Commons Sitting of 30 June 1831

MINUTES.
Bills brought in. By Mr. ELLICE, to amend the Laws relative to Came. Read a second time; the Canadian Revenue; the Bankruptcy Act Amendment; and the Patent Grants (Ireland). Read a third time; the Buckingham House Garden Wall Bill.
Petitions presented. By Mr. HUNT, from James Hurley, for the Abolishment of the Yeomanry (Ireland); for Universal Suffrage, Annual Parliaments, and Vote by Ballot, from Macclesfield, and the Inhabitants of Cropper Street, Manchester; against the Reform Bill, from the Deputies of the Working Classes, Manchester. By Mr. CHAPMAN, from Mullingar, for Reform. By Mr. LEFROT, from Trinity College, Dublin, to assimilate the Elective Franchise to the English Universities; and from the Guild of Merchants of Dublin, against Reform, and against the Abolishment of the Coal Meters Establishment. By Mr. EWART, from Millers of Liverpool, against the importation of American Flour. By Mr. G. DAMSON, from Sir A. B. King, praying compensation for the loss of his Office. By the LORD ADVOCATE of Scotland, in favour of Reform, from Inhabitants of Kenmore Dale, and eleven other places; and from the Edinburgh Farmer's Society, to amend the Corn Laws; from several Congregations in Scotland, for the Abolishment of Slavery; from James Innes, complaining of delays in the Court of Chancery; from Tenants in the parish of Bute, to amend the Law of Entails; from Joseph Ranson, for a drawback on Glass, for the Retailer; and from Land Owners and Occupiers in Berks, for a commutation of Tithes. By Mr. W. RUSSELL, from Ship Owners and Merchants of Sunderland, for a Repeal of the Marine Insurance Duties; and from Stockton, Norton and Billingham, for a Representative

REFORM PETITIONS.
Col. Lindsaypresented a Petition from the Corporation of Cupar, complaining of the arrangement with regard to Scotch boroughs in the late Reform Bill, and praying, that in the classification of the Scotch boroughs in the new Bill, Cupar might be united to the eastern boroughs of Fife rather than to Perth, which city contained a population of 21,000 inhabitants, and would have 561 voters, whilst the boroughs of Cupar and St. Andrew's united, would possess only 363, the consequence would be, that by this arrangement the, power of sending Members would be thrown entirely into the hands of Perth, they therefore recommended, that the city of Perth should receive a Member of its own. In this prayer he entirely concurred, for he thought that Perth, with its manufacturing and commercial importance, had a just claim to have a Representative for itself. He also thought it injudicious if not unjust, to disfranchise the eastern boroughs of Fife. His principal objection to this proceeding was, that it would be an infringement of the Articles of Union between the two countries. Probably, the Ministers thought, that in the sweeping changes they were about to make in the empire these boroughs were of little importance, but he objected to such a doc-
500
trine on their own principles. These boroughs had a population of between 6,000 and 7,000 inhabitants; now by the English Reform Bill, boroughs, the population of which was not less than 2,000, were to send one Representative, and those with not less than 4,000 were to send two. A gross mistake prevailed with regard to the number of voters in these boroughs. According to the returns, they would appear to be only thirty-three, but by the new system of qualification proposed to be established they would really amount to 322. This was one of the numerous discrepancies with which the proposed Bill abounded. Another objection to the disfranchisement of these boroughs was, that they would be thrown into a district containing seven or eight considerable towns which would have a predominant influence in the return of Members. Thus, instead of such members being returned by the agricultural they would be returned by the manufacturing interests.
Mr. Stuart Wortleygave notice, that in the Committee, he would enforce the claim of Perth as well as he was able. He wished to know what the Lord Advocate intended to do upon the details of the Bill?
The Lord Advocatecould not at present give any distinct promise or pledge on the subject.
Mr. Johnstonsaid, that it had been reported in some of the newspapers, that this district of burghs had elected a Member favourable to the Ministerial plan of Reform, solely from a fear that if they did not do so, they should be completely disfranchised. He took this opportunity of distinctly contradicting that assertion which was quite destitute of foundation. The electors were so anxious for a Reform candidate, that they actually advertised for one.
Mr. Keith Douglashoped, that in bringing in the Bill to-morrow, the Lord Advocate would fully explain the principle and details of the measure. Such an explanation was looked for with great anxiety in Scotland, where the subject had probably excited more attention than in any other part of the country. It was therefore particularly desirable, that a full explanation as to the classification of boroughs under the proposed open system-should be given. The Representation of Scotland up to the present time, had uniformly been close, it was therefore neces-

501
sary, that the proposed changes should be fully explained.
Petition to be printed.

COTTON FACTORIES—SELECT VESTRIES.
Mr. Hobhousepresented several Petitions from the Working People and Overlookers of the. Cotton Factories in various parts of the country, praying that the House would pass a Bill for restricting the hours of labour for children in the Cotton Factories
Mr. Protheroewished to take that opportunity of asking his hon. friend a question, respecting another Bill with which his hon. friend's name was connected, and which was considered of very great importance by his (Mr. Protheroe's) constituents. He meant the Bill for regulating the election of Select Vestries—a bill which he considered to be of inferior importance only to the Parliamentary Reform Bill itself. He wished to know what was to be the fate of that bill, and whether his hon. friend meant to introduce it into Parliament?
Mr. Hobhouseobserved, that in reply to the question of his hon. friend, he could only say, that the Bill, in the state in which it was left by the last Parliament, was not his Bill. It had been "changed at nurse." It was certainly most unlike what it had been. The last Committee exercised their wisdom upon it till they made it a production of their own. He should, therefore, feel it his duty to abandon that Bill, and if he brought in another, it certainly would not be such as had been recommended by the last Committee. He should like to ask his hon. friend a question, and that was, whether his hon. friend thought he could for any purpose of utility bring forward such a Bill at this period? If he was answered that he could, he should be willing to make the attempt, after consulting his constituents and other persons interested in the subject, and if he did so he should expect his hon. friend's support.
Mr. Maberlysaid, he wished to call the attention of the House, to the subject of the petitions presented by the hon. member for Westminster, relating to the cotton factories. The effect of such a measure as the petitioners prayed for, would be, to throw numbers of children out of employment. He wished to caution the hon. Member that a Bill of the kind he proposed to introduce, would have
502
the effect of raising the price of cotton articles, and would be an evil instead of a benefit.
Mr. Hobhousesaid, that that had not been the effect of other bills which had been passed upon the same subject with a view to diminish the hours of labour, and the Bill he now proposed had had the sanction of a Committee, of which he believed, the hon. Member had been a member. Both the operatives and master-manufacturcis, whom he had consulted to a great extent, were of opinion it would prove beneficial; and he, therefore, would give notice that he would introduce the Bill on the 4th of July.

FREEDOM OF THE BEER-TRADE.
Mr. Sadlerpresented a Petition, which he described to be most respectably, though not numerously signed, though if numbers were wanted to give weight to the allegations contained in the petition, they could soon be obtained. The petitioners were the Churchwardens, Ministers, and Overseers of the Parish of Neen Solars, together with various persons of high rank and opposite political sentiments. The petition was upon the subject of the Act lately passed for setting free the trade in Beer, and it deserved the most attentive consideration of the House. The petitioners declared, that the Act had been the cause of numerous evils—that it had encouraged tippling and late hours—that it had produced immorality and profane-ness, and that they had distinctly traced the origin of much of the late incendiaries' work to the retail beer shops now opened throughout the country. The committals for offences had been more than doubled since the Act came into operation. It was supposed the quality of the beer would have been improved by it, but the fact was otherwise. The quality of the article had been much deteriorated, and many persons who had supported the Bill were now well convinced that its effects had not been beneficial. He hoped they would come forward and avow their change of opinion. The people ought to have the best article at the lowest possible price, but this Bill had not effected that object.
Lord Althorpsaid, he was prepared to admit that a great many complaints had been made as to the effect of the alterations made in the mode of licensing the beer-houses. He was ready to admit that

503
considerable inconvenience had been felt from its operations in various parts of the country; but he begged the House to recollect, that it was more likely that any change effected in such a system would produce worse effects at the first moment of coming into operation than afterwards. Though he had been a warm supporter of the Beer Bill, he must allow, that in some respects it had been disadvantageous, which was likely to continue unless some remedy was afforded, but he was not prepared to abandon the principle of the measure, nor to revive the old system, which had been replete with great evils, the getting rid of which had been a great advantage to the public. What he meant by the principle of the measure was, that he would not consent to place again under any local authorities the choice of the places in which there should be houses for the sale of beer; but Government had in contemplation a measure, for the purpose of increasing the strictness of the Police, and giving it powers which it did not at present possess, to prevent the disorders which prevailed in the beer-houses. He thought at the time the Bill was introduced, that more precautions might have accompanied it, and he had then thrown out some suggestions of the sort; but he had not pressed his opinions, for fear of appearing to create an opposition to a measure which he really approved. He did not think, that the trial which this Bill had received was fair, or that Parliament had sufficient information before it to alter the measure; and he did not think it right to condemn the Bill on the statements now made concerning it.
Mr. John Woodagreed with the noble Lord, that any alterations which would tend to defeat the principle of the measure should be studiously avoided. Great complaints had been made about the irregularity which had been observed in some of these houses; but, he believed, at the same time, that irregularity might be partly accounted for, by attributing it, in some measure, to the novelty of the change. A number of persons rushed into the trade when it was new, believing that they who first occupied it would be sure to make large profits; and from that circumstance, it happened that many of them lost much money, and were compelled to give up the speculation; while others resorted to practices not warranted by the law, for the purpose of covering
504
their losses. In that way, he believed, many of the irregularities now complained of had arisen; but, from his observation, which, he assured the House, had been much directed to the subject, he did not believe that any material improprieties had taken place. On the contrary, he believed that the Bill had been a great benefit to the labouring classes, and especially in this way—that the beer-houses had prevented the custom of men assembling together on Saturday nights to receive their wages at the public-house, and spending a large portion of them there at the same time. Looking at the licensing system, and the monopoly which prevailed under it, he must assert, that the present system was of material advantage to the working classes, and he had some suspicions that those persons who were smarting under the infliction of this Bill, in the way of diminished rents, and diminished power and influence, would be found amongst those who now endeavoured to give it a bad name. One of the complaints against the beer-shops was, that they were kept open to later hours than the law allowed. That was the consequence of the favour shown in the Bill to the keepers of public-houses. The public-houses were allowed to keep open till twelve; but the beer-shops were obliged to shut up at ten. The people sitting in these beer-shops reminded the keeper that they could go to another place within a few doors of his house and sit till twelve, and they often in that manner induced him to keep open till eleven. The public-house keepers had, in some instances, sent persons to these beer-shops for the purpose of inducing the people to keep open later than the law allowed, and then to make that a subject of complaint against them. In his opinion, most of these evils would be got rid of if the hours to which the two classes of houses were allowed to keep open were assimilated.
Mr. Huntsaid, that within his recollection there had been only two measures adopted by the Legislature which were really for the benefit of the poorer classes; these were the repeal of the Salt Tax, and the Beer Bill. The effect of this Bill had been, to get rid of amonstrous injustice, under which the poor suffered, who were before obliged to pay 10 s. more a barrel for the beer than the rich man paid. He hoped that such a Bill would not be abandoned by his Majesty's Ministers, for he

505
did not believe it had produced half the disorders which were laid to its charge by interested persons, and he hoped that they would not be led away by these complaints. He trusted that Ministers would not make any alterations in the Bill, further than were proposed by his hon. Colleague (Mr. J. Wood), who had offered a suggestion that was well worthy the attention of Ministers.
Mr. Baringsaid, that the last two Gentlemen who had spoken had relied upon their experience of its effects in large towns, where the Bill had essentially not worked any very material mischiefs; but in the smaller districts, in villages, in different parts of the country, it had tended to produce great evils. He was sure, that some alteration ought to be made with respect to beer-houses in the country, where the agricultural classes themselves felt, and deplored, the establishment of them in villages and bye-places. The Government should institute some inquiries as to their effects, and consider whether it would not be possible to lessen the evils, by placing the beer-houses in towns under some regulations, by which they could be established only by the consent of the respectable inhabitants, leaving the beer-drinkers the same advantages as to price and quality they at present possess. If the present system continued, the Government must look out for a recurrence of those disturbances which had happened towards the close of the preceding year.
Mr. Protheroecautioned the House against entertaining the notion that the late disturbances had been caused by the Beer Bill. He trusted, that the House would never recur to the old system, which conferred a -vexatious and unconstitutional power on certain individuals, who, now that they had lost it, were loud in their complaints against the system which had deprived them of it. He had given his support to the introduction of the measure, and saw no reason to regret the votes he had given, for many of those who now complained of its effects, were among those who were hostile to it in its progress through Parliament. That some evils had arisen from it, he could not doubt, for all the thirsty portion of the labouring community now congregated in these small beer-houses, instead of frequenting public-houses, and vice and criminality necessarily attend such assemblies. But, it was well known that the
506
lower orders of the people in the southern agricultural districts, were excessively ignorant, and it would be well if the ordinary elements of education could have been communicated to them before this Bill had passed. He believed, as the Bill now operated, this class of persons were injured by its effects, although the same mischief had not arisen in towns.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that he could not agree with the hon. member for Bristol, that the measure should have been delayed until, by a system of compulsory education, the lower orders had been taught so much knowledge and information, that they would not have abused the benefits conferred on them by this Bill. He had never expected that such a change would not have been attended with some disadvantages, and if it had been possible, he certainly would have preferred, in the first instance, to have made a gradual relaxation of the restrictions on the sale of beer, instead of having introduced the measure which he had felt it his duty to propose. But the fact was, that there was no other mode of getting rid of that monopoly, which almost the whole House at the time was anxious to put an end to, than by the introduction of the measure which was now the subject of debate. He would confess, however, that the extent of the inconveniences which had been found to arise from this measure in different parts of this country, went beyond what he had anticipated; and the inconveniences which had been felt, particularly in some of the agricultural districts, had convinced him that it was absolutely necessary that a deliberate inquiry should be instituted into the effects which had followed from the measure in some of those districts, in order to apply a proper remedy to the evil. He had received several communications of unquestionable authority, not from interested persons, but from those best qualified to form a correct judgment, and his opinion was, that the evils which were complained of, were principally confined to the agricultural districts, and did not so much prevail in the manufacturing districts, on account of the greater diffusion of education amongst the manufacturing classes. For himself, he would say, that he had heard nothing which would induce him to think that it would be possible or proper to recur to the law as it previously stood; but his present impression was, that means might be adopted for repressing the evils

507
which were complained of, without interfering with the advantages which the poor derived from the Bill. If it appeared, however, on inquiry, that the change of the law, had tended to the demoralization of the people, the Legislature was called upon to remedy the evil.
Lord Stanleysaid, that all the evils which had arisen from this Bill were not confined to the agricultural districts, as seemed to be supposed. He was not connected with a portion of the country which could be termed agricultural, and yet, he believed, that from every part of the county of Lancaster, statements had been transmitted to the Secretary for the Home Department, all concurring in one unanimous opinion as to the evils which had flowed from this measure. Many of the evils which he had anticipated from it when it was originally proposed, had since ensued. He hoped that his Majesty's Government would shortly take an opportunity of reconsidering this measure, and of proposing some plan which might be calculated to retain the advantages, and to obviate the evils, which had arisen from making the beer trade free.
Mr. Warburtontrusted, that the House would not proceed to alter a measure which had as yet received but a very short trial, and with the operation of which they were unacquainted. At all events, he hoped that the House would take care, whatever change might be proposed, it would not have the effect of increasing the price of this commodity to the poor people of this country. In his opinion, many of the evils complained of, arose from the restrictions imposed by the Bill, which required parties who retailed and allowed the consumption of beer on their own premises, to take out a license. This brought them under the surveillance of the police; they were liable to have soldiers quartered on them, this prevented many respectable shop-keepers from selling beer, and he thought many advantages would arise from doing away with all these restrictions.
Mr. Pagetsaid, he was concerned to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer state, that his Majesty's Government had an intention to increase the restrictions on the sale of beer. He quite concurred with his hon. friend, the member for Bridport, that the restrictions were disadvantageous. He was quite opposed to giving an increase of power either to the magistracy or the police,
508
with regard to the sale of beer. He was decidedly of opinion, that the measure which had been introduced by the former Government, instead of going too far, as some had said, had not gone far enough, and that was the cause of the evils which had arisen from it. These were not to be so much ascribed to the characters of the persons who frequented these houses, as to the characters of the persons who kept them, who, for a small profit, were willing to put up with the liability of having soldiers quartered upon them, and of being placed under the surveillance of the police. These regulations confined the trade to the lowest description of dealers. By making the trade entirely free, farmers, and respectable shop-keepers, would sell beer, which would be a better article than that now in use, and the consumption would not be attended with the evils at present complained of.
Sir M. W. Ridleyquite differed from the hon. Member who had just spoken, with regard to extending the provisions of the present Bill. It went quite far enough, and the removal of the restrictions it imposed would only increase the evil. There was no additional license required for the consumption of beer on the premises, and it was to the facility arising from this, that the great evils in the agricultural districts were to be attributed. In those parts of the country where there had been no disturbances, he had not heard of any inconveniences having resulted from this Bill, and he thought it had not as yet had a sufficient time for trial. It was well worthy of consideration whether some regulations might not be devised for keeping better order in those houses where the sale of beer was allowed.
An Hon. Memberremarked, that when Gentlemen talked of altering the measure, they should consider, that it had been very successful in lowering the price of beer, and raising the price of barley; paradoxical as it might appear, these two things had been the result of the Bill. He trusted, therefore, the measure would get a fair trial before they decided against it.
Sir C. Burrelldeclared, that the Bill had been followed by the most demoralizing effects, and that it had done the greatest possible injury to the country in general. He would repeat, that the Bill had done incalculable injury to the country; the lower orders got beer in one house, then went to another, and indulged in all sorts

509
of improper practices. These places were not sufficiently superintended by the police in the country. Ministers ought to lower the price of malt, instead of introducing or sustaining such a Bill as this. That would enable all classes to brew their own beer, which was not so difficult a thing as might be supposed, and consume it at their own houses. The argument against the reduction of the malt duty, was the loss of revenue, but an increase, arising from the demoralizing effects of the Beer Bill, was an abominable revenue.
Mr. Portmansaid, that although he had opposed the Beer Bill originally, he agreed with the hon. Baronet (Sir M. W. Ridley), that it had not yet had quite a fair trial; they ought to wait another year. He had anticipated many of the evils which flowed from it, but the alteration of the details of the whole plan required serious consideration; and the best remedy for the evils the Bill had introduced, and for others, was to repeal at once the whole of the malt duty. It might not be possible to do so in the present year, but in the next year he trusted that the subject would not escape attention.
Mr. Protheroesaid, in explanation to what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman opposite, that the Bill had had his most cordial support, and he had no wish as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) supposed, to delay the benefits arising from the free sale of beer, until the people were so well versed in political economy as to refrain from abusing their advantages. All he had said was, he should have wished the lower orders to have been previously instructed in reading, writing, and the common principles of education and religion. He thought it inconsistent in the right hon. Gentleman to censure his views, while he admitted the Bill had been productive of greater evils than he had anticipated when he had proposed it.
The Petition laid on the Table.
Mr. Sadlermoved, that it should be printed, and said, that the greater part of the observations he had heard did not apply to the charges he had made against the Bill, founded on this petition. All the observations made in support of the measure fell to the ground, before the great mischief done to the country by the encouragement given to tippling. The hon. member for Preston had said, that the Legislature had within his recollection passed only two laws for the benefit of the poor
510
man—the Repeal of the Salt-tax, and this Bill. The first did not encourage drunkenness and immorality, nor was the poor man obliged to go from home to consume the article. He had never objected to a remission of taxation to the lower orders, but only to an unlimited sale of beer, by which a whole family were impoverished because a father chose to frequent these houses, instead of solacing himself at his own home with a wholesome and nutritious beverage, in which his whole family could partake. From his own knowledge he could declare, that these beer-shops had made many who were previously sober and industrious men, drunkards; and many mothers had also become tipplers. It was now no uncommon thing to see both parents in a beastly state of intoxication. He could assert, that since the passing of the Act, there had arisen a manifest difference in the character of the people generally, and that crime had greatly increased. The Malt-tax ought to have been repealed, not the beer duty; had that been done, the comforts of the lower orders would have greatly increased; for they would then have brewed and used their own beer at home, and the revenue would not have sustained a greater loss, than by the removal of the beer duty, which benefitted the upper classes, but did little or nothing for the lower orders. Their condition was, at present, such that it was the duty of the House to improve it by every means. The agricultural community, which was now suffering would have received great benefit from the repeal of the Malt-duty. He considered these subjects of such importance, that in the course of the present Session, he should endeavour to obtain the remission of the Malt-duty, and put a stop to the system of tippling, which was now carried to a great extent in these unlicensed houses. Members were not aware of the number of pot-houses opened in every village, and sufficient caution had not been used in changing a system which had prevailed for 200 years. It had always been the policy of the Legislature to check the consumption of intoxicating liquors by the lower orders, and if Ministers would inquire, they would find the Magistracy generally of one opinion concerning the Beer Bill, and that was, that it had greatly tended to the increase of crime.
An Hon. Member stated, that he had heard the number of houses opened for the sale of beer, under the operation of

511
this Act, estimated at 45,000. He thought some evil might have resulted from this great increase of drinking shops, but time had not yet been given to ascertain the real effects of the Bill. The House ought to act with caution, for capital had been invested to a great extent in this trade, which would be completely lost by the repeal of the Bill. He had heard that many of these houses had been established by brewers, who had prepared a strong intoxicating liquor, instead of a wholesome intermediate beer, which was the cause of the great increase of crime in many districts.
Mr. Sadlerremarked, that his hon. friend had said, that if this Bill was repealed, an injury would be done to those who had invested capital in the trade, but he had forgotten that no regard had been paid to those who had vested their capital in public-houses, when this measure was introduced.
Mr. Huntwas decidedly of opinion that the repeal of the Malt-tax would do no good to the poor man, but would benefit the higher classes. The hon. Member (Mr. Sadler) said, that by repealing this duty, the poor man would be enabled to brew his own beer, but he forgot that few poor men possessed brewing utensils. This benevolent intention, like many of the hon. Member's Utopian plans, would injure, instead of benefitting the poor man. If the Beer-tax were again imposed, the price of beer would be enhanced, and the House by sanctioning such a scheme, would drive the poor man to the gin-shop, forcing him to drink that destructive liquor, instead of wholesome beer.
Sir Charles Burrellobserved, that the hon. member for Preston was mistaken in supposing a costly apparatus necessary for brewing beer, he had heard of a poor woman who brewed excellent beer in a tea-kettle, and he was persuaded if the malt duty were repealed many poor families would brew their own beer. Not 100 of these retail beer-shops in the whole empire brewed their own beer, but the houses in general belonged to brewers who sent to them what beer they pleased. The subject was of great importance as regarded the morals of the people, and ought to have the immediate consideration of the House.
Mr. Jamescould say from his own experience that this Bill had done much good in the north of England: formerly
512
the labouring classes drank large quantities of whiskey, but since beer had been reduced in price, they consumed that in preference.
Petition to be printed.

REDUCTION OF PUBLIC SALARIES.
Mr. Alderman Woodrose to move the Resolution of which he had given notice, that a reduction be forthwith made in the salaries of all the officers of the Government, commensurate with the increase made during the war in consequence of the high price of provisions and the necessaries of life. In doing so, the worthy Alderman said, that he expected for such a motion the support both of his Majesty's present and of his late Ministers; he would not call them his ex-Ministers, for that was a term which was not very fashionable just now. His Majesty's Ministers being pledged to do all they could, to lessen the burdens of the people, were bound to support this Resolution. He expected, therefore, the support of all parties in that House, and if the Government had declared themselves willing to propose a Committee for this purpose, he would not have brought his Resolutions forward. If he obtained the support of the House, the Ministers would find themselves compelled to do so. He would not enter at great length into the subject, but he found it necessary for the clear understanding of it to state some details. In the year 1797, the whole charge of the civil department of the country, including seventy-five offices, amounted to 1,300,000 l. In the year 1815, when the war terminated, it had increased to 3,200,000 l. It was not quite so much now, for undoubtedly Government had taken off about 300,000 l. from that sum, and had reduced the offices to sixty-nine. The burden on the country for this department at present amounted to 2,700,000 l. He had said, that he expected the support of his Majesty's Ministers for his Resolution, and he certainly expected that the First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir James Graham) would second it, for he had not as yet asked any one to do that, and considering the resolutions which that right hon. Baronet had himself proposed to the House only a year ago, he thought him the most likely person to do so. He also anticipated the support of the late Secretary to the Treasury, for, on the occasion to which he alluded, that right hon. Gentleman carried resolu-

513
tions, in the shape of an amendment upon those proposed by the right hon. Baronet, fully embracing the objects which his (Mr. Alderman Wood's) Resolution had in view. Instead of a speech, with which he did not intend to trouble the House, he would read to them the resolutions which had been proposed last, year by the right hon. Baronet, the present First Lord of the Admiralty, and those which were then carried, on the motion of the right hon. Gentleman, the late Secretary to the Treasury. On the 12th of February, 1830, the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) proposed the following resolution:— "That whereas, subsequently to the Act 37 George 3rd, for the suspension of cash payments by the Bank of England, large augmentations have from time to time been made in the salaries and pay of persons employed in the civil and military service of the country, on account of the diminished value of money; and whereas the alleged reason of this increase has, for the most part, ceased to operate, in consequence of the Act 59th George 3rd, which has restored the metallic standard of value, it is expedient that, with a view to relief from the present excessive load of taxation, all such augmentations should now be revised, and every possible reduction effected, which can be made without the violation of existing engagements, and without detriment to the public service."* In the place of that resolution, the following resolutions which were carried, and were nearly similar to those submitted to the House by the right hon. Baronet, were then proposed by the late Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. G. Dawson:—
"That his Majesty was graciously pleased to assure this House, in reply to an Address of this House of the 27th of June, 1821 (that his Majesty would give directions for a minute inquiry into the several departments of the civil government, as well with a view to reducing the number of the persons employed in those departments, which from the great increase of business was augmented during the late war, as with reference to the increased salaries granted to individuals since the year 1797, either in consideration of the additional labour thrown upon them during that period, or the diminished value of
* Hansard's Parl. Deb., New Series, vol. xxii., p. 446.
514
money), that his Majesty would give directions as desired by the said Address.
"That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying, that his Majesty will be graciously pleased to direct, that there be laid before this House an account of the progress made in such inquiry, and of the measures adopted in consequence thereof.
"That it is the opinion of this House, that, in ail the establishments of the country, civil and military, every saving ought to be made which can be effected without the violation of existing engagements, and without detriment to the public service.*"
Looking at those resolutions, he repeated, that he thought he had a right to calculate on the support of both those right hon. Gentlemen for the motion which he was about to submit to the House. In 1797, the charge for Government offices was 1,374,561 l. 1s. 3d., and the number of persons employed was 16,000. In 1815, the sum expended was 3,202,434 l. 9s. 5d., being nearly 2,000,000 l. more, and the number of persons employed was 23,903. But in 1821, all articles of provisions had fallen in price, below the prices of 1797, and yet no reduction was made in the salaries. They had been raised in consequence of the rise of prices, but on prices falling, no consequent reduction had been made. He would ask, was this just or consistent? He did not wish to diminish the salaries of persons who laboured hard for a 200 l. or 250 l. a year, but his complaint was against the large salaries paid to the superior classes of public servants, who, comparatively, did nothing. The amount of salaries for civil services on 1829, was 2,765,677 l. 6s. 9d. being an increase of 1,400,000 l. on the amount for the same services in 1797. He was not certain, indeed, as to the perfect accuracy of the Returns he was about to read, as he had found considerable difficulty in getting the requisite information, notwithstanding all the assistance given by the present and former Governments. Several salaries were paid in fees, and therefore, the real amount of them was difficult to get at. Of 2,765,000 l. now paid to public officers, 735,000 went to 9,783 persons with salaries between 250 l. and 1,000 l. Some received smaller salaries than the average, and others
†Ibid. p. 458.

515
700 l. or 800 l. per annum, but the average was about 400 l. a year. The remaining 2,030,000 l. was divided among 900 persons. The average of whose salaries was about2,000 l.,and many of these performed no service whatever to the country. He was sure it would be found on inquiry, that those who received the 700,000 l. did all the duty, and the others little or nothing. A number of persons received 1,500 l. or 2,000 l. a year in offices, the business of which they were wholly ignorant of, and some of whom resided abroad and had never seen their offices. He did not mean to say, that the Government officers in that House, or the Cabinet Ministers, were too well paid, but the number of persons who received salaries without rendering equivalent services, was very great. As he did not wish to offend individuals, he would not mention names, but refer hon. Gentlemen to papers before the House in which they would find many cases of the sort. He made the present motion in compliance with the instructions of his constituents. The distress of the great body of the lower and middle classes was very great, and he would mention as a proof of it, that he had been called upon within the last few hours to sign between 200 and 300 distress-warrants against poor people in one small district of the metropolis who were unable to pay their taxes. The House must therefore recognise the necessity of diminishing taxation as much as possible. As it was not possible to reduce the National Debt, the House was called upon to make reductions in other parts of the national expenses, and in that part of it which was the subject of the present motion, a reduction was quite practicable to the enormous amount of 1,000,000 l. per annum. He therefore called upon the House to adopt some means by a committee or otherwise to inquire into any reductions that could be effected. He would propose no particular diminution but would leave that to the discretion of the House. He had taken the trouble to compare the contract prices of various articles supplied to Greenwich Hospital, and other large public establishments, and he had found the prices of the necessaries of life were cheaper now than in the year 1797, and almost equal to the prices of 1791. He thought, therefore, he was justified in proposing that large reductions should be made in all public salaries. He had not consulted
516
either the present or late Government, but had taken his own course, because he believed, more money was taken from the pockets of the people than ought to be. The Resolution he proposed to offer did not materially differ from that proposed last year by the late Secretary of the Treasury. If the previous question were moved which was, he understood, to be the case, he should continue to follow up the subject from time to time. He begged leave to move, "That with a view of more speedily relieving the country from a part of its burdens, the expenditure in public offices should be carefully revised, and regard being had to the present value of money, the amount of all salaries to public officers should be reduced to that which they received in the year 1797."
Mr. Huntseconded the motion.
Lord Althorpagreed with the worthy Alderman opposite, that regard ought to be had, in the payment of the public servants, to the alterations in the value of money; and that reductions ought to be made as extensively as was compatible with the effective discharge of the public business. He not only concurred in that opinion, but he could assure the worthy Alderman, that the Government had been all along acting upon it. One of their first measures was, to refer their own salaries to a Committee of that House; and, according to the recommendation given by that Committee, in their Report to the House, a considerable reduction of those salarieswas immediately carried into effect. Having done that with the intervention of the House, the Ministers thought it their duty to take upon themselves the revision of the salaries paid to public officers employed under the Government, and to do so without calling for a Committee of the House, as they considered the inquiry peculiarly their own duty. They therefore had given instructions to the principal persons presiding over the various public offices, to furnish explanations of every particular respecting the quantity, and the kind of labour, the hours of attendance, and the salaries, of all the persons in their offices, so that the Ministers might have data whereupon to proceed in their reduction. They had acted upon these returns, and diminished the number, and reduced the salaries, of the Commissioners of Customs; and they meant next to proceed and make a similar reduction in the salaries and number of the Com-

517
missioners of the Excise. They would in the meantime go on with their inquiries, and carry reductions as far as due regard to the public business would permit. He was sure the House would say, that what he proposed was the proper course, and that the Administration ought not to determine at once, without consideration, and without regard to any increase of the public business, to go back to the salaries of 1797, for since that time the duties and responsibility of many of the offices had materially increased. If the House agreed to the Resolution proposed by the worthy Alderman, they would thereby express an opinion that the Government had not done its duty in respect to the reduction of the expenditure in the various departments of the civil service. He hoped that the House would not vote a Resolution passing that censure upon the Ministers. As he agreed with the worthy Alderman as to the principle of the Resolution, he did not wish to negative it expressly and decidedly, and the course he should take would therefore be, to move the previous question. Before he became a member of the Government, he had always advocated reduction of the public expenditure; and now that he was in the Administration, he would, as far as in him lay, carry it into effect. He would not then go into any detailed statement of the reductions which had already been made. He had explained to the House the principles on which the Ministers had proceeded, and if the House was satisfied that they were doing their duly, they would not vote for the Resolution of the worthy Alderman.
Mr. Huntwas sure the House had not been surprised at his having seconded the Motion of the hon. member for London, as it was founded on the Resolutions of the Livery assembled at one of the largest Common-halls he ever witnessed, and as he had there proposed the Resolution, so was he quite ready to support and second the Motion in that House. He was surprised at the altered tone of the noble Lord opposite, and at the manner in which the Resolution had been met by him. When he compared the conduct of the present Ministers since they came into office, with the course which they followed whilst they sat upon the Opposition benches, he was convinced of the truth of what he had often heard, that Gentlemen, in changing sides in that House,
518
changed their opinions and principles. He did not mean anything personal, but it appeared a strange system of tactics to him, that the noble Lord who said, he approved of the principle, should oppose the Motion, of the worthy Alderman. Such inconsistence was, he supposed, a misfortune which attached to the other side of the House. Now, what was the proposition which the noble Lord called on the House to reject? To return to the salaries of 1797; whereas the worthy Alderman had proved, from authentic documents, that the necessaries of life were lower, whilst the salaries of public officers were all risen [great laughter]—aye, whilst the salaries were risen [renewed laughter]. Well, then, they were raised [hear, hear]. He was much obliged to the other side of the House for setting him right. But he assured them that he did not stand up there with any factious intentions. He stood there to do his duty to the people, especially to that portion, of which he was the Representative [laughter]. Whenever he spoke of the people, hon. Gentlemen opposite were accustomed to laugh. When the noble Lord who introduced the Reform Bill, spoke of the people, the same Gentlemen invariably cheered, who always gave a great laugh when he (Mr. Hunt) spoke of the people. The reason was, that the people whom the noble Lord meant, were those who occupied houses worth 10 l. a year, whereas the people of whom he (Mr. Hunt) spoke, were those men who laboured for their daily bread. The worthy Alderman had assigned a good reason for his Motion, when he stated that salaries had been raised in consequence of the dearness of provisions; he had told the House, that if they gave him a Committee he would show them how a million a year could be saved to the country: and would the House refuse him that opportunity, when they knew that there were numerous families in some parts of the country having no more than 2½d. a day for their support? Gentlemen had attributed the late disturbances to the Beer Bill, and to other causes which had no connection with them. The fact was, that the people were driven to the acts of outrage by the extreme distress under which they were suffering, as was proved by the number of distress-warrants signed by the worthy Alderman that very day. Under such circumstances, would the

519
noble Lord let it go forth to the country, that, although the Ministers would give the people this great Reform Bill, they would not diminish their own salaries? The people had been much gratified when they heard that a right hon. Baronet had come into office, who, they recollected, had made a speech to the House, complaining that 600,000 l. per annum was divided among about 100 Privy Councillors. If this Motion was rejected, the people would see what was to be expected from Gentlemen in Opposition becoming members of Government. It was of no use for Ministers to go about cutting off the small salaries of the working clerks, leaving the high salaries untouched. They might also pass their Reform Bill; but it would be vain for them to look to that Bill for the relief of the people. He knew, indeed, that a majority of the present Members had been returned to the House to carry that Bill, in consequence of the excitement which they had raised. But let them look to the condition in which they placed the country. He hoped the cuckoo cry, that he was an enemy to Reform, would not be raised against him for what he was going to say. It was not a Reform Bill—it was not the mere name of liberty—that could relieve distress. If the House did not, by their votes on that occasion, give the people an earnest that they wished to relieve their distress, the Reform Bill would give no satisfaction. It was true, that the noble Lord who introduced the Bill said that it would give no immediate relief. It was true, that the Ministers themselves had not pretended that it would have such an effect; but the Press and the out-scouts of the Ministers had pretended so. Yes he said the Press and the out-scouts of the Ministers deluded the people. The people had been made to expect from the Reform Bill what he knew it could not realize. Whenever his servants went into the shops in the neighbourhood [ a laugh]—he would not be put down by a laugh. He was only stating what he knew to be facts. However Gentlemen might laugh, he had servants. It was true, he lived by trade, and he was not the least ashamed of that. There were many Members of that House—there were many Noblemen even in the other House—who owed their wealth and rank to trade, and he believed, that their coats did not sit the less smoothly on their backs, or their coronets less conveniently upon
520
their heads, on that account. When his servants, he repeated, went into the shops, they heard nothing talked of but all the good the Reform Bill was to do. Several shopkeepers, who had been unable to pay ten shillings, had said, "we are unable to pay now, but when the Reform Bill has passed, things will improve." Another circumstance had been mentioned to him; a gentleman of his acquaintance, hiring a servant, was desirous to engage her for a year, on account of the excellent character given from her last service. But the girl said, that nothing could induce her to be bound to service for a year, as the Reform Bill would pass in three months, and then it would be no longer necessary for her to go to service; she should have servants of her own. As to the Motion before the House, he would assure the noble Lord, that it should not be set aside without a division; for if the worthy Alderman did not press it, he would, in order that it might be made known to the country, who were the persons that refused to have the public burthens diminished, and that too at a time when the Government had increased the Army and Navy, and had raised troops of Yeomanry to put down the people, who were driven to disturbances by wretchedness and want. That was the case last winter, when many of the peasantry, it was proved, could not earn more than 7s. a week to maintain their families. The Yeomanry had been complimented for stopping these disturbances, but the people had made no resistance. Their only object had been to destroy thrashing and other machines, which had thrown them out of work. He did not attempt to justify the conduct of the people, for he reprobated all outrages. He knew that the Reform Bill must pass. He knew that they must have Reform or Revolution; although he did not think that, under the Reform Bill, there would ever be a House of Commons more truly chosen by the will of the people, than the present. "But you have raised," said the hon. Member, "such a flame in the country, that the people will not be satisfied without Reform. You must give Reform, and you must go on and do something for the people—I mean that part of the people who are not included in the Bill." He called upon all Gentlemen who were favourable to Reform, and who valued the character of the House, and the good of the country, not to trifle with the feel-

521
ings and sufferings of the people, but come forward and teach the Ministers that they must not any longer deal in mere promises, and they must, by their deeds, satisfy the country that they were the friends of reduction and economy.
Colonel Sibthorphad thought, that the hon. member for Preston was a Reformer, and he was, therefore, gratified by hearing him say, that the people were deluded about the present Bill. For his part, he had ever been of that opinion. The hon. member for Preston also stated, that there never would be a House of Commons more congenial with the people, or a House more truly representing the people than the present, he, himself, thought so; and, therefore, considered Reform superfluous and unnecessary. He had great satisfaction, also, in hearing what fell from the worthy Alderman, the member for London, and would support the Motion, for he was sure a great saving could be made by the reduction of the high salaries at present paid to many useless Government officers. Although he wished to act liberally to the persons who did all the work in the public offices, he would cut off the idlers who did nothing.
Mr. Huntrose to explain. The hon. Member had misquoted what he said. His observation was not, that they should never have a Reformed Parliament better than this, but that, when the Bill had passed, they could not have one more truly chosen by the people, than that which at present sat.
Mr. Humewas anxious the House and the country should exactly understand their situation, and he did not think the hon. member for Preston had informed them of that. There was no authority for saying, that the Ministers had not made reductions; he was as desirous as any man that reductions should be made, but it was unreasonable to expect every thing could be done at once; he had, therefore, listened to the hon. member for Preston—not, indeed, with surprise, for he knew him too well for that, but—with something like wonder at his bold misrepresentation of facts. Had the hon. Member referred to a report which had been laid on the Table last Session, he would not have taunted Ministers with having failed to effect those reductions in the public expenditure which the people sought at their hands; and if the hon. Member had previously,
522
in common fairness, made himself acquainted with the facts, he would know that this taunt was by no means applicable. What were the facts of the case? It might be in the recollection of the House, that the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, shortly after his accession to office, had—while he did ample justice to his predecessors for the reduction they had effected—pledged himself and his colleagues to effect every further reduction compatible with the public service; and, said the noble Lord, "as a proof of our earnestness, we will afford an example to inferior public officers, and submit to a Committee the revision of the salaries of offices held by Members of either House of Parliament." Accordingly, a Committee was appointed, on the motion of Ministers, to inquire into the best mode of effecting reductions of the salaries of public offices; on every suggestion of which Committee (of which the hon. member for Callington was Chairman), be it understood, Ministers had promptly acted. The Committee's range of inquiry had been very extensive. They stated in their report, which had been laid before the House on the 3rd of March last, that they had experienced great difficulty in devising a standard of reduction which would apply equally to all public offices; but at length had agreed that their "public utility," should be the criterion by which they would endeavour to regulate their claims upon public remuneration, and through that means arrive at a practical measure of the amount of reduction which might be effected without detriment to the public interests. That wise principle had been rigidly acted upon by the Committee; and, as the hon. member for Preston knew, or ought to know, had been most rigidly followed up by the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) and his colleagues. Ministers had, as he had stated, set the example by reducing their own personal salaries; and had effected, themselves every reduction in which their own body was involved, which did not require the specific sanction of the Legislature; and where it was necessary to have an Act of Parliament to authorise a reduction—as was the case with respect to the salary of the Master of the Mint—that Act was promptly applied for, and had been already brought before the House. "But," said the hon. member for Preston,

523
"the people have been deluded by Ministers with respect to Reform." He (Mr. Hume) most distinctly denied the assertion. If there was any delusion, it most certainly was not on the part of the friends of the Bill; for no species of delusion could ever have roused up the people of England to that uniform and steady course which they had exhibited in electing Reform Members. The hon. Member's absurd story about a servant-maid's being dissatisfied with the bill, was in perfect keeping with the delusions attempted by the enemies, open and covert, of Reform. He wondered how the hon. Member could think of introducing that story; and he was sure, that no man in the country—not the most ignorant or illiterate—would pay the slightest attention to it. How could she know anything about the matter? But the argument sought to be derived from this was, that those who voted for reforming candidates expected some immediate result from it, that would put an end to all the evils of our present system of society and government. So far from such opinions being prevalent out of doors, he was sure that those hon. Members who were best acquainted with the sentiments of the people at large, would bear him out in the statement, that there was not a man who voted for Reform, who did not regard it as the means of obtaining something better. The people hailed the Bill, not only as an improvement in the machinery of Representation in that House, but as the essential preliminary condition of reductions in the public expenditure, commensurate with the public interests. He entirely agreed with them, and indeed would not, individually, give a pin for the Reform Bill, unless he considered that it would lead to a wholesome economy of the public money. The people, in fact, regarded the Bill as a means to an end, and that end was, a good, cheap, and efficient system of government. It would be unreasonable to expect, that so great an end could be attained all at once; the attainment required time; and all that the hon. member for Preston could, with a semblance of truth, have to complain of was, that the delay was greater than could be wished. But this delay was unavoidable, rendering it incumbent upon all those in whom the people placed confidence as friends of Reform, not to lengthen it by putting unnecessary obstacles in the way of the great measure. The
524
division in the last Session on the Timber Duties threw such a light on the constitution of parties in that House—on the narrow and sinister motives which influenced hon. Members of great eminence in their own estimation to vote,—that the people must see the inutility of all attempts to carry great measures of national utility through Parliament till the Bill had enabled them to return such a House of Commons as dare not imitate the conduct of the majority on the Timber Duties. "But," said the hon. member for Preston, "this House, at present assembled, faithfully and accurately represents the people; and there never would be a House of Commons more truly chosen by the people than the present." He denied the fact. What! the people as faithfully represented now as they would be under a Bill which went to sweep away 150 nominees of those over whom the people have no control whatever? No doubt that House represented the public voice in a degree far beyond any other House of Commons of modern times, but still it was not a faithful Representative of that voice; and he trusted (he very next Parliament, if the Reform Mill should be carried, would show the error of the hon. member for Preston's assertion, in the return of 150 Representatives of the wealth and intelligence of the middle classes, in lieu of the 150 nominees of boroughmongers. So much for the hon. member for Preston's insidious assertion of that House's representing faithfully the feelings of the people. His other assertion, that Ministers had not redeemed their pledge of reduction, would be found equally groundless; as a few statements of figures taken from the Report of the Committee on the Salaries of Public Officers, would clearly demonstrate. He would select one or two of those salaries, of which the Committee had recommended a reduction, in order to show, that Ministers had in no instance neglected to carry into effect the recommendations of the Committee. In 1780, the salary with emoluments of the Secretary to the Treasury was 5,000 l., which was reduced to 3,000 l. in 1782. During the war it was upwards of 4,000 l.; under the late Administration the salary was 3,500 l. The Committee recommended that the salary should be reduced to 2,500 l., and Ministers immediately acted upon the suggestion, In the same way the salary of the

525
Home Secretary, which was formerly 8,140 l.—reduced to 6,000 l., the amount under the late Government—had been reduced by Ministers to 5,000 l. per annum, at the recommendation of the Committee. The salary of the Colonial Secretary had been in like manner reduced from 6,000 l. to 5,000 l.; that of the President of the Council, which, in 1797, the period to which the hon. Alderman would restore us, was 2,840 l., had been reduced to '2,000 l.; and that of the Lord Privy Seal, which in 1782 was 3,000 l., had also been reduced to 2,000 l. per annum. Now, if the hon. Alderman's Motion was acted upon, these salaries would have to be raised —in fact doubled, instead of reduced, as they had been by Ministers. The noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) and his colleagues were pledged to carry reduction into every department of the State, and he regretted that the noble Lord had not entered into some detail of those reductions that were in progress. He had been informed, that these were very extensive, and the Ministers had, therefore, redeemed their pledges, as far as circumstances enabled them, thereby emboldening the House and the country to place implicit confidence in their renewed pledge of that evening, to effect every further reduction in their power, compatible with the public service. Though he, for one, had confidence in Ministers, he would vote for the hon. Alderman's Motion, should he press it to a division. He should do so with great reluctance, but could not avoid doing so from his sense of public duty. In conclusion, the hon. Member said, he must protest against the assertion of the hon. member for Preston, that Ministers had neglected to make those reductions which they had promised. Much more remained to be done, for which, however, they must wait for a reformed Parliament. The great burthens on the industry of the country were the naval and military establishments, which particularly called for reduction; and when they were once safe in the harbour of a reformed Parliament, he trusted that the first measure of the new House of Commons would be, to reduce those establishments, so as to make them only commensurate to the real necessity of the country.
Mr. Huntbegged again to explain, as the hon. Member had attributed a sentiment to him which he had already dis-
526
claimed. What he meant was, that the Reform Bill would give the Representation to only a small portion of the people, so that it could not be expected that the House of Commons would be more chosen by the people than at present.
Mr. Ewartwas one of those who could not reconcile the beginning with the end of the speech of the hon. member for Preston. He appeared to impute unworthy motives to him and his hon. friends when they smiled at some of the remarks of the hon. Gentleman. Their smiles were caused, not by his democratic principles, but by the extraordinary air of aristocracy with which the hon. Member alluded to his servants and his trade. They did not cheer the mention of the people because it came from the noble Lord, nor did they laugh at that word on account of its coming from the hon. Member. It appeared never to have crossed his mind, that they might have laughed, not at the people, but at the speaker. In both cases they were influenced solely by the manner in which the subject was adverted to. They must look at the past conduct of Ministers for an earnest of the future, and he (Mr. Ewart) for one was satisfied. As he had interposed to correct a misinterpretation of the feelings on that side of the House, he begged to add, that having risen himself from the people by trade, and being himself still one of them, he was not the man to undervalue them.
Mr. O'Connellwas desirous to explain in a few words why he should oppose this Motion. The hon. member for Preston had accused Ministers of not reducing their own salaries; but on that point the hon. Member had been sufficiently corrected, when, in answer to what he had said of their refusing reduction, the noble Lord, and the hon. member for Middlesex, had detailed the progress actually made towards attaining that object. For his part, he decidedly objected to being governed by the strict rule of the amount of salaries paid in 1797. Though of the salaries of that period some were below, there were others above the present scale of payment; and when the duties of an office had either increased or diminished since that time, the salary attached to it ought to be proportioned accordingly. Indeed, the hon. member for Middlesex had mentioned several which had been reduced below what they were at that

527
period, so that if the rule recommended by the worthy Alderman was adopted, there would not be so great a reduction as had already been effected. He put it to the House to say, whether such conduct was refusing to listen to the cry of distress? It was alleged, that the people had been deluded upon the important questions of Reform and public distress. The people could not be deluded; the time had arrived when they could distinguish between common sense and nonsense—between professions of sympathy, and real attempts to afford them relief— between real and mock reformers—between men who told them that the addition of 600,000 voters to the constituency of the kingdom was no boon, and that the exclusion from that House of 150 Members nominated by individuals was no Reform; and those who asserted that this was the greatest Reform ever accomplished. In fact, the people were perfectly aware, that the Ministers were determined to destroy the rotten-borough system, pulling down with a powerful hand the fabric of corruption, and building on its ruins a pure temple to the Genius of the British Constitution.
Mr. Sadlerhad always thought it his duty to support retrenchment, and would, therefore, vote for the Motion of the worthy Alderman. The arguments of the hon. member for Middlesex against it would have been equally cogent on many former occasions, for the House was entitled to call for reductions so long as they had not been made equal to the present and former rate of wages. This was matter for consideration with the whole people, for whoever, was Minister the business of reduction must go on. The Ministers ought not to object to the Motion, since it only pledged them to the course they said they were willing to pursue. By agreeing to it they would act more honourably than by dividing the House. The matter of retrenchment must be taken in hand. For several years past, every speech from the Throne had sanctioned the principle; and, although many reductions had been made, both by the late and present Ministry, enough had not been done. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sit James Graham) before he was in office, made a Motion respecting the salaries and pensions received by members of the Privy Council; but up to the present time they had experienced no reduction. The Civil List also,
528
had not been sufficiently reduced. People in office ought not to determine what retrenchment should be made, but those who had to pay must look to their diminished means, and consider what they could afford to give. The produce of the plough and loom were much depreciated in price, and when it was considered that Ministers were helped into office by repeated pledges of reduction, it hardly became them then to oppose it. Whoever might make a similar motion to this, should always have his humble support. The universally diminished capital of the kingdom required it; the landlords were receiving their rents from the decreasing capitals of their tenants; and the farmers and manufacturers were compelled to reduce the wages of the workmen and labourers, until comfortable subsistence was denied to them; in short, all that was once profitable in this industrious country was going to decay, and this demanded great reductions in the salaries of public servants.
Mr. Maberlyrose to say but a very few words. He thought the question had not been thoroughly understood. There were many salaries of 1797 which ought not now to be so large. He, therefore, was decidedly opposed to returning blindly to the scale of 1797. What was the way, he begged to ask, to arrive at a proper conclusion? Examination. Let the office be tried by the labour which attached to it, and paid in the way that was considered the fairest—in some such manner as mercantile situations. When it was known what Government had done on the subject, if any hon. Member was dissatisfied with it, then it would be competent for him to submit a motion to the House; but he really thought, after what had already transpired, the House ought not to countenance the motion now brought forward by the worthy Alderman. The hon. member for Preston had charged hon. Gentlemen who were now seated on the Ministerial side of the House, but who had formerly been seated on the opposite side, with a change of opinions on the subject of economy and retrenchment. He (Mr. Maberly) repelled that charge with contempt. Government, he would maintain, had redeemed its pledge. He would assert, that there was not a shadow of proof to charge the Ministers with a dereliction of principles. Had they not adopted all the reductions recommended

529
by the Committee, and was that a desertion of their pledge? After reducing their own salaries, they were examining those held by persons under them; and whenever the Government would undertake such a task, it was always advisable to allow it to do so; but when a Govern-would not undertake it, then, as in the case of the Finance Committee, it was the duty of the House to step in and enforce it. When that Committee made its report, the late Government opposed itself to the reductions recommended; but the present had acted differently, for it instantly proceeded to carry the recommendations of that Committee into execution. He would contend, therefore, that the noble Lord and his colleagues had fulfilled their promises. Humble as he was, he would support Ministers so long as they acted in the way they had done, notwithstanding the taunts which might be made by the Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House.
Mr. George Dawsonsaid, he did not feel the difficulty which appeared to have overtaken the hon. member for Middlesex, who had spoken against the necessity of urging Ministers to carry on retrenchment, and yet declared he should give the worthy Alderman his vote. For his part he considered the Motion as inopportune and unnecessary, and therefore did not intend to give it the benefit of his vote, nor support, like the hon. Member a motion which he conceived improper and incorrect. The present Government had certainly made some reductions for which they deserved credit; but the harvest had been reaped to a considerable extent by the labours of their predecessors, which he hoped to prove before he sat down, leaving them only very poor and scanty gleanings. He really never heard so unintelligible a statement as that made by the worthy Alderman. It was impossible to comprehend it. It was a little singular that a document which could have furnished much valuable information should not have been referred to in the course of the discussion, and which was on the Table. It would have shown how much had been already done in economy and retrenchment as to the reduction of the salaries of Officers, and the abolishing of offices altogether, by preceding Governments, since the year 1821. So far from the present Government having all the. claim to praise on that ground, the document in question would prove
530
that much had been done by their predecessors. It was not his intention to enter into a detail of the items, but he would read to the House the results. Since the year 1821, he would maintain, that the different Administrations had caused such reductions in the various establishments to be made as was consistent with the advantages of the country. It appeared, from a Return upon the Table, that in seventy-three different departments a vast saving had been effected. To the Parliamentary Papers of 1830, he was now referring. The number of persons employed in 1821 in seventy-three departments, was 26,243, with salaries amounting to 3,694,000 l. In the same seventy-three departments, in the year 1829, the number of persons employed was 22,572, with salaries amounting to 3,091,000 l. Between the two periods, no less than 3,671 offices had been abolished, and a saving of 603,000 l. had been effected. Besides these, there had been reduced, as appeared from the Minutes of the Treasury, 241 other offices, with a saving of 105,744 l. The whole number of offices abolished amounted to 4,050, and the nett saving to the public was 700,974 l. Such was the fact, and there had been a great many savings made since, for the documents he was quoting from, only came down to 1829. He had not the details of subsequent abolitions, but the amount was large, and the noble Lord and his Colleagues would find it no easy task to effect those large reductions of which so much had been said. Looking at those already made, it was impossible to say, that the Governments which preceded this had been indifferent to the interests of the people. The late Government had looked very narrowly into the subject, and had done what was most conducive to the public service, by procuring a faithful and efficient discharge of public duty; and until it was proved the salaries were excessive, or the duties unnecessary, he hoped the House would agree in thinking the present Motion ill-timed, He thought this must be the opinion of Ministers, who, having the documents before them, had not said much on this subject, and he concluded they were satisfied with what had been already done. He must confess, that he felt surprised at hearing the speech made by the hon. member for Kerry, who was not then in his place. The hon. and learned Gentleman, he thought, might have remained,

531
as it was not likely that it would pass without comment He thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman's attack upon the hon. member for Preston was as indecent a proceeding as he had ever witnessed in that House. He (Mr. Dawson) thought there was something about the prosecutions against that hon. and learned Gentleman not quite cleared up, and he was rather surprised to hear that hon. and learned Gentleman lauding the present Administration, and persecuting the Government with his support and adulation on every occasion. The hon. and learned Member had said, that the people of the country could distinguish between sense and nonsense,—imputing to himself that what he said was wise and sensible, and everything which the hon. member for Preston uttered was the contrary. He was not the advocate or the supporter of the hon. member for Preston. God knew there were not two men in the House who differed more in opinion than he did from that hon. Member; but he would say, that the attack of the hon. and learned Gentleman was as indecent an exhibition as he had ever witnessed in Parliament. He had attempted to ask himself what had the present Ministers done to call forth such exuberant praises? As to Retrenchment, he could not find anything they had done more than effect a reduction of 20,000 l., which was made under the recommendation of the House; but the House had also recommended a reduction of 10,000 l. in the Civil List; which the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had not made, and which, in fact, he refused to make, and the House had gone along with him an refusing to follow the recommendation of the Committee. There had, in fact, been no reduction in any of the Estimates; neither in the Army nor Navy, for there had been an increase in both. In the Ordnance there had been some trifling diminution of expenditure. The other Estimates had not yet come before the House; but in the great branches, the demands for the present year exceeded those of the preceding and of every other year since the Duke of Wellington had come into office. If that were the case and there was no reduction in those Estimates which had furnished the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham), with occasions for such flaming speeches, in which he de-. Bounced and compared the men in
532
office to birds of prey, he should like to know what had justified the hon. members for Middlesex and Kerry in their praises of the present Government. The House and the country should be reminded that those very subjects were adopted in order to inflame the public mind, and to lead it into the delusion now prevalent, by stating that no remedy could be applied until the great measure of Reform should have passed. They were brought prominently forward for that purpose. The House must recollect the denunciations of the right hon. Baronet against pensions and salaries, and yet he sat down satisfied with only a reduction of 20,000 l. His object, and that of his party, had been answered by exciting a flame against the late Government; but how could Gentlemen, after what he had stated, cheer so loudly what had been done by the present Government? The fact was, the public mind was misdirected; for, while the present men in office had raised this clamour, they were now obliged to have recourse to the question of what they called Reform, in order to occupy the public attention and turn it away from the subjects which had inflamed it. The noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had said the other night, that much was not to be expected from any attempt at present to lessen the public expenditure; while, at the same time, the hon. member for Middlesex and others had said, that they would not be satisfied unless greater reductions were made, and that the people required considerable relief. If, however, the Government said that there could be no reduction in the expenditure—if there could be none in the Army, the Navy, the Ordnance, or the Miscellaneous Estimates, where were the public to look for reduction? There then could be but one subject for reduction—the National Debt. This then must be the object, he would not say of the Government—but this must be the ultimate object of those who, sitting on the Opposition side of the House, called for greater reductions; who supported the Ministers in their plans of Reform because they expected to pull down that Debt altogether. This great nation could never be protected or served without keeping up its army and navy, and all its public establishments; but if Gentlemen would only watch the progress of public writers, they would see, that all their efforts were di-

533
rected to the reduction of the National Debt. This was no new idea. — But let any one ask himself what idea had the people of Reform, except that it would lessen their burthens, which could only be effected by the annihilation of the public Debt, and the confiscation of Church property. Was not this the effect of what was constantly urged by those Gentlemen at his own side of the House, who were now so well known by the name of the Mountain? and if anything could induce him more than the demerits of the Question of Reform itself to oppose the Ministers, it would be the support that they sought from the hon. members for Middlesex and Bridport, and those who acted with them. Whatever others might suppose, he considered their object to be the levelling of all ranks in the country, and that could only be effected by the destruction of funded property, of Church property, and of Colonial property, and they had been unfortunately supported by the declamation of those who, when out of power, demanded Retrenchment, and who now, when in power, found they could not accomplish what out of power they had said was abundantly easy, and therefore directed the public mind to Reform, for the purpose of deluding the people, and turning away attention from their own broken faith.
Sir J. Grahamcould not congratulate the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down upon the happy state of his feelings, in thinking that an hon. Gentleman, who had once been in opposition to the Government, could not pay it the tribute of his approbation without some base compromise having taken place between the Government and that hon. Gentleman. He could not have believed it possible, had he not himself witnessed the fact, that the right hon. Gentleman would have reiterated his suspicions that a compromise had taken place between the Government and the hon. and learned member for Kerry, after the declaration which his right hon. friend, the Secretary of State for Ireland, had made upon his honour—honour which the right hon. Gentleman did not dispute, and did not even profess to doubt—that no such compromise had ever existed. He, too, might comment, if he were inclined to retort such remarks upon the right hon. Gentleman, upon the marvellous connexion which at present existed between the right hon. Gentleman and the
534
hon. member for Preston. He was astonished at hearing the right hon. Gentleman cheer the speech of the hon. member for Preston; but he was still more astonished when he saw that right hon. Gentleman get up in his place, and hear him word by word, and sentiment by sentiment, defend that speech. Things like these were almost incredible. Certain it was, that politics did often lead to strange coalitions; but, even in the history of coalitions, he believed that would appear the strangest of all coalitions—he meant the strange coalition which had been formed between a Gentleman who claimed for himself the character of a real Reformer, and a party which was opposed to all Reform, and which had lost office and power because its leader would consent to no Reform, and had even declared, that he conceived the present scheme of Representation the most perfect that heart could conceive; and that, if he had to frame a constitution de novn, he would endeavour to approach, for he could not expect to equal, the Representative system which now existed in England. Though such were the avowed sentiments of the leader of this party, the House had that night seen a coalition formed between the right hon. Gentleman, no inconsiderable member of it, and a gentleman who differed from it on every other imaginable subject. The right hon. Gentleman had plumed himself very highly on what he was pleased to call the imperfect fulfilment of the pledges which the Ministers had given on the subject of retrenchment before they came into office. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to certain expressions which he (Sir J. Graham) had formerly used, and had taunted him with them, as if the right hon. Gentleman expected that he would now be ashamed of them. To those taunts he would reply, that he was satisfied, that to the best of his power, since he had accepted office, he had endeavoured to fulfil every pledge of retrenchment which he had given when seated on the opposite benches. He certainly had commented on the pensions and sinecures enjoyed by members of the Privy Council, who held offices under the Ministry. He certainly had commented on the notorious facts, which had never yet been contradicted, that a majority of the late Cabinet, not satisfied with the salaries attached to their offices, were pluralists in pensions and sinecures; and he had deplored, that

535
whilst the pay of half-pay officers was to abate when they held civil situations, those distinguished officers were to hold their regiments, and their full pay and their half-pay, with their high offices, pensions, and sinecures. That was his accusation against the members of the late Ministry. Now, was there a single member of the present Cabinet against whom a similar accusation could be urged? He said there was not one. What had he said further? He had said, that the salaries of these officers were too high. What had been the conduct of this Ministry since they came into office? Was there any occasion for him to recapitulate the statement of the hon. Member for Middlesex upon that subject? Need he tell them that they had reduced the salaries of the Secretary to the Treasury, the Home Secretary, the Colonial Secretary, and of the Lord Privy Seal? It was reductions of this kind that had won for them the support of the hon. and learned member for Kerry. Nay, it was supposed that they had carried reduction too far in some cases, and especially in that of the President of the Board of Control, whose salary had been reduced, contrary to the opinion of the Gentlemen opposite and the salary of the Master of the Mint, which it was proposed to reduce by the Bill which had been recently introduced into Parliament. He could boast—only it was not a subject to make a boast of, nor should he have mentioned it had he not been, as it were, put upon his defence—he could state, that his own salary, as First Lord of the Admiralty, had been reduced ten per cent; that the salary of the first Secretary had been reduced twenty per cent, and that the salary of the Deputy Comptroller of the Navy had been reduced twenty five per cent. Thus, then, had the Ministers set the example of reducing the salaries of the great officers of State. The hon. member for Aldborough (Mr. Sadler) had said, that he always had entered his protest, and that he always would enter his protest, against confining reduction to the salary of the inferior officers. That was his principle too, and the principle of all the present Ministers. And what had been their practice? Ministers had not begun with reducing the salaries of the inferior officers, they had begun with the salaries of the Cabinet; and then, having had their own salaries fixed by Parliament, they had proceeded to administer strict justice between the
536
public and the officers next below. His noble friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had told the House what had been done with regard to the Commissioners of Customs. He would admit, that in the last eighteen months, the late Government—stimulated no doubt by the cry for retrenchment out of doors—had made great reductions in the public expenditure; but what had the present Government done in the short time during which they had been in office? His noble friend had told them, that the Government had abolished two Commissionerships of Customs. But that was not all. They had reduced the salaries of the remaining Commissioners from 1,400 l. to 1,200 l. a year. In his own office had he been idle? He had stated last Session, when he brought forward the Navy Estimates, that he had abolished four Commissioner-ships in the Victualling Department, with salaries from 800 l. to 1,000 l. a-year. He had put down three other officers with smaller salaries, and altogether he had abolished nine salaries, varying from 800 l. to 1,000 l. a-year, besides reducing forty or fifty unnecessary offices. He did not mean to say, that this was all he intended to do in the way of retrenchment. Quite the reverse—but. time must be given before further retrenchments were made. He had never contended when on the other side of the House for such a proposition as that which the hon. Alderman had now brought forward. He had stated that the price of articles of the first necessity had fallen since the year 1797; and that therefore some revision ought to be made in the salaries of public servants. To that principle Ministers had recently proved their adherence. He said, that many of the reductions which had recently been made fell below the scale of 1797, and that to lie Ministers down in all cases to the scale of that year, would not only be hard upon them, but also injurious to the public. Here he should have closed his remarks, but for the observation which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had thought fit to make on the subject of Parliamentary Reform. By some strange hallucination of intellect, the right hon. Gentleman had connected Parliamentary Reform with the destruction of public credit, and with the ruin of all the great institutions of the country. First of all he would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it did not strike him

537
as a very singular circumstance, that those persons who were most sensitive to everything affecting public credit— namely, the public creditors themselves— entertained an opinion diametrically opposite to his? The state of public credit at present, compared with the state of it when the Reform Bill was first introduced, proved that in the estimation of the public creditor the public credit of the country was vastly improved [a voice from the Opposition, "No!"] Did the hon. Gentleman mean to deny the fact that the price of stocks had risen six or seven per cent since the introduction of the Reform Bill? Was the hon. Gentleman unacquainted with the fact that at the public meeting of the merchants of London on the subject of Reform, the first resolution in favour of it was moved by a banker, who was one of the largest fundholders in the country. He meant Mr. Lloyd. Independently of all this,— was it not an irrefragable truth, that Reform was not only necessary for the maintenance of the public faith, but also for the satisfaction of the public mind, the maintenance of the internal tranquillity of the country? The right hon. Gentleman had taunted the Ministers with the present amount of the Estimates. He hoped, that the country would recollect, when the Ministers were thus taunted by their predecessors in office, what was the situation of the country at the time when the late Ministers fled from the helm, declaring themselves unable to guide the vessel of the State. He would tell the right hon. Gentleman that at the moment when the late Ministry so fled, the six home counties were almost in open insurrection; that the state of Ireland was most alarming; that the foreign relations of the country were most disturbed. [An hon. Member of the Opposition burst into a violent laugh.] Did the hon. Gentleman who indulged in that senseless laugh mean to deny these facts? He had every respect for that hon. Member; he should be happy to hear him controvert these facts when on his legs; but the mode which he had taken of expressing his dissent was neither customary nor courteous. He called upon the hon. Member to deny these facts if he could,—the country recollected them well enough. He was satisfied, that if the internal tranquillity of the country should be restored, as he had no doubt it would be, by the
538
passing of the Reform Bill, it would be in the power of the executive Government to make large reductions in our military and naval establishments. He admitted, that the hon. member for Middlesex was right in stating that those establishments were the real cause of our expenditure; and he assured that hon. Member that, as soon as the Ministers could with safety, they would reduce them. If reform were necessary to secure the internal peace of the country, then all measures of retrenchment must depend on its being carried successfully. Ministers introduced the Reform Bill as a parliamentary measure. By that Bill they were prepared to stand or fall. If they carried it, all their pledges of economy would be redeemed; and by a strict attention to those principles, which had already secured them the support of the people of England, they would stand, not convicted of a base dereliction of duty, but would go down to posterity-as Ministers—[laughter, and cries of "hear" from the Opposition]—he repeated that they would go down to posterity as Ministers who had redeemed, not only their pledges of economy—their paltry pledges of economy he might say, in comparison with the other pledges they had given,—but also that pledge which was the groundwork of all their policy—their pledge to carry Reform, without which they were convinced that the Government of this country could not be safely or honestly conducted.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, he was absent from the House when the right hon. Baronet commenced his Speech, and could therefore address himself only to his concluding observations. He would not argue with the right hon. Baronet what the opinion of posterity might be; but if the judgment of the present day was an index of that of posterity, he thought that the right hon. Baronet had not much reason to flatter himself with the opinion that would be formed hereafter. It certainly had struck him as extraordinary, that the right hon. Baronet had contrived, very ingeniously, to avoid the real question before the House for the sake of launching into an argument on that of Reform. The question before the House was, were they to agree or not with the motion of the worthy Alderman, a question confined within a narrow compass, but this the right hon. Baronet avoided for the sake of contrasting the merits of the present Government with

539
the faults of that which had preceded it. He was not surprised that the right hon. Baronet found it difficult to disagree with the worthy Alderman, because in opposing the motion, he opposed his former principles; while the Opposition, in objecting to it only followed the course they had pursued when a similar one had been brought forward by the right hon. Baronet himself in February last. On adverting to the motion which had been then proposed, he (Mr. Goulburn) found that the right hon. Baronet distinctly alluded to the rate of salaries that were paid in 1797, and he had then urged the same arguments nearly as had been now employed by the hon. member for Kerry, but without receiving the same cheers which had greeted him now. He was, therefore, surprised that Ministers should oppose the Motion of the worthy Alderman on the present occasion. The right hon. Baronet, however, had accused the late Government of leaving the affairs of the country in a bad condition when they fled from the helm, declaring they were unable longer to direct it. But the late Government did not fly from the helm: they acted on a principle on which it was consistent with the dignity of a Government to act. When the House of Commons showed that it had withdrawn that support, without which the Government could not act effectively they did tender their resignation to his Majesty, and begged him to allow them to withdraw their services. Other Governments might pursue a different course. There might be those who would bring forward measures connected with the Finance and Government of the country, and who, after the House had withdrawn its support of those measures, might still think proper to remain in office. He would not take upon himself to judge the motives of those men, nor say that they had acted wrong; but this he would say, that looking back to the best times of the constitution of the country, they who had retired from office when the House of Commons had withdrawn its support, had, at least, the satisfaction of being confirmed in the opinion on which they had acted by the precedents of men who had always been held as most distinguished for character and principle in the annals of the country. He was willing to admit, that the home counties of England were nearly in a state of insurrection at the time when the present Government came into office; but
540
could the right hon. Baronet entertain a doubt as to the termination of those disturbances, whatever Government might have happened to be in office? Had not measures been already taken for the suppression of those disturbances? And in fact, though it was true, that Special Commissions had not been issued, yet measures had been taken to put down those disturbances, and that they were put down was not owing to the merits of any particular Ministry, but because the country was ready to lend its support to whatever party might hold the reins of Government. With respect to what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet on the subject of Ireland he (Mr. Goulburn) did not apprehend that that was the time to enter into a discussion on the state of that country; but if he might judge from the statements which were now appearing in the newspapers, of what was taking place thereat the present time, he should be justified in saying, that there still was in that country, and had been for some time past, much to alarm every man who felt for its interests, and who wished that it should continue to retain its connection with England. The dangerous question agitated by the hon. member for Kerry, was still as unsettled as ever. The right hon. Baronet had intimated that there would hereafter be great reductions in the naval and military establishments of the country. He hoped that the state and condition of the country, and the state of our foreign relations, would presently wear such an aspect as to allow of the proposed reduction; and in that case he should have the sincerest gratification in supporting the right hon. Baronet. But, on the other hand, he trusted, that if there was anything in the internal situation of the country that called for a Military force for the protection of property, or if there was anything in the external relations of the empire that called for the interference of Great Britain to make her voice respected, the Government would not permit itself, in consequence of any rash pledges it might have given to the hon. member for Middlesex, with a view perhaps to secure the temporary cheers of those who were anxious for retrenchment at all risks, to be deluded into unadvised reductions, and so sacrifice the permanent interests of the country.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that he never remembered any debate in which such inconsistency had been manifested between the

541
speeches of hon. Members and their votes. The how. member for Middlesex had been inconsistent with himself; for, after passing a panegyric on Government, which they had endeavoured to deserve, he concluded by declaring he should vote against them; and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dawson) considered the attack of the hon. member for Kerry upon the hon. member for Preston as one of the most indecent he ever witnessed; and yet, with a marvellous degree of consistency, he opposed, by his vote, the points he advocated in his speech. His right hon. friend (Sir J. Graham) had fallen under the censure of the last speaker, for having introduced the subject of Reform, when the fact was, that whatever his right hon. friend had said on that subject, was only in reply to the i right hon. friend of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was certainly somewhat unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman had missed hearing nearly all the right hon. Baronet's speech, as well as the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Dawson's) speech. At least, he should have taken care to understand their tendency before he supported one, or replied to the other, and that would have prevented him giving a hard hit to a political supporter, while he thought he was assailing a political opponent. He would then have known, that the part of the speech of the First Lord of the Admiralty, of which he complained, was in answer to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dawson) on the subject of Reform.
Mr. Dawson. The question of Reform was not introduced by me.
Mr. Stanley. It was not for him to tell by what undefined chain of reasoning the hon. Gentleman had arrived at the subject of Reform. But he would appeal to the recollection of those who had heard what the right hon. Gentleman had said— not to that of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, who had not heard what he had said—whether the right hon. Gentleman had not concluded his speech with a violent tirade against Reform, as if the Government had never supported Reform before, but had suddenly seized upon it as a new idea, to carry away the minds of the people from the subjects of retrenchment and economy, upon which, according to the right hon. Gentleman, they found themselves unable to redeem their pledges, but which his right hon. friend had shewn they had redeemed. It might well have
542
been said, that the present Ministers were deluding the country, if, in the state in which the late Government had left the country, they had pretended they were able to diminish its military establishments. It would have been false economy indeed, then, to have weakened our military strength. But the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) had, by way of taunt, said, that there were some Ministers who, in defiance of public opinion, would not fly from the helm, but who were still determined to hold their places. He would reply to that taunt, that the present Ministers were determined, if they could, to carry the great question of Reform; and there was no sacrifice, short of the sacrifice of principle, no exertion they were not ready to make, to effect that object; and if they could carry that great measure, on which their public character and principles had throughout been staked, they would lose no time in forwarding those other measures which they had uniformly supported. The public wished and hoped, he believed, that they should remain in office to carry that Bill through. For his own part, he should not feel any regret at abandoning office, nor would any of his friends feel regret; but neither he, nor any one of them, would shrink from office, however laborious their duties, or thankless their task, as long as they thought that their holding office was for the benefit of the country. The right hon. Gentleman said, that it was not at present for the benefit of the country. But why did the right hon. Gentleman and his friends quit office? Because they could not carry on the Government. Public opinion had been pronounced too strongly against them. They quitted office after having been defeated on one question, because they would not encounter defeat on the question that was next to follow. He had heard the noble Duke, lately at the head of the Government, declare, that he left office, and gave up the situation of Prime Minister, after having been left in a minority on the question of the Civil List, because he did not like to suffer a defeat on the great question of Parliamentary Reform. The right hon. Gentleman had taunted Ministers with keeping their places after being left in a minority, and he was very severe on his noble friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on account of his Budget; hut did the right hon. Gentleman not recollect what had happened

543
to his own friends, and to himself, on one or two occasions? Was he, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, never left in a minority —never obliged to abandon any of his measures? [a voice, "The Stamp Duties."] He did not mean the Stamp Duties, though that was one case. But did they go out of office when they were left in a minority on the question of giving two pensions to the sons of Cabinet Ministers? They had not shown any reluctance to remain in office after being defeated. He did not complain of that [a voice, "The Test and Corporation Acts also"]. The defeat on the Test and Corporation Acts he considered a trifle. He repeated, he did not blame the right hon. Gentleman for not leaving office, but he thought it right to recall these circumstances to his recollection, when he, of all men, talked of Ministers having a pertinacious attachment to office, in which they had, as yet, remained but a very short time, compared with the period in which office had been held by the right hon. Gentleman and his friends, after they had been beaten. The right hon. Gentleman had referred, in his discursive speech, to the state of Ireland; but there was at present no time to discuss a question so full of difficulty; and it appeared to him exceedingly improper to introduce such an important topic as a make-weight to a light cause, on an occasion quite foreign to the state of Ireland. Much had been done for that country, though more yet remained to do; but take that country throughout, and he would venture to assert, that there was no comparison between the security now generally enjoyed, which was greater than had ever been anticipated, and the state of disturbance in which that country was left when the right hon. Gentleman and his friends quitted office. He stated that, fearing no contradiction. The right hon. Gentleman had talked of measures which had been taken before he left office; but he must say, that he knew nothing of them, and had never discovered any trace of them. As far as he understood, and was informed, of measures for the suppression of the disturbances of that country, when the right hon. Gentleman left the Administration, there was no public record whatever, nor the slightest public proof, that any such measures ever were contemplated. If there were any, they had all melted away, "like the baseless fabric of a vision." With regard to the southern
544
and western counties of Ireland, in which the disturbances had prevailed, there certainly was much to regret; but there was also now much that was consolatory, and much that encouraged a hope of returning and continuing repose. Peace and tranquillity were, in fact, being restored in that country, more rapidly than those who did not behold it could well believe. If any measure more than another had tended to this good end—if any measure more than another had checked that danger with which the country was threatened, and might perchance be threatened again—if any one measure more than another had stayed the agitation which was going on for what was called the Repeal of the Union, which meant the separation of the two countries—it was that very measure which the right hon. Gentleman had so much abused—that measure of Parliamentary Reform, which had at once pleased the people of England, and satisfied the people of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman could not possibly conceive that he (Mr. Stanley), and the hon. member for Kerry, could act together for the good of the country, notwithstanding his own extraordinary union with the hon. member for Preston; and he could not conceive that there could be any cooperation between the Ministers and Mr. O'Connell, unless there had been some dishonourable and disgraceful compromise. It had been his painful duty to act in opposition to the hon. and learned member for Kerry. If he were placed in a similar situation again, if he found that the hon. and learned Member was exerting his great talents and his extraordinary abilities in effecting mischief—if he found him again trying to offend against the laws of the country, he would not be found deficient in the performance of his duty, and certainly would not neglect, however painful he might feel it, as strenuously to oppose that hon. and learned Member as he had done before. But when he found that hon. and learned Member exerting his great talents for the advantage of the country, he should feel ashamed of himself if he allowed the remembrance of any political differences—he would not say personal differences, for there were none between them—but if he could suffer political differences to prevent him from concurring with that hon. and learned Member, and from co-operating zealously and cordially with him, when he found that he

545
was labouring for the good of the country. It was not his intention to follow the right hon. Gentleman through the various topics of his speech, in which he had touched upon every thing but the question before the House; he would only say, that the right hon. Gentleman's charge of inconsistency against his right hon. friend, the First Lord of the Admiralty, was without foundation. His right hon. friend never had contemplated the reduction of salaries without any reference whatever to the changes in the currency. He conceived the difference in the value of money should constitute the ground of reduction, but he had never contended that the salary of an office should be reduced, without examination, to the scale of 1797. For his own part, he felt so satisfied of the impropriety of the Motion of the hon. Alderman, and so strongly convinced that the House and the country were decidedly opposed to it, that he doubted whether the hon. Alderman, though supported by the hon. Member for Preston, would bring the question to the test of a division. If the hon. Alderman did, so assured was he of the feeling of the country, and so strong his own conscientious conviction, that he must say, he had never gone out of the House against any motion with a more thorough satisfaction, than he should then do, that his opinion was correct.
Mr. Gilloncould not be silent on this occasion, because he proposed to vote for the previous question, as moved by the noble Lord, though he was determined to support the most rigid economy, consistent with the proper administration of the affairs of the country. He wished to relieve the House and the country from the delusion which was attempted to be practised on them by hon. Gentlemen on the other side, who talked of Ministers deluding the country by a cry for Reform; but the fact was, there existed a most unnatural combination between them and the hon. member for Preston, and their object was, to return to office, and again dip their hands into the people's pockets. The right hon. Gentleman, the late Secretary of the Treasury, had taken great credit to the late Ministers for certain reductions made since 1821, but these reductions were forced upon them by the steady and consistent demands of the hon. member for Middlesex. The hon. member for Aldborough had alluded to agricultural
546
distress, the true cause of which was, the iniquitous bill of 1819, which caused a sudden return to cash payments. The same hon. Gentleman had also been pleased to say, the pressure on the manufacturing classes was greater now than ever; when, as he could testify, for it came within his own knowledge, that, in 1826 and 1827, when the right hon. Gentlemen were in office, the people of Scotland were labouring fourteen hours in the day, and not earning above 6s. in the week. That was not now the case; and he rejoiced to think matters were better, both as regarded the quantity of employment, and the remuneration obtained, while he could not sufficiently admire the patience with which the labouring part of the community had borne their sufferings. The only sure mode of giving relief was, to remove the clogs on industry, by diminishing taxation, which impeded undertakings by diminishing profits, and checked employment for all classes of the people. He believed, that the Ministers were sincere in their endeavours to diminish the expenses of the State, and he would therefore vote for the previous question.
Mr. Alderman Woodwould take but a very few moments in reply. The question of Reform had superseded in debate the consideration of the. subject he had introduced, and he had heard but little which called for elucidation. There had been hardly any thing said on the question he had submitted to the House; but hon. Members had spoken on all other subjects than the question before them. There had been a good deal of abuse, but no argument. He had only to reply, indeed, to the right hon. member for Harwich, who had been schooling every body. That right hon. Gentleman had not proved that he was wrong. He had shown that the expenditure for the civil service of the Government, in 1797, was 1,300,000 l., and that now it was 2,700,000 l., being l,400,000 l. now more than it was then. There were many examples of Gentlemen holding three or four offices, and doing nothing, though they enjoyed two or three thousand a year. That was taking the public money for no public services, and was, in fact, a public robbery. As he had heard nothing against his proposition, he was determined to divide the House, and then he and the country would see which of those Members who were pledged to economy, as well as Reform, would redeem their pledge. There was not a Member

547
returned for a populous place, who was not so pledged; and he was determined to ascertain, by calling for a division, who were true, and who were false, to their constituents.
The House then divided; when there appeared — For the Previous Question 216; Against it 13—Majority 203.

List of the Minority.

Bainbridge, Thomas

Ingilby, Sir William

Bateson, Sir R.

Kenyon, Hon. L.

Burrell, Sir Charles

Mostyn, E. W. L.

Dick, Quintin

Sadler, M. T.

Handcock, Richard

Sibthorp, Col.

Hodgson, John

TELLERS.

Holdsworth, Thomas

Hume, Joseph

Hunt, Henry

Wood, Alderman

GENERAL REGISTER OF DEEDS.
Mr. John Campbellmoved for leave to bring in his General Register of Deeds Bill. He would not trouble the House with many observations, as he had on a former occasion fully explained the nature and object of his Bill, but he had some reason to complain of the opposition which had been made to it by one class of professional men, who had endeavoured to excite a prejudice in the minds of the landed proprietors against the proposition of a General Register. They had not opposed it directly, and in person, but they had put others forward to oppose it; and for that purpose many unfair means had been resorted to. The Bill had been described as intended to bring all Title Deeds to London, and lodge them in one huge Mausoleum. Nothing was more false. He intended, that proprietors should still retain the custody of their own Deeds, though duplicates or copies of them might be lodged in the office. It was said, that it would be better to have offices in each county, and that if there were only one great metropolitan office, there might be some great calamity, and then all deeds would be lost. But what he had said, of the proprietors keeping their own deeds, was a complete answer to this; and if there were offices in different parts of the country, that would occasion great additional expense and inconvenience, and would prevent a uniformity of practice in registration. The advantage of a general collection of duplicates or copies of deeds would materially reduce the expense of the transfer of real property. The country Solicitors were afraid of losing their business; but their fears were without foundation;
548
for, according to the Bill, not a single London agent would be necessary, and the correspondence would be direct between the country and the Register Office in London. Another objection had been found, in the publicity which such an establishment would give to titles and writings hitherto kept secret; that was, in his mind, an advantage, because it would prevent the possibility of fraud; and if secrecy were desirable, a provision might easily be devised to prevent impertinent searches. The Bill would certainly contribute to put an end to equitable mortgages; which were considered an evil, being the cause of much litigation, and the late Solicitor-general had brought in a Rill to prevent a mere deposit of deeds for money advanced, giving a lien on the land. He hoped that Bill would pass into a law, and that would effectually remove the evil he had just stated. He had been asked by the noble Lord, the Representative for Yorkshire, to exempt that county from the operation of the Bill. If the noble Lord should insist upon it, he would agree to a clause being afterwards introduced for that purpose; but he thought he should be able to show that the Yorkshire Register was a regular and gross job. It was of no use or benefit to any persons but the Attorneys. He was satisfied that the proposed Bill would be a great relief to the landed interest, and he should therefore conclude by moving for leave to bring in a Bill "to establish a General Register of Deeds and other Documents affecting Real Property in England and Wales."
Lord Morpethapproved of the principle of the Bill, but as the county of York possessed already a Registration of its own, he hoped he understood the learned Gentleman right, when he said, it was his intention for the present to exclude that county from its operation. His hon. friend had found great fault with the practice of the Register-office for Yorkshire, but he must observe on that point, that all those with whom he had come into contact were of a different opinion. At all events, they were anxious to see the superior advantages of a general Register-office brought into practice before they gave up their own. Under such circumstances, he trusted his hon. friend would allow the experiment to be tried before its operation was extended to Yorkshire.
Mr. Schonswarwished the hon. and

549
learned Member would also suspend the operation of the Bill as far as regarded the town and county of Hull, where a Register-office existed already, and which, he assured him, was not so defective as he supposed that of Yorkshire to be. He believed, indeed, the hon. and learned Gentleman laboured under some misapprehension as to the practice of country solicitors. They were not the originators of the defects in the existing register, as he supposed. He therefore trusted the hon. and learned Gentleman would make more particular inquiries before he resolved not to exclude Hull and Yorkshire from his Bill.
Mr. Stricklanddeclared, he was not one of those who anticipated any great advantages from the establishment of a general Registry-office, as described by the hon. and learned Gentleman; on the contrary, he thought it would give rise to much inconvenience. Good indexes had always hitherto been kept in the different Register offices; and it appeared to him, that the only thing necessary to be done was, to pass a short Act of Parliament to make these more perfect. This would be better than to overturn a system which had existed many years. The Yorkshire Registers were such as were usually employed. In a general view there were many objections to the machinery proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman's Bill, and, at all events, the proposition would require much consideration before it could become a law.
Mr. Littletonthought, that the Bill might be productive of benefit; but the public was without the necessary information to come to a proper decision on it. He had taken considerable pains to ascertain the feelings of the landed proprietors, whose opinions were much divided on the subject. Few had been able to arrive at a definite opinion, while many had decided objections to the measure proposed. As the members of the legal profession were by no means unanimous as to its good effects; and as not more than one or two persons of those with whom he had conversed in his own county were in favour of it, he hoped that the hon. Member would allow the Bill to stand over until next Session, both to allow time for inquiry, and to enable the landed interest to satisfy themselves as to its propriety and advantages.
Mr. Blamiresaid, that the Bill had
550
occasioned the greatest alarm in the minds of all the gentry and landholders of the county of Cumberland, who considered it a most unconstitutional alteration, which would deprive them of the custody of the title-deeds of their estates. Instead of facilitating the investigation of titles, it would give rise to greater difficulties than at present existed. As to the advantage of publicity, he dared the hon. Member to bring forward any instance of individuals having suffered in fortune by surreptitious deeds. His constituents were unanimously opposed to the Bill; and they, therefore, prayed, either that the hon. Member would abandon it altogether, or exempt all the counties north of Yorkshire from its operation.
Mr. Spencewas of opinion, that while so strong a prejudice existed in the minds of the landed proprietors, it was not advisable to press the Bill forward this Session. He hoped, however, that this prejudice would be overcome; for, from his own experience, as well as from the opinions expressed in the Report of the Commission appointed to inquire, he was satisfied some alteration must be made in the system relating to landed property. No man could doubt the qualifications of the commissioners appointed to consider this subject; and, in the course of their inquiries, one gentleman in particular, who had previously been strongly opposed to the system of registration, became convinced of its necessity, and now heartily concurred in the measure brought forward by his hon. and learned friend. This circumstance ought to convince Gentlemen who would take time to consider this question, that there were not so many objections as they imagined. Upon every ground, therefore, it was expedient the measure should be postponed to another session, when he hoped that many of the landed gentlemen who now opposed it, from not being aware of its probable effects, would become its supporters.
Mr. O'Connellbore testimony to the advantages of a general Registration Act, from what he had witnessed of the operation of the Registry Act in Ireland; where, owing to certain circumstances, he had been much engaged in the investigation of titles, and, upon all occasions, felt satisfied of the general benefit and convenience of the Register Act which existed in that country. Through its means, every man could at once ascertain the goodness

551
of the title of that which he was about to purchase. He believed, if the Yorkshire Gentlemen would allow the Bill to be introduced, they would find, upon consideration, that it was in every respect calculated to do much good. He was not for introducing a complicated system of conveyancing, and was satisfied the measure proposed, instead of producing that effect, would tend to simplify titles, which must be beneficial to the landed proprietors in an eminent degree. The measure would be productive of the best consequences to the landed interest; and, for that reason, he hoped the House would receive it with so much consideration as to enable them to come to a correct decision upon it.
Mr. Cutlar Fergusonsaid, that in the course of his life a general registry of deeds had occupied much of his consideration; and, from his experience of its working in Scotland, where such a system had long prevailed, he was satisfied it would be found beneficial in England. No one could doubt the advantages of such an institution to facilitate the transfer of landed property. Objections had been taken as to its publicity, but that was one of the best reasons for passing the Bill, since it would effectually prevent the possibility of any person being defrauded or imposed on by fictitious title-deeds. In his opinion, the public were much indebted to his hon. and learned friend for having brought the subject forward, for all those who had any practical knowledge on the subject were convinced of the advantage of Registration.
Mr. Lefroyentirely concurred with those hon. Members who advocated Registration. From his experience of thirty years in the profession, he could declare, that nothing gave greater security to the purchasers of property than a public registration. All who had known the system in Ireland would strongly object to its being withdrawn. A similar plan in this country would be attended with advantages to both the buyer and seller of land, for each of these parties must naturally desire, that its full value should be ascertained, which it was almost impossible to do where the principle of Registration was not established.
Mr. John Campbelldid not think it necessary to take up the time of the House in replying to what had been said by hon. Members, as no solid objection appeared to exist to what he proposed. The
552
hon. member for Cumberland, whose constituents appeared to have felt some alarm on the subject, did indeed make an objection, grounded on that alarm, but the whole of that arose from mistaken views of the measure. It was not difficult to account for this, or for the opposition the Bill had encountered. The grossest misrepresentations had been industriously circulated, respecting its object and operation. An hon. and learned friend of his had told him, since he entered the House, of a Resolution lately published in a provincial newspaper to the following effect: "Resolved, that Attornies, Solicitors and Conveyancers have a vested right in all the lands in England, which will be greatly prejudiced by Mr. Campbell's Register Bill, and that the said Bill be, therefore, opposed as tyrannical, unjust, and unconstitutional." If hon. Members looked at the reports of the Commissioners, they would find what enormous expenses attended the transfer of property. The necessity of keeping up terms of years, and sometimes three or four titles, increased the expenses of these transfers very considerably, and formed a greater tax on land than any that was levied by the Government. A great outcry had been raised at a proposal to impose a tax of 10 s. per cent on the transfer of landed property, but the delays, doubts and difficulties in the transfer of landed property, arising from the present system of conveyancing, imposed a much greater tax. The whole of these expenses might be avoided by the measure proposed. A decided proof of the advantage of registration was, that in no country where it had been adopted had it ever been laid aside. In Yorkshire the existing system was defective; that in Ireland was also faulty, but it was admitted that, even in this imperfect state, great advantages were derived from each. There was scarcely a country in Europe in which Registration did not prevail: in France, Norway, Denmark, Sweden it was in use, and every State in the North American Union adopted the same principle. Under these circumstances he was disposed to leave the question to the good sense of the House, satisfied they would agree with him that it was a measure that could not long be delayed. He hoped, therefore, no time would be lost in passing the measure into a law. He was aware that no other question could claim any great attention

553
while the all-absorbing subject of Reform was still undecided, but when that measure had passed this House, and was undergoing discussion in another place, he was of opinion the Commons would be usefully engaged in carrying forward this and similar measures.
Bill ordered to be brought in.

AFFRAY AT NEWTOWNBARRY.
Mr. Lambert: Sir, in rising to move for information relative to the late deplorable event in Newtownbarry, I may be permitted to express a hope, that this hon. House will be pleased to grant me that indulgence which, as I am informed, it usually extends to inexperienced Members. The task which I have felt it my duty to undertake, is one of more than ordinary difficulty; for I have to contend, not only with the embarrassment inseparable from the novelty of my situation, but I have also to struggle with feelings of a very painful and powerful nature, which I may not be able altogether to subdue, but which my profound respect for this House will not permit me to indulge without restraint, for the blood of my countrymen has been profusely and wantonly shed. In the county which I have the honour to represent—a county distinguished for its industry, its loyalty and its obedience to the laws—in the county of Wexford, many valuable lives have been lately sacrificed. The shouting of a few boys, the alleged apprehension of the rescue of some cattle distrained for tithe, perhaps a few stones thrown, were the pretence for commencing a murderous fire on the people, which was continued in every direction; and it appears, that the Yeomanry officers themselves found considerable difficulty in putting a stop, after several discharges of musketry, to this atrocious and indiscriminate massacre. Sir, it has been distinctly proved, that no rescue of the cattle took place, or was even attempted. We have the evidence of persons deeply implicated in this lamentable affair, that the conduct of the people was orderly and good-humoured; that no weapons were seen with them; and that the man whose cattle had been distrained, readily consented to leave the disputed point to the arbitration of disinterested persons. I seek not to embarrass his Majesty's Government. I have no wish to prejudge the case, as it regards individuals. I do not demand revenge—I supplicate for
554
justice. All I require on the part of my deeply-injured constituents is, the rigidly impartial execution of the laws; and as I know, too well, how difficult it sometimes is, to obtain that impartiality in Ireland, I appeal to the generosity, the high honour, the humanity, of Englishmen. Are they willing to sanction such horrible proceedings as these? Shall massacre, and proscription, and outrage of every kind, continue for ever to ruin and disgrace a country that England rules, and has ruled at her pleasure for seven centuries? But, Sir, this subject leads to still higher and more awful considerations than those of mere worldly wisdom or policy. What idea must foreigners form of the religion, the laws, and the government of a country, where such violations of all ordinances, divine and human, arise from the mode of subsistence appointed for the ministers of the Gospel! It has been said, indeed, that the excitement produced is Ireland by the agitation of the Repeal of the Union, left no alternative to his Majesty's Government but to embody the Yeomanry, or to re-enact an odious and oppressive statute. I cannot pretend to say, that this may not have been the case in other parts of Ireland, but I utterly deny, that any necessity whatever existed for an increase of armed force, and least of all such a force as the Yeomanry, in the county of Wexford. In that county habits of peace and industry have long prevailed. The civil power was abundantly sufficient to maintain the respect due to the laws; but even if additional force had been required, the Yeomanry are the very last men to whom arms should have been confided, from their condition, their party feelings, their total want of discipline. Look at the result. The county of Wexford was in a state of the most profound tranquillity; the Yeomen received their arms, and in one week the county was in a state of uproar and alarm from one end of it to the other. Oh, Sir, I will venture to assure his Majesty's Government, that they can silence the clamour for the Repeal of the Union by better and more effective means, than by letting loose the Yeomen on a defenceless people, or calling for unconstitutional enactments. Let Ministers do justice to Ireland, and treat her misgoverned and calumniated people with humanity and kindness. I have not hitherto been an advocate for the Repeal of the Union, and most devoutly do I

555
hope, that circumstances may not compel me to change my opinions on that point; but I do know something of Ireland, and I warn his Majesty's Government, that unless a better system be pursued towards Ireland, and that without delay, the question of the Repeal of the Union will assume a new and more formidable shape, which will quickly bid defiance to Yeomanry bayonets and coercive statutes. Sir, the late events on the continent of Europe afford an awful and instructive lesson. A mighty spirit of innovation is abroad. Revolution knocks at our very door. Let us prepare to meet the danger, by at once removing all just ground of complaint from the people. By such a line of conduct, promptly and decidedly pursued, can we alone avert the threatened evils, and secure the venerable fabric of the Constitution. I feel grateful to Ministers for the Reform they have proposed, and I earnestly hope, that they will proceed in their patriotic career, by taking into their immediate, and most serious consideration, the long and unmerited sufferings of the loyal, brave, and generous people of Ireland. I now beg leave to move for "Copies of such information as his Majesty's Government may have received relative to the late affray at Newtownbarry, in the county of Wexford."
Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker; In rising to second the motion of my hon. friend, one of the Members for that county where this melancholy business has occurred; I also must bespeak the indulgence of this House for myself, in case, being a new Member, I should inadvertently transgress its forms. I shall not long trespass on its time. Indeed, the subject is so exciting, that I dare not trust myself too far; but it is my anxious wish to avoid giving offence to any individual here, and I shall endeavour to speak without asperity, and with as much temper as can be expected from me as an Irishman, when referring to a deep and lasting injury inflicted on my country, and to the cold-blooded, and I assert, unnecessary massacre of so many of my friends and countrymen, whose lives and liberties I value as dearly as my own. I trust, that no one will attribute the bringing forward this motion to any desire on my part to oppose or embarrass his Majesty's present Ministry—that Ministry which our much-injured people have sent me here to support; but my hon. friend who represents the whole population of that county, and who
556
was chosen by a large and respectable majority, could not tamely, or in silence, hear of the ruin which has been wrought in our heretofore happy county, in which we are both so intimately connected by ties of friendship, property, and relationship over whose interests and prosperity, as resident Magistrates and Grand Jurors, we have, for so many years, watched anxiously, and, I may say, successfully. The county of Wexford has, for nearly thirty years, been the most peaceable and improving county in Ireland. Within that period scarcely a dozen capital punishments have occurred, and not one within the last five years. It has been the constant theme of admiration by the Judges of the land, in their charges to the Grand Juries, and in their reports to Government, and I attribute all this good conduct of its people, as much to their inherent dispositions, as to the exertions of their liberal Magistrates; much, however, of this peaceable disposition is to be particularly attributed, I assert it from personal knowledge, to the Catholic Clergy of that county. Such was that happy people when I left them, but two short weeks since, and they are now the most distracted, and if Government act unwisely, they will be immediately the most disaffected, people in Ireland. They cry aloud for justice—I, myself, have great confidence in the present Government, that it will afford justice to an injured people. But does that Government know who it is have fallen? It is those who have been at the late election their staunch supporters; those who sent from their county, and their two borough towns, four Members to this House to support that Government—and who are ready to sacrifice many of their private opinions to do so, in expectation that the present Ministry mean well to Ireland. Do the Ministry know who they are who have thus wantonly shed the blood of their friends, and broken up the peace of our county? Do they know, that it is the Yeomanry—that faction, who opposed the friends of the Ministry at the election, and who have always been, and are, the determined and sworn foes of his Majesty's present Government, and of the wise and conciliatory measures they have proposed. I repeat, I have great confidence in the present Government, and it arises from what has fallen from them in the early part of this evening, and also from the tenor of his Majesty's Speech,

557
for it is the first document of that nature which says, that the constitutional laws are sufficient to repress outrage in Ireland, and it is the first, that promises to govern that country by measures of kindness instead of coercion. I will not go into the particulars of the evidence I have received respecting this horrid massacre—I have received it authenticated by the notes taken by brother Magistrates who attended the Government investigation. I have received letters on the state of the county from most respectable gentlemen, who are not party men, and who know the feelings of the people well. They say, that all the people want is justice, but if that be withheld, no power on this earth will be able to control them. They will seek, and I fear, will have vengeance: I know the Government will do justice, and I beseech them also to conciliate a heretofore attached and faithful people. I shall just state generally, that it is authenticated that the interference of the Yeomanry was unnecessary, that there was no rescue, that there was no refusal to pay tithes, that the people had no arms, that they were flying when they were fired on, that their general demeanour was peaceable, and that it was a disputed point whether the distress was legally made—all this is uncontroverted: but for argument sake I shall take it in the worst view against the people, I will suppose them as having committed the worst case of rescue, which is the utmost offence sought to be brought against them by their accusers, and I ask this House, does that justify the use of arms to prevent it? Does that justify the pouring vollies of musketry on unarmed and defenceless people, men, women, and children? Does that offence sanction a band of ruffians to inflict instant death, in a case of mere assumption of guilt, without trial, without preparation to meet the last penalty of the law? when, if that offence came regularly before a Court of law, in its most aggravated form, after a conviction before a Jury, the utmost punishment one of his Majesty's Judges could inflict would be, imprisonment or hard labour for a limited period. And yet, in this case, for the mere suspicion of a minor offence, fifteen individuals have been suddenly put to death, and nearly thirty more are wounded, who are yet in daily expectation of following their ill-fated companions. The people of our county have been severely oppressed, and their property has been
558
extorted from them in tithes and cesses, in a manner that reflects discredit on those who impose such exactions. They have murmured, no doubt, often and deeply— who would not?—but they have never illegally resisted those payments. I shall conclude by again expressing my confidence, that the present Government will do justice to their real friends, and by stating an important fact, that in those parts of our county where there are no Yeomanry, or where that force has fallen into disuse, we have no party nor religious feuds—Protestant and Catholic live like brothers; but wherever the Yeomanry exist, party processions and dissensions prevail. I know it has been thought economy to employ them, but it is expense; for where there are Yeomanry there must also be a body of the regular army to keep them in order.
Mr. Stanleycomplimented the hon. Mover and the hon. Seconder on the very creditable temper with which they had introduced the subject, and assured them that neither they nor any hon. Member connected with Ireland, could be more anxious than he and his Majesty's Government were, to give the means of throwing every possible light on the unhappy occurrence to which the Motion referred. They had no wish whatever to screen the guilty: their only desire was, to remove any imputation from those who might be innocent. They felt it to be of great importance, that the people of Ireland should know, that no partiality, no religious or political considerations, would be allowed to interfere with the administration of justice. They felt it to be a lamentable fact, that hitherto there had been too strong an impression on the minds of the people of Ireland, that the law was not intended for their protection; and that they regarded it rather as a heavy yoke imposed upon them, than as a friendly and beneficial protection. He could assure the hon. Mover and the hon. Seconder, that it was the earnest endeavour of his Majesty's Government so to conduct themselves as to prove to the Irish people their disposition to do justice to them; and to satisfy their own consciences, and the God to whom they were responsible for their actions. He could assure them, that if he thought that the ends of justice would be better obtained, or that the truth would be more effectually elucidated, by the production of the documents in question, not only

559
would he consent to the Motion, but he should have felt it his duty to anticipate the hon. member for Wexford, by making the Motion himself. Under the existing circumstances, however, and while the investigation of the case was still pending; while witnesses were in the course of examination, and while the most contradictory statements had been made, the respective merits of which only a Court of Justice could ascertain, he felt, that it would not be consistent with his duty to the unfortunate persons who might be criminated, on whose hands there was blood, and who would most likely have to answer for their conduct before a legal tribunal, to enter into any premature discussion of the facts, or to lay before the House the evidence which his Majesty's Government had obtained as the guide of their own conduct. The case would shortly come before the Judges at the Assizes. The feeling which existed, the origin of the transaction, the degree of blame attachable to this party or to that, the moderation or otherwise of the magistrates, the police, and the populace, would there be fully investigated. He really could not think it advantageous to prejudge the decision of a Court of Justice, by a debate in which angry political and party feelings must necessarily be mixed up; and which must, therefore, impede what he and every hon. Member must be most anxious to promote. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. member for Wexford would not compel him to oppose his Motion; but that he would voluntarily withdraw it. He hoped, that what he was going to say would prove, that there was no desire on the part of his Majesty's Government for concealment of the facts. In the course of the legal proceedings it might appear, that although there was no absolute criminality, yet that some of the individuals acting under the control of Government, whether Magistrates, Yeomanry, or Police, had been guilty of great indiscretion. Should such turn out to be the case, and should his Majesty's Government take any step in consequence, he should then feel it to be his duty to lay the whole evidence of the affair on the Table of the House; for it could then be so submitted without prejudice to the parties implicated. After this explanation, he trusted, that the hon. member for Wexford would withdraw his Motion; and he hoped other hon. Mem-
560
bers would exercise what he considered would be a sound discretion, in abstaining from discussing a subject which was so soon to come into a Court of Justice.
Mr. O'Connellwished to state one fact. Fifteen human beings—men, women, and children—had been killed, and twenty-five wounded. But no single being was in custody. Those persons, whoever they were, who had been guilty of this multitudinous homicide, were all at large; in perfect security; able to abscond in a moment if they chose. If that were so, where was the delicacy of talking of an interference with a Court of Justice, when no one of the parties implicated in this affair was under confinement? The county of Wexford was at present in a most frightful state of agitation. In 1798, that county was unimplicated in the treasonable union of the United Irish. Yet that county, then one of the most tranquil in Ireland, the majority of the inhabitants of which were descendants of the Normans, subsequently burst out into a simultaneous and open rebellion, occasioned by a regiment being sent there, which interfered with party feelings and party quarrels. The people subsequently fought five battles with the King's troops, in three of which they were victorious. It was the most formidable county in Ireland in which such a circumstance as that which had lately happened could have occurred. He believed, that the hon. Mover, and Seconder, and himself, were the only persons in the House who knew the state of the county of Wexford—who knew, that the people were waiting, not for law, but for vengeance; and who knew, that if blood once began to flow, it was impossible to say when it would be staunched.
Mr. Stanleyfound it necessary to say, after the observations of the hon. and learned Member, that he certainly could give no orders for arresting the parties, nor did he think it would be right in the Magistrates to do so while the investigation was pending. He must repeat, too, that while the judicial inquiry was going on, discretion dictated, that no legislative interference should take place. He thought that some expression had been made use of, which would lead the House to believe that the Yeomanry had been called out in Ireland upon permanent duty. That was a mistake, and he took the earliest opportunity of setting hon. Gentlemen

561
right upon that subject. Some hon. Gentlemen had censured the Government for calling out the Yeomanry at all. Now, the fact was, that the Yeomanry were called out, not by the Government, but by the Magistrates, according to what the Magistrates, no doubt, deemed the best exercise of a sound discretion; for it appeared to them, that the police force was not sufficient for the enforcement of the law. Whether it had been required or not, would, of course, form part of the question to be considered in the approaching investigation.
Mr. O'Connellrepeated, that the persons engaged in the late affrays ought to be placed in confinement, even before the verdict of the Coroner's Jury had been found. Surely, by allowing them to be at large, it was giving them permission to abscond if a verdict of guilty were found; and he was convinced that the ends of justice would be defeated unless Government ordered their immediate arrest.
Mr. Blakeneysaid, that when allusions had been made to the unhappy transactions in the county of Wexford, he had observed an hon. Member near him indulging in a smile unbecoming a man [calls of order].
The Speakerobserved, that when an hon. Member rose to speak under the excitement of great warmth of feeling, it was likely he might make use of some hasty expressions; but he ought not to impute motives to others; and above all, he should be careful not to impute motives which it was impossible to suppose could exist. He was sure the hon. Member would regret the expression he had so hastily employed.
Mr. Blakeneyhoped the House would make due allowance for his warmth of feeling. He had been in the neighbourhood at the time of the unhappy affair, and had witnessed nearly the whole of the proceedings. The conduct of the Magistrates had been most improper. They had not exercised a sufficient degree of vigilance in apprehending those against whom a distinct charge could be proved. They had arrested some men against whom there was no proof whatever, and they had allowed others to escape without being arrested, against whom plenty of evidence could be produced; and some of whom were actually present while investigations were going on as to their conduct. The people, seeing this, were
562
much dissatisfied, and their common cry was, "We cannot expect justice from our Magistrates; we must obtain it ourselves; we must avenge the fall of our countrymen." He had endeavoured to appease their feelings, and had assisted in the investigation. He had had conversations with many of the Magistrates. One of them told him, that the affair was one of a most serious nature. He had urged, that warrants should be issued; he was promised that they should be; but no warrants had been issued. The people were willing that the matter should go before the Government, for then they were satisfied they should get justice; but all the offenders were allowed to escape without being apprehended. The Magistrates, too, had ordered the informations to be given to the felons as well as to the people who were to prosecute them. The real offenders were not arrested. He complained of that at the time; he had offered to arrest them himself, if he was allowed the legal authority to do so, but he was refused. The whole business was owing to the misconduct of the Yeomanry, and he must say, a more ragamuffin set of fellows he never saw. The Magistrate who had promised him to see, that the offenders were arrested, afterwards thought fit to pass him without notice. As for the Yeomanry, he would as soon have a set of butchers' boys to preserve the peace as these Yeomen. He should not trespass further, as he should have another opportunity, at another time, to speak upon this subject, when he hoped he should be able to state it more properly than he had done now. The Yeomanry were not disciplined as they ought to be; they were not men to whom arms ought to be confided.
Sir John M. Doylesaid, he trusted the House would afford him the indulgence usually granted to young Members, while he said a few words on this subject. There were one or two things he wished to notice. The Yeomanry had been mentioned—he wanted to make a distinction. The Yeomanry of England were one thing, the Yeomanry of Ireland were another. He had great respect for the one—he was sorry to say he had no respect for the other. He knew the Yeomanry of his country too well to respect them much; and of this he was convinced, that unless that force was laid aside, his unhappy country would never have peace. He should be

563
brief in his observations. All that Irishmen required was, that Englishmen should know what they wanted. They were perfectly satisfied that when the English did know the facts of the case, they should have justice done. He would leave the case to an English Jury. Having said this, he should recommend his hon. friend to follow the advice of the right hon. Gentleman. The case was now stated, the case was known, and he should feel obliged if his hon. friend would consent to withdraw the Motion. One word more. It was not known that the Yeomanry of Ireland were now a body scattered about the country. Instead of depositing their arms in a place of safety, each man took his arms to his own cabin. That was wrong. The arms should be deposited in a safe place, under the orders of the Captain.
Colonel Chichestersaid, he could not but congratulate the House and the country, that this Motion had been brought forward, especially as it had brought forth the satisfactory explanation given by the right hon Gentleman, from which it appeared, that the Government had taken the matter in hand, and would see, that it was completely investigated. He could bear testimony to the great excitement which this matter had created in Wexford; a county which, up to the time of this unhappy transaction, had been one of the most peaceable in Ireland.
Mr. Huntdid not feel satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Ireland, although the hon. Member who spoke last seemed to think that nothing more was desired. He had listened to the right hon. Gentleman with astonishment, and could not conceive why he should refuse the information now asked. Of one thing he was pretty sure, that if the right hon. Gentleman had information tending to exculpate the Yeomanry, that would soon have been laid on the Table. He (Mr. Hunt) had been attacked, and he wished to reply to some of these attacks. One was made by the hon. member for Kerry, who was the last man that should have attacked him, as that hon. Member shielded himself by a vow in Heaven.
The Speakerobserved, that reference to a past Debate was out of order; and as the hon. member for Preston had let pass the opportunity of noticing the supposed attack at the time it was made, it would be
564
for him to consider how far it was likely he should conciliate the House, or do himself any service, by referring to the subject now, even if such reference was in order, which it was not.
Mr. Huntwas about to renew his observations in the same manner, when he was again met with loud cries of "oh!" and
Lord Althorprose to order, and repeated what the Speaker had already observed, that such references to former Debates were contrary to order.
Mr. Huntthen said, that he would not let another opportunity pass for rebutting an attack at the time it was made; but, of course, he would, on that occasion, bow to the decision of the Chair.
Mr. Humesuggested, that the Motion should be withdrawn till the information on the subject had been obtained. He had listened with horror to the statement that had been made, especially with regard to the Magistrates, who, he regretted to find, were still on the Bench, and acting in their magisterial capacity.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that as soon as he had heard of the statement now made by the hon. member for Carlow, he had written to request the same information in writing, and to ask, that sworn informations should be given against the Magistrates who were complained of. With respect to the Magistrates in general, he would now only observe, that there was a bill passing through the House, to continue for six months the powers of the Government to examine into the Commissions of Magistrates, in order to effect a revision of the Magistracy.
Mr. O'Connell,after what the right hon. Secretary had this moment stated, implored the hon. Member opposite to withdraw the Motion.
Mr. Lambertsaid, that as the object he had had in view was likely to be answered in another way, he should have no objection to withdraw his Motion.
Motion withdrawn.

USE OF MOLASSES IN BREWERIES.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonrose to move the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the expediency of admitting the use of Molasses in the Breweries and Distilleries of the United Kingdom, subject to certain restrictions. His object was, to allow molasses so to be used when barley was above a certain price, but he wished that the matter should be fully inquired

565
into. He was sure it would be admitted on all hands, that the distress of the West-India interests was a good ground for inquiry into the possibility of affording relief to them without inflicting injury upon any other class. The question was so much involved in difficulty and perplexity that his Majesty's Government had considered the best mode of proceeding to be the appointment of a Committee to investigate the subject, and they had endeavoured so to constitute it as to have Gentlemen on the Committee who were particularly concerned in all the different interests which the subject embraced. He believed that no objection would be made to this course, and Gentlemen would have an opportunity of stating their opinions when they should have obtained sufficient information through the Committee.
Mr. Gillonstated his determination to watch with jealousy any measure which could have a tendency—as he feared the introduction of molasses would—to encourage the use of foreign commodities and injure the agricultural interests. He was afraid that, in particular, the distillers of Scotland, who used a large quantity of grain, would be affected by it. The landed interests must also be consulted in a measure of this nature, or the West-India interests would be benefitted at their expense, and numbers of agricultural labourers thrown out of employment.
Sir G. Clerkcomplained of a measure of so much importance having been brought in at so late an hour as half-past twelve o'clock, and introduced with so little explanation, almost as a matter of course. The Government ought to have come prepared with some detailed plan of the regulations under which they proposed to admit molasses into breweries and distilleries, instead of delegating it to a Committee, who might not complete their inquiries for months. He thought that this proposition would not give any effectual relief to the West-India interests, while it would greatly prejudice the agricultural interests. He should have thought it much more expedient for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have proposed a reduction of the Malt-duty. If that was done, the West-India proprietors might participate in any beneficial arrangements that could be made; but using molasses when barley was at a certain price would tend to keep down the prices of grain. The announcement of this proposal had
566
already created great alarm, and it would be much better to relieve the colonial interests by reducing the duty on sugar.
Mr. Keith Douglasthought his Majesty's Government quite justified in moving for a Committee. How giving the distillers an additional commodity could do them injury, he was at a loss to imagine. The question seemed to him to be between the importation of foreign grain and the importation of our colonial produce, and he saw no objection to the proposed plan.
Mr. Frankland Lewissaid, that this question was a very important one, being no less than whether we should brew from sugar or corn—corn being the most important produce, and that about which the greatest anxiety was felt throughout the country. The Government ought to have come prepared with some measure without engaging the House in this sort of fishing inquiry. He called upon the right hon. Gentleman, or the noble Lord opposite, to state fairly their views in calling for this inquiry, as he had no doubt they had some specific plan in contemplation, for it was impossible to disguise the fact that their object was to allow of distillation from molasses or sugar in lieu of grain, the produce of this country. A Committee would keep all parties in suspense and alarm during its inquiries.
Lord Althorpsaid, that he had heard with much surprise the observations of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The proposition which had been brought forward appeared to him as innocent a one as could possibly be made. The question was, not whether we should brew from sugar or corn, but whether a Committee should be appointed to consider whether it would be expedient to distil from molasses when corn should be at a certain price. His Majesty's Government had made all the inquiries they could, and they had a plan which he thought would be of some little benefit, although it might not be of much, to the West-India interest, while it would inflict no injury on any other. He was sure that, if the agricultural or other interests thought that a plan could be devised which would relieve the West-India interests, without detriment to themselves, they would not be adverse to the proposition. Nor did he think that the appointment of this Committee would excite the alarm which the right hon. Gentleman's speech had a tendency to

567
create. No confusion could arise in the making-trade, for malting had now ceased.
Mr. Warburtonsupported the motion. All that could be reasonably expected was, that a duty should be placed upon molasses equivalent to that upon malt. He was really surprised that there should be any hesitation in the appointment of a Committee on a subject in which the shipping, colonial, and commercial, interests of the country were so deeply implicated. Sugar was brought into the country and forbid to be used. All that could be fairly demanded by the agriculturists was, that they should not be subjected to any unfair duties.
Mr. Curteissaid, that that House was bound to sustain that which ought to be the paramount interest of the country, and if this measure should appear to him injurious to the agricultural interest, he should give it his humble, but decided opposition. At the same time, if it could be shown that there was any plan which would benefit the West-India interest, without injuring the agricultural interest, he was sure that the Gentlemen of the landed interest would not be so selfish as to oppose it.
Mr. Ruthvensaid, the question was one which would materially affect the price of barley. In Ireland its effect would be very injurious. There was an old saying, that "Charity began at home" and would they put the sufferings of the people of Ireland in competition with the West-India interests. For the last six months riots and tumults had taken place, and famine had prevailed to a dreadful extent; there had been resistance to the laws; and the great evil was want of employment which would be increased by depriving the agricultural interests of the demand for barley, or by injuring the distillers who embarked capital to a large extent, and gave much employment to the people. The Irish distiller paid a greater duty than the Scotch, and it was a practice to send grain from Ireland to Scotland for the purpose of distillation. He should always be ready to oppose the substitution of a foreign for a domestic article in general consumption.
Mr. Robert Gordonsaid, that several hon. Members had expressed commiseration for the West-India interests, but it only meant, they were to receive so much relief as not to produce the slightest change in the produce of other countries. The Committee proposed was not for the pur-
568
pose of inquiring whether sugar should be substituted for British corn, but whether it could be to a certain point substituted for foreign grain. When the supply raised by the British farmers was not sufficient, foreign barley was admitted, but by the proposed plan, sugar would be used instead of that. The agricultural interests would therefore not suffer, nor was it unfair to encourage the British colonist in preference to the foreign grower.
Sir Robert Hartybelieved the West-India interests required protection, but he hoped it would not be afforded by injuring the agricultural community, or by interfering with the distiller's arrangements, who must make those at the commencement of the year. It was not when barley advanced in price that they were particularly affected, but when they had to make their necessary arrangements for the year. That circumstance ought to be taken into consideration.
Mr. Benettwas sure it was not fair to relieve one interest at the expense of another, and this measure would distress the landed interest more than it would benefit the West-India interest. He was afraid that the present discussion would reduce the price of barley, and he could not understand how it would be possible to substitute sugar for foreign barley. Even if such a measure were carried into effect, the distillers would be obliged to alter their machinery, and it would be difficult so to change their present mode as to enable them to distil from molasses. At present they heard a great deal of the adulteration of beer by drugs of various descriptions, and he was satisfied, if molasses was introduced into distilleries, drugs would also then be used. The Committee would not answer any other purpose but to augment the distress of the agricultural interests. If any measure was brought before the House for the reduction of the duty on sugar, he should certainly vote for it.
An Hon. Member said, as it appeared that there was a disposition in the House to grant the inquiry he was anxious to remove the erroneous impression of this being an attempt to shew an undue preference to the West-Indian Planters in opposition to the British farmer. The question really was, whether the House would endeavour to relieve our own subjects without prejudicing the British grower in preference to the foreign grower

569
of corn. The Committee would enquire, and accurately sift and examine every objection that could be urged by the different interests concerned, and if they could suggest any means of relief, it was no objection, to say it was not fully adequate to the existing distress.
Another Hon. Member said, on the introduction of this measure, he as the Representative of a large body of agriculturists had determined to give it his decided opposition, but the explanation of the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer, although perhaps he did not go far enough, induced him to alter his determination. He now understood, that the noble Lord's object was not to put molasses in competition with home produce, but merely in opposition to barley grown in foreign countries. This was said to be a difficult point, which the Committee must decide, and it would then be for the House to act as they thought best upon their decision. He would wish, however, to ask at what price the hon. Gentleman proposed to introduce molasses as a substitute for home-grown barley.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonwas convinced the course he had adopted, of not entering into details, but simply stating his object, was the most correct. The details would of course be the subject for the Committee to examine and decide on, and to have adopted a different line of conduct, would have subjected the House to a debate upon the most intricate calculations without its possessing the adequate information. A delusion prevailed, that the agricultural interests would be effected by his Motion for a Committee to inquire how far the use of molasses could be advantageously admitted into the breweries and distilleries of the country. He thought these fears were unfounded. Did his hon. friend (Mr. Frankland Lewis) not know the difference between sugar and molasses; did he not know that 5,000,000 cwt. of sugar were annually imported, when on an average of five years only 340,000 cwt. of molasses had been received. Was it possible the conversion of that quantity, equal to about 120,000 quarters of barley, when this country produced upwards of 5,000,000 quarters of the same grain annually, could be of material injury to the agricultural interests. He did not blame hon. Gentlemen who particularly represented the agricultural interests for being peculiarly alive to the consequences
570
of the measure, because they were unacquainted with the use of molasses, and could therefore have little means of knowing the real state of the case; but when his hon. friend lent his authority to the delusion, and talked as if a great portion of the sugar imported was to be applied to the purposes of distillation, he was rather surprised. The price of barley, before molasses could be used, would be such that molasses could only come into competition with foreign grain. The Committee would inquire into this price, and the Government hoped to proceed with the sanction of Gentlemen connected with the landed interests, as this Motion had been brought forward at the request of the West-Indian body in this country.
Motion agreed to, and the Committee appointed.

REFORM BILL FOR IRELAND.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that at that late hour he should not feel him self justified in bringing before the House a question of such importance as the Reform of the Representation in Ireland, if it was likely to lead to any discussion; but as there had been an understanding that the Irish and Scotch Reform Bills should be brought in during the present week, and as there were no alterations from the Bill of last Session, which were likely to impair the effectiveness of the measure, he would trespass on their attention, though not at any length. In the first place, he had to state that his Majesty's Ministers had abandoned the machinery by which they intended to have carried the registration of freeholders into effect, and to apply the machinery already in force in that country. The only alteration of any consequence was with respect to leaseholders. It was originally intended that the right of voting should be given to those who held leases for twenty-one years; but it was found on investigation that this would exclude many, particularly those who held Church and Corporation leases, and, therefore, they determined to extend the vote to the holders of leases for nineteen years. It was also found that there would be a large number of persons in Ireland who held valuable interests, but did not pay as much as 50 l. a-year, or near that amount. Besides, though this amount of rent in England might be a fair criterion of the interest possessed, he believed it was not so with regard to Ireland. They therefore pro-

571
posed to take three alternative propositions: A lease of nineteen years, if the rent and fine together, amounted to 50 l.; and again, a leaseholder at 20 l. a-year, having a beneficial interest for nineteen years, to be deemed sufficient. [Here Mr. O'Connell observed, that 20l. was too large a sum.] Still it was an approximation to the wish of the hon. and learned Gentleman, so far as it went, for it enlarged the franchise beyond the extent originally described in the Bill. With regard to the main provisions of the Bill, there was no alteration; he therefore felt himself justified in stating, that they had not deviated from the original principle of the Bill, or given any just cause of alarm to those who felt apprehensive of too great an enlargement of the constituency. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave "To bring in a Bill to amend the Representation in Ireland."
Mr. O'Connellprotested against the injustice done to Ireland, compared with England, as it appeared on the face of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, particularly as no measures were taken to remedy the injustice of having disfranchised the 40 s. freeholders. In England they had 40s. freeholders and 10 l. copyholders. In Ireland they had none of these. They might call it a franchise if they pleased, but it was one that placed Ireland in a worse condition than this country.
Mr. Shellsaid, that the subtraction of voters in Ireland, was taken out of a small constituency, while in England it was taken out of a large one. The constituency of an Irish county, consisting of freeholders of 10 l. profit was necessarily far smaller than in England, where the 40s. freeholders was to be preserved. Of that constituency, the freeholders in towns formed the most intelligent and independent part, but the Bill cut the boroughs out of the county, and thus subtracted the most considerable and best portion of the electors. Those remaining were, of course, exclusively agricultural. The Government rated the leaseholder's qualification too high, when it assumed 20 l. profit above his rent. Surely the object ought to be to let in a counterbalancing constituency, and it seemed anomalous to make 10 l. profit the qualification of the freeholder, and 20 l. that of the leaseholder. He would not further discuss the measure at the present time.
Mr. Walkerquite concurred in what had been said by the hon. member for Louth. In the county of Wexford, which he had the honour to represent, a large proportion of the constituency was supplied from the town of Wexford and the borough of New Ross. When, therefore, this portion of the franchise was taken from the county, the consequence would be, the Representation of it would be placed in the hands of the aristocracy.
Bill brought in, and read a first time.

VESTRY TAXATION —(IRELAND).
Mr. Mullinsmoved for a return of the number of Protestants of the Established Church in the different parishes of Ireland. As he intended to bring in a bill on the subject of Vestry taxation, he was not actuated by the desire of exciting religious animosities, or of creating any invidious comparison with regard to the numbers of the different creeds, but he required such information, because it would furnish him with a strong and incontrovertible argument against the injustice of subjecting the Roman Catholic inhabitants of the several parishes to the assessments for building and repairing churches. It was the paramount duty of every Member to relieve the humbler classes from undue burthens, and at the present moment it was the more particularly called for, by the fact, that the peasantry of Ireland were starving. He made the Motion in the full confidence, that his Majesty's Ministers would not oppose it.
Mr. Stanleyregretted, that he could not agree to the Motion, which he thought would rather be a disadvantage than an advantage. The attempt to procure such returns would be attended with great expense and difficulty, and would tend to revive those religious dissensions which ought to be buried in oblivion. On the bill, authorising the census in Ireland, being introduced, the hon. member for Kerry asked for the same information, and stated that the difference of religion should be ascertained in the population returns. He then opposed that view, as he felt it to be his duty to oppose the present motion.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, the machinery to obtain the desired return might be procured with little difficulty, by employing the persons who took the census. On the ground of expense there could be no scruple. When he had formerly made the motion, there were circumstances which

573
induced him to withdraw it. There were none such at present. The returns would be useful, and he denied that there were any feuds at present in the country; but if the right hon. Secretary for Ireland was of opinion that the returns called for would keep up party spirit, he must beg his hon. colleague to withdraw his Motion.
Mr. Mullinscould not comprehend how party feeling, or religious animosity, could be excited by such returns. Surely the right hon. Secretary must be convinced, that every disposition on the part of the Protestant to do justice to his Roman Catholic fellow-subjects would tend rather to cement a stronger and firmer union between them. As the right hon. Gentleman, however, held a different opinion on this subject, he would consent to withdraw his Motion for the present.
Motion withdrawn.

SUPPLY—PUBLIC WORKS IN IRELAND.
Mr. Stanleymoved, "That his Majesty be empowered to issue Exchequer Bills to an amount not exceeding 500,000 l., to be expended in the carrying on of Public Works in Ireland."
Mr. O'Connellfeared these votes of Exchequer Bills would not have the desired effect, of relieving the distress in Ireland. At the conclusion of the last Session, the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, obtained a vote of 50,000 l. for the same purposes; not one penny of which had been yet demanded by the Irish speculators. The only effect of it was, to materially check the subscription for the distress then going on. The loan of money at interest would never have the effect of giving permanent relief.
Mr. Stanleysaid, the hon. and learned Member was quite wrong in saying there had been no application for the former loan. The Government had had applications from Sligo, Galway, and several other counties; but, on inquiry, the security proposed was not found sufficiently good to enable the Board to comply with the request.
Mr. Lefroywould suggest to the right hon. Secretary the expediency of taking the vote in such a manner as would enable the Board to assist the fishermen of the Western coasts, who were in a state of great distress.
Mr. Stanleywas aware of the distress mentioned, but regretted that such relief was incompatible with the vote now pro-
574
posed; for, it must be remembered, that persons obtaining this money would be obliged to give security for its repayment.
Mr. Wyseinquired how it was intended to regulate the lending of the money; in whose hands was that power to be placed?
Mr. Stanleyreplied, it was intended that a Board of Control should sit in Dublin, which would have the entire management of the money, and to which all applications were to be referred. But to diminish the expense, it was intended to do away with the Board of Works, the Board of Inland Navigation, and that branch of the Post-office which had the making of Post-roads in Ireland. The diminution of expenditure gained by the abolishment of these Boards, would enable the Government to meet the expenses of the intended Board of Control.
Mr. Wysesuggested that a portion of the money should be granted for improving public roads, and similar works, in Ireland.
Vote agreed to.
Mr. Stanleysaid, the best answer he could give his hon. friend was, by moving, "That a sum not exceeding 50,000 l. be granted to his Majesty for the purpose of being expended on the forwarding Public Roads, and other Works, in Ireland." The exigencies of the country required this vote, and he expected great advantages would be derived from it.
Mr. Robert Gordonwas anxious to suggest the expediency of appointing Commissioners who would perform their duty gratuitously. He was adverse to paying Commissioners, as it always tended to jobbing, and he knew gratuitous Boards discharged their duty with greater satisfaction to the public. In England that was certainly the case, and a similar course might be adopted in Ireland.
Mr. Leaderthought, the hon. member for Cricklade had made an unmerited and unkind insinuation against the Irish Public Boards by his eulogium on the English Boards. The Irish Boards of Public Works had existed several years, and ably discharged the duties imposed on them. The returns placed on the Table last year would shew that the Commissioners had never received a penny of compensation for their trouble. But it was not enough to say no public loss had been sustained on the advances of money; it had been on all sides admitted, that the public derived a profit from these advances, though

575
that was an unusual occurrence, unfortunately, in public undertakings. The Commissioners had conducted themselves throughout with great caution and propriety. He hoped the proposed outlay would be attended with good consequences, for it was much wanted to open communications through the country, and thereby give an easy carriage to agricultural produce, independent of affording profitable employment to the people. The advantages of the vote would, therefore, he considered, be great indeed, and he should give it his zealous support.
Mr. Humewas not prepared to consent to the proposal of a grant of money from the public purse. No notice had been given; he had no objection to a loan, but he objected to open the purse of England to give money to Ireland. He hoped, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would not press this vote, as it would hardly be fair to grant money absolutely without notice.
Mr. More O'Ferrallwould not at present say more, in answer to the right hon. member for Middlesex, than that he should be able to prove, that Ireland had a positive right to receive a grant of pecuniary assistance from England. He must take the opportunity of observing, that it would be very difficult to get Commissioners to devote all their time gratuitously, and it was an unfair allegation of the hon. member for Cricklade, to assert that paid Boards did not discharge their duties well and faithfully. He would mention the Royal Irish Canal as a case in which the Directors had been paid, and had performed their duty properly.
Mr. Wysewas surprised at the objection of the hon. member for Middlesex, who ought to know that England lost nothing by granting relief to Ireland. In fact, she derived advantages from it, while great benefit had been afforded to Ireland; he would undertake hereafter to convince the hon. Member of this. He wished, however, to know if the proposed Board was intended to be permanent?
Lord Althorpreplied, it was. It could not be expected that any body of men would devote themselves to the office gratuitously. But no additional expense would be entailed on the country, for the salaries attending the offices which it was intended to abolish were larger than those proposed to be given to the intended Board.
An Hon. Member begged to know, if it was intended to select the Commissioners of the new Board from the old and tried members of those about to be abolished.
Mr. Robert Gordonfelt great delight at the intention of Ministers to abolish the Board of Works, and the Board of Inland Navigation. He hoped the Commissioners for Wide Streets would meet with a similar fate. All these were jobs, and a curse to the country. Ministers should be cautious how they armed another set of Commissioners with power; they should be cautious in whose hands they placed the means of disposing of the public property. He should, however, prefer to see the new Board composed of new members.
Mr. Stanleyshould partly please, and partly displease both hon. Gentlemen. He intended to have the new Board composed of both old and new members.
Mr. Humehoped the hon. Gentleman meant to postpone his Motion for the present, as the only time to discuss a Grant, was in a Committee of the whole House.
Mr. Stanleysaid, this was merely a Resolution, and the hon. Member would have an opportunity to oppose the Grant when the Bill was brought in; but as the hon. Gentleman wished it, he would not press his Motion.
Vote postponed.