Sitting of 21 February 1833

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Mr. ESTCOURT, an Account of the Amount of County Rates in England and Wales, and the manner in which they are expended.
New Writs issued. For the Northern Division of Northampton in the room of Lord MILTON called up to the House of Peers.—For the City of London, in the room or Alderman WAITHMAN, deceased.
Committee appointed. On the Motion of Mr. KENNEDY, to Inquire into the Law concerning Entail in Scotland.
Petitions presented. By Mr. GILLON, from Falkirk, against Nocturnal Legislation,—By Mr. BUTLER, from Bally-ragget, against Tithes; and for the Repeal of the Union,—By Mr. BEILBY THOMPSON, from Burlington and Bridlington Quay, for the Abolition of Slavery.—By Mr. WYNN ELLIS, from Leicester, for the Repeal of the Corn Laws.—By Mr. CHILDERS, from Duxford, and from Basingbourne; and by Lord ORMELIE, from Scone,—against Slavery.

TITHES (IRELAND).
Colonel Butlerpresented petitions from the parish of Ballyragget and another parish in the county of Kilkenny, praying for a general redress of grievances, complaining of the abuses of the grand jury system, and praying for a reduction of Tithes and Church-rates, and for the restoration of a domestic Legislature. The gallant Colonel said, he was happy to find, from what had occurred the other evening, that the gross abuses of the Grand Jury system in Ireland were at length about being remedied, but he was sorry, at the same time, that his
1026
Majesty's Ministers, instead of reducing the tithes, were about to introduce two most objectionable measures—one for perpetuating the tithe system in Ireland, and the other for enforcing the payment of tithes in that country, in the only way that it could be enforced—namely, at the point of the bayonet. With regard to the Legislative Union, he would implore English Members to meet that question, and to convince those who were at present favourable to the Repeal of that Union by the production of sound arguments for that purpose, if they had such to offer.
Sir Charles Cootebegged to take that opportunity to refer to a statement which had been made by his hon. colleague (Mr. Lalor) in reference to the state of the Queen's County, on Tuesday night. The hon. Baronet was understood to say, that his hon. colleague had made the same charge on the hustings at Maryborough, in the Queen's County, and that when called upon for the names of the persons to whom he alluded he refused to give them. He was surprised, under such circumstances, to find that his hon. colleague not only persevered in the charge, but that he brought it forward in that House against persons who were absent, and who had no opportunity of defending themselves there. The Magistrate that was alluded to had stated to him that there was not the slightest foundation for the charge in question.

LIVERPOOL ELECTION.
Mr. Benettpresented a petition from upwards of 3,000 inhabitants of Liverpool, complaining of bribery and corruption, both in the election of a chief Magistrate of that city, and in the election of Members of Parliament. The petitioners were persuaded that the provisions of the Reform Act were not sufficient to remedy the abuses complained of. The system of bribery which had prevailed at Liverpool had increased rather than diminished since the alteration which had recently been made respecting the laws of election. In fact, any chance of improvement in the mode of election was despaired of, unless those who bad formerly been in possession of the elective franchise as freemen of Liverpool should be entirely disfranchised. The Reform Bill, in the case of Liverpool, had certainly not remedied the evils, of which complaints had frequently been made. The petitioners were formerly opposed to

1027
the Bill which had been introduced on the subject; but now they were desirous to have it re-introduced, because they had found, by the experience of last election, that as things had hitherto existed, there was not the slightest chance of purity of election. He had proposed the measure which he now brought forward in two preceding Parliaments, but by some fortuitous circumstances it had hitherto been prevented from being taken into consideration. The present petition had been signed by the most respectable inhabitants of Liverpool, and, therefore, it ought to have great weight with that House. He had stated that, from information which he had received, upwards of 3,000 freemen had, during the last election, been bribed in Liverpool. He could prove that fact from undeniable evidence. He had the fact from the parties themselves, and he knew that the books with the names of these parties could be produced. He should, therefore, move for a Select Committee, to take the petition into consideration; and he hoped, that that Committee would make such a report as would induce the House to pass a bill for the abolition of the rights of freemen of Liverpool altogether, and thereby to purify the elections in that borough, both with respect to the chief Magistrate and to Members of Parliament.
Petition read.
Lord Sandonsaid, that he would not upon this occasion enter into a full discussion of this subject, as a fitter opportunity for so doing would present itself when his hon. friend should move for the Select Committee, the appointment of which he had intimated his intention to move for upon a future day. He could not avoid observing, however, that there were two or three strange peculiarities connected with this charge now preferred against the freemen of Liverpool. In the first place, when, upon the occasion of former elections at Liverpool, similar charges had been preferred against the freemen there, the parties so accusing them, either prosecuted such charges in the courts of justice, or before an election Committee of that House, or preferred them to that House, sitting, not in its judicial, but in its political capacity, when the witnesses that might be examined to the facts alleged could not be examined under the sanction of an oath. But the present accusers of the
1028
freemen of Liverpool had shrunk from the only proper mode of investigating the charges which they preferred against them; and now this party, which had originally, and in vain, attempted to corrupt the freemen of Liverpool, which had hoaxed, and wheedled, and praised them until they found that they would not serve their purposes, had come forward to call for their disfranchisement. He could assure the House, and he did so upon the assertions of men of honour and respectability, that there had been no corruption at the last election for Liverpool. He would further state, that neither the candidate to whom this petition referred, nor that candidate's Committee, had connived at or been privy to any system of bribery or treating at that election. He did not mean to densy that, upon one great and notorious occasion, there had been great and notorious bribery at Liverpool; indeed, it would be impossible for him to deny the fact, as a. Committee of that House had brought in a report substantiating it, and the case was altogether a most notorious one; but he would deny, that since that notorious case there had been any bribery at Liverpool. Three elections had, since that time, taken place, and they had been unimpeached—he would repeat unimpeached—for vague rumours and general accusations were not to be taken as proof in the absence of all satisfactory evidence. If bribery had then taken place, why did not those petitioners come forward to prove it in the proper way? Those petitioners said, that if the Reform Bill had done its work there would have been no necessity for this inquiry: what they meant when they spoke of the Reform Bill "not doing; its work" was, its not succeeding in giving a preponderance to their party in the town of Liverpool. If it had so succeeded, the House would never have heard of this petition. The petitioners shrunk from proceeding in the ordinary manner under the Grenville Act, as they feared that their petition would be voted frivolous and vexatious. At all events, if the petitioners had any cases of bribery or corruption to prove, they should be prosecuted before courts of justice, and not before such a vague and indefinite tribunal as a Select Committee of the House of Commons.
Mr. Wasonobserved, that the noble Lord had commenced his speech by deprecating discussion; yet, during the

1029
time of his addressing the House, he had favoured them with a series of assertions upon the subject, which he had no doubt, that the noble Lord believed to be true; but he (Mr. Wason), on the contrary, believed that they were utterly destitute of all foundation. The Chief Magistrate of Liverpool had, for many years, been elected by bribery and corruption.
Lord Sandon: Not of late years.
Mr. Wasonanswered, that of late years, the money had been wanting. The noble Lord might cry, "Oh!" but the last contested election for the Chief Magistracy of Liverpool had cost the successful candidate 8,000 l. Would the House take the allegations of the noble Lord, in preference to the assertions of 3,000 inhabitants of Liverpool, who stated that their Chief Magistrate was elected by bribery and corruption? In answer to the observation of the noble Lord, that the petitioners had not come forward to prosecute electors for bribery and corruption at the last election, for fear of their Petition being declared frivolous and vexatious under the provisions of the Grenville Act, he must observe, that he did not believe that there were more than four or five cases in which petitions had been declared frivolous and vexatious since the passing of that Act. The petitioners had, from a regard to the interests of the city of Liverpool, neglected to petition against the noble Lord's return; and the noble Lord would probably not have made such a remark, if the fourteen days allowed for the reception of election petitions had not previously expired. He did not consider the noble Lord justified in casting the imputations which he had cast on the respectable men who had signed the Petition. He (Mr. Wason) would state one or two fact respecting the last election. Many drunken men were carried upon the box and carriage of the noble Lord, who was himself inside, and at one of the poll-booths, the Deputy Returning Officer refused to receive the votes of a considerable number of the electors, in consequence of their having presented themselves in a beastly state of intoxication. He should like to know how the noble Lord could account for his ultimate election, when the opposing candidate had a majority on the first day of 600 voters, unless by supposing that his majority of 145 was composed of freemen, who had kept back
1030
until their votes should become of consirderable value. He supported the prayer of the petition, which called only for inquiry. He was sure that no two Gentlemen in the House would be found who would not admit that the case of the last election at Liverpool was one of the most flagrant instances of corruption which had ever taken place.
Mr. Gladstonesaid, the Reform Bill had not produced at Liverpool the effect which had been anticipated from it. He would venture to say, however, that no corrupt influence had been used either by the noble Lord or by any of his supporters during his last election.
Mr. Warburtonobserved, that no attempt was made to unseat the noble Lord. Nothing in the petition went to assert that the noble Lord, or any of his supporters at the last election had been guilty of sanctioning any undue practice. The hon. Member who last addressed the House (as he understood him), had made an asseveration, that no undue influence or improper practices had taken place during the late election for Liverpool, either on the part of the noble Lord or of those who supported him.
Mr. Gladstonesaid, that no such practices had taken place, to the best of his belief.
Mr. Warburtoninquired, how it could be possible, in the case of Liverpool, where there was so much opposition among the parties which divided the electors, for any individual to make a positive asseveration that no undue influence had been exerted? He considered that the Petition contained allegations which were fit subjects of inquiry.
Petition to lie on the Table.

MERCHANT TAILORS' COMPANY.
Mr. Attwoodpresented a petition from the Warden and Members of the Company of Merchant Tailors, praying the House to rescind the petition of Hugh R. Franks, presented the other evening, as the petition contained gross libels on the said company; and that the House would devise some means of preventing the abuse of the right of petitioning, and thereby restrain an individual from injuring the character of honourable and respectable persons. The right of petitioning was one of very great value, and for that, amongst other reasons, should its exercise be confined to the statement of real grievances. In this

1031
case it was made the means of setting forth gross and unfounded libels; and here he would take leave to suggest the necessity of ascertaining the truth of the matters contained in a petition before any Member presented it to that House. The petitioners further prayed that the petition he had referred to should not be sent to the Committee on Corporation Abuses, as they did not consider it competent in that body to take cognizance of trading corporations such as those of the Merchant Tailors. The petitioners also thought, and he fully agreed with them, that no extension of power should be given to the Committee on Corporation Abuses, without the express concurrence of that House. This part of the prayer he thought could not be denied to the petitioners, for the claim they thus preferred to the House had been recognized in the case of most other committees, which were appointed to inquire into certain but yet given and defined objects. Such was the case in the Bank and East-India Company's Charters. The Petitioners, as he had stated, complained of the abuse of the right of petition which had taken place in this instance, while they, and he with them, would always admit that it was the proper and legitimate mode, when properly and legitimately exercised, to bring the grievances of the people under the notice of that House. While this, however, was an admitted right, it became a very serious evil that an individual, or a few individuals, should be able, through its instrumentality, to libel and calumniate respectable and honourable persons. A right, the exercise of which was liable to such dangers and such evils, should, impossible, be restrained, if not by the interference of that House, certainly by Members who had petitions to present taking care to examine into the allegations they might contain before they gave a most dangerous currency to them by their being presented to that House. The petition with which he was now intrusted was signed by many honourable, respectable, and independent Members of the Merchant Tailors' Company, and also by men who stood eminently high in the commercial world. They were charged with misappropriating the funds committed to their care for charitable purposes, and this charge they solemnly denied. They were charged with perverting the funds of their Corporation to their private uses, and this again they
1032
denied. The men so charged were, as he had just observed, most respectable persons; many of them had been Members of that House; many of them were now City Magistrates—men, than whom none were of greater wealth, respectability, and independence. The petitioners complained that the hon. Member who presented the petition of which they had now complained, had not stated its contents to the House, although, upon his Motion, it was ordered to be printed, and in this way its calumnies and libels had obtained an extensive circulation. He (Mr. Attwood) was not in the House when the petition was presented, but he understood that the hon. Member who did present it had said a good deal upon the abuses practised by the Corporation of Merchant Tailors. It was therefore the duty of the persons so libelled, in courtesy to that House and in duty to themselves, to deny the charges which had been alleged against them, and that in the most earnest, unequivocal, and solemn manner. He would not, however, on this occasion, occupy the House with any details, although he was fully prepared to show that the conduct of the Corporation of Merchant Tailors had been such at all times as to challenge the strictest investigation. On the part of the petitioners, as well as on his own, he would declare that the allegations made against them were unfounded in fact, and malignant and unjust.
On the Motion for bringing up the Petition,
Mr. Hillsaid, that as he was the Member who had presented the petition which the hon. Member had so loudly complained of, he trusted the House would allow him to say a few words on the subject. When the hon. Member thought fit to insinuate that he (Mr. Hill) had wilfully kept the nature of the petition from the knowledge of the House, and that the petition had been presented in the hon. Member's absence, he might have had the candour to inform the House, that he (Mr. Hill) had sent the hon. Gentleman a copy of the petition—that he had informed the hon. Gentleman when he intended to present it—that he was prepared to present it on Friday, his name having stood at the head of the paper of that day, but that, at the request of the hon. Member, he had postponed the presentation to Monday, in order to give the hon. Gentleman an opportunity of being

1033
present, and of making any observations on the petition which might occur to him. Under these circumstances, he thought that the hon. Gentleman had made a most unfair attack upon him. If he had acted as the hon. Member insinuated, he should have forgotten what was due to himself as well as to the House. The hon. Member had spoken in very general terms of the petition; and had complained that nothing had been stated in it but some vague personal accusations. In presenting the petition, he had not thought proper to go into the particular charges of the petition, though there were many; and he would now state one of them. The petition stated, that the Merchant Tailors' Company were in possession of considerable funds for charitable purposes, which they did not duly apply; and the petitioner gave his reasons for the statement. There was one particular bequest made to them, in the reign of Elizabeth, of 5l. a-year to be paid to the poor. The property which then yielded the 5l. now consisted of no less than thirteen houses. Of that property the Merchant Tailors' Company were in the continual receipt of the rents, and yet they continued to give only the miserable pittance of 5l. a-year to the poor. He submitted that the Merchant Tailors' Company was a Municipal Corporation, and that, therefore, it was a very proper petition to be referred to the Committee on Municipal Corporations. The Merchant Tailors' Company was one of those companies in the city of London to one of which an individual elected to be a Lord Mayor or an Alderman must belong. The Merchant Tailors' Company had very little to do with trading, but it had a great deal to do with the Government of the City; and it was because there was to be an inquiry into the state of the Corporation of the city of London, in common with other Corporations, with a view to a reform, and because it was manifest that that inquiry and reform never could be complete without an inquiry into the state of this Company, that he had thought it right to present the petition in question to the House. It appeared that the Merchant Tailors' Company had, within the last twenty years, increased their fines for admission, from thirty guineas to 80 l.; and, when they were asked why this was so, they refused to assign any reason, and refused the inspection of their books and
1034
muniments. The charters of these companies, from the time of Edward the 3rd to that of Henry the 7th, all vested the right of the officers of these companies in the body at large; and yet, in the case of the Merchant Tailors' Company, not two years ago, a respectable body of the members of that Company were treated as trespassers and rioters by the hon. Member who was Master of the Company, for seeking to exercise their rights, and for seeking the use of their own hall. Did not this usurpation demand inquiry? Did not this prove that the Merchant Tailors' Company exercised (he rights of a municipal corporation, and were therefore liable to the same inquiry as all other municipal corporations? Nothing was proved by the speech of the hon. Member, or at all as showing that the allegations in the petition which he (Mr. Hill) had presented were false, unless, indeed, a loose, vague, and general denial could be taken as proof. As to the character of the petitioner, he (Mr. Hill), was not unacquainted with him, and he believed that he was a most respectable man. It was a new doctrine to advance in that House, that no petition ought to be presented to it except by a large body of persons. For his part, he had always been taught, that any man who had a grievance to complain of, was entitled to submit it to the consideration of the House. What did the petitioner pray for? Inquiry. All, too, that he (Mr. Hill) had asked for, was inquiry; but the present petitioners had resisted it. They had also resisted it when it was sought for in the Court of King's Bench; and he could not help deeply regretting that the Court of King's Bench, which should be a court of protection for the people, was so fettered by old and bad precedents that they refused to issue a mandamus for the inspection of the muniments of the Merchant Tailors' Corporation. He was well aware that many members of that Corporation were honourable and respectable men in private life; but it was almost the condition of human nature that even good men, when they became members of a corporation which was founded on a system of corruption, became contaminated by it, and that they would do, in their corporate, what they would shrink from in their private capacity. He did not blame the individuals, but the system on which they acted. If, however, the Corporation had done every thing that was right, why

1035
should they resist inquiry? If they had done all that the hon. Member had stated, why then inquiry would enable their virtues to shine forth with greater brightness. Surely the hon. Member, who was master of the Company, might be satisfied with the power which he already had, without refusing their rights to the body of the Company, which consisted of many hundreds of respectable persons. He had been charged by the hon. Member with not doing his duty to the House in abstaining from entering into the details contained in the petition which he had presented. He was certainly a young Member, but yet not so young as to be guilty of any inadvertence as to the forms of that House. Neither was he guilty of any inadvertence to the hon. Member, as must be evident to the House, when he again repeated that he had sent a copy of the petition in question to the hon. Member.
Mr. Cobbettsaid, he knew the petitioner, and he could say that he believed his character, public and private, to be as good as that of the warden of the Merchant Tailors' Company; and as for his trade, he knew that it was fully as good, for he was a maker and issuer of hats, though not of notes.
Mr. Attwoodsaid, that in the remarks which he had felt it his duty to make, he meant to cast no personal imputation on the conduct of the hon. and learned Member. He avoided any such observations—be avoided entering into details—he—
Lord Althorphere interrupted the hon. Member, by making a reference to the recent regulations of the House, by which, the hon. Member, in this stage of the question, was precluded from making a reply, having made an opening speech on the presentation of petitions.
The Speakersaid, it was very desirable that this point should be thoroughly understood. According to his view of it, it stood thus:—An hon. Member in presenting a petition would have an opportunity of speaking twice; first, on the question that the petition be brought up. The question that the petition do lie on the Table would then he a matter of course. If that were a matter of course, then the individual who presented the petition might lie by, and would have an opportunity of answering afterwards any of the observations that had been made.
Mr. Attwooddeclared, that he had been grossly misrepresented when he had been
1036
described as apprehensive of an inquiry into the state of the Merchant Tailors' Company. The complaint which he had made was, that the petitioner libelled and calumniated parties, whose characters were affected by it in a manner which they had he opportunity of meeting. The petition contained charges of the most atrocious nature against the members of the Corporation. As to the right of the petitioner to interfere with the management of the funds of the Company that had been positively disallowed by a Court of Law. He protested against an hon. and learned Member, after the case had been adjudicated before the legitimate tribunal of the Court of King's Bench, introducing it to the attention of that House, because the decision had been against his client.
Mr. Hilldenied, that he was at the time the feed counsel of the party. If he had been so, he would not have presented the petition.
Mr. Attwoodcontinued. He had Understood that the hon. and learned Gentleman conducted the suit of the petitioner in the Court of King's Bench. He hoped the House would not countenance professional men in the practice of bringing their unsuccessful clients into that House to try their cause again. The Courts of Law, he would contend, and not that House, had the power of deciding who had the proper exercise of jurisdiction in particular Corporations—[hear, hear]—and he would go further and say, that that House was not to be made an arena for discussing such rights, though he was aware that the abuse of all Corporations, whether just or unjust, was a source of no inconsiderable popularity. He did not think it very becoming in the hon. and learned Member to have spoken of the "bad precedents" on which the Court of King's Bench had acted. The King's Courts should, he thought, be treated with at least a little more courtesy. The petitioners in this case denied that they had abused any charitable funds; they denied their having used them for any private purposes; and they denied having put them in their own pockets. They asserted that their conduct was unimpeachable, and they were prepared to prove it. It was said by the hon. Member, that nearly 700 l. a-year had been divested from the purposes of charity, to which it should have been applied. But how stood the fact? About the year 1488 a will was made by a member of the

1037
Company, bequeathing some land and houses to the Company, in order to pay 5l. a-year in charity; and, that being done, he considered any surplus that might arise as unquestionably the property of the Company, as if a man had left a house by will to pay 10 l. and that its value should ultimately amount to 1,000 l. Well, to proceed. Some old alms-houses stood on part of the ground, and other parts of it were let upon long leases. Those leases dropped in a few years ago, and what was done? The old alms-houses were taken down, new and more extensive almshouses were erected, and the Company, in their erection, expended no less a sum than 12,000 l. of their own money. He would tell the House again that the officers of the Company courted inquiry before any Select Committee which the House might think proper to appoint—and that no more gratifying circumstances could occur to the Merchant Tailors' Corporation than to render the fullest account of the distribution of the funds intrusted to their management. He regretted that the House should be so long detained by the refutation of libels, but he regretted still more that growing disposition on the part of the public to hear with pleasure of the destruction of the ancient institutions of the country. He was sorry to find that the public listened with eagerness to the calumnies which were circulated against respectable individuals—and he regretted again, that the House should be made the arena for discussing calumnies. He would again contend that the Merchant Tailors' Company was not a municipal corporation, for it conferred no right, no franchise, and exercised none of the powers of such a corporation. In conclusion, he would take upon himself to say, that nothing could be more satisfactory to himself and the Corporation of which he was a member, than to give the fullest information relative to the management of the trust which was reposed in them.
Sir Edward Knatchbullobserved that the matter was of the first importance and deepest moment to the parties against whom such heavy charges had been brought, not only by an hon. and learned Member, but also by the petition. The parties were, however, fully prepared to meet those charges; and if that had not been the case he should not have risen to address the House upon the present occasion. His hon. friend had said that if accusations
1038
were to be made they ought to be brought forward openly, in order that the parties should have an opportunity of making their defence. This was as fair a proposal as could be made, and he thought that after such a declaration, it was plain that the object of the petitioners was not to shun inquiry or shelter themselves from any investigation. He wished to put a question to his Majesty's Ministers on one point, and that was with respect to the powers confided to the Select Committee appointed the other night, on the Motion of the noble Lord, to inquire into the state of all municipal corporations in the United Kingdom. He was willing to admit, that for many years past no Committee of greater importance had been appointed than that to which he alluded, for it embraced subjects of the deepest interest and very first moment. It was not his intention to cast reflections on any individual member of that Committee, but he still could not help expressing it as his opinion that the selection of the noble Lord was very far from being judicious. To his (Sir Edward Knatchbull's) thinking a very different choice ought to have been made if the object was unbiassed and impartial investigation. He was not aware of the powers which were intended to be confided to the Committee, or whether it would devolve upon them to inquire into the circumstances of all corporations without distinction; but one thing he did hope, and that was, that they would go fairly and dispassionately into the subject, and not deal with it rashly or hastily. The question which he wished to have answered particularly was, whether the noble Lord, in appointing this Committee, had intended to invest them with power to entertain questions relative to the affairs of trading companies, as well as to inquire into the state of municipal corporations; and whether he had contemplated that they should take cognizance of petitions like that which had so improperly been submitted to them?
Lord Althorpsaid, that before he proceeded to answer the question put to him by the hon. Baronet who had just sat down, he wished to make a single observation upon what had fallen from him relative to the manner and spirit in which the Committee was chosen. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) begged to assure the hon. Baronet and the House, that he bad taken the utmost pains in

1039
choosing this Committee, to select only such persons as he was convinced would deal with the important subjects before them, not only impartially, but with the fullest consideration. He repeated, that he had, as far as in him lay, endeavoured to form the Committee of such individuals as he felt persuaded might safely be intrusted with the investigation of a subject so momentous, and the strongest conviction was impressed upon his mind that he should not be disappointed in the conclusion to which he had come respecting them. In appointing the Committee, he had deemed it necessary to include persons of every party, and the mixture of Gentlemen who had been nominated was such as to render it impossible that anything rash or precipitate could be effected, even should anything so unwise be essayed—a circumstance which appeared to him anything but likely. With respect to the question put to him by the hon. Baronet, he had only to say, that it never was his intention that trading companies should be introduced to the notice of the Committee. The object for which the Committee was appointed had no reference to trading companies, and this he conceived would appear from the order to which allusion had been made. The functions of the Committee related only to municipal corporations, and the scope of its inquiry went no further. It was empowered to inquire into the constitutional rights and privileges, and other circumstances connected with all chartered corporations in boroughs and towns, but then that power never was intended to be applied to mere trading companies. He did not pretend to be acquainted with the exact character of the Merchant Tailors' Company, but even though it should prove to be only a trading company, he did not see the necessity of the House making an order to rescind the order of reference adverted to in the petition. It was clear that the Committee had no power to go into any inquiry that did not relate to a municipal corporation, and hence it followed that an order referring a petition concerning a trading company to it must be considered merely as a dead letter. Such an order could have no effect, and for the best reason in the world, namely, that the subject was one that the Committee had no power to interfere with.
Mr. Harveyagreed that the Committee could have nothing to do with a subject like
1040
that mentioned in the petition referred to. Indeed the Committee would have abundance of other and more important occupation for their time. There was, however, a tribunal in existence that was competent to deal with the matter, and that was the charity Commissioners, who were appointed in the year 1818, and had cost the country 250,000 l., without any benefit having been derived to the public from their labours. The gentlemen composing this commission were Reformers before their nomination, but he was sorry to say that since then they had evinced very little of a reforming spirit. The petition adverted to might, with advantage, be referred to them, as he fully concurred in thinking that nothing was less desirable than to try questions in that House which had already been decided by the Courts of Law. It might, perhaps, be right of the legislature to alter irrational decisions of Judges, or repeal laws that were vicious in principle, or inapplicable to existing circumstances; but he still thought that the House ought not to interfere in cases where a remedy might otherwise be obtained. He was willing to admit, that the petitioner in question would find great difficulty in getting redress by any of the ordinary means; for would it not be worse than hopeless to enter into an unequal contest with one of the most opulent companies in all London? The very attempt would ruin any man, however great his fortune might be; and, therefore, the petitioner did right in seeking redress from Parliament. But the matter might very properly be submitted to the Charity Commissioners, who though they had furnished twenty-six volumes of reports, had rendered no service to the public that was not almost worthless. It was most important that the funds of these public companies should be properly applied, and, for that purpose, inquiry was desirable. The Merchant Tailors' Company had, it was true, recently expended 12,000 l. in endowing alms-houses, but, perhaps, if the truth were known that was no more than an act of justice. About four centuries ago three houses on London-bridge were left to the company to which he belonged, for the purpose of furnishing a certain number of poor persons with charcoal. At that period the rent was 6l., but the property had of late years greatly increased in value, and the premises were ultimately sold to the London-bridge Company, to

1041
make way for the improvement in that part of the town, for 17,000 l. This sum the Company would in all probability, have appropriated to their own use, but that an information on the subject was filed, in which it was contended that not only the annual sum of 6l., but the whole amount, was applicable to the original designs of the donors. Being unwilling to incur the heavy expense of a Chancery suit, a compromise took place, and the Company were let off by expending 10,000 l. in the erection and endowment of alms-houses. Had the hon. Member who had complained on this occasion been a master girdler instead of the Master of the Tailors, he had no doubt he would have come forward on that occasion also to complain of being exposed to the inconvenience and injustice of doing justice to the poor. But it had been said by the hon. Member that any inquiry into the circumstances of public companies would only be an additional attack upon the ancient institutions of the country; but would an act of justice toward the poor have any such effect? It was his belief, that if the Charity Commissioners had prosecuted their inquiries as they ought to have done, there would now be more than 100,000 l. at their disposal, in aid of the education of the poor and the support of the aged and infirm. He was satisfied that the Charity Commissioners might take the complaints of the petitioner up, and, believing that they were invested with full authority to investigate the abuses of public companies, he should recommend the petition to be referred to them.
Mr. Attwoodexpressed his readiness to submit the affairs of the Company to any investigation that might be deemed necessary. The Company had nothing to conceal, and they were perfectly ready to meet any charge that might be brought against them.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that even according to the noble Lord's own showing, the clear and regular course to be pursued would be for the House to rescind the order of reference which had been made. By the noble Lord's own admission, it was manifest that the petition had been referred to an improper tribunal, and placed beyond the control of that House. But would it be more than an act of justice to all parties to have it brought back and placed on their Table, so that they might dispose of it as they should think fit?
1042
Many motions for rescinding similar orders had been made. Those who thought that the Committee had not power to deal with the subject, that it would be inexpedient to give the Committee such a power, or that even if the Committee possessed it, that it could not be beneficially exercised, ought surely to agree on the propriety of rescinding the order. It was not enough to say, that the Committee could not take cognizance of the matter; but the regular and proper course to be pursued would be, he submitted, for the House to retrace the course they had taken. He could appeal to the Speaker whether this had not been done in the case of a petition on the subject of scot-and-lot voters, which had been referred to a wrong Committee during the last Session, but which, on the suggestion of the Speaker, had subsequently been withdrawn. Notwithstanding the willingness of his hon. friend to submit the private affairs of the Company to scrutiny, he hoped that the House would not sanction any such course; for they must all feel that the House had no more power to open such transactions than they would have to enter upon the investigation of the circumstances of any other trading establishment in the kingdom. It was true that an appeal might be made to the Court of King's Bench for the correction of any abuse that might exist in the Administration of the funds of public companies of this description. That tribunal was armed with ample authority to enter upon the examination of such questions, and, if any improper or illegal perversion of the funds of the Merchant Tailors' Company had taken place, the remedy was in the hands of the Judges of that Court, and did not rest with that House. He was not prepared to say whether or not the Charity Commissioners had the power to entertain such matters, but, if they had not, he for one would have no objection to such a power being extended to them, and that the petition alluded to should be referred to them; wherefore he hoped the House would see the propriety of rescinding the order in question.
The Speakersaid, that having been personally alluded to by the right hon. Baronet who had just sat down, he deemed it necessary to make a few observations on the subject now before the House. The petition presented by the hon. member for Whitehaven (Mr. Attwood) prayed that the order made for referring another peti-

1043
tion to the Select Committee on Municipal Corporations might be rescinded, and he the Speaker) had been appealed to, as to whether that Committee, not having power to take cognizance of the petition, it should be allowed to remain in the Committee's hands. He took it to be clear that if the Committee had not power to entertain the petition, the order of reference ought not to have been made. But what was the position in which the House was placed by that order? They had done two things; first, they had referred a petition to a Committee that was incompetent to deal with it and next they had sent the same petition beyond their own control; and the question they had now to decide was, whether, in order to recover back this petition, they ought not to rescind the order of reference. His opinion certainly was in favour of that course, and if the House agreed with him they would at once concur in rescinding the order.
Mr. Humeagreed in the distinction which the noble Lord had drawn between Municipal Corporations and Trading Companies, and he was also willing to admit that the Committee could have no right to interfere in the affairs of the latter. But before he could acknowledge that the Merchant Tailors' Company was not a Municipal Corporation, and as such within the scope of the powers wielded by the Committee, it must be shown that it was a trading company, and of what its trade consisted. It seemed to him to have two duties to perform, and one of them was clearly of a political character. He alluded to the creation of liverymen. At present there were 6,000 and upwards liverymen in London, and was it hot in the power of these guilds to increase that number to as many more thousands if they pleased? This circumstance, he contended, brought such companies within the description of Municipal Corporations, and he therefore entertained the opinion that the Committee had full power to examine their affairs. The whole question, in his opinion, turned upon the point of whether or not such bodies were or were not trading companies.
Lord Althorp,in explanation, said that, in stating that the powers of the Committee were confined to the investigation of Municipal Corporations only, he did not mean to determine whether the Merchant Tailors' Company was or was not a Municipal Corporation. He had purposely abstained from expressing any opinion on
1044
that question; and his reason for doing so was because an hon. and learned Gentleman, whose knowledge of these matters was greater than his could possibly be, had declared that it was. As he was in doubt on the point he certainly would not undertake to say whether or not the petition had or had not been improperly referred to the Committee.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, it appeared to him that it ought to be referred to the law officers of the Crown to decide whether the company in question came under the description of a Municipal Corporation. If it were a trading company, it was quite clear that the Committee could have no thing to do with it; but if, as was suggested, the company could, by creating Livery men, influence the election of Mayor, Aldermen, and Sheriffs, it would acquire the character of a Municipal Corporation, and therefore be properly a subject for the consideration of the Committee.
Mr. Baringobserved, that if the Corporations' Committee was to be allowed to inquire into the affairs of private companies a monstrous tribunal would be established, which it was most important for the people of this country to resist at the commencement. If he were connected with a public company he would refuse to answer the first question which might be asked relative to the disposal of the property of the Corporation. It was necessary to make a distinction between public and private corporations at the present moment when there were some grounds for apprehending that the inquisitorial powers exercised by Committees of that House might become a cause of grievance. He therefore approved of the distinction which had been drawn by the noble Chancellor of the Exchequer. The petition in the present case did not complain of the abuse of any Municipal powers on the part of the company, if they possessed any, but only of the misapplication of funds. That was the gravamen of the charge contained in the petition. That was a question with which, by the noble Lord's own admission, the Committee had nothing to do, and therefore he hoped that the order for referring the petition to the Committee would be rescinded. It was well known that all these companies were originally trading corporations, and although many of them had ceased to trade, and amongst them the Merchant Tailors' Company, yet the Company of Goldsmiths continued, he

1045
believed, the old practice. Be that as it might, however, he must deny the right of any Committee to trifle with these properties. He did not wish to detain the House, but he could not dismiss the subject without saying a word or two with respect to this Committee. He was ready to ac-knowledge that it was as important a Committee as had ever been appointed, and he was sanguine in hoping that the result of its labours would be attended with advantage to the country. The Committee which had been appointed might, if they performed their duty with discretion and firmness, be productive of the greatest benefit. He had not seen the names of the Members, but he had sufficient confidence in the noble Lord to believe, that he would appoint none but an impartial one. What he apprehended most was, that the Committee would have more labour to perform than they could possibly accomplish, unless they subdivided themselves into smaller Committees, the attention of each of which would be directed to a particular object. That was the course which he had recommended when the India Company's Committee was appointed, but it was not followed, and for two years the Committee made little or no progress. In the third year his suggestion was adopted, and then, for the first time, the Committee arrived at anything like a practical result. It would require a good many weeks to investigate properly the abuses which prevailed in the Corporation of London alone. That Corporation imposed dues of a very onerous nature, which ought to be strictly scrutinized. Then, again, there was the Mayor's Court, exercising a jurisdiction which interfered with the common jurisdiction of the country, and was felt to be most oppressive by merchants. When he was in business he felt this Court to be a great nuisance. He concluded by expressing a hope that the order for referring the Petiton to the Committee would be rescinded.
Mr. Warburtonhoped that the Order would not be rescinded without notice previously given. One great point to be decided was, whether the Merchant Tailors' was or was not a trading Company. In other places freemen were admitted to the privileges of the Corporation through the means of the Corporations themselves, bat in the City of London they could only be admitted through these Guilds. There was another point on which he wanted in-
1046
formation, and that was as to the power of the Committee. He wanted to know whether they had power to institute an examination into the rights of these Companies? He thought that the particular grievance now complained of ought to be referred to the Charitable Funds Commissioners, and not to the Committee.
Mr. Attwooddenied that because a man was a liveryman he had the right of voting. The truth was, that being a liveryman conferred no such right.
Mr. Shawtook that opportunity of protesting against the composition of the Committee, which he thought had not been formed with that fairness that usually distinguished the noble Lord. He had no complaint to make against any Member individually, but he could not but observe that of the Irish Members of that Committee, six out of seven had made up their minds against what had usually been considered as Corporation rights. There were seven Irish Members of the Committee, and six of them, it was well known, had openly professed strong opinions against all privileged bodies, and all corporate rights. There was only one of the seven, and that was himself, who, though not a supporter of corporate abuses, had a regard for corporate and vested rights, and for himself he should only say that he hoped he should find it consistent with his duty to absent himself altogether.
An Hon. Memberexpressed his surprise at the observations which had just fallen from the hon. and learned Member. If that hon. and learned Member thought that the Members of that Committee would enter upon their duties after having made up their minds on the subject they were appointed to investigate, and would not allow their opinions to be changed by the evidence that would be laid before them, he was mistaken in his supposition. They would not discharge their duty if they were to allow their previous opinions to bind them. He, as a Member of that Commmittee, certainly should not do so, and he did not know what right the hon. and learned Gentleman had to entertain such a supposition. As for himself, he declared that his sole object in sitting upon that Committee, would be to examine the system of Corporations, and see how it worked; and to agree to a Report only upon the evidence that might be laid before him.
Sir Richard Vyvyansaid, that the Com-

1047
mittee was composed for the greater part of Gentlemen who were known to have made up their minds as to the necessity of doing away with Corporations. The House had received no intimation as to what point the Committee were to report upon. He wished to know whether the Committee were to confine themselves to investigating the abuses which existed in corporations, and to ascertaining in what respect they had deviated from their charters, or whether they were to suggest a plan for altering the Constitution of those bodies? He could not help thinking that a Committee of that House was not a fair tribunal for conducting such an inquiry. The King was, by law, the visitor of Corporations, and a Committee of the House of Commons could not compel the production of their muniments and charters. He could not help thinking with the hon. member for Kent that the appointment of the Committee, which was one of the first measures of a Reformed Parliament, afforded a strong indication of what might be hereafter expected. It would not surprise him to find the patents of the nobility treated with no greater respect than the charters of Corporations.
Mr. Abercromby,as one of the Members of the Committee, could not help saying that they had been unjustly dealt with by some honourable Members. The majority Members of that Committee were as unknown to him as he was to them, but he thought it exceedingly strange that so much pains were taken to throw discredit upon the Committee. He should act unjustly towards the Committee, who had done him the honour to elect him their Chairman, if he did not say, that in the single meeting which had taken place, which, however, afforded a fair opportunity of eliciting the general scope and tendency of the opinions of the Members, he had the satisfaction of finding their views such as inspired him with a strong hope that the inquiry with which they were intrusted would be conducted in a spirit of fairness and justice. If there were individuals in the Committee who looked forward with confidence to the destruction of all Corporations, he could only say, that he was not one of them. He professed to act upon the opinion that Municipal Corporations were intended to promote peace, order and good government in the country, and if it appeared to him that those objects would be better secured by a reasonable
1048
change in their constitution, he should be only performing his duty in endeavouring to effect that change. He entered the Committee with no other disposition, and he had heard nothing which should induce him to suppose that any other Member of it entertained views different from his own. With respect to the Petition which had given rise to the present discussion, he certainly thought it was one which could not properly come under the notice of the Committee. It was quite impracticable for them to enter into an investigation of the accounts of all the Corporations in England, Wales, and Ireland. There was, however, some doubt as to the fact whether the Merchant Tailors' Company was a Municipal Corporation. It was possible that such companies might exercise powers connected with Municipal regulations which would render it necessary to have them brought under the consideration of the Committee. He knew not how the fact really was, but he could not help observing that it was possible the inquiry which the Committee had undertaken would be impeded if they were not allowed to ask questions respecting the City Companies.
Colonel Percevalsaid, that being attached to the ancient institutions of his country he could not help declaring that there was a most unjust proportion of Irish Members (who were devoted to innovation, which they called improvement, but which he termed destruction) on the Committee. It was not originally intended, as he had been informed, to include the Irish Corporations; but it was, at all events, not quite in character with the noble Lord's known fairness to name seven of one party and only one on the other. He felt, however, that he stood on delicate ground. That was the second Parliament of which he had been a Member, and without wishing to convey personal offence to any hon. Member, he must say that he feared the present Committee would be conducted in the same manner as the Committee of the last Parliament on the state of Ireland. He had been a Member of that Committee, and, therefore could testify the unfair spirit in which the business was carried on. While the rev. Mr. Bourke, from Castle Pollard, and other Roman Catholic priests, were brought forward as witnesses, a single Protestant clergyman was not examined.
Mr. Portmanrose to order. The question before the House had nothing whatever to do with the Committee of last year.
The Speakeradmitted, that the hon. and gallant Member had travelled out of the question.
Colonel Percevalwould bow to the decision of the Chair, but he thought the interruption of the hon. member for Marylebone would have applied to others with as much justice as it did to him.
Petition to lie on the Table.

PUBLIC HEALTH.
Mr. Slaneyrose for the purpose of moving that a Select Committee be appointed to consider the best means of securing open places in the neighbourhood of great towns, for the healthful exercise of the population. He had attempted some time since to bring forward this question, but from the state of public business he had been unable to do so. He now rejoiced at the delay which had thus taken place; for, in the mean time, a Reformed Parliament had been summoned, and there now sat as Members of it, several persons, Representatives of those large towns that were most interested in the present question. To show the condition of the population of the country at former periods, and at the present time he would refer to some abstracts of the population returns. These would prove that during the first ten years of the present century, the increase of the population had been fifteen and half per cent; during the second ten years, seventeen and a half per cent; and during the last ten years—namely, from 1821 to 1831—it had been again fifteen and a half per cent. The increase in the metropolis alone during the same three periods, had been seventeen per cent for the first ten years, twenty-one per cent for the second ten years, and twenty per cent for the last ten years. In Manchester during the same three periods, the increase had been in the proportion of twenty-two per cent for the first ten years forty per cent for the second ten years, and forty-seven per cent for the last ten years. An increase had taken place in nearly the same proportion in all the populous communities in the kingdom, so that taking the last thirty years from 1800 to 1831, there was an increase in four counties of thirty per cent, in the metropolis of fifty-eight per cent, in ten of
1050
the largest manufacturing towns of eighty per cent, and in three of the largest manufacturing towns, of 100 per cent; or the population had doubled itself in thirty years. At the same time it was gratifying to know that the chances of life were better now than they had been formerly. From 1700 to 1780, the average of deaths was one in thirty-seven; from 1780 to 1790, it was one in forty-five; from 1790 to 1810, it was one in fifty-four; and from 1810 to 1820, it was one in sixty. All this had been the result of improved habits of living, and improvements in medical skill and science. From these facts the most important inferences might be drawn. Allowing for the unfortunate situation of several large classes of the community—the peasantry of the south of England, for instance, and the hand-loom weavers—the chances of life were better now than formerly. Then we came to this point, that, within the fifteen years that had elapsed since the peace, there had been an increase of twenty-five per cent in the population of the country: and, at the same time, there had been a great improvement in their health. It had always been held, that the increase of the population, and the increase of health at the same time, gave a proof of the increase, in a corresponding degree, of the capital of the country. He, therefore, had no hesitation in saying, that the capital of the country must have increased. Without saying one word of the decrease of taxation, relief would be afforded by the mere increase of population as the amount collected would be spread over a larger number of people. He should now state the alteration which had taken place in the relative situation of the different classes of this country. One third of the working population of the country had been employed at the beginning of the present century in manufactures; and two thirds in agricultural labour. At the present moment those proportions were exactly reversed; and yet, at the same time, on the whole, the health of the population had been improved. Having shown the increase in these manufacturing districts generally, he should now say one word as to the increase of numbers in the towns themselves. At a former period the working people had more exercise in the open air than at present. Many of them, such as hand-loom weavers, formerly lived at a distance from their place of work, but now

1051
their labours had been changed for those of the power-loom; so that 100 or 200 of them were now congregated together. Not only had that change taken place, but persons were taken at an earlier age than formerly; and without adverting at large to the Report on the factory employment, he might mention that these persons, some of them under ten years of age, were employed fifteen hours a-day. To such persons he thought the House ought to afford the means of healthful exercise, when the day of rest arrived. At present they had no such means. He should proceed to refer now, in the first instance, to the state of the metropolis. At this time it contained a greater number of inhabitants than any city in the world had ever possessed. Within a circle of eight miles from St. Paul's, there were no less than 1,750,000 persons, and the population of the town itself amounted to one million and a half, In that population were mixed the richest and the poorest men—men whose wealth had never been surpassed by that of any other men, in any times whatever, and the most wretched outcasts, whose miserable condition was not equalled by that of the poor of any other city in Europe. The poet Cowper forty years ago, had compared this town, surrounded with its villas, to "a swart Indian with his belt of beads." It no longer deserved the comparison. It was begirt with other towns instead of villas, It had, it was true, three large parks, one of which only was open, while the other two were partially closed to the public. These did not afford sufficient space for the healthful exercise of the population. A vast number of this population was composed of the working classes, who had not, on Sundays or holidays, any open place of recreation but the three parks, two of which were partially closed against them. He could never observe, without pleasure, thousands with their wives and families, flocking on Sundays to these places of enjoyment; and his great regret was, that they had not far more extensive means for such indulgences. This was a subject upon which imagination and genius might be happily indulged; but he had no further pretensions than to bring before the House a statement of facts; and it was much to be regretted, that, in past legislation, the interests and comforts of the working classes had been too much for-
1052
gotten. This metropolis had one of the finest rivers flowing through it, and yet there was scarcely one open space left on its banks. So cooped was it with buildings, that a foreigner might be residing in the city for years without knowing that there was such a river. He mentioned this, to show how little advantage had been taken of the situation of the river for the purpose of adding to the salubrity of the metropolis. It was said by Mr. Wyndham, that the parks were the lungs of London; and if they were then so necessary to the ventilation of the city, how requisite was it now, that its present vast population should have increased means of recreation. The great manufacturing town in the north, which were principally built on coalbeds, had doubled their Population in thirty years; and yet there was not one of these great communications which bad a sufficient open space for artizans to take exercise or recreation upon Sundays of holidays, He did pot appeal to the passions of the House, nor deal in declamation. But he put it to them, to say, whether it was not the duty of the legislature, to afford every accommodation and the means of rational enjoyment to the working classes, upon whom, in so great a degree, the prosperity of the country depended. The rich, who had their own enjoyments, and who had so many means of recreation, ought to consider the situation of working men, and, in speaking of the humbler classes in the manufacturing towns, it was but justice to them to state, that they were less a burthen upon the Poor-rates than the inhabitants of the southern agricultural districts. For this they deserved great praise. One single manufacture of this country afforded greater means of wealth and employment than any other in the world; he meant the cotton trade, of which Manchester might be said to be the centre; and it was the duty and policy of Parliament, to afford every means of necessary recreation to those who were engaged in it. The in crease of that trade was so great, that he could not help adverting to it. The importations of cotton, in 1781, were about 5,000,000lbs.; in 1820, they increased to 56,000,000lbs.; in 1820, to 147,000,000lbs.; and in the year 1830, to 250,000,000 lbs. The annual value was 36,000,000 l.; the wages paid annually were 22,000,000 l.; and the trade employed 1,250,000 persons. In 1780, the number

1053
of persons employed in that trade was not more than 50,000; and it would now appear, from what he had said, that the present number employed was twenty-five times that amount. The population of Manchester was 187,000, and yet there was not for that immense population an open suitable place for exercise or recreation. The artizans there had no place to walk on Sundays, and near that town and other such places, the working man and his family were met on the road with notices against trespass, and the inhospitable intimation of spring-guns, and Steel-traps. It happened, that there was a Benevolent Society formed at Manchester, to protect the working classes in the enjoyment of footpaths, which were too often attempted to be closed up against them, and from the exertions of that society, which were necessarily limited, the greatest advantages had followed; for they had preserved for the working man many of his limited comforts, of which he would otherwise have been deprived. He did not mean to dwell on the probable increase of population, with the view of advancing arguments in favour of his proposition, but it was a matter well worthy of consideration, and had been ably discussed in a work lately published by Mr. Babbage on the "Economy of Manufactures." Other considerations besides the public health ought to induce Members to consider this subject very seriously; but a comparison of the number of deaths in 10,000 persons, before they reached twenty years old, in various situations, would show how material such outlets were to health. He would call the attention of the House to a subsequent statement upon this point. The number of deaths were—in a healthy county, 3,700 out of 10,000; in a marshy county, 4,200 out of 10,000; in London, 4,500 out of 10,000; in Carlisle, 5,600 out of 10,000; in Preston, Stockport, Wigan, and Bury, 6,000 out of 10,000. In Leeds the loss of life was still greater in proportion, being more than 6,000 out of every 10,000 persons, before they reached the age of twenty-one. This evidence showed how absolutely necessary it was, that everything possible should be done to promote longevity. In London, it was notorious, that there were many hundreds who knew what the country was only by description of the pastoral ruralities of Hampstead and Highgate. He did not put it, however, merely on the ground of
1054
health. Of late years, there had been a growing disposition to decry the amusements of the poor, and wakes and fairs had been abolished for their immorality; but those who abolished them were bound to find a substitute, or to incur the suspicion of canting hypocrisy. He was persuaded that if due outlets were provided, the consumption of spirits would decrease, and mechanics, instead of sotting in alehouses, would rejoice in the opportunity of enjoying the open air. At present, the poor workman in the large manufacturing towns, was actually forced into the public house, there being no other place for hit to amuse himself in. Independently of this, it was well known that healthy happy men were not disposed to enter into conspiracies. Want of recreation generated incipient disease, and disease, discontent; which, in its turn, led to attacks upon the Government. Another argument he begged to address to the Vice President of the Board of Trade, and it was this—that the consumption of manufactured goods would be increased by enabling the lower orders of both sexes to display their neatness or their finery. Plain men, like himself, and like the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, were content, perhaps, to wear coats only because they kept them warm; but the greater part of mankind sported dress, because they thought they appeared in it to advantage. The maidservant and the mechanic's daughter took as much pride in displaying her rich ribbons, as a lady her fine equipage, or a duchess her diamonds. In his mind, this feeling ought to be encouraged, as it promoted cleanliness, decency, and self-respect. If such persons had no opportunity of appearing in public walks, they lost a great stimulus to industry, and that industry would always increase in proportion as it afforded the means of indulging in such becoming luxuries. Fathers and mothers, also, were naturally happy in seeing their children well dressed, and in showing them to other people. When the late Sir James Mackintosh was exemplifying the progress of society, he showed the different stages by which men advanced in civilization, and in tracing that progress from the actual wants of nature to the enjoyments of luxuries, he proved how necessary it was to attend to the principle which he had just laid down. If the working classes were not allowed to indulge in such pardonable vanity they

1055
would have recourse to pernicious practices. He conceived therefore that public walks would not only promote the health and morality of the people, but be beneficial to the mere wealth of the country. It would, of course, be expected from him to state, how he intended to remedy the evils of which he complained. He should first propose that a Select Committee be appointed to consider what was the best plan that could be devised, and to that Committee he should entirely commit the subject, inviting also the attention of any hon. Member who might take an interest in the matter. At first the House might perhaps be deterred from its consideration by an apprehension that public walks could not be erected but at too great an expense. In his opinion the expense would not be so considerable as was supposed. To provide such walks as he wished for, there would be no necessity for carriage-ways, and there were in the neighbourhood of some large towns commons which might be advantageously used for the objects which he had in view. The interior of such open spaces might be beneficially used for grazing and other purposes, whilst they were surrounded by such walks as would afford exercise and recreation to the people. It would cost little, for example, to have a space like that beautiful walk Christchurch Meadows. Several of the Corporations were also possessed of lands and open spaces which might be profitably applied for similar purposes. They were, besides, several of the public roads on the sides of which there might be erected public walks upon the plan of the Boulevards in Paris. These might be ornamented with trees and other decorations affording all the means of recreation which he desired. The extensive commons which joined extensive towns, such as those at Coventry, might be well laid out in public walks. There were several such commons and fields which, by draining, would become valuable property, besides affording the means of exercise which the people so much required. What he meant to suggest in the Committee was, that any town raising a sum by subscription or otherwise for the purpose of building public walks should receive a certain proportion of money from the public Treasury, upon the same principle as money had been advanced for the building of new Churches; and that Commissioners should be appointed to
1056
prevent any waste of this money. If in those Churches a provision was made of free seats for the poor, he saw no reason why free walks should not be also secured to them. He was quite sure the public, when they knew the purpose for which this money was granted, would not grumble at the expenditure. He also felt confident that the humbler classes, when they knew that it was expended for the improvement of their own condition, would accept it gratefully, and take it as an earnest of the kind intentions of the Legislature towards them. By attention to these and other apparently unimportant matters, he was sure the wealthy would reap a rich harvest of reward in the happiness and contentment of the humbler classes of the community. The hon. Member then moved, "That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the best means of securing open spaces in the immediate vicinity of populous towns, as public walks calculated to promote the health and comfort of the inhabitants."
Mr. Baldwinseconded the Motion, and acquiesced in most of the doctrines laid down by the hon. Member. He thought, however, that the health of the working people would be more effectually preserved by attention to the cleanliness and ventilation of their houses, and by the widening of the narrow lanes and the lighting of the passages in large towns. In his progress through England, Scotland, and Ireland, he had observed a great want of attention to these particular points, which, from experience, he could say were most essential, not only to the comfort but to the health and existence of the poor. He did not undervalue the advantages of public walks, or other means of necessary recreation; but cleanliness and the ventilation of houses, which were too much neglected in large towns, were more essential than public walks.
Mr. Lambagreed with the hon. Member, that the subject of the health of the lower orders was of much importance to the Legislature, but he doubted whether much more might not be done to promote the object of the hon. Member by Magistrates of towns than by Parliament. He did not see how the Legislature could effect the object which the hon. Member had in view; at the same time he regretted to say that too little attention had been paid to this subject at the passing of several of the Enclosure Bills. The erec-

1057
tion of public walks could best be effected by local legislation. At the same time, he had no objection to the trial of the experiment proposed; for it always gave him great pleasure to see people who worked hard all the week innocently enjoying themselves on Sunday. He hoped that nothing would, at any time, be attempted to cloud the general sunshine of the cheerful Sabbath in this country.
Mr. Faithfulcordially approved of the Committee. In general the small and old towns enjoyed walks of this description, and he hoped that all the large and modern would not be left without these conveniences.
Mr. Lennardalso approved of the principle of the Motion. He begged to take advantage of that occasion to suggest to the noble Lord at the head of the Woods and Forests the expediency of throwing open the grounds of the Regent's Park, which had been so long closed, to the public. Contrary to the explicit understanding of the Government and the public on their being first laid out they had been kept closed under various pretences, of which the most feasible—the necessity of protecting the young trees—was no longer valid. He hoped the public would be no longer deprived of their right out of a mere consideration for the whims of the occupants of villas in the neighbourhood.
Mr. Pottersaid, he felt greatly obliged to the hon. member for Shrewsbury for his repeated exertions upon this subject, and was sure, if the plan of having open spaces near large towns was adopted, the best results would follow. As the hon. Gentleman had alluded to Manchester, where he (Mr. Potter) had so long resided, he wished to confirm his statement as to the great want of open spaces for the recreation and health of the inhabitants. The county of Lancaster, it was well known, contained several large towns, but they were nearly all deficient in suitable places where the people could walk out. The hon. member for Shrewsbury had also alluded to the Manchester Association for the Preservation of Footpaths. He had been connected with the Society from its commencement, and could bear testimony to the great good it had done. Such was the constant desire to stop up foot-paths, that had it not been for the exertions of the Manchester Society, he believed there would at this time have been very few
1058
foot-paths left within ten miles of Manchester. The hon. Secretary had also spoken of the rights of the poor, and the preservation of public roads being provided for in Enclosure Bills. With the permission of the House he would mention a circumstance which occurred only yesterday, relative to enclosures. He was on a Committee on an Enclosure Bill in Wilts; on referring to that clause relative to the Commissioners having the power to divert, turn, and stop up foot-paths, he proposed a clause to the effect, that no road should be diverted or stopped up until the authority of the inhabitants in Vestry assembled was first obtained; but he was told by the Chairman of the Committee (the hon. member for Wiltshire) that such a clause could not be introduced in a private Bill, but that the General Enclosure Act might be altered. He entirely concurred in the Motion before the House, and hoped the Committee would be granted.
Mr. Fergus O'Connorfeared, that no Legislative enactment could be made to apply to any such evil, or produce any such remedy as that in the contemplation of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member who had brought forward the measure had spoken of the beauty of the capital and its magnificent river; he could also speak of the beauties of Dublin and its river. There was this sad difference, however, between them. In the environs of the one were seen boards with the words, "Beware of spring guns and steel traps;" in the other, were muskets and bayonets without any caution to beware.
Mr. Portmansaid, that, in his opinion, the stopping up of foot-paths was one of the greatest causes of the want of sufficient opportunities of air and exercise for the humbler classes, and he hoped the House would not allow any opportunity to pass of doing all that legislation could do to prevent any further extension of that evil. He intended very soon to bring in a Bill, to which a clause might, with perfect propriety, be added, which would render the stopping up of foot-paths extremely difficult. Directing his observations more particularly to the noble Lord at the head of the Woods and Forests Department, he expressed a hope that the time was not distant when the whole of the Regent's Park would be open to the public. As to the project which had that evening been brought before them by his hon.

1059
friend behind him, lie confessed it did strike his mind that there were considerable difficulties in the way of carrying any such plan into effect—there was obviously a want of funds—whence then were the means to come? He deprecated anything in the nature of additional taxation, either general or local.
Mr. Harveysaid, that the arbitrary power lately assumed by Magistrates in closing foot-paths had engendered much discontent among the poorer classes, who were thereby shut out from all means of wholesome recreation. It should be a Standing Order of the House, that no Enclosure Act should receive its sanction till such rights of the poor as might be involved should be minutely inquired into. There were more notices of motions for Enclosure Bills since the commencement of the present Session, than had ever been given, he believed, in an equal length of time, but he had no reason to think, that any of them contained a specific provision to prevent the shutting up of foot-paths. Hitherto all laws had been made by the rich—in favour of the rich, and at the expense of the poor, and while that was the practice, or supposed to be the practice, the laws were not likely to be either loved or respected.
Mr. Benettobserved, that most great towns had adjoining to them spaces of ground, such as the hon. Member proposed, to enclose, or rather open, for the purposes of recreation. For his part he thought it would be much better to introduce into private bills clauses for this purpose, than to make them the subject of a public measure.
Motion agreed to, and Committee appointed.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
Mr. Hume,in rising to call the attention of the House to the state of the Public Accounts, said it was not his intention to institute any comparison between the mode of keeping the national accounts adopted in this kingdom and plans pursued in any other country, but to point out to the House the impropriety of the proceeding of voting money for each particular department separately, in total ignorance of the aggregate expense of the whole. Every statement of accounts, as yet presented to that House, had been defective, at least in one respect—none of them had ever stated what was the whole annual receipts and expendi-
1060
ture of the kingdom. Several sums of money were paid away by the Government over which that House had no control; and he considered the existence of two funds, out of which the expenses of Government were defrayed (one, the consolidated fund, and the other that which was annually voted by Parliament), to be a cause of great inconvenience. It appeared, from a paper presented to the House, that the sum voted by Parliament for the expenses of last year, was 17,782,000 l. On looking at this account, one would naturally suppose, that it was a statement of the whole expenditure of the country; it was, indeed, the whole of the money over which the House had any control; but the amount actually paid away was 51,000,000 l. What, he asked, was the cause of this difference? In the first place, there were nearly 4,000,000 l. paid for the collection of the revenue, which was never brought into the public accounts. The only statement of the total expenditure laid before the House, was the annual finance account, moved for last year, by an hon. Member, and the value of which he was ready to admit. That, however, had only reference to the past year, and, in his opinion, it was highly desirable that a similar account should be presented applicable to the coming year, and that a detailed statement of the expense and numbers of the different departments should be in one sheet, in order to enable the Members of that House to judge whether, by a consolidation of some of the boards, or by any other alteration which might be deemed advisable, the mode of conducting the business of the country could be simplified, and the expense reduced. He believed that if a detailed account of the various Boards of Excise, Customs, Stamps, &c., were put into Members' hands, they would be of opinion, that one-third of the present number of Commissioners would be sufficient to transact the business. By a return lying on the Table it appeared that, in some ports in England, Scotland, and Ireland, the expense of the establishment of custom-house officers amounted to twice as much as the whole of the Customs collected in them. The cause of this, he believed was to be discovered in the practice, formerly followed, of giving to such of the Representatives of those places as voted with the Administration of the day, the power of appointing to all

1061
Government offices in them. He hoped that the time for such practices had now passed by. Since the year 1797 a considerable increase had taken place both in the expense of the public establishments and the number of officers employed. He was ready to admit that a great reduction had been of late years effected in several of these establishments; but he was of opinion that, with regard to the departments employed in the collection of the public revenue, a much greater approximation might be made than now existed to the scale of 1797, if a detailed account of their expenditure was annually laid before Parliament. It was his object to obtain, in one account, a statement of the gross revenue and expenditure of the country. The papers on the Table stated that expenditure to amount to 46,300,000 l., which sum was 3,000,000 l. or 4,000,000 l. less than the amount actually expended. 1,315,000 l. were annually paid away to defray the expense of the Custom-house department and the preventive service, not one shilling of which was under the control of Parliament. In like manner, 1,140,000 l. were paid to defray the expenses of the Excise department; 238,000 l. for the expenses of both Houses of Parliament; and 212,000 l. as allowances to the junior branches of the Royal Family, without the sanction of Parliament being annually obtained for such payments. When pensions were once granted, they were placed on the Consolidated Fund, over which that House had no control, nor any particular knowledge, unless when a detailed account was called for. He considered that an account of all pensions and all allowances made to the civil officers of the Government, as well as the salaries of the Judges, ought annually to appear in the Estimates, together with a reference to the several Acts of Parliament by which they were authorized to be paid; so that hon. Members might be able to know whether they were such as should be reduced in amount, or altogether discontinued. There was a gross sum of 412,000 l. paid for judicial services, and, if Members had an opportunity of seeing how that large sum was appropriated, he was sure many of them would agree with him in thinking that some of the Judges were paid too much. Every item of the 51,000,000 l. expended should be laid before the House, and an estimate might also be produced of the supposed
1062
produce of every tax. Even when a tax was partially repealed, there could be no difficulty in estimating what it was supposed the part which remained might produce. When the expense of printing for that House amounted to 100,000 l., he could not understand the reason why these accounts were not given in detail; it surely could not be on account of the cost. It was true, that after these pensions and salaries were paid, some statement of them was laid on the Table, but what he wanted was, that a detailed account should be presented before a single shilling was voted; and that they should have the whole number of men in the service of the country, and the expense attending them, stated in one sheet. The House was to be called upon to vote 27,000 seamen and marines for the current year. Now, of that number, 9,000 were marines; and out of that 9,000, 5,000 were always on shore. That was a circumstance that was entirely overlooked when the House was called upon to vote the number of the army. He therefore contended that the amount of the expense and force of all these different establishments should be laid before the House in one sheet. Why, he should like to know, could not the Estimates, in all their details, be made out by the 15th of January? If they were prepared at that period, the Members of that House would have time to consider what reductions could be effected. He repeated that, until they had a statement of every shilling of the public expenditure and receipts before them, their accounts would never be in a satisfactory state. He did not think that to be an honest account which stated the whole expenditure of the nation to be 46,000,000 l., when, in fact, it amounted to 51,000,000 l. His object was to obtain the means by which the people might be enabled to judge of the whole amount of taxation to be raised, and the whole amount of payments to be made in the course of the year; as well as the number of individuals employed in the naval, military, and civil establishments of the country. The hon. Member concluded by moving—"That there be laid before this House estimates of the gross receipts of the public income of the United Kingdom, under separate heads, for the year 1833, in order to show the total public income for that year: of all payments to be made for the public service, in every department, under separate

1063
heads, under any Act or vote of Parliament, stating the several Acts authorizing the same, in order to show what will be the total public expenditure in 1833:—Estimates, in detail, stating the number of each class of persons employed, and the rate of pay and emoluments of each class, under separate heads; of the charges of management for the collection of the revenues of Customs, Excise, Post-Office, Stamps, Land and Assessed taxes. Crown lands, and other small branches of revenue, for the year 1833; stating by what authority those payments are made: Estimates, in detail, of all payments to be made out of the public income of the United Kingdom in its progress to the Exchequer, other than charges of collection, for the year 1833; distinguishing each kingdom, and the authority by which such payments are made."
Colonel Davies seconded the Motion.
Lord Althorp,before he proceeded to reply to the hon. Member's observations, begged to remind him, that the terms of the Motion which he had just made were in direct contradiction to the arrangement which was made last year, with respect to the commencement and termination of the financial year, and which arrangement was also made with the hon. Member's approbation. By that arrangement the financial year extended from April to April in each year, and not as the hon. Member now apparently wished to fix it, from January to January; and with reference to what he himself had said on a former occasion relative to this matter, the hon. Member seemed to imply that he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not understand the nature of the change which had been made in the financial terms. Now, what he had understood the alteration to amount to was, that the House agreed to vote a part of the Estimates for the then ensuing year, before the year had commenced; but he certainly did not imagine that the House meant, by its decision, to sanction the hon. Member's demand for an estimate of the expenditure of the ensuing year before the present year had expired, for he could not see how it was possible for that to be done. By the present mode of making out the financial accounts, the expenditure and receipts of the past year were first furnished at the close of the financial year, and then the Minister proceeded to state what the estimated expenditure was for the current
1064
year. Now, if he were to attempt to make any such financial statement as the hon. Member's Motion would, if agreed to, require from him, before the April quarter completing the year had expired, the effect would only be, to elicit from him a most confused and unsatisfactory statement, and such as would have the effect of defeating the hon. Member's object. The hon. Member had made a complaint, at which he thought the House would feel considerably surprised. The hon. Member had asserted that the Ministers practised a delusion on the public, in furnishing the yearly retrospective balance-sheet. Now, he must say, that he was surprised to hear such a declaration from the hon. Member, for the balance-sheet was furnished solely in consequence of his own suggestion. The hon. Member had also complained that a part only of the yearly expenditure came under the observation and control of Parliament—namely, that which was included in the votes of the Committee of Supply. Now, it certainly was very true, that the money which was paid out of the Consolidated Fund was not voted every year; but that fund was at the disposition of Parliament, and the House had the power, at any time, of repealing the Acts by which the Consolidated Fund had been devoted to the purposes to which it was now applied, and the only reason why that part of the expenditure which was provided for by the Consolidated Fund was not brought before the House, together with the Estimates was, because the Act of Parliament had fixed the exact amount of that payment, whereas the supplies depended upon the expenditure from year to year. It was his intention, and indeed a bill was in preparation, which would be ready when the immediate press of business had been disposed of, whereby the Exchequer would in future be put under such a regulation as he trusted would be satisfactory; by that arrangement the whole amount of the gross revenue would be carried to the account of the Exchequer on the one side, and the gross expenditure on the other; and when this change was effected, he should have no objection to furnish every one of the accounts in detail. He should also think it proper that the House be called upon to vote all the Estimates in one gross sum, but as the accounts were at present made up, the contingencies rendered it impossible to say prospectively

1065
what amount of expenditure would be necessary. The hon. Member had complained that there was at present no account furnished of the gross revenue of the country. Now, the hon. Member must have said what he did not mean, for it could not have escaped his observation that the very first sheet of the financial accounts contained the gross amount of the revenue: [Mr. Hume—Yes; but not the gross amount of last year's revenue:] So the hon. Member wanted the Estimates of the present year—even before the past year's services were brought to a close. However, to pass to the hon. Member's other objections, the only data from which any Estimates could be prospectively calculated, must be taken from those of the preceding year; but he did not know that the gross revenue of the preceding year could form any basis for a calculation as to the receipts of any subsequent period. The hon. Member was well aware that Ministers were always ready to give him whatever accounts he wished for. The hon. Member had observed that the expenses attendant on the collection of the revenue at some of the out ports exceeded the amount of the revenue received, and that the establishments exceeded the value of the services rendered by them. Now the hon. Member had totally laid aside the consideration, that the Custom-house officers at these ports were placed there as much for the prevention of smuggling as for the purposes of collecting the revenue, and though he was perfectly ready to admit the amount of revenue collected by them did not equal the cost of their maintenance, yet they must continue to support those establishments or else smuggling would be carried on to such an extent as to injure the fair trader, whom the Government was bound to protect. The hon. Member had referred also to the expenses incurred by the two Houses of Parliament, and had expressed a desire to have the accounts of those expenses laid before the House. Now he had no objection whatever to comply with the hon. Member's desire, and as some remark might be made relative to the large charge incurred for printing, he would in particular specify the exact sum paid to the printer, and if the hon. Member wished for it, the exact expenses to which each individual Member had put the country, by calling for printed documents. The hon. Member had also observed, that the House ought to have
1066
the whole force of the country brought at once before them when the estimates were produced. Now that part of the hon. Member's wishes was already complied with, and if he wanted to have the numbers stated in one sheet, he could easily have his desire gratified. But he must say, that the hon. Member's desire for accounts often led him to make such demands as, when complied with, were totally useless and very expensive to make up. Whilst on this subject he would take the opportunity of stating, that the present Lord Chief Justice had agreed to perform his duties for the reduced salary of 8,000 l. a year, instead of 10,000 l., which his predecessors received, who had also enjoyed the advantages of a place, from which he received something very considerable. The present Lord Chief Justice, his hon. friend, had readily consented to accept the office on the reduced salary, and they thought that the opportunity for reducing the scale of salaries was now come, and ought to be seized. He had already stated the intentions of the Government to bring forward a bill regulating the Exchequer, so as to show the gross revenue on one side, and the gross expenditure on the other, and when that Bill was brought into operation the House would have a check over the income and expenditure which it did not now possess; and also an opportunity of criticizing the accounts more narrowly. He admitted, that at present the House had no check over the expenses incurred for the collection of the revenue, but by the arrangements which he proposed to effect by this Bill that evil would be remedied.
Mr. Humewished to make one observation. Some hon. Members had indulged in a laugh on hearing the noble Lord assert, that the commencement and termination of the financial year, as at present arranged, had met with his approval, supposing most probably, that the alteration had originated in a proposal of his own. But he would beg to recall to the noble Lord's recollection, that the proposition which he made in the Committee on this matter had been negatived, and he and his hon. friend (Mr. Warburton), who sat near him, were over-ruled upon this matter, the recommendation for altering the period of the financial year to its present duration having been subsequently suggested by the hon. member for Abingdon. If the noble Lord, however, felt it to be in-

1067
convenient to furnish the Returns comprised in his Motion, he would not press for them.
Motion withdrawn.

PRIVATE LIGHTHOUSES.
Mr. Humesaid, that he had now a Motion to submit to the House, which was of considerable importance to the whole of the shipping interest of this country—he meant the charges to which they were subjected for the maintenance and expense of Lighthouses on the coast. He (Mr. Hume) had first brought this question under the consideration of the House in the year 1821, when a Committee was appointed, who gave in a Report, in which hon. Members would find the amount of charge stated, to which the shipping interest was subjected on this account. He was bound to say, that since the Report of that Committee was made, much had been done to relieve the shipping interest from this charge; but, as ample details of the improvements recommended would be found in the Report alluded to, he would not trouble the House by repeating them. The complaint which he had now to make, was, that the King's prerogative was grossly abused in renewing leases of lighthouses to private individuals, and for their private benefit. In the Report laid before the House in 1823, relative to the shipping interest, it was recommended that ail lighthouses should be placed under the direction of the Trinity-house, and that no charge should be made for them beyond the exact amount expended for their maintenance; but, notwithstanding that recommendation, the leases of the lighthouse of Dungeness (which was let to Mr. Coke), and those of Harwich and Orfordness, had been renewed since that period on terms which entailed an annual expense of 30,000 l. on the shipping interest. That such a scandalous abuse should exist was astonishing, and he thought that the shipping interest should use every endeavour to rid themselves of it. In order to show the extent of the injury, he would read what the Report said on the subject of three of the private lighthouses only. It appeared, that from the Winterton lighthouse—the proceeds of which are divided equally between Lord Braybrooke and the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, and from which Returns had only been given for twenty-one months from the expiration of the old lease—that in these twenty-one
1068
months Lord Braybrooke received, after all the expenses of maintaining the lighthouse and keeping up the lights had been paid, 11,000 l., and the Commissioners of Woods and Forests a like sum; so that by this light-house alone a tax of 22,000 l. was laid on the shipping interest. He had brought the subject before the House in 1823, when several Members had stated their opinions on it; and at that time two Ministers of the Crown pledged themselves, that as the leases of private light-houses fell in they should not be renewed, yet they had been renewed. He considered that this was exercising the King's prerogative to an extent which was contrary to the Constitution, for the King had no right to tax any class of his subjects; and if his Majesty's prerogative could be exercised in this instance to lay a tax on the shipping interest, he (Mr. Hume) saw no reason why it should not be so far stretched as to lay taxes on other classes. The lighthouses of Winterton and Orfordness had yielded to the family of Lord Bray-broke 17,000 l. a year for the last twenty-one years; and it was absurd to say, that because that family had enjoyed this revenue for so many years, it should continue to enjoy it. Dungeness yielded a revenue to Mr. Coke of 8,000 l. a year, and Harwich 4,000 l. There were many other private lighthouses, but he only alluded to those of which the leases had lately expired, and of which the Government promised that the leases should not be renewed. Since the Report of the Committee was made, the recommendation made by them had been acceded to, and the charge levied for those lights had been reduced by one-half; but he (Mr. Hume) was prepared to show that a still greater reduction ought to be made. In the year 1828, the amount levied for light-houses in England by the Trinity-house, was 69,000 l., in Scotland 34,000 l., and in Ireland 36,000 l.; which, with the amount levied for the three private lighthouses which he had already mentioned, came to 169,000 l. This was exclusive of other private lighthouses, of which he could not ascertain the revenue, as they did not choose to make any return; but he thought that he was not far wrong in saying, that the whole sum raised on the shipping interest for the support of light-houses, amounted to from 180,000 l. to 190,000 l. The whole system required revision, and to be placed under different management from what it

1069
was at present. The members of the Trinity-house were naval men—he had opportunities of observing them for ten years, and had satisfaction in saying, that he thought they did their duty. The brethren of that institution were composed of West-India and East-India captains, with a mixture of persons connected with trade and shipping, all of whom understood the business to which they were appointed; but what was the case with those who had charge of the lighthouses in Scotland? He held in his hand a list of the Board of Commissioners for the Northern Lighthouses, and he would put it to the House whether they were fitted for the duties connected with that office. The first name on the list was the late Lord Advocate for Scotland, and next came the Solicitor General. The Lord Provost of Edinburgh came next, and then followed the Lord Provost of Glasgow (whom he had the pleasure of seeing opposite to him); the Provosts of Aberdeen and Inverness; and the Sheriffs of Lanark, Argyle, Orkney, &c., all of them lawyers, and without a single naval man among them. He would leave it to the House to say whether these were the most proper persons to manage light-houses. The fact was, that they had a clever engineer to whom the whole management was confided. The idea of trusting such a matter to persons like the Provost of Glasgow, or the Provost of Inverness—or, indeed, any other Provost, was quite preposterous. But if matters were bad in Scotland, they were worse in Ireland. In Dublin there was what was called a Ballast Board, which managed the light-houses, and raised 36,000 l. for that purpose. The Board consisted of bankers, magistrates, and persons of all classes, excepting naval men—there was not one naval man in the Ballast Board; yet, to that Board was confided the care of those lighthouses, in which the whole shipping interest was so much concerned. He thought, that on a subject of so much importance, it was the duty of the First Lord of the Admiralty to carry some measure through, which would put it on a proper footing. It was more especially that officer's duty, now when so many complaints were daily made of the distress felt by the shipping interest; but whether that class was distressed or not, he considered that where an annual expense of nearly 200,000 l. was incurred on lighthouses alone, it behoved
1070
Government not to pass it over without inquiry, and without giving every possible relief to the shipping interest. He (Mr. Hume) was aware, that the subject was fenced with charters, which might be rather difficult to overcome, but he did not think that these would offer an insurmountable obstacle. He had no objection that the Trinity House should have the management of the lighthouses in England, but while Scotch Provosts and lawyers, and Irish bankers and Magistrates had the management of them in their respective countries, he could not expect that they would be properly managed. He hoped, that the House would take the lights from these two bodies, that they would not allow the northern lights to shine under their present auspices, nor the Ballast Board to exercise its jurisdiction in Ireland another year. He admitted, that great improvements had been made since 1823, but still there was room for greater improvement. He repeated, that he thought the King had no prerogative to lay a tax upon the people by means of these lights, or if he had, that he might as well tax any class of his subjects in any other way. There was another point connected with this subject to which he wished to allude. Since the reciprocity system was introduced, by which foreign vessels were exempted from paying lighthouse dues, the Government paid to the private lighthouses all the extra dues which should have been paid by foreign ships but for that arrangement; so that the Government actually paid money out of the public purse to those private lighthouses, over and above the large sums which were paid by the owners of ships in this country, which they ought never to pay. The question was one of greater importance than was supposed, and he hoped that Government would take some measures to have it placed on a proper footing. The hon. Member concluded, by moving for Returns—
"Of the gross and nett revenue collected for lighthouse duties from shipping, and from the consolidated customs for foreign vessels, for each of the lighthouses at Harwich, Dungeness, the Smalls, the Long-ships, and Burnham, in each of the four years, 1828, 1829, 1830, and 1831; stating the appropriation of the nett revenue in each year, to whom paid, the amount to each, and by what authority paid.
"Of the gross and nett revenue collected

1071
for lighthouse duties from shipping, and from the consolidated customs for foreign vessels, for each of the lighthouses at Wintertonness, Orfordness, Hunstanston Cliff, county of Norfolk, and at the Northern-South Forelands, and for all other lighthouses in the hands of private individuals, in each year, from 1823 to 1831, both years inclusive; stating the appropriation of the nett revenue in each, to whom paid, the amount to each, and by what authority paid.—Also Returns
"Of the several reductions and alterations of duties of lights, of buoys, of beaconage, and of pilotage, which have been effected subsequently to the year 1822, by the Corporation of Trinity House of Deptford Strond, in relation to these duties payable to that body; showing what purchases of lighthouses on lease have been made by them, the dates when made, and the terms and conditions of the same. Also copies or extracts of correspondence respecting purchases which have not been effected.
"Of the several reductions and alterations of duties of lights which have been effected subsequently to 1822 on lighthouses in the hands of private individuals and public bodies, other than the Trinity House of Deptford Strond, in England. Similar Returns of reductions and alterations of the duties of lights in Scotland since 1832. Similar Returns of reductions and alterations of the duties of lights in Ireland since 1822. Also an Account
"Of all sums of money received by the Corporation of Trinity House of Deptford Strond, as light-money from vessels, between 1st January 1828, and 1st January 1832, in each year, showing the rate of charge under each light; with a separate account of the receipt and expenditure for each particular light; and specifying the particular patent or grant, or Act of Parliament, under which the same has been levied; also, the gross amount in each year of the whole of these light-duties.
"Return of the whole receipt and revenue of the Corporation of Trinity House of Deptford Strond; distinguishing the particular sources from which the same are derived, together with a particular and detailed account of the appropriation, for the year 1831.
"Return, with an abstract account of the gross sum collected for light-duty by the Corporation of Trinity House of Deptford Strond; the gross amount paid by
1072
the Corporation as commission for collecting the same; stating the amount of such commission paid to each collector, and the rate per cent paid to him for the collection in the year 1831. Also an account
"Of the gross sum collected for light-dues by the Commissioners of northern lighthouses, the gross amount paid as commission for collecting the same; stating the amount of such commission paid to each collector, and the rate per cent paid to him for the collection in the year 1831."
Mr. Robinsonseconded the Motion. It would be right, he thought, to frame the return so as to ascertain the unexpired terms of existing leases to private individuals. He thought the granting of leases of lighthouses was a most objectionable mode of remunerating those who had, or were thought to have, claims upon the Crown. Foreign nations were induced by our practice to impose a duty upon English shipping; for, as England, for instance, made French vessels pay for the lights upon the English coasts, France naturally retaliated by making English ships pay a lighthouse duty on entering a French port. He believed that, under all governments, the lighthouse system had been made one of gross jobbing, and that great corruption existed with respect to the charges. He trusted that Ministers would now take all these abuses into consideration, and that they would afford the public all the relief possible. He hoped that no more leases of lighthouses would ever be renewed.
Mr. P. Thomsonsaid, that he did not rise to offer any opposition whatever to the Motion of the hon. member for Middlesex; on the contrary, he was extremely glad that the hon. Member had brought the subject forward. It would be for the House to determine, after the papers were laid on the Table, in what manner it would deal with the question. He could not, however, see that the House could deal with it in the manner suggested by the hon. Member, for he could not think that it was feasible to deal with rights which had been granted to individuals by the Crown in the manner proposed. At the same time he was convinced that similar rights ought never to be conceded in future; and it was most desirable, he admitted, that whatever pressed upon the shipping interests for the benefit of individuals ought to be removed as soon as

1073
possible by that House. He should be very happy if it could be shown that any agreement could be entered into, or an equitable system adopted, by which the burthens so justly complained of could be taken off With respect to what the hon. Member had said on the subject of renewing the leases of two lighthouses in favour of two individuals after a strong representation had been made upon the subject, he could only say, that the renewals had not been granted by the administration of which he had the honour to form a part; and he had always maintained that these advantages ought not to have been conceded, but that the lighthouses ought to have been placed under the direction and management of the Trinity House. He could not by any means agree, however, with the hon. member for Worcester, that all governments were inclined to job with those lighthouses, for on the only occasion which had occurred of a lighthouse coming within the control of the present Administration, the First Lord of the Admiralty abandoned not only what he might have claimed, but he conceded to the shipping interest even the benefit of which he was in actual possession. The North and South Foreland lights fell into Greenwich Hospital last year. The right hon. Baronet at the head of the Admiralty had made no claim for a renewal of these leases upon the advantageous terms upon which they had been previously held, and he had abandoned a sum of between five and six thousand a year for the benefit of the shipping interest. He had placed the lights under the control of the Trinity House, and directed that no charges should be made on ships, except what might be found necessary in order to defray the expenses of the lights. He acknowledged that the existing system obliged the Government to pay money to foreigners which it could but ill afford: he meant money beyond the tax imposed on the shipping interests. The Government, however, were now making all the arrangements in its power in order to secure a perfect system of lights for the benefit of the shipping of the country. During the present Session of Parliament, he hoped to be able to submit to the House some plan for the generalization of the subject, by means of bargains to be made with individuals now in possession of these lighthouses.
Sir Robert Peeldid not rise to contest the general principle that had been laid down upon the subject, for his own opinion was, that whatever might be the vested interests of individuals in these lighthouses, it would be better to make a compensation to such persons, and to put the whole of the lights under some public department. He rose, however, for the purpose of replying to the mis-statement that had been made by the hon. member for Worcester, and he most positively denied that there was the slightest ground for the imputation which the hon. Member had cast upon the Administration of which he (Sir R. Peel) had the honour of forming a part. He most positively contradicted the assertion that there had been any desire on the part of the late Administration to convert these lighthouses into a means of jobbing, or to draw from them any advantages whatever. The Duke of Wellington's Administration certainly did renew the leases of two lighthouses in 1828 which had fallen in during that year, and a right to a renewal of which was claimed by two individuals who possessed in them a vested interest To be sure, if the lease had been renewed to persons who sup-ported the Administration in Parliament, or to persons whose support might be calculated upon in consequence of such renewals, then he acknowledged that there might appear a prima facie suspicion of jobbing. But both of the leases had been renewed to a nobleman and to a Member of Parliament, both of whom had always been in habits of the most active opposition to Ministers, and whose characters placed them above all suspicion that any such favours could influence their public conduct. What, then, would become of the suspicion that the renewals had been granted from motives of political jobbing? The two individuals to whom he had alluded were Lord Braybrooke and Mr. Coke, of Norfolk. What object, what motive, but a sense of justice could have influenced Ministers to grant the renewals to two such individuals? Mr. Coke's memorial had stated that the Dungeness lighthouse, the lease of which he wished to be renewed, had originally been built by his relative, the Earl of Thanet, at his own expense and upon his own ground. If, then, the property was his, and it was built upon his own estate, on what principle could the Government take the lighthouse without making an adequate com-

1075
pensation to the individual? The leases in this case had been renewed for 150 years, and, whether it was politic or not to renew them, he hoped he had said enough to show that no party interest whatever had in the least influenced the transaction.
Mr. Peasewas extremely glad that the hon. member for Middlesex had brought the subject before the House. He considered it a subject which not only deeply involved the interests of the country, but which still more deeply involved the interests of humanity, and the claims of that highly useful and meritorious class of men in whose welfare all persons must feel the most lively concern. From his local knowledge he was able to say, that in the harbours and coasts of the part of the country with which he was connected, the seamen were exposed to many risks by wanting lights, owing to the expense necessary to be incurred if lighthouses were constructed. The whole system, in his opinion, ought to be put under the control and management of a board of judicious, practical, and experienced persons. It had always appeared to him to be a most extraordinary anomaly that, whilst the highest persons in the State, and humane persons in general, were subscribing fifty or a hundred pounds to different societies, such for instance as the Marine Society, the Society for the Relief of Shipwrecked Seamen, to lifeboats, to Captain Manby's contrivance, and to similar objects, there should be a tax levied by individuals, and under the sanction of the Crown, which was nothing more nor less than a direct hindrance to the preservation of lives in the gross. He hoped that, after the Returns now moved for should be laid on the Table of the House, hon. Members would be able to see their way clearer, and would proceed still further than what had been suggested. Whilst mariners were a class of their fellow-subjects, to whose welfare all possible attention was due, and upon whose safety and interests no care could be ill-bestowed, as their lives and property were exposed for the benefit of others, was it not a strange anomaly that their lives should be placed even in greater jeopardy than was necessary, merely because the lighthouses were to be taxed, in order to raise sums to create a fund for paying seamen's pensions? If these pensions were necessary, let them be raised from other sources. Let there not be one single
1076
lighthouse the fewer by raising such funds, although the funds might be really well applied. He did not dispute the propriety of the application, but still he must maintain that to tax lighthouses and to keep down the necessary number for the purpose of raising a pension-fund was at best very bad policy. Upon the ground of humanity, and upon all other grounds, the whole subject was well worthy the attention of the House. He congratulated the House that, notwithstanding the number of new Members, its debates had not been more desultory; he had even been amused, nay, edified, by the debates; and yet he could not help expressing his regret and disappointment at finding that the House had got so far into the Session without coming to any practical result upon any point.
Lord Ebringtonrose to correct a statement made by an hon. Member (Mr. Hume). That hon. Gentleman had stated the annual receipts of Lord Braybrooke, from Winterton and Orfordness, to be 22,000 l., besides a large sum received independent of this. He was not aware whence the hon. Member derived this information, but he could state that it was greatly exaggerated. In fact, he could tell the House decidedly that these properties did not produce half that amount. He was far from pretending to advocate the propriety of the grant, though he was confident that the Government who made it had no sinister or improper motives for so doing.
Mr. Humesaid, he would authenticate his statement by reading the return sent in by Lord Braybrooke of the receipts, whence he had derived his information. On the expiration of the former lease, it had been arranged between the Commissioners of Woods and Forests and his Lordship, that after the expenses had been paid, the subsequent profits should be divided between the parties so agreeing. By this return, it appeared that Lord Braybrooke had received 11,877 l. for his share of the profits, so that, of course, 23,754 l. had been levied in twenty-one months. This sum was a nett amount over and above the expenses.
Lord Ebringtonobserved that the hon. Member had stated the receipts at above 22,000 l. per annum.
Mr. Humesaid, if so he had made a mistake. When he had before brought this subject under the notice of the House,

1077
he had been solemnly assured both by Mr. Harries and Mr. Huskisson, that the leases should not be renewed; nevertheless in spite of an urgent objection made by a Committee from the Trinity house, the leases had been renewed, and the country thereby saddled with a burthen to the amount of 30,000 l. a-year.
Mr. G. F. Youngstrongly objected to any unnecessary charge upon the British shipping interest, which felt the present tax to be an intolerable grievance. While all the expense of these lighthouses fell upon the merchant service, the Royal Navy experienced all the benefits of them, without, in the least contributing to their maintenance. The Royal Navy should pay their share of the expense. He had been induced more particularly to make these observations, from information he had received that it was in contemplation to erect a new light house at the expense of the merchant service, the sole benefit of which would result to the Royal Navy.
Captain Dundassaid, the hon. Member was much mistaken in his opinion, for he held a letter from an owner of vessels in the merchant service, which highly approved of the project, as being of great importance to the merchant service, and the security of property navigating those parts of the Channel. Indeed, he would leave the question to the hon. Member's father, who was a nautical man of great experience; and who, he was certain, would decide against his son, and say that that light, if erected, must be of great service to mercantile shipping in the Channel.
Sir Edward Codringtonobserved, that the lights in proper situations were of great benefit in the service, yet there was a danger of their being multiplied injuriously. It was a great point, and often not attainable, to distinguish one light from another, and in thinking they were off one, when they were off another, they were sure to run into danger.
Returns ordered.

PRINCE LEOPOLD'S ANNUITY.
Mr. Hallrose, he said, to call the attention of the House to a financial statement which arose out of the settlement that had been made upon Prince Leopold, upon his marriage with the late Princess Charlotte. He held in his hand a copy of a letter which Prince Leopold had written to the noble Earl at the head of the Admin-
1078
istration, and in which the prince had directed that certain sums should be disbursed out of the pension he received from this country, and that, after such disbursements the balance should be paid into the Exchequer for the benefit of the public. The prince had directed payments to be made, the amount of which it was impossible for him (Mr. Hall) to determine, but they certainly, in appearance, formed but a small part of the gross amount of the pension or annuity. His highness had directed that there should be paid out of his annuity certain sums to his servants, a certain amount of public subscriptions to charities to which his serene highness and the Princess Charlotte had subscribed, that the expenses of keeping up Claremont should be defrayed, and that, after these disbursements, all the balance of the annuity should be refunded to the public. A year and a half had elapsed, and it was to be supposed that a large surplus had been received into the Exchequer. The object of his motion was, to ascertain if any sum had been paid in since July, 1831, and what was the amount. He would not take up any more of the time of the House, but would move for an account of all sums of money which had been paid into the Exchequer out of the annuity granted to Prince Leopold, now king of the Belgians, since the 18th July, 1831.
Lord Althorpsaid, that it was evident, by the letter which the hon. Member had read, that his Majesty the king of the Belgians had directed that all his outstanding debts in England, with the keeping up of Claremont and certain other expenses, should be defrayed before the balance of his annuity should be paid into the Exchequer. He (Lord Althorp) was not aware upon what grounds it had been calculated that the debts amounted to only 10,000 l.; but he knew that they turned out to be much greater than anybody expected, and this he must observe was very often the case, in calculations of debts. He could only say, that up to the present time, the debts of his Royal Highness were not discharged. The trustees whom the king of the Belgians had appointed, had found that there were such heavy charges upon the annuity that they declined undertaking the trust, as they were not aware how much they might make themselves liable to, or what responsibilities they might incur. Now that the trustees saw that the debts were nearly

1079
discharged, they consented to act, and he believed that the intentions of the king of the Belgians as to paying the money into the Exchequer, would soon come into operation. Under all these circumstances, he hoped that the hon. member for Monmouth would not press his Motion to a division.
Mr. Halldeclared, that he was not aware of this extraordinary state of the prince's debts, but, after the noble Lord's observations, he would withdraw his Motion.
Mr. Robinsonsaid, that he recollected that when the Prince Leopold had left this country, a great boast had been made of his merit, in relinquishing his annuity, and the public had a right to expect to derive some benefit from a relinquishment thus boasted of; but it now turned out that as yet no benefit whatever had been derived by the people of England. The public could not conceive, that with such an excessively liberal income, the prince could have got so deeply involved in debt, that in a year and a half his encumbrances and arrears had not been paid off. He wished to know, whether, even now, the king of the Belgians did not continue to derive some of his income from this country? He would maintain that the grant of the annuity was dissolved immediately the prince accepted the Belgian throne, and became an alien to England, with opposite interests and connexions.
Motion withdrawn.

PUBLICATION OF THE VOTES OF MEMBERS.
Mr. Harveysaid, that it always gave him great satisfaction when it was his lot to bring Motions before the House which so strongly recommended themselves to every man's approbation, by their intrinsic merits and absolute necessity, that he felt it superfluous to speak at any length in their behalf. The notion that the votes which Members gave on any occasion should be concealed, was now so entirely exploded, that he doubted whether any hon. Member could be found who would support such a doctrine. He believed, that every person now acknowledged that responsibility, and not secresy and concealment, was the basis of the trust reposed in the hands of Representatives by their constituents; and that the due discharge of their duties mainly depended upon the fact, that the constituents were informed of what took
1080
place in that House, and of the votes which their Representatives gave upon different occasions. He thought it most essential that their votes on important questions ought to be officially disclosed. If any hon. Members thought otherwise, to be consistent, they ought to close the usual channels by which the country was made acquainted with whatever transpired in that House. In a Reformed Parliament he believed, that all hon. Members would be desirous that their constituents should know how they voted, and the part they took upon every occasion; but when the House was composed of Representatives without constituents—when there had been no sympathy whatever between the House and the country—when they had been suspected, or, what was worse, when they had been acting in direct opposition to each other, concealment of votes was essential to Members of Parliament. The system was now different, and he could not conceive how any hon. Members returned to a Reformed Parliament upon reforming principles, and professing the objects of Reform, could raise the shadow of an objection to the principle of a communication between constituents and Representatives, as to the manner they discharged the trust reposed in them. Their proceedings were closely watched by the public, who, till the Reform Bill was passed, were estranged from the Parliament, which had no sympathy with them. Now a sympathy had been restored between them, and the people looked with confidence to their deliberations. It could only be by some strange neglect if the feelings of the public should again be alienated from that House; and a record of their votes, while it made their opinions known, would be the best means of guarding against it. He would not suggest any plan of taking the votes, because he did not wish to divert the attention of the House from the principle, and because he knew, if he suggested any plan. Gentlemen would torture their ingenuity to devise objections to the details, and would lose sight of the main object. He would leave it to the known talents of the Speaker to point out the best mode of accomplishing the object he had in view. If, however, he were to suggest any plan, it would be, perhaps, that there should be a box provided at the Table of the House, and one in the Lobby with "Aye" and "No"

1081
painted thereon, into which each Member should drop his card. He knew that he should, by mentioning any plan, excite ridicule of the House, but, nevertheless, he must say, that with these boxes, and the Members' names printed on slips of paper, they might, as the minority went forth, put their names in the box in the Lobby; while the majority, who would stay in the House, might put their names in the box on the Table. But he did not insist upon that scheme, and a Committee, should the principle be conceded, might undoubtedly find means to carry it into execution. He wished to meet one objection, namely, that the Motion was proposed with a view to intimidation. That notion would be clung to by the Conservatives, who might say, that it was making the House of Commons a Political Union. Those Gentlemen would say, that it was unsuitable for the House to act under the terror of their constituency. But he thought that even the Conservatives must like to have their votes recorded, even to show that they had performed their duty in a manner unexceptionable to their party. There was no Gentleman, whatever might be his opinions, who could desire to conceal his votes. He wished to ask the noble Lord the member for Norwich who cheered him, what votes he ever gave which he would like to have concealed? None, he was sure. In fact, the votes were already published, and the only question for the House was, would they not have it done in the best manner? Now it was done in a most unsatisfactory manner, it was done on great occasions only, and then only on one side. On a late occasion, when a list of the minority who voted in favour of the Motion of the hon. member for Middlesex was published, there were 138 names, and about twenty mistakes. The list of the minority was published on that occasion; but of course the majority wished that their patriotism should be proclaimed. They could not desire to hide their merits under a bushel. They must have wished for their own gratification, and the gratification of their constituents, that it should be known in what manner they had discharged their duty. He could fancy the disappointment they must suffer after such a publication in the papers of the following day, when the votes of the virtuous majority could only be picked up by questions of "how did you vote,"
1082
and "how did you vote?" Then, again, the lists were to be corrected. There came next morning letters from this Conservative Club-house and that Union to the Editors of newspapers, requesting them to insert a correction that Mr. so and so was in the House, and voted in the majority. All these things showed a laudable anxiety in the Members to have their votes known. On these grounds he should propose his Motion, and take the sense of the House upon it. He would not, however, press the latter part of his Motion relative to the Members pairing off to leave their names in the vote office, but on the first part of the Motion he would take the sense of the House. The hon. Member concluded by moving, "That Mr. Speaker be requested to make the necessary arrangement for the taking of the Divisions, and for the insertion of them in the Votes, giving the name of each Member in the Majority and Minority."
Lord Stormontsaid, as the hon. Gentleman had alluded to him, he would take the opportunity of delivering his opinions on the subject. He was returned to Parliament without having given any pledge whatever, and he had no hesitation in saying that he would oppose the Motion. Pledges had been proposed to him, but to the proposition he had given a flat denial. He represented his own opinions in that House, and not the opinions of others. He came there determined always to exercise his own judgment, and act accordingly, and not to be guided by the will of any other individuals whatever. The Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman amounted to this, that there should be published an account of the proceedings of that House in respect to the votes given by the Members, &c.; and this arrangement might be very agreeable to those who took the popular side of the question. Now, he was one of those men who acted upon his own opinions—and he never would be afraid of expressing them. He trusted, however, that his character was so well known that no person would accuse him of doing anything which could be derogatory to the principles which he had always advocated. He well remembered that, in the Parliament before last, there was a certain red list and black published; the red being the names of those who voted for Reform, and the black being the names of those who voted against it; and he

1083
remembered, too, that upon one occasion the hon. member for Essex said, that he would sooner have his name appear in that black list in the characters therein displayed, than as one of the signers of Magna Charta. The hon. Gentleman wished to have an authentic account of the votes of all the Members published in the papers. That was, he thought, an infringement on the constitutional privileges of the House, and would only encourage the people to watch their proceedings. A few days ago, as the hon. Member said, there was a list published of what was called the glorious minority of 138, and afterwards a list of the glorious majority, and in that majority he found his name, though he was not present. He regarded that as of no moment, and had not taken any trouble to correct it, as he was not ambitious of writing a letter to The True Sun, or any similar publication. Certainly, if he had been in the House on that occasion, he would have supported his Majesty's Ministers, because he thought that they were upholding the constitutional prerogative of the Crown. The hon. Member said every Member must wish to have it known how he voted; he for one cared nothing about it. He was responsible to himself, and he and all the Members were responsible hereafter to their constituents; but at present he was sent there to do what he thought was right. If they were to assent to the Motion, it would be depreciating the character of the House. On those grounds he should oppose the Motion.
Lord Althorpcould not say that he agreed with the noble Lord, that Members ought not to be responsible to their constituents. Every Member ought, in his opinion, to be responsible to his constituents as well as to himself. At the same time, he did not think Gentlemen were bound to give pledges as to what they should do; but every Member should enter completely free to exercise his own judgment on all affairs that came before him, and to act as he thought best for the public good. His constituents, however, ought to judge if he acted consonant to their views. He, therefore, did not object to the Motion on the ground that the votes of the Members should not be known to their constituents. Nor could he, after consideration, think that the publication was any breach of the
1084
privileges of the House. The publication of the debates took place by sufferance, and was a breach of privilege; but the publication of the names of Members was never so considered. It was, therefore, on very different grounds from those assigned by the noble Lord, that he could not accede to the Motion. He could hardly think that the hon. Gentleman was serious in making it. If, when it appeared now to be necessary, it was difficult to get correct lists, he believed that the attempt to make those lists authentic and correct would be impossible. He was surprised to hear that doubt expressed by the hon. member for Middlesex, for no man knew better than that hon. Member the difficulty of making up those lists. In general it was known how most of the Members would vote before the division took place, and the lists were nearly finished before the division was taken. If it was done as a matter of duty, the lists would be either very inaccurate, or to make them accurate would cause great delay. Nothing could be more convincing of the difficulties which belonged to the subject, than the fact that the hon. mover, with all his abilities and ingenuity, could suggest no better plan than his two boxes. How were they to compel Members to put their names into these boxes? And how were they to be sure that no Gentleman ever put the name of another Member in by way of a joke? In fact, too, the House would be thrown into great confusion by the rush of Gentlemen to the Table to put their names in the box. Looking at all these things, he must say, that he could not think the hon. Member meant seriously to press his Motion to a division, particularly as the hon. Member had withdrawn that part of it which related to the pairing off of the Members.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, if they admitted the principle, a Committee might arrange how the votes should be recorded. The names were now given, and the question was, should they be given correctly or incorrectly? At times great importance was attached to the publication of the names. In Canada, the votes always contained the names of the majorities and minorities. The House of Assembly was not indeed so large and so numerous as the House of Commons, but the principle was the same. If they were to set earnestly about it, the list of the majority and minority might be made in ten minutes on

1085
the same plan as was now followed in taking the divisions. He remembered it was once the practice for each Member to write his name on a slip of paper, and hand it in to the clerk. He was aware that there existed no power to make hon. Members do this; but if the House enforced it by a rule to that effect, it would doubtless be obeyed. If the hon. member for Colchester should lose this Motion, he would recommend him, on a future day, to make a Motion to refer it to a Committee of Inquiry to adopt some such plan, even as an experiment.
Colonel Daviessaid, that if any practicable means could be pointed out of taking the division accurately, he should acquiesce in the propriety of adopting it; but he thought the Motion of the hon. Member would make the task of drawing up these lists more difficult than it was at present. He would remind the House of what took place a few nights ago, in taking the list of the minority of 138 for the Motion of the hon. member for Middlesex. He was one of about one dozen persons who were running about asking each Gentleman his name, and after all, though the division occupied forty or fifty minutes, he believed that no less than twenty names were inaccurately taken. He should rather endeavour to shorten than lengthen the divisions of the House, as being a great loss of public time. Admitting that the lists could be made out accurately, still he could not acquiesce in the Motion of the hon. Member, for the loss of time would be a serious evil; but if it could be easily and accurately done, then his objections would be removed.
Mr. Humesaid, the simple question was, whether it was desirable that this should be done or not, for if desirable, then it could easily be done. He had had 658 names called over in half an hour by way of experiment, and if the experiment were made, it would be found that every Member could be called and could answer to his name in thirty-five minutes. The division of a full House usually lasted about forty-five minutes; and he would undertake that, in any division two individuals might make out the lists in that time by one calling over the names while the other wrote them down. He would do it himself, and he would rather take the trouble of doing it than have it done inaccurately if his services could prevent errors; for he
1086
thought accurate lists of the divisions of the greatest importance. At all events, they might make the trial. He should not, however, advise them to begin with the boxes. He should vote for the question, as recognising the principle of publicity, and he entreated of the noble Lord that he would allow the experiment to be made. He at once admitted that a greater loss of time in the divisions than at present, if such should be the result, would not be advisable.
Sir Robert Peelcould not conceive what object could be gained by the Motion. At present, on every interesting question, the names of the majorities and minorities were always given. On all the great questions that had been discussed in Parliament correct lists had been given—on the Catholic question—on the various parts of the Reform Bill, accurate lists of the votes had been published. He could not suppose that any objection would be made on account of the breach of privilege; for, on all great questions, the names were known. If they were taken by authority, would they be more accurate? He believed not. No man could be compelled to give in his name. The hon. Member's plan would be impracticable; and, if practicable, it would not necessarily ensure accuracy. If the Motion were successful, it would give rise to many petty Motions. Members would often press Motions to a division which they would not otherwise trouble themselves about, and it would lead to a great waste of time. It would be, in fact, a public nuisance. [Mr. Hume: There would be no inconvenience]. What! no inconvenience? Why, suppose a man voted black was, white, would it be no inconvenience that his vote was so recorded without any explanation? Suppose the case of a Russian-Dutch Loan, which an hon. Member thought a case of profligate expenditure, and yet voted for it, would not that Member's vote be erroneously judged of, if the vote only were known without any explanation? The hon. Member might explain that he had voted so to save the Ministers—to protect the Reform Bill—or for some other equally good reason; but those who read only the votes would not know that, and the hon. Member would be condemned. The present mode of managing the votes was better than the one proposed. He must add, that he thought that Members were

1087
responsible to their constituents for their votes; but God forbid that any constituency should judge any Member from an individual vote. They must take all his votes, and his whole conduct into consideration. The hon. Gentleman had challenged him to show any inconvenience from this plan, and he had answered the challenge, by showing that a Gentleman who voted black was white was liable to an erroneous construction of his conduct.
Mr. Humewas not ashamed of his vote on the Russian-Dutch Loan—he would vote so again—and he had published the lists of the majority and minority on that occasion.
Captain Berkeleyopposed the Motion. He had never given any pledge, and he never would give one. If his constituents could not trust him, the sooner the connection between them was cut the better.
Mr. Robert Steurtsaid, that he was not in the last Parliament, but he understood from an hon. Member who was, that, on one occasion, thirteen divisions had taken place, when only forty-two Members were present. Now, if those divisions had been recorded, according to the hon. member for Middlesex's calculation, they would have consumed six hours. On the occasion already referred to he had voted in the majority, and he was so little ashamed of what he had done, that before the list of majority was published, he had written to some of his constituents to tell them how he had voted. He must, however, protest against the noble Lord's (Stormont) doctrine, that Members were not responsible to their constituents—that was, perhaps, the doctrine in the old Parliament, but it would not do in a Reformed Parliament.
Mr. Aglionbywould not vote for the plan of the hon. member for Colchester, but would vote for the principle. It was most desirable for the country to know the votes of every Member, and as he understood that the hon. Member's plan was not involved in the Motion, he should certainly vote for it.
An Hon. Memberobserved, that he could not concur with the proposition of the hon. member for Colchester, but he was willing to concur in any measure for giving an accurate report of the divisions in the House which might be practicable.
Mr. Harveywas glad that the noble Lord (Stormont) had at length been brought to speak with some deference of
1088
a popular constituency, and he hoped that he would soon be induced to designate the people of England by some more respectful term than that of a mere mob. He yielded to the noble Lord in whatever distinction he might derive from his acquirements, or the accident of rank; but he begged to inform the noble Lord, that he was not one of those Members, who in one Session represent one borough, in the next run to another, and in the third again change their seats. He had represented Colchester in six successive Parliaments. With respect to his Motion, it had been met exactly in the manner he had anticipated; and he must confess that he was a bad tactician to give his opponents the handle they had laid hold of. Hon. Members had, for the most part, evaded the principle which the Motion comprised, and had attacked the suggestion as to carrying it into effect, which was no part of the Motion. Much stronger objections than had been urged might probably be found against that suggestion; but he proposed it as a bare expression of opinion. The decision of what was to be done upon the principle he wished to have recognised—he left to the highest authority and greatest experience in the House. All that he wanted was, the recognition of the principle of publicity being the chief element of popular institutions, and that, therefore, the constituency of the United Kingdom have a right to know what the Representatives to whom they confide the defence of their honour and interests do on their behalf. It was no answer to say that the plan he had suggested was impracticable, for he had not the slightest doubt, that on a few Gentlemen meeting together, and turning their attention to the subject, a practicable plan would soon suggest itself. But even if it should fail, the experiment could do no harm. An hon. Gentleman seemed to think that he meant to convey a censure upon the Members of the majority in the division to which allusion had been so often made; but he considered every Gentleman, who voted in that majority, voted with the same independence as himself; and that independence he could assure the noble Lord, was as great as his own; for he had never, on being elected, given any pledge whatever. He had never acted under any feelings of subserviency to his constituency; for in the case of the Catholic question, he had voted in a way

1089
which he knew to be contrary to the opinions of the majority of them; and he should do so again if a case should occur which should render it necessary for him to do so, even if he should feel convinced that his vote would render it impossible for him ever to enter that House again. The object of his Motion was, the affirmation of a principle, namely—that it was desirable that the proceedings in that House should be known to the public.
The House divided on the Resolution: Ayes 94; Noes 142:—Majority 48.
Lord Althorpproposed an alteration in the rule of the House, relative to divisions—namely, that those who dissented from the Speaker's decision should go forth.
Motion agreed to.

List of the AYES.

ENGLAND.

Philips, M.

Adams, E. H.

Phillips, C. M.

Aglionby, H.

Pryme, G.

Attwood, T.

Ricardo, D.

Beauclerk, Maj. A. W.

Richards, J.

Bewes, T.

Roebuck, J. A.

Bish, T.

Romilly, E.

Blackstone, W. S.

Romilly, J.

Brocklehurst, J.

Shawe, R. N.

Brotherton, J.

Strutt, E.

Buckingham, J. S.

Talbot, W. H. F.

Buller, C.

Tennyson, rt. hon. C.

Bulwer, H. L.

Tooke, W.

Collier, J.

Turner, W.

Dawson, E.

Tynte, C. J. K.

Dick, Q.

Vincent, Sir F.

Dilwyn, L. W.

Vivian, J. H.

Divett, E.

Walter, J.

Ellis, W.

Warburton, H.

Evans, W.

Wason, R.

Ewart, W.

Williams, G.

Fancourt, C.

Yelverton, hon. W. H.

Fenton, J.

Young, G. F.

Fielden, J.

IRELAND.

Gaskell, D.

Baldwin, H.

Gisborne, T.

Barry, S.

Grote, G.

Bernard, W. J.

Guest, J. J.

Dant, W. O.

Gully, J.

Finn, W. F.

Hall, B.

Fitzgerald, T.

Handley, B.

Lalor, P.

Hardy, J.

Lynch, A.

Hawes, B.

M'Laughlin, L.

Hyett, W. H.

O'Connor, F.

Jervis, J.

Roche, D.

Langdale, hon. C.

Roe, J.

Lister, E. C.

Ruthven, E.

Lloyd, J. H.

Ruthven, E. S.

Marshall, J.

Sullivan, R.

Marsland, T.

Verner, W.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Vigors, N.

Paget, F.

SCOTLAND.

Parker, J.

Callander, J. H.

Parrott, Jasper

Dunlop, J.

Pease, J.

Gillon, W. D.

1090

Haliburton, hon. D. G.

Sinclair, G.

Maxwell, Sir J.

Wallace, R.

Maxwell, J.

TELLERS.

Oliphant, L.

Harvey, D. W.

Ormelie, Earl of

Hume, J.

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Lord ELLEN-BOROUGH, further Accounts relating to the Trade of India and China with England and America.
Bill brought in. Change of Venue (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By Earl GHKY, from Leeds, Alnwick, and Hexham; by Lord DURHAM, from Durham, Gates-head, and Stockton-upon-Tees; by Lord WHARNCLIFFE, from the Protestant Dissenters of Frame Chapel, Chalford Hill: and by Lord SUFFIELD, from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, against Slavery.—By Lord TEYNHAM, from Stanstead, Wrotham, Shipborne, and from Ightham, against Tithes,—By Earl GREY, from Locharron: by the Bishop of BATH and WELLS, from Bath; and by the Bishop of EXETER, from Dartmouth, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By the Earl of from spilsby, against the Beer Bill,

SUPPRESSION OF DISTURBANCES' (IRELAND).
The Earl of Shaftesburybrought up the Report of the Committee on the Coercive Bill for Ireland. Many of the Amendments made in the Committee were agreed to.
Earl Greymoved that a proviso be inserted at the end of one of the clauses, to the effect, that counsel for the prisoners before the courts-martial should have the right to examine and cross-examine witnesses as in courts of law. He thought this a most important security to the prisoner, and he was also of opinion that it would tend much to shorten the time occupied in the trials. At present, the prisoner had the right to put any question his counsel thought proper, but it had to be put in writing before the President.
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, as he understood the object of the clause originally agreed to in the Committee, it was, that the courts by which offences under the Act were to be tried, should be constituted similarly to courts-martial, and, consequently, that the prisoner's counsel should not cross-examine the witnesses. He did not say that mode was preferable; but if their Lordships agreed to the present Amendment, he did not see how they could consider these courts at all in the light of courts-martial.
The Duke of Cumberlandsaid, that a Serjeant-at-law was to preside at those trials as a Judge-advocate, for the very purpose of putting questions. Through him all questions were put, and the noble Earl's Amendment would have the effect of changing the very nature of courts-martial.
Earl Greyadmitted, that such was the case, but said, the illustrious Duke did not take into consideration the circumstance that the prisoner, on all these occasions, was allowed counsel—the only difference would be, that instead of questions being put by the counsel through the prisoner, and again through the court, they would be put direct, by which much loss of time would be avoided.
Lord Beresfordsaid, the Judge-advocate presided much in the character of a prosecutor, and it was desirable that the prisoner, on his side, should have something to balance this circumstance.
The Earl of Harrowbysaid, that as courts-martial were at present instituted, all questions on the part of the prisoner must be put through the Judge-advocate or the Court, in order to give the Judge Advocate the opportunity of cross-examining on the part of the Crown. If counsel
1024
were to cross-examine, it would greatly vary from the usual practice. If they intended to have courts-martial, they should be courts-martial.
The Lord Chancelloradmitted, that the Judge-advocate presided partly as prosecutor, partly as intercessor for the prisoner; but the noble Earl should remember that there was a prosecutor besides; and there was nothing to prevent the prosecutor from employing counsel, and of course those counsel would have the same facilities as the counsel for the prisoner. It would be a considerable saving of time; at present the counsel sat behind the prisoner, and all the questions which his ingenuity could suggest were put through him. Nay, it not unfrequently happened—he would not say it was done by experienced barristers, but still, it not unfrequently happened that advocates were on this account induced to put questions which they might not be disposed to put in their own persons. It would, therefore, tend much to abbreviate the length of proceedings.
Lord Wynfordsaid, he should support the Amendment. The jurisdiction of the courts contemplated by the Bill differed from the ordinary jurisdiction of courts-martial, inasmuch as it extended to civil cases. The prisoners, therefore, ought to have the same advantages as in the civil courts. He was convinced, also, that it would abridge the length of the proceedings.
Lord Beresfordremarked, that the proceedings of courts-martial were written, and not oral.
Lord Ellenboroughhad great doubts whether the noble Earl's Amendment would prove an advantage to the prisoner. It would be extremely difficult to take down in writing cross-examination.
Amendment agreed to.
Several verbal Amendments were agreed to.
Earl Greymoved the insertion of a clause to the following effect:—"Be it enacted, that from and after the passing of this Act, no person shall make, or aid, or assist in making, any light, fire, bonfire, flash, blaze, or other signal; or by smoke or firing, fireworks, firing of guns or other fire-arms, or by the blowing of horns, or by the ringing of church, chapel, or other bells; or by any other contrivance or device, give any notice, signal, or intimation to any person or persons engaged in illegal combinations or assemblies against the provisions of this Act: and that no person

1025
shall make or assist in making any such signals, or any other signals, to call persons to assemble together, or to act in concert together, for any purpose not warranted by law, or which is prohibited by this Act, or to assemble in any unusual numbers to endanger the public peace: and if any person shall, contrary to the Act, make any such signals or notice, such person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor; and every such offence so committed in any district proclaimed in pursuance of the provisions of the Act, shall be cognizable by court-martial; and if not committed in any such district, shall be tried and punished according to the course of the common law." The latter part of the clause was added in consequence of a suggestion made by a noble Lord, that signals were often made in a county adjoining the proclaimed district.
The Earl of Harrowbythought the clause preferable to his own. He would suggest, that signals were, in many cases, made to give notice of the march of troops, and he thought that ought to be included.
The Clause and other Amendments agreed to.