Sitting of 10 March 1831

MINUTES.
Bills. The Calico Duties Repeal, read a third time and passed. Post Roads (Ireland), read a second time. Vestries Act (Ireland) Amendment, the Suits in Common Law Courts, the Frauds on Creditors, and the Canada Lands Bill, read a first time.
Taunton Election Committee reported, that THOMAS BAIN-BRIDGE, Esq. was duly elected for that Borough.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. S. LUMLEY, the total amount of the Expenses incurred by the Lords of the Treasury, on account of the East Retford Disfranchisement Bill:—On the Motion of Mr. HODGES, the Overseers of the Poor of every Parish, Township, or other place, in England and Wales, at the time of finally settling their respective accounts for the year commencing on the 25th March, 1830, to prepare an account, shewing the total amount of Money levied for Poor-rates and County-rates, in the year ending on 25th March, 1831, upon such parish, township, or other place, maintaining its own poor, and also, the total amount of money expended in that year; distinguishing, in the said account, the amount of money paid for any other purpose than the relief of the poor; such overseers, as soon as may be, to transmit such account to the Clerk of the House of Commons, stating, in addition to such account, whether any Select Vestry has been formed, and now exists, and whether an assistant overseer is now in office, under and by virtue of the Act 59 Geo. 3rd, c. 12; and any other observations which may be thought necessary.
Petitions presented. For the Abolition of Slavery, by the ATTORNEY GENERAL, from Bristol and Thombury:—By Sir J. WROTTESLEY, from Wolverhampton:—By Mr. CALLAGHAN, from places in Cork. For the Commutation of Tithes, from the Occupiers of Land in Corbridge, by Mr. S. LUMLEY. Against being obliged to shut up their Houses at an early hour, from the Retail Brewers of Nottingham, by the ATTORNEY GENERAL:—By Mr. G. ROBINSON, from the same class of persons in the Metropolis. For the Reduction of the Stamp Duties on Newspapers, by the ATTORNEY GENERAL, from the Pressmen of Nottingham. For the Abolition of the Duty on Soap, by Mr. EWART, from the Soap Manufacturers of Liverpool. For facilitating the Building and Endowment of Churches, by Mr. HUGHES HUGHES, from the Clergy of Sheffield. For a Repeal of the Union (Ireland), by Mr. CALLAGHAN, from the Tailors of Cork; and from the Merchants of Cork, against any alteration of the Timber Duties. For Reform, by Mr. HODGES, from Woolwich. Against the Vestry Bill, by Mr. BYNG, from St. James's, and from Paddington; and against the New Police, from the parishes of St. George the Martyr, and St. Andrew's, Holborn.

REFORM—BRISTOL PETITION.
Colonel Bailliesaid, he held in his hand a Petition on the great Question of Parliamentary Reform: and, as he had not had an opportunity of expressing his sentiments upon that subject in the course of the Debate, he should now very shortly trouble the House with a few remarks. The petition which he was about to present was agreed to at a meeting held at Bristol on Monday last, which had been most respectably and numerously attended — a meeting convened for the express purpose of giving support to his Majesty's Government for the measure.—The petition was signed by the Chairman on behalf of the meeting, and consequently, in point of form, could be received as the petition of the

329
Chairman only, but in point of fact, it was the petition of the highly respectable meeting assembled on that occasion, they deputing him to sign it, as they were extremely desirous of conveying their sentiments to the Legislature with as little delay as possible. With regard to the great principle of the Bill itself, he begged to express his satisfaction—as far as the disfranchisement of so many rotten boroughs was concerned. He also concurred in that part of the arrangement which went to throw open close Corporations to the great body of householders, as exemplified in the case of the City of Bath. He likewise concurred in that part of the plan which gave to large towns, such as Birmingham, Manchester, &c. the right of the elective franchise. But there was one part of the measure in which he could not coincide; he meant that part giving to counties additional Members. This would increase the power of the landed interest; and, if the Bill passed without any modification on that head, he despaired of seeing any beneficial alteration in the Corn-laws. He had communicated with his constituents, and he understood that the measure would disfranchise from 3,000 to 4,000 persons. With the exception to which he had alluded, he should support the Bill; but he most certainly should oppose that part of the plan to which he had stated he entertained objections.
Mr. Hart Davissaid, having presented a petition from Bristol against Parliamentary Reform, he should be excused in offering a few words on the present occasion. He denied that the petition now before the House conveyed the sentiments of his constituents upon the subject, and declared, that he should give the Bill his strenuous opposition on its second reading, conceiving it to be, as it had been aptly described, "a revolutionary measure"—
The Petition laid upon the Table.

GROWTH OF TOBACCO IN IRELAND.
Mr. Warburtonrose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to prohibit the Growth of Tobacco in Ireland. The Motion was made in pursuance of a recommendation of a Committee of that House, and therefore needed but little explanation, and no support, from him to induce the House to allow it to go as far as the second reading without opposition. Before the Easter recess last year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave notice of his intention to
330
lay a tax on the growth of tobacco in Ireland, at the rate of 1s.. 8d. per pound, keeping the duty on foreign tobacco at 3s. That proposition having been objected to, the right hon. Gentleman, much to his credit, proposed to refer the matter to a Select Committee. That was done, and the Committee, after a patient investigation, reported, that it was expedient to extend to Ireland the prohibition to grow tobacco, which already existed in England. The House would probably agree with the report, when he stated, that tobacco could not be grown in Ireland without a protecting duty equivalent to 700 per cent. So monstrous a proposition exceeded any thing ever proposed by Buonaparte, in the height of his power, and if it were allowed here, we might next proceed to cultivate, under a high protecting duty, sugar and silk. The revenue collected on tobacco was nearly 3,000,000 l. a year, and the quantity imported, which yielded the revenue, was 20,000,000lbs. To endanger that revenue by allowing the growth of tobacco in Ireland would be most impolitic. It would have caused endless vexation and endless fraud to have levied a duty on Irish grown tobacco. In France the expense and the establishments necessary to collect the tax, had been so enormous, that any one acquainted with the subject must see, that to employ such a system in Ireland would aggravate a thousand fold all the evils that country now suffered from the collection of the revenue. Instead, too, as was hoped, of providing employment for the poor, it would only lead to crime of every kind, through the encouragement it would give to an easy kind of smuggling. He did not think it necessary to say more, and would therefore move for leave to bring in the Bill.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the cultivation of tobacco in Ireland was one which could not exist without extraordinary protection, and that it was in other respects unsuited to the country. He had intended to reduce the duty on imported tobacco so much as to render the growth of the article unprofitable in Great Britain or Ireland. But when he found himself unable to effect that reduction, he saw the necessity of prohibiting altogether the home cultivation of tobacco. However, under the circumstances of the present times, he thought the prohibition unadvisable, although the revenue might suffer consider-

331
ably by permitting tobacco to be grown in Ireland. He should be much more willing to sacrifice the revenue than to add to the distress or increase the discontent of that country. He did not mean to oppose the Motion, but he certainly should oppose the second reading of the Bill. He wished it, however, to be distinctly understood that the present arrangement was temporary, and if any person chose to increase his cultivation of tobacco, he did it at his own risk.
Mr. Frankland Lewissaid, that the present was the time for passing the law. If it were delayed, the difficulties in its way would be increased, and in consequence of the additional capital that would be employed in the cultivation, it would be impossible to enact the prohibition. The revenue derived from the duty upon foreign tobacco was upwards of three millions sterling, levied in the most unobjectionable manner, whereas the prime cost of all the tobacco consumed in Great Britain and Ireland, was no more than 350,000 l.; so that, if it were all grown at home, three millions of revenue would be sacrificed, and the country would gain only the profits of 350,000 l. invested in an altered cultivation. He could not admit that the prohibition would create discontent in Ireland. The whole of the land employed there in the growth of tobacco was only 450 or 500 acres; and they must have very shallow views of the causes of distress and discontent in that country who supposed that either would be increased by changing the cultivation of that small quantity of land. He did not know on what principle if tobacco might be cultivated in Ireland the prohibition to cultivate it could be continued in England, and he was sure the English land-owners would claim their right to cultivate it if the prohibition were not extended to Ireland. One or two gentlemen now made 100 l. an acre by the cultivation, and if the prohibition were not enacted, or the duty were not very much lowered, the result would be, that we should make to the landowners of Ireland a present of 3,000,000 l. a year. The country would, in fact, give a bounty, to that amount on the growth of tobacco in Ireland. If the noble Lord should throw out the Bill on the second reading, he would move to reduce the duties on tobacco, for he had no wish to enrich a few Irish landlords.
Mr. Ruthvenhad scarcely expected that
332
a measure so ungenerous as the Bill introduced by the hon. Gentleman opposite, could have come from so liberal a quarter. If it were passed, it would create at least suspicion in Ireland that the interests of that country were but slightly attended to by the House. Neither did he, nor any Gentleman representing Ireland, wish anything to be done for the advantage of Ireland, inconsistently with the general interests of the empire. All, therefore, that he could desire was, that the cultivation of tobacco in Ireland should be tolerated for the present season, as the noble Lord had intimated to be his intention, on account of the distress now prevailing in that country. The imagination of the last speaker had conjured up evils and dangers which he was persuaded did not exist. He would follow the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in not opposing the Motion, but he certainly should object to the second reading of the Bill,
Mr. Lefroyobserved, that the cultivation of tobacco was carried on to a much greater extent in Wexford than the right hon. Member had stated it to be. In fact, it gave employment to a large population.
Mr. James Grattanapproved of the intentions of the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), who had acted as a man of feeling and of good sense with respect to the Bill. He thought, that when the House recollected the state of distress which was known to exist in Mayo, it would be very cautious how it adopted any measures that might increase that distress, and nourish bad feelings in Ireland. He had no objection to allow the Bill to be brought in, as a sort of notice to the tobacco cultivators in Ireland; at the same time, he must say, that he and all the Members for Ireland would be obliged to the hon. member for Bridport if he would withdraw his motion.
Mr. Hart Davisheard with great surprise the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that, though he conceded that the principle of the proposed measure was a just one, yet he must give his opposition to the Bill proposed to be brought in by the hon. member for Bridport (Mr. Warburton). The proposal to prohibit the growth of tobacco in Ireland had been opposed on the ground that some compassion should be shown to the Irish people; but he contended, that compassion was

333
also due to the lowest English trader. In the year 1811 the duty on tobacco was only 2s.. 2d. per lb., and in the year 1822 it was increased to 4s. per lb. There was a difference in the consumption of 7,000,000 lbs under the increased rate of duty, and no doubt the decrease was to be accounted for by the increased consumption of smuggled tobacco. If, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed in his Budget, a duty of only 1s. 6d. per lb. was laid on all tobacco, it would prevent the growth in Ireland, and he was satisfied that in a few years the eighteen-penny duty would produce more to the revenue than a 4s. duty. For his own part he would rather give £250,000 per annum of the public money to the people of Ireland than permit the growth of tobacco in that country.— He hoped, therefore, when the noble Lord reconsidered the measure, that he would be of opinion that the hon. member for Bridport's Bill ought to be carried into effect.
Mr. Jephsonconcurred with those who thought there would be an increased difficulty every year in putting an end to the cultivation of' tobacco in Ireland. Tobacco was a great comfort, however, to the lower classes, and he thought the House was bound to do all in its power to reduce the present duty, which was odious and onerous, instead of endeavouring to prohibit the cultivation of the herb.
Mr. Callaghannever would advocate any measure of injustice to Ireland; at the same time he would never ask a boon for Ireland, to the prejudice of England and Scotland. Those who embarked in the cultivation of tobacco in Ireland well knew that in a short time the Government must interfere. It was a great mistake to suppose the Bill of the hon. member for Bridport would give general dissatisfaction in Ireland. It was necessary for the protection of the traders in the article, who were tempted by the high duty to smuggle the home-grown article, and were then liable to be ruined by the Excise officer. At present, smuggling was carried on to a great extent, to the injury of the morals of the people. He was, in general, in favour of equalising duties in both countries, but he was disposed to think that the duty on tobacco ought to he lower in Ireland than in England.
Mr. Leadersaid, the candour and feeling manifested by the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer), with re-
334
spect to Ireland, was creditable to him, and would be most grateful to the feelings of the people of that country. He had intended a large boon to Ireland, by reducing the tax on tobacco and glass, but his proposals, when he brought in his Budget, were rendered nugatory by the decisions of that House, and Ireland received no other advantage by the remission of taxation this year than her proportion of the amount of the coal-duty. It was important, therefore, that Ireland should be allowed to retain whatever advantage she enjoyed from the cultivation of tobacco—an advantage secured to her by the sixth Article of the Act of Union, which should be repealed preliminary to the passing of the hon. member for Bridport's Bill.
Mr. Curteiswas no enemy to Ireland, though he loved his own country.—He saw no reason, however, why the English agriculturist should not be allowed to grow tobacco as well as the Irish farmer. As an English farmer, however, he thought that if the cultivation was to be put an end to, the sooner the better. He entirely concurred in the views of the hon. member for Bridport.
Lord Oxmantownagreed with the hon. member for Sussex that, if the only question was, whether the cultivation should be put an end to now, or next year, the longer the prohibition was delayed the more detrimental it must prove to the country.
Lord Valentiathought, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer felt so secure in his revenue as to permit tobacco to be cultivated another year, the hon. member for Bridport need scarcely object. The great evil of Ireland was its redundant and unemployed population—an evil which the growth of tobacco went to remedy. There were not five or six, but 500 or 600 persons employed in growing tobacco in the county of Wexford; and in Enniscorthy, where the cultivation chiefly took place last summer, there was comparatively little distress. The proposal for prohibiting the growth of tobacco might be used for the most mischievous purposes, and produce the worst consequences at this period, when the Repeal of the Union was already in agitation. For these reasons he should give the Bill his decided opposition.
Lord Lowtherthought that tobacco might be grown in England and Scotland

335
with advantage, as well as in Ireland. Almost every country in Europe now grew its own tobacco, and derived revenue from it. He was able to state also, from returns, that a very small proportion of the tobacco consumed in this country was imported from our own colonies. He hoped, therefore, that the noble Lord would not allow the Bill to pass.
Sir Robert Batesoncould not avoid entering his protest, as an Irish Member, against the Motion. Whilst there were thousands of persons wanting subsistence in Ireland, he was surprised that any person should propose a measure to put a stop to a description of cultivation which gave employment to so many. He agreed with the noble Lord that the cultivation of tobacco might be advantageously extended to England and Scotland; and he just asked the House what the people of Kent would think and say, if it were proposed to prohibit the growth of hops in that county, because they may be had cheaper or better from the West-Indies or America?—His opinion on this subject was disinterested, for the soil of the north of Ireland where his property lay, was not adapted to the growth of tobacco.
Mr. Brownlowcould have wished that the hon. member for Bridport had left this measure of Excise in the hands of his Majesty's Government. At the same time, he was forced to admit, that he considered the arguments contained in the report of the Committee, against the growth of tobacco in Ireland, quite conclusive.—The better way of putting an end to the cultivation, however, was, by affording free competition, and reducing the duty on tobacco imported from America. He was satisfied that the loss to the revenue would be very small. Indeed, there would be no loss at all, but a great gain to the revenue, for by reducing the duty, as the temptation to smuggling would cease, the consumption would increase.
Mr. Goulburnwas ready to admit, that the question of the growth of tobacco in Ireland was one of considerable difficulty. In 1828 he brought forward a bill to prohibit its growth; but owing to circumstances which were then stated, he withdrew the bill for that Session, with the understanding that either the growth should be prohibited next year, or a duty be paid on what was grown, so as to place it on an equality with the imported tobac-
336
co. He afterwards gave his consideration to the point, whether tobacco might not be allowed to be grown in any part of the United Kingdom on payment of a duty. The subject was afterwards referred to a Committee, which recommended that it should be put an end to in the year 1831; and care was taken by the Government to give notice that it would be put an end to accordingly; and had it not been for the death of his late Majesty, a bill to that effect would have past last Session. The question was, whether they would give the power of growing it to the whole of the United Kingdom, or whether they would prohibit it in Ireland. If their decision was to prohibit it, the present was the best time for doing so, as due notice had been given to that effect.
Lord Althorpexplained: He agreed that they ought either to prohibit the growth altogether, or introduce a duty. But, in his opinion, the Government ought not to run the risk of creating discontent in Ireland by prohibiting the growth at present.
Lord Killeenexpressed a hope that the cultivation of tobacco would be permitted during the present year.
Mr. Warburtonreplied. He did not see why he should give up his present Motion because the Chancellor of the Exchequer had pledged himself virtually to prohibit the growth of tobacco by a proposition in his next Budget. He would, therefore, persist in the Bill.
Leave given, Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Warburton and Mr. Hart Davis.

CHARITABLE INSTITUTIONS.
The Attorney Generalmoved for leave to bring in a Bill to continue the inquiry into the Funds of Charitable Institutions in England and Wales.
Mr. Alderman Winchestercomplained that some vexatious proceedings in Chancery had been instituted under the authority of the former Commissioners, and he hoped that a clause would be introduced to prevent unauthorised persons from proceeding against trustees of Charities.
Mr. Humesaid, he would not object to the bringing in of the Bill, but he much doubted whether the public ought to pay the expense of these Commissioners. It appeared that they sat but four months in the last year; and he was satisfied that one

337
set of Commissioners might, with proper application, do more in one year than the whole five sets had hitherto done. The expenses, he was of opinion, ought to be paid out of the funds themselves. The inquiries had cost £135,000, and 20,000 l. with proper management would have paid all the expenses.
The Attorney Generalsaid, that at any rate the first step to be taken was to ascertain the amount of those charitable funds. It would then be open to any Gentleman- to submit any motion he might think proper.
Sir C. Wetherellthought the hon. Alderman must have laboured under some mistake when he supposed that vexatious litigation had taken place, as the law officers of the Crown had always taken the greatest precautions to prevent such an abuse. He must reply to the hon. member for Middlesex, that the object of the present Bill was to ascertain how money left in charity had been disposed of and apply it as the donor had directed. He did not think, therefore, that the hon. Member ought to lay his hands on any portion of that.
Mr. Huntknew that the money derived from charities was frequently spent in guzzling by those who were bound to apply it to other purposes.
Leave given, and Bill ordered to be brought in.

TOWER HAMLETS MILITIA.
Mr. Lambmoved for leave to bring in a Bill to alter the regulations for making the Ballot for the Tower Hamlets Militia. According to the Act, each Hamlet was bound to furnish a certain quota of men, which was no longer fair, in consequence of one Hamlet having been half converted into St Catherine's Docks.
Mr. Humesuggested the propriety of consolidating the laws relative to the Militia. He complained of the severity and irregularity of the operation of these laws in Middlesex. He recommended that a tax should be raised to pay the Militia, and that the regiments should be raised by beat of drum. As for the ballot, it was a source of great inconvenience, and ought undoubtedly to be done away.
Mr. Alderman Woodsupported the view of Mr. Hume, and enforced his suggestion.
Mr. Hodgesfully agreed with the hon. member for Middlesex, and was of opinion
338
that the present system of balloting for militia was most objectionable.
Mr. Lambalso admitted the propriety of Mr. Hume's suggestion, but stated, that it would require time to remedy the defects. He would, however, give his best attention to the subject, with a view of correcting the evils.
Leave given, and Bill brought in.

PETITION FOR THE MINISTERIAL PLAN OF REFORM.
Mr. Watsonpresented a Petition from the Corporation of Canterbury, in favour of the Bill brought forward by his Majesty's Ministers. As he saw the hon. and learned Gentleman, the member for Boroughbridge, in his place, he wished to observe, that this was a most respectable Corporation, and they voluntarily came forward, and offered to surrender their privileges, as they conceived that it would be for the general good.
Sir Charles Wetherellwished to ask the hon. Member a question, in reply. The petition purported to come from certain freemen of a corporate body, and they offered to surrender their rights to the Parliament; now, he asked whether these men had not taken an oath to maintain them inviolable, and to support all the privileges of their Corporation. One of the most sacred and valuable of those privileges was the right of sending Members to that House. Did the hon. Gentleman think these persons had acted consistently with the oath they had taken, in offering to make this surrender? He asked him, both as a Member of Parliament and as a man, whether he thought a minority of eight or ten persons in a Corporation, in spite of the oaths they had taken, were justified in coming forward to make a surrender of the privileges they enjoyed in common with others? He would most assuredly continue his opposition to this new project of Reform, and his exertions to procure its rejection should suffer no relaxation. Did the hon. Gentleman according to the vulgar interpretation of an oath, not think that those who offered to sacrifice what they had sworn to maintain, laid themselves open to a charge of something like perjury?
The Attorney Generalsaid, that his hon. and learned friend was mistaken in supposing this to be the petition of a minority; it was the petition of the Corporation, and bore the Corporation seal.

339
The case was simply this:—a most respectable corporation came forward and said it was willing to surrender an exclusive privilege, and share its enjoyment with the rest of their fellow-citizens. He presented, a few evenings ago, a similar petition from the Corporation of Nottingham, and those petitioners also expressed the same willingness to surrender their privileges, and he had no doubt that many similar petitions would be presented from corporations in all parts of the country. The members of this corporation, and of others, thought undoubtedly, that by the success of the measure submitted to the House a few evenings since by his noble friend, they would be relieved from a degrading stigma. He was surprised to hear his hop. and learned friend make any observations regarding the sacredness of an oath; and surely he could not have forgotten that no oath of such a nature as the present could prevent the Legislature from passing any measure it might deem expedient. Such rights are always in the power, and under the control of the Legislature, and these petitioners merely came forward to say, that they would not be impediments to any arrangement the Parliament might deem expedient.
Mr. Huntwished to ask the hon. member for Canterbury, whether the out-voters of that place had signed the petition. He understood that there were a few dissatisfied out-voters, who had had a meeting, and had expressed their fear of the probable success of the Reform Bill. He was not surprised at their alarm, for if the Bill should pass, the proceedings that used to take place at the Spread Eagle on the occasion of an election, were not likely to be renewed.
The Petition read.
Mr. Watsonhad only heard of the meeting of the non-resident freemen of Canterbury, to oppose Reform, from the public prints. He did not ask any question of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but merely called his attention to the fact of petitions having been presented from corporations in favour of the Ministerial Bill.
Sir Charles Wetherellcould assure the hon. Gentleman, that it was superfluous in him to call his attention to the subject of Reform, because he had long attended to it. He did not want the hon. Member as a "flapper" to awaken his attention
340
to the subject. Those petitioners came forward to make an improper and illegal abandonment of their privileges. There were non-resident voters connected with this corporation, which had no authority to surrender privileges in which others besides themselves were concerned. The question was simply whether freemen who had the right of voting, whom by the noble Paymaster's Bill it was proposed to cashier, were justified in offering to sacrifice the privileges they had sworn to maintain. With every respect for the learned Attorney General, he must deny that the House had any right to deprive, volens nolens, a large body of voters, at the request of another body, of any portion of their privileges. His hon. and learned friend might have presented a petition for the surrender of the privileges of the town of Nottingham; but that did not alter the question. The Bill would inflict injustice and irreparable injury. He was as well aware as his hon. and learned friend of the power of the Legislature, but, although petitions like this were presented from the 120 pieces the noble Paymaster proposed to cashier, he could tell the House, that he would never be a party to the surrender of privileges. It certainly might be advantageous to the resident freeman, to deprive the non-resident freeman of his vote, but the House ought not to sanction such gross wrong. The whole scheme of Parliamentary Reform was in truth an extensive plan of plunder and robbery.
Mr. George Robinsonwas surprised to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman apply such epithets to the plan of Reform, and characterize the sacrifices which the petitioners professed themselves ready to make as injustice. They did not pray the House to deprive the out-voters of their privileges, but merely said, that they were ready, if the House should judge it proper for the public good, to sacrifice their own. He could not comprehend the principle by which the hon. and learned Gentleman had arrived at the conclusion that these petitioners were prepared to violate their oaths. That was the first time he believed that the patriotic offer to sacrifice questionable privileges had been so designated.
An hon. Member concurred in all that had been said by the hon. and learned member for Boroughbridge. He could not see how any man who had sworn to

341
defend the privileges of the body of which he was a member could consent, without violating his oath, to surrender those privileges,
Mr. Huntsaid, that the great difficulty with many of the parties was, not the surrender of corporate rights, but giving up the good living—the comfortable feasts, on which corporators had so long fattened.

MINUTES.
Bills. The Irish Population (Census) Bill, the Bankrupt Laws' Amendment Bill, and the Calico Duties Repeal Bill, brought up from the Commons, and read a first time. Settlement of the Poor Bill read a second time. The Army Mutiny Bill read a second time. The Marine Mutiny Bill committed. Frauds on Creditors' Bill, and Richmond Lunatic Asylum Bill, read a third time and passed. Grosvenor's Indemnity Bill passed through all its stages, the Standing Orders suspended.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of LIMERICK, from the Soapboilers of Limerick, complaining of Distress, of being Undersold in their own Market by Smugglers, and praying for Relief. By the Duke of RUTLAND, from the Shipowners of Scarborough, in Yorkshire, complaining of Distress, and praying for Relief. In favour of Reform, by Earl GRET, from the Inhabitants of the Parish of St. Leonard's, Shoreditch; from a place in Northumberland; from, the Royal Borough of Perth; from Dartmouth; from St. Mary's, Stratford-le-Bow; from Cambridge; and from the Parish of St. Helen's, Bromley:—By Lord DURHAM, from Houghton-le-Spring, Durham:—By Lord CAWDOR, from Rutherglen. By the Earl of PEMBROKS, from Owners and Occupiers of Land in Pembrokeshire, for a Repeal of the Malt Duties. By Earl GREY, from Dartmouth, for a Repeal of the Coal Duties; and from Cookstown, for the Abolition of Slavery. By the Marquis of CLANRICARDE, for the Repeal of the Union.

REFORM.
The Earl of Hardwickepresented a Petition from Cambridge, in favour of Parliamentary Reform. He took the opportunity to state, that he approved of that part of the Reform plan of Ministers, which went to give additional Representatives to counties; and he hoped there were other parts of it which he might be able to approve.
Earl Greystated, that he held in his hand a Petition from Birmingham, in favour of the measure of Reform proprosed by Ministers. It was agreed to at a Meeting, where 15,000 persons attended; and he might mention, that although there was no place where the Ballot was more eagerly contended for than Birmingham, yet the measure in question had united the suffrages of all, and quieted all divisions among the people.
Lord Calthorpepresented a Petition from the Magistrates, Clergy, Merchants, and Manufacturers of Birmingham, in favour of Reform generally. The petition was put into his hands before the

327
measure proposed by Ministers was introduced, and he believed that some of them, although they were favourable to some Reform, were not prepared to go to the extent of the Ministerial measure, but he was bound to state, that the mass of the petitioners were decidedly favourable to the plan. As for himself, he was not prepared to accede to so extensive a change. It was the most extensive change that had taken place since the Revolution of 1688, and he thought it was too much to pass such a sweeping measure in the course of a single Session. He thought that more time ought to be allowed for consideration, and he did not think that any alteration could reconcile the plan to his mind, while its present principles were retained.

TITHES.—HASTE IN PASSING BILLS.
Lord Tenterdengave notice, that on Tuesday next he would present a Bill, for limiting the time within which proceedings could be instituted to set aside Moduses in lieu of Tithes. He would on that occasion explain the principle and object of the Bill.
The Earl of Fifecomplained of the mode in which important Bills were carried through the House, without sufficient notice and publicity. Two most important Bills—the Fraudulent Debtors' and Law Expenses' Bills—had passed in that manner, and yet they were most important, as connected with the liberty of the subject. The most grievous oppressions were often practised by lawyers under the forms of law, and when they themselves brought in bills to remedy grievances, they often only made matters worse.
Lord Wynfordremarked, that he had brought in the Bills before Christmas— that they had been repeatedly postponed for the accommodation of those who felt an interest in them, and had stood for committal twice or thrice. He did not know how he could have given them more complete publicity; and as to oppression, he could not understand what oppression there was in compelling men to pay their debts, when perfectly able to do so.
Lord Tenterdencalled the attention of the noble Earl to his statement, that he meant on Tuesday to explain the nature and object of his Bill, when he hoped that he would be present, and not afterwards complain.