Sitting of 19 June 1834

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—London Port Dues; Sale of Tea; Insolvent Debtors (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By Mr. G. W. WOOD, from Worsley, against the Poor-Laws Amendment Bill.—By Mr. GREENE, from Attorneys of Manchester, and other Places, for Improving the Practice in the Lancaster Court of Common Pleas.—By Mr. G. W. WOOD, from two Places, against the County Coroner's Bill.—By Mr. WYNN, from Llansillin, for the Amendment of the Tithes Prescription Act; from four Places, for Protection to the Church of England; from the Clergy of three Places, against the Universities Admission Bill.—By Mr. TURNER, from Blackburn, against the Sale of Beer Act.—By Mr. HODGES, from several Places, against the same Bill.

SALE OF BEER.
Sir E. Knatchbull moved the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into Committee on the sale of Beer Act Amendment Bill.
The House went into Committee.
Sir Edward Knatchbull Sir Edward Knatchbull moved, as an amendment on the second clause, the following enactment:—"That from and after the commencement of this Act, it shall be lawful for the Commissioners of Excise, or other persons duly authorized to grant licenses for the sale of Beer, Ale, Porter, Cider, or Perry, under the provisions of the said recited Act, to any person applying for the same, but that such license shall not authorize the persons obtaining it to sell Beer, Ale, Porter, Cider, or Perry, to be drunk or consumed in the house or on the premises."
The original Clause was struck out, and the one proposed by Sir Edward Knatchbull put from the Chair.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, on a former occasion he had objected to the principle of this Bill, on the ground of the inequality of its operation. This clause provided, that licences should be granted to persons to sell beer, but prohibited the drinking of it on the premises where it was sold. In his opinion, it would be quite ineffective; and in proof of that view of the case, he would appeal to the experience of the House with reference to the effects produced by the Bill, which authorized the sale of cider to be drunk off the premises. The law was evaded in a variety of ways; greater irregularities were produced than before existed, when cider was permitted to be drunk on the premises. The immorality which was occasioned by beer being consumed on the premises would not be put an end to by the prohibition; and he was of opinion, if this immorality should exist, it was much better to screen it from the public eye. What
552
would be the effect of the proposed clause? Why, the retailer of beer would have an understanding with some one in the neighbourhood, and beer would be taken to a distance and drunk there; thus the consumption of beer would be the same, with this difference, that it would be consumed in private and retired places, instead of being drunk in a public place, and under the eye of the public and the magistracy. No legislation could prevent this; and be should, therefore, move as an Amendment, "that so much of the clause as prohibited Beer being drunk on the premises where it was sold, be expunged."
Major Handleyadmitted, that the Amendment which had been proposed by the hon. member for Kent, was a great improvement to the Bill; but as he viewed it merely as a ruse, he should support the Amendment of his hon. friend, the member for Bridport. He contended, that the same argument which was used when the Bill to authorize the sale of Beer was passed, with regard to the vested rights of those whose property was said to be affected by it, applied equally to the private rights of those numerous persons who had embarked in the beer-trade under the new law. Those rights were entitled to the consideration and protection of Parliament; and, being of opinion this clause was a gross violation of them, he should give his opposition to the clause.
Mr. Parrottshould also support the Amendment of the hon. member for Bridport. The system of licensing had always been abused, and always would be. He knew of a case, as a Magistrate, where applications had been made to the Magistrates for licenses by three persons; two of them, who were high churchmen, obtained their licenses; the third, who was a Dissenter, was refused. It ought to be left to the same open competition that existed in every other trade; but this clause would have the effect of shutting up almost all the beer-houses in the country, and, as a consequence, the sellers of porter would have an opportunity of increasing the price of porter 2d. a-pot. He was sure, that the hon. Baronet was a friend to the farmer; but another of the effects of this Bill would be, to lessen the price of barley 5s. a-quarter. The annual consumption of barley would be reduced to 500,000 qrs., and, consequently, an injury to the revenue would accrue, of 500,000 l. The more he considered this

553
Bill, the more he felt convinced it would have the most pernicious effects. He would, therefore, give it every opposition in his power.
Mr. Tennysonsaid, he should give this Bill all the support in his power. The great objects of the Bill for the sale of Beer, which were to produce a free competition, and to give a cheap and wholesome beverage, had signally failed. So far from free competition being impeded by this Bill, he contended it would be increased; because it held out inducements for every person keeping a shop in a town or village, to make beer, and sell it to the labouring man the same as he sold any other article of consumption. Hon. Members had said, this Bill would be productive of great mischief; but whatever that mischief might be, he was sure it could not equal the injurious and demoralizing effects which had been produced all over the country by the operation of the Sale of Beer Act. He thanked the hon. member for Kent for having introduced such a measure, as he was convinced it would tend to cure the dreadful evils which had resulted from the present system. He knew, that he was treading upon unpopular ground; but he felt himself bound in justice and in honour, to give his opposition to a measure that had gone far to demoralize the people of this country. It was his intention to move, that for the future no more beer-houses be licensed beyond the present 33,000 already licensed. He would recommend the House to rest at the clause of the hon. member for Kent, but at the same time he thought some protection should be afforded to the 33,000 whose vested rights, as they were termed, would be affected by the Bill.
Mr. Slaneywas of opinion, the case had been overstated on both sides. The system had been heretofore a comparatively close one: it was subsequently opened: and now the country, from one end to the other, rang with complaints of the evils produced by the sudden re-action. There never was an opinion more general—even in reference to the comforts and happiness of the poorer classes themselves—than that some change in the present Beer Act was absolutely necessary. The question then was, what was that change to be? He was a member of the Parliamentary Committee which sat to investigate the operation of the sale of Beer Act; and he could safely say, that the greatest bearing
554
of the evidence adduced on it, was decidedly favourable to an alteration in the present law as it now stood. The evidence before the Committee, also, showed, that in large towns, the operation of the Act had been highly beneficial; for it had produced the effect of lowering the second necessary of life to the working classes one-sixth, or at least one-eighth. No doubt the first operation of the Act on towns was to cause a flush of drunkenness among the people; but its permanent effect was, and would be, undoubtedly, to supersede ardent spirits, which would be a blessing to the country. But in rural districts, with a bad police and thinly inhabited, its effects were the direct contrary; association led to indulgence in the pernicious liquor, generally supplied by the monopolizing brewers, and indulgence led to debauchery and every kind of crime. He admitted it would be very unreasonable to shut up all the shops in the country districts; but if any measure could be enacted which would have the effect of taking away all the objectionable ones among them, and leaving only the respectable and well-conducted, could any one say it would not be an improvement of the system, and a service to the country? This he firmly believed the Bill of his hon. friend, the member for East Kent, would effect: for in rural districts it would be impossible for any man to get a certificate who was of a bad character, and the clause rating applicants up to 10 l. a-year at least would have the effect of insuring good character. If, however, this Bill should not be found sufficiently stringent, by the next session of Parliament, when its operation should have been tried, the House would be enabled to pass a stricter measure.
Mr. Henry Handleyregretted, that the hon. member for Lambeth had altered his notice of Motion at the eleventh hour. He (Mr. Handley) was satisfied, that of the 33,000 beer-houses in the agricultural districts, very few would be swept away by the present Bill. That evils had arisen out of the law as it now stood was undeniable; and he was of opinion, that it had effected none of its contemplated objects. For instance, beer was no better and no cheaper than before it passed, and the monopoly of the great brewers was not in the slightest degree injured. When the amendment of his hon. friend the member for Lambeth should be disposed of, he

555
(Mr. Handley) should propose another, to the effect of limiting the consumption of beer on the premises.
Mr. Fysche Palmersaid, the evidence taken before the Beer Committee, and the reports founded on it, were worth nothing at all. The evidence was really the most absurd that had ever been given before any committee, and that of some of his brother Magistrates most especially so. Every crime in the calendar was traced by them to the Beer Bill; sheep stealing was never heard of before; in fact, no vice, no demoralization was ever known in the country, according to their opinions, until the Beer Bill came into operation. He confessed, he did not think the evidence of persons who viewed the matter through such a medium, was much to be regarded by that House. The House had had some experience of what might be expected from prohibiting the consumption of beer on the premises. It was well known, that when the prohibition existed, beer was purchased at one house, and the people met at another and drank it; benches were placed even by the roadside, a plot of ground was staked round with hurdles, not more than twenty yards from the beer-shop, and there the beer was consumed. Could the consumption of beer on the premises, he asked, be attended with worse effects than these? On the contrary, he was convinced, that, under proper regulations, it would be attended with very great advantage to the lower orders. By means of this Bill, those who, on the faith of the Beer Act, had expended their little capital on beer-shops, would be utterly ruined; and thus not alone would injustice be done to them, but the country would also be injured by the additional amount of pauperism with which it would certainly be burthened. If they were to be dispossessed of their holdings, they should at least get time to dispose of their property, and convert it into money. It had been said, the beer was no better under the present system than it was under the old one. He denied the fact most positively; he frequently tasted the beer himself; and he asserted, that it was a great deal better in quality; and the reason was obvious. He would state, as a proof of this assertion, a circumstance which occurred in the county of Berks. Under the old system, it was the practice of all the great brewers, within a tract of country comprehending
556
forty miles in width, and fifty in length, to meet once every week, to determine what the price and quality of the beer should be for the next week; and the contract which was then entered into was never known to be broken. A stranger could never get in among them; and the consequence was, that the people had to drink the worst beverage that ever was brewed. The brewers all made fortunes, because nobody else could obtain a living by the sale of beer in that district. He should, therefore, strongly oppose the present measure, because he believed it to be a great injustice to those who had embarked all their property under the belief that they would be protected by the Legislature, and because he considered many of the evils of the old system would be renewed.
Sir George Stricklandconcurred, that the present Bill would be productive of great injury, and inflict gross injustice on those who had vested their capital in beer-houses, and should, therefore, give the clause his decided opposition.
Mr. Ayshford Sanfordcontended, that no injury would be done to those who kept beer-houses by the operation of this clause; it did not prevent them from selling beer; it only gave permission to others to sell beer to be consumed off the premises. He thought the present Bill would remedy many of the great evils produced by the Beer Act, and should, therefore give it all the support in his power.
Mr. Heathcoteconsidered the proposition of the hon. member for Kent the most preferable. Its effect would be, to get rid, not so much of the Beer Bill, itself, as the evils that had been produced by its operation. That those evils had prevailed throughout the country to a most alarming extent, he apprehended no man would deny. He should therefore vote for the clause which had been substituted by the hon. Baronet the member for Kent.
Mr. Guestsaid, the injurious effects produced by the Beer Bill were undoubtedly very great in the agricultural districts, but they had increased in a tenfold degree in the populous districts, and in manufacturing towns. The beer could not be worse than it was now; but it might be greatly improved. It was his intention to support the clause.
Mr. Parkerwas determined to vote for the clause proposed by the hon. Baronet;

557
but at the same time he did not feel satisfied in doing so without some provision being made for the vested rights of those whose property would be very much injured if the Bill passed into a law. They heard a great deal in that House about the vested rights of the rich man, while those of the poor man were passed by unheeded. As much respect, however, was due from that House to the one as the other, and he should propose a separate clause to the House, to secure the vested interests of those whose property would be affected if this Bill passed into a law.
Mr. Cayleyshould give his support to the Amendment of the hon. member for Bridport. He could not help observing, at the same time, that vested rights were not so much mixed up with the consideration of this question as had been supposed by many hon. Members.
Mr. Robert Palmersaid, that of all the measures that had ever passed that House he believed the Beer Bill had been productive of the greatest evils. In corroboration of what he stated, he would only refer to numerous petitions he himself had presented from grand juries, magistrates, clergymen, farmers, and many labourers themselves, all in condemnation of the Bill, and praying that it might be repealed. It had been very generally supposed, that the Magistrates wished the present system to be abolished, in the hope of gaining some of the power it was said they had lost by it. He denied that such was the case. It was well known, that the duties they had to perform in licensing public-houses were of a most unpleasant character, and subjected them to great inconvenience. He would refer to the charges pronounced by the Judges to the Grand Juries in all parts of the country, to show that those learned persons attributed a great deal of the crime that had increased to such an alarming extent, to the injurious effects of the beer-houses. He was persuaded, that the greater portion of the evils produced by this measure were owing to the consumption of beer which took place upon the premises where it was sold; and until that could be proved to be a benefit to the country, he should give the clause of the hon. Baronet, prohibiting such consumption, his hearty support.
Mr. Potterobserved, that the complaints had been very loud and frequent on the demoralizing effects which had been pro-
558
duced by the sale of beer; but he believed, that where one had been demoralized by the use of beer, ten had been demoralized by the use of ardent spirits.
Mr. Wilkssaid, that notwithstanding all that had been said with regard to the injurious effects produced by the Beer Bill in agricultural districts, only sixty-seven petitions had been presented, signed by 10,240 persons, during the present Session of Parliament, while those presented for the abolition of slavery, and the redress of grievances of the Dissenters, amounted to five or six times that number. He contended, that the only object of this Bill was, to obtain for the Magistrates a restoration of that power they had lost by the Beer Bill. To show what had been the effects of the licensing system, he would only refer to what had been stated by the hon. member for Lambeth on a former occasion. A house situate in the parish of Lambeth that produced a rent of only 50 l. a-year before it was licensed, was sold for 5,500 l. immediately after the license was obtained. The House had been told, that the Beer Bill had been productive of a great increase of crime. It was easy to make those bold declarations, but it was difficult to support them by facts. The very reverse was the fact. In the county of Essex in the year 1831, before the Beer Bill came into operation, the number of convictions at the Sessions amounted to 368, and at the Assizes to 172. In the year 1832, which was the period when the Bill was in operation, the number of the convictions at the Sessions was 298, and at the Assizes they were only 88. This statement, therefore, showed a diminution of one-half. He appealed to facts rather than assertions; and he trusted the former would weigh with the House rather than the latter. If this clause should pass, he would propose another clause to the consideration of the House, to the effect that the two first clauses of this Bill should not operate on existing establishments, so long as the premises were occupied by the same parties.
Mr. Benettsaid, he was formerly one of the supporters of the Sale of Beer Act, but he was now fully convinced of the evils it had produced in the country. He thought the proposition of the hon. Baronet would remedy many of the evils produced by the operation of that measure, and he should therefore support it.
Mr. Mark Philipsthought it desirable there should be some check on the parties who kept the beer-houses. He knew that, in some of the manufacturing districts, many of the proprietors of these houses were actually receiving parochial relief at the time they kept them. In any alteration, however, that should be effected, respect ought to be paid to the vested rights of the parties affected by it.
Mr. Briscoegave his support to the proposition of the hon. member for Kent, because he was of opinion, it would increase the consumption of beer, and be the means of producing a beverage of a much better quality, and at a more reasonable price.
Major Beauclerkthought, that the greatest respect should be paid to the interests of those poor persons who had embarked all the property they possessed to obtain a livelihood by the means this Bill had held out to them.
Mr. Humesaid, as the House was legislating for poor persons, they ought to consider their wants with reference to the situation they held in society. Suppose a House of Commons composed of such persons who principally consumed the beer at these houses, the first thing they would do would be to put down club-houses, because they encouraged gambling: they would not do anything that would curtail their own enjoyments. He put it, therefore, to the House whether they would consent to deprive the poor man of the little enjoyment he obtained at the beershop after his work was concluded. He believed this clause was a great encroachment on the freedom of the poor, and therefore he should support the Amendment.
Sir J. Sebrightsaid, that persons of every class in the county he had the honour to represent united in reprobating the Sale of Beer Act measure. He had presented petitions from a great many of the labourers themselves, setting forth the evils it had produced, and he pledged himself to present a petition to that House that should be signed by every labouring man in one of the districts in the country, praying that the law should be immediately repealed.
Sir E. Knatchbullbriefly replied. He believed, that his plan would be the only remedy for the evils which the demoralizing measure it was intended to amend had produced throughout the whole country.
The Committee divided on Mr. Warburton's Amendment—Ayes 23; Noes 141; Majority 118.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H.

O'Reilly, W.

Attwood, T.

Palmer, C. F.

Bainbridge, E. T.

Parrott, J.

Beauclerk, Major

Potter, R.

Blackburne, J.

Roche, D.

Codrington, Sir E.

Scholefield, J.

Fielden, J.

Strickland, Sir G.

Gaskell, D.

Trelawney, W. L.

Godson, R.

Walter, J.

Grote, G.

Wilks, J.

Handley, B.

Hume, J.

TELLERS.

Lowther, Lord

Warburton, H.

The House resumed—the Committee to sit again.

REFORM ACT.
Colonel Evansrose, pursuant to the notice he had given, to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Reform Act, in that part which made the payment of rates and taxes an essential qualification for voting at elections. He had last year tried, without effect, to induce the House to adopt this Amendment of the Act. He feared, that he should not be more successful on the present occasion, though he had now a strong argument in favour of the Motion,—in the evidence which had since been afforded of the practical operation of that clause in disfranchising vast numbers who would otherwise be entitled, and to whom the Bill intended to give the right to vote. What he sought to have done was, the omission from the 27th clause, which gave the right of voting in boroughs, of the following provisio—"Nor unless such person shall have paid on or before the 20th day of July in such a year, all the poor-rates and assessed-taxes which shall have become payable from him in respect to such premises previously to the 6th day of April then next preceding." If the House should not be disposed to go thus far with him, and consent to the omission of those words, he would even be content with a much slighter change than the one he had proposed; he would be satisfied with the substitution of "the 6th day of October" for the "6th day of April" then next preceding. [Lord Althorp expressed his dissent.] He was sorry to see, that the noble Lord did not assent to his very moderate proposition. His own object was to give full effect to the proposed intentions of those who

561
drew up the Reform Act; and it could be shown, that the wording of this Clause had had the effect of disfranchising many thousands throughout the country. They might as well have made the payment of rent the test of qualification: and indeed it was at first proposed in the Reform Bill, that the payment of rent should be a qualification; and the public owed it not to Whig liberality, but to the exertions of an hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Edward Sugden) the late unsuccessful candidate for Cambridge, that that test did not now form a part of the Act. Thus the public owed it to that learned Gentleman's exertions that some hundred thousand electors, now entitled to vote, were not disfranchised, as they must have been if rent were allowed to continue as a qualification. In the very moderate proposition with which he had said he would be satisfied, all that would be done would be to give the ratepayer the advantage of six months—that was, that he should have paid the rates and taxes up to the October instead of the April preceding. The payment of rates and taxes had been, under the former state of the law, made a fertile source of corruption, and he feared, that in time it would become so under the Reform Act. They had heard of the practice of attornies or agents in boroughs paying the poor-rates of many voters on the condition that if there was a contest they should vote for those whom those attornies should name, and then when they had got a certain number of votes going about seeking for a candidate who might offer himself on their terms. This was a practice which had existed to a great extent under the former state of the law. Would it not be well to anticipate and provide against its recurrence by removing so fertile a source of corruption? When he brought this subject forward last year he was told, that there were several other Members who had alterations to propose; that it was then much too soon to suggest or propose any Amendments, as they ought to wait to see how the Bill would work. They had now, however, seen how the Act worked, and Government had taken away one argument against a change by the proposing an Amendment to the Act. He did hope that the House, having passed the Bill, would now consent to render it efficient by carrying the original intention of the authors of the
562
Bill fully into effect. It was calculated by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) that the Bill would create a million of voters; but experience had shown, that the number actually entitled to vote was little more than half a million, the deficiency from the numbers originally announced being at present not less than 470,000. But how did the House stand, as compared with the unreformed Parliament, in the number of placemen, pensioners, and sinecurists, who had seats in it? It appeared from the report of a Committee laid on the Table of that House, that there was only a difference of three in the numbers of that class between the late and the present Parliament. As he knew from the present constitution of that House, that any Motion which the Government might oppose was sure to be negatived, he felt that he had little or indeed no chance of having his Motion carried. Yet he still felt it his duty to move a Resolution, embodying his opinion as to the necessity of a more complete reform, for the purpose of placing it on the journals of the House. He would therefore move the following Resolution:—"That this House deems it expedient to repeal or mitigate such Clauses of the Reform Act as have been found to have an unexpected restrictive operation, particularly those regarding the payment of rates and taxes; and that a revision of the Reform Act with this view is the more urgent—because the new constituency has been found to fall short, by almost half a million of voters, of the number Government contemplated, and the public were led to expect; because the present House of Commons comprises about the same number of family representatives of the hereditary branch of the Legislature, and about the same number of placemen, pensioners, sinecurists, and other dependents of the Crown, which were to be found in the unreformed Parliament which preceded it; because it is vain to expect an independent line of conduct from a Parliament containing so large a proportion as 169 Members who are in the receipt of 150,000 l. per annum of the public money; and finally, because this House has in effect entirely failed to satisfy the just expectations of the public."
Mr. Humerose to second the Motion, though he had not seen it or been aware of its exact nature until he had now heard

563
it read in the House. He had been the Chairman of the Committee to which his hon. and gallant friend had alluded, and he could say, that all the statements made in the report were founded on the authority of documents signed by the parties who presented them. His reason for rising to second these Resolutions was, that the objection which he had originally taken to the Clause restricting the right of voting to the occupiers of 10 l. houses, who had paid up their rates and taxes, remained unaltered. The restriction was unjustifiable, rather on account of the principle involved in it, than on account of the pecuniary payment which it required. So objectionable was the principle of it, that to his knowledge, in one parish alone, 1,580 persons had voluntarily abandoned their right to the elective franchise. The noble Lord would remove a great objection which many persons felt to the Reform Bill, if he would permit this Clause to be modified, even if it were not altered altogether. There would not be more than 600,000 electors at the next registration; and that would be owing to the Clause depriving half of the elective body of their franchise.
Lord Althorpwas not surprised at finding these Resolutions proposed by the hon. and gallant Representative for Westminster, but he was surprised to find any Gentleman bold enough to state, that he seconded Resolutions of such a character without having perused them previously. The first of those Resolutions stated, that it was desirable that the House should enter upon the consideration of the propriety of modifying the Reform Bill. Now, he did not think that such an inquiry was desirable. The hon. and gallant Officer said, that we should enter into the consideration of the right of franchise, because we had already entered upon the consideration of a plan for modifying the mode of registration. But the mode of registering the electors involved a very different question from that of the proper amount of the elective franchise. This principle of making the elective franchise depend on the payment of rates and taxes was not a new principle in our system. It was part of the old scot-and-lot system. The object of the framers of the Reform Bill, after making a 10 l. occupancy the basis of the elective franchise was, to prevent that standard from being evaded. With that view this Clause and
564
these restrictions were introduced. He thought that after Parliament had declared, that a 10 l. occupancy should give a vote in boroughs, it was essentially necessary that the occupancy should be bona fide. From the experience which he had derived from the result of the last general election, he was convinced more than he was before it, that the franchise which the Government had selected was the proper franchise. If they looked at the new constituencies, it would be found, that, though most of them had conducted themselves well, those who had conducted themselves best were the 10 l. constituencies. There were other topics to which the Resolutions of the hon. and gallant Officer referred, and on which he would take the liberty of saying a few words. One of them referred to the impropriety of the eldest sons of Peers, in which predicament he stood, occupying seats in the House of Commons. On such a subject he might perhaps speak with some degree of prejudice, but he did not see that there was, according to the constitution, any objection to their having seats in that House. As the law stood at present, the constituencies of the country were free to choose whomsoever they pleased, whether those persons were sons of Peers, or whether they were unconnected with the nobility. The hon. and gallant Officer had also made a similar observation with respect to placemen. He had said, that the number of placemen in the House was eighty-six. He (Lord Althorp) was surprised at that statement, for he certainly had thought that the number was not so great. The constituencies, however, knew whether the persons who sought their suffrages held offices or not; and if they chose to elect persons holding such offices, that was no reason for revising the Reform Bill. As to the proceedings of the House not giving satisfaction to the country, that was a point on which he differed from the hon. and gallant Officer. That they did not give satisfaction to the hon. and gallant Officer, he readily believed, for that hon. and gallant Officer generally voted in the minority, and a Gentleman in the minority was in the habit of believing that more persons agreed with him out of doors than actually did. On these grounds he should oppose the Resolutions.
Mr. Roebucksupported the Resolutions. The 27th Clause of the Reform Act, com-

565
pelled every 10 l. householder to pay his rates and taxes on a certain day, if he wished to enjoy the right of suffrage. Now, if a man did not pay those rates and taxes by a certain day, he lost his suffrage; but the State did not lose its revenue, for it made him pay his taxes afterwards, and that being the case, the individual ought in his opinion, to retain his right of voting. The only advantage, if advantage it could be called, of this Clause, was its tendency to narrow the constituency, and to place the suffrage in the hands of a few persons for their own benefit and for the injury of the many. He complained, that the noble Lord opposite, by placing this Clause in the Bill, had placed in it a ruinous principle. When distress pervaded the country the poorer class of voters would, of necessity, be most anxious to make their cries heard by the Legislature, and yet at that very time most of them would be disfranchised by their incapacity to pay their rates and taxes. Why should the poor at that time be disfranchised? Did the noble Lord suppose that, if distress fell on the poorer electors, that distress deprived them of the education, the intelligence, and the probity, which they possessed in the year before? And yet owing to accidents, over which a man might have no control, an individual who enjoyed comfort one year might be reduced to great inconvenience the next; and then his sufferings were to be aggravated by the noble Lord's telling him, "You are deprived of your status—you are no freeman—you are poor, therefore your elective franchise shall be taken from you." He wished the House to consider what was meant by the words "narrow constituency" in England. Those words meant a rich constituency, and did a rich constituency speak the voice of the people of England? Certainly not. They did not speak the voice of its artisans, who formed the most intelligent and patriotic class. Did distress fall on the rich shopkeeper and gentleman? No; it fell on the working artisans, who, he repeated, formed the most intelligent and patriotic body in the community. He was speaking of the élite of the artisans—of such of them as occupied 10 l. houses. Why were such men worthy of the franchise one year and unworthy of it another? He did hope that the noble Lord would not tell him that this enactment was necessary for the collection of the revenue. It was
566
not so, for the man was equally compelled to pay his taxes whether he secured his vote or not. The rating must be a real not a nominal rating, and pay it the man must. How, then, could the noble Lord justify this mode of robbing the constituency of a franchise which the Reform Bill pretended to give them, but of which this Clause positively deprived them?
Mr. O'Connellsaid, recent events had shown, that it was very necessary that something should be done to amend this Clause about rates and taxes, for at Cambridge seventy voters had been disfranchised, because the collector of taxes had received their money and had run away with it without acknowledging its receipt. Now, there was no election on the result of which the fate of the Government, and he might perhaps say of the country depended so much as on that at Cambridge. It was quite clear, that this number might have turned the trepidating scale either way. After the spectacle of public buffoonery which had been exhibited in all manners of ways at Oxford, in order to influence public opinion against the Government, he knew not what might have been the effect of a real and substantial victory over it at Cambridge. He understood that owing to the operation of this clause, the number of voters at present registered fell short of the number which had been anticipated before the passing of the Reform Act by not less than half a million. Instead, then, of pursuing a restrictive system, the Government, if it acted wisely, and wished to stand well in the opinion of the people, would adopt the principle of this Motion, and consent to this extension, or rather increase, of the franchise. In many boroughs, the constituency had been rendered very narrow by acting on the principle it was now proposed to amend. In the borough of Harwich, there were not more than 170 electors; in that of Portarlington there were not 100. He did not mean to find fault with the choice made by those electors, nor to impute to them improper motives; all he meant to say was, that in those boroughs the votes would soon be of as much value as votes were in any of the close boroughs recently destroyed. It was his belief that we owed reform more to accident than to design. The Administration now in power succeeded in acquiring office owing to the imprudent and uncalled-for declaration of

567
the Duke of Wellington against Reform. The oligarchy there made a mistake, but those who succeeded it, found that they could not avail themselves of that mistake unless they obtained the advantage of popular aid. They got that aid, and then they acted upon the principle of giving to the people as little Reform as they could to suit their own purposes. Even that little Reform they clogged with restrictions, and no restriction could be more effectual for their object than that of making the payment of rates and taxes a preliminary to the possession of the elective franchise. Owing to that restriction, the amount of the constituent body was hourly diminishing throughout the country, and there was not, he believed, a single borough in the kingdom in which the constituency had not been regularly decreasing from the passing of the Reform Act down to the present hour. He therefore agreed with the hon. and gallant Officer in thinking, that the House ought to adopt these resolutions, and by so doing, increase the number of electors throughout the kingdom. Neither from courtesy nor from principle was he inclined to object to the system of electing the sons of Peers Members of that House; but there certainly was one objection to which that system was and would be liable, so long as the duration of Parliaments was septennial. The noble Lord opposite, had certainly been elected a Member of the House of Commons for a long series of years; but he was an exception from the general rule which applied to the eldest sons of Peers. If they were elected for one Parliament, they were elected for as long a period as they would probably have to sit in that House. Seven years was about the probability of the duration of the life of any Peer who had a son old enough to sit in the House of Commons. That being the case, the eldest son of a Peer might vote as he pleased, as he was relieved from the responsibility which attached to the votes of other Members of that House. He would give them an instance of what he meant. A noble Lord, who in the last Session of Parliament was member for the county of Perth, had assailed him on the first night of it, and had afterwards voted with the noble Lord in support of the Coercion Bill. Would that noble Lord have been returned again to Parliament for the county of Perth
568
after those votes, if he had had occasion to appeal to his constituents? He thought not, and for this reason—that a person of politics opposed to those of that noble Lord had been recently returned for that county. The son of a Peer, in that situation, had this advantage then over other Members—he voted as he pleased, because he did not expect to come among them again. It was therefore the duty of the House, if they intended to act upon the principle of the Reform Bill, to accede to the principle of these resolutions. He wished to see them modified; but still he should feel it to be his duty to support them.
Mr. Thomas Attwoodsaid, that this clause had disappointed the expectations of the inhabitants of the town which he had the honour to represent. Whilst the Reform Bill was under discussion, the people expected at Birmingham, that that borough would have about 18,000 voters. There were 18,000 10 l. houses in that town, and it was expected, that there would have been as many votes, as the occupiers of those houses paid their rents regularly and punctually. It was now his painful duty to state, that he had only 4,000 constituents. He had no reason to complain of them, for they had returned him unanimously; and so, too, would the 18,000 voters, if they had been properly qualified. He thought, that a fraud had been committed on the country by inserting this 10 l. franchise clause into the Bill. Under its operation, not only had the householders to pay up the rates and taxes on each 10 l. house, but they had also to see that the entry of those payments was made in our own names. In Birmingham, two-thirds of the houses were rated in the names, not of the occupiers, but of the landlords; and thus there were disfranchised 14,000 of the best and of the most patriotic men in England. He was happy to have this opportunity to confirm the statement of the hon. member for Bath—that these artisans were the best, and worthiest, and most patriotic men in England; and yet in this way had they been disfranchised. He should support the resolutions of the hon. and gallant Officer, because they were calculated to enlarge the franchise under the Bill of Reform. At present, it was a fraud upon the people of England, and therefore he was ready to support any just and practical enlarge-

569
ment of it. It was a great measure, undoubtedly, but still it was a fraud on the people, because it had not given them half that liberty, nor half that prosperity which they had a right to expect.
Lord John Russellfelt himself called upon to contradict, with all due respect, an expression which had just fallen from the hon. member for Birmingham. The hon. Member had said, that before the Reform Bill became law, it was expected that Birmingham would contain 18,000 voters. Now he, for one, had never either felt or stated such an expectation. He had said, that the Reform Bill would give to Birmingham 5,000 electors, and it now appeared, that the actual number of electors there only fell 1,000 short of that amount. The Bill of Reform, which gave to 4,000 electors the right of returning two representatives for a town which had never before possessed that right, was in his opinion a thorough Reform. He was sorry, that it had not produced all the prosperity that was expected; but he had an odd notion, that what the hon. Member called prosperity was only another name for the 1l. notes. Certainly the Reformed Parliament had not adopted the hon. Member's panacea for all the evils of the country, and he was not certain that the consequence of enlarging the elective franchise as the hon. member for Birmingham wished would be that prosperity which that hon. Member took so much pride in proposing and vindicating. He must also contend against the assertion, that the Reform Bill was a fraud on the people of England, or that it was the least Reform which the Ministers could give with safety to themselves. On the contrary, it was at the time generally said, and with great plausibility and truth, that if a Bill for a less Reform had been proposed, the people of England would have received it, and would have been satisfied with it as enough. But Ministers proposed a scheme of large and extensive Reform, because it was more likely to be permanent than a less Reform. That was the ground upon which the Reform Bill was introduced—that was the ground upon which he was now prepared to stand by it. He was not prepared for a measure which would carry Reform further. The present Reform had given the people of England—he was not now speaking of the people of Ireland—the power of electing their own Represent-
570
atives. He thought, that the repeal of this restriction would not give them that power more fully. With regard to the observation which had fallen from the hon. and learned member for Dublin, upon a transaction connected with the last election at Cambridge, he would merely remark, that the overseer at Cambridge had kept two sets of books. In one, he had entered the names of those who were claimants, and had paid him, and in another, he had entered the names of those who had paid him, but whom he had not admitted as claimants on the register. That was a fraud for which he was liable to punishment. But he died soon afterwards, and he did not know of any Bill by which they could punish a dead overseer. He had not heard anything in the course of the present debate to induce him to come to a different opinion from that which he had formerly expressed—that Parliament, having sanctioned this Act of Reform, it was not necessary to go further, for it gave the people the power of electing their own Representatives, which was theirs by right and by law, and of which he thought they had made a very proper use.
The House divided—Ayes 37; Noes 124; Majority 87.

RIBAND TRADE.
Mr. Henry Lytton Bulwer,in moving for leave to bring in a Bill for the protection of the Riband trade by means of prohibition, said, he was aware, that it was necessary for him to make out an extraordinary case, in order to justify prohibition, and he admitted that he was bound to show, that this was the only means of relieving the distress and depression of that particular branch of manufacture. The hon. Member entered into a lengthened statement, to show, that great distress existed in the riband trade, that this was caused by the competition of the French manufacturers, and that the prohibition of their commodities was the only means of saving our own trade. He observed, that, in 1832, it was distinctly proved that the poor-rates in Coventry (the principal seat of the riband weaving trade) had reached to nearly double their amount in 1827, and that of 10,000 looms, 8,444 were entirely unemployed. Out of a population of 8,000 persons within a given district, 3,000 were wholly dependent on parochial relief for subsistence. The distress had since

571
gone on augmenting, as appeared from the evidence taken before the Committee. The wages of weaving had been reduced thirty per cent within the last three years; and everything connected with the riband trade was in the lowest state of depression. In France, the manufacturer possessed great advantages over his rivals in this country. He purchased silk at a lower price, gave a lower rate of wages, and was at less expense with regard to patterns. The importation of French ribands had increased in one year—between 1833 and 1834—from 110,000 l. to 218,000 l. While the riband-trade was falling off in England, it was augmenting and flourishing in France, where the number of looms was increasing. Fashion was on the side of France, which obtained a priority over the manufactures of this country. But if French goods were prohibited, the French manufacturer would either be obliged to imitate our goods, which would give us the priority of the market, or else he must make a different article, and then the fraud would be discovered should any be smuggled into this country. Prohibition was the only effectual remedy for the depression of our riband trade, because fancy articles of that kind could not be manufactured in this country if exposed to French competition. He hoped, that the next Commission sent abroad would not be to the French Government, but to the French milliners, to acquire a knowledge of fashions and fancy articles; and he should not object, if the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Poulett Thomson) undertook the Commission himself. Our economists had begun at the wrong end—they ought first to have taken the protection off corn, and then proceeded to manufactures. But, as they adopted a contrary principle, and contemplated an adequate protection to every interest by imposing certain duties, then they should, in consistency, go with him even to the length of prohibition, if that were the only means of protecting this particular branch of manufacture. If they opened the English ports to foreign corn, and if France established a fair system of reciprocity with us, the case of the riband manufacturers went to the ground. But, if the House pursued the present system, then, with whatever reluctance it might be resolved upon, he saw no other alternative for the interests of the riband manufacturers than that which he pro-
572
posed—namely, prohibition. He would fain have proposed a better remedy, or one more conformable with the liberal principles of the present liberal age; but he felt convinced, that only prohibition would reach the evil, and alleviate the distress now felt by our manufacturers. The French silk- manufacturer would either not imitate us, and therefore would be excluded from our market; or they would imitate us, and so put our manufacturers upon a level with themselves, opening the market of fashion to our operatives. The main argument in favour of prohibition was, that it must secure to the English manufacturers the priority of fashion, which was the great end aimed at by both the foreign and the home manufacturer. Whatever was the prevailing fashion or taste, commanded the market. Now, all looked to the French for the patterns; but, if their silks and ribands were prohibited, then, to get into the market, as before they used to do, by smuggling, they must copy our manufacture closely; and thus lose the priority they now enjoyed, of giving us the fashions in silk. It was of no use to adopt, as a remedy, anything which must be in the experiment unequal to the end they had in view; and it was on this account that he was emboldened to propose to the House absolute prohibition, because he felt, that nothing short of it would effect the relief of the silk manufacturers of this country. There was one other consideration which he would submit to the House, and it was this—they should recollect what the disposition of the party was against whom he called upon them to act thus. Had the French shown themselves disposed to join us in fair terms of commercial intercourse?—or, were they not rather predetermined not to reciprocate equitably with England the benefits of trade by an equable reduction of prohibitory and protecting imposts? It was but too clear what was the real policy of the French Government towards this country, in the preference which the Belgians had enjoyed always in their ports over Great Britain; but that which spoke volumes was, the admission into France of coal and iron from Belgium in preference to better coal and iron from British ports, on the shallow pretext, that the distinction was unintentional, and happened merely because one was borne by land or canals, whilst the other was borne by sea. These distinc-

573
tions should put the House and the Government on its guard against the delusions which were attempted to be practised by France. He wished, above all things, that the Government of this country would see, that it was its duty to be consistent in cases of an analogous nature, and not attempt to cherish one trade by prohibitory enactments, whilst they overwhelmed another trade by inviting foreign competition, through the opening of our ports to the foreign silk manufacturer. With these views he should move for leave to bring in a Bill for affording protection to the riband manufacturers of this country by means of prohibition.
Mr. Dugdalehad great satisfaction in seconding the Motion; and he sincerely trusted, that the House would consent to the introduction of the measure which his hon. friend, the member for Coventry, asked leave to bring in. He could assure the House, that the riband weavers of Coventry were in a state of pitiable distress; and the severe depression under which they laboured was, he was satisfied, the consequence of the system of free-trade which had of late years been adopted in this country. No persons could bear the deplorable situation in which they had been placed with more patience, or greater resignation, than the riband weavers had done; and their silent forbearance, he thought, gave them something like a fair claim for the protection for which they sought. They had hoped to gain some alleviation of the misery they endured from the Treaty of Reciprocity that was expected to be entered into between England and France. In that hope, however, as everybody knew, they had been disappointed; but, even had a Treaty of Reciprocity been agreed to by the two countries, it was his opinion, that the riband-trade especially would reap little or no benefit from it. Such were the advantages which the French riband manufacturer possessed over the manufacturer of this country, that competition between them was entirely out of the question; and, therefore, unless actual prohibition were resorted to, the French manufacturer must, as at present, enjoy almost exclusively the monopoly of our markets. In fact, it had been shown, by a history of the trade, that it never prospered except when prohibition was established. Gentlemen who were disciples of the free-trade
574
principles would not agree to that; but, for his part, he could not conceive how that could be beneficial to any country which discouraged her own manufactures; and he thought, that it was the duty of every Government to attend to the interests of their own trade and commerce before those of any other country.
Sir Eardley Wilmotthought it was impossible to convey to the House an idea of the state of distress in which those poor and suffering people were involved; and it was absolutely necessary, that some means should be taken to afford them relief. Their distress did not arise, as some alleged, from the inferiority of their manufactures to those of the French: they could manufacture quite as well as the French; but they could not, under the pressure of taxation which they had to endure, manufacture as cheaply. He had no objection to cheap articles; but he would rather that they were produced by our own, than by foreign, manufacturers. He had presented a number of petitions on this subject; and all the petitioners asked was, that if the Government would not afford them protection, it would give them the means of emigrating.
Mr. Ellicestood in a peculiar situation with regard to the Motion before the House; and he, therefore, wished to state distinctly the line of conduct which he considered it his duty to adopt. He felt, in common with his hon. friend who had just sat down, and with every other gentleman who had spoken on this subject, the deepest sympathy for the distress under which those poor persons were suffering whose case had been represented to the House. He was bound to say, that, after a long acquaintance with those parties, their case, such as it had been represented to the House, had not been exaggerated. It was quite true, that this branch of trade, from a state of great prosperity, had declined to a state of great depression, owing to a variety of causes, which were, he was afraid, beyond their control; though he still hoped, that some means might be discovered for remedying them. If he for a moment thought that such a Motion as that brought forward by his hon. colleague was at all calculated to convert this branch of trade from a state of depression to a state of prosperity, he (Mr. Ellice) would not be the person to oppose it. But, in the first place, the

575
hon. Member must be well aware that, no matter how cogent might be the arguments he should produce in support of such a proposition, it would be impossible to get it adopted by that House, or by the country. For what was his proposition? It was neither more nor less than that they should revert, by way of protecting this particular branch of trade, to the old prohibitory system that existed with regard to the silk-trade previous to 1825. The hon. member for the county of Warwick had stated, that while that prohibitory system was in force, the silk-trade was in a state of great prosperity. Now, he would not deny, that such was the case, nor did he mean to contend that the home manufacturer had not been injured by foreign competition. Indeed, at the time the relaxation took place, he stated, himself, that the riband trade of this country would be materially affected by a competition with the superior manufactures of France, Italy, and Switzerland,— that it would suffer more from the free-trade system than almost any other branch of the manufactures of this country,—and to this opinion he still adhered; for, being more exposed to competition than any other description of article, its depression was a natural consequence. But, although he admitted this to be the case, he would put it to the good sense of the House, whether a return to prohibitory laws was the means by which alone relief could be afforded to these distressed artisans? He was prepared to contend that, before his hon. colleague called upon the House to adopt his Motion, he was bound to show the advantage that was likely to accrue from it; but his hon. colleague had done no such thing, and therefore it was, that he (Mr. Ellice), being persuaded that no good could result from the proposition, felt it his duty to object to it. If his hon. colleague could convince him that, by recurring to the old prohibitory system, the introduction of certain finer descriptions of silks into the country would be prevented, then he would agree with him that such a course of proceeding might afford some chance, if not of an extensive, at least of a partial, relief to this branch of the trade. But, to carry that system into effect, they must go back to all the old penal statutes—they must have recourse to search-warrants, to search every shop in England; and they must have recourse to excise informations, supported upon
576
very doubtful evidence, as to whether the article had been made in England or in France. He would ask the hon. Member whether he thought it possible that all the other classes of the community, that all the other trades and manufactures throughout the country, would, for the sake of this particular trade, submit to the erection of such an inquisitorial power? Such was, in fact, the proposition which his hon. colleague had submitted to the House; and he had not made out a case to show, that even the adoption of such a proposition would afford relief to his suffering constituents. In the particular position in which he was placed, he certainly would not vote against this Motion. He objected to such a Motion, because he was of opinion, that it would do no good. When he last met his constituents, he thought himself bound in fairness and in candour to state to them, when asked whether he would support such a Motion as that now brought forward by his hon. colleague, that, though he was most anxious to do anything for their relief, they had still to make out a case to him to prove, that such a course of proceeding would not only do them no good, but that it would do them no injury. His belief was, that the adoption of such a proposition would do them injury. If the hon. Gentleman would apply to his right hon. friend, the President of the Board of Trade, and lay any proposition before him by which he, or those on whose behalf he brought forward this proposition, thought that they could be relieved, they might be sure that it would obtain from his right hon. friend the most attentive consideration, with a view to afford, if possible, some means of practical relief. He entreated his hon. colleague not to press his Motion to a division. He might see, from the state of the House, that such a proposition had no chance of being carried. He repeated, that he felt as much as any hon. Member could feel for the distress of those poor people, and that he was anxious to devise, if possible, a practical remedy for it; but he, for one, would not delude them with the notion, that such a proposition as this would do theta any good: on the contrary, it would do them a great deal of injury,—and, even if such a proposition should be adopted, it would be quite impossible that it could be fully or fairly carried into effect.
Mr. Robinsondid not deny, that this

577
was a difficult question; but he would maintain, that it was the duty of the House and of the Government to devise some means for relieving the distress under which this branch of the silk-trade, as well as the glovers of Worcester and the hand-loom weavers, laboured. The right hon. Gentleman, instead of throwing the onus on his hon. friend who had brought forward this Motion of suggesting some plan of relief, should, as a member of the Government, have come forward with some plan of his own for the purpose. The right hon. Gentleman should bear in mind, that he now belonged to a Ministry which opposed the repeal of the Corn-laws. It was impossible to dispute the justice of what was put forward by the manufacturers on this subject—namely, that if they were to suffer from the policy adopted by the Government,—if they were to be exposed to the competition of foreigners,—then, in God's name, let them have cheap bread and cheap food. There was no answering that argument. They certainly were bound to give the people cheap subsistence, if they could not afford them employment and high wages. Was not the right hon. Gentleman, and the Ministry with which he was connected, opposed to any remission of taxes, by which alone they could obtain relief? It was impossible to relieve the people, unless by a remission of taxes, and by a repeal of the Corn-laws. They were now approaching to such a state, that, unless something were done for the relief of this class of persons, the monopoly of the Corn-laws must be abolished, and there must be a complete and thorough revision and commutation of the taxes. It was a melancholy thing to see those classes of the industrious population of the country suffering under such distress. He was determined, when he next met his constituents, to advise them not to apply to that House for prohibition as a means of relieving them, as he agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that no prohibitory system, however strict, would keep out those articles, and that circumstances stronger than the laws would force them into the country. He would advise them to apply for a relief from taxation. It was only by a remission and commutation of taxes, and by some relaxation of the Corn-laws —for he did not mean to say, that, with the peculiar burthens which the land had upon it, the Corn-laws should be entirely
578
repealed—relief could be afforded to the labouring and manufacturing classes of the country.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonsaid, the question before the House was of a very confined and limited description. It involved the propriety of establishing a prohibitory system, not applicable to the silk-trade generally, but to this particular branch of manufacture. To this point the arguments of the hon. member for Coventry were directed, and on this question alone was the House called upon to decide. Under these circumstances, he was sure the House would see the propriety of not entering into general topics connected with free trade (which could have no application at present), still less of discussing the Corn-laws, and, least of all, of entering into the question of the general taxation of the country. On all those points, when a fit and proper opportunity should occur, he should not be the last man to intrude his opinions upon this House. On this occasion, however, it would be much more convenient if he limited himself to the simple question introduced by the hon. member for Coventry. He must own, that he was surprised to hear the hon. member for Warwickshire (Mr. Dugdale) introduce the subject of free trade with respect to this particular article, especially after the speech of the hon. member for Coventry. Was the hon Gentleman aware, that the very article, the introduction of which he wished to prohibit, was now taxed to the extent of from forty to sixty per cent? It was originally stated, be it remembered, that the protection should not exceed thirty per cent, but, in consequence of the alteration which had taken place in the value of the article, the duty had increased to the amount he had just mentioned. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion seemed likewise to have entirely overlooked all the arguments which were urged by the hon. Member who moved it. What was the argument of the hon. member for Coventry? "Talk to me of protection, said he; no, we have got that already, and we find it to be utterly and entirely inefficacious for time purposes at which we aim; consequently, I call upon you, not to protect these manufactures, for such protection is perfectly worthless, but at once to establish a total prohibition." Really the hon. Gentleman seemed to have a very singular notion of free-trade. He could conceive,

579
that there were very large limits indeed, and that there was a very wide space indeed, between prohibition and, what he should call, free-trade. Certainly anything short of prohibition more stringent in its operation than the existing law, it was difficult to conceive. The hon. Gentleman's notion of free-trade might be correct. He would not stop to discuss the point, because it formed no part of the present question, which simply was, prohibition, or no prohibition. He thought the case had been put most fairly and ably by his right hon. friend, the Secretary at War; and, certainly, were he disposed to concede the principle—were he inclined to think, that prohibition might be granted —had he no regard to the general interests of the country, or its relations with foreign States, which were admitted, and candidly admitted, by the hon. member for Worcester, to form one ground of argument on this question—if he looked only to the interests of the parties represented by the hon. Gentleman, he should say, that they could not possibly have a worse service done them than to grant them the prohibition they desired. If he dwelt on this question, he should only repeat the argument of his right hon. friend, for in that was the whole question of prohibition included. If it were wanted to have prohibiting enactments on the Statute Book, he would ask, granting, for a moment, that they were right and good, whether there existed the means of carrying them into effect? He said, there did not. What was the existing state of the law? The duty at present was considerably higher than the cost of smuggling. Goods were therefore smuggled. And what was to prevent them being smuggled into this country, supposing the duty increased or transformed into a prohibition? The hon. Gentleman said, "I would have all the goods examined; I would find the means of preventing these smuggled articles from being sold." He begged to say, that any attempt to effect that was utterly and entirely out of the question. How would the hon. Gentleman effect it? Would he enter a shop and seize any goods exposed for sale, if they were supposed to be smuggled? Would he stop a lady in the street, and take from her a shawl, or a bonnet, or a riband, supposed to be of French manufacture? Then came the difficulty, formerly found to be almost insuperable, but which was now increased
580
in a tenfold degree—the difficulty of distinguishing between goods of French manufacture, and goods of English manufacture. Why, even when the silk-trade of this country was in a rude state, for rude it was in 1825, before those rapid advances had been made which had since, so much to the honour of the industry and the intelligence of this country, been effected in this branch of our industry—cases of difficulty continually occurred? Did not the hon. Gentleman recollect, that parties, relying on their conscientious and firm belief, were prepared to swear that goods which had been manufactured at Manchester, or in Spitalfields, were of French production? If that were the case then, what would be the case now? It would be utterly impossible to put his law effectually into execution, even by again inflicting all the vexation, all the annoyance, and all the inquisitorial powers on the country which attended the general prohibitory system; which, he ventured to say, the people of this country would not suffer, if the attempt were made. The hon. Gentleman, if his plan were adopted, would fail completely in the object he had in view, because it would be out of his power to distinguish the foreign from the home manufacture. The hon. Gentleman had, very properly and justly, confined his case to the manufacture of one article, that of broad ribands; because there was no cause of complaint in any other branch of the silk manufacture. Nay, he knew that, in the town which he had the honour to represent, and which was now become the great seat of the silk-trade, there were no well-founded complaints; neither had any complaints reached him from Macclesfield or Congleton, both towns extensively connected with the silk-trade. The profits of the manufacturers were lower, perhaps, in that than in other branches of trade; but, although profits and also wages were low, there was full employment for the persons engaged in that manufacture. There was one point to which he wished especially to call the attention of the House, in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. Baronet, the member for Warwickshire. The case, it should be borne in mind, consisted of two parts, the interests connected with the plain, and the interests connected with the figured article of manufacture. The hon. Member who introduced this Motion represented a city where the

581
latter article was chiefly manufactured, and his Motion had reference chiefly to the flowered and figured fancy ribands; there was good reason for that, because the only branch of the trade which could with justice complain of French competition was the figured riband. The hon. Baronet (Sir Eardley Wilmot) certainly did present some petitions the other day, setting forth the distressed condition of the parties engaged in the manufacture of plain ribands; but they had no possible ground of complaint against French competition. If it were necessary to support this statement by authority, he could quote that of a Gentleman largely concerned in that branch of the trade, who told him, that the remedy for the distress of that particular class of people, was not a return to the system of prohibitory duties. "All we ask (he said) is a drawback, or rather bounty, amounting to fifteen or eighteen per cent upon these articles, and then we can export them to France, and compete with the French manufacturers." The riband manufacture had completely changed within a few years. The broad plain ribands which were formerly worn by many classes of society, but more particularly by the less wealthy, were not now in request, scarcely any were to be seen, for the taste and fashion of the public had entirely changed. Let any Gentleman notice the sort of ribands worn by his own female servants; he would find, instead of plain ribands, that figured ribands, in consequence of the improvement of the manufacture, and of that natural feeling which existed from the higher to the lower classes of society with regard to objects of taste, were now almost the only article worn. The manufacture of plain ribands, therefore, had diminished, not by reason of foreign competition, but entirely in consequence of the change of fashion. Unless, then, the hon. Baronet were to bring in a Bill to prevent the fashion from changing, he would not be able to restore to these parties the business which they formerly enjoyed. The reason why the parties who now complained were out of employment was obvious; they would pertinaciously adhere to their old mode of employment, notwithstanding the improvements in machinery and the changes in fashion. They refused to turn their capital and skill into a new channel, and the consequence had been (as might have been ex-
582
pected), that branch of industry had been transferred to other places—Manchester, Macclesfield, Congleton, and their respective vicinities, had taken possession of it; and he feared, that it was now too late for these parties to regain it. He had the evidence of the parties themselves on this subject. In the declaration made by the manufacturers at Nuneaton a few years ago, the cause of distress at Coventry and its neighbourhood was plainly indicated;—'It is said (they observed) that, by our neglect of improvement, our trade has passed from us in consequence of competition, not from abroad, but at home; and we have now found out that which is a truth in all commercial matters—that, once having lost the priority in the market of demand and supply, it becomes a most difficult, if not an impossible thing for us to regain it. We have been thrown out of the course, backwards, and our places are supplied by others, not by foreign, but by home manufacturers, and we are now suffering from them.' So much for the cause of distress in Coventry of the plain riband weavers, represented by the hon. Gentleman. With regard to the fancy riband manufacturers, it was true, that they had suffered to a certain extent by competition; but he believed, that competition was inevitable, because, whether there had been prohibitory duties or not, it must equally have taken place. But no man, who had watched the state of things in Coventry, could deny, that these parties had also suffered much by their own unwillingness to introduce the improvements in machinery and manufacture which were in the possession of those with whom they had to compete. The hon. Baronet had said, that there was as good machinery, and as much skill, employed there as in other places. There might be, in particular instances, but he was afraid it was by no means a general case; and, even if it were, the improvement had been adopted too late; and they had lost a considerable portion of the trade by the greater improvement, the greater attention, and the greater skill, which had been devoted to it in other parts of England. If hon. Gentlemen would refer to the Returns which had been laid on the Table, they would see, that the importation of this article had not, in any material degree, increased, whilst the consumption of the articles manufactured in this country had

583
increased in a most extraordinary degree. He had the curiosity, this morning, just to look into this simple fact—what proportion the weight of manufactured silk imported into this country from France, bore to the weight of unmanufactured silk brought in here for the purpose of manufacture; and, he found, that the proportion of manufactured to unmanufactured silk, imported in the year 1833, was three per cent upon the whole. At the present time, he believed, it had increased to four or five per cent, in consequence of this being the season when the importations usually took place. To suppose that such a proportion of competition could do any serious injury, was really rating at too low a standard the manufacturing power and industry of this country. However, he wished to confine himself to the question as proposed by the hon. Gentleman; and he put it to the House, would they return, by their vote of that night, to the system of prohibition? Would they acknowledge that principle, or even if they were inclined to do it, could they, in aid of an article of manufacture, when it could be proved, that such a course would only tend to defeat the very object in view.
Sir Daniel Sandfordsaid, it was unquestionable, that in many branches of the silk trade, and especially in the manufacture of shawls, very great distress prevailed. In Scotland, he knew that large numbers of workmen were now discharged, with famine staring them in the face. He had been informed, that the amount of orders lately received, was 80 per cent lower than the usual demand at this time of the year. He knew it was impossible to return to a system of general prohibition, but what was necessary to be done had been recognised in a recent speech of the right hon. Gentleman, which had been received by the manufacturers with great pleasure. The right hon. Gentleman had said, that if France did not return the advantages of reciprocity which this country had proffered, he would employ all the means at his command as a Minister of the Crown, to compel her. All he asked was, that the right hon. Gentleman would follow out this principle, which Mr. Huskisson would undoubtedly have done, if he had lived. The first form of the experiment of free trade had failed, and the time was now come when they ought to try whether the other form would be more successful.
Mr. Humesaid, that the silk trade was peculiarly circumstanced. The fact was, that it stood in its own way, as regarded its power to compete, by having refused to admit the introduction of machinery. If they looked into the evidence given before the Silk Trade Committee, they would find it stated, that in the town of Coventry, when an attempt was made to introduce machinery there, the most decided opposition was exhibited; in fact, the machinery was destroyed. So mistaken and short-sighted had the parties been, that they had formed strong combinations against the introduction of any improvements in the machinery that was used. He deeply regretted, that so many persons should be suffering as was represented; he had no doubt, that their distress was great, and no one could feel more anxious than he was to afford them relief; but though he entertained these sentiments, he must acquit himself of acting improperly, if he did not accede to the Motion before the House. Instead of adopting a course which, in his conscience, he believed would deceive the parties most interested, and in place of proving advantageous to them, would add to their present difficulties, he would candidly state what appeared to him to be the cause of the distress, and what remedy he thought ought to be applied. His hon. friend who had introduced this question, in so doing, had, no doubt, discharged his duty to his constituents; but from the knowledge which his hon. friend possessed of the principles of commerce, he thought his hon. friend must feel the impossibility of the desired relief being obtained from such a source as prohibition. He referred the distress, in a great measure, to that most mischievous of all monopolies—the monopoly of food. He must also assert, that for a portion of their distress, he thought the people of Coventry had themselves to blame, in having refused to admit the silk necessary to their manufacture free of duty. In no portion of the kingdom was the admission of thrown-silk duty free more strenuously opposed than in Coventry. The amount of the duty was 3s. 6d. per lb. To show what had been the advantages of a relaxed system, it might be stated, that ever since the period when the Committee sat for fifty-five days, the silk manufactures had been gradually increasing. By the existing system, the English manufacturer who had to work

585
against the French, was placed in a worse situation to the amount of from 12 to 15 per cent; yet, when it was proposed to take off the duty, the proposition was met by a positive refusal to consent to such an alteration. He trusted, that nothing that could be urged would induce a return to any system of prohibition. Looking at the facilities for commerce which this country possessed—at its numerous population, ingenious and enterprising—taking also into consideration its machinery and its large capital—the removal of restrictions could not be otherwise than beneficial. Instead, then, of deluding the people by favouring their false views, he thought it incumbent on that House to make them acquainted with their real position. This once understood, they would see that prohibitory duties would but augment their distress; and that, on the other hand, the removal of restrictions and the reduction of the existing monopoly in the article of food, would tend more than anything else to its relief. In conclusion, he must express a hope, that his hon. friend would not press his Motion.
Mr. Thomas Attwoodwould trouble the House with a few words in favour of the Motion. The distress of the parties now appealing to the House had been attributed in part to a change of fashion. Was it change of fashion that occasioned the distress of the ship-owners? Was it change of fashion that occasioned the distress of the land-owners? Was it change of fashion that occasioned the distress of the farmers? In one word, was it change of fashion that had plunged into distress all the great interests of the country? He would answer, No. General distress must have a general cause. The report of the Agricultural Committee which sat in 1821, established the fact of the existence of general distress. He was examined on that occasion, but the Committee thought fit to reject his clear and unanswerable exposé. Hon. Gentlemen smiled; but he would repeat his assertion —his reasoning was unanswered and unanswerable—it was not answered at the time, nor had any human being attempted to answer it since. He had been told, by men of all parties—by Whigs, Tories, and Radicals, that it could not be answered. That reasoning of his was, notwithstanding, kept out of the agricultural report. The Committee brought forward
586
a celebrated merchant, whom they examined, with the view of getting from him a counter statement. This gentleman quoted twenty or thirty articles which had fallen in price; but he alleged twenty or thirty different causes for that effect. Of course he was out-argued then, as he did not doubt he should be on the present occasion. He regretted, that particular interests came forward claiming particular relief. The distress was general; let all unite, and they must succeed in obtaining a measure of general relief. One cause existed of the distress—it was a general cause—it was not the want of one pound notes, but it was the pressure of the metallic standard of value. This it was which would ultimately involve the noble Lord opposite, and the House, in one common ruin, within a period of ten years. He would return to a general system of prohibition. Under the pretence of doing good to the nation, Gentlemen had advocated a free trade. Free trade! He would call it free plunder. It had increased the taxes—it had aggrandized all those who had funded property—all placemen, pensioners, and sinecurists—all who lived on the fruits of the labour and industry of the people. Free trade, free taxes, and free rents, had completed a most enormous and disgraceful robbery of the country. The plunderer had been reacted on by the plundered. The landowners were suffering as much as any class of the community; and from this he derived some consolation. During the war, they exhibited a grasping and selfish policy. They were profiting by it, and they were indifferent as to how long it continued. They said to themselves, "We are now in all our glory and prosperity;" and, speaking in the language of Holy Writ, they declared the evils to be nothing, "so long as Mordecai the Jew was sitting at the king's gate." It would be impossible much longer to govern England in this way; subjects of great moment were pressing on the country. The House told the people, "We can't do any thing for you." To all who complained of distress, they cried out, in the cuckoo note of the ancient oligarch House, "We can't do any thing for you. "Was this the fact? If it was, why did not the members of his Majesty's Government, who thus admitted their inability, make way for better men? Let them retire; and he would answer for it that he would find,

587
amongst the artizans of the country, those who would find the means of giving the desired relief; and he would add, that they would do so in a manner that would give satisfaction even to the aristocracy. Let Ministers consider the dangerous, the solemn situation of the country. Looking to the past, and judging by it of the future, they must know that there were principles at work out of doors which threatened to overturn the fabric of society in England. Instead of boldly encountering the difficulty, and attempting to devise a remedy for it, every man appeared to be anxious to hide his head, as the ostrich, when in danger, was said to hide his in a bank of sand; and to fancy, because the danger was not seen, that it was avoided. They should bear in mind, that it was to the great suffering of the people that they might attribute the important changes which had taken place. He admitted, that the noble Lord opposite had acted a prominent part in procuring many of those changes, and to that extent he acknowledged the noble Lord's services with pleasure and with gratitude. Many of those changes had certainly been productive of much good. What he regretted was, that the noble Lord who had done so much, had not done more. In his opinion, the noble Lord had stopped short of much that he might and ought to have effected.
Mr. Claysaid, that he should not attempt to answer the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken, and who had indulged himself in allusions to many subjects that did not appear to him to bear very closely on the question before the House. The hon. Gentleman had, amongst other things, alluded to the currency; indeed, it rarely happened that he spoke without doing so, whence the discussion of this matter appeared almost to be his peculiar privilege. He (Mr. Clay) was opposed to the principle of prohibition, which he did not expect would have found an advocate in his enlightened friend, the hon. member for Coventry. In his case it appeared to be a species of monomania; and he imagined it was to be explained in no other way than by their experience, which informed them, that the ablest persons were sometimes afflicted with a particular obliquity. He supposed that they must pardon this mistake of his hon. friend, in consideration of his many superior qualifications. It
588
was always with the greatest sorrow that he heard any suggestion of protection, not to say prohibition, advocated in that House; because it could not fail to afford an argument to the supporters of prohibition, in favour of the most destructive of all monopolies—the monopoly of food. It would be in the recollection of the House, that only a short time since the right hon. Baronet (the member for Tamworth) made it his principal argument in favour of protecting duties on corn, that almost every article of manufacture was subject to a protecting duty. In this way they acted in a vicious circle, and justified their vicious actions by a vicious circle of reasoning. If they proceeded thus, they never would arrive at a sound principle. So far from thinking with the hon. member for Birmingham, that free trade was free plunder, he should say, that the term plunder would be better applied to restriction. Talk of Trades' Unions! he knew of none existing, against which could be charged conduct so disgraceful as was that of the supporters of the great monopoly, who designed to enlist people on their side, by flattering the prejudices of the manufacturing classes. He had an opportunity of knowing that we had been fast progressing in the silk trade. Our manufacture of plain sarcenets, and gros de Naples had so materially improved, that they were now considered to rival the French. He believed, that if there were not a sixpence of duty imposed, an American merchant, having the choice of the French and the English markets, would prefer the English. Such was the present state of the manufacturer, though it might be remembered that during the investigation before the Committee, tables were produced, calculated apparently with great care, by which it was made to appear that without a protecting duty to the amount of 50 per cent it would not be possible for us to compete with the French in the manufacture of gros de Naples. He had reason to know, that at this moment in all the great silk manufactories to be found in his district, they denounced the very thought of prohibition. The opinion entertained was, that no power that could be exercised would protect them from smuggling, if prohibition or high duties existed. In nine-tenths of the manufactories they talked not of prohibition as calculated to afford them any relief; what they desired was, first, the removal of the

589
tax upon corn, and secondly, the abolition of the duty on thrown silk.
Lord Dudley Stuartwas not an advocate for the repeal of the Corn-laws, because he thought the agricultural interest ought to be protected; but while they claimed protection, they ought to take care to give to the manufacturer the means of obtaining food by his labour. He would not join in any senseless cry against Ministers because they opposed this Motion; he was sure that they all felt deeply for the distresses of those in whose behalf the Motion was made. As regarded his own case, however unwilling he was to give a vote which he knew would render him unpopular in the House, he must nevertheless support the Motion.
Mr. Finchsaid, that he had been asked to support the Motion, but, consistently with his own opinions, he could not do so. He considered prohibition not practicable; but if it were, it would lead to so many inconveniences, that, in his opinion, its adoption would render the condition of the manufacturers worse than it was at present.
Mr. Brocklehurstsaid, that he had been in communication very lately with the Macclesfield manufacturers, and their opinion was, that the House could not serve them better than by leaving the matter entirely alone.
Mr. Fryersaid, that the advice he had given to manufacturers when they complained to him of their distress was to join together and form a union to break down the Corn-law. When he recommended them to exert themselves against the corn monopoly, they replied, "The House of Commons won't hear us." He told them this was true enough, and the reason was, that the House of Commons was made up principally of landowners. He was then asked whether he would have them form into mobs, and he told them certainly not; for if they did, they would assuredly be put down, and lose all their power the moment they made an attack on private property. But let them form into a union to obtain a free trade in corn and free labour. This was the spirit of the age which Lord Grey alluded to a few nights ago in the House of Lords. If they had free labour and a free importation of food, they need not fear being able to compete with any foreign Power whatever.
Mr. Henry L. Bulwerreplied. He ad-
590
mitted, that the case would be very different if they were to throw open their ports to the admission of foreign corn, and if France in return would freely receive our iron and coals; but so long as France placed restrictions on the necessaries of life, so long the manufacturers had a right to ask for protection to keep up the price of their article of manufacture. Alter the whole system, and there would be no necessity for his present Motion; but he contended that while they retained the system, there was no choice left but to adopt the course he had recommended.
The House divided—Ayes 22; Noes 128: Majority 106.
Leave refused.

List of the AYES.

Attwood, M.

Sandford, Sir D.

Brudenell, Lord

Scholefield, J.

Burrell, Sir C.

Stanley, E.

Cayley, E. S.

Stuart, Lord D.

Dillwyn, L.

Talbot, J. H.

Egerton, W. T.

Vincent, Sir F.

Fielden, J.

TELLERS.

Halford, H.

Bulwer, H. L.

Martin, T. B.

Attwood, T.

Miles, W.

PAIRED OFF FOR.

Norreys, Lord

Wilmot, Sir E.

O'Connell, M.

Price, R.

AGAINST,

Richards, J.

Sheppard, T.

Russell, W. C.

THE RIVER SHANNON.
Mr. James Talbotwished to call the attention of the House to the great advantages that would result, not alone to the country adjacent to the Shannon, but to all Ireland, nay to the empire, from the improvement of the navigation of that noble river, by encouraging manufactories, commerce, and agriculture along its course. An estimate of the expenses was drawn up under the superintendence of the Board of Public Works in Ireland, and the estimate of the improvement of navigation, of the river for 123 miles was only 153,000 l. It would be desirable, that a Committee should be appointed to investigate the value of the lands adjoining the river, and through which some of the improvements would be made, together with many other circumstances necessarily attendant on the object, and to carry the full purposes of the Motion into effect. The hon. member moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the navigation of the Shannon, and its tributary streams, and the best means of improving it.
Mr. William Roche: As one of the Representatives for the city of Limerick, the principal port on the line of the Shannon, I rise to second and express my warm approbation of the Motion of my hon. friend, the member for Athlone. But, Sir, I do still more on national than on local grounds, because I should not deem myself justified in permitting local feelings to prevail over national interests: but when, Sir, they not only do not conflict, but are intimately identified together, then local improvement may justly and legitimately give additional zeal to national consideration. Sir, nationally, I approve of this Motion and its object, because I am convinced it will powerfully conduce to that great desideratum in the prosperity of every nation, but so peculiarly wanted in Ireland, namely, the profitable and permanent employment of the people, consequently to their improvement, comfort, and contentment, in a manner much more effectual and enduring than laws of pains and penalties ever can accomplish. Locally, Sir, I am glad of this Motion, because I am aware that every improvement conferred upon the Shannon will extend a beneficial influence to Limerick, and reciprocally that every advantage conferred upon Limerick must prove useful to the whole line of the Shannon. Limerick, Sir, is the great emporium and outlet for the produce of that noble stream, certainly, as from the hands of nature, the finest in his Majesty's home dominions. Of that produce, Sir, it exports to this country not less than 1,000,000 l. in value a-year, and that in articles of primary importance, because in articles of human subsistence so conducive to the interests of all classes, but peculiarly so to that great source of your opulence, the manufacturing interests. Sir, the Shannon flows through nearly the centre of Ireland; therefore every improvement it experiences must directly or indirectly benefit the whole of that country; but directly it will promote the interests of no less than 2,000,000 of people and 2,000,000 of fertile acres spread along its banks, which banks, including the right and left bank, extend to 500 miles of coast, or equal to the eastern or western shores of England. Sir, if that fine, but neglected river, was in this country, what millions would not be expended upon it; because here you know and experience the value of quick and cheap commercial
592
intercourse, and therefore you have perhaps 1,000 miles of river and canal navigation for every hundred possessed by Ireland. Why, Sir, on one canal in Canada you have conferred above a million of money. Give half, nay a quarter of that sum for this purpose to Ireland, and you will confer it on a people that wish not, that cannot, separate themselves from you; whereas (tho' while we are connected with that country, I speak not begrudgingly) by granting it to Canada, you may perhaps be only accelerating separation by inspiring strength. Sir, a diversity of opinion prevails on the expediency of restoring Ireland's domestic Legislature, but surely none can on her domestic improvement. Indeed, those most opposed to the former ought to be the most zealous for the latter, because it is the expectation of a livelier attention to domestic improvements that operates powerfully in creating a desire for a domestic Legislature,—also, Sir, experience has shown, that even more than anticipated advantages have accrued from every improvement extended to Ireland. This, Sir, is a subject and an arena upon which all parties in Ireland may meet in amicable understanding, and co-operate with undivided concord and zeal. I therefore trust, Sir, that under these considerations, and many others with which I may illustrate the subject, but shall not detain the House, the Motion of my hon. friend, which I heartily second, will experience the unanimous approval of Parliament.
Mr. Littletonadmitted, that the subject was well worthy of attention, and suggested, that the names of such proprietors of land on the Shannon as had seats in the House should be included in the Committee, and that they should bear a proportion of whatever expense it might be deemed expedient to incur. The money thus expended he thought would be extremely well employed, and would be ultimately repaid in the advantages gained. The improvement of the river was a matter of national importance, and would be well worthy of encouragement.
The Committee was appointed.

COMMON PLEAS (LANCASTER).
On the Motion of Mr. Stanley, the House resolved itself into a Committee on the Lancaster Court of Common Pleas Bill.
On the Question, that the Speaker do leave the Chair,
Mr. Jervis Mr. Jervis moved, as an amendment, that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee, for the purpose of considering both the principle and provisions of the measure. A Bill proposing so important an alteration on a subject not generally understood by the House required previous consideration in a Committee, and it was distinctly understood, when the Bill was read a second time, that the House was not pledged to the principle. It was true, the Bill was founded on the Report of the Commissioners for the county palatine of Lancaster, but that Report was made before the recent alterations and improvements in the practice of the superior Courts at Westminster. Had those improvements then taken place, it was highly probable that the Commissioners would not have come to the conclusion they did; and it was to be observed, that an hon. and learned Member, who was one of the Commissioners, was not present to-night to defend his views. A Select Committee would examine these Commissioners. The process in the Palatine Court was much more expensive, and much more objectionable, than the practice in the superior Courts. It might perhaps be said, that the object of the Bill was to place the practice of the Court upon the same footing as that of the Superior Courts. But his objection was, that no competent machinery existed, nor could any be created, without involving the country in great expense for compensation, to which he was sure the Chancellor of the Exchequer would object. He thought that they should totally abolish the jurisdiction of the Palatine Court. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving his Amendment.
Mr. Stanleyobserved, that the intention of the hon. and learned member for Chester seemed to be to destroy not the Bill alone, but the Courts of the County Palatine of Lancaster. There was this broad distinction between those Courts of Counties Palatine which had been abolished, and those which had been retained, that the latter were presided over by the Judges of the land, while the former were not. The object of the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to be, to draw the practice out of the Courts of the County Palatine of Lancaster, in order to put it into the hands of the attornies
594
of the Courts of Westminster. It was extraordinary that, although they had no interest in the Bill, all the attornies and solicitors of the different towns of Lancashire had petitioned in its favour. The Report of the Commission which had been appointed to inquire into the subject, directly negatived all the statements of the hon. and learned member for Chester. That Report stated, among other matters, that the expense of the actions tried in the Courts of the County Palatine of Lancaster was one-third less than the expense of actions tried in the Courts of Westminster Hall. It stated, also, that the administration of justice, in the Courts of the County Palatine of Lancaster had been highly satisfactory to his Majesty's subjects in that part of the kingdom; and it recommended, not that those Courts should be abolished, but that their practice should be more closely assimilated to the practice of the Courts of Westminster. That was the object, and the whole object, of the Bill under consideration. All the clauses of this Bill were taken from Acts which had been passed for the improvements of the Courts at Westminster. He called upon the House, therefore, not to be deterred from the adoption of a measure which would be highly advantageous to the people of the county of Lancaster, by any clamour raised by the attornies of Westminster, from whom alone the opposition to the Bill proceeded.
Mr. Pollockdid not think, that the course which had been adopted by his hon. and learned friend was a fair mode of dealing with the measure. The objections of his hon. and learned friend were applicable to some of the clauses of this Bill, and not to its principle. He trusted, that the House would not consent to refer the Bill to the consideration of a Select Committee. Such a proceeding was unnecessary; for they already knew, from experience in the Courts of Westminster, the advantages which it was now sought by the Bill to communicate to the Courts of the County Palatine of Lancaster.
The Amendment was negatived. The House resolved itself into Committee on the Bill.
The four first Clauses having been agreed to,
Mr. Jervisproposed, that the 5th clause, which authorized process of outlawry to

595
issue from the Palatine jurisdiction, be omitted. That clause would have this oppressive effect, that, if a man resided for a week in Lancashire, and then went to reside in the next county, process could not issue there from the Palatine Court, which, not finding him within its jurisdiction, would outlaw him. This would throw an enormous expense upon him without any fault of his.
Mr. Pollocksaid, that, unless the clause was retained, the Court would have no means of enforcing its judgments. With the superintendence exercised by the Courts in matters of this kind, there was no fear of a man going uselessly to the expense of outlawry.
The Committee divided on the question, that the Clause stand part of the Bill: Ayes 43; Noes 14—Majority 29.
The Clauses, to the 16th, were agreed to.
The House resumed; the Committee to sit again.

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Lord LORTON, from the Clergy of Elphin, for relief from the Repayment of Loans from First Fruits.—By the Duke of WELLINGTON, and the Earl of ROSSLYN, from two Places,—for Protection to the Church of Scotland.—By the Archbishop of CANTERBURY, and the Duke of WELLINGTON, from three Places,—against the Separation of Church and State.—By the former, from a Number of Places, against the Claims of the Dissenters.—By both, from a Number of Places,—for the Protection of the Established Church, against the Separation of Church and State, and against the Claims of the Dissenters.