Sitting of 9 August 1839

Preamble
MINUTES. Bills. Read a second time:—Bolton Police; Courts in Counties; Patents for Inventions; Sheriffs' Exemption; Real Estates Liability; Prisoners Trial.—Read a third time:—Bastardy; Soap Duties Regulation; Stage Carriages.
Petition presented. By Sir William Somerville, from Drogheda, against the Bank of Ireland Bill.

CONTINUANCE OF THE POOR-LAW COMMISSION.
The Poor-Law CommissionContinuance Bill having been read a third time,
Mr. Freshfield Mr. Freshfield moved a proviso, which he wished to be added to the bill, to prevent the Commissioners from framing any new regulations so as to limit out-door relief to able-bodied labourers or their families. The proviso, which he wished embodied at the end of the bill, was no doubt an experiment, but it was one which he thought would operate beneficially for all parties; and as the bill was only to endure for a limited time the House would have an opportunity of seeing, in the meantime, how that experiment would answer, so as to enable them to legislate properly on the subject when the whole question of the Poor-Law Amend-
136
ment Act came to be discussed. The great difficulty affecting the administration of the Poor-law, under the old system, was owing to the numerous misconstructions and misrepresentations to which that system was exposed; and the difference between the former state of things and the present was, that instead of the old parish officers, they had now efficient boards of guardians, men of experience to regulate the administration of the funds, in the proper appropriation of which they themselves had extensive local interests. He thought they ought to leave as much discretionary power as possible in the hands of the boards of guardians, and prevent the unnecessary interference of the Commissioners. Although the new law was in general operation throughout the agricultural districts, there were several extensive manufacturing districts into which it had not yet been introduced; and he knew no plan which would so much facilitate the introduction of the measure into those districts, and tend so much to remove existing prejudices against its adoption, as giving full discretionary powers to the guardians. It was for that purpose that he felt it his duty to urge the trial of the experiment he proposed on the attention of the House. He did not intend there should be any restriction in the description of relief, whether it was to be given in money or in kind. He was certain it would only be given by the guardians in cases of extreme necessity, and the nature of the relief might be safely entrusted to their discretion. The principle would be most acceptable to the country at large, and particularly to the commercial districts. He disclaimed all hostility to the new Poor-law, and would not, on any account, return to the old system, but thought the House ought to ameliorate the provisions of the new law in several respects, and therefore acquiesce in the motion which he had introduced. The hon. Member concluded by moving a clause to the effect, "Provided always, that it shall not be lawful for the said Commissioners, by any rules or regulations not already made, to prohibit or limit the administration of relief to able-bodied labourers or their families out of the workhouse of any parish or union."
Lord John Russellsaid, the principle involved in the motion of the hon. Member had been decided several times, and he could not consent to adopt it.
Motion negatived; Bill passed.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND)—LORDS' AMENDMENTS.
Lord John Russell Lord John Russell moved the order of the day for the consideration of the Lords' amendments on this bill. He did so, that the consideration of them might be again postponed till Monday; but he would take that opportunity to say, that with respect to that part of the question which related to the privileges of the House, after the very great pains taken by the Chair to investigate the subject, after the opinion which had been given from the Chair, and having since heard the opinions of many Members fully cognizant of the subject, he was of opinion that it would not be expedient for the House to make any concession on the point of privilege. He was at the same time aware, that there would be a considerable disadvantage in raising that point, unless it were absolutely necessary. With regard to the merits of the bill, there were a number of amendments introduced by the House of Lords, which he had not time to consider, and which, as the predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman had observed, it would be most convenient to adopt or reject at once. With these limitations, and seeing very great difficulty in coming to any agreement with the House of Lords on the subject this Session, and it being at the same time, he must say, the anxious wish of the Government to pass some legislative measure on this subject,—from what he also heard from those most anxious on this question in Ireland, and considering also the nature of their differences, he thought that a bill might be framed so as to meet the views of both Houses. He did not think it would have been proper to allow the present opportunity to pass without indicating the views which he entertained, and the wishes of the Government on this subject.
Mr. Shawagreed with the noble Lord as to the inexpediency of returning the bill on the question of privilege to the House of Lords, and saying they did so on that ground. With respect to the other parts of the noble Lord's observations, he was not certain if he were correct in his opinion, but he thought he gathered from them, that the noble Lord was not very urgent in his objections to the amendments of the House of Lords. These amendments were of three kinds: those relating to the franchise, to the freemen, and the third, which involved the point of
138
privilege, namely, the clauses which the House of Lords had struck out, transferring certain fiscal powers from the grand juries to the new town councils to be created under the bill. Now, the noble Lord had not said anything on the subject of the franchise, but he thought, from what the noble Lord had said, that he did not mean to insist on refusing the amendments of the House of Lords. As regarded the freemen, the House of Lords had left them in the same state as proposed in the bill of last year. And then as to the third question, that of transferring the powers of taxation to the new municipal bodies, he must observe, that it was a question involving great changes in the law of the country. It was, besides, entirely a new question, and one which had been introduced irregularly into the bill when it was in committee. Those clauses were not in the bill at all, as introduced, even this year; but the alteration was made in committee, where thirteen new clauses had been introduced, entirely altering the state of the law on the subject. Except on these points, he was not aware of any other difference; and as on that side of the House they had already conceded so much, it was quite impossible for them to concede more. He thought the preferable plan would be for the noble Lord to waive the question of privilege, and introduce a new bill on the subject.
Sir R. H. Inglisentertaining the greatest objection to this measure—viewing it as one of unmixed evil—and as invading the rights of the Established Church, regretted, that instead of postponing the consideration of the bill till Monday, the noble Lord had not moved its postponement for three weeks. He did not, indeed, understand, that the noble Lord intended to bring in a new bill this Session, but in the next. He viewed this measure as one of unmixed evil, and, therefore, regretted, that any further progress with it was in contemplation.
Mr. O'Connellcould not agree with the hon. Baronet in his description of this measure, that it was one of unmixed evil but must protest against any idea going abroad, that Ireland was not entitled to the same measure of corporate reform, as had already been given to England. The people of Ireland did not ask for more, and they never would be satisfied with less. The corporations of Ireland never assumed a clerical character, except in

139
the estimation of the hon. Baronet the Member for the university of Oxford, who viewed them, he believed at present, as models of piety and promoters of Christianity. The learned recorder for the city of Dublin, had twice pressed this bill on her Majesty's Government. He did not think that circumstance would add to its popularity among the people of Ireland, or tend to make them satisfied with it. Why should there be a 5l. franchise in England, and 10 l. in Ireland? Why one set of freemen's franchises in England, and another set in Ireland? He rose, however, merely to protest in point of principle, that Ireland never would be satisfied while they were deprived of the same franchises which England has.
Consideration of the Lords' amendments postponed.

MANCHESTER POLICE.
Lord John Russell Lord John Russell moved the Order of the Day for the second reading of the Manchester Police Bill.
Mr. C. Bullerunderstood this to be a bill to abolish popular control in the different new boroughs, owing to a dispute that had been raised relative to the validity of their charters. It was unfortunate, that they had no legal opinion for their guidance—that they had received none of any authority, at least, except of that eminent law officer of the Crown, the President of the Board of Trade, who seemed disposed to oust the learned Attorney-general from his office. Seeing the learned Attorney-general now in his place, however, he wished to ask him this question. In what state were the charters that had been granted to Birmingham and Manchester? Was the House to understand, that the validity of the whole charters granted to those towns, was disputed by the questions which had been raised? Was it disputed, that legal corporations existed in those boroughs? Were the appointments of magistrates questioned? or did the question merely extend to the simple point, of the power of the town-councils to levy rates? He understood at first, that the powers of the town-council were entirely disputed. If the question only extended to the power of levying rates, he thought the Government ought at once to fall back on the original bill, and not interfere needlessly with the franchises of the inhabitants.
140
But if it were contended, that the charters were altogether bad, then he could understand the reason which induced the Government to introduce this bill.
The Attorney-Generalwas very imperfectly acquainted with respect to what was admitted, or what disputed by the parties who raised the question relative to those charters. But so far as he understood the subject, he had no hesitation in stating, as his own individual opinion, that the charters were in omnibus perfectly valid. He should have thought, that his learned Friend as a lawyer, instead of putting those questions, would have rather studied the Act of Parliament, and satisfied his own mind upon the point. However, as his learned Friend had thought fit to put those questions, it was of course his duty to answer them. Then he should say, that under the 141st section of the Municipal Reform Act, a power was expressly given to the Crown to create new corporations, with all the powers which belonged to and had been exercised by the old corpotions. Under that clause, charters had been granted to Devonport, Manchester, Birmingham, and Bolton. The charter granted to Devonport, had not been questioned in any degree. Those granted to Manchester and Birmingham were disputed on the grounds, that they did not in all respects comply with the Act of Parliament. He could only say, that those charters had been prepared with the greatest care; they had not only been examined by himself, but by others of greater experience, who had devoted the greatest time and attention to the subject, and that they had been framed with the most anxious purpose to meet every doubt that could be raised against them. A legal doubt had, however, been raised with respect to the powers under the charter to levy a borough-rate. He understood the great question was, not whether the charters were entirely void or not, but whether the town-councils could levy a lawful borough-rate. At the same time, he was not prepared to say how far the parties might ultimately carry the question, and as to whether they might not say the charters were utterly void, he would not pledge himself. His own opinion was, that the charters were valid, and that they did convey the powers to levy a lawful rate, according to the Act of Parliament. In the meantime, the

141
overseers refused to pay a single shilling of the rate, either in Birmingham or Manchester. It was therefore utterly impossible for the corporations of those towns to maintain a police force. As regarded the powers of the magistrates, it was plain, that the question could not touch their position, as they held their powers apart from the charter, and were appointed by the Queen.
Sir R. H. Inglisobserved, that the learned Attorney-general had expressed himself with equal confidence on the question of privilege, and yet the Court of Queen's Bench had come to a very different conclusion; and on this point all he could say was, that two learned Gentlemen had given an opinion adverse to that now given by the hon. and learned Gentleman.
Mr. Bollingwas instructed to deny the allegations that they had no police force at Bolton adequate to meet any exigency which might arise. The commissioners of police had now an efficient force of special constables. They were levying a rate, and no refusal had been made to the payment. He would oppose the bill as tending to prejudice the questions at issue regarding the validity of the charters.
Mr. T. Duncombewished to put a question in point of form, which he apprehended might interfere with the progress of this bill. He wished to know why this bill was not treated as a private bill? It was merely a local Act. In the case of Birmingham there was a grant of public money. But this was a local Act to all intents and purposes, and should be treated as such, as had been done in the case of Liverpool and the city of London. He hoped the Speaker would favour the House with his opinion on that point.
The Speakersaid, that if this bill had been applied for by the inhabitants of Manchester, and if they were to have had the appointment of the constables, then it must have been treated as a private bill. But in this case the constables were to be appointed by the Crown. It was to be compulsory on the inhabitants, and therefore it was not a private bill.
Lord J. Russellhad no wish whatever in moving this bill, to prejudice in one way or another, the questions at issue relative to the validity of the charters. With regard to the town of Bolton being sufficiently secured by special constables, he was ready to admit they would come
142
forward and perform their duty on any specific emergency. But to preserve the peace of a town of that size and population, a permanent police force would be required to perform that duty day by day, and night by night, which it would be perfectly intolerable for those constables to undergo.
Mr. Grimsditchsaid, the people of Manchester had an efficient police force under the control of the commissioners of police. [Mr. Brotherton: No, No!] The hon. Member for Salford says "no!" He certainly understood from respectable authority, that such was the case. He should not, however, oppose the second reading, but reserve his objections till the bill went into committee.
Mr. G. Woodsaid, it was his intention to support the second reading of the bill, in the belief that it would in no way prejudice those legal questions which had been raised in the Courts of law, between the advocates and the opponents of the charter. The state of those questions had been so amply explained by the learned Attorney-general, that it would ill become him to advert more to it. But as to the necessity of Parliament making some provision for the police force in Manchester, he thought no one fully acquainted with the condition of the town could entertain any doubt. Some hon. Members had stated, that there was now a police in the town, with ample pecuniary means for its support. He entirely dissented from the accuracy of that statement. There was the old body of commissioners, in number 240, who before the charter was granted, had provided the police of the town by day and night, the expenses being defrayed by a rate they were empowered by Parliament to levy for that purpose. When the charter had been granted, and a council appointed, they concurred, that they were entitled to levy the rate and provide for the police force, and that the powers of the old commissioners were superseded under the Municipal Reform Act Thus the two parties were directly at issue, each claiming the exclusive right of levying the police rate. But the inhabitants, not knowing which of the two rates would be legal, had resolved with that shrewdness which upon monetary matte especially distinguished them—to pay neither till the question had been determined. When the council issued, their precept to the

143
proper parties to pay over the requisite sum for the maintenance of the force, the legal process was forcibly resisted. The churchwarden against whom there had been directed the distress warrant, had succeeded in ejecting the officers from possession, a violent mob assembled, and the peace of the town was for a considerable time endangered. Unless the House made provision for this anomalous state of things, the police of Manchester would soon be put an end to. The bill seemed to him to be very wisely framed for the desired object, avoiding all irrelevant and contested questions.
Mr. Williamsthought what had fallen from the hon. Member for Kendal would satisfy the House that there really was no necessity for this bill. The town of Manchester bad hitherto been well governed by its own police, under a commission consisting of 240 gentlemen of all parties. And he had not heard that the police were inefficiently managed or inadequate in number. If there was any dispute between the Commissioners and the corporation, the best course to pursue, would be to give the Commissioners the management of the police, until the litigated question should be decided. This bill would in effect place the town of Manchester under Metropolitan Police Law; there were provisions in the bill never known before in the town; there were powers given to the police which had never yet been endured. He never could consent to such an arbitrary stretch of power; he trusted that the noble Lord would still desist from the measure; if not, if any Member divided against the bill, he would vote with him.
Mr. C. Buller: The House must feel grateful to the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair for the opinion which he had given, as they now understood that this bill was not asked for by the great towns to be affected by its provisions, and that it was to be compulsorily imposed, contrary to the wishes of the inhabitants. He was gratified also to have obtained the opinion of the learned Attorney-general, which would do away with a great deal of misrepresentation which existed on the subject, and it was the more important, as that opinion was at variance with the sentiments of the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade. He did not know if these counteracting opinions were to be viewed as a continuance of the feud of yesterday, but he was disposed to pay
144
every weight to the opinion of the Attorney-general, knowing the great value of that opinion on any subject to which that learned Gentleman applied the energies of his clear and accurate mind. In this case, the opinion of the Attorney-general had completely upset the law of the President of the Board of Trade, and told them, that the town-council of Manchester was a very good town-council. He thought the noble Lord ought not, however, under these circumstances, to take advantage of the bungling which that House had committed in framing one of its Acts of Parliament, by introducing this measure, whose object was to establish a police force under the control of the Government, and on that shameful system of centralization, destructive of all the ancient privileges of English liberty, which gave to the local authorities of the country the exclusive management of their own funds. He felt the greatest objection to this measure of centralization, which was imbued with all the evils of the same system now in full operation in France. He had shewn, by his conduct, that he was not disposed to carry his opposition to the measures of the noble Lord to any improper extent. He had supported the noble Lord in his District Counties Constable Bill. That bill rested on a different basis from the present. It gave to the local authorities the power of appointing the local constables, and was free from the hideous feature of centralization which disgraced the present measure, and which proposed to take away those rights from the town-councils appointed by the people, and who were discharging their functions to the entire satisfaction of the inhabitants.
Lord J. Russellsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just addressed the House has taken great pains to misrepresent the principle of this billon grounds which do not apply to it, and on an assumption of facts which never existed. The hon. and learned Gentleman has alleged, that I have taken advantage of the state of these towns to introduce a centralized system of police analogous to that which is now in operation in Prance. I do not see on what grounds I can be charged with seeking any advantage by the introduction of a measure which, in so far as I am concerned, can only be attended with a great deal of trouble; and I beg to tell the hon. and learned Gentle-

145
man, that this bill does not, as he supposes, go to establish any centralized system of police, but simply and exclusively a local police. The grounds on which I have introduced the measure are the peculiar state in which those towns are placed with respect to the public peace, and the means of raising money to establish and maintain a police force necessary for the comfort and safety of the inhabitants. Sir, if there be a deficiency of police and of the means of preserving the peace of those towns, and if that fact is made known to me, I conceive it is my duty to attend to that fact, and to adopt the requisite measures to preserve the inhabitants from any consequences that might ensue from such a state of things. What is the case here? The town-councils claim the right, under their charters, to levy certain rates. The street-commissioners and police-commissioners also claim the right to levy certain rates; and while these disputes exist, is it taking any advantage of these towns to prevent the misfortunes which might ensue by leaving Birmingham, and Manchester, and Bolton to be disturbed any night in the week? When I proposed that the police should be under the control of the town-councils in these towns, I was told that it was giving a preference to one of the contending parties, while the question regarding the charters was still pending. Am I then taking any advantage in appointing a commissioner to establish that police locally, an independent person, entirely unconnected with either party, and who will not give the advantage to one party or the other? I am told by one hon. Member that the control should be given to the town-council in Birmingham; another tells me that in Manchester it should be given to the commissioners of police, the one advice being exactly the reverse of the other. But another hon. Member again says, the police should be placed under the old body of the town. Now the town-council of Birmingham is of one party, and the police-commissioners of Manchester belong to another party. I will not be guided by those conflicting sentiments. I will not be swayed by either. I will take that course which is independent of both, apart from both, and will neutralize them all. I cannot understand how it happens, that the learned Gentleman should have so far misconstrued the principles and the nature of this bill. I have explained them
146
formerly. There must be some reason why the learned Gentleman would not attend to my explanations, otherwise, at least, I cannot imagine how he could have represented this bill as being founded on a principle of centralization similar to that which is established in France.
Mr. Aglionbyhad seen no proof that the bill was called for by the state of these towns, or by the wishes of the inhabitants. At the same time, he would readily acquit the noble Lord of any wish to take advantage of the situation of those towns. On the contrary, he understood that all parties in Manchester agreed that they were much indebted to the noble Lord for having brought this measure forward, so that their claims might be fairly discussed. He believed, that the noble Lord introduced this measure because he had come to the conclusion, that it was the best mode for preserving the public peace. Still he could not come to the same view of the subject. He asked, if there were any petitions in favour of this bill? [An hon. Member: There are none against it.] It was said, that there were no petitions against it. That might be, but then it must be remembered, that the bill had only been printed two days ago. He understood there was a deputation in town, however, from Manchester, who had come on purpose to oppose it. ["No, no!"] He could only say, that he was in favour of the charter, and would support its powers by every means he possessed. But he viewed the present as a separate matter altogether. He understood, that the commissioners of police in Manchester had ample powers to maintain a police force—that such a police force is still kept up by them—that they possessed full power to levy rates, and that they had funds to keep up the force for four months to come.
Mr. Brotherton, under ordinary circumstances, should never have given his assent to the bill before the House, but seeing the pressing necessity of the case, he could not think of sacrificing the best interests of a very large portion of the community to any party feeling whatever. There were a quarter of a million of inhabitants in the borough of Manchester, and the state of agitation and excitement in which a great portion of that number were, should have much weight with all persons who respected life and property. He would, individually, have much pre-

147
ferred to place the police in the hands of the borough corporation, but, that being now impossible, he felt bound to adopt the lesser evil, which was the bill as it then stood. The charier, which had superseded the power of the Court Leet, would have been sufficient for all the purposes of the borough, but for the efforts of interested parties. The chief opponent of the charter was the steward of the Lord of the Manor, who was also clerk to the street commissioners; and it was mainly through his influence that the legality of the charter was called in question. On obtaining their charter, the" corporation of Manchester, like men of business, at once set about establishing a good police; and they had advanced upwards of 20,000 l. towards effecting that purpose out of their own pocket. That money they had advanced on the faith of the validity of the charter, and it would be very hard upon them now if it were advanced for nothing. As matters stood at present, ninety-five of the street commissioners out of the two hundred, the number usually acting, had declared the charter invalid, and in consequence of that declaration, the inhabitants of the borough had generally refused to pay the police-rate. The corporation were thus disabled from paying the police any longer. The old establishment could not raise the money for that purpose either, and thus the lives and property of the people of Manchester were placed in imminent jeopardy. Seeing this, he was not at all inclined to throw disgrace upon the corporation of that borough by disbanding the present police, or, by consenting to let the question remain in abeyance, to please the party who had been opposed to the charter. He, therefore, called on the House to give its assent to the bill.
Mr. M. Philipssaid, that his only motive in supporting the measure was the peace of the community which he represented. The facts of the case were briefly these. A police force had been established in Manchester by the corporation on obtaining their charter, but funds were now wanting to pay them, or would be very soon, in consequence of the question which had been raised as to the validity of the power of raising a rate for that purpose, under that act of incorporation. Without, therefore, taking upon himself to decide the question of validity, he should support the bill, because it contained the means of providing a good and
148
proper police force for the borough; and he felt bound to say, whatever decision should be come to in respect to that question, no rate could be raised in Manchester until it was settled. It had been stated, that the collection of a rate, for the purposes of the police, had been commenced by the commissioners of streets under the old system, but they had only been able to get together 1,200 l. as yet, the amount required being about 8,000 l. per annum. To show how effectually the amount of the police-rate had decreased since the question as to the validity of the charter was mooted, he should read the returns of the sums received in two consecutive months of each of three years past. In 1837 the collection for the first two months was:—

1st week

£1,009

3

0

2nd week

1,049

10

6

making for the two weeks conjoined the sum of 2,058 l. 13 s. 6d. In 1838 it stood thus:—

1st week (27th August)

£957

3

10

2nd week

1,033

14

6

Making for that period

£1,990

18

4

While in 1839, for the same space of time, commencing with the 31st of July, the sum was no more than;—

For the 1st week

£813

19

8

For the 2nd week

312

5

1

Being but

£1,126

4

9

The fact was, that the rate had been appealed against as invalid by 92 out of 140 commissioners of streets; and after that appeal, which had been published in the local newspapers, together with an assertion of the illegality of the rate, it would be next to impossible to induce the people of Manchester to pay it until the question was decided. There was another reason why they refused to pay the rate, as attempted to be levied by the commissioners of streets under the old system, which was in itself a sufficient explanation of their objection, if no other existed. The commissioners proceeded to levy 1s. 6d. in the pound, while for the same purposes, under the charter, the levy was not more than 1s. 1d. in the pound. While the validity of the rate levied under the charter was in question, he thought, unless the bill before the House was passed, that great danger to person and property would accrue in Manchester. Nothing but the perfect consciousness of that danger, and

149
the impossibility of finding any other remedy, could have induced him by supporting the measure, to abandon for a moment those principles of self-government which he had always professed.
Lord G. Somersetwas much obliged to the hon. Member for informing the House of the exact state of the case as regarded Manchester, for, up to that moment, he had not been aware of the immediate necessity of the measure for that borough. He was, therefore, a convert to the bill; and, being so, he was very glad that it had not been made a supplementary measure to assist the corporation. He could not help feeling some slight degree of surprise, however, at the conduct of the hon. Member for Salford, in supporting the bill before the House and opposing the Birmingham Police Bill, which went on the same principle. It was quite clear, however, from what had been stated, that there was no power in the corporation of Manchester to raise the police-rate until the question as to the validity of the charter had been legally decided; and, therefore, that there could be no police-rate until that took place. Believing that such a state of things should not be permitted at the present time, he was now ready to support the principle of the bill, reserving to himself the right of altering some clauses in committee.
Bill read a second time.

BIRMINGHAM POLICE.
Lord J. Russell Lord J. Russell moved the Order of the Day for going into Committee on the Birmingham Police Bill. (No. 2.)
Mr. W. Williamssaid, he was so strongly opposed to this measure, that he should move that it be committed on that day three months. The first bill which was introduced gave the town-council the entire management of their police, and no objection was made to that bill, except to the grant of 10,000 l., which he considered altogether unnecessary. The withdrawal of that bill, and introduction of the present, which vested the power entirely in the Secretary of State, proclaimed that the magistrates, the town-council, and the inhabitants of Birmingham, were not competent for the purposes of self-government. It took from them the power of taxing themselves for their local government; the power of maintaining a police for the protection of their property. No reason had been shown why so important
150
a privilege should be taken away. Nothing had happened to justify this harsh treatment of the corporation of Birmingham. The noble Lord had stated it was not his intention to make this the foundation of a measure for ultimately establishing a police force throughout the country, under the authority of the Secretary of State. He would not dispute the assertion of the noble Lord, but there were certain facts to show the existence of such an intention in some quarters. In the first place there was the Report of the Commissioners appointed to make inquiries into the state of the constabulary, which recommended the establishment of a police force throughout the country, under the authority of the Secretary of State. He warned the people of this country to be on their guard against the introduction of such a system, which would destroy the liberties of the country. This, then, was a bill extending the metropolitan police force into five counties. They knew the people would not stand the introduction of the police all at once, but the introduction of it was steadily progressing. Next, they had endeavoured to introduce the police into the city of London. A measure had been proposed which would virtually have introduced the metropolitan police into London. There had next been a measure to raise 10,000 l. for a sort of roving police, liable to be sent to any part of the country at a moment's notice. If they acted as they had at Birmingham, the noble Lord would succeed better in creating than suppressing disturbances. When these bills were agreed to, why the metropolitan police system would pervade a fourth part nearly of the population of England. What did these things indicate? That it was intended to carry the system through the whole country. The corporations of England would practically be deprived of the management of the police. He was glad that the city of London had come forward against these bills relative to Birmingham, Manchester, and Bolton. They had resisted the measure which was intended to deprive them of an authority they had enjoyed for the last 700 years, and they did right to oppose the infliction of the same deprivation on others. He wished to draw the attention of the noble Lord to one important fact, that the two Members for Birmingham had declared that there was so great an antipathy in

151
the town against the measure, that the whole population, with the magistrates and council, would offer it every opposition. How then could the noble Lord expect to make his bill efficiently operate? The noble Lord had, on several occasions, evinced a readiness to follow the advice of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth. Now that right hon. Baronet had been very desirous, when he introduced the metropolitan police system, to extend it to the city of London, and had desisted from the attempt only on account of the opposition it met with, feeling that he never could expect to make it efficient, if it were so decidedly opposed by the population among whom the system was to work. The noble Lord should follow the example of the right hon. Baronet in this respect, and pay that respect to the people of Birmingham to which their intelligence justly entitled them. He ought not to force on this measure in opposition to their wishes. If the peace were to be effectually to be preserved, it must be by a police acceptable generally to the people. Without taking up the time of the House any further, he would move that the bill be committed this day three months.
Mr. T. Attwoodseconded the amendment. He hoped the noble Lord would now consent to withdraw the bill. He had received a letter this day from the town clerk of Birmingham, informing him that a petition had been presented to the council earnestly praying them, if this bill passed into a law, to terminate its operation as soon as the law gave them power—or as soon as it was decided that the law gave them power to levy the rates for their own police. But the council had rejected the petition, on the ground that it was unworthy of them, as men and Englishmen, to have anything to do with this bill. They were grave, and respectable men—very few of them had been members of the Political Union, therefore they were entitled to the noble Lord's respect. The first bill was constitutional and reasonable; this was unconstitutional and arbitrary—the first step towards driving in the wedge for the French gens d'urmerie. The people of Birmingham would never submit to it; if they did, now that the noble Lord was in his weakness, they could never expect to resist it when he was in his strength, which, if he were in at all this time two years, he would possess. The masses of the people were not disposed
152
to encourage fires—God forbid!—but they were generally discontented. Sorry he was to find the noble Lord in such a measure as this, deserting his high principles, and dishonouring his great name. If the noble Lord would not restore his first bill, he would advise him to retire from his situation. There were plenty of Gentlemen opposite who would gladly replace him, and who were his equals in ability. Let him retire while he had something yet remaining of his deservedly high character, unless he were prepared to leave the people of Birmingham to themselves—at least with the aid of the military—of whom the noble Lord had given them plenty; a force which, though unconstitutional, was efficient, and somewhat capable of guiding the people of England, who respected them for their courage, and admired them for their glorious achievements and martial enthusiasm. But the gendarmerie system was un-English; the word "police" was not in our language; we only had "peace officers" and constables; and the noble Lord would have done well to limit his interference to the giving power to increase the numbers of these—there was ample provision for their support. The Court Leet have certainly—like that House—wofully deteriorated from its original intention, but though a clique, self electing, they had never done anything wrong; they were all Birmingham men, and respectable in their character. If the noble Lord wished for a police force, why did he not apply to the Court Leet rather than press forward this measure of centralization? He would warn the noble Lord, if he proceeded with this bill, he would never get back the money advanced. Nor would he venture to take the soldiers out of Birmingham. The very Tories whose advice he had adopted, would beg of him to let the soldiers remain. The police themselves would be subjected to all manner of obloquy and insult. The town of Birmingham was now quiet; the law had resumed its course, and such being the case, he hoped the noble Lord would pause and reconsider before he carried the judgments passed at Warwick into execution; he hoped he would ponder well before he suffered the extrem penalties of the law to be put in force. He appealed to the noble Lord as a man of humanity on the subject; he knew he was such, for although he loathed his (the noble Lord's) police, yet as a man of humanity, and as a man of gen-

153
tlemanly and generous feeling he admired and respected him. He hoped the noble Lord would reconsider the subject, and withdraw this bill. If he did not, he should adopt the same course respecting this bill as he had given notice of on the Manchester Bill—he should move as an amendment in committee, that the following proviso be inserted:—
"Provided always, that when the authority of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Corporation of Birmingham shall be ascertained by due course of law, and it shall be shown they possess the legal right of levying rates, that from that time the authority of this Act shall cease and determine."
Mr. C. Bullerwished to impress on the hon. Gentleman the impolicy of dividing the House at this stage, because it gave an air of factious opposition to a proceeding which had hitherto been conducted on high and constitutional grounds. The House had decided in favour of the principle of the bill. He proposed, therefore, to take the sense of the House as to the propriety of keeping the appointment in the hands of the town-council. He also wished to direct the attention of the noble Lord to the proposal of the hon. Member for Birmingham—that the bill should not go further than the reasons assigned—and that, when any corporation should be established in Birmingham, things should be allowed to return to the ordinary course, and the town should be allowed to be governed by the local authorities. He would also take the opinion of the House as to the propriety of taking the authority out of the hands of the corporation.
Mr. Scholefieldwas afraid he should disappoint the wishes of many of his constituents, whose feelings were very strongly against the bill. The noble Lord had satisfied some of his scruples; and if he would adopt the suggestion of his hon. Colleague, that would remove an additional objection. He felt, in common with many of his Friends, that it would be dangerous to press this matter, without doing something to assuage the feelings of the people. When a petition was proposed in the town-council on this subject, it was rejected, on the grounds that they would not, in any shape, recognise a measure so insulting; they felt it was an infringement of the liberties of the people. Their opposition to it was national, although they felt it as a local attack upon them, that they should be the first selected for the intro-
154
duction of this system, and that at the suggestion of persons who had always opposed the enfranchisement of Birmingham.
Mr. Wakleysuggested, that the noble Lord should go into committee, pro formâ, and on Monday introduce a clause limiting the duration of the bill.
Lord John Russellhad already said, that he did not wish the powers granted by this bill to be continued longer than the decision of the case now litigated. But it was not so easy as the hon. Member for Finsbury supposed to draw a clause on the subject, for other matters were disputed before the Queen's Bench beside the power of levying a rate; besides, it was doubtful, whether there might not be an appeal from the decision of that court to the Exchequer Chamber and House of Lords. He saw no reason why they should not go into committee.
Amendment withdrawn.
House in Committee.
On the first clause,
Mr. C. Buller Mr. C. Buller moved an amendment to the effect, that the town-council should have the power of appointing a commissioner of the police instead of her Majesty. He was not so furiously opposed to centralization as some Members. On the contrary, he thought that centralization was a part of civilization; but self-government should be also kept up as an inherent right under our Constitution.
Mr. Attwoodseconded the amendment.
The Committee divided on the original question:—Ayes 63; Noes 20: Majority 43.

List of the Ayes.

A'Court, Captain

Freshfield, J. W.

Adam, Admiral

Gaskell, J. M.

Baring, F. T.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.

Blackburne, I.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Blennerhassett, A.

Hawkes, T.

Bramston, T. W.

Hill, Lord A. M. C.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Hinde, J. H.

Bryan, G.

Hobhouse, rt.hn. Sir J.

Callaghan, D.

Hodgson, R.

Campbell, Sir J.

Hope, hon. C.

Chapman, A.

Hoskins, K.

Chichester, J. P. B.

Howard, P. H.

Clay, W.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Kemble, H.

Dalmeny, Lord

Lowther, J. H.

Darby, G.

Lushing ton, rt. hn. S.

Divett, E.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Donkin, Sir R. S.

Maule, hon. F.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Paget, F.

Ellis, J.

Parker, J.

Filmer, Sir E.

Parker, R. T.

155

Philips, M.

Stock, Dr.

Phillpotts, J.

Surrey, Earl of

Price, Sir R.

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Pryme, G.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Waddington, H. S.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Wilbraham, G.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Wilmot, Sir J. E.

Russell, Lord J.

Wood, G. W.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A

Yates, J. A.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

TELLERS.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Seymour, Lord

Steuart, R.

O'Ferrall, M.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Lushington, C.

Attwood, T.

O'Connell, D.

Currie, T.

Scholefield, J.

D'Israeli, B.

Stewart, J.

Duncombe, T.

Thornely, T.

Ewart, W.

Vigors, N. A.

Fielden. J.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Finch, F.

Wakley, T.

Hawes, B.

Hector, C. J.

TELLERS.

Hindley, C.

Buller, C.

Humphery, J.

Williams, W.

Clause agreed to, as were the remaining clauses.
House resumed.

METROPOLIS IMPROVEMENTS BILL.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the third reading of this bill.
Mr. Hawesobjected that the title of the bill was not accurate, as it excluded Lambeth, which was part of the metropolis, and the inhabitants paid their proportion to the coal duties. He did not wish for any specific improvement, but he suggested, that the Commissioners of Woods and Forests should have power, if they should think fit on a survey, to apply a portion of funds in their hands to the improvement of Lambeth. He would, therefore, move, that certain words should be added to the preamble.
Mr. Claysaid, that it was not the intention of the committee to vest any power of surveying and carrying out any alterations or improvements not recommended by the committee. There were many improvements in Lambeth and Westminster which were most desirable; the improvements of Westminster, were brought before the committee by one of the Members for that city, but the committee, after long consideration, decided that those mentioned in the preamble were most important. In the report of the Poor-law Commissioners last year there was a very important report from Dr.
156
Southwood Smith, as to the health of the metropolis, and from that report, it appeared, that out of a population of 851,229 persons in the twenty unions of the metropolis, there were 5,692 cases of typhus fever, or six-tenths, more than one-half per cent, of the population; whilst in the Whitechapel union, one of the twenty unions, where the population was 64,000, there were 1,505 cases of typhus fever, or five times more than the proportion of the other unions. And all this was traced principally to the want of drains. He trusted, therefore, that the inhabitants of the metropolis would consent to such light taxation as would effect this great object.
Mr. Alderman Humpherywished, that the hon. Gentleman had referred to Dr. Smith's report as to Lambeth; if he had, he would have found as great evil from fever; and he did think that the preamble should be enlarged, for a street might be made on the Southwark side of the river, from Westminster-bridge to London-bridge, for less than 50,000 l.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he should object to the proposed amendment. In the first place, the bill before the House was not for the purpose of effecting the contemplated improvements, but only for the purpose of giving to the commissioners of Woods and Forests the means of ascertaining, during the recess, what would be the expense of completing those improvements, and it would be for Parliament to determine next year whether those improvements ought or ought not to take place. The present bill had been unanimously recommended by the committee, which was not a packed committee, and he was the only Member of Government on it. The improvement in Lambeth, he was ready to admit, was of great importance to the whole metropolis. But he was not going to discuss the merits of these different plans, but to carry out the objects of the committee, which he was most anxious to effect.
Bill read a third time.
Mr. Hawesformally moved the insertion of words as he had proposed.
Mr. Humeasked if there was sufficient money out of the 200,000 l. to effect this additional improvement; for, if there was, he would support the amendment.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied, that, from their present information, it appeared that there would be no surplus.
Mr. Alderman Humpherythought, that if the improvements recommended by the committee were properly managed, there would be a surplus, and that surplus, whatever it was, he wished to secure for Lambeth and Southwark.
The House divided on the insertion of the words proposed by Mr. Hawes:—Ayes 8; Noes 34: Majority 26.

List of the Ayes.

Attwood, T.

Vigors, N. A.

D'Israeli, B.

Yates, J. A.

Duncombe, T.

Ewart, W.

TELLERS.

Hinde, J. H.

Hawes, B.

Hodgson, R.

Humphery, J.

List of the NOES.

Barnard, E. G.

Lushington. rt. hn. S.

Bernal, R.

Muskett, G. A.

Bridgeman, H.

Palmer, C. F.

Brotherton, J.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Pechell, Captain

Chapman, A.

Philips, M.

Clay, W.

Phillpotts, J.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Price, Sir R.

Darby, G.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Donkin, Sir R. S.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Ellis, W.

Russell, Lord J.

Fielden, J.

Smith, R. V.

Fitzpatrick, J. W.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Wood, C.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Wood, Colonel T.

Hodges, T.L.

Howard, P. H.

TELLERS.

Jervis, S.

Baring, F. T.

Lushington, C.

Hume, J.

Bill passed.

SLAVE-TRADE SUPPRESSION BILL.
Viscount Palmerston Viscount Palmerston moved the suspension of the Standing Orders on this bill.
The motion having been assented to, the Bill was read a second time, and went through a committee.
On the motion for bringing up the report,
Sir Thomas Fremantlehoped the noble Viscount would state to the House the grounds on which this motion for the suspension of the Standing Orders was made.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that he had entered into the grounds upon which he intended to make his motion on the previous evening at very considerable length, but he would repeat them in a very few words for the satisfaction of the hon. Baronet. He understood that the ground of the rejection of the former bill arose from a misconception on the part of the House of Lords as to the form of the pro-
158
ceedings. That objection had since been removed by steps which had been taken, and he, therefore, hoped, that their Lordships would consent to adopt this measure. The orders to the commanders of cruisers that were necessary, in order to put a stop to the slave-trade, could not be executed by them, unless they were protected by a bill of this description. The bill protected the commanders of such vessels from all vexatious suits in courts of justice; gave the Admiralty Court a right to adjudicate upon the vessels seized; defined what sort of equipment constituted a slave-vessel; and gave to the Admiralty and Vice-Admiralty Courts a right to deal with vessels taken while engaged in the Slave-trade, but having no nationality, in the same manner as if they were British vessels. He hoped, that the House of Lords, who, he was sure were most anxious to put down the Slave-trade, would concur in this bill, which was absolutely necessary, in order, that their wishes might be carried into effect.
The Report received.
Bill to be engrossed.

PROGRESS OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved the Order of the Day for a Committee of Ways and Means.
Mr. T. Duncomberose to submit to the House the resolutions of which he had given notice. The House having recently consented to place at the disposal of her Majesty the means necessary for increasing the military force of the country, he thought, they as the representatives of the people, owed it to the distressed millions of this country, from whose pockets those means were collected, to do something more than merely vote money and agree to measures of coercion. It was also due to them to admit that their manifold grievances were not altogether unfounded, and that there were many just causes of the late and existing discontent, which coercion alone, would not put an end to, but which ought to be met by a disposition to redress. It might be very easy for hon. Members in that House—it might be very easy for those who were basking in the sunshine of a Court—it might be very easy for those who were enjoying all the blessings of affluence and prosperity, to blame the people for their impatience and unreasonableness; and it was also very easy to attribute the dis-

159
turbed state of the country to the exorbitant demands made by the working classes—but if that House would look a little into their own conduct with respect to the practical grievances of the people, they would, as honest and impartial men, be compelled to admit that they were not altogether exempt from blame, as regarded the condition in which the country unfortunately was at present. He readily admitted that many of the charges and allegations in the resolutions which he was about to move might be extremely disagreeable and very painful to many hon. Members of that House; but, at the same time, if they were true, assuredly, in the present state of the public mind, the House ought not to shrink from admitting their justice. He would not be so vain and presumptuous as to imagine that when her Majesty terminated the Session of Parliament, and when the Speaker was called upon by the Crown to explain, in the name of the Commons of England, the manner in which the Session had been occupied, they would-find in his resolutions anything that would lead them to solve what appeared to him to be a most perplexing question; but he could not help thinking, that when hon. Members met their constituents on those different occasions—dinners, meetings and the like, that were apt to occur during the recess—when hon. Members were expected to give an account of their proceedings, if they took a bill of fare for their dinner, they would find it a complete answer to those inconvenient and disagreeable interrogatories with which hon. Members were often at such a time assailed. And here let him warn the House, that it would not be sufficient for them on this occasion to put one of their cold, chilling, contemptuous negatives on these resolutions. If they could not be refuted, they ought to be adopted. He was not going at that late hour to enter at any length into these resolutions; but he challenged them to deny the truth of the most important statements they embodied. For instance, could it be denied that, in the course of the present Session, that House had refused to remove the restrictions on foreign trade, and especially upon the trade in corn, Could it be denied that, while enforcing the new poor law, they had told the poor that the object of the measure was to compel them to rely on their own resources, at the same time that, after they had toiled from sunrise to
160
sunset, they desired to carry the produce of their labour to a cheaper market, the Legislature refused to allow them to do so, by interposing an exorbitant restrictive tax? To do this, at the same time that you told them they must rely on their own resources, was a heartless mockery; it was adding insult to injury. Could it be denied, that measures for securing a cheaper and more expeditious administration of justice—measures that were promised at the commencement of the Session—had been abandoned, while the salaries of justices had been augmented? In the very first clause of the Queen's speech at the commencement of the Session, the attention of Parliament was called to the necessity for introducing such measures as would render justice cheap and accessible to all. Had not those measures been abandoned? Yet the votes of the last few days were in evidence, that the salaries of judges had been recently augmented. Another grievance, that of church-rates, did it not remain un-redressed? Was a settlement of the church-rate question any nearer now than it was nine years ago, when the Whigs first came into office? Some few years ago there was a vast expenditure of virtuous indignation from hon. Gentlemen who now occupied the Government benches; yet at this very hour there were victims expiring in gaols because of the non-payment of church-rates. Another pretext for increasing the number of troops was the existing state of Canada. It was said that the condition of that colony was such, that a considerable increase to the army was imperatively called for; and, at the same time, a promise of settlement of the affairs of the colony was made. The augmentation of troops had taken place, but there had been no settlement; and the last accounts from the colony showed that they were in a state of despair on account of the postponement of the settlement. From his own personal observation of affairs in that colony in December last, he could state, that wealthy and influential inhabitants of Canada were then in the expectation that Parliament would have immediately met, in order to examine into their grievances, and apply a remedy. Parliament, however, did not meet until February, and what had they done since towards redeeming the grievances of which the Canadians complained? Nothing. Report had it, that his right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, was

161
going to try his hand at a settlement of the affairs of Canada. He did not know whether the report were true or not; but if it were, he would recommend his right hon. Friend to make haste, otherwise on his arrival on the other side of the Atlantic, he might find no colony to govern. He might also refer to the motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny, as regarded household suffrage; and to the motion of the hon. Baronet, the Member for Preston, on the 10 l. household franchise in counties; or even to what took place on the first day of the Session, when he (Mr. Duncombe) moved an amendment on the Address, to the effect, that, as the House very well knew, reform had disappointed the expectations of the people, and calling upon the House to proceed to the consideration of the subject, with a view to fully carry out the objects of the reform Act,—how was that motion met? By an observation, that such a course was a very inconvenient one. There was no want, in that address, of empty compliments to the Crown. When, again, the Irish vote of confidence was brought forward, the House was ready enough to vote compliments to themselves and the Government, to induce them to vote compliments to them; but the expediency of granting further reforms to the people was denied. Yet such reforms would produce contentment, and secure the permanent welfare of the country. Then, with regard to the question of vote by ballot, all knew that the ballot was denied when asked for during the present Session; yet on all hands hon. Members were ready to admit that corruption and intimidation were rife in every part of the country. What hope, he asked, could the people entertain that this House would ever grant them any redress of their political and social grievances? Every vote of this long, tedious, and unsatisfactory Session, had given them reason to complain; and, unfortunately, nothing had occurred to afford reason to indulge the hope, that in a future Session anything would really be done for the people. Was it, then, surprising that the people should have been dissatisfied? It was not, however, yet too late for them to confess their errors. If they agreed to these resolutions, they would give universal satisfaction to the people of England. Much of the existing discontent would be removed; the loss of many lives during the coming winter would probably be
162
saved. At all events, by adopting them, a guarantee would be given to the people that the next Session would not pass away unprofitably, as had been the case with the present Session; that the course and spirit of legislation would in future be changed; that the manifold grievances of the people would be fairly and cordially investigated, and a reasonable hope afforded, that, in the course of next Session, these grievances would be generously redressed. The hon. Member, in conclusion, moved the following Resolutions:—

"1. That in agreeing to provide the means for an increase of her Majesty's military forces, called for by the Executive Government at an unusual time, and under peculiar circumstances, it is the duty of this House to declare—

"2. That the troubled state of the country arises from causes which the application of repressive means, against large classes of her Majesty's subjects, will not remove

"3. That the existing discontents are, in no small degree, to be attributed to the neglect of Parliament, in not taking measures for the improvement of the social and political condition of the people.

"4. That, in particular, in the present Session, Parliament has refused to remove restrictions on the foreign trade of the country, especially the trade in corn; thereby limiting the demand for English labour, and diminishing its remuneration, while the cost of subsistence is increased; and the new Poor-law is enforced, with the view of teaching the people to rely on their own resources, by the same Legislature which prevents the poor from exchanging their labour for the cheaper food of foreign countries.

"5. That the measures promised at the commencement of this Session, for rendering justice cheap and accessible to all, have been abandoned, while the salaries of judges and magistrates have been augmented.

"6. That the grievance of church rates remains unredressed.

"7. That for a national education a very small and inadequate provision has been made, while the military and naval expenditure had been greatly augmented.

"8. That any necessity for an increase of the army is mainly occasioned by the disturbances in Canada, and that, until a satisfactory arrangement of the affairs of that colony be effected, the relief of the people of this country from the expense of its military occupation is not to be looked for; notwithstanding which, the Session has passed away without any attempt by Parliament to effect such settlement.

"9. That the prayers of the people for further reform have been disregarded.

"10. That protection to the elector, in the free exercise of the suffrage, was denied, by

163
the rejection of the motion to establish voting by ballot.

"11. That this House has not only refused to grant any extension of electoral privileges, but even to take into consideration the prayers of upwards of a million of her Majesty's subjects, who solicited attention to their claim of franchise.

"12. That no hope has been held out to the people that, at any future time, Parliament will grant redress of their social and political grievances.

"13. That until the spirit and course of legislation in the Imperial Parliament be changed, and proper regard had to the welfare and wishes of the whole people, instead of the interests of predominant classes, no security from the recurrence of such disturbances as the Government now demands the aid of Parliament to repress, can be reasonably expected."

Lord John Russellsaid, considering the length of these resolutions, the hon. Member had certainly not made a long speech in support of them; and as the hon. Gentleman had not thought it necessary to enter into detail on the subject, he did not think it necessary to take a different course. The main gist of these resolutions seemed to be, to call on that House to resolve, that if a different policy had been pursued as to certain measures, the existing discontents would not have prevailed to the same extent, and the application of repressive means would not have been required. One fact was quite clear, that those who were most discontented, and whose prayer the House had refused to take into consideration, had been themselves the most opposed to those very measures which the hon. Gentleman had declared were necessary in order to satisfy them. First, as regarded the Corn-laws, He had been in favour of taking that subject into consideration, and of the House resolving itself into committee on the question; and if there had been at the time a very general opinion expressed on the part of the people against the continuance of the Corn-laws, he thought it not at all improbable that the motion might have been attended with success. But so far from that being the case, one of the most prominent points insisted upon by those who had so petitioned Parliament at their public meetings, was a determined opposition to repeal the Corn-laws, and they endeavoured to prevent petitions for repeal from coming to the House. The usual supporters of the Corn-laws, in fact, considered that they had achieved a great triumph
164
when they received the support of those who called upon the House to consent to a reform in the representation of the people. Similar occurrences took place with regard to the question of the ballot. He had seen many arguments against the ballot very strongly put, but none more vehement than those with which he had met in the Chartist newspapers. They warned the House against adopting the ballot. Nothing, they said, was more likely to promote discontent, and increase the dissatisfaction of the people, as they would then have no chance whatever of attaining their rights, and would lose that degree of controul which they now had. So much for two of the measures which the hon. Member declared would, if agreed to, diminish the discontent of the people. With regard to the Corn-law question, he must say, that the hon. Gentleman had put the question somewhat invidiously as affected the whole House. The hon. Member had also somewhat invidiously mixed up the Corn-law with the Poor-law. He said that the poor were told to subsist upon their own resources, at the same time that they were prevented from purchasing their corn as cheaply as they elsewhere could purchase it. This must entirely depend on the view taken by hon. Members individually of that question. If hon. Gentlemen agreed with the hon. Member for Finsbury, then, undoubtedly, they would be very wrong to attempt to force the Corn-law on the people. But how stood the facts as regarded the operation of the Corn-laws upon the poor? Why, it was said, that a large portion of the people—the agricultural labourers having mostly large families—so far from being aided by a repeal of the Corn-law, would be thrown out of employment and prevented from maintaining their families. He did not say, that was correct, but it was most harsh and invidious to impute to the House that it dealt selfishly with the people in not repealing the Corn-laws. The hon. Member also complained of the measures for rendering justice cheap and accessible having been abandoned. But the hon. Member seemed to forget, that every Session measures were obliged to be deferred for consideration to a future Session, when it was found to be impossible to carry them through. The mere circumstance of these bills having been deferred, did not prove, that Parliament had any hostility to ren-

165
dering justice cheap and accessible to all. Undoubtedly, the grievance of church-rates still remained unredressed, but it was a question on which there was a great division of opinion in that House, and it was one which Parliament would still have to consider. Nor could he agree in the eleventh of these resolutions, that no hope was held out of a redress of social and political grievances at any future time. During the present Session he was sure, that no question that had been mooted had been discussed in any other spirit than with reference to its tendency to do away with social and political evils. As regarded many of those measures, there were, no doubt, great party differences, but on the other hand, when the House became satisfied, that any particular measure would be conducive to the removal of social and political grievances, there was no difficulty in passing such a measure. If any measures of the kind were proposed, he would be very glad to support them if he approved of them; but, at the same time, he would oppose them if he did not think them calculated for the good of the community. He would himself be ready at any time to bring forward any measures for the redress of political and social grievances, as he had already from time to time done. Looking at the acts of the Government during the last ten years, he really did not think indifference could be fairly charged against the Government. To assert that the Government had set their faces against all reform, was to commit a great injustice. The hon. Gentleman asserted that the House had refused to listen to the prayers of a million of her Majesty's subjects, but this was scarcely a fair mode of stating the case. The real question was, whether the House should adopt universal suffrage, annual Parliaments, and vote by ballot, and abolish all property qualifications for Members of Parliament. Those were the demands of the petitioners, and he had never heard those who advocated their prayer, state that they would be contented with any but the full measure of their demands. They never adopted any disguise as regarded their views. Nothing less than the full amount of their demand would satisfy them. To those demands he was opposed, and, therefore, he had voted against the petition. They surely could not complain that he had deceived them in the vote which he gave on that
166
occasion. But, assuredly, if hon. Members had voted for that petition, and had afterwards come down to the House with propositions that did not go so far as the prayer of the petition, they would have more irritated the petitioners and have given just cause to more discontent than the refusal to receive the petition had occasioned. It might be thought the propositions of the Chartists were beneficial in themselves—they might possibly have a prospect of being proposed and carried; but this he felt, that persons who armed themselves to take away the property of others even to the extent of assaulting the officers of the law, would by no means be satisfied with less than a change of places in society—that they would take the property of those who had property, and confiscate it to their own leaders; and he believed the object of those leaders was to get possession of as much property as they could, while they deluded the people by holding out great advantages to them, and to enrich themselves by spoliation, robbery, and depredation. That was his belief as regarded the Chartists, and, therefore, he thought it much fairer, when the subject of the petition was before the House, to declare his opinion that the greater portion of them were deluded than to support the prayer of their petition. With respect to the various points contained in the resolutions of the hon. Gentleman, there was no doubt that there were times when certain measures were more peculiarly pressing on the attention of Parliament, for the remedying of some great grievances, and there were undoubtedly other times, when, together with the consideration of such measures, you must take measures to support the authority of the law and of the Government, and to maintain the institutions of the country. It was his conviction, in the course of the present year, that it was incumbent on him to take measures to maintain the authority of the Government both at home and abroad. The hon. Gentleman had made it part of his charge that the Government had maintained the authority of the Crown in Canada without having at the same time introduced any measure for the settlement of the differences that gave rise to the necessity for so doing. Why, some persons of very high authority, thought, that Government had proceeded too quickly to the settlement of the affairs of Canada. But the hon.

167
Gentleman forgot that even if a measure for the union of the two colonies had been carried, or any other measure for the settlement of the question, Government would have not the less required, both for this and the next year, sufficient military force to repress the disturbances in Canada. For, to suppose that, by an Act of Parliament, you could at once not only satisfy, be it remembered, one discontented party, but restore to harmony the two contending parties in Canada, and that, too, without the aid of a military power, was a notion too chimerical to be for a moment entertained. Taking, then, the whole arguments into consideration, he entirely disagreed with the hon. Gentleman's resolutions. It was quite clear that the intention of the hon. Member was not so much to get the consent of that House to them, as to place on record censure both on the Government and the House. He did not feel that either the House or the Government were liable to the censure which the hon. Member proposed to cast upon them, and he should, therefore, certainly vote for going at once into the business of the evening, and against the resolutions.
Mr. Wakleysaw nothing in the resolutions open to the objections of the noble Lord. Upon this subject he should regard himself as one of the most cowardly of mankind if he did not, in the face of the House and the country, declare that he considered the conduct of that House as infinitely worse than that of her Majesty's Ministers, and there was no ground whatever to justify the House in the course that it had pursued. The Ministers had every temptation to do wrong—they met with every encouragement from the House in their bad proceedings, and they hardly met with support in their good measures. He did not think, therefore, that his hon. colleague would have been justified in placing the censure entirely on the Government. He did not believe that the people would get better treatment from a Parliament, constituted like the present, than they got this Session. He felt satisfied that it was not in the nature of the House, constituted as it was, to pass any great legislative measures for the benefit of the country. Hon. Members almost seemed disposed to treat the people like a set of untameable wild beasts. They seemed ever desirous that the liberties of the people should be abridged. Was it then to be expected
168
that the great bulk of the community could be satisfied? The people would only be worthy of being scourged if they were not dissatisfied until they attained the objects essential to their well being, and until the evils to which they were now exposed were redressed. He trusted until this was done that they would continue to feel some discontent and cause uneasiness. He trusted that they would not allow the two Houses of Parliament to rest on beds of roses while they were exposed to so much oppression and injustice. That House was constituted to attend to the interests of the great mass of the people, and not merely to uphold the privileges of any particular class. The noble Lord had complained of the length of the resolutions, and of the shortness of his hon. Colleague's speech; but he thought that if matters were changed, and the resolutions had been shorter and the speech longer, the noble Lord would not have been better pleased. He had prescribed only three powders to the noble Lord last year, but the noble Lord was equally dissatisfied now when his hon. Friend gave him twelve. On this subject, therefore, it was a matter of considerable difficulty to please the noble Lord. The noble Lord said, that the success of measures that would have been found beneficial had been impeded by the Chartists, who had come forward and excited such a strong feeling in the country, and he added, that if different conduct had been pursued, it would have led to a different result. But what was the fact; the people had long petitioned for the ballot, short Parliaments, and an extension of the suffrage; but they had not got one of them, nor did there appear any disposition on the part of the House to concede them. What right, then, had the noble Lord to suppose that the people would have succeeded in getting a repeal of the Corn-laws from that House; and above all when he had said, with respect to the Reform Bill, that the framers of it had intended by it to give the landed interest a predominance in that House? [Lord John Russell—"No, no!"] At any rate, the noble Lord said, last year that he knew that that would be the effect of some of its provisions; and this was still worse, because it was a foregone conclusion. The people came to that House and said, that they wished to be put on a footing with the inhabitants of foreign nations with respect to obtain-

169
ing cheap food. But their prayers were directed to the great landed proprietors of England, who had such a powerful interest in keeping up the Corn-laws. These great monopolists, however, decided in their own case, and were judge and jury in the cause in which they were interested. Unless, therefore, the screw was put on them pretty tightly, was it to be supposed that they would yield? But was it to be supposed that hon. Gentlemen were so blinded to their own interests, that they would hold by the monopoly they enjoyed until the commerce of the country declined at such a rapid rate, that the remedy would come too late. Every person who reflected on the subject must know and feel, that whatever might have been the effect of the Corn-laws in past times, their tendency was to ruin the commerce of the country; and that, therefore, they must cause the greatest mischief to the community; for if they were continued, it was impossible that our manufacturers could maintain the struggle on such terms with foreign nations. Was it either just or reasonable that the landed interests should derive advantages from a monopoly at the expense of all the rest of the community? They had succeeded in many instances in deluding the farmers into the belief that the repeal of the Corn-laws would be followed by the rise of English agriculture. He believed that a number of the landed aristocracy never went into the country without going to some farm-house or other, and making a speech of that kind. They were very fond on such occasions, of describing the farmers as most intelligent men; but, when an appeal was made to that House, to enable the farmers to exercise their free judgment in the selection of their representatives, they were the most strenuous opponents of the proposition, and on no consideration would they consent to the measure by which the farmer could exercise his franchise freely, and according to his inclination. They always said, that it would be un-English, and a mode of voting that would be disgraceful to an honest person. The fact was, that the nation had been cajoled and deluded into a state of quiescence, which should not be allowed to exist. He said quiescence, for if the people were alive to their true interests, the landed aristocracy and that House, never should be allowed to have an hour's peace, until the Corn-laws
170
were repealed. He was as convinced as he could be of anything, that this country must inevitably sink in the scale of nations, if the Corn-laws were not repealed. The House refused to sanction the motion of his hon. Friend to go into Committee, to take the Corn-laws into consideration, with the view of altering them, but he trusted that the demand would become loud and general for their total repeal; for he was of opinion, that there should be no protecting duty, and no restriction on the importation of food, but that it should come to every man as freely as the air he breathed. It should be recollected, that foreigners, as well as ourselves, possessed energy and intelligence, and they possessed all the means of manufacture, in an equal degree in this country; and was it to be expected, that we could run the race of competition in manufactures, with a millstone around our necks? It was most astonishing to him to see how quiet the people of this country were, under such a grievous injustice. He was sorry that there had been found people in this country, who had been alluded to, who could be so much in error, as to draw the attention of the working-classes from this important subject. He admitted that there might be some difficulty in making generally intelligible, or carrying into effect, a measure involving complicated theories, but he thought that it was almost obvious, that the greatest good would result to the working-classes from the repeal of the Corn-laws. He was sure, if public attention was directed to the subject, that these laws would not last three years longer. It might be supposed, that while the Corn-laws thus oppressed the people, they were to a considerable degree relieved from taxation, and that landed property was heavily taxed. But that was not the case at all. Every article that the poor man consumed, with the exception of water, was taxed heavily, while the richer classes were almost entirely exempt from taxation. The amount of the malt-tax in a single year, was 4,500,000 l., and all this was derived from the working and middle classes. He believed that the people never would be content, until property was taxed. If the House would not repeal the Corn-laws, he trusted some means would be devised of raising and levying a tax upon property, and he hoped that there would be an effective agitation for this purpose, and h at thus

171
at least, some burdens would be placed on the shoulders of the aristocracy. They had constant demands made on them to afford relief to the agricultural classes, but they had too great influence already, and the whole system of legislation in this country, was in their favour, while it pressed most unjustly on the commercial and manufacturing classes of the nation. It was said that manufacturers had protecting duties in this country, true, but the manufacturers said, let the Corn-laws be repealed, and you may take off all those protecting taxes. He would conclude with entreating the noble Lord to promise before the Session closed, if he could do so with any regard to his sense of duty, that something should be done next Session—that he would hold out some expectation that some little thing would be done next year, on which the hopes of the people might rest during the vacation. He would not name or specify what should be done, but he trusted that the noble Lord would indicate in the House, that attempts would be made to do something for the people next Session. He should be very ungrateful if he did not thank the noble Lord for what he had done with respect to the post-office. It was a very great thing for the public, and he was sure that they would be grateful for it, but he feared that the working-classes would not feel the immediate benefit of it. He felt this, because he knew that they were too distressed, in consequence of the pressure of the Corn-laws, and were too much oppressed to be enabled to indulge in correspondence. It was not a pleasure to those classes to send accounts of their distresses and sufferings to their relatives; but let the Legislature give them a freer scope, and a greater power to act—make them more comfortable, and then their imaginations would soar into the regions of delight, and they would freely correspond with their friends. He, however, thanked the noble Lord for this boon, and he was sure that it would be productive of the greatest benefit to the community, which would feel grateful for it. He trusted, however, that the noble Lord would turn his attention to the situation of the working classes, and see whether something could not be done to relieve their condition. The people of this country were neither disloyal, discontented, nor sanguinary, and would not endanger either life or property; but they
172
had been exposed to the most cruel sufferings, and only required to be treated with justice. He knew that a great deal of dissatisfaction prevailed, and this would continue until every essential wrong was redressed: he would not encourage violence, but he trusted the people would continue to demand justice, until their just grounds of complaint were removed.
Mr. T. Attwoodperfectly agreed in all that had been said by the hon. Member who had just sat down, and only regretted that the other hon. Member for Finsbury, had made his resolutions so long. The discontent that prevailed amongst the working-classes, arose from the want of employment, or low wages, or both. It happened that when the people of England had full wages, they only got half work; and when they had full work, they only received half wages. There must, therefore, be something vicious in the state of society, to lead to such a result. There must be some great organic disease of the body politic. The noble Lord had addressed the House very much in the tone of a very excellent man who had been his predecessor in that House as the representative of the Government, who on one occasion said, in reply to a complaint of distress, that he was surprised to hear any person make such an observation in that happy land, as he had never heard of it before. This was Lord Spencer, who complained that any one should assert there was distress in that happy land. This reminded him again of an old lady, who was sitting down to an excellent dinner during the riots of the Luddites, and who exclaimed, "How can people do so in this happy country, where God Almighty provides such plenty." Persons who had large incomes in the funds, or held mort gages, were always exclaiming that England was the envy of surrounding nations, and the admiration of the world. It might be so to these mortgagees and money-mongers; but it was not so to the suffering labouring population. He would remind the House of what had brought the monied aristocracy into the powerful situation which they filled. He was sure, that the noble Lord, from his appearance, knew what he was about to say. About twenty years ago, this monied aristocracy, by means of a legal quibble, got this great advantage to themselves, and they behaved like Nicholas of Russia. They did not, like Alexander, fix the metallic

173

standard at five shillings in the pound, nor do what the right hon. Member for Tam-worth should have done, fix the standard at ten shillings, but, unhappily, they went back to the ancient standard. They, by some hocus pocus, persuaded the Legislature to change the paper money of ten shillings in the pound, to the old standard of gold. They could not at first persuade the landed interest to consent to this, but they succeeded at last by giving them the Corn-laws, and then they were allowed the money law they required. They said, we will shut out all foreign corn, and see how we shall all prosper, for you will keep up your rents, and we shall keep up our dividends. A member of the aristocracy told him a short time ago, that things would not go right in this country, until the merchants were driven back into the city [oh, oh!]. He dared say that was an aristocratic cheer, and he roust observe, that he wished his hon. Friends behind him, would behave as well as his hon. Friends, or opponents, in front, for he found that he constantly met with better treatment from his political opponents, than from his political friends. The peer and the baron had laid their heads together, and driven the weakest to the wall, making the labourer suffer in his wages, while they divided all the benefits between themselves. Grinding poverty was the disease under which the country laboured, and until this was relieved, no coercion would repress the discontent of the working-classes. He hoped, that amid the many dangers which threatened the country, the noble Lord would hold out some expectation to the people, that he would next Session introduce some measure, by which they might earn fair wages for fair work.
Mr. Villierssaid, there was considerable analogy between the course taken by the hon. Gentleman who spoke last and that of the Chartists at their public meetings. The hon. Gentleman was always repeating the opinion that he received more favour at the hands of hon. Gentlemen opposite than from Members of his own side of the House. The fact was, that there was something so singular in the matter and so eccentric in the manner of the hon. Gentleman, that he contrived to throw discredit and ridicule on almost every question he touched upon in the House. He did not say, of course, that this was intended by the hon. Gentleman, but most
174
certainly this was the effect he produced. In spite of that, however, he should support the resolutions proposed by the hon. Gentleman near him, because they were clear, and distinct, and true, and because he thought it important the House should admit them to be so; because he thought the proceedings of the House were not worthy of the purposes for which it was assembled; and because he thought that its first great step towards repentance was to admit its sin. There might be some persons who thought that the course which the Legislature had taken was the right course, and it was well that the British public should know what legislation was thus thought right; but he, for one, thought that the course which had been pursued in the House—he said it without casting any reflection on the Government, or any particular portion of the House—but he certainly thought that, as a general result, the course which had been pursued had a tendency not to raise, but greatly to lower the House in the estimation of the country, a result which every right-thinking and patriotic mind could not but regard as a most serious evil. He thought there was something in the mode of legislating—something in the nature of the legislation itself—both what had been done, and what had been left undone, which was calculated to produce this most undesirable effect, and he considered it well to have this review of the conduct of the House drawn out and presented to the House and to the country, that it might be seen what were the omissions which had to be remedied. There were only two ways in which they could allay the discontents of the country, and restore its confidence in that House. The first was for the present House to legislate for the people as it ought to legislate for them; or that there should be included such a sufficient number of the people in the constituencies who were stated to be represented in the House, that on the people might be justly cast the blame, if the legislation of the House was bad. He thought it highly doubtful whether the first of these objects could be thoroughly carried out in the present constitution of the House, under the existing franchise, and mode of exercising it, which gave the aristocratic interests a great preponderance over national interests. At present he believed that all the sinister, all the sectional interests were represented in the

175
House, but not the national interests. It was this neglect of the national interests that occasioned the national discontent. For the security of the country it was necessary that the middle and working classes should be satisfied with the legislation of Parliament. He believed, indeed, that it was only the lowest and most ignorant of the people that talked of violence against property, and he believed that their violent and criminal intentions, as expressed at public meetings, need be treated with no other feeling than entire disregard, and the absence of all apprehension, if the classes immediately above them were not discontented; but there was much cause for alarm when it was considered that these classes, too, were dissatisfied. He trusted these resolutions would be agreed to, in order that the country might derive some hope for the future, from the admission which the House would thus make, that all had not been done which ought to have been done.
Mr. Warburtonwould support the resolutions most cordially. They went nearly on the same grounds which he himself took in opposing the extension of the standing army. The discontents which prevailed were not confined to the lowest or most ignorant classes. There was a large number of steady and thinking persons in the country who had been the supporters of moderate reform from the time when the Whigs last came into power, and a very considerable portion of these were entirely dissatisfied with the course of legislation which that House had pursued. The noble Lord said, that it was the Chartists themselves who had interrupted the progress of the Corn-law question; but this was not because they were in favour of the continuance of these laws, but because they considered that to petition the House, in its present constitution, to abolish those laws, would be utterly useless. Looking to the non-progress of the measures brought in for the good of the people, the people had a right to conclude, that the constitution of the House was not what it ought to be. It was because of the finality principle, and of the discontent which it caused, alienating from the Government the affections of the middle classes, the best supporters of order and the public peace, that violence had been supposed to exist. He hoped that principle would be abandoned, and that her Majesty's Government would advance the cause of reform. If they
176
persisted in refusing to do so, some other Ministers must be found who would take a contrary course.
Mr. D'Israelisaid, that when the hon. Member for Birmingham ascribed the present condition of the country to the state of the currency, he thought he would find a more obvious cause in the systematic attacks which had been made since the Reform Bill upon the civil rights of England. Of late years, the Government of the country had been engaged in assailing the rights of the people, and the people had turned round with an instinctive spirit, and assailed the constitution of the realm. That he believed to be the real state of the country at the present moment. If hon. Gentlemen would only take a retrospective glance at what had passed during the last seven years, and see what the Government of this country had done in attacking the civil rights of the people, they would not be surprised at the effect which had been produced. Within the last seven years they had attacked the Church; they had totally revolutionized the parochial jurisdiction of the country—that most ancient jurisdiction, an institution bringing much finer and nearer relations between the people than any political institution they could boast of; they had attacked the ancient police of the country; they had attacked the old local administration of justice, and confiscated the ancient patrimony of the people. They had attacked trial by jury, and had destroyed old corporations. He should like to know what could create discontent throughout the country, if conduct such as that would not. Every public sedition, that had spread, had always originated from an attack upon the civil rights of the people. Generally speaking, sections of the aristocracy had taken advantage of the circumstance, and placed themselves at the head of the people in the political movement. It was a most remarkable fact, however, that in the present instance there was no portion of the aristocracy whatever connected with the movement of the people; and yet there was a deep and a wide spread organization. What might be the cause of that, it was the duty of the House to inquire. The noble Lord was not only a political student, but an eminent historian. The noble Lord, it seemed, had discovered the cause of sedition. Far be it from him to cope with the noble Lord in endeavour-

177
ing to trace the pedigree of sedition; but he readily confessed, that he felt disposed to trace it to a higher source than Mr. Oastler. Yet true it was, that the noble Lord had traced it to the single efforts of that now celebrated personage. When the noble Lord ascribed the present discontent to the agitation which had taken place upon the Poor-law Amendment Act, he quite forgot the support and the means by which the Reform Bill had been carried. So far from the outbreak in Birmingham, for instance, being attributable to that agitation, every one who was at all acquainted with Birmingham, knew, that it was a subject which had produced less effect in that town than almost any other which had become matter of public discussion. There was a time, as they were all aware—namely, after the Reform Bill had passed that House—when they were told 200,000 men were to march from Birmingham, to assist the decision of the other House of Parliament, That was before Mr. Oastler's time. Well, it seemed that this great body militant were now about to arrive to assist the noble Lord in his decision; in what spirit the noble Lord would receive them, it was not for him to project. But when the noble Lord ascribed the present disturbances to a few demagogues, and to an Act passed more recently than the Reform Bill, he ought first to remember, that his predecessor had received a deputation from Birmingham, headed by a tricoloured flag. The noble Lord regarded the Chartists of England, as if they were the first body of men who had appealed to physical force, and as if physical force had not previously hastened many a man into place and power. With that idea, the noble Lord called upon all parties in that House to adhere together, and to invest the Government with fresh and invigorating powers. He talked as if the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had never appealed to the support of 500,000 fighting men. That, he must suppose, was an appeal on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman, to the intellect, the vigour, and the moral energy of his country. The people of this country, had, in fact, been debauched by agitation, which it had been the interest of a particular party to encourage. He did not mean to say, that that morbid feeling alone, would have produced the present result. But when those men who assisted
178
in carrying on a great revolution, found, that the change had only effected a systematic attack upon their rights—surprised at the result, they turned round upon their instigators, used the very weapons with which they had armed them, and had recourse to the arts and devices which they had taught them. They might depend upon it, that they had not that hold upon the mind of the people which would enable them to arrest their course whenever they pleased. It might not be flattering to their self-complacency to say, but it nevertheless must not be forgotten, that they were the youngest representative assembly in the world. They were younger even than the Chamber of Deputies in France. They bore the ancient title, it was true, of the House of Commons, but they had no prescriptive right to it. They could not appeal to what Lord Bacon styled "reverend antiquity." Instead of cultivating the affections of the people, and exciting their respect for antiquity which they naturally admired, they were perpetually taking away their rights, and disturbing the foundation of everything ancient in the nation. Formerly they were supported by an overwhelming majority of that House. What had since reduced the constitution of the country to a state of political paralysis, for that was the state which it was in at present? Who could deny, that all that could now be said of the once celebrated constitution of England, which certainly had been the pride of Englishmen, and which he believed had also been the admiration of Europe, was, that it was a system of polity under which the Sovereign could do no wrong, and the Government no right? The paralyzed state of the constitution was owing, as had been confessed by the hon. Member for Bridport himself, to the weakness of the Government, who he contended should either make larger concessions, or allow themselves to be displaced. A beneficial change from the present state of things, could only be effected by a strong Government. Whether Chartists required an agrarian republic—whether Whigs required place—or Tories power, one thing was certain, that the country required a Government. Unless they had a Government which could pass measures—a Government in nature, not in name (for who could pretend that the noble Lord

179
and his colleagues were a Government—what did they govern, or what did they administer?)—they could not expect the people to return to tranquillity. He was not ascribing this state of things to the personal faults of the noble Lord and his colleagues, but to the faults of their party. That state of things was the necessary consequences of a party which was opposed to the national institutions of the country. He did not so much accuse the Ministers of the Crown of attacking the institutions of the country, as of attacking the habits, manners, prejudices, and feelings of the people. Not a week passed in which some bill was not produced which outraged the prejudices of the nation. It was with views like these that he looked upon the present discontents, and it was with a mind occupied by reflections of this nature, that he considered them to be much more serious than his hon. Friends seemed disposed to admit. He was rendered the more alive to these dangers from seeing that the discontented portion of the people were without leaders. If a man of great and commanding abilities, of subtle mind, and of loose principles, appeared to stand forward as the instructor and the guide of the popular party, much of the existing discontent might be imputed to the influence of personal character; and when such a man disappeared, the great causes of popular commotion generally disappeared with him. The absence of this species of chief it was, which rendered the present feelings and sentiments manifested by the people in many parts of the country so much the more fearful, which imparted to them evidence of being in a far more inflamed state than if led on by an individual. A great portion of those who might be included amongst the discontented, were not men who could be reckoned on the fingers as those might, who had signed what was called the National Petition. There could be no doubt that a great section of the country—some three or four millions of the people—were under the influence of great discontent, and Parliament was about to prorogue, under circumstances which rendered it necessary that Parliament should be assembled. They had done nothing since they were called together. They had entered upon the business of the Session under circumstances of alarming colonial disturbance, and now they were on the point of separating, the whole nation was disaffected.
Mr. Ewartthought, that the hon. Member, in his stock of grievances, might have omitted the abolition of the ancient constabulary, who had gone to their political grave—the brethren of Dogberry and Verges. With one part of the hon. Member's speech he agreed, and that was, it was desirable to have a strong government—that it must be a government strong, not by coercion, by having enlisted in its favour the affections of the people. He deeply deplored that one of the characteristics of these times should be a division between the friends of a sound and rational reform. He regretted that the middle class of Reformers should be unhappily at variance with the more popular class, who seemed recently to have run wild—severing their connexion with those who might have guided them. He could not but lament, what seemed to be approaching, an isolation between the different parties, in which the extremes of wild liberalism drawing off on one side, and the high aristocracy on the other, the middle classes would be left alone. But he trusted that this would not be lasting, and that the spread of education would teach those who were disposed to violence, that it was not by a sanguinary movement that they could attain their end, but by a steady progress, founded on claims of substantial justice. Whatever wildness and enthusiasm might prevail, he believed there was some injustice at the bottom of it all; and where that was an ingredient in the condition of society, there could be no content. The real cause of discontent was the undue ascendancy of the landed interest, who had exclusive power in one House of Parliament, and a predominance in the other. He, for his own part, abjured violence, and hoped for improvements through the determination and energy of the really liberal part of the community. Believing the motion of his hon. Friend to be in accordance with these principles, he would give it his cordial support.
Sir H. Verneyexpressed his belief that the present disturbances had arisen entirely from the increase in the population not having been followed up by an adequate increase in that moral and religious instruction which the people ought to receive. These alone were the means by which peace and tranquillity could be obtained; and it was well known that in the disturbed districts sufficient moral and religious instruction were not afforded to the people.

181
He hoped, therefore, that the number of churches and chapels would be multiplied in the manufacturing districts, and that proper schools, for the education of all children, whether in connexion with the Established Church or Dissenters, would be established by the Government with as little loss of time as possible.
Mr. Humerose amidst loud cries of "Divide." He thought that the hon. Baronet had misrepresented the cause which the people had for discontent. The truth was that the contest now going on was one between the aristocracy and the democracy. The laws were made by the aristocracy, and what was the consequence? Why, that they oppressed the poor, and favoured the rich. In this country it might be said that industry was unprotected and oppressed, and sure he was, that unless they gave the people a larger share in the representation than they now had, discontent must continue.
Mr. W. Stanleysaid, that he believed the present disturbances were owing to the conduct of certain parties in that House in connexion with certain other parties out of it. These parties pressed for alterations in the constitution which it would be neither wise nor safe to make, and it was because they were unable to attain their object that they set the people against the laws. This was the true way in which to account for the present state of discontent which existed.
The House divided on the original motion: Ayes 51; Noes 29: Majority 22.

List of the Ayes.

Adam, Admiral

Macaulay, T. B.

Baring, F. T.

Mildmay, P. St. J.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Morpeth, Viscount

Bernal, R.

Palmer, C. F.

Broadley, H.

Palmerston, Viscount

Campbell, Sir J.

Parker, R. T.

Chichester, J. P. B.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir S.

Dalmeney, Lord

Pigot, D. R.

Donkin, Sir R. S.

Praed, W. P.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Price, Sir R.

Fitzpatrick, J. W.

Pryme, G.

Gordon, R.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Henniker, Lord

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Hinde, J. H.

Rumbold, C. E.

Hobhouse, right hon. Sir J.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Russell, Lord J.

Hodgson, R.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Hoskins, K.

Seymour, Lord

Howard, P. H.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Howard, Sir R.

Smith, R. V.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Lushington, rt. hn. S.

Steuart, R.

182

Thomson, rt. hn. C. P.

Wood, Colonel

Thompson, Alderman

Worsley, Lord

Verney, Sir H.

Waddington, H. S.

TELLERS.

Wood, C.

Stanley, E. J.

Wood, G. W.

Parker, J.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Jervis, S.

Attwood, T.

Lushington, C.

Bridgeman, H.

Muskett, G. A.

Brotherton, J.

O'Connell, D.

Currie, R.

O'Connell, J.

Easthope, J.

O'Connell, M. J.

Ellis, W.

Scholefield, J.

Ewart, W.

Thornely, T.

Fielden, J.

Vigors, N. A.

Finch, F.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Hawes, B.

Wakley, T.

Hector, C. J.

Warburton, H.

Hill, Lord A. M. C.

Williams, W.

Hindley, C.

TELLERS.

Hollond, R.

Duncombe, hon. W.

Hutt, W.

Hume, J.

House in Committee of Ways and Means.
The annual votes were agreed to, the House resumed and adjourned.

MINUTES.
Bills. Head a first time:—Poor-law Commission Continuance.—Read a second time;—Dublin Police; Metropolitan Police Courts; Judge's Lodgings.—Read a third time:—Soldiers' Pensions; Postage Duties; Public Works (Ireland).
Petitions presented. By Lord Hatherton, from Dumbarton, and other places, by the Duke of Richmond, from Hereford, and other places, for a Reduction of the rate

133
of Postage.—By Lord Brougham, from John Taylor, complaining of being Unjustly Apprehended by the Birmingham Police.—By the Duke of Richmond, from a body of Postmasters, for the Repeal of the Post-horse Duty.

DIVINE SERVICE.
The Archbishop of Canterbury having presented a petition for the better observance of the Sabbath, from Cheltenham,
Lord Ellenboroughsaid, he should take this opportunity of alluding to a provision in the law in reference to churches. He alluded to that enactment which subjected a person to a penalty for having divine service performed in his house before more than twenty persons. He was quite certain there were many persons who would have divine service performed in their houses if it were not from fear of that provision. He had himself incurred the risk of the penalty for four years, but did not choose to run it any longer. This was not all; a person was not at liberty to build a church, and put a clergyman into it, unless he endowed that church as a place of divine worship for ever. This he regarded as a great hardship. If the right rev. Prelate would alter that law, he would set about building a church to-morrow, which he would maintain as long as he lived, but would not pledge himself to provide for it beyond his own life; but if that law were not altered, he never would build one.
The Archbishop of Canterburysaid, the proposition of the noble Lord was one that required a great deal of consideration; but any proposition that might come regularly from the noble Lord on the subject should have his best attention. There might be great inconveniences attending such an alteration of the law. One would be, that there would be a great number of conventicles established throughout the country, and many of the richer persons would not go to parish churches, which, in example, would have an injurious effect. Endowments for churches were required to ensure their perpetual use as churches. If the law were to be altered in this respect, piousminded and liberal persons like the noble Lord opposite, might build and maintain churches during their life-time, which afterwards might become deserted, and be converted into storehouses for goods, or other purposes wholly unconnected with religion. That which at first was thought to be a very easy change, was often found
134
to be, when set about, attended with insurmountable difficulties.
Lord Ellenboroughobserved, that the right rev. Prelate might easily conceive that he felt a good deal of difficulty on this subject, as he was extremely desirous of the change, and yet he did not happen to differ from the Church of England in one single point.
Lord Rodenhoped the right rev. Prelate would take this subject into his most serious consideration. It was a most severe and improper state of the law, that persons, for having more than twenty persons in their houses, for the purpose of divine worship, should be subject to the penalty of 50 l., when they might have persons in any number in their houses, to act plays, or to amuse themselves in any other way whatever. If there was such an alteration made in the law as would allow persons to assemble in private houses for religious purposes, instead of injuring churches, he believed it would be greatly to their advantage, because, if persons were to be made religious at their houses, they would be sure to go to Church.
Lord Hathertonanxiously added his entreaty to his noble Friend's opposite, that the right rev. Prelate would take this matter into his grave consideration. He himself had experienced much difficulty from the present state of the law, and if that state were altered, he would himself immediately build three chapels in neighbourhoods with which he was connected, where there were very extensive populations, and where those populations suffered greatly from not having chapels.
The Archbishop of Canterburyobserved, that two very different things were now brought under consideration; one was that of being at liberty to build chapels, and to open them without endowing them, and the other was that of gentlemen, or other persons, being at liberty to open their own houses for the performance of divine service therein. He did not at the moment feel himself at liberty to express any opinion upon subjects that involved so many important considerations. As to a gentleman being at liberty to open his house for divine service, it would be liable to this abuse—that if he quarrelled with the clergyman of the parish he would immediately open a conventicle, and if he were a man of influence, he could draw a great many of the parishioners away from the parish church to his conventicle, and which

135
latter would be open just so long as that gentleman's difference continued with the clergyman. He only begged to be excused from giving any opinion at present on either subject, and more particularly from being considered to give a favourable opinion to gentlemen being at liberty to open their houses for divine worship; but he, and he was sure the rest of the rev. Bench, would be quite ready to treat any question of this kind that might be brought forward, and considered for the benefit of the Church, according to its merits.
Lord Ellenboronghsaid, that his house was two miles from the parish church; the road between the two was almost impassable in the winter time, and of the seventy or eighty persons in his house, he believed that hardly one of them went to the parish church in that season of the year.
Lord Hathertonsaid, many parish churches were deserted from the incapacity of the clergyman; and many persons had become Dissenters from that same cause.
The Archbishop of Canterbury thought, that that might be a ground for the noble Lord applying to the Society for employing additional curates.
Subject dropped.