Commons Sitting of 1 July 1831

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time; Roman Catholl Charities; Master of the Mint's Salary: Growth of Tobacco Prohibition (Ireland); Land Tax Double Assessments; London Coal Trade.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. HUNT, the quantity of Foreign Com imported between April, 1830, and April, 1831:—On the Motion of Mr. Alderman WOOD the number of Persons discharged under the Insolvent Acts; the number who have paid Dividends for Property delivered previous to their discharge; the number who have subsequently acquired Property, which bad been made available for their Creditors; and the number detained for contravening the Acts.
Petitions presented. By Mr. HUNT, from Inhabitants of Abbylard, in Longford, for a Repeal of the Union. By Mr. DUNDAS, from the County of Berks, against the Reform Bill. By Mr. OWEN, from the Corporation of Morpeth, to continue to resident Burgesses, the right of voting. From Mr. HODGSON, from the Free Brothers of the same place, that the Elective Franchise be extended to them. By Mr. C. DUNDAS, from Inhabitants of Newbury, Speenhamland, and Greenham, to be represented in Parliament. By Mr. Alderman WOOD, from Mr. Hutchinson, complaining of the East-India Company for non-payment of a Debt. By Mr. PEMBERTON, from the Merchants and Ship-owners of Rye, for the Repeal of Marine Insurance Duties:—And to the same effect, by Mr. O'CONNELL, from Tralee. By Mr. SCHONSWAR, from Hull, against the renewal of the East-India Company's Charter. By Mr. O'CONNELL, from Rev. T. Smith, for a Reform of the Church Establishment; from the Catholic Inhabitants of Galway, for the extension of the Elective Franchise to them; from the Catholic Inhabitants of Ballycoog, against any further Grants to the Kildare Street Society; and from Thomas Lawrence, of Lambeth, complaining of the Admiralty Court.

REFORM.—INTEMPERATE PETITIONS.
Mr. Huntpresented a Petition from the Inhabitants of Stockport, objecting to the Reform Bill, as not going far enough. The hon. Member read the whole of the Petition, which was couched in violent and abusive language, directed principally against the Church.
During the reading of this Petition, the House exhibited marks of strong disgust and impatience, which, however, were repressed by the Speaker; but as soon as the hon. Member had concluded,
The Speakersaid, "What does the hon. Member propose to do with that Petition?"
Mr. Hunt.—To bring it up.
The Speaker.—The hon. Member has been a Member of this House long enough to have enabled him to learn that the first duty of a Member of the House of Commons, to whom petitions are intrusted, is, to make himself acquainted with the con-

579
tents of such petitions, and having seen that the petitions are respectfully and decently worded, then to exercise his discretion on the subject-matter of the petition. Now the wording of this petition is neither respectful nor even decent, and I cannot but feel persuaded, that if the hon. Member had ever read it before, he would not have presented it to the House.
Mr. W. Peeldid hope, that the House would not consent to receive a petition which contained such unfounded and unjust attacks, and which was couched in such gross language.
Mr. O'Connellsubmitted, that the petitioners might not have intended to insult the House.
The Speakersaid, the hon. and learned Member must see, that when gross and offensive language is selected by petitioners, the fair presumption is, that they do not mean to treat the House with any very great respect.
Mr. Huntsaid, that he would not press the bringing up of the petition against the sense of the House. The fact was, that he had read it all, with the exception of that single passage which was complained of. He owned that if he had read that part of it, he might not have presented it.
Petition withdrawn.
Mr. Huntsaid, that he had next to present a Petition from Leeds, but that perhaps there might be something wrong in this petition too.
The Speaker.—The hon. Member does not seem to understand my observations, or the feeling of the House. I repeat to the hon. Member, that it is the first duty of every hon. Member to see, that the petitions he has to present are decently and respectfully worded—for that is absolutely necessary; and then to exercise his discretion as to the subject-matter of those petitions. If this petition is worded like the last, the hon. Member may be certain that there is something wrong in it.
Mr. Hunt.—Well, then, Sir, I'll wait and read it over.
Mr. Lawleymust protest against the course pursued by the hon. member for Preston. That hon. Member, like every other hon. Member, was bound to know the contents of the petitions which he presented to the House.
Mr. Long Wellesleysaid, that the hon. member for Preston did not seem to be aware that the House was treating him with great leniency. He must, however,
580
endeavour to make the hon. Member sensible of that fact, and to tell the hon. Member that he (Mr. Hunt), more than any other hon. Member, would be bound, in courtesy for that treatment, to be particularly careful in seeing that the petitions he presented were properly worded. He was one of those who wished to see the abuses of the Church reformed; but he would not speak of any body of men in the gross terms which the petitioners had thought proper to use—terms which ought not to be tolerated in this or in any other assembly.
Mr. Huntsaid, that many other hon. Members had made mistakes in presenting petitions. The noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had made a mistake the other night, and he did not see why so much should be said about a mistake of his. The fact was, that many petitions were presented to that House which were never read, and which might be properly or improperly worded, for any tiling the House knew about them.
The Speaker.—Surely the hon. Member must see, that one reason of that is, the confidence which the House reposes in the Members who present those petitions— the confidence that those Members would not neglect the duty of seeing that the petitions are properly worded.

OXFORD PETITION.
Lord Makonpresented a Petition from 770 of the resident Bachelors and Undergraduates of the University of Oxford, against the Reform Bill, which the petitioners prayed might not pass into a law. The total number of that body varied from 1,000 to 1,100, so that the majority were decidedly averse from the measure. The petitioners stated, "that the Bill of Reform lately submitted to Parliament seems to your petitioners far more than commensurate with any existing amount of grievances; that your petitioners, however alien to their condition the expression of an opinion on political questions might appear under ordinary circumstances, and however reluctant to intrude on the attention of the Legislature, are, nevertheless, unwilling to contemplate such results in silence, and humbly and earnestly pray, that the said Bill may not pass into a law." A petition to the same effect had lately been presented by one of the hon. members of the University, from the Masters and Graduates, and the present petition was of great im-

581
portance, as showing, that the former did not proceed merely from timid old age or long-rooted prepossessions, but that the attachment to our present Constitution was as strong amidst the younger as amidst the elder members of the University. In the debates two years before, it had been thought a strong argument in favour of the Catholic question, that the rising talent of the country was anxious that the claims of the Catholics should be granted; and in support of the fact, that such were the sentiments of the rising talent of the country, it had been stated to the House, that in a debating society at the University of Oxford, the Catholic question had been carried by a majority of two to one. As that circumstance had been much relied upon by some hon. Members on the occasion to which he alluded, he begged now to state to the House, that, the same institution still existed, that it comprised as formerly, the most able and aspiring young men at Oxford, and that the Ministerial measure for Reform, being there debated, was rejected by a majority of not two to one, but three to one. He would make no comment on these facts, leaving them to the consideration of the House, but he must express his great satisfaction, that a declaration of attachment to the ancient institutions of the country should have been the first step in the career of these youths, which he hoped and trusted would be to them, each and all, a career of private worth and public usefulness.
Lord Morpethsaid, that it was impossible that he could speak of a body from which he had so lately emerged, and to which he had so many reasons to be attached, in other than terms of kindness and respect. He could not controvert the statement of the noble Lord respecting the feelings of the majority of this body with regard to Reform, but he could say, that it contained a minority respectable at once for talent and for numbers. Why the minority had not raised their voices against the majority, he could not tell; but perhaps it was because they considered it hardly consistent with their academical pursuits to approach this House as petitioners; or perhaps they might think, that their approbation would not add much weight to a measure which had already been approved of by the great body of the nation. With regard to the petitioners, he would only say, that as they advanced
582
in life, and had opportunities of mixing with larger masses of the community, he had no doubt they would imbibe opinions more in unison with those of the people, of whom he trusted the petitioners would one day be the support and the ornament.
The Petition to be printed.

REPEAL OF THE UNION.
Mr. O'Connell Mr. O'Connell, in presenting a Petition from the town of Drogheda, in favour of a Repeal of the Union, begged to ask the noble Lord (Althorp) if he was aware that five days after the Newtownbarry affray, another corps of Yeomanry had been furnished with arms. He had received a letter from a man of rank and talent in Ireland, which stated the fact in these terms—"My blood boils with indignation at learning that they are arming another corps of Yeomanry to massacre the people." He begged to assure the noble Lord, that the greatest agitation prevailed in Ireland upon the subject. He understood, that a procession was intended to be got up for the 12th of July, and if that did take place, he could assure the noble Lord there would be some more blood spilt. He begged now to refer to the petition which he had to present, and which prayed for the re-establishment of the local legislature in Ireland. The petitioners had intrusted him with a discretion whether or not he would present it, and, after the discussion of last night, he felt it his duty to present it. He appealed to the many independent men who had been sent into the House by the late election, whether Ireland could be so treated by the Reform Bill? The counties of England had received additions to the elective franchise, they had got several very numerous classes, such as freeholders, copyholders, and leaseholders; the people of Scotland had had their franchise greatly extended, but the franchise of Ireland would be diminished by the effect of the Reform Bill as now proposed to be brought in, which would have the effect of turning the counties into boroughs. The county he had the honour to represent contained a population of 216,000 persons; the number of voters for the county would be 700, of which forty-one were beneficed clergymen of the Established Church, and 136 of them resided in the town of Tralee; and as Tralee was an open borough, the effect would be, to turn the county almost into a borough. The scurvy franchise proposed by this bill would not give an

583
addition of voters to the constituency. England and Scotland were to receive a great increase, while Ireland was to be diminished. Why should not property be equally represented in Ireland as in England? Was it to be supposed that the people of Ireland were so stupid as not to feel this? He entertained no jealousy for the English Bill. He would vote for it willingly, but in doing so, he had a right to appeal to his fellow-reformers in England, and to ask them whether Ireland ought not to be entitled to the same privileges as England? Government was not to suppose, that Ireland would not feel in suited if they did not give in some degree privileges to Ireland, such as England enjoyed. The hon. Member wished not to be misunderstood. He had supported the Reform measure as far as it regarded England, and he would support it still, even if it were a measure affecting England alone. England had the 40 s. freeholders preserved to her. Ireland had the 40 s. freeholders taken away, and taken away too without any crime, notwithstanding the very basis of the Union was founded on the 40 s. freeholders. He, however, knew, that the only crime of the freeholders was their independence. They had shaken off the control of their landlords, and returned independent Members. He denied, too, that these freeholders were under the influence of the priests, which he knew, had been attempted to be proved before Committees of that House, but the attempt had failed. He gave notice, therefore, that, in the Committee on the Irish Reform Bill, he should move various amendments, the object of which would be, to place the system of Irish and English Representation on a more equal footing. He should move to restore the 40 s. freeholders to the right of voting: and if that failed, he should propose, that those should have votes who possess perpetual interest in land (the fee simple) to the value of 40 s., as was the case in England; also, to extend the right of voting to those who hold seven years' leases at a rent of 10 l. and upwards.
Mr. Sheilsaid, in reference to the Yeomanry, that he had the greatest confidence in Government, especially Lord Anglesey, who had made an entire dedication of his heart to Ireland. He, therefore, believed, that Government conceived it to be necessary to resort to that obnoxious force. The disease must, however, have
584
been terrible, which could induce Ministers to apply so formidable a remedy. The Yeomanry were drawn exclusively from the fourth or fifth gradation of Protestantism —from men who believed themselves born to ascendancy, and looked on the right to trample on the people as a portion of their inheritance. Their passions became ferocious from becoming gregarious; when they had arms in their hands, they retaliated for every the least offence with a disproportioned savageness, and assailed the multitude, between whom and themselves there existed such disparity of force, and such reciprocity of detestation. Thus every riot turned into a massacre. The least disturbance offered an arena for the passions, which only required to be uncaged, in order, with a sanguinary precipitancy, instantaneously to rush out. How applicable these observations were to the Newtownbarry transaction! The Government might not be able to get rid at once of their Praetorian guards; but let them beware of their very insecure allegiance. They should, however, act with promptitude with respect to the late terrible transaction. They had before them a report from Mr. Green; why not act upon it? If that report, from their own accredited delegate, implicated the Magistrates or the Yeomanry, the former ought to be struck out of the commission, and the latter deprived of their arms. This might be done at once, without involving any question as to the guilt of individuals. If they waited until the Assizes, justice would be found too tardy for the feelings of the people. Something must be clone without delay, otherwise the mass of the community would be inflamed and exasperated beyond the possibility of afterwards allaying their emotions. Wicklow and Wexford were associated with terrible recollections in the annals of Ireland. He, therefore, implored the Government to interpose at once—not to omit an occasion, which might never return, of appeasing the popular indignation. He was aware that his language was strong; but the facts to which it was applied were still stronger, and presented the most awful anticipations.
Mr. J. Grattanhoped, that his Majesty's Government would lose no time in reconsidering the scheme which they had adopted, of calling out the yeomanry of Ireland. He could state, that the county which he represented (Wicklow), and the

585
neighbouring county of Wexford, did not require such a force. The consequence of calling that force out was, that a feeling had been excited in Ireland which it would require a long time to allay. The hon. member for Kerry had stated, that it was the intention of the yeomanry in those counties to parade on the ensuing 12th of July. He (Mr. Grattan) sincerely hoped that his Majesty's Government would take steps to prevent such pernicious processions. With regard to the Reform Bill, he begged to say, that he trusted that when it was finally passed, it would have the effect of extinguishing the Repeal of the Union Question in Ireland.
Mr. Lefroydid not wish to add to the excitement which prevailed in Ireland: but he felt he ought to be excused if he attempted to do justice to a large body of persons who were unfairly accused. It was most unfair to assume that those persons who were concerned in the affray of Newtownbarry had been guilty of a massacre. When a legal investigation was pending, Gentlemen considered their lips sealed, if the affrays occurred in England Wales; and in proof of the accuracy of this observation he need only advert to the late occurrence at Merthyr-Tydvil, and to what was called "the Manchester massacre." In the latter case, though it was represented that there was a failure of justice in the Courts below, the House refused to interfere; and surely one law should not exist for occurrences in England, and another for what occurred in Ireland. It was a sweeping libel on the Juries, the Magistracy, the laws, and the Government of Ireland, to say, that the Legislature should, interfere, as if the Government and the local authorities were not anxious to have justice done to all his Majesty's subjects. He merely trespassed on the House with these observations lest it should be supposed, that all the Irish Members, from their silence, acquiesced in the charge made against the Yeomanry forces in Ireland. Some time since, it was said a Yeomanry corps should be disbanded, because it had allowed itself to be disarmed; and now it was contended that a yeomanry corps ought to be disbanded for doing its duty. The course now pursued was neither candid, just, nor fair. As to the question of Reform, he begged also to protest against its being supposed that the hon. and learned member for Kerry (Mr. O'Connell), or the hon, mem-
586
ber for Louth (Mr. Sheil), spoke the sentiments of the people of Ireland. A great proportion of the wealth and intelligence of Ireland was altogether opposed to the measure of Reform; but he considered it right to reserve himself for this subject until it came regularly before the House.
Lord Althorpsuggested the propriety of abstaining from all remarks, and begged that hon. Members would not proceed further in a discussion upon this subject before they knew what was the result of the Coroner's Inquest. The adoption of such a course of proceeding could not lead to any good consequences, whilst it might be productive of the worst effects. He had not interfered until the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, and who took a different view of the question from those who had preceded him, had had an opportunity of delivering his sentiments. After what had fallen from that hon. Gentleman, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) was still more confirmed in the opinion, that if such a discussion should be allowed to go on, it might lead to very bad consequences indeed.
Mr. Huntrose amidst loud cries of "Question," and proceeded, amidst considerable interruption, to allude to the Manchester massacre, and the recent affray at Merthyr-Tydvil. The hon. Member, after proceeding for a few minutes amidst cries of "Question" and much coughing, sat down.
Colonel Chichesterdenied, that the wealth and intelligence of Ireland were opposed to the Reform Bill. He had the honour of representing a county from which four Members were sent to that House: he alone of those four Members voted for the Reform measure in the late Parliament, and he was the only one of them that had been re-elected as a Member of the present Parliament. The county to which he alluded was the county of Wexford, and as far, therefore, as that county was concerned, he was able to state, that the intelligence of Ireland was not adverse to the Reform measure.
Mr. Lefroyhad not stated, that all the wealth and intelligence of Ireland were against the Reform Bill. He had said, that a great portion of the wealth and intelligence were, and to that opinion he adhered.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, the Irish county Members were as two to one in favour of Reform, and the Members for open towns.

587
and cities were almost unanimous in favour of it. The Irish had just common sense enough to see that nomination boroughs were an indifferent substitute for a Representation of the people.
Mr. Portmancomplained of the loss of time occupied in discussions like that which had just now arisen. The hon. member for Kerry (Mr. O'Connell) had much better discuss those matters on specific motions, than waste the time of the House by incidental discussions.
Mr. O'Connelltotally disclaimed the right of the hon. member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Portman) to lecture him. The subject on which he spoke was well deserving the consideration of the House. It was not one of idle curiosity, but related to the shedding of blood and the protection of life.

ABUSES OF THE PRESS.
On the question, moved by Lord Althorp, that the House resolve itself into a Committee on the Customs Acts—
Sir H. Hardingesaid, that seeing the hon. member for Middlesex in his place, he wished to advert to a subject which had been started a few days ago. It arose out of a statement, or opinion, given by the right hon. member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel), that certain seditious and disgusting publications were the authorship of the parties from which they purported to have proceeded. The hon. member for Middlesex, on the other hand, had insisted that they were written by persons "in the enemy's camp"—that is to say, that the authors of them were men who there professed opinions very different from the sentiments they really entertained. After some skirmishing, the hon. member for Middlesex had admitted, that what he had at first broadly asserted was only matter of suspicion. As he (Sir H. Hardinge) had said on a former day, if this suspicion were true, no punishment could be too severe for such a treacherous libeller; and without attaching too much importance to the matter, he might, perhaps, be allowed to ask the hon. member for Middlesex, whether he was able to substantiate the assertion, that the publication came from the "enemy's camp," or whether he was prepared to admit, that he had made an improper statement?
Mr. Humewas certainly not at all prepared to admit, that he had made an improper statement; on the contrary, he
588
was prepared to re-say what he had said on the former day. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) on a former day had argued, that certain publications, such as The Republican, for instance, were actually written by the parties who stood ostensibly forward, while he (Mr. Hume) had then some reason for believing that Mr. Hetherington was only the printer of that work in the way of his trade. On a subsequent clay, the hon. member for Dundalk came forward, as he contended, prepared to show, that these publications emanated from the Political Unions, which Political Unions were encouraged, by him (Mr. Hume.) To establish that assertion, a letter of which he (Mr. Hume) was the author, and the sentiments of which he did not wish to retract or disown, was produced, but it by no means proved the point for which it was employed. On that occasion he (Mr. Hume) had taken upon himself to deny the correctness of the statement of the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), and he had done so on the authority of manuscripts of the 11th and 18th numbers of The Republican, which he received from Mr. Hetherington, who received them from a person of the name of Lorimer, who appeared to be the author of them. It happened that this very morning he had received a very curious letter from Mr. Lorimer, who seemed to anticipate that the subject would this night be mentioned. It was addressed to "Citizen Hume, M. P "7, Bryanston-square." and it began, "Respected Fellow-Citizen." The writer went on to say, "that perceiving by The Morning Chronicle, that in the Assembly of which Mr. Hume was a Member, The Republican had been noticed by him as emanating from the enemy's camp (meaning the miserable Anti-Reform Opposition) the writer took the liberty of rectifying this absurd error into which Mr. Hume had fallen, as the author of The Republican had no connection of a political nature with any of the Unions, with the despotic Anti-Reform Tories, nor with the hypocritical double-dealing Whigs." The writer of the letter proceeded to say, that he could not imagine on what authority Mr. Hume had made his statement, as he (Mr. Lorimer) was the superviser of The Republican, and its ostensible and responsible Editor. The communication concluded with a request that Mr. Hume would send back the manuscripts of which he had possessed

589
himself, and which had been removed from Citizen Hetherington's office without his consent; it was subscribed "Your respectful fellow-citizen, J. S. B. Lorimer." After reading this communication, he (Mr. Hume) would add, that the suspicion he had entertained, that the writer of The Republican belonged to the enemy's camp was confirmed. The righthon. Baronet and the hon. member for Dundalk, were decidedly in error in what they had advanced, and he Mr. Hume) had unquestionably traced the authorship of The Republican to the West End of the town. This, he again said, was in itself a ground of suspicion that the man who wrote The Republican could not be an honest Reformer. Besides, what he wrote was so violent and offensive, that it threw ridicule upon the Bill and its advocates, and could not, in any way, advance the cause. He denied, that he had ever coupled the right hon. Baronet with the writer of The Republican; he could not do it; and it was only said that he had done so by those whose over-zeal induced them to catch at anything in the shape of a charge. Of what he had said he would not withdraw one word, for he still entertained the suspicion he had at first expressed.
On the question being put, that the Speaker leave the Chair,
Sir H. Hardingeobserved, that the House would probably agree with him, that a more impotent explanation had never been attempted. He was at a loss to conceive how the hon. member for Middlesex could, after deliberation, come down to make such a statement, so unsupported by truth, or the real state of the fact. On the former day the hon. Member had complained also of the pompous haughty tone of ridicule with which he had been treated by the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel.) After the letter he had read, he (Sir H. Hardinge) had expected that the hon. Member would have frankly declared, that he had been mistaken, and would not have resorted to such subterfuges. When an attack of the kind was made by the Press, he despised it; but coining from a Member of Parliament, who had weight and influence out of doors, he felt it necessary to take notice of it. He hoped still that the candour and manliness of the hon. Member would induce him to admit that he had made an improper accusation.
Mr. Humehad only to say further, that
590
he had as much respect for truth as the right hon. and gallant Officer, and that the assertion of the one was worth as much as that of the other. His own doubts were not removed; he still had his suspicions. If the House wished to see Mr. Lorimer, he might be summoned, although it was hardly worth while to waste the time of the House upon such nonsense. He repeated, that he was correct, and the right hon. and gallant Officer, as well as the hon. member for Dundalk, were entirely in error. Hetherington was not the writer of The Republican, but a person living at the west end of the town was, who probably belonged to the enemy's camp.
Sir R. Peelobserved, that, sated with the eloquence of the hon. member for Middlesex, he had left town, and had derived his knowledge of what passed on the last occasion chiefly from the ordinary channels of such information. He had been informed, also, that during his absence the hon. Member had made something like an attack upon him (Sir R. Peel), although, when he was present, the hon. Member had complimented him on his good humour, which he professed he would endeavour to imitate. From the charge of connection, whether it was or was not intended to be made, he could not condescend to vindicate himself; and he would rather a thousand times be the object of such a suspicion than the author of it. That any man of common honesty or common sense would resort to such an infamous proceeding, it was impossible to believe. The accusation was so extravagant as to contradict and refute itself. He admitted that there were strong facts against him, and one of them was, the conclusive piece of evidence, that Mr. Lorimer belonged to the enemy's camp because he lived at the west end of the town. Of course he could not be a true and sincere friend of the Reform Bill if he lived west of Temple Bar. But notwithstanding this fact, he could not condescend to vindicate himself from the suspicion. It was too much to make any set of men answerable for the misconduct of others, even of persons who might happen to take part with them, much less of those to whom they were opposed. The riots in Paris were attributed to those who were desirous of bringing back Charles X. By the same sort of inference, the breaking of the windows during the recent illuminations was said to have been committed at

591
the instigation of the Tories. As to citizen Hetherington, he had never heard of that citizen, until his name was mentioned in the House by the hon. member for Middlesex himself. If the hon. Member supposed that he (Sir R. Peel) alluded to Hetherington in his reply to the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir F. Burdett), he was entirely mistaken. On the contrary, he thought that the hon. Baronet was alluding to Carlile, and other persons of that description, whose names were more generally known than Hetherington's. What he then said was, that when the hon. Baronet recommended that those writers should not be punished by the arm of the law, he ought not at the same time to shield them from the only other punishment which could reach them, that is, public indignation, to which they could not be insensible, if they were not destitute of every particle of good feeling. He would mention another instance of that kind of imputation of which he had complained. He found that there had, some how or other, crept into the new Reform Bill a clause which became the subject of much animadversion, because it disqualified from voting all householders paying their rent quarterly. Well, he found that that unfortunate clause was also said to be the production of the secret enemy. But he had not been prepared to find any one going so far as to impute to any friend of his, or of those Gentlemen who generally acted with him, a connection with the authors of the infamous writings alluded to by the hon. Baronet.
Mr. Cutlar Fergusoncould never think that the impression had been left for a moment upon the mind of any hon. Member, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite had been connected with those base publications. At the same time he was bound to admit, that the hon. member for Middlesex had not made out his case. Imputations such as those complained of by the hon. Baronet had not always been so groundless as on the occasions to which he referred. It was well known, that in the year 1794, the most atrocious productions were put forth, purporting to come from the party friendly to the French Revolution, for the purpose of bringing that party into disrepute. It was also well known that spies were sent on other occasions amongst the people, with instructions to use treasonable language, for the purpose of entrapping those whom they could draw into conversation. But one
592
of these fellows was caught in his own snare, and was hanged at Edinburgh for treason. Notwithstanding the explanation which had been made, he (Mr. Ferguson) could not help thinking that the direct inference to be drawn from the remarks of the hon. member for Dundalk was, that that hon. Gentleman endeavoured to identify Mr. Hume's opinions with those of the Political Union, and to identify that Association with the seditious publications which he said were the recognized organs of the Union.
Mr. James Gordonexplained, that he had not charged the hon. member for Middlesex with having been cognizant of, or participant in, those writings.
The House then resolved itself into a Committee upon

THE CUSTOMS ACT—COAL DUTIES.
Mr. Bernalin the Chair.
Lord Althorpsaid, he would not enter into any details, as the subject had already been before the House. The Resolution he should first put was, "that it was the opinion of this Committee, that the duty of Customs upon Coals, Culm, and Cinders, carried coastways, should be reduced as from the 1st of March last."
Mr. Goulburncould not object to this Resolution, after the expectations that had been held out to the country upon this subject; but he wished to remind the House, that the noble Lord had withdrawn all those taxes by the produce of which he had intended to make up for the deficiency of revenue arising out of this diminution of the duty upon coals. The noble Lord would find, in consequence of the reduction of duty on coals, and the other reductions effected by him since his accession to office, that there would be a defalcation in the revenue, which he would find great difficulty in making good.
Lord Althorpbegged leave to remind the right hon. Gentleman, that though he had anticipated and admitted, that his proposed reductions would effect a diminution of revenue to the amount of something about l,200,000 l., he had not taken credit, as he might, and as he would presently show he was warranted, for the increased consumption consequent upon a reduced duty, as tending to reduce that deficiency. By taking into account the amount of increased consumption consequent upon the reduced duty, it would be seen that the falling-off, was much less

593
than the hon. Member supposed. For instance, if they compared the current half-year's consumption of Excise and Customs articles on which the duties had been reduced with the half year of 1830, they would find the falling-off less than might have been expected. The amount of Excise duties reduced on Excise articles, taking the half-year of 1830 as the standard, was 2,076,000 l., while the actual deficiency in the current half year was but 914,000 l.; showing, therefore, an increased consumption in the present year of, in round numbers, 1,100,000 l. Then in the Customs the reduction was560,000 l., while the actual deficiency was 252,000 l., showing an increase of consumption of 308,000 l.
Mr. Cressett Pelhamobserved, that a great portion of the increase the noble Lord had adverted to, was derived from an increased consumption in malt, and he therefore urged the expediency of reducing, or wholly abolishing, the duty on malt.
Mr. George Robinsontook that opportunity of asking the noble Lord, whether it was his intention to persist in the alteration in the wine duties? The subject was one of considerable importance, and had excited great interest out of doors, and the indecision of Ministers had occasioned much inconvenience and uncertainty in the trade.
Lord Althorpstated, that it was his intention to bring the subject forward in a few days.
Mr. Herriesinquired of the noble Lord, whether bonds were continued to be entered into for the payment of the coal duties, in case Parliament should not sanction the proceedings of Ministers with respect to their repeal.
Lord Althorpsaid, the Resolution for the repeal of this duty was sanctioned by the House last Session, and the coal-merchants continued to enter into bonds in case the present Parliament should not confirm the Resolutions agreed to by the House formerly.
Mr. Goulburnwished to know from the noble Lord, whether it was meant to reduce the duty on tiles as well as on slates? To reduce the duty on the latter, while it was left on. the former, would be ruinous to the manufacture of tiles—a commodity which, even under present circumstances, could not compete with slates, save in inland markets, unfavourable to the carriage of slate.
Lord Althorphad already explained to a deputation of gentlemen interested in the making of tiles, the grounds on which he had proposed a reduction of the duty on slates; and that was, that that duty was collected in the manner, and under the same management, as the duty on seaborne coals; and as it was intended to repeal the duty on sea-borne coals, they should have to keep up the several offices and officers necessary for that purpose, unless they also repealed the duty on slates.
Mr. Humewould rather that the amount of duty (30,000 l.) derived from tiles were levied on some other article, than that so great advantage should be conferred on the slate trade, to the detriment of the trade in the other commodity.
Mr. Alderman woodagreed with the hon. member for Middlesex, the rather as slate was an article that required no protection, its prime cost being in fact nothing. On the contrary, making bricks gave employment to a great number of persons, particularly in the neighbourhood of the metropolis, who would be seriously injured by the alteration. He did not wish the duty on slates to be continued, but the manufacturers of tiles to be placed on an equal footing with them.
Mr. Goulburnagain repeated, that the case of the tile-manufacturers was a hard one, and they ought to be placed in the same favourable condition as the slate-quarry owners. Slates being lighter than tiles, the timber used for the roofs was cheaper and lighter for slates than for tiles. It was to give the tile-makers protection that Mr. Pitt laid a duty on seaborne slates, and he must entreat the noble Lord to place the tile-manufacturers in as favourable a situation as the slate-manufacturers, by removing the duty from the former.
Lord Althorpdid not think the disadvantages under which the tile manufacturer laboured, so great as they were represented by the right hon. Gentleman; at the same time he wished to do nothing that would injure them.
Mr. Warburtonobserved, that the slate-quarries were in the hands of a few persons, and the continuance of the duty on tiles would enable such persons to pocket a large sum of money, by keeping up the price, at the expense of the rest of the community.
Resolution agreed to.
Lord Althorpsaid, his next Resolution related to the reduction of duties on coals exported. His Lordship moved the following Resolution:—"That all duties upon coal, culm, and cinders, exported into foreign countries, shall cease and determine, and that the following duties shall be substituted in lieu thereof: that is to say, upon all coal exported in British ships, into all British possessions, excepting Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney, Sark, and Man, a duty of 8d. per ton. That all coal exported into foreign parts in British ships, shall pay a duty of 3s. Ad. per ton. That all coal exported to foreign parts in ships, shall pay a duty of 6s. 8d.perton. That all culm or cinders exported in British ships into all British possessions, excepting Guernsey, Jersey, Alderney, Sark, and Man, shall pay a duty of 4d. per ton. That all cinders exported into foreign parts in British ships, shall pay a duty of 2s. per ton. And that all culm and cinders, exported into foreign parts in foreign ships, shall pay a duty of 4s. per ton."
Mr. Goulburnthought, that when the duties were reduced, the difference between coals carried in British and foreign vessels should be in the same proportion as before, so as to continue the protection to our own shipping. He found, however, a difference in the present rate, and that brought forward in the last Session, in favour of foreign ship-owners, to the extent of 6s. in 12 s.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, the wish of the Government was, to maintain the present proportion between the duties, and that could not have been done, if the Resolution proposed last year, had been adhered to, in which there was obviously a mistake.
Mr. WarburtonWas one who thought that it was the duty of the Legislature not to facilitate the exportation of coals, but to prevent it by restrictive duties as much as possible. The reason he would impose a high duty on coals, was, that as a time would come when our present mines would be worn out, it was our policy to confine their use as much as possible to our own domestic purposes.
Mr. Herrieshad to congratulate the hon. Member on his conversion to the doctrine of the expediency of a restrictive system of trade in certain cases. As the hon. Member had admitted the principle of an exception to his favourite free-trade principles in this instance, it was to be presumed he would see that the system of
596
commercial polity which he (Mr. Herries) and his Colleagues had acted upon, was founded upon expediency.
Mr. George Robinsonwas by no means an enemy to free-trade principles, but to the system which had been hitherto pursued in their application—namely, admitting foreign competition, duty free, in certain cases, or in regard to certain commodities, gloves, for example—the manufacturers of which were but very partially represented in that House, while they left untouched the great necessary of life—corn, the growers of which were the makers of the laws; to that system he objected. Ministers were very ready in their application of free-trade doctrines to minor and weak interests, but had not the courage to face the House of Commons, as hitherto constituted with a proposition for a repeal of the Corn-laws. And yet all free-trade doctrines, till that repeal was made, was but beginning at the wrong end.
Sir H. Parnellwould be prepared to show, whenever hon. Members pleased to moot the question, that the more rigidly and universally free-trade principles were applied, the more the general interests would be promoted: and that neither gloves nor coals were an exception.
Mr. Warburton Mr. Warburton, in explanation stated, that he had always been opposed to limitations in free trade for the benefit of individuals, and classes of individuals, and not for the benefit of the public.
Colonel Sibthorpwas happy to find, that there was at last a considerable reaction in the public mind against the doctrines of free trade.
Mr. Humesaid, that the question before the Committee was, whether any duty ought to be laid on the export of coals; and if the Committee said a duty ought to be levied, then the next question was, what ought to be the amount of that duty. He was opposed on principle to placing any duty on the export of coals, because he thought it politic to facilitate rather than to impede the transfer of that article. His principle of free trade was, to exchange every thing which was of no or of little value to himself, and was of considerable value to others, for articles which were of little or no value to others, and would be useful to him. To lay a tax of this nature upon coals, was to lay a tax upon an article necessary to manufactures; and every tax of that description hurt the lower orders, by keeping

597
them out of employment. He must object to the duty, unless the noble Lord was prepared to show, that it would not be injurious to the employment of the people. If a duty were to be imposed, he would not pretend to say, at present, what the amount of it ought to be.
Lord Althorpadmitted the principle laid down by his hon. friend, but he did not think this small duty on exported coals would cause one chaldron the less to be sent out of the country.
Mr. Goulburnwanted to know why the inhabitants of the Isle of Man, when the import duty was lessened in all other parts of the United Kingdom, were to pay a higher duty on the import of coals than they had done hitherto?
Lord Althorpsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had mistaken the effect and meaning of the Resolution, when he asserted that the Isle of Man would have to submit to increased taxation.
Mr. Goulburncontended, that he was perfectly right, and that the Resolution required amendment.
Mr. Humewanted to know what reason induced the noble Lord to deal so hardly as he did with our colonies by this Resolution? They were many of them in deep distress: why then should he lay a tax upon coals, which were wanted by some of them for the boiling of their sugars?
Sir M. White Ridleythought the tax so small, that it would only place the manufacturers on the continent, who required our coal, in a proper situation in regard to our own manufacturers. With respect to the stock of coals being exhausted, he gave no credit to the fears of the hon. member for Bridport for he believed that our coals would last as long as the world itself.
Resolution agreed to.

BARILLA DUTIES.
Lord Althorpthen proposed the following Resolutions:—
"1. That the additional duties payable on barilla, in respect of the quantities of soda or mineral alkali contained therein, be repealed; and that such repeal shall be deemed to have taken effect from the 28th day of May, 1819.
"2. That the additional duties payable upon natural alkali, imported from places within the limits of the East-India Company's charter, in respect of the quantities of soda or mineral alkali contained therein, be repealed; and that such repeal shall be deemed to have taken effect from the 10th day of August, 1828.
598
"3. That all the duties paid on barilla, used in bleaching of linen, between the 5th day of January, 1830, and the 5th day of January, 1831, be drawn back.
"4. That the duties payable on barilla, and also the duties payable on natural alkali imported from places within the limits of the East-India Company's charter be 2l. the ton; and that the same shall be deemed to have taken effect from the 14th day of December, 1830."
Sir George Clerkobjected to these Resolutions, as involving the interest of the kelp manufacturers, who were starving, from the ruin of their trade.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the decay of their manufacture was caused by the improvement in the manufacture of what was called "British Alkali from salt."
Mr. J. T. Hopehoped, that the distress of the kelp manufacturers would excite the attention of Parliament.
Mr. Ewartconfirmed Lord Althorp's statement, and said, that no duty on foreign barilla could now be of service to the kelp manufacturers.
Resolutions agreed to.
Lord Althorpthen proposed a Resolution, that a duty of thirty per cent be imposed upon all wax imported into the country.
Mr. Dixonobjected to the proposition. It was imposing a tax of which no notice whatever had been given.
Mr. Herriesalso thought the tax objectionable, as it was a tax on a raw material.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, the tax was imposed after a communication with the manufacturers of candles, and it was by their wish that the tax was imposed.
Mr. Sadlerwas glad of the increase of this duty, as it gave encouragement to the industry of our own cottagers.
Resolution agreed to.

DUTY ON RAW COTTON.
Lord Althorpnext proposed a Resolution to the Committee, "that there be levied on the importation of every 100lbs. of raw cotton, the produce of foreign countries, the sum of 5s. 10 d., and upon the same weight of cotton, the growth of British possessions, the sum of 4d." His Lordship observed, in proposing this duty, that, from all he could learn, the taking off the duty on printed calicoes had been productive of the greatest advantage to the trade. He did not mean to say, that the duty which he

599
now imposed was that which, at a more advantageous period he should have selected, but it was not so contrary to the principles of commerce, as the duty on printed calicoes, and, being compelled to choose between the two evils, he had chosen that which was the least.
Mr. Edward Kingcomplimented the noble Lord on the good already effected by the removal of the duty on printed calicoes, and expressed a hope that this duty on raw cotton would not be persisted in. He would state, from his own knowledge, that the imposition of this tax had already done a great deal of mischief; the manufacture was at present in a distressed state, and therefore the time was most unfavourable for imposing this duty.
Lord Althorprepeated what he had before stated, that the tax was but a choice of evils. He should be happy to be able to give it up, but that was out of his power.
Mr. Goulburn Mr. Goulburn, begged to inquire of the noble Lord, what the amount of the drawback on the export of printed cottons paid within the last year. He objected to the proposed tax because it would fall with great severity on the poor, who wore coarse and heavy garments.
Lord Althorpcould not say exactly what the amount of the drawback was, but he could inform the right hon. Member that the whole sum paid in drawback during this year exceeded the sum which was received by the duty on printed cottons by 122,000 l.
Mr. Sadlersaid, that the rich paid a large portion of the tax on printed cottons, but the instant the tax was imposed, the poor would have to pay for their stockings and their fustian jackets. He objected to the tax on principle. It was imposed on the raw material of an important manufacture.
Mr. Poulett Thomsondefended the tax which would amount only to 300,000 l. spread over the whole cotton consumed, while the tax taken off, amounted to 500,000 l. levied on one part of the manufacture. He believed, that the greater part of the tax on printed cottons was paid by the poor, and he was sure that they would not suffer so much from the general, as from the partial tax.
Mr. Sadlermust maintain, that as the dresses of the higher classes were made of muslin, that this tax would press most severely on the poorer classes.
Mr. Goulburnalso maintained, that the
600
duty on the raw material would press more severely on the lower classes, than the partial tax on printed cottons. He did not defend this tax, but inasmuch as it was the poor who wore the thick and heavy cotton garments, it would be the poor who would pay the largest portion of this new tax. To all the arguments of Ministers in favour of this tax, he would only say, that one of themselves, he meant the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary-at-War (Sir Henry Parnell), was one of the most powerful advocates, he knew, for the repeal of all taxes on raw material, and this was one.
Lord Althorpdid not deny, that this tax would press on the people, but not so disadvantageously as the tax for which it was a substitute. By repealing the other, Government had been enabled to get rid of 150 Excise Officers, who cost upwards of 15,000 l. a-year.
Mr. Alderman Woodthought, the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, very inconsistent. Last night, and on many former nights, he had been the staunch advocate of much needless taxation— grinding the faces of the poor; now he was objecting to imposing on them a very trifling tax. For his own part, he did not approve of the tax, but he had also opposed other taxes, and he hoped in future to have the support of that right hon. Gentleman in all his efforts to reduce salaries and taxation.
Mr. Herriesthought, the tax ought to be looked at principally as it would affect our export trade. A great struggle was going on to obtain possession of the foreign market, and any tax on the raw material, however trifling, would give the foreigner an advantage to that extent over our manufacturers. The tax was, on all hands, admitted to be bad, it would not yield more than 300,000 l., and was it worth while, he asked, to risk the chance of injuring our cotton manufacture for the sake of such a trifling addition to the revenue? He did not believe, that the resources of the country were so drained that such a sum could not be raised by other means: and he earnestly conjured the noble Lord to take the subject again into his consideration. During the first half of 1831, we had exported a less quantity and less value of cotton manufactures than in the corresponding half of 1830, and when there was this evidence

601
of a decline in our manufacture, it would be most unwise to burden it with an additional tax on the raw material.
Resolution agreed to, and the House resumed.

EXCISE ACTS—DUTY ON CANDLES.
On the motion of Lord Althorp, the House went into a Committee on the Excise Acts, the noble Lord moved the following Resolution, "That the duties on Candles in Great Britain and Ireland be repealed."
Mr. Herrieswas of opinion, that it would be more advantageous to take off a part of the duty on soap, than to adopt the present measure.
Mr. Humethought, that the duty on soap as well as on candles ought to be abolished. If, instead of the existing duty on soap, an additional duty were imposed on all tallow imported from Russia, there would be a saving to England of 600,000 l., a sum which Russia now obtained at our expense.
Lord Althorpwould be glad to adopt the suggestion of his hon. friend, if it were practicable, but, on the best consideration of all the circumstances of the case, it appeared to him, that if the tax on tallow imported from Russia were paid to a higher scale than that which at present existed, an end would be put to the trade altogether.
Mr. Goulburnconsidered, that such an increase of duty would not only put a stop to the trade in tallow, but likewise raise the price of candies and soap.
Mr. Protheroesaid, that the present: duty on soap obliged the traders of Bristol to have recourse, to persons not regularly licensed.
Mr. George Robinsonearnestly recommended the adoption of an equitable tax upon all property, as the best mode of affording effectual relief to the oppressed industry of the country. At present, funded property and other property escaped taxation, which fell with a pro-portionably heavy weight on the property which was engaged in feeding the productive powers of the community.
Mr. Pagetapproved of the proposition for laying an additional tax on Russian tallow. It would be a great relief to his constituents to have the tax on soap repealed. That tax was injurious both to health and industry, and ought unquestionably to be done away with.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonwas decidedly adverse to any proposition for taxing tallow, in fact, that was imposing a tax on a raw material. He wished to ask the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, upon what ground it was, that he had so long postponed the taking off the duty on candles?
Lord Althorpthought, that the course he had pursued was the safer one, for this reason: a quarter's duty was lost to the revenue upon the articles of wine and cotton, and, therefore, it was deemed advisable, that the duty on candles should be continued for a corresponding period, in order to make up the deficiency.
Mr. Maberlyconcurred with the hon. member for Worcester (Mr. Robinson), as to the expediency of imposing a property-tax. That would save a great expense in collecting the revenue, and would at once relieve the national industry.
Colonel Sibthorpthought, that an absentee tax would be attended with great benefit to Ireland as well as to England. He had himself never been absent from the country since he retired from the service.
Mr. Huntsaid, the hon. member for Lincoln was disposed to punish absentees, forgetting that many of them had left their native country, not so much from choice, as with a view to avoid the heavy taxation which residents in England had to sustain. He regretted, that the noble Lord had deferred till January, a boon for which the poor felt and expressed themselves grateful. With regard to the tax on soap, he trusted, that the noble Lord would remit, not a portion, but the whole of it. He assured him that its remission would be one of the greatest blessings that it was possible to confer on a large part of the community, which suffered more from the "poverty of filth" than could be easily conceived. To that class, it would be of incalculable benefit if the soap duty were removed. We had heard a great deal of cholera mores; sure he was, that one of the best methods of putting a stop to that disease (should it visit us), and preventing infection, would be to enable the poor, among whom such disorders were generally most prevalent, to cleanse their clothes and persons.
Resolution agreed to, and the House resumed.

SUPPLY — MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
Mr. SpringRice moved the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of Supply.
Mr. Humetook that opportunity of complaining of the appointment of a Committee, it having been appointed at a late hour that morning, on the Militia Estimates, without any previous notice having been given. This was against the usual practice of the House; for without such notice it was impossible that Members could be prepared to meet discussions.
Sir H. Hardingesaid, that the Committee was a matter of form. The Committee were only to examine the Estimates as they might be proposed to them.
Motion agreed to, and the Miscellaneous Estimates referred to the Committee.
The Speaker having left the Chair,
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, that it would be in the recollection of the Members of the last Parliament, that two votes were moved and carried in the Committee of the last Session. He would put these into the hands of the Chairman in the first instance.
He then moved, "that a sum not exceeding 14,440 l., be granted, to defray the expenses of the British Museum, to Christmas, 1831."
The next vote was, "that a sum not exceeding 80,000 l., be granted to defray the expense of the Civil Contingencies for the year 1831."
Mr. Humesaid, he should have been glad to have seen the noble Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in his place, in order to hear from him what were the specific reductions which he had made, pursuant to his promise and assurance before the recess, in the Diplomatic and Consular departments. By this plan of the noble Lord, it would seem as if the country would be benefited to the extent of nearly 40,000 l. a-year. As to the system of the North American States, it was far preferable and much cheaper than ours, the Consuls being taken from the resident merchants of that nation in the different maritime ports of Europe, and elsewhere.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, he had postponed, for the purpose of affording the noble Lord an opportunity to explain them more explicitly, these very Estimates relative to our Consuls abroad.
Mr. Humewas glad of it, for the out-
604
cry of every one was, that this department should be reformed.
Vote agreed to.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, he would now move the Miscellaneous Estimates under the head No. 1, and on this part he had but few observations to make. The alterations in the Civil List made it difficult to make any comparison between the votes of this year and the last. As some of the items had not come before Parliament hitherto, he could only take an Estimate of the average expense for the last three years. Under some heads it would appear that an increase had taken place, whereas in fact, there had been a decrease. This was owing to the transfer of several heads of expenditure from the Civil List to the present Estimates. Thus, for instance, under the head of "public buildings," there would appear an increase of 40,500 l., whereas, in fact, there was a decrease of 3,500 l., The cause of the difference was, the introduction of the sums for repairs of palaces which were formerly placed in the Civil List. As they were not acquainted with this expenditure, which had not been brought under the notice of Parliament before, the only Estimate they could make was, as he had said, by taking an average of the three preceding years. He had now to move, that a sum not exceeding 73,800 l. be granted for defraying the expense of public works, and repairs of public buildings.
Mr. Ridley Colbornehoped that, as the country had gone to some expense in the acquisition of some very valuable paintings of the best masters, and had been assisted in the formation of that collection, called the National Gallery, Pall-mall, by the munificence of several private persons, who were great patrons of Art, the Government would not adopt the mistaken economy of allowing them to remain, at great hazard, in a house which must come down, by articles of agreement, shortly; and the security of which was already endangered by the improvements carrying on in the rear of the house in Pall-mall. That property was estimated at above the value of 100,000 l.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, that no intimation of the house being in a state of danger had reached the Treasury. But, if well-founded apprehensions were entertained, he would take care, that property so valuable should be removed to a place of greater safety.
Mr. Humesaid, the printed Estimates before the House were such as could afford no adequate information to a person desirous of knowing what in reality they were, or to what objects the totals were applicable in detail. This was in violation of a promise given to the House by the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had understood that all votes for sums, not strictly for the use of his Majesty, should come before that House for its consideration and decision, being an amount of nearly 500,000 l. yearly. Many of the items of expenditure comprised in these Estimates, he considered highly objectionable. Amongst other items, there was one for Windsor Castle, and the repairs of other palaces, amounting to 39,000 l. Now, he would ask, was such a large expenditure necessary, in addition to the enormous expenses already incurred on these buildings?
Lord Althorpsaid, he should have no objection to make a more detailed and specific statement, if the Committee thought it necessary. The Board of Works, however, was a Board which attended minutely to its duty, and it was responsible for the application of these sums required for the repairs of those public and national buildings.
Mr. Herriesobserved, the vote had only reference to the ordinary works and repairs under the control of that Board.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, his hon. friend was confounding the public works and the repairs of palaces, which were quite different.
Mr. Robert Gordoncould not see how 39,000 l. should be required for ordinary repairs of palaces, independent of the improvements of Windsor-palace.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, the Estimate was made on the average of the last three years: it was only an estimate. If any surplus remained, it would go, of course, to the credit of the next year. When his hon. friend expressed surprise at the amount of the vote, he should recollect that it included the ordinary repairs of ten palaces.
Colonel Sibthorpcould not see why so large a sum should be required for repairs at Holyrood-house. He did not know for what this expense was, except for an ex-monarch whom we did not want there. He would say, we did not want these persons amongst us. They had no business here. He should not be surprised if we should also be called on to pay the ex-
606
penses of the Duke of Braganza, at the Clarendon Hotel. We did not want these persons as a burthen to us, and we ought not to encourage them, as it was probable we might have some more of the same description coming amongst us.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, the hon. Gentleman might make his mind easy as to the subject of expense on these grounds. The country had been put to no expense by the individuals to whom he alluded. As to his unfortunate anticipations, he would say nothing, but he had always understood that it was the pride of England that her shores were open as an asylum to the unfortunate of all countries; and he hoped that asylum would never be closed against expatriated gentlemen, because they were of a high rank, and could ill brook hardships. As to the expense of Holyrood-house, the hon. Gentleman might make himself easy; none of it was incurred for the parties to whom he referred.
Mr. John Martinsaid, as they were on the subject of public works, he could not but call the attention of Government to the present state of Westminster Hall. He supposed that was included in the public buildings, and he could not see why it should be left in its present disgraceful state. It was one of the finest Halls in Europe, and yet for years it had been left in a state at which any foreigners who visited it were astonished. It had for a long time been made a sort of lumber store for the records of the Courts of Law; and now, when those were partly removed, he saw no attempt made to repair it. In fact, it was now in the same state in which it was left at the removal of the two Courts at the upper end of the Hall. Surely, it was unworthy of a country like this, which made so large an outlay upon public buildings, that this admirable structure should be allowed to go thus to ruin. He did hope that Government would pay attention to this subject.
Mr. Cutlar Fergusonconcurred jn what had fallen from the hon. Member as to the state of Westminster Hall. One of the finest Halls in Europe was a disgrace to the country in the eyes of a stranger.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that half the records had now been removed from the Hall. He supposed the other part would be removed for no improvement could take place till the whole were taken away.
Lord Althorpsaid, that it was the in-

607
tention of Government to put the Hall into proper repair. Part of the records were already removed, and the others would soon be taken away. The Master of the Rolls, with his usual liberality, had offered his house in Chancery-lane for the reception of the records, until some proper place should be provided for them.
Mr. Humedid not think the remark of the hon. member for Cricklade (Mr. R. Gordon) had been answered. It was said that we had ten palaces to repair—what did we want them for? If we did not use them for public purposes, why not pull them down or dispose of them, and save the public any farther expense about them? They were now, and he would mention Hampton-court Palace as an instance, a kind of barrack for the accommodation of titled paupers. He repeated they were a kind of workhouse, kept up at the public expense, for the reception of that class of paupers whose friends ought to support them if they could not support themselves. At all events, the public ought not to be saddled with the burthen of keeping them in palaces. Gentlemen might cry "Oh," but what he said was the truth, though it might be very disagreeable to some of those who heard him. He did not want to make any comparison between the republican form of government and that under which we lived, but he could not shut his eyes to the fact, that the whole civil government of Washington did not amount to as much as we paid for these palaces, which were of no other use but to receive titled paupers. He could call them nothing else; the poor pauper did not pay for his lodging in the workhouse, and these, higher paupers were kept in lodgings at the public expense. But see how this operated. This expense was paid by taxes, and how were they raised? Look at the number of distresses issued to collect them; 3,000 beds were taken from 3,000 poor families to raise the assessed taxes—families, many of whom were only just raised above the poor rate themselves. But the getting rid of the expense of keeping up useless palaces would render this amount of individual suffering unnecessary. This was the true way to look at the question; yet when this plain truth was told, hon. Gentlemen cried out, "Oh, oh, oh." He had seen in one of the public papers that his Majesty had stated that he wanted only two houses—a town-house and a
608
country-house. Why, then, should all these palaces be kept up? Depend on it the country could not go on while such extravagant expenditure was continued.
Mr. S. Ricesaid, they altered the Civil List that all such votes as this might be excluded from it.
Mr. Trantsaid, mention had been made of America, but no comparison could be fairly drawn between the two countries as to expenditure on this head. At the same time he thought we should expend no more than was absolutely necessary, and that a time should be fixed when the grants for these buildings should cease.
Lord Althorpsaid, that this was the first year in which these votes separated from the Civil List, had been debated, and he thought that the discussion which had taken place upon them that night proved the benefit of having extracted them from the Civil List.
Vote agreed to.
On the proposal of a vote of 12,000 l. for the works of the British Museum,
Mr. Humeexpressed his regret, that the buildings had not been completed at once instead of being starved, as they were now, by spreading the grant over two or three years, and leaving the property of the Museum unprotected. He was sure the public desired to see the works completed, and he hoped they would be so completed in the next year.
Vote agreed to.
On the Vote of 4,700 l., for the repairs of the Holyhead-road, and the expenses of the engineers and commissioners,
Mr. Humeobjected to the expense of keeping two or three engineers in constant employment when one would be sufficient.
Mr. G. Dawsonagreed with the hon. Member in condemning this expense; and observed, that during the time he was connected with the Treasury, he had the pleasure of reducing the expenses connected with the Holyhead-road by many thousand pounds.
Sir Henry Parnelldefended the conduct of the Commissioners, and the economy of their expenditure. Public works such as the Men Bridge and the Howth Harbour, required the constant attention of an engineer. At Howth, where a pier was erected in the open sea, unless an engineer was present to direct repairs after a storm, the whole work might be destroyed; and he was sure no one grudged

609
200 l. a year for taking care of the Men-Bridge. He was prepared to prove, that the Commissioners for the Holyhead-road had saved the country upwards of 150,000 l. a year, and he courted inquiry.
Mr. Goulburnbore testimony to the meritorious exertions of the right hon. Baronet and the Commissioners. He had, at all times, thought the improvement of the communication between England and Ireland a matter of great importance; and differed from his right hon. friend (Mr. Dawson) on the propriety of lowering the expenditure. Not seeing any vote for the purpose of improving the landing-pier at Milford Haven, he wished to ask if that object had been abandoned?
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, that no vote had been proposed for that purpose, because there was at present money enough in hand to carry it on.
Resolution agreed to.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, that as the next grant to be proposed involved a question of principle, he begged leave to trouble the House with a few observations upon it. In 1825, complaints having been made of the inadequacy of the Revenue-buildings at Liverpool, a person was sent down to inspect them, who reported, that it was essential to the public interests that there should be new buildings, and that the old ones should be enlarged. An agreement was in consequence made between the Treasury and the Corporation of Liverpool that the former should expend 150,000 l. on that object, provided, the Corporation would contribute 25,000 l. more, and enter into a guarantee that they would defray any excess over the amount of the Estimate, or 175,000 l. The mode in which this sum of 150,000 l. was to be paid by the Treasury was highly objectionable; for it was proposed that it should come out of the proceeds of the revenue department in their way to the Exchequer. He had, therefore, been instructed by his noble friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to communicate to the corporation of Liverpool, that although his Majesty's present Government felt no difficulty in carrying into effect the agreement in question, yet that they could not consent to do so unless by a vote in Parliament. Feeling, therefore, that that was the most satisfactory and constitutional mode of proceeding, he should move as a Resolution, to grant to his Majesty the sum of 25,000 l. being one year's expenditure, for the im-
610
provement of the Revenue-buildings in Liverpool.
Mr. Robert Gordonentirely agreed in opinion with his hon. friend, and thought the principle which he had laid down an excellent one. It would form an admirable precedent for any future Ministry which might hereafter enter into engagements for the erection of public buildings. There had been several cases in which large sums, among the rest 100,000 l. for the new Post-office, had been improperly paid out of the revenue, instead of having been submitted as votes to Parliament.
Mr. Goulburnobserved, with reference to the agreement that had been made with the Corporation of Liverpool, that although he had no personal concern with it, yet being satisfied of its propriety he had no objection to stand forth as the vindicator of those who had entered into the agreement, in 1825, with the Corporation of Liverpool. If it came to a question, however, who ought to defend the transaction, certainly the right hon. Gentlemen opposite should do so, some of whom were then in office. The point complained of was the manner in which the expenses of the buildings were to be defrayed; now he was not aware that any arrangements had been made that would prevent the matter from being brought before the House, and therefore he could not think there was any thing improper in the transaction, as his hon. friend seemed to suppose.
Mr. Humewished to know when the buildings were begun?
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, he believed last year, or the year before; at all events nearly 75,000 l. had already been expended on the work.
Mr. Humestrongly condemned the mode in which it had been intended to carry the agreement into effect, without, in the first place, submitting it for the approbation of that House. He looked forward to Parliamentary Reform as calculated to give a check to such practices, If any Government should after that presume to undertake such works without the consent of Parliament, it would certainly receive such a lesson as would teach others to be more cautious for the future. In his opinion, it was a great dereliction of duty to commence expensive works without first obtaining the consent of Parliament. Here collected some years ago a question was put as to what part the public was to bear in the erection of

611
these buildings, and he had a clear impression on his mind, that the answer given was, that the whole expense was to be borne by the Corporation. It was a great and important question whether any Minister was authorised to involve the country in such expenses. He thought the excuse offered by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) was no excuse at all. It was immaterial whether the right hon. Gentleman was the originator of the measure or not, it was his duty, on coming into office immediately after the work had been begun, as he did, to bring the matter under the consideration of Parliament before any expense was incurred.
Lord Althorpbelieved the right hon. Gentleman could not be made responsible on the present occasion, because he was not the Minister who originally proposed the expense, but he entirely agreed with his hon. friend that the practice of entering into these kind of engagements ought to be discontinued. It was impossible that the House could have a clue control over the public money without being a party to the original contract. In the present instance, the House was placed in this situation—if they disapproved of the arrangement made by the Treasury, it would be impossible to depart from it without giving the Corporation of Liverpool ground for complaining that the Government had been guilty of a breach of faith.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that no other course could have been pursued, than that which had been adopted in the present instance. And he apprehended it was usual, when Government contemplated any such improvement as the one in question, to take upon itself the responsibility of making the previous arrangements. Could the Government come down to the Mouse of Commons, and ask its opinion as to whether it should enter into an agreement with the corporation of Liverpool? It was usual for the Treasury to enter into arrangements with parties, on the understanding that it depended on the House of Commons to grant or refuse the sums which were necessary to carry those arrangements into effect. With respect to this particular transaction, if he recollected rightly, a question was asked in the House relative to the terms of the bargain made with the Corporation of Liverpool, and the answer given was shortly what now appeared in detail on the face of the Estimates.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the proper
612
time to call upon the House to ratify or reject an arrangement of this description was, before a stone of the building was laid. The servants of the Crown, undoubtedly, made contracts upon their own responsibility, but then before a shilling was laid out, the assent of Parliament ought to be obtained. If the House should now reject the arrangement, would not the Corporation of Liverpool have a right to complain that they had been induced to expend several thousand pounds on false pretences?
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that the Corporation of Liverpool did not hesitate to become parties to the arrangement, because they thought it was so reasonable that Parliament would acquiesce in it. He did not know any other way in which a question of this kind could have been brought under the consideration of the House.
Mr. Spring Riceadmitted, that Parliament could not assume the executive power, but it ought, in his opinion, to have complete control over the public money. The Treasury Minute of the arrangement contained nothing which made the arrangement contingent on the sanction of Parliament. On the contrary, the notion of parliamentary control appeared to be completely abandoned by the Minute. He admitted, that a question had been asked in the House on the subject some time ago, but that was not the way to obtain the assent of the Commons of England to an undertaking which involved the expenditure of 150,000 l. He thought it was not sufficient to warrant any Government to enter into a contract on the faith of which individuals were induced to give up their land and expend their money, that it supposed merely the assent of the Commons might be obtained. Ministers might not always command majorities in that House.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, he did not deny, that, the House of Commons should have complete and absolute control over the public expenditure; but if the right hon. Gentleman opposite was anxious to read a lecture on the subject, he begged that he would read it to Lord Goderich, who was the author of the arrangement when Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1825. He did not! mention the circumstance from any feeling: of hostility to the noble Lord, who, he was: sure, had no idea of superseding the just authority of Parliament. All engagements with the Treasury were made on the under-

613
standing, that if the House would not grant the necessary funds, the engagements were to be at an end. In ordinary oases, parties advanced their money knowing the decision of Parliament was not yet obtained. The only occasion on which the House could express its opinion with respect to the propriety of public works was, when they were called upon to vote money for carrying them into execution. If the observations of the hon. Gentleman implied a censure on any one, it was not on him, but on the noble Lord to whom he had alluded.
Mr. Robert Gordonsaid, his right hon. friend who had just sat down had stated the case too generally. It was a mere mockery to say, that the House could fairly express its opinion with respect to any arrangement, after it had been partly carried into execution, as in the present case. It was then impossible for the House to withhold its assent. Now, what were the terms of the agreement in this instance? No reservation whatever, respecting the control of Parliament, was made in the Treasury Minute, which was in the following terms:—"In consideration of the Corporation of Liverpool advancing 25,000 l., this Board undertakes to pay the sum of 150,000 l." There was not the slightest reference to Parliament. He confessed, the speech of his hon. friend (Mr. Spring Rice) from that side of the House, was to him most satisfactory, for had he not actually seen him, he should have imagined he was still on the other side of the House, from whence he had so often heard him with delight, and where for fourteen or fifteen years he had the pleasure of acting with him.
Mr. Ewartsaid; that the works were begun in 1829, and all the Estimates connected with them were laid before the Finance Committee. He cordially approved of the sentiments expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. Gentleman who sat near him; and if he thought any attempt could be made to remove this grant from the control of Parliament, he, as a member for Liverpool, would not forget his duty as a Member of that House.
Mr. Briscoewas one of those who sincerely hoped and trusted that a new line of conduct was about to be pursued by the Ministry in reference to the expenditure of the public money, and he was quite sure the public would receive with great
614
pleasure the statements made by the noble Lord and the hon. Secretary to the Treasury. He hailed the manner in which the vote had been proposed, as an additional pledge on the part of the Ministry, and as an additional proof that they meant to keep the promises they had made previous to their accession to office and also as a proof that they were determined to restore to the House that constitutional control over the national expenditure which it ought to possess.
Vote agreed to.
On the question, that the sum of 42,000 l. be granted for the Salaries and Allowances of the Officers of the Lords and Commons,
Mr. Humeexpressed a wish, that in future the Estimate should contain some details respecting the distribution of this sum. It was a complete specimen of the manner of making up accounts so as to prevent their being understood.
Sir J. Bourkeparticipated in the desire entertained by the hon. member for Middlesex.
Lord Althorpsaid, that hereafter the vote should be accompanied with as much detail as possible.
Mr. Pagetcomplained of the confused manner in which the Estimates were drawn up generally. He had taken some pains to understand them, but he found it impossible to make any thing of them.
Vote agreed to.
On the Vote that 43,200 l. be granted to defray the expenses of the Houses of Lords and Commons for the year 1831,
Mr. Humereferred to the expenses of the examinations on the East Retford Bill—expenses which he thought very great, but which he did not grudge under the circumstances, as he thought that the conduct of the Government on that subject had produced the present Reform Bill. He wished to know how much of the sum was actually expended for the witnesses?
Mr. Spring Riceanswered, about 8,000 l..
Colonel Sibthorpthought, if that were the case, that those who brought the matter forward, ought to be content to pay the expense out of their own pockets.
Vote agreed to.
On the question that a sum of 16,475/. be voted to make good the deficiency in the Fee Fund for the Colonial Office, for the year 1831.
Mr. George Robinsonasked, if the recommendations of the Committee respect-

615
ing the management of the Colonies, had been attended to, and whether any arrangements were in progress for reducing their expenses?
Lord Howicksaid, there could be no doubt that some abuses existed in the colonial system. Many of the colonies were taxed higher than they ought to be, but it was felt that it would be harsh and unjust suddenly to attempt to reduce the emoluments of those who had given up their pursuits and professions in this country, for the purpose of going to distant and unhealthy climates. The late report made by the Colonial Commissioners did not point out any immediate reduction that could be made. It simply recommended certain reductions, without assigning any reasons, therefore it could not be acted upon by those who were responsible for the state of these accounts. The report of the Committee gave no clue to the manner in which its recommendations were to be acted upon, though it was the earnest desire of the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Department, to carry the recommendation of the Committee into effect. As a proof of this, he might mention, that in filling up a lately vacant Government the noble Lord had effected a reduction of 1,000 l. in a salary of 2,5002.
Mr. George Robinsonunderstood that the Committee had been appointed to investigate the whole of the Colonial establishments which ought to undergo a thorough revision. His Majesty's Ministers, he thought, could find no fairer field to carry their plans of retrenchment and economy into effect. He hoped, therefore, that the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Department would make every possible reduction.
Mr. Humewould undertake to say, no reductions would be made until the Colonies were allowed to tax themselves. He was satisfied the noble Lord was quite sincere, but no effectual improvement could take place until the purse of England was closed to the Colonies, and they were taught to depend on their own resources. Look at Newfoundland, if, instead of governing it from Downing Street, it had a Legislative Assembly, and was allowed to tax itself, it would be no expense, and we should not have to provide Governors and other establishments. He begged to inquire what had been done respecting the office of Governor of Gibraltar?
Lord Howickanswered, that Lord Chatham, the Governor, was still alive.
Mr. Huntsaid, that he wished to take that opportunity of calling the attention of the House to a most formidable coalition, of which the newspapers had lately made frequent mention. He was accused of having entered into a coalition, but that coalition had cost the country nothing, and never would cost the country a farthing. The coalition he spoke of, however, was very different, at least, if the newspapers were to be believed. He wished to know whether their statements were true, and therefore he brought the matter under the consideration of the House. He wished to give the noble Lord opposite the opportunity of contradicting the report, which he hoped, and he might even say he believed, to be untrue. It was this—that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had entered into a coalition with the members of his family, whom he had placed upon the country at an annual expense of 68,000 l. He wished to know if this was true?
Lord Althorprose and said, that from what the hon. Member had just uttered, he really thought the hon. Member could not understand the meaning of the word "coalition." He felt anxious to say one word upon the subject thus introduced. He knew that his noble friend had been attacked in some newspapers for placing his family in different situations. If those persons so placed were unfit for the situations they occupied, it was right to attack him. But if they were not unfit for those situations, then the attacks ought not in justice to be made. As to the statement about 68,000 l., he could only say, that it was an absurdity. He would" now declare his opinion of his noble friend, that no man had ever been less actuated by motives of mere private interest. His noble friend had always sacrificed his private interest to his public duty, for if he had not done so, every one must be aware that he need not have been absent from office nearly his whole life.
Lord Howickfelt grateful, most grateful, for the observations just made by the noble Lord, but at the same time he could not but regret that the noble Lord should have noticed such an attack, proceeding from such a quarter, which ought only to be treated with silent and utter contempt.
Mr. Hunthoped, that the public would hear of that answer.
Mr. Goulburnregretted to break in upon a discussion which had caused so much amusement, and which had become so very animated. The noble Lord opposite (Howick), threw out some insinuations that the Committee did not fully state the reasons on which it had founded its recommendations. But the fact was, that the Committee had entered into a very arduous examination of documents, and had pursued its labour with the greatest desire to ascertain the course to be taken. The noble Lord must be aware that it was not possible for the head of a department to make reductions, although he had the strongest desire to do so.
Lord Howickobserved, that all he had said was, that no such reasons for carrying these reductions into effect were assigned, as to enable those who were responsible to act on the recommendation. They were obliged to make the examination over again, so that, in fact, the labour of the Committee had to be gone through by the Secretary of State.
Mr. George Robinsonhoped, the noble Lord at the head of the Department would proceed with the inquiry, otherwise, as the labours of the Committee had ceased, the House could not be made acquainted with the state of the Colonial accounts, and it was most important, that, at least, an abstract of them should be laid before the House.
Mr. Warburtonbelieved it would be most beneficial, if the House could have the whole colonial expenditure before it, in order that it might really know what was the state of our accounts; and he begged to ask whether the present Government intended to do what the late Government had promised; namely—give the House a regular debtor and creditor account of the expenses of the Colonies?
Vote agreed to. The House resumed.

SUPPLY — MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.

  PUBLIC WORKS (IRELAND).
  Mr. Bernalbrought up the Report of the Committee for advancing 500,000 l. of Exchequer bills, on loan in Ireland.
  Mr. Robert Gordonwished to know, whether this sum was to be appropriated by Commissioners appointed by the Bill, or was the appointment of such Commissioners to vest in the Treasury?
  Mr. Stanleyreplied, it was to be under the control of Commissioners appointed by, and responsible to, the Treasury.
  Mr. Wysehoped, that these Commis-
  618
  sioners would have the power of sanctioning works which now required an Act of Parliament. The expense of procuring such Acts was a great hindrance to improvement in Ireland. He had previously suggested the propriety of establishing a Board with such a power, and he hoped, that the Government would take the opportunity of carrying his suggestion into effect.
  Resolutions agreed to, and Bill ordered to be brought in, pursuant to the said Resolutions.

  IMPORTATION OF ARMS INTO IRELAND.
  Mr. Stanleysaid, that in rising to move for leave to bring in a Bill to regulate the Importation of Arms into Ireland, and the method of keeping them there, he should not feel it necessary to occupy many minutes of the time of the House. There were two Statutes in force in Ireland on this subject now. One of the objects of this Bill would be, to consolidate these Acts, and his measure would be, not a temporary, but a permanent one. Of the new provisions of this Bill, the following were the only ones which he thought it would be necessary for him to enumerate. In the first place, the Bill would enact, that there should be a general registration of all arms in Ireland, and that each individual weapon should be stamped and branded, so that arms might be easily traced through whatsoever hands they might pass. Any person having unregistered arms in his possession would not be subjected to a pecuniary penalty, as at present, which, from the poverty of the persons, was never enforced, but would be held to be guilty of a misdemeanour, and liable to be punished accordingly. The only other novelty in his Bill which it would be necessary to mention, and which might be thought by some hon. Members to be a strong enactment, though he apprehended, that most hon. Members would think it a necessary one, was this:— hon. Members were aware that the Lord Lieutenant had now, by law, the power of proclaiming any district to be in a state of disturbance. Now, in this Bill, it was proposed to enact, that if, in any district so proclaimed to be in a state of disturbance, any person should be found in the possession of unregistered arms, such person should be deemed guilty of a misdemeanour—not of a common misdemeanour, but of a misdemeanour liable to

  619
  be punished with transportation for seven years. He would not on that occasion enter into any further particulars, but for the present content himself with moving; for leave to bring in the Bill.
  Mr. O'Connellmust protest against this frightful infraction of law and justice. It; was the undoubted right of every free man to have arms in his possession. This was a right laid down in, and recognized and secured by, the Bill of Rights. It was at that time too late, and there was too thin a House, to allow such a Bill to be brought in, even as a matter of form and he should, therefore, move that the further |debate on this subject be adjourned to any day that would suit the right hon. Gentleman's convenience—say, till this day week.
  Mr. Stanleysaid, that if it were the wish of the House to accede to that Motion, he would not oppose it. At the same time, he must express his conscientious belief, that the provisions of this Bill would be found essential to the peace of Ireland, and he would add, that although he believed that there had never been a Government more anxious than the present was to promote the welfare of Ireland, yet that there never was a time at which it was more necessary than at present, that they should have a strong Government in Ireland.
  Mr. Wysehad heard, with surprise and indignation quite equal to those of the hon. member for Kerry, and the other Irish Members, the extraordinary proposition of the right hon. Secretary. Was Ireland, then, on the eve of a national insurrection Had misrule reached its climax, and was the House called upon by some instant, general convulsion, to take precautions which nothing but such appalling circumstances could for a moment justify? If such events were to be apprehended, no measure could more tend to hasten them. It would ripen the very discontent and revolt it was intended to check. He regretted, that even any allusion had been made to such a Bill. Already seeds enough of alarm and distrust had been cast into the national mind. He had purposely abstained from all reference to the lamentable catastrophe of New town bay, in order to prejudice as little as possible, whilst the accused were yet untried, the already excited temper of the country. But this would add fuel to the flame, and
  620
  double that very irritation which every zealous and judicious friend of Ireland ought to use every effort to assuage. Ireland was in a most heated and feverish state. The spirit of discontent, arising from the misery and misgovernment of centuries, was stalking abroad; and if this evil and malignant genius was to be exorcised from our shores, it was not by coercive and distrustful legislation that it could be done. And this, too, was to be a permanent measure—as if Ireland were doomed to irremediable disturbance, and it was an clement of her being to be for ever discontented. Let Government subdue Ireland by other means than force —conquer her with such measures as Reform—redress her grievances, and then trust arms without peril to her hands. So would she become a safe and fast friend to England, instead of being, as at present, a troublesome and a dangerous neighbour. He conceived the Bill would exasperate ail the evils of Ireland, and whenever it was again brought forward, he would oppose it.
  The Debate adjourned till that day sight.

  REFORM BILL—(SCOTLAND.)
  The Lord Advocaterose, pursuant to notice, to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Representation of the people in Scotland. If this Bill materially differed, either in principle or in detail, from that which he had had the honour to submit to the late Parliament, it might be necessary for him to trespass at some length upon the time and attention of the House; but as all the substantial parts, and, indeed, almost every minute detail of the Bill, which he now asked leave to bring in, were the same as those of the Bill that had been before the late Parliament, he thought that he should ill discharge his duty to hon. Members if he detained them with the enumeration of particulars already known to them. The only variations between the two Bills which he could call to mind were these: the votes of tenants in counties were in some measure altered. Those alterations, however, were precisely parallel with the alterations in the English Bill, and those had already been explained to the House. Leaseholders at 50 l. a year were by the present Bill to be allowed a vote, though they held leases only for seven years; by the former Bill the term was nineteen years. With regard to

  621
  superiorities, the present Bill would preserve the rights of those who possessed them, and it would allow those rights to all who were at present entitled to them, though they might not yet be enrolled. Another alteration was the appointment of Parliamentary Commissioners, to determine the boundaries of towns and districts, and counties, which had been thought better than leaving them as laid down in the Bill lately before Parliament. There was, of course, some little variation in the wording of the Bill and its machinery. Schedules, too, had been appended to the Bill, and as these contained matter which had before been in the body of the Bill, the enacting clauses were of course much relieved. He was not aware of any other point of variation, and as there would be other and more appropriate times for discussing the details, as well as the principle of the measure, he would detain the House no farther at this time.
  Motion agreed to. The Lord Advocate brought in the Bill, which was read a first time.