Sitting of 19 March 1831

MINUTES.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Sir R. INGLIS, the Expenses paid by the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, relative to the following Disfranchisement Bills; viz. Aylesbury, in the year 1804; Helleston, in the years 1813, 1814, 1815, and 1816; Barnstaple, in the year 1819; Penryn, in the year 1819, and in the years 1827 and 1828; and Grampound, in the years 1820 and 1821; distinguishing the several years; the Expenses paid by the Lords Commissioners of his Majesty's Treasury, on account of all Select Committees of the House of Commons, and Committees of the whole House, since the end of the year 1800; distinguishing the expenses under separate heads, of each Committee, and in each year; the total Expenses incurred in Building, Repairing, Fitting, and Furnishing the several Gaols and Houses of Correction in England and Wales, since the year 1800; distinguishing such several Gaols and Houses of Correction.
Petitions presented. In favour of the Ministerial plan of Reform, by Mr. Alderman WOOD, from the Wards of Cornhill, Cripplegate Without, Aldgate, and Aldersgate: —By Colonel ABERCROMBY, from Alloa:—By Sir GEORGE ROBINSON, from Northampton:—By Mr. BUCK, from Exeter:—By General PALMER, four from the Parishes of Bath:—By Sir M. S. STEWART, three from Greenock:— By Mr. P. STEWART, from the Town of Lancaster:—By Mr. HUNT, from Stayley-bridge, Lancashire:—By Lord EBRINGTON, from the County of Devon, assembled in Shire Hall, and from several Parishes of the Eastern part of Devonshire:—By Mr. HUME, eighty-nine from England and Scotland:—By Mr. WEBB, from Gloucester:—By Mr. R. SMITH, from Chcsham and Newton-Pagnell: — By Mr. PENDARVIS, from Falmouth, Penzanee, Truro, St. Mawes, Egleshall, and another Town in Cornwall:—By Sir W. INGILBY, from Stamford, and from three places in Lincolnshire:—By Mr. DELL, from the County of Northumberland:—By Mr. 11. GRANT, from 7,000 Inhabitants of Norwich, being full one-half of the male adult population of that City:—By Mr. CURTEIS, from Hastings and Ringmer:—By Mr. STANLEY, from Maryborough and Clithero:—By Mr. BENKTT, from the Town of War-minster, and from the City of Salisbury; the latter Petition being signed by five or six of the Clergy:—By Captain WEMYS, from Cupar:—By Mr. LANGSTONE, from the City of Oxford:—By Sir A. DALRMPLE, from Hadding-ton:—By Sir G. STAUNTON, from Havant:—By Sir J. WROTTESLEY, from Stafford: — By Mr. CARTER, from Fareham, and from Portsmouth:—By Mr. MUNDY, from Chesterfield, six placet in Derbyshire, and one in Leices-
578
tershire:—By the LORD ADVOCATE, forty from Scotland one-third of which were from Corporate Bodies, already in the possession of a franchise monopoly:—By Mr. GUEST, from Brecknock:—By Mr. GROSVENOR, from the Mayor and Corporation of the oldest Town in the Empire, the City of Chester—being an answer to all the ravings of an hon. Member, as to that plan's being a corporation robbery:—By Mr. WISE, from Thurles:—By Sir JOHN BOURKE, from the County of the Town of Galway:— By Mr. KENNEDY, from Ayr, and fourteen other places in Scotland:—By Mr. WARBURTON, from Stockport, praying, in addition, that as the Town contained a population of 50,000 souls, it might possess the privilege of sending two Representatives to the Reformed Parliament; though the Petitioners did not wish that their claims should embarrass the progress of the present Reform Bill:—By Sir W. HEATHCOTE:, from the Town of Gosport:——By Sir J. JOHNSTONE, from S75 of the Inhabitants of Scarborough: —By Lord MORPHTH, from Barnsley, Saddleworth, Selby, and another Town in Yorkshire:—By Colonel CAVENDISH, from the Mayor and Corporation of Derby:—By Mr. R. GORDON, from Crieklade, Highworth, and Swin-don:—By Mr. HOBHOUSE, from the parish of St. Paul, Covent Garden:—By Mr. WRIGHTSON, from Kingston-upon-Hull:—By Lord J. RUSSELL, from Thornhill:—By Mr. GISBORNE, from New Mills, and neighbouring places, in the County of Derby:—By Mr. J. FOLEY, from Droit-wich:—By Lord STANLEY, from Ashton-under-Line, Chorley, and Rochdale:—By Mr. BYNG, from Uxbridge and from Whitechapel:—By Sir J I. GRAHAM, from Oldham, (praying also for the Vote by Ballot) Birmingham, Leith, Cumberland, Maryport, Whitehaven, Cockermouth, and a place near Edinburgh:—By Sir E. KNATCHBULL, from Ashford:—By Mr. ELLICE, from Thorne, in Yorkshire: — By the ATTORNEY GENERAL, from the members of the English Bar, signed by nearly 400 persons, including twenty King's Counsel and Serjeants-at-law; including persons entertaining a variety of political opinions, and they expressed their full conviction, that the measure tended to the stability of the Crown, the security of property, and the welfare of the community; and from Bishop Auckland:— By Mr. SANDFORD, from Yeovil, Shepton-Mallet, and four other places in Somersetshire. From the Royal Burgh of Dunbar, two places in Fife, and one in Northumberland, by Sir R. FERGUSON:—from four places in Gloucestershire, by Sir W. GUISE:—from Lynn, in Norfolk, by Lord G. BENTINCK:—from Taunton, by Mr. LABOUCHERE:—from Oldham, and three other parishes in Lancashire, by Mr. J. WOOD:—from Boston, by Mr. WILKS:—from three places in the East Riding of Yorkshire, by Mr. SYKES. Against the Reform Bill, by Mr. BERNAL, from the Mayor and Corporation 8f Rochester: — By Mr. MILLER, from Newcastle-under-Lyne. By Colonel ROCHFORT, from Westmeath, for an Abolition of Capital Punishment in eases of mere offences against Property:—By the LORD ADVOCATE, a similar Petition, from the Chamber of Commerce, Edinburgh. By Mr. BYNG, from Clerkenwell, against Building a second new Church in that Parish. By Sir J. BOURKE, from Ballina-hill (Galway), complaining of Distress, and imploring Relief; from the Chamber of Commerce, against reducing the Duty cm Barilla; and from Rahoon, against further Grants to the Kildare-street Society. Against any alteration of the Timber Duties, by Lord EBRINGTON, from Bideford. Against Slavery, by Mr. WILKS, from Dissenters at Boston, Louth, and Wareham (and from Ware-ham for the Abolition of the Pilgrim Tax in India): — By Mr. WYSE, from Wesleyans of Cork: — By Sir J. JOHN-STONE, from Rilstonc and Conistone:—By Mr. CURTRIS, from Dissenters at Brighton:—By Mr. LINLEY, from Birmingham and Stratford-upon-Avon. In favour of the Vote by Ballot, by Mr. HUNT, from Padsham, Lancashire, Flushing, Cornwall, from Denny, from the Milrow Co-operative Society. By the same hon. Member, from various Associations, for the Repeal of the Stamp Duty on Newspapers; from a place in Carmarthen, against the Tithes; and from the Working Butchers of Taunton, against the Tax on Horses. By Mr. J. WOOD, from Chorley, against the Truck System; and from Haughton-le-Kerne, for a Modification of the Tithe Laws. By Mr. SYKES, from Beverley, for the Repeal of the Assessed

579
Taxes. For extending the Franchise of Galway to Roman Catholics, by Sir R. INGLIS, from the Protestants of Oran More. By Mr. BURTON, from the Burgesses and others of Beverley, against the Reform Bill; and from the Inhabitants of Beverley, against the General Registry Act. By Mr. EVANS, from certain persons licensed to sell Beer under the new Act, against the Corporation and Magistrates of Leicester, who had refused to allow them to continue their trade, unless they took out their freedom. They complained of the Magistrates exercising a species of espionnage over them.

SYSTEM OF TRUCK—AND COBBETT.
Mr. Huntsaid, he had another Petition to present, of which he had given notice. It showed the evils of the Truck System, and was drawn up some twelve months ago, when the hon. member for Staffordshire brought in his bill to compel the payment of labourers' wages in money. The petition was taken round to as many as eight or nine Members of that House, soon after it was drawn up, but they had all objections to presenting it, for some reason or another—but, as petitioners conceived, because it alluded to an individual—one Cobbett—who was the editor of some publication of which those hon. Members were in dread. The petition was brought to him (Mr. Hunt) at that time, to see whether he could recommend the petitioners to whom they should apply to present it; and, upon being told that so many Members had refused, he said, "if he were in Parliament, and knew the statements in it to be true, he should have no hesitation in presenting it." When he (Mr. Hunt) became a Member of that House, the petitioners reminded him of his former declaration, and called on him to fulfil it; and, in accordance with the pledge so given, he now presented the petition. The hon. Member then proceeded to read the statements contained in the petition, which was as follows:—
The humble Petition of the undersigned Labourers, of the Parish of Kensington, in the County of Middlesex, and of Barnes, in the County of Surrey;
Mosthumbly sheweth—That your Petitioners belong to a class of the community who are destined by Providence to earn their daily bread by the sweat of their brow.
That for some time past, previous to the winter of 1827, and the spring of 1828, your petitioners have been enabled to command, as wages for garden and other labour, from 2s. 6d. to 3s. a day; that with such wages, scanty and insufficient as they are to purchase any thing other than the necessaries of life, your humble petitioners have been, nevertheless, able to support themselves, their families, and their children.
That owing to the pressure of the times,
580
consequent upon the enormous taxes with which this country is burthened, and which fall so heavily upon the labouring classes of the community, your petitioners have greatly experienced the want of employment; but, being naturally anxious to embrace it whenever it offered itself, your humble petitioners were compelled, by that necessity which arises from the increasing wants of their families, to accept of employ under one William Cobbett, a nurseryman and a seeds man, residing at Kensington, in the county of Middlesex, and also occupying what he calls an "Indian corn farm," at Barn Elms, in the county of Surrey, upon the following terms—namely, 2lbs. of meat, 1½lb. of bread, and ½lb. of cheese per day for each man! That the said William Cobbett assigned to your petitioners, as a reason for this sort of payment of wages, "his great desire to keep your petitioners from the cursed chandler's shop and the big brewer; and also, that every man who worked for him should have in his belly some bread, meat, and cheese."
These were the motives assigned by the said William Cobbett for thus employing your humble petitioners; but more false or more hypocritical motives never were assigned, as will be seen, and of which your honourable House will be perfectly convinced, by the following statement of facts: to wit, the meat, consisting of the worst part of bad mutton, or cheap pickled pork, might have been bought by your humble petitioners at 5d. a pound retail; the bread, composed of coarse black filthy Indian corn meal and rye flour, at 1d. a pound; and stinking cheese at 4d. a pound, making the wages of your petitioners to consist of food of the following value—namely,

For Mutton or Pork

2lb at 5d.

10 d.

For Bread

1½ at 1

1½

For Cheese

½ at 4

2

Total

1s. 1½ a day.

Thus paying your humble Petitioners, in lieu of 3s. or 2s. 6d, a day in money, paying them in such disgusting food, to the utmost not worth more than thirteen-pence-halfpenny, (hangman's wages), while the prime cost of it to the said William Cobbett could not possibly exceed sixpence-three-farthings.
Your honourable House, therefore, will readily perceive, from the foregoing premises, the true cause and selfish motives which induced the said William Cobbett to adopt the infamous practice of paying your humble petitioners in meat and meal, instead of the current coin of the realm.
With such payment of wages your petitioners were left with no means whatever to purchase clothes, fuel, beer, soap, candles, lodging, or even tobacco, now rendered so necessary by the habits of their lives; and, in short, your humble petitioners were deprived of the necessaries of life, or compelled to sell, at an immense loss, a great portion of their hard-earned, coarse, and unwholesome food, such as the hogs of the said William Cobbett have been frequently known to refuse, in order to pur-

581
chase some one of the articles just above enumerated.
Your petitioners, therefore, most earnestly implore that your honourable House will interpose between your humble petitioners and all such persons who may be disposed to imitate the fatal and abominable example of the said William Cobbett, and pass a law as will in future protect them from becoming the dupes of such low cunning, as also from the additional misery and degradation of their station in life, by preserving them from the payment of wages in food.
And your petitioners further pray, that they may be permitted to prove all and every allegation contained in their humble petition at the bar of your honourable House.
And your petitioners will ever pray.
A grosser instance than this of the evils arising from the truck system, perhaps, had never been brought before the House; and he hoped the system would soon be put an end to. The individual referred to (Cobbett) had been attacking him (Mr. Hunt) in his publications; but he assured the House he was not instigated to present the petition from that circumstance. He had pledged himself to present the petition many months ago, before those attacks had taken place. As he was on his legs, he would advert to another circumstance:—A few nights ago, the subject of the treatment of prisoners in gaols came under their consideration; and when he (Mr. Hunt) alluded to a fact which came within his own knowledge, as to the treatment of some Reformers in a gaol in Yorkshire, the hon. member for Weymouth (Sir E. Sugden) boldly and plainly got up and said (in a manner, no doubt, quite parliamentary) that he did not believe the account. In answer to the hon. member for Weymouth, an hon. Alderman (Wood) then rose and started, that he knew the greater portion of the facts mentioned by him (Mr. Hunt) to be true. Now, the particular case alluded to was that of a Reformer named Reilly, who was committed, in the year 1817, as a Reformer, and cut his throat in prison; and the fact stated was, that a brother Reformer was put into the cell, where the man had committed suicide, before the cell was cleaned out. The hon. member for Weymouth said it was impossible such a circumstance could have taken place in this country, and that, if any thing of the kind had occurred, those guilty of such cruel treatment must have been brought to justice. The relations of Reilly, most respectable shopkeepers, however, had since called on him
582
and confirmed the whole of his previous statement, which they were ready to prove at the bar of the House. The hon. Member was proceeding to give an account of a statement made to him by the brother of Reilly, when
rose to order, and observed, that the statement into which the hon. Member was entering had nothing whatever to do with the petition he was about to present.
Mr. Huntappealed to the Speaker whether he had not a right to advert to a direct contradiction given to a statement of his on a former evening?
The Speakersaid, that the hon. member for Preston was quite in order.
On the question that the Petition be printed,
Another hon. Member rose, and was about to enter into the subject of the contradiction given by the hon. member for Weymouth to the statement of the hon. member for Preston, with respect to the case of Reilly, when he was stopped by
The Speaker The Speaker, who said, that the hon. member for Preston was personally concerned in the matter, and, therefore, had that claim on the attention of the House to his statement, which the hon. Member who was about to address the House had no title to.
Mr. O'Connellremarked, that the mode in which Mr. Cobbett paid his labourers, would render him a benefactor in Ireland, where they would be too glad to work for beef and bread. He had heard the character of Mr. Cobbett very highly spoken of by the Irish labourers in his neighbourhood.
The Petition to be printed.

PETITIONS IN FAVOUR OF REFORM.
Colonel Sibthorppresented a Petition from the Inhabitants of the Bail and Close of the City of Lincoln, in favour of Reform. He willingly presented this petition, although he did not go so far as the petitioners with respect to the question of Reform. At the same time he professed himself a Reformer, but not a radical nor root-and-branch Reformer. He thought there was much that required amendment in the existing system of Representation, and should be happy to see a plan of Reform brought forward of which he could conscientiously approve. With respect to the Ministerial scheme of Reform, he thought it more objectionable in its de-

583
privations than in its extension of the franchise. The hon. Member also presented a Petition in favour of Reform, from the Mayor and Corporation of Lincoln.
Mr. Humesaid, that although he was not often in the habit of defending Ministers, yet he felt himself bound to say, that last night the present Ministry had been extremely ill-used. The object they sought to obtain was a diminution of taxation, and yet they had been met with the most factious opposition that he had ever witnessed. It should be remembered, however, that they had to carry on the Government with materials congregated together by the last Government; in consequence, those who held what they called Treasury boroughs, voted against them. The public should take notice of this, for, in addition to the ninety-nine arguments in favour of Reform, this was the hundredth, and the best of them all.
Mr. Curteissaid, he was one of those who had voted in the majority last night; but he could with perfect truth deny the charge of having given a factious vote. He had given, not a factious, but a painful vote. He was sorry to be obliged to oppose his Majesty's Ministers; his vote was not directed against them, but against the principles of free trade.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, no doubt many hon. Members were actuated by the same motives as the hon. member for Sussex: that his hon. friend (Mr. Hume) did not mean to deny. He only expressed his opinion, that, generally speaking, the vote had been dictated by factious motives. This he (Mr. O'Connell) firmly believed to be the case. But he would desire his Majesty's Ministers not to be discouraged: he told them, that the people of England and Scotland,—ay, and after all that had passed—of Ireland, too, were with them, and would co-operate in putting down the borough mongering faction, that was endeavouring to thwart the Reform brought forward by Ministers. What had occurred last night would only stimulate the people to make fresh efforts in favour of the present Government; particularly when it was seen that the Treasury boroughs were in the hands of Opposition Members, who voted against the Government to which those boroughs belonged. Were not Members who acted thus, pursuing a factious, not to say a dishonourable course? Certainly they acted differently from the nominees of private patrons. When the nomi-
584
nee could not vote with his principal, he gave up the borough; but the Gentlemen to whom he had alluded adopted an opposite course.
Mr. Millertook that opportunity of complaining of the use that had been made of his Majesty's name, with a view to influence the opinions of people out of doors, and to promote the getting up of petitions in favour of a plan of Reform which the King was said to approve.
Mr. O'Connell Mr. O'Connell, as a constitutional lawyer, defended the practice censured by the hon. Gentleman, and declared his opinion to be, that it was legally and constitutionally justifiable to refer to his Majesty's known opinions on Reform, with a view to induce the people to co-operate with the first Reformer in the country—the King upon the Throne,—in securing a satisfactory amendment of the Representation. There was a wide distinction to be taken between allusions within these walls to the opinions of his Majesty, for the purpose of influencing decisions of the House of Commons, and references made out of doors to the royal sentiments, with a view to excite the people to express their wishes in addresses to the King and Parliament on the subject of Reform. The House considered the former course irregular, but the latter proceeding he (Mr. O'Connell) was prepared to justify.
Mr. G. Dawsoncalled upon the hon. and learned. member for Waterford to speak, hot as a lawyer, but as a Member of that House: whatever arguments legal ingenuity, directed to one side of a question, might suggest to the hon. Gentleman, however he might attempt to justify the practice referred to, when speaking as an Advocate, he (Mr. Dawson) did not see upon what ground the hon. Gentleman, in his capacity as a Member of the Legislature, could defend it. For his own part, he considered it highly unconstitutional to use the name of his Majesty for the purpose of exciting a cry throughout the country in favour of Reform; and he thought that if the hon. and learned member for Water-ford had not ulterior objects in view, he would not stand up to defend the practice.
Mr. Bernalrose to order: he considered it irregular in the right hon. Gentleman to speak of the "ulterior objects" of an hon. Member, particularly as it must be pretty plain that the right hon. Gentleman meant to connect ulterior motives with ulterior objects.
The Speakerdecided, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Dawson) was in order, and that the hon. member for Rochester was himself irregular, in confounding "objects," with "motives."
Mr. Dawsonhad not imputed motives to the hon. and learned Member, he only spoke of the hon. Gentleman's ulterior objects, which were confessedly—Annual Parliaments, Universal Suffrage, Vote by Ballot, the destruction of Corporations, and the annihilation of the Protestant Church. These were the ulterior objects in furtherance of which the hon. Gentleman was prepared to support the present Ministry in their plan of Reform, and it was with a view to the accomplishment of these objects that the learned Member justified the appeal to the supposed opinions of his Majesty. He repeated, those were the ulterior objects which he imputed to the hon. member for Waterford, and he was sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman was too honest to conceal them.
Sir John Wrottesleydenied that any petitions had been got up in Staffordshire by any undue influence whatever. The people being zealous in the cause of Reform, had come voluntarily forward to address the King and petition the Houses of Parliament in its favour.
Mr. Wilkswas proceeding to state that we had official information of the opinion of his Majesty, in his answer to the Address of the Corporation of London on the subject of Reform, and to argue that it was justifiable to refer to the opinion so expressed, when
The Speakertold the hon. Member, that his allusion was disorderly, inasmuch as it might give rise to an irregular discussion as to the construction of his Majesty's answer.
Mr. O'Connell Mr. O'Connell, in answer to the observations which had been made by Mr. G. Dawson, denied that he was, or ever had been, an advocate for Annual Parliaments. He certainly approved of Triennial Parliaments, as established at the Revolution, which the right hon. Gentleman had so often denominated "glorious;" and, in his opinion, the right hon. Gentleman should be the last man to object to the principles which triumphed at that period. He confessed that he was a friend to Universal Suffrage; but upon that point he gave way to the pending measure of Reform, because he thought that it was calculated to produce the self-same ends;
586
namely, good government and cheap institutions. The right hon. Gentleman had thought fit also to charge him with being an enemy to the Protestant Church, and as one who wished for its overthrow; but he denied this accusation in the most decided manner. He respected the hierarchy of the Church of England, as a faint image of that of his own Church, and he was only opposed to its enormous temporalities and overgrown wealth.
Mr. G. Dawsoncalled on the House to compare the statements of the hon. member for Waterford in that House with the sweeping anathemas he had repeatedly fulminated against the Protestant Church and Parliament out of doors. He was astonished, that not only the hon. member for Waterford, but his particular friends, the members for Preston and Middlesex, should give up their extensive plans of Reform, for the weak milk-and-water measure now before the House.
Sir J. Newportspoke to order. The right hon. Gentleman was not justified in imputing to the hon. member for Waterford that that hon. Member had falsely stated his opinions.
Mr. G. Dawsonsaid, he had no intention of imputing anything like falsehood to the hon. member for Waterford. He had his own opinions as to the motives which influenced that hon. Member.
Petition to be printed.
Mr. Stanleysaid, he rose to present a rather singular and important Petition in favour of Reform. It was a petition signed by a respectable body of Commercial Travellers, principally communicating between London and Birmingham, and its neighbourhood. The petitioners set forth, that from the nature of their avocations, they had opportunities which few other classes of the community possessed, of ascertaining what were the opinions, sentiments, and wishes, of numerous bodies of society, of different grades, and of very various occupations. The petitioners had taken pains to inform themselves upon the subject, and they could state, that the people were unanimous and ardent in favour of Reform, and that even those whose views were not precisely accordant with the measure brought into that House by his Majesty's Ministers, would sacrifice all differences upon minor points, and zealously support the Bill, upon the conviction that it was calculated to effect the greatest good to the country.—To be printed.
Mr. P. M. Stewart Mr. P. M. Stewart, in presenting a Petition from the Freemen and Inhabitants of the Town of Lancaster, and its vicinity, in favour of Parliamentary Reform, said, that he was unwilling to trespass upon the time of the House, considering the mass of petitions that still remained to be presented. He begged, however, to say, that the meeting at which this petition was adopted was of the most intelligent and respectable character, and had carried the resolutions and the petition by acclamation, and among them were many individuals who, by thus supporting the measure of Reform, submitted to being immediately denuded of their franchise, and others submitted to the limitation of it to a mere life-rent, instead of a perpetuity, all concurring in sacrificing their individual advantages for the good of the public. The petition lay for seven hours for signature, and was subscribed by upwards of 1,100 names. To any person acquainted with Lancaster, and with the community which he had the honour of representing, this fact spoke forcibly of the irresistible progress which this great question was making over the whole country; and so impressed was he with this, that he felt convinced, in the event of their being sent back to their constituents before this saving measure was secured to the country, they would, with a few exceptions, have to return here and appear as he (Mr. Stewart) now did, with a petition like the present as the credentials of their appointment.—Petition printed.
Sir G. Nugentpresented a Petition from Buckingham against the Bill. The petitioners complained that they had been improperly included among the disfranchised boroughs, inasmuch as Buckingham contained many more than 2,000 inhabitants.
Sir T. Fremantlethought the petition well worthy of the attention of the House. The Bill then in progress proposed to disfranchise all boroughs, the population of which was less than 2,000 according to the census of 1821; and though the population of Buckingham was actually 3,460, it was included in the list of the boroughs to be disfranchised. He had had a conference in private with the noble Lord (John Russell) who brought in the Bill, on the peculiar hardship—indeed injustice, even on his own principle—of including Buckingham within its disfranchisement provisions; and he trusted the noble Lord
588
would make public his private avowal, as it would afford great satisfaction to the inhabitants of that borough.
Mr. Stanleywas enabled to state to the House, that the case of Buckingham was at that moment under the peculiar consideration of the framers of the Bill.