Sitting of 5 August 1831

MINUTES.
Bill read a third time; for granting the sum of 10,000 l. a year, for the suitable Education and Maintenance of her Royal Highness the Princess Alexandria Victoria of Kent.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. JOHN WOOD, for an account of all Vessels placed in Quarantine for the last five years, ending 31st December, 1830, stating from what Countries they came, where they performed Quarantine, and the amount of Fees levied for clearance, with the date and authority with which such fees are charged, and a return of the number of Vessels placed in Quarantine since January, 1831, up to the latest state, and the number now remaining:—On the Motion of Sir ROBERT INGLIS, of the number of Parishes in each Diocese in Ireland, in which the Tithes are the property of Laymen, with the income and number of Acres, whether rectorial, or entirely

817
impropriate, and the amount paid to the officiating Clergyman:—On the Motion of Mr. HUGHES HUGHES, for an account of the Population of the Isle of Wight, as taken by the late Census.
Petitions presented. By Mr. LEFROY, from the Corporation of Tailors, Weavers, and Sadlers (Dublin), three Petitions, against Reform of Parliament (Ireland). By Mr. JOHN WYNNE, from Occupiers of Land and Houses, of St. John Sligo; of Inhabitants of Drumcliffe, and of Glenlough, for continuing the Grant to the Kildare Street Society:—By the Hon. Mr. COLE, a similar Petition, from the Inhabitants of Kellesher. By Mr. O'CONNELL, from the National Reform Association of St. George's, Bloomsbury, complaining of the delay in passing the Reform Bill; from the Inhabitants of Mallow, and the Roman Catholics of Cloynepriest, against a continuance of the Grant to the Kildare Street Society; from the Inhabitants of the United Parishes of Beldoyle, Howth, and other places, for the Repeal of the Union. By Mr. JAMES JOHNSTON, from the Corporation of Inverkeithing, against the use of Molasses in Breweries and Distilleries. By Mr. HERBERT CURTEIS, from Land Owners, and Occupiers of Wadhurst; of Inhabitants of Northiam and Beckley; and of Householders and Inhabitants of Bower, for the Repeal of the Malt Duty. By Sir ARTHUR CHICHESTER, from the Merchants and Ship Owners of Belfast, for the Repeal of the Duties on Marine Insurances. By Mr. LEFROY, from different parts of Ireland, in favour of the Grant to the Kildare Street
Society.

COAL-METERS OF DUBLIN.
Mr. Lefroypresented a Petition from the Corporation of Tailors, praying for the continuation of the Coal-Meters' Establishment, or for some compensation to the persons employed, should their situations be taken from them.
Mr. O'Connellthought the petitioners deserved no compensation, and, if the hon. Member would investigate the subject, he would be of the same opinion.
Mr. Lefroyapprehended there was no legal right involved. The object of the petitioners was, to obtain compensation for the coal-meters, if their establishment was abolished.
Mr. Hunthoped the coal-meters of Dublin were not like their brethren in London; and, before any compensation was granted, he trusted the case would be thoroughly looked into.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the Lord Mayor and Corporation of Dublin fixed their wages, under the Statute of George 2nd, which had been repealed by Mr. Hume's Act, relative to the Combination-laws. During the period when the tax on sea-borne coals prevailed, these coal-meters were employed to make returns of the cargoes which entered the port of Dublin. Upon these two circumstances, the petitioners had assumed they had a right to employment, and, therefore, to claim compensation if they were deprived of it. He trusted the House would not trouble themselves about the matter, and he should certainly oppose the coal-meters, receiving any compensation.
Mr. Lenderconsidered the coal-meters case a hard one. There were about forty of them, and they were mostly advanced in years, with families to support. He, therefore, thought it was cruel to deprive them of employment without some compensation.
Mr. Lefroysaid, as the observations of the hon. and learned member for Kerry were likely to prejudice the case of the coal-meters, he felt it incumbent to state the circumstances of the case. The coal-meters were appointed under a chartered right, claimed by the Guild of Merchants in Dublin, and had exercised their office ever since coals were imported into that place. All they now asked was, if their office were abolished, that they should receive compensation, and he had no doubt, at the proper time, from the case he had seen, that their claims could be established.
Petition to lie on the Table.

GRANT TO MAYNOOTH COLLEGE.—
Colonel Percevalpresented two Petitions from the parish of Seagoe, and Landowners and other Inhabitants of the county of Armagh, against the grant to Maynooth College.
Mr. Wysebegged to inquire, on what ground the petitioners prayed for the discontinuance of the grant.
Colonel Percevalsaid, not on the ground of hostility to the Roman Catholic religion. There was nothing in the petition reflecting on any sect whatever.
Mr. Brownlowadmitted, that many of the petitioners were highly respectable persons, but he regretted that at this time of day, any such petitions should have come from that county. He was compelled to differ from his constituents. It was of great consequence, that the Catholic priesthood of Ireland should be respectably educated; and he thought it was unwise and illiberal to wish to withhold a grant for that purpose, which was not equal to the revenue of many Irish Protestant Bishops. The college of Maynooth was intended for the education of the Catholic priesthood; it had received the approbation of the Government. If the vote for Maynooth was proposed to be enlarged, to induce a more respectable class of students to frequent the College, it would meet with his entire approbation.
Mr. Wysesaid, the College was originally instituted, not for the benefit of

819
Catholics exclusively, but to satisfy the scruples of certain persons, who believed that the Catholic clergy, by being educated abroad, imbibed a spirit of discontent to the established order of things at home, which they afterwards promulgated among their flocks in Ireland, so as to affect their allegiance. The College was founded on this notion, and received 13,000 l. a year when first established. This sum was reduced to 9,000 l. under Mr. Perceval's Administration, from a hostile religious feeling; but as that, he hoped, was now passing away, there could be no motive but economy for withholding the small sum by which the College was maintained. In what a situation if it were withheld, would the Catholic Clergy be placed. As long as there were Catholics in Ireland, it was important they should be well educated. The Dublin College was comparatively closed against the Catholics; if it was to be opened, and made a national establishment, there would then be sufficient grounds for discontinuing this grant. It was to be lamented, that we did not imitate other nations, where a mixed religion prevailed. In the German Universities, both sects enjoyed equal advantages, and even in Catholic Austria, there were two Colleges for the education of the Lutherans. The same liberal conduct was observable throughout Germany, and, if it were adopted in Ireland, it would be of considerable advantage to the community.
Sir. Newportsaid, having read one of the petitions, he must complain of the stigmas cast upon an institution, which was most respectably conducted. He believed some parts of the petition were so objectionable, that it could not be received. It was asserted therein, that the students were nurtured in sentiments inimical to the peace of the country. The College of Maynooth was formed, in order to have the Irish Priesthood educated at home, rather than in France; and had well answered the purposes for which it was erected. If improper doctrines were taught at Maynooth, what were the visitors—the Lord Chancellor and Chief Justice of Ireland—doing? They had periodically visited the College, and inquired into the particulars of the education and doctrines taught therein, and when they had found cause for complaint, their complaints had been attended to, and the cause removed. The truth was,
820
there was no ground for any charge against so respectable an establishment. He should object to the reception of the petition.
Mr. Lefroydenied, that the College of Dublin was exclusive. Catholics there could obtain Degrees, and, if they did not choose to attend the chapel, they were excused. It was true, the Fellowships and Scholarships could be obtained only by Protestants. He hoped never to see the latitudinarian system of the German Universities, which admitted of the establishment of opposite professorships, to teach conflicting religious doctrines, established in the Dublin University.
Mr. Wysehad himself been educated at the University of Dublin, and, therefore, could not, and had not asserted, that it was shut against any sect for the purpose of receiving education only. He regretted, however, that Catholics were not permitted to enjoy the honours and emoluments of it, in common with Protestants, and he had referred to the more generous conduct of other countries in this respect, where a system of education, which he denied was latitudinarian, was open to all, without limitation on the score of religion.
Sir Robert Batesonobjected to the discussion. It was not provoked by the hon. Member who presented this petition. He denied, too, that the petition was from a Catholic county, for Armagh was known to be the reverse, and he hoped the hon. Member for that county would speak in the same spirit of liberality as he had just done, when they came to discuss the grant to the Kildare Street Society. His opinion was, that petitions like the present, would not have been offered to the notice of the House, if it were not for the opposition made to the grant for the Kildare Street Society. He wished to promote education, and do away those discords and animosities which had so long prevailed in Ireland. He believed, that education was not liberal at Maynooth, and, in fact, that it was directed by Jesuits. The students were excluded from all intercourse with persons of other persuasions, and that of itself must prevent the Catholic Clergy from being as liberal as they otherwise might be. When the College was established, it might have been good policy to educate the priests at home, owing to the particular circumstances of that period; but all persons with whom

821
he came in contact agreed, that the priests now educated abroad, were more liberal and learned than those brought up at Maynooth; they were, in fact, a superior class of people. Most of those sent to Maynooth were from the humbler classes, and nothing liberal or enlightened could be expected from them.
Mr. O'Ferrallsaid, he could confidently state, that no improper doctrines had been taught at Maynooth, as would be abundantly proved by a reference to the evidence taken before the Committee on Education in Ireland. If he had any objection to the education at Maynooth, it was, that their principles were rather despotically than liberally inclined. They wanted a national system of education in Ireland, in which the children of all sects should be admitted. The Professors at Maynooth were so strict, that all newspapers and political tracts were excluded from the College.
Sir Josiah Hostwas as anxious as any Gentleman, for a system of national and conciliatory education to be established in Ireland; sound policy recommended this, and they ought to endeavour to distribute the grants equally among all the different sects.
Mr. James Gordonconsidered the doctrines taught at Maynooth unchristian, and those who professed them ought not to be permitted to obtain any political advantage whatever. This was the true Protestant ground which the people of this country were generally about to take, as the House would find, when their Table was covered by petitions. He held it to be an act of gross inconsistency in a Protestant country and Government, to support an establishment for the education of Priests, who were using every effort to vilify and upset it. Why should a Protestant Government annually devote money to the propagation of doctrines which Protestants believed to be neither just nor scriptural? It was said, that the Catholic Priests ought to receive a liberal education; and so they ought, in the proper sense of the word liberal; but he totally denied, that Maynooth afforded a good Catholic education to the Priesthood. Their character had been much lessened, in consequence of the illiberal system in which they were educated. Nor was this all. There was the greatest inconsistency in making this annual grant to Maynooth. Year after year this country
822
was making grants for the diffusion of Protestant and sound principles in Ireland, and yet, year after year, they were supporting a Catholic establishment, to withstand the effect of their Protestant institutions. He did not now mean to say, whether the doctrines taught by the Catholics were right or wrong—the House of Commons was not the proper place to discuss them—but again he repeated, that the conduct of a Protestant Government, in supporting a Catholic establishment, which maintained doctrines of a dangerous tendency, was exceedingly anomalous and inconsistent. He would not, however, enter further on this subject at present, as, when the grant to Maynooth was brought forward, he should be fully prepared to oppose it. But, as he was on his legs, he would crave the attention of the House, while he adverted to a subject which he felt to be of very considerable importance.
Mr. O'Connell Mr. O'Connell rose to order; the hon. Member was about to open the question of the Carlow—
Mr. James Gordonsaid, unless the hon. and learned Member had the gift of prophecy or divination, he could not tell to what he was about to allude, and he would not satisfy him further than to assert again, that it was most grossly inconsistent, to endow a College for the education of Priests, who were opposed to scriptural education. He did not mean to blame the Priests, for in their situation, he believed he should act with more zeal than many of them did. With one hand they gave 40,000 l. to support education on Christian principles, and with the other, 9,000 l. to destroy it.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the hon. member for Dundulk had ample opportunities of entering into theological discussions elsewhere, and he had hoped he would not have chosen that House, which certainly was not a very fit arena for theological display. He had termed the Catholic doctrines unchristian. He did not know how far the hon. Member's Christian charity might carry him, but the same spirit which he had evinced might be sufficient to qualify him for the office of Chief Inquisitor of Spain. He had also attacked the priests, who he (Mr. O'Connell) declared were most exemplary, and most diligent in their attention to the temporal, as well as spiritual wants, of the poor of their flocks. They had the entire

823
confidence of the people, whom they assisted and comforted upon all occasions, when they were deserted by all the rest of the world. They were to be found by the bed-sides of the poor and destitute, when they were ill, or on the point of death, and so well was this known, that they might judge of the health of a district during the prevalence of contagious disorders, by the number of priests who died; yet these were the men who were calumniated. Three hours each day were the students employed in reading the Scriptures, and yet the hon. Member had the hardihood to assert, they did not receive a Scriptural education. There had been strict examinations into the system of the College, by the Chancellor and Judges of Ireland, who had made no complaints of the education given at Maynooth. He knew the students well, and could assert, that few bodies of young men in any place of education possessed more extensive information than they did. He was utterly surprised at the hon. Member's zeal in support of the exclusive Church of England, when the hon. Member, in his own country, was a Dissenter—he belonged to the Episcopal Church, while the mass of his countrymen were Presbyterians, and regarded" the cope of his Bishop as a rag of the Scarlet Whore. He (Mr. O'Connell) was for no exclusive Church—and hoped the time would come, when every man would resort to his priest as to his doctor or lawyer, and pay the man whose aid he might require. As to the grant for Maynooth, of which some hon. Members seemed to think so much, he could assure them, that no such grants need have been required, if the Catholic families of Ireland had obtained that compensation to which they were entitled, for the loss of the property which some of their ancestors had expended in foundations in France, for the education of youth intended for orders in the Catholic Church in Ireland. The British Government obtained a large sum from France as a compensation for losses sustained by British subjects at the French Revolution. Of that sum, the Irish Catholic families obtained no part for the losses they had sustained, in the way he had described, though, in justice, they had a claim to 150,000 l. Had those foundations in France stood in the same situation as before the Revolution, he should, in right of his family, have a presentation for thirty-six Catholic divinity students.
824
At present he had only four. Let hon. Members, when the grant of 9,000 1. a-year was proposed, recollect these circumstances. He wanted no partial liberality—give, he would say, to the Kildare Street Society, the management of any funds necessary to educate Protestants, as it had their confidence; but do the same to Maynooth, which possesses the confidence of the Catholics.
Mr. Huntmust be permitted to remark, in reply to the hon. and gallant Member's assertion that the Table would be covered with petitions against this grant, that such petitions would only come from Scotland, to which country the hon. Gentleman belonged. He thought the present petition most uncharitable in its doctrines, and should feel no regret to see it rejected on that account. He must corroborate what had fallen from the hon. and learned member for Kerry, as to the exemplary conduct and great intelligence of the Irish Catholic Clergy, as far as he had had opportunities of knowing them, in this country, and the west of Ireland.
Mr. James Grattanhoped, that the hon. and gallant member for Dundalk, having failed in his theological contests in Ireland, would not now try his hand in the House of Commons in the same line. If he did, he hoped that he would have the courtesy to give notice of his intention. Although he had no wish to enter into the question of religion, yet he must remark, that Maynooth College was established by Mr. Pitt, at the recommendation of Mr. Burke, and he knew that the clergymen educated there, were a most exemplary and meritorious body, devotedly attached to their flocks.
Mr. Cresset Pelhamwas surprised at the last hon. Gentleman replying to remarks which he had not heard.
Sir John Doylecomplained of the illiberality of many of the Protestant Clergymen, and gave an instance by reading a letter from a reverend Rector (Mr. Featherston) of Hachetstown, county Carlow, who declined distributing money sent for that purpose to the Protestant poor of his parish, because he disliked the politics of the donor (Sir John M. Doyle) as being a supporter of Reform. The hon. and gallant member for Dundalk had preached much respecting the harmony of the Gospels. It were to be wished that he would adopt the practice, and avoid such discussions in this House, which must interrupt

825
the harmony so much to be desired. For one sixpence we gave the Catholics, they gave pounds to the Protestants; and the less was said upon this subject, the better for the Protestants.
Colonel Percevalsaid, he had not intended to excite any angry feeling in presenting this petition. He meant not to attack the College of Maynooth, but he must say, that in the opinions of Catholics themselves, the priests educated there fell far short of those educated elsewhere, in acquirements and liberal feelings. As allusion had been made to the hon. and gallant member for Dundalk, he must say, that no man stood higher in the estimation of those who knew him in Ireland, than that hon. and gallant Member.
Petition to lie on the Table.

DRAWBACKS ON SCOTCH WHISKY.
Mr. O'Ferrallpresented a Petition from certain Distillers, complaining of the disadvantage under which they laboured, in consequence of the drawback allowed on Scotch whisky distilled from malt, which enabled the Scotch distillers to sell their whisky in Ireland twenty per cent cheaper than that distilled there. The Irish Members, he could assure Ministers, were unanimous in requiring this system to be altered, as it was the cause of great discontent in that country. The Scotch distillers had received, since 1828, nearly 2,000,000 l. on drawbacks, and the Irish only 300,00 l. He was wholly at a loss to understand the policy of exacting a tax with one hand, to pay it back with the other.
Mr. Leadersupported the prayer of the petition. The system of which it complained was most unjust and injurious to the Irish distiller, and necessarily detrimental to the Irish farmer. The revenue sustained much loss by drawbacks, and even the Scotch distillers, for whose benefit they were continued, complained that they were disadvantageous to the fair dealer. When it was recollected what the hon. and learned member for Kerry had asserted, that only 16,000,000 gallons of Scotch spirits had paid duty, while a drawback had been allowed for 17,000,000 gallons, this was quite sufficient to show, that the subject could no longer be neglected.
Colonel Conollysaid, he knew the petitioners were most respectable, and that they, as well as the whole agriculturists of Ireland, sustained great losses by the
826
existing system. He would corroborate what had been before asserted, viz., that the Irish Members had but one opinion on the subject, and he hoped, therefore, Government would speedily attend to the question.
Petition to lie on the Table.

SUBLETTING ACT (IRELAND.
Mr. O'Connellpresented a Petition from James O'Donnell and William Reynolds, of Dublin, complaining of the operation of the Subletting Act, by which they (as executors of a person deceased) were prevented from re-letting a house of which the deceased had taken a long lease, only a small term of which had expired at his death. The hon. and learned Gentleman complained, that persons should be subject to one law in England, and to another in Ireland, with respect to property. He hoped to see the whole Act repealed.
Lord Killeentrusted Ministers would turn their attention to this very important subject, with a view to repeal the whole Act, for nothing less would be satisfactory. He thought it would be best to allow landlords to manage their own property as they thought fit, and not interfere with them by laws of this kind. He hoped the noble Lord would give some assurance that the matter would be attended to.
Mr. James Grattanhoped, that the attention of Government might be directed to this subject.
Mr. Cramptonsaid, that the subject had been under the consideration of Government, and that a measure would have been introduced respecting it before now, but for the delay of the all-absorbing question of Reform. It would be quite absurd to introduce the measure at present, when they could have no opportunity to discuss it. He did not think the Act should be altogether abolished, but it ought to be modified. Many of the grievances ascribed to it had their source, not in the enactments of the Statute, but in the ignorance or carelessness of parties in drawing up leases. The case brought before them, in the petition, was an example. The tenant might have alienated by obtaining the consent of the landlord to do so.
Mr. Ruthvenrecommended the entire repeal of the Act. It was odious to the Irish people, and had produced much mischief; they attributed all the evils they felt to its operation.
Mr. Northsaid, it would be better to go back to the common-law on the subject. He was against any modification of the Act whatever.
Mr. Sheilsaid, that the Act was tried as an experiment, and having totally failed, it ought to be repealed. It had the voice of millions against it. He hoped to see some measure immediately brought forward, to which he could agree.
Sir Henry Parnellsaid, on the proper occasion, he should be able to prove that the experiment had not failed; and, that much of the prejudice existing against it owed its origin to misrepresentation. It was a measure of almost vital necessity to Ireland, but some of its provisions required farther consideration. The main object of the Bill, to enable the landlord to enforce the covenants made by the tenant, ought to be supported. The common-law would not do this, and, therefore, the measure was necessary.
Sir Robert Batesonexpressed a hope, as the Bill was most unpopular in Ireland, that it would be materially modified. It was said to be in contemplation last session to bring in a bill free from the defects of the present Act. If the Government were not very remiss, it would do something in this and other measures necessary for the relief of Ireland. Much had been promised, but nothing had yet been done, by the present Government.
Mr. Cramptonsaid, that no time could be found for any measures until the Reform Bill was passed; but the long speeches of the hon. Baronet, and his friends, at that (the Opposition) side of the House, delayed the progress of the Bill.
Sir Robert Batesonsaid, that he had never once opened his lips on the Reform Bill this Session.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the greatest misery had accrued to many individuals by the operation of the Sub-letting Act, which had been carried beyond what the Legislature intended. The right hon. member for Queen's County (Sir H. Parnell) had said, that it had not failed: certainly it had not; for the utmost distress had been caused by it to many hundred families, who had been thrust from their homes by their landlords, without any place to lay their heads.
Sir Henry Parnellmust beg to correct the hon. and learned Gentleman. The Sub-letting Act gave no power to a landlord
828
to dispossess his tenant; that was done under the operation of other laws.
Mr. O'Connellhad not said it did enable the landlord to do this, but he did say, that it prevented any man, when turned out of his holding, from getting in elsewhere.
Sir Henry Parnellwas glad to hear it admitted, that they were not thrust out under this Act.
Mr. James Grattansaid, a tenant was required to turn out his under tenants, unless the landlord gave permission to keep them in.
Mr. Ruthvensaid, the operation of the Act was such, that a man, turned out from one place, could get into no other.
Petition to lie on the Table.

REFORM BILL—PETITION FROM CARDIFF.
Lord Patrick James Stuartpresented a Petition from the inhabitants of Cardiff, who, though favourable to the Reform Bill, complained of the injustice of being annexed, as a mere suburb, to Merthyr Tydvil, with which it had. no connexion, for the purpose of returning a Representative to Parliament. The petitioners stated, that the town of Cardiff was very populous, and the seat of perhaps the largest iron manufactory in the kingdom, and that it, together with the contributory boroughs, contained not less than from 450 to 480 10 l. houses. It was proposed, by the Reform plan, that the franchise, and the right to return Representatives to Parliament, should, in the case of Cardiff, be shared with certain other towns and places in the county of Glamorgan—namely, Llandaff, Cowbridge, Merthyr Tydvil, Aberdare, and Llantrissent, of which Merthyr Tydvil contained a population of 25,000 inhabitants, which alone was so great as to enable that town to overwhelm the interest of Cardiff. The petitioners were, therefore, of opinion, that they ought to possess the privilege of returning a Representative for themselves. They also considered, that Merthyr Tydvil, containing a population of 25,000, was entitled to return a Representative of its own. He was of opinion, that that part of the Bill to which the petitioners alluded, would, if not amended, inflict an act of injustice on the petitioners.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonconfirmed the statement of the petitioners, that there was no natural connexion between Cardiff and Merthyr Tydvil; they were, in fact,

829
situated many miles apart. He had a petition from Merthyr Tydvil in his possession, in which it was stated, that great dissatisfaction would be felt by the inhabitants, if that town were to be associated with any other place, for the purpose of returning a Representative to Parliament. According to the principles of the Reform Bill, this town was entitled to have one Representative for itself. In 1821, it contained 19,000 inhabitants, and 680 10 l. houses; and, at present, the population was bordering on 30,000, and the number of 10 l. houses was 800. The petition which he had received, stated, that Representation was to be given to no fewer than twelve places, containing a much less population, fewer 10 l. houses, than Merthyr Tydvil, and being much inferior to it in a commercial point of view.
Lord Althorpthought, that the subject would be discussed with more convenience when the question respecting Merthyr Tydvil came regularly before the Committee. He would only assure his noble friend (Lord P. Stuart), that if his Majesty's Ministers had been guilty of injustice towards Cardiff or Merthyr, the error proceeded from inadvertence, and not from intention.
Colonel Woodspoke against the union of Cardiff with Merthyr Tydvil; and gave notice, that, when the question came before the House, he should move, that Merthyr Tydvil have a Representative for itself.
Mr. J. L. Knightsaid, that Glamorganshire was an important county, both in an agricultural and commercial point of view, and he complained, that it was left, by the provisions of the Reform Bill, with only four Members, while a much larger proportion was given to Lancashire. By the proposed plan of joining Cardiff to Merthyr Tydvil, the former place would, as to Representation, be entirely extinguished.
Petition referred to the Committee on the Reform (England) Bill.

HOLLAND AND BELGIUM.
Sir Rich. Vyvyanwished to ask a question of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; but, as that noble Lord was not in his place, he would beg leave to apply himself to the noble Lord opposite. It was well known, that the King of Holland had intimated his intention of breaking the armistice which had been concluded between
830
Holland and Belgium. The question, which he wished to ask, was, whether his Majesty's Government had received official information—whether the King of Holland had formally notified to them his intention of terminating the armistice?
Lord Althorpanswered, that his Majesty's Government had received, from Sir Charles Bagot, official information of the intention of the King of Holland to put an end to the armistice between Holland and Belgium.
Sir Rich. Vyvyanthen gave notice, that he would to-morrow move for the production of certain papers, for the purpose of throwing light upon the transaction.
Mr. Crokerbegged to ask, if his Majesty's Government had received any communication on the subject from the Dutch government?
Lord Althorprepeated, that the first communication which his Majesty's Government had received, was from Sir Charles Bagot.
Mr. Crokerobserved, that it was a matter of great importance, whether his Majesty's Government had received the communication of the intention of the King of Holland to terminate the armistice directly from the Dutch government, or by a circuitous channel.
Lord Althorp: I must, in reply to the right hon. Gentleman, say, that it was with the greatest surprise that his Majesty's Government learned from Sir Charles Bagot, that it was the intention of the King of Holland to put an end to the armistice; for, at that moment, a Minister was sent to the British Court by the King of Holland, with orders to enter into a negotiation on the matters pending between Holland and Belgium. That Minister had an interview with my noble friend, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in which interview he did not mention a word of the probability that the armistice would be broken; and, it was not until the evening, and after a question had been put on the subject in Parliament, by a noble Lord, that my noble friend received despatches from Sir Charles Bagot, informing him, that it was the intention of the King of Holland to terminate the armistice between Holland and Belgium.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR ENGLAND—COMMITTEE—SEVENTEENTH DAY.
The House, on the

831
Motion of Lord Althorp, went into a Committee on the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill.
The Chairman, (Mr. Bernal), put the question, "That Brighthelmstone, including the parish of Brighthelmstone, Sussex, "stand part of Schedule D.
Lord Dudley Coutts Stuartsaid, that it had been his intention to move, that the important parish of Hove should be added to Brighthelmstone; but he should not do so, as he understood that the parliamentary Commissioners would have the power, if they thought fit, to add that parish.
Mr. Crokersaid, there were other townships as near Brighton as Hove, what was to be done with them?
Lord Althorpsaid, that was not the question before the House, but the question was, whether Brighthelmstone should have the privilege of sending Members to Parliament.
Mr. Curteissaid, that Brighthelmstone was a very flourishing and increasing place, and contained no less than 40,000 inhabitants, and had risen to that eminence, from being a mere fishing town, within the memory of many persons now living. He had presented to the Government a memorial from the inhabitants, in which they pressed their claims to have two Representatives allowed them. That memorial had been taken into serious consideration by his Majesty's Ministers, and he was not disposed to object to the decision to which they had come, not to take Brighthelmstone out of schedule D. He was bound to say, that a large portion of the agricultural interest of Sussex were of opinion, that Hove should be added to Brighton. He wished to say, that he came into Parliament perfectly unshackled as to the course he should think proper to pursue, but he was friendly to the Reform Bill, because he believed it would prove beneficial to the country. He must, however, be permitted to allude to what had been remarked by an hon. Member in the House, that the agriculturists were selfish, and desired to exclude the mercantile interest from their proper share of Representation. He was fully aware that the manufacturers were the best customers of the agriculturists, and he was proud to acknowledge himself connected with the landed interest; but as the manufacturing interests were inclined to take away all protection from them, he for one would openly say, that he would support every measure tending
832
to maintain their full share of Representation in the hands of the agricultural interests. He was glad to hear the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), state the other night, that he would support the agricultural interest; and he agreed with the right hon. Baronet in thinking, that the manufacturing interest was already too powerful in that House. He was therefore very much surprised to see the right hon. Baronet vote for the Amendment of the noble Lord, the member for Northamptonshire (Lord Milton), because he was convinced, that if that Amendment had been carried, it would have inflicted the severest possible blow upon the agricultural interest.
Lord Miltonsaid, that he had intended to move, when the Committee came to Bradford, that certain towns should be added to it; but as he now understood, that the parliamentary Commissioners were competent to make that addition, he should not press his Motion; and he requested the friends of the measure not to enter into discussions upon all the towns in the schedule, or otherwise it was quite certain, that a great deal of the valuable time of the House would be wasted.
Mr. Stuart Wortleysaid, that the different boroughs were described in the Bill by particular limits, and yet, after the House had discussed whether the limits mentioned should be limits of the boroughs, they were now told that parliamentary Commissioners would possess the power of entirely annulling the decisions of the House. This he considered a perfect mockery of legislation, and it would be much better to leave the whole schedules to be settled by the Commissioners. Yesterday there was a long debate about Walsall and Wedgebury, all of which might have been spared if the Committee had been aware of the extensive powers of the Commissioners.
Lord Althorpsaid, that if the powers of the parliamentary Commissioners were as extensive as they were described to be by the hon. Gentleman, those Commissioners would undoubtedly possess most extraordinary authority; but the fact was, as he had stated last night, that these Commissioners would only possess the power of defining the limits of the towns to be created boroughs. With respect to those places which were already boroughs, they would be obliged, if the constituency was less than 300 persons, to take in part of

833
the neighbourhood, until they obtained the required number of voters.
Mr. Goulburnconcurred with his hon. friend (Mr. Stuart Wortley), that if the parliamentary Commissioners were to possess the power given them by the Bill, the House was only wasting time in discussing whether particular parishes should or should not be added to certain places. The Bill gave the power to the Commissioners of adding to every borough such adjoining parishes as they might think fit.
Sir Charles Wetherellwished to know, whether the limits of the new towns were to be considered definitively fixed by the description in the schedule; or whether the Commissioners would have power to add to their extent whatever might be the resolution of the House?
Lord John Russellreplied, the new boroughs were intended to be as defined in the Bill, except that where parts of parishes came into towns, the Commissioners would have power to add those parishes to the towns.
Mr. Goulburnasked, whether it was the intention of Ministers, when they came to the twenty-fourth clause, to limit the power of the Commissioners in respect to their adding to the population of towns by including a parish which had been deliberately excluded by the House.
Lord John Russellreplied, the Ministers had no intention of proposing any alteration in the twenty-fourth clause.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that in that case the Commissioners would have it in their power to overwhelm the population of the boroughs established by Parliament.
Sir James Scarletthad the greatest possible objection to the appointment of Commissioners to do that which the framers of the Bill ought to have themselves done or allowed the House to do. Unless the twenty-fourth clause was limited, the Commissioners would have full power to undo all the House had done in the formation of these boroughs.
Mr. Kempsaid, he believed, that he spoke the sentiments of the majority of the inhabitants of Brighton, when he said, that they attached more importance to the benefits which they, in common with the rest of the country, would derive from the Bill, than they did to the privilege of returning an additional Member.
Lord George Bentinckdeclared, that, he was of opinion, Brighton ought to be placed in schedule C. It was a town of
834
great population; it was rated in 1821 at 39,000 inhabitants and had increased considerably since, having extended itself into the parish of Ovingdean in the East, and Hove in the West. It paid more to the assessed taxes than almost any one of the towns in schedule C; and as large an amount as fourteen of the places in schedule D. The circumstance, also, of its being a royal residence, and its possessing many permanent establishments of the nobility, entitled it to consideration. In conclusion he gave notice, that if some person better qualified did not come forward, he would move, when the Report was brought up, that Brighton should have two Members.
Sir Charles Burrellsaid, he concurred in the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord who spoke last, and thought, that the case of Brighton deserved the attention of Parliament. Some hon. Gentleman had asserted, that the inhabitants were indifferent as to whether they were to have one or two Members, but the fact of the inhabitants having petitioned the House on the subject induced him to believe they were not so very indifferent about the matter. The population of Brighton at the present moment must be nearly double what it was in 1821.
Lord Althorpsaid, that it was not fair to compare Brighton with great manufacturing districts, merely with reference to the amount of assessed taxes paid by them respectively. The prosperity of Brighton depended on circumstances totally different from those which were the foundation of the wealth and importance of the manufacturing towns. Many persons had doubted the propriety of giving Brighton even one Member: he, however, thought it had a claim to one Member.
Mr. Kemphad never used an expression which could lead the hon. Member to suppose the people of Brighton were indifferent to being enfranchised; he had only said, they would be sorry to throw any obstacle in the way of the Bill, by insisting on their own claims. No doubt they would prefer two Members, if that could be made consistent with the other provisions of the Bill.
Sir John Sebrightsaid, he was one of those who were for the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill. He thought it a measure eminently calculated to promote the happiness, and to add to the security of the country. He, therefore, was determined

835
not to lend himself to any captious objections, but support Ministers in carrying through the Bill as it stood.
Lord William Lennoxsaid, he perfectly concurred in the sentiments which had fallen from the hon. Baronet, the member for Shoreham. He thought, that Brighton ought to have the privilege of sending two members to Parliament, not only on account of its population, but also on account of the large amount of assessed taxes which it annually paid—namely, 1,800 l.—an amount within 11,000 l. of the assessed taxes paid collectively by Sheffield, Sunderland, Devonport, and Wolverhampton, four of the new boroughs in schedule C. With regard to population, Brighton contained 632 10 l. houses; 951 20 l. houses; and 1,180 40 l. houses. The argument advanced on a former evening, against giving two Members to each of the boroughs in schedule C, was, that it would give a preponderance to the manufacturing interest. That objection could not apply to Brighton, and when he looked at its wealth, its population, and the respectability of the actual residents, he thought that it ought to have the benefit of two Members.
Mr. Littletonobjected to the propriety of taking the amount of assessed taxes as the test of the prosperity of the manufacturing districts. Their capital was employed in trade. The capital of some of the places which had been referred to in that conversation, would buy Brighton three times over.
Lord George Lennoxsaid, that although a large body of his constituency resided in Brighton, he would oppose the proposition for giving two Members to that town, whenever it should be made. The population, it was true, was returned at. 40,000; but, he asked, how many of that number were really inhabitants of Brighton? He knew that, on tailing this course, he was not consulting his private interest, because he should lose considerable electioneering support; but motives of private interest should not weigh with him. It would be a satisfaction to him to know, that he had not sold a vote for private advantage.
Mr. Crokersaid, that if he had not expected that the clause respecting the Commissioners would be amended, he should before have objected to it. If the Commissioners were to be allowed to exercise
836
their power to the extent which the noble Lord, the other member for Northamptonshire (Lord Milton), seemed to conceive, it would cause the greatest possible confusion. He wished to understand, that the Commissioners were not to have a wild power of fixing the limits of boroughs according to their own discretion. The noble Lord (Lord John Russell) said, the schedule named Brighton simply; but then the Commissioners under the Act might add other parishes. It was absolutely necessary, therefore, that the point should be clearly settled. It should be understood, that the settlement now made was to be final, excepting in cases where there was an accidental and unlooked for overflowing of population. All difficulty would be avoided in the case before the House if the words "town of Brighton" were substituted for the words "parish of Brighthelmstone."
Lord Althorpsaid, he must decline entering into that discussion at present, but he would certainly take the alteration proposed by the right hon. Gentleman into consideration.
Mr. Goulburnobserved, if the noble lord had made that declaration in proper time, the whole of the debate might have been avoided; but he was distinctly understood to state, he would agree to no amendment.
Mr. Stuart Wortleyfeared they were likely to meet with many difficulties, unless some alteration was made in the Bill. By one of the clauses, the Commissioners to be appointed were empowered to add any district to a town for Representation. To many of the places enumerated in the schedule now under their consideration, no limits were defined, but it was left to the Commissioners to settle that point, hereafter, at their discretion. This part of the Bill required amendment.
Lord John Russellsaid, the Commissioners would be guided by the natural limits of the borough.
Mr. Crokerunderstood by this, that the Commissioners were simply to distinguish the borough from the county. They would, of course, have authority to alter the scale of population adopted by the House.
Colonel Evansthought, that, Brighton was entitled to two Members. It had become, not only the residence of the noblest and highest in the land, but was also the general resort of retired and wealthy

837
tradesmen. Of the latter most important and respectable class, at least 1,000 could be found qualified to vote. It had been said, its population depended on the caprice of fashion; but as long as London continued in its present greatness, the nearest sea-port town would be always a place of general resort. But, notwithstanding these claims, he would not interfere with the arrangements of Ministers.
Question agreed to.
The next question was, "that Bolton-le-Moors, including the townships of Great and Little Bolton, Lancashire, stand part of schedule D."
Mr. Crokerthought it unjust that Bolton, with a population of 44,000 should have only one Member, whilst Northallerton, with the very small population of 4,000 had two.
Colonel Torrenssaid, that the flourishing town of Bolton was, with respect to population, the third town in Lancashire; while, in point of manufacturing importance, it was the second—yielding only to Manchester. The cotton factories of Bolton were superior to all others; and flax and paper were manufactured to a considerable extent. Thus, Bolton had many important interests to be protected and watched over. It was a town very remarkably distinguished for enterprise and intelligence. Arkwright had been an inhabitant of Bolton; and hon. Members would recollect, that Crampton, the inventor of that part of manufacturing machinery, denominated "the Mule," had obtained a parliamentary grant of 5,000 l. for that important improvement, which was now in universal use. He conceived, that the great population, the rapidly increasing property, the intelligence, and he might add, the glory of Bolton, fully entitled that town to send two Members to Parliament. Should no more experienced Member undertake the task, he should feel it to be his duty, when the report of the Committee on the Reform Bill was brought up, to move, that Bolton betaken out of schedule D, and placed in schedule C.
Motion agreed to.
The question was then put, "that Blackburn, including the township of Blackburn, Lancashire, stand part of schedule D."
Mr. Crokersaid, the case of Bolton, which he had before noticed, applied also to the town of Blackburn.
The question carried.
The next question was, "that Bradford, including the township of Bradford, Yorkshire, stand part of schedule D."
Mr. Farrandsaid, that he was well acquainted with the local circumstances of the place now under consideration, and he wished, therefore, to be allowed to make some remarks to the Committee. As the Bill at present stood, it formed the township of Bradford into a borough, but it, was right the Committee should know, that the township of Bradford did not embrace the whole town of Bradford. The town of Bradford occupied three townships; and it was essential to the interests of that town, that those townships should form the new borough. The noble Lord (Milton) thought the matter might safely be left in the hands of the Commissioners; but he had no such confidence in the Commissioners, and he trusted the alteration would be made by the Committee. The persons who gave employment to the artisans, and created and maintained the manufactures of the place, did not reside in the hundred of Bradford, and he could state to the Committee, upon the authority of a great majority of those persons, that they were extremely anxious to see the alteration he had suggested carried into effect. Indeed, without that alteration, he might say, that those most interested in the welfare of Bradford, and who most contributed to its prosperity and wealth, thought it would be better the place should be left without the power of sending a Member to that House. The noble Lord, in his opening speech, had stated, that the Government wished the measure to be final; but that, he was certain it would not be, at least, with respect to Bradford. A petition had been presented from that place, numerously signed by the working classes, calling for Universal Suffrage, Vote by Ballot, and Annual Parliaments. He had opportunities of knowing the sentiments of the most respectable and wealthiest inhabitants of the town and neighbourhood, and they had informed him that they were not satisfied with the arrangements of the Bill. Under these circumstances, he should not do his duty if he did not move, that the borough of Bradford should include the townships of Horton and Mannington.
Lord Morpethwas inclined to believe, that the three townships in which parts of the town were situated should be included

839
in the borough, but he thought the definition of the town had better be left to the Commissioners. He suggested, that the word "town" should be adopted instead of that of township.
Mr. Farrandwould be quite content if the noble Lord's suggestion was adopted.
Lord J. Russellhad no objection to it.
The word town was substituted for township, and the question as amended carried.
The next question was, "that Cheltenham, including the town of Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, should stand part of schedule D."
Lord Althorp Lord Althorp moved as an amendment, that after the word "town," the words "and parish" should be inserted.
The question, as amended, agreed to.
The question, "that Dudley, including the parish of Dudley, Worcestershire, stand part of schedule D," was also agreed to.
On the question, "that Frome, including the town of Frome, Somersetshire, stand part of schedule D,"
Mr. Dominick Brownesaid, he was thoroughly friendly to the Bill, but he wished his noble friend (Lord Althorp) would pause and consider whether he was not giving the power of returning Representatives to too small communities. He wished to hear the grounds upon which some of the places in schedule D were to acquire the right of returning Members. He was decidedly favourable to places returning but one Member, and indeed he wished no place was allowed to return more than one Member. He had represented a place many years, which had the right of sending two, and the consequence was, that his hon. colleague and himself were directly opposite in their political opinions. He could not understand upon what principle, Frome, Gateshead, White-haven, Kidderminster, South Shields, and some other places, were to return Members. If the Representatives for England were taken in round numbers, at 500, and the assessed taxes at 5,000,000 l., then it followed, that a place ought to pay 10,000 l. in assessed taxes to entitle it to return a Member to that House. Now it appeared, that Frome only paid 1,960 l. With respect to population, it ought at least to have a population of 24,000 souls.
Lord Althorpsaid, Frome was a large town, with 12,000 inhabitants, and the seat of an important manufacture in the south of England. It was included in the
840
Bill, because Ministers were desirous to give an adequate Representation to the South and West of England, as well as the North.
Lord Granville Somersetcontended, that Frome was fully entitled to have a Member, and he regretted, that the hon. member for Mayo had reserved his objections till they came to Frome, which was one of the few places in the West of England to be enfranchised. For the reasons alleged by the noble Lord, which he thought correct, the extension of the franchise in the west ought to be carried further.
Mr. Sandfordwas of the same opinion. The hon. member for Mayo could never have seen the town of Frome, or he would not hesitate to agree that it ought to return a Representative. It carried on a fine woollen-trade in contradistinction to the coarse woollen trade established in Gloucestershire.
Question carried.
On the question being put, "that Gateshead, including the parish of Gates-head, Durham, stand part of schedule D,"
Mr. Crokersaid, the Committee was now come to an important question—a question which naturally attracted peculiar attention, because it involved the consideration of the extraordinary increase which the Bill made in the number of Representatives to be returned by the county of Durham. That the county itself was to have four Representatives, he would not, at present, quarrel with—on that point he should say something hereafter, but most certainly some explanation was necessary from the Government, to account for the erection of three towns in this county, and particularly Gateshead, into boroughs. The hon. member for Mayo had objected to constituting this new borough in Durham, on the ground, that no evidence had been laid before the House of the necessity or propriety of that step; but he was prepared to shew, that the hon. member for Mayo had even understated the facts of the case, and that there were four new boroughs to be constituted in this neighbourhood. As all the Members ought to know, and many did know, the town of Gateshead was merely the southern suburb of Newcastle; and, if Ministers wished to act on the same principle which they had adopted in other cases, nothing could be more proper than for them to have added the town of Gateshead to that of Newcastle,

841
The town of Newcastle contained a population of 35,000 souls, and it was to return two Members, although there were several places in schedule D which had superior populations, and were to return only one Member each to that House. Supposing Newcastle to be fairly entitled to two Members, what was the situation of Gateshead that entitled it to return one Member? Gateshead was not a place of such importance, arid was not in its avocations, or by possessing a separate class of population, so distinct from Newcastle, as to entitle it to send a Member to that House. He therefore contended, in pursuance of the line of conduct which had been in many instances adopted, that Newcastle and Gates-head might have been united, and if that had been done, even then the total amount of population of the borough so formed, would not exceed the amount of population of Bolton, which was to have but one Representative. He was, therefore, not at all astonished at hearing the remarks of the hon. member for Mayo; those remarks were natural enough; but if that hon. Member had come to the view he had taken, merely upon the consideration of the individual case of Gateshead—how much more strong would have been his objections to giving Gateshead a Representation if he had considered how it was situated with respect to Sunderland, and to South Shields, and to North Shields, or Tynemouth, as it was called. Within a very small district, four new boroughs were to be created. Sunderland was distant from Gateshead ten miles, and Sunderland was to send two Members to Parliament. South Shields was at a less distance from Sunderland than Sunderland was from Gateshead, and it was to send one Member. And North Shields, or Tynemouth, was situated close to South Shields, and it also was to return one Member. So that, within a circuit of about ten miles, four new boroughs were to be erected, and of those four boroughs, two were of such dimensions as to attract the disapprobation or doubt and remark of the hon. member for Mayo, in all other points a zealous supporter of the Bill. Now let them look at their individual claims. The largest of them (Sunderland) was to enjoy the double Representation, although it was only by adding to its population, that of Bishop's Wearmouth and Monkswearmouth, that it could be made to
842
amount even to a plausible number, while other places, with a larger population, were to be allowed to send only one Member. Assisted as it was by the addition of these two suburbs, the borough of Sunderland had a population only of 33,900, while Bolton had a population of 44,000. He did not mean to argue the question as if the noble Lord had laid down any precise and positive rule for the guidance of the Committee. The noble Lord had, indeed, in his opening speech, talked of a population of 10,000 souls entitling a town to one Member, and a population of 50,000 souls entitling a place to two Members; but really that scale had been so frequently departed from, that he felt he could not insist upon it, in the present argument, with any probability of success. The conduct of Government, therefore, had deprived him of any benefit he might have derived from that scale; but then he had the advantage of the argument he might address to the discretion and the justice of the Government; for if they assumed a discretion to abandon their original scale, they surely had a discretion to abandon every other part of their plan, which might turn out to be unjust. Of this argument he could not be deprived, and he now appealed to the justice and to the discretion of not merely the Ministers, but of the House and the country, and he asked upon what principle they could refuse the right of returning two Members to the gigantic towns of Yorkshire and Lancashire, while that right was bestowed upon an inferior borough in Durham? Such an arrangement appeared to him to set all propriety and principle at defiance. It could not be alleged that Sunderland required a double franchise because it was situated in a district barren of Representation, for it had in its immediate neighbourhood, Newcastle, and was to have the new boroughs of South Shields, North Shields, and Gateshead, all within a circuit of ten or a dozen miles. Then he asked again, why was Bolton, with 44,000 inhabitants, to return only one Member, and Sunderland, with a population of 33,000 inhabitants, to return two Members? He could not expect to produce much impression upon that Committee, for he had already seen, that places which had, what appeared to him to be extremely strong claims, were declared by the majority to have no pretensions at all, He might again be mistaken,

843
as he supposed he had before been mistaken; but to his humble powers of reasoning, the case he had now stated was unanswerable. The Committee, however, would, of course, think otherwise—but it was some consolation to him to be opposed, not so much by reason—as by an acknowledged determination of the supporters of the Bill, to pass over all anomalies, and to get through the measure post haste, without pausing even for a moment to correct or attempt to correct its errors. But he begged hon. Members to consider, that the difficulties which had beset former cases had nothing to do with this. In the case of Dorchester, reason, common sense, and justice, could not be listened to, because they would lead to a conclusion which would interfere with the case of Guildford; and if Guildford was successful, then Chippenham would have an undeniable claim. But, in the present case, there was nothing of that sort; the principle of the Bill was in no danger; it was not assailed in any way; and he did implore the Committee to look seriously at what it was doing, and endeavour to make this final Bill—this healing, conciliatory, and satisfactory measure, as its friends called it—a just and consistent one. Northallerton, with a population of 4,000 souls, was to return two Members; and Sunderland, with a population of 33,000 souls, nearly ten times more than Northallerton, was equally to return two Members: while Bolton, with a population of 44,000 souls, eleven times greater than Northallerton, was to return only one. It was curious, that as he proceeded into this cluster of fortunate boroughs—and as it would save the time of the Committee, perhaps, if he took that opportunity of going through them all, he should do so—it was curious, that as he proceeded in an examination of the cases which those lucky boroughs presented, he found reason to use, if possible, still stronger remarks than the case of Sunderland, as compared with Bolton, would have justified. South Shields was the borough he had next to notice. South Shields had only a population of 8,885 souls. No; that would not do. Such a population would never pass muster, although South Shields was in this lucky district—although South Shields was recommended by he knew not what patronage—a mere population of 8,885 could not suffice. But was there no hamlet, no township, no chapelry, that could be annexed? If the
844
worst comes to the worst, let us add to it Gateshead. There is but half the distance between South Shields and Gateshead, that there is between Northallerton and some of the places united with that town. If Gateshead had been united even with Sunderland, the total amount of population would have been inferior to that of Bolton; and if Gateshead had been united to South Shields, even thus assisted that borough night have incurred the disapprobation of the hon. member for Mayo, for its total amount of population would have been little more than 20,000. But Gateshead was reserved for higher destinies than to be a make weight in the scale of South Shields; and it occurred to some friend of this peculiar district, that there was a certain parish called Westoe, and that that parish, which contained 7,600 inhabitants, might be added to South Shields. Now it should be remembered that the parish of Westoe was not a town—not one continuous town—a portion of it did indeed join the town of South Shields, but the portion that did join, and the portion that did not join, were alike added to South Shields, and even thus assisted, the total amount of population in that borough would only be about 16,000 souls. Some hon. Members seemed by their manner to imply that Westoe was a town. That was not the fact, part only of that parish was built upon; but the would grant that it was a town, he would allow that there was not one acre in that parish that was not occupied by a street or square, and having done so, he would ask the Committee how it could reconcile what it was called upon to do in this district—how it could, with consistency or justice, give a distinct Representation to South Shields, it having North Shields and Sunderland in its immediate neighbourhood, after what it had done with respect to other districts and towns in other parts of the country? [An Hon. Member said something across the Table.] An hon. Member informed him, that North Shields and South Shields were on different sides of the river Tyne. He was much obliged for this local information; but the hon. Member need hardly have put himself to the trouble of giving it, for he was before, he begged leave to assure him, not ignorant of the fact that the river Tyne runs between North Shields and South Shields. But there was another fact which naturally connected itself with

845
the one mentioned by the hon. Member. It had been commonly said, that a river divided places; but the philosophers of France, who divided that country into departments—an ominous recollection—laid down, and correctly too, that a navigable river united, and not divided places. The river Tyne united and as it were, incorporated North and South Shields, for it was a great and navigable river, and gave to these towns a community of interests and of employment. Whatever might be said of a brook which soiled a lady's slipper to cross it—however distinct that might make two places, and create a distinct political interest, a great and navigable river must always unite the towns upon its opposite banks. But he would state the case in a way which would, in the estimation of all parties, be certainly fair. If South Shields, like Bolton, had a population of 40,000 souls, and North Shields had also a population of 40,000 souls, he would not require that they should be united. He would say, that it was consistent with the principle of the Bill, to give them distinct Representations, although their population would still be far inferior to the population of St. Pancras. But when this was not the case, when the population of these places altogether was not above one-third that of Marylebone, and not above the half of that of Pancras, and when, supposing that all these boroughs were formed into one town—as, in fact, they ought to be considered, for they were all in the neighbourhood of each other, and had but one avocation and one local interest—he found their population greatly short of the population or towns having only one Representative, then he must say, that the arrangement was clearly bad, and against all justice and reason. South Shields had a population of 8,885, North Shields had a population of 8,200, and Gateshead had a population of about 11,000; so that the whole population of the three places amounted at most to 28,100; and if three Members were to be given to that population in the county of Durham, surely it would be but justice to give two Members to a population of 44,000 in the county of Lancaster. If the trainers of the Bill had proceeded upon just and intelligible principles, this was the way in which those places ought to have been treated; and, by this mode of proceeding, a fair proportion, and no more, of the Representation would have been given to the
846
nook in which these favoured towns were situated. But in the estimation of some extraordinary influence, three boroughs were not enough for this Elysium of franchise; a fourth borough must be added to the curious list already gone through. It was common to talk of population following coal, but this was indeed following coal with a vengeance; and the town of North Shields, which had, at best, but a claim to be united with South Shields was constituted into a separate borough, that it might not at all interfere with or deteriorate the Durham Representation. The towns of North Shields and South Shields, taken together, had a population of about 17,000 souls. Now, that was a small population according to the Bill, and, in order to swell it out, and to bolster it up to something like the required amount, let the population of Westoe be added. With that addition the population would consist of 24,000 souls, and to that population he for one should be glad and ready to give one Member. But why give more? Why should a population of 24,000 in Durham and its neighbourhood have more Representatives than a population of 44,000 had in Lancashire? Upon what principle had the Government gone in framing this part of thy Bill? The town of Clitheroe had been separated from the parish of Clitheroe—and that, it was said, merely because the parish was too large. That was a very unfair distinction to make, but when the case of these Durham boroughs was considered, it became singularly unjust and unprincipled. The Committee would remember, that in Lancashire the franchise was not given to the parish of Bolton, but to the townships of Great and Little Bolton. If the franchise had been given to the parish of Bolton, then that place must have had two Representatives. But in this case under consideration, not only was the town of Tynemouth united with North Shields, but the parish of Tynemouth was also thrown in to swell out the population to the necessary amount. This was of importance, for there were a great number of townships in Tynemouth. [An Hon. Member said "No."] The hon. Member says "No," continued Mr. Croker, "but I repeat my observation; and I must tell that hon. Member, that whatever may be his local information upon the point, I am not in the habit of addressing the Committee without having made

847
myself at least master of the facts of the case. I may want judgment to enable me to draw correct conclusions—I may want talents to enforce my arguments, but at least, I have, and employ that humble industry which enables me to arrive at the facts which I venture to state to the House." The parish of Tynemouth contained several townships, and it was all included, although a different course had been pursued with respect to Bolton, Bradford, Blackburn, and the parish of Whalley. This was the fact, and he did not see any just ground for acting differently in the case of Tynemouth, merely because it happened to be in the county of Northumberland, and adjoining the palatinate of Durham. If these four new boroughs were in different districts, if they had been at a considerable distance from each other, then they might, perhaps, have passed without attracting such peculiar attention, but as they were circumstanced, that was impossible. What the Ministers chose to think a large population in Durham was in their opinion but a small population in York; but with such reasoning, common sense would not be satisfied. The county of Durham was suddenly to be over-run with Representatives, and one particular nook of it was to be the point of especial favour. This was a matter which required explanation, and that explanation must come from the Government; for it was not to be derived from the most attentive consideration of the population returns, nor of the principles of the Bill, nor the wealth, importance, or other claims of the new nest of manufactured boroughs. For his own part he had no connexion with those places—no personal or local interests. Independently of fairness, of common justice, and of common sense, he had no object to contend for; but on behalf of these, he was bound to pursue the investigation he had gone into, and to ask the Ministers how they could account for the accumulated unfairness and irregularity with which, as it at present appeared, they had acted in forming these four new boroughs?
Lord Althorpsaid, he and his colleagues had fairly stated, that in the enfranchising part of the Bill, they would not tie themselves down strictly to a particular rule. Certainly, in looking to that portion of the measure, they kept population in view; but there were other points also which it was necessary for them
848
not to lose sight of. One of these points must be, how far different interests were at present, or ought to be, represented. Now they found on examination, that one class of the community—the shipping interest—from which he had received much opposition in the last Session, was not largely represented. When they discovered that considerable masses of people were thus situated, they thought it would be very desirable to give them Representatives. They therefore deemed it right to give Members to Whitby and to Sunderland, both being closely connected with the shipping interest. To Sunderland it was thought fit to add Bishops Wearmouth and Monks Wearmouth. He had no local knowledge of this place; and from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, he was not inclined to believe that he had much. He was, however, informed, that Sunderland and Bishops Wearmouth formed one town. That being the case, and Sunderland being nearly connected with the shipping interest, two Members were given to the town. The same observation would apply to the towns of South Shields and Tynemouth. The right hon. Gentleman had alluded a good deal to Durham. Now he ought to have recollected, that Tynemouth was not in Durham, but in Northumberland. Tynemouth, with its parish, contained upwards of 8,000 inhabitants, and South Shields, which was also a very large place, contained 17,000. Now it was because the three boroughs to which the attention of the Committee had been called were very large, and were all connected most intimately with the shipping interest of the country, that Representatives were given to them. The right hon. Gentleman said, that South Shields and Tynemouth could have been conveniently united, and have returned conjointly two Members. The right hon. Gentleman was aware that they are separated by the river Tyne, but he denied that this was a very material impediment. Water communication was sometimes highly serviceable, but, that a large navigable river, crossed only by a ferry, was to be regarded as connecting two towns in such a manner as to form them, for the purposes of this Bill, into one borough he could not admit. The chief ground for having these boroughs in this district was, that the amount of population was large in itself. The capital embarked in the places was very great,

849
and, above all, they were all intimately connected with the shipping interest. The right hon. Gentleman argued, that Gateshead should be joined to Newcastle, as had been the practice in other cases. He denied that such was the practice, and he knew of no such cases. The right hon. Gentleman could not find any instance where a borough of the magnitude of Newcastle, which sent Members to Parliament, had afterwards attached to it so large a district as Gateshead.[Mr. Croker: Sculcoates with Hull.] That case was very different from the present: Sculcoates and Hull were so closely united, that the boundary could not be ascertained, while Gateshead was separated from Newcastle by the Tyne, and they were in different counties. They were not so nearly connected as Manchester and Salford. Such a proceeding as that recommended by the right hon. Gentleman would be very unfair to Newcastle. He had, he repeated, very little local knowledge of the place, but the hon. member for Newcastle would probably state to the House the connexion between those two places, and the claims of Gateshead to return a Member. The right hon. Gentleman had insinuated, that those boroughs were created on a principle of partiality, in order to serve a noble friend of his who was connected with the county of Durham. He had already stated the ground on which Gateshead and the other boroughs were created—namely, with a view to the Representation of the shipping interest. That was the sole reason: and, as to any great extent of influence which the noble Lord to whom he had alluded could have in returning Members for very populous places, he thought that the idea was an absolute absurdity. If any of the members of the Government, could imagine that a job like that would be attempted, they would unquestionably resist it to the utmost.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, the first reason which the noble Lord had adduced for creating these boroughs was, the necessity of giving additional Members to the shipping interest. He was glad to hear the noble Lord state, that he would do any thing for that important interest. But how was he going to effect this object? He understood that Gateshead was a suburb of Newcastle, which had already Members, not more distinct from it than Salford was from Manchester. His attention had been drawn to different parts
850
of this Bill, and he could not see, that any particular regard was paid to the shipping interest. The first part he would notice was that of Kingston-upon-Hull, which had 32,000 inhabitants, and near it there was a suburb with 11,000 inhabitants—evidently forgetting, by his conduct towards Hull, his deep regard for the shipping interest. Was not, then, Kingston-upon-Hull as important a town as Gateshead? Assuredly it was. "But" said the noble Lord "Sculcoates shall not have a Member; it is sufficient to join it with Kingston-upon-Hull; while he refused to adopt a similar course with respect to Gateshead and Newcastle. These cases were precisely alike, and yet a very different course had been pursued towards them. If it was said Gateshead contained upwards of 10,000 inhabitants, why Sculcoates had as many; Sculcoates was, in fact, the suburb of Kingston, as Gateshead was the suburb of Newcastle, and yet Sculcoates was to be united with Kingston, and not to have a Representative of its own. The importance of Kingston as a maritime town could hardly be denied. The population of Newcastle was 35,000, and the population of Gateshead was 12,000. Now the population of Kingston was 32,000, and the population of Sculcoates was 11,000; and he therefore contended, the cases were precisely similar, and yet the Government had pursued a different course of conduct with respect to them. The hon. member for Newcastle was, perhaps, going to tell them of the importance of Shields as a reason for its having a Member. If so, allow him to remind the hon. Member, that there had been a time when the member for Newcastle had declared, that North and South Shields were as nothing in comparison with Newcastle, and ought, therefore, to be debarred from those privileges which Newcastle enjoyed. The noble Lord (Althorp) might have been pestered, as he had been, with applications that separate Customhouses should be given to North and South Shields, but the inhabitants of Newcastle had always contended against it, on the ground that the trade of Shields was, in fact, the trade of Newcastle. The explanation given by the noble Lord was by no means satisfactory; the different treatment received by the two places was not accounted for.
Mr. John Hodgsonsaid, that the first topic he should notice was, the burden of

851
the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite—namely, the supposed inequality in the Representation of counties under this Bill. Now, how many Members would be given to Durham by this Bill? In all, it would give ten Members. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman would compare the relative proportion of the population of England, and the population of the county of Durham, the right hon. Gentleman would find, that the number of Members due to Durham would be nine, so that the right hon. Gentleman had only one Member to dispute about. But then he did not understand that such was the principle upon which the Ministers had proceeded. Certainly it was not the principle on which he had supported the Bill. The principle of the Bill, as he understood it, was, that wherever there was a town which ought to be represented, one or two Members, as its claims might require, should be given to it, without any reference to the county in which it was situated. The right hon. Gentleman had told them, that Sunderland and the places joined with it, which contained a population of only 33,000, was to return two Members; while Bolton, and the places joined with it, which contained a population of upwards of 40,000, was to return only one Member. Now, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman had either been wanting in candour, or that he had been guilty of great inadvertence, when he made this statement. The right hon. Gentleman could obtain no such respective population for these places unless he had gone upon the returns of 1821 with regard to the one, and upon the returns of 1831, with regard to the other. He believed, that Sunderland had now a population of 43,000: it was moreover the fourth port in the kingdom, and was, in all respects, a place of great consideration. He would venture to say, that there was no town in the kingdom, similarly situated, which had not been dealt with in the same manner in the Bill. He would next advert to an argument of another right hon. Gentleman, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer. That right hon. Gentleman had been pleased to anticipate what he was about to say, and to calculate upon an inconsistency between what he had said on former occasions, and what he should say to-night. The language, however, which he had used upon the occasion, referred to by the hon.
852
Gentleman was, that the trade and the merchandise belonged to Newcastle, but that the shipping belonged to North and South Shields; and that the fact of the trade and the merchandise belonging to Newcastle, was a reason for the Customhouse being at Newcastle, and not at North and South Shields: the amount of tonnage belonging to the three places was 170,000 tons. As to the question of joining North and South Shields into one borough, the right hon. Gentleman, in arguing that question, had joined them both to the county of Durham, and had never intimated that one was in the county of Durham, and the other in the county of Northumberland.
Mr. Crokerhad stated, that they were separated by the Tyne.
Mr. John Hodgsoncontinued—Yes, but the right hon. Gentleman had, in his argument, joined both to the county of Durham, and had not intimated that the Tyne was the boundary of the counties. The interests of Gateshead and Newcastle were as distinct as those of Manchester and Salford. The statements, too, which had been made with regard to the population of Newcastle were not correct. In 1821, the population of Newcastle was 43,000, and that of Gateshead 12,000. At this moment, the population of Newcastle, taking the town and its suburbs, amounted to 55,000, while the population of Gateshead was not less than 15,000. In both cases, seamen, who formed a considerable body, were omitted. An attempt had been made to institute a comparison between Hull and Sculcoates, and Newcastle and Gateshead. The two cases, however, were as different as it was possible for any two cases to be. Sculcoates was, in fact, a part of Hull, and Gateshead was no part of Newcastle. Hull consisted of docks, warehouses, and streets, which contained shops, and the dwellings of the lower classes: the chief persons of wealth resided in Sculcoates. Now, Gateshead was not only no part of Newcastle, but it was in the county of Durham, and separated by the Tyne from Newcastle, which was in the county of Northumberland. The persons, too, living in Gateshead, carried on considerable manufactures, wholly independent of Newcastle. Though the population might not be so wealthy as that of Newcastle, it was very respectable, and very enterprising. Under these circumstances, he should certainly

853
support the proposition for giving a Member to Gateshead. He would only add (to borrow an expression from the Gentleman opposite), that, in his opinion, nothing could be so unfair as to swamp Newcastle in Gateshead.
Mr. Goulburnassured the hon. Gentleman, that he had not intended to make an invidious distinction or comparison between Newcastle and Shields. He had merely desired to remind him of the arguments made use of with regard to the Customhouses.
Mr. Keith Douglassaid, he knew Gateshead well; and he must caution the Committee against relying fully on the arguments and reasons of the right hon. member for Newcastle, as from his connection with the place, he might unintentionally give a more favourable account of it than it deserved. He had yet heard no reason to justify the Committee in giving it a separate Representative. It must be clear to every person who visited the place, that Gateshead was a suburb of Newcastle, consisting principally of poor houses. It depended entirely upon the collieries, and that interest would be sufficiently defended by the two members for Newcastle. There was not the least necessity that it should have a separate Representation. If his right hon. friend (Mr. Goulburn) did not divide the Committee on it, he was disposed to do so himself, to mark his sense of the transaction. He knew there was no great interest in the place to represent, but that it would be dependent on Newcastle. It had been stated, that. Members were so bountifully bestowed on this district, to represent the shipping interest, but Gateshead had no ships. The hon. member for Newcastle (Mr. Hodgson) allowed, that the county of Durham had one Member more than its proportion, and he should prefer giving that one Member to some other place, where the interests were inadequately represented.
Mr. J. L. Knightsaid, that far from imputing to Ministers that they had framed a public Act with a view to the interests of private individuals, he would not even allow himself to suspect, that any body of public men could be actuated by such disgraceful motives. The fault, then, which he had to find with this part of the Bill did not arise from any notion, that it had been framed with improper views. But let the Committee see what the Bill did. It gave one Member to Gateshead; it
854
gave two Members to South Shields, including Bishopswearmouth and Monkswearmouth. [Cries of "no, no."] Yes, it did. [Cries of "no, no." After looking at the Bill, the hon. and learned Member continued.] He meant two Members to Sunderland, Bishopswearmouth, Monkswearmouth, and one to South Shields. He was speaking of the Members which were given to places in the county of Durham, and it did not matter to what particular places those Members were assigned. He contended, that the rights of the freeholders of the county of Durham were sacrificed by the creation of this large borough-constituency in the county. He was informed, upon good authority, that when the town population was abstracted, there would be fewer voters for the four Members for the county, than there now were for the two. He wished to compare this case of Gateshead with the case of Merthyr-Tydvil. The population of Gateshead might be stated, in round numbers, at 11,000, or 12,000. He went by the population of 1821, which they had been told, over and over again, was to be their guide; and this place adjoined the town of Newcastle, which had two Members. Now, the town and district of Merthyr-Tydvil was the chief place of the iron manufacture of the kingdom; and, at the same time, contained 17,000 souls. It was situated in a district containing few Members, yet it was not to have one for itself. Brecknockshire returned only two Members, Monmouthshire three, and Glamorganshire two. By the scheme of this Bill, Glamorganshire would return four Members, but the other two counties would remain as they were. The total, therefore, under the new Bill, would be nine Members for these three counties. Now, when they were told, that particular interests ought to be represented in that House, he begged leave to ask, how the iron interest of South Wales would be represented under the new Bill? He had already described the importance of Merthyr-Tydvil. As to its population, that amounted to 17,000 or 18,000, in 1821, and the population of its suburbs amounted to about 2,000, making, altogether, 19,000, or 20,000. The population had now vastly increased; and yet a place of this great importance, and of this large population, was not allowed to return a Member, but was sent as a paltry adjunct to a seaport which had before returned

855
Representatives to Parliament. Thus, while, in Durham, borough had been heaped upon borough, this important place had been refused a Member for itself. Comparing Gateshead with Merthyr-Tydvil, he must ask, upon what principle of common sense or common justice it was, that a Member should be given to Gateshead and denied to Merthyr-Tydvil? He presumed it must be upon the principle, as had been said, that as the South had formerly rather more than its share of Members, the proportions were to be now reversed. He should certainly oppose giving a Member to Gateshead.
Mr. Charles Woodwould state one or two facts which he thought would destroy the argument of Gentlemen on the other side. It had been said, that Gateshead was a suburb of Newcastle. Now, the fact was, that Gateshead and Newcastle were situated on different sides of the Tyne—that one was in the county of Durham, and the other in the county of Northumberland; and the two places were as distinct as it was possible for any two places to be. And yet, by Gentlemen opposite, these two places were compared with Hull and Sculcoates, which were, in fact, one and the same town, being under the same jurisdiction, and paying the same poor-rates. In answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Knight), who had just sat down, he must be allowed to say, that if the populations of Glamorganshire and Durham were compared, it would be found, that Glamorganshire would have the greater share of Representation. The county of Durham would have one Member to every 34,000 inhabitants, whereas Glamorganshire would have one Member to every 28,000 inhabitants.
Sir Henry Hardinge Sir Henry Hardinge rose reluctantly on that question, on account of predilections for the county of Durham. He had represented the city of Durham for several years in that House, and he should be anxious, in the present struggle for Representatives, to obtain as large a share for that county, being closely connected with it, as was consistent with justice. He was glad that two Members had been given to Sutherland. That was no more than the fair distribution. No one could doubt that the town of Durham ought to retain its Members. He thought that it was only reasonable that South Shields should have one Representative. But, although he
856
had as strong a desire to increase the Representation of Durham as an hon. Member opposite showed, on the preceding night, to add to that of Staffordshire, he must say, that Gateshead was no more than a suburb of Newcastle, and that it had no right to send a Member to that House. He believed, there was no important interest in that place to be represented, and it would be extravagant to throw away a Member on it. He had no desire to disparage it; but he must say, that it was a trifling, insignificant place, compared to other places that were excluded from all share in the Representation.
Mr. Sadlersaid, there was a mistake in the statements of the hon. Member (Mr. Charles Wood). The population of the county of Durham, in 1821, was only 270,000. This, divided by ten, would give one Member for every 27,000 inhabitants, and not for every 34,000. If Representation was given in proportion to population, the great county of York ought to have sixty Members. This Bill introduced the most strange anomalies into every county, and into every district, and the anomaly was still greater as the deficiency of Representation was entirely among the rural branch, and no other branches of the population. There were on one side 300 Members to represent less than 3,000,000 people, and on the other only 150 to represent about 12,000,000. This must strike every one, and would, before long, most certainly consign the Bill to the fate which it so well deserved. If the Representation was to be changed at all, it ought to have been done upon some plain general principle, by which all these anomalies might have been avoided. As to Gateshead, it was an unimportant suburb of Newcastle, and there was no reason why it should have a separate Representation.
Sir H. Williamsonsaid, that the gallant Member (Sir Henry Hardinge) opposite, could know nothing about Gateshead, or he would not have called it a suburb of Newcastle, and a trifling, insignificant place. It was not a suburb of Newcastle, but entirely distinct from it, a separate parish, and situated in a different county. Then, as to its being distinguished for nothing, he begged to state, that very considerable manufactures were carried on in it. He was sure, the gallant Member must have spoken of Gateshead from hearsay, and not from any personal knowledge, because what the gallant member

857
had said of it was not consistent with the fact.
Sir Henry Hardingeknew Gateshead very well, though he had certainly never had, like the hon. Baronet, the advantage of dining in Gateshead, and making a very remarkable speech there; but good taste would prevent him from entering further into the subject of what was said on that occasion. If he were to go into that speech, he might, perhaps, be able to show, that the probability was, that the inhabitants of Gateshead were not the most respectable in the world. He, however, had canvassed Gateshead two or three times; and he contended, that Gateshead was an insignificant suburb as compared with Merthyr-Tydvil and many other places he could mention.
Sir H. Williamsonsaid, that the gallant Member had proved, upon his own showing, that he knew nothing about Gateshead. The gallant Officer had canvassed Gateshead as a candidate for the city, not for the county, of Durham. The gallant Member, therefore, knew nothing of the freeholders resident in Gateshead. The gallant Member's acquaintance was confined to the freemen of the city of Durham resident in Gateshead, and they certainly were neither very numerous nor the most respectable portion of the inhabitants of Gateshead. But the gallant Member had originally stated, that Gateshead was distinguished for nothing, whereas he now underrated it, by comparing it with Merthyr-Tydvil and other places.
Mr. Chaytorwas surprised that any one who knew Gateshead could describe it as a part or a suburb of Newcastle. It was no such thing, but as distinct and separate from Newcastle as any one place could be from another. The parish was different, and the jurisdiction wholly distinct. Perhaps, however, the place might not be agreeable to some visitors.
Mr. Praedsaid, he understood, that the jurisdiction in Hull and Sculcoates were different, and the poor-rates different, and that they were situated in different parishes. In Hull the jurisdiction was in the Mayor; in Sculcoates the appeal was to the Sessions. The case of Hull, therefore, and Sculcoates, was in every respect similar to that of Newcastle and Gateshead.
Mr. Stuart Wortleyfelt a strong interest for the county of Durham, but he must say, that no part of the Bill surprised
858
him more than that. If it was necessary, as the hon. Baronet (Sir H. Williamson) seemed to indicate, to be acquainted with every locality to form a judgment, how was it possible, that Ministers could have qualified themselves to prepare the details of a measure like this? The fact was, that in the time of Edward 6th, Gateshead was assigned to the Corporation of Newcastle, and in 1646 the population of that place would have been assigned to Newcastle, were it not for unexpected circumstances. It was said, that by letting in Gateshead, they would sluice Newcastle. How stood the case with respect to Rochester? It was annexed in this Bill to Stroud and Chatham, though the jurisdiction was different and the parishes different. The population of Gateshead was 11,700, and of Newcastle 35,000. The population of Rochester was 9,800, and of Stroud and Chatham 17,500. It was more unfair to sluice Rochester with Chatham and Stroud, than Newcastle with Gateshead. The same observation might be made with respect to Portsmouth and Portsea. In 1821 the population of Portsmouth was between 7,000 and 8,000, and of Portsea 38,000. It was ridiculous to talk about difference of interest in Newcastle and Gateshead. Both places owed all their importance to the coal trade.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, this case was a violation of all the principles of the Bill, and of the rules by which Ministers had professed that they were guided. It was marvellous to observe the shifts to which Ministers were driven. In some cases a small river was made to interpose, to alter the franchise; in others, for a different purpose, the river was either forded by a bridge thrown over it, or it was impossible to ford it, just as it suited their purposes. They paid no regard to the barriers of either common sense or consistency. The fact, however, was, that there was an àpriori determination that Gateshead should have a Member, and coute qui coute Gateshead was to have a Member. It was in vain to reason with a majority like that sitting around and above the Ministers. When men were congregated together in large numbers, they were usually bold, but such parliamentary audacity, such Ministerial audacity, such effrontery, and such appalling boldness, had never, perhaps, been witnessed until now. If he might be allowed to borrow a metaphor

859
from his hon. friend, the member for Thetford (Mr. A. Baring), he should say, that Gateshead was the violet, the nosegay, of schedule D, but then it was a violet, a nosegay, of which he must say, "non redolet, sed olet." He would not translate the Latin into plain home-spun English, because it would be called by the Gentlemen opposite, factious and strong language. It had been complained, that imputations had been cast upon the framers of this Bill with regard to this case of Gateshead. Now he did not desire to cast any imputations—but this he would say, namely, that the case of Gateshead was either a case of gross partiality, or of gross ignorance, and Ministers might take their choice between these two charges. But he repeated, that it was of no use to argue the case. The Members opposite had determined to support the measure, and all the parts of it, either right or wrong. It would be of no use to detect mistakes hereafter. The Bill could not be a prospectus of a Constitution; it was final by the decree of Ministers, although the Radicals thought they should be able to improve it by and by. It was said, that Gateshead was a small place, but the inns were probably good, as he remembered something of a speech delivered there, which was not delivered at the King's Head, or the Crown, or Sceptre, or the Mitre, or any one with a similar symbol. The drift of that speech was, to advise the Ministers not to attend to any speeches from their opponents, to fear no opposition, and to go on with the measure, regardless of all argument or reason. This advice had been well acted upon by his Majesty's Ministers. They had duly acted their parts, and they were supported by Gentlemen who seemed to agree, that out of respect for them, they would support any measure that emanated from them, be it just or unjust. Such sentiments had been, in more than one case, expressed, and even the hon. Baronet, the member for Westminster (Sir F. Burdett)—the vox populi—he who had so often declared; that he would never succumb in his opinions to any Ministers—even that hon. Baronet had acknowledged, last night, that he had objections to the Bill, but that he chose to waive them. To divide in the face of such a majority was, he agreed, a waste of the time of the House.
Mr. Chaytorwished, after the remarks pf the hon. and learned Gentleman, to
860
state why he supported the question before the House. He apprehended the principle on which the Bill proceeded, was population and property, with a regard to existing interests, that had been applied to districts and counties. If there was any inequality in the Bill, it was this—that the Bill gave too many Members to the counties, and not sufficient to the towns. He stated this fairly and openly, as an objection which he had to the Bill; and yet, in spite of this objection, and in spite of the censure of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, he should most certainly support the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think, that there was great impropriety in Gentlemen who had objections to the Bill, waiving those objections for the sake of ensuring the success of the Bill. He would tell the hon. and learned Gentleman why he adopted this course. If the Bill had some faults, the present system of Representation had many vices; and he did not think there was anything inconsistent with morality or good sense, in exerting oneself to the utmost for the purpose of exchanging a vicious and corrupt system, for a system which was only in some measure faulty.
Mr. John Weylanddid not think any argument had been used which would justify him in voting for giving a Member to Gateshead. He would do the hon. Members who supported Government, the credit to believe they acted from conscientious motives, and he trusted, that they would think the same of him when he declared, he should most cordially give his support to the proposition for excluding Gateshead from the schedule.
Lord Granville Somersetconsidered Gateshead to be amply represented by Newcastle. Many parts of the country were inadequately represented, while Members were wantonly squandered on insignificant places. Glamorganshire ought to have had the Member now proposed to be given to Gateshead; but those counties with which Ministers were connected had been more favourably dealt with than other counties. The Representations which had been made from the county which he represented (Monmouthshire) and from Glamorganshire, had been totally disregarded.
Sir Henry Hardingesaid, the Gentlemen opposite had given no reason why this suburb of Gateshead should not be

861
added to Newcastle, from which it was distant about 200 yards, and contained a population of 12,000 souls, while Merthyr Tydvil, with 30,000 inhabitants, had been added to Cardiff, from which place it was twenty-five miles distant. He wished to call the attention of the Committee particularly to this fact, that around this principal seat of our iron manufactory, there were 180,000 people unrepresented. The county of Durham had been treated with great partiality; it got five new Members by the Bill. Would it not have been more desirable and just to have given a Representative to Merthyr Tydvil, and so have avoided sluicing Cardiff, than one to Gateshead? He regretted being obliged to make these remarks, connected as he was with Durham, but the injustice of the case obliged him to notice it.
Lord Althorpregretted, that the reasons he had already given for appropriating a Member to Gateshead, had not been considered satisfactory by the hon. Gentlemen opposite. They appeared conclusive to him, and he could throw no further light on the subject. He would continue to maintain, there was no instance of a borough, already possessing two Members, having such an addition of population as was contained in Gateshead, let in upon it. Hull and Sculcoates did not form a parallel case, for they really formed but one town. He must complain of the language which had been used by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir C. Wetherell), which, unmeasured as it had been on former occasions, had been to-night as strong and unmeasured as possible towards his Majesty's Ministers.
Sir Matthew W. Ridleysaid, that from his own knowledge, he could say, that the town of Newcastle would not grudge the power given to their neighbour of electing a Representative. If the House would look at the situation of Gateshead, they would think Ministers were justified in giving it a Member. The county of Durham required an addition to the number of its Representatives, and no other town could be marked out, to which a Representative could with so much propriety be given. Gateshead had a respectable, wealthy, and intelligent population, consisting of manufacturers and others, and he believed it to be as fit to return an independent Representative, free from improper influence, as any town in the kingdom. He trusted he might be
862
permitted to add, without vanity, that the interests of Gateshead had never suffered from want of actual Representation. He had ever taken the interests of the place under his particular care, and should always take a strong interest, in its welfare, whatever was the result of the present motion.
Sir Robert Peeldid not suppose, that the people of Newcastle would object to having three Members. Newcastle would be the last place to complain of this additional honour. What did the hon. Baronet tell them? Why, that he represented Gateshead, and that he would be shorn of part of his beams, if he no longer represented Newcastle. The hon. Baronet, the member for Newcastle, was the Representative of Gateshead. He expressly admitted the fact. On the grounds of vast population, there was no pretence whatever for giving a new Member to Gateshead. Newcastle had only 35,000 inhabitants, and Gateshead only 11,000. They were close together; they were united in trade, and, therefore, they might be well included in the same system of Representation. It was too bad to aggravate the mortification of defeat by such arguments as had been advanced. A certain species of decency and decorum might have been expected in the triumph of the hon. Members opposite over reason and the Constitution. When they were about to disfranchise half the boroughs in the kingdom, it was strange and monstrous to hear the noble Lord talk of the ancient rights of Newcastle, as a reason for preserving its franchise unaltered and unimpaired. When they were about to add adjoining boroughs to others, to sluice all the small boroughs that were not disfranchised by voters from the neighbourhood, when that even was not to be done by Parliament, but by a sort of riding Commission—a Quarter-Master-General; and when they were, by Commissioners and Deputies, disfranchising voters in all the boroughs that were reserved, it was to him most extraordinary that a respect for the rights of the people, should be assigned as one of the reasons for not uniting Gateshead to Newcastle. He was not aware, that it would be necessary to divide the Committee on any other place of schedule D; but on this place he was determined to divide, and record in a more emphatic manner than by speech, his condemnation of the conduct of Ministers, in giving an additional

863
Member to Newcastle, while Chelsea, with its 46,000 inhabitants, was excluded from all share in the Representation. If he stood alone, he would divide against including Gateshead in the schedule.
Mr. D. W. Harveyhad been much struck by the singularity of the propositions of the hon. Gentlemen opposite. When schedules A and B were discussed, they contended that places with a population of from 2,000 to 4,000, were entitled to return their two Members; yet when it was proposed to give a Representative to a place containing 12,000 inhabitants, they found something extremely wrong in it. They seemed, for the first time, to have made the discovery, if he was to judge from their proposition with respect to Merthyr Tydvil, that the Bill was not sufficiently Jacobinical, and not half enough democratical. Why, they exclaimed, refuse a Member to Merthyr Tydvil, with so large a population? Was this, then, the result of the cogitations of the Cabinet at Pall-Mall? Was this the plan which they had determined to propound? After more than a summer month spent in deliberation, was this the oozings of their design? Of all democracies, none were so extravagant as ungovernable toryism. It would seem, that these advocates for rotten and nomination boroughs, feeling that their political fate was likely to be sealed by this Bill, only wanted an opportunity to usher in a counter plan. Population was taken as the basis of Representation by the defenders of Old Sarum! On what ground, then, he would ask, did they contend against the dissolution of the boroughs in schedules A and B? and why, he would ask, if they had determined to broach this, their new plan of Reform, did they waste so many evenings in pronouncing funeral orations over the bodies of the slain? Did they oppose this proposition to embarrass and delay the progress of the Bill, or were they determined to attempt to agitate the country with a new design of their own? So far as their designs could be comprehended, they had become the advocates of a complete system of departmental democracy. If this was their course, and their intention, why had they expended so much argument in opposition to the destruction of the system of nomination? He was aware, that for the purposes of oratory, it was a very inconvenient thing
864
that a Member should be compelled to confine himself to the mere question put from the Chair. He knew this well; but in the Debates on the Bill, every step they had taken, furnished new ground for declamation, and the topics for the speeches of the hon. Members were increased by the progress of disfranchisement. The boroughs of schedule A furnished matter for lamentation and illustration in speaking on schedule B; and so they might expect it to be to the very conclusion of the Bill. The question in this instance was, whether Gateshead, with a population, by the returns of 1821, of 12,000, and swelled by the recent returns to 16,000, comprising many persons of respectability and intelligence, should have a Representative? It appeared, too, that there were 800 10 l. houses in the place. These were sufficient attributes to entitle Gateshead to a Member, whether situated in Durham or Cornwall, and he should cheerfully give his vote that it should obtain one.
Sir Edward Sugdensaid, that the hon. Member had delivered himself of one of those hackneyed speeches of vulgar abuse with which the House had been so often favoured, in the course of the Debates on the Bill. It was not his intention to detain the House for many minutes; but he could not avoid observing, that the other side placed themselves in rather a ludicrous situation, when they asserted they could not believe the Opposition were sincere in any proposition consistent with the principles of the Bill, because it was unreasonable. There were two points, however, to which he wished shortly to draw their attention. The noble Lord, and the framers of the Bill, had repeatedly declared, that they, and those connected with them, never were parties to the cry of "the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill;" and they had also as repeatedly declared, that it was their object to make the measure before the House final and satisfactory to all parties. Now he believed, that six or seven speakers, one after the other, declared last night, that they knew the Bill was not to be final; nor they did not wish it to be final; and the hon. member for Westminster had distinctly declared, that no arrangements with respect to the institutions of a great country like this, could be final. He, therefore, must charge the Government with giving encouragement to declarations of this kind, and with adopting a course which was likely to make

865
the measure anything but final. It had been said, over and over again by the supporters of the Government, that they postponed their objections to many parts of the Bill, merely because they wished to accelerate its progress; and they had even gone so far as to admit, that they waived their objections for the present, and postponed their propositions for more extensive changes to another and better opportunity. The hon. member for Westminster said, he objected to many points of the Bill altogether, but he added, that in order to carry it, he must sacrifice these objections; he even declared, in order to stay all discussion, that there was no clause in the Bill so trifling, that opposition to it might not endanger the whole measure. And yet, in the face of all this, and with the knowledge, that the measure was not to be final, the members of the Government had called on their supporters to pass it without inquiry or discussion. He would ask, whether the Members of that House had not been called on to suspend their judgments, and abandon all inquiry, in order that the Bill might be passed more speedily through that House? He would not, however, pursue that subject further at present. They were now trying the Government on their own principles, with respect to Gateshead and Merthyr Tydvil; and when the House heard that Newcastle, which was to return two Members, formed, it might be said, but one town with Gateshead, or, at least, was connected with it by a bridge, while Merthyr Tydvil was full twenty-five miles from Cardiff, to which it was to be joined for the purposes of Representation, he thought they would confess, that the present was a case well calculated to try the question of the fairness of that division of Representation which the Government professed their desire to preserve.
Lord Althorpsaid, the reason why the Government drew a distinction between the case of Gateshead and Merthyr Tydvil was this, that Merthyr Tydvil was situated in Wales, where the system of contributory boroughs had always prevailed, and which was so continued with respect to other places in the schedule. With respect to the observations of the hon. and learned Gentleman, on the subject of the Bill being final, although they had not much to do with the borough of Gateshead, he would merely observe, that the Ministers were
866
anxious to make the Bill final, and they had offered no other opposition to the discussion of its merits, than by requesting its supporters not to endanger its success by a number of different propositions intended to effect the same object. If they had recommended harmony on these points, the reason for it might, perhaps, be found in the fact of their being opposed by a set of Gentlemen who were guided in their resistance to the Bill by party arrangements, without reference to its merits; and wishing, as the Ministers did, to carry the measure they had framed, they had undoubtedly expressed a wish to avoid any discussion which might endanger its success. They had, however, attended to every suggestion, and endeavoured to comply with every arrangement, which could make the Bill satisfactory to all around them. He had said thus much, because the hon. and learned Gentleman asserted, that the Government were abandoning their declarations, and that they did not wish to make the present Bill final.
Lord Patrick James Stuartsaid, his constituents of the borough of Cardiff had good reason to complain, when they found themselves likely to be joined to the inhabitants of Merthyr Tydvil, a place twenty-five miles distant from them; and that, too, for no better reason, that he had heard, than that they were situated in the principality of Wales. He must contend, that Wales ought not, to be considered and treated as a separate country from England. Their interests were completely identified, and the same principles should be applied to both. It was, therefore, absurd to say, Merthyr Tydvil should be united to Cardiff because the system of contributory boroughs had always prevailed in the principality of Wales. Though such a custom had been in existence, that was no reason why it should be continued by this Bill. He must, however, deny that this custom was general in Wales, for in several towns it had never prevailed. In justice to his constituents he must declare, that the town of Cardiff had upwards of 6,000 inhabitants, and 360 10 l. householders. Cowbridge, which was to be joined with it, had upwards of sixty 10 l. householders—Llandaff nineteen or twenty—making in all, 450 10 l. voters, without those of Merthyr Tydvil; and when it was recollected, that in places like Calne and Morpeth, there was barely the number of inhabitants required, viz., 4000,

867
and that they were to retain two Members, he thought the people of Cardiff had good reason to consider themselves aggrieved. He had come down to the House with a prejudice against Gateshead, created by circumstances with which the Members of the House were not familiar, but he had heard much to alter his opinion. He hoped, however, that the Government would take the case of Cardiff into its consideration, and allow his constituents the exercise of their privileges, unfettered by a junction with Merthyr Tydvil.
Lord John Russellsaid, that although there was an apparent hardship in the case of Merthyr Tydvil, still it should be recollected by the noble Lord, that the Bill gave two additional Members to the Representation of Glamorganshire; and when it was also recollected, that Glamorganshire had only 100,000 inhabitants, and that it would then possess four Representatives, he thought its inhabitants could not complain much of their want of a due proportion of Members. With respect to Gateshead, he could only say, that its wealth, population, and commerce, formed a full justification for placing it among the places in schedule D. It had been asked, if it could be expected that the present measure would be a final one? That would, of course, depend upon circumstances. No human measure could certainly be final. If it were found to work well, then it would be desirable that it should be final, whatever anomalies it contained; but, on the contrary, if it were found not to work well, its present supporters would not wish that it should be considered a final measure. The Government were sincerely convinced, that it would contribute to the benefit of the community, and that it would give to the possessors of property and wealth, that influence, which it was desirable they should have, in the deliberations of Parliament, while, at the same time, it would in no way endanger any of the valuable institutions of the country.
Mr. Stephensondistinctly denied the imputation thrown by the noble Lord, the member for Monmouth (Lord G. Somerset) on a noble Lord connected with the county of Durham. He had some local knowledge of Gateshead, and he begged leave, in the most entire and unqualified manner, to contradict the insinuation. The noble Lord alluded to (Lord Durham) had no property in Gateshead,
868
nor any influence whatever in the place.
Lord Granville Somersetdenied, that he had said the noble Lord alluded to had any property or influence in Gateshead. What he had said, and what he repeated, was, that the counties with which members of the Cabinet were connected, had a larger share of the spoliation arising from this Bill than the other counties.
Sir George Murraythought, that this Bill could not be final, as it contained within it the seeds of its own dissolution. It was only necessary to state the principles on which it professed to proceed, in order completely to destroy the assertion that it was a final measure. As Wales had been alluded to, he felt himself bound to state, that, great injustice was done to Scotland, when it was proposed to give a Member to Gateshead, and to leave several large and important towns and cities in that kingdom unrepresented. It was quite obvious, that Gateshead was intimately connected with Newcastle, and had been hitherto represented by the Member for that town. In fact, without any disrespect to Gateshead, it appeared to be the refuse of Newcastle, rather than an independent borough deserving of a Member, notwithstanding the high colouring given to the picture by the hon. member for Colchester, whom he had reason to believe had never seen the place. He knew Gateshead to be a very insignificant place. He had made up his mind to oppose the motion, but if he could have acted otherwise, it would have been on the same principle as the noble member for Cardigan, who said, he should vote for it on condition that the case of Merthyr Tydvil should be reconsidered. He should have acted with the same motives, and recommended several considerable towns in Scotland to have a share in the Representation, from which they were at present excluded—but he found the whole case too partial, and he should join his hon. friends in opposing the motion.
Mr. John Stanleymust remark, that several large towns in Scotland being unrepresented had nothing to do with the question before them. With reference to another remark he must say, that he did not see the cases of Merthyr Tydvil and Cardiff were very different from the cases of Manchester and Salford. He would ask Gentlemen opposite, what the country would think, when they attributed motives to the

869
public conduct of men whose private honour and character were equal, at least, to their own? The country would, at least say, those who cast imputations on the present Ministers, had themselves held office, and judged of others by what they had practised themselves.
Sir John Malcolm, in reply to the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. D. W. Harvey) must vindicate the consistency of those who objected to the disfranchisement of small boroughs, and at, the same time objected to giving a Member to Gateshead. There could not be a more complete misrepresentation than that made by the hon. Member, by mixing up and confusing clauses of the Bill, which were totally distinct in their objects and merits. Schedules A and B were works of demolition—schedules C and D of construction. He, in common with other hon. Gentlemen, had struggled hard to save the former, and had argued each case of destruction, by opposing the principle of the Bill. Since that principle had been adopted by the House, it had been often referred to, and was, in substance, that a population of above 2,000 should entitle one of the old boroughs to retain one Member, and a population of 4,000 should entitle a borough to two Members; but these clauses had been disposed of, and the Committee was come to the other professed principle, to give Members to those towns which from property, population, or other considerations, were considered best entitled to such a privilege; and because this question, which assuredly demanded a full and dispassionate discussion of the merits of various places, had been illustrated by comparisons with others, the Opposition were taunted with inconsistency. For his part, he believed Merthyr Tydvil had a better claim than Gateshead, and his vote would be regulated by that opinion.
Mr. Robert A. Dundaswished to set his hon. friend right, who had said, Ministers had not come forward to give Members on the principle of population only. He understood they had stated, when they introduced the Bill, that population was the ground on which they gave Representatives. He, on that, account, could not consent to give a Member to Gateshead, when it was not proposed to give one to the populous and flourishing town of Perth.
Mr. Cresset Pelhamsaid, he had heard
870
the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, allow, there was a kind of compact between himself and those around him, that there should be no visible difference of opinion between them, but he did not think this was a very good, or moral way, of managing a great measure. He had heard there were two ways of crying down a subject, one to wholly praise it, and the other to say nothing about it.
Mr. Baringsaid, he had never before heard a Ministry, however powerful, propound to Parliament an important proposition, and then not listen to any arguments adduced against it. They might as well adopt the course which their organs of the Press recommended to them, and pass the measure at once, without further consideration. This officious agent, which sometimes bullied, sometimes advised, the Government, had frequently done him the honour of entirely altering the effect of the observations he had made, and stated him to have been interrupted by "yawns," "groans," &c. In many instances, what he had stated to the House appeared in the Press in so disjointed a form, as to be a pack of nonsense, coupled with a little falsification of the facts he might be speaking of. On one morning he was called a fool, on another a fungus. All that he wished was, that the Press would leave him alone. The noble Paymaster of the Forces had said, that he was not sure if the Bill would be a final measure, for that would depend upon the manner in which it would be found to work. There was one way in which it was very evident the Bill would work; it would work to the utter destruction of one party in this country. The Tory party might be said to be completely gone. Never, in any country, or in any of the phases of any Revolution, had there been so striking an instance of a plan absolutely devised by one party for the utter destruction of another party, to which they were opposed. The hon. member for Colchester had declared, that the Opposition had been maintaining, that a population of 2,000 or 4,000, were to have a certain portion of Representatives, but instead of maintaining such a proposition, that was the very point they had opposed, and the hon. Member's observations must apply to his own friends. All they said was, be consistent with the principles you have laid down, and do not apply one argument to one place, and a different one to another,

871
similarly circumstanced. The authors of the Bill, while they asserted, that population was the basis of their measure, passed by places which had a much larger population than Gateshead, which had also at its very door a place already represented—Newcastle. In his opinion, therefore, Gateshead was sufficiently represented; and no grounds had been submitted to the Committee for agreeing to the proposition before them. In the whole schedule D, Gateshead was the only place, the application of a Member to which was extremely objectionable. Its appearance in the schedule was a very suspicious circumstance. If no alteration were made in the elective franchise, as it now stood in the Bill; if it were to be "the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill," they would send a firebrand through all the beehives of industry, that would be productive of the most injurious consequences; and it was generally allowed by those who had the means of judging upon such subjects, that a greater plague could not be conceived.
Mr. Huntcongratulated the House and the country on the new view which the noble Paymaster of the Forces had that night taken of the Bill. Up to that night it had been supposed, that the Bill was to be a final measure. Now, the noble Lord had very justly said, that if it did not work well, it ought not to be final. He congratulated the noble Lord on this fair and open avowal; and he was sure, the reflecting part of the community would be of the same opinion. He would vote with Ministers that night, because Gateshead was an insignificant place; and he was fully convinced, that, in the succeeding Parliament, Chelsea would have a Representative allotted to it. What the hon. member for Thetford had said, with respect to the statements in the newspapers of the proceedings in that House, was quite correct. It was astonishing to see, day after day, how the speeches of Members were misrepresented. It was utterly impossible for any man, whose only channel of information, as to what passed in that House, was the newspapers, to form any thing like a correct idea of the conduct of his Representative, for the speeches and the sentiments of the Members were wholly perverted. Was that calculated to add to the character of the public Press? It was in vain to conceal the fact, that what was called the
872
Leading Journal grossly misrepresented what occurred there. For himself, he was accustomed to that kind of thing. But speeches, to which he had listened with the greatest attention, were, with a disgusting want of principle, wholly neglected, while others, which almost set him to sleep, appeared in the most eloquent phraseology. For himself, he should continue fearlessly to do his duty; and, if the Press thought to intimidate him, it was mistaken.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 264; Noes 160—Majority 104.

List of the AYES.

Acheson, Viscount

Carter, J. B.

Adam, Admiral C.

Cavendish, C. C.

Adeane, H. J.

Cavendish, H. F. C.

Agnew, Sir A.

Cavendish, W.

Althorp, Viscount

Chapman, M. L.

Anson, Sir G.

Chaytor, W. R. C.

Astley, Sir J. D.

Chichester, Col. A.

Baillie, J. E.

Chichester, J. B. P.

Bainbridge, E. T.

Clifford, Sir A.

Barham, J.

Clive, E. B.

Baring, F. T.

Colborne, N. W. R.

Barnett, C. J.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Bayntun, Capt. S. A.

Copeland, Alderman

Belfast, Lord

Cradock, Col. S.

Benett, J.

Crampton, P.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Creevey, T.

Berkeley, Captain

Currie, J.

Biddulph, R. M.

Curteis, H. B.

Blake, Sir F.

Davies, Col. T. H. H.

Blamire, W.

Dawson, A.

Blankney, W.

Denison, J. E.

Bodkin, J. J.

Denison, W. J.

Bouverie, Hon. D. P.

Denman, Sir T.

Bouverie, P.

Dixon, J.

Boyle, Hon. J.

Doyle, Sir J. M.

Brabazon, Viscount

Duncombe, T. S.

Brayen, T.

Dundas, C.

Briscoe, J. I.

Dundas, Hon. T.

Brougham, J.

Dundas, Hon. Sir R. L.

Brougham, W.

Easthope, J.

Brown, J.

Ebrington, Viscount

Browne, D.

Ellice, E.

Brownlow, C.

Ellis, W.

Buck, L. W.

Etwall, R.

Bulkeley, Sir R. W.

Evans, Col. De Lacy

Buller, J. W.

Evans, W. B.

Bulwer, E. E. L.

Evans, W.

Bulwer, H. L.

Ewart, W.

Burdett, Sir F.

Ferguson, R.

Burke, Sir J.

Fergusson, Sir R. C.

Burrell, Sir C.

Ferguson, R. C.

Burton, H.

Fitzgibbon, Hon. R.

Buxton, T. F.

Fitzroy, Lord J.

Byng, G. S.

Fitzroy, Lt. -Col. C. A.

Calcraft, G. H.

Foley, Hon. T. H.

Callaghan, D.

Folkes, Sir W.

Calley, T.

Fox, Lieut.-Col.

Calvert, N.

French, A.

Campbell, W. F.

Gisborne, T.

873

Gordon, R.

Mackenzie, J. A. S.

Graham, Sir J.

Macnamara, W.

Grant, Right Hon. C.

Mangles, J.

Grant, Right Hon. R.

Marjoribanks, S.

Grattan, J.

Marryatt, J.

Greene, T. G.

Marshall, W.

Guise, Sir B. W.

Martin, J.

Gurney, R. H.

Maule, Hon. W.

Halse, J.

Mayhew, W.

Harty, Sir R.

Milbank, M.

Handley, W. F.

Mildmay, P. St. J.

Harvey, D. W.

Milton, Lord

Heathcote, G. J.

Mills, J.

Heneage, G. F.

Moreton, Hon. H. G. F.

Heywood, B.

Morpeth, Viscount

Hill, Lord G. A.

Mostyn, E. M. L.

Hobhouse, J. C.

Newark, Viscount

Hodges, T. L.

Noel, Sir G. N.

Hodgson, J.

North, F.

Horne, Sir W.

Norton, C. F.

Hort, Sir W.

Nugent, Lord

Hoskins, K.

O'Connell, D.

Howard, J.

O'Connell, M.

Howard, Hon. W.

O'Conor, Don

Howard, P. H.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Howard, H.

O'Grady, Hon. S.

Howick, Viscount

Offley, F. C.

Hudson, T.

Ord, W.

Hughes, W. H.

Osborne, Lord F. G.

Hughes, Colonel

Ossory, Earl of

Hughes, W. L.

Owen, Sir J.

Hunt, H.

Paget, Sir C.

Hutchinson, J.

Paget, T.

Ingilby, Sir W.

Palmerston, Viscount

James, W.

Palmer, C. F.

Jeffrey, Rt. Hon. F.

Parnell, Sir H.

Jerningham, H. V.

Payne, Sir P.

Johnston, Sir J. V.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Johnston, A.

Penlease, J. S.

Johnston, J.

Penrhyn, E.

Johnston, J. J. H.

Perrin, L.

Kemp, T. R.

Petit, Louis H.

Kennedy, T. F.

Petre, Hon. E.

Killeen, Lord

Philipps, Sir R. B.

King, E. B.

Phillips, C. M.

Knight, H. G.

Philips, G. R.

Knight, R.

Polhill, F.

Lamb, Hon. G.

Ponsonby, Hon. W.

Langston, J. H.

Ponsonby, Hon. G.

Langton, W. G.

Portman, E. B.

Lawley, F.

Powell, W. E.

Leader, N. P.

Power, R.

Lee, J. L.

Poyntz, W. S.

Lefevre, C. S.

Price, Sir R.

Lemon, Sir C.

Protheroe, E.

Lennard, T. B.

Ramsden, J. C.

Lennox, Lord W.

Rice, Hon. T. S.

Lennox, Lord J. G.

Rickford, W.

Lennox, Lord A.

Rider, T.

Lester, B. L.

Ridley, Sir M. W.

Littleton, E. J.

Robarts, A. W.

Lloyd, Sir E. P.

Robinson, Sir G.

Loch, J.

Robinson, G. R.

Loch, James

Rooper, J. B.

Lumley, J. S.

Ross, H.

Maberly, Col. W. L.

Rumbold, C. E.

Macdonald, Sir J.

Russell, Lord J.

874

Russell, J.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Ruthven, E. S.

Tynte, C. K. K.

Sandford, E. A.

Tyrell, C.

Scott, Sir E. D.

Uxbridge, Earl of

Sebright, Sir J.

Venables, Ald.

Sheil, R. L.

Vere, J. J. H.

Sinclair, G.

Vernon, Hon. G. J.

Skipwith, Sir G.

Vernon, G. H.

Slaney, R. A.

Vincent, Sir F.

Smith, J. A.

Waithman, Ald.

Smith, J.

Walker, C. A.

Smith, R. V.

Walrond, B.

Smith, M. T.

Warburton, H.

Spencer, Hon. Capt.

Warre, J. A.

Stanhope, Capt. R. H.

Wason, W. R.

Stanley, J.

Waterpark, Lord

Stanley, Rt. Hon. E.

Watson, Hon. R.

Stanley, Lord

Webb, Colonel E.

Stephenson, H.

Western, C. C.

Stewart, P. M.

Westenra, Hon. H. R.

Stewart, Sir M. S.

Weyland, Major R.

Strickland, G.

Whitmore, W. W.

Strutt, E.

Wilbraham, G.

Stuart, Lord P. J.

Wilks, J.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Williams, W. A.

Tavistock, Marquis of

Williams, Sir J. H.

Tennyson, C.

Williamson, Sir H.

Thicknesse, R.

Wood, Aid.

Thompson, Alderman

Wood, J.

Thomson, Rt. Hn. C. P.

Wood, C.

Throckmorton, R.

Wrightson, W. B.

Tomes, J.

Wrottesley, Sir J.

Torrens, Colonel R.

Wyse, T.

Townshend, Lord C.

TELLER.

Traill, G.

Duncannon, Viscount

Paired off in favour.

Anson, Hon. G.

Lopez, Sir R. F.

Atherley, A.

Lushington, Dr. S.

Belgrave, Earl of

Maberly, J.

Blount, E.

Macauley, T. B.

Blunt, Sir C.

Mullins, F.

Byng, G.

Musgrave, Sir R.

Calvert, C.

Newport, Rt. Hn. Sir J.

Cavendish, Lord G.

O'Neil, Hon. Gen. J.

Coke, T. W.

Oxmantown, Lord

Dundas, Hon. J. C.

Palmer, General C.

Fazakerley, J. N.

Ramsbottom, J.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Russell, Lord W.

Foley, J. H.

Smith, Hon. R.

Godson, R.

Smith, G. R.

Grosvenor, Hon. R.

Stewart, E.

Heathcote, Sir G.

Stuart, Lord D. C.

Hill, Lord A.

Tufton, Hon. H.

Hume, J.

Whitbread, W. H.

Jephson, C. D. O.

White, S.

King, Hon. R.

White, Colonel H.

Lambert, J. S.

The discussion postponed till the next day, on the point, whether "Kendal, with the township of Kirkland," "Walsall, including the borough and foreign of Walsall," and "Whitehaven, including the towns of Whitehaven," &c., should stand part of schedule D.
It was severally carried, that the following places stand part of schedule D:—

Halifax, including township of Halifax, Yorkshire.

Huddersfield, including parish of Huddersfield, Yorkshire.

Kidderminster, including town of Kidderminster, Worcestershire.

Macclesfield, including town of Macclesfield, Cheshire.

Oldham, including parish of Oldham, Lancashire.

Rochdale, including township of Spotland, Lancashire.

Salford, including townships of Salford, Pendleton, and Broughton, Lancashire.

South Shields, including the town of South Shields, township of Westoe, Durham.

Stockport, including town of Stockport, Cheshire.

Stoke-upon-Trent, including townships of Langton and Lane-end, Fenton Culvert, Fenton Vivian, Penkhull and Boothen, Shelton, Hanley, Burslem, with the Vill of Rushton-grange and the hamlet of Sneyd, Tunstall-court, Chell, and Oldcott, Staffordshire.

Tynemouth, including parish of Tynemouth, Northumberland.

Wakefield, including township of Wakefield, Yorkshire.

Warrington, including town of Warrington, Lancashire.

Whitby, including townships of Whitby and Ruswarp, Yorkshire.

The Chairman then reported progress. On the question, that the Committee do sit to-morrow,
Mr. Goulburnexpressed the extreme dissatisfaction with which he saw the Ministers determined to break through all the arrangements previously entered into, on their part, with those hon. Members who were opposed to the Bill. There was, be contended, no necessity for such remarkable haste in the measure now before the House; and, at the same time, be must complain of the total want of courtesy, on the part of Ministers, towards hon. Members who might have private business to transact, but which the mode of conducting the proceedings of the House, recently adopted, totally prevented their attending to. He felt it impossible to pay any attention to matters unconnected with his parliamentary duties, after having given his attention to those duties
876
for more than twelve hours each day, in succession, for the, last six or eight weeks.
Lord Althorpwas sorry to find that any uncourteous motives were attributed to Ministers on the present occasion, and was the more astonished at such a complaint on the part of the right hon. Member, who, generally speaking, to his own knowledge, had been so hard-working a man in the performance of his duties in that House. It was not from motives of discourtesy that he pressed forward the Reform Bill, but simply to give hon. Members an opportunity of returning at an earlier period to their homes in the country than they would if the measure was not pressed forward.
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, the noble Lord expressed himself anxious to hasten the measure; he was anxious to seize every opportunity to delay its progress. He was sure, that such was the re-action of public feeling in the country, with respect to this detestible measure of Reform, that its advocate would be as completely thrown over, as they expected to throw over those who were opposed to it.
Sir John Wrottesleysaid, that as for complaining of fatigue in attending to their parliamentary duties, he must remind hon. Members, that he, as well as many in that House, had sat from twelve to fourteen hours on Committees; and, in comparison with the other duties which had been borne by hon. Members, that of attending on the discussion of the Reform Bill was light and easy. In his opinion, the great cause of delay, and the consequent cause of fatigue, in the discussion of the present measure, were the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and those of his colleagues in Opposition. He and his friends had now no other business to perform in the House than to support and forward the Bill with all their might; and the more they devoted their time to it, the sooner they were likely to be released from their attendance there.
Lord Stormontsaid, he inferred from what the noble Lord had remarked, that to advance the measure of Reform, all other public business must be wholly delayed. That must be done at some time, and hon. Members would be compelled to remain in town to attend to it, after the Bill was passed. It was establishing a dangerous precedent to sit every day in the week: he was worn out by constant attendance.
Lord Miltonreminded the right hon.

877
Gentleman who spoke recently (Mr. Goulburn), that they had both entered the House at the same epoch—a remarkable one—in the year 1807, when, by a curious coincidence, the new Parliament assembled on the very day it did in the present year. At that very time, the rule which the right, hon. Member had just laid down had been broken through, for, during the whole Session, the House had met on Saturdays.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that his attention, and that also of other hon. Members, could not be maintained constantly to the question before them, or during the whole of the period that the House sat during the week; he, therefore, objected to the motion for sitting to-morrow. He was convinced, that, if the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had chosen to do so, he might have gone through the whole of schedule B on the preceding Friday, without having had recourse to the Saturday, as an excuse for proceeding in it. He should, however, on this occasion, content himself with entering his protest against the proposal to sit, to-morrow.
Lord Althorpdid not think, that Members would be the less able to attend to business, because they had the same subject under their consideration for several days. He did not find, in his own case, that he was less able to attend to one subject because it had occupied his attention for some time.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, the advantage they were likely to gain by this extra day's sitting would be, perhaps, two or three Saturdays. But was the passing of the Bill two or three days sooner of such importance as to put Members to this great inconvenience? Let it be considered, that after the Bill should have passed, commissioners would have to ride round to regulate the divisions of counties. If this proposition were carried, it would be said there was a power superseding that, of the Government.
Sir Ch. Forbeswas so much opposed to the proposition, that if any hon. Member would support him, he would engage to give a repetition of that scene of divisions which took place some time ago, and which, he had no doubt, were attended with very salutary effects.
Lord Ebringtonremembered the occasion to which the hon. Baronet alluded, and he thought such scenes contributed little to the dignity of the House in the estimation of the country. If the hon. Baronet,
878
however, should carry his threat into execution, he had no doubt the attempt would be met as it was on the former occasion, and would be followed by the same result. It was as inconvenient to him as to any other to be absent from his county on this occasion, but he thought the object required it, and he hoped Ministers would persevere in meeting every day of the week.
Mr. John Martinsupported the proposition. He was surprised at the opposition of the right hon. Baronet, who had himself suggested, on a former day, that they should meet on Saturday. Was it not inconsistent that he should now oppose it?
Sir. Robert Peelsaid, he would act according to his own taste, and not that of the hon. Member. His suggestion last week was, that, they might meet on the Saturday of this week, in order to make up for the day that would be lost in visiting the City on the Monday; and he mentioned this next Saturday, because he thought the notice for the last Saturday's meeting was too short; but he had no notion that the sitting on Saturday was to be permanent. There was, therefore, no inconsistency in his former suggestion to sit one day, and his opposition to the proposition of a permanent sitting.
Sir Hen. Hardingedid not think the noble Lord would gain much by sitting tomorrow, as probably two or three hours of the day would be occupied by the motion of his hon. friend, the member for Oakhampton (Sir R. Vyvyan), on the state of Belgium. This motion, he could assure the House, was not the result of any connivance, but the fact was, the matter was urgent, and his hon. friend had not had an opportunity of bringing it forward earlier in the week.
Mr. Littletonsaid, what had just fallen from the hon. and gallant Member was of itself a reason why they should sit to-morrow; for, if two or three hours, or perhaps more, were to be consumed on the first open day (as they would be if the House did not meet to-morrow), that was a reason why they should endeavour to save a day.
Sir Henry Hardingesaid, that without any communication with his hon. friend on the subject, he supposed, that he would be willing to bring it forward on an early day; if, however, the House should meet to-morrow, he would probably bring on his motion
Mr. Goulburnhad no desire to throw any impediment in the way unnecessarily; and he begged to ask, what would hon. Members opposite have thought, if a proposition to meet on Saturdays had been made during the late Ministry? He had often, when Chancellor of the Exchequer, consented to postpone measures, at his great personal inconvenience, to accommodate the wishes of Gentlemen; and he, therefore, thought, it was not too much to ask for the same indulgence.
Mr. Benettsaid, that the country was much dissatisfied at the delay which had already taken place, and he thought some attention ought to be paid to public feeling. He had received a petition from Wiltshire, which he was anxious to present, praying the House would take the most efficient steps to expedite the measure. He would say, that if they gained only two days by the sittings on Saturday, they ought to persevere.
Sir Richard Vyvyansaid, he had asked a question that evening of the noble Lord, to which, not getting a satisfactory answer, he stated his intention of availing himself of the sitting of to-morrow to move for papers, and, therefore, he was glad that the House was to meet. The noble Lord, and those around him, talked of meeting to-morrow as a question of principle, but the House heard nothing of that kind when a day was devoted to dining in the City.
An Hon. Membersaid, the reason given for the meeting last Saturday was, that the Ministers were engaged to attend the pageant of opening the bridge on Monday. No notice was, at that time, given that the practice was to be continued.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, if English Members felt the inconvenience of being absent from their homes, at this season, how much more must it be felt by the Members from Ireland, who were so distant that they could not get an answer to their letters to their friends in less than six or seven days? So convinced was he of the necessity of despatch with this Bill, that he would not only consent to sit the six days of the week, but, if it were not a crime, he would sit on the Sunday also.
An Hon. Membersaid, a deputation of Irish Members was desirous to wait on the noble Lord, but they had received for answer, he could not attend to them, as his mind was so much occupied with the Reform question. As they were anxious to receive an answer to their application, he
880
recommended the noble Lord to adjourn over to-morrow, and appropriate that day to the consideration of the matter they wished to represent to him.
The question, that the House resolve itself into a Committee on the Bill to-morrow, agreed to.

MINUTES.
Bills. Committed; the Church Building Act Amendment. Read a third time; the Payment of Wages in Goods Repeal; and the Payment of Wages in Money; the Tobacco Growth Prohibition (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By the Marquis of LANSDOWN, from the Clergy, Merchants, and other Inhabitants of the town of Manchester, for limiting the hours of Employment for young Children in Manufactories; from Stockport, for the amelioration of the Penal Code.

AFFAIRS OF PORTUGAL.
The Earl of Aberdeenhad been desirous, for some time past, of calling the attention of their Lordships to certain matters, which he deemed of paramount importance: he referred, not only to the outrages which had been committed against the British flag, and against the property of English Merchants in the Western Islands, but also to the projects and to preparations now on foot, which might compromise deeply the honour and good faith of the country, as well as the safety of the property of its subjects. There was, perhaps, no spot in the whole world more necessary for the security of British commerce than the Azores. Vessels homeward bound from the westward, touched at them, and, therefore, for some ages past, we had had a strong interest in their being in friendly hands. It was obvious, that if those islands fell into lawless hands, it was quite impossible to calculate the evils which might fall upon British commerce. When he had last taken the liberty of mentioning this subject to the House, the noble Earl at the head of the Government had stated, that he knew nothing about the political condition of those islands which should excite alarm. He hoped that the noble Earl had, since that time, made inquiries, which had led to his

787
possession of some information respecting their present state; and if the noble Earl had, he trusted that the noble Earl would not object to placing that information on the Table of their Lordships' House. Not long ago, an infraction of the treaty existing between this country and Portugal, had formed a ground of complaint on our part, against the government of Portugal, and the consequence was, that when our complaints were not noticed, reparation was exacted from the Portuguese government, by the British Squadron. He should like their Lordships to consider how we had fared when we made the same demand from our liberal and constitutional friends? Before he described the events which had recently taken place, and of which he complained, he would beg leave to remind their Lordships, that the island of Terceira, with the rest of the Azores, on the election of Don Miguel to the throne of Portugal, and on his proclamation, that he had assumed the reins of government, acquiesced at once, and unanimously, in the decision of the Cortes of Portugal. Shortly afterwards, the garrison of Angra revolted against its governor, and took possession of the citadel. The inhabitants of the island of Terceira, who were all unarmed, fell immediately under subjection, and had since that time remained under the government, and the unprecedented tyranny, of the military force stationed in their country. Every account which had been received from the commanders of his Majesty's ships on that station—every account which had been received from the residents in that island—every account which had been received from our own Consul—concurred in describing the inhabitants of Terceira as attached to the government now established in Portugal, and as suffering under the oppression of the military government now established in Terceira. He must add, that it was now about two years since Don Pedro, the Emperor of the Brazils, thought proper to create what he was pleased to call a Regency of Portugal, of which the seat was to be at Terceira. This Regency, however, preferred to establish itself at London; but was at last, by positive orders received from the Brazils, compelled to transfer itself to Terceira. There the members of the Regency remained quiet, so long as they received their monthly stipend from the Emperor of the Brazils, being nothing else than the
788
creatures of his will, and dependent on his bounty. But the supplies from that quarter having at last ceased, and the Emperor no longer having either the disposition or the power to grant them further aid, the garrison found it necessary to adopt some means for their subsistence, and nothing but plunder suggested itself to their imagination. They, therefore, determined to undertake an expedition against some of the neighbouring islands. To effect this purpose, on the 9th of April, an embargo was laid upon all the British vessels at that time at Terceira. After an attempt had been made to engage those vessels in the service of the Regency, and after a refusal had been given by the masters, declaring, that they would have nothing to do with the expedition, the masters were informed, that such being the case, their vessels would be taken possession of by the military, and employed in the expedition. Accordingly, on the 10th of April, the Coquette, of London, was forcibly taken possession of by soldiers, the master and crew having quitted possession of the vessel, leaving the British flag flying, which shortly afterwards was torn down. Four or five other British vessels, seeing this act of outrage, entered into terms with the Regency, and under a protest engaged in its service. The expedition set sail on the 17th of April, and took possession of the island of St. George, and also of another island. There, as he was informed, the most horrible atrocities were committed, and men, women, and children, were put to death in cold blood. Be that as it might, it was quite clear, from what subsequently happened, that the expedition had no military object in view, it executed none, and was planned for nothing else but plunder. This expedition, he must inform their Lordships, captured several English vessels; and not only English vessels, but also vessels of other nations. With the British flag flying at the mast-head, vessels filled with Portuguese soldiers had captured, not only two defenceless islands, but also several merchants, who were on their passage across the high seas. If this was not piracy, it was, at least, something very closely approaching to it. What right had a regency, appointed by the Emperor of Brazil, and sitting in a province to which his authority did not extend, to act in this extraordinary manner? These proceedings, too, be it remarked, were carried on

789
in the presence of a British force. The Galatea was for weeks at the Azores, and notwithstanding the complaints of the British merchants, the Captain of that frigate did not feel himself justified by his instructions in granting protection to the King's subjects. At the same time, a French squadron was blockading the bay, and made captures of all vessels proceeding to the port of Lisbon. The Portuguese government hired two British vessels to inform the vessels approaching Lisbon of that blockade. Their Lordships might rest assured, that every vessel captured by the French squadron in the bay of Lisbon was insured in London, and yet what was it that the British Consul had done? Why he said distinctly, "No; you must not send out British vessels to give notice of the French blockade, for that would be an invasion of our neutrality." Now, could there be a more scandalous act of injustice, than to allow British vessels to transfer soldiers from one island to another, for the purpose of capturing the subjects of our ally, and at the same time to prevent that same ally from employing other British vessels to convey the intelligence that his ports were blockaded by a hostile squadron—intelligence, too, that was calculated to prevent the capture of British vessels, or of vessels insured for British money? He wished to show their Lordships that these proceedings in the Western Islands ought to be considered of great importance, from circumstances which had happened in this country. It was evident, beyond all denial, that Don Pedro, who was at present sojourning among us, was engaged in projects for the invasion, and, if possible, for the conquest, of Portugal. His imperial Majesty had, it was notorious, assembled a body of merchants in the metropolis, for the purpose of obtaining their consent to a loan which he proposed; and, to effect this purpose, had offered, as a security, to grant them the revenues of Portugal. As yet, the gullibility of our capitalists, who were generally ready enough to lend themselves to any such scheme, and always engaged in one loan or another, had not swallowed the bait which had been held out to them; but in this country, there was no project so desperate but found some persons to foster and support it. He believed, that already, a certain part of the amount which Don Pedro wanted had been obtained, and he knew that negotiations were now going on
790
for the hiring of vessels in the Thames, and even for the employment of British officers in conducting an expedition against Portugal. Now, if any respect were to be paid to the law of nations, which ought not to be violated, or to the law of the land, which, on this point was express, and ought to be observed, was it to be tolerated that Government should permit proceedings like these? If they were permitted, they must deprive us of that character for good faith and honour which we had hitherto deserved, and must lead to our forfeiting that respect among nations which had hitherto been our proudest boast. When Don Pedro was Emperor of the Brazils, undoubtedly, we admitted that he had a fair right to make war against his brother, as the guardian of his daughter's rights, and as the assertor of her claims. We admitted that right, and thought it our duty, in such a war, to be neutral. That was the policy which we had all along observed, from the commencement of this unfortunate quarrel. The Emperor, Don Pedro, after various attempts—which were all underhand attacks against Portugal—found, at length, that his case was desperate; and then, in the beginning of last year, made an official declaration, that he would no longer think of hostilities against his brother, but would endeavour to settle their differences by conciliation. For that object, at least professedly, he sent an Ambassador to this country. He began, like some of his predecessors from the Brazils, by endeavouring to raise a loan in this country to attack Portugal. He failed, however, in that object, and then he was disavowed by Don Pedro. The last communication which he had received, whilst in office, from Don Pedro, was a communication of his desire to settle all differences between himself and his brother by means of conciliation. He would not then pretend to enter into an explanation of what those means were—suffice it to say, that they came to nothing. They only afforded a remarkable example of the inconsistency and want of good faith in Don Pedro, whose expulsion from the Brazils was owing to an unanimous feeling on the part of the people, that he was unworthy to be their ruler. That feeling he attributed to the arbitrary and oppressive conduct which the Emperor had pursued. Certain it was, that no human being, civil or military, thought of raising a hand in

791
his defence, and after a fruitless appeal to the military, he was obliged to abandon his children, leaving them at the mercy of his enemies, in a situation which it was painful even to think of. After being driven from the Brazils, Don Pedro was come hither to wage a private war against his brother, by revolutionary means, and, as a first step, he thought it necessary to get money. There was no prince on earth, who had less title to the countenance of the British Government, than this same Don Pedro. If the noble Earl opposite would only refer to the documents which had been filed in the Foreign Office during the last four years, he would see the correctness of this assertion; for no power had ever displayed so offensive and so incredible a spirit of hostility to the commerce of Great Britain as the ex-Emperor of the Brazils. Talk of injury and insult! By him insult was added to every injury, for every injury was justified, and every demand of redress was refused. At last it was found necessary, from the open robbery and spoliation to which Don Pedro resorted, that the Admiralty should give directions to make reprisals upon him, if certain conditions were not acceded to. These conditions, when a squadron was sent out to enforce them, were promptly acceded to. He had not thought it necessary to insert that despatch in all the newspapers, much less to mention it in the Speech from the Throne; for he did not wish to humiliate Don Pedro, his principal object being to protect British commerce. He had, however, to complain, that the Convention, as he was informed, which was then entered into, though signed, was still unexecuted; and he firmly believed, that if the noble Lords opposite performed their duty, they would have to follow up the example of the late Government, and deal with Pedro 2nd as it had dealt with Pedro 1st. The non-execution of the Convention was a consideration of some importance; but hitherto the House and the country had heard nothing of it. Another matter, which grew out of these transactions, and not less important, was the relation which existed between Portugal and the Brazils. The sentiments of the late sovereign of the Brazils, regarding this relation, must be known to his Majesty's Government, and it must likewise be known to them, that the sentiments of the present sovereign of that country, or rather of his guardians,
792
were diametrically opposite to those of the late sovereign. For, whatever might be the real cause of Don Pedro's expulsion from the Brazils, the proximate cause most undoubtedly was, his breach of the pledge which he had given to his Brazilian subjects, not to interfere any more in the affairs of Portugal. The universality of a feeling in the Brazils, hostile to the continuance of all connection with Portugal, ought to alter our situation with regard to the two branches of the royal family of Braganza. There were preparations now making for the sailing of an expedition against Portugal. He did not understand that the expedition was to sail direct from England; he believed, that it was to sail, in the first instance, to Terceira, and that it was then to sail from Terceira to Portugal. These preparations, if continued, must do injury to our interests in every part of the world, and must add to the difficulties hanging over Europe, and which would continue to hang, so long as Belgium and Portugal remained in their present situation of unsettled sovereignty, and exclusion from the great European system. The situation of Portugal was, indeed, at this moment more pitiful than it had ever been before. He was sure that all their Lordships would recollect the transactions which had recently taken place in the Tagus. He could not trust himself to speak of them as he felt, but there was no man who had a particle of English feeling in his heart, that did not share with him in his sorrow and indignation. It was quite impossible, even that the noble Earl should not share in such feelings. In the conduct of the French force before Lisbon, he saw no humiliation to Portugal—it was England only that was degraded. He lamented, that a course of policy should be pursued, which he regarded as at once imbecile and disgraceful. England ought to protect Portugal from injury, insult, and a wanton invasion. In moving for certain papers, and in endeavouring to gain information, he wished it to be distinctly understood, that he was not actuated by a spirit of hostility to the Government. He hoped, however, that the noble Earl opposite would give him leave to ask one question. He would ask the noble Earl to imagine, for a moment, that these events had taken place during the reign of Charles 10th. If that Most Christian King had gone to his Chambers, and made a speech, and

793
if, from that speech, the people of England had first learned, that the white flag was floating either upon or under, no matter which, the walls of Lisbon, what would not their Lordships have heard in that House upon such an occurrence? Would not those walls have echoed with cries of the national degradation and dishonour, to which Ministers had exposed the country? Was it quite certain, that they would have heard nothing about an impeachment? He had said, on a former occasion, that, after what had fallen from the noble Lord, he should not persevere in moving for the production of those papers which were calculated to explain the progress of these transactions; but he was astounded that the noble Earl had not come down himself, and laid those papers upon the Table. So long as negotiations were pending, he had asked no question regarding them; but, when war put an end to negotiation, then was the time for his Majesty's Ministers to show what had been done to prevent war. There was a parallel case to the present in the invasion of Spain. No doubt efforts were made by the British Government to prevent that invasion; but, when those efforts proved unsuccessful, what had Mr. Canning done? He laid before Parliament an account of the efforts which he had made, and of the causes which led to his failure. That was the very course which Ministers ought to have pursued in this instance, for the case of the French invasion of Spain was weak to the case of the French invasion of Portugal. A new negotiation might have been entered into since the triumph of the French was completed, just as a negotiation had taken place after the invasion of Spain, to get the French army out of it. When the noble Earl opposite had reminded him of his responsibility in enforcing such demands, he had acquiesced at once in the propriety of withdrawing them. At the same time, he must beg leave to warn the noble Earl, that, if there was some responsibility in enforcing, there was also some responsibility in refusing a demand for information. Threatened, as Portugal was at present, by a French force in the Tagus—threatened as it was by the preparations which were making here for the invasion of its territory—threatened, too, as it had been by British vessels engaged in hostile attacks upon its colonies, it was quite impossible, that he could neglect his
794
duty, which required him to call most solemnly the attention of the noble Earl to this question. He must call upon the noble Earl to review again the long series of treaties which existed between England and Portugal. The noble Earl would perhaps say, that he was acquainted with those treaties, and acknowledged their obligation. He had great difficulty in crediting such an assertion. If the noble Earl had been really impressed with the full weight of those treaties, the noble Earl could not have acted as he recently had acted. Let him review that long series of treaties, beginning in the reign of Edward 3rd, and reaching down to the present day, increasing, at every step of the descent, in obligations and friendship of every kind. Let him particularly recollect the Treaty of 1661, in which the King of Great Britain professed and declared, that he would take the interest of Portugal, and all its dominions, to heart, defending the same with his utmost power by sea and land, even as England itself. Those treaties had been confirmed at many subsequent periods, till at last, in 1815, at the Congress of Vienna, all the ancient treaties of alliance, friendship, and guarantee, so long subsisting between the Crowns of Great Britain and Portugal, were again ratified and acknowledged to be still of full force and effect. But, perhaps, the noble Earl, in admitting these treaties to be in full force and effect, meant to contend, that we were bound to support Portugal, but not the government of Portugal. Now, he (the Earl of Aberdeen) contended, that we were bound to support Portugal, in spite of the government of Portugal. With whom were the treaties, to which he had just alluded, made? With Portugal, as represented by her government. From whom did our countrymen in Portugal receive protection, except from her government? To whom did Ministers protest, when the privileges of our countrymen were violated, except to her government? If, then, we were prepared to demand, from that government, the fulfilment of all the onerous duties which the treaties between the two countries imposed upon Portugal, it was mere mockery to pretend that we were not bound to fulfil to Portugal the duties which the same treaties imposed upon us. "But," said the noble Earl, "we are not bound to protect Portugal in an unjust cause," In his opinion, we were not

795
bound to examine into the justice or injustice of that cause, when Portugal was suffering under foreign aggression. He would maintain, that it was the bounden duty of the noble Earl to interfere, when Portugal, our most ancient ally, to whom we were pledged over and over by the most solemn treaty, called upon us for our interference; and he ought to have saved her from the recent catastrophe, so humiliating, not only to her national independence, but, he would repeat, to our honour. But the noble Earl did not interfere, and the chief harbour of our ally—the inlet to the metropolis, and to the seal of the sovereign's power—was taken possession of by a foreign fleet, and that, too, when one word, on our part, would have prevented it. Was our interference not called for, because the government of Portugal was wrong, and had acted unjustly? Did the noble Earl, as a man of common sense and common candour, examine into the grounds of the complaints of the French government, so as to be satisfied that the redress it sought was not disproportionate to the grievance? He feared not, for he could not reconcile the noble Earl's non-interference with such an examination. The original complaint related to the punishment of a French subject resident in Portugal, for what could not be denied, was a beastly sacrilege, so beastly that he dared not name it. Surely that punishment would not justify such a catastrophe. Then as to the other matters of complaint on the part of the French government, on which he would not then offer any opinion, he was sure the noble Earl could not take upon him to say, that they could not have admitted of an easy remedy, without the necessity of a French fleet forcing the passage of the Tagus. Why, he repeated again and again, did not the British Government interfere as the natural mediator between Portugal and her powerful adversary, and that, too, after we had been urged and entreated to do so by the Portuguese government? Portugal had a right to our mediation under those circumstances, and the Government neglected its duty by not promptly interfering: we were bound to interfere in favour of Portugal when menaced by a foreign foe, by treaty, and the closest ties and guarantees that could unite nations together. Without going further back than the reign of Anne, their Lordships would find in the second article
796
of the renewed Treaty of "perpetual alliance" between her Majesty and the king of Portugal, the following provision—That if it shall ever happen that the King of Spain, and the King of France, either or both of them, shall make war on Portugal, or give occasion to think that either one, or both of them, are about to make war on that kingdom, or any of the dependencies of that country beyond sea, her Majesty and the States-general will use their friendly offices with both, or either of them to persuade them not to make war on Portugal." That treaty, so binding, was still in force; therefore Portugal had a right to call upon us to interfere, and therefore the noble Earl ought to have interfered, and that, too, when a single word of remonstrance would have been sufficient. But all this time he was supposing, that the noble Earl was anxious to prevent the recent invasion of Portugal by the French arms. This might be an error. Indeed, it should seem, that such was not the object of the noble Earl, and that, as he had surmised on a former occasion, it might be a matter of congratulation to him that France had thus triumphed over an ancient Ally. This was the more probable, because a single word of timely counsel to France and Portugal, on the part of the British Government, would have prevented that triumph, while the conduct of the noble Earl gave it a negative support. It could not be said, in justification of this invasion, that Portugal had refused proper satisfaction for any complaints of the French government which the latter was warranted in prefering. It was true, that the Portuguese government had refused to subscribe unconditionally and implicitly to the list of arbitrary demands which the representative of the French Consul had submitted to it as the sine qua non of redress; but it was equally true, as the noble Earl knew, that it offered to make every just reparation which a third party—England, to whom it naturally had appealed to mediate—would declare it was in fairness bound to make. But to this appeal from our ancient Ally, made on the faith of endless treaties, each more binding than the other, the noble Earl turned a deaf ear, and, as a consequence, the "French flag now floats in triumph under the walls of Lisbon." It was true, he was bound to admit, that in consequence of the counsel of the British Government,—

797
as the Portuguese Ambassador had stated, in answer to the French authorities—the two French prisoners were released from prison, and compensation was promised for the other grievances ["hear, hear," from the Ministerial benches."] Oh, ay, this was true; but if he had not been greatly misinformed, this counsel was not given till some time after the French fleet had sailed—that is, not till it was too late to prevent the mischief. However, be that as it might, the counsel was acted upon, as it would have been if more promptly and judiciously given. But the fact was—it might, perhaps, be too much to say so with respect to the noble Earl—but the fact was so with respect to the French government, that their naval expedition to the Tagus had far other objects than the avowed one of seeking redress for the" outraged honour of the French people in the person of two of its subjects." Indeed, it avowed as much just now: the French people expressed great disappointment with the result of the expedition, as if it had, in fact, achieved nothing; and by the Parisian Journals most in the confidence of the French government, the whole affair was treated as a perfect coup manqué. The fact was, the French government, and, as it should seem, the noble Earl—had completely mistaken the feelings of the people of Portugal towards their present ruler: they supposed they had only to present themselves in hostile array before Lisbon, for the inhabitants to rise, and, expelling the present government, hail them as deliverers from usurpation and tyranny. But the fact proved a very different state of feeling. For three years now the government of Don Miguel had maintained its hold, and established its authority, though surrounded by circumstances of unusual difficulty to the most regular government; and every attempt from within or without to disturb it had not only failed, but had proved more and more how rooted it was in the affections of the people. The Marquis of Palmella had made an attempt to expel Don Miguel, but had to take to a precipitate flight, though his force and position were much superior to those of his adversary, and that, too, because, as he had himself avowed, it was plain that the feelings of the people of Portugal were entirely on the side of Don Miguel's government. This shewed how idle were all expectations of the overthrow of that
798
government by the people of Portugal, if left to follow their own inclinations; for had those feelings been such as had been represented in that House and elsewhere, they would have evinced themselves, if not on the occasion of the Marquis de Palmella's expedition, at least when the French had got possession of the Tagus. He would not certainly take it upon him to say, that Don Miguel might not fall a victim to some internal conspiracy; he had himself heard of several plots which had been entered into to assassinate him; but he would say, that his falling thus by the hands of an assassin would be no argument against the present popularity of his government. Henry 4th fell by the hands of an assassin; Louis 11th died in his bed; and the manner in which a Sovereign died, therefore, threw no light upon the general conduct or the feelings of his subjects towards him. He repeated, then, that the people of Portugal were strongly attached to their present government; and so little, after three years' trial of its merits, were they disposed to aid in its subversion, that the union of the government and the people, as a consequence of the late French expedition, had become closer and closer; shewing, therefore, that if it had entered into the design of the French government to profit by the supposed disaffection of the Portuguese towards the person and rule of Don Miguel, or if the noble Earl had looked to that disaffection as a means to the permanent triumph in Portugal of the French arms, that both had been signally mistaken, and that all expectations of internal hostility being so awakened in that kingdom were entirely hopeless. Both the French government and the noble Earl, were, he repeated, so far disappointed in their expectations, and both would have to look—as it was by no means improbable they had looked—to a French army as well as a French fleet to effect the conquest of Portugal. In attaining this object, it was to be presumed the noble Earl would not justify his conduct on the alleged character of Don Miguel as an "Usurper;" for he took it for granted, that when the present king of the French had taken possession of the throne of his infant relative, in whose favour Charles 10th had vacated it, the noble Earl had not instituted an inquiry into the previous character and habits of Louis Philip, Duke of Orleans, and would equally have

799
hailed his attack upon Portugal, and recognized his government, even though that character and those habits bore the hereditary stamp of that near relative, his predecessor in the title of Duke of Orleans, so well known by the title of Philip l'Egalité. The character, therefore, of Don Miguel, even though it was as black as the noble Earl might represent it, could have had no influence with the noble Earl in the late transaction. On this point he wished the noble Earl would be explicit. If it were a main object of his foreign policy to overwhelm Don Miguel's government, and expel him from a kingdom, the inhabitants of which were devoted to him, let him say so at once; and above all, if it were his intention to commit the King, his master, in a war for that purpose, let him declare that such was his intention. Pretexts for such a war could not fail to present themselves in abundance; and it would be a more honest course to avow, that such was his object, than to indirectly contribute towards it by refusing to interfere when called upon—as he was by Portugal—between our most ancient ally and our most ancient adversary. The noble Earl concluded with moving, "That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, begging that he will be graciously pleased to order to be laid before this House, Copies of Despatches from his Majesty's Consul at the Azores, and of representations from British residents in those Islands, complaining of outrages committed against the British flag, and against the property of his Majesty's subjects, by persons exercising authority in the Island of Terceira: also, Copies of Despatches from his Majesty's Consul at the Azores, giving an account of any expedition fitted out at Terceira, in British vessels, against the neighbouring Islands, and of the capture of such Islands; and also, Copy of any information, received by his Majesty's Government, of preparations made by the said persons exercising authority at Terceira, to transport a military force in British vessels for the invasion of the kingdom of Portugal."
Earl Greybegan by observing, that any man who had heard the first part only of the noble Earl's speech, could never have anticipated the other three-fourths, and that any man who had heard but these three-fourths, could never have conjectured that the avowed object of his motion was the mere production of the papers
800
just moved for. The noble Earl set out with professing his intention to confine himself to the particular case to which these papers referred, but soon departed from his avowed purpose; and after dealing in assertions, as unfounded in fact, as they were confident in tone, with respect to the recent revolution in Brazil, the transactions between Portugal and France, and the conduct of the British Government in reference to these transactions, and other topics equally foreign from his nominal object, at length abruptly returned to his innocent purpose, of procuring documents wholly relating to the recent expedition from Terceira to a neighbouring island, so far as it applied to British vessels employed in it. Now he must say, that this artful digression of the noble Earl from the direct object of his motion, was not only the most unprecedented, but he would say, under the circumstances of the case, the most unfair proceeding he had ever witnessed. For how did the matter stand? The noble Earl, professing himself to be precluded from moving for such documents as might throw a light on the recent transactions between France and Portugal, and on our line of conduct with reference to them, by the observation which he had on a recent occasion made to their Lordships—namely, that the production of these documents just now would be detrimental to the public service and in which the noble Lord acquiesced—professing his desire to abandon those particular documents, and the discussions involved in them, and confine himself to the single isolated case (which, however, he said, was of so pressing a nature, that he could not defer bringing it forward a single day) of the transaction at the Azores, to which the paper moved for by him directly applied, and professing himself excluded from all discussion about Portugal; the noble Earl, notwithstanding this declaration, so judicious in its spirit, if acted upon, had nevertheless made a long and most elaborate speech on the very subject thus admitted by him to be precluded, and which he (Earl Grey) had emphatically declared, and again repeated, could not be then prematurely discussed without inconvenience, and most probably serious injury, to the public service, and concerning which the noble Earl could not speak positively without further information than it was possible he could possess. Such conduct, after such a profession, and after

801
what had occurred on a former evening, was, to say the least, unfair—and the more unfair, because, for the very same reasons as those which he had stated on that evening, he was precluded by a regard to the public interests, from following the noble Earl through the several topics on which he had hazarded so many confident and unfounded assertions. All, therefore, he could say, generally was, that when the subject should be, at a proper time, formally before the House, he would undertake to convince their Lordships, that the conduct of Ministers, in the transactions referred to by the noble Earl, was that best adapted to maintain the honour, and promote the best interests, of the country. The noble Earl asserted, with his usual confidence, that he was convinced, that reparation had not been refused by Portugal to France in the first instance. The noble Earl was in error; the Portuguese government not only refused redress, but left the French government hardly any other course to pursue, than to demand that redress in the manner it had done. This would be seen at the proper time, as also the unfoundedness of another assertion of the noble Earl—that the counsel which he admitted Ministers had given to Portugal, had been given too late. He most emphatically denied, that it had been proffered at too late a period of the transaction, and he should be, at the proper time, prepared to show, that not only the British Government had early counselled the Portuguese authorities to make reparation to the king of the French, but had early been assisted by the Spanish government in their co-remonstrances to that purpose. But both had failed, and the Portuguese government, by turning a deaf ear to our early-urged counsels, brought upon its own head all the subsequent consequences. The noble Earl had, in his usual manner, sneered at what he was pleased to designate his (Earl Grey's) predilection for the "liberal form of government established at the Azores, and objection to the opposite form of government now existing in Portugal." To the implied sneer of the noble Earl he would give this answer:—"I know not," continued the noble Earl, what "censure or sneers the declaration I am about to make may elicit from the noble Earl, and those who, like him, hold despotic governments, just now, in such particular esteem; neither do I much care. Neither shall
802
deter me from stating, fearlessly and explicitly, that I have, and ever had, and ever shall have, a predilection for a form of government founded on right and justice, and that, on the contrary, I have, ever had, and ever shall have, a feeling of aversion from governments founded on usurpation, and supported by cruelty and blood." In making this declaration, he trusted it would be seen, that his own personal feelings never diverted him for a moment from pursuing the strict path of policy and justice—calculated to promote the permanent interests of the country. The noble Earl had strangely, all at once, become enamoured of Don Miguel and his government in Portugal. That personage, it appeared, from the noble Earl, was a most injured and amiable individual; beloved by his subjects—indeed, no monarch so much so, or who so wholly reigned in the affections of his people. This discovery was, at least, modern; for he had some recollection, that when the noble Earl was in office, an individual still higher, and more influential than himself, in the then Administration—one, too, who was generally considered to be as well acquainted with our foreign affairs, particularly of Portugal, as the noble Earl, and whose opinions, once expressed, were moreover received as those of his colleagues on most questions of policy, and which opinions, moreover, with great deference be it said, were usually listened to with as much attention and respect as if they had fallen from the noble Earl—he recollected hearing that noble person saying in his place. "I admit Don Miguel to be an usurper. I believe him to be perfidious and cruel, because cruelty belongs to cowardice. I will not attempt to deny, that his government is an usurpation, and that he has himself broken all ties, pledges, and oaths, which bound him in alliance with this country and in allegiance to his brother." These were the sentiments of the noble head of the Administration of which the noble Earl was a member; they were at the time, it is to be presumed, also his own—at least, he was very cautious to suppress different ones if he entertained them. But it seemed that the noble Earl had now discovered Don Miguel to be a "marvellous proper man," and that the portrait so true, so graphic, of his ex-commander, did not apply to him. Such were the wonderful discoveries men made who were anxious to be

803
restored to office. Though he (Earl Grey) felt, that if there was a ruler of whom the character he had just quoted could be more truly predicated than another, it was Don Miguel; still his feelings, he repeated, should not influence him in the discharge of his public duty—though, indeed, he must add, he could not, like the noble Earl, very readily select him as an object of his enthusiastic attachment. The noble Earl, however, admitted, that notwithstanding the violence of the attachment of the Portuguese people to their ruler, it was not impossible that he might be assassinated, but contended that if ever he should suffer a violent death, it would prove nothing against his character, as Henry 4th, the popular king of France—oh, thrice happy comparison!—had fallen by the hand of an assassin. This allusion to assassination, however remote or contingent, was to him painful. He detested assassination in every form, and under every pretext; indeed, he could never make up his mind to view with feelings of approval the assassination of Cæsar, notwithstanding the plausible arguments which had been adduced in its favour, and the lofty motives of its chief agents. With these feelings he need not say he should regret if even Don Miguel fell by what, perhaps, might be considered an act of retributive justice. Be his character and conduct what they might, he trusted that such would not be his fate. No, his notions of moral justice were of another character. Of Don Miguel he would rather say—
"——nec lex est æquior ulla
Quam necis artifices, arte perire suâ."
He must repeat, that no personal considerations of Don Miguel's character and government should induce him to view either, as a Minister, except as far as they interfered with, or promoted the general interests of the country. He appealed to the noble Earl whether his observations with respect to the transactions between Portugal and France, could have any effect, particularly in the present excited state of the latter, other than prejudicial? He would not follow him in his very indiscreet—he used the mildest terms—allusion to the king of the French, and to the Duke of Orleans, his father. Surely the noble Earl's partisan zeal in defence of despotism could not blind him so effectually to a regard for the public weal, as to prevent the noble Earl from seeing
804
that such indecorous insinuations could only be irritating, without any single compensating advantage? Indeed, such language, coupled with the general tenor of the noble Earl's speech, struck him with astonishment. Before that evening he was not aware, and could not believe, that anxiety to re-occupy office could have so influenced any noble Lord, as to make him so blind, or negligent, or indifferent—for it must be one of the three—to the general interests of the country, as to make use of language so calculated to produce national mischief—and this language, too, with reference to a monarch whom the noble Earl and his colleagues had—to their credit be it said—promptly and judiciously acknowledged as the king of a great and free people. As he had already stated, he was precluded from then entering into an explanation of the conduct of the French government towards Portugal, further than to observe, that that government had sought for redress of its grievances from Portugal, precisely in the same manner, and with the same result, as we had ourselves just before demanded and obtained redress under somewhat similar circumstances. After this previous conduct on our part, how, he would ask the noble Earl, could we presume to say to the French government—"It is true, that Portugal has committed itself in certain cases against you, just as she did towards us; but you must not seek redress as we did, but submit to such terms of arbitration as we, her ancient ally, shall think fit?" What, he need not ask, would be the effect of such dictatorial language upon a high-spirited and independent nation, particularly in such a state of excitement as that in which France just now was? After all, the noble Earl said the French expedition was a failure, a coup manqué if so, how could he consistently taunt us with its being not only a national humiliation to Portugal, but to England? But it would be, perhaps, sufficient to state, that the French only sought redress for an admitted injury, and that, having attained that object, they made no attempt whatever to proceed further; that, in fact, if the French fleet had not actually as yet left the Tagus, it was preparing to do so immediately. Here he would leave that part of the subject, having, perhaps, gone further into it than might be expedient. But the noble Earl was not content with this, for he went into

805
the conduct of the Emperor of the Brazils, and what he alleged to be the cause of the Revolution there. The noble Lord, too, had justified that Revolution, and commented on the severity of the Emperor's conduct, which he said had justified the people in rising and expelling him from his Throne—["No, no," from the Earl of Aberdeen]. Let there be no cavilling about mere phrases; what else could the noble Earl mean, when he stated, that never was sovereign driven so unanimously from a throne by his people? We had, therefore, a proof in this, that the noble Lord was ready enough to justify a revolution when it suited his own political feelings. And now, supposing that Don Pedro was using every nerve in his power for the restoration of his daughter to the Throne of Portugal, he would merely ask, if what the noble Earl had said over and over again were true, that Don Miguel was a usurper, and a perfidious oath-breaker; then he (Earl Grey) would ask, was not Don Pedro justified in using every exertion to do justice to his daughter? Could he blame Don Pedro if, after the usurpation of his daughter's kingdom by Don Miguel, he should adopt every expedient in his power to restore his daughter to her rights, and, par consequence, to deprive Don Miguel of his usurped authority? He, for one, certainly could not blame Don Pedro, and therefore, so long as the British Government observed strict neutrality between the parties, there was no occasion for the noble Earl's censure. If the noble Earl meant to insinuate, that Don Pedro's attempts had compromised, or would compromise, our strict neutrality, he gave the assertion the most unqualified denial. Ministers had heard nothing, with reference to the loan which the noble Earl alleged Don Pedro had contracted with certain monied gentlemen in the City, which could justify their interference, as a breach of neutrality on the part of Don Pedro. He had certainly to learn the fact of the Government having the power to prevent Don Pedro from raising any loan here which the monied men chose to grant him, on any security he could offer. As far as the Government was aware, Don Pedro had done no act which could be construed into a violation of our neutrality. With respect to the expedition from Terceira, for the purpose of extending the just dominion of Donna Maria
806
over the Azores, he would ask the noble Earl, where was the ground of our interference?
The Earl of Aberdeen.—The forcible use of British ships.
Earl Grey:—But what were the facts? An expedition was fitted out from Terceira, which for three years had acknowledged the authority of Donna Maria, and the noble Earl said, this was merely for plunder, which the Government did not know. But he would ask the noble Earl what would he have the Government do? would he have them prevent it?—["Yes," from Lord Aberdeen] He said "No;" and though he would not revert to our Government having permitted the French government to enter Spain with an army, avowedly to interfere with the people—though he would not further touch these blots in our history—yet he knew of no duty that existed upon our parts to prevent any incursion on the part of Donna Maria; and, if he had any doubt upon the point, he should appeal to the authority of the noble Earl (Aberdeen) himself. He should not either revert to the cruelties, of which so much had been said, nor allude to cruelties, as the noble Earl was accustomed to do, only, however, when the partisans of absolute governments were the sufferers. Why, he wished to ask, should we interfere in this case of Donna Maria—we who, during the administration of which the noble Earl was a member, refused to interfere when Don Miguel sent an expedition (unsuccessful in the result) of 1,600 men to effect the conquest of Terceira? Which case was more obnoxious to the charge of violated neutrality? He was confident the conduct of Ministers with respect to Donna Maria was more just, and more consistent with the principle of neutrality, than the conduct of the late Ministers in favour of Don Miguel, in the case he had just alluded to. But to come to the facts of the present case. It was true, that a vessel, named the Coquette, belonging to a Mr. Dart, a merchant in the City, had been seized by the government of Terceira, and used on the expedition to which the noble Earl's Motion referred; but it was equally true, that compensation was offered to that gentleman, either to pay him the value of the ship, or for its use, by the authorities of Terceira. Mr. Dart's application to the British Government was made on the 24th

807
or 25th of May; on the 31st an order to institute the fullest inquiry into the matter had been forwarded to the Consul-General at the Western Isles, who had not yet made his report. Till, therefore, that report had been made, he would not offer any opinion on the transaction; and, for the same reason, must negative that portion of the noble Earl's motion which referred to it. Then with respect to the other case, the facts were these:—Mr. Hoppner, the consul at Lisbon, a most excellent officer, thought that, under the relations then existing between Portugal and France, he was bound to prohibit the use of two British vessels, which Don Miguel's government had employed to aid him in his contest with the French fleet; but the case having been referred to the King's Advocate here, and he having given it as his opinion, that the relations between the two kingdoms did not authorize the prohibition, Mr. Hoppner expressed his regret for his error, and permitted the vessels to act according to their charter. Upon the subject of chartering English vessels, the case had been referred to the King's Advocate, who had reported, that it was not contrary to the law of nations, or to any treaties between Portugal and Great Britain, but he had added, that if the vessels were captured in the service, the owners would have no claims on the English Government. There was nothing in the case to justify the severity of imputations and censures which the noble Earl, in his zeal to throw blame upon the English Government, had thought proper to indulge in. Their Lordships would agree with him, that the papers ought not to be produced, and that he was justified in giving his decided negative to the Motion. With respect to the third motion of the noble Earl, it was, that Ministers should lay before the House all the official information which they had received respecting an armed force being prepared in the Azores, for the attack upon Portugal. Upon the very first blush of such a demand, the House, he was convinced, would not consent to give any such information. This was the first time he had ever heard of such a demand being made; but he could give to the noble Earl a most satisfactory answer. Whatever means the noble Earl might have of acquiring his very extensive knowledge, most certain was it, that no information of the nature which he had described had been received
808
by any of his Majesty's Ministers. He had therefore to give a short answer to the point, by saying that no such information had reached Government. The return, therefore, would be nil; but, under the circumstances, and from the manner in which it was put, he did not think the House would agree to it. He would never object to Ministers being censured upon proper grounds, and on the most searching inquiries; but, in the present instance, no case had been made out for Government to put itself on its defence, or that would justify the Ministers in supplying the information which the noble Earl had called for. Having thus gone through the three divisions of the noble Earl's motion—though to follow all the divisions of the noble Earl's speech was an absolute impossibility, he should conclude by giving a direct negative to the Motion.
The Duke of Wellingtoncould not but think, that the censure cast upon his noble friend (the Earl of Aberdeen) for the manner in which he introduced his Motion, was unfounded. It was impossible for his noble friend to make out the case, which he had so completely done, without entering into the whole history of the unfortunate events which had occurred in Portugal. His noble friend had said, that he entertained suspicions—suspicions, which, in his (the Duke of Wellington's) mind also, were well founded—that the French expedition had an object ulterior to the mere demand of reparation. Their Lordships all knew what was passing in Paris, and his noble friend had quoted one of those authorities, which he was afraid weighed too much with the Governments of both France and England, he meant one of the newspapers of Paris. He must do the noble Earl at the head of the Government the justice to say, that the same document which had given the information alluded to by his noble friend, also stated, that the noble Earl opposite had endeavoured to prevent these demands from being made by the French government. It was positively stated in one of the French newspapers, that the French Admiral had been instructed, as his second object, to inquire whether there was any prospect of revolutionizing Portugal; that he found there was not, and that he therefore desisted. This was the substance of the intelligence contained in this document; and yet it was said, that there was

809
no reason to infer that the French had any design to bring about a revolution in that country. He would do the noble Earl the justice to say, that he believed the Government here did endeavour to prevent the interference that had taken place, and of which there was proof in the demand that Fort St. Julien should be given up; and yet it was said, "Oh! you must not refer to any such designs being entertained." Then his noble friend had been taunted, because, in former Debates in this House, he had spoken severely of the conduct of the king of Portugal. He did not mean to deny that; but what he wished to know was, were we, or were we not, to protect Portugal against this revolutionary invasion, because his noble friend had once disapproved of the course pursued by the king of Portugal? He blamed this Government, not for neglecting to interfere to prevent this invasion, but for not having placed Portugal previously in such a situation, that no such circumstance could have taken place. He thought, that the noble Earl had no reason to find fault with his noble friend for what he had stated respecting the conduct of Government as to the Emperor of Brazil. In this country, and as long as the Emperor of Brazil remained in this country, he could never regard him otherwise than as an individual, He would, of course, regard him as a member of a distinguished family—as one who had held a high situation—but still, as an individual, who had no more right than any other to violate the laws of this country. He was no more at liberty than was any one else, to occupy himself, while in this country, with the planning expeditions to the Azores, or from one island to another. He did not mean to insinuate, that the King's Ministers were any parties to this; but yet, from the speeches which some, at different times, had delivered in that House, he could not but suspect them, or, at least, say, that they gave grounds for a suspicion, that they might have mixed themselves up with such proceedings. Whether they had done so or not, of this, at least, he felt perfectly assured, that it would ill become the Ministers of King William 4th, a monarch bred up in the Navy, to advise their royal master to make use of any ships but his own, for warlike purposes. If it unhappily became necessary for our gracious Sovereign to adopt any hostile proceedings, it would be most unfaithful indeed to recommend
810
him to carry them on in any mean, shuffling manner, through the agency of the ships or the arms of the subjects of another state. It was therefore that his noble friend, and the noble Lords at that side of the House, had a right to inquire what course had been taken in reference to the transactions in the western islands? what had been done to prevent the invasion of St. George's island? and what had been done respecting the seizures effected under the directions of the regency of Terceira? and further, had the Ministers demanded compensation for the injury done to the property of British subjects? Had they demanded and obtained that, compensation in the same manner as in the case of the Portuguese government in Lisbon? It was, of course, no part of the duty or the business of this country to interfere between one branch of the House of Braganza and another; but surely we were bound by treaties to prevent any further invasion of the rights and independence of that part of the Portuguese territory to which he alluded, namely Terceira. It appeared to him necessary to preserve the relations between Portugal and this country on the ground of policy. The situation of the Azores islands was of great consequence. If a piratical Power was seated there, he need not point out to their Lordships how much the commercial interests of this country would suffer, for the ships which passed them were exceedingly numerous. Their Lordships might rely upon it, if they allowed the occupation of those islands by a Power such as he had designated, it would become necessary to employ a British force, for nothing but a British force could effect it, to take possession of them. He thought, that his noble friend, who had asked for the information, had established a case. What he wanted was, the official information, which must have been received, as to the seizure of vessels at Terceira, and the forcible hire of them. If, however, that information could not be conveniently given, he would not insist upon that part of the Motion, being as unwilling as any one to embarrass his Majesty's Ministers, by the production of papers which might prove injurious. Upon a review of the whole subject, he must say, that he thought his noble friend had acted with candour and fairness in bringing forward his Motion. It was the duty of his Majesty's Ministers to take care and prevent Portugal from falling into the hands of parties

811
over whom they had no control, and whom they could not prevent from sowing revolutionary measures, which would prove so baneful to its own interests, and to the interests of this country.
Lord Hollandcommenced by stating, that when he heard the speech of the noble Lord who had introduced the Motion, and when he afterwards heard the words of the Motion itself, he confessed he felt great difficulty how to connect many of the topics introduced into the noble Earl's speech with the Motion. But it was unnecessary for him to follow the noble Earl through all his details, to show the difficulties which would arise by granting the Motion—to point out the evils which would accrue by adopting it—these having been so ably stated by his noble friend near him, in his answer to the noble Earl's Motion. The noble Duke who had just sat down, felt the force of the observations of his noble friend (Earl Grey), or, rather, he felt that the impression made upon their Lordships' minds was, that the Motion was of so extraordinary a description—he might almost say unparliamentary—that the House could not consistently grant it; and, therefore, the noble Duke threw his shield over his noble friend (the Earl of Aberdeen) as a protection. The noble Duke had said, that the Motion ought to be granted, because, in the newspapers of France—because, in a French newspaper, "the gentlemen of the Press" had stated, that France had some ulterior object in sending a fleet to the Tagus. But that intention, it appeared from the same source, had been defeated by the representations of the Government of this country; and yet, from another part of the noble Duke's speech, we did not, nor, indeed, ought we if we could, according to the noble Duke, prevent these circumstances from taking place, upon which these supposed ulterior proceedings were to be founded. But now, mark the logic of the noble Duke upon that particular point. The Motion ought to be granted relating to that head, because, forsooth, "the gentlemen of the Press" of France had speculated that their government had some ulterior object, which ulterior object, they believed, had been defeated by the representations of this Government; and, therefore, what must be done was, an account given to the House by Government, of what had happened at Terceira; and, strange to say, this newspaper had been called a document. The
812
experience that noble Lords had in that House, would lead them at once to the conclusion, that never had the noble Lords, who now sat upon the Ministerial side, made such a Motion for documents. This he would venture to assert. The three motions—for they were so divided—of the noble Earl, calling for such papers as he asked by the words of the motions, were moved for without any parliamentary ground for the production of the papers having been made out. But, it would seem, that these three notable motions were nothing but pegs upon which to hang inchoate suppositions of what the intentions of the French government were; which intentions, too, were founded upon facts arising out of the speculations of a newspaper writer. The noble Lords who sat on the opposite side of the House, were not wont to set so high a value on a newspaper statement as they now appeared to do: probably a new light had sprung up in that respect upon them. "Oh, but," argued those noble Lords, "we have strong suspicions of you (the Ministers), because we have heard you say, when on this side the House, what you would do when you were not Ministers." Then the noble Duke, in another part of his speech, had in effect said (and the noble Earl had begged the question, by calling these outrages, respecting which he wished to have papers laid upon the Table: nor was it very clear how these outrages, supposing they were so—about which he would not here give an opinion—were connected with the French expedition to the Tagus), "You could not," meaning the Ministers, "after acting as you did to Portugal, in fairness and injustice deny to France, that which you have been guilty of yourselves." But the noble Duke said, "You ought not to have interfered yourselves." He admitted, with the noble Duke, the necessity of carrying on war in an open manner. There was no objection to produce all the papers alluded to in the Kind's Speech; but these, it seems, were not enough, and, under cover of a miserable motion, on supposititious facts, further information was sought. He would not believe, that the noble Duke really wished the production of these papers. It was only a piece of gallantry on his part, to support his noble friend, which made him step forward to arraign his Majesty's Ministers for the part they had taken. The noble Earl who had introduced

813
the Motion, had assumed, that his Majesty's Ministers had not considered the Azores of that importance they really were, and had read a lecture upon the subject. But he begged to inform the noble Earl, that they were, in his opinion, of great importance. At the same time, he could recollect Debates in that House, in which noble Lords who sat on the opposite side, did not seem to value the Azores so highly as at the present moment they estimated them. He remembered a strange metaphysical nut being thrown out to crack, in which the House was told, that not each of the islands was to be considered by itself, but that they were to be taken as a whole, and Portugal, it was also urged, was to be taken as a whole. But now the Azores were to be taken as of great importance. And why? Because of the number of ships which passed; and lest a piratical power should there exist, injurious to our commerce. A great part of the noble Earl's speech, who had introduced this subject to the House, was a philippic against that unfortunate Monarch, the Emperor of the Brazils; but the noble Duke had described him as a man of great respectability, and whose character was not of that nature which his noble friend had insinuated. He would leave the matter to be settled between the noble Earl, and his protector the noble Duke. He would not discuss the personal merits of the Emperor of the Brazils, about which, the noble Duke and the noble Earl entertained adverse or different opinions. In his opinion, that House had nothing to do with the personal character of the members of the house of Braganza; and he never said otherwise, when at the opposite side of the House; and if, inadvertently, he could have so spoken, he should then most readily retract any such expression; but then, they were told, that Don Pedro must not be allowed, in any respect, to compromise the peace of this country. Did any rational being suppose, that the present Motion would tend to prevent his doing so? The noble Duke had said, "You must not allow Don Pedro these means, which may lead to war." He (Lord Holland) denied that such means had been resorted to. But, admitting for argument's sake that it was so, had this Motion any thing to do with that subject? "We have found out," argued the noble Earl, "that the Council of Terceira has interfered with foreign ships." But what had that to do with
814
Don Pedro? The noble Duke had called the Regency of Donna Maria, a self-constituted one, and had also described the government as piratical. The legitimate right of Donna Maria, had been acknowledged by this country, and even in the papers of the noble Earl he had gone further, and described her as the Queen of Portugal by the law of nations.
The Earl of Aberdeeninterposed, and said, it was Don Pedro whom he had designated as king of Portugal.
Lord Hollandcontinued:—What the noble Earl had said was, that Don Pedro was king of Portugal by the order of nature. Terceira had acknowledged as a Queen de facto, her whom the noble Earl had acknowledged as a Queen de jure. Were treaties binding on every part of Portugal? If they were, Terceira had the same rights and claims under those treaties as Don Miguel. But the noble Duke had said, that the will of the people was to be consulted. He would no longer confide in the Old Sarum and Gatton system; oh no! Don Miguel had got rid of all that was rotten in the State; he had given his people a Reform, and all the people of Portugal were for Don Miguel, the Reform-king. England, therefore, was to respect the government that was founded on the popular will. He would not comment upon such a topic, but when the noble Duke and his political friends talked thus of the revolution in Portugal, and stigmatized the recent popular revolution in France, he would only beg them to compare the number of persons imprisoned in the two countries. What was the proportion of property confiscated in Portugal and France? Let these subjects be reflected upon, in order to estimate the comparative spoliation and misery of the two revolutions. If Ministers were driven to choose between the power which had been pronounced legitimate, and that with which England had had no diplomatic relations for the space of three years, and the Sovereign of which had given us a cause of war, by violating a solemn promise, to which he had made Great Britain a witness, and in some measure a guarantee, he should never have the slightest hesitation which of the two to choose. He very well saw the interest which England had in the independence of Portugal; but in his opinion, there was no power on earth so hostile to the interests of Great Britain as that power in Portugal, and

815
out of Portugal, which supported the pretensions of Don Miguel. The noble Lord concluded by saying—"The noble Duke has more than once alluded to my opinions on Portugal, and to my persuasion that English interests are deeply involved in her independence. He has not misstated me—he has not magnified the importance I ever have and do now attach to that point. No man is more deeply impressed than myself with the necessity of maintaining the independence of Portugal, and cementing her connexion with this country. Reasons, however—natural, physical, geographical reasons, and, therefore, beyond human control—prevent Portugal from being permanently and substantially a separate and independent State, without leaning for support, either upon England or upon France, or upon both. I deeply and deliberately regret, that affairs for some years back should have been so managed, that she is less likely to lean exclusively upon us than she has done, than, if we had supported our natural connexions in that country, she would still have continued to do, or than we at all times must wish her to do. This is a great evil; but I must tell the noble Lords opposite, it is not one of our creating. My withers are unwrung. The reproach is not with those around me, or those with whom I am connected."
Lord Ellenboroughthought it inconsistent in the noble Baron to admit that it was the interest of Great Britain to preserve the independence of Portugal, and yet to declare, that England was in such a situation, that she could offer no advice to which the Portuguese could listen with any confidence. He much feared, that by throwing off Portugal, Ministers would force that unfortunate country to have recourse to France. Were they, he would ask their Lordships, to forget the spirit of all the treaties which they had made with Portugal, and were they to truckle to those who were desirous to deprive them of their most faithful and most ancient Ally? Was that the line of conduct—was that the kind of policy which should be adopted by a British Government and a British Legislature?
The Earl of Aberdeenreplied. The noble Lord said, that the appearance of the French fleet in the Tagus, and the transactions which had subsequently occurred there, had given a new character to the condition and to the danger of Portugal,
816
and had sufficiently justified him in bringing forward his Motion this day.
Motion negatived without a division.
The Marquis of Londonderrywished to put a question to the noble Earl opposite, to which he hoped he should get a satisfactory answer. He wished to know, whether the Protocol for which he had moved, and which had been laid on the Table of that House, preparatory to his (the Marquis of Londonderry's) motion on Tuesday next, was an exact copy of that Protocol which had been signed by the Plenipotentiaries, or only an extract from it?
Earl Greysaid, that the printed Protocol on their Lordships' Table was a perfect paper. There had been a draft, which had been signed by the Plenipotentiaries, but it was subsequently cancelled.
The Marquis of Londonderrywished to know whether, after the arrival of the son of M. Casimir Perier in this country, there had been any communication with him on this subject, beyond a verbal or oral one, as had been already stated by the noble Earl?
Earl Greydid not feel bound to enter into all those explanations, for the eliciting of which the questions put by the noble Marquis were so frequently intended. He begged, however, to reiterate his statement, that there had been nothing beyond a verbal communication with the French Ambassador on the subject alluded to.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that as he understood the noble Earl, the case stood thus—that a draft had been prepared in the first instance, which was afterwards cancelled, and that they had now before them the exact copy of the Protocol which had been finally adopted by the Plenipotentiaries.