Commons Sitting of 2 July 1832

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Mr. GEORGE VERNON, an Account of the mode of appointing Coroners in England and Wales.—On the Motion of Mr. COURTENAY, an Account of the Official and Declared Values of the Exports of British and Irish Produce and Manufactures (exclusive of Cotton Goods) from Great Britain, in each year, from 1798 to 1831, both inclusive, specifying the differences between the Official and Declared Values, and the per tentage of such differences.
Petitions presented. By Mr. HUME, from Whiteehapel, against the Vagrants Removal Bill; from the Bethnal Green Political Union, against the Privileges of Parliament Bill; from the Birmingham Mechanics Institute, against the Taxes on Knowledge; from Thornton, Bangor, and Aisgarth, against the Punishment of Death; and from Newton and Failsworth, for an additional Clause in the Highway Bill.—By Mr. HEYWOOD, from the Coroners of Cheshire, against the Coroners Bill.—By Mr. JOHN BROWN, from three Places in Ireland; and by Mr. CAREW, from two Places,—against Tithes, and for Church Reform.—By the latter HON. MEMBER, from eight Places in Ireland, for an equal and efficient Reform to that Country.—By Mr. HEYWOOD, from Manchester, and other Places, against the Vagrants Removal Bill.—By Mr. WILBRAHAM, from the Workmen in a Manufactory at Salford, in favour of the Factories Regulation Bill.—By Mr. JOHN BROWN, from Mayo, for better regulating the Flax-seed Trade; and from Westport, against the proposed Reduction of the Duty on Hemp.—By Sir ROBERT BATESON, from a Clergyman of Londonderry, against the proposed alteration in the Laws regarding Clandestine Marriages (Ireland).—By Mr. O'CONNOR, from Kilcoman and Robin; and by Mr. JOHN BROWN, from Westport,—in favour of the Ministerial Plan of Education (Ireland).—By Mr. ANTHONY LEFROY, from Killashee and Kilglass;—by Sir ROBERT BATESON, from Antrim, and two other Places;—by Mr. ROBERT A. HONDAS, from the Presbyteries of St. Andrew's and Dunfermline; and by Sir EDMUND HAYES, from nine Places in Ireland,—against that Plan.—By Mr. WASON, from Ipswich, to hold the Assizes for Suffolk alternately at Ipswich and Bury St. Edmund's.—By Mr. PENDARVIS, from Falmouth, for Stopping the Supplies till the Reform Bill be carried.—By Mr. MAXWELL, from Arva, against the Irish Reform Bill

RUSSIAN-DUTCH LOAN.
Mr. Herrieswished to put a question to the noble Lord, connected with the Russian-Dutch Loan, referred to in the Convention laid a few nights ago on the Table of the House. In the preamble of that Convention reference was made to a former Convention of May, 1815, and to an additional article to that Treaty. At the time, he was well aware that that additional article was understood to be a secret article, and at the time the object of making it secret was satisfactory enough. But the circumstances which made it so had since been removed, and none now existed. He thought it indispensable that the house should have it before them, as it must necessarily form one of the grounds upon which the two contracting Powers had proceeded in the new Convention. He hoped there could be no objection, therefore, to its production on the part of the noble Lord; and, if he should be of

1239
that opinion, there would be no occasion to move the House for it. While in possession of the House he would again take the opportunity of asking, when the noble Lord thought it likely he should bring forward the measures which his Majesty's Government proposed to found upon the Convention? He was sure the noble Lord would see the necessity of the House having due notice of the measure, and that there should be ample time for considering a matter of such vital importance.
Lord Althorpwould first answer the right hon. Gentleman as to the secret article of the Treaty of 1815. He was ready to concede to him, that the same objections to its publicity which existed at the time it was framed were now removed. But he would rather not, at the moment, give a positive answer as to whether he should feel himself justified in laying it before the House or not. With respect to the other point, the object the Government had principally in view was, to get forward with the Irish Reform Bill; and, until they saw what progress it made, it was impossible to fix a day for the discussion of the other question, which he admitted was one of very great importance. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman, however, that a notice should be given, so that the House should have ample opportunity of giving it every attention.
Mr. Herriessaid, that respecting the important document to which he had alluded, he wished it to be understood, that he should move for its production if the Government did not think proper to lay it on the Table.

THE BUDGET.
Mr. Herriesbegged to take that opportunity, as the noble Lord was about to move the Supplies, to ask, at what time the Government expected to be prepared with the annual general statement of the financial affairs of the country, the usual time being passed when, according to modern practice, that statement should have been made? He was desirous of knowing this, because he believed that a knowledge of the views and intentions of the Government would save trouble, and perhaps much preliminary discussion, which might be provoked by longer delay. At the same time, he wished to suggest to the noble Lord the necessity, for the guidance of the House, of having prepared a balance-sheet, showing distinctly the income and expenditure of the
1240
quarter ending the 5th of April last. It was known that the public felt much disappointment and alarm at seeing, by the balance-sheet for the quarter ending 5th of January previous, that there was a great deficiency in the income of the country, as compared with its expenditure. He wished that the balance-sheet of the succeeding quarter might show it otherwise; but he very much apprehended, that the deficit would even appear much more considerable. His own calculations, as far as he had been able to make them, certainly showed that result, though he sincerely hoped those calculations might turn out to be wrong. But he thought that very important matter was involved in the question, and that it was material for the House to know what the relative state of that quarter was. As another quarter was now drawing near to an end, and, as the year's accounts could not be made up for some time, he thought it highly desirable that the sheet for the quarter ending April 5th should be before the House, and the general statement made as speedily as possible.
Lord Althorpagreed with the right hon. Gentleman, that it would be proper to have this balance-sheet laid on the Table as speedily as possible, but it would be better for those who wished for it to state their reasons openly. The alleged deficiency would be found much less than had been stated—less than 1,200,000 l. He must also remind the House, that the Estimates for the year did not come into operation until after the present quarter, and that Ministers relied principally on those Estimates for the reduction of the expenditure of the country. He trusted, when the time came, that he should be able to show that the hon. Gentleman's apprehensions were groundless. In a few days the publication of the accounts must take place, according to Act of Parliament.
Sir George Warrendersaid, that with regard to the transaction relating to the convention with Russia, he was sorry it was to be postponed, as it was a matter he was very anxious to see before the House. Having been one of those who gave his confidence to the Government on that affair, and voted against the motion of the right hon. member for Harwich, depending upon the speech of the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, he was certainly astonished to find the dates which he now saw upon the convention. But, although he gave that vote, he did so feeling at the time that

1241
it did not pledge him to any transaction, binding this country to pay money to Russia after the separation between Holland and Belgium had been completed. He voted as he did, thinking this country bound in honour to pay so long as the separation between the two States had not taken place. He did now hope, under the aspect which the affair had taken, that the question would not be deferred, so as to be brought forward when Gentlemen had been compelled to leave town, and when it could not receive the attention it loudly demanded.
Lord Althorpwas quite willing to enter into a full discussion on the subject, but it would certainly be desirable that there should be a full attendance when the question was discussed.

SALARIES OF THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND THE POSTMASTER GENERAL.
Mr. Dawsonrose to put a question to the noble Lord, as to the salary of the Lord Privy Seal. Upon looking at the evidence taken before the Committee for inquiring into the salaries of the Officers of State, he saw that the present Lord Privy Seal declined to receive any salary for his services, holding his office to be a sinecure. He saw now, however, by the papers on the Table, that the salary was paid, and he therefore supposed that Lord Durham had changed his mind. He wished to ask the noble Lord, whether any part of the salary of the Lord Privy Seal was due up to the present time, or whether any application had been made for it, or whether, in fact, Lord Durham was not now receiving the full amount, and had not received it from the first? The question, too, upon the same grounds, he wished to extend to the case of the noble Postmaster-general.
Sir George Warrendersaid, the right hon. Gentleman was in error in supposing that his question applied to the Postmaster-general. That noble Duke did state to the Committee, that he should be unwilling to take the salary, thinking it a sinecure; but, when he found the office an efficient one, with heavy duties, he did not object. He always stated what he thought right on behalf of individuals against whom imputations were made, and he was not to be schooled in doing so by his right hon. friend. He thought it fair to say, on behalf of Lord Durham, that the Committee communicated to him their opinion, that his not taking the salary would be a great injustice to the office, and an injury to his successors.
Mr. JohnWood corroborated the statement, as one of the Committee who appealed to Lord Durham not to refuse the salary, upon the ground that it would be hard to deprive his successors of it.
Lord Althorpsaid, he believed that the Lord Privy Seal had received his salary regularly, though he was not quite sure. With regard to the Postmaster-general, he did not receive some of the early portions, but he now intended to do so. He believed there were few Gentlemen in that House who would not agree with him, that it was a bad principle to introduce, for noblemen, because they had large fortunes, not to receive the salaries attached to their offices—and he thought those noblemen had not judged well in the first instance.
Mr. Dawsonsaid, his object was, to know whether the salaries were received or not, and not to complain of their having been received, which he thought they always ought to have been. He was sorry his hon. friend had been nettled at the observations he made to him.
Sir George Warrendercould assure his right hon. friend, that one of the things he always carefully avoided was, being nettled.

PRODUCE OF SLAVE LABOUR.
Lord Althorp moved the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of Supply.
Mr. Keith Douglasrose to move for certain returns, the object of which would be, to show how dependent the maintenance of the manufactures and commerce of this country was upon the supply of tropical productions, raised by compulsory labour. In considering the question, it was one thing to say they should have no compulsory labour, and another thing to say they should have it under proper restrictions and regulations. He thought that, before the people of this country were called upon to decide upon this important question, they ought to know to what an extent it would affect their own manufactures and commerce, and consequently, their most important interests. It appeared by the return No. 367, of 9th April, 1832, that the quantity of cotton wool imported in the year ending 5th January, 1831, was:—from the United States of America, 210,885,358 lbs.; Brazil, 33,092,072 lbs.; British West Indies,;3,429,247 lbs.; other slave countries, 11,630 lbs.; re-imported from Guernsey, the Netherlands, Portugal, &c., 190,275 lbs.; Philippine Islands,

1243
29, 672 lbs., altogether, 247,638,254 lbs. From the East India Company's territories, 12,481,761 lbs.; Egypt, 3,248,633 lbs.; Turkey and continental Greece, 353,077 lbs.; Colombia, 221,381 lbs.; Hayti, 166,266 lbs.; Peru and other places, 52,080 lbs.—altogether, 16,323,198 lbs. Thus it appeared, that the quantity of raw cotton wool imported from countries employing compulsory labour was, 247,638,254 lbs., while the cotton imported from countries with a mitigated state of labour, such as the East Indies, Egypt, and other places was only 16,333,198 lbs. Therefore, of the whole cotton imported into this country, being 263,961,452 lbs., only 16,333,198 lbs. were produced under a mitigated state of compulsory labour. It appeared further, that the quantity of raw cotton wool exported in the same year was 8,534,976 lbs.; and in the year ending 5th January, 1832, 22,308,555 lbs. Therefore, on an average of two years, the quantity exported appeared to be about equal to the quantity produced by free labour. By another Return it appeared that the cotton wool imported in the year ending 5th of January, 1832,

was

288,708,453 lbs.

Of which was exported again in a raw state

22,308,555

Leaving the balance for the home consumption at

266,399,898

Thus the material for the whole cotton manufacture of this country, of Manchester and Glasgow, as well as of every little village, was supplied by compulsory slave labour. It would thus be seen what an immense interest the nation must take, in not rushing to a change of that state of things, upon which depended the immediate supply of the raw material for the whole cotton manufacture of this country. The importance of this would be further illustrated by a reference to the value of the articles exported, and of which the raw material produced by compulsory labour formed the basis. It appeared by the Return No. 349, ordered on April 2nd, 1832, that in the year ending 5th of January, 1832, the quantity of cotton manufactured goods exported was as follows; viz.—in declared value, 15,294,923 l.; twist and yarns, 3,975,019 l.; making together 19,269,942 l. These sums were independent of cotton manufactures exported under the head of apparel, slops, and haberdashery, which in 1830, amounted to 772,834 l. In
1244
the year ending 5th of January, 1832, the declared value of the quantity of manufactured cotton exported was 13,284,036 l.; cotton twist and yarns, 3,975,019 l.; making together 17,259,055 l.; so that the general export of the manufacture of cotton, all derived from slave labour, was little short of 20,000,000 l. annually. The total declared value of British and Irish produce and manufactures exported in the year ending January, 1831, was 38,271,597 l., and the declared value of cotton and cotton goods alone, being, in the same year, about 20,000,000 l. sterling, was considerably more than the half of the whole. He mentioned this to show the magnitude of the interests concerned, and to prevail on the House, if he could, not to interfere hastily in this subject; and if, by any interference, they should diminish the supply of this raw material, they might depend upon it the most injurious and ruinous consequences would follow, upon the heads of all the numerous classes employed in all the vast variety of trades connected with the cotton manufacture. It was the opinion of the most experienced persons, that nothing but compulsory labour could supply either this or other tropical articles, in sufficient quantities to meet the demand for them in Great Britain. If that were not the case, and that free labour could supply the articles in abundance, then there would be no difficulty in getting them from the East Indies, and other such places. But how stood the fact? A slight perusal of authentic returns would prove, that in no one instance had colonies or settlements, availing themselves of free labour, been found to compete with compulsory labour. The article of cotton, to which he had referred, the proportion produced by slave labour to that produced by labour somewhat free, being as 247 to 16, or the latter being less than one-fifteenth of the former—showed how small a portion of British commerce depended on the produce of mitigated labour. He would state some other facts, illustrative of the same principle, and hon. Gentlemen would, he hoped, be made sensible of the prodigious risk they ran by proposing at once to put an end to compulsory labour. By the Return No. 457, of the 18th May, 1832, it appeared, that the quantity of sugar imported into Great Britain and Ireland, in the year ending 5th January, 1832, was 5,366,263 cwt.; of which there was from countries availing themselves of slave labour, viz.

1245
from British colonies and plantations, including Mauritius, 4,621,299 cwt.; from the foreign West Indies, viz. Cuba, Porto Rico, and St. Thomas's, 127,750 cwt.; Brazil, 362,621 cwt.; re-imported from various quarters, 17,176 cwt.; making together, 5,128,846 cwt. And from the East India Company's territories, exclusive of Singapore, 161,779 cwt; Singapore, 23,794 cwt.; Siam and Java, 9,450 cwt; Philippine Islands, 39,349 cwt.; Cape of Good Hope (supposed the produce of some of these countries), 3,045 cwt.; altogether, 237,417 cwt.—making a total of 5,366,262 cwt. Total export in the same year, stated as raw sugar, 1,409,841 cwt.; nett produce of duty received, after making every deduction, 4,650,589 l. Thus it appeared the quantity of sugar imported, the result of free labour, was scarcely one twenty-fifth part of the whole, and that commodity, besides giving employment and wealth to a great number of individuals, yielded nearly 5,000,000 l. to the State. The importation of coffee also illustrated this principle. By Return No. 458, of the 18th of May, 1832, it appeared that the quantity of coffee imported into Great Britain, in the year ending 5th of January, 1832, was 43,007,828 lbs.; of which there was from countries availing themselves of slave labour, viz. British West Indies, including re-importations from Europe, 416,254 lbs.; Mauritius, 185,796 lbs.; Cuba, 1,591,747 lbs.; Brazil, 9,151,771 lbs.; United States of America, 385,739 lbs.; West coast of Africa and Cape of Good Hope, exclusive of Sierra Leone, 16,122 lbs.; Bahamas, imported there, and re-exported, 13,179 lbs.; re-importations from continental Europe, say 7,000 lbs.—total from slave labour, 31,467,608 lbs. From all other countries, in many of which it was difficult to distinguish whether coffee was the produce of slave or free labour—Sierra Leone, 127 lbs.; East India Company's territories, 2,895,052 lbs.; Singapore, Ceylon, &c., 4,599,827 lbs.; Hayti, 4,018,795 lbs; Mexico and Guatemala, 26,417 lbs.; together, 11,540,220 lbs.—making a total of 43,007,828 lbs.; of which, 22,485,474 lbs. were exported. Thus it appeared, that not above one-third at most of the coffee used in this country, or made an article of traffic, was the produce of free labour. The only other article he would refer to was tobacco, and it appeared by the Return No. 367, ordered on the 9th April,
1246
1832, that the quantity of tobacco imported into Great Britain and Ireland, in the year ending on the 5th January, 1832, was, unmanufactured 24,489,753 lbs.; manufactured, and snuff, 254,055lbs.—together, 24,743,808 lbs.; of which there was, from countries availing themselves of slave labour, viz.—United States of America, 23,752,413 lbs.; and others, 101,440 lbs.—together, 23,856,853 lbs.; Cuba, and foreign West Indies supplied 70,243 lbs; and other places, 114,352 lbs.,—together, 184,595 lbs.; British West Indies, 1,583 lbs.—being a total from slave countries of 24,043,031 lbs. From other countries, in many of which it was difficult to distinguish whether slave labour had or had not been employed, the importations were, from Germany and the Netherlands, 101,213 lbs.; East India Company's territories and Ceylon, 24,223 lbs.; Turkey and continental Greece, 5,392 lbs.; British northern colonies 23,855 lbs.; Hayti, 19,029 lbs.; Colombia, 515,014 lbs.; all other countries, 12,051 lbs.—making together, 700,777 lbs.; and giving a total, as before stated, of 21,743,808 lbs. The tobacco exported amounted to 9,916,792 lbs.; and the nett duty collected amounted to, during the year ending the 5th of January, 1830, on this article of slave labour, 2,858,794 l. He implored the House to consider and weigh these statements; but, above all he implored them to consider the depths and magnitude of the interests at stake. Let them consider to what an extent capital and industry were embarked in all these branches of trade. Let them also consider the state of the public revenue to which this production so largely contributed. The raw material supplied by slave labour produced a deal more than half the manufactured exports of the whole country. If, then, the Government or the House should deal rashly with such mighty interests, they might, it was true, induce or force the colonists to give up slave labour; but the immediate consequence would be, that the growth of all the articles which he had mentioned would be transferred to the United States, and to other countries. It was no answer to him to say, that the raw material could be got at a somewhat higher price in the East Indies. The very fact of raising the price of the raw article would be the destruction of manufactures, the great inducement, to which was cheapness. Before sitting down, he would shortly advert to a Report made by Mr.

1247
Mackenzie, the Consul general, sent out to Hayti by the Foreign Office, for the purpose of gathering information concerning the state of that colony, and the extent to which free labour had been pushed. That Gentleman in the execution of his duty, in his Report drew a comparison between the exports of that island in 1789, when slave labour was employed, and the exports of the year 1826, when they were all free, and his account was as follows—

EXPORTS FROM HAYTI.

MUSCOVADO SUGAR.

1789

93,573,300lbs.

1826

32,864lbs.

CLAYED SUGAR.

1789

47,516,531lbs.

1826

Nil.

COFFEE.

1789

76,835,219lbs.

1826

31,181,784lbs.

COTTON.

1789

7,004,274lbs.

1826

620,972lbs.

COCOA.

1789

Nill.

1826

457,592lbs.

INDIGO.

1789

758,628lbs.

1826

Nil

MOLASSES.

1789

25,749lbs.

1826

Nil.

He contended, from these statements, and from the opinions of the most experienced practical men, that any interference with compulsory labour in our colonies would not only annihilate our colonies, but also our domestic manufactures. The hon. Member concluded by moving "For various Returns, showing how dependent the maintenance of the manufactures and commerce of this country are on the supply of tropical productions raised by compulsory labour."
Lord Althorpsaid, that he should not oppose the Motion, but he candidly confessed he could not see the object of it, unless the hon. Member meant, by following up his argument, to prevent the abolition of slave labour.
Mr. Keith Douglassaid, the object of his Motion and of his observations was, to show the danger of deranging by interference such mighty interests as those involved in the colonial question.
Motion agreed to.

SUPPLY—ORDNANCE ESTIMATES.
The House resolved itself into Committee of Supply,
Mr. Kennedybrought forward the Ordnance Estimates, in which, he was happy to announce, that considerable reductions had been effected. The reductions would be much less apparent on this occasion than they would be next year, owing to the arrears which had to be cleared off before the new system of accounts could come
1248
into full operation. But, when those arrears should have been cleared off, and the new system was in full operation, not only would there be a diminution of the number of clerks, but the business would be much more efficiently managed than hitherto. In the Irish department also, there would be an equal reduction, to one-half the clerks employed, with increased efficiency. The hon. Gentleman moved, that 77,639 l. be granted for the salaries of the superior officers in the Ordnance-office, in Pall Mall, and Dublin.
Mr. Hume, placing all but implicit confidence in the economical intentions of Ministers, and making due allowance for their being fettered in carrying those intentions into effect, by the great pressure of the important business in which they had been engaged since their accession to office—had not opposed any of the Estimates for the naval and military service which had been submitted to them, and therefore would not offer any opposition to the present. He confidently trusted, that the promised retrenchments in all branches of the public service would be effected; at all events, he relied on the energies and integrity of a reformed Parliament for insuring those retrenchments, and every other public benefit.
Colonel Daviessaid, that for the public to be a gainer, the number of commissions ought to be reduced. The Estimates had gone off very quietly, but on a future occasion there must be a severe scrutiny.
Sir Henry Hardingehad only heard the conclusion of the hon. Member's statement, and, therefore, of that only could he speak. The hon. Member spoke of an improvement in keeping the accounts. He much doubted whether any improvement had been effected. On a future occasion he should move for papers to try the question. He was not disposed to differ from the prevailing feeling in the Committee, and to go into the Estimates. He must remark, however, that the Committee was a very thin one, and presented a very different appearance to preceding ones. It had been the fashion to attack the Ordnance department, under previous Administrations, with allowing or practising abuses; now, he wished to call on the hon. Member to state to the Committee whether he had detected any abuses, and what?
Mr. Kennedysaid, that if a reduction in the expenditure was to be considered a

1249
remedying of abuses, there had been such a thing effected. He thought that there had been more clerks than necessary. He also considered that the alteration in the mode of keeping the accounts was an improvement; for a much less number of clerks would be necessary under the new system than was under the old. In the Irish department there had been a reduction of one-half in point of expense. He knew not whether the answer would be satisfactory to the hon. and gallant Member, but he had endeavoured to answer his question.
Sir Henry Hardingesaid, that if a diminution of expenditure was a proof of a remedying of abuse, then indeed the hon. Member might be correct. But the expense of the army was much greater now than before the present Administration, and there had, therefore, been an augmentation of abuse under the present Government. With respect to the boasted reduction in Ireland, the fact was, that he himself (Sir H. Hardinge) had, while in office, laid the plans for the reduction effected by the present Government. Then the hon. Member spoke of arrears. What did he mean? He must tell the hon. Member, that in 1828 there was no arrear. When the late Administration left office there was no arrear. If the hon. Member called that arrear which was created by a change of system, then there might be arrears.
Mr. Kennedysaid, that the arrears were occasioned by a change of system. He contended that the new system was a highly improved one.
Sir Henry Hardingedenied, upon the statement of the hon. Member, that the present Board was entitled to any credit. As to the mode of keeping the accounts, that mode had been recommended by the Finance Committee.
Lord Althorpsaid, that if the reduction of expenditure in the Ordnance department was less than was expected, it arose from the circumstance that the army itself had been increased, and that the Board of Ordnance had always been held up as the most perfectly-managed department in the Government.
Mr. Humethought, that the system of keeping accounts in the Ordnance department was, even now, much more complicated than it need be.
Mr. HuntHoped, that in the next Parliament they would not be content, as
1250
late Governments had been, with striking off a few miserable clerks, and calling it reduction, but would effect reduction in the highly-paid Colonels of regiments and Staff Officers, many of whom were most needlessly kept up.
Resolution agreed to.
The following votes also agreed to:—
The sum of 9,199 l. for the Ordnance Department at Woolwich:
The sum of 15,139 l. for the Civil Establishment of the Officers of the Ordnance on station at home.
On the question that a sum of 27,375 l. be granted for the salaries of the Civil Establishment of the Officers of Ordnance in Ireland and abroad,
Mr. Humeasked, whether there were not some reductions to be effected in these establishments? He had understood that there was a promise to that effect. As to the establishment at Enfield, he was informed that they were engaged in making knives and forks. He did not think that that was a part of the duty of a branch of the Ordnance establishment.
Sir Henry Hardingesaid, that the hon. member for London, with true Aldermanic taste, had given the hint for this question about knives and forks. He begged to say, that the Enfield establishment had been a check upon contractors, and had operated to secure considerable savings to the public.
Mr. Alderman Woodsaid, it was true he had suggested the question; but, instead of being a joke, it was a fact. He understood that the establishment at Enfield was so employed. At all events, he was sure that it was employed very expensively, and very uselessly for the public. It had not been a check on contracts, for Ordnance stores could always be furnished cheaper by contract than they were furnished by these establishments.
Colonel Maberlysaid, that it was not now a question whether this establishment ought to be formed, but whether, being in existence, it would or not be a loss to the public to put it down. He was of opinion, that, to put it down now, would occasion a great loss to the public, and he believed that, as it now worked, it did effect a saving for the public.
Mr. Hunthoped, that in the next Parliament such an argument would not be listened to. What! was an establishment to be kept up merely because it was found to be in existence?
Sir Henry Hardingesaid, that it was necessary to keep up the establishment for other reasons besides that given by the gallant Colonel opposite. The manufacturers at Birmingham would not make a rifle on military principles, unless they received special orders to do so, and then they charged higher prices than these arms could be manufactured for at Enfield. This bad been the case on more than one occasion, and he was, therefore, justified in saying, that the establishment at Enfield had been a check upon the contractors, and was a saving to the public.
Mr. Kennedystated, that the old materials which had accumulated at the Tower, and other public stores, and which, but for this establishment, would be utterly useless, were now worked up there, and made available for service.
Mr. Humebelieved, that the establishment cost more money than it was worth. There was another establishment, too, he wished to notice. There was a powder establishment near Hyde Park, which he thought was a nuisance, and ought to be removed. It required twelve men to attend to it, and watch it, and he thought that it was not safe after all, and ought to be removed.
Sir Henry Hardingeobserved, that the gunpowder establishments were absolutely necessary to be kept up, for the powder made by contract was not that which ought to be given either to the army or navy, to be used in action.
Resolution agreed to, as were the following Resolutions:—
37,735 l. for Barrack Masters' salaries belonging to the Ordnance Department in Great Britain, Ireland, and the Colonies:
5,088 l. for the salaries of the Master Gunners in Garrisons and Batteries in Great Britain and Ireland:
81,535 l. for the corps of Royal Engineers, Royal Sappers and Miners, and the Establishment for the instruction of the Sappers and Miners in Great Britain, Ireland, and the Colonies:
278,264 l. for the expenses of the Royal Regiments of Artillery for Great Britain, Ireland, and the Colonies:
36,105 l. for the Royal Horse Artillery:
1,226 l. for the Directors-general of Artillery, and for the Field Train Dépôt:
9,894 l. for the Medical Establishment of the Military Department of the Ordnance in Great Britain, Ireland, &c.
1252
800 l. for Officers, Masters, &c., of the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich, after deducting the sum of 3,036 l. received for the instruction of the pupils:
34,029 l. for the superintendence of the Ordnance Works in Great Britain, Ireland, and the Colonies.
26,654 l. for the Ordnance works and repairs, for the Storekeepers and others, after certain deductions.
On this question being proposed,
Mr. Humesaid, that the Colonial Expenditure ought to be separated from the rest, in order that the House might know what the colonies cost.
Lord Althorpwas understood to admit, that it might be important to separate the accounts; but that at present it could not be done without the greatest difficulty.
Vote agreed to; as also 27,389 l. for defraying the superintendence of the building and repair of Barracks in Great Britain, Ireland, and the Colonies—
On the question that 108,130 l. be granted to his Majesty to defray the charge for the building and repair of Barracks in Great Britain, Ireland, and the Colonies, after deducting the sum of 41,000 l. for the rents of canteens, &c.
Mr. Wasonobjected to the item in this estimate for building the barracks in the Birdcage-walk, in St. James's Park. The plan was expensive, and objectionable in every respect, and he had received statements which showed that, if the barracks were built, such would be the difficulties of draining and improving the neighbourhood, that land which might be made worth between 3l. and 4l. a square foot, would be worth scarcely anything at all. The sale of the ground would give the public 500,000 l., whilst by building barracks on it the public would lose 250,000 l. At present, that neighbourhood was rendered unwholesome in the extreme, and dangerous to the public health, from the want of drainage. Whole streets and lanes had their foundations seven feet below the high-water mark of the river, and their cellars were sometimes fifteen feet below the level of high-water mark. Owing to this, and to the bad state of the sewers, the neighbourhood was extremely unwholesome, and the country ought to know the extremely bad situation in which they had placed the metropolitan palace of the Sovereign. If the barracks were erected in the place in which it was pro-

1253
Posed to erect them, it would be absolutely impossible to effect any improvement in the drainage of that part of Westminster under a sum of 200,000 l.
Mr. Kennedymaintained, that after the most careful inquiries having been made by the heads of departments, it had been determined, that the proposed site was the only place in which the barracks could be built. It was impossible to drain that part of Westminster without expending sums of money very much larger than the public could grant for many years, and, in the meantime the barracks would be of no disadvantage to the neighbourhood. It was proposed that the barracks should run one hundred and fifty-feet from the Birdcage-walk, and have an enclosed area before them. The site of the foundation of the barracks would be drained, and he could not see that they would interfere with the future drainage of other places in the neighbourhood.
Mr. Huntobjected to building more barracks at all, for a reformed Parliament would never suffer any Administration to keep up so large a standing army as that which was now annually voted.
Mr. Humethought the building of more barracks was a very unwarrantable proceeding on the part of Ministers. There were already 183 barracks in England, and 119 in Ireland, making in all, 302. It was not surprising, therefore, that the House was every year called upon to vote such enormous sums for keeping up the barracks of the United Kingdom. An expenditure of 273,000 l. was annually connected with this service, on account of extraordinary disbursements alone, whilst the ordinary estimates amounted to 37,000 odd hundred pounds. He conceived that, under the circumstances of a deficient revenue the Government ought to postpone the erection of these barracks until a future year, and he did not see what necessity there was to keep so many troops in London.
Mr. Kennedyacknowledged, that barracks had been very much multiplied throughout the kingdom, but unfortunately many of them were placed in situations in which they could not be wanted. It was indisputable, that in London there was not a sufficient accommodation for the existing establishment of the four battalions of Foot Guards that were kept on duty in the metropolis. He had himself inspected the barracks at Knightsbridge,
1254
and he found that seven or eight of the men were pent up in small rooms, not seven feet high, yet these very inconvenient and unwholesome barracks cost the country 1,000 l. a-year for rent, and 500 l. a-year for repairs. The lease expired in 1836, and, though the barracks were calculated for an accommodation of 404 men, the numbers, owing to their inconvenience, were obliged to be reduced to 259. Of the 1,726 men of the Foot Guards kept in London (exclusive of the Tower), the barracks afforded accommodation for only 754 men, so that 972 were in want of barracks. The country was annually put to the expense of 1,000 l. for the accommodation of men in London who could not be lodged in barracks; and it would be found that a saving of 2,150 l. a-year would eventually be effected by the erection of barracks in the Birdcage-walk, as the lease of the Knightsbridge barracks would so soon expire.
Mr. Humeby no means thought the statement of the hon. Member conclusive. It was not at all necessary to keep so many men actually in London, when there were barracks all round the metropolis. The country had been put to the shameful expense of erecting and maintaining barracks, in England alone, sufficient for the accommodation of 80,000 troops, and, although there were only 50,000 to occupy them, the House was now called upon by Ministers to erect more buildings. He thought the vote a most gratuitous waste of public money.
Lord Althorpdefended the plan proposed, and said, that the health of the soldier required it. The accommodation in London for the soldier had not been so good as the hon. Member appeared to believe, and it was well known that the loss of life was greater amongst regiments quartered in the metropolis than in others quartered elsewhere. The hon. member for Ipswich had spoken of a plan for improving that part of Westminster, and he seemed to think it might be accomplished for so small a sum as 100,000 l. He had had a conversation with the hon. Gentleman, a few days back, upon the subject; since which he had employed a Surveyor to make an inquiry, who now estimated the expense at a million of money. This would be a sufficient reason for Government to pause before they engaged in an undertaking so expensive, and so little productive of public benefit.
Mr. Wasonsaid, that the noble Lord's estimate of 1,000,000 l. was ridiculous and extravagant, and he had better name the Surveyor who had reported any thing so preposterous. He (Mr. Wason) was perfectly willing to bear all the expenses of opening a communication between Tothillstreet and Buckingham Palace, with a view to the drainage, and the speculation he calculated would put 80,000 l. into his pocket. All he asked of the noble Lord was, to grant him a bill to enable the owners of property in that direction to dispose of it, and he would undertake the improvement on his own account. The hon. Member read several extracts from Reports to the Board of Health, in order to show the excessively unhealthy situation of Buckingham Palace, and of the locality of the proposed barracks. He concluded by moving an Amendment, that the vote be reduced by 10,000 l.
The Committee divided on the Amendment:—Ayes 22; Noes 48; Majority 26.

List of the AYES.

Benett, John

Paget, Thomas

Blamire, William

Pendarvis, E. W. W

Blackney, Walter

Strutt, Edward

Bodkin, John

Thicknesse, Ralph

Ellis, Wynn

Torrens, Col. Robert

Hoskins, Kedgwin

Venables, Ald. Wm.

Hume, Joseph

Vincent, Sir F. Bart.

Hunt, Henry

Williams, Sir J. H. Bt.

James, William

Wood, John

Lambert, James

Wood, Ald. Matthew

Lefevre, Charles

TELLER

Marshall, William

Wason, W. Rigby

Resolution agreed to, as was also a Resolution granting 59,480 l. to defray the charge of Barrack-masters' expenditure in England and Ireland.
On the question that a sum of 115,570 l. be granted for the Ordnance Civil and Military contingencies,
Mr. Jephsonwished to ask, what would be the cost of the survey, and when it would be completed. He believed, that the amount would be much above 300,000 l. the original estimate.
Sir Henry Hardingewished to know upon what data that calculation was founded? No blame could, in this instance, be attributed to the Board of Ordnance, either under the present or the late Government.
Mr. Humeobjected to the vote, because one-fifth of the survey was not completed, although a sum of several hundred thousand pounds had been al-
1256
ready expended more than the original estimate. If alterations had been made, it would be necessary to know upon what authority they were so made.
Mr. Kennedysaid, that in consequence of extending the objects of the survey, an additional expense would be incurred, but no unnecessary expense would take place, or, in fact, would be permitted. No doubt, one-fifth of the map was not completed, but much more than one-fifth of the work of survey was finished; indeed, he could say, that the one-half of it was already performed.
Mr. Humeasked, why had any deviation from the original plan been made, and upon what authority?
Mr. Crokersaid, that a Committee of this House had recommended, that the Ordnance survey should be extended to the civil boundaries of counties and town-lands. So much in answer to the question of the hon. Member (Mr. Hume). If the Irish survey were executed as the English had been, the expenditure would be wisely made. A false economy should not be resorted to on an occasion like the present, when science and useful information of an unequalled character would be afforded to the country.
Mr. Dawsonsaid, that with a view to justice, in every sense of the word, with a view to the county assessments, this survey had become a matter of absolute necessity. If it were desirable to improve the condition of Ireland—and few men could doubt it—he was satisfied this survey was highly desirable; nay, it was more, it was absolutely necessary in the present state of Ireland. He hoped the Government would persevere, notwithstanding the opposition of the hon. member for Middlesex.
Mr. Davies Gilbertsaid, he only rose to bear his testimony to the great merits of the engineers who were employed in the survey of Ireland. Their proceedings were a credit to science and the empire.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that this survey was highly essential to the interests of every county in Ireland; indeed, a survey like the present would not only be a guard as between proprietor and proprietor, but as to county assessments in general.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that the survey in Ireland was necessary; and, as such, he felt bound to support the proposed vote.
Mr. Blackneygave the vote his cordial concurrence, although he must say, that great injury resulted to the public from the

1257
cess imposed by Grand Juries in Ireland.
Mr. Crokersaid, that the charge was one upon the empire at large, for the benefit of the people of Ireland. And he could take it upon himself to say, that as far as the science of the survey went, no mistake could take place upon the part of the officers, although it might take place upon the boundaries, which could often be only ascertained upon imperfect evidence.
Mr. Kennedysaid, they were now within the original estimate, and, if any further estimate were necessary, it would be laid before the House.
Vote agreed to, as were the following:—58,976 l. for stores in the Office of Ordnance to the year 1832:
3,633 l. for expenses in the Ordnance Office:
1,265 l. for Incidental Expenses in the Office:
293,231 l. for allowances of Half-pay and pensions of military corps.
28,246 l. for allowances and compensations for Officers in Ordnance and Widows' Pensions.
House resumed, and the Report brought up.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR IRELAND—COMMITTEE—FIFTH DAY.
Lord Althorp moved the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Reform of Parliament (Ireland) Bill.
Colonel Davieswished to take that opportunity of calling the attention of the House to a statement which had appeared in the public papers, and which he thought required explanation. It was a statement of what took place on Saturday last at the Foreign Office, where a number of Members of that House had attended to hear an explanation from the Government upon the subject of the Russian-Dutch Loan. In justice to himself, and to his Majesty's Ministers also, he thought he ought to explain to the House, that the statement contained in the papers was not exactly correct. It was stated in the Courier of that night, that the feeling of the hon. Members who had attended on that occasion was unanimous in favour of the course pursued by the Government. Now, he could only say, that if he could have supposed that silence would have been construed into consent, he would at that meeting have stated his
1258
dissent. He thought, however, that the more regular course would be, to wait until the matter was brought fairly before the House. He could also say, that many other hon. Members entertained precisely the same feelings upon the subject.
The House then went into a Committee.
Sir Robert Batesonsaid, he had no wish to offer any factious opposition to the Bill. He had always been a Reformer, but be wished to apply the pruning-knife, and not the axe. The 10 l. franchise might work very well in small boroughs, but he thought it too low for large towns. Liverpool was a proof of the ill effects of too low a franchise. In Ireland there were large towns, and he thought the franchise should not be so low as 10 l., for it would place the franchise in the hands of the populace, and be the cause of corruption. Belfast was a great and flourishing, town, and well worthy to send two Members to Parliament, but he thought the 10 l. franchise too low. He should propose to represent property rather than people, and therefore he should propose, that the 10 l. franchise be retained only in small towns; that a 15 l. franchise be established in large towns; and that a 20 l. franchise be established in the largest towns and cities, as Dublin, Cork, and Limerick. He should prefer Universal Suffrage to a general 10 l. franchise. A 10 l. franchise would induce corruption, but Universal Suffrage would so much increase the number of voters as to render it impracticable. His only object was, to render the Bill as advantageous as possible to Ireland, not to offer factious opposition to the measure. He moved, as an amendment, that in all cities and boroughs with from 300 to 500 houses of 10 l. annual value, the franchise should be 10 l.; that in all cities and boroughs with from 500 to 1,000 houses of the annual value of 10 l., the franchise should be 15 l.; find that in all cities and boroughs having 1,000 houses and upwards of the value of 10 l. annually, the franchise should be 20 l.
Mr. O'Connellopposed the Motion, because, with the exception of Belfast and Newry, no towns remained to be disposed of which would come under its operation.
Amendment negatived.
Clause again read.
Mr. O'Connellwould not then oppose the Clause, but, on the bringing up of the Report, he would move that the qualification be a yearly payment of 5l.
Mr. Leadersaid, he should move, that the householders at 5l., who were now voters in the boroughs of Dungarvan, Newry, and Downpatrick be permitted to retain their franchise.
Mr. Lambsaw great hardship in depriving those persons, whose numbers were very small, of the rights they at present possessed; but he should certainly object to any extension of the privilege beyond the lives of the occupants.
The sixth Clause, with verbal amendments, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
On the seventh Clause being put,
Mr. Shawwished to know, how it was that the freemen of England, in boroughs and corporate towns, should be permitted to retain their rights for their lives, while those of Ireland were to be disfranchised? In behalf of the numerous body of freemen whom he represented, he must complain of this species of injustice. The Clause was both an insult and an injury to the freemen of Ireland, and he should certainly like to hear why it was introduced into the Bill.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that the monopoly of freemen in Ireland had been used for the perpetuation of sectarian distinctions, and the Government being, of all things, anxious to abolish such distinctions, they therefore took away that privilege in Ireland which they permitted to remain in England, because it had never been abused in England in the same manner. If they were to perpetuate the rights of freemen in Ireland, they should only perpetuate those sectarian exclusions, of which these freemen had been the instruments.
Mr. O'Connellwould vote for an amendment, should the hon. Recorder for Dublin move one, and press it to a division, as he conceived that the Clause would have an effect quite contrary to that stated by the right hon. Irish Secretary. He thought that the right of the freemen in Ireland should be preserved, as well as those of England. Catholics were entitled to their freedom for the last forty years, and if a clause were inserted to enforce this right, he did not see upon what principle the freemen should be disfranchised. Several corporations had made returns to a mandamus, that the power to admit Catholics was discretionary with them. Make it obligatory, and the evil would be cured.
Mr. Spring Ricehad often been surprised by the learned member for Kerry's declarations, but never more than by the
1260
present one. On a former occasion, the vested rights of freemen in corporations had been loudly condemned, and he had no doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman would have opposed, in the strongest manner, the perpetuity of those rights, if the Bill had contained a provision to that effect. He thought the Committee ought to consider whether the Clause was right or wrong. The principle of the Bill was, to give an adequate representation of property. All distinctions in the exercise of the elective franchise should be done away. If corporations had the power to give the right of voting to persons favourable to certain religious principles, it would be the way to perpetuate sectarianism.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he would not permit the right hon. member for Limerick to calumniate him with impunity. What right had that hon. Member to make such unfounded assertions as those which he had presumed to make in respect to him? The hon. Member had said, that if the Ministry had adopted a clause for preserving the rights to the freemen he would have opposed it. He denied this assertion, and he flung back the slander to the source from whence it came. It might suit the right hon. Gentleman, who had once defended the freemen of Ireland, to desert them now; but the hon. Gentleman slandered him (Mr. O'Connell) when he said he was ready to adopt the same course. The right hon. Gentleman had done right to desert the people of Limerick so early, for it was not improbable they would have returned the compliment at an early opportunity. He congratulated him, indeed, on his importation to England, and thought he acted wisely, before he made this declaration, to take care to have Cambridge in his rear. He wished Cambridge joy of their bargain, with all his heart.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, that the example of the hon. member for Kerry should not entrap him into a violation of the courtesies of the House. He had been twelve years in Parliament, and he would appeal to his career during that period, as to whether he had ever acted or spoken on both sides of any question. He admitted the power and the great talents of the hon. and learned member for Kerry, but he would tell that hon. Member, that no fear of either the one or the other would prevent him from expressing his opinions openly and fearlessly in that House. He did not expect such treatment from the hon. member for

1261
Kerry, nor did he deserve it from him. He well remembered that, when that hon. Member was excluded by a legislative enactment from the benefits of the Relief Bill, he stood up and advocated his cause, and protested against that act of injustice.
Mr. O'Connellwas thankful to the House for the silent manner in which they had received the right hon. Gentleman's intended attack upon him, for the right hon. Gentleman by no means received the cheers which attacks upon him (Mr. O'Connell) usually elicited in that House. He would tell the right hon. Gentleman, without mincing the matter, by way of rejoinder to his assertion that he (Mr. O'Connell) would have opposed the Clause were it the very opposite in principle to the present, that, be that as it might, there could be no doubt that the right hon. Gentleman would have supported that Clause, or its opposite, or any other which the present dispensers of place might propose, sooner than risk his seat at the Treasury. Now, if he (Mr. O'Connell) had said this under other circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman would have pronounced it a gross calumny, and the unfortunate box would have suffered much more severely at the hands of the right hon. Gentleman. [Mr. Spring Rice, while addressing the House, struck one of the boxes which stand on the Table of the House repeatedly, and with considerable vehemence.] Yes, he repeated, the right hen. Gentleman would be as zealous and bustling in his advocacy—thumping the box, and dancing attendance about the Treasury with equal precision—if the King's Government had adopted a clause in the very teeth of that with which he was just now so disinterestedly enamoured.
Mr. Stanleysaid, he would refer the House to a letter written by the hon. and learned Member, in which, after pointing out the advantages of the Irish Reform Bill, he went on to state, that he approved above all of the provision, by which the power of creating an unlimited number of freemen, to swamp the independent voters in towns, was taken from corporations. For that the hon. and learned Member had said, that the Government were entitled to the gratitude of Ireland.
Mr. O'Connell; "The Lord has delivered them into my hands." The right hon. Gentleman had undertaken to vindicate his friend, the member for Limerick, and, by way of doing so, he commenced
1262
with an attack on him (Mr. O'Connell). He had referred to a letter of his, but in doing so he had certainly exhibited the grossest ignorance in the construction which he attempted to put on it. Now, if the right hon. Gentleman would only take the trouble of reading that letter again, he would find that his objection related to the power of swamping bona fide voters possessed by the corporation. He had always supported, and would continue to support, that part of the Bill which took away this unconstitutional power. But the present proposition was not opposed to that provision of the Bill. It was not a proposition to continue such a power to the corporations, but, on the contrary, it would compel them, whether they would or not, to admit freemen. With respect to the taunts of the right hon. Gentleman, they would have but little, effect upon him. The people of England had compelled the right hon. Gentleman to make concessions in the Reform Bill, and they would no longer permit the right hon. Gentleman to continue his misgovernment of Ireland.
Mr. Dawsonrose as a peace-maker. The member for Kerry had inflicted a severe castigation on two members of the Government, and very probably, if these members had time to consider the question in dispute, they would, as they had done before, after similar castigations, consent to withdraw the obnoxious proposition. He suggested, therefore, that the Clause be postponed till to-morrow. The debate had been warm, and he mentioned this purely as a means of making peace between the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. and learned member for Kerry—at least, be intended it to be so.
Mr. Sheil: The hon. Member who had last spoken had himself so often received the castigation of the hon. member for Kerry, that he was well qualified to speak upon the subject. He might say,
"Great thou must be,
For thou hast conquered me."
Mr. Shawcould not avoid saying, that the Corporation of Dublin had been unjustly accused of partiality. The right of giving the freedom of the Corporation by special favour had never been abused. It had been conferred on distinguished persons, such as Secretaries of Ireland, the Lord Lieutenant, and other meritorious persons, who had never voted for the return of improper candidates. The Clause

1263
taking away the right of freemen, he considered an insult to the Corporation and the Protestant interest. It was his intention to divide against the Clause. He conjured the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw it, as all classes of the people were, from the harsh measures of the Government, becoming converts to the necessity of a Repeal of the Union. He was sorry to say, Catholics and Protestants were beginning to be alike convinced that they would receive benefit from the repeal. The hon. Member concluded by moving an Amendment, the object of which was, to preserve the rights of freemen, by making the same perpetual.
Mr. Henry Grattanopposed the Amendment, and spoke in defence of the Clause as it stood in the present Bill. He was convinced, indeed, that it would do good by discountenancing sectarianism.
Mr. Callaghan, as the Representative of a large body of freemen, was bound to state, that no part of the Bill was more lauded and praised than that part of it which did away with freemen. He had not spoken to a single man who did not approve of the freemen being merged in the citizens.
Mr. Walkersupported the views of the Government, and thanked the Ministers for what they had done as to corporations.
Mr. Huntsaid, freemen were the worst class of voters in the country.
Mr. Keith Douglassupported the Amendment.
The Committee divided on the Amendment:—Ayes 39; Noes 128—Majority 89.
The Clause, with Amendments, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

List of the AYES.

Agnew, Sir A.

Gordon, J. E.

Bateson, Sir R.

Hayes, Sir E. S.

Best, Hon. W.

Herries, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Blaney, Hon. C. D.

Ingestre, Viscount

Castlereagh, Visc.

Jolliffe, Sir W.

Clements, J. M.

Jones, T.

Cole, Viscount

Knox, Hon. J.

Cole, H. A. H.

Lefroy, A.

Copeland, Alderman

Lefroy, T.

Corry, Hon. H.

Martin, Sir T. B.

Croker, J. W.

Maxwell, H.

Domville, Sir C.

O'Connell, D.

Ellis, W.

O'Connell, M.

Ferguson, R.

Pelham, C.

Fitzgerald, Sir A.

Pemberton, T.

Forbes, Sir C.

Perceval, Colonel

Fox, S.

Pringle, A.

1264

Pryse, P.

Young, J.

Stewart, C.

Thicknesse, R

TELLER.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Shaw, F.

On Clause 8 being put,
Mr. Ruthven moved, that the Chairman report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
On this Amendment the Committee divided:—Ayes 10; Noes 64—Majority 54.
Mr. Ruthventhen moved an Amendment for disallowing the additional Member to the University of Dublin. The hon. Member said, that the University was already sufficiently represented, and it would be better to give additional Members to the large counties, such as Cork, with 800,000 inhabitants, or Mayo, than to the University of Dublin, which had very few constituents.
Amendment negatived, and Clause agreed to.
The ninth Clause was agreed to.
The House resumed—the Committee to sit again.