Commons Sitting of 15 April 1825

THAMES QUAY BILL.
Mr. Hobhousepresented 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 Trenchsaid, 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. Hobhousesaid, 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. Humepresented 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. Lambtonsaid, that the union was
1352
not designed for charitable purposes only: if charity had any thing to do with it, it was a charity which began at home, and never travelled further. One of the regulations of the union, forbad any mariner to serve in a ship with any other mariner who was not a member of the union. A late instance would explain the effect of this rule. A ship arrived at Shields from the west of England, and the union required the owners to dismiss all the men serving on board, because they were not of the union. These poor fellows were to be left, according to the regulations of the union, to beg their way on foot back again into the west of England, to make way for mariners of the union. Another vessel arrived from Whitby; and it was with some difficulty that the lives of the men could be secured for a night or two, from the violence with which they were threatened. This was a state in which parliament would not readily consent to place the property of any man.
Mr. Humesaid, 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. Broughamhoped, 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. to Mr. M'Adam; and he wished that motion to be postponed, that gentlemen might have a better opportunity for discussing its merits. The question, in his view of it, was one of a most important nature; and they ought to pause before they sanctioned such a precedent. He pledged himself to demonstrate to the House, that if it were carried, there was no one invention made, or that might hereafter be made, by any man, which appeared beneficial to the country, that might not be advanced as a good ground for a grant of public money. If this motion succeeded, he certainly would propose a large grant of money to sir

1353
Humphry Davy, for his discovery of the safety-lamp; than which a more useful or a more important invention had scarcely ever come under his observation. Sir Humphry, he believed, had not made any money by his invention; but, as it had been the means of saving many lives, and was, in fact, a discovery of great public utility, he conceived the inventor was as worthy as any other person could be, to receive the bounty of parliament.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, 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. Broughamadmitted, 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. Sumnersaid, 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. Maberlysaid, 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
He ought to be at once informed, whether, that claim would or would not be recognized; instead of being kept in a state of suspense.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, 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. Bernalsaid, 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. Herriessaid, 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. Calcraftsaid, 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
derstood, stated on the next day by a right hon. gentleman (Mr. Huskisson), that an inquiry would be instituted on the subject. If such a course had been taken, he wished the result to be stated to the House; as it was important that they should have correct information with respect to the making up of those corn averages. He was not in the House on a former occasion, when some conversation had taken place relative to Mr. Peto. He now wished to say, that he had communicated with that individual on a work of considerable extent, and in its execution he had shown great skill and despatch. He had not, on that occasion, done any thing derogatory to the character of a man of honour. He felt it necessary to bear this testimony, which he could do most conscientiously, as to what he knew of Mr. Peto in this particular transaction.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, 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 Woodinquired, 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. Herriessaid, there was no truth in the statement: no legal proceedings whatever had been instituted.

IRISH MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
On the resolution, "That 27,871 l. be granted to defray the expenses of the Roads and Harbours of Holyhead and Howth, during the year 1825,"
Mr. Humesaid, 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. Herriescould assure the hon. member, that the greatest care was taken that the money voted for this purpose
1356
should be properly expended. The works were under the direction of commissioners duly qualified. He was happy to add, that although the present was not the last grant which it would be necessary to propose, that there was every reason to believe that one or two more would be sufficient. It was not impossible but that the grant of next year would close the whole expense.
Mr. Humesaid, 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 for widening a part of the road from Chester to Bangor. He found another charge of 1,407 l. for parliamentary fees and solicitor's charges, for passing an act of parliament, constituting the commissioners. If so much was paid for. an act of parliament, it was right to inquire what was done. He found another charge of 5,000 l. for engineering and surveying, although in another part there was a charge of 198 l. for surveying part of the road. He found among other charges for the salaries and expense of officers, one of 400 l. a-year for salary for a secretary. What most struck his attention was the charge of 1,400 l. for passing a bill, of which he did not hear a word in the House.
Sir H. Parnellsaid, 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
tracts in operation, to which they were obliged to attend: and he maintained, that the charges were as moderate as, from the nature of the work, they could be. No grant had been made for the main line of road through Wales during the last two years; and, in his opinion, 30,000 l. was not too much for insuring a proper communication between England and Ireland.
Mr. Calcraftcould 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 6l per stone. Now, in the country in which he lived, the commissioners of roads could purchase as personable a mile-stone as could be seen in any other part of the country for 1l. It did appear to him, that when the public money was to be laid out, every thing was done in the most profuse and extravagant way. He could conceive no reason why the mile-stones on the Shrewsbury road should be so exceedingly expensive.
Sir H. Parnellsaid, 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. Calcraftsaid, 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 Newportwas 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. Fitzgeraldsaid, 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
those safeguards which they enjoyed under the regulations by which private bills were governed. Besides, as the original act was a private act, it was necessary that the act to amend it should also be a private measure. No blame could therefore be attached either to the solicitor or the commissioners. The hon. gentleman bore testimony to the zeal with which sir H. Parnell had attended to these great works, and concluded by describing them as highly worthy the approbation of parliament and of the country.
The resolution was agreed to.

EMIGRATION FROM IRELAND TO THE CANADAS.
On the resolution, "That 30,000 l. be granted, for facilitating Emigration from the South of Ireland to the Canadas, for the year 1825,"
Mr. Humehoped, 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 Hortoncould 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. Grattancomplained, 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
lated to Canada, had not answered. In his view, it became the House to pause, not only until ministers brought forward such information as they possessed, but until it was seen whether, from any change in the situation of Ireland, such a course as that now recommended was necessary.
Mr. V. Fitzgeraldsupported the proposition, believing that it would be equally beneficial to Ireland and Canada.
Mr. Abercrombythought, 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 Hortondefended 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. Brightapproved 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. was not more than sufficient for the purpose.
Mr. S. Riceexpressed his thanks to the government for having taken up this subject. Emigration was an. experiment
1360
which had been tried, and had failed; and now it was asked to try the same experiment again, without knowing how far it was instrumental in the intended object. Formerly, the peasantry of Ireland looked on this system of emigration as only a genteel mode of transportation; but now they were anxious to emigrate to any place where they could find an honest mode of subsistence.
Mr. M. Fitzgeraldwas disposed to continue the experiment of emigration; and should give his hearty consent to the proposed grant.
Mr. Humewished 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. Smithsupported the grant. He would vote the sum of 30,000 l. to send a given number of Irish peasants to the Canadas, on the simple ground, that he should thereby be rescuing that number of persons from hopeless misery. His sentiments might be found fault with; but he should at least have the consolation of feeling, that he had rendered a number of his fellow-subjects happy for life.
Mr. Hutchinsonagreed 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 Exchequersaid, 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.
Mr. Trantsupported 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.