Commons Sitting of 25 March 1835

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a second time:—Highways. Petitions presented. By Mr. TOOKE, from Gravesend, concerning the Sale of the Blockhouse Port.—By Sir SAMUEL WHALLEY and Mr. ANGERSTEIN, from several Places,—against; and by Earl JEKMYN, from Bury St. Edmund's, in favour of the Sabbath Observance Bill.—By Mr. HARDY, from Frampton, for an Inquiry into the Bights of the Poor in that Parish.—By Mr. STEUART, from three Places, for Protection to the Church of Scotland.—By Mr. RICHARDS, Mr. D. GASKELL, Mr. HALL DARE and Mr. CRAVEN BERKELEY, from the Licensed Victuallers of several Places,—against the Duty on Spirit Licences.—By Lord EBRJNGTON, Mr. WILKS, Mr. CRAVEN BERKELEY, and Colonel SIBTHORPE, from a great Number of Places,—against the whole, or parts of the Ecclesiastical Courts' Bill.

CORN TRADE (IRELAND.)
Mr. William Roche.—Sir, deeming the Petition which I hold in my hand to be one of very considerable importance, to both the com-

219
mercial and agricultural interests of Ireland, I felt it advisable to give notice of my intention to present it. Sir, this Petition comes from the Chamber of Commerce of Limerick, a most respectable, intelligent, as well as chartered body, under whose judicious auspices, the commerce of that city has doubled, within the last ten years.; its exports alone, now amounting to 1,000,000 l. per annum. If, Sir, the complaints which the petition embodies, were of an isolated nature—if they were confined to the locality of Limerick alone—or, if they did not involve such important and general interests—I might not have deemed it necessary to introduce the subject, by the formality of a previous notice; but, extending as this complaint does, to every port and part of Ireland, embracing, also, the two most essential elements in the prosperity of that country, or, I should rather say, the sole elements of its prosperity; (for divested as it is of any significant manufacturing interest, those of agriculture and commerce constitute the solid basis of our resources) therefore, anything calculated to mar or retard them, merits our most serious attention. Sir, the petitioners state, that they, and every Irish exporter of grain to the port of London, are exposed to three fraudulent operations, in consequence of the corn which they purchase, and ship from Ireland by weight, being unshipped, stored, and sold here by measurement. The result is, that as measurement is no adequate or accurate test of quantity, in reference to weight, plunder or pilfering may take place during the voyage hither, without the Irish merchant being able to ascertain the fact and fraud, or define its extent; whereas, if the cargo were weighed out here, as well as weighed (as it is) into the ship in Ireland, this corresponding test would either deter from fraud, or ascertain its extent, and render the captain or ship-master responsible for the loss. Now, however, the captain says he gives what he got; and as there is such a difference between the two tests of weight and measure, there is no opportunity of ascertaining the fact or fallacy of his allegation. Then, again, Sir, when the cargo is thus measured out, and placed upon the factors' loft, defalcation may occur there, too, and still the Irish owners have no opportunity of detecting or defining it. The ship-master and factor may both be men of honesty
220
and honour; but the crew of the one, or the labourers of the other, may not be so. Thirdly, Sir, when the cargo is finally sold, the measuring depends so much on the skill, the strength, and the animus of the operator, that a very considerable loss or benefit to the seller or buyer may arise, according to the prevalence of these qualifications in the measurer, and thus, again, the Irish exporter has no check whereby to ascertain whether the cargo is fairly or unfairly dealt by. Moreover, Sir, I believe most practical men now agree, as an abstract question, that weight is a much safer and more perfect criterion of quantity, than measurement, from the reasons I have assigned—namely, the variable influence of the skill, strength, and intentions of the measurer. As regards this point of view, I have seen the matter placed thus:—An Irish merchant sends two cargoes, suppose of oats, to the London market—say of 1,000 bolls each, and each boll weighing 1961bs. These two cargoes have been taken from the same bulk; and, therefore, if measurement were an exact criterion, they should measure the same; but on receipt of sales, the merchant finds that one vessel's cargo is made to weigh 411bs. per bushel, and the other 421bs. per bushel, which creates the following loss to him—

Qrs.

1,000 bolls, weighing 196 lbs. each boll, turn out by measure 41 lbs. per bushel, or

597½

1,000 bolls weighing 196 lbs., each boll, turn out by measure 42 lbs. per bushel, or

583¼

Difference and loss to the Irish shipper -

14¼

which at 30 s. per quarter, come to 21 l. 7s. 6d., arising from one cargo having been measured in even a slightly heavier manner than the other.
Now, Sir, this is what occurs every day; and the House may, therefore, judge what an enormous difference it is calculated to make annually, and in the aggregate. Sir, I beg to say, that the petitioners do not intend to arraign or abridge the corporate revenues of the port of London, by the desired alteration from measurement to weight, as they are willing to pay the same charges they now do, if the latter be resorted to. All they seek for is, that as they buy corn by weight, it may be similarly treated and disposed of here, not only for their protection, but as, in the abstract, a far better standard for all such purposes than measurement; and they have the stronger claim, when they state, that the port of London is the only

221
principal one where measurement and not weight, is used; Liverpool, Glasgow, Bristol, &c. &c, adopting the latter. Why, Sir, we ourselves have recently recognised this preference by enacting that coals should be weighed, not measured; and I believe experience has proved this to be a wise and salutary change.
Petition to be printed.

GRAVESEND BLOCK HOUSE—THE ORDNANCE.
Mr. Tookepresented a Petition from the Corporation and Inhabitants of Gravesend, praying that the sale of the Blockhouse Fort by the Board of Ordnance, which was advertised for the 30th inst., should be deferred, in order to afford the petitioners an opportunity of purchasing it, for the purpose of converting it into a place of public recreation. The petitioners stated, that it was advertised to be sold in forty lots, that it was likely to be converted into small cottages, and to become a nuisance, instead of being one of the public attractions of the place. The petitioners, after giving a statement of their negotiations with the late and present Board of Ordnance, for the purchase of this ground, proceeded to say, that the inhabitants of Gravesend would be willing to give a reasonable price for the ground in one lot, but that they would not enter into a competition with other purchasers, if it should be put up in forty lots, as in that case if one lot was purchased by some other party, their object might be defeated, and the place converted into a nuisance. The hon. Member hoped that the Board of Ordnance would attend to the prayer of the petitioners.
Colonel Leith Hay, as a member of the late Board of Ordnance, wished to give some explanation on this subject. There had been a negotiation between the Corporation and inhabitants of Gravesend and the late Board of Ordnance, for the purchase of this fort; but a difference arose between them regarding the reservation of certain roads, and that the late Board of Ordnance seeing no prospect of those gentlemen coming to a conclusion on that point, felt it their duty to break off the negotiation altogether. They also took the opinion of the then Attorney-General, as to the agreement which had been partly concluded, who gave it as his opinion that the contract had been rendered void by the conduct of those parties; that the Ordnance had a right to put an end to it,
222
and that the Board might, with perfect legality, re-advertise those premises for sale by public auction. The last minute of the late Board was made for the purpose of carrying that object into effect. That sale would then, undoubtedly, have taken place, but that the present Master-General of the Ordnance, without making inquiry from any of the persons of the late Board, or examining the papers which existed on the subject, obstructed it. [Sir Edward Knatchbull: The sale was only postponed.] Well, it was postponed; but it was postponed on a specific ground, not very complimentary to the late Board—namely, that inquiry should be first made whether in a military point of view, it would be necessary to retain those premises. Now, the matter underwent consideration before a Committee, composed of military officers and members of the Board of Ordnance, in 1834, and they decided that the property was no longer valuable in a military point of view, and that it should be sold. That opinion was afterwards submitted to the Inspector-General of Fortifications, and it received the sanction of Sir James Kempt, the late Master-General of the Board of Ordnance, who stood as high in a military point of view as any other Master-General possibly could. Under such circumstances, he thought that the delaying the sale of these premises, was an unmerited reflection on the late Board. If this property had been sold without reservation, he had reason to believe that, it would have fetched 3,000 l. or 4,000 l. more than had been offered by the Corporation of Gravesend for it. The petitioners, instead of having been treated harshly, had met with the greatest kindness and consideration from the Board of Ordnance.
Sir Edward Knatchbullcomplained of the charges which had been made by the gallant Member against the present Board of Ordnance. There had been no intention on their part to cast any imputation on the late Board.
Colonel Leith Hayhad said, that the late Board had determined on the sale of this property, and that the present Board on coming into office, without inquiry had stopped the sale.
Sir Edward Knatchbulltook the responsibility of the deferring of this sale on himself, as he had advised the Master-General to put it off. He assured the hon. Member, that there was not the

223
slightest wish to cast any imputation on the late Board in the transaction.
Mr. Harveysaid, that in point of fact, this was a modest application on the part of the inhabitants of Gravesend, to be allowed 3,000 l. or 4,000 l. out of the public purse. Now he, as one of the guardians of public property, entered his protest against the proposed mode of dealing with that property. He thought, that the exact value of the property in question ought to be ascertained; and, when that was done, he had no objection to let the town of Gravesend be so far favoured as to let it have the option of purchasing the property at an abatement—of 10 or 15 per cent.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that if on selling the property to the town of Gravesend any abatement should be made in its actual value, care ought to be taken that the property was appropriated to public, not to private purposes.
Sir Frederick Trenchwas sorry the hon. and gallant Officer should have thought it necessary to censure the motives of the Master-General of the Ordnance. He could venture to say, that the mind of the Master-General was influenced by no other motive than a desire to afford facility to any arrangement tending to promote the health, the interests, or the recreation of the inhabitants of Gravesend as far as was consistent with his duty to the public. [Colonel Leith Hay: I made no charge against the Master-General.] He thought the hon. and gallant Officer had distinctly charged the Master-General with having suspended the decision of the former Board hastily, and without reading the papers. The fact, however, was, that in his desire to do substantial and speedy justice, the Master-General had the voluminous papers connected with this subject sent to him to Scotland, to make himself master of it, even in the midst of the interesting and absorbing occupation in which he was then engaged. The hon. and gallant Officer seemed to think that it was an insult to the late Board, that Sir George Murray should look for data of his own on which to found his opinion. Now, though Sir George Murray entertained the highest opinion of his predecessor, and nothing could be further from his intention than to cast any reflection on the former Board, still he was not a man to be led blindly by the opinions of others, or to take anything for granted,
224
when he had grounds on which to form an opinion of his own, and therefore he directed a report to be made of the military value of the premises, with a view to decide whether it were important to retain a power of resumption, which would of course diminish the amount of purchase-money to be placed to the credit of the public. He had been present at an interview between the Master-General and a gentleman of the Committee, in which Sir George Murray evinced every disposition to favour any plan for the gratification of the inhabitants of Gravesend; but distinctly stated, that as a trustee of the public property, he could not compliment away any portion of it to gratify his own wishes, or to please any body of men, however respectable. He would only add, that the Master-General was utterly incapable of the littleness of mind imputed to him.
Petition laid on the Table.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—THE MORNING POST.
The Speaker having called on Lord John Russell, who had given notice of a motion on a breach of privilege,
Sir Edward Codringtonrose and said, that in consequence of what had passed yesterday in the House, and the feeling so strongly expressed by the House on the nature of the attack, he did not wish to go further in the present business, and he hoped the House would go no further in it. The transaction was fully explained, and his conduct fully vindicated. He thought what had taken place would be a sufficient lesson to those whose conduct rendered such a course necessary. He hoped the noble Lord would not press his motion.
Lord John Russellwas convinced that the character of the gallant Admiral was above suspicion, and when he gave notice of bringing forward the question, he did so on public grounds. So far as the gallant Admiral was concerned, and on account of the gallant Admiral's request, he was not disposed to press his motion; but, having taken up the question on public grounds mainly, he was in the hands of the House, whether he should go on with it or not. The character of the gallant Admiral had been fully cleared; but it was for the House to say whether, in vindication of its own dignity, an anonymous libel of that kind was to be overlooked?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhoped the noble Lord would not bring forward

225
the subject. He should be very sorry if a precedent were established which would render it necessary for every public man to bring forward subjects of this nature when imputations were cast upon them in the newspapers. If the noble Lord were anxious to become the champion of the House, he could supply him with a great variety of cases. The hon. and gallant Admiral having expressed his opinion, and and having entreated the noble Lord not to bring forward the subject, he should not have any doubt but that the feeling of the House was, that they should not establish a precedent by which every Member of Parliament who was attacked, and might have the grossest imputations cast upon him, would feel bound to defend himself in that House.
Sir Henry Hardingeconcurred in all that had been said by his right hon. Friend. Had he been inclined to follow the course which had been pursued by the noble Lord, he might have come down to that House, and complained of some very gross attacks that had been made upon him within the last forty-eight hours. He thought it, however, much better to abstain from doing so, as the attacks were too contemptible for notice, and he would not therefore notice them.
Mr. Sinclairwas understood to say, that if the gentlemen opposite were so anxious to vindicate the dignity and privilege of the House against the aspersions of the newspapers, the newspapers in their own interest would furnish them with abundant materials, for these papers had uttered the grossest libels against gentlemen on his side of the House.
The subject was dropped.

SUPPLY—NAVY ESTIMATES.
Lord Ashleysaid, he wished to explain to the House the difficulty in which the Government found itself, in consequence of certain votes in the Navy Estimates not having yet passed. On Friday next, it would be necessary, in accordance with the usual custom, to give notice in the Gazette, that the half-pay of officers in the navy and royal marines, the civil and military pensions, including the Greenwich out-pensioners, would, at a certain lime next month, become payable. But it would be impossible to give that notice, unless the Government should be provided with the necessary money to pay those pensions. The notice was usually
226
given fourteen days before the day of payment, which happened to be the 10th of April, and consequently, the latest day for publishing the notice would be Friday next. Therefore, unless the House would permit him to take the necessary votes tonight, so that he might be in possession of the money before Friday next, it would be impossible for him to publish a notice promising the payment of the pensions in question; and if that were not done, he believed that great confusion in the country would be the result, in consequence of the persons to whom the money was due being led to believe that it would not be paid to them at the appointed time. He was aware that it might be said, that a certain sum of money had already been, voted, and that the Government might apply a portion of that money to the payment of these demands; but it should be recollected, that that money had been voted for specific purposes, to defray the charge for the wages and victuals of the sailors, the expense of the Admiralty, scientific branch, &c. He therefore thought, that the Government would not be justified in taking money from that fund which had been voted for one purpose, and applying it to another, to which the House had not assigned it. He had thought it his duty to state these circumstances to the House, and having explained the difficulty in which the Government found itself, he trusted the House would consent to resolve itself into a Committee of Supply for the purpose of passing the necessary votes.
Mr. Laboucherewould be sorry that any such inconvenience as that alluded to should arise; but he must say, that after listening to the statement of the noble Lord, he could not understand in what way the votes asked for were more necessary than any other votes relating to the army, or any other public service. It was undoubtedly intended by the arrangement entered into last year, that all the Estimates of the year should be passed before the 1st of April, but he repeated, that he did not think the passing of the particular votes in question more necessary than the passing of any other money votes. He believed about 1,000,000 l. had been already voted for the Navy Service, and that sum might be made applicable to the purpose mentioned by the noble Lord. He knew that the votes had not been reported yet; but he should make no objection to

227
that step being taken, and then the money might be rendered available for the Navy Service generally. He really thought that the noble Lord had made out no case for the course he proposed to take. The late First Lord of the Admiralty was in his place (Sir James Graham), and that right lion. Member would be able to state whether the view he took of the question was correct.
Sir James Grahamsaid, that when the alteration was made in the Appropriation Act, it certainly was the desire of the officers of the Crown that the estimates for each year should pass before the 1st of April; but it was at the same time foreseen, that great difficulty might probably arise in attaining that object; and in the first year the experiment altogether failed. However, he could not see any constitutional impediment in the way of applying money to one great branch of the public service generally to the use of that branch, after the passing of the Resolutions, and before the passing of the Appropriation Act. The hon. Member for Middlesex would recollect, that the objection which he had taken to the application of the public money to a different purpose than that originally intended, did not refer to such an application as was made in the interval between the passing of the money vote, and the passing of the Appropriation Act. What he objected to was, that after money had been appropriated by Parliament to one service, that money, so appropriated, should be transferred to another. But he never had contended, and never could contend, that in the interval between the passing of the vote, and the final appropriation by Parliament, there ought to be the least difficulty on the part of the Executive in carrying on the service during that interval by the aid of the monies voted. With respect to the present case of the Navy Service, the sum voted the other night amounted to 2,000,000 l. ["There is nothing voted."] The hon. Member who made that observation was quite wrong, because the first five votes of the Navy Estimates had passed, though they had not been reported. Now if he were at the Admiralty, he should not hesitate to apply the money so voted to the general necessities of the Naval Service, including certainly the half-pay due to officers. In such a proceeding he saw no violation of the Act of Parliament, and no departure from the accustomed
228
usage; and though it was desirable in ordinary cases that exertion should be made to pass the greater portion of the Estimates before the 1st of April, yet he was bound to say, that the control which that House had over the estimates, was a legitimate control exercised over the Executive.
Mr. Herrieshad heard, with satisfaction, the observations made by his right hon. friend, (Sir James Graham), and was glad to find, that he relaxed somewhat from that rigid rule which he had been formerly disposed to apply to the appropriation of public money; but he (Mr. Herries) confessed, that he did not understand the distinction now drawn by that right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman maintained, that after the passing of the Appropriation Act, all the monies appropriated to particular purposes should be strictly confined to those purposes; but he added, that in the interval between the passing of the votes (which was as much an act of appropriation as the Appropriation Act itself) and the passing of that Act, monies might be indiscriminately applied to the necessities of the service for which those monies were voted. He (Mr. Herries) always had maintained that that strict appropriation of money to separate parts of the same service, which had been so much urged on the Government, was in practice impossible. He thought his noble Friend had taken the only coarse open to him, in explaining the situation in which the Government was placed, and calling on the House for a vote of money. If it were to be understood now, as it had been formerly, that all navy monies might be applied constitutionally to any part of the Navy Service, then there would be no necessity for the proposed vote; but if it were not constitutional to appropriate public money to any other purpose than that to which it was specifically assigned, then it would be necessary for the House, in order to enable the Admiralty to carry on the current service, to furnish it with the means to provide for those payments, which the noble Lord had observed would shortly become due.
Lord Ashleyremarked, that there was a distinction in the words regulating the half-pay of the army, and the half-pay of the navy. In the one it was "to defray all demands for the half-pay of the army up to the 31st of March," while in the other it was "to defray all demands for

229
the half-pay of the navy, which shall come in course of payment on the 31st of March." They were accustomed, in consequence of this arrangement, to defray the expenses of the old quarter out of the quarter which succeeded it, and at the pesent time, they had not one farthing in hand to pay these demands, and it was on this account, that he wished to go into Committee, for unless the vote was agreed to to-night, it would be impossible to insert the usual notice in Friday's Gazette.
Mr. Humesaid, that if the case was as the noble Lord had told the House, that the half-pay could not be paid until these votes were passed, he, for one, should be very sorry to stop the pay of any half-pay officer. But he could not agree in the propriety of such an arrangement, and he should be glad to learn from the right lion. Baronet who had made the arrangement, how it came to be made.
Sir James Grahamwas decidedly of opinion, that until the Appropriation Act was passed, which was the final act of the Legislature, an application of the money which had been granted to different purposes from those for which it was designed, might be made without any violation of a constitutional principle. A vote of the House of Commons was certainly an indication of the manner in which the money would be appropriated, but until this was done, there was nothing to prevent a discretion being exercised in defraying the current, services out of the Appropriation Fund. This was the only way to meet such difficulties when they arose, unless the House would consent from year to year to pass the Estimates before the end of April. As the practice was now, Parliament did not meet till the middle or the end of February, and it was hardly constitutional to call upon the House to pass these Estimates within six weeks from their being first assembled, as it would go to weaken or take away the check which the House was enabled to exercise over the Executive. He attached, as well as the right hon. Secretary-at-War, the greatest importance to a proper strictness being observed with reference to the Appropriation Act, but publicity was the best preventive against abuse, and the best way would be to defray the expenses of the current services out of the money voted for those services, being somewhere about 2,000,000 l. He saw no difficulty whatever in adopting this arrangement.
Mr. Wynn, with all possible deference to the opinion of the right hon. Baronet, who had had so much experience in the department to which these votes related, would contend, that by yielding to the argument, which the right hon. Baronet had employed, the House of Commons would surrender their most powerful means of control over the Executive. If money voted for one purpose might at the pleasure of the Government be applied to another, there was no saying where such a principle might lead to. There had been a declaration made by the House of Commons, that if money which had been voted for one service should be applied to another, the party making or authorizing that application should be guilty of a misdemeanour. If it was allowable to apply a sum voted for wages and victualling to defray the demands made for half-pay, on the same grounds it might be applied to the use of the army, the Colonial Department, or any other purpose. He did not believe that there would be the slightest opposition to voting the half-pay and the money to be paid to pensioners. There was no objection which could be raised against the House going into Committee, particularly as the necessity for it had arisen from circumstances over which the Government had no control, and it was the safest and best course which could be pursued.
Mr.Prymewould ask whether this embarrassment did not arise from the late dissolution of Parliament, which had driven off the assembling of the Parliament till the latter end of February, instead of admitting of their coming together in the beginning of that month, or the end of January? He would not throw any obstruction in the way of the House going into Committee, but he would remind the House, that this was one of the many evils occasioned by the dissolution of the late Parliament.
Dr. Bowringconcurred in the opinions expressed by the right hon. Secretary at War, and the right hon. Member for Montgomeryshire. There was very great difficulty in administering the expenditure with regularity, and this difficulty would be enhanced if the plan of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Cumberland, was acceded to. If money which had been voted for other purposes might be applied to meet the demands made for half-pay, this kind of application, without the au

231
thority of Parliament, might take place to an extent, which could not be overtaken by Parliamentary opinion. The House could not entertain the question of public accountancy in all its details, but it was in its power to determine that the money it had given for one object should not be applied to another.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid that the Question for the House to consider was, whether the more advisable course to pursue was to vote the money for the half-pay and the pensions together, or pass the one first, and leave the other to a future occasion. His noble Friend would leave this altogether to the discretion of the Committee. It was in conformity with all practice that on Friday next a notice should be inserted in the Gazette, stating that the half-pay of officers would be paid. His noble Friend did not wish to publish such a notice without first obtaining, as the more regular mode of proceeding, the sanction of the House, for otherwise the effect of that publication would be to pledge the honour of the Government to a vote, which the House might not authorise. He (Sir R. Peel) certainly thought that the most prudent and the safest course for the House would be to sanction the vote asked for to-night and not leave the payments necessary for the public service to be made out of money intended for other purposes. He certainly should not like to lay down as a rule that this should never be done, but the question was, which was the safer course? It might undoubtedly happen that the exigencies of the public service might require an appropriation by the Executive of money to other heads of service than those for which it had been designed, but this could only be justified by necessity. If a different principle were admitted, it might occur that the Government having got a vote for the payment of men, and thinking that the erection of particular fortifications would be very desirable, it might apply the money to that purpose. Now, he thought the House would pause before it laid down a principle so broad as that. The question was, on which side lay the balance of inconvenience?
Lord Stanleyhad no wish to stand in the way of the right hon. Baronets arrangements with the House, but he could not help thinking that the right hon. Gentleman had a little misunderstood his right hon. Friend, near him (Sir
232
J. Graham). What his right hon. Friend said was, that if there was any surplus, it was perfectly competent for the Executive to apply it to the service of the State. No abuse could arise, because the application of it could easily be checked. His right hon. Friend did not think it competent to the Government to apply any monies to any purposes they might think fit. This would be open to great abuse undoubtedly. He did not think the constitutional difficulty was at all serious. He was afraid that if the House was disposed to entertain these extreme scruples, both the present and every future Government would be placed in much greater difficulties than those in which they were at present.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhad stated that he should be unwilling to lay it down as a principle that no exigencies of the public service would justify such an arrangement as that proposed by the right hon. Baronet. The Question was one of the balance of inconvenience, and there could be no doubt that the danger to be apprehended from the precedent that would be thus established would be an inconvenience much greater than the course which he wished to pursue.
Lord John Russelldid not take a very different view of the Question from that entertained by the right hon. Baronet, and he should consent to go into the Committee of Supply, with the understanding that no other vote should be brought forward than those which had been mentioned in the course of the discussion.

INTERCHANGE OF LITERATURE WITH FRANCE.
On the question being put that the Speaker leave the Chair,
Dr. Bowringasked the right hon. Baronet whether he was prepared to give an-answer to the question which he had some time ago put to him, as to the interchange of literary works between England and France.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerbelieved the question related to whether one of the eleven copies of works which were furnished by all publishers to certain libraries should be exchanged with France for a copy of the works of that country. The right of having one copy had been agreed to be purchased from the University of Aberdeen at a sum of 500 l. a-year. But supposing the arrangement were made which was proposed by the hon. Gentleman, he

233
doubted very much whether any advantage would result to either country by it. He knew that the trade felt the furnishing of those eleven copies to be a great hardship, and he doubted whether it would be a great advantage to France to receive a copy of all the annuals and novels that were published here. He himself thought it would be better to give up the privilege that had been purchased of receiving these works altogether, and let the advantage remain in the hands of the publishers. If 500 l. worth of books were sent to France, of course this country would expect an equivalent; and in his opinion it would be better to leave both countries to go into the market themselves, and there to purchase whatever they might require.
Dr. Bowringsaid, the Government of France was very desirous this interchange should take place between the two countries, with the condition that it should not be interrupted either in peace or by war.
The Speakerintimated to the hon. Member that he was out of order in making these observations, when there was no Question before the House.
The House then resolved itself into a Committee of Supply, and money voted for the Naval half-pay and pensions.

SUNDAY OBSERVANCE BILL.
Mr. Poulter Mr. Poulter moved the Order of the Day, that the Sunday Observance Bill be read a second time.
Mr. Warburtoncould not see the necessity of this Bill. Looking at the habits of the people at present, and comparing them with the past, he did not perceive that they were becoming more and more irreligious, or at all the less observant of the Sabbath-day. In reviewing the acts of the Legislature of the country for the last two hundred years, he incidentally discovered that the people were less religiously disposed formerly than they were at present. By an Act of James 1st, he found that markets and fairs were prohibited from being held on the Sunday, except markets for victuals. By another act, he was not sure, but he believed of Charles 1st, he found that fairs were forbidden to be holden on a Suday, except in harvest time. Indications such as these, with various others that might be mentioned, incidentally, established the fact, that the Sabbath at present was much more rigorously kept than formerly. And if hon. Gentlemen about him would tax their
234
recollections, he did not doubt but there were many among them who must remember, that thirty or forty years ago Sunday evenings were devoted to parties of gaiety. Sunday was the favourite day, and he had himself at that period attended where there were clergymen present, who did not appear to think it any sin to join in the singing of glees. He remembered one house in particular that he used to visit, it was the house of a very learned physician, who used to devote that evening to a conversazione; he had been often present, in company with three or four Bishops, and the conversation was of a grave and discreet kind, and the time was passed in agreeable amusement. Looking at these things he could not conceive, that it could with any fairness be asserted, that the Sabbath met with less attention than formerly; but, on the contrary, that in modern times it had met more, and more now than it did so late as thirty or forty years ago. What indications were there, that it was the public habit to desecrate the Sabbath? He could find none. With respect to the present Bill, it had been asserted, that it was different from that of last Session. It was not so far different, but it was to prevent keeping open shop and trading. Now, in an Act of Parliament, "open shop" was a loose expression. What was open shop? Why, leaving a door open might be construed into open shop, or one shutter might make it open shop, and indeed he could scarcely see what would make it keeping close shop. But under the clauses as they now stood (as clause 1), the sale of many articles were prohibited, which were absolutely necessary for the refreshment of the numerous body of the public, who, on Sundays took their only opportunity of taking recreation and exercise in the fields. He must say, that under these clauses, they would prevent the public from taking those refreshments which were necessary, to convert Sunday (as he wished them to do) into a day of innocent recreation. It was upon these grounds then that he saw great inconvenience in passing the Bill. Looking at the clauses, and seeing that they would throw impediments in the way of the manufacturing and trading public of walking from their crowded cities, and taking recreation on that day, he begged to move by way of Amendment, that the Bill be, read that day six months.
Mr. Potterunderstood it had been distinctly stated by the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill, that it was very different from the Bill of last year. With a slight exception he found it the same, and hoped that it would meet the fate of its predecessor. The Bill of last year underwent a great many Amendments, and this Bill could not pass without undergoing a great many more, and he submitted, that the time of the House should not be taken up by unnecessary discussions on Sabbath Bills. He wished the Gentlemen who were so anxious for legislating on the Sabbath would read a document published in the summer of last year, written by the liberal and enlightened Dr. Butler, of Shrewsbury, and delivered as a charge to the Archdeaconry of Derby. He would read an extract from that charge, in which he entirely concurred:—"One or two efforts have been made, evidently so uncongenial to the spirit of freedom and liberty which belongs to our constitution, so harsh in their restrictions, and so unequal in their operation on the different classes of society, that we ought, I think, most heartily to rejoice at their rejection. Furthermore, the severest prohibitions will not effect the truly religious observance of the Sabbath, by influencing the heart. Rather will they tend to bring odium, not only on such legislation, but on the sacred day itself; and by turning it into a day of ascetic gloom instead of religious cheerfulness, may conduce to harden men's hearts, but not to convert them. Acts of Parliament may perhaps be so framed as to provide for the decent external observance of this day; but what Act of Parliament can reach the heart? Could all men be compelled by Act of Parliament to attend divine worship on this day, how little would be done towards making them religious when their attendance was compulsory! It is the will that gives the life and meaning to the act; and this leads me to mention what I consider as far more likely to be efficacious in promoting the proper observance of the Sabbath than a whole statute-book of Parliamentary enactments—I mean, the gentle force of persuasion and example. I have watched, myself, and I have consulted others who have made the same observation, and who concur with me in thinking, that since so general an expression of public opinion has been elicited respecting the desecration of the Sabbath, the good feeling of
236
the people has sympathised with it; and that, although there may be some places where the evil is not yet remedied, this holy day has been generally observed of late with much more solemnity and propriety than heretofore. A point which seems to have been overlooked by some legislators on more than one occasion, is the very wide difference between a metropolitan and country population. In large towns, and especially in the metropolis, excesses will prevail which are unknown in more thinly inhabited districts. Again, they who have been confined in the close and heated air of manufactories and shops, in narrow streets, and crowded and ill-ventilated apartments for six days continually, naturally wish to breathe a freer and purer air and to enjoy a refreshing relaxation on the seventh. To debar these from their usual and only gratification, that actual rest from their labours, and, I may add, that moral enjoyment which they can only receive on this day, would be as oppressive as it fortunately is impossible." He believed that not all the police force in the country could carry the wishes of the framers of Bills like this into effect.
Sir Samuel Whalleysaid, that if he considered the measure to be at all like the Bill which was introduced last Session, he should vote for the Amendment. But he thought a single sentence would induce hon. Members to accede to the second reading of the Bill. It was merely to make more effectual a law passed in the reign of Charles 1st.; to close such shops as might not be necessary to the comfort and convenience of the people. The hon. Member says, in answer to the petition on behalf of the market gardeners, that he did not intend to prevent the sale of fruits on the Lord's day. He was sure that the hon. Member, knowing that for six days the labouring classes were pent up in close shops or manufactories, would not attempt for a moment to withdraw them from the pure air of heaven and all innocent amusements which were compatible with the observance of the Lord's day. But it was fit for the Legislature to give every opportunity to the maintenance of a religious observance of the Sabbath among the people, so far as they could without interfering with that innocent recreation and comfort which the people were so justly entitled to; without endeavouring to attain that impracticable object, making the working people religious by Act of Parliament

237
They were to look for the accomplishment of so desirable an object, to the influence of the example of the higher classes—they must abstain from amusements which are so commonly given on the Sabbath day—they must no longer see that flux of carriages crowding the Zoological gardens and the parks, before they put, without shame, an end to those of the lower classes, on the only opportunity which they ever have of tasting those luxuries which their superiors so fortunately enjoyed. It was on these grounds—not from a view of supporting the Bill in its present shape, but from a wish to see what amelioration it might produce, that he should vote for the second reading; with the full determination, that if, in the Committee, all its objections were not removed, and if it still continued to interfere with the enjoyments so common on the Sabbath, he should think himself fully at liberty to throw out the Bill at any subsequent period.
Mr. Poulteronly desired a just and reasonable concurrence between the law of the land and the manners of the people. He was aware that religious people always could obtain the exercise of their religion, but it was the object of his Bill to obtain a decent observance of religion at all places. On the second reading of the Bill of last Session he had received a letter from the worthy Archdeacon D'Oyley, of Lambeth, stating that there was more trade carried on in that parish on a Sunday than on any other day, and he trusted that the House would not assist in maintaining such a state of things. With regard to the argument used, as to what was open shop, he presumed that it would be interpreted by the law according to the quo animo. It would not be considered an open shop because there was an open shutter, or an open door for the family to come in and go out, but according to whether or no there was trading carried on. To prove the liberal way in which the law was generally construed, he need only state, that by the Act of Charles 1st all places were excepted that were open for the sale of meats, and all cook-shops and victualling houses; and the sale of milk was permitted before the hour of nine in the morning and after four in the afternoon. But to show the large exception the law allowed, it was decided by the Court of King's Bench that a baker's shop, open for the cooking of dinners, should be looked
238
upon as a victualling-house, and, consequently exempt from the penalties of that Act. The measure now before the House would, he had no doubt, be interpreted with equal latitude, and its great object was to prevent all disgraceful kind of trading, and to prevent any new excitement being given to Sunday trade which did not now exist; it expressly repealed the statutes 30 George 1st, and 2 George 4th, and 3 George 4th. The Bill did not at all interfere with the poor man at proper hours providing his dinner, and he trusted the House would permit it to be read a second time, particularly when they remembered that the petitions in favour of the subject last Session amounted to above 2,000, and the signatures exceeded half a million.
Mr. Hawesobjected to the Bill going into Committee, for the Act of Charles 2nd it proposed to enforce was practically obsolete.
Sir Robert Batesonhad for the last two months come down, day after day, with the view of presenting several petitions, praying for the better enforcement of the observance of the Sabbath. He felt it a duty to a large constituency, who were anxious for the passing some law on the subject, to give his support to this measure. He was not to be daunted by the sneers or taunts of those who advocated the necessity of free trade. The well-wishers of free trade attacked the subject covertly; they were afraid to come forward openly, for they would have their arguments refuted. He trusted that the hon. Member for Shaftesbury (Mr. Poulter) would not be intimidated, but persevere in his intentions.
Mr. Lennardsaid the Bill expressly revived the statute of Charles 2nd. And the statute of George 2nd, which excepted the healthy amusement of boating from its other interdictions, would also be repealed by it, and thus that delightful recreation would be forbidden. If this Bill were to be passed into a law it must be very much altered. In its present state he could not support it.
Mr. William Ordhad an objection on principle to the Bill before the House. It was founded on exceptions. No Bill should proceed upon such a principle.—Properly speaking, the exceptions destroyed the principle, and, therefore, the measure had no principle at all. It would, he was satisfied, be found to be a mere in-

239
effectual attempt to deal by legislation with a subject, which, from its very nature, defied legislation. He wished that all statutes respecting the regulation of the Sabbath were blotted out of the Statute Book, and that the preservation of the sanctity of that day was left entirely to the conscientious feeling of the people. As the exceptions to the Bill before the House were so numerous as to completely destroy the principle of the measures, and as it consequently was without any principle at all, he felt it to be his duty to oppose its further progress.
Mr. George F. Youngsaid, the opposition to the Bill was of the most pernicious character. He could scarcely refrain from perceiving that those who opposed it seemed determined to break down all distinction between the Sabbath and the week day. He trusted that the House would never consent to such an encroachment, for if they did the poor man alone would be injured by it. At present the labourer worked six days in the week, and rested on the seventh. The object of the Bill of the hon. Member for Shaftesbury went to affirm that regulation and enforce it. If the principle which the opposers of the measure advocated, the entire freedom of Sunday trading, were once admitted by the Legislature, the poor man would be compelled to work the remaining day, the Sabbath, and he would get no additional wages. That something was necessary to be done for the suppression of the evil of extravagant Sunday trading the number of petitions which had been presented to the House sufficiently proved. He was, he confessed, much astonished to see hon. Members, in opposition to the measure, who, on all occasions took so much credit to themselves for liberality of sentiment and respect for the petitions of the people attend so little lo either in respect to the Bill before the House. Believing the Bill before the House to be one calculated to effect the object in view, he should give it his support.
Mr. Ervartwas convinced, that the Bill would have no effect whatever in promoting the better observance of the Sabbath. As far as he could judge of the temper of the House, and the inclination of the country, he never knew an opposition to any measure to be so extended, so uniform, so temperate, and at the same time so determined. The measure was radically de-
240
fective, for it gave exclusive privilege to a certain class, while it took away privilege from another. It was consequently most unfair. It proposed to enforce the observance of the Sabbath, and yet it left servants, and others of that condition, under the control of their masters, and compellable to work. Thus, while its ostensible object was the preservation of the sanctity of the Sunday, it in reality countenanced its desecration. To be consistent with its purpose and its title, it should have gone farther, or not gone so far. He should therefore oppose it.
Mr. Secretary Goulburnhad, on more than one occasion, given his support to measures which had for their object the preservation of the sanctity of the Sabbath, so that he thought he needed do no more than repeat his conviction, that some additional means of effecting that desirable object to those already in existence were required. He had not, however, supported some Bills which purported to have the same general object in view as the present measure, because he believed they went beyond those limits where legislative interference should stop short. The Bill of the hon. Member for Shaftesbury was not open to this objection; it went to the exact limits which it ought to stop at, and went no further. It prevented only the obvious and publicly offensive desecrations of the Sabbath, and did not interfere with those harmless enjoyments of the poorer classes which were embraced by the other measures to which he had alluded. He (Mr. Goulburn) therefore thought the hon. Member had acted a wise part in limiting its provisions to those bounds, and exempting it by that means from the just exception to former measures—measures, he would say, brought forward in the best spirit, but with an erroneous view of the subject on which they sought to interfere. The hon. Member for Liverpool had said, that the Bill took away the privilege of a certain class, and instanced servants in support of his argument that Sunday trading should not be interfered with. But the argument of the hon. Member, to be of avail, should be extended farther; and, if it were extended farther on the principle sought to be established, the theatres might be opened on the Sabbath. [Mr. Ewart: There was a special Act against opening the theatres on Sundays.] He admitted that, but he also begged to remind the hon. Member,

241
that there existed a special Act against all desecration of the Sabbath. That Act, however, was found so foreign to the present state of society in this empire, that it was permitted to remain obsolete. Another hon. Member had said, that he should rather the observance of the Sabbath was left to the feelings of the people, than to the interference of the Legislature. He did not desire to compel the consciences of others, but the abuse was one which called for redress. It should be borne in mind, also, that the continuance of the desecration of the Sabbath hurt the feelings and offended the consciences of the religiously-disposed portion of the community; and he thought the House had a distinct right to attend to their feelings, as much as to those of any other class. Besides the evils which he had enumerated, the desecration of the Sabbath led to others of a more serious description. It fostered and encouraged vice in youth, and gave rise to many of those great crimes which the records of our courts furnished us with daily. The House should pay attention to trade, and consult its interests, it was true; but they should also attend to the conscientious feelings of religious people, and the bad examples which laxity of discipline on this day was likely to have upon the morals of the younger portion of the community. With respect to the observance of the Sabbath, he could say for himself that he entertained no austere feelings or impracticable opinions. He would not wish to debar the poor man from those innocent recreations on that day, which did not desecrate its sanctity, while they invigorated his frame against the ensuing week of labour, and made him look up with more gratitude to the Great Author of all being—the source of all happiness. The subject was one on which he (Mr. Goulburn) could enlarge at considerable length, but he would not trespass on the attention of the House further. He hoped due regard would be had to the feelings of the people and the interests of religion, which could be shown no better than by suffering the Bill to be read a second time.
Mr. Claysaid, that the opponents of the Bill took their stand on the fact, that Sunday trading was not so great in amount as to require legislation to prevent it. A great deal had been said about not offending the consciences of religious people. Other people had consciences as well as
242
religious people, and if the one were protected, he did not see why the other should not be equally so. Why did not hon. Gentlemen who supported that Bill, go to the extent of the Puritans in the time of Cromwell? If the argument was good in the one instance, it was good in all. They ought to enforce the observance of the Sabbath with the utmost strictness, or not at all. The extent to which the restriction went was scarcely exaggerated in the following lines in Drunken Barnaby's Journal:
Veni Banbury. Oh! profanum!
Ubi vidi Puritanum
Felem facientem furem
Quia Sabbatho stravit murem.
But what was the consequence of this excessive strictness? Why, such a reaction took place in consequence, that in the reign of Charles 2nd, the Sabbath was no better observed than it was in the present day in France. It was to enable the artizan to enjoy the luxury of his Sunday dinner, that Sabbath labour was now required; and the same would be the case, if there were no restrictions on Sunday. Therefore the argument of the hon. Member for Tynemouth fell to the ground as to the labourer and artizan being compelled to work on that day, as well as the other six. As far as his (Mr. Clay's) observation of the metropolis went, he would fearlessly say, that in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred, Sunday trading was limited to procuring enjoyment for the artizan, the labourer, and, generally, the working classes. Under these circumstances he should oppose the second reading of the Bill.
Mr. Pringlesaid, that the Bill was founded on the report of a Select Committee of the House, who had examined evidence, and taken every pains to procure information on the subject. If the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets had read the report and the evidence given before the Committee he could not have stated that Sunday trading was not too great. Any hon. Member, however, who wished to take the evidence of his own senses on the subject, needed only go through various parts of London on a Sunday morning, Tooley-street, Lambeth, and St. Giles's, and he would soon be convinced of the incorrectness of the hon. Gentleman's statement. It would, he was aware, be urged against the suppression of Sunday trading, that the artizan and labourer were

243
not paid their wages till late on Saturday night; but all practical men were agreed that that was the effect and not the cause of it. Most of the witnesses examined before the Committee said, "Suppress the Sunday markets, and you will compel the employers to pay their labourers and mechanics on the Friday." The complaints against it were not confined to the religious portion of the community; they came from the Sunday traders themselves. Butchers said that more than half their sales were made on the Sabbath; and other trades were equally busy, to their great annoyance in many cases, and personal inconvenience in others. He should support the Bill in its further progress.
Colonel Evanssaid, that the Bill if passed in the present shape would have the effect of reducing many thousands to a state of beggary. It would also trench very deeply upon a certain portion of the trading property of the metropolis. He much regretted the hon. Member for Shaftesbury did not see fit to take these things into his consideration previous to coming forward with any legislative interference on the subject of the Sabbath. As he wished all information possible on the nature of the Bill he desired to know of the hon. Member, whether it was contemplated by it to prevent the sale of fruit, vegetables, fish, and all other perishable commodities left over Saturday night on the Sunday?
Sir A. Agnewhoped that the hon. Member for Shaftesbury would not enter into any compromise or entertain any suggestion made by the enemies of Sabbath legislation. If he did, the effect would be an impairing of the utility of the Bill, perhaps its destruction. He (Sir A. Agnew) was happy to find a growing number of hon. Members in the House disposed to respect the petitions of the religious portion of the community, and interfere to prevent the desecration of the Lord's-day. The Bill should have his best support.
Mr. Humewas disposed to vote for the second reading of the Bill until he had heard the observations of the hon. Baronet addressed to the hon. Member for Shaftesbury. He was very unwilling to trust the measure in Committee to a man who could advise another not to listen to any reasonable suggestion. He wished to know of the hon. Member for Shaftesbury whether confectioners' shops, or those traders who travelled, from place to place in steam-
244
boats on a Sunday, to provide refreshments for the passengers, would be interfered with by his Bill?
Mr. Poulterreplied that confectioners' shops fell under the equitable construction given to the Act of Charles 2nd by the Court of King's Bench; and the Bill had no reference whatever to what was done on board steam-boats.
The House divided on the original Question that the Bill be read a second time:—Ayes 121; Noes 45; Majority 76.
Bill read a second time.

List of the AYES.

Agnew, Sir A.

Hindley, C.

Ashley, Lord

Hogg, J.W.

Astley Sir J.

Hutt, W.

Alsager, Captain

Harvey, D. W.

Archdall, M.

Hardy, J.

Bateson, Sir R.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Balfour, J.

Johnston, A.

Buller, C.

Johnson, H.

Brocklehurst, J.

Irton, S.

Berkeley F.

Kirk, P.

Bulwer, H. L.

Lefroy, A.

Bonham, F. R.

Lennox, Lord G.

Barnard, E. G.

Lennox, Lord A.

Baines, E.

Lister, C.

Brotherton, J.

Law, Hon. G.

Bagshaw, J.

Lowther, J.

Bewes, T.

Lopez, Sir R.

Bailey J.

Lincoln, Lord.

Bruen, F.

Lemon, Sir C.

Brownrigg, J. S.

Lucas, E.

Barneby, J.

Lushington, C.

Baring, T.

Mandeville, Lord

Cayley, E.

Miles, W.

Chapman, A.

Maxwell, A.

Crewe, Sir G.

Morpeth, Viscount

Clerk, Sir G.

Mullins, F. W.

Crawley, S.

M'Taggart, J.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Nicholl, J.

Chatterton, Colonel

O'Neill, General

Dundas, R. A.

Parry, Colonel

Dalbiac, Sir C.

Pease, J.

Duffield, T.

Pryme, G.

Dare, R. W. H.

Pusey, P.

Dobbin, L.

Pemberton, T.

Etwall, R.

Praed W. M.

Eastnor, Viscount

Pringle, A.

Egerton, Lord F.

Perceval, Col.

Finch, G.

Price, Sir G.

Fremantle, Sir T. F.

Rolfe, R. M.

Forbes, W.

Rickford, W.

Forster, C. S.

Rae, Sir W.

Fergusson, C.

Russell, Lord J.

Forester, Hon. G.

Richards, J.

Goulburn, Hon. H.

Ross, C.

Goring, H. D.

Rundle, J.

Gully, J.

Ryle, J.

Grey, Sir J.

Scott, Sir E.

Hay, Sir J.

Stewart, Sir M. S.

Hope, Hon. J.

Sheppard, T.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Strickland, Sir G.

Hall, B.

Somerset, Lord E.

245

Somerset, Lord G.

Walker, R.

Sharpe, General

Wallace, R.

Tooke, W.

Whalley, Sir S.

Thomas, Colonel

Wodehouse, E.

Trench, Colonel

Young, G. F.

Twiss, H.

Young, J.

Vere, Sir C.

TELLERS.

Verner, Col.

Poulter, J.

Verney, Sir H.

Fremantle, Sir T.

List of the Noes.

Aglionby, H. A.

Marsland, H.

Attwood, T.

O'Brian, C.

Barry, G. S.

O'Connell, J.

Bish, T.

O'Connor, Don.

Bodkin, J. J.

O'Loghlen, Mr.

Brady, D. C.

Oswald, R. A.

Bridgeman, H.

Phillips, M.

Butler, Hon. Col.

Potter, R.

Clay, W.

Power, P.

Crawford, W. S.

Powers, J.

Dennistoun, Alex.

Roche, W.

Dobbin, L.

Sharpe, General

Dunlop, C.

Tancred, H. W.

Fielden, J.

Thornley, T.

Finn, F.

Trelawney, Sir W.

Fitzsimon, N.

Turner, W.

Fort, J.

Wakley, T.

Hawes, B.

Warburton, H.

Hawkins, J. H.

White, S.

Heathcote, R. E.

Williams, W.

Hector, C. J.

TELLERS.

Hume, Joseph

Ewart, W.

M'Cleod, R.

Ord, W. H.

Mangles, J.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS.
Lord John Russell Lord John Russell moved the second reading of the Registration of Voters' Bill.
Mr. Warburtondeprecated the enormous expense attendant upon re-opening the registers before Committees, who, under that Bill, if it should pass into a law, would have the power of doing so. He should oppose that Clause of the Bill.
Lord John Russellwould not press the Clause to which the hon. Member for Bridport objected, if the sense of the House were against him.
Mr. H. Bulwerthought there were some regulations in the present measure more unfair than in the former.
Mr. Bernalwas decidedly opposed to the Clause for opening up the lists before a Committee, but he admitted that the present was not the proper time for going into a discussion on the subject.
Sir Henry Hardingeapproved of the Bill, and thought it a great improvement. He was in favour, too, of the clause which was censured, as he thought that the House could never give up its right to revise the decisions of the registering barristers.
Mr. W. Ordhad no objection to a reference to a Committee as a Court of Appeal against decisions by the revising barrister, but he had a strong objection to sending original cases for their judgment.
Mr. Praedcould not understand why, because voters had been put to one expense in obtaining a decision on their claims, they should be exposed to have the expense doubled.
Mr. Grotesaid, that if he understood the object of creating revising barristers, it was to settle disputed votes cheaply and expeditiously on the spot; but the country would be deprived of that great benefit if a Committee of that House were allowed to have an original jurisdiction on the subject. This would have the effect of giving a certain victory to the rich at the expense of the poor.
Mr. Goulburndoubted whether, if an original jurisdiction were denied to the Committee, it would not greatly increase the expense to the voter; for if it were known that no votes were to be open to discussion but those which were questioned at the time of registration, the number of objections to votes would greatly accumulate.
Lord John Russellsaid, that the Committee would be the proper place to go into the details of the measure. He would add, that it could not have been intended by the Reform Bill, to deprive a Committee of that House of the power of questioning the validity of votes. He objected to sending the Bill to a Select Committee, the only effect of which would be to have their Report pulled to pieces when it was presented to the House. He would prefer sending the Bill in the usual way to a Committee of the whole House; but to give time to consider the subject, he would defer the Committee till after Easter.
Bill read a second time.

LIGHT-HOUSES.
Mr. Hume, in pursuance of his notice, called the attention of the House to the Report of the Select Committee on Light-houses, with a view to their consolidation under one management. This Committee was appointed in the last Session of Parliament, for the purpose of taking into consideration the state of the Light-houses in the United Kingdom, the expense of maintaining them, &c. Highly important as the subject was, it had never before undergone a

247
sufficient parliamentary investigation. It was perfectly clear, from the evidence taken before that Committee, that not a year passed without the loss of many lives, and the sacrifice of considerable property, for want of adequate lighthouses on the coasts of Great Britain and Ireland. The evidence also proved the existence of the greatest abuses in the management of the existing light-houses; and it appeared that, in England, those abuses prevailed in a tenfold degree as compared with the abuses in Scotland or Ireland. The greater part of the lighthouses were placed, by charter, from the Crown, under the management of the Trinity-house; but many of them were the property of private individuals; and the latter constituted one system of jobbing and plunder. He would read some extracts from the Report to show the number of public and private light-houses, and their comparative charge on the public; but, before he gave the particulars, he would remark, that it was surprising that while the shipping interests in the country were complaining of the distress which they stated they suffered from the competition with foreign ships, no steps should have been taken by the Government of the country to relieve them from the exactions to which they were so long exposed by the tolls collected from those lighthouses. The hon. Gentleman then read the following summary of light-houses in the United Kingdom:—

No. 1.—ENGLAND.

Lighthouses.

Floating.

Trinity-house

42

13

Under management of do

1

1

Private hands

On lease from do

3

0

———Crown

7

0

Patent, Act of Parliament

4

0

57

14

Local, or Habour do.

51

4

108

18

No. 2.—SCOTLAND.

Northern Light

25

0

Local, or Harbour do

28

0

53

0

No. 3.—IRELAND.

Ballast Board

23

3

Ballast Harbour

9

0

Ballast Harbour. Without revenue

5

0

37

3

248

Public Light-houses.

Floating.

Local.

Total.

No.

1.—England.

57

18

51

126

2.—Scotland.

25

0

28

53

3.—Ireland.

23

3

14

40

Total of each.

105

21

93

219

The whole north-west coast of Scotland was in such a state, for want of lighthouses, that it was not surprising that so many shipwrecks occurred upon it. He could say, also, that on the west coast of England, there was a great annual loss of vessels and lives from a want of lights. The next question was, as to supporting these lights. Now, it appeared, that the fifty-five public land-lights were kept up at an expense to our shipping of 83,000 l. a-year; the expense of collecting cost 6,600 1., and the maintenance, 35,500 l., leaving a surplus of 4,885 l. in the hands of the Trinity House. What was the ground of charging this large surplus on our shipping? This was no doubt an extravagant demand, but what was it compared to the charge for the private light-houses? The cost to the shipping for fourteen private lighthouses, was 79,676 l. a-year. The expense of collection was 10,000 l. a year, an immense sum for that amount, and what did the House think was the charge for maintenance? The sum was 9,100 l.; so that deducting the charge for maintenance of 9,100 l., there was taken from the pockets of the shipping interest the sum of 70,000 l. a-year for no advantage whatever to them, but to enrich individuals. But even allowing for the enormous and extravagant charge of collection, the public paid 60,000 l. a-year, which went into the pockets of private individuals, and for what?—for the trouble of laying out 9,100 l. for the maintenance of those lights. Was this to be borne? But was it not more intolerable, when it was known that with all this enormous outlay, our coasts were notoriously defective in lighthouses? In Scotland, the nett surplus, after deducting the expenses of maintenance and collection, was 20,051 l., but this surplus was not wasted, but was applied to the erection of new light-houses, and other harbour improvements in that country. In Ireland, though the expense of maintenance was 18,805 l., there was still a nett surplus of 21,595 l., which was also applied to the same purposes as in Scotland. But if the surplus receipts in Ireland and Scotland were not improperly

249
disposed of, was that the case with those of England? He answered no. The Trinity House had already an accumulated fund of upwards of 150,000 l., and were still in the receipt of a surplus annual revenue of 32,000 l. and upwards. That surplus amount, it was true, they expended annually in pensions to sailors, masters' mates, and their widows. With that Administration he was not inclined to find fault, but his objection was, that alterations which had been recommended by two Committees which had been appointed by the House, had not been effected. Besides the light-houses under the control of the Trinity Houses, there were fourteen lights held by private individuals. Of these there were three classes—first, three lights, which levied annually about 23,000 l., while the cost of maintenance was only about 2,700 l.; by the second class, consisting of seven light-houses, 24,800 l. was levied, though their expense of maintenance was only about 2,700 l.; and by the third class, comprising four light-houses, a sum exceeding 31,000 l. annually was levied, the charge of maintaining which four light-houses did not exceed 3,216 l.; thus showing that 79,376 l. was levied for these fourteen lights from the public, while the expenses for their maintenance was only about 9,000 l. He was sure that it was only necessary for him to mention this fact to induce the House to concur with him in the opinion, that this state of things ought not longer to be allowed to exist. He contended, however, further, that the Trinity House should never have been permitted at any period to lease out their powers, because by doing so they had lost their control, and while they had made considerable reductions in the charges for their lights, the public were saddled with the higher scale of charge by individual leaseholders. It was but right, however, to state the aggregate amount of the receipts and expenditure of some of the light-houses so leased. He had already stated, they comprised three classes; he would take one of the second class comprising seven light-houses, held by individuals under leases under the Crown for a period of years. In Harwich, for instance, leased to General Rebow, the gross receipts for the year 1834 were 9,270 l., the expenses of collection 1,196 l., and the maintenance 420 l., leaving a nett surplus of 7,654 l., of which 4,594 l. Was
250
paid to the Crown, and 3,060 l. to the lessee. It was worthy of remark, that though his Majesty had been advised to renew these leases in 1817, their renewal was in direct defiance of Committees of the House, and of the opinions deliberately given by the then Law Officers of the Crown. Next came the case of the Dungeness light-house, the lease of which had also been renewed to Mr. Thomas William Coke, contrary to the recommendation of the Committee of that House, and after a pledge from the late Mr. Huskisson and the present Secretary-at-War, then a Minister of the Crown, to give the subject a proper consideration; yet notwithstanding this, and further in contravention of the Treasury correspondence annexed to the Report, from which it appeared that the lease was not to be renewed, it was renewed in 1827 or 1828, upon a letter directing such a course. Returning, however, to the receipts, &c, of the Dungeness light-house, it appeared that even on a reduced scale, the amount levied in 1832 was 5,484 l., the collection of which cost 720 l., and the expense of maintaining it was 628 l., leaving a nett surplus of 4,136 l., which was divided in the proportions of 2,068 l. to the Crown, and 2,068 l. to the lessee, Mr. Coke. In the case of Wintertonness, leased to Lord Braybrooke, the receipts levied, had at the same period been 9,545 l., though the expenses of collection were only 1,153 l., and of maintenance, 864 l., so there was a nett surplus of 7,527 l., and which surplus was divided thus—3,763 l. to the Crown, and the same amount to the noble lessee. He would not trouble the House with the details of the smaller light-houses of this same class, suffice it to say, that the receipts of these seven light-houses in one year amounted to 24,862 l., from which deducting 2,072 l. for the expense of maintenance, and 3,139 l.for collections nett surplus remained of about 19,650 l., divided in the proportion of 10,425 l. to the Crown, and 9,224 l. to the lessees. Another class of light-houses were the three which had been leased to individuals by the Corporation of the Trinity House (leases which he contended that body had no power to grant). These cases were those of the Longships, the Smalls, and the Mumbles light-houses. The Smalls had since, however, been very advantageously placed in the hands of Local Commissioners. But the Longships light-house had realized in

251
the gross in the year 1831.1832 7,393 l., whilst the per centage on collection was only about 1,074 l. and the expense of maintaining it about 1,100 l., and thereby leaving to the leasehold proprietor Mr. Smith) a surplus of 5,036 l. The receipts of the other light-house were 16,265 l., for which the charge for collecting, was 2,359 l., and the expense of maintaining them, about 2,471 l., so that in this case a surplus sum of upwards of 11,400 l. went into the hands of the lessees, and on the whole the House would see that out of 23,678 l. levied, no less a sum went to the lessees than 16,496 l. He would next refer to the four light-houses granted by patents and sanctioned by Acts of Parliament, to individuals who now have the management of the lights, and receive the light duties for them. He would read to the House the return which had been laid before the Committee. The hon. Member accordingly read the following statement:—

Light-house.

Gross Collection.

Per Centage or Commission.

Rent and Land-tax.

Expenses for Maintenance.

Nett Surpuls to Proprietors.

Propriestors.

£.

£.

£.

£.

£.

Spurn High Light-house.

12,813

1,626

242

1,987

8,958

Benedict John Angel, Esq. and G. L. Thomson, Esq.

Tyne-mouth Castle, in fee.

3,844

462

689

2,693

Wm. Fowke, Esq.

Skerries, Co. Anglesey (in fee).

14,479

1,604

350

12,525

Sutton Morgan, Esq.

Total.

31,136

3,692

242

3,026

24,176

It appeared then by this Return, that 31,136 l. was collected from the shipping of the country to give an income of upwards of 24,000 l. to four individuals. On the whole, it appeared that the amount received for England alone, was, in round numbers, 162,000 l., of which 101,000 l. was not required to maintain the lights. If he took the whole account of the expenses of the United Kingdom for lighthouses, it stood thus in round numbers:—The amount collected, 242,000 l., and deducting the costs of maintenance and collection, about 99,000 l., a surplus remained of 143,794 l. It then could not be denied that this was a great waste of
252
the public resources, and there existed just grounds of complaint. If there were any responsibility in the Ministers, he should say, they ought to be impeached for this wasteful expenditure of the public money. What, however, had been the state of the case with respect to the Wintertonness light-house? When the lease was renewed, it was so in the face of the recommendation of that House, a renewal which he (Mr. Hume) contended, was little short of high treason. The lease was, however, so renewed, and in nine years up to the 1st of December, 1831, the gross collection amounted to 124,505 l., of which, on the average, Lord Braybrooke received 1,000 l. monthly. In spite of the recommendations of two Committees of the House, and in defiance of the opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown, that on their interpretation there was no power in the Crown to grant by any means to an individual the right of levying duties from his fellow-subjects—an opinion which had been since corroborated by numerous lawyers, the lease to Lord Braybrooke, was on the 1st of June, 1828, renewed for twenty-one years. If ever there was a case calling for the impeachment of the Ministry, this was such a case. Since these renewals, 96,843 l. had been paid to the Crown, or, in other words, to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, while 78,941 l. had been distributed amongst three leaseholders. Now, whilst the Legislature was labouring to reduce trifling amounts of expenditure, by reductions of the number of workmen in the dock-yards, how was it possible to justify such a wasteful extravagance? Those who advised this, had not acted faithfully to the King or the country. They had betrayed both. And should the House of Commons hesitate to consent before long to an amendment of the system, he should think that the commercial interests, so long suffering from distress and difficulties—sufferings endured with great patience—would not long submit to the plunder which the system entailed upon them. He thought the House ought at least to consent to an Address to the Crown to cancel these leases, and to put an end to a system so unjustly brought about. The point, however, to which he was anxious particularly to call the attention of the House was, the recommendation of the Committee which had already reported to the House; with many points embraced in that Report, he

253
unfortunately differed. He thought that the expenses of the light-houses of the country, ought to be placed on the same footing as the Consular charges, and those expenses ought to be defrayed as part of the public burthens, out of the public purse; and he was the more induced to that opinion, because his Majesty's ships, deriving equal advantages from the lighthouses, as the commercial traders, were excluded from the charges. The Committee appointed by the House, had obtained, through the intervention of the noble Lord, then at the head of the Foreign Department (Lord Palmerston), the ordinances of France, and the regulations of other countries; and with respect to the information contained in the appendix to the Report, he must say, that the example of France should be followed by levying a similar tonnage duty for the maintenance of the light-houses. By such a course, he believed that in this country all objects in this respect would be accomplished for 40,000 l., instead of 250,000 l., as was now collected. The expenditure might also be considerably lessened by an alteration in the mode of keeping the accounts, and in the manner of their collection. The House would be surprised to learn that in this country there were no less than 938 places of collection, which might easily be reduced to each port. He would read what the Committee said on this subject. To revert to the recommendations of the Committee, he would remind the House that they first recommended (and in it he concurred) that the light-houses of England, Scotland, and Ireland, should be placed under the direction of a Board resident in London, and should be regulated under one system. Another recommendation of the Committee was, that all the Northern lights should be placed under the superintendence of the Trinity House. Now, in that recommendation, he, for one, did not agree. He thought that another Board might be established, independent of the Trinity House, which would conduct this department of the public service with greater efficacy. The. Committee also came to another recommendation, which he had no doubt that the House would adopt, and that was, that the light-duties should be reduced to the lowest sum that was consistent with the due maintenance of those lights. Another recommendation was, that the light-dues should be levied
254
on one plan throughout the United Kingdom, and the Committee preferred the plan adopted in Ireland, that a fixed sum should be paid to each light which a vessel passed. The Committee hoped that by the plan which they recommended, the expense of management would be much reduced, and that the funds which would be placed at their disposal by such reduction, would enable them to support new lights, when new lights were required. They also recommended that all lights which were in the hands of private individuals, should in future be transferred to those of the Central Board. There could not be any doubt as to the propriety of this recommendation. They also recommended that the profits arising from lights in the hands of private individuals, should be valued and allowed for. The hon. Member read the Resolution of the Committee with respect to the renewal by the Crown of the leases of light-houses now in the hands of private individuals. "The gross amount of light-dues collected for thirty-three lights, with 446 burners, in the year 1820, was 91,039 l.; the charge for its collection, 10,859 l.; the expenses of maintaining these lights, repairs, &c. 28,300 l., leaving a net surplus of 51,880 l. applicable to general purposes. In the year 1832, the sum collected for the same thirty-three lights was 64,364 l.; the commission for collection was 4,996 l., and the charge for repairs and maintenance, 27,658 l., leaving a net surplus of 31,710 l. for general purposes, and showing a reduction in the tolls, to the amount of 26,675 l., or nearly one-third, and a reduction of more than half the expense of collection. The gross collection of duties for fifty-five lights in 1832, was 83,041 l.; the charges of collection, 6,670 l., and the expense of maintenance, 35,904 l. leaving a net surplus of 48,667 l. for general purposes; or, that the toll for fifty-five lights, is 7,998 l. less in 1832, for fifty-five lights, than in 1820, for thirty-three lights, a reduction creditable to the Trinity Board, and beneficial to the shipping. The sum levied in 1832, more than was requisite to maintain the lights, was 40,467 l., subject to the proportional share of the expenses of the office on Tower-hill, and the contingent expenses, amounting to 16,725 l., being an increase in that branch of 4,576 l. more in 1832, than in 1820, The rate per cent for collection of light-dues in England, varied from two and a-

255
half to twenty per cent. In Scotland, ten per cent was allowed to all collectors, except 7l. 10 s. at Leith; and in Ireland, by a Treasury order, the collectors of customs in Great Britain, retain five per cent., and the agent in London has two per cent, for receiving the money from the collectors. In recommending that all light-houses belonging to private individuals, whether by lease or patent from the Crown, should be transferred without delay to the Central Board of Management in London; and that after due inquiry, the profits of each of the lights so belonging to private individuals should be valued and paid for. Of the propriety of this recommendation he thought it impossible for any reasonable man to entertain a doubt. He was also decidedly of opinion that the 32,0002. allowed at present for pensions out of the revenue derived from light-house dues should be abolished, or at all events that they should be accounted for under a separate head, and paid out of a separate fund. But when he recollected that the 24,000 l. a-year hitherto deducted from seamen's wages, were, by a Bill of last Session, taken from the hospital at Greenwich, and made available to the support of aged and decayed sailors in every port in the kingdom, he thought that the 32,000 l. paid out of the light-house dues for pensions could no longer be required. He had but one other remark to make. He thought, in common with the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Hutt), that the people of England should be freed from the expense of maintaining the Heligoland light-house. He hoped that he had now said enough to point out to the House the actual situation of the light-houses on the coasts of the United Kingdom; to make it acquainted with the different systems and the different boards under, and by which they were managed; and to convince it that that diversity of system and of boards occasioned a great increase of trouble and expense, both to those who paid and to those who collected the light-dues. If the House thought the recommendations of the Committee worthy of adoption, they would give him leave to bring in a Bill to carry those recommendations into effect, and to facilitate the consolidation of light-houses under one management. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in such a Bill.
Lord Granville Somersetdid not rise to oppose the motion, but be could not agree
256
to the proposition of the hon. Member for Middlesex, that individuals had no legal right to levy dues for lights. Those lighthouses were as much private property as any other species of property; and if they were to be taken out of the hands of the private individuals who now held them, suitable compensation ought to be made to them for the loss which they would sustain. He likewise maintained, that the hon. Member had no right to take 100,000 l. from the land revenues of the Crown to buy up private lighthouses. Indeed, there would be no saving to the public in taking that amount out of the land revenues of the Crown, as it must be supplied from some other quarter. In point of fact, there would be no saving to the public in taking the expense out of the land revenues. With respect to the Heligoland lighthouse, he would only say that two-thirds of the expense of that light were not paid by the British public. The noble Lord defended the pensions allowed out of the fund derived from the dues imposed for the maintenance of lighthouses; but he would abstain, upon that occasion, from entering into the whole of the details brought forward by the hon. Member for Middlesex. He had no objection to the introduction of a Bill founded upon the Report of the Committee, to provide for the better management of light-houses, but he confessed he should be sorry to see any central board established entirely independent of the Trinity House.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonwas favourable to the establishment of a central board for the management of all the lighthouses in the kingdom. The inhabitants of that part of Scotland with which he was connected, were not at all satisfied with the administration of the Board of Northern Lights. He believed that the gentlemen of whom that Board was composed were men of the highest honour; but, in point of fact, they were entirely ignorant of nautical affairs, and, in consequence, left the whole management of the lights to their engineer, who had often a personal interest in erecting them in places where they were not so much required as in others. The hon. Gentleman proceeded to complain of the want of proper lights in the Solway Frith, which, with the exception of the Red Sea, (and he would scarcely even make that an exception) was acknowledged to be the most dangerous navigation in the world. He had for many years

257
endeavoured to induce the Board of Northern Lights to establish a proper light in the Frith, but his exertions had hitherto been unsuccessful; and many shipwrecks, accompanied with great loss of life and property, had in consequence occurred almost in sight of the town (Kirkcudbright) which he had the honour to represent. In a maritime country like England, no expense should be spared in the erection of proper lights on every part of the coast. He thought that the whole of the light-house establishment should be a national establishment, and that no dues should be imposed upon vessels for the particular lights they might be compelled to pass. The establishment should be national, the expense national. If the title of private individuals to particular lights could be proved to be good, they ought undoubtedly to receive compensation; but if their titles were not good, they should no longer be allowed to continue so great an abuse.
Colonel Parryconcurred in the opinions expressed by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Kirkcudbright. The question ought not to be one of pounds, shillings, and pence, but one of which the object was national. He complained that there was much loss of property on the coast of North Wales. He could mention a circumstance which strongly marked the necessity of some improvement in the system regarding lighthouses. Within the last week a vessel of the value of 12,000 l. including the cargo, belonging to Sir John Tobin, went to the bottom, and was entirely lost, on the coast of North Wales, in consequence of the want of proper lights on that part of the coast. He trusted, however, that whatever alterations might be made by the proposed measure, the poor and industrious mariner, who had led a life of fatigue in the service, might not be injured.
Mr. Aaron Chapmanwould not anticipate any objections to the Bill intended to be brought in by the hon. Member for Middlesex. For his part, he could have no feelings of regret at anything said by the hon. Member for Middlesex about the Trinity House, when he saw, that it was recommended that all the light-houses of England, Scotland and Ireland, should be put under the management of that Board. It was not correct to state, that the amount of expenses of collecting was so large as 20 percent. If the hon. Member looked to the scale of collection, he would find
258
that the poor collectors at the seaports got only 7s. 2d. per cent. As for the Bill moved for, he would give no opinion on it. But he begged to premise, that, whatever the House did, clue regard should be had not to diminish the pension fund. The amount of that fund at the disposal of the Trinity House was considerably less than the calculation of the hon. Member. The right to that fund was laid down as clear as noonday by the Lord Chancellor, by Sir Fletcher Norton, and several other eminent lawyers, and not one jot of those pensions could be withdrawn from the persons to whom they were given. He did not envy the feelings of those Members who wished to stop the pensions allowed to old sailors, their widows, and children. The money was raised by the prerogative of the Crown, and by the willing consent of those who paid it. No complaint, no memorial, had been received from any part of the country, calling for a reduction of the rates that went to those pensioners. Out of the number of pensioners now receiving allowances, when one dropped off, there were 3,000 ready to apply for the vacancy.
Mr. Ewartwas sorry to hear the noble Lord at the head of the Woods and Forests, resort to such a justification of the charges imposed upon the public by the owners of private light-houses, as that of their having made a considerable reduction in the charges originally exacted. He did not conceive that the gratitude of the public should be measured by the reduction of a charge which was originally unwarranted, and still remained extravagant. With respect to the measure now proposed to be introduced, he thought that the interests not only of the merchant but of the consumer, would be greatly benefited by it.
Mr. Shawsaid, that in that stage of the proceedings he should trouble the House but very shortly. He must, however, say a word on the part of the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Hume's) statement, which related to Ireland, and that was of complaint against the hon. Gentleman; for, as had just been observed by the hon. Member(Mr.Chapman) who had addressed the House, that the hon. Member (Mr. Hume) had summed up his censure of the Trinity Board by recommending the entire management of the light-houses of the United Kingdom to be centered in that Board—so he had concluded his praise of

259
the Ballast Board in Dublin by recommending its abolition. The lion. Member himself applauded the management, the economy, the whole system pursued in Ireland—yet he desired to merge the Board who conducted it in one of which he entirely disapproved. The hon. Member omitted to state a further difference between the two Boards; that the Members of the Ballast Board were acting gratuitously, while those of the Trinity were paid. He would not oppose the introduction of the Bill, but he reserved to himself the fullest liberty to object to the consolidation of the Irish with the English management on these three grounds—the excellent conduct of the Ballast Board,—the declared opinion of the shipping and trading interests of Ireland in favour of the present system so far as regarded Ireland—and the principle, which he felt strongly, that public boards or establishments should not be unnecessarily removed from Ireland to this country.
Mr. Wyseconcurred in the praises which had been bestowed upon the hon. Member for Middlesex, for the very distinct manner in which he had brought the motion before the House; and if any confirmation were necessary of the merit which was thus attached to that hon. Member, he (Mr. Wyse) should appeal for that confirmation to the speech of the noble Lord on the other side of the House (Lord G. Somerset), for a weaker defence against the charges which had been brought forward by the hon. Member for Middlesex, he (Mr. Wyse) had never yet heard, than that which had been made by that noble Lord. They had heard that night, what they had not of late been in the habit of hearing in that House—they had heard a well-deserved eulogium passed upon Irish economy, which, at the same time that it was highly creditable to that country, reflected the greatest disgrace, not so much upon the English nation, as upon the English administration. He would ask the noble Lord, how it came to pass, that the administration of one department in this country was not conducted with an equal degree of credit to that of the same department in Ireland? How it came to pass, that the same skill and integrity which he admitted to exist in the administration of that department in Ireland, was not to be met with in England? Also, what there was so peculiar in the administration of this department in Ire-
260
land which might not be transferred to England? In every particular in which an administration ought to be good, they found in England it failed; it failed, inasmuch as there was a large expenditure in the collection—it failed, inasmuch as the mode in which the business was done was laborious, complicated, and expensive—it failed, inasmuch as there was a large accumulation of money, which was not applied to the specific object for which it was intended—and it failed, inasmuch as the whole manner in which it was carried on operated injuriously upon the interests of trade. Not one word had been said on the other side, by way of defence, against such charges as these. How came it that the noble Lord did not explain why the several leases which had been alluded to were granted by the Crown, upon the advice of the Privy Council, in defiance of the repeated recommendations of that House. An hon. Member on the other side of the House had talked about the prerogative of the Crown. What! was the prerogative of the Crown to be exercised in taxing the people? What! was the prerogative of the Crown to be exercised, not for the benefit of the people at large, but for the exclusive benefit of a certain noble Lord, who, by means of political or other influence, had obtained beneficial leases with the consent and approbation of certain influential persons? If that was the prerogative of the Crown, he would say, that such a prerogative ought to be diminished; and whatever measure might be introduced into that House for that purpose, he trusted it would always find, in the reformed part of it, a steady and determined support. Several means for remedying the evils existing in that department had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Middlesex, particularly with regard to the diminution of the expense attendant upon the collection; and, above all, the nationalising of the business, in bringing it under one uniform system. He so much approved of centralisation in the departments of Government; that he should like to see it more extensively adopted than it would be, if merely confined to the one now under the consideration of the House; but, as an Irish representative, he could not consent to see any centralisation take place, by which these departments in England and Ireland would be combined, until some better evidence had been given of

261
the good conduct of the English Boards; for in that instance Ireland happened to be the reformed portion, and England that which was to be reformed. When they had sufficient experience that that reform had taken place in England, he should have no objection to a general centralisation, of which Ireland was to form a party, but until then he should hesitate to see an establishment which had been recognised as excellent, perhaps tainted and corrupted, by being put under the administration of a Board here. There has been a charge made by an hon. Member on the other side, that his hon. Friend, the Member for Middlesex, proposed, by his reform, to destroy the funds which had been applied to the support of orphans, and aged and afflicted persons belonging to the British service; but if he bad paid sufficient attention to the words of his hon. Friend, it would be found, that so far from diminishing, he wished to increase, the funds applicable for those purposes; he proposed merely that that fund should be more extensively applicable than it was at present.
Mr. Secretary Goulburndenied, that there was a shadow of foundation for the charge of any peculation, or the appropriation of the light-houses' funds to favour persons professing certain political opinions. The right hon. Gentleman briefly adverted to the difficulties experienced by the Government in making the arrangements with the lessees of the light-houses; but he deferred entering more fully into the subject until the intended Bill should be introduced.
Mr. Murrayapproved of the proposed measure, and earnestly trusted to see the commerce of the country relieved by the Bill of the hon. Member for Middlesex, from many of its present incumbrances. He thought the labour and care of the hon. Member deserved the approbation of the House and the country.
Mr. Fitzsimoncould not give a silent vote on a question of such interest to his constituents, in the county Dublin in particular, as well as to his country in general. He fully concurred in the well-merited eulogium passed by the hon. Member who had preceded him, on the vast labour and watchful care which his hon. Friend, the Member for Middlesex, bestowed upon this, as upon all other subjects connected with the welfare of these kingdoms—agreeing with that hon.
262
Member generally in his political views, he the more regretted being on this occasion obliged to dissent from part of the proposed Bill—he meant the merging of the Ballast Office of Ireland in the Trinity-house of London. Already had Dublin to complain, that almost all her public boards and institutions had been taken from her. It was now proposed to take from her a board, that even in the speech of the hon. Mover, was admitted to have worked well—to have been, as far as regarded the management of the lights, almost beyond fault and to unite it, or rather merge it, in a London corporation, which the report proved had acted most improperly. He was a declared enemy to another union, which it was not now necessary to canvass, but here was proposed one of the most extraordinary legislative unions he had heard of—and which certainly was not likely to lessen his hostility to the other one—while he thought it would tend to make many of his countrymen converts to his opinions on that subject. Here it was proposed to unite an admittedly well-conducted Irish Board, against which no charge was made, with a most faulty London Board, against which great and expensive mis-management was proved—on the part of his country he must protest against such an injustice being done. Let his hon. Friend propose to abolish all the boards, free the shipping from the tolls and dues now paid by them, and support the lights economically and efficiently out of the general revenues of the country, in the same way as the consuls abroad are paid—both one and the other service being for the protection of commerce, and commerce being for the general benefit of all. Let his hon. Friend propose this, and he should have all the support in his power to give. But to the proposal now made, as far as related to Ireland, he must object; in doing so he looked but to the good of his country. He believed most of the gentlemen connected with the Ballast-office of Dublin were politically opposed to him; political difference, however, should never prevent him from asserting the rights of every portion of his countrymen. On the hustings he might have his political opponents, but once leaving the hustings he felt he was the servant of all, and to use his best exertions to promote the good of every portion of his constituents, while he sat in that House, should be his proudest boast.
The Lord Advocatewould have no objection to see the whole light-house system of the United Kingdom placed under the Board of Admiralty, but he did object to having it under the control of the Trinity Board. It should be recollected how the Trinity Board was constituted. It was formed by about twenty-two masters of ships, and from it the officers of the King's service were altogether excluded. In short, it was a self-constituted body, and he therefore, on the part of the people of Scotland, must say that it would be most imprudent to place such enormous sums of money in the power of any merely self-elected body, who would be likely to apply three-fourths of them in the way of pensions. He did not think that the lights already under the superintendance of the Board were so well attended to as to justify such a measure, but although he had many other objections to it he would not at that hour detain the House by entering into them.
Mr. Peasesaid, that while he admitted the high character and honour of the Trinity Board, he considered some alteration was necessary, its constitution being of too restricted a character. He hoped that in any settlement of this question the expenses which had been incurred by the builders of private light-houses would not be forgotten.
Mr. Inghamexpressed his decided opinion that the great mass of people in the north of England, who were interested in the question, were perfectly satisfied with the management of the Trinity Board. The whole amount received for lights was 83,000 l., of this sum only 23,000 l. was expended in pensions, which afforded support to no less than 8,000 people.
Leave given to bring in the Bill.