Sitting of 9 November 1830

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. For the abolition of Slavery in the Colonies, by Mr. WHITMORE, from Bridge-north:—By Sir J. MACKINTOSH, from Knaresborough, and the Independents of New Court, Carey-street:—By Sir J. WROTTESLEY, from Leek, Staffordshire:—By Mr. SYKES, from the Dissenters of seven places in Yorkshire:—By Mr. GREENE, from Lancaster:—By Mr. E. CLIVE, from certain Female Inhabitants of the City of Hereford:—By Mr. WALL, from Guildford:—By Lord EBRINGTON, from five places in Devonshire:—By Mr. O'CONNELL, from Dalreoch, Scotland:—By Mr. PRINGLE, from the Presbytery of Selkirk:—By Mr. GISBORNE, from Stafford: — By Sir W. FOULKES, eight Petitions from Dissenters in Norfolk:—By Mr. HUME, from the Wesleyan Methodists of Harrow-on-the-Hill:—By Sir E. KERRISON, from the Borough of Eye:—By Mr. PENDARVIS, from a Town of Cornwall:—By Mr. MUNDY, eight Petitions from Dissenters in Derbyshire. By Mr. SHAW, from the Pastor and Members of the Congregation of Ebenezer Chapel, Harmony-row, Dublin, against Duelling. By Lord MORPETH, from James Hamilton, Barrister-at-Law, a landed proprietor, and a Magistrate of Yorkshire; and, he ex-
318
pressed in his Petition, "an ardent and persevering sportsman," for an alteration in the Game-laws, particularly as regarded qualification. By the same noble Lord, from Martin Stapylton, esq., praying that no Member should be allowed to sit and vote, until he had taken an Oath that he had not committed any breach of the Laws against Bribery and Corruption. By Mr. Alderman THOMPSON, from Mr. Capel and Mr. Gladstone, complaining of the Return at the late Election for Queen borough.
Mr. C. W. WYNN'S Bill to Repeal so much of certain Acts as required certain Oaths to be taken before the Lord Steward, &c. was read a first time.

REPEAL OF THE UNION—PERSONALITIES.
Mr. O'Connellpresented a petition from Waterford for a repeal of the Legislative Union with Ireland. The hon. Member supported the prayer of the petition.
Mr. Dohertywished to know from the hon. and learned Gentleman, whether it was his intention to bring the question to which the petition referred substantively before the House, so as to admit of a fair and full discussion, and thus give hon. Members an opportunity of expressing their sense of its merits? He thought this would be the fair and straight forward course for the hon. and learned Gentleman to pursue, instead of habitually indulging in irregular and vapid observations on the presentation of petitions.
Mr. O'Connelldid not intend to bring forward a specific motion for the repeal of the Union till the number of petitions in its favour should show that the measure was one not emanating from individuals, but from the majority of the people of Ireland. He would take the opportunity of assuring his excellent friend, the member for Middlesex, that the repeal of the Union was no mere whim of his, but the ardent desire of 99 persons out of every 100 in Ireland.
Mr. Dohertysaid, that as the hon. and learned Gentleman had shrunk from affording the House a tangible opportunity of expressing a decisive opinion on the subject, he would in future abstain from any remarks relative to the repeal of the Union, on the occasion of petitions being presented. He recommended other hon. Members to pursue the same course, and await the opportunity, if ever it presented itself, of the hon. and learned Gentleman's bringing forward the question so as to admit the sense of the House being taken upon it.
Mr. Tennysonprotested against the principle just laid down by the Solicitor-General for Ireland, that Members should abstain from addressing observations to the House when presenting petitions.
Mr. Brownlowearnestly hoped a day would be afforded for the full discussion of the subject; for he was sure that the House would be unanimous against the present project of the hon. and learned member for Waterford. Nothing could be more detrimental to the peace and the prosperity of Ireland than agitating this question.
Mr. Shawcould assure the House, that the great majority of his respectable and enlightened constituents—the inhabitants of the city of Dublin—were against the scheme of a repeal of the Leglislative Union with Ireland.
Mr. O' Connellhad no other object in view in agitating the question of a local Parliament than to prevent the forcible separation of Ireland from England, and to add to the benefits of their union. The Union had long been an object of hatred to the people of Ireland. The Chief-Justice of the King's-bench in Ireland declared, that the Act of Union was a nullity, for the Parliament had no authority to pass it. The Chief-Justice of the Common Pleas, Ireland, Lord Plunkett, declared, that like Hannibal, he would bring his sons to the altar, and make them swear perpetual hostility to the measure. The great majority of the Irish people now called for its repeal, and he could assure his hon. friend (Mr. Shaw) that he was mistaken as to the opinions of his own constituents. The declaration against the repeal, got up in Dublin, had not been signed by more than a score persons.
Mr. G. Dawsonmaintained, that notwithstanding the perverse obstinacy with which the hon. and learned member for Waterford agitated the question of a repeal of the Union out of doors, for the sake of mob-popularity, he would not dare to bring it forward substantively before the House, so as to bring the favour in which it was regarded by hon. Members, of every shade and party, to a tangible and satisfactory test. It might answer the hon. and learned Gentleman's purposes, as the organ of the mob of Ireland, to make irregular speeches on the subject at dinners and on presenting petitions, but it would not so well suit his views to enable the public to know that in that. House he could not influence a single Member to vote or speak on his side of the question. The hon. and learned Gentleman professed, then, that his object was, to strengthen the Union between the two
320
countries; but every one who had heard him knew that the question did not assume its present form till the recent transactions in Belgium invested it with a new character, so as to afford him a favourable opportunity of carrying on his old trade of agitation. To attain his own personal object, mob-popularity, the hon. and learned gentleman seemed to think all means legitimate. For example, he had lately stated that a venerable nobleman (Earl Fitzwilliam), eminently distinguished by those qualities befitting his rank and station, was about to expel 800 families from his estate in the county of Wicklow, under the authority of certain clauses of the Subletting Act. Now, what were the facts of the case? Why, a Gentleman, a Member of that House, Mr. Challoner, the member for York, whom Lord Fitz-william had appointed to be the agent of his Irish estates on account of his humane, intelligent, and truly gentlemanlike qualifications, declares, in a letter in one of the Irish papers, which he had read that morning, that it was impossible to give utterance to a "more gross falsehood." This Gentleman had been selected by the hon. and learned Gentleman as an object of his calumny and gross libel. The hon. and learned Gentleman, to be sure, might retract his expression, for he was well known to be in the habit of making assertions, and retracting them when pushed for an explanation. "I will not," said the hon. Member in conclusion, "repeat the strong language of Mr. Challoner with reference to the hon. and learned Gentleman's assertion; but this I will say to his face, that I do believe Mr. Challoner, and that I do not believe his assertion. He may, if he likes, take an opportunity of retracting his gross libel on Mr. Challoner; but I am sure that a candid public will deem his retractation and his assertion equally satisfactory."
Mr. Humerose to protest against the extraordinary language which had been employed by the hon. Member who had just sat down. If the time of the House were to be thus uselessly taken up in stating objections to the conduct of hon. Members out of the House, there would be no end to the angry discussions which would inevitably arise out of such a practice. What right had the hon. Member to accuse his hon. and learned friend, the member for Waterford, of being an agitator in Ireland? that was not the question be-

321
fore the House, and his Majesty's Ministers and the Gentlemen connected with them, ought to be the last persons to encourage reproaches or make such attacks as that which the hon. Member had just made on the hon. member for Waterford. He likewise wondered how the hon. Member could venture to characterise a petition signed by 7,000 or 8,000 freeholders as the petition of a mob. Against such language he would always strenuously and seriously protest. He submitted, that the hon. Member, if he thought that he had any complaint to urge against the hon. and learned member for Waterford, ought to bring it forward at once in a direct manner, and to substantiate it, if he could, to the satisfaction of the House. He had last night called on those who had charges against the Ministers to bring them forward, and in that same spirit he ought, if he had any charges to urge against the hon. member for Waterford to state them to the House on a specific motion, not waste the time of the House by attacks that were irrelevant, made in language that was certainly not very usual, and, he believed, not parliamentary.
Sir Robert Batesonsaid, that he rose for the express purpose of denying the statement which had just been offered to the House by the hon. and learned member for Waterford. He had the honour of representing a constituency as numerous, as loyal, and as respectable, as that of the hon. and learned member himself. And he also appeared in the House quite as independent as the hon. and learned Member. The present question was neither a Whig nor a Tory question,—neither a Ministerial nor an Opposition question. Every man could, therefore, discuss it without the slightest reference to party feelings. He could affirm, that not merely nineteen out of every twenty, but ninety-nine out of every hundred persons among his constituents were opposed, not only to the repeal of the Union, but also to the very agitation of such a question. That was the opinion of all the people throughout Ulster. He wished to tell the English Members distinctly, that 99 out of every 100 persons in Ulster were opposed to the very agitation of the question for the repeal of the Union. In the face of the assertions of the hon. and learned member for Waterford, he declared, that the mere agitation of it had produced great mischief in Ireland. Let the hon. and
322
learned Member, who was never tired of vaunting of the benefits which his exertions had conferred upon Ireland, explain to his country, if he could, the benefit which ho had conferred upon her by stopping the flow of English capital to her shores, and by preventing the improvement of her agriculture, her manufactures, and her commerce, which that influx of capital would inevitably cause. That was the mischief which the hon. and learned Member had done by agitating the question of the repeal of the Union. He rose to make these observations, because, after the broad and unqualified assertion of the hon. and learned member for Waterford, that all the people of Ireland were favourable to the repeal, he could not refrain from meeting it with as broad and unqualified a contradiction. He would repeat, that all the property, all the intelligence, all the respectability, and all the independence of Ireland, were opposed, not only to the repeal of the Union, but even to any agitation of the question. He had entertained expectations that a season of repose and quiet was coming for Ireland; but those expectations were fast disappearing, for there were some men, unfortunately, of great influence, who could not live, except in the elements of confusion. If this question of the repeal of the Union were to be set afloat,—if the example of Belgium were to be held up to Ireland as worthy of her imitation,—if factious demagogues were to be sent up and down Ireland, regardless of character, regardless of principle, and regardless of any offences they might commit, provided they could only agitate the mob to rebellion,—it was time for independent country gentlemen to come forward and endeavour to disperse the wilful delusions which the agents of mischief were propagating. With regard to the observations which had just fallen from the hon. and learned member for Middlesex, he would only remark, that he had as good right as that hon. Member to express his opinion in that House upon the conduct of public men and public measures. There was no other man in that House against whom such imputations could be made, as those which were made against the hon. and learned member for Waterford; for that hon. and learned Member had certainly contrived to signalize himself by his singularities.
Mr. Shawsaid, that the hon. and learned member for Waterford had represented

323
him to have drawn a distinction between the respectability and the numbers of his constituents. He had done no such thing. He had said, and he repeated the words, that a great majority of his constituents, both in respectability and in numbers, were opposed to the repeal of the Union. He was happy to say, that upon that point Protestants and Roman Catholics, Orangemen, and Anti-Orangemen, were perfectly agreed.
Captain O'Gradywished to give the House some information respecting the opinion which was prevalent in Ireland as to the repeal of the Union. There was a prevailing sentiment in Ireland to make the question of the repeal of the Union a question of agitation in that country, in the hope of gaining thereby some measures favourable to its interests. Many persons, who would shrink from the task of agitating that question for its own merits, were prepared to agitate it as a mode of accomplishing other objects of importance to Ireland. It might be true that, before the Union, there were forty tax-gatherers in Ireland where there was only one tax-gatherer now; but then that tax-gatherer was an Irishman. Every Irishman had since been removed from office, on pretence of assimilating the mode of keeping accounts in the two countries; and now tax-gatherers, and all other public officers, were Englishmen. This circumstance produced and fostered in the breasts of Irishmen a feeling of hostility against England, which they gratified by agitating the repeal of the Union.
The petition read.
Mr. O' Connell Mr. O' Connell, in moving, that it be printed, said, that he should not complain of the treatment which he had received from two persons; for in very truth he was proud of the attack which had been just made upon him by the present and the ex-member for Londonderry. He would tell the hon. member for Londonderry (Sir R. Bateson) that he was signalized by one singularity—he was that hon. Member's inferior when he was called to the Bar— now he was his equal. That equality he had extorted from those who were unwilling to concede it, and in the teeth of as foul a conspiracy as had ever been formed to crush the cause of civil and religious liberty. As to the ex-member for Londonderry (Mr. G. Dawson) he had little to say to him, except to ask him how much of the public money he had received in his
324
time? Had he not put the public money into his pockets by shovels full? The ex-member for Londonderry had shewn the most lamentable ignorance upon two points. The ex-member for Londonderry had told the House that the subject of the repeal of the Union had not been put forward at all in the last elections. Now the fact was, that he (Mr. O'Connell) had put it forward himself in the very first address which he had published to the electors of Waterford. The ex-member for Londonderry had also stated, that before the Union, we had in Ireland forty tax-gatherers where we now had one. Even if it were so, they were Irishmen; but he denied the fact. Did the ex-member for Londonderry know what the debt of Ireland was before the Union? It was only 16,000,000 l., whilst her revenue was 1,400,000 l. Did he know that up to that period there was no country in Europe so lightly taxed as Ireland? Was that the case at present? Here's a man who has been in the Treasury forty years, and is still ignorant of the taxation of Ireland. The House had heard the manner in which that man had addressed him. He knew the reason of it, and was glad that he had excited his hostility. He had mentioned the amount of money which that man had wrung from the public. Now, with all his money, what good had he ever done his country? Let him look at his entire life and say, what good had he ever done for either England, Scotland, or Ireland?—ay, he would throw him in the Isle of Man into the bargain. Would the ex-member for Londonderry venture to ask the same question of him? The ex-member for Londonderry had then introduced the name of Earl Fitzwilliam into the discussion. Now he (Mr. O'Connell) had never said that Earl Fitzwilliam's agent had ejected 800 families. All that he said was, that he had ejected 800 persons. And when the ex-member for Londonderry read that pointed, but "exceedingly cautious-in-assertion" letter of Mr. Challoner,—for Mr. Challoner only denied that ejectments had been served upon 800 families, and did not state how many ejectments he had served,—he ought to have done him (Mr. O'Connell) the justice of reading his letter in answer to it. In his answer he stated, that he had never said 800 families,—no newspaper even reported him to have said so,—and he now repeated what he had formerly said,—that there were 800 persona, upon Earl Fitz-

325
william's estate, under notice to quit on the 1st of May. [Cries of "No, no."] He said that a farm of 800 acres was to go into lease on the 1st of May next: there were sixty families upon it, consisting of about 300 persons; these had all got notice to quit, as Mr. Challoner had disposed of the farm to a person of the name of Singe. He had now disposed of 300 persons out of the 800. He had got details from two clergymen as to the remaining cases, into which he should not enter at present. He begged leave also to remind the House, that he was not imputing blame to Earl Fitzwilliam or his assent when he mentioned these cases, [Cries of" oh!"] but was speaking of the consequences of the Subletting Act. Did hon. Gentlemen think to put him down by assailing him with broad and unmannerly contradictions? If they did, they were utterly mistaken in their man. The sitting member for Londonderry had told the House, that his constituents were almost to a man opposed to the repeal of the Union. He (Mr. O'Connell) had never said, that that question was popular in the north of Ireland. He knew, however, that the people of three provinces had declared themselves decidedly in its favour. He knew also that it was gaining ground in the north of Ireland, for a newspaper at Newry, which had originally been opposed to the repeal of the Union, had recently changed its opinions, in deference to the popular sentiments prevailing in the neighbourhood. He was not acquainted with the hon. Member's constituents, but he understood that they were a pugnacious race, who built.
"—Their faith upon
The holy text of pike and gun."
He understood, that after some Roman Catholics had surrendered to them, and given up their arms on the express condition that their lives should be saved, they had done what? given the Catholics protection? No; they had done this [The hon. Member drew his hand significantly across his throat]. But he would not pursue that feud further; he wished it to be forgotten. He had heard four or five Gentlemen speak that evening in defence of the Union; but, strange to say, not one of them had pointed out a single good which it had clone. The ex-member for Londonderry had called the electors of Waterford a mob. He denied the truth of that assertion in the strongest terms that the decorum of parliamentary
326
language would permit him to use. There never was anything asserted—he would not say by the hon. Gentleman, but — by the lowest person in the most degraded rank of society, more groundless and untrue. His constituents were nine-tenths of them equal to the ex-member for Londonderry in rank, and all vastly superior to him in intellect. He would not demean himself by entering into a comparison of his own merits with those of the ex-member for Londonderry. He (Mr. O'Connell) had had the honour of receiving an offer to return him to Parliament from three counties in Ireland—an offer made, too, by persons who could have performed it, as they proved by returning Members who had pledged themselves to act upon his principles. He (Mr. O'Connell) had given up the representation of a fourth county; and a fifth county, as they all knew, had sent him to Parliament. No man in the House could pair with him in that respect, certainly not the ex-member for Londonderry, for he had been turned out of his county. The ex-member for Londonderry had taunted him with representing an Irish mob, but the ex-member himself represented nothing Irish; and he (Mr. O'Connell) was glad of it. He (Mr. O'Connell) could have come in for five counties. The ex-member for Londonderry was turned out of his own county; he tried to take refuge in another and failed—tried again at Merchants'-hall, failed there too—and then left his country, and took refuge in an English rotten borough. And yet that man—that clerk in a public office, with an extravagantly large salary for doing nothing—came forward to calumniate him—him, disinterestedly and independently chosen by the people of Waterford; for who could expect to receive favours or patronage at his hand? The freeholders of Waterford selected him because they knew that he was an object of hostility to all who entertained views hostile to Ireland; because they knew that he was marked out for the rancor of every little mean and contemptible mind. He would take care not to disgrace their choice. He would never tire in doing his duty to his country. Ireland deserved well of all her sons. The curse had been on her long. In the words of the Chief Justice of the Irish Common Pleas, he would say that Ireland had never wrung any boon from the grasp of England, which England had not parted with as re-

327
luctantly as if it had been her heart's blood. He would imitate the glorious example of the Brownlow of 1782—of that man, on whose tomb was inscribed the proud epitaph, that he had found his country enslaved, and had left her free,— of that man, whose name could not receive greater lustre, unless the Brownlow of 1830 should join with him and procure the repeal of the Union. He had that evening been assailed by language that was as low, mean, and creeping, as the source from which it came. He hailed it as his richest reward—as his highest encomium. "Ye placeholders, who revel on the hard earnings of the people," said Mr. O'Connell, addressing the Ministerial benches; "ye pensioners, who subsist on the public money; ye tax-consumers and tax-devourers, assault me as you please. I am not to be intimidated by you. I shall continue to stand by Ireland; for I represent her wants, her wishes, and her grievances." The hon. Member concluded by expressing his hopes that, as he was born in an independent country, he should not die until he had left her in possession of an independent Legislature.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the hon. and learned member for Waterford had made a statement regarding the conduct of Earl Fitzwilliam, which rendered it necessary for him to say a few words in contradiction of it. In order to give full effect to that contradiction, he felt himself called upon to lay certain details before the House, not merely by the respect which every man of proper feeling must entertain for so venerable a character as Earl Fitzwilliam, but also by the special request of his noble: friend, Lord Milton, who was prevented by a severe domestic calamity from attending in his place. He would state to the House all that Earl Fitzwilliam and Lord Milton knew and believed upon the subject, derived as their knowledge and belief were from agents whom they had sent to acquire information concerning it. That information enabled him to contradict the hon. and learned Member's assertion, that 800 persons had been ejected from Earl Fitz-william's estate, as completely as Mr. Challoner had already contradicted his assertion about 800 families. [Immense cheering followed this declaration]. His noble friend, Lord Milton, had sent him up word that he had received information from his father's agent, Mr. Challoner
328
that there were only four families under notice to quit upon the whole of Earl Fitzwilliam's estates in Ireland. Three of them held about thirty acres together in common—in conacre, he believed, was the phrase in Ireland. The other man's family was in a different township from that mentioned by the hon. and learned member for Waterford. They were not under notice to quit owing to any wish on the part of Earl Fitzwilliam to enforce severely the provisions of the Subletting Act, but because they had lately been much in arrear for rent, some of them owing as much as four years' rent. Such were the results of an inquiry which Earl Fitzwilliam and Lord Milton had expressly ordered to be made in Ireland, in consequence of the unqualified assertions of the hon. and learned member for Waterford. He had received this information from his noble friend, Lord Milton, on Saturday last. He knew that Mr. Challoner was at present with his Lordship, and every man who knew anything of that Gentleman's character, must be convinced that he would have corrected any errors, had there been any errors to correct, in the information his noble friend had derived from the agents he had purposely sent to Ireland. In conclusion he observed, that he had no doubt that, if the hon. and learned member for Waterford would make further inquiries into this matter, he would find that he had been misinformed as to the circumstance of 800 persons having been ejected from the estates of Earl Fitzwilliam.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the documents with which he had been furnished, made a very different impression upon his mind from that which had been made upon the mind of the noble Lord by the information furnished to him by Earl Fitzwilliam. He could not lay the documents which had been sent to him on the Table of the House; but he was ready to submit them at any moment to the inspection of the noble Lord. In conclusion, he repeated, that he had not, when he mentioned the fact, made any imputation against either Earl Fitzwilliam, Lord Milton, or their agent, Mr. Challoner.
Mr. G. Dawsonsaid, that he did not intend to indulge the House, upon this occasion, by entering upon that kind of personal altercation which the hon. and learned member for Waterford had introduced into this discussion. Whatever

329
that hon. and learned Gentleman might please to say regarding the public character and public services of so humble an individual as himself, he was at full liberty to say it, both in that House and elsewhere, and he certainly should never complain of his observations. "I therefore did not hear with any indignation (said the hon. Member) the observations which he made on my being a clerk in a public office, with a large salary, because I knew, that to be the object of such observations is the fate of every man who holds public office, and because I feel that it is language which he is liable to hear at any time from a man of vulgar mind and mean ideas. But when the hon. and learned Member indulges in aspersions on my private character—when he states as a reflection upon me that I am no longer the Representative of Derry, though he knows that I lost my seat for conscientiously supporting his claims as a Roman Catholic to emancipation, and for assisting to give him privileges which he now uses to promote agitation in Ireland—when he presumes (and I use that word advisedly) to touch upon my private conduct, I have a right to say thus much at least to him, that I have had the misfortune in my time to receive his praises and encomiums, and that I have now, thank God, the good fortune to be made the object of his calumnies and his slanders. He knows well that he dared not have uttered a tenth part of the calumnious falsehoods which he has vomited against me, if he had not determined to cover himself with the mantle of a most disgraceful indemnity. [Loud cheering, and cries of "Order," from the Chair]. Well, I will pursue that subject no further. I will only say, that I despise anything that the hon. and learned Member can say of me as much as it is possible for one man to despise the opinion of another." Before sitting down, he wished to notice one of the observations which had fallen from the hon. member for Limerick, respecting the number of Englishmen holding situations in the Tax-office in Ireland. If that complaint were made in Ireland, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that a very different complaint was made in England, and that was, that in the Customs and Excise too many situations were given away to Irishmen. He hoped that the hon. member for Limerick would weigh one of these complaints against the other, before he
330
allowed his mind to receive any prejudice against the Union.
Mr. Grattanwas understood to bear his testimony to the kind and paternal feelings of Earl Fitzwilliam to his tenantry in Ireland, and to the exemplary manner in which Mr. Challoner, as his Lordship's agent, watched over and promoted their local interests. He believed that, in consequence of a provision in the Subletting Act,—which he should be most glad to see entirely repealed,—it was necessary to give notices to quit to all persons on a farm, when a new lease of it was granted. Thus it might happen that notices to quit might be served on many families residing on Mr. Singe's farm, whom there was no intention of removing from their tenements. He had passed some days at that gentleman's house, and he must say that he never saw a more happy and contented peasantry than the 300 persons who were said to have been ejected from his farm.
Sir H. Hardingesaid, that he, too, had been desired to offer a few words to the House in contradiction of another statement of the hon. and learned member for Waterford. Archdeacon Trench had commissioned him to inform the House, that the hon. and learned Member had been guilty of a most gross exaggeration when he stated that Lord Rathdrum had served notices to quit upon 400 or 500 individuals on his estates. Instead of 400 or 500 notices, he had only served four, or at most five, notices upon his tenants; and during the last three years only ten persons had been discharged from his property.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that with regard to Lord Rathdrum, he had never mentioned the number of notices which he had served upon his tenantry. He had not specified any number. He was informed, however, that those persons were ejected because they were not of the same religious persuasion with their landlord.
Sir H. Hardinge:—Archdeacon Trench has authorised me to contradict that statement likewise.
Mr. O'Connell:—It can, however, be proved.

SLAVE EVIDENCE.
Mr. Broughamrose to complain of the extraordinary waste of time which had been consumed in these irrelevant discussions. He was sorry to say that, during the present Session, he had heard language used every day in that House which he was sure would not be tolerated in any other house in the

331
metropolis. He seldom came into the House without hearing the lie bandied, more or less directly, from one side of it to the other. Now if it were of importance for them to preserve the dignity of their proceedings, they ought to put a stop to such conduct. Conceiving the present discussion to be closed, he would now take the liberty of asking the hon. Secretary for the Colonies whether he would have any objection to postpone the introduction of his bill, to render slave evidence admissible in the colonies until after he (Mr. Brougham) had brought forward his Motion on West-India slavery?
Mr. O'Connelrose to reply—but the Speaker decided that he had no right to reply.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that he would speak, then, in explanation.
The Speaker:—The hon. Member will be good enough to confine himself strictly to explanation.
Mr. O'Connell:—All he had to say was this,—namely, that the personalities had been commenced against him, and not by him. He appealed to those around him if this were not the fact.
Sir G. Murray(in reply to Mr. Brougham) consented to postpone his Motion, of which he had given notice, with regard to slave-evidence in the colonies.

TRUCK SYSTEM—MISREPRESENTATION.
Mr. Littletonrose, for the purpose of presenting a Petition against the Truck-system. He trusted that the House would allow him to take this opportunity of noticing a passage in a speech which had been made at a parish meeting in Ireland, by the hon. and learned member for Waterford. He need hardly say that this passage contained a reflection on himself; and, although he did not think that any disapprobation, coming from the hon. and learned member for Waterford, was likely to injure his character, yet, as a public man, he felt it necessary to notice it, and to expose the misrepresentation. On one evening towards the close of the last Session of Parliament, when a bill which he had introduced respecting the truck-system stood for committee, the hon. and learned Member came across the House to him and said, "Your bill stands for to-night; I shall vote against it, because it is against my principles; but I should not have spoken against it if you had not included Ireland in it; have you any objection to
332
leave Ireland out of the bill?" To this observation and to this question from the hon. and learned Member, he (Mr. Littleton) carelessly replied, but in words which he perfectly recollected, "Well, I do not care about Ireland." By this expression he meant, as he was sure every Gentleman he was addressing must see, that he did not think it essential that Ireland should be included in the measure, and that he was, therefore, willing to accede to the request of the hon. and learned Member. It appeared almost impossible that any one could have misconstrued his meaning. The hon. and learned Member, however, received his observations with a smile, which excited in his mind, and in the minds of many of his hon. friends who were then sitting around him, a suspicion that his words would be misrepresented. He was particularly careful, therefore, on that very evening, to explain to the hon. and learned Member what he had meant by the expression which he had thus carelessly used. Thus, he had supposed that all misconstruction of his meaning, and that the misrepresentation he had suspected, would have been avoided. But let the House see how he had been treated in this matter by the hon. and learned Member. At a parish meeting in Dublin, the proceedings of which were reported in the Dublin Evening Post of the 23rd of October, the hon. and learned Member, after speaking of the manner in which English Members performed their duty with regard to Ireland, said, "One of them, Mr. Littleton, the member for Stafford shire, brought in a bill respecting the truck-system:" the hon. and learned Member then made some observations respecting that system, which it was unnecessary that he (Mr. Littleton) should trouble the House with reading, and the hon. and learned Member continued thus:—"I expostulated with him on the subject, and told him that I would not stand between the operatives of England and their employers; but I requested that Ireland might not be included in the bill, for that, in Ireland, the evils complained of in England had not been experienced from the system. What reply did he make me? It was this—'What do I care about Ireland?' Good Gentleman, said I, I shall take care to tell the people of Ireland how little English Members care about Ireland." Now was this consistent with fair dealing? Was it necessary that he, after eighteen

333
years' service in Parliament,—after having been the first to introduce into that House a measure with regard to the elective franchise of the Catholics, after having, upon every occasion, though at much risk and inconvenience, done all he could to advance the interests of the Catholics,— was it necessary that he, after such conduct, and after the manner in which he had always carried himself upon questions relating to Ireland,—was it necessary, he asked, that he should rise up in that House and vindicate himself against the charge of caring nothing about Ireland,— of being altogether insensible to the interests of the Irish people? He did not believe that any hon. Member, with the single exception of the hon. and learned member for Waterford, and even of that hon. Member he would not have believed it unless he had seen it in print, could have given utterance to a charge so unjust, so utterly unfounded, and so injurious to his character. He begged pardon for having trespassed thus long, he hoped not unnecessarily, upon the attention of the House.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that he had been a good deal astonished at the warmth of the hon. Member; for, as it appeared to him, by the hon. Member's own showing, he had merely repeated the expression which the hon. Member acknowledged he had used ["No, no".] Was he, then, still labouring under some extraordinary misconception? The hon. Member's expression to him was, "What do I care about Ireland" [" No, no"]. Well, then, would the hon. Member be good enough to state once more what the expression was which he had used upon the occasion referred to?
Mr. Littletonsaid, that the expression he had used was, "Well, I do not care about Ireland;" and he had already explained, he hoped satisfactorily to the House, the manner in which he had used it.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, was this, then, the distinction intended to be drawn,—the distinction between the expression" What do I care about Ireland?" and the expression, "I do not care about Ireland." The words of the hon. Member were still ringing in his ears. By those words the hon. Member appeared to him to throw off Ireland altogether, his mind being entirely taken up with his English constituents. He thought that the hon. Member, in using those words, meant to cast off Ire-
334
land with contempt; and he was very sorry if he had misunderstood the hon. Member.

PUBLIC RELIEF FOR THE POOR.
Mr. Portmanbegged to ask a question of the right hon. Secretary opposite, which appeared to him to be very material in the present state of the realm. It was well known that this metropolis, and a portion of the country, were in a state of great excitement. Many attempts had been made in that House to ameliorate the condition of the poor, and, under existing circumstances, he could refrain no longer from asking his Majesty's Ministers whether they had any measures to propose, and at what time they meant to propose them, with the view of relieving the extreme pressure of the lower, and also of the middling classes, who, in consequence of that pressure, were unable to employ as many of the labouring poor as they wished to employ. If Ministers had no such measures in contemplation, then individuals, however humble, must call upon Parliament to assist them, and to support them in their endeavours to effect this object.
Sir R. Peelsaid, he must protest against this course of asking, day after day, questions with regard to the measures contemplated by the Government. It must be evident to every hon. Member, that scarcely any measure could be proposed which would not, directly or indirectly, affect the condition of the labouring poor. Was it possible, then, that he could enter into the details which an answer to the question of the hon. Member must necessarily lead him into. The hon. Member had mentioned the metropolis; did the hon. Member mean to inquire whether the Ministers had in contemplation any partial measure; or, did the hon. Member refer to general measures?
Mr. Portman:—To general measures.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that an answer to such a question would include details which the House, he was sure, would not expect him to be prepared to enter into. He was ready to give a specific answer to any specific question; but, with all the respect he entertained for the hon. Member, he must refuse to attempt to satisfy the hon. Member on a subject so general as that to which the hon. Member's question referred.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman seemed to have misunderstood

335
the question of his hon. friend. His hon. friend meant to ask merely, whether the Ministers intended to propose any measures for the relief of the labouring poor. It was not intended to ask the right hon. Gentleman to enter into any details. He thought the country would be very much disappointed if it went forth, that the Ministers did not intend to submit to Parliament any measures for the relief of the labouring poor, for that was a subject of the deepest importance, and one that called for the especial consideration of the Government, and of the Parliament. This subject had hitherto been left to individual Members of the House, and the difficulty individual Members had met with in prosecuting their task had made every Gentleman lament that Government did not take this important subject into their own hands.
Mr. Slaneyconcurred in the view which the noble Lord had taken, and hoped the Government would attend to his recommendation. He was convinced, from long acquaintance with the subject, that unless the Government were speedily to take it up, the most disastrous consequences would ensue.
Sir R. Peelhoped he had said nothing from which it could be inferred that he was indifferent to the condition of the labouring poor, or that he was insensible to the deep importance of the subject. Was it not, however, clear, that almost every measure must affect their condition? Did not the remission of the Beer-duty affect the condition of the labouring classes? Would not the passing of Irish vagrants, and any measure for the employment of the Irish poor at home, and thus preventing their immigration into this country, affect the condition of the labouring poor? How, then, could he answer a question so complicated as that of the hon. Member? He thought the hon. Member must himself see the impossibility of this. He wished, however, most studiously to guard himself against the possibility of its being thought that he differed from the hon. Member, or from the noble Lord, as to the importance of the subject to which the hon. Member's question related.
Mr. Portmanbegged to remind the right hon. Secretary, that although he did not wish to precipitate measures, delays were sometimes very dangerous, and that the people might become desperate.
Sir R. Peelsaid, he really thought that this subject would be much better dealt
336
with by individual Members of that House than by the Government. Why should not some Gentleman, who from experience was acquainted with the wants of the labouring poor, introduce a measure on the subject? If the hon. Member himself, who was so competent to form a judgment on the subject, would propose any measure, or any inquiry which might lead to a practical result, he (Sir R. Peel) would be most happy to co-operate with him.
Mr. Portmansaid, he must decline the challenge which the right hon. Secretary had given him, because he thought it the duty of the Government to bring forward a measure on the subject.
Sir J. Wrottesleyconcurred in the view taken by the hon. Member (Mr. Portman) near him. He would take that opportunity of observing, that the subject required immediate attention. The disturbances which had taken place in a neighbouring county, and which were extending to other places, must be instantly looked to. Much of the early part of his life had been passed among tumults, and he knew from experience that there was no more effectual way of quelling disturbances than for the Government to give to the local authorities more assistance when their ordinary force was not sufficient. The maxim obsta principiis was never more applicable than in the case of tumults: they would spread over the whole kingdom if they were not crushed at the commencement. The Government, however, must go further, and endeavour to remove the causes of discontent. He was, therefore, by no means satisfied with the answer of the right hon. Secretary. Individual Members could do little without the co-operation of the Government, and a subject of so much importance as the condition of the labouring poor could not be efficiently dealt with except by the Government itself.
Sir Robert Peelthought it would be a great advantage if conversations and remarks of the nature which had just been made, were preceded by some notice, and he must be allowed to observe, that the remarks of the hon. Baronet who had just spoken, seemed to convey some reproach upon his Majesty's Government for supine-ness with reference to the late disturbances—a reproach the most entirely unfounded that could possibly be uttered. It was extremely difficult at one and the same time to enforce the strictest economy, and exercise the energy that should belong

337
to the governing power in any State. Infantry and cavalry were to be disbanded, scarcely a soldier was to be allowed in aid of the civil power—Government were compelled to dismiss the yeomanry; and when disturbances arose, they were told that they ought not to leave them to be suppressed by the constables, but ought instantly to crush them with a strong-hand. He would call upon the hon. member for Kent to say, if his Majesty's Government had not done all, under the circumstances, which could be expected of it for the suppression of those disturbances? He had further to state, that though at a great public inconvenience, and to the neglect of other pressing matters, the Secretary for the Treasury was at the present moment at Maidstone, endeavouring: to trace the causes of that extraordinary mystery which had, up to the present moment, eluded their most careful investigation; there were also at Maidstone every police officer, who in the present state of the metropolis, could be spared. To this he had to add, that he had authorized the Lord Lieutenant of the county to call out, and embody the yeomanry rather than resort to the regular military force. It would be a gross error to suppose that the disturbance in a neighbouring county was local. Its object, he could have no doubt, was general—the fires constituting its overt acts, were neither executed by the hands, nor devised by the heads, of the peasantry of the county of Kent—no suspicion attached to the resident population—the whole of the matter, whatever might be its origin, was devised by other heads than theirs, and proceeded upon principles, not local, but general. Though, up to the present moment, no detection had taken place; but he did hope that the time was near when not only the hands by which the offences were committed, but, what was more important, the heads by which they were devised, would be brought to condign punishment.
Sir Edward Knatchbullbore testimony to the fact, that Government had given immediate assistance on being applied to, and he had much satisfaction in being-able to state, that in the eastern part of the county the efforts for the suppression of disturbance had not been altogether unsuccessful; and in the eastern part of the county he had the means of knowing that many of the inhabitants had used great exertion to discover the causes of the
338
disturbance, and to put an end to it. Similar exertions had also been used in other parts of the county, for the same purpose; but the continuance of those exertions was more than could be expected from individuals if public measures were not resorted to for the restoration of peace and tranquillity. From every inquiry that he was enabled to make, he could declare, that the conflagrations in the county of Kent were not caused by the peasantry of the land. He was persuaded that the peasantry were actuated by a very different feeling from that which influenced the authors of those outrages; the peasantry were, he was assured, full of attachment to their employers, and the least likely men in the world to commit acts of that diabolical character. Another consideration led him to acquit the peasantry of the county of Kent; they were not so ignorant as not to be aware that those burnings would prove most injurious to their own interest—even destroying the very means of their own subsistence.
Mr. Briscoethought it was due to join with the hon. member for Kent in saying that the Government had done all that could be expected of it to ascertain the authors of these fires, and put an end to them. He regretted that the spirit which prevailed in the county of Kent had spread itself to two parishes in the county which he had the honour to represent, but he entertained not the least doubt that the labouring poor of the district were perfectly innocent of those offences.
Petition to be printed.

RECOVERY OF SMALL. DEBTS.
Mr. Sykesasked the right hon. Secretary when he meant to introduce a Bill for facilitating the recovery of small debts.
Sir R. Peelbegged to remind the hon. Member that, in the last Session, after he had given notice of that measure, the hon. and learned member for Yorkshire (Mr. Brougham) obtained leave to bring in a bill to extend the powers of local courts, and to give to them a more beneficial jurisdiction. As the bill of the hon. and learned Member would include all that it was intended to effect by the measure referred to, he had waited until the sense of the House should be taken upon it.

AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS.
The Solicitor Generalmoved for leave to bring in a bill to restore and amend

339
the Act of the 29th Charles 2nd c, 3. known by the name of the Statute of Frauds. At a very early period of the reign of Charles 2nd this Statute was passed, for the purpose of preventing the inconvenience which arose from men being considered as bound by word of mouth, without the bargains to which they agreed having been put into writing and signed by the parties. He wished first to make a few observations on that portion of the Act which referred to contracts for. land. The Statute enacts that no one shall bring an action against another party unless the agreement by which such action shall be brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, shall be in writing, and duly signed. The Amendment which he meant to propose by the Bill he wished to bring in, would be of the utmost importance to every man in the country, as it would apply to all contracts, whether for the sale and purchase of land, or for the sale and purchase of goods. The Statute enacts, as regards land, "that no person can bring an action against another unless the agreement by which such action be brought, or some memorandum or note thereof, shall be in writing, and signed by the party to be charged therewith, or some other party thereunto, by him lawfully authorised." To amend this Act was of the utmost importance, inasmuch as it related, in a greater or less degree, to the transactions of every man. That part of the law which related to the sale of lands required an agreement in writing, signed by the party to be charged: whereas the contract for the sale of goods required the signature of both parties. It had long been considered, and he had no doubt was so intended, that the signature to an agreement for the sale of lands ought to be plural. The present mode had afforded an opportunity, in many instances, for the exercise of fraud. If he were to write an order for any person to sell his estate, that person could do so, and he should be bound by that act: for the other party, to compel him to perform the contract would only have to file a bill in Chancery. Many transactions of this nature had taken place, and the property of the party been completely wasted by the expenses. Even upon a mere letter had such a course been adopted. In regard to the sale of an estate by auction, the auctioneer did not sign the agreement, although he compelled the owner and seller to attach his signature to the instru-
340
ment, and he then had his remedy against the seller in case of his not completing the contract. This was one of the unequal results of the Act he was desirous of amending. The Statute had led to the greatest inconvenience, and caused enormous expense. He purposed to remedy these evils by making all the parties sign the agreement, so that all might become bound by it, by which the establishment of a better understanding and of greater equality would ensue. That would prevent he believed not mere inconvenience, but much litigation. It would also have the effect of compelling the parties to come to a proper understanding before putting their names to an agreement and it would put an end to acting on one of a series of letters alone, which, in some cases, had been held as forming a contract. To shew some of the effects of the law as it at present stood, he would quote a case and an opinion of the late Lord Thurlow on the effect of this Act. One party had agreed to sell a certain property, and another had consented to become the purchaser. An agreement of contract was prepared for the signature of the two parties; and it happened that, at the time appointed for its execution, the seller could not attend. A note was, therefore, written, and sent off to him, appointing another meeting; but to that also he was unable to come. He, however, sent a letter, in which he stated that he considered his word to be as sacred as any oath Accordingly, the purchaser executed the agreement, considering that it was as good as executed by the seller, but he was mistaken. The seller refused to act upon the agreement, and the purchaser was compelled to file a bill in Chancery. On the matter coming on for Lord Thurlow's decision, his Lordship held, that under the Statute of Frauds, the agreement was good, and the purchaser was entitled to the property. Another part of the Bill: related to the signing and attestation of wills. The Statute of Frauds requires "that the will shall be signed by the testator, and that such signature shall be witnessed by three or four credible witnesses, who shall affix their names to the will, as an attestation of that fact, in the presence of the testator." The object of this part of the Statute of Frauds was, to secure that the witnesses should be present at the time the testator signed his will, and that the testator should see them affix

341
their names to the document, as witnesses of his last act and deed. It was, however, soon discovered that cases frequently occurred where this was not done. He remembered a case where a lady went in her carriage to the chambers of her legal adviser in Lincoln's Inn, for the purpose of executing her will. The clerk went to her, but she refused to alight, and executed the will in the carriage, which had been backed in such a manner as to enable the clerks in the office to see her put her signature. After that was done, the will was taken into the office, and the clerks signed it as having witnessed the act. That was held to be a good attestation. At this moment there was a case somewhat of a similar nature in the Court of Chancery, where it had been for many years, and of course attended with great expense; the case of the Duke of Roxburgh. The testator was in so debilitated a state, as to make it dangerous for him to have strangers in his room. It was therefore arranged, that the door which communicated with the room adjoining that in which the invalid was confined, should be thrown open, and that a table should be drawn in a line with his Grace's head, so as to enable him to witness the signatures of the witnesses to his own signature. The witnesses having been placed in such a situation as to obtain a view of his Grace, the will was taken to him when he was in a state of extreme exhaustion; and after he had signed it, it was carried into the other room, where it was attested by the individuals who attended for that purpose. Nothing could have been fairer. The will, however, had been disputed; and the question raised was, whether the witnesses signed at that part of the table which was in the line with the head of the testator; or whether they affixed their signatures when they were standing on that side of the table which was not in the line. The question had already been decided by two juries; but the Judge not being satisfied, according to the law of the Statute of Frauds, had sent it for trial again. He found no fault with the learned Judge, because he was bound by his oath to be satisfied as to the law, and to take care that the decision was according to the meaning of the particular Statute under which the case might come. It was, however, disgraceful to the law of this country that t should lead to such re-
342
sults—the Judge being compelled either to direct against his oath, or to find against the law. That was a state of things which ought not to continue longer than could possibly be avoided, and he meant to propose by the bill which he moved for leave to bring in, that it shall be enacted, that all witnesses to the signature of a testator do, bonâ fide, attest the same before they depart from the house, and that attestations of this nature shall be considered as valid. Having given a slight sketch of the bill, and some of the leading points in it, he should move for leave to bring in a bill to amend and extend the provisions of the 29th Charles 2nd c. 3, entitled an Act for the Prevention of Frauds.
Mr. D. W. Harveysaid, nothing could be more delightful he was sure, to the House, or give more satisfaction to the country, than to find the officers of the Crown ready to bring forward propositions for the reform of the laws. An effect might be produced in the various Courts by declamations and orations; but it was only by introducing judicious reform, that a beneficial result could be produced; and it was to be regretted that the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite should be able to bestow only a small portion of his time on the important subject of legal reform. Were it otherwise, the work of improvement would not move on so slowly. On those parts of the generality of Acts which related to matters of law, manifold constructions were continually put. If, therefore, in every Session but one wholesome measure was introduced, we could not expect that reform in the Court of Equity which was so much required, to be completed before many years. He was sure that the opinion expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman on the doubtful constructions of the law, must have weight; and he hoped that he would devise some plan by which all unnecessary inquiries into the title to estates should be put a stop to. Some law was required to set those inquiries at rest, which under the present laws, were continually arising. It would be advisable that some system should be laid down by which the possessor of an estate should be undisturbed in his possession. He should say, for instance, that if evidence could be given of possession for the period of twenty years, it would perhaps, be the best security to such property that could be devised.
Mr. O'Connellwas of opinion, that the

343
the Bill proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman was a measure of great importance. He should not trespass on the time of the House, were it not to express his regret at the mischief arising from the Judges making the law, instead of having it made for them by the Legislature. It was with great satisfaction that he had that evening witnessed an attempt to improve the Statute of Frauds; in proof of the necessity of an alteration, he adverted to the fact, that though the Statute of Frauds was passed late in the seventeenth century, yet, before the end of that century, the litigation arising out of it cost the people of this country not less than a million of money. It was a disgrace to England that she did not possess a code—she should have her laws in a small book accessible to every one. The merit of a code was always admitted by the nations that had enjoyed one, and the longer it had been known in any nation the more that nation was attached to it. The Bourbons, it was well known, could not have been restored, had they not consented to retain the code Napoleon and it was one of the chief grievances of the Belgians that that code had been abolished in their country. That code was by no means perfect, but the simplicity and brevity which distinguished it were its great recommendations. The evils of our laws were manifest, and the habit which had grown up in this country for the Judges to make the law by the interpretations they put on the Statutes was most mischievous. The Statute of Frauds was not understood for 150 years—till Lord Ellen-borough in the case of Warne v. Warlters, discovered the true construction. In making that discovery the noble Lord upset all the previous decisions on the subject, and the unhappy clients who might have acted under the advice of their lawyers, founded upon previous decisions, would have found themselves in the wrong. It was true that Lord Eldon had never bowed to Lord Ellenborough's decision in Warne v. Warlters; but it was admitted at the present day as a binding authority. Under these circumstances he recommended a code. Every contingency must, in some measure, be provided for, and the only question was, whether it should be provided for at first or at last? He declared that he had never felt a comfortable hour in the discharge of the duties of his profession, for he was always
344
sure, under our present system of laws, that justice was only to be got by accident.
Mr. Hughes Hughessupported the Motion and offered to the hon. and learned Solicitor General his humble praise for his great and continued exertion in bringing forward so many useful measures.
Mr. Campbellsaid, that the hon. and learned Solicitor General would add to his high character by the measure which he now proposed. The first part of that measure related to the sale of lands under the Statute of Frauds. To that he had no objection, but he much wished, that the hon. and learned Gentleman would allow the subject of wills to remain untouched, for that was at present under the consideration of the commission of which he had the honour to be a Member. The law relating to wills was certainly in a most unsettled and barbarous state. Three witnesses were now required to authenticate a will, which was to pass a quarter of an acre of land, if it happened to be freehold; while property to the amount of 20,000 l. a year might be disposed of, even without any signature, if that property happened to be copyhold; and the same was the case with regard to property of any amount in the funds. That, however, was not all. A change of the tenure by which the land was held would defeat a will. There was the case of the late Lord Erskine, in whose favour a will had been made, but who lost it because the gentleman who intended to leave it him had, after making the will, suffered a recovery, in order, as he supposed, to make all sure in favour of his legatee. The act of suffering a recovery was, by the operation of law, a revocation of the will, and though the testator had intended just the contrary, Lord Erskine lost the estate. Another evil consisted of the rules of interpretation in cases of wills. If a man left another a horse, the legatee received the property in full and absolute possession, but if he left "a field called Blackacre," to any person, the legatee would only have an estate for life because the testator did not add the words, "his heirs and assigns for ever." As to the point of adverse possession, he agreed with the hon. Member for Colchester, that twenty years of adverse possession ought to give a title, and such was now proposed to be the rule. This subject had been under the consideration of the commissioner and that was the decision they had come to. He fear-

345
ed that the law never could be made as perfect as the hon. member for Waterford imagined. Every man could not be his own lawyer. Law was a science, and must be acquired, and men could no more be their own lawyers than their own physicians. He feared, too, even if a code were introduced, that Judge-made law could not be avoided. There was as much Judge-made law in France as in England; the reports of cases in France were more numerous than our own reports; for wherever there was law there would arise cases not exactly foreseen, and then the Judges must become the interpreters of the law, and to that extent the law-makers. What he admired the code Napoleon most for was that it gave one law to the whole country, instead of the different systems which formerly prevailed in its different provinces.
Mr. Humewas happy to hear so many reformers on every side of the House; and since the hon. and learned Gentleman had thus frankly stated his opinion on the subject of adverse possessions, perhaps it might be allowable to ask him whether the proposal as to twenty years adverse possession giving title was to be applicable to church property? He asked the question because he thought the time was come when church property ought to be put on the same footing as other property?
Mr. Campbellthought that, in cases of church property, this rule ought to be applicable so far as possible. That at least was his private opinion. He had devoted a great part of the late vacation to framing such a law. That law must be framed differently from laws relating to other property, for church property was held upon so many and such various tenures. It was his wish that the church should preserve all its present possessions, but that the litigations now daily arising with respect to the tithes should be at an end. That would be beneficial to the church, and, as a friend of the church, he should recommend it.
The Solicitor Generalregretted, that the question as to Church property had been put to his hon. and learned friend, as that matter was not yet in a state to be presented to the public. As to the other questions now under the consideration of the House, there was but one opinion; but the question was as to the time at which the limitation was to take effect? He was
346
opposed to a code. We had, at present, the finest body of laws in the world, and it was not necessary for the hon. member for Middlesex to understand them as well as a lawyer. Law was, and must be, a science, and it would be the greatest possible curse when it was not so, and when every man could understand it, for at that instant certainty would have flown. If tomorrow the plainest law possible were to be made, in time the interpretation of that law would become matter of science. He maintained that in no country in the world were there, as in England, so many means of limitation, with regard to an estate, so as to secure a life enjoyment to the owner, and a provision for his family after his death. All that could not be accomplished by the simple declaration "it shall be so." The most fixed words were required for such a purpose; [hear, hear!] and it was for hon. Members who cried hear, hear! to learn these words. He repeated, that if the law was to be reduced to a code, certainty in it would be gone, and "certainty," as the law said, "was the mother of repose." The law had a peculiar language, which it required time to understand; and when he said it was not necessary for the hon. member for Middlesex to understand it, he meant that the man who devoted his attention to other subjects must not expect to be able to understand the law. He did not pretend to rival that hon. Member in a knowledge of finance, and that hon. Member could hardly expect to be equal in his knowledge of the law to those who had studied it all their lives. He trusted that the measure he was about to introduce would satisfy the best wishes of the country.
Leave given.

OFFICERS OF THE ARMY.
Mr. Humecomplained that the Officers of the Army were too numerous. It might be supposed that the numbers of the officers were limited by the numbers of the Army. It was no such thing. Two or three years ago the Commander-in-chief had made a supernumerary corps of officers, and the consequence of this would be, that our pension-list would shortly be much increased. He wished to know the number of unattached officers from December, 1828, to June, 1830, and he-moved for a Return to that effect.
Sir H. Hardingehad no objection to the Return, and if the noble Lord connected

347
with that department had anticipated any observations, he would have been there to have answered them. The unattached officers were taken from those on half-pay, and the manner in which that had been done would, he was sure, when it was explained, meet with the approbation of the public.
Returns ordered.
Mr. Humethen moved for Returns of Officers promoted since the Accession of his present Majesty, and for an account of the additional expense thus created. He knew that it had been the custom to make promotions on the accession of a new King, but the time had gone by when we could afford such an unnecessary increase of our expenditure.
Sir H. Hardingesaid, that whenever the question fairly came before the House, it would be found that the promotions referred to did not much increase the expense. He did not object to the Return.
Mr. Humealso moved for Returns of the Half-pay of the regular Troops, and of the Half-pay of the Militia. It had been said, that the half-pay was retained in this manner, as a security for the future services of the officers who retained it. That, however, was not the case; for when he, on a former occasion, moved for a Return of the Officers who were receiving half-pay, and who were acting as clergymen in the country, it was said there were none who were so acting; but some time afterwards it was discovered that about forty persons in holy orders were receiving half-pay.
The Returns ordered.

SUSSEX JURY BILL.
Mr. W. Burrellmoved the second reading of the Sussex Jury Bill.
Mr. Campbellrose to oppose the Bill, and said, he should take the sense of the House upon it. If carried into effect it would produce a most important alteration in the Jury-law, as established by the bill of 1826. By that law the number of Special Jury was to be reduced by chance. The present Bill proposed to effect a division of the county of Sussex into the two districts of Horsham and Lewes; and create one list for one of these divisions, and another for the remaining one. He was opposed to such a division, and thought that the law ought to be uniform. It was said that this Bill was introduced on account of the inconvenient distance of
348
the Assize town from different parts of the county. But the same objection, though existing more strongly with respect to common than to special jurymen, was not made in their favour. In Somersetshire, and in Surrey, the Assizes were held in three places; in Norfolk, in Berkshire, and in Buckinghamshire at two; and if the principle of this Bill was good, other Acts ought to be passed dividing those counties into as many districts as there were Assize towns in them. But he objected to the Bill on another principle; namely, that it would operate to the prejudice of plaintiffs in some cases. Suppose a poor man brought an action against a Magistrate, for illegally committing him to prison, was that action to be tried by a jury of brother Magistrates selected from the same districts with the defendant? Certainly not Besides, as this Bill was now framed, the selection of the jury must depend on the district division of the county in which the Assizes were held. That town depended on the will of the Judge. In Sussex itself the Assizes were once held at East Grinstead; and suppose the Judges should choose to hold the Assizes at Brighton (which he thought would soon be found to be the most convenient) what would become of this Bill? He thought that in every way the Bill was objectionable, and he should therefore move that it be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. Hughes Hughesseconded the Amendment. The Bill by being limited to special juries, made, in fact, one law for the rich and another for the poor. Other counties needed as much such a bill as Sussex, and if the principle were good, the Bill ought to be extended to them, not confined to Sussex.
Mr. W. Burrellcontended, that juries in the western division of the county would be just as impartial as juries from the county generally. If any suspicion arose, it was well known that in cases of special juries the parties to the action might strike off whom they pleased. As far as common juries were concerned, it was already customary to take them from the immediate neighbourhood of the Assize town.
Mr. O'Connellreferred to one county of Ireland which was similarly circumstanced to Sussex, and expressed his hope that the principle of the Bill would be extended to the sister kingdom. He repelled the objection taken to narrow and local jurisdictions,

349
and argued that it was highly beneficial that every poor man should have a law-shop near his home. In England neither party had an advantage over the other, as juries were drawn by lot.
Sir J. Shelley knew Sir J. Shelley knew, that the people of Sussex frequently complained of the expense they were put to by going such a distance. The Bill he was convinced would tend to the convenience of the people, and he should support it.
Sir Edward Knatchbullthought the Bill was calculated to be of use to all parties. The hon. and learned Member who opposed the Bill was mistaken in his view, for experience had informed all Magistrates that jurors might be taken from a limited neighbourhood without the risk of injustice. He felt grateful to the member for Waterford for the disinterested support he had given to this English Bill, and he hoped when he brought forward any local measure for Ireland, that he would receive the same assistance from English Members.
Sir C. Burrellhighly approved of the Bill, and thought its imperfections might be remedied in a committee.
Mr. John Woodthought the principle of the Bill so good that he would have it extended to other counties of England, requiring the same change; and he particularly instanced Lancashire, where the Assizes were held in a remote corner of the county, whither suitors, witnesses, and jurors were obliged to repair. This circumstance of itself operated as a denial of justice to the poor.
Mr. Curteisknew from experience the inconvenience of the present state of things, for he had frequently had to travel fifty miles to attend an Assize. This Bill was desired by the county, and it was so simple that he did not conceive any objection could be made to it.
Lord Morpethexpressed his opinion that such a measure could be advantageously applied to Yorkshire.
Mr. Sandfordwished such a Bill to be applied to Somersetshire.
Mr. Campbellwithdrew his Amendment.
The Bill read a second time.

SLAVERY.
Lord Norreyspresented a Petition from a Town in the county of Waterford, praying for the abolition of Slavery. The noble Lord observed, that he would take care in future to put his name on the Speaker's list, before that of the hon. member for Waterford (Mr.
350
O'Connell) as for three nights he had been detained, for three hours, while that hon. Gentleman excited debate.
Mr. Ruthven Mr. Ruthven, as an Irishman, protested against such personal attacks.
Mr. Humealso protested against such irregular references to the parliamentary conduct of any Member. If the noble Lord wanted to get away from the House early, he ought to have attended earlier. This night the debate had been produced by an attack on the honour and character of his hon. friend, who was driven into the discussion in mere self-defence.
The Speakerobserved, that as the noble Lord was a young Member, he bad not noticed the remark, which was certainly irregular. This House was not the place, where the attendance of Members should be made a matter of complaint, but he thought that the noble Lord had meant what he said merely in good humour.
The Petition having been brought up,
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that he courted the censure of those who could frivolously assail a Member for attendance in the discharge of his duty. He had no connection with Ministers and expected nothing from them; and if the noble Lord would consult only his conscience in his vote, and do as much for Ireland as he (Mr. O'Connell) had done, more fame would attend the noble Lord than had belonged to any of his ancestors that he had ever heard of.
The Speakerinterposed. The hon. Gentleman had not the excuse of being a new Member; and it was highly irregular to urge imputations, more especially prospectively. A comparison of parliamentary conduct was neither fair nor regular.
Mr. O'Connellwas convinced at once that he had been in error; and the personal nature of the attack of the noble Lord, which excited in him some indignation, was his only excuse.
Petition laid on the Table.

MINUTES.
On the Motion of the Earl of SHAFTESBURY. it was ordered, that no Petitions relative to private Bills, should be received after the 17th of March; nor any Reports from Judges on the subject of private Bills, after the 15th of April.
Petitions presented. For the abolition of Slavery, from Woodstock, by the Earl of SHAFTESBURY:—By the Earl of CARLISLE, from Carlisle, Harrington, Dalston, Brampton, Keswick, Bolton, Chesterfield, Derby, and nine other places in Cumberland, Yorkshire, and Derbyshire:—By Earl SPENCER, from Portsmouth, Portsea, Northampton, Gisborn, Milton, and fire parishes in Northamptonshire: —By the Duke of NORFOLK, from places in Armagh, Nottinghamshire, Gloucestershire, and an individual in Ireland:—By the Bishop of LICHFIELD and COVENTRY, from Bridgenorth, Stafford, Newcastle-under-Lyme, and five places in Derbyshire:.—By the Earl of ABERDEEN, from the Incorporated Trades of Aberdeen:—By the Earl of TANKERVILLE, from three parishes in Yorkshire:—By the Earl of RADNOR, from East and West Grinstead, Sussex, Alderley, Aylesbury, Cowes, and several Parishes in Nottinghamshire:—By the Earl of FALMOLTH, from Truro, South Cove, and Grampound:—By the Marquis of CLEVELAND, from Durham, Middleton, and two other places in Durham:—By the Bishop of BATH and WELLS, from Ashby-de-la-Zouch, Blackburn, Whitby, Stone, and several places in Lancashire, Somersetshire, and York shire:—By Lord KING, from Guilford, and another place in Surrey:—By Earl GROSVENOR, from a Congregation in Manchester:—By Lord CALTHORPE, from Oxford, a Female Congregation in Eagle-street, London, and several Parishes in the Shires of Derby and Monmouth. For the repeal of the Civil Disabilities under which the Jews labour, by Earl SPENCER, from an individual. For a Revision of the Law of Arrest, by the Duke of RICHMOND, from Henry Thompson.

DISTRESS OF THE MINING INTEREST.
The Marquis of Clevelandpresented a Petition from the Lead-miners of Alston, a district of Cumberland, complaining of Distress, arising from the present state of the law relative to the importation of lead, and praying for relief. The noble Marquis expressed a hope that Government would pay attention to the allegations of the present petitioners, similar to that with which they had already honoured petitions of a like nature presented by him in the course of last Session. He was convinced that the condition of the manufacturers

317
was progressively improving, and that the agriculturists were not now suffering such privations as they had experienced at the commencement of last Session, while the deplorable state of the mining interest continued unchanged. He therefore trusted that the promises which had been already conveyed to him by Government, respecting this important question, would ere long be realized.
The Earl of Falmouthobserved, upon the distress sustained by those who were concerned in the iron and copper mines also, which he attributed to the importation of metal from South America. In 1825 companies had been formed to work the mines of that country with English capital, and bring the ore into competition, in the European market, with that raised in England. This was a serious injury to the extensive mining interests of this country. Application had been made to the noble Duke for protection, but he had afforded none to the mining interest. It was to be hoped, however, that he would re-consider this subject, and listen to the prayers of the miners.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, he had last Session come to the conclusion, that he should do much more injury to British interests by interfering, than by abstaining from interference. He could only repeat the assurance which he had already given the noble Marquis, that he would not be wanting, during the ensuing year, in attention to this, or to any other subject connected with the welfare of the country.
Petition to lie on the Table.