Sitting of 16 February 1832

MINUTES.
New Writ ordered. A new Writ was ordered for the Borough of Tregony, in the room of Colonel CHARLES ARBUTHNOT, who has accepted the Chiltern Hundreds.
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. Alderman WOOD, of the total Number of Attorneys admitted to practise in the Court of Exchequer, who had been previously admitted to practise in the other Courts of Westminster:—On the Motion of Sir HENRY WILLOUGHBY, the Amount of Assessed Taxes, &c., levied in the Parishes of St. Saviour's, Petroa, and Townstal, in the Town of Dartmouth, in 1829, 1830, and 1851:—On the Motion of Mr. JOHN STANLEY, of all Raw, Thrown, and Manufactured Silks, Imported into, and Exported from this Country, and brought into Consumption, from January 5th, 1830, to January 5th, 1831; distinguishing the different descriptions of Silk, whence Imported, and Amount of Duty; also the Amount of Drawback on the Exportation of British Silk Manufactured Goods for the year ending 5th January, 1831, distinguishing the Species; also all Foreign Manufactured Silk Imported without Payment of Duty, for the purpose of undergoing some process of Manufacture or Printing, &c, on condition of being afterwards Exported, in the year ended January 5th, 1831, distinguishing the different descriptions of Silk; the total quantities of Raw and Waste Silk entered for Home Consumption in Great Britain and Ireland, in each year, from 1814, to 1828, inclusive; distinguishing the Sorts, &c.
Petitions presented. By Mr. JAMES GRATTAN, from Catholic Inhabitants of Dunlavan, Donard, Donoughmore, and Ballynakill, for the Abolition of the Tithe System; and from the Guild of Tanners in Galway, for Provision in the Reform Bill, for the peculiar Franchise, of that place to be preserved.

TITHES (IRELAND).
Mr. Leaderon presenting Petitions from the Landholders of the Union of Clonmethan, County of Dublin; of Inhabitants and Landowners of Rathelaren, in the County of Cork; of Parishioners of St. Patrick's, in the City of Kilkenny; and of Tithe-payers of Kells, of Danesforth, and of Burnchurch, County of Kilkenny; of Landholders of Knock-mark and Culmullin, in the County of Meath, and of parishioners of Woollen Grange, in the County of Kilkenny; said, that the facts contained in these petitions, particularly the latter, deserved the serious attention of the House. When the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary for Ireland, moved for the appointment of the Com-

411
mittee on Tithes, he was pleased to read a Letter from the Rev. Doctor Butler, the incumbent of the union of which this parish constituted a part, and to enlarge on the severity and hardship of his case, and the distress to which this reverend gentleman was reduced by the illegal combination of what that right hon. Gentleman termed, his unreasonable and persecuting parishioners. In reply to the statement of Doctor Butler, he begged to inform the House, that this distressed divine had been for several years the incumbent of fourteen considerable parishes, extending over thirty miles of country, lying between the cities of Kilkenny and Waterford. To prevent any suspicion that this statement was exaggerated, he had referred to the Ecclesiastical Returns, which fully bore him out in declaring, that the union of Burnchurch, of which Doctor Butler was incumbent, consisted of fourteen parishes; they were Burn-church, Dumfert, Kilfeara, Plebestown, West Jerpoint, Ballylinch, Grangeleggan, Dunbella, Kilbree Grange, Blacknow, Molgrange, Blackrath, Rathbin, Woollen Grange. In all, fourteen parishes, in which there was but one Church and few Protestants. In Woollen Grange, the whole population were Roman Catholics, although the reverend incumbent had received from this one parish nearly 10,000 l. during his incumbency. In it there were no ecclesiastical duties to be performed; and although in severe seasons, the landlord had lost his rent, and the tenant his labour and capital, the tithes had been invariably and uniformly collected with little diminution. The petitioners stated the amount of tithes chargeable on the parish of Woollen Grange, compared with that chargeable on the ten adjoining parishes, held under other incumbents; and it appeared by that, that Woollen Grange had paid at the rate of 5s. 6d. per acre; whilst in the ten adjoining parishes, the average on the whole did not exceed 2s. 4d. per acre. Tallow paid 2s. 6d.; Kells 2s. 5d; Dunamagin 1s. 11 d.; Killemerry 1s.; Grove 2s. 1d.; Coolagh 2s. 3d.; Tullemain 2s. 11 d.; Callan and Liberties 3s. 9d.; Thomastown 2s. 3d.; Ennisnagg 2s. 6d.; the average of which was 2s. 4d. and a fraction. The petitioners further stated, that, before the late unfortunate disturbances they applied to the reverend Dr. Butler to reduce the tithes in fair proportion with those ten adjoin-
412
ing parishes, and they proposed to pay him 225 l. for this one parish, which would amount to 3s. 8d. per acre for all the land within it, whether titheable or not, which he peremptorily refused, and threatened the parishioners "to raise the tithe a pound a-year upon every man in Woollen Grange. An application was then made by the incumbent to the Irish government for aid to enforce the payment, although the composition offered, would have given him an income of 3,000 l. a-year. The petitioners stated, that during the war the tithes of Woollen Grange were raised higher than the price of agricultural produce warranted; and that, at the termination of the war, they repeatedly called upon the incumbent to reduce the acreable charge in proportion to the prices, but could not procure more than a very inconsiderable abatement in wheat disproportionate to its present value. The petitioners further stated, that in consequence of the high rates, they were unable to pay, and they ran into arrear; and when they offered to compound these arrears by paying 13 s. 4d. in the pound, the incumbent peremptorily refused to take that sum. These were the circumstances connected with the parish of Woollen Grange, and the prayers of the other petitions which he held in his hand, contained similar averments. The whole prayed that some other provision might be assigned for the support of the Established Church than the present tithe system. The petitioners complained that they felt this charge a grievous hardship, particularly in such parishes where there was neither Church, school-house, nor other charitable institution supported by a Protestant incumbent, and where they had their own clergy to support which the exactions demanded of them on account of tithes rendered them incapable of doing with the moderate degree of comfort which then-station in life and useful offices of the Catholic clergy entitled them to expect. He entreated the House to recollect that there were no manufacturers in Ireland, and that land and its produce formed the sole support for the population of that country. This formed a strong argument that all burthens which pressed upon it should be reduced as much as possible.
Mr. Blackneysupported the prayer of the petitions, and said that Dr. Butler besides his fourteen parishes, had a very large glebe, and an accumulation for thirty-five

413
years, although he was now represented as one of those poor-starving clergymen, for whose support a grant was to be made and a land-tax levied. In one instance, a poor man who had to pay tithes to Dr. Butler, amounting to 5l., and whose family were nine in number, being himself, his wife, and seven children, was obliged to sell his only cow, which supplied them with a little milk, and to sell all his potatoes, which formed their chief food. When he afterwards came to petition to receive back a little money, he asked for 1l. to procure a meal, and this was refused. The ultimate consequence was, that the poor man and his family were reduced to beggary, and became dependent on the good nature of some neighbouring people who supplied them with potatoes only. This rev. gentleman had contrived to live in a luxurious manner, he "fared sumptuously every day." He did not attend to the miseries of the people; he did not deign to hold converse with them, except when he wanted to force upon them a commutation of tithes, threatening to levy on them tithes as high as 1l. an acre. These unfortunate persons feel, most keenly, their situation, which in consequence of the heavy rates and tithes which are levied on them, has prevented them from paying their own clergyman. This Rev. gentleman's tithes were collected by two tithe proctors. One of them was a school-master, the other a tailor. They never had an acre of land of their own, and know nothing of the value of it, except what they derived from the instructions of Dr. Butler. The Rev. gentleman himself, was originally he believed, an apothecary, and had no claim to be represented as a distressed man. In addition to other advantages, he was the most successful farmer in the country; he had introduced the English mode of farming, and derived the greatest possible advantage from the adoption of that system, possessing an immense farm in a high state of cultivation. Yet this rev. gentleman was represented as a pauper. He was much misinformed if the rev. gentleman has not amassed a considerable property; and, therefore, it was extraordinary that the House should be told that 35,000 l. or 40,000 l. must be raised to pay him and others the arrears of tithes due to them. He hoped the people were not so simple as to allow this claim.
Mr. Shawwished, when it was intended to attack individuals residing at a distance,
414
that notice should be given of such intention, in order that the friends of those individuals might be prepared to defend them. As the hon. member for Wexford had talked of the conduct pursued on one side of the question, he (Mr. Shaw) would state, that he had seen an information sworn on Oath, which stated, that Walter Blackney, Esq., a Magistrate, had, at a meeting in Ireland, of the lower orders of the people, addressed to them, the following terms: "My friends, you are bound to fight for yourselves, and to use your shillelaghs in defence of your own rights, the tithes will be abolished in nine or ten months, and as the clergy have refused to take half, they shall then get nothing at all." Magistrates had also been known to order placards to be issued, with the words "No tithes; no union!"
Mr. Blackneydeclared, that the charge which had just been made against him by the hon. Member was unfounded, and had already been proved to be so on the Oaths of six persons to which he would add his own denial. The words imputed to him were a gross exaggeration of the sentiments he uttered at a meeting of his own parish.
Mr. Wyseobserved, that of all the men in the House, the hon. and learned member for Dublin was the last who should accuse others of exciting the people, for he had heard of a speech made by the hon. and learned Member, which contained some such words as the following: "If the Government will not attend to our Representations, we must take up the cause ourselves," quoting, he believed, the celebrated admonition, "To your tents, O Israel."
Mr. Shawrose to give the flattest contradiction to the statement of the hon. member for Tipperary that the forms of Parliament would allow. He never used the words in the sense ascribed to them by the hon. Member. He had never encouraged dissension in the country, and he had never made speeches out of doors which he would not make in that House.
Mr. Leadermoved that the Petition from Woollen Grange be printed.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, that seeing the Petition replete with personalities, he would certainly oppose its being printed.
Lord Ebringtonfelt it, necessary also to protest against the printing the Petition.
The House divided:—Ayes 51; Noes 130—Majority 79.

List of the AYES.

Anson, Hon. Col.

Killeen, Lord

Berkeley, Captain

Lambert, H.

Blackney, W.

Lambert, J.

Bodkin, J. J.

Lennox, Lord G.

Brabazon, Viscount

Macnamara, W.

Brown, J.

Musgrave, Sir R.

Bunbury, Sir H.

O'Connell, D.

Burke, Sir J.

O'Connell, M.

Byng, G.

O'Farrell, M.

Calcraft, G.

Paget, T.

Callaghan, D.

Phillips, Sir R. B.

Carew, R. S.

Ponsonby, Hon. J.

Cavendish, Lord

Power, R.

Chapman, M. L.

Ross H.

Dixon, J.

Ruthven, E. S.

Doyle, Sir J. M.

Sheil, L.

Duncannon Viscount

Thicknesse, R.

Gillon, W. D.

Walker, C. A.

Grattan, H.

Wallace, T.

Grattan, J.

Warburton, H.

Hill, Lord A.

Westenra, Hon. H.

Hort, Sir W.

White, S.

Hughes, Colonel

Wilbraham, G.

Hume, J.

Hunt, J.

TELLERS.

James, W.

Leader, N. P.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Wyse, T.

ST. GEORGE'S CHURCH, DUBLIN.
Mr. Shaw,in moving for certain papers relating to the building of St. George's Church, Dublin, begged to be permitted to remark that, several most respectable persons were, by an Act passed in 1806, appointed trustees for that purpose, but their conduct had been impugned during the last Session of Parliament by the right hon. member for Waterford, who had accused them of extravagance, misapplication of the funds, and oppression towards the rate-payers. These charges, he believed, were wholly unfounded. First, as to the charge of extravagance. The Church cost 39,000 l., and it was erected in the richest parish of Dublin. The contract was made, and the Estimates agreed to before the trustees received their powers. As to the charge of misapplication, it would be found equally groundless for the sum which it was said the Church cost, included interest for money borrowed to erect it, before the rates could be got in. With respect to the charge of oppression, the persons complaining were those who were endeavouring to evade the payment of their rates. He had no doubt he should fully establish these facts, and he, therefore, begged leave to move for a copy of a circular letter addressed by the trustees for the building of the parish Church of St. George, in the county of
416
Dublin, to the Committee of the said parish, in the month of January, 1813. Also, such extracts from the Vestry book of the said parish as relate to the application to Parliament for a further sum of 8,500 l. towards the building of the said Church in the year 1813.
Mr. Cramptonregretted the Motion should have been brought forward in the absence of the right hon. member for Waterford, who had taken so much interest in the subject. He had not understood that right hon. Gentleman had made any other charge against the trustees than that he was of opinion the public money had been wastefully expended. The allegations of the two parties appeared to be directly at variance. He could give no decisive opinion on the subject, and had no objection to the production of the papers.
Mr. O'Connelltrusted the right hon. member for Waterford would move for the appointment of a Select Committee, to examine the papers, and, he had no doubt, that the result would prove that there had been a gross job in the erection of this Church. Independent of the parishioners being called upon to pay more than was necessary, it must also be remembered that many of them were of a different persuasion which much aggravated the grievance.
Mr. Henry Grattansaid, among the expenses would be found 800 guineas for an organ, and to shew the feeling of the Catholics where the clergy did their duty he wished to mention, that as the curate of the Church, in question, received from his rector only 100 guineas a year, the parishioners including Catholics, agreed to pay him another 100.
Mr. Shawsaid, he could affirm that no clergyman could be more respected than the rector of St. George's, and that the insinuation intended to be cast against him by the hon. Gentleman of not sufficiently paying his curates was unfounded.
Motion agreed to.

CORONERS.
Mr. Crippsrose in pursuance of the notice he had given to move for leave to bring in a Bill to regulate the elections of Coroners for counties. The expense, the disorder, and the enmity occasioned by the elections of Coroners were more than those occasioned by the elections of Members of Parliament. He thought that all these evils arose from the

417
statutes that had been passed on this subject. These statutes, of which there was a considerable number, extended over a great many years, the earliest of them having been passed so long ago as the 28th of Edward 3rd. The number of the voters was much too considerable, as the present laws placed the standard of qualification at a very low point, and enabled many to vote who could scarcely be supposed capable of judging of the fitness of any man for the office. He proposed by this Bill that the Magistrates in Sessions should be enabled to divide a county into as many districts as there were Coroners for the county, that the right of electing these Coroners should be co-extensive with the right of voting for Members for the county, let that right be what it might; that each Coroner should reside in the district for which he was elected, and that the election of a Coroner for a particular district should take place in that district itself. The hon. Member moved for leave to bring in a Bill to carry these objects into effect.
Mr. Littletonseconded the Motion, and observed, that the county which he had the honour to represent, had lately been the scene of a severe contest for the place of Coroner, and he knew it to be the wish of the Magistrates of that county that something of this nature should be submitted to Parliament.
Mr. Humerecommended the hon. Member to make his Bill repeal all the existing Statutes and then consolidate such of their provisions as it was desirable to retain. He suggested also, that some check ought to be put upon the misconduct of Coroners in the discharge of their official duties.
Leave given.

DIVISION OF COUNTIES.
Lord John Russellmoved for leave to bring in a Bill to settle the limits and boundaries of counties. He should not occupy much of the time of the House in stating the nature of this Bill, because the discussion at present would be useless, as the Reports on which the Bill was founded were already on the Table, and contained a better explanation of what was proposed to be done than he could pretend to lay before the House in any speech of his. When the former Bill for the Reform of the Representation was before this House, Commissioners were sent to ascertain the boundaries of counties,
418
with a view to the division of them, and to settle the limits of cities and boroughs. When that Bill was rejected in the other House of Parliament, it was determined that these Commissioners should not themselves settle the boundaries, but that use should be made of the information which they had collected, and that the Government should propose a measure founded upon it. The persons employed in this task were twenty gentlemen, part of those who had been mentioned when the former Bill was under discussion, who had not only exhibited a high degree of industry and zeal, but a degree of ability, which proved that no better men could have been selected for this very arduous and important duty. When a certain number of their Reports had been made, they were taken into consideration by Government, and general rules were given to the Commissioners, to which they were desired to make their Reports conform. The Reports, after being made conformable to these rules, were submitted by Government to the revision of three gentlemen, who were desired to arrange them, as far as it was possible, into different classes, and to give to each borough that particular kind of boundary which properly belonged to it, according to the class in which it was placed. The persons to whom this task had been assigned were his hon. friend (Mr. Littleton), the member for Staffordshire, Captain Beaufort, whose name was well-known throughout Europe, and Lieutenant Drummond. These Gentlemen were also informed, that it was the opinion of Government, on considering the Reports already presented, that, with respect to boroughs containing less than 300 10 l. houses, it would be advisable to take in the parish, where it did not extend beyond four miles from the centre of the town or borough; and that where there were separate parishes, it was also thought advisable to take in such parishes adjoining on different sides, provided they did not extend beyond the space of four miles; but in no case to draw a line adding to any borough a separate town with a separate boundary. Before this rule was adopted, different Reports were made on different principles, some advising that a certain circuit should be added to the boroughs; and others pointing out a town, five, six, or seven miles distant, which they proposed should be joined to a particular borough. It was thought advisable to take one of these

419
modes, and not deal with this borough by one rule, and with that borough by another; and the Government came to the conclusion that it would be more satisfactory, upon the whole, to the boroughs, to have joined with them the country immediately close upon their own boundaries, than to connect them with separate towns, between which and themselves it was most likely that rivalries and jealousies would prevent the existence of any sort of harmony in the exercise of the elective franchise. With respect to boroughs containing more than 300 10 l. houses, but not a great many more—say between 300 and 500—a similar course had, to a certain extent, been pursued. Less objection was felt to adding a part or the whole of the parish in the which the borough was situated, provided it did not go beyond a certain distance, and the ancient boundaries of the borough did not seem to be suitable. But in all cases in which the boundaries of the old boroughs were ample and sufficient, and where there was no part of the town adjoining to the boroughs which ought fairly to be added to them, it was thought better to take the ancient boundaries, rather than to disturb them for the purpose of adding a small number of houses. There were certainly some exceptions to these rules, for it was impossible for the Commissioners not to take into consideration the peculiar circumstances of each borough, by which they might be enabled to judge whether a particular part of the adjoining town was, or was not, intimately connected with the industry of the borough. All these circumstances were, however, fully stated in the Report which had been sent in by the three gentlemen to whom he had alluded. With respect to counties, the object first contemplated was, to divide them, if possible, into two portions of equal extent, as regarded the population and the number of voters; but it was found, in several instances, that this object could not be attained without altering the old boundaries of hundreds, and other ancient divisions of the counties. It was, therefore, thought more advisable in many counties to make the hundreds, which were usually considered the northern hundreds, one division, and the southern hundreds another division, than to draw an arbitrary line across the hundreds, for the purpose of making an exact division. At the same time, however, the number of persons qualified to
420
serve on Juries would afford some criterion to judge between the two separate portions of the counties. It was impossible to ascertain what the exact number of voters would be according to the new franchise of the Reform Bill; but that would be equally difficult to discover if the old right of voting remained undisturbed. The extent and population, however, of each division was so great, that no fear need be entertained of its independence. He should not trespass further than to say, that having so great a task imposed on them as to settle the limits of 247 boroughs, and to visit a great number of others with the purpose of ascertaining their extent with respect to their disfranchisement, these gentlemen had performed their labour in a manner that reflected the highest credit on them, and that he believed would be found to entitle them to the thanks of Parliament, The Government, at least, felt that it was impossible to have been better served. A number of different persons, selected from various professions, had been united in one common bond of zeal and attention in the performance of a task which they had performed to the advantage of the public service, and in a manner worthy of their own reputation. There was one thing that had often been mentioned in the discussions of the Reform Bill, which was, the question, whether certain individuals would gain or lose in political power by the settling of these limits? That question had either never come under the consideration of the Commissioners, or had been utterly disregarded by them. They had not considered whether a certain division would add to, or diminish the political influence of any individual or party, but whether the place under their consideration could form such a constituency as the Reform Bill required. Having made these observations, he should move for leave to bring in a Bill to settle and describe the divisions of counties, and the limits of cities and boroughs, in England and Wales, in so far as respects the elections of Members to serve in Parliament, leaving the House to obtain full knowledge of its provisions and objects from the papers already on the Table.
Mr. Goulburnagreed with the noble Lord, that this was not the time to go into a discussion of the details of this Bill. He had no doubt that the Gentleman to whom the Government intrusted the preparing of the report, which formed the ground work of it, had acted with the

421
strictest propriety; but, from the very nature of their employment, it was obvious that the mode in which they performed their duties was open to animadversion. He trusted, therefore, that they would not suppose that those who took part in the discussion on this measure, or who thought it their duty to comment upon the manner in which the work had been performed, intended to impute to them that they had been actuated by improper motives. He had no doubt those Gentlemen had been anxious to act with the utmost impartiality, and with an entire absence of party feelings. He thought it due to say so much with regard to these Gentlemen, and, at the same time, to claim for those who might doubt the accuracy of their report, the credit that, in the observations which would be made, nothing like personal considerations might be taken into account.
Sir Edward Sugdentrusted, that ample time would be allowed for the consideration of this Bill, as it was a measure of the utmost importance. He would take that opportunity of suggesting that steps should be taken to secure a knowledge of the present boundaries. The House must be aware that some of the most important causes that come into a court of justice, related to the boundaries of cities and boroughs, and, therefore, it was of consequence that some record of these boroughs should be preserved.
Leave given, and Bill brought in.

MILITARY PUNISHMENTS.
Mr. Huntrose to move for the production of some Returns relative to the number of Military Punishments inflicted during the last year. He had mentioned the subject last night to the new Secretary at War, who, he regretted to find, was not in his place. He, in the first instance, wished to have the return confined to the regiments of guards, but that right hon. Gentleman said, such a return would appear in vidious, and therefore at his suggestion, he proposed to extend the returns to all the regiments in the service. The right hon. Gentleman said, that he had no objection to produce the papers, but he wished the matter to be discussed in the House. If there should be any opposition to his Motion, which he did not anticipate, he trusted that those hon. Members who were opposed to the infliction of punishment on the slaves in the West Indies would come forward and
422
endeavour to prevent the continuance of the revolting practice of flogging in the British army. He did not know that this species of punishment could be done away with when the troops were on foreign service in time of war; but, it was too much that such a practice should be continued in times of peace. Accounts were continually published in the newspapers of the infliction of this degrading punishment, and, within the last few days, there was an account of the flogging of three soldiers of the Scotch Fusileer Guards. The statement he alluded to appeared in a respectable Sunday paper, and it affirmed that one of the men, namely, John Hill, was cut on the back until the blood ran down into his shoes, and he was taken to the hospital in the most lamentable condition. He recollected reading a speech made, relative to the flogging of soldiers, by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary at War, in which he alluded to such punishments as a disgrace to the country. The right hon. Baronet stated, that several of the inhabitants of Birdcage Walk had been compelled to leave their houses in consequence of the flogging of the soldiers, and that the drums were beaten to drown the cries of the soldiers He regretted that the hon. Baronet was not present to support his Motion, but he did hope the right hon. Baronet would use his endeavours to put a stop to the system complained of. He was happy to learn, that no flogging could now be inflicted, except by the sentence of a Court-martial. They beard, however, of men being sentenced to receive 500 lashes, which was a greater punishment than a man could bear. He understood, therefore, when it was inflicted, that a surgeon stood by, and when he saw the man was sinking, he directed the executioner to stop. A case was stated in the newspapers, a few days ago, of a man having received 200 lashes, who fainted, and was conveyed to the hospital. He knew a great many military officers, who stated, that punishment of this sort was quite unnecessary in the army, and that, it might safely be put an end to. He trusted, therefore, that the present liberal Government would put a stop to this most inhuman custom, and as a first step to which, they would grant him the papers he now moved for. His Motion was, "that there be laid before this House a return of the number of Courts-martial held upon private soldiers of

423
the army in Great Britain and Ireland, between the 1st day of January, 1831, and the 1st day of January, 1832, stating the several charges upon which each individual was tried, and the sentences passed; specifying the number of lashes of the cat-o'-nine tails which each person has actually endured.
Mr. Humeseconded the Motion. He had repeatedly attempted to get a return of this nature, but hitherto without success. He hoped that it would have the effect which the hon. Member anticipated, and would lead to the putting a stop to a practice which was disgraceful to the country. He knew nothing that tended to sink a man so much in his own estimation, and was such a moral degradation, as military flogging. Flogging had been already advantageously abolished in several regiments; and he had no doubt that the service could be carried on fully as well without it.
Lord Althorpwas extremely sorry that his right hon. friend, the Seretary at War, was not in his place. He had been present in the course of the evening, but probably, not anticipating that the Motion of the hon. Member would come on so early, had left the House for a short time. He must be permitted to say for himself, that he regretted as much as any man the infliction of corporal punishment; but he was afraid that it was impossible for the Government to consent, whatever displeasure the declaration might excite, to its total abolition in the army. He had lately had many communications from military men on the subject, and they agreed on that point; but, at the same time, he was happy to say, that the practice of flogging was much diminished, although it was found impossible in all cases, to substitute for it a more efficient punishment, and one which would tend more to prevent the commission of offences. With respect to the Motion of the hon. Member for papers, he could only say, it was one which the House had never acceded to in former years, and as there was nothing at the present time which demanded peculiar attention, nor, as the hon. Member had admitted, any extraordinary grounds for his Motion, he must resist it.
Mr. Huntobserved, that, with a Secretary at War pledged by many speeches and declarations, in and out of the House, to a reformation of this abuse in the army, and under a liberal and reforming Admi-
424
nistration, he certainly had not expected any opposition to his Motion. The noble Lord said, that the punishments had diminished—why, then, did he refuse the papers which would satisfy the public that it was so? He did not wish to accuse the noble Lord of inconsistency, or to make any offensive allusion to the former votes and motions of the noble Lord; but this he would say, that when Gentlemen went from one side of the House to the other, they changed their opinions; and after advocating measures when out of office they would not support them when they obtained power.
Mr. Jephsonwas surprised that the noble Lord should object to the Motion when he must know, if he had the diminution of military punishment at heart, that nothing would be so effectual a check upon that system as the' publicity of the sentences which ordered the infliction.
Mr. Sheilsaid, that if the abolition of the punishment of flogging was the question at issue, he could understand the noble Lord's objection: but when the Motion was merely for the production of papers, in order to ascertain if the practice was diminishing, he felt called on to support it.
The House divided on the Motion: Ayes 28; Noes 61—Majority 33.

List of the NOES.

Adams, C.

Johnston, A.

Agnew, Sir A.

Johnstone, J. J. H.

Althorp, Lord

Jones, T.

Antrobus, G. C.

Lamb, Hon. G.

Bankes, W.

Lefevre, C. F.

Baring, Sir T.

Lester, R.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Marjoribanks, S.

Bouverie, Hon. D.

Mangles, J.

Byng, Sir G.

Mackenzie, J.

Calvert, N.

Murray, Sir G.

Campbell, J.

Macdonald, Sir J.

Carew, R. S.

Penleaze, S.

Clinton, F.

Poyntz, S.

Clive, Hon. R.

Paget, Sir C.

Creevey, T.

Pendarves, E. W.

Currie, J.

Petit, L. H.

Denman, Sir T.

Pusey, P.

Doyle, Sir M.

Russell, Lord J.

Drake, T. T.

Russell, Col. F.

Drake, W. T.

Sebright, Sir J.

Ebrington, Viscount

Smith, S.

Estcourt, T. B.

Stanley, Rt. Hn. E. G. S.

Gilbert, D.

Stephenson, H. F.

Goulburn, Rt. Hon. H.

Schonswar, G.

Graham, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Townshend, Hon. H.

Grant, Sir C.

Truby, C. H.

Home, Sir W.

Wall, C. B.

Hoskins, K.

Watson, Hon. R.

Howard, P.

Wetherell, Sir C.

425

Williams, Sir J. H.

TELLERS.

Williams, W. A.

Baring, F.

Wrottesley, Sir J.

Bernal, R.

List of the AYES.

Blake, Sir F.

Mullins F.

Briscoe, J. I.

Paget, T.

Dixon, J.

Sanford, A.

Evans, W.

Sheil, L.

Ewart, W.

Strutt, E.

Fergusson, R. C.

Stuart, Lord D.

Gisborne, T.

Stewart, C.

Godson, It.

Venables, Alderman

Hawkins, J. H.

Walker, C. A.

Hey wood, B.

Wason, R.

James, W.

Wood, Alderman

Jephson, C. D. O.

Yorke, J.

Jones, J.

TELLERS.

Lambert, H.

Hume, J.

Leader, N. P.

Hunt, H.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR ENGLAND—COMMITTEE—THIRTEENTH DAY.
On the Motion of Lord Althorp, the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill.
The Chairman having read Clause 69,
Lord Althorpmoved the introduction of certain words, declaring, that the expense of polling booths for elections in counties should not exceed 40 l. each, and the expense of polling booths for cities and boroughs should not exceed 25 l. each.
Amendment agreed to. And clause agreed to.
Clauses 70, 71, and 72, were severally read, and agreed to.
Clause 73 being read, which enacts that all laws, statutes, and usages, now in force respecting elections should be and remain in full force, except so far as they are altered or repealed by the present Act,
Mr. Godsonthought it would be better to postpone the passing of the clause, as it would leave the old and new election laws in concurrent operation, and thus prove the source of endless legal controversies. He was of opinion, that, in framing this part of the Bill, the laws on the subject already in existence, and the customs of boroughs, should be carefully considered, for if they clashed, they might, in many instances, cause great inconvenience.
The Attorney Generalcould not conceive that his learned friend was serious in expressing his opinion, nor could he imagine what purpose would be served by entering into a discussion of all existing
426
election laws, and how all the boroughs of England would be affected by the Bill. If such were to be the preliminary proceedings, the measure would never be carried.
Sir Edward Sugdensaid, it was impossible to ascertain what was to be the law of elections out of the Act of Parliament now before the House. Had the proper course been taken, all the existing election laws would have been condensed in a single statute, so as to have dove-tailed in with the Bill. The state of uncertainty would cause, in many instances, considerable expense and inconvenience, which, he was satisfied, the promoters of the Bill would find to their cost.
Lord Althorpwould not undertake to say, that the Bill had been compared with the existing election laws, but it was drawn up by a Gentleman of great experience in that department of legal information.
Sir Charles Wetherellmaintained, that the clause was sheer nonsense; it did not declare what was to remain, nor what was to be abrogated. The uncertainty would create expense in the administration of the law, and candidates would frequently have to petition that House, in order to ascertain what was left of the old law and usages.
The Attorney Generalsaid, the clause was introduced in conformity with the established custom, which was, to declare that, when no alteration was specifically made, the old law and customs prevailed.
Mr. Serjeant Wildethought, that the clause would have escaped censure. The law consisted partly of statute law, and partly of usage; and it had been usual, in making alterations of the law, to introduce into the Act making these alterations a declaration of their limit. In the 6th George 4th, called the Bankrupt Act, which had been particularly eulogized by the Earl of Eldon, there was a section similar to this, declaring that all usages and laws relating to bankrupts' estates should remain in force, except they were specifically altered by such Act. He concurred in the observation of the hon. and learned member for St. Mawe's, that it would be convenient to have all the election laws brought into one Statute, but that was a matter of convenience independent of this Act of Parliament. It was not proposed to collect the several Acts of Parliament which regulate; I elections; neither was it pretended to alter

427
the course of elections in existing; boroughs; nor was it proposed, specifically, to enact the continuance of those general usages which prevail in all elections. The clause provided, that all local usages should continue to prevail in the boroughs where they exist, and that election usages, which are universal shall apply to all those places which are to return Members under this Act. The case of St. Giles's had been referred to, and it had been asked, how this clause would apply to an election there? Why, the Sheriff would proceed, in such cases, to the election, observing all the Statute laws, and also the usual forms which prevail at elections. If an individual objected to any of these forms or observances, according to the Statute, he would have to point out, in this Act, the clause which altered it, or with which it was inconsistent. As to the inquiry into the usages of each particular borough, in order to ascertain whether the Legislature should or should not repeal them, it would be interminable and useless.
Clause agreed to.
On the 74th Clause being put from the Chair, which imposes a penalty, not exceeding 500 l., upon any Overseer, Parish-officer, or Barrister, transgressing the provisions of this Bill,
Mr. James L. Knightsaid, that the penalty ought to be more accurately defined than it was in this clause. As the Bill stood at present, a Barrister was liable to a three-fold punishment. First of all, he might be indicted for misdemeanour, as disobedience to an Act of Parliament was in itself a misdemeanour; next, he was liable to an action for a penalty of 500 l., at the suit of any beggar who chose to bring such action; and thirdly, he was liable to an action for damages at the suit of any party who was injured by his misconduct.
Sir Charles Wetherellagreed with his hon. and learned friend, that a Barrister might reap a harvest of actions from the effects of this clause, for every man, whether he lost a vote or not by his decision, might bring an action to recover the penalty on account of alleged damages done to another by the deprivation of his civil rights. The only parties who could suffer wrong from his decision would be, either the candidate or the voter, and to these parties ought the remedy to be limited. But he had another objection to the clause. He feared that party acrimony would intrude
428
into the Courts of Justice through its operation, and the power given to a Jury to inflict a fine would serve as a premium to create political contests in such places. The Barristers, by the clause, were to exercise the powers of Judges, without the protection that ought to be given them in that character; on that ground he held it to be degrading to the Bar, and would resist it to the uttermost.
The Attorney Generalobserved, that the hon. and learned Member laboured under a mistake when he expressed his opinion that the Judges were not liable to actions at the suit of an individual aggrieved by their decisions, because the hon. and learned Gentleman could not have forgotten the fact, that the Judges were liable to actions in cases where they refused to grant a writ of Habeas Corpus, or to sign a bill of exceptions properly and legitimately tendered to them. Could it be contended, then, that the Barristers to be appointed to act judicially under the Bill would be degraded by being held, under the clause now before the House, amenable to the law, in case they were proved wilfully to have contravened those very provisions in the law to execute which the Act intrusted them? As to the objections of the hon. and learned Member that the fine to be levied rested on the decision of the Jury, that was done to enable them to apportion the damages according to their opinion of the enormity of the offence, and he saw no reason why Juries should be prejudiced in these cases more than in any other. He would allow that informers might bring actions, but they could not follow them up, nor convict the Barrister without entering into a conspiracy for that purpose, which was not very likely to be the case.
Sir Edward Sugdensaid, the clause, as it stood, was intended to guard against corruption, which it did not. He was chagrined to see a clause like the present introduced, which cast a stigma upon the entire Bar of the country—a country in which the administrators of the law—the Judges—formed the purest body of men in the civilized world. Before the House gave its consent to the present clause, it ought to pause, for, by consenting, it would introduce into the Bill a precautionary enactment, by which the integrity and character of the Judges of the land were called into question. He felt distinctly opposed to affix any penalty upon a Judge

429
acting judicially, and he thought it was too much to apply this clause with all its powers to those inexperienced Barristers (for such he would call them) who would necessarily be employed, and who were young in the profession, and, of course, not good lawyers: it was a clause which put it in the power of any pauper to sue these gentlemen for penalties. The clause was a species of trail to the junior members of the profession, under which they would be made liable to actions for the non-observance of the slightest—nay, most inconsiderable—point in the duties intrusted to them in the Bill. It was impossible, that during the warmth of an election, the Barrister could please all parties, and this was very effectually opening the door for the disappointed parties to express their indignation.
Lord Althorpsaid, in consequence of the objections which had been offered, he was disposed to agree to the introduction of an Amendment into the clause by which the Judge should have the power to stay the trial, should an action be brought, against the Barristers, by any party save those who might feel themselves aggrieved by his determination or decision.
Mr. C. W. Wynnwas opposed most strongly to power being given to a Jury to assess damages or award penalties against the Barristers under this Bill. Hitherto it had been held, that the duty of a Jury on an indictment was to determine the question of guilt or innocence, the power of awarding punishment being left to the Judge. He was aware that an action might be brought against a Sheriff, and that lie might be subjected to double costs and damages, but that was a civil action, and, therefore, was wholly different in character from allowing Juries to assess the amount of a penalty payable to the Crown. The Judges on circuit had the power of appointing the Barristers, and to those Judges ought to be reserved the power to assess or award penalties for wilful misconduct in the discharge of their duties.
Mr. O'Connellsupported the clause as one of the most useful accessions to the Bill. The clause did not authorize punishment for a mistaken administration, but for a wilful contravention of the law. The clause was as valuable in form as it was in substance, and avoided the many technical objections which could be raised, as every hon. and learned Member was aware, to
430
actions on the case which frequently led to a nonsuit; instead of which, the clause made the action simply one for a debt, and the Jury was the proper tribunal to assess the damages. From the frequent experience he had himself had in Ireland at elections he was induced to hope the Government would adhere to the clause as it stood, which would be some control over the conduct of Assistant Barristers and Assessors at elections.
Mr. Burgesaid, that in all cases it was a principle of English law that to the Jury was assigned the duty of deciding on the guilt of the party brought before them, and for the Judge to fix the amount of the penalty to which their verdict rendered him liable.
Lord John Russellsaid, one penalty or action would not be sufficient to reach the various faults which might be committed by the Barrister. It was quite obvious that responsibility should rest somewhere, and this clause, giving a power to the Jurors to inforce the fine, was necessary, as, in a previous clause, the appointment of the Barristers was vested wholly in the Judges. He should not, however, have any objection to introduce words to prevent any other parties but those actually aggrieved recovering the penalties.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, the words he would propose to introduce were, "Provided that no action shall be brought by any person except by a candidate or an elector, or a person claiming to be an elector, and having an interest in respect of such action." This would exclude all common informers, and persons having no interest in the matter.
Mr. C. W. Wynnthought, the voter should be left to bring his action for damages, instead of a definite penalty being affixed, and, in this case, it was also much too large a sum. No act that could be committed under the clause deserved so heavy a penalty, and yet the Barrister might be liable to it at the suit of every voter.
Mr. John Campbelljustified the limitation placed to the power of Juries, and also the giving them power to impose a penalty at discretion between 5l. and 500 l. for the benefit of the party aggrieved. The grievance might be caused by party feelings, and by mere inadvertence.
The Attorney Generalthought the pecuniary damage and the wrong together, ought to form the estimate of the sum to

431
be given, and it should be left open to the Jury to decide both on the pecuniary damage and the spirit in which it was inflicted.
The Amendment agreed to.
Sir Charles Wetherellthen moved the addition of a proviso, that parties who were, at common law, entitled should not be deprived of their right to recover under this Act in cases of false returns, or other grievance recognized by common law. Unless some such provision was introduced, the responsibility of the Sheriff would be diminished.
Lord Althorpsaid, he had no objection to the Amendment or proviso, if it were considered by legal gentlemen necessary to preserve these rights, as established by common law.
The proviso was agreed to.
The blank imposing the penalty was then filled up with 500 l.
On the question, "That this clause as amended stand part of the Bill,"
Sir Edward Sugdensaid, he must enter his decided protest against it. He did hope that the Committee would have paused in their career before they passed such a penal clause, which, he considered, would cast a stigma upon the profession to which he had the honour to belong.
Clause agreed to.
The 75th, 76th, and 77th Clauses, were struck out as unnecessary.
On the 78th Clause being read, which enacts that all writs, mandates, precepts, instruments, proceedings, and notices, shall be framed and expressed in such manner and form as may be necessary for carrying the provisions of this Act into effect,
Sir Charles Wetherellmoved, as an Amendment, the substitution of the following:—"That all writs, precepts, and other instruments, shall be made out in the manner and form prescribed by law."
The Attorney Generalasked, why this alteration was necessary? It might be requisite to change the form of an instrument under this Act.
Sir Edward Sugdensaid, he must support the Amendment, which he thought an improvement in the clause, but he should prefer that the clause itself should be omitted altogether.
The Solicitor Generalsaid, the clause was a material part of the Bill, as directing the mode of carrying into effect the various alterations that had been made in the Bill in the return of Members.
Amendment negatived.
Sir Edward Sugdenobserved, that, in the majority of cases like the present, it appeared that all argument was completely thrown away, if hon. Members who had absented themselves from the discussion rushed into the House to be present at the division, on a question they had not heard debated, just as if they were prepared to vote any way with his Majesty's Ministers. ["no, no!"] He should like to ask that hon. Member who cried "No!" where he had been during the debate? It was right that persons out of doors should see how this question was carried on here. He strongly deprecated the practice, on such an important question as this, of Members rushing into the House to divide, not one of whom had heard the debate. He thought hon. Members should at least have the decency to listen to the arguments by which they were predetermined not to be convinced. It appeared, however, that they considered themselves not bound to hear, but at liberty to vote.
Sir John Hobhousewas at a loss to understand the cause of the hon. and learned Gentleman's warmth. There had been, if not a very full, a very respectable audience, during the discussion of the clause; and great attention had been paid to the observations which the hon. and learned Gentleman had made respecting it. What was most surprising in the case was, that the censure of the hon. and learned Gentleman fell on Members who were distinguished by their habits of regular attendance. There was the hon. member for Taunton—no Member of the Opposition side of the House was more steady in his adherence to their benches; and yet that hon. Gentleman had entered only about five minutes before the hon. and learned Member's exhortation. And was the right hon. member for Tamworth to be charged with inattention to this important discussion, because he was not present when the question was put from the Chair? Those hon. Members, however, who were not present, would scarcely need to apologize to their constituents for their absence. For he could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that there were many persons in the country who believed that the discussions which were got up on the measure under the consideration of the House had no very fair object. Were Gentlemen to be charged with habitual disregard of the debates of

433
the House, and inattention to the learned Gentleman, because they did not happen to be present at a particular moment? Certainly not; and, indeed, they who were not present had, in his opinion, a good excuse, both before the House and the country, for their absence. There were certain Gentlemen who, in the progress of this Bill, had recourse to a great deal of what might be called unimportant discussion, obviously for no other purpose but to retard its progress. One hour and a half had already been occupied in listening (with a silence which must have been highly flattering) to the arguments of the learned Gentlemen. How did the learned Gentleman know that the crowd did not come to hear him? for, at the moment he rose, those Gentlemen did enter the House. What he (Sir J. Hobhouse) especially protested against, however, was, that it should go forth to the country that what had just occurred was a novel practice in that House; that it was only on this occasion that the appearance of proceeding to a division had occasioned a crowd of Members to enter the House. Unfortunately—if it could be called unfortunately—such had been the practice of Parliament ever since he had known it. The numbers were always mustered just previous to a division. If ever there was a question upon which Members could be excused for having made up their minds, it was a great question like the present. In vain did the hon. and learned Gentleman and his friends appeal to the country on the question of Parliamentary Reform. On that question the country had completely made up its mind. He did not mean to deny that those who were hostile to the Bill were conscientious in their opposition; but he maintained that their opposition was in vain. The country well knew that, in such circumstances, the great majority of the House must give some credit to his Majesty's Government, and to the authors and supporters of the Bill; and the country must also feel, that when an hour and a half had been expended in the discussion of clauses acknowledged to be not very important, it was rather too much to hook upon so unimportant a question a charge against the majority of that House, for that which had long been a practice; and which, if ever excusable, was so in the present instance.
Sir Charles Wetherellobserved, that the right hon. Secretary at War, in his
434
first appearance in that character, had thought proper to read a lecture to the Opposition side of the House. The right hon. Baronet had told them, that they did not know what they were about. The appearance of the right hon. Baronet just now was fortunate for his party; but how did it happen that the right hon. Baronet was absent when the question respecting flogging the army was under consideration? Sutor ad crepidam. Let the Secretary at War deal with military matters. Let those who were dealing with a great constitutional question be supposed to know what they were doing. The right hon. Baronet said, that they had been wasting the last hour and a half in discussion.—[Sir. J. Hobhouse, denied that he had used the word "wasting."]—Well, then, the right hon. Baronet had insinuated—no man was more classical or more correct in his language than the right hon. Baronet—the right hon. Baronet had insinuated that he (Sir C. Wetherell), and those who thought with him, had unprofitably employed the last hour and a half. The question under discussion was, whether, by this remodelling Bill, there should be a remodelled Parliament, which should no longer be the King's Parliament, but the Parliament of any party who chose to issue the writs? His party were endeavouring to preserve the Parliament as the King's Parliament, and not as a Parliament by an Act of the Legislature merely; or, in other words, the Parliament should be part and parcel of the Constitution of this realm, and not a Parliament made and created by the House of Commons. That was the important principle which had appeared to him to be involved in this clause, and the object of his argument was, to mark that principle, by providing that the form and mode of the new election should correspond entirely with the form and mode of the old elections. The right hon. Gentleman said, the country had made up its mind: be it so.—that the country would have the Bill: be that so;—that the country were agreed upon a large measure of Reform: be that so. He did not dispute the right hon. Gentleman's premises; but still that was no reason why the machinery of the Bill should not be as perfect as possible. There never was, in the whole history of the discussion of this Reform Bill, a period more inopportune, a time worse chosen, an opportunity less auspicious, than the present for

435
the right hon. Gentleman to give the House a lecture; for it was only that night that an amendment from the Opposition side of the House had been admitted by the noble Lord opposite, who said, "undoubtedly the clause has gone too far, and we will adopt the proposed Amendment." Was that hour and a half un-profitably employed, then? The noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, and the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, were both persuaded that the clause, in its original shape, might be carried to an improper length, and, therefore, they adopted the Amendment. Did the Secretary at War mean to apply his sarcasm to this clause? If he did, his right hon. and noble colleagues were great sharers in that sarcasm—it applied, indeed, to them; for the Amendment proposed was adopted by them, not as a light and superficial one, but as one which was in every way proper to be adopted. It was under these circumstances that the Secretary at War came amongst them. No doubt he would give his Majesty's Ministers his able assistance: they wanted persons of his ability to assist them in many parts of this Bill; they stood in need of persons capable of giving explanations upon its various clauses; and he (Sir Charles Wetherell), therefore, looked forward to the effective co-operation of their right hon. colleague, the Secretary at War. However, the right hon. Gentleman had given the Opposition a bitter flogging, he would not call it a military flogging, but certainly the right hon. Secretary had exercised his cat-o'-ninetails in a manner quite uncalled for.
Sir John Hothousehad not meant to make an attack upon any one; indeed the discussion did not originate with him. The hon. and learned member for St. Mawe's thought lit to attack those Gentlemen who were absent, when he was addressing the House, and he (Sir John Hobhouse) merely observed, that the right hon. member for Tamworth was also absent, and was, therefore, equally subject to the lecture which the hon. and learned Gentleman had thought fit to give. The hon. Gentleman almost charged those who had voted, and had not listened to his speech, with having been guilty of treason against the people; whilst he only stated, that the House and the country had made up their minds to have the Bill, and were not to be driven from it by a
436
speech of the hon. Gentleman. This he was justified in saying in vindication of those who voted, but who had not heard the speech of the hon. Gentleman. He was not in the habit of making personal attacks. With respect to his absence, in the early part of the evening, an apology was due to the House, and also to his noble friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had been present all the early part of the evening, and he went away for about three quarters of an hour, not anticipating that the question relative to military flogging would have come on at so early an hour. It was not altogether fair in the hon. member for Preston to make an attack on him during his absence. On the abstract question he had not changed his opinion, and he entertained as strong objections to the practice of flogging in the army now, he was in office, as when out of office. Whether in office or not, his opinions were not likely to change. If he had been present, he certainly should have adopted the course pursued by his noble friend. The grounds of opposition to the Motion of the hon. Member had no reference to the abstract question, but only alluded to the particular question he brought forward as to returns. The hon. Member stated no good reasons for furnishing these returns, and, therefore, in conformity with the previous practice of this House, they were refused. He should regret having said anything calculated to give pain to the hon. and learned Gentleman, but he had as good a hearing as most Members had had during the discussions in the Committee; and the observations he made in consequence of a few Members appearing in the Gallery immediately before the call for a division, were more severe than the circumstances of the case warranted.
Sir Edward Sugdenshould be extremely sorry if he had exhibited any symptoms of anger at hon. Gentlemen voting without having heard his speech. He had no feeling of the sort. He had no reason to complain of a want of attention on the part of the House; on the contrary, he had to thank hon. Gentlemen for the attention with which they had listened to him that night, as on former occasions. A sense of duty influenced him in making the observations respecting the clause. He did not offer opposition merely with a view to delay the Bill.
Mr. Huntvery much regretted that the

437
right hen. Secretary at War was absent when he brought forward his Motion, as, perhaps, he would have given some satisfactory reasons for withholding the information he had applied for: certainly, the noble Lord stated no grounds for opposing his Motion. He did not accuse the right hon. Gentleman of intentionally being absent, but regretted that he was not present. The right hon. Gentleman said, that the hon. and learned member for St. Mawe's was tolerably well heard: now, although, he had good ears, and was sitting close to him, he could hardly hear a word that he said during the whole of his speech. But when the Chairman put the question, and desired strangers to withdraw for the division, he heard a great noise; and on looking round he was surprised to perceive that it was occasioned by the influx of a great number of Members, who were rushing into the division. He had been unable to hear the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and, therefore, had refused to vote.
Clause agreed to, as was also Clause 79, which confirms the privileges of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge.
Clause 80 read.
Mr. C. W. Wynnbegged to ask the noble Lord, whether the expense of postage was to be paid by the Overseer or the parish, if by the former, he might refuse to take in the letters, and, by such means, many persons might lose their votes. And again, how was it to be proved that letters claiming the franchise had been duly forwarded, or received? a man might declare that he had given notice through the post, and the Overseer might deny receiving the letter.
Lord Althorpsaid, in reply to his right hon. friend, that the expense of postage was included in the general expenses, and was chargeable to the parish, the post, was considered, in other respects, as conveying a legal notice. There were very few instances of the miscarriage of letters.
Clause agreed to.
The House resumed. Committee to sit again.

CHOLERA MORBUS—MEASURES OF PRECAUTION—SCOTLAND.
The House in Committee on this Bill.
An Amendment was proposed in the second clause, to the effect that the Privy Council might appoint certain persons to act as deputies under the Act.
Mr. James E. Gordonthought, that considerable caution should be exercised as to giving authority to persons to act under this Bill; be begged to suggest, that the appointment should be confined to the known authorities of the respective places.
The Lord Advocatesaid, it would be impossible to confine the appointments to such persons, as the numbers were too limited to allow them to act with energy; but the nominations should consist of persons of all parties, who were most likely to act with effect.
Clause agreed to.
On reading the preamble of the Bill, it was proposed to insert the words, "whereas it has pleased Almighty God to visit these kingdoms," &c.
Mr. Humesaid, he could not help objecting to the insertion of these words, as uncalled for by any particular feature of the present Bill. He thought it was all cant, humbug, and hypocrisy.
Sir Robert Ingliswas happy to find that the words relating to the "interposition of Providence," which had been omitted in the English, had been inserted in the present Bill. It was to be deeply lamented, that, in a Christian country, any hon. Member of that House should have given utterance to the expression of the hon. member for Middlesex—namely, that the reference to Providence was a "humbug."
Mr. Hume,in answer to the right hon. Baronet, had only to say, that so far from retracting the words, he regretted that the hon. Baronet did not, in addition to the word "humbug," quote also his opinion that the whole thing was mere cant and hypocrisy. He repeated, that the whole of this particular reference to Providence, in the present instance, was mere cant and hypocrisy; and had, moreover, to assure the hon. Baronet, that he considered the conduct of those who had evinced so much zeal with respect to the present phraseology, as like that of the Pharisees in Scripture, who were proverbial for their ostentatious sanctity, and the display of their religious tenets. Why, the emperor Alexander, after butchering the Poles, made use of the same language. There were many people who made the shew of sanctity the stalking horse to injustice, and, if he had no other reason, he should protest against using those words on this occasion.
Mr. Gillonwas astonished at the warmth

439
displayed by the hon. member for the University of Oxford, and he thought the Scotch Members had some reason lo complain that these words were introduced into the Scotch Bill, after being rejected from the English Bill.
Lord Althorpobjected last night to a division taking place on the subject, but he had no objection to the insertion of the words.
Colonel Lindsayhighly approved of the introduction of the words, as he looked upon the malady as an "interposition of Providence." It was but rarely that he agreed with the noble Lord, and he had, therefore, great pleasure in doing it on this occasion.
Mr. Huntcould not, for the soul of him, see on what ground the Scotch should monopolize Providence to the exclusion of the English, and, therefore, knew not why the words should be introduced into the Scotch Bill, and not into the English one. He hoped that the Lord Advocate would withdraw them.
Sir George Clerkdid not think such subjects unfit for the House of Commons, though he regretted to see them introduced, because they were but too often treated with derision by some Members. It might be proper to omit the words "Divine Providence" in Political Unions, but in a public document, such as that which was to prevent or check the progress of such a great calamity as that with which the country was threatened, he thought the words were properly introduced, and he returned his thanks to the learned Lord for the Amendment.
Mr. Warburtonregretted the use of the words by his hon. friend the member for Middlesex, because they imputed motives, and such imputations ought always to be avoided. If the object of the words proposed in the Amendment was to arm the people with courage to resist the impending evil, he should not object to them, but that was only a human motive for introducing them. He should object to the introduction of the name of Providence as connected with impending evils, for it ought rather to be connected with the blessings which we received from it. He should object to the name of Providence being held out on every occasion of alarm, when it was not equally held out on every occasion of advantage, as he knew no better way to sow the seeds of the most destructive irreligion than thus to repre-
440
sent Providence as the author only of calamities.
The Lord Advocatehoped, after the call that had been made on him by this discussion, that the House would allow him to say a few words in explanation. He had introduced the Bill somewhat in haste last night, and had since proposed the addition of the words now objected to, without having observed what was the preamble of the English Bill. However, he felt convinced, that the words would be agreeable to the people of Scotland, for, in all the letters he had received from that country, the infliction of the Cholera was spoken of as an infliction of Divine Providence, and one which was only to be removed by his aid. As to the wish expressed, that the Amendment might be withdrawn, he certainly could not consent to withdraw it. If, therefore, it could not be introduced without a division, there must be a division, for other Members (even should he consent to the withdrawal) would propose the same words. Having said this, he should leave the question to be disposed of as the House might think fit.
Mr. James E. Gordonhoped, that the question would be pressed to a division, that the names of those who thought fit to venture to reject such an Amendment might be put on record, and the names of those who stood up to vindicate their principles might equally be known.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsaid, that a speech so calculated to sow dissension as that of the hon. member for Dundalk, he had never heard, and if it was possible that his mind could be biassed, that speech would have the contrary effect to what the hon. Member intended.
Mr. Briscoerejoiced at the Amendment now introduced by the learned Lord, and he was sure it would be received with the approbation of the country. Whenever the Ministers of the Crown ceased to lend the influence of their high station to support religion, from that hour the sun of the country's prosperity was set for ever.
Mr. Jamessaid, that if that House was to be occupied with religious discussions, he thought a separate day ought to be appointed for them, and no day fitter than Sunday; and, as it would be out of the question to ask the Speaker, after the labours of the week, to take the Chair, they ought to apply to the Chaplain to preside over

441
them. He objected to the useless, and, therefore, irreverent introduction of the name of God into any instrument, and should, therefore, vote with the hon. member for Middlesex.
Mr. John Woodsaid, that he was one of those who stigmatized as cant and hypocrisy the irreverent use of God's holy name on improper occasions, and should, therefore, vote with the hon. member for Middlesex on this question, as he thought the present was not an occasion that justified its use.
Mr. Humesaid, that as he had been dared to press this question to a division, he should certainly show that he was not afraid of doing so, and he knew that the motives which led him to oppose the introduction of these words would not be mistaken by his countrymen.
Sir Robert Inglishoped, that no division would be taken on this subject, for he wished for his own sake that no man should have on his conscience the responsibility of having negatived such an Amendment.
The Committee divided on the Amendment—when there appeared:—Ayes 55; Noes 10—Majority 45.
House resumed.

List of the NOES.

Calcraft, G.

Ruthven, E. S.

Gillon, W. D.

Walrond, B

Hunt, H.

Warburton, H.

James, W.

Wood, J.

Moreton, Hon. H.

TELLERS.

O'Farrel, R. M.

Hume, J.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Lord LORTON, from the Clergy and Inhabitants of Moate, Westmeath, against the new system of Education in Ireland:—By Lord CLONCURRY, from Members of the Society of Friends (Ireland), against Negro Slavery.

CHOLERA MORBUS—MEASURESOF PRE- CAUTION.
The Marquis of Lansdown moved the first reading of the Cholera Morbus Prevention Bill, and in doing so, gave notice that he should to-morrow move the suspension of the standing orders of the

407
House, with a view to the passing this Bill, as quickly as possible, through its remaining stages.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that though he had no objection to the passing of this Bill with as much rapidity as the noble Marquis might desire, he could not, at the same time, avoid observing, that it did not appear to be a bill that had been framed altogether with that due consideration and carefulness that were required in a matter of such importance. It was to be regretted that a measure of this kind had not been brought forward at an earlier period, when their Lordships' might have been able to devote more time to its consideration; and that Ministers had waited until the disease was at the door before they introduced this Bill. The attention of his Majesty's Ministers had been directed to the subject in December last, and it was then stated to them, that the powers given to the Privy Council under the 6th George 4th, for the removal of nuisances were not as comprehensive as they supposed, or sufficient to meet the emergency that was approaching. In the course of January it was distinctly shown that the powers vested in the Privy Council under that Act of Parliament were totally inadequate to meet the exigencies of the present case. He, therefore, repeated, that it was to be regretted that this measure had not been brought forward at an earlier period, when their Lordships' might have had more time to attend to the wording and the enactments of the Bill. From what he saw of it, it appeared to him that it would be necessary to make one amendment in it, namely, the introduction of the usual provision enabling Parliament to alter or amend the Act in the present Session.
The Marquis of Lansdownsaid, that there could, of course, be no objection to the introduction, to-morrow, of the amendment alluded to by the noble Lord. The opinion had existed that the Privy Council could exercise the powers vested in it by the Act of Parliament to a greater extent than, upon due consideration, was found to be the case. The present Bill had, therefore, been brought forward, as it appeared expedient that all doubts on the subject should be removed. The papers already laid on the Table would show that the instructions of the Privy Council had not been complied with in particular instances.
The Bill read a first time.

TITHES (IRELAND)—REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE.
The Marquis of Lansdown
408
presented the Report of the Select Committee to which had been referred the consideration of Tithes in Ireland, and the state of the law on that subject. The noble Marquis moved that it be read, which was done, as follows:—
"That the Committee have proceeded to examine into the subject which has been referred to them; and although they have not yet been able to bring their inquiries to a close, they think it their duty not to defer laying before the House their opinion on parts of the evidence which has been brought before them, and on circumstances which call for the immediate attention of the Legislature. A resistance, more or less decided, to the payment of tithe, appears to have been made in several parts of Ireland, but more particularly in the counties of Kilkenny, Carlow, and Tipperary, and a portion of the Queen's county, and supported by means of organized, illegal, and, in some instances, armed combinations, the danger of which is increased, by the peculiar circumstances of Ireland; but which, from whatever cause they may arise, if allowed to continue, and to extend themselves successfully to other districts, cannot fail to be applied to other objects, and ultimately to subvert the dominion of the law, and endanger the peace and security of society.
"It appears that the consequence of these proceedings has been, that, in the districts where resistance has been made to the payment of tithes, the clergy have, in many instances, been reduced to the greatest distress.
"The estimated amounts, in the districts where this resistance has chiefly prevailed, according to information laid before the Committee, of sums due for the tithe, are, in the dioceses of

OSSORY.

In compounded parishes

£14,345

In uncompounded ditto

£10,130

£24,475

LEIGHLIN.

In compounded parishes

18,092

In uncompounded ditto

2,700

20,792

CASHEL AND EMLEY.

In 113 compounded parishes

23,490

In twenty-five uncompounded ditto, on an average of those which have been compounded

4,197

27,687

FERNS—supposed to be about

7,000

KILDAKE—ditto

5,000

Total

£84,954

"It appears to the Committee that, in order to afford immediate relief to the distressed clergy, it is expedient that his Majesty should be empowered to advance to the incumbent,

409
where tithes, or compositions in lieu of tithes, have been illegally withheld, or to his representatives upon a petition verified by affidavit, sums not exceeding the amount of the arrears due for the tithes of the year 1831, proportioned to the incomes of each, according to a scale diminishing as their incomes increase.
"That, as a security for the repayment of the sums so to be advanced, his Majesty should be empowered to issue orders to levy, under the authority of a law to be passed for this purpose, the amount of arrears due for the tithes of the year 1831, without prejudice to the claims of the clergy for any arrear that may be due for a longer period, reserving, in the first instance, the amount of the advances so made, and paying over the remaining balance to the legal claimant.
"That where the tithes claimed by the party petitioning shall be under the operation of the Composition Acts, the amount to be advanced shall be regulated by such composition; where the amount of tithe shall have been regulated by any agreement, independently of the Composition Acts, the amount shall be regulated by such agreement; and in all other cases by the average amount of the tithes which have been really and bonâ fide paid or secured to the incumbent of such parish for the years 1827, 1828, and 1829.
"That, in order to the more effectually levying the amount of the sums so to be advanced, it shall be lawful for the Attorney General to proceed, either by petition to the Court of Chancery or of Exchequer, or by civil bill at the Quarter Sessions of the county in which the parish or part of the parish of such incumbent is situate against all or any of the parties from whom such arrear shall be claimed as due by such incumbent; and that the said Courts respectively may issue process for the recovery of the sums to be by them awarded, conformably to the provisions to be inserted in such Act of Parliament, and similar to those contained in several Acts of the Parliament of Ireland in the years 1787, 1788, 1799, and 1800, with such additions or alterations as may be thought fit to be introduced into such Act, as adapted to the circumstances now existing in Ireland.
"But, strongly as the Committee are impressed with the necessity of maintaining the authority of the law, and relieving the pressing wants the clergy have suffered from a breach of it, they have anxiously turned their attention to the practicability of effecting an useful alteration in the present system; and although the inquiry in which they are engaged is not sufficiently advanced to enable them to pronounce a distinct opinion as to the best means of removing the evils connected with the collection of tithes in Ireland, enough has appeared to satisfy them that, with a view to secure both the interests of the Church, and the lasting welfare of that country, a permanent change of system will be required. That such a change, to be satisfactory and safe, must involve a
410
complete extinction of tithes, including those belonging to lay impropriators, by commuting them for a charge upon land, or an exchange for or investment in land, so as effectually to secure the revenues of the Church (as far as relates to tithes), and, at the same time, to remove all pecuniary collision between the parochial clergy and the occupiers of land.
"February 10, 1832."
Report on the Motion of the Marquis of Lansdown, and the evidence on which it was founded, ordered to be printed.