Commons Sitting of 15 July 1833

Preamble
MIUTES Papers ordered. On the Motion of Mr. JOHN O'CONNELL, an Account of the Quantity of Glass Imported into Ireland, during the three years preceding the laying on of the glass Tax; also the Amount of the Sum paid by Law Students to the Courts of Law in Ireland and in England.—on the Motion of Mr. SPRING RICE, the total Amount of Timber and other Articles of Wood imported into the Isle of Man from Foreign Parts, in the last five years; also the Advances made from the Consolidated Fund in Ireland, for Paying the Commissioners appointed for Establishing a Composition of Tithes.
Bill. Read a third time:—Letters Patent.
Petitions presented. By Mr. BLAKE, from Ballingeholla, against the manner of Collecting Tithes in Ireland By Mr. RUTHVEN, from Dublin, against the Coal and Ship Owners of Newhaven—By Mr. G. J. VERNON, from two places, against, and from one Place, in favour of, the Lord's Day Observance Bill.—By Lord LUMLEY, from several Cotton Mills; and by Mr. G. J. VERNON, from Ilkiston, against the Factory Bill.—By Mr. MARSHALL, from the Medical Practitioners of Leeds, against the Apothecaries Bill.—By Mr. TOOKE, from the Liverpool Law Society, for Relief from the Tax on Attornies' certifieates.—By Mr. BRIGGS, from Halifax, in favour of the Notaries Public Bill; and also in favour of the Rating in Tenements Bill.—By Mr. BEAMIRB, from Workington, for Amending the Law relative to Roman Catholic Marriages.—My Mr. BEWES, from Plymouth, for a Revision of the Sale of Beer Act.—By Mr. DAWSON, from the Frame-work Knitters of Hinckley, for Relief.—By Mr. TRELAWNEY, from East Cornwall, for a Commutation of Tithes.

THE MALT-TAX—THE ADMINISTRATION.
Major Beauclerkpresented a Petition from freeholders and others of East Surrey, adopted at a public meeting, praying for a commutation of taxes, and complaining particularly of the Malt and Assessed taxes on houses and windows. He should have been most happy in presenting such a petition if he thought it likely to receive the attention of Government, but he feared, from what had been evinced, that there was little to expect from the present Ministry. The people had not been enamoured with Reform, because it was the means of turning and keeping out a Tory, and keeping in a Whig Government, but because they hoped through it, to have a reduction of taxation. He was extremely sorry that Government had so bitterly disappointed those expectations. In consequence of what bad fallen from the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he bad made particular inquiry at various markets, and other suitable places in the county of. Surrey, and the result of his research had been a more thoroughly confirmed opinion of the distresses of the agricultural interests. He hoped that Ministers would have that regard to sound policy ill the present stale of the country, which dictated the total repeal of those odious taxes, according to the prayer of this petition, and in compliance with the universal wishes of a united people.
Mr. Briscoesupported the prayer of the petition. He was present at the meeting where it was agreed to, and could testify to the House, that the persons present were of the greatest respectability, and were all unanimous in demanding the repeal of these odious taxes.
Mr. Fergus O'Connoragreed in the

639
sentiments embodied in the petition, and took that opportunity of expressing his regret that his Majesty's Ministers were not present in order that they might hear what the petitioners thought of their conduct. The Ministers had been always holding out to the people the great advantages of Reform; but when any practical measure was suggested in that House, or enforced from without, they uniformly came forward and invented, or found, some pretext for not acceding to it. They had before called upon the House for a vote of confidence in their general Administration; it was obtained, and now another was about to be asked for. With what justice? They had broken every pledge which they had given to the country, and disappointed all the fair hopes and expectations which had been entertained of practical Reform and relief from the pressing burthens of taxation. They had forfeited all confidence, disgusted the country, and treated the opinions of that House with contempt. The people put them on the Ministerial benches, with wreaths of laurel on their heads; but they had speedily withered—and the people, groaning under taxation, and anxious for immediate relief, deeply repented having ever placed any dependence on their promises. Looking to measures, and not men, the people were ready to support any Ministry which would give them practical relief, with safety to the country. His Majesty's Ministers could not much longer occupy their present situations. He would implore the House, in the name of justice, not to consent to any vote of confidence in Ministers, such as they would be asked for in the course of the evening, for their truckling and vacillating course of policy had disgraced themselves and dissatisfied the people.
Colonel Evanswas prepared to prove, that the House and Window taxes, to which the petition referred, was not just and impartial, and the people would be pusillanimous slaves if they endured them without complaint. The Ministry had irrevocably pledged themselves on four subjects—the East and West-India questions, the Bank Charter, and the repeal of the Assessed-taxes. The East-India question, as far as related to the throwing open of the China trade, had been in contemplation by the previous Government, who were prepared to recommend it to the House before they quitted office; so
640
that the present Ministry had no peculiar claim to the merit of introducing it. As to the West-India question, the country could not and would not consent to pay 20,000,000 l. wrung from taxation, for the purpose of putting an end to slavery. As to the Bank question, instead of removing the evils complained of, they had actually extended them, and given greater advantages to the monopolists than they formerly possessed; while their conduct in reference to the Assessed-taxes had irretrievably disgraced and overwhelmed them with public indignation. The House of Lords might deal with the Church of Ireland Reform Bill as they pleased; the people did not care for it—it was looked upon with indifference out of that House; but the present Ministry had forfeited the confidence of the House and the country, and some change was essential for the relief and welfare of the country.
The Solicitor Generalasked: Would it not be magnanimous on the part of hon. Members to postpone these multifarious attacks upon the Ministers until they were present to refute them, which he was satisfied they would have very little difficulty to do? It could not be expected, that he, who only attended in the House for the purpose of presenting a petition, and was the only person present connected with the Government, should he prepared on the moment to defend every Ministerial measure, both foreign and domestic, which had been the subject of attack by different Members. The course adopted appeared to him exceedingly unfair, as it was most distinctly understood, that the morning sitting should be devoted to the presentation of petitions, and not made the vehicle of general discussions on politics.
Mr. Denisonwould declare, in answer to some hints thrown out by the hon. and gallant member for the city of Westminster, that if the present Government should be obliged to leave office, they could not be succeeded by any set of men who had the real interests and happiness of this country more sincerely at heart than they had. He thought the present a most unfit and inconvenient period for discussions of this nature, and he wished to know how it was possible to present the petitions of the people if the time was thus consumed in the discussion of party politics? He supported the petition.
Mr. Finnsaid, the conduct of the present Government towards Ireland was just as bad as was that of the Emperor Nicholas towards the Poles, and only the moderation of the Irish prevented them from making a resistance similar to that the Poles had made to the Russians.
Sir George Phillipsthought fair play was not given to the Ministers, nor did they receive sufficient credit for what they had already done for the country, considering the short period they had been in office. He deprecated all such attacks on the conduct of Ministers, which were only made behind their backs for the purpose of inflaming the public mind, when no opportunity was afforded of rebutting them [Cries of "Order"]. [Colonel Evans disclaimed any such intention]. Such, at least, was the tendency of the speeches of some of the hon. Members who had preceded him. The retirement from office of the present Ministers would be attended with the most fearful consequences to the country, and, in the course of a few weeks, the hon. Gentlemen opposite would themselves have great reason to regret it. He had the greatest confidence in their measures, both foreign and domestic, and believed no set of men had the good of their country more earnestly at heart he was very anxious to contradict assertions which had been made of the great distress that prevailed in the manufacturing districts. He denied that any great distress existed there, though he admitted that distress might exist in the agricultural districts. He had always been desirous to repeal taxes, but he would never do it at the expense of public credit. He felt confident, however, that another Session of Parliament would not pass without very great reductions in taxation.
Mr. Humethought, that was not the time to make speeches in praise or censure of Ministers; the time was very near at hand when the subject would be forced upon their consideration. In his opinion the best way to support public credit was, by lessening taxes to such a degree as to enable the people to pay them. He cordially supported the petition, and wished to inform the House, that public meetings were now holding in all parts of the country for the purpose of presenting similar petitions. The time had now arrived when Government must meet the wishes of the people on this subject.
Mr. Tennysonsaid, his hon. friend seemed to speak with a good deal of authority upon the subject, but such a late attention to the wishes of the people would not give them satisfaction. Pressed as the Government now were, placed in all sorts of difficulties in order to keep their places, he did not doubt but that their hearts would soften a little towards the people; but that conduct would not satisfy the people, nor would it induce him to give one vote in order to keep on the Treasury benches a Ministry who had broken every pledge they had made for a long series of years. Any change would be for the better, for they must either get a better or a worse Government, and a worse would not stand for a week.
The Earl of Kerryhoped the hon. member for Cork (Mr. E. O'Connor), who had spoken about pledges, would bring the question of Repeal of the Union fully and fairly before the House, to which the hon. Member was pledged.
Sir Samuel Whalleysaid, the people blamed the Government for not experiencing the benefits of the Reform Bill, and they blamed the House of Commons for not enforcing a reduction of taxation, and remedying the grievances under which they laboured. There was no tax that so loudly called for repeal as the House and Window-tax. He for one would never help to keep any Ministry in office unless it was for the purpose of instituting the most searching economy and unless it pledged itself to the repeal of the iniquitous tax on houses and windows.
Mr. Fryersaid, the radicals and reformers did not know what they wanted. Why did not the Members unite together, and not belike a rope of sand? Nothing was done, and nothing obtained, because there was a want of unity among them. Had the Opposition among whom were all the complaints, done their duty, the obnoxious taxes would have been repealed, or the supplies would have been stopped.
Mr. Baldwinsaid, the question seemed to have been discussed as if there were but two parties, Whigs and Tories; but he would only support that class that did best for the people, without regard to party. He eared not who was Minister, so that the Administration were one that would uphold the interests of the country.
Mr. John E. Stanley, trusted that those

643
Gentlemen who condemned a Government which had been prevented, from many causes, from going as far as they wished, when they gave their support to any other Government, would urge them on to complete those things which had now been commenced.
Mr. Cobbettwished to say a single word upon the petition. It did not state, that the petitioners wished for the repeal of the whole Malt-tax. [Mr. Briscoe: It says the whole tax.] One hon. Member had said he would be content to have one-half the Malt-tax taken off'; but it would be of no use to take off only half the Malt-tax. He wished much for a repeal of the House-tax, but he thought a repeal of the whole of the Mall-tax was as loudly called for, and would be more beneficial.
Mr. Hawessaid, that as to a change of Ministers, he for one did not think it would be conducive to the interests of the country that such a change should take place at present; and, he certainly would not seek for a better Administration through a worse one.
Petition laid on the Table.

TITHES (IRELAND).
Mr. Chapmanpresented a Petition from a place in Meath, complaining of the enforcement of Tithes, and praying for relief.
Mr. Humesupported the prayer of the Petition. The people of England as well as those of Ireland would no longer voluntarily submit to that tax. They were determined that both tithes and Church rates should he abolished. Ministers, he must say, did not deal fairly. They dismissed men from office who attended liberal meetings, while they allowed those who attended meetings of their enemies to go unpunished. That was not even-handed justice, he warned the Ministers that the people would no longer support them in such a course.
Mr. Sheilcertainly could not see any good reason why Sir Richard Nagle had been dismissed for attending tithe meetings. The Irish Church had been distinguished for the mischief it had done—it had destroyed the Whig Government in 1807. It had destroyed the Government of the Duke of Wellington, and he did not say it would destroy the present Government; but it was high time Ministers looked to the probable consequences of their own actions.
Mr. Finnsaid, that Ministers had dismissed Colonel Butler from the Magistracy in Kilkenny, and the consequence was, that the people had dismissed the Ministerial candidate, and sent Colonel Butler to that House. He had also been sent to the House by the people to aid the Colonel in protecting their rights, and support the Ministers while they did that, and he would not support them one moment longer.
Lord John Russelladmitted the propriety of dealing with all those who attended public meetings on the same principle. As long as a man only gave free vent to his political opinions, he deserved no punishment, but between that and attending meetings of which the avowed object was to resist the law, there was a broad distinction. He was not precisely aware of the facts of the case alluded to, but he had no doubt it was upon that principle that his noble friends had acted.
Petition to lie on the Table.

RIGHTS OF GRAND JURORS.
Mr. Hawespresented a Petition from the Grand Jury of the late Easter General Sessions of Newington, Surrey, complaining of the withholding of their rights to inspect the County Gaol. For persisting in that right one of the Grand Jurors had been fined 10 l. As long as the present system was continued, it would be impossible, that the provisions of the Gaol Act could be properly enforced. The Grand Jury could not even now act up to their duty, which called upon them diligently to inquire into such subjects as might afford matter for presentment. If no other Member brought forward such a measure as would facilitate the views of the petitioners, he should himself take an carly opportunity of doing so.
Mr. Denisonthanked the hon. Member for the temperate manner in which he had brought forward the subject. He could assure the House, that that gaol was as clean and well regulated as any one in the kingdom.
Mr. Tennysonhad frequently visited prisons in his quality of Grand. Juror; and when he heard of a chairman telling a Foreman that he would send him to gaol for pressing that right, and when they found that a fine of ten pounds was inflicted, it was necessary for Grand Jurors to have the matter settled.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, the Grand Jury had no right to inspect the gaol as visitors, but they certainly had the right to view and inspect the building both inside and outside, in order to report or represent whether it was in a proper state for carrying the laws and regulations of the Magistrates into effect. It was right that he should inform the House, that, with respect to the fine of ten pounds, it having been levied for a contempt of Court, it could not be brought before any Court by way of action. There was, he believed, no remedy for it. It was to be supposed, that no fine could have been inflicted without some very great provocation having been given; but, at the same time, he could not suppose that any gentleman, in the situation of Foreman of a Grand Jury, and supported by all his fellows, would be guilty of any provocation to render so extreme a course necessary. He repeated, that the Grand Jury had a right to inspect the whole of the gaol, both inside and outside, for the purpose of making their presentment; but that they had no right to go further, and inquire into the discipline, as that power was expressly given to the visiting Magistrates.
Sir James Scarlettsaid, the Act of Parliament, (the Gaol Act) did not give the Grand Jury any further powers than they before possessed, for it related chiefly to building and repairing of the gaol. He thought, however, that Grand Juries had the power to inspect gaols before they could be called on to make any presentment, and, he hoped, that no Court would resist their viewing a gaol unless something particular prevented it. As to fining one gentleman ten pounds, he really thought it could not be for requesting to view the gaol, but for something which occurred afterwards, and the proceedings were not before the House to enable them to judge of the question.
Major Beauclerksaid, as far as he understood the case, the fine was not for contempt of Court, but only for asserting a right to visit the gaol.
Mr. Cobbettsaid, in Queen Elizabeth's time, persons who were called poor people, are now called paupers; those who were once called gaolers, are now called Governors; so that both the English language and English feeling were perverted, he believed the plain truth was, that the Magistrates and Governors of gaols wished
646
to prevent the people of England from knowing how prisoners were treated.
Mr. Divettsaid, he would not allow the foul libel of the hon. member for Oldham on the Magistracy of England to pass without a most positive contradiction.
Mr. Cobbettsaid, as truth was a libel, he could not say he was not a libeller.
Mr. Hughes Hughessaid, that the Foreman was fined for using violent language in the Court, and not for claiming a right to visit the prison.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE
Mr. Cobbettrose to complain of what he considered a Breach of Privilege. The House would remember it had been stated in the House, a short time since, that Police Spies were about. A publication had been put forth to-day of a very singular nature, and which had all the appearance of being sent forth under the auspices of the head of the police. The publication set forth at great length the evidence that had been given before the Committee appointed to investigate into the facts contained in the petition presented by him (Mr. Cobbett) from persons belonging to the Union of Walworth and Camberwell. And not content with that, various comments were made; and it was stated, that there was little doubt the Committee would acquit the accused, for the evidence of the parties who had been examined against the police was contradictory, and the witnesses themselves were persons of disreputable character. It appeared also, that the Secretary of State had been most improperly furnished with a copy of the proceedings, whilst the Committee was sitting, certainly, without his consent, and before the Committee had been furnished with it. The spy Popay had been permitted by the Secretary of State to take extracts of the evidence given against him, which he had published in the newspapers, aspersing the character of the witnesses. Having put the House in possession of these facts, he would leave the House to act as it thought proper.
Lord Althorpsaid, it was difficult to understand what the complaint of the hon. Member was. Was it that the publication in question referred to the proceedings of a Select Committee?
Mr. Cobbett: That the publication aspersed the character of the witnesses.
Lord Althorpsaid, this was the first time he had heard of it. He did not believe the Secretary of State had any connexion with the transaction.
Mr. Cobbettsaid, that the publication took place in a paper called the Police Gazette. It was published in Surrey-street, under the auspices of the police; and the policemen were desired each of them to take a copy of it, which they had at a penny less than it was sold for to other persons. There was no stamp on the paper; and, upon an information on that ground having; been laid before the Magistrates, they refused to take cognizance of it, saying it was the province of the Stamp Office to take proceedings, and that they could not do so, without an intimation from the Stamp Office. The complaint he made was, that Popay was allowed to get and publish extracts from the evidence taken against him before the Committee. This, he considered, most improper, especially when the evidence was not yet submitted to the House.
Mr. Kennedy,as a member of the Committee, wished to observe, that the hon. Member for Oldham had, according to a practice not unusual with him, stated as facts things which were of a very opposite character to facts. He had stated, that a copy of the evidence had been furnished to the Secretary of State before a copy had been supplied to the members of the Committee themselves; it was true that a copy was furnished to the Secretary of State, with the permission of the hon. Member himself, but the Committee had also a copy of each day's proceedings, each succeeding day, ac-cording to usual practice. It was also insinuated, that because a copy was furnished to the Secretary of State, extracts were furnished by him to Popay; but the hon. Member had no right to draw such an inference; the hon. Member should recollect that the Committee had given permission for Popay to see the whole of the evidence, and, therefore, he had an opportunity of taking extracts if he pleased. Indeed it was indispensable that Popay should have a copy of the evidence, as his character was attacked. But as to any Member of the Government giving him permission to publish paragraphs in the newspaper alluded to, he disbelieved it. No person connected with the Government had anything to do with that publication.
Mr. Tennysonsaid, it was a little remarkable that the Secretary of State should wish for a copy of the evidence when the conduct of the Government was not impugned. Had he been present in the Committee at the time, he would have protested against it. When such was the case, it was perfectly natural that the hon. member for Oldham should assume, upon his seeing the paragraph in the newspapers, that Popay, who was charged, and, in point of fact, proved to be a spy, had access to the evidence, through the Secretary of State, and had published it. He could have got it in no other way; for, although it was ordered, that Popay should have a copy of the evidence against him, yet the copies of the evidence were not yet delivered. The inference of the hon. member for Oldham was, at least, a natural one.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the hon. member for Oldham had stated this paper to be published under the sanction of the police. He doubted very much whether the police ought to become gazetteers, and certainly if their conduct were impeached, they had no right to publish to the world that the witnesses against them were persons of bad character.
Lord Althorpwished it to be understood that he thought it impoper to allow the police to have anything to do with such publications; indeed, he did not think the police had anything to do with it more than himself, or than the hon. and learned Gentleman,
Mr. Kennedysaid, when it was proposed in Committee, that Popay should be furnished with a copy of the evidence, it was stated, that if he were so furnished with it, he would have to pay the expense; upon which it was arranged that he should be permitted to see the Secretary of State's copy.
Mr. Cobbettsaid, he had been always present in the Committee when five members were there, and therefore he knew what passed in the Committee better than the hon. Member who preceded him. Popay was to have the evidence read to him next Wednesday, and then to have a lawyer, and to be permitted to cross-examine the witnesses if he pleased. So that he had never yet had a copy of the evidence, nor was it ever ordered, that he should have a copy. Popay had told the Committee, that he had seen a copy at the Secretary of State's Office, and had

649
been allowed to read it, to examine it, and to take extracts from it, in order to frame questions to cross-examine upon. He did not object to this permission being granted him for that purpose only. The hon. member for Lambeth objected to such accommodation being given. He, however, would say, let him have all the accommodation that any person could ask for him. He did not complain of Popay being allowed to obtain extracts, but of his disparaging the character of witnesses whose demeanour and conduct were most proper, and whose characters he firmly believed would bear the strictest inquiry.
Mr. Wynnobjected to copies of the evidence being furnished for such a purpose, or that Counsel should be permitted to cross-examine the witnesses. It was contrary to all rule and precedent.
Mr. Estcourtsaid, that popay had been allowed to have access to the evidence, for the special purpose of enabling his Counsel to cross-examine the witnesses. In bringing the matter before the House, the hon. member for Oldham had designated the man Popay as a spy, and that he had published the extracts of the evidence. Now he thought it was too much to fix so odious an appellation upon the man before he was convicted of being so, or to set him down as the publisher of the evidence before there was any proof to that effect. If, through the inquiry, it was shown, that Popay deserved such a designation, he would be the first to say, let the consequences of his conduct be attached to him; but, in common justice, hon. Members should abstain from making such assertions until the whole truth was known.
Colonel Evansthought, that the observation of the hon. Member was very just; but, on the same principle, Popay should have abstained from attacking the conduct of the witnesses against him. He thought it would be satisfactory to the House and the public, if the noble Lord would declare, that, should such conduct be repeated, serious notice would be taken of it.
Lord Ebringtonsaid, if the matter complained of was a breach of privilege, the hon. Member could bring it before the House in a substantive shape, when other hon. Members of the Committee would be able to give their opinion of the matter. The Motion would come with propriety from a Member of the Committee.
The subject dropped.

CALL OF THE HOUSE—THE ADMINISTRATION
On the Motion, that the Order of the Day respecting the East-India Bill, be read,
Sir John Wrottesleyrose to bring forward his Motion for ensuring the attendance of hon. Members on Thursday next, in case the two Houses of Parliament should come into collision upon the subject of the Church Temporalities (Ireland) Bill. It might, perhaps, be made a question why he did not bring forward such a Motion at an earlier period; but he had thought it adviseable to postpone it until it could be in some degree ascertained what course the other branch of the Legislature was likely to pursue. He thought it now desirable, with the means which they at present had of judging what the intentions of certain persons might possibly be, to enable the House to have the earliest possible means of calling upon the absent Members to give the speediest attendance in case the crisis, which there was now much reason to anticipate, should arrive;. He did not consider, that a Motion of this sort called for many arguments to support it; but as some hon. Members did not think, that a Motion of the kind which he was about to propose should be adopted without some reasons, he would state a few of those which occurred to him. At the commencement of the Session his Majesty had told them in his most gracious speech, that there never was a period in which subjects of such immense importance as those which they would have to consider had come under the attention of the British Parliament. All would agree, that the topics upon which they had been occupied during the present Session corresponded to the description in his Majesty's Speech. There were still three subjects of the greatest importance before them—the East-India Company's Charter, the Bank Charter, and also the important question of West-India slavery. All these would still require the anxious attention of hon. Members. It might be said, that these did not afford a sufficient excuse for making a Motion, which would have the effect of recalling to London all those Members who had absented themselves, as nothing but the details of these measures remained to be considered. There was, besides these, one measure which had passed that House, and which he looked upon as exceeding all the others to which he had alluded in interest and importance,

651
and on account of which he thought himself justified in pressing for the adoption of his Motion. No one was more fully convinced than he was of the necessity of paying a due regard to the privileges of the other branch of the Legislature. He was persuaded, that they could not do better, if they wished to have due respect paid to their own privileges, than to behave with all due attention to those of the other House of Parliament. The measure to which he alluded, however, was, the Church Temporalities (Ireland) Bill. The duty of this House, after a Bill had passed them, did not terminate with respect to it, as soon as it had left its messenger's hands. The House of Commons had an undoubted right to watch over the conduct of the other House of Parliament, and to be guided in its proceedings by the votes in that other House upon bills which the Commons had passed; in the same manner as they had a right, if the Bill was passed by the Lords with Amendments, to adopt or reject those Amendments, upon the message being brought from the House of Lords, desiring their concurrence in them. It was impossible to conceal the fact, that a Bill which had passed the House of Commons by a large majority had been termed by persons elsewhere a measure of spoliation. It was also well known, that individuals of great influence in the country had declared, that they were not only dissatisfied with the details of the measure, but had decided objections to its principle. If this measure alone were concerned—however great and important he considered it to be; and believing, as he did, that it would tend to secure the Church from the dangers which threatened it, and to render it efficient for the purposes for which it was originally intended—he (Sir John Wrottesley) could not but look with anxiety to the fate of the Bill, even in that point of view; but if that were all, he should, perhaps, have less uneasiness upon the subject. It was his opinion, that if that Bill were rejected, it would be the rejection of the great principle of Reform, by which the Members of the present House of Commons had been fixed in their seats. If it should be found, that the principle of Reform could not be carried into effect in the Church, hon. Members would not receive the approbation even of the most moderate of their constituents. He thought, therefore, that they were bound to call upon those Members
652
who were absent to be at their posts, and to be prepared, in case any great event should occur respecting this Bill. They were only doing their duty when they inferred, that such might possibly be the case; and if any difficulty should arise, the public would undoubtedly expect that their Representatives would be at their posts. He felt obliged for the attention which the House had given to his observations; and would merely conclude by moving, "that the House be called over on Thursday next."
Sir Robert Peelfelt it his duty to take advantage of that earliest moment, first, to deprecate all discussion on the Motion of the hon. Baronet, and next to deprecate the Motion itself being persisted in. The hon. Baronet had assigned two reasons for bringing it forward, which a moment's consideration could entirely dissipate. In the first place, said the hon. Baronet, there are very many important measures before the House, not yet advanced through all their stages, and which should be discussed only in a full House. But how could it be said, that the House had neglected to attend the progress of these measures? Was it not a fact, that the principles and provisions of all those named by the hon. Baronet had been expounded and discussed before an unusually full attendance of Members? The Bank Charter had been so discussed, the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) having yielded to the sense of the House, and postponed those portions which would require a full attendance. If the attendance upon the Committee on the East-India Charter Bill was comparatively thin, was not the fair inference that little or no opposition would be made to its progress, its general principle and provisions having been approved by a full House? And as to the West-India question, he never witnessed a fuller attendance than that before which its principles and provisions were minutely detailed. No charge, therefore, could be made of non-attendance in reference to the important measures cited by the hon. Baronet. But if even it was not so, he knew not how a call of the House could remedy the evil; for after the form of that call had been complied with, it must be left to every hon. Member's discretion to bestow or neglect that close attention to the proceedings which the call was intended to enforce. However, the hon. Baronet had not rested his Motion on the necessity

653
of a full attendance in reference to this measure. The hon. Baronet had told them, that his Motion was meant to apply particularly to a measure then before the other House of Parliament; and he gave as a reason for the House's acceding to it, that he had seen in the public prints statements to the effect, that one noble person had characterized the Irish Church Bill as a "measure of spoliation," and that other noble Lords had declared they were opposed to the "principle" of that Bill. Now, he implored the House not to adopt such rumours as the foundation of their proceedings. They owed it to their own dignity; they owed it to the dignity and independence of the other branch of the Legislature. He did not mean to say, that an occasion might not arise when it would be necessary for them to meet and express an opinion in reference to some act of the House of Lords; but he must deprecate their anticipating the possibility of such an event on a mere rumour, or adopting any proceeding which must appear only as an attempt to control and menace the proceedings of the other House of Parliament. What pretext was there for such an unprecedented proceeding? The Irish Church Bill had been sent up to the House of Lords; it was read a first time; it was appointed to be read a second time; the day for that second reading had not yet arrived. Were they, on mere flying rumours and vague assumptions, to anticipate the probable result of that second reading? Such conduct would be most unwise, and in the teeth of all rational precedent. It would be more—it would be placing themselves entirely in the wrong. They knew nothing, and constitutionally could know nothing, of the intended acts of the other branch of the Legislature, only as itself communicated them. They owed it to themselves, to their own privileges and character, to respect the privileges and character of the other House of Parliament; and they were not to anticipate any result which might imply, that the Members of the other House were not men of honour, and men who did not exercise their privileges—not as privileges given them for their own personal advantage, but for the benefit of the people. When the occasion arose, let them assert their rights, but let them not lower themselves by anticipating such an occasion on mere vague rumour and assumption. He trusted, therefore, that
654
the hon. Baronet would with draw his Motion, and he also earnestly trusted, that the discussion on its subject matter would here terminate.
Colonel Hayexpressed his hope, that the hon. Baronet would not withdraw the Motion; and if no other Member should take it up, he himself would.
Mr. O'Connellalso expressed his hope, that the Motion would not be withdrawn. The hon. Baronet ought to stand by his Motion, it was right that Members should be at their posts, if any crisis should arise to call for their united efforts. The right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) had said, that the measure was one for which there was no precedent—forgetting that, for the last century, it was impossible that there should have been any precedent; for the House of Commons, during that period, had only been another instalment of the House of Lords. They could not quarrel with their masters; but the present House of Commons had no masters. If any Government were sure of being opposed the moment they attempted to do a popular act, it was unquestionably the duty of the Members of the House of Commons to be at their posts, and to do their utmost that the good of the people should be the only object of both Houses of Parliament. There was no one less attached than he was to the Church Temporalities Bill. He considered it only a miserable instalment towards the payment of what was justly due to the people of Ireland. Still he would have it rather than nothing at all. He would give the Motion his hearty support, and he trusted, that the House would show itself determined to do justice to the people.
Colonel Evansexpressed his surprise at seeing his two hon. friends, who had both voted against the Bill in question, now such strenuous advocates for it. He was convinced that the public were no more alarmed about the passing of the Church Temporalities' Bill than any other Bill. No doubt there was a strong feeling in its favour in that House, but it was not shared by the public.
Mr. Robinsonobserved, that it would be the greatest hypocrisy to pretend to conceal that the attendance in the House of Commons had fallen off lately; but the present attendance showed that there was no relaxation of the efforts of the House. He thought that, upon the whole, the most prudent course would be to adopt the

655
suggestion of the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), and wait, till they should see what course the House of Lords adopted. If a crisis should arise, it would then be time to have recourse to the other measure. Could it be intended as a direct manifesto against the House of Lords? Would the people consider it in any other light? How could they consider it otherwise? He would neither vote one way nor the other if the Motion were pressed to a division, but he hoped that the hon. Baronet would withdraw it.
Mr. Evelyn Denisonthought that the course proposed was wrong. He had never heard before of a Motion anticipatory of a decision of the House of Lords, and he considered it unwise. He thought it would imply a great misgiving of the other House of Parliament, and that it would be a great departure from their own dignity to anticipate what would be the course of their Lordships' proceedings. If the House of Commons overstepped its privileges, it would be an invitation to all other assemblies, legally or illegally constituted to overstep theirs; and if they agreed to this measure with the view of over-awing the House of Lords, he sincerely believed that they would be pushing their privileges too far; but he also sincerely believed that they would not pass the Motion. He hoped the hon. Baronet would be induced to withdraw it. That, in his opinion, was the wisest, the safest, and the most dignified course.
Lord Ebringtonsaid, the House surely had a right, on the occasion of a measure which they considered just—and no one who looked at this without prejudice would say that this was not just—to make inquiries on the subject of the rumour which had prevailed, particularly during the last two days, and he considered that rumour was sufficient ground for a Motion, which simply went to secure a full attendance of the Members, and ensure the performance of their duty to their constituents and to themselves. He confessed that he considered the rumour so incredible and absurd, that it would obtain no credence among Members of that House; but it was calculated to produce an impression upon their constituents, particularly in distant parts of the country. Their constituents must wish, and feel, that it was the duty of their representatives to be at their posts if a crisis should arise, which common report led
656
them to expect? He should be the last man to advocate any measure of intimidation towards the House of Lords; but his sentiments were in accordance with those of the hon. mover. It must be recollected that the Bill had been brought forward in concurrence with the Coercion Bill; and Ministers were consequently compelled to stake their existence as a Government upon the success of it. What, then, would be the consequence of the rejection of the measure by the House of Lords? It would necessarily produce their resignation. He would not argue whether the Ministers had constituted a good or a bad government. It was the duty of the representatives of the people to express their indignation, if such a step as throwing out the measure in question were attempted by the other House of Parliament. On that account he considered it not only the undoubted right, but the duty of any hon. Member to call for as numerous an attendance as possible of Members on so important an occasion; and he should, therefore, support the hon. Baronet's Motion, and trusted it would be adopted by the House.
Lord Althorpgave the fullest credit to his hon. friend for the motives by which he had been actuated in bringing forward the present Motion; the principle of which was unquestionable. It was undoubtedly true, that, on the passing of the measure alluded to his Majesty's Government had pledged their continuance in office. But it was equally true as had been stated, that the effect of his hon. friend's Motion might be that of appearing to throw out a menace to the other House of Parliament. Now his hon. friend had admitted, that, in the present state of public affairs, his Majesty's Government had no easy course to pursue; and he was sure that his hon. friend and his noble friend who had supported the Motion would not wish to do anything calculated to increase the difficulties under which his Majesty's Government laboured. He had no doubt that, without any stimulus, there would be a full attendance of Members in that House on the night in question. But, feeling that there were some difficulties in the course which his hon. friend proposed, he, instead of joining with his noble friend in urging his hon. friend not to withdraw his Motion, was, much more inclined to request him to withdraw it. He was quite sure, that

657
whatever might be the supposed theoretical benefit of persevering in the Motion, a great practical benefit would arise from withdrawing it; and he therefore trusted that his hon. friend would be induced to withdraw it.
Sir John Wrottesleysaid, that, as far as he was concerned, he was perfectly ready to withdraw the Motion; nothing being farther from his wishes than to do anything likely to embarrass his Majesty's Government. He certainly had conceived that the dignity of the House would be best consulted by the course which he recommended; at the same time he was quite disposed to accede to the suggestion of his noble friend; and if the hon. Gentlemen who had expressed their intention to divide with him concurred in that acquiescence, he would withdraw his Motion, not otherwise.
Major Beauclerkwas favourable to the Irish Church Temporalities' Bill, not because it supported the Church Establishment, but because he thought it would assist in destroying that Establishment, The noble Lord seemed to think that the storm had blown over.
Mr. Tennysondeclared, that whatever reflected honour upon the noble Lord would give the highest satisfaction to him. He had wished anxiously to hear the opinions of his Majesty's Government upon this question, because he could not believe, that the Ministers of the Crown would lend themselves to a Motion which it was plain from what had fallen from the hon. Mover was intended as a menace to the other House of Parliament. In such a menace he could never concur. Whatever might be thought of his political views and his conduct in that House he was determined to hold by the Constitution, and could not consent to a step, the ultimate object of which was to place the other branch of the Legislature under the entire control of one political party in the State. He did not concur in the opinions of the present House of Lords, but, because he did not, was he prepared for a revolution? Was he prepared to take a step which would tend to place the House of Lords in utter subserviency to that House, and the political body which governed that House? With respect to the particular measure which induced the hon. Baronet to bring forward this Motion, he believed that the public took no interest in it whatever, and, although the
658
noble Lord and his colleagues had staked their existence as an Administration upon it, those at least with whom he was in communication did not think that the measure followed up effectually the promise of Church Reform, or contained within it those principles which they had hoped to see adopted as the foundation of the measures of the present Government. He had objected to that measure, and he therefore could not support any plan for forcing it upon the other House. But there was an important measure, of which he had given notice, and upon which he wished to have a full attendance, and, if the House persisted in carrying this question to a division, he should vote for the hon. Mover—[Loud laughter]. He had himself a Motion for a Call of the House, and he asked those who laughed whether he could with any consistency vote against this Motion?
Mr. Secretary Stanleysaid, that having expected from the foregoing part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, that he was about to oppose the Motion, it was with no inconsiderable surprise that he had heard the short turn the right hon. Gentleman took at the close of what he addressed to the House. He had some difficulty in conceiving the grounds upon which the right hon. Gentleman came to a conclusion apparently so much at variance with his own sentiments, until he explained, no doubt much to the satisfaction of the House, his desire that his own important, and he presumed practical Motion, should have a full attendance of hon. Members. He was not surprised as the right hon. Gentleman had undertaken to submit a Motion on the 23rd of July, for a Repeal of the Septennial Act, concluding that that question would be adequately discussed and brought to some practical issue this Session—he was not surprised that under such circumstances the right hon. Gentleman should be anxious for a large audience. The right hon. Gentleman had advanced two doctrines of which he could not of course dispute the sincerity, but which he found some difficulty in reconciling with each other. The right hon. Gentleman professed the greatest anxiety to promote whatever could tend to the honour and credit of his noble friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and declared his great regard for him as a member of the Administration. He had not had the pleasure of being present at

659
three o'clock, and he did not know whether there was then a sufficient audience to satisfy the right hon. Gentleman's wishes, but he understood that the right hon. Gentleman then made the most violent attack that had yet been made upon the whole conduct of his Majesty's Government throughout the Session. The hon. Gentlemen who sat near the right hon. Gentleman, and had cheered his regard for the privileges of the other House of Parliament, were not perhaps aware, that the right hon. Gentleman expressed an ardent and earnest desire for the return of a Tory Administration. But lest hon. Gentlemen should feel themselves too much flattered by this mark of the right hon. Gentleman's good will, it was necessary he should add that the right hon. Gentleman expressed his conviction that a Tory Administration could not subsist a week; so that the only consequence of turning out the present weak and miserable Ministry would be to bring in one indisputably worse, which, in one short week, was to make way for something more suitable to the taste of the right hon. Gentleman. But perhaps a new Government might include within it men of sound and upright principles—men who would never, on any occasion, fall short of the full extent of any abstract principles they advocated—men whose merits had been most singularly and unaccountably disregarded by the present Administration—men, who in happier, though not more peaceable times, would "ride on the whirlwind and direct the storm." Perhaps by a new Government the views of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends might be accomplished, and that most desirable object effected of bringing about a reconcilement of the conflicting opinions of that and the other branch of the Legislature. The right hon. Gentleman would forgive him if he said that he did not think the result desirable, nor the means likely to benefit the country. The right hon. Gentleman told the House, that he possessed a scrupulous delicacy, and would stand forward as the guardian of the privileges of the other House; that nothing should tempt him to infringe upon the constitutional principles of the House of Lords. How was this to be reconciled with a former notice which he found upon the Journals of the House in the name of Mr. Tennyson, to the effect that "A communication be made to the Peers, requesting their Lordships to review their privilege
660
of voting by proxy?" That, of course, was no threat—no intimidation. It was merely a delicate hint as to the course which the House of Lords should pursue, if they wished to secure the approbation of the right hon. Gentleman. Were this notice and the right hon. Gentleman's scrupulous anxiety for the privileges of the other House, and his great regard for the present Administration quite consistent with each other? But to turn to the more serious and more important part of the subject. He would most anxiously and earnestly suggest to his hon. friend the member for Staffordshire, to accede to the recommendation which had been made by so many hon. Gentlemen, especially pressed as it was by his noble friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and to withdraw his Motion. He confessed he was astonished, and perhaps the House would be equally so, to find that the most active and determined patty in supporting the Motion was the hon. and learned member for Dublin, who, now, for the first time, or rather now again, took under his fostering protection, and insisted upon the adoption by the Lords of that measure of which he had so strongly disapproved. He (Mr. Stanley) attached as much importance as any Gentleman in the House to that Bill, and infinitely more than the hon. and learned member for Dublin. With regard to the present Administration, he could not too strongly, or too emphatically repeat what he had already declared over and over again, that he considered their existence as a Government bound up with their power of carrying that Bill. But he appealed to his hon. friend, whether, in the present circumstances of difficulty, he would not accede to that course, which, in the judgment of his noble friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and of all his colleagues around him, was the most likely to lead to the satisfactory result which he desired, and whether, in the sincere anxiety which he knew his hon. friend felt to support the present Government, he would not place confidence in his Majesty's Ministers, when they told him plainly and sincerely, that in their judgment, and upon their responsibility, the withdrawal of the Motion was the most likely to carry, as the pressing it was the most likely to defeat, the object he had in view. He trusted his hon. friend would place credit in the judgment of his Majesty's Ministers, as

661
he did most unfeignedly in the entirely friendly feeling towards them, which had induced his hon. friend to bring forward this proposition. Calmness at the present moment was not inconsistent with the most determined conduct hereafter, but let not the House anticipate a case, which might not, and which he ventured to express a hope, would not arise. If it did not, the House would have to thank his hon. friend, and to congratulate itself that it had not taken any precipitate course, but awaited with calmness and firmness, the adjustment of present differences, and the passing of a measure which all considered an important one.
Mr. Tennysonsaid, that what had fallen from him had been misrepresented. He had not expressed any wish for a Tory Administration. What he had said was, that it would be easy to form a better Administration than the present, and that if a worse were formed, in his opinion, it could not endure for a week.
Sir John Wrottesleysaid, he was most anxious to comply with the wishes of the House, particularly considering by whom those wishes had been expressed on both sides of the House. No man could have a stronger regard than he had for the present Administration, That feeling was only secondary to a consideration for his own character; and if those Gentlemen who supported him in the early part of the debate, should call upon him to press the Motion to a division, he should feel himself bound in consistency to do so.
Mr. O'Connellobjected to the Motion being withdrawn.
Lord John Russellwished to say a few words in explanation of the vote which he should feel bound to give upon this question. He could not vote in favour of the Motion, because, although such would not be the fair interpretation, it would be understood pretty generally to be meant as a threat, previous to a vote to be given in the other House of Parliament. He thought that it would not be becoming in that House to do, nor becoming in the King's servants, to join in doing, any act which might have that appearance. But he could not vote against the Motion without disclaiming the feeling by which the hon. member for Surrey seemed to consider his Majesty's Ministers to be influenced. It was not because the storm was blown over, that he was ready to consent to the withdrawal of the Motion. On
662
the contrary, he saw no reason to believe that the storm was blown over, and he slated it as his opinion, that if the Bill was not to be destroyed at one blow, the most valuable parts would be taken out of it. In giving his vote against this Motion, he did so with no notion of any sort of compromise. According to his notion, the Bill had been reduced to the utmost limit of moderation which was consistent with any measure of reform whatever, and the utmost had been done to satisfy the most scrupulous objections. Where there could be honest scruples, he had gone as far as he was able to go; and in voting against this Motion, he did not do so for any purpose of conciliation. In conciliation he had already done a great deal, and he could not go a single step further.
Mr. Humedid not care about the Church Temporalities Bill, but hoped his hon. and learned friend, the member for Dublin, would not press for a division; if, however, his hon. and learned friend did so, he should vote for the Motion.
Mr. Abercrombysupported the Motion. By it the House was taking a step which pledged only its own body, and there were peculiar and unprecedented circumstances which called upon them to do so.
Mr. O' Connellpersisting in demanding a division.
The House divided: Ayes 125; Noes 160—Majority 35.

List of the AYES.

Abercromby, J.

Duncannon, Lord

Adam, Admiral

Dunlop, J.

Aglionby, H. A.

Ebrington, Lord

Attwood, T.

Edwards, Colonel

Atherley, A.

Etwall, R.

Baldwin, Dr.

Evans, G.

Bannerman, A.

Ewart, W.

Barry, G. S.

Faithfull, G.

Beauclerk, Major

Fellowes, Hon. N.

Bellew, R. S.

Fellowes, H. A.

Bewes, T.

Fenton J.

Bish, T.

Fergusson, Sir R. C.

Blake, Sir F.

Finn, W.

Blake, M. J.

Fitzgerald, T.

Blamire, W.

Fleming, Admiral C.

Briggs, R.

Folkes, Sir W.

Brocklehurst, J.

Gaskell, D.

Brotherton, J.

Grey, Lieut.-Col.

Brougham, J.

Grey, Sir G.

Browne, D.

Gronow, Captain

Buller, C.

Grote, G.

Clay, W.

Hall, B.

Codrington, Sir E.

Handley, B.

Cornish, James

Hasland, W. C.

Cotes, J.

Hawes, B.

Davenport, J.

Heathcote, J.

Divett, E.

Hill, Lord M.

663

Hume, J.

Russell, W. C.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Ruthven, E.

Kennedy, J. F.

Ruthven, E. S.

King, E. B.

Scholefield, J.

Lefevre, C. S.

Scale, J. B.

Lister, E. C.

Sharpe, General

Macleod, R.

Sheil, R. L.

Macnamara, Major

Stanley, E. J.

Macnamara, F.

Stawell, Colonel

Marjoribanks, S.

Staveley, J.

Marshall, J.

Strutt, E.

Martin, J.

Sullivan, R.

Martin, T. B.

Talbot, J. A.

Maxfield, Captain

Talmash, A. G.

Methuen, P.

Tennyson, C.

Molyneux, Lord

Thicknesse, R.

Morton, Hon. H.

Tooke, W.

Mostyn, Hon. E.

Tracy, C. H.

Murray, J. A.

Troubridge, Sir T.

O'Callaghan, C.

Turner, W.

O'Connor, F.

Tynte, C. K.

O'Connell, D.

Vigors, N. A.

O'Connell, J.

Walker, C. A.

O'Connell, Morgan

Walker, R.

Ord, W. H.

Wallace, T.

Ormelie, Lord

Walter, J.

Oswald, R.

Warburton, H.

Parrott, J.

Ward, H. G.

Pendarves, E. W.

Waterpark, Lord

Peter, W.

White, S.

Perrin, L.

Wigney, I. N.

Phillips, Sir G.

Wilbraham, G.

Philips, M.

Wilmot, Sir E.

Pringle, R.

Winnington, H.

Richards, J.

TELLERS.

Roe, James

Wrottesley, Sir J.

Romilly, E.

Hay, Colonel L.

EAST-INDIA COMPANY'S CHARTER.
The House resolved itself into a Committee on the East-India Company's Charter Bill.
On the 42nd Clause being read, which gives the Governor-General power to make laws for Europeans as well as natives,
Mr. Wynnobjected to the clause, as giving to the Governor General a vast and unnecessary power. The clause established principles totally different from those on which the government of India had been conducted for the last fifty years. He understood, the reason for it was to enable the Governor General to have some control over the Supreme Court; but there never had been a contest between the two to justify such an enactment.
Mr. Robert Grantsaid, that the power to be given by the clause was absolutely necessary, for the greatest inconvenience had already been experienced by an opposition between the Executive power and the Courts of Judicature, which neither party had the power to put an end to. There was an effectual control over the conduct
664
of the Governor General, possessed by the Board of Directors and the Board of Control; but there was no control over the Supreme Court, except that which was given by this clause.
Mr. Humeadmitted the necessity of the Governor General having great power; but he wished that it were subject to some control by public opinion. He desired to see all his laws made public before they were acted on, and he should also desire that the debates in the Council might be known to the public. He wished to know whether a native might not be appointed a member of each of the different Councils?
Mr. Charles Grantsaid, there was nothing to prevent a native of British India becoming a member of the Council, and filling that fifth place which was not to be filled by a servant of the Company. As to promulgating the laws, the Board of Directors were by one clause directed to establish regulations for promulgating them.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, it was quite certain, that the Governor General must have large discretionary power; but his power was so limited by several subsequent clauses, that it was perhaps not too great.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsaid, that the Supreme Courts in India were established to protect Europeans from the power of the Governor General, and that principle had been wholly overlooked in this clause. He believed that, to remove these Europeans from under the protection of the Supreme Court would shake the security of property at Calcutta. The hon. and learned Gentleman moved an Amendment, the object of which was to secure to the British and other residents of the town of Bombay, Madras, and Calcutta, all the rights and privileges of British law, as now administered by the King's Courts in those presidencies respectively.
On this Amendment the Committee divided: Ayes 33; Noes 114—Majority 81.
The Clause agreed to.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Bellew, R. M.

Attwood, T.

Duffield, T.

Buckingham, J. S.

Godson, R.

Briggs, R.

Gillon, W. D.

Baldwin, Dr.

Green, T. G.

Blackstone, W. S.

Hume, J.

Blake, M.

Lowther, Colonel

Brotherton, J.

Lister, C.

665

Manners, Ld, Robert

Stanley, E.

O'Brien, C.

Sheil, R. L.

O'Connell, D.

Talbot, J.

O'Connell, J.

Vyvyan, Sir R.

O'Dwyer, A. C.

Wynn, W. C.

Palmer, R.

Whitmore, W.

Pryme, G.

Wilks, J.

Roche, W.

Ruthven, E.

TELLER.

Russell, C.

R. C. Fergusson.

Clauses to the 54th inclusive were then agreed to. The House resumed—the Committee to sit again.