Commons Sitting of 8 February 1836

MINUTES.
A New Writ was Issued for Clonmel, in the room of D. RONAYNE, Esq., deceased.
Bills. Read a first time:—Election Expenses; Slave Compensation Act Amendment.

ORANGE LODGES.
Mr. Hume, seeing the noble Viscount, the Secretary-at-War, in his place, wished to put a question to him respecting the members of Orange Lodges. On the 11th of August last the House came to certain Resolutions on the subject of Orange Lodges, and on the 31st of the same month, Lord Hill, as Commander-in-Chief, issued an order peremptorily forbidding the attendance of officers or soldiers at Orange Lodges, where so ever or by whomsoever held. He (Mr. Hume) wished [to know from the noble Viscount, whether that order had been carried into effect as regarded both officers and men either attending or continuing to belong to Orange Lodges, and what measures had been taken for that purpose? He was informed that certain General Officers still continued to belong to Orange Lodges in defiance of such order, and that he had seen a published letter of his Royal Highness the Grand Master of the Orangemen, stating, in reply to an address from them, that he was determined to continue their Grand Master, notwithstanding the order issued by Lord Hill. Now, as they had seen private individuals dismissed from the police in Ireland for belonging to Orange Lodges, he must say, that the Government was bound to deal justly and impartially with the high as well as the low; and, in his opinion, the more elevated the situation of the offender, the more prompt should have been the application of the punishment.
Viscount Howickbegged to say, it was the intention of his Majesty's Government

147
to see equal and impartial justice done to all; but the order issued by Lord Hill on the subject of Orange Lodges, only applied to officers actually engaged in the service. The House was aware that officers not on full pay were not subject to the provisions of the Mutiny Act, and that they could not be brought to a Court-martial for the infraction of any order issued by the Commander-in-Chief. All officers on full pay came clearly and distinctly within that order, and any such officers who subsequently to the issuing of the order of the 31st of August, continued to belong to, or to take part in the proceedings of any Orange Lodge, were liable to be brought to Court-martial, and dismissed the service. With regard to the Duke of Gordon, he was authorized to state, that as soon as he had seen the order issued by Lord Hill, he immediately signified to the Orange Institution his determination to retire from it. Hitherto, when Orange Lodges had been established in the army, it was generally found that they were composed of private soldiers, who were ignorant, that in so acting, they were guilty of any breach of military discipline. Since, however, the issuing of the order of Lord Hill, effectual measures had been taken to dispel that ignorance, and all officers and soldiers were now aware, that in continuing to belong to Orange Lodges they were guilty of a positive breach of the orders of the Commander-in-Chief, and were liable to be punished in consequence.
Subject dropped.

STATE OF AGRICULTURE.
On the Motion of Lord John Russell, the portion of his Majesty's Speech, relating to the state of Agriculture, was read by the Clerk at the Table, as also the following Resolution of the House, agreed to upon the 24th of April, 1833:—"Resolved, that it is the opinion of this House, that any alteration in the Monetary system of the country which would have the effect of lowering the standard of value, would be highly inexpedient and dangerous."
Lord John Russell: I now rise, having called the attention of the House both to the King's Speech and to its own Resolution respecting the Currency, to propose "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the state of agriculture, and into the causes and extent of the distress which exists in some important branches thereof." It has always been
148
my opinion, and it has been the opinion of those most interested in the subject, that when any great branch of our national industry is materially depressed, it is for Parliament, if possible, to devise a remedy. Generally speaking, it has been considered expedient to appoint a Committee, in order to ascertain, in the first instance, as far as possible, the facts of the case. There is then some hope, certainly, that if there be wide differences of opinion at the commencement of such inquiry, although those opinions may not be brought precisely to agree, yet that much of the discordance will be done away—that the distance will be lessened, and that exaggerations prevailing on one side of the subject or on the other may be removed. I think it likewise due to those who complain of distress, that Parliament should endeavour, as far as lies in its power, to devise some means of alleviating that distress. At the same time I am strongly persuaded that there is one remedy that has been proposed for the relief of agriculture which this House ought not to entertain; and I desired the Clerk to read the Resolution of the year 1833, that we might preserve in our minds the recollection of the solemn declaration of this House on the subject of the Currency. I am prepared to say, that although I should think it unadvisable, and in some degree unjust, to the Committee we may appoint, to restrict the Members by any Resolution with respect to the Currency, yet as far as I an a concerned, and as far as his Majesty's present Ministers are concerned, no recommendation or decision in favour of tampering with the Currency would induce them to, adopt or to further a measure which they would consider neither consistent with the public faith, nor conducive to the public interest. Having said thus much, I am prepared to move for a Committee in the terms I have already stated, which I hope the noble Lord opposite (the Marquesa of Chandos) will find sufficiently comprehensive to induce him to forego any intention of moving an Amendment Undoubtedly it is not my wish to fetter the inquiry of the Committee in any way. I will not enter, because if I were to do so I should be unnecessarily provoking debate, into any discussion of what is the real extent of the difficulties under which agriculture labours, or of the causes to which they are owing. I will but refer to one or two facts which, I think, may be

149
of importance for the attention of the Committee in the course of its investigation. In the first place, I observe that those who complain of agricultural distress, and are immediately engaged in Agriculture, always fix upon this point—viz., the very low price of wheat. Certainly while the price of wheat has been extraordinary low, there has not been an equal fall in the price of other grain. I will compare the price of wheat, barley, and oats now, with the price in 1828, when the last Corn-law was passed. Taking the averages, which are generally correct, wheat has fallen from 60 s. 5d. to 39 s. 4d., being a reduction of thirty-six per cent; barley has fallen from 32 s. 10 d. to 29 s. 11 d., being a reduction of only nine per cent; and oats have fallen from 22 s. 6d. to 22 s., being only a reduction of two and a-quarter per cent. While wheat has fallen thirty-six per cent, oats have fallen only two and a-quarter per cent. The farmers are certainly not satisfied with the present price of wheat, and I therefore think it material for the Committee to consider the various alterations in the prices of the different kinds of corn, as well as the other articles of agricultural produce. There is another question to which, although it has been reported upon in the Reports of the Poor-law Commissioners, it is very material that the attention of the Committee should be directed, with the view of watching the effects of the changes now going on in many parts of the country by the enactment of the Poor-law Bill, and the unions which, in compliance with the provisions of that measure, are now forming throughout several parts of the country. I know it to be unquestionably the case, that in some instances a great change has been effected by the passing of this measure. It was only this morning that I met a noble Lord, who is a Member of the other House of Parliament, and who told me that in the Suffolk Union, with which he was acquainted, the rates had already been reduced one-third, and that on the expiration of a year he had no doubt that a reduction of one-half would be effected. In a union with which I am myself acquainted, in the county of Bedford, the reduction in the rates for the quarter ending the 31st December diminished them by one-half, they being lowered from 2,500 l, to 1,200 l. With respect, however, to the working of this law, that is a
150
subject which, on the appointment of an agricultural Committee, should be taken, into consideration, and the change which has taken place, and which I believe will turn out to be one of great amelioration, should be carefully observed. With respect to county-rates, a Committee has sat upon this subject, and Reports have been made by it which, though they do not show that every point has been sufficiently examined, yet afford a strong ground for believing that some more effectual check may be devised on the expenditure of the fund, of which it is at present, in many instances, difficult to say, what is the object, and how it may be effectually controlled. There is another subject to which I know many Gentlemen have turned their attention, under the impression that it might be usefully brought under the consideration of this Committee. Of course I do not mean to say, that the Committee should not have the power to consider the question to which I refer, if they should think fit; but I doubt much whether the consideration of the question by the Committee would conduce to any useful object. I believe that the opinion which existed some years ago, and which was very general, both among owners and occupiers of land—namely, that Parliament could by law, fix some price below which corn should not fall, has now been almost entirely relinquished. For my own part, I have never entertained an opinion, that such could be the case, although I always supported some law like the present Corn-law, considering it necessary for the protection of the agricultural interest. But if that question is again to be discussed, the arguments on it are so well known—they are so much arguments of principle it is better, far better, that the consideration of it should be entered on by the whole House than by any Select Committee. I very much doubt whether the House would show great regard for the recommendations of a Select Committee on such a subject. I think, therefore, that this is a question which it is essential for the Committee to investigate. I must now say, reverting to the opinion which I expressed at the commencement of my observations, that I do not see very clearly any sufficient remedy by which the distress now pressing upon the agricultural class may be removed by Parliament. I wish to hold out no hope which may be

151
afterwards disappointed. I wish, however, that the whole question may be fairly considered by the Committee; and sure I am, that if there be any practical means devised by which the agricultural interest can be benefited, it will be the duty of the House to adopt them. At the same time, I must say again, that I hope, however unfettered the Committee may be, they will not be induced to recommend any measure which would have for its object the alteration of the present state of the currency.
The Marquess of Chandossaid, the determination of his Majesty's Government to take this subject into their consideration had relieved him from much of the difficulty by which he had felt himself surrounded. He was glad that the noble Lord opposite, and his colleagues in the Administration, had taken this question into their own hands, as he was confident that the knowledge of Government having taken up the question of agricultural distress with a view of discussing it would produce a beneficial result among the owners and occupiers of the soil. He had himself endeavoured in vain to carry such measures as he thought calculated for the relief of agriculture. He therefore was rejoiced to find that the Government was at last determined to come forward in favour and support of so large a body of his Majesty's subjects. He was glad to hear the noble Lord say., that it was not his intention to fetter the powers of examination given to this Committee. Had not that been the case, his object would have been to move for the appointment of a Select Committee, with full powers of inquiry. Without giving any opinion of his own on the important subject of the Currency, he would say that it would be unfair, in case hon. Gentlemen thought that they could make out a case on that subject, to prevent them from being heard. He would not say whether the Currency was the cause of the present distressed state of agriculture or not; but this he would say, that the time had now arrived when there must he a full and fair inquiry into what was the cause of it, and as the noble Lord opposite had told the House that was not the intention of his Majesty Government to fetter the Committee, or it interfere with its investigations, he should not feel it necessary to move any Amendment. He would take the noble Lord and His Majesty's Government at their
152
word, that they would give the Committee very facility, and that they would allow them a fair opportunity to discuss every matter that bore on the present agricultural distress, and on the cause of it. He felt that he was speaking the sentiments of the farmers of England when he said that they hoped that they would be dealt fairly with by his Majesty's Government. The noble Lord had. alluded to the present state of the markets, and had observed very justly, that the farmers were dissatisfied with the present price of wheat. That was unquestionably the fact. He frankly owned that he could not come at the cause of the present depression of prices, but he hoped that he might say, without vanity, that that was a reason for sifting into the cause of it. From the numerous agricultural associations which had been recently formed in various parts of the country, the noble Lord opposite must see that the farmers, under the conviction that they had arrived at a pitch of difficulty under which they could no longer go on, had taken up the subject with a determination to have justice done to them. As to the question of the Corn-laws, he would not say a single word upon it. He had never heard any farmer express an inclination to have the present state of the Corn-laws taken as a subject for Parliamentary inquiry. He was however more especially speaking his own sentiments, and he would therefore abstain from dwelling further upon that topic. It would afford great satisfaction to the agriculturists to know that a Committee was appointed to look fairly into the cause of their distress. If, unfortunately, it should turn out that Parliament was unable to benefit that important class,—and certainly that was not his opinion,—still, if such should be the case, the farmers would still be satisfied if their case were fairly inquired into. He would only in-conclusion, express a hope that his Majesty's Ministers would, without regard to party or political feeling, appoint such a Committee of country-gentlemen as was calculated to give satisfaction to the country at large. He had put upon paper the names of the gentlemen whom he thought best qualified for sitting upon such a Committee. He should wait with great anxiety to hear the names proposed by the noble Lord, and till he heard those names he should not say a word, further on the Question.
Mr. Clay, till he saw the Report of this Committee, would not bring forward the Motion respecting the Corn-laws of which he had given notice.
Mr. Thomas Attwoodrose for the purpose of moving that "it be an instruction to the Committee particularly to inquire into the effect which the Bill of 1819, commonly called Peel's Bill, had produced in causing the present distress of agriculture. The general opinion of the agricultural classes now was, that the whole of their distress was to be attributed to that Bill, and to that Bill alone. The noble Lord, on a former occasion, had told the House that there must be a large reduction of rents; but, if that were so, why should there not be simultaneously a large reduction of dividends? If the landowner were called upon to reduce his rents, the fundowner should be called upon to reduce his dividends. That was only equal justice; for the landowner had as good a right to be protected from wrong as the fundowner. In what a state would the landlords of England be, if, after the thirty per cent, which they had already reduced, they were called upon to make a further reduction of fifty per cent, in their rents? Under the present standard of value, the noble Lord must know that the tenantry must be ruined, unless the landlords were ruined before them. Indeed, one-half of the tenantry were ruined already, and the other half was travelling rapidly on the road to ruin. When the tenantry had reached that destination, the landlords would not be far behind them, and the mortgagees would soon take possession of their estates. The noble Lord, perhaps, thought that things had already come to the worst. That was not the fact. We had fifty per cent, lower to go still. There was not a shilling of rent now obtained that was not obtained through that accursed tampering with the Currency, which had been going on for the last twenty years. He had himself no interest in the land, he was only a friend to his country. He should not lose a shilling if all the farmers in the country were ruined, but, as a loyal subject, so long as he had life he would lift up his voice, against the iniquity of the present system. There had already been delusion upon delusion, and deception upon deception. The industrious classes had been told of over-trading, over-speculation, over-production, and over-population, but nothing
154
had been said of over-ruling. The great misfortune of the people of the country had been that they had been over-ruled. The industrious classes had trusted to that House, and they had been deceived and defrauded, and their capital and the funds of their industry had been taken from them. That House was again about to deceive them—they were preparing them for the butcher's knife again to massacre them. The Currency had been extended by the Branch Banks established by the Bank of England, and by the Joint-stock Banks established by private individuals, in all the large manufacturing towns, but that was not enough. We had not, at present, either a sound, a healthy, or an upright Currency. They all recollected the distress of 1816, of 1819, of 1825, and of 1829. Did they intend, by leaving the Currency in its present state, to bring down another deluge of ruin upon the merchants and manufacturers of the country? There had been previous inquiries on this subject, but they had ended in nothing. The Committee which sat upon agricultural distress in 1833, was one of the most delusive humbugs. Various efforts which he had made to explain his own peculiar notions on the Currency, not only before that Committee, but before several other Committees which had sat on the same subject previously, bad all been ineffectual. He hoped the House would let the country return at last to a just Currency, be it of paper or of gold—he hoped that it would without further delay proceed to do justice between the fundholder and the landlord,—between the landlord and the tenant. He protested against the one-eyed inquiry now proposed, and contended that the Committee would be a complete delusion, if his instruction to it were not adopted. He was afraid that the noble Lord would nominate upon that Committee a majority of hon. Gentlemen of his own way of thinking, instead of throwing a net as it were upon the House, and taking the members of the Committee indiscriminately. If that were the case, the Committee would summon before them a host of witnesses to prove that there was nothing rotten in the state of agriculture, and that any little evils which might exist would all be removed by taking off the tax on shepherds dogs, and by making some alteration in the county-rates. Under such circumstances what chance of relief would the

155
agriculturists, have from the Committee? If, however, the noble Lord would let this Committee be drawn fairly from both sides of the House, and if the noble Lord, would allow his Amendment to be carried, he should entertain hopes that better days were about to dawn upon England. He should entertain hopes that there would then be security for the Throne, security for the aristocracy, security for the Church, and security for every class of his Majesty's subjects. The hon. Member concluded by declaring that this subject ought to be fairly investigated, that all its dark sides ought to be turned to the light, which would not be the case unless his Amendment were carried. He moved the instruction to the Committee.
The Speakerstated, that it was not competent for the hon. Member to move his instruction to the Committee until the Committee was appointed.
Colonel Sibthorpshould trust in the declaration of Ministers, that they did not intend to fetter the inquiries of this Committee, until he found them unworthy of his confidence. He, therefore, hoped that the hon. Member for Birmingham, whose clear and manly speeches on this subject both in the Central Agricultural Association and in the House he much admired, would not press his Amendment at present, as it was calculated to mar the object which they all had in view.
Colonel Thompsonhoped that attention would be paid in the Committee to those landlords who thought the present Corn-laws were at the bottom of all the distress which the agriculturists were now suffering. He had some time since been asked to reduce his rents in Yorkshire; and he had consented to do so on condition that he should be at liberty to raise them twelve months after the laws were repealed prohibiting the importation of foreign corn. The farmers, too, were becoming converts to the opinion that the Corn-laws were injurious to their interests. He was therefore for trying the experiment of repealing them. Let it not be understood from this that he was for rashly repealing them; no, he was for that gradual removal of them which would prevent any injury from being inflicted on existing interests.
Mr. Cayleysaid, that there was a spirit now abroad among the agriculturists, which would not be blinded as to the cause of their situation, or satisfied without inquiry. It was for the House to de-
156
cide, after a proper investigation, whether relief could be afforded. He assured the noble Lord, that if he constituted the Committee fairly, he would reap, as he would undoubtedly deserve, the gratitude of the country.
Mr. Heathcotedid not believe that there existed on the part of any great body of agriculturists the slightest desire for a change in the Corn-laws—they had too much corn in the country already, and did not want more. He believed that great difference of opinion prevailed on the subject of agricultural distress, but this was not the time to discuss the question, and he therefore should not state his sentiments upon it. If the inquiry of the Committee were to be enlarged by the introduction of the currency question, it would never come to an end. What the agriculturists wanted was some immediate practical result from the labours of the Committee. It was to be hoped that result would be attained in the way of a reduction of local taxation. He thought his noble Friend had acted so fairly on the present occasion as to be entitled to the support of the House.
Mr. Thomas Attwoodsaid, that observing so strong a feeling for unanimity in the House, he would refrain from pressing his Amendment.
Mr. Roebuckhoped that the Committee would distinctly define what was meant by the term "agricultural interest," for great confusion had frequently arisen from not understanding clearly the meaning of the expression. According to his idea, the "agricultural interest" comprised three classes—the first and most important of which was the labourers, and he wished that those who were to determine as to agricultural distress would first determine whether there existed increased distress among the agricultural labourers; and if it should happen that the condition of the labouring farming population of England was at present better (as he believed it to be) than it had been for the last twenty years, there was something to be said against the general proposition of agricultural distress. The next important portion of agriculturists were the farmers, who employed capital in the cultivation of land; and he wanted to learn from the Committee whether the application of capital to land was less profitable than its application in any other business; and, if it were, he wished to know what was

157
meant by the term "agricultural distress" as applied to the farmers. The last and least important branch of the agricultural interest—the least important because least numerous and non-productive—were the landlords. He owned that was a proposition not likely to meet much support in the House, still he adhered to the opinion, however disagreeable it might be to those who heard him, that the least important portion of the agricultural interest were the landlords. This portion of the agriculturists, he was willing to allow, were in distress—but why? In consequence of their own conduct, and not from any act of the Government or Legislature—not by means of the law, which specially favoured them, but through their own proceedings. The causes of their distress arose out of habits and times different from the present, when, unhappily for the country, the landlords enjoyed a monopoly of supply, we being cooped up within the four seas. The habits of expense then contracted and continued under different circumstances, together with the large charges upon their estates, had ruined the landlords. Now that we were no longer confined within the four seas, or at war with the whole world, when the great body of the people were better off than formerly, but when the expensive habits of the landowners were destroying them, those persons had no right to call on us for compensation for losses and difficulties which were purely the effect of their own proceedings, and in which the community was not interested. He hoped, therefore, to whatever conclusion the Committee might come, that they would settle whether and how far it referred to the agricultural labourers, the farmers, or the landlords.
Mr. Benettbelonged to the class of English country gentlemen, and rose to defend them against the allegations of the hon. Member for Bath, who appeared not to know much about their character; if he did, he would not have denounced them as a useless or unimportant body. The country gentlemen had uniformly done their duty; they were loyal to the King and Constitution, and in their capacity of magistrates had rendered important service to the country. He agreed with the hon. Member for Bath that the labouring class, especially the agricultural labourers, were infinitely the most important portion of the community, but he believed he was more intimately cognizant of their con-
158
dition than the hon. Member, and he could assure him that the agricultural labourers would never prosper unless their employers, the farmers, were also prosperous. With respect to the farmers of England, no manufacturers worked for so small a profit, though the hon. Gentleman appeared to think differently; and the farmers could not prosper unless the country gentlemen prospered also. The three classes, of labourers, farmers, and landowners, were all bound up together, and the hon. Gentleman might add to them the class of dealers in towns, who supplied the agriculturists, and whose prosperity depended upon that of their customers. With these he would also mention, as possessing identical interests, the manufacturers for home consumption. The prosperity or distress of all these classes was closely connected; their interests were mutual. In our love of a showy foreign trade, while dwelling on the importance of our exports, we must not forget the magnitude of our home consumption. But he would not dwell upon the subject, or forestall the business of the Committee, He felt exceedingly obliged to the Government for having proposed the Committee, which he had no doubt would be fairly constituted. He was glad that, unlike the last, the Committee was unrestricted in its inquiry, from which much benefit might be expected. The agriculturists had a right to demand inquiry and relief, if that were possible. All he asked for them was justice, and he doubted not they would obtain it at the hands of the House.
Mr. Plumptreagreed with the hon. Member for Bath as to the importance of the labouring classes, but dissented from his assertion that they were not in a state of distress. From his knowledge, he took it on himself to declare the agricultural labourers were at this moment in a state of-great distress. Indeed, it was evident, on the slightest consideration, that they must be so, for when the prices of agricultural produce were depressed, it was impossible for the cultivators to employ their full number of labourers, or to afford them a fair remuneration.
Sir Robert Peelwished sincerely that he could participate in the expectation entertained by some of his hon. Friends as to the practical advantage to result from the appointment of the Committee. He did not, however, entertain that expecta-

159
tion; his belief was, that when the Committee sent in their report, probably at the close of the Session, the result would prove to be not very different from that of 1833, namely, a strong opinion expressed by the Committee, and as firm a conviction on the part of the House, that legislative interference would not afford the means of relief or prosperity to the agriculturists. At the same time he thought, whenever there was a strong and general feeling subsisting among a particular class admitted to be distressed, that an inquiry into their condition was desirable, and might be advantageous. He thought that, under such circumstances, those who doubted the utility of the investigation were nevertheless bound to consent to it, and thereby obtain the moral advantage to be gained by the inquiry, whatever might be the result. If he thought that the Committee was appointed with a view to promote an alteration in the standard of value, and if he believed that the result would be to alter it, he, for one, would not consent to the proposition. He felt as deep an interest in the prosperity of agriculture as any man—his interest in the question was perhaps stronger than in another—but with this feeling he was assured that the true friend of the agriculturists was not he who flattered them with fallacious expectations, but the man who frankly stated what he believed to be the truth as to their condition and prospects. If the Committee were about to undertake the task of ascertaining the effect produced upon agriculture by the alteration of the currency in 1819, or if it were appointed for the purpose of investigating the various causes of depression to which that interest had been exposed, it was about to enter upon a task which, pursued in the usual manner, would necessarily end in disappointment. If the Committee even took evidence and inquired into various circumstances of agriculture, in widely different parts of the country, with a view of assigning to each particular depression its peculiar cause, it would engage in a task which could not be accomplished by any Committee. To select particular cases of distress and depression from particular parts of the country would be fruitless, and would not prove satisfactory to the rest. At the same time, he admitted, that if a Committee were to be appointed, it was wise not to restrict its powers closely within the limits of a parti-
160
cular subject. But, so far as the interests of agriculture were concerned, he thought they would be best promoted by the Committee addressing itself to practical remedies. Possibly some assistance might be derived from a reduction of the land-tax, a mode of relief not of late rendered available. If the Committee addressed itself to practical subjects, it might obtain the means of administering, if not extensive relief, at least material alleviation to the agriculturists. As to an inquiry into the causes of the depression, of the price of agricultural produce, it could not be attended with any benefit or produce any practical result. They found a depression of prices admitted; he hoped, if the Committee thought it necessary to go into the cause of it, that they would not confine themselves merely to the alteration in the currency, but would also consider the effect of a cessation of war, of a return to peaceful habits and pursuits, and of improved and increased means of production. Cases ought not to be selected from particular portions of the country. If the Committee were going to ascertain the real causes and condition of agricultural distress, they must not take the cases of a heavy soil, where the production of wheat was necessarily expensive, but they must look at the subject as a whole, and not merely look at the condition of agriculture, but at the other interests involved in, and connected with, it. He could not help thinking that he saw in the great prosperity of our trade and manufactures a more encouraging prospect of an improved condition of agriculture than in any other definite cause. However, one thing appeared self-evident—it was clearly as much for the interest of agriculture as for that of commerce and manufacture that we should adhere to the present standard of value. He might here observe, that in common with other Gentlemen, he considered the condition of the labouring classes highly important, but he was surprised to hear the hon. Member who preceded him state that there was no improvement in their circumstances within the last few years. The result of the inquiry made in 1833 was, that though agriculture was not in such a state as could be wished, yet that there had been a material improvement in the condition of the labouring classes as compared with their state in former but recent periods. Gentlemen might enter-

161
tain a different opinion, but he was only saying that the Committee of 1833 had so reported. There was a universal impression on the part of the Committee that the state of the labouring classes was materially improved. [Mr. O'Connell: "In England?"] He meant in England. He agreed with the Committee in this opinion—it was his sincere conviction that the condition of the labouring classes had improved; that they were earning at least an equal money amount of wages as at former periods, and shat they possessed a greater command over those commodities which were essential to existence. That consideration afforded him consolation for the pain he felt at the complaints made (some of them not without justice) with respect to the alleged injurious effects of the Currency Bill of 1819. He believed in his conscience it was essential to the national security that the condition of the labouring classes in this country should be improved; and he believed that the first necessary step to that improvement consisted in the selection of some one permanent standard of value, Hardly, therefore, as the measure might bear on some persons, on the labouring classes it had operated favourably, and the paramount advantage of that circumstance in some degree countervailed the pain he experienced at the prejudice which the Bill of 1819 might have caused to other classes. With respect to practical and local measures of relief, it might be worth while to consider whether there was not a possibility of diminishing, in some degree, the amount of payments required from united agricultural parishes, on account of the building of workhouses under the Poor Law Amendment Act. He thought the interest payable for the advances was greater than in other cases where public money was advanced. Here was a practical case, admitting an easy remedy. As the noble Lord found that the security in those and other cases was equal, and that leas interest was demanded on advances in other instances, he hoped the noble Lord would consider the subject, and that the appointment of a Committee would not preclude the Government from affording practical relief, for it would be a disadvantage to the agricultural interest if the inquiry to be made into its condition should suspend any favourable intention that might have been entertained towards it. Believing, as he did, that great benefit, would result
162
to the agricultural interest from the alteration in the Poor-laws, and having done what he could to enforce the improvement in his own neighbourhood, he nevertheless thought that we must take care not to overrate the future permanent reduction of expense from the circumstance of the Act coming into operation at a time when there was a greatly increased demand for agricultural labour on account of various improvements, including the extension of railroads and other public works. He was not going to say one word against the effect or operation of the Poor-law Amendment Act, but he cautioned Gentlemen not to expect an extensive and continued reduction of expenditure in future, auguring from what had already taken place, to which they ought to bear in mind that other causes had contributed. With respect to the strong language used by the hon. Member for Birmingham, he felt unwilling to enter upon the subject—this was not the time to do so; but he should apprehend that the very precise, close, and practical reasoning of the hon. Member that night must suggest to the Committee that the hon. Member was one of the earliest witnesses to be examined before them. He hoped he might promise the hon. Member that he should be examined more in detail upon facts than on former occasions, and he trusted there would be none of what the hon. Gentleman called, "tomfoolery;" but that he would receive every opportunity of showing that an alteration, of the currency was the best cure for agricultural distress. When he recollected the prophecies he had beard from the hon. Gentleman as to the impossibility of maintaining the present standard of value, and continuing to carry on our trade and manufactures in a degree at all proportionate to their ancient prosperity, and looked round him and saw the condition of those great interests, he now might be excused for doubting the hon. Member's present predictions. When he found that it was consistent with the hon. Member's proposed alteration of the currency, nay, a part of his plan, that extensive assistance should be granted by joint-stock banks to persons producing security for the advances he asked, why could not this method be resorted to at present? When the hon. Gentleman admitted that our commerce and manufactures were prosperous, and that, their prosperity co-existed with a gold standard, he could not under-

163
stand why the same standard should be less favourable to another great interest, or why it could not also co-exist with agricultural prosperity. His firm belief was, that the permanent welfare and prosperity of this country, agricultural as well as commercial and manufacturing, were deeply involved in the maintenance of the present fixed monetary standard.
Mr. Wodehousemaintained, with every disposition to pay deference to the opinions of the right hon. Baronet, that if the Committee did not extend its inquiries into the state of the currency, it would be quite impossible to recommend any practicable scheme of relief to the distressed agriculturists. He thanked the noble Lord for not having excluded that subject from their consideration, and he earnestly hoped the result would not be found to disappoint the reasonable hopes of a very large and important portion of the community.
The Speakerhaving put the Question,
Lord John Russellread the names of the Committee, which he proposed should consist of thirty-three Members, the greater proportion being Members for English counties, four for Scotland, and four for Ireland.
On the Motion of Mr. Cayley, the name of the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Matthias Attwood) was added to the Committee.
Lord John Russellsaid he should divide the House against the addition of any Other names.
The Marquess of Chandosmoved that the name of the Earl of Darlington be added to the Committee.
The House divided on the Motion; Ayes 142; Noes 149: Majority 7.

List of the AYES.

Agnew, Sir A.

Buckingham, J. S.

Alston, R.

Butler, Sir J.

Angerstein, J. J.

Burrell, Sir C.

Archdall, M.

Campbell, Sir H. P.

Astley, Sir J.

Cayley, E.

Attwood, M.

Chisholm, A.

Bagot, Hon. W.

Churchill, Lord C,

Bailey, J.

Clerk, Sir G.

Baillie, H.

Clive, C

Barclay, C.

Clive, Hon. R.

Barneby, J.

Codrington, C. W.

Bateson, Sir R.

Compton, H. C.

Beckett, Sir J.

Conolly, Colonel

Borthwick, P

Corbet, T. G.

Bradshaw, J.

Dalbiac, Sir C.

Bruen, Colonel

Darlington, Earl of

Bruen, F.

Dick, Q.

Bruce, C. C. E.

Duncombe, Hon. W.

Brudenell, Lord

Buncombe, Bon. A.

164

Eaton, R. J.

Maunsell, J. P.

Egerton, Sir P.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Elley, Sir J.

Morgan, C,

Elves, J. P.

Neele, J.

Entwisle, J.

Nicholl, J.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

O'Brien, W. S.

Ewing, H. D.

Palmer, R.

Fector, J. M.

Parry, Colonel

Fielden, W.

Peel, E.

Fielden, J.

Pemberton, T.

Finn, W. F.

Perceval, Colonel

Fleming, J. W.

Plumptre, J. P.

Forbes, W.

Pollington, Lord.

French, W.

Sandon, Viscount

Freshfield, W,

Praed, J. B.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Price, R.

Gillon, W. D.

Pringle, A.

Gore, P.

Richards, J.

Goring, H. D.

Rickford, W.

Goulburn, Rt. Hon. H.

Ross, C.

Goulburn, Sergeant

Rushbrooke, R.

Greisley, Sir R.

Sanderson, R.

Grimston, Lord

Scarlett, Hon. R.

Halford, H.

Scott, Sir E.

Hale, R. B.

Scourfield, W. H.

Halyburton, Hon. J.

Shaw, Rt. Hon. F.

Handley, H.

Sheldon, E.

Hardy, J.

Sibthorpe, Colonel

Harvey, D. W.

Smyth, Sir H.

Harland, J. C.

Somerset, Lord E.

Henniker, Lord

Somerset, Lord G.

Hay, Sir J.

Stormont, Viscount

Herbert, Hon. S.

Stuart, Lord

Hogg, J. W.

Sturt, H. C.

Holland, E.

Trevor, Hon. A.

Hope, Hon. J.

Tyrell, Sir J.

Hotham, Lord

Twiss, H.

Houldsworth, T.

Vere, Sir C.

Hoy, J. B.

Verner, Colonel

Ingham, R.

Verner, Sir H.

Inglis, Sir R.

Vesey, Hon. T.

Irton, S.

Vivian, J. E.

Johnstone, J. H.

Walpole, Lord.

Jones, W.

Weyland, R.

Kearsley, J. H.

Wilbraham, Hon. R.

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Wilson, H.

Knight, H. G.

Wodehouse, E.

Knightley, Sir C.

Yorke, E.

Lennard, B.

Young, J.

Longfield, R.

Young, Sir W.

Lowther, Colonel

Young, G. F.

Lygon, Colonel

TELLERS.

Maclean, D.

Attwood, T.

Manners, Lord C.

Chandos, Lord

Committee appointed.
HIS MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS as follows, was reported and ordered to be printed.
"I receive with satisfaction the assurances contained in your loyal and dutiful address.
"It will ever be my study, under the will of Divine Providence, to maintain the high character of this country among the nations of the world, and to promote

165
the peace and welfare of all classes of my subjects."

AMENDMENT OF THE CORPORATIONS ACT.
The Attorney-Generalmoved for leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the Municipal Corporations Act of last year. He was understood to state, that the Act of last year had worked quite as well as, under all the circumstances, could possibly have been expected. In a measure, however, of so extensive and sweeping a character, it was found that some few Amendments were necessary to render its operation easy and perfect. To effect such Amendments was the object of the Bill which he was now about to move for leave to introduce. In a few instances, as in the cases of Rochester, and Newport in the Isle of Wight, there had been an equality of votes in the election of Towncouncillors, so that in fact no Aldermen were returned. In such cases it was proposed for the future to give the casting vote to the senior councillor. Again, where there might be any dispute by the law as it now stood, about the title of the returning officer, it was proposed that the supposed flaw in his title should mot vitiate any election where the parties had been chosen bona fide by a majority of electors. It was further proposed, that all legal proceedings which had been commenced in consequence of the defects or misunderstanding of the late Bill, should be staid upon payment of costs.
Colonel Sibthorpwished that Gentlemen should have sufficient, time to consider the Amendments proposed, as he thought it would be in their power, as it was in his power, to point out a few other absurdities in the Bill of last Session, which he regarded as a most imperfect and most dangerous measure.
Mr. Thomas Attwoodbegged to remind the hon. and learned Gentleman of one great defect in the present law, that of withholding from the Town Council the appointment of the Magistrates. The Bill, as originally introduced last year, gave the Council that power. It was a most important political right, and he thought that part of the measure, as it was first brought in, ought to be revived, and certainly this was a very good opportunity for doing so. Another defect was the qualification clause. It was very objectionable, and ought to be abolished. There ought to be no other qualification required to be-
166
come a Town Councillor than the confidence and good opinion of his fellow-citizens.
Leave given.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS.
The Attorney-Generalalso moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the more effectual Registration of persons entitled to vote in the election of Members to serve in Parliament in England and Wales. The object of the Bill was to simplify the registration of voters by affording facilities to bonâ fide claimants. One of the provisions would give the Revising barristers power to mulct persons in costs who should make frivolous opposition to claimants. He would not, however, enter into the details of the Bill, until it were printed and laid before the House.
Leave given.

LIGHT-HOUSES ON THE COAST OF ENGLAND.
Mr. Humerose to move for leave to bring in a Bill for vesting Light-houses on the coast of England in the Trinity-house of Deptford Strond. In 1834, a Committee sat a long time to inquire into the subject of the light-houses of England, Scotland, and Ireland, and made a report thereon. As chairman of that Committee he was instructed to bring in a Bill with a view to consolidate those three important branches under one Board in London. He did so, but the Bill met with considerable opposition. In the first place, his hon. Friend the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, and the Irish Members generally, objected to their light-houses being transferred to the Trinity-house, which was the course recommended by a majority of the Committee. The Members for Scotland also did not think the Trinity-house the most proper Board to place their light-houses under; and he must candidly say, that such was his own opinion. He could wish the subject to be taken up as a Government question, and that there should be a separate Board under which these three great branches should be placed, with a view of establishing one uniform regulation among the whole, instead of their being as now, conducted under three different sets of regulations. The rate of charge for ships, it was well known, differed greatly in the three countries; and it was most extraordinary that a naval nation like this should have arrived at its present state of greatness without any Government

167
authority having been established for, managing and carrying on these lighthouses. The consequence was, that a great waste of public money was annually incurred. It was clearly shown to the Committee that a sum of 70,000 l. was sufficient to maintain alt the' light-houses of the three countries, and yet no less a sum than 240,000 l. was annually exacted from the shipping interest in the shape of light-house duties, the difference, therefore, was entirely thrown away. Many members of the Committee agreed with him, that it would be better to place these lights under the management of a public Board; but it was thought by a majority of the Committee, that as a public body was already constituted in the Corporation of the Trinity-house, the first step taken should be to place the light-houses under their control. The House had heard much to-night respecting agricultural distress, and various modes of relief had been suggested. For his part, he was of opinion that the agricultural interest could not be better served than by the reduction of local and general taxation. If the lighthouse duties were reduced, it would enable the ship-owners to lower their freights, and that must ultimately be beneficial to the agriculturists, by lessening the expense of the transit of landed produce. But the greatest evil he had to complain of was, the private light-houses in the hands of individuals. Leases had been granted by the Crown to individuals, which afforded them the means, he would say, of plundering the public; because the Crown had no more right to grant to my Lord A or my Lord B the power of levying a tax on the commerce of the country, than it had at the present moment to give an order on the Exchequer to any private individual who had not done a single public act to deserve it. He did not mean to complain of the present Administration on this score so much as of former Administrations, which had allowed these leases to be renewed, notwithstanding Mr. Huskisson and Mr. Herries had often declared that they never should be renewed again. The system, however, had gone on year after year, ever since 1823, imposing this unnecessary burthen' on the trade of the country. This was the third year since he and his friends had undertaken the charge of remedying this abuse; and the fault of which he impeached the present Government was, that they had not taken
168
the matter into their own hands. What was the Board of Trade for, if not to undertake the management of such matters as this? On one occasion, when the Bill was brought in, he was told that the Government had not made up their minds upon the subject; at another time, that the Crown had an interest in the question. Indeed, no less than 100,000 l. taken from the shipping interest had already been paid into the hands of Commissioners of Woods and Forests, arising from lighthouses, which the Crown ought never to have received. On these grounds, the Bill had, from time to time, been postponed. He remembered, too, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer once told him, that objections were raised on the part of the lessees to the proposed mode of proceeding, and that time was, therefore, required to consider what other mode should be adopted. There was another great objection to the present system, namely, the appropriation of a large sum derived from these light-house duties to the payment of pensions to disabled seamen. There was no objection to a specific fund being provided for such a purpose; but it ought not to be at the expense of the shipping trade of the country. He did not mean to impugn the mode in which the distribution of the money was made; it was only the principle to which he objected. With respect to transferring the superintendence of these light-houses to the Trinity-house, he begged to observe, that that Corporation had already fifty-five lights under its management and control. The amount of revenue yielded, and the expenses for collection and maintenance incurred during the year 1834, stood thus:—

Revenue

£83,000

Expense of collection

£6,600

Maintaining the lights in repair

35,900

42,500

Leaving a sum of

£40,500

beyond what was actually necessary for the maintenance of those fifty-five light houses. Now, he would contend that that 40,500 l. if not required for maintaining the lights, or for erecting new lights, ought not to be levied, and, if levied, ought not to be appropriated, without some different superintendence and control from that which at present existed, to the payment of pensions to certain seamen. Then there

169
were fourteen lights in the hands of private individuals, which,

In 1833, yielded a revenue of

£79,676

Expenses of collection

£10,000

Maintaining the lights

9,354

19,354

Thus leaving a surplus of

£60,322

to be divided among twelve or thirteen individuals. The object, therefore, of his Bill was to consolidate these private lights under the authority of the Trinity-house, who had the charge of the fifty-five other lights belonging to England, leaving the lights belonging to Ireland and Scotland for the present out of consideration. It might be asked what advantage would be derived from doing this, seeing that the rights of those individuals must be maintained during the period of their leases. In the first place, then, it was his opinion that if the rights of each of those individuals were brought before a Jury of the country, it would be very difficult indeed for the parties to maintain them; therefore he thought it would become a question, fairly and properly, for that House to consider whether those rights should not, as recommended by the Committee, be all subjected to investigation before that tribunal, in order to put an end to any grants of leases that had been improperly or illegally made. At the same time he owned that he looked forward to improvement for the future rather than to derive advantage by pressing on the interests of those connected with the past. It was therefore proposed to give by this Bill a power to the Trinity-house to come to terms with those individuals if possible; but if they should not be able to agree, then it was provided that the question of right should be brought before a Jury of the country. He thought it very likely that arrangements might be amicably effected. He did not wish to throw any slur upon these gentlemen; on the contrary, he was glad to say that he had met with every disposition on their part to do what was right. The result which he expected from the adoption of this plan would be a saving of from 15,000 l. to 20,000 l. in the first year; and if a similar plan were adopted with regard to the Irish lights, a very large portion of the 24,000 l. now paid as mere percentage on the collection of the dues for those lights would also be saved. He would not say anything about the light-houses of Scotland at
170
present, but would leave them to some other time. He understood that this Bill, from some rule of etiquette or other, could not be introduced without first obtaining: the sanction of the Crown. Why the people of this country should not be allowed to effect the reduction of a lax without the sanction of the Crown he could not conceive. However, he hoped that that technical difficulty would be obviated by the sanction of the Crown being readily given. If not, he trusted that the Government would themselves undertake to bring in the Bill. He should be happy to transfer the Bill into the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade; but it must be upon condition that the provisions of the Bill, as recommended by the Committee, were retained. If it should be proposed by the right hon. Gentleman to leave out the Clauses respecting the discontinuance of the pensions to seamen, which were strongly recommended by the Committee, he must decline placing the Bill in his hands, because he (Mr. Hume) should be wrong, as Chairman of that Committee, not to submit that proposition to the House. The hon. Gentleman moved for leave to bring in the Bill.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonwas as much inclined now as he was last year to give the Bill every assistance that he could, consistently with his own opinion upon the subject. But when his hon. Friend charged the Government with neglect of duty for not having taken up the Question, he (Mr. Thomson) really could not understand the ground on which that charge was made, on calling to mind what took place last Session when the matter was before the House. At a late period of that Session a Bill was introduced by his hon. Friend on this subject, which led to a lengthened discussion. Upon an appeal being made to the Government, he (Mr. Thomson) stated, on the part of the Government generally, and of the department to which he more particularly belonged, that he was prepared to give assistance to his hon. Friend as far as he could, differing as he did from him on some points; or if his hon. Friend judged it better, he would himself propose a Bill to the House. He was rather surprised, therefore, when he found his hon. Friend, without the slightest notice to him, come down the first day of the Session, and give notice, of his intention to bring in the pre-

171
sent Bill. His hon. Friend certainly had a perfect right to do so, but he had not any right at the same time to charge him or the Government with a neglect of duty for not introducing the measure. But his hon. Friend now said, "I will give over the Bill to you if you will adopt all its provisions." To that proposition he could by no means consent. If his hon. Friend would leave the matter in his hands and allow him to bring in a Bill such as he might approve of, on the responsibility of the Government, he should feel it his duty to undertake that task; but he certainly could not undertake to carry through a Bill, some of the provisions of which he did not approve of. He agreed with his hon. Friend with respect to the merits of the Report of the Committee which sat on the subject of Light-houses; and he would do his hon. Friend the justice to say that it was impossible for any one to pay more attention to the subject than he did, and the Report reflected great credit upon him. He really did his hon. Friend that justice; at the same time it was worthy of remark, that his hon. Friend himself had not followed the recommendations of that Committee. The Committee recommended that one uniform system should be adopted for England, Ireland, and Scotland, and that all the Light-houses of the three Kingdoms should be all placed under the Trinity-house: but his hon. Friend had brought in a Bill for England simply. Again, his hon. Friend proposed to place all the Light-houses in England under the control of the Trinity-house, and yet he was of opinion that another distinct Board ought to have that control. In the first place, then, the Bill in one point was not according to the recommendation of the Committee; and, in the next, although in another it was in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee, yet it was contrary to the opinion of his hon. Friend who brought it in. Another point taken by his hon. Friend, upon which he differed from his hon. Friend, was with respect to the pensions to seamen. He, perhaps, agreed with his hon. Friend in thinking that it was contrary to strict principle to allow a tax of this kind to be levied from the shipping interests of the country for the maintenance of lights, and afterwards to permit the money to be distributed in pensions to distressed seamen. But it was necessary to look at this question in a
172
practical point of view, and not confine it to abstract principles; and when they found that there was not only no complaint made by the shipping interest of this distribution, but, on the contrary, he believed it would be difficult to get up a single petition amongst them against it—and it was the shipping interest, after all, who paid this money, in order that the pensions should not be taken away—he (Mr. Thomson) was not inclined to carry out the general principle to all its consequences. Unless he saw great abuses take place under the distribution of these pensions, he was not at all disposed to meddle with the subject. Here they had parties who were anxious to continue to pay those pensions, and parties who, of course, were also anxious still to receive them. Upon that point, therefore, (and it was the stipulation which he understood his hon. Friend to make as the condition of his handing over the Bill to him), he differed from his hon. Friend, and, therefore, could not consent to take the Bill upon such terms. His hon. Friend bad taken notice of a difficulty arising from the necessity of obtaining the consent of the Crown, and asked why should the people be stopped in that way upon a subject of this kind for want of the consent of the Crown. But if the property of the Crown was involved in the question, surely it was but right that the consent of the Crown should be given. He was quite satisfied that no unusual course would be adopted by the Crown on this occasion, and that if the obtaining the object which they all had in view—that of putting the Light-houses on a better system—depended on getting rid of the property of the Crown, he was perfectly sure that the Crown's advisers would not throw any obstacle in the way of an agreement. But an arrangement could not be effected in an instant; there were other parties interested to be consulted. He could assure his hon. Friend that every endeavour would be used to come to a fair arrangement with the individuals who now hold leases under the Crown; and it would then be for the advisers of the Crown to say whether they would consent to this Bill or not. His hon.: Friend must permit him to say that the Bill involved arrangements affecting private property to a great extent: and it would be most unfair to legislate at once, and in an offhand manner, with the possessors of it,

173
without consulting with them on the subject. He could assure his hon. Friend the matter was not so very easy to arrange as he supposed. In conclusion, he begged to repeat, that although he could not undertake to manage his hon. Friend's Bill, yet he should be willing to render him every assistance in his power consistently with his own views of the subject, and to obtain for him every facility from the Woods and Forests in the further prosecution of his measure.
Mr. O'Connellfelt it his duty to state that, whatever inaccuracy existed in the Report on which this Bill was founded, or whatever want of harmony might be apparent between them, the fault did not rest with the hon. Mover, or with the Committee. It was not supposed at the time that Ireland would be included in any alteration which might be proposed as the result of its deliberations, and, therefore, less evidence had been offered in relation to the system on which the light-houses were governed in that country than would otherwise have been. It was, therefore, judged only fair to exclude Ireland from the effect of any legislation affecting its interests on this point, until they had an opportunity of ascertaining the actual state of things there. He felt it a duty to his constituents and to the Ballast Board of Dublin, to whose care this important department was intrusted in Ireland, to state, that they lately effected some considerable additions, and judicious improvements in this branch of the public service, while, at the same time, they had, by good management, been able to relieve the shipping interest of a portion of the charges hitherto paid by vessels availing themselves of the lights on the Irish coast. They had, in fact, at once reduced the duty and increased the accommodation to the public. It might naturally be asked, at what outlay were these benefits effected? What amounts of salaries were paid for this superior species of management? Not one penny. It was all done gratuitously. This was (as far as he knew) the first instance of a Board not regularly paid which did any good. It had effected especial good in the south of Ireland, where formerly not a winter had passed without numerous shipwrecks, yet he was happy to say that for the last eight winters not a single one had occurred, mainly in consequence of the admirable arrangements of the Ballast Board. These were the
174
reasons why Ireland had been excluded from the present attempt at centralization. It did well enough as it was, and it ought to be left so. This was the opinion both of the hon. Mover and himself, and he was sure the House would agree in the propriety of the course pursued in the Bill now brought before them.
Mr. Robinsonexpressed his conviction of the necessity of placing the subject on an improved footing, though he did not think the proposed course an unexceptionable one. His principal object was to diminish the charges not intended to promote the benefit of the shipping of this country. A nation ought to look to the future as well as the present; and on a subject of such avowed importance all vested interests, whether private or regal, should be rendered subservient to the public service. He was happy to hear the President of the Board of Trade had undertaken to forward the great objects of the Bill, in which he (Mr. Robinson) felt a deep concern, and he should esteem it his duty to lend him his best support.
Mr. George Youngwas sorry that the hon. Member for Middlesex had not given the Bill into the hands of Government, and lamented the pertinacity with which he and the hon. Member for Dublin clung to an anomalous system, which, it was avowed, was of no benefit to the individuals who worked it. He called the attention of the House to the fact, that the item of 42,000 l. per annum, which stood in the account to the credit of the Irish Board of Management, was paid by English shipping instead of Irish, and he must therefore contend that England was called on to legislate for the protection of her maritime interests on Irish shores, and fully justified in insisting on the adoption of a consistent and systematic arrangement for the empire. With respect to the pensions, he believed that the feeling in their favour was almost universal, and no good reason was shown for their discontinuance. He defended the shipping owners from the charges which the hon. Member for Middlesex advanced against them, of apathy and ignorance, contending that they wisely discriminated in all matters of legislation affecting their interests, and only displaying the anxiety and alarm on which be animadverted when unwise and unjust attempts were made to interfere with their earnings by legislative enactments, He hoped that the Bill

175
would pass, shorn of its objectionable clauses.
Mr. Shawdeclared, that it was exceedingly unjust to include the Ballast Board of Ireland, in the accusations which had been made against inefficient public or private bodies. It was fully established, that the system they pursued had worked well, and was conducted more cheaply, successfully, and satisfactorily than any other, and it would now be the height of injustice to disturb it, on the pretence of bad management or incompetency. He hoped that, under the circumstances, the House would see the inconsistency and unfairness of introducing; Ireland into the contemplated arrangement.
Colonel Parrywas happy to add his testimony in favour of the conduct of the Board of the Trinity House, who were looked up to with gratitude by the poor receivers of its pensions. These trifling annuities were not receivable till the claimant was past seventy; and, it was further stated as a qualification, was not able to beg. Representing, as he did, the interests of six seaports, and of a numerous maritime population, he felt happy in stating his conviction, that his constituents would be quite satisfied with the progress of the Bill under the care, which the President of the Board of Trade had promised to extend to it. He hoped, that Mr. Hume and the Government would agree to carry on the measure with a good understanding, and that the poor individuals dependent on these pensions for their subsistence would not be overlooked.
Viscount Sandonwould not allow the Irish Members to stand alone in their praise of the Ballast Board, whose merits he was happy to substantiate. He disliked the spirit of monopoly, and would be glad to see each country administering its own proper department of the public service. When a late attempt was made to break up the old establishment of Kilmainham Hospital, he was proud of the opportunity it afforded him of upholding the lights of Ireland, and advocating the consideration which should ever be extended by the Legislature to the feelings of old soldiers in the peaceful sanctuary where they had retired to end their days. He protested against the principles advocated by the hon. Member for Tynemouth, which, if admitted, would let in the interference of all the foreign shipping inter-
176
ests that paid lighthouse toll on the Irish or other coasts, for they must in justice be consulted there. He felt quite satisfied, however, that the Trinity House was competent to conduct the English branch of the service, and he should therefore cheerfully support the Bill.
Mr. Peasesaid, that it appeared to be taken for granted, that the whole amount specified by the hon. Member for Middlesex might be consistently viewed as surplus; but this, he believed, was not the case. The funds so raised by lighthouse dues were properly intended, and liable to be appropriated, to the improvement of coasts which yet needed the aid of the Trinity or some other Board, and the application of these very funds in providing an extension of illumination, and other accompanying measures, for the safety of shipping, completion of harbours, the improvement and repairs of light-houses, &c. If these funds were taken away, the Trinity-house would necessarily be debarred from accomplishing the great national ends which this Bill appeared designed to promote. He thought, that a certain portion of this surplus ought to be annually taken for the improvement of particular portions of the coast seriatim. The interests of the State should, above all considerations, be first attended to; its maritime power and wealth should receive every aid and protection, that the judicious outlay of its proper funds on the coast could accomplish; and if any surplus were afterwards found to exist, let it be applied in pensions to the most deserving and destitute. He believed it was a question whether the constitution of the Trinity House was altogether such as the House would wish, but he felt that it would be unworthy of Parliament to circumscribe a fund on which so much depended.
Bill brought in and read a first time.