Sitting of 10 March 1834

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Illegal Securities; Minister Appointment (Scotland).—Read a third time:—Sugar Duties—Committed:—Mutiny; and Juries (Ireland)
Petitions presented. By Mr. PEASE, from Durham, against a Clause in the Irish Anatomy Bill.

WESTERN RAIL-ROAD.
Lord Granville Somerset moved the second reading of the Western Rail-road Bill.
The Earl of Kerry,having been requested by the Great Western Railway Company to second the Motion for the Second Reading, would take that opportunity of stating the reason which induced him to support the measure. It was well known that Bristol was the great "entrepot" of the imports from Ireland, and in that respect the railway would be one of great national importance, for by it the best and most wholesome food would

1353
be obtained by the labouring classes of this great metropolis more cheaply. It would be of great advantage also to all the western counties, allowing their produce to be brought cheaper than at present to the London market. As to the objection that the advocates of the Bill were supporting a measure which had no body, but merely a head and a tail, it was one that had been argued a considerable time before the Committee. He admitted that it was so, but, in explanation of it he would beg to state how the speculation was got up. It only commenced last August; and every Gentleman who was acquainted with the proceedings must know that, before the end of October, notices were served upon all the persons whose property was likely to be affected by it, as it was necessary that the Company should order a survey of the whole line of the proposed Railway. The evil complained of, therefore, would be remedied in time. He considered this a great national undertaking, and he was sure that the grounds of opposition to it which he had heard frequently out of the House would have no weight in it. He regretted that some opposition was made to this Bill by a learned body, the Provost and Fellows of Eton College; but he had learned that the nearest point to the College at which the Railway touched was a mile and a half distant. Now the governors of Harrow and Rugby, within a quarter of a mile of the first of which the Birmingham Rail-road would pass, had not objected to that, nor did they think that the interests of those establishments would be affected by it. If there were any objections to be made to this Bill, he thought the proper time would be when it was in Committee. Out of 1,368 landowners on the proposed line of road, only 135 had expressed their dissent to it. He did not think it was necessary for him to add any more as he hoped that the House would agree to the Second Reading, and they would then have a full opportunity of discussing it in Committee.
Mr. Robert Palmerrose to oppose the Second Reading. The present was a case of a peculiar nature, and he should not stand forward to oppose it, unless he felt convinced that he had the strongest parliamentary grounds for the position he had taken. Much apprehension, he was aware, existed in the minds of hon. Members upon the subject of this rail-road, and till within
1354
the last few days it was not known to hon. Members generally what the Bill before the House really was, for it appeared in the votes of the House as the Second Reading of the Great Western Railway Bill. He was not going to contend that a line of communication from London to Bristol would not be beneficial to the country. But this was not the case; it was not the case of a railway from London to Bristol, but a Bill of a very different nature. Even if it were a railway to Bristol, he contended that no advantage would accrue from it, unless it was completed in the most effectual and least expensive mode. The case he (Mr. Palmer) had to submit to the House, was not that of the London and Bristol Rail-road; it was a very different one. The original proposal was started last summer, he believed; the prospectuses were issued, and subscriptions were set on foot for a railroad between London and Bristol. The House was, perhaps, not aware that the amount of capital necessary to be invested in the proposal was three millions. By the subscription list which he (Mr. Palmer) saw, only one million was made up; it might be forthcoming, but, however, the original plan was abandoned; and a second advertisement appeared for a railway between London and Reading, Bristol and Bath; so that a space of seventy miles intervened, which was not to have the benefit of a railway at all. He did not think he was occupying the time of the House unnecessarily on the subject, when he mentioned the state of opinion on it among the landed interests. The noble Lord said, that the number of those who assented to the Bill was very great; this he (Mr. Palmer) considered a very great error; no doubt it arose from misapprehension, but he was sure the statement could not be verified by facts. That morning he had seen in a newspaper of the county which he had the honour to represent, the project as put forward by the solicitors for carrying on this railway: and taking the opinions of those who assented and dissented from the Bill, it would be found that 217 agreed and 106 disagreed. But what was the amount of property amongst the assenting and dissenting parties? Why, in twenty-one miles of a country through which this road was to pass, the assenting parties had a quantity of land, one mile, one fur long, and 105 yards; the dissenting

1355
fifteen miles, five furlongs, and 167 yards; the neuters, three miles, two furlongs, and 195 yards; and adding the neuters to the assents, and taking it in the most favourable light, the dissents would be, in point of property, three to one against the Bill. The petitions which he had presented were most numerously, and, he would add, most respectably signed; and under these circumstances, he thought he had stated a strong case to induce the House to reject the Bill. It appeared that the measure was incomplete even as to the plan, and he feared that very considerable injury would be done to the places through which the railway would be carried, unless the line were completed. In a few years some new line or some better line from Reading to Bristol might be ascertained, or perhaps, in these days of improvement, some new means of locomotion might be discovered, and then, after all the injury had been done, the project would be thrown overboard. He was not able to state precisely what the number of assents and dissents was in the county of Middlesex, but he had every reason to believe that the number of dissents would be found to be much larger than those who assented to the measure. They were not numerically the largest, perhaps, but they possessed most property on the line. He contended, that the parties ought to come down to that House prepared to show that they were in a condition to carry the measure into effect. Whatever personal interest he might have in opposing the Bill (and he could assure the House that it was very small), and whatever interest those persons who had confided their petitions to him for presentation might have, if the parties had come down to that House, and shown that they were prepared to execute the proposed work—or if the subscription-list was in that state to justify the House in supposing that they would be able to carry the measure into effect, he would not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill; but as such was not the case, he must give his negative to the Motion. He regretted that the landed proprietors had not a person better able to advocate the cause which had been confided to him, but upon the grounds which he had stated, he moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
The Marquess of Chandosseconded the Motion, and said, there was a very
1356
strong feeling in that division of the county of Buckingham which he had the honour to represent, against the Bill. The noble Lord stated, that the dissents in the county of Bucks were as numerous as the assents, while they had a much greater amount of property at stake. The heads of Eton College were against the measure; and the noble Lord read a letter, in which their opposition to the measure was very strongly expressed, as being calculated to do great injury to the property in the neighbourhood. He did not wonder that the merchants residing in Bath, Bristol, or London, having capital at command, should feel disposed to enter into a speculation which they anticipated would turn out to their own advantage; but, at the same time, he could not help remarking that there were other individuals whose interests ought to be respected, and who, if this measure were carried into effect, would suffer such damage that no remuneration could compensate them. In the county which he represented, many farmers would be completely destroyed, as the effect of the tunnels and other works would be, not only to cutoff the particular line of communication, but also to injure the drainage, so that the low lands would become inundated with water. The Bill, in his opinion, instead of being beneficial, would be replete with injuries to the whole neighbourhood through which the railroad was intended to pass.
Mr. Charles Russellsaid, that many persons, whose names were attached to the petition he had presented in favour of the Bill, possessed property on the proposed line of road. He believed that the inhabitants of towns were not often the holders of large landed property. He did not believe that above five or six persons residing at Reading had any interest in the line of the railway; but, of these, one considerable owner, at least, was neuter upon this question. He certainly thought, that an unreasonable degree of stress had been laid on the circumstance that the whole line of the communication between London and Bristol was not, in the first instance, to be completed. From the observations which the hon. member for Berkshire had made, it might be inferred, that no bonâ fide intention was entertained to complete the Railway. That such could not be the case, was amply proved by the fact, that the proposition emanated not from Reading, nor from any place on the

1357
road, but from Bristol itself. The proposition which they now made was specific and simple. They asked for permission to construct a railroad between the Metropolis and Reading, and between Bath and Bristol. They contended, and they were prepared to prove, that the advantages which would be derived from these works were amply sufficient to justify their construction. Certainly they did expect to extend still greater benefits to the public. They did expect to be able to connect the Metropolis, not only with Bristol, and the western parts of England, but with Ireland and Wales, and they, therefore, called their work the Great Western Railway. These expectations, he thought, constituted an additional claim on the part of the projectors, and might fairly be urged by them. But it did seem to him a most paradoxical sort of reasoning and a most extraordinary description of prudence for the opposers of the measure to say, "Here is a specific advantage held out to you; but, take care, for if you do not mind what you are about, you will be entrapped into a better bargain than is now promised to you." With respect to the arguments of the noble Marquess, the member for Buckinghamshire, which were founded on the injury and inconvenience which, it is asserted, would be sustained by the school at Eton, they appeared to him most preposterous. No man could take a greater pride than be did in such noble institutions as that; but, could it be seriously contended, that they were to stand in the way of a great national work? Were these schools, the ultimate objects of which were to extend some improvement, to become a bar and obstacle to that improvement? Was the end to be sacrificed to the means? Would it not be more reasonable, instead of listening to the fears and complaints of the masters, to exact from them more vigilance and caution? After all, the question at issue was, are the advantages to the public from the construction of this railway sufficient to counterbalance the evils of a partial invasion of private property? These were matters which could only be fairly considered in a Committee, and he should, therefore, unquestionably support the second reading of the Bill.
Mr. O'Connell,in rising to support the Bill, said, that the question was, whether the Committee would sacrifice private interest to public good? Was the measure
1358
a public good? Could any one doubt it would have the effect of conveying heavy substances from parts greatly distant from each other in a very short time, and would confer benefits both to this country and Ireland, as the produce of the latter would be conveyed to the former? The progress of civilization had advanced to that state that the facility of transfer had become necessary, as the prosperity of the country depended upon it. Years back the Judge's had decided that no man could proceed against another for a bill due at Oxford on the preceding day, as it was impossible to go from London to that place in that time. Since that, however, a much greater distance had been accomplished; and he hoped that, in the course of a short period, they would be able to go from London to Edinburgh in one day by the help of railroads. The grave and reverend Seniors of Eton had taken a fancy to opposition in the present case: why did they not oppose the Birmingham rail-road? It was enough to say, that they had not done so; but, he could tell them, that they might repose in their own precincts, and rest satisfied, that if the rail-road came within a mile and a-half of their College, they would have ample compensation. Bristol was a market for that great granary, Ireland, and the speedy transfer of the produce of that country would increase food for the poorer classes. It might, it was true, take away some monopolies, and interfere with some of the landowners between London and Bristol. They might suffer at first in consequence of that monopoly being destroyed; but the poorer classes, who would get food cheaper, would, in every part of the country, offer up their thanks and gratitude to the House for giving its sanction to so great a measure. The chief objections to the measure seemed to be not to its principles, but its details, which he (Mr. O'Connell) considered was more a subject for the Committee than the House.
Mr. Laboucheresaid, that as his constituents felt the deepest anxiety for the success of the Bill, he begged to make a few observations upon it. It was a Bill which contemplated only the half of a measure, leaving the whole measure to be filled up in a subsequent Bill; but if it were to stop by making a rail-road communication merely from London to Reading, and then from Bath to Bristol, very great advantages would accrue to the public, for there was

1359
a good water communication between the intervening places, whereas the water communication from London to Reading by the Thames, it was well known, was a very bad one. Although, therefore, it would be of importance to make a railway on the whole line, yet, if that could not be done at present, it would be of considerable advantage to have it as proposed by the present Bill. He sincerely regretted the opposition which had been manifested to the Bill by the College of Eton. He entertained the most unfeigned respect towards that College; but anything more preposterous than the assertions made in the petition from that College, that it would be detrimental to the morals of the youths educated there, if such a rail-road were within a mile and a-half of them, he never heard, particularly when it was considered where the Harrow and Westminster schools were situated, the scholars of which were as moral as those of Eton.
Sir Thomas Freemantlesaid, that this Company had come to Parliament under a false pretence; not that he wished to say anything unfavourable towards the proprietors, who were, he believed, highly respectable men. The Bill was stated to be to establish the Great Western Railway, and yet its provisions only went to establish one from London to Reading, and from Bath to Bristol; therefore, the Company might call themselves by any other name as well as by that they now bore. In the Bill there was no guarantee that all the line of railroad would be completed, as there were seventy miles of road left without any provisions. There was nothing by which the Company bound themselves to form a communication on the whole line, except the bare fact, that they chose to call themselves the "Great Western Rail-road Company." Therefore, it was, that he objected to the second reading. Those who advocated the measure on the principle of the hon. and learned member for Dublin (Mr. O'Connell), asserted, that the Company would be sure to complete the line, in order to forward their own object; but, it might happen, that no other persons would choose to join them; funds for that purpose might not be forthcoming to enable the Company to make the communication, and then in what a situation would they be placed? A new Company might come to Parliament next year prepared with the means of making that line, and they would be
1360
stopped, because the Great Western Railroad Company had received the power to make it, although they had only made the two extremes of the line, and, therefore, the intervening space might never be completed. Indeed, they seemed to have contemplated some such an event; for, by the latter part of the Bill, it was provided, that if the line was not completed within three years, the lands were to go back to the original owners. He had next to complain of the immense extent of the schedule to the Bill; the lists of the lands, tenements, houses, &c., that were to be forcibly taken from their owners, in order to carry into effect this half measure, extended over not less than forty-two pages, and, then, but about fifty miles of road would be completed. Upon reference to the London and Birmingham Rail-road Bill, he found that, although the line extended 110 or 120 miles, the schedule comprised only nineteen pages. In the present Bill, he found, of gardens, tenements, and other parcels of property, in the highest degree valuable, which were to be forcibly taken possession of, there were not less than 1,271. He, therefore, would oppose the Bill, because there was a great uncertainty of the whole line ever being completed. The hon. and learned member for Dublin recommended, that all the details should be left to the Committee; but, unless the opponents of the Bill could raise a large subscription, it was impossible they could appear with any advantage before a Committee. He recollected that many thousand pounds had been spent in this way in the Birmingham Railway. He was prepared to show that, if only the two ends of the railway were constructed, it would not be of any great advantage; he was prepared also to contend, that railways were not calculated for the conveyance of heavy goods; he would not say, that they did not occasionally carry such; but the expense was so great for heavy articles, where time was no object, that it was found they could be better conveyed by canals and rivers, than rail-roads. The hon. and learned member for Dublin had condemned the College of Eton for their opposition to this Bill, but if the College considered that the Bill would be injurious to its interests, surely they had a right to come forward and state their objection to it.
Colonel Conollythought, at that stage, they ought only to take the principles of

1361
the Bill into consideration. It was an object of great consideration, not only to the western counties of England, but to the whole of the south of Ireland. There had been strong efforts made to induce the people of Ireland to think that their interests were not attended to in that House. Now, the House had an opportunity of proving the reverse, and, at the same time, of conciliating the people of that country by allowing the construction of this railroad, by which the produce of Ireland would be brought to the best market. He was convinced that it would be of the greatest use to the agriculture, the moral habits, and the population of that country; serving its interests and removing its prejudices. It was apparent, that a strong hostility was calculated upon from the counties contiguous to the metropolis; and this convinced him that they apprehended that the competition of agricultural produce from Ireland, and from the distant parts of the country, would interfere with their interests, and they were, therefore, most anxious to prevent a general and open competition. He addressed them as an Irish Member, as he knew there were hon. Members in that House better able than he was to support the interest of Wiltshire. He could, however, state that the expression of feeling upon this subject in that country, was as strong as in any part of Ireland. As to the Irish part of the question, he would say, that the three counties of Antrim, Louth, and Down, were very superior to any part of Ireland; and why was it so? Because the constant and quick communication between those three counties and England had advanced them in morals and civilization. He, therefore, hoped most earnestly, that feelings would be brought to the question, with a view to the benefit of Ireland, by according to it the great advantages of communication with England. He was not connected with the south of Ireland; but he was most anxious that the benefits arising from the western rail-road, should be afforded it; it would be a satisfactory answer to the complaints made on the score of neglect respecting Irish business. He considered that the great outcry which was made for the separation of the countries, would be stopped, by evincing the desire to give every benefit to Ireland that could be reasonably afforded her. If they desired to retain it as an integral part of the em-
1362
pire, they could not take a more effectual way, than by opening the communication a rail-road would give.
Mr. Gisbornerose to support the Bill. He must condemn the system of canvassing that had been adopted respecting this Bill. He had received a card, inviting him to attend and oppose this Bill. It was a printed card. He would read it; The invitation was to the following effect:—

OPPOSITION TO THE WESTERN RAILWAY
The Duke of Buckingham, Countess Berkeley; Earls Jersey, Harrington, and Cardigan; Lords Boston, Montague, and Stowell; Lady Carr; Mr. Sloane Stanley, Colonel Gore Langton, R. Palmer, Provost, Fellows, and Masters of Eton College, and the other opponents of this measure,—earnestly entreat the favour of your attendance in the House of Commons, on Monday, the 10th instant, at 12 o'clock on the Motion for the second reading.
34, Parliament-street, March 8, 1834.
With Sir W. H—'s compliments.
Now, that proceeding he considered to be most improper. He certainly complied with that earnest entreaty, but whether in favour or disfavour of that request, his vote on the question would soon tell. It was well known that parliamentary canvassing prevailed to a great degree; but he considered this the most impertinent piece of interference that ever came under his knowledge. He considered it a very proper question for the House to entertain, whether a rail-road should be carried from London to Bristol, and whether Reading and Bath were the fixed points through which the engineers should direct that road. He was convinced of the benefits of rail-roads. A gentleman in the coal trade, informed him, that since the railroad between Manchester and Liverpool had been established, coals could be purchased at 1s. 6d. per ton in the latter place. He did not consider that any case was made out against the second reading of the Bill; it was one which could with propriety be submitted to a Committee.
Sir Richard Vyvyan,having had the honour to attend several meetings on the subject of the Bill before the House, thought it necessary to say a few words. He thought the hon. member for Buckingham had been rather severe upon the promoters of the measure; for, after alluding to the title of the Bill, he held that it was not the great Western Railway Bill, but a Bill for making a railway from London to

1363
Reading, and from Bath to Bristol. He had objected to the former being the title of the Bill, because he did not conceive that it answered such a designation; but, so far as the promoters of the measure went, it showed sincerity. He agreed with what had fallen from the hon. and learned member for Dublin, that they ought to confine themselves to the principle of the measure, in discussing the second reading. They had been told that they were engaged in a measure they would be unable to complete; that they had taken two points, and left an intermediate line unsubscribed for. He was convinced the measure would be of the greatest service to South Wales, and to the West of England, to all Ireland, to Bristol, and the metropolis itself, to which it would be the means of affording a speedy communication.
Lord Granville Somersethad heard no objections that were not rather matters for the Committee than arguments against the Bill. That was particularly the case as regarded the number of assents and dissents; and he could assure the House, that, if the results of the Committee were not satisfactory, he would not be the Member to ask the House to proceed with the Bill. He was glad to hear, that no opposition had been offered to the plan for a railway between London and Bristol; and no parties could be more desirous to complete the whole measure, than were the parties to this Bill. With so much property involved in it, and with the improvement of that property that must result from the completion of the railway, it required little or no argument to show that they must be interested in and desirous of seeing the measure perfected. With respect to the resistance offered by Eton College, he could hardly think it was serious.
Sir Charles Burrell,as a trustee to Smith's Charity, opposed the Bill, because it would injure that Charity.
Captain Dundasthought, if rail-roads were to supersede the coasting trade, they would annihilate the seamen, and injure the country. He should oppose the Bill.
The House divided on the original Motion—Ayes 182; Noes 92: Majority 90. Bill read a second time.

REMUNERATION TO CAPTAIN ROSS.
On the Question that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply,
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsaid, that he had a Petition to present from Captain John Ross, of the Royal Navy, praying for remuneration for the expenses incurred by him in his voyage to the North Pole. He (Mr. C. Fergusson), trusted that the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would have no difficulty in signifying the consent of the Crown to the reception of the petition.
Lord Althorpsaid, he was authorised to signify his Majesty's consent to the presentation of the petition.
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsaid, he should content himself with simply presenting the petition, deferring whatever observations he had to make on the subject until he proposed the Motion, which stood in the paper to-night.
The Speakerwished to know what course the hon. Member proposed to follow with reference to this matter?
Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsaid, that he intended to move as an Amendment on the Motion for going into a Committee of Supply, that an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, requesting that he will be graciously pleased to confer some mark of his Royal favour on Captain John Ross, for his public services; and assuring his Majesty, that this House would make good whatever expense his Majesty might think proper to be incurred on that account.
The Speakerinformed the hon. Member, that his Motion for a Committee was unnecessary, for, though the subject-matter of the petition could not, undoubtedly, form part of the Army Estimates (which were to be proposed to-night), yet, as his Majesty had given his consent to the presentation of the petition, it might be taken into consideration in the Committee of Supply. The proper course, therefore, for the hon. Member to adopt was, to allow all the petitions on this subject to be presented, and then, after the order of the day being read, and previous to the Speaker leaving the chair, to move that they be referred to the Committee of Supply.
Mr. Huttpresented a petition from Kingston-on-Hull, numerously and respectably signed, praying that compensation might be granted to Captain Ross.
Mr. Cobbettwas opposed to the grant of any public money to Captain Ross. How could that House relieve the burthens of the country, if it were always

1365
voting away the money of the people? If hon. Members proposed to reward Captain Ross, let them do it out of their own pockets, and he should make no objection; and he must say, that he thought the merchants of Hull would have acted more properly if, instead of petitioning Parliament to remunerate Captain Ross, they had raised a subscription among themselves for that purpose.
Lord Sandonpresented a petition to the same effect signed in a very short time by many inhabitants of Liverpool. His Lordship said, that he was sure the hon. member for Oldham did not speak the sentiments of the labouring classes of this country, when he expressed himself hostile to the remuneration of an individual who, for the promotion of science, had sacrificed a great portion of his private fortune, and spent four years of his life amidst the severest privations.
Mr. Lennardthought, that Captain Ross was entitled to remuneration, and conceived that a plan might be adopted of doing justice to that gallant individual, without exciting the opposition of the hon. member for Oldham. A fund of 75,000 l. was appropriated for the payment of pensions granted by the Crown; and he knew of none so well entitled to partake of that public bounty as those who rendered some service to the country. He imagined that an Address to his Majesty, requesting him to place the name of Captain Ross on the Pension-list, would meet with the support of every member in that House.
Petition laid on the Table. Question, that the House go into Committee of Supply, again put.

COMBINATION OF COOPERS.
Mr. Humetook that opportunity of putting a question to the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir J. Graham), relative to a subject he had introduced in his speech on the Corn-laws the other evening. The impression which had been made out of doors by the statement of the right hon. Baronet, relative to the case of the journeymen coopers, was very unfavourable to those men. He had, however, received a statement of the facts of the case, in which it was complained that Government had interfered between the masters and the men; and he wished to know, whether the right hon. Baronet had made any further inquiry in order to
1366
ascertain how far the demands of the latter were reasonable, and how far the masters had shown a disposition to accede to them. The right hon. Baronet had stated that the men had struck, although the masters had advanced their wages, and acted with great kindness towards them. The fact appeared to be, that the nature of the work, since an advancement of wages had taken place, was so much changed, that what was formerly done in five days now occupied six; and all they required was, that their case, in that respect, should be taken into consideration. Since the Combination-laws had been repealed, masters and men had gone on with considerable amity, and therefore he hoped there would be no interference between them of any third party. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had made any further inquiry on the subject?
Sir James Grahamhad certainly made some inquires on the subject; but, having only returned to town late that afternoon, they had been of necessity limited in their extent. Although, therefore, they were not quite so satisfactory as he could have wished, the result of them was, that the statement he had given on a former night was quite correct. The men were now standing out for wages, which would amount to 2l. 4s. a-week, whereas they now received 1l. 19 s; although certainly he must admit, that there was additional labour required, and therefore there was room for inquiry into the matter. He hoped the hon. member for Middlesex would move for the production of the correspondence between the Admiralty and the master coopers, which he should have no objection to produce, in order that the subject, which was undoubtedly of great importance in connexion with the trades' unions, might be discussed in a regular manner, and not in a mere desultory conversation.
Mr. O'Connellhoped the hon. member for Middlesex would comply with the suggestion. A deputation had waited upon him, and, after considerable detail, had convinced him that one-sixth in point of duration and weight of work bad, by the present mode, been added to their labour. The human frame was not able for any continuance to sustain the great increase of exertion which was thus accumulated. The rise in wages was only in proportion to the increase of labour
Mr. George Frederick Young,being practically acquainted with the subject, ventured to confirm the statements of the right hon. Baronet, and pledged himself, if the House went into an extended inquiry, to prove that while the journeymen coopers earned considerably more than the maximum quoted by the right hon. Baronet, they had been in the habit of exercising a most improper and intolerable tyranny over the masters, particularly in the taking of apprentices, &c, which operated most prejudicially to their interests.
The House then resolved into a Com-Committee of

SUPPLY.—ARMY ESTIMATES.
Mr. Ellicerose, for the purpose of submitting the estimate of the charge of the Volunteer Corps. The difference which would be found to exist in the estimate as compared with that of last year, arose, not from the number of men enrolled, which was precisely the same, but from being called upon to make good a sum of 3l. each for clothing, &c, for the present which had not been required last year, in consequence of a vote of 9l. granted three years ago, this being the first year in which an annual vote was proposed under that head. This would increase the estimate for clothing and contingent allowances from 28,119 l. to 54,221 l. As, however, they had been compelled by this charge for clothing to ask a larger sum than last year, the Government thought that they might, on the present occasion, reduce the expenses without any inconvenience to the public service of calling the corps out to permanent duty. It was therefore proposed now only to call for 22,000 l., instead of 55,000 l. voted last year, arising from the difference between 7s. a-day, allowed last year on the corps being called out to permanent duty, and 3s. 4d. a-day, proposed this year in consequence of their being now called on to be exercised only in quarters. He understood that opposition was nevertheless to be offered to the vote by the hon. member for Middlesex, who proposed that the several corps should either be disbanded altogether, or, if maintained, that no public expense should thereby be incurred. With this view a return had been moved for by the hon. Member, of the charge of the corps of yeomanry at Uxbridge, who, it appeared, did duty without calling on the public to defray
1368
the expenses they incurred. Now, undoubtedly great credit was due to them for such disinterested conduct, but he could not keep pace with his hon. friend, in thinking that the whole of the yeomanry might be expected to offer such gratuitous efficient service. At the same time he hoped they would not object to the smaller allowance which was now proposed to be given them, and which he thought would be quite sufficient to provide for the due maintenance of the proper discipline of the corps, and its efficiency for public service. He was quite sure, in bringing forward this estimate, he did no more than his duty, in the situation which he filled, in calling the attention of the House to the great and invaluable services which the corps had always rendered when called out on public duty; and he trusted that the temporary reduction now contemplated would not dispose them to act with less zeal and patriotism than had distinguished them during the several years that they had been embodied under the present act. Another difference in this estimate arose from the entire omission of the yeomanry staff in Ireland, which had not been required or called out for service during the last three years. At the same time, if compensation was required for any meritorious individuals who had spent a large portion of their time in that particular service, be should not object to some provision being made for them hereafter. The right hon. Gentleman them moved, "That the sum of 82,179 l. be granted for defraying the charge for the Volunteer Corps for the present year."
Mr. Humethought, if the corps were disbanded only for one year, there was sufficient public spirit and patriotism in England to induce persons to come forward and enroll themselves for the purpose of preserving the peace, and protecting property around them, without subjecting the country to the heavy expense of maintaining such a force. Such a disposition was manifested in France; and he had no doubt, it would be manifested here also, if there were occasion for it. He would mention, that the Uxbridge, the Salisbury, and the Glasgow corps, were existing proofs that such a disposition was not wanting, for they did their duty gratuitously. He had urged his objections to the present system for twelve or fourteen years, and he had been

1369
delighted to find, that the Marquess of Lansdown, when Secretary for the Home Department, had determined to put an end to the corps. The first military men in the country, he believed, had been consulted on that occasion, and their deliberate opinion was, that the corps might be dispensed with very conveniently, and that if the 150,000 l. required for their maintenance was to be expended, it would be much better that two or three regular corps should thereby be established. Government had then reduced the volunteers, but the present Ministry, on coming into office, had taken alarm, and placed them on their present footing. Since 1816, the enormous sum of 2,379,722 l. had been expended in their maintenance, while there had been comparatively little occasion for their services. Why should there not be as much public spirit in England, as to raise without expense, such a force as existed so efficiently in France, in Holland, and in Belgium? No doubt a National Guard some time ago was considered rather revolutionary; but he was not attached to a name. He only wished a trial to be made of the public spirit of Englishmen, if the present corps were to be disbanded for one year. Plenty would be found ready to come forward without the paltry and unbecoming motive of being paid for their services. Upon the whole, considering that the right hon. Gentleman had held out a hope, that he would be able to dispense with the corps, and, especially sanctioned by the conduct of the previous Administration, he would propose to negative the vote altogether.
Colonel Daviesagreed in the proposition to extend this force to infantry as well as cavalry. In the northern counties, where there was a large manufacturing population, the yeomanry had, on many occasions, been called on to risk their lives in encounters with determined rioters, armed with weapons of offence and defence. It could not be expected, that or these occasions, farmers should leave their homes without some remuneration. What they did receive barely covered the expense to which they were put. His hon. friend had referred to the National Guard of France. There was this wide distinction between the yeomanry of England and the National Guard of France, that the yeomanry was a volunteer corps in the true sense of the word. The service of the National Guard was compulsory.
1370
Every person who had a domicile in France was compelled to serve, and the Government provided clothing and arms. The hon. member for Middlesex wished his plan to be tried for one year; but let him recollect that a great deal of mischief might be done in a twelvemonth. Why replace this guard, whose services were only required once or twice in the year, by a standing army, who must be paid for every day in the year?
Mr. Littletonsaid, that it would be no economy to abolish the volunteer corps—on the contrary, if it were abolished, it would be indispensably requisite to incur, in some respects, the expense of a standing army. He belonged to a manufacturing county, and could say, from his own experience, that had it not been for the assistance afforded on many occasions by the yeomanry, the most extensive depredations would have been committed. In the whole of the district with which he was acquainted, containing 30,000 men, there had not been a single company of the troop out of doors. The infantry volunteers of other countries exercised only within the limits of the town where the different battalions were formed. He should think it a great misfortune if the volunteer corps of this country were in any degree reduced.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that nobody disputed that a volunteer force might be useful. The question was, whether an experiment might not be made on the patriotism of the English, and a force got up without any expense. In 1780, when all the King's troops were drawn out of Ireland, and sent to America, 60,000 cavalry, artillery, and infantry, not only clothed, but armed themselves, and served for three or four years without a cost to the Government of a single shilling. Surely, in so wealthy a country as England, the experiment might succeed without costing 80,000 l.
The Earl of Grosvenorsaid, that the yeomanry were put to great inconvenience and expense by their absence from home to attend to the duties of the service, and they did not receive as much as remunerated them for the loss they sustained. There were, he was aware, two troops, one in Wiltshire, and the other in Glasgow, which served gratuitously; but he thought it was well worth consideration, whether it was constitutional to allow bodies to arm themselves, and serve without remunera-

1371
tion, or whether it would not be more prudent that they should receive a small pay, and be obliged to take the oath of allegiance to his Majesty, and to bind themselves to serve him faithfully? He was sure it was not the intention of the right hon. Secretary at War to discourage the yeomanry; but, he feared, that the circumstance of their not being called out for permanent duty, would have that effect, unless they were apprised, that it was but a step caused by temporary circumstances, and that it was not intended to cast any slur upon them.
Mr. Brodiesaid, that the Salisbury corps, of which he was the Colonel, had performed very useful services, and was maintained at a very small expense to the Government. It was originally clothed by subscription, and armed by his Majesty, and the only expense which the Government had to defray was, the wear and tear of the arms, and the cost of ammunition, which did not exceed 10 l. a-year. He suggested, that the general establishment of such corps would be the means of saving, not 9,000 men, as the hon. member for Middlesex had proposed, but 20,000.
Mr. Gillonconsidered the yeomanry not merely a useless but a dangerous force—the most dangerous that could be employed. It was not possible that they should be under the same subordination and discipline as the regular troops, and, therefore, they could not be expected, on sudden emergencies, to act with as much firmness and coolness. The allusion which had been made to Manchester was most unfortunate. When the circumstances which had occurred there were referred to, they ought to deter Gentlemen from voting for a force which was so liable to be influenced by local prejudices. He should support the reduction proposed by the hon. member for Middlesex, conceiving the force worse than useless.
Mr. Mark Philipsbegged the House would draw a distinction between the acts of the yeomanry at Manchester, and those of the Magistrates. He thought that the force had acted very well in circumstances of peculiar delicacy, although he did not deny that there had been some impetuosity on the part of one of the corps.
Mr. Shawwas of opinion, whatever might be done as to England, that there was a necessity to keep up the yeomanry force in Ireland. He feared, there was
1372
some other reason beyond that which was assigned for its suppression. He could not help thinking it was intended as a sop to satisfy a party which would never be satisfied.
Mr. Littletonassured the hon. member for the University of Dublin, that the Government, in withdrawing the vote for the Irish yeomanry, were influenced by no other motive than the consideration that the King's army was sufficient. Surely, 23,000 men were enough to have armed in a population of 8,000,000. He did not believe there had been an instance of the yeomanry in Ireland having been called out for the last three years. At the same time the Government by no means forgot the services which the yeomanry had rendered to the country on past occasions, and they entertained a firm conviction that, should there ever occur a necessity to arm that force again, it would come forward with the same alacrity which it had hitherto displayed. But, he hoped, we had now reached a time when, if it should be necessary to raise volunteers, they would be divested of party prejudices, and that Protestant and Catholic would act in the same service with no other object than to join in the defence of the country.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that if the yeomanry were kept up in Ireland, the King's troops would be required to defend the people against the yeomanry.
Lord Ebringtonbore testimony to the excellent conduct and discipline of the yeomanry corps of the county of Devon upon all occasions. A few days ago an East-India vessel was thrown upon the northern coast of Devon, with a most valuable cargo, which would have been totally lost, but for the excellent conduct of the yeomanry corps of that county.
Mr. Cobbettsaid, that Major Cartwright had called the yeomanry corps the body guard of the borough mongers. Now, the body being gone, he could not see why the corps should not be given up. He felt glad, that not a single Member on the Ministerial benches had attempted to vindicate the conduct of the yeomanry corps of Manchester.
Mr. Humesaid, that the Manchester yeomanry corps were so ashamed of their conduct on that occasion, that they dissolved themselves, and had never since been enrolled.
The Committee divided on the origi-

1373
nal Motion—Ayes, 135; Noes, 53; Majority—82.

List of the NOES.

ENGLAND.

Wason, R.

Aglionby, H. A.

Watkins, L.

Attwood, T.

Whalley, Sir S.

Bewes, T.

Wilks, J.

Blake, Sir F.

SCOTTLAND.

Buckingham, J. S.

Gillon, W. D.

Cobbett, W.

Johnston, A.

Collier, J.

Oliphant, L.

Dykes, F. L. B.

Oswald, R. A.

Evans, Colonel

Wallace, R.

Ewart, W.

Wemyss, Captain

Faithfull, G.

IRELAND.

Fielden, J.

Barry, G. S.

Guest, J. J.

Blake, M.

Hawkins, J. II.

Evans, George

Handley, Major

Fitzgerald, T.

Humphrey, J.

Jacob, E.

Hurst, It. II.

O'Connell, M.

Hutt, W.

O'Connell, D.

James, W.

O'Dwyer, A. C.

Lennox, Lord G.

O'Reilly, W.

Lister, E. C.

Roche, W.

Potter, R.

Ruthven, E. S.

Parrott, J.

Ruthven, F.

Staveley, T. K.

Sheil, R. L.

Todd, R.

Vigors, N. A.

Trelawney, W.

Walker, C. A.

Turner, W.

TELLER.

Walter, J.

Hume, J.

Warburton, H.

Mr. Ellicethen proposed "a charge of 16,547 l. 12 s. 10 d., for allowances as rewards for distinguished services, not exceeding three-fifths of the emoluments of garrison appointments which have become vacant; and also of allowances to officers of his Majesty's garrisons at home and abroad, holding their appointments as rewards for military service, but to which no efficient military duty attaches; and which appointments will be abolished on vacancies occurring, when rewards for distinguished military service will be granted in lieu there of."
Sir Henry Hardingeexpressed his regret at the course recommended to be pursued by the Committee which sat on the subject of military appointments last year. 'Up to 1788, the army had 30,000 l. a-year distributed amongst them, as rewards for distinguished services; the army was then not one-half its present number, and certainly not half so deserving. He felt, that the decision the Committee up-stairs came to, namely, to reduce the rewards to the army, was most unjust. The Committee admitted the claims of the army, and said, because the army had served the country so well, the rewards to be be-
1374
stowed should be cut down. In France, no less than 365,000 l. were distributed as military rewards. He trusted, that next year the Government would bring forward some measure for rewarding military service. He knew, that it was almost useless for him to bring forward any proposition on the subject. He, therefore, should only protest against the injustice done the army. He thought, that the principle on which rewards were distributed under former Estimates, was much better than that which the right hon. Secretary had adopted in the present instance, who, he had little doubt, would soon see the propriety of altering his plan.
Mr. Humewas surprised to hear the right hon. and gallant Officer advocate so zealously, the vested rights of the army. If the right hon. and gallant Officer's doctrine were correct, they might soon expect to see those vested rights enforced with fixed bayonets.
Sir Henry Hardingeappealed to the Committee, whether in the observations he had made, he had used any such expressions as "vested rights" or "fixed bayonets." In what he had stated, he merely discharged his duty; and he could assure the hon. member for Middlesex, that he should always boldly stand up in his place in that House, to resist injustice, without caring whether his conduct was approved of or not, by the popular voice.
Mr. Humecared as little about popularity as the right hon. and gallant Officer. He challenged the right hon. and gallant Officer, or any other Member of that House, to point out an instance in which he had courted popularity. So far from courting popularity, he could, on the contrary, assert, that numberless instances had occurred, in which he had actually borne the brunt of the adverse opinions of millions. Why, on a very recent occasion, when his Majesty's Ministers gave way to popular clamour, did he not resist the popular cry? The right hon. and gallant Officer had, therefore, no right to allude to him as a person capable of surrendering his own opinions, merely in deference to the wishes of parties out of doors. He denied, that any injustice was intended towards the army. The present annuitants were not to be disturbed in the enjoyment of their pensions; but it was right to put it out of the power of future Governments, to misapply

1375
the public money by the creation of such I offices as those alluded to. So far from deserving to be attacked for what he had done in this respect, the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary at War, deserved the thanks of the Committee, and of every man in the country, for the efforts he had used to introduce a system of necessary economy into the department over which he presided. It was, he admitted, no more than just, that merit should be adequately and properly rewarded. The right hon. and gallant Officer had referred to the list of 1792, but he had entirely forgotten to state to the Committee the disparity between the number of officers then serving in the army, and the number now employed. He had objected to the grant of 18,000 l., and he did so, because he thought any expense that was too high, should be cut down as much as possible, and, that large salaries should not be given where there was not only no merit, but no duty to be performed. He did not mean to say, that Lieutenant-Colonels should be paid like mere clerks, but the system of abuse existing in one public department, could not justify abuse in another.
Sir Henry Hardingesaid, that a very considerable augmentation had taken place in the army, both cavalry and infantry, since 1792, and the payments had, of course, also increased. He did not mean to say, that the civil appointments were too many or too few; but this he would assert, without fear of contradiction, that the emoluments of the officers of various regiments, were much less now than they were in 1740, nearly a century ago. It was, he repeated, unjust to diminish the emoluments of the army, while in other instances, the emoluments of public servants had been increased. He had a perfect right to complain, that the army had not been done justice to.
Mr. Cobbettunderstood the right hon. and gallant officer's wish to be, that they should take nothing at all off. The argument, why something should be taken off, was the argument which was now brought forward to show, that no reduction whatever should be made. But it was the non-effective, and not the effective service they were talking about. What was the cost of the non-effective establishment in 1792? It was only right the Committee should know what it cost the country in that year, and what it now cost. In-
1376
1792, the sum of 369,462 l. was voted for this purpose. But what was the sum that was now given? Why, no less than 2,589,369 l. 10 s. 1d. At the period of 1792, the sum granted for widows' pensions, and compassionate allowances, was only 9,000 l. and odd. But what was it now? Why, it was no less than 212,100 l.; and yet they were told, that the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary at War, was not justified in his endeavours to make some little saving out of these sinecures, for so he must designate them. He was quite ready to admit, that the army had great merit; but when the right hon. and gallant Officer dilated upon its exploits in Europe, he surely should not have forgotten its achievements on the other side the Atlantic. When the gallant General was enumerating their great services, he ought not to have omitted what they had done for their country in the United States of America. But he observed that the Governor of the Isle of Wight was named on the present list, although he was not a military man. This was the only point upon which he desired explanation.
Mr. Ellicesaid, that the office to which the hon. member for Oldham alluded, was to cease with the present holder. He had, however, felt it his duty to provide for it in this way.
Sir Henry Hardingeobserved, that the number of officers on full pay in 1792, was 4,014, and the number of rank and file, 48,000. The number of officers engaged in the army in 1833, was only 5,615, while the number of rank and file, amounted to 95,000 men. The Committee would, therefore, perceive, that in 1792, there was an officer to every company of twelve men; but, that in 1833, there was a company of seventeen men to every officer. The complaint of want of economy in this respect, was consequently groundless. The hon. Member must be aware, that at the end of the war, the list of pensioners was necessarily much enlarged. It was quite clear from the Report of the Committee, that the management and discipline of the army, were in a more perfect state now, than at any former period of our history.
The Resolution was then agreed to.
Mr. Ellicenext proposed a Resolution, that the sum of 114,000 l. be granted for defraying the army pay of General Officers serving with his Majesty's forces, they

1377
not being Colonels of regiments. The right hon. gentleman observed, that a diminution had been effected in this vote, as compared with the vote of last year, in consequence of the nonfilling up of the casualties, that had since occurred. He regretted, that he had not been able to adopt the recommendation which the Committee of last year had given relative to the allowance of those officers who had served prior to the last war. The inquiries he had made, had convinced him, that it would be impracticable to follow up that recommendation. He had no means of ascertaining who the officers were, whose circumstances would enable them to relinquish their pensions, or who they were, to whom those pensions would be continued. In every case, they would be entitled to the whole produce of the sale of their last commissions, and this would so far exceed the value of the annuities they received, that he thought it better not to interfere in the matter. Failing to carry the desire of the Committee into effect in this instance, he had deemed it expedient to leave another recommendation of theirs also untouched. A noble friend of his (Lord Ebrington) intended to supply the omission to which he alluded; and although he did not feel himself warranted in bringing that particular matter forward himself, for reasons which he had stated on a former occasion, he should cordially support his noble friend's proposition whenever it was made.
Lord Ebringtonrose to bring forward his Motion of which he had given notice. He would move, "That, in pursuance of the recommendation of the Committee on Army and Navy Appointments, a sum not exceeding 6,500 l. be added to the charge of the pay of General Officers, for the purpose of making up to 400 l. a-year the pay of all such unattached General Officers, as are not in the receipt of any-other public emolument."
The Chairman(Mr. Bernal) felt it to be his duty, to say, as the object which the noble Lord's proposition had in view was to make some increase in the Estimate, which his right hon. friend, the Secretary of War, had submitted, that it could not, in point of form, be made. The Committee had no power to augment the Estimates submitted to them by his Majesty's Government, and such a proposition was, not only without precedent, but against
1378
the orders which regulated their proceedings.
Sir Henry Hardinge,although he fully agreed in the substance of the noble Lord's Motion, could not but object to the form in which it came before the Committee. The King, and not that House, was the dispenser of grace, favour, and reward to the army; and he should object to the noble Lord, or any one else, calling on them to confer rewards which could only be obtained by means of his Majesty's pleasure. The Estimate should have been submitted by command of the King, and not until his pleasure respecting it was first ascertained. The same course ought to be taken before any reductions were proposed, for it was of the utmost importance, that the army should look up to no authority but that of the King. It was by his Majesty's direction, that punishments were inflicted, and by him alone should rewards be conferred. His was constitutional doctrine. But it was quite clear, that his Majesty's pleasure had never been consulted on the matter; for had they not heard the right hon. Secretary say, not, that such and such were according to the King's pleasure, but, that "he should be ready to support his noble friend's Motion." If the King's pleasure were ascertained, and the right hon. Secretary had his Majesty's permission for bringing the vote forward, he (Sir H. Hardinge) entertained no doubt, whatever, that it would be passed without difficulty.
Mr. Ellicehad not the presumption to take anything upon himself in such a matter; he had only stated, that the would support his noble friend's proposition.
Sir Henry Hardingeobserved, that the right hon. Gentleman was bound to have informed his Majesty of the nature of the recommendation which the Committee had given.
Mr. Ellicethought that, under all the circumstances, he could not have advised the King to command the adoption of any other course than that which had been taken.
Sir Henry Hardingehad understood the right hon. Secretary to say, that he had not taken the advice of his Majesty on the subject.
Mr. Elliceassured the right hon. and gallant Officer that he was in error. He really had not introduced his Majesty's name in the few introductory remarks that

1379
he had made, and, therefore, could not have stated whether he had or had not the sanction of the King for the line of conduct he had pursued.
Sir Henry Hardingehad certainly been under the impression that the right hon. Gentleman had not consulted his Majesty at all on this particular point. It was, however, only right that, as to his Majesty peculiarly belonged the discipline of the army, they should look up to him, and to him alone.
Mr. Ellicesaid, that he should be very sorry to maintain any other doctrine.
Captain Dundascomplained, that there was another service which had not been treated justly. More favour had been shown to the army than to the navy, which was most unfair.
Lord Ebringtonsaid, that neither service had been more favoured than the other. The allowance of the officers of the army had been reduced from 30,000 l. to 18,000 l., but no diminution had taken place in the allowance of officers in the navy. It was, therefore, most unjust to say, that his Majesty's Ministers had favoured cither service more than the other; but, above all, it was extremely injudicious to excite a spirit of jealousy between the two services. He was exceedingly sorry for the technical objection that had been raised against his Motion; but he trusted his right hon. friend, the Secretary at War, would take some future opportunity bringing the subject forward.
Mr. Ellicewished the subject to drop without further observation; but he could assure his noble friend, that he would take another opportunity of bringing it under the consideration of the House.
Mr. Cobbettobserved, that, this seemed a quarrel between the sister services, which, being a mere family affair, should be left to be settled by the parties themselves. He should like to know how the people of Devon, the noble Lord's constituents, would like to have a sum of 6,500 l. added to the charge of I 14,000 l. for the pay of General Officers, and General Officers, too, who were not employed at all? The people of Devon, he had no doubt, would agree with him, that three hundred General Officers were more than was required, and although the world might tremble at such a number of Generals, the people of Devon, he was quite sure, would not be as solicitous as the noble Lord to increase the burthens of the country on their ac-
1380
count. But what must the world think of England with her three hundred Generals? Why the people of other countries must tremble at the prospect of a war with England, for with such a number of Generals, she could certainly send 300 or 400, or even 600 battalions into the field. He saw a gallant Admiral smile at this; but the gallant Admiral had no right whatever to smile, for it was well known that there were as many as three Admirals to every line-of-battle ship in the service. He could not consent to the proposed vote for adding to the allowances of three hundred Generals.
Lord Ebringtonwas satisfied, that the people of Devon would be as anxious as he was to do justice to those who had served their country meritoriously. They would not grudge those officers the rewards which they deserved, and this was the feeling with which he had proposed this vote.
Mr. Cobbettasked, whether the name of Prince Leopold was to be found on the list?
Mr. Ellicereplied: Certainly not.
Mr. Humesaid, that the expense of General Officers was so very great, that he would put it to the noble Lord whether he ought to sanction such a proposition as the one that he had made. No fewer than thirty-nine had not served at all during the last war.
Sir Henry Hardingeobserved, that, on a former occasion, the hon. member for Middlesex stated that he should no longer quarrel with the expense, but with the number of these officers. He then had no objection to their receiving 400 l. a-year, although he now turned round upon them in a manner so ungenerous. The thirty-nine officers to which the hon. member alluded, received their pensions under King's warrants, and as their average ages were 65, it would be a harsh proceeding indeed to interfere with them. When the question was brought forward again, he should be prepared to show that the whole sum proposed to be voted was more than gained by the 100 l. a-year that was taken oft" the different regiments prospectively. The emoluments of regiments were now less than they were a century ago.
Lord Ebringtonwithdrew his Motion, and the Resolution was agreed to.
Mr. Ellicemoved for a grant of 81,240 l. for the half-pay and reduced allowances of officers belonging to disbanded foreign corps, &c.
Mr. Cobbett,objected to this money being sent out of England to be spent in Germany and elsewhere. The sum drawn from the people of England in this manner since the peace, amounted to 2,000,000 l. It was unconstitutional and illegal to apply the money of the country in this way. Much of it, he believed, was paid to Frenchmen now serving in the French army. These parties were brought into the service of the British army by two Acts of Parliament, which said, that they were to have the same pay and the same allowances, and the same everything as English officers, until within a fixed time after peace should have been concluded. He should divide against the vote, if he voted alone.
Mr. Ellicesaid, that this was one of the contracts to which the Government found the country pledged when they succeeded to office, and they were bound by every principle of law and justice, to abide by the contract. Some of these allowances were for wounds received in the active service of this country. He was sure, that no one would wish such services to go unrewarded.
Mr. Cobbettasked, would the House believe, that 2,000 l. more was paid to the widows of these German officers than was paid to the widows of the whole of the officers of our army in 1792?
Colonel Daviessaid, it was very well known, that parties were receiving these allowances, who now held offices, civil or military, under other Governments, and in some cases, the money was received in the names of those who were no longer in existence. He thought the public not sufficiently protected against such frauds.
Mr. Ellicesaid, it was impossible for the Government to guard against all the frauds that were attempted. If the gallant Member knew the particulars of such a case as that he had described, he would have done much more good by representing ii at the War-Office, than to the Committee.
Sir Henry Hardingesaid, that not one officer, receiving this allowance, could serve in a foreign army, without the permission of his Majesty, in whose service such officers of course remained. In some cases, such permission had been refused and it was only granted where the case warranted it.
Mr. Aglionbysaid, that these claims were founded on a solemn contract. If the country was not bound to pay them,
1382
he would refuse it; but it appeared that we were so bound by an Act of Parliament.
Mr. Cobbett: I say, that that Act of Parliament is against the fundamental law of the land. It is against another Act of Parliament as good as that—an Act of Parliament which placed the King upon the throne. I contend, that by the Act of the 12th and 13th of William" and Mary, the Government was forbidden to bestow any place of military emolument upon foreigners. And I say, that if we take it into our heads to set that Act of Parliament at defiance in this respect, we may also take it into our heads to set it at defiance in other respects.
Mr. Humewas understood to say, that, as the refusal of these allowances would be a breach of a special Act of Parliament, he could not vote against the grant.
The Committee divided: Noes 4; Ayes 200; Majority 196.

List of the NOES.

Cobbett, W.

Williams, Col.

Faithfull, G.

TELLER.

Fielden, J.

Ruthven, E.

Mr. Ellice,in moving the sum of 1,327,848 l. 7s. 2d. for the pensioners of Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals, observed, that considerable reductions had seen commenced in those establishments.
Mr. Cobbettthought the grant excessive. These pensioners received upwards of 31 l. per annum, or about 12 s. a week, which he thought was quite monstrous. Besides this, the official expenses for attendance on these old men cost 30,000 l. a year. The out-pensioners received 11½d. a day, being nearly 6s. a-week, for doing nothing, whilst the day labourer got but five shillings a week at the very outside for the sweat of his brow. When he (Mr. Cobbett) was a soldier, these pensioners got but 4d. a day, and it was quite enough now. Nothing went down now but a red coat. He had been one himself, but the House seemed to forget his services.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that some of the apartments in Kilmainham Hospital were now appropriated to certain officers of the garrison at Dublin. He wished to know whether it was the intention of Government to displace those indidivuals in the arrangements they were contemplating with regard to that institution.
Mr. Ellicereplied, that all he could say at present with regard to that institution was, that arrangements had been made to remove such in-pensioners as could be removed to Chelsea Hospital, whilst the more infirm would be accommodated in certain infirmaries and hospitals of Dublin.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that this change had given great dissatisfaction to a large part of his constituents, and he felt it his duty, therefore, to mention it. It might be advocated as a very judicious piece of economy; but was there any very great saving to recommend it? He thought it a very great cruelty to bring away these poor pensioners, removing them from their native land, from a national institution which they had long looked upon with affection and pride, particularly as the removal was contrary to their inclination. None were in-pensioners of that institution, except by inclination—old soldiers, whose friends and families were separated from or altogether lost to them, and who found a home and an asylum within those walls. Strong remonstrances had been made to Government not to put down this institution; and whatever little saving might be effected by so doing, could not compensate for the dissatisfaction which such a measure would cause.
Mr. Elliceassured the hon. and learned member for Dublin, that Government would not have proposed this change if they had thought that it would at all interfere with the comforts of the individuals in question. The hon. and learned Gentleman might rest assured that no such measure of cruelty would be enforced against those whose infirmities might unfit them for a change to this country; but every encouragement would be given to them to remove to their own families, or elsewhere, as might be convenient. The hon. and learned Gentleman had remonstrated against this proposal for putting down a national establishment. He could assure him that there would be no change in the nature, though there might be nominally in the future destination of that establishment. The fact was, that this year the lease of the artillery barracks in Dublin would expire, and it could not be renewed, and the necessary repairs executed, without considerable expense. When, therefore, it was considered that the whole number of persons in that establishment was 270, and that
1384
there was an abundance of accommodation for them in Chelsea Hospital, he did not see that it was worth the expense of 12,000 l. to keep up a separate establishment for their use.
Mr. O'Dwyerbegged to say, that he set very little value on the consolation which the Secretary at War had just administered. The right hon. Gentleman had assured the committee that the hospital should be kept up, which meant that the stores and mortar should not be transferred to England. No doubt if the expense of carriage were not an objection, the fabric would be demolished, and the materials conveyed to London. The right hon. Gentleman would call that demolition by the delusive and most mischievous name of "consolidation," and the committee would be quite satisfied. He protested most strenuously against this wholesale destruction of everything Irish. It might be agreeable to some persons to accumulate all the office-desks and office-forms of Ireland in five or six large houses in London, upon the plea of economy, and under the name of consolidation, but he undertook to say that the breaking up of public establishments in Ireland had inflicted much individual misery—had diminished the expenditure in that impoverished country, but did not produce any corresponding saving to the State. He had not any official data to guide him in this statement, but he venture to make the assertion on the received opinion of the public, assisted by his means of personal observation. He now came to consider the proposition of the Government, with regard to Kilmainham Hospital, and the measure of appropriating this establishment to the ordnance service, and he unhesitatingly asserted that the Government had no legal right to justify such a proceeding. The House was frequently reminded of the protection due to vested interests, and this was a case in which there should be a consideration of the kind. The history of this hospital was brief and interesting. It was founded in the time of Charles the Second. The edifice was raised by funds created by a deduction of sixpence in the pound from the pay of all officers, soldiers, and other military persons serving in Ireland. Lands which formerly belonged to the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem, which belonged to the Crown in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, were conveyed to the hospital by the tenure of perpetual alms for the support

1385
of the establishment, for many years the invalids were supported by this mode of revenue. Would the House of Commons think it just to divert this ancient charity from the intentions of its original founders? But, on higher grounds than those of technicality, he (Mr. O'Dwyer) wished to know-was it politic to break up this institution? There were many things which might be done, which it would be very inexpedient to do. With respect to this institution he would say, that there was no Irishman who did not feel a national pride in this establishment. It was one of those few monuments existing in Ireland which created in most men an ennobling attachment to the Constitution under which they lived. It was creditable to the country that there should be in the capital an asylum for the brave and worn-out defenders of the land; and the breaking up of this establishment was a measure so small in its conception, that it seemed to be devised by the genius of a pedlar, and adopted without consideration by the Secretary at War. It was part of a system of denationalization which should be discouraged. The object seemed to be to take from Ireland all her public establishments, and conduct the government through the Post-office. He asked the noble Lord, the Paymaster of the Forces, who had paid a flying visit to Ireland, and who had investigated the affairs of this establishment—he asked the Secretary for Ireland, who knew the feeling in Ireland on the subject—finally, he asked the Secretary at War to name any one person of authority who approved of the breaking up of Kilmainham Hospital? He ventured to assert the scheme was disapproved of by the Commander of the Forces in Ireland. At all events, the Committee had a right to know whether this was not an ill-advised scheme planned by some incompetent person, or whether it was a measure recommended by those who were competent to give an opinion.
Mr. Humewas sorry to hear hard words against economy. He must say he thought, that the expenses of the institution in question, about 50 l. per man, were more than could be fairly justified. The expense of the establishment at Chelsea was unnecessarily great; but the expense of Kilmainham surpassed it. He would recommend, that the payment of the pensions should be made through the hands of a regular army agent, at the
1386
usual rate of commission, which would effect a saving of 12,000 l. a-year. Amongst other items of the official appointments at Chelsea, was that of 300 l. a-year for the clergyman; that was too much. He hated political clergymen; and he hoped that the chaplain had some duties to perform, which would keep him from meddling with politics.
Lord John Russellsaid, that, as there was no longer a separate army for Ireland, and as the Irishmen and Englishmen were indiscriminately mixed throughout the service, there could be no objection to the proposed union of the two national military hospitals. He had only acted on a principle long established in the department to which he belonged. It was a practice of long standing to appoint to offices in Chelsea Hospital persons of military claims; men, who had, in some way connected with the army, entitled themselves to encouragement and patronage. The King's warrant had laid down a rule, by which the disposal of such offices was regulated, for it directed that those should be appointed, whose sufferings or merits in the military service gave them a claim to remuneration. In bestowing the particular appointment referred to by the hon. member for Middlesex, he had looked only to the services which had been performed by the gentleman who filled that office, without regarding political differences; and, if in doing this, he had deviated from the path pursued by his predecessors, he bad nothing with which to reproach himself. When the hon. member for Middlesex brought forward a motion to abolish the institution, he would certainly resist it to the utmost, for he was determined to uphold this admirable establishment to the utmost.
Sir Henry Hardingesaid, the statement of the noble Lord was most satisfactory. As Chelsea Hospital was to be preserved, it was most desirable, that all the offices in it should be filled by men of merit, who had deserved well of their country in a military capacity. But he should take leave to say, that he would much rather see Kilmainham also preserved. It was an act of justice to the noble Lord to state, that what he said about the King's warrant was quite correct. The duty was imposed on him to appoint proper persons, and a more proper and creditable selection than Mr.

1387
Gleig he could not make. Mr. Gleig was a gentleman of considerable distinction, who had served in the army, and with great credit. He was also the author of distinguished works connected with the military service; and the appointment would, he was sure, give general satisfaction among all classes connected with the army. He would ask persons who objected to the appointment—and he would especially direct himself to the quarter on his left,—whether there was any vituperation against the Duke of Wellington when he appointed the Rev. Dr. Grey, now Bishop of Hereford, to a most valuable living? When he appointed Mr. Abercrom by, was there any vexatious paltry objection raised? The noble Lord, by the appointment of Mr. Gleig, had acted according to the King's warrant; and he was perfectly justified. He would, however, leave that subject to refer to one on which he had given a notice, the commutation of pensions. In 1831 and 1832, he brought under the notice of the House the question of the commutation of soldiers' pensions, because he thought then, as he did now, that it was cruel, unjust, and impolitic to leave men who had fought for their country, and deserved well of it, dependent for the means of subsistence on accidental circumstances. There were no less than 3,000 English, Irish, and Scotch, who had been forced to commute their pensions for a sum of money. That was a case of peculiar hardship, especially on the Irish, who had no Poor-laws to fall back on as the English had, and were not, perhaps, men of such frugal and provident habits as the Scotch. He would before have brought the question under the consideration of the House; but that the late Secretary at War (Sir J. C. Hobhouse) told him that it was under the consideration of Government, and held out hopes, that the evil would be rectified. He would then ask the right hon. Secretary whether the practice of commuting pensions were to be put an end to; and whether those who commuted their pensions, and had gone out to the colonies as emigrants, an occupation for which they were totally unfit from their age, their inexperience, and their feebleness, were to be restored to the Pension-list? Those old soldiers were now either begging or breaking stones or doing the most menial offices in our distant settlements;
1388
and he thought that, for the credit of the army, something should be done to alleviate their condition, and put an end to the system which brought them to that wretchedness. He had made some objections before to the way in which parts of the Estimates were drawn up. The East-India Company paid to the dead weight, as it was called, 60,000 l. a-year. He thought that sum which was now paid to the Consolidated Fund, should be paid to the Secretary at War, in diminution of the whole Estimates; and there was a memorandum of his left in the office to that effect. The Estimates he thought should be made to correspond with public services. There was an item of 17,000 l. charged in this estimate, on account of pensions paid for persons in the Ordnance department. He approved of the ordnance pensions being paid at Chelsea; but he thought the sum necessary for them should be placed in the Ordnance Estimates.
Mr. Ellicesaid, that it had been determined to put a stop to the commutation of pensions. It was a highly objection-able system. The person who first brought it forward to promote the comforts of soldiers, he (Mr. Ellice) would say, knew little of the condition or capabilities of soldiers. Soldiers had not that prudence, that skill, or that bodily vigour, that were necessary to qualify men to become settlers. He had restored men to their pensions in all cases when he had an opportunity, and after the amount of the commutation was refunded. But he believed, that the document sanctioning the commutation was signed by the gallant Member himself when in office.
Sir Henry Hardingebegged to say, that he had never signed the documents of the commutation of pensions; out of so shameful an act, he would wash his hands; on the contrary, he cautioned the right hon. member for Dundee against such an arrangement. His object was to allow soldiers, with the consent of Parliament and their own, the facility of emigrating to the colonies. But he never sanctioned the monstrous plan of forcing men to commute their pensions. It was what he absolutely spoke against.
Sir Henry Parnellsaid, that the commutation of pensions did not emanate from him; and when he took office, he found the system recommended, and a

1389
draught of the plan among the official papers.
Mr. O'Dwyerasked, was not the proposed abolition in opposition to the recommendation of the general officer who commanded in Ireland; or did that officer give it his approval?
Mr. Littletonsaid, that there were other parties in Ireland who were as competent to give an opinion on that, point as the present Commander in-Chief, however entitled to respect his opinion might be. The question was one of economy; if the economy were small, he (Mr. Littleton) would not advocate the abolition; but when a considerable saving was to be made, that was another thing. It was the opinion of the best judges, that there could not be a better place for the royal artillery than Kilmainham Hospital.
Mr. Sheilsaid, that there was no Irishman of any party who would give his assent to the removal of the establishment. No matter how broken up into parts they might be, still they were all on national grounds opposed to the abolition of that useful institution. Every one re-collected what discontent the removal of the naval station from Cork produced; the Custom House was removed, the Stamp Office was removed; every establishment that could benefit the country, and which the country valued, was removed. Now, it was proposed to remove Kilmainham Hospital, and he (Mr. Sheil) supposed that it would soon be proposed to remove the Courts of Law.
Mr. O'Reillysaid, that he was no advocate for old ascendancy establishments, and therefore he would advocate the abolition of Kilmainham. The Irish people did not care for such establishments. Catholics were excluded from the benefits of Kilmainham, as well as from other establishments of Ireland; and as long as that was the case, he did not care how soon they were removed.
Mr. O'Connellrose to protest against the doctrine of the hon. member for Dundalk. Catholics were admissible equally with Protestants to Kilmainham, and treated equally well.
Mr. O'Reillywould ask the hon. member for Dublin to move for a return of the number of Catholics admitted to Kilmainham, and then he would find, by the return that it was an exclusively Protestant establishment. Catholics were eligible to all places, to the Corporations even;
1390
but how many of them were admitted? The Ministry should be cautious in taking statements from Members who were supported by the ascendancy party in Ireland.
Mr. O'Dwyersaid, that after the speech of the hon. member for Dundalk, there was to be found one Irish Member in that House, who did what would be very unpopular in Ireland. "But," said he, "the Gentleman will find that all will not allow political antipathies to engender private acquaintance." Blunders might, perhaps, be the peculiarity of his country. He meant, that however men might differ in politics, those politics should not embitter private acquaintance.
The vote was agreed to. The House resumed.

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.
On the Motion of Lord John Russell, the Order of the Day was read for the second leading of the Bribery at Elections Bill.
On the Question, that the Bill be read a second time,
Sir Robert Peelsaid, that the Bill proposed by the noble Lord was intended as a remedy to enable the House to escape the difficulties by which it had felt itself encumbered the other evening, when the questions relating to the boroughs of Carrickfergus, Stafford, and Liverpool were under consideration. The object of the Bill was to enable them to provide a tribunal more satisfactorily constituted than any tribunal at present existing, for the purpose of inquiring into allegations of bribery and corruption. In the general object of the Bill he concurred. It seemed to be extremely desirable that the House should have the means of making an example of those boroughs in which, it could be proved that general and systematic bribery had prevailed; and, with the exception of the House itself, there was not at present any satisfactory tribunal before which allegations of bribery and corruption could be properly investigated. Agreeing, therefore, in the general principle of the Bill, he begged to call the attention of the House to its enactments. It provided that, in case there should be an Election Committee appointed in the course of its inquiry, an allegation of general bribery and corruption in the borough should be made, in that case, the allegation against the return of the Member, and the allegation against the general purity of

1391
the borough, should both he inquired into by the same Committee. The Bill also enabled parties, within three months after bribery and corruption should have prevailed at the election for any place, to send a petition complaining of such offences; and it then provided, that a Committee should be appointed to inquire into the allegations of such a petition, in the same manner as Election Committees are now appointed. In the first place, he very much doubted whether it would not be better to keep distinct, as far as possible, any inquiry into the existence of general bribery and corruption in a borough, from the inquiry into the return of a Member of Parliament. He did not mean to say, that he would not, as at present, allow an Election Committee to make a Special Report, alleging bribery and corruption against the borough generally; but he would appoint a separate and distinct tribunal for the trial of the allegation against the borough, that tribunal being constituted in such a manner as to attract the general confidence of this House, of the other House of Parliament, and of the country generally. Unless that were done—unless the decision of the Committee carried with it the confidence of that House, and of the House of Lords,—they would not, in point of fact, be relieved from their present difficulty. There would be the Report of a Committee as at present laid on the Table;—there would be long and tedious discussions upon it; the matter might be carried before the Lords when the Session was well nigh worn away;—the Lords not having implicit confidence in the tribunal which the Commons had appointed, would direct an inquiry of their own;—Parliament would be prorogued before the inquiry was terminated; and thus Session after Session would pass away without any decision, and of course without the infliction of any punishment whatever. He wished to aid the noble Lord in his object, which he apprehended was, first to have satisfactory evidence as to the existence of general and systematic bribery in any place, and then, with all possible despatch, to make an example of that place. He would, therefore, suggest to the noble Lord, who had paid much attention to the subject, that it would be infinitely better to keep the two inquiries as distinct as possible,—allowing the Election Committee as at present, if it have
1392
strong evidence of the prevalence of general bribery and corruption,—to make a Special Report, allowing also parties, even in cases where there was no petition against the return of a particular Member, to present a petition alleging general bribery and corruption against the borough; but establishing a distinct and separate Committee to try the latter allegation. Then came the question—how should this Committee be appointed? In the first place, he thought it should have all the sanctions and authorities with which a Committee of this House could be vested. It should have the power of examining witnesses upon oath; and, above all, no Member of it should be allowed to pronounce an opinion upon the subject of inquiry who had not heard the whole of the evidence. There should be an obligation upon every Member to attend personally during the whole course of the inquiry. At present that was not the case: when an Election Committee reported that general bribery and corruption prevailed in a borough, the subsequent Committee appointed to prosecute the inquiry into the alleged delinquency of the borough, was a more incomplete tribunal than the first, because it did not examine witnesses upon oath, and because it was not compulsory upon every Member to attend. The main reason why, in cases of this kind, he should prefer sending the matter to a Committee properly constituted, to an inquiry at the Bar of the House was, not only on account of the time and trouble that would be saved, but because it was known, that when the inquiry was gone into in the House, many Members who had not heard the whole of the evidence, and some who had not heard a particle of it, frequently pronounced their judgment, or at least gave their vote—for judgment they could not form. In what way, then, ought they to constitute the Committee before which was to be tried the important question—whether a borough should, or should not, continue to send Representatives to Parliament? He thought that the constitution of such a Committee should not be left to chance: such a course might, perhaps, answer tolerably well when only the right of an individual Member was concerned,—when the validity, or the invalidity, of an individual return was to be tried. Members then felt themselves bound by obli-

1393
gations of honour—by a sense of justice—which had a much less binding force—when the question at issue was, whether a certain borough should or should not retain its franchise—questions of general policy mixed themselves in that case with the discussion. Take, for instance, the case of a borough in which the chief part of the constituency consisted of freemen,—suppose, in the appointment of a Committee to inquire into allegations against that borough, the chance should fall upon Members who are mainly returned by freemen,—it would be found that those Members would have a leaning towards the freemen. It was not, therefore, too much to say, that, in many instances, a Committee of this description, appointed merely by chance, would not carry with it the confidence of either House of Parliament. Supposing, then, that there were insuperable objections to the constitution of these tribunals by chance, with whom should rest the power of nomination? To vest it in the Government might be open to objection,—to vest it in the individual Member who might complain, would be equally open to objection. But there appeared to be one authority in the House upon whom the power might very properly devolve, and in whose exercise of that power implicit confidence would be placed. He thought it probable that a Committee nominated by the Chair would consist of persons who, by their freedom from party prejudice, and from all personal interest in the question at issue,—by their ability, and by their general integrity, would be most likely to command the confidence of both Houses of Parliament, and of the country in general. He should, however, propose to reserve to the House the power of controlling the power of nomination by the Chair in cases where it should think proper. He would constitute such Committee by Act of Parliament, requiring the attendance of every Member throughout the whole of the investigation, and giving them the power to examine witnesses upon oath; and he was satisfied, that a Committee so constituted, under the sanction of the House, would have more confidence reposed in its decisions, than if it were nominated by the party interested, or by the Government, or if it were selected by chance. The appointment of almost all other Select Committees was left to the Member who brought the sub-
1394
ject forward. The selection by chance applied only to Election Committees, and, for the reason he had stated, worked well enough upon the whole, in determining the right to a return. But when such important functions were to be intrusted to a Committee, as that its Report should declare whether a whole borough, or a particular class of the constituents of a borough, should or should not cease to exercise the elective franchise, it appeared to him that, if the judgment of a tribunal were to carry with them the confidence and approbation of the public, it was of the utmost importance that that tribunal should be constituted with the utmost care and discrimination. The noble Lord proposed, that the Report of the Committee should be laid before the House of Lords, and that if the two Houses should unite in an Address to the Crown, praying his Majesty to suspend the franchise of the delinquent borough; in that case, the franchise should be suspended. Now, if the House of Lords were to be expected to take the Report of the Committee of the House of Commons as the warrant for its proceedings, of what immense importance was it that that Committee should be constituted in a manner calculated to inspire confidence in its decisions. But he would advise the noble Lord to re-consider this part of his plan. The noble Lord proposed, that the Committee should report as to the prevalence of general bribery and corruption. This was extremely vague; and he would strongly urge upon the noble Lord the necessity of requiring from the Committee a minute and detailed report of all the facts that had appeared in evidence before it,—specifying, as accurately as possible, the extent to which bribery prevailed; then let the House of Commons express their opinion upon the subject, and if they affirmed this Report of the Committee, let them then send the Report of the Committee, with the sanction of their approbation in their collective capacity to the House of Lords. The House of Commons, upon questions of this kind, should originate its own course of proceeding. Whether by Bill or not, he did not pretend to say; though he certainly thought, that the House of Lords was as likely to concur in a Bill as in an Address to the Crown. The noble Lord, by his proposed plan of proceeding, required the consent of the three branches

1395
of the Legislature. Then, why not have it by a Bill, instead of introducing this novel proceeding of a joint Address to the Crown from the two Houses of Parliament. Nothing was gained by the innovation. The noble Lord contemplated no other case, than that of suspension and extinction of the franchise. But it was quite clear, that there might be instances in which a mitigated punishment would be desirable,—such as the disfranchisement of a portion of the electors, or the extension of the franchise over some adjoining district or town. This might be provided for by Bill. These details, involving so much of local detail and so little of principle, might be arranged by the enactments of a Bill; but how could they even be satisfactorily settled through the medium of Addresses to the Crown. His purpose, however, in calling the attention of the House to the measure in this stage, was to point out the necessity of having Committees appointed to investigate the allegations made against the purity of boroughs, constituted in such a manner, and named by such an authority, as should ensure to those Committees the confidence of the Legislature and of the country. He must observe, however, before he sat down, that the noble Lord admitted of an appeal. He thought appeals were generally taken advantage of by those who had a weak case. In every instance, either as related to election law, criminal law, or any other system or form of jurisprudence, the best plan was to institute, in the first instance, an effective tribunal without an appeal, rather than an inefficient tribunal with an appeal. All the money thrown into the pockets of country attorneys, connected with election matters, was worse than lost. He would advise the noble Lord, therefore, in the case of Election Committees, and in the case of complaints against the general conduct of particular boroughs, to constitute one tribunal as perfect as possible, and not to have two Committees, the one with an original jurisdiction, and the other to act as a court of review.
Lord John Russellwas very happy to hear the suggestions of the right hon. Baronet, and he certainly would give them his best consideration. He was very glad that the Right hon. Baronet had turned his attention to the subject; and he was sure that not only the right hon. Baronet, but the House in general,
1396
would see how very necessary it was to have a better plan than at present, for conducting proceedings with respect to boroughs charged with general bribery and corruption. When he stated that he would attend to the suggestions of the right hon. Baronet, he did not know that he was, at that moment, prepared to agree with him. The Committees were now appointed to try a very important right,—namely, the right of Members to sit in the House; it was one in which it was of the highest importance that the utmost impartiality should be exhibited. The right hon. Baronet said, that, in his opinion, the Committee which he had proposed would not be a fit one to investigate questions of this nature. In this respect he must be allowed to differ from the right hon. Baronet; nor could he acquiesce in the suggestions, to intrust the nomination of this Committee to the Speaker, because he could not help thinking, that the effect of so doing would be to place the Speaker in a very invidious situation. In questions of this description, it appeared to him that a degree of heat was excited, as great, if not greater, than arose on questions of general policy; in such cases, two parties were very warmly and violently engaged in contesting the right of a particular county, or a particular borough; and, therefore, they would be the more disposed to view with jealousy the nomination of a Committee by the Speaker, party feeling and irritation hurried men a long way; and it was exceedingly probable that it might be said, that the nomination by the Speaker was not altogether a fair or impartial one, and that there was a little too much leaning on one side or on the other. The dignity and station of the Chair depended, in a great degree, on the reputation in which it was held; and it would be exceedingly dangerous to suffer its character to be called into question for a single moment. The right hon. Baronet would see, that this was not an objection to the particular Committee which he proposed, but a general objection to the consequences which might ensue from the adoption of his suggestion as to the mode of its nomination. With regard to the powers of the Committee generally, he had in the Bill, adopted the provisions of the Act of 7 George 4th, relative to Election Committees, on the ground that the powers of that Act were known. The power to examine witnesses

1397
on oath, and various other powers were given under that Act; and he deemed it advisable to adopt them because they increased the security of the proceeding, although, at the same time, he need hardly say, that the Committees, as at present formed, were very imperfect. A few years ago, the right hon. Baronet, impelled, he believed, by the general sense of the House, introduced a measure, founded on very correct principles, for the purpose of putting an end to the appointment of nominees, by which one great advantage was obtained. It appeared to him, however, that the effect of adopting this suggestion would be to leave Election Committees in a very uncertain and loose state for persons who had no experience in these matters. However well disposed and honest they might be, and however impartially they might form their opinions, they might, in the end, come to a conclusion different from that at which men of longer experience, and more mature judgment, would be disposed to arrive. Certainly, great improvements might be made in the constitution of Election Committees; and he had no doubt that the suggestions of the right hon. Baronet would be of great importance towards attaining so desirable an end. He might, perhaps, mention, that the idea had struck him, whether it might not be expedient to appoint an assessor to the Chairman, who would be enabled to pronounce an opinion on all points of practice—who would possess a knowledge of the different precedents—and by whose assistance the Committees would be made much better guides to the opinion of the House than at present. The right hon. Baronet wished to give the House the power of confirming the decision of the Committee. That point was set at rest by a provision in the Bill which gave the House the power of addressing the Crown. He could not say, that he was prepared to accede to the right hon. Baronet's suggestions relative to the nomination of the Committee; at the same time, he was prepared to say, that he would consider them, and that he would endeavour to render the Bill as practically beneficial in operation as possible; always having in view a still further amendment of the Grenville Acts, by which the tribunal might become such a tribunal as the right hon. Baronet had described,—a tribunal, which would inspire the House of
1398
Lords with the confident assurance, that the subject had been fully and carefully investigated.
Sir Robert Inglismerely wished to express a hope, that the decision of the Committees to be appointed under the Bill should be made decisive of the several matters referred to them, as he quite agreed with the right hon. Baronet in opinion with regard to the evil effects attendant upon the power of appeal. If they appointed any tribunal, it ought to be a competent one, intrusted with absolute power of decision. Of course, when he spoke in opposition to a tribunal of appeal, he did not mean to exclude the House of Commons from exercising its control over the Reports of its Committees.
Lord Althorpthought it would be quite enough to call upon a Committtee to report the facts proved in evidence before them, as well as their opinions upon those facts, without requiring them to pronounce a binding decision. The suggestions of the right hon. member for Tamworth were, he was free to admit, worthy of consideration, and, as far as he was concerned, he promised they should receive it. He did not agree in the form of nomination recommended by the right hon. Baronet; but, at the same time, he thought it might be possible, by taking that recommendation into consideration, so to nominate the Committees that, while the evil effects of selecting them by ballot were removed, the Speaker might not be placed in the invidious situation of having the entire nomination of them intrusted to his discretion.
Mr. Tooke,in rising to express his entire concurrence in the principle of the Bill, and his opinion that its machinery, subject to some modifications in detail, was well calculated to carry that principle into effect, begged he might be permitted, as germane to the matter, to save the time of a more formal application, to ask the noble Paymaster of the Forces whether it was his intention to bring in a Bill for amending the English Reform Act, in consequence of his pledge to that effect of last Session, and of Reports since received from the Revising Barristers? or whether he would appoint a Select Committee to consider those Reports?
Lord Althorpreplied, that a measure of the description alluded to was under the consideration of Government, but, until it was ascertained how far the Reports of the

1399
defective working of the Bill were correct—and those Reports were in a train of investigation—he could not take upon himself to say, whether or not any measure on the subject would be introduced to Parliament during the present Session.
Mr. Warburtonhoped, the noble Lord meant to lay before the House the result of the investigation to which he alluded, in order that they might be in a situation to judge how far and in what respects the Reform Bill had worked well, and in what instance it was defective.
Lord Althorpsaid, he could not undertake to do so, as the inquiry was not strictly of an official character. It was solely instituted for the satisfaction of the Government, with whom would, of course, be the responsibility of introducing the measure to which the question of the hon. Member referred.
Mr. Bainesavailed himself of the opportunity to state, that much difference of opinion prevailed as to whether one of the questions put to the voter applied to qualification of amount or residence. He also begged to suggest, that the practice of taking the list of the Revising Barrister as the standard by which the voters might regulate their qualification was attended with considerable difficulty and inconvenience.
Sir Robert Peelwas anxious, once more, to impress upon the attention of the noble Lord the immense importance of having the Committees, by whose decisions, not merely the return of particular elections, but the general right of voting was to be affected, selected on some more fixed principle than that of a chance ballot. With regard to the noble Lord's apprehensions of placing the Speaker in an invidious position, by calling upon him to nominate the Committees, he must say, that he thought them altogether unfounded. He put it to the noble Lord, whether any man, a Member of that House, having a Committee to appoint, and meaning to act fairly, ever found a difficulty in select-
1400
ing a competent and efficient Committee. In fact, he could not imagine any circumstances in which the nomination of the Speaker was likely to be questioned. The noble Lord had alluded to party feelings as likely to render the power he proposed intrusting to the Speaker unpleasant in its exercise to him; but, he put it to the noble Lord to say, whether it would not be better to run even that risk, than to leave the individuals who were ranged on each side the selection of the Committee by whom the question respecting which such party feeling was excited, should be decided?
The Bill was read a second time.

DISSENTERS' MARRIAGES.
Lord John Russellbrought in a Bill for the relief of the Dissenters, under the Marriage Act, &c.—
The Bill was read a first time.—
On moving that it be read a second time on the 28th of April, the noble Lord said, that he would not then enter into any details of the subject. He felt that much misrepresentation had gone abroad respecting the Bill, and that the nature of its provisions had not been well considered; but, though he felt this, he was not very sanguine that the measure itself would be acceptable to the great body of those for whose relief it was intended. He would now move that it be read a second time on the 28th of April, and that it be printed, and he put it off to that distant day, in order to give an opportunity to the body of Dissenters, for whom he had the highest respect, to make their objections. If those objections should be found very strong, he would not press the measure, though he did not see that he could make any material alterations in it; still, however, he would not press it, if the objections against it should be found insuperable by those for whose relief it was intended.
The Bill to be read a second time on the 28th of April, and to be printed.
END OF VOL. XXI.—THIRD SERIES,
AND OF
FIRST VOL. OF SESS. 1834.

Preamble
MINUTES.] Petitions presented. By EARL GREY, from Kirkaldy; and by the Duke of HAMILTON, from Dumbarton,—for a Change in the present System of Church Patronage in Scotland.—By Lords KENYON and DACRE, and the Bishops of LONDON and EXETER, from several Places,—for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.—By the Bishop of EXETER, from several Places,—for Protection to the Established Church.—By the Earls of COVENTRY, Durham, and GREY, by Viscount TORRINGTON, and LORDS DACRE and HOLLAND, from a Number of Places,—for Relief to the Dissenters—By THE Duke OF RICHMOND, from Glemsford for a Labour Rate.