Sitting of 8 July 1831

MINUTES.
New Writs moved; for Milborne Port, in the room of RICHARD LALER SHEIL, Esq., who had made his Election for the County of Louth; for Cashel, in the room of MATTHEW PENNEFATHER, Esq. who had accepted the Chiltern Hundreds; for the County of Roscommon, in the room or OWEN O'CONNOR, Esq. deceased; for Okeampton, in the room of W. H. TRANT, Esq. who
954
had accepted the Chiltern Hundreds; for Winchilsea, in the room of S. LUSHINGTON, Esq. who had made his Election for Ilchester; and for Westbury, in the room of H. HANMER, Esq. who had accepted the Chiltern Hundreds.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. HOBHOUSE, from the Parish Officers of St. James, Westminster, for an account of Monies received from the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, for deficiencies in the Poor-rates, arising from Houses and Buildings taken down or shut up by Authority of the Act 53 George, 3rd Cap. 121, specifying the amounts paid in each year, the particulars of the Buildings, and the amount of the Assessment for the rate, and of all Monies paid to the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, on the same account:—On the Motion of Mr. Alderman WOOD, for the quantities of Foreign Corn of all kinds Imported for Consumption, and that had paid duty, under 9 George 4th, Cap. 60, from 1828 to 1st July 1831, and the same account of the produce of British Possessions out of Europe:— On the Motion of Mr.JEPHSON, for an account of all Receipts and Disbursements on Light Houses (Ireland), from 5th January 1813, to 5th January, 1831:—On the Motion of Mr. GRATTAN, of the number of Freeholders, distinguishing 50 l. 20 l. and 10 l., registered in Ireland, up to 1st May, 1831; and of a Report made, relating to the Navigation of the River Shannon:—On the Motion of Mr. HODGES, for the amount of Poor and County Rates levied and expended in each Parish, for the year ending the 25th of March, 1831; and for an account of Select Vestries formed under the Act 59 George 3rd, Cap. 12. On the Motion of Mr. S. Rice, for an account of the Assessed Taxes levied in each of the years 1828, 1829, and 1830 on the places mentioned in Schedule C of the Reform Bill; similar accounts for places in Schedule B. Petitions presented. By Sir R. FERGUSON, from Roman Catholic Freemen of the City of Londonderry to be relieved from taking the Oath of Allegiance, previous to Voting at Elections. By Mr. EWART, from the Shipowners of Liverpool, and Merchants and Ship-owners of Londonderry, to Repeal the Duties on Marine Insurances. By Mr. LABOUCHERE, from Taunton, for Representatives. By Lord LOWTHER, from the Inhabitants of Brighton, to return two Members conjointly with Cockermouth. By Sir G. CLERK, from the Scotch Distillers, against any alteration in the Distillery Laws.

REFORM PETITIONS.
Mr. Huntpresented a Petition from the Working Classes of Manchester, in favour of Universal Suffrage, Annual Parliaments, and Vote by Ballot. The petition, the hon. Member said, was signed by 19,400 individuals belonging to the working classes. He had deferred the presentation of it until he saw the hon. member for Lancashire (Mr. Heywood) in his place, as he should feel it his duty to call upon that hon. Member to support the prayer of this petition. When that hon. Member entered Manchester in triumph after his election, some of the flags carried before him on that occasion, had these mottoes on them, "No Corn Laws"—" Annual Parliaments"— "Universal Suffrage"— "Vote by Ballot." The hon. Member was therefore in some degree bound to support the prayer of a petition which prayed for these things. He could not avoid remarking upon the little attention which was paid either by the supporters or the opponents of the Reform Bill to the just claims of the working classes. He had heard during the late

955
three nights' Debate many eloquent speeches on that side of the House in support of the aristocracy; he had heard many learned and powerful arguments from the other side of the House in favour of the Bill and of the ten-pounders, but he had not heard a word from either side of the House in favour of the working classes— the 7,000,000 of male adults who were to be excluded from the Representation by this Bill. He must put the House in possession of parts of the contents of the petition. The petitioners expressed their loyalty to the King and attachment to the institutions of the country; they heard with pleasure of the extension of the suffrage to the 10 l. voters, but expressed their regret that the class to which they belong were excluded. He complained, that whenever he had a petition to present in favour of the working classes, he was interrupted by noise and talking in the House. The petitioners further represented that the exclusion of the working classes from the elective franchise would only tend to excite future agitation. He had heard the ective franchise called a trust, but he must contend that the suffrage belonged to the electors as a matter of right; that it was improperly described when spoken of as a trust; that from the reign of Edward 1st to that of Henry 6th, a period of 150 years, every freeman was entitled to a vote by Magna Charta; in the reign of Henry the 6th an Act passed which stated, that as many persons of small property attended election and professed to have an equal right to vote with those who possessed large property, from which circumstance broils and disturbances were likely to ensue, in future persons possessing freehold property to the amount of 40s. should be allowed to vote. This was the first disfranchising Act, and from that day down to the present, all the statutes that had been placed on the books had had for their object to abridge the liberties of the people. In the time of Edward the 1st, an Act. of Parliament was passed to declare Parliament annual, and he was therefore astonished to hear great lawyers and Statesmen call those who petitioned for Universal Suffrage and Annual Parliaments, wild and visionary persons. He begged to state, that neither this petition, nor any petition of the kind, had been got. up at his instigation. He had allowed the working classes, the 7,000,000 for whom the Bill would do nothing, to judge of its merits, and he was
956
eady to support their petitions when transmitted to him. He had been told by the hon. member for Kerry that when the Ministerial Bill should be carried, he would stand alone out of doors as the advocate of Universal Suffrage, Annual Parliaments, and Vote by Ballot; but the hon. Gentleman was mistaken, the working classes for whom the Bill did nothing would stand by him, while his opponents would only have the 500,000 ten-pounders to support them.
Mr. Heywoodhoped, that as a new Member he should experience the kind indulgence of the House on this, to him, painful occasion, for it was painful, most painful, to have, on the first time he had ever addressed the House, to answer an attack like that made by the hon. Member. With regard to what had been stated as to the banners and mottoes that preceded his triumphal entry into Manchester, he begged to say, that he was completely ignorant of them. He was sorry to see petitions of this description coming from the working classes of Manchester. He had had some intercourse with the working classes there; he had their real benefit at heart, and he told the delegates who had brought up this petition when they waited on him, what he honestly and sincerely believed would be the case—that what they asked for (namely, Annual Parliaments and Universal Suffrage) would, if obtained, effect the destruction and starvation of the working classes themselves. When the Reform Bill was disposed of, he should go back to Lancashire, and, aware that he possessed some influence with the working classes there, he should exercise it to induce them to abandon such a course of proceeding as this—a course that was so mischievously destructive of their best interests.
Mr. Humesaid, that the delegates who had conveyed this petition to town, had waited on him also, and that he told them that they only brought injury on the cause of Reform and good government by presenting such petitions now. The measure of Reform, when carried, would benefit every individual in the country, not even excepting the 7,000,000 of whom the hon. member for Preston had spoken, He was sorry to see petitions presented calling upon the House to do more than it would be prudent to attempt at the present moment, and such petitions were calculated to do much mischief. He would moreover maintain, that this petition did not speak the

957
sense of the working classes. He had received a communication from Stockport, in which it was stated, that only 2s. 6d. could be raised there to defray the expense of sending the Delegates to town, and when he mentioned that fact to the Delegates, they could not deny it. He deprecated the idea expressed so often by the hon. Member, that the House was indifferent to the claims of the labouring classes.
Mr. Warreprotested against the language used by the hon. member for Preston on this and former occasions, when the hon. Member said, that Members or candidates were bound to support, and were rendered responsible and answerable for, the inscriptions on flags or banners carried during the elections. It was too hard to impute to the hon. Member any blame for the inscriptions. Every person must know, who had any experience of contested elections, that the zeal of friends, or the conduct of pretended friends, might, according to this doctrine, involve a candidate to such an extent as to render his presence in that House worse than useless. It was absurd to pledge a Member to whatever took place at a general election. He gave the hon. Member all the benefit of the argument he had founded on the two statutes of Edward 1st, and Henry the 6th, but he declared the law ever since had a tendency to increase the extent of the right of Suffrage, comparing the qualification of a 40s. freeholder at that time to what it was now. The hon. Member forgot the difference between the value of money in those days and the present. The practical effects of these laws had been, to enfranchise the people, not to disfranchise them, and he regretted that the hon. Member persisted in a course of assumption which was as little founded on history or fact as it was calculated to promote the cause of Reform, to which the whole conduct of the hon. Member was hostile.
Mr. O'Connellwished to say a few words respecting the petition, as he had some previous knowledge of it. The hon. member for Preston said that seven millions of the population of England would be disfranchised by the Bill. Now it ought to be borne in mind that, according to the last return laid before the House, that of 1821, the whole population of England was only twelve millions, and the one-half of that consisted of females; and he should, therefore, be glad to know by what rule of arithmetic the hon. Member, after taking
958
away six from twelve, could make a remainder of seven. A deputation had waited on him with the petition, and he declined to present it. During the interview which they had with him, some of the party asked his serious opinion whether Mr. Hunt had been bribed by the Tories. His answer was, that he was convinced he was not, for nobody would ever think of bribing him. He had also told those persons, that he was sure they would care nothing about Universal Suffrage when the Bill came into operation. He (Mr. O'Connell) had formerly been in favour of Universal Suffrage, because he thought that good and cheap Government could not be obtained without it. He was, however, no longer of that opinion. The rotten boroughs would be destroyed by this measure, there would be no longer the nominees of Peers or other persons in the House, but each Member would be returned by a large constituency. He repeated, therefore, that this Bill afford-ed an ample security for good government. He had stated as much to the delegates, and warned them, as he would then warn hon. Members, not to delay, by finding needless faults, the progress of a measure which would confer incalculable benefit on the country.
Sir Charles Forbesthought the hon. member for Preston deserved praise for his sincerity and candour. He had told the truth manfully, and as the truth must be obnoxious to the ears of Gentlemen opposite, he was not surprised at the manner in which the hon. Member had been treated. He had no doubt that the petition spoke the sentiments of the large body of the labouring classes: he was convinced they were not satisfied, and would not be, unless much larger concessions were made. Their discontent had been entirely occasioned by the conduct of Ministers in introducing their Reform Bill. Already, petitions had been presented from Newcastle, complaining that this measure would disfranchise the children of the petitioners. He had watched the conduct of the people during the last four months, and endeavoured to ascertain their feelings, and he was convinced they would not cease to petition the House until Universal Suffrage was conceded. He could not understand upon what grounds the present Bill had been trained. On what principle was it, that those who paid 3s. 10 d. per week I for their houses were to have votes, while to those who paid 3s. 6d. it was refused?

959
How was it that the man who paid 10 l. per annum should enjoy the elective franchise, while he who only paid 9l. 19 s. 11 d, had not the right? The Bill would not bear the test of examination, and was an attempt to legislate upon absurd and extravagant principles. He agreed with the hon. member for Preston, that a more unsatisfactory and incomprehensible measure had never been submitted to the House. If it was sanctioned, they would have to concede, step by step, all that the most extravagant Reformers demanded; indeed, he knew that the hon. member for Middlesex had advised the people of Scotland to be quiet for the present, for the success of the Bill would make it easy to obtain, after it was passed, all that they had hitherto demanded. He was convinced that this Bill would do much evil; and, among other things, would operate as an inducement to people not to pay their rents. Some hon. Members had objected to the right of ladies voting; he would ask them, on what grounds they opposed this proposition? Ladies had the right of voting for Directors to the East-India Company, and if the right of voting was grounded on the possession of property, there ought to be no distinction of sex. Another reason for wishing the ladies had this privilege was, that he thought the greater part of them had very proper notions about this Reform Bill, and properly opposed it, because it was incomprehensible to them, as well as to their fathers and brothers. Although many Members had called for explanations of different clauses, yet none which could be understood had been given. He was satisfied the most disastrous results would accrue to the country from this Bill being carried. There was no probability of his being a Member of a Reformed House of Commons, nor should he desire it; for he had no inclination to mix with the company which would probably assemble in that House, should the Bill become a law.
Lord Stanleyprotested against the doctrine, that his Colleague was to be considered pledged to certain opinions because persons who supported him at his election, entertained them, and displayed them on flags. He also protested against the tone and manner adopted by the hon. member for Preston, in lecturing other Members in unbecoming language. The hon. Member had appealed to him (Lord Stanley) for
960
the correctness of a statement he had made, but he could not confirm its accuracy. The hon. Member said, that he never requested petitions to be got up against this Bill; and that, on the contrary, he had cautiously abstained from interfering. A paper, however, had been put into his hands containing the report of the delegates sent up from Manchester to get this petition presented, which stated, that the hon. Member told them, it would be in vain for the people to expect any good from the Reform Bill, or that the iniquitous Corn-laws would be abolished. The people of Manchester were bound, the hon. Member was reported to have said, to support his motion for the total abolition of these laws—and he recommended a petition should be got up, and as many signatures as possible attached to it; that it should be worded in the strongest language, and sent to him before the 15th of the present month, upon which day he intended to bring the subject before the House. The hon. Gentleman complained that other hon. Members excited the people to petition in favour of the Reform Bill; he had, at the same time, declared, that he had never asked, or requested, any person to petition this House on a subject any way connected with that question, which, according to this statement, was not correct. With respect to the flags borne before his hon. Colleague, they were carried probably by persons who had no connexion whatever with his hon. Colleague, and it was monstrous to make him responsible for the inscriptions on them.
Mr. Trevorwished to correct an error of the hon. and learned member for Kerry. That hon. and learned Gentleman had stated, that this Bill would not disfranchise any voters; but a large number of non-resident freemen who, in many places, formed the majority of the voters, would be disfranchised. In Durham, for instance, all the non-resident freemen would be deprived of the right of voting, and the greater part of them belonged to the labouring classes.
Mr. O'Connellwas sure the hon. Member had made a mistake, when he spoke of labouring classes, he meant those who were hired once in seven years.
Mr. George Robinsonwas surprised, that the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles Forbes) should have supported the views of the hon. member for Preston, who had called

961
himself the Representative of the labouring classes, a title he had no more right to assume than any other hon. Member. He had declared, that the people were deluded and deceived by the Bill; but could the hon. Member deny that it would give them a real, and not nominal, control over their Representatives? That was their opinion, and he trusted they would find out their secret enemies (who supported the Bill by their votes, but took every opportunity of checking its progress). The hon. member for Preston had charged the hon. member for Lancashire with deserting the cause of the people, because he did not follow the example of the hon. Member, in offering every opposition in his power to the Bill. The public, however, knew the importance and value of the measure, and they were no further deluded than that some of them, under the influence of the hon. Member, believed that the measure would not benefit them.
An Hon. Member could not allow the observation of the hon. and learned member for Kerry to pass uncontradicted. All his constituents, for he happened to represent one of the boroughs in Schedule A, would lose the right of voting under the Bill; it was, therefore, monstrous to assert that this Bill disfranchised nobody.
Mr. O'Connell Mr. O'Connell, in explanation said, he had denied that the Bill would disfranchise the labouring classes.
Mr. Laboucherewas the Representative of a pot-wallopping borough, and a large portion of his constituents would be disfranchised by the operation of the Bill, but they supported it, although he had pointed out to them, that they would lose the privilege of voting. The public spirit and intelligence of the people destroyed the wish to retain privileges which were injurious to others, and he claimed for them a part of that gratitude which had been expressed, and was due to those who, out of regard to the public weal, readily sacrificed their private advantages.
Mr. D. W. Harveycould not but observe the hollow sympathy shown by hon. Members representing rotten boroughs for the loss of the labourers' franchise. He could tell them, that where the right of voting existed only in consequence of abuse, those who now enjoyed it were ready to give it up for the benefit of their country. He found that sort of noble disinterestedness existing among all the out-voters of Colchester, who amounted to
962
nearly 900. He had some disinclination to disfranchise this large body of his constituents, but his objections were removed by their patriotic conduct; and he was happy to think they would, as householders have the privilege of voting in the places where they resided. With regard to the resident 500 voters of Colchester, more than 300 would still retain the suffrage as householders. An hon. Baronet had objected to give the elective franchise to 10 l. householders to the exclusion of those who had only 9l. 19 s. 11 d. the object of which was, that good government should be obtained with the least trouble. A further extension of the suffrage must depend on the conduct of future Parliaments. If the Members did their duty, they would have the confidence of the community, and there could be no desire for further changes. He believed that this would be the consequence, and that the Members elected under this Bill would truly represent public opinion; would be prepared to maintain their rights and privileges, and would not sacrifice the interest of the country for the advantage of aristocracy.
Sir E. Sugdenwas convinced that the labouring classes of the people were not aware of the contents of the Bill. He had a perfect conviction that they were not, and he said this with confidence, from the conversations he had had on the subject with all classes of the people. It required all the care and attention of a lawyer to understand the bearing of some of the clauses, for instance that regarding registration. A person could not be placed on the lists unless his rent and taxes were fully paid up. How would this operate? The householder would be required to produce vouchers and receipts, but could he compel the landlord and tax-gatherer to receive the rent and taxes to a particular time, and give these vouchers? If the poor man was anxious about his vote, he was likely to become involved in litigation with his landlord. The freedom of election could not be insured under the proposed system. He had been the first to point out, that most of the present electors for Preston would be disfranchised, and it would be extremely difficult to say, in whom the right of voting would remain. The rights of the present resident voters were preserved as well as the rights of their children, in order to conciliate the various Corporations. This, however, was not a part of the original Bill, and was only conceded

963
to allay opposition. He asserted, as a lawyer, that he could not tell what would be the operation of several of the clauses of this Bill, and, therefore, he was quite sure that it must be unknown to the people. If they knew it, the Bill would probably be as unpopular as it was now popular. He maintained, therefore, that the people were deluded by the Bill, and supported it only because they believed, as they were told, that they lost no present power, and because they had not the capacity to look to any distant contingency.
Mr. Ewartwas surprised at these imputations on the intelligence of the people of England, and he took on himself to deny them in the most positive manner. It was not necessary to have a knowledge of all the details of the Bill, to comprehend its object. The hon. and learned Member had taken credit to himself for having pointed out the effects of some of the clauses upon the Preston electors. He had paid so much attention to minute details that he had entirely lost sight of principles. The hon. member for Preston had fallen into error; he supposed, that up to the time of Henry 6th, all men had the right of voting; but it was plain, in addition to the fact that by an Act of Henry 5th, out-voters were excluded at county elections, that none but freeholders had the right to vote and that name did not include the great body of agricultural and other labourers.
Mr. Alderman Waithmandefended his constituents from the charge brought against them by the hon. and learned Member. The Livery of London consisted of 14,000 or 15,000 of the most respectable and best-informed men of the country; many of them would be disfranchised by the Bill, but none of them declined to make this sacrifice for the public good. The people had been deluded and deceived by an aristocratical faction, which had involved the country in expensive and ruinous wars for their own objects, and now the same party pretended to sympathise with the lower classes, although they really refused to grant the right of suffrage to the majority of the house-holders of the country, The clause as to the payment of the rent was a most proper one, to avoid a constituency of paupers. The people, he contended, understood the Bill fully. They showed, too, that they understood the conduct of their pretended friends; for, popular as the hon. member
964
for Preston had once been, he was now hissed and hooted by the people. Was it meant to be said, by the hon. member for St Mawes, that the freeholders of counties did not understand the Bill? Surely not; and yet they were in favour of it; for on the division the other night, eighty county Members voted for, and only eight county Members against it. Did the hon. Member mean to say, also, that intelligence was only to be found among the constituents of the small minority, and that they alone know what was most beneficial to the country?
Petition read, and laid on the Table.
Mr. Hunt Mr. Hunt, in moving that the petition be printed, said, that it could hardly be expected he should answer all the charges that had been brought against him. He was convinced the attack was rather intended for the 19,000 persons whose petition he had presented, than for himself. He had not accused the hon. member for Lancashire of being in favour of Universal Suffrage, and had been surprised when the delegates from Manchester supposed he would support the prayer of their petition. He was the only consistent Radical Reformer in the House, and he had to reply to the attacks of the pseudo Reformers, such as the hon. members for Middlesex and Kerry. As to the assertions of these hon. Members he had just received a card from some of the delegates who happened to hear what had been asserted by the hon. member for Middlesex.
Mr. Stanleyrose to order, the hon. Member made a statement which was replied to by another hon. Gentleman, and in reply to that again he quoted the authority of their delegates, who, he said, heard it. That was the most unparliamentary course he had ever witnessed.
Mr. Huntwas aware, that it was contrary to the rules of the House to make such allusions; and he would not, therefore, say any more on that subject. He had been attacked both by the hon. member for Middlesex and the hon. and learned member for Kerry, who, he understood from the delegates, had recommended them to be quiet until this Bill had passed, when he would be ready to go all lengths with them. It was by his desire these persons had waited on the hon. and learned Gentleman, to get him to present their petition, when he had said, he approved of every word it contained, and was prepared to support, at a proper time,

965
all that they required. He understood that the delegates had put this question to the hon. and learned member for Kerry, viz. whether he (Mr. Hunt) had been bribed. The delegates did not believe that he had; and the object they had in asking the question was, whether the hon. and learned Gentleman believed that he had. There was not a man in that House less likely to be bribed than he was. With regard to the Bill, it would disfranchise 6,000 or 7,000 voters at Preston: and he really believed, that one of the clauses of the Bill was framed for that purpose. He was not surprised that the noble Lord, the member for Lancashire, should support it, for he had heard that a certain family had altered their proceedings, shutting up a mansion, and closing a coal-pit in that neighbourhood, in consequence of a person having been elected for that place who was obnoxious to that family. He had another petition to present, which prayed that the right of suffrage might be granted to all householders. He was not in the habit of predicting what would be the result of this or that measure, but he had no hesitation in hazarding an opinion as to the future on the present Bill. His opinion was, that if the Bill did not pass there would be a convulsion in the country; and if it did pass there would be one, on account of the vast disappointment as to the benefit which the people calculated upon. He was no prophet; but this was what he would declare to be the impression upon his mind. The Tories had now an opportunity of becoming the most popular party in the country, by supporting Annual Parliaments, Universal Suffrage, and Vote by Ballot. Nothing but this would satisfy the people, and they might acquire popularity by making themselves the instrument of granting the wishes of the people.
Mr. Portmanwished to ask the hon. member for Preston, whether he had not once taken an oath before the Lord Mayor that he would never support anything but Universal Suffrage, Annual Parliaments, and Vote by Ballot? If he had taken such an oath, his judgment upon these points must be considered to be determined more by the awful authority of the oath than by the use of his reason.
Mr. Huntsaid, he saw no impropriety in having taken such an oath. He was prepared to admit and justify it, the circumstance occurred just previous to a
966
Westminster election. He had taken the oath before the Lord Mayor at the request of some of the electors for that place: and the purport of it was, that he would always support Annual Parliaments, Universal Suffrage, and Vote by Ballot; and if the hon. Member, as a Magistrate, would give him the opportunity of repeating it, he would willingly do so.
Mr. Cresset Pelhamwas opposed to this Bill; but it did not follow, because he held this opinion, that he ought to support the hon. member for Preston in all his peculiar notions. The Bill would do mischief by extending the franchise, and Universal Suffrage would be only the greatest possible extension of the evil.
Colonel Evanssaid, that the hon. member for Preston represented the people of this country as dissatisfied with the Bill. He did not charge the hon. Member with being bribed, but he was sure, if he had been, he would have acted exactly as he had done, for his object appeared to be to mislead the people. He could speak from personal experience as to their opinions when the measure was before the late Parliament. He had not the honour of a seat then in that House; and he knew that in different parts of the kingdom there was a unanimous feeling in favour of the Bill.
Mr. Huntagain rose. He had only to say one word. If he recollected rightly, the hon. member for Rye, when at Preston, placarded, that if he were returned, he should submit a motion to Parliament to do away with the law respecting primogeniture. Whenever the hon. Member brought such a motion forward, he might calculate upon his support.
Petition to be printed.

ELECTION FOR THE COUNTY OF PEMBROKE.
Sir J. Owensaid, that his return had been petitioned against, and that under the 9th of George the 4th, he should only have time till to-morrow to prepare and give in a list of those electors, who polled for his opponent, to whom he intended to raise objections. He was not previously aware of the nature of the objections that were to be made against his return, and he had sent for such a list as was required, but could not receive it until after the time appointed. He therefore requested an extension of the time for taking the petition into consideration, till the 11th of August. He should be

967
prepared to deliver in the lists ten days previous to that period. The House must be aware that a petitioner against a sitting Member had an advantage, for he could choose his objections, while his opponent had but a short time to prepare his answer. In this case that advantage was particularly great, because it was necessary for him to deliver his list of objectionable votes before the petitioners against his return had entered into the necessary recognizances. The principal charge was not directed against himself, but against the High Sheriff, whose duty it was, to be present at the Assises on the 19th instant, only two days before this petition was to be taken into consideration, and as his presence in London would be necessary, he hoped this would be an additional motive for the House to agree to his motion, which was, that the petition should be taken into consideration on the 1lth of August instead of the 21st of July.
Mr. Phillipsobserved, that the hon. Baronet had the same time as the petitioner.
Mr. C. W. Wynnobserved, that no sitting Member could be considered to have as much time as the petitioner, for the petitioner was aware of his own intention to come forward, but the sitting-Member could only learn that by the petition being presented. It would be impossible that a sitting Member, against whom a petition was presented only on Monday, should be prepared to go into it to-morrow; at the same time, it was not right to allow a greater delay than was requisite. A fortnight would be ample, and he should say, that the 4th of August would be preferable to the 1lth, as the day on which the petition should be taken into consideration.
Lord Althorpadmitted, that to insist upon bringing forward the list to-morrow would be unjust, but he had no objection to the time being extended to the 4th of August.
Sir John Owendid not think the difference very material. The examinations must occupy more than a week; he would therefore move, that the petition be taken into consideration on the 4th of August next.
Sir John Wrottesleyagreed with the hon. Baronet, that no further time should be allowed the High Sheriff to answer the charge than was sufficient to do justice.
Petition to be taken into consideration on the 4th of August.

BOROUGH OF LIVERPOOL.
Mr. Evelyn Denisonmoved for the issue of a new Writ for the borough of Liverpool. It would be in the recollection of the House, he said, that when he had previously made a similar Motion, the noble Lord opposite suggested the propriety of an adjournment, to which he had consented, in order not to prejudge the question, for he had then stated, no precedent could be found for the delay of the Writ under the circumstances of the case. He had since diligently examined the records of the House, and admitted, that Writs had been often suspended for acts of gross impropriety in different boroughs, and such a suspension had been continued from Session to Session, but no case had occurred of extending that suspension from one to a subsequent Parliament. Since the proceedings against Liverpool had taken place, there had been a dissolution, and could the House, after the Crown had put an end to the last Parliament, be justified in renewing the suspension? The effect of the Reform Bill would be to give greater power to the majority in that Mouse, and therefore it would be highly inexpedient to depart from those settled customs and usages which operated as a defence and protection to the minority. If, in other cases, a suspension had been allowed, it was where there was no chance of rectifying the abuses in the delinquent boroughs, and in that case only was the House justified in a departure from established custom. East Retford was the cause of great delay and expense, and after all no person was disfranchised, but a number of additional electors were added to purify the remainder. The Reform Bill would do the same for the borough of Liverpool, which a particular Bill had done for East Retford, and he hoped, therefore, that the noble Marquis would not oppose the issuing of the Writ, as there could be no necessity for taking other measures to attain what would thus practically be effected. It was to him personally a matter of indifference whether the House renewed its inquiries into what had taken place in the borough of Liverpool or not, but from those inquiries the question of issuing the Writ was perfectly distinct, and he must call upon the House to support the Motion with which he should conclude, as a proper and customary line of proceeding. He begged to move, "That the Speaker do now issue

969
his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown, to issue a new Writ for the election of a Burgess to serve for the Borough of Liverpool, in the room of Mr. Evelyn Denison, who had made his election to serve for the County of Nottingham."
Mr. Ewartseconded the Motion.
The Marquis of Chandosasked the hon. member for Wiltshire, whether he intended to persist in the Motion of which he had formerly given notice on this subject, as it was then understood this question of granting the new Writ should not take precedence of that.
Mr. Benettdid not think the decision of this question, whether it terminated in issuing the new Writ or not, would at all affect the question he was to bring before the House. He had once moved for the suspension of the Writ, which was agreed to, but a dissolution had taken place since, and a Writ had issued, which he could not prevent. If the Motion to suspend the Writ was brought forward by any other Gentleman he would support it; but at present he did not feel himself called upon to originate such a Motion.
Mr. C. W. Wynnsaid, that he should certainly oppose the issuing of this Writ, until the evidence taken before the Election Committee had been brought under the consideration of the House. The whole was necessarily an anomalous proceeding, for there was no exact precedent, and the House was not bound by any rule but its own discretion. The charge against the borough of Liverpool was, that gross and systematic bribery had taken place in that town, during the election for its Representatives in 1830. That was the cause why the Writ was suspended last April, and was a good reason that the suspension should be continued. It had been said, the dissolution put an end to this proceeding; but with this opinion he did not agree. The Crown had no optional power, but must issue Writs to the different Sheriffs, desiring them to issue precepts for each borough within their jurisdiction. He recollected that when his late Majesty George 3rd died, there were four boroughs, against which charges of bribery had been alleged, and were under consideration. On that occasion, the House had passed a bill, declaring that if those charges were not decided before the dissolution of Parliament, no Writ should issue for those boroughs. But before the Bill passed through the other House, the dissolution
970
took place, and new elections were held. He would ask, whether, in a case like that of Grampound, with the evidence before them, any hon. Member would have voted for the issuing of a new Writ while the proceedings were in progress. The best course which the House could follow at present was, either to negative this Motion, or to suspend the issuing of this Writ till Monday or Tuesday next, when the Motion of the hon. member for Wiltshire would be taken into consideration.
Mr. Hudson Gurneycould not agree either in the principle or in the expediency of the proposal of the right hon. member for Montgomeryshire. It was the mere accidental circumstance of an hon. Gentleman having been returned for a county as well as for the borough of Liverpool, that afforded the opportunity of making any demur to the issue of the Writ for that borough. It would, in his opinion, be a violent assumption of power on the part of the House, if it refused a Writ to supply such an accidental vacancy. It was notorious, that corruption and bribery had prevailed at Liverpool to a vast extent during the election last year, and that the hon. Member who was then elected had lost his seat in consequence. If, therefore, there had been delinquency, it had been severely punished. Another election had since taken place, and it was one of the most pure that had ever been known there. If the Writ were issued, the examples already made would have the effect of preventing bribery; if the Writ were suspended, it would increase corruption, and might excite violence, by rousing the bad passions of the great population of the borough. If the Reform Bill was carried, the franchise would be varied, the local evil of voting by tallies would be done away, and with that would disappear the facility of bribery. He therefore thought the Writ ought to be issued.
Mr. Rigby Wasonsaid, he had taken an active part out of doors in exposing the venality and corruption practised at Liverpool, and he thought it would be better for the House to defer the present Motion until that of the hon. member for Wiltshire had been disposed of, for they would be placed in a most awkward situation if a Writ was sent down, and they afterwards came to a Resolution to deprive the borough of the elective franchise, in consequence of the notorious bribery and corruption that was known to prevail there.

971
He would therefore suggest, that the Motion should be withdrawn. As that, however, did not appear to meet the views of the hon. Member, he must shew, that the present electors of Liverpool ought to be disfranchised, for the bribery practised there far exceeded the bribery of all other boroughs the delinquency of which had been brought before the House. To make a difference between Liverpool and the paltry places of Grampound and East Retford, to deal severely with them, and let the rich and populous town of Liverpool escape, would lay the House open to the suspicion of punishing the weak, and favouring the powerful. To prove the magnitude of the bribery and corruption that had prevailed at previous elections, it was sufficient to remind the House of the evidence already given to it. A gentleman had published a statement, in justice to the memory of the late Mr. Canning, shewing that his election in 1812 cost only 9,000 l. Bribery might have prevailed elsewhere, but it was generally practised in secret. At Liverpool they exulted in shewing to what excess it could be carried. It was notoriously and publicly carried on. The electors, after being polled, were taken to the respective pay-rooms to receive the stipulated amount, and the market price of the votes was day by day openly canvassed and publicly settled. As proof of this he would refer the House to the evidence of Mr. Bald, who had polled from 100 to 200 men, whom he afterwards took to the pay-room, where they received from 5l. to 40 l. each for their votes. Other witnesses proved they had been in a lobby for a considerable time which opened into another room into which they saw many electors enter and receive money. The dissipation and debauchery which accompanied this bribery were shocking. It was a fact, that ten or twelve persons had died of drunkenness during the election. These statements were sufficient to shew the extent of the bribery and corruption, and the House was never more strongly called upon to exercise its power. They were about to create a numerous class of voters throughout the kingdom by the Reform Bill, of the same description as those who had committed these evil practices, and it was necessary to shew to the new constituency, that if they committed or practised bribery, disfranchisement would inevitably follow the
972
detection of the crime. At the present moment corruption was going on at Liverpool, and public houses were opened there. He made this statement in the presence of hon. Gentlemen who well knew it was correct, and yet they proposed to issue a new Writ, to repeat, among so profligate and demoralized a set, the same brutal excesses and the same guilty corruption. It was capable of proof at the Bar of that House, that the result of the late election was the consequence of the bribery practised in November last, for many freemen voted from a fear that if they refused they would have to refund the money formerly received. It was necessary to disfranchise the present freemen, or they would leave a most corrupt body to dictate to the town, and control all future elections. Any Gentleman foolish enough to bribe the present freemen, would certainly be returned. On every principle of justice the House ought not to issue a new Writ. The parties to whom it must be sent were not fit to be trusted with the elective franchise. They had no reason to believe that the hon. member for Wiltshire would not again bring his Motion forward, because it had necessarily been dropped by the House being counted out. The electors expected the suspension, and had no reason to complain. He would therefore agree to the suggestion that this Debate be adjourned to Monday next, or till after the hon. member for Wiltshire had brought his Motion under the consideration of the House.
Mr. Goulburnalso recommended the postponement of the Writ until the motion of the hon. member for Wiltshire should be discussed, which course appeared to him the more desirable, as that hon. Gentleman had been the Chairman of the Committee. They did not come to the consideration of this question perfectly unfettered. The remembrance of what had occurred on a former occasion, when a Writ was moved for, was still present to them. It appeared on that occasion to be the opinion of the House, that they would first hear the hon. member for Wiltshire, and they required, therefore, strong reasons for departing from the conclusion they had then come to. They ought not to attempt to get rid of this question by a side-wind. According to ordinary usage, the election could not take place until Tuesday, and the present motion was therefore at least premature. In his opinion, Liverpool, under

973
all the circumstances of the case, would have no reason to complain if the hon. Member brought forward his motion on Monday, as the electors would have no right at law to exercise their franchise any sootier.
Lord Althorpdid not undertake to offer more than his Own sentiments as an individual Member, and as such he advised, that the issuing of the Writ should not be postponed, as the Motion of the hon. member for Wiltshire could as fitly be discussed after the Writ had been issued as before. In the case of Grampound, they discussed the question of its disfranchisement with both Members sitting in the House. He thought it rather hard that such a town as Liverpool should be deprived of the services of one of its Representatives longer than was absolutely indispensable. At the same time, if he conceived, that the mere issuing of the Writ would at all interfere with the power of the House to inquire into the alleged corruption of the electors, he would at once Set his face against the proposal.
Sir C. Wetherellsuggested, that it was rather a whimsical mode of treatment for a case like that of Liverpool, to issue a Writ which would give the electors the right to exercise their privilege of voting, and then to inquire whether thousands of them had not been guilty of bribery and corruption, as stated in the report. It would be an odd case for a Writ to be issued, allowing 3,000 men to vote, whom, when the House considered the report actually before them, they might consider unfit to exercise that privilege. In saying this, he did not mean to give any opinion as to the merits of the ultimate question; but although there was no, case, he believed, precisely similar to the present on the Journals, it was undoubtedly quite competent for the House to direct that no Writ should be issued, until a regular inquiry had previously been instituted.
Mr. Littletoncould find no precedent for this case; and was, therefore, apprehensive of the House forming a dangerous one, which he thought it would do, in not agreeing to the Motion of the hon. member for Nottinghamshire. It was said, wholesale bribery was practised in Liverpool, he feared there were few boroughs where similar corruption did not exist. As it was not yet considered necessary to deprive Liverpool of its Members, if the hon. Member divided the House, he should give his vote for the issuing of the Writ, though
974
he looked upon the case as one of difficulty.
Sir C. Forbessaid, that he should give his vote for the issuing of the Writ. The proper way, in his opinion, to guard against bribery and corruption was, to require every Member, on coming into the House, to pledge himself that he had practised none, and knew of none.
Lord Howickobjected to the principle, of the House undertaking to decide questions of bribery; he thought that it would be much better for the House to direct the Attorney General to institute proceedings for bribery in a Court of Justice. A Bill of Pains and Penalties he considered as most unjust, and as having a tendency to impart to that House a spirit and a power it ought not to possess or to exercise. He should, therefore, certainly vote for the issuing of the Writ.
Sir G. Clerkthought, that the right course to take was not to part with the power they possessed, and that they had therefore better adjourn this debate till Monday, in the hope that by that time the hon. member for Wiltshire would have found an opportunity to bring on his Motion. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving an amendment to this effect.
Lord John Russellwas of opinion that it would not be fair in this case to withhold the issuing of the Writ because there was no accusation of corruption, and the vacancy was not caused by a decision of a Committee of the House, but by the Member who had been elected having taken his scat for another place. He had, on a former occasion, brought in a Bill in the case of Grampound, to suspend the Writs for certain boroughs at general elections; and if that Bill had received the sanction of the other House, the ease would be different. He admitted that the present was a case of difficulty, warranting a difference of opinion; but, on the whole, he thought it would not be fair to suspend the Writ.
Mr. Charles Rosssaid, that in the Act relating to Grampound, there was a clause expressly providing what was to be done in the event of a vacancy occasioned by death, and that clause applied precisely to this case. This was an accidental vacancy, and they must proceed as if it had been occasioned by an Election Committee. There was no attempt made to disfranchise Liverpool. The former adjournment was moved to allow the hon. member

975
for Wiltshire to bring his motion forward. The Reform Bill in his opinion did not in the least affect the question, which ought to be decided on its own merits.
Mr. C. W. Wynnhad suggested the adjournment on Wednesday, which was intended to allow the hon. member for Wiltshire to bring on his motion. The House having formerly come to that Resolution, and the member for Wiltshire's Motion having been put down for Thursday, the House was in the same situation as if it had not adjourned over that day. He thought, therefore, in consistency, that it ought to support the amendment.
Mr. Ewartbegged to point out the great quantity of business which fell on him the only Representative of an immense town containing 200,000 inhabitants as a reason why the Writ ought not be suspended. The House had two classes of duties—judicial to punish, and legislative to amend; and he thought it would be more usefully employed at present in exercising its legislative than in exercising its judicial functions. He would vote against the amendment.
Mr. Benetthoped, that in the opinion of the House, he had used due diligence in the discharge of the duties which had been imposed on him as Chairman of the Committee. He had been at all times ready, when he had given his notice, to bring on the Motion; but the first time when he brought it under the consideration of the House, a debate was got up on a subject which had no relation whatever to his Motion, and that debate was adjourned. The Parliament was prorogued the next day, and immediately afterwards dissolved. In the present Parliament he had brought on the subject as soon as possible, and it was not his fault that the House was counted out last Wednesday, nor that it did not sit yesterday. He was prepared to bring on his Motion, and he would do it before the House rose if he had the opportunity, and if he had not, he would reserve his Motion for Monday. With regard to the question before the House, he could not conceive that the House, having suspended the Writ last Session, should not now do the same. It was placed under the same circumstances now as when it suspended the Writ, and he thought it ought not now to refuse to continue the suspension. If the House rejected his Motion, the Writ would then issue as a matter of course;
976
if it agreed to his Motion, the issue of the Writ would necessarily be suspended till the question was decided. He should vote for the amendment.
The House then divided. For the Amendment 117; Against it 99—Majority 18.—Debate adjourned to Monday.
Lord Althorpmoved, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply.

REGISTRATION OF ARMS—(IRELAND).
Mr. Goulburntook the opportunity of asking, if the right hon. Gentleman meant to bring on the Registration of Arms' Bill that night?
Mr. Stanley Mr. Stanley, in reply, stated that he did not. He was glad that the opportunity had been afforded him to state what course he meant to pursue. He entertained an impression that it was not safe to relax those precautions which the policy of this country had long carried into effect, in relation to the importation of Arms into Ireland. At the same time such strong sentiments had been expressed respecting the penalties of the Bill, which had been described as disproportionate to the offence, that in deference to the opinion of Gentlemen connected with Ireland, for whose judgment he had a great respect, he should state at once, that he should not think it right to preserve that clause in the Bill which rendered the possession of unlawful Arms a transportable offence. He wished then merely to announce, that he would, at a later period of the evening, move the further adjournment of the debate on this Bill till Friday next.

HACKNEY COACH AND CABRIOLET LICENSES.
Mr. Humeasked, what were the intentions of Government as to a Bill, which had been prepared two years ago, on the subject of a new regulation for Hackney-Coach and Cabriolet Licenses. A Committee had at that time inquired into the subject, and, on the Report then made, a Bill had been prepared by the late Ministers, which, if they had continued in office, would have been brought forward before now, and he did not see why the public should be deprived of the advantage which they had a right to expect from such a measure. He was the more anxious for some explanation on this subject, as complaints were every day made by the public of the manner in which Hackney-Coach and Cabriolet plates were distributed. Hackney-Coach plates were taken up, and

977
Cabriolet plates given in exchange, but these were given only in tens or twelves to persons in affluent circumstances, so that a poor man found it a matter of extreme difficulty or even impossibility, to obtain one. If he did, it was only by giving to the rich man more than he had given to the Government. This was a sort of monopoly unjust to many poor persons, and in its results extremely injurious to the public. He thought that the trade should be thrown open, and that the public should have the advantage of the measure which the late Government had prepared concerning it.
Lord Althorpagreed with his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex, that it was extremely desirable that this trade should be thrown open. In fact, a measure had been prepared upon the subject, which would be ready in a few days.
Mr. Sadleralso called the attention of the House to the great partiality which was shown in the giving away the plates for Cabriolets and Coaches, particularly the latter, which had now for the greater part got into the hands of a set of monopolists, by which the public were deprived of the advantages they had a right to expect from an open trade. It was a piece of gross partiality somewhere, that these plates should be given by twenty or thirty at a time, to persons who had no connexion whatever with the trade. He could assert from his own experience, that the public suffered by the sort of monopoly to which he had adverted. If any preference were given, surely it ought to be to those who were labouring night and day in the public service. He did hope that right hon. Gentlemen opposite would not tolerate such a monopoly.
Lord Althorpadmitted, that the plates of Cabriolets and Coaches had been most improperly disposed of, but a new regulation, at the recommendation of the Commissioners, had been adopted.
Mr. Warburtonwished to know why the Bill recommended by the Committee had been delayed? The late Government left it ready to be introduced to the House.
Lord Althorpreplied, the cause of the delay was, that it was intended the Bill should be accompanied with some regulations for consolidating the Stamp Duties, which required time for consideration. He fully agreed with the suggestions that had been made, for the public were entitled to have the trade. thrown open.
Mr. Alderman Venablescould state from his own knowledge, that nothing could be worse than the present system of licensing Hackney-Coaches and Cabriolets. The vehicles themselves were generally in a most disgraceful state, while the public were subject to most exorbitant charges. He was, therefore, glad to hear that the trade was to be thrown open.

GRAND JURIES (IRELAND).
Mr. G. Dawsoninquired if the Government meant to bring forward this Session a measure for regulating Grand Jury Assessments in Ireland?
Mr. Stanleyreplied, that it was his intention to lay on the Table a Bill to amend these laws. The Bill was prepared, but as his only motive in introducing it was, that it might be printed and circulated in Ireland, and he had no chance of passing it this Session, he had preferred, in the first instance, bringing forward such measures as he thought might, perhaps, receive the sanction of the Legislature.

CUSTOM-HOUSE IN THE ISLE OF MAN.
An Hon. Member begged to ask the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether it was the intention of Government to make any alteration in the great and unnecessary expense of the Custom-House of the Isle of Man. This small Island lying nearly in the centre of the kingdom, had as large an Establishment as if it were 1,000 miles off. What necessity was there for an Inspector-General of Customs with a salary of 400 l. or 500 l. a-year, whose place was merely a sinecure? He hoped the noble Lord, as he was engaged in reforming the Custom-House of would not forget that Island.
Lord Althorpreplied, that all departments of the Custom - House were at present under the consideration of the Treasury, and those of the Isle of Man would not be lost sight of. It was not the intention of Government to keep up any useless offices.
Mr. Goulburnrecommended caution in their proceedings, a total change of the regulations was not necessary.
The House resolved itself into a Committee of Supply.

SUPPLY—MESSENGERS.
Mr. Spring Ricemoved that a sum not exceeding 8,373 l. be granted to his Majesty for defraying the contingent expenses and Messenger's bills

979
for the office of the Secretary for the Home Department for the year 1831.—Agreed to.
The next Resolution was, that a sum not exceeding 35,155 l. be granted for similar expenses in the office of Secretary for Foreign Affairs.
Mr. Humebegged to call the attention of Government to the present system of having separate Establishments of Messengers for each Department. It would be better management to have one establishment for Messsengers, who might be called upon for any Department as they might be required. They had in this vote a sum of 35,000 l. for contingent expenses and Messengers' Bills in one Department.
Mr. Spring Ricedid not think the question so much one of economy as of arrangement. No office ought to keep more Messengers than were necessary, but having one dep6t for Messengers would not answer, as the Messenger for one Department would not be qualified in all cases for the others. He admitted the expense of Messengers in the foreign Department was very great, but from the constant communication kept up with Foreign Courts, they were necessary.
Mr. G. Dawsonwas surprised at such an objection from the hon. member for Middlesex, who knew so much of public business. The fact was, the former plan of a general dépât or Department for Messengers, was the practice till 1824, when, by the recommendation of a Committee, it was decided that there should be separate Messengers for each Department, which certainly was the more convenient as well as the more economical course.
Mr. Humedid not know on what grounds the Committee came to that determination, but he' thought the country paid more for Messengers than the public service required. The mode he had suggested would lessen the expense. Why should a Messenger be despatched from the Home or any other office to any part of England or Ireland when the same communication could be made by the mail with equal celerity and certainty, and much less expense? If we did not interfere with foreign Powers, we should have no occasion for constantly despatching Messengers. There was an unnecessary establishment in many public departments; and he thought many of the Messengers were more frequently employed for the private business of gentlemen, than for the public service,
Mr. Spring Ricehad already admitted, that no more Messengers ought to be kept up than the public service required. He was not acquainted with the details of other departments, but in that with which he was connected, he could declare no more were kept than were actually wanted. It was often found necessary to communicate immediately with parties who made application to the Treasury, and it was often necessary to do so with the utmost despatch. Some improvements might possibly be made, but the service of Messengers could not be dispensed with, or the public business would stand still.
Mr. Humedid not mean to object to reasonable expenses for Messengers in the various departments, but wished to see from each, particular accounts. He fully agreed with the necessity of despatch, but thought that arrangements could be made with the Post-office which would insure that object.
Vote agreed to.
The next vote was for a sum of 8,430 l. for similar expenses in the Colonial Department.
Mr. Humewished to know what was the use of Messengers to the Colonial Department; did it ever send Messengers to the colonies? Were any sent out to Jamaica, for instance?
Mr. Wranghamsaid, there were other colonies besides Jamaica. He could assert from his own knowledge, that Messengers were sent to the Ionian Islands during the negotiations respecting Greece.
Lord Howicksaid, that the Colonial department had seldom occasions to send Messengers abroad, but that sometimes they were sent to Canada, and other parts of British North America.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, there was a diminution on this item of 1,000 l. since last year.
Vote agreed to.
The next vote was a sum of 2,880 l., for similar expenses in the Privy Council, and the Committee of Privy Council for Ireland, was also granted.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, that the next vote of 2,800 l., for similar expenses in the office, of First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had been greatly reduced. In 1829, it was 6,500 l.; in the last year, 3,800 l.

SUPPLY—PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
Lord Granville Somerset Lord Granville Somerset, begged to call the

981
attention of Government to the manner in which the public accounts were kept. He wished to know whether and what steps had been taken to Reform the abuses in the mode of calculation and accounts in the Exchequer, which had been recommended by Committees of that House?
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, that a commission was appointed to inquire into the subject, but Government was not then prepared in the present Session with any measure. He expected, that in the course of next Session some arrangement would be submitted for adoption by the House.
Lord Althorpsaid, the subject had received every attention, but, at the present moment, they found it impossible to bring forward any plan for the correction of those abuses which undoubtedly did exist.
Mr. Maberlysaid, the late Government had had seven years to effect these alterations, but had not done so. The present Ministers had only been in office a few months, and had not yet had time to carry any material improvement into practice.
Mr. Goulburnassured the hon. Gentleman the late Government had not neglected the subject, but the report that had been made required the investigation of the first legal authority. He did not blame the present Government, but he was desirous to know how the scheme recommended by the Commissioners had prospered in its hands.
Mr. Spring Ricethought, the hon. Gentleman ought to allow at least nine months to bring the measure to maturity.
Lord Granville Somersetassured the hon. Gentleman, he had not the slightest intention to attribute blame to them. As he knew there were legal difficulties in making the required alterations, he was only anxious to know if the measure had received any attention from Government.
Mr. Humewas glad to find right hon. Gentlemen quarrelling about his bantling, for he begged to assure the Committee that it was his. In the year 1822 he had moved for the abolition altogether of several offices in the Exchequer. The Government, thereupon, directed inquiry, and the noble Lord who had that evening asked the question, was very active as one of the Commissioners appointed to probe these abuses to the bottom. What were the legal difficulties he was not aware of, but he thought they might have been got over by the late Government.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—SALARIES OF PROFESSORS.
On a Resolution for granting 958 l. 5s. for the Salaries and Allowances of Professors of Oxford and Cambridge, for reading courses of Lectures for one year,
Mr. Humeobserved, that Oxford was rich enough, and ought to support its own Professors. Those who went to Oxford should pay for their own education. Why should the people of England be required to assist in paying for the education of the sons of noblemen, and other gentlemen of great wealth. This was, therefore, a very proper item to reduce. He thought it improper, too, that a vote of this kind should be brought forward among the Miscellaneous Estimates. He protested against the vote, and against the manner in which it was brought before them, and only refrained from taking the sense of the Committee out of consideration to the situation in which Government were placed.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, that the Universities were not devoted exclusively to the highest classes of society; many of the humblest received the benefit of education in those venerable institutions. The principal part of the emolument of the Professors was derived from their fees from students; but it was necessary they should have some certain allowance. His hon. friend the member for Middlesex had been connected with the London University, and must be aware that there ought to be some certainty on the part of the Professors of obtaining an income independent of their scholars, to make them a little independent of their classes.
Mr. W. Y. Peelwas surprised that the hon. member for Middlesex, who was so great a friend to the diffusion of knowledge, should object to such a grant as the present; to be applied as a slight assistance to those who were most eminent in learning and scholarship at the Universities.
Lord Miltonobserved, that the situations of some of the Professors were by no means lucrative, and were sometimes the cause of considerable expense to those who filled them. His hon. friend seemed to have an idea, that the wealthier classes ought to provide for these Professors, but that would tend to introduce a still more invidious distinction than already existed between the different classes who frequented the Universities. It would be a bad piece of economy to deprive the Professors of the little aid which the proposed grant was calculated to afford them.
Mr. Huntasked, if it was right that the weavers of Manchester should be called upon to contribute to such a purpose? But the noble Lord seemed to have no objection to apply the money of the poor to purposes in which the rich alone were interested. The House was called upon to vote 1,000 l. to certain Professors in the Universities, and it was preposterous to expect that the poor weavers and other labourers who were nearly starving, should be called upon to pay for taxed soap and taxed candles, in order to provide a fund for the education of the sons of the rich. The hon. member for Oxford might call out "haw, haw!" but if he and the noble Lord were not destitute of all regard for the poor, they would oppose such a grant as the present. He had that evening presented a petition—
Mr. George Robinsonrose to order. Was it competent to any hon. Member to impute to any other hon. Member an indifference to the welfare of the poor?
Lord Miltonobserved, that the hon. member for Preston had asked if the weavers of Manchester ought to be required to contribute to such a grant as that under consideration. In the first place, the purpose for which the grant was required was befitting a great country. The question was, whether the powerful and wealthy community which formed the British empire should, out of the public funds, apply a trifling sum in aid of the education of youth; but it should also be recollected, that several of the Professors, in aid of whom this sum was to be voted, were able teachers of natural philosophy and mechanics. The hon. member for Preston had probably heard of that venerable man Professor Parish, who had done so much by his explanations of mechanical science to advance that species of manufacture in which the spinners of Manchester and the weavers of Preston were so deeply interested. Would it be a wise exercise of economy, even with reference to the poorer classes alone, to refuse such a grant to individuals to whom those classes were so much indebted?
Mr. Huntappealed to the Chairman if it were conformable to the usage of the House, that, having been called to order by an hon. Member, the noble Lord should avail himself of the interruption to make a speech. When he was called to order he was about to say, that he had that night presented a petition from 19,000 of the
984
operatives of Manchester, complaining that they had no share in the Representation of the people. Was it fair to take money out of the pockets of such persons to pay the Professors of Oxford? He would repeat his notice, that when the clause in the Reform Bill respecting the 10 l. qualification came under consideration, he—
Mr. Spring Ricespoke to order. The hon. Member must feel, that it was as disorderly to talk of the Reform Bill in a discussion respecting the Professors of the Universities, as it would be to talk of the Professors of the Universities in a discussion on the Reform Bill.
Mr. Huntsaid, that if he was to be continually interrupted in that manner, all that he could do would be to sit down, and say No! when the Resolution was put to the vote.
Mr. Goulburnrather wished, that the hon. member for Preston had been allowed to detail all his objections to the proposition, however different those might have been to any advanced by other persons, in order that the hon. Member might have received a more complete answer. There was something irresistibly ludicrous in resisting the appropriation of such a sum for such a purpose. He wished to ask the hon. Member what was the fraction of that sum which any weaver in the kingdom would be called upon to contribute out of his soap and candles towards these salaries of 85 l. each to be paid to the Professors? It was so imperceptibly small, that he suspected all the hon. Gentleman's acuteness aided by all the hon. member for Middlesex's arithmetical knowledge, would not suffice to describe it. But if it were ten times more, the poor received from it much more than an equivalent benefit. As the noble Lord had well observed, the development of the sciences led to the increase of the employment of the poorer classes. Those particular weavers to whom the hon. member for Preston alluded, had been greatly benefitted by the chemical and philosophical discoveries and improvements of such men as those to whom the proposed vote referred. Nor should the benefits which the poor derived from the teachers of anatomy, and the consequent establishment of hospitals and dispensaries be forgotten; and he was persuaded, that, if the opinion of the poor could be consulted, they would gladly call on Parliament to aid the expression of their grati-

985
tude by increasing grants such as that now proposed. The salaries were no source of profit to the Professors themselves. They did not pay the expenses to which they were liable in preparing their lectures which were delivered to all classes of students, high and low, who had thus equal opportunities of attaining a knowledge of all the branches of science and philosophy which were taught by these Professors.
Sir R. Inglisobserved, that he thought it so exceedingly unfair that any individual in that House should assume that he had a peculiar feeling for the poor, or should arrogate to himself a sympathy for their welfare which he denied to all others, that he had been unable to restrain himself, when he had heard the hon. Member for Preston lay claim to such an exclusive feeling. He might perhaps have to apologize to the House for the interruption he had caused, but it was wholly involuntary
Mr. Laboucheresaid, he should be very sorry if a single word should drop from him that might be supposed to proceed from a disrespectful feeling towards those venerable seats of learning—the Universities. But they would best consult their own interests now, when it was so necessary that a strict and rigid economy should be observed, and having, as was believed, large funds at their own disposal, by remunerating their Professors in some other way than by an annual grant from Parliament. He readily allowed the benefit which even the poorer classes derived from the labours of the Professors. If the hon. member for Preston pressed the question to a division, he certainly should not vote with him; but at the same time he must say, that he did not think that the proposed mode of contributing to the remuneration of the Professors was the most judicious.
Mr. Huntappealed to the House if he had on any occasion shown a disposition to trespass upon their time, or to be pertinacious. He also appealed to the hon. member for Oxford, if he had acted quite fairly in saying that he (Mr. Hunt) was the only man who had objected to taking money out of the pockets of the poor. He had made up his mind most solemnly, that if on any question he was put down, as he had been on the present, by coughing, or similar interruption, he would divide the House upon the question, and he was resolved to do so upon this occasion.
Mr. Ruthvenwas satisfied the people
986
would not object to this trifling sum to afford remuneration to the most eminent Professors. He was astonished it should be exclaimed against, and he was disposed to increase rather than to diminish it. He should wish, however, to propose similar grants to the Universities of Ireland and Scotland.
Mr. Goulburnassured the hon. member for Taunton, that the University he had the honour to represent had no great fund at its disposal, all its resources being subject to heavy demands. The hon. member for Middlesex objected to the manner in which the vote was brought before the House; and he could explain how that happened. The King being considered as head of all the establishments of the country, in 1815, when a revision of the Civil List was effected, it was arranged that these salaries should be taken from it, and voted annually in Parliament. He thought the alteration at the time impolitic, and he still continued to think so; however, the House had made it, and these salaries had since been regularly brought under its consideration.
Mr. Briscoedid not object to the grant. He considered it beneficial, and believed the labours of the Professors were of public advantage. He was much attached to the old Universities, but he thought that the Professors at the new Universities in the metropolis had equal claims on the public. They were founded for the express purpose of giving a liberal education to those who could not bear the heavier expenses of Oxford and Cambridge.
Lord Althorpconsidered the grant more consistent with principles of economy than many others of a more specious appearance, because it was a grant for the promotion of that kind of knowledge and science which was most useful to the lower orders.
Mr. Maberlyopposed it, on the ground that similar applications might be made, with equal justice, by the Scotch Universities.
Mr. Humemaintained, that if such grants were to be made, no distinction whatever should prevail; but he said, give not at all. The reason of his declining any further connexion with the London University was, because the Council would give salaries. If any grants were made, it would be more advisable to direct them to the education of the poor. He denied that such persons could receive an educa-

987
tion in the English Universities, or profit by the lectures delivered there. Many of the individuals who were connected with them lived in great state on the funds placed at their disposal. Gentlemen had taken great pains to stop a bill which was proposed to investigate these funds. He would not attempt to discover the fractional part paid by the weavers of Lancashire; but there was one tax which might be taken off, he alluded to the tax upon pamphlets, which would be of much greater benefit to the poor, and tend more to their instruction, than the continuance of this grant. He objected to that on two grounds—first, because he wanted to know the extent of the funds of the Universities; and next, because, if the House gave to one, it ought to give to all. If the Committee divided, he should oppose the vote.
Mr. Bonham Carterobserved, that the hon. member for Middlesex forgot the number of poor scholars who were maintained, and received a gratuitous education, from the funds of the various Colleges, and of the richer persons who resided there. Many persons in the humbler ranks had derived advantages from the lectures of the Professors for whom this grant was proposed.
Sir T. Fremantlestated, that he had some difficulty with respect to this vote. His objection was more to the manner in which it was proposed, as part of the necessary supplies for the year, than to its amount or the object to which it was to be applied. He believed there were ample funds at Oxford to pay all the Professors, and he felt assured, that if this proposition were refused, the University would find means to pay the Professors themselves.
Mr. Warburtonwas a member of the University of Cambridge, and had partaken of the advantages of these Professorships, and therefore was probably one of the last men who ought to say a word against the grant now proposed; but he concurred in the opinion, that the Universities possessed ample funds, and thought it should be proved, before any grant was made, that all their funds were applied to the purposes of education. He himself remembered, that by a vote of the Senate of Cambridge, a sum of money had been appropriated to the erection of a statue to Mr. Pitt, and the Senate voted large sums for other purposes. He should, therefore, feel himself bound to vote against this
988
grant, until it-was proved, that the Universities had not the means of paying the Professors themselves.
Colonel Sibthorpshould feel it his duty, for many reasons, to support the vote. The economy attempted to be enforced in this instance was mischievous and unnecessary.
Sir J. M. Doylewas as anxious as any hon. Member to support economy; but he conceived the present was not a proper occasion to exercise it. He must, therefore, vote for the grant.
Mr. Wilkessaid, that although the lectures given by the Professors were directed to the most valuable branches of science, yet it would be more honourable to the Universities to pay them out of their own funds.
The Committee then divided. For the Grant 203; Against it 15—Majority 188.

List of the Minority.

Bodkin, J. J.

Paget, T.

Dawson, A.

Sheil, R. L.

Dixon, J.

Strutt, E.

Hunt, H.

Warburton, H.

Moreton, Hon. H. G.

Wood, J.

Musgrave, Sir R.

Wyse, T. Junr.

O'Connell, D.

TELLER

O'Connell, M.

O'Ferrall, R. More

Hume, J.

A Vote of 13,156 l. to defray the charges of the Insolvent Debtors Court was agreed to.
On the grant of 3,856 l. being proposed for the Alien Office,
Mr. Humeobjected to it, because it was a sum devoted to a system which was purely continental—a system of espionnage,—Motion agreed to.

SUPPLY—PENITENTIARY.
The next Vote proposed was for the sum of 8,565 l. to defray the expense of the Penitentiary at Milbank.
Mr. Humeopposed the expenditure of a large sum of money on such an object. The country was paying 32 l. or 33 l. a year for supporting convicts, whilst honest and industrious people were not able to procure a livelihood. The experiment tried by the institution of the Penitentiary had failed, and therefore it ought to be abandoned altogether.
Mr. Spring Ricedid not think the establishment had failed; it had been erected at great expense, and was very useful to keep convicts in. It certainly was not a total failure.
Mr. Humerecommended, that the convicts should be sent to Botany Bay.
Mr. Spring Ricefeared the hon. Member would find reason to believe, when they came to the votes for maintaining the convict establishment, that there was nothing to be gained by that recommendation.
Sir T. Fremantlecontended, that the experiment had not failed; much good had been produced by the establishment.
Mr. Briscoewished to seethe Committee, which sat last Session on the question of secondary punishments, renewed. The present system required alteration. It was an anomaly, that when we possessed a large surplus honest population, we should scruple to raise funds to employ them, while we paid large sums to keep the vicious employed. The number of convicts employed in various branches of the public service supplied the places of honest and industrious labourers. Some plan should be adopted to remove from this country that part of the surplus population which had disgraced it by their vices.
Captain Harristhought, much employment would accrue to the honest if convicts were sent out of the country, and this could be done without much expense, if they might be employed in producing materials for rigging his Majesty's ships, and he was ready to prove, if they were transported to New Zealand, they would pay their expenses by producing hemp or flax, which, by this means, could be obtained at a less expense than was now paid to other countries for it.
Mr. Sadlerconsidered it much preferable to employ convicts in the cultivation of land, than to maintain them within the walls of a Penitentiary, where their labour was of no use to themselves or to society. By employing them in other places, they might be accustomed to habits of industry.
Mr. Alderman Waithmanthought, the House required more information than it possessed, before it could do any good on this subject.
Mr. Spring Riceconsidered it an inconvenient course, to bring the subject of secondary punishments, which was most importnat, under discussion. The vote could not be altered or withdrawn, during the present year, with propriety. He hoped a Committee would be appointed to inquire into the whole affair, in the mean time, the House would agree to this vote.
Mr. Huntthought, the Penitentiary cost the country a great deal too much. At his instance, a Committee of that House had inquired into the expenses of a gaol in which he had been confined; they had previously amounted to about 7,000 l. per annum; but, after that, were reduced to less than 2,000 l., and the prison better conducted than before. The expenses of keeping up this Penitentiary was 90,000 l. per annum, and this vote contained 5,000 l. for officers' foes. On that point great savings could be made. 200 l. per annum was also charged for the payment of labourers for cleaning the yards within the walls, which ought to be done by the prisoners themselves. It would be well to inquire how prisons were managed in the United States, where, it was said, a profit was derived from the prisoners' labour.
Sir M. W. Ridleysaid, the expenses of the establishment had considerably increased, though an expectation had been held out that they would be decreased; but, year after year, they went on, without any diminution. The establishment could not be broken up now without great additional expense. He could add, from personal acquaintance, that the inspectors of the Penitentiary performed their duty with great zeal and unvaried perseverance; and if the system was calculated to produce any benefit, the public might look for it from the labours of these persons.
Mr. Alderman Woodconsidered the assertion of the hon. Baronet who spoke last most extraordinary, when he stated, the establishment of the Penitentiary could not be abandoned without incurring additional expense. There was the enormous expense of building the gaol, and the great expense of supporting it; and it was kept for the accommodation of a few select persons. The visitors took the best of the prisoners from Newgate, and then confined their select few with the refuse. It was the hobby of gentlemen who liked to try experiments in prison discipline. Was there any instance of any person having been reclaimed by its operation? He believed not. If Government would come to a proper determination, it would save much money.
Sir Thomas Fremantlewas one of the amateurs alluded to by the worthy Alderman, and was therefore enabled to give him some necessary information. He had stated, that few or no persons were ulti-

991
mately reformed or improved by the discipline of the prison, but the returns before the House proved the contrary. By them it appeared, that nearly one half were reclaimed. The charge for the establishment was undoubtedly high; it contained 1000 persons, with officers in proportion; a strict regard to discipline was preserved, and an improvement generally took place in the feelings of those confined within it. A prejudice existed with regard to this prison, and no reasonable objections had been urged against it.
Mr. Humesaid, the prejudice was derived from between 8l. and 9l. being in other instances paid for the expense of a convict, while in this it was 26 l. or 27 l. for pretending to reform him, without success. The House ought to get rid of the expense altogether.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY— NATIONAL GALLERY.
On the Motion that the sum of 11,269 l. should be granted to defray the expenses of the Office of Works,
Mr. Ridley Colbornerequested to know from the noble Lord opposite (Lord Dun-cannon), whether any inquiry had been made into his former representation, with respect to the state of the National Gallery at Pall Mall? If inquiry had been made he believed it must have been found, that his statement was correct, and that the building was in a state of dilapidation. The collection of pictures bequeathed to the country by the Rev. Holwell Carr, were so bequeathed with the express understanding that some proper building should be built or selected for their reception. He wished to know, whether it was intended to devote a building, or to erect one, at a comparatively small expense, for that purpose?
Lord Duncannonsaid, it was clear, that the pictures could not long remain where they were, as one half of the building must soon be taken down to make room for Carlton terrace. With respect to the Mews, which had been spoken of as a proper site for a gallery, part of it stood in such a position with reference to the street which was to run near St. Martin's Church, that it must come down. Perhaps something might be done with the remainder of the building to meet the wishes of the hon. Member.
Mr. R. Gordonwas afraid the taste
992
for pictures would be productive of serious expense to the country; and therefore he hoped, that with reference either to the alteration or to the erecting of public buildings, all extravagant expense would be avoided.
Mr. C. W. Wynnhoped, that when the King's Mews were taken down, some proper place would be provided for the records which were now placed there. A fine avenue to St. Martin's Church might be a great ornament; but he trusted, some secure building would be selected for the reception of these records, but that no expense should be incurred without the sanction of Parliament.
Mr. Spring Riceassured his right hon. friend, that nothing should be, or, indeed, could be, expended, without the sanction of the proper authorities.
Sir G. Warrenderhoped, that the country had not come to that pass that it was unable to erect a national gallery for the reception of a bequest of valuable pictures: no doubt the collection would be increased from time to time; and he hoped, with due and proper encouragement, to see as fine a collection of pictures in this country, as was to be found in any part of the world. He differed from Gentlemen who thought no place should be provided for them; they were at present hung up in a house that was likely to fall down.
Mr. Protheroeexpressed his belief, that the lights in the King's Mews were so disposed, as to render the place unfit for a picture gallery, and he suggested, that some part of the British Museum should be selected for their reception.
Mr. C. W. Wynnwas sure there was one point in which they must all agree, that some place must be found to place these pictures in. They could not be left where they were at present.
Mr. Robert Gordonsaid, the country was not in such prosperous circumstances as to warrant any expense in erecting a building for works of art. The patrons of the arts should subscribe to erect such a building; in which case he should like to see it, but the country ought not to be saddled with the expense.
Mr. Hughes Hughesbegged to call the attention of Government to the state of Westminster Hall, the interior was in a most filthy and disgraceful state.
Mr. Alderman. Woodsaid, he had many thousand constituents who where no lovers

993
of the Fine Arts. They ought not to be taxed for the erection of such a building; they had not the means of paying such a tax. The pictures might be exhibited in the British Museum.
An Hon. Member hoped, they should not be called upon to erect places for the exhibition of works of the Fine Arts, when a famishing population was crying for bread.
Mr. Spring Ricethought, that hon. Gentlemen forgot, that no intention had been expressed of erecting a national gallery. The discussion was altogether unnecessary.
Mr. Alderman Woodtrusted, that such an intention, should it ever exist, would be checked by the opinion then expressed.
Mr. Humesaid, there was an empty palace, which had cost 600,000 l., and that would afford these pictures a very comfortable resting place. He hoped there was no intention of entering on the erection of a building without the sanction of Parliament.
Sir M. W. Ridleywas anxious to take the present opportunity of correcting a misrepresentation made by the hon. member for Middlesex, on a former evening, relating to repairs at Hampton-court Palace, He had made inquiry, and could affirm, that not one shilling was expended in repairing its private apartments; the individuals who occupied, repaired them. A doubt had been suggested also by the same hon. Member, whether the Crown had a right to dispose of these apartments. He could assure the hon. Member, that such a right had been vested in the Crown for many years. It afforded an opportunity of allowing asylums to distinguished foreigners, who were obliged to seek refuge out of their own country; and also to the widows or relatives of those who had deserved well of their country. The estimated sum allowed for repairs was bestowed on that part which was untenanted. The Treasury had no power, and had not attempted, to put the private apartments in repair, at the public expense.
Mr. Robert Gordonwished to know, if 39,000 l. of the public money was charged for the ordinary repairs of the palace, what sum was to be expected for the extraordinary expenses? He thought the hon. Member was not in order, in bringing the subject at present before the House, when there was nothing about it in the Estimates under consideration.
Mr. Humehoped his hon. friend would not think he was improperly censorious, when he remarked on the estimate for the ordinary repairs of Hampton-court Palace, on a previous occasion. He had seen in the Estimates 39,000 l. charged for the repairs of Hampton-court and Windsor Palaces; and as he had always heard, that the private apartments were kept in repair by the occupiers, he thought some detailed account of the manner in which the money was expended should be laid before the House. The means of affording asylums to foreigners did not warrant such an expense, in the present state of the country. He admitted, that Lady Hoste was well entitled to the respect paid her, of having apartments free of expense; but it was invidious to confer such favours on the widows of particular officers. Others equally well entitled received no such boon. It would be better if the Palace were let as a lodging-house, than so to appropriate it. The pictures in question might be sent there.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY — SLAVES REGISTRY OFFICE.
Mr. Spring Ricemoved, that a sum of 1,070 l. for the deficiency of the Fee Fund, in the office of the Register of Colonies Slaves in Great Britain, should be granted to his Majesty.
Mr. Humethought, these returns should have been included in the Colonial Intimates; and begged to inquire, why they had been omitted?
Mr. Spring Rice Mr. Spring Rice, in reply, stated, that the object was, to discriminate the votes accurately. It had before been paid out of the contingent fund of the Colonial Secretary, and a diminution had been there made in proportion to this Estimate.
Mr. Humethanked the hon. Secretary for the information; he was now aware of the existence of this office for the first time. He was wholly ignorant that 1,700 l. had been paid for the discharge of a duty which any clerk would have been ready to execute for a sixth of the sum.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—EMIGRANTS.
Mr. Spring Rice Mr. Spring Rice, in moving a vote of 15,920 l. for the relief of the Toulonese and Corsican emigrants, American loyalists, Dutch naval officers, Saint Domingo sufferers, and others, who had heretofore received allowances for services performed, or losses

995
sustained in the British service, observed, that the Committee would find, that there was a more economical arrangement in this Estimate than in those of former times, when there had been a careless and extravagant expenditure. In one instance, where the sum of 2,100 l. had been voted, there had been 700 l. charged for making the payments; and in another, where the expenditure was 9,000 l. it cost 900 l. for the same | purposes. In the present vote, this had been avoided;, the grant and charges for payment had been placed under one head, and a reduction of 7,000 l. had been effected.
Mr. R. Gordonwished for sonic explanation of this circumstance from the hon. Gentlemen opposite; and begged to ask, how they could countenance such extravagant expenditure of the public money?
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that the individuals employed to pay those grants were very infirm and aged, and it was expected they would die off. The necessity of employing extra hands caused the expense. He acknowledged that there needed some alteration.
Mr. Humewished to know, if any part of these sums were paid to refugees, for any services rendered to the French nation; if so, he must protest against the payment.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, there were no such services paid for.
Mr. Ruthvenwished to know, if any time had been appointed for the consideration of Sir A. B. King's claim.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, the case would be entered into in the first Committee of Supply.
Mr. Robert Gordonthought some further explanation was required of the circumstance of so much waste of the public money in paying the grants to emigrants, while the right hon. Gentlemen opposite had been in office. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer had been aware of the abuse, but took no means to remedy it.
Vote agreed to.
2,500 l. was then voted for the expenses of the National Vaccine Establishment; 3,000 l. for the support of the institution, called the Refuge for the Destitute; and 3,039 l. for confining and maintaining persons convicted of offences, who were Lunatics.
An Hon. Member wished to know, what was the criterion for placing a criminal in this confinement.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, in reply, the verdict of a Jury, finding' the prisoner guilty, but not in a sane state of mind, was the sole requisite.

SUPPLY — DISSENTING MINISTERS, &c
On a vote being proposed of 56,127 l. for Protestant Dissenting Ministers, French Refugee Ministers, French Refugee Laity, for charitable and other allowances to the poor of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, and others,
Mr. Humeexpressed his surprise, that although in former years there had been always sonic deaths amongst the French refugees, under the new Administration there, appeared to have been no deaths, or, if so, no deduction had been made for them. He begged to remark, also, that this grant had been continued since the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, so that some of these refugees must have continued alive since that time. He further desired to know, why the poor of St. Martin's-in-the-Fields were included in this vote. What particular service had these people performed, that they were to be supported by royal grants?
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, that his hon. friend had misunderstood the case. The laity die (and he would find there was a reduction there); the clergy do not diminish, the places of those who died off being filled up by his Majesty. It was true, therefore, that these pensions had been on the list, ever since the revocation of the Edict of Nantes. On consulting the trustees of this grant, who consisted of most respectable persons, among others the Archbishop of Canterbury, he was apprized that the large grant originally made by Parliament had been afterwards commuted for a perpetual pension. The grant to the poor of St. Martin's was very ancient. It had been originally placed in the Civil List, but was now placed in the Miscellaneous Estimates. If upon inquiry that should prove correct, the grant must subsist; if not, it might be by degrees reduced.
Mr. Robert Gordonsaid, this question had been frequently asked before, and the same answer given. It seemed to be official, and was, like a printed form, handed by the Clerk to the Secretary. Some further explanation ought to be given, and he would recommend his hon. friend to move for returns connected with the subject.
Mr. Spring Ricemerely wished to remark, in reply to his hon. friend, that he could convince himself by looking at the Estimate marked No. 3. He would there see, that a considerable reduction had taken place since last year.
Mr. George Dawsoncorroborated what the hon. Gentleman opposite had stated, relating to the poor of St. Martin's-in-the Fields.
Mr. Robert Gordonobjected to receiving the same unsatisfactory answer upon all occasions. He was of opinion that further inquiry was necessary.
Mr. Spring Ricewas sorry his answer had not been satisfactory. He could only repeat, that this grant to St. Martin's-in-the-Fields was very ancient, and was presented to the poor when the royal residences were erected. The same was the case in Kensington, Windsor, and other places.
Mr. Sadlerthought this was one of the last charges they ought to object to. A small salary to a school-master, for teaching poor children, in the vicinity of the King's palace, was no abuse of the public money.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that much of the Church lands which afterwards came into the possession of the Crown, was liable to certain charges for the benefit of the poor. He thought it probable these charges might be traced up to that origin.
Colonel Sibthorpwished to know, if the school-master to whom they were about to vote a salary had any scholars? He had known instances where schoolmasters were paid who had none.
Mr. Long Wellesleythought it probable these charges were payable out of the Royal land attached to the palace, and remained chargeable on the property.
Mr. Briscoethought it desirable they should know where this school was established, and have all the particulars stated, before a salary was voted to the schoolmaster.
Mr. Spring Riceonly knew that this was a charge of 482. for the salary of a schoolmaster; of all other particulars he was ignorant, but he would endeavour to ascertain them.
Mr. Huntsaid, the hon. Secretary did not seem prepared to answer questions. Several votes had been passed on which they had not sufficient information. He did not think himself accountable for any vote that passed after midnight, and the
998
question was often put so quickly, that, a Member had no time to object, even if he was inclined to do so.
Captain Bolderoobserved, the ground upon which they were called upon to vote this sum was, because it was an ancient grant. He was one who respected ancient, grants, as he shewed by his vote on the Reform Bill.
Mr. Robert Gordonsaid, his hon. friend ought to be prepared to inform the House why these grants were called for, before they were asked to vote them.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, he should find some difficulty in explaining the origin of all these small items. Here, for instance, was a sum of 17 s. to be paid to the Churchwardens of Kensington, which had been allowed many years, and he could not account for the causes why they were originally given.
Mr. Humesaid, these grants ought all to be stopped, whenever no good reason could be given for their continuance. He wished to ask the hon. Secretary, whether any of the emigrant pensioners received allowances from the French Government in addition to the pension they received here?
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, the Toulonese and Corsican emigrants were not allowed to receive their pensions here, until they had made a declaration that they received none from their own governments. There were other Frenchmen who received pensions, whom it was unjust to subject to such a test, for what they received from others did not alter the obligations imposed upon us by performance of former services.
Mr. Humewished to know, if the services alluded to, had not been rendered to the Bourbons? If that was the case, these persons ought to be paid by them, and the British public be exempt from such payments.
Colonel Davieswas satisfied, that on inquiry it would be found, those pensions were not for services rendered to the British, but for the restoration of what was called the legitimate Monarch to the throne of France. He could not conceive upon what principle of justice we discharged clerks from the public service without compensation, while we continued to pay Frenchmen for services rendered to the exiled family of the Bourbons. He should also like to know upon what principle Protestant refugees were paid;

999
and how, and by what means, they acquired any claim upon this country? They were referred back, indeed, to the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, and the only satisfaction they received was, that it was an ancient grant.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, he had already given all the information in his power, and if they were to return again to the charge, and try back, they would never get through the public business.
Mr. Huntsaid, they were not acting fairly by the hon. Secretary; he was not to be blamed for these charges; that rested with the former Government, and former Parliaments, which had from time to time allowed them to pass without explanation.
Mr. Hughes Hugheshoped this would be the last Resolution to be submitted to the House.
Mr. Robert Gordonin reply, to the hon. Gentleman, who had asserted that the blame of these giants rested upon the old Members—begged to say, he had moved that they should be referred to a Committee of Inquiry, and in that he was supported by all the present Ministers. Had that inquiry taken place, these grants would no more have been heard of.
Mr. O'Connellthought, that an early opportunity ought to be taken, to inquire into the particulars of these minute grants.
Sir Francis Vincentdid not think the public business ought to be delayed, in consequence of the absence of individual Members, from private arrangements.
Mr. Huntdid not consider himself answerable for any votes of public money after midnight.
Sir Francis Vincentthought one hour was as good as another, if sufficient Members were present.
Vote agreed to.—House resumed.

PUBLIC BUSINESS—RECEPTION OF PETITIONS.
Mr. Humesaid, before they proceeded further, he wished the House would come to some understanding relative to their meetings on Mondays. He had had his name down several days, sometimes fifth, sometimes sixth, for the purpose of presenting petitions, but before he was called on, the hour for proceeding with public business arrived, and he had no opportunity to present them. There was but one quarter of an hour for that purpose by the present arrangements, and if there was no alteration made, he
1000
must refuse to receive any more petitions, and make his determination public.
Mr. O'Connellthought the public business ought not to begin before six o'clock, which would allow an hour and a quarter for the presentation of petitions. He had more than fifty which he had found no opportunity of presenting.
Lord Althorphad no objection to this arrangement, if Gentlemen were disposed to sit till one o'clock on Supply nights.
Mr. Goulburnthought the noble Lord's proposal very fair.
Sir James Grahamconceived it would be beneficial to the public service if such an arrangement was made. There was considerable difficulty in conducting the business of the public departments, from the chiefs of them, who had seats in Parliament, being obliged to attend at so early an hour.
Mr. Humecould not agree to its being made a rule, that the Committee of Supply should sit until one o'clock, although it might be allowed as a matter of convenience.
Sir James Grahamsaid, it must, of course, be a mere understanding, and could not be laid down as a rule—but such an arrangement would be advantageous to the public business.
Mr. Goulburnconfirmed the statement of the right hon. Baronet. The necessity imposed upon Ministers of coming down to the House so early, obliged them to neglect the business of their offices. This had been felt by every member of the Government to which he had belonged when the House sat so early as three o'clock.
Mr. Hudson Gurneysaid, if some hon. Gentlemen had fifty petitions to present, and occupied the House two hours in debate upon each, he knew not how the public business was to be carried on. The only arrangement he could suggest was, to give the Orders of the Day precedence to petitions.
Mr. Benettsaid, the House must afford Members an opportunity of presenting petitions and speaking on them. There were many Members who could have no other opportunity of speaking in the House.

CANADIAN REVENUE BILL.
Lord Howickmoved the Order of the Day for the committal of this Bill.
Mr. Goulburnwished, as the noble Lord had stated on a former evening, that he hoped to furnish the House with some

1001
information on the affairs of the colony to which this Bill referred, the Committee to be deferred until that information was before them.
Lord Howickhad no objection to give the House all the information he possessed, but as the Bill was merely intended to remove a technical defect, and enable his Majesty to assent to any bill passed by the Colonial Legislature, he saw no reason for consenting to the right hon. Gentleman's wish. He hoped the Bill would not be delayed.
Mr. Goulburndid not wish to throw any obstacle in the way of public business. It might be necessary to make some alteration in the Bill, but as that could be done when the report was brought up, he had no objection to the Bill going through the Committee, upon the understanding that he should see the Papers alluded to, before the Report was received.
Mr. Laboucherehad a Petition to present from the Legislature of Lower Canada, and in doing so, wished to call the attention of the House to that Province. He had not been able, from the public state of business to introduce this petition with the probability of obtaining that attention to which it was entitled. He was desirous of bringing under the consideration of the House and Government, the state to which that colony was reduced from a long course of misgovernment; and he therefore requested some day might he fixed for the third reading of the Bill when the present state of Canada might be brought before the House. The petition was voted unanimously by the House of Assembly of; Lower Canada, and was expressive of the feelings of the mass of the people both French and English. He felt deeply responsible that it should be fully attended to, and as the state of public business prevented it from being brought forward in the usual way, he trusted a day would be fixed for the third reading of this Bill, when the whole subject might be discussed.
Lord Howickconcurred with his hon. friend in thinking that the state of Canada ought to be fully discussed. He also agreed with him, that a petition unanimously agreed to by the Local Legislature was entitled to much attention; and he should be able to show, whenever that petition should be presented, that the complaints contained in it had not been overlooked. From the state of public business, however, he was reluctant to delay the
1002
Bill, fearing there might again occur some difficulty in passing it through the other House. The Assembly of Upper Canada had adopted a permanent financial arrangement on the faith of it, and as it merely gave his Majesty the power to assent to that arrangement, any objection to the Bill could be stated on the third reading.
Mr. Humedid not think there could be any objection to the Bill, which, if he understood its import, was to enable the Canadian Government to dispose of certain revenues under certain Acts, a sufficient sum being reserved for the Civil List. The Colonial Legislature had prepared a Bill on the subject, which only waited the King's assent. This was, therefore, a proper Bill. He had also a petition to present from Upper Canada, signed by 10,000 persons, and he was anxious to call attention to it, and he wished the two petitions might be presented on the same day, that one discussion might answer for both.
Committee on the Bill postponed.

WATERLOO BRIDGE NEW STREET BILL.
Lord Duncannonbrought up the report of the Committee on this Bill.
Mr. D. W. Harveywished the Bill to be referred to a Select Committee, to inquire into the circumstances connected with it.
Lord Duncannonwould not proceed with the report now, if it was not agreeable to the House.
Mr. D. W. Harveywas sure no Gentleman who had considered the subject would think that this Bill ought to be sanctioned.
Mr. Humesuggested to the hon. member for Colchester, whether it would not be the most proper course to recommit the Bill. The objection to it was, that it would make two new streets, which would benefit private individuals and not the public.
Lord Duncannonpresumed his hon. friend meant by individuals, the Duke of Bedford and the Marquis of Exeter, but the improvement would be of no benefit to their property. The persons whom the former nobleman had consulted, had advised him not to give 4,500 l. which he had proposed, and the person who had appealed for the noble Marquis declared, that he would not advise his Lordship to change the direction of the street. If Gentlemen meant to discuss the point, he would not press the further consideration of the report.
Mr. D. W. Harveysaid, the fact which the noble Lord had stated of the Duke of Bedford contributing to, and the Marquis of Exeter sacrificing something to the anticipated public benefit, was calculated to mislead the House, because it appeared there was an estimated value of property to be taken in exchange.
Lord Duncannonhad certainly stated that the Duke of Bedford and Marquis of Exeter would contribute to this street, but as the fact had turned out otherwise, he should move that the further consideration of the report be on Monday next.
Agreed to.

CORRUPTION AT LIVERPOOL.
Mr. Benettrose, for the purpose of bringing forward his Motion with regard to the Borough of Liverpool, and he hoped the House would hear him for a short time. [Calls of Question slopped the hon. Member from proceeding.]
Mr. Herriessaid, he really must put it to the hon. Member, whether, in that House, and at that time of night, such a question ought to be discussed.
Mr. Benettsaid, that he was in the hands of the House, and seeing that the feeling of the House was against the Motion being brought forward then, he would postpone it till Monday, when he hoped he might be allowed to bring it on before the motion of the noble Lord, the member for Buckinghamshire.
Mr. C. W. Wynndoubted, after the manner in which the Estimates had occupied the House, whether such an important question as the suspension of the Writ for Liverpool, should come on before the motion alluded to.

IRISH AND SCOTCH REFORM BILLS.
Mr. Herriespresumed, the first topic for discussion, would be the Irish Reform Bill.
Lord Althorpsaid, that he had observed, a few nights since, that it would be extremely inconvenient to attempt to carry the three Reform Bills through the House pari passu; and he would now add, that it was not the intention of Government to proceed with the Irish and Scotch Reform Bills until the House should have got through with the English Reform Bill. This course had been resolved upon, in order to keep the discussion of the respective Bills separate, and avoid confusion in the debates.
Motion deferred till Monday.

MINUTES.
Bills. The Customs Oaths Bill, and the Duchy of Cornwall Lease Bill were brought up from the Commons.

POOR LAWS IN IRELAND.
The Marquis of Downshire The Marquis of Downshire, in presenting a Petition which, he said, was most respectably signed, from Wine Merchants in the City of Dublin, praying that additional Duties might not be enforced upon certain Wines, said, he wished to take that opportunity of correcting a misstatement which had been circulated through the public Press in Ireland, respecting what he had said last week, when presenting a Petition from Newry, on the subject of the Poor-laws. It was erroneously stated, that he had brought in a bill relating to the establishment of Poor-laws in Ireland. He had done no such thing. On the contrary, he had stated, that although he had formed no opinion himself upon the subject, yet he considered it one of importance, and deserving the attention of Parliament. He had also stated, at the same time, his conviction, that the more attention was paid to important subjects connected with Ireland, the more advantage would be likely to be derived from them; and that they should not (to use, the expression which he had before used) be determined on in a crude state. He had troubled their Lordships with these few words because he was unwilling that it should be supposed he had pledged himself to a measure, respecting which, on the contrary, he had not yet made up his mind.
Petition laid on the Table.