Commons Sitting of 6 July 1832

Preamble
MINUTES. Bills. Read a second time:—Sea Apprentices; Sale of Beer.—Read a third time:—Representative Peers (Scotland).
Petitions presented. By Mr. BEAUMONT, from the Owners of Coal Mines on the Rivers Tyne and Wear, for a Committee to inquire into the Cause of the Disturbances among the Pitmen.—By Mr. WILKS, from Parsons Town (KING'S County), for substituting Secondary Punishments for the Punishment of Death in Cases of Forgery; from Tottenham High Cross, against the Vagrants (Scotland and Ireland) Removal Bill; and from a Benefit Society at Eckington, against the Friendly Societies Bill.—By Mr. DOMINICK BROWNE, from Kilvine, and three other Places, for the Abolition of Tithes.—By Mr. WYNN ELLIS, from Leicester, for an efficient Reform to Ireland.—By Mr. A. LEFROY, from Longford, for the Repeal of the Catholic Relief Bill.—By Mr. STANLEY, from Tuam, for a Representative for that Place.

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF BURGHS (SCOTLAND).
Mr. Horatio Rossstated, that he had a Petition to present, very numerously signed by the inhabitants of the Burgh of Baniff, which referred to a subject of great importance, and one in which all the Burghs of Scotland took a deep interest. The petitioners prayed, that the present system of Municipal Government in the Scotch Burghs might be reformed, and that the resident Burgesses and Citizens might have the power of electing their Magistrates and Town Councils. When he informed the House, that for some hundred years past the Magistrates and Town Councils had had the power of electing their successors, who, in their turn, invariably re-elected their predecessors; that the whole influence, both parliamentary and local, had been vested in certain families, as a sort of heir-loom, they could not be surprised that the inhabitants of those burghs complained loudly of this system, and that they anxiously looked for redress at as early a date as possible. He (Mr. Ross) had had this petition in his possession for a considerable time, but had refrained from presenting it, as he did not wish to embarrass his Majesty's Ministers, during the progress of the Reform Bill, by calling upon them to bring forward more extensive measures of Reform. Now, however, as they had triumphantly carried that great measure, he thought the time was come when it was necessary to call
152
their attention to the subject. He was quite aware that nothing could be done this Session; but they might, during the months that must elapse before a Reformed House of Commons could be elected, and meet for the despatch of business, draw up a bill for reforming the municipal government of the Scotch burghs, and be prepared to submit it to Parliament at the commencement of the next Session. He could assure the House that, next to the great question of Parliamentary Reform, there was no subject in which his countrymen, residing in towns, took so lively an interest as in that of Burgh Reform; they would never rest satisfied until the gross abuses and absurdities of the present mode of election were completely eradicated. His Majesty's Ministers were the fittest persons to devise, and carry into effect, a proper plan of Burgh Reform; and, if they took the matter up in the manner in which he was sure they would, they should, in the event of his sitting in the next Parliament, receive his most cordial support and assistance; but if, on the other hand, they neglected this subject, he should, very early in the next Session, again bring it forward; and, if no person of greater experience undertook the task, he should consider it his [duty to bring in a bill to reform the abuses of the present municipal government of the burghs of his country,—Petition to be printed.

IRISH CHURCH.
Mr. Goulburnwished to put a question to the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, relative to a subject upon which he had before asked for information—he meant with respect to the deanery of Down. Two or three years ago, his Majesty had appointed an Ecclesiastical Commission in Ireland, consisting of several eminent persons, amongst others, of the Lord Chancellor, the Archbishop of Armagh, and the Master of the Rolls. Their duty was, to examine what unions could be separated, so as to avoid pluralities. These Commissioners stated, that there were many parishes united with dignities where the working clergy had small incomes, while Deans and other dignitaries possessed large revenues from the same livings, although they were complete sinecures. In this condition stood the deanery of Down, producing to that dignitary, 1,200 l. per annum, to which were annexed six parishes, in which the clergy had incomes averaging from 95 l. to 99 l., and the Commissioners recommended, that on the next avoidance these livings should be separated from the

153
deanery. Last October that had taken place on the removal of Dr. Knox, and Mr. Plunkett had, notwithstanding the former decision of the Commissioners, been appointed to it. His question was, had the recommendation of the Commissioners been carried into effect by this appointment of Mr. Plunkett? The Lord Chancellor of Ireland was now here, and, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite had an opportunity of consulting with him, he was now probably able to answer his question.
Mr. Stanley: I agree in the general principle that has been laid down by the right hon. Gentleman; but when it is remembered how voluminous the documents are to which he has referred—that the Commission was only signed in April last year, and printed in July—and that it was in September last year that the vacancy in the deanery occurred, I trust that there will not be much blame attributed to us, when I candidly confess, that, when this appointment was made, the Government did not advert to the recommendation of the Commissioners; in the propriety of which, however, I most entirely concur. Let me also add, that at the time the present Dean was appointed to the deanery, he gave up in consequence a more valuable living; and certainly no such arrangement as that alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman was entered into with him on the occasion. It is, however, but justice towards him and the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, to state that, although he had made this sacrifice, on adverting to the report of the Commissioners he had signified, that there would be no objection made on his part to the Legislature taking such steps as it might think necessary for carrying into effect the recommendation of the Commissioners. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware, that there would be great difficulty in passing an Act on the subject during the present Session; but I pledge myself, next Session, if connected with the Irish Government, to bring forward a bill for the purpose of making the proper arrangement.

CASE OF SOMERVILLE.
Mr. Alderman Wood: I wish to know, whether any steps have been taken by the Government towards an inquiry into the proceedings of the Court-Martial on private Somerville?
Lord Althorp: In answer to the question of my hon. friend, I have to inform him that the Commander-in-chief is about to institute a Court of Inquiry into the circumstances of that Court-Martial;
154
and I can assure my hon. friend that that Court of Inquiry will be so constituted, and the proceedings (I hope) so conducted, as to give satisfaction to the public.
Mr. Hume: After what has fallen from the noble Lord, I beg leave to withdraw my notice on this subject for next Tuesday.
Sir John Hobhouse: I beg to move that the Petition presented relative to this Court-Martial be printed, because I consider it important that every publicity should be given to the case.
Petition to be printed.

PRESENT TO THE KING OF PRUSSIA.
Mr. Robinson: I see by the papers that an expensive toy has been sent to the king of Prussia as a present, and I wish to ask whether the Government has gone to this expense without the authority of the Parliament.
Lord Althorp: The only answer that I can give the hon. Gentleman is, that no authority has been issued from the Treasury; but I am not further acquainted with the circumstances.
Sir Byam Martin: The hon. Gentleman is under a mistake if he supposes that any great expense has been incurred. I see it stated in the papers at 20,000 l; but I believe that I am pretty near the mark when I say that it will not exceed 500 l or 600 l. The frigate has been sent abroad at the King's express desire, and under the direction of the First Lord of the Admiralty.

SUPPLY OF WATER TO THE METROPOLIS.
On the Motion of Lord Althorp the House went into a Committee of Supply.
Lord Althorp, in Committee, said, that when the civil contingencies were last before the House, a vote of 1,000 l. to Mr. Telford was withdrawn, in consequence of the absence of the hon. member for Westminster, whose name was introduced in the discussion on that vote. The hon. Baronet being then present, he (Lord Althorp) wished to state the circumstances of the vote to the Committee. Several years ago great complaint was made relative to the supply of water to the Metropolis; and a Committee was appointed, of which the hon. Baronet was Chairman; and that Committee recommended that a Surveyor should be employed to ascertain whether such a supply as was required could be obtained. The Ministry of that day, however, finding that the expense of such a survey, according to Mr. Telford's

155
Report, would be extremely large, did not think themselves authorised in spending the public money for that purpose; and in this position the case rested till the present Ministry came into office. Application for a survey was then again made; to which his first answer was, that he entirely concurred in the opinion of the former Government. The hon. Baronet, however, pressed upon the Government the necessity of the survey taking place, and stated that, in case the Ministry thought proper to institute an inquiry, he himself would be answerable for any expense that might be incurred. He (Lord Althorp) was ready to admit, that the course which the Government adopted on this occasion was a course which ought not to have been taken; because on more mature consideration, he thought that they ought not to have permitted a private individual to defray expenses incurred for an object of public benefit. This, however, was not the view that was taken at the time; and in consequence the offer of the hon. Baronet was acted on. It now appeared that the expense would be something between 3,000 l. and 5,000 l.; and when he considered how much the health of the metropolis depended on a good supply of water, he thought himself justified in moving for a vote of 1,000 l. in part payment of the expense of the survey.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that when this subject had been last under discussion, the noble Lord had supposed him (Sir Robert Peel) to have been influenced by some personal feeling on this subject, than which nothing was more remote from his mind, as he had taken the subject up solely upon public grounds. There were two questions '—first, whether the expense incurred were justifiable in itself; and, secondly, if justifiable, whether it ought to be defrayed by Parliament. He had always been of opinion, that it would not be just to charge the public generally with the expense of making surveys for the benefit of the metropolis; and he had also been of opinion, that the supply of pure water would be best obtained by public competition, and that it would be exceedingly difficult to sanction a grant for London, on grounds which were not equally applicable to Manchester and Liverpool, or, at all events, to Dublin and Edinburgh. He had never undervalued the importance of a supply of water for the metropolis, but, as a general principle, he thought it better that it should be undertaken by companies or individuals. The moment Government
156
stepped in, there ceased to be a check upon its proceedings. Hitherto the metropolis had been supplied with water by the exertions of five or six companies competing with each other. Many of these had exerted themselves to improve the supply; they had constructed reservoirs, but the moment Government stepped in, their exertions would cease. They would have done more; and it had been the intention of some of them to draw their supply from the river Colne: for this purpose they had gone to great expense in surveys, and a Bill had been introduced into that House; but, on finding that the Government had taken the matter up, they stopped at once, after incurring, as he was informed, an expense of upwards of 5,000 l. In every case he was opposed to interference by Government, and the propriety of his opinion was proved by the superiority of the supply of London, as compared with Paris and other capitals, where the governments chose to interfere. He admitted that there were justifiable complaints as to the badness of the water, but he objected to the expense of the survey. Suppose, however, the expense of the survey incurred, he could not understand how it was to be made available; for the Government could not force the water companies to make alterations, or do as they wished. He quite agreed that, in the first instance, it would not have been right that the hon. Baronet should be allowed to undertake this at his own charge: but, when the noble Lord had urged his objection to the principle, and that the hon. Baronet still persevered, and offered his guarantee for the expense to be incurred, he certainly did think that the hon. Baronet was called upon to fulfil that guarantee. From the papers on the Table, it was clear that the Treasury had been studious to fasten the expense on the hon. Baronet. Mr. Telford had said, that he felt a difficulty in acting under any authority, except that of the Treasury, and the noble Chancellor was right in giving that order; but he was also equally right in reminding the hon. Baronet of his guarantee. He maintained that the whole matter had much better be left to private speculation, and for that reason, in addition to the others which he had stated, he should certainly oppose this vote.
Sir Francis Burdettsaid, that as the water companies enjoyed a monopoly, under which they gave so bad a supply of water, and, at the same time, gained such enormous profits, he was clearly of opinion, that they ought to bear the expense of the

157
survey, for which this vote was asked. In answer to the right hon. Baronet, he had only to state, that he was willing to bear all the cost of the survey, should the Committee decide that he was the responsible person. Indeed, he felt so strongly a conviction of the great benefit which would accrue to the public from a supply of pure water, that he should feel that he had not lived in vain, if he could persuade himself that he had been at all instrumental in obtaining for his fellow-citizens so important and salutary a necessary of life as pure; water. It would be for the Committee to decide whether he or the Government: should bear the expense: but, whatever was the issue, he would, at every personal cost, persevere. At the same time, he I thought it would be but just that the House should comply with the recommendation given in the Report of the Committee which had been appointed to inquire into this subject, and which was unanimously of opinion that the survey should be made.
Mr. Robinsonthought, so much money should not be voted for the completion of a survey, from which it was doubtful if any practical benefit would result.
Mr. Spring Ricedefended the vote. It was in principle similar to the cost of surveys of new lines of road (the Holyhead, South Wales, and York, for example), which the Government took upon themselves, though the forming of the roads was left to private enterprise. Though the money thus expended had, in the first instance, benefitted private individuals, it had ultimately proved a great public advantage. The right hon. Gentleman was wrong, therefore, in supposing that there was no precedent for this sort of vote. But the precedent went further; for, in the case of Dublin, to which the right hon. Gentleman had alluded, the Government had not only obtained information, but had gone far to supplying the water itself to Dublin. It would be establishing a very objectionable precedent, to make the hon. Baronet pay for an undertaking from which the public would derive the benefit, and in which he could have no personal interest, and he was sure the committee would not for a moment entertain the proposition.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that he objected to the inquiry being further pursued at the public expense—at least if it was to be conducted in the way in which it had hitherto been. There had been originally much exaggeration as to the state of the Thames water, why it was celebrated all
158
over the world; and he was convinced that if it was examined fairly, it would be found to be better than the water which it was proposed to fetch from a distance.
Mr. Goulburnobjected to the proposed survey, for he did not believe that any ulterior result could be obtained from it beneficial to the public, for the companies would not avail themselves of the suggestions that the Report might furnish. It was true that the Government had paid for the information that was given to the water companies of Dublin, but then they had bound the water companies, at the same time, to erect public fountains for the use of the poorer classes there, so that a great public benefit was the immediate object in view.
Mr. Vernon Smiththought, there was no difference between the case of the Government furnishing information with respect to the formation of roads, and their furnishing it with respect to the means of supplying water. The Thames water would not necessarily be excluded from use by this examination; and as to the assertion that the companies would not avail themselves of the information, he believed that the effect of competition would enable them to do so. Indeed, the New River Company had already declared themselves ready to avail themselves of the information which might be afferded. He thought that the money would be well expended in carrying into effect an object which Committees and Commissioners had equally recommended.
Mr. Briscoesaid, he shouhd vote for the Motion, as he thought the inquiry might be productive of great public benefit. He believed that the water companies would take no steps to improve the supply of water, if they did not see the Government moving in the matter. He gave his sincere testimony of respect to the hon. Baronet, the member for Westminster, fin his liberal offer, but thought that the House ought not to take advantage of the hon. Baronet's generosity.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that when he had, during the time he was in office, been applied to for an order, directing Mr. Telford to go on with the examination which was recommended by a Committee, he had declined to grant the order, solely because it was irregular in any officer of the Government to incur any such expense upon the mere recommendation of a Committee. He; was not entitled to do so till the recommendation had received the sanction of that House.
Lord Althorpcertainly thought it desirable that something should be done, and unless the Government took up the matter, he feared that the survey would not be made. It was asked, what good would arise from the survey? Why, this good—that the public would know that means did exist for furnishing them with better water than they were supplied with at present. If that information was given, he was sure that there would be found plenty of individuals who, if not for any other cause, at least for their own benefit, would take advantage of it.
Sir Robert Peel,after what had passed, saw clearly in what way the vote would be carried, and he should not waste the time of the Committee by a division. He should only say now, that it would be a great advantage if Mr. Telford was called on to say in what state the survey was at present, and what was the prospect of its being finished.
Lord Althorpstated, that the survey was in a very advanced state, and had been suspended only from what had taken place in the Committee on the former occasion.
Mr. Huntwas astonished at the disposition shown to resist the trifling expense for the improvement of the supply of water, when millions and millions had been so freely voted away for other "purposes not half so good. There was no doubt the Thames water was excellent, but then a great many things got into it that were very bad, and, in his opinion, the money required would be well expended in trying to ascertain how that could be avoided. This was an expenditure for the good of the poor, and he should support it. He should now say a word as to the hon. Baronet, the member for Westminster. When he (Mr. Hunt) was in Ilchester Gaol, which he was at the time that this discussion first began, he thought that the hon. Baronet's interference in the matter was very well—that it was doing something for his constituents in return for their electing him free of expense—that, in short, it was a good electioneering scheme; but since then he had investigated the matter out of doors, and the result was, that he thought the whole of the hon. Baronet's conduct in the affair was such as to reflect the highest honour upon him. As he (Mr. Hunt) entertained that opinion, he felt bound to express it, though he and the hon. Baronet differed on so many points. He hoped the Government would go on, and complete the inquiry as to improving the water. If the attempt succeeded, it would be a
160
great public advantage; if it failed, the money would not have been thrown away on a worthless object.
Mr. Alderman Woodshould support the Motion. The discussions on this subject had already occasioned a great improvement in the water that was furnished to the metropolis.
Vote agreed to.
The sum of 202,482 l. 10 s. 10 d. was then voted for the charge of the Disembodied Militia of the United Kingdom, from January, 1832, to March, 1833.
The House resumed.—The Resolutions reported.

FORMS OF PROCEEDING.
Lord Althorp,in rising to move the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into Committee on the Reform of Parliament (Ireland) Bill, begged to ask the Speaker a question. When they were last in Committee, his hon. friend, the member for Mayo, wished to introduce an amendment to disfranchise certain towns in Ireland, for the purpose of enfranchising certain others. He thought that his hon. friend could not move such an amendment without an instruction from the House. He had been since informed, that it was competent for his hon. friend to move his amendment in Committee, without a previous instruction. Certainly that would be the more convenient course, but he wished to ask as to the point of form.
The Speaker, before putting the question on the reading of the Order of the Day, would answer the question of the noble Lord. It was no doubt competent to the hon. Gentleman to offer the amendment, of which he had given notice in Committee. The House knew that instructions were only necessary to give a power to a Committee to do acts which the Committee would not otherwise have power to do. Under any other circumstances they were, to say the least of them, useless; for they took up the time of the House by a discussion which could lead to no result. They had also this bad effect; that they went, to a certain extent, to limit the freedom of the Committee, the question involved in the proposed instruction having been prejudged by the House. Any amendment of the description of that proposed by the hon. Gentleman, could be moved in Committee, provided it did not go to alter a part of the Bill previously agreed to, for the Committee could not go back. If he understood the nature of the amendment, its place in the Committee would be after the Bill had been gone through; so that

161
the hon. Gentleman had not lost anything by the delay. The question was, that the Order of the Day for the House resolving itself into Committee on the Reform of Parliament (Ireland) Bill he read?
Mr. Dominick Brownesaid, that he would move in the Committee the Amendment, for which it had been his intention to move an instruction to the Committee.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM-BILL FOR IRELAND—COMMITTEE—SIXTH DAY.
House then went into Committee.
The 10th and 11th Clauses were agreed to, with verbal amendments.
On the reading of the 12th Clause,
Mr. Stanleysaid, that he desired to propose an Amendment, by which a great inconvenience would be removed in the existing mode of registration. In every county a large number of the electors were compelled to travel to a great distance, to give twenty-one days' notice to the Clerk of the Peace, before they could register their qualifications. Now he proposed, that the notice should be served upon the High Constable of the barony in which the elector resided, and that the Constable should be hound to transmit the notice to the Clerk of the Peace.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the Amendment was highly satisfactory, and would effect a great improvement in the registration.
Clause agreed to.
The 13th Clause, after some verbal amendments, was also agreed to.
On Clause 14 being read,
Mr. Wallacemoved an Amendment, the object of which was, to prevent the interference, in the business of registration, of any persons, except those claiming to be electors, or their attorneys. His object was, to prevent captious objections, and to prevent persons being taken by surprise.
Mr. O'Connellsupported the Amendment. Although the registry had been improved, it still imposed hardships on the Irish electors to which the English electors were not subject, and this Amendment would get rid of one of them.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, it would have the effect of reproducing the evil which it was intended to prevent.
Mr. O'Connellmentioned, that he had received a letter from Westmeath, in which the Barrister was blamed for partiality, inasmuch as, during the sessions, he remained at the house of one of the members for the county.
Mr. Chapmansaid, as individual character was in question, he fell himself, how-
162
ever unwilling, compelled to say a few words. He certainly had heard that, during the sessions, the Assistant-barrister did stop at Rochfort; but, in so far confirming the truth of the hon. Member's information, he did not at all mean to, in any degree, insinuate any charge against that gentleman. He was really incapable of giving any opinion as to that gentleman's merits in respect to registering voters, as he had never attended any of the county registries; he must be considered, however, as in no way wishing to join in any censure of Mr. Mayne, or as intending to convey any imputation respecting his conduct. As to the fact of attornies having been employed to assist at the registries, he could state, that two had been so employed at the last sessions in Westmeath. He thought, however, that in the end every candidate would be obliged to have recourse to legal assistance, to enable him to register the voters in his interest.
Mr. Cramptonobserved, that the Amendment would not limit the interference with registration, which might proceed just as extensively under the Amendment as under the original Clause.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that on the following day he should transmit to the learned Solicitor General for Ireland the words which his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Wallace) had used, and he proposed to introduce; and, if they were approved of by the promoters of the Bill, they might be inserted on the bringing Up of the Report.
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 15,16, and 17, were then agreed to.
On Clause 18 being pat,
Mr. O'Connellobjected to greater facilities being enjoyed by 40 s. freeholders in towns, than were open to freeholders in counties. Equal privileges should be extended to all.
This was concurred in by Mr. Wallace and others; and, after a few words from Lord Althorp and Mr. Stanley, it was agreed, that words should be introduced to effect the object which the hon. and learned Gentleman had in view.
Mr. Dominick Brownebegged to relate an instance of the mode in which the registry of the 40 s. freeholders was occasionally conducted in Ireland: 700 of them were, in a town in Mayo, registered by two Magistrates in one day. But how was this? They were brought up in batches of ten, and the Clerk wiped the book in one fell sweep against the lips of all, and the oath was taken.
Clause agreed to, as were the intermediate Clauses to the 30th.
On the Motion that Clause 30 be agreed to,
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that care should be taken that no one should be able to vote on the production of a certificate of registry that had been granted to another man. He recollected more than one instance in which this had been attempted. On one occasion in particular, when he was acting as Assessor, a man came up with a certificate granted to a person named John Moran. The certificate was signed with a cross for John Moran; but it was suspected that the certificate had not been originally granted to the person who then bore it, and he was informed that the man who presented it was not an illiterate man. In order to determine that point, he said to the man, "John Moran, write your name." The man took up a pen, and wrote "Thomas O'Brien." To prevent this sort of fraud, he recommended the annual publication of the list of voters, as in England.
Lord Althorpsaid, he saw no great objection to this annual publication of the list ; but he wished the Irish Members to wait, in order to see how that plan worked in England before it was introduced into Ireland. He believed it was a good plan, but he wished it to be tried here first.
Clause agreed to, as were other Clauses up to 53 inclusive.
Clauses 54 and, 55 were postponed.
The remaining Clauses, and several additional Clauses proposed by Mr. Stanley, were agreed to; and the Chairman reported progress.
The House resumed—the Committee to sit again.