Commons Sitting of 4 August 1848

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Money Order Department (Post Office); Importation of Sheep, &c. Prohibition; Contagious Disorders Prevention (Sheep, &c.).
2° Turnpike Acts Continuance; Canada Government; Metropolitan Commissions of Sewers.
Reported,—Insolvent Debtors' Court; Sugar Duties.
3° and passed:—Paymaster's Offices Consolidation: Highway Rates; Farmers' Estate Society (Ireland).
PRTITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Wilson Patten, from Exeter, and other Places, for a Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Sir Charles Lemon, from Miners and Others connected with the Fowey Consols Copper Mine, in Cornwall, against the Copper and Lead Duties Bill.—By Mr. Devereux, from Waterford, for Abolition of the Ministers' Money (Ireland).—By Sir Benjamin Hall, from several Lodges of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, for an Extension of the Benefit Societies Act.—By Lord Courtenay, from Plympton, for an Alteration of the Law respecting Education.—By Lord Dudley Stuart, from Luke James Hansard, Printer, of Southampton Street, Bloomsbury, suggesting the Establishment of a National Printing Office.—By Mr. C. P. Villiers, from the Guardians of Wolverhampton Union, for an Alteration of the Poor Law.—By Lord Dudley Stuart, from the Committee of the West London Anti-Enclosure Association, respecting the Management of St. James's Park.—By Mr. Christy, from Newcastle-under-Lyme, in favour of the Sale of Beer Bill.—By Mr. Stuart Wortley, from the Rothsay Young Men's Association for Mutual Improvement, against the Scientific Societies Bill.—By Mr. Henry Herbert, from the Grand Jury of the County of Kerry, suggesting Remedial Measures for the State of Ireland.

POOR LAW UNION CHARGES (No. 2) BILL.
House in Committee.
On Clause 1,
MR. C. BULLERsaid, that one object of the Bill was to renew the temporary law respecting the irremovability of the poor, and to continue Mr. Bodkin's Bill for one year. In doing that he thought it right to make the whole subject of the Bill extend only for one year also.
MR. BROTHERTONhoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Buller) would bring in a Bill to make the poor in large towns chargeable upon the unions. At present the poor had to keep the poor, for the rich evaded this duty. In the parish in which he lived the poor-rates were 1s. in the pound, while in the next parish they were 7s. the whole of the poor being kept by the adjoining parish. It frequently happened that persons made their fortunes in towns, and then removed into close townships in the neighbourhood to reside, by which means they were no longer liable to the maintenance of the poor in the parishes where they had amassed their wealth.
MR. HUDSONcould confirm the statement of the hon. Member for Salford as to the effect of the present system. Some of the richest parishes in the city of York were almost entirely relieved from poor-rates. There was another point to which he begged to call the attention of the right bon. Gentleman (Mr. C. Buller), and that was the hardship of which railway proprietors had to complain in the rating of railways to the relief of the poor. In looking over the accounts of one railway with which he was connected, the Eastern Counties, he found that they had paid 12,000 l. in rates during the last half-year, for 250 miles of railway, which was about 8l. per acre; while he believed it would be found that agricultural parishes only paid on average of from 3s. to 3s. 6d. per acre throughout the kingdom. He feared that the effect of the present Bill would be to saddle upon the railways, as the large ratepayers, the additional rate which would be levied upon the union generally, and that they would thus have to contribute to the maintenance of the poor in parishes in which they had no property. He hoped, at least, that the subject of railway rateability would be taken out of the hands of magistrates. It was not right that so much injustice should be perpetrated upon the promoters of undertakings which rather deserved the fostering hand

1145
of the Government, The railway companies only asked for justice; but it must strike the House as a monstrous injustice that they should pay 8l. per acre to the poor-rates while the average of the rates in agricultural parishes was only from 3s. to 3s. 6d. per acre.
MR. C. BULLERconcurred in what had fallen from the hon. Members for Sal-ford and Sunderland with regard to the hardship caused by the inequality of rating of different parishes in the same towns. He had already expressed his opinion in favour of retaining the principle of parochial chargeability; but none of the arguments in favour of this principle applied to the case of towns, in which one parish paid more than another, in consequence of the labourers living in one parish, and working in another. The question underwent much discussion in the Settlement Committee of last year; and it appeared to he the general opinion that a complete and uniform charge would he the right thing with regard to the several parishes forming large towns. He proposed to lay on the table this Session a Bill enacting that where there was a town coextensive with a union (of which he believed there were only six cases), and where the town was not under a local Act, there should be in such cases an entire union charge for all purposes whatsoever. If the Bill gave satisfaction, it would be easy to extend it to smaller towns which were not coextensive with unions. He thus proposed to feel his way, and he hoped the House would allow him to go on in this kind of pottering manner. The present discussion was somewhat premature.
MR. E. DENISONwished the right hon. Gentleman to give his opinion on the three following cases: Firstly, if a person presented himself at the door of a union workhouse in a state of intoxication, ought such a person to he an object of public charity? Secondly, supposing the case that some labourers had been engaged in labouring work, and had been in the receipt of very large wages—that a strike took place, that those parties were thrown out of work, and that they immediately had recourse to the union workhouse, and represented themselves as destitute, ought they to be taken into the house, or otherwise receive relief? His third question was, whether certain men, between the ages of eighteen and thirty, who were known to be circulating through the country, and who were in the habit of con-
1146
stantly coming to the workhouse and asking for relief, ought to receive it from the union workhouses? Some information upon points such as those was very necessary to guide relieving officers in the discharge of their duty.
MR. MUNTZwould suggest to the House whether the relief of the poor ought not to he a national act instead of a local act. Why should funded property be free from the poor-rate, or stock in trade? He knew that the difficulty of taxing stock in trade was great, and that the expense of collecting it would he large; but that was no reason why it should not be taxed as well as any other description of property.
MR. C. BULLERsaid, the question raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham was a very large one. He had his own opinion on the subject, and it did not entirely coincide with that of the hon. Member. With respect to the questions put by the hon. Member (Mr. E. Denison), he might state that his object had been, ill the circular to parochial officers, which he hoped to lay on the table to-day, to point out to the unions the necessity of exercising a discretion in such cases; and if a general explanation of his views did I not prove sufficient, he would labour most sedulously, from time to time, until he had I made himself understood. With respect to those persons who were in the receipt; of good wages, he had attempted to guard against their being improperly relieved; and if it should be known in the neighbourhood that they were in that condition, unless they were bowed down by illness, he should say that the relieving officer would exercise a wise discretion in refusing relief. As to habitual vagrancy, he would put that act down as he would any other offence.
MR. SANDARSsaid, that though the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Buller) had been compelled by circumstances to withdraw the greater part of the measures he had introduced, yet he thanked him for Persevering with the clause which spread the charge of vagrancy over the whole union. This evil of vagrancy was so great, so increasing, that it admitted not of delay, and he was glad to see a prospect of the principle being admitted; for, depend upon it, unless the guardians generally were made to feel the burden, no effectual steps could or would be taken to mitigate the evil. The country guardians, as the law now stood, bore none of the burden, and they opposed those who did,

1147
in their attempts to put it down. In the union to which he belonged, the board passed a resolution to appoint a vagrant officer; at the very next meeting this was rescinded by an influx of country guardians, whose interest it was to keep the establishment expenses as low as possible. Again, the guardians proposed to erect sleeping apartments for the vagrants; but this was successfully opposed by the country members of the board, and the only alternative was to quarter them at those nests of vice and misery, the lodging-houses, at a great expense to the parish. The relief of the vagrants was thrown almost exclusively upon the central township, or where the poorhouse was situated. Thus, for instance, in the union of Wakefield, in the six months from October to April, no less than 3,670 cases of vagrancy occurred in one township, that of Wakefield; whilst in Alverthorpe, a populous township, only ten occurred, and in some others not one. He asked upon what principle of justice should the whole expenses be thrown upon one township? He was sorry the right hon. Gentleman had been compelled to abandon his proposed improved system of rating, namely, on the county rate, instead of the old system of averages. However just the system of averages might have been some fourteen years ago, when these unions were formed, the right no longer existed; and he contended, all those charges—the establishment, the irremovables, and the vagrants—ought to be spread over the whole union, by a fair and equitable system of rating. The proposed measure was but a temporary one, and ceased in September, 1849; but he was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say he intended to prepare, during the recess, a far more extended plan. No one knew better than he the great evils of the law as it stood; and he believed no one was more sincere in his desire to reform those abuses; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would turn his great talents to the consideration of that monster evil, the law of settlement. He considered the late change of five years' residence gaining a settlement a great improvement—a step in the right direction; but it was necessary to proceed; and he would be glad to see the five years reduced to one; at present it was a fruitful source of litigation, particularly in the different townships of a union. It cost the union of Wakefield 10 l. to 14 l. per week, or about 600 l. per annum—a sum more
1148
considerable than the whole expense would be of maintaining all these disputed cases; and then, again, look at the hardships it entailed on the poor. If a pauper had gained a settlement by five years' residence, he lost that right of relief and irremovability by removing some fifty or one hundred yards into another township of the same union; and was sent perhaps some one hundred miles off to obtain relief from that parish to which he originally belonged. He contended that, to remove from one township to another in the same union ought not to disqualify him from relief. It gave rise to cases of great hardship and cruelty. He threw out these hints to the right hon. Gentleman; and he hoped he would bring in a measure early next Session to reform these glaring defects and abuses in the system which now existed.
SIR H. WILLOUGHBYhad suggested, at the time the poor-law was passed, that small, well-administered parishes should be exempted from the operation of the law. When the right hon. Gentleman attempted to frame a new system of rating for the country, it was very like a breach of faith to these small parishes, and threw an additional burden on parishes where property had been bought and sold under the old system. If a greater burden were thrown upon property than existed at the time of the contract, it would have the effect of confiscating property.
LORD H. VANEthought it would be unjust if, by the area of rating being extended to unions instead of the parochial area, there should, as he believed, be a great additional charge upon railroads. The evil of vagrancy in the north of England was great, and one of the difficulties attending the extension of the area of chargeability was, that without some very stringent measures for the suppression of vagrancy, it would be increased by such extension of the area. The difficulties in the way of a union settlement were very great, and it would be better to proceed by a bit by bit reform, than to adopt at once so extensive a change, to which he foresaw much opposition.
MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEYsaid, in the late Chartist disturbances it had been found that the mobs were augmented by the 4,000 or 5,000 vagrants who were always preying upon the community. Unless vagrancy, which was rapidly increasing, was dealt with in a most stringent manner, the large towns would be in constant fear of

1149
an outbreak through the recklessness of I these persons. The rates of the town of Stafford, which he represented, had increased from 8,000 l. to 12,000 l. In Manchester, in 1837, the rates were only 24,000 l., whereas in 1847 they had reached the enormous amount of 125,000 l. [Mr. BULLER: The increase was for buildings.] In Norwich and other places there had been a large increase, and some change was absolutely necessary in assessing the rate; for if Norwich, Leeds, London, and other large cities, were to suffer under the infliction of an unequal tax, there would be great dissatisfaction amongst the urban population. Norwich had not only to sup port its own manufacturing poor, but that of the agricultural poor.
MR. P. HOWARDsaid, that some part of the pressure of the rates upon large towns had arisen from the general depression of trade in the early part of the year. He trusted that during the next half year much labour would be absorbed, and that the pressure upon the country would be relieved. The five years' residence might be accounted a grievance; but he believed the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) had been actuated by the most beneficent motive in bringing forward that clause, and that it was upon the whole founded on the greatest humanity. He trusted that, whatever might be the evils attending vagrancy, the poor-law unions would be ready to grant relief to infirm and aged vagrants.
MR. HENLEYagreed in what had fallen from the hon. Member who had just sat down, that a great deal of the pressure and temporary suffering in the country had arisen from the unfortunate depression of trade in many parts; and that a great deal of the burden of the rates had arisen from that cause and no other. With respect to the mode of dealing with vagrants, it was a most important subject, and he thought a great discretion should he exercised where persons claimed relief who were in a state of intoxication, or who had means or credit of their own. But he (Mr. Henley) had been disappointed, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman would disappoint the views of the country, by the mode in which he proposed to deal with tramps or professional vagrants. He was sorry to find that they were to be dealt with only by refusing relief. The administration of the poor-law had now become a responsible department of the Government; and the relief of the poor, be they vagrant or casual, would fall into the hands of the relieving
1150
officer, who would be an officer of the hoard of guardians, acting under the Poor Law Board. He could understand overseers putting away cases of unfounded claims for this kind of relief; but when a man in the situation of a public officer dealt with such a claim by simply denying relief, when the party ought to he punished, and which would only throw hack the party upon the overseers, he thought that such a mode of dealing with those cases was objectionable. They had better look the evil in the face, in spite of the expense of dealing with it in another way. With respect to railroads, he had never been able to understand the justice of the principle upon which this description of property was rated. He had always felt it to be a difficult subject, and had been reluctant to bring his mind to recognise the justice of the decision; but that description of property, like every other, must abide by the decision of the courts of law.
SIR W. JOLLIFFEsaid, the vagrant had half-a-dozen reasons now for following his trade which he had not before—workhouses, relieving officers, overseers, were all interested in getting rid of him as fast as they could; and there was this additional cause, that the whole country teemed with beer-shops, many of which had lodgings for the poor—these and other causes gave facilities for leading an errant life.
MR. HUDSONhad, as a chief magistrate, found it only necessary to commit vagrants found in the town. By steadily pursuing this system, and employing a few policemen, he had always found that in five or six days the town was completely cleared. A little additional expense was incurred, but it saved a good deal in the end.
MR. V. SMITHfelt persuaded that the right hon. Gentleman who brought in the Bill ought to be extremely careful to avoid doing anything that had a tendency rather to increase than to diminish the expense attendant upon the present measure; and he rather apprehended that such a result would ensue from the proceedings in which they were now engaged; he should there-force wish to see the circular which provided for the administration of the law in this matter, As, however, it seemed to be then not convenient to produce it, they might perhaps proceed with the Bill through a Committee, and he should not at present resist its progress.
MR. BULLERwished to state why

1151
throwing the charge on the union would increase those evils which had justly been made the subject of complaint. Parliament might declare that applying to the workhouse for relief was in itself an act of vagrancy; but what would they do with the class who did not care how soon they committed an act of vagrancy, or what might be the consequences of their actions—who would rather go to gaol than to the workhouse—and who, with the prospect of the latter before them, would take up a stone and break a window in order to their being committed to prison? Of course, if the House chose, they might inflict a more severe punishment than imprisonment; but as his department was not that of penal legislation, he was not prepared to propose any measure on that subject; and if it were his duty to propose such a measure, he should certainly put it off till the next Session. With respect to the charge of vagrancy, he begged to say that if they threw the whole cost on single parishes, they might effect their object much more completely in another way; for if they did not mind justice, their plan would be to place the cost on the clergyman, or on the richest gentleman in the parish. If they resolved to put down vagrancy, they must have a relieving officer appointed for the union at large. In the union at large there was not properly a settlement, but rather in the parish, and the parish officers could scarcely deal efficiently with vagrants; when, however, a union happened to be coextensive with a town, that circumstance gave great facilities in relieving vagrancy; but he thought that the modified plan proposed by the present measure was the best that, under the circumstances, could be proposed to Parliament. He hoped the House would remember that the administration of relief to vagrants did not form any part of the poor-law; and it would be against the whole principle of the poor-law to carry it beyond the parishes in which acts of vagrancy were committed. One of the objects which he had in view was to throw the burden of relieving vagrancy upon those who possessed the power of repressing it.
Clause 1, amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed. Report to be received on Monday.

THE GERMANIC CONFEDERATION.
MR. DISRAELIsaid: I wish to ask a question of the noble Lord the Secretary
1152
for Foreign Affairs, respecting a new act of aggression and annexation of that Power which is called, by courtesy, the Germanic Confederation. The House will recollect by the Treaties of 1839, on the dismemberment of the kingdom of the Netherlands, the King of the Netherlands, acting under the advice of the great Powers, among which was Great Britain, ceded a portion of the grand duchy of Limburg to the new kingdom of Belgium; and in that treaty it was regulated that the duchy of Limburg should become a province of the kingdom of the Netherlands—it being a condition in the same treaty that the King of the Netherlands should compensate the agnates of his house, those who were interested in the accession to the duchy which he had ceded, for the loss they might sustain, and that he should also compensate the Germanic Confederation for the loss which it might sustain from a relinquishment of the duchy of Luxemburg. The King of the Netherlands, with the advice and the sanction of Great Britain, made a pecuniary compensation to the agnates of his house; and he also undertook that, although Limburg had become a province of the kingdom of the Netherlands, so far as contingents of men and money went, the Germanic Confederation should not lose anything by the change. These arrangements, I need not remind the House, were perfectly satisfactory to all parties. They tended to maintain the peace of Europe, they were satisfactory to the people, from whom a murmur had never been heard. But by a decree very recently issued by the National Assembly at Frankfort, the arrangements then made are entirely repudiated on the part of the Germanic Confederation, and the National Assembly has decided that it cannot sanction those wise and salutary treaties to which Great Britain was a party. The consequence is, that the same circumstances which have already occurred in Schleswig and Holstein are now likely to occur, if they have not already taken place, in the duchy of Luxemburg. The peace of Europe is again disturbed and menaced by this morbid system of annexation manifested by the Confederation. Having explained the foundation of the inquiry which I wish to make, I now beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any communication upon this subject to make to the House; and whether he can hold out any hopes to us that, by his influence, the faith of these treaties can be maintained?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: The hon. Gentleman has stated correctly the obligations entered into by the Treaty of 1839. By that treaty a portion of the duchy of Luxemburg was ceded and annexed to the kingdom of Belgium. The House is aware that the grand duchy of Luxemburg formed part of the Germanic Confederation, the King of the Netherlands being a member of the Germanic Confederation, as duke of the grand duchy of Luxemburg; the articles of that treaty of 1839 stated that, in consideration of the cession made by the grand duke of a portion of Luxemburg, be was to receive an equivalent in Limburg. The district was described, and it was to be held by him, either in his capacity of grand duke, or it was to he incorporated with the kingdom of the Netherlands. There was a subsequent article, by which the King of the Netherlands was to compensate the agnates of the house of Nassau for the loss they had sustained, and also the Germanic Confederation. The hon. Gentleman stated very correctly what these arrangements were. The King made an arrangement with the agnates of his house; what arrangement was entered into with the Germanic Confederation, Her Majesty's Government have no official knowledge of. But I have recently had an official communication from the Minister of the King of the Netherlands with regard to the proceedings of the National Assembly at Frankfort, respecting that portion of the empire referred to. Before Her Majesty's Government shall be in a position to decide as to the degree of obligation imposed or conferred in that treaty upon England to interfere with regard to these transactions, I find it necessary to inquire from the Government of the Netherlands what passed between the late King of the Netherlands and the Germanic Confederation. I have not obtained that information, and therefore I am not able to say whether the Government feel themselves bound or entitled to interfere, and if so in what way.

THE METROPOLITAN POLICE.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTwished to know whether it was true that certain portions of the police had been armed with swords, having saws at the back; and if they had, whether it was done by the sanction and recommendation of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department; and whether it was
1154
his intention that they should be habitually so armed?
SIR G. GREYassured the noble Lord that no such intention existed as to arm the police habitually with swords. It had been the practice at different times, and in circumstances of danger, to arm the police. A larger number than usual had been armed in London, Liverpool, and Manchester, in consequence of the threatening language which had been held. The formidable weapons referred to formed part of a store in the Tower belonging to the Ordnance, to whom an application had been made; and they granted a loan of them because they were not the most serviceable. The backs of them were serrated in the manner of a saw, as they were intended formerly for the use of troops in a bivouac, for the felling of trees and the erection of tents. They were not intended for permanent use.

CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL.
On the question that the House resolve itself into a Committee,
SIR DE LACY EVANSstated, that cases of extensive treating had been clearly proved in the North Cheshire election.
LORD J. RUSSELL, who was almost inaudible in the gallery, was understood to say that the law as it stood was intended to visit with punishment those who had treated, with the view of corruptly influencing votes; but if the treating existed without any intention of corruptly influencing votes, he did not see how, in such a case, the penalties of the law could be applied. The application of those penalties would naturally depend upon the particular circumstances of each case, for it was impossible to make a law which would apply exactly to every instance.
SIR R. PEELobserved, that there was some misunderstanding as to the effect of the present law; and it was supposed that difficulties arose from its recent change. Now, such, he apprehended, was not the case. The law was not recently made more strict than it was by the old statute which had existed for 150 years. The effect of the noble Lord's alteration was, that if at any period shortly before or after the election there should he treating, with the intention of influencing voters corruptly—that in that case the treating rendered the Member liable to the loss of his scat. In that Act of the noble Lord's, the intent of treating, to render it part of the

1155
corpus delicti, must be an intent of corruptly influencing. But before that law, the more giving of refreshment was, under the old statute, an offence, without reference to the motives of the giver, and rendered him liable to the loss of his seat. Such would have been the effect of the Act passed in King William's time—an Act passed not to restrain corruption, but to diminish the expenses of elections. As to the distribution of 2s. 6d. tickets, he ventured to say, that before the enactment of the noble Lord's measure, the same question which now agitated the House would have equally arisen—namely, the question, whether it be rational to admit this moderate degree of treating, or no—a question and a difficulty which had been engendered and left unsettled by the state of the law as it existed for 150 years.
MR. HENLEYthought that the existing law had been well explained by the right hon. and learned Member for Bath (Mr. S. Wortley), and the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel). In the present case, by no possible interpretation of the law were the parties amenable. It was quite impossible to define the proper limits of treating. If inquiry was to be made into every case of a gentleman being hospitable to his tenants, where, pray, was such an inquiry to stop? In the present case it appeared that the treating was neither corrupt, nor given by the candidate. What was there then to complain of? He hold that it was a morbid feeling of pureism which had induced the Committee to report the matter to the House at all. The fact was, that if you refused to allow any expenses of the kind to be defrayed by Members, you would be virtually disfranchising the great masses of the poorer classes.
House in Committee.
On Clause 15 (Persons who may be implicated in corrupt practices, and who may be examined, indemnified),
MR. HOBHOUSEopposed the clause. The Committee divided on the question that the clause stand part of the Bill:—Ayes 117; Noes 19; Majority 98.

List of the NOES.

Arkwright, G.

Hodgson, W. N.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Hood, Sir A.

Boldero, H. G.

Hudson, G.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Christy, S.

Mullings, J. R.

Du Pre, C. G.

Rendlesham, Lord

Edwards, H.

Sturt, H. G.

Fuller, A. E.

Urquhart, D.

Hall, Col.

TELLERS.

Henley, J. W.

Sibthorp, Col.

Hildyard, E. C.

Hobhouse, B.

Clause to stand part of the Bill; the remaining clauses were disposed of.
On the Schedule being proposed,
MR. HODGSON MR. HODGSON moved that Carlisle be omitted. He would ask, why had London been omitted? Why had Lancaster been omitted?
The SOLICITOR GENERAL: I proposed to insert it.
MR. HODGSON: Why had Aylesbury been omitted? Why had Sligo been omitted?
The SOLICITOR GENERAL: I was going to propose it.
MR. HODGSONwould add another borough—Athlone. It was true that many of those boroughs had returned Gentlemen who generally supported the views of Her Majesty's Government. He thought the schedule was very partially and capriciously drawn.
MR. P. HOWARDgave the Bill his most steady and earnest support; and in doing so, he acted in accordance with the wishes, if not of the whole, of a very large and respectable body of the constituency of Carlisle. A petition had been presented from the mayor and corporation of Carlisle, praying that this Bill might pass, and a searching inquiry take place into all the circumstances of the Carlisle election. He (Mr. P. Howard) could not forget that the liberties of a people had been oftener ruined by corruption than by tyranny.
The SOLICITOR GENERALreferred to the report of the Carlisle Election Committee, showing that a large expenditure for the purpose of treating had taken place at the late election; that Mr. Hodgson had been found guilty of treating through his agents, though it was not proved that he had been cognisant of their practices.
MR. C. BERKELEYhoped the inquiry would be extended to Carlisle and Cheltenham too. Why should the hon. Member wish to screen Carlisle, or shrink from inquiry, if there was nothing he was ashamed of?
MR. HODGSONdid not object to extend the inquiry to Carlisle, if they would make it general.
MR. WYLDdefended the Bodmin constituency, whom he declared to be as pure as any in the empire. They recorded their votes unrestricted and uncontrolled; and the ballot would be of no use to them. Bodmin had undergone the ordeal of a Commission of Inquiry; and the application

1157
to it of this Bill was wholly unneecessary.
The SOLICITOR GENERALwas understood to say that Great Yarmouth was originally included in the Bill, but had been withdrawn, in consequcnce of the freemen being disfranchised. He proposed to insert Sligo and Lancaster, but not Bodmin, Lewes, or Gloucester.
MR. HENLEYsuggested that the Chairman should report progress, to give an opportunity of considering the cases of the boroughs now first proposed to be introduced.
The SOLICITOR GENERALhoped the Committee would first dispose of Carlisle, before reporting progress.
MR. HILDYARDsaid, there were the same grounds for inserting Bodmin as Carlisle.
The SOLICITOR GENERALread the report in the Bodmin case, where the treating had not been traced to the sitting-Member or his agents. In the case of Carlisle, the sitting Member was declared guilty of treating by his agents.
MR. ARMSTRONGdefended his constituents from the charge of corruption.
SIR E. COLEBROOKE, as a Member of the Committee in the Lancaster case, recapitulated its principal features, and said if that borough was included, it would be impossible to exclude any place.
MR. WYLDsaid, that as allusion had been made to the Bodmin election, he might state that it had been proved before the Committee that one of the electors had, in his zeal for one of the candidates, issued sixteen refreshment tickets of the value of 5s. each. He (Mr. Wyld) would have no objection to Bodmin being Placed by itself in the schedule; but he certainly must protest against its being put into such bad company as that of the boroughs now included in the schedule.
House resumed.
Committee to sit again.

SUPPLY—THE BRITISH MUSEUM.
SIR R. PEEL, in moving the estimates for the British Museum, observed that he was sure he should consult the wishes of the House by refraining from any lengthened remarks at so late a period of the night. The original estimate on account of the Museum was 53,000 l.; but a saving had been this year effected by the trustees to the amount of 5,000 l. The reduced estimate was now 48,000 l. A sum of 25,000 l. had been already granted on account;
1158
and he had now to move that the balance, 28,445 l., be voted. In proposing this vote he was sure the House would excuse him for a single moment, if he referred to the magnificent bequest which had been made to the country by the late Mr. Grenville, One of the finest libraries that had over been formed by the literary skill and knowledge of a collector had been presented to the Museum by that gentleman. During his lifetime, Mr. Grenville, as every one who was acquainted with literature and science knew, devoted many years in collecting books of the rarest worth, and at his death he munificently devoted them to the public use. The library consisted of not less than 20,000 volumes, and the cost to Mr. Grenville was 54,000 l.; but the intrinsic value of the collection could not he estimated by any reference to its pecuniary value; for it was one of the most extraordinary collections that had ever been made. It was impossible that he (Sir R. Peel) could lot this the first opportunity which had presented itself, pass without publicly expressing the gratitude and respect and esteem which he was confident every one must entertain for the memory of an excellent man and eminent statesman, who in his lifetime rendered great and valuable service to literature and to science, and at his death bequeathed a most munificent gift to his country in furtherance of those two great objects. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the sum of 28,445 l. be granted to Her Majesty to complete the sum necessary to defray the charges of the British Museum for the year ending the 25th of March, 1849.
Vote agreed to.
House resumed.

SUGAR DUTIES BILL.
On the question that the Sugar Duties Bill be reported,
LORD G. BENTINCKtrusted that the right hon. Baronet the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not bring up the report upon the Sugar Duties Bill, unless he wished the name of Wood to be immortalised in this Bill of blunders. If he persevered, there would he nothing but laughter at him and the hon. Member for West-bury. There was not a merchant in the City who would take the Chancellor of the Exchequer for his clerk. He was sure if this Bill was persevered in, there was not a merchant's clerk in the City who would not believe that he ought to be the Chan-

1159
cellor of the Exchequer. It was, therefore, as a friend of the Government he came forward. He did not care a jot about the blunders, as they were all in favour of the West Indies; be only desired not to see the right hon. Gentleman become ridiculous.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERbelieved the calculations on which the duties were based were correct, and he would persevere in bringing up the report. He was quite willing that no merchant in the City should receive him as a clerk.
Bill reported. To be read a third time.
On the Motion of Mr. PARKER, the House at its rising adjourned to Monday next.
House adjourned at Two o'clock.