Sitting of 2 April 1833

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Mr. E. RUTHVEN, Copies of the several Bills of Costs furnished by the Irish Crown Solicitors in all Cases, since the 5th July, 1831, an Account of all Money paid on Account of said Bills of Costs.—On the Motion of Mr. SPRING RICE, the Number of Parishes in which the provisions of the Act 2nd and 3rd William 4th, cap. 96, had been adopted.
New Writ issued. For the Borough of Dundee, in the room of G. KINLOCH, Esq., deceased.
Bills. Read a second time:—Customs; Wharfs Conveying; Stafford Indemnity.
Petitions presented. By Mr. GULLY, from Cambridge,
18
against the Disturbances (Ireland) Bill.—By Mr. D. ROCHE, from Limerick, against the Duty on Soap.—By Mr. CHARLES KEMEYS TYNTE, from Chard, against the Personal Estate Tax; from the Political Union of Yeovil, against the Taxes on Knowledge; from the same Place; and by Mr. CORNISH, from Totness, for Extending the Right of Election of Magistrates in Corporate Towns.—By Mr. STUART MACKENZIE, from Edderton; by Admiral FLEMING, from Strathblane and Baldernock; and by Mr. MAXWELL, from Paisley, against the present System of Church Patronage in Scotland.—By Mr. R. OSWALD, from the Hand-loom Weavers of Glasgow, for a Board of Trade, and for Relief.—By Mr. TENNYSON, from St. Mary, Newington; and by Mr. WIGNEY, from Brighton, against the Assessed Taxes.—By Mr. JOHN PENTON, from Rochdale, by Mr. CALVERT, from Bishop Stortford; by Mr. THICKNESSE, from the Operatives of several Cotton Mills; by Mr. HUME, from the Manufacturing portion of the County of Gloucester, in favour of a Factories Regulation Bill.—By Major BEAUCLERK, from Horsham, for a Repeal of the Septennial Act, Vote by Ballot, and an Extension of the Franchise; from Henfield, against the Assessed Taxes.—By Mr. CAYLEY, from three Places, against the present Disabilities of the Dissenters.—By Mr. H. GRATTAN, from two Places, for a Repeal of the Union.—By Mr. HUME, from several Places, against the Abuses practised in Corporations.—From Chichester, and other Places, for Relief from Taxation; from Stansfield, against Tithes from several Political Unions, for Universal Suffrage, Vote by Ballot, and Triennial Parliaments; and from Chatham, &c., against the Disturbances (Ireland) Bill.—. By Messrs. CAYLEY, TOWNLEY, HEYETT, WEDGWOOD, LENNARD, A. PELHAM, and Sir G. GREY, from a great Number of Places,—against Slavery.—By Mr. TENNYSON, Mr. HUME, Mr. G. VERNON, and many others, from a Number of Places,—for a Better Observance of the Sabbath.

DISTRESS—HAND-LOOM WEAVERS.
Mr. John Fieldenpresented a petition from Padiham, Lancashire, complaining of distress, and stating that the township contains a population of 3,529 persons, and that 246 families, or altogether 1,381 persons, had been visited in January last; that all of these capable of work, excepting four were in full employment; that their average income in wages only amounted to 1s. 9d. and three-eighths of a penny a head per week; that the rent, fuel, light, and repairs, of the implements on which they work, amounted to 6d. and one-eighth of a penny per head per week; leaving these poor persons only 1s. 3d. and one-eighth per head per week for food and clothing. The hon. Member stated, that this was one of those townships of Lancashire where hand-loom weaving formed a principal branch of the employment of the poor, and was one of those comprised in the survey of thirty-five townships, of which he (Mr. Fielden) had circulated the result, and should take an opportunity of placing a copy in the hands of every hon. Member of the House to morrow morning. The petitioners stated further, that the whole sum received by these poor persons in poor-rate,

19
amounted to no more than 10 l., 8s. 2½d. a-week. The petition was most respectably signed, having the names of the clergyman of the Established Church of the place, of the Churchwardens and Overseers, and most of the respectable persons in the township, affixed to it. Mr. Fielden presented another from Blachinworth and Calderbrook, complaining of similar distress; and the hon. Member stated that a great proportion of the poor persons in this township were in the employ of himself and his partners; and the allegations contained in the petitions he of his own knowledge knew to be true. The income, for food and clothing, which the families visited in this township received for each person for one week, was only 1s. 6d., that is, for food and clothing; and the Poor-rate distributed amongst them amounts to only 1l. 7s. 5d.; that out of 1,011 persons visited in this township, there were only three out of employ who were capable of working, the others being in full work. Several hon. Members had at divers times expressed doubts as to the truth of the extent of the distress which he had represented to the House. He regretted exceedingly that such doubts should be entertained, because it was calculated to prevent inquiry, and to delay, if not defeat a remedy for this distress. What had been stated by him was either true or false; and if hon. Members residing in the neighbourhood where this distress was represented to exist, would take the pains to inform themselves on the subject, as he (Mr. Fielden) had done, he was satisfied they would arrive at the same conclusions. He had also to present petitions from Langfield, Marsden, and Barrowford, complaining of similar distress: also one from the forest of Rossendale, embracing eight townships enumerated in the survey to which he had before alluded, and one petition from the township of Haslingden; all complaining of the same distress. Upon these the hon. Member remarked that the inhabitants of these townships were engaged in the manufacture of silk, of cotton, and of woollen; the petitions were most numerously and respectably signed, having the names of all, or nearly all, the ministers of the Established Church in the several townships, the Church wardens and Overseers, many respectable professional men, and many of the most respectable manufacturers and tradesmen in the district from which they came, and he
20
could assure the House that the petitioners were labouring under the severest distress. To show the wretchedness of these poor people, nearly the whole of whom were in full employ (a fact which should not be forgotten, and which was the worst feature in the case, because it was not want of employment, but want of adequate wages for that employment), he could not refrain from reading a letter which he had received from a respectable dissenting minister, though in humble life, in which was described the privation and suffering under which they laboured. The hon. Member read the letter as follows: 'The 'distress we have witnessed in taking this 'survey is almost inexpressible. Had I 'not been an eye-witness of the state of 'the labouring poor therein contained, I 'should not have credited their wretched 'and miserable condition. In some fa'milies of six, seven, or eight in number, 'we find only one bed, and a lap or two of straw. The mistress 'of one family in 'particular, of seven in number, said they 'had only one blanket, and that nearly 'worn out, and nothing for the cradle, 'except an old cloak. The clothing of a 'large number of them is not worth more 'than 6s. or 8s., and one or two years' 'rent behind; the nauseous smells, and 'the miserable aspect of some of the in'habitants, are truly distressing, and many 'there are that say they have not the 'means of procuring soap either to cleanse 'themselves or what should be their linen. 'We are conscious that we have not under'rated their income, nor exceeded their 'number.—(Signed) EDWARD ASH'WORTH. P. S.—Potatoes to dinner—half 'a pound of mutton fat served five meals 'for five in a family, thin oatmeal porridge 'for breakfast and supper—bedding and 'clothing miserable—little children in the 'cradle only straw to lie on, and covered with a "cotton fent." The House would perhaps allow him to explain that this cotton fent" was the remnant of the web, at the end of every warp, which is about a yard in length, and is the customary perquisite of the weaver; it was, iii short, a yard of cotton calico. The hon. Member next presented a petition from Castleton—the town of Rochdale being partly situated in that township, and the manufacture there is flannel, woollens, and cotton, but principally the two former—complaining of similar distress, and stating that the earnings of the working people

21
only amounted, after the reduction necessarily incurred, to 1s. 1d. and seven-eighths of a penny per week, for each individual of the families visited, for food and clothing: that, of 2,427 persons visited, there were only seventy-seven persons capable of work who were out of employ. The others were in full employ. He was glad to see the hon. member for Rochdale (Mr. Fenton) in his place; and he would hand over the petition to him, in order that he might bear testimony to the respectability of those who had signed it, there being the names of many of his best friends attached to it. He had also to present petitions from Spotland, Wardle-worth, and Wuerdle and Wardle, all situate in and near Rochdale, complaining of similar distress; and it was worthy of observation, that the work in which these poor people were engaged was of a description which had not much competition from power-looms; and, therefore, the argument that power-looms caused the distress could not bear upon this subject, and was indeed, here shown to be untrue. He had another petition from the township of Blackburn, signed by seven persons who had made the survey before alluded to, which stated that the township contained a population of 27,091 persons: that 1,738 families, containing in all 9,772 persons, had been visited by the petitioners: that there were only 452 persons capable of working, who were not in full employment: that the total weekly wages of the families visited amounted to 828 l. 19 s. 7d. a-week, being an average of 1s. 8d. and three-eighths of a penny for each person: that the average rent for each person amounted to 3d. and five-eighths of a penny per week, and fuel, light, and other indispensable outgoings were threepence-halfpenny per week; these two last items being 7d. and one-eighth, which, being deducted from Is. 8d. and three-eighths (gross income), left only 1s. 1¼d. for food and clothing for each individual for one week, in the 9,779-persons in the families visited by the petitioners: that the parish relief received amongst the families visited amounted to no more than 24 l. 12 s. 8d. per week. He had received a letter from a most respectable professional man in the town of Blackburn, stating that the petitioners who had made this survey, were men of respectability in their situations of life, and that he believed that the examinations had
22
been carefully made, and were as correct as it was possible to get up such returns. Mr. Fielden regretted that any attempt to discredit these statements should have been made, for he believed them to be substantially true. He had taken great pains to inform himself on this subject, both amongst those workmen whom he him-self employed, and by inquiring of others in similar employments. In giving directions for these surveys, he had desired the parties to visit those families only whose average income from wages for the whole of the family did not exceed 2s. 6d. a head a-week, and this had been in most instances observed, but in some cases departed from; and there was one which now came to his mind that he could not help adverting to—that was, the township of Trawden, near Pendle-hill, in Lancashire, where the visitors had given the result of the survey of almost all the families in the township. The population is 2,851. and there were 2,480 persons, six-sevenths of the whole number in the township), whose average income per head a-week, applicable for food and clothing, did not amount to more than twopence-halfpenny per head a-day, and the whole of the families visited were in full employment. It was lamentable to him to have to detail an account of such distress; he knew how painful it was to hon. Members to hear such statements repeated in the House; but, believing them, as he sincerely did, to be true accounts, the subject appeared to him to be so important and so worthy of the serious attention of the Legislature, that if he did not make these representations, however unpalatable, he should be guilty of the grossest dereliction of duty. He would only observe, in passing, that he had laboured, for many years, to prevent this reduction in the value of labour, but without success; he and others had petitioned this House over and over again. In 1829, he and a number of other manufacturers, had, through the medium of Lord Stanley, sent a memorial to Mr. Secretary Peel, detailing the distress which had been then of many years' standing; but instead of receiving relief, soldiers, with their accompaniments, were sent down, and consumed the food which was so much wanted for these poor people! This distress, had been, by some, denied, and the argument used was, that the hands employed in mills were better paid for their labour. But this was no answer

23
to rebut the fact of this distress amongst these poor persons. It was true that those families employed in mills did receive better wages; but it should not be lost sight of, that for one person employed in mills, he believed that there were three, at least, employed in this other description of work, which was so inadequately paid for; and the price for labour in mills was being fast reduced to the wages received by those out of the mills. He and his partners had innumerable applications from persons working for masters who paid less than themselves for mill-hands, not because they were out of work, but with a desire to get into better employment. Indeed two or three hours a day were frequently taken up by one or other of his partners in giving answers to such applicants. In one mill, near to the works of himself and his partners, the proprietors got a certain description of work done at 5s. for which he and his partners paid 7s. at least; and the effect would be, that they would be compelled (as they had already been in hand-loom weaving) to adopt the prices of those who paid so much less than themselves, or otherwise abandon their business; for it was impossible to contend successfully against such competitors; and thus the wages of mill-hands would be brought to a level with the labour performed in the cottages of the poor, instead of the wages of the latter being advanced to the wages paid in mills. The petitioners all stated, that the value of their labour had been reduced, as measured in the necessaries of life, more than one half, since the close of the war; and they all prayed for a reduction in the price of the necessaries of life to the altered value of their wages. He had now presented those petitions which had already come into his possession, of about twenty townships comprised in the result of the survey which he had promised to put into the hands of hon. Members to-morrow morning, and he would read to the House the result of that survey:—'That, in thirty-five townships, 'the population is 203,349. The families 'visited are 8,362. The persons in these 'families, 49,294, being nearly one-fourth 'of the whole. The number out of work 'in the families visited, is 2,287. The 'number unfit for work in the same, is '23,060. The number of workers is '23,947. The total weekly wages which 'the families visited earn, are 4,447 l. '18 s. This sum will give for each of those who
24
'work, a weekly average of 3s. 8d. and five-'eighths; and for each of the whole 'number of persons visited, a weekly 'average of 1s. 9d. and five-eighths. The 'rent paid by the families visited is, per 'annum, 32,693 l. 17 s. 5d. This sum 'gives an average of 3d. a-week for each 'individual in the families visited. Fuel, 'light, and wear of implements, will be 'an average for each individual of, at 'least, 3½d. a week; and this, with the 'average rent of 3d., being deducted from '1s. 9d. and five-eighths, the average in-'come of each individual, leaves for food 'and clothing for each individual for a 'week 1s. 3d. and one-eighth. The whole 'parish relief given weekly to the families 'visited is 139 l. 7s., or, for each, five-'eighths of a penny; and the average 'income of each for a day, for food and 'clothing, from both wages and relief, is '2¼d.' Mr. Fielden next presented a petition from Thomas Vevers, Christopher Tinker, and George Beaumont, of Huddersfield, confirming the account of the distress in that neighbourhood which he (Mr. Fielden) had stated on a former evening to the House. The petitioners stated that, since the examination made in 1832, the wages for merinos, cassanetts, and woollen cords, had been reduced; that the suffering amongst the poor was extreme: that many hands were out of work, that the poor had to sleep upon straw, and to live upon potatoes and oatmeal and water, which they had aptly called "tremblers," being a composition of oatmeal and water boiled, and which is a little thicker than water-gruel, but not of a consistency to be called porridge; that soma of them scarcely ever tasted animal food; now-and-then, however, obtaining an onion, which they considered a luxury. The statement of the distress at Huddersfield had been denied by the hon. member for Huddersfield, who was reported to have said in his place in the House, that there were very few persons in that neighbourhood who earned less than 2s. a-day, and most of them earned 3s. a day. It no doubt was true, that those employed in mills, in that district, were better paid than those employed at their own homes; but the number of the latter far exceeded that of the former, who might be distressed, to the extent described, while the former were better off. He therefore expressed his doubts as to the correctness of the information of the hon. member for Hudders-

25
field; for the accounts which he had given of this distress had been corroborated by many other individuals, and by the result of a partial survey, taken in February last, by which it appeared that there were 120 families, containing 621 persons, whose weekly income did not exceed 1s. 2d. and seven-eighths of a penny per week; and when the necessary expenses these families had to pay, were made, would reduce their income for food and clothing for each individual to 10 d. per week, or less than 1½d. per day; and which went to confirm the allegations of the petitioners, as well as the statement of Mr. Stocks, on which he (Mr. Fielden) founded his account given to the House on an early evening in the present Session, and which he would now read to the House. Mr. Stocks's statement was, that an examination had been made in 1829, and it showed that, out of a population of 29,000, there were 13,226 who had only an average of 2½d. a day for subsistence. He would read what Mr. Stocks gave him in writing in January last—namely, That the con'dition of the above population is worse 'at the present moment; and it is be'lieved that the average at present would 'not exceed 2d. per day for all expenses; 'and that it is believed that 40,000 are in 'the above condition in the upper division of 'Aggbrig, containing 103,384 in habitants.' These statements were appalling; they were either true or false; and it behoved the hon. member for Huddersfield, and the members for the West Riding of Yorkshire, to make inquiry, and to satisfy themselves and this House, whether such distress did exist; and he hoped that during the recess, they would make particular inquiry on this subject; for it was one to which too much attention could not be paid by hon. Members of this House. If the condition of the labouring poor, who should be the consumers of their own productions and the productions of others, could not be improved, it threatened a dissolution of society. He begged to apologize for the time which he had occupied, but what he had stated to the House appeared to him to be so important, that he trusted he should be excused. In conclusion he would beg leave to read to the House the result of a visit to a number of families near Huddersfield, made by Captain Wood in March, 1832, and communicated to him. The hon. Member read the following statement:—
Scamonden township.

1. Benjamin Sykes—Family seven; weekly income 7s.; live upon potatoes and thin water-porridge; no bed clothes; clothes worn out; and nearly naked; rent 36 s.

2. James Clay—Family seven; in one room, 4 yards by 5; rent 34 s.; all sleep in one bed; the room holds their loom also; income 6s. per week; never any bread or animal food.

3. Mary Sugden—Family of three, weekly income 1s. 9d.; sleep in corner of loom-room, on straw laid on the floor, without covering except the rags they were in the day-time; no furniture.

4. William Lamb—family four, weekly income 5s.; live upon potatoes, and salt, and thin water porridge; no milk, cannot afford to pay for it; no bread nor meat; has wove 160 yards, and travelled forty-eight miles, for 16 s. 4d.

5. Hannah Parkin, widow—Four children; (left with child, and now incapable of working); income 4s. 6d. per week; live on oatmeal porridge, without milk, or anything else; no furniture of any kind, except bedstead; when asked, replied "don't know how they live," the poor woman distracted, and children in great want; at present receiving 2s. per week from the parish.

6. James Bailey—Family seven; weekly income 5s.; live on a little oatmeal and water; all sleep in one bed; no blanket.

7. Joseph Sykes—Family of four; weekly income of 4s.; all in one bed, and one blanket; almost starved to death at night.

8. James Dyson—Family four; weekly income 3s.; all in one chaff bed, with one blanket; his wife lately confined, and all the nourishment she had was oatmeal and water.

9. William Bottomley—Family nine; rent 3l. which had just been distrained for (land-lord in possession of all); weekly income 9s.; 2s. 6d. from parish, for which he has to go to Rochdale, twelve miles; labours fourteen hours per day; three beds of straw, with only one blanket in the house; it is nine years old. These wretched beings live on thin water-porridge; they have one gill of milk for breakfast, which the mother mixes among the porridge; for dinner, potatoes; bread never seen in their houses; meat unknown.

Visited about twenty other houses, where the same scenes of misery were found. We took the houses at random. Scamonden has 912 inhabitants; and at least two-thirds will be found in this situation.
A most important feature (showing the hopelessness of their situation), that there was abundance of work, and "more," they said, might be had if they could find time to do it." A man can earn about 5s. clear of expenses of winding, per week; out of which he has rent, clothes, and keeping to provide; and in this district a man has generally eighteen miles to walk with his work:
Mr. Stocks, who led me to these scenes of

27
wretchedness, assured me that a population of about 40,000 may be found in the neighbour hood of Huddersfield, of the poorest class, whose daily income will not average 1d½. for each person. The visit was made March 1832. JOSEPH WOOD.
Mr. George W. Woodwas aware that it was not proper to occupy the time of the House in discussing petitions, because, as the subjects of those petitions could not be brought satisfactorily before them, it was impossible that justice could be done to them. He was aware of the distress which existed in some parts of the country, and he considered it to be a subject well worthy of the most attentive consideration of the House. He would, though most reluctantly, offer a few observations on what had fallen from his hon. friend, the member for Oldham, to whom he gave the utmost credit for the purity of his motives, and who, he was sure, would not intentionally mislead the House. He thought, however, that his hon. friend was deceiving himself as to the actual condition of the working people in Lancashire. He had stated what each family had to live on per head per week, and the result of his inquiries appeared to be, that 8,362 families earned only 4,447 l. per week, which was something about 10 s. for each family. That statement was obtained, he (Mr. Wood) believed, in January—the season when wages were lowest, and the fewest persons were in employ. The facts also were gathered from the individuals themselves whose condition was the subject of inquiry, and, therefore, it was not unreasonable to suppose that they would make the most unfavourable statement they could of their condition. Their statements were, therefore, not likely to be altogether correct. Besides, it was impossible in such a condition of society that the Poor-rates should be so low as they really were. As to the borough which the hon. Member represented (Oldham), he believed that it was on the whole in a prosperous condition; certainly it had increased in population and manufactures more than any other town in the county of Lancaster. The Poor-rates, with every disposition to do what was necessary for the poor, were smaller in Oldham than in any other town in the same county. The persons whose situation the hon. Member referred to, were the hand-loom weavers. No one could doubt that their condition was by no means
28
prosperous, or that it was not one that the House should endeavour to alleviate; but a false statement had been made as to the general condition of the working classes of that part of the country. He (Mr. Wood) believed that the wages of persons who worked in factories, and who formed the largest portion of the population, were as much per head, or nearly so, as the hon. Member had stated them for a whole family. As respected the entire population of South Lancashire, he knew, from his intercourse with it, that they had been for some years more prosperous than formerly, and that there was nothing like the distress which had been described.
Mr. Cornishfelt equally conscious with the hon. Member who had just sat down, of the dislike entertained by the House to have its time occupied by lengthened discussions on the numerous petitions presented to it; but he conceived if any occasion would justify an infringement on its time, it was the important and distressing representation that had just been made. He regretted that such a momentous statement should have been made to so scanty a House—a House scarcely comprising twenty members. ["No, no."] Yes, yes. He had counted the House while the petitions were presenting, and there were not more than a score Members in it. The attention of the House had been frequently called by petitions from all parts of the country to the state of its distress. No Parliament ever met with the people under such excited expectations: yet that Parliament had sat two months, and to this hour not only no efficient remedy had been suggested, but not even an investigation into the cause of the distress had been proposed. Possibly the evil lay too deep for eradication; but he hoped that his Majesty's Ministers would at once proceed to institute an inquiry into the cause of the calamity, and if this were done, although it should be out of the reach of legislative redress, the people would be satisfied that proper exertions had been made, and that this House had done its duty.
Mr. Cobbettregretted the thinness of the House at the time his hon. colleague was reading the petitions which he had just presented to the House. No details,—no authentic documents, had been brought forward in contradiction of the statements made by his hon. friend. He was satisfied of the truth of every thing

29
which his hon. colleague had stated to the House, and he trusted that the House, at last, would think proper to adopt some measure of permanent relief. Let the taxes be taken off, in order that the poor man might get the pot of porter for a 1d. instead of 4d.—a pound of sugar for 2d. instead of 7d.—and a pound of soap for 2d. instead of 6d. or 7d. "Ay," but said the Government, if you talk about taking off the taxes, "we can't do without the taxes, and we can't afford to take any off."
Mr. Hawesrose to order. He would ask the Speaker whether the hon. Gentleman was strictly confining himself to the question that was before the House? If an hon. Member was to occupy the House upwards of an hour upon one question, it would be impossible to accomplish the object for which the House then sat, which was the presentation of petitions.
The Speakersaid, since the alteration in the presentation of petitions, when an hon. Member presented a number of petitions upon a variety of subjects, it was difficult for him to say, on the question that they do lie on the Table, whether any hon. Gentleman confined himself to any of the questions embraced by the petitions. In the mean time, he would only say, that there was no species of distress that could exist but what was alluded to by the hon. Member (Mr. Fielden); therefore the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cobbett) was not out of order.
Mr. Cobbettwas merely telling the House the way in which they could relieve the distresses of these poor people. There was the sum of 16,000 l. they had voted for the Museum. If that sum were applied in the manner suggested by his hon. colleague, it would double the wages of 938 families, consisting of 4,960 persons, and that by merely taking away from the loungers of the British Museum the privileges they at present possessed. There were the 113 Privy Councillors, who, according to a statement that had never yet been contradicted, divided amongst themselves 650,000 l. Let them take that away, and distribute it amongst the people, and it would relieve 180,555 persons. The people could only be relieved by applications of this sort; and this was what the people knew, and must know; and the ladies must be struck off the Pension-list, and the sinecures must be swept away. If they were to take away
30
only the money that was prodigally spent, the people would be greatly relieved; and he believed Ministers were anxious, and would be even glad to do that; and they would get rid of sinecures and pensions if they were supported by this House. They wanted the House to back them, and to support them in putting down the squandering. He believed the money squandered would amount to more than double the wages of these persons in the northern and western manufacturing districts of the country. Nothing was wanted to put down the present waste of the public money, but the House to back the Ministers, and to enable them to do it; and when he brought forward his Motion relative to the Stamps—which he should do to-morrow evening—he should then show how the people became poorer and poorer; for, by inquiring into the causes of poverty, they would be able to prevent people from becoming poor. These poor people had barracks full of soldiers to take care of them; and when they saw a lusty soldier covered all over with fine lace, and a fat, shining horse, that cost as much as seven families of seven children, it was a miracle they suffered so long and so patiently as they did. He hoped the House would take this matter into consideration as soon as possible. He suggested to his hon. friend the propriety of moving for the printing of these Petitions, and for a Committee of Inquiry, that the House might be properly prepared to meet this tremendous subject. He believed there were no hon. Members in that House so hard-hearted as not to be willing to give this subject their closest attention.
An Hon. Member, in rising to bear testimony to the truth of the statement of the petition which had been presented by the hon. member for Oldham (Mr. Fielden) felt bound to complain of the course pursued by his hon. colleague. Though it might be competent to that hon. Member, if he thought fit to address the House at length, to bring forward statements as to the distress of the country, yet in those statements he thought he ought to avoid introducing discussions which might have a tendency to make the people discontented.
Mr. Fielden, in reply, said, that the best answer to the hon. member for Lancashire, was contained in a letter which he received yesterday, and which contain-

31
ed a report of a speech of Mr. George Smith who was chairman of one of the Committees for securing the return of the right hon. the Vice-President of the Board of Trade for Manchester. It spoke for itself, and, without saying one word more on the subject, he would only detain the House while he read it. At the election dinner to celebrate the return of Mark Phillips, esq. and the right hon. Poulett Thomson, as representatives for the town of Manchester, on the 28th December, 1832, on the health of the working classes being drunk, Mr. Smith said, 'Being extensively connected with the 'working classes, I beg leave to reply to 'that toast. Our house employs certainly 'upwards of 1,000 of those miserable 'beings, the hand-loom calico weavers, 'and we pay all this host of work-people 'with from 250 l. to 300 l. per week, pro'bably an average of about 5s. 6d. per head 'per week, [Cries of "Shame, shame;"] 'and lest you should think that our house 'is fattening on the vitals of those poor 'people, I will state to you a fact which 'I would not otherwise have stated—'namely, that the last year our house 'manufactured and sold 200,000 pieces of 'hand-loom calicoes. We conducted our 'business with as much economy as pos'sible. We made no bad debts, and yet, 'at the year's end, we had not gained an average profit of a 1d. per piece. I 'mention this to show you that all that 'can be afforded to the weaver is given to 'him.'
Petitions to lie on the Table.

POLITICAL UNIONS.
Sir John Tyrrell, in putting the question to the noble Lord opposite regarding certain franks said to have been given to the members of the Political Unions by a member of the Government, staled that he thought it due to the character not only of the Government generally, but to the individual character of the noble Lord himself, who denied all knowledge of the Unions, to the noble Earl at the head of the Government, and to the hon. Member who had made the assertion, and who was ready to repeat it, that a satisfactory answer should be given to his question, not only by the noble Lord himself, but by the Government. If the answer of the noble Lord was satisfactory, he would let the matter drop; but if not, he reserved to himself the privilege of proceeding further.
Lord Althorpsaid, that though the hon. Baronet had given notice that he should put a question to him, he had sat down without putting any question, but from the statement made by him last night, he could understand to what the hon. Baronet alluded. He wished to know whether a statement made by the hon. member for Tralee was correct, in saying, that a member of the Government had, during the period they were out of office, given fifty franks to members of the Political Unions, in order to excite those Political Unions to petition for their return to power. When the matter was stated by the hon. Member, he at once declared that he knew nothing of it, and the hon. Member then said, he had no objection, if required, to mention the name of the person to whom he had alluded. The hon. Member accordingly mentioned privately to him, that the member of the Government alluded to was Earl Grey. He, therefore, had mentioned the subject to Earl Grey, who denied positively having franked any letters at all at that time. He had also spoken to Earl Grey's Private Secretary, who stated, that he had no recollection of any thing of the kind. At the same time that the Private Secretary admitted that he might have franked two or three letters, for persons who had requested him to do so, without being aware of their contents. But he denied positively having franked letters for the purposes stated by the hon. Member.
Mr. Maurice O'Connellsaid, that the statement had been made to him by a Mr. Rushton, who met Mr. Joseph Parkes (a well-known leader in the Birmingham Political Union), when Mr. Parkes said, "See, I have got several franks, which are directed to members of the Political Unions. They are official franks, and are signed by Earl Grey." Mr. Rushton was ready to give evidence at the Bar of the House to that effect.
Lord Althorpsaid, that the hon. Gentleman must be aware that it was not usual for Members of the Government to give these official franks. He certainly knew Mr. Parkes well, but he believed that at the period in question he was not a Member of The Birmingham or any other Political Union.
Mr. Charles Woodhaving been referred to by his noble friend, raust positively deny that he had ever given a frank, knowing it to be intended for any Political

33
Union; with the exception, that at that time great numbers of addresses were sent to Earl Grey, which it was his duty as Private Secretary to the noble Earl to answer. But he had never, on any occasion, made use of an expression in those letters which even implied the existence of Political Unions.
Sir John Tyrrellsaid, he hoped that the noble Lord would not think, that he was going too far when he stated his intention, notwithstanding the explanation given, of persevering in his Motion. He would, however, do so, because he thought the denial of the Government of the statement made to the hon. member for Tralee, involved the character of a gentleman of respectability, who was a barrister. He would take the opportunity, too, of asking whether a report current was true—that one of the members of the Government was a member of a Political Union? He did not know but he might go further, and move for a return of all the members of his Majesty's Government who were members of Political Unions. The hon. Baronet concluded by moving that Messrs. Parkes and Rushton be examined at the Bar of the House to-morrow.
An Hon. Membersaid, that it appeared to him nothing more nor less than a cock and a bull story, the foundation for which was mere hearsay: he had never heard so frivolous or ill-founded a charge. If the House paid any serious or lengthened attention to it, they would not only be deservedly laughed at by the whole country, but the people would have good reason for making a serious complaint that the time of the House was occupied in this ridiculous and reprehensible manner, when affairs of such moment ought to be under discussion.
Mr. O'Connelldid not see how this, if it were true even, could be called a charge against Government, for it appeared to him that if they had been in any way instrumental in raising the Political Unions, or had given those Unions any information on which to act, he thought the Ministers had done a very wise and meritorious thing, for it was owing to the Unions that Reform had been carried. The Motion had only been brought forward for the purpose of showing that, whereas political agitation was stirred up here by responsible persons, the same sort of political agitation, and those who stirred it up, in Ireland, were hunted down and utterly excommunicated.
Lord Althorpsaid, he did not believe what had been asserted; but true, or not, he put it to the House whether there were any grounds for going into the matter, and examining witnesses, because if the whole of the circumstances stated were perfectly true, it would be ridiculous to found on them a charge against the Government.
Mr. Robert Palmerthought, that the explanation which had been given was perfectly satisfactory. He did not see how Gentlemen who gave blank covers could be responsible for their contents; and this appeared to be the present case. He trusted the hon. Baronet would not press his Motion.
Sir John Tyrellcertainly would not press his Motion against what appeared to be the opinion of the House; but he protested against the interpretation which had been put upon his motives. He would only say, that there appeared to him a very great difference between National Political unions and Conservative Clubs.
Motion withdrawn.

POOR LAWS (IRELAND).
Lord Althorplaid on the Table, by command, the Report of the Poor Law Commissioners. The noble Lord stated, that it contained only extracts from the evidence, not the whole of the evidence.
Mr. O'Connellwished to take that opportunity of clearing up a misconception which he believed to have gone forth—namely, that he intended to make a Motion for giving Poor Laws to Ireland. This was incorrect; he might have thrown out some intimation on the subject, but he had given no decided notice. He would say, most decidedly, that from having read the extracts referred to, it would be impossible for him to acquiesce in any system of Poor Laws for Ireland: among all the misfortunes of his unhappy country, it had still the consolation of having hitherto avoided the Poor Laws.
Mr. Richardshad paid considerable attention to the subject, and had but lately arrived from Ireland, where he had also taken great pains in inquiring on this point; and since this visit he had become more convinced than ever as to the expediency and absolute necessity of this House passing some Act for providing for the indigent and half-starving poor of Ireland.
Mr. Humesaid, this was a question of

35
the most extreme importance. He in-treated the House, before they proceeded to give Poor Laws to Ireland, first, to institute a strict inquiry into the monstrous abuses of the Poor Laws in England—abuses which were among the most destructive evils with which this country was afflicted, and which, unless some strong measures were adopted to put an end to them, would, ere long, bring ruin on the country. When they had looked into and corrected the abuses here, then he would say, give Ireland the benefit of the amended Poor Laws. But do not give Ireland the additional affliction of Poor Laws as they stood now.
Colonel Woodwas in favour of the proposed measure, as a charitable and humane provision for the miserably indigent poor of Ireland. With respect to what had fallen from the hon. member for Middlesex, it did not seem to him to bear on the case, for it was quite a different thing to introduce a new system free from the errors of the old system into a country, and to set about revising so long existent and complicated code of Poor Laws, as was acted upon in this country. He trusted that the hon. member for Knaresborough would persevere; and without waiting till the Poor Laws were cleared from all abuses in England, would give to the Irish a system of Poor Laws purged from the evils and abuses to which the hon. member for Middlesex had alluded.
Mr. Peasesaid, he hoped the hon. member for Knaresborough, when he brought forward this Motion, would be fully prepared to submit to the House some definite plan. There had been a great deal said on this subject, but hitherto he must confess he had not heard any practicable suggestion. Our system of Poor Laws, it was very universally asserted, would not be applicable to Ireland. No other practicable suggestion, however, had been offered; but he trusted that as the hon. member for Knaresborough intended bringing the matter before the House, he would, at the same time, come provided with some practicable plan.
Mr. Henry Grattansaid, that whoever had witnessed the frightful state of misery and disease in Ireland, must, if he were possessed of any feelings of humanity, advocate the introduction of Poor Laws into that country. In the great streets in Dublin, the number and condition of the poor was frightful; so urgent was their distress,
36
that they were not content with merely asking casual charity, but they might be seen knocking with double or treble knocks at the great people's houses, and when the door, is opened thrusting themselves in, and demanding sustenance for themselves and their starving children. Some hon. Gentlemen and the absentees did not like Poor Laws; they were alarmed lest they should not get off without paying any longer. As an instance of the difference between what those who lived where there were Poor Laws had to pay, and those who lived where there were not Poor Laws, he would state, that for a few acres he had in Surrey, he paid as much in support of the poor, as the Lord Lieutenant of Wicklow did with all his large property. Since there was a union of the countries, let there be also a union of advantages. Before the introduction of Poor-rates here, England was not in a much better state than Ireland is in now.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that before the House came to a determination of introducing Poor-laws into Ireland, they ought to be fully satisfied that they were beneficial. He thought it very probable that the introduction of Poor-laws there would only serve to dry up the present fruitful sources of charity. He would not have Government do anything till the Report of the Commissioners had been carefully examined; then he would have them appoint a Commission composed of men the most suitable that could be found, for the purpose of inquiring into the exact state of the poor of Ireland, and to see how far in their judgment Poor-laws were applicable.

CHURCH REFORM (IRELAND).
On the Motion of Lord Althorp, the House resolved itself into a Committee on Church Temporalities (Ireland).
Lord Althorpsaid, that in moving the second Resolution, he felt it necessary to make a very few observations. The discussion which took place last night, and the speech of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, had a very close application to what he was about to state. The right hon. Gentleman and others objected to the principle of laying the tax on the present incumbents for the purpose of relieving the people of Ireland from the Vestrycess. In making that proposition, some time ago, he observed that he had every reason to believe, from all the inquiries

37
which his Majesty's Government had made on the subject, that the clergy of the Church of Ireland would not feel any objection to the tax which was about to be thus imposed on them. His right hon. friend, Mr. Stanley, who was not now a Member of the House, had written down what he had authorized him (Lord Althorp) to state with reference to this point. His right hon. friend said, "In all the conversations which I have had with the primates and the clergy, there never was any objection taken to the principle of taxing the present incumbents. Many of them expressed an anxious wish to me that no difference should be made between them and their successors." When he spoke thus on the occasion to which he referred, he therefore had reason to hope that the clergy of Ireland had no objection to the proposition. That was the foundation on which he expressed his opinion. Now, it undoubtedly did turn out that many of the clergy of Ireland did object to the system of taxation proposed; and he was perfectly ready to say, that if any other mode of relieving the people of Ireland from the Vestry-cess could be pointed out or discovered, which would be advantageous to the clergy, by rendering the proposed tax unnecessary, he should not object to it. It was, however, under all circumstances, an object of such importance that the Vestry-cess in Ireland should cease—of such importance to the Church itself—of such importance to the interests of the Establishment in Ireland—and almost to the very existence of the Church—that this cause of dissatisfaction should be removed—that he could not recede from it. He did not think that, in making this proposition, he was inflicting any hardship on individuals, and still less did he feel, that he was submitting to the House a project which was at variance with the interests of the Church. The Committee must see, that the proposition did not apply to the present incumbents only, but that it imposed the tax generally. If, however, in the consideration of this question, any mode could be found for providing for the Vestry-cess without touching the present incumbents, he should be most glad to adopt it. But still he must contend that, if such a substitute were not found, it was yet most desirable that the sacrifice contemplated should be made for the interests of Ireland, and especially for the interests of the Church of Ireland. To protect and
38
relieve the people of Ireland it was desirable that this Vestry-cess should no longer be levied. The right hon. Gentleman last night confined himself almost entirely to the poor clergy; he, however, could not see, in the present state of information on the subject, how he could alter the tax as it was now proposed to be collected. He should be well pleased, however, if any other mode were shown by which the impost could be avoided. The right hon. Gentleman had argued the question on the effect which this tax would have on the parochial clergy in Ireland, and he had adduced many instances of the severe privations which it would impose. But the Committee would observe, that a very large portion of the tax would not fall on the parochial clergy, but on the hierarchy of Ireland; and the argumentum ad misericordiam could not, therefore, be advanced with all that force and effect which the right hon. Gentleman seemed last night to attach to it. The right hon. Gentleman stated, that in the proposition which had been brought forward no distinction was made between the different sorts of Vestry-cess in Ireland. Now, on the grounds which he had laid down before, he had confined himself to that cess which was levied by exclusively Protestant vestries. There was a great distinction between that and the other regular charges on the land, which varied according to circumstances, as the right hon. Gentleman had said. But the hardship on the people was, that a Vestry exclusively Protestant had at present the right of increasing at their pleasure an assessment which others who had no share in apportioning it were obliged to pay. This was a hardship that pressed peculiarly on the people of Ireland, and therefore the Roman Catholic owners and occupiers of land felt it severely. He must again insist on the necessity of removing the Vestry-cess, and must say, that if no other mode could be devised for getting rid of it, Parliament had better agree to the proposition of his Majesty's Ministers. With respect to the proposition of the right hon. member for Montgomeryshire, that the schedule which was appended to the Bill should be attached to this Resolution, it appeared to him that it would make no difference in the discussion, whether it were placed there or not. He, therefore, felt no unwillingness to concede the point.
Sir Robert Peelhad last night made an

39
appeal to the justice of the House, and if that appeal had been successful, the House would not be to blame in listening to it and doing justice. He hoped that the noble Lord concurred in his views, that if the Vestry-cess ought to be abolished, it ought not to be imposed on the present incumbents. If the noble Lord concurred in that, he would ask him not to force the Committee to come to a division. The noble Lord said, that the removal of the cess was necessary, but he believed the noble Lord had overrated the burthen. The noble Lord stated it at 60,000 l.; but let the noble Lord inquire further, and he would find the exclusive Vestry-cess did not amount to so much. Let the noble Lord too, above all, consider, that it was not necessary to pass the Resolutions immediately. Perhaps, if the Vestry-cess were abolished immediately, the noble Lord could provide for it by a vote of public money. [Lord Althorp was understood to say across the Table that he meant to do that for the present year.] Why, then, if the noble Lord intended it, let him not hasten the question to decision—let him not make it a party dispute. He was ready to meet the noble Lord half-way. All he asked at present was, that the noble Lord should grant them a short delay. Let the noble Lord withdraw the Resolutions and introduce them after the recess, and after an opportunity of fully considering the subject. He was ready to concede the principle, that the Vestry-cess should be abolished, and a provision made for the charges which that cess was levied to defray out of the revenues of the Church. But he asked for delay, that the arrangement should be just as well as complete.
Lord Althorpsaid, as there would be many opportunities to amend the Resolutions in a future stage, he hoped that no delay would then be interposed. The second Resolution being a money Resolution must be again moved in a Committee of the whole House. He believed that there was then an understanding between him and the right hon. Gentleman, that the Amendment should not be moved. He proposed that they should assent to the Resolutions, and that provision should be made hereafter, that those Resolutions should not be carried further than the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman.
Sir Robert Peelhoped, that the noble Lord, as a Minister of the Crown, would
40
expressly admit, that all existing; interests should be exempted. If that were the case, he was little inclined to stickle for forms, and should advise his hon. friends to permit the Resolutions to pass, with the understanding that they should not be restricted in proposing any alterations in the Bill they thought proper hereafter. It was most proper, in consenting to these Resolutions, that they should take care that existing interests were not exposed to difficulties.
Mr. Wynn, said, that the Committee ought not to vote a general sum without knowing what was the actual sum required. It was usual for Committees to vote not merely that a tax should be levied, but that a tax should be levied of a certain amount. The noble Lord did not seem to be quite certain of the amount of the exclusive Vestry-cess, and that should be precisely stated before the Resolutions were voted. It would be better, in his opinion, to delay the whole matter till after the holidays, or at least till Government could put the House into possession of correct information as to the sum demanded.
Lord Althorpsaid, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman opposite related to the difference between taxing the present and the future incumbents. On that point he did not think the Committee could then come to a decision. The right hon. Gentleman was willing to let the Resolutions pass, provided he (Lord Althorp) admitted a certain qualification which was formerly alluded to—or, if that were declined, provided that he would, as a member of the Government, pledge them not to bring forward a proposition for imposing a tax on the present incumbents. Situated as he was, he could only say, that he was prepared to give the proposition his most serious consideration. That he would say, and more he could not say.
Mr. Shawcertainly thought, that in common justice, the existing interests of the present incumbents should not be burthened with this tax. The noble Lord had greatly exaggerated the amount of Vestry-cess that was devoted to purely ecclesiastical purposes when he estimated it at 60,000 l. or 70,000 l. a-year. He (Mr. Shaw) had taken great pains to ascertain the amount levied by the exclusive vestries, and the result of his inquiry was, that it did not amount to more than

41
28,000 l. per annum. He believed that it averaged about 20 l. for every parish Church in Ireland. Now, he would beg to propose as a substitute for that cess, if it was to be done away with, that as there was a debt due to the Board of First Fruits of 400,000 l., that sum should be paid, and put out at interest, so as to make up for the amount of this cess. The surplus of the revenues of the Bishopric of Derry might be also applied to that purpose. He felt indebted to the noble Lord for the concessions which he had made, and he was therefore inclined to go as far as he could to meet him; but he must say that the principle of the Bill could never meet with his concurrence. It went to invade all the rights of property, and unquestionably its tendency was to exterminate the Protestant religion in Ireland. He hoped that the tax which the noble Lord intended to impose would not be thrown solely upon the clergy, but that the absentees and the landed proprietors would be made to bear their proportion of it. Above all, the lay impropriators ought to bear a full share. In one diocese alone according to the Parliamentary Returns; the income of lay impropriators under the Tithe Composition Act, was above 12,000 l. per annum, and a large income besides, from land not compounded for, and yet the whole sum annually paid in that diocese by impropriators for the service of the Church, was but 80/. Was it, then, just to tax the clergyman—not only for his awn parish from which he did derive an income, but also for the neighbouring parish of a lay impropriator from which the Church derived no income? The clergy of Ireland had, for the last few years, been suffering under the most accumulated oppression. Not long since, they had their incomes reduced, on an average, of from ten to twenty per cent under the Tithe Composition Act, in order to secure a quiet and certain payment. Then, last year, fifteen per cent to the landlords, with the prospect of a further loss, by selling their interests at sixteen years' purchase, and buying land at twenty; and were they in addition to all that, to suffer a loss of from five to fifteen per cent by the present measure? Would any other profession bear such injustice? Would the officers of the Army suffer themselves to be taxed for the building and repairing barracks; or lawyers for
42
Courts of Justice? No; but they were represented in the House, and the clergy were unrepresented. He entreated hon. Members to grant the same measure of justice to that oppressed and comparatively defenceless body, which they would require for themselves. He was sure that if the noble Lord would re-consider the question, he would have no difficulty in finding a substitute for this tax. He had no wish to divide the House, or go further into the question at present, as it seemed to be the general feeling that it would be better that the question should not be now discussed. He trusted, however, that the noble Lord would consent to introduce the words he had suggested into this Resolution. It should be recollected that the clergy were in a situation of the greatest distress, and that for the last three years they had received hardly any of their incomes. He had a statement which was read at the meeting over which the Bishop of London presided, and in the correctness of which he reposed implicit faith—showing that the large majority of the Irish clergy had received comparatively little of their incomes for the last two years and a half. At present the clergy had to depend upon any assistance which might be afforded them by the humane, and those who could respect their distress, and appreciate their privations. They had to struggle with the greatest difficulties. He knew the privations which many learned and pious clergymen and their families had been exposed to. It would be painful to the House if he were to state circumstances which had come to his knowledge on this subject. It was only yesterday morning that he received a communication from an old and high-minded clergyman of the Established Church in Ireland, in which he stated that his family and himself were denying themselves in every way, and that they spent only 3s. a week in bread, the rest of their sustenance being made up by potatoes, of which (he thanked God!) there had been a fine crop. He added, that his whole family bore their privations with the greatest cheerfulness. This letter was not written in the spirit of complaint, nor could the writer have the least idea that any portion of it would be made public. He was sure that there was not a man in the House who would not cheerfully contribute to relieve the clergy from such a miserable situation.

43
He had also been informed, by a friend of his, that he had lately visited a clergyman in the county of Cork, who was in such a state of destitution as to be able to afford bread only to his wife, who was sick, the rest of the family being obliged to put up with potatoes. He had known others who had been obliged to adopt similar food; some had been compelled to withdraw their children from school, and others had been obliged to rely entirely on the kindness of their friends. Now, could they conceive anything more painful to the feelings of a clergyman and a gentleman than to be placed in such a situation? He had mentioned these circumstances in order to satisfy the noble Lord that the condition of the clergy of Ireland was such as to entitle them to the utmost forbearance on the part of the Government and Parliament. He had known many instances in which they had been compelled to give up the insurances they had effected on their lives, and upon which they relied, as on a certain provision for their families, after their deaths. He really did not see any more reason why the clergy should be solely taxed for the preservation of the Churches, than lawyers should be compelled to build and keep up the Courts of Justice. It should be recollected that the clergy were not represented in that House, the lawyers and the officers of the Army and Navy were. He trusted, that, at all events, the present incumbents would not be taxed, and that, even in reference to its future collection, the noble Lord would not throw this tax entirely on the clergy, but that it should also fall upon the landed proprietors and the absentees.
Lord Althorpsaid, that he had already stated all that he could state in reply to the right hon. Baronet, and he thought that what he had stated had satisfied that right hon. Gentleman. It appeared, however, that the hon. and learned Gentleman who had last spoken was not satisfied with that statement. Now, he was not prepared to agree in the views of that hon. and learned Member. Supposing that the present incumbents should be relieved from this tax, yet the hon. and learned Gentleman would not be satisfied if the amount of the tax for the purposes intended should be solely drawn from the revenues of the Church, by a deduction from the incomes of individual clergymen who were not as yet incumbents.
44
The hon. and learned Gentleman was therefore against imposing this tax even upon the incomes of future incumbents. To such a principle as that he could not assent. Looking at the state of the Irish Church and the amount of its revenues, he was of opinion that the tax substituted for, and to be devoted to the purposes of this cess, should be deducted from the incomes, not of the present, but of the future incumbents.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, he would sacrifice all the objections which he had to other parts of the noble Lord's proposition—and they were many—if the noble Lord would make the sacrifice to him on the present question, that existing interests should not be taxed. He wished to avoid so manifest an injustice.
Lord Althorpwas surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, knowing the peculiar situation in which he was placed, should press him to say more than he had done.
Sir M. W. Ridleythought the Gentlemen opposite, ought to be satisfied with what the noble Lord had already stated. He would not have been sorry, had he gone a little further; but at the same time he thought the admissions made by the noble Lord were as much as could be expected from a Minister of the Crown, whom they certainly could not ask to alter the material principle on which the Bill was founded, in its present stage.
Mr. Shawsaid, that he felt grateful to the noble Lord for the concession he had already made—and he certainly had been much mistaken if the House apprehended it was his intention to press his suggestion to a division.
Mr. Goulburnwould consent to the Resolution passing in its present shape if the noble Lord would promise to take it into consideration, and let the discussion take place in bringing up the Report.
Mr. Humehoped the noble Lord, after the candid statements which he had already made, would pledge himself no further. One great error prevailed throughout this discussion—that of considering the clergy as the Church instead of the congregation. When there was no congregation, no allowance ought to be made. He agreed that this Resolution should pass in its present state, and he was sure, that after the statement made by the noble Lord, the Gentlemen below might place full confidence in him. In making these concessions, however, he

45
called upon the noble Lord to remember that he was strictly watched by two different classes of attentive spectators; and whilst he sought to conciliate hon. Gentlemen by yielding certain points, others might imagine he was yielding too much.
Lord Althorpsaid, it had frequently happened to him to be blamed by each side for yielding to the others; but this he would say, that he always would give way when he saw good reason for so doing. His hon. friend might depend on it that no man in England need be alarmed in consequence of the inclination which he had shown to give way to the exemption of present incumbents, that he would give way on any material principle of the measure to which he felt himself pledged, but, in this instance, he thought he could give way without such interference.
Mr. Finnsaid, that this measure for the reform of the Church of Ireland—this grand panacea for the evils of that country—would afford relief only to the amount of 30,000 l. to the suffering and starving people of Ireland. There appeared to be upon both sides of the House a rivalry as to who should do most to uphold the Protestant establishment in Ireland. He would tell the noble Lord that the people of Ireland looked upon that establishment as a most monstrous evil. It was an enormous injustice. If it was intended for the promotion of the Protestant religion in Ireland, it had totally failed, for the Protestant religion, instead of increasing, was going down in that country. In 1731 the population of Ireland was 2,000,000, and it now was 8,000,000. The Protestants in 1731 were in the proportion of one to two and a-half to the people of Ireland, and now they were only as one and a-half to six and a-half of the population of that country. If, then, the spread of the Protestant religion was the pretext for the maintenance of such an enormous establishment—an establishment that would not be endured for a moment under similar circumstances in this country—it had totally failed in producing that effect. It would be impossible to reconcile the Irish people to the maintenance in any degree of that establishment unless justice should be done them. At present they regarded the maintenance of that establishment as a badge of conquest. This measure would give only the small relief of 30,000 l. to the people of Ireland, while it would preserve au establishment far too extensive,
46
which had altogether failed in promoting Protestantism in Ireland, in the county of Kilkenny, for instance, the Protestant population 100 years ago was 6,000, and it now amounted to 6,500; showing an increase of 500 in the course of a century: while the Catholic population of Kilkenny, which, 100 years ago, was about 6,000, now amounted to 120,000. The Protestant population, the real church-going population of Ireland, after deducting the Presbyterians and other Dissenters, did not amount, at present, to more than 700,000. Was it for such a population that an establishment should be maintained that cost 1,000,000 l. sterling? The revenues of the whole clergy of France for a population of upwards of 32,000,000 did not amount to more than 1,500,000 l., while the clergy for a population of less than 700,000 cost 1,000,000 l. sterling. It was only necessary to state, that simple fact to demonstrate to all sensible and impartial men the monstrous nature of such an establishment. It was rather remarkable, that throughout this discussion, while every attention was paid to the interests of the Established Church in Ireland, the state of the suffering starving poor there seemed to be altogether forgotten. A great deal had been said by the hon. and learned member for the University of Dublin about the distress of the Irish clergy, but he would defy the hon. and learned Member to show that there was a year's tithe due to the clergy of Ireland. It should not be forgotten, on the other hand, that at this moment there were in Ireland 1,000,000 able-bodied men, who were willing to work, and who were not able to obtain even 6d. a-day. It should be also recollected, that every man connected with that country had been latterly more or less reduced in his circumstances. The clergy had not been, as was represented, the sole sufferers, and their interests did not demand exclusive consideration.
Lord Althorpdeprecated the tone of the speech of the hon. Gentleman, as calculated to lead to unpleasant discussion. He most certainly, on bringing forward this proposition, did not seek to abolish the Established Church in Ireland. His aim was, merely to reform its abuses. It was unfair of the hon. Gentleman also to assume that this Bill was the only measure of relief intended to be brought forward by his Majesty's Government,

47
whereas it was well known, that it was only one of several.
Mr. Warburtonwas extremely glad to hear the manner in which the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) below him was received. He quite agreed to the principle laid down by the hon. member for the University of Dublin, that they should deal tenderly with existing interests, however they dealt abstractedly with the property of the Church in general. He had so strong an objection to a tax upon particular interests, that if it had not been for the promise of the noble Lord, he should certainly have felt himself called upon to vote against the second Resolution.
Mr. Gillon, rather than impede the progress of the Bill, would withdraw the Amendment of which he had given notice; but, in doing so, he hoped he should not be considered as supporting a Church Establishment either in Ireland or elsewhere. Those who had expressed so much commiseration for the Establishment in Ireland, would do better to commiserate the starving people of that country. When it was considered how much the Protestant Establishment—for he would not dignify it by the name of a Church—had contributed to the over-taxation of the people of Ireland, it was not to be wondered at that they regarded the payment of a clergy from whom they derived no benefit as a monstrous oppression.
Mr. Andrew Johnstonewas glad that his hon. friend avowed his hostility to the Establishment in an open, manly manner. The Church had less to dread from avowed foes, than from the undermining of concealed enemies. But he denied that the sentiments of his hon. friend were participated in by the people of Scotland. He was himself an office-bearer of the Church of Scotland; but he considered this to be a common cause to Scotland and England. The Church of England, in his opinion, was now on its trial. He had heard a great many theoretical statements; but he had made up his mind to defend, upon all occasions, the Established Churches both of England and Scotland. He expressed his satisfaction at the concessions which had been made by the noble Lord. It was said, that there were two parties in this case—the people and the Church; but, for his own part, he was prepared to say, that by supporting the Church Establishment in Ireland, they
48
would be supporting the interest of the people themselves. He did not mean to say that great abuses did not exist in that Church; but if it were as it ought to be—if clergymen were appointed who were capable of instructing the people in their vernacular language—great good would arise from the Establishment. If it was only to be an engine of political patronage, it could not be doubted that it was a great evil.
Mr. Cuthbert Ripponobserved, that religion was a purely personal conviction. He would ask, whether any one ought to be compelled to pay for supporting a form of worship which he believed to be contrary to the Word of God? Was it not monstrous to attempt to control men's consciences? Was it just, that Parliament should interfere with the means of salvation? If such an event as a religious revolution were to take place; if the Roman Catholics should again be elevated to supremacy, and the Protestants of England compelled to pay for the support of their clergy, would they not consider it a monstrous invasion of their rights? He would only appeal to Gentlemen to do to others as they would be done by. It was, perhaps, premature at that time to enter into this part of the question; but he thought it necessary to make these remarks, in consequence of the observations of the hon. Member who spoke last. He was himself a member of the Church of England, yet he did not find fault with another because "he sees salvation on the same hill-top, but treads another path to reach it."
Mr. Estcourtsaid, if the debate continued, and took an angry tendency, he should deeply lament any circumstance which had raised such opposition. He would agree to the Resolution, on the understanding that the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) would take into his serious consideration—according to the understood meaning of that phrase—the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet the member for Tamworth.
Mr. Faithfullsaid, he would only make a few remarks, in order to protect himself from the charge of inconsistency, if his vote now should appear to differ from that which he should give when the noble Lord brought in his Bill. He concurred in all that part which referred to taking away; but he did not approve of that mode in which what was taken away was to be

49
appropriated. He regretted that it was not to be applied to the relief of the people, instead of being still applied to the purposes of the Church.
The Resolution agreed to.
The House resumed.

MILITARY FLOGGING.
The Report on the Mutiny Bill was brought up. On the question that it be received,
Mr. Humerose to move the clause of which he had given notice, "That it shall not be lawful to inflict corporal punishment by flogging on any private soldier, corporal, or non-commissioned officer in the Army or Militia of the United Kingdom, within the United Kingdom, anything herein contained to the contrary notwithstanding." He felt anxious to know whether Ministers would not attempt to carry into effect those opinions which they had advocated when out of office. He thought the time was now come when they ought to accomplish those measures which they had formerly supported. A charge had been made against those who advocated the abolition of flogging in the Army, that they wished to ruin the discipline of the Army. He would never admit that; and he would only reply to the charge by stating this fact—that there were some regiments in which there was no flogging, and in which, notwithstanding this, discipline was maintained as well as in those where flogging was frequent, if not better. On the 15th of March, 1824, on the third reading of the Mutiny Bill, he (Mr. Hume) had had the honour to move the following clause: "And be it further 'enacted, that it shall not be lawful to in'flict corporal punishment, by flogging, on 'any private soldier, corporal, or non-'commissioned officer, in the Army or 'Militia of the United Kingdom, within 'the United Kingdom, anything herein 'contained to the contrary notwithstand'ing.' He was seconded by the gallant member for Nottingham (Sir Ronald Ferguson). The House divided—for the Clause, 47; against it, 127: Majority, 80. The following hon. Members voted with the Minority:—Lord Althorp, Alex. Baring, J. W. Denison, Lord Duncannon, Sir R. Ferguson, W. James, T. F. Kennedy, Hon. G. Lamb, T. B. Lennard, Dr. Lushington, W. L. Maberly, Sir George Phillips, T. S. Rice, Sir Matthew W. Ridley, J. Smith, A. W. Robarts, Alderman Wood, Sir John Wrottesley.—Tellers,
50
John Cam Hobhouse, Joseph Hume.* He was sorry not to see in his place the right hon. the Secretary for Ireland (Sir J. C. Hobhouse), who had stated his opinion very distinctly on the subject. On the third reading of the Mutiny Bill in 1827, on the 12th of March, Mr. Leycester moved, that a clause be brought up to rescind the provisions for the infliction of corporal punishment in the British Army. Lord Nugent supported it. Mr. Hobhouse said—'He had attentively listened 'to what had fallen from gallant Officers 'in the army on the subject; but the only 'reason they gave for defending it that he 'could discover was, that it ought to be con'tinued because it had existed. But this, 'he thought, was bad reasoning, and not 'such as should induce the House to con'tinue such a degradation on our brave de'fenders. He had heard an officer say, that 'in his regiment some of the men were 'brought out so frequently to be flogged, that 'they were known by the name of the flog'ging blocks, and this circumstance demon'strated that, so far from flogging making 'them better soldiers or men, no good 'could be derived from it; and as no 'benefit resulted from the revolting custom, 'it ought to be abolished, as being a 'national disgrace, and as placing our 'army, in its discipline and honour, second 'to that of France. He hoped that no 'Session would be suffered to pass away 'without some effort being made to relieve 'the soldiers from this abominable punishment.‡ A similar opinion was espoused by all those who supported his Motion; and it was very strongly supported; on the occasion to which he had referred. He should hope that the noble Lord and those who were now in power would put an end to a system which they formerly characterized as a most brutal custom, and a disgrace to the nation. He could not understand why Englishmen should be treated like brutes. He could not believe that such a system was necessary for the preservation of discipline, because it only made men desperate whom a milder punishment would restore to a sense of duty. The experiment had been tried in some regiments of abolishing flogging; it had been found to succeed; and he could not understand why it should not be extended to every regiment in the
* Hansard (new series) x. pp. 1031,1039.
† Ibid. xvi. p. 1124
‡ Ibid. p. 1126.

51
army. The Mutiny Act supplied many other military punishments besides this, which was so derogatory to the national character; and the fact was, that flogging was inflicted merely because officers had it in their power; whereas, if they were deprived of that power, they would find many other means which would effect all the objects which they could have in view. It was impossible to let this subject sleep in a Reformed Parliament. The punishment of slaves was confined to fifteen lashes. Could it be necessary for maintaining the discipline of the army to subject the soldiers to 200, 300, and 500? In addition to any other punishment Courts-martial may direct "the offenders to be marked on the left side, two inches below the armpit, with the letter D, an inch long, and with gunpowder, not liable to be obliterated." He trusted that such a punishment, which perpetuated the disgrace, and tended to destroy all feelings favourable to reformation in the soldier, was never carried into effect. He concluded by moving the clause to which he had referred.
Mr. Lennardsaid, that the hon. member for Middlesex had mentioned him as one of the persons who formerly voted with him for the abolition of flogging in the army, and he would be proud to vote with him again to attain the same object. He held the practice in the utmost detestation. The country was constantly hearing accounts of punishments inflicted on soldiers which would not be allowed to be applied to criminals convicted of the most atrocious offences. Why, he asked, should the British soldier be thus proscribed? The soldiers of other countries were not subjected to that degrading punishment; and he could not conceive that there was anything peculiar in the character of his countrymen which rendered the application of the lash necessary. It was an anomaly that one description of punishment should be applied to officers, and another to privates. It was contrary to the principle of justice that there should be any inequality of punishments. The argument urged in support of ogging was, that the private soldiers were so bad a set of men that they could not be kept in order without it; but it was the punishment of flogging which deterred a better class of men from entering the army. Abolish the punishment, its alleged cause, which was in reality its effect, would quickly disappear.
Mr. Robert Grant, having taken charge of the Bill in the absence of his right hon. friend, (Sir J. C. Hobhouse), felt called upon to make one or two observations which should deserve attention for their candour if not for their solidity. No official connexion should induce him to vote against the clause of the hon. member for Middlesex, if he felt the zeal for the abolition of this punishment, and the conviction of its inutility, which unquestionably animated him and many of the opponents of military flogging. Finding, however, that by far the majority of well-informed military men, those who were best able to judge, and on whose judgment he placed the greatest reliance, being the great majority of those who had to administer the law, were in favour of the continuance of the power now exercised, and thinking that their consent and approbation ought to be obtained before so great a change was made, he could not bring himself to vote in favour of the proposition. There was no doubt that in this, as in other respects, the army of Great Britain was in a gradual state of improvement, and he did not think it would be safe to disturb the steady course of that amelioration by a measure of injudicious haste. With every disposition, therefore, to adopt the Amendment, he did not feel sufficient reliance upon his own judgment to warrant him in supporting it by his vote. He rejected the clause with reluctance, almost amounting to pain, but at the same time, with a clear conscience. With respect to the other punishments alluded to by the hon. member for Middlesex, they were never carried into effect except the marking, and that was only done when desertion rendered a conspicuous mark necessary. He admitted that this punishment too was a painful and a degrading one, but he had the consolation of knowing that it was never carried into effect with severity.
Mr. Mildmaywas aware of the opinion which prevailed amongst persons in the army, that the punishment could not be abolished; he was aware likewise of the progress of a contrary opinion, not only amongst the public, but amongst officers themselves. He was aware, too, that there had been practically a mitigation of the punishment, and that it was not called into practice so frequently as formerly. Under these circumstances, he thought the time had come when the punishment might be abolished in England, though

53
he doubted whether it would be safe to relieve soldiers serving abroad from the restraint. He knew a case of a soldier who bore an excellent character when sober, but when intoxicated always attacked his sergeant; he twice received 500 lashes for this offence, but it did him no good. Though he was aware of the little corrective power of this punishment, as a restraint upon soldiers abroad, he was afraid it could not yet be dispensed with in the colonies. As the hon. Member's Motion was confined to the United Kingdom, he should support it. It was of importance to raise the character of the English soldier, and that could be done by abolishing flogging at home.
Mr. O'Connellwas happy that the weight of Government was not thrown into the scale against the clause of the hon. member for Middlesex. If, therefore, the practice of military flogging were to be continued—if torture were still to be allowed in the British army, it would not be the fault of Ministers, but of the Reformed Parliament. Officers were incompetent judges upon the subject, and their opinions ought therefore to have no influence on the decision of the House. He called upon the House to remember, that in our army alone the practice still prevailed, which still kept up that wide distance between the officer and the private which existed in no other body of troops. Among them there was a degree of familiarity, he might call it brotherhood, which making them mutually dependent on the good opinion of each other, preserved discipline without cruelty. The question was, whether not only British subjects, but the very natives of Britain, were to be legally put to the torture; and he was sorry to see that many who turned up the whites of their eyes, "till the strings of them (as Sir Pertinax said) were ready to crack "at the notion of flogging negroes, were not present on this occasion to give a vote in favour of their own countrymen. The House ought to interfere at once to put an end to the degrading practice; and when once flogging was abolished, a better class of men would be induced to enter the army, especially at the present moment, when labour was so cheap and abundant, that the reward of the labourer was reduced to the narrowest pittance. There was no flogging in the army of Napoleon, and its discipline was sufficiently good to ensure victory. As long
54
as the prevailing distinction between officer and private was preserved, and the passage—
That in the General's but a choleric word,
Which in the soldier is flat blasphemy—
remained proverbial, they would get only the worst class of men to enter the army. Remove that distinction a better class would enter the service, and discipline be more easily maintained. He called upon the Reformed House of Commons to back the hon. Member in his attempt to remove this disgraceful cruelty from England. What, he would ask, had the Reformed House yet done for the cause of humanity? He well knew how much it had done in opposition to that cause; but he hoped that this night the Members would be able to retire to their beds after having given a vote which would satisfy their consciences, and make some little compensation for the injury they had done to Ireland.
Lord Althorphad been surprised to hear the hon. member for Middlesex read his name as one of those who had formerly voted for the abolition of corporal punishment in the army. He had thought that he had never given a vote against its continuance, although he certainly had never voted in its favour. He had formerly been of opinion, and he retained that opinion still, that the weight of military authority was so great, that it would not be safe entirely to abolish flogging in the army. True, it was a punishment at which the feelings of human nature revolted, but he felt, that he should take upon himself an unjustifiable degree of responsibility if he voted in opposition to the judgment of those who had the greatest experience. Officers were still men, and they possessed the ordinary sympathies of men, and while they possessed them, they were competent to decide on the fitness or unfitness of adhering to the old practice. The clause of the hon. member for Middlesex only applied to Great Britain; flogging was still to be allowed beyond the limits of the empire, and that circumstance would materially and inconveniently increase the repugnance of the soldiers to go upon foreign service. If any process could be suggested, by which the punishment could be safely removed, he was ready to give it his consideration; but, under present circumstances, however painful it was to him to vote against the proposition of the hon. member for

55
Middlesex, he felt that it would be quite inconsistent with his duty if he did not do his best to oppose it.
Captain Curteiscalled the attention of the House to the warrant recently issued decreasing the pensions of soldiers—which he said, would tend still further to lower the character of the army, and increase the necessity for inflicting corporal punishment. He was aware that many recruits were enlisted in a state of drunkenness, and cared little for any consequences, but that was not the case with the inhabitants of Scotland who supplied our army with many soldiers. If more than half the pension hitherto allowed to the soldier, after a certain period of service, were taken away, it would be impossible—for the future—to obtain any recruits, except from the prisons and workhouses. Already the army had become too common a refuge for the abandoned, for whenever a man of notoriously bad character was brought before a Magistrate at the Quarter Sessions, he invariably recommended him to enlist. If the order to which he had alluded were not rescinded, the army would soon consist entirely of such characters. Would they be a fit class of persons upon whom to try a new system for the enforcement of discipline? Imprisonment had been recommended as a substitute for flogging; but he had no hesitation in saying, that to confine a soldier in a public prison, and compel him to become the associate of men convicted of every crime, was the very worst species of punishment that could possibly be adopted. To imprison soldiers in common gaols would be to make them worse when they came out than when they went in; but he would support a motion for the erection of prisons in barracks, which he thought might be made to supply the place of flogging.
Sir Rufane Donkinreferred to an experiment he had made in the regiment of which he was Lieutenant Colonel, to abolish corporal punishment, which experiment had failed, for the men began with knocking down the corporals, went on to the Serjeants, and finally threatened the officer on guard. He must, however, say, that when he commanded a brigade in Spain, he had made an appeal to the men on the subject, and for fourteen months no instance of flogging had occurred. It would be a satisfaction to the hon. and learned member for Dublin to be informed, that
56
the two regiments he had then under his orders were not only Irish, but Irish par excellence in every sense of the word. One was the Prince of Wales's Royal Irish, and the other the Connaught Rangers, commonly called the Rollickers. The fact was, that the officers had identified themselves with the men—they had slept under the same trees, and endured the same hardships, so that a feeling of affection grew up, which was the best source of obedience. There were only two ways of preserving discipline in the army; one was, to appeal to the moral feelings of the soldiers, which of course would be by far the best way, if it could be found to answer; but if it did not answer, then the only other method was to have recourse to physical suffering. He was confident, that the British army, at least in foreign service, could not be kept together without the House left to the officers the power of inflicting corporal punishment; though God forbid that such punishment should be often had recourse to, as indeed it was not.
Mr. Curteiscould not let the House go into Committee on this Bill without recording on that occasion, as he should on every other, his utter abhorrence of this system of punishment. There might be found several substitutes for it. For instance, it was found, that the most furious animals were tamed by a course of starvation. He should most strenuously support the abolition of military flogging though he agreed in the propriety of limiting the abolition in the first instance to the United Kingdom.
Major Handleywould also strongly support the abolition of military flogging as regarded troops at home; he did not think there would be any difficulty in finding an effective substitute for this mode of punishment. But, with respect to the army in service abroad, he must say, that he thought summary punishment, from the nature of their position, could not be dispensed with. They could not on a march very well have recourse to imprisonment, or to the very extraordinary mode of punishment suggested by the hon. Member who spoke last. Therefore, while he strongly advocated the abolition of this punishment with respect to the army at home, he should object to its remission with respect to troops on foreign service. He only asked for the power to continue it; he was fully convinced, that

57
too good a feeling existed among officers to put it into effect very often. Under the Emperor Napoleon the French army had been kept in the finest discipline, yet corporal punishment was seldom or ever heard of. The fact was, the point of honour had been kept up to a very high degree in the French army. For himself, he had witnessed in the Ionian Isles the best possible effects result from the substitution of solitary confinement in lieu of corporal punishment.
An Hon. Membermost strongly objected to the extraordinary and unfair distinction which was proposed to be made between troops in foreign service and troops at home. He thought all soldiers were alike entitled to the same treatment. A great deal had been said, and he did not object to it, with respect to the fine discipline preserved in the French army without the influence of corporal punishment; but hon. Gentlemen must also bear in mind that punishments were frequently carried into effect in that army—such as shooting, and obliging deserters to carry heavy irons—which if attempted to be introduced here would meet with as much opposition and excite as strong feelings of horror and dislike as the punishment which the hon. member for Middlesex had moved to abolish.
Mr. Sheiladvocated the abolition of this dreadful and demoralizing punishment. Some gallant Officers had opposed the abolition; but he did not think that officers of the army were the most competent judges in this matter. No, certainly not. He would not go to a clergyman for his opinion as to Reform in the Church; nor to the West-India planter on the subject of negro emancipation; nor to one of his own profession for an opinion about reforming the lucrative abuses of the law. No more, then, would he be led in his opinion of the propriety of reforming the punishment of the army, by what an officer in the army might say. As to the substitution of punishment, there had been different ones proposed; one hon. Member, who he supposed was a member of the very valuable Zoological Society, seemed to recommend the practice of the Zoological Gardens for the army. He did not agree with that hon. Member in taking a zoological view of the case. The present system was a most degrading and demoralizing one; the British soldiery might be dealt with in the same spirit with the Roman soldiers:—
58
Facinus est civem Romanum verberari.
Colonel Gore Langtonsaid, that if it were wished to preserve a disciplined and effective army, they must retain the power of inflicting corporal punishment. He was strongly averse to inflicting it when it could be avoided, but the power of inflicting it ought to be maintained.
Sir John Byngstated, that he had formerly agreed with the hon. member for Middlesex as to the expediency of abolishing the punishment of flogging in the army; and he had accordingly been induced to make the experiment of abstaining altogether from the use of corporal punishment with respect to the soldiers under his command, for a period of two years; but it did not succeed. At the expiration of the time the regiment was in a much worse state of discipline than before. He had, therefore, after this experiment, and much consideration upon the subject, been led to the conclusion, that to do away altogether with the power of inflicting corporal punishment would vitally affect the discipline of the British army. It had been repeatedly urged, that a substitute might be found equally efficient with the punishment now in use. But what was it to be? He had for a long time turned his attention anxiously to the subject, but he had never yet been able to devise an adequate substitute. He did not mean to contend, that corporal punishment was frequently to be resorted to, but he maintained that the power of inflicting it should be continued to commanding officers; and in so saying, he well knew he was speaking the sentiments of the General Commanding-in-chief; and if the power were continued, as he recommended, the House would have no reason to apprehend that it would be abused, for the practice of flogging in the army was decreasing from year to year. To the Amendment of the hon. Member he was decidedly opposed. He thought no difference should be made between the soldier at home and abroad. The distinction proposed would be most invidious; in his opinion, it would be much better to abolish the system of corporal punishment altogether, than agree to the Amendment of the hon. member for Middlesex.
Sir Francis Burdettstated, that he felt great difficulty in addressing the House upon the subject before them at that moment, because he was in some sort taken unawares; but the great difficulty

59
he experienced, proceeded, on the one hand, from his apprehension lest, not having had due time for consideration, he should be led away by the strength of his feelings; and, on the other, from the impossibility of his being able to suffer a question such as the present to pass over in silence, although he thought a much more convenient and better opportunity might have been hereafter found for bringing the Motion forward. He would not, however, hesitate to repeat what he had before repeatedly said, that, in his opinion, the practice of flogging in the army was atrocious—was intolerable. He deeply regretted that the Government, to which he had made every kind of application to take up the matter themselves, had not complied with his entreaty—had not made some commencement, which might serve to assure the people that a subject which excited the strongest public feeling, and which, at the same time, required deep thought, would be placed by them in a fair way of being ultimately brought to a satisfactory result. He repeated, that he regretted this exceedingly, for if Government did not do so, it would soon be out of their power to induce the English public longer to endure a practice of such revolting cruelty. The gallant General had contended that flogging was always the "ultimum remedium;" so it might be in some regiments, but the public were well aware that this was neither always nor generally the case; but, on the contrary, it was frequently inflicted for offences which did not justify its application. He admitted that he had little better authority for this assertion than the public prints; but they contained frequent instances in which corporal punishment was administered in cases where it was perfectly disgusting to imagine it could have been inflicted. Even if it were necessary that the power of flogging should be continued to commanding officers, let it at least be circumscribed. Let it be confined to such offences as mutiny and stealing from a comrade. If it were so strongly asserted that the possession of this power was absolutely necessary to the good government of the army, why he would consent to let it be retained, but then if must be circumscribed within well defined limits. When it was much worse than it is now—when it was almost a hundred-fold worse—there were officers found to defend the system as it then
60
existed; and such was the effect of a bad system, that all men, even those of refined and enlightened minds, were hardened by the frequent exhibition of human suffering. A wise man had said, that men were fond of using force as their right hand, and reason as their left. He feared that the existence of this practice, and the constant defence of it by officers in the army, afforded a great proof of the soundness of that remark. But their objections to its abolition were answered by one important fact; namely, that though the practice had so much diminished as to be, when compared to what it was thirty years ago, almost as it were abolished, still the character, conduct, and discipline of the army had been materially improved. If, then, the power of inflicting this punishment was to be retained, let it be retained within well defined limits. Let mutiny, fairly understood, be punished in this manner; but, as the matter stood now, there was one clause in the Mutiny Bill which, by the introduction of the word "insubordination," would justify any petty officer in inflicting the punishment for any supposed affront [No, no]. Let those Gentlemen who cried no, show that he was mistaken, and he should be most happy to hear the proof that convicted him of his error. It was said, that in foreign armies men were shot for offences; he was almost ready to say, shoot men rather than keep up this punishment of the lash, for none could be shot but upon full investigation and solemn sentence; and it was better that one man should be shot, than that the whole army should be disgraced. In many regiments corporal punishment had not been employed for years. One instance of this, and he mentioned it to the honour of the Duke of Gloster, was in that regiment of Coldstream Guards, of which that illustrious Duke was the Commander. In that case, the attention of the officers to the men was extreme, and the men were thus retained in obedience by affection rather than fear. Some years ago the infliction of 1,000 lashes was thought no extraordinary punishment; 1,500 had sometimes been ordered in a sentence, and a man was brought out three or four, or five times to receive his sentence. If the number was considerable, he was brought out so often that he might almost be said to live under the lash. These were things past and gone; and he had no

61
doubt, that if the matter was fairly considered, not these enormities alone, but the whole system might be abolished without the least danger to the good conduct and discipline of the army. The practice of flogging ought not to be kept up for the purpose of continuing in the army men who ought to be turned out of it. They had better be turned out of the army. The Motion of the hon. member for Middlesex was for the abolition of this system in England, and surely the experiment might be tried to that extent. He had the authority of officers for saying this, for when he himself had brought forward motions on this subject to abolish the system altogether, they had said that it could not be wholly done away with, but that it might be abolished in England, though it could not be abolished with regard to troops in foreign service. Lord Hutchinson had expressed his opinion that discipline could be kept up without it, and with his feelings and with that authority, he could not but vote in favour of the Motion. He was confident, that if his hon. friend had continued in the office connected with the army, the clauses of the Mutiny Act would have been framed with a view to abolish the punishment of flogging, and at the same time, to substitute something that should have secured the safety of the public and the discipline of the array. If there was a difference of opinion on the facts, he thought that a Committee ought to be appointed to inquire into them, and to lay the Report before the House.
Viscount Palmerstonobserved, that he felt all the disadvantage which he had in rising after the hon. Baronet, who always expressed himself with a talent and a fervour which were sure to command a willing audience. On that occasion, too, he had the advantage of speaking on a subject which had for many years engaged the energies of his heart and mind. The hon. Baronet spoke in unison with the best feelings of human nature, and if the House were disposed to consult only such feelings, there could be no doubt as to the conclusion at which they would arrive; and not only would they agree to the motion of tlie hon. member for Middlesex, but they would be eager to abolish all punishment of whatever description. But this was a question not to be disposed of on feeling and sentiment alone, for it involved grave
62
considerations of public interest and the safety of the community, as well as the comfort of the soldier, and must be decided by a calm and deliberate examination of all the circumstances of the case. There was no man who would venture to contend that a large army could be governed unless the officers possessed the power of inflicting upon the men composing it severe punishment. None had ever been governed without such a power. But then hon. Gentlemen said, that they had special objection to this particular punishment. He did not stand there as the advocate for corporal punishment, nor to say that it was good in itself; for he could not but admit that its tendency was in some degree to degrade the minds of the men even more than the infliction injured their body. If any substitute, therefore, could be provided for it, he should be glad to see it abolished. Hon. Gentlemen, however, who objected to this punishment, did not suggest any substitute for it, but paid the Government the compliment of relying on their wisdom to find a substitute. He would rather they should have undertaken the duty than paid that compliment, particularly when the Government said it knew of no substitute for this punishment which would answer the purpose equally well. He could not believe, on a subject of such great importance as the discipline of the army, which, be it remembered, did not merely concern the interests of the army, but those of the whole community with which it came into contact, and whose rights and security were at stake—he could not believe, that on a subject of such importance. Members would allow themselves to be run away with by their feelings, or would negative the necessity of this discipline, without seeing their way to some adequate substitute. What were the substitutes which had been proposed? One hon. Gentleman said, that solitary imprisonment would be productive of good results, and an instance was given of a case which occurred in one of the Ionian islands, where the solitary imprisonment of one man produced a most beneficial effect on the whole garrison. But how was it possible, with a large army scattered over an immense tract of country, always to have at hand the means of solitary confinement? When he was Secretary-at-War, on examining on one occasion, the returns of the punishments at the Guards, he found that sixteen men

63
were sentenced to solitary imprisonment for different periods; and where did the House suppose these sixteen men were sent to undergo their sentence? Why, they were all confined together in the cabin of a hulk on the Thames, sixteen feet long by ten feet wide; and in this way these sixteen men were undergoing their sentence of solitary confinement? Solitary confinement, to be really such, would be productive of so much expense in the construction of adequate apartments in barracks, that he was sure it would not be very likely to meet with the support of the hon. member for Middlesex. There were, at present, different degrees of severity connected with drill, and various other matters of internal regulation, which were practised to a great extent, as a means of punishment. He could assure the hon. Baronet, who appeared to think that flogging was, in all cases, resorted to in the first instance, that the contrary was the fact. Indeed, owing to the degree to which the hon. Baronet himself had drawn the attention of the Government and the army to this subject, this punishment had of late years been very considerably diminished. So far from its being the first method of enforcing discipline, it was only resorted to in cases where other descriptions of punishment had failed in producing the desired effect. One hon. Gentleman had recommended a species of punishment, which he had no doubt would meet with the approbation of the hon. member for Middlesex, as it was calculated to combine economy with discipline. The Gentleman he alluded to had proposed to govern the army by starvation—an economical plan certainly, as it would not only punish offenders, but would save the country the expense of feeding them. They were told—and he admitted the propriety of the maxim—fas est ab hoste doceri—and certainly if our enemies were to choose punishments for us, none would better suit their purpose, than that which would reduce each offending soldier to a skeleton. But what had been the practice of foreign nations—of France, for instance? It had been said, that the French army was kept during the war in a state of the greatest discipline—discipline, as the hon. and learned member for Dublin said, which led them to victory without the infliction of corporal punishment. But that was a mere play upon words, because though they certainly did
64
without the infliction of that species of corporal punishment which existed in the British service; yet every man who knew—and he appealed with confidence to those gentlemen in the House who had themselves seen the practice of the French army, that the infliction of corporal pain, without a Court-martial, and at the arbitrary will of the officers, did take place to a very great extent in the armies of Napoleon; in which, moreover, shooting was common to a degree that, he was persuaded, would astonish many hon. Gentlemen. Was any man prepared to say, that in the British army, the offences which are now punished by the lash, ought to be visited with the punishment of death? He could not admit that the comparison could tend to the advantage of the French service; for, however distinguished was the gallant conduct of that army in the field—however frequently they were led on to victory against their enemies—still, he must say, that discipline in their own country, or good behaviour towards the civil inhabitants, was not the peculiar boast of the armies which served under the standard of Napoleon. So much the contrary, indeed, was the fact, that when our troops crossed the Pyrenees, and entered the southern provinces of France, the French people themselves, in relation to their treatment by our soldiers, observed, that though they entered their country as invaders, they treated them as if they were their defenders. In foreign services, greater punishments were inflicted than in ours, although in a different way. In Prussia, a practice formerly existed—which had, indeed, been only partially abolished—of confining a man in a room not high enough for him to stand upright in, and which, instead of being boarded, was floored with square spars, with their sharp edges upwards; so that he could neither stand, because there was no room, nor lie down, because it was too painful to do so. This punishment was so severe, that no man could support its infliction, when it was carried on beyond a certain number of hours. When they were told then, that, in foreign countries, flogging was not resorted to, they ought to remember that other punishments were adopted, which, if they were introduced here, would excite as much abhorrence as that punishment which was now the subject of discussion. No man could deny the position, that an army cannot be kept in that state of discipline which

65
the civil part of the community had a right to expect, without strong powers of control; and the question then came to this—whether it would be safe to adopt the proposition of the hon. member for Middlesex? An hon. friend of his said, that soldiers, when they went on foreign service, were subjected to more arbitrary jurisdiction than they were at home; and that, primâ facie, they would be reconciled to this proposition. He was ready to believe, that such was the gallantry of British troops, that there was no additional severity which would influence their feelings, or in the least diminish their alacrity when called upon to take the field against an enemy. But that was not the question—the question was, whether the British army was to be so constituted, that while the men were to be subjected to this punishment when they went to colonial stations, which was the most irksome part of their duty, and the longest period of their service, that part of the army which remained at home was to be exempted from it. It appeared to him that nothing could be less expedient; and if the question were, whether this proposition should be adopted, or whether there should be a general exemption from this punishment, he believed it would be better to abolish the punishment altogether, than to make this mischievous and fatal distinction. They were told, that if this punishment were abolished, men would enlist more freely into the ranks, and that they should get a better description of men to enter into the service. He never knew that when they required men, they failed in getting the requisite number. It was more the particular circumstances in which a man stood at the moment, which influenced his choice of a military life, than complicated considerations of discipline. It was also said, that there were examples to prove that this punishment might be altogether dispensed with. Cases had been quoted in which officers in the exercise of their judgment, and by their attentive and discreet mode of commanding their men, had been enabled for a certain time to dispense with the infliction of this punishment. But did it follow, that if the power of inflicting this punishment had not existed, the same result would have taken place, and that good order would have been maintained in those cases? He doubted it. Moreover, he said, that these cases were exceptions which, in-
66
stead of subverting the rule, tended rather to prove it. What was said by those hon. Gentlemen who advocated the abolition of this punishment? Why, that if officers of the army were to take the trouble of making themselves better acquainted with their men—if they were disposed to share the same shelter—to rest beneath the same tree—and to bivouac in the same field—if they would partake with their men all the inconveniences, all the dangers, and all the difficulties incidental to a military life—they would gain such an ascendancy over their minds, that they would be enabled to govern them by the mere force of moral influence, without any punishment whatsoever. If they were considering what was to be done with respect to regiments fortunate enough to have officers of that description, they might, perhaps, be enabled to dispense even with the power of inflicting this punishment. But they were not legislating for any particular corps, but for the whole army; and they must take the chance of all the different officers, and of the dispositions of the men; and it would be a most fatal mistake if they were, from one or two examples, to draw the conclusion, that the power of inflicting this punishment might be altogether taken away. What said the hon. and gallant General opposite. Sir R. Donkin? Why, that in the instance of one regiment after this punishment had been suspended for a certain time, the privates began to knock down the non-commissioned officers, and went on to knock down the others; and that they were eventually obliged again to resort to corporal punishment. Neither the example of foreign armies, nor of our own, led him to think that the Motion of the hon. member for Middlesex, was one which it would be safe to adopt. However useful these discussions might be, he did hope that the House would not be carried away by their feelings to consent to abolish at once a power for the exercise of which the Ministers were responsible in the government of the country, and which, in their opinion, was necessary for the due maintenance of the discipline of the array. He called, therefore, on the House to pause before they agreed to the Amendment; to recollect, that if they took away this punishment, and substituted no other certain mode of maintaining the discipline of the army, they might repent too late the error they had committed—they might

67
discover their mistake when they had no longer the power to retract it—and would regret in vain the precipitancy of which experience had at length convinced them they had been guilty.
Sir Ronald Fergusonsaid, that he was an enemy to corporal punishment in the army, but thought that the power to inflict it ought not to be abolished. If it were, the army would be disorganized. In certain cases—such as mutiny, and striking an officer, or actual disobedience, which he called mutiny—it ought to be inflicted; and in the case of stealing from his comrades, a man should be subject to be sent out of the country by a Court-martial. Cases often occurred which must be tried and punished summarily. To order, in accordance with the Amendment, one species of punishment abroad and another at home would be extremely unsatisfactory and unjust. The average number of years which a soldier passed in his native land was four out of twenty. It was clear, therefore, that the soldier would still, during four-fifths of his service, be subjected to this punishment. He could not vote with the hon. Member, who, by the Motion, placed him in an awkward situation; and he would not vote against him.
Mr. Rotchcould not understand why the Ministers should have asked for money to build solitary cells in all the barracks in the country, if they did not mean to use them. He knew from long experience, that solitary confinement was more efficacious to prevent crimes than flogging.—The House was so impatient, calling question continually, that the hon. Gentleman sat down without stating whether he would or would not support the Amendment.
Sir Francis Burdettsignified his wish to move an Amendment on the Amendment of the hon. member for Middlesex, he would move "That flogging should not be applied any where under the Mutiny Act, except in cases of open mutiny, thieving, and drunkenness on guard."
Mr. Humewould not object to the "suggestion of the hon. Baronet, as the commencement of a good change. No person justified flogging except as a matter of necessity; and if there was no necessity for it in any one point, it ought to be altered on that point. He would accede to the proposition of the hon. Baronet. The Motion was put, amended according
68
to the suggestion of Sir Francis Burdett; and the House divided—Ayes 140: Noes 151: Majority 11.
The Report agreed to.

List of the NOES.

ENGLAND.

Lamont, Captain N.

Althorp, Lord

Langsten, J. H.

Ashley, Lord

Langton, Colonel G.

Baring, F. T.

Littleton, E. J.

Baring, H B.

Lowther, Viscount

Bentinck, Ld. G. F. C.

Maberly, Colonel

Berkeley, Hon. G. C.

Miller, W. H.

Berkeley, Hon. C. F.

Molyneux, Lord

Biddulph, R. M.

Moreton, Hon. A. H.

Bowes, J.

Morpeth, Viscount

Bruce, Lord E.

Neeld, J.

Butler, E.

Nicholl, J.

Bulteel, J. C.

Norreys, Lord

Burrell, Sir C.

Ossulston, Lord

Byng, G.

Palmer, C.

Byng, Sir J.

Palmerston, Viscount

Calvert, N.

Pelham, Hon C. A. G.

Carter, J. B.

Pepys, C.

Cavendish, Lord.

Pinney, W.

Cavendish, Hon. Col.

Price, Sir R.

Chaplin, Colonel T.

Ridley, Sir M. W.

Childers, L. W.

Ross, C.

Clive, Hon. R. H.

Russell, Lord J.

Cockerell, Sir C.

Ryle, J.

Codrington, Sir E.

Sandon, Viscount

Cookes, T. H.

Scott, Sir E. D.

Crawley, S.

Seale, J. H.

Curteis, Captain

Sebright, Sir J.

Dare, R. W. H.

Smith, Hon. R. S.

Dick, Q.

Smith, R. V.

Dillwyn, L. W.

Somerset, Lord G.

Donkin, Sir R. S.

Spencer, Hon. Capt. F.

Duncombe, Hon. W.

Stewart, C.

Dundas, Hon. Sir R. L.

Stormont, Viscount

Egerton, W. T.

Stuart, Lord D.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Thomson, Rt. Hon. P.

Forester, Hon. G. C. W.

Trevor, hon. R.

Fox, Lieut-Col. C. R.

Tullamore, Lord

Gladstone, W. E.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Gordon, R.

Villiers, Viscount

Goulburn, Rt. Hon. H.

Vivian, J. H.

Graham, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Vyvyan, Sir R.

Grant, Rt. Hon. R.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Greville, Hon. Sir C.

Ward, H. G.

Grey, Hon. Col.

Warre, J. A.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Wedgwood, J.

Halse, J.

Weyland, Major R.

Harcourt, G. N.

Whitbread, W. H.

Henniker, Lord

Whitmore, T. C.

Herbert, Hon. S.

Williams, T. P.

Home, Sir W.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Howard, Hon. F. G.

Wood, G.

Howard, H.

Wood, Colonel F.

Howick, Viscount

Wood, C.

Halcomb, T.

Wynn, Sir W. W.

Hurst, R. H.

Wynn, C. W.

Inglis, Sir R.

SCOTLAND.

Jermyn, Earl

Baillie, Colonel J.

Jerningham, Hon. H.

Bannerman, A.

Johnstone, Sir F. G.

Elliot, Captain G.

Labouchere, H.

Ferguson, Captain G.

69

Fleming, Admiral

Howard, R.

Hay, Colonel A. L.

Jones, Captain T.

Hope, Hon. Sir A.

Lamb, Hon. G.

Kennedy, T. F.

Macnamara, Major.

M'Leod, R.

Macnamara, F.

Ross, H.

Maxwell, H.

Sharpe, General M.

Maxwell, J. W.

Traill, G.

Meynell, Captain H.

Mullins, F. W.

IRELAND.

Blaney, Hon. Capt. C.

O'Callaghan, Hon. C.

Perceval, Colonel

Browne, J. D.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Shaw, F.

Cory, Hon. H. L.

Stawell, Colonel

Daly, J.

TELLERS.

Gladstone, T.

Duncannon, Viscount

Hayes, Sir F.

Rice, Hon. T. S.

Hill, Lord M.

List of the AYES.

ENGLAND.

Hutt, W.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hughes, H.

Baillie, J. E.

Jervis, J.

Bainbridge, E. F.

Kemp, T. R.

Barnard, E. G.

Lefevre, C. S.

Bayntun, S. A.

Lennard, Sir T.

Beauclerk, Major

Lloyd, J. H.

Bewes, T.

Locke, W.

Bish, T.

Lushington, Dr. S.

Blake, Sir F.

Marshall, J.

Blamire, W.

Marsland, T.

Briggs, R.

Methuen, P.

Briscoe, J. I.

Mildmay, P. St. J.

Brocklehurst, J.

Moreton, Hon. H. G.

Brodie, Captain

North, F.

Bulwer, E. L.

Parker, J.

Bulwer, H. L.

Parrot, J.

Burdett, Sir F.

Peter, W.

Buxton, T. F.

Philips, M.

Cayley, Sir G.

Pigot, R.

Cayley, E. S.

Pluniptre, T. P.

Chichester, J. P. B.

Pryme, G.

Clay, W.

Ramsbottom, J.

Clayton, Colonel R.

Richards, J.

Clive, E. B.

Robinson, G. R.

Collier, J.

Roebuck, J. A.

Cornish, T.

Rotch, R. M.

Curteis, H. B.

Romilly, J.

Dawson, E.

Romilly, E.

Divelt, E.

Rotch, B.

Ellis, W.

Saudford, E. A.

Etwall, R.

Scholefield, J.

Ewart, W.

Shaw, R. N.

Faithfull, G.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Fanoourt, Major

Strickland, G.

Fenton, Captain

Strutt, E.

Fielden, J.

Tayleure, W.

Fryer, R.

Tennyson, Rt. Hon. C.

Gaskell, D.

Thicknesse, R.

Gaskell, J. L.

Throckmorton, R. G.

Goring, H. D.

Todd, R.

Grey, Sir G.

Torrens, Colonel R.

Gulley, J.

Tracy, C. H.

Handley, B.

Trelawney, W. L. S.

Hardy, J.

Turner, W.

Hawes, B.

Tynte, C. J. K.

Hawkins, J. H.

Vernon, Hon. G. I.

Hoskins, K.

Vincent, Sir F.

70

Warburton, H.

Dobbin, I.

Wason, R.

Don, O'Connor

Wigney, I.

Evans, G.

Wilks, J.

Finn, W. F.

Wood, Alderman

Fitzgerald, T.

Young, G. F.

Fitzsimon, N.

SCOTLAND.

Grattan, H.

Dalmeny, Lord

Maclaughlin, L.

Dunlop, Captain I.

Martin, T.

Ewing, J.

O'Brien, C.

Gillon, W. D.

O'Connell, D.

Johnston, A.

O'Connell, Maurice.

Maxwell, J.

O'Connell, C.

Maxwell, Sir J.

O'Connell, J.

Ormelie, Earl of

O'Connell, Morgan.

Oswald, R. A.

Roche, W.

Oswald, J.

Ruthven, E. S.

Sinclair, G.

Ruthven, E.

Wallace, R.

Sheil, R. L.

IRELAND.

Talbot, J.

Baldwin, H.

Tennent, J. E.

Barron, W.

Vigors, N. A.

Bellew, R. M.

TELLERS

Butler, Hon. P.

Hume, J.

Chapman, M. L.

Lennard, T. B.

Paired off.

Beaumont, T. W.

Morrison, J.

Humphery, J.

Tooke, W.

Lynch, A. H.

MINUTES.
Bill. The Royal Assent was given by Commission to the Suppression of Disturbances (Ireland) Bill.
Petitions presented. By Lord SUFFIELD, from Clitheroe, against Sunday Trading.—By Lord KING, from six Places in Ireland, against Tithes and Church Cess; from a Congregation at Wem, for Relief, for Protestant Dissenters; from certain Christians called Separatists, for substituting in all Cases a Solemn Affirmation for an Oath; from the Political Union of Yeovil, for the Abolition of Restrictions on the Press; and from Paisley, for Poor Laws for Ireland.—By Lords AUCKLAND, SUFFIELD, and KING, by Earl FITZWILLIAM, the Marquess of STAFFORD, and the Duke of RICHMOND, from a Number of Places,—against Slavery.—By the Earls of CAWDOR, and ROSE-BERY, from Places in Scotland, against the present System of Church Patronage in that Country.—By the Bishops of HEREFORD, Durham, Bangor, and ROCHESTER, the Earl of RODEN, and Lord REDESDALE, from a Number of Places,—for a Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By the Earl of RODEN, from several Places in Ireland, against the Ministerial System of Education, and against the proposed Measure of Church Reform.

CHURCH PATRONAGE (WALES.)
Lord Kingexpressed the great regret which he felt, that when the petition respecting the abuses in the Welch Church was presented last night, a right reverend prelate (the Bishop of St. Asaph) had not been present, for on a former evening the right reverend Prelate had used expressions which had done great wrong and injury to the author of a book which he had quoted, and which he had denounced as containing a number of gross falsehoods. The right reverend Prelate had adduced two instances, and had
2
told the House to judge of the book by that sample. Now, one of the instances to which the right reverend Prelate had referred was this—that it was stated in the book, that Christ Church Oxford derived 4,000 l. from the tithes of certain parishes in Wales, whereas, in point of fact, it only derived 2,500 l. Now, on referring to the book, he found it stated in no less than four different places, at page 125, at page 132, and in two other passages, that the sum received by Christ Church Oxford, was only 2,500 l. After the right reverend Prelate had made that statement to their Lordships, there appeared a contradiction of it in some of the papers. It was not, under such circumstances, too much to expect that the right reverend Prelate would have come down to their Lordships and owned that he made an unfounded statement, 'especially as he made his own erroneous assertion the basis of the strong comment Ex uno disce omnes. The right reverend Prelate mentioned another case relating to the parish of Llandudno, which proved, that he had quoted from the same edition of Mr. Johnes's book which he then held in his hand, and to which he had already referred. When a person of the right reverend Prelate's elevated situation came forward to destroy the reputation of an author, he should confine himself strictly to repeating the exact words which that author used. He addressed the right

3
reverend Prelate on that occasion to give him an opportunity of correcting the error into which the right reverend Prelate had fallen.
The Bishop of St. Asaphregretted extremely that he had been prevented by indisposition from attending in his place yesterday evening; but he must add that if the noble Marquess had had the courtesy to inform him that he was going to present a petition connected with so humble an individual as himself, he would, not with standing his indisposition, have made a point of attending in his place in that House. He thanked the noble baron for having given him an opportunity upon this occasion of answering, not only what he (Lord King) had just said, but also the assertion that he had on a former night made an unfounded statement. He had not quoted at all from the pamphlet to which the noble Baron had referred—he had read from a paper (which he believed to be good authority, as it came from a highly respectable clergyman in his dioces) a statement to this effect—that there had appeared in a certain pamphlet, in one passage, that Christ Church Oxford received 4,700 l. a-year, and in another that it received 4,500 l. a-year for tithes from various parishes in Wales. Now, it appeared that the fact was, that the whole value of the tithes of the parishes in question was only 2,000 l. a-year, and that of this sum only 500 l. a-year was paid to Christ Church, Oxford. And, such being the case, was not the author guilty of a misrepresentation? In the parish of Llandudno the author had said, that the tithes were 250 l., and that the curate received only 68 l. a-year. Now, it was true, that the author never said that Archdeacon Jones, to whom the living belonged, received all the tithes, but he had left that fact to be supposed by all his readers. The petition which was presented yesterday came from the same quarter as those which had been presented on a former occasion. Mr. Johnes was in London, as many of their Lordships were already aware: for he had written to the editor of a newspaper a letter contradicting the statements which he (the Bishop of St. Asaph) had made in that House, and had requested the editor to publish that letter along with his report of the proceedings in that House. That was a gross breach of privilege, but certainly not worth the notice of their Lordships. He understood that Mr. Johnes had lost considerably by the publication of
4
his pamphlet, and that he was now presenting petitions in order to get a sale for it in that manner. He would not say, that that pamphlet abounded with falsehoods, but he would say, that it abounded with gross misrepresentations. He was sorry to hear the noble Marquess, on a former occasion, cast a sneer upon a most respectable clergyman in his diocess, the reverend Mr. Cleaver. A better man did not exist, and he only wished the noble Marquess to imitate the conduct and follow the example of that clergyman, who gave away among the poor three parts of the income which he derived from his living. Regarding this gentleman and his brother, Mr. Johnes had been guilty of many misrepresentations. Mr. Johnes had also given a list of all the places from which he (the Bishop of St. Asaph) derived his income. The description was so minute that a stranger must suppose it true, for he summed up all the items by saying, "Total amount of the revenues of the Bishop, 9,267 l. a-year." So minute were the items, that any person reading them must suppose that Mr. Johnes had had access to the books of his receiver. He could only say, that he wished very much that his income was such as Mr. JOHNES had described it to be. Their Lordships would see, that Mr. Johnes's statement was a gross misrepresentation when they had before them the report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. Mr. Johnes had published another letter in the papers of that morning, in which he said "I will not believe that the right reverend Prelate would charge me with wilful falsehood on light grounds." He asked their Lordships whether they were to be called to account in consequence of paragraphs in newspapers. He could not retract what he had on a former evening said; on the contrary, he felt it to be his duty to persist in asserting that the book written by Mr. Johnes contained very gross misrepresentations, and statements that were untrue.
The Marquess of Westminstersaid, that after the very pointed manner in which he had been alluded to, it was impossible for him to refrain from troubling their Lordships with a few observations. He regretted that the right reverend Prelate should have made the remarks which he had done, for as he (the Marquess of Westminster) had observed upon a former evening, they were made upon a person who had not the advantage of being entitled to answer them. The right reverend Prelate now accused Mr. Johnes of not having stated some

5
matters correctly with regard to the trustees of a certain property. It was possible that Mr. Johnes might not be correct as to the exact manner in which the revenues in question were distributed, but there seemed little doubt, that he was correct as to the revenues themselves. It was somewhat hard on the gentleman to be thus attacked when the substance of his statement appeared to be well founded. The right reverend Prelate had made serious charges against this gentleman on a former occasion, and he now tried to bolster them up by bringing forward fresh charges. The right reverend Prelate said, that he had evidence that Mr. Johnes's statements were untrue, and he referred to a letter which he said was written by a most respectable gentleman to prove them to be so. That brought the matter round to the question, which he had before urged to the House, namely, that they should probe the subject to the bottom, and for that reason he should be glad to call the persons who could give them information to the bar of the House. The petition which the right reverend Prelate before referred to, as presented in the other House of Parliament, did not mention him, but the right reverend Prelate had chosen to take it to himself, and to direct his remarks to it, and to attack the person who had presented it. The statement which had subsequently been published in a morning paper, scorned to him to be a triumphant answer to the right reverend Prelate; but then the right reverend Prelate said, that the publication of that statement was a breach of their Lordships' privileges. If it was so, the printer might, by the rules of the House, be called to the Bar, and he should, in one respect, be glad to see that done—namely, if it would afford an opportunity of proving the truth of the statement. As to the matter of privilege, however, the Orders of the House were daily more infringed by the attendance of persons to take notes of what passed, and to publish them, and still more again by the remarks made on the speeches delivered there; but the custom of calling people to the Bar for these things was now pretty well discontinued, and he must say that it seemed to him a custom "more honoured in the breach than the observance."

JURIES (IRELAND).
Lord Plunkett moved the second reading of the Juries (Ireland) Bill.
Lord Carberycould not let this Bill pass
6
without making some observations upon it, and declaring that he was strongly opposed to the measure. It professed to be a bill for the consolidation of the law for the summoning of Juries in Ireland. A more important subject could not detain their Lordships' attention. In his opinion it had been hastily introduced, and without any sufficient necessity. It ought to be founded upon the opinion of the Judges, and the defects of the present system ought to be distinctly pointed out before there was any attempt made to change it. In his opinion the whole intended effect of the Bill was to be found in the first clause, by which men who held a freehold of 10 l. a-year value or were leaseholders to the amount of 15 l., were to be put upon the Jury list. Why many of these persons could not read the issue they would have to try, and many of them were even ignorant of the English language, yet their names were to be put into the book, and the Judges would have no power of objecting to them. If this Bill were to pass into a law, he was convinced that there would be an end of justice, and of the security of the subject. The law would be liable to be abused by a bad or a corrupt Sheriff. He was confident that if the question were put to the Judges of Ireland, whether it was necessary that any change should be made in the law relating to the selection of Jurors, the majority of them would be against the change, and so would the majority of the eminent men at the bar. Instead of an improvement, he was confident that a more dangerous mode of obtaining Jurors had never been introduced. He opposed this Bill, because he was interested in the welfare of Ireland, which he was sure would be injuriously affected by it.
The Earl of Wicklowthought it would be better to continue the present system than to adopt that which was now proposed. It was a curious fact, but it was perfectly true, that among the institutions of Ireland, that which stood pre-eminently forward for its good working was the Jury system. It was said, that the Jury system of the two countries should be assimilated. Noble Lords opposite would better exercise their talents and patriotism if they were to attempt to assimilate the habits of the people and the condition of the two countries, than their system of Jury Laws. If they could do that, then they might come with some degree of plausibility to Parliament, and ask for a law to assimilate the Jury systems of the two countries. If

7
there was one evil more than another from which Ireland had suffered, it was from the too great earnestness to introduce laws adapted to a rich and civilized country, and to its refinements, into a country not thus happily circumstanced. It was said, as another reason for introducing this Bill, that the present system did not work well. That was a most manifest error. Let them consult the twelve Judges on that point. The noble and learned Lord opposite had done him the favour to show him a letter from them on this subject. That letter was supposed to express their opinion in favour of the proposed alteration. It did, in fact, say no such thing. Its meaning was mistaken. He would undertake to state, that so far from saying, that the present system did not work well, they were of a contrary opinion. They desired no change, but merely said, that if this Bill was to pass, certain alterations which they mentioned ought to be made, but they thought it not desirable to alter the law. Did then this recommendation of change come from the public Commissioners in Ireland? No, it did not; for those Commissioners, in their report, say that, having inquired of the Sheriffs and Sub-Sheriffs as to the efficacy of the present Jury laws, their answer had been a recommendation of them as they now stood, and a denial of the existence of any possible reason why they should not work well. From whence, then, did this Bill come? He would tell them. It came from a learned King's Counsel, who was high in the confidence of his Majesty's Government, and to whose suggestions they were ever ready to listen. It came from a learned person in a silk gown, who had continually merited all the high encomiums which had been pronounced upon him. The Bill was of his recommendation, and it must be considered by their Lordships as a new ingredient in the dish of sops for Cerberus which his Majesty's Government were in the habit of administering to that learned Gentleman. Their Lordships had not a choice whether they could reject this Bill—such an alternative was not left them—because the Government was pledged—most unadvisedly, as he thought—to this measure. It was, therefore, impossible that they should reject it. Still he acknowledged, that when compared with the last Bill on that subject which had been before their Lordships, it was decidedly of an improved character, though those improvements were not so great as their Lordships were led to
8
believe they would have been. He willingly admitted, that it was devoid of many of the objections which were observable in the other Bill—that in regard to Special Juries, it adopted the suggestions of the Judges—but its main faults still remained. The Jury-book must be filled with names from a class he could not approve. Such a host of persons were admitted—such a crowd of individuals as would disgrace any Court of Justice, and he sincerely hoped that this would be corrected in the Committee. Their Lordships must all know, that it was a total deviation from the Constitution, to make a money qualification the sole qualification for these important duties. The old Acts of Parliament on this subject, particularly of the reign of Edward 3rd, stated that "character and intelligence" were leading qualifications for a Juror—that "the most efficient and least suspected" individuals were the proper persons to be chosen. The Sheriff's oath, too, bore strongly upon this point; and without its repeal he did not see how they could pass this Bill. That oath distinctly required him not to look to one qualification alone, but to all qualifications—to see that every person called as a Juror was of sufficient standing in Life and of sufficient character. This, however, he should endeavour to amend in Committee. One part, connected with which there would be the greatest difficulty, which he considered would be wholly inoperative, was that which devolved such heavy and responsible duties on Magistrates. It required them to hold a Special Sessions, to take and register the names from the various barony collectors. Now, he had long acted as a Magistrate, and he well knew the difficulty of the duty which those functionaries had to perform—he well knew the labours they had to go through at Assizes, Sessions, and Petty Sessions. He well knew how difficult it would be to get them together; and if got together, that it would be impossible that the book could be formed. These were the grounds on which he could not give his concurrence to this Bill, and which would induce him, in the Committee, to move such amendments as he thought calculated to remedy the evils which he found in it.
Lord Wynfordsaid, their Lordships had done wrong—they had indeed been guilty of inflicting a grievous injury on the people of Ireland, by voting for the Coercive Bill, if there was any pretence whatever for the introduction and passing of the present

9
measure. Why had they been called upon to agree to that Bill—why had they consented to adopt it? Because they were led to believe that Juries in Ireland were too subject to the influence of popular opinion, and too subservient to popular feeling. And yet they were now asked to pass this Bill which gave to popular feeling a greater sway, and a stronger power than it had ever before been allowed to assume. He should endeavour to prevent his noble friend who spoke last, from proposing any Amendments in the Committee, for he looked upon the principle of the Bill as so bad, that he should move the House to reject it altogether. Were it once put into operation, it would soon be shown, that the lives of many honest men were no longer safe. It was asserted to be a good and sound principle to assimilate the law of Ireland with that of this country; but he must contend with his noble friend, that before they could wisely, and therefore safely do that, they must assimilate the people. The system which was so admirable in England—so easy in its working, and so beneficial in its effects, would, he was satisfied, if applied to Ireland, prove the greatest curse that could be sent into that country; for it would not only not afford honest men protection against danger, but it would actually put honest men in danger of their lives and property. But he greatly blamed the Government in this matter. There was no consistency in their proceedings in thus bringing forward a Coercive Bill to correct and control popular feeling, and a Jury Bill to give it energy and force. Surely they might have stated some good that was to be wrought by this Bill—some mischief which required a departure from the principle of the Established Jury Laws in Ireland. Why was the duty which had hitherto devolved upon the Sheriff taken from him by this enactment? Could any man state that? What had been the faults of the Sheriffs—where were their errors? They were called upon to pass an imputation on every Gentleman in Ireland from whom Sheriffs were taken, because there was a movement of some kind or other in Dublin. Their Lordships ought to maintain some proportion between the proposed enactment and its object. Now, as to Special Juries, he admitted that the present Bill was, in some respects, an improvement on the English Special Jury system; for a qualification was inserted after the name of merchants to the effect that they should not be merchants by retail.
10
In his own experience, under the English Jury system, he had seen two Baronets, a higgler, and a gentleman's servant, on the same Special Jury. A complaint was made to him (Lord Wynford) by the two Baronets; but he told them he could do nothing, for that he could not turn those men out of the Special Juror's box whom the law had placed in it. Nevertheless the Bill itself was sufficient evidence that there was not a sufficient class in Ireland from which to form the Special Juries as there provided. It might, therefore, happen, that though a person ought to be tried by a Special Jury, he might, nevertheless, be in fact tried by a Common Jury. The object of the Bill was to assimilate the Irish to the English system of Trial by Jury. Now, although he highly applauded the alterations in the Criminal Law, which had some years ago been introduced by a right hon. Baronet, and was satisfied, that if full effect had been given to those alterations, crime would, in a great degree, have been put down, and the continuance of capital punishments rendered less necessary, he could not bestow the same commendation on the right hon. Baronet's Jury Bill. The effect of that Bill had certainly been to lower the character of Special Juries in this country. Nevertheless, it might have made Common Juries more like Special Juries, but it also made Special Juries something worse than Common Juries. He was old enough to remember when a Special Jury at Guildhall consisted of persons who were generally so well informed as to be able to teach the Judges on questions of commercial law; but it now happened that, by the accident of the ballot, persons were put on Special Juries at the Guildhall, and called upon to try commercial questions, who knew no more of commercial law than the crier of the court. He was informed, however, by those better acquainted with Ireland than he was, that the persons qualified under the present Bill would not be sufficient to furnish the number required for Special Juries in Ireland, and that it would probably often happen in practice that, when a party in an action tried to get a Special Jury, and underwent all the expenses, he would have a good chance of having his cause tried by a Common Jury. Understanding that the Bill was in opposition to the practical experience of the Irish Judges, and foreseeing that very serious consequences would follow if such a measure became law in the present state of the coun-

11
try, he should move, by way of Amendment, that the Bill should be read a second time this day six months.
The Marquess of Clanricardewas surprised at the objections urged by the learned Lord to the principle of the Bill, that it was neither more nor less than a step towards assimilating the legal institutions of England and Ireland. Did the learned Lord see the full force of this objection, that if it was good for anything as an argument, it would be an argument for a Repeal of the Union? What was the ground on which Mr. Pitt proposed and carried the Union? Was it not that it was the best means of assimilating the institutions of the two countries? But, then, said the learned Lord, the English Jury system would lead to abuses in Ireland; it was too democratic in principle for the present condition of that country. Why, if this were admitted as an objection, then Trial by Jury should not have been introduced into Ireland, for it had led to abuses. Why, in fairness, argue from the abuse against the use? If the system had worked well in England, why not extend its advantages to Ireland. But, said the learned Lord, you should first assimilate the condition and moral habits of the two nations. Why, that was the very object contemplated by the Bill. What its supporters wanted was, to induce that confidence in, and respect for, the laws in Ireland, which had so long been the blessing of this country. In Ireland the people in general had no confidence in the law; they, in fact, knew those who administered it but as so many legalized tyrants. The law to them was but a machinery of oppression, instead of protection; hence their approving sympathies were readily extended to its violators or its victims; who, instead of, as in this happier country, being regarded with condemnation and abhorrence, were actually sacred in the eyes of their fellow-villagers. Having, then, no confidence in the ordinary tribunals, and thence no respect for their ordinances, they redressed their own wrongs as they could; and thus revenge—which, according to Bacon, was but a kind of "wild justice"—became invested, in the eyes of the lawless ignorant Irish marauders, with the very attribute, and garb of a virtue. It was absurd to attribute the deplorable working of this mischievous delusion to the "sayings and doings" of Mr. O'Connell and his followers. The grievance lay deeper; it had its source in centuries of misgovernment and oppression; it could only be remedied by inspir-
12
ing the people with a confidence in the laws and institutions to which they owed allegiance. All that the agitators did was to take artful advantage of the unsettled state of the public mind in Ireland, and to stimulate it for their own sordid purpose. But let them convince the people of Ireland that the misgovernment and oppression which had so long laid waste their country was at an end; let every poor Irishman, at present uncertain of the very means of existence, with famine and rapine staring him in the face, the only choice left him being to starve or to emigrate, let him feel that he had a stake in the country—that he Was not to starve in the midst of plenty; let him be taught to have confidence in the law, and tranquillity would not be violated. Let him feel that the laws were meant for his protection, and not as a machinery to oppress him, and they might laugh to scorn all the arts of all the agitators that ever marred the peace and prosperity of any country. Were they surprised at the influence exercised by Mr. O'Connell and his men? The wonder was, that it was not greater, for surely no more fitting tools and ready dupes could be devised than an excitable people goaded on by physical want and political oppression. It was, therefore, because he conceived the present Bill Was calculated to induce confidence in the jury tribunals in Ireland, and thence respect for the laws, that he would give it his best support. To say that it Was democratic in principle was no objection, unless it was clearly shown that it would call into existence, as Jurors, persons whom the Irish would less confide in that the present class of Jurors, and that could not be shown, for the contrary Was the fact.
Lord Ellenboroughpresumed that the view taken of the measure by the noble Baron who had just sat down was different from the view taken of it by the noble and learned Lord at the head of the law in Ireland. To him (Lord Ellenborough) it appeared strange, that having yesterday passed a Bill to take away Trial by Jury from the Irish on the ground of its inadequacy to its purpose, their Lordships were now called on to pass a Bill, which if the noble Baron's understanding of it was correct, was intended to introduce a very inferior class of persons into the Juries of Ireland. In a moral state of a country there could be no greater advantage than to extend the number of persons capable of serving upon Juries, but in a demoralized state it was highly dangerous, as it exposed

13
them to be acted upon either by intimidation Of by partiality. He was quite sure that the noble and learned Lord was anxious for the fair administration of justice, and that he would acquiesce in any Amendment that would improve the operation of the Bill, and more especially that would show the animus with which it was passed. For it appeared to him that there was not so much danger from the actual provisions of the Bill as from a misinterpretation of the motives of those provisions. What he dreaded was, the inference that would be drawn from the enactments, rather than the enactments themselves. If the Bill were passed in quiet times, it might be attended with no inconvenience, but being passed in very unquiet times, he feared its effects might be injurious. What was the ground-work of the Bill? Had any complaint been made of the recent practice with respect to the impanelling of Juries in Ireland? So far from that, the Juries there had conducted themselves in a manner to excite astonishment, and had given more courageous and better verdicts than could have been expected. And why? In consequence of the manner in which the Sheriffs had exercised their functions. The noble Lord referred to the evidence which was given before a Committee of the Lords on that subject, in order to prove the good composition of Juries in Ireland. It was rarely that he differed from his noble and learned friend behind him; but he doubted whether his noble and learned friend was right in supposing, that the Bill originated with Mr. O'Connell; because he held in his hand evidence given on oath by that hon. and learned Gentleman of a contrary tendency. The noble Lord read Mr. O'Connell's evidence, from which he deduced the inference, that even now the Sheriffs in Ireland were not enabled to select a sufficient number of proper persons for Special Juries. And yet, the object of the Bill was to bring inferior persons into Special Juries, instead of superior persons, which were required. He was quite aware, however, that his Majesty's Ministers were committed to the Bill; and he regretted it, because he could see no reason for the measure. But, at any rate, it was desirable that no false inference should be drawn from it. He thought, therefore, that it would be well to provide, that the Sheriff should have the power of adding to the book the names of any persons qualified, but omitted by the Magistrates. For the apprehension was—not that unqualified persons should
14
be admitted—but that qualified persons should be omitted. If the Bill were so amended, that no false inference might be drawn from it, and that its animus might be shown, it might, perhaps, be productive of some advantage.
The Earl of Rodenwished to state the ground upon which, in addition to those already stated by his noble friends near him, he opposed the Bill, which he considered a most dangerous measure. That ground was, that the present Judges of Ireland were unanimously opposed to the principle of the measure—namely, the Juror's Book. He deeply regretted, that the noble and learned Lord had brought it forward. There was no good reason why any change should be made in the present mode of striking Juries in Ireland. But as his noble and learned friend near him had observed, it was a sop given to Cerberus. It was for the purpose of redeeming an unfortunate pledge, although at a risk of the lives and property of his Majesty's loyal subjects in Ireland.
Lord Plunkett, in reference to the expression which the noble Lord who had just sat down had repeated, after the noble Lord opposite—namely, that the Bill was a sop to Cerberus, declared himself at a loss to know the meaning of the expression. If he were compelled to guess who was meant by Cerberus, he should say that he supposed Mr. O'Connell. Whether Mr. O'Connell would be a proper guardian for the place of which Cerberus was the keeper, it was for the noble Lords to say; but he (Lord Plunkett) had not introduced that learned Gentleman in any such character to their Lordships. Too much stress bad been laid on the name and influence of that Gentleman, for he could assure their Lordships that he was not to be induced to bring in a Bill because Mr. O'Connell approved of it, or to be diverted from bringing in a bill because Mr. O'Connell disapproved of it. All that he asked himself was, if a measure was a fair and a proper one. But there never was a more wild and ridiculous supposition, than that the present Bill originated in any suggestion of Mr. O'Connell. It was founded on the measure which had been introduced by Sir Robert Feel, who certainly was not very likely to act in concert with Mr. O'Connell. If this were a Bill intended to conciliate Mr. O'Connell, he (Lord Plunkett) found himself in good company in proposing it, for it was not his I Bill alone: it was likewise the Bill of the

15
right hon. Gentleman who lately held the office of Chief Secretary of Ireland, and of the Solicitor-General of Ireland, as well as of Sir Robert Peel. It was not a measure founded on any new principles: it was founded on practical knowledge, for the greatest part of it had already been adopted in England. The noble Baron had taunted them with wishing to assimilate the laws of Ireland to those of England. Did the noble Lord mean to say that it was not right to do so? He (Lord Plunkett) did not mean to say, that a difference ought not to be made in the laws, according to the habits of the country for which they were intended. He allowed it, and acting upon that principle, had made such alterations as he thought necessary, in order to suit the laws in force on the subject in England to the state of Ireland. And would the noble Lord say, that it was improper thus to assimilate the laws of the two countries? For his part, he should consider that it would not only be absurd, but dangerous, to act on a contrary principle. He regretted that noble Lords, in discussing the measure, had not confined themselves to the consideration of the question before them, but had wandered from it in order to make unnecessary attacks on the Government. It had been said, that this was an improper time for the introduction of such a measure; that it was not at the very time when they had passed a Coercion Bill which might abolish trials by Jury in Ireland, they should bring in a Bill for the Regulation of Juries. He could not agree with the noble Lord who had made that assertion. He thought that there could not be a more appropriate time to introduce a measure for the improvement of the administration of justice in Ireland, than at the time when it was found necessary to employ harsh measures for the suppression of the disturbances. It would show the people of Ireland, that the Government, while they were ready to adopt effectual means for the suppression of those disturbances, were likewise ready to improve the administration of the law. It was by a gradual succession of such improvements that they could hope to put an end to that terrible statute, and relieve the people from its operation. The noble Lord had said, that the present measure would destroy the characters of Jurors. Was the noble Lord aware of the qualification which entitled a man to be a Juror as the law at present Stood? What did their Lordships think was the qualification? From the manner
16
in which the noble Lord had expressed himself, they must think that the qualification could not be less than 100 l. at the very least. No; the qualification was, that the claimant should be in possession of a 40 s. freehold And the only difference made by the present Bill was, that the persons qualified, instead of being as formerly, 40 s. freeholders, should be 15 l. leaseholders: a change which he hoped their Lordships would consider an improvement. The noble Lord had likewise said, that the change in the qualification of Jurors was made in opposition to the opinion of the Judges. Now the fact was directly the reverse; for they had, in direct terms, approved of the contemplated change in the qualification. He, therefore, thought that he had a right to complain that the noble Baron should have stated that he had brought forward that measure in opposition to the opinions of the Judges. He had a great respect for the great learning and experience of the Judges of Ireland; but he could not allow that their Lordships were not to legislate on the laws of that country without their consent, or even in opposition to their opinions. That, however, was not the case in the present instance, for they did approve of the measure. He denied another assertion made by the noble Baron—namely, that that Bill had been formerly rejected by the House when brought before them. That was not the case. The Bill had been referred to a Select Committee of the House; but before the Committee could make any Report the Parliament was prorogued, and was soon afterwards dissolved, by which all the previous proceedings fell to the ground. He now came to the main objection stated by the noble Lord. The noble Lord objected to the clause which took from the Sheriff, who is the sworn officer of the Crown, the privilege of choosing Jurors, which, as the law at present stood, was possessed by the Sheriff. The noble Lord stated very justly and properly, that the amount of property was not the proper criterion by which to judge of the qualifications of a man for that duly. He (Lord Plunkett) did not deny, that there was some difficulty in that part of the measure, and he had taken considerable pains to consider it; and he would then state how he hoped to overcome the objection. By the Bill before them, the Barony collectors were to make returns of the names of all persons within their district who were, by right of property, qualified to sit as Jurors. In England that duty

17
was performed by the Overseers of the Poor, but there being no Overseers of the Poor in Ireland, he could not follow that part of Sir Robert Peel's Bill. The returns were to be made by the Collectors to the Clerk of the Peace, and the Justices were empowered at the Quarter Sessions to strike out the names of all improper persons, and to add the names of such as were entitled to have their names inserted. There was also a clause inserted which specially reserved to the Sheriffs all the jurisdiction which they had as the law at present stood. He thought that the noble Baron would more readily approve of that part of the Bill, when he was told that it was adopted on the suggestion of the Twelve Judges. He would add, that he meant, if the Bill went into Committee, to add a clause, by which retail dealers might be added to the list of Special Jurors, if they proved that they were in possession of the sum of 5,000 l. The noble Lord concluded by saying, that so far from considering it improper to introduce the Bill on account of the Bill which had lately passed that House, the passing of that measure was a strong reason why the present should be adopted.
Lord Wynford's Amendment negatived, and the Bill read a second time.
The following Protest against the Second reading of the Bill was entered on the Journals.
"DISSENTIENT—Because I believe the principle on which a change in the present practice is made, and the provision for forming a Juror's Book, by this Bill, is contrary to the unanimous opinion of the Twelve Judges of Ireland, and will render insecure the lives and properties of his Majesty's loyal subjects in Ireland.
"CLANBRASSILL (Roden.)
"WYNFORD.
"KENYON.
"CARBERY."