Commons Sitting of 21 April 1828

CORPORATION OF LUDLOW.
Sir F. Burdettsaid, he had a petition to present from Ludlow, complaining that the Corporation of that borough had devoted the funds, which ought to have been appropriated to the improvement of the town, to the payment of the expenses which the corporation had incurred in legal proceedings. No doubt this was highly improper conduct, and ought to be inquired into. But the petitioners also prayed, that the House would inquire into certain proceedings in the House of Lords, offering to prove at the bar of the; House that, in a cause in which the petitioners and the corporation had been concerned, and which came before the House of Lords, the earl of Powis, who was the recorder of the borough, had interfered in l an unconstitutional manner; and that lord Redesdale, who decided the case, had been previously consulted upon the proceedings. The petitioners stated, that the burial ground at Ludlow being in so crowded a state, that as often as a corpse was interred, the disgusting spectacle of bodies only partly decomposed presented itself, they applied to the corporation for another; burial-ground, but that the corporate body paid no attention to their application. That, on inquiry, they found that some years ago one Charles Fox had left the corporation, in trust, a chapel and a burial-ground, and that, instead of fulfilling the duties of the trust, they had I pulled the chapel down, and let the burial-

1611
ground for ninety-nine years to one of their own body, at a rent of 1l. 14 s. per annum. That in 1813 the petitioners commenced proceedings against the corporation, under sir S. Romilly's act, when the Vice-chancellor decided in favour of the petitioners, and declared the corporation to be no longer trustees. That this decision of the Vice-chancellor had been confirmed by the Master of the Rolls and lord Eldon, but the corporate body having appealed, the decisions of these judges were reversed; and that the unfair means already stated by the petitioners had been used in order to obtain that decree.
Lord Clivesaid, that his noble relation (lord Powis) would be most anxious that no opposition should be made to the inquiry. He would state shortly the origin of this petition. The corporation of Ludlow had very imprudently accepted this trust of a ruinous chapel, which, after it had been the cause of great expense, they pulled down. The corporation had pulled it down as a matter of security; as it had twenty years before been presented as in a ruinous state. Undoubtedly, the Vice-chancellor and other judges had decided in favour of the petitioners; but sir A. Hart, conceiving that the case did not come under sir S. Romilly's act, advised the appeal to the House of Lords. Upon this advice, the recorder thought it necessary to ask lord Redesdale if it was a proper case to be appealed, and his lordship's advice was similar to that of sir A. Hart. The case was submitted to lord Gifford, to the present lord Chancellor, and Attorney-general, and the opinion of all was, that sir T. Plomer and lord Eldon had misapprehended sir S. Romilly's act. He hoped the subject would be strictly investigated, for he was sure that he should be able to prove that the proceedings of the corporation, to which he had the honour to belong, had been what they ought to be; and that there was not the slightest foundation for the imputation of corruption. From all the circumstances connected with the petition, he could not help suspecting that the signatures had been obtained either by the agent or the gamekeeper of a gentleman who had petitioned against the last return for Ludlow.
Sir J. Yorkeasked, whether it was true that the burial ground was in this disgraceful state, and that the corporation had let the burial ground attached to the chapel to one of their own body?
Lord Clivesaid, he felt some delicacy in answering the question, because he might appear to be saying more in praise of his noble relation than he should wish to say. But the fact was, that the church burial ground being small and inadequate for so large a parish, he had made the parish a present of a piece of ground sufficient for a burial place.
The Speakersaid, the petitioners stated a grievance, and prayed an inquiry into it, in order that it might be abated. But then they had a further prayer; and it appeared to him clear, that they could not receive a petition which prayed that House to interfere with the manner in which the House of Lords had performed their duty in their appellate jurisdiction. He suggested, that the petition should be withdrawn, in order that this prayer might be omitted.
Sir F. Burdettsaid, he could not help thinking, that if injustice had been committed in the manner described by the petitioners, there ought to be a remedy for it. He would, however, follow the course that had been suggested.
Lord Clivehoped the hon. baronet would persevere in an inquiry, than which nothing could be more satisfactory to himself and his noble relation.
Sir F. Burdettsaid, he would certainly do his best to give satisfaction to both parties. He was not aware when he undertook to present the petition that he should be drawn into a position of so much responsibility.
The petition was then withdrawn.

ANATOMY.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, he had been requested to present some petitions which were of considerable importance. They related to the state of Anatomical Science in this country. The first was from the president and council of the Royal College of Surgeons. The petition was signed by sir W. Blizard, Mr. Abernethy, sir A. Cooper, and many other gentlemen of eminence in the profession. They stated, that they had pursued every means which the law allowed to procure anatomical subjects; that many were obliged to resort to France to learn a science so necessary to medicine; that the structure of the human body could not be learned by models; that the law required a man to possess a certain portion of information in his profession, and that they were liable to legal prosecution for

1613
professional ignorance. He really thought that every one must see the necessity of preserving to the country this branch of science; but he was afraid of a public discussion on the subject, when he recollected the prejudices which were found to prevail, more particularly among the lower orders. An hon. member would to-morrow bring forward a motion for an inquiry into the subject, and he should, therefore, reserve any decisive opinion until he heard the grounds on which that hon. member meant to rest his motion.
Sir J. Yorkeobserved upon the number of suicides annually committed in London, and suggested that, in such cases, it would be proper to give up the bodies for dissection.
Mr. Humesaid, that the effect of making dissection at any time a penalty could only be to increase the aversion in which if was held by the community.
Mr. Peelacquiesced in the opinion of the hon. member for Aberdeen.
Sir J. Mackintoshsaid, that the expense of a course of anatomical study in Edinburgh was already twenty times greater than it was in Paris. It was so heavy, indeed, that not one pupil in four could afford fairly to go through it; and the result was, that great numbers were turned out, with very inadequate qualifications, to practise upon the community. He would not, at that moment, state his precise views upon the subject, but he believed it would be possible to provide all the supply that was necessary, without any offence to the feelings of humanity, or violation of the rites of sepulture. The poorer classes were vitally interested in some proper arrangement of the question, since it was to their lot that the danger from all unqualified or half-qualified medical practitioners must necessarily fall: there would always, whatever might, be the charge of education, be a sufficient quantity of skill and knowledge for the rich. With respect to the proposition as to suicides, he might just observe, that, in opposition to the common belief, it was capable of proof, that suicides were less frequent in England than in any country in Europe; and the giving up the bodies of murderers proved a source of supply entirely unworthy notice. For the last seven years the number of murderers had only averaged fourteen in each year, or one upon every eight hundred and fifty thousand on the population. It gave him
1614
pleasure also to observe how much the number of executions generally had decreased of later years. In 1733, the executions in London and Middlesex had been as one to ten thousand upon the population; in the last seven years they had only averaged one in seventy thousand. As for the question of the expediency of continuing the practice of dissection in cases of murder, it did not appear to him that any threat could add practically to the terror of the punishment of death. The true distinction to take between the crime of murder and less heinous offences would be to lighten the character of the punishments inflicted for the latter. Ordered to lie on the table.

CORN LAWS—WAGES.
Mr. D. W. Harveybegged to call the attention of the House to a petition in every way deserving it, not only because it was signed by nearly twenty thousand persons engaged in the pursuit which gave employment to the artisan and revenue to the state, but as it involved principles of acknowledged importance, and which were daily pressing on the attention of the statesman, the philosopher, and the economist. He felt, moreover, peculiarly gratified in being the selected medium of communicating to the House the sentiments and feelings of so large and valuable a portion of his fellow-citizens, who might be considered as representing the claims of every class of men, under whatever denomination, who subsisted by their industry, and whose property was their labour. Unconnected with either of those great and conflicting interests whose struggles for ascendancy embarrassed the government and prejudiced the people, he had a steady and straight-forward course to pursue, and from which no inducement should divert him—that of standing up at all times, and under all circumstances, as the unflinching advocate, however feeble, of equal rights and equal protection. Personally considered, it was no object to him, whether trade perished or agriculture flourished, for he had no community with commerce, nor with the lords of the soil. Springing from the people, he was of the people, and was proud of being their champion, either in or out of that House. At the present moment this petition was of peculiar interest, as it was intimately in alliance with a subject which absorbed, more than any other, the attention of

1615
parliament—the Corn-laws. The present might not be the most suitable period to eater on the investigation of that question; but of one thing he was certain, that the course which the government had selected was the worst, as time, not very distant, would fatally demonstrate. Disguise the matter as they would, the policy of the ministers was prohibition in corn, at the same time they had not the courage to say so. That a high protecting duty would, for a period, be advantageous to landlords, he did not deny— and it was equally so to those who were fettered with covenants, stipulating for high rent; but a great and mischievous delusion was practised on the farmer generally, who had been led to believe that a measure which gave to the landlords high, rents would at the same time secure to them high prices. A greater fallacy was never palmed on credulity, and so the farmers would discover; for while they were excited to be of good cheer, and to live in expectation of improving times, instead of finding light hearts they would have light pockets, until the sequel would make every tenant a pauper, and every pauper a criminal. Still such was the policy of the government, who had been compelled to yield to a power they had apt the courage to resist nor the virtue to abandon; and he now called on those of his majesty's ministers, whom he saw in their places, especially those of them who had. been hallowed as the apostles of free trade, and also pretended to have got ". guarantees" for their accomplishment, to tell to the petitioners—and through them to the industrious millions of our agricultural labourers, our ingenious artisans, our mechanics, what plan they had in store by which protection was to be given to their labour, which was not only their sole property, but the source of all that wealth of which the few had so much, and from which the many were unhappily estranged. Are we to be told that the people, having no, parliamentary influence, were of no importance? that interest and not industry was the exclusive object of their concern? Such deadly doctrines will not be tolerated for ever. Let the ministers speak out, that the people, may at least know their doom. Do they mean to assert that opulence is to be maintained by oppression? and that the rents of landlords are to be kept up by a system which, while it makes bread dear,
1616
renders labour worthless; which compels a man to work hard and long, and then closes the markets against the sale of his productions? [hear, hear.] The petitioners are too candid, too intelligent, and too ingenuous, to advocate a system of exclusion; they ask for themselves and for the country an unrestricted exercise of their manual and mental labour, in whatever way and by whatever means it can be usefully directed. But they proceed to state, if government deem it expedient to pursue an opposite course, and while they admit the desirableness of free trade deny its practicability, then they claim to be brought within the same circle of protection which they so readily grant to the landed interest. Equal rights for unequal conditions is their motto; and the denial of their claim would be an act of the foulest injustice. He might be told, that labour must be left to find its own level; that no plan can be devised by which protection can be extended to the working classes. But he would ask, if. it cannot be accomplished, why erect the fortunes of the privileged few on the overthrow of the industrious many? A system of government which gives an artificial dignity to the idle, by degenerating the people, is a bad system, and cannot be tolerated. But though it was not his place to suggest plans and remedies, it was the duty of government to provide them; and if his majesty's ministers would apply the same means to secure a remuneration price to the labourers as they did to obtain high rents for landlords, they would find its accomplishment less difficult and more meritorious. The hon. member said, he would only further remark, that at no distant day this important subject must receive the earnest consideration of parliament—things could not remain as they were. There seemed a desire in some to get rid of the poor, in tearing them up by the roots, and transplanting them from the land of their fathers to some inhospitable region, they cared not where; while others seemed even inclined to annihilate the Poor-laws, a system of maintenance which, though greatly abused, he did not hesitate to declare as the best practical demonstration of the benevolence of the Christian religion [hear, hear]. For one, he was equally opposed to the inhumanity of compulsory emigration, and to all interference with the provision for the poor. There was no mystery in the request

1617
of the petitioners—it was manly, honest, and just—and he would conclude by reading the last sentence of their petition, in which he cordially concurred:—"Your petitioners are therefore desirous of calling the attention of your honourable House to the necessity, either of adopting some legislative regulatory measure tending to insure a liberal and fair remuneration rate of money wages throughout the United Kingdom, or immediately to abolish all existing monopolies, admit an unrestrained importation of Corn, and all other articles of subsistence and comfort; and to reduce the salaries and pay of all placemen and pensioners, and fixed money obligations, as shall cause a reduction of taxation equivalent to the reduction in the rate of wages."
Mr. Fylersaid, that reference had been made, on this subject, to the principle of political economy, that labour should be allowed to find its level like every other commodity. That might be very true in a new state, where the demand for labour was equal to the supply; but it would not do in a country like this, where the disproportion between labour and the demand for it was so great. He concurred with the hon. member, that the petitioners were entitled to protection in the price of labour, which was their only commodity, as much as other classes who had been protected by legislative enactments. The principle on which the petitioners went was not a new one. It was admitted in the Spitalfields act, which was in force some few years ago. There were no doubt many objections to that act, but they would not apply to a general act of that description—an act by which a committee of the masters and journeymen might meet at. stated periods, and fix a scale of prices by which the majority might bind the minority. The petitioners did not call for a fixed scale of prices, but that committees of the employers and employed should have the power of meeting and regulating the prices according to circumstances. He did not say that this would have an immediate effect in raising the price, but there could be no doubt that it would quiet the minds of the workmen, prevent those fluctuations of prices to which they were now liable, and enable them to make such calculations as would meet their wants from day to clay. He hoped that government would turn its attention to this important subject.
Mr. C. Grantsaid, he was ready to do justice to the character of the petitioners, and to the eloquent manner in which their case was introduced; but without now going into the general question, he would observe, that that which the hon. member who introduced the petition had only indirectly glanced at was broadly stated by the hon. gentleman who last addressed the House. The principle which that hon. member advocated was, that a general act should be passed regulating the rate of wages in the several manufacturing districts; that was, that the principle of the Spitalfields' act, which had been very properly repealed, should be revised, and made applicable to all the manufacturing districts. If this were not conceded to them, they asked that there should be an abolition of all monopolies, a free trade in corn and other necessary articles, a reduction of taxes and pensions, and other matters which would embrace a very wide field of inquiry. Now, he could see no necessary connexion between the two prayers of the petition. It did not follow that because there was not a free trade in corn and other articles, and a reduction of taxation, that there should be an act for regulating wages. For the sake of the petitioners themselves, he should deprecate any such measure; for he was sure it would be found to injure them to a very considerable extent, and he was surprised ! that the experience of the Spitalfields measure did not show them the evil consequences of establishing a fixed rate of wages. One effect of that law in Spitalfields was to drive a great part of the trade from that district to other parts of the country. He was surprised it was not thought of, that the proposed general measure would have the same effect on the kingdom, with reference to other countries, which the Spitalfields act had on that district, as compared with other manufacturing places. But the fact was, that the silk trade, at present, was not in such a state of depression as to require legislative interference. Four or five years ago, a man might earn from 25 s. to 30 s. a week, at particular kinds of silk; but now, by changes in the fashion, the same silk was not in request, and the greater part of the trade was in silk of an inferior kind, at which a man could earn about 17 s. or 18 s. a week. He could wish it were more; but still he must say, that the trade was not so depressed as to

1619
call for any legislative measure, and that if ever there was a case in which the principles of free trade were completely triumphant, it was that of the silk trade.
Mr. Humeconcurred with the right hon. gentleman in his remarks as to free trade. On that point he thought the petitioners in error, and also in their opinion as to the regulation of wages; but he concurred with them in their call on the legislature for the same measure of protection that was given to the richer classes of the community. This might be considered the petition of all the working classes; to they all concurred in the principle, that, if they could not obtain the protection for their trade, they should at least have the advantage of a general extension of the principle of free trade, so as to do away with all monopolies.
Mr. A. Dawsondenied that the petitioners asked parliament to regulate the rate of wages. AH that they wished was that a committee, composed of the employed and the employers, might be enabled from time to time to make such arrangements, as circumstances might require. If such a plan were practicable, it might prove very beneficial; and it would at least remove a cause of discontent from the minds of thousands of human beings.
Mr. P. Thompsonexpressed his firm conviction, that if any act were passed to regulate the rate of wages, not a twelvemonth would elapse before petitioners would crowd to the House to implore its repeal. If ever there had been a triumphant illustration of the principles of free trade, it existed in the present state of the silk trade; which had increased within the last eighteen months more than it had done for the preceding forty or fifty years.
Mr. Alderman Waithmanvery much doubted whether the silk trade had improved generally, although in some descriptions of articles it might have done so. The very statement of the right hon. gentleman, that the workmen who, four or five years ago, could make 30 s. a week, make now only 16 s. or 17 s., was a proof of this. The proof of the prosperity of that, or of any other trade, was to be found in the importation of the raw material, and the exportation of the manufactured article. Now, with respect to silk, we exported a great deal of raw material, and imported a large quantity of manufactured goods. For his part, be was quite at a
1620
loss to know what kind of reciprocity had been established between this country and France on this subject. It was undoubted, that there had been a great reduction of the profits of weavers, and of all persons concerned in the silk-trade. The petitioners threw the House into the dilemma of answering their question—why they protected other trades if they did not protect theirs. The petitioners said, if the House could not throw off all restrictions from trade, they should do the best they could with reference to corn and other, things.
Mr. D. W. Harveyexpressed his regret that the government appeared disposed to sacrifice the manufacturing interest in order to advantage those who benefitted by the monopoly of the com trade.
Mr. F. Lewissaid, that the silk manufacturers at present enjoyed a protection amounting to thirty per cent on manufactured goods. Under these circumstances it was not right to accuse government of sacrificing the manufacturing interest.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonadmitted that the silk manufacturers were protected to the extent of thirty per cent, but then the corn growers were protected to the amount of seventy-five per cent. Thus the manufacturers were prejudiced to the extent of forty-five per cent.
Sir G. Philipsexpressed his surprise that the right hon. gentleman should maintain that the manufacturers were placed on an equal footing with the growers of corn. For his part, he believed that protecting duties had none but a bad influence on manufacturers. If every protecting duty on foreign manufactures were removed, he believed the manufacturers would be improved thereby.
Ordered to lie on the table.

FEES ON TURNPIKE BILLS.
Mr. Littleton Mr. Littleton moved the order of the day for resuming the adjourned debate, on the resolution, "That after the present session, all Bills which, among other matters, shall contain provisions for the renewal, or repeal and renewal of any act or acts of Parliament, previously in force, for maintaining any Turnpike Road or Roads, be exempt from the payment of all Fees now chargeable, according to the table of fees of this House."
The Chancellor of the Exchequerrose to oppose the resolution. The object of it was to declare, that henceforth no fees should be paid on the renewal of turnpike

1621
bills. The fees now derived from that source, were paid into the treasury, and if those fees were taken away, the public must be burthened to the same amount. The fees were, it appeared, not greater at present on this class of bills than they were a hundred and thirty years ago; and if the hon. member's motion was acceded to, the alteration this must produce in the funds applicable to the payment of certain officers in that House would cost the public at least 10,000 l. yearly. These considerations must prevent his acquiescence in that motion; but he was disposed to meet in part the wishes of the hon. member, and to propose an amendment, which would have the effect of modifying the proposition now made, whilst it acquiesced in its spirit, as far as he considered that acquiescence was safe and judicious. Where such bills were merely a renewal of preceding bills, he would admit that they ought not to be subject to the fees usual upon the original turnpike bills; in other words, where the trustees, by their application to parliament, did not attempt to obtain an advantage to the trust at the expense of the public, or did not require that the property of private individuals in the line of road should be sacrificed or disturbed, to carry their object into execution, then bills of this nature should be exempt from fees. The right hon. gentleman then moved as an amendment, "that in all cases of bills intended to continue turnpike bills, about to expire during the then session of parliament, the fees incidental to such bills payable to officers of that House shall be disbursed by the public, provided that no such bill shall compel any alteration or surrender of private property, nor propose to take or collect any new toll, or increase the toll taken under the existing acts of Parliament."
Mr. Littletonsaid, he could not accede to the amendment, because it could never produce the effect contemplated by the original proposition. There was scarcely an instance of a bill being introduced to renew another, without possessing a clause which suggested or provided for the improvement of the line of road; and yet, if the House adopted the amendment, any such provisions would render the bill liable to the payment, of fees, although every one must admit that these were improvements in which the public at large were as much interested as the trustees of the road,
Mr. Davies Gilbertadmitted that it would be extremely improper to check the progress of improvement by rendering bills of this nature liable to the payment of fees.
Mr. Crippssaid, there existed a necessity for a denned table of fees, payable on bills introduced to renew turnpike acts, in order to prevent the recurrence of instances of enormous expense.
Sir J. Mackintoshagreed, that bills for the renewal or the regulation of Turnpike bills, if they effected no material alteration in the nature of their enactment, ought not to be liable to the payment of fees. Turnpike bills were a great public benefit, and distinguishable in their nature from private property. It was therefore no violent proposal that they should be included in those regulations which the House was in the habit of extending to public measures. The resolution of his hon. friend would be a great improvement, and could be attended with no inconvenience.
Mr. R. Gordonthought it would be a great advantage if turnpike road bills were considered as public bills. The roads were not for the accommodation of those through whose estates they were made, but for that of the public in general. He thought the process of engrossing might be dispensed with, in cases of simple renewal; which would be a saying of 20 l. upon each application.
Mr. Secretary Peelwas willing to admit, that if, upon investigation, it should appear that the amount of fees taken on turnpike bills was unreasonable, a reduction should take place. But the House should pause when they came to consider whether the expense should be defrayed as a local burthen or transferred to the public. For his own part, he was disposed to think, that it would be better to continue them on the present plan; for, if transferred to the public, there was reason to apprehend that there would be less vigilance exercised in watching their progress, and scrutinizing their necessity, than if conducted upon the principle of local charges. Nothing could be more a public benefit than the prosecution of offenders, and yet the expenses incurred under this head fell upon the local districts in which they took place. Far these reasons he would vote against the resolution.
Mr. Wynnconsidered turnpike bilk not as private but as public benefits, and consequently unfit subjects for taxation.
Mr. Bankesconcurred in the opinion, that the fees on the renewal of such trusts should be considerably reduced; but the great expense of such bills did not arise in that House, but consisted in the charges of solicitors and agents. He was willing that the fees should be regulated, but not that the charge should be transferred to the public.
Sir T. Aclandsaid, that the real question was not whether these bills should be exempted from the same charges as other bills, but whether they should not be put on an equality with other private bills. In other bills the tax was paid once, and for all; but Turnpike bills were obliged to be renewed every twenty-one years, when the same charges must be paid as on their first introduction.
The House divided: for the Resolution 50; For the Amendment 32. Majority 18.