Commons Sitting of 23 March 1831

MINUTES.
Bills. The Sugar Duties, the Witnesses Examination, read a third time and passed. The Deputy Lieutenants (Scotland), read a first time.
The following Resolution of the Committee of Privileges was brought up and read:—Resolved,—That it is the opinion of this Committee, that in any Bill which, having passed the House of Lords, shall be sent down to this House for their concurrence, or in any Bill which having passed this House shall be returned by the Lords with amendments, it shall appear that any pecuniary penalty or forfeiture is thereby imposed, varied, or taken away, the

837
Speaker shall, before the second reading of such Bill or Amendments, report to the House his opinion, whether the object thereof be to impose, vary, or take away any pecuniary charge or burthen on the subject, or whether the same relates only to the punishment or the prevention of offences, and the House shall thereupon determine whether it may be expedient in such particular case to insist upon the exercise of their privilege, to originate all such provisions respecting pecuniary penalties or forfeitures.—To lie on the Table, and be printed.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. LITTLETON, the number of Brick and Tile Manufacturers, and the amount of Excise Duty collected on each description of Bricks and Tiles, in the year 1830:—On the Motion of Mr. HUME, Transports taken up between 1st January, 1850, and 25th February, 1831, both inclusive; specifying the rate of tonnage paid, and if by open contract or private tender, and for what services wanted, and to what places sent.
Petitions presented. By Mr. LITTLETON, from certain Tile and Brick Makers, for the Repeal of the Duties on those articles; against the Cotton Factories Bill, from Master Spinners at Stockport; and in favour of the Bill, from Operative Spinners at Waterhead, Oldham. In favour of Reform, by Sir W. GUISE, from Cinderford, in the Forest. of Dean; from Winchcomb, Stroud, Rodborough, Woodchester, Salford, and other places in Gloucestershire:—By Mr. LITTLETON, from Lane-end, Darlaston, Walsall, and Burton-upon-Trent:—By Mr. EGERTON, from Stoekport, from the Corporation, Magistrates, and Inhabitants of the Borough of Macclesfield, and from the Inhabitants of Droitwich and Nantwich: — By Mr. J. BROUGHAM, from Kendal, and other places in the North of England, and in Scotland:—By Mr. PORTMAN, from Beaminster, Lyme Regis, Netherleigh, and Blackburn:—By Colonel DAVIES, from Worcester:—By Mr. W. PATTEN, from Eccles: — By Mr. F. BARING, from Portsea:—By Sir F. BLAKE, from Colpe, Durham:—By Lord ALTHORP, from West Bromwich and Huntingdon. Against the Reform Bill, by Mr. SHAW, from the Guild of Merchants of Dublin: — By Mr. BALFOUR, from Pittenween:—By Mr. PORTMAN, from Bramber; and one against Tithes from Sherbourne. By Mr. WARBURTON, from Shipowners of Dumbarton, against the proposed Tax on Steam Vessels. By Mr. C. GRANT, from Shipowners in Galway, against the Reduction of the Duty on Barilla; from Coach Contractors for Inverness-shire, for the Repeal of the Coach Duly; and from Tavistock Chapel, Drury-lane, for a Public Fast. By Mr. J. BROUGHAM, from Marylebone, against the Vestries Bill; and from Firbank, for limitation to the time at which Tithes may be claimed. By Sir R. HILL, from Wellington, Whitchurch, and other places, against Slavery:—By Mr. HUGHES HUGHES, five similar Petitions. By Lord KILLEEN, from Parishes in Meath, for an Amendment of the Grand Jury Laws, complaining of Distress, and for a Repeal of the Union.

REFORM PETITIONS.
Mr. Egertonpresented a Petition from the Freeholders of he County of Chester, in County Meeting assembled, with the High Sheriff in the Chair, in favour of the Ministerial plan of Reform. He owed it to himself to state on this occasion, that though he was an advocate for moderate Reform, he could not go the length of the Bill which had seen brought forward by his Majesty's Ministers. He regretted that, as a whole, be could not give his support to that Bill.
Mr. Wilbrahamsaid, that this petition bad been adopted at a most numerous and respectable meeting, and that there were only seventeen voices raised against it, so that it might be fairly taken as expressing the unanimous opinion of the county of
838
Chester on this question. He would take this opportunity to say, that it was his determination to support his Majesty's Ministers in every part of the Bill which they had introduced, and which had been read, a second time that morning. He begged to add, that if they should relax a single essential point from that Bill as it at present stood, he would not give them his support.
Petition to lie on the Table.
Mr. Portmanpresented a Petition from the town of Blandford, against the Reform Bill, and a Petition from Dorsetshire, in favour of Reform. Great care the hon. Member said, had been taken that none but the most respectable signatures should, be subscribed to the petition, and that it spoke the strong and unanimous opinions of the county was to be inferred, because an opposite petition had been got up at the same place, and it had received only thirty-four signatures. In supporting the Reform Bill, he was convinced that he was acting in conformity with the wishes of a very great majority of his constituents.
Mr. George Bankesvery much doubted if the hon. Member were correct in his last observation. One petition against Reform had been presented from a body of his constituents, and if more numerous petitions of the same nature were not sent into that House, it was merely because persons did not usually petition for what they already possessed but for what they desired.
Mr. Calcraftwas friendly to the principle of Reform, but he would struggle in the Committee against many of the details of the pending measure. Dorset was a passive county, and did not much like to interfere in politics, and its petitioners were therefore not strong or numerous. He knew, however, that in one borough in Dorsetshire the people were much against the Bill and though he had given his vote for the second reading, that pledged him to none of the details, and there were some of them against which he meant to struggle as much as he possibly could.
Colonel Sibthorp Colonel Sibthorp, though desiring more than what was called moderate Reform, could not support the Bill. From the conduct of the right hon. member for Wareham, he expected soon to hear again his musical voice from the other (the Ministerial) side of the House.
Mr. G. Dawsonsaid, that probably his right hon. friend the member for Wareham felt himself peculiarly entitled to represent

839
a passive county and was probably looking for the representation of Dorsetshire. He could not possibly reconcile the speech of his right hon. friend on the first reading of the Bill with his vote on the second reading. He could not approve of his right hon. friend's course nor could he concede the claims made by his right hon. friend to excessive purity upon this occasion.
Mr. Portmanbelieved, that he had voted for moderate Reform in voting for the Bill, and had not voted against his constituents wishes. He also believed that the country would be in a state of great danger unless they could support the Crown and Aristocracy by uniting the people in sympathy with that House, and which was to be done only by a thorough Reform.
Mr. George Bankesexplained.—The hon. member for Preston had declared that he had given his vote for Reform only upon the ground of his having succeeded in making his bargain with Ministers in favour of the electors of that borough. Probably the hon. member for Wareham had had a similar success in relation to Wareham which might account for his speech and vote being at variance one with the other.
Mr. Calcraftwished the hon. member for Preston pleasure at his success, and he regretted that he had no chance of being equally serviceable to his constituents at Wareham. It would have been inconsistent with all his former conduct had he not supported the Reform Bill. His first vote in that House had been for the abolition of the Slave trade, his second for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, his third in favour of Parliamentary Reform and the fourth in favour of Catholic Emancipation. These votes had been given under Mr. Fox; all the measures had been eventually carried, except Reform and if that were longer delayed, he believed that the country would have most seriously to lament its postponement. He was satisfied with the vote he had given and believed he should be justified in the eyes of his country.
Mr. Huntsaid, there had been no bargain between him and Ministers. When the Reform Bill was brought forward the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) stated that there would be no interference with the life-interests of voters. This was sufficient to protect his constituents, as he had ascertained.
Petition to lie on the Table.

SUPPLY.
Mr. C. W. Wynn. moved that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply.
Mr. Goulburnobjected to taking the Army and Navy Estimates, unless there existed an urgent necessity on a day not usually devoted to business.
Mr. C. W. Wynnsaid, the half-pay would become due next week, and must be provided for.
Sir R. Peelhad no particular objection to the votes being proceeded with, if necessary, on a Wednesday; his complaint was, that due notice had not been given. It was not till four o'clock that morning that the bringing on of the estimates had been fixed, and it did appear a little precipitate to press a discussion within a few hours of Members being apprised by the votes of the intention of Ministers. However, if the House desired to proceed, he was content to go into Committee.
Mr. C. W. Wynnsaid, that he would have given earlier notice, but that he was afraid that the adjourned debate on the Reform Bill might have been carried on.
The House then went into Committee.
On the Motion for granting 19,975 l. for the Military Asylum,
Mr. Humeobjected to the vote on principle. It was encouraging a population which the Government was also anxious to get rid of by emigration. He submitted that the grant should be annually diminished.
Lord Althorpagreed with the hon. Member in principle, but thought that the Military Orphan Asylum was not calculated to increase the population.
Sir M. W. Ridleythought the hon. member for Middlesex was quite wrong.
Sir Henry Hardingealways had, and always would support the grant. He knew no other means of providing for the children of soldiers who died abroad. He wished to ask the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, when the Irish Reform Bill would be ready.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that he would lay it on the Table of the House to-morrow, and be ready to enter then, or at any other time that might be deemed more convenient, into an explanation of its details.
Vote agreed to.
The next Resolution was, "That a sum not exceeding 239,803 l. 19 s. 8d. be granted for paying the expense of the volunteer Corps for 1831."
Mr. O'Connellasked, whether this in-

841
cluded the charge for the Irish volunteer corps? and being answered in the affirmative, objected to going into that vote in the absence of so many hon. members who intended to oppose the Irish grant.
Mr. Stanleyhad no objection to postpone that part of the vote.
Mr. C. W. Wynnadmitted, that it would be more correct to take the vote for the volunteers of the whole United Kingdom together, and the proposed vote in its pre- sent form was accordingly postponed.
The next Resolution was, "That a sum not exceeding 135,000 l. be granted to his Majesty for defraying the charges for Generals not Colonels of regiments, for the year 1831."
Mr. Humeprotested against this vote, on the ground of extravagance, but declined taking the sense of the Committee on the question, on account of the scanty attendance of Members.
Vote agreed to, as were the following Votes. "95,300 l. for defraying the charges for unattached Officers, for the year 1831." "697,800 l. for half-pay and military allowances to reduced and retired officers for 1831." "91,300 l. for half-pay and reduced allowances to Officers in foreign parts, and pensions to wounded foreign Officers, and also pensions to their widows for 1831." "27,174 l. for retired Officers of the local Militia, and Militia pensions for 1831." "147,778 l. for defraying the pensions to Officers' Widows for 1831." "180,619 l. for allowances for the Compassionate list, the Royal bounty, and pensions to wounded Officers."
On the Resolution granting 1,335,986 l. for the Pensioners of Chelsea and Kil-mainham Hospitals,
Mr. Huntsaid, that he thought this was a very large sum to be given in this manner in pensions, for if there happened to be in any village a man peculiarly drunken and dissolute, that man was a pensioner. What, he would ask, was the reason of this? Why, because that pensioner enjoyed a large daily pay without the necessity of working for it.
Sir H. Hardingewas much surprised to hear the hon. Member, who pretended to be, and who perhaps really was, a friend of the lower classes, take such an opportunity to depreciate the character of the lower classes of the military. The men whom he described in such terms were persons who had served their country for a great number of years in every part of the world,
842
and who enjoyed what he would take leave to call a just remuneration for past labours and services, and perhaps for wounds and loss of limbs; and he believed that, without exception, they were as sober and as industrious, considering the previous habits of a military life, as any class in the kingdom.
Mr. C. W. Wynnthought the body alluded to, for the most part, as respectable as any other members of the community
Resolution agreed to.
A Vote of "53,369 l. for Superannuations in the public departments" was agreed to, as was a vote of 32,000 l. for Exchequer fees, and Army services.

NAVY ESTIMATES.
On the Motion that the Chairman do leave the Chair,
Sir H. Hardingeexpressed a hope, that the First Lord of the Admiralty would not bring on the Navy Estimates on that evening.
As the House was about to resume,
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that although he had given notice of his intention to bring forward the Navy Estimates this day, in consideration of the present state of the House he should abstain from so doing, and meant therefore to postpone the Motion until Friday, when he was sorry he should be constrained to interfere with the Scotch Reform Bill, which stood for that day. The Navy Estimates, however, must take precedence of all other business before the House, as the present supplies would not suffice for more than six or seven days longer.
Sir H. Hardingerequested, that the chief Secretary would give notice of his intention to explain the details of the Irish Reform Bill to-morrow, on bringing in the Bill, in order that the members for Ireland who were not aware of the day fixed, might be in attendance to hear his promised explanation.
Mr. Stanleysaid, he had supposed, that the notice which had been already given to that effect must have had sufficient publicity, but in compliance with the suggestion of the gallant Officer, he would not hesitate to repeat it.
The House resumed.