Sitting of 7 July 1831

MINUTES.
Bill read a third time. Suits at Common Law.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of the Earl of HADDINGTON, "An account of the number of Degrees taken Annually in the University of Edinburgh from the year 1800 to the year 1830 inclusive, distinguishing the Faculties, and stating the number of Graduates in each of the four faculties respectively; also, distinguishing, so far as may be possible, those who have taken Degrees after residence, and attendance at Lectures for the space of one or more Sessions, from those who have received Degrees without such residence or attendance; and also similar accounts from the Universities of Glasgow, St. Andrew's, King's College, Aberdeen, and Marischal College, Aberdeen."
Petitions presented. By Lord SKELMERSDALE, from Millers and Corn Dealers of Liverpool, Warrington, Chester, and Rochdale, against the Importation of Foreign Flour. By Earl GOWER, from several Districts in Gloucestershire against the Truck System:—And by Lord CALTHORP, a similar Petition, from Hales Owen. By the Earl of HARE-WOOD, from Leeds, for the Establishment of Poor-laws in Ireland.

REGULATIONS FOR DIVORCE BILLS.
Lord Wynfordsaid, that he had observed with pain the great number of Divorce Bills presented to their Lordships; in scarcely any of which had there been even the show of opposition. Both the party accusing, and the party accused, seemed equally anxious for a dissolution of the marriage; and, in some cases, there were grounds for suspecting, that whilst the relation of husband and wife continued; and whilst it was indecent and immoral for the husband to make a proposal of marriage, or for the wife to accept such a proposal, in consequence of the facility with which Divorce Bills could be obtained, matrimonial engagements had been entered into by them, even before they had applied to their Lordships to dissolve the existing marriage. It must occur to every one, that if husbands and wives found, if they both wished to dissolve a marriage, and one would apply for a divorce, and the other would oppose no obstacle, that there was no difficulty in the way of obtaining what they desired, thus unsettling the minds of married persons, the great object for which marriage was instituted would be defeated, and the morals of the people corrupted. By a Standing Order of their Lordships, there must be laid on the Table, before the second reading of every Divorce Bill, the proceedings in the Ecclesiastical Court, together with the judgment, where there has been an action for criminal conversation, in such action. If both the parties were desirous of having a divorce, nothing would appear on the proceedings of the Ecclesiastical Court,
922
which could have the least tendency to show that a divorce ought not to be granted. The parties would keep out of the view of that Court everything that showed collusion, or any conduct that would prevent the party from obtaining relief. The judgment in the Court of Common Law gave their Lordships no information, except the amount of damages recovered against the adulterer. Sometimes, instances of collusion occurred between those who conducted the cause on the part of the husband, and the adulterer —the husband being kept in ignorance of such collusion, that he might be able to deny all knowledge of it, if he should be examined when he appeared at the bar. Generally, the adulterer denied the adultery, or proved some circumstances to produce an impression of consent on the part of the husband, or he proved, that the conduct of either husband or wife should lessen his damages sought to be recovered. By his defence, the adulterer brought before the Court many facts that showed the true character of the case, and of the party who came to ask for their Lordships' interference. A knowledge of these facts would enable them to sift the witnesses brought to the bar to prove the case in support of the Bill, and to call others, capable of proving all the circumstances connected with it. All these facts would appear on the notes of the Judge who tried the action for criminal conversation. He meant, therefore, to propose to their Lordships to make a Standing Order, to compel persons who applied for a Divorce Bill, to put upon the Table, before the second reading of such Bill, in all cases, the notes of the Judge who presided at the trial of any action in the case for criminal conversation.—Motion agreed to.

TRUCK-SYSTEM.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, he rose to move the second reading of two Bills, which he had laid on their Lordships' Table, for preventing the payment of wages in goods. He was convinced, that unless the Legislature interfered to prevent the increase of that practice, the whole of the manufactures of this country would, in a very short time, be conducted on that most objectionable system. He could not bring himself to think that any of their Lordships, or any unprejudiced manufacturer, could suppose that the universal establish-

923
ment of such a mode of paying wages was, or could be, conducive to the prosperity and interest of the manufacturing population. It was worth their Lordships' while to sec how this system had grown into practice. In the first place, he would state, that many laws had been passed to check it: but, as it now appeared, they had been ineffectual and inoperative. If, however, they looked at those statutes, they would find that every one of them carried within itself that which rendered it useless and inoperative. He had, therefore, endeavoured to avoid a similar error in the second bill which was before their Lordships. Some of the circumstances which had led to this improper state of things, he admitted, could not be avoided nor averted by the manufacturers; but, the adoption of the practice by others, and the extent to which it was carried, could only be accounted for by the love of gain. In some instances— but they were very few—that mode of payment might be serviceable to the workmen. Thus, in some remote and distant parts of Wales, where the population found it very difficult to procure necessaries, a shop kept by a manufacturer, who acted on fair and honest terms, might be useful and beneficial to the workman. One of the great sources from which this system sprang, was the return to cash payments. The manufacturer found it difficult to procure money to pay his workmen, and, therefore, he paid in goods. After awhile, however, the manufacturer found that he could make considerable profits by acting on this principle, and it was adopted to a very great extent. The workman stipulated to work for a certain rate of wages, and the master paid him, not in money, but in goods. The temptation to make considerable profit was here too strong to be resisted; and, in many instances, what the master paid to the workman as being equivalent in value to 1s., was only worth 9d. Another circumstance connected with this practice was, that the workman frequently received that which was not useful to himself or to his family. He was, therefore, obliged to carry it elsewhere, and to sell it at a considerable loss. A manufacturer, who employed 4,000 or 5,000 men, though he made but a small profit on each, yet, in the aggregate, his profits were so enormous, that they greatly exceeded the actual profits of his trade.
924
He was often surprised when he found manufacturers selling their goods for less than their original cost; but he found that the immense profits derived from the truck-system enabled them to do so. Some of them made pot less than 14,000 l. or 15,000 l. a-year by the adoption of that system. He was quite confident, that if their Lordships did not consent to pass a bill on this subject, they must make up their minds to the universal payment of workmen in goods, and those who paid honestly and fairly in money would be driven out of the market. The effect of this system on the workmen was extremely pernicious. When he formerly knew that class, they were an independent and laborious body. They respected their masters, because they viewed them as friends. But now, in all the disputes between the masters and the workmen, the latter viewed the proceedings of the former with extreme distrust and jealousy, because they believed that the manufacturers wished to oppress and to deal unjustly with them. And what, indeed, was better calculated to excite this feeling than to compel men to take goods when they ought to receive money? He liked to see the workman fairly independent of his master, receiving his wages in money, and buying at any shop he pleased to select, that which he really wanted, instead of having thrust upon him more bacon or more flour than he had occasion for, and which he must of necessity dispose of at a disadvantage. The articles which were given to him in lieu of wages were frequently things which were perfectly useless to him. They were so various and so ill-assorted, that they reminded him of the cargoes that were sent out some years ago to Buenos Ayres, when the rage for speculation existed, and individuals sent skates and warming-pans to that torrid region. He next would inquire how this system must operate with respect to competition. Why, it would compel the fair paymaster to reduce his price; but, still the truck-master would have a great advantage over his antagonist. The system destroyed, at the same time, the character of the workman and of the manufacturer. Then, again, let their Lordships mark the way in which it affected the retail dealer. Many places in the neighbourhood of manufactories were full of small tradesmen, who sold large quantities of goods to the workmen.

925
But, when shops for the supply of the same articles were set up by the manufacturer, the ruin of the traders ensued, as a matter of course. They ought to consider the operation of this system, both at home and abroad. Every article should fetch the value of the labour expended on its production, and the cost of the material. But if, instead of receiving that price, the manufacturer, in consequence of the profit derived from the truck-system, sold his goods at a cheaper rate than he manufactured them, that certainly could not be a prosperous and wholesome state of things. If it were possible that the truck-system could be carried on fairly and honourably, he would have no objection to it. Were the workman to get the real amount of his wages, he would not quarrel with it; but it was quite clear, that he was taken advantage of by the unfair manufacturer. The main objection to an interference with this practice was, that it was contrary to the principles of freedom of trade, as taught by the science of political economy. Now, he meant to speak of that science, and of its professors with great respect; but he thought from what he had seen of it, that no science was more uncertain in its operation and its effects. He would maintain, that this interference was not opposed to political economy. But, in his opinion, the allowing the manufacturers to pay in what he must call a base currency, instead of paying in sterling money, was contrary to those principles. The Legislature had a right to say, "Here is the current coin of the realm; we insist on your paying your workmen in that medium." If the workman chose then to buy from his master, it was very well; but, certainly he ought to have the option of going where he pleased. It should be observed, that the workmen in these cases were not free agents. The master, by his superior means, could so entangle the workman, that the latter must deal with him. To prevent this, he proposed, in the first instance, to repeal all the laws now in existence on the subject. Secondly, he proposed an enacting bill, the provisions of which, as he had before stated, were certainly severe, because he thought, that the evil required a severe remedy. That bill would enact, that the manufacturer should not pay in any other medium, than the current coin of the realm— that if wages were paid in any other mode
926
except in the current coin of the realm, the workman might again claim his wages, and the master should not set off any goods paid by him against the amount of such wages; that the punishment of any master for the first offence, should be a penalty of not more than 10 l. nor less than 5l.; for the second offence, a penalty of not more than 20 l. nor less than 10 l.; and, for the third offence, he should be deemed guilty of a misdemeanour, and be punished accordingly. These provisions were severe, he admitted, but they were necessary. The Bill excluded from its operation domestic servants, and servants in husbandry; it also allowed stoppages of wages in certain cases. He hoped the bills would now be allowed to be read a second time; and when they went into Committee, he would gladly attend to any suggestions for their improvement. One suggestion had been thrown out by his noble friend opposite (Lord Auckland) which should be attended to. His noble friend had observed, that in this town, and in many other places, young men without families were employed, who received, as part of the consideration for their wages, board and lodging. Such cases might properly come within the exemptions, as he considered young men so circumstanced, were better provided for under their employers' roof than by living alone.
The Bishop of Gloucesterhad considerable knowledge of the truck system, and he feared any provisions inserted in these Bills would have no effect. In the parish where he lived there were 5,000 persons who were all subject to the same rule, and compelled to take what they wanted from their masters' truck shop; and if any of the workmen refused it, the master discharged them, saying that he would not employ them any longer, but declining to state a reason. He had heard of many instances of that sort, and feared there was no remedy but changing their masters when they chose to deal in any other place than these shops. He had had several conversations with persons interested in this subject, and the answer he received was, "we will not employ them." The law, he believed, would be evaded. The truck-shop masters would only employ such men as bought the. articles of their consumption at a particular shop, and he knew no way in which an Act of Parliament could be made to reach them.
Lord Skelmersdalesupported the Bill. He believed that those who resided in manufacturing districts were unfortunately too well aware of the effects of the truck system, and he hoped the Session would not pass over without some measure being completed which would put it out of the power of the masters to exercise so much tyranny over their workmen. He had had a good deal of experience in the manufacturing districts, and he thought that the proposed law would reach the evil.
Lord Aucklandsaid, he was far from opposing the Bill, and he should be happy to give his noble friend every assistance in his power to make it as perfect as possible. He had already before him numberless memorials and petitions, and statements of facts, pointing out the evils of the practice of paying wages in goods instead of money, and exhibiting such proceedings as a means of fraud, which required, and would justify, the interference of the Legislature; but he had seen no one petition or memorial in favour of a continuance of the system. That was pretty good evidence of the state of public feeling on the subject. At the same time, he could not conceal from himself, that the question was one of great complexity, and he agreed with the rev. Pre-late, that it would be most difficult to frame a law to suit it. He was willing, however, to try the experiment; and he should rejoice if his noble friend could succeed in abating the evil. There was one difficulty against which he wished to guard the House, and that was, that though in some places, and in some trades, the truck system was a declared evil, there were others where it had hitherto worked well, and where it was rather a convenience than an injury. He mentioned it, not for the purpose of throwing any impediment in the way of the Bill, but to convince their Lordships that its clauses required close examination and much consideration before they were passed into a law. He had also to point out, that in some places children employed in manufactures came from distances, and were provided by the master with breakfast; and he should be glad to know if a case like this was to be exempted by his noble friend from the operation of his Bill. He had further to notice the claims whereby the Magistrates of the county were to have a concurrent jurisdiction with the Magistrates of the place where the manufactory stood, and he de-
928
sired to understand how far the noble Lord meant to carry that; and if the Magistrates, for instance, of the county of Middlesex, were to have a jurisdiction over a manufactory in London?
Lord Wharncliffewas happy to perceive the concurrence of the House in the principle and objects of this Bill. In the Committee he would attend to the suggestions of the noble Lord, and willingly attend to any recommendation which would effect an amendment in the details of the Bill.
The Earl of Carnarvonsaid, it was not his intention to trouble their Lordships at any length, but he must observe, that to the best of his judgment, although they had not a full knowledge of the causes or nature of the grievances which were so greatly increasing, and which the Bill purposed to remove—though he was doubtful if it would have that effect—yet he was not prepared to oppose it. He had no doubt the increase of the practice which it was the object of the Bill to put an end to, had originated in the suppression of small Bank notes. That suppression had been ruinous to the agricultural interests, and to all species and descriptions of trades which had been carried on by the means of a local circulation, and the small capitalist had no other means by which he could continue his business than by some such substitute as truck, which was, in fact, only paying in goods because they had not money to pay with. Under these circumstances, before they passed another law of prohibition, they ought to have the fullest possible information on all matters bearing on this important subject, and unless this was obtained he should feel himself called upon to dissent from the Bill on its third reading. He was of opinion, that such experimental measures, without a full inquiry into the causes of the unprecedented depreciation of labour, would only tend to aggravate the evil.
Viscount Goderichwas not sure that this Bill would destroy a practice which had been so long established, but he thought his noble friend had stated sufficient grounds for proposing some measure of this description. The question had been brought particularly under his notice some time since, and the result of the judgment he had formed upon it was, that though the object was difficult to be obtained, yet the well-being of thousands of

929
persons who had nothing but their labour to depend upon, required that the Bill before their Lordships should be passed. He must further state, in reference to what fell from the noble Lord who had last spoken, that the present was by no means a new measure, for, in point of fact, as early as the time of Edward 4th there was a law on the Statute-book, on this very subject, but which appeared to have fallen into desuetude, cither from the difficulty of obtaining' a conviction, or from the inefficiency of the punishment. Conceiving that the existing law was defective, and being convinced of the necessity of amending it, he should support the present measure.
Earl Gowerhaving presented various petitions to the notice of their Lordships, from parts of the country particularly interested in this Bill, must therefore express his satisfaction at the introduction of it. The practice which it was intended to put an end to, had prevailed for many years, and was a most oppressive one in its operation on the labouring classes. He knew the first of the Bills now under the consideration of their Lordships was in perfect unison with the feeling of that part of the country with which he was connected.
Lord Calthorpethought that the Bill ought to be referred to a Select Committee before it received the sanction of the House. One of their Lordships' Standing Orders declared, that every Bill, having for its object to alter the regulations of any trade or laws of apprenticeship, should be referred to a Select Committee. If the present Bill came within the scope of the Standing Order, he hoped it would be submitted to a Select Committee. He moved that the Standing Order be read.
A Standing Order to the effect stated, was read accordingly.
Lord Wharncliffesaid, that in his opinion the Bill was not included in the order, which referred to Bills of another character. It was impossible to consider it as a Bill for the regulation of a trade. He contended, that a Bill which had for its object to compel the payment of wages in money, could not be considered as coming under the denomination of a Bill to regulate a trade. The Bill, therefore, before their Lordships, could not come within the standing order of their Lordships which had been read.
Lord Calthorpeshould be extremely sorry to find that the opinion expressed by the
930
noble Baron was that of their Lordships, because he thought the Bill came completely within the object of the standing order and ought to be referred to a Select Committee.
The Lord Chancellordid not think that the Bill came within the standing order, which appeared to him to have been sanctioned by their Lordships at a period when trade was beginning to be carried on in a most injurious manner, from the formation of joint-stock companies and various speculations of that description. The Bill was not one for regulating the conduct of trade, but the payment of wages only. He was too well aware of the evils which arose from the truck system not to agree to an experiment, that had for its object, to remedy them. He despaired, indeed, that any measure that had yet been. suggested would accomplish that purpose completely, but he hoped the present Bill might do some good, and he should therefore gladly vote for the second reading.
Bill read a second time.

AGRICULTURAL, LABOURERS.
The Earl of Winchilsearose to move the second reading of the Bill which he had recently laid on their Lordships' Table for the relief of the Agricultural Labourers. The existing system of supporting able-bodied men out of parish rates, without labour, was a practice at once so humiliating and demoralizing, that it had diminished, if not totally destroyed, the good feeling which formerly prevailed between the labourer and his employer. The effects were so mischievous, that it was absolutely necessary to introduce some legislative provision for the purpose of checking this practice. That he thought would be effected by this Bill. The anxiety he felt on this subject did not arise from speculative and fanciful theories, but from practical experience of the operations he had himself seen carried into execution. The adoption of this Bill by their Lordships would by no means do away the necessity of the other Bills which his Majesty's Government had expressed their intention of proposing; and more especially of that great measure, to the consideration of which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had pledged himself that he would apply his powerful and comprehensive mind. The main object of this Bill was to enable parishes to levy a rate for the purpose of hiring lands for the employment of labourers, and to enable

931
them to effect this, where there were more labourers than were generally employed, the Bill provided, that a certain proportion of the parishioners—three-fourths, four-fifths, five-sixths, or any other proportion with which their Lordships, should the Bill go into Committee, might think proper to fill up the blank, must consent to the proposition. He intended to propose, that the Bill should be in operation only during the winter months, from the 1st of November until April, and that its duration should be limited to two years. The evils of the present system were much increased by the law of settlement, which gave a man a claim to relief after he had been hired for a twelvemonth, which prevented a free intercourse of labour; and by the difficulties which the apprehensions of the owners and occupiers of land threw in the way of a labourer's obtaining land to the yearly value of 10 l., as he would thereby also establish a settlement. He had known many instances where honest and industrious labourers, if they could have obtained a small spot of ground, would have been able to maintain themselves and families, but who were prevented doing so by the operation of these 1aws, and were consequently thrown on their parishes for support. Should the Bill go into a Committee, it was his intention to propose two additional clauses; the one, that the owner of tithes, derived either from a corn rent or from money payments, should have it in his option either to agree to the rate which the Bill authorized, or to pay as a rate the average poor-rate which he had paid during the preceding five years. The second clause would have for its object to relieve the owner and occupier of pasture from being subject to the same payment as the owner and occupier of arable land, the former not requiring the number of labourers which the latter did. He was perfectly convinced that no time was to be lost in getting rid of the present degrading and demoralizing system, which was alike injurious to all parties. If the Bill was carried, we should hear no more of poor labourers being obliged to walk backwards and forwards on the roads by way of employment, and he hoped to see the peasantry again happy and contented. His Lordship concluded by moving that the Bill be read a second time.
Lord Wynfordgave the noble Earl credit for his good intentions, and his great and practical knowledge in all sub-
932
jects connected with agriculture, but feared that he would fail to accomplish the object which he had in view. He was afraid the principle of the Bill could not be so amended as to render it fit to pass into a law, though he was desirous that it should receive the fullest investigation, for he somewhat doubted the soundness of his own opinion, when opposed to that of the noble Earl. Indeed, there was one part of the plan, which allowed parishes to have an increased quantity of land to support their superfluous population, which met his approbation. The quantity of land which it was permitted to parishes to hire by the former Act, was probably, then, sufficient, but the number of unemployed agricultural labourers had since so much increased, owing to the poorer lands being thrown out of cultivation, and other causes connected with the depression of agriculture, that it was no longer sufficient. The preamble of this Bill asserted, that many farmers who have the means of paying labourers would not employ a sufficient number, by which they increased the burdens of those who employed a proper proportion. There was very little land that was not susceptible of an improved method of cultivation, and the country was sustaining an immense loss of capital, besides a large proportion of the best part of the population being unemployed, and reduced to idleness and want, from the neglect of tillage; but this was not the fault of the farmers, as this Bill alleged. If they had capital, and could use it to advantage, it was absurd to make a law to compel them to do this; it was self evident they would employ it. The heavy and unequal pressure of taxation on agriculture, had deprived the farmers of their capital, and the great importation of foreign corn, when the crops were bad, prevented them from indemnifying themselves, and took from them all hope of profit when the season was favourable. These were the causes of so many agricultural labourers being out of employment and the same causes would continue to operate so long as the English market afforded opportunities for untaxed farmers to enter into competition with our heavily-taxed people. As cultivation increased abroad, it must diminish at home, and we could not consume the produce of other countries and of our own. He entreated their Lordships to examine the evidence which had been collected by their Committee on the Poor-

933
laws; they would there find the testimony of many persons of different stations of life concurring in the statement, that much land had been thrown out of tillage, that the capital of the farmers had been so much reduced, they had not the means of employing a sufficient number of labourers, and the price of produce was insufficient to remunerate them. In some poor-land districts one fourth of the population was out of employment, but if adequate prices could be procured, sufficient employment could be found for the whole of them. This Bill was an attempt to compel the farmers to do what they could not do in their present condition, and what, if their situation was improved, they would be glad to do without compulsion. His noble friend proposed to exempt tithe owners from the operation of the Bill, but annexed a condition which he (Lord Wynford) could not understand. He also proposed to make a distinction between pasture and corn-land farms, but he was afraid it would be very difficult to introduce any clause to provide for these two descriptions of land. The small farmers would also demand attention, many of whom employed no labourers beyond their own families. Were such persons to pay a labour rate? If that were proposed, it would do inconceivable mischief. There were other objections to the measure, which, if it went into a Committee, he should feel it his duty to state, but every attempt to relieve the poor should, in his opinion be encouraged, and, therefore, although he believed the existing evils lay too deep for this Bill to reach—he should vote for the second reading, being convinced, that no beneficial scheme could be devised without much discussion.
The Earl of Winchilseasaid, one of his principal objects in proposing the measure was, that the practice of supporting able bodied men without labour, out of the poor-rates should not be continued. With respect to the objection taken by the noble and learned Lord (Wynford) as regarded the small farmers and shopkeepers, he expected that these persons would be very much benefitted if the measure was carried into execution. In a large parish in which he had introduced a similar plan, fifteen or sixteen years ago, it had been the practice previously to support the great body of agricultural labourers by paying part of their wages out of the poor rates; now the small farmer and shopkeeper contributed to
934
this rate as much in proportion as the largest farmer in the parish. He wished to do justice to the proprietors and occupiers of the soil, and admitted to its fullest extent the argument, that it was distress which prevented them from being liberal to those whom they ought to have employed. They were reduced in circumstances and fallen in fortune, but even at their expense it was necessary immediately to do justice to the peasantry of England. By providing them employment during the winter months, their moral condition would be improved, and they would be restored to that state of honest independence which was once the characteristic of the agricultural labourer. Above all, it would restore those kindly feelings which he deeply lamented should have been ever destroyed, that once existed between the owners and occupiers of the soil, and their industrious servants. He would not enter further into the evils which affected this class, but at a future time he might feel it his duty to bring their state before their Lordships. At present he could only say, he believed his Bill would be attended with beneficial results if passed.
The Marquis of Lansdownfelt the strongest objections to all the regulations of the Bill before their Lordships, with the exception of that clause which enabled parishes to hire a larger quantity of land than at present, for the employment of the labouring poor. He believed that quantity was only twenty acres. No advantage could possibly be derived from this small proportion. It was not sufficient, generally, to benefit one-eighth of the population. To increase this quantity was the only point of the noble Lord's measure to which he could assent. With respect to the principle of the Bill, he thought its only effect would be, an additional poor-rate, and he must call for the assistance of the House to join him in opposing' such an addition. The Bill, too, he believed, would tend to confirm all that was most mischievous in the administration of the Poor-laws as they at present existed, because it gave to Magistrates the power of fixing the rate at which the labouring poor should be employed, and from their decision there was no appeal. From the moment their Lordships laid down a certain amount as wages, from that moment the farmers would refuse to pay a higher rate than the law allowed. The parish overseers were to estimate the

935
unemployed poor in their several parishes, and the number to be employed by each fanner was then to be settled. The Magistrates were to see that each one employed the regulated proportion. They were to inquire into the number of his family, and apportion the number of servants he would require. That was a system of interference that could not be carried into effect, and would not be tolerated. He also considered the measure highly objectionable, inasmuch as it interfered with the farmer in the management of his estate, by dictating the exact quantity of labourers he was to employ: moreover, by exempting the farmer from the payment of the rate, on the condition of his employing a certain number of labourers, this Bill made it his interest to employ the cheapest and worst set of workmen. The noble Earl had stated, that he did not intend this measure to be a fixed one, but proposed that it should operate for two years only. The House, however, must be aware of the extreme difficulty of getting rid of a measure of this kind after it had once been acted upon. He admitted, that the state of the labouring poor deserved the serious attention of Parliament; but it was their duty to examine most carefully the means proposed to remove the existing evils; for when once any measure was carried into operation, they could not at their pleasure get rid of it so easily as of any other sort of legislative remedy. Another objection was, that it would tend to make parishes the sole tenants of the land. The authorities to be created by this Bill would, as it appeared to him, after it had been a short time in operation, get into the management and control of all the land. The farmers and occupants were not to have the management of the number of hands they employed—that was to rest with the parish overseers. This would take from the farmers the desire of having land in their hands; and in proportion as they had less, the parish would have more. In this manner the whole labouring population might be cast upon the parish authorities. There were circumstances, he confessed, in the state of the labouring poor, which called for anxious consideration on the part of every man who valued the peace and happiness of the country; and he thought it desirable that some measure should be adopted, with a view to give the labouring population
936
employment. He did not think, that the present measure ought to receive the sanction of the House; but he trusted that Parliament would not separate without being induced, under the recommendation of his Majesty's Government, to agree to the granting of certain sums of money to particular individuals, by which a considerable excitement to labour might be created. In that way encouragement might be given to individuals to embark in undertakings which would return them a due proportion of profit; but compelling a farmer to provide that which he could not with any regard to his own interest give, would, he thought, be detrimental to the agriculture of the country, the prosperity of which, after all, must be the foundation to which they must look for the encouragement of labour, and the relief of the labouring classes. He felt it his duty to oppose the Bill.
The Earl of Winchilseasaid, the noble Marquis had misunderstood one or two of the proposed enactments of the Bill. It was by no means the intention of the Bill that the number of labourers which each farmer should employ was to be regulated by the Magistrates or Overseers. It would, indeed, be. a most objectionable measure to give power to any individual to decide on the number of labourers his neighbour should employ. The noble Marquis had stated, also, that the proposed measure would have the effect of encouraging idleness; and that able-bodied men would, through laziness, prefer being supported by the parish-rate to working; but it was expressly stated in the Bill, that no able-bodied man should have any claim whatever on the rates, except in return for work. Able-bodied men might derive assistance, in case of a temporary want of employment, but they would not encourage idleness. He by no means denied, that there were points in the Bill which required amendment; he was anxious it should go into Committee, where the objections could be entered into. This could not be called a compulsory measure in any respect: the rate to be levied required the consent of a certain proportion of the inhabitants of the parish; it could not be levied at the will of the Magistrates. He sincerely hoped the noble Marquis would not persevere in his opposition, but permit the Bill to go into Committee.
The Marquis of Lansdownadmitted, that nothing could be worse than the

937
present state of the labouring classes of this country—but, he repeated, he did not think the proposal of the noble Earl would tend to their relief. The noble Earl had certainly shown he had not understood the intention with which the Bill was proposed, but he must confess, that the noble Earl's explanation had only confirmed his opposition. He found, by the Bill, that the parish officers were to class the labourers, and that the Justices were to apportion and determine the amount and rate of wages to be paid. It was of very little consequence who apportioned the rate; his objection was, that any person should have the right of fixing an additional rate on the farmers. It was to the principle, and not to the details, that he objected, and though it was with regret, he found it necessary to oppose the Motion.
The Bishop of Londonregretted that he must oppose the Bill on the same grounds as the noble Marquis; for he perceived it provided for the assessment of the parishioners, for the purpose of enabling parish officers to have a certain quantity of land for the employment of the poor. He was also averse from giving parishes the right of apportioning the quantity of labourers which land might require for tillage. This should not be taken out of the hands of the farmers; it would inflict injury also on the tithe-owner, and the tiller of pasture land. The occupier of the latter would be called on to give employment to a certain number of individuals, but the tenant had, in all probability, engaged to pay a higher rent for such land, under the idea that it would not require much expense of tillage; and, on this principle, landlords always obtained a higher rent for pasture than for arable land. If, then, the tenant of such pasture land had made an agreement to pay 2l. 10 s. per acre, and was obliged either to take a larger number of labourers into his employment; or, in case of not doing so, submit to pay an additional rate, the profits of his land might not amount to the sum he had covenanted to pay his landlord for rent. The tithe owner, too, was also treated very unjustly by the noble Earl's Bill. In addition to the poor-rate on tithes, which the tenant paid and deducted, he would, by the noble Earl's Bill, be obliged to pay a labour rate; and that, too, in some cases, while the value of his land was decreasing, as in the instance of pasture land. He would be compelled to support a certain number
938
of labourers more than he required. This, of course, would decrease the value of his land, and consequently the tithe-owners' share. In addition to this injustice, he did not see how the measure of the noble Earl would attain the proposed objects. If it would lighten the evils now complained of, he would certainly be most anxious to let it go into the Committee, where amendments to the obnoxious clauses might be made; but he did not think the noble Earl's Bill would, in any manner, benefit the distressed poor. The principle of the Bill was defective, and appeared only calculated to perpetuate and increase the evils complained of. How those evils originated merited inquiry: he attributed them to the error of following the ancient boundaries of parishes in assessing poor-rates, without considering the extent of population and property. In some parishes, this error had been avoided. but in others it was acted on. This division of parishes should be re-considered as, he believed, thereby the burthens of the country might be relieved. For the reasons he had stated, he must oppose the proposition of the noble Earl.
The Marquis of Salisburydid not approve of the Bill in all its details, but he thought there were parts of it which it might be desirable to pass into a law; he, therefore, trusted the House would allow the Bill to go into a Committee, where, he thought, it might undergo such revision as would remove the objections of the noble Marquis, and the right rev. Prelate. Should this suggestion not meet with their Lordships' approval he should propose to the noble Lord to withdraw his Bill as it stood in its present form, and not allow it to be negatived, for, if he did, the effect would be, to deprive them of carrying those points of the Bill which appeared desirable. He hoped the noble Marquis and right rev. Prelate would not persevere in their opposition, but would allow the Bill to be discussed in Committee.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, he could not allow the Bill to go through the form of a second reading. He believed, that the Bill was radically wrong in principle, and tended solely to perpetuate one of the greatest evils of the present system of poor-laws. It put the improvident and the provident man, the man who spent his summer and autumn earnings in the beer-shop or public-house, and the man

939
who preserved those earnings for his support in the winter, in precisely the same situation: it did more, it actually encouraged the opinion, unhappily existing among some classes in the country, that whether a man were prudent or not it made no difference, for at all events he must be provided for. Entertaining as he did this opinion of the Bill, unless the noble Earl wished to withdraw his motion, he should have no hesitation in moving that it be read a second time that day six months.
Lord Ellenboroughentertained great doubts as to the expediency of the measure, but recommended the House to allow the Bill to go to a Committee, in deference to its author, than whom nobody had more attended to the state of the labouring poor. He did not, however, mean to say, that the Bill would be found to be an efficient measure.
Viscount Melbourneconsidered, that the state of the labouring poor deserved their Lordships' serious consideration, but at the same time they must take care not to violate sound and wholesome principles. The preamble of the Bill was as follows: "Whereas, to the great injury of a parish in which many occupiers of land may be found, who are employing their full proportion of labourers belonging to the parish in which their land is situated, whereby such labourers have avoided becoming chargeable to the said parish, other occupiers of lands and tenements with equal ability have refused so to do." This, he must contend, contained statements, of the correctness of which it was difficult, if not impossible, for their Lordships to form a correct judgment, without an inquiry into each particular case to which they referred, For example, it was stated, that on certain portions of land only a certain number of labourers were employed, and that on such land more might be engaged. How were their Lordships to decide such a case? Were they to regulate the manner in which each individual should manage his land, and the number of labourers he should employ? The thing was impossible. The preamble went on to say, — "And whereas, it was expedient, that encouragement should be given to such landholders as are willing to employ their full proportion of labourers, and to the end that such persons may not be subjected to the additional burthen of contributing to the maintenance of these la-
940
bourers, whom the other landowners in the parish ought to employ." Now, how could their Lordships affirm such a statement as this? How could they know that certain fanners had equal abilities to employ labourers? This preamble contained such dangerous principles, that it ought not to receive the sanction of a second reading. No man was more anxious than he was to do every thing which could improve the condition of the labouring classes in agriculture, but he did not think, that the proposed measure would have that effect. He was, therefore, unwilling to vote for the second reading of this Bill, and sending it to a Committee, which would only create a delusion in the public mind, and raise hopes as to the improvement of the condition of the labouring classes, which, by this Bill, could never be realized.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that he would vote for the second reading, in order to see what might be done in the Committee, as the practice which one part of the Bill proposed to introduce was already adopted, and with good effect, by many parishes in England. He did not think, however, they should attempt to force its adoption, but when he saw that such a plan had been adopted in certain places, voluntarily, he could not refuse his assent to the second reading of a Bill which only went to ensure the more general adoption of a beneficial practice. He was anxious to ascertain if it was not possible to render that practice more general. He also wished to send the Bill to a Committee for this additional reason— that there was one part of it on which most of their Lordships seemed to be agreed, and it might be a matter of consideration, whether it would not be advisable to divide the Bill into two, and to preserve that part in a separate form on which so many of their Lordships seemed to be agreed.
Earl Greycould not consent to the second reading of a Bill, in the principle of which he could not concur. If he could agree in the principle, he should have no objection to go to a Committee to examine its details; but when he heard so many noble Lords declare the principle vicious and the details objectionable, he did not think, that by going into a Committee, they would have any chance of correcting either the one or the other, and therefore, he could not support the second reading. He admitted the existence of

941
that distress which it was sought to relieve, but it did not follow that they were therefore to adopt every measure which was proposed as a measure of relief. This Bill would tend, he thought, to raise hopes which could not be realized by it. He had no objection to that part of the Bill which provided, that parishes might hire land on lease for the employment of their poor; he thought this might do much good, if properly managed. As to going into the Committee for the purpose of dividing the Bill, he thought the more simple and easy course would be, if there were any part of it that could be adopted, to introduce it in a separate form to the House; and he therefore recommended, that it should be withdrawn, and the unobjectionable part introduced as a new Bill. This would be the better course, as objections were entertained by several of his noble friends to the measure, both in principle and detail. He gave the fullest credit to the intentions of the noble Earl, but he did not think they could be achieved by this Bill, and if the motion was persisted in, he must vote against the second reading.
The Earl of Carnarvonwould have assented to going into the Committee, if he did not see the utter hopelessness of coming out of it with any practicable result. The objections were so strong, that no amendments could remove them, he would, therefore, recommend his noble friend to withdraw the Bill. He would then have an opportunity of bringing forward that part of it to which there was no objection in a separate shape, and with a better prospect of success. Their Lordships all felt very acutely the situation of the labouring; poor, and it must be their united wish to devise some mode to improve their condition. As the measure which the noble Earl had so benevolently brought forward did not meet with the concurrence of the House, he must join in the recommendation of other noble Lords, and advise his noble friend to withdraw his Bill.
The Earl of Winchilseasaid, that seeing no hope of carrying the measure against the opposition offered by the noble Lords opposite, he would withdraw it; but after this, he would leave the matter to be taken up by the Government, satisfied that the subject was one which deserved serious consideration, and which could not be too soon taken in hand. It had been said,
942
the Bill would be a violation of the funds intended for the relief of the poor; but he contended, the system now adopted in many counties was a still greater and worse violation. The noble Duke had properly staled, that the Bill was not vicious in principle, but that its principle had been adopted in many parts of the country, and he thought that, at least, ought to have induced their Lordships to go into the Committee. He must, however, again strongly impress on the Government, the positive necessity of devising some remedy for the evils pointed out. It would be most impolitic to allow the winter to approach, and leave the condition of the labourer as it was last winter, when such effects had been produced. It had been said, that if the Bill passed, the farmers would not adopt its provisions— but wherever the plan had been tried, they had shewn no indisposition to class the labourers, and pay them according to their value. He owed it to the farmers and proprietors of land in those counties with which he was acquainted, to rescue them from the imputations which had been cast upon them.
The Duke of Richmondsaid, his noble friend was too warm on this subject, in defending the farmers, who had not been attacked; or if any attack had been made upon them, from whence had it come? Why, it had been made by the Bill, which said, they could employ many more labourers than at present. If, then, they found the farmers did not employ so many as they ought, how could they be trusted to classify them as the Bill proposed?
Bill withdrawn.

LORD LIEUTENANT'S (IRELAND) BILL.
Viscount Melbournemoved the Order of the Day, for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on this Bill.
Lord Carberry Lord Carberry, before going into the Committee, begged to ask the noble Lord opposite, whether it was the intention of Ministers that there should be any qualification for the office of Magistrate in Ireland, similar to what was required in England?
Lord Plunkett Lord Plunkett, in reply, said, the Bill now before the House had no reference whatever to the qualifications of persons holding the Commission of the Peace. It referred only to the appointment of Lord-lieutenants of counties in Ireland. Should the noble Lord require any information as

943
to those holding the Commission of the Peace, he should be happy at any other time to give him all the information in his power.
The Earl of Wicklowsaid, that before going into the Committee on this Bill, he was anxious to make a few remarks as to its object. He had endeavoured to make himself well acquainted with it, and had read the Bill with much care, and had also attended to the speech of the noble Viscount in explanation of its principles. The Bill was to create Lords-lieutenant for the several counties in Ireland, on the principle that there should be some certain medium of communication between the Government of Ireland and the Magistracy of the several counties. That such a medium should exist he admitted, for without the aid of local knowledge the appointment of persons to the Commission of the Peace would be a matter of much difficulty. He admitted also, that it was most desirable the law and practice of England and Ireland should be assimilated in these respects, but in comparing the proposed measure with these objects, he did not see clearly how they were to be attained. The object was, to appoint a Lord-lieutenant to each county in Ireland, a sort of military, as well as civil officer, who was to be in communication with the Irish Government; but he thought that the custodes rotulorum of the counties were the persons through whom such communication might be very well made; if so, why not revive the duties of this office if they had lain dormant? Why was it necessary to create an officer to do those duties which might be very well performed by officers at present existing? If there were any of them non-resident, a bill could be introduced transferring the authority to others. It might be said, that these officers had not hitherto performed their duties; but if they had not done so, it did not follow that they were unable to perform them. In the state of party feeling which had so long existed in Ireland—not that which was understood here by the distinction of Whig and Tory, but that dark and malignant spirit which extended to political and social relations between man and man, which manifested itself in acts of favour or acts of hostility, and pervaded every class from high to low—that acrimonious spirit, he was aware, the noble and learned Lord (Lord Plunkett) had
944
done much to abolish, but existing as it still did, he would ask him, if he thought the time had arrived when so much political power as this Bill would confer might be permanently placed in the hands of individuals? The Catholic Relief Bill went far to remove political animosities and party prejudices; indeed, it had exceeded in that respect the most sanguine expectations; but, still he doubted if it was wise to confer the power this Bill would give on one individual in each county. Let it also be considered, that as the office of Custos Rotulorum was to be continued, the appointment of a new officer, with nearly similar powers, might tend to create a collision of authority, which it would be well in any case to avoid, but more particularly in Ireland. The Custos Rotulorum would claim his rights, and there might be persons who would say to the officer newly appointed, "I will not attend to you, while I have an ancient officer who has authority to direct me." He cautioned the Government, therefore, against a measure which would be looked upon by many as solely intended for the purpose of increasing their patronage. He thought by the appointment of custodes rotulorum, instead of Lord-lieutenants, Ministers would relieve themselves from this imputation. It would also relieve the Government from the solicitation of their own friends, for they might say— "here is an opportunity by which you may confer upon us, at least, posts of honour and influence." From such solicitations as these, Ministers would be relieved, by adopting the course he had ventured to suggest. He did, therefore, hope, that they would reconsider the subject, and reflect on what the situation of the custodes rotulorum would be, if they appointed others to the situation of Lords-lieutenant.
The Marquis of Londonderry The Marquis of Londonderry, as one of the custodes rotulorum of Ireland, felt it necessary to say, that the office was one of very inconsiderable patronage; but that officer might, in his opinion, perform all the duties of the proposed Lord-lieutenants. He could not see the policy of taking away all the governors and deputy governors of counties in Ireland at one fell-swoop. He would suppose, that these officers had executed their duties with fidelity and ability many years. Would it be fair to place a Lord-lieutenant over such men's heads? The Custos Rotulo-

945
rum had hitherto had the recommendation of persons to be appointed to commissions of the peace; and how, he wanted to know, was the Bill to operate? Were the officers to act together or separate? Was there to be a sort of military as well as civil officer over each county? If the Custos Rotulorum was selected, and had the office given him, that might be fair, but it would be unfair and unjust to remove him without any imputation whatever against his character. It would be considered, that the only object of the change was, to create offices for persons more friendly to the views of Government. This was, on that ground, a highly objectionable measure, because it would place nearly the whole political power of the counties of Ireland in the hands of one class of men. It would take from the Custos Rotulorum the power he had heretofore, of recommending persons for the Commission of the Peace to the Lord Chancellor, and would thus place the whole Magistracy in the power of the Lord Chancellor, and if they should have a Radical Lord Chancellor, he would, of course, lake the recommendation of the newly-appointed Lord-lieutenant in preference to that of the former Custos Rotulorum. What he wished to ascertain was, whether the latter Officer was to retain the power which had been in courtesy allowed him, of recommending persons for the office of Magistrates? He questioned the propriety, in the present state of Ireland, of exalting one person over another, more especially when the persons to be abased had conducted themselves with propriety, and with the approbation of the country in which they resided. Their Lordships would be aware that some benefit resulted from the attachment borne to the individuals who exercised power. Unless Government united the offices, it would meet great difficulties, and its measure would be very unpopular. For these reasons, and knowing the feelings of the country, he had moved for the return of Governors in each county of Ireland, specifying those who also held the office of Custos Rotulorum. When this Return was on the Table, they would be able to ascertain who were the persons in office, and in what manner they had performed their duties. He wished this Return to be on the Table before the Bill was pressed forward; but he would not delay the Bill if the Government thought
946
it necessary. He begged to add a few words with respect to what had been said by the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government, on a previous occasion, as to the probability of doing away with the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland. The noble Earl's language appeared to imply, that such a change was contemplated by Government. If that was the case, he assured the noble Earl, no measure more disastrous or pregnant with mischief to Ireland, could well be conceived. Indeed, the mere expression of the sentiment was calculated to do much mischief. He had heard it with dismay. This unadvised change was, he knew, recommended in another place, but the small minority by which that proposition was supported, gave him an additional reason to hope that it would be scouted for ever. If it was revived, the Minister who proposed it would certainly rue the day when it should be carried into effect. It was the residence of the Lord Lieutenant and the little regal display at Dublin which still invested the metropolis of Ireland with something of a charm to the people, and added to the advantages of having such individuals as the Duke of Northumberland spending their princely wealth, and contributing to the happiness and prosperity of the capital, made the Irish still think they were an independent people. These feelings would be completely destroyed if the Lord Lieutenancy was removed. The young persons of that country who had not the means of coming to England, would be deprived of that introduction to the world which they at present attained by resorting to the Vice-regal Court at Dublin. As an Irishman, he must express his regret that such a measure was contemplated: he believed it would be an imprudent and dangerous step, and he trusted the noble Earl would give some explanation on the point, since he was satisfied, that nothing could have more tended to unsettle men's minds in that country than entertaining a project to remove the Lord Lieutenant, and abolish the Lord Lieutenancy.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that perhaps their Lordships would permit him, without attempting to reply to the extraneous topics which had been introduced by the noble Marquis, to answer those points only which related to the measure under their consideration. In the first place, he begged

947
to assure the noble Marquis that there was no desire to press this measure through the House with any undue haste. Secondly, that the argument of the noble Marquis, as well as that of the noble Earl who spoke first upon the subject, appeared to have been founded in a total mistake, so much so, that had not the noble Marquis himself said he was a Custos Rotulorum, he should have supposed he had no knowledge whatever on the subject. The noble Marquis contended, that we should assimilate the practice of the two countries by vesting the offices of Governor of the county and Custos Rotulorum in one and the same person, as was done in England, while the noble Marquis himself admitted, that the settlement of these offices should be in accordance with the habits and usages of the country. He agreed with the noble Marquis, and therefore apprized him that as the usage and practice of uniting the offices of Governor of the county and Custos Rotulorum, had never existed in Ireland, so the latter had no pretence to the privileges which custom and habit had given to the same officers in England. Thus they were entirely relieved from the difficulties which had been pressed upon them on that point. He had distinctly stated to their Lordships, on a former occasion, that he was doubtful of the wisdom of introducing the same practice with regard to the Lieutenants of counties in Ireland, as prevailed in England. He did not know how a different system had grown up in the two countries; probably it might have proceeded from some of the causes alluded to by the noble Earl. He would not take up their Lordships' time by replying to the sarcasms which the noble Marquis had indulged in. The noble Marquis accused the Government of a desire to gain a greater influence by retaining to itself the right of appointing the Lord-lieutenants of counties in Ireland, but that was not the question, which was, whether the general provisions of the Bill were wise. Every establishment newly introduced, necessarily increased for a time the influence of the Government. But this influence was only the fair and natural increase of the power which it was necessary the executive Government should possess to conduct the public business of the country, and he could assure the noble Marquis, in framing the provisions of the Bill they had no eye to an undue increase of their power or patronage.
The Marquis of Londonderrywas not aware that he had indulged in any sarcasms. But when the noble Lord declared that the circumstances to which he referred were extraneous to the subject under consideration, he thought the noble Secretary himself had indulged in sarcasm, for the observations he had made were chiefly confined to the question before the House.
Lord Plunkettrose to order. The noble Marquis had no right to speak but for the purpose of explanation; but the noble Marquis had not offered a word in explanation of what fell from him in his first address. He thought, therefore, the ordinary rules of the House should be enforced, and the noble Marquis be only allowed to speak in explanation.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, he was perfectly in order when he stated, that the charge of introducing extraneous matter was unfounded.
Earl Greyobserved, it was not explanation, to prove that any noble Lord was not subject to a particular observation That, he apprehended, came within the range of reply. Explanation was properly limited to those points on which a speaker had been misunderstood. The noble Marquis had not stated, that he had been misrepresented; he therefore could have no right to speak. It frequently happened, under the pretence of explanation, two, three, or more speeches were made by the same individual, on the same subject, to the inconvenience of the House, and to the delay of public business. He, therefore, thought it right to enforce the rules of the House.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, if the rules of the House prevented him from refuting the charge now, he should certainly do so in the Committee.
The Duke of Wellingtonwished to speak only on the Bill. When this question was discussed before, he had been perfectly aware of the existence of the Custodes Rotulorum in Ireland, and that many of these officers also held the office of Governors of Counties. He was, likewise, aware that it was the practice in this country that the Custodes Rotulorum should recommend the persons to serve as Magistrates, to the Lord Chancellor. That practice had originated in courtesy, and was now invariable, although, in fact, there was no law to enforce it. He understood the proposed system in Ireland was to be

949
like that of England, and that the Lord Lieutenants were to have the privilege of recommending Magistrates in the same manner as in this country. The noble Lord, however, had explained, on a former occasion, that it was not the intention of Government to carry this into effect immediately, but let the system be acted on by degrees. Looking at the present list of the Custodes Rotulorum in Ireland, he thought they were the fittest persons to be intrusted with this power. They must necessarily, from their superior local knowledge, be the best qualified to judge of those to whom ought to be confided the Magisterial duties. They were the parties, therefore, to whom the privilege of recommendation should be given. He must particularly direct the notice of Government to one point as most essential, which was, that the persons intrusted with this power should be generally resident in Ireland. So important did he consider this, that he should like an amendment to be introduced into the first clause of the Bill, beginning, that no person exercising the power of recommending Magistrates should quit the country without the permission of the Lord Lieutenant; and when such permission was given, such party should not leave Ireland until he had appointed a deputy (subject to the approval of the Lord Lieutenant) to act for him in his absence. The objection stated by his noble friend, that the measure would place the Lieutenant and Custos Rotulorum at variance with each other, seemed to him unfounded. If the Custos Rotulorum had ever been in the habit of appointing Magistrates, that would be the effect of the measure, but these officers in Ireland had no more been in the habit of recommending the Magistrates to the Lord Chancellor than any other individual there resident, which he considered to be one of the great evils of Ireland. He had seen printed forms of letters, according to which a former Lord Chancellor required that application should be made for the appointment of Magistrates. These printed forms could be filled up by anybody, and as the Custodes Rotulorum in Ireland had never been in the habit of recommending Magistrates, they would not be placed in the situations the noble Marquis supposed. But whatever changes were to be introduced, it was above all things necessary, that the person intrusted with the power of recommending Magistrates should pos-
950
sess the confidence of the Government and the country.
Earl Greythanked the noble Duke for the candid and manly manner in which he had supported a measure essential for the good government of Ireland. The noble Duke had given a complete answer to all the objections that had been raised. With regard to what fell from the noble Marquis, that he (Earl Grey) had made a declaration on some former occasion which had thrown all Ireland into alarm, and filled him with dismay, he was at a loss to imagine what the noble Marquis could mean, until he went on to slate that he fancied it was in contemplation of Government to abolish the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. What he had stated was, that whatever opinion might be entertained as to the expediency of keeping up the office of Lord Lieutenant, that would be a question to be considered on some future occasion, but that at present he had no hesitation in avowing his opinion, that it would be highly inexpedient to remove that officer. He had then particularly observed, that this measure was introduced with no such view, and must be judged on its own merits. This was his statement, which the noble Marquis, by some strange perversion of its meaning, had construed into a declaration that the Government intended to abolish the high and important office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He was not prepared to expect any opposition to the measure before the House in this stage, and bethought the course pursued by the two noble Lords opposite somewhat unusual. Although those noble Lords professed not to vote against the Bill, yet they had shown as much opposition as possible. As the objection raised to the increased patronage of the Crown, supposed to be given by the provisions of this Bill, had met so complete an answer from the noble Duke, he should no further notice it than to observe, it would be a most extraordinary limitation of the powers of the Crown if it were to be deprived of the appointment of such important officers as Lords Lieutenants of counties. He was regardless of the imputation which had been cast upon him, of selecting persons to fill these important offices from those who entertained party and particular opinions. It would be seen when the appointments took place, whether the Government had been guided by any such feelings, and until then the noble Lord opposite might

951
imagine what he pleased. He hoped, if this was a proper Bill, and these officers were to be appointed, that they would be left to the appointment of the Crown, under the responsibility of those Ministers, who were liable, on all occasions, for their advice to the Sovereign. With respect to the qualification of those persons, no doubt they should be of high character and rank, and above all, as suggested by the noble Duke, residents in the country, He had considered whether it would be possible to introduce into this Bill any limitation or provision to compel the Lord Lieutenants to reside in the country during the period of their appointment; but there was great difficulty on this point. In the first appointments, undoubtedly, residence would be an indispensable qualification, and he trusted the same qualification would be required, under whatever Government the country might be placed. He doubted whether it would be possible, by the construction of any clause, to provide for that object effectually without incurring the risk of putting into the hands of the executive Government of Ireland power greater, perhaps, than it ought to possess. The clause proposed by the noble Duke might be effectual, but it would place an extraordinary power in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, which might, at some time, be tyrannically exercised. He trusted that residence would be enforced, if not by a provision of the Bill, at least by whatever executive power might be in existence when the appointments were made.
The Earl of Wicklowexplained. The noble Earl had described him as an opponent of the measure, although he had distinctly stated it was his intention to support it. He had wished, indeed, for some explanation on particular points.
Lord Plunkettwould not have troubled their Lordships but for the mistake under which the noble Marquis and noble Earl evidently laboured, as to the practices and usages to which they had alluded, and upon which they had founded their objections. The whole of the argument advanced by them had, however, been completely answered by the noble Duke opposite. The noble Marquis, considering that the motion for the further progress of the Bill was only a matter of course, had unusually indulged himself in a very extensive range of observations. The noble Marquis had insinuated that the Ministers
952
object in bringing forward this Bill was to increase the patronage of the Crown. Certainly he should have thought the known characters of his Majesty's Ministers would have exempted them from any such insinuations; and he hoped there was no other noble Lord in the House who would for one moment suppose they were actuated by such paltry motives as the noble Marquis had ascribed to them. He did not believe the noble Marquis would act on such motives, and he would be properly indignant if they were attributed to him. Noble minds should be the last to impute to others what they would themselves be ashamed of. The noble Marquis was himself the Custos Rotulorum of two counties, though he was not acquainted with the particular circumstances which had given rise to this plurality of offices, and he seemed to suppose, that a case might arise in which the Lord Chancellor of Ireland might be influenced by the thoughts of patronage. If this was what the noble Marquis meant, why did he make the charge under the colour of an insinuation? Why did he not bring it forward in direct terms, and particularize the grounds for his supposition? Nothing was more offensive than insinuations of that sort. For his part, he repelled with scorn and indignation the imputation attempted to be cast upon him, and defied any man, from the first moment of his political existence, to look upon his character and conduct and then charge him with being a Radical. If he referred to his personal experience, he should find many applications had been made to him to appoint Magistrates; and even the noble Marquis himself, as Custos Rotulorum or Governor of a county (for applications must necessarily be made under the, latter character) had applied to him twice, and he asked the noble Marquis whether he thought it just and honourable to insinuate that he had been biassed by political feelings in his decision on these applications? He thought he had a right to complain of such insinuations; because, as a Peer of Parliament, he exercised his discretion and favoured the Reform Bill, therefore he was to be considered as a Radical Lord Chancellor of Ireland. He warned the noble Marquis against indulging in such insinuations which created pain wherever they fell, and to avoid the possibility of laying himself open to similar allusions, as the noble Marquis was, per-

953
haps, not perfectly invulnerable to political feelings. He felt a diffidence in defending himself, having been but a short time in that House, but although he had not taken his seat there as one of the hereditary Nobility, yet he had a right to maintain his character.
The Bill went through the Committee.