Commons Sitting of 7 May 1832

MINUTNS.
Petitions presented. By Mr. EWART, from Liverpool, for a Revision of the Criminal Code, as relating to Crimes against Property.—By Mr. E. J. LITTLETON, from Burslem, Shelton, and Harley, for the Abolition of Tithes.—By Mr. SANFORD, from the Throwsters and Manufacturers interested in Silk Mills in the Counties of Dorset and Somerset, for exempting the Silk Trade from the Operation of the Factories Regulation Bill; also from Trent in (Ireland), against the New System of Education.

SALE OF BEER.
Mr. Littletonhad to present Petitions for the amendment of the Sale of Beer Act from Cheadle, Harley, and Shelton. The petitioners prayed that, the Act might be amended in the part which related to beer consumed on the premises; and that beer might be sold for a limited period only on Sundays, and that the licensing of persons of this description should be limited to those whose rental was 10 l. per annum; and that such houses should be immediately under the control of the Magistracy. He did not agree with the whole prayer of the petition, but with that part of it which referred to the limitation to houses of 10 l. a-year, and to these houses being in some measure under the control of the Magistracy. He would admit that it was in opposition to his general ideas of the propriety of free trade that he supported the prayer of the petitions, believing that in this instance particular care was necessary to prevent an abuse of the law.
Mr. Humecould not tell how to reconcile the support of a free-trade system with the advocacy of restrictive measures. He thought that the Magistracy had a strong hankering after a similar monopoly in the licensing of beer shops that they enjoyed over that of the public-houses, but he thought, any further legislative interference was wholly unnecessary, at least, until the present system had had more time afforded to it. Up to the present moment there had, reckoning from the commencement of the operations under the Beer Bill, been a constant decrease in the number of beer shops; from several places he had received an account of the decrease, which reduction he found to be in the proportion of thirty to twelve or thirteen, nearly two-thirds of
734
the number originally opened. He knew not why the poor man should not have the same facility afforded to him for the purchase of his glass of beer, as the rich man for his glass of port; and, he hoped, that more time would be afforded for the fair working of the measure, before any alteration in the present law should take place.
Mr. Trevoragreed with the petitioners at to the evils resulting to the poorer classes of the people from the passing of this measure, although he was not prepared to say in what manner those evils might be remedied. The hon. member for Staffordshire might, with very little trouble, have satisfied himself as to the state of these beer houses, the evils of which were a subject of complaint throughout the country. He had received communications from various quarters, all complaining of these evils, and some restraint ought to be imposed.
Mr. John Woodbelieved that in nine cases out of ten in which these evils had occurred, they had arisen from beer houses being compelled to shut up at an earlier hour than public houses. Why should a person be allowed to drink at a public house and be denied that privilege at a beer house? He thought with his hon. friend the member for Middlesex, that there should be no restriction, for the number of these houses, would of itself diminish the imposing of any restrictions on the enjoyments of the industrious classes of the people.
Mr. Sanfordsaid, much evil had arisen from the indiscriminate manner in which these licenses were granted, to check which some restraints were necessary. Complaints were made from every part of the country of the demoralization of the lower classes of the people, and of the great increase of crime since the passing of this measure. There might be, and no doubt had been cases where the power of licensing had been abused, but it was very hard to say that the country magistrates complained of these evils because they wanted additional powers. They viewed with regret the extreme demoralization of the poorer classes; and witnessing this, and the way in which the poorer classes spent their money in these beer houses, instead of carrying it home for the support of their families, the Magistrates, and others, felt it their duty to state these circumstances. Much good would arise from fixing a rate below which houses should not be licensed.
Mr. Fysche Palmerconfirmed the account of the hon. member for Middlesex, as to the decrease of these beer shops, the proprietors of which, not finding it answer their purpose, had been compelled in many instances, to close them. There was a general cry against these beer shops, without much justification. Up to the present moment time had not been allowed to ascertain the benefits or evils arising from the measure: it was too much to expect that a system which had been in operation only two years should be perfect; the evils with which it was charged, would, he believed, cure themselves in a little time.
Petitions to lie on the Table.

EDUCATION (IRELAND).
Colonel Lindsaypresented a Petition from the provincial Synod of Fife, against the Ministerial Plan of Education in Ireland. The hon. Member said, that this petition was entitled to the most serious attention of the House, as it was signed by seventy-three clergymen of the Established Church of Scotland, and by as many Elders; and they prayed that no legislative enactment might pass, or that no grant should be given, for the purpose of promoting any education in Ireland which was not founded upon the Bible. It was but rarely that the clergy of Scotland interfered in political subjects, and the House might therefore, well suppose that nothing but a sense of duty could bring them forward on this occasion. He had great satisfaction in presenting this petition which completely coincided with his own opinions. He did not support this petition from any feeling of intolerance, which neither he nor the clergy had ever entertained. He was for giving the fullest toleration, but there was a great difference between toleration and encouragement. He could not avoid saying that the constitution of the Irish Board was such as to excite the greatest jealousy amongst the clergy of Scotland, and he must say that he partook of such jealousy. The Board was composed of persons of different sects, and these had an interest in preventing the use of any books which might be inconsistent with their respective creed; now this was a power which certainly ought not to have been granted, particularly to Roman Catholics. He knew it was desirable to give a literary and moral education to the Irish, but then he could not allow any system in which morality was separated from religion, which was the true basis of all morality. This, however, was
736
proposed by the Government, who were to exclude the Bible from schools during four days of the week, and the House by sanctioning the plan of Government, were effectually giving their aid to the separation of religion from morality. He believed the fact to be, that the Government had found it convenient to concede to the Roman Catholics, and this was an additional cause for jealousy. There had been already too many concessions. They had passed the Catholic Relief Bill. They had passed the Test and Corporation Acts; they now were proceeding to the extinction of tithes, a word which as soon as it was announced, rung from one quarter of the country to the other; and the extinction was determined upon before any measure for the relief of the Irish clergy had been passed. He was sure that the proposed system would have the worst effect, and he was sorry that it had ever been adopted, as he felt satisfied it would be a most disastrous blow to the Protestant education in Ireland.
Mr. Robert Dundassaid, he had been called upon to support the prayer of this petition, and he had great pleasure in doing so, as he could bear testimony to the respectability and high intelligence of the petitioners. The clergymen who signed that petition were men of great talents, and great moral worth, and were entitled to have their opinions attentively weighed by the House. He should not then enter more fully into this subject, but should merely say that the opinions of the petitioners were those of the great majority of the clergymen of the Established Church of Scotland. He still hoped that Government would adopt some plan less objectionable with respect to education in Ireland.
Mr. Humehad not intended to have said a word, but he felt called upon to give a decided contradiction to the assertion that the majority of the Church of Scotland were opposed to the Government plan of education. He could take upon himself to say that such was not the case: and in confirmation of his opinion he would merely refer to the only open meeting which had been held in Scotland on the subject. At the meeting in Glasgow there was a majority of five to one against the opposers of the Government plan of education; and he was sure a similar result would await any like public attempt in Scotland. This was a case in which he thought the clergy of Scotland ought to

737
remain neuter; or, if they did interfere at all, it ought not to be to promote any monopoly of education. The Catholics of Ireland had as good a right to education as the Protestants of England, or the Presbyterians of Scotland; and they had also as good a right to be educated in their own way.
Mr. James E. Gordonsupported this petition, which was sanctioned by the signatures of seventy-five clergymen of the Church of Scotland, and as many lay elders. It was a petition which appealed to the heart of every Scotch Member—it recalled to their remembrance that period in the history of their country of which they might well be proud—it reminded them of the struggles made by their ancestors in support of their religion, and was a question which embodied everything which was good and great as attached to the name of Scotchman. The hon. Gentleman who presented this petition said, that the clergy of the Church of Scotland seldom interfered with temporal affairs; but he would impress it on the consideration of the House that this was not such a question—it was one embodying spiritual matters, on which it was their duty, as it was their inclination, to come forward and express an opinion. With respect to what had fallen from the hon. member for Middlesex, was the House to understand, that the knowledge of the clergy of the Church of Scotland, on the subject of education, was not to be put in competition with that possessed by members of Political Unions, who thrust themselves forward and said that they were the only judges on the subject of education, and that, on this, the clergy knew nothing? As he had several petitions, of a similar tenor to the one before the House, to be presented at a future day, he would, for the present, refrain from saying more on this subject.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, the hon. Members who supported the petition had taken upon themselves to eulogize the talents and learning of the clerical personages who signed the petition, but these hon. Members should recollect that there were also great talents and learning amongst the respectable body alluded to by his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex. At the head of that meeting was Sir Daniel Sandford, the Greek professor of the University of Glasgow. A more powerful and rational speech than that of Sir Daniel Sandford's never was delivered. What a contrast did it form to the vulgar bigotry which marked the lucubrations of those who opposed the Government
738
plan of education! The hon. Member (Mr. James E. Gordon), in the plenitude of his kindness, had talked of his disposition to extend toleration to the Catholics of Ireland. She did not want the toleration of the hon. Member. The pride of the Irish Catholics was, to stand upon a level with all other denominations of Christians in the empire, and neither to seek nor require toleration from any of them. The petition which had been presented was a most bigotted and intolerant production. All the meetings which had been held, and the speeches which were delivered, against the Irish Board of Education, were a tissue of the most gross and disgusting cant and hypocrisy. He would cast no imputation on hon. Members, but on every occasion, whenever the subject was introduced, either in that House or out of it, he would denounce this as a factious and bigotted opposition. An honorable Member stated, that the Catholics dictated to the New Board of Education; but only two Catholics belonged to that Board; and by what species of logic would the hon. Member undertake to prove that two persons could dictate to seven? The present plan of education was not framed by Catholics. It was a measure brought forward by the Government on their own responsibility, and it was supported by the Catholics because they considered it a good one. The Catholics were anxious that Protestant and Catholic children should be educated together, but they did not desire to force any system of education on the Protestants of Ireland. An allusion had been made to Emancipation. It had been asserted that the measure effected no good in Ireland. He would tell the hon. Member that Emancipation had been productive of the most salutary results. Parties who had been opposed to each other were now united in the closest bonds of amity, and the only class of persons who endeavoured to keep up dissensions were those who acted from the basest and most interested motives. The Government plan of education proposed to devote two days in the week to religious instruction, and four to literary instruction: it did not interfere with any schools but those which were carried on under their direction. Each party would be instructed by clergymen of their own persuasion, in separate apartments; and all the books employed in the schools were to be selected and arranged by the Managing Board. Many of the objections to this plan came with a very bad grace from those who had

739
supported the Kildare-street Society, which had gone so far as to allow the use of Catholic versions of the Scriptures. Hitherto religion had been prostituted in Ireland, under the plea of supporting a peculiar system of education. What state of society must that be, in which it was necessary for the landlord to consult his clergyman as to what schools he had better counsel his tenant to send his children? If any Protestant could prove that he had ever been interfered with as to the education of his children, he would join him most sincerely in trying to remove so intolerable a nuisance; and he demanded the same freedom from interference for the Catholics of Ireland. The present opposition was resorted to because the measure had been brought forward by a Reforming Government. If hon. Members who declaimed so loudly in favour of liberty of conscience—if they would now take up a case which had been alluded to before in that House, but which had never been followed up—he alluded to the case of two officers belonging to the British service in the island of Malta, who had been dismissed from the army because they refused, from conscientious motives, to bow before the procession of the sacrament in that island: if that case was brought forward, he pledged himself that it should have his support.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, be had once brought this very subject forward, and he was supported by the hon. and learned Member—a circumstance which that hon. and learned Member had forgotten. The language of that hon. Member was scarcely Parliamentary, and such as he would not have addressed to any body of gentlemen out of the House, in speaking of canting hypocrisy.
Mr. O'Connellobserved, that he alluded to the canting hypocrisy out of the House.
Sir Robert Ingliswould leave the hon. Member to settle that with the parties to whom he had alluded, as he best could; but it could not be supposed those Members who advocated petitions like the present could be made answerable for all that parties said out of the House. Did the hon Member mean that the numerous petitions presented against the measure within the last few months, were to be designated as founded on the rankest hypocrisy and cant? It was most surprising to hear hon. Gentlemen say, that these seventy clergymen who had affixed their names to this petition had been influenced by feelings of bigotry. He could not see how, in candour, or
740
according to parliamentary usages, this charge could be brought against those, who were opposed to the present plan of education in Ireland. The supporters of it were indeed equally liable to such charges, and to have motives imputed to them. It was painful to those who held the opinion of these seventy clergymen, to hear the observations of the hon. members for Middlesex and Kerry, and he could not let them pass without making one or two observations in reply. It was a sense of duty alone which induced these rev. gentlemen to petition the House, and it was highly improper to impute personal motives to them. The hon. member for Kerry said, that the Emancipation Bill had produced conciliation between Protestants and Catholics. But the party in Ireland, which called out so loudly for conciliation, never would be satisfied until all the Protestants were driven from that country. Then, indeed, the population might be of one heart and mind, ubi solitudinem facis—then only could the hon. Member talk of general conciliation.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsaid, from his knowledge of the character of the clergy of the Church of Scotland, he had no doubt of the respectability of the petitioners; he would, however, make one observation on what fell from the hon. member for Edinburgh. The hon. Gentleman stated, that there was an universal feeling against this system of education among the clergy of Scotland. This he denied. Many clergymen were, doubtless, opposed to it, but the majority were not, and many of the most respectable and learned members of that body were divided in their approbation of it. An hon. friend of his had a petition, similar to the one now before the House, to present from the Synod of Galloway. He (Mr. Cutlar Fergusson) had received a letter from a clergyman in that district, in, forming him that the petition was only carried by the casting voice of the moderator. His informant was the rev. Mr. Jeffries, and he stated that he proposed an amendment to the petition, which was lost by one only. This, at least, showed, that the feeling was not universal against the system. It was stated, that the plan of Government excluded the use of the Scriptures. Instead of this, the Protestant children had the use of the whole of the Scriptures for two days, and for the remainder of the week they used, in common with the Catholic children, select extracts from the Scriptures, approved by the clergy of

741
both creeds. It appeared to him that, if there was any objection to this plan, it was the circumstance of making the Scriptures almost a common school-book. This was not calculated to increase a reverence for the Bible in the minds of the children.
Petition to be printed.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
On the Motion of Lord Stormont, Mr. Reid, the printer of the handbill in which the names of the majority and minority of the Committee of the House of Commons which sat upon the Sunderland Dock Bill were published, was called to the Bar. He said, he printed the bill by direction of a majority of a committee of persons in Sunderland interested in the Bill. He took the list of names from a letter signed by Wright and Kidson, the solicitors for the Bill.
These gentlemen, were then, on the Motion of Lord Stormont, called to the Bar, and acknowledged the writing of the letter. They were not aware that in so doing they were committing a Breach of Privilege, and expressed their sincere regret that they had inadvertently done so.
On the Motion of Lord Stormont the House voted the letter written by the Solicitors, in which the names of the majority and minority of the Committee were published, to be a Breach of Privilege.
Lord Stormontmoved, that the Solicitors should be called to the Bar, which was accordingly done.
Mr. Beaumontmoved that Mr. Kidson and Mr. Wright, the explanations which they had given and the apologies which they made being deemed sufficient, be discharged, and that the House do not think it necessary to proceed any further in the business.
Mr. JohnCampbell supported the Motion.
Sir Robert Peelhoped that Mr. Kidson and Mr. Wright would be discharged without punishment; but he thought they should receive, through the organ of the House, such a reprimand as their great offence merited; and they should be told that, had it not been for their personal explanations, the House would have punished them severely. Their offence was a great one. To charge a Committee of that House with being influenced by corrupt motives in the discharge of their official duties was a very serious offence. It had been said, that the letter which was written, and which constituted the
742
offence, was written confidentially, and which stated that the Bill had been defeated through a corrupt family connection. That letter was written for the purpose of being shown to more than 100 persons, who were interested in the Bill; therefore, he thought that circumstance deprived it of its confidential character. Moreover, it was written with the intention of publication, and such being the case, he was of opinion that a very great offence had been committed; yet, after the explanations which had been given, and the apologies which had been made, he hoped that the House would agree with him in thinking a reprimand would be deemed a sufficient punishment.
Mr. O'Connellthought a reprimand a very severe punishment, and that it should not be inflicted except upon very important occasions. It was beneath the dignity of the House to do so. He thought that, after the great sorrow which had been expressed by Mr. Kidson and Mr. Wright, the Motion of the hon. member for Northumberland would meet the justice of the case. For his part, he would give it his most cordial support.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that he had made a technical mistake. He had just understood that, before a reprimand could be given by the organ of the House, it was necessary that the parties should be in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, and, therefore, he would move that the word "admonition" he substituted for "reprimand."
Sir Robert Inglissaid, that it was inconsistent with the dignity of the House not to punish most severely the Breach of Privilege which had been committed, at least by the severest reprimand.
Mr. C. W. Wynnconceived that it was the bounden duty of the House to visit the present offence with a very severe punishment.
Lord Althorpthought it was the duty of the House to inflict punishment in serious cases, yet, in the present one, he thought that, after the apologies which had been made at the Bar, the House would deem an admonition sufficient.
Sir George Cockburn, though a Member of the Committee which had been alluded to, felt nothing personal towards Mr. Kidson and Mr. Wright; yet he was sure, had any hon. Member been present, he would see how unjust it was to impute improper motives to that Committee, and how perfectly false the charges were which had been made against them. He perfectly con-

743
curred in the Motion of the right hon. Member in the substitution of the word "admonition" for "reprimand."
Mr. Huntthought the present offence was slight to that which had often been committed by the hon. member for Kerry, who called the House, which represented the majesty of the people, the nominees of the borough-mongers; therefore, he hoped, in the present instance, the slightest possible punishment would be inflicted.
It was then
"Resolved—That the letter addressed to the Committee of Wet Docks, Sunderland, signed John P. Kidson and Joseph John Wright, contains libellous matter, reflecting on the Committee of this House, to whom the Sunderland Docks Bill was referred, in Breach of the Privileges of this House.
"Resolved—That John P. Kidson and Joseph John Wright, in having written the said letter to the Committee of Wet Docks Sunderland, have been guilty of a high Breach of the Privileges of this House.
"Ordered—That John P. Kidson and Joseph John Wright be called to the Bar of this House, and there admonished by Mr. Speaker."
Mr. Kidson and Mr. Wrightwere again called to the Bar, and were thus addressed by Mr. Speaker:—
"Mr. John Kidson and Mr. Joseph Wright, the House have taken into their consideration the letter upon which you have been examined. It was impossible for them to entertain a doubt that it contains a grave Breach of the Privileges of this House; and, if it had been unaccompanied by the explanations which both of you have afforded, and by the regret which you have expressed, the House would have felt it due to themselves and to the public to have taken the most serious notice of it; but they have been struck with the candour with which you have stated your own conduct; they have been induced to believe that the earnestness and zeal that you felt in the interests of your clients led you unpremeditatedly to the commission of this Breach of Privilege; and, under these circumstances, they feel that their own honour and dignity may be preserved, and that the public interests will not be compromised, by their consenting to go no further than to direct me, as their Speaker, to admonish you as to your future conduct; that admonition, they feel persuaded, will preclude a repetition of such offence, and relieve them from the painful task of considering its enormity."

BLOCKADE OF MADEIRA.
Lord Eliotbegged to repeat a question he had put before the recess to the noble Lord opposite, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. He wished to know whether any information with respect to the blockade of the island of Madeira had reached the noble Lord; and if so, he hoped the noble Lord would have no objection to communicate it to the House. The questions he would put to the noble Lord were—first, by whom the blockade was notified to him; and, secondly, in whose name it was carried on. It was said on one hand to be carried on by her most faithful Majesty, and on the other it was more generally believed to be carried on by the Regency of Terceira, as two vessels were in the blockading squadron bearing the colours of the Regency. It was also asserted that the squadron was commanded by British officers, and manned by British seamen. He also wished to know what information the noble Lord opposite had received on that point.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that he could only give the same answer to the noble Lord as he had addressed to Lloyd's on the subject. The blockade was carried on in the name of her most faithful Majesty Donna Maria, queen of Portugal, who was competent to institute such a blockade. With respect to the question on the subject of the squadron being commanded and manned by British officers and seamen, he was unable to give any information, further than that the officer commanding was an Englishman, who had formerly served as a midshipman in the British navy, but who was now entirely unconnected with that service.
Lord Eliotbegged again to inquire from whom the information of the blockade was received.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that the information received had been sent by the Admiral to the British Consul on the island, and it was by the British Consul forwarded to this country.

CORONERS' BILL.
Mr. Crippsmoved that the House resolve itself into a Committee on the Coroners' Bill.
Mr. John Campbellconceived that further proceedings with the Bill ought, for the present, to be postponed.
Mr. Godsonconcurred with the hon. member for Stafford, and thought the Bill ought to be referred to a Select Committee.
Mr. Huntopposed the Bill, and expressed

745
his determination to divide the House on the Motion.
House divided: Ayes 34; Noes 2—Majority 32.
House in Committee, and, on the Motion of Mr. Hunt, counted out.