Sitting of 7 February 1842

MINUTES.
Bills. Reported,—Appropriation Acts Amendment.— 1° Designs Copyright.
Petitions presented. By Mr. Thorneley, from Liverpool, and other places, by Mr. Busfeild, from forty places in Lancashire, by Mr. A. Johnston, from Kilmarnock, and other places, by Mr. T. M. Gibson, from Manchester, by Mr. Wakley, from Finsbury, by Mr. Brotherton, from Sailors, and other places in Lancashire, by Mr. Villiers, from Westbury, and other places, by Sir George Staunton, from Gosport, and other places, by Mr. Macaulay, from Edinburgh, by Mr. Dennistoun, Mr. Ewart, and a number of other Members, from a great many places, for the Total Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Sir R. Bateson, Mr. E. Tennent, and Mr. Grogan, from Presbyterians in Ireland, for the legalization of their Marriage Ceremonies.—By Sir C. Napier, from Mr. Snooks, to investigate his plan to prevent the Collision of Ships.—By Lord Newry, from Spirit Dealers in Newry, for a revision of the Laws concerning Spirit Licences (Ireland). —From St. Mary, Ross, for Repeal of Union; from Cranbrook, for Exemption of Workhouses from Parochial Rates.

THE QUEEN'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
The Speakerinformed the House that lie had attended her Majesty with the Address of the House, to which her Majesty had been pleased to return the following most gracious answer:—
"Gentlemen—I return you my hearty thanks for this dutiful and affectionate address.
"Your congratulations on the birth of the Prince, my son, are cordially received by me as a proof of your loyal attachment to my person and Government.
"Tile happiness of my people is the first object of my care, and you may rely on my co-operation in every measure which is conducive to the promotion of their welfare."
Her Majesty's answer was ordered to be entered on the journals.

PRINCE ALBERT'S ANSWER.
The Earl of Lincolnappeared at the Bar, and reported that the deputation appointed to
100
wait upon his royal highness Prince Albert with the Address of the House, had attended his royal Highness accordingly, and that his royal Highness bad been pleased to say:
"I return you my warmest thanks for this gratifying instance of your attention to me, and duty to the Queen.
" I thank you for your cordial participation in the happiness which the birth of our son has caused us, and assure you, that the prosperity of my country will ever be the first object of my wishes."
This answer was also ordered to be entered on the journals.

POOR-LAW —FACTORY REGULATIONS.
Mr. S. Wortley,seeing his right hon. Friend, the Secretary for the Home Department in his place, was desirous of making some inquiry in regard to two subjects of great and general importance. Those two subjects were, the revision of the Poor-law Amendment Act, and the regulation of factory labour. His reason for putting these questions at the present time, was, that with regard to the Poor-law, no reference was made to it in her Majesty's Speech, and this omission —
The Speakersaid, the hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the question he desired to put.
Mr. S. Wortleysaid, he was merely anxious to state his reasons for asking the questions. What he wished to ask his right hon. Friend, was, what was the general course the Government intended to take in respect to the revision of the existing Poor-law, and also what were their intentions upon the subject of regulating the labour in factories?
Sir J. Grahamwas understood to say his hon. Friend had prefaced his questions by some short, though somewhat irregular, observations as to the omission in the Queen's Speech. The reason that no notice was taken of the Poor-law in the Speech from the Throne was, that it was considered already sufficiently notorious that the present act would expire on the 31st of July next, and as some measure upon the subject must therefore be brought forward, it was not thought that any especial mention of the subject was necessary. In reply to his hon. Friend's question, he had to state, that it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to introduce a bill for the continuance of the Poor-law commission; and in that bill he should propose to the House

101
such alterations and amendments in the existing law, as, upon mature deliberation, appeared to him necessary and prudent. With regard to the time of the introduction of that measure, that must depend on the progress of other business which would be previously brought forward. As far as he could at present speak of their intentions, Government did not propose to bring in the bill until after Easter. As to the second question which his hon. Friend had put to him, whether the Government intended to bring in any measure for the regulation of labour in factories, he bad to state in reply, that he had found a bill in his office which had been prepared, he believed, by the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Fox Mettle), in conformity with the recommendations of the committee that had sat on the subject; and he proposed to bring in that bill with some alterations. He might, however, mention, that those alterations would materially affect the regulation of infant labour between the ages of nine and thirteen, as at present by law defined; and it was also proposed to make some alterations as to the regulation of the labour of what were called young persons —that was, persons between the ages of thirteen and eighteen; but it was not his intention, on the part of the Government, to propose any such regulation as in some quarters had been strongly recommended, as to the limitation of the time of labour in factories of young persons between the ages of thirteen and eighteen, as some persons hoped, to ten hours a-day.
Lord Ashleybegged to know from his right bon. Friend, whether the regulations he proposed with respect to employment of children between the ages of nine and thirteen, were those which had been recommended by the committee of 1840; and whether he proposed any diminution in the number of working hours in regard to young persons between the ages of thirteen and eighteen?
Sir J. Grahamthought that his noble Friend would, on consideration, perceive the inconvenience of entering into any explanation as to the detail of the measure at the present time; as if he did not fully explain all the intentions of the Government, much misapprehension might arise. He would, therefore, satisfy himself by saying, that no limitation in the hours of labour of young persons was contained in the bill; and, with regard to infant labour, it would be inexpedient that he should give any further explanation until
102
the bill should he brought before the House.

INFORMERS (IRELAND).
Mr. John O'Connell,seeing the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland in his place, wished to ask whether he had read the statement of the criminal Delahunt, that he swore "against Cooney and his wife, in the hopes t,f having pay at the Castle," and also," swore against the men for the assault on Mr. Cradock for the same motive, and without knowing one of them." He asked whether the noble Lord's attention had been called to that statement, and whether there was to b any alteration in a system of employing informers, against which a very strong feeling existed in Ireland?
Lord Eliot,too much feared that the crime of Delahunt was partly attributable to the system which had been referred to. But, consistently with the present state of Ireland, he could not hold out any hope that the practice would be discontinued, They all knew how difficult it was to procure evidence in criminal cases in Ireland, and if the witnesses were not protected from injury, that difficulty would be increaserd. The subject should, however, be brought again under the consideration of persons competent to decide. At present, he could hold out no hope of of a change.

PRIVY COUNCIL — JUDICIAL COMMITTEE.
Mr. Charles Bullerinquired whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to introduce a bill in the present Session, for regulating the judicial committee of the Privy Council, and more particularly whether it were their intention to appoint a new judicial officer as the head?
Sir Robert Peelbegged to say, that the report which the hon. Gentleman might have seen with respect to the appointment of a new judicial officer, was altogether without foundation. Great efforts had been made in reducing the arrears of appeals during the past year, and results had been produced more satisfactory, he believed, than in any year since 1830; and, in fact, at the present time there was an arrear of only fifteen cases, which were ready for hearing. Before any attempt was made to amend the appellate jurisdiction of the Privy Conned, therefore, it would he seen how far its present position

103
might not prove satisfactory for the discharge of the important duties imposed upon it. It was to be observed, that the judicial committee had been greatly strengthened during the last year, by the appointment of two Vice- Chancellors, and the addition of other judges, who, having retired from the bench, were able to devote the whole, or a great portion of their time to the transactions of the business of this particular court. The appointment of the two new Vice-Chancellors had had a most important effect upon the list of causes in Chancery, for the arrear of 500 causes had been already reduced to 200; and although, of course, this circumstance could have no effect on the business of the judicial committee of the Privy Council, yet, as it was possible that the Vice-Chancellors might have some leisure at their disposal, and might take a more active part in the proceedings of the judicial committee of the Privy Council, it was thought that any measure for the alteration of the condition of this court might be altogether postponed. Having received notice from the hon. and learned Member of his intention to ask this question, he thought it a fitting opportunity to add the explanation which he had given.

TEXAS.
Mr. O'Connellbegged to in. quire of the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government, whether the commercial treaty with Texas had been confirmed?
Sir Robert Peel:No, I think not. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will repeat his question to-morrow, I shall be able to answer him with more certainty.

SCOTCH CHURCH.
Mr. Fox Maulebegged to ask the right hon. Baronet whether it was his intention, or that of any Member of her Majesty's Government, to bring in during the present Session of Parliament, any measure with reference to the case of the Church of Scotland?
Sir Robert Peel:Whenever I have a measure connected with the Church of Scotland I will give ample notice of it to the House, and to the right hon. Gentleman who has made this inquiry. I think it is hardly fair to call on the Members of Government, in the position of the present Government, to disclose their intention of bringing forward measures or not; but I will give ample notice of every
104
measure which I propose to introduce. The right hon. Gentleman must excuse me, however, if I decline pledging my self not to introduce one.

CHURCH EXTENSION.
Mr. Haweshoped that he should be more fortunate than his right hon. Friend near him in getting an answer to the question which he was about to put. He begged to ask of the honourable Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford, whether it were his intention, in the course of this Session, again to bring the question of church extension under the consideration of the House?
R. H. Inglis,said, that he had to thank the hon. Member for his courtesy in apprising him of his intention to put this question, in answer to which he begged to say, that it was his intention to call the attention of the present Parliament, as he had done that of the last Parliament, to the subject of church extension, having never lost sight of the extreme importance of this question.
Mr. Hawesasked whether the hon. Baronet proposed to bring forward the question this Session?
Sir R. H. Inglis:This Session.

SPANISH CLERGY.
Lord John Mannersinquired of the right hon. and learned Member for Cork, whether he proposed to bring the condition of the Spanish clergy before the House this Session?
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that it was his intention to bring the subject before the House. He thought that there could not be a class more entitled to the sympathy of that House than these unfortunate clergy, or a subject more calling for their attention, than the infamous system which the Spanish government had pursued in relation to them.

COLONIAL TRADE — DUTIES
Mr. Laboucherebegged to ask the right hon. Gentleman, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, what course he proposed to pursue with regard to the motion of which he had given notice for to-morrow, in reference to the importation of goods in the British colonies? He imagined that the right hon. Gentleman would take the usual course of laying his plan before the House, and adjourn the final consideration of the question to a future day.
Mr W. E. Gladstonesaid, that the right hon. Gentleman had correctly estimated the course he intended to pursue. His intention was, to move that the House do resolve itself into a committee of the whole House, to consider the acts relating to the trade of the British possessions abroad, and to make certain alterations in the duties now by law payable upon goods, wares, and merchandises imported and brought into the British possessions in America and the Mauritius. He should, then, submit a schedule of the duties which he proposed to substitute for those which now existed, and, having moved that it be printed, be should propose a postponement of the discussion to a future day, until which he should not ask for any vote. Undoubtedly, he should wish to fix that day for the earliest period possible, consistently with the nature of the subject, and the business of the House.

PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS.
Mr. Wallacerose, to move that the usage which has prevailed of late years, of abstaining from discussing the petitions of the people at the time of their presentation, shall not be sanctioned in the present Parliament; but that the practice which formerly prevailed in the House of discussing petitions at the time of their presentation shall be restored. The hon. Member said, that before the year 1833, it had been usual to state to the House the opinions expressed by the petitioners, and this was a practice which had been permitted to prevail under the Speaker-ship of Mr. Manners Sutton. He did not mean to say, that great inconvenience had not arisen from Members pushing this privilege beyond the bounds of prudence, while he did mean to say, that the refusal to allow Members to speak at all upon the presentation of petitions was unjust to their constituents, and led to an improper suppression of public opinion in that House. It appeared to him to be a selfish course, instead of a proper discharge of a public duty. There were, no doubt, many persons in the House who wished that their time should not be occupied at all by the presentations of petitions, but who wished that they should merely be laid on the Table of the House, or who were ready, at most, to allow a few words of them, with the prayer, to be read. Now that was not the way in which the people ex-
106
pected their petitions would be treated. They did not wish to see them lying in hundreds upon the Table, and crammed into a bag, while not the slightest attention had been paid to their contents. He did not intend to complain in any way of the conduct of their chief Clerk, who duly discharged the duty imposed upon him, but it was of the usage of the House of which he complained, and complained most loudly. He had already said, that there was a time when the course of practice had been different, but the last Parliament—to which he felt that it was no honour to have belonged a poor do nothing reckless thing, on which he was sorry to have wasted his time and his health, it appeared had introduced this new rule. He did not mean to advocate any waste of the time of the House; on the contrary, he wished to discharge his duties as far as he was concerned, with justice to his constituents; but he did not wish to be muzzled, although such had been his condition since the 7th of February, 1839. He had declared at the commencement of each preceding Session that he would call the attention of the House to that subject, but he had such respect for the majority of the House, that he had refrained from pressing it upon them, although he felt that the perseverance in the practice which he complained of was unconstitutional. The Parliament which had in this respect taken away the liberties of the people was designated a Whig Parliament; the present was designated a Tory Parliament. The vote of that night would show which had most respect for the liberty of the subject—for that right of petitioning, which he held to be one of the highest privileges of the people. He was quite aware how important it was that the public business should commence as early as possible, and he was as anxious that that object should be secured as either the present Ministers of the Crown or their predecessors in office could possibly be. But he was still more anxious that the rights and privileges of the people should not be infringed upon, and he said that those privileges had been destroyed in a manner which was perfectly unjustifiable. If the present Government proceeded as the last Government had done in June and July, they would have five or six bills introduced every night, or as many as sixty or seventy per month. He was not there to support any Ministry,

107
and he was prepared to show the truth of what he had said, and that the conduct of the late Government had been such that it was impossible to transact any business, except that of the Government. It was true that petitions might be printed with the votes; but that privilege was not accorded at all times, and, only when the House chose to allow it. He had had a petition entrusted to him to present from Kelso, in Roxburghshire, which was one of the best possible description, both as regarded its principle and its composition. It prayed that the laws which were passed by that House should be printed as cheaply as the votes which were circulated to Members of that House. He moved that the petition should be printed with the votes, and it was so printed, and his name was appended to it, but such was the condition of the business of the House that the session terminated, and he never had an opportunity of bringing forward the petition. That petition was indeed nominally presented and was printed, but he held that no petition was properly presented until the hon. Member who laid it before the House had an opportunity of making a statement upon its contents. The moment a Member got up, however, and attempted to say anything about a petition, he was interrupted by others, who prevented his proceeding. The clerk, perhaps, then might be desired to read the petition at the Table, but what was the consequence: if it came from many of the towns in Scotland, the clerk was unable to pronounce the name of it, so that the object of the presentation of the petition failed altogether. The same observation was also applied to many places in Ireland and Wales. What he desired was, that in future there should be a general rule adopted, that all those who presented petitions should be at liberty to state, generally, their contents, the prayers of those petitions, and the objects or wishes of the petitioners. That should be strictly the right of the Members of the House, whether a collision of opinion or a discussion took place, as he did not hesitate in saying that the present mode of dealing with the rights of the people was unjust towards them and inconvenient to the House. The hon. Member said that it had just been suggested to him, that the proper mode of proceeding would be to move that the resolution of the 7th February, 1839, be rescinded, and he, there-
108
fore, begged to move that that resolution be read, with that object.
Resolution of February 8, 1839, read as follows:
"The Order of the Day being read, for resuming the adjourned Debate upon the Question proposed yesterday, 'That this House adhere to the established practice with respect to the presentation of Petitions as laid down by Mr. Speaker;'
"The House was moved, That the entry in the Journal of the House, of the Resolution of the House of the 6th day of February 1833, relative to the presentation of public petitions, might be read, and the same was read, as followeth;
'Resolved, That when the contents of a petition have been opened, and the prayer stated by the Member who may have the charge of such petition, Mr. Speaker to desire such Member to bring the same to the Table, and do then direct the Clerk to read it, with-out allowing any other Member to speak, or putting any question upon such petition, before the same shall have been read, unless it should appear to Mr. Speaker, or to any Meinber, that the matter of such petition was in breach of the privilege of the House, or that, according to the rules and orders of the House, such petition ought not to be received, in which cases the Question, 'That the petition be brought up,' be put, and agreed to, before such petition be brought up.'
" The House was also moved, That the entry in the votes of the House of yesterday, relative to the presentation of public petitions, might be read; and the same was read, as followeth;
'Mr. Ward, the Member for Sheffield, having in the course of opening to the House a petition from his constituents respecting the Corn-laws, stated that it was his intention not to confine himself solely to the allegations and prayer of the petition, but to enter generally into the subject, was interrupted by Mr. Speaker, who stated that such proceeding on the part of the hon. Member would be contrary to the rule which he considered had received the sanction of the House, 'that no Member, upon the presentation of a petition, should be allowed to enter generally into any subject,' and requested that he might receive the instructions of the House, whether this rule should be maintained.
'Whereupon a discussion took place, and a Motion was made, and the question proposed,
'That this House adhere to the established practice with respect to the presentation of petitions, as laid down by Mr. Speaker.'
Whereupon, Mr. Speaker was requested to state what he considered to be the rule and practice of the House upon the presentation of petitions.
'Mr. Speakeraccordingly stated, That any Member offering any petition to the House, states the place whence it comes, the number

109
of signatures affixed, and also the material contents of the petition; and is entitled, if he requires it, to have it read at the Table.
'That all petitions complaining of personal grievance, and requiring present redress, are entertained and discussed when presented.
'That all petitions which are presented relating to a subject which the Member wishes to bring under the consideration of the House, are printed with the votes, the Member giving notice, when he presents his petition, of the day on which he will make his Motion.
'That all petitions which relate to any subject with respect to which a notice of Motion has been given, or with respect to which any Bill is in progress through the House, are referred to the Committee on Public Petitions, where they are classified, and are, according to the judgment of the Committee, printed in whole or in part.
Debate adjourned till to-morrow.'
"And the Question being again proposed: —The House resumed the said adjourned Debate:
"And the Question being put, That this House adhere to the established practice with respect to the presentation of petitions, as laid down by Mr. Speaker:'
" The House divided;
"The Yeas to the old Lobby; The Noes to the new Lobby;
"Tellers for the Yeas, Mr, Attorney-General, Sir George Grey –183
"Tellers for the Noes, Mr. Ward, Mr. Villiers—43
"So it was resolved in the Affirmative."
Mr. Wallacebelieved now that the most convenient way would be to move, "That the usage which has prevailed of late years of abstaining from discussing the petitions of the people at the time of their presentation, shall not be sanctioned in the present Parliament, but that the practice which formerly prevailed in the House, of discussing petitions at the time of their presentation, shall be restored."
The Speakerput the question—" That the order now read by the clerk be rescinded,"
Mr. Wallacesaid that this was not his motion.
The Speakersaid, the question which he understood to be put to the House was, that the House would revert to the practice which formerly prevailed of discussing petitions at the time of their presentation. On the 8th of February, 1839, the Speaker was called on to state the practice of the House. The House then came to a resolution to adhere to the practice as stated by the Speaker, and it was absolutely necessary before any new practice was established that that resolu-
110
tion should be rescinded. The question, therefore, he had to put was, that the resolution just read by the clerk at the Table be rescinded.
Sir R. H. Inglissaid, as it was well known that he had been much in the habit of taking part in all matters relating to the petitions presented to that House, he should make no apology for rising on the present occasion. He could not but think that the success of the motion of the hon. Member for Greenock would result in the absorption of the time of the House. Did not the hon. Member know that the number of petitions presented during the last Session of Parliament amounted to no less than 16,801, and that that number, according to the full extent of the principle advanced by the hon. Member for Greenock, would necessarily involve not only 16,801 speeches, but 16,801 replies? Supposing the hon. Member for Greenock had spoken as he would manifestly have wished upon the petition from Kelso, would he contend that the hon. Member for the county would not have a right to reply? and then would it be denied that there must be, if the principle were acted upon, a complete destruction of all the legislative functions of the House? Did the hon. Member for Greenock consider that if his motion were adopted, the whole Session would be consumed in the reading of petitions, and that, after all he desired to do, even in the case of the Kelso petition, the result would be, that that petition would be ordered to be laid upon the Table? True it was that some benefits might accrue to the petitioners by calling the attention of the House to the state and condition of the trade in which they were engaged, but he would ask, would not this be better done by a specific motion on the part of the hon. Member? He appealed not only to the right hon. Gentleman in the chair, but to other hon. Members of less authority in that House, whether the result of all petitions however introduced, must not be that they be ordered to lie on the Table? He had stated that last year the number of petitions was 16,801; the year before it amounted to 18,000. Could it be doubted, that, even if each petition occupied only one minute the House could do nothing else but receive petitions? There must be some common sense exercised on the subject. He had looked over the petitions which, under the existing regulations of the House, had been printed, and he had found

111
that their average length was half a folio closely printed. Now, he entreated the House just to consider the time which would be occupied in reading such a petition, and if the hon. Member presenting it spoke for two minutes—and he might ask would the hon. Member for Greenock consent to be limited to two minutes, if the rule proposed were carried into effect. He did not deny that there was a great deal of reason in some of the positions of the hon. Member for Greenock, but if the hon. Member's views were carried out, it would be physically impossible for the House to do anything else but receive petitions, and then he begged to ask what was to become of the private bills? The hon. Member had expressed no sympathy for the sixty or seventy public bills introduced at a late period of the last Session by his friends, the late Administration; he could not, therefore, be expected to exhibit any sympathy for the measures which late in the Parliamentary year, her Majesty's present advisers might think it necessary to bring forward; still he begged to ask the hon. Member to have some sympathy for the private bills. In fact, there would be no time for legislation, public or private, if the motion of the hon. Gentleman were carried, and if every Member chose to insist upon his rights under it. He thought that the general understanding was, that when any petition was presented of such importance as to justify its publication, so as to appear with the votes, and on the pledge of the hon. Member presenting such petition specifically to call the attention of the House to its contents, the House seldom hesitated to agree to that course; still it appeared from a return which had been moved for by his hon. Friend, the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Greene), that a large portion of the petitions so printed were not followed up by any motion of the hon. Members who had presented them and given notice. In short, the experiment had been tried, and its success did not justify its being carried further. On these grounds, he must oppose the motion which the hon. Member for Greenock had submitted to the House.
Mr. Roebucksaid, that, the sole argument advanced by the hon. Baronet who had just resumed his seat against the present motion, was the absorption of the time of the House. Now, he would suggest to the hon. Baronet, a course that he might now pursue under the present regulation, if he were desirous of occupy-
112
ing the time of the House. Whenever a petition was proposed to be laid on the Table, he might divide the House on the question that it "do lie" on the Table. He might feel an objection to the petition, and to exhibit that objection he might demand a division for the purpose of recording his opinion. But the hon. Baronet had said further, that any hon. Member in presenting a petition had a right to call upon the clerk to read it at the Table. But was this ever done? It was not; and as the hon. Baronet had suggested that it would be physically impossible to get through the discussion of all the petitions presented in the course of a Session, even though each speech did not exceed two minutes' duration, so it would be equally impossible for all petitions to be read which were brought to the Table. He might feel an objection to the petition, and to exhibit that objection he might demand a division for the purpose of recording his opinion. But the hon. Baronet had said further, that any hon. Member in presenting a petition had a right to call upon the clerk to read it at the Table. What did this show? That hon. Gentlemen were actuated by a proper feeling of consideration for the House: and why should the hon. Baronet argue, that the feeling of the House would not be equally consulted and obeyed in every other case. He asked whether the course which was proposed was not much more likely to produce the object which the House ought to have in view—namely, the right understanding by the House of the prayer of the petitioners than the system now in existence? Every hon. Member did not feel himself competent to make a speech, and did not go down to the House prepared to make a set oration; but every one who had a petition to present could state the opinions of his constituents, plainly, and clearly, from the petition, and it would be much better that he should state the contents of the petition as he found it, than merely, as was now the custom, lay it on the Table. While the present system continued, the people did not petition, would not petition, and he would add, could not petition. The hon. Baronet had said, that as many as eighteen thousand petitions had been presented in the course of one Session; but how many of these pertained to the same subjects? How many referred to church extension — how many to Corn-laws?

113
Did the hon. Baronet suppose, that if an hon. Member had twenty petitions upon the subject of church extension, he would make a speech for every one, or that a speech would be made for every petition which was presented? But if the hon. Member was impressed with the peculiar idea of the petition, he ought to come for-forward and state it. It was said, that he might state the substance of the petition, but that would not answer the purpose. The substance of the petition merely stated the grievance complained of, but did not state why—did not state the reasons of that complaint. Three minutes would often be sufficient for that purpose, but the present practice put a stopper upon persons trying to make the petitions of the people heard. He would go further, he would say, that no question could be thoroughly discussed either by the House or the country, but upon the old established principle. He would appeal to the hon. Member for Oxford for his assistance. That hon. Member was a Conservative—now the principle of Conservatism, as he understood it, was an acting upon the precedents of former times, and abiding by the usages of our ancestors. Since the Reform Bill a new practice had been introduced in regard to the petitions of the people, a practice somewhat smacking of the times in which we lived, and yet the hon. Member for Oxford had suffered it to pass unnoticed. He was now arguing, upon Conservative principles, for a return to the wholesome practice of our ancestors, and he trusted that, for consistency's sake, the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford would vote with him. The wants of the people could never be made known to the House while the present practice was persisted in. The newspapers could not make them known to the House—the House knew nothing of newspapers. He was there, as the representative of his constituents, to state their grievances to the House. It was said he might make a motion. To this he would reply, that he might not have an opportunity, he might not be able to speak; although perfectly able to state the feelings of his constituents to the House, he might not have the courage to make a set oration. He would make use of the argumentum ad hominem to the hon. Member for Oxford, and claim his vote for this motion upon Conservative grounds, as a return to the practice of our forefathers.
Mr. Brothertonthought it necessary to give his reason for voting as he intended. He had as great a regard for the right of petition as any hon. Member could have, and would be the last to say anything to abridge it, but he was sure the present motion would not answer the end which was sought to be attained. He had seen this House, before be was a Member of it, when the proposed plan was in full operation; and he could state that at that time it turned out a perfect failure. The petitions were neither noticed by the newspapers, nor heard by the Members of the House. The time of the House was constantly occupied by a few loquacious Members, who could speak for hours at a stretch, and while they got all their petitions disposed of, no one else had an opportunity of addressing the Speaker. He declared that he had attended that House, since he had become one of its Members, as many as ten days in succession with a petition, seeking an opportunity of presenting it, and when he was successful, he had always abstained frutn occupying the attention of the House longer than was necessary, because, seeing other hon. Members with petitions in their hands, a sense of propriety and justice had prompted him to make way for them as early as possible. He considered that it would be quite impossible that the public business could be carried on if every Member was allowed to make a speech upon every petition. With respect to the observations that had been made as to the disorderly manner in which petitions were generally presented, he must be allowed to say that he considered the manner in which petitions had been presented latterly, was most orderly. Every Member had an opportunity of stating what were the contents of the petition which he had to present, and he thought that that was quite sufficient; but as to supposing that every Member was to state his own opinions on these petitions, he considered it quite absurd. He was of opinion that the people had a right to have their petitions heard and attended to, but he did not think, that that could be effected by allowing hon. Members to make long speeches upon their presentation. If the present rule could be relaxed without impeding public business, he should not object, provided that it could be shown that the principle of the rule could be adhered to. At presents if a

115
Member thought a petition of importance, he could give notice of a motion on the subject, and bring the matter under the notice of the House in a formal way.
Mr. O'Connellthought, that the petitions of the people were treated in that House with a levity which was unbecoming. He admitted, that the late practice in the presentation of petitions was an inconvenient one, when five or six speeches were made on the presentation of each petition. No doubt this might be considered as trespassing too much on the time of the House. His hon. Friend, however, had clearly shown, that the present practice was attended with great inconvenience. He thought that a middle course should be adopted, because he could not but think that the practice at present adopted was insulting to the people at large. The House ought to refer the question to a committee, which would doubtless devise some means of giving a more substantial hearing to the petitions of the people, so that no one should have a right to complain, as at present, of the mockery and insult of throwing bundles of petitions together on the Table. He hoped, therefore, that the House would rescind its resolution, and follow it up by some plan which would neither trespass upon the public time nor give the people reason to complain.
Sir Robert Peelsaid if any insult were offered to the people through the present mode of presenting petitions of the people—if there were a mockery of ceremony, to use the words of the hon. Gentleman, by throwing bundles of petitions on the Table—that was the fault of the Members who so presented them, because the rules of the House imposed no such necessity. He would refer to the rules which had been adopted by the majority of the last Parliament. The rules said, that any Member presenting a petition must state the place whence it came, so that the hon. Members who were able to pronounce the names of Irish and Scotch places, had liberty to pronounce them properly, which was their duty, not that of the clerk. The Member presenting a petition was bound also to state the number of signatures and the material contents of the petition. If the petition complained of personal grievance, and required immediate redress, it might be entertained and discussed when presented. If a petition involved a
116
subject of a special nature, it might be ordered to be printed with the votes; when presented, it was the duty of the Member presenting it to give notice of the day when he would bring it under the consideration of the House. This system afforded Members every opportunity of calling the attention of the House to petitions. If the Member did not think it expedient to call the attention of the House to the special subject of a petition, the responsibility rested with him. The discussion of petitions on their presentation was not a part of the ancient proceedings in Parliament. He recollected when he first came into Parliament the practice did not exist, and it was comparatively of recent date. He recollected that Mr. Abercrombie had stated from the chair that, in adopting the resolution, they were only resorting to the old practice. Therefore they were only so far conservative in returning to the practice of half a century ago. Now, if they were to return to the late system, there would be no limit to the presentation of petitions. It was true that in the abstract every petition should be read by the clerk, and attended to by the House; but it was clear that if the clerk was to read every petition, their whole time would be absorbed; and if Members would listen carefully, all he could say was, that this would be different from their usual course. But the real question was, did the present mode diminish the confidence of the people? Since the rules adopted the number of petitions had increased. During the last two Sessions their average number was 17,000 each Session. Certainly they would not infer, from the increase of petitions, that the petitioners were dissatisfied with the present mode of proceeding. He believed there was no alternative between adhering to the rule and the complete relaxation of it. If they left the matter to the discretion of every Member, they would in most cases have a debate on the presentation of a petition. The Member presenting it would be anxious to state fully his opinion on the subject-matter of it; this would provoke a reply and a rejoinder, and much time must inevitably be taken up. When the practice of debating petitions existed twelve or thirteen years ago, they had hardly any time left them for debate. In consequence of this the House, at the suggestion of Mr. Manners Sutton, agreed to the resolution of Feb.

117
6, 1833, which had already been read to the House. He thought that with respect to public feeling on the subject, it would be found that the "general impression" was, that the time of the House was already sufficiently consumed in debating. He did not believe that the great mass of the petitions to that House required that more of the time of the House should be devoted to debate, and less to practical purposes. He recollected that the practice of discussing petitions night after night led to the most objectionable postponement of legislation. He thought that they should look to the practical effect of the present system. As far as the Ministers of the Crown were concerned, he did not think that it could make much difference to them as to which system was adopted, beyond their having necessarily the desire to proceed to legislation. The House must, after all, strike a balance between the advantages and disadvantages of the two systems, and they should recollect that their time was the property of the people, and ought to be carefully devoted for the public benefit.
Mr. Wakleyobserved, that the increase in the number of petitions was no proof of the confidence of the people in that House; that increase could be more readily accounted for from the bad conduct of the House, and from the dissatisfaction which existed in the public mind as to their proceedings. The petitions had increased in consequence of that House acting in a way opposed to the public will, and to the best interests of the community. If the people had been satisfied, their petitions would not have been so numerous. With respect to an observation of the right hon. Baronet, he felt bound to say that he differed entirely from him, as he was convinced that no persons had such an interest in preventing discussion on the presentation of petitions as the Ministers of the Crown, and this was, above all, the case with the last Administration. The right hon. Gentleman also said that they should look to the practical effect of the present system. He was willing to do so, and he contended that it was altogether a mockery. He had seen thirty petitions presented by an hon. Member that evening, certainly all on the same subject, but the whole time occupied in their presentation did not exceed half a minute. Now when they took into consideration the trouble and expense that was attendant
118
on getting up public meetings for the purpose of petitioning that House, and when they recollected that the results of these thirty public meetings had been disposed of in less than half a minute, he would ask whether the proceeding was not altogether farcical, and reflected on the character of the House? There was an excellent mode of diminishing the number of petitions which he could suggest to the House, namely, shortening the duration of Parliament. Unfortunately, at present, they had a lease of their seats for seven years, and the persons who had sent them to that House were compelled to petition, and pray them to alter their proceedings; and it would appear, that when the public came with their complaints, they were to be treated with neglect; and notwithstanding this, that assembly was called the House of the people. Now, what was the conduct of the other House with respect to petitions! The other House was an hereditary assembly, while that body pretended to represent the people. In the other House there was no check as to the mode of presenting petitions, but the fullest discussion was allowed, while in that House they were gagged and stopped if they endeavoured to make an observation on the prayer of the people. The right hon. Baronet said, that if a Member wished it, he could make a motion on any particular grievance, but he would ask whether it were not notorious, that a Member might place his notice of motion for week after week, or month after month, in the votes, without having an opportunity afforded him of bringing it forward? He recollected a remarkable case of the difference of the treatment of petitions between that and the other House. In one instance his hon. Friend, the Member for Westminster, presented a petition complaining of a great grievance, and he was obliged to confine himself merely to the statement of its prayer, and was not allowed to make any comment. On the same night a copy of that petition was presented by Lord Brougham to the other House, and the speech of the latter occupied three columns of the morning journals. If he was consulted, he would entreat the people to present their petitions to the other House, for in the House of Commons, their grievances were not listened to.
Sir Walter Jameswould only take notice of one remark which had just fallen

119
from the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Wakley). He had, indeed, stated several things in which he could not concur. He could agree with the hon. Member opposite, that that House ought to represent the people, and that they ought to study the wishes and interests of the people; it was their business to look after the people's interests, and the question now was, whether they were to conduct their affairs in a business-like way, or to delay their affairs in a tedious and vexatious way?
Sir V. Blakesupported the motion of the hon. Member for Greenock. The ancient right of the people, relative to the presenting of petitions, had been curtailed in that House, and he thought there should be every reasonable licence for discussing them, on their presentation.
Mr. Wallacereplied. In the years 1833, 1834, and 1835, when they debated on petitions as much as they thought proper, much more business had been got through than ever since. As to the remark of the right hon. Baronet, that the people felt there was sufficient debating, he quite agreed that debating the same point from day to day by adjournments, was much to be deprecated. If Members could not, when a question was brought in, sit there till next day, if it were necessary to bring it to a conclusion, as their forefathers had done, they ought to stay away from that House altogether. In the course of the coming discussion on the Corn-law, he had no doubt that the leaders, as they were called, on both sides of the House, had regularly arranged the debate, and that it was all settled that one should speak after the other; and the consequence would be, that next week would be occupied from Monday to Friday. As for the statement, that the more important petitions were printed for the information of the public, the House must remember that they were usually not printed till they were four weeks old, and if they were then presented to the fourth estate—the reporters in the gallery—they would not look at them. No; the public must have their news fresh; they must have their political food given them day by day, or not at all; they must have it hot and hot, or not at all. As to the objection of the hon. Baronet, the Member for Oxford, as to the time that would be occupied, he must say, that if an hon. Member could not say all that was neces-
120
sary about a petition, in two minutes, he he should think his brains were not worth very much.
The House divided on the question, that the resolution be rescinded:—Ayes 50; Noes 237; Majority 187.

List of the AYES.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Muntz, G. F.

Bernal, R.

O'Connell, Dan.

Blackstone, W B. S.

O'Connell, M.

Blake, Sir V.

O'Connell M. J.

Bowring, Dr.

O'Connell, J.

Chapman, W.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Cobden, R.

Pechell, Capt.

Collins, W.

Pinney, W.

Crawford, W. S.

Plumridge, Capt.

D'Israeli, B.

Powell, C.

Duncombe, T.

Rennie, G.

Esmonde, Sir T.

Ricardo, J. L.

Ewart, W.

Roche, Sir D.

Ferguson, Col.

Strickland, Sir G.

Fielden, J.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Hall, Sir B.

Villiers, hon. C P.

Harford, S.

Vivian, hon. Capt.

Harris, J. Q.

Wakley, T.

Hatton, Capt. V.

Wason, R.

Heathcoat, J.

Watson, W. H.

Hill, Lord M.

Wawn, J. T.

Hindley, C.

Williams, W.

Johnson, Gen.

Yorke, H. R.

Leader, J. T.

Mitcalfe, H.

TELLERS.

Morris, D.

Wallace, R.

Mostyn, hon. E. L.

Roebuck,

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T.D.

Bramston, T. W.

A'Court, Capt.

Broadley, H.

Ackers, J.

Broadwood, H.

Acton, Col.

Brodie, W. B.

Adderley, C.B.

Brotherton, J.

Allix, J.P.

Browne, hon. W.

Antrobus, E.

Brownrigg, J. S.

Bailey, J. jun.

Bruce, Lord E.

Baillie, Col.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Baillie, H.J.

Bryan, G.

Baird, W.

Buck, L. W.

Balfour, J.M.

Buckley, E.

Baring,hon.W.B.

Buller, E.

Baring, H.B.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Baring,rt.hon.F.T.

Busfield, W.

Barnard, E.G.

Campbell, Sir H.

Baskerville, T.B.M.

Campbell, A.

Beckett, W.

Carnegie, hon. Capt.

Bell, M.

Cartwright, W. R.

Benett, J.

Chelsea, Viscount

Beresford, Capt.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Beresford, Major

Cholmondely, hon. H.

Blakemore, R.

Christmas, W.

Bodkin, W.H.

Christopher, R. A.

Boldero, H.G.

Clayton, Sir W. R.

Borthwick, P.

Clerk, Sir G.

Botfield, B.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Bowes, J.

Cochrane, A.

Bradshaw, J.

Colborne, hn. W.N. R,

121

Collett, W. R.

Hodgson, R.

Compton, H. C.

Hogg, J.W.

Conolly, Col.

Houldsworth, T.

Corry, right hon. H.

Holmes, hn.W. A'Ct.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Hope, hon. C.

Cresswell, B.

Hope,G.W.

Cripps, W.

hornby, J.

Crosse, T. B.

Howard, hn.C.W.G.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Hughes, W.B.

Darner, hon. Col.

James, Sir W.C.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Jermyn, Earl

Denison, J. E.

Johnson, W.G.

Denison, E. B.

Johnstone,A.

Dickinson, F. H.

Johnstone, H.

Divett, E.

Knatchbull, right hon. Sir E.

Dodd, G.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Knight, F.W.

Drummond, H. H.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Duncan, G.

Lambton, H.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Larpent, Sir G.de.H.

Dundas, D.

Lawson, A.

Easthope, Sir J.

Legh, G. C.

Eaton, R. J.

Leicester, Earl of

Ebrington, Viscount

Lennox, Lord A.

Egerton, Sir P.

Liddell, hon. H.T.

Eliot, Lord

Lincoln, Earl of

Elphinstone, H.

Litton, E.

Emlyn, Viscount

Loch, J.

Escott, B.

Lockhart W.

Ferrand, W. B.

Lockhart, W.

Fitzroy, Capt.

Lowther, J.H.

Ffolliott, J.

Lygon, hon.Gen.

Forbes, W.

Macaulay, rt. hn. T.B.

Forman, T. S.

Mackenzie, T.

Fuller, A. E.

MacGeachy, T.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Mahon, Viscount

Gill, T.

Mainwaring, T.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W.E.

Manners, Lord C.S.

Godson, R.

March, Earl of

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Marsham, Viscount

Gordon, Lord F.

Martyn, C.C.

Gore, W. O.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Gore, Wm. O.

Mitchell, T.A.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Morgan, O.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Munday, E.M.

Granger, T. C.

Murray, C.R.S.

Grant, Sir A. C.

Napier, Sir C.

Greenall, P.

Neeld, J.

Greene, T.

Neville, R.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Newry, Viscount

Grimsditch, T.

Nicholl, rt. Hon. J.

Grimston, Viscount

Northland, Viscount

Grogan, E.

O'Brien, W. Smith

Halford, H.

Paget, Lord A.

Hamilton, J.

Pakington, J.S.

Hamilton, W. J.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Peel, J.

Harcourt, G. G.

Philips, M.

Hardinge, rt. hn. SirH.

Pigot, Sir R.

Hardy, J.

Plumptre, J.P.

Hastie, A.

Pollock, Sir F.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Praed, W.T.

Henley, J.W.

Protheroe, E.

Herbert, hon. S.

Pusey, P.

Hill, Sir R.

Reshleigh, W.

Hodgson, F.

Reade, W.M.

122

Repton, G. W. J.

Temmemt, J.E.

Richards, R.

Thompson, Mr. Ald.

Rous, hon. Capt.

Tollemache, J.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Towneley, J.

Russell, Lord J.

Trollope, Sir J.

Sandon, Viscount

Trotter, J.

Scarlett, hon. R. C.

Tufnell, H.

Shaw, right hon. F.

Vere, Sir C.B.

Sheppard, T.

Verner, Col.

Shirley, E. P.

Vernon, G.H.

Sibthorp, Col.

Villiers, Viscount

Smith, rt. hn. R. V.

Vivian, hon. Major

Smythe, hon. G.

Waddington. H,S.

Smollett, A.

Walker, R.

Somerset, Lord G.

Wall, C.B.

Somerton, Viscount

Wood, Col. T.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Wortley, hon. J.S.

Stanley, Lord

Wrightson, W.B.

Stansfield, W. R.

Wyndham, Col.

Strutt, E.

Young, J.

Stuart, H.

Young, Sir W.

Sturt, H. C.

TELLERS

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Taylor, T. E.

Inglis, Sir H.

LIBRARY COMMITTEE-ATTENDANCE OF MEMBERS.
Sir H. Inglismoved the re-appointment of the select committee on the Library of the House.
Mr. W. Williamswished, in connexion with this motion, to call the attention of the House to a practice that had prevailed for some time past in regard to the formation of select committees, and which certainly required amendment. The name of the hon. Baronet, the Member for Oxford, appeared on two other committees besides the Library committee, the appointment of which was to be moved for this evening. Now, there was no Member of that House, whose services on a committee were more valuable than those of the hon. Baronet, but he could not overcome physical impossibilities, nor could he give a due attendance on three committees at the same time. The subjects to which those committees had to give their attention were most important ones, particularly that of the committee on public petitions, especially as by the division that had just taken place, the House had refused to allow Members to advocate the petitions of their constituents, but had referred them, as their alternative, to this committee, who were to select such petitions as they deemed important, and order them to be printed. With regard to the printing committee, as it was necessary that all published documents should be read by them, in order that no scandalous matter should be allowed therein, the subject of the constitution of that committee became

123
of the more importance, in order to insure a due attention. The practice of nominating the same hon. Members on several committees, went very much against die attainment of this object. In the United States, a different course was pursued. In the House of Representatives ten committees, for so many different subjects, were appointed every Session, and to them every question requiring investigation was referred. Those committees were composed of indifferent persons taken generally from the House, and in no instance was any one Member nominated on two committees. The consequence was, that they were enabled to devote their entire time to the subjects placed before them. But the practice of this House was very different. If a committee was moved for by a member of the Government, it was usual for him to nominate Members of the Government upon it, or their immediate supporters, and a corresponding number of Members of similar standing on the other side of the House, so that a great many of the most important committees were confined to a comparatively few Members selected from both sides of the House. In the ease of committees moved for by the individual Members, it was the practice for the mover to secure a majority of persons favourable to his views, and to select Members of the greatest ability to carry them out, the committees being completed with those on the other side also, who were most distinguished. The consequence of this was, that there was generally the least possible attention on the part of the Members of ch committees. When they made reports, they had no weight with the House, and they had not the influence they ought to have, either in the House or in the country. Many such motions were merely idle, to gratify some crotchet on the part of the mover, and not with any sound object to justify them. He had seen great unfairness practised on committees thus constituted, with a majority of Members favourable to the purpose for which the committee had been appointed. When questions were put that might elicit answers unfavourable to that purpose, he had known the questions over-ruled by the majority. In all such cases, the mover having the majority on his side, was able to carry everything. Surely, if some other system than this were adopted, it would be more advantageous to the character of the House.
Sir R. Inglissaid, perhaps he ought to apologise for not having prefaced his motion with any observation, but the fact was, that it had been usual to concur in that motion at the commencement of the Session without any discussion. It now, however, became his duty to offer a statement to the House. The observations of the hon. Member, however, applied more to the committees on petitions and on printing than to that which formed the subject of the present motion—indeed, with the exception of what the hon. Member had said on the subject of his (Sir R. Inglis's) name being on all of them, the whole of his observations had that application. Via he hoped the House would excuse him if, instead of waiting till those other committees were moved in order to make his remarks, he at once proceeded to reply to the hon. Member. He would beg to remind the hon. Gentleman that the practice he complained of no longer existed. Twelve or fourteen years ago, it was the case; the names of certain Members appeared on almost every committee. The services of his right hon. Friend, at the head of the Treasury, in particular were deemed of such value, even for half an hour, that there was scarcely a committee, fifteen years ago, to which he was not nominated. There were also some other names not so well entitled to the distinctions which almost always appeared on those committees, which were frequently composed of as many members as forty-two or forty-five. He had not individually objected to the practice; on the contrary, he felt that there were several advantages in having the larger number; but on the attention of the House being called to it by the hon. Member for Dumfries, then the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Ewart), it was ordered that no committee should be composed of more than fifteen members, and that no member should be nominated until he had individually given his assent; and that practice had been adopted since: though, with respect to the Library Committee, the number had always been sixteen. With regard to this Library Committee, its functions were extremely limited. Want of room prevented their buying more books, and there was consequently little or no duty to be done. He had, however, thought it his duty to submit the motion, as being one of the usual Sessional orders. With regard to the Committee on Public Petitions, he had undertaken to move for its reappointment in the absence of the hon. Member for

125
Kendal, who was the chairman of that committee. He could only assure the hon. Member that he would be quite contented to withdraw from that committee, and to move that the name of the hon. Member be substituted. He had little inclination for so laborious and uninviting a duty; but as he had served some years upon it, his name had again been included. The third notice on the paper—that for the appointment of the committee on Printing—he moved for his hon. Friend, the Secretary to the Treasury, who could best explain why the committee was so constituted. He believed that it was, unless perhaps with one exception, exactly the same as last Session. From that committee, also, he could assure the hon. Member, he would be quite willing to withdraw.
Dr. Bowringcould not but attach very considerable importance to what had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Coventry. He was himself on the Public Petitions Committee for some time, and during that time scarcely more than two members ever attended upon it. The importance of this fact appeared to him to he much increased since they had been told, in the discussion which had just closed, that the petitions of the people received great attention from a committee specially appointed to take charge of them. Now, it had happened to him, time after time, to be the only member of that committee who had attended, and of so little importance did the business appear to be to others, that scarcely any member thought it worth his while to attend while the report was prepared, which was periodically laid before the House. The attendance on the Printing Committee, however, was much more regular, and scarcely any of the members were ever absent. He certainly thought that when committees of this kind were appointed, some pledges ought to be given by members that they would attend and discharge their duties.
Sir R. Inglis,in reference to the statement of the hon Member, that the Public Petitions Committee was ill-attended, hoped he would not be misunderstood when he said that when he was chairman of that committee he certainly did not omit to read any petition that was referred to the committee. That was a most laborious undertaking, and one which lie would not go through again. He had now ceased to do so for some time. He did not mean to say that where, perhaps, there were thirty or forty similar petitions on
126
the same subject, and in the same form, such as sugar, slavery, or other subjects of that sort, he considered it necessary to read every one, but he read every one which was distinct and original.
Dr. Bowringdid not mean to cast any personal reflection on the hon. Baronet, but he was sure he would not deny that the attendance had been very limited.
Mr. Ewartconcurred in the views of the hon. Member for Coventry on this subject. There were two questions involved; first, whether it would not be better that these committees should be nominated by the Speaker or some other competent person having a full knowledge of who were the most proper Members to be selected, instead of continuing the present practice of allowing the committees to be nominated by the Member who would afterwards be chairman; and secondly, what should be the number of the Members composing them. He believed that the reduction from forty to fifteen, to which the hon. Baronet had, referred, had been found to work well and for his own part he was the advocate of the principle of still further diminution, conceiving that as you diminished the number you increased the utility and the individual responsibility. If the number were reduced to seven it would, in his opinion, be still better; and he wished the same principle were applied to committees on private bills.
Motion agreed to, and Committee ap, pointed, consisting of the following hon. Members;—Sir R. H. Inglis, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir R. Peel, Lord J, Russell, Mr. Baring, Mr. W. Wynn, Mr. Rutherfurd, Mr. Shaw, Viscount Palmerston, Mr. Gladstone, Dr. Stock, Mr. Acland, Colonel Fox, Mr. G. Knight, Viscount Mahon, and Mr. Pendarves.

COMMITTEE ON PETITIONS.
Sir R. H. Inglismoved, the reappointment of the Select Committee on public petitions consisting of the following Members:—Mr. G. W. Wood, Sir E. Knatchbull, Mr. Greene, Mr. E. Buller, Mr. Brother-ton, Mr. 0. Stanley, Mr. Pusey, Mr. C. Howard, Mr. V. Stuart, Captain Jones, Lord Viscount Duncan, Sir C. Douglas, Lord Fitzalan, and Mr. Buckley. The hon. Gentleman added that he would however beg to withdraw his name, which had formerly been on the list, and to substitute that of Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williamsassured the hon. Baronet that his remarks were not intended to apply to him personally. He (Mr. Williams) entertained a high respect for the hon. Gentleman individually; but he conceived it his duty to maintain the principle for which he had contended. He suggested that the hon. Baronet should permit his name to continue on the list of the committee.
Mr. Wakleyhoped that the name of Mr. Williams would be retained on the committee, for he believed that hon. Gentleman would look after the Radical petitions. He had observed with deep regret that those petitions had not received that kind and generous treatment which had been exhibited towards other petitions. Upon looking over the names of the committee now proposed he thought the petitions to which he alluded were not likely to receive very favourable treatment.
Mr. Roebuckwished to say a word in explanation of his previous observations, lest it might be supposed he had advanced any incorrect statements when he asked the hon. Member for the University of Oxford, to act on Conservative principles. According to the rules respecting public petitions there were four separate stages in which they might be discussed; but when the Reformed Parliament met, those opportunities of discussion were rendered less available, particularly by the order of the 3rd of February, 1833, which directed, that petitions should be discussed only between the hours of 12 and 3 o'clock in the day. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, was therefore in error, when he said, that it had anciently been the practice of the House not to allow discussion upon petitions. The hon. Baronet was, he believed, in Parliament when the celebrated question of the orders in Council was brought before the House, which was debated for six nights upon petition. He would assert—and he could appeal to the personal knowledge of many hon. Members to verify the fact—that fifty years back no question was proposed to the House, except that of adjournment, without debate; and certainly, for the last century or two, no less than four questions might be proposed to the House upon petitions on which they might be discussed.
Sir R. Peelsaid, the question was as to practice, not as to form. He had not spoken of the forms of the House; because, according to those forms, a debate might
128
occur on a motion being made that the petition do lie on the Table. Any Member might avail himself of his privilege in that respect. He could state that the practice of Parliament thirty years ago was not to debate upon petitions; and it would be found from the records of the proceedings of the House that fifty years since there were few debates upon the presentation of petitions to Parliament.
Mr. Williamshoped that his name would be withdrawn from the committee, and replaced by that of the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Inglis),
Sir R. Inglisexpressed his willingness to accede to the wish of the hon. Gentleman, and to allow his name to remain on the committee.
Motion agreed to. The names of Sir George Clerk, and Mr. Williams having been added.

PRINTING COMMITTEE.
Sir G. Clerksaid, that great expense had formerly been incurred in printing documents which were laid before the House, and, in order to avoid any unnecessary expenditure in this respect, a committee had been appointed in whom was vested a discretionary power as to the printing of documents. The operation of that committee had been found most beneficial, and he begged to move its re-appointment.
The motion was agreed to, and the committee was appointed, to consist of the following Members:—Sir G. Clerk, Sir R. H. Inglis, Mr. Pusey, Mr. V. Smith, Mr. Shrutt, Lord Mahon, Mr. Tufnell, and Mr. P. Stewart.

COPYRIGHT OF DESIGNS.
Mr. Emerson Tennentmoved that the House do resolve itself into a committee of the whole House to take into consideration the laws affecting the Copyright of Designs for the ornament of articles of manufacture.
On the motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair.
Mr. W. Williamssaid, that having in the last Parliament opposed any alteration of the present law on this subject, he could not allow the bill to pass through its first stage without stating that he entertained as strong, if not stronger, objections to the proposed change in the law as he did when the question was formerly mooted. He believed if the hon. Mover had been throughly acquainted with the nature of the trade to which his bill referred, he

129
would not have contemplated any alteration in the present law. Some of the leading persons connected with that trade had been Members of this House, but for a period of forty years no change had been made in the regulations affecting it. It was a remarkable circumstance that during the recent depression of almost every branch of trade in the country, this branch had been almost the only one in which the amount of trade during the past year had exceeded that of any preceding year, and yet the hon. Gentleman brought forward a proposition which struck at the very root of that trade. He was convinced that the result of' the measure proposed by the bon. Gentleman—if it was carried out on the same principles on which his bill of last Session was founded—would be entirely to ruin this branch of manufacture as regarded the foreign trade.
House in Committee.
Mr. Emerson Tennentsaid, that the bill he now proposed was nearly similar to that which he submitted to the House during the last Session. He had, however, introduced one alteration. By the present measure he proposed to extend the right of copyright for a period of nine months, instead of twelve months —the term he formerly contemplated. The hon. Member observed, that as the discussion would be taken in a subsequent stage of the bill, he would now simply move that the chairman be instructed to move for leave to bring in a bill to amend the laws relating to the copyright of designs for the ornament of articles of manufacture.
An hon. Memberasked whether any change had been made in those provisions of the bill which affected the registration of designs, with a view to protect manufacturers residing in distant parts of the country from those difficulties which would have attended the operation of the measure proposed last Session by the hon. Member for Belfast? If He rightly understood the former bill, there was to be only one office for registration in the United Kingdom. Those manufacturers, therefore, who resided near the office, would have the opportunity of making themselves acquainted with the patterns registered, an advantage which distant manufacturers could not possess without great difficulty and expense.
Dr. Bowringsaid, there were great imperfections in the legislation of this country
130
for the protection of patterns in design. If that protection were desirable for the interest of manufactures and of commerce, the means of establishing the copyright should be easy, and of obtaining redress economical in cases of invasion. But there was no such machinery in this country for providing such facilities. One central office of registration was incompetent; it was inaccessible to the greatest portion of those who wanted its aid—and then if a pattern were printed, there was no redress but at an expense not worth the sacrifice. In France the prud'hommes, which existed in all the great manufacturing districts, had undertaken the business of registration, which they could accomplish at an exceedingly small cost, so that the groundwork of protection was there easily provided. In France, also, they had a great advantage, which was not possessed in this country, in being able to give effect to their legislation by a simple and appropriate tribunal, for the same body which recorded the primary claims of the inventor, ministered justice when the pattern was invaded, and the right of the manufacturer attacked. In this country the cost of obtaining redress was so great, that in ninety-nine cases out of 100, it was unavailable; for, where the property was small, the means of redress, to be beneficial, ought to be economical. There appeared to him, then, to be great difficulties in considering this question—first, in providing a means of general registration, which should be accessible to all who needed it; and, secondly, in providing an economical and prompt means of redress, in cases where an invention was invaded, it proved that none of our existing institutions were competent to effect the object desired—and there might be some doubt if the object itself was worthy of legislation.
Mr. M. Philipssaid, he had felt it his duty on a former occasion to offer an uncompromising opposition to the measure proposed by the hon. Member for Belfast; and time and reflection had convinced him of the policy of the course which he then pursued. He would not oppose the introduction of the present bill, because an opportunity would be afforded of dicussing it on the second reading. He was, however, most anxious that the subject should be fairly and fully brought before the House.
Mr. Tennentwas understood to say, that he did not conceive any inconvenience would arise from there being but one re-

131
gistrar of designs for the United Kingdom, and that he did not think any alteration in the bill in that respect was necessary. By the present bill, he proposed that in case of the invasion of a copyright of design, a remedy should be afforded by proceedings before two magistrates, which would render the expense comparatively trifling.
Resolution agreed to.
The House resumed-Resolution reported.
Bill ordered to be brought in, and it was accordingly brought in and read a first time.
House adjourned.

MINUTES.
Petitions. Metropolitan Bridge Tolls; for Amendment of Weights and Measures Act; from Lord-Provost, and Town-council, for Modification of Corn-laws.
Bill. 1a Buildings Regulations; Boroughs Improvement; Spiritual Corporations Leases; Ecclesiastical, Benefices Demises.

BUILDING REGULATIONS—BOROUGH IMPROVEMENTS.
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, that he was anxious to redeem his pledge of last Session respecting two bills, one called the Buildings Regulation Bill, and the other the Borough Improvement Bill. They had twice been brought forward, and twice carried through their lordships' House: if they now were adopted for the third time, even if amended in the other House, provided the principle were retained, he should he ready to adopt the changes.
The Buildings Regulation Bill and the Borough Improvement Bill were presented by the noble Marquess, and read a first time.

HER MAJESTY'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
The Lord Chancellorread

95
the following answer from her Majesty to the Address of the House, voted on Thursday last.
MY Lords,
THIS affectionate and loyal Address gives Me the truest Satisfaction.
I THANK you for it sincerely, as well as for your Congratulations on the Birth of the Prince, my Son, and for the Regard which you express on this Occasion to My Person and Government.
MY WISH is, and ever will be, to promote the Prosperity and Happiness of My faithful People.
Her Majesty's Answer was ordered to be entered on the journals.

PRINCE ALBERT'S ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
The Marquis of Exeter,accompanied by Lord Colville, reported the answer of his Royal Highness Prince Albert to the Address of the House. It was read by the former noble Lord as follows:—
"My Lords,—This instance of your kind attention to me, and of your loyal affection to the Queen, calls for my hearty thanks. The happiness and prosperity of this great kingdom, to which this event more closely unites me, will always have my earnest wishes and my earnest prayer."
The Answer of his Royal Highness was also directed to be entered on the journals.

FORGERY OF EXCHEQUER-BILLS.
The Duke of Wellingtonwished to represent to the noble lord, who had given a notice for to-day connected with the late fraudulent transaction in Exchequer-bills, the expediency of postponing it. The notice had been given on Friday prior to the usual hour for commencing business, or he should then have requested the noble Lord to defer it until certain papers relating to the recent enquiry into the subject already on the Table were printed, and in the hands of Members. Another ground for that course was, that their Lordships should wait to see what was done upon the same question in another place, to which it might be said more properly to belong. He hoped, therefore, that the noble Lord would consent to fix his projected motion for a future day.
Lord Monteaglesaid, that a misappre-
96
hension had gone abroad as to the day for which he had fixed his motion. He had named the 17th, and not the 7th of February, and if on the 17th it should be thought expedient to postpone it, he should be quite ready to yield to the wishes of the House, and to pay that respect to the recommendation of the noble Duke which of course it would always deserve. He had felt a particular necessity and urgency fur giving a notice on the subject on the earliest possible day after the meeting of Parliament, even before the report to which the noble Duke had alluded was in his hands, or in those of any other peer. He should be prepared at the proper time to show that independently of any inquiry by commissioners, considering the peculiarly parliamentary responsibility of the office he had the honour to hold, a case might possibly be made out for a parliamentary investigation also. Viewing the subject in that light, the noble Duke would be aware that it behoved him to give his notice without the slightest knowledge of, or reference to, the report of the commissioners. Had he waited until that report had been made, it might have been said that he wished to appeal to the House against the opinion and recommendation of the commissioners. He felt every confidence that the commission, very properly issued by her Majesty's Government at the earliest moment, had conducted its inquiry in a manner most satisfactory to the public; therefore the last object in his mind was to take any step that could imply suspicion, or derogate in any way from the responsibility of the commissioners. If he were allowed to say one word more it would be that, after having during a long period been engaged on the part of the public in arduous and painful duties, which he trusted he had performed to the satisfaction of the Members of Government themselves—after having been repeatedly the object of attack and vituperation—very immaterial as affecting himself, but which might be very material as affecting the public securities—he had thought it right not to enter into any personal controversy on personal matters, but to take the earliest opportunity, after Parliament had met, to claim, and to entreat of their Lordships, to whom, in common with the other House of Parliament, he was responsible, to enter upon the most rigorous and searching investigation, in

97
order to ascertain whether what had occurred, had, in any way, originated with him in the discharge of the duties of his office. In the exercise of the power vested in their Lordships, and in the other House of Parliament, this was an inquiry which Parliament might with great propriety institute. He had deemed it right to say thus much in justification of his notice in order to remove the misapprehension of the noble Duke, either that it was meant to imply want of confidence in the proceedings of Government, or in those to whom the investigation of the subject had by the Government been delegated. Before he sat down he might be allowed to add one word more, and he only added it because it concerned the value of the public securities. It had been said, in some of the newspapers of Saturday, that the present Assistant-Comptroller of the Exchequer, Mr. Perceval, held his office merely by the appointment of Mr. Eden, the late Assistant-Comptroller. If that statement were true, not one of the Exchequer Bills signed by Mr. Perceval would he worth the paper on which it was written. It was not only not true, but the very reverse was the fact; the resignation of Mr. Eden took place before Mr. Perceval was appointed, and that appointment of Mr. Perceval was not on the nomination of Mr. Eden, but in due course, under a Treasury warrant, signed by three Lords of the Treasury. In the course of this evening or to-morrow, he (Lord Monteagle) wished to move for copies of the appointments of Mr. Eden and Mr. Perceval, in order to set the matter right with the public. He also was anxious to have upon the Table, what there could be no objection to produce, the correspondence between the Lords of the Treasury and the Comptroller-General, and the instructions given as to the mode in which the inquiry should be conducted, so that the whole transaction should be completely before the House. He fixed his motion at present for the 17th of February, assuring the noble Duke at the same time that if any reason then existed for deferring it, he should be most ready to comply with the suggestion.

MARRIAGES BY DISSENTING CLERGY (IRELAND).
The Marquess of Clanricarde, in pursuance of notice, rose to present a petition, and to put a question to the noble Duke respecting marriages
98
solemnised by Presbyterian ministers between members of their own persuasion and Episcopalians. He observed that no Marriage Act had been passed in Ireland, as in this country since the year 1753. He had hoped that some general measure would have been introduced, but he had been disappointed. Unfortunately the Legislature not having stirred in the matter, the judicial authorities in Ireland had taken a new course, and had caused the greatest dismay, especially in the north of the sister kingdom, by declaring all marriages void which had been performed by Presbyterian ministers between Presbyterians and members of the Church of England. Hitherto such marriages had been considered legal, but in a recent case of bigamy the counsel for the prisoner had taken art objection to the legality of the first marriage, on the ground he had stated, and that objection having been referred to the judges, a majority had decided in favour of the objection. It would be presumptuous for him to say that the recent decision was bad law, but he might observe that it was directly in the teeth of what had been hitherto considered and ruled to be law. Only five years ago a man had been convicted at Carrickfergus of bigamy, in whose favour the same objection had been raised and over-ruled; the offender was accordingly transported, and was now suffering the sentence of the law. In cases that respected civil rights and questions of maintenance, marriages under similar circumstances had been held to be good. It had been stated publicly that Ministers were preparing a bill to remedy the immediate evil, and it would certainly be the height of iniquity to allow innocent parties who had been married under a misapprehension of the law to suffer for their mistake. He begged to ask, therefore, whether any bill was to be introduced, whether it would have a prospective as well as a retrospective effect, and whether it would affect the various religious denominations in Ireland? The petition he had to present was from members of the Presbyterian church residing in Dublin; but he knew that others of the same kind were on their way from the north of Ireland.
The Duke of Wellingtonreplied that her Majesty's Government intended immediately to introduce a bill to remedy the evils resulting from the late decision of the judges in Ireland. A further measure was

99
also contemplated of a permanent kind, and directed against the present anomalous slate of the law in that country, but it required more consideration. When it had received the attention due to the subject, and was fully prepared, it would be brought forward in Parliament.
Lord Broughamasked out of what case the recent decision had proceeded?
The Marquess of Clanricardeanswered that it had arisen out of the case of a man of the name of Smith, tried for bigamy.
Adjourned.