Commons Sitting of 7 July 1847

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Collieries.
2° Poor Removal Act Amendment (No. 2); Naturalisation of Aliens.
Reported.—Vexatious Actions; Stock in Trade Exemption.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Bateson, from Londonderry, for the Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Mr. Mackinnon, from James Logan, respecting the Appointment of Professors of the Gaelic Language.—From Frederic Foveane Weiss, of No. 62, Strand, London, for the Production of Papers relating to the London and Birmingham Extension, Northampton, Daventry, Leamington, and Warwick Railway Bill, and Warwick and Birmingham Canal Railway Bill (1846).—From Barnett. Hoares, and Company, and others, for the Removal of Smithfield Market.

ARGYLE CANAL—GRANT OF MONEY.
MR. PARKERmoved that the Committee on the Argyle Canal Bill have leave to sit and report to-morrow (Thursday).
MR. CHRISTOPERopposed the further progress of the measure; it involved the expenditure of 140,000 l. of public money, and ought not to be carried through as a private Bill.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE- QUERobserved, as objection was raised, it would be better to discharge the order for referring this in the usual way as an unopposed Bill, and he would to-morrow move to refer it to a Committee differently constituted.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEthought it ought not to be referred to any Committee at all, but deferred to next Session. It was suggested that it would relieve the suffering Highlanders; perhaps if "the suffering canal company" were substituted, that would be nearer the truth. The Thames job was, it seemed, to be followed by a Scotch job.
SIR J. GRAHAMhad not the least notion, until that morning, of the nature of this measure. Perhaps the Chancellor of the Exchequer would he good enough to say, whether the question of the grant of this money had ever been submitted to the House in the miscellaneous estimates, or in any other manner.
MR. S. WORTLEYthought it was right to withdraw the Bill under present circumstances; but, at the same time, he begged to say, that this measure was of

3
the highest importance to the whole of the west coast of Scotland, where the navigation was very dangerous, and the existing canals so narrow and inefficient, that he hoped Government would persevere with it next Session. He thought it ought to have the support of the noble Lord the Member for Lynn, as it was carrying out the application of his measure with regard to Irish railways.
LORD G. BENTINCK: The hon. Member for Bute has mistaken my proposition so far as regarded Ireland. I never proposed that the Government should undertake themselves any work whatever, or that where railway companies could give good security the Government should themselves undertake them. But what is the case here? It is that where there is already one canal, the Crinan canal, running parallel with this proposed canal, to which the Government has already contributed the sum of 70,000 l, lent upon the security of tolls; and now the Government come forward and propose to take under their own care the construction of another canal, which is to be constructed in rivalry of this Crinan canal. Why, the two canals would be in distinct rivalry; and clear it is that if the Argyle canal is to be constructed, it will take away the whole traffic of the Crinan canal, and totally annihilate the security which the Government hold for the 70,000 l. they have lent to the Crinan canal. We object to the measure on this ground, that it differs altogether from the measure which I proposed early in the Session for the purpose of stimulating private enterprise; but this proposition is intended to construct a work on the responsibility of Government by six successive instalments of public money of 25,000 l. each; and this now work is alleged—I know not with what reason—but it is alleged that it is not a measure for the general advantage of the Highlands, but it is intended for the special advantage of one private individual, Mr. Campbell, of Islay. That is the charge of my hon. Friends around me. In that it differs altogether from the proposition which I made to the House. You talk of employing the destitute Highlanders. Why, they have been destitute up to the present moment; but before this measure can be applied, the destitution will have passed away. If, indeed, it had been intended by this measure to give compensation to Lord Macdonald and to M'Leod of M'Leod, for their unparalleled exertions on behalf of the suf-
4
fering poor, I should have made no objections. But here, where it is proposed to give 147,950 l., which it is alleged will be chiefly for the advantage of a single proprietor, I do think that the matter stands on different grounds than have been made in the House. But, after all, what we chiefly complain of is this—that it has been attempted to smuggle this measure through the House as a private Bill—or, as it was happily described by the late Chairman of Private Committees, that it is a Bill of a hybrid nature. Under these circumstances I trust that the House will reject the Bill.
MR. BAINEthought this Bill had, to say the least of it, a very suspicious appearance. It was introduced just a week ago, and he believed was entirely unknown to the great majority of those whom it professed to benefit. The Bill professed to be for the advantage of the ports of the Clyde, those ports being Greenock, Port-Glasgow, and Glasgow; but he would venture to say that there was scarcely an individual in those towns who was at all aware of such a Bill. He knew something of the locality, and he firmly believed that the proposed canal would be, as an investment of capital, totally unproductive. At all events, the measure was one that ought to be fully inquired into before it was sanctioned by Parliament.
MR. HUMEthought Ministers should produce the Minute of Treasury consenting to the advance of this money. He wanted to know what inducement they could have, in the present state of the Exchequer, to agree to this grant; and he strongly suspected that if they once began, they would just be following up the course pursued with regard to the Caledonian Canal. It was represented as a measure for the relief of the suffering Highlanders; but it was more likely to be one for the benefit of Highland lairds. In the case of the Caledonion Canal, that undertaking had given increased value to the properties through which it went, and afforded great facilities for the transmission of wood and other produce of the land; but, nevertheless, they were obliged to pay to the Highland lairds from 30,000 l. to 40,000 l. for the land which was required to form the canal. This measure, he maintained, would not be of advantage to the Highlands; and the hon. Member for Greenock (Mr. Baine) had told them that it would be of no advantage to the commercial classes. The House ought, therefore, to mark its sense of the impropriety of the whole proceeding,

5
and teach Ministers that, if they would not do what was correct and proper, they would at least not be countenanced by that House in doing what was not correct. It was with pain that he made these statements with reference to those whom he usually supported; but he felt himself compelled by a sense of duty. He moved that the debate be adjourned to that day three months.
MR. WILLIAMSconsidered that nothing could be more discreditable to the Government than the present job. When the Crinan Canal was projected, the line of the canal now proposed was examined, and that of Crinan preferred. The parties who established that company, however, found that it was a losing concern, instead of paying, as had been expected, 1/5 per cent upon the outlay. The canal now projected would not be a more profitable concern.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERdid not expect that, on the withdrawal of a Motion as informal, a discussion would have arisen upon the merits of the question. He had not entered on the merits of the case; but finding that other Gentlemen had not exercised the same forbearance, he would now, in a few words, explain what the views of the Government were. The state of the case was simply this: Early in the year applications were made to Government that they should undertake some works by which employment might be given to labourers in the Highlands. Some gentlemen, who had taken great pains in affording work and relief to the destitute, among others Mr. Campbell of Islay, came to him and stated that the people of the Highlands were in extreme distress; and suggested that some undertaking of public advantage like the present should be commenced by which employment would be given. The Government sent down Sir Edward Belcher, a competent officer, to report on the subject which had been thus brought under their notice. That officer inspected the Crinan Canal; and his report was, that that canal it was impossible to improve so as to make it a ship canal; and that for such a purpose a totally now canal must be made on different ground, and at an expense of not less than 500,000 l. An engineer of high eminence, who had been employed in Ireland, was sent down to examine the proposal now before the House; and on receiving all the information which could be derived from these sources, the Government did not delay in coming to a
6
conclusion. They would certainly never have dreamed of undertaking this work, unless for the purpose of giving employment to the people of the Highlands. It had been stated to the Government by proprietors in the Highlands—and he could not speak in too high terms of the manner in which the Highland proprietors had provided work and relief for the people—it was represented that as there would not be the same amount of potatoes planted this summer as usual, it would be beyond their power in these circumstances to give the necessary employment to the population. Now, it was felt by the Government that if they could give employment to the labourers in the Highlands, and at the same time do that which would be of great public utility, they were called upon to do so; and, therefore, he thought they did not deserve to be told that this was a mere job for the advantage of a single proprietor. All the papers connected with the subject were before the House; and more decided evidence of the necessity of the case, he would venture to say, could hardly have been given. He would not, however, go further with the Bill till he obtained the consent of the House to the vote in a Committee of Supply.
SIR J. GRAHAMdid not wish to forestall the decision on the vote; but he must say, that, having voted against 620,000 l being given for railways in Ireland, and considering the present condition of the country, he was not prepared to vote a grant of 150,000 l. for the formation of a canal in Argyleshire.
Motion and Amendment withdrawn, and the order for committing the Bill discharged.

TREASURY INFLUENCE AT ELECTIONS.
On the Order of the Day for Committee on the Registration of Voters Bill,
MR. BANKESsaid: I wish to ask the hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Treasury whether he acknowledges a letter purporting to be signed by him, which I have seen published in a Scotch newspaper; and I think the question is particularly appropriate at this moment, since the first two Orders of the Pay are the Registration of Voters Bill, and the Parliamentary Electors Bill. The letter is as follows:—
"Treasury, Whitehall, June 27, 1847.
My dear Melgund—Understanding that it has been denied that any Government influence was exercised to prevent you originally from standing

7
for Greenock, I think it right that your opponents should know that in consequence of representations that were made to myself and others respecting the state of parties in the borough, and the feelings that were entertained on this subject in other quarters, I certainly authorized a strong remonstrance being made to you, and endeavoured by every means in my power to dissuade you from coming forward as a candidate.—I am, yours truly,
(Signed) "H. TUFNELL."
The questions I have to put are, first, does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that letter as written by him in his official capacity of Secretary to the Treasury, it being dated, "Treasury, Whitehall?" secondly, what are the means in his power which he used to dissuade Lord Melgund from coining forward as a candidate? and, thirdly, did he write that letter with the authority of the First Lord of the Treasury, the author of the Reform Bill?
MR. TUFNELL: As far as my recollection enables me to say, I believe the letter just quoted is a correct copy of a private communication which I sent to Lord Melgund. As soon as I found that that letter had been published in a newspaper, I wrote to Lord Melgund, expressing my surprise that a private communication from one friend to another, should have found its way into a public journal. The means which I referred to were such arguments of discussion as one friend might properly use towards another; and of course it was written without consulting the noble Lord at the head of the Government.
LORD G. BENTINCK: I should like to ask, Sir, what explanation the hon. Gentleman gives of the words "the Government influence." I want to know of what that consists, and how it is used. I wish also to call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that in this letter, which he represents to be private, he says, "I think it right your opponents should know." It would seem as if Lord Melgund's opponents should be made acquainted with the contents of "a private letter."
MR. HUME: I really do interpose. I think to occupy the time of the House with private matters of this kind is most unfair. It may be the noble Lord's turn by and by. I really do not think it honourable to Lord Melgund or his friends that they should have published that letter.
MR. BANKES: I put the question because I saw the letter published in the public newspapers.
Question again put, that the Order of the Day be read for the commitment of

THE REGISTRATION OF VOTERS BILL.
MR. V. SMITHrose to move as an Amendment, that the Bill should be committed that day three months. He thought that the opinion of the Committee from which the Bill emanated—a Committee in reality appointed with the view of inquiry into the votes made by the Anti-Corn-Law League—was entitled to very little weight, on account of the want of unanimity which prevailed amongst its members; for example, here was a question whether objection on account of double entry should be a good one—a most important question, involving a new form of objection, which was in his opinion very much calculated to limit the franchise. Upon that question, so important, there were only six Members present, and it was decided upon the authority of four against two; and this want of unanimity was observable throughout the whole of their proceedings. It would be impossible to proceed with the Bill during the present Session. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Midhurst had himself introduced nine important amendments in the Bill, which there would not be time to discuss. He trusted, therefore, that the hon. and learned Gentleman would postpone the Bill altogether till the ensuing Session of Parliament.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that the Bill had been read a second time two months ago, and had been eight successive Wednesdays on the Paper for going into Committee; and his object for going into Committee was that the clauses should receive the just consideration to which they were entitled, before the measure passed into law. He was, therefore, still very anxious that the House should go into Committee, and discuss the several clauses of the Bill.
After some discussion relating chiefly to the possibility of passing the Bill in the present Session, the Committee was deferred till next day.

PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORS BILL.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEmoved the Second Reading of the Parliamentary Electors Bill.
SIR G. GREYwas not aware that the Bill had been committed to the charge of the hon. Member for Finsbury; but if the hon. Member persevered in his Motion, he should be obliged to resist its further progress.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, that the two hon. Members whose names were on the back of the Bill, were not present, and the Bill was now in the hands of the House. Seeing, however, that it was the wish of the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary that the Bill should not be proceeded with that day, he would not object to a postponement till next day, if it were arranged that the measure should then be positively proceeded with.
MR. S. O'BRIENbegged to object to the Motion being withdrawn. He should certainly take the sense of the House on the subject.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMsaid, he believed there was as yet no amendment moved to the Motion that the Bill be read a second time. He believed this Bill had been under discussion in the course of last Session; and, entertaining a strong objection to it, he felt it his duty then to give his opposition to it. He was still of the same opinion, and should feel it to be his duty to vote against the second reading of the Bill before the House; but at the same time, he thought it was rather hard to press a measure forward in the absence of the hon. Members who had charge of it, and that it was well for the House to display a mutual courtesy on such occasions. Therefore, though there was no Member in the House more opposed to the Bill than he was, he should beg to move, as an Amendment, that the Order of the Day be postponed until to-morrow.
MR. T. S. DUNCOMBEexplained. He was asked to give his support to this Bill after his own had been thrown out; and he was convinced that if not persevered in, great dissatisfaction would be occasioned in the public mind. If those by whom the Bill had been introduced, now proposed to withdraw it, he should certainly give them his strongest opposition. He did not see why it could not now be read a second time, and afterwards considered in Committee, as it contained but one clause, which could be easily disposed of any day. [Sir DE LACY EVANS here entered the House.] Knowing as he did the anxiety of his hon. and gallant Friend to pass this Bill, he hoped he would persevere in moving the second reading, and that the right hon. Baronet would not press his Amendment.
MR. STAFFORD O'BRIENbegged to explain, in the presence of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, his reasons for pressing the Motion. He adopted that course be-
10
cause he thought the hon. and gallant Member had been wanting in his duty to the House in absenting himself at three o'clock, when a Bill, on the back of which his name was appended, stood second on the orders of the day.
SIR JAMES GRAHAMbrought forward the Amendment in consequence of the absence of the hon. and gallant Officer; but, seeing him now in his place, he would, with the leave of the House, beg to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment withdrawn.
SIR DE LACY EVANSexpressed his acknowledgments to his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury for taking care of his property in his absence, and to the hon. Member for Northamptonshire for the manner in which he had criticised his conduct. He had been engaged, however, that day in opposing what he believed to be a decided job; and, hearing hon. Gentlemen making very long speeches on a former question, he thought he might safely venture to absent himself from the House for half an hour in order to meet some of his constituents. As it was a rare thing at this period of the Session to see so full a House, he should feel it his duty to move the second reading of the Bill. Having had several opportunities of stating his reasons for thinking such a measure as the present necessary, he would not now trouble the House by entering at any length into the question. He would merely observe, that so far from interfering with the Reform Bill, it only carried out the principle of that great measure. Persons of the highest condition in society were constantly excluded from the franchise by reason of the very limited period now allowed by the law for the payment of rates and taxes; and he did not think the extension of the time for which taxes were payable, from April to October, which this Bill contemplated, was too long. The only objection which he could conceive to such a provision, was that entertained by those who thought that it was desirable to restrict the electors to as small a number as possible.
The House divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 72: Majority 5.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Bernal, R.

Blake, M. J.

Baine, W.

Bowring, Dr.

Bannerman, A.

Brotherton, J.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Brown, W.

11

Browne, hon. W.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Buller, C.

Osborne, R.

Buller, E.

Parker, J.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Pechell, Capt.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Perfect, R.

Duncan, G.

Pinney, W.

Dundas, Adm.

Plumridge, Capt.

Dundas, F.

Protheroe, E. D.

Escott, B.

Pusey, R.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Rich, H.

Ferrand, W. B.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Forster, M.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Gore, hon. R.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Strutt, rt. hon. E.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Tancred, H. W.

Hallyburton, Ld. J. F. G.

Thornely, T.

Hatton, Capt. V.

Trelawny, J. S.

Hawes, B.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Hervey, Lord A.

Tufnell, H.

Hindley, C.

Villiers, hon. C.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Vivian, J. H.

Hume, J.

Wakley, T.

Jervis, Sir J.

Walker, R.

Macaulay, rt. hon. T. B.

Ward, H. G.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Williams, W.

Moffatt, G.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Monahan, J. H.

TELLERS.

Morris, D.

Evans, Sir de L.

Morison, Gen.

Duncombe, T.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Henley, J. W.

Adderley, C. B.

Hildyard, T. B. T.

Arkwright, G.

Hill, Lord E.

Austen, Col.

Hotham, Lord

Bankes, G.

Houldaworth, T.

Bennet, P.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Jermyn, Earl

Bodkin, W. H.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Boldero, H. G.

Jones, Capt.

Botfield, B.

Lawson, A.

Bowles, Adm.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Brooke, Lord

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Buck, L. W.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Carew, W. H. P.

Miles, P. W. S.

Christopher, R. A.

Mundy, E. M.

Clive, Visct.

O'Brien, A. S.

Codrington, Sir W.

Pakington, Sir T.

Colville, C. R.

Palmer, G.

Courtenay, Lord

Powell, Col.

Denison, E. B.

Prime, R.

Dickinson, F. H.

Rashleigh, W.

Dodd, G.

Repton, G. W. J.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Rolleston, Col.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Round, J.

East, Sir J. B.

Seymer, H. K.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Stuart, T.

Fellowes, E.

Thornhill, G.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Tollemache, T.

Floyer, J.

Verner, Sir W.

Frewen, C. H.

Vyse, H.

Fuller, A. E.

Waddington, H. S.

Gardner, J. D.

Walpole, S. H.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Worcester, Marq. of

Granby, Marq. of

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Greene, T.

Grogan, E.

TELLERS.

Hamilton, G. A.

Newdegate, C. N.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Spooner, R.

Bill thrown out.

POOR REMOVAL ACT AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
MR. W. H. BODKINmoved the Second Reading of this Bill. Without entering at all into the question of the law of settlement, he thought it must be obvious that some remedy was required for the evils inflicted on certain classes of the poor by the Bill of last Session. Poor persons, who were previously supported by their own parishes while they resided in adjoining parishes, were now neglected, or left no resource except the workhouse; and he thought the simplest way to obviate this evil was to adopt the course proposed to be taken by the Bill before the House, namely, to make the common fund of the union available for the maintenance of such persons. This plan, though by no means a universal remedy for the evils of the Poor Removal Act, would, he thought, disarm a great deal of the opposition which had been raised to that measure.
MR. CHRISTOPHERadmitted the simplicity of the Bill; but then there could be nothing more simple in principle than to abolish the whole parochial system of England altogether. He thought the Bill advanced a step in that direction, and tended to the establishment of a national rating, and he therefore objected to it. He would not, however, carry his opposition so far as to object to the second reading.
SIR G. GREYapproved of the principle of the measure; the main objection to it seemed to be that it did not go far enough, leaving untouched some of the evils arising from the present system.
MR. WAKLEYconsidered that the hon. and learned Member for Rochester had done an essential public service in proposing this Bill; and he also thought that much credit was due to the Government for the ready assent they had given to the introduction of the measure. It was admitted that there were two grievances under the existing law; the one being the burden of the expense which was thrown upon particular parishes, and the other the treatment of the poor induced by that expenditure. This Bill, however, would meet both those difficulties. In his opinion, all that had taken place with reference to this subject of late years tended to show the necessity of making the charge of maintaining the poor a national charge. He believed the poor would never be properly treated until such an arrangement was made.
Bill read a second time.
House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock.