Sitting of 9 March 1832

MINUTES.
Bills committed. Dublin Coal Trade; Tobacco (Ireland). Read a third time; Remedies against the Hundred. Read a second time; Civil Courts Bill; (Ireland.)
Returns ordered. On the Motion of Colonel PERCEVAL, of all Fees and Monies paid into the Office of the Clerk of the Crown and Hamper in Ireland, on Magistrates Commissions, and Renewed Commissions, and Writs of dedimus, from 1st January, to 10th March, 1832:—On the Motion of Mr. BURGE, Copies of a Circular Despatch addressed by Viscount GODERICH to the Governors of West-Indian Colonies on the 3rd of June, 1831, and of a Proclamation inclosed therein, to be issued
32
by the Governors in the event of any Excitement or false Impressions being observed amongst the Slaves; and also, Copies of any Correspondence which passed therein between Viscount GODERICH, and the Governor of Jamaica, and Dispatches from the Governor of Jamaica to Viscount GODERICH, conveying Information to the latest period of the recent Rebellion among the Slaves of that Colony, and of any Proclamation issued by the Governor in consequence of that Rebellion.
Petitions presented. By Mr. CALLAGHAN, from the Inhabitants of Whitchurch, against Clergymen and Road Jobbers being in the Commission of the Peace:—By Mr. HEYWOOD, from Operative Manufacturers of Manchester and Heaton; by Lord MORPETH, from the Owners and Occupiers of Woollen Silk and Flax Mills in the Neighbourhood of Leeds, against the Factories Bill:—By Lord MORPETH, from the Inhabitants of Wakefield. By Mr. LENNARD, from the Inhabitants of Chelmsford; and by Mr. LITTLETON, from the Members of the Wolverhampton Political Council, in favour of the Bill:—By Lord MORPETH, from Saddleworth, to enforce British claims on the Government of Brazil. By Lord GEORGE LENNOX, from Agriculturists for the Hundreds of Box, Stockbridge, and Manhood, Sussex, in favour of the Remedies against the Hundred Bill:—By Mr. CHAPMAN, from Landowners and Occupiers of the County of Westmeath, for the Speedy passage of the Reform Bill: and from the Parish of Demifoze, Westmeath, against Tithes:—By Sir M. S. STEWART, from Sir J. Maxwell, of Pollock, that Peers might be created, for Insuring the success of the Reform Bill, and calling upon the House to Address the King, in order that the Royal Prerogative might be exercised for the purpose:—By Mr. LITTLETON, from the Chief Constable, Clergy, Dissenting Ministers, Churchwardens, and principal Inhabitants of Burslem, for the Repeal of so much of the Sale of Beer Act, as permits Beer to be drunk on the premises.

TAXES ON KNOWLEDGE.
Lord Morpethpresented a Petition from certain Letter-press Printers of Stamford, against the Stamp-duty on Advertisements and Newspapers. He did not agree with one part of the petition which went to regulate apprentices, but as far as removing the taxes on newspapers and advertisements went, the petitioners should find him a zealous advocate of their cause. He felt himself bound, in the present state of the country, to promote any object that would give industry its fair reward.
Mr. Trevorsaid, that, in the present licentious state of the public Press, he should be sorry to see the duty on newspapers and advertisements reduced: be thought it a very unobjectionable tax, and those who entered upon the speculation of a newspaper knew that it would be subject to that burthen. At the same time, he begged to declare, that he was not an enemy to the liberty of the Press.
Lord Morpeth, on moving that the petition should be printed, begged to say, in reply to the hon. Member, that in addition to the benefit to be derived by editors and advertisers from a reduction of the newspaper duties very great public advantages would arise from the facilities that would be thereby afforded for the

33
greater and more extensive diffusion of knowledge.
The Petition to be printed.

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.
Mr. Wilkspresented Petitions from Benefit Clubs at Limehouse, and Newport Hants, for an amendment of the Act 10th George 4th, relating to Friendly Societies.
Mr. Evelyn Denisoncalled upon the House to beware how it re-opened the question relating to Benefit Societies.
Mr. Crokerperfectly agreed with his hon. friend in thinking that it would be a dangerous experiment to legislate further on this subject.
Mr. Wilkswas glad of an opportunity of stating the circumstances which induced the petitioners to apply to the House for a remedy. They felt aggrieved by the 40th section of the Act, which required such Societies to be enrolled while it allowed a very short time for that purpose. The only object of the Bill which he wished to introduce, was to extend the time for such enrolment. There were upwards of 5,000 of these Societies which the law required to be enrolled prior to the 19th of June, this process made a considerable in road into their funds, for the expenses amounted to 25 l., and, he believed, that if the Act which authorized this was not amended, many of those excellent Societies would be broken up rather than submit to this expense; but if further time was allowed they might ultimately conform to the law. He wished, therefore, that the time should be extended. He had no wish to make rash experiments, but he did think these persons deserved protection and encouragement.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonwas fully aware that the Act, to which the hon. Member alluded, had excited much dissatisfaction in several manufacturing districts, and he also knew that many Benefit Societies had been broken up, or were on the point of breaking up, partly from the circumstances stated by the hon. Member, and partly from an apprehension that other regulations might be hereafter proposed, which would prove equally prejudicial to their interests. These institutions were of great importance. In many cases they preserved their members when suffering under sickness or want of employment from being compelled to have recourse to their parishes. They were, therefore, entitled to the kind consideration of the House.
Petitions to be printed.

SURRY ROADS.
Mr. Huntpresented a Petition from Christchurch, Surrey, complaining of the number of Turnpikes in that parish, and praying that these Roads might be put upon the same footing as those north of the metropolis.
Mr. Alderman Woodsaid, that, to his knowledge the turnpike-gates were multiplied in such a manner as to be a very great hinderance to travelling through that part of the town; but he did not know how the roads were to be kept in repair unless tolls were taken upon them.
Mr. Crokerrecommended the hon. Alderman, when he said that he did not know how the roads were to be kept in repair if turnpike-gates were removed, to look at what had been done at the other side of the metropolis by the consolidation of the northern trusts, a plan which was accomplished by his noble friend (Lord Lowther), and which had proved so economical as to enable the Commissioners to remove a great many of the turnpike-gates, and pay off a considerable portion of the debt fixed on the roads. He was satisfied by that example, that the roads about the metropolis, might be kept in repair at a much less cost than by separate trusts, each of which had an establishment, whereas one might do the whole business if they were connected together. He, therefore, ventured to suggest, particularly to the hon. members for Surrey, whether they did not think the plan he had spoken of could be extended to that part of the town connected with their county.
Mr. Hunt, in moving that the petition should be printed, would merely observe, that he hoped the subject would attract the attention of Ministers; but he must, at the same time, say, that the consolidation of the northern roads in one trust had not hitherto worked well, for the roads, particularly Pentonville Hill, had been, until recently, nearly impassable under their management.
Petition to be printed.

WEST-INDIA COLONIES.
Lord Althorphaving moved the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Reform Bill,
The Marquis of Chandosrose to ask his Majesty's Government whether any despatches had been received from the West Indies, and whether their contents

35
were calculated to allay the extreme anxiety created by the intelligence received through other channels with regard to the Islands of Jamaica, Antigua and St. Lucia?
Lord Howicksaid, that despatches had been received that morning at the Colonial Office. The intelligence from Jamaica was on the whole satisfactory, and they certainly led to the conclusion that the insurrection was virtually suppressed. Almost all the ringleaders were brought in, and most of them had suffered for their crimes. The despatch of Lord Belmore, indeed, expressed an opinion that no further resistance from the negroes was to be apprehended. He must, however, state, with deep regret, that the accounts showed that a most frightful destruction of property had taken place, and, it was to be feared, a very great loss of life. With respect to the other parts of the West Indies to which the noble Marquis had alluded, he was not aware there was any thing in the state of those colonies of a nature to excite the slightest uneasiness.
The Marquis of Chandossaid, that, he had received intelligence from Antigua, by a letter which was dated the 30th of Jan. 1832, which described the Island of St. Lucia as being in a state to which he could not understand how it was possible that the noble Lord's observations could apply. With the permission of the House he would read a part of one of his letters upon the subject. The writer stated, that—
"On the receipt of the Order in Council, and the directions that they must be complied with without delay, the merchants of St. Lucia shut up their stores. In consequence of this, the commanding officer in that Island ordered the merchants to open their stores, and, in case of refusal, be threatened to order the military to force their doors, and compel them to do so. That duplicates of the Orders in Council were laid before a special meeting of the Legislature of the Island. The meeting was held with closed doors, and it was determined to send to England to remonstrate, when they were informed by the Governor that despatches had been received from the Colonial Office, stating that the Government would not permit any modification or alteration of the Orders to be made, but that the Orders, the whole Orders, and nothing but the Orders, should be either agreed to or not, and that if they were rejected by the colonial Legislature, fiscal penalties would be resorted to."
He wished to know from the noble Lord, whether this statement was correct or not?
Lord Howicksaid, that the statement in the letter was virtually correct. In the month of December last Viscount Goderich did send out a circular to the Governors of all such colonies as possessed local Legislatures, announcing that certain fiscal measures were to be adopted for the relief of the West Indies, but in favour of those colonies only which adopted the measures that had been so many years recommended to them by the Government respecting the treatment of slaves. To prevent all cavil and dispute as to what was to be considered a compliance with the wishes of the Government and the country, it was intimated that a declaratory act, giving force to the Orders in Council within the colony, would be the only course that could be so considered. If that were the proper time he was fully prepared triumphantly to vindicate the conduct of the Government upon this transaction. There was no one in the Government who would shrink from that task when the proper time came. In the course they had taken, indeed, they had only followed the advice and opinions of those most alive to the state of West-India affairs, from a local knowledge of what that state was. He need not recal to the House how the Government had been urged to adopt measures to enforce their previous resolutions, and how, at the close of last Session, Gentlemen got up and expressed in the strongest terms their censure of the Government for allowing that irritating state of things to continue, which, for the last eight years, had been constantly exciting the country. He had no notion that this subject would have been brought on, or he should have come down prepared with extracts from the speeches made at the time by hon. Gentlemen connected with those Islands. On the 13th of December, 1831, the hon. member for Sandwich himself stated that it was the duty of the Government to take some measures upon the subject. He felt, however, that it would be improper to go into the discussion at the present time, and although he was aware of the extreme inconvenience of allowing attacks to be made without answer, on the policy of the Government towards the colonies, he would abstain from the discussion. The noble Marquis had alluded to the reports respecting the officer in command at St. Lucia having threatened the merchants of that Island that if they did not open their stores they should be compelled. After

37
the exaggerated statements that had appeared in the newspapers respecting what had occurred at St. Lucia, he thought the House would allow him to state very shortly what the facts were. On the 30th of December Colonel Bousfield, the officer in command, having received his Majesty's Orders in Council of the 2nd of December, gave notice that they would come into operation on the 18th of January. This notice caused great excitement, and produced a very violent remonstrance from the planters; a deputation of them waited on the Governor, and a negotiation was opened, their object being to obtain a withdrawal, a suspension, or a modification of the Orders in Council, in order to allow them time to remonstrate with the Government at home, this was very properly declined by the Governor, who replied, as was the fact, that he had no discretionary power to suspend the Order. When this attempt had failed, on the evening of Saturday the 14th of January the Governor was informed that none of the shops and stores of the merchants would be opened on the following Monday, various other alarming rumours were also put into circulation. The pretence under which the merchants resolved to shut up the stores was, that a new and oppressive tax had been laid upon them. Now, the very persons who protested against that tax, had themselves admitted that it was necessary, and although it had been asserted that the expenditure had been unnecessarily increased, it had, in fact, been diminished by some thousand pounds annually, since the year 1827, when the reductions were commenced under the Administration of Lord Goderich. The fact was, as was evident by the documents laid on the Table of the House, that since that time the expenditure of the colony had been reduced by the late Government from 19,250 l. to 12,500 l., which he thought the House would see was as small a sum as the Government establishment could well be maintained for. When the Governor first heard of the intention to close the shops, he also heard that it was the intention of the people to refuse to pay the tax on shops, though the taxes for 1832 had been agreed to on the 14th of December, and the authority for the imposition of the tax on shops was signed by three of the leading men of the Island, who afterwards advised resistance to the order which they themselves had previously
38
approved of. From that day, the 14th of January, a combination was entered into by the merchants and storekeepers, not to sell to the Government, and in consequence the Governor was obliged to send for stores to the Island of Martinique. But the principal persons concerned in the combination at St. Lucia, endeavoured to disappoint him, by calling on their friends in the other Island, by letters, to co-operate with them in embarrassing the Government. The Governor having intimation of this proceeding, laid an embargo upon the vessel which was to have conveyed the letters to Martinique. But the Captain attempted to evade the embargo, by carrying the letters in an open boat to an American ship which lay in the offing. He was intercepted, and the letters found upon him were brought to the Governor, who thought it necessary for the peace of the Island to open them. Now, to show to the House the length to which the Gentlemen opposed to the Government in St. Lucia were prepared to go, he (Lord Howick) would read some of those letters. In one, addressed to the House of Ferguson and Co., of Martinique, the writer says:—
"Among other measures of passive resistance which we have adopted here, we have not opened our stores since the 14th; and the shopkeepers have followed our example. We have done this with a view to resist the payment of a tax—"
Mr. Crokerrose to order. He had been one of those who thought it would have been well to obtain from the Government some answer upon this important subject calculated to quiet the public mind. But he was sure that they were not then doing right in listening to a statement calculated to prejudice an individual who might hereafter be charged with a very serious offence. He thought the noble Lord was prejudicing the case against any persons who might be considered to be implicated.
Lord Howicksaid, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman was right. The statements he was entering into were hardly proper, and he therefore would confine his remarks to the information which had been received by Government. There had not been any disturbances of the nature supposed by the noble Marquis in St. Lucia, and he would therefore content himself with stating, that the shops and stores had since been opened; and that when the

39
Admiral came from Martinique to St. Lucia with two vessels, he found the island quiet, and he consequently returned without landing. When the proper occasion arrived, he should be prepared to justify the Order in Council, and the measures which had been taken in consequence of it.
Mr. Marryattwould not follow the noble Lord through the statement he had just made, not being prepared for the discussion; but the account he had received of the transactions at St. Lucia, differed very much from the ex parte statement of the noble Lord. The parties accused were willing and anxious to meet every investigation; and he trusted the noble Lord would lay the papers relating to this transaction upon the Table, when the House would be better able to judge of the merits of the case. He was certain that on no occasion he had ever expressed any sentiments which could be construed into approval of the measures of Government in sending out the Order in Council. On the contrary, he had, in his communications with the Colonial Office, strongly protested against this measure, and those representations were always received with courtesy, and in some instances complied with. The expression alluded to, referred to the proceedings of the Anti-Slavery Society, which he then contended were calculated to do infinite mischief, and the question which he wished to see settled, referred, not to slavery itself, but to the angry controversies between the contending parties.
Mr. Burgewas quite sure the House must have felt that the noble Lord was taking a most objectionable course, even if the right hon. Gentleman had not pointed it out. The noble Lord was founding an ex parte statement upon materials derived from a very questionable source. The noble Lord had his information from the Governor of St. Lucia; but did not the noble Lord know that the people of that island had complained of the conduct of the Governor? The evidence of that gentleman ought therefore to be received with caution. Something had been said of the conduct of the present Government being approved of by the West-India proprietors. He defied any person to point out a single instance in which a person authorised by the colonies had given his sanction to those fatal proceedings. What had been the conduct of the Government?
40
Many of the colonies possessed legislative assemblies, which were by right and in law free; and yet what had the Government done? Why, sent out certain Orders in Council, which authorized the Governors of the colonies to insist upon the legislative assemblies passing a declaratory act making those Orders in Council, law; and that step the Government demanded should be taken, without any alteration whatever having been made even in the words of the Orders in Council. Did the noble Lord imagine—
Lord Althorprose to order. It appeared to him, that the hon. and learned Gentleman was going into a discussion of the Orders in Council, and that was a course beyond the present question. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly right in calling his noble friend to order, but upon the same principle the hon. and learned Gentleman was departing from the line of order. He was sure the hon. and learned Member would, on consideration admit, that to pursue his present course would be highly inconvenient.
Mr. Burgemust appeal to the honour, justice, and candour of the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and ask him if he could expect that any man connected with the West-India Colonies, could sit still and hear without remark, the observations made by the noble Lord, the under Secretary for the Colonies. The language of the noble Lord as the organ of the Government, was not to be endured, when he insinuated that some colonial proprietors had countenanced the proceedings of Government. No man who respected the rights of a legislative assembly, could by possibility approve of their conduct, when they made an Order in Council, and imperiously commanded what they were pleased to call a legislative assembly to register that Order, without the slightest alteration, as a law made, considered, and adopted by that assembly. Such a proceeding, he contended, was monstrous. He therefore asked, not only for the information which had been referred to by the noble Viscount, but for that faithful information which had been conveyed to the Government at home by the Governors of the colonies, as to the manner in which the Order in Council had been received, and as to the feeling of its colonies respecting that Order. The Government was incurring a frightful responsibility. If the Ministers intended to leave these colonies

41
in as good a state as that in which they found them when they took office, they must pursue a course totally at variance with that which they had hitherto followed. Let it not be supposed that any information was withheld on account of the wishes or interests of the colonists. There was not a colonist who shrunk from investigation—there was not one man connected with the colonies or wishing well to them who did not desire investigation He had himself continually sought and applied for inquiry, and it was only a week ago that he had been able to get an answer, and that answer was, that the Government would give no Committee of inquiry.
Lord Howicksaid, the whole of the information required by the hon. and learned Gentleman would be laid before the House as a matter of course. Up to the present time, information upon the point mooted had been received from only three colonies, but when the information had been obtained from the other colonies, it would be furnished in a complete state.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, no one could feel astonishment that the remarks of the noble Lord, the under Secretary for the Colonies, should excite comment. He, however, would abstain from entering into any consideration of the Order in Council to which reference had been made. He must observe, however, that he was one of those who had protested not only against the mode of proceeding adopted by the Government, but also against the tone and temper in which that mode was put in action. He well recollected the expressions which had been used by a gentleman of a high and honourable character, and who held an important judicial situation under the Government. That hon. and learned Gentleman had said, that he was authorised by the free people of colour in Jamaica, to say that they were ready to make a sacrifice of their property in their slaves. [Dr. Lushington expressed his dissent.]—Such was his recollection, and although he might be mistaken, nothing short of the explicit contradiction of the hon. and learned Gentleman himself would lead him to that belief. There was also another statement made by the hon. and learned Gentleman which likewise impressed itself on his mind at the time, and it was to this effect—that if the white inhabitants of Jamaica breathed a word of sedition
42
against the Government, he would undertake to say, that time free people of colour would be ready to rise and to support the Government. Such were the sentiments propagated by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and he lamented at the time to hear them, because they were calculated to defeat and not to forward the object which the House had in view. He lamented also the language which had been used on the same occasion by the noble Lord (Lord Howick). Inexperienced as the noble Lord was, he thought he would have acted only with becoming modesty and caution if he had taken a course far less positive and obnoxious. It was not only arbitrary but preposterous to say to a colony with a legislative assembly, you shall adopt an Order in Council, without the slightest alteration, as your law; that Order in Council being only in a state of preparation when that unmeasured declaration was made. At the time of that proceeding he stated he could not defend the conduct of the colonies. He thought the colonies tardy in adopting necessary and salutary regulations, but he also thought the means taken to compel them to adopt those regulations most unwise and most unjust. He well recollected it had been said, that all appeals had been made to the colonists which humanity could dictate, but that their avarice had overcome them. The course taken by the Government and those who supported its conduct had excited stronger passions than even that of avarice. They had excited the passions of horror, pride, and jealousy. Whatever the noble Lord and the Government might think, those passions would be found too strong for control. Such was his recollection of what had transpired, and such his opinions respecting it, though he hoped that his anticipations would not be realized.
Dr. Lushingtonwas glad of an opportunity of explaining any language he had used on a former occasion, which he regretted to find had been misunderstood. What he had said was, that previously to the time when the people of colour were admitted to a participation in the same rights as the whites, he was informed that the free people of colour were ready to accede to any plan to ameliorate the condition of their slaves, which the Government might propose. That declaration was made when the late Government was in office. But the people of colour went

43
further. Upon some person remarking in the colonial assembly of Jamaica, that if the demands of the colonies were not acceded to by the mother country, they, that is the whites, would be justified in throwing off their allegiance and placing themselves under the protection of some other power; they declared, that if any proposal of that kind were made, the free coloured inhabitants of Jamaica were ready to come forward with their lives and fortunes in support of the connexion with Great Britain—that Power to which they owed their allegiance—whatever might be the conduct pursued by the white population of the colony. Their conduct upon every occasion, merited the highest praise. In every insurrection and disturbance, they had conducted themselves most commendably. He would not then enter into the question of West-India slavery; he would only say that he entertained still the same opinions as he had formerly supported. He was convinced that the course adopted by the Government must be persevered in, or misery and desolation would be the consequence. He must inform the right hon. Baronet, that he had never held a situation under Government which had not left him at perfect liberty to exercise and pronounce his own individual opinions.
Sir Robert Peelsaid that even the language of the hon. and learned Gentleman should not lead him into a discussion upon slavery. He was only anoxious to prevent it from being supposed that he had uttered one syllable to the disparagement of the coloured population of Jamaica, or of any of our possessions in the West Indies.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR ENGLAND—COMMITTEE—TWENTY-FIRST DAY.
The House resolved itself into a Committee on the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill.
The Chairmanstated, that the question before the Committee was, that Walsall (Staffordshire) should stand part of schedule D.
Mr. Crokerhoped the noble Lord (John Russell) would oblige him by stating the grounds on which it was proposed to include Walsall in schedule D.
Lord John Russell: The reason why his Majesty's Ministers proposed to enfranchise Walsall was, that it was a populous town in an important part of the
44
country, and contained a respectable constituency. This place was not in the first Reform Bill, but, in consequence of the representations made to Government on the subject, and as it appeared that an important branch of commerce was carried on in this place, and also because it furnished the elements of a good constituency, the Ministers were induced to give it representation. The right hon. Gentleman had asked a question, and he would endeavour to give the right hon. Gentleman a satisfactory answer. With reference to enfranchisement, he must state, that there were different grounds for giving Representation to different places, and, in some places, a number of reasons combine. These grounds, however, were principally three. One was, to give representation to important seats of trade and manufactures. Another reason was, that it was desirable to bind bodies of people to our institutions, to give them an interest in maintaining them, and to induce them to look to this House as a tribunal where their grievances would be heard and redressed. Another ground for enfranchisement was more general—that this House, as composed of the Representatives of the people, might be improved by the presence of men qualified to bear a part in the discussion of the various questions that might come before the Legislature. He thought it was clear, that those places deserved Representatives, where all those qualifications were combined. There were three places in particular which had these qualifications, and no Member of the House would says that they ought not to be represented—he meant Leeds, Manchester, and Birmingham. They had large and intelligent constituencies, and were likely to send Representatives to the Legislature who would add to the respectability of the House, and to the benefit of the country. Some of the new boroughs had only two qualifications—for instance, peculiar trade and the elements of a good constituency. Now, Walsall fell within this class, and he did not see what objection could be urged against its insertion in schedule D.
Mr. Crokerwas obliged to the noble Lord for his explanation relative to the grounds on which Representation should be conferred, but he must join issue with the noble Lord on this borough, and say, that Walsall had not any one of the qualifications which the noble Lord had stated. Was the noble Lord aware that

45
the new borough of Walsall was contiguous to, and indeed touched, the new borough of Wolverhampton?
Lord John Russellknew that Walsall was near Wolverhampton, but was not aware that it touched that town. Walsall was entitled to a representative on account of its being a rich, populous, and thriving place.
Mr. Crokersaid, that if the noble Lord would look to the map of Walsall, he would find, on its western boundary, a bridge, called County Bridge. By looking to the map of Wolverhampton, he would find that this same County Bridge was the extreme eastern point of that borough. The maps were on so small a scale, that he was not able to assert, that the two proposed boroughs did actually touch, nor for what length of space they bounded each other, but it was quite clear that they were contiguous, and that if not absolutely united, they were, for a considerable distance, only a few hundred yards asunder.
Lord John Russellsaid, he did not see the importance of the point. He would admit it.
Mr. Crokersaid, the Committee would see the importance of the point as he proceeded. They were forming new boroughs to represent particular interests. Now, it was admitted that the new borough of Dudley adjoined the new borough of Wolverhampton, and it was now admitted that Walsall also touched upon Wolverhampton. There were, therefore, three boroughs created in one particular district, contiguous to each other, all having the same interests, and not—if they were all put together and consolidated into one borough—of so much importance in population, as to be equal to one new borough in the north of Staffordshire, and another in Gloucestershire. If the principle adopted with respect to Stoke-upon-Trent and Stroud had been pursued in the case before the Committee, Walsall, Dudley, and Wolverhampton, ought to have formed one borough. If they had received two Members jointly, that would have been amply sufficient; but, as it was, the borough of Wolverhampton would have two Members, Dudley another Member, and Walsall a fourth, while places larger and more important than all three united, were to have but one. In the case of Stoke-upon-Trent, the borough would be seven miles long,
46
and he would undertake to say, that a parallelogram of that extent would include the whole of the three boroughs he had adverted to. Stoke-upon-Trent, too, was superior to Walsall in wealth and population. Walsall was neither rich, nor populous, nor thriving. The real population of Walsall was but 6,401, and it was by a mere trick and juggle that it was raised to the nominal population which it appeared to have. This he would explain more particularly by-and-by, he would only now observe, that it was by adding to the borough of Walsall proper, a separate township called the Foreign of Walsall—a course which had not been taken in any other instance—that the fictitious amount of population had been obtained. In the population returns, the borough or parish of Walsall, was carefully distinguished from the Foreign of Walsall. In the population returns it was called the parish of Walsall.
Sir J. Wrottesleysaid, that was a mistake.
Mr. Crokersaid, then the mistake was most extraordinary, for it occurred in the population returns of 1811, 1821, and 1831. In all of those returns, Walsall properly so called was kept entirely distinct from Walsall Foreign, which was a distinct township, and notwithstanding the hon. Baronet's local connexion, he would venture to assure him, and promise by-and-by to prove that, except for the purposes of the present Bill, the distinction between the two townships had never been confounded. He would, therefore, now assume, and, indeed, he supposed the noble Lord would concede to him that the borough of Walsall was distinct from the township called Walsall Foreign? Bearing in mind that distinction, the borough of Walsall, he again affirmed, had only a population of 6,401, the remainder of the population being made up of the Foreign, which, according to the noble Lord's arguments of the preceding evening, ought not to be included. The right hon. Gentleman then referred to the map of the borough of Walsall, and pointed out an error in the colouring, by which it appeared there was no distinction made between the borough' and the Foreign. The Commissioners, therefore, seemed to have purposely endeavoured to leave this important point in obscurity, though it was clearly for the explanation and elucidation of such points that they had been appointed,

47
Nor was that all: the Ministers had laid on the Table six several documents, or sets of documents, affording the statistical information on which the several boroughs had been selected. Now he had examined all these six sets of returns, and it was equally singular and true, that the six documents on which they had been called to legislate for Walsall were all different from each other. So various appeared to have been the tricks and contrivances to swell the importance of Walsall, that no two of the returns respecting that place agreed with each other. But, in addition to this, a report was called for last year, in which it was required that there should be given the populations of those boroughs which were to have Representatives; and it certainly was a most extraordinary circumstance, that, in that paper, Walsall happened to be the very borough, and the only borough, omitted. Of course this arose purely from accident: he was sure that it did. But, for all that, it certainly was most extraordinary that this unfortunate Walsall should be, as it were, the very seat and strong hold of all the clerical errors of the Bill. Occasional mistakes and confusion in so wide a question, and among so many returns, were, perhaps, excusable; but was it not a strange fatality that every possible mistake and confusion should have concentrated themselves in Walsall? But this case was altogether an anomaly, for it was the only instance in which a large rural district had been added to an ancient borough, containing the whole of the town, for the purpose of bolstering up the importance of the latter!
The district itself was also engaged in the same manufactures as the neighbouring boroughs of Dudley and Wolverhampton. But, if it was desirable to give another Representative to that interest, he contended that the proper spot had not been fixed on. In his opinion, if they must select a district in that neighbourhood for Representation, Walsall, with its Foreign, was not the fittest for selection; and, in order to show that, he begged to call the attention of the Committee to a cluster of towns in that immediate neighbourhood, which seemed to him to have a far prior claim to Representation. The places that he referred to were Darlaston, Wednesbury, West Bromwich, and Tipton, and these altogether did not cover a larger space of ground than the proposed
48
Walsall district, for they were all within one, two, and two and a half miles of each other. He begged leave to state particularly the population of these places, in order that Staffordshire and the country in general might know the—careless, he was about to have said, but perhaps he should better describe it as the careful sort of principle on which this Bill was framed. Darlaston, according to the returns, had a population of 6,647; Wednesbury, a population of 8,437; West Bromwich, a population of 15,327; and Tipton, a population of 14,952, making altogether a population of upwards of 48,000 inhabitants within a circle of five miles in diameter; whereas Walsall, within a wider extent of ground, had only a population of 15,000. Then, with respect to its being a flourishing place, what was the evidence? Walsall had increased only 1,200 inhabitants in thirty years, while Darlaston had doubled itself in the same period. Wednesbury had increased 4,000 in the same time, and Tipton and West Bromwich had both increased 10,000. [Sir John Wrottesley: Give us the two Walsalls together.] He would oblige the honorable Baronet. The two Walsalls together had increased 4,800, but the other places which he had mentioned also to him, together had increased 28,000 in the same time.
Perhaps it might be said, that Walsall was rich, and paid largely to the assessed taxes; and, as wealth and population must be taken together in deciding on the claims of a town, Walsall should be considered in that double view. To set, therefore, that point at rest, and in order to see what really was the fair condition and station of Walsall, he had taken a list of twenty-six boroughs, and made a calculation upon their population and assessed taxes, according to the plan of Lieutenant Drummond—the plan which the Ministers themselves considered as the best and fairest of all possible tests. And now he really thought the Committee would have some difficulty in believing him, that, of these twenty-six towns, it turned out that Walsall and Whitby held the lowest places of all. The fact was so surprising, that he would substantiate it by some explanation of the details, and would state the relative number that these twenty-six boroughs would hold in the scale, according to Lieutenant Drummond's plan, though he would not (as Lieutenant Drummond had thought proper to do) omit the lowest bo-

49
roughs, as not worthy of mention. No; he would begin with the very Old Sarum of the twenty-six,—the Old Sarum of the Reform Bill—Walsall? He begged further to say, that, in these calculations, he had proceeded upon the documents which had been furnished to the House by the noble Lords themselves, and, therefore, of course, there could be no doubt but that they were perfectly correct. This was the order in which they would stand, together with the numbers expressing Drummondice, their relative value:

Walsall

1,299

Mansfield

1,713

Whitby

1,314

Chelmsford

1,736

Ely

1,320

Trowbridge

1,759

Yeovil

1,365

Barnsley

1,902

Stourbridge

1,409

Kingston-on-Thames

2,021

Warminster

1,428

Alnwick

1,474

Loughborough

2,100

South Shields

1,487

Ramsgate

2,519

Newbury

1,497

Tunbridge

2,736

Congleton

1,535

Gosport

2,826

Bromsgrove

1,661

Doncaster

2,860

Penzance

1,679

Leamington

3,400

Stockton-on-Tees

1,707

Margate

3,508

Croydon

4,729

This, then, was the situation which was held by Walsall, as compared with this list of towns.
But the noble Lord would, perhaps, reply, that the neighbourhood had been added to Walsall; and, therefore, it was not fair to take the borough alone in this calculation. But, if so, he would ask, whether none of the places in the list he had just read had neighbourhoods? He had looked a little into that question, too, and he found, that if the neighbourhood of Croydon was taken, the population would amount to 20,000; if Margate and Ramsgate were united (and they were only two miles apart), the population would be 20,000; and, if the neighbourhood of Kingston-on-Thames was taken, the population would amount to 18,000, and so on, of almost every town in the list; add on both sides an equal extent of neighbourhood, and Walsall and Whitby will still remain at the bottom of the list.
But, he was now prepared to prove, as he had already stated, that, according to all the principles and practice of the Ministers themselves, this neighbourhood had no title whatsoever to be included in Walsall; and, if he did not prove to the satisfaction of the House, that the Foreign of Walsall ought not to be added to the borough, he was very
50
much deceived, and would, indeed, admit, if he failed in that, his case was altogether invalidated. Now, it happened that there were two other boroughs mentioned in these schedules which had Foreigns as well as Walsall; and they were Reigate and Kidderminster. Reigate, it was curious enough, had actually undergone disfranchisement, because the noble Lords refused to join the Foreign with the borough, and yet such a junction now was the very pretence alleged for giving a Member to Walsall. This fact had distinctly come before the House, by means of a right hon. friend of his having moved the addition of the Foreign to the borough of Reigate; and in answer to that motion, the noble Lord then contended that the addition ought not to be allowed, because the two districts were separate townships which had separate parish officers and separate poor's-rates. Now, this was exactly his statement with respect to the two townships of Walsall; and yet the Ministers found out, in this instance, that their own favourite position was unjust and untenable. According to the official return which he held in his hand, the borough and town of Reigate contained a population of 1,545 souls; and the Foreign contained a further population of 1,978; so that it was evident, that, had the union been allowed, Reigate could never have been placed as it had been, in schedule A; nor, if the same impartial rule had been applied, could Walsall have ever appeared in schedule D. He would now call the attention of the Committee to Kidderminster. According to the return made by the Commissioners, the old borough of Kidderminster, with a part only of the Foreign, was to constitute the new borough; so that, in this case, the Government clearly recognized the distinction between the borough and the Foreign, and did not lump the whole under one common denomination, as in the case of Walsall. But the case did not end here. Let them look at Doncaster; that town, according to the return, contained 10,893 inhabitants; but, in addition to the town of Doncaster, there was a place called the Soke of Doncaster, which was certainly quite as much a part of Doncaster as the Foreign was in the cases of Walsall, Reigate, and Kidderminster—being a sort of outlying district, over which the borough, he believed, exercised some sort of jurisdiction; the Soke of Doncaster

51
contained a population of from 1,300 to 1,700 inhabitants; but it had been excluded—and that exclusion afforded the only reason he could imagine—why Doncaster had not been selected as one of the boroughs to be enfranchised. So Riegate had been disfranchised, and Doncaster had been denied Representatives, on a rule which was broken through for the single purpose of giving a Member to Walsall. But, if the matter was merely taken as a parochial question, and if Ministers should pretend to say, that although Walsall was indeed divided into two townships, it was still but one parish, he could cite numerous towns where portions of the parish had been deemed inadmissible—such as Frome, Clithero, Guildford, and others, but perhaps the strongest of all these cases was Chatham, to which a portion of the parish of Gillingham was annexed, while another portion—for no reason in the world that he could understand—was discarded; and yet, with all these examples of their own making staring them in the face, the Ministers still insisted, in the case of Walsall, on infringing all their own rides, for the sake of extending the franchise to a place, the claim of which was infinitely inferior to that of many of the places which he had already specified.
But he had still more specific evidence to show that the borough and the Foreign of Walsall were distinct places, and he would prove it by reference to a book very well known in Staffordshire—he meant Shaw's history of that county. In the church-yard of one of the parishes in Walsall was an epitaph on a person of the name of Samuel Wilks, who appeared, like other persons of his name, to be a great stickler for the rights of the people. That epitaph was copied into Mr. Shaw's history, and was as follows:—"Reader, if though art an inhabitant of the Foreign of Walsall, know that the dust beneath thy feet was imprisoned in thy cause, because he refused to incorporate the Foreign of Walsall with the borough of Walsall. His resistance was successful. Reader, the benefit is thine." This epitaph on
"A village Hampden, who with dauntless breast The little tyrant of his fields withstood,"
placed beyond all doubt the separation between the Borough and Foreign of Walsall. Shaw went on to talk about the history of the place, and said, "the parish is large, but distinguished by two names—the
52
town part being called the Borough, and the county part the Foreign—each of which maintains its own poor, under its own parish officers"—the very point, be it remembered, which the noble Lord opposite dwelt upon as unanswerable in the case of Reigate. Shaw went on to state (what the Commissioners had chosen to omit) that the Foreign was a very large, rural district, containing, Bloxwick, Walsall Wood, and several other places, which, on looking at the map, he found contained six-sevenths of the whole united parish. He could not understand why, when in all the maps of other places there was a line distinguishing the boundaries of the town from those of the Foreign, there was not this distinction marked in the map of Walsall.
The noble Lord had said, that his third reason for giving Walsall a Representative was, that it was a rich and thriving place—that it possessed the materials of a most respectable constituency, and that there could be no doubt of its sending an able and weighty Representative to the great council of the nation. Now he remembered the time when Gatton and Old Sarum both returned able and weighty Members to that House, and when Mr. Wilberforce, fatigued with the Representation of Yorkshire, and Mr. Canning, overpowered with that of Liverpool, sought refuge, the one in the close borough of Bramber, and the other in that of Harwich. And yet these boroughs were to be disfranchised, notwithstanding the very able and weighty Representatives whom they had returned to Parliament. It would be ludicrous, if indignation did not suppress all lighter feelings, to observe that there is not, by a strange coincidence, one excuse for enfranchising Walsall, which might not be with truth alleged in favour of other places most partially and unjustly either disfranchised, or denied representation. But let the Committee see whether the historian of Staffordshire gave to Walsall the same flourishing character which the noble Lord had given it. Shaw, the historian of Staffordshire, who published his work in 1801, speaks thus kindly and affectionately of this most wealthy, thriving, and respectable place:—"Being tinged with the smoke of manufacturing industry, this town has been looked upon with ignominy and contempt, and though it has been improperly decried and little noticed," (it has at last got notice enough, and a crown of glory that

53
will long be remembered) "it surely deserves to be better known. For"—and he would give every Member of the House leave to guess what the for was,—"for, as we have seen in its history, some of the most eminent men in the kingdom were Lords of the Manor." That was all that the historian—the friend and favourer of Walsall, could say in its behalf—the reason, the sole reason, that the defender of Walsall could give, why it should not be treated with utter "ignominy and contempt—" namely, that it was not utterly to be despised, because George Duke of Clarence had been five hundred years ago, in possession of the Manor. He could not but suspect that it was to its Lords of the Manor, that Walsall was in all times destined to owe the consideration it received. Did a place, which had been described in these terms in 1801, and which had only received an increase of 1,200 inhabitants since that time—which was looked upon with ignominy and contempt thirty years ago, and which now only paid 1,100 l. assessed taxes—did such a place, he asked, require to have a Representative, when there were many more respectable places with infinitely higher claims to the elective franchise all around it? If they gave a Representative to Walsall, the claims of twenty other places—Ramsgate and Margate, Doncaster, Croydon, Ely, for instance—for a similar privilege would be irresistible; not to mention the very superior claims of Toxteth Park, and Merthyr Tydvil. He would say, then, let Walsall be omitted from this schedule, and let the franchise be given to that one of the towns he had mentioned, which might appear the most deserving of it, by having in the highest degree those various claims, none of which—except, perhaps, the interest of the Lord of the Manor—Walsall possessed.
Sir John Wrottesleysaid, that he had resided in Staffordshire all his life, and had hitherto believed that he knew the county well: but the description which the right hon. Gentleman had given on that and a former night, of different places in Staffordshire with which he (Mr. Croker) professed himself particularly well acquainted, appeared to him (Sir John Wrottesley) so extraordinary, that he scarcely knew whether he was in his senses or not. When he heard the right hon. Gentleman talk of the deserted village of Bilston—
Mr. Croker.—No, not the deserted village of Bilston, but the village of Bilston.
Sir John Wrottesley..—Well, be it so. When he heard the right hon. Gentleman talking of the village of Bilston and the rural district of Sedgeley, he was convinced that the right hon. Gentleman must have travelled over that part of the country without gaining much knowledge respecting it. In Bilston he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman would find nothing that would give any idea of "sweet Auburn," however fond of poetry the right hon. Gentleman might be. In place of a deserted village, he would find a large market-town, in the parish of Wolverhampton, with which it was to be connected in the new Representative system, filled, not with trees and waving foliage, but with long chimnies and smoking steam-engines. The time was also beyond his memory, when Sedgeley was a rural district. The right hon. Gentleman would find there no mossy fountains, no bubbling brooks; the only thing at all like them which he would find there would be the torrents of boiling water which the steam-engines perpetually discharged. The right hon. Gentleman had founded the whole of his argument upon the idea that the foreign and the town of Walsill were distinct. Now they were contiguous, and indeed united with each other, for the brook which ran through the centre of the town divided the borough from the foreign of Walsall. The population of the borough and the foreign, when taken together, amounted to more than 15,000 souls, and that was, in his opinion, a sufficient reason for giving that place a Representative. The right hon. Gentleman had said, astutely enough, that if it could be proved that the borough and foreign of Walsall were united, he would admit that his argument was invalidated. Now if the right hon. Gentleman could show that the borough and foreign of Walsall were distinct, he (Sir John Wrottesley) would immediately give up the claim of Walsall to a Representative; for he would not claim the franchise for a population of 6,000 persons, when there were so many boroughs with a larger population still unrepresented. The town and foreign of Walsall was an ancient jurisdiction; and the Commissioners distinctly stated, that wherever they found an ancient jurisdiction, they did not interfere with it. It was also a corporate town: it had its mayor, aldermen, and recorder—

55
the last office being filled by a gentleman who was formerly the leader on his circuit, and who would not have accepted the office, if Walsall had been an inconsiderable place. The charter itself must have been a very old one, for it was renewed as long since as the reign of Charles 1st; and though the two divisions were made distinct some years ago, for the purpose of having separate poor-rates, he took it that it was in commemoration of that one point of separation only that this monument had been raised to the right hon. Gentleman's "village Hampden." But the right hon. Gentleman said, that Darlaston, and the other three towns that he had connected with it, had a better claim to Representation, on account of the increase in their population. But those places had not so good a claim as Walsall, for they were chiefly mining districts, and it might be said that nearly the whole distance from Birmingham to Wolverhampton—a line of thirteen miles—was one continuous town; and with respect to West Bromwich, on which the right hon. Gentleman had so much relied, it was not even so much as a market-town, but, from its situation, had chiefly become the site of many villa residences for the inhabitants of Birmingham. The principal question, however, for consideration was, what sort of a constituency would Walsall yield. He was convinced that it would be a highly respectable one; as from the Returns of the Commissioners, it appeared that it contained 800 10 l. houses,—Schedule D containing only two other boroughs with 800 10 l. houses, and seven with a smaller number. He knew the place so well, that he was prepared to contend that it was both a thriving and populous place, and that more respectable houses had been built within it during the last few years than in any borough of the same magnitude. Further he could by no means agree with the doctrine laid down by the right hon. Gentleman, that Wolverhampton, Walsall, and Dudley, ought to have been formed into one district of boroughs, as the towns in the potteries were, he would maintain that the relative importance of those districts fairly entitled them to separate franchise; besides which, it was notorious that Wolverhampton, Walsall, and Dudley, from manufacturing different articles of iron, had different interests to promote; whereas the towns in the potteries were all engaged in the
56
same manufacture, and had therefore a community of interests. Then, again, with regard to the population of Staffordshire. The population of Staffordshire, by the last census, was 410,000. The number of Members which it was to return was sixteen, that was to say, eight for the northern and eight for the southern division of the county. This gave one Member to every 25,000 persons in the county, whilst in Dorsetshire, to which the hon. Member for Corfe Castle wished to add another Representative by transferring the franchise from Walsall to the Isle of Purbeck, there was already one Member to every 11,000 persons. That appeared to him to be another strong reason why Walsall should enjoy the elective franchise. He would not follow the right hon. Gentleman further through his hour-and-a-half speech—a speech which had touched upon almost every subject except that in debate, and of which the argument, if not the substance, might have been compressed into a quarter of an hour with ease. He had merely risen to vindicate the claims of Walsall to one Representative, and having done that, he hoped, he should sit down.
Mr. Crokersaid, there appeared, after all, no further difference between the hon. Baronet and himself, than whether the foreign and borough of Walsall were distinct or connected places. The hon. Baronet had not disproved a single argument he had advanced, and the hon. Baronet, in order to find matter for censure, had been obliged to refer to a speech of his delivered on a former occasion. He was, however, quite prepared to justify the language which he had used on a former evening, when he called Bilston a village. He knew that Bilston contained a large population, but still, as it was not a continuous town, and had no corporation, no local limits, no separate magistracy, it was, properly speaking, only a village. He had called Bilston a village in the same manner as people spoke of the Hague, as being the largest village in Europe. In speaking of the district of Sedgley as a rural district and a scattered population, he only followed the example of the boundary Commissioners themselves, who admitted that such was its precise character. It was densely inhabited no doubt, as all the coalition districts were, but it did not comprise anything that could truly be called a town. He now begged

57
to call the attention of the House to the declaration of the hon. Baronet, that if he (Mr. Croker) could prove that the town and foreign of Walsall were distinct, he (Sir John Wrottesley) would withdraw his support from the proposition then before the Committee. Now, he (Mr. Croker) had it luckily in his power to produce a solemn decision of the Court of King's Bench, to show that such a distinction between them existed in law; and that solemn decision was to be found in 2 Barnwall and Alderson. It was the case of "the King v. the Inhabitants of Walsall." He would not trouble the Committee with reading the argument in this case; but the judgment of the Court was as follows:—The Court is called upon to unite the two townships of Walsall and Walsall foreign, which, as far back as human memory could go, have been in all respects, and for all purposes, separate and distinct; and, indeed, the documentary evidence carries the separation back for a century and a half. Every circumstance that could possibly exist to show that these were distinct townships for all purposes is found in this case."—If this was not an unanswerable proof; he knew not what was—and he accordingly expected the hon. Baronet would, agreeably to his recent pledge, withdraw his advocacy of the new borough of Walsall. He, Mr. Croker, had performed his part of the contract, by proving the distinction to have existed at least for a century and a half, and as he thought the argument of the Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, was better than anything he could say, he should not acid one word to recommend it.
Sir John Wrottesleysaid, they were only separate townships for the purpose of the poor-rates, and that they were not otherwise distinct.
Mr. Crokeradmitted, that the question on which the decision he had just read was given, rose in the course of a dispute about the poor-rates. But be it recollected, that in the case of Reigate, the foreign was excluded, on the very ground as urged by the noble Lord opposite, that the townships were separate for the purpose of poor-rates. But the case did not rest there: for the Lord Chief Justice said, that the two townships were distinct "in all respects" and "for all purposes."
Sir John Wrottesley: In making that assertion, the right hon. Gentleman has
58
defeated his own object by endeavouring to prove too much. The two townships are not distinct for all purposes, for the jurisdiction of the borough of Walsall extends over the foreign of Walsall.
Mr. Crokersaid, that the hon. Baronet in endeavouring to escape from the pledge he had so rashly given, was forced to make some unfortunate assertions. In the first place, it was not he (Mr. Croker) who "proved too much," but the Lord Chief Justice of England whose words he had literally quoted; but in the next place, the question of jurisdiction, under which the hon. Baronet was now endeavouring to shelter himself, proved nothing at all; for nothing was so common in almost every corporate town in England, as to have separate parishes under one jurisdiction. Would the hon. Baronet pretend, that the fifty or hundred parishes of which London consisted, were not separate parishes, because they were under the same municipal jurisdiction? And he must, moreover, remind the hon. Baronet, that in the case of Appleby it had been distinctly laid down, not only by the noble Lords, the framers of the measure, but by the hon. Baronet himself, that the law of jurisdiction should not regulate the law of boundary, and he protested against a departure, in the case of Walsall, from that principle which the Ministers had so obstinately maintained on every other occasion.
Sir Charles Wetherellsaid, the borough of Appleby was below the scale by 200 or 300 in the line of population, in consequence of the rule being applied to it, that a co-existing jurisdiction was to have no weight, but that rule was clearly violated in the present case, for the borough and foreign of Walsall were distinct for all but municipal purposes; and, therefore, he should, in consistency, support the proposition of his right hon. friend. He was of opinion Walsall had no claims to be inserted in schedule D.
Mr. George Bankesexpressed his intention of persevering in the Amendment, of which he had given notice—to substitute the Isle of Purbeck for Walsall, and he hoped to succeed in satisfying the House that it had some claims to a favourable consideration. There was not one of the reasons which he had that night heard given which did not appear to him strong in favour of the claims of Purbeck, and weak and insufficient for those of Walsall. If

59
they drew a circle in the neighbourhood of Walsall, the radius of which was nine miles, they would find that it included seven places returning Members to Parliament; whereas if a circle of ten miles radius were drawn around Purbeck, there would not be found within its limits one place returning Members to that House. It was understood to be one of the principles of the Bill, that counties which contained a population of 150,000 should have four Members. Now, by the census of 1831, Dorsetshire was shown to contain 3,400 more than Cumberland; yet four Members were given to that county, and refused to Dorsetshire, though now there were twenty-three Members more to be disposed of than under the former Bill. He was aware that it might be objected to his proposition that it went to augment the influence of an agricultural district; but that he would answer by saying, that the place was not without somewhat of a manufacturing character; at least its clay pits and its quarries afforded extensive employment to capital and labour distinct from the mere cultivation of the soil. Purbeck was twelve miles long, and seven broad. It was like the Isle of Wight, though not so large. To give it a Member would be strictly conformable to the principles of the Bill, which had in several cases added places to boroughs to enable them to keep their Members. He could speak particularly of Pool, which had received several districts on both sides of it to make it worthy of retaining its Members. The additions to Pool would give one individual, he had heard, great influence in the elections for that place. Wareham, by including three or four parishes, could only raise 164 electors. He felt gratified that he had, on a former occasion, stood up for Wareham and Dorchester, when the Members for the former had given it up, and both of which were now preserved, though both had formerly been excluded, against his representations, by large Ministerial majorities. The peculiar interests of Purbeck which required representation, were a large export trade of fine clay, which was useful in the potteries and its stone quarries. It was the great magazine, of the stone peculiar to this region, in the transport of which not less than 1,000 ships were annually employed, with a tonnage of 50,000 tons, navigated by 5,000 seamen constantly engaged both in the winter and summer months in that species
60
of coast navigation which was so eminently desirable to keep up in contemplation of the possibility of a war. Compare this with the borough of Tavistock, and the latter must shrink into insignificance, for Tavistock was not to the extent of one half the borough district. Upon the whole of the case, he would contend that this was a district which ought, in right of its population, its staple, and its support of the navigation of the country, to have a Representative. Comparing the case of Curie Castle to the favoured borough of Tavistock, he would observe, the former possessed 278 constituents, Tavistock but 37. Yet the noble Lord proposed to disfranchise the 278, in preference to the 37, on the vague grounds of charge that Corfe Castle was a nomination borough, withdrawing also his attention altogether from the controlling influence so effectually exercised by a particular family in almost all elections for the borough of Tavistock. To effect these objects, the noble Lord at one time included within the district the old walls of a borough, and at another time excluded the living population of the place. By giving a Member to Purbeck, the noble Lord would only do justice, and establish a better balance than at present between the manufacturing and agricultural interests. The population of Purbeck was nearly 7,000, which was more than several places, which under the Bill, would return two Members. He was encouraged by the examples of Wareham and Dorchester, to hope, in the third or fifth edition of the Bill that Purbeck be included. He was sure that it deserved a Member more than Walsall. He should move that Purbeck be substituted for Walsall.
Mr. Crokerstated, that it was his intention to move that either Merthyr Tydvil, Toxteth Park, or Croyden, which were all or each of them, in right of their population or importance, as well entitled as many boroughs in the excepted schedule to Representatives, should receive a Member, and Walsall not be placed in the schedule. They had better take the question of Walsall first, and it would be open to his hon. friend to move a different appropriation of the Member after he had been taken away from Walsall.
Mr. George Bankessaid, be should leave the matter to the discretion of his right hon. friend, as the Committee might hereafter take into consideration the case of these claimants.
Mr. Littletonexpressed his surprise that it should be proposed to take a Member from Walsall and give it to a place in a county more gorged with Members than any other, Dorsetshire would have one Member to 11,000 inhabitants, while Yorkshire had only one to 36,000, and Chester only one to 33,000. He never heard any mistake during the progress of this Bill greater than that committed by his right hon. friend (Mr. Croker). The foreign of Walsall was as completely part of the borough as the town itself. The district in which it was situated contained a population of 300,000. The Assessed Taxes were not large, but the importance of a place of this kind ought to be calculated in the inverse ratio of the Assessed Taxes. Walsall was said to have only 6,000 people, but, in fact, it was considerably more. Including the foreign of Walsall, which was as much part of Walsall as the town north of Oxford-street was part of the metropolis, it contained 15,000 inhabitants. In point of population it was superior to Ashton and Whitby; but, in respect to 10 l. houses, it was superior to Bury, and several other towns. In fact, it was a thriving, flourishing, and wealthy town.
Mr. Cressett Pelhamdid not see why the population of the county of Essex should not be represented as well as the population of the county of Stafford.
Lord Granville Somersetsaid, the arguments of the hon. member for Staffordshire would have had much more force if applied to other places. He must be permitted to remind him, that he was silent when the claims of Merthyr Tydvil were advocated, although that place had a much larger population than he claimed for Walsal, including the foreign of Walsall. Glamorganshire had only one Member to every 31,000 inhabitants, while Staffordshire had one to about 24,000. Walsall, too, was surrounded by places sending Members to Parliament, while Merthyr Tydvil was at a distance from any other borough. All the tests which proved the prosperity and thriving condition of a town applied much more forcibly to Merthyr Tydvil. Merthyr Tydvil was as important, from the species of nails manufactured there, as Walsall was for saddlery.
Mr. Littletonassured his noble friend that the nail trade in Staffordshire gave employment to 40,000 persons.
The Committee divided on the question
62
that Walsall stand part of the Bill: Ayes 165; Noes 87—Majority 78.
Walsall, was accordingly placed, in the schedule.
The next question was, that Whitby stand part of schedule D.
Mr. Crokerobserved, that the town of Whitby was an exception to the general rule. Neither on account of its population or its taxes was it entitled to a Member; and he might, therefore, ask with some surprise, upon what ground it was that his Majesty's Ministers proposed to make Whitby an exception? As he understood the case, the only ground of exception was, that Whitby had peculiar shipping interests which it was desirable should be represented. He was not ignorant that Whitby was a shipping port, and, as he stated the other night, he lamented that its shipping was not greater than it actually was, for that shipping was employed in a very useful trade, both as respected commerce and the increase of our commercial power. The shipping interest was amply represented by the Members for the Tyne and Wear, and the Members for Bristol, Liverpool, Hull, and Scarborough, &c. As a place of great intrinsic consequence, it was still less entitled to a Member; for, in the first place, though the tonnage of the ships was greater than the tonnage of the ships of Dartmouth, yet Dartmouth had a greater number of ships at sea than the port of Whitby. Every other place that he had examined, every other town or district had been following the general advance of the country, and was now in a superior situation with regard to population than it was ten years ago. But what was the case as to Whitby? He was sorry for it, he wished it were otherwise, but the truth was, Whitby was rather in a state of decay than otherwise. He found, by the population returns of 1821, that Whitby and the two towns added to make the borough, had then a population of 11,249. The present population of Whitby, and the other two boroughs, was 10,299 only, being 1,011 less than it was ten years ago. No other borough had come under the consideration of the House in which there had not been a considerable increase. However, after the recent decision of the House, he would not again give them the trouble to divide. This appeared to him to be a strong case; he saw no reason why it should be made an exception to the general rule.
Mr. Schonswarsaid, he was prepared to maintain that Ministers acted wisely in giving this place a Member, in consequence of its shipping interest. It was peculiarly a shipping port, the only manufacture being that of ships, which, during the war, were employed in the transport service. He was sorry to say, that, during peace it declined. Still, however, it contained a large capital, and there was a great deal of shipping built there. Though a little depressed now, that was no reason why it might not revive hereafter.
Mr. Hodgsonalso contended, that the importance of the shipping trade of Whitby, although it was not so great as formerly, entitled it to a Representative. It had above 10,000 inhabitants, and he believed there were between three and four hundred 10 l. houses, so that there could be no complaint of a want of a sufficient constituency. Some hon. Members had urged that the interests of Whitby would be adequately represented by the places in its vicinity, but they would find that there was no represented place nearer than Malton or Scarborough, and their interests were very different.
Mr. Goulburncertainly did not expect, among the many inconsistencies and anomalies he had heard of in connection with the Bill, to find it at last argued that a place was entitled to a Representative because its commerce and population were declining, and yet this was precisely the argument of the two hon. Members who had just spoken in favour of the enfranchisement of Whitby. There was not, however, a single point urged in favour of the enfranchisement of Whitby, which did not apply in the strongest manner against the disfranchisement of Dartmouth. In this case, the town on both sides of the river were taken in, while, in the case of Dartmouth, the town on one side of the river was entirely excluded. What could be more unfair in such a case, than to take away one of the Representatives of Dartmouth to give it to Whitby, when Dartmouth paid treble the amount of the duties paid by Whitby? He was the more persuaded that Dartmouth should not have been deprived of its Member, because its intimate connection with the fisheries of Newfoundland, rendered it the peculiar representative of that most important branch of our trade. At the time, too, when they were making an arrangement which precluded the colonies from enjoy-
64
ing the privileges of having a Representative in the Legislature, it was imperative on the House to take care that those places which were connected with them should not be wantonly or unnecessarily deprived of their privileges.
Lord Morpethsaid, the argument of his hon. friend had not been fairly represented by the right hon. Gentleman. The claim made by him on behalf of Whitby did not rest upon the declining state of the place, but upon its possessing great local importance, as connected with the shipping and commercial interests. He admitted that it had, from causes of a temporary nature, undergone a diminution of prosperity, but that temporary depression was no reason for depriving it of the advantage of being represented.
Sir Edward Sugdensaid, if he were not acquainted with the subject before the House, he should have imagined, from what the noble Lord had said, that this question was, whether Whitby should be disfranchised. The noble Lord said, the House ought to take the melancholy situation of Whitby into consideration; and to consider that she would soon rise from her present depression, and, therefore, she ought not to be deprived of Representation. But was she now in a situation to receive the boon to be granted her. How the noble Lord, who had voted so frequently for disfranchisement under circumstances so exactly similar to those of this particular case, without inquiring whether or not the disfranchisement proceeded on just grounds, could come to the vote which he intended to give on this occasion, he was at a loss to conceive. Numerous places had been disfranchised in the census of 1821, without inquiring whether, since that period, they had increased in wealth and prosperity; and now, at the very last moment, the noble Lord had found out that a place ought to be enfranchised, because, though it was now in a state of decay, it might, hereafter, return to a state of prosperity. This case afforded as good an illustration of the consistency of the arguments which were advanced in favour of Reform as any that had yet come under the consideration of the House. The Bill disfranchised Dartmouth upon the very same ground, in every respect, as that on which it was proposed to enfranchise Whitby. Was there a single argument urged in favour of enfranchising Whitby, which had not been previously ad-

65
vanced in favour of disfranchising Dartmouth? Had not Dartmouth ships, and commerce, and great interests? Did she not represent the marine of England? Would not the shipping interests be represented by her Representatives? Had she not been, and was she not now, in a flourishing and prosperous condition? And yet, under all these circumstances, the noble Lord, finding Dartmouth in actual possession of Representation, would not allow those reasons to weigh in favour of its retaining its Representation, which he would advance and act upon for the purpose of giving Whitby a Member. The same reasons too, were urged for the disfranchisement of Reigate, as for the enfranchisement of Walsall. Some reason ought to be given for the mode of proceeding which his Majesty's Ministers had adopted with regard to disfranchisement. Nobody had, throughout these discussions, abstained more from accusations of this description than he had, but he could not help noticing the absurdity of these proceedings, though he was not in possession of any facts which would justify the charge of partiality. [Hear! hear!] The right hon. Secretary (Mr. Stanley) cheered that observation. He would advise the right hon. Gentleman, whenever a fair admission was made by an opponent, to meet it with derision. Members would not make such admissions in future. A reformed House of Commons would not be afraid of making an accusation against the Ministry? The Government, in a reformed House, would be obliged to hear accusations made against them. He would say, then, that he had a right to suppose that there was some reason for this disfranchisement which was not intended to meet the public view. If such principles as these were established in conceding to a popular cry and a popular clamour, how could it be expected that this would be a final or a satisfactory measure, disturbing, as it did, all the institutions of the country, and endangering all the rights of property. Those who were at the present moment in possession of property, knew that passing events were such as to endanger its security, and, therefore, the whole system of the Representation should not be altered on doubtful principles for the mere purpose of change.
Lord John Russellthought his right hon. friend near him was perfectly justified
66
in meeting the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite in the way he did—with a cheer. What did the hon. and learned Gentleman do? He said, "It is very clear there must be some unfairness and partiality—some undue ground of proceeding in this case; but it is very true I cannot prove that there is anything wrong; it is very true that I had no ground whatever for saying what I did; I had not, in short, the least reason to imagine anything of the kind: but I will throw out the accusation, and take the chance of its success; if it does not make an impression here, it may somewhere else; and, being unable to prove it, I cannot be called upon to go further." If any man had proof to bring forward, he was perfectly right to make an insinuation of this kind, or if he had a case which, prima facie, was so strong and so extraordinary as to justify the supposition that undue partiality had been exercised, he might be justified in adopting the course which the hon. and learned Gentleman proceeded upon. What were the facts here? There were two places, one containing between 4,000 and 5,000 individuals, and the other about 9,000 or 10,000, and the one paying three times the amount of the assessed taxes of the other. The one having, certainly, considerable shipping interests, and the other having been, until very lately, the eighth port in the kingdom in point of tonnage. The small place was put on a par with other small places, by depriving it of one Member, and that Member was given to a larger place. So that the place which was nearly double the size and importance of the other, would be about as well represented as some small inconsiderable place. And this was the sort of case which the hon. and learned Gentleman considered to be so unfair, that, for his own part, he could not conceive how Government could have done this without displaying undue partiality. There certainly was nothing more easy than to make an assertion of this description, but it was not quite so easy to establish it when proof was called for. He perfectly recollected that the hon. member for Aldborough, in the course of the last Parliament, was very loud in his accusations against the former Bill, because Whitby was not included in the schedule. The hon. Gentleman came down to the House, and said, "In your second Bill you have repaired a notorious

67
blunder, for so ignorant were you of the shipping interests of this country, that you left out of your former scheme of Representation the important town of Whitby." The hon. Gentleman did not go quite as far as the hon. and learned Member opposite; he did not accuse Ministers of partiality—he only imputed it to their ignorance. And now the hon. and learned Gentleman turned round and said, "You have displayed such gross partiality in giving Whitby Representation, that nothing can justify such a proceeding." The only objection which had been made to Whitby was its declining condition. This, however, might happen to the most important towns in this country. At the cessation of a war, Plymouth, or Portsmouth, or Dover, or Leeds, or any other place, might be for a time in a declining state. If there were to be a sudden cessation in the demand for arms, it might cause a temporary change in the situation of Birmingham. But, according to the report of the Commissioners, Whitby was a substantial sea-port town. It was true, it had diminished since 1821; so had the population of the very next borough—Whitehaven. In the year 1821, that place contained 14,000 inhabitants, but it was not said that it should not be represented because at present it only contained 12,000. The conduct of Ministers, then, with regard to Whitby, had been the same as in the case of Whitehaven. He was astonished the hon. and learned Gentleman did not say, that Whitehaven was so completely under the dominion of some person connected with Government, that on that account it had received a Member. He could not see how Ministers could be accused of partiality in the case of Whitby, sinless a similar charge were made against them in the case of Whitehaven, which was one of the most important and wealthy of our shipping towns.
Sir Robert Peeldespaired of doing anything with Whitby; the case was so very bad a one, and judging from the past, the worse the case—the larger the majority in its support. He should imagine that the noble Lord opposite would admit, that, even if he were successful in negativing the charge of undue partiality towards local interests, his success in refuting that charge would not be conclusive as to the propriety of selecting this place. During the course of these lengthened discussions no one had abstained more than he had
68
from making accusations of partiality against his Majesty's Ministers. He wished to argue on the reason of each case, on that which was evident and notorious to all, because it was impossible for him to dive into the secret motives of the Government. But he must contend, that his Majesty's Government, when they were establishing an entirely new franchise, were under a positive obligation to put the House in possession of the grounds on which they selected one town in preference to another. They had a great privilege to bestow, and no one could doubt that, where there were various and nicely balanced claims for that privilege, the decision upon such claims ought to be carefully and deliberately made, and upon principles of impartial justice. It had been truly observed, that this was a most important consideration in another point of view. The noble Lords opposite had told the House, that it was their wish that this measure should be so far final as, at least, not to be subject to continual and annual change. It was of importance, then, that the Parliaments which succeeded the present one should be enabled to say, "we will resist the innovations which are now proposed, because, in the year 1832, an arrangement was made which was founded on the principles of equity and justice, and they shall endure at least for a time." But if the decision was made upon unjust or erroneous grounds, it was utterly impossible that the arrangement could endure for a single Session, because the new Parliament would have a right to repudiate the decision of the present, if they could show that decision to be contrary to reason or to equity. The noble Lord said, supposing towns had declined in population, there could be no reason why important interests should not be represented. This might be just with respect to such places as Portsmouth, or Plymouth, or Leeds. In an immense place, which had contained a population of 70,000, he would admit that, a small decrease in that amount was no reason why it should be unrepresented. He would admit to the noble Lord, that supposing it had decreased 10,000, the remaining 60,000 would be sufficient to induce the House to give the place Representation, conformably to the principles of this Bill; but a place which contained no more than 7,000 inhabitants, ought not to acquire a new right in preference to other places, much more populous and flourish-

69
ing. Would the noble Lord have the goodness to look to the return of the population of Whitby for the year 1831. The population of Whitby at that period was 7,765, and the amount of assessed taxes paid by it 869 l. That was the claim the town of Whitby had to Representation. It was no answer to say—"Oh, I am going to include a great district in the neighbourhood, which will swell the population up to 10,000." The question was, what claim the town of Whitby had, not the adjoining parish or district? How could this case be defended on any one assignable principle? How was it to be reconciled with the case of Dartmouth? If it was really of consequence to define the comparative importance of the places on which disfranchisement should fall, why should not the same principle be applied to the places which were to be enfranchised? Apply Lieut. Drummond's calculation to towns that will remain unrepresented; take their population and the amount of their assessed taxes, and many will be found with claims superior to those of either Whitby or Walsall. On what principle was Whitby to have a Member? Was population the test? How did that agree with Merthyr Tydvil? Were the shipping interests the test? The House were about to give two Members to Liverpool, two only to Toxteth Park and Liverpool united. Would any man deny that the shipping interests would be better represented by three Members to Liverpool, than by a separate one to Whitby? But, supposing he was told, "We think it right that Yorkshire should have another Member. We will compare the number of Members for the county of York, with the population, and on this ground we will exclude Merthyr Tydvil and Toxteth Park, and provide an additional Representative for Yorkshire." If he was met with this assertion, he would ask, why then was Whitby chosen, in preference to Doncaster? Whitby had a population of 7,765, and paid 869 l. in assessed taxes. Doncaster had 10,801 inhabitants, and paid 3,520 l. in assessed taxes, just four times as much as Whitby; and if you were to act by Doncaster as you did by Whitby, and incorporated with it the neighbouring villages, he would undertake to make it ten fines the size of Whitby. On any one of the tests which had been established, he could discover no claim Whitby had to
70
Representation. But the House was told it had fishing interests. The fishing interest was to have a Member. This accounted for the boundary assigned to the new borough of Whitby. He entreated Members to refer to the volume of boundaries. They would find the boundary of the borough of Whitby a great curiosity; it included a large slice of the German ocean, which might abound with fish, but could have no 10 l. householders. The boundary was unintelligible to him before, but the fishing interest explained it all. But the noble Lord asked "Why will you bear so hard on this unfortunate place, why will you aggravate its misfortunes, why refuse to enfranchise it when it is suffering under a decrease of its trade and population? When did the title of Whitby to be thus represented arise? Had the noble Lord such respect for prescription as to advocate the cause of Whitby because it had stood in this Bill for some six months? Was this the ground upon which the House was asked not to bear hard upon this place when it was suffering under a state of decay? Why, this might be a good argument if the title of the place were as ancient as that of the noble Lord; but not a word about prescription was heard in favour of Dartmouth. The actual possession of centuries was disregarded, in the case of Dartmouth, but Whitby with its imperfect title of six months, must be protected in this instance. There really never was a case so utterly destitute of any foundation whatever as this one of Whitby. To sue on behalf of a place in forma pauperis, to claim Representation for it, because its trade and assessed taxes had decreased, appeared to him so inconsistent with the principles of this Bill, but above all, so well calculated to cause an alteration in the Bill in the very first Session of the next Parliament, that he hoped the noble Lords would consent to select Toxteth Park or Merthyr Tydvil, and allow the borough of Whitby to retire with a good grace, and with that general sympathy which was due to its decaying trade and decreasing population.
Lord Althorpsaid, it certainly was right to ask why Whitby was to have an additional Representative, and it would be in the recollection of the House, that, in the last Session, great objection was taken to the omission of Whitby by the hon. Gentleman, the member for Aldborough,

71
who had accused Ministers of having been guilty of an oversight in neglecting its claims. The grounds upon which it was proposed to enfranchise Whitby were these: 1st, the amount of its shipping interests; 2ndly, the fact of its not being near any enfranchised place; and, 3rdly, because it was thought desirable to increase the Representation of that part of the county of York. With respect to the objection in the case of Doncaster and others, he contended, that in manufacturing and commercial towns mere payments of assessed taxes were not always to be taken as a fair criterion of their relative importance. For example, Brighton and Cheltenham paid large sums in assessed taxes, and, though their size made them of importance, it was objected that the taxes they paid did not prove them to be of either manufacturing or commercial importance. With respect to the comparative importance of Dartmouth and Whitby, it should be remembered, that the former stood 12th on the list in point of shipping, while the latter stood the 9th. It was, therefore, superior to Dartmouth, and it ought to be represented, because no other port in that part of Yorkshire was represented.
Mr. Goulburncontended, that Ministers having sturdily refused to take the population of both sides of the Dart to save Dartmouth, were guilty of an egregious inconsistency, when they included the population of both sides of the Esk to enfranchise Whitby. But the noble Lord said, the amount of assessed taxes was a fallacious criterion in manufacturing and commercial towns. Perhaps it might be so, but in enfranchising or disfranchising places, the relative importance of the peculiar interests attached to them must, undoubtedly, according to the noble Lord's own principles, be considered. Looking to this test, in the cases of Whitby and Dartmouth, he found that the former possessed 250 ships, the latter 370. He would admit, that the smaller number contained the greatest tonnage, but then they had been built in the war time for a particular purpose, and were now no longer used. As to the building of vessels and the employment of them in the whale fishery, both these branches of trade had left Whitby; the building had departed to Sunderland, and the fishery to other parts; then as to the revenue contributed
72
to the purposes of the State. Dartmouth paid treble the amount, arising from Customs contributed by the town of Whitby. If, therefore, Dartmouth was to be disfranchised, and Whitby to be enfranchised, it would give rise to the idea that there was some other motive for giving the preference to the latter, besides that of its comparative importance.
Mr. Hodgsonsaid, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman might be worth something, if Dartmouth was to be wholly disfranchised, which, however, was not the case, for it was to retain one Member. He contended, that Whitby was a port of as much importance as Dartmouth, and equally deserved a Member; it would be a most unjust proceeding, if, on account of a temporary depression in the profits of the ship-builders of Whitby, that town was to be left unrepresented.
Mr. Crokercould not help noticing the inconsistency of the arguments used by those who were favourable to the Bill. One day a river was to be an impassable boundary between two parts of a town, and the next day it was a most complete medium of communication, according as the argument suited the proposition before the House. Taking it from the noble Lord's own statements, founded on Lieutenant Drummond's calculations, they had the extraordinary fact that, of twenty-six towns not enfranchised, the two lowest should be selected by Ministers for the purpose of receiving the elective franchise.
Mr. Stricklandrepelled the accusation of favouritism towards Yorkshire, which was under-represented in comparison with Durham and other counties. It could only be the fear of making too great a change that prevented Ministers from giving more Members to Yorkshire.
Mr. Huntsaid, it would be necessary to explain why Doncaster should not have a Member as compared to Whitby. Doncaster was a sporting place of great celebrity, and he was sure as such that the hon. members for Yorkshire would at least vote for its having a separate Member.
The Committee divided, on the question that Whitby stand part of schedule D: Ayes 221; Noes 120—Majority 101.
Schedule D agreed to.
The Chairman then read schedule E. The propositions for Amlych, Holyhead, and Llangefni sharing with Beaumaris;

73
Aberystwith, Lampeter, and Adpar, sharing with Cardigan; Llanelly sharing with Caermarthen; Pwllheli, Nevin, Conway, Bangor, and Cricceith sharing with Caernarvon; Ruthin, Holt, and Town of Wrexham sharing with Denbigh; Rhyddlan, Overton, Caerwis, Caergwrley, St. Asaph, Holywell, and Mold sharing with Flint—were agreed to without any observation.
On the Motion for Cowbridge, Merthyr Tydvil, Aberdare, and Llantrissent sharing with Cardiff,
Lord James Stuartsaid, that he could, by no means, reconcile this union with the other principles of the Bill, for he had observed, that places of much inferior importance to either Merthyr Tydvil or Cardiff had Representatives to themselves. The only reason assigned for this difference was, that they were situated in the principality of Wales. He did hope, however, the case of Merthyr Tydvil, at all events, would be re-considered.
Mr. James L. Knightsaid, if some alteration was not made with regard to this union, he should certainly move an Amendment to it when the Report was brought up.
Lord Miltonagreed with the hon. Member, that justice was not completely dealt out to Merthyr Tydvil, and, therefore, he did trust that some arrangement would be made by which that place would have a Member exclusively allotted to it.
Question agreed to, and schedule E agreed to.
On schedule F, relating to the division of counties, being read,
Mr. Pigottsaid, he believed this was the proper moment for moving the Amendment of which he had given notice; and, if he had previously any doubt on the propriety of pressing it on the Committee, that doubt would have been removed by the remark of the hon. member for Staffordshire, who had said, that the importance of certain places might be in the inverse ratio of the amount of their taxation. He had a high opinion of the ingenuity and statistical information of that hon. Member; but still he must say, he looked with some curiosity for his explanation of this paradox. The amendment he intended to propose was, "that in determining the relative importance of the counties which were to have an addition to their Representation, the test of houses and assessed taxes should be taken in lieu of
74
that of population adopted by the Government." His reasons for proposing this change were—first, that he considered houses and taxes a more just test of the importance of a county, than mere population, and next, that Government had recognized its superiority in the case of the disfranchised boroughs. In the parliamentary paper laid on the Table of the House on the 15th of December last, Lord Melbourne informed Lieutenant Drummond, that the Government had determined to found the Reform Bill on a new basis; and this basis he wished to see universally applied. By it, however, schedules A and B were reconstructed, and boroughs were subjected to disfranchisement, which, under the former Bill, escaped; whilst, on the other hand, some boroughs, which had been condemned, were now omitted. He was aware, that the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had modified this basis, when he declared, what, indeed, was sufficiently obvious, that this rule was not regarded in enfranchising large towns. He should certainly not undertake to reconcile the inconsistencies of the Bill, or of the noble Lord, nor to explain why that which was a good test of the importance of a town of 4,000 inhabitants, was a bad one of that of 10,000. It was sufficient for his argument, that in an essential part of their Bill, the Government had recognized the superiority of the test he was now advocating, by substituting it for that which, in two previous Bills, they had adopted; he moreover asserted, that if there was any one of the schedules to which it ought preferably to have been applied, it was that which they were about to enter upon. He had the authority of the two noble Lords opposite themselves for his assertion, who, during the whole course of these discussions, had repeatedly declared, that it was their object to make the Representation of towns a Representation of population, and give to that of counties the character of a Representation of property. He was, therefore, wholly at a loss to conjecture what substantial objection could be made to a proposal, so entirely consistent with the principle of the Bill. It could not be opposed on the plea of delay, or expense, for nothing further would be required than a calculation, which might be made in an hour. Neither could it be said that the change was unnecessary, because the result would not be the same as

75
that now produced; for he was prepared to show, that if his amendment was adopted, several counties would change their places upon the list; that, on the verge, Durham and Cumberland would respectively rank below Berks and Hefts, and that Cumberland would be entirely excluded from schedule F. With respect to that county, the last in that schedule even on the score of population, it was certain that if its importance was measured by any other test, it must be altogether excluded from it. If the test which he now proposed was adopted in that county, instead of being 25th in the list of English counties, it would stand the 30th; if the amount of its assessed taxes alone, was the 32nd; if the number of its 10 l. houses, the 29th, if real property as assessed in 1815, the 26th; if they applied Lieutenant Drumniond's rule to 10 l. houses and assessed taxes, the result would be, that the counties of Durham, Cumberland, and Northampton, in place of four would have three Members, and that Herts, Berks, and Oxon, three agricultural counties, would take their places. He was fully of opinion, this last would have been the most fitting test, the justest measure of the real relative importance of the counties of England; but he was deterred from proposing it by the consciousness that a Member of so little weight as himself could only hope to succeed by showing that his proposal was in strict conformity with the principle of the Bill. He would now come to the most important point of this question, and he thought he should be able to show, that if, on the ground of reason and consistency, his Amendment ought to be adopted, on that of expediency its adoption was more loudly called for. As they were about to destroy the proportions of the Representation of the three kingdoms as established at the two Unions, to abolish the distinctive Representation of Scotland, and recast the Representative system of the whole empire generally, so long as population was made the sole test by which the claim of counties to additional Representation was decided, he did not see how it was possible, by any just reasoning, to disprove the right of Ireland to additional Representatives. If Cumberland was to have four Members, and Berkshire only three, simply because the population of Cumberland a little exceeded that of Berks, although it could be shown, that by every other test of importance, Berk-
76
shire ought to have the preference, how could the claims of Tipperary, with twice, and of Cork, with four times the population of either, be disregarded? There were no less than nineteen Irish counties with a greater population than Cumberland, and he saw no method of evading the difficulty which they must create, but by adopting some other test than that of population. If Cumberland was the only obstacle in the way of his Amendment, if the test of population was to be retained with the sole view of keeping that county in schedule F, he was prepared to show, that even on the score of population, it ought to have no place there. One of the alterations in the old system, effected by the Reform Bill, which he entirely approved of, was, that by which no individual could vote twice in virtue of the same tenement. Departing from this principle, it would be obviously a gross inconsistency in estimating the claim of any particular county to additional Representatives (on the score of its population), to take into calculation a population already represented. Accordingly it appeared, that, in dividing the counties which were to have four Representatives, the Government Commissioners had proceeded upon this principle; and in the Report of Mr. Shaw Lefevre, laid upon the Table of this House, that Gentleman said, "I wished to divide each county into two parts, equal in extent, equal in population, and equal in the number of voters contained in them;" and further on—"I have set down what may be considered the county population of each district, that is, the population, exclusive of the population of the towns which are to send, or to continue to send, Representatives under the provisions of the Reform Bill, and which towns for convenience sake, I have styled Representative towns." The total population of Cumberland was 168,697; represented population, 42,825; unrepresented population, 125,872; whilst the unrepresented population of Hertfordshire and Dorsetshire exceeded 133,000 and and 132,000. He therefore moved, that in determining the counties which are to send three or four Members respectively to Parliament, the number of houses, and the amount of assessed taxes for the year ending April, 1831, be taken as the test of their relative importance.
Mr. Littletonwas at issue with the hon. Member on the principal point to which his remarks had been directed; he had

77
frequently maintained before, and he did so now, that though it was impossible to discover any better test of the relative importance of towns than the compound test of houses and assessed taxes, this criterion was utterly inapplicable to counties. The counties of England differed as much in character as it was possible to conceive. Some had a rural population; others a manufacturing population; and in others, again, the population was of a mixed character. If the test of houses and assessed taxes were to be applied to counties, the importance of the manufacturing counties would be underrated, and that of the agricultural ones would be exaggerated. He would endeavour to illustrate his argument by reference to certain counties. The population of Berkshire, which was an agricultural county, was 145,289, and it paid in assessed taxes the sum of 51,448 l. The population of Sussex, which was also agricultural, and notoriously one of the poorest counties in England, was 272,328, and it paid in assessed taxes 95,625 l. The population of Hertfordshire, was 143,34 l, and it paid in assessed taxes, 47,141 l. He would now turn to some of the manufacturing and mining counties, such as Derby, Durham, Cumberland, Stafford, Leicester, and Chester. The population of Cumberland, was 169,000, and its assessed taxes, 21,807 l.; the population of Derbyshire, was 237,170, assessed taxes, 34,590 l.; the population of Durham, was 253,827, assessed taxes 32,178 l.; the population of Leicestershire, was 197,000, assessed taxes 40,727 l.; the population of Staffordshire, was 410,485, assessed taxes 60,732 l. He would not occupy the time of the Committee by entering into any further details; he trusted that he had already done enough to establish his position, that if the relative importance of the counties to Representation, was to be decided by the amount of assessed taxes which they paid, then the poor county of Sussex would obtain a superiority over Staffordshire, which, besides its mines and manufactures, possessed canal interests to the amount of 3,000,000 l., and iron interests to nearly the same amount. The compound list of houses and assessed taxes would be equally inapplicable to the enfranchised boroughs. If they took twelve persons in Wolverhampton and Sheffield, and compared the amount of assessed taxes paid by them, with the amount paid by twelve
78
other persons in Chichester, the last place tried by that test would appear to have the superiority: but nobody would seriously think of maintaining, that Chichester was better entitled to representation than Wolverhampton or Sheffield. The result of the calculations he had made by applying the test of houses and assessed taxes to counties, was not the same as that at which the hon. Member had arrived. According to his calculation, Monmouthshire would lose three Members, and Bedfordshire would gain one. He must say that, of all counties, Bedfordshire was the most hardly used. It was superior to Monmouthshire in population, and in the amount of property and assessed taxes: it was inferior only in respect of the number of houses. He thought the manner in which Bedfordshire was treated by the Bill, afforded a striking proof of the disinterestedness of the noble Paymaster of the Forces. Cumberland was inferior to Berkshire only as to the amount of assessed taxes. In every other element of Representation Cumberland was greatly superior to Berkshire. The hon. Member had not at all alluded to one important auxiliary test, by which the relative importance of counties, and their fitness for Representation, ought to be estimated—he alluded to the poor-rates. The poor-rates of Cumberland were 44,000 l., whilst those of Berkshire amounted to 105,000 l. Upon the whole, he was of opinion that no better test could have been taken than that which the Government had adopted, and to which he trusted they would continue to adhere. If the documents to which he had referred were correct, as he fully believed them to be, full justice had been done to every county included in the Bill.
Mr. Bestcould not agree with the last remark of the hon. Member: he thought that justice had not been done to Dorset-shire. That county was not 10,000 less in population than Cumberland, and paid more than double the amount of assessed taxes. He did not wish to deprive Cumberland of the additional Member; but he would maintain that Dorsetshire had as good a claim to one. When the next schedule came under consideration, he would call the attention of the Committee more particularly to the point.
Sir Thomas Freemantlesaid, the hon. member for Staffordshire, in replying to the observations of the hon. Member who had moved the Amendment, had spoken

79
only of assessed taxes; whereas the hon. mover advocated a compound test of houses and assessed taxes. The hon. member for Staffordshire said, that it would be improper to apply the test of houses and assessed taxes to the enfranchised boroughs; and, to illustrate his argument, he referred to the towns of Wolverhampton and Chichester, in order to prove that the test would act unequally upon them; but there was quite as much inconsistency in applying the test for enfranchisement generally to the boroughs in schedules C and D: he thought that Berkshire was treated very unfairly. The hon. member for Staffordshire did not reply to the argument of the hon. mover of the Amendment, that, upon the principle of unrepresented population, even Berkshire was superior to Cumberland. In calculating the county population, the represented population of towns ought to be omitted: if that was done, the unrepresented population of Berkshire was greater than that of Cumberland. There was another remark applicable to the mode in which the hon. Member managed his argument: he had compared the amount of assessed taxes paid by the poor county of Sussex to those of the rich county of Stafford. It seemed, by his own showing, that the poor county paid by far the largest sum. Did it not, therefore, strike the hon. Member that the burthen of assessed taxes was very unequally imposed? Surely the mines and canals of the richer county ought to be assessed, as well as the houses of the poorer, when the property invested in such mines and canals was made use of as an argument for giving it additional Representation. Under these circumstances, he really thought that it would be much fairer to adopt the test proposed by the hon. Member.
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, that, throughout the Bill there was nothing but inconsistency—provisions founded on neither justice nor reason. He wanted to see it proved quite satisfactorily on what grounds the Government proceeded: he, therefore, thought the discussion ought to be postponed. Such a measure ought not to be decided by the House at that late hour, when it was principally composed of Members who merely dropped in and decided the question, without having heard a single observation upon it. He observed the House was very impatient, and would, therefore, conclude by stating that, under
80
all the circumstances, he would proceed no further; but, with regard to the conduct of the hon. Members who had given utterance to their dissent from his opinions, he must observe, that
"Want of decency is want of sense."
Lord Althorpsaid, that, considering all the circumstances of the case, population appeared to afford the best test for ascertaining the importance of the counties. He was quite certain that no other could be applied with any degree of fairness and propriety, so far as the English counties were concerned.
Mr. Crokercontended that population was a very imperfect and variable test of importance.
Mr. Pigottwould only remark, that the noble Lord had left a large opening for the Irish Members to urge their claim to additional Representatives for these counties, by his having openly asserted that it was the sole test to be applied to the English counties, to entitle them to additional Representation. Under all the circumstances, however, he would beg leave to withdraw his Amendment.
Amendment withdrawn.
The question was then put, "that Cheshire stand part of schedule F."
Mr. Crokersaid, that he should take another opportunity of speaking on the points of this schedule.
The following counties were then ordered to stand part of schedule F 1—that is, each to return four Members:—
Cheshire, Cornwall, Cumberland, Derbyshire, Durham, Devonshire, Essex, Gloucestershire, Kent, Hampshire, Lancashire, Leicestershire, Norfolk, Northumberland, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire, Shropshire, Somersetshire, Staffordshire, Suffolk, Surrey, Sussex, Warwickshire, Wiltshire, Worcestershire.
Schedule F 2—Counties to return three Members each.
It was agreed to, without opposition, that the following counties should stand part of schedule F 2:—
Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, Dorsetshire, Herefordshire, Hertfordshire, Monmouthshire, and Oxfordshire.
Mr. Bestcomplained, when Dorsetshire was put from the Chair, that, though that county was more extensively agricultural than Cumberland—there being 14,000 agricultural labourers in the former, and but 11,000 in the latter—yet Cumberland

81
was to return four Members, and Dorset-shire but three.
Lord Althorpsaid, that, besides the fact of Cumberland's containing upwards of 150,000 inhabitants, Dorsetshire at large would return more Members, there being more boroughs in it, than Cumberland.
Mr. William Bankeslooked upon the argument of the noble Lord as a proof confirmative of the necessity of adding to the County Representation of Dorsetshire; for, if the Town Representation was so strong in that county, the stronger was the necessity of strengthening the agricultural Representation.
Mr. Stuart Wortleysaid, that although he had allowed this schedule to pass without observation, he was as much opposed to its principle as to the principle of schedule B.
Mr. Crokerhad objections arising not only out of this principle, but also to its application, which he should state at another opportunity.
On the Motion that Schedule G, relating to cities and towns and counties at large, in which cities and towns thereof are to be included, stand part of the Bill,
Mr. Crokerbegged leave to take advantage of that occasion, to, once for all, protest against the clause under which town and borough freeholders were to have a vote for the county Representatives, as the most mischievously objectionable of the whole Bill, and as that which every sober Reformer must disapprove of.
Lord Althorpsaid, the effect of this arrangement would tend to diminish the number of voters for counties, because those who got a vote in right of their borough freeholds would not, at the same time, have a claim for their county freeholds. It would effect a diminution of the voters for counties, and tend to reduce the influence of towns in the election.
Mr. Crokersaid, if the boroughs were to be left just as they stood, and there were no other freeholds in possession of the party, then the noble Lord would be perfectly right; but when a right to vote for 10 l. dwelling-houses was given, there were few people in those towns who would not contrive to have a 40 s. freehold. A man would have a vote for his House in the town, and, by having a stable, or some other 40 l. freehold, he would obtain a vote for the county. When this was brought into practice, therefore, particularly in towns, where there was a large circle of
82
rural population (for it would be the object of all persons connected with a town returning Members of its own, to throw as many of their population into the county to vote for it as possible) its ill effects would be seen. He was convinced, that these provisions would do more injury than any other part of the Bill.
Lord Miltonsaid, the Bill endeavoured to exclude these freeholders from voting for the county; but the right hon. Gentleman said, that, by living in a house, a party would obtain his right of voting from that house, and would also possess himself of a barn, or stable, which he would get registered as for the county, and, by this, also have a vote for the county. There was really nothing new in that: it was the case at present. Many persons had a vote for the house in which they lived, as a freeholder of the county, and in a town where they resided, as a scotand-lot voter. The effect of this provision would be, to confine his vote for the freehold within the borough, provided he was resident.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, the noble Lord did not seem to understand the case. The complaint was, that the Bill allowed all freeholders under 10 l. per annum, resident in boroughs, not to vote for those places, but for the counties in which they were situated, and the effect of that would be to cause the greater part of the populace of those towns, by the means of nominal freeholds, to vote for the county, by which they would overpower the rural freeholders.
Sir Thomas Freemantlesaid, if any one of the larger towns was taken, the argument would be clearly good. For instance, the freeholders of Birmingham would have sufficient influence to return one of the Representatives for the county of Warwick, besides which, they would have votes for the Representatives of Birmingham as 10 l. householders; thus having a share in the return of three Representatives. He was perfectly satisfied that, by giving freeholders the right of voting for counties, they having, at the same time, their right to vote for towns, would allow them to obtain a double right.
Mr. Wranghamalso looked upon this as a question of great importance, and inferior to none in the Bill.
The following places ordered to stand part of schedule G:—Carmarthen, Carmarthenshire; Chester, Cheshire; Coventry, Warwickshire; Gloucester, Glouces-

83
shire; Kingston-on-Hull, East Riding of Yorkshire; Lincoln, Lincolnshire; London, Middlesex; Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Northumberland; Worcester, Worcestershire; York and Ainstey, North Riding of Yorkshire.
House resumed—Committee to sit again.

SUGAR DUTIES.
Upon the Order of the Day being moved for receiving the Report of the Committee of Supply on the Sugar Ditties Resolutions,
Mr. Keith Douglasappealed to the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether or not it would not be fair, now that he had stated his intention to propose some fiscal measures with reference to the West Indies, to state what the nature of those measures was.
Lord Althorpsaid, he was not prepared to state those measures until he was ready to propose them to the House.
Mr. Burgesaid, that the conduct of those connected with the colonies with reference to the sugar duties would materially depend upon what the measures of relief would be. It was unfair to call upon the House to vote the duties upon a promise of relief, until they knew what the relief was to consist of.
The Marquis of Chandosput it to the noble Lord, whether, in the present state of the colonies, such a question should be proposed, at that hour of the night.
Mr. RobertGordon urged the postponement, and said, he hoped his Majesty's Government would not be the only persons who failed to show some sympathy in the distress of the West-India colonies. He knew it was a difficult matter for the Government to come at once to any mode of relief; but he felt, that, if relief was not quickly afforded, the colonies must be lost. An attempt had been made to afford assistance by the medium of Bills, but those Bills had been protested, and, therefore, some other means must be found. He wished not to make any factious opposition to the Government, but he did trust, that the Government would not appear to be the only persons who did not sympathize with the distress of the West-Indies.
The Marquis of Chandosprotested against being thought to offer a factious opposition. Considering the importance of the subject, and the small majority of the Government, he thought it ought not to be pressed forward at such an hour.
Sir Thomas Freemantlehad decidedly understood, that the Vice-President of the Board of Trade had plans of relief prepared, and, therefore, he thought they ought not to be longer delayed. It was of the utmost importance, that relief should be quickly afforded.
Mr. Irvingthought it was of great importance that the noble Lord should take the earliest opportunity possible of making known his plan of relief. He did not wish, at present, to press the noble Lord for that statement. He would, however, take that opportunity of stating to the noble Lord, that any plan of relief would be rejected with indignation and scorn, if clogged with any such conditions as had been hinted at by the noble Lord.
The following Resolution reported:—
"That, towards raising the supply granted to his Majesty, the several duties on sugar and molasses, imposed by an Act of the first year of the reign of his present Majesty, and the bounties granted thereon, shall be further continued, until the 10th day of October, 1832."
Bill to be brought in.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Viscount CLIFDEN, from the Landholders of Graige, Ullard, and Powerstown, for the Abolition of Tithes in Ireland:—By Lord KING, from the Landholders and Inhabitants of Cashel; and from the Tithe-payers of Myross and West Carbery, for an alteration in the System of Irish Tithes:—By the Earl of RADNOR, from the Inhabitants of Great Farringdon, in favour of the Factories Bill; from the Inhabitants of Burslem, for an Alteration in the Sale of Beer Act.

EXPLANATION.
THE Earl of Caledonsaid, he rose to set himself right with such of their Lordships who were not present at the debate which arose yesterday evening, for he was represented in the public papers as having said, that the extinction of tithes was recommended in the tithe Committee by a noble Earl who was not now in his place. What occurred was this. He understood from his noble friend who had preceded him in the debate, that he attributed the Report in question to his Majesty's Ministers, and not to the Committee; and that that opinion was grounded upon the use of a similar phrase in the two Reports. To refute this assertion, which he conceived was prejudicial to the character of the Committee, he observed, that the word extinction, instead of abolition, to which, his noble friend had particularly alluded, was suggested, not by his Majesty's Ministers, but, to the best of his belief, by Lord Harrow-by; and that it was suggested by him as
2
having been used in former Parliamentary Reports. He was now quite aware of the inconvenience which might arise from the mention of any noble Lord by name in that House, but he thought at the time, he should best satisfy their Lordships of the correctness of his allegation by mentioning the name of a Peer who was so well-known to them by his accuracy on such occasions, who held no office within the present Administration, and who would be amongst the last of their Lordships to compromise the interests of the Established Church.

GLOVE TRADE.
The Earl of Coventrysaid, that although the Petition which he held in his hand, and which proceeded from the operatives employed in the glove-trade residing in the city and suburbs of Worcester, praying their Lordships to institute an inquiry into the state of the Glove-trade, had been in his possession some time, he had judged it best to present it upon the day on which a noble Viscount had given notice of a motion for a Committee of Inquiry into the crying evils so justly complained of by large numbers of their suffering fellow countrymen, in the hope and fervent prayer that the voice of 2,200 persons might not have to make this appeal to their Lordships' humanity in vain. And who were those who had signed it? Men desirous only of using their handicraft, to live

3
by their own industry; loyal subjects, lovers of their homes and country, and desirous only of dying as they had lived previous to the detestable free-trade system, with the means of supporting themselves and their families by their praiseworthy and honest industry. To him it was indeed a source of pride, to be chosen (whatever want of wisdom on their parts might attach to such choice from any in-competency to do justice to the case) the advocate of 2,200 persons in this walk of life, from a city he formerly had the honour of representing in Parliament. He could never cease to implore the House to give ear to their sufferings, and to grant relief according to the prayer of the petition which he had now the honour to lay upon the Table of the House,
Petition read.
Order of the Day for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the state of the Glove-trade also read.
Viscount Strang fordsaid, that in addressing their Lordships upon the subject which he should endeavour to lay before them, he was so deeply impressed with a sense of its importance, that he should wish to give to the motion which he was about to submit to the House a fair chance of success, or, at least, to diminish its chances of failure, by disclaiming, in limine, all intention of converting it into a mere instrument of party hostility. He would, therefore, at once set out with a distinct declaration, that in humbly but earnestly endeavouring to do his duty to that unfortunate class of his fellow-countrymen who had done him the honour to place their interests in his hands, he had no earthly object in view beyond the maintenance of those interests; that he was not now seeking to establish any charge against his Majesty's Ministers for sacrificing or neglecting them; and that, in urgently pressing upon the King's Government the full and fair consideration of the daily augmenting grievances under which they laboured, and of the remedies to be applied to them, he did so in a spirit so far from unfriendly, that he was willing to avow his reliance on their justice and humanity, anti to look to those feelings alone for the success of the motion which he was about to propose. The condition of the British Glove-trade had notoriously fallen from progressive prosperity to a state of decay and distress yet more appalling, if possible, than even that by which other branches of our national industry had been afflicted. The persons concerned in this
4
trade, did not hesitate to ascribe their ruin, and that of the thousands depending on them for bread, to the operation of what was called free-trade, to the unlimited introduction of foreign gloves into this country, both legally, and by smuggling and to their utter inability, taxed as they are, to maintain anything like a fair and equitable competition with the French manufacturer. In all this they might be right, or they might be wrong. It formed no part of his case to assume without evidence that they were right. It would be no answer to them to assume without evidence that they were wrong. The matter was too important to be left at the mercy of mere assertion on either side, and the only fair and safe mode of trying the question was, by parliamentary inquiry. He intreated their Lordships to believe, that his own sentiments on the subject of free-trade in general had nothing whatever to do with the present question. In those sentiments he feared that, as yet, at least, he might look for little sympathy on either side of the House. But he must continue to think, until he should see far other practical results from the free-trade system than the ruin and wretchedness of hundreds of thousands, that "the lights which had led us astray" had not been "light from Heaven." But, be his own opinions what they might, it was to the advocates of free-trade themselves that he had a right to look for his best support on this occasion. If their theories were really so beneficial in practice as they represented them, and as, he doubted not they honestly believed them to be, why should they shrink from placing those benefits in the clearest and most conspicuous light? Why should they shrink from an opportunity of confounding those who impugned the merits of those theories? Why fear an inquiry which, if they were right in their views, would only redound to their honour, and to the disgrace and discomfiture of their adversaries? Why should that be refused in the case of that class of productive labour which this night appealed to them, which was not refused in other cases—those of wool, for example, and coals and silk? There were, he thought, very many reasons why this branch of trade, so far from deserving to be treated worse than others, had many peculiar claims to their protection and favour. Look at its connection with the agricultural interests of the country, through the profit which the landlord and the farmer once derived from the sale

5
of the raw material. He would take only one branch of this manufacture as an example. The leather employed in that particular branch (oil or beaver gloves) was made from native English sheep and lamb skins to the extent of 1,500,000 per annum. Many of these skins now went undressed to America; and, owing to the importation of foreign skins, the price had already fallen to less than one-third of what it was; that was, from 70 s. to 22 s. 6d. per ten dozen. He stated it advisedly, because he could prove it, that this million and a half of skins now disused made more gloves than the whole increased quantity of foreign skins would supply. But look, too, at the other, the moral claims which this trade had upon their Lordships' special protection. It was a trade which gave constant and remunerating employment to thousands of women and children, whose earnings, joined to those of the agricultural labourer, kept the latter in such a condition of independence and comfort, that it was a known fact, that those districts where the glove-trade prevailed had ever been peaceable, contented, and loyal, and comparatively exempt from those scenes of riot and incendiarism which had disgraced or desolated other parts of the country. It was a trade, too, in every way productive not merely of comfort, but of domestic and social order and happiness. The peasant's home was his manufactory—there was no crowding of miserable children from night till morning, and from morning till night, in pestilential factories—there was no sacrifice of health, and life, and morals, and religion, to the Moloch of gain—there was no assemblage of ignorant multitudes to listen to the inflammatory harangues of furious demagogues, till their passions were worked into madness, and they became, first the tools, and then the victims, of treason. How these scenes of tranquillity and comfort had been changed of late he should presently show; how much more fearfully they might yet be changed was a consideration well worthy the serious attention of all those who were to give a vote that night. He held it to be the bounden duty of Parliament, not to refuse inquiry when a prima facie case of grievance or distress was made out affecting any class of the King's subjects, and alleged and offered to be proved by them to originate in legislative enactments. That such a case did exist in the present instance he was fully prepared to prove. It would be for their Lordships to show whether
6
they were prepared to do that which he had said he held to be their duty. He would proceed to take some of the towns which were the chief seats of the glove manufactory, and he would state nothing regarding them which could not be proved by documentary evidence. Here, then, was the past and present condition of Woodstock:—A great number of the inhabitants were, and had been from their childhood, engaged in the manufacture of oil leather gloves, as masters and operatives, and others were, in a great measure, dependent indirectly on its success. The leather from which their gloves were made was entirely of home produce. The animal was bred here; the pelt (the skin) was prepared and milled (that was, made into leather) here; the leather was afterwards dressed, dyed, &c., and made into gloves here. So that other trades besides the glove manufacture were materially interested. In consequence of the admission of French gloves into the market, a lamentable diminution had taken place in the value and consumption of English leather and gloves. The effect was, that thousands of work-people were thrown out of employ, and numbers of females who formerly assisted in earning a living for their families were driven to the revolting labour of preparing road materials, or to their parishes, for aid. The evil was daily increasing; and, in places where peace and comfort reigned among the labouring part of the population, distress and misery had compelled them to resort to pilfering, poaching, and similar dishonest courses. Workmen, who could formerly earn from 20 s. to 30 s. per week, had been employed in the roads at from 8d. to 14 d. per day; and numbers of females, who materially assisted in earning a decent support for their families, had been driven to similar tasks at 4d. per day. The masters had struggled on, hoping for some alleviation of their difficulties, but they could not much longer bear up against them, and, unless supported by the Government, either by insisting on foreign states entering into a reciprocal system of trade, or prohibiting their manufactures, they (the masters) anticipated utter ruin. An increase of quantity had sometimes been alleged as a proof of prosperity, but an opposite result had been the consequence from several causes. One was, that some manufacturers conceived they might keep the French gloves out of the market by making more at a less profit. Thus A made 10,000 l. worth at the profit of five per cent, and

7
subsequently made to the amount of 20,000 l. in the same time, calculating upon two-and-a-half per cent profit. B, C, and D, followed the same course; the end was, that the supply exceeded the demand, and instead of a profit and immense loss was sustained. Another cause was, the inadequate wages paid; a third, the deterioration of quality. Cheap! cheap! was now the universal cry, and man's ingenuity of late had been racked to substitute a spurious for a genuine article. Foreign countries had been inundated with this trash, the consumers had been imposed upon, and the former high character of the British manufacturer had been sacrificed. The manufacturers of Woodstock and parts adjacent, complained of diminished demand and inadequate remuneration, and their work-people of want of employment, both of which they traced back to the admission of French gloves into the home market. From that period to the present, difficulties had increased upon them with diminished means, and accumulating claims, and those who had yet something left, saw no prospect for the future but in the prompt interference of the Legislature in their behalf. He would spare their Lordships the fatigue of listening to the detailed proofs of those allegations. But he thought these proofs were all condensed in the statement, which he should now read, of the progressive increase of the poor-rates in Woodstock and the adjoining parishes:—In 1825, 684 l.; 1831, estimated at 1,200 l., not yet made up. Bladen parish:—Year ending March, 1825, 241 l.; ditto (expected) 1832, 599 l. Wooton parish:—1825, 739 l.; 1831, 1,310 l. He would next take Worcester. Here then was the case of the glove trade in that city:—In 1825, the glove trade was in a healthy, flourishing state, giving employment to 30,000 or 40,000 persons, a great proportion of whom were women and children, wives and daughters of the agricultural poor for many miles round that city; and in periods of agricultural depression they contributed mainly to support their husbands and fathers. In 1827, a deputation from Worcester waited on the Board of Trade, and pointed out their inability to compete with the French; and also the defalcation occasioned to the revenue by the system of free trade in gloves. They were told to be patient, and the advantages would soon be seen, not only to the nation, but even to themselves. The result of a perseverance in this system had been the destruction of a great part of
8
the manufacturers of Worcester, and the consequent distress and destruction of the work-people dependent on them. Now, in corroboration of this statement, he again begged leave to refer to that lamentable but true criterion, the increase of poor-rates. This was the statement of those rates for one week in 1825, and the corresponding week in 1832:—The poor-rates at Worcester were trebled; the amount paid to relieve the poor for one week in January, 1825, was 13 l. 19 s.; number of cases relieved out of the house 170; number in the house at that period, 131; in January, 1832, the amount paid to relieve the casual poor, was 40 l. 11 s.: number of cases relieved, 445; number in the house, 190. The treasurer was considerably in advance, and the distress was rapidly increasing. At the present moment there were, of 1,000 men, in full employment only 113; partial, some at 2s. 6d. per week, 465; totally unemployed, 422; and there were 1,748 children entirely dependent on these men. But this part of the subject, that of Worcester, he left in much better hands (those of a right reverend Prelate opposite, to whom he appealed), and whose benevolent exertions had done himself and his order the highest honour in the eyes of that grateful population whose wretchedness had excited his sympathy and called forth his truly Christian services. And while on this subject he might, he hoped, be allowed to address a word to the rest of the right reverend Bench, and to remind them that the matter now before them was one of common charity and humanity, and (as far as such principles depended upon the temporal condition of the poor) of morals and of religion too. He would now advert to Yeovil, the prosperity of which had been strongly inferred from the number of glove manufactories having nearly doubled since the introduction of free trade. This fallacy he thought he sufficiently exposed the other night, and he would not again recur to it. Here, however, was the case of the glove trade at this flourishing town of Yeovil:—Yeovil, previously to the admission of French gloves, was in a state of high prosperity, giving employment to several thousands of people for several miles round. Since that period the glove trade had continued to decline as a remunerating one, and the work people were reduced to half their former earnings, and distress and want abounded in all directions. At the present time the manufacturers, not willing to throw a great body of people entirely out

9
of employ, had put the whole of them on half work, and this humane plan was totally counteracted by the increased orders sent to France to meet the deficiency of goods manufactured here. The operatives were, however, peaceable and quiet, and looked with confidence to the result of the appeal about to be made to this House of Parliament. In Stoke and Martock upwards of 500 dozens of beaver gloves were made weekly before 1826; now scarcely 50 dozens; and many of the work-people and their families subsisted almost wholly on potatoes grown by themselves on plots of ground rented of the farmers. To this he would again add his corroborative proof drawn from poor-rates:—Occasional relief granted to the poor from Lady-day, 1825, to Lady-day, 1826, 593 l.; 1827, 883 l.; 1828, 881 l.; 1829, 1,090 l.; 1830, 996 l. From Lady-day, 1831, to Michaelmas, 1831, being two quarters only, 504 l. To this statement he begged leave to add, that in 1820, Yeovil had 115 paupers on the books, receiving 18 l. 13 s. per week; there were now, that is, during the week ending on Saturday last, 210 paupers, receiving 30 l. 15 s. 9d. per week. From Ludlow he had been disappointed in obtaining returns of the poor-rates, but this was the state of the glove trade there:—In Ludlow there were formerly made from 1,200 to 1,500 dozens of gloves weekly; now not more than fifty dozens. The trade gave employment to 1,000 persons, out of a population of little more than 5,000. The distress in this place could be better imagined than described. At Kingston the past and present condition of the glove manufacture was this:—In Kingston, within ten years, as many as 8,000 dozens of beaver gloves had been made annually; now scarcely any were made, and what had latterly been made remained principally on the makers' hands. The state of the poor in this place beggared all description; and the question was, what would the poor do now? He would not pursue these painful details any further. He thought he had said enough to show that there was a prima facie case of suffering and distress made out, and into the causes of that distress, he did conceive, their Lordships were bound to inquire. He should be told, perhaps, that he inferred too much from augmented poor rates—that, as population increased, so must poor-rates too. Now, in answer to this, he was prepared to show that the poor-rates in the places which he had mentioned had increased in a far greater ratio and with far
10
greater rapidity than the population. But admitting the accuracy of this objection to his argument drawn from poor-rates, what did it amount to? To the frightful and sickening conclusion that, if population and poor-rates were necessarily to increase together, a time would come when each child that was to be born in the labouring classes was to be born to an heritage of misery and want, an object of extorted charity, and a profitless burthen on the community. Those who would argue thus must have strange and unenviable notions of the justice and benevolence of that Providence whose first, command it was, to be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth. It might also be argued that these were merely ex-parte statements. True; but it was not his fault that they were merely ex-parte. It was exactly what he wished them not to be; and, to prevent them from continuing to be so, he wished them to be put to the test of a Committee. They were ex-parte statements. But what, then, were the statements of those who had resisted inquiry? Ex-parte too. Let them bring these statements to the same test as that to which he was willing to bring his; let them be tried in the same crucible, and he feared not the comparative result of the experiment, nor doubted for a moment which would yield pure metal, and which would produce nothing but dross. Now, with respect to the quantity of French gloves legally imported into this country, the Custom House returns showed that the annual average was about 96,000 dozens of pairs, or in round numbers, (it was something more) at the rate of 3,000 pairs per diem. Taking the average labour of men, women, and children, employed in making gloves, beginning with the raw material, and working it up through all its stages, he was assured that one pair might be considered as the employment of one individual in each day. Thus the daily substitution of 3,000 pairs of French gloves for 3,000 pairs of British, destroyed the labour of 3,000 British artizans, and with it destroyed or lowered the rate of comfort of perhaps twenty times that number. Now, one word more as to importations through the Custom House. He took that of London. He held in his hand an authentic document, showing the progressive increase in the importation of French gloves during one month in each year, since the year 1829. He took the shortest month in the year, that of February. In that month of 1829 there were 4,688 dozens of pair

11
imported; in 1830, 6,036 dozen; in 1831, 6,748 dozens; in 1832, (including 316 dozens now in warehouse), the enormous number of 9,162 dozens of pairs; making a difference, as compared with February 1829, of 4,474 dozens of pairs. How, then, in the face of a rapidly increasing importation like this, could we say to the starving British manufacturer, "Only have patience!—pray be quiet!—this is an admirable system—but don't be impatient—and, above all things, don't be so unreasonable as to suppose that we shall condescend to waste our time in inquiring whether this increasing importation will not soon annihilate your trade altogether! We wear gloves—you only make them: what on earth should you know about the matter?" So much for the avowed and lawful importation of gloves through the Custom House. Now, as to smuggling: The noble President of the Board of Trade and he broke an amicable lance upon that subject a few nights ago. He told him that there was but very little smuggling in this article. He did not, to be sure, go quite so far as his right hon. Vicegerent in another place, and assert that only 100 dozens were smuggled into England in the course of a year. But he said that there was very little smuggling, and he appealed to the conjoint testimony of Custom House officers and of smugglers; something in the style of the old Spanish fable of the cat bearing witness for the honesty of the rat, and the rat attesting the vigilance of the cat. He did not think either very good authority. The Custom House officer would naturally say, there was no smuggling, to enhance the value of his own services; the smuggler for the best of all personal reasons. But, at the very moment of the noble Lord's speech, he made a vow that he would deprive him of the triumph which his confidential intercourse with smugglers had given him. So he proceeded to place himself too in communication with smugglers
"Et nos quoque in Arcadiâ viximus;"
and he was proud to say, that he succeeded in finding some as daring, and as desperate, and as reckless as any, or almost any, set of men with whom the noble Lord had ever associated, and he thought he had associated with men of that description, daring, and desperate, and very reckless indeed! Now, his smugglers said, in flat contradiction to the noble Lord's smugglers, that smuggling had increased, was increasing, and ought to be—no, that they did not say—ought
12
not to be diminished. Let the noble Lord but grant him the Committee, and full protection for his contraband friends and for himself, and he would produce, and the noble Lord should examine them. But, after all, he thought there were many circumstances which clearly indicated, though they might fail to prove it, that the practice of smuggling to a very great extent existed. It prevailed in the silk trade, as his Majesty's Ministers and Messrs. Leaf most undoubtedly knew. Why not also in gloves? There was the same temptation and the same facility, and such ingenious contrivances as the tunnel at Margate would answer as well for gloves as for silk. The difference between the duty and the rate of insurance at which a cargo of French gloves could be guaranteed to reach this country, free from all damage and risk whatever, was surely a sufficient bonus on, and encouragement of, the practice of smuggling. But, besides, there were abundant inferences from other facts, that smuggling did exist to an enormous extent. Look at the extreme low prices at which vast quantities of foreign gloves were sold in the market here, and at which no fair trader could, by any possibility, afford to sell them. Look, too, at the very suspicious and remarkable fact which had been stated to him, that there was not scarcely an instance of a retail tradesman living near the coast who ever sent an order to London for the higher priced kid skin gloves, apparently finding it shorter and cheaper work to supply himself on the coast from the noble Baron's friends and his. He would not now repeat what he had said before in this place touching sundry fallacious and, he thought, not very wise assertions, which were gravely uttered elsewhere, respecting the condition of this trade; the non-existence of smuggling, except, perhaps, at the rate of 100 dozens per annum; the increased importation of skins; the increased quantity of gloves made; the increased number of factories; and all the various other sorts of increase, except the increase of human wretchedness, which was carefully kept out of sight; the story about Berlin gloves; and every other point to which, on a former night, he had adverted. Should they be reproduced this evening, it would then be time enough to trouble the House with a further notice of them. And he would at once come to the only argument which could with any plausibility be urged against a Committee—the argument of cui bono. To what good end should a

13
Committee be appointed? What good was to be expected from its labours? What could a Committee recommend? A return to the old, exploded, abominable system of prohibition? Oh, monstrous! far better leave things as they were than raise expectations that could never be relieved. He told their Lordships plainly and positively that they could not leave things as they were, and, that if they could, they ought not. It was quite idle to suppose that the famishing workmen and their half ruined masters would credit their sentimental professions of delicacy and tenderness for their feelings, or that they would believe that they refused inquiry merely to avoid giving them the pain of a disappointment? Did noble Lords then know so very little of human nature as to imagine that no consolation, no comfort, under the pressure of want and misery, was derived from the mere faculty of tittering their complaints, and from the knowledge that they were, at least, listened to and sympathised in? He regretted that the people would not believe that they refused inquiry merely out of mercy to their feelings; but he would tell them what they would believe should their Lordships refuse this inquiry. They would believe that they refused it merely because it was refused in another place, and that they were thus obliged to uphold, at all risks, the honour and the consistency of that individual Minister who then refused it, and to adopt all the monstrous assertions and assumptions with which he sought to justify that refusal. But, to return to the question of cui bono. He was far from admitting as a just logical dilemma that the Committee must either recommend nothing at all, or else a return to the old system of prohibition. He thought that many things might be done to relieve the trade short of prohibition, to which, though no advocate for free trade in the present limited and left-handed sense of the word, he was not at all prepared to assent. He would briefly suggest some of them, not as matured ideas, but merely to show that something might be done. For instance, the Committee might recommend that the duty should be an ad valorem duty, instead of one uniform duty, on all sorts and qualities of gloves. It might recommend that smuggling should in all cases be punished with imprisonment. This could be but just, for gentlemen and ladies caught smuggling at Dover, on landing from the packets, could think nothing of a pecuniary fine in comparison of being marched off to gaol,
14
[A laugh.] Noble Lords might laugh, but they must allow him to say, that this would be even-handed justice—a thing about which, with their usual good opinion of themselves, they were prodigiously fond of talking and vapouring, but of which there was, he suspected, but very little in this country when wealthy smugglers were concerned. Stamping might be introduced under proper modifications. He would not go so far as to place the dealer in French gloves under the Excise, though he thought something like it might be done. He should wish, too, that, in all instances of seizure the onus probandi should rest, with the party from whom seized, and not, as was absurdly the case, with the captor. But there was another remedy far more efficacious than all these. Call upon France to become a really reciprocating country. That government had the power of doing so with effect, if they would only exert that power, as was shown by the late reduction in the tonnage duties—a subject, by the way, on which he should still have, one of these days, a word or two to say to the noble President of the Board of Trade. Now, he wished Government to exert themselves a little also in favour of the glove trade. He was quite persuaded that if they could induce the French government to admit, on a moderate duty, our English-made oil-leather or beaver gloves, it would partly tend to restore that branch of the trade, now nearly destroyed, and, by turning the skill and capital of a portion of the kid-skin glove-makers to that article, would give a healthy tone to the whole trade, and be productive of immense relief to the agricultural interest, by reviving the demand for the now disused British skins. He would not trust himself to say all he thought on this point—the admission by France of our fabrics, in return for the benefits which the free trade system heaped upon her, nor of the persevering injustice and unfriendliness manifested in her constant refusal to make any change in her commercial policy at all favourable to the subjects of that too generous and too confiding country by which those benefits had been heaped upon her. He knew that this was delicate and dangerous ground. He knew that if a word was ever said at all reflecting upon France, or her proceedings, up started some noble and pacific Lord, and directly accused those on the side of the House on which he sat, of a design to kindle the flames of war between the two countries. It seemed as if

15
it were thought, that peace with France could not be preserved except by a system of "Oh, no! we never mention her." He should, however, without having the fear of war before his eyes, persist in using that "once familiar word," as synonymous with the cause of two-thirds of that distress which now overwhelmed the manufacturing population of this once happy and prosperous country. He feared he troubled their Lordships at too great length. He thanked them for the indulgence with which they had heard him, of which he was sensible how greatly he stood in need. But, before he sat down, he must be allowed to say to their Lordships, that he did most earnestly hope they would by their vote this night, do that which would mainly contribute to dispel the calumnies and falsehoods with which it had of late been the practice to assail that House of Parliament. Of all the various modes of vilifying the House of Lords which had been or might be resorted to, there was none which it would give him greater pain to see justified by fact than the charge of being indifferent to the prayers of the people, when their prayers happen to be, as they were in this instance, reasonable and just. Their Lordships would do wisely and well to shun the possibility of such an imputation, and seize the present opportunity of showing to the country that, whatever might be the decisions of another assembly, they, at least, were not bound by them, and that they were what they ought to be, and what he trusted, they would always continue to be—the conservative portion of the state. He could not more fitly conclude these observations than by reading a brief abstract from the Worcester petition recently presented to that House, and subsequently printed:—
"Your petitioners earnestly hope, and confidently trust, that the humane and generous feeling which animated and distinguished the ancient Peerage of England, will be found to exist in the bosom of the present British nobility. The paths of your illustrious ancestors were frequently difficult and dangerous, but death itself possessed no terrors sufficiently strong to sever their attachment from the people. Your path is different. For your Lordships is reserved the pleasing gratification of restoring employment, content, and comfort, to tens of thousands of your humble but grateful fellow-countrymen. To the decision of your Lordships we look with a confident hope of relief. Cast us not into the depths of despair."
He had now the honour of moving their Lordships, that a Select Committee of this
16
House be appointed to inquire into the present distressed state of the British glove trade.
The Bishop of Bath and Wellsrose to confirm the statement of the noble Lord so far as the glove trade was connected with his diocese. At the town of Yeovil, he could state, of his own knowledge, the men, women, and children employed in the glove trade were formerly in a state of comparative prosperity and comfort; but, since the introduction of French gloves, they had been reduced to a state of the greatest suffering, and of absolute poverty. He did not wish to enter into the question of free trade, and he rose, at the desire of the people of Yeovil to make this statement to the House, which was but the counterpart of that contained in a petition which he had the honour to present on their behalf to his Majesty. He hoped their Lordships would give their best consideration to the subject, and he left it in their hands, with the fullest reliance on their wisdom and humanity.
Lord Aucklandrose, with reluctance, to offer some objections to the Motion which had just been made by the noble Viscount. It would be far more agreeable to him, were such a course consistent with his sense of public duty, to give his assent to the Motion. The greater part of the noble Lord's speech had been directed to these two objects; first, to show that great distress actually existed; and, secondly, that that distress arose from the large importation of French gloves. He not only denied the extent of the distress which the noble Lord had assumed to exist, but he utterly denied, that that portion of distress which did prevail was occasioned by the causes to which it had been ascribed. He did not yield to the noble Lord, or to any man in the country, in sympathizing deeply with the privations to which the persons engaged in the glove trade were subject, nor did he yield to any person in existence in a most anxious desire to afford such relief as circumstances would permit. But he had no hesitation in declaring, that the appointment of a Committee for the purpose demanded could lead to no practical result. Indeed, an inquiry, unless it could be made the foundation of some legislative measure, which he saw no hope of in this case, must be productive of evil, and not of good. It could have no other effect than to create excitement and agitation among those engaged in the trade, and would only tend to unsettle their minds by expectations of change

17
which could not be realized, and which were at utter variance with the general commercial policy of the country. He was persuaded that neither the majority of their Lordships, nor even the noble Lord himself, would think of adopting the remedies suggested in these petitions, and where, then, could be the advantage of going into an inquiry on a mere case of distress, without a hope that a remedy could be applied? The ground on which those concerned in the glove trade rested their petitions for inquiry was the effect of the foreign competition, while the reasons for which a Committee had been granted in the silk and wool trades were of a different description. The glove trade was regulated on as favourable terms as it could be. France came into the market on equal, or rather, he should say, unequal terms of competition with our manufacturers, for her gloves were not introduced into our market except upon a duty of twenty-two per cent. Both the French and English manufacturer purchased the materials at the same market; but, by superior skill, the former were enabled to obtain a certain degree of superiority in the finer branches of the trade, while, in the great bulk of the trade, they were inferior to ourselves. Throughout the discussion of this question a much greater portion of distress had been stated to arise from the importation of foreign gloves than was really capable of springing from that source. During the last four years, the importation of foreign gloves had only increased in a small degree. In 1831, it was somewhat more than in 1828, though there was some falling off in 1829 and 1830. The whole annual manufacture of this country amounted to 15,000,000 pair of gloves, and the whole importation during the last year was only a little above 1,000,000. Surely that could not be said alone to have produced such overwhelming distress in the glove trade. Their Lordships must, therefore, look to other causes to account for that distress, and he believed that they could easily be found. They must see whether more capital had not been invested—whether more persons had not been employed—whether, in fact, the trade had not been too much extended; and also, whether, subsequent to that extension, there had not been a change in the fashion, a choice of another article for wearing, and whether these, with other internal circumstances, had not produced the distress. He thought he should easily satisfy their Lord-
18
ships that such was the case. The glove trade had not positively declined, as might be seen from the fact, that the importation of skins had much increased. In 1829, the number of skins imported was 2,029,000. In 1830, the number was increased; and, in 1831, it amounted to nearly 4,000,000. But at the same time that this increase of importation of the raw material took place, there was an increase of the number of those who were to manufacture it. The population of Yeovil, which had been so often mentioned, amounted, in 1821, to 4,659; while, in 1831, it had increased to 5,921, showing an increase of twenty-five per cent: In Chard, the population in 1821, had been 3,000; in 1831, it was 5,000. In a third place, the population had, in the same period, increased from 1,440 to 2,072; so that, in all these places, the number of those engaged in the manufacture had so much increased as sensibly to affect the amount of the profits to be divided between them. That increase of population was not, however, the only cause of the distress now complained of. The consumption of cotton gloves and of linen gloves had materially increased within the last four years. Indeed, before that time, there was scarcely any thing of that kind used. By a return which he held in his hand, it appeared that there were 300 looms applied to the manufacture of cotton gloves, and that the looms produced 187,000 pairs of gloves. Besides these looms, there were manufactories of gloves, of which no return had been made; and then there were the linen gloves—so that the whole number of that kind of gloves was 200,000 pairs. The effect of this manufacture upon the trade of Worcester was, that, within these four years it had fallen off nearly one-third. It had produced 7,000,000 pair of gloves; but there was now a falling off to the amount he had mentioned. Then, too, there had been a new manufacture established at Leicester, so that the extension of the trade in that direction must have affected the trade at Worcester, and, in fact, all those who had before carried it on. It was clear, from this statement of facts, that by no legislative enactment, could the existing distress among a portion of the glove manufacturers be removed; that nothing could be done by the Legislature to raise those who had formerly been engaged in the glove manufactory to a state of prosperity, without doing that which would be hostile to the other interests of the country. But, supposing that the distress could possibly be

19
removed by legislative interference, was the noble Lord prepared to point out in the Committee the measure that ought to be adopted to produce that effect? The noble Lord had mentioned an ad valorem duty. With respect to that, he should only observe, that he had seen a great many of the leading manufacturers, and had asked them their opinion as to the regulations on that subject, and whether they wished any alteration of the present duties; but they all answered that the duties were fairly placed, and they desired no alteration in that respect. He would say for himself and his colleagues, that if a reconsideration of the duties could be of any use or advantage to the glove trade, the Government would not for a moment hesitate to take them into consideration; but such did not appear to be the opinion of the manufacturers, and he himself believed that the duties were fixed as exactly as they could be. There could be no advantage in raising the duties, for it was notorious that high duties only encouraged smuggling. The amount of smuggling in silk was considerable, because the duties were high, while in gloves there was no systematic smuggling whatever; the only smuggling of gloves was that of individuals. Another plan that had been referred to, for the purpose of relieving the manufacturers, was, the affixing a stamp on the gloves. That plan had been tried with respect to silk and lace, but it had failed in both instances. Such a plan, he believed, now existed with respect to paper; but the effect was, that the stamp in all these cases was invariably forged on the other side of the water. He had taken pains to procure evidence on that subject, with a view of seeing what time would be taken up in examining gloves at the Custom House, if they were to be stamped, and he found, that the same quantity which it now took half an hour to examine, would then take a day and a half. It appeared to him, therefore, quite impossible to apply a stamp-duty as a protection. But it was also unnecessary, for, as he had before said, there was no systematic smuggling in gloves. The authority he quoted for that assertion was avery high one on such a point—it was that of the undertaker and insurer of smuggling at Calais. That person stated the prices at which smuggling might be carried on. After mentioning the prices as to figured silks, and other articles of a similar kind, he said to his correspondent, "But I should advise you to try nothing in gloves—they do not pay." Another authority which he could quote to the same
20
point, was that of the Board of Customs, the members of which were satisfied that there was no smuggling in gloves. Besides these authorities, the great dealers in London were of the same opinion. One of them, an importer during the last year to the amount of 133,000 pairs, said, that if there was smuggling in gloves, it would not pay him to import gloves on which the duty was paid, as the smugglers would undersell him in the market. The noble Lord seemed to press for the adoption of a principle of retaliation. He trusted that the noble Lord did not hold out that as the means of encouragement of national trade and industry. If that principle were adopted, the evils of it would fall principally on ourselves. France had been referred to. There was no country on the face of the globe by which so useful and complete a commentary was furnished upon the prohibitory system as by France. No country had been gifted by nature with more advantages—she had tried the prohibitory system in every respect in which it could possibly be applied, and yet it was notorious, that in that country there was scarcely one manufacturer that was in a prosperous condition. He referred for proof of this to their silk trade, their cotton trade, their iron, which, by the way, on account of the prohibitory system, cost the inhabitants of that country double what they might otherwise get it for, and he might even refer to their vineyards, in which, as in others, the restrictive system led to nothing but to poverty. They had applied in France the protecting system to all the articles he had mentioned, and also to the manufacture of beet-root sugar, in order to force the cultivation of one particular kind of produce at home, and the result was highly unfavourable to the people. From all these circumstances, he thought that they must look to other causes for relief from this distress; they must look to the effects of an improved commercial intercourse with France, and not those of a violent retaliation upon her; they must look to the greater diffusion of knowledge on this subject, to the greater power of public opinion, and to the effect which the late conduct of this country must produce on the minds of those who observed it. The noble Lord had spoken as if the importation of French gloves was a pure loss to this country. He must declare himself opposed to that supposition, since it was evident, that either they came here for nothing, or else in exchange for some of the products of our own industry; for,

21
notwithstanding the old story about the balance of trade, and the prohibition laws, it was the fact that our goods found their way into France. It was clear, therefore, that they could not check the importation of foreign gloves without injuring some of the other interests of the country; and they must carry prohibition into complete effect, if they carried it into effect at all. He should deprecate such a course, convinced as he was that it could not be adopted but at the expense of our best interests.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that he should be the last man to propose to the House that any system should be adopted which would have the effect of altering the policy of this country with respect to its commercial relations; but he wished to say, that when free trade was talked of as existing in this country, the assertion was an absurdity. There was no such thing, there could be no such thing as free trade in this country. We proceeded on the system of protecting our manufactures, and our produce, the produce of our labour and our soil, of protecting them from importation, and protecting them for home consumption, and on that universal system of protection it was absurd to talk of free trade. He hoped that system would continue, and he should be sorry to see the House depart from it. He concurred with what the noble Lord, the President of the Board of Trade, had said as to the intercourse between this country and France. He was most desirous of not checking that intercourse; but that was not the question which had been brought forward by his noble friend. The question was, whether they should have an inquiry, not for the purpose of substituting a prohibition for a duty, which, by the bye, was a prohibition to a certain extent, but for the purpose of ascertaining whether some alteration in the present system could not be made, so far as to give the manufacturers a better protection than the duty now afforded them; and whether some satisfaction ought not to be given to the glove manufacturers, by proving to them that the distress they were suffering was not the result of the measures of the Government. He thought they ought to have that inquiry. Some said the duty was too high, and, therefore, there was smuggling; some said it was too low, and, therefore, the importation of foreign gloves was too great. The only means of deciding between these opposite opinions was, to grant a Committee. The very statement of the noble Lord showed that
22
it was desirable to have a Committee, for then they could agree as to those facts which he had stated, and thus satisfy those who now complained that the cause of their distress was either one for which no remedy could be afforded by the Government, or that if the Government possessed the means of affording a remedy, they were ready to give it. When he was on the other side of the House, two Committees had been granted under similar circumstances. The first was upon the wool trade, the other on the coal trade. At the time those Committees were moved for, he declared the opinion of the Government, that after the fullest consideration of the question relating to the wool duties, they should not be able to alter those duties; and after the Committee had sat, no alteration did take place. In the same manner a Committee had been granted to inquire into the state of the coal trade, although he stated at the time that the Government could not consent to any alteration either in the King's duty or the city duties, in consequence of the result of that inquiry. Now his noble friend only asked for a Committee of Inquiry, without pledging the Government to make any alteration when that inquiry had taken place. Under these circumstances, without feeling a strong hope that anything would or could be done towards improving the condition of the glove manufacturers, he felt it right to vote for the Committee, in order to allow the case to be fully investigated.
The Marquis of Clanricardewished to remark that the whole of the petitions which had been presented to the House on the subject of the glove trade, with one single exception, that presented by the noble Earl this night, prayed not for inquiry and consideration as to their grievances, but for prohibition. That had been asked for over and over again by those of whom the noble Viscount opposite was the Representative, and had been refused. The whole argument in the other House of Parliament went to the propriety, not of raising the duty, or providing other means of protection, but for effecting a total prohibition. If their Lordships went into this inquiry, it was impossible but that they must excite in the minds of the petitioners hopes that could never be realized. He would not enter into a discussion of the principles of free-trade, but at the same time, he must observe, that if their Lordships went back to prohibition in one branch of manufacture, they would soon be called

23
upon to do so in another, and finally in all branches. Free-trade, to an unlimited extent, certainly embraced a wide field, and into a comparison of that principle, and one of protecting duties, according to the interests of the different parties concerned in any particular branch of trade, he would not enter; but as respected the principle which had been adopted, it was that of a departure from prohibition. If their Lordships were prepared to abandon that principle, in respect of this portion of the trade of the country, they would accede to his noble friend's Motion for the appointment of this Committee; but if, on the other hand, they thought that a return to the prohibitory system would be detrimental to the interests of the country at large, they would refuse the Motion. His noble friend appeared to be content to go back to the old system in respect of this trade, but he must recollect, that the glove trade formed a very small portion of the manufactures of the empire; and he had not heard one word in answer to his noble friend, the President of the Board of Trade's argument, as respected the cotton, woollen, silk, and other important branches of our manufactures. His noble friend must also recollect that the quantity of French gloves imported into this country, was comparatively very small, and a very large portion of that quantity consisted of women's gloves. He did not know whether it was so, but he thought it was very likely, that his noble friend, even at the moment while he was advocating the cause of the English glove-trade, himself wore a pair of French kid gloves. But, however that might be, it was quite clear that the French excelled us in the preparation of their leather, and in the fineness of their work; and, therefore, so long as that was the case, so long as their manufacture was better than that of the English, it was impossible that any law could give protection to the home manufacture, because a supply would find its way into this country, so long as the higher classes of society would pay the price, and fashion prescribed them. Inasmuch, therefore, as his noble friend himself entertained doubts as to the extent of good that might be expected to arise from granting his Motion, and as the noble Duke stated that he had little hope of its being possible to remedy the evil of which the petitioners complain, he thought their Lordships would feel no hesitation in rejecting the Motion of his noble friend.
Lord Ellenborough, in stating that it
24
was his intention to vote in favour of the Motion of his noble friend, wished it to be understood that he had no desire to encourage the glove manufacturers to suppose that Parliament had the least intention of returning to a system of prohibition, because he thought it was impossible to conceive anything productive of more injury to the country. He could not refrain from expressing the great satisfaction he had felt at hearing the clear, dignified, and Statesmanlike speech of his noble friend, the President of the Board of Trade, whom he must congratulate on that change in his Majesty's Councils, which had enabled him to devote his great abilities to the service of his country. At the same time, while he admitted the Statesman-like view, and expressed his conviction that no one sympathized more sincerely with the distresses of the petitioners, he must differ from him as to the inference he drew, for it was in consequence of what had fallen from his noble friend, that he felt it right to support the Motion. His noble friend admitted the distress of the glove-trade, but, at the same time, said, he did not see his way to a legislative remedy. His noble friend did not think that those distresses arose from legislative enactments, and apprehended that, by granting this Committee, the manufacturers would suppose that a return to the prohibitory system might take place, which his noble friend thought would be injurious, not only to other trades, but to the glove manufacturers themselves. His noble friend who made the Motion, differed in opinion very materially with his noble friend, the President of the Board of Trade, as to the cause of this distress. His noble friend, who proposed the Committee, imagined that these distresses arose from legislative enactments, while his noble friend who opposed the Motion thought—and he was inclined to concur in that opinion—that these distresses were more properly attributable to a change of fashion, or other extrinsic circumstances, over which no legislative enactment could exercise any control. That circumstance convinced him that it would be productive of general benefit to grant this Committee; because that would show to the manufacturers of England, that much of that distress which is now, and has been at various times complained of, was neither the result of the acts, nor arose from the negligence, of the Legislature. He was satisfied that no Government, however perfect, or wise, could exercise any control in this respect.

25
Our dependence on foreign supply and demand, must occasionally cause distress, which it was impossible that any conduct of political men could prevent or relieve. He believed that from day to day we were proceeding further and further in that course which rendered the relief of the distresses of the country less and less dependent on any measure of legislation enactments. The distress arose from the increased amount of population, from the situation and circumstances of foreign countries, as they connected themselves with the trade of Great Britain, and from the conflicting interests of the manufactures of this and other countries. It was from these causes that the distress arose, and it was impossible that any measure of the Government could control them. Such being his opinion, he was very desirous that an opportunity should be afforded of investigating the real facts of the case, as regarded this particular branch of trade, before a Committee, whereby the truth might be elicited, and a legislative measure, if such should be required, prepared. At all events, that would show the petitioners the real cause of their distress; would evince a sympathy in that distress, and an inclination to attend to their demands, so far as justice, reason, and sound policy, should dictate. If this were a question which affected the interests of persons in other parts of the country, that might be a reason why without some reasonable probability of being enabled to afford relief, a Committee should not be appointed; but this trade being extremely limited, an inquiry might be easily and speedily completed. Something had fallen from his noble friend, the President of the Board of Trade, and from the noble Marquis behind him, on the subject of free-trade. He, however, was not prepared to enter into the consideration of that question, but he would say, that it was essential for the important interests of every State, that it should protect, in every possible manner, such manufactures as are essential to national security and independence. The Legislature had been led by the advice of able men to depart from the previous policy of this country in respect of a system of prohibition, and we were wise in so doing; but he must express his deep regret that the example had not been followed by other countries. At the same time, he felt satisfied that, depending as we did upon the admission of our manufactures into foreign countries for the support and employment of a large proportion of our population,
26
nothing could be worse, nothing could be more inimical to our commercial prosperity, and to the internal tranquillity of the country, which so much depended upon our commerce, than the notion getting abroad amongst foreign nations, that we intended at all to retrace our steps, and to go back to that old prohibitory system from which those wise deviations had been made.
Earl Greydid not feel it necessary to address their Lordships at any length on this subject, after the satisfactory speech which they had heard from his noble friend the President of the Board of Trade. He cordially concurred in the sentiment which had fallen from the noble Baron opposite, and he thought with him that, depending as the prosperity and internal tranquillity of the country so much did, upon our commerce and our intercourse with foreign nations, nothing would be more injurious to both than the idea getting abroad that we had any intention of departing from those principles which, of late years, had been so wisely applied to the trade of this country. He should not go into the discussion of those principles now; but this he would say, that as far as they had been acted upon, they had been wisely and beneficially acted upon; and he believed it would be found that their application had proved highly advantageous to the commercial and general interests of the country at large. In stating that, however, he begged to add, that he was not one of those who would act upon such principles without due caution, and without a careful attention to those complicated interests and that state of society which existed in this country, and which might render it impossible to do in all cases that which one might wish to effect. Always assuming those principles abstractly considered to be founded upon justice, and upon reasoning which could not be refuted, he must, at the same time, as a practical Statesman, in this, as in other cases, take into account the various and complicated interests of the country, in regulating the application of such principles. It was true, as the noble Duke had stated, that it had been the practice of this country to protect its manufactures; and with regard to the principle of protecting them to a certain extent, he thought with the noble Duke that it would be inexpedient to depart from it. The amount of that protection must, however, depend on the way in which it operated on trade itself, and the principle of free-trade was only to see how far, without injuring the manufactures of the coun-

27
try, those principles might be introduced for the general good, improvement, and benefit of the country. With regard to the Motion immediately before the House, he must disclaim the appeal which the noble Viscount, who had introduced that Motion, had made to the right reverend Bench, putting this question to them as a question of Christian charity, and thereby insinuating that those who opposed it would oppose the interests of charity, and would be destitute of sympathy for the distresses under which the petitioners laboured. Those who opposed the Motion of the noble Viscount, felt as much sympathy as he could feel for that distress, and as great an anxiety to relieve it; but he must deny that, in a case of this kind, the vote which they were called upon to give, ought to depend on a matter of feeling. While he sympathised with the distress of which the petitioners complained, he should oppose the appointment of a Committee, because he did not see that any practical good would result from its labours. Had any one stated how, in any view, or in any respect, the labours of such a Committee would contribute to the advantage and benefit of those parties who called for it? The noble Viscount stated that he was inimical to the principle of prohibition, and yet the great majority of the petitions presented called for nothing else but prohibition. The noble Duke concluded his speech by saying, that he had no hope that any good could be effected. The noble Baron also stated that he had no expectation that any practical good would result from the investigation. On what account, then, was the matter to go to a Committee?—Simply because the noble Viscount and noble Lords said there were conflicting statements, and therefore a Committee was necessary in order to ascertain which of these statements was correct. He had always thought the general policy of Parliament to be, not to institute an inquiry unless with a view to lead to some beneficial result; and, as such a result was not to be expected in this instance, it was expedient to refuse the appointment of a Committee. His noble friend had stated to their Lordships the real causes of the distress complained of; and he agreed with him, that the more general use of cotton gloves had been one of the great causes of that distress. It appeared to him that the persons who were suffering under that distress were as likely to be satisfied by the decision of the House that evening, founded as it would be on the reasoning of his noble friend, and on the proofs which he had ad-
28
duced in support of his position, as by the labours of any Committee of Inquiry, if such were appointed—which, in all probability, could do nothing more than confirm the statements he had made. The noble Duke had instanced the appointment of the Wool Committee; but he added, that he objected to its appointment at the time, on the ground that it would lead to no beneficial result, which was afterwards proved to be the fact. With regard to the Coal Committee, its inquiries were not limited to the duty on the coal, but were extended to the regulation of the trade in various parts of the country. As to the Silk Committee, it had been granted because there was a doubt on the subject, and because a hope existed that, after its inquiries, some new regulations might be made which would prove beneficial to that trade. But, in the present instance, the distress which was complained of arose from causes which there was no reason to think that the House could remedy or remove by any legislative inquiry or proceeding. As the remedy of prohibition for which the petitioners called was unadvisable, and, he would say, impossible, there could not be any advantage whatever derived from going into Committee under such circumstances. The granting of a Committee would lead to that suspense which, in commercial matters, it was most desirable to avoid. In the present instance it could only tend to excite hopes which could never be realized; for he was perfectly satisfied that there was no human prospect of any relief being afforded by the adoption of such a proceeding. He had mentioned the reasons which induced the Government to assent to the appointment of the Committee on the silk trade, and he understood that the appointment of that Committee had led to, and already produced, some of those inconveniences in that trade which the appointment of a Committee was always sure to occasion. Under all the circumstances of this case, feeling and deploring as he did the distress and privations to which these petitioners were subjected, he trusted they would see that, in rejecting the prayer of their petitions, the House of Lords did not do so from a want of sympathy with their sufferings, but from a full conviction that the evils of which they complained were beyond the reach of a legislative remedy. He did trust, therefore, that the House would not consider it expedient to consent to this Motion.
Viscount Strangfordshould not trouble the House at any length, though he did not

29
think that it would be difficult to meet every one of the arguments used against him by noble Lords opposite; but of some statements made by them he would take a brief notice. He would begin with his noble relative (the noble Marquis), not because he thought his noble relative's arguments at all entitled to any priority of attention, but simply because he was his noble relative, and that he held it right for every man to endeavour to provide for his own relations first. He would begin with what was personal to himself. His noble relative accused him of wearing French gloves. He denied the charge. Those he wore were English; and he hoped his noble friend would show his patriotism by buying some at the same place. The noble Marquis called him the Representative of the Glovers of England. He was proud of the honour; and, as their Representative, he disclaimed the idea of looking to a return to prohibition as the sole and necessary result of the labours of a Committee. The glovers themselves might, in the first instance, and in their petitions, have asked for prohibition, because it seemed to them to be the simplest and shortest remedy for the evils of which they complained. But it must not be forgotten that what he—their Representative, as the noble Marquis called him—asked for that night, was not prohibition, but inquiry, in the belief, which many of those whom he represented shared with him, that abler and better heads than his or theirs might strike out some plan of relief short of total prohibition, to which, he again said, he was not prepared to accede. The noble Baron had come down upon him with an array of figures. He did not dispute the accuracy of the noble Baron's figures. They might be as correct as the calculations of the great Archytas, Lieutenant Drummond, himself, for aught he knew; but he had just as good a right to claim credit for the accuracy of his own figures. It was, after all, a matter of assertion on both sides, and in that state it ought not to be left. He had heard from the noble Baron many reasons why it was proper and judicious to grant a Committee in the case of the silk trade; but he had not heard one why it was not proper and judicious to grant one in the case of the glove trade. The noble Baron dwelt much on the increased importation of skins. Did the noble Baron mean, that these skins were all made into gloves? There were many other uses to which they were applied. But he was, moreover, fully prepared to shew,
30
that the increased quantity of imported skins—the surplus beyond the quantity imported in the preceding year—was so far from being worked up, that it was actually lying in stock, or in the brokers' hands, and likely to remain there. Again, the noble Baron talked of the increased quantities manufactured. He should remember, that increased production, in any branch of manufacture, proved nothing unless accompanied with a remunerating rate of wages. This had not been the case in the glove trade. The workmen were upon half-wages, and not always upon that. With respect to what are termed Berlin gloves, he begged leave to say that, whatever effect the introduction of that article might have had on the consumption of the oil-leather or beaver gloves, chiefly made at Woodstock and Worcester, it could have had no effect on those made at Yeovil and other places. Those gloves, the Berlin sort, were men's gloves; and the Yeovil gloves were principally, if not solely, ladies' gloves, or gloves of the finer sort. To say, therefore, that the increased production of these coarse gloves had driven the finer sort out of the market, and out of use, was like saying that an increase in the number of waggon-builders was injurious to the coachmakers, and would put coaches and chariots out of fashion. Noble Lords said, that we should take a warning from France. He thought so too. He thought that we might also, in some degree, take a lesson from her, as far as protection to the native manufacturer was concerned. When noble Lords talked of the ill effects of prohibition and protection, he besought them to look at the United States of America, where protection, almost amounting to prohibition, was rigidly enforced. He had now before him documents which would enable him to answer every statement of the noble Lord, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade; but he felt that it would be a waste of their Lordships' time to produce them now. Their value could only be ascertained in a Committee, to which he was still so desirous of referring them, that he was resolved to take the sense of the House on his Motion, even though he should go alone below the Bar.
The House divided: Not Contents 41; Contents 33—Majority 8.

List of NOT CONTENTS.

DUKES

Lansdowne

Norfolk

Queensberry

Richmond

EARLS

MARQUISES

Oxford

Cleveland

Radnor

31

Mulgrave

Dover

Grey

Mendip (Viscount Clifden)

Albemarle

Lichfield

Wellesley (Marquis Wellesley)

Gosford

Tankerville

Plunkett

Amherst

Poltimore

BISHOPS.

Dundas

Chichester

Dinorben

Killaloe

King

VISCOUNT

Fife (Earl of Fife)

Hood

Fingall (Earl of Fingall)

BARONS

Sundridge (Duke of Argyll)

Holland

Howard of Effingham

Ponsonby

Chaworth (Earl of Meath)

Melbourne (Viscount Melbourne)

Somerhill (Marquis of Clanricarde)

Durham

Sefton (Earl of Sefton)

Panmure

Sheffield

Gower

Monteagle (Marquis of Sligo)

TELLER.

Lord Auckland

List of the CONTENTS.

DUKES

Redesdale

Cumberland

Clanbrassil (Earl of Roden)

Wellington

Northumberland

Saltoun

MARQUISES

Wallace

Salisbury

Tadcaster (Marquis Thomond)

Cholmondeley

EARLS

Monson

Coventry

Ellenborough

Vane (Marquis of Londonderry)

Clanwilliam (Earl of Clanwilliam)

Charleville

Ravensworth

Westmoreland

Rosslyn

BISHOPS

Bathurst

Rochester

Falmouth

Bath and Wells

Verulam

Bangor

Jersey

Carlisle

VISCOUNTS

Exeter

Beresford

Litchfield and Coventry

Gordon (Earl of Aberdeen)

BARONS

TELLER.

Penshurst (Viscount Strangford)

Lord Kenyon