Commons Sitting of 3 April 1832

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a third time; Consolidated Fund.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. THICKNESSE, of the Number of Footpaths ordered by Magistrates to be closed, or diverted, in the Townships of Dewsbury, Claughton, Out, and Middle Rawcliffe.

GLOVE TRADE.
Colonel Daviesrose for the purpose of once more bringing under the consideration of the House the situation of the persons engaged in the manufacture of Gloves. When he recollected the lengthened debate that took place when the subject was last before the House, it was with extreme reluctance that he again brought it forward; but he had been induced to do so by the reflection that, since that period, Government had granted an inquiry into the state of the silk manufacturers. He heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, the Vice President of the Board of Trade, on that occasion, with much satisfaction, for every word it contained furnished him with the strongest arguments in favour of those manufacturers whose cause he advocated. The right hon. Gentleman, on that occasion, stated facts and used arguments which, if correct, showed that no inquiry, was necessary, and yet be conceded inquiry; whereas, in the case of the glove trade, in which more substantial reasons existed for inquiry he refused it for reasons which appeared wholly inapplicable, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the speech made by Mr. Huskisson in 1826—and used the arguments then employed, but with this difference, that Mr. Huskisson refused to grant the motion against which he used them, whereas the right hon. Gentleman acceded to it. To endeavour to induce the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the case of the glove trade by bringing forward new facts, which was his main object on the present occasion. The right hon.
1254
Gentleman referred to returns to show that, in 1819, the importation of raw silk was 1,444,000 lbs., and that, in 1831, it was 3,771,000 lbs. That, in the
former period, there were no silk mills in Manchester, whilst, in the latter, there were twelve. He stated the value of the exports of silk goods for the average of the three years preceding 1824 at 102,000 l., whilst, last year, it was 500,000 l. Strange to say, the right hon. Gentleman argued that the increased importation of raw silk was a proof of the prosperity of the trade, whilst he stated that of skins to be the cause of the distress of the glovers; with singular inconsistency he admitted the distress of the latter, and yet denied them inquiry. He denied the distress of the silk trade, and yet granted inquiry, whilst the only ground upon which inquiry was asked was the distress under which that trade laboured. There was this further difference between the case of the silk manufacturers and that of the glove manufacturers:—all the silk brought into the country was used by them alone, so that the greater or less import of raw silk might be looked upon as an index of their condition; but the amount of the importation of kid skins must not be considered as a proof of the state of the glove trade, since they were used by the shoemaker, the coachmaker, and a variety of other trades, with which the glover had no connexion. The right hon. Gentleman stated the average quantity of skins imported from 1820 to 1824 at 2,632,000, that, in 1830, they had increased to 3,153,000, and, in 1831, to 4,240,000, being an increase, as compared with 1830, of 1,085,000, and, as compared with the averages of the four years up to 1824, of 1,608,000. This might be either a proof of over-trading or prosperity in the importer of skins, but was no proof of over-trading in the glover. He held in his hand a letter from Mr. Brooks, of a house in Bow-lane, which said, 'The surplus of skins imported in 1831 is, in our warehouses, about 500,000 lamb, and 80,000 kid; and, in other houses, about 500,000 lamb and kid—say, in round numbers, about 1,000,000 lamb skins, and 100,000 kid skins, which very far exceeds our usual stock at this time of the year. The last year's importation of skins was unusually large, and I need not tell you that the trade was unusually bad.' Further, he had a letter from the house of Birlingham, in Worcester, in which was this passage:

1255
—'There is one circumstance should be borne in mind, and that is, the great falling off in the sale of beaver gloves, which is the staple article in this country. In this city alone there were formerly upwards of fifty manufacturers engaged in this branch of the trade, who, it is calculated, must have made about 6,000 dozen per week. The result of a recent inquiry, made by myself, shows, that there are now only fourteen manufacturers, (partially employed) the average of whose make does not exceed 580 dozen per week. This would throw upwards of a 1,000,000 skins out of use for this city alone. As it regards my own particular trade, I formerly manufactured nothing else, and used to make from 200 to 300 dozen per week; last year the average quantity per week did not exceed fifty-four dozen, and, had it not taken up the other branch of the trade, I should have had scarcely anything to do. The towns of Woodstock, Ludlow, Leominster, and Kingston, also Torrington, in Devon, no doubt have fallen off greatly in the manufacture of beaver gloves, so that I think it may be fairly calculated that 2,000,000 of skins of this description (the produce of our own country) are annually thrown out of use.'
This letter offered a practical answer to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. The falling off in the manufacture of Worcester alone was 267,800 dozen pairs annually; and, taking that of other places at the same ratio, there was a total of 534,000 dozen, being more than six times the amount legally imported from France, and consuming 2,000,000 of skins. But, in order further to show the fallacy of judging of the state of the glove trade by the amount of skins imported, he would show the number actually used at different periods: In the four years previous to 1824 the number of skins used was 2,632,000; in 1831, the quantity imported was 4,240,000; from this must be deducted the skins on hand 1,100,000, and skins re-exported 95,000, giving a total of 1,195,000, which deducted from the amount imported, left 3,045,000 for the quantity used in 1831. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of Berlin gloves having produced a considerable diminution in the manufacture of leather gloves, but ladies did not wear those gloves, and yet the quantity of ladies' gloves manufactured was considerably reduced. This could not be
1256
accounted for, except from the great importation of the foreign article. It was further stated, by the right hon. Gentleman, that not 100 dozen pair of gloves were smuggled into the country in the course of the year since the removal of the prohibition; and yet, in the same breath, it was alleged that, when they were totally prohibited, they were smuggled to a considerable extent. If the last assertion was correct, it was evident that, as the facilities for smuggling were now increased ten-fold, it was impossible to suppose that the number smuggled was not greater than during the prohibition. The evidence Ministers had adduced to show that smuggling did not exist was of the most extraordinary description, being no other than that of the smugglers themselves who, of course, denied that they participated in any such contraband traffic. Ministers, poor innocent creatures, were content with the asseverations of interested parties, and were, consequently, ignorant of the real state of the case. He must, however, tell them that, since his former motion, a house in this metropolis had been offered 3,000 dozen pair of French smuggled gloves. This was a fact which he would undertake to prove before a Committee and he had no doubt that other instances might be adduced. Another fact he could state was, that gloves were imported packed in silver paper, in order that they might not soil or stain by laying against each other during the time it might be necessary for the smuggler to keep them before he was enabled to land them, which was never done by the fair trader importing from France to England. Another trick was, to pack men's gloves to resemble women's: these, and many other frauds, could be proved. As a further corroboration of the existence of smuggling, it was a fact that the towns upon the coast scarcely ever sent to the British manufacturer, except for the very best gloves; and yet gloves of all descriptions were to be found in them. It was clear, therefore, they must have been smuggled across the Channel. They might, also, draw a pretty strong inference from the facts which had transpired relative to the house of Leaf and Co., which, for six months prior to detection, paid, on an average, duty upon 1,400 and odd pair of gloves per month; whereas, in the month of February last alone, they paid duty upon 3,300 dozen pair. Indeed, it was astonishing

1257
what unexpected facts transpired upon investigations of that kind. The hon. member for Ipswich had stated, on a former occasion, that gloves could be made at as cheap a rate in England as in France. It was true that the best Paris gloves cost about 8s. or 9s. a dozen; but the cost of making Grenoble gloves, which were imported in the proportion of six or seven to one of the Paris gloves, cost only 4s. 7d. a dozen; while English gloves of a similar quality cost 8s. 8d. the dozen. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the glove manufacturers at Yeovil on the former occasion, and had asserted that, since the removal of the prohibition, they had increased from twenty-seven to forty-one; the real state of the case, however, was, that the numbers of manufacturers in 1826 was thirty-six, who made on an average between 400 and 500 dozen pairs per week, while now, although there was an increase of houses in the trade, they made only between 200 and 300 dozen. This was an extraordinary proof of prosperity, and he would leave the right hon. Gentleman to explain it to the House. He trusted he had said enough to prove the necessity of inquiry, notwithstanding his failure on the former occasion. If a Committee was granted, and it could be shown, after the examination, that no legislative measure could be devised to grant redress to the individuals connected with this trade, they would be satisfied; but, unquestionably, if their request was refused, they would have considerable reason for dissatisfaction. If Ministers wished to stand well with the public out of doors, if they had a proper sense of justice, and were anxious to prove that they were not the mere creatures of expediency, they would accede to his Motion. Those who were most deeply interested in this question were honest and loyal people, who had never joined in those acts of outrage which individuals connected with other branches of manufacture had indulged in; but if they found that justice was denied to them, then he greatly doubted whether they would much longer preserve their peaceable and loyal deportment. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by moving that "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire how far the glove trade of the United Kingdom is injured by the introduction of smuggled goods, and concerning the best means of affording protection to the trade,"
Mr. Robert Gordonsaid, he rose to second the motion, as he conceived that there was a positive call for the interference of Parliament, in order that the state of the glove trade should be fully inquired into, and the cause of the distress by which it was at present weighed down fully developed. It had appeared to him, upon the statement of the petitioners, and before he heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, that the case of the glove manufacturers in England required the interference of the Legislature. That speech had not altered the impression upon his mind for on that occasion the right hon. Gentleman had made statements which had been since asserted by the manufacturers of Yeovil to be inconsistent with the fact, and he, therefore, felt himself fully justified in pursuing the course he now adopted, in order that an inquiry should be instituted into the correctness of the statements made on one side and the other as to the actual state of the trade.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, he had not on the present occasion, heard one argument in support of the Motion which he had not answered when the question was formerly before the House. The gallant Colonel seemed to think, that a Committee had been granted to inquire into the state of the silk manufacture, merely on account of the distress which prevailed in that branch. Now what he had stated as his reason for agreeing to that Committee, was distinctly the reverse. It was true, he admitted, that distress did exist; but he added, that though he did not agree in the views of those who supported the Motion, and did not coincide in the correctness of the grounds on which it proceeded, still he was of opinion that there were special circumstances in that case which justified the granting of a Committee. Such circumstances did not exist in this case? and, therefore, he was not prepared to grant a Committee, although he was certain that the principle on which Ministers acted would come out of it triumphantly. The suspension and unsettlement of trade which would inevitably occur during such an inquiry, greatly overbalanced in his mind any benefit that could possibly result from it. In the case of the silk manufacture, the duty on thrown silk, and the great extent of smuggling that was notoriously carried on, afforded very fair reasons for granting a

1259
Committee; but here he saw no special circumstances whatever that ought to induce the House to grant a Committee. He could not imagine that any advantages would result from such a proceeding; but, on the other hand, he thought the trade would be subjected to very great inconvenience by the appointment of a Committee. He never denied that partial and local distress existed in the glove trade; but he had proved, nevertheless, that the trade had considerably increased on the whole, and he had brought forward the increase of manufacturers at Yeovil as a proof that such establishments were extending, not to show that each of them made as many gloves at present as each had done when there was not so many of them. The hon. and gallant Colonel had observed, that, on the 1st of January last, there were 1,100,000 skins in warehouse. It should, however, be observed, that these skins were usually imported in the latter end of the year, for the purpose of meeting the demand for the spring and summer months, and, as the import had been larger than at any former period, it was to be expected, that there would be an increase of the skins in the warehouses. At the same period in 1830, he found there was a stock of between 500,000 and 600,000, so that the accumulation of stock was not more than 400,000, instead of 1,000,000, according to the statement of the hon. and gallant Colonel. This was no more than could be expected from the overtrading which had taken place. It had been made a matter of complaint that the trade in beaver gloves was almost annihilated. But could the Legislature do any thing to remove the cause of that complaint? Could they, by any measure of theirs, restore that branch of trade to Worcester? The falling-off in that branch of the trade might in some degree, he accounted for by the quantity of silk, cotton, and woollen gloves that were now worn. The hon. seconder of the Motion had said, that the manufacturers denied the correctness of his statements. Now he would say, "Do not adopt the assertions of the manufacturers, but take as your data those documents which are before Parliament—namely, the Custom House returns." A manufacturer had been pleased to write to him an abusive letter, denying his statement that 4,030,000 skins had been imported last year. He in consequence moved for the return, which
1260
completely bore out that statement. The same individual then turned round and said, "O! that proves nothing, for one-third of those skins were exported." This assertion induced him to move for a return of the number of skins exported, and he found that they amounted to only 44,000 lamb skins, which were never made into gloves, and, therefore, did not affect the present question. As to smuggling, he had formerly shown, that, looking to the amount of duty and the cost of the gloves, it was much better for a party to pay the duty than to run the risk of smuggling the article. The duty of twenty-two and a-half per cent was much less than the smuggler would be contented with. There might be some few pair of gloves introduced by passengers, but there was no such thing as that wholesale smuggling of gloves which was practised with respect to some other articles. The hon. and gallant Colonel said, he could prove large quantities of smuggled goods to have been offered for sale. Let him give that evidence to the Customs, or to the Board of Trade, and he might rest assured that the matter would be thoroughly inquired into. He had read almost all the petitions presented upon this subject, and there was scarcely one of them which did not require prohibition; but his hon. friend was not prepared to go that length. The only ground on which the House could grant a Committee was the expectation that good would result from it. It could not grant a Committee to satisfy this or that party, but with a view to some general public benefit. But what practical beneficial result could be obtained by the Motion. His hon. and gallant friend would say he wanted to stop smuggling; but the only way of effecting that, was to lower the duty. If his hon. and gallant friend was not prepared—as certainly the House was not prepared—to re-adopt the principle of prohibition, he had no ground upon which to stand. A great portion of the distress under which the glove manufacturers laboured, arose from the large consumption of what were called "Berlin gloves." His hon. friend, the member for Ipswich, had in the former debate upon this subject, stated to the House the large amount to which that consumption extended; but he had since reason to know that his hon. friend's calculation was even under the mark. A calculation had since been made by per-

1261
sons well-acquainted with that trade, from which it appeared that the consumption of Berlin gloves in the last year amounted to 300,000 dozen—that was to say, that 3,600,000 pair of Berlin gloves were made in that time in this country. He should not trouble the House with any further details, but, after the full discussion this subject underwent on a former occasion—after the refusal of this House, then, to grant a Committee—after the discussion which had taken place in another quarter upon it—he trusted the House would not accede to the present Motion. The argument drawn from the House having granted a Committee in the case of the silk trade, ought not to weigh in favour of a Committee in the present instance. In the case of the silk trade, the Committee was granted on special grounds; but in the present instance, there were no special grounds, and the granting of a Committee would only be attended with the greatest inconvenience to the trade itself. He had no objection, as suggested by the hon. member for Corfe Castle—to the appointment of a Committee to inquire into smuggling generally, because that would be done with a view to general fiscal objects, and not applying, specifically, to any particular trade, would not disturb the usual course of speculation nor cause that disorder which granting the present Motion infallibly must produce. But such not being the proposal of his hon. and gallant friend, as, indeed, it was already in the hands of another hon. Member, he must meet his Motion with a direct negative.
Mr. Robinsonwould not occupy much of the time of the House in expressing his approbation of the Motion to which he was bound to give his support. The right hon. Gentleman said, that the subject had been decided after ample discussion; but he overlooked the important fact which the glove trade could not overlook, viz. that since that discussion, the House had granted a Committee of inquiry into the state of the silk trade; so that, if a Committee were refused in the case of the glove trade, the only reason would be, that the Ministers assented in the one case, and thought proper to refuse in the other. The right hon. Gentleman laboured to make out a distinction between the two cases; but there was obviously none. Both trades complained of the intervention of the foreign manufacturer. The right
1262
hon. Gentleman said, that his hon. and gallant colleague would not go the length of prohibition; and, therefore, was not entitled to ask for a Committee, because the manufacturers wanted prohibition; but the right hon. Gentleman granted a Committee to the silk manufacturers, although they also wanted prohibition. It was natural that the suffering parties should differ among themselves, as to the mode in which they could be relieved; but as they all showed the gradual decay of their manufacture, it was the duty of the Government to make an inquiry into their statement. The only answer to their complaints, however, was a repetition of promises of improvement in their trade, from the adoption of the new system, which had been repeatedly falsified during the last eight years. The right hon. Gentleman said, that the suffering was temporary. Good God! Talk of a temporary suffering which had lasted since 1824—had been continually increasing—had now reached such a degree of intensity, that it could no longer be borne. He did not deny that a part of it was produced by changes of fashion; and his constituents were not so unreasonable as to complain of the effects of competition on the part of their own countrymen, but they complained that the distress thus produced, of itself sufficiently appalling, should be aggravated by the admission of foreign gloves. All his Majesty's Ministers seemed to attach more importance to their own consistency than to the distress of the people. They appealed to the hon. member for Ipswich, as a great authority, and, certainly his authority was great; but his statement was received with suspicion, because he was interested in the importation of foreign gloves. The manufacture of gloves had in it much to recommend it; it was purely domestic; it caused no large congregations of people, giving opportunity for the machinations of sedition; but women and children were supplied with occupation at home, the employment being moral in its tendency, and deserving of the encouragement of the Legislature. The right hon. Gentleman said, that there was no smuggling, and that it was useless to go into an inquiry, unless it was to prohibit the importation of foreign gloves. He was prepared to say, looking at the condition of the labouring poor, and remembering that 100,000 of them were engaged in the ma-

1263
nufacture of gloves, that it was the duty of Government to consent to the prohibition of French gloves. He was no advocate for prohibition or high duties; but both were necessary evils, in consequence of the amount of our taxation, and the Corn Laws. Enough, he thought, he had made out to justify the House in assenting to the Motion, and he should have great pleasure in giving it his warmest support.
Mr. Sanfordsaid, that though he had voted against the Committee that was last proposed on this subject, he felt inclined to support the present Motion, since a Committee to inquire into the silk trade had in the interim been granted. He rose, however, chiefly to say, that, as the right hon. Gentleman, the Vice President of the Board of Trade's, statements had been controverted with respect to the increase of the glove trade at Yeovil, he was also about to show that the right hon. Gentleman had also been mistaken in other facts connected with that place and the glove trade. The right hon. Gentleman had asserted that the population of Yeovil had increased twenty-seven per cent between 1821 and 1831; it certainly had done so, but, by looking at the number of houses built, he had ascertained that the great increase was up to 1827, at which period the glove trade began to decline. As a further corroboration of these facts, he must add, that, between 1811 and 1821, when the glove trade was in a state of great prosperity, the population had increased fifty per cent. With respect to gloves themselves, he found that the importation from France, in February 1827, was 2,000 dozen pair, but in the same month, in 1831, it was 9,000 dozen. He feared, from these statements that the right hon. Gentleman had taken a partial view of the case, and it was only in a Committee that the question could be thoroughly sifted. He was, therefore, prepared to give the hon. and gallant Officer his support.
Mr. Morrisondenied that the distress of the manufacturers arose from the introduction of foreign gloves, as the amount of that introduction was not more than from five to seven per cent on the total consumption of the article; and he thought that that proportion could hardly have been less when French gloves were contraband, and introduced solely by the smugglers. In his opinion, the best thing for the Legislature to do would be, to take
1264
off the import duty on the French dressed skins. It was generally admitted that we could not dress skins so well as the French; but if the French skins were allowed to enter this country free from duty, he thought that there would then be no reason why the English manufacturer could not compete with the French manufacturer. One great reason, however, for the distress was that we had lost our export trade. Formerly, of 534,000 dozen pair of gloves manufactured at Worcester, nearly the half were exported, principally to the United States, but the fashion of wearing French gloves had obtained there, as well as other places to the utter loss of that branch of our trade. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. P. Thomson) that there was very little smuggling going on in gloves, and for this simple reason—that it was not so profitable to the smuggler to smuggle gloves as silk, as the former were much more bulky than the latter.
Mr. Humethought that it would have been much better if the gallant Officer had postponed his Motion for a Committee, and moved an instruction to the Committee on the silk trade instead, to inquire into the state of smuggling in gloves as soon as it should be unoccupied on the question of smuggling in silk. He agreed with the hon. member for Ipswich, that the glove trade of this country was very little injured by the import of gloves from France, as the quantity imported was comparatively very small, and chiefly of the finest sort, such as ladies would at all events procure from the illicit trade, if they were not to be obtained from the fair dealer. He had no objection, however, to inquiry, and would support the hon. Member's Motion. He wished, however, before sitting down to protest against its being asserted that those who opposed the prayer of these petitions were indifferent to the distress of the glove trade. Such an assertion was a libel. If the arguments of the hon. member for Worcester were followed up, they would speedily put an end to foreign commerce altogether. The hon. Member said, that we ought to shut out the foreign article. Let this principle be once generally acted on, and no country would so soon become beggared as England—it was England, above all the other countries of the world, that imported the raw material, and exported the manufactured article, for which she received the price of her labour. And

1265
yet, because he stated this undeniable fact, he was denounced as a theorist, whose principles were leading the way to pauperism and crime. The hon. Gentleman was the person who promoted dissatisfaction, by attacking that commerce which enabled us to give our manufacture for the raw produce, after substracting the full value of our labour. An hon. Alderman, the other day, stated, that he could produce an invoice for the purpose of showing that one party alone had imported 200,000 dozen of French gloves. In the Committee, he had called on the hon. Alderman to produce the invoice, but then the party was not willing to come forward. The hon. Gentleman had observed, that the population connected with the glove trade was moral and quiet; but the whole must be looked at, and did he think that prohibition would be the means of increasing the morality of the country, when it would cover our coasts with smugglers? He had no hesitation in saying, that we should reduce the duty on every foreign article to that scale which should take away from the trade any inducement to deal with the smuggler; and he also agreed with the hon. member for Ipswich, that we should take the duty off the raw article, so that our manufacturers might be able to obtain their skins on the same terms as in France.
Mr. Alderman Waithmanthought that every word which had fallen from the hon. member for Ipswich went to prove the necessity for appointing a Committee. He admitted the distress, and it did not arise, according to his statements, from the French trade: that was of all others, the reason why they should go into the Committee to ascertain whence it did arise. With respect to these French gloves, they were of no benefit, they injured the manufacturer, and were of no profit to the trader, being chiefly used by him as a blind to make the public suppose cheap goods were sold. The trader bought gloves at 12 s. 6d. and 13 s. a dozen, and frequently retailed them at 1s. a pair. The hon. Gentleman, the member for Ipswich, could not deny this; for he had himself done it at his recommendation; thus selling the article at twenty per cent under prime cost, the hon. Member having assured him that it was a very cheap way of advertising. The hon. Gentleman told the House that we did not now export gloves as we used. That
1266
was a reason why we should not admit the foreign article; for, was it not enough to have to encounter one difficulty, without, of our own accord, adding a second? Besides, the French did not take a shilling of our manufactures. The hon. member for Middlesex, indeed, would talk about sailing to Mexico to sell our cottons, and to get gold in exchange, but all that was absolute nonsense and absurdity! No one till now ever talked of opening the trade without an equivalent. The only question in Mr. Pitt's time was, as to there being an equivalent; but it was admitted, on all hands, that if there was no equivalent, there ought to be no trade. The hon. member for Ipswich said, that the manufacture of cotton gloves hurt the leather trade; but if that were so, it was only an additional reason for not admitting the foreign article to make the matter worse. As to the fact of there being distress, that was sufficiently shown by the wives and the children of the labourer being out of employ, and by our streets being filled with women who are prostitutes, because they could not gain an honest livelihood. And this was what arose from the wretched philosophy of the cold-blooded misanthropes of the day! As to the Committee up-stairs, he did not believe that it would arrive at any useful result; for the best evidence was palpably and unjustly shut out. However, he did not want to debate that; and would, therefore, only add, that, if Gentlemen thought they were right, and that the way to give food to our starving labourers was by letting in upon them a flood of foreign manufactures, let them, at all events, prove that in a Committee. They knew they could not, and, therefore, dared not grant the gallant Officer's Motion. He, however, should give it his most hearty support.
Earl Grosvenorsaid, that, having succeeded in his own Motion for a Committee on the silk trade, he felt himself bound also to aid a similar object with respect to gloves, wherefore he would support the Motion. He would take the liberty to add that no set of individuals could show more attention and a greater desire to elicit the truth than the Gentlemen composing the Committee on the silk trade.
Colonel Daviesbegged leave to remark, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman, the Vice President of Trade's assertion that he had made no case, that he was prevented from doing so by the right

1267
hon. Gentleman's own act. He could only assert that smuggling existed to a great extent, and offered to prove it in a Committee, but he was denied that opportunity. The real cause of the denial of his Motion was, that the glove trade was not supported by such powerful interest in that House as the silk trade, yet it was equally entitled to consideration. He should, therefore, persist in his Motion.
The House divided: Ayes 26; Noes 44—Majority 18.

List of the AYES.

Astell, W.

Langton, W. G.

Bankes, W.

Luttrell, J. F.

Baring, Alex.

M'Killop, J.

Blaney, Hon. C.

Ross, C.

Buck, L. W.

Sanford, A.

Burge, W.

Somerset, Lord G.

Clive, Hon. R.

Spencer, Hon. F.

Copeland, Alderman

Stormont, Viscount

Courtenay, P.

Stewart, E.

Foley, Hon. T.

Waithman, Alderman.

Foley, Edw.

Wason, R.

Freshfield, J. W.

Wilks, J.

Grosvenor, Earl

TELLERS.

Hotham, Lord

Davies, Colonel.

Hume, Joseph

Robinson, G. R.

PLACE FOR HOLDING THE NORFOLK ASSIZES
Mr. R. Grantwould trouble the House, but very shortly, in bringing the subject of his notice before them, and did not anticipate that it would on this occasion give rise to any discussion. The measure he wished to introduce had for its chief object the holding of the Assizes for the county of Norfolk twice a-year in the city of Norwich, and putting an end to the practice of having the Lent Assizes holden at Thetford. The effect of this would be, two gaol deliveries in Norwich, an object in itself of great importance every where, but particularly there, where it now happened that prisoners were frequently confined eleven months before they were brought to trial. By a Statute passed in the reign of Henry 2nd, the Assizes for every county were directed to be held in the county town of each county, and by another passed in the second year of Richard 2nd, the Judges were empowered to fix the holding of Assizes in other considerable towns besides the county towns, if the circumstances of the counties should render it advisable. In consequence of the common operation of these two statutes, some of the counties had their Assizes at the county towns only, while in others, the Assizes were held alter-
1268
nately, at the county town and at some other large town in the county. That was the case with the county of Norfolk: but whatever was the reason for which the Judges originally appointed the Assizes to be held at Thetford, the holding of them there had now become a great inconvenience. Thetford was a small town at an extremity of the county, and it was surrounded by a thinly inhabited country, whereas Norwich was a large city, and in the centre of the wealth and population of the county. From a variety of calculations it appeared, that the convenience to the county generally, both as regarded population and distance, was double in the case of Norwich as compared with Thetford. Under those circumstances, he begged leave to move to bring in a Bill to remove the holding of the Norfolk Assizes from Thetford to Norwich.
Mr. Baringobserved, that Assizes had been held at Thetford from the year 1264 up to the present time. He admitted all that had been said with respect to Norwich, but still must ever contend against any statement which would represent Thetford other than as a thriving place. He did not feel the force of the arguments for holding the Assizes at the central point of the county; and, even admitting their validity, he saw no reason why Norfolk should be singled out for the trial of a geographical experiment. Let there be a general re-division of counties, as at present with respect to elections, and not a Bill for a single exception case like the present. Besides, admitting the expediency of the right hon. Gentleman's Motion, he thought the prerogative of the Crown a more desirable mode of attaining its end than a legislative enactment.
Sir John Sebrightsaid, he must support the Motion, because, to have justice administered in the centre of a county would save time, trouble, and expense. At the same time, he thought that much benefit, by way of example, would be derived from the executing criminals at the place of their crimes, and not promiscuously at the Assize town.
Mr. Ridley Colborneopposed the Motion, urging that, if any change were necessary, which he denied, it ought to be effected by the prerogative of the Crown, and not by an Act of Parliament. The question had already been discussed, and decided in the year 1825.
Mr. Humewould not pretend to say

1269
whether what was proposed should be accomplished by the King in Council, or by Statute; but of this he was certain, that it was most expedient to hold the Assizes only at Norwich, as the most central and populous situation. The counties were differently divided when Thetford had been named as one of the places at which Assizes were to be holden.
Mr. Wason also supported the Motion.
Leave given to bring in the Bill.

MAYO MAGISTRACY.
Mr. Ruthvenmoved for a copy of the memorial presented to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, by William Murphy, of Mayo, complaining of very severe and illegal punishment inflicted upon him by order of certain Magistrates in that county, and of the official correspondence which that memorial had occasioned. His object was, to bring under the notice of Parliament the very oppressive conduct of those Magistrates—particularly of the reverend Mr. Stoney—towards the memorialist, which was too true a comment upon the memorable declaration of Lord Redesdale, that, in Ireland, there was one law for the rich, and another for the poor. On the 13th of December last, a man was brought before the Magistrates charged with stealing turf, on which occasion Murphy, who was a respectable farmer, made use of some strong expressions relative to the conduct of the reverend gentleman already mentioned. This excited the anger of the Magistrates, who ordered him to be twice confined in the public stocks, under circumstances of unnecessary violence and severity, for the offence of "insolence towards the reverend Mr. Stoney;" that insolence amounting to reprobating that reverend Magistrate's zeal in the exaction of his tithes. Not content with thus twice inflicting upon Murphy the punishment of the stocks, the reverend gentleman compelled the prisoner to carry the stocks himself from the place of his confinement to that in which they were usually kept, and his cruelty was abetted by his brother Magistrates.
Mr. Stanleywas free to admit, that, on inquiry by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, into the circumstances of Murphy's case, that noble and learned person declared, in an official communication to the Lord Lieutenant of the county of Mayo, that the conduct of the Magistrates was "intemperate and highly indiscreet." He,
1270
however, did not think it so culpable as to induce him to deprive those gentlemen of the commission of the peace; and, therefore, left it to the Marquis of Sligo, the Lord Lieutenant of Mayo, to formally reprimand them for their misconduct. He could not sit down without observing that it appeared to him, that the circumstance now under consideration afforded a sufficient proof of the excellence of the plan by which Lord Lieutenants were established in the counties of Ireland, and the advantage of having a resident person of high trust to mediate between the Lord Chancellor and the Magistrates.
Colonel Conollybelieved that the Lords Lieutenant of Counties' Act would have been highly beneficial, if it had been carried into effect in the manner contemplated by the House, when it gave that Bill its sanction, namely, by resident Lord Lieutenants being appointed, but, in several counties, the persons appointed to that office were not residents, and, in others, they were only to be reached by passing through the whole extent of the county. He was ready to admit, however, these remarks, did not apply to the Lord Lieutenant of Mayo, who had acted with great propriety on the Motion then before the House.
Mr. John Brownebegged to assure the House, that the noble Marquis, the Lord Lieutenant of Mayo, was most anxious that every inquiry should be made into the transaction. The difficulty, so far as his noble friend was concerned, arose from his intimacy with the parties, but that did not prevent him from executing his duty for a moment. While he was on his legs, he begged leave to say, that he considered the stocks to be a mode of punishment unsuited to the present age, and, that he much wished to see them abolished.
Mr. Cramptonsaid, that, although a Lord Lieutenant of a county had no direct authority to dismiss a Magistrate, nor even to institute a regular inquiry into his conduct, that alone being the privilege of the Lord Chancellor, yet there could be no doubt, that if any case of oppression was represented to him, it was his duty to make the same known to the Lord Chancellor, with whose concurrence the Magistrate could be dismissed.
Mr. Goulburncould not concur in the opinions of the Solicitor General for Ireland, that a Lord Lieutenant had power to dismiss a Magistrate from the Commission.
Mr. Cramptonexplained, that he had not said that such power was vested in the Lord Lieutenant of a county by virtue of his office, but that his recommendation of such a course would induce the Lord Chancellor to strike a Magistrate out of the Commission.
Mr. Joneshad no doubt that, as sometimes occurred even in London in the haste of business, a Magistrate might unintentionally make an illegal decision in Ireland also, and perhaps, that was the case in the instance now complained of. But he thought the matter out of which the Motion arose was too trivial for the attention of the House.
Mr. Huntapproved highly of the conduct of the Lord Lieutenant of the county of Mayo, in calling the Magistrates to an account for their illegal and oppressive conduct. He wished to see the same course taken when a poor man in England was oppressed by a Magistrate, which was a thing of no rare occurrence. People talked of the trial by Jury—not bearing in mind how often that was superseded in the case of poor men, who were liable to be sent to prison at the will of Magistrates for trivial offences. [Hear, hear.] Gentlemen might say "hear, hear!" but he repeated that poor people were sent to the treadmill continually for three months without trial. [Laughter.] Gentlemen might laugh. But it was a thing that was done ever-lastingly by the Magistrates. Surely there was no person in that House who did not know that such things were constantly occurring; and, when poor men suffered such treatment unlawfully, then they were told by that House, that the Courts at Westminster were open to them.
Major Macnamarasaid, that his noble friend the Lord Lieutenant of the county of Mayo was the last person whom he should suspect of committing any act of severity or oppression. At the same time, he entirely dissented from the statements of his hon. friend the member for Mayo, that the appointment of Lieutenants of counties would tranquilize Ireland, as it was in vain to expect peace in that country until tithes were extinguished.
Mr. Ruthvensaid, he must express satisfaction at what had been stated by the right hon. Secretary. But he could not say so much with respect to the remark of the hon. and gallant Officer who had treated the illegal confinement of a respectable man by the Magistrates, as an affair
1272
of a trifling nature; so different was his opinion that he thought the case was one which fully justified him in bringing it under the notice of Parliament; but he would not, after what had transpired, press his Motion.
Motion withdrawn.

EMPLOYMENT OF TROOPS (IRELAND).
Mr. O'Ferrall, in moving for a copy of the correspondence with Dublin Castle, requiring troops to be sent into the county of Kildare, on the days appointed to hold meetings to petition against the tithe system, at the following places:—Narraymore, Suncroft, Ballitore, Monastereven, and Rathmore, said, if it should appear that no application to the Lord Lieutenant of the county had been made, previously to the troops being sent, he thought he had just grounds of complaint, as one of the Members who had supported Government in the Lords Lieutenant Bill, for he had understood, as one of the grounds for those appointments, that all correspondence relating to the peace of the respective counties was to go through the hands of the Lords Lieutenant, and that no other communications were to take place. If it should transpire that private representation had been made and acted upon, he should be fully warranted in taking notice of the proceeding.
Mr. Stanleyregretted that he could not consent to the Motion, for if there were any communication confidential, it was that in which Government acted as to the disposition of troops. This power had always been acted upon by Government. He might, however, say this much, that in the county of Kildare great excitement prevailed, and apprehensions had been entertained that the peace of the country would be violated before the troops were sent into that county. He was inclined to pay the greatest attention to any representation from the Lord Lieutenant of the county of Kildare, but still he thought it was too much to call for the reasons which induced the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to send a body of troops into any part of that country. For these reasons he objected to the Motion.
Motion withdrawn.

REGISTRY OF DEEDS (IRELAND) BILL.
The House went into a Committee on the Registry of Deeds (Ireland) Bill.
Mr. Jephsonmoved that the salary of

1273
the registrar (Mr. Moore) be 1,500 l. a-year. That gentleman was appointed in January 1830, and had been given to understand that he was to receive that amount; indeed, a Treasury minute to that effect was transmitted to him. But, since the present Government had been in office, they had reduced the salary to 1,200 l. a-year. By this Bill, the duties of the office would be very much extended, and the responsibility increased, he hoped, therefore, that the original rate of salary would be restored.
Mr. Leadersaid, he must oppose the proposed increase. He had no doubt, that many gentlemen perfectly competent to perform the duties of the office could be had at the reduced salary of 1,200 l. If Mr. Moore felt any objections to the increased responsibility said to be imposed upon him by the Bill, he might, of course, give up his office.
Mr. Cramptonsaid, that Mr. Moore had an equitable right to 1,500 l. a-year. He had been appointed at that salary, and a Treasury minute of the late Government was passed to that effect, though it appeared that another Treasury minute of the same date was recorded, by which the salary was fixed at 1,200 l., which Mr. Moore had since received under protest.
Mr. Spring Ricestated, that the minute of Treasury fixing the salary at 1,500 l., he understood, had not passed the Treasury at all, but had been issued by a mistake of the clerk. He denied that Mr. Moore had any equitable claim to 1,500 l., but, considering the changes which had been made in the office, the additional duty imposed upon the registrar, he thought the public would gain more than the 300 l. a-year. If it was the case of a newly-created office; he should think 1,200 l. a-year enough.
Mr. Wysesupported the Motion, on the ground that, as the duties which Mr. Moore had undertaken to discharge had been increased, the salary ought also to be increased to a fair compensation for the additional duties and responsibilities imposed by the Bill. He, however, thought the increase of salary should be confined to Mr. Moore only, and that provision should be made that his successor should not have more than 1,200 l. per annum.
Mr. Sheilfelt it his duty to move as an Amendment, that the sum of 1,200 l. should be inserted in the clause in place of the sum of 1,500 l. He could not
1274
acquiesce in the opinion that increase of duties should call for an increase of salary, when he remembered that the assistant barristers for counties in Ireland, notwithstanding the great increase to their labours, arising from their now discharging the troublesome duty of registering freeholders, had been granted no addition to the salaries they were before paid. In a recent appointment a reduction had been made in the salary for the discharge of onerous responsible duties; he alluded to the case of Mr. Goold, an eminent member of the Bar, who had been appointed a Master in Chancery in Ireland at a very reduced salary.
Mr. Lefroysupported the original Motion. He conceived Mr. Moore had an equitable claim to the salary of 1,500 l. per annum, for the contract between the Treasury and that gentleman was complete—it was ratified by the Treasury minute—a solemn document, as he thought, and one that it was too much to say should be set aside on the mere statement of a Treasury clerk that it was a mistake.
Mr. Jephsonsaid, he was completely in the hands of the House, and be felt that, in thus bringing the matter before it, he had discharged his duty to the public.
The Committee divided on the Amendment: Ayes 23; Noes 21—Majority 2.
House resumed.