Sitting of 29 March 1831

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time. The Ecclesiastical Lands Exchange. Read a second time. The Laud Tax Double Assessment.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. SPRING RICE, Copy of the Circular Letters issued from the Home-Office to the Returning Officers of all Cities, Boroughs, and Towns in England and Wales, respecting the Limits, Houses, and Population of the said Cities and Boroughs, and Towns; together with the statement received from the Returning Officers in reply to such Circular Letter:—Copies of any Memorials addressed to the principal Secretary of State for the Home Department, from the Corporations and Inhabitants of any Borough mentioned in Schedules A and B of a Bill now before the House "to amend the Representation of the people in England and Wales," respecting the Population of the said City or Borough:—A corrected return of the Population of each City and Borough in England from the Population Returns of 1821, distinguishing in each case whether the Population given be that of the Borough or of the Parish, or of the Borough and Parish together, and distinguishing the Boroughs mentioned in Schedules A and B of the said Bill:—The Fees received in the Office of the Registrar of Deeds in Ireland, during the quarters ended 27th October 1830, and 27th January 1831, and of the Disbursements and Allowances there out:—The number of Gallons of Malt Spirits exported from Scotland to England in each Year, from the commencement of the allowance of Malt drawback on Spirits made in Scotland; and the Amount of the Allowance that has been refunded, in each Year, on such Spirits:—The total Amount of Money which, on the 5th of January, 1831, was in the Exchequer, or remained to be received on Account of Ways and Means:—also, the several Sums of Money which would probably remain to be defrayed on Account of the Supplies of the Years 1825, 1825, 1826, 1827, 1828, 1829, 1830; and the Surplus of the Ways and Means at the disposal of Parliament.
Petitions presented. For the Abolition of Slavery, by Lord C. TOWNSHEND from Tamworth, and twenty-eight other Places:—By Mr. G. MOORE, from Drumcliffe:—By Mr. WILKS, from Dissenters at Mile End, Gosberton, and Purfleet:—By Mr. Alderman THOMPSON, from the Congregation of Salter's-Hall Meeting House:—By Mr. ROBERT GRANT, from Norwich:—By Viscount BERNARD, from Portadown:—By Mr. WOLRYCHE WHITMORE, Mr. HODGSON, Sir JAS. GRAHAM, and Mr. BRISCOE, from Southwark,
1132
and six teen other Places: — By Sir EDW. LLOYD, and Sir R. BATESON, an immense number, chiefly from Dissenters, from all parts of the Empire: — By Viscount GARLIES, from New Woodstock. Against the Registry of Deeds Bill, by Mr. GREENE, from Lancaster. By Mr. G. MOORE, from the Coal Meters and others of Dublin, against the Abolition of the Coal Meters' Establishment; and from Boyle and Aghana, for a General Fast. Against any alteration in the Timber Duties, by Mr. HODGSON, from South Shields. Against the Sale of Beer Act, by Mr. DICKINSON, from the Archdeaconry of Bath. For an alteration of the Tithe Laws, by Mr. WILKS, from Cadoxton. By Mr. ATTWOOD, from Bristol, for the Repeal of the Assessed Taxes. For the opening of the China Trade, by Mr. WM. DUNDAS, from the Chamber of Commerce of Edinburgh. By Mr. BROWNLOW, from Antrim and Dromore, for an alteration of the Grand Jury Laws; from Armagh, for a Repeal of the Union; from the Catholic Clergy of Dromore, against the Grants to the Kildare Street Society; and from the County of Galway, for the extension of the Franchise. By Mr. O'CONNELL, from the Inhabitants of Youghall, complaining that the Recorder of that place, who ought to be an efficient resident Officer, was an old Lady residing at some distance from the Town; against further grants to the Kildare Street Society, from Cappoquin and Achonry in Sligo; against Stamps on Newspapers, from the first Western Co-operative Society; from Woodbury, against Tithes; and from John Quigley, against the Corporation of Londonderry. By Mr. Alderman THOMPSON, from Bury Hutchinson, complaining of the East India Company interfering to prevent the Rajah of Travancore from paying a debt due to Mr. Hutchinson. Complaining of distress, and praying relief, by Sir JOHN BOURKE, from Ross, Galway. In favour of Reform, by Mr. O'CONNELL, from certain Inhabitants of Limerick, Yetlington, New Ross, Drogheda, and Navan:—By Mr. Alderman THOMPSON, from Coleman Street Ward:—By Sir J. WROTTESLEY, from Sedgeley:—By Sir JOHN NEWPORT, from Waterford:—By Sir E. LLOYD, from the Freeholders of the County of Flint; from the Inhabitant Householders of Mould, and Holy well; from the Burgesses of Flint, and from the Inhabitants of the City of St. Asaph:—By Mr. WEBB, from the Inhabitants of Wootton-under-Edge, in the County of Gloucester:—By Sir THOS. BARING, from Chipping Wycombe: By Sir JOHN BOURKE, from Tuam: — By Sir ROBT. BATESON, from Londonderry, and from Newtown, Lunavady:—By Sir F. BLAKE, from Galway:— and by Mr. WOLRYCHE WHITMORE, from Bridgenorth. Against the Ministerial plan of Reform, by Mr. SCOTT, from Freeholders, &c. of Roxburgh. For compensation, by Sir RICH. VYVYAN, from the Coopers of London engaged in supplying the West India Colonies with casks. For the Abolition of the Pilgrim Tax, by Mr. WILKS, from Wareham. For the Abolition of Tithes in Ireland, by the Ear! of OSSORY, from Kells and St. Nicholas Jerpoint.

REFORM PETITIONS.
Colonel Lushingtonpresented three Petitions from the Guild of Butchers, from the Guild of Tanners, and from certain Freeholders in Carlisle, against the Reform Bill. They complained of the rights and privileges which had been secured to them by very ancient charters being destroyed and that the Reform Bill would seriously injure them. In all the sentiments of the petitioners he fully concurred.
The Marquis of Chandossupported the petition, but said, that he had always been friendly to Reform, and although he opposed the Reform Bill, he still was a friend to a moderate Reform. He felt convinced that it was necessary to grant some mea-

1133
sure of Reform to the people, but he could support only such Reform as would, while it secured the rights of the people, preserve the Constitution.
Mr. Hart Davissaid, that a very considerable number of the citizens of Bristol which he had the honour to represent, would be deprived of their franchise by the Bill before the House, and that every part of it should have his most deadly opposition. At the same time, he would not say that he was an enemy to all sorts of Reform.
Sir A. Dalrymplesaid, that the Reform Bill deprived persons of their hereditary political rights, which had descended to them from centuries ago, and which they expected to transmit to their posterity. He should therefore oppose the Bill.
Mr. Moorepresented a Petition from the Sheriffs and Common Council of Dublin against the Irish Reform Bill. He agreed with the petitioners in thinking that the passing of the measure would place the constituency in the hands of the enemies of the Protestant Church, and lead to its destruction, as well as to the Repeal of the Union with England. The Bill would create precisely that class of voters who would return Representatives disposed to co-operate with the hon. member for Waterford in the accomplishment of the latter object. He had also to present a Petition from the Corporation of Brewers in Dublin, to the same effect, who also stated that to make the payment of 10 l. rent entitle a man to vote, would be adequate to establishing in Dublin Universal Suffrage.
Mr. S. Ricewould not be led into a discussion of the Irish Reform Bill till the proper opportunity, but when that should arrive, he would undertake to argue, that never had a measure been proposed which tended more directly than the present to tranquillize the public mind in Ireland on the subject of the Union.
Mr. George Dawsonsaid, the Irish public was not as yet aware of the unmixed evil that must result from the passing of this measure. There might exist some difference of opinion as to the fact of the Ministerial plan of Reform being a revolutionary measure with respect to England, but there could be no difference as to its being completely revolutionary as regarded Ireland. The Protestant influence would be completely destroyed in that country by
1134
the alteration in the corporations and boroughs, for which latter, Roman Catholic Members would be almost generally returned. He had sacrificed as much as any man to do justice to his Catholic fellow-subjects; but it was now time to do justice to the Protestants of Ireland also. If the Reform measure were passed, there could be no reasonable hope of maintaining the Protestant establishment, or the connexion between the two countries.
Sir J. Newportexpressed his conscientious belief, that the best way to prevent a separation of the Legislatures of the two countries would be by passing the Reform, Bills. He had lived for more than half a century in Ireland, and was convinced that the passing of the measure would be the best means of tranquillizing that country.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, this petition, instead of being an argument against Reform, to any rational mind was an argument in its favour. It was a petition from the Common Council of Dublin, consisting of about eighty persons, who held in their hands dominion over the Representation of that city. With two or three exceptions these persons were of obscure situations in life, and no less than forty-one of the number had been discharged as insolvents, or had become bankrupts. And these were the men who were to engross the control over the Representation of the first city in Ireland; and the House was told that it would be revolutionary to alter such a state of things. If we did, we destroyed Protestantism, forsooth! They were told that the Established Church would be endangered by the Reform measure. He denied this. The Established Church would not be endangered, though its temporalities might; and justly, because they involved an evil which ought to be remedied. With respect to the Union, that had hitherto been a connexion of monopoly; try its effects after the passing of the Reform Bills, and observe how it would work when placed upon a fair footing.
Mr. Northsaid, it was his firm conviction, that the effect of the passing of this measure would be to lay the Protestant Church in ruins at the feet of Catholic ascendancy.
Mr. Grattanwas of opinion that the Reform measure would do more than any other that could be devised to allay the anti-Union feeling wherever it existed in Ireland. He denied that there was any apprehnsion of a great influx of Catholic

1135
Members into a reformed House of Commons, or that Catholic influence would preponderate in Ireland in consequence of it.
Mr. Owen O'Connorsaid, the Protestant Gentlemen might dismiss their fears, for the Bill would have no such effect as they attributed to it. As to giving the Catholics power, had they not emancipated them for that purpose, and could they prevent them from having power?
Mr. Chapmanstated, that in the North of Ireland with which he was best acquainted, and of which almost all the inhabitants were Protestants, the Reform measure was popular with Protestants as well as with Catholics, and declared his intention of supporting it.
Mr. Sheilsaid, that the boroughs of Ireland were Protestant, and under Protestant influence, and the Irish Reform Bill would not cause them to become Catholic; while, with reference to the counties, it would have very little effect indeed.
Mr. G. Moore,in moving that this petition be printed was anxious to make one or two observations, in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. member for Waterford, who had cast certain reflections on the individuals with whom this petition emanated. Now, he would undertake to say, that the names attached to the petition were as respectable as those of any other body of men in Dublin. The freemen of the city of Dublin comprised 4,000 persons, and the constituency was not confined to the freemen; for Dublin, being a county in itself, was represented in the same manner as the property of every county in the kingdom was represented— by its freeholders. He could understand why it was deemed advisable to get rid of rotten boroughs, but he could not conceive why the privileges of so large and efficient a constituency as that of Dublin should be interfered with. In his opinion, the proposed measure would destroy the Protestant interest in Ireland.
Petition to be printed.

COMPENSATION TO SLAVE OWNERS.
Mr. G. Moorepresented a Petition from certain Bankers, Merchants, and others in the city of Dublin, connected with the West Indies, praying that the House would not interfere with the property of West-India proprietors, in any measure which might be proposed with respect to the abolition of negro slavery,
1136
without allowing to the individuals who would be affected by the measure, a full and fair compensation. The learned Gentleman stated, that the petitioners had no objection to any measure which might contribute to the abolition of slavery, but they deprecated sudden measures as likely to be injurious to the slaves themselves.
General Gascoynecomplained, that the debates which were got up on every Irish petition greatly impeded the progress of business, and the evil had become so great, that if the hon. member for Water-ford would propose the Repeal of the Union, he would vote for it, in order to get rid of the Irish Members. If the noble Lord who had brought in the Reform Bill would propose the removal of sixty-two Irish, instead of sixty-two English, Members, he would give the motion his most cordial support. Evening after evening he was prevented from presenting petitions because he found the names of two or three Irish Members always before his. The noble Lord was, it appeared, about to add to this calamity by increasing the number of Irish Members; but he should oppose that proposition when it was brought forward, because the number already in the House created considerable inconvenience. After the holidays he would move that the names on the Speaker's List be taken de die in diem.
Mr. Cramptonsaid, that the two petitions presented by the hon. and learned member for Dublin were perfectly consistent and accordant with each other. It was not surprising that those who wished to prevent Parliamentary Reform, should be also desirous of retarding the abolition of negro slavery. The want of Parliamentary Reform, and the continuance of Negro Slavery, were the two great spots which disfigured the political character of this country; and, to place Great Britain in her proper situation, it was necessary that they should be removed, although the petitioners would much rather perpetuate them,
Mr. Calcraftrose for the purpose of rescuing himself and other English Members from the imputation of countenancing the observations which had just fallen from the hon. member for Liverpool, than which he certainly had scarcely ever heard any thing more illiberal. The gallant General pointed out to the Members for Ireland what course they ought to pursue in presenting petitions. Now he should

1137
like the gallant General's suggestions to be sustained by reasoning, but he attempted nothing of the kind. In presenting petitions, he had been always guided by his own discretion, and he always would; and he must say, that in the course of his parliamentary life, he had often derived as much advantage from debates concerning the interests of those who had intrusted petitions to his care, when presenting those petitions, as he had done when a field-day was set apart for the discussion of the question to which they happened to have reference. He regretted the necessity which existed for presenting so many petitions, but, in presenting them, Gentlemen must decide whether they would or would not speak in their support. He felt, that the Members of that House generally represented Ireland as well as England; and he did not suppose that any Gentleman would have expressed such illiberal principles as those which the hon. member for Liverpool had uttered.
Mr. G. Mooresaid, that he thought he was best consulting the time of the House, by reading one short extract from this petition, to show the sentiments of those from whom it came; and with that object in view, he had not added a single observation of his own. As to the observation of the learned member for Saltash (Mr. Crampton), he would only say, that the petition against the Reform Bill, and that relative to the West-India question, came from two very different classes of persons.
Mr. Briscoesaid, notwithstanding what had fallen from the hon. member for Liverpool, he should take that course which appeared to be most proper to him in presenting petitions; and, of course, other Gentlemen had a right to do the same. He had a large number of petitions to present, on the subject of colonial slavery, but he had been prevented from laying them before the House, in consequence of discussions on other subjects. He hoped, therefore, that those who had intrusted him with them would not impute the delay to any fault of his.

ABOLITION OF SLAVERY QUESTION.
An Hon. Member, adverting to the important question relative to Negro Slavery, which was to be brought forward on that evening by the hon. member for Weymouth (Mr. F. Buxton), suggested to the
1138
House the propriety of setting apart another hour for the presentation of petitions on the subject.
Lord Althorpsaid, he felt to a certain extent the propriety of the appeal which had just been made; but he wished himself to make an appeal to his hon. friend (the member for Weymouth) on this subject. The question which his hon. friend was about to introduce was one that involved the greatest interests, and which was connected with the most important details; and it did not enter his expectation until within a few days, that this Motion would be pressed forward to-night. He hoped, therefore, looking to the great importance of the subject, that he was not asking too much of his hon. friend, when he requested him to postpone it. The business which had lately been before the House was such as had occupied all his attention: and perhaps it might have been his own fault, but certainly he did not expect, until within a few days, that the question would come on to-night. When it was considered that Ministers must require a little time to judge, as a Government, of the course which they were bound to pursue, he trusted that he should not be asking too much of his hon. friend when he earnestly desired that the Motion might be postponed.
Viscount Howickmost strongly urged on the hon. member for Weymouth to acquiesce in the request of his noble friend. It was not until Friday last (in consequence of a conversation which he had had with the hon. Member) that he had ceased to suppose that this Motion would not come on until after the holidays. The hon. Member certainly had not given him any promise to that effect on which he could found a claim, but his understanding of the matter was, that the motion would be put off. It would be a very great convenience if the hon. Member would postpone his motion until Wednesday, the 13th of April. Not a single notice of motion stood for that day: and as it was the day before the Committee on the Reform Bill, there would be a vast number of Members in the House, and there would be ample time for a thorough discussion of the question.
Mr. Calcraft,knowing how much this Motion interested the feelings, interests, and passions of a large body of people, concurred entirely in the sentiments of the two noble Lords who had just addressed

1139
the House. He was anxious that the delay now requested should be acceded to.
Mr. Sykescalled on his hon. friend the member for Weymouth to consider the state of expectation in which the people of England were placed with respect to this subject, and then to say whether he ought to be biassed by any personal feeling. The noble Lord had stated, very truly, that this question was one of great importance, but were they not now perfectly acquainted with it? The subject had been often before the House, and, in his opinion, they were as ripe for its discussion then as they could possibly be after the holidays. If it were postponed longer, it would be a matter of disappointment to a great number of persons.
Sir J. Mackintoshadmitted that the hon. member for Weymouth must be governed in his decision entirely by the duty which he owed to the public, and not by any respect to individuals. But he thought that the representation of the first Minister of the Crown in that House, that the minds of Ministers were not yet made up as to the course which it would be proper to pursue,—a point upon which so much depended in the settlement of this question,—he looked upon such a declaration as that to be a public consideration of very great importance. He considered it most important that they should have time for observation and reflection, with reference to the details of any measure to which they might be favourable; even if their minds were made up, as he supposed the minds of all persons were, with respect to the general principle. But that they should have the fullest information was of the utmost importance to the effectual settlement of the question in that House. In the absence of such information, he was perfectly sure that the question would be most unsatisfactorily discussed. On those grounds he would recommend the postponement of the discussion.
Mr. Fowell Buxtonconfessed, that he felt himself taken by surprise on this occasion. He was not aware that such an application would be made until a very few minutes before. He had given positive assurance to many gentlemen, that no consideration should induce him to postpone this motion; but when he heard Ministers declare that they wanted time to consider details connected with the subject, before this important discussion came
1140
on,—when he was told how necessary it was that the utmost information should be brought to the consideration of the question, and the more it was considered, the more fairly he was certain it would stand,—looking to these points, he did not feel himself at liberty (hurt as he was by the postponement, and anxious as he was to bring his motion forward) to introduce the question. He hoped, under these circumstances, that those who were interested in the motion would see, that he had no other alternative but to postpone it, however unwillingly. He wished, however, to have an understanding with his noble friend, that no consideration of any kind should prompt his noble friend to ask, or him (Mr. Buxton) to grant, any farther postponement. Under all circumstances, the question must be brought forward in the present Parliament. Therefore, if the noble Lord would state any day on which it should positively be discussed, he would accede to it.
Sir R. Peelsaid, it was at present intended that the Reform Bill should go into Committee on the 14th of April; but as various papers connected with the population had been laid on the Table of the House, and others had been promised, which it was proper should be printed and placed in the hands of Members before the Bill went into Committee, he suggested the propriety of postponing that stage of the Bill until Monday, the 18th of April.
West India Slavery postponed till Thursday, April 14th, and the Committee on the Reform Bill to Monday, April 18th. Shortly afterwards, Mr. F. Buxton changed the day, and selected Friday, April 15th, for his Motion.

LIVERPOOL ELECTION.
On the motion of Mr. Benett the special report of the committee appointed to take into consideration the allegations contained in the petition presented to the House against the return made at the last Liverpool election, was read. The report stated, that gross bribery prevailed at the last election.
Mr. Benettsaid, he rose as Chairman of the Liverpool Election Committee, to make the usual motion when a report of the nature just read was made to the House. He said, that gross bribery had been traced by the Committee to a great number of individuals; but as he was not aware that any opposition would be offered

1141
to the motion he was about to make, he should not trouble the House by going into the details of the evidence. He thought that the fact of such a report having been made by the Committee was sufficient reason to induce the House to grant the motion for the suspension of the writ for a new election for Liverpool, until time was allowed for the House to take steps to do justice in the case. The crime of bribery had attached only to the lowest class of freemen in Liverpool; and he thought, that as the proposed Reform measure, if passed into law, would not disfranchise the present freemen during their lives, some other steps ought to be taken to deprive at once the guilty parties at Liverpool of the enjoyment of the elective franchise. He intended to call the attention of the House to the subject after the Easter recess, and in the mean time he moved that the Speaker be directed not to issue the writ for the election of a Burgess to represent Liverpool before Monday April 18th.
Hon. MemberAn Hon. Member seconded the Motion. He declared that a regular systematic plan, of the most gross bribery had been established at Liverpool, and he thought steps ought to be taken to punish the guilty parties.
Lord Althorpthought the House would not be doing its duty, after having suspended the writs for smaller places where bribery was detected, not to apply the same rule to larger places. He felt bound to rely on the statement of the Committee, that gross bribery had been practised at Liverpool, and he should not offer any opposition to the Motion.
Mr. R. Palmersaid, that as the Motion was unopposed, he would trouble the House with only a few words. He thought that the House ought to endeavour to put an end to the bribery at elections, which so much prevailed at present, and he gave notice, that when the proposed Reform measure came into Committee, he should propose a clause, to compel Members of that House to take an oath that they had not employed improper means to procure their return. Whether he should propose that Members should take that oath at the hustings, or at the Table of the House, he had not yet determined.
Motion agreed to.

SUPPLY.—REPORT.
The Report of the Committee on Supply was brought up.
1142
On the proposed item of 155,905 l. for Superannuations for Officers employed in the Civil Departments of the Navy being read,
Mr. Humewished to know whether the right hon. Baronet had made inquiry into the correctness of his statement, that one individual was in the enjoyment of two superannuations.
Sir James Grahamadmitted, that the hon. Member's statement was correct; but he had found in the records of the Admiralty, a Letter from the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, strongly reprobating such a practice; yet stating that it would be a hardship, when many others enjoyed the double pension, not to continue in the case of one individual, what was the general custom. He promised during the Easter recess to take the subject into consideration; and he hoped the hon. Member would not make any objection to the grant at present.
Mr. Humesaid, he should withdraw all opposition to the grant, in consideration of the promise just given by the right hon. Baronet.
The Report agreed to.

PETITIONS AGAINST REFORM.
Mr. Hodgsonpresented a Petition from New-castle-upon-Tyne, complaining that the number of Freemen in that town would be diminished, by the proposed Reform Bill, from 5,000 to 2,000. They were favourable to the principle of the Bill, but they prayed against that part of it which would disqualify so many of them.
Sir C. Wetherellsaid, that the very respectable body from which this petition emanated, were very naturally anxious to preserve their rights, and as they, a very numerous constituency, were desirous of preserving a franchise which, as being more extensive, was less valuable than a right enjoyed by a small constituency, it was to be inferred that they were hostile to that general and sweeping disfranchisement contemplated by the Bill before the House. He hoped that other boroughs, following the example of this, would consider well the consequences of the Bill, and give a hint to their Members to oppose it. Indeed, he had reason to expect this, when the provisions of the Bill became more generally known.
Sir M. W. Ridleysaid, that at the meeting at which this petition was agreed to there were 400 or 500 free burgesses pre-

1143
sent, and not a word was said by any of them against the principle of the Bill, but they thought the continuance of the rights which they enjoyed not inconsistent with that principle.
The Petition read. In moving that it be printed.
Mr. Hodgsonsaid, though he fully concurred in the principle of the Bill, and would do nothing to endanger that principle, yet he thought it by no means inconsistent with that principle, that the franchises of large towns, with a constituency so extensive as to secure their independence, should not be disturbed.
Petition to be printed.
Mr. Hodgsongave notice, that when the Bill went into Committee, he would move a clause to the effect he had just mentioned.

STEAM NAVIGATION.
Mr. Charles Douglaspresented a Petition from persons interested in the Navigation of the Clyde and the Frith of Forth, praying that no tax might be laid on Steam Navigation. The importance of the Steam Navigation established in the Clyde was very great, and the advantages it had produced to the whole of the western coast of Scotland were very conspicuous. There was a capital exceeding 400,000 l. embarked in this Navigation, which would be totally ruined if the proposed tax were imposed. He hoped, therefore, to hear the Chancellor of the Exchequer state, that it was not his intention to press a tax so injurious.
Sir M. S. Stewartsupported the prayer of the petition. He was at first inclined to think that a small tax on Steam Navigation might be imposed without injury, but the more he considered the subject, the more he was convinced that its effects would be greatly injurious.
Mr. Humesaid, that a Petition from Glasgow, signed by 10,000 persons, and one from Greenock, also numerously signed, had been intrusted to his care against this tax. He did hope the noble Lord would abandon the proposition. The tax, though insignificant in point of revenue, being calculated at only 75,000 l., would be most seriously injurious to Steam Navigation in every part of the country.
Mr. Warburtonobjected to the tax as impolitic and unjust.
Mr. S. Wortleysaid, that the remission of the Coal-tax might be some compensation for the imposition of the tax on
1144
Steam-boats in England, though he by no means admitted that it would be a fair ground for such an imposition. But in Scotland, which had been exempt from the coal duty, and which would not benefit by its repeal, the weight of the proposed tax would be severely felt.
Sir Robert Peelsuggested to the noble Lord, that in future, before he took off any tax, he ought to be prepared with another to supply its place.
Petition to be printed.

CIVIL LIST BILL.
Lord Althorppresented the Bill for the Civil List. In presenting it his Lordship said, that he was commanded by his Majesty to acquaint the House, that his Majesty had declared his royal pleasure that the annuities granted to him as Duke of Clarence should cease and determine—also, that his Majesty and her Majesty, have declared their royal will and pleasure, that the annuities granted to her Majesty as Duchess of Clarence should cease and determine.—His Lordship moved the first reading of the Bill.
Bill read a first time.

SLAVEHY PETITIONS.
Mr. Fowell Buxtonpresented 499 Petitions from various parts of the country, praying for the Abolition of Slavery. One of them was from the Society of Friends. He said, that he had great pleasure in presenting the petition from this body, as they had been the very first persons in the country who had promulgated the doctrine, that the buying, or selling, or holding of Slaves, was contrary to the doctrines of the Christian religion. Forty years ago they had presented the first petition for the abolition of the Slave-trade, and ten years ago they had presented the first petition for the abolition of Slavery. He also presented a similar Petition from Glasgow, signed by 19,500 of its inhabitants; and to that petition he attached considerable weight, as it came from a place more closely connected with our settlements in the West Indies than any other town in the kingdom.
Mr. Wilkssupported the prayer of the petitions, and confirmed the statement that the Quakers were the first who petitioned against Slavery.
Mr. Buckdenied that the Quakers were the first to petition for the abolition of the Slave-trade, The first petition to that

1145
effect came from the Colonial Assembly of Jamaica. It had been presented to the King in Council; but its prayer had been rejected.
Mr. Goulburn,in looking at the list of the names of places from which these petitions came (a list which occupies three closely printed folio pages), said, that he observed, that two of the petitions came from persons who styled themselves "The Inghamites of Greyrigge," and "The Inghamites of Pear-tree Chapel." He should like to know who these persons were, for he had never heard of them before.
Mr. Fowell Buxtonconfessed his inability to answer the question, but had no objection to have their petition read.
Sir C. Wetherell.—Are they a Corporate body, or what?
Petitions laid on the Table.

HAMPSHIRE PETITION FOR REFORM.
Sir T. Baringsaid, that he rose to present to the House a Petition from the Freeholders of the County of Southampton, in favour of the plan of Reform which had been recently introduced into Parliament by his Majesty's Ministers. He had endeavoured to present it to the House before the second reading of the Bill, but had always been prevented by the number of names which had been placed on the Speaker's list previously to his own. The petition was signed by the High Sheriff on behalf of one of the most numerous, the most respectable, and the most intelligent meetings that he had ever seen in that or. in any other county. There were upwards of 5,000 freeholders, present at the meeting, and the petition had been carried without any hands being held up against it, save those of the two hon. Members for the County. He had stated to those two hon. Members his intention of presenting this petition on an early day, and he should be sorry if they were not at that moment in their places. The hon. Member read the petition, and concluded by saying, that in every sentiment which it contained, he most cordially concurred.
Sir R. Vyvyansaid, that if he had heard aright the prayer of this petition, one of its statements was, that the petitioners were anxious for a Reform of Parliament, because the House had regularly refused to institute an inquiry into the cause of the distress of the people. He, therefore, wished the petitioners to recollect that many of the Ministers who now advo-
1146
cated the new plan of Reform were the very men who had denied the existence of distress in the last Session of Parliament, and who had voted against the motion for going into a Committee to inquire into the causes of it. Those who now deprecated the plan of Reform proposed by Ministers were the men who had most strenuously insisted upon the propriety of inquiring into the causes of the distress of the country, in order that they might be remedied as speedily and efficaciously as possible. Let the people, then, judge between those who were their real and those who were only their professing friends. Let them judge between those who had acted, and were still continuing to act, on their own deliberate conviction of what was due to the public safety, and those who were tamely, and he would even add, basely yielding to the ill-advised clamour which was now raised throughout the country. He was glad to find from the statement of the hon. Baronet, that there were still men in that House, who had the courage to stand up in the face of thousands at county meetings, and to tell them, even at the risk of losing their seats at the next election, that they deemed this new plan of Reform most injurious to the Constitution of the country, and that they were determined to oppose it. He was nearly in the same predicament with his two hon. friends, the members for the county of Southampton; and as a person who would never have thought of standing for the county of Cornwall under other circumstances was now canvassing it on account of the vote which he had recently given, he would only say, that had he to give that vote over again twenty times, he certainly would give it as he had already given it,— for he never would submit to the degradation of letting his opinions truckle to the base cry which was now set up by the country. He wished that the country would give itself time to ponder on this new plan of Reform. He wished that the country would give itself time to consider whether this plan contained in itself such moral and political excellence as to be the only one which it ought to adopt. He was sorry that his hon. friends, the members for the county of Southampton, were not then in the House. He knew that he had but little right to interpose upon this occasion, as the petition did not come from his county; but it was impossible for him to remain silent when he heard the peti-

1147
tioners alluding to the distress of the country as one of the reasons for calling for a Reform in Parliament, when they were very likely to abuse those very Members of Parliament who had voted for a Committee to inquire into the causes of it.
Mr. Spring Ricecould not allow the observations of the hon. member for Cornwall to pass without a reply. The hon. Member had said, that the denial of the existence of distress in the country, and the refusal of the House of Commons to inquire into the sources of it, was the cause of the clamour of the people for Reform; and had then proceeded to assert, that the members of the present Government were among those who had strenuously opposed themselves to all inquiry. Now he thought that he could show in a few words which of the parties into which the House was now divided was most worthy of the confidence of the people of England They would find among the members of the present Government, those who had voted for inquiry,—among the members of the late Government, those who had voted against it. Let the people look at the List of Cabinet Ministers at that moment in the House of Commons, and then, if they were to decide who most deserved their confidence by the division on that question, they would find that those who were the friends of Reform had voted for inquiry, and that those who were the enemies of Reform had voted against it. His noble friend the present Chancellor of the Exchequer—
Sir R. Vyvyan—"Had voted against the motion for inquiry."
Mr. Rice.—No such thing—his noble friend had voted for it.
Sir R. Vyvyan.—No, no.
Mr. Ricecontended that his noble friend had voted for it. The hon. Gentleman was not regular in the interruption which he was giving him. He (Mr. Rice) was speaking, he admitted, from recollection only; but within the next twenty-four hours he would either re assert this statement if correct, or retract it if incorrect. He asserted, that on the amendment to the address moved by the hon. member for Kent, his noble friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had affirmed the existence of distress, and had voted for inquiry; and he recollected the fact well, for he had gone out of the House along with his noble friend. An appeal since that time had been made to the country, and the
1148
answer which the country had made to it by the petitions which were already laid upon their Table, entitled him to say that the country had given a verdict in favour of the present Administration, and not in favour of the hon. member for Cornwall, and his friends. On the occasion to which the hon. Member alluded, those who supported the Address had affirmed the existence of partial distress, and those who supported the Amendment had affirmed the existence of general distress. In the first party were the members of the late Administration; in the latter the members of the present. He was quite certain, that if the hon. Baronet would only take the trouble of looking through the division, he would find that those who were friendly to Reform in Parliament had voted in favour of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Kent.
Sir R. Vyvyansaid, that he did not mean to deny, that on the amendment to the address moved by the hon. member for Kent, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer had affirmed the existence of general distress in the country, and had voted for inquiry; but he contended, and he believed that he was correct in contending, that on a subsequent occasion, when a motion was brought forward by Mr. Davenport, for an inquiry into the causes of the distress of the nation, the noble member for Northamptonshire, now Chancellor of the Exchequer, had voted against the appointment of any Committee of inquiry. The petition from the county of Southampton stated, that one of their reasons for calling for a Reform in Parliament was, that the House of Commons would not look into the distress of the country. He said, that upon that score the present ministers were as culpable as any of their predecessors. He thought that they had always been opposed to inquiry into the causes of our distress, and into the operation of those principles of free trade which had operated so injuriously on the country by making one class of society the prey of another, and by luring the different interests of it to attack each other.
Sir T. Baringwas sorry to interrupt the hon. Baronet's declamation, but there was no such statement as the hon. Baronet imagined in the petition. The chief grievance of which the petitioners complained was the want of a full, fair, and sufficient Representation of the people in the Commons House of Parliament.
Mr. W. Duncombecontended that his hon. friend was perfectly correct in stating that the distress of the country was one of the grievances which the petitioners thought would be most effectually cured by a Reform in Parliament. He recollected perfectly well, that when a motion was brought forward by Mr. Davenport, for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the causes of the general distress, the noble member for Northamptonshire opposed it, on the ground that it would lead to an useless inquiry into the state of the currency. Now this, he contended, was a paltry ground for opposing that motion. He denied, whatever might have been the views of some, that there were many Gentlemen who supported Mr. Davenport's motion in order to obtain an alteration of the currency.
Sir James Grahamdid not rise to prolong this discussion, but he must protest against such language being used with regard to his noble friend (Lord Althorp) in his noble friend's absence. He thought it would be difficult for any hon. member —even for the hon. member for York—to point out any part of his noble friend's conduct to which the epithet paltry, could be justly applied. The hon. Member said, that since he had voted for Mr. Davenport's motion, he had had an opportunity of facing his constituents; but so also had his noble friend, who had voted against the motion; and if they should all have a similar opportunity again, at no distant period, the respective constituents of the hon. member for York and of his noble friend would have an opportunity of showing to the conduct of which of them—if to the conduct of either—they considered the epithets which the hon. Member had used were most applicable.
Sir Charles Wetherellwas quite sure that the epithets complained of by the hon. Baronet must have been intended to apply to the reasoning, and not to the conduct of the noble Lord. He was as sure of this as he was of the fact that most of those who had voted in favour of Reform had voted against Mr. Davenport's motion. Now no man, he contended, could read this petition from Hampshire, without seeing that the petitioners, in effect, asserted that the House had not attended to the distress which prevailed among the agricultural labourers last year; and, moreover, that the petitioners imputed that as a fault to the House. And, although he should be
1150
sorry to say anything disrespectful of the noble Lord,—although he never would say anything of the noble Lord in his absence, which he would not say in his presence,—yet he must beg leave to say, now, since the subject had been broached, that in his opinion the failure of Mr. Davenport's motion was mainly attributable to the speech which the noble Lord made against that motion. An hon. Member opposite had said, that the meeting in Hampshire was a most respectable one, which was true,—and that only two hands were held up against the petition,—which was equally true: but whose hands were those? Why, they were the hands of the two illustrious members for the county, who had had the manliness to come forward and act according to their judgment, and to tell their constituents plainly that they would so act. God forbid that the time should ever arrive in which county Members would come into that House as mere machines, acting entirely as their constituents directed them, and not as men exercising their own judgment and their own intellect. This was the true character of a county Member: and whenever the character of the Representatives was inverted he believed that Representation would be at an end, and that with that the people would be ruined. He was sorry that neither of the members for Hampshire was present now, for he highly applauded their conduct, and had read with the greatest pleasure the speeches which they made at the meeting. He wished that all county Members would follow their example. His hon. friend near him, the member for Cornwall, had kept up the character of a Member of that House by differing from his constituents. He would only add that he was glad of having had this opportunity of offering his testimony of admiration of the conduct of the two independent members for Hampshire.
Mr. W. Duncombethought, that the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir James Graham) was the only Member in that House who was of opinion that he had imputed unworthy or paltry conduct to the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer. All he had said was, that the excuse which the noble Lord had made for opposing Mr. Davenport's motion was a paltry excuse,—and so it was, in his opinion.
Sir James Grahamsaid, that he had understood the hon. Member to have said that his noble friend had opposed Mr.

1151
Davenport's motion on the ground that it would lead to an inquiry into the currency with the view of affecting an alteration in it, and that, in his opinion, such a ground of opposition to the motion was paltry, pitiful, and insignificant. He thought that he had distinctly heard those words from the hon. Member. However, he was glad to hear that he was mistaken; but if he had not been, he felt assured that the hon. member for York would have been the only Member of that House who would have thought his noble friend's conduct on that occasion or on any other occasion, could be properly characterized by such epithets.
Mr. W. Duncombethought that the hon. Baronet was decidedly out of order, in imputing to him what he had already declared that he had not said.
Mr. Attwoodhad understood the hon. member for York to have used the expressions as he had. said he had used them, and not as the hon. Baronet had thought proper to apply them. With this understanding, he begged leave to say that he was ready to use the same expressions to the same extent as the hon. member had used them. He was confident that the people were only praying for Reform as the means of relieving their distresses, which they thought would disappear before a reformed Parliament. Upon this delusion was founded the popularity of the present Ministry; and that popularity, therefore was as ill-deserved as he foretold it would be short-lived.
Mr. Alderman Woodprotested against the question of the currency being debated upon the presentation of a petition for Reform. This was the way that many hon. Members, who had been down at eight o'clock in the morning, to place their names on the list, had been prevented from presenting their petitions. If however, hon. Members thought by this means to put a stop to the presentation of reform petitions, they were as much mistaken as they were in supposing that they could set the people against Reform by telling them that many who voted for the Bill had voted against a motion brought forward by one Mr. Davenport. He must say, that he thought the attack which had been made upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his absence, and upon a petition with which he had nothing to do, was a very unfair attack.
Sir W. Heathcotewas sorry he had not
1152
been aware that this petition was to be presented,—for, if he had been, he certainly should have been in his place sooner. He certainly was opposed to the prayer of the petition, and in saying this he begged to declare his regret at finding himself compelled to differ from so respectable a portion of his constituents, as those undoubtedly were who composed the meeting. But, after the best and the most deliberate consideration which he had been able to give to the measure of Reform, he must say that he became day after day the more confirmed in the belief that it was a measure founded upon the most impolitic grounds, and that if it passed into a law, it would be productive of the most injurious effects. It was true that the meeting at which this measure was agreed to was of a very different opinion: but he had reason to know, from communications which he had since received, that this opinion of his was by no means universally opposed to that of the wealth and respectability of the county. He conscientiously believed, that the feeling in favour of Reform among the people was founded, to a great extent, upon distress, and upon the refusal of the House in the last Session to inquire into the causes of that distress.
Mr. Hughes Hughessaid, that if there was strong language in the petition, it might be accounted for by circumstances peculiar to the county, and which, very naturally, excited a strong feeling in the people. The Isle of Wight—in which he resided—sent six Members to Parliament, and those members were often not even seen by their constituents. Now, with this fact before them, and when two of these Members thought proper to insult their constituents, the House, and the country, by saying that no Reform was necessary, and that no Reform was asked for by the people,—and this had been said by the two hon. members for Newport,—it was not to be wondered at that the inhabitants of the county of Southampton used very strong language in their petitions.
The Speakersaid, the hon. Member had allowed language to escape him,—unintentionally, no doubt,—which he was sure the hon. member would be anxious to explain. First the hon. Member had said that the language of the petition might be accounted for by what the two hon. members for Newport had said. Now the hon.

1153
Member must be aware that what was said in that House could not justify any thing in a petition. Next, the hon. Member had said, that observations of two hon. members of that House had been insulting to their constituents, to the House, and to the country. He was quite sure, that the hon. member would himself see the propriety of explaining, and be himself anxious to explain, this language, which had no doubt fallen from the hon. Member in the heat of debate.
Mr. Hughes Hughessaid, that he really did not see what he had to explain. It must have been quite obvious, he thought, to everybody that he had not meant any thing personal to the two hon. members for Newport; that he had merely spoken of them as public men acting in their public capacity, and of the effect which it was natural that the language of those hon. Members should produce in the minds of men circumstanced as the inhabitants of Hampshire were. He said, too, that he thought that that language might justify the petitioners in expressing themselves strongly, and he must say that he still thought so; for although it was irregular to allude in a petition to any thing that was said in that House yet it was quite impossible to prevent language used in that House having the effect which the same language used out of doors would have.
Petition to be printed.

MINUTES.
Bill. The Colonial Trade, went through a Committee.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Viscount GODERICH, Copies of the several Reports of the Commissioners appointed by his Majesty's Warrant of the 21st of June, 1850, to inquire into the Receipt and Expenditure of the Revenue in the Colonies and Foreign Possessions.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of WELLINGTON, from the Merchants and other Inhabitants of Bristol connected with the West Indies, for a proper inquiry into the condition of the Negro Population. From the Beer sellers of Manchester, for an alteration in the Beer Laws. For

1129
Reform, by the Earl of GOSFORD, from Newry, and from Beccles:—By the Duke of RICHMOND, from the Magistrates, Town Council, and Inhabitants of Peterhead:— By Lord KING, from Canterbury and its vicinity, and from Gravesend and Milton, in Kent; from a Parish in the County of Kilkenny, in Ireland, praying for a better appropriation of the Funds granted by Parliament to the Kildare-street Society. By Lord FARNHAM, from Independents of Usher's Quay Meeting House, Dublin, and from Drumcliffe and Calry for the abolition of Slavery. By the Marquis of BUTE, from the Merchants and Shipowners of Greenock, against the East India Company's monopoly, and from the Merchants of Greenock connected with the West Indies complaining of the publications of the Anti-Slavery Society. By Lord CARBERY, from the President of the Committee of Merchants in Cork trading to the West Indies, for protection. By the Earl of GLENGALL, from the Magistrates of Tipperary, against the introduction of the system of Poor-laws into Ireland, and praying for an assessment in the shape of a Property-tax, for the relief of the poor there.

TITHES.—LAY IMPROPRIATIONS.
Lord Kingpresented a Petition from the parish of Woodbury, in Devonshire, complaining that while 600 l. a year was levied in that parish, and appropriated to the Choral Fund of the cathedral of Exeter, only 50 l. a year was paid to the Curate, who performed all the ecclesiastical duties in that parish.
The Bishop of Exeterstated, that he had no jurisdiction in that parish. That statement, he hoped, was sufficient to relieve him from the charge of not giving a larger salary to the Curate of that important parish. It was one of those cases in which the tithes were all in the hands of lay impropriators.
Lord Wynfordsaid, that this formed one of those peculiar cases of impropriation, where Bishops had not the power to interfere. Cases of this peculiar kind of jurisdiction were at present under the consideration of a Committee, of which he had the honour to be a member, with a view to remedy such abuses. It was one proof of the use of Bishops, that where Bishops had jurisdiction such instances as this did not occur.
The Archbishop of Canterburyconcurred in the statement of the noble and learned Lord, that no such instances of inadequate compensation were to be found where Bishops had jurisdiction. He would take that opportunity to inform the House, that it was his intention, immediately after the recess, to bring in a bill to give Corporations possessing impropriations of this description, the means of remedying evils of this kind, and wiping off the disgrace which thereby accrued to the Church. At present it was extremely difficult for such Corporations, as the law stood, to increase the stipends of the clergymen in parishes
1130
situated like this. It was also his intention, immediately after the holidays, to bring in a bill for the restriction of pluralities,—not for their abolition, but for their restriction,— by which they would be placed under such regulations as would prevent many of the abuses which at present arose from them. There was also another bill which he had often mentioned it was his intention to bring forward, and for the delay in the introduction of which he must apologize to their Lordships, by stating that it had arisen from circumstances not under his control; he alluded to the Bill for the composition of tithes. That bill had undergone a great deal of alteration, and, as he trusted, considerable improvement, and he hoped to be able, shortly after the recess to present it to their Lordships.
Petition laid on the Table.

ADJOURNMENT FOR EASTER.
Lord Kenyoninquired of Earl Grey what arrangement he proposed to make for the Easter Holidays?
Earl Greysaid, that he should propose to-morrow that the House should adjourn from that day till Tuesday, the 12th of April, then to re-assemble for public business. At the suggestion of his learned friend on the Woolsack, he would propose that the House should continue to sit for private business until Monday next.
Lord Kenyonwished to know what reason there would be for the House sitting, even for private business, on Easter-eve and Easter Monday?
The Lord Chancellorsaid, he should most willingly state the reason why it was proposed that the House should not adjourn, except for public business, until Monday next. Undoubtedly, the usual course had been, to commence the adjournment, both for private and public business before Good Friday; but he did not see any thing improper in the House continuing to sit for the discharge of its judicial functions until Easter Monday. The reason why he proposed that the House should continue to sit for that purpose was, in order, if possible, to get rid of the arrear of appeals. His great object, ever since he had come into his present office, had been to get rid of that arrear, and he hoped to be able to boast at the end of the Session, that he had disposed of not only all the appeals lying over from the former Session, but of all the appeals which had

1131
been entered previous to Easter. That was the reason why he intended to sit until Easter Monday, and the mention of that arrangement would in itself be calculated to prevent new appeals from coming in. He had no objection to sacrifice his holidays, and instead of going out of town, as he might do (for the Court of Chancery had risen that day), to sit hearing appeals till Easter Monday. He should hear only Scotch appeals in that period. With regard to a precedent for Courts of Justice sitting on Easter-eve and Easter Monday, the thing was constantly done on circuit in the country, where the Courts sat upon Easter-eve and upon Easter Monday, and on Good Friday also, with the exception of the two hours spent in church. There was, therefore, nothing contrary to precedent, nor against decorum, in the arrangement which he proposed.