Sitting of 27 April 1843

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1°. Superior Courts; Arms (Ireland).
Private.—2°.Kentish Town Paving.
Reported—St. James's (Westminster) Improvement.
3° and passed:—St. Helen's Waterworks; South Eastern and London and Croydon Railways.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Messrs. A. Chapman, Trelawney, Busfeild, Divett, Pritchard, Farnham, Evans, Broadley, Ward, H. Berkeley, Scholefield, Davis, R. Trevor, E. Smith, Christopher, Ord, Barnard, Becket, Ainsworth, H. Hinde, R. Yorke, Cavendish, Hardy, and Brotherton, Sir H. Hardinge, Dr. Bowring, Sir G. Staunton, Captain Rous, Lord Norreys, the Attorney-General, Lord Alford, Colonel Fox, Lord Sandon, Lord Pollington, Sir G. Strickland, Colonel G. Langton, Lord Arundel, and Captain Plumridge, from an enormous number of places, against the Educational Clauses in the Factories Bill—By Sir R. H. Inglis, from the Clergy of Lancaster, in favour of the Factories Bill with modifications. —By Dr. Bowring, from Blackburn, and twenty other places, for the Total and Immediate Repeal of all Corn and Provision Laws.—By Colonel G. Wyndham, from six places in Sussex, against the Importation of Corn at a Low Duty from Canada.—From an Anti-Slavery-Society, against Portions of the American Treaty—From Whitechurch, Meline, and Eglwyswrw, for the Repeal of the Roman Catholic Relief Act—From Lichfield, for Church Extension— From Amphthill, and Howden, against the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill.—From a Mercantile Society in London, for carrying out Rowland Hill's Plan of Post-office Improvement.—From Newark, and Festiniog Unions, for the Repeal of the Registaation Act. —From Whitby, against the new Bankruptcy Act—From Worcester, for Medical Reform.—From Torksey-cum-Membris, against any further Grant to Maynooth College.—From Lostwithiel, against the Municipal Corporations Bill.

REPEAL OF THE UNION—NOTICES OF MOTIONS.
Mr. Lane Foxgave notice that on the 1lth of May, he should move a resolution with a view to put a stop to the agitation for the repeal of the union, and to call on the Government, if it have not sufficient power to attain that end, to ask for the necessary power. He should, on the same day, move that the House be called over. He had waited for the hon. Member for Cork, but not seeing him in the House, he now gave these notices.
Sir R. Ingliswould, on the same day, submit a motion to the House to consider some plan with a view to prevent the indecorous rivalry of Members on both sides of the House trying to get the start of each other in giving notices of motion. At the same time, in the name of his hon. Friend, the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyne, he gave notice for a motion on May the 11th, on the subject of Tahiti.
Mr. T. Duncombebegged to call the attention of the House to a point of order. The hon. Baronet, the Member for Oxford, had adverted to the indecorous rivalry of hon. Members to give notices, and had given notice of a motion on the subject. The hon. Baronet had, at the same time, given notice of a motion for another hon. Member who was in the House; and he believed, that such a proceeding was contrary to the rules of the House. In doing this, he
1002
would not say, that the hon. Baronet had been actuated by any indecorous spirit, but the hon. Baronet had, by giving a notice of his own, endeavoured, he thought, to steal a march on other hon. Members. He begged to ask the Speaker whether one hon. Member could give a notice for another when that other hon. Member was in his place?
Sir R. Ingliswas not aware, when he gave a notice for his hon. Friend, that his hon. Friend was in the House. His hon. Friend had written to him from the country, and he was not aware that in giving his notice he was violating any rule.
The Speakerexplained, that it was the practice for one hon. Member not to give notice for another hon. Member, when that other was present. If present, he must act for himself, and not by another. He thought it would be advisable that some rule should be adopted with a view of securing order and regularity in giving notices. He knew no better plan than of hon. Members putting down their names, and drawing lots for precedence before five o'clock.
Mr. Humerecommended, having recourse to the ballot, as formerly.
The subject at an end, the notice given by Sir R. Inglis having been withdrawn.

HARBOURS BETWEEN PORTSMOUTH AND THE THAMES.
Mr. Mackinnon: In rising to move for a committee for the purpose of investigating the Revenue, Expenditure, and present condition, of the Harbours from the Thames to Portsmouth, I will as concisely as the subject will admit, state the object of my motion. It is a subject of very great importance to the trade of the empire, and to the security of navigation. I am aware that a committee on shipwrecks is now sitting, but that committee will confine its enquiries to the question how far it is expedient to educate mates and masters of ships for the merchant service, or to find some place of refuge in bad weather, the committee that I require is to supply funds for a harbour of refuge, or to give back to the Treasury large sums now raised by tolls to no purpose, or, if these sums, it appears, are not required, to ease the shipping interest of a heavy and useless payment of dues, which dues at present are wasted in a manner unprofitable to the country or to navigation. The House is aware, that in 1840 a commission was named by the Queen, to ascertain the best

1003
site for a harbour of refuge on the coast. The report of that commission stated, that amongst other places, that between Margate and the North Foreland, the other in Dover Bay, and a third near Beachey Head, were elegible for the purpose; and that the cost of a harbour of refuge might be about two millions. Mr. Cubitt the engineer, however, thought a harbour might be formed at a much less cost, to answer the purpose equally well. The House must understand, that by a perfect harbour of refuge, is meant a harbour accessible at all times of the tide by vessels of any tonnage, the mouth of which is so placed as to be entered easily with the most prevalent wind. Every person of the slightest knowledge in maritime affairs, must be aware of the vast importance to our trade of such a harbour, both in times of war and of peace, particularly as every year steam navigation, and the intercourse between nations considerably increase. I am one of those, who do not anticipate the probability of war, but think there is no doubt that the communication between England and other nations will considerably increase. Now such a harbour of refuge in one of the spots just enumerated, is most desirable. I am fully aware, that the Treasury of the country ought not, if possible, to be called on to supply the means, and I think I can point out to the House some method of obtaining a fund for that purpose, without increasing the burthens of the country. If the funds received from tolls on passing ships are now wasted or misapplied, why should these funds not be made applicable to the formation of a harbour of refuge? If the House do not sanction such an application, then case the shipping interest of the burthen, and levy no more on the commerce of the country than the amount absolutely required to keep the present harbours in repair. That such tolls so levied are misapplied, I will now prove to the satisfaction of the House. I will begin with Ramsgate Harbour, and "ex uno disce omnes." The House must learn, that by an old Act of Parliament, the trustees of Ramsgate Harbour levy 4d. a ton on all foreign ships, and 2d. a ton on all British ships that pass the Foreland which are above 300 tons burthen: those under that tonnage pay rather less. This tax is levied to keep up Ramsgate Harbour, and to be continued as long as this harbour wants repair! By this paper in my hand, printed by order of the House on my motion last month, it appears this rate in 1841 gave to
1004
Ramsgate Harbour 19,066 l; and with some other dues the trustees obtain an average income of 20,651 l., besides a balance in hand of 5,694 l. Now I will show by evidence that 7,000 l. a-year is more than sufficient for the repairs of Ramsgate Harbour, which harbour, it is notorious, cannot receive vegsels above 450 tons burthen—so you tax British and foreign vessels 4d. a ton, for a harbour which can by no possibility be of any use to them. Was there anything so monstrous, so absurd, or so unjust? You commit an act of injustice by such a toll; and you injure all the other harbours on the coast, because it is notorious that foreign vessels will not, for fear of paying this unjust toll, stop at any English harbour if they can possibly help so doing; but they run over to the French, or Belgian, or Dutch coast, where such exactions are not made; the result is an injury to our sea-ports, by preventing the expenditure of foreign ships in them. Now to show the House the waste of money that takes place at Ramsgate, I will refer to the evidence of Sir William Curtis, the head of the trustees of that lace in 1822:—
"Foreign Trade Committee, April 26, 1822.
"Sir W. Curtis examined.
"Q. What ought to be the annual charge of keeping the Harbour of Ramsgate in repair?—A. It will require some little calculations from the books to answer that.
"Q. Do you think that from 5 to 7,000 l. a-year would be sufficient?—A. Yes, it might do.
"W. Domett, Esq. examined (p. 276).
"Q. Do you consider the benefit to the shipping to be in proportion to the money laid out at Ramsgate?— A. Far from it; many thousand pounds have been laid out, of no use whatever. Men are constantly hammering stones.
"Q. Do you consider the benefit to the harbour adequate to the expenditure of 20,000 l. a-year?—A. No, certainly not; far from that, (p. 271.)
"George Good, Esq. examined.
"Q. What has in the last six years been laid out on Ramsgate Harbour?—A. 147,338 l. with little or no advantage,
"Q. Do you think the advantage derived from Ramsgate a sufficient compensation for the expense drawn on the shipping?—A. No, certainly not.
"Q. Do you know the manner in which the duties are levied on foreign shipping?— A. I do not; but I know it is that of which they very much complain."
Not to fatigue the House by reading all the evidence, I will only add, it ap-

1005
pears that in 1822 the committee said that 8,000 l. a-year was quite sufficient for Ramsgate Harbour; since which period the trustees have received upwards of 400,000 l. Some years ago, a banqueting house for the trustees to dine in, only once in each year, was erected, and it has cost 8,500 l.: it is of no use whatever; and that from its first formation to the present time, that harbour has cost the commerce of the country an enormous expenditure, not less than 1,500,000 l. To sum up the evidence of Sir W. Curtis, an unwilling witness, Captain Domett, and Mr. Good, it appears this harbour is of no use but to small vessels about 350 tons and under, can only be entered at particular times of the tide, and that in a gale of wind, when shelter is required, the danger of entering the harbour is very great; and that the sum of 7,000 l. a-year is quite sufficient for every possible purpose required. Now what is the case—the sum of 20,000 l. a-year is collected by dues on large vessels, British and foreign, to which the harbour can be of no possible use, and this money is wasted in the most wanton manner. Let one of these two measures be adopted— either relieve the shipping interest from these most vexatious, useless, and unjust tolls, or, if they are continued, apply them to some useful purpose. Why not in the latter case commence a harbour of refuge in some eligible spot on the coast? the surplus fund from Ramsgate Harbour alone would be, say 12,000 l. a-year; from Dover Harbour, probably, 8,000 l., besides many others; here you have at once a fund of, say 20,000 l. a-year, which will establish a sinking fund, or, pay the interest of 400,000 l. for a harbour of refuge, and not put the country to one shilling more of expense. At the same time, I am fully aware of the talent and ingenuity, and of the powerful interest both in this House and out of it of the trustees of harbours, and of other parties connected with these tolls; but let us have fair play—let the House give me a committee; I defy them to disprove one single assertion that I have made. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Kent, shakes his head; well, I call him to the proof—let us have a committee; if he can disprove any material assertion I have made, I will admit he is right. But why shrink from the severe test of an examination and of a committee if all is right. I repeat, these abuses ought to be corrected— gross jobs cannot be tolerated in the nineteenth century—either prove as you ought
1006
to do before a committee, that the harbours on the coast from the Thames to Portsmouth require all the money they raise on tolls, or let that money be applied for the security of navigation, and the safety of seamen; or give up these at present vexatious and unjust tolls, and relieve the shipping interest from these burthens. Either investigate and prove the case, or let the trustees voluntarily relinquish those immense sums now extracted from vessels passing the Foreland. Let the House consider also, that these revenues will increase as commerce increases; and that the time is come when an investigation ought to be made of the manner in which these large sums are expended. I am aware of what I have to expect from the parties opposed to any inquiry—I well know their talent and ingenuity—but I trust the paramount duty of the Members of the House will supersede all other considerations, and that no further opposition ill be made to a committee. Sir, I beg leave to move,—
"That a Select Committee be appointed, to ascertain the revenue, expenditure, and condition of the harbours and lighthouses on the coast, from the mouth of the thames to Portsmouth."
Mr. H. Curteissaid, that in seconding the motion, he begged to deny, as a commissioner for the harbour of Rye, the statements made by the hon. Member for Lymington as to the state of the harbours of Kent and Sussex. With regard to the job, and the costs of the Banqueting-house at Ramsgate, it did not apply to the borough with which he was connected. As to the state of the harbour at Ramsgate, he said nothing; but he thought the motion of the hon. Member opposite would be likely to be useful. He (Mr. H. Curteis) must repeat his denial of the charges urged as applying to Rye, the commissioners of which port courted the fullest inquiry.
Sir C. Burrellsaid, that Shoreham having been so pointedly alluded to, he could only repeat that which his hon. Friend, the Member for Rye had stated, namely, that the commissioners of Shoreham had no objection to the fullest inquiry into the mode in which they conducted the trust confided to them.
Sir E. Knatchbullsaid, he had no doubt, if all the other harbours attacked had representatives in that House, those Members would hare risen to make si-

1007
milar declarations to those which had been uttered by the hon. Members for Rye and Shoreham. He, in common with those hon. Members, must defend Ramsgate from the charge of mismanagement alleged against the commissioners of the harbour. The subject had, however, been inquired into so lately as the year 1840, and why, therefore, should there be a new inquiry now instituted? The question was one which was rather for the Government of the country than for any select committee of the House, and on these grounds he must oppose the motion.
Mr. E. Ricesaid, he had long endeavoured to press upon the Government the importance of establishing harbours of refuge, and yet for two or three Sessions the report of the Select Committee of 1840 remained unattended to. Between Dover and Portsmouth there was not a single harbour which was not dry at low water, or which was capable of receiving war-steamers, &c. In time of war, it would be too late to remedy this evil.
Captain PechellWould call on the Member for Lymington to prosecute this inquiry. There was great necessity for it. He hoped, that the hon. Member would press his motion to a division. The debate appeared to him to have much the appearance of a sham fight.
Sir C. Napierthought, that the Government ought to take this question into consideration. Government, however, was very tardy about it. He had been forty-three years in the service, and had never known the Government take a single step towards the improvement of the harbours. His only objection to the motion was, that it did not go far enough; it ought to extend to an inquiry into all the harbours of the country, for from what he had seen of the accounts of shipwrecks during the past year, it was high time for the Government of the country to do something towards saving life and property now lost by shipwrecks. There was no part of England where a harbour was more required than at Ramsgate. There were continually 300 or 400 vessels riding in the Downs, and if it should blow a gale, it was impossible at low water for the vessels to run into any harbour, and they must run the almost inevitable risk of being lost.
Major Beresfordrose to move an amendment, which would include the harbour of Harwich in the inquiry. There was no harbour from Languard Fort to Portsmouth, where vessels coming from the
1008
north coast could take refuge. During the south-east gales, 446 vessels had taken refuge in Harwich harbour, and from the shore having receded, and shingles accumulated, vessels were very often stranded there. He moved, to substitute Languard Fort for the mouth of the Thames.
Mr. Lambtondid not see the necessity of this committee, if it were necessary to inquire into the propriety of doing away with the Passing Toll, the subject might well be referred to the shipwreck committee, which would have ample time for that inquiry if one might judge from the fact that that committee had only sat once before Easter, though it had then been appointed five weeks before that time; but the hon. Member had stated, that the object he had in view was to apply the surplus to making a harbour of refuge. The subject of harbours of refuge was one of immense importance, and ought to be taken up by the Government on their own responsibility. If they asked for a great national grant for that purpose, he was sure they would get the support of both sides of the House. It was important, first, because great national harbours of refuge, placed on the most exposed parts of our coast, would diminish the loss of life and of British property that took place every year from shipwreck. The committee of 1836 reported there was an average loss of British property to the amount of three millions, and of one thousand lives every year. It specified also, especially on the east coast, particular shipwrecks—with loss of many lives that never would have occurred if there had been a harbour of refuge there. In the second place, these national harbours of refuge would be important as great national defences in time of war. The French were not idle on this subject, and he had been informed that a large sum was voted every year for the improvement and enlargement of Calais harbour, and that in the course of a short time, Calais would cease, to be only a tidal harbour, and vessels of a large size would be able to find safe anchorage at all times of tide. He most sincerely hoped the peace with France would be lasting; but when he saw the violence and the virulence that had been displayed in that country of late against England, a violence and a virulence which he trusted would not be imitated on this side of the water—when he saw all this, he was the more inclined to think, we

1009
ought to be prepared, and that the Government ought to take this very important subject into their consideration.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that his opinion was very much in consonance with that expressed by the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House upon this subject, namely, that it ought to be left to the Government. The construction of harbours of refuge was undoubtedly a work of great importance; but, there was another equally important point to be kept in view, namely, the site to be selected for those harbours. The subject was a very fit one for inquiry, but that inquiry should not be conducted in the way proposed by the hon. Gentleman. Suppose that 1,000,000 l. or 2,000,000 l. were to be expended upon the construction of harbours in the Channel on account of their great advantage to the commercial marine of this country; in determining the site of those harbours respect should also be had to purposes of defence in time of war, as well as of refuge for trading-vessels in bad weather. But that was a matter which it was much better to leave to the consideration of the Admiralty. In 1840, a commission consisting of Sir J. Gordon, Colonel Thompson, Messrs. Walker and Cubitt, the engineers, and other competent persons, was appointed, and the appointment of that commission was an important step in the business, as by that means the Government were put in possession of information upon which to act. With reference to the peculiar claims of Ramsgate or Harwich to become harbours of refuge, a committee of that House was not a proper tribunal to decide such a question. He hoped the motion would not be persisted in.
Mr. Humecomplained of the expences of the commission, and said, that the charges made upon commerce were greater than the advantages obtained. Reports respecting the various harbours were annually made, but never printed, unless some hon. Member moved for them; they ought always to be printed and laid before the House, that hon. Members might know what was going on. For four or five years past he had been complaining of the neglect of the Government in not acting upon the information which had been furnished by the commission. He trusted that the right hon. Baronet would cause inquiry to be made into the amount of the charges upon commerce, with a view to see whether they could not be reduced, or,
1010
if not, whether the money could not be applied in a better manner than at present. He thought his hon. Friend ought to have his committee.
Mr. A. Chapmanwas understood to say, that the hon. Mover was wrong in stating that 4d. a ton, was demanded for ships of 350 tons at Ramsgate harbour; if under 300 tons, the charge was but one halfpenny per ton, and if above 300 tons only 2d.
Mr. Mackinnonin reply said, he feared he should appear to be placed in that position spoken of by the hon. and gallant Member for Brighton—of making only a sham fight; but after what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet he had, no alternative but to withdraw his motion. [Cries of " Divide!"]
Amendment withdrawn. The House divided on the original motion:—Ayes 34; Noes 79; Majority 45.

List of the AYES.

Aldam, W.

Lennox, Lord A.

Barnard, E. G.

Marjoribanks, S.

Beresford, Major

Napier, Sir C.

Brotherton, J.

O'Brien, W. S.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Paget, Lord A.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

Pechell, Capt.

Collett, J.

Plumridge, Capt.

Darby, G.

Rice, E. R.

Duncan, G.

Russell, Lord E.

Ewart, W.

Stanfield, W. R.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Thornely, T.

Fox, S. L.

Trelawny, J. S.

French, F.

Turner, E.

Gladstone, Capt.

Williams, W.

Hatton, Capt. V.

Wood, B.

Henley, J. W.

Hodgson, R.

TELLERS.

Hume, J.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Jervis, J.

Curteis, H. B.

List of the NOES.

Ackers, J.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Allix, J. P.

Eliot, Lord

Antrobus, E.

Escott, B.

Baskerville, T. B. M.

Farnham, E. B.

Blackburne, J. I.

Filmer, Sir E.

Boldero, H. G.

Flower, Sir J.

Bramston, T. W.

Forester, hn. G. C. W.

Broadley, H.

Forster, M.

Broadwood, H.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Bruce, Lord E.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Chapman, A.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Charteris, hon. F,

Gore, W. R. O.

Chute, W. L. W.

Goulbourn, rt. hn. H.

Clive, Visct.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Colborne, hn. W. N. R.

Greene, T.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Cripps, W.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Damer, hon. Col.

Hayes, Sir E.

Dickinson, F. H.

Herbert, hon. S.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Hinde, J. H.

1011

Hope, hon. C.

Newdigate, C. N.

Hope, G. W.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Jermyn, Earl

Paget, Col.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir It.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Peel, J.

Kelburne, Visct.

Pringle, A.

Kemble, H.

Sibthorp, Col.

Knatchbull. rt. hn. Sir E

Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.

Lambton, H.

Somerset, Lord G.

Langston, J. H.

Stanley, Lord

Lincoln, Earl of

Stuart, H.

Lockhart, W.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Trotter, J.

Mc Geachy, F. A,

Waddington, H. S.

Mahon, Visct.

Wellesly, Lord C.

Martin, C. W.

Wood, Col.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Worsley, Lord

Miles, P. W. S.

Young, J.

Miles, W.

TELLERS.

Murray, C. R. S.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Neeld, J.

Baring, H.

ARMS (IRELAND) BILL.
Lord Eliot Lord Eliot moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend and continue the laws relative to the registering of arms, and the importation, manufacture, and sale of arms, gunpowder, and ammunition in Ireland. The object of this measure was to renew the act, which would otherwise expire at the close of the present Session—an act which established regulations with respect to arms which every one of whatever political party-would, he thought, concur in deeming essential to tranquillity. There would be so many opportunities of stating the variations he intended to propose in the present state of the law, that it would be quite unnecessary for him now to enter into details. On another occasion, however, he would be happy to explain those points on which hon. Members might have any doubt.
Mr. S. O'Brienregretted that the Government had nothing better to offer Ireland than an Arms' bill. They might depend on it that such a bill would not prevent a single outrage, and that they would do much better if they applied themselves to remedy the cause of discontent, by protecting the middle and humble classes in their constitutional rights, and saving them from the extremities into which they were now too frequently reduced.
Mr. Humesaid, he had objected to a similar bill last year, and he equally objected to the measure now offered for their acceptance. To obtain the confidence of a people they must confide in them. It was the privilege of free men to carry arms if they pleased, and a measure to preclude
1012
the exercise of such a privilege was nothing less than a measure to degrade freemen. The present Government had been in office now nearly two years, and had as yet done nothing to remove the causes of discontent in Ireland. The people of Ireland required nothing more to make them contented and cheerful than the enjoyment of equal laws and equal rights with the rest of their fellow-subjects, and of which rights this bill tended to deprive them. It was a reproach to the Government that they brought in such a bill, instead of endeavouring to find a remedy for the causes of outrage, and for his part, if a division were taken on the introduction of the measure, he should be glad, by his vote, to evince his condemnation of their conduct.
Mr. Frenchsaid, that the noble Lord being, as he observed, determined in all things to legislate and act against the wishes of the Irish people, did that which was most prudent in him, to commence with a measure to deprive them of the use of arms for their defence.
Lord Eliotin reply to the observations which had been made from the other side, begged to remind the House that this was not the first time of proposing an Arms bill for Ireland. The first measure of this kind had been adopted as long ago as 1807, and it had been continued ever since. The bill was not intended to prevent the use of arms in Ireland, but their abuse; and he asked if the House would not be prepared to adopt some measure for the same purpose for England, if it were found that the people of this country made use of arms in their possession for the unlawful acts which too frequently disgraced the annals of the Irish assizes? The bill which he was about to introduce would do nothing more than make the present law more effective, which was now constantly evaded. He really thought it was a misplaced sympathy on the part of hon. Gentlemen to claim the right of possessing arms for men who made use of them for unlawful purposes, thereby exposing the lives of innocent and unprotected persons to peril.
Mr. B. Escottdefended the wise and conciliatory policy which had distinguished the policy of the present Government in reference to Ireland.
Leave given, bill brought in, and read a first time.
House adjourned at a quarter past seven.

MINUTES.
BILLS.Public.—.1a. Testimony In the Colonies Common Law Courts Act Amendment; Law of Succession in Moveables Amendment (Scotland).
2a. Schoolmasters Widow's Fund (Scotland).
Private.—1a. Cromford and High Peak Railway; St. Helen's Water Works.
2a. London and Brighton Railway.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Earl Stanhope, from Dublin, against any further Grant to Maynooth College.—By the Bishop of Ruchester, and Durham, from the Isle of Ely, Lindsfarne, Hertingfordbury, Stapleford, Bramfield, Stapleford, Bramfield. Secombe St. Andrew's, Hertford, Stockton-upon-Tees, wells Wolverhampton, Llansannan, Gravesend, Milton, North Ewell, West Andover, and Fordingbridge, against the Union of the seek of St. Asaph and Bangor.—From Worcester, for Medical Reform—From the Prisoners for Debt in the Queen's Prison, for Postponing the Operation of the Queen's Prison Act — From Nottingham, and Beverley, against the Bankrupt Law Amendment Act. — From Harting, Trotton, Terwick, Rogate, and Bepton, against the importation of Corn from Canada at a Low Duly.

ADDRESS OF CONDOLENCE—THE LATE DUKE OF SUSSEX.
The Duke of Wellington: My Lords, I now proceed, in conformity with the notice which I gave on Tuesday last, to more your Lordships to agree to an Address to her Majesty, expressive of your Lordships' deep concern on the occasion of the death of his Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex, and of your condolence with her Majesty on the lots which the has sustained. My Lords, his late Royal Highness was well known to all your Lordships'. His Royal Highness frequently took part in the discussion of those subjects which come under your Lordships' consideration; and although it was impossible for every person endowed with such acquirements, and possessed of such an understanding, as belonged to his late Royal Highness, not to have felt strongly on the various events and questions which from time to time were brought under the consideration of this House, yet we ought to recollect that his late Royal Highness had always treated those subjects, however exciting they might have been, with much moderation, and with great forbearance towards the feelings of others with whom he
998
might have a difference of opinion. I must do his late Royal Highness the justice to say, that though I had the unhappiness to differ from him in opinion on various subjects which came under discussion in this House, yet, notwithstanding that difference of opinion, his late Royal Highness ever treated me with unvarying kindness, and with the utmost condescension. My Lords, his late Royal Highness having received the benefit of an excellent education, and having in his youth passed a considerable portion of his time in foreign countries, was a most accomplished man; and he continued his studies, in all branches of literature and science, until almost the latest period of his existence. His late Royal Highness was during his whole life the protector of literature, of the sciences, and of the arts, and of the professors and representatives of all branches of knowledge. For a number of years his Royal Highness was elected president of the Royal Society, and he received the members of that learned body in his house with the greatest amenity and kindness. Having himself sedulously cultivated all subjects of literature, science, and art, his late Royal Highness was, I may say, tire patron, protector, and friend of all those who pursued such studies, on every occasion when that protection was necessary. But other praise belongs to his late Royal Highness. His Royal Highness was not backward— on the contrary, he was equally forward with all the princes of his family— as a patron and upholder, as a supporter and protector, of the various charitable institutions of this great metropolis; and, my Lords, up to the last moment of his life, he was the friend of the indigent and the unfortunate wherever they might be found. Under these circumstances, I hope your Lordships will be induced to agree to offer to her Majesty an address expressive of your condolence for the loss which she has sustained. I shall therefore move—
"That an humble Address be presented to her Majesty, to express the deep concern of this House at the toss which her Majesty has sustained by the death of his Royal Highness the Duke of Sussex, and to condole with her Majesty on this melancholy occasion; and to assure her Majesty, that this House will ever participate with the most affectionate and dutiful attachment in whatever may concern the feelings and interests of her Majesty and her illustrious house."
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, although, my Lords, I am perfectly aware that no words and no arguments can be wanting to induce your Lordships to give your unanimous approbation, and your heartfelt sympathy to the motion which the noble Duke has made, yet, when I consider how many there are among your Lordships who, for a long period of years, had been honoured with the personal friendship, and had experienced the unremitting kindness of the illustrious prince who is the subject of the noble Duke's motion, I think it will not be deemed superfluous that I should add a few words to the statement which has been made in so kind a spirit, with so much feeling, and with so much ability, by the noble Duke. The illustrious prince who is the subject of his motion, had been, from a variety of circumstances, to which it is unnecessary for me to allude, in the possession of means comparatively circumscribed—I mean comparatively circumscribed in relation to that standard which belongs to the station which he held in society; but, however limited those means may have been, 1 believe there is hardly one of your Lordships who does not know that they were, constantly and generously (and, perhaps, in some instances, almost too generously), applid to every laudable, and to every humane object. My, Lords, I say, and I do firmly believe, that if any future writer or historian of the Royal Society for the last half-century should endeavour to depict the progress of that society, and to analyze its details, I do believe he will find, that during that long period, there had been no one movement, there had been no one act for the promotion of useful science or for the spread of useful instruction, and though last, not least, for the awakening the spirit of enlightened charity in the public mind of this country, with which his late Royal Highness's name has not been most closely and constantly connected. My Lords, if it may with truth be said of this illustrious person, that the circle of those courtesies and attentions which derive peculiar value and importance from the station of the person from whom they come was by him extended to the utmost limits which his knowledge and observation permitted, and that those c6urtesies and those attentions have never in any one instance been withheld from any person or from any object that was worthy of them,—and if, in addition, it may be averred with reference to
1000
that more narrow circle of private and personal relation and enjoyments which belong to every station, his Royal Highness was enabled to form solid, honourable, and estimable friendships, no one of which had ever been forfeited by him to the last hour of his life, I say, my Lords, that if both of these things can be truly said of him who has departed, and I am convinced that they can be said with the most perfect truth, then I know of nothing that is wanting to entitle him, his character, and his memory, to that unfeigned respect on the part of this House and on the part of the public which is justly due to him as a British prince, and I will venture to add, as a British gentleman. With these feeings, I now beg to express my entire concurrence in the motion which has been made by the noble Duke; and, upon the part of all those who have had the honour of being admitted to the personal friendship of the illustrious prince, I will venture to add the expression of my unfeigned thanks to the noble Duke for the manner in which he has brought the motion under the consideration of your Lordships.
The Marquess of Northamptonsaid, that from the situation which he held, as president of the Royal Society, he felt that he should not be doing justice to that body, if he did not express, in their name, the deep sense they entertained of the eminent benefits which had been conferred on them by the illustrious object of the present motion. His Royal Highness had exerted himself to the utmost, to forward, in every way, the interests of the institution over which he had for some years presided. It was most truly observed by his noble Friend who had just sat down, and by the noble Duke who had proposed this motion, that his late Royal Highness had sedulously studied every branch of science and of art; and it was, he might be permitted to add, a remarkable and a happy feature of our time, that all the members of the royal family took a very great interest in studies of the same elevated and ennobling description.
Motion carried nemine dissentiente.
The Address was ordered to be presented to her Majesty by the Lords with white staves.
Adjourned.