Commons Sitting of 1 June 1832

Preamble
MINUTES.) Papers ordered. On the Motion of Mr. O'CONNELL, Accounts relative to the Manufacture and Exportation of Soap; and of the quantity of Palm Oil imported for the last fifteen years.—On the Motion of Mr. SPRING RICE, Copy of a Letter from the Secretary of the Ordnance, dated 21st May, 1832, respecting the Expenditure upon the Works of the Rideau Canal, Canada.
Bills. Read a third time:—Regent's Park Acts Amendment; Exchequer Court (Scotland); British Museum; Vice Admiralty Courts, and Punishment of Death Abolition.
Petitions presented. By Colonel EVANS, from Rye;—by Mr. CHARLES CALVERT, from Southwark;—by Mr. JOHN SMITH, from Newport Pagnell;—by Lord ALTHORP, from Glasgow;—by Mr. SPRING RICE, from Lyme Regis, Beominster, and Shaftesbury;—by Mr. HODGES, from Hawkhurst;—by the LORD ADVOCATE, from a Parish in Edinburgh;—by Admiral ADAM, from Elgin; and by Mr. JAMES, from Carlisle,—for Stopping the Supplies.—By Mr. JAMES JOHNSTONE, from Forfar,—against the Ministerial Plan of Education (Ireland). By the LORD ADVOCATE, from Forfar, to substitute the Chief Magistrates of Burghs for the Sheriffs as Returning Officers, and the Burgh Clerks for the Sheriffs Clerks for receiving the Claims of Voters.—By Sir GEORGE CLERK, from Kincardine, for Compensation for the Great Loss of Property to Individuals occasioned by the Reform Bill; and from Elgin, against the Union of that County with Nairn in the Exercise of the Elective Franchise.—By Mr. O'CONNELL, from the Members of the National Union of the Working Classes,—against the Privileges of Parliament Bill; from three Parishes in Cork and Cavan,—against Tithes and Church Assessment.

REFORM—WITHHOLDING THE SUPPLIES.
Mr. O'Connellpresented a Petition from Colonel Talbot, as Chairman of a meeting of 60,000 persons assembled in the city of Dublin, praying that the House would not intrust any part of the public money to any Ministry which should not be pledged to carry the Reform Bill. The meeting was held on one of the ten days during which the country was threatened with the affliction of an Anti-reform Ministry. He
294
was happy that the occasion for the petition had passed away; but he took that opportunity of presenting it, in order to show what was the feeling of the citizens of Dublin on the subject of the Reform Bill.
Sir Robert Inglishad been informed that the meeting at which the petition had been agreed to, was not by any means so numerous as the hon. and learned member for Kerry represented it to have been. He doubted that there was any place in Dublin where 60,000 persons could meet to deliberate conveniently.
Mr. O'Connellhad not said, that the 60,000 persons who agreed to the petition had assembled to deliberate; he believed they had made up their minds before-hand.
Mr. Shawhad been assured that there were no more than 1,000 persons present at the meeting, and that these were, for the most part, ragged boys and old women. The citizens of Dublin were misrepresented when it was said that they were zealous in favour of the Reform Bill. He knew the very contrary feeling to prevail amongst the respectable citizens.
Mr. Henry Grattansaid, that he was present at the meeting, and that the numbers were not exaggerated at 60,000.
Mr. O'Connellrepeated the names of several of the most respectable citizens of Dublin who attended the meeting. He would not deny that the beggarly and bigotted members of the Corporation were, as their Representative, the Recorder (Mr. Shaw) had stated, the enemies of Reform and of their fellow-citizens. But did the Recorder venture to say that the corporators were the "respectable citizens" of Dublin; whereas, three-fourths of the Common Council had once or twice, and some of them as often as three times, "taken the benefit of the Insolvent Debtors' Act?" Did not the Recorder know that many of them had nothing else to live upon, but the police-rates, and other rates, levied upon their fellow-citizens?
Mr. Shawonly rose to reprobate the application by the hon. and learned Member of such epithets to a Corporation, of which such men as Mr. Saurin, Mr. Lefroy, and others, the most eminent at the Irish bar, were members.
Petition to be printed.

CORPORATIONS OF LONDONDERRY AND DUBLIN.
Mr. O'Connellpresented a petition from certain inhabitants of the city of Londonderry, com-

295
plaining that the Corporation had taxed the citizens by a toll upon the new bridge, to pay to the Crown a debt, which ought to be paid out of the property of the Corporation itself. He wished to ask the noble Lord whether it was the intention of his Majesty's Government to allow the 15,000 l. due by the Corporation of Derry to be thrown on the country by making it payable out of the tolls of the new bridge, instead of taking it from the corporate body? He believed the Corporation borrowed 30,000 l. for rebuilding this bridge, and they had repaid 15,000 l.. They had got rid of the burthen which they ought to pay by throwing it on the public.
Lord Althorpsaid, that he was not, at that moment, prepared to explain precisely the nature of the engagement into which the Corporation had entered for the repayment of the money advanced by the Crown. If the hon. and learned Gentleman, the member for Kerry, would bring forward the subject on some other evening, he should be better able to give a satisfactory explanation. At present, he could only say that his Majesty's present Ministers, on coming into office, found that the Corporation had undertaken to repay the money by instalments, and that some of those instalments had become due, and had not been paid. A long time had elapsed without any demand being made upon them, and they might have had reason to suppose that repayment would not be demanded. However, on looking into the account at the Treasury, the Government felt it to be their duty to require payment; but, at the same time, under the circumstances, they did not wish to press hard on the corporation. Application, however, had been made to the Corporation, which had since set aside the tolls of the bridge for the payment of the money advanced by the Crown, for the building of the bridge.
Sir John Newportsaid, that the case was simply this: the Corporation was bound to pay the money out of its own estate, and had no right to tax the citizens to pay its debts.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the security was the same as before. He believed he was correct in saying that originally the tolls were contemplated as part of the security for the repayment of the loan.
Mr. Dawsonsaid, that Government was justified in the course it pursued, for the
296
Corporation was perfectly solvent. Besides, the loan was not with a view to benefit the Corporation, but to serve the public generally. In the year 1814, the bridge over the river was carried away by the ice, and the loan was made for the purpose of rebuilding it. Of course the bridge tolls ought to be liable for its repayment, rather than the funds of the Corporation.
Mr. Humeunderstood that the Corporation had made away with the funds which ought to have been applied to reimburse the public for the money advanced to build the bridge. If the Corporation was solvent, he trusted the Government would enforce the payment of interest upon the instalments which had not been paid within the stipulated time. He trusted that his Majesty's Ministers would not act towards that Corporation with the favouritism which it and other similar bodies had received from the late Government.
Mr. Dawsonsaid, that the late Government had not favoured the Corporation of Londonderry. They were called on to pay the instalments as they became due.
Mr. Hume: What was it to call, if they would not come, and were not made to come?
Lord Althorprepeated, that he should be better prepared on another evening to give a full explanation of the matter.
Mr. Henry Grattantrusted, that the Government would also compel the Corporation of Dublin to refund the sum of 76,000 l., which that body owed to the city of Dublin. Judgment had been given against the Corporation, but no part of the money had yet been repaid. He had spoken to the Irish Solicitor General upon the subject, but that Gentleman paid no attention to his application.
Mr. Stanleysaid, there was no occasion for the interference of the Crown lawyers, when judicial proceedings had taken place, and a decree had been pronounced.
Mr. Shawsaid, that the Corporation did not owe the citizens of Dublin one farthing.
Mr. Grattansaid, that the Commissioners of Imprest Accounts had given it under their hands, that the Corporation had raised and expended contrary to law 76,000 l., the property of the citizens.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that it was mere juggling to deny that the money was due to the Crown, and not to the citizens, whose money the Corporation had illegally raised and expended.
Mr. Shawsaid, that the Corporation

297
owed not a shilling, either to the Crown or to the citizens. The sum of which hon. Gentlemen had said so much, was a debt owing by the Corporation to its own creditors, and secured upon its own estates.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, it might be very well for the insolvent Corporation and its lawyers to juggle and shuffle, so as to shift the debt from one creditor to another. They owed the money, to be sure—they did not deny that; but they were lucky debtors; for they owed it to nobody, and so to nobody they paid it. But the fact was, that the Master of the Rolls, one of the best Judges in Ireland, or, perhaps, in any other country, had given a decree against them, from which they had appealed. It was not denied that they had levied 76,000 l. from the people of Dublin, contrary to the Act of Parliament.
Petition to be printed.

REFORM—GLASGOW AND EDINBURGH PETITIONS.
Lord Althorppresented a Petition, signed by about 50,000 persons, who had formed part of a meeting of (as he was informed)nearly 180,000 inhabitants of Glasgow and its vicinity, praying that the House would adopt all constitutional means of forwarding the Reform Bill, and refuse supplies to the Crown until it was passed. The last sentence of the petition, which referred to "the intrigues of a faction" to defeat the measure, he must admit was strongly worded, but he apprehended that the terms were not such as would induce the House to pause before it received the petition.
Sir Henry Hardingesaid, that his objection to the paragraph was, not that it was strongly worded, but that it asserted what was false.
Mr. Robert A. Dundaswas anxious to take that opportunity of setting himself right in regard to what he had said on a former day, when the petition from Edinburgh was laid upon the Table. A gallant Officer, a relation of his own, had been present at the meeting where the petition was agreed to, and speaking from the information he (Mr. Dundas) had received, he had stated, that at the meeting flags and emblems were displayed, one of which represented the King without his head, and another had for inscription, "Put not your trust in Princes." These were arranged round the hustings; but he was now quite willing to retract any aspersion he had cast upon the gallant Officer; still
298
maintaining it, however, as his opinion, that it was not becoming in any man holding the King's commission to be present at a meeting where such flags and emblems were exhibited. It was true, the gallant Officer might have gone there, in the first instance, with a view to preserve the public peace; and he deeply regretted that any construction should have been put upon what he (Mr. Dundas) had said, which in any degree reflected upon the honour and integrity of the gallant Officer.
Mr. Gillonasked if the hon. Member meant to lay it clown as an axiom, that it was unbecoming in any man who held the King's commission to express his political opinions?
Mr. Robert A. Dundasadded, that what he had said was, that it was unbecoming in any man who had received such favours from his Sovereign to be present at a meeting where such emblems were exhibited.
Mr. Gillonobserved, that he had received a communication from Edinburgh, enabling him to contradict what the hon. Member had stated on a former day with regard to one of the emblems. The feeling in favour of Reform throughout Scotland was highly commendable.
Mr. James E. Gordonremarked, that the hon. Member had omitted to state which of the two emblems noticed had not, in fact, been displayed. He would assert that the speeches delivered at the meetings in Scotland were disgraceful to the individuals and to the country.
Sir John Byngremarked, that the Officer to whom the hon. Member had alluded had served in the same regiment with him (Sir.J. Byng), and four days before the meeting at Edinburgh, he had received a letter from him, containing sentiments highly commendable, showing, that whatever he might think of Reform, he knew his duty to his country to be paramount to every other consideration. The object of the meeting was, to obtain the end proposed by proper and constitutional means, and he was sure that the gallant officer would not have remained an instant on the spot had he seen any flag of the infamous description of that alluded to. Either the flag was withdrawn, or the gallant Officer would have withdrawn himself. The explanation of the hon. member for Edinburgh was perfectly gentlemanlike and satisfactory.
The Lord Advocatewas sure that the gallant Officer had not seen the objection-

299
able emblem. The retraction and disclamation of the hon. Member was highly to his credit, as he had spoken from erroneous information. The exhibition of any such emblem was denied by the Chairman of the meeting, and by the Committee.
Mr. Kennedymaintained, that the gallant officer was not only justified in attending, but he was bound to attend.
Mr. Humefelt called upon to give a direct denial to the assertion of the hon. member for Dundalk (Mr. James E. Gordon) that the meetings at Edinburgh and in other parts of Scotland, were disgraceful. He considered that they did the highest honour to the country. The proceedings had been without disturbance, and the sentiments uttered had been expressed in a constitutional manner. It was very possible that some of the friends of the hon. member for Dundalk had exhibited the emblem in order to disgrace the meeting,
Sir George Murrayobserved, that the gallant Officer alluded to was, of course, quite at liberty to attend the meeting. His conduct would only have been objectionable if the emblems mentioned had been displayed.
Mr. Kennedywas glad to hear the right hon. and gallant Member express such an opinion.
Sir Richard Vyvyanmust call the attention of the House to the notable inconsistency, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should present a petition against voting Supplies to the Government.
Lord Miltonsaid, that the petition showed the confidence of the people in the Government.
Lord Althorphad himself alluded to the singularity some nights ago, when he presented other petitions of the same kind.
Mr. James E. Gordonremarked, that after the conduct of the hon. member for Middlesex at public meetings, he should not hold him a competent judge of what was constitutional.
Mr. Humedid not care a pin for the opinion of the hon. member for Dundalk, and was ready to leave it to the country to decide whose notions were most deserving of approbation.
Mr. Gillonadded, that not a single meeting in Scotland had been disgraced by riot, and he should have been proud to have been present at all of them.
Petition to be printed.

CORN LAWS.
Mr. Humewished to ask the noble Lord opposite (Lord Milton), whether in the present state of the country, it would not be better to postpone his motion on the Corn laws, which stood for Wednesday next? There was very little chance that it could now be brought to a prosperous issue.
Lord Miltonreplied, that he would yield to the wishes of the House upon the subject, whatever they might be.
Mr. John Woodwas prepared to support the noble Lord's intended proposition, at the same time, he thought that injury would be done to a good cause by urging the discussion forward in the present Session.
Mr. Struttthought it would be little less than absurd for a self-condemned House of Commons to undertake to settle the great question, which involved the prosperity and excited the passions of the whole people.
Colonel Lindsaysaid, that the agriculturists of Scotland were extremely anxious that the question should be discussed and decided; and he hoped that the noble Lord would state his views on Wednesday. It was of the utmost importance that the country should know how this question was to be settled.
Mr. Littletonwas of opinion, that if the Corn laws were now discussed, party feeling would interfere with any decision of the question upon principle. He, therefore, recommended postponement.
Mr. Keith Douglashoped that the noble Lord would persevere. It was indispensable that the country should be made acquainted with the noble Lord's plan.
Mr. Slaneywas in favour of postponement. He wished this great question to be calmly and dispassionately discussed, so that the decision might satisfy the people, which could not possibly be the effect of discussing it during this Parliament.
Mr. Robinsonwished to see whether Ministers intended to apply their principles of free trade to the trade in grain.
Sir Robert Pricethought it advisable to defer the Motion to the next Session of Parliament. He disclaimed any party understanding in the matter, but he could perceive, from the animus that had entered into the discussion, the motives by which some hon. Members were actuated.
Mr. Robinsondenied having entertained any motive beyond a wish for a direct consideration of the question.
Sir Robert Pricesaid, he had made no allusion to individual Members.
Sir Alexander Hopewas in favour of the earliest discussion, as the agricultural interest was deeply involved in the question.
Sir George Warrenderthought that the House could not arrive at a calm and satisfactory conclusion in the present Session.
Mr. Denisonjoined in the request for a postponement of the subject.
Colonel Sibthorpobjected to the postponement of the noble Lord's motion.
Mr. Walter Campbelldeprecated all discussion on the subject at the present moment.
Mr. Baringthought it most strange that a question of this magnitude should be brought forward, and then left undecided. He had no doubt that the noble Lord (Milton) was sincere in placing this notice of motion on the books of the House, and was sure that in so doing it had been his intention to bring it forward; but see the state in which the country would be placed if the subject were now left in a state of uncertainty as to the course which Parliament might be disposed to take respecting it. No man, he was sure, would be disposed to take a farm while so much uncertainty was allowed to exist as to the probable future value of land, as it might be affected by some change in the Corn laws. It was objected that the discussion would be conducted with the acrimony of party feeling. Now, if there was any question which, less than another, was likely to excite party discussion, it was this of the Corn laws. Men would be influenced, not by the party to which on other subjects they might be said to belong, but by considerations referring solely to those interests in the country with which they were more particularly connected. If it were urged that, on the eve of a dissolution of Parliament, it would be inconvenient that the constituency of the country should know the opinions on this subject of those who came for their suffrages, then he must say, that a more unfair and hypocritical course could not be adopted towards the country. There was, he repeated, no worse situation in which the country could be left than that of uncertainty on this important question. Men would not know what course to take—whether to call in their mortgages, or to purchase or sell land—all would be doubt and uncertainty. If the notice had not been given, men's minds would not be agitated in this manner, but
302
the notice having been given and deferred from time to time, and then withdrawn altogether, would leave the matter in such doubt as must be productive of the most serious consequences.
Mr. Cokeexpressed a hope that his noble friend would defer his motion to a future Session. He had heard the observations of the hon. member for Thetford with some astonishment; for if his memory did not deceive him, the hon. Member formerly took a very different view of the question, and said, that for his part, he should like to see corn at 1s. 6d. a bushel.
Mr. Baringdid not think it necessary to explain what he might have said ten or fifteen years ago; but the hon. Gentleman had misunderstood him, if the hon. Member thought he meant to say, that this uncertainty would prevail because the House did not come to a decision on the Corn-laws: he said, that it would prevail on account of this notice having been hanging over us during the whole Session, and being now at length put off, for fear Gentlemen should be obliged to state their opinions.
Mr. Cokesaid, it was his belief that the general wish of the country was against the discussion of this question at present.
Mr. Woolrych Whitmorethought it much better not to enter upon the discussion at present. He entreated the noble Lord (Lord Milton) not to press his motion during the continuance of the present Parliament, but to do so on the first favourable opportunity which might present itself after a new Parliament had assembled.
Mr. Hodgeshad no apprehension of meeting his constituents after voting on the corn question, or of explaining his views on the subject before he voted; but yet he united with those who were anxious that the noble Lord should not press his motion at present.
Lord George Lennoxbelieved that, in the present state of the House and the country, it would be impossible to do justice to the question of the Corn-laws. As it had been attributed to some persons on his side of the House that they were anxious to postpone the discussion, as it might be inconvenient to meet their constituents after voting on it, he felt himself bound to say, without attributing anything to individuals, that some hon. Members might find a discussion on the Corn-laws very convenient for the purpose of wiping off the disgrace they had covered

303
themselves with by their votes against Reform. By their votes on the Corn-laws they expected, perhaps, to curry a little favour with those they had hitherto voted to oppress.
Mr. John T. Fanethought it was quite clear, from the speeches the House had just heard, that a dissolution was impending. For that reason he thought it very important that every Gentleman's sentiments should be known on the Corn laws.
Lord Milton: I hope that I shall not entirely fail in satisfying both classes of Gentlemen on this subject. In the first place, I beg to say, that I have never been in the habit of concealing my sentiments on political subjects, with the view of pleasing any party; and therefore I do not think that I ought to be accused of that now. But, nevertheless, I conceive that it is not the duty—perhaps hardly the right, of any individual to agitate a question in this House, when a great majority of those whose sentiments are congenial with his own are not desirous that it should at that moment be agitated. In the first place, I shall endeavour to satisfy the hon. member for Fifeshire, by fully stating to him the opinion that I entertain on the subject, and the ultimate object which I have in view, though I am afraid that I cannot be allowed to state all those arguments which with me are conclusive in support of that opinion, which, I can assure my hon. friend who spoke last, I am not afraid to proclaim even to my own constituents. It must be in the recollection of the House, that the Parliament and the country have been agitated by this question for not less than seventeen years. During that period, time after time, Corn bills have been propounded to the House, and each Ministry has in turn found it to be ultimately necessary for them to change their opinions and to agree in some new system. Without at all intending to detract from the abilities of my right hon. friend, the President of the Board of Control, I must be allowed to express a doubt whether he has in this respect been more successful than his predecessors; for I do not believe, that the present corn laws are able to stand the test of a serious and sober examination. For my own part, I believe that there is a radical defect in those laws; but, without entering into an examination of this length, I am free to state to the hon. member for Fifeshire, that my
304
opinion is, that the trade in corn ought to be free. At the same time, I am not of opinion that it would be inexpedient to levy a duty on the importation of foreign corn. I think that a fixed importation duty would conduce more to the interests of the farmers and the owners of land than the present fluctuating duties. Let me not, however, be supposed to be speaking in terms of disparagement of my right hon. friend who introduced the present bill; for I think that it was the means of introducing a great improvement in the former corn system; it does not, however, seem to me to place the trade in foreign corn on a footing which can be ultimately maintained by this country. Hon. Gentlemen have said, that it is impossible to come to a satisfactory conclusion on this subject during the present Session of Parliament. In that opinion I entirely concur. It has also been stated by others, that, at the present moment, it would be impossible to discuss the subject with that calmness and consideration which the graveness of the subject demands. It is very possible that those hon. Gentlemen may be better judges of the matter than I am; but I certainly had flattered myself that this subject might be discussed without any display of that intemperate feeling which is, unfortunately, at the present moment, too prevalent in this House. Under that view, I thought it desirable that, without any final adjudication of the question, an opportunity should be afforded to hon. Gentlemen to compare the different opinions that were entertained on this subject, and to discuss the various topics arising out of it in that spirit which might most tend to the advantage of the country. Undoubtedly, if such a prospect cannot be reasonably entertained—if it is impossible to flatter ourselves that such a result will ensue—it will be far better to leave the subject untouched for a time. At the same time, let me remark, that I gave this notice with the most perfect determination of bringing the question forward; and give me leave also to say, that in my opinion, there is no class of society in this country which has more interest, not only in having the question settled—but settled likewise in the sense in which I wish to see it settled—than the tenantry of England. One of the evils of the present state of things is, that it encourages both landlords and tenants to indulge in extravagant hopes and expectations which

305
never can be realized, and the non-realization of which must lead to the ruin of the tenant, and the distress of the landlord. Every Bill that does not proceed on sounder principles than the present Corn Bill, is vicious in its very foundation, and any superstructure that is built upon it, must necessarily defeat the objects that it has in view. This, Sir, is strictly the view which I take upon the subject of the Corn laws: I have not entered into that view so fully as I could have wished; but I trust that I have said enough to set the mind of the hon. member for Fifeshire at rest as to the intentions which I have on the subject. As to the great mass of consumers in the country, it cannot be denied that the present Corn laws raise the price of provisions here beyond that which they bear in any country on the Continent: and when we see the formidable competition which there exists against our manufactures, I cannot help trembling for their pre-eminence, if the price of provisions in this country is to rest at a level so greatly superior to that of foreign nations. These, Sir, are the reasons which have induced me to think that the present Corn laws are not advantageous to the country. Whether, therefore, I consider the question in reference to the manufacturing classes, or the agricultural classes, I am satisfied that the Corn laws are injurious to the great bulk of the community; and even with respect to the landlord, I doubt whether they confer so much benefit on him, as it is fancied they do; for though in some instances they procure for him a higher rent, they also necessarily increase all those other expenses which form, with owners of land, the great bulk of their expenditure.
Mr. Western: I rise to Order, Sir. Is the noble Lord making his Motion now, or is he not? I apprehend not; and yet he is entering on a long train of arguments which, because there is no question before the House, no one will be allowed to answer. For instance, the noble Lord has told us that he is for a free trade in corn; upon which I would beg to observe—
The Speaker: I am afraid that the hon. Member himself is now about to fall into the same error of which he accuses the noble Lord. After the questions that have been put to the noble Lord, it is certainly somewhat difficult to know exactly where to draw the precise line for his reply. The
306
noble Lord has been asked whether he intended to persevere in his Motion for Wednesday next? Now, it is certainly true, that as the Motion cannot now be entertained by the House, it must not be debated by one side, when the other has no opportunity of replying. But the noble Lord having been asked to postpone the Motion, he certainly was at liberty to state whether he would acquiesce in, or refuse that request., and his reasons for so doing; but in going beyond that, and in entering on an argument in reference to the general subject, he certainly rendered himself liable to the comment of the hon. Member.
Lord Milton: I am sorry if I have extended my observations too far; but I thought that they were called for by the remark, that it was desirable that the public should know what my views really were. It may be that I have entered too much into argument; but I am sure that the hon. Member himself would not have had me merely dryly state what my Motion was to be. I have, however, now pretty well stated what my opinions are. Allow me to add, that I consider that our present Corn laws are very injurious to our intercourse with foreign nations. And now, Sir, having responded to the appeal of the hon. member for Fifeshire, I must now respond to the appeal of those hon. Gentlemen who coincide with me in opinion, and who have asked me to postpone this Motion. To a certain extent, I do agree with their statements; for I did, undoubtedly, consider that this Motion would be the means of paving the way for more active operations next Session, and for making those operations more easy of execution. This, Sir, is not a question that is to be carried by storm. I desire no triumph of one party over another. What I want to see is, this question settled with the consent of the landed interest. What I wished was—though, perhaps, it was a vain wish on my part—to be an humble instrument towards inducing all parties to take a calm and consentaneous view of this question. Above all, I deemed it necessary that the agricultural interest should be a consenting party; because I should be extremely sorry that this question should be settled, so as to leave a sting behind. Pressed, however, as I have been by different hon. friends on all sides, I think that I shall be showing a greater deference to the House, if I now

307
declare, that I abandon all thoughts of bringing the question forward during the present Session; and allow me to add, that the probability is, that in so doing, I must altogether resign the Motion into hands more competent than mine to do it justice.
Sir Adolphus Dalrymplehad been at first much against the noble Lord's Motion, but now that it had been for weeks on the Books of the House, and no member of the Government had said a single word about it that evening, he thought it could not with propriety be postponed till next Session.
Lord Althorpsaid, I cannot help thinking that the hon. Gentleman has drawn a very unfair inference from the silence of Government. I can assure the House that my noble friend did not give this notice in concert with his Majesty's Ministers. On the contrary, the Government has no measure to propose on this subject; and I should, therefore, have opposed anything calculated to cause an alteration in the present Corn laws during the present Session.
Lord Milton: I beg to confirm the statement of my noble friend, that there certainly has not been the slightest concert between the Government and myself on this subject.
Subject dropped.

INTERFERENCE IN THE AFFAIRS OF PORTUGAL.
Sir Richard Vyvyan: I have a question to put to the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in which, I think, the honour of the country is much interested. I have this day heard a report in circulation, stating that an expedition has been fitted out from this country for Portugal; and there is also an appointment in the last Gazette of a certain noble Lord to a special mission to that country. As I am one of those who do not wish to interfere in the affairs of Portugal, and am most especially averse to any warlike interference, I cannot help expressing my surprise at an expedition of such magnitude having been sent out; and I wish to ask, whether its object is to interfere in the affairs of Portugal; and whether either Lord William Russell or the officer commanding the troops has orders to interfere in any event?
Viscount Palmerston: In reply to the question put to me by the hon. Baronet, I beg to say, that I shall confine myself to the statement which I made on a former
308
occasion—namely, that the Government had determined, and made known its determination, to preserve a strict neutrality in the contest that was daily expected to take place between the two princes of the House of Braganza, so long as other powers preserved the same neutrality; but if other powers did not preserve that neutrality, then the Government would be prepared to act in such a manner as it might think fitting for the interests and the dignity of the country. As to the particular instructions which have been given to Lord William Russell, and to the naval officer commanding the squadron, I am persuaded that the House will feel that I should not be properly performing my duty, if I were to give to the hon. Baronet any explanation of those directions.
Sir Robert Peel: I wish to put one question to my noble friend, which I trust he will have no objection to answer, as the House is already in possession of most of the information which Government can afford on the subject. In the month of April, 1831, a demand for compensation was made on the Portuguese government, for certain grievances and losses alleged to have been suffered by British subjects; the correspondence on which subject is already before the House. I now wish to know whether the Government has made any fresh demands upon Portugal on account of similar losses and grievances, the dates of which are prior to the month of April, 1831?
Viscount Palmerston: It is true, that a few months ago a further representation to the Portuguese government was made on account of some individual claims, some of which were made previously to April, 1831.
Sir Robert Peel: I am aware that when there is a question of Breach of Privilege before the House, it is very inconvenient to enter into discussions on questions; but, I must say, that I think my noble friend ought to take an opportunity of explaining to the House, how it happens, that when a demand was made on Portugal for pecuniary compensation—a demand which apparently contained the whole of the British claims up to that date—the Government should choose the present opportunity, pregnant as it is with embarrassing circumstances to the reigning prince of Portugal, for making a fresh demand for claims, really anterior to the date of the former demand. Such a course appears

309
to me to be utterly inconsistent with that neutrality which my noble friend professes, unless he can show that the circumstances under which the present demand is made, were not within the cognizance of the Government at the time of the last demand.
Viscount Palmerston: The simple fact is, that these claims were either not preferred or not substantiated at that time, in such a manner as to justify the Government in taking them up, and demanding compensation; and I beg to observe, that though the Government did make a demand in April, 1831, it did not state that that was the whole demand against Portugal. These claims have since been substantiated, and it then became the duty of this Government to make a fresh demand on the government of Portugal; and, so far from there being anything in this like a breach of neutrality, such a demand is well known to be perfectly compatible with the best understanding between two friendly powers.
Sir Robert Peel: It certainly was not expressly asserted, I admit, that the whole of the British claims were put forward in April, 1831; but, if I remember right, the communication from the British Government to the Portuguese government contained some such expression as this—that the Portuguese government having refused to make reparation for certain losses incurred by British subjects, his Majesty's Government had come to the determination of making the following demand: and I, therefore, must say, that though this was not a direct ultimatum, it was something very like an implied one.
Sir Richard Vyvyan: According to the statement of the noble Lord, the only ground which could possibly arise for war would be an attempt on the part of the Spaniards to interfere between the two members of the House of Braganza. He could not suppose it possible that on such grounds as these, this country could be plunged into a war.
Subject dropped.

TONNAGE DUTIES IN FRANCE.
Mr. Robinsonwas anxious to call the attention of the noble Lord to a subject of very considerable importance to the Shipping Interest of this country. Some time ago an agreement had been entered into between this country and France, by which the vessels of each country should be
310
charged the same Tonnage Duties in the ports of the other. Now, according to this regulation, French vessels in our ports were charged a duty of only 7d. per ton, while English vessels in the ports of France were still charged the high duty of 3s. 6d. per ton. He wished to know from the noble Lord, the cause of the delay of the French in not reducing the duties in their ports to the same scale as ours. He also wished to call the attention of the noble Lord to the fact, that British ships in the ports of France, were charged with high rates for lights, though it was well known that from Ushant to Dunkirk there was not a light-house which was of the slightest use to British vessels. Supposing that the French should at last make the tardy admission of our ships at the same rate of tonnage duties as we admitted theirs, still we were subject to high rates for lights, which in justice we ought not to be called upon to pay. He hoped to have a satisfactory explanation on this subject from the noble Lord, to prevent the necessity of a specific motion, which otherwise he should feel it his duty to make.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that an unexpected delay had occurred in carrying the arrangement between the two countries into execution on the part of France. It was thought necessary that a measure should be introduced into the French Chambers, to render the arrangement effective on the part of the French government, but the closing of the French Chambers prevented the introduction of that measure; but he hoped that the French government would take speedy steps to carry the arrangement into full operation. As to the duties on British ships, a very considerable reduction had already taken place in the port of Calais.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—CASE OF PUBLISHING PROCEEDINGS OF COMMITTEES.
The Order of the Day read, for taking into further consideration the Breach of Privilege complained of by the Irish Tithe Committee.
Mr. Stanleysaid, there were two questions concerned—the one was, to satisfy the House that its Privileges had been infringed on; the other, to satisfy it that none of its own officers, or persons connected with the House, were concerned in that infringement. The first question had been settled by committing Mr. Sheehan to the custody of the Serjeant-at

311
Arms; and, to elucidate the other, he proposed to give the officers of the House an opportunity, by calling them to the Bar, of vindicating themselves from having taken any part in this transaction. The House might then learn what security it had, and what security the country had, that such transactions should not again occur. He proposed to call first to the Bar the officer of the House to whose department the distribution of Reports belonged, and if he stated that he received twenty copies in the whole, and could prove that he distributed them, then he would be vindicated, and all about the House would be vindicated. No person could doubt that a great infringement of the privileges of the House had taken place, by whomever committed. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that Mr. Whittam, the Committee Clerk, be called to the Bar.
Mr. Whittamwas called accordingly, and stated, in answer to questions from the Speaker and various other Members, that he was the Clerk to the Committee sitting to inquire into the subject of Irish tithes; that he had received the draft of the Report, which he had transmitted through the Journal Office, in the usual manner, to be printed. He had not sealed it; he had attached a piece of paper, describing what was to be done, and delivered it into the Journal Office. It was left there open on Mr. Bull's desk. He had received twenty-four copies of the printed draft sealed up. Twenty were sealed up together. He had distributed twenty copies among the Members of the Committee, and to distribute them he had sent to Mr. Bellamy, the under door-keeper. Of the four others he had given one to the Member who said, he had not received his copy; one was disposed of by the direction of the Chairman, the Chairman got a second copy, and he had one himself. He believed it was the 14th of May when he delivered the draft into the Journal Office, and he did not believe that any person could have had access to it there to copy it. It was not common to find the Journal Office without a Clerk. It was Friday se'nnight that he forwarded the copies to the Members. When he heard that Mr. Lefroy's copy was not delivered, he inquired of the porter, and he said the copies had been delivered. A witness examined before the Committee was anxious to have a copy of the draft shown to him, which
312
he declined; the gentleman pressed it, and he told him that it was a request he ought not to make. That gentleman was Mr. Mahoney. When he saw the porter who took out the copies, he was drunk. He was not an official messenger; his name was Butler, and he was employed by the lower door-keeper. He delivered the copies to a porter to give to the lower door-keeper, who had to distribute them. They were not all delivered by one porter.
Mr. Bull,the Clerk of the Journal Office, stated, that he received the draft, not sealed up, but in the ordinary form in which papers of that kind were transmitted to him. In general, he received such papers personally, not being much away from his office. It was wrapped up in paper. In general he received such papers back from the printer about four or five o'clock. He directed no more than twenty-four copies to be printed. They were sent back, he believed, to the Committee Clerk.
Mr. Hansard,the Printer to the House of Commons, received the draft from the Journal Office, on Monday, the 14th, about noon. He received directions from Mr. Bull, in the envelope, for the printing. He had printed thirty copies; twenty-four were sent to the Journal Office, and six kept in reserve, in case they were needed. The twenty-four were sent, under sealed covers, and put into the hands of Mr. Whittam. They were directed to Mr. Bull; but he not being in the way, they were given to Mr. Whittam. The other six, which were kept in reserve, remained in his custody under his lock and key. He was perfectly certain that no person could have taken a copy from his premises. That was so extremely difficult, that he might almost say, it was impossible for a copy to be surreptitiously obtained from his premises. The whole business was under his general superintendence, though he did not personally superintend the paper in question.
Henry Rees,a porter, had received the copies from Mr. Whittam, and delivered them to the lower door-keeper; they were sealed up, and in separate papers. He was not applied to for a copy by any person.
Mr. William Bellamy,the lower doorkeeper, received twenty copies through Rees, sealed up, which he distributed. He gave them to porters to deliver. They were divided amongst five porters to distribute, according to districts; he did

313
not know how many were given to each porter, but he gave the twenty copies among the five porters; after the delivery, he made no inquiry, and kept no account or record of papers intrusted to him to be delivered; the porters did not belong to the House, and he hardly knew what control he had over them. He could suspend them—that was, not employ them; he was responsible for the delivery, and he employed these porters. When he heard that Mr. Lefroy's packet had not arrived, he had spoken to the porter Butler about it, who said he had delivered all his packets. He was not always present when the porters took away the parcels to distribute; on this occasion he was present when the porters took away the parcels, but he did not count them. Butler appeared to him to be sober; he had frequently carried out papers, and had not been complained of; he had been complained of before, and suspended. Strangers could not possibly know what these packets contained. There was no difference made in the distribution of sealed papers and the ordinary parliamentary papers; they were all distributed in the same manner. Witness withdrew.
Mr. Stanleythought it was not necessary to prosecute the inquiry any further. It was not requisite to call Butler, the porter, before them, for they should get no more information. He had been before the Committee, and declared, that only two copies had been given to him, both of which he delivered. It was impossible to find out whether the fault lay with Bellamy, or with the porter. His object was answered if he had satisfied the House that a considerable degree of looseness prevailed in the distribution of papers, and that a remedy should be applied.
The Speakerthought it was not possible to specify precisely who was in fault. It was proper, however, to call the attention of the House to the course of proceeding, which appeared not precisely proper when secresy was most to be desired, and the motives to violate it were the strongest. It appeared that nothing was more secure than such papers in proceeding from the Committee through the Journal Office, and till their return to the Committee, but that they were exposed to hazard after leaving the Committee, on being sent for distribution. It would be proper, therefore, for the members of the Committee to apply for such papers, and
314
the Clerk should only deliver them to the members of the Committee when applied for.
Mr. Stanleysuggested, in addition, that it would be proper that the Clerk should inform the members of such a Committee when the papers were ready for delivery.
Lord Althorpsaid, some precaution should be taken in sending reports or other documents to the Journal Office. Such papers should not be suffered to lie on an open desk.
Mr. Baringhoped, that the suggestion of the Speaker would only be adopted in cases where great secresy was necessary. If it were acted on generally, it would be productive of much inconvenience.
The Speakersaid, it was only intended to apply to cases where the preservation of secresy was absolutely necessary.
Mr. Shawrose, to present a petition from Mr. Thomas Sheehan, who had been, committed for a Breach of Privilege, to which he desired to call the attention of the House. With respect to the breach of privilege charged against that individual, he thought he should be able satisfactorily to show, that, at the time the publication in question took place, Mr. Sheehan did not know that he was committing a breach of privilege. Of the breach of privilege committed by publishing the proceedings of that House he was guilty, but of no other crime. That, however, was not the breach of privilege with which he stood charged, as appeared from the votes of the night. The breach of privilege, as declared in the votes, was for publishing in The Dublin Evening Mai a Report, purporting to be the Second Report of the Committee of that House on the subject of Tithes in Ireland, the same not having been presented to the House; and also for refusing to inform the House from whom he obtained the copy of the said Report. The publication contained words to the effect, that the Select Committee, appointed for the purpose, had considered the matter, and agreed to the Report. He did not mean to justify this statement; it was very improper and indiscreet. But Mr. Sheehan did not know that the Report had not virtually received the sanction of the Committee, and it received the sanction of the Committee the Friday after; and Mr. Sheehan, as editor of the paper, very naturally wished to enable his paper to boast of earlier intelligence than was possessed by

315
contemporary journals. There was nothing on the face of the Report itself to indicate that it was secret; it was printed; it commenced with stating, that the Committee had agreed to that as their Report, and the offence of the individual, therefore, was certainly not one of an aggravated nature; for he stated, most positively, that he did not know the Report was only in progress. He also stated, that it was not, either directly or indirectly, given to him by any officer of that House. It resolved itself, therefore, merely into just such a breach of privilege as was every day committed by the publication of the Debates. It was an advantage to an editor to get the earliest possible intelligence of such a document; this was the only motive by which he was actuated, and this certainly was a very venial offence. With regard to the second breach of privilege: Suppose Mr. Sheehan had received a copy of the Report from any individual; if he answered the question, Where did you get it? he must necessarily criminate that individual; and he thought the House would feel, that it was much more honourable for him to decline. It was to be observed, also, that he absolved all officers of that House from any imputation. The Report was just at the point of completion when sent by Mr. Sheehan; indeed, on the very morning when it was sent, he met a gentleman, not at all connected with the business, who told him, as a matter of public news, that the Report had been agreed to by the Tithe Committee. Mr. Sheehan begged pardon of the House for the breach of privilege of which he had been guilty, and he hoped the House would consider how constantly its privileges were violated by the Press, and that it would be a harsh, if not an unjust measure, to select one individual, and punish him for a crime which was shared by so many others, especially when they considered the really private documents which had been recently brought before the public, in the newspapers, with impunity.
The Petition was read.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, that although it was the duty of the House to enforce the principle of secresy, yet it ought also to take the circumstances of the case into consideration. If Mr. Sheehan had published as a Report to which the Committee had agreed, one which was not prepared or what was only a mere sketch of a
316
Report, then he might be inclined to visit him severely. But, in the present instance, the Report which he published had not been obtained surreptitiously—it had actually been prepared and printed, and his only violation of privilege was, his desire to publish prematurely a Report which had not received the previous formal sanction of the Committee, but which was within twenty-four hours of doing so. Under these circumstances, he hoped the House would visit it with a lenient eye. Many newspapers had been suffered by that House to violate the seals of confidence in a more flagrant manner. Mr. Sheehan had merely published an intended Report, for he would assert that it was an intended Report.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that it was not an intended Report; it was merely a Report prepared by himself for the consideration of the members of the Committee.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, that the right hon. Secretary would have an opportunity of answering. Mr. Sheehan might have committed a breach of privilege, in refusing to answer the question as to the individual from whom he obtained it, but he could not have done so without a breach of private honour. It was not obtained surreptitiously, and he could not but consider it as a very venial breach of privilege.
Lord Althorpsaid, the hon. and learned Member was in error, in treating the Draft Report as the Draft of the Committee; it was the Draft, not of the Committee, but of his right hon. friend, who drew it. The hon. Gentleman might as well call a Resolution which any Member might have in his pocket, with the intention of submitting it to the House, the Resolution of that House, as to call that Draft the Report of the Committee. He was of opinion Mr. Sheehan had stated truly, that he was not aware of the fact, that the Report which he had published had not been regularly agreed to by the Committee, and therefore, that the offence which he had committed in that respect was a very venial one, and ought to be overlooked. If, therefore, the matter had ended there, he felt no difficulty in avowing, that his opinion was, the petitioner ought at once to be discharged. The only difficulty, however, which remained was, the position in which the House was placed, in regard to its capacity to call up witnesses and examine them as

317
to any acts which it was necessary to establish. In this case a witness had been called to their bar, who, on being interrogated as to certain circumstances, had positively refused to give an answer to the questions which were put to him; and, if that refusal could be persisted in with impunity, and the House were to forego the power which it possessed of punishing such contumacy, he felt that the inquisitorial power of the House to elicit such facts as might be of importance to the nation, or to public business, was at once at an end. In the case before the House he felt a great difficulty, because he must admit to the hon. member for Dublin, that the instance in which the petitioner had refused to give an answer to the interrogation was one where every gentleman would have refused to give an answer, at all risks. Taking, therefore, all these circumstances into consideration, he should not feel disposed to oppose the petition; at the same time, in order that the House might not establish a precedent, by the example of which any future witness might be induced to refuse answers to the questions which were put to them, he thought it would be better, if the hon. member for Dublin founded any motion on the petition for the discharge of the petitioner, to append to that motion the words, 'that the Speaker be requested, at the same time, to admonish Mr. Sheehan.'
Mr. C. W. Wynndid not accord in the belief which was entertained, that the copy of the Report which had been used by the petitioner had not been surreptitiously obtained. It was clear that two copies of the number distributed had not found their way to the members of the Committee for whom they were intended; and, in order to clear the officers of the House from any participation in his offence, the petitioner declared that he had not ob-obtained his copy surreptitiously from any of them; but he tells the House, at the same time, that he would not divulge the name of the party from whom he had received it. Such an answer would not be admitted as valid in any Court of Justice, and he knew no reason why that House should entertain it; if they did, he saw no possibility of their preserving their inquisitorial power—a power which it was of the highest importance to preserve inviolate.
Mr. O'Connelldid not look at the case in the same point of view that was taken
318
of it by the right hon. Member who spoke last. The petitioner had thrown himself on the mercy of the House, and had acknowledged himself to be in fault. He had, it was admitted, refused only to do that which any other Gentleman would have refused to do; and his willingness to submit to confinement rather than infringe an honourable confidence, ought to obtain him credit for his declaration, that he had not obtained the document surreptitiously. Under these circumstances, he considered the honour of the House to have been sufficiently vindicated by the twenty-four hours' restraint which Mr. Sheehan had suffered; and he was disposed to concur in the prayer of the petition, as well as in any motion which might be made in favour of the petitioner. He thought, however, the hon. member for Dublin would do well to adopt the suggestion of the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), and that the Speaker should be authorized to warn the petitioner how he again trespassed on the privileges of the House.
Mr. James E. Gordonsaid, there was a precedent in the case of Sir Abraham Bradley King, who in his examination before the House of Commons, positively refused to answer Mr. Brougham's question with respect to the secret symbol of the Orange Clubs in Ireland, and who had yet been suffered to go from the Bar. This was a sufficient precedent if one were needed in the present case.
Mr. John Campbellsuggested the probability that the porter had dropped the copies in question. It would be hard to send a man to Newgate for refusing to do that which he could not do without dishonour.
Mr. Leaderconsidered, that the circumstances of the case ought to operate in favour of a mitigation of punishment.
Sir Henry Hardingesaid, that there was no mark on the Report by which any individual could have divined that it was a secret document. Mr. Sheehan's refusal to answer the question as to whence he derived his copy, was grounded upon a principle of honour which he thought extenuated his offence. He therefore trusted, that the hon. member for Dublin would follow up the petition by moving for the petitioner's discharge.
Mr. Stanleysaid, that he was sure the House would believe him when he stated, that in the whole course of this proceeding he had been influenced by nothing in the

319
shape of personal motives, and that he was only performing a duty imposed upon him by the Committee, who had felt themselves called upon to take up the matter. He certainly believed Mr. Sheehan's statement, that he considered the Report to be a public document when he obtained possession of it, for when that person was called before the Committee, in the first instance, he (Mr. Stanley) had been the first to point out to him the circumstance that there was an entire absence of all appearance on the face of the Report that it was a secret document. He thought, therefore, that that part of the case ought to be regarded merely as one of those breaches of privilege that are daily occurring in the House. With respect to the refusal of the petitioner to answer the interrogatories of the House, he was of opinion that, if the House was disposed to vindicate its power in that respect, it would be advisable that the suggestion of his noble friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should be attended to, in the event of the hon. member for Dublin moving for the petitioner's discharge.
The petition ordered to be laid on the Table.
Mr. Shawmoved, that Mr. Sheehan be discharged from the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms, upon the payment of his fees.
Mr. Knightseconded the Motion.
Mr. Stevensonmoved, that Mr. Sheehan should be admonished for refusing to answer the question put to him.
Lord Althorpcertainly thought that Mr. Sheehan should be called to the Bar and admonished by the Speaker, in order that the matter might not be drawn into a precedent. He must say, that the individual, whoever he was, that had communicated this document to Mr. Sheehan, had not only committed a breach of the privileges of that House, but had done that which was very discreditable to him as an individual.
Mr. C. W. Wynnstill thought, that they should support the inquisitorial power of the House, and he did not see how they could enforce that power hereafter if they dealt with this case in the manner proposed.
Mr. Shawsaid, that after the indulgent manner in which the House had received the Motion, he should not think of objecting to the Amendment.
Question, as amended, agreed to.
The Serjeant-at-Arms was ordered to bring Mr. Sheehan to the Bar.
The Speakerin the dignified manner for which he is so eminently remarkable, thus addressed him:—"Thomas Sheehan, the very serious breach of privilege which you have committed against this House, in presuming to publish a pretended Report from a Committee of this House, coupled with the fresh breach of privilege of which you were yesterday guilty, in refusing to answer the questions of this House, when you were required to state by what means you became possessed of the document which you so put forth as a Report of that Committee, left this House, in justice to itself and to the public, no other alternative than to commit you to the custody of its Serjeant.—The House has, however, now read your petition, wherein you pray to be released from the custody of its Officer, and also the explanation contained therein of the circumstances which you set forth, and of the view which you had in putting forth the pretended Report to which I have referred. You therein state, that you were, at the time of so doing entirely ignorant that the Report was of a secret nature, and that it was not at that moment sanctioned by the Committee, from which you pretended it to have come. You say also, that you were induced to publish that pretended Report, in consequence of your anxiety to anticipate others in the gratification of the public curiosity. The House is ready to believe that your assertions are entirely correct. With respect to the latter part of the petition which you have caused to be presented, you therein state, that you did not procure the pretended Report in question by the means of any Officer, or other person connected with this House. The House is anxious to believe that you consider this statement in your petition to be an answer to the question which was yesterday put to you, and to which you refused then to reply; for it would be impossible that this House, in maintaining its privileges, or in justice to the country, should do otherwise than commit to custody, and there retain him, any person who should contumaciously refuse to answer any interrogatory which the House may deem necessary to put to him. Believing, therefore, that part of your statement, and hoping also that, from whatever quarters you derived your information, the

321
same mistake existed in the mind of the individual who communicated to you the pretended Report in question, the House is inclined to treat you with the utmost lenity, more, perhaps, than strict justice might warrant; but, in perfect reliance on your statement, and feeling guarded against any future repetition of your offence, by you or any other person, has directed me, after this admonition, to acquaint you that you are discharged from the custody of the Serjeant on payment of his fees."
Mr. Sheehanleft the Bar.
Lord Althorprose to move, that the Speaker's admonition to Mr. Sheehan be entered on the Journals, and in doing this he could not avoid expressing his sense of admiration of the terms in which the Speaker had conveyed the House's admonition to Mr. Sheehan.
Question carried nemine contradicente.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR SCOTLAND—COMMITTEE.
The House resolved itself into a Committee on the Reform of Parliament (Scotland) Bill.
First Clause postponed.
On the second Clause being put,
Mr. Gillonobjected to the disfranchisement of the borough of Selkirk. It was the only instance of disfranchisement in the Bill and seeing no necessity for it he must protest against it.
Mr. Pringlethought this disfranchisement very capricious, and though he seldom agreed with the hon. Member, he would join him in protesting against this part of the Bill.
The Lord Advocatewished it had been possible to avoid this disfranchisement, but, as the population of both counties united did not exceed 17,000, it was not possible; and even, as it was, these counties might consider themselves particularly favoured. The population of the borough of Selkirk was about 6,000, and it was considered, on the whole, more expedient to throw the borough into the county.
Clause agreed to.
On the third Clause being read,
Sir George Murraythanked the learned Lord for having postponed the consideration of the first clause of this Bill, inasmuch as it enabled him to bring on the motion of which he had given notice in a more desirable shape, and at a more convenient opportunity, than if he had
322
been obliged to propose it to the Committee on the reading of the first clause of the Bill. He was also happy that the request made to the learned Lord, for the postponement of the first clause, had afforded him an opportunity—the last which, perhaps, could occur—of testifying some remaining respect for the ancient institutions of his country, by stating that he had borrowed the arrangement, at least, of the clauses of his Bill from that observed in the Treaty of Union. He would submit to the Committee a claim, on the part of Scotland, to a larger proportion of Representation than that which was allotted to her by the present Bill. He was perfectly aware, that it would have been easy for Scotland to have found a much abler advocate of her claims, on this occasion, than himself; but it would be difficult for any advocate to find a cause more firmly founded on every principle of reason and of justice than that which he had then to plead. He did not mean to throw any false colouring over this question: he wished to state it as simply and as concisely as possible, giving it no other colouring than that which it would receive from the facts he had to state, and from the arguments by which those facts could be fairly supported. He did not ask, on the part of Scotland, that she should be placed on a better footing than the other parts of the United Kingdom, but that she should be placed in a situation nearly similar to that in which England was placed by the English Reform Bill. In the course of these discussions, arguments had been used with regard to Scotland, to the effect that she having hitherto had, as some hon. Gentlemen were pleased to say, no constituency, it was quite a sufficient boon now to give her only a constituency. But surely it could not be consistent with justice to give to Scotland a constituency, and, at the same time, to refuse to grant to her that adequate share of Representation to which such a constituency was most justly entitled; and, whatever degree of plausibility there might appear to be in such arguments, when brought forward by hon. Gentlemen in the House, exercising more of ingenuity than of sound judgement.—the people of Scotland were too intelligent, and too shrewd a people to be put off by such arguments from pressing their just claims to a larger portion of Representa-

323
tion than was allotted to them by the present Bill. Other Gentlemen had referred to the Union, and had stated, that at the period of the Union, the proportion of Representation proper for Scotland was duly allotted to her; but this argument could not be sustained, for the principles established and the stipulations made at the time of the Union had already been frequently departed from, in many more important particulars. Before the Union, the Representation of Scotland was, indeed, fixed at the number of forty-five; but the Committee would, perhaps, allow him to refer to the 22nd Article itself of the Treaty of Union between England and Scotland, which was in these words:—'Forty-five Members are to be elected 'to sit in the House of Commons of the Parliament of Great Britain, according to the agreement in this Treaty, in such a manner as by an Act of this present Parliament of Scotland shall be settled; which Act is forcibly declared to be as valid as if it were a part of, and ingrossed in this Treaty; and the forty-five Members for Scotland (such forty-five Members being elected and returned in the manner agreed upon in this Treaty) shall assemble and meet together, &c.' The present measure entirely departed from the manner in which it was determined, by this Article of the Union, and by the Act of the Scotch Parliament referred to in it, that the Scotch Members should be elected. This Bill introduced an entirely different mode of election from that which was settled at that time. The rule formerly laid down for the purpose of assimilating the Scotch constituency and mode of election to that which had been established for England, by the English Reform Bill, had been abandoned; as also the number of forty-five Members, as settled at the time of the Union. All he had to ask was, that they should also depart from the Union in another point, by assimilating, in some degree at least, the proportion of Representation allotted to Scotland to that which was bestowed upon England. He was willing to admit, that if this measure of Reform had been adopted separately and successively in the different portions of the United Kingdom, there might have been some ground for maintaining, that there should be an adherence to the proportions of representation already established; but, as this measure had been
324
general and simultaneous, except with reference to the exact period at which those branches of it which related to the different divisions of the United Kingdom had been discussed—he did not see why the proportion of Representation given to Scotland in that House should have reference to the proportion settled at the time of the Union. At the period of the Union, the nobles of Scotland amounted in number to 154. By the articles of the Union, the proportion of Representation allotted to the Scotch Peerage was sixteen; so that about one-tenth only of the whole number of the Peerage was allowed to represent that body of nobility in the Parliament of Great Britain. But what was the case now? By the successive creations of British Peers, in consequence of the judicious and proper exercise of the prerogative of the Crown, the Peerage of Scotland had now a much greater share of protection in the British Parliament than it was at that time allowed to have; and thus the introduction into the Parliament of Great Britain of a much larger number of Scotch Peers than was settled at the Union, had gradually applied a remedy to that part of the Treaty. The total number of the Scottish Peerage at present was about eighty, and of that number there were no less than thirty Scotch Peers also Peers of Great Britain, and who, therefore, had hereditary seats in the British Parliament, in addition to the sixteen elected Representatives; giving to the whole of the Peerage of Scotland the protection of forty-six of its members in possession of seats in the House of Lords of the United Kingdom. Thus, by the gradual exercise of the prerogative of the Crown alone, the Scottish Peerage had obtained a much larger portion of Representation in the Parliament of Great Britain than was allotted to it at the time of the Union. But the Commons of Scotland had obtained no such advantage. Scotland had largely increased in population and in wealth; the people had rapidly advanced in instruction and intelligence, but no addition whatsoever had been made to the Representation of the Commons of Scotland. The Crown had no power of itself to assist them. The increase which had taken place in the population could be stated; but as to the increase in wealth and intelligence in Scotland, and in the various important interests which had sprung up, these were subjects with respect to which no accurate

325
calculation could be made, and it was difficult to state whether these different elements of a nation's prosperity were twenty, thirty, forty, or even fifty times greater now than at the time of the Union, and yet no greater share of Representation had been given to the people of Scotland than was allotted to them at that period. It was perfectly undeniable, that some remedy ought to be applied to this obviously existing defect. The letter of the Treaty of Union, indeed, remained, with regard to the Representation of the people of Scotland in the House, but the spirit of the Treaty did not remain. The spirit of the Treaty was entirely gone; for the Representation of Scotland, at the period of the Union, was fixed upon certain principles, which, if they were applied now, would give to that country a much greater share of Representation than was allowed to it by this Bill. At the time of the Union, the two principles taken as a basis of calculation were, population and taxation. The united population of England and Wales amounted, by the last census, to 13,894,574; that of Scotland to 2,365,807. Now, if this basis of calculation were taken singly, and the number of Members which should be allotted to Scotland determined by it, applying the same principle as that which had been made use of by his Majesty's Ministers in the enfranchising clauses of the Reform Bill for England, it would be found, that if England and Wales had 500 Representatives, Scotland ought to have, by her population, eighty-five. Again, if the revenues of the two countries were alone made the basis of calculation, the revenue of England and Wales being, by the latest returns, 43,258,991 l., and that of Scotland 5,113,353 l., the proportion of Representation for England and Wales being as before, 500, Scotland ought then to have fifty-nine Representatives in that House. But if these two proportions were taken together, the number that should be allotted to Scotland, on the same principles as were established and followed at the Union, would be seventy-two Representatives in the House of Commons. But these statements of the amount of revenue were in some degree unfair towards Scotland, because there were several descriptions of goods imported exclusively into England, but the duties on which fell ultimately upon Scotland; the article of tea, for instance, was one of these, and if an allowance of a million of money
326
were made for these duties, this would raise the proportion of Representation which ought to be given to Scotland, on the joint principles of population and of revenue, to the number of seventy-eight Representatives. Assuming another principle as the basis of calculation—a principle which could not be taken at the Union, the value of real property, as assessed in 1815, and which was a very fair basis of calculation, the annual value of real property, as assessed in England and Wales in that year, amounted to 51,898,423 l., and in Scotland to 6,652,625 l. This principle of calculation, applied singly, would give to Scotland sixty-four Members. But if the average of all these three principles—population, revenue, and the assessment of real property in 1815—were taken—the result of that calculation would be, to give to Scotland sixty-nine one-eighth Members, making no allowance for those duties to which he had already alluded; but if the allowance of one million were made for the duties, then Scotland would be entitled to seventy-five two-thirds Representatives. There was yet another element of calculation. The noble Lord, the Paymaster General of the Forces, in the discussion which took place upon the English Reform Bill, on the 5th of last March, had stated, that the proportion of Representation given to the southern counties of England was one Member to 22,000 inhabitants, and that the proportion of the northern counties was one to 28,000 inhabitants, which gave for the whole of England an average of one Representative to every 25,000 inhabitants. Now, if Scotland had Representation given to her upon the same scale, she would have not less than between ninety-four and ninety-five Members in this House. The average of Representation proposed to be given to Scotland by the present Bill, however, was in the proportion of one Representative only to every 44,636 inhabitants; so that the average proposed to be given by the present Scotch Reform Bill was exactly one half of that which was given to the southern counties of England. The observations made by the noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, on the occasion to which he alluded, were these: 'A right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), in a former debate, drew a line betwixt the north and south, and endeavoured to show that the latter had been sacrificed. He had since

327
examined that calculation, and he found that in the south the proportion of Representation would be as one Member for 22,000, while in the north there would be one to 28,000 or 29,000. It would be perceived by the returns he had quoted that Durham had by this arrangement no more than one Representative in 25,000, and he would, therefore, conclude by declaring that, in his opinion, the share it possessed in the aggregate Representation of the country was only meted out in a just proportion to the strength, revenue, and welfare of the empire at large.'* This reasoning appeared to the noble Lord to be peculiarly apposite and well founded when applied to the north of England, and in particular to the county of Durham; and he (Sir George Murray) was by no means disposed to deny its application. But why did this reasoning of the noble Lord stop short in England? Why was not that principle extended also to Scotland? Had it no just application there? Had Scotland no strength, no importance, no prosperity? Did she not contribute her due proportion of all these to the State? Why, therefore, was Scotland to be treated in a different manner from the northern counties of England, and from the county of Durham? He could see no ground of argument whatever upon which to support such a doctrine. A few nights ago, on a discussion upon the Irish Reform Bill, an hon. Gentleman remarked, with reference to the recorded saying of Louis 14th, that there were no longer any Pyrennees to divide France from Spain; and the hon. Member said, that he wished there might no longer be any Irish channel to divide England from Ireland as to rights and interests. He (Sir George Murray) asked much less; he asked only that there might no longer be any Tweed or any Cheviot Hills; that those limits which formerly beheld so often two neighbouring nations marshalled against each other in hostile array, but which now saw them united by bonds of friendship, which he trusted would never be broken, and emulating each other only in intelligence and industry, might cease henceforward to be the landmarks of any invidious and unjust distinctions. All he required was, that the inhabitants of the north of an united country might receive, if not exactly the same, at least something like the same share of privileges
*Hansard (third series), vol. x. p. 1136
328
with those who inhabited the south. But, in support of his argument for additional Representation for Scotland, he might refer also to the case of Wales. The population of Wales was stated by the census to be 805,236, and the Representation given to that principality was in the proportion of one Member to 28,758 inhabitants. In Scotland the proportion was, by the Bill, one Member to 44,600 inhabitants. Now, here also was a very great disproportion against Scotland in the share of Representation allotted to these two parts of the United Kingdom; and on what principle of fairness or justice could such a proceeding be defended? He was perfectly at a loss to understand it; and he had been unable to discover any argument by which such an arrangement could be supported. His Motion might be opposed by the will of the Minister, and defeated by a majority of that House, but he could conceive no argument on which it could be resisted. He would now look to the Representation of some of the English counties taken separately, and compare it with that of the counties in Scotland; and here again he must beg permission to refer to what was said by the noble Paymaster of the Forces, on the same occasion to which he had before alluded. The noble Lord observed—'It was said, that Durham 'was better represented than any other county. But how was this proved? Certainly not by the population Returns, for Wiltshire had one Member for 13,000 inhabitants, Sussex one for 15,000; Southampton one for 19,000; Dorset one for 11,000; Bucks one for 13,000; Here ford one for 15,000; Huntingdon one for 13,000, and Rutland one for between 9,000, and 10,000, while Durham had one for every 25,000 only. By these statements it appeared that the southern counties had a great advantage in point of comparative Representation'.* That was the argument of the noble Lord in support of the amount of Representation given to Durham. The Scotch county which stood first in the list—the county of Aberdeen—had a population of 177,600. The Representation allotted to that county was two Members and a quarter, making the proportion of Representation to population about one Member to 79,000 inhabitants; whereas, it appeared by the speech he had just read, that in eight or
Hansard (third series), vol. x. p. 1136.

329
ten counties in England, the average was from one Member to 13,000, to one Member to 15,000 inhabitants. To the county of Argyll, with a population of 101,400, the Representation given was one Member and a quarter, being in the proportion of one Member to 81,000 inhabitants. The county of Ayr, with a population of 145,100 had two Members and a half, being in the proportion of one Member to 58,000, inhabitants. In the counties of Fife, the proportion of Representation to population was one to 36,000; For far, one to 46,000; Inverness, one to 71,000; Perthshire, which contained 142,900 inhabitants, had two Representatives only, one for the county and one for the city; the proportion of Representation to population being in this case, one Member to 71,450 inhabitants. In the county of Edinburgh, which had a population of 219,600, the proportion of Representation was one Member to 54,000 inhabitants; and in Lanarkshire, which had a population of 316,800, the proportion of Representation was one to 100,000 people. The House might determine that this should be the proportion of Representation which should be given to Scotland, but then the people of Scotland would have a just right to complain, especially when they recollected that the House was proceeding upon the principle of remedying abuses, and of endeavouring to establish one general system, and one uniform plan, which his Majesty's Ministers had all along told the House they trusted would be a final arrangement. He was, however, perfectly convinced that their plan never could lead to a final arrangement, fraught as it was with injustice in many respects, and in none more so than in the treatment which Scotland would receive from them. In his opinion, the measure which was to ameliorate the political system of any country could never be a final one, but that it would be found more expedient to have a gradual and cautious Reform, on safe and moderate principles, instead of vainly and rashly attempting to establish a final system by one great, sudden, and violent exertion. He hoped that what he had stated was quite sufficient to satisfy all impartial men of the strength and justice of the case which could be made out in favour of Scotland, and he trusted that he had put forward the arguments which had occurred to him on the subject in a tone of moderation and of good temper. He
330
was aware of the dryness of all arguments resting chiefly upon calculations, and he felt most grateful, therefore, for the patience and attention with which he had been heard. Whatever importance he might have attached to those details, it would not appear to the people of Scotland to have been greater than they deserved, or that he had acted improperly in strongly recommending them to the most attentive consideration of the House. As a Scottish Member of Parliament, and as a county Representative from that part of the United Kingdom, he had thought it his duty to bring forward this Motion. Scotland was unfairly dealt with in this measure, and therefore he had brought forward her just claims. With respect to the county of which he had the honour to be the Representative, he trusted that he had discharged his duty towards all its inhabitants without any distinction, and with as much anxiety to promote their welfare as be could ever feel or possess under any change of system whatever. He put forward these claims, which he had now submitted for consideration, upon the part of a numerous portion of the population of the United Kingdom; upon the part, certainly of a portion of its inhabitants who were nowhere surpassed either for their industry or for their intelligence, and for that general instruction which pervaded in Scotland, even in the humblest classes of the community, a circumstance upon which, very properly, much stress had been laid by those who had argued in favour of the measure now under consideration. He also felt bound to say, that he put forward these claims on the part of a people than whom there was none more distinguished by morality or by their love of order, and to whom it would be more safe, therefore, to intrust the discharge of all those duties that would in future be reposed in them by the alteration which was now proposed to be made in the political system of the country; on the part of an ancient and a gallant nation, conspicuous in all ages, and under all circumstances, for a high spirit of independence, and which discharged all its duties in this great and united empire in such a manner as gave it an irrefragable claim fairly to participate in whatever rights, privileges, and advantages, the Constitution of the country could anywhere bestow. Whatever might be the fate, therefore, of this Motion, he should still maintain that it rested upon the soundest

331
foundations of equity and of justice. He would now read to the Committee the Amendment he had felt it his duty to offer. He proposed to omit all the words in the third clause of the Bill, which was the clause under consideration, after the words "Be it enacted," down to the words "Provided always," for the purpose of inserting the following words—"That the Members hereafter to be returned to Parliament by the shires of Scotland, shall always be two Members for each of the larger shires, enumerated and described in the schedule A hereunto annexed, and one Member for each of the lesser shires, enumerated and described in schedule B hereunto annexed." In the event of the Motion being carried, he should hereafter submit the schedules he had to propose.
Mr. Humesaid, he had listened attentively to the gallant Officer's speech, in order to convince himself whether he was serious or not. Did the gallant Officer forget that he had all along refused all Reform, and had asserted that Scotland wanted no Reform? He could not reconcile the gallant Officer's Motion for an enlargement of the Representation of Scotland with his former declarations, and must protest against the Bill being delayed by this new light breaking in upon the gallant Officer. He was convinced that the people of Scotland would be satisfied with the Bill, for, instead of giving them only eight Representatives, as the gallant Officer said, it would give them at least thirty, as so many at least, were nominees, and not their Representatives.
Sir George Murraydenied, that he had been an enemy to Reform. He challenged the hon. Member to produce a single speech of his (Sir George Murray's) in which he had declared himself an enemy to Reform. On the contrary, he had always declared himself ready to consider any plan of Reform of the political system, and particularly with respect to Scotland.
The Lord Advocatesaid, that though he intended to oppose the Motion of the gallant Officer, he confessed that, on the first view of the subject, he had been impressed with a similar feeling. He was, therefore, bound to explain the grounds on which he had been induced to adopt a different opinion. If he had been left to form his opinion upon fair abstract principles, he might have thought that a larger Representation should be given to Scotland.
332
But it was impossible to proceed upon such principles, and in many of the counties of England, anomalies might be shown to exist, an attempt to remedy which, and to reduce the whole to one uniform system, would have exposed the framers of the Bill, and justly, to the imputation of adopting a theoretical and fantastical scheme. It turned out, too, upon the application to Scotland of the principles on which the English Bill had been framed, of population and assessed taxes, that the proportion of Members due to Scotland would have been only fifty-eight, a number to which, in fact, it very nearly approximated. The right hon. and gallant Officer had asked, why make a distinction between the countries on different sides of the Cheviot hills; and, in reply, he might ask, why make any distinction between the counties on the southern side of that border? If, for example, they took the counties of Middlesex and Surrey, with the addition of the metropolitan Members, they would find, that their united population, to a small fraction, was equal to the whole population of Scotland. The population of Surrey and Middlesex was, 2,324,000; the population of Scotland was, 2,345,000: so that, within 20,000, the population of these two counties was equal to that of Scotland. He was not ashamed of this fact, neither did he blush for the poverty of his countrymen; but he would say, that in point of wealth and taxation, there was a monstrous preponderance in favour of these districts in England. The assessed taxes of Scotland amounted to 280,000 l.; the assessed taxes of these districts only, in England, to 1,600,000 l. Now, what addition was given to the Representation of England by these obnoxious metropolitan Members? The whole of the Representation given by the English Reform Bill to the mass of population and wealth in the counties of this country was but forty-three. The allowance of Members to Scotland altogether amounted to fifty-three; that was to say, that, in this view of the case, they got an advantage of ten. Now, applying the combined elements of population and wealth, the result would be, that out of ninety-six Members, Scotland should have only thirty-one: and these districts sixty-nine. Therefore, if this region—round the spot where they were now assembled (which, by-the-by, were supposed to have been unduly favoured) were adequately represented by forty-three Members, while Scot-

333
landhad fifty-three, no undue partiality had been shown to the south of England, nor any unfair distinction made between it and Scotland. In the northern part of England, in which it had been said, that great partiality had been exercised, he would consider, for the purposes of this argument, the two counties, Yorkshire, and Lancashire, possessing, as they did, a very large population, 2,700,000, Scotland had a population of 2,345,000, leaving a difference of about 400,000 in favour of the two English counties. The proportion of assessed taxes was about one to two on the side of Scotland; and the result of this calculation was, that Scotland should have only forty-seven Members instead of fifty-three. It these two counties were compared with the southern districts of Middlesex and Surrey, and added together; it would be found that Scotland should have only thirty-five Members, according to this calculation, while Surrey and Middlesex alone would be entitled to eighty, and York and Lancashire to forty-four. All that any body could ask for Scotland was, that the towns in the north of the island should be dealt with as the other places in the south had been. Both these classes of places were those of which the opponents of the Bill had complained as being unduly favoured; and if these facts were correct, he confidently submitted that they made out a case in favour of the course which had been pursued. He would only add a word as to the peculiar scheme and nature of the augmentation which was called for by the gallant Officer. The gallant Officer had not informed the House how many counties he proposed to include in his schedule A; but judging, from what he stated in his calculation of what Scotland would be entitled to, he (the Lord Advocate) should rather think that somewhere between thirteen and fifteen would be about the number which he proposed to add. He did not propose to add anything to the boroughs; the addition, whatever it was, was to be made to the counties. There was only one other point on which he should feel it necessary to trouble the Committee, and that was, whether there were any great partiality in the augmentations which had been made to the counties of Scotland, as compared with the borough Representation of that part of the empire. He could not conceive on what principle of practice, ancient
334
or modern, it was possible to doubt for one moment that the proportion of county Representation given to Scotland was either larger or smaller than it ought to be. In the first place, the proportion that existed at the time of the Union was much larger than what existed a short time before; for it might be known to hon. Gentlemen who had looked into Scottish history, that after the year 1690, the whole number of county Members for Scotland was reduced to ninety, while the number of borough Members was sixty-nine, and this would afford precisely the proportion of thirty to twenty-two, which was the proportion established by the present Bill. This was the state of things in 1690. Twelve or fifteen years before the Union, the number of county Members was increased from sixty-four or sixty-six to ninety; and, therefore, they were now going back to the ancient standard established by the Scottish Parliaments. But then they were told, that by the proposed change they did not sufficiently increase the county in proportion to the borough Representation. The old borough Representation of England was to the present day four-fifths of the whole; and, therefore, there was plenty of room for the operations of this Reform Bill in England to take effect. Even now there would be something between two-thirds and three-fourths more of borough Members than of county Members in England, while the preponderance of borough Members over county Members in Scotland would be in the proportion of about one-third. If they were to adhere to the old plan, the borough Representation ought to be still double that of the counties. In short, the whole foundation of the error was to be found in the determination of those who were carried away with the captivating words "agricultural interest," not to trespass on its cherished and invaluable privileges. Scotland having only 2,345,000 inhabitants, had no less than thirty-three counties; while England, possessing a population of 13,500,000, had only forty. Was it reasonable—was it just—was it tolerable—to say that there should be the same proportion of Representation for these small Scotch counties as fort he large and important counties of England, because they had chosen to eke out their land into certain portions, and then to baptize those portions by the magnificent name of "counties?" If these places were to have such a Repre-

335
sentation, there must be a double Representation for the English counties, at the expense of a single Representation for towns. He had another table of calculation, with which, however, he would not trouble the House. As regarded the proportion which should belong to Scotch county Representation, compared with that of the counties of England, he might have a patriotic partiality in favour of his own country; but he could not deny the vast and important difference which existed between the counties of Scotland and those of England. Was it reasonable to call upon Ministers to depart from the course they had taken, when they were not breaking down existing institutions, but placing them on a fair and proper footing? On these grounds, therefore, he objected to the motion of the right hon. and gallant Officer; and he objected to it also on this ground—that the southern districts, with a population not less than that of Scotland, were by no means as efficiently represented. Under all these circumstances—seeing that Scotland had the advantage of a recurrence to the principles of the Union—seeing that out of 513 Members for England and Wales, they had deprived themselves of eight to increase her Representation; and recollecting, above all, that they had not only given her Representatives, but a constituency—he did think that Scotland ought thankfully to receive the boon which had been granted her. Even if the amount of her Representation had been left the same as at the time of the Union, she ought to have been grateful; but she ought to receive the benefit which was now held out to her as an inestimable and invaluable boon.
Sir George Murraysaid, in explanation, that the reason why he had not resorted to Lieutenant Drummond's calculations was, because they appeared to him to be based upon a principle adopted for the particular purpose of disfranchisement.
Sir George Clerksaid, that he could not coincide in the opinion expressed by the learned Lord at the conclusion of his speech. Some of the boroughs were disfranchised because the patrons of them represented only themselves, and not the people; and, it would be in the recollection of the House, that, in the first Bill, it was not proposed to fill up the blank in the House which would be created by the disfranchisement of those boroughs. Why, then, should Scotland be so very grateful,
336
as the learned Lord said she ought to be, for the cession of the small portion of this Representation which would otherwise have been a nullity. He had listened with some anxiety to the speech of the Lord Advocate, after he had heard him declare that he did not think that Scotland, under this Bill, would have her fair proportion of Representation, in order to ascertain by what process of reasoning he could satisfy his mind that he was acting consistently in supporting the Bill. After hearing the reasons assigned by the Lord Advocate, he must say, that there were no anomalies whatever which the same sort of reasoning would not justify. Considering the population of Scotland, and the amount contributed by that country to the national revenue, he contended that a sufficient number of Members had not been given to Scotland. He could not see the justice of the learned Lord's reference to the metropolitan districts, for the objections to their claim to a share in the Representation were peculiar; and with respect to the great English counties he had compared to Scotland in point of population, they were the only counties that could have been thus brought forward. The learned Lord had stated, that there were thirty-three Scottish, and but forty English counties, but he had not reminded them of the fact, that the smallest shire in England (Rutland) had two Representatives. It was provided by the measure of his Majesty's Government, that where the population of a county exceeded 150,000, it should be empowered to return four Members; and where the population exceeded 100,000, it should be entitled to return three. Now, he would only ask for Scotland the minimum of English county Representation. He wanted no more than the number of Members granted to Rutland for Scottish counties that contained four or five times the amount of its population. But to attempt to determine the claims of Scotland by any analogy to the English Reform Bill, which was itself a mass of anomalies, was altogether vain. The principle to which he, therefore, would refer the present Bill was that upon which the Representation of Scotland was based before the Union; that was, the preponderance of the agricultural interest. It was to be remembered also, that, from the Union to the present time, persons of wealth and influence, having deep interests connected with Scotland, found their way

337
into that House, by means of those English boroughs which were now to be done away with; and that those persons were no less attentive to the interests of Scotland than if they had been more directly sent to represent that country. He did not wish to say much with regard to the electoral qualification, but he had reason to believe, that in the counties for which they asked a double Representation, it would give a great preponderance to the manufacturing and commercial interests over the agricultural. He believed that such would be the consequence of the 10 l. franchise in the counties of Fife, Renfrew, Lanark, Forfar, and Edinburgh. When the learned Lord reverted to the ancient state of the Scottish Representation, he must have recollected that there was then but one Chamber in Scotland, the great Barons being required to attend in person, and the lesser to choose a Representative. The thirty county Members had been hitherto agricultural, but with one Member to the large counties, he was persuaded, that the agricultural interest would be materially affected by the Bill. He did not contend now that they ought to adhere to the ancient institutions of Scotland, but, as they were changing the system, they were hound to do Scotland justice, and to take care, above all things, that it would not be worse represented under the new system than it had been under the old. Even upon the Lord Advocate's own showing, Scotland was entitled to five or six Members more than were apportioned to that country under the present Bill. He did not say, that it would be convenient to add to the total number of the Members of that House, but it would be much better, as he conceived, to incur that inconvenience, than to do an act of injustice to Scotland. If the Bill were passed as it then stood, it would, ere long, be found to disappoint the expectations of the people of Scotland. They were convinced that they ought to be put upon a footing of equality with the people of England, and they would be thankful to his right hon. friend for his Motion.
Sir John Malcolmcordially concurred in the sentiments of his right hon. and gallant friend. The hon. member for Middlesex had inquired why his gallant friend had not produced petitions. He must admit that the petitions were all on one side; but he would take leave to add, that he did not consider that to be
338
a circumstance which should sway the judgment of the House. The people, by their petitions, seemed likely to become a fourth estate, which, he maintained, was not consistent with the Constitution of this country. Having been a witness of the rapid growth of Scotland's prosperity, he did not think it expedient to make a total change in the system under which so many blessings had been attained.
Colonel Lindsaythought the Lord Advocate must have been educated in some Jesuit's College, for he had never heard a more remarkable instance of special pleading than his speech on this occasion manifested. All he (Colonel Lindsay) asked for Scotland was, the same measure of justice which had been granted to the English boroughs. He undoubtedly meant to vote for his gallant friend's Amendment, as he conceived, by every principle on which Ministers professed to base their Reform measures, Scotland was entitled to a larger share of Representation than that proposed in the present Bill. If they took population, it was entitled, relatively to England, to sixty-nine Members; if population with assessed taxes, to sixty-four. According to Lieutenant Drummond's scheme, the learned Lord said it was entitled only to fifty-eight. He did not know how that was made out, but that was five more than the Bill gave it. He was sure that the people of Scotland were not aware of the details of the Bill. If they were aware of those details it was impossible they could be satisfied, for the Bill inflicted a gross injustice on their country.
Sir George Warrenderconceived, the argument of the learned Lord Advocate, against the founding an increase of Representation on mere population, to be unanswerable, and therefore would vote against the Amendment. Besides, if Scotland claimed so many more Members in consequence of her relative population, with what grace or justice could they refuse Ireland an increase in proportion to her population? He was aware, that this opinion was inconsistent with his former declaration, but he disregarded the taunts of inconsistency, the rather, perhaps, as consistency was not just now the most fashionable of public virtues; and, though he changed his opinions, no man could charge him with base or interested motives.
Mr. Sinclairentirely subscribed to the opinions of the learned Lord Advocate,

339
and therefore would vote against the Amendment.
Mr. Stuart Wortleywould vote for the Amendment. He thought that the arguments of the learned Lord had been completely answered by his hon. friend near him. The Motion, however, placed him in some little difficulty, for he did not like to alter the numbers of the Members of this House, as he thought that was the removal of a landmark from the institutions of the country which might lead to further innovation. But, on every principle of justice and consistency, Scotland was fully entitled to all the advantages which even Wales, comparatively a much inferior place, would derive under the Reform Bills.
Mr. Patrick M. Stewartwould give the Bill, as it stood, his most cordial support, as he was confident—as were the people of Scotland—that as no part of the empire so much required Reform as Scotland, so no part would be so much benefitted by its advantages being extended to it. Representation in Scotland was at present a perfect mockery; the Bill would invest its middle classes with the power of freely exercising the elective franchise. By so doing it would confer a benefit, for which the people of Scotland felt very grateful. He was delighted with the Debate, because the Gentlemen on the opposite side had furnished arguments in favour of Reform which appeared to him unanswerable.
Mr. Robert A. Dundaswas as much opposed as ever to the principle of Reform; but saw no alternative, after the decision of that House, but to vote for his gallant friend's Amendment, which was based on the principles of that decision.
Sir Adolphus Dalrymplesupported the Amendment, and denied that there was any inconsistency in voting for that, though he had supported General Gascoyne's Motion.
Mr. Cumming Brucealso supported the Amendment. He must admit; that the learned Lord had been very eloquent, and very powerful, but he had completely failed to make out a case against his right hon. and gallant friend.
Mr. Pringlewas of opinion, that the claim of Scotland to additional county Representation was unanswerable, and he would give the Amendment his most cordial support.
Mr. Cresset Pelham, declared, that on the Lord Advocate's own showing, Scotland
340
was entitled to more Representatives, and, as long as he was a Member of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, he would stand up for doing justice to every part of it.
Mr. Sheilwished to know how it happened, that when there were four universities in Scotland, and only one in Ireland, it was proposed to give two Members to the Irish University, and none to the Scotch Universities?
The House divided on the Amendment:—Ayes 61; Noes 168—Majority 107.
Clause, as originally proposed, agreed to. Several other Clauses were agreeed to. The House resumed—Committee to sit again.

List of the Noes.

ENGLAND.

Grant, Right Hon. R.

Adeane, H. J.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Althorp, Viscount

Handley, W. F.

Anson, Sir G.

Hawkins, J. H.

Anson, Hon. G.

Heron, Sir R.

Baillie, J. E.

Heywood, B.

Barham, J.

Hobhouse, Sir J. C.

Baring, F. T.

Hodges, T. L.

Barnett, C. J.

Horne, Sir W.

Beaumont, F. W.

Hoskins, K.

Blamire, W.

Howard, P. H.

Blunt, Sir C.

Hughes, Colonel

Bouverie, Hon P. P

Hughes, Alderman

Briscoe, J. I.

Hume, J.

Brougham, J.

Ingilby, Sir W.

Brougham, W.

James, W.

Burton, H.

Jerningham, Hon. H.

Byng, Sir J.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Byng, G.

Jones, J.

Calvert, N.

King, E. B.

Campbell, J.

Knight, R.

Carter, J. B.

Lefevre, C. S.

Cavendish, Lord

Leigh, T. C.

Cavendish, Hon. C.

Lemon, Sir C.

Chaytor, W. R. C.

Lennox, Lord A.

Chichester, J. P. B.

Lennox, Lord G.

Creevey, T.

Lennox, Lord W.

Clayton, Colonel

Lester, B. L.

Curteis, H. B.

Littleton, E. J.

Denman, Sir T.

Lumley, J. S.

Duncombe, T. S.

Maberley, Colonel

Dundas, Sir R. L.

Macaulay, T. B.

Dundas, Hon. J.

Maddocks, J. F.

Dundas, Hon. T.

Macdonald, Sir J.

Ellice, E.

Mangles, J.

Evans, W.

Marjoribanks, S.

Evans, W. B.

Marshall, W.

Ewart, W.

Milbank, M.

Fazakerly, J. N.

Milton, Viscount

Ferguson, Sir R.

Morpeth, Viscount

Foley, Hon. T. H.

Morrison, J.

Foley, J. H. H.

North, F.

Folkes, Sir W.

Norton, C. F.

Fox, Lieut.-colonel

Ord, W.

Gisborne, T.

Paget, T.

Graham, Rt. Hn. Sir J.

Palmer, C. F.

341

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Johnstone, A.

Penleaze, J. S.

Johnstone, J. J. H.

Petre, Hon. E.

Loch, J.

Phillipps, C. M.

Mackenzie, S.

Philips, G. R.

M'Leod, R.

Poyntz, W. S.

Morison, J.

Rider, T.

Sinclair, G.

Ridley, Sir M. W.

Stewart, Sir M. S.

Robinson, Sir G.

IRELAND.

Rooper, J. B.

Acheson, Viscount

Russell, Lord J.

Belfast, Earl of

Russell, Lieut.-col.

Brown, J.

Russell, C.

Browne, D.

Sanford, E. A.

Bourke, Sir J.

Schonswar, G.

Chichester, Sir A.

Scott, Sir E. D.

Duncannon, Viscount

Sebright, Sir.J.

Killeen, Lord

Slaney, R. A.

King, Hon. R.

Smith, J.

Knox, Hon. J. J.

Smith, J. A.

Oxmantown, Lord

Smith, R. V.

Ponsonby, Hon. G.

Stanley, Lord

Power, R.

Stanley. Rt. Hn. E. G. S.

Rice, Right Hon. T. S.

Stephenson, H. F.

Russell, J.

Stewart, P. M.

Walker, C. A.

Strickland, G.

Westenra, Hon.

Strutt, E.

White, Colonel

Stuart, Lord D.

White, S.

Stuart, Lord P. J.

TELLER.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Kennedy, T. F.

Thicknesse, R.

PAIRED OFF.

Thompson, Alderman

Atherley, A.

Throckmorton, R. G.

Brabazon, Lord

Tomes, J.

Buxton, T. F.

Townley, R. G.

Cavendish, Hon. H.

Tracey, C. H.

Cradock, Colonel S.

Venables, Alderman

Crampton, P. C.

Vere, J. J. H.

Davies, Colonel

Vernon, Hon. G. J.

Ebrington, Lord

Villiers, T. S.

Heneage, G. F.

Wason, W. R.

Knight, G.

Watson, Hon. R.

Labouchere, H.

Wellesley, Hon. W.

Lamb, G.

Whitmore, W.

Mayhew, W.

Wilbraham, G.

Nugent, Lord

Wilks, J.

Ossory, Earl of

Williams, Sir J.

Parnell, Sir H.

Williams, W. A.

Paget, Sir C.

Wood, J.

Pelham, Hon. C.

Wood, Alderman

Ponsonby, Hon. J.

Wrightson, W. B.

Price, Sir R.

Wrottesley, Sir J.

Robinson, G.

SCOTLAND.

Rumbold, C. E.

Adam, Admiral C.

Stanley, J. E.

Agnew, Sir A.

Thomson, Rt. Hon. C.

Ferguson, R.

Tynte, C. K. K.

Gillon, W. D.

Walrond, B.

Grant, Right Hon. C.

Western, C. C.

Haliburton, Hon. D. G.

Whitbread, W. H.

Jeffrey, Right Hon. F.

Williams, J.

Johnston, J.

Wood, C.