Sitting of 7 February 1831

MINUTES.
Bills. The London Bridge Approaches' Bill, and the Post Master General's Bill, were read a second time.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. Alderman WOOD, the Amount paid in Assessed Taxes and House Duty, by the inhabitants of Grosvenor, Belgrave, and Euston Squares:—On the Motion of Mr. S. RICE, the nett Income of Great Britain and Ireland, after defraying the expenditure, and also interest of the National Debt; an account of the Balances in the Exchequer, and the additions to the Unfunded Debt, up to the year 1831; also an account of Exchequer Bills, issued in 1831, unprovided for; and other Returns relating to the Public Income and Expenditure; also the Sums payable by the East-India Company, up to the 5th of April, on account of half-pay to his Majesty's forces in their service.
Petitions presented. By Mr. C. CALVERT, from the Churchwardens and Householders of the parish of St. Wave's, Southwark, against the London Approaches' Bill. By the same hon. Member, from the same place, against the Duty on Sea-borne Coals:— By Sir E. KNATCHBULL, from Folkestone:—By Mr. CUEST, from a Parish in Devonshire:—By Sir J. JOHNSTONE, from Scarborough:—By Mr. Alderman THOMPSON, from the Ward of Farringdon within:—By Mr. Alderman WOOD, from Coleman-street Ward. By the same hon. Member, from the same place, against the Assessed Taxes:- By Mr. ASTELL, from Bridgeivater:—By Mr. SANDFORD, from Shepton-Mallett. By Sir E. KNATCHULL., from Sittingbourne, complaining of the distressed state of the country, and recommending the Government to take the causes of it into consideration. For a general Fast, by Mr. BRISCOZ, from Kichmond-on-Thames, most numerously and respectably signed. By Mr. HUNT, from the parish of St. John, Clerkenwell, against the Com-Laws; and from the inhabitants of Ashton-under-Line, in Lancashire, against the Truck-System. By Lord EBRINGTON, several Petitions against Colonial Slavery; from Tramore, in Waterford, against the Grant to the Kildare-street Society; and for the extension of the Galway Franchise, from Bohermore, Galuay:—By Mr. S. UICE, from a Parish of Galway. In favour of Reform, by the Marquis of TAVISTOCK, from the Dissenting Congregation of Harradon, in Bedfordshire: —By Mr. ADEANE, from the parish of St. Giles:— By Mr. POULETT THOMSON, from Folkestone:—By Lord HOWICK, from North Shields and Sunderland.

GENERAL FAST.
Mr. Hughes Hughespresented a Petition from a Congregation of Oxford, praying the House to address his Majesty for the purpose of having a day set apart for a National Confession of Sin, and to exhibit the desire of atonement by the means of a General Fast.
On the Motion that the petition be brought up,
Mr. Huntsaid, he should like to know

205
whether the persons who wished a day set apart for a general fast, were not aware of the fact, that one-third of the people of this kingdom fasted almost every day in the week.
Mr. Perceval Mr. Perceval, as the Member who had given notice of a motion on the subject of a fast, which was shortly to come before the House, begged, in return, to ask, if the hon. Member recollected who it was they must look up to as the Almighty and sole Dispenser of all good and mercy to his creatures?
Mr. Huntwas well aware of the object the hon. Member had in view when he asked that question. He knew well, also, to whom they were to look up for the blessings they received; but he was well aware of another fact, viz. that the hon. Member, and some other Members of that House, were the means of taking away from the poor of this country the greater portion of the benefits the Almighty intended for them.
The petition was brought up. On the question that it be laid on the Table,
Mr. Percevalsaid, that he could not allow that question to pass without observing, that he drew a great distinction between personal attacks, such as the hon. Member had just directed against him, and the Motion which he intended to propose. The one should have all the attention which its importance deserved, the other he should pass by without further notice.
Lord Morpethsuggested the propriety of waiving further discussion, until the Motion itself was before the House.
Mr. Humehoped, when the Motion was discussed, that it would not be confined to the mere religious portion of the subject, but that it would be extended to the means of instituting an inquiry into the cause of the catastrophes and distresses which gave occasion to the demand for a fast. Looking at the question in that point of view, he did not think the hon. member for Preston (Mr. Hunt) was so much out of order as some Members seemed to suppose.
Mr. Huntbegged to say a few words in explanation. If the hon. Member (Mr. Perceval) thought he meant anything personal in the observations which had just fallen from him, he was much deceived. He had no knowledge of the hon. Member. He did not even know his name; but, if the cap fitted him, he might wear it.
The hon. Member added, that he again disclaimed anything personal in what he had said.

REFORM.
Mr. Guest Mr. Guest, in presenting a petition from Merthyr Tydville, in Glamorganshire, praying for Reform, took occasion to read to the House the following comparative estimate of Representation: —In the county of Sussex, which returns twenty Members, the population amounts to 237,700; and the Representatives are, therefore, as one to every 11,800 persons. In the county of Dorset, which returns also twenty Members, the population amounts to 147,000, and the Representatives are as one to 7,000 persons. In all England, the number of Representatives was 513, and the population 12,218,000, being one Representative to every 23,000 electors. In Glamorganshire, which returns only two Members, the population amounts to 105,000, making one Representative to every 52,000 persons. Taking it in another way, the county of Sussex possessed property, according to the returns of the Property-tax, of the annual value of 913,560 l. and there was, therefore, a Representative for every 48,000 l. of property. In Dorset the annual value of the property is 698,000 l., and there was one Representative for every 34,000 l. But in Glamorganshire the annual value is 334,000 l., and there was but one Representative for every 167,000 l. Glamorganshire, too, although it is of greater extent, and possesses a greater annual value and population than either Westmorland, Monmouth, Bedford, Huntingdon, or Rutland, has only one county Member, although they have two each.
Petition to be printed.

PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. D. W. Harveysaid, he had a Petition to present which was of some importance, from its connection with some of the most important privileges of that House, and he therefore prayed its attention. The petition, which was from an individual named Charles Boulton Walker, set forth, that he was the plaintiff in an action for libel, which was to be tried on Wednesday, next in the Court of King's Bench, and in which Dr. Lushington and others were the defendants. It appeared, that about two years ago, a petition, purporting to come from a person named Peddel, was presented to that House. The petition

207
complained of the practice of the Consistorial Courts, and pointed out some abuses which the learned Gentleman (Dr. Lushington) then a Member of the House, denied, and at the same time alleged, that the petition was not the petition of Peddell, but of his attorney. That gentleman (the attorney, Mr. Walker) had thought proper, upon hearing that this speech, corrected by Dr. Lushington, was afterwards published in the work alluded to, namely, the Mirror of Parliament, to bring an action against him and the parties concerned in the publication of the Mirror, for libel. That action was set down for trial on Wednesday, and it was necessary for his success, that the plaintiff should be able in the outset to prove that the petition was not the petition of Peddell, the petitioner; he prayed therefore, that an officer of the House might be permitted to attend with the petition, prayed to be produced in evidence for that purpose. The hon. Member added, that he was well aware of the importance of preserving the privileges of the Members of that House; but as it appeared the action was brought, not for what was said in the House by one of its Members, but for what was corrected and published out of it; he thought that their privileges could not suffer by granting the prayer of the petition, when its object was, to promote the due administration of justice. The hon. Member then moved, that the petition be brought up. On its being read, he moved that the proper Officer be directed to attend the King's Bench with the petition.
The Speaker The Speaker, before the House pronounced an opinion on the petition, felt it right to state, that he had received letters from the parties, requesting his permission that the officer should attend the King's Bench with the petition. Finding, however, that the trial could not take place until after a period when they could apply for the authority of the House itself, he declined to make any order on the subject. It was perfectly true, that a Member was protected in his privilege of speaking what he thought fit in that House, but if he afterwards published his speech, or authorised the publication of it, he laid himself as open as any other individual to an action for libel. That violation of the privileges of the House was, however, totally distinct from the House giving its consent to, or lending itself to produce evidence in
208
proof of the libel; and while it preserved its privileges on that point, it was a subject of satisfaction to know that the purposes of justice could not suffer, because it would be in the power of the party to produce secondary evidence of the fact he wished to prove, of a nature quite as good as the primary, which he could not procure.
Mr. Hume Mr. Hume, as the Member who presented the petition which formed the ground of action, felt it right to say, that he hoped the purposes of justice would not. be defeated by their refusal to afford the evidence required.
Mr. Spring Ricereminded the hon. Member, that it was in the power of the plaintiff to produce secondary evidence, of equal effect with that which could not be afforded without trenching, on the privileges of the House.
Mr. Littletonsaid, the presentation of the present petition was, however, of importance, as it would secure the admission of the secondary evidence, by showing that the first was not to be procured.
Mr. Harveywas satisfied with the effect produced in the way alluded to by the member for Staffordshire, and his only object in pressing the Motion now, after what had been stated by the Speaker, was, that the plaintiff might have it in his power to allege, at the trial, that the application had been made and refused, for which reason he was desirous that a negative should be entered on the Journals.
The Motion was negatived.
Mr. Humewished to be instructed by the House what he should do, in the predicament in which he found himself placed, by receiving a subpoena to attend and give evidence in the Court of King's Bench of what he knew on this subject. Now, if he were asked what had occurred with reference to the petition—which, by the by, he himself presented—he wished to know, would it be right for him so to do? or would his compliance be considered a breach of privilege?
The Attorney Generalobserved, that he did not imagine there would be any occasion for the hon. Member's statement of anything which occurred within those walls, as he knew, from the circumstance of being engaged as Counsel for the hon. and learned defendant, that it was intended to admit all such matters as proved, by the defendant, so that the question should be tried upon its merits alone.
The Speakerobserved, that if the hon. Member had questions put to him as to the proceedings in that House, and he should proceed to detail them in a Court of Law, there could be no doubt that a clear case of breach of privilege might be conceived by the House to be made out, should any investigation be instituted on that question. Of course he was clearly of opinion, that the hon. Member might refuse to state what had passed in that House.

DISTRESS OF THE AGRICULTURISTS.
Mr. Curteis Mr. Curteis, in rising to present a Petition from the Agriculturists in the neighbourhood of Lewes, said, he had seen with deep regret that Government had dealt with so much tenderness towards that enormous Civil List, which was the deep disgrace of the Government of the country. He hoped, however, that fertile subject of dissatisfaction would still be open to the consideration and examination of Parliament. The distress of the landed interests was very great; and he did not believe, that the hon. member for Middlesex, and other hon. Members, could shew any good reasons for the attacks they so frequently made on that interest. The hon. Member then presented a petition from 500 labourers, in the Rape of Chichester, and four other petitions from the county of Sussex, praying for a repeal of the Malt-duty
Mr. Humesaid, he had been accused of attacking the landed interest. He made no such attack. All he wanted of the land-owners was, that they should act honestly and justly, and relax in their demands for a continuance of their monopoly. As to the 500 labourers from whom the hon. Member had presented a petition, they would he more benefited by a repeal of the Corn-laws than by any other measure.
An hon. Member said, that if the fund-holders would take upon themselves the payment of the poor-rates, the farmers and land-owners would cheerfully concur in an alteration of the Corn-laws.

CIVIL LIST.
Mr. Portmansaid, that as much disappointment was felt with regard to the Pension-list, he wished to take the liberty of asking his noble friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a question on that subject. He, in common with the hon. member for Sussex, and
210
others, felt, as he said, considerable disappointment at the proposal which had been brought forward by his Majesty's Government, and he felt much pain in now addressing the House for the first time from those (the Ministerial) Benches, that he was not able to pronounce his unqualified approbation of the measures of Ministers. He believed, however, that they had done as much as, being Ministers, they could do, and he called upon the House to do its duty in assisting those Ministers, and, so far as it was necessary, in carrying retrenchment beyond what the Ministers could do. He begged to ask his noble friend, if he was right in supposing that, the plan brought forward by his Majesty's Ministers was to be dealt with by the House of Commons, without any interference of the Ministers, with the whole of that influence which they possessed; he meant, whether that House was to be at liberty, if it should see fit, to deal with the Pension-list in a very different manner from that in which the Government had brought it forward; and whether Ministers, having done all that they could do, meant to leave it to the House of Commons to do what it could? and he also wished to know, whether there would be an opportunity of putting the salaries of the great Officers of State, out of the Civil List, on the same footing as the salaries of his Majesty's Ministers? He wished to know whether that. House, or a Committee of it were to be at liberty to exercise its discretion in these respects? He thought it would be useful to obtain some information of this nature, and that the public would be better satisfied by having an explanation of the views of the Government.
Lord Althorpsaid, that in answer to the question of his hon. friend, it would be necessary for him to go into a little detail. The proposition which he had had the honour to bring down on this subject on Friday last, was brought down after due deliberation and consultation by his Majesty's Ministers; they were perfectly prepared to submit it to the House on their responsibility; but, undoubtedly, he could never presume to say to the House, or a Committee of that House, that what his Majesty's Government proposed as being what they thought proper was not to be altered by a Committee, or by that House. It was their duty to leave it to the Committee to decide as it should: see

211
fit; but on the subject of pensions, he would take the liberty of saying a few words. He could not conceive that it was the duty of the Ministers of this country, or of the Government or the Legislature of this country, to take advantage of a technical point of law, in order to do that which, in his conscience, he believed it would be unjust to do. These pensions, as he had already stated, were considered, and always had been considered, as having been granted for life. It was undoubtedly true, taking advantage of the technical point of law, that pensions expired on the demise of the Crown; the Government had a legal right to deprive the holders of their allowances; but he would put it to the House and to the country, whether it was worthy of the Government of this country to take such an advantage? whether the actual and positive relief to be gained by taking away those pensions was an object worth obtaining by pursuing a course which he was sure would be disgraceful to the country? Having said thus much, and adding that his Majesty's Ministers were quite ready to await the decision of that House, and the Committee, with all that deference, and all that respect which it was their duty to feel; and that they entertained an earnest wish to comply with any suggestion of the House, and to make any alterations which should be deemed fit; still he did not feel that he was bound to submit to any decision of a Committee, or of that House, or of any human power whatever, which should require him to do that which he should feel to be unjust and dishonourable. As to what his hon. friend bad stated with respect to the salaries of the great Officers of the Household, he had all along conceived that they were under the consideration of the Committee, for the appointment of which he had moved before the recess, and that that Committee had the power to deal with them as it should think fit. If the Committee on the Civil List should think proper to take these points into its consideration, it had the power to do so; and any alteration which it should propose, consistent with justice and good faith, he should be quite ready to adopt.
Mr. Lennardsaid, that participating in the feelings which had been expressed by the hon. member for Dorsetshire, he could not help declaring the pain and disappointment which be had suffered from the plan
212
that had been exhibited by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but it was a gratification to him to know that that noble Lord would submit his own views to any just decision of the House. With regard to the Pension-list, it was said, that it was granted to the Crown, to enable his Majesty to gratify his royal feelings by the encouragement of persons of merit; but was it not notorious, that it had been constantly perverted from its true purpose; and instead of gratifying the royal will, had been administered according to the interests of Ministers and borough-mongers, and been made the means of perpetuating a corrupt system, and supporting a corrupt Administration? No doubt these evils would be much removed, when the country should have obtained a Reform of Parliament, but looking to the uses which had hitherto been made of the private Pension-list, he had much rather that the present Government had exhibited the large Pension-list proposed by the late Government, provided that it was open to the revision of Parliament than 75,000 l., the half of its amount, which was to be free from such salutary inspection. He said this, because he was sure that if the Pension-list were open, it would escape the misapplication of which it had hitherto been made the subject. As an instance of this, he would refer to the pension of the Duchess of Newcastle, which was resigned as soon as it became known to the public. With regard to our diplomatic expenditure, that ought to be brought by annual estimates before Parliament. He was perfectly satisfied, from the candour of the noble Lord, that while he held his present seat, the House would, in practice as well as in theory, have the proper control of these matters.
Mr. Guestsaid, that as he had given notice of his intention to move for a Select Committee on the subject of pensions, it seemed that some of the noble Chancellor of the Exchequer's observations applied to him. He must maintain, that as pensions were granted during pleasure, the country had a right to be disappointed, and was disappointed, with the determination of his Majesty's Ministers; and he should feel it his duty to persist in the motion of which he had given notice.
Sir M. W. Ridleyobserved, that his noble friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated distinctly, that that House was not irrevocably bound by the

213
propositions which the Government brought forward, neither was his noble friend bound by any decision of the House, or a Committee of the House, contrary to strict justice. These were principles in which he was sure that House would fully agree; and he hoped the House would give his noble friend and his colleagues the credit to which they were entitled from their declarations; and would wait with patience for the report of the Committee on the Civil List, and the Committee on the Salaries of Public Offices, before both of which Committees, as his noble friend had said, this question might be considered; until then he trusted the House would suspend any opinion unfavourable to his Majesty's Ministers.
Mr. Huntsaid, that from what had fallen from the noble Lord, in concurrence with what had been stated by the right hon. member for Cumberland, on Friday night, it appeared that they who objected to the principles laid down by the Government were considered to be actuated by dishonest motives. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that he would not consent to do any thing that was not consistent with strict justice; and the right hon. Baronet said, woe to the reformer who would demand any thing not consistent with strict justice. Now, he, as a Radical Reformer, on behalf of himself, and of the reformers of England, must say unequivocally, that they asked nothing but what was conformable to justice. He did not wish to point out any of the names on the Pension-list. He should be ashamed to do so, although he could; but he must say, that the people of this country would not think it strict justice if large sums of money were taken out of their pockets to be put into those of persons who were already wealthy, and did not require it. He did not wish the Ministers to do any act of injustice, and that was the reason why he called upon them to look into these things. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, that he had found many names in the Pension-list which ought never to have been there. Now, was it strict justice to let them remain there?
Lord Althorpdeclared, that he had never intended to impute to the hon. member for Preston, or any other Member, dishonest or unjust motives. He had only stated what his own views of justice were, and said, that he should feel bound
214
to act upon them. He should be ready to bow to the decision of the Committee in every thing, except any course which he thought would be inconsistent with justice; but he knew that the mode in which he had divided the Pension-list had been observed upon the other night. A right hon. friend of his opposite, said, that he had mystified it. He hoped that was not the case; but to any proper arrangement differing from that he should have no objection whatever. If, for instance, it were proposed that the names of the Irish and Scotch pensions should be taken out of the Civil List, and the English pensions retained, he should not object either to that or any other arrangement consistent with justice.

BARILLA DUTIES.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonmoved the Order of the Day for a Committee of the whole House on the Barilla Duties.
Mr. Spring Ricebrought up certain papers relating to these duties.
On the Motion that the Speaker should leave the Chair,
Mr. Bankessaid, he rose to call the attention of the House to a matter involving a great constitutional question, and nearly affecting the privileges of that House. The papers which had just been presented to the House contained an account of the mode in which this matter had been conducted, and the House would sec that they proved a case of gross irregularity, which called for its interference and censure. He would venture to lay it down as an incontrovertible proposition, that, when that House was sitting, it was a gross violation of its principles, for an officer of the Crown, without authority from that House, to give orders relating to any alteration, any increase or decrease, of a duty proposed by Act of Parliament; and he charged those who had given directions to the officers of the Customs in this case, with a breach of their duty, and a violation of the privileges of the House, in presuming to alter what had been enacted by the Legislature. He would further state, that the manner in which this transaction had been carried on was against all necessity, and only arose from a wanton desire to act irregularly. What occasion could there have been, on the 14th of December, to issue an order for the alteration of the duties? Was there anything that could not have been done

215
by bringing the matter regularly before Parliament, where it would have been properly arranged in a week or ten days? Was there any inquiry into the necessity of what was done, or was it ever communicated to the House that such a step was intended?. It was true that a bill had been brought under consideration in the last Session of Parliament, altering various duties; and that some measure was in contemplation relative to the drawback on barilla; but, without the sanction of the Legislature, on the 14th of December, an order was issued to the Customhouse officers, which could have had no other object than to trench upon the privileges of that House. He knew that matters of this kind had been done frequently, and he did not mean to controvert the necessity of doing them, on occasions when Parliament was not sitting. The Executive had done right in assuming such a power, with respect to the import of corn, and the export of arms, and other things of great moment; but he denied that, during the Session of Parliament, any officer of the Government had a right to issue such orders without, at least, communicating to that House what was to be done.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonhad listened with no little amazement to the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down—the rather, that, after the candid explanation of his noble friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) on a former occasion, when he admitted the objection able ness of the principle which had given birth to the hon. Member's angry remonstrance, he was by no means prepared to meet with a mind so little alive and generous to the candid admissions of an adversary as the hon. Member's statement would warrant the pronouncing his to be. Had the hon. Member been generous to a political opponent, he would have waited till he (Mr. P. Thomson) had made his statement of the grounds on which he proposed to bring forward a bill, to impart a legislative sanction, to the course of policy which the Government had felt it right to pursue with respect to the duties on barilla, which statement he should, when the House had resolved itself into a committee, submit to their consideration, confident that it. would not refuse its assent to the proposition he meant to found upon it. He would anticipate that Statement so far as to set himself right
216
with the House, in respect to the hon. Member's charge, which affected him officially. A few days after his accession to office, he was addressed, in a conference and in writing, by some gentlemen deeply interested in the cost of barilla, who represented to him, that they had had the promise of his predecessor in office, that the high duties on barilla, which had been imposed previous to the Act which expired in January, 1830, would not be levied; for that, if they were, it would be to the serious injury of certain manufacturers who made use of barilla, particularly those engaged in the Irish bleaching trade. On investigation it was found that these statements were supported by facts; that a Treasury Minute, equivalent to a temporary repeal of the duties, had been issued a few days (on the 16th of November) before the right hon. Gentleman opposite had left office; and that to enforce the duties leviable under the existing Statute would be seriously detrimental to those manufactures which required the use of barilla; and accordingly, the Board of Trade did not hesitate to follow the steps of their predecessors, with this difference,—that while the Treasury Minute of the 16th of November actually went, by means of a draw-back allowance, to repeal the duty, that which the hon. member for Dorsetshire had just made the subject of angry complaint, only permitted the barilla to be taken out after a bond had been given for the whole amount of duty—the enforcement or non-enforcement of which was to be left to the decision of Parliament. And this was the great unconstitutional breach of privilege upon which the hon. Member would fain call down the censure of the House, as if it were a daring violation of all law, and wholly unsupported by precedent. So far was it from being contrary to usage for the Board of Trade to advise the Treasury to issue a minute like that which was the subject of the hon. Member's reproach, when the interests of commerce appeared to require it, that he could bring many instances forward of important alterations effected in this way. In fact, this discretionary power on the part of the Treasury extended to various articles, and had been acted upon at different, periods. On the 23rd of March, 1826, an order was issued from the Treasury for reducing the duty on East-India coffee from 1s.. 3d.. to 9d.. Thus, likewise, at different periods of the same year, the duty on pepper was reduced from 1s.. 6d.. to 1s., and the duty

217
on spices from 3s. 6d. to 3s. There was even a precedent for this very article of barilla, founded on Treasury Minutes, in defiance of an Act of Parliament. Barilla was by those Minutes classed under the generic term of alkali; and on the 28th of May, 1819, an order was sent down to the Custom-house, from the Treasury, altering the scale of duty upon it. In 1820, East-India alkali was, by a Treasury Minute, also declared to contain only twenty per cent of alkali, and was admitted at a proportionate rate of duty; and on the 10th of August, 1830,a similar Minute was sent down, declaring it should pay a duty of 5l. per ton, and be considered as barilla. He disclaimed any intention whatever of acting in an unconstitutional manner, and all he now asked was, that they would allow him to go into the committee, where he would explain to the House the alterations he meant to propose, while at the same time, he hoped to obtain the sanction and concurrence of Parliament for what he had done.
Mr. G. Dawsonthought, that a great deal more had been said upon this subject than it demanded. He entirely agreed with the hon. member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Bankes), that the duty ought not to be reduced without the authority of Parliament; but he still contended that unless the Treasury sometimes assumed a discretionary power, a great deal of injury would be done to the public. The Minute to which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Thomson) had adverted, and to which his (Mr. Dawson's) name was attached, was sanctioned by previous Act of Parliament. He had nothing more to add than that he was ready to share in the responsibility which devolved upon the right hon. Gentleman for the course he, had adopled, so far as regarded this document. Between his case, indeed, and that of the right hon. Gentleman, there was this difference, that the Treasury minute he had signed had the authority of an Act of Parliament, while that which the right hon. Gentleman bad advised wanted that authority.
Mr. Spring Ricefelt persuaded that, after the statements they had just heard made, the House must be satisfied that his right hon. friend was fully borne out by precedents in what he had done. The Act of which the last right hon. Gentleman spoke, was, in fact, no authority, for it had expired before the Minute was signed.
Mr. Herriessaid, that in his time, the
218
Treasury had acted, as it ought always to act, on the statements of parties who were interested in trade. The system of Treasury Minutes was not to be defended on principle, but there were numberless cases to justify its necessity. In this case, however, there were rival interests concerned, which made it incumbent on the Government to proceed with the greatest caution. The result, indeed, of the conflict was, and it was so understood by both the makers of kelp in this country on the one hand, and the importers of barilla on the other—that the duties were to be repealed. The House probably remembered some of the circumstances which last Session prevented the bill being brought into Parliament, but certainly it was delayed by the number of persons interested in it, and the magnitude of the interests which were at stake. If the measure to be proposed by the right hon. Gentleman resembled at all the measure intended to be submitted to Parliament by the late Board of Trade, it should have his cordial support.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonrose to move the Resolutions, and state the course which his Majesty's Government proposed to pursue. The House would recollect, that in 1822 the duty on foreign barilla was reduced from 11 l.. to 8l.. a ton; and in 1823 further reduced by a graduated scale till it came to 5l.. per ton. It was then proposed to make a further reduction, but the remonstrances of the parties interested prevailed, and it was understood that, for five years, no further reduction should be made. It was, however, not the intention of Government to allow the duty to remain permanently so high, and he knew that it was the intention of his late right hon. friend, Mr. Huskisson, to propose a much larger reduction of the duty on foreign alkali. The House should recollect, that the trade in this article employed a great number of ships, and that it was of essential service in bleaching, and in making soap and glass. Indeed, no other substance had yet been found that answered so well for the bleacher as barilla. It was obtained also from the Canary islands and the south of Spain, and at the former place was invariably paid for by British manufactures. Thus the trade was, in fact, a most useful as well as profitable one to the country. By keeping up these high duties, we were suffering in another point; our exports of soap were diminish-

219
ing, while those from France were increasing, because the French had taken off the whole duty on barilla. What he meant to propose was, first to reduce the duty twenty-five per cent, and ultimately abolish it altogether. It was said, that this would injure the manufacture of kelp in this country, but it ought to be recollected, that kelp and barilla were used for different purposes. He did not deny, that the former was substituted for the latter during the war, when it could not be procured, or cost 70 l. a ton. Kelp contained only three or four per cent of alkali, while barilla contained from twenty-five to thirty per cent., and kelp when selling for 30 l.. per ton could be substituted for barilla. In the manufacture of soap, too, the kelp yielded some salt, which ceased to be a consideration when the duty on that article was removed. In the manufactory of glass, kelp was still preferred to barilla, but in most other manufactures the latter was so much preferable, that no protecting duty, short of an absolute prohibition, could make the manufacturers employ kelp instead of it. The manufacturers of kelp knew that it was the deduction of the duty on salt which had injured them, and they knew that, by no protecting duty, could their manufactures be restored to prosperity. It was said by the hon. Baronet, the member for Newcastle, that the manufacture of the article, called British barilla, would be injured by the proposed reduction, but admitting that to be the case, though he was inclined to think it would not be, he did not think, that so trifling an article, and one of which the manufacture was of recent date, should be put in competition with the many interests which would be injured by keeping up the high tax on barilla. The British barilla was made, he believed, chiefly from salt, and came into competition rather with kelp than with foreign barilla. The manufacture of that article had injured the kelp maker, and to ask the House to preserve a monopoly for that was asking it to ruin the kelp manufacturers and injure all the manufactures in which barilla was employed. It was the duty of that House: to consult the interest of all classes, but particularly that of the consumer, and it was on that principle that he meant to propose a reduction of the duty on barilla. He did not mean to recommend the total removal of the duty, but only its reduction to 2l. per ton. He believed that it was owing to the high
220
duty on this article, that soap was one of the very few things of which our exports had not, during the last five years, increased, but rather fallen off. He conceived that the measure he was about to propose would be of the greatest advantage to all the manufactures in which barilla was employed, and therefore he begged leave to place the following Resolutions in the hands of the Chairman, and to move—

1. "That the additional duties payable on barilla, in respect of the quantities of soda, or mineral alkali, contained therein, be repealed and, that such repeal shall be deemed to have taken effect from the 28th day of May, 1819.

2. "That the additional duties payable upon natural alkali, imported from places within the limits of the East-India Company's Charter, in respect of the quantities of soda, or mineral alkali, contained therein, be repealed; and that such repeal shall be deemed to have taken effect from the 10th day of August, 1828.

3. "That all the duties paid on barilla, used in bleaching of linen, between the 5th day of January, 1830, and the 5th day of January, 1831, be drawn back.

4. "That the duties payable on barilla, and also the duties payable on natural alkali, imported from places within the limits of the East India Company's Charter, be 2l.. the ton; and that the same shall be deemed to have taken effect from the 14th day of December, 1830.

Sir George Clerkcontended, that the proposed reductions would have the effect of throwing out of employ 40,000 or 50,000 persons engaged in kelp manufacture, and he meant to call upon the Committee to pause ere the Resolutions were adopted. If these people were deprived of the means of subsistence, they would carry their industry and skill to America, and enrich that country. In 1823, after the Government had reduced the duty to 5l., it was obliged, in consequence of representations from Scotland, to raise it again to 8l. The right hon. Gentleman said, that the barilla trade employed a great quantity of shipping; so did the trade in kelp. The use of British alkali began in 1822, and it certainly had interfered with the production of kelp, but not to the extent the right hon. Gentleman supposed. In reply to his statement, that kelp was not liked by the soap manufacturers, he could say, that a soap manufacturer had stated to a kelp merchant, that

221
he would take 500 tons of kelp annually if the Government removed the duty on soap. But at present the manufacturers of kelp were making nothing, though they continued their works, partly out of hope, and partly out of charity. Where they formerly gained pounds they did not now gain shillings, and both manufacturers and labourers were in a sad state of distress. If the reduction of duty on barilla were to be carried into effect, the whole of the kelp works must be suspended, and all the hands employed in them turned adrift. To prevent that, he implored the Committee to consider well before it sanctioned a measure so pregnant with disastrous consequences. The population of the west coasts of Scotland depended on this manufacture in a great measure for subsistence, and by the plan of the right hon. Gentleman they would be consigned to poverty and want. He implored the Committee, therefore, earnestly to consider what it was about to do, and not take a step which would plunge a whole industrious population into despair.
Mr. Maberlysaid, that the question at issue was between the manufacturer of British alkali and the foreign manufacturer. In the present advanced state of science, the manufacturers of Scotch kelp could not compete with the foreigner; and he would put it to the Committee whether they would not take the advantage of science, by which the community would be benefited, rather than reject it, for the advantage of a particular party? The hon. Member then referred to a letter which he had received from a manufacturer of British alkali, wherein the writer stated "We can make better alkali from our materials than the barilla gave, and that at Newcastle they can make it better than we can." He was satisfied that in a short time English barilla would supplant foreign barilla; he was satisfied, too, that the protecting duty benefited but a small class, but injured the community, and therefore, he meant to give the proposition of his right hon. friend his warmest support.
Mr. Sadlersaid, he was surprised to hear the question argued as one, the result of which would be merely a transfer of labour. The real point of view in which it ought to be considered was, its effect in throwing out of employment 30,000 or 40,000 persons, and in those parts of the British empire where, unhappily, there
222
was no provision for the destitute poor. The monstrous doctrine of transfer was one of the greatest errors and evils of modern political economy. If the labour of these persons should be transferred, the evil to them would be irremediable. Where could they transfer their labour? The economists were at no loss; they re-commended them to transfer themselves! He regarded the question as affecting those classes whose labour was the only species of property they possessed, and it ought to be held as sacred as any other. They who were thus to be drawn out to misery and starvation ought at least to have some compensation. One large proprietor in Scotland, whose name he should not mention, had informed him, that, on a previous reduction of this duty, he was not only deprived of his income from a large district in which kelp was made, but that he freighted a vessel with provisions to supply the poor people who made it, and who otherwise must have perished. Ireland could derive no benefit from the measure, because a drawback was already allowed on the barilla used there. The principles of what was called political economy, pushed too far, had paralyzed and destroyed every branch of industry it had touched hitherto, whether agricultural or manufacturing. It was well and truly observed by Buonaparte, that if an empire was formed of adamant it would be crumbled into atoms by political economy. They ought not to decide lightly upon a question affecting the very existence of 30,000 or 40,000 individuals. It was a general complaint, and an evil of which the nation had been forewarned by its greatest statesmen, that property at present was too much accumulated in the hands of individuals; and the prevailing policy had that pernicious tendency. It destroyed the middle, and degraded the lower and industrious classes of society. The distress which now prevailed in many branches of industry was such as could not be much longer sustained, and he conjured the House and the Ministry to look to the people. Though individually interested in this particular subject, he should hesitate to accept a been which could not be conferred without injury to a great number of the poor. He felt regret at being thus compelled to differ with Ministers, for he should be much better pleased, upon this, and upon all other points, to find himself in a capacity to concur in their measures. If there

223
was any species of property more sacred than another, it was the labour of those who had nothing else to depend upon. The hon. Member concluded by strongly opposing the measure, on the ground of justice and humanity.
Sir M. W. Ridleywas opposed to the measure, which he considered to be founded on an error in finance. The tonnage which was employed in the transport of salt and sulphuric acid, was three times as much as that employed in the transport of barilla, and British kelp was also much superior to foreign barilla. By throwing open the market for the import of barilla, the production of kelp was materially injured. He should be disposed, in lieu of the present measure, to propose a gradual reduction of duty, of 20. per annum till the duty was down to 40 s., and he should, therefore, feel it to be his duty to propose a reduction in the existing duty of 20 s. per annum, which might possibly save the manufacturers from ruin.
Mr. G. Robinsonwas disposed to agree in the proposition of the Vice-president of the Board of Trade, and considered the manufacture of kelp in Scotland as very much overrated. It had been stated, that the interests of the barilla and kelp manufacturers were alone concerned in this measure; but what became of the soap manufacturers and consumers? Were they to be forgotten altogether, as though their interests were not at all concerned? Taking all things into consideration, he could not but support the measure as proposed by the right hon. member for Dover.
Mr. Warburtonthought the right hon. Vice-president of the Board of Trade had done perfectly right in introducing this measure. The important chemical discoveries of the age ought to be suffered to effect their object, which was, to render all manufactures, as cheap as possible. If the article were rendered dearer by restrictive duties, the consequence would be, to compel the manufacturer to substitute an inferior article; and if, on the other hand, the restrictive duties were repealed, it would instantly have the effect of setting to work all the industry and ingenuity of the country. The fact was, that the present measure was of small comparative importance with respect to the manufacturers of kelp or barilla. The measure which affected them was the repeal of the duty on salt, by which the alkali which was lying dormant in the rock-salt of Cheshire was instantly brought
224
into use; and the quantity of alkali that exists in the muriate of soda is so much greater than that which is in barilla and kelp, that the manufacture of both was instantly injured, and probably they would ultimately be thrown out of the market by its superior abundance and consequent cheapness.
Sir John Bourkesaid, that whilst he admitted the principle of the measure proposed by the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade, he would recommend the House to proceed with caution. He should like to support the motion of the hon. member for Newcastle, which would make the distress fall more gradually, and enable people better to resist it.
Mr. Hodgsoncondemned the proposition, as likely to injure existing manufactures without benefiting any body. The interests of the bleachers and manufacturers might be protected by allowing them a drawback, and he recommended generally that the former drawback on the articles affected by the duties under discussion should be restored, instead of the present measure.
Mr. Sykessupported the Motion. If political economy were at all like the doctrines of the hon. member for Newark (Mr. Sadler), it would, indeed, deserve all that the hon. Member said against it. He always remarked, that people who were most violent in their abuse of political economy, were sure to have some absurd notion of legislation of their own. It was so obvious that the present proposition must, give employment to labour, that the only satisfactory solution of the ground which the hon. member for Newark had taken was, that the hon. Member might have an opportunity of railing at the political economists.
Lord Althorpobserved, as his opinion, that there were two parties who seemed to have chosen different grounds for opposing the present measure; namely, those who advocated the cause of the barilla manufacturers, and those who took the part of the makers of kelp. The hon. member for Newark had warmly and zealously spoken on behalf of the latter, on account of their poverty, which he regretted as much as the hon. Member himself could do. The real question in this case was, whether the proposition made by his right hon. friend the member for Dover, was or was not advantageous? It was a great mistake to suppose that the measure of his right hon. friend, the Vice-

225
president of the Board of Trade, would destroy the kelp manufacturers; and it was well known, that wherever kelp and barilla were applicable to the same purposes, the barilla, even now, drove the kelp out of the market. As the question of free trade, however, had been touched upon, he must say he was surprised to hear the hon. member for Newark (Mr. Sadler) say, that the principle of free trade had touched nothing which it had not destroyed. He need only refer to the extension which had taken place in the silk-trade and the glove-trade, since the adoption of those principles, to prove that they were not so destructive in every instance as the hon. Member imagined. Abstract principles, however, he repeated, had nothing to do with this question, which was one of fact. Foreign barilla was 12 l. per ton; British barilla 12 l. 10 s.; but then British barilla contained 40 per cent of alkali, and foreign barilla only 25 per cent. The articles, therefore, could not come into competition in such a way as to affect the British manufacturer disadvantageously. There a son, and the only reason, why British barilla was not employed in the soap trade was, because it imparted a sulphurous smell to the soap, and it was therefore of importance to that trade that the foreign barilla should be imported at a cheap rate, and at a lower duty than previously existed, and it did not appear that it would be injurious to any interest in this country.
Sir M. W. Ridleythought, that if the duty on barilla was reduced as proposed, something ought to be done for the protection of the kelp manufacturers.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonassured the hon. member for Newcastle (Sir M. W. Ridley), that if what he suggested could be done, without injury to any other interest, he should be happy to recommend it to the consideration of Government.
Mr. Alderman Waithmansaid, that the hon. member for Newark had anticipated many observations which he was about to make on what were called the principles of free trade. As to what had fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, however, he begged to remark, that the extension of a trade by increased importation from countries which took nothing from us in return, was no proof of prosperity.
Mr. Sadlerexplained. He was not opposed to a wise and just principle of free trade; he meant such a one as took into
226
account the relative situation of this and other countries. Let the noble Lord and the House look at the enormous debt, at the heavy taxes, which pressed upon alt classes, and say whether such a state of things could possibly he compatible with cheap labour. If this country were free from those difficulties no man would be more ready than himself to advocate the freest possible intercourse between all nations. Considering the enterprise, the skill and industry, of the people of England, they need not fear, under such circumstances, the freest competition. The 40,000 inhabitants of Scotland, and numbers of the poor of Ireland, who would be thrown out of employment by this measure, wore just as well entitled to protection as the agriculturists or any other class. A free trade principle ought to apply alike to all branches of industry, otherwise it was nothing but a system of injustice and partiality. He did not think the present a fit occasion for pressing the principles of free trade, and therefore, though reluctantly, he was opposed to the proposition of Ministers. At the same time he should support them whenever he could do so consistently with his principles.
Mr. Maberlysaid, the arguments of the hon. member for Newark were totally fallacious. He had charged him (Mr. Maberly) with supporting what was calculated to ruin 40,000 persons. The principle he advocated was, to have manufactures cheap, and great consumption, which must necessarily produce increased employment; but the hon. member for Newark's principles, if carried into effect, would prevent employment. He had made a declamatory speech of two hours last Session on that subject, and he (Mr. M.) then challenged him to bring forward a specific motion. He thought that in two minutes he could prove the fallacy of the hon. Member's declamation. If the hon. member for Newark would bring forward a specific motion, and let the subject be sifted to the bottom, he would find himself answered in as triumphant a manner as he could wish.
Sir Edward Knatchbulldefended the line of argument adopted by his hon. friend, the member for Newark, and complained of the manner in which he had been alluded to by the hon. member for Abingdon (Mr. Maberly). If the hon. member for Abingdon treated others in a manner so little conciliatory, he could not

227
be much surprised if he found that others treated him with little respect. As to the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman, the member for Dover, so far as concerned himself and the Ministry personally, it was quite satisfactory. The right hon. Gentleman acted, no doubt, with the best intentions; he afterwards found he had done wrong, and he made the best atonement to the House and the country, by acknowledging that it had been done inadvertently. It was a question of some importance, however, whether Parliament should not come to some distinct resolution on the subject, to prevent the violation of its own privileges in future. He said this without anything like a hostile feeling to Ministers, who should have his support so long as he felt they were deserving of it.
Mr. P. Thomsonobserved, that in the Resolutions he had proposed, the declaration which the hon. Baronet suggested was expressed by implication.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonsupported the Resolutions. He did not think the proposed reduction of duty would be attended with any bad effect to the kelp manufacturers. He did not believe that it would throw 40,000 men out of employment; and he knew it would be felt as a great advantage by more than one class of manufacturers. He could state from his own knowledge, that a large order for the manufacture of soap was executed at Marseilles, instead of being executed in this country, in consequence of the high duty on foreign barilla. The fact stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as to the relative proportions of alkali in foreign and British barilla, shewed that there was nothing to fear from the competition, while keeping up the duty was a great hardship on those manufacturers who could not do without kelp.
Mr. Attwooddid not intend to follow the example of those who never missed an opportunity of delivering a lecture on the abstract principles of political economy. With respect to the example of the silk manufacture cited by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was easily explained without referring to the principles of political economy. The duty on the importation of raw silk was reduced; and the manufacturer was by that means enabled to manufacture to a greater extent. As to the proposition now before the House, in his opinion it was not supported by any
228
fact or argument. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. P. Thomson) said, the kelp manufacturers would not be injured, because the barilla would not come into competition with kelp in any one manufacture. Every species of alkali, however, came into competition, more or less, with every other species of alkali. Now, as on many former occasions, he must protest against those eternal changes, which shook the foundations of commercial speculation, and first ruined one class, and then another. There was no security for property when the Government was given up to philosophers. He opposed the Resolutions, because he thought the right hon. Gentleman had not satisfactorily explained why he had assumed the functions of which that House ought to be most jealous. The duty of that House was, in this case, superseded by an act of Government, and Ministers were bound to come down with a bill of Indemnity, and show that they had been induced, upon strong grounds, to adopt such a proceeding. If the course pursued in this case were frequently acted upon, that House would become a mere body to register the acts of the Ministry. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had entirely failed in making out a case. He was wrong in fact and in argument, and the course he pursued was a direct violation of the privileges of the House of Commons.
Lord J. Russelladmitted, that the Ministers, on coming into Office, had acted on the precedent which former Ministers had left behind. He did not mean to say that the act was strictly justifiable, but in a great machine like the Government of this country it was necessary that Ministers should have some latitude in certain cases, always taking care that the occasion should be such as to justify their deviating from an established rule. An hon. Gentleman on the opposite side had delivered one of his usual declamations against free trade; and another hon. Gentleman had said the other night, that he had heard much about that House, and much about the Crown, but nothing about the people. The subject of free trade, however, was not then before them, nor was it likely that the present Ministers would think less of the people than when they spoke from a different part of the House. They did think that, in consulting the dignity of the Crown, they were supporting the interests of the people.
Mr. Herriesdid not mean to oppose the Motion, for the Government with which he was connected had, after a careful examination of the subject, determined that the duty ought to be reduced. But they had come to that determination independently of free trade, which had nothing to do with it. He was not for carrying the extreme doctrines of political economy into trade, without a due regard to existing interests.
Mr. Humesaid, he was sorry to hear such sentiments from the right hon. Gentleman. The present was a question of free-trade, for every relief from duty embraced that principle, even though it were not carried to a sufficient extent. The silk-trade afforded a triumphant proof of the advantages of the principle, and the right hon. Gentleman's own speeches might be referred to in favour of what he now seemed to be ashamed of. He was afraid that the right hon. Gentleman had got into bad company of late-since he came round from the opposite side of the House. Notwithstanding the harangue, by which the attention of the Committee had been drawn off from the matter really under consideration, to the ruin which was said to be occasioned by free trade, he could not see how the country was to be ruined by taking off an impost of upwards of a million and a half. If that could be ruin, then the hon. member for Wareham had contributed more to the ruin of the country than any other Member of the House, by taking off the tax upon salt. He supposed, that if the tax upon coals were to be taken off, the charcoal-burners and the peat-cutters would come to the House with petitions, complaining of the injury done them by the freedom of trade. If the repeal of taxes was to be called ruin, he hoped that the present Administration would let the country have abundance of such rain.
Sir George Clerksaid, that he would not press the question to a division. He trusted he should have an opportunity of again discussing the measure, when he might be supported by the able advocacy of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Control, who, in 1814, defended the raising of the duty.
Mr. Huntsaid, that whilst he was in the House, he must of course vote, on one side or on the other, on every question that should be discussed. As on the present question he would vote with his Majesty's
230
Ministers, he was desirous of giving his reasons for that vote. As far as he understood the matter under discussion, it was simply that the Ministers had made a mistake, and now came forward to explain it to the House. He was surprised to see the opposition given to the Resolution by those who had themselves fallen into similar errors. [Cries of "No, no."] "Then, said Mr. Hunt, "I have myself been in error." When it had been said, that opposition had been formed out of the House to the measure of his Majesty's Ministers, he thought that perhaps he for one was alluded to. For, when he heard of the reduction of the duty, he made inquiries amongst the tallow-chandlers and soap-boilers, and others connected with the trade in barilla, to ascertain whether or not the public would be benefited by the measure, and he found that they would derive no benefit from it. Under these circumstances he had made some observations, which he now believed to be erroneous. For his part, he was much more a friend to the consumer than to the trader; and he only regretted that the Ministers did not give the country still more of free trade.
Mr. G. Robinsoncould not allow the observations of hon. Members about free trade to pass unnoticed. That great question was not to be settled by the cheers of the House, or the dogmatic assertions of hon. Members. The hon. members for Middlesex and Abingdon taunted the hon. member for Newark with his principles, but let them remember, that to decide on the fallacy or correctness of the hon. Member required time and experience. It could not be ascertained by Act of Parliament.
Mr. Slaneybore testimony to the fact, that the free trade in gloves had greatly promoted that manufacture, and more hands were employed in the glove-trade than was ever known before.
Mr. Morisonconcurred with the last speaker, and said, that the silk-trade had been very much benefited by the having been opened, there were more persons now employed at Manchester in the silk-trade than at Spitalfields, and there was not one weaver unemployed in the latter place, neither was there one in the workhouse, which was unexampled. The advantages of free trade were also proved in our woollen, linen, and leather manufacture, all of which had been improved by foreign competition. In the woollen manufacture,

231
a new branch of trade had been created by the introduction of light French articles which had been speedily imitated and given employment to thousands. He hoped, therefore, that Ministers would go on extending free trade, and they might be assured that by removing obstacles out of the way of industry they would confer the greatest possible benefit on the present and all future generations.
Resolutions agreed to, and the House resumed.

STATE OF IRELAND.
O'Gorman Mahonpresented a petition from Protestant inhabitants of the parish of Ballindooley, in the county of Galway, for an Extension of the Gal way Franchise. The hon. Member complained, that even yet Catholics could take no degrees in the Universities of Ireland unless they were hypocrites or denied their religion. The hon. Member also took occasion to observe, that he found it impossible to approve of some of the recent acts of the Irish Government-acts which had reduced the country to a state more alarming than Gentlemen in that House could have any notion of. He gave notice of his intention to move, to-morrow, for copies of proclamations issued by Lords Lieutenants of Ireland since the pissing of the Act for the suppression of Illegal Meetings and Associations; also for a copy of the Letter addressed by the present Chief Secretary for Ireland to the Magistracy on the subject.
Mr. Spring Riceobserved, that his right hon. friend, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, would not be in his place to-morrow, and requested the hon. member for Clare to postpone his notice, till his right hon. friend's arrival.
O'Gorman Mahonhad no desire to do anything calculated to militate against the Chief Secretary for Ireland, especially in the right hon. Gentleman's absence; nevertheless, he thought it incumbent upon him not to lose a single moment in pressing upon the House the frightful condition of Ireland; the rather, as the people of this country appeared as ignorant of its affairs as of the state of Kamschatka.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. In favour of Parliamentary Reform, by the Earl of RADNOR, from Folkestone, from Rochdale, and other neighbouring places; from Liskeard and from the County of Middlesex:—By Lord AUCKLAND,, from Abingdon:—By Viscount MELBOURNE, from—. Against the Duty on Sea-borne Coals, by the Earl of RADNOE, from Folkestone:—By the Earl of SHAFTESBERY, from Weymouth and Melcombe Regis, and from Honiton:—By the Marquis of LONDONDERRY, from Gainsborough and Saltash. For the Abolition of Colonial Slavery, by Lord DURHAM, two, from Dissenters in Bedfordshire:--By the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, seven, from places in Yorkshire. By the Duke of RICHMOND, from a place in Sussex, complaining of Distress, asking for Parliamentary Reform, for the repeal of the Duty on Malt and Hops, on Soap and Candles, and complaining of the Tithes.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
Lord Duncanin presenting Petitions from Dundee in favour of Parliamentary Reform, signed by 6,000 persons, being all the respectable inhabitants of the place, who, whatever might be their other differences of opinion, united in demanding Reform; from the three United Trades of Dundee; and from Blairgowrie; said, he would not trespass on their Lordships' time, as his Majesty's Ministers, he was happy to know, had given notice of a motion on this subject, which had given great satisfaction. The petitioners, he believed, generally, had great confidence in the Ministers, and, certainly, he was ready to express his own confidence in them. He had expressed an opinion before the recess, that the people of Scotland were not indifferent to Reform, and be would beg leave to read a short passage from one of the petitions,

195
which confirmed his opinion. His Lordship read, accordingly, a short passage, saying, that the petitioners had heard, with grief and indignation, that the people of Scotland were supposed to be indifferent to Reform: that they denied; they were generally most desirous of it. His Lordship also stated, that the people of Scotland had heard with pleasure, that the Ministers intended to extend their Reform measure to Scotland; and he must express his satisfaction that the enlightened people of that country, who would know so well how to use the elective franchise, were now to receive it.—Petitions laid on the Table.

UNION OF WICKLOW.
Lord Kingrose to give notice that he intended, on that day fortnight, to move their Lordships to order a copy of the Report made by the Archbishop of Dublin to the Lord Lieutenant and Council of Ireland, respecting what was called the Union of Wicklow, to be laid before them. It was necessary that he should give this notice, in order that some persons might be prepared to defend the conduct of the Archbishop of Dublin. It was also necessary, perhaps, that he should give their Lordships an outline of the course he meant to pursue. It would appear by the Report, of which he meant to move for a copy, that the Archbishop of Dublin reported to the Privy Council, that the income of the Union of Wicklow was only 909 l., and it was on that Report that the Privy Council gave its consent to the measure. But he had reason to believe that the income, instead of being 909 l., was 1,800 l., or perhaps 1,900 l. Such false and improper statements, should the case be made out, would be a sufficient ground to address the Crown to dissolve the Union, brought about by such false pretexts. His Lordship concluded by giving notice, that he would move for a copy of the Report on that day fortnight, and moved that their Lordships be summoned.

INCONVENIENCES OF TITHES.
Lord Kingsaid, seeing several right reverend Pielates in their place?, he would take that opportunity of presenting several Petitions against Tithes, which he should not have thought it fair to present in their absence. The first petition he should present was from persons residing in Somersetshire, and it was very numerously
196
signed—being signed, indeed, by several thousand people connected with agriculture. They said, that their petition was directed against the pernicious tithe system. They stated that they were in great distress; that the farmers could get no profit, and the labourers no employment, on account of the tithe. They stated that tithes, in their origin, were intended to answer very different purposes from that to which they were applied at present; that originally the tithes were divided into three portions—one went to the clergyman, another to repair the church, and the third to maintain the poor. But these petitioners stated, that they had now to maintain all the poor, and keep the church in repair, and that the whole of the tithes went to the minister. The mode in which the tithes were collected, they described as a barrier against improvement, and he must say, that there was great truth in the sentiments of the petition. He knew that it was said that tithes were property; and so they were, but very different from individual property. It was said that tithes were the property of the Church, and it was asked, if it were not as sacred as other property? But the property of the Church stood upon a different footing from individual property. The Church Establishment was the creature of the State; it was paid for, and in such a manner, as the State pleased. In that respect, then, it was perfectly different from individual property. A reverend Prelate had stated, on a former evening, that Church property was more ancient than other property; it might be more ancient than some other property, but it was at all times the creature of the State, and public property: it was conferred by the State, and it was held as public property, intended for the benefit of the State. It was different from private property, which was necessary for the good of society. Without private property, we should have nothing but the spontaneous produce of the earth; but without tithes we should have a great deal more valuable produce of art and skill than at present. Tithes, then, and private property, operated in different ways. The institution of private property increased the produce; the institution of tithes lessened it. They were a tax on production; they hindered capital from being applied to the land; and, but for them, more capital would be applied, and more produce obtained. It was now

197
necessary to pay tithe on the gross produce of the land, and of capital, and labour united, which prevented the application of capital to land, and prevented the employment of labour. Nothing was more prejudicial than a tax on the gross produce of the land; and it was one which any prudent rulers of the Church would now try to have commuted. He said commuted; because the time for composition was gone by. There must be a commutation measured in a fixed corn-rent, not liable to alteration, and which would not give a greater than a fixed share of the produce to the tithe-owner, not increasing with the capital employed. He believed that, a few years ago, when the Church proposed composition, it might have done; but now nothing short of commutation would do. The right reverend Prelates would now find it prudent to come to some moderate commutation. His Lordship concluded by presenting a petition from Somersetshire, praying for a Commutation of Tithes.
The Bishop of Lincolnwas understood to say, that notwithstanding the confidence with which the noble Baron made his assertions, he would find it difficult to prove that tithes were public property. He must maintain, that tithes were not established by the State for a State service. In many cases they were granted by individuals who had the power, in order to provide for the due performance of religious service in every parish in the kingdom. The individuals who granted tithes did not intend them to be the property of the State. The question was, what was property? The law gave power to men to appropriate and use certain things? Ft gave such a power to the tithe-owner, or a property in the tithes, as it gave to the land-owner a property in his land. Tithes, therefore, stood upon the same footing as other property. He remembered, that at the period of the French Revolution, the people who argued against tithes also contended, that the landlords were nothing more than the stewards for the people, and that rent was the salary which was paid to them for distributing the produce of the land. He did not know why the Church property should be subject to attacks more than other property, unless it could be shown that it weighed heavier than other property on the springs of national industry. Was that the case? He believed not. Was land free from
198
tithes better cultivated than land subject to tithes? Was that the case? He denied that it was. The right rev. Prelate then quoted a communication from a clergyman, to show "that the tithes were only in his parish one-sixth of the rent. The clergyman stated, that he had had several communications with land-surveyors and other persons, who assured him that, generally, the clergymen took from twenty to thirty per cent less than their due claim for tithes. The agriculturists, the clergyman stated, were not injured by tithes; for, generally, tithe-free land was not better, or so well cultivated as land subject to tithes. In those parishes, too, he stated, which were exempted from tithes, the poor-rates were higher than in parishes which had tithes, though he did not state that the high rates were connected with the exemption from tithes." For himself, he doubted, therefore that the tithe-system was so noxious as the noble Baron described it. He wished it, however, to be understood, that he was not opposed to a commutation from tithes on a fair principle. It was necessary, he believed, that the Church should make some sacrifice, and every commutation must involve a sacrifice; but on that account he should not object to a commutation. On the whole, he denied that tithes were public property, or were the cause of distress.
The Bishop of Bath and Wells The Bishop of Bath and Wells, as the Petitions came from Somersetshire, had made some inquiry into the circumstances of the petitioners, and he had found that there was nothing peculiar in their situation which could justify them in coming forward to petition against tithes. He did not wish to make any observations then on the question of tithes, on the presentation of petitions, but whenever the noble Lord brought it forward, he should be prepared to give him an answer. On the subject of Commutation of Tithes, he would observe, that in a conversation which he held not long back in that House with the noble Lord, he stated to him, that no one was more desirous of the establishment of such a principle than he was, and he was sure it would be found generally to receive the approbation of the clergy. In the first living he had ever had he had commuted the tithes, and the plan had given the greatest satisfaction. It had been productive of advantage to him and of benefit to the parish.
Lord Kingwished to express his satisfaction at hearing that the reverend Prelates had now come to a commutation of tithes, which was something very different from the composition of tithes proposed by a right reverend Prelate. A commutation wad very different from a composition, such as was proposed by the bill of the right rev. Prelate, which went to give a power to the tithe-owner to lease his tithes for twenty-one years. Commutation must be by a fixed rent—a certain amount of corn, not subject to vary—a payment totally different from tithe. He was glad to understand, that now commutation and not composition was agreed to, and commutation was not the plan of the right rev. Prelate. The right rev. Prelate who spoke last said, that there was nothing peculiar in the situation of the people of Somersetshire. That was true. The evils were everywhere the same, and were not confined to Somersetshire. There was nothing peculiar in the hardships they suffered. They were common, unfortunately, to all the land. The right rev. Prelate who spoke first, said, he (Lord King) would have great difficulty in making out that tithes were public property; and he stated, that tithes originated in the grants of private individuals. That was perhaps true; but the greater part of the livings of the country were now in the hands of the Church or the Crown, and these were undoubtedly public property. The advowsons belonging to individuals were of a different nature, but the advowsons belonging to the Church or the Crown were public property. It was said, that tithes were given to secure the services of the clergy. Had they had that effect? He wished to learn of the right rev. Prelates and their Lordships if this purpose had been answered? He was surprised, indeed, at that argument; for were not, he would ask, pluralities and non-residents the disgrace of the English Church? There were, he believed, about 10,500 benefices in England, and in these there were only about 6,000 residents. If the grant were intended to secure the services of the clergy, it had failed in its effect. Hardly one hall of the parishes under the Church of England had resident incumbents; they might reside in other benefices, but nearly hall the parishes of England were destitute of resident incumbents. This was one of the great and crying sins of the Church of
200
England, from which the Church of Scotland was entirely free, He would use this circumstance as the argument ad verecundiam. With all the tithes and emoluments belonging to the English Church, it could not procure residents, but the Scotch Church obtained residents without tithes. We had Bishops and non-residents; in Scotland they had residents and no Bishops. Our hierarchy, our costly hierarchy, could not effect that which was done in Scotland without a hierarchy. This was the argument ad verecundiam. The hierarchy had no power to prevent pluralities, or, if it had the power, it did not exercise it. As to tithes being property, he must repeat, that they were very different from private property. Private property was beneficial, and it was necessary that there should be private property. Was it necessary that there should be a tax on the gross produce? Tithes were a pernicious sort of property. Under the present circumstances of the country, it would be well in our Statesmen to make a change in tithes, taking care to respect the life-interest of those who now claimed them, but making an alteration that would get rid of them. They were pernicious; all other property was beneficial. He thought it was not very wise in the right rev. Prelate to refer to the French Revolution. Their Lordships might depend on it, that in tithes there must be an alteration—that they would not be much longer suffered to exist; and by placing them on the same footing as property in land, the land-owners might expect that their property too must be altered.
The Bishop of Lincolnexplained, as it was understood, that the commutation of tithes which he should look upon with satisfaction would be, to give land for them.
The Bishop of Londonwished to say one word concerning non-residents. It was one of the charges of the noble Lord, that the costly hierarchy, as he called it, could not secure the residence of the clergy. It must surely excite the surprise of their Lordships to hear the noble Lord mention that; for if there was one fact better established historically than another, it was, that the absence of the clergy from different parishes was caused by lay impropriators having taken the Church property. It was owing to the system of lay impropriators that the clergy were deprived of their property, and prevented

201
from residing in their parishes. It was the abstraction of so large a part of the property of the Church, by the lay impropriators, which was the cause of non-residence. The noble Lord imputed this to the neglect of the hierarchy. Now, the hierarchy had brought a measure into Parliament to enforce residence, which had been opposed, and rendered less efficacious than they wished, because it was said, that it would be injurious to the proprietors of lay advowsons—that it would lessen the saleable value of that which they sometimes carried to market, and the lay impropriators had caused the bill to fail. The hierarchy deplored the evil, and it was the lay impropriators to whom it might be justly ascribed.
The Earl of Winchilseaagreed with the right rev. Prelate who spoke last, that a large part of the Church property, which had passed into the hands of laymen, was a cause of non-residence. If the Legislature should pass an Act to restore to the Church all the property that ought to belong' to it, that would do, he thought, a great service to the Church. He was the proprietor of some tithes, and he should be glad if the Legislature would pass a law to compel all those who possessed the property of the Church to restore it. He could conscientiously say, that he was in possession of property which ought not justly to be his.
The Archbishop of Canterburywished to say a few words, though without, a disposition to prolong the somewhat irregular and inconvenient discussion. He only wished to inform the noble Lord, that it was his intention to bring forward, or procure to be brought forward, in another place, a bill for the Composition of Tithes. He would take leave to suggest to the noble Lord, though he knew his suggestion was of little value, that great inconvenience arose from discussions of so important a nature on the presenting of petitions. If the noble Lord did enter into such discussions, he would, no doubt, have a great number of such petitions placed in his hands; but it would be better if the noble Lord would bring forward some specific measure, which would be more consistent with the dignity of their Lordships, than to argue such an important question on the presenting of petitions. — Petition laid on the Table.
Lord Kingpresented two other Petitions from places in Somersetshire, with the
202
same prayer. He would take the opportunity of saying, that he had no doubt that the right rev. Prelates found the discussion very inconvenient, but he was afraid, as he understood that a great number of petitions were coming to him from different parts of the country, that they would be subject to those inconveniences de die in diem. The right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) found great fault with the lay impropriators, as having caused all the evils of the Church. This was something new. Hitherto he had always understood, that the lay impropriators were the prep and stay and bulwark of the Church. He had always heard, that the clergy were glad that a part of the Church property was in the hands of laymen, because they would fight their own battles, and the Church might find shelter under their guns. The right rev. Prelate found, that the abuses of the Church property, the robbery—he begged pardon, the abstraction, as the right rev. Prelate called it—of the property of the Church, was the cause of the non-residence. But the property the right rev. Prelate complained of having been abstracted from the Church was not given to the English Church, but to the Catholic Church. Before the Reformation all that property belonged to the Catholic Church. The Reformation gave its property to the English Church. The Church Establishment of England, as formed at the Reformation, was entirely the creature of the State. The right rev. Prelate, perhaps, wished to make it out, that the Church was superior to the Slate; but he must contend, that it was made by the State. He did not mean to say the Church, which was an assembly of the faithful, but the Church Establishment, which was different. The Church Establishment was the creature of the State, and nothing else. The right rev. Prelate said, that the bill prohibiting pluralities, and enforcing residence, was supported by the Bishops, and opposed by the proprietors of lay advowsons. The times, however, were now changed; let the Bishops now bring forward such a bill, and it would be more successful. Such a measure should have his support. It was not creditable to the Church of England—it was not creditable to those who had the management of it—that they should yet suffer the vice of pluralities to exist.
Petitions laid on the Table.

LAW OF SCOTLAND. — LANDLORDS' RIGHTS.
The Lord Chancellorwould take that opportunity of reminding their Lordships, that he had placed a Billon their Lordships' Table, for consideration before the recess, respecting the Rights of Landlords in Scotland. He had then explained to their Lordships the cause of his introducing that Bill. The law of Scotland respecting the rights of landlords was in such a state as not, in general, to do any credit to the Legislature. If such a law existed in England, no man could buy or sell a sack of corn in Mark-lane without first sending to Yorkshire or Somersetshire to ascertain that the tenant who sent the corn to market was not in arrear for rent. London, with such a law, would be starved in a week. Under such circumstances, he had ventured to bring in the Bill he had alluded to; but at this Bill the landlords of Scotland had taken great umbrage, and expressed themselves as if it would make all landed property insecure. They were dreadfully alarmed at the Bill, and thought that the country would be reduced to a desart. They had written many letters to him on the subject, and they declared that they were not averse from giving the corn-buyer security in some other way. They said, that before the purchaser concluded his bargain, he might write into the country, and they would immediately answer his letter, candidly stating whether the rent was in arrear or not. That was like telling a corn-dealer in England that he might write to the Duke of Wellington or Earl Grey to know if the corn he wanted to purchase might be safely bought; or whether his Grace's tenants were in arrear for rent. But before the answer could reach the buyer, the market-day would be over, and he could make no bargain at all. He supposed that it would be advantageous to the landlords themselves to have the trade in corn free; but they did not appear to wish that. Under such circumstances, he meant to take no further step in the matter; though he must own that, out of respect to their Lordships, he felt repugnant to withdraw the Bill, yet he meant to leave it to the landlords and the corn-dealers to settle the matter between themselves, and when they had done so, he should be ready to take the measure they might regard as best for their mutual interest into his consideration. He had introduced his Bill, as he supposed, for the benefit of the
204
landlords. He had received, however, a great number of letters from several gentlemen whom he highly respected; and as he was not able to answer all their letters, he would take that convenient mode of acknowledging the receipt of them. They rejected his proposition, and, therefore, with the approbation of their Lordships, he would withdraw his Bill.—Bill withdrawn.