Sitting of 23 May 1832

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Mr. RUTHVEN, Account of the Salaries and Emoluments of Curates in Ireland.
Petitions presented. By Sir WILLIAM FOLKES, from Diss (Norfolk);—by Sir HEDWORTH WILLIAMSON, from Gateshead;—by Lord EBRINOTON, from Reading, Plymouth, Devonport, Totness, Ashburton, Leith, Paisley, and Dudley;—by Colonel CAVENDISH, from Derby;—by Mr. HEYWOOD, from Manchester, Warrington, Rochdale, Oldham, Royton, Heywood, and from Ware;—by Lord CAVENDISH, from Belper and Bakewell;—by Mr. WILLIAM WILLIAMS, from Abergavenny, and West-Monmouth;—by Mr. O'CONNELL, from the Political Unions of Birmingham, Bristol, and Kidderminster;—by Sir RONALD FERGUSON, from Haddington;—by Mr. HORATIO Ross, from Montrose, Duffield, Milford, and Holbrook;—by Mr. WILBRAHAM, from Hyde;

1399
—by Mr. DENISON, from St. Mary (Newington), Camberwell, Lambeth, and Christ Church (Surrey);—by Mr. HAWKINS, from Tavistock;—and by Mr. STRICKLAND, from Sheffield, and three other Places,—for Stopping the Supplies till the Reform Bill be passed.—By Sir GEORGE MURRAY, from Perth;—by Mr. ANDREW JOHNSTONE, from the Presbytery of Hamilton;—and by Mr. JAMES E. GORDON, from Brighton, and thirteen other Places in England,—against the Ministerial Plan of Education (Ireland).—By Lord CAVENDISH, from Derby;—by Mr. HORATIO ROSS, from Aberbrothock;—and by Mr. STRICKLAND, from Halifax,—in favour of the Factories Regulation Bill.—By Mr. O'CONNELL, from Kilbreedy, Athanasius, and Eurly-Greemon, against Tithes (Ireland); and from Glasgow, in favour of a Grant to Maynooth College—By Mr. HORATIO ROSS, from Aberbrothock, for Parliamentary Reform (Scotland), and from the same Place, for Simplifying the Mode of Conveyancing in Scotland—By Mr. STRICKLAND, from Hemel Hempstead, against Negro Slavery.—By Mr. LEADER, from Galway, for Equalizing Civil Rights in Galway.—By Sir WILLIAM FOLKES, from Free-bridge Marshland (Norfolk), for the Repeal of the Fire Insurance Duty.

REFORM OF PARLIAMENT (IRELAND)—PETITIONS.
Mr. Leaderpresented sixteen Petitions from several parishes in the county of Kilkenny, in favour of the Irish Reform Bill. Amongst them were those of Thomastown, Callan, St. Patrick's, St. John's, St. Mary's, St. Canice, in the city of Kilkenny, Freshford, Kilmana, Urlingford, Durrow, Killaloe, Graig, and from Kinsale, in the county Cork. There was also a Petition from the citizens of Kilkenny, praying for an additional Member, which, the hon. Member said, Kilkenny richly deserved, whether as regarded its trade or population, or its contribution towards the revenue of the kingdom. The latter had advanced from 12,000 l. to 47,000 l. per annum. Under these circumstances, he thought it most unfair that, while Galway, Limerick, and Belfast were to get additional Representatives under the Reform Bill, Kilkenny was to be excluded from the same privileges. Further, he would ask, upon what ground it was proposed to give the College of Dublin an additional Representative, which contained a constituency of about fifty or sixty persons, while the city of Kilkenny, with a population of 25,000 souls, and the seat of commerce and manufacture, was to be passed by unnoticed in the new plan for extending the popular Representation.
Mr. Lefroywas not surprised that the learned member for Kilkenny should feel indignant at the treatment which the city he represented had received at the hands of the projector of this new measure of Reform; but although he admitted his right to complain of this circumstance, he must say, that he conceived it most unfair of that hon. Member to disparage the claims
1400
of another constituency. The University could not boast of 25,000 inhabitants, but it could boast of this (and it was the ground upon which it rested its claim to an additional Representative), that it was the seat of learning and of education for Ireland. These were the claims of the University to the privilege which the hon. Member had thought fit to disparage, for what reason he was quite at a loss to tell. He (Mr. Lefroy) was quite aware that this was not the time to enter on the discussion of this question; but when the time had arrived, he trusted he should be able to satisfy the House, that the objections of the hon. Member were not such as should be entertained.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, the University of Dublin boasted, that it was the only University in Ireland, but he might with great safety say, that it was the only thing it had to boast of—a more stupid University did not exist in any country. It had not produced a single work the name of which was worth recollecting; nor had it performed a single act of public utility that could entitle it to respect or consequence. On the contrary, it was the nursery of faction, and, in place of diffusing useful information and morality, some of its teachers were employed in performing the parts of political partizans, encouraging faction and bigotry, and poisoning every circle of social intercourse, by setting man against man, and producing religious animosities amongst all classes of the people. And this University had 100,000 acres of arable land, and 40,000 l. a-year—although its constituency amounted only to ninety-six, it had the privilege of sending a Member to that House; and as he had touched on that point, he felt it his duty to state, that a more corrupt or shocking scene of perjury never was witnessed at any Irish election than at this very University of Dublin—this seat of learning, as the hon. and learned Member had thought proper to designate it. He (Mr. O'Connell) could not believe, until he had read the Irish Reform Bill, that it was intended to commit so monstrous a crime against the people of Ireland, as to give one, out of the paltry number of five additional Members, to this worthless nest of faction, corruption, and stupidity. He would not, upon that occasion, say anything more upon the subject, but he hoped, if there was a spark of feeling or sympathy in that House for Ireland, and unless the professions of hon. Members were mere lip-service, that this mon-

1401
strous and iniquitous proposition would be scouted with the contempt it merited.
Mr. Henry Grattan, supported the observations of the hon. member for Kerry. The scenes which took place at elections in the University of Dublin were most disgraceful; and instead of a seat of learning, it would have been much more appropriate to call it the seat of party spirit, faction, and corruption. The hon. Member had stated that no work of consequence had been produced by the University. He, however, begged to remind the hon. Member, that a very celebrated work had been written on tithes by a learned member of that University, and in order to mark the sense of gratitude entertained by the University for this splendid effort of literary merit, the author was elevated to the office of Provost. The worth and talents, indeed, of individuals such as Dr. Sadlier and the Reverend Mr. Sandes, were almost calculated to redeem the character of the University from public odium, and these would live at least as long in public estimation as that of the hon. Gentleman who represented the University. It was, however, to be lamented that such men as those were exceptions to the general rule.
Mr. Shawdefended the University of Dublin from the aspersions of the hon. member for Kerry. He denied that no work of merit had been produced by the College of Dublin, and in proof of the truth of his remark, he adduced the works of the late Archbishop of Dublin, of Dr. Elrington, and others. The reason why they had not produced as many works as other Universities arose fron the fact, that the time of the members was almost wholly occupied in the education of youth.
Petition to lie on the Table and be printed.

CORPORATION OF CORK.
Mr. Callaghanpresented a Petition from the city of Cork, praying for an alteration in the mode of appointing Civic Officers in that city. The petition was very numerously signed, and by some of the most influential gentlemen of that city. It stated that, notwithstanding the Catholic Relief Bill, the Corporation of Cork had, by their own regulations, prevented the operation of that measure in the manner in which Parliament had intended, and that Catholics were, with few exceptions, not admitted into the Corporation though paying local burthens, and doing their share of the duties of good citizens. They stated that the Corporation
1402
had been perpetuating in Protestants the right of appointing Sheriffs and Juries, and that this was often exercised in a manner very offensive to them, and injurious to the public welfare; and they prayed that in future another and a better mode of appointing officers in authority over them should be adopted—a result which he trusted would, before long, be obtained by some beneficial measure to be introduced by his Majesty's Government, to whose attention, seeing the right hon. Secretary for Ireland in his place, he particularly recommended the petition. He begged leave to add, that it was agreed to at a public meeting, and contained the sentiments of almost all those of his constituents who at present gloried in being Reformers and correctors of all abuses; at the same time, he would not deceive the House by any statement that it conveyed the sentiments of the Corporation themselves, or of those who thought the Corporation useful.
Mr. O'Connellsupported the prayer of the petition, as well upon the grounds stated by his hon. friend, the member for Cork, as that he had been requested to do so by many of the respectable persons who had signed the petition, and with whom he had the pleasure of being acquainted. There was no where to be found a closer or more bigotted Corporation than that of the city of Cork, which elected the magistracy of that place, and which, through its various ramifications and agencies levied taxes to the amount of more than 70,000 l. a-year upon the citizens. This fact he was prepared to prove, and concluded by stating, that the prayer of the petition was entitled to the prompt attention of the Legislature.
Mr. James Grattansaid, that the same observation would apply to the state of the Dublin Corporation, and he hoped soon to see an end to this abuse.
Petition to be printed.

SOAP DUTIES.
Mr. Callaghanpresented a Petition from the Manufacturers of Soap at Cork, which expressed very clearly the grievance of which they had a just right to complain, and praying for an alteration in the law which gave to the manufacturer in England an undue drawback, by which the petitioners were driven out of the trade. He stated that the returns on the Table of that House shewed, that for the last three years the export of soap from England to Ireland was enormous, and that it was every year increasing. By that export the manufacturer in Ire-

1403
land had been driven wholly to abandon his trade. The House would bear in mind, that as no duty existed on soap in Ireland, English soap, going to that country was, justly entitled in principle to a drawback equal to the duty paid in England; but the petitioners believed, that not only was this duty in England imperfectly collected and evaded, though the drawback was certain, that abuses existed which could be proved, and were known to the Excise, and he was enabled to state, that the Government, yielding to the entreaties of his constituents, had sent down to Liverpool one of the Commissioners of Excise, whose report he had read, and it admitted, that a certain allowance of ten per cent in the duty, in lieu of waste, was an abuse—that, in practice, the manufacturer who made soap for export sent it off before it wasted anything whatever, and it recommended that this allowance should be abolished. Notwithstanding this, however, nothing was done by Ministers to remedy this part of the abuse. He quite concurred in the statements on this subject made to the House by the hon. Alderman (the member for London), who had repeatedly addressed the House on the same subject, from information derived from the most intelligent manufacturers in the city of London, who were anxious, and had petitioned the House, for an alteration such as his constituents prayed for. He would assure the House, and especially the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, whose duty he hoped it would be to see that this oppression should not be continued, that he could not more effectually stop much of the growing disaffection that was pervading the mercantile community of Ireland, than by attention to this subject. He could assure the right hon. Gent. that he was personally acquainted with most of those who signed the petition—that they were loyal and respectable; but that many of them felt they were the victims of what he would call English injustice and knavery. Since this unjust drawback had annihilated their trade, they were become more zealous Repealers of the Union than influence, however powerful, or the example of other persons, however respected, could have made them.

REFORM PETITIONS
The Lord Advocatepresented a Petition from Edinburgh praying the House to take all constitutional means to ensure the success of the unmutilated Reform Bill. It had been agreed to at the largest public meeting ever held in that
1404
neighbourhood. The petition bore the signatures of 38,700 persons, the greater part of whom had affixed their places of abode or professions. He had been thus particular in stating this fact, on account of the extraordinary misstatements that had been made in the other House on the subject of these meetings. It had there been said, that one of these meetings did not consist of more than 700 or 800 persons—a statement so truly incredible, that he was surprised how any individual could be found so to impose on the credulity of the noble Earl who made the statement. Whether such a statement was to be made as to this meeting he was not aware; but from the information he had received from the hon. Baronet who presided, and from the gentleman who acted as secretary, he was prepared to refute any such statement by the fact, that a certain number of the meeting proceeded thither in procession, and were counted as they entered the area: these, alone, amounted to upwards of 10,000; and a military engineer, who was accustomed to such calculations, had measured the ground occupied by the meeting, and given it as his opinion, that its number could not be less than between 30,000 and 40,000. At all events the petition was signed by 38,700 persons in thirty-six hours. He was also further bound to add, that the meeting was characterized, from the beginning to the end, by the most orderly and exemplary conduct; and he had been informed of the remarkable fact, that, on the day after the meeting, there was not at the police offices one single case of riot or disorder. He might also mention, that the day after the great Glasgow meeting, there was only one-fifth of the usual number of cases at the police-offices; both of which facts he would insist upon as a strong proof of the propriety of conduct observed by the people at these Reform meetings.
Mr. Robert A. Dundasdid not rise to confute that which had been stated by the learned Lord, or to deny that there prevailed a strong feeling in favour of Reform in the city which he (Mr. Dundas) represented; but he wished he could agree with the learned Lord, that the most constitutional means were resorted to in getting up the meeting. He did not pretend to dispute about numbers, though he also had the authority of an engineer for saying, that, allowing four to one square yard, there could not have been more than 9,000 persons present. He was not authorized to

1405
mention this gentleman's name publicly, but should be quite ready to satisfy the learned Lord in private of the fact. This meeting, however, had proved one thing—that those who had hitherto been considered the supporters of Ministers in Scotland, had now allowed themselves to be united with that class of persons which, if the recommendation of the King's Speech had been followed by the Government, would have long ago been suppressed—he alluded to the Political Unions; and it was with the greatest regret he had heard that a gallant officer, who held a high commission in his Majesty's service, and who had recently received a mark of his Majesty's favour, in being appointed to the command of one of the most gallant regiments in the army—the ninety-second—had condescended to take part in the proceedings of the day, although, in various parts of the ground, there were displayed banners of a most revolutionary tendency, such as "put no trust in princes"—"the warning to Belahazzar," representing the King without his head; and flags declaring the glory of the revolution in France. He was convinced that, although every man in the regiment would cheerfully obey the orders which, in discharge of his duty, that gallant officer might give them, there was not a private among them, if he inherited the spirit of the country that gave him birth, but would gladly have torn down these banners on the spot. He could not but regard the conduct of persons who thus allied themselves with seditious meetings, to be highly deserving of reprobation. If they had not the courage to denounce such a meeting, at least they should abstain from taking part in its proceedings. One thing he would assert; it was not owing to the Political Unions, but to the good sense of the lower classes of Edinburgh, that the most atrocious acts of violence were not committed after the meeting was over.
Colonel Evansmust say, that the course the hon. Member had taken, in thus attacking a private individual, might do much mischief to the gallant officer in question, but could do no good to the cause which the hon. Member meant to serve. If the meeting was legally convened, an officer in, the army was not to be prevented, merely on account of his commission, from attending it; for he trusted that officers in the army were to be allowed to entertain political opinions on what side they thought proper. He, therefore, hoped that the hon. Member, or at least the House, would see the im-
1406
propriety of the attack he had made, and would not think of holding the gallant officer responsible for all that was done by every individual in every distant corner of the field where the meeting assembled.
Mr. Kennedysaid, he had never heard a more unwarrantable attack made. Because a person of high influence chose to put himself forward, and become, perhaps, thereby, the very means of preventing violence, the hon. Member thought himself justified in making one of the most injurious and most uncalled-for attacks he (Mr. Kennedy) ever heard in all his life. Considering the strong feeling that existed in Scotland, they ought rather to rejoice that it had found vent in the manner in which it had. He was the last man to excuse the violence of the placards; but still there was ground for congratulation that, under all the circumstances, a much stronger feeling had not been displayed. It was very easy to depreciate numbers on occasions like this, but he was prepared to maintain that the meeting was most numerously attended, and that, though no means were taken for procuring signatures, it received 38,000 names in two days. He might be told that it contained such signatures as those of Napoleon and Hadji Baba; but that only proved that those opposed to Reform had been mean enough to endeavour to cast obloquy on the petition in this paltry manner. All Scotland ought to rejoice that the strong feelings which prevailed had found a vent so peaceable as that of speeches at public meetings—that the crisis had passed away without more fatal consequences—and that the people had only struck terror into their enemies by the force of public opinion.
Mr. Keith Douglaswished the House to remember, that this meeting was called together in consequence of the King exercising his just prerogative, and not tamely obeying the immediate mandate of his Ministers. From the commencement of the Reform Bill he had been most anxious to see the question treated with fair deliberation; but from the beginning he had found the Government resisting that, and, on the other hand, doing all in its power to excite the feelings of the country. At his own election, because he professed his honest opinions, and refused to vote for "the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill," there were persons, in conjunction with the Government, who took care to suppress anything like deliberation; and this had been the case at all other public

1407
meetings, whether the object was to petition Parliament, or to elect a Representative. They were now arrived at that stage at which the power of the King and the House of Lords was entirely superseded; under these circumstances he had made up his mind as to the Scotch Reform Bill. He considered it quite unnecessary to offer any suggestions respecting it, because it was well known that the Government would admit of no alterations. The Ministry was now not only invested with their own customary official power, but also with the power of the King and of both Houses of Parliament. It was, therefore, better to leave to them all the responsibility and inconvenience that must attend on a measure carried in so unconstitutional a manner.
The Lord Advocateknew that the greater part of the persons who attended the meeting were not in alliance with the Political Unions. As to the reference that had been made to the supposed misconduct of the gallant officer, he was prepared to contend, that the part he took was highly creditable to himself, and that it was monstrous to say, that he was to be responsible for the emblems displayed at the meeting. He would put it to the hon. member for Edinburgh, or to any man of common sense, whether a person on the hustings was to be answerable for individuals rearing fantastical or improper flags on the skirts of the meeting? Would the hon. Member have had the gallant officer vindicate his loyalty by making a violent attack on the banners of such an assembly? Why, surely that would have been the very way to have excited the feelings of the people, and to have given the signal for a breach of the peace. With respect to the emblems displayed, the worst he had heard of were, that the royal crown was encompassed with crape, and that, on one occasion, a portrait of the head of the King was reversed: but he had every reason to suppose that the gallant officer was equally ignorant with himself, at the time, of such emblems being exhibited.
Petition to be printed.
The Lord Advocatenext rose to present a similar Petition from the town of Perth, which had been voted so late as the month of January last. The petition was signed by seven Peers, by all the Magistrates and persons of property in the county, and by 27,000 of the inhabitants.
Sir George Murraywas not disposed to impugn the respectability of the petition,
1408
but, as it came from the county with which he was connected, he thought it necessary to say a few words on the subject. He could not deny that the petition certainly bore a great many respectable names; but he nevertheless felt himself fully justified in complaining of the very unfair grounds on which the petition had been got up. The intimation of calling the meeting began by what was not founded on fact. It commenced by stating the names of those who had signed a previous Reform petition; and it then intimated, that they were privately exerting themselves to obtain signatures to an Address to the King, and to a petition to Parliament, both of which were hostile to Reform. He denied the facts, and denounced the misstatement as a very unworthy and dishonourable artifice. He totally denied, that those who called the Perth meeting were justified in representing to the people that the former petitioners were enemies to Reform. The intimation was not consistent with truth, for those who had got up and signed the previous petition were not the enemies, but the friends of Reform, as the petition itself, now a record of that House, would fully prove. He begged those who entertained any doubt upon the subject to refer to the petition itself, and they would find that it set forth that "the petitioners would not withhold their acquiescence from such changes of the Representation as, from the lapse of time and alteration of circumstances, appeared to be necessary." He would now appeal to the House, whether it was consistent with truth to represent such persons as the enemies of Reform. But the advertisement calling the Perth meeting had affixed to it the names of many respectable persons, who never had given their sanction to their names being used for any such purpose. He would now come to the number of persons said to have been present at the meeting, and he would show that nothing could be more vague and unsatisfactory than the calculations made upon such subjects. One person of respectability had written to him stating that no more than 6,000 persons had been present, men, women, and children, and that had it not been a market-day, the numbers would not have been so great. Another person, a great promoter of the meeting, had written to him saving that there were 25,000 persons present, besides many who were attracted by curiosity. The vagueness of such estimates proved that very little reliance could be placed upon any of them. He was willing to give a very great latitude

1409
to the collection of signatures to petitions of this nature, but he nevertheless could not attach any very great degree of respect or importance to the signatures to the present petition, because in order to obtain them means utterly unjustifiable (such as threats of incendiarism) had been resorted to. Before he sat down, he must take the liberty of alluding to a calumny against the Scottish people, which that appeared a proper opportunity to notice, he alluded to a statement which appeared in The Times newspaper of the 27th of January last, which he held in his hand, and which was also inserted, in somewhat similar terms, in many other newspapers throughout the country. The statement in The Times was as follows. It purported to be a report of what was said by a noble and gallant friend of his, in presenting, in another place, a petition from the county of Perth, exactly similar to that which the learned Lord opposite had now presented to this House. 'Lord Lynedoch denied that any such language had been used at this meeting by the gentlemen in question. He had never heard of the circumstance before. As he was now on his legs, he would mention a fact which would show how strong the feeling in favour of Reform was in Perthshire. At the time their Lordships were discussing the question, whether the Reform Bill should be read a second time, a great number of weavers assembled every day at Perth to see the south mail come in, and to learn the intelligence which it brought. After the news came down that the Bill was rejected, they stopped the mail to know whether there had been any disturbances in London. The guard replied in the affirmative, and said, that the Duke of Wellington and another illustrious individual had been shot by the mob. This intelligence, which ought to have excited general disgust and indignation, was hailed with satisfaction by the assembled multitude, and in the vehemence of their indignation against the rejectors of the Reform Bill, they so far forgot the humanity of their natures as to go to a noble and gallant friend of his, and ask him whether they ought not to celebrate the fate of the Duke of Wellington and his colleague by a general illumination.' Now, he must say, that that statement was most calumnious. He, at least, could not credit, that any assembly of men could have so far forgotten the humanity of nature as to rejoice publicly in murder. No people in the world were less likely so to debase themselves
1410
than the people of Scotland, for there was not a more moral or humane people on the face of the earth. He believed, that the whole story was entirely without foundation, and for the honour of human nature he hoped that it was so. Either the nobleman in question had made a statement utterly devoid of truth, or the people of Scotland were entirely depraved, and had abandoned that character which for ages had belonged to them, and which he trusted ever would belong to them. When they could openly rejoice in an act of cruel and dastardly murder, perpetrated in the streets of London, and upon a man who of all men living had rendered the greatest and most important services to his country, they must indeed be sunk into the lowest depths of degradation. That noble person in whose assassination the people were said to have rejoiced, had not only rendered the most exalted services to his own country, but to the whole of Europe. It had been his good fortune to defend the independence of his country against her enemies—against a proud, unprincipled usurper, who had calumniated the people of England as a race insensible to glory, and incapable of deeds of arms, as one entire nation of shopkeepers. Yes, the Duke of Wellington had defended his countrymen against this charge and had raised the glory of the nation in arms higher than it had ever been raised at any previous period of her history. To that illustrious man, when he had completed his great exploits in war, was allotted the glory of redeeming the land of his birth from the stigma and ruin of religious intolerance. This was an act of equal, if not of greater importance, than all his achievements in the field. Let the country reflect upon such distinguished benefits, and then picture to itself the people of Scotland thirsting for his blood, and prepared to rejoice at the news of his death by murder. If it were possible that such a report could be correct—if it were possible that the people of Scotland were in such a state of excitement as thus to abandon all moral sentiment, and to discard every religious feeling—he should then say, that the petitions of such a people were of no value whatever. Whether the petitions of a people thus excited to depravity, thus lost to all humanity, were signed by 27,000 or 27,000,000 of names, he should say that they were utterly unworthy of the slightest attention.
Mr. Haliburtonhad not been aware, before he entered the House, that it was the intention of the learned Lord to present the petition from Perth; but, as he was pre-

1411
sent at that meeting, he would take the liberty of saying a few words about it. As far as he was able to judge (and his opinion had been confirmed by others), there were about 7,000 or 8,000 persons within hearing of the proceedings, and about as many more beyond earshot; so that the whole number of the meeting was about 15,000. He could say with satisfaction, that the meeting was both loyal and peaceable. He had moved the first resolution himself, which expressed attachment to the Throne.
Mr. James Johnstonewas sure that the people of Scotland would never rejoice in assassination; but, in referring to the Duke of Wellington, that might be taken in a double sense; for, though they might have full respect for the Duke's military achievements, they might, at the same time, be glad that his political course—which, in Scotland, was deemed so mischievous—was at an end.
Colonel Evanshad had the honour of serving under the Duke of Wellington, and would, therefore, say nothing against him. Indeed, on the contrary, he believed his Grace to be the first soldier of the world; but he (Colonel Evans) must nevertheless add, that it was with peculiar regret he had seen him bartering the well earned glories of military victory, for the doubtful honours of a political career.
Lord William Lennox, said, that though he differed from the Duke of Wellington's politics—though he rejoiced he did not come into office to pass the measure he had so often protested against—he could not sit silent and hear any palliation for the conduct of any individual who could rejoice in the supposed murder of that noble Duke. He felt assured that Scotland would not feel indebted to the hon. member for Dumfermline for palliating such a monstrous proposition.
Mr. James Johnstone: I beg to explain, that I meant no disrespect to the Duke of Wellington.
Petition to be printed.

PLACE OF HOLDING THE NORFOLK ASSIZES.
Mr. Baring presented a Petition from Thetford, against the removal of the Norfolk Assizes from that town.
Mr. Robert Grantpresented a Petition from the county of Norfolk, in favour of the removal.
Mr. Ridley Colbornepresented a petition from the north western portions of the county, against the removal, and four from other parts of the county to the same pur-
1412
pose. He had presented, a year ago, a petition for the same purpose signed by forty-eight Magistrates.
Mr. Weylandsaid, the general feeling of the county was in favour of the removal, and the petition just presented by the right hon. member for Norwich was signed, amongst others, by seventy or eighty Magistrates.
Mr. Robert Grantmoved the second reading of the Bill for removing the Assizes for the county of Norfolk from the town of Thetford to the city of Norwich. The right hon. Gentleman explained that, by the Act of 11th Richard 2nd, it was ordered that the Assizes should be held in the county town, but that this having been found in some cases, inconvenient, it had subsequently, in the same reign, been directed that the Lord Chancellor and the Judges might direct the Assizes to be held in other towns. The latter Act did hot, however, repeal the former; and subsequent statutes, particularly those for regulating the holding of Assizes in Cumberland and Cornwall, recognised its existence. In the county of Norfolk, the Assizes were held alternately at Norwich and Thetford; and the holding them at the latter place was found to be very inconvenient, because that town was situated at one extremity of the county, and the greater number of prisoners had to be brought from Norwich, which was a considerable distance from Thetford. Norwich was, in all respects, the most convenient place for holding the Assizes, and it was the wish of the great majority of the inhabitants that they should be held there. The expense of sending prisoners, attornies, and witnesses all the way to Thetford was very great. At Thetford, too, there was no accommodation for either Barristers, Judges, or prisoners, while at Norwich the accommodation was abundant. The necessity for passing the Bill arose from an application having been made to the Judges to remove the Assizes, who were unwilling to comply with the request. There was some doubts of their power, and a great dislike on their part to exercise it. The change was necessary for the due administration of justice, and a Bill was necessary to effect it, because there was no other certain means. He might be told, perhaps, to introduce a general measure, but lie could not take such a task on himself; but there was a crying grievance which it was within his power, by the assistance of the House, to remedy. He, moved that the Bill be read a second time.
Mr. Baringopposed the Motion. Thetford was a quiet town, much better adapted for the administration of justice than such a city as Norwich. He had heard nothing of complaints made by either the Judges or Barristers that Thetford was an improper place: but a conclusive argument against such a statement was to be found in the conduct of the Judges, who, having the power to order the removal, had not done so. There were notices on the paper for bills to remove other Assize towns, and he thought it would be better to bring forward some general measure, rather than to pass bills, Session after Session, for regulating the holding of the Assizes in every county of England. He thought no case had been Made out for the interference of Parliament, and that the matter should be left in the hands of the Lord Chancellor and the Judges.
Mr. Rigby Wasonsupported the Motion. He did not question the motives of the Judges, but there were many causes which made those learned persons unwilling to interfere. The mere inspection of a map was sufficient to decide the question, but all doubts were removed by the fact, that in the centre of the county the population was most numerous, that Thetford was not only remote as to place, but was actually far re-Moved from the mass of the population. It was more fitting that the Assizes should be held in a town which contained 70,000 people, than in one which did not contain 5,000.
Mr. Ridley Colborneopposed the Motion because it was improper to apply to Parliament. The power of remedying the inconveniences complained of was placed in the hands of the Judges, and if they had thought the removal not warranted, that House had no ground for interfering.
Mr. Weylandsupported the Motion. He knew that the Magistrates had petitioned for the change, and he knew, too, that the present place of holding the Assizes was productive of great inconvenience and great expense. The gentlemen of the county were the best judges of what was desirable, and they were almost to a man in favour of the change.
Mr. Petresupported the Bill.
Lord James Fitzroyopposed it. He had heard no reason to justify so important a change.
Mr. John Campbellknew that the Bill Was called for by the county at large, but as the Judges had the power of regulating the matter, it ought to be left to them.
Sir James Scarlettrecommended the
1414
House, before proceeding, to ascertain whether the Judges had the power of removing the Assizes.
The Attorney Generalthought the measure desirable, and it was not the less proper because his right hon. friend had brought it forward to please his constituents.
The House divided on the Motion for the second reading:—Ayes 44; Noes 13—Majority 31.
Bill read a second time.

LIVERPOOL DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.
Mr. Benett moved the second reading of this Bill.
Mr. John Campbellobjected to the second reading, on the ground that the members for Liverpool were not present.
Mr. Benettcould not consent to postpone the Motion on account of the absence of the members for Liverpool.
The House divided:—Ayes 44;—Noes 10;—Majority 34.
Bill read a second time.

Part of the AYES.

Barnard, Colonel

Lennox, Lord G.

Barry, A.

Lennox, Lord S.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Lennox, Lord W.

Best, N.

Miles, W.

Clayton, Colonel

Oxmantown, Lord

Colborne, R.

Peach, N.

Cole, Lord

Perceval, Colonel

Conolly, Colonel

Pringle, A.

Crampton, P. C.

Ponsonby, Hon. G.

Dick, Q.

Rice, S.

Evans, Colonel

Rochford, Colonel

Forrester, Hon. C.

Ruthven, E. S.

Grant, R.

Thicknesse, R.

Grattan, J.

Williams, A.

Handley, W. F.

Weyland, J.

Hayes, Sir E.

TELLERS.

Hoskin, K.

Benett, J.

Leader, N. P.

Wason, R.

Lennard, T.

List of the NOES.

Baldwin, C. B.

Stephenson, H. F.

Bouverie, D. P.

Wrightson, W. B.

Denman, Sir T.

TELLERS.

Hodges, T. L.

Campbell, J.

James, W.

Warburton, H.

Parnell, Sir H.

KING'S COUNTY ASSIZES.
Lord Tullamorerose to move the Second Reading of the Bill for removing the Assizes from Philipstown to Tullamore, in the King's County. The former town, is Lordship observed, was completely inconvenient, whether with regard to its position, for it was in the centre of the Bog of Allen, or as

1415
to its means of accommodation. The town was very small, and the Bar, Judges, and Jurors felt great inconvenience for the want of sufficient accommodation. A new Court-house had been recently, erected in Tullamore, at considerable expense; and, independently of the reasons he had already assigned, which in themselves were sufficiently powerful, he thought that this was an additional argument in favour of the proposed Bill, for it would be most desirable that the Court-house and gaol should be as close as possible to each other, as very great inconvenience attended the removal of prisoners from one town to another. He moved that the Bill be read a second time.
Mr. Ponsonbymoved an Amendment, that the Bill be read that day six months, on the ground that the removal of the Assizes from Philipstown would be a severe injury to the inhabitants of that town.
Lord Oxmantownsupported the original Motion, and for the reasons which had been stated by the noble Lord who introduced the Motion. That noble personage, he added, could not be supposed to be influenced by any personal motive in this transaction, for he possessed property in the vicinity of both towns, and he could have no object or interest in favouring one beyond the other. He was satisfied that the noble Lord was influenced by the most pure and praiseworthy motives—namely, a wish to facilitate the administration of justice.
Mr. Cramptonsupported the Amendment. He conceived that sufficient grounds had not been stated for changing the Assizes. There was another class of persons besides the Bar and Grand Jury, whose interests should be consulted—namely, the farmers of the county; besides, the building of a new Court-house would entail a very heavy expense on the county, and these were not times in which such burthens could be borne. It would appear that the new jail had been built with the view of affording an argument for the removal of the Assizes.
Mr. Spring Ricesupported the original Motion, because he was of opinion that any measure which might be calculated to facilitate the administration of justice, should not be rejected merely on account of the expense of a new Court-house. He thought sufficient had been stated to induce the House to support this Bill, and he should accordingly vote for the second reading.
Mr. Shawalso supported the Motion.
Mr. Ruthven, from his geographical knowledge of the county, felt that the proposed measure would be a great benefit. Tullamore was eight miles distant from Philipstown, and it would be a monstrous inconvenience to bring persons such a distance for trial; besides, Philipstown did not afford sufficient accommodation. Individual interests should not be preferred to the public good.
Bill read a second time.

STATE OF TUE QUEEN'S COUNTY.
Sir Henry Parnellrose, pursuant to the notice previously given to make a Motion relative to the county he had the honour to represent. It was not his intention at that hour to occupy the attention of the House at greater length than was indispensably necessary for the discharge of the duty he had undertaken. To such hon. Members in that House as were connected with Ireland it must have been matter of notoriety that the Queen's County, to which the Motion he was about to submit to that House referred, was in a state of frightful disturbance—disturbance which, he regretted to say, so far from diminishing, was considerably on the increase. He was aware that his Majesty's Government had taken steps to repress these scenes of insubordination, and that a Commission had been sent down for the purpose of bringing to justice the perpetrators of the outrages which had disgraced that county. He trusted that this measure would have the desired effect, and that it might be the means of restoring peace and tranquillity. He felt, however, that this case was of such a serious character that he should not discharge his duty to his country and his constituents, if he did not persevere in bringing it under the immediate notice of that House—and in taking this course he was only acting in obedience to the wish of a numerous and respectable portion of his constituents, who had called upon him to do so. The Motion which it was his intention to make on this subject was, for a Select Committee to inquire into the general efficiency of the law in repressing disturbances of the nature he had described. Before he called upon the House to accede to his proposition, he felt bound to state what measures had been adopted by the local authorities to check the progress of crime in the Queen's County. In the first place—a meeting of thirty-seven Magistrates was held at Philipstown, to inquire into the state of the county, to investigate the

1417
proximate causes of those outrages, and to devise the most effectual remedy to arrest them. After much deliberation, it was determined at this meeting to form an armed association, in whose ranks all classes of the people were to be enrolled. Circular letters were despatched to the most remote parts of the county, announcing this resolution, and subsequently a meeting of the Central Committee of Magistrates was held, at which it was resolved to communicate with Government. In pursuance of this resolution, a communication was accordingly opened with the Government, and a supply of arms was requested for the armed association, of which he had before spoken. This demand, it was necessary he should state, was refused by the Government, on the alleged ground that the parties to whom the arms were intended to be supplied were exclusively Protestants. When this application had been refused, several other measures had been resorted to by the Magistrates of the county, and it was in consequence of the failure of all these measures that the Magistrates were compelled to adopt the present course, and to bring before the notice of the House the state of the Queen's County, with the view to remedy such defects as might be found in the existing law. In the observations which he had felt it his duty to make, he did not mean to impute blame to his Majesty's Government; on the contrary, he was convinced that they were actuated by the most sincere and anxious desire to put down these disturbances, and to promote peace and social order in the country. Such were also his motives in bringing forward his present Motion. He could not anticipate any opposition to this proceeding, because he was satisfied that every Gentleman in that House felt as great an anxiety as he could possibly feel, in rescuing the county from the foul disgrace which these outrages had unfortunately entailed on it. With these preliminary remarks, he would now move, that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the general efficiency of, the law in Ireland for repressing outrages and disturbance.
Sir Charles Cooteseconded the Motion. In doing so he was influenced by the double motive of obeying the wishes of his constituents, and doing that which was also in accordance with his own feelings and conviction. The speech of the hon. Baronet who had brought forward the Motion, had thrown such light upon the state of things in the county which he had the honour to
1418
represent, that little remained for him to add upon the subject. One thing, at all events, must be apparent to the House, from the statement of his hon. friend, that to whatever cause these disturbances were attributed, they did not arise from any indisposition on the part of the Magistrates to perform their duty. Every measure which the law authorized them to adopt had been resorted to—an armed association, to consist of all classes indiscriminately, had been proposed, but this plan failed—not from any want of energy on the part of the constituted authorities, but in consequence of the system of intimidation which was spread throughout the county, and which prevented the peasantry, who resided in thatched cabins, through fear of personal violence, from joining in this confederation, the avowed object of which was the preservation of social order, and the repression of those disturbances which had disgraced the county. He, like his hon. friend, could not anticipate any possible objection to the Motion. The state of the Queen's County was such as every Member of that House must deplore, and he felt convinced that they would all lend their sanction to any measure that might be calculated to remedy this appalling state of things—a state of things which, he was grieved to say, in place of mending, was daily becoming worse. Murders had been lately committed in that county in the most public manner, and several stands of arms had, within the last few days, been seized by the people. These were matters of too serious a character to be permitted to go on. Some strong and decisive steps were necessary, or it was impossible to say where it might end.
Mr. Stanleydid not rise for the purpost of casting any imputation on the Magistrates of the Queen's County, and in any observations which he had to offer to the House, he should cautiously abstain from saying anything which might by possibility imply a disposition on his part to attach blame to their conduct—neither did he rise for the purpose of resisting the Motion of the right hon. Baronet. He had no objection to the Committee for which the right hon. Baronet had applied, if it would be likely to effect the object which it was intended to promote—namely, to correct any deficiency in the existing law; at the same time, he felt bound to state, that he was determined to oppose any extraordinary or unconstitutional measures, if any such were sought for by the present Motion. He had no doubt but the Magistrates had taken

1419
prompt, and what they considered efficient measures, to repress the disturbances in the Queen's County; but, notwithstanding this, he was also of opinion, that the existing law was sufficiently strong to put down all outrages: that it possessed a vigour which, if properly understood and exercised, could not fail to check the progress of this evil. He, however, saw no objection to the proposed Committee. On the contrary, he conceived that the investigation which was sought might be productive of the most useful and salutary results. For example, Gentlemen connected with other parts of Ireland—Clare, Galway, Roscommon, and other places, where disturbance existed—would have an opportunity of comparing the effects of the working and operation of the law in these various places—the extent and nature of these disturbances—the causes from which such effects had been produced—and the remedies which had been found most effectual in repressing these disorders. Nay, further, if after a patient investigation of these matters, the Committee should be of opinion that the ordinary laws required to be strengthened, then such additional alterations or amendments might be made as this House should deem consistent with the spirit of the Constitution; but he, for one, believed, as he had before stated, that the existing laws were sufficiently strong, if enforced with vigilance and vigour, and because he entertained this conviction, he could not resort to extraordinary measures at any time without extreme reluctance—because if once the system of resorting to these extraordinary measures were adopted, the powers supplied by the ordinary laws, which were sufficiently ample in themselves, would fall into disuse, and upon every slight occasion the Government would be called upon to interfere in such a way, as nothing but the most urgent and pressing necessity—in fact, which nothing but the total failure of every remedy afforded by the ordinary laws—could possibly justify them in acceding to. He therefore thought, that it would be most unfair to impute blame to the Irish Government for the part they had acted in the case referred to by the right hon. Baronet. In refusing the application made by the Magistrates of the Queen's County, the Government had been influenced by the soundest and most impartial views. They naturally felt that it would be exceedingly unwise and improper to place arms in the hands of any particular class in the community, and that such a proceeding, so far
1420
from being calculated to restore peace and tranquillity, or to repress crime, would, on the contrary, tend, in no small degree, to augment the disturbances of the county. Acting upon this principle, and on those views, the Government of Ireland felt that they were bound to refuse the application, and he should much regret that these acts, which were dictated by the purest motives on the part of the Government, should be made the subject of misconstruction and misrepresentation. He begged, however, not to be understood as casting any reflection on the hon. Baronet for the manner in which he had alluded to that circumstance—so far from this, he felt that the right hon. Gentleman had introduced the subject with much taste and delicacy. For the reasons he had already stated, he would not oppose this Motion, at the same time that he retained his opinion that the law, as it stood at present, was sufficiently strong and effective; but, under all the circumstances, he was not disposed to deny, that considerable benefit might result from the labours of this Committee.
Mr. James Grattanwas of opinion that the object of the inquiry ought to be extended, and that it should be the duty of the Committee, not only to investigate the efficiency or non-efficiency of the law, but also to trace these disturbances to the fountainhead, and endeavour to ascertain the cause which produced effects so extraordinary and unnatural. He had but just returned from that part of the country which had been represented as in a state of disturbance, and, from experience derived from personal observation, he was enabled to state, that the laws were sufficiently strong as they at present stood, but why they failed in their efficiency he conceived was a subject of useful and interesting inquiry. He had received information about twelve months ago of the intention to form the armed association alluded to by the right hon. Baronet. Upon receiving the intelligence, he immediately went amongst his tenantry, and forty of them declared their willingness to bear arms for the preservation of the peace of the country, and to join this armed association. He immediately communicated this fact to the Magistrates, but from that day to the present he had never heard a word upon the subject. To prevail upon them now to join in such a plan would be a matter of impossibility, for he had within the last ten days made application to them, and they had to a man refused to bear arms, such was the state of intimi-

1421
dation which prevailed throughout the country. This state of things he thought was mainly attributable to the supineness of the magistracy, or at least to the injudicious system they had determined to adopt. In illustration of this, it was only necessary to remind the House of the fact he had already stated, that the services tendered by his tenantry had been rejected. Had the Magistrates, at the commencement of the disturbances accepted the assistance of the peaceable and well-disposed inhabitants of the country, the marauders would have been put down at once, and the peace of the country effectually secured. He did not rise for the purpose of opposing the appointment of the Committee; on the contrary, he thought that if the objects were extended, and the origin of this disturbance sifted to the bottom, much practical good would result from the labours of the Committee. He could not forget, that in 1825 or 1826 a similar inquiry took place before a Committee of that House, which had been productive of much good, and he entertained little doubt but that if this Committee were conducted with a similar spirit, it would be attended with equally beneficial results. It was monstrous to suppose that these outrages had resulted from any gratuitous love for mischief on the part of the people. There must be some pressing cause—some radical defect in the system, which required to be sifted to the bottom. It was on this account that he wished the inquiry of the Committee to be extended. If this humble suggestion were acceded to, he should support the Motion, but if it were not, he should feel it his duty to oppose it.
Mr. O'Ferrallsaid, that he should trouble the House with very few observations. He resided in a neighbouring county to that in which these disturbances had taken place, and from his proximity to the scenes of the outrages, and his constant residence in the country, he had an opportunity of watching their progress, and tracing them to their source. He quite agreed in opinion with his hon. friend, the member for Wicklow, that if proper steps had been taken in the commencement, before the disturbance had arrived at its present pitch, it might easily have been put down; but also fully concurred with his hon. friend in thinking that the people were not influenced in their conduct by any gratuitous love for mischief, but that there must be some primary cause, some radical defect in the system, which required to be investigated and amended.
1422
For these reasons he was anxious that the inquiry of the Committee should embrace all those points, for he conceived that it would be useless to attempt prescribing a remedy until they first perfectly understood the nature of the disease. And to understand it properly it was necessary that all the symptoms should be carefully examined, and accurately traced through their most remote ramifications. He had no doubt but if the inquiry was conducted on this principle much good would result from it, and he was perfectly satisfied that his view of this question would be fully sustained, and that it would be found, that these disturbances were, in a great measure, to be attributed to the conduct of the landlords; that, in fact, it was a war of property on the one hand, and the resistance of poverty on the other. If the suggestion of his hon. friend were complied with, and the inquiry extended to the consideration of these matters, the Motion should have his support; but, if otherwise, he should feel it his duty to oppose it.
Mr. Leadersaid, that he felt reluctant to differ from the right hon. Baronet, and the Secretary for Ireland, and the more so when several Gentlemen who represented counties which were contiguous to the Queen's County appeared desirous to support the Motion for a "Select Committee to inquire into the efficiency of the laws at present in force in Ireland." He admitted that it did not follow of necessity that there was to be a great change in the existing laws, because there was a Select Committee appointed to inquire into the efficiency of the laws at present in Ireland for the suppression of outrages against the public peace, but still he had been always apprehensive of seeing that done by the House which might lead to novel, and, perhaps, extraordinary proceedings. It was with him an invariable principle to enforce the old laws rigorously, rather than bring blame on the old laws to excuse the introduction of new laws possessing greater vigour and severity. He was not prepared for a very important Motion of this kind, and he was less prepared when it was brought on at one o'clock in the morning, and in a very thin House. He did not wish to interfere with the government of the country. He knew that, even in the county where the tithe disturbances commenced, there was a change for the better. He was mistaken if the Secretary for Ireland would not be disposed to admit, his official communications did not warrant

1423
the assertion that the state of the county of Kilkenny was not more tranquil than it had been ["hear, hear!"]. He presumed those cheers were for the purpose of denying the fact of any improvement. He thought the Gentlemen who entertained that opinion mistaken, as his information was, that, with the exception of the part of Kilkenny bordering on the Queen's County, the rest of it was very tranquil, compared with what it had been. Did Gentlemen forget, or were they entirely ignorant, that a special commission was, probably, at that moment, sitting in the Queen's County? Was not that county surrounded by a strong military force? Would it be denied that the same Government which sent special commissions into Limerick, Clare, and Galway, and tranquillized Clare, that was in a state little short of open insurrection, was not still responsible for the peace of Ireland? Would any man say, that Clare was not even a worse case than the Queen's County? Was there any Select Committee proposed, after the special commission to Clare, to inquire into the efficiency of the law at present in force in Ireland for the suppression of outrages against the public peace? He had no relish for Special Committees, at one in the morning for inquiring into the efficiency of the laws. He was afraid the Committee would be soon looking to the Insurrection Act, or some other strong coercive measures. He would be no party to Committees appointed in a moment of fever and exasperation. He would confide in the measures of Government which had been tried and had succeeded. It was painful to him to differ when so many appeared to agree. He did not think it was by more severe laws than those at present in existence, that disturbances were to be repressed. He looked for laws ameliorating the condition of the people, notoriously destitute and unemployed, as the only laws calculated to insure tranquillity and peace. He was happy to be in his place at that late hour to oppose the motion of the right hon. Baronet. He believed in his conscience that penal and severe laws only increased the mass of popular discontent, and if the remedial laws in progress for the improvement of the people did not tranquillize the country, he confessed he had very little expectation from any Special Committee for any such purpose as commencing an inquiry now into the efficiency of the laws at present in force for the suppression of outrages against the public peace. He was sorry to
1424
disturb what appeared to be the general sense of the House, but he expected from the desire he saw evinced by the Gentlemen on the other side for the Committee, that new laws were contemplated to be recommended, on the authority of the Committee, and he, therefore, entirely disapproved of the measure.
Mr. Stanleyfelt, that having already spoken on this question, he was not strictly regular in again addressing the House. He, however, begged their permission to make a few observations in reference to what had fallen from hon. Members who had lately spoken. The object of the motion of the right hon. Baronet was, to inquire into the efficiency or non-efficiency of the law; and it would extend to other districts than the Queen's County in which disturbance might exist. The right hon. Baronet had done him the honour of giving him intimation of his intention to bring forward the present Motion, and it was agreed between them, that the inquiry should be limited to the objects specified in the Motion. If they went beyond that, it would be attended with considerable inconvenience, and it would be impossible to define the duties of the Committee. With respect to what had fallen from the hon. member for Kilkenny, as to the efficacy of special commissions, he must observe, that it did not meet the motion of the right hon. Baronet. Special commissions, no doubt, had a most powerful influence in putting down disturbances, when they had arrived at an alarming extent; but measures of this description could not be brought to bear, until much mischief had been committed. For instance, a special commission could not be sent to any county until a number of prisoners had been taken; when this was the case, there was certainly less difficulty in procuring evidence, but the complaint of the right hon. Baronet was, that the powers afforded by the existing law were not strong enough to crush those disturbances in their bud, and before they had extended through the country. To this point the attention of the Committee ought to be confined; and he, for his own part, thought it would be productive of no public advantage, but, on the contrary, of much inconvenience, to extend the inquiry beyond this proposition.
Colonel Percevalconsidered the Irish Government to be highly blameable for their treatment of Captain Graham. He himself had been a Magistrate for twenty years, but in consequence of the scan-

1425
dalous treatment that gallant Officer had received, he felt that he should be dishonoured if he continued any longer in the Commission of the Peace; he also felt bound to say, after twenty years' experience as a Magistrate, that if he had been placed in the same situation as Captain Graham, he should have acted in a precisely similar manner. Now, with respect to the Queen's County, there was one fact which he thought it his duty to state to the House; two men had been capitally convicted for firing upon a Magistrate, a friend of his, and yet the Government, notwithstanding examples were necessary, from the disturbed state of the country, actually extended its clemency to these men, and commuted their sentence to transportation for life. Was this the way, he would ask, to quiet the country? For his own part, he felt convinced that, if strong measures were not resorted to, it would be impossible for any gentleman to live in the country.
Mr. Spring Ricewas surprised at the remarks which had fallen from the gallant Colonel. He could not but deprecate such a line of conduct, upon a subject of such deep importance to the interests of the country. Violent observations were most unbecoming in discussing a question which required the most cool and dispassionate consideration. He implored of hon. Members to reflect upon the condition of the country, and he would ask them, if any possible good could result from indulging, at this period, in observations like those which had been made by the hon. Member who last addressed the House? He thought that much good would result from the intended Committee, and he, therefore, would support the motion of the right hon. Baronet.
Colonel Connollysaid, he had that morning seen a letter from Mr. Greene, the stipendiary Magistrate, who had been lately appointed by the Lord Lieutenant for the county of Kilkenny. In that letter the county was described in a state of the most perfect tranquillity, but before he had concluded the letter, no less than seven murders were mentioned at the bottom of it. The inefficiency of the law in Ireland for repressing disturbances was notorious, and he, therefore, was determined to support the Motion.
Mr. Shawcomplained of the tone in which the hon. member for Limerick had alluded to his hon. friend (Colonel Perceval). He thought that every Member in that House had a right to express his opin-
1426
ion upon the conduct of Government, and he must say, that he saw nothing in the observation of the hon. member for Sligo to warrant the lecture which the hon. member for Limerick had thought proper to read him. The hon. member for Kilkenny, he conceived, had been most infelicitous in his citation of that county as an example of proving the influence of the law in putting down these outrages. It was a well known fact, and admitted by the Irish government, that the law had been signally defeated in the county Kilkenny, and that his Majesty's Attorney General was actually obliged to postpone the prosecution of several persons, charged with the most atrocious crimes, from the system of intimidation which prevailed. He meant, certainly, to support the Motion.
Mr. Ruthvenopposed the Motion. It was the conduct of the gentry which occasioned disturbances in Ireland, and as long as they held their present language, and pursued their present course of proceedings, Committees and severe laws would not repress disturbances.
Mr. Walkerfelt it necessary to oppose this Motion, from a conviction that its result and intention were, to obtain measures of increased severity against the people of Ireland. The wording of the Motion alarmed him, but after the violent speeches he had just heard from Gentlemen opposite, who supported this Motion, he was convinced that the Report of such a Committee would be to endeavour to obtain more coercive measures to goad the peasantry into rebellion. Had the Motion been what he first understood was intended, for a Committee to inquire into "the causes of the disturbances in the Queen's County," and other parts of Ireland, he should have voted for it, because he was convinced it would then appear that much of the disturbance could be traced to the oppressive conduct of the gentry and clergy—to the inactivity of Magistrates in some instances, the partial administration of the law in others, and unnecessary severity in more. He was firmly convinced, that the existing laws, if steadily and impartially administered, were quite sufficient to repress and punish outrage. It was not owing to a deficiency of severity in the laws in Ireland that the existence of outrage was to be attributed. It was to those persons solely who, by tyranny and oppression, sting their victims to madness, and by their partial and sectarian administration of severe and cruel enactments, drive them to despair; and then, instead of remedying those evils by retracing their

1427
steps, by acts of kindness or justice, they apply to Government for Insurrection Acts, and to Parliament for new powers to re-act the tyrant with impunity. He had acted for many years as a Magistrate; he had watched the causes which produced crime, and he had always seen the existing laws sufficient to repress it, and he could speak from experience, that those laws, when, executed with mercy, impartiality, and steadiness, never failed in preserving peace, and, when so executed, were always respected by the people. He was perfectly astonished at the unnecessary reference which had been made to the occurrence at Newtownbarry, by the hon. member for Sligo, and the praises he had bestowed on Captain Graham, and the yeomanry, for their conduct on that occasion, and the attempt to throw blame on the people of the county of Wexford. It was impossible that he could suffer such remarks to pass without noticing them, as he could never look on that individual and his associates but as murderers ["No, no"]. Yes, yes—he could never look on their acts in any other light, His countrymen were accused of crime—the county he belonged to was represented as the theatre of sedition—but he would say, that the only serious crime which had occurred for years; the only murders which had been committed, were those committed
1428
on twenty innocent persons, who had been so unnecessarily shot at Newtownbarry; for, he would ask, what other name than murder could any unprejudiced person give to the indiscriminate slaughter of so many unresisting and flying people, by yeomen pretending to force an illegal sale and distress of cattle, seized for tithes actually not due, and yet to the sale of which no opposition was offered? He must oppose the Motion, feeling that the present laws were sufficiently strong and efficient, and should, certainly, resist the formation of any Committee, the result of which was likely to have the smallest tendency to increase the severities of the laws in Ireland.
Mr. James Grattanrequested the right hon. Baronet to enlarge his Motion, so as to embrace an inquiry into the causes of disturbance in Ireland.
Sir Henry Parnellsaw no advantage likely to result from it, and must, therefore, decline to accede to the request.
Sir John M. Doylesaid, as the right hen. Baronet would not accede to the request of his hon. friend, he must, though unwilling to do so, divide the House on the Motion.
The House divided, but there being only twenty-two Members present, it necessarily adjourned.
END OF VOL. XII.—THIRD SERIES.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Duke of DEVONSHIRE, from Derby, in favour of the Factories Regulation Bill.—By the Earl of ROSEBERY, from Falkirk, in favour of the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill.

ARREARS OF TITHES (IRELAND).
Viscount Melbourne moved the Order of the Day for their Lordships to resolve themselves into a Committee on the Arrears of Tithes Bill.
The Earl of Wicklowwas desirous of making some observations on the Bill before it went into a Committee, but, considering that very important business was to come on this evening, he did not mean to go into the subject at much length. Still he felt that he might be justified in entering, on the present occasion, into a discussion of the whole subject of tithes, as connected with Ireland; a subject of the first importance with reference to that country, and which had, notwithstanding, been ill managed and much neglected. He would, however, confine himself at present to the particular object of the Bill, which was that of enabling the Government to pay certain proportions of the uncollected tithes to the Clergy out of the Consolidated Fund, and to authorise the Government itself to collect the arrears of tithes for the repayment of the sum advanced. Now the Tithe Committee had made its report, recommending this measure, in February, and yet the Bill was only in progress through this House at the end of May. The Committee, too, had only made this one report, and although it still continued in existence, it had received no more evidence than had been given in the course of one week. The subject had, therefore, been much neglected and ill managed. The report had recommended the total extinction of tithes in Ireland, and had, on that account, been productive of effects on the collecting of the tithes already due. It might be said, in fact, to have operated as a total suspension of the payment of tithes. When tithes were applied for, those who ought to pay, either were, or affected to be, astonished that such a demand should be made, and asked whether the Legislature had not put an end to the payment of tithes? As to the present Bill, he admitted, that if it had been passed at an earlier period, it would have been attended with very beneficial results; but the delay had allowed the evil to reach to such an extent, that if the contemplated payments were to be made to all the clergy, they would hardly be sufficient to supply them with a single meal. With this feeling he did not think the Bill of much importance as far as it related to these payments. But there was no reason why those who ought to have paid the tithes should not be compelled to pay them, and it was proper and necessary that the Government itself should compel these Reformers to pay, and that the law should by that means prevent an immediate collision between the Clergy and the Reformers. This

1365
law authorised and required the Government to exert its power, and enforce the payment of the arrears of tithes, for the reimbursement to the Consolidated Fund of the money advanced to the Irish clergy, for it was only a loan, and payment of it ought to be made imperative on those who ought to pay. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would not suffer any mistaken leniency or temporizing policy, or attempts at conciliation, to interfere with the enforcing payment from those from whom tithes were due, and he trusted that it would unflinchingly compel the payment of all the arrears. He said so, because he was informed that, in some of the disturbed districts, it was intended to resist the payment of the tithes under this Bill. When they went into the Committee, he would suggest some amendments for the consideration of the noble Viscount (Melbourne); and chiefly he would suggest, that the Government should be armed with additional powers to enforce the payment. By this Bill they had even less power to enforce payment, than the clergy themselves enjoyed, for there was no provision to enable the Government to make those who resisted the payment, liable in costs. The Bill ought to contain a provision to give the Government power to compel these Reformers to pay costs, otherwise they would persist, if it were only to put the clergy to expense. As the Bill stood, the proceedings to enforce payment from those who resisted, would be attended with no expense to those who had refused, and it would be ruinous to the clergy. He would suggest amendments in these points to which he alluded, but he would merely suggest them without proposing them himself, lest he should delay the progress of the Bill, which he was most anxious to have passed as soon as possible.
Viscount Melbournedid not think the complaints of the noble Earl, as to the neglect in carrying forward the Bill, well founded, for it had advanced as fast as circumstances permitted. He had been anxious to proceed with the Bill in this House with all possible despatch; but the Bill had been delayed by the proceedings of the noble Earl himself, who had declared that he had amendments to propose. The consequence of that declaration was, that the Bill was necessarily postponed; and, if it had not been for that declaration, it would have been before this time passed into a law. As to the proceedings of the Committee, he did submit that, considering the magnitude
1366
of the subject, and all the circumstances, the proceedings had advanced as far as could well be expected. Under the circumstances in which the Government had been lately placed, it could not have been expected that they should bring forward a measure to settle the important question of Irish tithes. He was in hopes, however, they would soon be in a condition to propose a measure which would effectually prevent a collision between the clergy and the immediate occupier of the soil. As to the statements of the noble Earl, about resistance to the legal demands of the clergy, he would only say, that the Government was prepared to enforce those demands, and that it was intended to arm the Government with all the powers necessary to give effect to its purpose. As to the matter of costs, this was in the nature of a proceeding on the part of the Crown, which, by the common law, neither paid nor took costs; but the Government was armed with a power to take summary steps to enforce payment; and the power, he hoped, would be sufficient for the purpose.
House in Committee.—Clauses of the Bill read and agreed to.—House resumed.

TITHES (IRELAND) PETITIONS.
Lord Kingpresented a Petition from several landowners and others, of a district in the Queen's County, praying for an alteration in the Tithe System. Some observations had been made, about the payment of costs, and the proceedings of the courts; but these petitioners stated, that when the assistant Barrister had decided in their favour, he had been forced by the Ecclesiastical Court to reverse that decision. There was no great justice in that, nor could the payers of tithes well expect justice when the clergymen were judges in their own cause. Tithes constituted a tax of the worst description, and it was a tax which ought to be abolished.
Lord Wynfordthought, that little reliance could be placed on the statements of facts made by these petitioners, for they were most clearly mistaken as to the law. The Ecclesiastical Courts had no jurisdiction, either in Ireland or England, to meddle with the decisions of the Common Law Judges.
Lord Kingrepeated, that tithes were manifestly a most oppressive tax, and one of the worst kind, since a great deal more was paid by the occupier of land than came into the pockets of the clergy. The proctor intervened, and had an interest in en-

1367
forcing the payment of tithes in the most oppressive manner.
The Marquess of Salisburycould not understand the object of the noble Baron in making these never-ending attacks upon the Church and its endowments. Whatever that object was, the noble Lord's conduct neither conduced to support the dignity of the House, nor was it creditable to the noble Lord. He would tell the noble Lord that the tithe was not a tax. It was property, and the property of the Church, to which the clergy had as much right, as the noble Lord to his rents. Whenever the time came that this was not the case, if tithes fell rents would soon follow, and those who exacted high rents would be the first to fall. How would the noble Lord like his tenants to petition that House against the noble Lord's exaction of rent? The cases as to petitions respecting rent and tithes were exactly similar.
The Bishop of Londonsaid, that the clergy seldom exacted above two-thirds of what they were justly entitled to. The noble Lord (King) made complaints of the interference and cost of tithe proctors in Ireland. But he would ask what occasioned the interference but the refusal of the party to pay what was legally due?
Lord Kinghad but one observation to make upon what had fallen from the noble Marquess opposite (the Marq. of Salisbury). He (Lord King) should have no objection to any visitation upon those who exacted high rents from their tenants. He should not suffer by that, and he hoped it would be the same with the noble Marquess.
The Marquess of Salisburydid not mean to reproach the noble Lord on the score of high rents; neither had he to reproach himself upon any such ground. At all events he was confident, that he never exacted from his tenants payment in gold when the guinea was worth 28 s.
Petition laid on the Table.
Lord Kingsaid, fortunately he had other petitions to present, which would afford him an opportunity of answering the observations of the noble Marquess. In the first place he maintained that tithe was a tax, and one of the worst sort, because it was levied on gross produce. Next, he did not deny, that tithe was property; but then it was public property, the property of the individual for the time being, but after his death to be dealt with as all other public property was liable to be dealt with. As to the allusion made by the noble Marquess to his having demanded gold in pay-
1368
ment of his rent, he could easily explain that. He had not brought his action against a poor tenant, but against a Bank Director, whom he had the good fortune to have for a tenant at the time that an individual in the other House, who probably was at that moment in their Lordships' House, had thought fit to get a resolution passed, that a Bank note and a shilling were equal in value to a guinea in gold. He was determined to prove the fallacy of that resolution of the minister of the day; and therefore, and therefore only, had he taken the course remarked upon by the noble Marquess. To that fatal mistake of borrowing largely in a depreciated paper currency, and paying in metal, he attributed all the evils the country was labouring under. The nation was then drunk with its supposed wealth; but it was now paying dearly for the folly, or rather the knavery, with which the affairs of the country were then governed.
The Bishop of Londoncould not permit the noble Lord's assertion, that the tithes were public property, to pass uncontradicted. He denied that they ought to be so viewed, or that the public had the power to resume property devoted to the Church. The public were entitled to see that the property of the Church was properly applied, but that was all. He should like to ask the noble Lord whether he was of opinion that if he made a testamentary disposition of his property for the purpose of founding and supporting an institution for the relief of decayed clergymen, it would be legal or equitable in the Legislature, at the end of a century, to divert that property from its purpose?
Lord Bexleyhoped that the noble Lord paid his debts in gold, as he exacted the payments made to him in that metal. The resolution of the other House to which he bad referred, had been affirmed by a Jury, which, he thought, proved it was not so absurd as the noble Lord seemed disposed to represent it.
Lord Kingsaid, he always paid in ready money, and therefore he paid the market price at the time of making the contract whatever it was. He had several other petitions respecting tithes to present, and would be ready to meet the right reverend Prelate in discussion upon the nature of Church property whenever he pleased. The noble Lord concluded by presenting several petitions from different places in Ireland, which were laid upon the Table.

NAVY CIVIL DEPARTMENTS BILL.
Lord Aucklandin moving the second reading of the Navy Civil Departments Consolidation Bill explained, that the object of this Bill was to bring the different offices for the management of the business of the navy, which were at present partly at the Admiralty, and partly at Somerset House, under one roof, and place them under one Board. The advantage of this arrangement would be increased despatch in the business, and a considerable saving of expense.
Lord Ellenboroughwas prepared to urge many objections to the measure, and was hound to say, that he entertained serious doubts of its policy. It was impossible, for example, that any naval men, however distinguished in their own profession, should be such good accountants, or so fit to form members of civil Boards, as persons whose education had been calculated for such duties. When he looked to the exploits of the British navy during the last 130 years, it did occur to him, that there could be no need of change in that department of the public service. But it appeared that all our institutions were to undergo some change in these times, with or without reason; and it might probably be shewn by some advocate of change, that if the alterations now in contemplation had been made earlier, we should have had better victories over the enemy, and more of them, than we had reason to boast of during the period he had mentioned. He had heard no reasons whatever assigned for such a sweeping alteration, except the advantage of transacting business without having any subsidiary Boards to record and check the proceedings of the Admiralty. He, however, thought it was a great security for the due performance of public duties when the highest officers were obliged to give their orders in writing. The Navy Board was composed of practical men of business, conversant with all the details of dock-yards and ship building, and he could not for one moment imagine, that Lords of the Admiralty, who were generally naval men of high reputation, and gentlemen of parliamentary influence, could effectually perform their duties. He doubted the advantages of their proposed measure, but should not oppose the Motion.
Lord Napierthought the noble Baron had entirely misunderstood or forgotten the principle of the Bill. The noble Baron had stated, that he did not conceive naval men were fit to conduct the civil departments of the navy.
Lord Ellenborough, interrupting the noble Lord: he had simply said, that naval officers, however efficient in their business, were not of necessity the fittest persons to place at the head of civil departments involving the duties of accountants.
Lord Napierconsidered that argument to be as applicable in favour of his proposition as in favour of that of the noble Baron. Professional men he considered, to be as capable of conducting the business of the country as any Member of their Lordships' House. Indeed, he had no doubt that, when the noble Baron himself had seen the greatest Captain of the age holding the highest civil office, he considered him the fittest person for that office. That illustrious individual had evidently held similar opinions; for, during the time he held office, he bestowed a large number of civil situations upon military men. His (Lord Napier's) individual opinion was, that men of that character formed much more able and efficient men of business than others, and would do more duty in ten minutes than any noble Lord, who had been brought up in the public offices, would in as many hours. The noble Baron had talked about responsibility and checks: to him it appeared perfectly immaterial whether that responsibility rested with the head of the Admiralty, or with the head of the Victualling Department. The regard to personal character was quite sufficient to ensure the proper discharge of the duties of any office. Nelson once said, "England expects every man to do his duty," he hoped that every man would so act in the fulfilment of the duties attached to his situation; and, if he did not, he was amenable to the laws. It had been his intention to have reserved his observations on the Bill until it had arrived in Committee, but he felt himself bound to say a few words in consequence of some remarks made in another place, deeply affecting the professional character of a gallant and intelligent friend of his, who neither was nor could be, present to defend himself. The attack on that gallant officer's character had gone throughout the country, and he was, consequently, suffering a degree of obloquy equally severe and unjust. He alluded to what had been said in the other House by that highly respectable and gallant Admiral who conducted the business of the Navy Board fur many years. It had been stated by the late Comptroller of the Navy, in reference to his gallant friend, Captain Symonds, who had been lately appointed to the office of Surveyor of the Navy, that he

1371
was altogether ignorant of the duties of his office. That, in this great maritime country, a reforming Administration should have appointed a man to superintend the construction of ships, upon which the security and honour of the country depended—that any report even of that nature should have gone abroad—was most astonishing. That assertion was a calumny which he could not allow to remain uncontradicted. Having had the pleasure of knowing Captain Symonds for many years, he would take upon himself to say, that there was not a better officer than Captain Symonds in all the British navy. His noble friend (Lord Vernon), who had been the first to discover the great peculiar talents and qualifications of Captain Symonds—had employed him to build a yacht, the superiority of which, in every respect, was such that he was induced to bring forward that officer and recommend him to the Navy Board, who, after obtaining security from his (Lord Napier's) noble relative in a sum of 20,000 1., employed Captain Symonds to build a ship; at the same time, instructing Professor Inman, who was not a seaman, to do the same. Permission was also granted to Captain Hayes to build two or three ships—a gentleman who thought that he had made some discovery (which was now found to be fallacious) in naval architecture. It was to be observed, however, that the two latter of these gentlemen were not called upon to give any security for the expense which might be incurred in carrying their plans into execution. When these ships, together with others, built by the then Surveyor of the Navy went to sea in 1827, it was proved, as was perfectly well known to every man who had at all entered into the statements of the case, that the ship built by Captain Symonds was far superior to any of the rest of the squadron, and that that constructed by the then Surveyor of the Navy was the very worst. He was in possession of an extract from a letter written to him by the flag-lieutenant of that ship, in which he pointed out the different properties of all the ships which composed the squadron, and he stated it as his opinion, and that of every body in the fleet, that Captain Symonds's ship was by far the best, and Sir Robert Seppings's was the very worst. It was not his wish to say anything prejudicial to that gentleman—Sir Robert Seppings was a most industrious individual, who had faithfully and well discharged the duties of Surveyor of the Navy for the last thirty years, and, moreover, he was an eminent
1372
and distinguished shipwright, who had introduced several highly beneficial improvements into the construction of ships. For instance, Sir Robert Seppings invented the system of diagonal fastening, the object of which was, to equalize the strength of every part of a ship, and thus to obviate the highly injurious effects of weakness in a particular place, which, previously to its introduction, produced what was known by the term "hogging." The same gentleman also suggested the plan of building masts by connecting a number of small portions together, instead of five larger spars, as customary heretofore. He also first introduced round sterns, although, that he invented them could not be said; for, if their Lordships cast their eyes on the tapestry which covered the walls, they would see several beautiful examples of round sterns. It had been said in the other House, that the name of Sir Robert Seppings was known over the whole world, as the greatest naval architect and improver that ever lived. He was perfectly ready to give that individual all due praise, but he could not allow it to be said, that he was the author of every improvement which had taken place in the navy of late years. In fact, a great number of these improvements had been suggested by Admirals, Captains, and other officers in the navy—many of them humble individuals, whose names were unknown to their Lordships, and who had not even received the thanks of the Navy Board for their inventions. In this respect a great deal of good was likely to arise out of this Bill; for, when officers went to the Admiralty with their plans, the system now to be established would afford them a likelihood of being heard, and, if successful, of being rewarded; whereas, the individual who now presented himself with plans of any alteration or invention to the Navy Board, met with the most uncourteous reception, because his application was made to jealous rivals. He had heard over and over again the strongest complaints from his brother officers in this respect. During the period which he had had the honour of being in the navy (about thirty years), its condition had been greatly improved, principally by means of alterations suggested by officers in the navy, who having the opportunity of practically observing various defects in their ships, were the better enabled to remedy them. Very great improvements had also been made in the equipments of vessels. The first which he could then recollect was, the introduction of iron tanks as receptacles

1373
for the water in the stead of casks. By whom was that suggested? Any one connected with the Navy Board? No; by General Bentham. The next he would mention was, the employment of chain cables, the great superiority of which over the old rope cables no one now denied. Yet, when these were first proposed, every possible objection was raised by the Navy Board against their introduction. And who invented them? Any one belonging to that Board? Certainly not; it was Samuel Brown, a Captain in the royal navy. They were found to be so much superior to rope cables as actually, in many instances, to break the anchors, instead of being, as was frequently the case with the rope cables, which they superseded, snapt asunder. It became, therefore, necessary, if possible, to improve the anchors; which was, accordingly, attempted by the Navy Board. How far they succeeded in that attempt might be imagined, when he stated that the anchors made b according to their improved system would be found even worse than those which had been in use for many years. And why was this? Simply for this reason; that there was not, among the whole of the members composing that Board, a single individual capable of constructing an anchor on sound mechanical principles. Plans were laid before the Board by a very meritorious officer, with whom he was acquainted, who had for many years devoted his whole time and attention to the subject—and how were these plans received? They encountered the greatest opposition. In fact, it was the reproach of the Navy Board, that neither he, nor any other inventors, were ever, in the slightest degree, encouraged by that Board, so as to enable the country to enjoy the benefit of their inventions. This was an additional reason for consolidating the two Boards into one—that officers might be enabled to submit their plans to the direct and immediate inspection of the Board of Admiralty itself, and thus feel confident that they would be fairly and justly dealt with. This Bill would be productive of very great and eminent improvements in the whole conduct of the business of the navy, and be knew that to be the opinion held by a large number of officers—men possessing the very best information on the subject. In the very first conversation which he had had with the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Admiralty, he had stated to that right hon. Gentleman, that, until he knocked the Navy Board on the
1374
head, he would never be able to do any good at the Board of Admiralty. He, therefore, was quite ready to give his hearty support to this Bill, which, by getting rid of two subordinate Boards, and placing the undivided control and responsibility in the Admiralty, would be found to be productive of the greatest advantages to the naval service.
Lord Colvillemust beg, in the first place, to observe, that the allusion which his noble friend had made to the late Comptroller of the Navy had surprised him greatly. The subject was one wholly irrelevant to the matter before the House. As the noble Lord, however, had brought it forward, he would take the opportunity of observing, with respect to what was said elsewhere by the late Comptroller of the Navy, on the subject of Captain Symonds, that he never heard a warmer eulogium than the one which was bestowed upon that Officer in the House of Commons. Their Lordships had all of them access to that House, and the means of knowing what passsed there; and what the late Comptroller of the Navy had said of Captain Symonds was, that he was a most meritorious officer, but that he was not so well calculated to fill the office of Surveyor of the Navy as would be some man who had been bred to the duties of that branch of the profession. He would also observe, that, under the Administration of the noble Viscount who lately presided at the Admiralty, a school had been established for the express purpose of furnishing the country with persons duly qualified to hold the office of Surveyor of the Navy; and from the pupils of which it might have more reasonably been expected that that officer would have been selected, than from the navy. With respect to the measure itself, the second reading of which was now proposed, his noble friend (Lord Ellenborough) had expressed so much better than he (Lord Colville) could do, what were his sentiments upon it, that he would merely state, that he regretted his inability to arrest the progress of this Bill. As an Officer who had spent his best days in the navy, he considered himself called upon not to remain silent on the passing of a measure so deeply and vitally affecting its most important interests. He was no enemy to the Reform of any department of the public service in which it was required; but this Bill went too far; it was Reform on too extensive a scale. The business of the navy could not be properly conducted

1375
without the assistance of at least one Civil Board. It might, perhaps, have been judicious to have consolidated the Navy and Victualling Boards; but how could they go further, unless the Navy Board were placed more strictly under the Admiralty than it even now was. In his opinion, the Navy Board had always been a most efficient and useful Board; it had always acted as a wholesome check upon the proceedings of the Board of Admiralty, or, in the language which was made use of in another place by a gallant Officer who belonged to the late Board, "it has always acted as a wholesome drag," and, on some occasions, as a most proper drag upon the Admiralty. Thus, it was a most useful establishment; but it was unpopular, indeed, because it frequently interposed for the purpose of preventing, on the part of the Admiralty, a too ready compliance with the wishes of naval officers and others who were desirous of introducing changes and alterations which they considered improvements, but which would be very likely to lead the public into great and useless expense. With regard to the details of the Bill, any observations which he might wish to make, would be more properly made in Committee.
Bill read a second time.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM—BILL FOR ENGLAND—COMMITTEE—FOURTH DAY.
On the Motion of Earl Grey, the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill, and the question being put that Dudley stand part of schedule D,
Lord Ellenboroughobjected to this place being included in the schedule, because it lay in a district which bad already too many Representatives; it lay in the same district of country as Birmingham, Wolverhampton, and Walsall; it had the same interests as those places, and the part of the country in which they were placed would, under the present Bill, have one Member for every 22,000 inhabitants, whereas other and adjoining districts were only to have one Member to 62,000. He alluded to Worcestershire, to which county, as Dudley, though seated in it, was connected by interests with Staffordshire and Warwickshire, an act of gross injustice was committed, which would give its inhabitants great grounds of complaint, the more so that those districts which were to receive the fewest Members were in a higher state of improvement than those which were to be allowed to return the greater number. It appeared as if the
1376
Members for that quarter of the country had been put into a bag, which, having burst, they had all fallen in one direction, and, by the laws of gravitation, in Birmingham and other strong holds of the Political Unions.
The Earl of Radnorconsidered Dudley fully entitled from its wealth and population, to a Representative. As to the noble Baron's remark about Worcestershire, he must remind him that Dudley was in Worcestershire, and would he then deprive it of the additional Representative?
Lord Ellenboroughrepeated, that this was setting a bad example to the other districts, and would afford them great ground for complaint; it was like dividing the country into electoral districts.
Lord Kingdenied, that there was the slightest appearance of an intention to divide the county into electoral districts, either according to wealth or population. Such would not be the effect of the Bill. He thought that great jealousy was displayed in enfranchising the great towns, and that landed property had too much while the large towns possessed too little of the Representation. He believed that the landed property of the country did not amount to one half the value of the personal property, and would remind their Lordships, in proof of this assertion of the fact, that in one year legacy duty was paid upon 48,000,000 l. of personal property. Taking the duration of a generation at thirty-three years, and multiplying 48,000,000 l. by 33, it gave nearly 1,600,000,000 l. as the amount of personal property in this country, which, at five per cent interest, gave an annual income of upwards of 75,000,000 l. derived from personal property. That was much more, he believed, than double the amount of the landed rent of the country. That personal property, too, be it remembered, excluded wages of labour, and the income of professional men. He believed, too, he might take the rate of interest higher, say, seven and a half per cent, and, at that rate, the personal property of the country would exceed the revenue of the land in the proportion of nearly four to one. Under these circumstances, he contended, that the towns, instead of being over-represented, would have less than their share of the franchise, as compared with the landed interest, and proceeding upon the consideration, not of population, but of wealth.
The Earl of Malmesburywas not prepared to meet the noble Baron on all the

1377
statements which he had made, but his estimate certainly underrated the importance of the landed interest. Perhaps the noble Baron was not aware, that during the existence of the Property-tax, that tax yielded an annual revenue of 8,000,000 l. Perhaps he was not aware, also, that the gross amount of produce raised by the agricultural interest amounted to 216,000,000 l., 40,000,000 l. of which was laid out in labour. With these facts before him, it could scarcely be denied that the landed interest of the country was the most important of the two. He must disclaim all intention or wish to keep back the manufacturing interest from a just share in the Representation. He had never said, and never thought, that it ought not to be represented; but what he had always maintained was, that by the present Bill it would have more than its fair proportion in the Representative system, and that the measure, when carried into operation, would prove highly injurious to the lauded and agricultural interests.
The Earl of Carnarvondid not know upon what ground the noble Baron opposite had assumed, for certainly his observations went to that effect, that the large towns and manufacturing districts contained the greater proportion of the personal property of the country. He seemed to suppose, that the whole of it was in the hands of the 10 l. voters of Birmingham and other manufacturing towns, whereas a very considerable portion of it was in the hands of the enterprising and intelligent agriculturists. He must beg leave to enter his protest against the noble Lord's argument, which proceeded altogether on the supposition that all personal property was in the hands of the inhabitants of towns.
The Lord Chancellorobserved, that Dudley was a town of consequence, containing 23,000 inhabitants, and 800 voters under the 10 l. franchise; and, besides having a good general trade, was extensively connected with the iron trade, in the manufacture of nails, by which upwards of 40,000 operatives, resident in the town and neighbourhood, were kept in constant employment. He contended that, under all the circumstances attached and relative to the town of Dudley, it, from its population and trade, in connexion with the iron manufacture; was entitled to return Members to represent it in the Commons House of Parliament, in the same way as Leeds and Frome, connected as they were with the woollen manufacture, and Manchester,
1378
in connexion with the cotton trade, were entitled.
The question that "Dudley (Worcestershire), stand part of schedule D," agreed to).
It was also agreed, that Frome (Somersetshire) stand part of schedule D.
On the question that Gateshead (Durham) stand part of the Bill,
The Marquess of Londonderryobjected to the elective franchise being extended to the town of Gateshead, because he conceived, that the county of Durham was already sufficiently represented, and because the extension of the franchise would tend only to increase the Whig interest, which already predominated in that county. He admitted he was unequal to enter into a debate upon this subject, or to deal with the details of the proposed measure in reference to the question now before their Lordships; and all he should endeavour to do, therefore, was, to give expression to his own sentiments, as well as those of a vast proportion of the wealth, talent, and property of the county of Durham, with which he was himself so closely connected. He did not mean to impute anything to the noble Lords opposite, but when he saw the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government, though little more than twelve months in office, showering down situations, places, and preferments upon members of his own family, even to the extent of one of the most valuable of the bishopricks; and when he also witnessed the acquisition of blue ribands, and other ribands and honours, within the same short space of time, in a manner not at ail palatable to the public, he was induced to look with a scrupulous eye to other parts of their conduct. In that view he came to consider the case of the county of Durham, as affected by the provisions of the Bill now under discussion, and he found that, out of the ten Members given to the county of Durham, eight were allocated to the northern, which was the smallest, division of the county, and only two Members reserved for the southern and largest district. This distribution he considered to be unfair and unjust; but it was probably accounted for, when it was remembered that the property of the noble Baron opposite (Lord Durham) was situated in the northern wards of the county. Of the selection made of the towns, too, he also complained. South Shields, for instance, a town which it would seem was high in favour with the noble Baron, was in no respect whatever entitled

1379
to a Representation in preference to, and on a reference to it, noble Lords would find, in exclusion of, the town of Stockton-upon-Tees. The town of Gateshead, which it was now proposed to their Lordships to give a Representative to, was situate in the midst of the numerous and extensive collieries of the noble Baron, and was surrounded by the immense body of labourers and operatives to which those collieries afforded employment. It was clear, that the noble Baron must have a great influence in the return of the members for Sunderland, South Shields, and Gateshead. Nor was that all. If by the Bill the voters for towns were also to be made voters for counties, it was clear, that the noble Baron would also have a great influence over the votes for the northern part of the county. It was his firm belief, that out of the eight Members which by this arrangement were to be given to the northern part of the county of Durham, the noble Baron would have the power of procuring the return of seven. In the other part of the county was situated the property of a noble Marquis, whom he did not see in his place, and it was quite evident to him, as he thought it must be to most of their Lordships, that it would be impossible for any other interest but those of the two noble individuals to whom he had alluded, to succeed in a contest for the Representation of those towns, or of the county. But he would then inquire why, or on what grounds, it was, that the town of Gateshead had been selected by the noble Baron opposite. Gateshead possessed nothing to recommend it: it was a mere suburb to the town of Newcastle—a most filthy spot, containing the vilest class of society, and that description of population least worthy to enjoy the right of voting for a Member to serve in Parliament. He could not give their Lordships a better proof of the description of the inhabitants of the town of Gateshead, than by alluding to the effects produced in that town by the visitation of the malady called cholera, the ravages of which were so extraordinary, as to exceed, in three days, all that occurred in all England in the same space of time. He could not but advocate the claims of the town of Stockton-upon-Tees, in preference to those of Gateshead. The former contained a most intelligent, respectable, and wealthy population; and he should be glad to hear what reason could be given why it should not be included in the proposed Representation in preference to the latter town. He held in his hand a small map of the county of Durham, and,
1380
on a reference to it, noble Lords would find, that in a small radius of four and a half miles, the noble Baron opposite had created no less than four new boroughs and seven Representatives. With the present state of the House, he saw no prospect of success, should he proceed to a division on the question; he, however, could not refrain from expressing to the noble Baron his view with respect to the county, with which, let what would happen, the noble Baron had direct interests. What he would propose was, that Stockton should have a Member in lieu of Gateshead; and though, as he hoped, the Government should consent to relieve the counties from the town voters, it would be an extremely good arrangement to attach the Weal-mouths to Sunderland, and thereby relieve the Easington Ward, from the freeholders in them, and so give the agricultural interest fair play. He should then recommend that they put Easington and Stockton Wards together, and Chester and Darlington, which, he thought, would be a much more acceptable division of the county than that proposed by the noble Baron. He could not avoid adding, in conclusion, that the claims of Stocktonupon-Tees were much greater than those of Walsall to a Representative, though the one obtained what was refused to the other. He admitted that the former did not present claims equal to those of many inland towns, such as Doncaster, and many others; but, considering its maritime situation and increasing trade, as well as the knowledge and scientific acquirements of its inhabitants, it was well entitled to a Representative. He should not, in the present state of the House trouble their Lordships to divide, but he would move that Stockton-upon-Tees be substituted for Gateshead.
Lord Durham: My Lords, I return my most sincere thanks to the noble Marquess for the opportunity which he has afforded me of giving some explanation upon the subject of the borough of Gateshead, and of removing any unfavourable impression which may have been created, either out of this House, or in the mind of the noble Marquess himself; and I trust that I shall satisfactorily prove, before I have done, that the information on which he has founded his observations this evening is in every respect extremely incorrect, to say the least of it. But, first, I must congratulate the noble Lord on having followed the example of his noble friend near him (Ellenburough.) His noble friend opposite me, after having opposed the Bill and Reform, both in prin-

1381
ciple, and in all its details, at length, to the astonishment, not only of this side of the House, but to the still greater surprise of his friends, came forward with a plan of Reform of his own, and that, too, of a very large, and, in some respects, more extensive nature than that which had been proposed by his Majesty's Ministers; and now comes the noble Lord, and presents us this night with his small pocket provincial plan of Reform. Whether he will be more successful in procuring its adoption than his noble friend has been with his, I cannot presume to declare; but I think I shall show that the noble Lord has adduced no more reasonable grounds for expecting any support from this House than did his noble friend (Ellenborough), on the occasion to which I have referred, But while I congratulate him on having become a Reformer at last, and of having brought forward his duodecimo plan for reforming the county of Durham, I cannot say, that it appears to me to be such a one as this House could possibly adopt with any regard to principle or to justice. The noble Lord has said, that the boroughs of the county of Durham were arranged on a plan to give an undue influence to the Whig party; and though he disclaimed imputing to me the arrangement with the express view of increasing my own influence in the county, yet he has charged me with not having attempted to prevent that interest being materially favoured, and has been pleased to regret that it had all the appearance of having been adopted, in order to give me a great political predominance in that county. Now, I really wish the noble Lord would for once imagine, that it is barely possible that an individual can be engaged in a great public measure without having any reference to his own private interests. I wish he could entertain a better opinion of human nature than to suppose that a man called upon to assist, either as a member of the Government, or as a Peer in Parliament, in effecting a great and important political measure, must necessarily apply himself, not to that honourable purpose, but to the attainment of his own private objects, and the promotion of his own personal interests.
I confess, my Lords, I am almost ashamed at having felt it even necessary to repel these insinuations, not only for myself, but for my colleagues; for even if I had been base enough to endeavour to persuade them to consent to an arrangement of such a nature, is it likely that they would ever have lent themselves to such a proceeding—
1382
would ever have become accessaries to any such act? I freely admit, that the noble Lord is right in his conjecture, that in framing this measure I took a considerable share, and devoted much time and attention to it; I am, therefore, the better enabled to tell the noble Lord on what principle it was based, and how utterly impossible it was, that any other arrangement could have been effected, with any regard to justice. It having been resolved to act upon the principle of abolishing all rotten boroughs,—having, I say, established, as the first principle of the Bill, that all nomination boroughs should be destroyed, we next proceeded to consider how the advantage of Representation could be extended to the rest of the country; and we found, that it was not possible to take any distinct principle but that of giving the franchise to all towns containing a great population. This being the opinion of my colleagues, it was then decided, that as it was necessary to draw some line which should exclude all notion of partiality in their selection, all towns containing 20,000 inhabitants should return two Members, and all towns containing 10,000 inhabitants should return one Member. This being the arrangement fixed upon, after mature consideration, and on general principles, I ask the noble Lord, how I could require that Gateshead, Shields, and Sunderland, though coming within the line, were to be excluded, because it happened that these places were in that part of the country in which I resided. How could I ask of my colleagues to do such an act of injustice towards these towns, as to exclude them from the general plan? and how could they have acted so, even if I had been unjust enough to make the request? That each of these towns come within the line which I have stated, and that they are, therefore, fully entitled to be represented in Parliament, I think, before I sit down, I shall be able to show, to the satisfaction, if not, perhaps, of the noble Lord, at least to that of this House.
And now, my Lords, as to the number of Members which has been allotted to the county of Durham generally. If your Lordships will consider the amount of the population of that county, I am sure you will be convinced that it will not receive more than it is at the present moment entitled to. If the noble Lord will attend to that part of the history of this country which relates to its parliamentary Representation, he will find that Members were first returned from that county in the time

1383
of Charles 2nd, after many previous unsuccessful attempts, on the part of the inhabitants, to acquire Representation. In the year 1614, a bill was brought into Parliament to enable that county to return two Members; also, two for the city of Durham; and to create five other boroughs which were to have two Members each. This was at a time when the population was much less than it is at this day, and it may, perhaps, surprise the noble Lord to hear, that the town and borough of Gateshead was among the places it was then proposed to enfranchise. That bill was lost in consequence of a dissolution of Parliament. Subsequently, however, the attempt was renewed; but it was always opposed by the Bishops of the diocese, who having, in those days, the right of summoning a kind of Parliament of their own, never could be prevailed upon to give up their privileges. At last, during a vacancy of the see, a portion of that bill was obtained in the 25th of Charles 2nd, and four Members were allotted to the county and city of Durham. So much, my Lords, for the general history of its Representation.
And now I will address myself more particularly to the case of Gateshead: and, in the first place, I beg distinctly to tell the noble Lord, that when the application was made by the borough of Gateshead to have Members given to it, so far from its being made at my instance, I assure him I was perfectly ignorant that any claim had been preferred. The memorial of Gateshead, dated the 25th of January, 1831, was addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and claimed, on behalf of the inhabitants, their share in the new Representation about to be granted, as they understood, to the populous towns of the empire. My Lords, what is the nature of that claim? Its population amounts to 15,300; it pays in assessed taxes 2,006 l. annually; and it contains 750 10 l. houses.
Here I must beg your Lordships' attention to the position of Gateshead in point of population, the amount of assessed taxes paid, the number of 10 l. houses, and Lieutenant Drummond's test, with reference to the other boroughs contained in schedule D. It is superior in population to Walsall, Wakefield, Kendal, Frome, and Whitby; in assessed taxes, to Whitehaven, Oldham, Frome, Shields, Merthyr Tydvil, and Ashton; in 10 l. houses, to Kendal, Blackburn, Ashton, Kidderminster, Whitby, and Frome; by Lieutenant Drummond's test,
1384
to Kendal, Walsall, Ashton, Whitby, and Frome. But, my Lords, I will make a still severer comparison—I have taken out fifty-three of the most important towns in the empire, and applied to them Lieutenant Drummond's test, and whatever may be the towns to be excluded from the schedules C and D, according to that principle, Gateshead is not one; on the contrary, it stands fortieth on the list; forty-two being the number, two being inferior, and one of them, the very town named by the noble Lord; namely, Doncaster. But with reference to Stockton-on-Tees, which the noble Lord wishes to substitute for Gateshead, I think the fact which I am now about to state will prove upon what little regard to principle that arrangement must have proceeded, had it included Stockton and excluded Gateshead. In 1821 the population of Gateshead was 11,765–1,765 above the line of 10,000; while the population of Stockton was 5006, nearly 5,000 below it. At the present moment the population of Gateshead is 15,177, and that of Stockton is 7,991.
As the noble Marquess has indulged in a great number of insinuations with regard to the increase of the boroughs in the northern districts of the county of Durham, I must remark, that this circumstance is owing to the fact of the mines being situated in that district; in consequence of which, manufactures, and trade, and commerce, have become attached to that locality, and large towns have sprung up in the vicinage of each other. Unless, then, you apply a different principle with regard to the county of Durham to that which governs the distribution of the Representation to other counties, you must take as the criterion for determining the number of Members to be given to it, the large towns which are situate in it; and as it happens that they are in the northern district, the new Members are necessarily allotted to that district. The same fact appears in the state of the new Representation of the mining districts on the borders of Yorkshire and Lancashire, and to a much greater extent. The Durham mining and manufacturing district receives four boroughs and five Members; the Yorkshire and Lancashire corner receives twelve boroughs and seventeen Members—a much greater number than Durham, in proportion to the extent of the district. The increase, in both instances, has arisen because these large towns have gradually sprung up, and have increased in population, trade and wealth;

1385
and surely, my Lords, we could not, with the least appearance of justice, have excluded any of these towns from the present arrangement, merely because they happen to have the misfortune of being situated in my neighbourhood. It would have been an act of the grossest injustice, and one which, I am confident, the great majority of your Lordships would have strongly reprobated.
The noble Marquess objects to those towns receiving Representatives, because, he says, they will be subject to the influence of individuals. If the noble Marquess would change places with me, and it were possible that he could imbibe liberal principles, I still would defy him (I know I shall be myself unable) to return, by way of nomination, or in an indirect manner, or by any other cause arising from the possession of property in those places, a single Member for any of the towns in the county of Durham that are to be enfranchised. That the inhabitants of these towns may entertain a respect, and feel a sympathy, for my political opinions I do not intend to deny; indeed, I consider it a great honour to be favourably regarded by so large a number of my fellow countrymen in the north. I am well acquainted with their great commercial activity, I honour their political intelligence, and can bear testimony to their great respectability; and here I must protest against that indiscriminate abuse in which the noble Marquess has indulged when speaking of Gateshead and its inhabitants. I know a considerable number of them, and I know them to be men of wealth, talent, and respectability. The noble Lord says, they are persons whom I would not admit to my table; my Lords, I deny this. I have been accustomed, and always shall be proud, to live in habits of friendly intercourse with many of them, as indeed I hope I always shall with all my neighbours in the county, whatever may be their accidental station in the scale of society.
My Lords, I now come to another objection which has been urged by the noble Marquess—namely, that Gateshead is a suburb of Newcastle. I never, in my life, was more astonished than when I heard that assertion made. But the noble Lord has not even the merit of originality; he has been preceded in this attempt centuries ago by the Corporation of Newcastle, which has, ever since the year 1186, continually endeavoured to annex Gateshead to Newcastle. So far, however, from Gateshead being a part of Newcastle, it lies in a dif-
1386
ferent county, pays different rates, and has a different jurisdiction. The noble Marquess has said, that most of the inhabitants of Gateshead are freemen of Newcastle. What is the real fact? The inhabitants of Gateshead are not only not free of the Corporation of Newcastle, but, on the contrary, one of the express laws of that Corporation is, that no freeman of that Corporation residing in Gateshead shall have the right or power of enfranchising his apprentices. Besides all this, such is the extreme jealousy entertained by Newcastle, that merchandize entering that town from Gateshead, pays a heavy toll to the Corporation of Newcastle. I appeal to my noble and learned friend near me (the Lord Chancellor), whether, when he went the northern circuit, the right of levying these tolls was not made the subject of legal investigation?
The Lord Chancellor: Yes; and I was engaged for eight hours on the trial, but without success.
Lord Durham: I have said, my Lords, that it has been the constant effort of the Corporation of Newcastle to make Gateshead into a suburb of that town, but which efforts have been as constantly resisted by the Bishops of Durham and the inhabitants of Gateshead. It is true, that, for a few months, and a few months only, during a period of more than 600 years, they succeeded, but under what circumstances? At the latter end of the reign of Edward 6th, Dudley, Duke of Northumberland, took possession of the revenues of the bishoprick of Durham, and dissolved the see. Gateshead was allotted by him to Newcastle in the division of the spoil. The preamble of the Act authorising that annexation recites, that "the town of Gatesyde is parcel both of the possession of the bishoprick of Durham, and also of the liberties and the county palatine of Durham;" and the reason assigned for the appropriation is, that rubbish is thrown into the river Tyne, of which the Corporation was conservator, and that offenders escape justice by going into another county. Against this Act Gateshead petitioned, and addressed "Master Bell, the Speaker of the Honourable House," setting forth the inconveniences which would result from this proceeding, and as all the reasons contained are quite as applicable to the present time, I shall read the petition. 'The town of Gateshead is within the county of Durham, and bath its liberties and customs granted by the Bishop's predecessors, and payeth all assessments for the repair of ways, bridges,

1387
charge to the wars, watches of the beacons, town and field watches, within the county of Durham.
The town of Gateshead is ruled by the Bishop and burgesses, and hath good and wholesome constitutions and ordinances within themselves, and is as well governed for justice as they are in Newcastle. If it should be united to Newcastle, it would be replenished with evil-disposed persons and thieves, because it is without their walls, as is the north part of Newcastle. Whereas now, in Gateshead, there are a great number of substantial honest men, faithful and true subjects, as did appear in the late rebellion, some merchants, some drapers, and other honest artificers, whom the town of Newcastle doth envy, because they dwell so nigh unto them.'
Such was the petition which was presented to the House of Commons on that occasion, against the annexation of Gateshead to Newcastle. This state of things, however, lasted, as I said before, but a few months. The Act was repealed in the 1st of Mary, in the following terms; "Repeal of one Stat. 7 Ed. 6, c. 1, whereby the bishoprick of Durham was dissolved, and all the lands and possessions given to the King, and also of one other 7 Ed. 6, c. 10, whereby the town of Gatesyde was severed from the said bishoprick," &c.
Not content with this, Parliament came to a resolution upon the subject, which I will read to the noble Marquess, as it may be an inducement to him not to be too earnest in his opposition to the people of Gateshead, for fear the present Parliament should come to a similar resolution. In 1554, it was resolved in Parliament, "that it was a covetous disposition in Newcastle, and in no ways for the good of any." In 1575 and l646, more attempts were made by the Corporation of Newcastle to make Gateshead a suburb, in which they again failed.
One word, my Lords, as to the trade of these two towns. It has been said by the noble Lord, that the trade of Gateshead is similar to that of Newcastle; it is, however, of a perfectly different description; there are great iron and brass founderies at Gateshead, such as do not exist in Newcastle. As to the appearance of the town, which the noble Marquess has described to be vile and filthy, I really must deny the correctness of that statement; but, indeed, his knowledge of the town can be little more than that which he has acquired while riding through the town when on a visit to Ravensworth Castle, which is in the im-
1388
mediate neighbourhood. It is possible that, when prancing through it on his Arabian, some filth may have attached itself to his horse or his person; but that the state of the town or inhabitants is, generally, such as he describes it, I deny. I have had more intimate opportunities of knowing the state of Gateshead than the noble Lord, having often canvassed it when I represented the county of Durham, and I can assure him and your Lordships, that it contains many and important manufactories, and is inhabited by persons of great industry, intelligence, and respectability. As a proof that there is not that degree of poverty existing in Gateshead, which the noble Marquis appears to believe, I can state that the average amount of its poor-rates has always been less than that of Newcastle. But, my Lords, all the arguments which I have been endeavouring to advance upon this subject are so much better summed up in the Report of the Commissioners, that I shall conclude what I have to say on this topic with quoting the Report itself. 'The circular part of the parish, on the river side, is thickly studded with manufactories and other buildings, and on the south western and north-western frontiers, compact masses of building are also to be found. Many houses have been recently erected in these parts, and many are now in progress. The bulk of the town, however, is to be found on each side of the great southern road. Gateshead is progressively and rapidly increasing in importance as a manufacturing district. Great grindstone quarries are situated in the midst of the parish, and within it are extensive manufactories of chain cables, heavy iron work, and steel; and also of glass and other valuable commodities. A rail-road is in contemplation, for which a survey has been made, and subscriptions entered into.'
So much, my Lords, with regard to the borough of Gateshead. I will not say more than one word as to the division of the county of Durham, as your Lordships must be aware, that that subject will come more strictly under the consideration of the House on a future day; but I must tell the noble Marquess, that I had nothing to do with the division of the counties. The division has been made by professional gentlemen of great credit, and whose characters were staked for the fairness and impartiality with which they discharged their duties, and for which they have made themselves responsible to Parliament. I can safely

1389
say for myself, and I believe every other noble Lord connected with his Majesty's Government can, on their parts, say the same—that I have not had the slightest communication with those Commissioners with regard to the division of Durham, or of any other county. But the fact is, that the division which has been made of the county of Durham is the only one which could, with fairness and propriety, be made. The rule by which the Commissioners have been governed, is precisely that which the interests of the country required. They have divided it into the northern and southern divisions; the former including the districts connected with the mining interests, and the latter including the agricultural districts. It would have been absolutely impossible to have made any other division, without mixing up the agricultural with the mining interests, against which I imagine much louder protestations would have been made. As to any individual who may possess property in the northern division being able to influence the elections, either of the boroughs or the county, my opinion is, that he could not have the slightest effect on the Representation. How is it possible that 2,000 or 3,000 independent householders could be influenced by any one or two persons who may happen to possess property in that county, so as to control the election of Members of Parliament? There may be a few persons, who, from their situations in life, or the nature of their tenure, dare not vote except as they are directed by their masters or landlords; these, however, can be but few, while the rest form a respectable and independent constituency, over whom no improper influence can possibly be exercised.
I trust that the effect of this Bill will be, to destroy all improper influence whatsoever. I mean not that proper and salutary influence which is derived from property and station, and the respect which attaches to the proper exercise of their duties; but I allude to that unconstitutional control which has been too often used under the existing system of Representation. I have no doubt that this Bill will do away much of that evil; indeed, I should be very sorry to be engaged in the formation of any Representative system, the provisions of which would not have that effect. With regard to myself, I can have no personal interest in the matter. As my lot is now cast in this House, I shall never have occasion to become a candidate, or to canvass for the votes which this measure will
1390
create, and I shall be well content to leave the merits of any friend of mine, who may wish to represent these places, to be freely decided on by its electors, without any interference on my part.
My Lords, I conclude by assuring you, that it is very painful to me, and must be equally irksome to your Lordships, to be obliged to occupy your valuable time in disclaiming any personal feeling in this matter, but the noble Lord has placed me in this predicament by making these charges. I cannot shrink from meeting them, and, in repelling them, I must repeat, that the motive which has actuated me in supporting this measure has been, not to promote the views or purposes of any party, but to render what I believe will be an inestimable benefit to my country; and I shall always consider the performance of that duty which was assigned to me in the consideration of this Bill, as the proudest act of my life.
The Marquess of Londonderrysaid, he never attributed motives to the noble Baron, but he could not refrain from stating, that the division of the county of Durham presented rather strange appearances.
Question agreed to, and Gateshead added to the schedule, as also Huddersfield and Kidderminster.
On the question that Kendal be added to the schedule,
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, he must admit that Kendal was a thriving and respectable town, with a good manufacture, but he doubted much the propriety of depriving the only represented place in the county of Westmorland of its Members, in order to transfer the franchise to Kendal. He alluded to Appleby, the propriety of disfranchising which had been questioned more than once.
The Lord Chancellorwould be ready to argue the question of Appleby whenever the question of schedule A, with which it was connected, came regularly before the House. With respect to Kendal, he could only observe, that it was a compact town, with more than 12,000 inhabitants, engaged in extensive manufactures.
Kendal added to the schedule, and also Rochdale.
On the question being put as to Salford,
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that there was much less reason for separating Salford from Manchester than there was for leaving Toxteth Park connected with Liverpool: while there were only 1,200 10 l. houses in Salford, there were 3,300 10 l. houses in Toxteth Park.
Lord Suffieldcontended that Salford was a perfectly distinct place from Manchester, and that it possessed interests altogether different and distinct from that town.
The Lord Chancelloralso said, that Salford was entirely distinct from Manchester, and was under a different municipal government, whereas Toxteth Park was a mere prolongation of Liverpool, and was as much a part of Liverpool as any part of Westminster was of Westminster.
Question agreed to.
South Shields, Tynemouth, and Wakefield were then ordered to stand part of schedule D.
On the question being put as to Wallsall.
Lord Ellenboroughopposed its enfranchisement, on the ground that it was a district spread over a large space, and not a distinct town.
The Bishop of Lichfieldcontended, that on account of the wealth possessed by Walsall, and the peculiar interests existing there, it was entitled to the Representation.
Question agreed to.
Warrington was also placed in the schedule,
On the question that Whitby stand part of the schedule,
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that however unwilling he might be to resist the enfranchisement of a shipping town, he doubted the propriety of extending that privilege to Whitby. This, so far from being a flourishing, was a decaying town; in proof of which he need only adduce the fact, that no new buildings had been undertaken there for the last five years; and that, during the last ten years, the population had decreased from 11,700 to little more than 10,000.
The Earl of Mulgravesaid, that from having resided all his life in the immediate vicinity of this place, he could state from his own knowledge, that no decrease had taken place except in the maritime part of the population, and he could assure the noble Lord, that within a very recent period a very handsome range of new houses had been erected.
Lord Ellenboroughhad been indebted for the facts he had stated exclusively to the returns upon which the Bill was professedly founded.
Question agreed to.
Whitehaven and Merthyr Tydvil were severally placed in the schedule, and the clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
On the ninth clause, which provides for the settlement of the boundaries of certain places in Wales,
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that it seemed impossible for the House to consider the boundary question, until the bill came from the other House, and he would recommend that the whole matter should be referred to a Committee up-stairs: it was of the deepest importance to the future operation of the Bill.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that when the Boundary Bill reached that House, their Lordships would have the experience of the other House to guide them. The remark of the noble Baron was, however, entitled to attention, though there was much greater difficulty in discussing the details of such a bill in the other House than in this. It might be a matter of future consideration; in the mean time, there was no difficulty in disposing of all the present arrangements, which were only provisional.
Clause agreed to.
On Clause 12, that there shall be six Knights of the Shire for Yorkshire,
Lord Wharncliffeinquired why York should be the place of election for the North Riding? N rhallerton would be more convenient.
The Lord Chancelloradmitted, that Northallerton would be a more convenient place. York was retained, he supposed, because it was the customary place, and, ceteris paribus, would be the best; but its position rendered it inconvenient as a place of election for the North Riding. There was one circumstance in its favour—that there were all the appurtenances of courts there, and not at Northallerton.
Lord Ellenboroughwould then propose that a clause be inserted, giving six Members to the county of Lancaster, which had a claim to this distinction, in respect to population little inferior, and greatly superior in respect of wealth, to the county of York. From the manner in which it was intended to divide the county, it was evident, that the manufacturing interests would return the whole of the four Members proposed to be given to it, to the utter extinction of the landed interest from all share of the Representation. He had formed this clause upon the exact model of that relating to Yorkshire.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that this clause would render it necessary to disfranchise some boroughs, to get room for these Members. At least, if it were carried,

1393
some places they had determined to enfranchise must be omitted. It was, besides, unnecessary for the purpose the noble Lord had in view, of securing to the landed interest a share of the Representation. A large proportion of agricultural voters had been carved out from the counties for boroughs. As the Bill now stood, the members for Lancashire would be more agricultural than at present. This was, however, not the proper time to consider this question, but when they came to divide the counties with reference to Representation.
The Marquess of Salisburywished to know, if he was to understand that the voters for the new towns and districts were not to have votes for the county?
The Lord Chancellorreplied, that the arrangement then was, that if any man voted for the district, he was not, on account of the same property, to vote also for the county. This would not take all the town voters out of the county election, but it would take many.
Lord Wharncliffeannounced his intention to move, at the proper time, that all the freeholders in towns returning Members be excluded from the county elections.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, that by enfranchising the great towns in Lancashire, they would have rendered the county franchise more purely agricultural than before.
Lord Ellenboroughadmitted the truth of this, but the whole southern part of Lancashire was one great town, and, indeed, the Boundary Commissioners admitted, that they found on this very account the greatest difficulty in ascertaining where one ended and another began. There would practically, under this Bill, be no Representation of the agricultural part of the county.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that this must wholly depend upon the manner of dividing the county. It might be possible so to divide it as to secure two Members to the agricultural interest.
Lord Ellenboroughcontended, that any such division of the county must secure a preponderance to the manufacturing interest in the election of all the four Members.
Lord Wynfordsaid, that the wealth and importance of the lauded interest of Lancashire fully entitled it to two Representatives. When they came to the clause respecting the town voters exercising their franchise at the county elections, he should be prepared to show, that if it were intended to protect the landed interest, there never was a clause in any Act of Parliament more
1394
skilfully contrived to defeat its own purpose. It, in fact, let in every town freeholder to the county elections.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, Lancaster might be so divided as to give one large district almost purely agricultural.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, that such an arrangement, if it could be now secured, would please him better than the success of his Amendment. Otherwise, he must press the Amendment. He would withdraw the Amendment, upon condition that they now determined upon a division of the county, in the manner suggested by the noble and learned Lord. He did not see why they should not fix the mode of dividing the county of Lancaster, as they had done in the case of York, and were about to do in that of Lincoln. If this proposition were not acceded to, he would take the sense of the House upon his Amendment.
The Marquess of Salisburysaid, that as the division of counties was the question before the House, he could see no objection to going at once into the subject which the Committee were then discussing.
Earl Greydeclared he did not anticipate such a result as that which had been alluded to by the noble Lords opposite. He did not believe, that the effect of this clause would be to exclude a fair share of Representation for the agricultural interests. The county of Lancaster had almost always returned Members connected with agricultural interests. He was surprised at the opposition thus offered, because, on a previous occasion, it had been asserted that, by adopting the course proposed by this Amendment, too great an influence would be given to the manufacturing interest. He saw no reason for acceding to the Amendment.
Lord Wharncliffedeclared, that he should object to the divisions proposed, unless they were advantageous to the agricultural interest; but the county of Lancaster would have no agricultural Members. Of the present Members, he would observe, one was the son of a Peer living in the heart of the county, and another was a banker of Manchester.
The House divided on the Amendment:—Contents 15; Not Contents 70—Majority 55.

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

His R. H. the DUKE of SUSSEX.

ONSLOW

GRANARD (E. of Granard)

POMFRET

HOLLAND

DUKES.

RADNOR

HOWARD DE WALDEN

SUFFOLK.

LILFORD

BEDFORD

VISCOUNTS.

LYNEDOCH

DEVONSHIRE

GODERICH

MELBOURNE (Visc. Melbourne)

NORFOLK

HOOD

MONTEAGLE (Marq. of Sligo)

RICHMOND

LAKE

SOMERSET

LEINSTER (D. of Leinster.)

MOSTYN

ST. ALBAN'S.

LORDS.

MARQUESSES.

AMESBURY

PAMURE

LANSDOWN

AUCKLAND

POLTIMORE

QUEENSBERRY

AUDLEY

PONSONBY (Earl of Bessborough)

WESTMINSTER.

BROUGHAM

PONSONBY of Imokilly

EARLS.

CLEMENTS (E. of Leitrim)

SEAGRAVE

ALBEMARLE

CREWE

SEFTON (Earl of Sefton)

AMHERST

DINORBEN

SHERBORNE

CHARLEMONT

DOVER

STAFFORD

CHICHESTER

DUNALLEY

SUFFIELD

CRAVEN

DUNDAS

SUNDRIDGE (Duke of Argyll)

GOSFORD

DURHAM

GREY

FIFE (Earl of Fife)

TEMPLEMORE

HILLISBOROUGH (Marquess of Downshire)

FINGALL (E. of Fingall)

VERNON

FISHERWICK (Marquess of Donegall)

YARBOROUGH.

HUNTINGDON

BISHOPS.

LICHFIELD

GLENLYON

MINTO

GODOLPHIN

CHICHESTER

MULGRAVE

GOWER

HEREFORD.

List of the CONTENTS.

His R. H. the DUKE of CUMBERLAND.

SALISBURY.

BOLTON

EARLS.

ELEENBOROUGH

DUKE.

AYLESFORD

KENYON

BEAUFORT.

BATHURST

PENSHURST(V. Strangford)

DARTMOUTH.

STUART DE ROTHESAY

MARQUESSES.

LORDS.

WHARNCLIFFE

BUTE

BEXLEY

WYNFORD.

Clause 14, that certain counties shall be divided, and return two Knights for each division, with schedule F, agreed to.
Clause 15, that there shall be three Knights of the Shire for certain counties, enumerated in schedule F 2, was put.
The Marquess of Salisburymoved, that the number be four instead of three; negatived; clause agreed to.
Clause 16 was agreed to.
Clause 17, that towns, which are counties of themselves, be included in adjoining counties for county elections, was then put.
Lord Ellenboroughcontended, that the holders of freeholds in these towns should
1396
vote for the town, and not for the county. He begged to know on what principle the noble Lords now proceeded?
Lord Durhamobserved, that the freeholders of Canterbury, Poole, and Southampton, had of old enjoyed a right of voting for the county. Therefore, there was no innovation in the principle introduced.
Lord wynforddenied, that the freeholders of Poole had a right to vote for Dorsetshire.
The Lord Chancellorstated, he had understood that they had.
Clause agreed to.
On clause 18 being put, which enacts

1397
that no freehold for life shall give a vote for a county, unless it be worth 10 l. a-year, excepting present 40 s. freeholders during life,
The Marquess of Salisburyobserved, that the object of the clause was, to give a right to vote for counties to persons who had no property in the county for which they voted, and towards the burthens of which they contributed nothing. He begged to ask the noble Earl, and be hoped that, as was usual with the head of the King's Government, he would have the courtesy to give him an answer, on what ground he proposed to take away the franchise of the 40 s. freeholders for life?
Earl Grey, My answer is, the rights of freeholders are preserved for their lives.
The Marquess of Salisburyasked, what became of the rights of freeholders which were for three lives, and whether such property was not materially deteriorated?
The Lord Chancellorwould explain the clause to the noble Marquis. If the freehold was for his own life, it was preserved to the existing freeholder; if it was for the lives of other persons, he retained the right to vote during his own life, exactly as if the Bill had never passed. The object of the clause was, to prevent the manufacturing of votes.
Lord Ellenboroughthought the clause should have been differently worded. In his neighbourhood, common fields had been divided into freeholds of 2l., 3l., and 4l., a-year. The population was very industrious and parsimonious, and desirous of possessing freeholds. In one parish there were 1,600 persons, and 100 freeholds of this description, every one of the holders of which would find that his son was disfranchised. A great portion of that part of the country was in the same circumstances. He entreated that the subject might be reconsidered.
Lord Wharncliffeunderstood the object of the proviso to be, the disqualification of what were called annuity 40 s. voters, at the same time, that it was intended to preserve the rights of bona fide 40 s. freeholders; but he apprehended the clause was so worded as to disqualify a great number of bona fide voters; and that he considered extremely objectionable.
The Duke of Richmondfelt great satisfaction at the virtuous indignation expressed by noble Lords opposite, at the idea of disfranchising the 40 s. freeholders. He could have wished, however, that they had not united in disfranchising 250,000
1398
Irish 40 s. freeholders in 1829. But, be that as it might, he congratulated noble Lords on having at last come to their senses, even at the expense of a sacrifice of political consistency.
The Marquess of Londonderry: What the noble Duke refers to was done to accomplish a great object, in the necessity of which almost every body agreed, but what was the country to gain by this measure?
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, there was a great difference between the Irish and English 40 s. freeholders, the latter being a much more respectable class than the former.
Lord Hollandhad voted for the disfranchisement of the Irish 40 s. freeholders, but it was with the utmost reluctance—his vote had been wrung from him by an ardent desire to pass the great measure by which the disfranchisement was accompanied. He was sure the object of this clause was, not to disqualify bonâ fide voters, but the contrary: and, if there seemed any doubt on the subject, he, for one, should have no objection to introduce some words by way of amendment, which should set the matter at rest.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, it might be well to add one or two words to the proviso, in order to remove all doubt, and render it clear that no bonâ fide voter was to be affected by the clause. He had no objection to postpone the clause for the purpose of adding such words. Meanwhile, their Lordships could proceed with the next clause if they were disposed to go further to-night.
Lord Wynfordalso wished to exclude fictitious votes, but that could be easily done without affecting bonâ fide freeholders.
Clause postponed.