Commons Sitting of 6 March 1833

MINUTES.
Paper ordered. On the Motion of Mr. O'DWVER, the Names, offices, and Salaries of all the Members of the privy Council (Ireland).
Bills. Read a first time:—Limitation of Actions; Curtesy of England; Dower; and Inheritance.
Petitions presented. By Lord SANDON, from Soap Boilers of Liverpool; and by Lord DALMENY, from Soap Boilers of Dunfermline,—to Abolish the Duties on soap.—By Lord SANDON, from Stone, for the Repeal of the Sale of Beer Act.—By Lord ASHLEY, from Huddersfield,
284
Barldon, Pudsey, Radcliffe, and Pilkington; from Bleachers in Renfrew, Lanark and Dumbartonshire; by Lord ROBERT MANNERS, from Sheeps-head; by Mr. W DUNCOMBE, from Earls-Herton, Halifax, and Thornton,—in favour of the Factories Bill.—By Lord ASHLEY, from St. Luke's, and various other Places; by Mr. PAUL THOMPSON, from several Places in the County of York and by Colonel DAVIKS, from Worcester,—for the Bettor Observance of the Sabbath By Mr. CHARLES WOOD, from Halifax; and by Mr. PAUL THOMPSON, from Great Driffield,—for the Repeal of the Assessed Taxes.—By Lord DALMENY, from Bushy; and by Mr. CHARLES WOOD, from Halifax,—for the Abolition of slavery.—By Mr. MORGAN O'CONNELL, from Parishes in Meath; and by Mr. VIGORS, from Raphoe and several other Places in Ireland,—against the Suppression of Disturbances (Ireland) Bill.

TRADE WITH THE BRAZILS.
Lord Sandonsaid, he had to present a petition on a subject of much importance to the commercial interests of the country, from the merchants of Liverpool. The petition came from a society calling itself the Brazilian Association, and they prayed for a remittance of the excessive duties on the sugars imported into this country from Brazil for the purpose of refining. In accordance with the objections which had been made on the subject of presenting petitions, he should not detain the House with any prefatory remarks, but he could not permit himself to present the petition without making the House fully acquainted with its contents. He must, therefore, read its contents to the House. The petitioners stated—
That they carry on a very extensive commerce with Brazil, in the produce and manufactures of the United Kingdom, and are suffering great inconvenience and loss from the difficulty of obtaining a medium of return for their merchandise, and a back-loading for their ship-ping, arising through the operation of the present state of the law, which, by the imposition of excessive duties on the importation for consumption or manufacture, of the chief products of Brazil—namely, sugar, coffee, cocoa, and rum, prohibits their importation, except to a very limited extent, in transitu, and admits only for consumption the articles of cotton, tobacco, and hides. That the trade with Brazil has now become one of the most important branches of our foreign commerce, and deserves the especial protection and encouragement of the State; our exports of British manufactures produce to that empire, amounting annually to the value of upwards of three millions sterling, which manufactures and produce are admitted freely, and on the most favoured terms, for consumption in that country, and with which its people are almost exclusively clothed. That Brazil, not possessing any extent of shipping, these manufactures and produce are carried out to that country, almost exclusively in British vessels. That Brazil affords ample means of payment for

285
this merchandise, in her many and rich productions, and of freighting back to this kingdom an immense tonnage of British shipping, but that none of these articles are admissible on practicable terms, for use or consumption in this country, except the before-mentioned articles of cotton, tobacco, and hides, which form but a very small portion of the value of the whole. That, in consequence of these prohibitory laws, upwards of two millions of British capital is forced into other channels, giving employment and encouragement to foreign shipping and manufactures, paying to foreign European States freights, commissions, and charges, to the great loss of the British shipowner and merchant, as also to the general interest of British commerce, manufactures, and revenue. That it is within the knowledge of your petitioners, that one important branch of the manufacture of this kingdom—namely, that of sugar refining, has, for some time past, been only partially and unprofitably employed, and incapable of competing with foreign manufacture, owing to the scarcity and high price of the raw material, even with the advantage of the bounty of 8s. per cwt., which your petitioners believe to be paid out of the revenue, on the exportation of refined colonial sugars from this country. That, in proof of the injurious effect and extent of this monopoly and high bounty to the revenue, to the commerce, and to the comforts of the people of this kingdom, your petitioners humbly represent, that, although the price of British plantation sugar has been, on an average of the past year, as shown by the Gazette, about 28 s. 6d. per cwt., the price of the refined sugar, called ordinary lumps, delivered free on board ship, and including several charges, besides that of manufacture, was only 25 s. to 27 s. per cwt.; the drawback on exportation being 36 s. 10 d, per cwt., and that double refined crushed sugars, having a drawback of 43 s. 3d. per cwt., have been and are selling, also free on board, at 29 s. to 30 s. per cwt., thus giving to the foreign consumer this important article, in the manufactured state, at from 1s. to 3s. per cwt. less than the cost of the raw material; the whole expense of manufacture and difference of price being paid by the Treasury for the benefit of the foreign consumer, and to the injury of the sale of Brazil sugar in foreign markets. That the effect of this bounty on the exportation of refined sugars and bastards is not only a direct annual loss to the Treasury of from 300,000 l. to 400,000 l., but an indirect tax upon the people to the extent of from one to two millions sterling, since the price to the consumer in this country is enhanced in proportion to the bounty paid on exportation to the foreign consumer; and further, tends materially to lessen the consumption, and, thereby, also the revenue and the comforts of the people. That your petitioners sincerely lament the distress, said to exist in some of the West-India colonies; but, from the evidence laid before a Committee of
286
your Honourable House, during the last Session of Parliament, they cannot but attribute a great portion of their distress to the general management of their affairs, and the embarrassment of the planters. That it is not the desire of your petitioners to withdraw from those colonies that protection which they may claim as a part of the British empire, but your petitioners humbly submit, that such protection ought not to exceed that afforded to the agricultural and manufacturing interest of the mother country, which have no bounty on the exportation of their products, neither a monopoly of the home trade; nor should so serious an injury be inflicted on other rising and important branches of foreign commerce, for the supposed benefit of any particular, and much less important interests. That the West-India colonies have, besides a monopoly of the home market, the choice of all the European and North-American markets for the sale of their productions, as also, for the purchase of their supplies, taking from this country those articles only which best suit their convenience. That the whole population, including slaves, of the British West-India colonies does not greatly exceed a million of souls; that the exportation of British manufactures for the use and consumption of those colonies amounts only to the annual value of from one million and a half to two millions sterling, whilst our exports to Brazil, as already stated, exceed three millions, and to Manilla, Java, Sincapore, and the Indian Archipelago, and other countries, affording similar productions to Brazil, about two millions, with a population and field for the consumption of our manufactures of incalculable extent. That the whole amount of the products of these rich countries, admissible for the use and consumption of this kingdom, does not exceed the annual value of one million sterling; the residue, of about four millions, being thus forced, by the highly restrictive laws of this country, into foreign channels, and to the employment and encouragement of foreign shipping and manufacture. That the French government having experienced the impolicy of this restrictive system, also long enforced in that country, have now laid before the Chambers a project of law, abolishing all bounties on the exportation of colonial sugar; and, with a view to the encouragement of the French refineries, and to render France the emporium of Europe for that article; it also proposes to admit for their use the growth of all foreign countries without distinction. That, if the restrictive laws of this kingdom are longer preserved, this object of the French government will be greatly aided by British capital. That it is the confident belief of your petitioners, that if the productions of Brazil and the Indian Archipelago were admitted to the use and consumption of this country, on terms affording reasonable protection to similar productions of the British colonies, additional employment would be given to from fifty to one hundred thousand

287
tons of British shipping, and this kingdom become the emporium of Europe for those productions, as British capital is now the means by which they are sent to Europe; and that it would, also, afford incalculable scope for the extension of the industry, manufactures, commerce, and revenue of the kingdom. Your petitioners, therefore, most humbly and earnestly pray, that your honourable House will take this their petition into your early and serious consideration, with the view of affording them that relief and protection, which, in your wisdom, your honourable House shall see fit, and thereby add strength to the resources, extension to the commercial, manufacturing, and shipping interests, as well as additional means of happiness and comfort to the people of this great empire.
He would only observe, that the petition was of great importance, but he must express his fear, that although the Government had no doubt given it their attention, they had not made up their minds upon it, as they had on some other subjects connected with the colonies. He would press the matter on their serious consideration; and conclude, by declaring, that the petition was signed by every person in Liverpool connected with the Brazilian trade.
Mr. Ewartsaid this was a subject of the deepest interest to his constituents. It was one which involved the consideration of an extension of our foreign trade, and the employment of British capital. It was so fully proved in the petition that the amount of our foreign trade would be greatly extended if proper protection were afforded it, that he would not dwell at any length upon that subject. He was sorry that the extent of the experiments which had been conducted under the auspices of the Government had not been such as to liberate so important a branch of our foreign trade from the fetters which had hitherto bound it. The French government were already taking measures that would have the effect of greatly extending the trade in refined sugars, and he trusted that this country would not be behind them, but that his Majesty's Ministers, whom he knew to be inclined to liberal measures, would speedily remedy the evils of which the petitioners complained.
Mr. Stricklandhad been requested to support the prayer of this petition, and he was anxious to say a few words upon it, as there were many persons who were ready to bring their capital into action, but who were restrained by the
288
existing impolitic law. In his opinion, he could say nothing stronger than this—that while this country was sending out nearly three millions a-year, our ships were returning home empty, thereby giving a monopoly to the sugar growers of the colonies, without at the same time doing any benefit to this country. In his opinion, it would be easy to adopt some means by which Brazilian sugar might be imported into this country, to be refined for exportation; thereby giving employment to the capital and workmen of this country, without in the least trenching upon the rights which these monopolists at present enjoyed. He was not one of those who were always putting forward the system of free trade, but at the same time he would ask was the House to take freedom of commerce and the extension of the employment of capital as the rule in legislating, or was it to increase monopolies by restrictions?
Mr. Poulett Thomsonwas anxious to say only a very few words upon the petition just presented. He begged to assure his noble friend and the hon. member for Liverpool that the subject to which the petition referred had received for a long time a serious and anxious consideration on the part of the Government, and it was not because the Government did not fully concur in the view taken by the petitioners, or that they were not anxious to give that relief for which they prayed, that he was obliged now to say that it was not in the power of the Government to introduce any measure affording that relief. Hon. Gentlemen who were in the last Parliament, and were present during the discussion upon the Bill which terminated so unfortunately, knew and acknowledged the great anxiety of the Government to admit foreign sugars into this country for the purpose of refining. On the rejection of that measure inquiries had been made of individuals capable of giving information, and experiments had been tried, which, though not yet complete, had made such progress as to convince the Government that a considerable bounty, but not amounting to 8s., as stated in the Petition, was given on West-India sugar on its export. The whole of the ground on which the last measure was rejected was the assumption that there was no such bounty, and that therefore no advantage should be given to foreign sugars. He thought it would be utterly impossible for

289
this country (whatever it might do for its own colonies)—it was not right, that it should be called upon, to give a bounty upon foreign sugars, in order that foreigners might be enabled to use refined sugars at the expense of those colonies. That was the difficulty which prevented the Government from introducing a measure similar to that which had been rejected by the last Parliament, and after a full consideration of the subject, unless the bounty on West-India sugar was removed, he was satisfied it would be impossible to afford relief, except, indeed, by admitting foreign sugars, and refining it in bond for exportation. That principle he should be happy to see in operation, but, unfortunately, refiners were of opinion that such a plan would afford them no relief, and that they would reap no advantage from it, unless they were allowed to mix the sugars, which could not possibly be done. He could assure his noble friend, that if any plan could be suggested whereby the refining of foreign sugars might be confined to this country without hurting the revenue it would receive the utmost attention of Government. With regard to the importance of the Brazilian trade, and in all that was set forth in the petition he entirely concurred. He, however, did think, that hon. Gentlemen when quoting cases of a country sending all her produce here, and taking nothing from England, ought to bear in mind the reverse case, and think of the Brazils, which took so much of the manufactures of this country, and from which nothing was taken in return; and that when hon. Gentlemen were arguing on reciprocity, they should not forget, that reciprocity meant an advantage to both sides, and that without it the Brazils might turn the tables upon this country.
Mr. George Woodhad been requested to support the prayer of the petition, and he did so most cordially. He hoped, that as this question was very interesting to that part of the country which he represented, he should be allowed to say a few words. The subject was one of great importance to the whole empire, but particularly so to the county of Lancaster. He was sorry to hear from the right hon. Gentleman that there was no present intention of granting the relief prayed for. He trusted that the subject would continue to receive the best attention of his Majesty's Government, and that in a very short time they would be prepared with a measure
290
such as would give satisfaction to all parties.
Mr. Mark Philipssaid, his excuse for rising on the present occasion was the vast importance of the subject to the great scat of the cotton manufactures which he represented, and of the extreme degree of hardship which arose from ships being deprived of return-cargoes from the Brazils. He thought at a time when, during the last year, the poor-rates had increased in every county in England with the exception of three, it was the duty of the legislature to support every measure tending to increase the means of employment of the industrious labouring classes. Reverting to the importance of this subject to the sugar-refiners of this country, he must say, that he thought the noble Lord opposite (Lord Sandon) had much understated the effect which the existing law had produced. In London last year, there were no Jess than 216 establishments for refining sugar, and now they were reduced to sixty-seven; and as to the number of vessels employed in the Brazil trade, no less than fifty-one sailed from the port of Liverpool last year to Rio de Janeiro, not one of which could get a return cargo home. He thought a strong case was made out in the petition, for which he claimed the serious consideration of the House.
An Hon. Membersaid, that it appeared to him that means should be given to facilitate the refining of foreign sugar in the country on fair and equitable terms, both for the sake of the shipping and commercial interests of the country. He did not say, that a bounty should be given; but he did say, that every unfair restriction should be removed. Means should be given of refining sugars in bond, and if that could not be done, some other course ought to be resorted to; otherwise the interchange between this and foreign countries would be put a stop to, and this country would be unable to preserve those advantages in trade it had hitherto possessed. He had the fullest confidence in the sentiments just uttered by the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, and he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would feel this to be a subject admitting of no delay.
The Solicitor Generaltrusted, that hon. Members would not consider it presumptuous on his part, if he reminded the House of the understanding that existed with reference to presenting Petitions.

291
He had attended there morning after morning to present petitions, which his constituents were anxious he should present, but he had not been able to present them in consequence of the discussions that took place on the presentation of almost every petition.
Mr. James Oswaldsupported the petition, and stated, that he had been intrusted with a petition numerously and respectably signed to the same effect. He hoped that the existing law would speedily be altered, as he thought the parties interested were justly entitled to greater advantages than they now possessed.
Mr. Ewingsaid, the subject was of the greatest importance to the Brazilian trade, and he hoped it would shortly be fully and fairly discussed.
Mr. Andrew Johnstonesaid, he would not have risen, but that nothing had been said on the subject of slavery. If any measure was brought in for the introduction of slave-cultivated sugar, it would meet with the strenuous opposition of many hon. Members.
Petition laid on the Table.

OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH.
Lord Sandonpresented a Petition signed by 4,000 of the gentry, clergy, merchants, and other inhabitants of the Town of Liverpool, praying for a better observance of the Lord's Day, and expressing their satisfaction that the House had manifested an intention of taking the subject into early consideration. The petition was agreed to at a public Meeting.
Mr. Cobbettcould not let that petition pass without expressing his opinion of the motives by which all the petitions respecting the Lord's day were got up. A petition was presented the day before yesterday, from Staines and two other parishes in the county of Middlesex, expressing the desire of the petitioners to have a law to protect them against the injury to which they were exposed in consequence of impious traders trading on the Sunday. It was very much like the reason given by Hudibras why the pious should have all the good things of this world—namely, that the godly were entitled to them, but the ungodly were not. The real truth was—and this was the foundation of all those petitions—the rich tradesman, living in country towns especially, went out in his gig on a Sunday, with his lady and children, to visit their friends—and he could
292
tell them, that their friends, in many instances, as he knew, would be glad if a law were passed to make them stay at home. The rich tradesman could go out on a Sunday to see his children at boarding-school, and, therefore, he wished to prevent the poor tradesman from selling on a Sunday those articles which he, the rich one, would then be able to sell on the Monday. That was the foundation of all these petitions. In that from Staines the petitioners avowed their motive.
Lord Sandonrose to order. It was the understanding in the House last night, that there should be no debate on the presentation of petitions; and he thought that the hon. member for Oldham was very disorderly in imputing motives to the petitioners whose petition was presented on a former night, and was not then before the House.
The Speakerdid not think the hon. member for Oldham was entirely out of order, and with respect to the length of speeches, much must depend on an hon. Member's sense of propriety. With respect to the reference to a petition presented on a former day, if it were on the same subject as the present petition, he could not say that applying motives to those petitioners was disorderly. In all those matters a great deal must be left to the good sense, the feeling, the taste, and the propriety of hon. Members themselves.
Mr. Cobbettsaid, he had sat patiently while one petition presented by the noble Lord had occupied three quarters of an hour, but he did not intend to occupy five minutes. With regard to imputing motives to petitioners, he imputed none but what were expressed in the petition itself. Those pious men complained of being injured in their trade, and of getting less money in consequence of going to worship, while the poor man was obliged to stay at home. That was avowed by the petitioners themselves, and indeed as much was avowed in the Report of the Committee were appointed last year. In matters of religion, of all things, men ought to be sincere; but those pious men having grown rich by their impiety when poor, now wished to compel the poor to attend to their religious duties, which certainly, above all matters, ought to be attended to. These were the men, who having by their impiety got plenty of money, sought to prevent the poor from

293
following that course which they themselves had formerly followed. He protested against such interference, for he was convinced that much mischief would arise from making laws of that kind.
Petition to lie on the Table.

LIVERPOOL ELECTION.
Lord Sandonwished to present a petition upon a subject on which, as it was to come before the House this evening, he should not trouble the House at any length. It was signed by every member of the Committee who did him the honour to conduct his late election, and they complained of the gross misstatements which had been made in a petition presented on a former evening, and upon other occasions—namely, that bribery and corruption had been practised at the late election at Liverpool. They stated that they had been active supporters of him (Lord Sandon), and they were anxious to show, that no one person had been induced to vote by bribery, treating, or any other than constitutional means. They courted inquiry on that subject. The petition afforded a complete proof that no bribery to any extent—that no bribery of which they were cognisant—had been practised to procure his return.
Mr. Benetthad not, on any former occasion, made a charge against the gentlemen who had signed that petition. His charge was generally, that bribery had been practised at the elections at Liverpool, even up to the last election. He was anxious that a Committee should be appointed to inquire into the charges that had been made, when it would be seen by whom the system of bribery had been practised.
Mr. Sheilbegged to ask the noble Lord whether he himself had never admitted the existence of corruption with reference to the petitioners?
Lord Sandonanswered, that one or more of the petitioners admitted to him, that he or they had formerly been engaged in bribery. They acknowledged themselves as having formerly been sinners, but they denied that any corruption had been practised during the last election. He had never denied, that bribery had formerly been practised; his denial solely applied to the last election. He should like any hon. Gentleman to lay his hand upon his heart, and say whether, under such circumstances, evidence could be given to the allegations
294
against the freemen of Liverpool. He would take that opportunity of presenting another petition, signed, in fifty-three hours, by above 7,400 persons, comprising most of the wealth and respectability of the place. When the petition from Liverpool, signed by 3,300 persons, which charged the freemen of that place with bribery and corruption, was presented by the hon. member for Wiltshire, the hon. Member took occasion to observe, that it comprised all the respectable and disinterested portion of the inhabitants. He (Lord Sandon) said, at that time, that if he were allowed a few days, he would show that he could produce a petition with nearly double that amount of names in opposition to it. This was the petition he then alluded to, and a moment's inspection would show the truth of what he had then alleged, that all the respectability was not on one side. He had yet to learn that any charge of extraordinary corruption could be alleged against the freemen of Liverpool. If the proposed measure of the hon. member for Wiltshire were carried into effect, the whole amount of disfranchisement would be but between 1,000 and 2,000. It had been the practice in that House for many years, to make allegations affecting a mode—the mode of obtaining signatures to petitions which were numerously signed. That occasional delinquencies would not occur from the intemperate zeal of some parties employed in witnessing the signatures to petitions, he was not prepared to say. He was instructed to say, that to the petition praying for the disfranchisement of the freemen of Liverpool, which had been presented by the hon. member for Wiltshire, some individuals had generally signed five or six names; and passengers landing out of steam-boats from the sister isle were invited to sign, and did sign, that petition, upon an assurance that their not being housekeepers was of no consequence. The petition he now presented to the House, he would take upon him to say, represented the true feeling of the inhabitants of Liverpool.
Mr. Benettwould not impeach all the signatures attached to the petition. No doubt many of those who had signed it were desirous that their conduct should undergo investigation. He believed, however, that many of the signatures deserved little consideration, for he had received a letter from Liverpool, stating, that some

295
persons had signed the petition upwards of twelve times—that several boys belonging to charity schools had signed the petition presented by the noble Lord, and had placed the occupations of their fathers against them. Petitions should be valued according to the weight that could be attached to their signatures.
Mr. Gladstonestated, that from a letter he had received, he believed the petition to be signed by many respectable individuals, and that it should have his support.
Colonel Williamssaid, it was impossible to know what to say upon the petition, unless it were read. If it contained an application for an inquiry, then he should have no more to say on the subject. This he knew, that it contained the names of many individuals who had been for thirty years and upwards known to be habitually guilty of corruption and bribery. The noble Lord who presented the petition had known Liverpool for twenty-eight months; he (Colonel Williams) had known it for thirty years, and he had been a good deal concerned there in election business; and he could assure the House, that for the last thirty years, there had been a greater system of bribery and corruption carried on in Liverpool than had ever disgraced any rotten borough. It was very proper that this system of corruption should be taken notice of before the general Committee now appointed to inquire into the state of Corporations; and when the Corporation of Liverpool came before the Committee, he was confident it would meet with full justice.

SUPPRESSION OF DISTURBANCES (IRELAND) PETITIONS.
Mr. Morgan O'Connellpresented a Petition from Ballinrobe, in the county of Mayo, praying the House not to pass the Coercive Bill for Ireland. The petitioners cautioned the House against receiving too readily the statements of interested individuals, and against relying on the representations put forth by newspapers.
Mr. Cobbettsaid, that he bad several petitions from Mayo to the same effect, in which the petitioners stated, that they were afraid a great part of the information on which his Majesty's Ministers had relied, had been given by a person who had been confined in Newgate in the same room which he himself formerly occupied.
296
That individual had been, however, sent there for telling a falsehood, while he (Mr. Cobbett) had been imprisoned for telling the truth. He gave his cordial support to the prayer of the petition.
Colonel Daviespresented a similar Petition from the Political Union of Worcester.
Mr. Robinsonhad been requested by the petitioners to support the prayer of this petition. He felt bound to say, that the petition came from a very inconsiderable number of his constituents, and as there had been no general meeting of the other part of his constituents, he could not say what their opinions were; but as he had voted for the first reading of this Bill early this morning, he hoped the House would allow him to explain, in a few words, what he had not had the opportunity of doing when he gave his vote. He had given his vote in favour of the first reading, because he thought his Majesty's Ministers required and deserved this mark of confidence, and out of respect to that branch of the Legislature from whence the Bill had been sent into that House; but he must, at the same time, say, that he did not think a sufficient case, after all that had been said, had been made out, to warrant the Government to call upon the Legislature to pass such a Bill as the present, inflicting such a wrong on the whole people of Ireland as this measure was calculated to inflict. He should, in the progress of the Bill—[Cries of order interrupted the hon. Member.]
The Speakerwas quite confident that no Member of that House would be more ready to consider such statements as this out of order than the hon. Member who had now been addressing the House, if those statements had proceeded from any other hon. Member. However satisfactory it might be to the hon. Gentleman's constituents to give them an explanation of the vote he had given this morning, there were other modes of letting them know his reasons for the course he had adopted than explaining at that moment. Hon. Members were assembled on this occasion for the purpose of presenting petitions, and it would be very hard on any other Members of that House if they were not to be allowed to explain their motives after the hon. Gentleman sat down, if they wished to give explanations; and then, if they were to be allowed to do so, into what

297
a state of confusion would the House get upon the subject upon which there had already been so many days' discussion, and which was likely to occupy so many more.
Mr. Robinsonsaid, that he should always bow with great respect to the decision of the Chair, although he should certainly have thought that, being a representative of the constituency from which the petition proceeded, he might have been allowed to make a few observations upon the subject matter to which it related. What he meant to say, however, was merely, that although he had voted for the first reading of the Bill, he should, in its future course, be guided by circumstances, and certainly should not vote for its passing into a law, till it had undergone considerable modifications.
Petition laid upon the Table.
Mr. Fryerpresented a similar Petition from Wolverhampton. He said, he perfectly agreed with the petitioners, that this was a most unconstitutional measure. He did not attribute it to barbarity on the part of the Ministers, but to an error of judgment. He might call it an Act for the Separation of Ireland from England; and if he gave it that name, if he so christened it, the people of Ireland would stand sponsors. He said this rather from what he feared than from what he wished. The Bill had been read a first time in that House—it would be read a second time in Ireland, when the French or some other foreign Power were in Ireland, and a third time when the British were expelled; and then it would be passed nem. con.
Mr. Vigorspresented a Petition from the city of Carlow against the Irish Coercive Bill. The petitioners submitted, that his Majesty's Ministers could make out no case which would justify the House in arming them with powers so unconstitutional, and never hitherto resorted to, except when the country was in a state of rebellion.
Mr. Blackneysupported the prayer of the petition with all his heart. He had the honour of representing the county of Carlow, and was in possession of some petitions from that county of a similar nature to the one now brought before the House; which he feared he should have no opportunity of presenting before the measures of Ministers were completed. Nothing during the debate on that important measure had given him so much pain as the
298
speech of the noble member for Nottingham, the Lord Lieutenant of Carlow (Lord Duncannon). That noble Lord had stated, that he had not yet received from the police officer the report for the last month. He, however, would take leave to say, that at this time the county of Carlow was in a perfectly tranquil state. This he said, with the utmost confidence, and without fear of contradiction, for there was no Member of that House who could be so intimately acquainted with the state of Carlow as himself. He had, during the recess, made every inquiry throughout that county. He had been, and was still receiving daily communications from every part of that county, and he could not describe to the House how much he had been shocked by the representations made by the noble member for Nottingham, to whose statements every person knowing the worth of his public and private character would give great weight. He felt himself called upon to remark upon the statements of that noble Lord last evening; but, as he did not then see the noble Lord present, his courtesy towards the noble Lord, and his feelings as a gentleman, had prevented him doing so in the absence of the noble Lord. The hon. and learned member for Dublin had risen last evening before the noble member for Nottingham came in, and thus circumstanced, he could only have a private communication with the noble Lord, in which he learnt from him that this day the Report for the last month would be received. But from whom would it be received? From a police officer! He had the highest respect for the character of the noble Lord, but he was convinced that the noble Lord had been imposed upon. He should be able to prove to the House, that all the other Reports upon which the measures of Ministers were founded came also from police officers. He could take upon him to say, that the number of outrages mentioned by the noble Lord could not possibly have taken place in the county of Carlow without his cognizance; and this he said, as a Magistrate, who gave more attention to what was going on in that county than any other Magistrate. It was with these feelings that he took the liberty to address the House at more length than perhaps he ought to have done. He should only further say, that he had five or six petitions to present to the House from every

299
part of the county which he had the honour to represent, against this measure. There were few in that House who knew Ireland better than he did, and he would venture to affirm, that among the whole thirty-two counties of Ireland there was not a more peaceable one than the county of Carlow. In looking over the list of outrages that had been instanced by the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, he found that that list had been made up to the end of January, and it had been most grossly exaggerated. He knew the county well, and could positively state, that in the month of January there had not been a single outrage, with the exception of one that was of a very trivial nature. If he had an opportunity, before this question was settled, he should show, that Ireland was not at all in the state in which it had been represented. He should show, that the contents of the "Red Box" were most gross exaggerations. It was too much for the patience of an Irishman to believe, that that House would legislate upon such flimsy materials. His election, and that of his hon. colleague, was conducted without a single outrage. There was not one even in the election town. Indeed, there was no outrage either before or after the election, nor had there been a single case of murder in the county which he represented for several years. If there had been any outrage at all, it was committed by the Whitefeet of King's County, Queen's County, and Kilkenny, who had been permitted to creep into the county without at all being checked by the authorities. If the proper authorities had exercised the powers with which they were invested, Whitefootism would have been suppressed the instant it appeared.
Petition laid on the Table.

TITHES (IRELAND)—PLURALITIES.
Mr. Vigorspresented a Petition praying for the total and complete abolition of Tithes, from Kiblerin. The petitioners stated, that one guinea per acre was frequently paid as the tithe of potato-ground. They added, that the disappointment the public had experienced in not having, according to the declaration of the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, an extinction of tithes, had contributed much to the increase of discontent—a discontent aggravated by a subsequent enactment, the object of which was to render tithes perpetual.
300
The petitioners looked upon the last Tithe-act as an awful experiment, uniting the power of the Crown and the clergy, the exercise of which had contributed to widen the breach between the Protestant Establishment and the occupying tenant of the soil. It was impossible that the tithe-system should continue much longer in any shape, consistently with the peace and good order of the country. The hon. Member begged to bear testimony to the respectability of the petitioners, and cordially supported the prayer of the petition.
Mr. Blackneysupported the prayer of the petition. He felt very much interested in this question, believing as he did in his soul, that no measure to be brought in by his Majesty's Ministers would ever pacify the people of Ireland, until there was an entire abolition of tithes.
Mr. Cobbett, in expressing his hearty concurrence with the prayer of this Petition, which he did in consonance with all the opinions he had entertained and expressed for the last twenty years, said, he should now notice, with the leave of the House, the calling to account he had experienced the other day from the member for the University of Oxford. That hon. Member had called him to account, in a tone and manner which perhaps was not unbecoming in him, but which would have been unbecoming in any body but in the representative of the body of the Clergy of England. The hon. Member had contradicted him in fact, and cautioned him as to how he stated facts in future, a sort of caution that was not a very insignificant way of accusing a man of stating falsehoods. He had stated that of 10,000 and odd livings in the Church of England and Wales, there were only 4,000 and odd resident incumbencies. He held in his hand the Diocesan Returns on the subject which had been laid before Parliament, the nature of which he should state; and even if he had been in error, there might have been some apology for him, because he was not in Parliament when the Return was made, but certainly none could be allowed for the hon. Member, who himself was a Member of Parliament at the very time the Returns were laid before the House. From that Return it appeared, that in 1827, there were 10,533 benefices and only 4,413 resident incumbents. In 1828 he had no returns, but in 1829 the

301
Returns showed (and these were the last that, had been made), that there were then 10,528 benefices, and but 4,516 resident incumbents, These were the general Returns. He should now mention some particular cases. In the diocese of Winchester, which was amply endowed, there were stated to be 3,389 benefices, and only 177 resident incumbents. In the diocese of Lincoln there were 1,273 benefices, and 503 resident incumbents; in that of Norwich, there were 1,076 benefices, and 360 resident incumbents. He had observed also, that there were in England and Wales more than 200 parishes in which there were no chinches, nor a solitary place where worship could be celebrated, and where consequently the inhabitants could not observe the Lord's day though the prayers of all the Petitions presented to the House should be acceded to. By the present return, it appeared that there were 254 parishes so situated, in which by no possibility could there be any service, but where the incumbents look very good care to enforce the payment of their tithes regularly to the last farthing. He had observed, also, that there were 1,500 parishes in which they had neglected to uphold the parsonage houses, notwithstanding the very strict enactments of the law in that respect. By the present Return he found that there were no less than 1,753 parishes without parsonage houses, or 1,753 parishes where the clergymen boldly set the law at defiance, and where they not only did not reside themselves, but did not keep up the places for others to live. The statements, therefore, which he had made, and which had been contradicted by the hon. member for Oxford, were perfectly correct, and it now remained for that hon. Member to contradict him if he could.
Mr. Estcourtwas not aware of the Return to which the hon. Member had referred. He was not aware that there had been any returns since 1816. He, however, must say, that he thought the hon. Member had hardly stated the thing fairly. According to the hon. Member there were in 1827 only 4,413 residents out of 10,500 benefices. He suspected that these 4,413 were the incumbents, resident in parsonage houses only; but he thought it would be found that the number of Clergymen residing in parishes, though not in parsonage houses, would greatly exceed that number. He found by the
302
Returns of 1816, that there were then 10,300 benefices, and 3,798 incumbents constantly residing in their parsonage houses. To these must be added 1,990, who were resident in their parishes, though not in parsonage houses; and that was the case not only in that year, but in the four years preceding the time of that Return. Besides these, again, there were 1,900 curates, who were constantly residing in the places where they held their cures. Ail these taken together made a number of 7,688, either living in their parsonage houses, or in houses in their parishes. Besides this, there were 227 livings vacant during that year, and that number must also be added to the 7,688; for the clergyman who died in the course of the year, would not, of course, be put down amongst those constantly resident, nor would his successor, who probably was not appointed at the moment the Returns were made up. And yet it might be perfectly true that the parish had always had the benefit of a constantly resident clergyman. This gave a return of about 8,000 clergymen constantly doing duty, and residing in their parishes; but there were many, who, from their good behaviour, had other appointments, such as preferment to stalls, besides their livings, who often did duty at their benefices, but who being necessarily sometimes absent, constantly kept their curates to perform their labours in their absence. In fact, therefore, they conferred on their parishes a double advantage, from the constant residence of their curates, and the frequent residence of themselves; and yet they would not be put down on the Return as persons constantly residing on their benefices. He thought he had said enough to show that the observations of the hon. member for Oldham were not quite so well founded as the hon. Member imagined them to be.
Mr. Goulburndeprecated the attack which had been so unjustly made on the clergy upon the presentation of the present petition; and said, that if such attacks were to be made, he must be heard in answer to them, notwithstanding the understanding not to debate petitions.
The Speakersaid, he was sure the House would concur with him, that complaints had been frequently made by every hon. Member of the House, that they made no progress in presenting petitions by the present arrangement, because there was so much discussion; and nine-tenths of those

303
Gentlemen who made the complaint, he found to be more frequently than any others guilty of a deviation from the rule that had been laid down. If, as some Gentlemen said, the House sat from sunrise to sunset, the whole of that time would be occupied with petitions if they proceeded as they did at present.
Mr. Littletonsaid the very gross irregularity arose with the hon. member for Oldham—he who had last night proposed that the petitions should be read, but no observations whatever made on them.
Mr. Henry Grattan, to show the bad working of the present system, stated that, in the book which he then held in his hand, there were 415 names down, while the Speaker had only got to the eightieth.
Petition laid on the Table.

KEEPING PLACES.
Mr. C. W. Wynncomplained that yesterday after the Speaker had taken the Chair, and, according to the usage of the House, had sent the Serjeant-at-Arms to summon those Members who were serving upon Committees, two-thirds of the Members who were at that time in their seats immediately went out, thereby showing that they attended for the mere purpose of taking their places. To correct that he would move "That upon Election Committee-days no Member should be allowed to take any place for himself, unless he shall have attended the service of the House."
Mr. Wolryche Whitmorewas glad that this question had been brought before the House. If the old practice were followed, the Members who lived at a distance would be left without a seat in the House; the seats would be wholly filled by those Members who lived near, and who therefore, could make it convenient to attend early and secure them. He might safely say, for himself, that he had not had a seat in that House the whole of the Session; he had sat for a few minutes in some other Member's seat, from which he was very soon turned off. It was very evident that there was not sufficient room in that House to carry on the public business of the country. He hoped that, among other reforms, they would make such arrangements as would enable all the Members to do their duty to the constituency who had sent them there.
Mr. C. W. Wynnsaid, that as he did not wish that the question should lead to a discussion, he would propose that it should be left to a Committee to consider
304
the privileges of the House as regarded seat-taking.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, he was very glad to hear the cheering with which hon. Members received the allusion made by the hon. Gentleman to the better arrangement and accommodation in that House. He begged to remind them, that tomorrow they would have an opportunity of evincing their sentiments on the subject, for his hon. friend the member for Middlesex, had a motion on the books, respecting a new House, which he meant to bring forward.
Mr. Baringsaid, as the practice of taking seats in that House had fallen into great abuse, he should take this opportunity of moving, that it be altogether discontinued. This practice converted the attendance at prayers into apiece of hypocritical formality. He would take the sense of the House on the propriety of discontinuing entirely the practice of taking seats.
Mr. Humecomplained of the present practice. Sometimes the whole of the seats were occupied at so early an hour, that even those Members who had important motions to come on could not find a seat.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that matters were bad enough already, but the Amendment proposed by the hon. member for Essex would make them worse.
Lord Althorpalso disapproved of the Amendment.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, he would take that opportunity of calling the attention of the House to a subject connected with the practice of taking places. There had recently been a departure from the old practice of the House, by which the first opposition bench was reserved for such Members as had formerly filled high offices in the State. He had recently observed his right hon. friend the member for Tamworth, who had formerly been a leader of that House, unable to find a seat on that bench. Now, although his right hon. friend had on one question given his support to the Government, he apprehended that he was not therefore to be altogether deprived of the character of being in opposition. He did not wish to allude to particular individuals, but he would put it to young Members whether it was fair that they should, by occupying the bench in question, drive from it Members who had for many years taken an active part in the business of that House?
Mr. Cobbettsaid it was impossible he could fail to perceive to whom the hon. Baronet applied his observations. It was clear that the hon. Baronet deemed him an intruder; that he had got into a situation where he had no right to be; but he could assure the hon. Baronet, that whenever he was attending in the House, and the front bench on either side was not entirely occupied, he would have a seat on one or other of them. He was at a loss to know what superior pretensions the right hon. Baronet alluded to possessed compared to him. To be sure he had done much mischief.
The Speakersaid, he hoped that whatever seat the hon. Gentleman might choose to occupy in that House, he would at least conform to the rules and orders of the House, and not presume to state opinions with respect to any individual in either his public or private character, such as he was not warranted in stating.
Mr. Cobbettsaid, he understood the hon. member for Oxford to have pointed out the right hon. member for Tamworth as an individual who was entitled to a preference with respect to the occupation of a seat on that side of the House. He was going to observe, when he was interrupted, that he knew of nothing pre-eminently worthy in the right hon. Baronet, which would justify the pretensions put forward as to his right to a particular seat. He was not inclined to cede that right to him; and, if he were present he would give him his reasons fully and plainly for thinking that he of all men in the House, ought not to enjoy pre-eminence on that or on any side of the House. Now, with respect to the inconvenience of which hon. Members had complained, it all arose from the Government being so saving and parsimonious—so sparing of the people's money. They begrudged the expense of providing a suitable building for the Representatives of the people; the House must therefore put up with the inconvenience, only praying to God to alter the hearts of the Ministers, and make them a little more squandering.
Mr. Baring withdrew his Amendment and Mr. Wynn's Motion was agreed to.

LIVERPOOL ELECTIONS.
Mr. Benett, in rising to bring under the notice of the House the corrupt state of the borough of Liverpool, said, that it was not his intention to detain the House long, but he felt
306
it necessary to go into a short detail, in order to justify the Motion with which he intended to conclude. The subject branched out into two divisions; first, the corruption and bribery which prevailed during the Corporation elections, as well as during the elections for Members of Parliament. It was well known, that for many years past the elections for the mayoralty had been marked by the grossest corruption. On various occasions vast sums of money had been expended in the contest. In one year the election cost 10,000 l., and so late as the year 1827 it was said to have cost no less a sum than 15,000 l.; and, should his Motion for a Committee of Inquiry be granted, he should be able to prove, that corruption had been practised during the election of the Mayors, down to a very late period indeed. The prevalence of bribery in the Corporation elections led to the introduction of the same system in elections for Members to sit in that House, and these corrupt practices could be traced back to a very early date. But, not to go further back than the election in 1830, he would just state to the House what was the condition of the borough of Liverpool at that period. During that election scarcely a freeman went uncontaminated to the poll. Money was lavished in all quarters, the bribe varied from 5l. to 100 l. a-man; and he had a proof in his possession, that even a Magistrate had allowed himself to be corrupted. He did not impute these acts of bribery to the hon. Member who was returned at that election, but who was afterwards on petition unseated. They were committed by some indiscreet friends of his; but they were not, on that account, the less illegal. He had seen the election-books containing the names of certain electors, with a sum of money placed against each; and he would undertake to prove, that upwards of 3,000 freemen had been bribed at the time of that election, and that in some instances where the parties had received money from both sides the bribe had been returned. That election was supposed to have cost 80,000 l. The extent of the bribery was very material, because, if it was proved to the extent stated, it could not be said, that they were punishing the majority, who were innocent, because a few persons were guilty. He had been told by the noble Lord, the member for Liverpool (Lord Sandon), that there had been no bribery since

307
the election of 1830. He bad no doubt, that the noble Lord believed what he had stated; and that, if bribery had been practised, it was unknown to him. He was convinced, however, that the noble Lord was mistaken. An eminent Counsel, of unquestionable veracity, and skill in his profession, had been consulted on the petition which it was intended to follow up against the noble Lord's last return, and the learned Gentleman assured him that it was his conviction, that if the petitioners had persisted, the sitting Members would have been unseated. Doubtless the noble Lord had not sanctioned the proceedings on which the petition was founded, but he had agents and friends who might have done many things without his concurrence. How else could the noble Lord account for the extraordinary turn the election had taken. On the first day, Mr. Thornley, the noble Lord's opponent, was a-head of the poll, but the freemen came up in great bodies on the second day, and turned the scale in his favour. On the first day, 2,508 of the votes were given for Mr. Thornley, and 521 of the old votes; while, for the noble Lord there polled 994 of the old electors, and 1,522 of the new. On the second day no less than 1,116 of the old voters polled for the noble Lord, and only 369 for Mr. Thornley; what was it which made the old electors go in such a body to the poll on the second day, and vote for the noble Lord? He had been credibly informed, that when the bribery-oath was offered to the old freemen, they had invariably refused to take it. [Lord Sandon assured the hon. Member that he was misinformed.] He was not present, and therefore could only speak from what he was told; but, if the fact was not as he had stated, he was misinformed. There had been two species of bribery practised in Liverpool. The electors were bribed with money, and also with money's worth. For many years the patronage of the town was in the hands of the Member who supported the Government, and that patronage was distributed by his Committee for the purpose of securing his election. The Canning Club, which existed for many years, consisted of thirteen members, merchants of Liverpool, in whom all the patronage was vested; and it was well known that whilst that system prevailed situations were sold, and the proceeds employed in returning the Member. In his opinion,
308
that was a system of bribery more dishonest than if a Member bribed with money taken out of his own pocket. The history of the elections for the borough for years past had affixed a stain on the character of its elections which could never be wiped off until a Committee was appointed, and measures taken for securing the purity of the borough for the future. As to the petition against the noble Lord's return, he was bound to state, that it was not given up, as the noble Lord conceived, because the petitioners apprehended that it would have been declared frivolous and vexatious. It had been given up under his advice, because he considered it more creditable to the petitioners to take up the question on general principles, and to endeavour to preserve the elections of the town from the disgrace of bribery and corruption hereafter by the application of some effectual remedy. What he wanted was, to take away those who were the tools of greater rogues. He did not mean to apply that term offensively, but he did think that those who bribed were quite as bad, or rather worse, than those who received bribes. The House would hear, he doubted not, of the injustice of depriving the freemen of what were called their rights. He denied, however, that the elective franchise was a right—it was a public trust, and the Legislature had a perfect right to take it from those who exercised it disadvantageously for the country. That was the principle on which the Legislature had proceeded in passing the Reform Bill; and he, for one, very much regretted that what were called the rights of freemen in corporate towns and boroughs, had not been all abrogated, as was as at first intended by that Bill, he was no advocate for universal suffrage but he would rather have it than have a body of men in every town, always ready to sell their votes, and turn the scale at an election. He thought a sufficient case had been made out for the interposition of the House, and that a stain was thrown on the purity of election at Liverpool which would not be wiped out until a Committee had fully investigated the subject. The hon. Member concluded by moving "for the appointment of a select Committee to inquire into matters complained of in the petition of the inhabitants of Liverpool, presented 21st of February, and to report the result of their inquiries to the House."
Lord Sandonthought the hon. member

309
for Wiltshire might have confined his allegations to the late election, instead of going back for twenty years, and referring to cases of alleged corruption, brought forward, he believed, for the purposes of aggravation, and merely to bolster up a bad case. The petition itself bore him out when he said, that the hon. Member should have confined himself to the late election for the petitioners plainly intimated that if the late election had turned out according to their wishes, they would have been satisfied. He had not been long connected, as a Member, with the town of Liverpool, and he did not stand there to defend the corruption which might have been practised at former elections for that town. For any thing he knew the statements of the hon. Member might be well or ill founded. The House had decided as to the bribery and corruption at the election of 1830, with which he had nothing to do, and which he did not stand there to advocate. There had been two elections since, the purity of which had never been impeached—[Mr. Rigby Wason said, that he had impeached their purity]. At all events, they were never legally impeached, and the last election was not impeached in the only manner in which elections were ever impeached in that House. As to the charges of corruption, founded upon the extent of subscriptions for the return of candidates, he contended that they were entirely unfounded. Many men who were warm in a political cause subscribed largely to support the return of a person whom they considered the advocate of that cause, without hoping for any patronage or profit from him. He held in his hand a list of subscriptions entered into for the election of Messrs. Brougham and Creevey in Liverpool, and he found that some of them were to so large an amount as 500 l. and even 800 l. Yet those candidates, at the time he referred to, were not in possession of any Government patronage. For his own part, he had represented Liverpool for two years, and he stated it in the presence of Ministers, that he had never asked from them a single favour. This fact was well known to his constituents, and yet, he was happy to say, it had not made them less ardent in supporting him. The expense of the first election in which he was concerned at Liverpool had been 1,800 l, and of the second between 1,400 l and 1,500 l; and he should like to know how many Members, returned by so numerous a constituency
310
as that of Liverpool, had come off so cheaply? And he should also further be glad to know how it was possible for him to have bribed the voters, to any extent, with so small a sum? Was it fair, therefore, to call upon that House to pass a sentence of disfranchisement upon any portion of the Liverpool freemen upon the facts alleged? Upon whom, also, would that punishment fall? It would not fall upon the rich classes, who if any were guilty, were the most so, but it would take effect only upon the poor classes. The whole number accused by the hon. Member as having been guilty of bribery and corruption was 3,600; but of this the number to be disfranchised was 1,448. Now, of this 1,448, it could not be distinguished where the real guilt lay; for it was composed of persons of various classes; some were merchants' sons, and persons in independent circumstances; others were clerks and book-keepers, living in houses which entitled them to vote, and these ought to be separated from the 1,448. In fact, if the whole of the number, 3,600 were to be examined into it would be found that a very small portion came under the just accusation of the hon. Member. But the hon. member for Wiltshire argued that, because most of the freemen voted one way, he had made out a strong case in favour of their disfranchisement. He must, however, remark, that the intention of the Reform Bill, in preserving the existing rights of the Liverpool burgesses, did not mean to debar the newly enfranchised voters from exercising their rights in whatever way they might deem it proper, nor to debar them from-voting all one way. Neither was it contemplated that the old burgesses should be entitled to preserve their votes only so long as they sided with the householders. He must confess, that he saw great difficulty in drawing any line of distinction between the rights of the burgesses and those of the newly-enfranchised householders, for he believed that none existed. And with regard to the prayer of the petition which the hon. Member had presented, let him remind the House of the circumstances under which the Grenville Act, regulating the proceedings in all election petitions, had been passed. The preamble of that Act states, that the mode then pursued of deciding the merits of election petitions was found to obstruct the despatch of public business, and to be attended with

311
great expense; that the decisions often come to were at variance with the merits of the cases; that they were not guided by strict rules of justice; and that in order to provide a remedy for these inconveniences, the provisions named in that Act had been suggested. What was the protection which the House by that Act threw over the seat of a Member of that assembly? In the first place the chief object was to provide an impartial tribunal to decide on the merits of the petition, which being obtained by ballot, was further purified by the rejection of all the names of persons who were in any way connected with, or concerned in, the matter to be tried. The next precaution adopted was, to swear the Committee to an impartial judgment on the ease; and the third provision was, to give them the power of examining witnesses. Now, which of all the protective powers thus created would the hon. Member wish to throw around the tribunal which he proposed to establish? The tribunal would not be ballotted for; neither would they be sworn, nor would they have the power to put witnesses on their oaths; therefore, but one of those powers by which the House had chosen to protect the seat of Members would be at the disposal of the hon. Member's Committee. If, however, the House had no objection to grant the prayer of the petition, he had none; he would willingly listen to the evidence of witnesses at the Bar of that House; but let him ask, if once they threw their doors open for the consideration of charges of bribery and corruption, whether it was not likely that they would soon find they had nothing else to do? If all the cases of corruption which had occurred in Liverpool within the last twenty or thirty years, and he admitted that many very strong ones might be brought forward, were to be inquired into, where was the line to be drawn? Let him ask, was it possible to unite all the requisites in the general tribunal of that House which were already possessed by the present election Committees; and if not, what more insufficient or vicious mode of inquiry could be adopted, to examine into particular instances of bribery, than one which should also be adapted to a general inquiry as to all the cases of bribery and corruption that could be proved for a space of twenty or thirty years? If the prayer of the petition were to be granted, the House would soon have
312
their Bar crowded with similar petitioners' who would demand inquiries into other cases of long past corruption—[Cheers by Mr. O'Connell] He understood the hon. and learned Member's cheer. He understood him to mean that there should be no Statute of Limitation which should prevent them from going into the consideration of alleged instances of corruption, however long past the time at which they occurred might be—[Mr. O'Connell; "No, none."] Then let him ask the hon. Member, what time they would have for the consideration and despatch of the public business, if they were to be occupied by inquiries at the Bar into all the cases of bribery and corruption which might be alleged during a space of time extending over more than thirty years? But to return to the prayer of the petition—the House had been called upon to listen to a detail of all those general charges of corruption against the borough of Liverpool, for the purpose, it seemed, of swelling the amount of her guilt, and of prejudicing the minds of her judges before they went into Committee upon the petition. In the course of the observations made by the hon. member for Wiltshire, he understood him to say that the name of the Mayor of Liverpool was appended to the petition which he had presented. [Mr. Benett had made no such assertion.] He certainly thought that the hon. Member had said so; but the hon. Member had, however, asserted that the brother of the Mayor of Liverpool was the Chairman of his election committee, which was so far from being the fact, that the Gentleman to whom he alluded was not even on the committee. Now he hoped the hon. Member, having been altogether wrong in this assertion, would not be so confident in future in the truth of his allegations. The hon. member for Wiltshire also asserted that a great portion of the old freemen who voted for him had refused to take the bribery oath on going to the poll. This also was an unfounded assertion, for, in the first place, let him ask the hon. Member how the poll could go on if the voters refused to comply with the law of election? He could, however, tell the hon. Member what the facts were. The bribery oath was only proposed by the opposite party with a view to gain time, and to prevent a sufficient number of his voters from being polled to gain upon the other party's numbers. The object, however, was defeated,

313
for his voters not only came up, but they took the bribery oath and he gained the day. The only instance which he knew of a refusal to take the bribery oath was shown on the other side; a voter of which party refused to take it amidst the acclamations of all around him. He could also explain, for the satisfaction of the hon. Member, the cause why his majority on the first day had been composed chiefly of voters of the smaller class. Several of the old electors said to him, on being urged to go to the poll, that they would not vote with the small folk, but would come and vote for him on the second day. He had now to make some observations upon the report of a speech made by his hon. colleague a few days back, in presenting a petition, which had appeared in the public Journals, and which, he had been assured, by his hon. colleague, did not contain a true account of what he had said. He had been assured by his colleague, that he (Mr. Ewart) had not gone beyond the mere prayer of the petition in the observations which he had made in presenting it, and he felt himself bound, in justice to those concerned, to hasten to undo the erroneous impressions which the unfounded statements in the public papers had created. The petition, it was first, untruly, slated in the report to be presented on the part of certain persons against the Corporation of Liverpool; now, it was, in fact, a petition against the constitution of the dock companies there, and complaining against certain acts of which that company had been guilty. The next mistake was, that the annual income of the dock companies, amounting to 300,000 l. was misappropriated. Now, it was impossible that any misappropriation of the funds of the dock companies could take place, for they were strictly appropriated to certain payments under a direct Act of Parliament. The next allegation was, that the Corporation had sold lands, at an unfair valuation, to certain parties. Now, the fact was, that in every case where the Corporation had sold the borough lands, they did so under the sanction of a Jury; and he thought it but fair to the Corporation to vindicate them from the charges which had thus been unfoundedly brought against them by the mistake of the public Press, for it was highly important to keep the minds of Members and of the public from entertaining an unfounded prejudice against them, He thought that
314
it was but just, too, that such an imputation should not rest upon the minds of the judges who were to try the merits of their case. He could say, for his own part, that as far as he had an opportunity of knowing, and from the opinion of those who, from their knowledge, were best qualified to judge of the matter, that the Corporation of Liverpool had administered these funds in the most useful and proper manner. With respect to the petition before the House, he must say it would have been more agreeable to his feelings if the prayer were granted, and the inquiry gone into at once. But he did not think, that it would be a course strictly consonant with justice to other parties, and he, therefore, should not be fulfilling his duty, as a Member of Parliament, towards his constituents, if he were not to oppose it. One of the first things the Committee would have to do would be to inquire into the circumstances of the last election; but he entreated Gentlemen not to go into the inquiry with minds prejudiced by the belief of allegations so general as those brought against the Corporation by the hon. member for Liverpool. With these views he must declare it to be his intention to oppose the proposition for a General Committee of Inquiry, as supported by the hon. Member, entreating him to bear in mind that, not with standing his lawyer might have told him that he had a very good case upon which to found his demand, it was not possible for the lawyer to whom he referred to have known all the circumstances upon which he had pronounced so strong an opinion, and that, consequently, his opinion was not worth much. There was not enough adduced by the hon. member for Wiltshire to induce the House to consent to the Committee proposed. He wished that the Gentlemen who urged forward this inquiry had been of the same opinion as Mr. Sheppard, one of the most distinguished Members of their party. That individual had expressed himself to the following effect at a public meeting held a few weeks before. 'He must confess that he could not come into court with clean hands to accuse the borough of Liverpool. No one, he trusted, would suspect him of having ever received a bribe; but he must confess his purse was lighter from his interference in election matters; he had subscribed money, and he had some suspicion that his money had been employed

315
in bribing others. Having done this, how could he put on a hypocritical face, and come forward to accuse his brother freemen? Having done this at the time of Mr. Roscoe' election—having done this at the time when it was attempted to return Mr. Brougham, and Lord Molyneux, how could he turn round upon the freemen of Liverpool, and say; "I will disfranchise your for receiving bribes?" He scorned to do so; instead of doing so he would himself assume the humble station of a penitent along with them'. He agreed with these sentiments and he could only in conclusion again express is wish that the party of which the reverend gentleman was a leader had all entertained the same sentiments. He saw no good ground laid for the Motion and therefore he should oppose it.
Mr. Robinsonthought these subjects ought rather to come before the Committee on Corporations, than before the House; supposing, however, the House were to grant the Committee, now petitioned for, what would be the necessary effect of investigating the allegations before a Select Committee, where neither the examiners nor the examined would be upon oath? He would take upon himself to say, that the Committee would be so entirely confused by the complicated and contradictory statements which would be thus made before them, that they would be utterly unable to fulfil their judicial duties. Or, suppose even that this Select Committee did come to a judgment, and it were in favour of the petitioners, would this House consent to disfranchise such a body of freemen on mere statements not given on oath? Would they not insist upon having the whole case thoroughly sifted and reinvestigated before them? Would they not summon the petitioners, witnesses, and counsel, to the bar of the House? If they did so, the expense and delay which would be the result would be dreadful; and he need only refer to the trouble and expense which had attended the investigation of the East Retford case. He need only refer to this, to show the House at one view what they would bring upon themselves by agreeing to this motion. He did not mean for a moment to deny, that bribery of the most flagrant description had been long practised at Liverpool; but whatever corruptions had existed at Liverpool, or anywhere else, the Reform Bill would be of little
316
use, if it did not prevent the repetition of all such for the future. As to Liverpool, indeed, hon. Members need be under no apprehensions of bribery being ever known there again, for there no longer existed any possibility of bribery there. One great branch of bribery and corruption—the grants of appointments—had been altogether knocked on the head. The noble Lord stated, and he had no doubt correctly, that during the time of his having been a Member for that borough, he had not had a single place to give away to his constituents. He denied, that any case had been made out for granting the prayer of the petition for permitting an investigation which would cost the country an enormous sum—not much under 8,000 l. or 10,000 l. and would occasion very great delay in public business. He implored the Government, by their sense of duty, to recollect the immensity of business they had to transact this Session—to recollect what time they would require for the discussion of the important question last night before the House. He implored them not to delay such all-important matters, for the investigation of local and partial statements.
Mr. Rigby Wasonwas in favour of the pointment of the Committee. It seemed to him that the opposition to it was an opposition to justice—was a shield to corruption. An hon. Member had called it a mere election petition; but it was no such thing. It did not at all refer to the hon. Member now sitting for Liverpool: but the principal allegation (which that hon. Member, and the hon. Member for Worcester had entirely passed over) set forth, that gross bribery and corruption had for a long time existed in the elections of the Chief Magistrate, and the Members of Parliament; that, indeed, this vile—this degrading system had so long existed, that the minds of the inhabitants had almost arrived at the idea that there was nothing particularly objectionable in that which had become as it were an established custom. This was what the petition was directed against—not against the noble Lord, the member for the borough; there was not the slightest intention of unseating him. The whole aim of the petitioners was against the atrocious system. A presentment was made by the Grand Jury of Liverpool, not long ago, against the bribery and corruption practised at the election of the Mayor. The Magistracy directed their

317
power against two poor men who had foolishly allowed themselves to be bribed into going up to vote twice. These two ignorant men were disfranchised for this offence. Here were these poor men punished for an offence by the very Magistrates by whom they had been corrupted into the commission of that offence. The various circumstances of the several elections at Liverpool, since 1830, which were of great and public notoriety fully proved the grossest bribery and corruption in that borough. Thus, after the election of 1831, when the present Member for Nottinghamshire, who had been selected as Representative both by that county and by Liverpool—when that hon. Member made his choice for the former representation, there was a vacancy for Liverpool, and the House of Commons decidedly refused to issue a new writ, on the ground of gross corruption having been proved to have taken place at the previous election. Indeed the noble Lord, he must say, was now in that House purely by the influence of bribery and corruption. The hon. member for Worcester had said these investigations would occupy an immense portion of time, and that a subsequent inquiry would even then be necessary. But he did not think either of these fears well founded. On the contrary, he thought the labours of the Committee would not be of an extended nature.
Mr. O'Connellthought the House could not avoid entering into this inquiry. If the allegations made by the petitioners were true, it was essential that justice should be done to the delinquents. If unfounded, it was due to the character of the inhabitants of Liverpool to have the aspersions cleared up. It was clear, however, on the face of it, from the incontrovertible facts stated on oath before the Committee of 1830, and contained in their Report, and from other evidence adduced, that the most unblushing bribery was carried on at Liverpool, from the lowest inhabitant to the highest Magistrate. The facts stated in the Report, too, had been fully borne out by the noble Lord, who had quoted a speech of the Rev. W. Sheppard, confessing that he believed that the money he had subscribed had been employed in bribery, to support his political opinions. It was notorious that the name of freemen of Liverpool was synonymous with bribery and corruption. Liverpool was not only a mass of corruption as
318
a whole, but there were cycles of corruption. An hon. Member had said; "Let the corrupters be punished." So he would say too, but let the corrupted be punished as well. Let all those who were base enough to have the taint of corruption in their souls, share a merited punishment. An hon. Member said, that these matters should be brought before the Corporation Committee; that Committee would have quite enough to do with Liverpool, independent of this matter, which related solely to the elective franchise. He regretted to hear the speech of the noble Lord. He could not think of it but as throwing a shield over corruption—as protecting the offence, and encouraging the offenders. There was no imputation against the noble Lord: his purity was perfectly established. The purity of the electors it was which was not established. This was a case which emphatically called for the interference of the House; and the Magistrates and inhabitants of Liverpool, if they were innocent, would be the first to cry out for the clearance of their characters from the aspersions now cast upon it. He should support the petition.
Lord William Lennoxregretted extremely that the hon. member for the county of Wilts should have felt it to be his duty to have again brought forward this question. He thought the valuable time of the House could be better employed than by raking up the grievances of 1830. He thought the funds of the country could be better disposed of than by paving the expenses which would necessarily occur in this investigation. During the last three elections no imputation of corruption had been made. The expenses of both the sitting Members during the last election were most moderate; they were open to the inspection of hon. Members, and, of course, had there been the slightest justification of a charge of bribery, the same spirit that had prompted this step would have not been wanting to have promoted a petition. He would oppose the Motion, because he felt it was an act of injustice to punish the innocent for the guilty; and by this measure 4,964 persons, who had never offended, would be disfranchised. He would add, that he would yield to no man in his desire for purity of election. He was happy that the Reform Bill had worked so well in that respect. He remembered the arguments of the right hon. member for Montgomeryshire in the last

319
Session, "that the example of disfranchising the freemen of Liverpool would operate on the minds of the electors." It had acted without the force of example, and he felt assured that it was not necessary for the cause of freedom of election to punish the delinquents of 1830, when at that period, and until the passing of the Reform Bill, so many hon. Members had sat in the House, whose seats had most openly and unblushingly been bought.
Sir Henry Willoughbyopposed the Motion. The parties should have brought their case forward at an earlier period. He objected, however, to the Motion, principally because a Committee of that House was the most unsatisfactory tribunal possible for the trial of any such question. The judges were not sworn—the evidence was not given on oath—the Members did not attend constantly; and by such a tribunal, therefore, it was impossible to get at the truth. If there were to be any inquiry, it would be much better done by means of a Commission. He therefore should give his decided opposition to the Motion of the hon. member for Wiltshire.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, the only question was, it having been alleged, that bribery and corruption prevailed to a great extent amongst a certain class of voters, whether an inquiry should take place into the truth of the allegation, so that, if a case should be made out, steps might be taken to prevent the recurrence of such practices in future. The statement of the noble Lord (Lord Sandon), if it proved anything, went to prove, that the borough of Liverpool ought to be disfranchised altogether. When hon. Members recollected the notoriety of the reports of bribery at the last election, he would ask, whether it was possible to believe that that election was conducted without bribery? It was said, that there was no proof of bribery to warrant the House in granting the Committee; but he would contend that it was unnecessary to adduce proof, nor was it necessary even to allege that the case could be made out, for the circumstances stated were sufficient to induce the House, in the protection of its own privileges, to inquire whether they were founded in truth. On such a subject, it was no answer to the demand for inquiry, to say that the time was gone by. It was the duty of the House to preserve the purity of the election of its Members; and, therefore, it was its duty to inquire into all cases of alleged gross corruption. It was also said that, if bribery had taken
320
place, the parties ought to have petitioned the House under the Grenville Act. That, he would admit, might be a very good answer to persons complaining of bribery, and who had neglected to avail themselves of their right of petition; but it was no answer at all to the House, when complaining of the violation of its privileges. The right hon. Gentleman then referred to the preamble of the Grenville Act, under which, ordinarily, election petitions came before the House, and contended that it could not be made available in the argument on the present case, for here there was no complaint made of the return, nor was any wish entertained to unseat the present Member. Upon the statement made by the hon. member for Wiltshire of gross corruption in the borough of Liverpool, which corruption the hon. Member believed he should be able to prove to the House, they were, in his opinion, bound, in order to assert their own privileges, to grant this Committee of Inquiry.
Mr. Humesupported the Motion. The House was bound to purify itself, and to keep elections pure. Such a case as this was seldom brought before it; and when it was said, why did not the parties go to an Election Committee, he answered, that the expense prevented them. He hoped the House would interfere, and put an end to bribery whenever it occurred. The hon. Member near him had objected to the inefficacy of a Committee; that was no reason for foregoing all inquiry, but a reason for suggesting a better tribunal. That corruption was very great, was proved by the case of the dissenting clergyman quoted by the noble Lord, who would not appear against those who were bribed, because he knew that money had been subscribed for some similar purposes. That admission was an argument for inquiry. He wished to ask the noble Lord if he meant to say, that the whole expenses of the election was only 1,400 l. [Lord Sandon: Yes with 80 l. for the hustings.] Then, he must say, that was impossible. As regarded the noble Lord, he had no doubt that the noble Lord was correct; but it was impossible that the election could have been carried for that sum. They were bound to have an inquiry, such as that now proposed, after every alleged case of corruption; and he, therefore, should vote for the Committee.
Sir John Wrottesleyreminded the House, that, during the discussions on the Reform Bill, it was proposed to disfranchise the

321
freemen, and it was with much reluctance that he consented to abandon that plan. But the Reform Act having been passed, and the freemen being allowed to remain, he regarded that Act as a general amnesty for all alleged corruption in the freemen previous to it. He, therefore, would never refer anything which had happened previous to that Act to a Committee of Inquiry. Moreover, this matter had been before an Election Committee, of which the Judges were sworn, and the witnesses were examined on oath; and he would never consent to refer a matter so examined to a less competent tribunal, before which the witnesses were not examined on oath, and of which the Judges were not sworn. He maintained, that, at the last election, and since that inquiry, no corruption had been proved against the freemen of Liverpool. It had been alleged, but not proved. If, henceforth, any such cases of bribery were brought before the House, he should be ready to go into them, and if he could not hope to cure the corruption of the freemen by the 10 l. householders, he should have no objection to destroy any borough that was proved to be so incurably corrupt. He was altogether opposed to the Motion, because he thought the proposed Special Committee less appropriate to get at the truth than the Election Committee, which had already inquired into it.
Mr. Thomas Gladstonewas opposed to the appointment of a Select Committee. The allegations of the petitioners, who did not exceed forty or fifty in number, were negatived by two petitions presented that day—one signed by 8,000 persons, and the other by 1,400 persons, including some of the most respectable merchants, brokers, &c., in Liverpool.
Lord John Russellsaid, that from the difficulties and expense that beset the investigation of elections, it would be utterly impossible to prevent bribery and corruption, unless the House resumed its ancient inquisitorial power. The most scandalous Liverpool election on record was that of 1831. He would, therefore, support the Motion for a Select Committee, but would postpone the appointment of its Members to a future day, and would then vote for selecting them by ballot.
Lord Sandonwould make no further objection to the course proposed, provided the Committee should be appointed
322
by ballot, and confined its researches to the last election.
The Solicitor Generalthought, that the election of 1830 should rot be drawn into a precedent. They should allow a locus penitentiœ to offenders. He thought, however, that the Committee should be instructed to inquire into the proceedings of the last election; and, should bribery and corruption be found to have prevailed at that time, that then the whole question, including the practices in 1830, should be probed to the bottom. In his opinion the argument, that at the utmost no more than 1,450 persons would be punished, was exceedingly futile.
Lord John Russellsaid, that the conduct of the noble member for Liverpool (Lord Sandon) seemed so fair and handsome, that he thought, although it might ultimately be necessary to go back to the other elections, that the first inquiry should refer to the last election only.
Colonel Williamssaid, that the object of the Motion was to redeem the borough of Liverpool from the disgrace in which it was involved for the last thirty years by practices of the most scandalous bribery and corruption. For his own part, he would give the Motion his cordial support; though in doing so he sanctioned a measure which went to disfranchise himself as a freeman of the borough. The last election was conducted upon a principle which showed that the character of the place was quite notorious.
Mr. Sheilsaid, that the noble Lord (Lord Sandon) had started quite a new question in proposing that the investigation should be confined to the last election.
Lord Sandonsaid, that his only object was to confine the Report of the Committee to the result of the last election.
Mr. Sheilwished to know, whether he was to understand that the noble Lord did not propose to exclude inquiry from the facts connected with the preceding-elections? In the Grampound case, the Committee had recommended the disfranchisement of the borough, not on account of any bribery at the election immediately preceding, but on account of that which had been practised at former ones. That was an important principle; but, moreover, it was fully confirmed and established by the similar case of East Retford.
Lord Althorpsaid, the House as

323
agreed as to the propriety of examining the last election proceedings; but probably it would be necessary, that the Committee should be instructed not to confine its inquiries to that alone. If the place should be found free from bribery for the last three elections—particularly taking into account the late infusion of householders—he thought the case should proceed no further; but if bribery had been employed at the last election, it was only just and fair they should suffer for offences aggravated by being committed after Reform.
Mr. Atherleywas convinced, that inquiry was necessary, because he was sure that the freemen would always corrupt the Representation, Till they were reformed the working of the Reform Bill would not be successful.
Mr. Goulburnwas against referring the petition to any but the usual sworn Election Committee appointed under the Grenville Act. It was an unprecedented step; and the question would ultimately be decided by a majority of the House. He knew, though he had no connexion with Liverpool, that the electors courted an inquiry; but he objected to the inquiry proposed, because it might prove, that the noble Member who represented Liverpool had been guilty of bribery, while it would provide no means for unseating him. Suppose that the Committee should report, that, at the last election, great corruption had taken place, in what a situation would the House be placed? Why, an imputation would be cast upon the sitting Member without any possibility of getting a proper Representative for Liverpool in his stead. For his part, he could not concur in any such anomalous and strange proceeding.
Mr. Benettwas perfectly content if the Committee should be instructed to inquire into the proceedings of the last election, and as far back as might be necessary.
Question, that a Committee be appointed, agreed to.
On the question, that it be an instruction to the Committee, that they should first inquire into and Report the proceedings of the last election,
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that this was what he particularly objected to. He saw no reason for departing from the ordinary course of referring all such questions to a sworn Committee. It would both supersede the Grenville Act, and injure the rights of
324
electors; and he, therefore, felt himself bound to protest against it.
Lord John Russellsaid, no Act could be more useful as between man and man than the Grenville Election Act; and the purity and impartiality of the proceedings under it gave uniform satisfaction. But it was very ill-calculated to promote the general interests of the representative body; in fact, they were lost in its restricted views and proceedings.
Mr. Goulburndenied, that the noble Lord at all understood the operation of the Grenville Act. The Committees under it made general Reports.
Mr. Wasonsaid, that, in the case of Penryn, the Committee acting under the Grenville Act, had not only decided a particular question between individuals, but reported instances of gross bribery at the two preceding elections.
Motion agreed to.
Lord John Russellproposed, that the Committee should be chosen by ballot in a similar manner to Election Committees, but that the attendance of Members should not be enforced in the same manner. He moved, that the Committee should consist of fifteen Members; two to be named by the House, and thirteen to be chosen by lot. The ballot to take place on the 12th.
Agreed to.

SUPPLY—SUGAR DUTIES.
The House went into a Committee of Supply.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the first Resolution which he had to propose to the Committee was one with respect to the Sugar Duties, and he did not feel that it would be necessary for him to go into any detailed arguments upon that question. As he was about to propose a Resolution which went to continue this tax upon sugar, he begged to observe, that he proposed it upon the ground upon which all taxes must depend—namely, that it was required for the services of the State. He did not think that the state of the revenue was such, taking into account, too, the other questions of a fiscal nature that were likely to come under the consideration of the House, as to enable him to propose such a reduction in the duty on sugar as would be calculated to give any substantial relief either to the West-India colonies, or to the people of this country. Aware as he was of the distressed condition of the West-India proprietors, he should have been extremely glad

325
if he could, consistently with his duty, propose a large reduction of the sugar duties. A small reduction of the duty would be productive of no advantage whatever to them, as unless the duty was so far reduced as to reduce the cost of sugar all over the world, or to give them, in effect, the monopoly of the market in this country, a reduction of the duty, without doing them any good would only cause a diminution in the revenue of the country. Under these circumstances, he begged leave to move the following Resolution:—"That it is the opinion of the Committee, that a sum of money granted towards raising the several duties on sugar imposed by the Act of the first year of the reign of his present Majesty should be further continued." Although the Resolution did not state the term for which the duties were to be continued, it was his intention to propose their continuance for one year.
Mr. Humeremarked, that this was the first occasion that the Reformed Parliament had to impose taxes. He was much surprised, therefore, that there was not a better attendance. He was sorry and surprised that the hon. member for Oldham was not there. He was, doubtless, not aware of it, or he would have been present. There were 314 new Members sent to that House, but when he looked round him he did not see half that number in the House, and the larger portion of those present were old Members. This did not say much for the industry and attention of the new Members; but he hoped that, on a future occasion, they would have a better attendance. He was sorry the old system of placing upon East-India sugar a duty of 10 s. per cwt. more than upon West-India sugar, was to be kept up. He hoped the noble Lord would consent to an equalization of the duties. It would be a great benefit to our oriental possessions, by enabling them to pay for British manufactures, whilst it would not injure the West-India planters, as it was impossible, considering the distance, to compete with them; and it would be destroying the appearance of a monopoly which, in fact, was none. He hoped the noble Lord would take this into consideration; and he would make a motion to this effect on bringing up the Report. As to the smallness of any reduction which the noble Lord might be able to make, let him remember that, to a poor man, even a trifle was of consequence.
Mr. Woolrych Whitmoresupported the proposition for equalizing the duties, as highly beneficial to both countries; and also condemned the system of utter prohibition of foreign sugar, which he thought might be allowed to come in to be refined for the foreign market, as contrary to the principles of free trade.
Lord Althorpcould not agree with his hon. friend the member for Wolverhampton, who had just spoken, as to the course proposed to be adopted with respect to the sugar duties. If ever there was a period when that question became a question of difficulty and delicacy, it was the present, when Parliament was about to enter into an inquiry as to the renewal of the charter of the East-India Company, and when, at the same time, it was contemplated to make considerable alterations in the mode of regulating affairs in the West-Indies. At such a time as the present it would be exceedingly improper to reduce the duty on East-India sugar, no matter what temporary relief it might afford to individual parties. With regard to the reduction of the duty on sugar, as a measure of relief to the labouring classes, he agreed that it was desirable to reduce them on that account; but it was necessary to pay proportionate attention to all classes of his Majesty's subjects, and it became a question whether the reduction of some other tax would not be still more beneficial to the labouring classes themselves.
Mr. Goulburnwished to call the attention of the House to the novel circumstance of the House being called upon to vote supplies to his Majesty in a Committee of Ways and Means, without having laid before them the manner in which these supplies were to be expended—[hear]. He was the more anxious to touch upon this subject, as they had been told a Reformed Parliament (and this was the first) would do wonders. In the time of former Parliaments, it was usual for the objects to which the taxes were to be applied, to be stated before the taxes were voted; but it was reserved for a Reformed Parliament to see the taxes voted first, and their objects—whether for the army, navy, or other service—left to be determined afterwards. The usual course being so different from the present, he hoped the noble Lord would excuse his few observations. The noble Lord ought, before proposing a vote for a tax, to have

327
made a statement of the burthens under which the country already laboured. He was perfectly aware that any large reduction of taxation was inconsistent with justice. It was of great importance that the West-India interest should be immediately settled on a sure basis; and it was certainly true, that the removal of these taxes would be a benefit to the labouring classes. While they relieved the poorer classes, it was right that they should give some relief to a class who, though not belonging to what were called the poorer classes, were yet amongst the poorest who lived under his Majesty's sway.
Lord Althorpwished merely to answer the speech of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn). The first objection which he made to the vote was merely one of form. The Navy Estimates had already been presented; but there was no vacant day for taking them into consideration. The postponement of the alteration of the Sugar Duties till the 5th of April, would throw it one day beyond the expiration of the financial year. It was impossible for him to state what he could reduce, until he could toll what was required for the support of the Government, and what would be the state of the revenue. It was the duty of Government to pay every attention to the interests of the lower classes, but not so as to exclude other classes.
Mr. Robinsonobserved, that though he and other Gentlemen on the same side were not inclined to believe that a great reduction of taxation could be made, yet many besides himself would be disposed to call upon the noble Lord for information as to the practicability of taking off the taxes which pressed upon the poorer classes, and commuting them for others, which would not be liable to the same objections.
Mr. Warburtonobserved, that, to say the least, it was very inconvenient to vote 4,000,000 l. without having an estimate of the expenses of the year. He was sorry to find, that the hon. member for Manchester (Mr. Poulett Thomson), who ought to be best able to answer the inquiries which he was about to make, was not in his place; but, in his absence, he would ask the noble Lord (Lord Althorp), whether the experiments which had been instituted for the purpose of ascertaining the qualities of sugar, had made such progress as to enable the experimenters to make such a scale as would be necessary for an object which he
328
considered extremely desirable, namely, for imposing a graduated duty in proportion to the quality of sugars?
Lord Althorpreplied, that the experiments had not been carried so far as to enable them to make such a scale. The experiments, however, had proved that the calculations on which the Excise had formerly proceeded were erroneous; but the amount of the error had not yet been determined. It certainly had been proved that it was considerable.
Mr. John Stewartsaid, that the House, he was sure, could not but observe, that the persons interested in colonial affairs, and immediately connected with the colonies, had purposely abstained from opposing, or in any way embarrassing, his Majesty's Ministers upon the present question—feeling, as they did, that it was a matter of the utmost importance that the still greater question, and that which more largely affected the colonies, ought now once and for all to be settled; and, therefore, he, and all connected with the colonies, were most anxious that nothing whatever should stand in the way of that arrangement. As to the observations of the hon. member for Middlesex, and his advocacy of the interest of our East-Indian possessions, he must be allowed to say, that they were as inconsistent with the principles of sound policy, as with the advantage of that dependency of the British Empire. He thought that neither the West-Indian nor the East-Indian interest would thank the hon. member for Middlesex for his interference with the present business. His proceeding upon the present occasion was another symptom of the ambition, more troublesome than successful, which had distinguished the hon. Member during the present Session.
Mr. Humecould not refrain from deprecating the practice of making bargains with the Government on questions of that nature, or of any kind. That which was right should be done, without improperly agreeing to vote away any portion of the public money, in order to attain that which should be attained without any such sacrifice. As to what had been said respecting his support of one party, or the other, he hoped he should gain credit with the House when he stated, that he never got up there for the purpose of supporting the exclusive interests of any portion of the Empire, and therefore, he desired thanks as little as he expected them. There had

329
been, for centuries in this country, too much talk about maintaining interests, and too little respecting the advantage of the public. His object was the public good; he therefore cared little for particular interests, and did not want their thanks. He defied any one to show that either his support or his opposition had ever been factious. He defied any to fix upon him any party motive.
Captain Dundas, as one of the young Members, hoped that it would not go abroad that, because one of the members for Oldham was absent, that therefore any considerable portion of the new Members were unattentive to the duty they owed their constituents.
Mr. Faithful, who observed that be was another of the young Members, expressed an earnest desire to get rid of the present Motion in any unobjectionable manner. He was, he confessed, most anxious to set it aside for the present, but he had not sufficient experience to know how that object could be effected according to the forms of the House. If the right hon. Member below him, who possessed more experience than he could boast of, would only have the goodness to inform him of the proper mode of proceeding, he should most readily adopt it. The noble Lord had told them that, in the present Session, they must not expect any considerable relief from the pressure of taxation—or, indeed, any relief at all [No]. He acknowledged he was rejoiced to receive that contradiction; and he sincerely hoped, that the fond expectations of the country would be realised. The people expected relief; and if those expectations were disappointed, he would take upon himself to say, that the Ministry would lose the confidence of the nation—that the great body of the people would be driven to desperation—and that thence some convulsive movement must of necessity arise.
Mr. Ruthventhought, that they ought not to proceed with so important a Motion at so late an hour. He moved as an Amendment, that the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Mr. Fieldensaid, that the House was now called upon to vote 4,000,000 l. of taxes, and that was a question not to be lightly dealt with. In the district with which he was more immediately connected there were 20,000 persons, out of a population of 200,000, who had only 2¼d. a-day each to provide food and clothing and the other
330
necessaries of life; and of that number 2,200 were out of employ. How wretchedly insufficient, then, must the remuneration for labour be! and what a slate of things was that, which brought a labouring population to so low an ebb! and how necessary, then, was it that the Representatives of the people should watch with a jealous eye every new vote of taxation! Those unhappy beings worked hard from Monday morning till Saturday night, and their whole remuneration consisted of 2¼d. per day each. It was perfectly true, that they were not consumers of sugar. No, truly; their diet consisted of nothing more than potatoes for dinner, and oatmeal porridge morning and evening. He stood there as their Representative, and demanded that their grievances should be redressed. He understood that some of his statements had been denied, but he challenged any one to bring proof that the facts he stated were incorrect. The state of the country was most alarming and most revolting to the feelings of humanity; and he, therefore, could not give his consent to any supply, until he had previously obtained a promise from the Government that something effectual should be done for the redress of grievances.
Mr. Stricklandadverted to some letters which had been published in the newspapers, denying the statements of the hon. member for Oldham; it was, he believed, by no means the fact that such great misery prevailed in the manufacturing districts as had been represented; for the employment, at the present moment, was pretty general, though the wages were low. That was a state of things, which, in his judgment, was by no means satisfactorily accounted for; and he did sincerely hope that the hon. member for Oldham would bring forward some Motion to the House upon that subject.
Mr. Fieldendeclined to enter then into any controversies with anonymous writers, who produced no authority for their assertions.
Mr. Potterwas most anxious to see the duties removed from soap.
Mr. Riceobserved, that confessedly the sugar duties did not affect the class whose distresses had that night been made the subject of complaint; and why should the hon. Members who urged the condition of that class as matter of the highest importance, object to a tax which did not

331
press upon those whose case they thought the hardest? The present was not a conclusive Motion; it was only a vote on which a bill was to be subsequently grounded.
Mr. George Youngwhile he was anxious that taxation should be remitted as far as was practicable, expressed his confidence that his Majesty's present Government would do all in their power for that purpose. Conceiving, also, that the duty under consideration was not one of those which could be remitted, be saw no reason for voting that the Chairman should leave the Chair.
Mr. Baldwinsaid, he had been instructed by his constituents to oppose all supplies, and he should not feel it to be his duty to vote one shilling of supply to his Majesty's Ministers for the purpose of enforcing military law in Ireland.
A Memberfelt it his duty to declare that the population ten miles round Manchester were, at the present moment, as comfortable as they had been during any period within the last twelve or fourteen years.
Mr. Guestsaid, that the population in the neighbourhood of Manchester had never been so much distressed as within the last two years; but he was happy to add, that their condition was at present improving.
The Committee divided on the Amendment—Ayes 8; Noes 86—Majority 78.
The Resolution agreed to; as were also the remaining Resolutions.
The House resumed.

List of the AYES.

Baldwin, H.

O'Connor, F.

Barry, S.

Ruthven, E.

Faithful, G.

Vigors, N.

Fielden, J.

TELLER.

Hume, J.

Ruthven, E. S.