Sitting of 15 June 1841

MINUTES.
Bills. Head a first time:—-Railways (Ireland). Read a third time: — Election Petitions; Appropriation; Militia Pay.

WINDSOR GREAT PARK.
Colonel Salweywished to ask the Secretary of the Treasury a question which was not only of personal concern to himself, but in which the public were also materially concerned. It was a matter of notoriety that there was a public highway through Windsor Great Park which led from Staines to Reading, through Egham and Inglefield-green. On Wednesday night last he was passing along this road in a carriage, and when he arrived at the Bishop's-gate he found it locked, and he was kept waiting until some one came to open it full five minutes. The person who appeared spoke to him with rudeness, and told him that he had no right to be there after ten o'clock at night, and that he might go through for that time, but he should not in future. Now, he thought that there must be a great assumption of power on the part of somebody connected with the park to cause all this; it looked as if there was an intention to defraud the public of a
1520
valuable road. What he wanted to know of the Secretary of the Treasury was, by whose order and whose authority that gate was shut after ten o'clock at night.
Mr. E. J. Stanleysaid, that the keeper had no authority to act as the hon. Member had represented, and his conduct must have originated in some mistake, which he would take care to see rectified. The gate, he believed, was always closed at twelve o'clock, in order to prevent the deer from escaping. He would, however, inquire into the matter.
Subject at an end.

DISTRESS OF THE COUNTRY.
Mr. Scholefieldsaid, he had to apologize to the House for his own inability to do justice to the motion he had to make. He could assure the House there was vast and extensive suffering in the manufacturing districts of the country, although the word distress was as seldom heard within those walls as was the mention of the national debt, yet it was doubtless owing to the national debt that so much distress existed. Not only had the distress been extensive, but it now affected the home trade as well as the foreign. In fact, so much money was required to procure food at the present high price of corn, that there was little left to buy clothes with, and consequently, the demand for the home trade was proportionately curtailed; nor was the foreign trade in a better condition than the home trade. We had now competitors in every market with which we traded, and unfortunately were undersold in too many of them. The German manufacturers of hardware could take their goods to all parts of the globe, and there undersell the English; they could even introduce articles of cutlery at Sheffield on lower terms than our own manufacturers could supply them. And what gave the advantage to our foreign competitors? We had equal industry, equal skill, and as much capital as foreigners possessed; but our industrious artisans could not buy their bread and the necessaries of life so cheaply as they were sold in other countries. Whilst our workmen had to pay 9d. for a loaf that was to be purchased for 5d. or 6d. on the continent, and while he had to pay more than half for tax on his tobacco, tea, and beer, and one-third tax on the little sugar he could obtain, he was unable to live so cheaply as those in other countries who had not such heavy imposts to pay,

1521
He was not able to say how far the pressure of taxes bore upon agricultural labourers, but doubtless, with their very limited wages, they could not spare money for scarcely any other object than for the necessaries of life. There was one feature in the existing distress, as it affected the commerce and manufactures of the country, which was, that distress had fallen upon the shopkeeper and the master manufacturer, on whom it pressed almost as severely as it had done, and then did, upon the workmen. He would read to the House some letters which had been transmitted to him from several of his constituents, showing how prevailing the distress of trade was in the borough of Birmingham:—
" The condition of the inhabitants of Birmingham is more deplorable than ever. Cruel mortgagees are disposing of property on which they have advanced money for less than one-third of its value, or rather, I should say, they are purchasing buildings at that rate. In consequence of trade being so bad, and levies and taxes so high, mortgagers have not been able to be punctual in the payment of interest; their property has been advertised to be sold, and no sale being practicable, a legal process has been gone through, and the property been transferred from the legitimate owner to the mortgagee, and this has been the case lately in a great many instances. Trade is daily getting worse. Whilst the number of bankrupts is less, the number of insolvents is greater, in all the manufacturing districts, and the poor debtors are crying ' make room, the prison is too small for us.' This was actually the case in Birmingham only a few weeks ago, when the commissioners held a Court for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors, and those miserable men have been sent forth into the world pennyless, and nothing but an alteration in trade can prevent their coming to the workhouse. Although it was so recently emptied of its inmates, there is a fresh succession of unfortunate debtors, many of whom have lived respectably, and contributed largely to the payment of taxes and poor-rates, to the benefit of the community, but who are now about to perish in obscurity. Tradesmen, with very few exceptions, are in jeopardy every hour. They apply to the pawnbrokers in vain, for these have granted loans till they have no money to lend, and the consequence is, all the heads of families are in ill health, and medicine is of no avail. ' Hope deferred maketh the heart sick,' and one need not be skilled in phisiognomy to be able to discern, by a man's countenance, that he considers himself standing on a quicksand, and, unless he his unexpectedly supported, that he must shortly Sink."
The working classes, too, as might be
1522
expected, when the manufacturers were going to decay, were sustaining a most painful degree of suffering, and the description of those unfortunate persons who had recourse to the aid of the pawnbroker is truly affecting. He would read a statement to the House which had been made to him on the subject. The hon. Member here read the following documents, in order to prove the distressed state of various parts of the country:—
" A list of one week's pledges at one shop, containing sixty-five pledges, out of which only two lots exceeded 3s. each. Upwards of thirty pledges are gowns, shifts, women's petticoats, and children's frocks; the rest are shawls, men's waistcoats, and jackets, a bedcover, a pillow, a wedding ring, and other small articles, the whole averaging only 1s. 9d. each in value.
" Birmingham contains ninety-four pawnbrokers, and if each has sixty-five pledges per week, the weekly number of the town, of small pledges, not exceeding 3s. each, exceeds 6,000."
A former statement sent him shewed that the master manufacturers had so many goods in pawn, already, that the pawnbrokers are unable to find further money to advance upon them. As an instance of the great distress in Birmingham, he would refer to a letter that had been written to a Clergyman of that town:—
" A week has passed, and you have vouchsafed us no reply. Nine weeks have gone since the Committee concluded its labours, reporting, that they had found above 40,000 individuals so miserable as to be grateful— yes, humbly grateful—for a donation of less than 1¼d. per head per week. Nine weeks have passed since that report; trade during that period has actually grown worse, and nothing has been done! no attempt has been made to relieve !
" We pray you to consider bow ill such poverty brooks delay; how many miseries and anxieties, crowding in each successive hour, have made each week an age. Some victims of our neglect have, in that period, found refuge in the grave. No ministration of earthly comfort soothed their last mortal agony; the aid, for which affection yearned, a necessitous poverty denied—they rest—but, to the living is left the undying regret—that the thousand appliances which might have restored health, or softened pain, were all denied.
" The productions of every climate, tributary to our industry, and plastic to our skill, fill every store with the means of enjoyment, and yet, English poverty is as unequalled as English wealth.
" Workmen, with large families, are receiving from six to eleven shillings per week, and

1523
would be able, if they could work full time, to earn from 15 s. to 30 s. per week. How these families live and pay rent can only be answered by the poor creatures themselves. I know they are obliged to crowd together in dwellings not fit for hogs to litter in. I know places called Chambers, wherein different families of both sexes, and of all ages, are compelled to pass the night at the same time. Is not this enough to make Chartists? Is not this enough to demoralize the people?
" At the Board of Guardians, yesterday, a young woman applied for relief, whose husband had been three weeks in prison for a debt due for provisions; he has nine weeks longer to remain; himself and his wife are steady people; they have two small children. The Guardians thought the woman appeared almost lost for want: they allowed her three shillings, and two loaves, per week, for nine weeks—not sufficient, after paying for lodgings, to keep body and soul together! more could not be allowed to her, as levies are so high, and many persons who pay them stand in need of parochial relief.
" Last week a young wife died in childbirth; her time was come, but, for want of strength, she was not able to bring forth-—a physician was called in but his assistance was unavailing—he said, he had no doubt her death was occasioned by deficiency of nourishment.',
An hon. Baronet lately said to him (Mr. Scholefield) that he had never been paid his rents better than at present. He (Mr. Scholefield) replied that profit to the merchant and manufacturer was the same as rent to the landlord, and he assured the worthy Baronet that profit had long fled from the tradesman. He was told that no sooner was a farm vacant than a tenant applied for it. How different was the situation of the owner of dwelling houses and manufactories, too many of which were empty and profitless to their owners! He would remind the House of an entire new state of things with regard to the conduct of persons constituting public meetings. They, too, had their motions of "no confidence" in either party. They disliked both Whig and Tory equally, but would prefer voting for the Tory now, and would doubtless duly reject them when their own proper time came. At a recent meeting at Birmingham, a resolution was passed not to vote for the abolition of the Corn-laws. The majority preferred a very different measure; they considered the Corn-law question delusive, and would be satisfied with nothing less than univertal suffrage. Exactly similar was the result of a meeting at Sheffield, at which the "no-confidence" in either party was the prevail-
1524
ing feeling. A meeting had recently taken place at Liverpool, which proved how well informed the persons were who were present on the occasion: a working man of the name of Jones addressed the meeting in a manner which testified strong sense and showed how much he felt the hardship of the severe suffering himself and persons of his class were subject to from (as he said) the oppressive effects of the Corn-laws. What Mr. Jones spoke was so much to the purpose that he should take the liberty to read it to the House:—
" At a late meeting at Liverpool of the working classes, the chairman said, that the next speaker, Robert Jones, though a man well able to express his views on this great question, was unable to read, and he, the chairman, would therefore move the resolution for him: 'That these laws, which wring from the wants of the poor, in order to support a monopoly to the wealthy, are cruel, unchristian, and unjust; alike opposed to the word of God and the happiness of man.' Robert Jones, in moving the adoption of this resolution, said, that like some hundreds, if not thousands, of those present, all the property that he had in the world he had with him—all the estate that God and his father had left him on the earth, and that English landlords would allow him, he held up to them (holding up his hands). These were all his property, and he found that, in consequence of the Corn-laws and other wicked laws, he was robbed of so much of the produce of his estate that he and his children had to rise many a time from the table with half-filled bellies. This was not a cause of party or faction, it was the cause of the whole human family—it was the cause of justice and truth, of God and of humanity. A tax upon bread; a tax upon life itself—a tax upon the very existence of the working man—a tax on Eternal Justice and on the providence of God! God sent untaxed rain to water the earth; God brought untaxed corn out of the earth; God had spread a bountiful table for the whole family of man on the face of the earth—but man put his avaricious hand on the bread, and snatched it from the hungry lips of the people of England."
It had been said, that poverty had made philosophers of the suffering artisans, and the speech of Mr. Jones proves how intelligent an uneducated man may be. To show how general is the interest felt by all classes and sexes, he would mention the petition from 450 females of Bridgenorth, presented by his hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow, describing the severe distress which their husbands, fathers, sons, and brothers were undergoing from want of employment and low wages. How great is the contrast between the splendid ap-

1525
pearance which Hyde-park, Regent's park and street, and such like places of fashionable resort, and the miserable abodes of the distressed manufacturers ! Truly was it said by the writer of the letter to the Rev. Mr. Garbett of Birmingham, "English wealth is as unequalled as is English poverty." How just was the observation ! how painful the reflection that arose from it! The question which naturally presented itself in considering this striking contrast of splendour and the most squalid misery was, what remedy can be applied to so mighty an evil? Doubtless, where wealth was so abundant as in this country, it would be no difficult matter to spare out of their superfluity rather than require a portion of the poor man's means of existence to be taken from him. A property tax would relieve this cruel oppression upon those who are unable, under their great privations, to pay taxes at all. This would at once be an act of justice and of mercy. He had been told, that the present motion could lead to no practical good; but he felt satisfied that, if it excited an expression of sympathy for the poor sufferers, it would not be without its use: if it did no more than keep hope alive in the breast of the afflicted, it would at least do some good. He should conclude by moving
" That the extreme suffering of the industrious classes, from want of employment, low wages, and high prices of provisions, renders it the imperative duty of Parliment to devise means for the alleviation of the great misery which now pervades all the manufacturing districts of the country.''
Mr. Williamsseconded the motion. He did not intend to have spoken, but being well aware of the prevailing distress, although no practical benefit could result from the motion with the present prospects of the House, he could not refrain from giving it his support. The cause of the existing destitute condition of the lower orders, and especially of the manufacturing classes, was the excessive burden of taxation they were compelled to sustain. They were taxed by the State, and they were taxed also by the landed aristocracy to an amount very nearly equal to the taxation imposed by the State. He had himself been an astonished witness of the rapid progress of manufactures in some parts of Europe, and the same remark would apply to America. He could not, there
1526
fore, help looking forward with great apprehension to the competition to which this country might in a short time be exposed. Unless something were speedily done to relieve the lower orders from the load under which they now groaned, it would be impossible for them to contend against the manufactures of foreign countries. In Switzerland, the greater part of Germany, and in the United States, the price of provisions and the other necessaries of life was scarcely half as much as in Great Britain. A great change was inevitable; but when he saw the late proposition of Government for the relief of the people as regarded sugar and corn rejected by the House, what hope could he have of any benefit proceeding from such a source? He had shown, on a former occasion, that in Switzerland, Germany, and the United States, in the article of sugar only, the inhabitants paid 100 per cent, less than the inhabitants of this country. The recent decision of the House had convinced the people that nothing was to be hoped from it: discontent was, therefore, increasing in every quarter amongst those who were unable to procure even the bare necessaries of life. Something must be done to improve the condition of the millions of the working classes, or property and the valuable institutions of the country would be endangered. Most of the historians of the time attributed the first French revolution to the undue pressure of taxation, because the aristocracy relieved themselves at the expense of those who were much worse able to sustain the burden. The present state of taxation in this country was much the same. Of the fifty-two millions raised by taxes, not far from the whole was obtained from the middling and industrious classes. True it was, that the higher orders paid taxes upon certain articles, but in many instances, from 100 to 200 per cent, less than was paid upon the articles by the lower orders. The reason was, that taxation was regulated, not by the value, but by the quality of the article taxed, and the aristocracy having the power of making the laws, took care to exempt itself from the chief part of the weight. Moreover, the tax paid to the landowners upon corn only, was much larger than the whole amount of taxes those landowners contributed to the State. He had felt it necessary to make these few remarks, but he was aware that the House was not disposed to treat the

1527
matter with that seriousness which its importance demanded.
The question having been put,
Mr. Hindley: Mr. Speaker, It is because I agree in the opinion expressed by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Williams) that the resolution of my hon. Friend, the Member for Birmingham, is not sufficiently practical, that I am anxious to propose the addition of which I have given notice. For, Sir, if the distress at present existing arises from no fault of this House, however warmly we may express our sympathy with the industrious classes, it will be useless, if we cannot by legislation, give them some relief. Believing, however, that much of this distress arises from the present system of legislation, I am desirous to have the proposition I have advanced, adopted by the House. And though this addition itself embraces no practical details, it appears to me that its adoption by the House at the present time would have a practical effect. When the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Robert Peel,) proposed his motion of want of confidence in the Government, he neither proposed to address her Majesty for the removal of her Ministers, nor for the exercise of her prerogative of dissolving this House, though it was certain, that one or the other of these results must follow his motion, if successful. In the same way, I conceive that if the House adopt my addition, the practical result must be a revision of the whole of our taxation, whatever party may be in office. Sir, there are two great parties in the State struggling for power; and I fearlessly tell them both, that it would be utterly impossible for either to hold the reins, except they act on the principle that taxation should be just to all classes of the community. The present system of taxation presses most unequally on the different classes of society, and, most unjustly on the middle and lower classes. The duty of removing this injustice at the present time is exceedingly increased by the extremely depressed state of these classes. The House has heard the melancholy and lengthened details of the hon. Member for Birmingham; and it is unnecessary for me to do more than to confirm their truth from my own personal knowledge. Representing as I do, an extensive manufacturing district, and intimately acquainted, as I am, with the state of the labouring classes, I must say, that
1528
never within the period of my recollection, have I witnessed such severe and such general distress. I may be allowed to add one fact in proof of the extreme depression which prevails in trade, that the cotton-mill property near Manchester, alluded to the other night by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, (Mr. Brotherton), which originally cost one hundred and twenty thousand pounds has, since that debate been sold for twenty-six thousand pounds! Sir, I am not about to complain at present of the amount of taxation, although that is excessive, so much as of the unequal manner in which it is levied. The Government of the country cannot be considered in a state of safety as long as the taxation of the country is regulated, not according to the principles of justice, but according as certain class interests preponderate, more or less, in this House. I have been much struck with a passage in the able report of "The Hand-loom Weavers' Commission," which I will venture to read to the House. Alluding to the political theories of the present day, the commissioners say,
" We feel that the state of mind which they indicate, deserves serious attention. The Government of this country resides in a minority, and a narrow minority; the owners of land, a small portion of the community, constitute, almost exclusively, one House of Parliament, and form a large majority in the other. Such a Government can be safe only while it is popular; and popular only while it is believed to be impartial. Its first prudential duty is to avoid even the appearance of selfish legislation."
Now, Sir, let us inquire how far this principle is acted upon, with reference to the middle and lower classes of society. It it well known to the House, that, in the year 1833, the late Mr. Cobbett exposed to the House and the country, the injustice occasioned by the existing stamp-duties. That injustice was admitted by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, who promised it should be remedied. Has this been done? Has any attention whatever been paid to it? No. Eight years have elapsed, and the injustice continues to the present moment. That the House may judge of the amount of this injustice, permit me to call its attention to some particulars of the various stamp-duties. The rate of duty upon a conveyance of property of ten pounds value, is ten per cent.; while it is only one per cent, on a con-

1529
veyance of property of two thousand pounds value! The rate of duty on mortgages is ten pounds per cent, upon the raising of ten pounds; whilst it is only six shillings per cent, on a loan of two thousand pounds, and sixpence per cent, only upon a mortgage of one hundred thousand pounds! And the low amount of stamp-duty upon large mortgages, as compared with that upon large conveyances, cannot but excite a suspicion that this had been purposely done by the landed Gentlemen, who rarely sell their property, but who, from family engagements and other causes, have frequently to raise money upon it. The stamp-duty on bills of a low amount, say, twenty pounds, is ten shillings per cent.; on ten thousand pounds, it is threepence-halfpenny per cent.; and three-fourths of the amount of stamp-duty on bills, is raised from bills averaging seventy-five pounds. Can anything, Sir, show more clearly the unequal pressure borne, in this particular, by small tradesmen? The same remark applies to the stamp duty on receipts, which is five shillings per cent, upon ten pounds, and five farthings per cent, on ten thousand pounds ! It appears, therefore, that the man who sells ten pounds worth of property, pays, on the conveyance, ten times as much in proportion as the man who sells one hundred thousand; that the man who borrows on mortgage ten pounds, pays four hundred times as much in proportion as the man who borrows one hundred thousand pounds; and that the man who gives his bill or receipt for ten pounds, pays four hundred and eighty times as much in proportion as he who gives his bill or receipt for one hundred thousand pounds ! These are but specimens of similar unjust disproportions in stamp duties, on annuities, insurances, probates, auctions, &c, &c. Nor is the injustice committed by the present system of taxation less on the lower than on the middle classes. And, allow me to remind hon. Members, that this portion of the community is not represented in this House. Out of five millions of the adult male population, four millions have no votes. I am not now going to inquire into the justice or injustice of keeping this majority of our fellow-countrymen out of the pale of the constitution, however strong my opinion upon this point may be; but I do call upon hon. Members to admit, that the fact of their not being represented
1530
in this House, renders it doubly the duty of the House to be careful not to do them injustice. If the House lakes advantage of its power, to draw more in proportion out of their pockets than out of the pockets of other classes, it adds injustice to insult, and inflicts upon them a double wrong. Now, how stands the fact? If, Sir, I were to ask hon. Members, individually, whether the shilling of the poor man ought to go as far as the shilling of the rich man, I am sure every hon. Gentleman would answer in the affirmative; and that, if there should be any difference, it ought to be in favour of the poor; and I cannot believe, that the House, collectively, would express a different opinion. I feel persuaded that hon. Members are not aware of the extent of the injustice done to the lower classes, by the present system of taxation. In order to give a practical illustration of this injustice, I have furnished myself with a statement which I requested a highly respectable grocer in this city to prepare, of the various articles he is in the habit of supplying to rich and poor families, with the prices of those articles, and the rates of duty on each. I confess that I read the statement with much surprise, in which I think the House will participate; but, after a careful examination, I cannot discover that its truth can be invalidated. He writes,
" A poor woman, a widow, earning her living by washing for families at their own abodes, and having two young children to support, generally purchases, weekly, the following articles, and this is about the usual proportion which poor persons of that class consume in a week;—

s.

d.

Duty out of

s.

d.

2 oz. of tea, at 4s. per lb.

0

6

which is

0

3¼

1 lb. of sugar

0

6

do.

0

2½

2 oz. of coffee, 1s. 8d per lb.

0

2½

do.

0

1

1 oz. of pepper, occasionally

0

1

do.

0

⅜

1 lb. of raisins

0

4

do.

0

1⅜

Total

1

7 ½

0

8¾

Being at the rate of 44 percent., or; 5½d. out of every shilling. The same kind of articles supplied to persons of the higher classes would be as follows; —

s.

d.

Duty out of

s.

d.

1 lb. of tea

8

0

which is

2

2¼

1 lb. of the best sugar

1

2

do.

0

3

1 lb of coffee

2

6

do.

0

8

1 lb. of Muscatel raisins

1

6

do.

0

1⅝

1 lb. of while pepper

3

0

do.

0

6

Total

16

2

3

8⅞

Being about 23 per cent, or 2¾d in every 1s.
So that the House will perceive, that when the poor woman places her shilling upon the counter of the grocer she

1531
receives back 6½d. worth of goods, and the the Government takes the remaining 5½d. When the rich man pays his shilling to the same grocer for the same description of articles, he receives 9¼d. in goods, which is almost half as much again as the poor woman receives, the Slate being content with 2¾d. out of his shilling, though it had just before taken 5½d. out of hers. And the evil does not end here, for the grocer is obliged to have a profit on the extra capital which the duty requires him to employ. This disproportion in taxation is a slate of things not to be endured; and, until a change be made, there can be no safety for the State. It is all very well to talk about Chartism, or any other symptom of discontent with the present state of things, but they are the inevitable consequences of the wrongs inflicted upon the masses. Let justice be done to the lower orders, and there will be nothing to fear. But of all the injustice which is committed on the labouring classes, that caused by the Corn-laws I hold to be the greatest. It is not my intention to enter into the whole of the argument on this question, or in any way to interfere with my hon. Friend, the Member for Wolverhampton, (Mr. Villiers,) whose zeal, ability, and discretion, in its management, entitle him to the highest praise. But I cannot let the Session close without expressing my opinion upon the subject, seeing how the expected debate in this House was cushioned by the motion of the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Robert Peel) which motion was obviously brought on for that purpose; and also, because I see the most asiduous efforts are made out of doors to impress the working classes, that they are not interested in the repeal of these laws. I deeply regret that the expected debate did not come on in this House. I had hoped, that even after the debate on the motion of the right hon. Baronet, it would have been in the power of the Government to bring forward the question. On more mature consideration, however, I felt convinced that they ought to enter on no new business, but appeal to the country at the earliest possible period. I do think, however, that it would have been much better that the discussion should have taken place here, than out of doors. In this House, error would have been corrected; falsehood refuted; exaggeration reduced to (act! misrepresentation exposed; and the truth, elicited by the collision of facts
1532
and opinions, would have been prominently placed before the country. But now exertions of the strongest description are being made out of doors to inflame the public mind by gross exaggerations and ex-parte statements. Amongst these efforts perhaps the greatest is, to make the labouring classes believe, that they are in no way interested in an alteration of the present Corn-laws. A greater fallacy was never attempted to be palmed upon them; and I have too much faith in their good sense, to believe, that such an assertion could have any weight with them whatever. I think one of the greatest advantages to be derived from an alteration in the present system, would be steadiness in price. It is evident, that the more you extend the field of production, the more likely are you to have steadiness of prices. If, for instance, you confine your production of wheat solely to the county of Buckingham, there would be great unsteadiness of prices. In the same manner, if the production were limited to light soils, in some years the produce would be small, in consequence of bad seasons; whilst, in the same way, if its production were limited to heavy soils, the same result would follow. Whereas, by adopting all soils, all climates, and all countries, you secure the bounties of Providence to the utmost possible extent. The advantage to the labourer of steadiness of price can scarcely be fully appreciated. If he buy bread one year at 1½d. per lb., and another year at 2d., and a third at 2½d., it signifies not, to tell him that the average price has been 2d.; for the effect upon his comforts and habits has been very injurious. With such fluctuation in the price of the main necessary of life, it is utterly impossible, Sir, that you can ever expect the labourer to be prudent and thrifty, because it is out of his power properly to accommodate his expenditure to his fluctuating income. In order to exhibit to the House the intimate connection which exists between the prosperity of the manufacturing population and a moderate price of corn, I beg leave to read to the House some statements which I have prepared from my own practical knowledge as a man of business. In the years 1817, 1818, and 1819, the prices of wheat were 84 s. 9d.,84 s. 1d., and 73 s. per quarter, and trade was in a deplorable condition. In 1821, 1822, and 1823, the prices were, 56 s. 1d., 44 s. 1d., 53 s. 5d., per quarter, and trade was good. In 1829, and 1830,

1533
the prices were 66 s. 3d., and 64 s. 3d. per quarter, and trade was again depressed. In 1833, 1834, and 1835, the prices were low, varying from 52 s. 11 d. to 39 s. 4d., and trade was extremely flourishing. In 1838, 1839, and 1840, prices were 64 s. 1d., 70 s. 8d., and 66 s. 4d. per quarter; and I need not tell the House how deplorable was the state of trade. It is not to be wondered at, that these were the results of the fluctuations in the price of corn. I have obtained an account of the expenditure of a man and his family, in London, whose weekly wages amount to 20 s. Of this amount 8s. 6d. are expended in bread and meat; 2s. 6d. in grocery; 1s. in butter; 1s. in vegetables; 1s. 3d. in beer; 3s. in rent; and 2s. 9d. only in clothing. But, if the price of food rises beyond the ordinary level, he is unable to spend even this sum, and the demand for manufactures falls off to the extent of the advance. I need not tell the House how large a sum this would make in the aggregate of all the labourers in the kingdom. But the evil of the manufacturing labourer does not end here; not only is he unable to spend the ordinary sum in clothing—not only does he suffer from the diminished demand of the rest of the community, in consequence of the high price of food, but he is frequently unable to obtain any employment. Every manufacturer is intent on reducing his expenses by doing away with all superfluous hands. He couples his spinning-wheels, improves his machinery, and takes every possible means of lessening the number of persons in his employ. Thus a large number are thrown out of work, and are obliged to depend on the precarious subsistence furnished by charity. Individuals have frequently applied to me in a most distressed condition, stating that they had been discharged from their employ in consequence of these circumstances; and many instances I could name in which the parties had been twenty-four hours without tasting bread. Now, if a regular importation of corn were allowed, many of these evils would be removed, and many of the temporary inconveniences arising from the improvements in machinery alleviated. It is unjust that the labourer should be prevented from exchanging his productions for the corn of other countries; and I fully believe, that an alteration of the Corn-laws will effect that which all must have in view; namely, the maintenance of the people of this
1534
country in a state of comfort and independence, instead of the deplorable condition to which numbers are reduced. One word as to the condition of the agricultural labourer. The demand for his labour is necessarily limited by the fact, that land is incapable of enlargement. The census of 1831 showed a diminution of upwards of thirty-five thousand persons employed in agriculture. My opinion is, that the census of the present year will show a similar result. It becomes the landed Gentlemen, then, seriously to consider what is to be done with the surplus population of the agricultural districts. The evil arising there from led to the passing of the present Poor-law; a measure which was certainly intended to raise and improve the value of land, and it has had that effect. But I candidly declare to the House my firm conviction, that had it not been for the large expenditure occasioned by the formation of railways, which have absorbed the unemployed agricultural labourers, it would have been impossible to have carried into effect this harsh and oppressive measure. But, when the forty millions of capital raised by the railway companies, which by the way has all been derived from the manufacturing and commercial interests, and the expenditure of which will prove so beneficial to the landed interest,—I ask, when all this capital has been expended, what do you intend to do with the surplus agricultural population? Do you intend to have another migration scheme, by which you may transport them from Buckinghamshire to Lancashire? I tell you, there is not, and will not be any employment for them there, because you will not suffer the produce of Lancashire labour to be freely exchanged for the produce of other countries. Sir, I have always considered that the Poor-law ought to be viewed in connection with the Corn-law. To punish poverty as a crime, is at all times unjust; but to punish it after it has been caused by your own legislation, resembles the tying of a man's hands behind his back, and then whipping him because he does not earn his own subsistence. I think that the country has a right to know from the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel,) whether he intends to continue the present Poor-law—the restrictions on trade—and whether he intends to abide by the present Corn laws? The right hon. Baronet, whom I am sorry not now to see in his place, should tell the

1535
House whether he is encouraging Sir George Murray at Manchester in advocating a fixed duty, or his agricultural supporters in the counties in their adherence to the present Corn-laws. In his absence, perhaps, the right hon. Baronet, (Sir James Graham,) who is no doubt in his confidence, will inform the House of his intention on these subjects. For my own part, I will say sincerely, that if the right hon. Baronet should come into power, and will bring forward measures in conformity with the views which I have stated to-night, however much I might oppose him on measures of a less liberal character, on these he shall have my decided support. It was said the other night, that party spirit was beneficial to the country, and the right hon. Baronet, quoting from a book published by the noble Lord, said "that the collision of party gave vigour to the constitution." With this sentiment I cannot agree; for in the heal of party, hon. Gentlemen are too apt to forget that they are natives of the same land, and ought to endeavour to promote the common good of their fellow-countrymen. I call upon hon. Members to forsake and forget party strife, and to let the love of their country prevail over every selfish feeling, making it their constant aim to promote the happiness and well being of the great body of the people. From the terms of the motion, I have spoken chiefly of the labouring classes of the community. I have said little of those who have hazarded great stakes in the manufactures of the country. One word, however, I will add respecting them. You may, by a bad course of legislation, involve these individuals in ruin; you may diminish the value of their property; you may cripple and destroy the trade and manufactures of the country; but who will suffer in the end? The burden of supporting an unemployed and impoverished population must eventually fall on the land. The agriculturists will become chargeable with their maintenance; and neither by your Poor-laws, nor your schemes of migration, or emigration, will you be able to save yourselves from falling under the burden of supporting the suffering masses around you.
Sir F. Burdettsaid, that after the long and discursive speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down, he should certainly endeavour to condense what little he bad to address to the House, into the
1536
smallest compass possible. The hon. Member for Birmingham seemed to him to have proposed a motion, which could have no other object but that of being a mere vehicle for the expression of his own peculiar views and sentiments with respect to the distressed portion of the population of this country; and he must confess that he concurred in those expressions of sympathy, and he believed that every man, in and out of the House, lamented the existence of that distress as much as the hon. Member himself. But all that could be said in reply to them was, "Will you point out the means by which that distress can be removed? Will you offer some remedy, or some suggestion by which the House may be led to guess at a remedy for the evils complained of?" While, however, he was quite willing to join the hon. Member in his expressions of regret at the condition of the poor, inasmuch as it might afford some consolation to those, at least, who thought that their grievances might be redressed, if the attention of Parliament were directed towards them; and while, in that view of the subject, he might express his readiness to agree with the motion of the hon. Member for Birmingham, still he thought he had some reason to complain of the practice of hon. Members coming down to the House, and delivering speeches generally containing unfounded insinuations against the upper classes of society, and making it appear, that landlords, and proprietors of large estates were bloodsuckers of the poor, and persons devoid of all feeling, living upon that which was unjustly taken away from the produce of the labour of the lower classes. He deprecated the fashion, too of citing, as the hon. Member had done, cases of which it was impossible to know anything at the moment, and repeating calculations which could not at once be examined and tested, and of giving a colour to those sentiments which persons, calling themselves Chartists, had put forth in their petitions, in which they demanded of the House whatever they thought themselves entitled to. He thought it would be much better for the hon. Gentleman to bring forward some distinct proposition for the appointment of a committee, to inquire into the truth of all those allegagations and computations, in order that it might be ascertained, beyond a doubt, which were facts, and which were not, and how far it was in the power of the House

1537
to devise means of relief. But as the hon. Gentleman had not done so, and as his motion was something like the dying recommendation of a person whose conscience smites him to some friend, to do an act of justice or of benevolence, he could only express his anxious wish that the attention of the House should be turned to these subjects after the approaching elections. Even then, however, it could only be done by bringing a proper and definite motion before the House. The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Line seemed to have brought the question into the narrowest compass, because he had stated, that all the evils which he mentioned were owing to the present system of taxation and the corn laws. How far he had made out the truth of that assertion, he would not pretend to say; but still the subject was worthy of consideration. He did not believe that taxation was unjustly laid upon any one class of society more than another. But if it could be shown that such was the case, then the whole complicated system of taxation ought to be inquired into, and it might, perhaps, be found to be capable of great amelioration, even while means were adopted for producing a considerable saving to the country. But these were matters which should not be mixed up with the corn-laws. That, however, seemed to be the whole purpose and gist of the discussion; the object appeared to be, to make the corn laws assume a mighty importance, which did not properly belong to them, by connecting them with what was called the regulations of our national trade and commerce. One single fact showed the effect of the present protection of com. Within the last three years, more corn had been imported into this country from abroad, than was imported previously to the passing of the corn laws in 1815, before which year there had been a free trade in corn for twenty years at least. From public statements which he had seen, it appeared that 3,800,000 quarters of corn had been imported, so that the foreign corn trade, instead of being diminished, had actually increased. He was surprissd to hear it repeatedly asserted, that the distress of the manufacturing districts was to be ascribed to the corn laws; it was almost as absurd a declaration as the saying which was attributed to some of the people of Kent, that the formation of the Goodwin Sands was caused by
1538
the erection of Tenterden church. Nothing could be a greater delusion than to suppose that the corn laws were the cause of the present distress among the manufacturing population, and that they were beneficial to none but landed proprietors. If hon. Gentlemen would know the causes of that distress, let them look elsewhere; let them look at the manner in which our commercial interests had been neglected for a long time; let them remember how foreign markets had been lost to this country, by the neglect of the Government, and their heedless mode of making treaties. To that cause must be attributed the loss of all the trade we formerly carried on in Poland, and in central Asia, by the interdictions of Russia, which he maintained had no right to interdict our commerce. The monstrous fallacy, that to the existence of the corn laws must be ascribed all the mischiefs that had been depicted by the hon. Members who had just addressed the House, could only have been invented for the purpose of creating ill-will between the agricultural and manufacturing interests, and to set them contending with each other. It could be for no other purpose, unless indeed it were intended to influence public elections, and to serve party designs. But he did not believe that the manufacturing classes were so insensible as not to feel that the agricultural interest was their main prop and support. The agricultural interest was the parent of every other interest; without it there could be no other interest. Out of the agricultural interest all the ramifications of trade and commerce originally sprang; for by reverting back to a state of nature it would be clear at once that agriculture must be the preceding cause and source of all other kinds of wealth and employment. It was putting the cart before the horse to say the reverse, to say that agriculture sprang out of manufactures, and must be secondary and subservient to them; whereas, the truth was, that manufactures and commerce were superinduced by agriculture, and were very greatly improved and promoted by it. He knew not what notions might be entertained by certain political economists of the present day upon the value of our agriculture in a national point of view, but of this he was sure, that the landed interest was the only stable, the only substantial interest of the country. It resembled the tortoise in the

1539
fable, that supported the elephant which sustained the world; it was at the bottom, and was the foundation and support of all, and to its influence and existence might be attributed the prosperity that had attended the country for so many years. The arts, the sciences, our manufactures, and everything that adorned and cheered human society, might be said to have originated in that source, and if you cut up that interest, all other interests must fall with it. The home trade of the land arising out of the transit and purchase of agricultural produce, that eternal interchange between town and country, was the channel and food, as it were, of our manufacturing interest amongst our own population; and so it was with regard to foreign trade, for though we had been deprived of many markets abroad of which we had been long possessed, it could not be said that the corn trade had deprived us of them. It was pretty clear that such an assertion was not true, from the fact that higher duties were fixed for the prohibition of trade in several instances than for the protection of corn; and after all, he must say, that he thought the duty on corn was little or no protection. The real subject in debate, however, was not the Corn-laws, but the existence of the Ministry. That was the question; the Government were put to their last shift, and the Corn-laws were seized hold of to create a mistaken feeling in their favour; but the agitation and the object of it would alike prove to be nothing better than an empty bubble. Attempts were made to excite the public mind by calling the duty on corn a bread-tax, and the agricultural interest a monopoly. In the first place, the duty could not be a bread-tax, because it was not a tax paid by the consumer; the foreign merchant, by bringing corn to this country, did not raise the price of corn, but he paid the amount of duty necessary to bring it up to the market price here, because it would not be admitted under that sum. Therefore it was not a tax paid by the consumer but by the importer. [Hear], He should be very happy to hear those hon. Gentlemen who cheered him, show by sound arguments, that the protection given to agriculture was the cause of all the distresses experienced by the manufacturing classes. He should be glad to hear them show how it was dependant upon the importation, or non-
1540
importation of foreign corn. He must say, that he thought it impossible that the abolition of the Corn-laws should remedy the distresses of the manufacturing and commercial community. If a free trade of any kind must be established, it should not be done without first having a review of the whole commercial state of the country. He was one of those persons who were convinced that much advantage would result from free trade. But then he would have free-trade established under those wise provisions which had been suggested to the House by the right hon. Baronet, who declared himself no enemy to free trade. The truth was, that we had been going on with prohibitions and restrictions upon trade, and, most absurdly for a manufacturing country, with heavy duties upon raw materials. Whatever his own views upon this point were, representing a large agricultural district, he should feel it his duty on a subject which his constituents felt to be of vital importance to them, not to vote against their wishes. He remembered that when he was Member for Westminster, he could not convince the shopkeepers that they did not pay the shop-tax, but their customers; and he was not surprised to find that it was equally difficult to make some people see the real operation of the Corn-laws. He protested against this subject being made the ground of political warfare; if hon. Gentleman sincerely desired to promote the welfare of the country, let them approach this question in a calm and dispassionate manner. Let not those on one side say, "O you are a monopolist, because you think the Corn-laws ought to be continued;" nor let those on the other retort, "You are a very fine liberal fellow because you think otherwise." Instead of all that heat and animosity which was shown, and which it was attempted to spread far and wide, but unsuccessfully, as he believed, this was a question which should be treated with the greatest coolness and deliberation, and was one upon which, of all others, any Ministers, be they whom they might, ought not to endeavour to excite the popular feeling in the least degree. Therefore he sincerely thought that in doing so the present Ministers had incurred a very great responsibility, and that under all the circumstances it was not at all impossible that some day or other they would have cause to repent it.
Mr. Labouchereobserved, that when

1541
the hon. Baronet rose, he was anxious to hear his sentiments upon matters of trade, knowing that he had not spoken upon such subjects in that House for many years, and recollecting what the hon. Baronet's opinions were when he represented Westminster. At that time he declared himself the uncompromising opponent of those who supported the Corn-laws; for he was then a disciple of the free trade school, and prepared to go any lengths for the promotion of free trade principles. The hon. Baronet, however, had gratified his curiosity but very little; after listening to the hon. Baronet with that attention which he always deserved and obtained, he was at a loss to understand what were the hon. Baronet's present opinions. The hon. Baronet had said, that these were not matters of mere abstract opinion; that he represented Wiltshire, and that therefore he must qualify his views by the feelings of his constituents; he gave one-half of his speech to his former constituents, and the other half to his present, and, though he did not divide his speech into two equal parts, he gave sentence by sentence, one for, and the other against protection. But, whatever the hon. Baronet's opinions might be upon the Corn-laws, it was a new thing to hear it said that they were a subject of little importance. "Why raise a flame about the Corn-laws?" exclaimed the hon. Baronet, "it cannot affect you much—it cannot affect the manufacturing interest much—and, in fact, it does not even affect the agricultural interest." That was an extraordinary doctrine; he had always thought the Corn-law question was generally acknowledged to be a most important question to this country. He agreed with the hon. Baronet that it would be a partial proceeding to deal with one branch of trade, and not to apply the principle to all the branches of our commerce which required correction; and that was the very course which was contemplated by her Majesty's Government, for they had brought forward a series of improvements in the corn, the timber, and the sugar trades, and the alterations which they proposed were not rashly, or recklessly, or unpremeditatedly, resolved upon, as had been imputed to them, but upon mature deliberation, and whether right or wrong the measures they had advanced had originated in an earnest desire to do justice to the community, and to promote the welfare of the coun
1542
try. He therefore boldly repelled the accusation that those measures were brought forward for party purposes, and without any real wish to have them carried. For six weeks or two months previously to bringing forward the budget, his room at the Board of Trade had been crowded with deputations from all parts of the great manufacturing districts, representing the necessity of some such changes as had been proposed by her Majesty's Government, and he was quite satisfied that if those alterations had been received by the House as they deserved, this Session would not have closed without measures being carried of more importance for the benefit of the public generally, than it would be possible to carry in ten Sessions spent in mere party struggles, when measures of general political advantage and amelioration might be passed without adding much to the comfort and well-being of the population. With regard to the motion of the hon. Member for Birmingham, he (Mr. Labouchere) fully agreed with the terms of that motion; the facts stated therein formed the justification of the late measures of the Government; and he also agreed with the hon. Member, that in part at least, the prevalent distress might be removed by wise legislative measures; but he must say, that he doubted the wisdom of affirming a proposition of this kind, especially at this period of the Session; and he would put it to the hon. Member whether he thought that full justice could be done to a subject of this kind when so many Members were absent, and so little time remained to investigate it. He had also another objection to the motion; he had a general objection to affirming a general resolution of this kind in the House of Commons, unaccompanied with any steps of a practical kind. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member would not press this motion to a division. For his own part, notwithstanding the result of bringing forward the measures which had been proposed by the Government, he did not regret that they had been brought forward. He was convinced, that it was the duty of her Majesty's Government to lay these measures before the House, whatever might be the result and effect with respect to them as a Government, and as a party. As President of the Board of Trade, he could not have sat upon the Treasury bench or risen up

1543
in the House, he should have felt it too humiliating, if these measures had not been proposed, knowing as he did, from the representations that had been made to him in his official situation, that according to the representations of practical men, the Government had it in their power to relieve the prevalent distress by means of legislation. He therefore thought it was the indispensable duty of the Government to bring forward these measures, whatever might be the result to the party. Nevertheless he was not insensible to party ties; he had always been a warm supporter of that great liberal party whom he had seen during the last ten years bringing forward measures of incalculable benefit to the country. He did not know what might be the immediate result; but he was certain, that having brought forward the measures to which he referred, her Majesty's Government had greatly assisted their final triumph. He said this with the utmost confidence, because he had never known a just and righteous cause, which, when once it was fairly brought before the people of England, the people of England did not finally carry out; and whether those measures were to be carried by the party to which he belonged, or the other, was to him of comparatively little interest.
Mr. Bainescould not agree in the opinion of the hon. Baronet, that the discussion of the motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, would lead to no practical result. He, on the contrary, thought that a subject which involved an inquiry into the true state and condition of the great body of the people in the manufacturing and commercial districts of the country, on the eve of a dissolution of Parliament, when the constituents and representatives were to be brought together, and when inquiries could be made by the latter into the circumstances of the former, and particularly into the alleged distresses that prevailed amongst them, and as to the cause of and remedy for that distress, was of the highest importance, and would be productive of consequences more beneficial than those which belonged to most of the discussions that took place in that House. For his own part, he was accustomed to judge of public questions more from their real importance, than from the sensation they made in Parliament and by the votes which they elicited. The discussion of the ques-
1544
tion of the extreme suffering of the industrious classes, for want of employment, low wages, and the high price of provisions, and the consideration how they were to be alleviated, was the more important, because the wishes of the people for the consideration of these subjects, particularly the price of bread and the deprivation of labour, arising out of the existing Corn-laws, had been defeated by a side wind; and it was fitting that a question of such vital importance to the nation at large should be considered in Parliament, though ever so late in the Session, and under circumstances however disadvantageous. And whoever might be Minister when the new Parliament assembled, it was proper that one of the first subjects to be brought under the consideration of the House, should be to devise means for the alleviation of the great distress and severe embarrassment which are endured by the mercantile and manufacturing classes, and by their workpeople. Upon this subject, he was prepared to speak from his own personal knowledge, as well as from the information of others, and he did not know how he could more forcibly describe the distress of the unemployed poor in that part of the country with which he had the honour to be connected, and he believed, he might say, in the manufacturing districts generally, than by a simple statement of facts, which spoke a language too plain to be misunderstood. Several months ago a number of the unemployed workmen in Leeds formed themselves into a committee, the object of which was to ascertain the condition of their fellow-workmen in the town by an actual survey, without any party object, but with the hope of exciting sympathy in the middle and higher classes of the inhabitants, and of obtaining relief for the distressed. The result of this survey and inquiry was communicated in a report to a meeting of the inhabitants called by the chief magistrate of the borough, at which almost all the ministers of religion in the town attended, and over whose deliberations the mayor presided. The following was the substance of the report:—
" The committee have entered the names of upwards of 2,000 persons, principally heads of families, varying from two to eleven in each family, and, taking five as the average, they find that there are no less than 10,000 persons (in this town) out of employment, or depend-1 ant on those who are in that situation."

1545
On the presentation of this report to the meeting, and after the cause of the distressed had been strongly advocated, the chairman of the committee of the unemployed addressed the meeting, and gave an account of the heart-rending scenes that he had witnessed, in visiting the dwellings of the poor:—
"In many cases which I visited," said he, "I have heard men declare, that unless by some means their children could be supplied with bread, they should be under the necessity of taking it from the common stock. In that opinion," said the speaker, "I myself cordially agree; for I declare before God and man I would take it where I could find it."
These sentiments were received with applause by some of the workmen in the meeting, mixed with expressions of disapprobation from the bench.
" This language." he continued," may sound unpleasantly in polite ears, but let those persons come to have the naked backs and the hungry bellies that this useful class of society suffered from, and I am satisfied that they would not be contented, but that they would be amongst the first, when want pinches their stomachs, to take food where they could find it."
Another speaker, of the name of George White, a Chartist leader, said.
" He would never tell a he about his feelings. He would assure the meeting that the sentiments uttered by Bottomley (the chairman of the Operative committee), were held by nine out of every ten of the unemployed workmen." He added, "It is a crime for a man to allow himself to starve in the midst of plenty."
To relieve the distressed as far as relief could be afforded, the sum of 5,700 l. was subscribed, and distributed principally in food. The visiting committee, in their report, dated in June last, say.
"That they had made inquiry into the circumstances of every applicant for relief, and that they found thousands of persons who were able and willing to work, but who could not find employment."
Now, though it was undoubtedly a great exaggeration to say, that nine-tenths of the unemployed workmen were freebooters, yet their present condition had the effect of undermining the moral principles, and disaffecting them to the Government and institutions of the country; it was therefore desirable, as well for the safety of our public institutions as for the improvement of the condition of the labouring classes,
1546
that an end should be put to this slate of suffering.
Sir Stratford Canningsaid, that a question of this nature was too important to be discussed in so thin a House, and moved that the House be counted. There being only twenty. four Members present, House adjourned.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Marriage Act Amendment; Election Petitions Trials; Militia Pay; Appropriation.—Read a second time:—Metropolis Improvements Expenses; Bribery at Elections.
Petitions presented. By Lord Rolle, the Duke of Rutland, Lord Willoughby D'Eresby, Lord Beaumont, the Marquess of Salisbury, and Lord Beauchamp, from Devon, Leicester, Lincoln, Yorkshire, Essex, Worcester, and several other places, against Alteration of the Corn-laws.— By Lord Brougham, and Earl Fitzwilliam, from Devon-port, and St. Asaph's, for the Jews' Declaration Bill.—By Lord Whamcliffe, from the Guardians of a Union in Yorkshire, for an Alteration of the Poor-law; from a place in the same county, in favour of the Inland Bonding Warehouses; and from Sheffield, and its neighbourhood, for an Alteration of the Marriage Law.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND.
The Earl of Aberdeenon presenting a petition from the seven suspended ministers of Strathbogie, said, that he should feel it necessary, for a few moments, to claim the attention of their Lordships, as well as of the noble Viscount opposite, while he offered to the House some observations on this, painful subject. The case had been brought before their Lordships about a month ago, by a noble Lord (Dunfermline) with so much force and ability that it was not necessary for him to go over the circumstances again. The petitioners complained that they were suspended from their sacred office by a sentence of the General Assembly, and they called on the House to interfere for the purpose of preventing that sentence of deposition from being carried into effect. The noble Viscount, on the occasion to which he had alluded, had declined to interfere for the purpose of rendering justice to those individuals. He said that the majority of
1504
the General Assembly knew perfectly well that the Government highly disapproved of their conduct, that their claims were unfounded, and that even if they were well founded, the manner in which they were brought forward was highly objectionable. The noble Viscount as usual, added, that he would enforce the law and see that justice was done; but he would take no step to check the General Assembly in the coarse they were pursuing. Since that time those individuals had been formally deposed from their situations by the General Assembly. It was sufficient to say, that these gentlemen were so deposed simply and exclusively for their obedience to the law of the land. No accusation was brought against them, no pretence was advanced of any irregularity or impropriety of conduct on their part. On the contrary, it was admitted that these gentlemen were amongst the most exemplary and excellent parish ministers existing in the Church of Scotland. Several of them, whom he himself knew, were men of the highest reputation in every respect. They were deposed not only because they obeyed the law, but because they were forced to obey the law. They were willing to obey the orders of the church courts, until, by the decision of the civil courts, they found that they would be liable to punishment, in person and estate, if they refused obedience to the law of the land. It was impossible that such a state of things as this could be suffered to exist, and he attributed its continuance to remissness on the part of the Government. He found no fault with the statement of the noble Viscount, that he would not bring forward any measure on the subject, accompanied as it was with the declaration that he would support, uphold, and maintain the law. But no effort had been made to maintain the law; and when individuals were in consequence put to an enormous expense for the purpose of supporting their rights, which were illegally invaded, it became a public question, and he conceived that the Government were bound to come forward and to protect them; The sentence fulminated against these gentlemen had excited throughout Scotland feelings of the deepest indignation. At Edinburgh a very large and influential meeting was held, at which resolutions were agreed to, sympathizing with the situation of these gentlemen, and reprobating the conduct

1505
of the Assembly. At Glasgow a similar meeting was held. Petitions on this subject, most numerously signed by persons of all parties, had been agreed to; and but for the great political excitement which prevailed throughout the country, and interfered with all other proceedings, the expression of indignation would, he was convinced, be universal. After deposing these gentlemen, the Assembly notified, that the parishes from which they had been ejected were vacant, and I stated, that the patrons might present to them. If they neglected to do so for six months, the Church might then, jure devoluto, appoint to them, and certainly the legality of such an appointment might be contested. But this sentence of deposition, iniquitous and illegal as it was, had been suspended by the supreme court. An interdict had been issued, forbidding the appointment of ministers to those parishes which were not, in fact, vacated; and he had no doubt, that the sentence of deposition would be finally and formally pronounced to be illegal. The presumption manifested by the General Assembly in these proceedings was never equalled by the Church of Rome; tyranny, such as was exhibited in this case, would annihilate the liberties of the people of this country; but it surely would not be tolerated in the present day. The division of that House on the Auchterarder case had been set at nought, and he would ask the noble Viscount—he would ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack—was that the way in which they would suffer the judgments of their Lordships' House to be treated? He maintained that this was a case in which the Government ought to have ordered the Lord-Advocate to act, for the purpose of putting an end to such illegal proceedings. He could refer to other acts of the General Assembly which were no less illegal, but he did not, on this occasion, wish to dwell on them or to go beyond the particular case to which he had called their Lordships' attention. The noble Earl read some extracts from the petition, in which the petitioners stated, that they had been deposed purely and simply because they had obeyed a special statute; that the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, itself established by law, had thought proper to set aside those very laws by which it was supported, and they prayed that some measure might be adopted to
1506
shield them from the effects of the sentence of deposition.
Viscount Melbourneagreed with the noble Earl, that the circumstances of this case could not be viewed but with feelings of the deepest regret, involving, as they did, not only the state of the Church of Scotland, but the position and interests of the parties whose petition the noble Earl had presented. He was not, however, prepared to admit that there had been any remissness on the part of Ministers, or that they ought to have taken a course different from that which they had adopted. He considered that Government could not have taken any effectual step for the purpose of terminating those differences that would not be liable to very grave objections. It was true that Government and Parliament might have put an end to the dispute by deciding in favour of one or other of the contending parties. They might have decided in favour of the General Assembly, and declared the measures pursued by that body to have been just and proper, or they might have declared that the General Assembly were acting illegally. They might have done this; but either of these measures would have been an intermeddling with the internal affairs of the Church of Scotland, and might be attended with the most serious and injurious effects. He, therefore, conceived that to have recourse to an Act of Parliament, for the purpose of settling the question would have been dangerous and unwise. The noble Earl said, that the petitioners were suffering in consequence of their obedience to the law of the land. That certainly was true, and he was sorry that it was so. But in viewing this subject, it was necessary for their Lordships to consider the nature of the question in dispute. The General Assembly had exercised powers, their right to exercise which was denied by the court of session. The question was brought under the consideration of the court in Scotland, and he found that a minority of the judges, considerable, both in point of number and talent, were with the General Assembly, and supported their claim. It appeared that a wide difference of opinion existed between the great ecclesiastical authority and the great civil authority in Scotland. The General Assembly declared that the civil court had no jurisdiction in this case, and six of the civil judges, amongst whom was Mr. Jeffrey, were of that opinion. The noble Earl said,

1507
that the Church of Rome never carried its presumption further than the Church of Scotland had done on this occasion; but the Church of Scotland was equal in presumption to the Church of Rome at any day, of which many instances could be produced from history. There was here a great difference of opinion between great authorities with reference to great and important principles. The circumstance reminded him of the contest in the time of James I. between the ecclesiastical and civil courts in this country. That contest led to much that was unseemly and unfitting. That contest was not, however, put an end to by unlegislative decision, but was allowed to work itself out by the efforts of conflicting parties. He felt very deeply for the sufferings of those individuals, but he did not conceive that Government were called on to interfere. The noble Earl had pointed out one course by which this question might be settled— namely, the decision of the civil court. The Church would, it appeared, jure devoluto, if the vacant parishes were not filled up in six months, proceed to appoint ministers; and on the legality of such appointments the civil court would decide. He did not say whether it would be wise to bring the question to that issue; but certainly, if that course were adopted it would lead to a decision one way or the other. It was, he repeated, the wish of her Majesty's Government to enforce the law; and he was certain that the Lord-advocate had, in this case, done all that appertained to his office, and would hereafter do all that his duty called on him to do with reference to it.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, the noble Viscount, although he agreed with his noble Friend as to the unfortunate situation in which the petitioners were placed by the conduct of the General Assembly, had not given any opinion on the subject. Through his whole speech he studiously avoided giving any opinion. He had said nothing—he had done nothing. The noble Viscount observed, that the Lord-advocate would certainly do his duty. Perhaps, the Lord-advocate was acting under his orders, and if so he should be glad to learn what those orders were. His noble Friend, in the course of his observations, had alluded to the Auchterarder case. In that instance, the proceedings of the General Assembly were directed not alone against the decision of the Court of Ses
1508
sion, but against the solid judgment of that House. His noble Friend wished the noble Viscount to cause the law to be enforced in that case, but the noble Viscount questioned the propriety of doing so. In that case there was no difference of opinion in the court below, and the decision of that court was, after solemn argument, confirmed by their Lordships' House. But now, the noble Viscount said, he felt great difficulty in making up his mind to interfere, because two or three of the judges, for whose learning and talent he entertained great respect, happened to be of a different opinion from the majority of their brethren. So that because there was a difference of opinion amongst the judges, a great wrong was to remain unredressed. In the course of the present Session, in answer to a question put by him, the noble Viscount stated, that the law should be enforced, and the noble Viscount had repeated that statement twice since; but now they saw what the noble Viscount's idea of supporting the law was. His mode of upholding and enforcing the law was to do nothing. To talk of two contending authorities, the one being the majority of the General Assembly, and the other the Court of Session, upon a great constitutional question, was most extraordinary language for a Minister of the Crown to hold; and it was by suffering his mind to remain in that state of doubt and vacillation that matters had assumed an aspect which filled the lovers of peace and of the welfare of the church of Scotland with the greatest dismay. If the noble Viscount had interfered two years and a half ago, before matters became so complicated, the law, no doubt, would have been obeyed; he had not done so, however, and they now saw the bitter fruits of that do-nothing system by which the conduct of Ministers had been so long characterized on more questions than with regard to the church of Scotland. There was one other point which had not yet been referred to in that House, and which, as this would probably be the last opportunity of discussing the subject this Session, he would take the liberty to mention, to show the animus by which the majority of the General Assembly was actuated. This very last act had been to appoint a special commission to visit the different Presbyteries in which questions might be pending relative to this matter between the civil and ecclesiastical autho

1509
rities, with full powers, five being a quorum, to deal with them in the settlement of parishes, church discipline, and all other ecclesiastical matters, as they might think fit. In other words, they had appointed a roving commission, to resist the law as occasion might arise—the Assembly thus assuming to itself the power to suspend—and if to suspend, why not to abolish?—the whole constitution of the church of Scotland as by law established. He presumed that fact could not be known to the noble Viscount, or he would not have spoken of this as a great question between two contending authorities—the church courts and the law of the land. In common with every friend to the peace of Scotland and the welfare of the establishment, he deeply regretted that Ministers had not pursued another course, and that even now no assurance was given that the Lord-Advocate would be required to adopt measures for enforcing the law.
The Marquess of Normanbyassured the noble Earl that references had been made to the Lord-Advocate, and communications held with him in every stage of the proceedings. The Lord-Advocate was perfectly aware of the desire of the Government, whenever in his discretion he thought the exercise of his official duties would tend to settle the question, that he should interfere, and if that officer had not taken any step, it was because, upon a full consideration of the case, the time had not arrived when he beneficially could interfere. There were, he knew, some questions still under the consideration of the Lord-Advocate; but he was anxious that the impression should not go abroad that the Lord-Advocate had not been consulted, or that he had any doubt as to the line of conduct he should pursue.
The Earl of Haddingtonconcluded, from the statement of the noble Marquess, that Government had given no orders to the Lord-Advocate, and that it was left entirely to his own discretion when and how he should proceed, it being perfectly notorious that the Lord-Advocate was himself friendly rather than otherwise to the course pursued by the majority of the General Assembly.
The Marquess of Breadalbanebegged their Lordships not to be guided upon this important question by the very strong expressions which had been used by those on the other side of the House. The majority of the General Assembly had an ex-
1510
tremely difficult duty to perform in asserting principles which they conscientiously believed were not only based on the fundamental principles, but also essential to the preservation of the church of Scotland. Until the whole matter was finally settled by the decision of the courts of law, it would be precipitate and dangerous for the Government to interfere.
The Duke of Argylldeprecated the discussion of this important question on the mere presentation of a petition.
Lord Broughamwas not surprised that his two noble Friends who spoke last, with the peculiar views they entertained upon this matter, should deprecate any continuance of the debate, and be very well pleased to rest their case, as it were, on the statement of his noble Friend at the head of the Government, and the noble Secretary of State within whose department the question more immediately and properly came; but, whatever they might have meant—he did not ascribe any such intention, but anything having a more fatal tendency on the parties engaged in these manifestly and notoriously illegal proceedings—anything having a more direct, inevitable, and powerful tendency to encourage the breakers of the law in Scotland he could not imagine. His noble Friend the Secretary of State had merely said, that the Lord-Advocate had frequently considered the subject, that if he thought anything was necessary he would act; that from his not acting as yet, he concluded he had not felt any such necessity; but when the necessity arose, his noble Friend took for granted the act would be done. Anything less satisfactory to those who wished the law to be maintained, and peace restored by proper firmness in its execution, he could hardly conceive. His noble Friend, at the head of the Government, had made a statement which he could not help thinking would be taken by the wrongdoers in Scotland as in their favour, instead of being against them. His noble Friend said, this was a grave question: no doubt, when the peace of the country was disturbed, and the violators of the law constituted the highest judicatory in the church of Scotland. There was a division of opinion, said his noble Friend, in the Court of Session, when one of the cases was first decided; there were learned and great authorities in the minority upon that occasion. [Viscount Melbourne: I said

1511
there was a difficulty in legislating on the subject.] Why, no one called for a new law. The law was already decided and determined, first by the Court of Session, and then by their Lordships sitting as a court of appeal in the last resort, clearly, unanimously, and unhesitatingly affirming the opinion of the Court of Session. No declaratory law was necessary. The law was actually declared and acted upon by the proper legal authorities. There was another reason against any declaratory law on this subject. The pretension of the violators of the law was, that the Legislature itself, Queen, Lords, and Commons, could not pass any law binding on the General Assembly; and if a law were passed tomorrow, they would violate it. Surely, that was a sufficient reason why the Executive Government of the country should take the proper steps to execute the law, and give peace to the land. He, for one, would never suffer it to be said, without protesting against it, that a mere division of opinion amongst the judges of any court, before which any question was brought, should be held in any quarter as the shadow of a ground or pretence for refusing obedience to the law, as declared by the majority.
Viscount Melbournebegged to say, that nothing was farther from his mind than to give anything like encouragement to those parties who had disobeyed the law. He had said, that the Government had executed the law, and that it was their intention to execute the law, but he had also said, that the General Assembly having done that which it was contended they had no right to do, the General Assembly having, as was contended, by the deprivation of these seven Ministers, exceeded their power and authority, he did say, that means existed at present to enforce the execution of the law, and that it was for Government to consider whether they would not trust to the law itself for its own vindication, and he must add that no noble Lord had pointed out a course, within the power of Government, by which the existing law could be more speedily and effectually enforced, than by those means which the existing law possessed.
Lord Broughamwas quite sure, it never could have been the intention of his noble Friend to give the slightest encouragement to the violators of the law; but intention was one thing and tendency another; and this he would say, that the
1512
tendency of the speeches of his noble Friends and their conduct was undeniably—contrary to their intentions—to encourage the violators of the law. His noble Friend had asked, what Government could do better by way of enforcing the law than leaving the law to execute itself. He would tell his noble Friend, in one sentence, one course which would have a most speedy and effectual result in discouraging the violation of the law, by protecting and encouraging those who obeyed it, and that was to give directions to the agents and law officers of the Crown in Scotland, to relieve those who were oppressed by the wrongdoers from the costs and risks of their oppression.
Lord Belhavensaid, he deeply regretted the state to which Scotland had been brought in consequence of this question. He must confess, that he did not very well see what her Majesty's Ministers could do to put an end to this dispute by ordering the Lord-Advocate to do anything, for he did not know what he was to do in the present circumstances of the case; but he thought some means would and could be found if there were not so much difference and warmth of opinion here as well as in Scotland. The only way in which it was possible that this question could be settled was by trying the question on a new presentation, in consequence of the deposition of these Ministers.
The Earl of Aberdeenthought this a most preposterous suggestion. The question had been tried already without bringing the matter anything nearer a settlement. The House had decided that it was the duty of the Presbytery to take a particular person on his trials. They refused to take him on his trials; not only that, but they ordered another man to be presented to the living. It was a mistake to suppose this a conflict between two authorities with co-ordinate jurisdiction. [Viscount Melbourne.—The authorities may be conflicting without being co-ordinate.] But the noble Marquess, the Secretary of State, for the Home Department said, co-ordinate. The noble Viscount stated, the question as between constituted authorities differing in opinion. That was not the state of the case; there was no collision; the Church of Scotland was established by special Acts of Parliament. Those acts imposed conditions. Who was to interpret those acts?

1513
The General Assembly? They had no right to do so; they might obey them; but he had yet to learn that their interpretation of those acts was worth one farthing. The court of session was the tribunal to interpret those acts, and their Lordships on appeal from that court. That decision he looked on as final. The General Assembly had violated those acts. Knowing the opinions of noble Lords opposite—knowing how entirely they accorded with his own views—he thought it rather too bad of them to shuffle with this question in the way they had hitherto done.
The Lord Chancellorwas understood to observe, that the Auchterarder case came before their Lordships in consequence of the operation of the Veto Act. The party presented had been refused by the Presbytery, in consequence of not having the majority required by the Veto. The subject of the appeal was, that the Presbytery might be ordered to put the party on his trials. Whatever took place in the Auchterarder case, that was the extent of the decision of that House.
Lord Broughamsaid, his noble Friend might have added that that was the judgment which the General Assembly had disobeyed. That was the judgment which the court of session had endeavoured to enforce—that was the judgment the enforcing of which had occasioned the deprivation, or at least the suspension of the seven Ministers. Until he saw the law as it stood fully obeyed, he would never give his sanction to the enactment of a new law. His noble Friend denied this to be a conflict between co-ordinate jurisdictions; but he (Lord Brougham) could not understand how it could be called a conflict at all, unless the jurisdictions were co-ordinate. A Master in Chancery might disobey the Lord Chancellor; in that case he would be guilty of disobedience if you will; of a violation of duty; of a breach of law; but there could be no conflict between the two, because there was no coordinate authority.
Viscount Melbourne: It is a conflict, though an unequal one.
Petition laid on the Table.

CHARIUTABLE TRUSTS' BILL.
The Lord Chancellorrose to move the second reading of the Charitable Trusts' Bill. He said, the objects of this bill were very simple and most important. It had been
1514
intimated to him, that there were some objections to this bill; but, as he was totally ignorant what those objections could be, he must wait to hear them. The object of the bill was to secure to the poor the benefit of the property devoted to their assistance; and that was attempted to be effeced in two ways, applicable to different species of property. The first object of the bill was applicable to all charities; it was to avoid the expense which was necessarily and constantly incurred when new trustees were appointed. Whatever the nature or origin of the trust, and whoever the trustees might be, they, of course, were liable to be trustees by death; and it therefore became necessary to appoint new trustees; and on their appointment it was necessary that there should be a transfer of the charitable property to those new trustees, as they could not perform their duties properly without such transfer, and there was, therefore, continually great expense thrown on the trust fund in paying the attorney employed, for stamps, and for the expense of the conveyance. These expenses, of course, lessened the benefit of the charitable trust to the poor. The object of the bill was, to make the act of appointing new trustees ipso facto vest the property in the trustees so appointed. The other object of the bill was not a mere question of expense, but a question in many instances of actual loss to the poor of the property. Their Lordships were called on to turn their attention to the subject, and to do what they could to prevent the inconvenience which had arisen from a defective statute. In the Municipal Corporations Reform Bill their Lordships might be aware that a provision was made for removing charity trusts from such corporations as they were vested in, or from persons, members of corporations, where the property was vested in individuals, but still under the jurisdiction of the corporations. He was not informed of what had taken place when that bill (the Municipal Corporations Bill) passed through their Lordships' House, nor could he explain how it was, that that enactment, as it regarded these trusts, was left as it stood in the statute. The words of the statute were,—
" That all the estate, right, interest, and tide which at the time existed in the corporation, or in any individual holding it for the corporation, shall continue till the 1st day of

1515
August, 1836, or until Parliament shall otherwise order, and from, and after that time shall utterly cease and determine; and after that period the Lord Chancellor, or the Lords Commissioners of the Great Seal, shall have powers to make such orders as they see fit for the reappointment of such trustees."
The 1st of August arrived, and Parliament had taken no steps, nor made any provision for these trusts. Those therefore who had an interest in these trusts had applied to the Lord Chancellor for the appointment of trustees. But though the trustees had been appointed, there was nothing in the act to enable the Court of Chancery to vest the property in the trustees. Trustees had been appointed, but what was to become of the legal title of the estates? It was obvious that those who held them before ceased to hold them on the 1st of August, 1836; but Parliament did not vest the property of these estates in any other persons, and it had been a subject which had greatly puzzled conveyancers to determine, what had become of the legal estate. Some supposed that the legal estate was escheated to the Crown; some to the heir-at-law of the original founder of the charity; but it had been established beyond all controversy, that it was not gone to the trustees. It was very true, that in many instances this question had not been raised; but the tenants under these trustees had paid what they knew was due. But it was equally true, that in many other instances this had not been done, and that those who held trust property had put the trustees at defiance, and asked them to show their title, which was to prove, that they had the legal estate in them to give them legal power and authority to compel those tenants to pay what was due; and in very many instances, the trustees not having that legal power to compel payment, the objects of the charity hail been defeated, and the trustees could not administer it to the poor. He had unfortunately been made very much acquainted with these evils, and had had very many communications from persons who had found it impossible to compel payment, and the only way to remedy this defect was by the authority of Parliament. This clause of the bill then before their Lordships proposed, that the legal estate and interest of the property, of which the persons so appointed were trustees, should by this act be vested in them, He should suppose
1516
that their Lordships would approve of the objects of this act; it was the only means of checking the evil which existed, and he should hope, that it would pass, and restore to poor persons those various charities which would be affected by it. He concluded with moving, that the bill be read a second time.
Lord Lyndhursthaving presented a petition from 2,000 bankers, merchants, and others, inhabitants of Bristol, praying against the Bill, would state very shortly his ground of objection to it. It was a Bill which embraced very important considerations, and questions of very great difficulty; and he conceived that a Bill of this description ought not to have come up to that House at such a period of the session, and particularly in the state in which the two Houses of Parliament were placed at the present moment. The object of this Bill was to confirm and complete the title of those trustees who had been appointed under the Municipal Reform Act. He had no inclination or disposition whatever to do anything to assist the title of those persons. A great number of these trustees consisted of Dissenters from the church of England, and a great part of the property to which the trusts referred consisted of estates, originally granted for purposes connected with the church of England, and of advowsons. The trustees therefore became entitled to present to livings. This was a reason why he thought their Lordships ought to confirm the title of the trustees. With reference to the corporation of Bristol, he learned from the petition which had been intrusted to him, that the number of trustees appointed for the management of the estates of the city amounted to twenty-one; ten of them were Dissenters, and of the eleven who professed to belong to the church of England, some were tolerably lukewarm in their professions. A great number of the estates had obviously been granted for the benefit of members of the church of England, and there were three advowsons among the property. When the Municipal Corporations Reform Bill was under their Lordships' consideration, what course had they pursued? It was urged that many corporations possessed advowsons, and their Lordships deemed that those advowsons should be sold, and until that was done the presentment should vest in the Bishops of the respective dioceses. A remedy was therefore pro

1517
vided for that particular evil; but the case of charitable trustees possessing advowsons had been overlooked. Had their Lordships' attention been called to it, they would doubtless have made some similar provision, and he was the more entitled to say so, because he found in the Irish Municipal Act an enactment providing that none but corporators belonging to the church of England should interfere with property bequeathed for the benefit of the church of England. On these grounds he objected to anything tending to confirm the title of these trustees. It was owing to the neglect of the Government that a general Bill on the subject had not been brought forward before. The present measure ought to be considered by a committee up-stairs, and was not fit to be passed at that late period of the session. He opposed the whole Bill, for the first clause, though drawn up in general terms, would by a side-wind effect the purpose he objected to. He moved that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.
Lord Broughamexpressed his surprise at the opposition of the noble and learned Lord. An omission had been made in the Municipal Bill, which gave rise to a most pernicious state of things as regarded the administration of charitable property; and if their Lordships did not pass the present Bill, not only would Dissenters not have the patronage of this church preferment, but nobody else would. He could not see what danger could arise to the establishment, if in some corporations Dissenters should have the appointment to livings. There was nothing in the law of the country to prevent Dissenters presenting; and even Jews might do so in some parishes where they were rate-payers. All that was required was, that the party presented should be qualified under the Uniformity Act.
The Earl of Warwickhad a petition to present against this Bill from the corporation of Warwick. That corporation possessed property of much value, which they stated was not charitable, but bequeathed for the purposes of the church and the corporation; and the petitioners contended that this property ought not to be taken away from them. He should certainly vote against the Bill.
The Lord Chancellor, in reply, observed, that under existing circumstances the property to which the Bill referred was in
1518
a state that rendered it impossible to be managed. The objections of his noble and learned Friend rested on facts; but of those facts no proof whatever was before their Lordships, and, even if they were, that would be no reason for preventing the people from the enjoyment of the rights which this measure would confer. His noble and learned Friend had also complained of the Government having left the former enactment imperfect, under the pledge of bringing forward some other measure to regulate charitable trusts, but that no such measure had been passed. He could only say, that one of the first measures which he had had to propose to their Lordships after having a seat in that House was a measure for that purpose, but it was thrown out by their Lordships.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that with respect to what had fallen from his noble and learned Friend as to there being no proof of the facts on which he had objected to this Bill, all he (Lord Lyndhurst) wanted was a committee to inquire into the facts of the case.
The House divided on the question that the Bill be then read a second time. Contents 36; Not-contents 52: Majority 16.

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

ARCHBISHOPS.

VISCOUTNS.

Canterbury

Midleton

Armagh

Hawarden

DUKE.

Gort

Rutland

Cunning

MARQUESSES.

Canterbury

Salisbury

BISHOPS.

Exeter

Bangor

Camden

Rochester

Ormonde

Gloucester

EARLS.

LORDS.

Winchilsea

Willoughby de Broke

Shaftesbury

Saltoun

Abingdon

Sondes

Morton

Southampton

Haddington

Kenyon

Galloway

Douglas

Warwick

Calthorpe

Hardwicke

Bayning

Clanwilliam

Bolton

Mountcashel

Carbery

Bandon

Redesdale

Rosslyn

Colchester

Wilton

Bexley

Harrowby

Wharncliffe

Verulam

Lyndhurst

Brownlow

Stuart de Rothesay

Beauchamp

Heytesbury

Somers

Ashburton

Ripon

1519

Paired off.

NOT-CONTENTS.

CONTENTS.

Duke of Buccleuch

Lord Hatherton

Duke of Argyll

Earl of Rosebery

Duke of Dorset

Lord Strafford

Duke of Buckingham

Earl of Thanet

Marquis of Bute

Bishop of Norwich

Marquis of Ailsa

Bishop of Durham

Earl of Eglinton

Lord Belhaven

Earl of Airlie

Lord Clifford

Earl of Aberdeen

Lord Montfort

Earl of Dartmouth

Lord Dacre

Earl Cadogan

Earl of Erroll

Earl of Wicklow

Lord Bateman

Earl of Clare

Lord Crewe

Earl of Lucan

Earl of Zetland

Earl Manvers

Duke of Bedford

Earl of Glengall

Earl of Scarborough

Viscount Sydney

Marquis of Anglesey

Viscount Combermere

Earl of Leitrim

Lord Colville

Lord Byron

Lord Walsingham

Earl of Morley

Lord Rolle

Lord Talbot of Malahide

Lord Forester

Earl of Uxbridge

Lord Feversham

Earl of Yarborough

Lord Tenterden

Lord Hill

Lord Cowley

Marquis of Headfort

Lord Skelmersdale

Lord Stanley of Alderley

Lord Abinger

Duke of Norfolk