Sitting of 4 August 1831

MINUTES.
The Report of the Committee on the Petition against the late return at the Coleraine Election was presented. It declared, that Sir John W. H. Brydges had been unduly elected for that Borough; that WILLIAM TAYLOR COPELAND, Esq., was, therefore, the sitting Member; and that the Petition of the said WILLIAM TAYLOK COPELAND, was not frivolous nor vexatious.—Returns amended accordingly. Mr. BARING WALL took his seat as Member for Weymouth and Melcombe Regis.—The report of the Committee on the King's Message, relative to the allowance to the Princess Victoria, was brought up.—The Resolution for granting 10,000 l. per annum to the Princess was agreed to, and a Bill for that purpose ordered to be brought in.
Bills brought in. By Mr. SPRING RICE, to equalize the Duties on Wine, and to defray the Charges of Disembodied Militia.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. D. W. HARVEY, of the quantity of Land, number of Houses, nature of the tenure, and amount of Rent; Money in the Funds, on Mortgage, or other securities; unimprovable Rents, and other charges, distinguishing their amounts; Ecclesiastical presentations and Scholarships; deductions for Land Tax, Parochial Disbursements, and the number of Endowed Schools, arranged under the head of Counties, with all other particulars, so far as they can be collected, of the Charitable Institutions:—On the Motion of Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET, an account of the number of Houses in several towns, specified in schedule F of the Reform Bill, distinguishing the Rates as assessed to the inhabited House Duty; a similar return for the towns of Swansea, Loughon, Neath, Aberavon, and Ken Fig, Abergavenny, Monmouth, Chepstow, and Usk, distinguishing the different Boroughs and Townships; also, an account of the Assessed Taxes paid for each of the towns, in the county of Monmouth, as above, during the last three years:—On the Motion of Mr. PROTHEROE, of the amount of British, Colonial, and Foreign Spirits, which paid Duty for home consumption, from 1821 to 1830, inclusive, and of the quantities of the same, used in the Army and Navy, which paid no Duty:—On the Motion of Mr. ATTWOOD, the quantities and descriptions of Wines upon which any Duties, in addition to those imposed by Law, had been demanded or received, from the 20th of July last to the present time, and the amount of Duties so demanded or received.
Petitions presented. By Sir JAMES WILLIAMS, from Owners and Occupiers of Land, Hundred of Derllis, Carmarthen, praying that Land-owners may be placed on the same footing as 10 l. Householders, with regard to returning Members to Parliament. By Mr. BUCK, from the Freemen of Exeter, praying they may not be deprived of their privileges of returning Members; and from the Corporation and Inhabitants of the same place, for an amelioration of the Criminal Laws. By Mr. WILBRAHAM, from Cotton Manufacturers of Disley, in favour of the Cotton Factories Apprentices Bill; and from the Magistrates, Clergy, and others, of Stockport, for the amendment of the Beer Act. By Mr. PROTHEROE, from the Roman Catholic Prelate and Clergy, of the district of Galway, and the Protestant Freemen and Inhabitants of St. Nicholas, Galway, for equalizing Civil Rights; and from the Roman Catholic Inhabitants of Rosscarbery, and Kilkeranmore, against any further Grants to the Kildare Street Society. By Mr. SPENCER, from the Attornies of Berwickshire, for Repeal
734
of Stamp Duties on Attornies Certificates; and from Mr. DUNCOMBE, from Inhabitants of Llanerehymedd, to return a Member in conjunction with Boroughs in Anglesea.

PROGRESS OF THE REFORM BILL.
Mr. Gillonpresented a Petition from the Provost, Magistrates, and Town Council of the royal burgh of Linlithgow, complaining of the delay in passing the Reform Bill, and praying, that its progress through the House of Commons might be accelerated by every means consistent with the privileges of Parliament, and the spirit of the Constitution. The hon. Member entirely concurred in the prayer of the petition, and he must say, that the indignation of the north would be aroused if further time were wasted in frivolous debates and factions opposition.
Mr. John H. Johnstonesaid, any Gentleman who had watched the progress of the Bill, must be satisfied, that unnecessary delays were interposed, and this had given great cause of displeasure to the country; he therefore begged to express his cordial concurrence with the prayer of the petition.
Mr. C. W. Wynnsaid, that no doubt the petitioners were disinterested parties, in offering any opinion connected with the progress of the English Reform Bill; at the same time he thought it strange that they should set themselves up as the judges of the exact quantum of time which should be devoted to ascertain whether an English borough should be disfranchised, or a populous English place enfranchised. He had a great respect for the Provost and Council of Linlithgow, but he could not conceive that they were likely to be the best judges of what were the proper places in England to send Members to Parliament, and, of course, of the arguments pro and con. Would they have only one question put on the whole Bill? What would be thought of the trial of sixty persons, where it should be insisted that the verdict should pronounce at once upon the guilt or innocence of the whole, without any distinction?
Mr. O'Connellsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had made out no case to show that the petitioners had not a right to interfere on this occasion. The nominees of Lords, and other borough proprietors, had legislated for the people of Scotland, and they were now paying them off for it. The simile of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. W. Wynn), as to the sixty criminals, was not very happy. In one respect it was correct, as these boroughs

735
were charged with being at the disposal of boroughmongering Lords, and others, who put in their own nominees, without any reference to the opinions of the supposed electors. It was true there were sixty criminals charged, but no further was the metaphor correct, for who ever heard of sixty criminals being allowed to vote upon the charge against them? Let the accused parties, the nominees, leave the House, or go into the dock below the bar, until their case was decided, and then there would be less delay and less ground of complaint. He was not surprised at the impatience of the public on this subject. Was it not a fact, that there were vexatious delays? He had heard himself one hon. Member deliver the same speech fourteen times, and not only in the same words, but with the same fisticuffs on the box before him. They had entered into the Committee on the 4th of July, the anniversary of the declaration of American independence, and they had now, on the 4th of August, got no further than the third schedule of the Bill, He could have wished, that it were completed on the 10th of August, which was the anniversary of another event; but if they were to go on with such arguments, or rather such no-arguments, as had been heard on this subject, they might then get through somewhere about February next.
Mr. Robert A. Dundaswas well acquainted with the opinions of the people of Scotland on this subject, and he was sure they would not think well of the Members at that (the Opposition) side of the House, if they allowed a measure of this importance to pass without a minute examination of all its details. As to the remark of the hon. and learned member for Kerry, about the no-arguments of Members opposed to the Bill, he would tell the hon. and learned Member, that he would gain more for the Bill, if he could induce hon. Members on the other side to answer those which had been urged, the no-answer to which would not fail to make a due impression on the thinking portion of the country.
Lord Stanleywould not have taken any part in this discussion, but for the observation of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. W. Wynn), who made a demarcation of the line of duty of parties addressing the House, and who seemed to think it presumption in the inhabitants of a Scotch borough to interfere with the mode of
736
disposing of an English borough. He considered it the right and the duty of every Member, no matter what place he Represented, to state the opinions of his constituents as to any measure, whether English, Scotch, or Irish; and he owned he was surprised at such a remark from one who was so ready to come forward in support of the forms of that House. The petitioners stated their opinion very respectfully as to the delay; and in this they only partook of a feeling very general in the country—that much unnecessary delay had taken place. In this he believed many of the opponents as well as supporters of the Bill concurred. They would be glad to see it brought to a conclusion. The petitioners only stated their opinion, that the delay would be dangerous to the peace of the country, and they therefore prayed, that it might be carried through with as little delay as might be consistent with the forms of the House. Surely in this there was nothing so very objectionable as to call for the censure of the right hon. Gentleman.
Sir Richard Vyvyansaid, it was satisfactory to think, that this petition was not so objectionable as the one presented by the hon. and leaned Member (Mr. O'Connell), from the Birmingham Political Union, a few days ago, and which the learned Gentleman read to the House, though he would not allow any one to reply to him. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the anniversary of American Independence, and let drop an allusion to another anniversary—that of the 10th of August. He hoped he should never see the celebration of such an anniversary in this country. Did the hon. and learned Member recollect what followed after the events of the 10th of August, 1793? If he did, he thought the allusion must call up associations not very favourable to the advocates of this Bill. What was the state of the case with respect to this Bill? The House was sitting there as a deliberative body, considering one of the most important changes which could be made in a State—the change of its Constitution—a change so important, that if they took six months to effect it, they would be still liable to the charge of too much haste. A Constitution could not be made in a day, and should not be touched at all without an absolute necessity, and then with the most deliberate caution as to every step they

737
took. For his own part, he had not taken any active part in the discussions in the Committee, though he reserved to himself the right to do so when he thought proper, but he claimed, on the part of those who had, the fullest power to defend the rights of their constituents. He would not be deterred, and he trusted no Member of that side of the House would allow himself to be deterred, by the opinions of individuals out of the House, or the taunts of any of those within, from taking that course with respect to this measure which their own sense of duty suggested.
Mr. James Grattanadmitted, to the fullest extent, the right of every Member to defend his own borough; and he regretted that the hon. Baronet was not in his place at the right time to defend that one he Represented; but he did protest against half a dozen Members taking upon themselves the character of champions of all the boroughs, and repeating, night after night—not the same arguments, for arguments he could not call them, but—the same statement of facts, which had been answered over and over again.
Mr. Cresset Pelhamsaid, if the hon. member for Wicklow expected, that the debates in future would be more contracted than before, in consequence of these sort of remarks, he would find himself greatly disappointed. The hon. Gentleman might apply his remarks to the past, but they would only influence future debates unfavourably. It was essential to free discussion, that every Member should have an opportunity of calling the attention of the House to any thing likely to improve any measure before them, and that every Member should embrace that opportunity if he thought proper.
Mr. D. W. Harveysaid, any one who looked at the debates would see, that, night after night, the same statements of facts were made by nearly the same speakers, and that the number of speakers on each side did not exceed half a dozen. When the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. C. W. Wynn) denied the right of the petitioners to interfere in the discussion as to the English Reform Bill, did it not occur to him, that the delay of the English Bill would be greatly injurious to the progress of the Scotch Reform Bill? Surely on that ground the Scotch people had a right to interfere in urging the more rapid progress of this Bill. He had been astonished to observe the unconstitutional ground taken
738
on the occasion. It had been argued, that Members should not take a part in matters which might refer to places not connected with the places they Represented. Why, it was one of the strongest arguments made use of in favour of small boroughs, that the parties who sat for them were Members for the whole country.
Mr. C. W. Wynnsaid, he was in the recollection of the House as to what he had said, and if there were any Member present who conceived him to have denied the competency or the propriety of the people of any part of Scotland taking an interest in the progress of the English Reform Bill he should wish to undeceive him. He had made no such denial; what he stated was, that though the Provost and Council of Linlithgow might be very respectable people, he thought them the very worst judges of the time which might be required in deciding whether an English borough should be disfranchised or enfranchised. As to the allusion made by the hon. and learned member for Kerry to an hon. and learned Gentleman who was not in his place, he must state, that it would have been more fair, and more consistent with gentlemanly feeling, if he had reserved his remark until that hon. and learned Member was present, who, no doubt, would be able to give him a satisfactory answer. He was not surprised at the hon. and learned Member's allusion to the anniversary of the 4th July, as that of American Independence, but he owned, that he did not expect to hear it coupled with an allusion to another anniversary, that of the 10th of August—a day memorable in the annals of lawless outrage, and distinguished by a massacre from which the streets of Paris ran with human blood.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, he had made the allusion to the hon. and learned Member (Sir C. Wetherell) playfully. He certainly was wrong in alluding to only one orator as having thumped the box; for he might have mentioned five or six who impressed their oft-repeated arguments—or no-arguments—in that manner. When he spoke of the 4th of July, he spoke of it as the anniversary of an event at which every friend of freedom should rejoice; but his coupling it with the 10th of August was not because he thought the events of the day ought to be imitated, but because he wished to call to the remembrance of some hon. Members, that

739
the events of that day, deplorable as they were, were the result of along and dogged refusal to restore the usurped rights of the people, who had been opposed and trampled upon in a worse manner than they had been by the boronghmongers here, and in that feeling only did he express a hope, that the Bill might be over by the 10th of August.
Mr. Huntsaid, the petition reminded him of the case of a person who came up to town when the Reform Bill was brought in, and who, on being asked how long he intended to remain, said, he would stay a few days, until the Bill passed, that he might carry it home in his pocket. The petitioners, or rather petitioner, for there was only one signature, might have made the same estimate of the time it would take to carry the measure. With respect to the meeting of the Livery of London, which had been alluded to on a former occasion, he wished to observe, they were a distinct body from the citizens, of which they formed but a small proportion. The citizens would, no doubt,however, have met, to petition the House, had they not seen the fate of the Birmingham petition, as well as those of other places.
Mr. Lefroycould not conceive on what ground, as the Committee had refused to hear Counsel, hon. Members should be prevented or restrained in any manner from giving their opinions in every case of disfranchisement, as it was brought before them. These boroughs had no assistance from their judges, in the absence of Counsel, but rather found in their judges a disposition to condemn by wholesale, without giving the accused an opportunity of making a separate defence.
Petition to lie on the Table.
Mr. Gillon, in moving it be printed, said, the people of Scotland had a great interest in the speedy passing of the Bill, as upon it depended their own deliverance from an oppressive system, which had caused them to sustain a load of taxes, while their petitions were treated with neglect. He should be ready to support the prayer of his constituents.
Mr. Burgedeprecated this and every other attempt made to dictate to the House of Commons, when they were engaged in the discussion of a measure which so ominously threatened the safety of the British Constitution, and all our happy existing institutions. It was a new era in legislation, for that House to have a course of discussion
740
prescribed, and to be called upon, at a few days notice, to make such a great and decided innovation. It was the duty of those who saw defects in the Bill, to point them out, and its advocates acted inconsistently in hurrying it through the House, for if they considered it so excellent as they pretended, they would not fear its suffering in public estimation, by examination and discussion. The Ministry of this day had neglected the warning admonitions of History, which had been well defined to be philosophy teaching by example, and contemplated without apprehension the completion of those changes and innovations, upon which all rational men in times far more pregnant with ability than these, and all intelligent men of our own day, looked, or had looked, with the most fearful anticipations.
Mr. Northwas not, in the least, surprised that some hon. Members should rejoice and congratulate themselves upon every occurrence which, like this, as the hon. member for Kerry had insinuated, was but a stage or more towards a general change, including in it the dissolution of the Union between this country and Ireland; but that the Ministers of his Majesty should be indifferent under such circumstances, was what he could not reconcile to their avowal, that they thought in this Bill was to be found a firm base for the political welfare, and final arrangement of the Legislature, of this great nation. There might have been some ground for Ministerial impatience to pass their favourite measure if they had brought it forward originally without any error or blemish in its inception; but when it was by others found, and by Ministers acknowledged, to be replete with numerous and admitted errors, which they, with singular precipitation, hastened to correct and set right, when ordered so to do by their masters, the daily Press, he confessed he could not see how they could object to that calm examination which had already so frequently corrected numerous errors. Hitherto, he had taken no part in these discussions, of which, and of the Bill, he was heartily sick and weary; and he could safely say, he should feel but little concern were the Bill to be carried with all the expedition the Ministry seemed to wish; for he had little doubt in his mind, that the measure of 1831 would be soon superseded by the measure of 1832 or 1833; for the progress of innovation was not likely,

741
he was sure, to be stopped by the present measure. He was weary of the continued and renewed discussions, night after night, if discussions they might be called, which seemed to lack all the essentials of deliberation worthy of an enlightened Legislature. That they were impatient, or seemed so, was naturally to be expected, because they were obliged to assume an air of reckless haste in accomplishing the measure of Reform, in compliance with the cry raised out of doors in its favour, by those who had taken up the pledge of the Ministers as the sole qualification necessary for their very unexpected and sudden elevation to power.
Mr. Cutlar Fergusonsaid, he disapproved of such petitions as this, because the proceedings of the House ought to be perfectly free. He protested against their being interfered with, either by intimidation or otherwise. Great delay, no doubt, took place, not, however, in discussing the principle of the details, but in consequence of repeating the same arguments, night after night, upon each individual case. He hoped no representations from the metropolis, or any other part of the country would be permitted to influence their deliberations; but, that the House would be always alive to its own independence.
Mr. George Robinsonprotested against the line pursued by the non. and learned Gentleman (Mr. North). He had a full right to claim good intentions on his own part, and those with whom he acted, but not to attribute bad ones to those who differed from him. What had been the means employed in all preceding legislation, but majorities, and former majorities would be found, he believed, more objectionable in principle than those on this Bill. He wondered, that hon. Gentlemen had not discovered the inconvenience of majorities formerly, when they were always on the winning side. Petitions of this kind might, generally speaking, be inexpedient; but the language was respectful in the present petition, and he saw, therefore, no objection to receiving it. He considered, that imputations on either side were highly improper.
Sir Charles Forbeswas of opinion, that the House had done more mischief in one short month than could be repaired in centuries. The argument was all on the Opposition side of the House, and no answer had been given to it on the
742
other. If the majority were resolved to pass the Bill, let them avow it at once, let them dispense with the usual forms of the House, and agree to all the clauses at once, let the question be put upon the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill, this was the way to satisfy the Press, and put a speedy end to the necessary discussion of the Bill.
Petition to be printed.

COLLECTION OF THE NEW WINE DUTIES.
Mr. Attwood Mr. Attwood rose, persuant to the notice he had given, to move for copies of any orders from the Treasury, by authority of which the duties on Wine were, now levied without the authority of law. The imposition of any duty without the sanction of Parliament was a violation of the Constitution, and it was no answer to a charge of that kind, to say that it had been done by others in office. The House was bound to vindicate its own authority, and not allow it to be usurped by any individual whatever. The noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had defended the collection of the Wine duties on a former day, by stating that it was the practice of the Treasury to issue orders to that effect as soon as the Resolutions of the House, settling, that any duties should be levied, had been reported. But the Resolutions of the House gave no authority of that kind. All they stated was, that it was expedient that such and such duties should be collected, but they did not mention when the collection should take place. The noble Lord had asked him the other night, whether he had attended a meeting of Members out of the House. To that question he replied in the negative. He was not disposed to discuss out of that House matters which were fitter to be debated within its walls. But if he mistook not, the noble Lord had himself convened an inner Parliament, either at the Treasury or the Foreign-Office, and, that questions, were there discussed, and the Members were disciplined and marshalled into the House, not to debate, but to vote. That was the course adopted with respect to the Wine duties, and he believed, that the Members who were pledged to Reform voted for them with so much want of consideration, that it might be supposed, that they considered those duties as forming part of the Reform Bill. He called on the House to consider how the business of the country was neglected, while

743
the attention of Parliament was entirely engrossed by the subject of the Reform Bill. Besides the imposition of additional duties on wine, there had been taxes repealed to the amount of 1,500,000 l. without authority of law. This was a course of proceeding which was perfectly unjustifiable, unconstitutional, and illegal. For the Treasury to levy large sums upon the people, without the authority of the other branches of the Legislature, was a perfect mockery of law. It was an utter violation of the principles of the Constitution; and, if persevered in, would lead to circumstances of a most destructive character. The noble Lord had taken the House by surprise, by introducing the subject of the Wine duties without notice, in a Committee upon the Customs' Acts, which made the whole matter most objectionable. The hon. Member concluded by moving, "That there be laid before the House a copy of the authority under which his Majesty's Board of Customs have proceeded to levy additional duties upon all wines not French, delivered out of the warehouses or quays for home consumption, on and since the 20th day of July last."
Lord Althorpthought, the hon. Member had spoken with somewhat more vehemence than the occasion called for. Before he made an observation on the Motion he wished to say a word on the question of Members meeting out of the House. He could never have meant, by the allusion he made on a former night, to cast any imputation or blame on the hon. Member for having, with others, also Members of Parliament, met in a large number to determine what should be the course of conduct they, in their places in Parliament, should pursue whenever they felt their interests concerned. He had been too long a Member of that House, and too long fully convinced, that it was a great public benefit to the country that there should exist what were called parties of public men, who acted together in the senate, to question the right such men had to meet and deliberate upon topics of peculiar interest to themselves. He did not recollect, that he had mentioned at the meeting alluded to, any thing about the Wine duties, or the course to be pursued concerning them, further than this, that some person present had asked him, when the subject would come on, and it was arranged that it should come on in the Committee upon the Customs'
744
Acts. He had no objection to the Motion, but wished to amend it so far as to include within it a great number of preceding orders, which had been made by the Board of Treasury, on similar occasions. He thought it would be very inexpedient that the measures of the Government should be such as to cause a race amongst those who had stock in the market, that they might get it in immediately after the Resolution was passed, and before the duty was levied. His Majesty's Ministers had, on this occasion, adopted the uniform practice when Resolutions were agreed to which varied the rate of duties. The hon. Gentleman must be aware that, if any parties had chosen to refuse payment of the duties, there was no means of compelling them. But the only effect would be, that when the Act passed, the duties would be levied. He should move, as an amendment, "that copies of all the Orders of the Treasury by which duties were levied on the authority of Resolutions of that House, since the 1st of January, 1800, be laid before the House, together with the Resolutions on which the same were founded."
Mr. George Robinsonhad no doubt that precedents could be found to justify the noble Lord, but he thought they would be "more honoured in the breach than the observance." With respect to the argument, that if the duties were not immediately levied, parties would take advantage, and send into the market all the wine on hand, the same thing might be said of the proposition in the Budget which, in the usual course, might be expected to be confirmed by Acts of Parliament. A resolution of this House should, in this case, not have the force of law. Great delay, he was aware, had taken place, and many public interests were neglected, merely on the ground of the Reform Bill. As yet there was no day fixed for bringing forward the subject of the Wine duties, and he objected decidedly to the conduct which had been pursued.
Mr. Goulburnimputed no serious blame to the noble Lord, and he thought, that for the benefit of trade, the date of any decrease or increase of duties should be particularly specified in the resolutions of that House. But in the Resolution on the Wine duties, no specific date was fixed, and that must have injured those persons who were particularly interested in the trade. The complaint here

745
was, that new duties had been imposed without the consent of Parliament, and to that no answer had been made. In previous cases, when duties were levied merely upon a resolution of that House, bills had been immediatly passed, and no such delay as on this occasion had taken place. The other House of Parliament had a right to a negative upon duties, although they could not originate them. The present case, if drawn into a precedent, would be extremely dangerous to the privileges of the House of Commons, but still more so to the privileges of the other branch of the Legislature, upon a point upon which its privileges were already very limited.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, that the present Government followed the precedent of 1825, which had the sanction of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn). The question was, not an increase or decrease of tax, but, as it was now argued, was one of date. And the question then, as now, related to the Wine duties. The omission of the date had nothing to do with the question, as admitted by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn). It was for the convenience of trade that the course now pursued had been adopted. Whether Parliament might or might not alter what had been done he could not say, but if it were altered, it would be attended with considerable difficulty.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, as regarded the privileges of either House, the question was the same, whether it was an imposition or reduction of duty; but the complaint was that the duty had been levied in this case, when all that had been done formerly was, to take security for the payment. Merchants were not in general fond of paying money if they could avoid it.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, it should be recollected, that this was not a slight change, but was a remodelling of the whole constitution of the Wine duties. That Ministers should take upon themselves to dissolve the Methuen Treaty, to encourage the importation of French wine, to adopt the anti-colonial policy of increasing the duty on Cape wines, upon a resolution of the House only, was a matter deserving their most serious attention, and he was glad that his hon. friend had brought it under their notice.
Mr. Courtenaycomplained of the time that had elasped. Resolutions of this nature ought not to be proposed unless the Government were prepared with a bill
746
founded upon them. With respect to the case of 1825, that was a measure of relief, while this was an imposition of duty, which made all the difference.
Lord Althorpsaid, that directions had been given to prepare the Bill; and it was under peculiar circumstances that it had been delayed.
Mr. Callaghansaid, that in all cases of increase of duty, no man should be allowed to tax the public without an Act of Parliament, and the duty should take place only on the passing of the bill. A great injustice would be done to parties living at a distance.
Mr. Attwood, in reply, observed, that this was a most unconstitutional measure, and the righthon. Gentleman (Mr. Poulett Thomson) seemed to consider there was little difference between imposing and reducing a duty. That was quite worthy of a member of the Government whose first act, on coming into office, was to take the duty off barilla, not only without, an Act of Parliament, but absolutely without even a Resolution of the House. The Government had no right to enact a repeal of duties at its own pleasure and leisure, when there was nothing else to do.
The Motion, as amended by Lord Althorp, agreed to.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM— BILL FOR ENGLAND — COMMITTEE—SIXTEENTH DAY.
The Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House on the Reform in Parliament (England) Bill was read; and the House resolved itself into a Committee, Mr. Bernal in the Chair.
The question was "that Wolverhampton, including the townships of Wolverhampton, Bilston, Willenhall, Wednesfield, and the parish of Sedgeley, Staffordshire, stand part of schedule C."
Mr. Crokerwished to inquire why the township of Willenhall was placed with Wolverhampton?
Sir John Wrottesleybegged to be permitted to answer the question, as he had considerable local knowledge. The township of Willenhall was within two miles of Wolverhampton, and was part of the parish of the latter place.
Mr. Crokerwished further to be informed, whether Willenhall was not as near to Walsall as to Wolverhampton.
Sir John Wrottesley: It is situated rather nearer Walsall than Wolverhampton.
Mr. Crokerwould explain to the Committee the reason of his asking the question. The proposed borough of Wolverhampton appeared to be constituted of a number of adjoining townships, which contained a very considerable population; but the town of Wolverhampton was in itself a considerable place, containing 18,000 inhabitants. He wished, therefore, to understand, why it was necessary to take in so large a number of the surrounding population, amounting in the whole to 54,000? Among the included townships were the Chapelry of Bilston, and the parish of Sedgeley, which also contained 17,000 inhabitants. Neither of these places was connected with Wolverhampton. He was quite free to acknowledge the propriety of this town having Representatives, but he protested against the adjacent townships being added, because the town itself would derive no advantage. It would, in the words of the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, be sluiced and drowned, by letting in upon it the population of the neighbouring districts, amounting to 35,000. He also protested against the town of Wedgebury being left unrepresented, and suggested that, according to the principle which they had pursued in the case of Wolverhampton, Wedgebury ought to be incorporated with the adjacent town of Walsall, which, including the parish, had only 11,000 inhabitants, and which, by a strange stretch of partiality, had been left to enjoy by itself the right of Representation. It was situated within six miles of Wolverhampton, and he was wholly at a loss to understand why this exclusive right should be given to it, for the hon. Baronet had informed the House, that Willenhall was rather nearer to it than to Wolverhampton. These were points on which he required some explanation.
Mr. Littletonwould endeavour to explain the local circumstances to his right hon. friend. Willenhall was comparatively a small place, about a mile and a half from Wolverhampton, and the interests of both were identified: the same argument applied to Sedgeley, which had a population of 6,471 by the census of 1821. For these reasons, both these places had been joined to Wolverhampton. He insisted that there was an identity of pursuits and interests between it and the districts added to it. But his right hon. friend then asked, if this union of townships was to take
748
place with Wolverhampton, why should not a similar union be made with the borough of Walsall, and why should not Wedgebury be annexed to it. The simple answer was, Wedgebury was a distinct parish, and was, therefore, unlike the other places proposed to be annexed to Wolverhampton.
Mr. Crokerhoped to be able to shew at a proper time, notwithstanding the superior local knowledge of his hon. friend, that the Chapelry of Willenhall was exactly half way between Walsall and Wolverhampton. He therefore complained, that equal justice was not dealt to all, for Wedgebury was the largest town in that part, and ought to have been included in one or other of the districts marked out for Representation. Were there not several places included in the borough of Wolverhampton, quite as separate from it as Wedgebury was from Walsall. Both these places were, in point of fact, not towns, but crowded districts, the population of which had grown up by manufactures, and which had become so important as to be entitled to Representation. He therefore asked, why were not these placed together; and was told as a reason, that they were different parishes, while Wolverhampton was sluiced by letting in all kinds of Chapelries and townships. They had so managed the matter, however, that Wedgebury was left without Representatives. It was said, the people of Staffordshire were satisfied with this arrangement, but this was no argument with him. He was there to look after the general interests of the country, and to take care, that if the Bill passed at all, it should at least be made as just and fair as possible.
Sir John Wrottesleywould assure the right hon. Gentleman, that Willenhall was nearer to Wolverhampton than to Walsall. The latter place had a Mayor and Corporation of its own, with a separate jurisdiction, and that accounted for its having a separate elective franchise. The parish of Wolverhampton was a very large one, and there was no inconsistency in uniting all the townships within the parish, for the purpose of conferring the elective franchise on them conjointly. Wedgebury was also a separate place, and did not contain, as had been asserted by the right hon. Gentleman, the largest population of any of the manufacturing places in that district. He was satisfied, and so were the people of Staffordshire, with the

749
arrangement made, and he must besides declare, that the question was, whether Wolverhampton should have two Members by taking to it these districts, or one without them. And of course it could not be doubted, that it was better to have the two Members and the increased constituency.
Mr. Crokersaid, he could not assent to the argument of the hon. Baronet, that the people of Wolverhampton would rather be united with the adjacent districts, and return two Members, than to have one to themselves. That was as much as to say, they would rather have, no Representative at all, since the weight of the annexed districts, in returning the two Members, was to that of Wolverhampton in the proportion of 35,000 to 18,000. The inhabitants of the town, therefore, would have no share whatever in the Representation.
Lord John Russellsaid, ground of the union of these districts was, that Wolverhampton and Sedgeley were both populous and important places, and both entitled to Representation; it was, therefore, considered more advisable to unite and allow them together to return two Representatives, than to give each one separately.
Mr. Stuart Wortleymust protest against the proposed system of enfranchisement; they were called upon to unite particular districts, rot from any natural or necessary cause, but simply "that it was deemed advisable." When they were disfranchising places in the two first schedules of the Bill, many instances were brought forward of actual identity, but such circumstances were not regarded then, although they were now held to be sufficient to incorporate places in order to return Members.
Lord Althorpremained of opinion, that the proposed arrangement was proper, notwithstanding all that had been said. It should, therefore, have his decided support.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, two Representatives were to be given to the united districts which were to compose the borough of Wolverhampton. He therefore thought two should also be given to the united towns of Walsall and Wedgebury. They had been told, as the reason why this should not be done, that the former town had a Mayor and Corporation; but that was no reason why it should not be united with another town for the purpose of Representation. The Bill totally disregarded Corporate rights or jurisdictions. Wolverhampton, they had been told, was a very
750
large parish, with a scattered population. Regardless of these circumstances, Ministers had determined to unite the whole (although there had been a difficulty, such was the nature of the population, to ascertain the number of 10 l. houses), and thus continue to confer on them the right of returning two Members to Parliament. At the same time they refused to unite Walsall with Wedgebury for the same purpose, in both of which towns the population was concentrated. The inconsistency of this arrangement was so manifest, that he hoped the noble Lord would not persevere in it.
Mr. Littletonhad heard no complaint from Wedgebury, that it was not to be represented, and indeed there was great doubt if the inhabitants wished it, as it would take them out of the county Representation.
Lord John Russellsaid, it would be time enough to consider the propriety of extending the franchise to Wedgebury when they came to Walsall.
Mr. Crokerbelieved, no freeholders in towns were to lose their rights on account of the franchise being given to householders. If that was to be its effect, he should like to see the county Member who would support such a principle. It would go far to change the majority. He was not surprised at the town of Wedgebury not complaining, because, from the treatment of Guildford and Dorchester, they could have very little hope of being attended to.
Mr. Littletonbegged to assure the right hon. Gentleman, that his constituents at Wedgebury, had no sympathy with the boroughs of Dorchester and Guildford.
Mr. Crokerobserved, that Ministers had acted inconsistently in two cases, occurring even in this schedule. In the case of Westminster and Mary-la-bonne, they had insisted on giving two Representatives to each district; while, with respect to Wolverhampton, they had resolved to confound the town with the neighbouring districts, and give them common Representatives.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, that they had applied a different principle to Wolverhampton from that which had guided them in the case of Clitheroe. The question before them was, whether a whole district of towns, villages, and hamlets, should be united for the purposes of Representation. After the manner in which

751
many of the towns in schedule B had been treated, he was struck with astonishment, notwithstanding all they had done hitherto, at finding Ministers put forward such a proposition as this. Clitheroe was disfranchised on the pretence that the town itself did not contain a sufficient population to entitle it to return two Members, although there was a considerable population in the vicinity closely identified in interest with it. In that case, the district population was wholly excluded; while, in the case before them, the town population would be as nothing to that of the surrounding districts included with it, and with which the town did not appear to have a common interest. This question ought to be adjourned until they had decided the case of Walsall.
Lord Althorpcould not agree with this proposal of the hon. and learned Gentleman. The cases of Walsall and Wedgebury were perfectly distinct from Wolverhampton. There could be, therefore, no necessity to postpone the consideration of the latter; and he could not conceive any parallel between the cases of Clitheroe and Wolverhampton.
Mr. Crokersaid, his argument was, that if you added Sedgeley to Wolverhampton, on the same principle, Wedgebury ought to be united with Walsall; therefore there was some connexion between the two cases. When they came to Walsall, he should certainly move, that Wedgebury be added to it.
The question carried.
The next question, as amended, on the motion of Lord John Russell, was—"That the words the Tower Hamlets, including the Tower Division in Ossulston Hundred, and the Liberty of the Tower, Middlesex, stand part of schedule C."
Sir Edward Sugdensaid, the object of this Bill was, to take away the rights of freeholders, and to consult only the rights of the occupiers of tenements. The Government took out of counties large districts, and formed them into boroughs. By the operation of this Bill, as he understood it, all the freeholders of the very extensive metropolitan districts, enumerated and classed in this schedule, would be taken out of the constituency of the county of Middlesex. Its object was, to exclude all persons who had houses rated at 10 l. a year, from voting for the county. Now, let the Committee observe how this would operate in Middlesex. The franchise
752
being given to the districts surrounding the metropolis, the only persons who would have a vote for the county would be those who were disqualified from voting in the City, or the newly-made boroughs. Thus, the very lowest freeholders, only, in London would be admitted into the county constituency; and they would entirely overwhelm the influence of the agricultural portion of the county, which already had but too little influence in elections. He believed, that many hon. Members, who were pledged to vote for the principle of the Bill, were still at liberty to examine and deal as they thought right with its details. He called upon such Gentlemen, as independent Members of Parliament, as they desired hereafter to stand well with themselves, and with the country, to examine these matters with free and unbiassed minds, and to decide upon the merits according to the dictates of their conscience. This was the true way in which they could serve the people, and deserve the gratitude of their posterity. It was impossible, that he could have any feelings, or interest, opposed to, or apart from, those of the people—impossible on every account. His only desire was, to see the rights of all properly regarded and protected.
Lord Althorpsaid, that when they came to the clause which related to cities being counties in themselves, he should show the hon. and learned Gentleman, that it had been thought desirable and proper, that the freeholders of the city of London should be placed on precisely the same footing as other freeholders. It would be found, that the distinction, with regard to the city of London, was not of importance, and that it was more a nominal distinction than any thing else. All that it was intended to do was, to place the inhabitants of all the districts of London upon the same footing.
Sir Edward Sugdenhad thought this provision of the Bill an important one. But, as he had drawn the admission from the noble Lord, that it was only a little ornamental addition, his object was effected.
Lord Althorpsaid, that as the Bill opened the county Representation to freeholders of cities and towns, it was thought proper to do the same by the city of London.
Sir Edward Sugdensaid, the freeholders of London, were to be admitted to the

753
elective franchise for the county for the first time. There was also this distinction between them and the freeholders of counties, of cities, and towns, generally—in the latter, there were to be found, for the most part, large districts of land and rural interests, whereas, in London, the only freeholds were in houses.
Sir Ch. Wetherellhad taken some pains to look into the Bill, with a view of ascertaining how far its provisions had been governed by the principle of making concessions to gain support. Now, the citizens of London had certainly taken a great lead in supporting Reform, although they had not yet succeeded in leading that House. He could not avoid coupling that fact with the circumstance, that this exception in favour of the city of London, was not in the first Bill, but had since been introduced. By the Bill, it appeared, that the City freeholder was to have a vote for the county in which London was situated, but the freeholders of other places were not to have votes for the counties in which those places were situated. He was very much dissatisfied with the distinction.
Mr. Frankland Lewisassured the Committee, that he had one substantive point, of great importance, to offer to their consideration, and that he did not rise for the purpose of merely delaying the Bill. The point he alluded to was this—the city of London had never been part of the county of Middlesex, and its freeholders never had had a right to vote for the county Members. In his opinion, therefore, this privilege ought not now to be given; the constituency of Middlesex was already too unwieldy; and he was convinced, great evils would arise from too large a number of voters. It increased the probability of violence at elections. He, therefore, trusted London would be replaced on the footing of the first Bill, which, he was sure, would be an improvement. The present arrangement was the more objectionable, as it offered an anomaly to the words of the ninth clause, which declared, "that nothing therein contained should affect the right of voting in the election of Knight of the Shire, enjoyed according to the laws now in force."
Mr. Alderman Woodsaid, that there were very few freeholders in London, as was proved by the great difficulty they always had to make up a Jury for the
754
Admiralty Court. There was no such thing as a low order of freeholders in London. He did not think, that there were any worth less than from 50 l. to 100 l. a year; and those persons had hitherto had no votes for their freeholds. The freeholds were either in the hands of opulent persons, or of corporations. He would take this opportunity of expressing his surprise, that his worthy and learned brother Alderman near him, the member for Boroughbridge (Sir C. Wetherell), should take every occasion of bearing hard upon London Aldermen. Surely, a London Alderman was as good as a Bristol Alderman, and the hon. and learned Gentleman was only a Bristol Alderman. He did not wish to run down Bristol Aldermen, and still less did he wish to run down so distinguished a member of that body as the learned Gentleman, who was Recorder, as well as Alderman, of Bristol; but he did think, that his learned and worthy brother of Bristol might have a little more respect for the aldermanic fraternity in other corporations. He could only account for this conduct on the part of his worthy and learned brother Alderman, on the ground, that it had escaped his worthy brother's recollection, that he (Sir C. Wetherell) was an Alderman. Perhaps his worthy and learned brother would recollect this for the future, and bear in mind that, when he was sneering at Aldermen, he was cutting jokes upon himself, as well as upon others.
Lord Althorpmust suggest to the Gentlemen opposite the inconvenience of debating questions not immediately before the Committee. They were now discussing schedule G, while the question before the Committee was, whether certain words should form part of schedule C.
Mr. Alderman Waithmanadmitted, that it was quite premature to allude to the freeholders of London. He would, however take the opportunity of saying, they were a very small body, as the greater portion of the property was in the hands of the various corporate bodies.
Mr. Crokerassured the worthy Alderman, he did not object to the freeholders of London having a vote.
Question agreed to.
The next question was, "that Finsbury, including the parishes and districts of the Finsbury division, in Ossulston Hundred, Middlesex, the parishes and districts of St. Andrew, Holborn, St. George the

755
Martyr, Saffron Hill, Hatton Garden, Ely Rents, Ely Place, Liberty of the Rolls, St. Giles, in the Fields, and St. George's, Bloomsbury, Middlesex ditto, do stand part of schedule C."
Mr. J. Weylandsaid, he had no hope, after what had transpired, that any material alteration would be allowed to be effected in any part of the Bill with the consent of its framers. In considering the present question, therefore, he had a right to consider, that the Members proposed to be given to the metropolitan districts were to be returned upon the constituency at present proposed by the Bill; and they must make up their minds, that hereafter, the 10 l. householders of the various cities and towns in England were to return a majority to that House. To such a constituency he had very strong objections; and he contended, that it would be extremely dangerous to all the great interests of the country. The right of voting in the metropolitan districts, especially, ought not to be given to all 10 l. householders. He was prepared to prove, from the returns made to that House, that the Representatives elected by such a constituency would be, in fact, elected by the holders of houses of from 10 l. annual value, to 20 l. annual value. Nor would this be the case in the metropolitan districts only, but it would be the case also in all places where 10 l. householders were admitted to the constituency, in the manner proposed by the Bill. This was the fact; and if the great interests of the country were left at the mercy, as by the Bill in its present state they would be, of the political wisdom, and sagacity, and prejudices of the 10 l. householders, there could be little doubt as to what would be their fate. He had no wish to speak harshly or disrespectfully of that class of the community. They were hard-working and hard-worked, at present, he thought, too hard-worked, people. He felt this to be the case; and he should be extremely glad to see them relieved. But they were a money-making race: they looked to their own personal and little interests only, and it would be worse than absurd to expect them to take a deep or profound view upon any great question of internal or external policy. Give to that class the power of controlling a considerable number of Members of that House, and it was perfectly certain, that their first cry would be, "a total repeal of the Corn-laws."
756
They would want cheap bread, and they would think only of the readiest way of acquiring it at the moment; they would think nothing of the fatal consequences to the manufacturer of destroying the home market: that would be beyond the reach of their vision, and the total repeal of the Corn-laws would be their cry. In this statement, he was supported by the conduct of the class referred to. He held in his hand a document which proved the justice of his assertion. The document he adverted to was a petition from the working classes of the metropolis, for the abolition of every restriction on the importation of corn. It was a document in the possession of the House, having been presented and read on July 11th; and he would beg leave to quote it, The hon. Member read as follows:—
"Your Petitioners pray, that the House will instantly abolish every restriction on the importation of corn. The petitioners submit to the House, that as the landed interest were not compelled, during the war, to sell their corn at a cheap price, neither ought the petitioners, when peace arrived, to have been compelled to buy it at a high price. If landlords were improvident during the war, and mortgaged their estates, the fault was theirs: if money-lenders anticipated no change in the value of land, the petitioners were not blameable for that; and how any former House of Commons could be so destitute of every principle of justice, as to make the petitioners suffer for the improvidence of the one or the folly of the other, and pass laws to starve the poor, can only be believed, because the petitioners hear the cry of famine from one end of the kingdom to the other—because they read almost daily of men and women drowning themselves, poisoning themselves, and cutting their throats, in consequence of want—because they see them dying of hunger in the streets and in the fields, and behold infants perishing at the famished mothers' breasts. The poor have asked the House for bread; the cries of the poor for food have been answered by the bullets of the yeomanry, and murder has been considered a fit accompaniment to the detestable and iniquitous Corn-laws. The petitioners pray the House to relieve them from this curse of their existence, to take this mill-stone off their necks, and to join with them in execrating the authors of a law which has brought nakedness upon their children, and famine into their dwellings—join with them in holding up to eternal hatred the oppressors who have bound them in chains—emancipate them from this thraldom."
The working classes not only petitioned for Reform and a repeal of the Corn-laws, but they expected, through these measures,

757
to have cheap bread, no taxes to pay,no Debt to provide for; to be rescued, as the petitioners termed it, from the iron hoof of the Aristocracy: and if they found themselves disappointed—if they found that the present Bill did not work all the changes they required, they would naturally exclaim, the Reform did not go far enough. They would bind the Members they returned down by pledges. The system of pledges would not be forgotten; and thus bound down, and by such constituents, what could the Representatives of the 10 l. householders do for the protection of the agricultural, or of any of the great interests of the country? The class of persons he had alluded to had been taught to view the present Bill in this light—that should it not be found to be sufficient for their purposes, a larger and more sweeping measure would easily be obtained, this Bill once being passed. They had, indeed, been informed, by very high authority, that a little bit of Reform at a time would not do—they must have a large slice. One would have thought that, whatever a Reforming people might say, a Reforming Government would not have aggravated the effect of its views upon the people, by the empiricism of proverbs. He could not approve of this system of governing by proverbs. The ancient government of France was said to be an absolute government, tempered by songs and pasquinades—the men of wit and talent satirized the ministers, and made them ashamed of themselves by force of ridicule, whenever they committed an enormity. That was done by the governed; but that a Reforming Government should bring themselves to inform the people that "bit-by-bit" Reform was a mere delusion, when every body knew, that no Reform that is not gradual was ever otherwise than ruinous, surpassed his comprehension. Gradual Reform was good, but call it "bit-by-bit," and the good thing became ridiculous in the eyes of the people. It had cost him some reflection to discover any prototype of this government by proverbs, which appeared to be so great a solecism. At length, however, it struck him that it could be found in an author by whom much amusement had been afforded to the world, and who described an island, not indeed so large as Great Britain, which was for seven days under a reforming government, assisted by proverbs. He meant the island of Barataria, where Sancho was
758
eminently successful in this way. He turned to the history, and found a passage likely to be so eminently useful to a Reforming Parliament and a Reforming Government, that he would venture to read it to the House. The worthy governor Sancho began,as usual, with a most oracular proverb:—"When Providence sends daylight, it's daylight to all the world; and I would have you to know, that I am not quite such an owl as you take me for. I shall certainly manage to govern this island without doing wrong to any one, or taking away any right from one human creature: but I pretend also to have my own rights duly respected, and, above all, that plenty of good food shall be given to me and my grey charger. Moreover, I shall purge this island of all sorts of idlers and coxcombs (Dons, as they call themselves), who do nothing but beat the pavement with their armed heels, get tipsey, and insult the old ladies. They are drones among the bees, stealing and devouring the honey they have collected. Finally, I am resolved to protect the labourers and journeymen, to preserve the privileges of the nobility, and to inculcate a respect for religion, and honour to the Church." He viewed with alarm the formation of a constituency, in which the 10 l. householders were to have an overwhelming interest. He wished not to say any thing ungracious of any class of men, but, unless some assurance was given that some counterbalance would be proposed by Government to check the influence of the 10 l. householders, he should feel it to be his duty to oppose the remaining clauses of the Bill. He was satisfied, that if a constituency of 10 l. householders was to rule the country, and under this Bill as it now stood, such would be the fact, the Constitution must inevitably be destroyed. He was decidedly friendly to Reform; he wished to see every class of the community represented, and to see a fair and reasonable system of Representation adopted. This the Bill would not effect. He called upon the House to consider how very delicate was the texture of that chain which bound all the complicated interests of this country together; how easy a link might be broken, and how difficult it would be to reunite it. One false step might throw the labourers out of employment, hunger would lead to sedition, and order would only be restored by the sacrifice of large masses of the people. One false step

759
might lead to the dissolution of all the parts of society; and when once they were separated, it would not be possible to unite them by such a clumsy hempen contrivance as this Bill. The principle professedly taken by its framers was good enough, but the construction of the Bill was hasty, and might be dangerous to the Constitution. He approved of the annihilation of nomination boroughs. Nomination ought to be done away with; but upon this point the Bill was not complete and satisfactory. Upon the point immediately under consideration, it was still less satisfactory; for, although the country required a free Representation, it did not require such a Representation as must lead to the destruction of all its great interests. If the Government had fairly and properly proposed a sound plan of Reform, many of the difficulties which the House now had to contend with never would have arisen: all parties would have united to effect a final and satisfactory settlement of the question; but, as matters stood, it was in vain to look for such a combination. This he regretted; but it was to be attributed to the conduct of the Government, who hastily and rashly framed a Bill, dangerous in its details, and then required the unqualified concurrence of the House. The Government ought not to have agitated, but to have soothed the country upon this great question. He had voted for the second reading of the Bill; but in doing so, he had not pledged himself to vote for all the details, nor could it be inferred from that vote, that he was favourable to those details. On the contrary, it had been urged by the Ministers, when they first brought forward the Reform Bill, during the last Parliament, that the details might be corrected in Committee. It was upon the principle of the Bill that he voted, when he voted for the second reading; and he now called upon the Government to make those alterations in the details which reason proved to be requisite for the safety of the Constitution.
Mr. Cumming Bruceacquiesced in the arguments which had been advanced by the hon. Member opposed to the Bill. He only rose to enter his protest against this species of legislation. He must refer, however, to the torrent of vituperative eloquence poured out last night by the hon. member for Westminster (Mr. Hobhouse). It would seem as if that hon. Member derived his eloquence from all the leading articles
760
of all the seditious publications which had gone forth for years past. He had called it a torrent, and, he thought, not improperly, for it foamed and boiled against the banks, driving at one side against the privileges of the Aristocracy, and on the other against the character of every former House of Commons. Not to wander further, however, from the subject under discussion, he begged to protest against a proposition, which would give to the metropolis half as many Members as the whole kingdom of Scotland had, and more than all the boroughs and towns in Scotland put together. When Scotland entered into the union with England, it was as a free and independent nation; but, in bringing forward this measure, the principle of reciprocity was lost sight of, and he, for one, complained that Scotland had not been consulted, nor had that respect paid to it which was due to a nation of gentlemen. He did not wish to allude to what had recently been the conduct of the Livery of London, but after what had lately taken place between that body and one of its Representatives, and when it was known, that a Committee of the Livery was sitting, to watch the proceedings of that House, he asked, could they expect that the Metropolis would return Members who would have that regard to the general interests of the nation which was to be expected from the Members of that House? The theory of the Constitution, to which he was oldfashioned enough to adhere, was, that when a Member was appointed, he represented, not a particular place, but the empire at large. Considering the Members of the House of Commons in that light, it was a matter of indifference to Scotland, hitherto, whether it had one or two Members more or less. It considered all the Members of that House its Representatives; and he admitted, that no country had benefitted more by the union than Scotland. But when a large body of Members were to be given to the metropolis of England—men who, it was to be feared, would not prefer the general interest to the local interest they represented—then the position of Scotland was greatly and disadvantageously altered. It was impossible, he conceived, that a body of Metropolitan Representatives should not act rather in accordance with the wishes of their own constituents, than with a view to the general benefit. They would be fascinated with the love of popularity; and he contended, that the

761
House ought not to place a large portion of Members in a situation where their virtue and independence would be so much tried. Subserviency to individuals was said to be degrading, but subserviency to an excited and numerous constituency certainly was not less debasing. With all due regard to the Livery of the city of London, he conceived that the exercise of the jurisdiction they had assumed was unconstitutional, and that the judges were incompetent. If it was a mere question as to regulating the supply of turtle, or the state of the markets, he would admit their competency; but the Members of that House were called upon to exercise a discretion on subjects far beyond the grasp of mind for which the Livery of London usually obtained credit. When he saw such an increasing disposition to interfere with, and control the Members of that House, he confessed he could not view with approbation a proposition which would lead to the abstraction of so many Members from the general concerns of the empire; and, as a Scotch Member, he particularly dreaded that Scotland and its interests would not hereafter enjoy that due care which, he admitted, it had hitherto received from a British House of Commons.
Mr. Cutlar Fergusonwished to say few words in reply to the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and who had presented himself as a Member for Scotland That hon. Member apprehended great injury to Scotland, because the metropolis of England was to have half as many Representatives as the whole kingdom of Scotland; but the hon. Member had not the same fears from having forty-four Members representing rotten boroughs in Cornwall. The boroughs in that one county returned, within one, as many Representatives as the whole of Scotland. It was true, that, at the time of the union, Scotland was treated with on a fair and equal footing; but Scotland had then received a smaller portion of Representatives than it was entitled to, because Scotland had been sold for money by that Aristocracy of which the hon. Member was the eulogist. He could not agree with the hon. member for Thetford (Mr. Baring) that any danger was to be apprehended to the landed interest from the description of active and intelligent persons who would be returned by the new boroughs, as he believed that the Representatives of the
762
landed interest would be equally active and intelligent. The principal objection to giving the Metropolis additional Members was founded on the circumstance, that an hon. member for the City (Mr. Alderman Thompson) had been taken to task, for voting contrary to a promise he had given; and it was presumed, that, as this occurred once, it might occur every day, and with respect to all the Members for the Metropolis. If such things occurred, it was not the fault of the constituency, but of the Members. If a Member pledged himself to pursue a particular line of conduct, it was not a fault in the constituency to insist on his abiding by his pledge. This might happen as well in any other part of the kingdom as in the metropolis, and the objection was not so much to the exercise of the power on the part of the constituents as to the system of pledges. It was no objection whatever, he conceived, to giving additional Members to the metropolis. It was of the greatest possible consequence to these districts of the metropolis, that they should be formed into boroughs, for otherwise they would be deprived altogether of Representation. Such a district as that included in the parishes of Marylebone, St. Pancras, and Paddington, would be left wholly unrepresented. The number of inhabitants in this district was a reason why it should be represented; and he contended, that the larger and broader the basis of Representation was, the purer and more independent the Members would be. It was upon that ground he supported the Bill; and he asked, why was a metropolis, containing population, wealth, intelligence, and riches, not exceeded in the world, to be excluded from its fair share in the Representation? It had been well observed by Mr. Cobbett (who was no mean authority, and was well acquainted with the disposition of the people), in answer to the objection, that the people would be led away, and choose low demagogues; that, as naturally as sparks ascended, the people would prefer a superior to an equal, wherever a trust was to be reposed, and their choice was free. Every man who had seen a contested election, knew the advantage which a man of rank had over a man of no rank; and he was convinced that the metropolitan districts would send no Members to that House but persons of the highest character. Under the present system of Representation, at least one-third

763
of the population of the metropolis was excluded; and if this part of the Bill, giving the metropolis new Members, was lost, he should say, that it would have been better not to have embarked on the question of Reform at all. The defeat of this part of the Bill would excite a degree of disgust in the minds of a great mass of the people of the country, which the House would hereafter regret having excited. He agreed with those who thought that the Members of that House ought to maintain their independence; and he was equally sure the people would say that they ought to have a House of Commons to act free from all dictation. It was essential, however, to give the vast mass of wealth and population congregated in the metropolis a sufficient Representation. The Representation proposed to be given to it was not at all equal to its wealth and population; but, as there must be a limit to every thing, it was not, surely, too much to give to the metropolis double as many Members as it had, when it was as nothing compared with its present extent—when it had no Pancras, no Marylebone, no Paddington. The fact was, that the share of Representation which this Bill proposed to give to the metropolis, was not at all proportionate to the extent of its wealth and population; and if they had given 100 new Members, instead of ten, to it, the proportion would have been juster. It appeared to him, therefore, absurd to argue that the metropolitan districts were not entitled to the extended Representation which it was proposed to give to them. He (Mr. Ferguson) had been charged with a petition from St. Pancras, setting forth its own claims, on the grounds of its riches, wealth, and population. That parish preferred having one Member to itself, instead of two Members, as proposed; and he agreed with the petitioners. Having two Members to a district gave rise to nothing but a compromise of principle. It made the minority equal to the majority. It would be far better that the country should be divided into districts, and that each district should return one Member. In that case, the sense of the public might be taken, and the opinions of the country would be known to every man.
Mr. John Smithdid not intend to depart from the question before the House, which was, whether the district of Finsbury should return two Members. Having lived in that district for twenty years, he
764
could bear testimony to the wealth, intelligence, and patriotic feeling contained in it—qualities which he could assure the House were not confined to any district of the metropolis. The district of the Tower Hamlets too contained persons of as high character and as great eminence as any in the country. A great number of individuals of wealth, of high character, and of undoubted independence, resided in this district; and some of the most splendid, useful, and extraordinary charities of which the city of London could boast, had had their origin in this district. One very sufficient reason for giving additional Members to the metropolis was, that it would provide a safety-valve, by which the opinions of an immense part of the population would reach the House in a constitutional way. If, when remodeling the Representation, they refused to admit so important a part of the population, it would naturally excite great discontent, and therefore he considered the proposal which had been made as most judicious. The only way to insure the peace and tranquillity of the country was, to treat this million and a half, who were confined within a ring-fence kindly, and to trust to their feelings. He was confident, that the House would never regret giving those privileges to the metropolitan districts which it was about to extend to societies of not one-tenth their extent. There was no instance of such an immense population within so small a compass; and in his opinion, no part of the Bill showed deeper reflection, or a higher regard for popular feeling, than that which gave to those populous districts constitutional Representatives. One word as to the conduct of the Livery of London. He had heard with indignation the charge made against that body for calling one of its Representatives to account; for he was one of those who thought that all constituencies had such a right, and that the country would have been saved from infinite evil if that right had been exercised more frequently. All the Livery of London had done was, to call upon one of its Representatives to perform his own promise. The constitutional doctrine, which he held, was, that those who chose Members had a right to inquire, condemn, and call upon those Members to explain their conduct; and if the Members did not like this, they had their remedy to retire from the service. He gave his most cordial

765
assent to that particular part of the Bill which gave to the metropolitan districts an increased share in the Representation.
Mr. Pringlesaid, that it was quite obvious that one of the effects of the Bill would be, to localize the constituency and the Representation all over the kingdom, and in no instance would that be more especially the case than in that of those metropolitan districts, the Members for which would certainly not be Representatives for the country at large. It had been justly remarked, that they were about to give nearly half as many Members to the metropolitan districts as the whole of Scotland possessed, and it was no answer to that statement to say that Cornwall sent to that House within one of as many Members as Scotland. The Members who were sent from the boroughs in Cornwall were not the Representatives of local and particular districts, but Representatives for the country at large, and Scotland always had had its share in that close borough Representation. According to the new system, it was plain that the Representation of the metropolis would bear an undue proportion to the Representation of the country at large.
Mr. Ch. Douglasthought, that Scotland was entitled to a much greater proportion of Representatives than she already possessed, and he hoped, after what had fallen from the hon. and learned member for Kirkcudbright, that he should have his support hereafter for the proposition to give its due share of Representation to Scotland.
Mr. Huntsaid, that the hon. and learned member for Kirkcudbright anticipated, that those districts would return men of rank and wealth. It was very probable that such would be the case, but it was equally probable, that they would not return any Representatives but men of talent. The statement of the writer who had been quoted by the hon. and learned Member might be quite true, but it should be recollected, that the writer in question had written for and against every single subject that he had ever touched upon.
Mr. Cutlar Fergusonsaid, that when he made use of the expression, men of rank, he accompanied it with the remark, they must be also men of talent.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that after the decision which had been come to last night, it was an understanding that they should not further debate this schedule, and that
766
was the reason why those who acted with him on that side of the House did not go into any discussion regarding the different places embraced in it.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the same reason had prevented him from taking any part in this discussion. Nothing that had been said respecting the Finsbury district of boroughs required any observations from him.
Question carried.
The next question was, "that Marylebone, including the parishes of St. Marylebone, St. Pancras, and Paddington, Middlesex, stand part of schedule C."
Mr. Cutlar Fergusonhad promised to state the case of the inhabitants of Pancras, as they had requested him, and he was determined to do so. No cry of "question" should prevent him from discharging his duty. The inhabitants of St. Pancras were of opinion, that they should not be included in Marylebone and Paddington, for, in that case, they would be overwhelmed and borne down by the more numerous constituency of those places. They wished, that their parish should be erected into a separate district, and that one Member should be given to them. To show that they were entitled to a Representative for themselves, they stated, that their parish paid in assessed taxes three times more than Manchester, four times more than Leeds, four times more than Sheffield, nine times more than Devonport, fourteen times more than Wolverhampton, and eighteen times more than Sunderland, to each of which two Members were to be given. They stated further, that there were 10,000 houses in the parish which averaged 40 l. a-year each, and that the parish was the residence of a wealthy and enlightened, and most respectable population. They asserted, that if their parish should be united to Marylebone and Paddington, which did not pay more taxes than the parish of Pancras did, they would be overwhelmed by the greater population of those two places. These were the grounds on which they rested their claims for a Representative for their parish by itself.
Sir John Malcolmconcurred with his hon. friend, that it was most important, Members should be allowed a fair hearing at every stage of this discussion; and as allusions had been made in the course of the evening to the members for Cornwall being nearly equal in number to those of

767
all Scotland, he would quote Mr. Burke in answer, who said, "But can any one assert, that in consequence of this unequal Representation, the interests of Cornwall had ever met with more attention in that House than those of Scotland." With respect to the remarks of the hon. member for Thetford, on the proposed increase of Members for the metropolis, it appeared that he entertained apprehensions that this measure would give the same influence to the population of the metropolis as belonged to that of Paris, which enabled the latter, by popular tumult, to assume a large share in the actual government of that country. In this view he did not concur, and though he was opposed to disfranchisement, he was not averse from enfranchisement.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had stated the grounds on which the parish of Pancras claimed a Member for itself; namely, that the amount of its population was so small in proportion to that of the two districts to which it was to be united, that it would be borne down by their larger constituency. Now, looking at the extent of the parish of Pancras, and seeing the number of voters which it was likely to produce, he did not think it at all probable that they would be overwhelmed by the voters of Marylebone and Paddington. The population of Marylebone was 96,000, and that of Pancras 71,000. It was not at all likely, therefore, that the voters of Pancras would be borne down by the constituency of Marylebone, and for that reason he did not think that Pancras should have a Member for itself.
Question carried.
The Chairman then put the question, "that Lambeth, including the parishes of St. Mary, Lambeth, St. Mary, Newington, Bermondsey, Rotherhithe, and Camberwell, Surrey, stand part of schedule C."
Agreed to.
The next question was, that schedule C stand part of the Bill.
Lord Miltonsaid, that he had given notice on Thursday, that he should, in the discussion of the details of schedule C, submit that the boroughs in schedule D be transferred to schedule C. He had since made up his mind to take a different course. He should suffer the clause D to be read, and he should move, by way of amendment, that the word two be inserted in the blank instead of one.
Mr. Littletonsaid, that the noble Lord's Motion went to preclude his bringing forward his proposition respecting the borough of Stoke-upon-Trent, but, nevertheless, he must submit to the House the very peculiar circumstances of that borough. This borough had not been included in the original Reform Bill introduced into the last Parliament; but upon a deputation having been sent, his Majesty's Ministers agreed to give the town one Member. He thought they were entitled to two; the parish was very large, and consisted of a cluster of four towns, containing, in the whole, a population of 53,000 persons. The inhabitants of this very populous district, were principally employed in the manufacture of earthenware and china, the value of the produce of which last year was 1,300,OOO l. Of this sum, only 55,000 l. was paid for raw material, which was the produce of our own country, and the whole of the remainder was paid in wages. There were 120 considerable manufactories, and the district was regulated by one uniform law regarding rates, and was governed by the same local Act. The trade and population were rapidly increasing; the capital employed was immense, and the articles produced surpassed all others. From their numbers, and from the extensive and important nature of their trade—from the vast capital employed, and the interests involved, he conceived this place to be fully entitled to have two Representatives in that House. If hon. Members would examine into the subject, they would find, that the cotton manufacturers had their interests represented in Parliament by fifteen Members, the colonial interests by seven, and the silk trade by three, whilst the china manufacture was very inadequately represented. The trade of the people of Stoke-upon-Trent was not only large and extensive, but it was on the increase, and in its nature more likely to be permanent, than many which were to be better represented in that House. The population of this place, which, in 1821, was 41,000 persons, was 53,000; thus shewing an increase of thirty-five per cent. It was less than that of only three of the old boroughs—namely, Liverpool, Norwich, and Bristol; it was, however, larger than that of the towns of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Nottingham, and other important places. The parish of Stoke contributed one-twentieth to the county-rates; and the poor and other rates were very large. He should therefore

769
move, as an amendment, that the borough of Stoke-upon-Trent be inserted in schedule C.
Sir J. Wrottesleywould detain the Committee by a very few words. He had been forcibly impressed by some striking facts which were manifest, in comparing schedules C and D. Whilst schedule C contained the towns of Sunderland and Devonport, having a population of 43,000 and 44,000 inhabitants, Stoke-upon-Trent, with a population of 53,000, was included in schedule D. When the House considered this striking discrepancy, he was persuaded, that it would not reject the Motion. It had been said, the population was not condensed into a town, that it was scattered over an extensive space; but the nature of the manufacture required this to be the case. One town, however, that of Burslem, contained 18,000 inhabitants. He would only add, that Stoke was a district of continuous houses, and that it, therefore, came within the principles of the Bill.
Mr. Edmund Peelhad no hesitation in expressing his approbation of the plan of giving Representatives to populous towns and districts. The statement which had been just made by the hon. member for Staffordshire, afforded a convincing proof that the potteries had a just claim to send two Representatives into that House. When he, therefore, considered the great respectability of the people of Stoke, their commercial importance, and the ingenuity and utility of their manufacture, he was convinced, that they were deserving of a full Representation in that House. Stoke had a greater population than any place in schedule B, and a population superior to most places in schedule C. He would only further observe, that machinery could not be applied to the manufacture of this place, and therefore the trade of Stoke was likely to be permanent.
Lord Althorpagreed, that the Staffordshire Potteries were most important to the commerce of the country. If the question were, whether the Potteries should be represented at all, he should entertain no doubt upon which side to vote; but the question was, whether the Representation of the district would be insufficient with one Member, or whether it was fair and right in the Government to give it two Representatives. He would admit, that the amount of the population was very great, but from the information which he
770
had received, this was not a case of town Representation, but of a district unconnected, although in appearance it might resemble a large town. In omitting Stoke from schedule C, Ministers had, therefore, done what they thought justifiable after due inquiries into the case. He was convinced that, in giving it one Member, it obtained its fair share in the Representation of the country. It was difficult to determine whether one or two Representatives were more proper, but after every inquiry he had made, and after all the consideration he could give the subject, his opinion was in favour of including Stoke in the schedule of one Member.
Lord Ingestriewas intimately connected with the district to which his hon. friend had proposed to give two Members. He admitted, that the places in that district were not connected together, yet he was obliged to support the Motion of the hon, member for Staffordshire, on the grounds that the district contained an important and peculiar branch of commerce, and there was no place in the vicinity returning Members by which these interests could be supported. When he considered, that two Representatives were given to Devonport, which would have had the advantage of being represented with Plymouth, on account of its proximity, an advantage the district of Stoke could not possess, he must give his support to the amendment of his hon. friend.
Sir R. Peelhad already expressed his entire concurrence in the principle that every place to which the franchise was given, should return two Members. He should much rather take twelve places out of schedule D, and give to each of them two Members, than give one each to twenty-four places. He thought it would conduce to the internal peace of towns, if they had two Members. It would prevent the clashing of interests, and remove many causes of dissension. If the motion of the noble Lord were to be, that all the places in the next schedule should have two Members each, that would give too great a preponderance to the manufacturing districts, which he could not agree to, but if the noble Lord's Motion was put into the shape he proposed, he (Sir R. Peel) would support it. The word "two" being inserted instead of "one" in the clause, then it would remain for the Committee to select the places which should have two Members. Of the twelve places

771
to which he (Sir Robert Peel) would consent to give two Members, Stoke was certainly one of the first. Although he did not know why his hon. friend had chosen to take this district out of its place, and discuss it there, he should vote for the Motion. He hoped, that the vote would not be attributed to his Staffordshire partialities. He had already said, as a reason for desiring two Members, that there was less likelihood of acrimony and party feeling in election contests where there were two parties, when each had a chance of returning a Representative, than if the whole struggle was, to return one. He would add another, to be found in the long list of townships, of which he would read the names. The town of Stoke-upon-Trent contained these townships:—Longton and Lane-end, Fenton Calvert, Fenton Vivian, Penkhull and Boothen, Shelton, Hanley, Burslem, with the Vill of Rushton Grange, and the Hamlet of Sneyd, Tunstall Court, Chell, and Oldcott. The very enumeration of those names, was surely sufficient to prove the advantage of having two Members, rather than one.
Mr. Hodgsondenied, that Stoke had a population double that of other towns that had been alluded to in schedule B. The hon. Gentleman could not have examined the returns, or he would have found, that Stoke had a population of 53,000 souls, Oldham of 50,000, Salford 51,000, and Stockton 52,000. He would not wish to lay down the principle, that particular interests should be represented, independent of population, and, therefore, he thought that one Representative was sufficient, and should oppose the Motion.
Mr. George Robinsonthought the Motion would much embarrass the Committee when they came to consider schedule D. If it were carried, consistency would require, that Bradford, Wakefield and Dudley, which had manufacturing interests of equal importance, should have the same number of Members, a proposition which the House was not likely to agree to. The hon. Gentleman had made a strong case, but he could not vote for his amendment, because he was sure an equally strong one could be made for Dudley, and the other towns he had mentioned.
Mr. C. W. Wynnsaid, if he could put out of view the intended motion of the noble Lord (Lord Milton), he would agree to the proposition to give two Members to Stoke-upon-Trent, but he should by no
772
means be prepared to give the same number to the other places enumerated in schedule D.
Lord Miltonsaid, that there were several places in schedule D of greater importance than Stoke.
Mr. Gisbornethought Stoke-upon-Trent was entitled to two Members, from its being the seat of a peculiar manufacture, and having a greater population than any other place in the schedule.
Mr. John Stanleymaintained, that Staffordshire was likely to receive more than the due proportion of Members by the Bill as it stood already; certainly it would receive more than either Lancashire or Yorkshire. He could see no cause for this preference, and if the present motion were carried, two Members must be given to several places in Lancashire and Yorkshire, which had now only one. Staffordshire, with a population of only 340,000 persons, had already received six new Members, and would, in all, return sixteen Members to that House, or fifteen if Tamworth were considered in Warwickshire, whilst Lancashire; with a population of 1,021,000 souls, had only fourteen new Representatives, which, added to the number it formerly possessed, would make the whole number twenty-two. Would it be said this was a fair proportion, and could a claim for another Member be justly made on behalf of Staffordshire? If it were conceded, great injustice would be done to other places, or they must receive a considerable increase of Members. The right hon. Gentleman, the member for Tamworth, had said, he should prefer twelve boroughs with two Members each, to twenty-four with one each. The people, he was persuaded, would not approve of that view, and would prefer the elective franchise being dispersed through the kingdom in smaller proportions, to having it given in large masses, and to comparatively few places.
Mr. Protheroewould support the Motion, because Stoke-upon-Trent was of more importance than any other town mentioned in schedule D. He did not consider, that in so doing he abandoned the general principle of the Bill.
Mr. Percevalthought, that to give Representatives to particular interests, was more advisable than to take population for their basis. Stoke-upon-Trent deserved to be amply represented, and he should vote for the amendment.
Mr. Warburtondenied, that, a Representation of particular interests was consistent with good government. In forming the corporation or government of a town, the object was, not to represent the interests of the butcher, baker, and other trades, but to select a body of competent persons, without any reference to particular interests. If two Members were to be given to Stoke, why should they not give two to Ashton-under-Lyne and to Chelsea? [A Member: "What will you do with Chelsea?"] That was not a question for him to answer. If it rested with him, he would give Chelsea two Members, though he did not expect to be one of them. He was not the former of the Bill. He believed, and he hoped, it would effect great good, and on that account he was willing to waive all minor objects, although he had many objections to make to some of its details.
Lord John Russellsaid, that had the hon. Member (Mr. Perceval) attended to the explanations that had been given, he would have discovered, that the principles of the measure were of a mixed nature, population forming only a part, and wealth and prosperity being the prevailing requisites. The claim that had been made for Stoke-upon-Trent was not on account of its population, but on account of its peculiar manufacture and great trade; but he agreed with his hon. friend, the member for Bridport, that they were bound to legislate for the general interest of the country, which, in the mode of enfranchisement, was to be preferred to the particular interests of certain bodies. If the proposition of his hon. friend were acceded to, he thought it would have the effect of raising jealousies. With respect to what the right hon. Baronet had stated, he begged to say a few words as to the proposition of having twelve places returning two Members each. Such a plan being a variation from the original one—a substitution of another plan of enfranchisement—he must decline it. When that proposition was made by his noble friend (Lord Milton), he should state his reasons against it. He begged to observe, that the right hon. Baronet had signified an intention of supporting it, and from his known hostility to the Bill, his support might be viewed with suspicion.
Sir R. Peelsaid, his wish was to render the Bill as perfect as possible, and that he had invariably spoken in favour of the plan of returning two Members instead of one,
774
whenever the subject was under discussion. It was known to many hon. Members, that he intended to oppose the Motion of the noble Lord, but he should support it as far as twelve boroughs out of the twenty-four went, preferring, as he did, to see twelve places with two Representatives each, to twenty-four towns with one each.
Lord John Russellconsidered it essential to carry the Bill into effect, according to its original principles; and the right hon. Baronet had expressed a desire to see certain towns enfranchised differently from what it was proposed they should by the schedule.
Sir R. Peelcontended, that the principles of the Bill would not be departed from, by giving to twelve of the chief towns in schedule D two Members, instead of the twenty-four towns one Member each.
Lord Stanleyfelt himself bound to vote for giving an additional Member to the Potteries, although he regretted, in doing so, that he should be opposed to his Majesty's Ministers on a particular point of the details of the Bill, which, in general, he viewed with much satisfaction.
Mr. John Woodsaid, he preferred one Member being given to a place rather than two, because in that case no compromise of political principle could arise. With respect to Stoke-upon-Trent having two Members, he thought no case had been made out. If they had a Member to spare, he ought to be given to Ashtonunder-Lyne, which had a population of 34,000 souls. He considered, besides, that Staffordshire had a greater proportion of Members than Lancashire. He should, therefore, oppose the amendment.
Mr. Littletonwould merely remark, that Stoke-upon-Trent contained manufactures, the joint capital of which exceeded 1,300,OOO l. and he believed, no town in the empire had a more wealthy manufacturing population.
The Committee divided. Ayes 145; Noes 246—Majority 101.
Original Motion agreed to, and the first part of the 3rd clause as amended, was ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The next question was on the latter part of the 3rd clause as follows:—"And that each of the principal places named in the first column of schedule D be a borough, and that each of the said last mentioned boroughs shall, after the present Parliament, return (blank) Member. The

775
question the Chairman said he had to put was, that the blank be filled up with the word "one."
Lord Miltonsaid, that the period was come for the motion of which he had given notice. He felt it due to himself, and to the country, to state, that he should make this Motion on grounds of great importance, but, before going further, he should also state, for his own sake, as well as the sake of others, that he was actuated in the course he should pursue by no hostility to the Bill, nor by any want of confidence in the Ministers, with whom he had been so long united in the bonds of private friendship, the best security for public confidence. It appeared, however, to him, that in their proposal of new electoral bodies, which should return only one Member, they were departing from the ancient principles of the Constitution of the country. He thought that every part of this Bill ought to be, as far as possible, grounded on ancient principles, and he also thought, that, in its general principles, it was so grounded, inasmuch as it went upon the constitutional maxim, that Representation and taxation should go together. But he also found, that the principle of the Constitution was almost universally to give, at least, two Representatives to every place, with so very few exceptions as only to prove this rule. The exceptions were but five, one of which was a Welsh borough, and, perhaps, not to be taken into the account; and the only four places in England returning one Member, were Abingdon, Banbury, Bewdley, and Higham Ferrers. It was odd, too, that every one of them owed their origin to a particular period of our history, and one which Englishmen never referred to, as remarkable either for wisdom, or any other great quality in the Government of the country—the reign of Queen Mary. The hon. member for Preston (Mr. J. Wood) was friendly to the system, because, he said, whenever there were two Members, there was always a sacrifice of public principle. That might be the case, but there were other consequences which were of importance to the peace and tranquillity of the country. These compromises led to the avoidance of contests, and, as he thought, would always lead to a more accurate Representation of the country, than when each place had but one Member. If every election were to be conducted on pure principles,
776
without reference to private condition or private favour, then, perhaps, there could be no doubt of the propriety of acting on his noble friend's principles. But, in the first place, the minority ought to have some Representatives, and the minority out of doors should have a minority in the House. Let it not be imagined, that he arraigned the previous parts of this Bill which had been passed, but give him leave to say, that, if these boroughs which were disfranchised, gave an opportunity for the expression of the opinion of the minority of the people, it became, a fortiori, now necessary, that there should be Representatives of that minority in the House. Suppose, that, in a borough with one Member, there were 100 voters, and in a contest they were divided, were forty-nine on one side, and fifty on the other, thus one individual would engross the whole Representation of this borough; and he asked, would that be a fair Representation? Supposing, also, that every elective body in the kingdom returned but one Member, and that any particular opinion was prevalent among the people, the necessary consequence would be, that the minority would be totally excluded from the Representation. He had been, for the greater part of his life, in minorities, with his friends about him, and he hoped, that he and they would not forget the importance of minorities finding their way into the House, and on that ground also he should object to single Representation. He wished to know from his friends on the Treasury bench, whether they believed, that, with their schedule B, the arrangement they had made could possibly be final. Would Blackburn, and Bolton, and Brighthelmstone, be satisfied with one Member, while Knaresborough, and Malton, and Calne, had two? Would the large towns in Staffordshire be satisfied to see Leominster and Bridgnorth, in their neighbouring counties, with two Members? No, it was impossible they could be satisfied, if Ministers did not depart from schedule D. He was willing to give all the towns in schedule D two Members, for they were not there as an assembly of delegates; and the Members for Stoke-upon-Trent would not be in the House merely to serve the manufacture of china, but for the general interests of the empire. If he were asked why he gave Members to Manchester or Birmingham,

777
it was not because of their weaving or their iron works, but because there were assembled in them vast masses of people. He would also wish to go where public opinion was vigorous; and, if he were ready to give Representatives to Marylebone, and the Tower Hamlets, and Greenwich, and Brighton, it was because large masses of population and wealth were assembled in those places, and not because mere local interests ought to influence their Members. Indeed, he should be averse from mere peculiar interests being represented, for he could say, from experience, that, let these parties once get what they wanted to serve their own ends, no more obsequious and more humble voters for the Government could be found. He, therefore, could not help seeing in this schedule, the introduction of a principle which was dangerous to tranquillity, and which was calculated to breed discontent throughout the country. In his belief, it would be the means of throwing down the apple of discord among all classes in the community. He felt exhausted, but he rose to perform a painful duty, in thus expressing his opinions, and did so the more boldly, because he wished to support the present Bill totis viribus. The Government said, they went on the principle of equal Representation, but he saw nothing of it. Brighton, and Bradford, were to have only one Member. He could only see in these schedules the introduction of principles mischievous in their effects, and which could only tend to create invidious comparisons. He was satisfied a priori, that the returning of one Member by these towns, could only lead to discord; but, since he came to London, he had had interviews with many persons from the towns proposed to be included in the schedule, and they had told him, that a parties had declared they had rather have no Representative than only one. He believed it, for in these towns, the parties were not like those in that House; they each had their local democracy and aristocracy, and every election would bring these parties into collision. The noble Lord moved, that the word "two" be substituted for the word "one," in the part of the clause relating to schedule D.
Sir Francis Burdettwas desirous of saying a few words, more particularly applied to the high principle upon which the noble Lord had acted. In most instances,
778
men would be biassed with respect to their best interests, but he was so strongly impressed with a belief of the noble Lord's high integrity, that his opinion was, the noble Lord was more likely to act contrary to his interest, than in support of it. The common maxim was, that a man was always a bad and partial judge in his own cause, but he should always be willing to suffer the noble Lord to be judge, in matters of interest relating to himself. But in many instances, the noble Lord might push the principle of impartiality to an extremity which became mischievous. On the question then before the Committee, he differed from the noble Lord, and greed with the hon. member for Preston, that it was most desirable to avoid double Representation. Giving Representation to the minority of a place, was defeating the effect which the wishes of a majority should always produce. The noble Lord said, that they should be represented, otherwise, disputes and dissatisfaction must inevitably occur among the electoral bodies; but why should they neutralize the wishes of a majority? According to that argument, Representation was useless. The business of a Representative was, to collect the sense of a majority of his constituents, and act upon it. In that sense, one Member was more valuable than two. If he was to give a particular opinion, which he did not wish to do, because he had confidence in those who had honestly brought forward the measure, he should say, avoid as much as possible double Representation. The noble Lord's proposition seemed to proceed from a wish, that the present measure of Reform should be permanent and final, but that was absolutely impossible, and incompatible with the conditions to which the Divine will had unalterably subjected all human affairs. He did not wish to recommend any opinion of his own, but he would rather say, that all boroughs should have one Representative, because, in most cases, a double Representation was no Representation at all. The noble Lord said, they ought to make the measure perfect, but the noble Lord recommended that which it was impossible to effect. Perfection could not be expected; it belonged to the Divinity. The Bill, perhaps, was the best measure, under all the circumstances, the House could then devise. It might not be perfect, but the Bill would give satisfaction to the country;

779
and, being the commencement of a better system, Parliament hereafter might improve it. He wished to impress upon Gentlemen who professed to be friendly to the Bill, that they should not persist in pressing upon his Majesty's Ministers who were honestly doing their duty, those alterations which could only endanger the success of the Bill. A right hon. Baronet had said, he had felt he could carry on no Government without Parliamentary Reform, but he had never had sufficient fortitude, or sufficient wisdom, to attempt giving a Reform to the country. The question was, undoubtedly, one of great difficulty, and he would say, that those who wished to support Reform in the Representation, ought not to throw any obstacles in the way of Ministers, who were honestly and conscientiously endeavouring to provide a remedy for the evil which had been so long the subject of general complaint. There might be some deviations from principle in the Bill, but it was impossible to avoid them even in matters of science. For example, in navigation, allowance must be made for variations of the needle. It would be an advantage to diminish the numbers of the House, which he considered excessive at present. A system of fair Representation, required no such local expedients as that mentioned by the noble Lord. Different Members might feel disposed to support different local and partial interests, but it was impossible they could succeed, without manifest injury to the public welfare. When there was a question of that, individual views must be given up. With reference to the influence of the people over their Representatives, which had of late been so frequently referred to, he wished to say, that he did not blame the hon. Alderman (Alderman Thompson) for the vote he gave in the case of Appleby; he voted, no doubt, from a conviction of what was right and just, but still his vote went to endanger the whole measure; and, therefore, his constituents, who had sent him to the House to support it, were right in asking for an explanation. In human affairs, it was impossible ever to come to useful general results, unless particular points were yielded to the general interests. The supporters of this measure were said to come to that House pledged, but were those exempt from pledges who sat by nomination? Would they not consider it dishonourable to retain their seats,
780
if they found that they must oppose the views of their patrons? All were pledged, in some measure, to their constituents; and the popular Members, it was true, were liable to be called to account by their constituents; but the existing excitement, he had no doubt, would die away altogether after the passing of the Reform Bill, when the public generally would acquiesce in the good sense and intelligence of Parliament. He trusted even, the result of this measure hereafter would be, in a great degree, to beget so much confidence in the House of Commons, as to do away with the necessity of petitioning. The business of the House would thus be expedited, and there would no longer be occasion to fear the excitement produced by public meetings. Much had been said about giving pledges; now, if they looked to the rolls of Parliament in ancient times, they would see, that Members held themselves responsible to their constituents, and frequently refused to assent to any new matter of importance, until they had an opportunity of consulting them. On the whole, he did not believe, that double Representation would be attended with the advantages which the noble member for Northamptonshire anticipated, but, at all events, it could not be deemed of that paramount importance, which would justify the noble Lord in pressing his motion to a division.
Mr. Huntconfessed, that he had been a disciple of the hon. Baronet for a great number of years, during which the hon. Baronet's opinions had undergone a few variations undeniably; but he could remember none so remarkable as that which the House had witnessed in his particular person that evening. The hon. Baronet, it was apparent, had shown himself the best thick-and-thin supporter of Ministers, that the most zealous amongst them could possibly have desired. In his opinion, the noble Lord's arguments were well deserving of the most serious attention, and he certainly felt himself bound to support his proposition, which, as far he could judge, was by no means calculated to destroy the measure by which Government meant to abide. The hon. Baronet, it would be remembered, had supported with all his might the Ministry of Mr. Canning, who declared himself adverse to all kinds of Reform, no matter what shape it assumed, and yet he now came forward to lend his aid in favour of

781
this Bill, as the very best that true statesmanship could devise. The present Bill was, then, to have all the support which it was in the hon. Baronet's power to render it, although it embraced neither short Parliaments nor Universal Suffrage, which he (Mr. Hunt) and the hon. Baronet had so long advocated in common. Truly, the hon. Baronet had given up not a little for the sake of unanimity. Much had been said on the subject of pledges, but he "would rather be a dog and bay the moon," than come into that House with shackles about his arms, like the members for the City of London. He would at once resign his seat if he could not concur with his constituents; but as to their calling him to account, forsooth, he would take good care, that the first time of their doing so should also be the last. On the question of giving Members to populous places, he voted with Ministers, merely because their proposition came nearer to his own principles than any other which had hitherto been submitted; and on the other details of the Bill, he had stated his sentiments frankly and fairly, in spite of the taunts, not only of the House itself, but of the whole newspaper press in the country. It appeared to him, that Representation should go hand in hand with taxation to be constitutional. How did this Bill approach that principle? The income of 1,000,000 of voters included in the Bill might amount to about 150,000,000 l., or 150 l. each, while the income of the 7,000,000 excluded, at 12 s. a week, would be 217,000,000 l. Why, this was nearly as bad as no Representation. He would now add, that in the event of the passing of this Bill, the Table would be forthwith crowded with petitions for a further extension of the suffrage.
Mr. Stricklandsaid, he rose to support the amendment of the noble Lord, although not on the abstract principles which the noble Lord himself had stated as the grounds of his proposition. He would support the proposition of the noble Lord, because it was the only chance of adding a few more Members to that county with which he was more particularly connected. Long before he had a seat in that House, he was of opinion, that no measure of Reform would be final if we excluded from Representation such towns as Bradford, Huddersfield, and Wakefield, and admitted to it such towns as Northallerton and Ripon. It was said, that there had been
782
such a change of the balance of Members from the south to the north, as would give the preponderance to the latter. Those who used that argument forgot, that Yorkshire, with all its industry, all its wealth, and its population of 1,250,000, had only gained two additional Members, whilst Staffordshire, with only 315,000, gained six, Yorkshire having thirty, and Staffordshire fifteen. According to the proportion which ought to exist between the two counties, when Staffordshire had fifteen Members, Yorkshire ought to have sixty. He contended, that it was a shallow principle, to maintain that there was any hostile difference between agriculture and commerce: for where could the wool-grower dispose of his commodity if he did not find a purchaser in the manufacturer? It was absurd, then, to suppose that these new Members would give a preponderance to the commercial interest, which would be destructive of the agricultural interest. On these general principles he should support the amendment of the noble Lord, the member for Northamptonshire.
Lord Morpethsaid, he concurred in the general principle of his noble friend (Lord Milton), that a Representation by two Members was preferable to one, and he readily admitted the anomaly that must arise from giving only one to such a place as Halifax, while many small towns had two. Many most respectable men among his constituents approved of his noble friend's plan, and he would therefore state a few reasons why he should vote against it. He believed the main object of the Bill proposed by Ministers was, to establish a balance in the Representation between the agricultural and manufacturing interests. Though these great interests might not in reality be different, yet, being generally thought so, they were obliged to take things as they found them, and legislate accordingly. Though it was possible, that if two Members each were given to the places in schedule D, the two might be selected from the landed interests of the neighbourhood, it was also possible, that they might be chosen from the manufacturing interest. If twenty-six Members were thus added, it might, by some, be taken hold of as a departure from that principle of equilibrium which was professed to be laid down. The right hon. Baronet, for instance, the member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel), might then have

783
some occasion for saying, that the north was profusely enriched with Members, while the south was ruthlessly despoiled. He thought it better, therefore, though casting a longing, lingering look behind, to vote against the amendment of his noble friend.
Sir R. Peelsaid, the hon. Member who spoke last but one, denounced the shallow doctrine of preserving a balance between the agricultural and the manufacturing interests. It might be shallow in principle, but yet it was impossible to convince one of those interests, that it would be wise to commit to the other the entire control over it. Each party would always naturally desire to be protected by its own Representatives. The hon. Member talked of the interests of the wool-grower and the cloth-manufacturer being the same. This might be all true and very wise, but it was most extraordinary to hear it come from the very same hon. Gentleman who complained that Yorkshire was not sufficiently represented, and who said, that his motive for supporting the proposition of the noble Lord was, to give more Representatives to the great manufacturing towns of Yorkshire. Let the hon. Gentleman apply his own principle. If the interests of the woolgrower and of the cloth-manufacturer were the same, why not trust the agriculturist with the care of the cloth-manufacture; and still further, if the principle was good for anything, why not commit to the wisdom and management of Staffordshire, the interests of Yorkshire? He should prefer not being called upon to vote at all upon the question. If he was, however, so called upon—if the noble Lord pressed the question to a division—he would support the amendment, because it affirmed an abstract proposition of which he approved—he meant the principle of double Representation. At the same time he owned, that if he thought the noble Lord likely to carry his amendment, he should be afraid to vote with him, because he should then expect that the same majority would transfer all the towns in schedule D to schedule C. In the abstract, he agreed that it would be better to have two Members for each place, and, looking at the whole as an abstract question, he was disposed to vote for the amendment of the noble Lord, reserving to himself the power of saying to what number of boroughs this should be extended—that is, of saying whether twelve
784
or twenty-four boroughs should be included in the schedule. He owned he was surprised at the argument of the hon. Baronet in favour of single Representation; taking, as he did, the principle, that the minority should not be represented at all. To that he was prepared to give his decided dissent. Would it be wise or politic to say, that where any great difference of opinion existed, on, perhaps, a most important public question, that the minority—which might be a very large minority—should be wholly excluded from all share in the Representation? In times of peace and quiet, there might be little danger of such a principle; but times of storm and difficulty might arise. Would the hon. Baronet's principle be then applicable? It reminded him of that beautiful simile of Horace—
—"Cum pace delabentis Etruscum
"In mare;"
but the time might come,
—"Cum fera deluvies quietos
"Irritat amnes."
Yes, great questions would arise, with regard to peace or war, questions involving foreign and domestic policy, and in which there might be a collision between these two interests. Would it, then, be wise to adopt a system which should give either to the war party or to the peace party a predominant influence? It was very fairly said, in reference to the argument of the hon. Baronet, that it went to cut up by the roots the system by which the majority was represented in that House. For instance, if there should be 501 on one side of the question, and 499 on the other, the proposition of the hon. Baronet would prevent the voice of the minority from being heard. Assuredly, for all the purposes of petition and remonstrance, this was one of the most extraordinary propositions ever yet submitted to the adoption of the British Legislature. The principle which he had heard urged over and over again was, that taxation ought to be coexistent with Representation; and therefore it was, that, in order to secure Representation to the minority, two Members were selected, for it could not be done by one. The principle of giving one Member instead of two was a novelty, and as such ought to be avoided. Gratuitous novelties tended to unsettle men's minds, and engender and foster a desire for innovation. It was because he wished to avoid, as much as possible, the introduction of

785
novelties, and preferred two Members to one, that he should now vote for the motion of the noble Lord, whatever objection he might have to it in other respects. He wished the House to understand, that he voted for it upon that abstract principle.
Lord Althorpadmitted, that the exclusion of the minority from a share in the Representation would be unfair and unconstitutional. He admitted, as a general proposition, that two Members were better than one, but the question was in this case, would the evils that had been predicted, arise from having the one Member instead of two in the cases of those twenty-six boroughs? Let it be recollected, that the largest number of places would be represented by two instead of one, and in that way the minority in the kingdom would be represented. But could it be supposed that public opinion would ever be so united, as that it would be the same in every part of the kingdom? This was a circumstance which could not be expected, or, if it should happen, the minority in the country would be so very small, that no danger could occur from its not being represented in those places. The argument of the hon. member for Yorkshire had been so fully answered by the right hon. Baronet, that it was not necessary to go into it. He did not admit, that the balance between agriculture and commerce was destroyed. Looking at the manner in which the small boroughs had been represented, he did not think, that the power of the landed interest was lessened in any degree to create alarm; but, as had been said, if they considered the sort of agreement that had been made as to the principle of the Bill, he thought it would be considered as a breach of faith to the agriculturists, to add twenty-six to the commercial towns, and on these grounds he would oppose the motion of his noble friend.
Mr. Wasonsupported the proposition of the noble Lord. The very first borough on the list in schedule D, contained 2,763 10 l. houses, and he found that eighteen boroughs which were allowed to return two Members each, positively contained only 2,749 10 l. houses altogether. Did hon. Gentlemen believe, that if a Bill with such anomalies passed, it would not be again discussed in succeeding Parliaments? He had no doubt it would, and thinking so, should vote for the
786
amendment of the noble Lord, because it proposed to give two Members to each of the boroughs in schedule D.
Lord Miltonsaid, the number of additional Members to be returned, if his motion was carried, above the present number of the House, would not be more than eight or ten.
Lord John Russellbegged to assure his noble friend, they would be exactly four.
The Committee divided on the Amendment:—Ayes 102; Noes 230—Majority 128.
The House resumed; the Committee to sit again the next day.

MINUTES.
Coal Duties Bill, read a second time.

AFFIDAVITS' IN CHANCERY SUITS.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved the second reading of the Chancery Affidavits' Bill. When the Bill had been read a second time, he should move the suspension of the Standing Orders, in order to allow it to pass through the rest of its stages that day.
The Earl of Eldonopposed the Bill, on the ground that it was totally unnecessary, because the Lord Chancellor had the power, of his own authority, to have affidavits read either before or after Seals, or at any time that he chose, from the first day of January to the last day of December. He had power, even in the time usually called the long vacation, to proceed with causes in any stage, and to hear affidavits read, or carry on any proceeding touching the suit, and to call counsel and solicitors before him to proceed with the business of the Court. He had sat a long time in the Court of Chancery, and never had the least doubt as to the Lord Chancellor's powers in this respect. There was, therefore, in his opinion, no occasion whatever for passing this Bill; and as there was no occasion for it, that was a sufficient objection to its passing. He had sometimes sat from six o'clock in the morning till eleven at night; and, at all times of the day, and at all times of the year, he had permitted applications to be made on important matters requiring despatch, and had heard affidavits read, without any doubt of his power to do so, in case he had thought it proper. The Courts of Chancery were open during the whole year, and their business might at any time be transacted, without regard to its being before or after Seals, which were appointed merely as matters of convenience. He should be sorry, therefore, that a Bill should be passed to enable the Lord Chancellor to do that which he himself had ample jurisdiction to do of his own authority.
The Lord Chancellorneed scarcely say, how highly gratifying to him it was, to hear it laid down as an undeniable proposition, by the highest living authority, that it was competent to the Lord Chancellor to hear affidavits read, and to proceed with the business of his Court at any time of the year, without any other regard to times or seasons than that which might arise from the convenience of the suitors and the Court, and the proper despatch of business. But the objection had been taken by parties in Court; and where there was a losing party, and that party was in possession of the Court, it often happened that he was anxious to protract the final decision of the cause, and with that view to take advantage of every real or supposed formality calculated to suit his purpose. A delay of this kind had been attempted the other day, and he had asked the most experienced members of the Bar, whether there was any good and valid objection to the reading of an affidavit after the last Seal? The general opinion was, that it could not be done. He had asked, upon what principle this practice was founded, of not having affidavits read in cases of this kind, after the last Seal; but, as to this, he could get no satisfactory explanation: but it was said, that in practice it had not been done. He then applied to one of the Registrars, a gentleman of great experience, and his observation was, that it never had been done before. He had then consulted another Registrar, also a gentleman of great experience, who said, that it had never been done; but he could give no satisfactory account of any principle, and was rather of opinion that it might be done, although there was no precedent for it. In the absence of precedent, and seeing no principle for his refusal to hear affidavits read, in cases of the nature then before him, he drew up an order, and caused it to be fixed up in proper places, to give notice, that he would hear affidavits read, and proceed with the business. But still parties insisted on the objection, and one of them refused on that ground to appear. Seeing, then, that some doubts were entertained, and that the objection might be taken advantage of in case of prosecution for perjury, he thought the best way would be, to put an end to all doubt by means of an Act of Parliament. He, however, gratefully acknowledged the assistance which he had received from his
726
noble and learned friend, and as his noble and learned friend, the highest living authority—and a higher there could not be, whether living or dead—was so decidedly of opinion, that a Statute was totally unnecessary, he could have no object in proceeding with his Bill. He took it for granted, upon an authority as high as that of any of the decided cases, that the Lord Chancellor had the power which was required, and that, therefore, a Statute was unnecesssry. If it was unnecessary, it was, of course, inexpedient. Again thanking his noble and learned friend for the assistance which he had given on the present occasion, he would decline proceeding further with the Bill. He would, with the permission of their Lordships, allow the matter to stand over, that, if any difficulty should hereafter be thrown in the way of the Court, such a measure might, as speedily as possible, be passed into a law.
The Earl of Eldonwas quite clear as to the authority of the Lord Chancellor, and that there was no ground for doubt on the subject; but he begged to disclaim any intention to dictate to the noble Lord on the Woolsack.
The Lord Chancellorhad not said, that he himself had any doubt on the subject. His opinion certainly was, that he had the authority; but, as others, high in the profession, doubted his authority, he had introduced the Bill, chiefly out of deference to their opinions. He would mention what the real doubt was. There was no doubt as to whether affidavits might be generally read; but the doubt was, whether affidavits could be read in cases of appeal entered after the last Seal after Term. An appeal was entered, and notice of the circumstance was served, and then the question came to be, whether, as the appeal was entered after the last Seal, the affidavit of service could be read? The entry of the appeal after the last Seal, made the difference, as they said; and, although he had himself little or no doubt as to the power of the Lord Chancellor, he had introduced the Bill out of deference to the opinions of others of great experience. Now, however, he would not proceed further with the Bill at present; but would still retain it in the House, when it might be proceeded with, in case it should hereafter appear that there were any reasonable grounds of doubt.—Bill read a second time.

DONNA MARIA OF PORTUGAL.
The Marquis of Londonderryhad, the other day, asked a question of the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government, relative to the reception at Portsmouth of little Donna Maria; and it was with pain that he felt himself justified in complaining of the want of candour in the noble Earl's answer to that question. He had asked the noble Earl, what orders had been sent to the authorities at Portsmouth, to receive Donna Maria as Queen of Portugal? And the noble Earl had answered, that he did not know what orders had been sent as to her reception; and that he did not know whether any orders at all had been given on the subject; and with that answer he (the Marquis of Londonderry) was bound to be satisfied. But, after having received this answer, he was surprised to see in the Evening Papers, a statement, apparently founded on good authority, that orders had been sent to the proper official persons at Portsmouth, to receive the Emperor Don Pedro, and his daughter, the little Pretender, as he must call her, Donna Maria, with all the honours usually paid to crowned heads; and then there was a detailed account of what these honours were to be. Now he really did think it very extraordinary, that, if the noble Earl was apprised of the intended arrival of the little Pretender, and had made preparations for that arrival, no orders should have been sent respecting her reception, or that, if any orders were sent, they should have been sent without the knowledge of the noble Earl at the head of the Administration. It appeared, then, that the noble Earl was so little in the confidence of some members of his own Cabinet, that they really did not think it worth while to apprise him of what steps they were taking in matters of high importance. They sent the orders, it appeared, without thinking it necessary to consult the noble Earl at all about the matter, so that there was a want of confidence between the noble Earl and some of his colleagues, on other subjects besides the Reform Bill. Since, then, it appeared, that orders had been sent to receive the little Donna Maria, with all the honours usually paid to crowned heads, he wished to know whether the noble Earl had any objection to produce the orders, or to lay copies of them on the Table?
Earl Greydid not know upon what
728
grounds the noble Marquis imputed to him a want of candour in the answer which he had given to the noble Marquis's question. The noble Marquis had asked, what orders had been sent to the proper authorities at Portsmouth, to receive Donna Maria as Queen of Portugal; and his answer was simply, that he did not know what orders had been given for her reception, or whether any orders at all had been given on the subject. That was the fact. It might be culpable in him to be ignorant of what had been done about the reception of the Emperor Don Pedro, and his daughter, Donna Maria; but, at the same time, when the noble Marquis put the question, he was not aware what orders had been given, or whether any orders had been given on the subject. In consequence of the noble Marquis's question, however, he had made inquiries; and the result was, that he found that no letter, or written direction, had been sent by the Secretary of State on the subject, but that some verbal conference had taken place between the Secretary of State and the Commander-in-chief of the Army, and the First Lord of the Admiralty, relative to the reception of the Emperor, Don Pedro, and his daughter. But the orders went to her reception with the honours generally paid to royalty, without the least reference to her title as Queen of Portugal. The honours directed to be paid, were merely the honours usually accorded to the royal station, without any political recognition or reference to the title of Donna Maria, as Queen of Portugal. The noble Marquis had thought proper to designate her as a Pretender. But the noble Marquis could scarcely have forgotten, that Donna Maria had been received and recognised by his late Majesty, and by the late Government, as Queen of Portugal, and had been treated as such with royal honours. But her late reception at Portsmouth had nothing to do with her title as Queen of Portugal, but was merely the usual reception afforded to royalty. Notwithstanding, then, the solemn questions and threatening denunciations of the noble Marquis, with regard to this reception, the noble Marquis had only, after all, discovered what was vulgarly called a mare's nest.
The Earl of Aberdeenwas glad that his Majesty's Ministers had not given any orders which implied a political recognition of the title of Donna Maria, as

729
Queen of Portugal; and he agreed with the noble Earl, that the directions given as to the reception, really did not amount to more, than that Donna Maria was to be received with the honours usually, in courtesy, paid to persons holding the royal station. The noble Earl had remarked, that his late Majesty had acknowledged Donna Maria as the heiress of the Portuguese Crown, and had received her as Queen of Portugal. He did not mean to give any opinion as to the validity of the title of Donna Maria to the Throne of Portugal; but he did say, that the question as to whether her title was valid or not, was one beyond our jurisdiction. It was a question for the Portuguese, and for them only, to decide. If we were to interfere, and take upon ourselves to say, that Donna Maria was Queen of Portugal, we might just as well take upon ourselves to say, that Henry the 5th should be king of France.
The Marquis of Londonderrywas much gratified to find, that the orders given as to the reception of Donna Maria, did not imply any acquiescence in her assumed title of Queen of Portugal. As to what the noble Earl had said, relative to the recognition of Donna Maria as Queen of Portugal, by his late Majesty, it ought to be kept in view, that three years had elapsed since that time, and that circumstances were now entirely different from what they were then. The Portuguese, with whom alone the matter rested, had chosen their own Sovereign. He did not mean to say anything as to the character of that Sovereign. On that point there was much difference of opinion. But it was sufficient that he was recognised by the Portuguese nation as their Sovereign, and received by them as such, with as much obedience, affection, and attachment, as ever sovereign was received in any country. It was impossible, then, that a Ministry which laid so much weight on the principle of non-interference, could attempt to set up a sovereign of Portugal, contrary to the one whom the Portuguese had chosen. The noble Earl (Earl Grey) had, some time ago, made a speech in favour of the principle of non-interference, to which speech he would have the opportunity of adverting in a few days; but, in the mean time, he was glad, that he had forced the noble Earl to give a satisfactory answer to his question.

GROWTH OF TOBACCO (IRELAND) PROHIBITION BILL.
Lord Auckland Lord Auckland moved, that their Lordships should resolve themselves into a Committee on the Bill prohibiting the growth of Tobacco in Ireland. The object of it was, to extend the prohibition which already existed in England and Scotland, as to the growth of Tobacco, to Ireland. It appeared, from evidence given before a Committee of the other House of Parliament, that it could not be grown with advantage there, unless the growth were protected as it had hitherto been, by a duty of 1,200 per cent on the cost price of foreign Tobacco, the duty being 3s. per pound. The permission to grow tobacco in Ireland would be unjust to other parts of the empire in which it was prohibited, while, if the duty on foreign tobacco was diminished, it would come into competition with tobacco of Irish growth. He, therefore, trusted their Lordships would allow the Bill to proceed, as all the persons whose opinions were embodied in the Report of the Committee, were unanimously of opinion, that the prohibition would be beneficial to Ireland; and if their Lordships required any further inducement, he could assure them, that the measure, with a view to the revenue, was highly expedient, if not necessary.
Lord Teynhamapprehended, the last sentence of the noble Lord who preceded him, was the cause of the Bill being brought forward. The revenue, it was expected, would be increased by the prohibition to grow tobacco in Ireland. He wished the question to be looked at under a more enlarged view. Noble Lords were, no doubt, aware, that beet root had been extensively cultivated in France in order to obtain sugar; he believed a similar process might be advantageously adopted in Ireland, but then the cry would arise, "the revenue will suffer from the import and export of sugar being lost." He considered this idea was important to all persons interested in the welfare of Ireland, as he most sincerely was. Unless the welfare of the country was preferred to the revenue laws, he was persuaded, that Ireland would never be prosperous or contented.
The Earl of Wicklowthought, that the Bill was contrary to the principles of free trade, on which the Ministers professed to act. The measures for promoting the cultivation of tobacco in Ireland, was brought forward by Lord North, for the encouragement

731
of the agriculturists, and, therefore, they had a right to a full explanation of the causes why the growth should now be prohibited. The noble Lord, however, had confined his remarks to the question of revenue; but, under that view, he should have shown, that it was impossible to collect a tax on tobacco grown in Ireland. He could not suppose, that any greater difficulty would exist, than in collecting a revenue from hops or malt—on this subject he entertained strong feelings, because he lived in a part of Ireland, in which that cultivation had prevailed; he had lately, by way of experiment, put three acres under Tobacco, and the experiment succeeded beyond his expectation. He found, that in cultivating this article, he could give a great deal of employment to the poor, and make a reasonable profit.
The Marquis of Lansdownobserved, that, undoubtedly, this was a question of revenue, but from all the evidence given, it appeared that the growth of tobacco in Ireland could not be carried on in competition with other countries, without a bounty of 1,200 l. per cent. At present, the cultivation was confined to two counties, and unless they were prepared to grant the same permission to England, the culture of tobacco must be stopped in Ireland, or the revenue would suffer materially. The permission to grow tobacco in Ireland was granted by Lord North during the American War, not for the sake of Ireland, but out of hostility to Virginia. It was now found, however, that the extension of its cultivation in Ireland would be very injurious to the revenue, without being of any thing like corresponding advantage to Ireland, and it would be better to prohibit its growth in limine. A culture which could not be supported without such an enormous bounty, was clearly contrary to the principle of free trade.
The Earl of Wicklowmust beg to correct the noble Marquis on the subject of Lord North's Bill, which was introduced in 1778, for the express purpose of ameliorating the condition of the Irish people. He would further wish to call the attention of hon. Ministers to the Excise Laws, by the operation of which, great disadvantages were thrown on tobacco grown in Ireland.
Lord Farnhamwas sorry, that the first Act brought forward by the present Secretary for Ireland should be one of prohibition. He did not mean to say, that the provision made by the Bill was a bad one,
732
but it ought to have been accompanied by other enactments, favourable to Ireland. Until that question of paramount importance, now before the other House, came up to their Lordships, they could not, perhaps, be better employed, than in considering what penal Statutes could be removed, to better the condition of that country.
Lord Aucklandbegged to assure noble Lords, this measure was not brought forward as an act of severity to Ireland, but was simply an act of finance, which had long been under consideration, and which had met with the concurrence of all parties in that country. The quantity of land occupied at present by the growth of tobacco, did not exceed 600 or 700 acres, but if the growth was extended to the three kingdoms, the land most likely to be employed in its cultivation would not exceed 5,000 or 6,000 acres, the produce of which could not be expected to amount to 350,000 l.
The Bill went through a Committee— their Lordships resumed.

INDICTMENT OF MR. O'CONNELL.
The Earl of Eldon The Earl of Eldon rose to move, pursuant to notice, "That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying that his Majesty would be graciously pleased to lay on the Table, a copy of the Indictment lately preferred in the Court of King's Bench in Ireland, against Daniel O'Connell, and others, on which Indictment the accused had been convicted." He begged leave distinctly to state, that, in making this Motion, he did not mean to cast the slightest imputation on the conduct of the Irish Law Officers. He could say from his own observation, that the Irish Bar was eminent for ability, and that the Irish Law Officers generally did their duty well. His Motion had regard, not to the past, but to the future, and his purpose was, to bring in a bill, providing that when a temporary law was enacted, any prosecution commenced while the law was in force should not be abated by the expiration of the law, but should be carried on to its full termination, in the same manner as if the law had still remained in force. It certainly was not a suitable state of things, that persons most properly prosecuted and convicted under such temporary Act, should be allowed to escape punishment, merely owing to the expiration of the Act before the punishment could be inflicted. In the indictment in question,

733
counts might have been inserted, as he conceived, on the Common Law; but, however, his only object at present was, to lay the foundation for a bill to the effect which he had stated. He was not aware that there was any objection to the Motion. —Motion agreed to.