a serious charge to be made against any individuals? Must not the members of the Catholic Association, after
856
857
858
859
The Earl of Liverpool
said, he would not enter into any discussion on the general measure to which the order of the day applied. There would be sufficient opportunity for its consideration, when the motion came regularly before their lordships. With regard to the proposition of the noble earl, for hearing counsel, he conceived that, if their lordships acceded
860
861
862
Earl Grey
said, that if he could conceive with the noble earl, that no ground had been laid by his noble friend for the present motion, he should also refuse his concurrence in consequence of such defect. But, feeling as he did, that a stronger appeal had never been made to that House and to English justice, upon the well-known maxim of English law, that no man should be punished without previous trial and inquiry, he did not hesitate to give his most cordial support to the motion, borne out, as it had been, by arguments the most indisputable. The noble earl had much surprised him by taking what he must consider a no very manly ground; and in proceeding to offer his remarks upon that subject, he wished
863
864
865
866
The Lord Chancellor
said, that rumour had described the bill under their lordships' consideration as one that had emanated from a certain learned lord in that House; but rumour was never more mis-
867
868
Lord Holland
expressed his concurrence in the statement of the noble and learned lord, that he was not the originator of the bill. The moment he had read the enactments, he was satisfied it was not the production of the noble and learned lord. Had he taken but one day to consider it,-it would have come out of his hands in a very, different state. After bearing the speech in which the noble and learned lord had disclaimed it, he was disposed to believe, not only that the bill was not his,
869
870
871
872
The Earl of Darnley
said, he should support the motion. When their lordships saw, on the steps of the throne a noble duke, the premier peer of England, (the duke of Norfolk) who ought to be in the body of the House, it should at once impress them with the injustice which the Catholics were sustaining. If their lordships rejected the motion, they would drive from their bar the representatives of that large and important body of his majesty's subjects, the Roman Catholics of England and Ireland. He was persuaded, however, that the eyes of the country would be speedily opened to the real merits of the case, and that it would be found that the danger was on the side where it was not apprehended by the enemies of Catholic emancipation.
The House then divided:—for lord Carnarvon's motion 23, against it 69; majority 46.
The order of the day being then read, that the Unlawful Societies in Ireland Bill be read a second time,
The Earl of Liverpool
spoke to the following effect:—The grounds, my lords, on which this bill rests, are few and simple. It rests on grounds altogether different from the grounds on which the expediency of Catholic concession is denied; so different, that I have no hesitation in saying that, were I the most ardent friend of Catholic concession, I should still think this bill just and necessary. Nay, I do not know, that in that case I should not think it more necessary than I think it at present. We have already heard some thing of the general nature of the bill, in the course of the discussion which has just taken place. The noble earl opposite accused me of not taking a manly course, in saying that the Catholic Association was not named in the bill, which was a general and not a specific measure, when all the world knew that that Association was, in fact, the principal object of the measure. The noble earl forgot, that, in a subsequent part of my speech I distinctly avowed that the Catholic Association was the principal object of the measure. But, my lords, although a specific evil may actually be the cause of any measure, yet, if the measure when brought
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
Lord King
said, he could not see the force of the arguments urged in support of this measure. The noble earl had contended, that the Association was dangerous, because it seemed peaceably disposed—because it had contributed to produce tranquillity in Ireland. This reminded him of what he was informed had somewhere taken place during the rebellion; namely, that sometimes persons had been hanged for saving the lives of others, because from that it was concluded, that they must, have influence with their party, and were therefore equally guilty. From the observations of the noble earl, one would be led to conclude, that the Irish code was one of perfection, and most exemplary mildness. For his own part, he differed totally in opinion with the noble earl. It appeared to him, that Ireland would bear a resemblance to hell if this act should pass; for what could be more fiend-like than deny to millions their just rights, and to take away from the oppressed even the power of complaint? He lamented to see parliament year after year adding one law to another, accumulating penal enactment on penal enactment, for the purpose, as it was pretended, of tranquillizing Ireland; when the only way to tranquillize that country was, to repeal the whole of them. He entertained no such doubts as the noble earl had expressed, upon the efficacy of this bill. Those who suggested it had been too long in the habit of making such laws; they knew their business too well, to propose the enactment of any useless, inoperative measure. He was sorry to see parliament once more in battle array against the people of Ireland. He could assure the noble earl that they did not view the measures of government in the same light as the noble earl did. They could not see that so much had been done for their benefit: nor could that country ever be tranquil, until
882
883
Lord Teynham
said, he should support the bill. The Catholic Association was most dangerous, and ministers would not do their duty, if they did not put it down.
Earl Grosvenor
said, he differed, toto cælo, from the noble earl who advocated the present measure. It was impossible, he thought, to agree in the propriety of passing the present measure, unless it was coupled with one to conciliate the Catholics of Ireland. He did hope that their
884
885
886
887
Lord Gosford
said:—I cannot reconcile it to myself to give a silent vote on the present occasion. I disapprove of many acts of the Association as much as any of your lordships can do; nay, further, I wish it had never existed; but it is impossible for me to express surprise at the existence of such a society, when I reflect on the conduct of the government and parliament towards the Roman Catholics—expectations at one time raised to the highest pitch, and invariably followed by disappointment. Is it, I would ask any noble lord, in human nature to suppose that a people would be quiet and contented undersuch treatment? With respect to the bill now before the House, I am persuaded it will fail in producing the effect proposed by it. Had the Association been let alone,
888
Lord Long ford
thought, that the Catholic Association ought to be suppressed, as it was an enemy to the public peace of Ireland, He approved of the present bill; and he could assure the House, that a large and powerful body in Ireland viewed the measure not as a coercive, but a protective one. The Catholic Association was an irresponsible body, conducting itself in an unconstitutional manner. Its acts did not tend to conciliate. It held up whole classes of the community as objects of hatred, and endeavoured to perpetuate the ill feelings that were unfortunately engendered in that unhappy country.
The Duke of Sussex
said, that though he always felt considerable embarrassment in addressing their lordships, he had never felt greater embarrassment than he then did, in declaring, his decided opposition to
889
890
891
Lord Carbery
made a few observations in support of the bill; contending, that the Association ought to be put down.
Lord Kingston
wished to make one ob-
892
The Marquis of Lansdown
complained, that, after his majesty's ministers had refused to give them any information as to the extent of the evil which they sought to put down by this bill, and after their lordships had determined to reject the evidence tendered at their bar, to prove the non existence of that evil, their lordships were called upon to give it their sanction upon a solitary fact, which had no sooner been stated, than it had met with a positive contradiction. He should give his vote against this measure; and if he were asked for his reasons for so doing, he would refer to those which were contained in the short but solid and constitutional speech of the royal duke who had so recently addressed them—a speech in the whole of which he fully concurred, and which pointed out a much safer and more constitutional course, than that which his majesty's ministers seemed inclined to pursue. Before, however, he proceeded to discuss the details of this bill, he should beg leave shortly to allude to the topics with which the noble earl had prefaced his motion. The noble earl had called the attention of their lordships to the great improvement which ministers had effected in the condition of Ireland. That improvement was rather of a late description. Tax had been imposed after tax, upon that devoted country, until it was found that the tripled and quadrupled tax, produced less to the revenue than the original impost. After they had achieved that discovery, ministers determined to repeal that tax, and to see whether the revenue could not be increased by doing a simple act of justice. With respect to the administration of justice, he was sorry to state, that he was more confident than ever he had been of its imperfect and partial condition. The proofs of that condition were now, or would very shortly be, before the public; and were such as, while they called aloud for a remedy of the evil, admitted of no contradiction. With this conviction, then, he would never endure to hear it said, that the adoption of
893
894
895
896
897
——"The elements
Of which your swords are temper'd, may as well
Wound the loud winds, or with be-mocked-at stabs
Kill the still-closing waters."
898
The Earl of Harrowby
said, he could not collect, from what had fallen from the noble marquis, that the Catholic Association ought not, in his opinion, to be put down. The whole of his arguments went no further than to shew, that the measure about to be enforced was not calculated to produce the intended effect. Now, his objection to the Association was, that it tended to keep up perpetual irritation; that it had the effect of raising blister after blister, until the whole body became one mass of ulceration. It had been said, that the Catholic Rent had not been collected compulsorily, but was a free gift on the part of the people. To this his answer was, that the voice of the priest in collecting that rent was equally, if not more powerful, than the voice of the tax-gatherer. He was the more anxious to give his support to this bill, because he felt, that, the moment the Catholic Association was declared by parliament to be illegal, it would discontinue its operations. That Association had existed for eighteen months. Government were told, that they ought not to interfere hastily for its suppression, but wait for time and circumstances before they put it down. They had waited; and it was not until imperiously called upon, that they now interfered for its suppression. The noble marquis contended, that other measures might be introduced which would effectually remove the discontent of the Roman Catholics. That might be true; but still it was no reason against the suppression of the Catholic Association. If that Association were allowed to take its course, who could doubt that it would be met by another Association?—who could doubt, in the state of alarm, whether real or imaginary, in which a portion of the people of that country were, that that would
899
The House then divided on the second reading of the bill: Contents 146; Not-contents 44; Majority 102.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, March 3, 1825
UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES IN IRELAND—
Mr. Brownlow
presented a petition from certain Protestants
900
Lord Althorp
remarked, that part of the information of which Mr. O'Connell had spoken, had turned out to be correct; and it was certainly singular, that the right psalm, though not perhaps the right verse, had been pitched upon.
Mr. Hutchinson
said, that if the Orange Lodges had been maligned as to their motives, the fault was attributable to themselves, since they had refused to make any disclosures.
Mr. Abercromby
expressed the great gratification he felt at hearing that Orange Societies were extinct in Ireland. He was glad also that they had now no objection to the investigation of all their secret oaths and signs, and he hoped that the committee on the state of Ireland would enter into the subject. He was certainly surprised at this change, because he could not forget, that, two years ago, when he brought forward his motion, they had done all in their power to conceal what they now volunteered to disclose.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he felt the utmost satisfaction at the intimation, that there was to be a complete end to Orange Societies in Ireland. He most cordially joined in the exhortation that these associations should yield to the repeated sense of parliament, and obey what would
901
Mr. Brownlow
observed, that, by saying the Orange Societies no longer existed, he meant to indicate to the House that, as soon as the bill now before the other House passed into a law, the Orange Associations would submit to that law.
Ordered to lie on the table.
REPEAL OF THE ASSESSED TAXES]
Mr. Maberly
said, he rose, in pursuance of notice to call the attention of the House to the propriety of repealing the whole of the Assessed Taxes. When he looked round him, and saw the thin state of the House, he should have imagined, that not a single petition had been presented for the repeal of those taxes; whereas, if the country were canvassed from house to house, he believed that nine hundred and ninety-nine householders out of every thousand would be in favour of this motion. However eloquently and forcibly the right hon. the chancellor of the Exchequer had brought forward his financial statement, he might be allowed, without impugning the right hon. gentleman's motives, to differ from him as to the means by which he proposed to alleviate the burthens of the country. Concurring with him in his principles of foreign policy and free trade, he could not help thinking he was at variance with his own principles on other subjects; but, following up those principles, he should endeavour, and he hoped successfully, to contend that the right hon. gentleman had not taken the best mode of relieving the public from their real burthens. He did not contend that the people were now distressed; but he contended that if they were now in a more affluent state than formerly, they were still enti-
902
903
l
s.
d.
s.
d.
904
s
l
905
l
906
l
l
Mr. Leycester
seconded the motion. He said, he was decidedly in favour of getting rid of the assessed taxes, from the constant vexation to which the collection of them was subject. Let these taxes be taken off, and the revenue would lose nothing, for the country would be richer, and the consumption on all hands would be greater. Gentlemen would keep more horses, more servants, and contribute to
907
Mr. Heathcote
supported the motion, because he was persuaded that it was the general wish throughout the country. He was not, however, of the same opinion, with respect to the sinking fund; for he was persuaded it was a fund that, should this nation be again engaged in war, would enable the government to arm the troops, and raise the necessary supplies.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he certainly felt a little surprise, after having heard the argument of the hon. gentleman, that he should have brought forward his motion to-night, because he grounded the practicability of effecting his object on the extinction of the sinking fund. Now, it so happened, that the hon. member for Aberdeen had that very night given notice of a motion which went to get rid of the sinking fund; and it was a little singular, that the hon. gentleman should bring forward his present motion without attempting to lay the basis on which alone he admitted that it could be founded. However, as the hon. gentleman had not thought proper to take that
908
l
s.
909
s.
d.
s.
910
l
l
l
Mr. Maberly
said, he had not proposed to reduce all those articles in that proportion, but only some of them.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, it appeared, then, that he had misunderstood that part of the hon. gentleman's argument. However, he contended, that the assessed taxes ought to be reduced, and that it would be possible to repeal them, as well as to apply 1,500,000
l
911
l
Mr. Calcraft
said, he could not go the whole length of his hon. friend's propositions, because he did not think they could be acceded to, consistently with the principle which he had always maintained, of preserving a considerable surplus. In the propositions for repealing the house and window duties, he fully concurred. As he had had no opportunity of making any observation on the night the chancellor of the Exchequer made his financial statement, he must now give that right hon. gentleman his hearty thanks for a Statement, which he had heard with great satisfaction. It was a candid, liberal, and enlightened view of the state of the country; and he congratulated that country upon having a gentleman of such principles in the situation which the right hon. gentleman filled. At the same time, he agreed with his hon. friend, that a larger portion of the surplus ought to have been applied to the reduction of taxation. The first duty of parliament was, to give effect, as far as possible, to the energies of the people; and the most effectual way in which that could be done
912
l
l
l
l
l
913
Sir J. Wrottesley
supported the motion. Though he would give the preference to the reduction of the House and Window-taxes, he was an advocate for the repeal of the whole of the assessed taxes. Even after the reduction of those taxes, by getting rid of the sinking fund, there would remain a surplus of two millions.
Mr. Alderman Wood
said, that, in his opinion, the proposed repeal of taxes would not produce relief amongst those classes for whose benefit the reduction was intended; for he had always found, that in cases where the poor had been relieved from the operation of a tax, the landlords increased their rent. He should vote with his hon. friend, because he was desirous that all the assessed taxes should be taken off.
Mr. Huskisson
said, he could easily conceive that there were many persons in the country, who would be very desirous that all the assessed taxes should be taken off; and if principles of that nature, which were formerly avowed, had been adopted by parliament in an evil hour, they would have led to the destruction of the British empire, by violating the obligations of national honour, the strict observance of which, under all circumstances, had given England that proud pre-eminence which she now enjoyed over all the nations of the earth. With respect to the proposition of the hon. member, he must say, that as notice had been given of a motion concerning the sinking fund, it would be much more candid and manly to introduce those arguments on that occasion. But, although he could not admit its candour, he could very well understand the tactics upon which the motion of the gentlemen opposite was founded. The hon. member very well knew, that many members might feel disposed to vote for the reduction of the assessed taxes, who would resist any attempt upon the sinking fund. But, the House must see, that to vote for the proposition of the hon. member would be violating the principle to which they were pledged, of maintaining a sinking fund. There was another consideration to which
914
l
915
Mr. T. Wilson
said, he could not repress his astonishment, at the language which had been held by the right hon. gentleman. From that right hon. gentleman, as the avowed friend of free and unshackled trade, and the advocate of that cause against all monopolies, he had never expected to hear such manifest contradiction and inconsistency, as he had that night been guilty of; particularly in remarking on the recent rise in the cost of wines. The fact was, that it was the severe weight of the tax which pressed on that article, that had kept people back, upon small stocks, from purchasing: but on the first prospect of a reduction of the duties, they very naturally came forward, in order to replenish their cellars. The consequence of which was, that, for the moment, the demand exceeded the supply, and hence the price was so excessive. Were the wine-merchants to be spoken of as if this effect had been an arbitrary one with them? Could they make the right hon. gentleman, for example, buy, if he did not like to do so? Really, the right hon. gentleman had applied a most unsound doctrine to this subject. He should reserve his general opinion, as to the sinking fund, until the discussion of the promised motion; and should only observe, that he could not agree that three millions were as good as five for a sinking fund.
Lord Althorp
said, that we had a sinking fund of five millions, or we had not. If we had no such sinking fund, then all the discussions relative to the policy of maintaining such a fund were all put aside; and there could be no reason why the proposition for its reduction should
916
l
Mr. Huskisson
begged to supply an omission, of which he had been unintentionally guilty. The treaty under which his right hon. friend was bound to continue, for a certain time, a certain duty on port wine, was not, as some gentlemen appeared to suppose, the treaty of 1810; but the much older treaty, commonly called the Methuen treaty, which stipulated, that the wines of Portugal should be admitted into this country, on the payment of a duty, one-third only of that payable on the wines of France. In return for this arrangement, Portugal consented to receive the productions of our woollen trade on favourable terms. This treaty with our ancient ally bore date in 1703. By it it was agreed also, that either party to the contract, at the expiration of every period of fifteen years, might give notice to the other, of any revision or alteration that it might desire;
917
Mr. Calcraft
had always understood from the right hon. gentleman, that the
918
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
observed, that the Methuen treaty was certainly retained as an article in the treaty of 1810; but, there was another article in the treaty of 1810, which went, in terms, to preclude Portugal from creating or sanctioning any monopoly, or exclusive company, that should be prejudicial to the interests of the British trade. At that time, the Oporto wine company was in existence, it did not exert its powers and privileges in any such manner, or to such an extent, as to interfere with the British trade. In course of time, however, it undoubtedly did so; and that fact became the subject of a complaint on the part of the British government, to the government of Portugal. The government of Portugal, thinking, probably, that they derived some advantage from such a company, always denied the construction which England put upon the treaty; and long and unsatisfactory discussions were entered into by both the parties on that question. In 1820, a new minister was sent by Portugal to this country, charged to negociate a revision of the terms of this contract. To say the truth, he seemed to know very little about his business, and was soon after recalled. A notice had been given since, to the Portuguese government of our intention to revise and reconsider the treaty of 1810. With a view to that revision, Portugal had already suspended one article of the treaty. Some of the conditions and articles of that treaty were extremely onerous to Portugal; others to this country; but the revision of the whole was, he was happy to say, open to all the contracting parties.
919
Mr. Marjoribanks
thought that the gentlemen engaged in the wine trade would act, not only unjustly, but inconsistently with their own interests, if they did not reduce the prices of all their wines after a ratio at least equal to the reduction of duties upon them.
Mr. Monck
differed from a right hon. gentleman as to his estimate of the great weight of assessed taxes in France. In that country, the amount of direct taxes was, upon property, about 10 per cent, and no more; and for this the payers had value received to a great extent, in paving, lighting, and roads supplied by government, and the very important exception from those turnpike dues, which assailed a man at the end of almost every hundred yards in this country. The heaviest tax which the people of France paid, was a land-tax, amounting to about 4
s.
l
l
l
l
s.
s.
Mr. C. Calvert
felt it necessary to set the House right with respect to what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman with regard to the reduced duty on malt, during the period when a noble lord, now belonging to another House, was chancellor of
920
s.
s.
Mr. Alderman Heygate
feared, from the course adopted by ministers, there was little chance that the country would be relieved from the taxes now sought to be repealed. After adverting to the evils of smuggling, especially as it was much aided by the middling classes of the community, he contended, in reference to the budget of the chancellor of the Exchequer, that the reductions proposed did not relieve the proper persons. Those who wanted aid most were not the rich who drank French wines, nor the poor who drank spirits, but the middle orders, who were obliged to keep up a respectable appearance at an expence which they could ill afford. He gave credit, nevertheless, to ministers, for a sincere desire to benefit the people at large! He firmly believed that the greatest benefit would result to the lower orders if spirituous liquors were made so dear as to be out of their reach; for it was the opinion of the best writers, that nothing tended so much to demoralize a people, as the facility with which they could procure spirits. In voting for the reduction of the house and window tax, he did it under the conviction, that even without it ministers would be able to reduce the expenditure to the limits of the income.
Sir R. Wilson
noticed the state of the Netherlands, with regard to taxation. Notwithstanding the cheapness of house-rent and provisions, the fiscal regulations there were so vexatious, that the English had abandoned all the principal towns where they had formerly resided. He objected to the house and window tax. because it was inquisitorial, and interfered with the privacy of life.
921
Sir W. Ingleby
observed, that, notwithstanding the flattering statement of the chancellor of the Exchequer, he could see no reason to change his opinion of the necessity of a reduction of the house and window duties.
Mr. Maberly
rose to reply. He said, he was not surprised that ministers considered the sinking fund a tender subject, because they knew it was a mere delusion; he should, however, be glad if the chancellor of the Exchequer and his right hon. friend would settle between them what was its real amount. He had the authority of the chancellor of the Exchequer for saying, that next year he expected it to be 5,500,000
l
l
The House divided: Ayes 64. Noes 111. Majority against the motion 47.
List of the Minority.
Althorp, visc.
Denman, T.
Anson, hon. G.
Duncannon, vis.
Benett, J.
East, sir E.
Bernal, R.
Gordon, R.
Blake, sir F.
Grant, J. P.
Bright, H.
Guise, sir B. W.
Burdett, sir F.
Gurney, R. H.
Byng, G.
Heathcote, sir G.
Calvert, C.
Heygate, W.
Cavendish, C. C.
Hobhouse, J. C.
Cavendish, H. F. C.
Hornby, E.
Cradock, S.
Howard, H.
Davenport, D.
Hume, J.
Denison, W. J.
Hittehinson, hon. C.
922
Ingilby, sir W.
Poyntz, W. S.
James, W.
Ridley, sir M. W.
Jervoise, G. P.
Robarts, A. W.
Johnstone, W. A.
Robinson, sir G.
Lambton, J. G.
Rowley, sir W.
Leader, W.
Taylor, M. A.
Lester, B.
Tierney, right hon. G.
Lethbridge, sir T.
Townshend, lord C.
Leycester, R.
Webb, E.
Lloyd, J. M.
Whitbread, W. H.
Lockhart, J. J.
White, S.
Maberly, W. L.
Williams, T. P.
Macdonald, J.
Wilson, sir R.
Marjoribanks, S.
Winnington, sir T.
Manning, W.
Wood, M.
Milton, visc.
Wrottesley, sir J.
Monck, T. B.
TELLERS.
Palmer, C.
Palmer C. F.
Calcraft, J.
Powlett, hon. W.
Maberly, J.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, March 4, 1825
SPRING GUNS.]
Lord Suffield
rose to move the second reading of his bill for declaring Spring Guns illegal. He said, he would briefly refer to certain cases on this subject, which had been decided in courts of law. As he had already observed, there was no distinct law respecting the employment of spring guns. In most of the cases which had come before the courts, the judges had been guided in their decisions by analogy and inference. From an examination of the cases which have been reported, it would appear, that the setting of spring guns was considered illegal; and secondly, that in those cases in which the setting of those weapons had been supposed to be legal, their use had been regarded as contrary to humanity, and those principles of moral justice on which all law ought to be founded. The noble lord then cited the case of Beer
v.
l
923
924
925
The bill was read a second time.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, March 4, 1825
ARMY ESTIMATES.]
The House having resolved itself into a committee of supply,
Lord Palmerston
rose to bring forward the Army Estimates for the year. In rising to state to the House the nature of the supply at present demanded, he said, he should begin by pointing out the difference between the items of the last and those of the present year. The total increase of force for the year 1825 was 8,923 rank and file, exclusive of officers, at a charge of 229,684
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
926
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
927
928
929
930
931
Colonel Davies
said, that if he could take the case to be precisely as the noble lord had described it, he certainly should refuse to vote the increase of force which was demanded; but, as he believed that there was in our foreign relations abundance to call for such a measure, he found himself reluctantly compelled to give his assent to it. The hon. member then adverted to the unnecessary quarrel into which England had been forced with the Burmese. It was clear, from the despatches, that the war might have been avoided, by the slightest portion of management; and the ground of dispute had been an island, not worth the first charge of powder which would be fired in defence of it. With respect to the troops in our colonies, he agreed that they ought to be relieved as often as circumstances would admit; but his complaint was, that the force kept up in those colonies was needlessly large. He deprecated the mode in which the proposed increase was to be effected; and insisted, that battalions of six companies were not adapted to manœuvre in the field.
Mr. Hobhouse
objected to the granting so large an additional force at such a time of peace, without having a full explanation of the principle on which it was demanded. He did not care about the details of the manner in which, when raised, they were to be divided. It was to the principle that he objected. It would appear that few cared about the details; for there were now not a hundred members present on an occasion when the House was called upon to grant so large an addition to our standing army. He had
932
Sir R. Wilson
admitted, that every item which increased the expenditure of the country should be closely examined, and particularly when it had reference to the increase of our standing army. That army he looked upon in general as an excrescence forced upon us by foreign pressure, and not the natural growth of the British constitution. However, looking at the situation in which we stood in relation to the powers of Europe—looking at what was passing in Europe, and at the results which might, at no distant day, follow from the present posture of affairs, he was of opinion, that the increased force now demanded was not more than circumstances required. He was glad to find that the situation of Ireland did not call for any part of the proposed increase; and he hoped that the time was not far distant when that country, administered by equal laws, would have no need of any armed force to secure its tranquillity. But, there were other parts of the British dependencies to which an increase of an armed force might be very properly applied. He had had an opportunity some time ago of witnessing the state of the garrison at Gibraltar; and, though it was kept up with order and discipline, it was altogether insufficient, in point
933
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, it was unfair to infer from the thin state of the House, that the absent members were neglectful of their duty. The fair inference was, that they were fully sensible of the reasonableness of the vote, and that it would not be opposed in that way which might require their personal attendance. From the speech of the gallant general who spoke last, it was evident that an increase of force was required. The gallant general had borne fair and honourable testimony, as a military man and a man of honour, to the situation of the garrison of Gibraltar, and had stated his opinion, that it would not be for the interest of the army that it should continue in its present inefficient state. When the House heard, from such a competent judge, that this was the situation of the only garrison which he had visited, it was fair to assume, that similar defects existed in our other foreign possessions, and that an increase was required in most of them.
Mr. Calcraft
said, that, looking at the situation in which we stood, he thought that government ought to be put in possession of an effectual disposable force. And he therefore fully concurred in the vote.
Mr. Bernal
believed there were circumstances in the state of the world, which justified the proposed augmentation. He was happy in bearing testimony to the commander-in-chief's great attention to the health and comfort of the soldiers in the West Indies.
Mr. Hutchinson
said, that when he saw the country burthened with upwards
934
Sir A. Hope
supported the motion, and defended the plan proposed for the future regulation of the troops to be sent to the colonies.
General Gascoyne
thought that a better mode of relieving regiments upon foreign service might be devised, than that of relieving them by companies.
Mr. M. Fitzgerald
approved of the proposed augmentation, to the army, and would leave the details of it with perfect confidence to the Secretary at War. He had understood from several military officers, that many of our stations were very inadequately garrisoned. That was a state of things which ought not to continue. Though we were now at peace, our fortresses should be prepared for war. So far was he from considering the present an unconstitutional augmentation of the army, that he had regretted many of the reductions which had taken place.
Lord Palmerston
wished to explain a misconception which seemed to prevail as to reliefs. His gallant friend seemed to think, that the system of relief by regiments was abandoned, and that the only relief was to be by the interchange of the officers of the same regiment. This was by no means the case. The regimental exchanges would be carried on as at present, with the addition of these depot companies, which would set the members of each regiment sooner at large. The gallant officer would see, that it would relieve individuals much sooner than the system which was now in vogue.
Sir R. Wilson
begged to ask, whether there would be any objection to follow the same system towards wounded which was now followed towards half-pay offi-
935
Lord Palmerston
could not say, that there was any objection to the gallant general's suggestion. The matter, however, did not fall under his department.
Sir C. Long
said, that, if no difficulty was urged against the change in the Pay-office, there would be no hesitation in acceding to it on his part.
Mr. John Smith
wished to draw the attention of the committee to the situation of officers who had received wounds in the service. If they had lost a limb, or received wounds which were considered equivalent to loss of limb, they received a pension proportionate to their rank. Not one word was said in the grant, that it was merely to continue during his majesty's pleasure; and the consequence was, that it was generally understood to continue during life. Now, to his knowledge, several persons who had received severe wounds, had been deprived of such pensions, after receiving them for a considerable time, and had been reduced by such deprivation to a state of great distress. He put it to the committee, whether individuals who had received pensions without any limitation of the time of their continuance, should not be entitled to hold them for life.
Lord Palmerston
said, he had formerly been condemned for the extreme liberality with which these pensions had been administered; and the hon. member for Aberdeen had considered him so prodigal of them, as to say that he would not be satisfied unless they were taken from him. The hon. member for Midhurst, however, was of opinion, that he had been too parsimonious in disposing of them. He left the committee to decide between the two hon. members, and would merely state, that, in granting those pensions, he had always sought to do impartial justice between the public and the officers on whom they were bestowed. The cases in which pensions had been discontinued were but few; and there was not one of them, which had been discontinued, until the army medical board had reported, that the injuries for which the pension had been granted, had ceased to operate to the disadvantage of the individual. If the hon. member would bring any case to him, in which he thought injustice had been committed, by discontinuing the pension, he would examine it impartially, and if injustice were proved, would remedy it.
936
Mr. Tremayne
contended, that the House was losing sight of the principles laid down by the committee of finance in 1821, and complained that no evidence had been offered to prove the necessity of this increase to the army. He wished to know whether any alteration had been made in the system of causing wounded officers to repair to town for examination by the medical board? when there were doubts as to the propriety of continuing their pensions? He asked this question, because an officer who had a wound open, had been brought up to town for examination, at the expense of one half of his yearly pension.
Lord Palmerston
replied, that, in particular cases, officers were sometimes examined, by surgeons in the country; but stated, that it would be impossible to lay down any general rule upon the subject.
The several resolutions, were then agreed to.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, March 7, 1825
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.]
The Bishop of Exeter
presented a petition from the clergy of the diocese of Exeter, against the Roman Catholic Claims. The petition strongly censured the violent language used by the Catholic Association, and deprecated the repeal of laws which formed the security of the church and state.
Lord King
observed, that their lordships had now before them one more petition from the clergy, against granting the enjoyment of civil rights to their fellow-countrymen, to the Roman Catholics. How far these reverend gentlemen ought thus to meddle with politics he should not now discuss; but they always appeared eager to take part in them. He was informed that there was a city which had a right reverend mayor, and in which there were very reverend aldermen and well-beneficed burgesses. As these reverend gentlemen bestirred themselves, so much to find fault where they had no business, he thought it would be but right to bring them back from where they had gone to where they ought to be.
The Bishop of Exeter
did not under, stand on what ground it was pretended that the clergy should not be allowed the right of petitioning as well as any other class of his majesty's, subjects. Why
937
The Earl of Darnley
said, it was remarkable, that no petition had been presented in favour of the bill except such as had come from the clergy; but he would seriously advise those reverend persons to consider well, whether at the present moment there was greater danger from granting than withholding the Catholic claims. He wished they would read what Mr. Burke, the highest authority on this subject, had said. They would then see that it was now too late to oppose the religious liberty of the Catholics. Here the noble lord read a passage from Mr. Burke, showing, that the Roman Catholics already possessed religious liberty, and that the only remaining question was one of civil and political rights.
The Bishop of Exeter
said, that a noble lord had quoted a passage from Burke. He would, in return, recommend the noble lord to read the last words of lord Russell. He was sorry he had not brought them down in his pocket.
*
Ordered to lie on the table.
SPRING-GUNS.]
Lord Suffield
The Duke of Wellington
thought the principle on which the bill was brought in if rightly followed up, would apply to enclosures of all descriptions. If spring-guns were not to be employed for the preservation of game, he could not see why they should be allowed to be set for the protection of roses and apples. He would object to the hill, unless it was extended to all other property as well as to game. With regard to accidents by spring-guns, he believed very few oc-
*
938
Lord Suffield
reminded their lordships, that he had already signified that he had no objection to the introduction of a clause to allow the setting of spring-guns for the protection of property, which it would be felony to invade; but as no such an amendment could be made, except in the committee, he thought it hard that the motion for going into the committee should be opposed. With regard to the number of accidents occasioned by spring-guns, he could assure the noble duke that he was labouring under a great mistake, when he supposed them to be few. He had alluded only to two cases, because they were more immediately within his recollection. One of them in particular was strongly impressed upon his mind by the horror of the circumstances. If this objection continued to be pressed against the bill, he should feel himself called upon to go into details, the recital of which, however, he wished to be spared. As to the principle laid down by the noble duke, he entirely concurred with it. He saw no more reason for protecting cabbages by spring-guns than pheasants. He respected pheasants as well as cabbages, and wished to see them placed on an equal footing.
The Earl of Liverpool
concurred in the principle laid down by his noble friend, that in consistency the bill should apply to other property as well as game. He was himself for carrying that principle to its fullest extent. That a man should be allowed to buy a trap to shoot another, in a case in which he could not directly shoot him, was something extremely preposterous. There was another circumstance in which the state of the law was extremely absurd. If a man went into a garden, and took away a basket full of fruit, he was guilty of felony; but if he went over a wall, and took the fruit from the trees, he was then only guilty of a trespass. Now, there was a great number of fruit-gardens in the neighbourhood of London which would be exposed to depredation, if it were not for the terror of spring-guns. The state of the law re-
939
The Earl of Westmorland
was for the bill, and would carry the principle to the fullest extent. He would not only exclude spring-guns from enclosed grounds, but even from locked-up places; because innocent persons, attempting to enter in consequence of the key being lost, or from any other cause, might meet with serious accidents. It was not fit that any person living under a well-regulated government, should have the power of setting an engine for the destruction of human life. If the principle of the bill were made to apply generally, it should have his fullest support.
Lord Ellenborough
said, that if the alteration proposed by the noble duke was carried in to effect, nobody in the neighbourhood of London would be able to preserve any fruit. The fear of spring-guns, where they were not actually set, but where a board stated them to be, prevented depredations. But this bill, if carried to the length proposed, would take away the fear. There was a great difference between going into open grounds, and climbing over a wall or entering a hot-house.
The Lord Chancellor
acknowledged the inconsistency and uncertainty of the law with respect to spring-guns. On every occasion on which any question on this subject had come before the courts, the judges, he believed, had been about equally divided. To those who considered the state of the law on this and some other subjects, that maxim which declared it to be "the perfection of human reason" appeared absurd. It certainly was not the perfection of human reason which made it only trespass to take from a tree a pear, and which made the taking the same pear, when separated from the tree, felony. It was his wish, that property should be protected; but he should be sorry to be thought the advocate for spring-guns. There had been no occasion for those engines in former times; but now, when every plantation was turned into a poultry-yard, protection of this kind was thought necessary. A sportsman was now thought nothing of, unless he could kill his thousand birds a-day. But, such a thing had never been heard of in the days of his youth. There were no pheasants in those days, or at least very few, in that part of the country from which he came: some were kept for show, and some were to be found at the seat of the ancestor of the
940
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, that his noble and learned friend had touched the true source of all the evils. There was no greater grievance under which the people of this country laboured than the game laws. There was no example of such another system of laws in any other country. The noble and learned lord had said that, in former times, he had never heard of the preservation of game. Whether of modern or ancient date, it was one of the greatest grievances under which the people of this country suffered. The game laws had filled our gaols with criminals; increased the number of crimes; and added to their atrocity. The state had created a new species of property to the amount of 800,000,000
l
The Earl of Carnarvon
said, he was for legalizing the sale of game, and thought, if the country gentlemen gave up their strong hold on that point, they would relieve themselves from a great deal of obloquy to which they were at present exposed. It would be beneficial to the country to have a law enacted on the subject, which was really meant to be executed. Such he hoped the law would be which was coming from the other House. It ought to be made a law really capable of defending game.
The Earl of Limerick
was in favour of
941
The Earl of Carnarvon
explained, that on that occasion he had had on his side the vote of the learned lord on the woolsack, who was, like himself, of opinion, that if the seller was to be held criminal, the purchaser ought to be made equally criminal.
The Earl of Darnley,
alluding to the subject of spring-guns, threw out as a suggestion, that the legality of setting them should be confined to walled grounds.
The Earl of Falmouth
said, that the ground of the opposition to the bill which had been alluded to was, that noble lords who lived at a distance from their estates, wished to have the opportunity of purchasing game.
The Earl of Limerick
said, that the real ground was, a dislike that the same punishment should apply to the rich as well as to the poor. The punishment of the pillory was then in existence, and to that punishment the purchaser might have been liable as well as the seller.
Earl Grosvenor
, from what had passed, and especially what had been said by the noble lord on the wool-sack, was inclined to hope that the bill coming from the other House, on the sale of game, would experience a better reception than the bill of last year. The property of the gardeners in the neighbourhood of the metropolis ought to be protected, because the fruit which they reared was all the property of those poor people. The case was very different with respect to hares and partridges. He would support the bill.
The Lord Chancellor
said, that with regard to extending the principle of the bill to enclosed grounds, a great deal of difficulty arose from the distinction which the law made between trespass and theft; between the act of pulling a tree out of the ground, and taking away a tree which had been previously pulled. A similar distinction was made with respect to the rivers in which salmon were caught. The law had decided, that as salmon were feræ naturæ, the taking them out of the river was only a trespass. He remembered a case of a man who had been prosecuted for stealing salmon out of a river, and acquitted by the jury, on the ground that
942
Lord Suffield
said, that as it seemed to be the general sense of the House, that the clauses of the bill should be considered in a committee, he moved that it be committed pro formâ.
The House accordingly resolved itself into a committee. The chairman reported progress, and asked leave to sit again on Monday.
UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES IN IRELAND
On the order of the day for the third reading of this bill,
Lord Ellenborough
said, he was by no means an advocate for the continuance of the Catholic Association; but, at the same time, he did not wish that it should be put down by a measure imposing new restrictions on the liberty of the subject. He said this, not because the Association had heretofore done harm, but because their future conduct might be calculated to prejudice their cause; and therefore he hoped it would dissolve itself. He felt no regret that it had existed. On the contrary, he considered it matter of congratulation. It had made both Catholics and Protestants think seriously of the evils arising from the existing laws: and it had produced a stronger disposition in the minds of both parties to make mutual sacrifices of their prejudices in order to set their differences at rest, for the attainment of a great national advantage. It was said, that the Association attributed the present tranquillity of Ireland to their exertions. Undoubtedly, they had done some good; but, whatever might have been the effect of their conduct, he considered them as most harshly dealt with. In the first place, they had been condemned unheard. It was said, that they had perverted the course of justice. Was there any proof of that? Certain magistrates might feel themselves uneasy under the eye of a Catholic barrister; and a certain class of persons might entertain strong fears of being prosecuted: but these were not reasons for putting down the Association. He was satisfied that some practical benefit had arisen from
943
Lord Calthorpe
contended, that the House had disqualified itself, by its past conduct towards the Catholics, from inflicting a measure of this description upon them. There were some of the acts of the Association of which he did not approve; but, even supposing the wish to annihilate it to have been produced by its own conduct, he thought there was much less danger to be apprehended from the conduct of the Association than from parliament continuing to act towards the Catholics in that spirit which had given
944
The Lord Chancellor
said, that though he was favourable to the bill, he never' could give it his consent upon such grounds as the noble lord had just stated. No principle was less capable of being defended in that House than that it would be right to pass the bill, because those whom it was to affect professed the same religion with persons who had done wrong before. But he would go further, and say, that he would not support' this bill if
945
Lord Dudley and Ward
said, he rose with considerable reluctance, in consequence of ins general views upon the question, to support a measure directed against the Catholic Association, whose conduct, however reprehensible in itself, was easily to be accounted for, by the painful and trying circumstances in which they were placed. It was for their lordships to consider what might be their own conduct under an order of things which should place them in a similar situation—not for any crime they had committed, nor as the authors of any dangerous innovation; but because they had adhered to the religion of their ancestors, and had not received that great light which, after the darkness of a thousand years, had broken forth on the christian world. If any one of their lordships thought that, under such circumstances, he ought not to feel any irritation or discontent, but that he should bow with submission and kiss the rod, that noble lord, undoubtedly, might vote for this measure without regret. But in his view, who thought that the Catholic question ought to pass as soon as possible, and that the Catholics were placed in a situation most trying to their loyalty, he was not disposed to scan their faults too nicely, and felt that some indulgence ought to be extended towards them. But then, there was a certain point where indulgence
946
947
The Earl of Roden
said, that he, as well as many of his friends, could bear witness to the violent proceedings of the Catholic Association during the last twelvemonths. They had erected an imperium in imperio, and lorded it over the whole Catholic population of every part of the country. Could any thing be more objectionable than their levying a tax on the people?— He said "levying a tax," because, however it might be said, that the sums collected were voluntary offerings, he believed that, in many instances, the money was taken from individuals who were unwilling to subscribe; and not only that, but from persons who actually disapproved of the measures of the Catholic Association. The noble viscount who moved, and the noble lord who seconded, the address, on the first day of the session, had very justly described the mischiefs which were to be apprehended from this Association. Those noble lords must have known, as he himself well knew, the fever which the Association had excited throughout Ireland amongst the Catholics and Protestants during the last year. That body had been the means of fomenting jealousies, misunderstandings, and angry feelings between them; and therefore it was fitting, that such an instrument of mischief should not be suffered to exist. He knew of no good that it had effected, and he was quite sure that if it were suffered to go on, it would produce the most baneful effects. True it was, that the Association had put forth addresses, cautioning the people against becoming Ribbonmen, and imploring them to remain in a state of tranquillity; but, lest the people should take their advice, they, in the same breath, reminded them of "the hatred they bore to Orangemen." It was impressed upon their minds, too, that they were slaves— degraded and disgraced persons, to whom no meed of justice was extended. The Catholic population certainly suffered under the disabilities of the penal code, yet he would venture to say, that there were no peasantry in the world more free, or who would more rejoice in a participation in the blessings of the constitution, or be more anxious to acknowledge the boons they had received from parliament during the last two or three years, if they were permitted to do so, by those per-
948
"Hi motus animorum atque hæc certamina tanta,
Pulveris exigui jactu, compressa quiescent."
The Earl of Darnley
contended, that the Catholics of Ireland were justified in using the best means within their power for the restoration of their civil rights. The noble earl had spoken in flattering terms of the situation of the peasantry of
949
950
Earl Grosvenor
said, they were now about to frame a law which would be fatal to the peace of this country and of Ireland, if it were not accompanied by the measure to which his noble friend had alluded. Their lordships were going to adopt this bill, without hearing one word in defence of this much-maligned institution— without being in possession of the sentiments of the noble lord who was at the head of the government of Ireland—and without accompanying the enactment of this penal law with any conciliatory or healing proposition. They were proceeding to legislate in this manner, when the power of the Pope was no more. They were proceeding to legislate in this manner, when the Roman Catholic population had increased in knowledge and in riches; when the numbers of that body were not only relatively but actually enormous; and without stating, in any part of the bill, the nature of the danger that was apprehended. He trusted that the Roman Catholics would never be satisfied with any thing less than a full participation in the rights and privileges of the constitution.
The bill was then read a third time and passed.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, March 7, 1825
GAME LAWS BILL.]
Mr. Stuart Wortley
rose, to move the second reading of this bill. In legislating upon this subject, it was, he said, proper to consider whether parliament could not give protection to the amusements of country gentlemen, without doing injustice to the community at large. The evils which resulted from the present system were many; but the most important was the great increase of poaching, which—such was the effect of the existing laws—was not looked upon as a moral offence by scarcely any portion of the community. How was that evil to be diminished? Severe laws, he was convinced, would be of no avail. It was necessary to generate a different feeling amongst the body of the people. That, then, should be his first object; and the next the opening of the market for the sale of game, and thereby destroying the monopoly which the poachers at present enjoyed. The existing system of qualifi-
951
l
l
952
Sir J. Brydges
said, that the present bill, as it seemed to him, instead of checking poaching, would go to encourage it. All that the poacher wanted was a free vent for his plunder, which this measure of the hon. member for Yorkshire went precisely to afford him. He was decidedly opposed to the bill, as far as regarded its effect upon the preservation of game; and not the less so, because it added a new felony to the Statute-book, in making night poaching a transportable offence. Under these circumstances, he should move, "that the bill be read a second time this day six months."
Mr. Lockhart
was surprised how any one could think that the measure before the House was calculated for the preservation of game. The effect of the bill would be, by making every land-owner a legal dealer in game, to render the small farmer's house a constant resort for poachers, and the man himself an agent for the sale of their commodity. He should have no objection to support a proposition for extending the existing scheme of qualification; but, for the bill of the hon. member, he thought it would create more crime than it would prevent. With respect to the right of preserving game, he thought it quite unreasonable that gentlemen should be asked to resign any right or property, purely because there existed, on the part of some persons, a disposition to violate or destroy it. He should certainly support the amendment.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, it was his intention to vote for the proposition of his hon. friend, the member for Yorkshire. When he looked to the antiquity of the game laws, and considered the great changes which had taken place with reference to that species of property, he could not but entertain a strong suspicion, that those laws required alteration. He conceived that there was no one circumstance
953
954
955
956
Mr. John Douglas
opposed the bill, as tending to destroy all the game in the country. If people were allowed to purchase game openly, they would eat so much of it, that there would soon be none left. Eating game would become a custom; and people would look for their pheasant on the 1st of October, as regularly as they did for their goose on Michaelmas day. If foxes and other game were destroyed, country gentlemen would look to other sports, and would, very probably, dissipate their time and their money in those graves of property which were kept up in St, James's street.
Sir J. Yorke
said, it must be evident, that the present restrictive laws on the sale of game did not prevent its being supplied in the largest quantities in the metropolis. It was proved before the committee up stairs, that two poulterers had said they could furnish the whole House of Commons twice a-week with two head of game for each member; and one of them added, that on one occasion, he had actually thrown a thousand head of partridges into the Thames, not being able to obtain a sale for them.
Mr. W. Peel
opposed the bill, on the ground that much evil would arise from legalizing the sale of game. The proposed alteration of the game laws would, in his opinion, interfere with the recreations of the country gentlemen.
Sir J. Sebright
said, that the law, as it stood, was extremely objectionable, since
957
Sir Alexander Don
expressed his assent to the measure.
Mr. Pelham
concurred in the propriety of passing the bill.
Mr. J. Martin
said, he considered the bill in its present state exceedingly objectionable, but he should vote for the second reading, in the hope that the alterations which he required might be effected in the committee. Should this end not be attained, he should oppose the third reading.
Mr. James
thought, that the only just mode of legislating on the subject of the game laws was, to make game the property of those who had been at the expense of rearing it. He should, therefore, support the motion.
The House divided: For the second reading 82. Against it 26. Majority 56.
ARMY ESTIMATES.]
The report of the committee of supply was brought up. On the first resolution being read,
Mr. Hume
said, that, having been prevented from attending on the night when the Army Estimates were discussed, he wished to take that opportunity of making a few observations; because he conceived that the explanations given by the noble lord opposite were quite unsatisfactory. If the proposed augmentation were to be temporary, and were justified by real ne-
958
959
Colonel Johnston
seconded the amendment, and expressed his astonishment at
960
Mr. Wilmot Horton
contended, that the proposed augmentation of the army was rendered necessary by the increased population of our colonial dependencies, and the increased duty to which some of our garrisons abroad had recently been exposed, in consequence of certain occurrences. Indeed, the duty which some of our colonial garrisons were obliged to go through was so harassing, as to be destructive of the health both of men and officers. The state of the West Indies rendered it necessary for us to have efficient garrisons in every island; and almost every governor had sent pressing requisitions to the government at home for an increased number of troops to defend them. The same was the case in New South Wales and Van Diemen's Land, where the military had to perform the duties of the police. Under these circumstances, he had no doubt that the House would see that this increase to the army was required by imperious necessity, and was not of a nature to excite fear in any friend of constitutional liberty. The hon. member had, as heretofore, alluded to the numerical military force of 1792; but he had overlooked the great change that had since taken place, not alone in the number of our colonies, in the increase of the population, and in the comparative military strength of other countries. These were considerations which the House was bound to bear in mind; and not the mere abstract question of the numerical difference between the establishments of 1792 and that called for by circumstances at this period.
Mr. Bright
said, that if the duty to which our army was subjected was as harassing as it had been represented, ministers were deeply to blame for not having come forward before to relieve it. He did not, however, believe it to be so severe as to require this augmentation in time of peace. He recollected that, last year, 4,500 men had been voted, on the express ground that they should be sent to defend the West Indies. He wished to know whether that force had been sent there, and if it had, whether it had been found insufficient? He complained, that we had now been engaged in the Algerine, the Ashantee, and the Burmese war, without any information being given by ministers to the House. He contended, that the proposed ex-
961
Sir R. Wilson
should not have risen, had not his hon. friend, the member for Aberdeen, seemed to think him mistaken, when he said, that the present garrison of Gibraltar was inadequate to its defence. His hon. friend had said, that Gibraltar might as safely be left with its present garrison, since it was defended by the faith of treaties. It might be so; but he should think the government very criminal, if it left Gibraltar to that species of defence, while the French army were in possession of Cadiz, and a large French fleet was cruising in the bay. He believed his hon. friend had been at Gibraltar; but, if he thought it could be defended by 4,000 men, he had never looked at it with the eye of a soldier, or the knowledge of an engineer. He was quite as great an economist as his hon. friend, but he was a provident economist, and would spend 1,000
l
Mr. Trant
said, he had recently been at Gibraltar, and begged leave to add his testimony to that of the gallant officer, to the inadequacy of the garrison to perform the duties of the place.
Sir Charles Forbes
contended, that we had been the aggressors, and not the aggrieved party in the Burmese war. The marquis Wellesley and lord Hastings were not men likely to permit themselves to be bullied; and yet they had both avoided a war with the Burmese, when there was great provocation to commence it. He maintained, that we had no prospect of succeeding in a war with that people; and said, that, even if we gained possession of the Burmese capital, we should have done but little to subdue the spirit of that gallant nation. He regretted that we had not sent 15,000 or 20,000 men to the East Indies; as the sending of such a force would place our empire in the east out of the reach of all danger. He complained of the manner in which the troops were sent to India. The vessels which
962
l
l
l
Mr. Lindsay
stated, that the ships provided by the East-India Company for the conveyance of troops, were better and more commodiously arranged than those of the government at home, and had 18 inches room allotted to each soldier's birth, while 14 were only allowed in the
963
Lord Palmerston
denied, that the object of the proposed increase in the army was to extend the patronage of government. With regard to promotions, they would be made without any regard to interest, and with the view of promoting those officers only whose service entitled them to it. The lieutenants who had been promoted were those of seventeen years standing. This was sufficient to prove that the charge was undeserved. As to the garrisons on foreign stations, he was willing to rest that question on the testimony of the hon. and gallant officer (sir R. Wilson), on whose opinion he was sure, both the House and the country would place the fullest confidence.
Sir R. Wilson
asked, whether government would effect the arrangement which he had suggested on a former evening, with respect to the quarterly payments of wounded officers on half-pay.
Sir C. Long
said, that since he had the honour of holding the office which he now filled, the number of pensioners who were paid quarterly, instead of half-yearly, was doubled. It did, however, so happen, that the class of officers alluded to by the gallant member, had not received their pensions quarterly; but, if any one of them had only communicated their wishes to receive it four times a year instead of twice, to the proper quarter, he had no doubt that the intimation would have been complied with. He had taken measures to carry such an arrangement into effect: but it would not be practicable to have it commence before the 24th of June. He took that opportunity of expressing to the hon. and gallant officer how much indebted he was to him for the suggestion.
Lord Milton
could not approve of the present estimates, which exceeded, by half a million of money, and 12,000 men, the estimates for the year 1823. This augmentation was attempted to be justified upon the apprehension of impending dangers from abroad, which were, he thought, quite unreasonably felt by some
964
Sir F. Ommanney
strongly recommended that the quarterly payments to wounded officers should commence forthwith, instead of in June.
The House divided: For the original resolutions, 102. For Mr. Hume's amendment, 8.
List of the Minority.
Bright, H.
Palmer, F.
Howard, H.
Wood, M.
Hutchinson, C.
TELLERS.
James, W.
Milton, lord
Johnson, col.
Monck, J. B.
Hume, J.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, March 9, 1825
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS—PETITION FROM KILKENNY.]
Lord Clifden
presented a petition from the Protestant Inhabitants of Kilkenny, in favour of the Roman Catholics' Claims. This petition, his lordship said, was the petition of the greater number of landholders in the county. He could not avoid expressing his satisfaction at the progress which this question was making. Whether now carried or not, he was sure it was obtaining more consideration than it had ever done before. There was great reason to hope that this question, which certainly would be interminable, as long as the Catholics were excluded from the privileges of the constitution, would, at last, come to an end. From this he argued nothing but good. He remembered the time when great commercial jealousies existed between the two countries. These were all happily done away; and there was not one man of sense in the country, who did not wish to see Ireland as flourishing as England. He was sure, if the thing were wisely done, it would be effected without the least danger to the church. Upwards of forty years had elapsed before the union between Scotland and England was perfect; and now the people of the North
965
"God grant this may soon arrive."
Ordered to lie on the table.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, March 9, 1825
PERUVIAN MINING-COMPANY'S BILL.]
Mr. Green
brought in a bill to enable the Company to sue and be sued in the name of their Secretary.
Mr. Hobhouse
said, that when the second reading should be fixed, he would oppose it by all the means in his power. The more he had examined the subject, the more he was convinced, that the scheme of the persons concerned in the present bill was wholly impracticable. The Pasco mountains were 13,500 feet above the level of the sea, and the experiment of mining there had been tried over and over again, without success. He knew nothing of the individuals concerned, but he took upon himself to say, that he should be able to convince the House that it ought not to encourage such an undertaking.
The bill was read a first time.
METROPOLITAN FISH-COMPANY BILL.]
Lord John Fitzroy
Mr. Calcraft
observed, that this was one of the many delusive schemes of the presentday. About sixteen years ago, it fell to his lot to oppose a bill, which, under the pretence of employing the boys of the Marine Asylum, went to supersede the trade of industrious persons who got their living by selling fish. He undertook then to show that the bulk of fish sold at the rate of 1
d.
l.
966
l.
Lord John Filzroy
said, he had no private interest in the success of the measure.
Mr. J. Smith
said, that the company might do good; but harm, he thought, they could not do.
Mr. Curteis
observed, that the Dutch fishermen did not confine themselves to taking eels and turbot, but also brought to the English market flounders, cod, and other fish.
Mr. J. P. Grant
opposed the bill. He thought the House could not do any thing more injurious to the regular supply of the market, than to give a chimerical company advantages which were not possessed by the regular fishermen.
The bill was read a second time.
JURIES REGULATION BILL.]
Mr. Secretary Peel
rose to bring forward his motion for consolidating and amending the laws relative to Juries. It was impossible, he apprehended, to urge any valid objection against clearing up what was obscure, and consolidating what was scattered over the whole Statute-book, in the laws relating to Juries. There were no fewer than 85 statutes relating to the impanel ling of Juries. What possible ob-
967
968
969
970
971
Dr. Lushington
said, he was desirous to take the earliest opportunity of expressing the high satisfaction he felt at the very important measure about to be introduced by the right hon. Secretary. With respect to that part of the proposed plan which affected the selection of juries, it could not fail to be productive of the greatest benefit; for nothing could be more injurious to the administration of justice, than even the existence of a doubt as to the purity of the mode in which it was administered. The decisions of courts of justice should be beyond suspicion, in order that the desirable end might be attained, that a conviction should receive the approbation of the public; and, from the statement of the right hon. gentleman, he was disposed to think, that the provisions of the bill were the best qualified to accomplish the proposed end. He apprehended that the regulation as to the selection of juries would extend to Exchequer prosecutions. This would be of the greatest advantage; and as to the general question of consolidation, he quite concurred in the principle of appointing a commission, and of proceeding step by step. In the committee, of course, an opportunity would be afforded of making any alterations that might be found necessary; and he felt a strong assurance, that the measure would be most satisfactory when reduced to the best test of utility-practice. In all his attempts on this subject, his principle, and he trusted the principle that would be pursued, was, to consolidate the laws precisely as they stood. No man had a right to come down to that House with a measure professing consolidation merely, when, in point of fact, its object was to alter and amend. If the slightest alteration were proposed, it should be distinctly pointed out to the House, and in any consolidation they should adhere, as closely, as possible, to the old form of the act of parliament, with reference to decided cases, in order that the law might not be at sea until there were fresh adjudicated cases. The measure should have his full concurrence and support.
Mr. Hobhouse
said, that every man who valued the liberties of his country, must be delighted at the introduction of this
972
Mr. Hume
said, that, having years ago called the attention of the House to this important subject, he could not but express the satisfaction he felt at the proposed measure. But, it appeared to him, that it would be a very great advantage, if the same principle could be applied to what was called the Common Law, but which he considered tantamount to no law at all.
Mr. Peel
said, that, as far as was practicable, the common law had been consolidated by statute; but the hon. member must himself concur in the impropriety of enacting by statute that which was regulated by common law. Nothing, in his mind, could be more inexpedient than to interfere with the ancient institutions of the country: for instance, who would think of enforcing, by statute, that a jury should consist of twelve persons, and that their verdict must be founded on unanimity. It would be most unwise to interfere with those sacred usages, which had been uniformly recognized as the law of the land.
Mr. Bright
expressed his entire approbation of the bill, and thought the right hon. Secretary entitled to the thanks of the country for introducing it. There was one improvement which he would suggest to the right hon. gentleman; namely to introduce a clause to prevent the separation of juries, in any case until they came to a decision. Great inconvenience had already arisen from a contrary practice. He would not allow a jury to be discharged even with the consent of the parties. He did not know whether it was intended to consolidate the laws on high treason in this bill; but if it was, he hoped that none of the privileges at present enjoyed by defendants in cases of high treason would be taken away. Among other improvements which he should wish to see take place, was that of obliging the Crown lawyers, in cases of high treason, to assign a cause for their challenges at the time of making them. On the whole, he looked upon the bill as likely to be of vast benefit to the country. It embodied very many of the improvements which had long ago been so ably pointed out by that great man, lord Bacon.
Leave was accordingly given to bring in the bill.
973
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, March 10, 1825
VOTES OF MEMBERS ON QUESTIONS
Mr. Hume
rose, for the purpose of submitting to the House a resolution, "that no Member shall vote for or against any Question in which he has a direct pecuniary Interest." In doing this, he said he could assure the House, he deeply regretted that the execution of so important a task had not fallen into the hands of some person better able to discharge it than he felt himself to be. Its object was, to effect an alteration in the existing usages of parliament. Those usages consisted of a large collection of resolutions which the House had, from time to time, adopted, as present circumstances, or particular exigencies had required. It appeared that, at a very early period in the history of the parliament of England, it had been found inconvenient and unjust that members should be allowed to interpose the influence of their votes in the resolutions of the House on subjects in which they had a direct interest. It had therefore been provided by the House, that no member should be allowed to vote in favour of any measure, in the passing of which he was personally or pecuniarily concerned. But there had never yet been an order, that such members as were similarly interested in opposing a bill before the House, should also be disqualified from voting on it. It was to this latter point that his present motion more particularly referred, and which bethought was not less just, nor less important, than that which had already been provided for. He was prepared to believe that the House would not deal hastily with this proposition, nor, without consideration, agree to a resolution which should so materially alter the practice of parliament; but, if it could be proved that the existing law in this respect was unjust in itself, and injurious in its effect upon the interests of individuals (and he did not doubt that he should afford such proof in a very ample and satisfactory manner), he trusted that it would not be thought beneath the dignity of parliament to abrogate that law, and to establish such an alteration as might seem necessary. It was a subject in which he had personally no interest whatever, excepting that desire which he felt in common with every other; hon. gentleman, that the House should deserve
974
975
976
977
978
Mr. Littleton
said, he had no doubt that the hon. member was correct when he said, that he had found great difficulty in coming to a determination as to the mode of treating this question. He had no doubt, that when he first gave notice of his motion, the hon. gentleman did not anticipate the difficulties which he afterwards experienced. He hoped the hon. member would give him credit for sincerity, when he said, that he was as strongly impressed as any hon. member could be, with a conviction of the necessity of maintaining the individual character of members of that House, when he reminded him that, two years ago, he had given notice of a motion somewhat similar to that which the hon. member had submitted to the House. But that motion he had been obliged to abandon, because he found that the objections to it were insuperable. His motion was, however, confined to the finding a remedy for that which he still considered a serious evil; namely, the manner in which private business was conducted in committees up stairs. In the House private interests were merged in the great man of unbiassed opinion, and could produce but little effect; but, in committees on private bills, nobody but the parties interested ever thought of appearing; and it was there that the mischief was done. He thought that the House would gain nothing by departing from its ancient usage; which it would do by the adoption of the motion. Under the present system, this advantage was apparent—that it was well known what individuals were interested in any measure before the House. Votes on private bills were so seldom challenged, that members did not think it necessary to conceal their interest in particular measures. But, when once the present motion should be carried, members would be driven to resort to evasive measures.
979
Mr. Grenfell
complained, that he had been disqualified from voting on a question of great public importance on a former evening, because he was known to have a private interest in the measure. It so happened, too, that on the very day when he had been disqualified, one of the hon. members for Grampound had signed a petition against the measure from the London-dock company, in which it was stated, that the measure affected their pecuniary interests. Now, the principle of exclusion ought to be applied to both sides, or not at all—to those who had an interest in opposing, as well as to those whose interest it would be to support any measure. In his opinion, it would be extremely unwise to accede to the present motion; for if it were agreed to, half the time of the House would be wasted in finding out what members were interested in the measures before the House. In the interim, however, until the disqualification of his vote on the St. Catherine's-dock bill was rescinded, he should avail himself of every opportunity to apply the same principle of disqualification to all members who might have a direct interest in opposing any measure brought before the House.
Mr. Sumner
said, that if the amendment had not been moved, he had intended to have proposed a resolution, declaratory of
980
Sir M. W. Ridley
thought it would be advisable for the House to pass some declaratory resolution of the nature alluded to by the hon. member for Surrey, as a guide for their conduct on all future occasions. He would vote for the amendment, in the hope that some such resolution might subsequently be proposed.
Mr. Secretary Peel
expressed his regret, not that the motion had been made, but that there should have been any necessity for making it. He thought it would be extremely difficult to come to any resolution on the subject. He intended to vote for the amendment, by doing which, he should not be precluded from hereafter adopting any measure which he should, think applicable to the subject. There were three courses which it was open to the House to pursue. The first was, to adopt the motion of the hon. member for Aberdeen; the second was, to pass a declaratory resolution, to the effect stated by the member for Surrey; and the third was, to agree to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Staffordshire. There were, in his opinion, great difficulties in the way of the adoption of the original motion. In the first place, without entering into any nice disquisition, the right of disqualifying members from voting was one which the House ought to exercise with great caution. Honourable members were sent to that House to perform duties to others. He was not certain that if he were called upon to come to a decision on the question a priori—that was to say, if there were no precedents on the subject—he would ever consent to any law by which a member could be disqualified from voting on any question. He should have felt a priori great doubts of the competency of parliament to disqualify a member from exercising his discretion, even on questions in which he had a direct personal interest. Might it not happen that a member's private interest would be concurrent with the interests of his constituents? He objected to the extension of the principle of disqualification, which was proposed by the motion. ["No," from Mr. Hume.] If the motion were not intended to extend the law of disqualification, he asked the hon. member, in God's name, to leave it as it stood
981
Mr. Hudson Gurney
said, he agreed in
982
Mr. Wynn
said, he considered it the duty of the House to throw out any measure, no matter what its object, which had been pressed on the attention of members by means such as those to which the hon. member had just alluded [hear, hear]; and he thought the hon. member would be doing an important service to the country, by giving the name of the particular project, in support of which the application he described had been made [hear, hear, and cries of name, name]. With respect to the object of the hon. member who submitted the present motion, he thought it would, in a great measure, be answered by enforcing what was the law and usage of the House. In his opinion,
983
Mr. Abercromby
admitted, that the subject was attended with difficulties almost inexplicable. It might be hard to say, that a man should be allowed to vote in a case where he himself had a direct pecuniary interest; but, the objection to his vote, under such circumstance, must be founded in attributing to him motives by which his mind was supposed to be more or less unfairly biassed. If the House adopted this principle, they should carry it further, and apply it to all cases where motives might be supposed to operate on
984
l
985
Mr. Stuart Wortley
fully concurred in the remarks which had just fallen from his hon. and learned friend, and agreed, that instead of adopting the motion, they ought to appoint a committee, to inquire what precedents of disqualification existed on their Journals, for the purpose of expunging them. He admitted that great abuses existed in the present system of soliciting for votes in committees. This was the main evil; and it ought to be corrected: but he agreed, that public opinion would be found its best corrective. To disqualify a man from voting who had a personal interest in a measure, would disqualify many persons who were the most active and efficient on committees: for, he presumed, if they were disqualified in the House, they would be also disqualified up stairs.
Mr. Lockhart
objected to the motion,
986
Sir E. Knatchbull
denied that the business in committees up stairs was carried on in a corrupt or partial manner. If any instances of abuse occurred, what was there to hinder the parties aggrieved from appealing to the House for protection? And he begged to ask, whether any case was known in which such appeal was made without effect?
Mr. Robertson
supported the motion. When it was well known, that in most of the speculations now afloat in the city, some thousand shares were reserved for the use of members of parliament, he thought it was high time that the subject should be taken into consideration. The fact was, that some of the wildest speculations were encouraged by the expected support of some members of that House.
Mr. Hume,
in reply, said, that if he was before impressed with the necessity of the measure which he proposed to the House, he was still more convinced of it, after what he had heard in the course of this discussion. It was stated by one right hon. gentleman, that the law of parliament on the question of members being disqualified from voting where they had a direct pecuniary interest, was clear and positive; and this was doubted by another right hon. gentleman. Now, he wished to have the matter set at rest, by the declaration which he proposed. It was not he who violated any constitutional principle in this motion, but those who opposed it. It was admitted, as a constitutional principle, in all our courts, that no mart could be received as an evidence, in cases where he had a direct personal interest; and he thought it a violation of that principle that the House of Commons should be made an exception to it. However the motion might be disposed of, his object was, in a great degree gained; for no member had attempted to impugn the general principle for which he contended.
REDUCTION OF DUTIES ON FOREIGN SPIRITS, TOBACCO, AND TEA.]
Colonel Davies
rose, in pursuance of notice, to move for a committee to inquire how far the duties on several articles of foreign
987
l
988
l
Mr. Curteis
seconded the motion, because he wished to see an effectual check given to smuggling, which had produced much slaughter and bloodshed in the county in which he resided.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that if he differed in principle from the hon. member, or if he disputed the substance of the propositions which he had advanced, he should address the House at greater length than he now intended to do. The hon. member had done him no
989
Mr. Bright
agreed in most of the propositions which had been laid down by the right hon. gentleman; but he thought he might carry his reductions still further than he proposed to do, without inflicting any injury upon the revenue. For instance, why not reduce the duties on tobacco? They were so high as to afford an absolute encouragement to smuggling. The right hon. gentleman had talked of the redoubts and fortresses of the smuggler. Was he aware, that tobacco was his very citadel? In Ireland, these duties had led to smuggling in the most open and extensive manner, as was proved by the 10th report of the commissioners of Inquiry into the abuses of that country. He entreated the right hon. gentleman to attend to the recommendation it con-
990
Mr. Hume
considered, that the chancellor of the Exchequer had fallen short of his own principles, in not reducing the duties on tobacco, in which such extensive smuggling prevailed. Ministers, by not interfering, incurred a great responsibility.
Mr. Hart Davis
said, that if the duty on tobacco was lowered to 2
s.,
Alderman Bridges
said, that smugglers made their calculations as accurately as any merchants. He did hope that the right hon. gentleman would turn his attention to those duties which now served as bounties to the contraband traders.
Mr. Trant
approved of the cautious course taken by the chancellor of the Exchequer in the repeal of the taxes.
Mr. Hobhouse
strongly recommended the immediate reduction of the duties on tobacco, and on the other articles to which his hon. friend had adverted. He was exceedingly desirous that the subject should be investigated by a committee; because it was well known, that in cases connected with the revenue, evidence came out before a committee which might be withheld from a chancellor of the Exchequer.
Mr. Huskisson
felt it his duty to oppose the motion. As to the prevention of smuggling, he was persuaded that that object would be more forwarded by the reduction of the duties on spirits, than by the reduction of the duty on tobacco.
The motion was negatived without a divison.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, March 11, 1825
ST. CATHERINE'S DOCKS BILL.]
Mr. C. Calvert
Mr. Grenfell
deprecated the motion for an open, after the House had appointed a select, committee. From what he had seen of the practice of gentlemen in committees, corning in at the close of the day
991
Mr. Hume
thought, that, after a select committee had been appointed on a bill, it was not quite fair to move that it be an open one, without giving a notice of such motion.
Mr. Calvert
was anxious to have this an open committee, as all others upon which opinions were much divided. It would tend to put an end to the system of canvassing for votes, which had already been carried to such a height. For his own part, he had never canvassed for a vote in those committees. He wished other members could say as much.
Mr. Sumner
said, that the members already appointed were quite sufficient.
Lord Folkestone
said, that as to the objection of several members coming in and voting at the close of the day without having heard the evidence, he did not see how that could be remedied, unless by some law of the House, which would oblige all members to hear every thing which was said upon a question before they voted on it. This, perhaps, would not be found very convenient in the House itself; where large bodies of the members were seen coming down at a late hour to vote on a question, of the arguments on which they had heard not a word. He could not see why an opposition should be made to having this an open committee.
Mr. Alderman Heygate
complained, that none but those known to be favourable to the bill were selected upon it, while not a single member representing places whose interests were hostile to it was named. He therefore would vote, that the committee should be an open one. Indeed, he should wish to see all committees on private bills open, or appointed by the House itself; and not by the members interested in the bill.
Mr. Huskisson
expressed himself favourable to the bill, as he thought the accommodations which those docks would afford were required by the commercial interests of London and the ports; but, as those interests were very general, he would not wish to limit the number on the committee. He therefore would support the motion, that all who came have voices.
992
The motion was agreed to.
METROPOLITAN WATER-WORKS COMPANY.]
The Sheriffs of London presented a petition of the corporation against this bill.
Mr. Alderman Wood
thought the House was not aware of the manner in which this new company proposed to furnish the water. It was intended to dig wells throughout the metropolis, by which means every private pump would be deprived of water. This fact only came to the knowledge of the corporation recently, and they thought it right to oppose the measure, for the interests of the public at large.
Mr. Calvert
expressed his apprehensions that these wells, or pits, would be ineffectual, as a means of supplying water, and that, at the same time, they would be injurious, by destroying the supply of water from springs, to several public establishments.
Mr. M. A. Taylor
observed, that the House might judge of the manner in which some of those new speculations were got up, when he informed them, that the very first intimation he ever received of the existence of this water-company, was his having seen it in a newspaper, where it was ushered to the world, as being under his special sanction. It was true, a gentleman called on him some time before, and, to his great surprise, asked for his opinion about all the water-works and wells in London. He told him what he knew on the subject, and the gentleman immediately observed, that he had a plan for procuring from wells sunk in the city and its vicinity, water of the very purest quality, inferior only to claret as a beverage. He then showed him some plans, by which it was proposed to sink those wells. He asked the gentleman, whether he had considered the depths to which he might have to sink, and the difficulties attending the undertaking? To which he replied, that he had, but he was certain, that with his assistance, they should get through. He then advised the gentleman to take a walk in St. George's-fields, as he was of opinion there was a building in that vicinity well adapted to his frame of mind. Notwithstanding all
993
QUARANTINE LAWS—PETITION OF
Mr. John Smith
presented a petition from Dr. Charles Maclean on the subject of the Quarantine Laws. The hon. member bore testimony generally to the capability of Dr. Maclean for discussing the subject upon which he petitioned. There was no man's opinion, upon such a question, by which he would more readily be guided.
Mr. Wallace
thought it fit that every attention should be given to prevent abuse, or unnecessary inconvenience, from the operation of the Quarantine laws; but he should look with great jealousy at any proposal either materially to alter or to remove them. It should be recollected, that dealing with the Quarantine laws was not regulating a principle, or arrangement, of trade. A single inadvertency might introduce the plague into the country, and be attended with consequences for which remedy would be impossible.
Mr. John Smith
said, he by no means proposed the repeal of the Quarantine laws.
The petition was then read, setting forth,
"That, Quarantine laws, purporting to be for the preservation of the public health, are founded, on the belief that epidemic diseases depend upon a specific contagion; that their object is, to prevent the introduction and spreading of epidemic maladies generally, but more especially of plague and yellow fever; that the means which they employ are bills of health, quarantine, and lazarettos, and in general every mode of separation, seclusion, and restriction; that this system originated in ignorant and credulous times, has been continued without proof, and rests at this moment upon no other foundations than the assumptions of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries; that with respect to yellow fever the doctrine of contagion has, by the experienced part of the medical faculty, been for some time abandoned, and that even those who still persist in maintaining it, admit that precautions against this disease are unnecessary in England; that the petitioner trusts he shall be able, even within the compass of a petition, to adduce to the House sufficiently strong grounds for concluding that plague cannot be propagated
994
995
l
l
996
Ordered to lie on the table.
DUTIES ON THE IMPORTATION OF
Mr. Lawley
presented a Petition from the Chamber of Commerce at Birmingham, for a Reduction of the Duties on Iron, Copper, and other metals.
Mr. Littleton
supported the petition.
Mr. Whitmore
concurred in the prayer of the petition. The measures which ministers had taken to remove the shackles which had hitherto impeded our commerce, were fraught with wisdom, and merited the warmest approbation of the country.
Mr. Huskisson
said, he should, at no
997
Mr. Tremayne
had no wish whatever to oppose principles of free trade. At the same time, he hoped his majesty's government would proceed with caution. A large capital had been embarked in copper-mines, on the faith of a continuance of the existing system. All sudden revulsions were to be dreaded, and a great influx of foreign copper might produce the most mischievous effects.
Sir R. Vivian
hoped his majesty's government would not proceed too precipitately in a measure of so much importance to the commercial interests of the country.
Mr. Grenfell
said, that no views of private interest should induce him to withhold his assent from the liberal principles on which his majesty's government had lately acted. He trusted, however, that they would proceed with caution.
Mr. Maberly
hoped that a measure of so much importance would be preceded by inquiry and investigation.
Ordered to lie on the table.
998
ARMY EXTRAORDINARIES—CAPE OF
The House resolved itself into a committee of Supply. On the resolution, "That 620,000
l
Mr. Hume
begged to know in what manner a former grant of a similar kind, in respect of the military establishment at the Mauritius, the Cape of Good Hope, & c. had been applied.
Mr. Wilmot Horton
said, that the commissioners, who were pursuing their inquiries in the colonies, had taken occasion, in their report to government, to express their entire satisfaction at the manner in which the grant in question had been disposed of.
Mr. Hume
felt the more anxious for explicit information on this head, because there was no British colony which had so much reason to complain of its govemor, as the Cape of Good Hope; none in which the settlers had been more oppressively or unjustly treated; and no governor whose arbitrary and highly improper conduct was more to be reprobated than lord Charles Somerset [hear]. If the statements that had been published respecting the course adopted by that individual —(and he had seen a great many such statements)— were true, lord Charles Somerset ought not to be continued any longer in his government. His conduct seemed to have been not only most arbitrary to the colonists, but most hostile to the liberty of the press. It was to be hoped, therefore, that the report of the commissioners would be immediately communicated.
Mr. Wilmot Horton
assured the hon. gentleman, that the commissioners were as actively engaged in the prosecution of their important inquiries, as men could be. When ever their report should be received, there would be, on the part of the colonial department every disposition to meet the object adverted to. But, if the hon. gentleman expected that all the statements which had met the public eye respecting the individual in question, and recent transactions at the Cape, necessarily exparte as those statements must be, were to receive an answer from him, the hon. gentleman's expectations would be disappointed. That hon. member on a former night had said, that all the complaints which had been preferred by the settlers at the Cape to the Colonial-office were received with indifference and contempt
999
Mr. Hume
desired to repeat his conviction, that the conduct of lord Charles Somerset had been so very reprehensible —so entirely contrary to the interests of the settlers, and the welfare of the colony at the Cape—that the colonial department ought by no means to have continued him in his government up to this time. He knew, indeed, that some of the individuals aggrieved had received a partial remuneration for the ill treatment which they had been subjected to. The editor of a journal published at the Cape had been allowed to return; but had been refused any remuneration for the losses he had suffered; and he must say that in continuing lord Charles Somerset in such a situation, the colonial department had manifested very little regard for the interests or the feelings of the colonists.
Mr. Wilmot-Horton
said, that when the report should have been communicated to parliament, the colonial department would be in a condition to meet any specific charge which the hon. gentleman might bring forward.
The resolution was agreed to.
MUTINY BILL.]
The House having resolved itself into a committee on this bill,
Mr. Sykes
rose to repeat his objections to the practice of flogging, so prevalent in our military service, and which was comparatively unknown in the armies of foreign nations. It had been argued, that the practice was necessary in the British service, because our army was recruited from the manufacturing districts, in which the habits of our people were immoral and irregular; but, for his part, he did not see that persons brought from those districts were more untractable than the average of the population. He would read a letter from a correspondent who stated, that he had
met
1000
Colonel Johnstone
objected to the inequality of the present principle in its application. There were regiments in which 100 lashes were more than equal to 300 lashes as given in other regiments for similar offences.
Lord Palmerston
was not an advocate for corporal punishment, but was convinced that, to a certain degree, it was absolutely indispensable. Our army was recruited not by proscription, but by volunteers, which might account for the circumstance that the discipline of the French army was not so complete, and their punishment not so severe as ours. Every effort, consistent with the discipline of our forces, had been made, to decrease the amount of corporal punishment.
Mr. Hume
stated, that corporal punishment was unknown in the French army, and yet their discipline was so excellent that the duke of Wellington had held it up as an example to our own troops.
General Hope
stated, that the necessity of corporal punishment arose in a great measure from the practice in our army of drunkenness; but from the regulation adopted by the commander-in-chief, of paying men weekly, this source of offence would be greatly removed.
Captain Maberly
suggested the introduction of the tread-mill as a substitute for corporal punishment.
Mr. Hudson Gurney
thought this a fit opportunity of adverting to the practice of enlisting soldiers for life in the British army, whilst, in every other service, they were enlisted for a term of years. The arrangements of our army seemed to be harsh and unjust, in the same ratio that our civil institutions were otherwise. He thought this a grievous and crying evil; and one to which the House ought to give its immediate attention.
Lord Milton
said, he should not enter into the details which had been adverted to by the hon. member for Hull, or the last hon. member, but would once more protest against that which appeared to him to be the most objectionable of all; namely, the immense increase which it was this year proposed to make in our standing army. That increase had been hitherto wholly unaccounted for; the ground taken by the gallant member' for Southwark not being at all satisfactory,
1001
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
complained that the noble lord had made an allusion to some one as the secret author of the present propositions relative to the amount of the standing army; but he felt it incumbent upon him to say, that a more complete error had never been promulgated in that House. If any blame was to be attributed to the administration for
1002
Mr. Robertson
denied that any reason was to be found, either in the arguments of ministers or the state of Europe, to warrant any augmentation of the army.
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS BILL.]
Mr. R. Martin
Mr. Heathcole
said, he felt bound to oppose the bill. He had listened to the statements of the hon. mover upon former occasions, but he confessed he had heard nothing which, in his view of the subject, called for the enactment of such a measure. The hon. mover had, on a former evening, detailed to the House, in a most affecting manner, the many injuries inflicted on the bear, which had been for so long a time baited at the Westminster pit. Now, he had been induced, by curiosity, to pay a visit to this bear, and he declared that a finer animal of the kind, or a more prosperous and hopeful set of cubs, he had never seen. The fact was, that this bear had been continually baited for six years; and they had been at last obliged to discontinue baiting him, because he had grown too fat for the exercise. The hon. member had also indulged the House with a history of the cruelties practised upon a greyhound by a French surgeon; that statement, however had since been contradicted in the public journals. If such a bill as this was to to pass, they were also bound to prevent the cruelties practised in coursing, hunting, shooting, and fishing. He would ask any hon. member—and he should like to hear the casuistry by which the question would be evaded—whether there was any more cruelty in baiting a bear with one or two dogs, than there was in hunting a stag with ten or twenty couple of hounds. If parliament put down bear-baiting, dog-fighting, and such sports, and allowed stag-hunting and other rural amusements to be continued, then might it indeed be said, that they had one law for the poor and another for the rich. It was known that his majesty himself kept stag hounds, and encouraged an indulgence in that sport. Many hon. members then in his
1003
Mr. Carus Wilson
supported the bill, and said a few words against the practice of cock-fighting.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he felt bound to oppose the second reading of this bill. His hon. friend—to whose kindness of intention no man was more ready
to
1004
1005
Sir J. Mackintosh
said, he had hitherto confined himself to silent votes in support of this question, but he felt that upon this occasion, he should act an unmanly part, if he shrunk from his share of the misplaced censure with which the supporters of the bill had been met. It appeared to be the argument of the hon. and right hon. members who opposed this bill, that because it would not have the effect of protecting all animals from
1006
l
1007
1008
Mr. George Lamb
said, that, though no friend of bull-baiting, he still felt inclined to oppose the second reading of this bill. The bill formerly introduced by the hon. member for Galway had a specific object, which daily experience proved to be necessary; namely, that of compelling drovers, carmen, and coachmen, to abstain from wantonly and cruelly tormenting the animals committed to their care. This bill had no such recommendation. He agreed with the right hon. Secretary, that the moment the legislature attempted to interfere with the sports of the people, they must do it upon grounds equally applicable to the rich and the poor. His learned friend had spoken of the games at which this bill was levelled, as not being the sports of this country; but he could show that they had been patronized by the great and powerful, centuries ago. Evelyn, describing a bull-bait that occurred in the time of Charles 2nd., stated, that "One of the dogs was thrown so high, that he fell into the lap of a lady of rank in the second gallery. Two dogs were killed. The sports ended with the ape on horseback; and I retired wearied with the filthy scene, which I had not witnessed for many years." That might be called gross, though, from the account given, the sport seemed to have been much admired by the court at the time. But that was not all, for, in the year 1702, under the gracious reign of a female, another specimen of that sport had been exhibited. He would read to the House a paper which he had found among the papers of a Vice-Chamberlain of queen Anne, Why or how it came there he could not tell. Whether the sports of the day, especially of the bull and bear baiting kind, were under the special control of the chamberlain, was a point which he would not now discuss, but simply content himself with reading the paper.
1009
Mr. W. Smith
said, he differed entirely from the opinion of his hon. friend. If there were any persons who could be amused by such exhibitions as were described in the paper which his hon. friend had read, he trusted they would never be amused while they were in existence. Much good had been done by the exertions of his hon. friend the member for Galway, as might be seen in every market in London; and he hoped he would persevere in his humane efforts. The bill had been opposed, because it was said to interfere with the sports of the poor alone, and had been spoken of as an innovation. Now, the interfering with the sports of the poor, and leaving those of the rich untouched, was no innovation, for the legislature had, in one instance at least, suffered the rich to have their dances when and where they pleased, while at the same time, they had expressly forbidden the poor the enjoyment of a similar privilege. No one could doubt the effect produced by these sports on the morals of the people. The bull-fights in Spain were the subject of comment of every Englishman who had visited that country; and yet these same - persons, though they
1010
Mr. R. Martin
replied. He said, he thought it was no answer to him to say that he had not gone far enough, and that he ought to have legislated to put an end to the sports of the field. Such an argument, instead of being applied to him by the Home Secretary, was peculiarly calculated to be addressed to that right hon. gentleman himself. If stag-hunting was as that right hon. gentleman had described it, then was there a sufficient justification for him to call on that right hon. gentleman to exercise his influence in the government to put an end to such a barbarous sport. And he did, therefore, call on the Home Secretary to do so, and to begin the salutary reformation by recommending to the king, whose adviser he was, to put down the royal hunt, and dimiss the royal stag-hounds. If that event took place, no one could doubt that it would produce a most beneficial effect on the morals of the people; as it might lead to the putting down of other stag hunts which annually took place in the neighbourhood of London. The argument, that he had not by this bill done all that ought to be done, was no answer to his claim to do as much as was possible at this moment, any more than telling a man who attempted to save one hundred out of eight hundred persons of board a sinking ship, that he could not preserve all, would be a sufficient reason to induce him to abstain from attempting to rescue any of the 800 from a watery grave. He considered that the places of amusements in London where these cruelties were exhibited, formed a nucleus for the greatest villains in the world. Had the gentleman who opposed this measure asked the open-
1011
1012
Mr. Wilmot Horton
said, that the bill formerly introduced by the hon. member was directed against wanton acts of cruelty; but the present was directed against cruelty which was only incidental to amusements. He could not, therefore, give it his support.
Sir F. Burdett
said, that, as every body agreed that a beneficial result had ensued from the former bill which the hon. member had introduced, be thought it should
1013
Mr. F. Buxton
supported the bill.
Sir M. W. Ridley
opposed the bill, because he could not consent to sanction the preamble, in which it was asserted, that it was necessary to put down these sports.
Sir T. Acland
considered these sports calculated to form such heartless, coldblooded characters, as had assembled in Cato-street.
The House divided: For the second reading 32; For the amendment 50; Majority 18. The bill was consequently lost.
1014
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, March 15, 1825
SPRING-GUNS-BILL]
The order of the day was moved for committing the-Spring-Guns bill.
Lord Suffield
said, that, previously to going into the order of the day, he wished to, present for a first reading a bill intituled "An act for making feloniously stealing vegetable productions larceny." This bill was occasioned by the conduct which had been pursued the other night by the noble duke, who, acting with more zeal than discretion, proposed a clause for prohibiting the setting of spring-guns in gardens. Their lordships would recollect, that this was going beyond the object of the bill he had introduced; the provisions of which extended only to plantations, and places for the preservation of game. The clause of the noble duke would, however, put the question on a very different ground from that in which he wished to place it; as it went to the total abolition of spring-guns in every case. He must again say, that he was sorry the noble duke's zeal had carried him thus far, because, if he should succeed in introducing his clause, it would induce many noble lords to oppose the passing of the bill. Though the noble duke was accustomed to scenes of horror, no one would presume that he had therefore become hardened to human suffering. Neither did he mean to accuse him of acting with insincerity in this business; but the argument which had been used in support of the clause certainly was a most strange and inconsistent one, as it had for its foundation the fewness of the accidents which the noble duke alleged arose from the use of spring-guns. Now, that there was little risk of an innocent person being injured by spring-guns could scarcely be an argument for prohibiting their use in enclosed gardens. Supposing, however, that the noble duke were insincere, then he must acknowledge that human ingenuity could not have fallen on a better mode of defeating the bill. He was unwilling to attribute any thing unhandsome to the noble duke. It did, however, seem, that that noble person was practising a ruse de guerre; which was certainly quite in his own way, but which hardly ought to be carried on in parliament in such a case as the present. The number of accidents occasioned by spring-guns set in plantations was notoriously great; and though the noble duke was
1015
The Duke of Wellington
said, he did not rise to defend himself against any insinuations which the noble lord had thrown out respecting transactions in which he had been engaged — insinuations which were perfectly unparliamentary [hear, hear]. He said perfectly unparliamentary, as they had no relation to the subject under the consideration of their lordships, but to his conduct before he was a member of that House. To such insinuations, he would make no reply. But; with regard to the bill in question, he must say, that he did think it contained a very unfair insinuation against country gentlemen, who might wish to preserve their game by spring-guns, rather than by gamekeepers, because the latter mode was not so consistent with their fortune as it might be with that of the noble lord opposite. He thought it was not right for the House to suffer such an insinuation of cruelty against the country gentlemen to pass. That he did intend to oppose the bill when he came down the other day, he would not deny; but, when he heard the statement of legal authorities made by the noble lord on moving the second reading, he reconsidered his opinion, and
1016
Lord Suffield
hoped their lordships would allow him to vindicate himself against the charge of having done any thing unparliamentary. In the discussion of a public measure, he thought it perfectly fair to urge the argument which he had employed; the tendency of which was to show, that if the noble duke was taking a by-way in order to defeat the present measure, such a course was not to be expected from him, and that an open opposition would be more consistent with his character. As to what the noble duke had said of the necessity of spring-guns for preserving the game of country gentlemen, that reminded him of his having often heard the same arguments in private; but he must say, that he allowed it little weight. He should be sorry if what he said gave any offence in the quarter he alluded to; but it did appear to him, that country gentlemen not being able to preserve game legally, was no reason for permitting them to preserve it. illegally.
Lord Malmesbury
suggested, that the measure should be confined to prohibiting setting spring-guns, except during the' night, and at certain distances from the public road. With these limitations, the bill might be made general. There was some difficulty in knowing where to stop, and how to distinguish between covers, orchards, and gardens. He bad never set spring-guns himself, and never would.
The Earl of Liverpool
observed, that
1017
Earl Grosvenor
wished their lordships to consider, as they had all agreed to the principle of the measure, whether it would not be better to pass the bill in the form in which it had been originally introduced, than with the amendment of the noble duke. Those who thought with the noble earl, that the principle of the bill should be extended, might then give their support to the bill for prohibiting spring-guns in gardens, which his noble friend had promised to introduce. He hoped their lordships would not, by adopting the amendment, defeat a measure, the principle of which they universally approved.
The Marquis of Salisbury
did not see the expediency of having separate bills, when all the points might be incorporated into one enactment. He thought that amendments might be introduced for enabling gardeners to protect their property without endangering the lives of his majesty's subjects. As to the measure proposed by a noble earl for setting spring-guns only in the night time, he did not consider that it could be attended with the desired effect, for great depredations might be committed in the open day
Lord Suffield
, in reference to the debate of a former night, observed, that his course of proceeding had been misunderstood by some noble lords. It was then proposed to extend the principle of the Spring-gun bill to gardens; but to obviate this difficulty in the progress of that bill, he promised to bring in a specific bill for the protection of gardens. This promise, as their lordships now saw by the bill just read a first time, he had endeavoured to perform. He could also lay before their lordships, if necessary, a statement of the law relative to gardens; some of the absurdities of which had been described on
1018
The Duke of Wellington
begged to remind the noble lord, that he had opposed neither the second reading of the bill, nor its going into a committee, and as yet he had not heard any opposition to the clauses which he moved to be included in it. The noble lord would find, on investigating the matter, that many accidents had been prevented by these instruments, and much property saved from depredation. If country gentlemen were deprived of the use of them, they must employ more gamekeepers and watchmen to protect their property, which would be attended with greater expense and with a greater loss of life.
Lord Ellenborough
thought, that if upon any occasion it had been expedient for the House to negative the first reading of a bill, the present was one which seemed more particularly to invite that course. He had no doubt that the loss of human life would be much greater after the bill should have passed, than it could be under the state of things which existed at present. If their lordships had resolved to legislate against all the accidents by which the lives of men were endangered, there could be no limit to the task they had undertaken. He believed that the number of fatal accidents which happened every year from the careless laying about of loaded guns, without the most remote intention of doing mischief, was far greater than those which happened from spring-guns. He wished, at least, that some exception should be made in favour of such places as were surrounded by continued fences, and which, therefore, could not be entered under any misapprehension, nor indeed with any but a felonious intent. The gardens in the neighbourhood of London principally owed their security to the engines which were set in them; and, whatever might be said in favour of the principle of the bill, he had no doubt that its practical consequence would be, to lay the whole of those gardens in particular open to the depredations of the thieves with which London abounded.
The Earl of Lauderdale
said, that the
1019
The Lord Chancellor
thought that, whatever might be the advantages of the consolidation suggested by the noble lord, they could all be obtained by means of such alterations as might seem necessary in the committee. The law as it stood afforded some protection to the owners of gardens and orchards. By an act, as old as the reign of queen Elizabeth, robbing orchards was made an offence; but, owing to the youth of the persons by whom it was most commonly committed, the provisions of that act were rarely carried into effect. An act of the late king had provided against trespasses committed in gardens, by subjecting the offenders, in the first instance, to a penalty of 40
s.;
l
Lord Holland
thought, that none of the objections which had been urged should induce the House to refuse the committee. It was acknowledged on all sides, that there were many difficulties in the way, which his noble friend had endeavoured to remove by the several bills he had now brought and intended to bring in. If it should appear in the committee, that the same object could be gained by a less cumbrous mode of legislation, and that the difficulties could be removed with equal certainty, his noble friend would, he was sure, readily acquiesce in any measure which the committee might be enabled to discover. At all events, their lordships would, by this means, be put in possession of all the points of the subject; and the result would probably be, that some plain and simple enactment would be agreed upon.
1020
The Earl of Liverpool
, in accordance with what had fallen from him on this and a former evening, moved an amendment,. in order to render needless one of the bills brought by lord Suffield, by rendering the measure against the setting of spring-guns and steel traps in game preserves, general, and making it illegal to place them in gardens, orchards, and nursery-grounds, for the protection of property.
Lord Ellenborough
contended, that gardens, orchards, and nursery-grounds, ought to be excepted from the operation of the bill, inasmuch as the owners of property in them had no other means of protecting it, but by destructive engines of this sort, set rather in terrorem, than with the intention to inflict bodily injury.
Earl Grosvenor
wished the bill to continue in its original shape. If it were altered as proposed, he feared it would not pass the other House of parliament.
Lord Holland
was of opinion, that the owners of gardens, orchards, and nursery-grounds, were entitled to some protection.' If it were not given them by making stealing in them larceny, he thought that within walls, or where the fences were sufficient, they ought to be allowed to set spring-guns and steel-traps.
The Earl of Harrowby
supported the amendment for making the law general, and not applicable merely to game preserves.
The Earl of Liverpool
added, that his reason for making the law general was clear. Steel-traps and spring-guns endangering life, were not a proper protection for property, and therefore he wished that their use in all situations should be discontinued.
The committee then divided on the earl of Liverpool's amendment. For the amendment 28; Against it 5; Majority 23. It was accordingly carried.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, March 15, 1825
METROPOLITAN FISH COMPANY BILL.]
Several petitions were presented against this bill.
Mr. Calcraft
rose, to explain an inaccuracy into which he had fallen upon a former evening when speaking of this company. There were in fact three fish companies, whose objects were nearly similar, and in endeavouring to detect the
1021
Sir J. Yorke
agreed, that it was extremely iniquitous to interfere with the hard earnings of a class of persons whose calling was honourable, and of great anti-quity, as it was followed by the apostles.
Sir E. Harvey
contended, that the House ought to protect those who were engaged in the fisheries; as they were a fine race of seamen, who would, when occasion required, be useful to our navy.
Mr. Curteis
denied that the new company interfered with the fisheries at all. They were purchasers offish, and would, therefore, be useful to those who were engaged in that trade.
Mr. Bernal
thought the prospectus of the company a mere delusion.
Mr. T. Wilson
said, that the company had, in his opinion, been subjected to much undeserved obloquy. Those who formed it were most respectable. And what was their object? To give cheap fish to the inhabitants of the metropolis. Was there any thing reprehensible in such an object; and would it be contended that it was uncalled for? As far as his experience went, the practices of the fishmongers in London were occasionally most nefarious. He had been informed, that it was not unusual, when there was a superabundance of fish, to throw it into the river, in order to prevent the price which they had chosen to lay upon it from being lowered. The object of the company was, to counteract this system, by giving to the public the
1022
Mr. Alderman Wood
said, that the effect of this bill would be a monopoly in the sale, and not in the catching of fish. An agent was appointed at a salary of 2,000
l
Mr. J. Smith
thought that much good would arise from the establishment of this company.
Ordered to lie on the table.
THAMES QUAY.]
Colonel Trench
Mr. Calcraft
expressed his unwillingness to take up the time of the House in opposing what many persons imagined to be a splendid improvement upon the banks of the Thames. A sense of duty must, however, compel him to do so, unless it was proved to him that the projected measure was not so destructive of private property as he was led to believe it was. He had been intrusted with a petition from a most respectable nobleman, whose property would he materially injured if the bill passed. This petition stated that the standing orders had not been complied with, as the prospectus detailing the number of feet which it was proposed to elevate the quay, together with the map and usual references, had not been deposited in the proper office. It further stated, that neither the petitioner nor his tenants, whose property was so materially involved in the projected scheme, had been served with the regular notices. These, if true, were strong facts; and of their truth no doubt could be entertained, when it was known that the petitioner was the duke of Norfolk. His property in Arundel-street, and other parts of the Strand, would be materially affected if this measure passed. In some parts the proposed elevation would reach to the first story of some of his tenants' houses; in others, above it. Under such circum-stances, he thought the noble duke and others concerned were entitled to a fair notice. With respect to the feasibility of the measure, he allowed that it made a
1023
l
l
l
l
Mr. Hobhouse
said, that, when the project of the gallant colonel was first made known to him, he had felt extremely anxious to support it, conceiving, that if carried into effect it would greatly tend to the embellishment of the metropolis. He had since, however, upon consulting with his constituents, found that it could not be, accomplished without serious injury to many of them. The mud-dock contemplated would be a great nuisance, and was quite certain to create miasmata. He was therefore bound to oppose the measure; and he did so with the less reluctance, because, upon mature investigation, he could hot but see its utter impracticability.
Colonel Trench
said, he rose with considerable embarrassment to reply, to the charges which had been brought against a measure in which he was personally con-
1024
1025
l
l
l
Mr. Croker
said, the measure was described as one tending to produce great public advantages, but it was impossible to enter on the public portion of the subject, without looking at the anomaly of its having been brought forward in the shape of a private bill. It was sought to give it the colour of a public question, in order
1026
l
1027
Sir J. Yorke
argued against the measure, contending that it would create new nuisances rather than diminish those at present in existence.
The Hon. G. A. Ellis
thought his gallant friend had not been fairly treated. He had heard many arguments in favour of the measure, but not one against it. He hoped, therefore, that the House would allow the bill to be introduced and printed; after which it might be opposed in the committee.
Lord Palmerston
thought the House ought not at any rate, to reject the proposition of his gallant friend in its present stage. The only question was, whether they should entertain the proposition. The propriety of carrying it into effect, and the particular mode of doing so, would he matter for future consideration. The bill was, in fact, of a public nature, and his gallant friend had been anxious to make it a public measure; but the forms of the House rendered it necessary for him to bring it forward as a private bill.
1028
1029
Sir R. Wilson
supported the motion, in the hope that, if the measure was found practicable, something might hereafter be done for the improvement of the suburbs; but, in giving it his support in the present stage, he begged to be understood, that if in its progress he found it likely to be injurious to individual interests, he would oppose it. As to what his hon. friend had said about the quays on the Seine and the Liffey, and of those rivers being but small compared with the Thames, he begged to remark that, if his hon. friend had been in St. Petersburgh, he would have seen one of the noblest rivers in the world adorned with quays which would be an ornament to any metropolis.
Mr. Secretary Peel
fully concurred with his hon. friend that, until the removal of London bridge, the project then under discussion ought not to be attempted. His noble friend had said, that, if the effect of building the new Bridge were to contract the stream of the Thames, this could be no objection to the construction of a quay. But it was impossible to say on which hank this effect might be produced. He had himself seen a man standing on dry ground, under the fifth arch of Waterloo Bridge; and he believed that the tendency of the stream was, to recede from the Southwark side. The likelihood that the removal of London Bridge would tend to increase that inclination, was therefore deserving of attention. His noble friend said, look to Dublin—look to Paris; but the quays in those cities were built upon the natural banks of the rivers. That could not be the case here; and he should object to building into the Thames. If, as his noble friend had said, a foreigner at present asked, "where is your Thames?" where could it be found if the proposed plan were carried into execution? After going down towards the river from the Strand he would find an enormous granite wall, 30 feet high and 30 feet wide. Much had been said of the convenient approach to the city which the projected line of
1030
Mr. Baring
considered the building of a quay on the banks of the Thames not merely a question of ornament, but a measure which was absolutely necessary for the purpose of facilitating the communication between the extreme parts of the metropolis. It must strike every man who had visited foreign countries, that the communication between the different parts of this metropolis was worse than it was in almost any city of Europe; and that the convenience of the inhabitants was less consulted in the greatest commercial capital of Europe than in many of the insignificant towns on the Rhine. He should give his support to the plan of the gallant member, not only because it was useful and ornamental, but because it was absolutely indispensable for the convenience of the metropolis.
The House then divided; For the motion 85; Against it 45: Majority 40.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS — PETITION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE
Lord Palmerston
presented a petition from the Chancellor, Masters, and Scholars, of the University of Cambridge, against the concession of any further claims to the Catholics. The petitioners declared that, though their apprehensions on this subject had been often previously stated to the House, they had recently been much strengthened by the violent language used by the Catholics in this country. The petitioners discovered, both in that language and in the language used by the Catholics elsewhere, proofs of their entertaining principles hostile to religious liberty. They were convinced that if the concessions which the Catholics now asked were granted, they would lead to fresh demands. They also thought that the measures which they sought to carry could only be devised with the intention of producing a great change in the church establishment of England. They therefore prayed the House not to entertain the question, and more especially not to entertain that part of it which went to admit Roman Catholics into parliament.
1031
Mr. W. J. Bankes
said, he should be sorry if this petition were laid upon the table in perfect silence, and without obtaining some portion of that attention to which it was entitled on account of the quarter from which it came. On a former night, when the absence of all petitions against these claims was alluded to, as a proof that a great change had taken place in the public mind upon this question, he had taken the liberty of warning honourable gentlemen not to lay too great stress upon that circumstance, as he believed many petitions were at that moment in preparation. In that belief he had not been disappointed. Indeed he had at the time information that the university which he had the honour to represent intended to petition. He would mention a fact connected with this petition, which might give it a stronger recommendation to the notice of gentlemen on the Opposition benches, than it would otherwise possess. Those who were at all acquainted with the institutions of our universities, were aware that it was but seldom that a layman filled the office of vice-chancellor. A layman, however, now filled it, and fully concurred in the prayer of the petition. It was consequently a petition which expressed the sentiments, not merely of the clerical, but also of the lay members of the university, and therefore might be received without exciting the sneers and laughters which had been excited by some petitions on the same subject, for no other cause that he could learn, except that they came from clergymen. He protested against the scoffs and scorns which were cast upon the petitions of the clergy. Considering their education, their rank in life, and their importance in the country, they were entitled to attention and respect. As they were the only class of men who had no persons to represent their interests in that House, it was unfair, impolitic, and unjust, to treat them with ridicule, when they presented to its consideration a humble but honest declaration of their opinions. They were, besides, the only class of men who were so treated; for if a word was said against the army, the navy, the law, or the commerce of the country, numbers of members belonging to those different occupations were ready to start up, and retort with interest the sarcasm on the offender. The clergyman, however, was obliged to silence, and could not defend himself by the eloquence of any of his brethren. He ought, there-
1032
Mr. Hume
said, that no language had been used by gentlemen on his side of the House, which could warrant the hon. member in asserting, that there was a wish on their part to denounce and get rid of the petitions of the clergy. It would be preposterous for men who professed liberal principles, to adopt such an illiberal mode of proceeding. The hon. gentleman had raised a phantom, which had no existence but in his own mind, for the sole purpose of demolishing it after it had been raised. What he had said regarding the clergy on a former night, he was ready to say again. He had expressed his regret, that the clergymen of England, who were superior to the generality of the people, in education and rank in life, should be a century behind them in mildness and liberality of feeling. With christian charity always in their mouths, they ought to exhibit a little more of christian charity in their practice. Enjoying civil rights themselves, they ought not to seek to debar others from a full participation in them. If there was any difference in the attention which the House bestowed on the petitions received from the Catholic, and the established clergy, it was owing to this circumstance—that the former petitioned for justice, whilst the latter sought to perpetuate injustice.
Mr. W. J. Bankes
said, in explanation, that the remarks he had made were not so much intended to apply to what had been said, as to what had been done, by gentlemen on the other side. He recollected, that when an hon. member had presented petitions from the clergy of
1033
Sir E. Harvey
begged to observe, that when he presented the petition from the archdeaconry of Essex, which did equal honour to the hearts and heads of those who signed it, it was received with an uproar and clamour which was more worthy of a bear-garden than of the House of Commons.
Mr. Carus Wilson
contended, that the ridicule thrown upon the petitions of the clergy was most undeserved, as they had always been the guardians of our religious rights.
Mr. Spring Rice
said, he belonged to the University of Cambridge, and was most anxious not to speak of it in a disrespectful or disparaging manner. He allowed that the petition was entitled to every attention; but, at the same time, it ought not to be taken as speaking the unanimous opinion of the university. He knew that there were a great many of the resident members who dissented from its prayer; and he believed he might say, that among them were some of the most enlightened and popular members of the senate. With regard to what had fallen from the last speaker, about the clergy being the guardians of our religious rights, he thought it savoured more of a Popish than a Protestant doctrine. Every man ought to be the judge of his own opinions; and the best defenders of our religious rights had always been found in the lay members of the community.
Ordered to lie on the table.
CANADIAN WASTE-LANDS BILL.]
Mr. Wilmot Horton
rose to move for leave to bring in a bill for the sale and improvement of Waste Lands in the province of Upper Canada. The principal features of the bill were those relating to the sale of lands, to the apportionment of lands for settlers, to the lending of money to settlers, and the means of providing them with food for a certain period. It was proposed, that a company which had been projected for the purpose of purchasing up those lands, should be permitted to purchase upon a valuation, to be ascertained by commissioners sent out to Canada for the purpose, two of whom were to be appointed by the Crown, and two by the Company. The estimates were to be made on the bases of the
1034
l
Mr. W. Smith
was extremely desirous, that the bill should not be so incautiously framed as to injure or prejudice, the native Indians in the vicinity of these waste lands; as had been the case in the former arrangements made relative to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
Mr. W. Horton
said, there was no reason to apprehend any such results from the enactments of this bill.
Mr. Hume
expressed his regret that, five years ago, when he had strongly recommended a change in the colonial system, some proposition of this kind had not been made. He had said then, and the result verified his prediction, that the system of emigration held out at the time, would be defeated by the bad system of the colonial authorities, the inordinate demand of augmented fees for individual profit—a system so different from that pursued by the United States in their sale of waste lands—and the other abuses which prevailed in British colonies. He could now support the arguments which be had used five years ago, by the official returns since received from Canada, which showed that out of 39,000 persons who had gone out, only a hundred families had been able to obtain a footing on the waste lands: so that the great bulk were actually deprived of the intended benefit held out to them in the first instance. If
1035
Mr. Baring
wished to know, whether this bill was intended merely to admit the principle of the proposed change of system, or to enable the Crown at once to execute it in all its details.
Mr. M. Fitzgerald
was of opinion, that the effect of what had fallen from his hon. friend, was, to create a greater impression in the House and abroad than possibly he himself intended. He had belonged to the committee appointed to look into the subject of Canadian settlers, and that committee had it in proof before them,
1036
Mr. Gordon
rose to repel some of the animadversions which the hon. member for Aberdeen had directed against the noble lord at the head of the colonial department. He could not help considering the use of strong or harsh language as peculiarly unseaonable, when the hon. member admitted that he had no objection to the proposition of the hon. Secretary. The main ground of charge seemed to be, that the measure now proposed had not been adopted years ago; but possibly want of capital or want of a spirit of adventure might have prevented their application before. As to the observations respecting the appointments of colonial governors, that was a cabinet measure, and lord Bathurst was not singly answerable. He would undertake to say that, in all the details of the colonial office, a strict scrutiny was resorted to, in order to ascertain the characters of the servants of government sent out to the colonies.
Mr. Bright
said, that, as far as the principle of the bill went, it had his most hearty assent, as he considered it a matter of necessity, to advance the progress and increase the population of the colony of Canada; but he trusted, that the bill had been framed on the opinion and advice of the colonial legislature. If that had not been done, he hoped it would not pass this session. He did not know to what extent the grants of land in that country were to be sold; but if, unfortunately, those lands were not properly settled and cultivated, instead of a benefit the measure would prove an injury to the colony. He would recommend, that the 20,000
l
Mr. Baring
pressed upon his majesty's government the expediency of considering, in good time, what must, of necessity, be the future condition of Canada. It was impossible that it could very long continue to be a colony of Great Britain; for all experience proved, that no colony could, for any great extent of time, continue in that relation to the parent country, the productions of which were similar to the productions of the parent country.
1037
Mr. Wilmot Horton
observed, that the principle of the bill did not relate entirely to emigration. That was an incidental part of it.
Mr. Baring.
—It was to further the views of a Joint Stock company, which was to pay the government 20,000
l
l
l
1038
Mr. Robertson
said, that in the event of a union being formed with America and any of the continental powers, against this country, it would require an immense force to protect Canada; which might, after all, be of no avail.
Mr. Wilmot Horton
said, he had been most anxious to supply all the information in his power, relative to the proposed plan, and he must remind the House, that there was an indefinite extent of fertile land, sufficient to absorb the exertions of any amount of population that might be sent there. The object of the bill was chiefly to place the company in the character of an individual; to enable it, as an individual, to make its bargains in Canada. The framers of the bill certainly contemplated that a large influx of capital into that country, applicable, according to the directions of government, must prove of immense service to it; and it was unquestionably a part of the stipulation, that all those lands which were not settled within a certain period, should be given up to government. Under those restrictions, the company was entitled to settle the lands in whatever way it pleased-The government contemplated the system of purchasing lands, as the most beneficial to the colony, and as a means of introducing wealth into it. With regard to the question of emigration, that was not to be carried on by government; but certainly the colony did not require that poor people should emigrate there, they wanted capital. But he must say, that if the House desired to see the details of the measure, it was competent to any hon. member to move for papers; and then, if any thing objectionable was discovered, there would be some ground for complaint. That could not be considered a monopoly where an equivalent in money was given for the land. The land was to be purchased on a fair valuation, and he did not think that any more satisfactory mode could have been adopted. In whatever point of view he looked at it, he con-
1039
Mr. Hume
appealed to the House, whether he had not brought forward specific motions from year to year, instead of indulging in idle declamations.
The bill was then brought in, and read the first time.
IRISH BANKERS CO-PARTNERSHIPS
Sir George Hill
rose, pursuant to notice, for the purpose of moving for leave to bring in a bill to render more effectual the provisions of an act passed last session to amend the 21st of Geo. II. relative to Co-partnerships in Banks in Ireland. As he did not expect any opposition to the measure, he should content himself with making a few observations. The Bank of Ireland was established in 1781, and
1040
l
Mr. Dawson
said, he could not omit that opportunity of expressing his conviction of the importance of the proposed measure. He had himself presented no less than six petitions, praying the protection and countenance of the House for the establishment of provincial banks in Ireland. No subject had, for some time back, more completely engrossed the attention of the people of Ireland than this All parties, Protestant and Catholic, were only of one opinion; and that opinion was founded not alone in the advantages expected from an improved system, but in dire experience of the great mischiefs occasioned by the failure of the banks in the south and south-west of Ireland some few years back. These establishments, hitherto, were founded on principles subversive of public credit and of national prosperity. It was necessary, therefore, that parliament should step forward to oppose some check to so great an evil. So great was the want of confidence occasioned by the frequent failure of private banks, that they had almost totally disappeared. There were not, throughout the four provinces, more he believed, than ten-In England the number of private banks was 530, and in Scotland 128. To these
1041
Sir H. Parnell
said, the conduct of the Bank of Ireland had not been such as to induce any gentleman to be backward in expressing his opinion. Their conduct had been improper, and inconsistent with that which they ought to have pursued for the interests of the country. Whenever they
1042
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he was as sensible as any man could be, of the imperfect state of the present banking system in Ireland, and no one was more anxious than himself, that a revision of that system should take place. He was most anxious to afford any assistance in his power for the attainment of that object, and he assured the hon. baronet, that in affording that assistance, he would not allow himself to be acted upon by any partiality for any body of persons. In truth he felt none. He was only anxious that, in introducing any measure of this description, they should avoid trenching upon, or in any way violating the charter and compact held by the Bank of Ireland. That charter and that compact he could not allow himself to violate, either directly or indirectly, without the most solid and sufficient grounds. He was the more anxious to be clear upon this point, as his hon. friend (Mr. Dawson) appeared to hint that the conduct of the Bank of Ireland, not being what he wished it, that body might be treated in a manner different from, that to which a different line of conduct would entitle them. With his statement he could not agree. It might be that the, Bank of Ireland did that which many other bodies had done, namely, look
1043
Mr. Spring Rice
concurred with the chancellor of the Exchequer in thinking, that if there was any thing in the terms of the charter of the Bank of Ireland to preclude the introduction into parliament of this or any similar bill, the fact of there being such a condition would of itself be a valid objection to the present motion. But, when the right hon. gentleman adverted to considerations of an equitable nature in favour of the Bank, he must beg leave to quote a principle that he had often heard contended for, and that was, that whenever a party set up an equitable construction, he must come into court with clean hands, by showing that he had done his best to fulfil the expressed conditions of the contract. But, up to a very late period, what had been the conduct of the Bank of Ireland? It had been, to refuse those advances or accommodations, without which business must always languish, however unexceptionable might be the security tendered, unless the parties concerned happened to be engaged in the trade of Dublin itself. If they belonged to Cork, for example, or any of the southern districts, however highly respectable they might be, the parties must establish an agency in Dublin, before they could obtain any such advances. Now, the Bank of Ireland did no business at all of this kind under 5 per cent.; the charge of the Dublin agency was about one per cent, more
1044
Mr. Trant
rose to state a fact that had occurred not long ago, which went to prove how necessary some measure of this nature had become. A relation of his had a few hundred pounds to remit to England. He happened to reside a hundred miles from Dublin; and there being no private bank between him and that capital, through which he could remit the money, he was absolutely obliged to travel thither with it in his own pocket.
Mr. M. Fitzgerald
expsessed his approbation of the measure. When the Banks failed in 1817 in the south of Ireland, the Bank of Ireland made no exertion to alleviate the distress that followed. They were deaf to the application of many country bankers, who offered good and solid security, though it was not of such a nature as to be immediately convertible. The establishment of Joint-Stock Banking companies could not interfere with their charter; for it was proposed to establish them only in those parts which the Bank seemed to think entirely out of their province. They discounted no paper from the province of Munster, or from any part of Ireland, unless indorsed by a person resident in Dublin. They were told of the capital that existed in Dublin. If there was capital there, it was certainly— the most inert capital he ever heard of. It shewed no life until this measure had been suggested; and then, all of a sudden, they heard of some charitable intentions on the part of the Bank towards the south of Ireland. Nothing could be more advantageous than the introduction of English capital. There was not at present
1045
Mr. Sneyd
vindicated the Bank of Ireland from the imputations thrown upon it.
Mr. M. Fitzgerald,
in explanation, said, that at a period of great distress the Bank of Ireland did not afford the relief it ought to those banks that could have given ample security.
Mr. Sneyd
denied this statement.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
IRISH BUTTER TRADE.]
Sir H. Parnell
said, he should have contented himself with merely moving for copies of ail memorials that had been presented to the Treasury, relating to the Butter Trade of Ireland, if the extraordinary interest which this subject had excited in that part of Ireland with which he was connected, had not appeared to require of him a few observations upon the matter. It might be remembered, that he had been before called upon to present a petition on this subject; and he would now beg to assure the House, that it was a subject of much greater importance than it might be at first supposed. The butter trade was carried on in Ireland to such an immense extent as to form an export of the annual value of about 2,000,000
l
1046
l
l
d.,
d.,
d.,
1047
Mr. C. Grant
thought the hon. baronet had stated quite enough to convince the House, that the present regulations of this important trade had led only to fraud and collusion. They had been, as might be expected, discovered to be quite inefficient for the purposes which they were intended to effect, and productive of much mischief that had never been anticipated. He could not help thinking that these regulations were quite of a piece with the system of marking and branding the Irish linens, which had been so utterly ineffectual to advance the welfare of that trade.
Mr. Hume
expressed his entire concurrence with the right hon. gentleman. Since the repeal of all the laws about branding the linens of Scotland, its trade had very much improved; and he wished the linen manufacturers of Ireland could be prevailed upon to try a similar experiment.
Mr. S. Rice
suggested that, after the admission of the right hon. gentleman, it might be quite enough for his hon. friend to apply directly to the Treasury and the Board of Trade.
Mr. Dawson
hoped, that the linen trade of Ireland, which was going on in an extremely gratifying manner, would be suffered to remain as it was.
Mr. Grattan
hoped the House would not hastily adopt any measure, but give all parties a fair trial.
Mr. T. Wilson
was inclined to think the subject before the House was a proper one for inquiry before a committee.
Mr. M. Fitzgerald
argued, that there was an absolute necessity for an alteration in the act. By one of its clauses, butter could not be sent to the Cork market, except in a firkin which had been made in Cork. The consequence was, that the whole province of Munster must have firkins manufactured in Cork.
Sir H. Parnell
replied. He contended, that it was not necessary to go into an inquiry on this subject. The absurdity and evil of the system were too manifest to require any investigation. Was the House, in 1825, to be called upon to inquire, whether the value of a cask of butter ought to be fixed by a public officer? He should fail in doing his duty if he did not impress on ministers the necessity of granting relief to hundreds, nay, thousands of people in Ireland, who were oppressed by the present system. Those persons in Cork, Limerick, and Dublin, who supported the present system; were interested individuals
1048
The motion was agreed to.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, March 16, 1825
PERUVIAN MINING COMPANY BILL.]
Mr. Green
Mr. Hobhouse
said, he was sorry, that although it was but a private bill, he should be obliged to enter more fully upon it than might be agreeable to the House. It was the first opportunity that had offered for his making any observations on the spirit of gambling that now existed in the city. The hon. gentleman who had just spoken had asked, what right any member had to interfere in what was a private question? But, he thought that, as soon as the company came to that House to ask for a bill, it gave a right to every member of it to offer his opinion on the subject; for the object in obtaining that bill was, that it should be generally understood that the Pasco Peruvian company was acting under the authority and sanction of the parliament of the kingdom. The effect that these schemes had was monstrous. He knew of many instances where the hard earnings of years bad been
1049
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
1050
l
l
l
l
1051
1052
1053
1054
l
1055
l
l
l
1056
Mr. Fowell Buxton
said, that as some highly respectable friends of his were connected with this company, he felt it his duty to take that early opportunity of doing justice to them, by putting this question on its fair footing before the House. He would admit a great deal of what the hon. member for Wesminster had said. He concurred with him fully, that if any set of men, no matter who, associated themselves as a company, with intent to delude the public, they ought to beheld up to public reprobation, and their proceedings ought to be arrested. But,
1057
1058
few
1059
1060
Mr. Hudson Gurney
said, be could not follow the two last speakers, without remarking on the inconvenient course which the House appeared to be pursuing—One member crying down, and another crying up, the probabilities of success in a commercial adventure—as instructed by parties interested in the rise or fall of shares in the market; and gambling, perhaps, for the next morning, on the effect that their speeches might produce there. In fact, instead of bills in numerable—that was, bills of exception from the operation of the law of the land, in favour of certain parties applying for them, there ought to be one general law for the formation and regulation of all joint-stock companies.—Whether the introduction of a law of registration of partnerships, with limited responsibility, as in France, and many other states of the continent, he was not competent to say; but some general act ought to be brought in; and by the government. He hoped the right hon. the president of the Board of Trade, would take the matter into his own hands; it could not be in better; and it was not a question any private individual could satisfactorily deal with. The common law was what grew up in an entirely different state of society, when there was little or no commerce; and the Bubble act was passed in a moment of national phrenzy—assuredly, when there was no wisdom.—As to the bill applied for, it was merely for the privilege to sue and be sued; and if granted to others, he saw no reason why it should be denied to this company—and, on that ground, he should certainly think it his duty to give his vote for the second reading.
Mr. Thomas Wilson
said, he wished to
1061
1062
few
Sir F. Burdett
said, that the fact that persons were first led to enter into this company by being told that they would only be liable to the amount of their shares, and that they were afterwards informed that their responsibility would extend to the whole of their fortunes, was a sufficient reason to induce the House to throw out this bill. It appeared to him, that of all the projects which he had ever heard or read of, this scheme most deserved the name of a bubble. He believed that the directors were honest dupes to the information which had been transmitted to them; but he thought that on that account, as much as on any other, the House was bound to interfere, and protect them from the consequences of their own credulity.
Mr. Lockhart
said, that if the House gave to this company the power of suing and being sued by their secretary it would go out to the public that the project itself had met with its approbation. They could not be too cautious how they invested any company with such a privilege. He desired them to remember, that if schemes like the present should end in ruining the fortunes of private individuals, members would not only have to bear in their collective capacity the blame of want of judgment, but also in their private capacity the blame of having leagued together to promote their private interests. Supposing this country to be in possession of all the mines of South America, it was a great mistake to infer that it would be the richer. Look to Spain. Was that country enriched by the possession of her
1063
Mr. Baring
commenced his observations by declaring, that he had no interest in the fate of this bill either one way or the other. As long as his hon. friend, the member for Westminster, confined himself to general remarks upon the gambling speculations which were now so prevalent, he fully concurred with him in every thing he had said; but as soon as he began to apply his observations to this particular case, he was obliged to express his dissent from him. It was deplorable to see the gambling mania that was at present abroad; it had seized upon all classes, and was spreading itself in all parts of the country. If it was to be lamented that men of the first rank and family in the country haunted gaming-houses at the west-end of the town, it was still more to be lamented, that merchants at the east-end of it should imitate their example, and make a gaming-house of the Royal Exchange. He saw no difference between the gambling of the nobleman in the hells of St. James's-street, and the gambling of the merchant on the Royal Exchange; except that the latter kept earlier hours and more respectable company than the former. The evil was certainly one which deserved to be checked; though he hardly knew how the check could be applied. The remedy would be worse than the disease, if, in putting a stop to this evil, they put a stop to the spirit of enterprise. That spirit was productive of so much benefit to the community, that he should be sorry to see any person drawing a line, discriminating between fair enterprise and extravagant speculation. Nothing that had fallen from the hon. member for Westminster had induced him to think that it would be improper to read this bill a second time. He believed that all the mining speculations would turn out to be delusions, and that many innocent persons, who had embarked their little capital in them, with the expectation of realising large fortunes, would be awakened some day unpleasantly from their dreams of grandeur, by the intelligence that their all was lost. The great mistake under which the uninformed part of the public laboured was this—that their interference in the Spanish mines would render them much more productive than they had formerly been. He believed that the skill with which those
1064
l
Mr. Calcrqft
said, that the argument of his hon. friend, that they were to sanction
1065
Mr. Ellice
said, that, in the first prospectus which this company issued, the projectors had placed their names amongst those of the directors, without making any previous communication to him of their design. He had, however, desired it to be withdrawn; as he did not consider the speculation a prudent one. His reason for so thinking was, that it was proposed to work mines in a country, which had no settled government, and where it was uncertain whether a new law, or the old Spanish law, would prevail with regard to mining contracts. In Mexico and Colombia the case was somewhat different. New governments had been framed, and new
1066
Mr. Attwoood
said, that the view which had been taken of the subject before the House, by his hon. friend, the member for Newton (Mr. H. Gurney), was perfectly just; and that the greater part of what had been advanced on either side, by other gentlemen, was wholly irrelevant to the real question. With the quality of these mines, the validity of the leases of the company, or the value of their shares, the House had nothing whatever to do. Here were a body of men, who had formed themselves into a partnership, and prepared to embark their money, in the working of certain mines in some part of Peru. They found, that as the law stood, a partnership, such as theirs, consisting of a great number of persons, was placed in this absurd position, that they could neither sue successfully at law, for any debts due to them, nor could their creditors sue them. They applied, therefore, for an act to remedy this inconvenience. An act, as it was called, to sue and be sued. This was the simple character of the act applied for; and the time of the House had been occupied for hours, with trumpery investigations respecting the prospects of gain or loss of those parties; whether the title to their leases was perfectly valid, and would hold good, the
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
Mr. Baring
begged to be understood as applying his observations not to this company in particular, but to joint-stock-companies generally.
Mr. Robertson
was of opinion, that the House ought to make a stand on the present occasion, and protect the public from the ruin with which they were threatened. All the speculations that were at present afloat, and more especially the mining speculations, afforded little chance of being successful. As to the introduction of the steam engine to work these South American mines, it was the greatest possible delusion. There was no fuel. In Mexico there was no coal; and near the mines under discussion there was no wood. They had been worked for many ages by able German miners, who were as likely to render them profitable as any persons. Nor was it probable that the Mexicans would sell them to their present proprietors, disadvantageously to themselves. There could be little doubt that whatever capital was embarked in these mining speculations would be wasted. He strongly impressed upon the House the necessity of endeavouring to put a stop to these speculations, by withdrawing the countenance of parliament from them. He regretted, that when a subject of so much importance was before the House, not a single minister was to be seen on the Treasury bench. The country was indebted to the
1073
Mr. Alderman Bridges
, in reply to the hon. gentleman who had just spoken, declared, that in the neighbourhood of Real del Monte, there were coals enough to enable the steam-engines to work for many years. The hon. alderman vindicated the characters of the directors of this company, who were men of the highest honour, and possessed of great prudence and foresight. High as the shares at present stood in the market, many of the holders would not take double the current price for those which they had in their possession.
Mr. Hobhouse
said, he had applied his observations, not so much to the individual speculators, as to the speculation itself. He should not, however, press his amendment to a division.
The bill was then read a second time.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, March 17, 1825
CLERGYMEN HOLDING OFFICES IN CORPORATIONS.]
Mr. Hume
, after a few observations on the general inconvenience of allowing clergymen to hold civil offices in corporations, and to mix themselves up in secular affairs, moved, "That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, that he will be pleased to direct a return to be laid before this House of the number of persons in holy orders in the Church of England, who hold offices in corporations of boroughs, or cities; stating the names of such persons, the offices they hold, the name of the borough or city, and whether they have any benefice, and how many, and whether they are resident or non-resident on such benefice."
Dr. Phillimore
opposed the motion, which he considered at the best unnecessary.
Mr. John Smith
said, that the respect which he felt for the clergy would not prevent him from supporting this motion. If it should appear from these returns, that the clergy were neglecting the duties belonging to their character, and engaging in others that were alien to it, the House might consider how far it ought to interfere to prevent such neglect in future.
1074
Mr. Secretary Peel
thought the reason just given by the hon. member, in favour of the motion, disclosed its real object, and was the strongest that could be urged in opposition to it. If it was the intention of the hon. mover to obtain a vote of that House on the present motion, impliedly declaring its opinion, that clergymen ought not to hold borough offices, he must say, that such a mode of obtaining the opinion was the least fair that could be adopted. If the hon. member wished to disqualify clergymen from holding such offices, let him do so by bill, in which they could have the assistance of the other branch of the legislature; and not in the form of the present motion, in which the disqualification would be by implication alone.
Mr. F. Palmer
observed, that it would be impossible to bring in such a bill as the right hon. gentleman recommended, unless the return for which his hon. friend moved were laid before' the House. He therefore supported the motion.
Mr. Wynn
defended the character of the clergy generally, and more especially of the clergy of Wales, and maintained that they had acquitted themselves, in many instances, with the greatest advantage to the public in the discharge of the magisterial functions. He recommended the hon. member to withdraw his motion, and to bring the subject before the House on the general principles of the eligibility or ineligibility of the clergy to civil offices.
Sir J. Newport
thought it would be expedient that the subject should be submitted to the House, with reference to the general question of the eligibility of the clergy to civil offices. Although it might be advantageous in the country, that clergymen should hold magisterial situations, it appeared to him that in cities it was quite the reverse.
The House divided: For the motion 4; Against it 22.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, March 18, 1825
JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES.]
Mr. T. Wilson
presented a petition from certain Cow-keepers and Milk Venders, complaining of the Milk Company.
Mr. Grenfell
felt surprised, when the law on Joint-Stock Companies was in such uncertainty, that the lord chancellor had not brought forward his intended measure.
1075
Mr. John Smith
took occasion to observe, that there had not been a single day, for some time past, without some new joint-stock scheme being brought before the public. He could not help joining, therefore, in the lamentation of the hon. member, as to the uncertainty of the law on the subject.
Mr. Huskisson
said, that, as far as any remedy was wanted to check wild and unreasonable speculation, no one could be more willing than he should be, to devise and concert one. With respect to the law, however, it must be recollected that there was one existing, by which these companies were bound, and for any violation of which they were liable. It was, no doubt, the duty of the House to watch attentively any bill coming before them, for the purpose of giving to any of those companies extraordinary privileges. If such a bill came before them, it would be the duty of the House to reject it. But, whatever might be their opinion as to the nature of many of the recent speculations, the law which referred to partnerships was well known; and, with the exception of bankers, he did not see that there was any thing in the law to limit the number of persons who might choose to associate, for the purpose of carrying on any particular trade. He would admit that the rage and folly of the day led to speculations for carrying on ordinary trades in the way of extensive partnerships. They had milk companies, and brick companies, and fish companies, and several others of that kind which he could not enumerate; but, when any of them came before the House with a bill, and asked for no new or exclusive privilege or power, he did not see how the House could turn them away. By refusing the power which they asked, of suing and being sued in the name of one of their officers, he did not see that they could be prevented from acting as a partnership; but, the getting such a power would not of itself be the means of enabling them to continue long in those extensive associations. He was sure that the good sense and industry of those who carried on trades, for the more extensive exercise of which some of the companies had been formed, would in the end prevail, and that those trades would return to their natural channel. Many of the owners of shares, who might be considered as sleeping partners in trades of which they knew nothing but the name, but who expected to reap large profits
1076
Mr. Alderman Bridges
defended the milk company, which he said had been established these eighteen months, and had already been productive of much public advantage, by giving to the community a cheap supply of pure milk.
Mr. J. P. Grant
said, that though his majesty's government might not feel disposed to alter the law with respect to extended partnerships, yet he thought it was their duty so to regulate it, as to prevent the present practices of the transfer of shares.
Ordered to lie on the table.
IRISH MISCELLANEOUS SERVICES.]
The House resolved itself into a committee of Supply. On the resolution, "That 1,600
l.
Mr. Hume
objected to the principle of voting away large sums to charitable institutions in Ireland. The whole sum to which these eleemosynary grants amounted was 342,000
l.
Mr. Grattan
denied that the whole
1077
Sir T. Lethbridge
thought that it would be niggardly in the extreme to withhold these grants. Nothing was so important, in the present state of Ireland, as to provide permanent establishments for the education of the lower orders.
Mr. Monck
contended, that the support given by government to charitable institutions generated more mischief than it relieved. If they were to give 100,000
l.
Mr. Curteis
hoped that these charitable votes, instead of being permanently fixed at their present rate, would be annually reduced.
Mr. Lockhart
objected to the principle of these charities. By increasing the number of paupers, they increased the quantum of misery already existing.
Mr. Hume
asked, if it was intended to reduce these eleemosynary grants? Within a few years, they had increased from 79,000
l.
l.
Mr. Goulburn
said, he would not pledge himself to any annual reduction of these grants. Sums roust of course be voted, commensurate with the necessity of the case.
Mr. C. Grant
was of opinion, that though the principle of some of these grants was objectionable, the reduction of them ought to be gradual. Amongst the grants which he considered objectionable, was that to the Protestant Charter-schools. Though they might be valuable in particular instances, in teaching reading, writing, and arithmetic, he believed that, upon the whole, they had utterly failed in training up good men, good citizens, or even good Christians. He therefore wished to see the management of them corrected, as it gave education to one class only of the king's subjects, and excluded every other. He was afraid that too many of the grants were partially and not generally applied. If the House thought proper to interfere with the cha-
1078
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that, before hon. members condemned these grants to the different schools and hospitals in Dublin so loudly, they ought to consider of what avail they were to that metropolis. They were most of them established before the Union, and were supported by the various noblemen and gentry who at that time were in the habit of residing part of the year in Dublin. As the Union had withdrawn from them great part of that support, the government thought themselves bound, in a certain degree, to supply it. In London these institutions abounded, but were so well supported by voluntary contributions, that it was unnecessary for government to give them any assistance. As far as any evil might arise from such a mode of expending money, it was the same whether the money came from the purse of the public, or from that of individuals. He would not withdraw these grants upon any abstract objections; because he knew that, by doing so, he should leave many persons in a state of absolute destitution.
Mr. S. Rice
contended, that the efforts made by individuals to relieve private distress in Ireland were equal to those made by any individuals in any European country. Though Ireland had no poor rates,—and long might she continue without them! —her poor were supported by dispensations of charity, which did honour to the country which bestowed them.
Mr. Grattan
supported these grants, and contended that the charities to which they were given were, in the main, excellently conducted.
Mr. Hume
complained, that the gradual reduction of these charities which had been introduced, had not been adhered to. He was convinced that these grants did more harm than good.
The resolution was agreed to.
IRISH LINEN BOARD.]
On the resolution, "That 19,938
l
Mr. Hume
protested against the continuance of this grant. If there had not
1079
Mr. Goulburn
said, that if the question were now raised for the first time, whether or not, under the present circumstances of the linen trade of Ireland, a board ought to be appointed, he should be slow in voting for it. But, there was a great difference between originating a public body of this nature, and not continuing one which had been a considerable time in existence, and which had worked the greatest benefits for that most important trade in Ireland. It had been the object with the Irish government to foster the linen trade, and their labours had been greatly assisted by the linen board. Many frauds in the trade were prevented by it. It was, in fact, essential to the prosperity of Ireland.
Mr. T. Wilson
did not entirely agree in what had been said of the necessity of this board by the Irish Secretary, but still it was difficult to interfere with a body from whose labours considerable benefit was said to have accrued to Ireland. As a general principle, he was decidedly opposed to all shackles upon trade; and he thought that ministers were bound, by their own professions, to be of the same opinion. It was, however, important to consider, whether this general rule ought to be applied in every particular case.
Mr. Trant
denounced the linen board as utterly incompetent to the task which it had undertaken. He had himself conversed with some of what were called Inspectors, who knew nothing whatever of linen. He agreed with those who were for removing all restrictions upon trade. At the same time he admitted, that it might not be safe, suddenly to withdraw the apparatus by which the linen trade had been hitherto carried on.
Sir G. Hill
defended the linen board, on account of its utility to the staple trade of Ireland.
1080
Lord Althorp
was hostile to the vote, upon general principles.
Mr. Hume
l.
Colonel Bagwell
bore testimony to the services of the board, in promoting the linen trade in the south of Ireland. It was but latterly that this manufacture had been there introduced; but since its introduction, it had given employment to a great number of poor persons, who would otherwise be reduced to a state of destitution
Mr. Peel
said, that the grant had been made to Ireland, partly in consideration of the discouragement of her woollen manufactures. It was therefore connected with feelings existing in that country, and ought not to be considered as an abstract question. He hoped that this short discussion would be taken as a notice in Ireland, that parliament had turned its attention to the subject.
Mr. Grattan
opposed the vote, and contended, that the situations were given away upon a system of favouritism.
Dr. Lushington
argued, that the effect of the vote would rather be to retard the improvement of the trade than to accelerate it. It would create a factitious trade, and finally leave many hands out of employment. At the same time, he did not wish the vote to be withheld without notice; and if he did not press a division, it would be on the understanding that next year a clear and distinct case should be made out, by the supply of due information.
Mr. Goulburn
was in favour of the grant, because it employed the poor of Ireland; at the present moment, an object of the highest importance.
Mr. R. Gordon
resisted the resolution, and complained that a large part of the money voted for the linen board went to retainers of ministers.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
adverted to the report of the committee two years ago, recommending a variety of alterations in the linen trade, which had been carried into effect, especially regarding the bounties, which changes had not been accomplished without difficulty. Ministers had, therefore, not been asleep on their posts. Ireland was in such a state, that it was not possible yet to apply to her the ordinary doctrines of political economy. It might have been wrong to grant the assistance to Ireland in the first instance, but it would be most injurious
1081
Sir G. Hill
stated the particular reasons for continuing the grant for the board. The linen trade was not one requiring a large capital. Hence it was necessary to have a board to protect the interests of the small manufacturers. The linen board had already produced the greatest advantages, by augmenting the trade from a few hundred thousand pounds to five millions annually.
Mr. Hume
was convinced, that the linen trade would have been six millions a-year, instead of five, if this board had never existed. Out of 72 individuals connected with the board, there was not a single Catholic. It was, therefore, an insult to the feelings of the people of Ireland to continue it. They were not all paid, but possessed extensive influence; which they always exerted in favour of ministers.
Mr. J. Smith
agreed, that the true principles of political economy could not be applied to Ireland in her present unsettled condition. By means of the grants to Ireland, many thousands had been employed in productive and reproductive labour. Though, in some respects, it might not be well managed, he should be very sorry to see this grant withheld.
The House divided: For the Amendment 17. Against it 76. Majority 59.
EAST-INDIA SUGARS.]
On the order of the day, for reading the Annual Duties bill a third time,
Mr. Sykes
said, that, before this bill was read a third time, he wished to make a few observations respecting the Sugar trade. He did not know on what principles ministers were acting. It seemed to be the policy of this country to prohibit the importation of sugar, unless it came from the West Indies. Now, on what good principle such a policy could be founded he knew not. If it should be said, that East-India sugars might be imported, he admitted the assertion; but only to a very small extent, for it was notorious, that the immense duty laid on sugar imported from the East Indies, amounted almost to a prohibition of that article. This appeared to him to be totally at variance with sound policy, which would rather induce ministers to favour the importation of the products of a country that took so many of our manufactures in return. He called upon gentlemen on
1082
s.,
s.,
s.
s.
1083
s.
s.
l.
1084
Mr. R. Gordon
threw back the insinuation, that the rise in the price of sugar was beneficial only to the West-India planter or proprietor. When the question came under discussion in a more regular form, he should be ready to give a direct and positive contradiction to the state-
1085
Mr. Robertson
suggested, that the most effectual relief to be afforded to our colonies, was to be derived from a total emancipation of the slaves. Unless the owners of colonial property did this, they would do nothing which would afford them permanent relief.
Captain Maberly
observed, that the protecting duty on West-India sugar had been defended, on the ground that the legislature, by its enactments, had induced individuals to embark their property in the West-India colonies; but that he held to be no sufficing reason for keeping up the price of an article which might be denominated a necessary of life. In his opinion, it would tend greatly to the interest of this country, if we were not at all connected with the West-India Islands. From the time of Adam Smith, down to the present day, every intelligent writer on political economy had condemned our colonial connexions. The trade to the West-India Islands was, to all intents and purposes, a losing trade to this country; and the sooner England got rid of those colonies, and of the heavy expense which they incurred, the better would it be for her interests. Sugar could be procured at a comparatively moderate price from the East Indies; and by importing it from that part of the globe a double advantage would be gained; on the one hand, the article would be cheaper; and, on the other, the country would be relieved from those heavy military and civil establishments, which she, and not the colonies, now supported.
Mr. Blair
supported the West-India interest. The country, he contended, was not prepared to adopt the sweeping proposition of the hon. member who had just spoken.
Mr. Charles Ellis
said, that a solemn compact had been entered into between the mother country and her colonies; the former having stipulated to grant every protection to the latter. That compact ought never to be lost sight of. Upon that ground, he objected to the course proposed to be adopted by the hon. member with whom the debate had originated, and, generally, to the arguments of those individuals who advocated the introduction of East-India sugar, and who would fain force West-India sugar out of the market. He conceived it to be most unjust to attempt to deprive the colonies of
1086
1087
Mr. Fowell Buxton
said, he should not have trespassed on the House at that time, had he not thought it his imperious duty. The question was one which was foreign to his studies, and on which he felt in general little disposed to address the House. A dry question of duties was not one which he usually liked to speak on; and, before he said any thing further, he could assure the House, that though he warmly opposed slavery, he had not the smallest particle of hostility towards the West-India proprietors. A good deal had been said about the bounty afforded to the West-India proprietors. One gentleman had said it was 3
s.
1088
Mr. Trant
feared that the effect of discussions like that which had arisen on the present question would be highly injurious to the interests which were involved in it. He was sure that if similar measures were adopted with respect to the East-India interests, the consequences would be such as must be universally deplored. Whatever might be the opinion of the House as to the principles on which the privileges enjoyed by the West-India proprietors was founded, it would, in his opinion, be equally unwise and unfeeling to take from them at this time those advantages.
Mr. Bright
said, he should not have been induced, at so late an hour, to have addressed the House, but for the silence which his majesty's ministers had thought fit to observe upon this occasion. He did so now, chiefly for the purpose of expressing his hope, that those persons who professed themselves the friends to the principles of free trade would take care that the West-India interests were not the only exception to the general application of those principles. Those interests had already suffered materially from the effects of a system opposed to that liberal one which was now so warmly praised. The exports from the West Indies to North America had been reduced to almost nothing. He could not sit down without observing on one of the statements which
1089
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he wished to explain why he had refrained from taking any part in the present discussion. The bill had passed through all its stages up to the third reading, without any objection, or the show of any opposition, having been offered on the subject of the duties. He had, indeed, been given to understand by the hon. member for Weymouth, that it was his intention, and that of some of his, friends, to avail themselves of the opportunity which the third reading would give them, of expressing their opinion on a part of the question. He had suggested to the hon. gentleman that such a course would be inconvenient; but still it was preferred,
1090
The bill was then read a third time.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, March 21, 1825
CIVIL CONTINGENCIES—DIPLOMATIC EXPENDITURE.]
The House resolved itself into a committee of Supply. On the resolution "That 160,000
l.
Mr. Hume
observed, that this grant was one of those which the committee generally voted on the credit of the minister, and on which members were obliged to confine their comments, rather to the expenditure of the past than to the estimate of the coming year. On looking at our diplomatic expenditure, of which part came under this grant, he was compelled to say, that it far exceeded what the country required. The country could not be aware of the sums which it annually paid to its residents at foreign courts: if it were, he was sure there would be a loud demand for its diminution. He could see a reason why it was formerly necessary for this country to have a resident at the different courts of the petty sovereigns of Germany; but he could see no reason why we should not withdraw them at present; since it was notorious, that those sovereigns had now no will of their own, but merely moved as the holy alliance pleased
1091
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
Mr. Secretary Canning
said, that the House had, in the year 1816, minutely examined the whole diplomatic branch of the public expenditure, and laid down a scale for its future arrangement. It was therefore by the result of that investigation that they ought to judge of the present establishment. He could assure the House, that he had guided himself by
1092
1093
l.
Mr. Hume
said, there was another item to which he wished to call the attention of his majesty's government. He alluded to the item of 8,247
l.
Mr. Canning
said, that though he could not, perhaps, give as satisfactory an account of the progress of these commissioners
1094
1095
l.
l.
Mr. Hume
objected to the grant of 1,034
l.
1096
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
expressed himself unable to account precisely for the application of this levy upon the public. It was incumbent upon the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's to maintain that cathedral in repair, and the keeping of such a building in repair was no small expense. Lately, the building had undergone considerable repair, and from its altitude, it might be conceived that the expense had been considerable. The charge of cleaning and keeping in good condition the numerous monuments in that public edifice was very large. It did seem to him, that the monuments of the country, placed in the great national cathedral in consequence of addresses to the throne, to commemorate splendid actions, ought to be open to the public at large; otherwise the very object of erecting them was defeated. At the same time it was not proper, because such monuments were placed in St. Paul's, that the Dean and Chapter should have imposed upon them the expense of keeping them in repair. However, he was not bound to be responsible for the manner in which the Dean and Chapter exercised their duty; and certainly he was very little inclined to take upon himself any such responsibility for their conduct with relation to the present subject. The Dean and Chapter of Westminster were bound to maintain the Abbey in a proper state; but he was very far from asserting, that they gave to the public the necessary facilities in viewing either the edifice or its monuments. He was aware that very serious complaints had been made in every direction upon this subject, and he was compelled to say, that when he had visited the cathedral with a view of looking at the national monuments, the exhibition had been conducted very carelessly, and in a manner that reflected no honour upon those who had the control of the arrangements. The whole system, at both cathedrals, was conducted in a manner that he by no means approved of: but he did not see that he had any power to require the Dean and Chapter either to reduce their fees, or to alter their management.
Mr. Hume
was happy to hear so well-deserved a chastisement bestowed upon the
1097
so
Mr. W. Smith
said, it was indeed high time to take up this subject of the exhibition of public monuments in a more serious way; and, if no other way offered, he advised that it should be done by a committee of the House.
Sir J. Sebright
stated, that, whenever he had conducted foreigners through these splendid buildings, in order to shew them the monuments, so honourable to the country, he had felt thoroughly ashamed at the principle of pecuniary exaction established by the Dean and Chapter, and equally mortified at the whole system upon which these national exhibitions were conducted.
Mr. Hume
observed, that as the chancellor of the Exchequer had the power of putting a stop to the abuse by withholding the grant of the public money, his inserting this sum in the vote, was a proof that he encouraged the practice of an abuse, which he could not defend in the House.
The several resolutions were agreed to.
COLONIAL POLICY OF THE COUNTRY.]
The House having resolved itself into a committee to consider of the acts 3rd Geo. IV. cap. 44 and 45,
Mr. Huskisson
spoke in substance as follows:
*
*
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1st.—"That it is expedient to amend several acts of the 3rd and 4th years of his present majesty, for regulating the trade between his majesty's possessions in America, and other places in America and the West Indies; and between his majesty's possessions in America and the West Indies, and other parts of the world; and also an act of the 4th year of his present majesty, for regulating the warehousing of goods.'
2nd.—"That the duties imposed by two acts of the 3rd year of his present majesty, for regulating the trade between
1116
Mr. Charles Ellis
said, that, in consequence of his connexion with those colonies to which the line of policy stated by his right hon. friend was intended to be adapted, he had listened to his address with no common degree of interest. With respect to the intended alteration in the duty on sugar imported from the Mauritius, he certainly had heard that intimation with some degree of surprise. Considering what had passed when that measure was brought before the House last year, and the manner in which it was abandoned, he certainty did not expect that it would have been introduced on this occasion; but, as many opportunities would occur for discussing those different measures, he would not trouble the committee with any further observations on this subject, except to request, that his right hon. friend would have the goodness, before he brought in his bill, to lay before the House the petition of the inhabitants of the Mauritius against placing them on the footing of a West-India colony. As to the general plan of his right hon. friend, he must say, that the restrictions which he sought to put down, had long pressed on the interests of the West-India colonies, perhaps more than that of any other of the colonies of great Britain. When those restrictions were first proposed, the effect of them was very different. At that time they did not press very hard on the colonies; who were then in full possession of the home market. Many alterations had, however, been since made; and as our colonial possessions had been much extended, it was impossible to continue the system of keeping the trade of those colonies entirely to ourselves. It, therefore, became necessary to alter the colonial code. Those bills to which his right hon. friend had alluded, and on which he meant to legislate, were in consequence introduced; the one allowing a direct trade in British ships from the colonies to Europe, and the other for facilitating the intercourse between the colonies and America. He had expected-
1117
1118
Mr. Baring
said, he could not suffer so important a subject to pass, without expressing his gratification at almost every thing that had been stated by the right hon. gentleman. He thought the measure proposed would be productive of great good, as well to the colonies as to the mother country. There was always this advantage in broad and liberal views of commerce—that they intended to serve all the parties concerned. There were portions of the statement of the right hon. gentleman which could not be exactly understood, until gentlemen saw the resolutions, and the bills that would be founded on them. What he did see, and what he highly approved of was, the general spirit of liberality that pervaded the whole system. He conceived that, from its adoption, the colonies would derive great benefit. It was at length found, that no nation could gain by keeping down and impoverishing her colonies. It was by making them
1119
1120
1121
Sir F. Burdett
rose, for the purpose of expressing the gratification he felt at the new and liberal view which was taken by his majesty's ministers upon subjects which involved the most important interests of the country. He hoped that they would not suffer any timidity to deter them from carrying the principles which they had avowed into full execution. He was satisfied there was no reason for any such apprehension; and he did not doubt that the government would find that, upon this subject, the general opinion of the country was with them. He did not clearly comprehend all the details of the right hon. gentleman's alterations; but, as far as he did do so, he fully concurred with them; and it was matter of great gratification to him, to find that they were conceived in a spirit of pure and enlightened policy. He trusted, that the principles would be acted upon to the greatest practicable extent in the colonies, and that they would be allowed the full enjoyment of all the advantages which could be derived from their own labour, and ingenuity, and enterprise; not fettered by restrictions which curtailed those advantages, but left at full liberty to pursue their own works in their own colonies, and to send their produce to this country as they might think fit. Every body knew the disadvantages which the West-India proprietors laboured under, in being compelled to send their sugars to the British market in a raw state. Upon no sound principle of commercial policy could such restrictions be maintained; and he hoped that in future all the benefits to which they were fairly entitled would be ensured to the colonists. With respect to the importation of corn from Lower Canada, that mea-
1122
Mr. Bright
expressed himself friendly to the principles of free trade, but wished that their application should be made as general as might be practicable. The measures proposed to be adopted, with
1123
Mr. Huskisson
said, that it was his intention to include in the list of articles on Which prohibitory duties were still to be kept up, sugar, rum, molasses, cocoa, and coffee, the production of any foreign country which might be carried into our colonies, and thence exported here. This measure was obviously necessary to prevent, for example, sugar produced from Havannah, enjoying the same advantages as those enjoyed by our colonies, while the foreign growers refused to grant us any reciprocal benefits. He did not apprehend that much corn would be imported from Canada; and there was still less fear, that any would be brought from the United States; because the latter were not in the habit of exporting their corn, but in the shape of flour. He had no doubt that the result of this measure would be such as the most jealous agriculturist need not fear.
Mr. Hume
rose, for the purpose of asking whether, during the changes which the right hon. gentleman proposed, it was his intention to take some steps with respect to St. Domingo, so as to put our intercourse with that place on a different footing. We had at present no person there to take care of our commercial interests. He submitted, that, as the time had now come when that country had firmly established itself, and the most entire peace and tranquillity prevailed in it, we ought not to reject the overtures which had been made to us to trade with them. He hoped that the right hon. gentleman's attention would also be drawn to the heavy tax on timber from Canada, and that the timber trade would be relieved from a burthen which pressed so heavily upon it.
1124
Sir Robert Farquhar
observed, that he perfectly agreed with the hon. member for Bristol in thinking, that the Mauritius was a case that stood upon its own merits; and he felt convinced, from his experience and local knowledge, acquired during the many years he had administered that colony, that whenever that case should be brought forward, and discussed, it would be found to be the hardest and most cruel, that had ever been submitted to the House of Commons, and one that called for immediate relief. The measures proposed had been long due, as the only means of rescuing from utter ruin, a people who were equally exemplary under all their privations, restrictions, and disabilities, for their patience, their intelligence, and their obedience to the laws. In a political point of view, the importance of governing them with justice, kindness, and liberality, must be obvious to every person who regarded the position of the colony, and the population of which it was composed; and in a financial view, the colony, by being relieved from the present excessive duty on the importation into this country of their produce, would be enabled, not only to pay the expense of the civil government and establishments, but the military charge for its defence, and thus relieve this country from a burthen of at least 100,000
l.
Dr. Lushington
said, he was perfectly ready to agree, that very great advantages were likely to result from the measures which had been proposed to the House, as well to the colonies as to the mother country. Now, however, that the restrictions which had been found to be injurious and unjust were to be taken off, and the Mauritius was to be placed on a footing with the West-India islands, he
1125
1126
s.
Mr. R. Gordon
rose for the purpose of replying to the observations of the learned gentleman—observations, which the usage of parliament thardly justified him in making. He did not know to what particular occa-
1127
Mr. A. C. Grant
defended the conduct of the West-India proprietors, and denied that it was their object to make the greatest quantity of profit from their estates. All that they looked to was, to obtain a fair return; and with that object they combined a proper attention to the condition of the slaves. The learned gentleman had accused them most unfairly, in that and in other respects. Nothing could be more unfounded than the assertion that the West-India proprietors never would be satisfied, whatever parliament might do for them. On the contrary, they came to parliament, under the most difficult and embarrassing circumstances, humbly asking for relief. All they required was, the protection to which they were justly entitled. After all that had been said in favour of East-India produce, as the result of free labour, the committee must be aware, that it was no such thing. And he would put it to them besides, whether they felt that the tenure by which they held the East Indies, was so perfectly secure as to induce them to legislate in its favour to the disadvantage of the West-India colonies.
Sir R. Farquhar
begged to state, in answer to what had fallen from the hon. and learned member (Dr. Lushington), that, formany years past, there had been no instance of importation of slaves into the Mauritius; and that there were documents now in England, from the present go-
1128
Mr. Evans
protested against the principle of giving a preference to the labour of slaves, over that of freemen.
The resolution was agreed to.
POLICE MAGISTRATES BILL.]
The House having resolved itself into a committee of the whole Mouse, to take into consideration the subject of the Salaries of the Police Magistrates of the Metropolis,
Mr. Secretary Peel
requested the attention of the committee to the subject upon which he proposed to address them; namely, the pecuniary allowance which the police magistrates of the metropolis received for their services. It was his intention to propose, that those individuals should receive an addition to the salary they at present received; a proposition which, he trusted, would not be considered at all unreasonable. He held in his hand papers, from which, if he chose to enter into any detail, he could prove, to the satisfaction of the committee, that since the institution of police magistrates, the business which devolved upon those individuals had, owing to various acts of parliament, independently of the increase of population, greatly augmented. Although that circumstance would, of itself, be a sufficient reason for increasing the salary of the magistrates, he rested his proposition upon grounds which he hoped the committee would consider even more satisfactory. When the police magistrates were first appointed, it was the practice to select individuals to fill the office, who, he must say, were utterly incompetent to discharge the duties which devolved upon them. He found, from the papers which had been laid on the table, that out of twelve police magistrates appointed at a former period, there were only three barristers; the rest were composed of a major in the army, a starch-maker, three clergymen, a Glasgow-trader, and other persons who, from their previous occupations, could not but be utterly unqualified to perform the duties of magistrates. The law had fixed no limitation with respect to the previous education of persons appointed to the office of magistrate; but he thought the committee would be pleased to hear, that a limitation on that point had been prescribed by the Secre-
1129
l.
l.
1130
l.
l.
l.
l.
Sir J. Sebright
approved of the proposed addition to the salaries of magistrates, which he thought would have the effect of rendering the body more respectable; and stated, that he was old enough to remember the trading justices, than whom there were not a more contemptible set of persons.
Mr. Hobhouse
said, he did not rise to, oppose the plan, but to guard himself against sanctioning any proposition, the tendency of which might be, to increase the influence of the Crown. He understood that there were at present 820 barristers, and no fewer than 400 places to which barristers were eligible. What he wanted to know was, whether the salaries were to be all raised immediately by this measure; or whether it was to be at
1131
Mr. Peel
said, that if the committee should agree to the resolution which he had proposed, the increase would be extended to every police magistrate. As a proof that there was no wish on the part of government to favour particular magistrates, he might mention, that though the last resolution for regulating the amount of their salaries was passed ten or twelve years ago in precisely the same terms, he believed, as that which he had now proposed, there was no distinction at the present moment in regard to the salaries of magistrates. They all receive 600
l.
Mr. Hume
did not think that 800
l.
Mr. Peel
said, that the question of the propriety of reducing the number of magistrates had been considered in a committee, which was appointed at his suggestion two sessions since, to inquire into the state of the police of the metropolis. In 1792, London was divided into nine districts, to each of which three magistrates were appointed. Notwithstanding the great increase of population, and the
1132
The resolution was agreed to
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, March 22, 1825
PRIVATE COMMITTEES—WANT OF
Mr. Calcraft
called the attention of the House to the great inconvenience which had been felt by many members attending private committees, from the want of sufficient accommodation. There was at present a great press of private business and much confusion and delay had arisen, from the want of a sufficient number of rooms in which the committees might sit. On that very day he had seen not fewer than 150 persons sitting in the body of the House, transacting business in private committees Now, he was certain that nobody would object, on the score of economy, to having a sufficient number of rooms for the accommodation of members in their private committees. As he was on the subject, he could not avoid observing, not only on the general want of accommodation, from
1133
Mr. Stuart Wortley
thought the subject was one which deserved serious attention. It was a source of much confusion, and a great obstruction to the progress of private business, to have, as was frequently the case, two committees sitting at the same time in one and the same room, where it sometimes happened, that two counsel were at the same moment speaking before each committee. This, of course, created great annoyance, and had the effect of rendering the observations of each unintelligible.
General Gascoyne
bore testimony to the inconvenience felt by members, from the want of large rooms for private committees. It sometimes happened that the whole of the members appointed on a committee could not obtain admission for want of room; or, if they did, the room was so crowded, that they could with difficulty pass from one side of the room to the other. It was not an uncommon thing to see a hundred members mixed with witnesses and strangers in the same room.
Mr. Secretary Peel
admitted, that the subject was one which deserved attention. It was evident that if the press of private business should continue, something ought to be done to afford additional accommodation. He would do all in his power to afford the desired remedy.
Mr. Littleton
thought that the occupation of the House during the day by private committees, would be found particularly inconvenient to members attending in the afternoon, as it would create an unwholesome air. He thought, therefore, that if possible this use of the House during the day should not be permitted.
The Speaker said, that the application had been made to him during the morning by the sergeant, who had stated, that some committees could not proceed for want of room. He had therefore given leave to the parties to sit in the House itself. It must be clear, that any improvements which might be made, could not take place in the present session; and he did not see, if the press of private business
1134
ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.]
Mr. Estcourt,
seeing an hon. baronet in his place, would wish to put a question to him. It was generally reported, that the second reading of the bill which he had obtained leave to introduce, was fixed for the 14th of April, and that the discussion on it was to take place on that evening. Perhaps, many gentlemen were not aware, that the 14th of April would be in the middle of the quarter-sessions week, and that it would be a great inconvenience to hon. members who were magistrates to be obliged to be absent from their duties in the country. He wished to ask the hon. baronet, whether he would consent to the postponement of the discussion from the 14th to the 21st.
Sir F. Burdett
said, it was true that the second reading of the bill had been fixed for the 14th of April. That arrangement had been made with several friends of the measure; and it was understood that it would be convenient for all parties. He felt disposed to meet the wishes of the hon. gentleman, if it could be done without injurious delay to the bill; but, on a question of this importance, where the opinions of others were to be taken, he would not take upon himself to decide. He would therefore defer answering the hon. member's second question until to-morrow.
Mr. Secretary Peel
was anxious that the discussion on the second reading should be deferred at least a few days longer than that which the hon. baronet had named. It was three weeks since the hon. baronet obtained leave to bring in the bill. That time had been occupied in drawing it up, and it was not yet introduced. It was also understood, that new measures had been introduced into it, which had not been discussed or heard of on the former debate. It was therefore necessary that time should be given for the consideration of those measures, before the general discussion on the principle of the bill was gone into. Let the hon. baronet recollect that it would be necessary to communicate with Ireland on the subject of these new measures. To the friends of emancipation it must be important, that it should not owe its success to the unavoidable absence of
1135
Mr. Tierney
trusted, that the hon. baronet would not depart from the arrangement already made for the second reading of the bill. He was anxious, as a friend to the measure, that it should be forwarded from that House as early as possible, in order to give full time for its discussion in the other House Even without any alteration of the present arrangement, it could not go up to the other House before the end of the first week in May, which would not leave a very long time for its discussion, between that and the end of the session. The right hon. gentleman had said, that three weeks had elapsed since leave was given to bring it in, and that it had not yet been introduced. That was true; but let him recollect, that the Irish assizes had intervened, and that nothing could be done until they were ended, as so many gentlemen interested in the bill were absent. At all events, the non-introduction of the bill could make no difference, as it could not be read a second time till after the holy-days. He thought it would not be treating the other House fairly, if as much time as possible were not allowed them for the discussion of the measure. He did hope, therefore, that, considering the magnitude of this question, and the great importance that as little delay as possible should occur in its progress through that House, the hon. baronet would not give way.
Mr. Peel
hoped, that, in the expression of his wish for delay, it would not be imagined that he was actuated by any improper motive; but it was, in his opinion, important that full time should be given for the most mature consideration of this subject, and that a day should not be chosen for the discussion which might be found inconvenient to any party. The delay of a few days could not make any difference, as the discussion was on the principle of the bill. A call of the House was fixed for the 13th, and this discussion was to take place on the 14th. We were now near the holy-days, and they would last a fortnight; so that, in fact, very little time would be given for the consideration of the measure, if the discussion were fixed at so early a day after the meeting of the House. He repeated that so early a day
1136
Mr. Tierney
repeated his opinion, as to the importance of allowing as little delay as possible to take place in the progress of the bill; and assured the right hon. secretary, that though he saw no reasonable cause for acceding to his wish for postponement, he gave him full credit for the fairness of the motive which induced him to make the request.
Sir F. Burdett
said, it would be a great pleasure to him to find that he could accede to the wishes of the right hon. secretary, as he was anxious, as far as depended upon him, to consult the convenience of all parties; but, after the weighty reasons which had been stated by the right hon. gentleman below him, for proceeding with the measure without loss of time, the right hon secretary must allow him to take time till to-morrow, before he could give him any further answer.
IRISH POOR RELIEF BILL.]
Mr. Grattan,
in rising to ask for leave to bring in a bill for the Relief of the Poor in Ireland, said, that the object of this measure was to leave it optional in parishes to assemble in vestry to appoint a committee to investigate the state of their several parishes, to receive reports from such committee, and to collect subscriptions to relieve distress, in case the committee should be of opinion that distress existed. If the subscriptions should not be equal to the relief of the distress which they were intended to obviate, his plan was, to enable the vestry to assess the parish to a certain degree. As his bill was only an experimental measure, he designed to limit its duration to a given time, in the hope that during that interval some other plan might be devised to enable the poor of Ireland to support themselves. His bill had no resemblance to the Poor-law of England; though he must say, that if some system to relieve the poor had existed in Ireland in the years 1816 and 1822, all those evils which the country
1137
Mr. Goulburn
said, he had no intention of opposing this measure in its present stage. He thought that the best time of considering the merits of the bill would be on its second reading. It was a subject which required
deep
Sir H Parnell
hoped his hon friend would examine the case, as regarded Ireland, thoroughly; for if he did, he was satisfied he would see that the best policy was, to let the matter alone. If the poor-laws were introduced into Ireland, as appeared from the evidence before the committee on the state of that country, before a few years passed the whole rent of the landlords would be swallowed up in that gulf of national prosperity.
Mr. V. Fitzgerald
contended, that if a system of poor-laws were introduced into Ireland, it would perpetuate its poverty and degrade its population for ever. He regretted that his hon. friend had not deferred the introduction of his bill until the committee on the state of Ireland had brought in its report.
Sir James Mackintosh
said, he had only one observation to make on this question. It was his deliberate opinion, that the poor-laws were the only curse which had not been inflicted on Ireland; and he earnestly trusted, that the House would not consent to inflict it upon that country, after the experience it had had of their lamentable consequences in England.
Mr. Curwen
would not give any opinion upon this bill at present; but, when he heard so much said about the poor laws, he thought it right to mention a fact which had fallen under his own knowledge. Since the enactment of the law giving magistrates in England power to pass to Ireland such natives of that country as became chargeable to English parishes, the Irish in England had not only became more sober and industrious, but more prudent and provident than they had formerly been.
Mr. Baring
was of opinion, that the objection to the poor laws rose more out of the abuse than the use of them. He declined giving any opinion on the hon. gentleman's bill, because, to say the truth,
1138
Mr. M. Fitzgerald
doubted whether Ireland could ever be placed in a fit condition to receive a system of poor-laws. But though that was the case, the House would be wanting both in humanity and in good sense, if it shut its eyes to the condition of the poor of Ireland; most of whom were at that present moment thrown upon the state for support. He trusted that, if his hon. friend did not, some other member would, originate a bill which should do justice to the pressing nature of their wants and emergencies.
Mr. Carus Wilson
did not object to the poor-rates so much on account of their-burthen, as on account of the abuses connected with their administration.
Mr. Monck
said, he had formerly been hostile to the poor-laws, but had recently seen cause to alter his opinion. Had it not been for the poor-laws, he believed that the peasantry of England would, during the late winters, have been quite as turbulent as the peasantry of Ireland had been.
Mr. Bennett
was of opinion, that if the poor-laws were introduced into Ireland, manufactures would be established, and capital would flow into it. He was therefore glad that this bill was introduced as an experiment, and trusted that the hon. gentleman would persevere with it to the end; as, if it were carried, it must be productive of singular advantages to Ireland.
Leave was granted to bring in the bill.
LAW OF SETTLEMENT.]
Mr. S. Bourne
entered into a short history of the Law of Settlement, of the various changes that had been made in that law, and of its present state; and, observing that, in consequence of doubts that existed in the minds of many persons, and, among the rest, of a learned judge on a recent occasion, with respect to the construction of certain parts of that law, it was desirable that such an alteration in the law should take place as might remove all doubt upon the subject, moved for leave to bring in a bill "for alteration of the Law of Settlements, in so far as regards renting of tenements, and being assessed to the poor-rates.".
Mr. Curteis
approved of the principle of the bill, but wished that some securities should be introduced against persons: returning from sea after long absences, obtaining settlements.
Colonel Wood
was for a mixed calcula-
1139
l
Mr. Sykes
concurred in the principle of not adopting value as the criterion of settlement. The frauds to which the former course was opened were notorious; for upon any occasion three or four witnesses could be got to swear to property, whereas the evidence as to rating could be derived only from the parish books. He was friendly to any arrangement which would go to diminish the number of settlements.
Colonel Davies
recommended the repeal of all the present laws relating to settlement, and making birth the only claim to that provision.
Mr. Bennett
preferred rating to value, as the more simple of the two criterion?. The facility of producing the parish books in evidence of rating, was at all times preferable to oral evidence of the value of property.
Mr. S. Bourne
said, that one of his objects was, to render the parochial charges less burthensome. He had once attempted to establish the law on what he considered an equitable principle—a certain residence; but he had found it necessary to abandon if. He had formerly also desired to facilitate the acquisition of settlements. The observation, however, that the labouring residents in any parish who were not entitled to a settlement in that parish, were in general the most industrious and the best conducted, had induced him to change his opinion. He should be glad to ascertain, as extensively as possible, the general sentiments of the country, with respect to the objects of the bill for which he had just moved; and therefore after it was brought in, and the blanks were filled up in the committee, he should refrain from any further proceeding upon it until after the recess; in order that the details of the measure might be discussed at the quarter-sessions throughout the country.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.
WINE DUTIES BILL.]
The House resolved itself into a committee on this bill.
The Chancellor, of the Exchequer
said, that the only alteration in the resolutions
1140
s.
s.
d.
Mr. Hume
wished the right hon. genleman, for the benefit and encouragement of the trade, to make the duty 1
s.
d.
s.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he could not. comply with this suggestion. He had already met the trade half-way, and he generally found that to meet a party on such occasions half-way was to satisfy him.
Colonel Palmer
stated his reluctance in giving an opinion upon a subject wherein be was personally interested; but, considering himself in some measure to"be more acquainted with it than others, and perhaps enabled to give some information, he wished to make a few observations upon the reduction of the duties. It appeared to him that, unless means were taken to prevent the monopoly of the trade, the public would derive but little benefit from the measure. As to the port trade, the remedy was in the hands of the government, who had only to call on Portugal for the performance of her engagement, in the treaty of 1810, which would effectually protect the trade from the monopoly of the Oporto Wine Company, and at once throw it open for the benefit of both nations. As to French wines, and especially claret, the same monopoly existed, but from a different cause; that trade being governed, for the most part, by a few merchants at Bordeaux, who supplied a few merchants in London, who on their part considered the reduction of the duty as an injury, instead of benefit, to themselves. This was stated to him by an individual of the trade, before the reduction took place, who observed, that it would be injurious to his (the hon. member's) interest, as a claret-grower, by opening the market to the cheaper wines of France; but, however that might be, it would at least be a benefit to the public, and especially those who, from having visited France since the peace, preferred the wines of that country, to be enabled to purchase them at a price they could afford; whilst, on the other hand, looking to the principles of free trade adopted
1141
l
l
l
were
l
few
the
1142
Mr. Bernal
wished to submit to the right hon. gentleman one circumstance connected with the duties on wines, which appeared to him deserving of attention. It was known that, at present, independently of the duty on wine, there was
1143
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that undoubtedly the duty on bottles imported into England from wine countries, whether those bottles were full or empty, was about 8
d.
s.
d.
s.
CALEDONIAN CANAL BILL.]
On the bringing up of the report of this bill,
Mr. Hume
expressed a hope, that the chancellor of the Exchequer would, by advertisement, or in some other manner, dispose of the canal to some Joint-Stock Company. Such a measure would, he felt convinced, be productive of much advantage.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he had no objection to adopt the course pointed out by the hon, member, provided he would allow him to nominate him principal director [a laugh]. Mr. Alderman
Wood
The report was agreed to.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, March 23, 1825
ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL.]
Sir Francis Burdett
brought in a bill, "for the Removal of the Disqualifications under which his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects now labour," and moved that it be read a first time.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that before the bill was read a first time, he was anxious to know whether it was drawn up in conformity with the petition presented by the hon. baronet on the first of March?
Sir F. Burdett
replied, that the object
1144
Sir T. Lethbridge
said, he not only intended to object to the details of the measure, but to the principle upon which it was founded. Though the right hon. Secretary, to whom the country owed such a debt of gratitude for the strenuous and uniform resistance which he had offered to the claims of the Roman Catholics, had announced his determination not to offer any resistance to this bill until its second reading, he could not allow one single stage of it to pass by, without expressing his intention of giving it his decided opposition. Of the bill itself, he knew nothing at present; but he conceived it to be founded upon a series of resolutions, which the hon. baronet had carried after a speech of singular temper and moderation, which had conferred no less credit upon the hon. baronet, than it had advantage upon the cause he had advocated. He did not wish to give any unnecessary trouble to the House; but as there were several reports abroad respecting this bill, to which it was impossible that he could shut his ears, he begged leave to say a few words regarding them. He had heard, that this bill was framed, not merely on the resolutions which had been formally sanctioned by the House on a former night, but on several other principles, which had never been regularly submitted to its consideration. One of those principles, he understood, was the principle which had been promulgated by the hon. Secretary for the Admiralty. That principle, though it might not be new to those who had read the various treatises and pamphlets which had issued from the press on the subject of the Roman Catholic claims, was still new to the House of Commons. It had never till now been stated in the House, that a pecuniary establishment ought to be formed for the support of the clergy of the Roman Catholic church. [Sir F. Burdett here intimated this bill did not contemplate any such establishment.] He was glad to hear it. There was, however, he understood, an-other principle mixed up with it, which related to the elective franchise of Ireland.
1145
1146
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he did not rise with any intention of provoking any discussion, upon this stage of the bill. He rose to say a
few
1147
Mr. Tierney
said, that, after the candid and manly declaration of the right hon. Secretary, nobody could venture to accuse him of inconsistency in opposing the second reading of this bill, after he had acquiesced in the first reading of it. It was not, however, to make that observation that he now trespassed on the attention of the House; but to say a few words, by way of comment, on an assertion that had fallen from the right hon. Secretary. The right hon. Secretary had asserted, that it had been publicly notified to the world, that Mr. O'Connell was the person who had prepared the draught of the bill which the hon. baronet near him had just introduced. Now, as one of the committee which had been appointed to draw up this bill, he begged leave to say, that be knew of no such proceeding. Ever since the Catholic deputation had been in
1148
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he had not imputed any blame to the members of the committee. For the statement he had just made, he had no other authority than a letter from Mr. O'Connell, which he had read in the newspapers. The authenticity of that letter had never, he believed, been disputed. There was a distinct assertion in it, that the preparation of the draught of the bill had been committed to Mr. O'Connell; and it was upon that assertion, that he had made the remarks which he had just offered to the consideration of the House.
Lord Hotham
begged to put a question to the right hon. member for Knaresborough. Did this bill provide for the support of the Catholic clergy, or make any alteration in the elective franchise of Ireland? He should certainly vote against
1149
Mr. Tierney
replied, that it was impossible for the committee, after the instructions it had received from the House, to introduce in one bill three such distinct measures as Catholic emancipation, a provision for the Catholic priesthood, and an alteration of the elective franchise in Ireland. It was competent, however, to any member of parliament, to bring in a bill to effect either of the two measures to which the noble lord had referred. It had been the object of the framers of the bill to make it as palatable to all parties as they possibly could; but, on the subjects to which the noble lord alluded, they had not received any instructions. It was, therefore, no dereliction of duty on their parts, not to meddle with those subjects; on the contrary, it would have been a dereliction of it, had they ventured to undertake them.
The bill was then read a first time.
Sir F. Burdett
said, that with every desire to meet, as far as he could, the convenience of all parties, he felt, after long consideration, that he was compelled to adhere to the notice which he had originally given, and to bring on the second reading on the 14th of April.
Mr. Estcourt
lamented sincerely, that the hon. baronet could not postpone the second reading for a few days, on account of the inconvenience which it would occasion, not only to those members of the House who were magistrates, but to the magistracy of the country at large. He lamented it also upon another ground. If this bill—to which he intended to give his strenuous opposition—should be passed into a law, he should wish to see it digested with the utmost care and attention; so that it should be at least stripped of all that was objectionable as to time, arrangement, and so forth. Now, if this bill were to be hurried through the House at a time when half the members were absent in the discharge of other duties, it could not undergo that minute examination to which it would be subjected, if the House were full. An extraordinary time had been selected for the second reading of this bill. There was but one week in the whole session in which, by law, a large portion of members ought to be in their different counties, discharging their duties as county magistrates; and yet this was the very week selected for the discussion of this important question. If the hon.
1150
Mr. Sykes
said, that if he were merely to consider his own convenience, and that of the magistrates with whom he usuallyacted, he should take the same view as the hon. member who had just spoken. His hon. friend, the member for Westminster, had been at considerable pains in collecting the opinions of all parties, as to the proper time of bringing on this discussion; and, after consulting the convenience of all of them, he had felt himself under the necessity of adhering to his original resolution. One of the objections which had been raised by the last speaker might easily be obviated. It was not necessary that quarter-sessions should be held on the day oh which they were opened. They must commence on a certain day; but, after being opened, they might be, and often were, adjourned to other days, to suit the convenience of the magistracy.
Mr. C. Wilson
considered it unwise either to exclude these gentlemen from the discussion on so momentous a question, or to deprive their respective counties of their attendance at the quarter-sessions. He should move, therefore, as an amendment, that the second reading of the bill be fixed for the 20th of April.
Mr. Calcraft
entreated the hon. baronet not to turn a deaf ear to the appeal which had been so strongly made to him. Upon a question of this nature it was important to preserve unanimity. He therefore trusted that his hon. friend Would not bring forward a measure of this great consequence so near the holydays, that gentlemen who had country duties to attend to might not be put to inconvenience. Besides, it was unusual to have a call of the House upon the first day after the adjournment. A delay of three or four days in the proceedings of the Lords, at this period of the session, was not very important. For all these reasons, he hoped his hon. friend would fix the discussion, for the 20th or 21st.
Mr. Secretary Peel
trusted, that the hon. baronet, whose whole private life evinced such a disposition to candour and honourable dealing, would feel the necessity of postponing the discussion to such a period as would allow of the fullest attendance.
1151
Sir F. Burdett
trusted the House would give him credit for a desire to meet the wishes of all parties. As, however, such a feeling for further postponement was manifested, he should comply with it, and fix the second reading, for Tuesday the 19th of April.
On the motion of Sir John Newport, the call of the House was fixed for Monday, the 18th of April.
COPY OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC RELIEF BILL]
The following is a copy of the said bill, as brought in by Sir Francis Burdett:
A BILL to provide for the Removal of the Disqualifications under which his Majesty's Roman Catholic Subjects now labour.
WHEREAS the Protestant Succession to the Imperial Crown of this united kingdom and its dependencies, is, by the act for the further limitation of the Crown and the better securing the liberties of the subject, established permanently and inviolably:
And whereas the Protestant espiscopal Church of England and Ireland, and the doctrine, discipline, and government thereof, and likewise the Protestant Presbyterian Church of Scotland, and the doctrine, discipline, and government thereof, are, by the respective acts of Union between England and Scotland, and between Great Britain and Ireland, therein severally established permanently and inviolably:
And whereas after due consideration of the situation, dispositions, and conduct of his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects, it appears just and fitting to communicate to them the enjoyment of the benefits and advantages of the constitution and government happily established in this united kingdom, so that all his Majesty's faithful and dutiful subjects may grow into one nation; whereby there may be an utter oblivion and extinguishment of all former dissentions and discords between them, thus consolidating the Union between Great Britain and Ireland, and uniting and knitting together the hearts of all his Majesty's subjects in one and the same interest, for the support of his Majesty's person, family, crown, and government, and for the defence of their common rights and liberties:
And whereas by certain acts passed in the parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland respectively, certain declaration's, commonly called the declaration against Transubstantiation, and against Transubstantiation and the Invocation of Saints, and the sacrifice of the mass, as practised in the church of Rome, are required to be made and subscribed as qualifications for the enjoyment of certain offices and franchises: And whereas the said declarations are in the words following; that is to say:
"I, A. B. do declare, That I do believe,
1152
"I, A. B. do solemnly and sincerely, in the "presence of God, profess, testify and declare, That I do believe, that in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is "not any transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the body "and blood of Christ, at or after the consecration thereof, by any person whatsoever. And that the invocation or "adoration of the virgin Mary, or any "other Saint, and the sacrifice of the "mass, as they are now used in the church "of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous. And I do solemnly, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that I do make this declaration, and "every part thereof, in the plain and ordinary sense of the words read unto me, "as they are commonly understood by "English Protestants, without any evasion, equivocation, or mental reservation "whatsoever, and without any dispensation already granted me for this purpose by the pope or any other authority "or person whatsoever, or without thinking that I am or can be acquitted before "God or man, or absolved of this declaration, or any part thereof, although the "pope or any other person or persons, or "power whatsoever, should dispense with "or annul the same, or declare that it was "null or void from the beginning:"
And whereas the said declarations relate only to matters of spiritual and religious belief, which do not in any manner affect the allegiance of his Majesty's subjects:
May it therefore please your Majesty, That it maybe enacted; and be it enacted, by the king's most excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the lords spiritual and temporal, and commons, in this present parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, that all such parts of the said acts as require the said declarations, or either of them, to be made or subscribed as a qualification for the exercise or enjoyment of any office, franchise, or civil right, by any of his Majesty's subjects, be, and the same are, hereby absolutely repealed; save as hereinafter provided.
And whereas by divers acts passed in the said parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland respectively, the oaths of allegiance, supremacy, and abjuration, therein provided, are required to be taken, for certain purposes therein mentioned: And whereas his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in Great Britain and Ireland have been at all times ready and desirous to take the said oaths of allegiance and abjuration, in common with his Majesty's other subjects, but entertain scruples with respect to taking the oath of supremacy,
1153
"I, A. B. do sincerely promise and swear, "That I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to his present Majesty, and "will defend him to the utmost of my "power against all conspiracies and attempts whatever, that shall be made "against his person, crown, or dignity; "and I will do my utmost endeavour to "disclose and make known to his Majesty, his heirs and successors, all treasons "and traiterous conspiracies, which maybe "formed against him or them: And I do "faithfully promise to maintain, support, "and defend, to the utmost of my power, "the succession of the Crown, which succession, by an act, intituled, An Act "for the further Limitation of the Crown, "and better securing the Rights and "Liberties of the Subject,' is and stands "limited to the Princess Sophia, Electress "and Duchess Dowager of Hanover, and "the heirs of her body, being Protestants; "hereby utterly renouncing and abjuring "any obedience or allegiance unto any "other person claiming or pretending a "right to the Crown of these realms: "And I do swear, that I do reject and "detest, as unchristian and impious, the "position, that it is lawful to murder or "destroy any person or persons whatsoever, for or under pretence of their being "Hereticks or Infidels; and also, that "unchristian and impious principle, that "faith is not to be kept with Hereticks or "Infidels: And I do further declare, that "it is not an article of my faith, and that "I do renounce, reject and abjure the "opinion, that princes excommunicated "by the Pope and council, or any other "authority of the see of Rome, or by any "other authorities whatsoever, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or "by any person whatsoever; and I do "promise, that I will not hold, maintain "or abet any such opinion or any other "opinion, contrary to what is expressed "in this declaration: And I do declare, "that I do not believe that the Pope of "Rome, or any other foreign prince, prelate, state, or potentate, hath or ought to "have any temporal or civil jurisdiction, "power, superiority or pre-eminence, directly or indirectly, within this realm:
1154
"So help me GOD."
And that the person so taking, making, and subscribing the same, shall be capable of taking holding, and enjoying such right, office and franchise, as fully and effectually to all intents and purposes, as if such person had made, taken, and subscribed the said oath of supremacy; save as hereinafter provided.
Provided always, and be it further enacted, that nothing in this act contained shall extend or be construed to extend to dispense with, repeal or alter any of the laws now in force respecting the succession of the imperial Crown of these realms in the Protestant line, or respecting the marriages of the descendants of his late majesty king George the second, or for establishing the uniformity of public prayers or administration of sacraments in the united episcopal Church of England and Ireland.
Provided also, and be it further enacted, that nothing in this act contained shall be construed to enable any person or persons, otherwise than as they are now by law, enabled to hold, enjoy, or to exercise any office, beneficial place or dignity, of, in or belonging to the said united church of England and Ireland, or to the Church of Scotland, or any place or office whatever, of or belonging to any of the ecclesiastical courts of judicature of this realm, or any court of appeal from or review of the sentences of such court or courts, or of or belonging to any cathedral or collegiate or ecclesiastical establishment or foundation within the same; or any office or place whatever of or belonging to any of the universities of this realm, or any office or place whatever, and by whatever name the same may be called, of, in or belonging to any of the colleges or halls of the said universities, or of the colleges of Eton, Westminster, or Winchester, or any college or school of ecclesiastical foundation
1155
And be it further enacted, that it shall and may be lawful for any of his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects personally to appear in any of his majesty's courts of Exchequer, King's-bench, Common Pleas or Exchequer, at Westminster or Dublin, or before any judge of assize, or in any court of general quarter-sessions in Great Britain or Ireland, or in any of his majesty's courts of session, justiciary, or exchequer, or in any sberiff or Stewart court, or before the magistrates and councillors of the royal burghs, or before the council of their respective burghs in Scotland, and there, in open court, between the hours of nine in the morning and two in the afternoon, to take, make, and subscribe the said oath hereinbefore described to be taken; and that the proper officer of such court with whom the custody of such record shall remain, shall make, subscribe, and deliver a certificate of such oath having been duly made, taken, and subscribed, to the person who shall have so made, taken, and subscribed the same, as often as the same shall be demanded: and such certificate shall be sufficient evidence of such person having duly taken, made, and subscribed such oath as aforesaid; and that from and after the.
1156
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; be it therefore enacted, That it shall and may be lawful for his majesty, his heirs and successors, by a commission to be issued under the great seal of Ireland, to nominate and appoint such persons in holy orders professing the Roman Catholic religion, and exercising episcopal duties or functions in Ireland, as his majesty, his heirs and successors, or the lord lieutenant or lord deputy, or other chief governor or governors of Ireland, shall from time to time think fit to be commissioners under this act, for the purposes hereinafter mentioned.
And be it further enacted, That any number not less than of the said com-missioners, shall form a board for executing the several powers and duties by this act vested in the said commissioners.
And be it further enacted, That it shall and may be lawful for his majesty, his heirs and successors, from time to time, at his and their will and pleasure, to revoke and determin'e the commission aforesaid, or any commission issued under the provisions of this act, and to cause a new commission to issue instead thereof.
Provided always, and be it further enacted,
1157
"I, A. B. do promise and swear, That I "will, without favour or affection, prejudice or malice to any person whatsoever, "faithfully and impartially, and to the "best of my judgment and "discretion, execute and perform the duties of a commissioner vested in me by virtue of an "act of the fifth year of the reign of his "present majesty, intituled, 'An act,' "[here insert the title of the Act], and "will honestly and truly advise his majesty in all matters which shall come before me as a commissioner under the "said act; and that I will not directly or "indirectly publish, disclose, or make" known, except to his majesty, or by his "majesty's command, any matter or thing "whatsoever which shall come to my "knowledge by reason or in consequence "of my being a commissioner under the "said act.
"So help me GOD."
And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the said commissioners so to be appointed as aforesaid, or any of them, from time to time to certify to his majesty, or the lord lieutenant, lord deputy, or other chief governor or governors of Ireland, the appointment of any bishop or dean to be hereafter appointed in the said Roman Catholic church in Ireland; and which certificate shall be in the words following (that is to say):
"We do hereby certify, That A. B. having "been previously chosen and recommended by certain ecclesiastics of the "Roman Catholic church of Ireland, to be "a bishop or dean [as the case may be], "of the said church, has accordingly been "appointed a "bishop or dean [as the "case may be], of the said church: And "we do believe the said A. B. to be a "loyal subject of his majesty."
And they shall transmit a duplicate of such certificate to the bishop or dean named therein.
And be it further enacted, That every person who shall, after the commencement of this act, commence exercising the functions of a bishop or dean of the said Roman Catholic church in Ireland, shall, instead of the oaths now by law required to be taken by his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in Ireland, take, make, and subscribe the oath hereinbefore appointed to be taken by his majesty's said Roman Catholic subjects, instead of the said oath of supremacy; and shall, at the time of taking the same, deliver to the proper officer of the court
1158
And whereas it is fit to regulate the inter course and correspondence between his majesty's subjects of Ireland and the see of Rome; be it therefore further enacted, that from and after so often as any subject or subjects of his majesty in Ireland, shall receive any bull, dispensation, or other instrument, from the see of Rome, or from any foreign body or individual whatsoever, or from any person or body whatsoever in foreign parts, acting under the authority of the said see, or under that of any other spiritual superior, the person or persons so receiving the same shall within after receiving the same, deliver the same, or cause it to be delivered in the original, to the president of the said board of commissioners, who shall lay the same before the said board of commissioners, who shall forthwith inspect the same; and if the said board of commissioners shall not find any thing in the said instrument so submitted to their inspection, which shall appear to them to be in any way injurious to the safety or tranquillity of the United Kingdom, or to the Protestant establishment in church or state, they shall forthwith report the receipt thereof to the lord lieutenant, lord deputy, or other chief governor or governors in Ireland, and thereupon the said instrument shall be returned to the person by whom the same shall have been so submitted for inspection as aforesaid, with an indorsement signed by the president, signifying that the same had been duly inspected, and reported upon to the lord lieutenant, lord deputy or other chief governor or governors of Ireland, according to the provisions of this act.
Provided always, and be it further enacted, That when any person shall receive from the see of Rome, or from any authority under the same, an instrument which relates wholly and exclusively to the spiritual concerns of an individual or individuals, he shall so certify, within after he has received the same, and shall verify such certificate by the following oath:
"I A. B. do swear, That the instrument" (describing the instrument) which I "hereby acknowledge to have received "from the see of Rome (or from such "other bodies or persons, as the case may "be) under the authority of the see, as "relates wholly to the personal spiritual
1159
Which oath it shall and may be lawful for such person to take and subscribe before the said board of commissioners (who are hereby empowered to administer the same) or in any of the courts herein before mentioned, or be fore of his majesty's justices; if the person taking and subscribing the same shall be resident more than miles from Dublin, or shall from ill health or infirmity be unable to travel, and in every such case it shall and may be lawful for the said board of commissioners, in the exercise of their judgment and discretion, to direct the said instrument to be transmitted, sealed up, for the sole inspection and verification of the president of the said board; who shall inspect the same, and if he shall after such inspection certify that the said instrument, is in his conscientious opinion and judgment, of the nature described in the certificate and oath of the person by whom the same shall have been so transmitted as afore said, the receipt thereof shall be reported to the lord lieutenant, or lord deputy, or other chief governor or governors of Ireland, and thereupon the said instrument shall be returned, sealed up, to the person by whom the same shall have been so transmitted, after being indorsed by the said president.
And be it further enacted, That any person or persons in Ireland, receiving any such bull, dispensation, or other instrument as aforesaid, who shall so deliver the same, or cause it to be delivered in the original, or who shall so certify the receipt, and so describe and verify by oath the nature of the said instrument by him or them received as aforesaid, and whose certificate and oath shall be so confirmed and allowed as aforesaid, shall be free and exempt from all pains and penalties whatsoever, which he or they would be liable by any laws now existing in Ireland, against the receiving and publishing bulls, dispensations, or other instruments from the see of Rome, or from any authority or pretended authority under the said see.
And be it further enacted, That any person or persons so receiving any such bull, dispensation or other instrument as aforesaid, and not so delivering or causing to be delivered as aforesaid, either the said original instrument, or such certificate of the receipt thereof, ac-companied by such oath as hereinbefore prescribed; or who shall publish or put in execution, or be wilfully and knowingly concerned in publishing or putting in execution, any such bull, dispensation, or other instrument as aforesaid, in Ireland, before the same shall have been properly inspected and indorsed as aforesaid, shall be deemed and taken to be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall suffer such punishment as may by law be imposed upon persons guilty of a misdemeanor, instead of any punishment which such person would
1160
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday March 24, 1825
ILL TREATMENT OF ANIMALS BILL.]
Mr. R. Martin
rose, to ask for leave to bring in a bill to amend the act for preventing cruel and improper Treatment of Cattle. As the act now stood, for the most atrocious act of cruelty which a man could commit on any cattle which were placed under his care, the maximum of punishment that could be inflicted was a fine of 5
l
l
Mr. Heathcote
opposed the motion. He was averse to extending the punishment already awarded to offences of this nature, and more especially to leaving it within the discretion of the magistrate.
Mr. F. Palmer
was of opinion, that the hon. member had already proceeded too far with his legislation upon this subject, and he should therefore use every effort to prevent him from proceeding further. Since the hon. member had introduced his first bill for the protection of cattle, not a drover could touch an ox, not a hackney-coachman could whip a horse,
1161
Mr. Lockhart
thought the House had done itself great honour in passing the former bill which the hon. member for Galway had introduced upon this subject. By that bill they had consecrated the principle, that animals ought to be protected by legislative interference. In so doing, the House had, in his opinion, gone far enough; and he should therefore advise the hon. member not to press it to go further, nor to weaken the effect of his bill by perpetual legislation. That bill conferred great credit on the hon member, and had already effected a beneficial change in the manners of the people.
Mr. Warre
would consent to the introduction of the bill, though he would not pledge himself to support its details; with which at present he was utterly unacquainted. It was an argument in favour of it, that the act which it was intended to amend had been generally reprobated as useless before it was placed on the Statute-book, and was now universally admitted to be most beneficial, since the magistrates had begun to put it in operation.
Mr. C. Wilson
supported the motion.
Mr. Alderman Thompson
said, that the former bill had done great good, and particularly in Smithfield market. Though he was unwilling to go the length of making the offence a misdemeanor, he would still vote for the introduction of the bill.
Mr. Maxwell
supported the bill. There
1162
Mr. Martin
said, he could not have believed, that any hon. member would have stood forward, as the hon. member for Reading had done, to defend the barbarities which were practised upon horses, and cattle. With regard to the anecdote which the hon. member had related respecting his adventures with the hackney-coachman, he would merely observe that, upon the hon. member's own showing, the hackney-coachman had taken the worst course in the world with his restive horses. The hon. member must be little of an equestrian, if he was not aware, that the most certain way to make a horse a starter was to beat it when it did start. He was sure the hon. member's constituents would not like the hon. member the better, for the sentiments he had that night expressed. He said so, because he knew the hon. member would soon have a petition to present from them in favour of this bill. The hon. member, at the recurrence of another election, might find it difficult to secure his return ["order!"]. He was not out of order. He had one argument in support of his bill, which he thought would secure him the vote of the Attorney and Solicitor General. It was this. The present bill was a transcript of a bill which had been approved, some years ago, by all the law lords, by lord Ellen-borough, lord Erskine, and last, though not least, by the present lord chancellor. He did not expect that mention of this last name would at all injure this bill with those gentlemen who were of opinion that "whatever is, is best." The present lord chancellor had approved of this bill, when it was sent down from the Lords to that House. He therefore trusted that the House would allow this bill to be introduced, notwithstanding the invidious sarcasms which had been thrown upon it.
The House divided: Ayes 23. Noes 33. Majority against the motion, 10.
THREATENING LETTERS PUNISHMENT
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he rose pursuant to notice, to move for leave to bring in two bills, of which, as they both related to alterations in the criminal law, he proposed to explain the objects and details at the same time. By the first, it was proposed to introduce an important alteration in the law respecting the sending
1163
1164
1165
Mr. Bright
said, he highly approved of the measures which the right hon. gentleman had proposed, and which were urgently called for by the state of the criminal law. He wished to know whether the pardons to the convicts in New
1166
Mr. Secretary Peel
replied, that the cases to which the hon. member alluded had been provided for by a bill which he had brought in last session; so that it was unnecessary to make these pardons retrospective.
Mr. Bright
next asked, whether the act would extend to cases where pardons had been already imperfectly granted to persons in this country?
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that all cases wherein pardon under the sign-manual had been granted, should receive the benefit of this act.
Mr. Lockhart
thought the right hon. gentleman entitled to the thanks of the country, for the praise-worthy reforms which he was about to introduce into our criminal law. It was certainly most desirable that the quantum of punishment to every given offence should be as definite as possible; but, at the same time, care should be taken, that the granting of pardons was not dispensed so widely as to bestow an impunity to offenders. Considerable difficulty prevailed at present, as to the extent to which pardons from the Crown might be carried; as it appeared, in some cases, that the pardon had been given in plea for all offences committed antecedent to the date of that pardon, though such offences were distinct from that in which the mercy of the sovereign was extended. He advised a delay in the bill until information was obtained, as to the mischief which was likely to arise from that practice.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that a similar suggestion had been made to him by the hon. and learned member for Knaresborough, and he had no objection to put off the discussion until the necessary information could be obtained, with respect to the benefit of clergy. That was an obsolete and complicated system of punishment, and it was his wish to get rid of it altogether. The more simple the law was rendered, and the more defined the punishment of each offence, the better. It was in that spirit that these bills were conceived.
Mr. Spring Rice
recommended an extension of the principle of these bills to Ireland.
Mr. Bernal
said, he thought this a fit opportunity of alluding to a disgraceful
1167
Mr. Secretary Peel
assured the hon. member, that the subject had not escaped his attention. He had considered whether or not a caravan ought not to be procured, for the conveyance of prisoners from the police office to the gaols. But he had ascertained that the keeping up of such a conveyance would be exceedingly expensive; for, from the distance of the offices from each other, it would be necessary to have a caravan for each. As to the indecency of passing prisoners manacled through the streets, he concurred in all that the hon. member had said. In fact, be had sent to inform the different magistrates, that it was his wish that the prisoners should be passed in hackney coaches.
INDIAN ARMY.]
Mr. Hume
rose to make his promised motion for the production of papers relating to certain transactions in India. The subject to which he was about to call the attention of the House, was one of the utmost importance; but, before he entered upon the topic, he would advert to the very slight and indifferent manner, in which Indian affairs were often looked upon in that House. He was himself of opinion, that the authorities of this country were little calculated, at so great a distance, to legislate for the necessities of so vast an empire, and that the administration of Indian affairs was, therefore, very properly left in the hands of the persons appointed by the Crown to reside in that country. It was true, there was a law existing, and a rule laid down, by which the public authorities in India were called upon to report their proceedings to the government at home, and to obey whatever orders they might receive from England. The House must
1168
1169
1170
1171
1172
1173
1174
1175
1176
Mr. Wynn
said, that before he animadverted on the speech of the hon. member, he wished to express his entire concurrence in one observation which he had made, and that was, that in the administration of the government of a country so remote,
1177
1178
1179
1180
1181
Mr. Robertson
viewed this as a most serious question, and one on which the fullest information ought to be afforded. The present contest in India ought to be viewed, not merely with reference to the Burmese, but with reference to the contiguity of the Burman empire with the empire of China, which contained a population of 150 millions. He protested most strongly, against our waging any war in India, unless we were actually forced into it. It appeared to him, that the course adopted to put down the late mutiny had placed the life of every European in India completely in jeopardy. That the native troops were bold and resolute, could at once be proved by the well-known fact that three companies of them had put to the rout 11,000 of the Burmese troops. So formidable a body of men ought not to be treated with severity. He hoped that such information would be laid before parliament, as would enable gentlemen to understand correctly the present state of India.
Colonel Davies
lamented the conduct pursued towards the troops who had mutinied. The unfortunate people would he was sure, have laid down their arms, if properly spoken to; but when they had no expectation of it, artillery which had been designedly brought to bear on them was discharged. The very idea of such cruelty was sufficient to make a man's blood boil in his veins. He had, himself, no means of personal observation; but he had spoken to many officers of experience in India, and heard from them that there did not breathe braver troops than the Sepoys. They were, if required, ready to brave any danger—to go even to the cannon's mouth; but, by the subsequent proceedings, what were they? The officers were branded with disaffection—they were characterised as unworthy of confidence, and dismissed with disgrace. Such conduct made him blush for the British name. From these things we were well able to judge what lord Amherst was capable of doing on other matters. He did not know whether his hon. friend meant to persevere in his motion to a division. If he did he should certainly support him; and he hoped that his hon. friend, whether successful or not, would follow up the motion of that night, until the whole of these most extraordinary proceedings were thoroughly made known.
1182
Mr. Fremantle
owned he was astonished at some of the observations which had been made by the gallant officer who had just sat down. Considering the profession of that gallant colonel—considering his character and his experience—he should have thought it impossible for him, as a military man, not to have perceived the absolute necessity which existed, of putting down the mutiny at Barackpore by the most prompt and decisive measures. And when that gallant officer spoke of no remonstrance having been made with the men, and no warning having been given them, he could not restrain his astonishment; because it was well known that at that very moment a military inquiry was going on, and that it was not even attempted to put down the mutinous spirit which had broken out by having recourse to force, until every thing had been done to prevent those misguided men from going on and bringing ruin upon themselves. The gallant officer had, indeed, stated one thing which was most true. He had said, that there was no army more able, none more sincerely attached to their commanding officers, none more faithfully brave in the encountering of the enemy, than the native troops of India. This truth had been established for these fifty years past, by actions the most glorious, not only to the admiration of India, and all Europe, but to every one who considered or felt for the interests of England throughout that extensive empire. This mutiny, however, he would say, was one that required to be immediately suppressed—a mutiny, founded upon what? Why, upon an order for marching against the enemy. He was really astonished to hear the gallant officer state that the severity used towards men guilty of such insubordination on such a ground, was too much. He would affirm, that the severity was not too great; nor did he, indeed, conceive any severity at all to have been exercised, inasmuch as that every effort had been previously made to induce those men to put down their arms. It had been objected, that this mutiny was but partial, and did not, therefore, demand such decisive measures for its suppression. But, the danger was not merely that which arose from the insubordination of that particular regiment: it consisted in this, that so long as this mutinous spirit was allowed to exist, there was ground for apprehending its spreading throughout every regiment on that expedition. The
1183
1184
1185
l
Colonel Baillie
said, that gentlemen ought not to indulge in anticipations. of the final ill-success of a war, because it had commenced unfavourably. In the beginning of the Nepaul war our arms were not successful. One part of the army, commanded by a most excellent
1186
1187
Sir C. Forbes
said, that, in spite of any observations which might be made by gentlemen in office, he would speak his sentiments, as to the course of policy pursued by lord Amherst, with the utmost freedom. With respect to any prejudice which might have been raised against lord Amherst, on account of the alteration he had made in the table of precedence, he certainly did not participate in it. On the contrary, he gave him the highest credit for his conduct on that occasion; and he also gave credit to the president of the Board of Control, who, he believed, had supported the alteration proposed by lord Amherst, which gave a certain degree of precedence to the lady of commodore Hayes. With respect to the suppression of the mutiny, he considered it one of the most barbarous murders that had ever been perpetrated. How had the mutiny originated? The troops were ordered, at a day's notice, to march from Putra to Barackpore (a distance of 1,000 miles) to join the British army. He knew this from a letter which he had received, and which was written, not after the mutiny, but before it broke out. This march was ordered in the monsoon season—a very unhealthy period of the year. On ordinary occasions, these troops, when changing their cantonments, were allowed coolies, bullocks, & c, to carry their luggage; but, on this occasion, that was not the case. They were ordered to fall into the ranks with their arms and accoutrements: their knapsacks, in particular, were directed to be fastened on. They declined this. They said "We are not coolies; we will not degrade ourselves by carrying our cooking utensils on our
1188
1189
Sir J. Sebright
protested strongly against the course pursued by the hon. baronet, who had read with so much emphasis a letter from a lady. No doubt he wished to make his speech as interesting by this
1190
Sir C. Forbes
denied, that he founded his opinions on that private letter. He had received scores of letters, all in the same tone; and was of the same opinion long before he had seen the letter to which he had referred.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
reminded the House that they had been now for two hours listening to speeches on the whole state of India, and containing the most pointed and extraordinary assertions he had ever heard made against any set of people engaged in the service of the public. It was not lord Amherst alone that was attacked; the commander-in-chief had been attacked also. But, what had the conduct of lord Amherst and sir Edward Paget to do with the question before the House? The motion was, to produce a military despatch—not of sir Edward Paget—not of the year 1824; but actually, a military despatch of the marquis of Hastings in the year 1819. He perceived the mode in which, with some ingenuity, but with very little fairness, the hon. member thought he had connected his attack upon lord Amherst with this despatch. It was a document which referred to the allowances of the Bengal army at that date. But the hon. member had forgotten, or perhaps was not aware, that in fact, the paper did not bring his observations within the record; for it concerned the pay and allowances of only the European officers. He did think that, when gentlemen came forward to
1191
Mr. Bright
by no means agreed with the right hon. gentleman in his view of the subject, and strongly objected to much of the conduct which had been pursued during the late mutiny. The general order which had been issued subsequent to that event was a reflection upon the whole body of the native officers of India, and a most unjust one. The course which had been adopted with reference to the officers of the regiment which had mutinied, was still more ill-judged, for they seemed entirely to have done their duty on the occasion. The whole appearance of things in that quarter of the world was most alarming; and he trusted the House would examine into the causes of the discontent, and not rest satisfied with such answers as had been received that night. When lord Amherst went to India, all was at peace. It was now in a state of disturbance and danger; and that, as he conceived, furnished a sufficient reason for agreeing to the motion.
Mr. Astell
said, that the papers connected with the Burmese war were now on the table. As for the question of the mutiny, he should not enter into it now. It was enough for him to say, that the committee of inquiry was still sitting, and to call upon the House to suspend its
1192
Mr. F. Palmer
said, he had not heard a single syllable to prevent him from voting for the motion. He was satisfied that there was as general a discontent in the army of India against the government at home, as ever made its appearance in any army. He believed that the comforts alluded to by the hon. director, were withdrawn from the army by the paltry and miserable economy of the directors; that the army was not in a state to take the field; and that young and raw cadets were sent to take command, without understanding a military movement, or a word of the language.
Mr. Wigram
opposed the motion, and vindicated the conduct of the East-India Directors towards the army.
Mr. Trant
observed, that the state of the army was not worse than it had been some years ago, and believed that the regulations intended for its advantage had been carried into effect.
Mr. Warre
expressed his surprise at the charge which was thrown out against the hon. mover, and the hon. baronet, for sliding into discussions upon the state of India, with which the papers moved for were intimately connected. Nothing could be more consistent with parliamentary usage than to introduce matter, though not strictly and technically before the House, provided such matter had an obvious, though a general, connexion with the subject. So far was he from feeling that there was any unfairness in the motion, that his only surprise was, that so many weeks should have been permitted to pass over without bringing the question before the House. When the Sepoys were disaffected—when the British troops were repulsed, and the regiments returned skeletons from the seat of war—it was time to feel alarm and adopt inquiry; and upon that ground he should support the motion.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he
1193
Mr. Hume
, in reply, said, that the right hon. the chancellor of the Exchequer could not have understood his speech, or not have heard it: he must have been asleep while he (Mr. Hume) was making his statement, for he could not have so far departed from his usual candour, as to have taken it up in the manner he had done, if he had attended to him. He would defy the right hon. gentleman, or any friend of lord Amherst, to produce a single letter in which the conduct of that noble lord was approved of. As to the conduct of the Sepoys, he was confident that it arose from an improper interference with their prejudices. An hon. baronet had said, that the House ought to be in the possession of official papers before they condemned. It was for official papers that he was now asking, and yet government had refused to produce them. It was said, that the changes with respect to the army were not to take place for three years; but, were not the rumours of such changes likely to have an effect at present? They were already in possession of a few meagre details, and why were they refused a full disclosure, if there was no reluctance on the part of government to meet the question? He held in his hand a gazette, printed under the authority of the government of India, out of which he could condemn them upon their own shewing. He had also a circular addressed to the editors of newspapers, desiring them, in the name of the government, not to notice the conduct of the forty-seventh regiment.—He was sorry that his hon. friend, (Mr. Trant) had not expressed in the House the opinion which he had delivered elsewhere, on the total want of confidence in lord Amherst's government, which pervaded not only the Bengal community, but every department of India. He had done his duty in bringing the question before the House, and he"had heard no valid reason for opposing it.
The House divided: For the Motion 15; Against it 58.
List of the Minority.
Davies, col.
Forbes, sir C.
Evans, W.
Gurney, H.
1194
Leycester, R.
Tulk, J. A.
Martin, J.
Warre, J. A.
Maxwell, J.
Wharton, J.
Monck, J. B.
Wood, ald.
Palmer, C. F.
TELLERS
Robertson, A.
Bright, H.
Russell, lord
Hume, J.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, March 25, 1825
EQUITABLE LOAN BILL—JOINT-STOCK
The Earl of Lauderdale
presented sundry petitions against the Equitable-Loan Bill. After which, the noble lord said, that when the noble lord who was to move the second reading of the bill, should do so, he should move their lordships that these petitioners be heard by counsel at their lordships' bar, against the principle of the bill; and he thought he should then be able to make out such a case, that their lordships could not refuse to grant the prayer of the petition. He would not then enter into any observations on the fury for Joint-Stock Companies which has taken possession of the people. But, in dealing with the present bill, their lordships would have to consider, not only this measure but in what way they should stem the torrent for speculation, which bid fair to do more mischief in this time of peace than he ever recollected. He would ask their lordships to consider, what might be the consequence to the country, and to the persons involved in those speculations, if a war were to break out? There were at present placed at the command of the directors and other managers of Joint-Stock Companies, more than 200,000,000
l
The Earl of Liverpool
wished to take that opportunity of saying a few words on the subject which had just been alluded to, not, however, with reference to this particular bill, or any measure of the kind. In a country like this, where extensive commercial interests were constantly at work, a great degree of speculation was unavoidable, and, if kept within certain limits, this spirit of speculation was attended with much advantage to the country. In a moment like the present, in a time of profound peace, and when the interest of money was low, it was to be expected that speculation would exist in a very considerable degree. To this he had no objection; but he wished that the
1195
The Lord Chancellor
said, that he ought
1196
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, March 25, 1825
FOREIGN COMMERCE OF THE COUNTRY.]
The House having resolved itself into a committee to consider of the consolidated Custom Duties,
Mr. Huskisson
rose and spoke, in substance, as follows:—
*
Sir;—In requesting the attention of the committee, whilst I state (in continuation of the subject which I had the honour to open on Monday last) the alterations which I propose to recommend in the duties levied upon the importation of materials employed in some of our principal manufactures, and also in the prohibitory duties now imposed upon the manufactured productions of other countries, I need scarcely bespeak the disposition of the committee to countenance the principle of these proposals, so far as they shall be found not inconsistent with the protection of our own industry. I feel the more assured of this general disposition in the committee, not only as it was manifested on the former evening, but also from the experience, which the House and the country now have of the benefits to be derived from the removal of vexatious restraints, and meddling interference, in the concerns of internal industry, or foreign commerce.
However confident either my right hon.
*
1197
The committee will recollect that, when the change was made last year in the system of our Silk trade, one great alteration was the substitution of an advalorem duty of 30
l.
l.
1198
Having thus ruled that 30
l.
To bring this subject more particularly before the House, I will begin with our greatest manufacture, that of cotton. It will not be denied that, in this manufacture, we are superior to all other countries: and that, by the cheapness and quality of our goods, we undersell our competitors in all the markets of the world, which are open alike to us and to them. I do not except the market of the East Indies (the first seat of manufacture), of which it may be said to be the staple, where the raw material is grown, where labour is cheaper than in any other country, and from which England and Europe were, for a long time, supplied with cotton goods. Now, however, large quantities of British cottons are sold in India at prices lower than they can be produced by the native manufacturers. If any possible doubt could remain that this manufacture has nothing to apprehend from competition any where, and, least of all, from a competition in our own home market, it must vanish when I state to the committee, that the official value of cotton goods, exported last year, amounted to the astonishing sum of 30,795,000
l.
l.
l.
s.
l.
It is impossible not to smile at the discriminating shrewdness which made these distinctions, and which could discover that, with a protection of 67
l.
1199
l.
From cotton, I proceed to woollens, one of our oldest manufactures—that which has been most nursed and dandled by the legislature—a favourite child, which like other favourites, has, I suspect, suffered, rather than profited, by being spoilt and petted in rearing; whilst its younger brother of cotton, coming in to the world much later, has thriven better by being much more left to rough it, and make its own way in life. Some detailed and authentic history of the paternal and zealous solicitude with which our ancestors in this House interposed to protect the woollen manufacture (should such a history ever be written), will alone preserve future generations from incredulity, in respect to the extent to which legislative interference was once carried in this branch of internal industry. Within my own time, regulating acts, dealing with every minute process of the manufacture, have been repealed by the score; as have also heaps of other laws, equally salutary and wise, prescribing the mode of clipping wool, its package, the time to be allowed, and the forms to be observed, in removing it from one place to another—laws, the violation of which, in some instances, amounted to felony, but which now no longer disgrace the Statute-book. Fortunately for the cotton manufacture, it was never favoured with this species of protection, so abundantly lavished upon woollen, and which was only withdrawn last year from silk, by the repeal of the Spitaifields acts.
I am well aware that this retrospect to
1200
The quantity of cotton wool imported into Great Britain, in the year ended the 5th of January, 1765, was about 3,360,000
lbs.
l.
The quantity of cotton wool imported in the year ended the 5th of January, 1825, was 147,174,000
lbs.
l.
The quantity of lamb and sheeps' wool imported in the year 1765, was 1,926,000
lbs.
l.
The quantity of lamb and sheeps' wool imported in the year 1825, was23,858,000
lbs.
l.
Perhaps I may just add, that the quantity of raw silk imported in 1765, was 418,000
lbs;
lbs.
In submitting these satisfactory statements, I cannot refrain from calling the attention of the committee to one observation which they suggest to my mind. It must, I think, be admitted, that, in the year 1765, the whole quantity of sheeps' wool grown in this country could not be nearly so great as at present, when, owing to the many improvements in husbandry, and particularly in the art of raising winter food for the flocks, the number of sheep must be greatly increased; and yet the, quantity of wool imported in that year, was not one-twelfth of the quantity imported in 1825. Out of this aggregate supply from home growth, and foreign import, the whole wants of our own population were supplied in 1765, leaving to the amount of 5,159,000
l.
l,
l.
1201
The present rates of duty on foreign woollens vary from 50
l.
l.
s.
l.
The next great branch of manufacture is that of linens:—this also has been the object of more nursing and interference than were good for its healthy and vigorous growth. But not to weary the committee with details, I will proceed at once to state, that the present duties, which are very complicated, fluctuate from 40
l.
l.
l.
In like manner the duties on paper, which are now altogether, prohibitory, I propose to reduce, so that they shall not exceed double the amount of the excise duty payable upon that article manufactured in this country. This reduction will extend to printed books, which now pay, if in any way bound, 6
l.
s.
l.
1202
l.
s.
l.
Upon glass, the present duty, which is 80
l.
l.
s.
d.
Upon all descriptions of foreign earthenware, an article with which we supply so many other countries, the present duty is 75
l.
l.
l.
To foreign gloves, another manufacture, now altogether prohibited, but which are to be bought in every shop, I apply the same observation, and the same measure of duty, 30
l.
I now come to the metallic substances. —The amount of the reduction which I propose upon Iron, from 6
l.
s.
l.
s.
1203
1204
The next metal upon which I have to propose a reduction, is copper. The duty, which in 1790 did not exceed 10
l.
l.
1205
l.
l.
1206
There is another metallic substance, in some degree connected with the copper manufacture, the duty upon which ought to be considerably lowered.—I mean zinc, commonly known in trade under the name of spelter. This semi-metal enters, in the proportion of about one-third, I understand, into the composition of brass. The selling price of spelter, on the continent, is about 20
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
Upon tin, the present duty is excessive. It is an article of which we have more the command, and is of less extensive consumption. I propose, however, to reduce the duty more than one half—from 5
l.
s.
d.
l.
s.
The duty on lead is now 20
l.
l.
There are several other enumerated articles in the Book of Rates, upon which I propose to reduce the duties upon the same principle. I should only weary the committee by going through the detail of these alterations-—they will be found in the schedule annexed to one of the resolutions which I shall submit for their consideration. Perhaps, however, I ought to
1207
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
The result of the alterations, which I have now stated to the committee, will be this — that upon foreign manufactured articles generally, where the duty is imposed to protect our own manufactures, and not for the purpose of collecting revenue, that duty will, in no instance, exceed 30
l.
1208
l.
l.
1209
With the knowledge of this fact, that we furnish, in a proportion far exceeding the supply from any other country, the general markets of the world, with all the leading articles of manufacture, upon which I have now proposed greatly to lower the duties, I own that I am not afraid of this country being overwhelmed with foreign goods. Some, I know, will come in, which are now excluded; I shall be glad of it. In various ways, their admission will be beneficial to the general interests of the country. That it cannot be extensively injurious to any of those interests, may be inferred, not only from the arguments with which I have already troubled the committee, but from actual experience. In the year 1786, we entered into a commercial treaty with France.
1210
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
I know it may be objected, that a great change has taken place, in the situation of the British manufactures, since the French treaty of 1786, that we have been engaged in a long and expensive war, and that we have now to support the weight of a great many new and heavy taxes. I admit that such is the case: other countries, however, have not been exempted from the calamities of war; their taxes, too,
1211
I expect further to be told, as a general objection to the course which I now recommend—Indeed I have already been told, in the correspondence which I have felt it right to hold with some of our most intelligent and accomplished merchants and manufacturers on this subject, before I brought it before this committee—that in 1786, we had insured from France, by treaty, a reciprocity of commercial advantages; but that, at present, we have made no such arrangement. This objection, I admit, in one respect, deserves consideration. I mean in its relation to the foreign market—with regard to the danger of our being under-sold in our own market,
1212
"Subscribing, as I do, to every one of the advantages stated in your letter, I will not occupy your time by going further into the subject; at the same time, I must not lead you to suppose that such a measure is likely to be adopted, without some opposition from manufacturers, who have all their old prejudices to remove before they can subscribe, in their own case, to the sound principles of free commercial intercourse, which you are, so much to the public advantage, endeavouring to establish. Believe me, that no one takes a deeper interest than I do in the success of all such measures; and I am certain that the adoption of such a plan as we are now talking of, will go far in its consequences, to satisfy persons both at home and abroad, of the benefits that will arise to all countries from the general establishment of such measures. It is no doubt true, that it will be argued that such concessions ought not to be granted to foreign States, without being accompanied by some stipulation for the admission into their consumption of some of our produce or manufactures, on the payment of a moderate duty. But in my view of the case, we ought not to suffer ourselves to be influenced by such reasoning, since our whole object being to benefit ourselves, our inquiry is naturally confined to the consideration of whether such a mode of acting be really advantageous, independent altogether of what may be done by the
1213
In the last sentence of this letter, the writer has, I believe, stated the real grounds which may still, for some time, prevent foreign States from following our example, namely, "their ignorance of their own true interests, or their incompetence to carry their own views into effect." But let my right hon. friend, the chancellor of the Exchequer, continue his good practice of coming down to this House, session after session, to accumulate fresh proofs, that the removal of restrictive impositions and excessive duties is not diminution, but, frequently, increase of revenue:—Let foreign countries see him, year after year (and I hope he will long be able to do so), largely remitting public burthens, and at the same time exhibiting a prosperous Exchequer, still flowing to the same perennial level; and, I have no doubt, when the governments of the continent shall have contemplated, for a few years longer, the happy consequences of the system in which we are now proceeding, that their eyes will be opened. They will, then, believe—but, at present they do not— that we are sincere and consistent in our principles; and, for their own advantage, they will, then, imitate us in our present course, as they have, of late, been adopting our cast-off system of restrictions and prohibitions. That they have, hitherto, suspected our sincerity, and looked upon our professions as lures to ensnare them, is not very surprising, when they compared those professions with that code of prohibition which I am now endeavouring to pare down and modify to a scale of moderate duties. At the same time, as a stimulus to other countries to adopt principles of reciprocity, I shall think it right, to reserve a power of making an addition of one-fifth to the proposed duties, upon the productions of those countries which may refuse, upon a tender by us of the like advantages, to place our commerce and navigation upon the footing of the most favoured nation. I need scarcely add, that no part of these arrangements will interfere with the power of the Grown, to enter into specific trea-
1214
Having now stated the alterations which I intend to propose, with regard to the protecting and prohibitory duties, I have only to add that, with a view to give the British manufacturer every fair advantage in the competition with which he has to contend in the foreign market, it is desirable to consider how far this object can be promoted, by a reduction of some of the duties now levied upon the raw materials, which he is obliged to use in his manufacture.
During the exigencies of the late war, duties were laid, or increased, upon various articles used in dyeing. The revenue derived from these duties is not considerable: but in proportion to the amount of the charge, must be the increased price of the manufactured commodity. Be that charge, upon our woollen cloths, for instance, only 1 or 2 per cent, even this small addition in the present open competition of the foreign market, may turn the scale against us, and ought therefore, to be withdrawn. On most of the articles in question, I shall propose a large reduction in the existing rate of duty. They are so numerous that I shall not weary the patience of the committee, by mentioning them specifically: they will all be found in the schedule, which will form part of the intended resolutions. To one or two articles, however, not included under the class of dyeing drugs, I must beg leave shortly to refer. Olive oil is very much used in the manufacture of the finer woollen cloths.—The duty upon it was somewhat more than doubled during the war. I propose to reduce it to a rate rather below that of the year 1790; from 15
l.
s.
l.
1215
All these reductions I consider to be right and proper in principle; but, as measures calculated to afford encouragement and assistance to our manufactures, I am particularly anxious to propose them at the same time when I am bringing forward other measures not unlikely, till better understood, to excite alarm in particular quarters. Some of the duties which I am now dealing with, I am aware, were imposed to the purposes of revenue; it may, therefore, be thought, that in repealing them, I am travelling out of my own department, and encroaching, in some degree, upon that of the chancellor of the Exchequer. But my right hon. friend, I have no doubt, will forgive me where the pecuniary sacrifice is trifling, and the re-
1216
I now come to the last of the three heads, into which I have divided the subject, to be submitted to the committee— the means of affording some further encouragement to the shipping and navigation of the empire. There is already a bill on the table which will contribute very essentially to the relief of that important interest. I mean the bill which repeals all the quarantine duties. They operated as a very considerable burthen, unfairly placed on the particular ships and goods which were compelled to perform quarantine. This was a precaution adopted, not for the special advantage of those engaged in any particular trade-on the contrary, to them the detention and loss of time were great inconveniences however unavoidable—but for the general protection and safety of the community. The committee of Foreign Trade was, therefore, perfectly justified in recommending that the expense of quarantine should be borne by the country at large, and not by any particular class in it; and a bill has been brought in, accordingly by my right hon. friend, the vice president of the Board of Trade. Another measure of substantial relief, now in contemplation, I have already mentioned to the House, but I am convinced, from the communications which I have since received, that I, then, underrated its importance. That measure is the abolition of fees upon shipping and trade in our colonies. Besides the vexation and liability to abuse, inseparable from the present system, I know that in many instances, the fees alone, upon a ship and cargo, amount to much more than all the public duties collected upon the same.
The next measure, which I have to propose, is the repeal of the Stamp duty now payable upon the transfer of a whole ship, or of any share in a ship, from one person to another. A ship, I believe, is the only
1217
There is also another stamp duty, in respect to which I am anxious to afford relief, I mean the duty on debentures for the payment of drawbacks, and on bonds, given by the merchants, for the due delivery of the goods which they have declared for exportation. I propose this relief, partly upon the same principle as that which I have stated in respect to the transfer of ships. These bonds are not entered into for the benefit of the merchant, but for the security of the revenue; besides, from their being ad valorem stamps, they frequently lead to great abuses and perjury. I will not trouble the committee with details upon this subject. I propose to reduce these stamps to a fixed duty of only 5
s.
As connected with the same subject— the relief of our commerce and shipping from direct pecuniary charges—I beg leave now to call the attention of the committee to the change which I shall propose in the system of our consular establishments in foreign ports. These establishments are regulated by no fixed principle, in respect to the mode of remunerating the individuals employed in this branch of the public service. In one port,
1218
1219
l.
If this change should be approved of by the House, the effect will be the abolition, generally, of all the present fees payable to our consuls, either upon ships or goods, in foreign ports. Certain small fees would still remain for personal acts that a consul may be called upon to perform, such as notarial instruments, and other documents to which his attestation or signature may be required. Those fees will be specified in the bill, and will be reduced to the most moderate amount. In regard to another expense, provided for, in certain ports, by a tax upon shipping—I mean the maintenance of a place of worship, the payment of a chaplain, and other charges of that description—I trust that the British merchants and inhabitants residing at, or resorting to, those ports, will find no difficulty in raising, by a small voluntary rate among themselves, a sufficient sum for these purposes. But, as an encouragement to them to provide the means of performing the important duties of religion, I shall propose, in the bill, to give a power to the government, to advance a sum equal to the amount of any subscription which may be so raised, either for erecting a place of worship, providing a burial ground, or allotting a suitable salary to a chaplain, in any foreign port, where a British consul may reside.
Having now stated the outlines of the plan, which I have to propose, for the improvement of our consular system, it only
1220
If this change in the mode of appointing the consuls in the Levant, be called for upon political grounds, it would be highly absurd not to take advantage of
1221
I have now travelled over the wide field of the alterations, which I undertook to submit to the committee, in the commercial concerns of this county. I wish that my statement, to many members of this House comparatively uninteresting, had been more perspicuous, for the sake of those who have paid attention to this subject. I was desirous to bring it under consideration, before the recess, in order that the details might be dispassionately and generally considered by the several interests, throughout the country, which are likely to be affected by the measures which I have now proposed. They are open to alterations, and to amendment.
1222
Mr. Alderman Thompson
expressed his hearty concurrence in every proposition which had been laid down by the right hon. gentleman, whose luminous and able exposition of the truly fundamental principles of commercial policy challenged the admiration of every friend to the country. The right hon. gentleman's plans were calculated to afford the greatest relief to commerce, and would eventually extend our trade. There was no part of the plan which did not meet his approbation; and, upon the question of the iron duty, with which he was best acquainted, he wished to say he entirely coincided with the right hon. gentleman. Being upon his legs, he would take the opportunity of correcting some misapprehensions which had gone abroad, respecting his motives for the opinion which he gave upon this question on a former night. It was well known that he was extensively concerned in the iron trade, and the course which he had taken on the occasion in question, was supposed to have reference to his interest in the trade. He would not condescend to enter into his defence further than to say, that he had had no previous communication with the right hon. gentleman, and that he knew nothing of the proposed reduction on iron, until he had heard it stated by the right hon. gentleman to the House. He was aware, from private information, that there were two foreign countries competing with the English iron manufacturer; but he had also ascertained, that they could never bring an article into the English market, at a price lower than would remunerate our manufacturers. It
1223
Sir H. Vivian
approved of the general policy of the proposed measure. Whatever seeming advantages might be given to the foreign artizan, he looked upon all apprehensions as to the ultimate result as visionary; for the industry and integrity of our merchants would carry them beyond those of any other country whatever. It might be well to introduce the raw material upon the lowest possible terms, in order to enable our manufacturers to compete with foreigners; but it was a question deserving of consideration, whether, in some particulars, the principle might not be carried so far as to prejudice interests in this country. He spoke more particularly with respect to copper mines, in which large sums had been of late years invested. It appeared that there were now from 70,000 to 100,000 persons employed in the copper mines, and a capital of 2,440,000
l.
l.
l.
1224
Sir M. W. Ridley
agreed in many of the general principles laid down by the right hon. gentleman, but solicited explanation from him, with respect to the proposed diminution of duty on the importation of foreign bottles. The manufacturers of English bottles had now to compete with a new class of tradesmen who had lately risen up, and were known by the title of "Dealers in old bottles." The competition was quite enough with these dealers, without exposing the manufacturers to a further competition with foreigners. The article of kelp was material in the manufacture of bottles; and at present there was so high a duty upon this commodity, that the bottle manufacturers were obliged to make use of Scotch kelp, which was of a very inferior nature. He highly approved of the abolition of the duty upon the transfer of the property in ships.
Mr. Baring
expressed his satisfaction at the adoption, by his majesty's government, of the leading principles of that commercial system of policy which they now professed to support. He was aware that such great changes could not be effected, without materially affecting existing private interests; but, this must always occur when they were returning to sound principles. A peculiar service, as it was called, to one interest, led to the same benefit to another; until the whole system became at length artificial and injurious to the general mass. What he most approved in the right hon. gentleman's proposed alteration was, that it went upon general principles, without
1225
1226
1227
Mr. Littleton
stated, that, in his opinion, the measures now proposed by the administration were calculated to excite throughout the country the highest degree of apprehension and alarm. As the representative of a manufacturing country, he thought it his duty to deliver his sentiments to the House. The member for Newcastle had thought proper to stand forward as the representative of the "Second-hand bottle trade," and a gallant officer had advanced as the champion of the Cornish miners. He would, therefore, profess himself the representative of a set of miners of a very different description. The manufacturers of Staffordshire were likely to feel themselves seriously affected by the changes proposed, with reference to foreign earthenware and china. The proposed reduction upon iron was directed against the makers of charcoal and coke iron. But, with respect to the proposed reduction of duty upon earthenware and china, the British trade did not enjoy a fair competition with the trade of any part of the world. Under the protection of a high duty upon foreign importations, a trade had sprung up in Eng-
1228
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
observed, that the duties now proposed to be removed had never been imposed as protecting duties, but had been resorted to in order to meet the expenses of the period. The duty upon copper had been imposed upon this principle in the year 1808, and the object now was, to reduce the duty to what it had been before that period. He felt convinced, that as soon as the present measures were in operation, and the copper trade was brought back to the same duties that existed prior to 1808, the Cornish proprietors, so far from finding the value of their property diminished, would perceive that the increased activity of the trade would set all their engines at work, and give full scope to the advantageous use of their skill and capital.
Mr. Tremayne
took notice of the different augmentations of the duty on foreign copper in 1808 and again in 1811. These augmentations were made by way of protection to English copper. He would not have any great objection to the proposition of the right hon. gentleman, if he rested at the reduction which he now contemplated; but he could collect from the right hon. gentleman, that he might make another attack in the ensuing year. The people engaged in the Cornwall copper mines could have no prospect of further existence, if they were obliged to enter into competition with the Chilian and other South American mines. He knew, from accurate calculations, that in the five years from 1800 to 1805, the money expended in working the Cornish mines, exceeded the money received for the produce by 119,000
l.
1229
Mr. T. Wilson
approved of the principle, but thought it would be advisable to begin the reduction of duties at a higher point, and come down by degrees.
Mr. Cripps
adverted to the proposed reduction of the duty on imported wool, and said that 15 percent appeared to him to be a monstrous reduction of that duty. The consequence would be, that foreign cloth would compete with English cloth, and large quantities of the former be imported into this country. He concurred with the hon. member for London, in regretting that the right hon. gentleman did not begin his reductions on a higher scale. Afterwards he might come down as low as circumstances would admit. If the right hon. gentleman proposed to make the duty at 20 per cent, even then there would be an importation of foreign cloth. He would suggest to the right hon. gentleman, whether he ought not to begin by making the duty even higher than 20 per cent.
Mr. Lindsay
said, he felt called upon to support the interests of the Scotch manufactures. His constituents had been seriously alarmed last year at the reduction of the bounty on linens; and of course the present measure was calculated to excite increased alarm. He hoped the chancellor of the Exchequer would wait until he saw the effect of the reduction of the duty on foreign silks, before he established the proposed reduction; or if the right hon. gentleman did repeal the protecting duty on linen, he hoped he would remove the duties upon the importation of hemp and flax.
Sir R. Fergusson
was of opinion, that all prohibitory duties ought to be removed as soon as possible; but some caution should be used with respect to the article of linens, particularly those of a coarser quality; otherwise the German and New Orleans markets would undersell us in every market. If the chancellor of the Exchequer felt it right to repeal the protecting duty, he hoped he would also reduce the duty on the importation of hemp, in the same proportion with the reduction on flax. There was one article of manufacture, namely, that of cotton bagging, which would be materially benefitted by such a reduction, as then the coarser parts of hemp might be worked up with the coarser parts of flax, in the production of that commodity.
Sir Henry Parnell,
so far as the linen manufacture of Ireland was concerned, saw
1230
1231
1232
Mr. C. Grant
thought the House must perceive the gradually rising benefits to be derived from the removal of our restrictive system. One great object to be gained by it, was the influence which our policy had upon foreign nations. We had grown to be the first commercial country in the world, even under our restrictive system; and to that system did foreign nations impute our wealth and aggrandizement. So strongly, indeed, were they impressed with this feeling, that they maintained that we were not sincere in our present policy. That it was our interest to pursue our present policy was, however, self-evident. He would take the article of copper; which had been alluded to in the course of the debate. There were 10,000 tons of copper produced annually in England; of which quantity upwards of 6,000 tons were ex-
1233
Sir H. Vivian
observed, that if an importation of copper from South America was allowed, it would have the effect of shutting up some of the principal mines of Cornwall. It was a fact, that copper could not be produced in Cornwall with a profit, unless it brought 100
l.
Mr. Huskisson
said, he was anxious to set himself right with the hon. member as to his intention with respect to the reduction of the duty on foreign books. The hon. member must be aware, that the copyright act gave full protection to such works as those given to the world by the
1234
l.
Mr. Evans
said, that the manufactures of the best kind of iron might be injured by the proposed alteration; but theirs was the smallest part of the trade, and their works could easily be applied to the manufacture of inferior kinds of iron. On the whole, the change intended would be an enormous advantage to the country.
Mr. Benett
trusted that government would have no objection to equalize the duties on the export and import of wool, and that the duty on the export of yarn would be lowered in the same proportion. With regard to the corn laws, all that the landed interest had to take care was, that the duty on the import of grain was equal to the difference between the expense of producing it in this country and abroad. It would be difficult to ascertain what would be the proper degree of protection.
Mr. Hume
was anxious to ascertain if it was proposed to make any alteration in the timber duties. He thought it was a proper time to reduce the high duties on Baltic timber. When it was first put on, the intention was, to give a boon to the
1235
s.
s.
s.
Mr. Huskisson
begged to remind the House, that he had not said one word that night on the subject to which the hon. gentleman had just alluded; and he did not intend to do so. As to what had been said by the hon. member for Wiltshire, he thought there would be no objection to enter into some such arrangement respecting the duty on wool as the hon. gentleman proposed. About altering the duty on yarn, however, he should certainly feel considerable difficulty; for yarns, under the present duty, went out of the country to a large amount. As to the iron trade, which another member had spoken about, the fact was, that the present duty on old iron was 17
s.
d.
s.
1236
The resolutions were agreed to.
DISSENTERS' MARRIAGES BILL.]
Mr. W. Smith
said, he should not feel it necessary to enter at length upon the subject of the bill of which he now proposed the second reading. The parties, on whose behalf he submitted that motion, were the Unitarian Dissenters of this country, who entertained no objection to the prevailing form of marriage in the established church, other than that which regarded the introduction of language, that expressed certain sentiments to which they could not conscientiously agree. All they asked was, to be relieved from the necessity of repeating a certain form of language which invoked the names of the Trinity. He conceived that he was justified in expecting that the second reading of this bill would not be objected to. It had been the anxious desire of himself, and of those who were connected with him, so to frame
1237
Mr. Robertson
expressed himself strongly opposed to the measure. He thought that the church of England was essential to the safety of the throne of England. Pull down the one, and the other could not stand. The safety of such establishments ought not to be endangered, in order to satisfy the scruples of a small minority of dissentients from the established church. If parliament gave this sort of relief to one set of men, they must to another: and similar dispensations must be conceded to every class of Dissenters in the kingdom. The hon. gentleman, after expressing his wish to see the supremacy in religious affairs in the Protestant established church, entered into a short historical review of the mischievous effects that had, at different times, ensued to states, in his opinion, from connexions of Presbyterians, Puritans, and Unitarians. To the Unitarians, however, he must deny the title they so absurdly assumed, of "Christians"—dissenting Christians. They might be much more properly denominated Mahometans, whom they much more nearly resembled. The hon. gentleman then proceeded to draw the attention of the House to the conduct of the Puritans in the time of Charles I. Their authority commenced with small beginnings; but, in a short time, they became a most formidable body. Buckingham thought it necessary to court their power; but they soon became the masters of Buckingham, and the arbiters of the fate of their sovereign. They got the reins of government into their own hands; and, what the consequences were, every person conversant with the history of the country must know perfectly well. Therefore, he contended, that Parliament ought to watch narrowly what they granted to the parties now before them, lest they should be induced to take too much upon themselves. He admitted that those prin-
1238
Dr. Lushington
said, there was one assertion of the hon. gentleman who had just sat down, in which he was perfectly prepared to concur. The hon. gentleman had said, that he was not allied to the church of England; and in that fact he implicitly believed. The church of England, though much misrepresented by its enemies, never attempted to prevent those whose religious opinions were of a different description, from a full and free exercise of the tenets in which they had been educated. In the present instance, the relief which the dissenters sought for, was not attempted to be violently wrested from the church of England, but was called for as a concession which should, in justice, be received at her hands. The arguments which were adduced against this bill appeared to him to be most untenable. The discussion which had taken place in that and in the other House, proved the fact. What said the Unitarian dissenters? They declared, that they could not agree with the marriage ceremony, as solemnized in the church of England, because it militated against their ideas of religious freedom; because it was at variance with their religious sentiments. What had some of the most respected prelates of the established church said on this subject? The bishops of London, Llandaff, and Exeter, had said, "We will not take on ourselves to judge whether your scruples are well or ill-founded — we will not go into the examination of the marriage service—we will not go into the grounds on which your opinion is founded. It would be useless for us to proceed with such an examination, because we know that, in all matters of religious belief, the conscience of the individual must alone be looked to, by that conscientious feeling alone can he decide, whether this or that system is the best calculated to reconcile him to the God whom he worships." Such a feeling, such
1239
1240
1241
1242
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that as the present bill was a measure, the object of which was, to give relief to tender consciences, he thought every opportunity should be afforded for solving or removing any difficulties connected with it. He therefore would agree to its going into a committee, where the hon. mover would have full scope for meeting those objections which might be urged against it. He admitted, that the right of marriage stood on very different grounds from the right of holding certain civil offices, or of obtaining certain civil privileges, to which allusion had been made. He was sorry that the scruples, to meet which this bill was brought in, existed at present. For forty or fifty years, the dissenters had not objected to that mode of solemnizing marriage, against which they now protested; and he was concerned that they were not still prepared to accede to the system which had so long continued. They had, however, preferred their claims for an alteration in the mode of solemnizing marriages; and those claims should be seriously considered. Last session, they were told, that a scruple existed in the minds of a class of dissenters against taking of an oath: but, who could tell what was the extent of that scruple, except the individual who felt it? Could any one tell-how far scruples might extend — how far doubts might proceed—with reference to other sects? How, then, were they to legislate so as to give satisfaction to all? The learned gentleman wished the House to go at present as far as this bill went; but he had observed, that if this bill were carried, it would be followed by various others, to embrace every species of scru-
1243
1244
1245
Lord George Cavendish
supported the bill, and thought that, in these enlightened times, there could be no objection to afford the relief sought for.
The bill was read a second time.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, March 28, 1825
CORN LAWS.]
Mr. Curwen
presented a petition from the merchants and dealers in corn, in the city of London, praying for a revision of the Corn Laws. He was no advocate for monopoly; but as he foresaw that the greatest inconveniences would arise from any unexpected opening of the ports, he concurred in the views of these petitioners, who urged the necessity of revising the corn laws, and prayed that the interests of the agriculturists in this country, might be secured, not by a high, but by a protecting duty of from 56
s.
s.
s.
s.
s.
Mr. Ellice
said, that the two, propositions of these petitioners seemed to be, that a duty of 20
s.
Mr. Curwen
said, the hon. gentleman had no right to assume that these petitioners had any corn in bond.
Mr. Huskisson
deprecated any discussion of a subject of such feverish interest on the occasion of presenting a petition. He was glad to hear that the hon. member for Cumberland, who was on the committee in 1821, and who was then one of the staunchest advocates of monopoly, had now somewhat relaxed in his opinions; and he hoped he would, during the recess, impress his present more enlightened views of the subject on that class of the community with which he was connected.
Mr. Curteis
expressed his regret that this question had been mooted thus irre-
1246
Mr. T. Wilson
said, that this was a great national question. The price of food was so mixed up with the other parts of the right hon. gentleman's new plans for the regulation of the trade of the country, the principle of which he approved of with some modifications, that he did not see how the question of corn could be left untouched.
Mr. Baring
deprecated premature discussion upon a matter of so much importance. He was nevertheless decidedly of opinion, that the question of the corn laws ought to be set at rest. Better have any system—even a deficient one—permanently established, than a system exposed to eternal changes. He was no admirer of the corn laws, and had strenuously opposed them, but yet he thought that the question should be set at rest, and that the present system should be either confirmed or modified. The right hon. gentleman had recommended a postponement of discussion until the hon. member (Mr. Whit-more) brought forward his motion; but he regretted that that hon. member had put a notice on the subject upon the paper.
Sir T. Lethbridge
wished to know, whether the hon. member who had given that notice counted upon the support of his majesty's ministers?
Mr. Huskisson
could have no difficulty in saying, that the hon. member had used his own discretion, without having any communication or understanding with any member of his majesty's government. He had been charged with preferring to take the discussion of so important a question upon a motion, rather than a petition. To that opinion he still adhered. With respect to the time when the discussion was to be brought forward, he of course could not control any member; but, when the occasion presented itself, he should be ready to state his sentiments upon the measure.
Ordered to lie on the table.
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS—CATHOLIC CLERGY—ELECTIVE FRANCHISE.]
Mr. Spring Rice
rose, to present' a petition from a great number of highly respectable Protestants in Ireland, possessing among them landed property to
1247
l
1248
Mr. Littleton
expressed the satisfaction which he felt at the sentiments which had just fallen from the hon. gentleman, and took the present opportunity of giving notice that, as soon as the bill, which was already in the House, should have passed (for he had no doubt it would pass) the second reading, he would propose a measure for the regulation of the elective franchise in Ireland. Whether he should propose that measure in the shape of a separate bill, or of a clause in the bill now in progress through the House, was a question which he was not yet prepared to answer. But, in neither case would he make any proposition, the effect of which would be to trench on any existing privileges. It would be entirely prospective in its character, and would in no way touch the right of voting, where it was at present practically existing. He was not disposed at present to say to what amount of property he would recommend that the qualification for voting should be raised; but. he conceived that it ought to be some sum not less than 5
l.
l.
1249
Mr. M. A. Taylor
said, that as the hon. member for Staffordshire had not gone into any details, with respect to his proposed measure, it was not his intention to enter into any discussion on the subject. But, he begged leave to enter his protest, in the first instance, against the proposition, in order that he might not hereafter be charged with inconsistency respecting it. He asked pardon of the House for speaking for a moment of himself; but, having had the honour of a seat in parliament for nearly forty-three years, he had pledged himself to the maintenance of certain principles from which he should certainly not now depart. Many years ago, and at different times, he had expressed himself in favour of Catholic emancipation. For the bill in progress through the House he had voted; because the best friends of the peace and pros-
1250
l.
l.
1251
Sir R. Shaw
was persuaded, that nothing was so likely to conciliate the minds of the Protestants of Ireland as the proposed alteration in the elective franchise, and provision for the Roman Catholic clergy. He had received a number of letters from Ireland, all concurring in the opinion that, if those two measures were agreed to, the opposition to the Catholic Emancipation bill would be nearly done away with.
Sir J. Newport
said, he was anxious, on all occasions, to state fully and frankly his opinions upon the various questions that were brought before that House; and he was, of course, especially solicitous to do so with reference to that vitally important measure, notice of a proposition respecting which had just been given by the hon. member for Staffordshire. He felt peculiar anxiety on this subject, because he was convinced, in his own mind, that the hon. gentleman's proposition would tend materially to facilitate the progress of the measure of which he (sir J. N.) had been, for twenty-three years in that House, and forty years out of it, the unceasing advocate. If he had failed to convince the House, that he was warmly attached to the real freedom of election, and exceedingly desirous to maintain the substantial rights of the people, down to the lowest ranks in society, he had for many years been labouring in vain. But, when the hon. member for Durham said, that he believed the Catholic question would triumph in two or three sessions, without these injurious appendages, as he termed them, he who
1252
l.
Mr. Stuart Wortley
expressed his regret at what had fallen from the hon. member for Durham. He was in hopes that the proposition of his hon. friend the member for Staffordshire, would have met with unanimous support. He entreated his hon. friend, however, not to be deterred by any threatened opposition; for he believed in his conscience, that the House would pass the Emancipation bill, together with his hon. friend's pro-
1253
Sir R. Wilson
observed, that when he voted for Catholic emancipation it was with a view of increasing, not of decreasing, the rights and privileges of the Catholics of Ireland. If any abuses existed in the representation of Ireland, let a committee be appointed to investigate them. To that extent he was quite ready to go. He was ready to correct all abuses— to make fallacious voters, if such there were, substantial. But further he could not go. He must continue to maintain the act of the 33rd of Geo. 3rd, by which the Catholics were permitted to enjoy the elective franchise. He would oppose all measures which contemplated any alteration, where the votes were bona-fide registered.
Lord John Russell
observed, that it was a point agreed on, that all fraudulent votes given for the election of county members in Ireland should be taken away. But was it not reasonable to inquire into the votes given in cities and corporations? If, however, the proposed measure would tend to carry the question of Catholic emancipation, his month was stopped; for, in order to preserve the peace and tranquillity of Ireland, he felt that it was necessary to pass that measure without delay. With respect to the other proposal, of tacking to this bill for emancipation, a clause for granting 240,000
l.
Sir Francis Burdett
said, that he felt it incumbent on him to trouble the House with one or two observations. He would not go further than was strictly necessary. He fully concurred in all that had been said by the noble lord behind him. If the necessity of the case required it, he would be ready to support this proposed measure respecting the elective franchise, in order to carry that question of paramount importance, Catholic emancipation. As to the proposed stipend to the Catho-
1254
1255
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, it was not his wish to provoke any discussion upon the question, but he wished the course he intended to take to be perfectly clear and well understood. He had no hesitation in stating that he could not accept of the two measures as a compromise. The proposed plans of disfranchising the forty-shilling voters, and of making a state provision for the clergy, would not induce him to relax his opposition to the pretensions of the Catholics. But, it was possible that his opinions upon the Catholic claims might be over-ruled, and then the question would be, what course he should pursue in endeavouring to modify future proceedings. Upon this his mind was not made up. In the present state of the question, he should declare that he could not accept of the proposed measures as a compromise for withdrawing his opposition to the Catholic claims.
Mr. Tierney
said, that even if he were hostile to the two propositions, yet if it could be proved that they were likely to become the means of conciliation, and cause many persons to wave their opposition to the principle, that would strongly bias his mind towards their adoption. He reserved himself, however, for the proper opportunity of deciding upon them. He was determined to give the whole subject his most earnest consideration. He wished to add one word upon the case of a distinguished individual of the Catholic Association. He was happy to have the confirmation of the hon. baronet to an assertion which he had made on a previous night. The House had been advised by the right hon. Secretary opposite, to watch the bill narrowly in its progress through the committee, if it were to reach that stage; and the reason urged by the right hon. gentleman was, that the bill itself had been drawn by a gentleman who was one of the chief members of the Catholic Association. He had then stated to the House, that the fact must have been misrepresented to the right hon. gentleman, as his statement disagreed with the strict truth of the case. He could not see any great impropriety in the conduct of the committee in applying to the quarter from whence they were likely to procure the greatest abundance of information. For his own part, he had made it a rule to withhold from any communication with that body, because he wished to give an opinion which should be the result of his own unbiassed judg-
1256
Mr. Brownlow
did not pledge himself to any particular line of conduct; but, from an extensive correspondence with those who had lived in constant hostility to emancipation, he was enabled to say that, in the event of that question being carried, it would materially lessen the general alarm, if it were accompanied with a provision for the Catholic clergy and a qualification of the franchise. Whether the Catholic question were carried or not, it was nothing more than a becoming measure to provide for the Catholic clergy, who, in the performance of the most numerous and arduous duties, might be said, almost without a figure, to be left to beg their bread. As to the question of elective franchise, he said, as heretofore, that it was miscalled a franchise when applied to the 40
s.
Mr. C. Grant
said, he apprehended, that few persons had ever considered the affairs of Ireland seriously, with whatever view, without wishing for a remedy to two evils — the want of provision for the Catholic clergy, and the abuse of the elective franchise by the 40
s.
1257
Mr. Dawson
did not see how the Protestants were to be conciliated by taking away their elective franchise, with a view to granting Catholic emancipation with safety. The Catholics, doubtless, would obtain a boon; but, what would the Protestants get? There were many parts of Ireland in which the elective franchise was as purely exercised by 40
s.
Mr. W. Courtenay
said, he could not contemplate the two propositions of paying the priesthood, and qualifying the elective franchise, as conditions of compromise. Of themselves, he considered them particularly salutary, and highly necessary to the welfare of Ireland. He had the misfortune to differ with his constituents upon the subject of emancipation. They were impressed, as he was, with the present state of things. But they, unlike himself, were of opinion that there was less danger now, than there would be after granting the Catholic claims. For his own part, he would support the bill of the hon. baronet, whether it were accompanied with those qualifications or not.
Mr. Littleton
disclaimed the most remote intention of interfering with the rights of real 40
s.
MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES—PUBLIC BUILDINGS.]
The House having resolved itself into a committee of supply, Mr. Herries moved, "That 40,000
l.
Mr. Hume
wished to ask one question respecting the expenses of the King's-bench and the Fleet prisons. An act of parliament, passed many years ago, required the expenses of ail repairs done to these prisons to be paid and provided for out of the fees accruing to certain officers appointed for the management and government of the same. Those fees, however, had latterly been taken entirely by the individuals nominated to such offices. Now, he wished to know whether any arrangement had been entered into between the government and those individuals, in
1258
Mr. Herries
apprehended that the hon gentleman alluded to the act passed in 1724. It was very true, that that act did provide that the marshal for the time being should, out of his fees, provide for the repairs of the King's-bench prison, then to be built under the very same statute. In 1780, the prison was destroyed; and it had become a question, whether the act of George 2nd could be applied to any other than the prison which had so existed up to the year 1780. It was considered, that it could not; and that construction, he believed, had been acted on ever since. Whether the arrangement provided under the act of George 2nd was a proper one to be again acted upon, might, undoubtedly, be a proper subject of consideration.
Sir M. W. Ridley
was of opinion, that for the principal officers of the government, it would be highly proper, as well as convenient for the public service, to provide official dwellings attached to their respective offices, at the expense of the public. He begged to ask, whether it was intended to continue along the present line, and over the vacant space which one end of Downing-steet at that time presented, that extraordinary range of buildings which had been commenced at the Treasury, and which was so odd an elevation, that he hardly knew how to describe it. If it resembled any thing, with its one tier of building so strangely heaped upon the top of the other, it resembled a double stand on a race-course. Indeed, it reminded him strongly of the stand on the race-course at Doncaster.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
had no hesitation in saying, that the buildings which were to be erected in continuation of the present structures, would be in strict uniformity and harmony, and upon a well-considered plan. He was aware that the public attention was at present directed to public buildings, more than in former times. It was not easy for an architect, of all other persons, to escape criticism; because his work was exposed to the public eye during its progress, and commentaries were often put upon detached and imperfect parts of a structure, which would not apply to it when in its finished state. This was a disadvantage which the architect had to en-
1259
1260
Mr. Lockhart
decidedly objected to any propositions of the kind. If splendid houses were to be built for the great officers of the government, there must follow, as matter of course, additional incomes, and sumptuous furniture. The general effect of such a system might he to render the officers themselves less accessible than they at present were; and to increase the public burthens. And this he should the more lament, inasmuch as his majesty's present ministers had certainly shown more feeling for the people, than any he had ever known. Let them, first of all, relieve the public burthens, and then they might fairly "come down to parliament and suggest improvements, distinguished by as much magnificence as they chose to impose into them.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer,
remarked, that from the manner in which the hon. gentleman had just spoken of the suggestions of his hon. friend, a stranger might suppose the hon. gentleman to be talking of the intended erection of some magnificent palace, filled with costly furniture. Now, as for himself, he lived in an official house, but the furniture happened to be his own: such as it was, he was perfectly satisfied with it; though he must say, that if he should be put into another erected at the public cost, he should not be less accessible than at present. The hon. member for Oxford very seldom had occasion to honour him with a visit of a public nature; but though that hon. member did not, he could assure the House, that most of the other members had occasion to do so in the course of the session.
1261
Mr. Littleton
did not think it necessary to provide all the ministers with houses built at the public expense; but there were some, for whom such an expense was absolutely necessary. He would instance the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. No one could doubt that it was necessary, both on account of the dignity of the office which that right hon. gentleman held, and for the convenience of the foreign ministers, with whom he was constantly transacting business, to provide him a house at the public expense. With respect to the other ministers, whom he believed to be greatly underpaid, perhaps it would be better that they should have an increase of salary than that houses should be provided for them.
Mr. W. Smith
animadverted on the extreme facility with which gentlemen had lately indulged in reflections upon the architects employed on the public buildings. Almost every member who had spoken on these subjects, forgetting the old maxim, "de gustibus non est disputandum," seemed to believe that he had discovered some infallible rule of excellence, by the test of which all new edifices might be tried; and, if their proportions and aspects did not come up to this test, hon. gentlemen really loaded the parties with the severest censures, not to say the most opprobrious epithets, alike inconsistent with ordinary candour, and offensive to good manners. They spoke as if they themselves were intimately acquainted with all the rules received in the science of architecture; and as if every thing was to be conceded to their opinions, and nothing to the technical skill, the knowledge, or the judgment of the architect whose works they reprobated.
Mr. James Martin
requested to be informed, what was the nature of the defect that had displayed itself in the structure of the Custom-house, and by whom the expenses of repairing and remedying it were to be defrayed?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, it was intended, that they should come out of the funds of that department of the revenue. It was impossible for him to say what would be the amount of the expenses of repairing that place. It was true, that it had been built at a great expense to the public, under the direction of an architect, who was not at the time under the same control, as the other architects employed in public works at present were; namely, that of the Board of
1262
Mr. Alderman Woody
having the pleasure of knowing Mr. Peto, thought that charges of this kind, coming from so high a quarter, ought not to be hazarded, until they could be brought forward in some
1263
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he should not have stated what he had done, had not the question been put to him. He did not charge either of the parties with having acted improperly, he had merely said, that if it should appear that they had acted collusively, they would be proceeded against. He had not the slightest wish to institute proceedings against them; but if proceedings became necessary, they certainly would be instituted.
Mr. Alderman Wood
observed, that the sooner these injurious reports were set at rest the better. The individual to whom allusion had been made had at present works in hand, the execution of which would amount to upwards of 300,000
l.
Mr. Maberly
said, that if ministers were underpaid, their salaries ought not to be made up by building them magnificent houses; for that would only be attended with an increase of expense in their style of living. The only true way to remove the evil, if it existed, was to increase their salaries so as to afford them a proper remuneration for their important labours.
Mr. Bernal
observed, that one of the individuals who had been occupied in building for the public, alleged that from 20,000
l.
l.
1264
Mr. Baring
said, he was much in favour of building houses for the principal officers of state, not for the convenience of the individuals, but for the benefit of the public.
Sir M. W. Ridley
said, he wished to see his majesty's ministers provided with houses, in every respect comfortable and convenient; but he had no desire that splendid mansions should be erected for them at a great expense. He was sure, if new houses were erected for them, the public business would be considerably expedited.
Mr. Hume
objected to the way in which buildings, the property of the public, were at present disposed of. In some instances, individuals, whose salaries were not more than 120
l.
l.
l.
l.
Mr. T. Wilson
was anxious, when public works were undertaken, that they should be prosecuted on the most efficient, and, at the same time, the most economical plan. He would not spoil a work for the sake of a trifling saving. There was such a thing as spending a pound in the endeavour to save a shilling. There ought, in his opinion, to be an enlargement of the chief public offices. Formerly, the same business was not transacted in them as there was at present. He looked upon money laid out in rendering those offices more convenient, as most beneficially expended. It was, in fact, a piece of public economy.
On the resolution, "That 40,000
l.
Mr. R. Colborne
rose and spoke in favour of having the National Gallery of Pictures, the foundation of which had been recently laid, placed in a separate building, and in a more central situation than
1265
Sir C. Long
admitted, that there were many good pictures in the collection of marshal Soult; but there were also some of an indifferent character. With respect to the Angerstein collection, he could say of it, what could scarcely be said of any other collection, that it did not contain a work which was unworthy of a national gallery. As to the erection of a gallery in this part of the town, he had no objection to such a project: but this difficulty arose, that the pictures were, by act of parliament, placed under the trustees of the British Museum. He knew no hands to whom such a deposit could be more properly confided; and he could not see how they could erect a building in another part of the town for a national gallery, without separating the duties that would be connected with that establishment, from those which were attached to the British Museum.
Mr. Secretary Peel
observed, that the superintendence of the national gallery, wherever it might be situated, ought to be left to the trustees of the British Museum; for certainly there was no public body so fit to undertake the duty. For this reason, sir George Beaumont had made the donation of his collection to them- At the same time, he must say, that if the national gallery were banished to the neighbourhood of St. Giles's and Russell-square it would much lessen the value of the collection. It ought to be established where, to use an expression of Dr. Johnson, "the great tide of human existence flowed;" and he knew of no more fit situation than the neighbourhood of Pall-mall or Charing-cross. It was even desirable that the paintings should not be in the same place with the other interesting objects in the Museum. It was not when exhausted by viewing
1266
Mr. Hobhouse
said, that when he visited the British Museum, it was by mere chance he discovered that there were any pictures within its walls. He certainly wished that the national gallery of paintings should be separated from the British Museum. He did not like the idea of the great works of Raphael and Guido being placed in the same edifice with collections of animals and fossils. Such a mixture would be like uniting the Jardin des Plantes with the Musée. He was hostile to having so many valuable works of nature and of art accumulated under the same roof, because they were, in case of fire or any other accident, liable, at one moment, to the same catastrophe. He had no objection to allowing the supervision of the pictures to remain with the trustees of the British Museum. With respect to the collection of marshal Soult (a collection, by the way, which he had plundered in Spain), it undoubtedly contained some very fine specimens of art; but, on the whole, it was a question, whether it was worth purchasing.
Mr. Hume
hoped, if a new gallery was to be erected, that the plan would be fairly laid before the House. The neighbourhood of Charing-cross appeared to him to be the best adapted for the purpose.
Mr. Croker
said, that sir George Beaumont had made his bequest after the question had been mooted as to the situation of the gallery. He had intrusted his pictures to the trustees of the British Museum, as a corporate body acting on behalf of the public, and for the public benefit. The Dulwich collection was at least as fine as that of sir George Beaumont; and was quite as distant as Russell-square; though he did not profess to know exactly where Russell square was [a laugh]! Sir F. Bourgeois had given his pictures to Dulwich College, because he knew not where else to deposit them. The first use of the arts was, perhaps, the enjoyment of the few; but, the great object ought to be the improvement and civilization of the many. It was the business, then, of legis-
1267
Sir C. Long
observed, that many persons were of opinion, that the national statues and pictures ought to be placed in the same gallery. The returns upon the table showed, that, in the last year, upwards of 100,000 persons had visited the British Museum.
Mr. Croker
said, he had been credibly informed, that many thousands had been attracted thither by the two white bears, imported by captain Parry.
Mr. Maberly
saw no reason why the trustees of the Museum should not be transferred, with all the buildings, to a more convenient situation. Large sums had been already very unsatisfactorily expended upon the building in Bloomsbury.
Mr. Peel
said, he had no objection to the building of a national gallery in the neighbourhood of Pall-mall, provided it were placed under the superintendence of the trustees of the British Museum, who had served the public so long and so ably.
Mr. Bernal
suggested, that the situation of the King's mews appeared the fittest for the purpose. Report stated, that Bow-street office, a house for the chief magistrate, and a house for the Rector of St. Martin's were to occupy that place. It had also been reported, that the royal academicians were to be turned out of Somerset house, in order to have public offices there. He thought this was a favourable opportunity for building a public gallery, in the place where the king's mews stood.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he was happy to find the House so ready to coincide in the proposition for erecting a national gallery. He knew not in what hands the national pictures could be placed, with greater propriety, than in the hands of those to whom they were at present intrusted. Every body at all conversant with the subject admitted, that they were the very best persons to whom the custody of so great a charge could be given. From the manner in which they had heretofore discharged their duty, the fullest confidence should, he conceived, be placed in them. As to the particular
1268
Mr. Hobhouse
said, he was glad to hear, that it was intended to throw open the area in front of the king's-mews at Charing-cross. He hoped to hear also, that it was the intention of government to remove the barracks which now stood there, and which were felt by the persons living in that neighbourhood to be a serious inconvenience. Numerous representations
1269
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that the barrack was still to continue in the place where it was at present established. There was, however, no intention to close the area in front of the building, or to withhold from the public the passage of which the hon. gentleman spoke. He thought the hon. gentleman was a little mistaken, when he characterized the building in the mews, as a very handsome one. It was built from a design by Kent, and and was well enough adapted for the purpose for which it was erected. It was I originally intended for stables; and the facade was sufficiently handsome for a building of that nature. It was, however, in no respect fit for a gallery for works of art. Its construction was altogether so unsuitable to such a purpose, that he felt compelled to say, that of all the projects he had heard of, that of the hon. gentleman seemed to him the most singular. With respect to the objections of the hon. gentleman's constituents against the barracks, he had only to observe, that, for many years past, troops had been stationed in that part of the town; and he knew of no spot more convenient for their reception.
Mr. Croker
begged to call the attention of the House to the way in which the royal society was at present lodged in Somerset-House; a way which was unworthy, and even disgraceful. They possessed a fine library; but; for want of room, many parts of it were put away in cases and boxes; which not only rendered the access to them difficult, if not impos-
1270
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Tuesday, March 29, 1825
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS—PETITIONS OF THE CLERGY AGAINST.]
The Bishop of Bath and Wells
said, he had to present to their lordships a petition, very numerously signed, of the archdeacon and clergy' of Taunton, in the diocess of Bath and Wells. The petition prayed, that their lordships would not grant what was commonly called Catholic emancipation. It was moderately and respectfully worded. Before it was laid on the table, he thought it right to trouble their lordships with a few observations. It had been asked, whether it was consistent with that charity which distinguished the Christian religion, for the clergy to come forward with petitions against the proposed measure in favour of the Catholics. Many aspersions had, in this way, been cast on the clergy. Now, he was perfectly willing to admit that to be the main, the discriminating feature of the christian faith; but he thought that the petitioners acted up to the true spirit and letter of christian charity, when they came forward and endeavoured to maintain pure religion— when they endeavoured to support Protestantism and the principles of civil and religious liberty against Popish domination —when they endeavoured to maintain the church of England against the church of Rome. He trusted their lordships would always maintain the Protestant church establishment in this country.
The Earl of Darnley
contended, that no aspersions had been cast upon the clergy. If the reverend persons conceived that they were upholding the church to which they belonged, by the petitions which had been presented, it was not only their right, but their duty, to address them to that House. He begged leave, however, to declare, that there never had been any desire, on his side of the House, to preclude the clergy from petitioning, or the reverend prelates from standing up for the interests of the church of which they were members. At the same time, he could not help alluding to a petition
1271
The Bishop of Bath and Wells
notwithstanding what had fallen from the noble lord, was bold to say that no description of persons was less deficient in charity than those who had been the subject of his comments. He wished to be liberal, wherever liberality could be properly dispensed. Liberality was a very great virtue; but it was not to be exercised at the expense of religion.
Lord Dudley and Ward
said, that the petitioners against Catholic emancipation addressed the House as if they supposed the Catholic Association still continued its meetings. He would, however, remind them, that the bill for suppressing that
1272
Lord King
began by alluding to the petition from Ely. In that petition it was asserted, that the church of Rome procured the prostration of the mind and will of the people to the clergy. He at first wondered from whom the reverend petitioners had stolen this fine phrase; but he believed it was taken from a charge of the Bishop of London. He wished the right reverend prelate were present to defend his property; for he had said, that the prostration of the mind and will was the very temper in which a Christian ought always to be. In another part of the petition, certain members of the Roman Catholic church were styled "factious demagogues." Now, this sort of vague charge was one which might be applied any way and any where. It might, perhaps, just as well have been applied to the members of that House. A great many petitions had been presented from the clergy, which had better have been deposited with the chronicles of the church, and there left to rot. At present they came forward like an old medicine of the shops called album græcum, which might be found about the corners of cathedrals. This medicine was once in high repute, like "No Popery," which was now rejected by the stomachs of the public, as much as album græcum would be if it were administered.
Lord Calthorpe
acknowledged, that sentiments appeared in some of the petitions, which were not consistent with humanity and justice. As to the petition alluded to, it was subscribed by most respectable persons, some of whom he personally knew. Of two of them he could particularly speak. One was a person as hostile to bigotry as any Christian minister he ever knew. The other was a blessing to the church, and an ornament to the university of which he was a member. It would, therefore, be wrong to form an estimate of such persons, from the sentiments which appeared in those petitions. He believed that nothing but the esteem, which was justly due to the character of the individuals who had petitioned against granting the Catholic claims, could have induced parliament so long to have resisted those claims. If the arguments against emancipation had been left to themselves, they would not have prevailed with parliament for a single year: but, a credit had been most willingly given to the
1273
The Bishop of Chester
presented a petition from the dean and chapter of Chester, against the Catholic claims. He observed, that the seal of the chapter was not affixed to the petition; but, if it could not be received as the petition of the dean and chapter, he begged leave to present
1274
1275
Lord King
said, that the right reverend prelate had charged that side of the House, and himself in particular, with a spirit for taking to pieces the petitions of the clergy, which was quite unprecedented. But if this was not done formerly, it was because their petitions were not filled with such sentiments of bigotry and intolerance as those of the present day. The right reverend prelate had insinuated that he was not a friend to the church of England. He was not a friend to the church of England, whilst it encouraged intolerance, and pluralities, and non-residents, and all the other abuses which at present existed in it. Out of 11,000 parishes in England, upwards of 7,000 were held by non residents, and only somewhat under 4,000 by resident clergy. And, it was because they were conscious and ashamed of this circumstance, that the annual returns on this subject were kept back, or at least he was unable to find them. He wished that those champions for the almost apostolic purity of the church—
The Duke of Newcastle
rose to order. He was not aware that there was any question before the House regarding the purity of the church.
Lord King
admitted that there was not a question before the House on that sub-
1276
The Earl of Liverpool
would put it to the candour of the House, whether there ever was a period when the duties of the church were more purely administered than at present, and whether a most important change for the better had not taken place in the administration of those duties? Without going into details on this subject, he felt himself called to say thus much, in consequence of the observations which the noble lord had thought proper to make.
The Bishop of Chester
wished to say one word in explanation. He did not mean to insinuate, that the noble lord was an enemy to the church of England: what he had said was, that when he indulged in sarcasms against the clergy, he was unconsciously using the very means by which the enemies of religion endeavoured to overturn it. While he was on his legs, he would take that opportunity of informing the noble lord, that the annual returns of the resident and nonresident clergy had been made to the privy-council. He might, therefore, see them, if he pleased; or if not, it was by the privy-council that they were kept back. It was a notorious fact, that the residents were greatly on the increase. Out of 670 parishes in his diocess, there were only 40 in which the incumbents did not reside; and they did not reside in these because it was impossible for them to do so. For this state of things the merit was due, not to him, but to his predecessor, the present bishop of Bath and Wells.
Lord King
asked, if it was not a fact, that there were many parishes with nonresident clergymen?
The Bishop of Bath and Wells
answered no, as to his diocess. He had visited every parish in it, and out of between six and seven hundred, there were but seventeen which had non-resident clergymen.
Lord Holland
agreed with the noble duke that this discussion was not regular. The motion before the House was, that the petition should lie on the table; but the discussion was occasioned by remarks upon an observation made in a former
1277
The Earl of Liverpool
wished to remind the House out of what this discussion had arisen. It had proceeded from the unusual course adopted by noble lords of entering upon a debate on a petition: not on its merits, but on the particular terms in which it was drawn up. He was far from saying, if a petition were presented to their lordships which was couched in indecent language, that he would not object to its being laid upon the table; but he contended, that if the terms of every petition were to be discussed in this manner, it would, in its consequences, be extremely detrimental to the right of petitioning. With respect to the allusions which had been thrown out to the prejudice of the clergy, it was not for him to say (considering the quarter from which they had proceeded), that those who made them were enemies to the church; but he could not help observing, that, in making them, they did not manifest much friendship towards it.
The Lord Chancellor
did not think he
1278
Ordered to lie on the table.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, March 29, 1825
WEST-INDIA COMPANY BILL.]
On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. Fowell Buxton
opposed the motion. He said, he did not object to this Company because it was a Joint-Stock Company, but because its object was to deal in men. Other companies were for canals and rail-roads, but in this company the capital raised was to be embarked in mortgages on our fellow creatures. Under the operations of this bill, men were to be bought - and sold. Being of opinion, in common with a large proportion of the people of England, that all dealings in men, of whatever description, were in
1279
Mr. Robertson
supported the bill, and expressed his surprise that the hon. member for Weymouth, who was the great champion of all sorts of Joint-stock companies in that House, some of them calculated to bring ruin on our fellow subjects at home, should oppose the present measure, which was likely to afford great assistance to the colonial interest, on the ground of his feeling an excessive sympathy for the negro population of the West Indies.
Mr. Alderman Thompson
did not see what objection there could be to the present bill. It merely went to enable the company to sue and be sued.
Mr. Hume
supported the bill, as calculated to benefit the colonies.
Mr. W. Smith
said, that the object of the bill was to create a monopoly of a most dangerous kind.
After a few words from Mr. Ellice, sir M. Ure, and Mr. Manning, who complained, that the conduct of the hon. member for Weymouth and his friends had paralyzed the whole of the transactions between Great Britain and the West Indies, the bill was read a second time and committed.
JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES—REPEAL
Mr. Peter Moore
, in pursuance of notice, rose to bring forward a proposition for defining and ascertaining the law relating to Joint-Stock Companies. He stated, that at present the law in respect to these companies was very obscure and ill-understood; the common law, from its antiquity, being but little applicable to them, and the statute known as the "Bubble Act" being so full of penalties and contradictory enactments, that it was, in fact, a dead letter. The necessity of settling a question of so much importance was placed beyond question, by the amount of capital which was daily investing in these speculations, and which be would be safe in estimating at upwards of 160 millions. This sum, large as it
1280
The Attorney-General,
having been called upon by several members, said, that the act which it was proposed to repeal, referred to a great variety of objects, Other than Joint-stock companies, to which the hon. member's bill was addressed. If he recollected rightly, the incorporated rights of two great commercial companies in the city of London were secured by that act. This subject, therefore, required much more consideration than the
1281
Mr. Grenfell
said, he would support any motion for settling the law upon the subject of Joint-stock companies If there was an indisposition to concede the repeal of the whole of the Bubble act, why not repeal part of it? It was absolutely necessary, considering the amount of capital embarked in these speculations, and the anxiety prevailing as to the law, that some definite rule should be laid down. The Bubble act was a dead letter; since, from the severity of its penalties, it never could be put in force in the present state of the country. No one would have the boldness to propose the application of this act to the schemes that were now afloat. It was only last week that he saw the prospectus of a new speculation, to which the name of a prince of the blood was attached. He imputed nothing improper to this royal personage; but, would it be said, that he was a fit object for the application of the Bubble act? He had seen another prospectus, containing the name of a high individual, for whom he had the highest respect; namely, the archbishop of Canterbury, and he believed the whole bench of bishops were parties to the undertaking. He did not quarrel with these reverend persons for thus embarking in an adventure; but, who would think of attaching to them the pains and penalties of a premunire? He hoped, therefore, that the subject would be considered, and that the law would not be suffered to remain, which subjected the highest personages to such penalties. The public were already led to expect some alteration in the law from the highest authority in the country. He did not offer a word, as to the policy or impolicy of the Bubble act; but he thought it highly necessary that the law should be rendered intelligible.
Mr. Robertson
wished the subject to be set at rest for the sake of the public at large; who were quite as much entitled to protection, as any of the princes of the blood, or the archbishop of Canterbury.
Mr. Ellice
said, he had heard with satisfaction the proposition of his hon. colleague, for setting at rest the law affecting Joint stock companies. He did not pledge himself to go the whole length with him, of repealing the act of George 1st. but he should decidedly vote for bring-
1282
Mr. J. P. Grant
thought that, under the terms of the hon. member's motion, nothing short of a repeal of the 6th of George the First could be now introduced. If his object was to amend and alter parts
1283
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that the Bubble act contained twenty-nine clauses, the first seventeen of which had no reference whatever to Joint-stock companies. Did he understand the hon. member, then, to call upon the House to repeal those clauses? He was at a loss to see what benefit could be derived, even if this motion was acceded to. It was quite impossible, in a bill, brought in for the purpose of repealing an act of parliament, that seventeen clauses should be left untouched, as they necessarily must, since they had no relation to the subject. He would advise the hon. member to withdraw his motion.
Mr. Hudson Gurney
regretted, that this measure had not been brought forward by government, as the state of the law, as regarding Joint-stock companies, was such as obviously required alteration. He wished the right hon. gentleman opposite, the president of the Board of Trade, could be prevailed upon to take the task of legislation into his own hands. It was impossible that the common law, originating in another state of society, could meet all the exigencies of the present commercial situation of the country; and the Bubble act, which the hon. gentleman now moved for leave to bring in a bill to repeal, not only left the law in great uncertainty, but contained provisions which it was impossible ever could be acted
1284
Mr. Peter Moore
said, he should be extremely glad if his majesty's ministers would take the affair out of his hands. He had been waiting in expectation that the matter would be taken up by high authority. If a bill respecting it were brought forward in any shape, he should be most happy. But, as things were, the various Companies, possessing, a capital of 250 millions, were left at sea, without rudder or compass, not knowing whether they were acting right or wrong. What they wanted was, to act right. Upon his honour, he believed that not one of the Stock Companies, with which he was connected, had less probity or less stability than the bank of England itself. He would never connect himself with any one of which he did not entertain that opinion. What they wanted was, to understand the law. It was said, that the Bubble act did not apply to them, yet they had been threatened with its operation; and that threat had operated upon them most injuriously. Full discussion was what he wished for. Might he be allowed to change the word "repeal" the act, for the words "amend and alter" it? In a case in which so much property was afloat, let the matter be settled. Could the two clauses of the act which affected that property be alone considered? He believed
1285
Mr. Hume
asked seriously, whether it was intended to leave the law in its present unsettled state, and what objection could there be to altering and amending such parts of the act as were objectionable? The lord chancellor had promised to bring forward some measure but, in what time could such a measure be looked for? At the end of next session the learned lord would begin to doubt; and when his doubtings would end, no man could say. In the mean time, property would be wasted in legal disputes, and uncertainty and anxiety must be every where prevalent.
Mr. Huskisson
asked whether, under the terms of this notice to repeal an act, a motion could be now made to alter and amend it? The hon. member who brought it forward had confessed that he was unable to point out any specific remedy for this alleged inconvenience of the law. He should say, that the hon. member would have treated the House with greater respect, if he had prepared himself better, and enabled himself to make some substantive proposition on the subject.
Mr. P. Moore
said, he had no objection to withdraw the motion for the present; but he would bring it forward again after the holy days.
PETITION FROM R. CARLILE.]
Mr. Hume
presented a petition from Richard Carlile, a prisoner in Dorchester gaol, calling the attention of the House to the circumstances of his case. The hon. member read the greater part of the petition; and from the statements contained in it, it appeared, that besides the complaints which the prisoner had before made of the length of his imprisonment, and his incompetency to pay the heavy fine imposed upon him by the court of King's-bench, he had now come forward to complain of the conduct of government in seizing his books under a writ of execution, and in retaining them still unsold in its possession. If the books had been those prohibited by law, it would have been easy to understand the principle on which the govern-
1286
The Attorney-General
would not have thought it necessary to say a word upon this petition, had it not been for an unfounded allegation contained in it. The property which had been taken on the premises of the petitioner, was not at present, nor indeed had it ever been, in the hands of government. It was in the possession of the sheriffs; and if they were retaining it improperly, the petitioner had his remedy against them. Indeed, the petitioner had already brought an action against the sheriffs, in which he had obtained either mere nominal damages, or else a verdict on which it was impossible for him to found any ulterior measures. It ought to be recollected, that if the sheriffs sold the publications taken in Mr. Carlile's shop, they sold them upon their own responsibility for their contents. He was sure, that if the petitioner would point out, either to the sheriffs, or to the secondary, any books which they could sell, without running the risk of an indictment for blasphemy, those books would instantly be exposed to sale. In the mean time, it was unfair to assume, that
1287
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he had entered so often into the general question connected with this petition, that he should decline saying any thing upon it on this occasion. He would merely say, that nothing was more difficult than to lay down a rule, how long an individual should be imprisoned for non-payment of a fine. To say that a prisoner, who was incompetent to pay a pecuniary fine, should be released at once, would be to offer a premium for the commission of misdemeanors. His release must, therefore, depend upon other circumstances—such as the mildness of his behaviour, his conformance to the discipline of his prison, and his general character and conduct. Now, nothing could be more violent and more improper than the conduct of Carlile; and that was the chief reason why he had not felt himself justified in interfering on his behalf. As a proof that he was not unwilling to interfere on behalf of persons in a situation similar to that of the petitioner, he would mention, that he had given orders for the release of Mary Ann Carlile, who, like her brother, was retained in prison for non-payment of her fine. Her conduct had been the reverse of that of her brother, and he had therefore recommended that she should be discharged. In order that the House might have some grounds on which to form an opinion of the conduct of Carlile, he would state, that Carlile had given him notice, that after a certain day, which he named, he should consider himself illegally detained, and should feel himself justified in murdering any governor that might be appointed to guard him. Besides this, he had corrupted many individuals, both in the prison and in the neighbourhood, and had gloried in being able to continue, as before, his daring violations of the law. If he had abstained from such representations, and had submitted patiently to the discipline of the prison, he might, perhaps, have consented to discharge the petitioner; but, when his conduct was of the most violent and intemperate description, he was bound to take it into consideration, before he consented to limit the period of his imprisonment.
1288
Mr. Hume
repeated his declaration, that the case of the petitioner was peculiarly hard. He was not much acquainted with the tricks and management of law; but, from what had fallen from the learned gentleman, he clearly saw, that the petitioner was not likely to have much remedy at law as against the sheriffs. He also begged the House to understand, that the petitioner did not pray to be liberated, but that the House would correct the laws which prevented him from recovering possession of his property.
Ordered to lie on the table.
COMBINATION LAWS.]
Mr. Huskisson
said, he rose with great regret, to call the attention of the House to a subject that was of the highest importance to the commercial interests of this empire, but which in consequence, as he apprehended, of-some misconstruction that prevailed among certain classes in this country, in respect of a legislative proceeding of the last session, repealing the combination laws, seemed likely to be attended with most inconvenient and dangerous consequences. He certainly considered, that the parties immediately interested in that proceeding had been subsequently acting under a misconstruction of the intentions of the legislature: and, in the motion with which he meant to conclude, he did not propose to suggest that the old laws against the combinations of workmen and labourers against their employers should be again put in force. Those laws were, many of them, oppressive and cruel in their operation on workmen; and he had always advocated the principle of allowing every man to dispose of his labour to the best advantage, which principle they, in very many instances, had directly violated. The right hon. gentleman then proceeded to advert to the bringing in of the 5th of George IV. c. 95., and to the avowed objects of that bill. He felt himself bound to admit, that in principle those objects seemed to be perfectly fair and proper to be established, as between workmen and their employers; but he was satisfied that they were not so in practice. Moreover, he doubted whether the act in question, as long as it should continue to exist, would not have a strong tendency to keep up, between workmen and their employers, a spirit on the one side of alarm, on the other of distrust.
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293
1294
1295
l.,
l.
l.,
s.
1296
1297
l.
1298
1299
1300
1301
Mr. Hume
said, that no one had watched more closely than he had done the operation of this act, and he was not aware that he was unacquainted with any of the proceedings that had taken place after its enactment. He was satisfied, that many of the parties had availed themselves of what they considered to be the benefit afforded by it; and that many classes had gone further beyond their own interest, or the interest of the community, than could possibly be permitted. But, it did happen that, since the passing of that act, employment had been increasing; workmen had been more in demand; and these causes had tended to the mischief complained of, more than the repeal of the former laws with respect to combination. When the right hon. gentleman opposite referred to the common law, he (Mr.
1302
1303
1304
1305
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that he was not aware before that evening, that the committee which had sat upon the combination laws last year, had consisted of so many as fifty members. That circumstance, however, seemed in some degree to have contradicted the maxim, that "in the multitude of counsellors there was wisdom," for their report, and the measure founded upon it, had failed to convince him, that the precipitate repeal of thirty-five statutes, without substituting something for that which had been taken away, was the best course which could have been pursued. He did not mean to defend the old statutes, which were undoubtedly very defective, but bethought the law, as it at present stood, was not what it ought to be. The question now came fairly before the House; and he was happy that nothing of party, or political feeling, was mixed up with its discussion. The ten resolutions of the committee declared, that it was expedient to punish, in a summary manner, the man or the master, who by violence or threats, attempted to injure the property, or the rights of the other. The offender was to be taken before a magistrate; who, on the testimony of two credible witnesses, might send him to prison. Now, under this part of the law the criminals generally managed to escape the penalty of their misconduct; for what they did or said was done or spoken only to the master, and not in the presence of any witnesses.
1306
1307
1308
1309
1310
Mr. Hudson Gurney
defended the conduct of the committee upon the combination laws. He said, the president, or vice president, of the Board of Trade, and another right hon. gentleman connected with administration, attended all its sittings, and that they had come unanimously to the resolutions which closed their inquiries, with the full approbation, as he then understood, of all those right hon. gentlemen. He deprecated the re-enactment of the abrogated statutes; and could not attribute the lives lost, according to the right hon. gentleman's statement, to their repeal; his instances being from Ireland, where the committee had in evidence, that the same violences had always taken place. From the men, they had learnt, that in these Irish combinations their first proceeding was, to swear to secresy; and from the lord mayor of Dublin, that the magistrates had ordered men, whom they suspected of having met to combine, to be publicly whipped through the streets. It had been most distinctly established before the committee, not only that the combination laws did not prevent the evils complained of, but that they, in fact, had tended very greatly to aggravate them.
Sir M. W. Ridley
said, he was not a member of the former committee; but he was of opinion, that much misconception had arisen with respect to the labours of that body. His right hon. friend (Mr. Huskisson) had, in more instances than one, corrected statements which had emanated from the committee. During the time of the disturbances in Glasgow, a letter had appeared from his hon. friend the member for Aberdeen, calling on the workmen to observe a strict adherence to the law. But the workmen, he believed, did not know what Jaw they were to obey. It was asserted by some of those persons, that Mr. Hume had repealed all the combination laws; and that therefore they felt they might do just as they pleased. They imagined that the committee had gone much further than they had ever contemplated to go. The House was told, that, if the masters, pleased they might easily put down any
1311
Mr. Trant
conceived, that the appointment of a committee to investigate this subject would produce very beneficial effects.
Mr. C. Grant
said, that the discussion which had taken place must convince every gentleman present of the necessity of inquiry. As one of the former committee, he must express his regret, that those persons, whose interests that committee had endeavoured to serve, had abused the kindness which had been extended to them. The House could not consent to allow the existence of the vicious and abominable abuse which had been, for some time, in progress. Every thing should be done to put an end to it; and he, for one, would gladly coincide in any measure which seemed likely to effect that object. Those misguided persons ought to know, that they were not only injuring their own interests, but doing all they possibly could to induce the House to return to the old system, which had been so recently abolished. He, therefore, thought that no language was too strong for the reprobation of the conduct which had been described in the course of the evening. He regretted that so much had been said on the labours of the last committee; for it would appear as if it were intended to cast some reflection on their decision [no, not He was one of the fifty members of whom that committee was composed; but he believed not more than half that number attended
1312
1313
Mr. Lambton
gave his thanks to the right hon. gentleman for bringing forward this question. At one time the combination system, in the north, had proceeded to a very alarming extent. The measure of his hon. friend the member for Aberdeen, it was clear, had not answered the chief purpose which he had in view; and therefore he considered, that the right hon. gentleman was doing great service to the country, by directing the attention of parliament to the subject. He trusted such measures would be adopted, as would effectually secure persons engaged in every species of Wade, from the dangerous effects of combination.
Mr. Huskisson
wished to say a few words in explanation. He had not any objection whatever to the decision of the former committee. The combination laws were, at the time that committee was formed, in a fit state to be considered; and he had on this occasion only described the evils which he thought had grown out of the law as it at present stood. The tenth resolution of the committee was, he conceived, a very proper one. It was a resolution which he would have supported. But, it appeared to him, that the act of parliament executed very imperfectly the object to which that resolution referred. Great misconception had gone abroad with respect to the act; and that misconception had created very prejudicial effects in some parts of the country, where the law, instead of producing the advantages which were expected, had really been the cause of mischief. There was only one other point which it was necessary for him to notice, and on that point he was anxious not to be misunderstood either by the House or by the public. The hon. member for Aberdeen
1314
The motion was then agreed to.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Wednesday, March 30, 1825
JOINT-STOCK COMPANIES—Mr. F.
Mr. Fowell Buxton
, seeing an hon. member in his place, wished to call his attention to certain observations which he had made respecting him in the course of last evening's discussion. The hon. member had charged him with being the champion of several Joint-Stock Companies, some of them calculated to bring ruin on the parties concerned. Now, he called upon the hon. member either to retract that charge, or to state the grounds on which he made it. For himself he wholly disclaimed the imputation.
Mr. Robertson
was proceeding to address the House when he was called to order by
The Speaker
, who expressed his doubt, whether, according to the orders or forms of the House, such a question should be put or answered. If it should not, he apprehended this conversation ought to go no further.
1315
Mr. F. Buxton
said, he would leave it to the decision of the chair. He had called on the hon. member privately, and explained to him the total want of grounds for the charge, and was anxious that the hon. member should express his impressions on the subject to the House.
QUARANTINE LAWS BILL.]
Mr. C. Grant
Mr. John Smith
said, he hoped the House would lend their attention for a little to this very important subject. The proposed measure had his most cordial approbation; for he was satisfied, that considerable delusion respecting this measure existed in the country. His only objection to the measure was, that it did not go far enough; for he was of opinion, that it would not be unsafe to undo still more of the Quarantine laws; and he would state, as shortly as possible, his reasons for that opinion. Dr. Maclean, who had greater opportunities of examining the nature of the plague than any man living, had declared it not to be contagious; and had likewise stated, that the question, as to its contagious or non-contagious quality, was not so much a question of science as a question of fact, on which any man, who was in the habit of weighing testimony, was qualified to decide. It had been understood in England for many years, that the contagion of the plague was capable of being conveyed in clothing and in goods from one country to another, and that cotton, either in a raw or in a manufactured state, was the medium by which it was most easily conveyed. Now, although he was unqualified as a medical man to decide that point, he was able to state as a matter of fact, that there never had been, and that there never could be, an instance of the contagion of fever being conveyed by clothing or goods of any kind. He might urge as a proof of this position, that Holland, which of all our commercial rivals traded the most to those parts of the world in which the plague was most prevalent, had never thought it requisite to enact, and in point of fact did not possess, any Quarantine laws. This assertion might appear extraordinary to some persons, but he would
1316
1317
1318
1319
1320
Mr. Wallace
observed, that he could not pledge himself, on behalf of his majesty's government, to comply with the concluding request of the hon. member for a renewed inquiry into the Quarantine laws. If there was one subject which, more than another, deserved the most serious consideration, it was this branch of our commercial regulations. It was, therefore, his opinion that the inquiry should be delayed as long as possible, when new lights and new experiments would enable them to proceed with greater confidence, in so delicate and difficult a question. Notwithstanding all that had been said by the hon. member the greatest difference of opinion, as to the contagion of the plague, existed amongst the most eminent medical men. Many of those who were adverse to the theory of contagion, admitted that they now entertained doubts. The very existence of these doubts was enough to deter government from hazarding any alterations, which would have the effect of unhinging our securities against the plague. It was too fearful a responsibility, for government to introduce, upon theories, the plague into a dense population, where, in crowded and close manufactories, it might be very destructive, for the sake of any commercial advantages whatever. Government would be a good deal relieved, if any considerable number of medical men concurred in recommending a repeal of the Quarantine laws. The opposite opinions might then be discussed. But, in the absence of such recommendation, there was so much danger in the first step, that he could not recommend its adoption. It was but fair to state, that great doubts were entertained whether or not the plague would subsist in this climate; but, until these doubts were wholly removed, he did not think it safe to repeal all the restrictions. He was therefore opposed to any further inquiry, until a stronger case was made out by the medical men for an alteration of the law.
Mr. Hudson Gurney
said, that this bill was directed to two objects, neither of which he thought could be reasonably objected to—first, the taking off certain fiscal charges unfairly laid on vessels from the Levant—and, secondly, the exempting from Quarantine vessels coming from
1321
1322
Mr. Hobhouse
expressed his entire conviction, that the more fully this most important question was discussed, the more persuaded would the enlightened part of the community be, as to the necessity of a change in the Quarantine laws. Indeed, from the progress that sounder views were making in the public mind, he had every reason to anticipate, that no very long period would elapse, before the House and the country at large, came to a conclusion the very opposite of that drawn by his hon. friend who spoke last. If they looked into the phenomena that attended the great plague of London, they would see exactly that, from every account of that dreadful calamity, it manifested the same symptoms, and evinced the same results, as were observed in the plagues of Egypt. The new comers were generally attacked; while others were not affected at all. There were portions of London and its vicinity in which the disease made no appearance, though there was a very active communication between the parts where the disease raged and where it was not felt. The villages of Hampstead and High gate were wholly free from the malady; though the intercourse with the metropolis was not for a moment suspended. Another similarity was most remarkable, and which, in his judgment, extinguished the very idea of contagion, namely, that the plague of London, in the same way as in Egypt, ceased altogether when the disease was at its greatest height. In Egypt it was ascertained, that the dis-
1323
1324
Mr. Trant
said, that in passing up the Red Sea, and travelling in Egypt, he had accquired some experience connected with this subject. When he was in Cairo, he was given to understand, that the plague generally broke out in June. The christians believed, rather superstitiously, that it was always on St. John's day. But a fact which was less scrupulously believed was, that it generally broke out in the quarter of the Jews; and the reason given for that was, that those persons bought all the old clothes, and among them those of the parties who were the first infected. However that might be, the rage of the disorder among the Jews was attributed to their traffic in old clothes. The House would compare that fact with the arguments of the hon. member for Westminster, who seemed to consider it impossible that bales of goods could communicate it. As to the fanciful line which prevented the march of the disease into Upper Egypt, it had been his fortune to see that violated also. The line itself was purely imaginary; and the fact had
1325
Sir Robert Wilson
said, that when he went to Egypt, the impression on his mind was, that the plague was contagious; but he was soon satisfied of the contrary. When he was in Egypt, the army formed two divisions. The one which was stationed at Alexandria took the plague; the other, which was generally in motion, was not touched with it. The difference was attributed to atmospheric influence. The Turks had no hesitation in entering the infected places. The bodies of those who died of the plague were buried in their clothes, and were generally dug up and stripped by those who had less fear of the consequences. The moving division of the British army passed through villages infected with the plague, without being touched with it. Still, it was not the business of government to attempt to force public opinion upon a subject of this nature. They ought rather to endeavour to soothe apprehensions, however ill-grounded. He would, however, strongly recommend, that the officers appointed to enforce the Quarantine laws, should be placed under regulations which would entirely divest them of any suspicion of being actuated by interested motives in their conduct.
Mr. Secretary Peel
observed, that the subject was one involved in great doubts. He did not distinctly understand what was the theory which the gallant general drew from the facts he had stated. Of the two divisions of the army, of which the gallant general had spoken, one was stationary and affected by the plague;
1326
Sir R. Wilson
replied, that it appeared to be one of the extraordinary phenomena of this disease, that persons who remained stationary were liable to it, and that those who passed rapidly through various currents of air escaped it.
Mr. Hume
observed, that the principles of the Quarantine laws appeared to be very incorrect. Further inquiry seemed indispensable. The opinions of medical men differed exceedingly on the subject; but he would certainly prefer the opinions of those who had visited the countries in which the plague occasionally showed itself.
The bill was then read the second time.—The House adjourned to the 14th of April.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Wednesday, April 13, 1825
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS—PETITIONS FOR AND AGAINST.]
Lord Rolle presented a Petition from the inhabitants of great Torrington, Devon, against the proposed law for the relief of the Catholics.
The Bishop of Exeter (Dr. Carey)
said, he had several petitions to present on this subject, which were not from the clergy, but were signed by dissenters of every denomination. The first was from the inhabitants of the parish of Kenton, in the county of Devon; the second from the churchwardens of St. Lawrence, Exeter; and the third from the inhabitants of North Bishop; all praying, that no further concessions might be granted to the Catholics. The fourth petition he had to present was the only one concerning which he expected to hear a dissentient voice, as it was from that proscribed body, the, clergy. In common, however, with all his majesty's subjects they had a right to petition. They came before their lordships not to offer advice; and it was one of the most essential privileges of the people of this country, that the doors of parliament were open to their petitions. The petition he had to present was from the archdeacon and clergy of Totness, Devon. The petition had been agreed to by all the clergy of the archdeaconry, regularly assembled, with only one dissen-
1327
The humble Petition of the clergy of the archdeaconry of Totness:
"That your petitioners are incumbents and curates in an extensive district of the diocese of Exeter. That they conceive it is their clear and indefeasible right, in common with the rest of his majesty's subjects, humbly to submit their sentiments to your right hon. House, whenever their judgment or their conscience shall direct them so to do:—That they are sincerely desirous to live in peace and Christian charity with religious sects of every denomination; to allow them the most absolute toleration in the profession of their faith and in the exercise of their religious worship; together with every political privilege that is consistent with the security of the establishment:—That they do not presume to interfere with, advise, or remonstrate, upon the resolves of the legislature; and, on questions of a purely civil nature, they would feel great reluctance to intrude on the attention of your right honourable House; but viewing with real alarm the unlimited claims of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, they cannot refrain from stating to your right honourable House their firm belief, that that body cannot be intrusted with framing and administering the laws of this country, without imminent danger to its church; and therefore your petitioners humbly pray, that no further concessions be granted to their demands, that may not be accompanied by such well-considered securities, as will protect equally inviolable the established religion and rights of the clergy in all parts of the united kingdom."
Lord King
said, he would take that opportunity of doing justice to the archdeacon of Totness, one of the persons whose signature was to the petition their lordships had just heard read. He (lord King) had stated to their lordships, that several of the clergy of the diocese of Exeter held civil situations, and that this practice was a bad one. He was happy to have this opinion confirmed by the practice of the archdeacon, who was an alderman of Totness, but he had resigned his gown, and he was happy to take that opportunity of expressing his satisfaction at what the archdeacon had done.
The Bishop of Exeter
said, he had also
1328
Lord Rolle
said, he could assert, that a more worthy man than the individual whose office had been made the subject of animadversion, never lived. It would be well if the noble lord on the other side would point out many instances of such commendable conduct.
Lord King
explained, that he had no other object in view in mentioning the subject, but to do justice to the archdeacon, and to praise him for what he had done.
The Bishop of Exeter
signified, that he understood the noble lord's observations to be of the nature he had described them.
Lord Holland
said, that the petition which the right reverend lord, or his right reverend friend, if he would allow him to pall him so, had just presented, and which had just been read, was a petition from the clergy of a district in his diocese, praying that their lordships would continue the restrictive laws against their Roman Catholic fellow subjects; and as it had been said, and very properly, the clergy had as good a right to petition as any of his majesty's subjects, he could not anticipate any objection to a petition from a clergyman, the prayer of which was in opposition to that which had just been presented. The learned and reverend prelate had, in presenting the petition, described the petitioners as the proscribed clergy of the church of England; he knew not in what sense the right hon. prelate had understood the word, nor in what sense the clergy understood it; but the petition he had the honour to present, did really come from a clergyman, who might justly be called proscribed. And this he should not say, if he had not proof of the circumstances of the case of the petitioner, who had considered this question as he had a right to do, to be, not one of a religious, but of a civil nature. It was the petition of the Rev. John Pike Jones, curate of North Bovey, in Devonshire; and he came before this House not as a curate, but a subject and a citizen.
1329
1330
1331
1332
1333
The Bishop of Exeter
said, he had used the word "proscribed" as applied to the clergy, not because their petitions were actually rejected, but because attempts were made, by sneers and sarcasms, to prevent them from petitioning. The clergy were, however, determined to petition; he should have several other petitions to lay on their lordships' table; and the laity, roused by its having been said they were indifferent to the subject, were also coming forward with numerous petitions.
Lord King
said, the clergy complained of being proscribed by sneers and sarcasms; this was a new proscription, and he thought it would be more correct to say they were proscribing than proscribed.
The Bishop of Landaff
presented a petition from the archdeacon and clergy of the diocese of Oxford, against the Ca-
1334
The Bishop of Chester
presented a petition from the clergy resident in Manchester, to the same effect. There were 42 clergymen resident there, and the petition was signed by 41; and it was only by an accidental circumstance, that the signature of the other clergyman was wanted. He was happy to observe that the petitions of the clergy had at length found their level; and that noble lords thought the intellect, acquirements, and education of the petitioners entitled their petition to attention. The question was one in which the clergy had a great personal interest. The confusion which the noble baron had remarked as to liberty and power, prevailed also in the two terms, punishment and restraint; and the noble baron, he thought, had laid a proper foundation for the restraint now imposed on the Catholics, when he stated that there might be circumstances which would justify curtailing civil liberty. With regard to several religious questions, laws were still found in our Statute book, imposing restraints on the people. When persons were found professing principles which went to the root of all civil liberty, could it be advisable to give them political power? The great distinction of the case was overlooked. The real question was, whether the Roman Catholics were, or were not to be admitted to rule over the Protestants?
Lord Holland
explained. He did not contend that the clergy had no right to petition, but he thought it might be a question as to the prudence of their doing so; but of this they must judge for themselves. What the Catholics wanted was the right of ruling themselves; not of ruling over others. It was a fundamental principle in all free countries, that every man ought to have a share in making the laws by which he was to be governed. The Catholics enjoyed civil liberty, but were deprived of political liberty, and were not members of a free government.
1335
The Bishop of Chester
presented a petition from the magistrates, clergy, and inhabitants of Bolton-le-Moors, against the Catholic claims. The petition was signed by 8,000 persons; but there were some stigmas thrown out on the Catholics, of which he did not approve.
Lord King
regretted very much to see so much advice sent to their lordships—he would say so much bad advice; for it was said, by lord Clarendon, that the clergy, however learned, were very ignorant of the affairs of the world. What would the king of Prussia say to his clergy, if they were to pour in such quantities of advice on him. If his Lutheran clergy, were to tell him, the Catholics are dangerous, they cannot be trusted, you must not employ them, do not admit them into your government, they will become your masters? Why, he would tell them to hold their peace, and not stir up hostility and strife in his dominions. He must say, that it was extraordinary to see the members of a religion, which professed to be the religion of charity, peace, and good will amongst men, promoting dissention and discord. Their lordships would do well not to take such advice, and to act as he had supposed his Prussian Majesty would act, and reject all bad advice from the clergy.
The Bishop of Gloucester
said, that the clergy came not before their lordships as advisers, but as petitioners. They expressed their opinions in plain manly language; but they left it entirely to the wisdom of their lordships to determine what measure should be adopted.
Ordered to lie on the table.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Thursday, April 14 1825
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.]
The Lord Chancellor
presented a petition against the Catholic Claims. He observed, that it was respectfully worded, and properly drawn up. He took that opportunity of stating, that the noble lord near him (lord Holland) showed, by what he said last night, that his meaning had been misunderstood. He had not said, that the words of petitions ought never to be commented upon. On the contrary, he thought it very natural, when noble lords disapproved of the language or terms of a petition, that they should mention their disapprobation; and, if they approved of
1336
The Duke of Newcastle
presented a petition against the Catholic claims, from Redford, and expressed his hope that the table of the House would soon be covered with similar petitions. It was full time for the people of this country to step forward, and declare their sentiments on this subject; and he hoped that every honest man would put his name to petitions against concessions to the Catholics, the danger of granting which was so strongly apprehended by the nation. He thought that the sense of that danger, expressed by the petitioners, was not altogether unworthy of their lordships' notice.
Lord King
hoped that their lordships had been edified by the very tolerant petition which they had just heard read. The petitioners, in the fulness of their generosity, were willing to allow the Roman Catholics to worship God in their own way; but this, it seemed, was the utmost extent of their toleration to one-third of his majesty's subjects, whom they wished to exclude from the privileges of freemen. Their lordships had heard something last night of its having been said that the clergy were proscribed. Now, he must say, that the noble duke, who hoped that every honest man in the country would come forward and sign petitions against the Catholics, had made the most sweeping proscription he was acquainted with; for, under the stigma of dishonesty, he proscribed all the Roman Catholics of the United Kingdom, and in addition to them, all those Protestants who did not choose to sign such petitions as that which the noble duke had presented. Though the endeavours made to get up petitions of this kind were great, the opinion of the country on the question could not be disguised. The hope to raise again the cry of "No Popery," which had so much influence some years ago, was vain. That horrid cry was now dead, he trusted, for ever.
CONDUCT OF JUDGE KENRICK.]
The Earl of Essex
said, he had formerly troubled their lordships with some observations relative to the conduct of Mr. Kenrick, who was a judge. He had then asked the noble and learned lord some questions to which he had received no satisfactory answers. If he had since abstained from bringing the matter before their lordships, it was from a wish to ground on it some
1337
The Earl of Liverpool
reminded the noble earl, that Mr. Kenrick, as a Welch judge, was in the same situation as other judges, and could not be removed but by an address to the Crown.
The Earl of Essex
said, that this was the difficulty which made him decline taking any proceedings; but Mr. Kenrick was not only a judge, he was also in the commission of the peace.
The Lord Chancellor
said, that the noble earl and their lordships must be aware, that for any thing Mr. Kenrick had done as a judge, he could only be
1338
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, April 14, 1825
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—FORGERY OF NAMES TO A PETITION.]
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, that he rose to present a petition which complained, and complained most justly, of a gross breach of the privileges of that House, and of a most unjustifiable violation of the right of petition. The petition he held in his hand was from certain undersigned Protestant inhabitants of the town of Ballinasloe, and adjoining parishes. They stated, that having understood from the votes of parliament, that on the 17th of March last, a petition, alleged to be from the Protestant inhabitants of that town, had been presented
1339
Sir John Newport
said, that if the subject had not been brought forward by the right hon. secretary, it had been his intention to have introduced it that very evening. Every member of that House was equally interested in the subject as himself; for they were all liable to be similarly imposed upon. He had received the former document, as he had received nine-tenths of all the petitions which he presented to the House; namely, by post. It came accompanied by a string of resolutions, stated to have passed at the meeting where the petition was agreed to.
1340
Mr. Secretary Peel
observed, that there was not the remotest idea in the mind of any man to impute any blame to the right hon. baronet.
LINEN TRADE OF IRELAND.]
Sir H. Parnell
said, he had been induced to give notice of his intention to move for the appointment of a select committee, to take into consideration the state of the Linen Trade of Ireland, in consequence of his having been intrusted with certain memorials from a considerable number of the linen merchants of Dublin, and which had been duly presented by him to the Treasury. He had, however, received, since that notice, an intimation from his majesty's government, that they were disposed to move for a select committee for the same purpose. Under such circumstances, he should leave the subject with satisfaction in such efficient hands. He understood, that the consideration of such committee would be first directed to those laws which affected foreign yarn and foreign dressed flax.
1341
Sir G. Hill,
after observing that it would be much more satisfactory that the subject should undergo the investigation of a committee above stairs, moved "that a select committee be appointed to consider the laws which regulate the linen trade of Ireland, particularly such as relate to foreign linen yarn and foreign dressed flax."
Mr. Maberly
was extremely desirous that the consideration of the protecting duties should form one of the objects of the committee. The present condition of those duties was such as must be altogether ruinous to the linen trade of Ireland. He entirely agreed in the wisdom of the general principle on which the right hon. gentlemen opposite were proceeding with respect to commercial affairs; but he was certainly desirous that they would travel by degrees. All he asked, however, on the present occasion was, that the subject of protecting duties should be comprehended in the labours of the committee.
Sir G. Hill
replied, that the suggestion of the hon. gentleman might be very advantageously made to his right hon. friend, the President of the Board of Trade, but that it could not properly form one of the topics of consideration of the committee for which he had just moved.
Mr. Hume,
while he was of opinion, that the question of the duties was one of great importance, certainly thought that it could not be advantageously comprehended in the inquiries of the present Committee.
Mr. V. Fitzgerald
approved of the appointment of the committee, and thought it better to confine the inquiry at present to the two objects stated in the motion.
The motion was then put and agreed to.
EPISCOPAL UNIONS AND PLURALITIES IN IRELAND.]
Sir J. Newport
rose to move for leave to bring in a bill "to limit the power of holding a plurality of benefices, and to repeal the statutes, granting to the archbishops and bishops the power of forming episcopal unions in Ireland." The only pretences held out for the reason of the case in regard to unions were, continuity, weight of debt, and inability to meet the expenses. What would the House say to a parish connected with another, under these powers of union, which were eighteen miles asunder? He wished to draw the consideration of the House to this question, because it was one which involved the well-being of the
1342
1343
l.
l.
l
l.
l.
1344
l.
l.
Mr. Goulburn
said, that he did not mean to oppose the motion of the right hon. baronet. Whoever had attended to what had fallen from him, whenever the church of Ireland had come under the consideration of the House, would do him the justice to say, that he had always
1345
l.
l.
1346
Dr. Lushington
said, he was glad that the right hon. baronet had introduced this question, for it was right that some arrangement should be resorted to, for the purpose of curing the defects in the Irish church establishment, which had been pointed out. He agreed in the truth of the observation, that those who held high situations in the church had made many attempts to remove existing abuses. In addition to the instances already cited by the right hon. baronet, where improper unions had been made, he could speak of one in the diocese of Down and Connor, where five or six benefices had been united for many years, and there was no resident on any of them. At length, the circumstance came to the knowledge of the bishop, who appointed a clergyman to each of them, and gave to the individuals so appointed the tithes of the different parishes. In other cases, clergymen who held pluralities, were not deprived of them, but were compelled to reside for a certain time in their parishes. The proposed bill he conceived to be extremely necessary; because though some exemplary prelates did all they could to reform the church, yet their successors might fall into error. Looking at the evidence lately laid before the House of Commons, he found, in one instance, a tract of ninety-seven square miles described as having but one resident incumbent on it. Those who complained of the increase of Roman Catholics in Ireland ought not to allow so large a district as this to be without a proper number of resident clergymen. He would not, on this subject, trust to the conscience or disposition of any bishop. He hoped such a measure would. be brought in, as would effectually prevent the enjoyment of pluralities. Non-residence he considered as the great cause of the increase of dissenters in Ireland.
Mr. Trant
expressed himself in favour of the motion; and bore evidence to the disordered state of the church establishment in Ireland.
Mr. V. Fitzgerald
concurred in the mo-
1347
Mr. S. Rice
concurred in all that had been said in praise of the primate of Ireland. There was one act of his for which he was entitled to the admiration of the House and the gratitude of the country, if the fact was as he had reason to understand it was. That dignitary, in conjunction with the bishop of Limerick, had taken steps to prevent the admission of I any Orangemen into the church of Ire- land. The House would be astonished to hear that such a regulation was called for by the state of things in Ireland; but, however extraordinary they might think it, the interference of the primate of Ireland was in the highest degree worthy of his station and distinguished character.
The motion was agreed to.
STATE OF THE PRINTED REPORTS OF THE HOUSE, &c]
Mr. Spring Rice
rose, to move for the appointment of a select committee, on the State of the Papers printed by order of the House of Commons, from the year 1800 to the accession of his present majesty. He observed, that, since the year 1800, the parliamentary papers had not been collated or arranged. A committee had, in 1802, been appointed to inquire into the state of the papers presented to the House; and in consequence of the report of that committee the documents were selected
1348
Mr. Bankes
recommended the hon. member to leave out the words "Index and Journals," and confine his motion to the selection of Reports.
Sir John Newport
approved of the motion, as amended by the suggestion of the last speaker. Great care should be taken in the selection of papers; as among the valuable documents brought before the House, there was a mass of papers of minor importance, which it would be only burthensome and wasteful to collect.
Mr. Spring Rice
agreed to the suggestion of the hon. member, and would confine his motion to the Reports.
Mr. Croker
approved most fully of the motion, as he was convinced that a selection of Reports to the House would form the foundation of the most curious parliamentary history of the country. Those who reflected on the various events of the reign of George 3rd, must see how impossible it would be to arrive at any thing like accuracy in detailing them, without the assistance of the papers of the House.
1349
The motion was then agreed to: and it was ordered, "that it be an instruction to the Committee to consider and arrange such Reports as it may be proper to print in volumes, in addition to those which have been already so printed, and prepare an estimate of the expense of printing the same; also, to consider of providing some proper place for the safe custody of the printed books and papers, affording convenient access to the same, for the use of members of this House."
SIERRA LEONE.]
Mr. Wilmot Horton
stated, that he had no objection to grant Mr. Hume the papers he required respecting the colony of Sierra Leone; but months must elapse before they could be prepared.
Mr. Hume
wished the hon. gentleman would fix some day, when he could explain to the House the object of his calling on them for such papers. He should consider it a dereliction of duty to postpone his motion any longer than was absolutely necessary: since he hoped to save some millions to the country for the time to come, if the course of policy which he should recommend should be followed. He should content himself at present with merely moving for the papers in the manner suggested by the hon. gentleman; but he begged to ask, whether the papers which it was said would be furnished him were now in the country, or whether it would be necessary to send out for them to Sierra Leone? The
1350
Mr. Wilmot Horton
said, that some of the papers were in this country, but the majority of them were either at the colony or on their way hither. Of these a part was daily expected, orders having been sent out to the colony to forward them: and he had no doubt that they would speedily arrive. He should think tomorrow week would be a convenient night for the discussion on these papers.
Mr. Hume
observed, that he considered the motion of the greatest consequence, and should therefore agree to its postponement.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Friday, April 15, 1825
EQUITABLE LOAN BILL.]
The Earl of Lauderdale
, adverting to the petition he had presented against this bill, in which the petitioners prayed to be heard against it by counsel at their lordships' bar; and offered to prove that the Equitable Loan Company was illegal, said, he thought a company over which such doubts hung, was deserving of close investigation, before their lordships passed any bill in its favour. He did not think, indeed, that any noble lord would be found to move the second reading of the bill: but, in case any one should, he thought it right that their lordships should be in, possession of the fullest information on the subject. He should, therefore, move, that there be laid on the table, a copy of the deed for regulating the Equitable Loan Company, dated Nov. 6, 1824. He should also move, that there be laid before their lordships, a copy of all prospectuses published by the Equitable Loan Company in any of the newspapers, bearing the names of any of the directors, or of the secretary, which are subscribed to the deed of November 6, 1824. This society professed also to lend money to the poor; and he thought some light might be thrown on it, by comparing it with societies, which had formerly existed for the same purpose. He should, therefore, further move, that there be laid before their lordships copies of all licences or charters granted by any of his majesty's royal predecessors to any companies or bodies for lending small sums of money to the industrious classes. This would enable their lordships to distinguish this from other corporations.—Ordered.
1351
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Friday, April 15, 1825
THAMES QUAY BILL.]
Mr. Hobhouse
presented a petition, numerously signed, From the owners of wharfs on the North Bank of the Thames, against the Thames Quay Bill. The hon. member expressed his satisfaction, that for this session at least, the proposed measure was to be abandoned.
Colonel Trench
said, that, if those gentlemen who now petitioned against the bill would only open their eyes, they would find that, instead of their interests being injured by the projected alteration, they would be the persons most benefitted. It was a subject of great national importance; for it could not be denied, that to throw open a free and convenient communication between both ends of the metropolis, would be a benefit to every individual in the empire. He was aware of the grounds of opposition to this measure; and he could assure the House, that the resistance of those persons proceeded from an ignorance of their own interests: but, from the personal communication he had had with many of them, he found them in many instances open to conviction. However, he did not intend to press the measure during the present session, and he had no doubt, that before the next, the opposition to it would be considerably diminished.
Mr. Hobhouse
said, the hon. and gallant member would find himself greatly deceived, if he thought he should be able to make converts of these petitioners. In his opinion, the converts would come from the other side.
Ordered to lie on the table.
COMBINATION LAWS.]
Mr. Hume
presented a petition from the seamen of North Shields, complaining of certain statements which had been made prejudicial to them, and justifying a combination into which they had formed themselves, on the ground of self-defence against the masters. They stated, that the masters were in the habit of meeting occasionally, and settling the wages between them, and these wages were so low, that the seamen were obliged to unite in their own defence. The objects of their union were of a charitable nature; as it was intended to provide for destitute children of seamen.
Mr. Lambton
said, that the union was
1352
Mr. Hume
said, that the magistrates had power to suppress any violence; that being clearly contrary to law. The petitioners stated, that their regulations were adopted in self-defence, to prevent the owners from reducing them to comparative starvation. He moved, that the petition be referred to the committee on the Combination laws.
The petition, was referred to the said committee; together with a petition from the shipwrights on the river Thames.
GRANT TO MR. M'ADAM.]
Mr. Brougham
hoped, that the state of the public business was such as would enable the chancellor of the Exchequer to accede to the request which he was about to make. It was, he observed, proposed to vote on the present evening the sum of 2,000
l.
1353
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he felt no anxiety to bring the subject on at the present moment; at the same time, he must observe, that adequate notice had been given of his intention to do so. In the first place, he had given notice that he meant to move this grant prior to the Easter holydays It was then postponed, at the suggestion of others, and fixed for the present day; when, it was supposed, the House would be competent to discuss the subject. He knew not, therefore, why he should now put it off; at the same time, he wished to consult the convenience of the House as. much as possible.
Mr. Brougham
admitted, that the right hon. gentleman had given due notice; but he was one, of many, who would be much convenienced if the subject were postponed to Friday week.
Mr. H. Sumner
said, that, on the 19th of May, last year, he had moved that there be laid before the House a return of all emoluments received by Mr. M'Adam and his family from public bodies, for his services. He found that no such return had yet been made; but he thought it must by this time have been prepared. If [so, it was but fair that the House should know what remuneration Mr. M'Adam had already received, before a sum of money was voted to him. He therefore hoped that his right hon. friend would agree to postpone the grant.
Mr. Maberly
said, that this question had been examined by a committee. The right hon. gentleman was about to propose the grant on the recommendation of that committee; which recommendation was nearly unanimous. The right hon. gentleman objected originally to this grant; and would not consent to it until he had a meeting with all the members of the committee. Due notice was then given, that the grant would be proposed; and therefore he thought that it ought not now to be postponed. Mr. M'Adam conceived that, after the report of the committee., he had a claim on the House.
1354
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, he had no objection to postpone the consideration of the grant to that day fort-night.
THE CUSTOM-HOUSE—MR. PETO.]
The House having resolved itself into a committee of supply,
Mr. Bernal
said, that on a former evening, allusion had been made, in the committee of supply, to the architect of the Customhouse, Mr. Peto, which had been exceedingly prejudicial to the interest of that individual. He therefore thought the present was a proper occasion for mentioning the subject, in order, if possible, to elicit some explanation. In consequence of what had been said, that individual had been put to most serious inconvenience, and had been prevented from carrying on extensive works in which he was engaged. He was excessively anxious to meet any charge that might be brought against him, in the most direct manner; and he wished that the affair should be placed in a state of investigation as speedily as possible.
Mr. Herries
said, it would not be proper, at present, to state all that had come within the knowledge of the Treasury, with respect to the transaction which it had been found necessary to make the subject of inquiry. Thus far, however, he would state, for the satisfaction of the hon. member, and of the individual alluded to, of the imperfect execution (to use the mildest term) that so much had appeared before the Treasury of the work in question, as rendered it more than probable, that some ulterior proceedings would be adopted. Now, however desirable it was for the individual, that the matter should be at once brought to issue, he thought the House would perceive, that it would be impossible to proceed with such rapidity. All the information necessary to make those proceedings complete must first be laid before the Treasury. He could only say, that no time should be lost in bringing the business to a decision.
Mr. Calcraft
said, that on a former evening, when the corn returns from Ipswich were mentioned, the names of some respectable gentlemen were allnded to, as being concerned in the formation of those fictitious returns. It was, he un-
1355
Mr. Huskisson
said, he had called on the inspector of corn returns to investigate the subject to which the hon. member had referred, and which was one of great importance; but he had not, up to the present moment, received the report of that individual. As the names of most respectable persons had been mentioned, it was proper that the business should be explained.
Alderman Wood
inquired, whether any legal proceedings had been instituted by the Treasury against Mr. Peto, for not performing his contract? That individual had been very much alarmed and injured by a statement which had gone forth, that his property had been seized, under an extent from the Crown; and he wished it to be clearly understood whether there was any foundation for that report.
Mr. Herries
said, there was no truth in the statement: no legal proceedings whatever had been instituted.
IRISH MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.]
On the resolution, "That 27,871
l.
Mr. Hume
said, he should be glad to know how much more would be required for this purpose? Year after year similar sums were voted. He advised that a survey should be made, to ascertain what would be the final expenditure.
Mr. Herries
could assure the hon. member, that the greatest care was taken that the money voted for this purpose
1356
Mr. Hume
said, that in looking over the items in the amount furnished, he thought it doubtful how far economy was attended to by the commissioners in all their charges. He thought that, after the many grants that were made, it was now time to stop. He found a charge of 34,135
l
l.
l.
l.
l.
l.
Sir H. Parnell
said, that the act of parliament to which the hon. gentleman referred, had been passed for the purpose of consolidating three commissions; that of Holyhead harbour, Howth harbour, and Holyhead roads. Every gentleman who passed a bill through that House must know, that for every separate head it contained, a distinct fee was charged. The bill in question contained provisions for two harbours, and for the road from Holyhead to London, which of course increased the expense; but nothing was done that was not quite customary. As to the expense of the establishment, it would not appear.great, if the hon. gentleman would recollect the extent of the labours which the commission had to perform. They had the superintendance of the whole line of road from London to Holyhead, a distance of 260 miles; they had to superintend the erection of two suspension bridges; and they had also to superintend the formation of two harbours. There were no less than twenty-five con-
1357
l.
Mr. Calcraft
could not understand, when they voted public money for a public purpose, how the bill for the appropriation of that public money could be called a private bill. The consequence of so treating it was, that they paid this enormous per centage on their own grants. Bills of this particular description ought not to be considered as private, but as public bills. He observed one extraordinary item in these accounts; namely, 107 mile stones, at
6
l
1
l.
Sir H. Parnell
said, there was scarcely a stone in the neighbourhood fit for a mile-stone. The consequence was, that they had to be carried from a distance of forty or fifty miles. The money voted was laid out as economically as possible.
Mr. Calcraft
said, he merely meant to lay it down as a general principle, that public money was more profusely spent than private money. He was glad to find that the present instance formed an exception to the rule. With respect to the mile-stones, he knew not how they could cost so much, unless they travelled in mail-coaches.
Sir John Newport
was of opinion, that, whenever public money was voted for a public purpose, the act of parliament relating to it was a public, and not a private act.
Mr. V. Fitzgerald
said, the hill in question provided not only for the expenditure of public money for a public purpose, but contained provisions which interfered with private rights. The House could not, therefore, have proceeded by means of a public act, without depriving individuals whose private rights were concerned, of
1358
The resolution was agreed to.
EMIGRATION FROM IRELAND TO THE
On the resolution, "That 30,000
l.
Mr. Hume
hoped, that the vote would not be brought forward that night, as the attendance of members was so thin. He should resist the proposal in every way.
Mr. Wilmot Horton
could not consent to the delay, as he knew of no more convenient opportunity of discussing the subject. He adverted to the vote of 1823, for the purpose of conveying persons from the south of Ireland to the Cape of Good Hope, and observed, that the object was one of national importance that could not be so well effected in any other manner. He did not mean to bind himself to any particular plan of emigration; but he was prepared to show, that the principles on which it rested were sound, although improvements upon some points might be suggested and adopted. The error of past emigration had been, that people were sent out, and when they arrived at their destination, they had not the means of procuring subsistence; but the purpose now was, to place the settlers in such a situation as to enable them to support themselves by their own industry. Government had received the most flattering accounts of the success which had attended the present system so late as up to last February. Under these circumstances, he felt justified in proposing the present vote. The undertaking was in the nature of an experiment, which might, in its operation, effect a partial benefit to Ireland.
Mr. Grattan
complained, that no account had been given of the result of the proceedings on this subject in the last year. As far as any thing was known, it seemed that the experiment, as far as re-
1359
Mr. V. Fitzgerald
supported the proposition, believing that it would be equally beneficial to Ireland and Canada.
Mr. Abercromby
thought, that the introduction of the present question was in itself a decisive proof of the bad system of government existing in Ireland. Instead of considering whether means could not be discovered to give sufficient employment to the labouring classes, so as to enable them to live upon the fruits of their industry, the House was now to be engaged in a discussion upon the best means of transporting them to another country. However, if the people were to emigrate, he was opposed to the principle of government taking the whole expense of the emigration upon itself; as he thought it would be amply sufficient, if those who intended to emigrate, simply received assistance from the government, instead of being sent out by it.
Mr. Wilmot Horton
defended the grant, which he described to be only of an experimental kind. Its objects were to be pursued in the most economical manner; and he should therefore be happy to receive from any gentleman a suggestion of a practical nature, by which the expense could be diminished, though he believed that could hardly be done.
Mr. Bright
approved of the principle of colonization, but complained of the expense at which it had been attempted to be carried into effect. He believed that some reductions could be made in that expense; although the hon. gentleman seemed to believe that impossible. He thought the House had better examine whether there was not a more advantageous mode of disposing of the surplus population of Ireland, than by sending them abroad. He should oppose the grant now; not absolutely, but conditionally, until a committee had been appointed to investigate the subject, and to report thereon to the House; and, among other things, to state whether, in their opinion, "a grant of 30,000
l.
Mr. S. Rice
expressed his thanks to the government for having taken up this subject. Emigration was an. experiment
1360
Mr. M. Fitzgerald
was disposed to continue the experiment of emigration; and should give his hearty consent to the proposed grant.
Mr. Hume
wished to know, if these colonists were sent out, whether they were likewise to be provided with capital to trade upon? Before making the grant, the House ought to have full evidence on the subject. He was eredibly informed, that eighteen out of every twenty emigrants that went to Upper Canada, passed on to the United States. Therefore, until accounts should be received from Canada, he should oppose the grant. At present, he looked upon it as a most wanton piece of extravagance.
Mr. J. Smith
supported the grant. He would vote the sum of 30,000
l.
Mr. Hutchinson
agreed with the hon. member for Midhurst, that this vote was calculated to relieve a small portion of the population of Ireland. If his majesty's government, however, conceived that this measure would afford any substantial relief to the miseries of that country, they grossly deceived themselves. It was not by promoting any scheme of emigration, but by uniting the people of Ireland, and finding employment for its population, that effectual relief could be afforded.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer
said, that if the proposition for a committee were meant as a substitute for the present vote, he should certainly oppose it. He had no objection, however, to refer the general question of emigration from Ireland on a large scale, to a specific committee; as the committee on the general state of Ireland might be too much occupied with other subjects to embrace that particular question.
1361
Mr. Trant
supported the motion. He should not have done so, however, but for the pledge of a committee to take the question of emigration into consideration.
The resolution was agreed to.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
Monday, April 18, 1825
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.]
The Archbishop of Canterbury
presented a petition against these claims from the archdeacon and clergy of the diocese of Canterbury, the language of which, his grace stated to be temperate and guarded. Many observations had been made on the petitions addressed by the clergy to the House; but, as an assertion had gone forth, that the clergy had changed their opinions respecting the danger of granting emancipation to the Catholics, he thought that they were fully justified in coming forward with petitions, as they had done.
The Bishop of Norwich
, in presenting two petitions against these claims, said, that he continued to dissent from the opinions which they expressed, but that their language was proper and temperate.
Lord Calthorpe
said, he was sorry, for the sake of the clergy, to see all these petitions, and to see such a spirit of hostility manifested to the Catholics. He was not, however, disposed to make any objections to receiving the petitions. He thought that both Houses of parliament should lend a willing ear to petitions from every class of persons; more particularly their lordships, who, not being dependent on the people for their parliamentary existence, should take care to show that they were not averse to listen to the wishes of the community, to whose opinion even their lordships must be ultimately amenable. The petitions which were presented to their lordships, he would contend, from what he recollected of former occasions, when any great question agitated the public mind, and when petitions poured in from all the great portions of the community, did not speak the general sense of the public. They were, he thought, petitions got up by the influence of the clergy. There had been, since the notice of the measure was given in the other House, an excellent opportunity for petitioning. The assizes had been held; but had their lordships received one petition from a grand jury? Was there a single petition from any one county meeting? Was-there a petition
1362
The Bishop of Chester
presented several petitions to the same effect. He would take that opportunity of reminding the noble lord, that he had presented a petition a few nights before, which was signed by upwards of 8,000 persons.
Lord Holland
remarked, that most of these petitions were got up by the clergy stimulating the people.
The Bishop of Chester
said, that the clergy had abstained from calling any public meetings, and from stimulating the people. He had been asked, whether or not-the clergy should petition? And he had replied, "petition by allmeans, but take no steps to excite the people." He knew that this advice had been acted on in his diocese; for a delegation of Protestant dissenters had applied to the clergy to call a county meeting, and they had refused.
1363
Lord King
would just trouble their lordships by referring to one petition; or rather to one line of one petition. His lordship then read an extract from a petition stating, "that the Jews had been subjected to severe punishments for seventy years for associating with idolators, and holding this up as a warning to this nation against mingling with or encouraging Catholic idolatry." The petition, containing this remarkable sentiment, was from the archdeacon and clergy of Leicester.
Ordered to lie on the table.
HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Monday, April 18, 1825
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS.]
Numerous petitions were presented both for and against the Roman Catholic Claims.
Colonel Archdall
presented a petition from the Protestants of the county of Fermanagh, against any further concessions to the Catholics. The gallant officer denied that the feeling of the Protestants of Ireland was changed on the question. They were now, as on all former occasions, adverse to the policy of what was called Catholic emancipation.
Mr. Denis Browne
said, he had the honour to reside in a very large county (Mayo), where a most respectable Protestant proprietary resided; and he could assure the House, that, at a recent public meeting which he attended, it was expressly decided, that there would not be either peace or prosperity, until Catholic emancipation was carried into effect by legislative enactment.
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he held in his hand a number of similar petitions; some from the clergy, some from persons not connected with the clergy, and others from dissenting congregations, both here and in Scotland. Though called on to present these petitions, he had no knowledge of the parties. He had acted on the principle he before professed, of not attempting to influence, in any way, the sentiments of any class of petitioners on this subject. The petitions were entirely unsuggested by him, and were the voluntary expressions of the opinions of those who signed them. He, in no instance, had held any communication with the parties until the petitions had been agreed to. He received letters requesting that he would present them to the House; and his answer was, that if they were
1364
Sir T. Lethbridge
, in presenting several petitions of a similar nature, said he did not know the parties from whom they came. He had received letters requesting that he would offer them to the House, and he thought it his duty to do so. The reasons and arguments which they contained appeared to him unanswerable. He wished to take that opportunity of retracting the charge of apathy which he had brought against the country upon a former occasion. That sort of feeling had been now raised among the people against any further concession of the Catholics, which he trusted would excite a similar spirit in the House. It was his firm opinion, that it was the feeling of the great majority of the population of this country, that no further concessions should be made to the Catholics.
Lord Nugent
rose, to present three petitions in favour of the Catholic Claims. He had intended to present to the House that evening, the general petition of the Roman Catholics of England and Scotland, in favour of the bill for conceding to the Catholics those rights, which they so justly claimed; but he thought it would be more respectful to the petitioners and to the House, if he postponed the presentation of the petition until to-morrow, when the entire subject would be brought under their consideration.
Mr. Brougham
said, he held in his hand a petition from certain inhabitants of great and little Bolton, in the county of Lancaster, in favour of the bill now before the House, for relieving the Roman Catholics from the disqualifications under which they at present laboured. The petitioners were of opinion, and in that opinion he entirely coincided, that it was equally impolitic and unjust to inflict civil disabilities on any body of men, because they adhered to a particular mode of religious belief. In presenting this petition to the House, he would take the liberty of stating the opinion which he had before expressed in that place, an opinion which he had always held, and always would hold; namely, that all tests, and all' civil qualifications, respecting disabilities to hold particular situations on account of religious belief, ought to be removed. He spoke not of the Roman Catholics merely. He was of opinion, that the pure doctrine of religious toleration ought to be extended to all sects, as well as to
1365
1366
1367
1368
Mr. Secretary Peel
said, he wished to offer a remark or two in defence of the conduct of those whose petitions he had presented. One of those petitions—that from Bolton—was signed by nearly 10,000 persons, comprising almost the whole of the dissenters of that neighbourhood. Now, for his own part, he saw no inconsistency in the conduct of Protestant dissenters when they approached that House, and petitioned against granting any further concessions to the Roman Catholics, because those dissenters were protected by the annual indemnity act. That circumstance did not alter the state of the question. They had a right to petition against the concession of privileges to those whose religious doctrines they disliked, because they conceived them dangerous. The; petitions of the dissenters were couched in the most respectful terms. The petitioners declared, that they felt no hostility against the Roman Catholics, but that they were actuated solely by religious scruples. They felt that the doctrines maintained by the Catholic church were further removed from their own, than the doctrines maintained by the church of England; and surely they had a right to approach that House with petitions against granting additional privileges to a body? of whose intolerance all past history, most amply informed them. If the bill now before the House were passed, it would not alter the law relative to taking the sacramental test; but as might be inferred from what the learned gentleman had said, if it were intended to make that bill the first step towards repealing all laws which respected the necessity of taking particular tests, on account of religious opinions, he believed he might reckon on the opposition to the bill, of many persons who had intended to sup-port it.
Mr. Brougham
wished to say a word in explanation. He hoped he should be un-
1369
Mr. W. Smith
expressed his belief, that the great body of dissenters were, as he was, favourable to the claims of the Catholics. He was glad that this conversation had taken place; because it would tend to do away a very mistaken opinion, which prevailed in that House, and through-out the country at large; namely, that because an indemnity bill was annually passed, the dissenters laboured under no disability, disqualification, or reproach. He felt that they laboured under all these; and, when the proper occasion arrived, he would show it. A Roman Catholic in approaching that House, or in holding office, would not have to encounter greater difficulties than were opposed to the dissenter.
Mr. Abercromby
said, that the conduct of the dissenters in petitioning against the Catholic claims, was totally irreconcilable with any notion which he could form of consistency. He had, indisputably, a great respect for the dissenters. They were a very enlightened class of men. He could not, however, bring himself to view their proceedings with approbation and respect; on the contrary, he looked at them with every possible feeling of suspicion, when he found them opposing the claims of the Roman Catholics. Why should they, of all other persons, evince hostility to the rights of the Catholics? Why should they come forward for relief in their own case? Why should they come before the House and demand a full participation in all civil rights, when they said—"We will not grant relief to others?" How could he reconcile himself to the belief that the principles avowed by the dissenters—the principles of religious liberty—.were to be supported by their strengthening the arguments by which, to-morrow, the right hon. Secretary for
1370
Mr. Brougham
repeated, that he meant to say nothing disrespectful of the dissenters. There were, he believed, six millions of them; and if some of them differed from the great body, and differed from their own avowed principles, it was a matter which he could not but lament. He was sorry, when those individuals found the church at a pinch for a cry of "No Popery!" that they were induced, he feared under a delusion, to step forward at that critical juncture for the purpose of raising it. He would state to the dissenters now present, if any such there were, that they most egregiously deceived themselves, if they thought the church of England would, in return, do any thing for them.
1371
1372
The Solicitor General
begged leave to say, that the first thing he had done when he offered himself for Oxford, was to declare that, on every occasion, he would follow his own unbiassed opinion. He would not vote in any particular manner, because he was member for that place; but he would act according to the dictates.of his own mind.
Ordered to lie on the table.
SCOTCH JURORS BILL.]
On the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,
Mr. Kennedy
said, he could not suffer this bill to be read a second time without a comment. He had himself often before proposed the very measure which was now about to be adopted; but he had always done so unsuccessfully. He did not mean to oppose the progress of the bill; on the contrary, he hailed its appearance, most sincerely glad to see it come from any quarter. He could not, however, fail to remark the inconsistency of the learned lord opposite, who had so frequently opposed the measure, which, on that learned lord's own introduction, was now about to be carried. The bill afforded him great satisfaction, because he believed it would be productive of benefit to Scotland. He therefore gave it his cordial support.
Mr. Hume
said, he had always thought that it was improper to reserve special juries for the civil courts alone, and to employ common juries to try persons charged with having committed crimes. Such a course seemed to him to be making too light of human life; and he was therefore heartily glad that the system was now to receive some alteration. He thought that the qualifications of special jurors might be simplified with great advantage to the public; and be trusted
1373
The Lord Advocate
said, that the main object of the bill was, to provide an impartial jury for all cases which should come on to be tried. With reference to the various classes of society, and the interests which were connected with them, it would be obviously impossible to do away with the difference between common and special juries; and, while that difference should exist, the suggestion of the hon. gentleman was wholly impracticable. He claimed, on behalf of the persons by whom this bill had been prepared, credit for the fair and honest manner in which it was brought forward.
Mr. Abercromby
said, that the credit of this measure, whatever it might be—and he was disposed to think very highly of it
1374
The bill was then read a second time.
1375
ADDENDUM.
UNLAWFUL SOCIETIES IN IRELAND BILL.]
The following Report of Mr. Dawson's Speech in the House of Commons oh the
th of February, on Mr. Goulburn's Motion for leave to bring in a "Bill to amend certain Acts relating to Unlawful Societies in Ireland" will be found more correct than the one given at p.
Mr. Dawson said, that, after the long discussion which the motion of his right hon. friend had undergone, he thought it neither decorous nor necessary to detain the House very long with the expression of his opinion; he was anxious, however, to explain the reasons of his vote, and he should endeavour to do so as concisely as possible, by avoiding an unnecessary allusion to the general question of Catholic emancipation. In the many eloquent speeches which had preceded him, at least one half of the time had been consumed in discussing, not the conduct or effect of the Catholic Association, but the merits of the Catholic question, and in the same proportion that reason and argument have been wanting to support the opposition to his right hon. friend's motion, so appeals to the passions, and the powers of imagination, have been applied to excite the feelings and divert the judgment from its proper subject. He should abstain, therefore, from following such examples, and should confine himself to this observation with respect to the Catholic question, that every passing event, and every proceeding of the Catholics, confirmed him still more strongly in the opinion which he had always maintained. That a further concession to their claims is incompatible with the safety of our constitution.
With respect to the question before the House, it seems to him that no man who understands the Irish character, that no man who has read the history of Ireland with common attention, that no man who has watched the progress of events in that country for the last thirty years, can conscientiously stand up and support associasions of any kind whatsoever. From the earliest period associations have been the curse of Ireland. In no country has the division of the inhabitants been so marked, so decided, so indelible, as in Ireland. The division between the Irish and the English has descended, under various denominations, through seven centuries;
1376
1377
1378
1379
1380
What says the Finance report which was published in the early part of the last year, before the rent became as successful as it is at present, and 50,000 copies of which were circulated through the country:
"It exhorts the people to wait in the sullen silence of discontent for a more favourable opportunity and better organized resources, to prove to Britain and the world that we are men, and deserve to be free."—This language is plain enough, it breathes the spirit of disaffection, and of
1381
And what, Sir, is the language of the Association in reviewing the conduct of such members of either House of parliament, as venture to express any sentiment unfavourable to the Catholics; all courtesy, all moderation is abandoned, and the liberty of speaking our thoughts is represented as the highest crime against the majority of the Catholic people; one gentleman (Mr. Shiell), says, that "if the British legislature require the degradation of a whole people for the enjoyment of its advantages, that it is the asylum of intolerance," and so on. When lord Redesdale states in the House of Lords that he shall freely give his opinion upon the Catholic question, and shall not be deterred by the fact, that his assassination was preached from the altar by a priest in Dublin, the Association immediately decree that the assertion is calumnious, and not only calumnious, but an assassinating calumny. His royal highness the duke of York exposed him-
1382
This, Sir, is the tone in which they speak of the parliament; these are the sentiments which they circulate through every part of the country; he allowed, indeed, that such assertions are contemptible, but is it safe, is it just, to allow a slanderous faction to disseminate their poison among a deluded and credulous peasantry?
The same hostility pursues every member of the Established Church, wherever an effort has been made to counteract the objections of the Catholic Association. The archbishops, bishops, and clergy of all descriptions, are involved in a general anathema; they are held up to accusation, as plunderers by the Catholic Association, and they are denounced as usurpers by the Roman Catholic clergy. Every act of kindness, of charity, of duty, performed by the Protestant clergy towards the poor of their districts, has been forgotten since the establishment of the Catholic Association. During the severe season of distress in the West of Ireland, in the year 1822, the archbishop of Tuam, who with true charity exerted himself for the relief of the poor, received the following address from Dr. Kelly, the Roman Catholic archbishop of the diocese:—
"Resolved, That the judicious, efficient and unwearied exertions of his grace the archbishop of Tuam, in the causes of charity, call forth our warmest sentiments of admiration, and we now beg to offer him the humble tribute of our sincere gratitude, hoping that his benignity of character, and his active and well-directed beneficence (qualities worthy of our emulation), may long continue to shed their influence over us.
OLIVER KELLY."
At this time, there was no Catholic
1383
But, Sir, not satisfied with every indignity that can he offered personally to the highest dignitaries of the Church; the leader of the Association, at its very last meeting, gave to a people, already through the agency of their priests worked up to the highest state of fanatical hatred against the members of the Established Church, the humane hint of massacreing them by wholesale. At the last meeting, Mr. O'Connell said, "Scotland did not exhibit the patience and self-control of Ireland, nor patiently suffer herself to be trampled on, while her oppressors rode by in triumph. She hewed down with the sword of the Lord the archbishops and bishops, and when the force of the British arms became too strong for her people, they retired to their mountains, and after renovating their vigour they returned to carry desolation to the very dwelling of their assailants."
Now, Sir, does such language as this require any comment? To whom is it addressed? not to the Association, but to the Roman Catholic peasantry, the most ignorant, the most deluded peasantry in the world, and unfortunately the most ready tools for any work of blood.
The same observations apply to those who are intrusted with the administration of justice. The chancellor, the judges, the magistrates, all come in for their share of abuse. There is an exception, indeed, in favour of those who are known to entertain opinions favourable to the Catholic cause; but the honest and conscientious assertion of an adverse opinion, no matter how amiable in private and how pure in public life the individual may be, is sufficient to have him represented by the Catholic press, in every cabin in Ireland, as a tyrant and a despot. In speaking of the chancellor of Ireland, Mr. O'Connell says that "the chancellorship of lord Manners, and the Attorney-generalship of Mr. Saurin, tended to degrade the dignity and sully the independence of a bar,
1384
Again, Sir, what is their language respecting the magistracy? that "the administration of justice in Ireland is corrupted at its very source; that a simple despotism weighs with an equality of pressure upon every class of the community; that the sense of masterdom mingles itself in the ordinary familiarities of life, and that the administration of justice is partial, vindictive, and unjust." Sir, if any one of these assertions were true, the laws would afford an ample remedy to the party aggrieved. But redress is not the object of the Catholic Association; it is more to their purpose to instil these dangerous falsehoods into the minds of the peasantry, and to prepare them, by undermining their confidence in every establishment, for deeds of aggression whenever they shall be proposed.
But, Sir, besides the speeches of the leaders, we may infer, from the proceedings of the Association, what great respect is entertained for the laws of the country. On the 24th of November, a Mr. Devereux and Mr. Hamilton Rowan were both admitted as members of the Association, and the announcement of their names was received with thunders of applause. The reason of this enthusiastic admiration is curious enough. Mr. Devereux was announced to be the almost only surviving delegate to the Catholic committee in 1793, and he was admitted immediately by Mr. O'Connell, as a matter of course, in that capacity: in other words, he was admitted because he belonged to an assembly which was declared to be illegal, and which was put down by law. The case of Mr. Hamilton Rowan was more notorious: and here he begged to express his regret at being obliged to renew the recollection of events long passed, and which certainly would have been buried in oblivion, so far as he was concerned, except for the indiscretion of the individuals themselves: they, not he, must be responsible for raking up the records of ancient and troublesome times. But Mr. Hamilton Rowan has made himself too notorious to be passed over in silence; he was secretary
1385
Now it is impossible to mark proceedings of this kind, without contemplating the result of these transactions. Why is every violent sentiment applauded? why is every dangerous man received as an useful ally? why is such publicity given to these mischievous sentiments? The object is plain; it is to alienate the people from their attachment to their rulers, to disgust them with the laws, and to prepare them for the overthrow of the Protestant religion.
But much as he condemned the existence of the Catholic Association, he thought it would be comparatively innocent in its operation, if it was not for the agency of the Roman Catholic priesthood. To the conduct of the priesthood he attributed most part of the evils which had desolated Ireland for so long a period: he regretted to be obliged to make this avowal, but these were times when the truth must be told, and when a delicate forbearance may prove an everlasting injury to the country. It was his misfortune to differ entirely from his right hon. friend below him, the Attorney-general for Ireland, in his opinion of the priesthood. In their conduct during the last five or six years, he had seen very little to approve of, but a great deal to condemn; and he could view their alliance with the Catholic association in no other light than as the first step towards the attainment of their grand object, the overthrow of the Protestant
1386
This is the denunciation of the Catholic clergy; it is fulminated from the altar, it is reported to the Association, it is read in every cabin in Ireland, as a useful lesson to the rising generation to cultivate obedience and resignation to the established laws of the country. But it is said that we are indebted for the present tranquillity to the Catholic clergy: he really believed so, but he believed also, that we are indebted for the late disorders to the same persons. He recollected in a trial which took place in the county of Cork, before Mr. Blacker, who presided as king's counsel under the Insurrection act, that Mr. Blacker asked a Catholic priest if he was aware of the disturbed state of his parish. The priest, with considerable reluctance, confessed that he was aware of it; and being pressed by Mr. Blacker, he allowed that no plot could be in agitation without his knowledge, and moreover, that every priest in Ireland must be aware of what was going on, if he did his duty. He recollected
1387
In a letter from Mr. Duggan, the parish priest of Kilrush, published in the proceedings of the Catholic Association, he says, "Many of them (his parishioners) have sworn to appropriate the whole of the corn-crop to the payment of the rent, no matter what other creditors may be justly entitled to, or even the wants of nature may imperiously demand." Who but a person of the most perverted understanding could encourage such a practice; what clergyman of real morality would recommend the withholding of a just payment, in order to provide for some undefined object; what man of real morality would recommend robbery to encourage sedition. Another priest, a Mr. Kelly of
1388
INDEX TO VOL. XII. NEW SERIES.
INDEX TO DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
Catholics, Roman, 642, 644, 936, 964, 1270, 1326, 1335, 1361
Clerk of Parliament, 126
Equitable-Loan Bill, 1194, 1350
Joint-Stock Companies, 31, 127, 751, 1194
Ireland; Slate of, 126, 160
Ireland; Unlawful Societies in, 711, 854, 942
Kenrick, Judge; Conduct of, 1336
King's Speech on Opening the Session, 1
Mining Speculations, 751
Navy; State of the, 591
Roman Catholic Claims, 642, 644, 936, 964, 1270, 1326, 1335, 1361
Scotch Judicature, 127
Scotch Juries Bill, 711
Spring Guns, 641, 922, 937, 1014
State of Ireland, 126, 160
State of the Navy, 591
Unlawful Societies in Ireland Bill, 711, 854, 942
INDEX TO DEBATES IN THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Address on the King's Speech at the Opening of the Session, 31, 82
Army Estimates, 925, 957
Army Extraordinaries, 998
Assessed Taxes, Repeal of the, 901
Bear-baiting Prevention Bill, 657
Breach of Privilege, 1338
British Museum, 664
Bubble Act, 1279
Caledonian Canal Bill, 1143
Call of the House, 753
Canadas; Emigration from Ireland to, 1358
Canadian Waste Lands Bill, 1033
Carlile, R.; Petition of, 1285
Civil Contingencies, 1090
Clergymen holding Offices in Corporations, 1073
Colonial Policy of the Country, 1097
Combination Laws, 1288, 1351
Corn Laws, 1245
County Courts Bill, 152
County Transfer of Land Bill, 614
Cruelly to Animals Bill, 1002
Custom House, 1354
Diplomatic Expenditure, 1090
Dissenters' Marriages Bill, 1236
Duties on Foreign Spirits, Tobacco, and Tea; Reduction of, 986
Duties on the Importation of Iron, Copper, &c. 996
East India Sugars, 1081
Elective Franchise in Ireland, 1246
Emigration from Ireland to the Canadas, 1358
Episcopal Unions and Pluralities in Ireland, 1341
Export of Tools and Machinery, 651
Felonies Pardon Bill, 1162
Financial Situation of the Country, 719
Foreign Commerce of the Country, 1196
Forgery of Names to a Petition, 1338
Game-Laws Bill, 528, 950
Ill-treatment of Animals Bill, 1160
India; Removal of British-born Subjects from, 652
Indian Army, 1167
Joint-Stock Companies, 717, 1074, 1279, 1314
Ireland; Elective Franchise in, 1246
Ireland; Episcopal Unions and Pluralities in, 1341
Ireland; Justices of Peace in, 624
Ireland; Landlords and Tenants in, 621
Ireland; Parish Vestries in, Bill, 617
Ireland; Unlawful Societies in, Bill, 124, 166, 168, 275, 352, 424, 522, 541, 544, 598, 626, 646, 666, 899, 1375
Irish Bankers Co-partnerships Bill, 1039
Irish Butter Trade, 1045
Irish Linen Trade, 1340
Irish Marriage Acts, 142
Irish Miscellaneous Services, 1076, 1355
Irish Linen Board, 1078
Irish Poor Relief Bill, 1136
Isle of Dogs Railway, 662
Juries Regulation Bill, 966
Justices of Peace in Ireland, 624
King's Speech at the Opening of the Session, 31, 82
Kirby, John; Petition of, 754
Landlords and Tenants in Ireland, 621
Law of Settlement, 1138
Linen, Trade of, 1340
Liverpool and Manchester Railway Bill, 845
London Water-Company Bill, 752
M'Adam, Mr.; Grant to, 1352
Machinery; Export of, 651
Members; Votes of, in cases in which they have a pecuniary Interest, 635, 973
Metropolitan Fish Company's Bill, 965, 1020
Metropolitan Water-Works Company, 992
Mutiny Bill, 999
Navy Estimates, 348, 592, 661
Norfolk Assizes, 648
Parish Vestries in Ireland Bill, 617
Peruvian Mining Company's Bill, 965, 1048
Police Magistrates Bill, 1128
Printed Reports of the House, 1347
Private Committees of the House; Want of Accomdation for, 1032
Public Buildings, 1257
Quarantine Laws, 993, 1315
Reduction of Duties on Foreign Spirits, Tobacco, and Tea, 986
Removal of British-born Subjects from India, 652
Repeal of the Assessed Taxes, 901
Roman Catholic Association, 124, 166, 168, 275, 352, 422, 424, 522, 541, 544, 598, 626, 646, 666, 899, 1375
Roman Catholic Claims, 757, 764, 1030, 1134, 1246, 1363
Roman Catholic Clergy, 1246
Roman Catholic Priests, 754
Roman Catholic Relief Bill, 1134, 1143, 1151
Saint Catherine's Docks Bill, 612, 990
Settlement; Law of, 1138
Sierre Leone, 1349
Small Debts Bill, 152
Standing Orders, 662, 845
Thames Quay, 540, 1022, 1351
Threatening Letters Punishment Bill, 1162
Tools and Machinery; Export of, 651
Turnpike Trusts, 529
Voles of Members on Questions in which they are personally interested, 635, 973
Unlawful Societies in Ireland Bill, 124, 166, 168, 275, 352, 424, 522, 541, 544, 598, 626, 646, 666, 899, 1375
Usury Laws Repeal Bill, 150, 531
West-India Company Bill, 1278
Wine Duties Bill, 1139
INDEX OF NAMES—HOUSE OF LORDS.
Bath and Wells, Bishop of (Dr. Law), 713, 714, 1270, 1271
Bathurst, Earl, 148
Calthorpe, Lord, 943, 1272, 1361
Canterbury, Archbishop of, 1361
Carbery, Lord, 891
Carnarvon, Earl of, 148, 716, 854, 855, 940, 941,
Chester, Bishop of (Dr. Blomfield), 715, 1273, 1276, 1334, 1335, 1362
Clifden, Viscount, 29, 712, 964
Darnley, Earl of, 162, 591, 718, 872, 937, 941, 948, 1270
Donoughmore, Earl of, 28, 642
Dudley and Ward, Viscount, 4, 945, 1271
Eldon, Earl of,
see
Ellenborough, Lord, 939, 942, 1018, 1020
Essex, Earl of, 1336
Exeter, Bishop of (Dr. Carey), 936, 937, 1326, 1327, 1333
Falmouth, Earl of, 941
Fitzwilliam, Earl, 713
Gort, Lord, 15
Gosford, Lord, 887
Grey, Earl, 862
Grosvenor, Earl, 126, 142, 642, 883, 941, 900, 1017, 1020
Harrowby, Earl of, 165, 898, 1020
Holland, Lord, 142, 163, 712, 714, 868, 1019, 1020, 1276, 1328, 1334, 1362
King, Lord, 17, 165, 716, 881, 936, 1272, 1275, 1327, 1333, 1535, 1363
Kingston, Earl of, 891
Landaff, Bishop of (Dr. Van Mildert), 1333
Lansdown, Marquis of, 20, 126, 128, 162, 644, 712, 892
Lauderdale, Earl of, 17, 128, 940, 1018, 1194, 1350
Limerick, Earl of, 940, 941
Liverpool, Earl of, 23, 126, 137, 160, 163, 855, 859, 872, 938, 1016, 1020, 1194, 1276, 1277, 1337
Longford, Earl of 888
Lord Chancellor Eldon, 31, 127, 866, 939, 941 944, 1019, 1195, 1277, 1337
Malmesbury, Lord, 1016
Melville, Lord, 591, 711
Norwich, Bishop of (Dr. H. Bathurst), 1361
Roden, Earl of, 29, 947
Rolle, Lord, 1328
Salisbury, Marquis of, 1017
Suffield, Lord, 641, 922, 938, 942, 1014, 1016, 1017
Sussex, H. R. H. the Duke of, 888
Teynham, Lord, 883
Wellington, Duke of, 937, 1015, 1018
Westmoreland, Earl of, 939
INDEX OF NAMES—HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Abercromby, Hon. James, 167, 191, 646, 900, 983, 1359, 1369, 1373
Acland, Sir Thomas, 1013
Althorp, Viscount, 152, 443, 634, 900, 915
Archdall, General, 1363
Astell, W. H., 1191
Attorney General (Sir John Copley), 579, 1280
Allwood, Matthias, 1066
Bagwell, Colonel, 1080
Baillie, John, 1185
Bankes, W. J., 431, 666, 799, 1031, 1032
Baring, Alexander, 637, 650, 686, 718, 1030, 1035, 1036, 1063, 1072, 1118, 1137, 1224, 1246, 1264
Baring, Sir Thomas, 531
Benett, John, 1138, 1234
Bernal, Ralph, 750, 933, 1021, 1142, 1166, 1263, 1267, 1354
Blair, James, 1085
Bourne, Right Hon. Sturges, 1138, 1139
Bridges, Alderman, 661, 990, 1036, 1073, 1076
Bright, Henry, 540, 640, 744, 757, 960, 972, 989, 1088, 1122, 1165, 1191, 1359
Brougham, Henry, 51, 119, 124, 497, 522, 542, 544, 566, 581, 635, 703, 827, 854, 1352, 1364, 1368, 1370
Browne, Right Hon. Dennis, 168, 300, 1363
Browne, Dominick, 297
Brownlow, Charles, 370, 754, 757, 899, 1256
Brydges, Sir John, 432, 952
Burdett, Sir Francis, 447, 472, 544, 757, 764, 839, 1012, 1062, 1121, 1134, 1136, 1253
Butterworth, Joseph, 120, 121, 519, 661
Buxton, Thomas Fowell, 649, 660, 753, 1056, 1087, 1278, 1313
Calcraft, John, 306, 531, 639, 854, 911, 917, 965, 1020, 1022, 1064, 1132, 1150, 1357
Calvert, Charles, 919, 991, 992, 1354
Canning, Right Hon. George, 72, 463, 791, 1091, 1093
Carew, R. S., 363
Cavendish, Lord George, 1245
Chancellor of the Exchequer (Right Hon. Frederick Robinson), 89, 412, 719, 751, 907, 918, 983, 1001, 1042, 1078, 1080, 1089, 1096, 1139, 1143, 1190, 1192, 1228, 1258, 1260, 1261, 1263, 1267, 1269, 1353
Clarke, Hon. C. B., 576
Clerk, Sir George, 348, 592, 597
Cockburn, Sir George, 349, 662
Coffin, Sir Isaac, 349
Colborne, N. R., 528, 649, 1264
Colthurst, Sir Nicholas, 284
Copley, Sir John,
see
Courtenay, William, 687, 1257
Cripps, Joseph, 534, 1229
Croker, John Wilson, 350, 662, 665, 785, 1025, 1266, 1269, 1348
Curteis, E., 966, 988, 1021, 1077, 1138
Curwen, John Christian, 151, 528, 1137, 1245
Davenport, D., 151
Davies, Colonel, 285, 638, 745, 931, 986, 1139, 1181
Davis, Hart, 745, 990
Dawson, George, 157, 167, 357, 756, 1040, 1257, 1375
Denman, Thomas, 111, 262, 632, 647, 694
Dickenson, W., 422
Doherty, John, 288, 676, 677, 853
Don, Sir Alexander, 957
Douglas, John, 956
Ellice, Edward, 748, 1065, 1245, 1281
Ellis, Charles, 1085, 1116
Ellis, Hon. George Agar, 1027
Estcourt, T. G., 1134, 1149
Evans, W., 1128, 1234
Farquhar, James, 1124, 1127
Fergusson, Sir Ronald, 1229
Fitzgerald, Maurice, 117, 120, 603, 934, 1035, 1044, 1045, 1047, 1138
Fitzgerald, Vesey, 441, 1137, 1346
Folkestone, Viscount, 991
Forbes, Sir Charles, 123, 751, 839, 961, 1187, 1190
Forde, Colonel, 695
Foster, J. L., 233, 626, 785
Fremantle, W., 752, 1182
Cascoyne, Isaac, 934, 1133
Gordon, R., 1036, 1030, 1084, 1126
Goulburn, Right Hon. Henry, 125, 168, 520, 621, 625, 629, 691, 1079, 1137, 1344
Gower, Lord Francis Leveson, 31
Grant, A. C., 1127
Grant, Right Hon. Charles, 1047, 1077, 1232, 1256, 1311
Grant, John Peter, 966, 1076, 1282
Grattan, James, 159, 275, 626, 756, 1047, 1076, 1136, 1358
Green, Thomas, 847, 1048
Grenfell, Pascoe, 433, 610, 635, 717, 979, 990, 997, 1074, 1281
Gurney, Hudson, 981, 1000, 1060, 1283, 1310, 1320
Harvey, Sir E., 1021, 1033
Heathcote, G. J., 907, 1002, 1160
Heron, Sir Robert, 423
Herries, J. C., 1258, 1354
Heygate, Alderman, 124, 539, 920, 991
Hill, Sir George, 154, 166, 1039, 1081, 1341
Hobhouse, John Cam, 82, 554, 717, 745, 931, 965, 971, 990, 1023, 1048, 1130, 1266, 1268, 1322
Hope, Sir A., 934
Horton, Wilmot, 960, 998, 1012, 1033, 1038, 1358, 1359
Hotham, Lord, 1148
Hume, Joseph, 121, 351, 527, 530, 532, 594, 598, 626, 640, 647, 651, 661, 719, 746, 957, 972, 973, 986, 990, 991, 998, 999, 1032, 1034, 1047, 1073, 1076, 1078, 1081, 1090, 1093, 1095, 1096, 1097, 1123, 1131, 1167, 1193, 1234, 1257, 1264, 1266, 1285, 1288, 1326, 1341, 1349, 1351, 1356, 1372
Huskisson, Right Hon. William, 597, 651, 652, 717, 718, 746, 848, 913, 916, 991, 996, 1075, 1097, 1123, 1196, 1233, 1235, 1245, 1246, 1285, 1288, 1313, 1355
Hutchinson, Hon. C. H., 106, 575, 629, 646, 696, 933, 1360
James, William, 957
Ingleby, Sir W., 921
Johnstone, Colonel, 959, 1000
Kennedy, Thomas, 1372
Knatchbull, Sir E., 530, 597, 602, 986
Lamb, Hon. William, 71, 444
Lamb, Hon. George, 352, 629, 1008
Lambton, J. G., 1313, 1351
Lethbridge, Sir Thomas, 109, 422, 541, 544, 647, 757, 1077, 1144, 1246, 1364
Lewis, Frankland, 755
Leycesler, Ralph, 666, 906
Lindsay, H., 962, 1229
Littleton, E. J., 978, 1133, 1227, 1248, 1257, 1261
Lockhart, J. I., 430, 952, 985, 1062, 1077, 1161, 1166, 1260
Loner, Right Hon. Sir Charles, 664, 963, 1265, 1267
Lord Advocate of Scotland (Sir W. Rae), 1373
Lowther, Lord, 529
Lushington, Dr., 152, 160, 408, 650, 971, 1080, 1124, 1238, 1346
Maberly, John, 350, 530, 744, 901, 921, 1263, 1341, 1353
Maberly, W. L., 277, 539, 1035
Macdonald, James, 846, 854
Mackintosh, Sir James, 376, 1005, 1137
Marjoribanks, S., 919
Martin, Richard, 116, 300, 657, 660, 1010, 1160, 1162
Martin, James, 957, 1261
Maxwell, Mr., 168, 1161
Milton, Lord, 626, 963, 1000
Monck, J. B., 919, 1077, 1138
Moore, Peter, 1279, 1284, 1285
Newport, Sir John, 100, 437, 617, 624, 625, 647, 690, 846, 1074, 1251, 1339, 1341
North, J., 159, 400
Nugent, Lord, 110, 598, 1364
Onslow, Mr. Serjeant, 150, 152, 537
Palmer, Charles, 92, 1140
Palmer, Fyshe, 614, 1074, 1100, 1192
Palmerston, Viscount, 925, 934, 935, 963, 1000, 1027, 1030
Parnell, Sir Henry, 117, 167, 204, 621, 624, 744, 1041, 1045, 1047, 1137, 1229, 1340, 1356
Peel, Right Hon. Robert, 103, 111, 247, 528, 566, 567, 617, 633, 650, 697, 814, 900, 933, 952, 956, 966, 972, 980, 1003, 1029, 1074, 1080, 1128, 1131, 1133, 1134, 1135, 1143, 1146, 1148, 1162, 1166, 1167, 1242, 1255, 1265, 1283, 1287, 1305, 1325, 1338, 1363, 1368
Peel, William, 850
Pelham, C., 275, 957
Philips, George, 611, 851
Phillimore, Dr., 1073
Plunkett, Right Hon. W. C., 310, 439, 517, 631, 756, 801
Rice, Spring, 364, 562, 667, 686, 1033, 1043, 1047, 1078, 1246, 1347, 1359
Ridley, Sir Matthew White, 423, 641, 659, 980, 1224, 1258, 1264, 1310
Robertson, Alexander, 434, 539, 596, 986, 1038, 1072, 1085, 1181, 1237, 1279, 1281, 1313
Robinson, Right Hon. Frederick,
see
Russell, Lord John, 1253
Scarlett, James, 577
Sebright, Sir John, 577, 649, 956, 1097, 1130, 1189
Shaw, Sir Robert, 1251
Shelley, Sir John, 528
Smith, John, 151, 157, 186, 534, 745, 935, 993, 1073, 1075, 1081, 1315
Smith, William, 539, 651, 1009, 1034, 1097, 1236, 1261, 1369
Sneyd, Nathaniel, 1045
Solicitor General (Sir C. Wetherell), 535, 557, 795
Speaker, The (Right Hon. Charles Manners Sutton) 662, 753, 845, 1133
Stuart-Wortley, J. A., 528, 529, 797, 950, 985, 1133, 1252
Sumner, Holme, 530, 979, 1353
Sutton, Right Hon. Charles Manners,
see
Sykes, Daniel, 609, 689, 744, 999, 1081, 1139, 1150
Taylor, Michael Angelo, 992, 1249
Tenyson, Charles, 528
Thompson, Alderman W., 43, 745, 1161, 1222, 1279
Tierney, Right Hon. George, 331, 1135, 1136, 1147, 1149, 1255
Trant, Mr., 111, 961, 990, 1044, 1079, 1088, 1192, 1311, 1324, 1346
Tremayne, J. H., 997, 1228
Trench, F. W., 608, 1023, 1351
Vivian, Sir H., 751, 997, 1223, 1233
Wallace, Right Hon. Thomas, 993, 1320
Warre, J. A., 302, 1161, 1192
Wetherell, Sir C.,
see
Whitmore, W., 750, 996
Wigram, William, 1193
Williams, John, 240
Williams, William, 299, 752
Wilson, Sir Robert, 424, 634, 920, 932, 934, 961, 963, 1029, 1079, 1253, 1325, 1326
Wilson, Carus, 1003, 1033, 1138, 1150
Wilson, Thomas, 753, 915, 1021, 1060, 1229, 1246, 1264
Wodehouse, E., 648
Wood, Alderman Matthew, 913, 992, 1022, 1262, 1263
Wood, Colonel, 1138
Wrottesley, Sir John, 913
Wynn, C. W. W., 123, 303, 539, 551, 655, 982, 1074, 1176
Yorke, Sir Joseph, 349, 350, 540, 553, 613, 661, 662, 956, 1021, 1027
END OF VOL. XII.