Sitting of 25 May 1830

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. For an alteration in the Hackney Coach Act, by Mr. HOBHOUSE, from certain Inhabitants of London. For the Abolition of Slavery, by the same hon. Member, from Chichester and its vicinity:—By Mr. D. PENDARVIS, from Camborne, Cornwall. For the abolition of the East India Company's Monopoly, by Sir M. S. STEWART, from Merchants of Greenock and from Port Glasgow. Against the Use of Machinery, by Mr. O'CONNELL, from the Members of the British Association for promoting Co-operative Knowledge. For the repeal of the Irish Vestries Act, by Sir J. NEWPORT, from the Inhabitants of Glenmore:—By Sir M. SOMERVILLE, from Screen (Meath):—By Mr. JEPHSON, from Buttevant:—By Mr. O'CONNELL, from five Parishes in Clare. Against the Stamp Duties, by Mr. R. KING, from Landowners and Occupiers in the County of Cork:—By Sir J. BRYDGES, from Colcrainc:—By Mr. BLAIR, from the Dean of Faculty and Members of the Society of Writers, Ayr. Against the Irish Constabulary Act, by Sir M. SOMERVILLE, from the Magistrates of Meath. In favour of Mr. Owen's Plan, by Mr. HUME, from the Members of the Co-operative Trading Association. Against the Poor (Irish and Scotch) Removal Bill, from the Rector and Churchwardens of St. Mary's, Whitechapel:—By Mr. R. COLBORNE, from the Governors of the Poor of St. George's, Hanover-square:—By Mr. BYNG, from the Overseers of Paddington, and St. George's, Middlesex. For the abolition of the Punishment of Death for Forgery, by Mr. GUEST, from Honiton. For extending Corporation Privileges to all Inhabitants of Corporate Towns, by Mr. O'CONNELL, from Cork. Against the Sale of Beer Bill, by Sir R. VVYYAN, from Stratton, Cornwall. Against allowing Tobacco to be Grown in the Kingdom, by Mr. LIDDELL., from the Tobacco Manufacturers of Alnwick. Against the increased Duty on Spirits, by Mr. TALBOT, from the Distillers of the County of Perth; and from the Agricultural Society of Perth.

PROFANATION OF THE SABBATH.
Mr. Hobhousepresented a Petition, signed by 7,000 or 8,000 Journeyman Bakers employed in London, Southwark, Westminster, and in different other places within ten miles of the Metropolis, praying that the House would adopt some measure to prevent the necessity of their pursuing their worldly avocations on the Lord's Day.
Sir T. Baringobserved, that this Petition, coming as it did from a large body of Christians, who felt themselves called on to pray for relief from a Christian legis-
1074
lature, deserved serious attention. The custom of breaking and profaning the Sabbath was a greatly-increasing evil, and when individuals came to the House and called on the Legislature to enable them to keep that day holy, he thought that their Petition should be complied with. While he was touching on this subject, he could not avoid adverting to the admonitory letter which had recently been sent forth by a right rev. Prelate, (the Bishop of London) and which, did that right rev. personage infinite credit. Whatever odium might be attempted to be cast on that right rev. Prelate, or whatever taunts might be levelled at him by certain individuals, on account of his having written that letter, still he was of opinion that the thanks of every real friend to religion in the community was due to the right rev. Prelate for his exertions on this occasion. He remembered some years ago that a similar petition was presented from another class of persons—he meant the fishmongers—who complained that they were also obliged to work on the Sabbath. That petition, he was sorry to say, was treated with ridicule; but he trusted that the Petition now presented would be received in a different manner.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonsupported the prayer of the petition; and hoped that the hon. member for Westminster would move for a committee to inquire into the subject.
Mr. Humesaid,he entertained a different opinion. No inquiry nor consideration was necessary, nor could the House afford any remedy to the alleged evil. To legislate on it would be most useless, and he hoped the House would be better employed than in making the attempt. The master bakers had the remedy in their own hands. They might, if they pleased, shut up their shops on Sunday.
Mr. Alderman Woodpresented a similar petition from seven or eight hundred Master-bakers of London and the parts adjacent, praying for the repeal of the existing law, by which they were compelled to bake dinners within certain hours on a Sunday, and were thus prevented from attending divine service.
Sir T. Baring Sir T. Baring, in like manner, gave his support to this petition, and observed, that if we excluded Jews (he did not mean to say we were wise in so doing) because they did not, like ourselves, bear the name of Christians, we ought to show by our con-

1075
duct that we had more than an empty title to that name.
Mr. Slaneywished to ask the hon. Members who were pressing these petitions on the House, whether the measure they proposed, of absolutely preventing Bakers from baking dinners on a Sunday, would not be more injurious to those who were, by the present custom, enabled to send their humble provisions to be baked on Sundays, than it could be beneficial to the Bakers? Not only would these poor people be put to much inconvenience, but they would, by being obliged to stay at home to cook their own dinners, be prevented from going to church, as they were now accustomed to do. So that, even the measure now proposed was meant in favour of religion, it was one of the most short-sighted measures that could have been imagined. It reminded him of an attempt, made in a similar spirit, to prevent the barbers from shaving on a Sunday morning, by which, if successful, the advantage of hundreds would have been sacrificed for the ease of one.
Petitions laid on the Table.

SIR JONAH BARRINGTON.
Lord F. L. Gower Lord F. L. Gower, brought up the report of the committee appointed to draw up an Address to his Majesty for the removal of Sir Jonah Barrington from the office of Judge of the High Court of Admiralty in Ireland.
The Address was read as follows:—
Most Gracious Sovereign:—We your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons, in Parliament assembled, beg leave humbly to represent to your Majesty, that the office of Judge of the High Court of Admiralty in Ireland is an office of dignity and importance, on the impartial and incorrupt execution of which the honour of the Crown, and the protection of the rights and interests of many, both of your Majesty's subjects, and of foreigners engaged in maritime pursuits greatly depend. That by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of Ireland, bearing date the 23rd of May 1797, Doctor Barrington, now Sir Jonah Barrington, was appointed to the said office of Judge of the High Court of Admiralty in Ireland. That it appears to your faithful subjects that Sir Jonah Barrington, as Judge of the High Court of Admiralty in Ireland, did in the years 1805 and 1816, under colour of his official authority, apply to his own
1076
use two sums, amounting to 500 l. 9s. 2d. out of the proceeds of the derelict ship "Nancy," then lodged in the hands of the Registrar of that Court; and that he did, in the year 1810, in a similar manner, apply to his own use the sum of 200 l. out of the proceeds of the "Redstrand," derelict. That it appears to your faithful subjects, that Sir Jonah Barrington has been thereby guilty of serious malversation in the discharge of his office of Judge of the High Court of Admiralty, and that it is unfit, and would be of bad example, that he should continue to hold the said office. We therefore humbly pray your Majesty, that your Majesty will be pleased to remove Sir Jonah Barrington from the office which he holds, of Judge of the High Court of Admiralty in Ireland.
On the question "That this Address be read the second time,"
Mr. D. W. Harveyaddressed the House in behalf of Sir Jonah Barrington, whose case he described as one of very considerable hardship and severity. The hon. Member read several letters from Mr. Lamb (now Lord Melbourne) to Sir Jonah Barrington to shew that Mr. Lamb, when Secretary of Ireland, knew of the testimony which could be adduced against Sir Jonah. The first letter, he said, he would read was as follows, and was dated
"Whitehall, March 12th, 1828.
"Sir,—I beg leave to acknowledge your letters of the 2nd and 7th, with the enclosures contained in the latter; and, having read and attentively considered the whole of these documents, I still remain of opinion, that no explanation could be given which would prevent the House of Commons from instituting an inquiry into the causes of the absence of a Judge, for many years, from the country in which his judicial duties are to be performed."
That shewed that Mr. Lamb was perfectly cognizant of Sir Jonah Barrington's situation. The letter proceeded—
"It appears to me, that independent of the general principle which must govern all such cases, there arises upon the face of all the public documents connected with the Admiralty Court of Ireland a strong presumption, that the Legislature contemplated the personal discharge of the duties of the office by the Judge, although the instrument of his appointment has provided for the case of his occasional and necessary absence, by giving the power of nominating a deputy in such contingencies. Actuated by the same feeling which dictated my first communication, I will explicitly state the course which the Government feels itself called upon to pursue. The remedy for the alleged grievance, arising from the con-

1077
tinued absence of the Judge, cannot be had, according to law, without the intervention of both Houses of Parliament. The complaint having been made to the House of Commons, the Government cannot interpose its authority or influence for the purpose of resisting a full inquiry into all the circumstances of the case. Such an inquiry, as far as it relates personally to yourself, and not to the practice and proceedings of the Court into which it may possibly be necessary to institute an investigation, might probably be rendered unnecessary by your resignation of your office; and it is my impression that if I were enabled to pronounce your voluntary retirement, no further proceedings would be adopted, at least no further proceedings with reference to inquiry into the past."
The whole letter shewed that Mr. Lamb entertained some opinion of Sir Jonah's irregularities, but the reply of Sir Jonah was not that of a man conscious of guilt. He offered to retire from the office, the duties of which he was not filling, provided Mr. Lamb would state, as the organ of the Irish government, that he did not retire from fear of the investigation. Sir Jonah applied even for a larger pension than usual, and to that application Mr. Lamb made the following answer on March 25th.
"I am desirous of explaining myself at once, in such a manner as to leave no possible room either for present or future misapprehension. In case of your retirement from your office, I can have no objection to submit to his Majesty's Ministers any memorial which you may think proper to present; but I must be distinctly understood as not, by becoming the instrument of such communication, giving the slightest countenance or encouragement to any claim whatever, nor can I hold out the least hope or expectation that any allowance will be granted in addition to that pension which is assigned to the Judge of the Court of Admiralty upon his retirement, by 40 Geo. 3rd c. 69, s. 2."
Was that the letter, he would ask, which ought to have been written to Sir Jonah if he were the guilty man he has been described to be. It might be said, perhaps, that Mr. Lamb was then not acquainted with all the facts of the case; but he would read a letter, dated Whitehall, May 6th 1828, after Mr. Lamb certainly was acquainted with all the evidence which could be produced against Sir Jonah.
"Sir,—I beg leave to acknowledge your letters of the 25th ult. and 3rd instant; and in compliance with your request, I have directed the returns made from the Court of Admiralty in Ireland to be forwarded to you, according to your directions, at the British Consul's at Calais. I can assure you that when, in consequence of your repeated communications to
1078
me to that effect, I announced to the House of Commons your intention of resigning your situation, I distinctly stated that such intention had proceeded entirely from yourself, and that it had been formed by you upon the most honourable motives, and in compliance solely with a sense of public duty."
Here it was distinctly stated, that Mr. Lamb had described Sir Jonah, publicly described him, in the House of Commons, as retiring from the most honourable motives. All these letters, the hon. Member contended, clearly proved that Mr. Lamb had negociated with Sir Jonah Barrington for the retirement of the latter on the usual pension; Mr. Lamb implying always that on this condition all proceedings against Sir Jonah should be dropped. Mr. Lamb must at that time have been aware of Mr. Pineau's evidence; and he could not therefore help considering the present proceedings as putting Sir Jonah on his trial a second time. With respect to Sir Jonah having been so long absent from the country, the learned Judge said, he had a right to absent himself, if he pleased, because his patent allowed him to appoint a deputy. This view he could support by authority of a learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Doherty), now Solicitor General for Ireland. The hon. Member then read the following letter from Mr. Doherty to Sir Jonah Barrington, which he characterised as doing great honour to the learned Gentleman.
"My Dear Sir Jonah:—By a letter which I have just received from John Carroll, I find that he has had the pleasure of seeing you and Lady Barrington, and I can with truth assure you it has made me happy to hear you are both well. I recollect with gratitude the kindness I at all times experienced from you here, and the hospitality with which you were so good as to receive me in France. Carroll mentions that he had some conversation with you on the subject of your office in this country, but I am not able to collect from his letter precisely what passed; it is therefore that I am induced to trouble you, to request that you will have (he kindness to write to me, and freely, confidentially, and without reserve, let me know your views and wishes on that subject. You are of course aware how your court is now situated from the death of Jameson and the illness of Mabaffy. As to your resigning the office, I take it for granted that that is out of the question, the retiring pension (400 l. per annum) bearing so small a proportion to the full salary, and so far as I am concerned, it would, I feel, be impossible for me, directly or indirectly, to hold out any inducement to you further than this, that if, under circumstances, there should be any

1079
difficulty in obtaining the retirement, I think it probable that there is not any person who could more readily obviate that. Carroll mentions something of your wish to obtain a consulship, but he does not say where, and I much fear that that situation could not be easily obtained. Now, with respect to becoming your deputy, I should willingly do so, provided you fell inclined to allow a remuneration sufficient to counterbalance the loss sustained by ceasing to practise in the court (which would be to me as great as it could be to any practitioner) and also a remuneration for undertaking the labours of the office, I am aware that heretofore you have procured a deputy on moderate terms, and it is not impossible that you may do so again; but I fairly apprize you, that, circumstanced as I am, I could not diligently devote my time to the efficient discharge of those important duties without an adequate remuneration; and I believe I may feel warranted in saying that I should be likely to afford satisfaction to the practitioners, and to the Government."
Although the learned Gentleman who wrote the letter was not at the time Solicitor General, yet his appointment to that office could not, he presumed, have altered the learned Gentleman's view of Sir Jonah's right to appoint a deputy. Under these circumstances, Mr. Lamb having known of Sir Jonah Barrington's conduct, and having consented to his retiring, and it being clear that he might appoint a deputy, he thought they ought not to agree to an address which must fix an indelible stain and disgrace upon the innocent descendants of this infirm, decrepit, and dying man. He did not deny that doing so was consistent with stern justice, but Sir Jonah Barrington's age gave him a claim on the consideration of the House, and if it agreed to the address it would most assuredly be thought to act with harshness and severity towards an infirm old man.
Lord F. L. Gowercould not see very clearly what he had to do with the conduct of his predecessor in office, even if the hon. member for Colchester had made out any case against that predecessor. But the hon. Member had made out no case against Lord Melbourne. Instead of it being true that Lord Melbourne had been conversant with the evidence of Mr. Pineau, the fact was directly the reverse. Part of Mr. Pineau's evidence had, indeed, been taken in March 1828: but that was a very unimportant part, relating merely to fees and to the practice of the court. It was not until the month of May that that part of Mr. Pineau's evi-
1080
dence was taken by which Sir Jonah Barrington's dealings with the money of the suitors was established, and the most important parts of Mr. Pineau's evidence were not taken until Lord Melbourne had left office. He would not waste the time of the House with going through the whole of the hon. Member's statement. He thought the House would, after this, see the utter fallacy of that statement. As to the argument respecting Sir Jonah Barrington's patent, it might be a very good one, if he (Lord F. L. Gower) had made the absence of Sir Jonah from the country any part of the ground on which he preferred these charges against that judge. But he had not. He thought the letter of his learned friend,—a private and confidential letter, be it remembered,—which had been produced, contained nothing which was not creditable to his learned friend, who at the time he wrote it was not in office. He was totally at a loss to discover, in the speech of the hon. member for Colchester, any single reason for taking up any more of the time of the House in discussing this question.
Sir J. Newportcould not understand why a private and confidential letter, written from one friend to another, should have been dragged forward on this occasion. He wished to state, that inquiry originated in consequence of representations made by the mercantile interest of Cork, as to the mode of conducting business in the Admiralty Court. Certainly, in the investigation which ensued, it had been established that Sir Jonah Barrington had made an improper use of the suitors' money, and after that fact it was impossible for the Government to proceed otherwise than it had done.
Mr. O'Connellthought, nothing could be more unjust than to attribute any thing improper to the noble Lord, who had conducted this business. This was not—how could it be, or how could any one say it was—a party question, or that party feelings were in any way mixed up in it? All that could be said upon it, and it did not lie in Sir Jonah Barrington's mouth to say it, was, that the proceedings had been carried on too slowly and with too much lenity. Allow him, as a member of the Irish bar, to protest against the production of that confidential letter which had been read by the hon. member for Colchester. He agreed that the contents of that letter were creditable

1081
to the hon. and learned Gentleman who wrote it; but why had it been produced? Did it prove any thing with regard to this case? No, it did not. He had read the reports of the commissioners and the select committee. If he had found any thing in them creditable to Sir Jonah Barrington, he should have been glad to have brought it forward, but he had found nothing. He heartily pitied, but he could not vindicate him.
Mr. D. W. Harvey Mr. D. W. Harvey, in explanation, said, that if he admitted to the noble Lord that Mr. Lamb had not been aware of Mr. Pineau's evidence, then the ground on which Mr. Lamb urged Sir Jonah Barrington to resign must have been the absence of the latter, which was now admitted to be no ground at all. With respect to the letter of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, he bad told both that hon. Gentleman and the hon. member for Clare, that he had the letter and meant to read it; neither of them objected, and he thought, therefore, that the hon. member for Clare had gone somewhat out of his way to protest, after it was too late, against the production of such a document. He had only produced the letter for the purpose of showing that Sir Jonah Barrington was not singular in thinking that he had a right to appoint a deputy, and he had no intention of hurting the feelings of any one by the production of it.
Mr. Dohertycould assure the hon. Member that he did not object to the production of that letter. When Gentlemen considered the distressing situation of the individual in whose possession the letter was, how could any one object to the production of it, if that individual fancied it could do him any good? When he first joined the profession, Sir Jonah Barrington was at the head of his circuit. Sir Jonah had always treated him with a degree of kindness and friendship which he could not forget—which made him rejoice that he was not called upon to take any very active part in these distressing, but, he must add, just and necessary proceedings.
On the question that the Address be agreed to,
Mr. D. W. Harveysaid, he had a Petition to present from Sir Jonah Barrington. It expressed the petitioner's regret that his counsel at the Bar should have confined himself, in his speech to constitutional
1082
grounds; and prayed that he might be allowed to offer evidence at the bar. The Speaker decided that the petition could not be received till the question before the House was disposed of.
Address agreed to; Lord F. L. Gower to carry the same to the Lords, and to desire their concurrence therein at a conference.
Mr. D. W. Harveysaid, he had a question to put to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel) opposite. An address for the removal of Sir Jonah Barrington had been agreed to, and a noble Lord was now on his way to the other House to request the concurrence of their Lordships to it. Suppose both Houses sanctioned the address, then the Crown would have, on deliberation, to determine whether the request contained in the address should be granted. The question, therefore, which he had to ask, and he asked it merely for information, arose out of the very delicate matter which had last night been communicated to the House. Would his Majesty exercise the royal consideration with respect to this address; or was it intended that the persons who were to be appointed in consequence of the message of last night, should exercise the royal deliberation as well as the performance of the mechanical office of signing public documents?
Sir R. Peelsaid, that the hon. Member appeared to him to mistake altogether the object of the message of last night. His Majesty was perfectly capable of exercising discretion and deliberation, and the message of last night merely stated that bodily indisposition made it inconvenient and painful for his Majesty to sign with his own hand those public instruments which required his sign manual. No Minister would presume to attach his Majesty's signature to any document upon which the pleasure of the Crown had not been taken; much less to an instrument for the removal of a Judge. His Majesty's pleasure would be taken upon this, as it was taken upon every other case; for he had the satisfaction of assuring the House, that his Majesty was at that moment as competent to exercise his mental faculties as he had ever been at any other period of his life.
Mr. D. W. Harveypresented the Petition from Sir Jonah Barrington; read and to be printed.
Lord F. L. Gowerreported, in answer

1083
to the message to the Lords, desiring a conference with their Lordships respecting the address agreed to by the House for the removal of Sir Jonah Barrington from his office as Judge of the Admiralty Court in Ireland, that their Lordships had agreed to the conference, and were then ready to meet the Commons.
A committee was appointed to manage the conference: and to consist of the Members appointed to draw up the address for the removal of Sir Jonah Barrington, with other Members.
After a lapse of twenty minutes,
Lord F. L. Gowerreported, that the committee had had a conference with their Lordships; and had delivered the Address agreed to by the House, which their Lordships promised to take into consideration.

DUTY ON LEAD.
Sir J. Grahampresented a Petition from the Lead Miners and others engaged in the manufacture of Lead, in the parishes of Alston and Allendale, Northumberland, complaining of the distress they suffered from the competition of foreign manufacturers of Lead, and praying for a higher protecting duty. The hon. Baronet entered into some details, showing the changes which had taken place in the duties on copper, tin, and lead, since 1825, when a new scale of protecting duty was arranged respecting them, different from the ad valorem duty before in use. The protecting duty on copper and tin was raised greatly beyond that on Lead. Since then, copper and tin had fallen in price about 15 per cent, while Lead had fallen nearly 50 per cent, having been reduced from 24 l. per ton in 1824, to 12 l. 10 s., its present price. This reduction had been the result of the competition of the Lead produced in the Spanish mines, of which about 28,000 tons were produced annually. This was sold at 9l. per ton, which, with the freight and duty, made it 12 l. 10 s., to which price the British manufacturers were obliged to reduce their Lead, in order to prevent the loss of the home consumption. The petitioners prayed that the protecting duties might be raised 2l. per ton. This sum would make an increase of about 90,000 l. a-year on the consumers of Lead in the United Kingdom, as the annual consumption was about 45,000 tons. The hon. Baronet contended, that by acceding to the prayer of this Petition, a stimulus
1084
would be given to a trade by which 80,000 persons were supported, who, if driven from this trade by foreign competition, could not, from their previous habits, be brought to work at other businesses, and must therefore become a burthen upon the country. The hon. Baronet added, that the petitioners were entitled to a protection something equal to that given to agriculturists by the Corn-laws, which would amount to from 20 to 30 per cent against the foreign grower; and, in conclusion, that it would be a much more cheap way of providing for the 80,000 persons engaged in this trade to grant this additional protecting duty, than to have to send them as settlers to Swan River, or others of our new colonies.
Mr. Liddelsupported the prayer of the petition, and contended, that if these persons were put out of employment, they would be thrown back on the market for labour, and thus increase the difficulties of the working classes.
Mr. Herriessaid, it was not his intention to follow the hon. Baronet into all the topics he had introduced, and this was the less necessary, as the question to which the petition referred was now under the consideration of the Government. The greatest attention must be paid to it before any decision was come to. He hoped, however, in the course of a week to have a better opportunity of addressing the House on the subject, and therefore he would forbear saying anything further at present.
Mr. Warburtonhoped that nothing would be done to give advantages to Lead miners, beyond the regular course of trade; and protested against taxing the rest of the community to the amount of 90,000 l. for the benefit of the owners of Lead-mines.
Mr. Huskissonsaid, that the Lead-mines of this country not only supplied the home consumption, but sent some thousands of tons abroad; of course the price abroad must be settled by foreign competition, but as long as the miner supplied the home consumption, it was all that he could claim or pretend to; and, indeed, unless they could shut up the Spanish mines altogether, the price in foreign countries must be regulated by competition.
Lord Miltonsaid, that the root of all the mischief was in the high protecting duty on corn, which in one way or another amounted to from forty to fifty per cent;

1085
and it was obvious, that whatever raised the cost price of labour must materially injure the manufactures of the country.
Lord W. Powlettcomplained that the Lead ore had never been sufficiently protected like other ores, and that, in consequence of this want of protection, the export trade had dwindled down to 5,000 tons annually.
Mr. A. Baringsaid, he did not see that the petitioners suffered any peculiar hardship, although he regretted their distress. They had a monopoly of the home market, and were able to send some thousand tons abroad; and if the price had fallen, the protection had risen with the fall. Lead, too, was not a mineral on which he was disposed to allow much protection, because it did not enter into many of the articles of exportation to other countries.
Mr. Humesaid, that in the last six years the country had exported 59,000 tons, being an average of 10,000 tons a year. His hon. friend said, the quantity produced was 45,000 tons a-year; and, therefore, he could sec that nearly one-fifth was sent out of the country. The price of that quantity was, of course, regulated by the price in the foreign market; and the price at which it could there be sold, as we had more than we required, regulated the price at home; no relief, therefore, could be obtained by a protecting duty, and the only way in which the Lead owners could hope for relief was, by persuading the Government to lower the price of labour, and so put the English in the same state as the Spanish labourer.
Mr. P. Thomsonentreated the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pause before he yielded to the representations of the petitioners on this subject; because, by increasing the duty from 10 s. to 25 s. per ton we had prevented foreign ore being imported into this country, and had lost all the profits arising from the smelting and working up. In 1828 the quantity imported for this purpose was 4,620 tons; since the duty had been altered it had fallen to 1,100 tons. He hoped, therefore, that the duty would be reduced rather than increased, so that the country might have the benefit of charging other countries for the profit of its own labour.
Petition to be printed.

DRAMATIC CENSORSHIP.
Mr. Lennardrose to move for leave to bring in a
1086
Bill to repeal the Third and Fourth Clauses of the 10th of Geo. 2nd, c. 28, which empowered the Lord Chamberlain to prohibit the acting of any New Play or Entertainment on the Stage. The hon. Member said, that the Bill, of which he wished to repeal some of the Clauses was passed in Sir Robert Walpole's administration, and was then opposed by the Earl of Chesterfield, in a speech that was a model of eloquence, and an ornament of our language. The Act was also severely satirized by Dr. Johnson, and he believed it had at all times been condemned. The part of it to which he chiefly objected was that which gave power to the Lord Chamberlain to license Plays and Dramatic Writings. He did not think it necessary, in bringing the subject under the notice of the House, to go into the origin of the Lord Chamberlain's jurisdiction; it was sufficient for his purpose to acknowledge that this officer had exercised such an authority long before the Act was passed. It was exercised without any rule, very arbitrarily, and very often with great caprice. He admitted that it was readily submitted to by the actors; but, considering what was their original condition, that was not to be wondered at. They were persons put out of the pale of the Constitution, and submitted without opposition to the Chamberlain, whose wand waved over them pleno jure. The present law had a great vice in its constitution. It was passed at a period of great political excitement, and was intended only to remedy a temporary evil. But like other laws passed under similar circumstances, it became a general restriction, and having once got into the Statute-book, there was a great difficulty in getting rid of it. He might, perhaps, be allowed to compare it in this respect to the Six Acts, which were passed in a state of temporary ferment; and as the Attorney General had announced his intention to bring in a bill to repeal one of them, he thought he might with great propriety follow so good an example. The Act conferred, too, he might observe, a most unconstitutional power on the Lord Chamberlain, quite as bad as that conferred by the Six Acts. He should be able to show by example, both in former and in modern times, that this power had been exercised also in a most unconstitutional manner. He would beg leave to allude to the circumstances under which the Act

1087
was passed. Sir Robert Walpole, during the latter part of his administration, was exposed to many severe attacks, and in particular he was attacked by pieces produced in the theatre. Just at that time a play called the Golden Rump was sent in manuscript to Sir Ft. Walpole, by the manager of one of the theatres, in which he was most severely handled. He was much irritated; he called it sedition; and, rising in his place in the House of Commons, he read some of the strongest passages; the Members were all excited; the bill was immediately brought in, and it was passed, almost by acclamation. This was the origin of the Act. This bill was passed through the House of Commons, though it established a power unknown to the Constitution—a power greater than was possessed by the King—a power that was an infringement on the liberty of the subject and on the liberty of the press, imposing shackles on our literature, and giving a monopoly of theatrical property to an officer of the Crown: this bill, that was equally condemned by general principles, and by its practical results—was passed through the House of Commons without as much discussion as was usually given to a Turnpike Act. By this law not only no new play could be performed without a license, a song could not be sung on the stage, nor a new passage, no, not even a word, could be introduced into a play, without the permission of the Lord Chamberlain, or the Lord Chamberlain's Deputy. For granting this license the Lord Chamberlain's Deputy exacted a fee of two guineas; while the power to exact this fee made the Deputy very vigilant, so that nothing whatever, neither- a play, nor a song, nor an addition to a play, could be sung or acted, without the payment. The Deputy Licenser had even extended his power to prevent a lecture on Astronomy being delivered in a theatre without a license, or rather without paying him his fee. The hon. Member quoted the permission which had been given by the Deputy Licenser to deliver such a Lecture marked at bottom with the words, "paid two guineas," to confirm his statement. The practice of exacting a fee was perhaps not authorized by the law; but the managers of the theatres submitted to it, and the reason was this.—In consequence of the extensive powers of the Lord Chamberlain, it was impossible for the managers to escape
1088
his censure—they were continually liable to forfeit their patent privileges, and this made them submit to the Lord Chamberlain's Deputy's exactions. As a specimen of the power of the Deputy, he would mention, that a few years ago a Clown was prevented from adding the words "roast beef." The most innocent or trifling additions by a Grimaldi might subject the manager to forfeit his privileges. It became necessary, therefore, for all performers strictly to follow the directions of Hamlet—" Let not your Clowns speak more than is set down for them." The slightest neglect or omission on their part might subject them to censure; and he believed, that there was not one of the Patentees of the great theatres who was not liable to forfeit his license fifty times in the course of a season. Under such circumstances they would naturally submit to pay any fee; and if the Lord Chamberlain's Deputy were to appoint a Deputy's Deputy, he might also exact a fee. He was aware that the master of the Revels formerly did exact a fee, but the Act under which the Lord Chamberlain exercised his power gave him no authority to exact any fee whatever. By selecting him, the Act placed the power in the hands of a person of distinction, who was to be responsible for its proper exercise, and who was never expected to make use of it as a means of levying a tax on the managers of theatres. He, however; thinking it too much trouble to read the blotted manuscripts intended for the stage, deputed his power to an inferior officer, who exacted the fee without any authority whatever. The fee Mr. Colman exacted, however, he was bound to say, was not greater than was exacted by his predecessors. What he contended for in principle was, that the ordinary laws of the realm were sufficient to repress the licentiousness of the stage without the power of licensing stage-performances. If any thing blasphemous, seditious, or libellous, were produced on the stage, it might be punished as a libel. The Act, which he wished to modify only, imposed fetters on the stage without producing any good effect. But it was said that a printed libel had not the same effect as a scenic representation; that the mind was more readily affected through the medium of the eye than through that of the ear, and transmitted a more powerful and lasting impression.

1089
"Segnius irritant animos demissa per aurem,
Quam quæ sunt oculis subjecta fidelibus."
But supposing this true—supposing that the theatre might be made the means of promoting party politics and personal attacks—he must still contend that the Common Law would be sufficient to repress this licentiousness. In order to meet this objection, however, he should be ready, if he obtained leave to bring in the Bill, to agree to vest that power in Commissioners or Magistrates which was now exercised by the Lord Chamberlain. If such a power were deposited any where, it ought not to be in an officer of the Household, but in some responsible person, who should not delegate his authority to others, to be used as a means of levying fees. He would illustrate the effects of this authority by example, and in order not to wound the feelings of any person, he would go back a little from our own time. A play, for example, of Mr. Gay's—"Polly "was prohibited, as was well known, not on account of any immorality it contained, but on account of its political tendency. Another case was Thomson's play of " Sophonisba"—a play in which there was nothing objectionable; for of that poet it had been justly said, that he never wrote "one line which dying he would wish to blot;" yet that play was objected to, and a license refused, be- cause some of the sentiments, in his poem of "Liberty," had given offence to the Minister of that day. A farce of Foote's, also, was suppressed, because it contained some satirical allusions to that moral lady, the Duchess of Kingston, who was in favour with the then Lord Chamberlain. He would then quote some modern examples of the same interference. Mr. Col man, the present Licenser, on one occasion took under his protection the character of that profession to which the gallant Members of the House belonged. A character called "Rakeall," who was represented as an army officer, somewhat of a swindler, and a good deal of a coward, was ordered to be suppressed, because it reflected on a high class of society, and was derogatory to the character of officers. He was sure the right hon. and gallant Secretary did not need any such protection for his profession from Mr. Colman. He had several specimens before him of Mr. Colman's pruning, who seemed, for example, not to like that lovers should speak of their mistresses as angels.
1090
Passages of that kind he considered to be very indecorous, and directed them to be struck out. The hon. Member read a passage, which contained the words "My angels divine," and the Licenser wrote "Blot out the angels." This was an excess of nicety in the author of "Broad Grins." Angelic and heavenly were words to which the Licenser seemed to have a great antipathy, and he warned certain managers that he should strike them out whenever he met them. In another instance Mr. Colman objected to the word "thighs" being used three times, and directed that it should be cut out. He objected to a servant describing her mistress's dressing case as united "in matrimony with her master's arm-chair. The hon. Member quoted other specimens of the Licenser's fastidious pruning, and said that he had taken Royalty under his peculiar care, and wishing not to frighten heirs apparent, he ordered the following correction;—A play was presented to him, in which were the words "all the fatigues, cares, and tediousness of Royalty," and the Licenser's directions were "strike out the words and tediousness.'" The only effective opposition which he expected was from those who thought that if the Motion were carried, it would produce an injurious effect on the Minor Theatres; by exposing them to prosecutions from the patentees of the regular Theatres. But that was a consequence which he did not apprehend. The hon. Gentleman concluded, by moving "for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the third and fourth clauses of Act 10 Geo. 2nd., c. 28, which empowers the Lord Chamberlain to prohibit the acting of any new play or entertainment on the stage."
Mr. George Lambobserved, that as he had been connected for a considerable period with one of the great theatres, he wished to say a few words on the present occasion, although he was extremely reluctant to do that when the press of business was so urgent. The hon. Member was misinformed when he stated that compromises took place between the patentees of the large, and the owners of the minor theatres. No such thing occurred, and each of them stood upon his own rights. He could also assure him that the Patent Theatres had no wish respecting his Motion one way or the other. He was sorry not to see in his place, the Paymaster of the Forces, for he would be

1091
able to corroborate that statement. The Act of 10th Geo. 2nd, commonly and properly called the Playhouse Act, was opposed at the time only by the celebrated Lord Chesterfield, who had found a successor in the hon. member for Maldon. The speech of that noble Lord was certainly an able one; but if he remembered correctly, it dealt more in exaggeration than most speeches delivered in the other House. Nothing less was prognosticated by him from passing the bill, than the downfall of the stage, a prediction which certainly had not been verified. The hon. member for Maldon had fallen into one error. He stated, that a Clown was prosecuted for calling out "Roast Beef;" but the fact was, that the prosecution was instituted under a later Act than the one under discussion, for playing in a theatre unlicensed, except for singing and dancing, which the Royalty, where this took place, was. His hon. friend did not seem to be aware that if he repealed the 10th Geo. 2nd, he would not effect his object, for there were other Acts which regulated theatres. He would not go at any length into precedents, to show that plays had long been licensed, and that fees were paid before the license was passed; but perhaps a few statements on the point might not be considered uncalled-for, Gibber tells us, that when George 1st granted a patent to judge of plays to Sir Richard Steele, the Master of the Revels still claimed his customary fee of 2l. and as the fee was only 2l. 2s. at present, even the hon. member for Aberdeen must admit, taking the change in the value of money into consideration, that the increase had not been too great. Gibber gave several instances of the payment of these fees, although he at first resisted them on the ground of his patent. His authority was strong in favour of the right to exact fees. The Playhouse Act certainly mentioned no payments of that kind, and their defence must therefore rest upon custom previous to the passing of the Act. All which that law required was, that a dramatic work should be laid before the Lord Chamberlain fourteen days previous to its intended performance, and it imposed no other penalty than one for performing the piece before it had been sent, or for afterwards keeping in anything that the licenser had prohibited as immoral or improper. How the fee came to be transferred from the Master of the Revels to
1092
the Licenser he was not aware, but the former office was only abolished by Mr. Burke's bill. The censorship of the stage, however, had always existed, from the earliest times. Lord Chesterfield prognosticated that if the stage were put under the control of the Lord Chamberlain it would be used for party purposes. That certainly might have been fairly anticipated at the time, and that it had not happened might perhaps be attributed, in some degree, to his Lordship's speech. Since the passing of that Act, the stage had never been used by any party; but previous to that period, at the lime of Dryden, it was perpetually used as the instrument of both parties. "The Duke of Guise," "Amboyna," and Shadwell's "Lancashire Witches," were all party plays. As far therefore as experience went, the Act might be said, in this respect, to have had a beneficial effect. It was asked, why restrain the stage any more than the press? It should be remembered, that what was written one day in a pamphlet or newspaper, might be answered in another on the next day, and that writing was addressed to those who, from being able to read, might be supposed to exercise some degree of reason upon what was brought before them; but a play was addressed immediately to the passions of the multitude, and in a time of popular excitement, might so work upon their feelings, as to inflame them to commit acts immediately endangering the public peace. With respect to the Motion he would only say, that if it were the pleasure of the House to give leave to bring in the Bill prayed for, he should not object to it; but Parliament would do well to pause before it consented to rescind an Act which had been in force many years without inflicting any injury on the liberty of the subject, while it had certainly been of much benefit to morality.
Sir Robert Peelconcurred in the observations which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken. Looking at the state of the stage before and after the passing of the Act, there was nothing to induce the House to remove the censorship. He confessed he had not the confidence which the hon. Mover had in the good taste of the public; and was by no means satisfied that, but for the Censorship, immoral and blasphemous dramas would not be received with applause; neither did he believe that the

1093
common law would be found sufficient to repress the licentiousness of the stage. he was the more induced to entertain these opinions from the manner in which the horrid murder committed by Thurtell, with all its dreadful details, was represented on a minor stage, almost immediately after its occurrence. The hon. member for Maldon had alluded to Lord Chesterfield's speech. There was one part of that speech to which he begged the particular attention of the hon. Member, namely, that part of it in which Lord Chesterfield had objected to bringing in the bill at so late a period of the Session. Lord Chesterfield had predicted that the passing of the Act in question would, in its consequences, be injurious to the liberty of the Press. The result, however, had shown that the noble Lord was entirely mistaken on that point. The Deputy Licenser, Mr. Colman, had been charged by the hon. Gentleman with fastidiousness; but was the hon. Gentleman prepared to say that the dramatic taste of the people of England was so pure that it might be left without control? And what was the substitute for that authority recommended by the hon. Gentleman? A committee of Magistrates—of Police—or at best, county Magistrates! For all these reasons, but especially because he objected to bringing in such a bill as the present at so late a period of the Session as the 25th of May, he must oppose the hon. Gentleman's Motion.
Mr. O'Conncllcould not understand why the stage was not to be supposed to have become sufficiently purified to be left without Censorship. In all other branches of literature a purification of taste had taken place. Of this the celebrated novel of Tom Jones was a proof. No such work would be tolerated in the present day.
Sir Robert Peelhaving intimated that he would not object to the hon. Member for Maldon's bringing in a bill at as early a period in the next Session as he might think proper,—the Motion was negatived without a division.

CANADA.
Mr. Luhouchere Mr. Luhouchere, in rising pursuant to the notice he had given, to propose to the consideration of the House a subject of a most important nature, felt bound to apologise for his own inability to do it justice. He trusted, however, that the cause of the inhabitants of Upper and
1094
Lower Canada would not suffer for the weakness of their advocate, he was about to submit to the House certain Resolutions on the state of the Judicature and Legislative Councils of that province. It was a singular fact, that while all other interests had their parties and supporters in that House, Canada alone was without such aid. As far as he was able he should endeavour to supply that deficiency, and he now begged leave, in the first instance, to call the attention of the House to the state of the Civil Government of Canada. In doing so, he felt bound to offer his humble tribute of applause to the excellent character and conduct of Sir James Kemp, who certainly had done all that he could as an individual, to render the administration of the government as little objectionable as possible. But the evil was in the form of the government itself. The first point to which he wished to call the attention of the House, was the composition of the Legislative Assembly, and the part it had taken in the affairs of the Province of Canada, which had occupied much of the attention of the Canada Committee. It appeared that the same subject had engaged attention at a much earlier period. In the discussions on the bill of 1791, which gave to Canada the Constitution it now possessed, the composition of the Legislative Council had become a matter of great debate. In those discussions Mr. Fox said, that there were no materials in Canada for an Aristocracy, and that the principle of an Elective Government must be introduced. All that had since occurred, confirmed the opinion of that great man on that important point. Mr. Pitt thought otherwise; but he and Mr. Burke, and those who supported that side of the question, agreed in declaring that the Legislative Assembly of the Province should be so constituted as to preserve its independence. He would show the House how little that opinion had been adhered to in practice. Out of the twenty-seven members who sat in the general Legislative Assembly for Lower Canada, eighteen were placemen, enjoying amongst them an income of 18,000 l. a-year, receivable at the pleasure of the Crown, and but nine independent members. Among the placemen, seven were members of the Executive Council, and but nine of the placemen were native Canadians. The rest were men who had gone out thither to make a fortune, and who, having suc-

1095
ceeded in that object, would feel no further interest in the colony. In the seventeen members of the General Legislative Assembly who sat for Upper Canada, twelve were placemen and only five were unofficial men. Under these circumstances, it would not be matter of surprise, that the body uniformly sided with the Executive Government; and as their acts had been frequently opposed to the feelings and interests of the people, the Legislative Assembly, that ought to represent the popular wishes, had, in fact, been opposed to the opinions of the great mass of the nation. This composition of the Legislative Assembly had been complained of at the time it was formed, and the House of Assembly in Lower Canada, which he believed really to represent the feelings and wishes of the people there, had very recently expressed the same complaints—for so late as March, 1830, on going into a Committee of Supply, they passed a unanimous Resolution, declaring that that House only consented to enter into the consideration of the said estimates in the hope that the grievances, of which complaint had so often been made, would be redressed, and that measures would be at once taken to secure the independence of the House of Assembly of the province, and to improve the state of Judicature, by divesting the judicial officers of functions totally unconnected with their judicial duties. There was a time when a great jealousy existed between the French and English inhabitants of the colony; but in consequence of the bill passed last Session, that jealousy was now at an end, and both were willing and anxious to co-operate in the most efficient manner for the common good. The second point to which he wished to call the attention of the House, and of the right hon. Secretary opposite, was the present system of the administration of justice, for he could not think, after the many improvements that right hon. Gentleman had made in the administration of justice in this country, he would consent to leave the people of Canada in as bad a situation as ever. The first point in this part of the subject, was the tenure of the commissions of the Judges. They were not the same as in this country, nor as in Jamaica, nor as in many other of our possessions, commissions during good behaviour, but the Judges were removable at pleasure. At the time the bill for creating these courts passed, Lord Grenville said the measure
1096
was only to be temporary; and in effect the Government had given up the principle of it in 1826, but the form was still continued. It was not his intention to recommend any alteration exceeding that which the committee had proposed. The Judges now depended for their salary on the annual vote of the House of Assembly. He did not wish that Judges should court popular applause, but equally unwilling was he that they should seek ministerial approbation. Yet they were obliged to do so in Canada; and as long as the Judges remained dependent on the pleasure of the Crown, the House must and would retain that as the only check on their conduct. The Judges were consequently in a situation which made them of necessity, in acting and feeling political partisans. In the first place they were members of the Executive Council. He should but waste the time of the House if he attempted to argue on such a fact. But besides that, they were members of the Legislative Council. There was a strong feeling in this country against such an union of opposite duties—a feeling that was powerfully manifested in the late Lord Ellenborough's case. He would give one instance of the practical effect of this system of judicature. The court of Quebec, two years ago, was occupied with a number of prosecutions for libel; the Chief Justice of that court was the Chairman of the Executive Council, and the Speaker of the Legislative Council; two of the Judges were members of both Councils, and the remaining Judge was a member of one of them: the Jury were appointed by the Sheriff, who was a salaried officer of the Council, and he happen- ed at that time to be the son of the Chief Justice: the Attorney General, by whom the prosecutions were instituted, was the colleague of the Chief Justice in the Legislative and Executive Councils, and thus all the officers concerned in the administration of justice were connected politically together. There was at that time a feeling all over the country that the prisoners had not the least chance of justice. But even what he had stated did not comprehend all the grievances of which the colony had to complain. What he contended for was, that Parliament ought to give the colonists the opportunity of redressing the evils they felt. They should have a good Legislative Council, an improved system of judicature, and then they might get rid of

1097
all the Acts now passed to support the government of Canada. The Canada Committee, in a recommendation given to the government, stated that one of the most important subjects of inquiry with them had been the state of the Legislative Councils, and they recommended that the Legislative Assembly should be made more independent, and that the Judges should not be members of the Executive Council. Under these circumstances, adopting their opinion, he should move a Resolution, declaring that the House concurred with that opinion of the Canada Committee, and stating, secondly, that it was the opinion of that House, that the majority of the Legislative Council ought not to be composed of officers of the Crown, and that every measure, having for its object to connect more intimately that branch of the constitutional government of Canada with the interests of the colony would be beneficial. He should propose, in the third place, to declare, that it was not expedient to fill the judicial seats of Upper and Lower Canada with members of the Legislative and Executive Councils. He should have been unwilling to have raised that discussion, if he had not been compelled to do so by a sense of justice. At the same time he could not help observing the situation in which we were placed. In a very short time that House would be called on to vote 200,000 l. for military works in Canada, which would be quite unnecessary if the Government would do the little that was required to secure the hearty attachment of its inhabitants. He entreated the House not to neglect that cheap and constitutional safeguard which was to be found in the hearts of a grateful and affectionate people. What he had now submitted to them had been demanded by the Legislative Assembly of Lower Canada—had been recommended by the committee here—and was in accordance with the unanimous opinion of the people of the colony; and if granted, it must conduce to the tranquillity, interest, and happiness, of a most important part of the possessions of this kingdom. He moved the following Resolutions:—
"That it is the opinion of this House, that a majority of the members of the Legislative Councils of Upper and Lower Canada ought not to consist of persons holding offices at the pleasure of the Crown; and that any measures that may tend to connect more intimately this
1098
branch of the constitution with the interest of these colonies, would be attended with the greatest advantage.
"That it is the opinion of this House, that it is not expedient that the Judges should hold seats in the Executive Councils of Upper and Lower Canada, and that (with the exception of the Chief Justice) they ought not to be involved in the political business of the Legislative Councils.
"That it is the opinion of this House, that it is indispensable to the good government and contentment of his Majesty's Canadian subjects, that these measures should be carried into effect with the least possible convenient delay."
Lord Sandonsaid, that he rose to second the Motion of his hon. friend with the greatest pleasure, from the perfect concurrence which he felt in his views. The principal difficulty he experienced in arguing the point was, to anticipate by what arguments the adoption of the Resolutions could be opposed. The principles they enunciated were become so much axioms in the science of politics, as to have been long since placed, in this country at least, beyond dispute. They affirmed the importance of separating the legislative and executive from the judicial functions; the importance of giving independence to judges, and a national character to the higher branch of the legislature of a free colony. Upon the first point, he should content himself with the authorities of Paley and Blackstone; the former having said, "The first maxim of a free state is, that the laws be made by one set of men, and administered by another; in other words, that the legislative and judicial characters should be kept distinct." The words of Blackstone were equally impressive:—"Nothing is more to be avoided in a free constitution, than uniting the provinces of a Judge and Minister of State." This much-reprobated union of incompatible characters prevailed in the greatest degree in Canada. As the House had heard from his hon. friend, the same person advised in the morning in the Executive Council, that certain laws should be proposed, voted upon them in the afternoon in the Legislative Council, and administered them in the evening on the bench. Nor was that merely a theoretical evil,—the greatest practical evils had already resulted from it—the Judgeshad been converted into active political partizans;—they talked in the legis-

1099
tature of the way in which they meant to interpret the laws upon the bench; and all confidence in the purity of the administration of justice, in cases where the government was a party, had been destroyed. Nor had less mischief arisen from the practice which prevailed in that colony,—so different from that which was intended by the framers of its constitution,—of filling the Legislative Councils, the second branch of the Legislature with a majority of placemen, unconnected by ties of birth and property with the interests of the colony, and therefore inspiring no confidence whatever in the independence of their deliberations. All the advantage which could be expected from a constitution formed upon the British model of an equipoise of powers had been lost. The government had, in the main, consisted of two jarring powers—the House of Assembly and the Governor; the Legislative Council being generally considered merely as the convenient organ by which he expressed his will. And here he must express a slight difference of opinion from his hon. friend, who represented that as uniformly the case. Would to heaven it were so! Then fewer obstacles would be thrown in the way of the wise and benevolent intentions of the present Governor, and more of the recommendations of the Canada Committee would, by this time, have been carried into effect. He was afraid, however, that the unwise course pursued for ten years by a former administration, had contrived to raise up a little faction of official personages in the Council, who had too often succeeded in representing themselves as the real English party in the Colony, and who resisted the wishes, and shackled the judgment even of the Governor, when directed to the reform of abuses, of which they were the authors and by which they profited. They reminded him of that little faction in Ireland, which used to play the same part, under the assumption of the same title, and which succeeded but too well in deceiving the judgment, and defeating the benevolence of the English Government. He might notice another point of similarity to that misgoverned country. All offices of trust were reserved for the professors of the Established Religion, who formed a small minority of the inhabitants; and though four-fifths of the population were of French origin, as they professed the Catholic faith, only seven French names out of the twenty-seven appeared upon the lists of
1100
the Legislative Council. If independence and a character of nationality were not to be given to the Legislative Council, it had better be abolished altogether. Without these attributes, it would only be an useless clog to the wheels of government; supplying an additional chance of difficulty and collision. As it was constituted, every dispute between the two houses, was a dispute between the colony and the mother country. Such a system he was confident, would not be defended by the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies. What objection, then, could be made to the propositions before the House? The right hon. Gentleman might say, perhaps, that he was already proceeding upon the principles which they enunciate; that they were therefore unnecessary, and that it appeared like a reflection upon him to call upon the House to affirm them. This argument would be well enough, if the measures he was pursuing in Canada were of that rapid and decisive character as to sweep away at once all the abuses complained of, and practically to declare to the colony, that the right hon. Gentleman had adopted the principles of the Resolutions. But his proceedings were gradual unaccompanied by any general declarations of the principles on which they were conducted, unfitted to heal the wounds which had been so long rankling, and to appease the feelings of dissatisfaction which had been so long and so justly excited. Besides, the Canadians wanted to have a pledge, not only from the Ministers of the day, but from Parliament itself, which should shut the door against a return, by any future Minister, to the exploded system, and restore confidence to the colony, by a public and authentic declaration. It would require all that could be done in that way to make palatable to the colony the measure which the right hon. Secretary had brought into the House, avowedly for the purpose of conciliation, but which was unfortunately in the teeth of a recent resolution of the popular branch of the Canadian Legislature. The Canadians wanted that the Judges should not be dependent on the Crown; and to make them independent of the Canadians was the object of what the right hon. Gentleman expected to be a healing measure. He expressed, in conclusion, his hearty concurrence in the Resolutions proposed by his hon. friend.
Sir George Murrayaddressed the House, in vindication of the conduct of his Majes-

1101
ty's Government. He began by complimenting the hon. Gentleman by whom the Resolutions were moved, on the moderation of the tone in which he brought them forward, and the manner in which he pressed them upon the adoption of the House. It had been contended on the other side, he said, that the recommendation of the committee was not acted on by the Government; but he thought the most decisive answer to that would be found in the papers laid upon the Table of the House. From them it could not but be apparent, that those recommendations had been fully acted upon, so far as circumstances al- lowed, and where insufficiency of information delayed the Government, it had had recourse to the Governor to supply that want, and was then waiting for further information from him. As a proof that his Majesty's Government at home was not influenced by any undue desire to fill the Legislative Council with persons holding office at the pleasure of the Crown, he should just mention the fact, that three vacancies had recently occurred in the Legislative Assembly, and those vacancies had been filled up with the names of three gentlemen, not one of whom held office undertheCrown—gentlemen recommended by the Governor as persons who, from their rank and station, their characters and abilities were well qualified for the honours and the privileges appertaining to a seat in that Assembly; and he begged to offer the fullest assurances to the House that, in future, vacancies would be filled up in a similar manner. He fully admitted that the Judges, with the exception of the Chief Justice, ought to be excepted from the list of the Legislative Council, and he was enabled to state, that recently, gentlemen appointed to the Bench resigned their places in the Legislative Council. Again, it was rather hard to censure the manner in which seats in that Assembly were filled, without making allowance for the difficulty of finding an aristocracy in a Colony settled under such circumstances as that of Lower Canada, or, indeed, in any colony at all. Besides, that difficulty arose out of causes that now, he hoped, had passed away. There had been a period when the feelings and conduct of the Government at home had been guided by considerations which he hoped hereafter would have no influence. He alluded to the differences on religious matters, which, until very recently, produced important effects upon
1102
all the political proceedings of this country. Those feelings naturally spread themselves outwards towards our Colonies. There were besides those impediments to improvement of the institutions of that colony, the difficulty which arose from the population of the colony being made up both of French and English. He concurred with the hon. Gentleman opposite that the appointment of Judges during good behaviour deserved the highest praise, as a general principle, and ought to be adhered to wherever practicable; but he much doubted the advantage of carrying that principle into full operation in Canada. He must be allowed to say, that all his experience respecting that colony and others led him to that conclusion. There was extreme difficulty in getting Judges for our colonies—men whose fitness could be regarded as certain. The Government was, accordingly, often compelled to send out persons scarcely qualified for those situations; and if, upon trial, it was found they were unfit, it was highly important that the power of removing them should be vested in the Crown. In the mother country the case was different. There it was easy to secure the services of Judges well qualified, and the independence of such persons was highly to be desired but in the colonies the case was altogether different. In order to show that the Legislative Council was not so dependent upon the Government as had been alleged, he instanced the case of the Supply Bill last year, and another case, in both of which considerable opposition was raised to the measures of the Government, and the Council was divided into the supporters and the opponents of the Executive. He should oppose the Resolutions of the hon. Gentleman opposite, for he thought the situation of the colony did not call for any such expression of opinion on the part of the House; he should oppose them too, as conveying an implied censure upon the Government. The second Resolution went to stigmatise, most unjustly, the Legislative Council; and as to the third, he must say, that his Majesty's Government had lost no opportunity of improving the judicial body in that colony. He con- eluded by moving the previous question.
Lord Viscount Howickdid not by any means agree in the conclusion to which the- right hon. Secretary had come on this subject. On the contrary, the whole tenor of his speech went to support the

1103
Resolutions. The only point on which the right hon. Gentleman differed from his hon. friend who brought forward the subject, related to the dependence of the Judges on the Crown; but that question did not enter into the Resolutions. Upon the main point adverted to, there was no difference of opinion. His hon. friend contended, that the Judges ought not to hold places in the Legislative Council and in the Executive at the same time; and the right hon. Gentleman admitted this was highly improper—but he objected to the Resolutions, as tending to throw a stigma on the Government. For himself he must say, that the line of conduct pursued by the right hon. Gentleman towards this colony since he came into office was by no means deserving of censure—on the contrary, the despatch which had been laid on the Table, did great credit to his judgment; he did not blame the Government for its positive acts, but for its omissions; there had been too much delay in carrying into effect the recommendations of the Canada Committee. The people of Canada could not be satisfied for ever with expectations. Something ought to be done, and first the recommendation of the committee ought to be complied with, and the legislature put in that position in which, according to every principle of a free constitution, it ought to rest. The right hon. Secretary said, it was not in the power of the Government to remove those holding office under the Crown from the Legislative Councils, because their nomination was for life; but the Government had the power of removing those persons from the situations they held in the Executive, which was the most important consideration of the two. Let the Governor assure those who held office and also places in the Council, that the permanent possession of a seat in the Council must render them incapable of holding office under the Crown, and then the matter might be speedily and safely arranged. When the right hon. Secretary said, that the recommendation of the committee, with respect to the Judges, could not be carried into effect because the Judges could not be deprived of their places, the holding of which was unconstitutional he acted rather too strictly according to the letter of the Constitution, and too little in accordance with its spirit It was the principle of our Constitution and he wished to see it acted on for
1104
Canada, that the people should govern themselves, and that the Legislature should not resist the unanimous wishes of the people. With regard to the resolutions casting a slur on the Legislative Councils, he did not think that their language would bear such an interpretation. For his own part, he wished to say nothing harsh or severe of the persons composing the Legislative Councils, he was not sufficiently acquainted with their proceedings to characterize their conduct strongly, but from what he knew of them he had not formed a very favourable opinion of their temper or spirit. He had not heard one reason against the principle of the resolutions—not one reason to convince him that it would not be expedient to agree to them, as the recorded opinions of that House; and viewing them in that light, he meant to give them his most hearty support.
Mr. Wilmot Hortondid not wish to prolong a discussion on which so little substantial difference seemed to have arisen. It was his intention to do no more than express his satisfaction at the statement just made by the right hon. the Secretary for the Colonies. As a member of the Canada Committee, he begged to remind the House, that when the Committee recommended that Judges should not hold seats in the Legislative Council, it intended that the principle should be brought progressively into operation; and not that those Judges, now holding seats, should be immediately removed. That principle had been fully recognised by his Majesty's Government. The right hon. Secretary said, he concurred in the recommendation of the Committee, and he must congratulate Canada upon that declaration, as it was a pledge that his Majesty's Government meant to act on the recommendations of the Committee. He felt himself pledged to the resolutions proposed, because they embodied the principles of the Report agreed to by the Committee; but he did not wish those resolutions to be passed, because he thought with the right hon. Gentleman, that they conveyed a censure on the Government which it did not deserve. He should be sorry to see those resolutions passed, because, although they expressed the unanimous feelings of the House, and the opinion of Government as to Canada, yet he felt himself called upon to vote against them on the grounds stated by the

1105
right hon. Secretary. The second resolution was, he thought, in its language decidedly objectionable.
Lord Althorpthought, the way to preserve the important line of coast which we possessed in Canada was, not by fortifications, but by conciliating the people. He thought the people of that colony entitled to all the advantages of a connection with this country, and all the benefits of local Governments combined—they ought to have a free and independent Constitution. Their Government was formed upon the model of the British Constitution, and means should be taken to assimilate it to that of this country, by connecting the Legislative Council with the people of the colony. Now, it was impossible that the people of Canada could look with confidence to a Council composed of persons in the service of the Crown, and removable at pleasure. Notwithstanding what might be said to the contrary, he would maintain that those Resolutions were founded upon the Report of the Canada Committee, and for that as well as other reasons they should have his support. He thought it most desirable that the House should adopt them.
Mr. M. Fitzgeraldconceived, that the House ought to be satisfied with the assurance given by Ministers. When any reasonable doubt could be entertained of their professions, it would be time enough to call in the authority of the House; he therefore recommended that, for the present, the Resolutions should be postponed; They would, he feared, mar the good effects of the measures of Government in Canada.
Mr. J. E. Denisonthought, that the spirit in which the right hon. Gentleman had referred to the Resolutions proposed by his hon. friend, demanded some observation. He thought it would be difficult for any person to object to these Resolutions who did not object to the principle; and accordingly, the right hon. Secretary did not object, either to the principle or the Resolutions; but he objected to the time when they were brought forward. The principle contained in them involved nothing less than the existence of a free constitution in Canada. The sooner the House distinctly declared its opinion on that subject the better, and every moment that was delayed was improperly lost. The House was at length called upon to act in the true
1106
spirit of conciliation towards the Canadas, and he did hope, that it would proceed to a settlement of the differences in Canada, in a satisfactory manner. But where was the utility of proceeding according to the plan of the Government? How could the House expect any good or great results to flow from what the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, had promised to do, if it left the constitution of the Legislative Council as at present? That Council was the mere tool of Government. Suppose a bill should pass the House of Assembly, and be objected to in the Legislative Council, as long as the majority of the members of that council held places under the Crown, the objections to such a bill would be considered as coming, not from a body of independent individuals representing the interests of the inhabitants of the colony, but from the Governor himself, and that would bring into discussion the question of English connexion, and English Government. All the difficulties, then, which must result from the seat of government being removed to a distance would be increased; and if the House did not adopt measures to alter the character of the Legislative Council, and to remove that impression which its existing constitution made on the inhabitants of Canada, great inconvenience, and effects still more to be deplored, must follow. The right hon. Secretary had spoken of the great difficulty of making the Judges in the colonies independent of the government. Their small salaries gave rise in part to this. It was further said, that they might mix themselves up in the party politics, and party proceedings, of the colony; and therefore, that it was necessary for the Government to retain the power of removing them, when it thought fit. But these dangers existed already. The dependence of the Judges on the Government, combined with their possession of seats in the Legislative Council, detracted from the purity of principle which should distinguish the judicial character; and these Judges were more likely to mix themselves up with party politics at present, and to exhibit a particular bias in such party cases, as might come before them, than they would be if the nature of their appointment were changed. He thought that his hon. friend would do right to persist in his Resolutions. There had been two long

1107
years of delay, expectation, and suspense. He hoped that the Legislature would then come to a determination upon the question, so that the people of Canada might know what the Government and Parliament intended to do. This was not a case regarding a foreign nation or a foreign connexion; but one respecting a portion of the subjects of this country, many of whom had not, many generations back, gone to settle there; a country where liberty was enjoyed to a greater extent, and with greater advantages than even in England. The report to which allusion had been already made, the report presented to the Congress of the United States, put that matter in a favourable point of view for the Canadas. We were accustomed to speak of the United States as enjoying the greatest freedom in the world; but in that report the people of Canada were held up to the citizens of the United States, as objects of emulation and rivalship; a comparison was there drawn between the condition of the people respectively, in the two countries; and, both as regarded commerce and taxation, the comparison was greatly in favour of the Canadas. His hon. friend was blamed when he first brought the question of Canada before Parliament. But now that the matter had been investigated by a committee; and a concurrence in its views obtained from the Government, now that the measures adopted had been the means of producing great benefit in that colony, encouraging the people of Canada to place the greatest confidence in this country, after all that had occurred, it was but justice to his lion, friend opposite, to give him credit for the exertions, that were originally blamed. He hoped his hon. friend would press his Resolutions to a division, and he should have his cordial support.
Mr. C. Grantthought, that the thanks of the House were due to his hon. friend, for having brought forward his Resolutions, and to his right hon. friend, for the manner in which he had shown his willingness to carry the Resolutions of the Committee into effect. It was essential that those Resolutions should be followed up, in order to show that there was no intention of having one government at home and another abroad; and he trusted that they should never again hear it contended that the Colonies were not to enjoy the principles of our Constitution, He main-
1108
tained, that it was one great principle of that Constitution, to keep those possessed of the judicial function severed from the legislative body. Three measures, however, which had been touched upon that night, were deserving of eulogy, viz. the relaxation of the commercial policy of this country with regard to the Colony, the appointment of the Committee of that House, and the appointment of Sir James Kemp. With regard to the Resolutions of the hon. Gentleman, he was glad that he had introduced them, though for himself he was satisfied with the declarations that had been made by his right hon. friend on the subject; for he could not entertain a doubt that those declarations contained a pledge with respect to future Governments; and he should be glad to know who that Secretary of State would be, who should hereafter come forward and avow that he was prepared to deviate from those declarations. If, therefore, the hon. Gentleman should think it right to withdraw his Motion, he for one was prepared to accede to such a course; but if he thought it his duty to persevere, he, on the other hand, would certainly vote for the Motion; and he might observe, that it would perhaps have been more convenient, if the Government had itself last Session proposed some such measure, [cries of "Question, Question."]
Mr. Sheart Worthysaid, he would take that, opportunity of expressing a hope that no more time should be lost, for every moment that was lost reduced the chance of doing good. With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, however, he thought that it was but justice to say, that he seemed to have done every thing that the time would permit. To pass the Resolutions would be unfair towards the Government; he regretted that they had been proposed, and he hoped that they would not be adopted.
Mr. Humesaid [amidst many marks of impatience in the House] he hoped his hon. friend would press his Motion to a division, for the purpose of satisfying the people of Canada that there was a party in that House that took an interest in their welfare. He said this, because he knew that the eyes of the people of Canada were turned on that House. Some hon. Members might not take that interest which he and others did in this matter, but as he held in his hand an address

1109
from the inhabitants of Canada, complaining that nothing had been done towards satisfying them, he thought that the House was bound to give this subject its most serious attention. He resisted the idea that Government had done any thing; on the contrary, it had lost two years in carrying into effect the recommendation of the Committee. In addition to all their other grievances, he thought that this country did wrong in pressing upon Canada a dominant Church. The Canadians, however, were roused to a sense of the injustice that had been done them, and he trusted that they would never quit the agitation of the subject, till they obtained their rights.
Lord Miltonsuggested to the House, whether it would not be better to take such a course as would induce the people of Canada to look, not to any particular individuals who might happen to be in office, but to the people of England as represented in that House. He therefore trusted that his hon. friend would persist in his Motion, not for the purpose of holding out to Canada that there was a party ready to take their case under its protection, but to show them that there was a principle in Parliament, and a general feeling also, that the grievances of the Canadians ought not to be less considered in that House than the grievances of the people of England.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, he had been asked, whether he did not think that the Judges ought to be independent of the Crown? This was a difficult question to answer in general, as much depended on the nature of society, on the state of the Colony, and on the nature of the inducements held out to men to accept judicial situations. The great point to be aimed at was, a pure and impartial administration of justice in the Colony. The Mover and Seconder of the Resolutions that had been proposed to the House, had supported them in a manner which indicated that it was necessary to force his right hon. friend to adopt the recommendation of the Committee; but it had already been pointed out by his right hon. friend, that he had not only adopted the principle, but had actually carried it into practice, by seizing the opportunity afforded by three vacancies to appoint the successors in accordance with the suggestion of the Committee. As the Resolutions were meant to apply a stimulus to the Government, which his right hon. friend had shown that the Government did
1110
not need; that was, he thought, a sufficient reason why the House, which must, under such circumstances, wish to avoid the appearance of censuring the Government, should not adopt the Resolutions. There were, however, two other reasons. First, as the Resolutions referred to the exercise of the prerogative of the Crown, the House ought to proceed by addressing the Crown to abstain from exercising that prerogative, and not by coming to the proposed Resolutions. The Act regulating the Canadas gave the power to the Crown, and if the House wished to restrain that power, it would be proper to proceed by a legislative measure. To the Resolutions of that House the other House of Parliament could not be a party; and therefore, what was intended to alter the prerogative should be done by a measure in which the whole Legislature could concur. Another reason was, that the Crown had exercised its prerogative, and had appointed a Council, and in that Council were several persons dependent on the Government, as well as Judges; and a Resolution of that House, condemning the formation of that Council, would not add to its respect in the Canadas. He thought it would not be wise, therefore, for the House of Commons to come to such a Resolution. He desired to see the Colonies prosperous; and he was convinced they would long be of use to the mother-country, by remaining connected with her by the ties of affection; and it was only by those ties, which he wished to see strengthened, that we could secure their assistance and good-will.
Mr. Labouchere Mr. Labouchere, in reply, stated, that he thought the Council might be immediately made up of persons independent of the Crown. He was also of opinion that the measures proposed by the right hon. the Secretary of the Colonies might be carried into execution in a shorter time than he contemplated. But, at any rate, the evils of allowing the Judges to have seats in the Council were so great, that the Government ought immediately to say to them, that they must give up their seats in the Council, or their situations as Judges. For these reasons he felt himself bound to press his Motion to a division.
The House then divided on the First Resolution—For the Motion 94; Against it 155—Majority against the Motion 61

List of the Minority.

Althorp, Lord

Milton, Lord

Baring, Sir Thomas

Macdonald, Sir J., bt.

Baring, F.

Morpeth, Lord

Baring, Wm. B.

Maxwell, John

Bernal, Ralph

Monck, J. B.

Benett, J.

Normanby, Lord

Blake, Sir F.

Ord, Wm.

Blandford, Marquis

O'Connell, Daniel

Brownlow, Charles

Poyntz, W. S.

Brougham, H.

Phillimore, Dr.

Carter, John

Protheroe, E.

Cavendish, Wm.

Philips, Sir G., bt.

Calvert, Charles

Ponsonby, Hon. F.

Carew, Richard

Ponsonby, Hon. W.

Cholmeley, M. J.

Philips, G. R.

Clifton, Lord

Parnell, Sir H.

Clive, Edward B.

Price, Sir Robert

Compton, Samuel

Pendarvis, E. W.

Dawson, Alexander

Rumbold, Chas. E.

Denison, W. J.

Russell, William

Denison, J. E.

Russell, Lord John

Du Cane, Peter

Rice, T. S.

Dundas, Sir Robert

Robinson, Sir G. R.

Dundas, Hon. T.

Robarts, A.W.

Dundas, Hon. H.

Stanley, Lord

Easthope, John

Stanley, Edward

Ebrington, Lord

Smith, R. Vernon

Foley, J. h.

Stewart, John

Fergusson, Sir R. C.

Stewart, Sir M. S., bt.

Fazakerley, John N.

Thompson, P. B.

Guise, Sir B. W., bt.

Thomson, C. P.

Gordon, R.

Townsend, Lord C.

Graham, Sir James

Webb, Col. Edw.

Grant, Rt. Hon. C.

Western, C. C.

Grattan, Henry

Wood, C.

Howard, H.

Wall, C. B.

Howick, Lord

Wilbraham, G.

Hume, J.

Wilson, Sir R.

Honywood, W. P.

Wood, J.

Huskisson, Rt. Hn. W.

Warburton, H.

Heron, Sir R.

TELLERS.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Labouchere, H.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Sandon, Lord PAIRED OFF.

Kemp, T. R.

Killeen, Lord

Beaumont, J. W.

Knight, R.

Birch, J.

Kennedy, T. F.

Davenport, Edward

Lambert, J. F.

Ellis, Hon. Agar

Lennard, T. B.

Grant, Robert

Lamb, Hon. G.

Guest, J. J.

Lawley, F.

Ponsonby, Hon. G.

Martin, John

Whitbread, Wm.

Marshall, W.

Wood, Alderman

TOBACCO MANUFACTURERS.
Mr. Chas. Calvertin moving that the Petition from the Tobacco Manufacturers of London, Westminster, and Southwark, praying for Repayment of the Duty which had been paid on Stock prior to July 5, 1825, and presented on February 17, be referred to a Committee, observed, that he made that Motion from a conviction impressed on his mind, as well as on the minds of the
1112
petitioners, that such a course would be advantageous. The petitioners before brought forward their case, and he regretted to state, that in their opinion it was not attended to in that quarter to which they naturally had recourse. In order to make the case of the petitioners intelligible, it might be necessary for him to state, that they were manufacturers of an article, the first cost of which bore no proportion to the duty. The duty on Tobacco, in fact, was equal to 1,600 per cent on the prime cost. Under these circumstances, it was quite evident that there must be at all times a great anxiety on the part of the manufacturers of Tobacco, to know whether any alteration was intended to be made in the duty. Accordingly, early in the year 1825, applications were made to the Government, to ascertain that point, and the Tobacco manufacturers were informed that it was not the intention of the Government to make any alteration. Owing to these assurances, the manufacturers were induced to lay in their stocks, paying duty to the amount of 4s. per pound; but, by some neglect, the duty of 1s. in the pound, the last duty laid on Tobacco, was not renewed, and the duty payable by law amounted only to 3s. per pound; being 25 per cent less than the duty which the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated it was the intention of the Government to continue. On the 2nd of August 1825, it was discovered that, by an omission of the annual Act of Parliament, the Government had been improperly receiving 4s. in the pound duty subsequent to the 5th of July; the duty payable by law being 1s. less than it was the preceding year. The Government was, of course, bound to return the excess of duty received subsequent to the 5th of July; and it did so, but very large sums were lost by those who purchased their stocks previous to the 5th of July, on the assurance that no alteration was contemplated. The loss certainly fell on but a few persons, but it was very hard on those few. One of the petitioners, whom he knew, lost a very large sum of money by these means. Representations had been made by the manufacturers to his Majesty's Government on the subject; but they had not been attended to. It was not necessary for him to enter further into the particulars of this case, as he thought that he had sufficiently stated the grounds on which he asked the House to sanction the appoint-

1113
ment of a Select Committee. The case of the petitioners had not been sufficiently and effectually investigated, and the only way in which it could be was by the appointment of a Select Committee. He had no doubt that, from the hands of such a committee, the petitioners would obtain that justice they had so often claimed, but which hitherto they had been so unfortunate as not to obtain at the hands of his Majesty's Government. In conclusion, the hon. Member moved "That the said Petition be referred to a Select Committee, to examine the matter thereof, and to report the same, with their observations thereupon, to the House."
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he was far from thinking that a Select Committee was necessary in this case, and he hoped that he should satisfy the House, that the question lay in so narrow a compass, and the facts were so plain and simple, that it might come to a decision at once, without the intervention of a committee, as to whether the prayer of the petitioners ought to be granted. As his hon. friend had stated, in the year 1825, by an accident, the duty on Tobacco, which it was intended to continue at 4s. was fixed at 3s. per lb.; and the statement of the petitioners was, that as they were induced to lay in a stock, by the assurance of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and that as they had paid the full duty of 4s. on the stock in hand, twenty-five per cent should be returned to them. The petitioners, in consequence of this supposed claim, applied to Viscount Goderich, who was then Chancellor of the Exchequer. Representations had also been made to his right hon. friend near him, when he held the office; similar representations were, he believed, made to Mr. Canning; and repeated applications had been made to himself. The question had been so often discussed, that he had replied to the petitioners, that it was not thought necessary to disturb the decision already come to by the Treasury. In giving that answer, no disrespect whatever was intended to the petitioners, but a decision having been come to, after full deliberation, he should not have been justified in departing from that decision, confirmed as it was by the views of successive Chancellors of the Exchequer. It might be well to consider a little on what principle the petition claimed the return of the duty paid by them on the stocks which they had
1114
on hand previous to the 5th of July 1825. It had usually been considered proper, that when a duty was lowered, the manufacturer should have the surplus duty on the stock in hand returned to him, or be allowed sufficient time to get rid of it. In the year 1819, when the duty on tobacco was increased from 3s. 2d. per lb. to 4s. no charge was made on the manufacturers for the stock in hand. They had the advantage of buying it at 3s. 2d. to sell at 4s. and now when the duty was reduced from 4s. to 3s. what claim had they that the difference should be returned to them? But there was even a stronger case against them. The duty of 4s. ceased on the 5th of July, and the error was not discovered until the month of August. Up to the month of August, therefore, the petitioners were selling this Tobacco to the public under the impression that the duty was 4s. per lb. Every pound sold to the public previous to the 2nd of August, was charged as if the duty were 4s. per lb.; but yet, when the mistake was discovered, the manufacturers were returned the whole of the duty which had been erroneously received. The sum returned, was between 59,000 l. and 60,000 l., although the manufacturers had received in retail, the whole sum charged in the interval between the reduction of the duty, and the discovery of the mistake. The manufacturers charged the public the full duty of 4s. and recovered back what they had paid above 3s. Under those circumstances, the House would come to the conclusion, he hoped, that the petitioners had no just ground for the claim they had made, and would agree with him, that there was no ground for referring a question so simple to a committee. In his opinion, the claim of the petitioners was not entitled to any further consideration than it had already received.
Mr. Charles Calvertsaid, that he was not a little surprised at the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had met this Motion. He alleged, as a reason for doing injustice in 1825, that no additional charge had been made on the manufacturers for the stock in hand, when the duty was raised from 3s. 2d. to 4s. in 1819. What had the manufacturers of 1825 to do with the manufacturers of 1819? They were not the same persons. The case of the manufacturers of 1825 was this; upon the express assurance of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, that no al-

1115
teration would take place, they laid in large stocks; and subsequently, contrary to the assurances on which they acted, the duty was reduced 25 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman said, that the excess of duty paid between the 5th of July and the 2nd of August, had been returned. That duty was received contrary to law, and the Government was bound to return it, so that the right hon. Gentleman must not take any credit for the return of that duty. Nor was the sum returned all profit to the manufacturers. They were bound to make allowances to retail dealers all over the country, to whom they had retailed tobacco subsequent to the 8th of July, and before the mistake was discovered. He would undertake to prove, that between 50,000 l. and 60,000 l. had been lost by the manufacturers. Tobacco required only three days to manufacture it, but snuff took nearly six months. During the whole time, therefore, that the snuff manufactured from tobacco, purchased under the circumstances he had stated, was in a state of preparation, the manufacturer was losing 25 per cent. He did not. propose that this House should vote an allowance to the parties who had suffered this loss, but if the House granted a committee, he had no doubt that the opinion of that committee would be, that Government was bound to make good the actual loss suffered by the petitioners. The situation in life of these petitioners, and their commercial respectability, certainly made him desirous of taking the opinion of the House on the subject.
Motion negatived without a division.

GALWAY FRANCHISE BILL.
Mr. Spring Rice Mr. Spring Rice moved the third reading of the Galway Franchise Bill.
Mr. J. Dalyopposed the Bill, and moved, as an amendment, that it be read a third time that day six months.
Mr. Spring Riceargued in favour of the Bill. It was only intended to carry into complete execution the principle adopted by that House of admitting Catholics to the offices of the State as well as Protestants.
Mr. Trantopposed the Bill, as giving the whole power of the Corporation of Galway into the hands of Catholics.
Mr. Northobjected to the Bill, that it robbed the corporation of a portion of its privileges. The Charter of that town was violated by the Act of George 1st, and this
1116
Bill, instead of restoring it, was a further violation of the charter. He would vote against it.
The House divided: for the Amendment 59; Against it 77—Majority 18.

List of the Minority.

Beresford, Lt.-Col. M.

Jones, John

Bernard, Thomas

Knox, Hon. John

Bankes, George

Lowther, Viscount

Burrard, George

Lewis, Right Hon. F.

Buck, Lewis W.

Martin, Sir Byam

Courtenay, Rt. Hon. T. P.

Maitland, Hon. Capt.

Moore, George

Croker, Rt. Hon. J. W.

Murray, Sir G. Bart.

Corbett, Panton

Owen, Hugh O.

Campbell, Archibald

Prendergast, M. C.

Cust, Hon. Captain P.

Peel, Wm. Y.

Cust, Hon. Major E.

Peel, Rt. Hon. Sir R.

Cockburn, Rt. Hon. J.

Planta, Joseph

Clerk, Sir George

Perceval, Spencer

Calvert, John

Ross, Charles

Dundas, Hon. H.

Rae, Rt. Hon. Sir W.

Drummond, Home

Saunderson, Alex.

Dawson, G. R.

Sibthorp, Col. C. D.

Doherty, John

Stopford, Lord

Estcourt, J. H. jun.

Scott, Sir W., Bart.

Fyler, Thomas B.

Spottiswoode, Andrew

Freemantle, Sir T. T. P.

Sturt, Henry Charles

Twiss, Horace

Fitzgerald, Rt. Hon. M.

Trench, Colonel F. W.

Garlies, Viscount

Trant, Wm. H.

Gordon, Hon. Capt. W.

Talmash, L.

Grant, Sir Alexander

Vyvyan, Sir R. R.

Goulburn, Rt. Hon. H.

Wortley, Hon. J. S.

Hill, Sir George

Hardinge, Sir Henry

TELLERS.

Herries, Rt. Hon. J. G.

Daly, James

Hodson, J. A.

North, J. H.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of HAREWOOD, from Dewsbury, in favour of the Removal of the Assizes for the West Hiding of Yorkshire from York to Wakefield; and from the Landowners of Septon, to the same effect. By the Marquis of ORMOND, against the additional Duty on Spirits, from Kilkenny. By Viscount CLIFDEN, from the Directors of a Provincial Bank in Ireland, against the Punishment of Death for Forgery. By the Bishop of LONDON, from Chelmsford, for the Abolition of Slavery in the Colonies. By the Marquis of CLEVELAND, from the Shipowners of South Shields, against the Duties on Coals. By Earl BEAUCHAMP, from the Magistrates, Clergy, and Inhabitants of the City of Worcester, against the Punishment of Death for Forgery. By Lord WHARNCLIFFE, from a Dissenting Congregation near Leeds, praying the Abolition of Slavery. By the Marquis of CLEVELAND, from the Shipowners of New-castle-upon-Tyne, for the reduction of the Duty on Coals. By the Duke of DEVONSHIRE, from the City of Water-ford, complaining of Taxation, and praying Relief. By Earl GOWER, from Ross, against the increased Duty on British Corn Spirits.

THE KING'S INDISPOSITION—THE SIGN MANUAL.
The Order of the Day for taking into consideration his Majesty's Message was then read.
The Message was then read by the clerk, [see the debates of May 24.]
The Lord Chancellorrose and said, that he presented himself to their Lordships, in consequence of the notice given yesterday by the noble Duke at the head of the Government, in conformity with the recommendation and suggestion contained in his Majesty's most gracious Message, to state the nature and outline of the measure which it was the intention of his Majesty's Ministers to propose to the House for their adoption, in order to give effect to the royal wish. He deeply lamented the occasion which called for that measure, and in the expression of that feeling he was sure he carried with him the sympathies of their Lordships, as he did those of every individual throughout this loyal nation. He was thoroughly and deeply sensible of the delicate and difficult nature of the measure which he had to submit to their Lordships. It was of the utmost importance, as the necessity of the case required that some measure should be adopted for carrying his Majesty's wishes into effect. At the same time the measure must be adopted in such a shape and form as not to occasion any detriment to the public service. He felt deeply the importance of the recommendation offered by the noble Earl (Grey) who took part in the conversation last night, that with respect to a measure of that

1063
description, their Lordships should look not merely at present men and present circumstances, but should also take care that they did not establish a precedent which, under men of a different character and in bad times, might possibly lead to public inconvenience and danger. It was perfectly obvious that for the purpose of remedying the inconvenience arising from the impossibility of obtaining the personal signature of his Majesty two modes might be adopted. One was, that some other person or persons should, in the presence of his Majesty and by his command, subscribe his Majesty's name by his express and immediate authority. The other mode was, that some individual or individuals should, by a stamp prepared for the purpose, and bearing the impress of the royal sign affix that stamp for the purpose of expressing his Majesty's signature in his presence and by his immediate and express command. With respect to the latter mode, he was able to inform their Lordships that it had been adopted at different periods in the history of this country. What he stated did not depend on loose testimony, but rested on the evidence of authentic documents, which remained unimpaired in a public institution. The earliest document to which he would refer, because it appeared to be the most material and important, was a patent in the reign of Henry 8th. That patent was at present in a perfect state in the British Museum. It appeared by that document, under the Great Seal, that Henry 8th gave power to certain persons therein named, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Chancellor, the Lords and other members of the Privy Seal, or any six of them, to affix, from time to time, a stamp, bearing the impress of the royal signature, to warrants authorizing the payment of money from the Royal Treasury. That authority was given for a limited time. It was not given in consequence of the indisposition or inability of his Majesty to perform his duty, but merely for the purpose of expedition and public convenience. There were many other instances in the reign of Henry 8th in which the Royal signature was affixed, not in the handwriting of the Sovereign, but by means of a stamp. Amongst these instances, were orders for the mustering and levying of troops, proclamations, letters which required the Royal signature, and other instruments of a similar description.
1064
These, to the amount of eight or ten, were now found in a perfect state amongst the different collections in the British Museum. Edward 6th issued two proclamations; one authorizing the levying of troops in the northern part of the island, for the purpose of providing against the incursions of the Scots, and the other was issued in consequence of an insurrection which occurred in some of the eastern counties. To both these proclamations the name of the King was affixed by a stamp, and they were countersigned by the Protector Somerset. In the reign of Queen Mary, also, a proclamation was issued at the period of the insurrection of Sir Thomas Wyatt, calling upon the persons who had taken part in that insurrection to return to their homes, and promising them pardon if they complied with her Majesty's wish within a limited period. An instance of a similar nature occurred at a subsequent period. This instance could not be vouched by the authority of an official document, but it was related by a contemporary writer of great authority and accuracy. This instance occurred in the reign of King William, in the last hour of his life, when he was no longer able to subscribe his name. It was stated that he gave his assent to the appointment of a commission for the purpose of passing into a law two bills which had recently passed both Houses of Parliament,—namely, the bill for securing the Protestant Succession, and the Malt-duty bill. It was said, that the assent of the King was given to the commission by the authority of which the bills were passed into a law, by means of a stamp prepared for the purpose. The author, upon whose authority he stated this fact, was Burnet, a contemporary of William. The fact was stated, not only by Burnet, but by other writers. He had directed his researches most diligently in the Parliament Office. He ascertained that a record of the commission does not exist. He must rely, therefore, upon the contemporary historian—and upon the authority of other writers, also contemporary. In the last year of the reign of Henry 8th, and shortly before his death, the royal signature was affixed to a commission authorizing the Royal assent to be given for the attainder of the Duke of Norfolk. The assent was given by the commission, and the King's signature to the commission was affixed by means of a stamp. That document was still in exis-

1065
tence. In the first year of the reign of Mary, a bill was brought into Parliament to declare the attainder of the Duke of Norfolk null and void. The recital of the bill, and one of the grounds on which it was passed, was, that the Royal signature was not annexed to the commission by the Sign Manual, but by a stamp, and that the stamp was not impressed by the hand of the King, but by that of a clerk. The proof of this fact rested on the evidence of a second clerk who was present. On that account chiefly, though there were other minor grounds, the attainder was, after a severe struggle in the House of Commons, declared null and void. He mentioned these historical facts, not because he relied upon them for the purpose of showing that Government could by any possibility without the authority of Parliament substitute a stamp or any other mode of signature for the Royal Sign Manual; but when they were considering the mode in which a substitute could be found for the Royal Signature, he thought it right and proper to state what in this respect had been done on former occasions, when a substitute was adopted for the Sign Manual. On the present occasion he was sure no Minister would recommend for a moment, or suppose in point of law it could be maintained, that any thing could be adopted for the Sign Manual without the authority of Parliament. Ministers, therefore, had thought it their duty on the present occasion to come down to Parliament to ask advice and counsel on the subject, to state the measures which had occurred to their own minds, and which they would recommend to Parliament to adopt. At the same time they would readily receive, and, if they could concur in them adopt, any suggestions which any noble Lords might offer for the improvement of the measure they meant to propose. It now only remained for him to state the form of the measure, and the securities with which it was intended to be guarded. Ministers were desirous that every possible security should be thrown round the trust to be given for the purpose of guarding against the chance of abuse. At the same time it was desirable that the measure should not be clogged or encumbered so as to render the progress of public business difficult. Ministers proposed by the Bill which he held in his hand, that a commission under the Royal Sign Manual should issue, authorizing
1066
any one or more of the persons therein named to affix his Majesty's signature by means of a stamp prepared for the purpose to such instruments as required the Royal signature. By way of security, and to guard against abuse, it was proposed that the persons named in the warrant as commissioners should make oath that they would not on any occasion, except in the presence and by the immediate command of his Majesty, affix the stamp to any instrument whatever. That was not the whole of the guards and securities. It was proposed that the persons named in the commission should not have authority to affix the stamp to which he had referred, until upon the instrument to which it was to be affixed had been endorsed the nature and object of the instrument, signed by three Ministers to be named especially in the Bill. This could not fail to be considered a guard against abuse, inasmuch as it increased the responsibility under which Ministers acted. It appeared to him that if he were to stop there, the security provided was so great and extensive that no practical mischief could result from the measure proposed. But it was his duty to go further. He had already stated that a stamp was to be prepared. That stamp would be kept in the custody of certain officers—certain high officers named in the Bill. It was not to be annexed to any instrument except in the presence of one of those officers, who must attest that it was affixed in his presence—that was another security. If any noble Lord could add to those securities, he would repeat what he had before stated, that Ministers would be most ready and willing to adopt the addition. Their Lordships would perceive that the securities proposed by the Bill were, in the first instance, that the persons named in the commission should have authority only in the presence and by the immediate command of his Majesty to affix the stamp. To violate that provision would be a high misdemeanour, for which the parties would be deeply responsible, and subject to the severest punishment. Next there was the additional obligation of the oath. There was the further security, that if the back of the instrument should not be endorsed and signed as he had stated, it would be null and void. Further, the stamp must be affixed in the presence of one of the Ministers of the Crown, who must attest it. Guarded by those securities, all forgery or attempts at

1067
forgery were impossible. It was necessary to state, that it was not intended to supersede the Royal authority. To guard against the possibility of that, a clause was contained in the Bill, by which, notwithstanding the provisions of the Bill, it was enacted, that his Majesty might as usual, and according to the accustomed form, affix his Sign Manual to instruments, and that the signature so affixed should have the same force and effect as if the Bill had not passed. He had now stated shortly the objects of the Bill expressly, not for the purpose of provoking discussion at the present stage, for he thought the Bill should first be printed to enable their Lordships to come to a proper consideration of the subject, which was one of delicacy and importance, but one which required to be pressed forward with all speed compatible with the forms of the House. Giving, therefore, the best council and advice of which the Ministers were capable,—they proposed that the Bill should be read a second time to-morrow; and they also suggested the suspending of the Standing Orders, so that it might be passed through its remaining stages as speedily as possible. Indeed he saw no reason why the Bill should not be passed through all its remaining stages to-morrow. It had been suggested by a noble Earl that their Lordships should search for precedents, and appoint a committee for that purpose. On two occasions relative to the question of the Regency, there were committees; and for his part he saw no reason why a committee might not sit tomorrow, and its labours might be made concurrent with the progress of the Bill. These labours might throw some additional light upon the subject; but certainly after all his own researches, and the results of the researches of others,—he did not expect that any material information could be appended to that which had been already procured. But, at the same time, if any noble Lord chose to move for a committee he should not object.
His Lordship then put the question from the Woolsack, that the Bill be read a first time.
The Earl of Eldonsuggested it was not necessary to read the Bill at length at present, as it was to be read a second time to-morrow.
Earl Greysaid, he willingly bore testimony to the fairness and candour of the statement which the noble Lord on the
1068
Woolsack had just made. He was not prepared to make any objection to the mode which his Majesty's Ministers proposed; but he felt, as he expressed himself yesterday, and as the noble and learned Lord expressed himself that day, that this was a subject of great delicacy and importance. Their Lordships should therefore consider well before they enacted the law. He was not competent to say if they would meet with precedents to guide them. It had been usual, however, to institute such a committee; and he regretted, as there was no opposition, that he had not moved for a committee last night. They might have then sat that day; and there could have been no reason for delaying the progress of the measure beyond the period proposed by the noble and learned Lord. But now, although willing to afford every facility to the measure, he would beg to submit, that as the bill could not be committed into the hands of the Members until to-morrow, whether it would not be more decent to put off the second reading until Thursday. This would give room for full consideration, and when that consideration should have been given, there could be no objection to carrying the Bill through its other stages as soon as possible. He thought that the delay of one day was a reasonable request, and confidently pressed it upon the noble and learned Lord, to whom he gave perfect credit for coming to the consideration of the measure with all anxiety to guard against the abuse of the delegated authority. There was only one thing to which he was anxious to refer; that was the question of duration. He thought the commission should be limited to as short a time as possible, and whatever might be the result of the lamentable cause which created the present exigency, he trusted that this measure would be brought again under the consideration of Parliament before the termination of this Session. He did not know the term to which it was proposed the commission should extend, as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had not specified it. He was anxious, however, that it should not be such as would place the measure beyond their immediate grasp, if they saw reason to revise or amend it. In conclusion, he submitted that the time he himself would require, and that the noble Lords around him would require, being very short, ought to be conceded; and he was confident that

1069
on the second reading everything would be in such a slate that they might proceed through the further stages without delay. He would accordingly propose that the second reading should be deferred to Thursday.
The Duke of Wellingtonstated, that the circumstances of the case rendered it advisable for them to press forward the measure with as much celerity as was consistent with the forms of the House. He had no objection to defer the second reading till Thursday, but on this express condition—that this Bill was to be passed through all its remaining stages on that one day.
The Earl of Eldonmade an observation which was not audible below the Bar.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor, in answer to the noble Earl (Grey,) observed that it was in the power of Parliament to bring any bill before them a second time, by moving for its repeal; at the same time he acknowledged that the object the noble Earl had in view might be best effected by an original clause, which he had no objection to introduce. He had no wish to oppose the suggestion to limit the term of the commission's duration, so that the measure might again be brought under consideration before the close of the Session.
Earl Greyremarked, that he was urged to press this upon the noble and learned Lord, from his strong feeling that it was a matter of much importance that it should be within their immediate power to amend or alter the Bill, if it were deemed necessary, before the close of the present Session.
The Bill was then read the first time, and read at length.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved the suspending of the Standing Order of the House, No. 26,175, on Thursday next.
Earl Grey Earl Grey moved for a committee to report upon precedents for furnishing the Royal Signature in cases requiring the Sign Manual. The Committee to sit tomorrow.
The Motion was agreed to, and the following Peers appointed to compose the Committee:—The Lord President (Earl Bathurst); The Lord Privy Seal (the Earl of Rosslyn); The Marquis of Lansdown; Earl Grey; The Duke of Wellington; The Duke of Montrose; Lord Holland; The Marquis of Camden; The Archbishop of York; The Archbishop of Canterbury; The Bishop of London; the Duke of
1070
Devonshire; Lord Tenterden; The Earl of Eldon; Lord Wharnclifle; The Duke of Richmond; Lord Sidmouth, and the Earl of Carnarvon.

CONFERENCE WITH THE COMMONS.
A Message was received from the Commons, requesting a conference with their Lordships in the Painted Chamber, on a matter of high importance to the administration of justice. Their request was granted. A committee of their Lordships was appointed to conduct the said conference. On their return from the Painted Chamber, the Lord President reported that they had received from the Commons a copy of certain Resolutions agreed to by the Commons for the removal of Sir Jonah Barrington from the office of Judge of the Admiralty in Ireland. On the motion of the Duke of Wellington, these Resolutions were ordered to be taken into consideration on Friday se'nnight.

FOUR-AND-A-HALF PER CENT DUTIES.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, that he rose to move for a document connected with the application of money for the public service; and though he did not anticipate any objection to his Motion, as a similar motion had been acceded to elsewhere, subsequently to the period when he gave notice of his intention to bring the subject forward in that House, he hoped that their Lordships would indulge him with their attention for a few moments, whilst he briefly stated the reasons which induced him to disapprove of the nature of the proceeding which had been adopted, and to think that if it were not noticed by Parliament, it might lead to unfortunate consequences hereafter, in cases of a similar character. For though what had recently been done, had been done without any improper views or intentions, it had set aside the unvaried usage of 170 years, by which the 4½-per-cent-duties, or the articles paid in kind for those duties, had been subjected, in common with all other merchandise imported into the country, to the duties imposed by Parliament. It appeared that of late, by cover of the royal prerogative, they had been exempted from duties, and thus formed a fund for the Crown, not applicable to any purposes recognized by Parliament. He admitted that under the common law it was one of the Royal prerogatives, that all things

1071
belonging to the Crown might be brought into the country free from all duties whatever. But never before had that prerogative been exercised as in this particular instance. The claim of exemption was founded on the circumstance of the goods being for the use of the Crown; and was never raised when the goods were merely the property of the Crown, which had always hitherto been subjected to the duties imposed by Parliament for the purpose of meeting the charges of the public service. In this case certain duties were taken off merchandise, the property of the Crown, not intended for the use of the Crown, but for sale: and he knew not on what principle such a practice could be objected to hereafter, if it were admitted in this case on the principles laid down by the Crown lawyers. Merchandise might become the property of the Crown in times of war as Droits of Admiralty; and if any Minister should advise the Crown to purchase merchandise abroad, in the hope of selling it at a profit in Great Britain, owing to the heavy imposts which other importers of it were compelled to pay, he did not know on what grounds, if the present practice were sanctioned by Parliament, such a course could be objected to. All the cinnamon in the Island of Ceylon was the property of the Crown, and though the Crown had hitherto paid duty on its importation into this country for sale, he saw no reason why, if the plan adopted with regard to sugar sent here in payment of the 4½-per-cent were allowed to pass unaltered, it should not import cinnamon duty free to create a new fund free from the control of Parliament. He hoped to see this subject meet with the grave consideration which it deserved from their Lordships. He would not enter into the history of the 4½-per-cent-duties, but would merely call the attention of their Lordships to the point connected with the remission of these duties. He did not charge the Government with any improper intentions in making that remission; but it did appear to him, that the consequences of it, in a constitutional point of view, might be most mischievous. The noble Marquis concluded by moving for a copy of the Minute of the Lords of his Majesty's Treasury, by which the Customs duty payable on Sugar brought to this country in discharge of the 4½-per-cent-duties have not been paid since the 25th of March, 1828, and the
1072
authority under which such exemption has been made.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that he did not rise to object to this Motion, but to express his sense of the noble Marquis's candour in not imputing any thing improper to his Majesty's Government in making the remission of which he complained. He would not, as the House had other business before it, enter into a history of the 4½-per-cent-duties. It was well known that those duties were paid in kind in the West-Indies. It was therefore clear, that the articles on which those duties were so paid were the property of the Crown; and there could be no doubt that it was a constitutional principle, that the property of the Crown was not liable to pay duty on importation into the country. He did not contend that it was always prudent to put that principle in practice, but he did mean to contend that it was not imprudent to put it in practice in this case, because there were peculiar circumstances attached to it, which were not likely to be found in any other case. In the year 1825, the Act of the 6th Geo. 4th was passed, which rendered this fund of the 4½-pcr-ccnt-duties liable to the payment of certain stipends to the clergy in the West-Indies; and that Act not only required that that fund should be so applied, but also recognized its application to the salaries of certain officers in the West-Indies, and to the payment of certain pensions, saying, in express words, that after these were paid, the surplus of the fund was to be applied to defray the stipends of the clergy. Under these circumstances, he contended that these funds were taken out of the hands of the Crown, were applied under the control and superintendence of Parliament, and could never be abused for any purposes whatever. The noble Duke then read a clause from the Act to support his view of the subject. It was clear, he said, from the words of that clause, that the fund was a public fund, and that it could not be abused to any of the purposes which the noble Marquis supposed, when he mentioned spices and cinnamon. On these grounds he contended that the measure stood entirely upon its own grounds, and that it could never be used injuriously as a precedent.
The Marquis of Lansdownmade a few observations in reply, in which he con-

1073
tended, that no ground had been laid by the noble Duke for overturning the practice of 170 years. If the sugars paid in lieu of these duties were, as the noble Duke stated them to be, public merchandise, then beyond all doubt, they ought to pay public duties. He was induced to hope that this Session would not close without Parliament providing a distinct regulation for the application of these funds.
Motion agreed to.
Their Lordships then proceeded to examine witnesses further on the East Retford Disfranchisement Bill.