Sitting of 29 April 1833

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Mr. VIGORS" an Account of the Annual Receipts and Expenditure in the Parish of St. Pancras, Middlesex, for the last three years.—On the Motion of Mr. RICARDO, an Account of the Management and Expenses of the different Gaols in England and Wales.—On the Motion of Mr. SPRING Rica, an Account of the Amount of all the Taxes Repealed or Imposed in each year, since the close of the War.
Petitions presented By Sir JOHN HOBHOUSE, from several Metropolitan Parishes; by Mr. LANGSTON, from three Parishes at Oxford; and by Mr. EWART, from Liverpool,—for a Repeal of the Assessed Taxes.—By Colonel LYGON, from Worcester; Mr. COLQUHOUN, from two Places; and Mr. BRIGSTOCK, from Ubley, against the Repeal or Amendment of the Sale of Beer Act.—By Mr. EWART, from Liverpool, for Relief to the Dissenters with respect to Marriages, Parochial Rates, and Registrations.—By the same, from Medical Practitioners, Liverpool; and by Mr. BANNERMAN, from the University of Aberdeen—for an Alteration in the Apothecaries Act.—By Mr. COLQUHON. from the Spirit Dealers of Kirkintillock, for a Repeal of the Tippling Act.—By the same, from the Hand-loom Weavers of Scotland; and by Mr. JAMBS OSWALD, from calton,—for a Board of Trade, and for Relief.—By Mr. SHAW, from a Number of Places in Ireland, against the Church Temporalities (Ireland) Bill.—By Mr. G. J. HEATHCOTE, from the Landowners of Kesteven (Lincoln), against any Alteration of the Corn Laws.—By Mr. BRIGSTOCK, Mr. HUTT, and Mr. VIGORS, from several Places, for a Repeal of the Assessed Taxes.—By Mr. PLUMPTRE, from two Places in Kent, for a Repeal of the Malt Duty.—By Mr. VIGORS, from the Parish of St Pancras, for a Repeal of the Septennial Act, and for Vote by Ballot.—By Mr. BANNERMAN, from Aberdeen, for a Repeal of the Duty on Stamped Receipts.—By Messrs. BOLTON KING, BARING, HENEAGE, MARJORIBANKS, J. SMITH, COLQUHOUN, FITZGERALD, F. SHAW, RICARDO, MORISON, HUTT, BRIGSTOCK, J. C DUNDAS, and PLUMPTRE, Colonel LYGON, Sir J. DAL RYMPLE, Sir W. FOLKES, and an HON. MEMBER, from a great Number of Places,—against Slavery: also by Alder man THOMPSON, Sir EDMUND HAYES, and Viscount APSLEY.—By Messrs. J. SMITH, COLQUHOUN, G. J. HEATHCOTE, SHAW, BRIGSTOCK, VIGORS, BANNERMAN, Colonel LYGON, LORD OSSULSTON, and an HON. MEMBER, from a Number of Places,—for a Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET, from Landogo, for some Modifications in the Sabbath Observance Bill.—By Mr. HODGES, from Cranbrook, and other Places in Kent, for a Repeal of the Malt Duty.—By Lord APSLEY, from the Clergy of the Deanery of Stow (Gloucester), against the Church Temporalities (Ireland) Bill; and for a Repeal of the Sale of Beer Act.—By Mr. BARING, from the Proprietors of Drury Lane and Covent Garden Theatres, against the Bill for Regulating Dramatic Performances.

BOROUGH OF LAUNCESTON.
Mr. Charles Bullerpresented a petition from the electors of Launceston, in the county of Cornwall, complaining that bribery had been used at the last election for that borough, and that they were only prevented from proving it before the House, by the enormous expense which attended the taking of evidence before Election Committees. He must disclaim all feeling of personal hostility against the Gallant General (Sir Henry Hardinge), who had been the successful candidate for that borough. He was most unwilling also to give any pain to the noble Duke (Northumberland), who was said to nominate the hon. member for Launceston. His sole object was, to show that there existed what the petitioners considered a constitutional abuse. The first statement in the petition was highly deserving the attention of the House, that, in consequence of the great and enormous expense which was incurred by Election Committees, they could not prove the existence at the last election of the bribery which the petition alleged. The petition then went on to pray that the constituency might be increased by extending the limits of the borough. The petition also prayed that a Commission should be sent down to inquire into the existence of bribery at the last election, and that the evidence might be taken on the spot. The hon. Member, in supporting the prayer of the petition, stated, that he was aware he made himself obnoxious to those who advocated the "finality" of the Reform Bill; but he for one had never conceded the monstrous principle that any legislative measure was to be final; still less had he ever conceded the still more monstrous principle, that the Members of that House were entitled by any sort of compromise to barter away the rights and privileges of the people. The Reform Bill, he considered, would be a mere mockery to the people of England if it did not, to use the language of Lord Grey in the House of Lords, "put an end to the system of nomination," and introduce in its room that of representation. It was not, however, against the Reform Bill, but against the Boundary Bill, that he urged objection; and it surely would not be said that Lieut. Drummond's Bill was to be a final measure against the whole people. He wished the boundaries of the borough to be enlarged. He almost wished that no assertion had been made as to the existence of bribery, as he wished to confine
724
the attention of the House to a single question of fact, whether Launceston was still a nomination borough? He regretted that the Vote by Ballot had not been carried on a late occasion, as he was of opinion that it would have given the voters some effectual protection. But, from the number of votes in favour of the ballot on that occasion, he did not think that the people of England would be long excluded from that benefit. He must press on the attention of the House the necessity of enlarging the extent of this very limited borough. He did not ask for the Commission solely on behalf of the electors of Launceston, but on behalf of the people of England generally, who were deeply interested in the system of representation, of the state of which the petition furnished some evidence.
Sir Henry Hardingethought the speech of the hon. Member was not so much for the purpose of doubting the legality of the election, as it was to exhibit a desire to attack the Reform Bill. With regard to the Reform Bill, he (Sir H. Hardinge) had opposed it to the utmost; but as it was now the law of the land, he should do all he could to remedy any defect that it had. He did not, however, agree, that it was necessary on all occasions on which the petitioners might happen to be defeated, that they should claim a large extension of boundary. The petitioners were those who opposed him at the election; and the first signature was that of Mr. Howell, whom he defeated; and the next that of Thomas Pierce, who was Mr. Howell's electioneering agent—a gentleman of whom, on a recent occasion, it had been said, that he had redeemed sixty years of Toryism by three years of Radicalism. He (Sir H. Hardinge) most distinctly denied, on behalf of himself, his agents, or his friends, that there was one single instance of bribery or corruption at his election. The House would recollect that a petition had been presented, charging him, his agents, and friends, with bribery; and yet, after waiting three months, and Mr. Pierce being the agent—
Mr. Bullerinterrupted the hon. and gallant Officer, by saying, that there was no charge of bribery. Indeed, he believed, that there was not the slightest suspicion of bribery against the hon. and gallant Officer.
Sir Henry Hardingeread an extract from the former petition, in which himself,

725
his agents, &c., were charged with bribery and corruption, He declared that he held the offence of bribery in so odious a light—every voter being obliged to take the bribery oath—that sooner than have subjected the voters to the offence of perjury, he would have lost his election. Although the former petitioners had had three months, they failed to enter into the requisite sureties; and he had, in consequence, never had an opportunity to declare that he was not the guilty person he had been accused of being. He was prepared—and that was known to his counsel and agents—to meet the charge, and to deny and defy the proof that there was a single case of bribery; and he believed that the reason the petition was not prosecuted was, that the petitioners were convinced they could not bring forward a single case; and they were afraid their petition would be deemed frivolous and vexatious. For several weeks, every Cornish paper had teemed with articles calling for subscriptions in support of the petitions, in order, as they said, "to drive the Conservative from the borough of Launceston;" and with considerable effect, too, for they had got five or six hundred pounds in that way. An hon. Baronet's (Sir William Molesworth) agent (he meant Mr. Woolcomb) had written articles of that kind in a Government paper; and, after subscribing five pounds in his own name, he subscribed twenty-five pounds in the name of a Radical friend to the cause; and he could tell the hon. Baronet, that it was generally said, that the hon. Baronet was that Radical friend. He had now been returned to Parliament eight or nine times, and he had never had any transaction of the nature of that which was asserted by the hon. Member. His agents and counsel knew all the details of the case; he stated them publicly, and they could catechise him if they thought proper. With regard to the influence that was complained of, he begged the hon. Member to recollect what was the influence of the Duke of Northumberland. The Duke had by no means a large property in that neighbourhood, and, therefore, the Duke's influence did not arise from his having a numerous tenantry; it arose from his having been for many years a large benefactor to all the public charities in that neighbourhood; and, on the occasion of the late contest, he (Sir Henry) could only state, that such was the impression
726
of the people of Launceston on account of his benefactions, and the generosity and liberality with which they were dispensed, that they disregarded Mr. Howell, and spoke against him, because he had never made any benefaction to the town. In the year 1828, a review was taken of the benefactions of the noble Duke and Mr. Howell (the one living at a distance, and the other on the spot), when it appeared that the Duke of Northumberland, in the year 1822, subscribed to the public charities, Sunday-schools, and to the poor of the parish, 213 l., and towards the improvement and repairs of the town, 334 l.; while, in that year, Mr. Howell, being a resident gentleman in the neighbourhood, had not subscribed one farthing. During the six years, between 1825 and 1831, the noble Duke had subscribed 5,233 l.; while Mr. Howell had subscribed only 50 l.; and that, too, in the year 1831, after the Reform Bill had been brought in. He would state, that it was not the influence of the Duke from property, but it was the influence of a liberal and generous nobleman, exercised on the spot; and if he were to go into details to justify that nobleman's conduct, of which he was sure the noble Duke would rather he should not have spoken, there would be enough to vindicate him, and not merely to clear him from all imputation, but to obtain for him a large share of admiration in every part of the county, similar to that which his conduct excited in Launceston. But, he would say, the Duke of Northumberland had not, in the town of Launceston, one dozen of tenants, and that he had not in the borough of Launceston one-half of the same proportion of tenants as the Duke of Bedford had got in Tavistock. If the hon. Gentleman wished to have examples to justify him in calling for an extension of the constituency, he should look nearer home, and he would find much stronger ones. There was the borough of Tavistock, with its population of 5,600, which returned two Members, yet it polled only 193 at the late election; while Launceston, with a population of 5,384, had only one Member, yet polled 243 votes. Knares borough and Totness stood in the same relative position. He was quite astonished to find the statements of the noble Lord who introduced the Reform Bill, that it would add to the constituency of the boroughs upwards of 110,000. There

727
were sixty-five old boroughs, which at the late election had polled only 83,809, while there had been contested elections in every one, and under the old system those boroughs had polled 95,040. The Corporation of Launceston had also been charged with using undue influence in having a power to license public-houses. There had been only one person licensed since the passing of the Bill, and he was one of those who had signed the petition.
Sir William Molesworthsaid, without an increase in the constituency, Launceston would be a mere nomination borough—this was not his opinion only, but that of ninety-nine out of every 100 of his constituents. He did not accuse the hon. and gallant Baronet of those practices; in fact, he believed that he was quite unaware of them; but he would assert that they were carried on. In his opinion, the person who caused them was as bad as the person who practised them. There was intimidation at Launceston, and that led to immorality. The chief cause was the Duke of Northumberland, and he was the arch-criminal.
Sir Henry Hardinge: It is false. If the hon. Member means to assert, and continues to assert, that the Duke of Northumberland is the arch-criminal in those demoralizing practices, I will again meet it in the way I have done, and characterise such an assertion as being false.
The Speakersaid, that all the right hon. Baronet meant was, that if such an assertion were made, he would deny the truth of it in the strongest language that the forms of the House would allow. But the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to use any language which would be disorderly.
Sir William Molesworthwould still assert that the Duke of Northumberland was the principal cause of intimidation in the borough, and that the system pursued created much immorality.
Sir Henry Hardingeobserved, that if the hon. Member still persisted in that assertion, he must reprobate it in the strongest terms of indignation the forms of the House would allow him to use.
Sir William Molesworthwould still adhere to his assertion.
Sir Henry Hardingesaid, that with regard to the statements that had been made as to intimidation, and rewards and punishments, that had been held out, he must observe, that, at the late election, two members of Mr. Howell's Committee
728
had promised the hon. Baronet's (Sir William Molesworth) custom to a voter who had already promised him his vote, provided he would break his faith and vote for Mr. Howell. With regard to the notoriety that had been expressed of Launceston becoming a nomination borough, he would assert that that arose, not from the real circumstances in which the borough was placed, but in consequence of his having defeated the Whig candidate.
Sir William Molesworthsaid, that if what the right hon. Baronet had stated was the fact, he felt more indignant at such a use of his name than words could express.
Petition laid on the Table.

THE MALT DUTIES.
Lord Althorpsaid: I am quite persuaded that every Gentleman in the House must be anxious to hear what I wish to state on the present occasion. The decision of the House on Friday being very peculiar, considering the circumstances under which it took place, has, as I stated at the time, placed Government under great embarrassment; and after taking this question into our consideration, his Majesty's Ministers have felt it desirable to bring the question again before the House, and in such a manner that the whole state of the case may be fairly brought forward, and that the House may see clearly all the consequences which must take place, in consequence of the proceeding of Friday night, and come to a decision with their eyes open. That decision may be precisely the same as that which they came to before, or it may differ from it; but there is a necessity for a clear understanding upon this subject. Sir, with this view, and believing that this will be the mode which will conduce most to this end, I now give notice, that it is my intention to move as an amendment to the motion of the hon. Baronet, the member for the City of London, to-morrow evening, this Resolution, which I will read now, in order that it may be placed on the votes of the House, that hon. Gentlemen may have the opportunity of considering the effect of it:—"That the deficiency of the Revenue which would be occasioned by a reduction of the tax on malt to 10 s. a quarter, and by the repeal of the taxes on houses and windows, could only be supplied by the substitution of a general tax on property, and would occasion an extensive

729
change in our whole financial system, which would at present be inexpedient."
Lord Althorpthen moved, that the House should resolve itself into a Committee of Supply.
Sir William Ingilbyasked the noble Lord what he intended to do respecting the vote which the House had come to last Friday night? He could assure the House, that he had not brought forward his motion with any view of embarrassing Ministers. The Resolution having been carried by a majority, the manner in which the noble Lord had taken it up had gone through the country, and the country expected that the measure would be carried into effect. He asked if it was the intention of the noble Lord to carry that Resolution into effect, or what it was the noble Lord intended to do?
Lord Althorpsaid, there had been some misunderstanding respecting what he (Lord Althorp) had said on Friday night. What he did then say—at all events what he meant to say, and what he believed he did say in so many words—was, that although the question was carried by a very small majority, he would not take advantage of another division the same evening, as he might have done, after the previous division, by again dividing the House on the main question. He felt as other Gentlemen, who had been accustomed to such matters had always felt, that he might, if he thought proper, divide the House more than once, but he would not take the chance of Gentlemen coming in after the first division, in order to obtain a second division. As to what he intended to do, he should have thought the Motion of which he had just given notice would have been sufficient.
The Marquess of Chandosrose to express his deep regret to find that there was any intention to get rid of the vote of the House of Commons, on a motion of the greatest importance to the country at large. The House could not have been taken by surprise by the hon. Baronet's (Sir William Ingilby's) Motion. They must have been prepared for it; but what he most regretted was, that there should be any attempt on the part of a Minister of the Crown in that Reformed House, from which so much was expected, to set aside the vote come to on that occasion; that Members should be told they voted improperly, and that he would give them
730
another opportunity of correcting their mistakes. He begged leave to express his earnest and sincere hope, that when the question was again brought forward, the vote would stand as at present. For himself, he should be ashamed if he should be supposed capable of altering his vote on so important a question—a question so deeply affecting the landed interest. He would rather, indeed, throw up his seat, than, at the call of the Minister of the Crown, vote directly contrary to the vote he had previously given.
Mr. Tennysonsaid, undoubtedly the noble Lord (Lord Althorp) was best qualified to give a construction to what he did say, or intended to say, on the previous occasion referred to, and although he (Mr. Tennyson) was ready to accept the explanation which had been given, yet, he must say, that it was uniformly circulated through the Press, and was the general understanding of the Members in the House, that the noble Lord would, notwithstanding the smallness of the majority, feel it to be his duty to carry the Resolution into effect ["no, no!" "yes, yes!"] Gentlemen cried "no," but he should like to know whether those who uttered those cries were present. Whilst he said this in justice to himself, he was bound also, in justice to the noble Lord to say, that he was satisfied the noble Lord did not mean so to express himself, and he was ready to abide by the explanation given by the noble Lord himself. He must say, that he did not think any question of that kind Ought, in a Reformed Parliament, to affect the stability of any Administration. The former degraded Parliaments were more the Privy Council of the Minister than the Representatives of the people, and, of course, when they differed from him on any question, he had only to resign; but at present the Ministers came down and told them what sum was wanted, and how they proposed to raise it. Parliament, if it truly represented the people, might fairly say to Ministers, and Ministers would be bound to listen to them, "we do not wish to be taxed in the particular way you propose, but would prefer another way." For his own part, he should be ashamed of himself, if being ready to vote for the Repeal of the Malt-tax, and of the House and Window-tax, he were not also ready to vote a substitute for those taxes. He could not agree with the hon. member for Middlesex, that any screwing

731
and saving could make up six or seven millions deficiency. The utmost that could be saved from the expenditure was two or three millions. He was, therefore, for one, prepared to agree to a Property Tax. So far from thinking that this would be a grievance to the landed interest, he was certain that it would, from the general prosperity that would be diffused throughout the country, be the greatest boon that could be granted it. He rose, however, chiefly to express his regret that the Minister of the Crown intended to come down to propose the rescinding of a vote of that House. It could not be said, that due notice had not been given of the motion for the reduction of the Malt-tax, for, in addition to the notice of the hon. Baronet, the member for Lincolnshire, his hon. friend the member for Surrey had a notice upon the paper, for the same purpose, and therefore Ministers could not say, that they had been taken by surprise, or unprepared. He did not think that the course of proceeding which it was intended to recommend to Parliament in this instance was one that the House ought to adopt. If they did adopt such a course, and if they rescinded their vote, the repeal of the House and Window-tax could not take place, and thus the old system would still go on. Now, he was persuaded that the House, under such circumstances would quickly find that that system would never do; indeed, he was convinced that they must, sooner or later, come to a complete revision of the financial system of the country. They must come to a Property-tax; nothing else would satisfy the people of this country, and nothing else was calculated to place the country once more in a prosperous condition.
Mr. Robinsonsaid, that he had no desire to place the noble Lord in a dilemma and contradiction, but it appeared to him to be of some importance to consider how the noble Lord stood with the House, and it was a matter of great importance that it should be generally understood what the noble Lord did say at the close of Friday night. He would state the impression which was then made upon him by what the noble Lord said, and he had paid great attention to what had fallen from the noble Lord. He believed that the noble Lord's words were these—that though the majority was small, yet that he felt certainly bound to acquiesce in the passing of the
732
Resolution, or that he should not oppose it [Cries of "No, no."] He might have been—he no doubt was—mistaken, but certainly, agreeably to what had been said by the noble Marquess, the member for Buckinghamshire, he understood the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer to express his decided intention to acquiesce in the vote of the House. He would ask the House in what situation they were likely to be placed to-morrow when the noble Lord came down and proposed his Resolution to them? He did not complain of that Resolution; he thought that it was putting the question upon the right issue. He agreed with the hon. member for Lambeth that it was very improper for hon. Members to call for great reductions of taxation—reductions that could not possibly be met by corresponding reductions in the public expenditure without supplying the means from some other source. He was glad that Ministers had taken a decided course on this occasion. It was right that the country should see what were the intentions of those Gentlemen who would vote for the reduction of one-half of the Malt-duty, and would afford the Government no means of getting out of the dilemma into which they were thus thrown: it was right that the country should understand what the House was about, and he thought that the vote of tomorrow night would go far to clear up that point. He would wish both the Government and the House to consider the situation in which they would be placed if, by any means whatever, the Resolution proposed by the noble Lord should be carried. Would it not then be said, and justly said, that a House of Commons, consisting of 300 and odd Members, came to a deliberate vote, upon due notice, for reducing a portion of the burthens of the people, and that that vote was considered a proper subject for revision? He had never been in the habit of using language in that House calculated to produce an unfavourable impression of it in the country, and he should not commence that career now, but he could not avoid stating what would be the necessary and inevitable consequences of the revision of this vote. The people would see that the House of Commons, consisting very often of not more than thirty or forty members, had passed Estimates for imposing burthens upon them to a large amount, and that in no single instance had such votes been

733
Subjected to a revision, whereas that when a House of 300 and odd Members decided upon reducing their burthens, that vote was subjected to revision, and actually to be rescinded, if the noble Lord's Resolution should be carried, no measure that he knew of would provoke so much discussion, and when so much obloquy had been already excited, let them not, he would entreat them, add to it by doing that the effect of which would be to bring the House of Commons into disrepute with the people. In conclusion, he would invoke the House to pause well before it came to consider that discussion of which the noble Lord had given notice for tomorrow, to consider well what would be the necessary and inevitable consequence of overturning the vote of Friday night.
Sir John Wrottesleysaid, that he felt it necessary, in consequence of what had fallen from the two hon. Members who had just spoken, to address a few words to the House. He considered that his noble friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had explained precisely the terms which he had used on Friday night. He (Sir John Wrottesley) was just behind his noble friend at the time, and he understood him exactly in the way in which he had now stated his meaning to the House. He was sure that the mistake must have arisen in consequence of a misapprehension by hon. Gentlemen of the mode in which the question was put in that House—a mode which was certainly ambiguous, and liable to misapprehension. The first question put on the occasion referred to was, "that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question." Upon that question the division took place; but after it was carried in the negative, then came the main question—"that the words 'it is the opinion of this House that the duty on malt be reduced to 10 s. the quarter' be thereto added." That was a separate and distinct question, upon which his noble friend could again have divided the House. It was then that his noble friend addressed the House, and he understood him to say that after the division, he would not take advantage of any Gentleman coming into the House to oppose it again. His own attention was first called to the misapprehension as to what had fallen from his noble friend by seeing it erroneously stated the next morning in the usual channels of public information. He was not prepared to slate what would be the
734
course which he would follow when the Motion was brought forward tomorrow; no doubt every hon. Member would deeply and seriously consider the subject. Without, however, stating what were his opinions on the subject to which that Motion referred, he must protest against the principle that because 162 Members of that House had given an opinion upon a certain subject, therefore, that the remainder of the 658 Members had no right to give an opinion upon it. There were several different stages through which the Resolution in question would have to pass before it could be laid on the Table of the House in the shape of a Bill, and before it arrived at that stage, the House would have several distinct opportunities of deciding and dividing upon it.
Mr. Matthias Attwoodhad understood the noble Lord precisely as the noble Marquess the member for Buckinghamshire. He had listened attentively to the noble Lord, and, after the vote was decided, the words which fell upon his ear from the lips of the noble Lord were these; "That the vote had placed the Government in a state of considerable embarrassment; but, after the vote to which the House had come, he could not think of offering any opposition to the carrying of it into effect."["No, no."] He was ready to accept the explanation of the noble Lord, but those were the words, as he recollected them. He would make but one other observation, which was, that he trusted the Ministry would well consider the consequences of the proceeding of which they had given notice. Other Motions for rescinding the decisions of the House would be made. He, for one, was disposed, if such a principle was adopted, to move that the Resolutions come to upon his Motion a few evenings ago be rescinded, and he called upon the Government to pause before they opened so wide a door. He did not agree with the hon. member for Lambeth, that former Houses of Commons had been degraded, but what, he would ask, would be thought of the dignity and character of the present House if it should rescind its solemn decision at the command of the Minister? He was quite satisfied that the proceeding, if adopted, would lead to great changes in the proceedings of the House, and he dreaded the manner in which it was likely to be received by the country at large. He dreaded the operation of such conduct

735
with regard to the reduction of a tax. He again called on the noble Lord to consider well the consequences to which his Motion, if adopted, would lead.
Mr. Benettconfirmed, from his own recollection, the explanation already made by Lord Althorp of the meaning and terms of his statement on Friday night.
Mr. Hall Daresaid, he had not had the good fortune to be present on Friday night, but he concurred with the hon. member for Wolverhampton, that after the decision on that night, notwithstanding the explanation of the noble Lord as to his meaning on that particular question, it would be a bad precedent if an attempt were made to rescind a vote to which the House had deliberately come. The noble Lord had called upon the House to look with their eyes open on the alternative he would present them. As an independent Member of the House, he was prepared to look at the subject with his eyes open. He was prepared to vote for a property tax, and to consider the existing taxation of the country, for he believed that a Property tax was the most equitable tax, it being but just that those who had property to protect should contribute principally to the exigences of the State. He agreed with the hon. member for Lambeth that the reduction of the Malt-tax would place Ministers under the necessity of providing some other tax in its stead. It was necessary that the revenue should be maintained, that faith should be kept with the public creditor, and that the establishments of the country should also be maintained. Looking, however, at our foreign policy, at the state of our foreign relations, at the state of the East of Europe, at our West India Colonies, and at the unfortunate state of Ireland—looking at all these interests, he thought the noble Lord could not dispense with the present amount of revenue. He was perfectly ready to vote for a Property-tax as a substitute for the Malt-tax. As to the Malt-tax, he should, if he had been present on Friday evening, have voted for the Motion of the hon. Baronet; but he should have done so with regret, as he only considered it a half measure. He, for one, was ready to reduce the whole of the Malt-tax, and substitute a Property-tax in its stead. He agreed with the hon. member for Oldham in the opinion, that if they reduced the tax 10 s. the quarter, the reduction in price would only be from 60 s. to 50 s.; whereas if
736
they took off the whole of the duty, it would be reduced in price to 20 s. He, for one, should be perfectly prepared to vote for the alternative suggested by the noble Lord.
Mr. Baring, as far as he was concerned, would not give encouragement to further discussion on the Malt-tax; but having been one of those who thought it fit to vote in favour of the reduction of the Malt-duty, he thought it proper to say, that the declaration of the noble Lord, as it struck him, might have been taken by hon. Gentlemen either to mean one thing or the other. He meant in what he said, and which had excited such merriment, that the noble Lord, when he declared he should abide by the resolution, meant that he either would not negative it on the question being a second time put from the Chair, or that Government would abide by it. The declaration might, without stretch, have been interpreted either way, but no Gentleman could suppose that the noble Lord meant, without consultation with his colleagues, to bind Government as to the course they would take on so important a question. The noble Lord had given his notice for to-morrow, and what the noble Lord proposed was, "would they have the repeal of the Malt-tax, and the House and Window tax, and were they prepared to take, in substitution of them, a tax on property and income"—not a tax on property alone, or income alone, but a tax on property and income? Undoubtedly that was a question most important for the country to consider, and if he had any objection to it, it was the short notice that had been given of it. He was perfectly aware that the case might be considered one of pressure, and especially as the worthy Alderman's Motion stood for to-morrow. But the question had never been fairly put to the House, and, with most unfeigned sincerity he would say, that he could not see how it could properly be discussed at so short a warning. With great reluctance should he be brought within twenty-four hours' notice, to determine a question of such conclusive importance to the future happiness and prosperity of the country. It would be most necessary to consult the opinions of their constituents and the country upon it. He was bound to say he never saw much wisdom in a commutation of taxes. He always thought that such propositions were altogether visionary, and replete with danger, mischief, and loss,

737
especially where there were great, multifarious, and complicated interests to be taken into consideration, as was the case in this country. He complained, then, that within twenty-tour hours' notice, the House was to be brought to a division on this most important subject. In fact, bethought that the reduction of the Malt-tax, for which he voted on Friday, might have been afforded without bringing on the necessity of entertaining the question of a commutation of taxes; but even allowing that it were put to him distinctly, would he have the Malt-duty reduced and the Property-tax imposed, or the malt duty be left alone, he should certainly say, leave the Malt-duty alone, and spare him the infliction of a Property-tax.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, he should follow the example of his hon. friend, and postpone giving any detailed opinion upon the great question which was to come on for discussion tomorrow night till the proper time arrived. He would observe, however, with respect to the event which had brought on the present discussion, that if he had been present on Friday night, which accident alone prevented him from being, he should have given his most decided opposition to the proposition for reducing the Malt-tax. He should have done so, not because he did not entertain a sincere desire to see that tax abated, if possible, but because he should have looked forward to the consequences of a partial abatement of that tax, and to its bearing on the question of the Corn-laws, and upon the question of the substitution of a Property-tax, which latter measure would consitute of itself a complete revolution in the financial system of the country. He, for one, would not consent to inflict an injury upon the public creditor by voting for the repeal of any one tax until he felt assured of obtaining a substitute for it. With regard to the success of establishing a Property and Income-tax in substitution of other taxes, he entertained very serious doubts. He did not mean to say, that virtually to rescind in one night a vote to which the House had come on another was a course free from evil, but he thought that a far greater evil would result from the maintenance of the doctrine that questions of such immense importance should be finally determined by a House consisting of only half the number of the whole House. He knew not for what all the regulations for the conduct
738
of business in the House were established, with regard to the different stages which a measure must pass through, if they were not meant to guard against the House being taken by surprise. In the present case, however, he was bound to say there had been no surprise; he was of opinion, on the contrary, that hon. Members ought to have been present in the discharge of their duty. But then the regulations of the House to which he had alluded were intended, not only to guard against surprise, but also against sudden impulses, under which head he must include the decision which had formed the subject of the present discussion. The course he meant to adopt with respect to the question of the imposition of a Property-tax might probably be inferred from the opinions he had already expressed, but feeling that question to be one of immense importance, and one involving considerations of great magnitude, he should abstain until it was fairly before the House from entering into a discussion upon its merits.
Lord Althorpsaid, that an hon. friend of his had objected to the shortness of the notice he had given for the Motion he intended to submit to the House; but if his hon. friend considered the situation in which the affairs of the country would be placed while the decision of such a question stood over, he was sure he would not think the notice too short. In the Resolution which he had read to the House he had distinctly stated that the imposition of a Property-tax would be at present inexpedient.
Lord Sandonassured the noble Lord that if he had stated the considerations on Friday last which he had that night submitted to the House, a different conclusion would, no doubt, have been come to. He would take that opportunity, as a sincere friend of the present Government and an advocate for their remaining in office, of entreating them to come forward more frequently and state more at large their views on great public questions, especially as there were so many new Members in the House, who, of course, were not very well acquainted with the bearing of such questions as older Members.
Lord Ebringtonsaid, that the hon. Gentleman opposite could not have heard the speech of his noble friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the occasion to which he had alluded, or he would have found that his noble friend distinctly said

739
that the imposition of a Property-tax was inexpedient. Although he so understood his noble friend, he yet wished that his noble friend had expressed himself with more clearness on the subject. He did not think, however, his expressions had been so ambiguous as to bear the construction which had been put upon them.
On the Question that the Speaker leave the Chair—

THE GLASGOW LOTTERY.
Sir Robert Ingliswished to call the attention of the House to a most objectionable system of raising money which had recently been practised, and to which that House had been a party. He alluded to the Glasgow Lottery. A Bill for effecting certain improvements in Glasgow had passed that House during the last Session as a private Bill, but he believed that it was unknown to either the Government or any hon. Gentlemen present, except those intrusted with the conduct of the measure, that its object was by establishing a lottery to raise funds. This, however, turned out to be the fact, and he therefore, wished to suggest to the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether they ought not to adopt some means of preventing private bills from passing without the House being apprised of their object.
Lord Althorpreplied, that his Majesty's Government had not the least idea that a Bill authorizing the establishment of a lottery had passed the Houses of Parliament, until he was apprised of the existence of the lottery itself. His attention was then drawn to the subject, and, on looking at the Act he found that no allusion was made to the lottery in its title, and that the word "lottery" itself never once occurred throughout the Act. It was, to say the truth, most skilfully drawn up, and the parties who had concocted it had fully succeeded in keeping the House and the Government entirely ignorant of the real nature of the Bill. He could only say, that as far as the Government was concerned, no countenance nor assistance had been given to the act in question.
Sir Robert Peel: If the lottery is not yet drawn the Bill may be repealed. ["It is drawn."] Well, then, all I can say is that those who were parties to the transaction ought to be subjected to public punishment.
The House resolved itself into a Committee of—

SUPPLY—ORDNANCE ESTIMATES.
Colonel Maberlyrose to propose the Ordnance Estimates, which he said were similar to those which had been proposed on previous occasions; but he trusted, that he should satisfy the House, that every endeavour had been made to reduce the expense as far as was practicable. Indeed, he might say that a most material diminution of the expense of these Estimates had been effected since the last year's accounts. The gallant Member then entered into a comparative statement of the amount of the expenditure in preceding years, as contrasted with that of 1833and 1834. It appeared that in 1729 the Estiraatesamountedtol,500,000 l.;in 1830 to 1,800,700 l.; in 1831, to 1,714,000 l,; in 1832, to 1,692,000 l.; and in 1833 and 1834, to 1,597,000 l., which, with the supplemental Estimates, made a sum of 1,604,000 l. Upon the whole there would be a saving of 88,000 l., which saving would, however, be diminished by the supplemental vote for this year of 38,000 l. The gallant Member concluded by stating that he had effected as great a reduction in the expense of the estimates as he was able consistently with the interest of the public and the efficiency of the service, and moving the first Resolution, "That a sum not exceeding 71,996 l. be granted for the civil establishments of the Tower, Pall-mall and Dublin."
Mr. Humesaid, that he was sorry to observe the inattention with which the statement of the gallant Member had been received—a statement referring to a subject of such immense importance. He could not compliment the gallant Member on the point on which he seemed to pique himself—namely, introducing the Estimates in the plan adopted by all his predecessors. In his opinion, the House ought to come to the determination of suiting the expenditure to the income, and not regulate the income to the expenditure. Unless this determination were come to by the House, he must say they would not be doing justice to the country, and he was sorry to see that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had not yet taken the hint. He disliked the whole system on which the Ordnance was conducted, nor did he think that any serious discussion upon the Estimates would be productive of a beneficial result. They had voted the amount of the army, and a proportional amount of artillery must

741
follow as a matter of course; he hardly knew, therefore, how he should deal with those Estimates. The gallant Member had contrasted them with the Estimates of 1792. Different from those they were indeed. Why, the average expenditure for Ordnance Estimates, including sea service and Ordnance extraordinary, was but 49,642 l. in the years 1790, 1791, and 1792. In order to lessen the too great expenditure for these Estimates, he would propose to reduce the post of the Master-General of the Ordnance, and would, as a further measure of improvement, suggest that the Engineer corps should be placed under the immediate control of the Commander-in-chief This was the course pursued with respect to that corps in other countries, and why not in this? England was the only country in which the artillery was so separated from the superintendence of the Commander-in-chief as to be almost unknown to him. In the English army there were besides fewer engineers and artillerymen, who were intrusted with the care of any situation of importance, than in any other army in the world. Why was that? In the French army especially, the engineers and artillerymen were intrusted with very important duties. He wished to simplify the system adopted in England, by establishing a store branch connected with the Ordnance. If the artillery and engineers were placed under the control of the Commander-in-chief, us he suggested, there would remain only a simple store account under the supervision of the Ordnance department, and this branch of the service might then be conducted for one-tenth of the expense which it cost at present.
Mr. Briscoerose to order, and expressed his regret, that whilst the Estimates were under consideration, and the amount of the expenditure of the country about to be fixed, a constant noise should be kept up in the House. It was the duty of hon. Members to watch the Estimates closely, with the view of seeing whether any reduction could be effected in their amount, for the reduction of the Estimates was one mode by which they might hope to lessen the taxation of the country. It would be only decorous to pay some degree of attention to the business before the Committee.
Mr. Humesaid, he believed he was only losing time in addressing the Committee.
742
He could not hope by any exertion of his to effect such a reduction in the present Estimates as would enable the Government to remit taxation to any considerable amount. He wished the noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer had that day followed the example which was set by the Ministers in 1816, by coming down to the House and withdrawing the whole of the Estimates, with the view of substituting for them a set considerably reduced in amount. The noble Lord himself was one of those who in 1816 joined in a vote which compelled the then Ministers to withdraw their Estimates and substitute others of a reduced amount, although they had previously declared, like the present Ministers, that they were reduced to the lowest possible scale. He wished before he sat down to ask whether the Ordnance establishments in Pall-mall, and at the Tower had been consolidated?
Lord Althorpsaid, that if he had considered the Estimates which had been submitted to the House were greater than the service of the State required, he would have followed the precedent to which the hon. member for Middlesex had alluded, but by so doing he should be admitting that he had consented to the introduction of estimates which were larger than the exigencies of the case required. He was still of opinion that the public service required the establishments which he had proposed, and that being his opinion, he should not feel himself justified in acting upon the suggestion of the hon. Member. In answer to the question of the hon. Member, he begged leave to state that the establishments in Pall-mall, and at the Tower, had not been consolidated, because different classes of services were brought under supervision of those establishments, the commingling of which would be injurious to the public interests.
Vote agreed to.
On the Question that 277,156 l. for the charge of the royal regiment of artillery be granted,
Mr. Humesaid, that this service was kept up on the highest war scale, and that half the number of men would in these times of peace, answer all the purposes for which an artillery was required. He would therefore move as an amendment, and that the number of men should be reduced from 6,000 to 4,000 or as a

743
money vote, that the estimate should be reduced to 184,771 l.
Colonel Maberlymaintained, that the present amount of men was hardly adequate to the wants of the service. The Master-General had five demands from the colonies for artillerymen; but owing to the paucity of men, was only able to comply with two of them.
Mr. Humesaid, that his reduced vote would be 1,000 men more than was found wanting in 1792.
The Committee divided on Mr. Hume's Amendment;—Ayes 31: Noes 140: Majority 109.
The Vote agreed to.

List of the AYES.

ENGLAND.

Torrens, Colonel

Aglionby, H. A.

Turner, W.

Attwood, M.

Wason, R.

Beauclerk, Major A.

Whalley, Sir S.

Clay, W.

Williams, Colonel

Faithful, G.

Fielden, J.

IRELAND.

Godson, R.

Bellew, R. M.

Humphery, J.

Finn, W. F.

Lloyd, J. H.

Fitzgerald, T.

Marsland, T.

Lalor, P.

Morrison, J.

O'Brien, B.

Palmer, General

O'Dwyer, A. C.

Parrot, J.

Ruthven, E.

Phillips, M.

Ruthven, E. S.

Potter, R.

Vigors, N. A.

Stavely, J. K.

TELLERS.

Thicknesse, R.

Hume, J.

On the Question that 25,587 l. be granted to defray the expense of superintendence of the building and repair of barracks in Great Britain, Ireland, and the colonies, being put,
Mr. Humesaid, that he objected to the amount of the vote, but from the result of the late division, he concluded it would be useless to offer any opposition to the grant. He thought that as the House seemed determined not to support any proposition for reduction, the sooner it closed its doors the better.
The vote was then agreed to; as were several other votes after a short conversation.
On the Question being proposed, that 2,179 l. be granted for Exchequer fees,
Mr. Humesaid, he would take the sense of the House on the vote. For the last nine years promises had been made by successive Chancellors of the Exchequer that this system of fees should be abolished; and yet it continued to the
744
present moment. He was determined now to bring the question to the test of a division.
Lord Althorphoped that the House would not object to this vote for the present year, when he stated that a measure was in preparation which would abolish all those fees.
Mr. Humesaid, that if he was to believe all that he was told, a measure had been in preparation for the last nine years. Would the noble Lord fix a day for the introduction of the measure he spoke of? The system of paying fees to public officers on the payment or receipt of public money was most abominable, and ought to be put an end to.
Lord Althorpsaid, the measure he alluded to had not been in preparation for nine years, though he admitted that it had been some time under consideration. It was not, however, surprising that a measure, the purpose of which was to effect a general arrangement with regard to the Exchequer, should take a long time in the preparation; but he could inform the hon. member for Middlesex that the Bill was now in a state of great forwardness.
Mr. Humeasked whether he was to understand that the noble Lord was pledged to bring his Bill in, and pass it during the present Session?
Lord Althorppledged himself to bring it in, but he could not pledge himself to pass it.
Vote agreed to.

GRANT TO MR. MARSHALL.
On the Question that the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again,
Mr. Humesaid, that he wished to call the attention of the House to a matter of much public importance, of which he had previously given notice. To those who had been as long in that House as he had been, and who had laboured as sedulously in the public service, it would not be necessary for him to address many observations to prove the difficulty which attended all investigations connected with matters of finance, and how much the public in general, and the Members of that House in particular, must feel themselves indebted to any person undertaking any work calculated to facilitate those investigations. The House would recollect that a Committee had some time ago been appointed, and had made a report upon

745
the subject of public documents. In the course of their investigation they found considerable difficulty in collecting information respecting the past income of the country, the increase and decrease of trade, and many other matters connected with the financial and commercial state of the kingdom. A gentleman of the name of Marshall was called before the Committee, it being well known that he had employed himself for the last twelve years in collecting and classifying a variety of public accounts, and at the close of his examination he laid before the Committee a collection of papers containing a complete view of the expenditure and revenue of the kingdom, and forming a series of statistical accounts of the most valuable nature. Indeed, there was scarcely a subject connected with finance or commerce respecting which information might not be gained by reference to Mr. Marshall's book, and he had no doubt that his work would save the country large sums of money, which were now expended annually in printing returns and public accounts for the use of the Members of that House. So convinced was he of the value of Mr. Marshall's work, both as respected the information it would afford and the expense it would save the country, that he some time ago represented to his Majesty's Ministers the propriety of giving that gentleman 500 l. to enable him to complete his book. Nor was he singular in his opinion of the merit of Mr. Marshall's book, for the member for Harwich, formerly Chancellor of the Exchequer, had said, that he considered that 10,000 guineas would not pay the actual labour of the work, and no price could remunerate the talent displayed in the arrangement and classification of the materials. The Committee also considered the work to be one of great utility, and in order to encourage Mr. Marshall to persevere in his labours, they came to the resolution of recommending the House to purchase 1,250 copies of the book for the use of the Members. He considered a work of that kind as nothing less than a great national undertaking, and he could inform the House that works of a similar kind were looked upon as great national undertakings, both in the United States and amongst the most civilized and advanced countries of Europe. His Majesty's Government had thought so favourably of the work, that they had
746
gone as far as perhaps an Executive Government ought, in awarding to Mr. Marshall a sum of 500 l.; but he had no difficulty in saying that fifty times that sum would scarcely represent the value such a compilation would be likely to prove to the community; and he felt quite assured, that if hon. Members would only take the trouble to refer to the book itself they would be at once sensible of its importance. He was aware that a new department was about to be established for statistical purposes; of that department he highly approved; and he hoped that it would be carried to a much greater extent than had been originally proposed; but whether it was or not formed was a question which had no bearing upon the present discussion. It was of the utmost importance that the Members of that House and the constituency at large should be made acquainted with the actual expense of every portion of the public service and of every island, and every colony connected with Great Britain. He should conclude by moving, that the Committee agree in the recommendation of the Committee on Public Documents, that 1,250 copies of Mr. Marshall's digest of information, derived from parliamentary documents since the year 1798, be purchased for the use of the Members of the House and that a sum not exceeding 2,625 l. be granted for the purchase of the said copies.
Lord Althorpsaid, he was inclined to leave the vote to the general feeling of the House whether the proposed grant of money was, under the circumstances of the case, justifiable. He did not mean to deny that great ability and industry had been displayed by Mr. Marshall in the compilation of the materials of his work; but it should be borne in mind that that gentleman had already received a grant of 500 l., and that great difference of opinion existed as to the propriety of that grant at the time it was proposed. He had been ready to make the first advance of 500 l. upon his own responsibility, and that circumstance must be a sufficient proof of his sense of the utility of the work. He would leave it to the House to decide whether it would sanction a second grant of a similar kind.
Mr. Methuenwas hostile to this grant. He was surprised that the hon. member for Middlesex, who had so often depicted the distress of the country in the most

747
lamentable colours, should now come forward with a proposal to throw away 2,600 l. of the public money, by giving it to an individual of whom the House knew nothing save from the ipse dixit of the hon. Member himself. Such inconsistency was, to say the least of it, surprising. In the present condition of the country he never would consent to vote away such a sum for such a purpose, and if he divided against the grant alone, he certainly would press it to a division.
Mr. George F. Youngsaid, that the excellence of this work should not rest any longer upon the unsupported ipse dixit of the hon. member for Middlesex. He could not say that he had perused this work of Mr. Marshall,—that was almost beyond any man's power,—but he had devoted many hours to an examination of it, and he could say, that he had never met in so brief a space so large a quantity of political information so lucidly and methodically arranged. It was a work that to Members of Parliament must be invaluable. Indeed, the labour of collecting the information contained in it would be inconsistent with the ordinary avocations of any Gentleman. He had purchased this work for himself, so fully was he convinced of its excellence. He cordially concurred with the proposition of the hon. member for Middlesex.
Mr. Warburtonwas proud to add his testimony in favour of this work to the testimony which had been already given by his two hon. friends, the members for Middlesex and Tynemouth.
An Hon. Memberdid not mean to disparage the merits of Mr. Marshall's work, but he could not agree with the hon. Gentleman who had preceded him, that hon. Members, instead of putting their own hands into their own pockets for the price of this volume, should seek to make the country pay the price of it for them. The notoriety which the work would get from the publication of this debate would be worth more to the compiler than the whole sum which the hon. member for Middlesex now proposed to give him. He should undoubtedly oppose the grant.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that there was in favour of this grant the singular circumstance that it was recommended by his hon. friend the member for Middlesex, the great champion of economy upon all occasions. It was also recommended by the
748
Committee upon Public Documents, and he understood that, useful as the work was, it could never be completed unless this sum was granted. He was convinced, from what he had seen and heard of this work, that for the charge of 2,600 l. the public would get in return sufficient value.
An Hon. Membersaid that this volume was but a pocket edition of the library of the House; and yet hon. Gentlemen seemed inclined to impose upon the public a charge of 2,600 l. to save themselves the trouble of consulting the documents which every man might easily find in the library. He was anxious to possess a book which had been so well spoken of, but he saw no reason why he should put his hand into the pocket of the public, instead of putting it into his own pocket to obtain a copy of it.
Mr. Matthias Attwoodin supporting the grant, eulogized the fitness of Mr. Marshall for the important work which he had undertaken, and all but completed. That work had been of inestimable use to the hon. member for Middlesex, who had found his labours greatly facilitated by referring to the well-digested accounts contained in its pages.
Lord John Russellsaid, that he felt it his duty, as Chairman of the Committee on Public Documents, to state the grounds upon which that Committee had come to their recommendation. He certainly differed from the Committee as to the propriety of such a recommendation; for he preferred giving a certain sum of money to Mr. Marshall for the completion of this work, to giving him 2,600 l. for 1,200 copies of it. 2,600 l. was a large sum to be granted away for such a purpose; but hon. Gentlemen were not, perhaps, aware of the large sums which were annually paid in making out the returns moved for by hon. Members. Some of those returns had cost 2,000 l. each, and others had reached as high as 4,000 l. He should not have made this proposition himself, but as it was made, and as it had met the support of the Committee, he would give up his objections and vote for it.
Mr. Slaneyconsidered that the important nature of this work rendered it true economy to make this grant.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, that as he had opposed the Resolution in the Committee, he would slate the grounds upon

749
which he opposed it now, as he had opposed it formerly. He considered the work to be extremely valuable, and if he looked only to its merits, he should not be averse to the grant. He objected to it, however, upon two grounds—first, on account of the principle which it involved, and, secondly, on account of the mode in which it was proposed to make it. Mr. Marshall had commenced this work proprio motu: statistical works seldom repaid their compilers for the labour bestowed upon them. Would the House, therefore, sanction the principle, as they would do by sanctioning this grant, that a gentleman who had undertaken such a work should come down to the House and say, "I have lost by the printing of my work; it relates to public events and public documents; it contains public information, and therefore to you. Gentlemen of the House of Commons, look for remuneration?" If the House adopted this principle on this occasion, it must be prepared to sit in judgment upon similar applications from the authors of every work of this kind which did not meet with public encouragement. Now as to the mode of making the grant. After the valuable testimony which several hon. Gentlemen whose words were authority had borne to the excellence of this work, he had no doubt that, if the public did not give it encouragement, there would be Members of Parliament enough ready to give it encouragement by paying out of their own pockets two guineas for it. He therefore trusted that this call upon the House to pay 2,600 l. for putting a copy of this work into the bookcase of each Member of Parliament at the public expense, was a proposition to which the House would not give its consent without due consideration.
Mr. Wynnwas inclined to support the grant. He had expected to have heard a more decided opinion given upon it than that which had been given by the noble Lord opposite, upon whom, in his character of Chancellor of the Exchequer, he looked as the guardian of the public purse. He had not seen the work of Mr. Marshall before that evening, but from what he had seen of it, he should say, that it was a work of first-rate utility, which loudly called for public encouragement. The right hon. Gentleman opposite seemed to imagine that, because it was worthy of public encouragement, it would therefore meet it;
750
but no supposition could be more erroneous. He could mention many works of undoubted merit which had failed to obtain the patronage of the public. Among works of that description was a work of the highest authority regarding the forms and proceedings of that House; hon. Gentlemen must be aware that he was alluding to Hatsell's Precedents. That work had never paid the expense of paper and printing, and he knew that Mr. Hatsell had been a considerable loser by its publication. From the responsible and dignified situation which he had so long held in that House, Mr. Hatsell determined to make a present of it to the public, for he never expected to be remunerated by its sale for the expense and labour which he had bestowed upon it.
Lord Sandonsaid, that before the Committee proceeded to a division he should propose that 500 l. or 1,000 l. should be given to Mr. Marshall for the completion of his work, instead of 2,600 l. for 1,200 copies for the use of Members of that House. If the original Motion were carried, the 658 Members of the present House of Commons would each be entitled to a copy of the work. Now, to ail of that number, except perhaps a hundred, the book would be mere waste paper, and they would take an early opportunity of exchanging it with their booksellers for some works more to their taste and edification. The Members of the next House of Commons would also be in want of their copies. Some of them would obtain copies—others would not. The House of Commons after the next would be loft entirely without copies of this important work. The Motion was therefore faulty, as it provided for the giving away a work of permanent importance to a body that was transient and changeable in its nature. He concluded by moving as an Amendment that a sum not exceeding 1,000 l. should be granted to Mr. Marshall for the completion of his digest of the public accounts.
The Committee divided on Lord San-don's Amendment—Ayes 75; Noes 117; Majority 42.
The Committee divided again on the Question that the sum of 1,500 l. be granted to Mr. Marshall—Ayes 78; Noes 116: Majority 38.
The Committee divided on the orginal Motion—Ayes 106: Noes 88: Majority 18, House resumed.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By the Earl of SHAFTESBURY, from Worcester; and the Earl of MORLEY, from Plymouth,—for the Repeal of the Assessed Taxes.—By the Duke of GRAFTON, from Suffolk, for an Alteration in the Sale of Beer Act.—By Lord LYNDHURST, from Beverley, against a Clause in the Local Jurisdiction Bill.—By the Bishops of HEREFORD, and Exeter, the Duke of CLEVELAND, the Marquess of STAFFORD, the Earls of CADOGAN, FITZWILLIAM, and RADNOR, and Lords SUFFIELD, POLTIMORE, and WESTERN, from a very great Number of Places,—against Slavery.—By the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, the Marquess of STAFFORD, and the Earls of ROSSLYN, RODEN, and RADNOR, from a Number of Places,—for a Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By the Marquess of STAFFORD, from Edderton, for an Alteration in the existing System of Church Patronage in Scotland.—By the Earl of ABERDEEN, from the Royal College of Physicians (Edinburgh), for an Alteration in the Apothecaries Act.—By the Earl of RADNOK, from Northiam, Sussex, for a Commutation of Tithes.—By a NOBLE LORD, from Belfast, for Poor Laws to Ireland.—By the Earl of HODEN, from a parish in Cork, against the proposed Measure of Church Reform (Ireland).—By Lord WESTERN, from the Eastern Division of the County of Kent, for the Repeal of the Malt Duty.

TITHES (ENGLAND).
LORD Suffieldpresented a petition from Uttoxeter, praying for an alteration in the Tithe System, The petitioners complained grievously that tithes were levied in the most inconvenient possible manner, and that these funds, which were originally destined to promote the moral and religious instruction of the parishioners, were entirely perverted from such objects. The inhabitants of Uttoxeter amounted to 5,000, and the tithes were worth 1,300 l, a-year. The impropriators, the Dean and Chapter of Windsor, let them out to a Mr. Charles

719
Tyrrell, of Suffolk, who sublet them to various individuals, who made all they could of them by exacting every farthing possible on every improvement made in the lands, a system which either took from the enterprising tenant the reward of his industry, or checked industry altogether. The Dean and Chapter of Windsor had a vicar at the stipend of 20 l. per annum, to which must be added the small tithes, most troublesome and vexatious in their collection, making about 150 l. more. The vicar hired a curate at the rate of 50 l. a-year, and the petitioners complained that these clergymen, notwithstanding the large sum paid as tithes, were destitute of the means of administering consolation to the poor, and of performing their duties properly. The petitioners earnestly prayed that these, and all such grievances throughout the kingdom, might be done away with.
The Earl of Eldondeprecated the system which appeared to have been entered into of making this sort of petitions a peg whereon to hang attacks on the clergy; the persons petitioned against most generally knew nothing about the intended attack, and were therefore unable to forward any refutations of them. Such petitions, however, would have not the slightest operation in altering his fixed determination to support the Established Church. There was a measure to be brought forward with reference to Church Reform, and he hoped that the debate on the subject would not be forestalled by the renewal of any such assertions as these. Besides, particular instances of individual conduct constituted no general rule by which their Lordships could form their judgment.
Lord Suffieldprotested against the noble Earl's interpretation of what he had done; he had merely read the statement of certain petitioners; and however unimportant the petitions and complaints of the people might appear to the noble Earl, he should never hesitate in bringing them before the House. He denied having brought this petition forward by surprise; he had given full intimation of it to the parties concerned, and had given notice to their Lordships of his intention.
The Bishop of Bristolsaid, that the noble Earl (Suffield) had certainly given him information that he intended to present the petition. He had accordingly sent to the Dean and Chapter of Windsor, one of
720
the leading members of which returned an answer which clearly showed that the ex-parte statement of the petitioners was greatly exaggerated; indeed, the whole was a misrepresentation. So far from having the large income stated in the petition, the whole amount obtained by the Dean and Chapter was 27 l. a-year; and they had, out of this insignificant sum, paid 200 l. towards rebuilding the church, and several other sums, towards charities, &c. As to the pay of the ministers, it did not wholly depend upon the holders of large tithes, nor had the diocesan any power to augment the stipend. It was, however, in contemplation to augment the benefice, but this could not be done before the renewal of the lease.
The Earl of Radnorsaid, the noble and learned Lord (the Earl of Eldon) seemed to fall into the offence of prediscussion much more than the noble Lord whom he objurgated. As to the petitioners, he thought they ought to be pretty well acquainted with the extent of what they paid.
Petition laid on the Table.

JURIES (IRELAND).
On the Motion of Viscount Melbourne, the Order of the Day was read for the resuming of the debate on the third reading of this Bill. The noble Viscount and the Duke of Wellington each proposed several verbal Amendments, all of which were agreed to without discussion.
Bill read a third time.
On the Motion that it do pass.
The Earl of Longfordsaid, at that late period, he would not go into any discussion on the measure before their Lordships, which he considered singularly ill-timed. He could not understand how that measure could be reconciled with the coercive measure which the Ministers thought necessary for Ireland. It was very strange that such a measure as the present should be brought forward at a time when it was acknowledged that justice could not be administered in the ordinary way in Ireland. The body of Jurymen in that country consisted of two classes—those who were willing to act uprightly, and those who were devoted to the interests of others. The present Bill favoured the introduction of the latter class into the Jury box. He thought that the Bill was not wanted, and that, at all events, it should be postponed until it had a fair opportunity of being reconsidered.
Lord Carberyagreed with the opinion of his noble friend who had last spoken, and said, that a large body of the most eminent persons at the Irish bar were opposed to the present measure.
The Marquess of Westmeathcomplained that the measure did not grow out of the judicial inquiry lately instituted, but was only a fifteenth part of it, since that inquiry embraced fourteen other important subjects. He was of opinion that the sub-sheriffs should not interfere in the formation of Jury lists.
Lord Cloncurrycontended, that the present measure would put back into the hands of the Sheriffs a power with which they ought not to be invested. He remembered that, in one county, Kildare—out of six Sheriffs five had been insolvent, and therefore he considered that they were improper persons to have the power of returning Juries. He had seen one Sheriff hunted about by the Coroner for the debts of his court; and such, he was sorry to say, was the general character of the persons who had of late years filled the office of Sheriff in Ireland. They were the only persons who ought not to select Jurors, the best way of choosing whom would be according to a property qualification.
The Earl of Rodensaid, that if there was anything good in Irish Jurisprudence, it was the system of Juries. Irish Jurors were honest men, and anxious to assist in the fair administration of justice. In some instances, rather than do violence to their consciences, they had staid away, and, by so doing, subjected themselves to large fines. The present measure excluded from the Jury lists a respectable body of persons—he meant the parish clerks. He wanted to know from the noble Viscount opposite, why they were excluded, and whether it was from the circumstance of their being Protestants? He thought the measure proposed by his Majesty's Ministers unnecessary and uncalled for; and as he had opposed it in its former stages, he would continue his opposition to the last, and vote against the Motion that it do pass.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that with respect to the general objections made to the Bill, he had already explained himself so fully, that he trusted their Lordships would not take it as a mark of disrespect if he made no further explanations on those objections. With respect to the
722
clause complained of by the noble Earl who had just sat down, he would merely state that it was only meant to exempt parish clerks from the discharge of an additional and an onerous duty. He was not certain whether, as the law then stood, parish clerks could serve or not; but he knew that what was intended by the introduction of the clause objected to was, to relieve them from what they would themselves consider a heavy buth n.
The Bill passed.