Sitting of 15 June 1832

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Mr. PEACH, an Account of all Sums paid into the Stamp Office for Duty on Insurance from Fire, in London and the Country, for the quarters ending severally on 25th March, 24th June, 29th September, and 25th December, 1831; distinguishing the Amount of the Allowance made to each Office for collecting the same, severally, of 4l. and 5l. per cent, and by what Offices or Persons suds Sums have been paid, together with the Dates of such Payments.
New Writs issued. On the Motion of Mr. SPRING RICE, for Knaresborough, in the room of the Right Hon. Sir JAMES MACKINTOSH, deceased.
Bills. Read a first time:—Party Processions (Ireland); Bribery at Elections; Limitation of Actions.—Read a third time:—Fines and Recoveries; Courtesy of England, Inheritance.
Petitions presented. By Lord OXMANTOWN, from the High Sheriff of King's County, for Re-enacting the Insurrection Act.—By Sir HENRY BUNBURY, from Bury St. Edmund's;—by Lord OXMANTOWN, from four Parishes in Ireland; and by Mr. WYSE, from Clogher,—for a Revision of the Criminal Code.—By Mr. WYSE, from Galway, for Equalizing Civil Rights in that County; from Tipperary, Clonmel, and Rossmore, for an efficient Reform for Ireland; and from three Parishes in Ireland, against Tithes.—By Lord MORPETH, from Knaresborough, to substitute that Place for Ripley as one of the Polling Places for the West Riding.—By Mr. KENNEDY, from Ayr,—for Stopping the Supplies; from Kilmarnock, against any alteration of the Boroughs in Schedule E of the Scotch Reform Bill; and from Inverary, Ayr, and Irvine,—for Alterations in the Scotch Reform Bill.—By Sir GEORGE CLERK, from Dalkeith,—against the Ministerial Plan of Education (Ireland).

CONDUCT OF POLICE MAGISTRATES.
Mr. O'Connell: I rise for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to the case of a female of the name of Catherine Murphy, as it appears reported in a morning paper of last Monday, and of requesting that explanation from the Under Secretary for the Home Department for which I gave
738
him notice that it was my intention to ask this evening. The following is the statement, as it appears in the newspaper:—'Catherine Murphy, a young woman of decent appearance, was charged with having exposed for sale a quantity of nuts, and assaulted policeman John Archer, 150 G, in the execution of his duty. The policeman deposed, that about twelve o'clock in the morning he was on duty in Hatton Garden, when he saw the defendant with a basket of nuts exposed for sale. She ran into the city, and prevented him at that time from taking her into custody. In about half an hour afterwards he was in that quarter again, and succeeded in laying hands on her; upon which she threw down the basket, caused a mob to assemble, and finally struck him more than a dozen times on the face.
'Defendant: I own that I was selling nuts, and the policeman tried to take them from me; which, very naturally, I endeavoured to prevent. I solemnly declare I never struck him; I have a sick husband and four children to support, and if I am debarred from selling a few oranges or nuts, we must starve.
'Mr. Laing: You have no business to block up the streets with your basket, and the policeman has acted very right in bringing you here!
'Defendant: then is it a crime to endeavour to support my family honestly?
'Mr. Rogers: Your nuts are forfeited to the parish.
'Mr. Laing: That is not a punishment sufficient! I shall fine her for the assault.
'Mr. Mallett, the chief clerk, here said: The poor creature is very near her time of lying-in; she appears, too, in a distressed condition.
'Mr. Laing: That is no reason why she should offend against the law.
'Mr. Rogers, to the prisoner: In addition to the forfeiture of your nuts, you are fined 5s.
'Defendant: I cannot pay 5d.
'Mr. Laing: Then you'll go to prison for seven days.
'A gentleman here stepped forward, and said, that he thought the poor woman ought not to be punished. If she had committed an offence she received quite sufficient punishment from the hands of the policeman.
'Mr. Laing: Who are you, Sir?
'Answer: I am a law stationer; my

739
name is Lewin, and I reside at Somers' Town.
'Mr. Laing: Indeed! and you think she has been punished enough do you?
'Mr. Lewin: I do, Sir: I witnessed the whole transaction. Instead of the policeman desiring her to go away, which I consider he ought to have done in the first instance, he laid hold of her basket, threw her down, and then upset all her nuts, by which a gallon at least were lost. I assure you, Sir, the woman has been very much ill-treated—she never attempted to strike the policeman.
'Mr. Laing: I strongly suspect that you are one of those persons who take upon themselves to dictate and interfere with the policemen, and rescue their prisoners. Whatever you have said will not do any service to the defendant, so you had better hold your tongue and leave the office.
'The woman was locked up in default of paying the 5s.'
Now, Sir, though I admit that the woman was committing an illegal act, I do mean to say, that if this statement is correct, no Magistrate ought to be allowed to adopt such a course as this, or indulge in such remarks, without meeting with due reprehension. I shall not, however, indulge in any further observations, until I hear what explanation the hon. Gentleman opposite has to give of the transaction.
Mr. Lamb: In the first place, I have to regret that the hon. and learned Gentleman should have quoted this case from the newspaper, which I believe to be very much exaggerated, as is indeed too often the case with many of the daily journals. It is not, however, my wish to dilate upon this part of the subject; and I shall, therefore, chiefly confine myself to a repetition of the plain narrative of the case, as it has been explained to me. In the first place, it is necessary to state, that the police near Hatton Garden is in a peculiar situation; for it happens just to form the boundary between the City and Westminster. In consequence, therefore, of the ease with which they can pass from one jurisdiction to the other, this place has become a favourite place of resort for the basket-women, who station themselves in the streets for the purpose of selling their fruit—a practice which is against the law, though I am ready to admit that it is a sort of law which ought not to be enforced too rigidly. The
740
new police have frequently had occasion to remonstrate with the city police for not co-operating with them in their endeavours to clear the streets of these women; and I may also state, that Mr. Laing and Mr. Rogers, the Magistrates at Hatton Garden, have immediately discharged all of those cases that have ever been brought before them, and have indeed stated, that unless a complaint was made by the inhabitants, they would not interfere. The nuisance, however, has subsequently reached such a height, that the police have been directed to clear the streets of these women. On the day of this transaction, it happened that this woman, with many others, was selling nuts; twice she was sent away by the policeman; and on his returning a third time within the hour, he again found her pursuing the same occupation. Now, Mr. Lewin remonstrated at the office that the policeman ought to have told the woman to go away before he took her into custody; but I think that I have, by stating this fact, sufficiently answered that observation. When the woman was told a third time to go, she began to abuse the policeman, and finally flung herself on the pavement, and struck him several smart blows. On this, the man thought that he was fully entitled to take her to the police-office for the assault. And here let me remark, that the report in the newspapers has omitted one most important fact—which is this, that a very respectable mechanic attended at the office, and voluntarily deposed, that the assault had been committed by the woman, as described by the policeman. The Magistrate, on this, felt that it was necessary to protect the policeman in the discharge of his duty; and it was not till the woman had been convicted that Mr. Lewin stepped forward, and expressed his opinion that she had been punished enough. I am also given to understand, that the Magistrate did not say all that was atttibuted to him by the newspaper; it is, however, admitted, that he did express an opinion that Mr. Lewin was one of those who went about to the police-offices, dictating to the Magistrates—an expression which, I have no hesitation in saying, I would much rather had not been used. The woman, however, after having been adjudged to pay a fine of 5s., or suffer seven days' imprisonment, was sent for back, and the imprisonment was lessened to two days instead of seven; and she is now at liberty. Such, Sir, are the

741
circumstances of the case; and I do not see that (with the exception I have already made) any impropriety has been committed by either policeman or Magistrate.
Mr. O' Connell: I trust that the caution that has been uttered by the hon. Gentleman will reach the ears of the Magistrate, and that it will prevent his making use in future of such language as that which he addressed to Mr. Lewin; and with this hope, and after the statement that has just been made to the House, I beg to say, that I do not think it necessary to press this question any further.
Sir Edward Sugdensaid, that the law was undoubtedly a harsh one, but the police were placed in a difficult situation, for they were liable to censure if they did not carry it into effect.
Mr. Huntsaid, that if the report had been a correct one, the hon. member for Kerry would, probably, not have noticed the subject. It was a great benefit to the public to have fair reports of cases of this nature, but great blame attached to the newspapers when they admitted partial reports.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR SCOTLAND—COMMITTEE—FIFTH DAY.
Lord Althorp moved the Order of the Day for the House resolving itself into Committee on the Scotch Reform Bill.
Mr. Pringlemoved, as an Amendment, "That the classification of the boroughs of Scotland be referred to a Select and Special Committee to report thereupon." Numberless anomalies were, in his opinion, evident in the present classification, and he thought the Ministers had not been at all successful in this part of their Bill. For example, the Dumfries district of boroughs included four boroughs in that county, and one in Galloway. Again, the Ayrshire district included two boroughs in Argyleshire, though it might be convenient to unite them to the new borough of Kilmarnock. The Argyleshire boroughs should be united with those of the Clyde district. He could point out similar anomalies in the other boroughs, but he thought he had said quite enough to justify his Motion. He was sure that a Select Committee would be able to correct many of these inequalities, though he would not press his Motion if it were opposed by his Majesty's Ministers.
Lord Althorpconsidered that the sub-
742
ject of the hon. Member's Motion would be sufficiently discussed in Committee on the Bill, and he, therefore, should not support it.
Motion negatived.
House went into Committee. The subject for discussion was schedule B, relating to the counties.
On the question of Perthshire,
Sir George Murraysaid, that he had some time since given notice of his intention, at this stage of the Bill, to move that "neither the county of Perth, nor the county of Argyle, be dismembered for the purpose of adding to the constituency of any other county or counties," but that now, as the county of Argyll was not affected by the provisions of the Bill in the way he had anticipated, he should confine his Motion and observations to the county of Perth alone, which was so affected. He complained of a principle being introduced into the Reform Bill for Scotland, which was not introduced into the English Bill. He alluded to the cutting off from one county to add to the constituency of other counties, as in the case of the county of Perth, which it was proposed by the Bill to dismember, for the purpose of adding a portion to the counties of Clackmannan and Kinross-shire. Had such a principle been introduced into the English Bill, and a proposition been made to add in this manner to the constituencies even of small counties, such as Radnorshire and Huntingdonshire, he felt convinced such a proposition would have been rejected by a large majority of this House. Why, therefore, should there be such an intermeddling with Perth? Heretofore, the constituencies of Clackmannan and Kinross had been thought sufficient to return one Member. In 1801, the population amounted to upwards of 17,000, and in 1831, it had reached the number of 23,000. It had gone on rapidly increasing; and, therefore, if in 1801 it was sufficiently important to return a Member, why add to it a portion of the population of Perthshire? Bute, which only contained a population of 14,151, was, by the Bill, to return alone one Member. One of the boasts in favour of the measure of Reform was, that it was to do away with anomalies; but, in this instance, instead of doing away with anomalies, it created one. All the legal and fiscal concerns of these disjoined parishes would still remain connected with Perthshire, but

743
yet all their political influence was to be thrown into Clackmannan and Kinross. It was proposed to detach from every county every part that was disconnected with it, or which was wholly included in another county; that would be a very different matter; but there was no such pretence in this instance; neither of these principles had its application here. If the principle now applied exclusively to Perthshire, had been attempted with respect to any portion of Yorkshire, that county having the good fortune of including within it, by the Reform Bill, thirty-seven Members, the attempt would have been successfully resisted. Perthshire, however, had but one Representative, and, consequently, it had no means of resisting this act of injustice. But still he would not abandon all hopes that, by a clear explanation of the matter, he might yet be able to induce either the Government or the Committee to give up the objectionable part of the clause. If this principle of cutting off a detached part of a county were a correct one, why was it not applied in the case also of the county of Dumbarton—a portion of which was some miles distant from the body of the county? The following statement with regard to Dumbartonshire, was to be found in Chalmers's Caledonia:—'The parishes of Cumbernauld and 'Kirkintilloch lie detached six miles distant from the south-east end of Dumbartonshire, between Lanarkshire on the south, and Stirlingshire on the north. This detached part of Dumbartonshire is nearly twelve miles long from west to east, and from four-and-a-half to two miles broad. These two parishes anciently belonged to Stirlingshire; but in the reign of Robert 1st, they were annexed 'to the county of Dumbarton.' It was also further added:—'The other ten parishes of the county of Dumbarton are in the presbytery of Dumbarton; but the parishes of Kirkintilloch and Cumbernauld belong to the presbytery of Glasgow.' Here, then, was a clear case of complete separation, if that were laid down as a principle to be generally applied. But in mentioning this case, he did not wish it to be supposed that he was advocating the propriety of dismembering a county already small; but he was endeavouring to point out the injustice of having one principle for Perth and another for Dumbarton. It had been said by some that this arrangement had been made with
744
a view to the convenience of particular families. He, himself, could not speak positively on this subject, but he was able to state that such was the general impression. Neither did he intend to make any complaint on this account, for no families could be more highly respectable than the two that had been mentioned. The one was the family of the gallant Admiral whom he saw opposite—a family not less remarkable by the merits of its individual members, than distinguished by its numerous and highly respectable connexions; and the other was the family of Lord Abercromby, with which he had been united all his life by ties of the most intimate friendship. Indeed, if he were to mention the name of the man, out of his own family, for whose memory he entertained the most sincere and unalterable respect, he should name Sir Ralph Abercromby—for it had been his (Sir George Murray's) good fortune in early life to be closely connected by his professional pursuits with that eminent man; and from the very commencement of his own military service, up to the moment when that great man closed his useful and honourable career in the arms of victory on the plains of Alexandria, there had been no instant in which he could have felt the slightest abatement of that attachment, respect, and esteem, to which Sir Ralph Abercromby had been so justly entitled, both as an officer and a man. He trusted the House would see, therefore, that he had no personal motives for the remarks he had made. But, to show that there was no plausible ground for taking away a portion of the inhabitants of Perth, to add to the population of Clackmannan and Kinross, he might cite many instances in which a population, little larger than the joint population of those two counties, returned a greater number of Members. Merioneth, for instance, with a population of 35,609, returned two Members; Radnor, with a population of 24,651, returned two Members; Rutland, with a population of 19,000, returned two Members; the Isle of Wight, with a population of 35,431, also two, or rather three Members, under the new Bill; that was to say, one for the island, and one, if not two, for a borough; and yet here were Clackmannan and Kinross, with a rapidly-increasing population of 23,800, not thought sufficient to return one Member, without taking in a portion of the county of Perth. But there was

745
also another argument which he wished to mention, as applying to this case. In granting additional Representation to the counties in England, reference had been had to the population of those counties—counties containing 150,000 inhabitants got four Members, and counties containing 100,000 inhabitants, three Members; therefore he was not able to regard this as a final measure, and as hereafter this same principle of population might be resorted to, it was doing Perthshire a great injustice to take away a portion of its population. Perth at present contained 142,000 inhabitants; and to take away 8,000 of those inhabitants, might possibly diminish its future claim to a second Representative. He had a right to insist upon this argument, for whoever looked into the details of these Reform Bills, must feel that it was quite impossible that two out of the three parts of the United Kingdom, were to sit down and quietly submit to so small a share in the Representation as was now allotted to them. He, therefore, insisted that this ground of argument was of itself sufficient to expose the injustice of diminishing the population of Perthshire. Besides, it was throwing a sort of stigma on that county, to make it the solitary instance of this most objectionable principle; and, therefore, unless some very strong reasons could be given for the introduction of this new principle, he trusted that he had made out a case against it which the noble Lord would not be inclined to resist.
Lord Althorpobserved that the objections which were raised towards this separation of part of the county of Perth, and addition of it to Clackmannan and Kinross, might probably be allayed in Perthshire, from a consideration that the remaining votes would be considerably increased in influence in consequence of their number being lessened. Moreover, the districts separated were divided from the rest of Perthshire by a ridge of hills, and seemed naturally not to belong to it. The inhabitants, too, had petitioned for the separation.
Sir George Clerkdid not think that the noble Lord had stated sufficient grounds to justify the disruption of Perthshire for the purpose of adding to the constituency of another county. It was impossible for the noble Lord to do away with the feelings of attachment and union which the inhabitants of the part separated must always
746
feel towards their original county, and equally impossible to give them a new turn towards the county to which they were thus forcibly appended. He believed that the proposed separation would give rise to great confusion, and that it would be much better to adopt the proposition of his right hon. friend.
The Lord Advocatesaid, that the counties of Clackmannan and Kinross having been consolidated for the purpose of Representation under the Reform Bill, it was found that there was a part of Perthshire, lying in the intervening parts between the two counties to be united which prevented their perfect geographical consolidation; in order to remove this physical obstacle, it was proposed to separate that part of Perthshire which intervened between the two other counties, and to add it to them. To do that was not only justifiable, but it would be found beneficial to all concerned that this arrangement should be persevered in.
Sir William Raecondemned the projected dismemberment of this or any other county for the purpose of creating facilities in the way of returning Members under the Scotch Reform Bill. The parishes thus cut off by this mode must suffer very materially in the scale of Representation.
Admiral Adamhoped a Bill would, ere long, pass Parliament for permanently consolidating those portions of counties, detached thus for election objects from their proper county, with that county of which they were to form a part. As to the influence of Lord Abercrombie, of which the right hon. Baronet was afraid, it was by no means increasing. The town of Alloa was extending, and in that the Earl of Mar had very considerable property and influence. He could not for one moment believe that the alteration was either intended to increase, or would increase the influence of Lord Abercrombie.
Sir George Murraysaid, he saw from this very alarming precedent about to be established, a strong probability that portions of many other counties in Scotland would be similarly dismembered from those counties for electioneering purposes. He deprecated the experiment about to be tried, as likely to produce great injustice to local districts, and concluded by pressing his amendment.
The Committee divided on the Amendment:—Ayes 24; Noes 54—Majority 30.

List of the NOES.

Adam, Admiral.

Johnstone, J. H.

Agnew, Sir A.

Johnson, J.

Althorp, Viscount

Kennedy, T. F.

Barham, J.

Lawley, F.

Bayntun, S. A.

Loch, J.

Blackney, W

Lushington, S.

Blake, Sir F.

Macleod, R.

Clive, B.

Mackenzie, A. S.

Creevey, T.

Nugent, Lord

Denman, Sir T.

Phillips, M.

Dixon, J.

Ponsonby, Hon. G.

Easthope, J.

Price, Sir R.

Ferguson, R.

Ross, H.

Fergusson, Sir R.

Russell, Lord J.

Fergusson, R. C.

Russell, F.

Fox, C.

Sinclair, G.

Gillon, W. D.

Stanley, E.

Graham, Rt. Hn. Sir J.

Stewart, T.

Haliburton, Hn. D. G.

Strutt, E.

Handley, W. F.

Tavistock, Marquis of

Heywood, B.

Venables, Alderman

Hobhouse, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C.

Vere, H.

Villiers, H.

Hunt, H.

Walker, C. A.

James, W.

Wyse, T.

Jeffrey, Rt. Hon. F.

TELLER.

Johnstone, A.

Ellice, E.

Upon the question that a Member should be given to Nairn and Elgin united,
Mr. Duncan Davidsonsaid, in his opinion one Member should be given to each of those places; and he moved, therefore, that the word Nairn be left out.
Mr. Stewart Mackenziesaid, that the population of Elgin was about four times as much as that of Nairn, and Elgin, therefore, would not be injured by the addition.
Sir William Raethought Elgin was injured by the annexation of Nairn, as Ross was injured by adding Cromarty to it. The number of voters under the Bill in either Ross or Elgin was sufficient to entitle them to a Member. He thought that the change made by the Bill was uncalled for, and he should oppose it.
Lord Althorpsaid, it should be recollected that Ross and Cromarty were formerly united. Both Nairn and Elgin would, he believed, attain an importance by being united, which neither could possess by itself.
Sir GeorgeClerk observed, that the principle adopted in this case was quite different from that acted upon in uniting some parishes of Perth to Kinross and Clackmannan. Every county in England, however small, had two Members, and the same principle ought to be extended to Scotland.
Sir George Murraythought the supporters of the Bill very inconsistent in their arguments: the Lord Advocate had, a few minutes before, described the subtraction of voters from Perth as a blessing to that county, and now the addition of voters was described as an advantage to Ross and Elgin. Mountains, rivers, and seas stood no more in their way, however, than principles, and Orkney was united to Shetland, though a tempestuous ocean was between them, as Nairn was united to Elgin, in defiance of ancient habits and local prejudices.
The Lord Advocatesaid, it was admitted that Ross could not be separated from Cromarty, and as it was impossible to give Nairn, with a population of 9,000, a Member by itself, there was no alternative except to unite it to Elgin.
The Committee divided on the Amendment:—Ayes 26; Noes50—Majority 24.
Schedule agreed to; as was Schedule C. On the question that Schedule D stand part of the Bill,
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonexpressed a wish that Port Glasgow should have a share in the Representation. By the former Bill, Port Glasgow was united for the purposes of Representation with Greenock. He thought that the two places should be so united in the present Bill. The interests of Port Glasgow were great and important. He should, therefore, move that Greenock be omitted from Schedule D, with the view, if that motion were acceded to, of afterwards moving that it be combined with Port Glasgow, and placed in schedule E.
Sir Michael Shaw Stewartopposed the Amendment. The interests of the two towns were of a conflicting nature. In his opinion, they were each entitled to independent Representation.
Mr. Dixonopposed the Amendment. The interests of Port Glasgow were essentially represented in those of Glasgow. Greenock had a constituency of 1200 voters, and therefore required no addition.
Sir Robert Peelthought, that no place, according to the proceedings under the Reform Bill, had a better title to be united to another than Port Glasgow had to Greenock. The objections to their union were most inconsistent. It was said that Port Glasgow had a constituency of 178, or, at most, 211 voters, and was, therefore, not worthy of being represented; and it was also said, that Port Glasgow

749
ought not to be joined with Greenock, because it would swamp that place, which had a constituency of 1,000; and, lastly, that Greenock had of itself a sufficient constituency to entitle it to separate Representation. But was this to be an argument with them who had added Toxteth Park to Liverpool?—who, when they found constituencies of 10,000 and 12,000, added to them others of 2,000 or 3,000? With respect to the jealousy and rivalry which was spoken of as existing between these places, that was the very reason why they should be united, for it would reconcile their differences. He could not conceive that two towns in the same county, at the farthest two or three miles from each other, could have feelings so irreconcileable as to make it impossible to join them in one constituency; yet one would think, to hear hon. Gentlemen talk of their conflicting interests, that they were composed of factions, as hostile as any which existed during the civil wars, or as ever France and England had been. But, admitting the fact, although he should still say it was impossible to legislate upon the assumption of such jealousies, what harm could Port Glasgow do to Greenock, when it would form barely a fourth part of the constituency common to the two? If Port Glasgow were identified in interest with Glasgow, perhaps it might be joined to that latter town, although Glasgow was twenty-five miles distant from Port Glasgow. There were three towns, two of them within a mile and a half of each other, and the other twenty-five miles off; but the House was to assume that there was such an hostility between the two first that they should not be joined together, but that one of them should be joined to the town which was twenty-five miles off. If the House were to abide by the principles on which Toxteth Park was united to Liverpool, and Folkestone joined to Hythe, on what principle could it be refused to join Port Glasgow to Greenock? He had heard it contended that Greenock had flourishing manufactures; but such was not the statement of the Commissioners. What they said was this,—Greenock cannot, at present, be considered a manufacturing town; but it is likely to become so, as great water power has been provided for driving machinery." Why not, then, include in the constituent body, the inhabitants of a great manufacturing place, not above a
750
mile and a half distant? In spite of any little jealousies which might, perhaps, occasionally have arisen, two towns could not exist side by side in this manner, and have a separate interest. If the value of property were increased in Greenock, it must be accompanied by a corresponding increase of prosperity in Port Glasgow. But if there should be any paltry, narrow jealousies, arising from a desire in each to obtain exclusive commercial privileges, the House ought to show itself above them; and above all, endeavour to reconcile such unjust pretensions by uniting the two towns in the pursuit of one common right.
The Lord Advocatewas of opinion that Port Glasgow should be left under the influence and protection of Glasgow, to which it belonged. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Amendment looked only to the interest of Port Glasgow; but the first consideration of the Legislature ought to be the rights and interests of Greenock. They could not apply the analogy of the Representation of England to this measure; the whole scheme of which was bottomed upon a different principle; but they might fairly consider how Greenock stood as compared with other Scotch Towns, which were to have independent Members. There was Paisley; it was a little more populous than Greenock, but was greatly inferior to it in point of wealth; its assessed taxes not amounting to more than one-third of those of Greenock, and yet Paisley had an independent Member. There was Perth, again, having a population of nearly one-third less than that of Greenock; but, although proportionally wealthier than Paisley, Perth was inferior also to Greenock in respect of wealth. The question, then, was, whether it was fair to add to a place like this, a separate town having opposite interests? If it had not been proposed to do so with respect to Perth and Paisley—although the latter was surrounded with villages, which would furnish a larger constituency than Port Glasgow possessed—on what analogy with the scheme of Representation to be adopted for other parts of Scotland, (which was the true test to take) would they make this alteration? The junction of Port Glasgow with Greenock was defended on the ground that the former had two small a party to injure the latter, it not being denied, however, that it would injure it if it could; but as it could not, why should it

751
be exposed to continual annoyance and hopeless contests, by thus joining it to Greenock? The constituency of Greenock entitled it to a Member for itself, and it ought to have one, unless it could be shown that a grievance would be thereby inflicted upon Port Glasgow, which, it must be remembered, never had enjoyed the elective franchise. The fact was, that Port Glasgow was a mere off-shoot from Glasgow, peopled by the agents of the merchants of that place, sent there for the convenience of the Port. Port Glasgow being, then, a kind of overflowing of Glasgow (which had already two Members), a kind of advanced piquet of that town, he could not imagine any place containing 5,000 inhabitants that would be less entitled to separate Representation. It was not disputed that these two places were rivals in trade; and almost every Session some contest took place between them. Considering the great influence Glasgow already possessed in Greenock, if it were to receive the further direct influence of the constituency of Port Glasgow, it would be, substantially, giving three Members to Glasgow. He admitted that this was not a case so free from doubt and difficulty as many others; but Ministers had upon the whole, adopted the best and fairest course which lay open to them. However desirable it might be to unite Port Glasgow to some other place, Greenock was certainly the very worst that could have been selected for the purpose.
Mr. Keith Douglasthought the learned Lord would do well to assent to the Amendment. Port Glasgow was only a mile from Greenock, and was a flourishing place.
Lord Althorpsaid, the objection to being united with Port Glasgow was so strong on the part of the inhabitants of Greenock, that it was thought better to avoid an attempt to bring together such clashing interests, and the combination was abandoned. If the places were united, the interests of Port Glasgow must be sunk in the preponderating and opposing influence of Greenock, to which the union would be most distasteful, at the same time that it could hardly prove beneficial to Port Glasgow. On these grounds, the idea of combining the two places, which had been united by the first Bill, had been abandoned.
Mr. Horatio Rosssupported the Amendment, The towns lay close together, and
752
he saw no reason for separating them in the Representation.
Mr. Patrick Stewartsaid, he should vote for the original resolution. He admitted the claims of Port Glasgow, but they ought not to be gratified at the expense of Greenock.
Lord John Russellthought Greenock entitled to one Member, and, that it ought not to be embarrassed, by being united to another place, especially as the combination would be unpalatable, and was not required in order to give a sufficient constituency. Perth, which had a population of 7,000 souls, had complained of being united to other boroughs, and had in consequence received a Member for itself, and that having been done for Perth, how could Greenock, with a population of 27,000 souls, being also a place of great commercial importance, be denied a Member? Port Glasgow was locally near Greenock, but in its interests and feelings, it was connected, not with Greenock but with Glasgow.
Sir Robert Peelshould have supposed, till he heard the learned Lord's remark, that the principles of the English Reform Bill ought to have been carried as they were so excellent across the Tweed. He had, in the discussion on the English Bill, admitted the force of the argument, that they ought not to encourage separate interests by altogether separating the inhabitants of towns from the counties; yet now it was proposed to encourage separate interests. The noble Lord seemed to think that no other town as large as Greenock had been denied a separate Member; but had not the Ministers added Musselburg, which was six miles distant, to Leith, the electoral houses of which, were more numerous than those of Greenock? He could not believe that two neighbouring and prosperous places could entertain that irreconcileable hostility which was said to exist between Port Glasgow and Greenock, even if that were the case, he could not understand why they should be separated under a representative system which united Tothill Fields and Grosvenor Square in the same district. But, if the hostility was so great, he should say it was the duty of the House not to perpetuate it by drawing a broad line of distinction between them.
Lord John Russellwould repeat that it was fair to do that for Greenock which had been done for Perth.
Mr. Dixoncontended, that the commercial importance of Port Glasgow rendered it highly expedient that it should be separated from Greenock, and annexed to Dumbarton.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsaid, that the revenue collected from Port Glasgow amounted to 240,000 l., and he thought it was not right to leave such an important place without a Representative.
The Committee divided on the Amendment:—Ayes 47; Noes 73—Majority 26.
On the next question, relating to the Forfar district of boroughs,
Mr. Robert A. Dundas, moved that Stonehaven be added to the Inverbervie, Montrose, and Forfar district of boroughs. Stonehaven was the only manufacturing town in the agricultural county of Kincardine, and, unless it was added to the Forfar district, Kincardine would have no voice in the manufacturing Representation.
The Lord Advocatewould resist the hon. Member's Motion, as he conceived that it was highly inexpedient that the voters in Kincardine should be exclusively agricultural, as they would be if the hon. Member's proposition was adopted.
The Committee divided on the Motion:—Ayes 42; Noes 62—Majority 20.
On the ninth district, including Renfrew, Rutherglen, Dumbarton, and Kilmarnock,
Sir Michael Shaw Stewartmoved, that Kilmarnock be added to the Ayr district of burghs, and Inverary and Campbell Town transferred from the Ayr to the Dumbarton district. The hon. Member contended, that it was unjust to the smaller burghs to overwhelm them with the larger ones, and that the effect of this measure would be, to give three Members to the county of Ayr.
Lord Althorpobserved, that it was fit that the large towns should have a larger influence in the elections. The smaller towns were entitled to a share in the Representation, and they had a share.
Mr. Dixonsaid, no difficulty would have been felt had Scotland received her proper share of Representatives.
Mr. Kennedy, being member for Ayr, had paid much attention to this subject, and was convinced that the present proposed arrangement was the best that could be devised. At present the Ayr district contained a population of 26,000, and that of Renfrew, 29,000; but, if the hon. Baronet's proposition were agreed to, the
754
Ayr district would be increased to 38,000, and the Renfrew district reduced to 17,000.
Mr. Patrick Stewartsaid, Kilmarnock was treated most unjustly in being united with the Ayr boroughs. It was a thriving and important place.
Sir George Murraythought the original plan tended to concentrate political power in one spot, and he should support the Motion.
Mr. Pringlewas of opinion, that the geographical position of Kilmarnock made it proper to unite it to Ayr. What had Campbell Town or Inverary to do with Ayr? The connexion by water, indeed, united them with Rutherglen, and, if it were meant that the present measure should be permanent, the anomaly of uniting them with Ayr ought to be clone away.
Sir George Clerksupported the Motion, for it would be nearly impossible that the inhabitants of the small boroughs united with Kilmarnock could have the slightest influence over the elections.
Lord George Bentinckalso supported the Motion, because he conceived that the interests of Kilmarnock and Ayr must be similar.
The Committee divided on the Motion:—Ayes 35; Noes 67—Majority 32.
An Amendment that "Port Glasgow be added to list No. 9, of schedule E," was agreed to. The remainder of the clauses, with some verbal amendments, agreed to. The preamble of the Bill also agreed to, and the House resumed.

CUSTOMS' DUTIES ACTS.
Mr. Poulett Thomson moved that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to consider of the Customs' Duties Acts.
Mr. Goulburnobjected to proceeding to the consideration of such an important subject at so very late an hour (past one o'clock)
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, that great inconveniences would arise from delaying the measure any longer.
House resolved itself into Committee.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, that his reason for urging the House to enter into this Committee was, his desire to lay before it the new schedule of duties which he proposed to insert in the Customs' Bill, which he was about to introduce. The schedule he was about to propose for adoption contained only one article which yielded much to the revenue; and in the present state of that revenue, it was not in the

755
power of the Government to give up much income. There was no article named in this schedule, however, on which it was not proposed to reduce the duty. The objects he had had in view in preparing it had been, first, to relieve from oppressive duties articles which largely entered into the manufactures of this country, such as dyes; secondly, to relieve from oppressive duties a number of articles consumed by the poor—medicines, drugs, and other articles of that description; which duties, in consequence of successive alterations in the Customs, had, without its being so intended, been raised to a scale extremely burthensome; and, thirdly, to classify articles which, being of a similar description, ought to be subject to the same rate of duties, but which had been hitherto classed, under separate heads, and subjected to separate duties, to the great trouble of the officers, and the inconvenience of the trade. Oils, for instance, had been divided into twenty or thirty different denominations, bearing different duties, without any good reason for such distinctions. Such articles he had collected under one, or at most under two heads, and thus he had simplified the receipt of the duties, reduced their amount, afforded great convenience to trade, and diminished the price to the consumer. He wished further to reduce the duties upon some of those articles which came from the coast of Africa, and with which it was in the power of our merchants to carry on a very beneficial trade, if they could, by any returns, receive payment from the natives. Nothing could be more desirable than the extension of a trade in which all the articles we received were paid for in the manufactures of this country, and which was to be carried on with countries that held out greater prospects of a rapid increase of commerce than civilized nations. He had reason to believe that this schedule, with some trifling exceptions, had met with general approbation. He had stated, that there was one article of more than ordinary importance introduced into it; he meant hemp, from which the duty was entirely taken off. After deducting the drawback on cordage, and making other allowances, the abolition of this duty would occasion a loss to the revenue of about 60,000 l.; and his noble friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having consented to give that sum up, he did not think it could be devoted to a better purpose than this. The
756
House had had the subject of the hemp duty before it more than once, and opportunities had occurred of exhibiting the extreme injury which many branches of the industry of this country sustained from the continuance of such a duty. It was impolitic as regarded our shipping, and unjust and contrary to all the principles on which we protected our own commerce, being a tax upon a raw material. He was aware that, in going into this Committee, a number of observations might be made upon the omissions of this schedule; he would willingly extend them further, but it must be recollected that he was limited to the sum which his noble friend thought he could give up. He would, without further remark, propose the schedule for the sanction of the Committee.
The schedule read.
Mr. Courtenayexpressed his full concurrence in the principle of the schedule; but there were a few omissions in it, to which he begged to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman; he meant omissions of articles, the reduction of the duty on which had been recommended by a Committee, of which he had the honour to he Chairman. Among these were cocoa, castor oil, and ginger; and he would still beg the right hon. Gentleman to turn his attention to them. Some of the reductions in this schedule were in respect of articles upon which protecting duties were imposed, such as oak bark, spelter, manganese, and others. He did not object to the reduction; but, perhaps, it was unnecessary; and certainly the right hon. Gentleman ought to call the attention of the Committee to them, in order that the Gentlemen interested in them might have an opportunity of considering the right hon. Gentleman's proposition. He had always been convinced of the expediency of making every possible reduction in the duties on those articles, and it was in the contemplation of the Board of Trade, when he had the honour of being connected with it, to bring forward a measure of this sort.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, it appeared that the amount of duty on these various articles was no less than 300,000 l.; and he wished to know whether the noble Lord had taken into consideration the loss occasioned to the revenue by the change, and whether he was prepared for it?
Mr. Poulett Thomson: The amount of revenue concerned was not so great as had

757
been stated by the right hon. Gentleman. There were fifty-one articles, the duty on which was less than 100 l. each; forty-eight which yielded between 100 l. and 1,000 l.; and forty-three articles above 1,000 l., and less than 5,000 l. The amount of duty on the first class was 12,000 l., on the second, 20,000 l., and on the last class, 120,000 l.; so that the whole amount of duty received on these articles was about 152,000 l.: in consequence, however, of other and smaller duties being imposed on some of the articles, the loss to the revenue would not be more than between 110,000 l. and 120,000 l. His right hon. friend had asked why some articles, the reduction of the duty on which was recommended by the West-India Committee, were not included in this schedule? It was his desire to include all these articles. Several were included, and he would state why others s were omitted. Aloes, castor oil, and cocoa, were articles of West-Indian produce; and the reduction of the duties on them would be satisfactory to Gentlemen connected with the colonies. There were three articles upon which the duty had not been altered—ginger, pimento, and colonial vinegar, although recommended by the Committee. The duty on ginger was reduced one-half some years ago, and on the average was not above five per cent. When the duty was formerly reduced, it was anticipated that great benefit would result, as it would lead to increased consumption. But since the reduction of the duty in 1825, there had been a falling off in the consumption, to the extent of one-third or one fourth; so that it was clear that a further reduction of duty would not lead to a greater consumption. It was clear that the reduction of this duty of five per cent would not affect the sale, nor be attended with any advantage to the producer. Again, there had been no reduction of the duty on pimento, and the reason was, that this article was connected with a number of others, and, if the duty was taken off one, it must be altered with reference to the others. Pimento was classed with spices, including pepper, and to reduce the duty on one it must be altered on all the articles of the class. The duty on pepper was now about 1s., while the price was only 2d. or 3d. He admitted that it was desirable to make reductions on these articles, but circumstances prevented them from doing so with regard to
758
all of them. With respect to vinegar manufactured in, or imported from, the colonies, it must be recollected that there was a heavy Excise duty on vinegar manufactured in this country; it might, however, hereafter be a question whether the Customs duty might not be reduced; but, from the best information that he had been able to obtain, he was led to believe that the importation to this country would not be materially increased, even if the Customs duty on colonial vinegar were assimilated to the Excise duty paid on the article manufactured at home. He had stated the reasons which had induced the Government to exclude these articles from the present measure. His right hon. friend said, that there were some articles on which the duty had been unnecessarily reduced. He differed from his right hon. friend on that point; and did not hesitate to say, that there was not a reduction proposed which could not be justified. In the first place, as to the duty on spelter, that had lately become an article of considerable importance in connexion with our manufactures; and, in consequence of the mode of rolling it, was now applied to a variety of useful purposes. As to oak bark, the duties on other barks had been altered, but there had been no change with respect to that article, for at present it paid no duty. The reductions that had taken place had been chiefly in barks used for dyeing or medicinal purposes. The duty on barks used by dyers and tanners was to be 8d. per cwt., while that on medicinal barks was to be 1d. per lb.; at the same time, the extract of bark imported from the colonies was to pay a duty of 1d. per cwt., instead of 3s. as formerly. As to the duty on manganese, that article, like spelter, was of very considerable importance in our manufactures. The consumption of it in the process of bleaching was very considerable. As to the reduction of the duty on hides, the whole amount of that would not exceed 20,000 l.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonapproved of the reductions, but there were articles omitted which he certainly expected would have been inserted, in consequence of the representations that had been made by merchants and persons engaged in trade, and the hopes that had been held out to them. He alluded particularly to currants, upon which there was a duty levied of fifty per cent. The price of currants in

759
the island of Zante was 8s. per cwt., but the duty charged was 44 s. per cwt. The quantity of currants imported was about 7,000 tons; and of that quantity, 2,000 tons had sometimes remained in the hands of the importers, in consequence of their not being able to sell them, from the high price, and they had been glad to export them for the sake of the drawback. If the duty were lowered, the consumption would be considerably increased. And he could not understand why this article should be taxed at such an enormous rate, when raisins, which was a foreign article, paid a duty of only 21 s. per cwt. They were brought entirely from foreign countries, with the exception of a very small quantity from the Cape of Good Hope; but currants were all brought from the Ionian Islands. It was most inexpedient that such a heavy duty should be placed upon currants, as they were much consumed by the poorer classes, and, if the price were reduced, the consumption would greatly increase. He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman had reduced the duties on spelter, manganese, cobalt, and other metals, and as far as he could judge at present, the reduction of duties seemed judicious.
Mr. Bargeregretted that his Majesty's Government had not found it convenient to reduce the duties on pimento and ginger. It perhaps was not generally known, that the larger portion of the latter article brought to market, was the produce of persons of colour and emancipated slaves; and when such exertions were made to prepare the slaves for emancipation, it would be well to give as much encouragement as possible to the production of articles chiefly cultivated by the free population of the colonies. The right hon. Gentleman was, doubtless, aware that there was a discriminating duty on the importation of copper ore, not being the produce of any of our possessions in the East Indies. Recently, however, there had been discovered in the eastern part of the island of Jamaica, some valuable copper mines, and as hopes were entertained of working them with the greatest success, he saw no reason why the produce of the territories of the East-India Company should be placed on a better footing than that of our West-India colonies. He trusted, now the circumstance was known, that his Majesty's Government would equalize the duties.
Mr. Goulburnthought that the duties on both pimento and ginger should be reduced considerably, and more especially as the class of persons who were chiefly engaged in the cultivation of these articles, were the emancipated population. He should also have been extremely glad if a reduction could have been made in the duty on colonial vinegar.
Mr. Warburtonfelt much gratified at the reductions proposed; and would avail himself of that opportunity of suggesting to his right hon. friend the expediency of some new arrangements in the schedule, as things were classified under one head which had no connexion with one another. For instance, under the head "gums," there was gum Arabic, or Senegal; and then gum Benjamin, which was not a gum. He should have been glad if his right hon. friend had proposed a reduction of the duty on cinnamon. We were keeping up the old and abominable system of Dutch monopoly in the isle of Ceylon with respect to this article, and he was in hopes that something would have been done to put an end to it.
Lord Sandontrusted, that the reductions would be extended to other articles. On some articles there was a difference of duty without any assignable reason; for instance, three times as much was paid on the teeth of the sea-horse as on those of the elephant. Again, there were some articles upon which it was quite unnecessary to make a reduction. Chicory, for example, which was used to adulterate coffee—it would have been much better if the right hon. Gentleman had been able to reduce the duty on coffee. Again, there was a difference in the duties on some articles brought from the East and West Indies, in favour of the former; and he could not imagine why that should continue. There was one point which he thought a matter of serious consideration—the importation of goods in British or foreign ships; and they ought, in regulating the duties, to give an advantage to the former. He would also press upon the attention of the House, the propriety of extending the privileges of the out-ports; and he did not see why the system of warehousing should not be carried to the same extent in the out-ports as in the metropolis.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, the reason why the duty on currants had not been reduced was, the amount which it yielded to the

761
revenue, and the doubts which existed whether the consumption would increase from the reduction of the duty. The hon. and learned Gentleman alluded to copper ore being found in Jamaica; he was not before aware of the existence of copper mines in that colony, and did not see any necessity for preserving the distinction. With respect to gum Senegal, he would merely observe, that it was brought from a French colony on the coast of Africa, and formerly was obtained only in a most inconvenient mode; being shipped from the colony to France, and afterwards sent to some Trans-atlantic possession, to be shipped to England. He must do France the justice to say, that she was the first to do away with this absurdity, and to allow gum Senegal to come direct to England. With respect to cinnamon, to which his hon. friend referred, that article was so mixed up with the system of government in the island of Ceylon, that he should abstain from going into the question. There was only one other article to which it was necessary to refer—which was tincal, or borax; essential in our china manufactures. Many lives had been annually sacrificed by the use of white-lead in this manufacture, but the necessity of using white-lead had been obviated to a great extent by the use of boracic acid, and by the introduction of cobalt.
Resolutions agreed to. House resumed.

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of the Duke of BUCCLEUGH, of the Number of Writs of Subpœna issued during the last ten years by the Court of Exchequer (Scotland), &c.
Bills. Read a third time:—Army Prize Money; Regent's park Act Amendment.—Read a second time:—King's County Assizes.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of WICKLOW, from Tullamore and Frankford, in favour of the King's County Assizes Bill.—By the Earl of MINTO, from the Royal College of Surgeons, Edinburgh, in favour of the Anatomy Bill.—By the Earl of FINGALL, from Garrocloyne;—by the Earl of RADNOR, from three Places in Ireland; and by Lord KING, from White Church, and other Places,—for the Abolition of Tithes.—By Lord KING, from the Northern Political Union, for a better Appropriation of the Revenues of the Bishoprick of Durham; and from the Rate-payers of Cheshire, against certain Grievances existing in that country.—By the Duke of DEVONSHIRE, from Dungarvon, for continuing the Franchise to the 5l. Householders—By the Marquess of CLANRICARDE, from Parishes in Dublin and Westminster, in favour of the Ministerial Plan of Education (Ireland).—By the Earl of RODEN, from ten Places, and seven Orange Lodges, against that Plan; and from Oxford, for a Revision of the Criminal Code.

POLITICAL UNIONS.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, that seeing the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government in his place, he would take the liberty of trespassing for a few moments on the House, while he asked that noble Earl a question relative to a meeting, which had been lately held, of a Political Union at the town of Sunderland, in the north of England. In the first place, he repeated the expression of the deep regret with which he heard the noble Earl, at the conclusion of which a speech he made when the subject of Political Unions was before the House, declare that it was not his intention to interfere with those bodies, conceiving that the good sense of the people of England would put an end to them after the Reform Bill was passed, and the excitement which had called them into action had subsided. He was sorry that the noble Earl had made any such declaration, and he was sure that if he had narrowly followed the conduct of those political bodies, since the Reform Bill was passed into a law, he would find good grounds for changing his opinion; and he was convinced if, in particular, he looked at the nature of the language held at the meeting to which he was about to refer, the noble

729
Earl would feel the responsible situation in which he was placed, and see the necessity of reconsidering his determination. At that meeting various speeches were made, all of a violent nature; but the Mr. Larkins who spoke on the former occasion, and who was described to him as a friend of Dr. Headlam, delivered a speech more inflammatory than the rest. He would not occupy the House by reading extracts at any length from those speeches, but merely state one or two passages from that of Mr. Larkins. In one place that person said "that Earl Grey was but a weak instrument in the hands of the people, and without the Political Unions he would be nothing." But the thing did not rest there; for the Political Unions, not content with their meetings and inflammatory harangues, circulated cheap publications, and he held in his hand a copy of one which was circulated, according to the account of a very respectable informant, to a not less extent than 150,000. It was entitled "The People's Charter, with an introduction relative to the King's conduct." The first part was so libellous that he would not waste the time of their Lordships in repeating it; but, what he wanted to point out was, that the latter part was neither more nor less than a copy of instructions to the people of England with respect to their conduct at the approaching general elections. He was sure that one of the consequences of these Political Unions would be, that whenever an election did take place, or in whatever part of the country, it would be ruled at their dictation. The publication he referred to had this passage. The people must remember that the battle of freedom is but begun; and that its next, its grand, its sacred objects, are—a free Press, Universal Suffrage, Vote by Ballot, and Annual Parliaments. They must remember that the best means of obtaining these is to enrol themselves in Political Unions, to call incessant public meetings, and widely diffuse such works as the present. They must remember, that if they exact not pledges in favour of these four great objects, from parliamentary candidates, then slavery is sanctioned by their own consent. They must remember that, to refuse to pay taxes is the best mode of hastening every opposed Reform; and, on the contrary, that to pay these is to purchase a precisely corresponding duration of oppression. The time will soon arrive when they will
730
have an opportunity of following the excellent advice of Sir James Mackintosh, "to tolerate nothing ancient that reason does not sanction, and to shrink from no novelty to which reason may conduct."' Even the favoured town of Gateshead had a Political Union, which had already gone the length of starting a candidate, and that Union called on the people to vote for no man who was not pledged to dissolve what they called the sacrilegious union between Church and State—to do away with septennial Parliaments—to abolish the Corn laws, and to act as a delegate for the people. Now, he submitted those things to the calm consideration of the noble Earl, and he appealed to his good sense and experience to determine whether, in the event of a general election, the country would not be so convulsed under this dictation as to render the idea of a free election of Representatives utterly impossible. When he reflected on this subject he naturally turned to the almost parallel case of 1799, and he found that at that period Mr. Pitt was seriously impressed with the necessity of putting an end to the similar societies which existed at that period. Mr. Pitt's propositions were these:—'I therefore submit, that whoever shall continue to be a member of such Societies, after a certain day to be named, shall have a small fine inflicted on him upon conviction before a Magistrate. There must, however, be degrees of guilt in the cases of individuals; I therefore wish to give an option with respect to the recovery of the penalty, or to proceed against the offender in a Court of Record, leaving it to the discretion of the Court to punish him by fine, imprisonment, or by transportation.'*** But as it is impossible to guard against all the various shapes and forms which treason may assume, it will be necessary to define those Societies, the members of which are to be subjected to the proceedings now proposed to be instituted against them. I will therefore observe, that their peculiar characteristics are contrary to every engagement prescribed by the Constitution, by morality and religion.'*** 'But, this is not sufficient; and it will be found requisite to accompany this measure by provisions against the owners of public and private houses who shall harbour such Societies.'***'The second object will be, to prevent the existence of other Societies

731
which are evidently calculated to corrupt the morals and vitiate the understanding of the community,—I mean Debating Societies, in which questions are agitated little suited to the capacity of the audience, and which operate to loosen the foundations of morality, religion, and social happiness. In a former Session measures were adopted to prevent the delivery of political lectures, but attempts have been made to elude them by delivering historical lectures, which by misrepresentation, and the force of erroneous inference, are rendered equally dangerous. With this view of the subject, I trust there can be no objection to extend the proposed provisions to all societies where money is taken for admission; and that none shall be held unless licensed by a Magistrate, and liable to his inspection.'* Mr. Pitt then moved for leave to bring in a bill to suppress Societies established for seditious and treasonable purposes. He really thought that some law like this might safely be enacted at present, or that, at any rate, effectual measures should be taken to suppress the Unions; and his object in rising was, to ask the noble Earl, whether he meant to put the common law in force against those Societies, and whether, in case the common law was not sufficient, he should be prepared to adopt some more efficacious means of putting an end to Political Unions?
Earl Greysaid, that he was afraid that what he had to offer in reply to the noble Marquess would not be satisfactory to him, as the noble Lord had commenced his observations with expressing his dissatisfaction with the remarks which he (Earl Grey) made, on a late occasion, with reference to the bodies called Political Unions. If he remembered correctly what had then fallen from him, he allowed that these Societies, were inconsistent with the well-being and good government of the country in ordinary times, but he had stated, that as they were called into existence by the particular circumstances of the day, and were but the creatures of its excitement, he thought it more prudent not to act with hasty severity against them, and that it was more wise to wait for the good sense of the people of England to put them down, than to have recourse to new laws, which might not be in exact accordance with the principles of the
Hansard's Parl. Hist. vol. xxxiv. p. 986–7.
732
British Constitution, and which experience had shown were not always competent to accomplish the objects for which they were intended. The noble Marquess had referred to a speech of Mr. Pitt's, but even there he would see that the example of that great statesman would not be in his favour. He would find that few of the laws which Mr. Pitt proposed to enact in that speech were ever carried into effect, and he would also find, that but little good resulted from those that had been carried into operation. He hoped it was not necessary for him to disclaim any participation in the sentiments which the noble Marquess had quoted on this and on a former occasion. In the instance referred to he had expressed not only his dislike, but his abhorrence and disgust at such language and opinions, and he still felt as strongly as ever on the subject. But with regard to the meeting at Gateshead, to which the noble Marquess now referred, he had seen no account of the proceedings, and he had as little to do with the speech of Mr. Larkins as he had with that person's violent speech at Newcastle. When the noble Marquess said that he (Earl Grey) was a friend of Dr. Headlam, the House should know that Dr. Headlam was not a gentleman to countenance such language, as there was no more respectable or loyal character in society, and it was not fair to hold him responsible for sentiments which were foreign to his nature. With regard to the speeches of Mr. Larkins, he (Earl Grey) had no reason to mitigate the censure which he passed on them on a former occasion, and the very passage which the noble Marquess had read showed in what manner that person proposed to deal with him. He repeated, that no one could have heard such language without disgust, and he thought it was rather too much to hold Dr. Headlam, as chairman of a meeting, or the meeting itself, which was composed of most respectable persons, and where much good was effected, responsible for the words of such a person as Mr. Larkins. It was an unfair rule to make any number of persons responsible for what an individual amongst them might say, and even their Lordships generally would be sorry to be held accountable for the language or sentiments of every noble Member of the House. With respect to the Political Unions, he could only repeat, that he looked to the good sense of the people to put an end to

733
them. If they transgressed the law, he hoped the law as it now stood would be sufficient to correct them. In answer to the question of the noble Marquess, asking whether he had not an intention of applying for a new law, he had only to reply, that he had not. He had no such intention, nor had he any instructions from his Majesty's Government to propose it.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER (SCOTLAND).
On the question that the Order of the Day be read for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Exchequer Court (Scotland) Bill,
The Duke of Buccleughrose to remind their Lordships, that he had on a former occasion urged several objections to this measure, which he would not then repeat. He must, however, further object to the Bill, that there was no right of appeal given by the Bill from the decisions of the new Judge, which might be attended with a great deal of inconvenience. He could not help also adverting to the hurry with which the Bill was urged forward; as to which there were rumours out of doors which he would not mention. The evidence taken before the House of Commons did not at all bear out the arguments in favour of the Bill. He required, therefore, further evidence before he could give it his support. He was of opinion that the evidence already taken did not support the allegations in its preamble. He should, therefore, move as an amendment, that this Bill, instead of being committed, should be referred to a Select Committee, to inquire into the duties of the Court of Exchequer, to consider how far its duties could be performed by the Judges of the other Courts, and to report their opinions thereupon to the House.
The Earl of Camperdownthought, that the thanks of the country were due to his noble and learned friend on the Woolsack for bringing in this Bill, The Bill was not founded on economy merely, although that was not without importance, but was founded mainly on principle. It was of the last importance to preserve the respectability of our Courts of Justice, and nothing could be more incompatible with that object than the having sinecure Courts of Justice. This measure had not been adopted without adequate inquiry, for it had undergone considerable investigation and discussion both in this and the other House of Parliament, and the principle on which it
734
proceeded had been fully acted on during the Administration of the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington), when the Court of Admiralty and Commissary Court had been abolished as separate tribunals, and when two Judges had been taken from the Court of Session, and two Barons from this very Court, without any previous investigation; but still he thought that measure a very proper one. There was no precipitation in carrying forward this Bill, and the evidence taken before the Committee of the House of Commons, of which the Report was before their Lordships, was amply sufficient to justify it. A Judge of the Court of Session, from his legal habits, must be fully competent to do the duties of this Court; and he would have ample time, for the Judges of that Court had seven months' vacation. He might refer to the noble Duke (the Duke of Buccleugh), and the noble Earl (the Earl of Haddington) opposite, whether it was not a matter of notoriety in Scotland, that the business of this Court was merely nominal.
The Earl of Haddingtonhad often heard it said in Scotland, that the business of the Court was merely nominal, and he had heard this as often denied. His own opinion was, that there was but little business; but that what business there was, required considerable legal knowledge and attention to do it well. This Bill had, indeed, passed this House last year without inquiry, but that was no reason why it should now pass without inquiry. No practical lawyer of the Scotch Court of Exchequer, nor any Judge of the Court of Session, had been examined, and the opinion of Sir Samuel Shepherd, the late Chief Baron, was adverse to the supposition that a Judge of the Court of Session was competent to do the business of the Court of Exchequer, and he had an experience of eleven years as Chief Baron, while the present Chief Baron had only had an experience of two years. Then, it was one of the Articles of Union that Scotland should have a Court of Exchequer, and, therefore, this Bill was an infringement of these Articles, which the measure of the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) was not, for it only regulated the Court, which was consistent with those Articles. The meaning was, that the Scotch should have the jurisdiction in their own country.
The Earl of Roseberryreminded noble Lords that this was not merely a measure

735
of economy, but a measure of principle. As to the infringement of the Articles of Union, the measure of the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) had infringed them, by abolishing the Admiralty Court as a separate tribunal. It could not be supposed that a Judge of the Court of Session was not perfectly competent to do the duties of this Court, considering the legal habits which he must have acquired; and, in point of fact, these revenue cases were often perfectly well managed by the Justices, Commissioners of Supply, and the Excise Courts. It was too late in the Session now to refer the Bill to a Committee up-stairs, and it was totally unnecessary.
The Duke of Wellingtonadmitted, that the inquiry, so far as it had gone, was in favour of the abolition of the Court; but it certainly was not to be forgotten that the late Chief Baron (Sir Samuel Shepherd) had maintained that the Court ought to be preserved. He was aware that the present Chief Baron held a contrary opinion; but then he presumed that the House would bear in mind, that the latter had had only two years experience, while the former enjoyed the advantage of eleven; he, therefore, considered the opinion of Sir Samuel Shepherd to be the more valuable of the two. Both, he was sure, were given with perfect sincerity, neither party having an interest one way or the other. He denied that there was any principle in the Bill, and his opinion decidedly was, that the Crown should not be deprived of the right of having its trials, whenever necessary, before its Court of Exchequer in Scotland because the Lord Chief Baron wished to retire on a pension. But whatever individual opinions noble Lords might entertain upon the subject, one thing at least was certain, that there ought to be a full, fair, and minute inquiry before the Court was abolished.
The Lord Chancellorwould offer one or two remarks as to what had fallen from the noble Duke who had just sat down. He begged to state, that there was nothing peculiar in the Bill, as regarded the discretion of the members of the Court. I was only following up the principle of the noble Duke's own measure—that by which he had reduced the Barons of the Exchequer to two, which was salutary as far as it went. The principle of the Bill was, that the Court should be abolished, because it was wholly unnecessary for the
736
discharge of the functions hitherto intrusted to it. The question then was, how this Court was to be put an end to, not only on the ground of its being expensive, but because also, that nothing could be more indecorous than having a Court of Judicature with sinecure Judges, having large salaries, without even the semblance of business. In order to effect the object in view, this Bill enacted that the Judges of the Exchequer Court, as they died off or resigned, should not be replaced by others; and it further made provision for a Court competent to do any business which might hereafter arise. It was, he conceived, far better to settle the matter by legislation, than leave it to the chance of a time arising when there should be none of that importunity, on the score of faithful services, to which every Government was subjected by its adherents. It had been observed that this Bill must await the pleasure of the Lord Chief Baron, for that it could not come into operation until he chose to retire. Now, if the Chief Baron should think proper to resign, upon the passing of this Bill, he (Lord Brougham) would look upon it as a strong proof of the irksomeness of the situation in which he found himself placed; for few things could be more irksome than receiving a large sum as a Judge, having no judicial business to transact. It certainly was not an enviable situation to be placed in—at least, speaking for himself, he should not think it so. With respect to the opinion of Sir Samuel Shepherd, he was not inclined to attach a great deal of weight to it, for he remembered that he had formerly given a strong opinion against reducing the number of the Barons of the Exchequer at all; and this at a time when the number of cases in the Exchequer was so small, that they amounted in one year only to seven, and in the following year to three, making an average of five cases in the year. Now, there were five Barons of the Exchequer, with an average of five undefended cases a-year, or one to each, and yet Sir Samuel Shepherd thought it impossible that the number could be reduced. It was then in contemplation to reduce the number by one only; but even that one he could not spare. Now, when it was proposed to abolish the Court, on the ground of its having no business to transact, only two cases having come before it in the last year, the learned Judge thinks that there should still be retained two Judges, thus

737
keeping up his former average of a Judge to each cause. As to the allegation that the Bill was hurried through Parliament, he had only to observe, that nearly a year had elapsed since it was first introduced, when it was discussed in that House, and afterwards more fully discussed in the House of Commons. Not being then passed into a law, a Committee had been appointed to inquire into the subject, and before that Committee it had been proved, that the little business formerly before the Court had been of late gradually becoming less. He was satisfied that the measure was most expedient.
The question was then put, and the Amendment negatived without a division; after which, the Bill went through a Committee, and was reported without Amendment.