Commons Sitting of 3 July 1837

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Imprisonment for Debts Bills of Exchange; Coroners of Durham; Sheriff's Courts (Scotland); China Courts.—Read a second time:—East India Postage.—Read a first time:—Central Criminal Court Assimilation; Slave Trade; Treaties Act Continuance; Bank of Ireland Postponement; Militia Ballot suspension; Assessed Taxes Act extension.
Petitions presented. By Lord MORPETH, from Dublin, against any alteration of the Reform Acts against the Irish Poor-law Bill; and for the better Observance of the Sabbath.

PROTECTION TO DOGS.
The House went into a Committee on the Cruelty to Animals (Ireland) Bill.
Lord D. Stuartwould take that opportunity of saying, that he thought some measure should be adopted for the protection of that most useful animal, the dog. It was revolting to see the enormous weights they were made to draw, and, in his opinion, the names of the owners ought, as in other cases, to be painted on the carts, in order that there might be no difficulty in ascertaining the owners of any dog who might be cruelly treated. He did not know whether it was possible to introduce a clause for the protection of these animals into the present Bill, but if it could be conveniently done, he trusted the noble Lord (Morpeth) would not object to the insertion of such a clause.
Viscount Morpethwould have been glad
1762
to have done so, but as the present Bill was merely an extension of the English Act to Ireland, and as there was no clause in the original Bill for the protection of the dog, he was afraid such a clause as had been proposed could not be inserted.
Lord D. Stuarthoped, that in the next Session the Government would introduce a general measure on the subject, and he might mention that he had in the Vote-office a petition signed by upwards of 4,000 persons praying for protection to the dog.
The clauses of the Bill were agreed to. House resumed.

COUNTY TREASURERS (IRELAND).
House went into Committee on the Treasurers of Counties (Ireland) Bill.
Sir R. Fergusonobjected to the Bill, as the machinery it created was entirely new, and likely to prove expensive. One of the clauses was particularly objectionable. In that clause it was proposed to charge 5s. upon every 100 l. collected in the different counties, while there was no information given how the sum to be thus raised was to be expended, although it was perfectly clear that the amount would not be sufficient for the purposes of the Act. A great many persons in Ireland thought the office of Treasurer in the Irish counties ought to be abolished altogether. The mode in which the balances were deposited was also objectionable; and as there was no opportunity of sending the Bill over to Ireland to ascertain the opinions of those who were best acquainted with the subject, it would be better to postpone it till another Session.
Mr. Sergeant Woulfesaid, the Bill would not deprive the grand jurors of any power which they at present possessed, and he could see no good reason for postponing it. The treasurers in Ireland had, in some instances, been the cause of great loss to the country. He did not blame the grand juries, but they had not attended with sufficient vigilance to the accounts of the treasurers, and in his opinion those accounts could not be properly and satisfactorily inspected, until placed under the control of a public officer responsible to Parliament, and it was the object of this Bill to effect that desirable end.
Mr. Lucasallowed that some alterations in the system of inspecting the accounts of the treasurers of counties in Inland was necessary. He did not however, deem

1763
the Bill adequate to that purpose, and he trusted that Government would not press it at this late period of the Session.
Mr. O'Connellconsidered the present mode of inspecting the accounts of the county treasurers extremely unsatisfactory. There was one case in which a treasurer had died with a large sum belonging to one of the Irish counties in his possession, and left no proof that that money was due; and it was but too probable that larger losses would be sustained, should the present Bill not pass, as the amount of securities was in many instances not sufficient to cover the sums which the treasurers often had in their possession. They were, however, discussing the principle of the Bill, which had been agreed to, and as the House was in Committee, they ought to proceed with the details. He entreated the Government to press the Bill as one highly essential to the protection of the public interests in Ireland.
The clauses were agreed to. House resumed.

SUPPLY—MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES.
The House went into a Committee of Supply.
On the vote of 34,000 l. for defraying the expenses of the sheriffs (Scotland),
Mr. Wallaceobjected to the vote, and said, that he had inquired into the nature of their courts, and into the conduct as well as the duties of the judges, but without receiving satisfactory information. He could, however, state, that there were three judges not only useless, but injurious to the country, and their services ought to be dispensed with. They never attended the court. No witnesses were examined, no counsel pleaded. It was gross absurdity and injustice to continue the system, and he would move, as an amendment, "that 24,000 l. be substituted for 34,000 l., until the said judges comply with the existing law, which entitles them to salaries."
Vote agreed to.
On the proposal to grant 88,000/. towards defraying the expense of erecting new Houses of Parliament,
Mr. Humeobjected to vote any money under this head until more accurate estimates, sanctioned by a Committee of the House, had been submitted to Parliament. He should move that the vote be postponed till next Session.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid,
1764
it was a matter of more immediate concern to the House than to the Government. If they were content the House should remain in the present state another year, he could have no objection. At the same time, he did not think it would be very creditable, after the report of a Select Committee, and the other preliminary steps which had been taken, if the vote should be delayed for another year.
Sir George Stricklandthought the general opinion out of doors was unfavourable to Mr. Barry's plan. He strongly objected to the style of architecture which had been adopted, and concurred with the hon. Member for Middlesex, in thinking that the vote should be postponed till next Session.
Sir Robert Inglisreminded the Committee that the present question was not at all with respect to the merits of Mr. Barry's plan. That had already been decided. After being engaged two years and nine months in preliminaries, he could not conceive a greater waste of time than would be occasioned by another reference of this matter to a Committee up stairs.
The Committee divided on the grant, Ayes 100; Noes 20: Majority 80.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Sir C.

Donkin, Sir R.

Aglionby, H. A.

Dundas, hon. T.

Alford, Viscount

Dundas, J. D.

Alsager, Captain

East, J. B.

Archdall, M.

Elley, Sir J.

Bagot, M. W.

Estcourt, T.

Baillie, H. D.

Fazakerley, J. N.

Barclay, C.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Baring, F. T.

Fergusson, rt. hn. R.C.

Baring, F.

Ferguson, It.

Baring, H. B.

Forster, C. S.

Baring, W. B.

Gaskell, J. M.

Barnard, E. G.

Geary, Sir W.

Biddulph, R.

Gresley, Sir R.

Blackburne, I.

Grey, Sir G.

Bowring, Dr.

Grimston, Viscount

Brocklehurst, J.

Hamilton, G. A.

Brotherton, J.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Buller, C.

Hastie, A.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Hector, C.

Burrell, Sir C.

Hind, J. H.

Campbell, Sir J.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Cavendish, hon. C.

Hogg, J. W.

Chalmers, P.

Hope, H. T.

Chelwynd, Captain

Howick, Viscount

Colborne, N. W. R.

Humphery, J.

Corbett, T. G.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Dalmeny, Lord

Jervis, J.

Dennistoun, J.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Kirk, P.

Divett, E.

Lennox, Lord G.

1765

Lushington, C.

Seymour, Lord

Mangles, J.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Moreton, hon. A. H.

Sheil, R. L.

Morpeth, Viscount

Sheppard, T.

Murray, rt. hon. J. A.

Smith, R. V.

Packe, C. W.

Stanley, E. J.

Parker, J.

Stanley, Lord

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Stuart, Lord D.

Patten, J. W.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Pease, J.

Townley, R. G.

Pollen, Sir J. W.

Tracy, C. H.

Price, Sir R.

Tulk, C. A.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Warburton, H.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Wilbraham, hon. B.

Richards, R.

Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.

Robinson, G. R.

Wyse, T.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Young, G. F.

Ross, C.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

TELLERS.

Russell, Lord J.

Hay, Sir A. L.

Seale, Colonel

Wood, C.

List of the NOES.

Baring, T.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Bateson, Sir R.

Maxwell, J.

Becket, rt. hon. Sir J.

Mosley, Sir O.

Bridgeman, H.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Brownrigg, S.

Strickland, Sir G.

Codrington, Admiral

Thompson, Colonel

Dick, Q.

Wakley, T.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Wallace, R.

Evans, G.

TELLERS.

Gillon, W.

Hume, J.

Knight, H. G.

Hawes, B.

Mackenzie, T.

Vote passed.
On a sum of 114,160 l. 14 s. 6d. being proposed for advances on account of arrears and charges for the administration of justice and the civil government of the province of Lower Canada,
Mr. Humeobjected to the vote, which was nothing but a fine imposed on the people of England for the bad government of the colonists.
Mr. Robinsoncomplained that the resolution affirming the principle of discharging all arrears of salaries from the Canadian exchequer as well as the other resolutions agreed to by the House with respect to the colony, had not been followed up by a legislative enactment, and that the people of England should now be called on to vote so large a sum. The amount of the vote might have been applied, but for the remissness of Government, reduce nearly the whole of the duty on marine insurances, or to give relief to other important interests which required it.
Lord John Russellsaid, that the House had, in conformity with the message from her Majesty, agreed not to proceed with any measure likely to give rise to much
1766
discussion. Ministers had by no means abandoned the principles of the resolutions, though they were precluded by circumstances from introducing a Bill founded on them; and should he have the honour of holding the office he now filled in the next Parliament, he would feel it his duty to endeavour to give effect to them by legislative enactment.
Lord Stanleysaid, that Government were highly censurable in delaying to bring in a Bill immediatly after the resolutions had passed. Such a step would have been most valuable as an evidence of their sincerity to that portion of the community of Lower Canada which they had by the resolutions declared it to be their intention to protect, and for the suppression of those indications of discontent and partial disturbance which now appeared. Admitting that Government had no other course to take at present than that which they had adopted, he must regret they had not at an earlier period manifested their determination to act up to the resolutions. If this vote were a fine upon the people of England, as the hon. Member for Middlesex had termed it, no power on earth would induce him to consent to it, but he consented to it because it held out the most solemn pledge which, under present circumstances, Government could give to the people of England and of Canada, that they would act up to those resolutions. They had been pledged over and over again in that House, and now they gave security to keep their pledges in the sum of 140,000 l. It was absolutely essential that this advance should be made as a guarantee to both nations that Ministers should not shrink, if they were desirous of shrinking, from the declarations they had made. It had given him great satisfaction to hear the frank declaration of his noble Friend, that should he continue to hold his present office in the next Parliament, he would endeavour to give effect to the resolutions, whatever party might oppose him.
Mr. Humeadvised the noble Lord not to take counsel from an enemy. It was vain to talk of giving effect to the resolutions. A bill for such a purpose would be mere waste paper, unless Government were prepared to send an army to Canada to compel its people to obedience.
Lord John Russellmight deny entirely the justice of the charge which the noble Lord opposite had brought against the Government. He did not think it would

1767
have been right in Ministers to abandon every other measure for the sole purpose of carrying a Bill regarding Canada. He did not at all believe in the existence of general discontent in that country, nor did he anticipate that it would be necessary to have recourse to any measures of harshness or severity to give effect to the line of policy laid down in the resolutions.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 43; Noes 10: Majority 33.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Sir C.

Moreton, hon. A. H.

Bannerman, A.

Murray, rt. hon. J.A.

Baring, F. T.

Palmerston, Viscount

Barnard, Edward G.

Pease, J.

Campbell, Sir J.

Pechell, Captain

Dalmeny, Lord

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Richards, J.

Donkin, Sir R.

Robinson, G. R.

Dundas, J. D.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Estcourt, T.

Russell, Lord J.

Ferguson, rt. ht. R. C.

Shaw, right hon. F.

Gladstone, W. E.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Gore, O.

Smith, R. V.

Grey, Sir G.

Stanley, Lord

Hawkins, J. H.

Stanley, E. J.

Hector, C. J.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Vivian, J. E.

Howard, P. H.

Walker, R.

Howick, Viscount

Wood, C.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Young, G. F.

Lefevre, C. S.

TELLERS.

Lowther, hon. Colonel

Seymour, Lord

Mangles, J.

Parker, J.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Thompson, Colonel

Bowring, Dr.

Tulk, C. A.

Brotherton, J.

Warburton, H.

Fenton, J.

Gillon, W. D.

TELLERS.

Humphery, John

Hume, J.

O'Connell, M. J.

Elphinstone, H.

Vote agreed to. House resumed.

FREEMEN AND ELECTORS.
On the motion that the Report on the Parliamentary Electors Bill be brought up,
Sir R. Inglissaid, that the attempt to proceed with this Bill was a violation of the pledge given by the Ministers, that no measure of importance should be proceeded with except such as were essential to the furtherance of the public service. The Bill had been introduced so long ago as the 12th of May, at two o'clock in the morning, when there were only forty-one Members in the House, and from that time until Thursday last, it had been allowed to lie undisturbed on the table. Its purpose was to alter the constituency,
1768
as established by the Reform Act, and was, consequently, a violation of the principle of that measure, verifying the declaration made by his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel), that the first attempt to alter the Reform Bill would be made, not by its enemies, but by its friends.
Mr. W. Gladstonesaid, that the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department, had given as distinct a pledge as it was possible for a man to give, that all questions likely to lead to any great difference of opinion should be deferred; it therefore did appear to him that the pressing forward of the present Bill was in direct violation of that pledge.
Mr. Hawessaid, that on the occasion when hon. Gentlemen opposite assumed that the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department had given the pledge of which they had spoken, it so happened that the right hon. Member for Cumberland adverted to the Bills under consideration, and the noble Lord expressly excepted the present Bill from those measures that he proposed to defer. What, then, became of the charge that the pressing forward the present Bill was a violation of the noble Lord's pledge? The real objection which hon. Gentlemen opposite felt to the measure was, that it was a popular one.
Mr. Hodgson Hindethought, that the Ministers must be much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for replying to the questions which had been addressed to them. The present Bill, if not brought forward with the intention, had the effect of preventing those who were willing to do a service to the class of freemen from carrying their views into effect. He maintained that the Bill was an essential alteration of the Reform Act, and he only did his duty in opposing this first Ministerial attempt to violate that measure.
The House divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 30: Majority 25.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Sir C.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Aglionby, H. A.

Donkin, Sir. R.

Angerstein, J.

Dundas, J. D.

Baring, F. T.

Elphinstone, H.

Bernal, R.

Fielden, J.

Bowes, J.

Fergusson, rt. hn. R. C.

Brotherton, J.

Gordon, R.

Buller, Charles

Grey, Sir G.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

Hastie, A.

Callaghan, D.

Hawes, B.

Chalmers, P.

Hawkins, J. H.

Dalmeny, Lord

Hay, Sir A. L.

Dennistoun, J.

Hector, C. J.

1769

Hindley, C.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Russell, Lord J.

Howard, P. H.

Ruthven, E.

Howick, Viscount

Seale, Colonel

Hutt, W.

Thomson, rt. hn. C P.

Lefevre, C. S.

Townley, R. G.

Lennox, Lord G.

Tulk, C. A.

Lushington, C.

Wakley, T.

Lynch, A. H.

Walker, R.

Morpeth, Viscount

Wallace, R.

Murray, rt. hon. J. A.

Warburton, H.

O'Connell, M. J.

Wilson, H.

Palmerston, Viscount

Wood, C.

Parker, J.

Pease, J.

TELLERS.

Pechell, Captain

Seymour, Lord

Robinson, G. R.

Smith, R. V.

List of the NOES.

Baillie, H. D.

Lewis, D.

Barclay, C.

Lowther, Viscount

Brownrigg, S.

Lowther, J. H.

Chandos, Marquess of

Lygon, hon. General

Dick, Q.

Meynell, Captain

Duffield, Thomas

Nicholl, J.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Palmer, G.

East, J. B.

Richards, J.

Elley, Sir J.

Richards, R.

Geary, Sir W.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Gladstone, W. E.

Shaw, right hon. F.

Gore, O.

Stewart, J.

Halse, J.

Vyvyan, Sir R.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Herries, rt. hon. J, C.

TELLERS

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Goulburn, Sergeant

Lefroy, right hon. T.

Hinde, H.

FINAL REGISTRY OF ELECTORS.
On the motion for the third reading of the Final Registry Bill,
Mr. Sergeant Goulburnsaid, he should lake the sense of the House on the question. It was not fair to press this Bill; it was contrary to the message from the Crown, and for election purposes only. He moved, that the Bill be read a third time that day three months.
Lord J. Russelladmitted, that there was no absolute necessity for pressing the Bill at present, yet it was a measure of considerable consequence; and as it was not likely to lead to any lengthened discussion, and would not prolong the Session, he trusted the House would allow the Bill to pass.
The House divided:—Ayes 62; Noes 41: Majority 21.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Sir C.

Brocklehurst, J.

Aglionby, H. A.

Brotherton, J.

Baring, F. T.

Buller, C.

Bernal, R.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

Bowes, J.

Callaghan, D.

1770

Cavendish, hon. C.

Morpeth, Viscount

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Murray, right hon. J. A.

Chalmers, P.

Chichester, J. P. B.

O'Connell, M. J.

Codrington, Admiral

Palmerston, Viscount

Dalmeny, Lord

Parker, J.

Dennistoun, J.

Pease, J.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Pechell, Captain

Donkin, Sir R.

Robinson, G. R.

Dundas, J. D.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Ebrington, Viscount

Russell, Lord J.

Evans, De Lacy

Sanford, E. A.

Evans, G.

Seymour, Lord

Fielden, J.

Smith, R. V.

Fergusson, right hon. R. C.

Stanley, E. J.

Thomson, right hon. C. P.

Gordon, R.

Grey, Sir G.

Thompson, Colonel

Hastie, A.

Tulk, C. A.

Hawes, B.

Wakley, T.

Hawkins, J. H.

Walker, R.

Hobhouse, right hon. Sir J.

Wallace, R.

Warburton, H.

Howard, R.

Williams, Sir J.

Howard, P. H.

Wood, C.

Hume, J.

Young, G. F.

Hutt, W.

Lennox, Lord G.

TELLERS.

Lushington, C.

Elphinstone, H.

Lynch, A. H.

Hindley, C.

List of the NOES.

Alsager, Captain

Herries, right hon. J. C.

Baillie, H. D.

Barclay, C.

Hinde, J. H.

Blackburne, I.

Hope, H. T.

Borthwick, P.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Bramston, T. W.

Lefroy, right hon. T.

Brownrigg, S.

Lowther, Viscount

Burrell, Sir C.

Lowther, J. H.

Chandos, Marquis of

Lygon, hon. General

Chaplin, Colonel

Meynell, Captain

Dick, Q.

Nicholl, J.

Duffield, T.

Palmer, G.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Perceval, Colonel

East, J. B.

Richards, J.

Elley, Sir J.

Richards, R.

Forster, C. S.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Gaskell, James Milnes

Shaw, right hon. F.

Geary, Sir W.

Vyvyan, Sir R.

Gore, O.

Wilde, Sergeant

Grimston, Viscount

Grimston, hon. E. H.

TELLERS.

Halse, J.

Goulburn, Sergeant

Hardinge, right hon. Sir H.

Gladstone, W.

Bill read a third time.

CONSTRUCTION OF MEN OF WAR.
Mr. G. F. Youngsaid, that notwithstanding the lateness of the hour and the opposition he was likely to meet with, he felt it his duty to persist in calling for the returns of which he had given notice. In the first place, he complained of the present system on which our ships of war

1771
were constructed. The construction of those vessels ought not to be confined to one particular person, but the nation ought to have the benefit of the general talent of the country. At present such was not the case, as the Surveyor of the Navy had the sole power of selecting the plans submitted to his inspection. Such a system, in his opinion, produced a bad description of ships, and besides every new surveyor had a new plan of his own, and the ships constructed on the old system were laid up in ordinary, or broken up and sold, while still in sound condition. The old ships were thus destroyed, and with every new surveyor new vessels were constructed at an enormous expense to the country. Since the present Surveyor of the Navy had been appointed upwards of half a million of money had been expended in constructing ships upon his plan, and we were suffering ships built by former surveyors to rot in ordinary, while ships were building upon the plans of Captain Hayes and Admiral Elliott, in order to ascertain which plan was the best. Now, the Admiralty ought by this time to have determined whether the plan of Sir William Symonds ought to be adopted, and if it was good, they ought not to have put the country to the expense of building ships on other plans which could not be adopted. But if Sir William Symonds' plan was bad, then it ought at once to be discontinued, and some other system at once adopted instead. He objected to the system of experiments which had hitherto been pursued, as entailing an enormous and useless expense on the country. He had every respect for Sir William Symonds but, not having been educated for his present situation, he could not think Sir William Symonds the most proper person to decide on the system which ought to be pursued in the construction of ships. The duties of the surveyor were to draw plans for ship-building, to decide on the qualities of timber and iron, and on the reports of those persons who were appointed to ascertain the condition of ships; and he would ask, how the present surveyor, who was not a professional man, could possibly perform such duties? All he wished for by these returns was to enable him to make out a primâ facie case for the appointment of a Committee, and he could not see any reason why he should meet with the opposition which he under-Stood he was to receive. The hon. Mem-
1772
ber concluded by moving for a number of returns.
Mr. C. Woodthought it was incumbent on the hon. Member to show some better reason than a mere assertion for the production of such voluminous and, in some instances, expensive returns. The hon. Member defended the conduct of the Admiralty in the course they had pursued, and supported Sir William Symonds, as having contributed most essentially to the improvement of the British navy. If any blame attached at all, it was to be attributed to the Admiralty, and not to the Surveyor of the Navy, than whom a more able or better public servant could not be found. The hon. Member for Tynemouth had been rash in some of the assertions he had made; for, speaking upon official information, he could state, that so far from the absence of any opportunity of rivalry in the building of ships for the British naval service, Sir W. Symonds had only built one ship of the line and one frigate, and of small vessels only nine out of eighteen had been built by other individuals. On the whole, he submitted, that the hon. Member for Tynemouth had laid no sufficient grounds to be furnished with these returns, which would be both voluminous and expensive.
Captain Berkeleybore his testimony to the professional merits of Sir William Symonds, and added that, from his experience of the labours of that Gentleman, he could state, that the navy were deeply indebted to him for his public services.
Captain Dundassaid, he had no wish to depreciate the merits of Captain Symonds, but he must observe, that there were many other individuals whose talents in the same capacity well deserved the attention of the Admiralty.
Sir C. Adamconcurred with the hon. and gallant Member for Gloucester (Captain Berkeley) in the opinion that the ships constructed by Sir W. Symonds were at once an ornament and an improvement in the British navy. He knew no ships at all equal to those which Sir W. Symonds had produced.
The motion negatived.