• 19 rhate5; ann 9rotedting4 in Varrinment.
1. BANK CHARTER BILL. The report on this bill was brought tip from the Committee on Monday, by Mr. BERNAL.
Mr. G. W. WOOD moved that the legal tender clause be struck out ; but after some conversation, in which Mr. HUME, Sir H. WILLOUGHBY, Mr. MARK PHILLIPS, and Alderman THOMPSON took part, the motion was negatived.
Lord ALTHORP moved an additional clause, to the effect that of exchange, bank-post bills, and promissory notes issued from the Branch Banks of the Bank of England out of London, should be payable only at at the places from which they should be issued.
This clause was agreed to and the report was then received.
The bill was ordered to be read a third time on Tuesday. On that day, however, it was postponed to Wednesday, and again to Friday, on the motion of Lord ALTHORP.
On Friday, Mr. HERRIES asked Lord Althorp whether it was his intention to proceed this session with the bill; and if so, when he in- tended to take the next stage of it? Lord ALTHORP'S reply seems to have been rather doubtful. We find it thus reported hi the Times. "We were told that his Lordship replied,-that he intended to proceed with that bill this session - but we did not hear that remark ourselves. He wished to finish the Estimates before he took any other question, in order that no time might be lost in bringing iu the Appropriation Bill. We understood him to decline giving any further answer to these questions."
2. EAST INDIA BILL. On Wednesday, the third reading of this bill in the House of Lords was postponed till Friday, in order to give the East India proprietors an opportunity of expressing their approval of it. On Friday, it was read a third time ; but its final passage was postponed till Monday, at the request of Lord ELLENBOROUGH, al- though the assent of the proprietors had been obtained. This further delay was very reluctantly acceded to by the Marquis of LANSDOWNE.
3. CHINA TRADE BILL. In the House of Commons on Monday, this bill was read a third time, and passed, on the motion of Mr. CHARLES GRANT. It was earned up to the Lords on Tuesday, and read a firsftime ; to be tead-a second time on Friday.
But on Friday, on the motion of Lord AUCKLAND, the order for the second reading was discharged, and the bill was referred, to a Select Committee. Lord Auckland stated it to be his intention, in that Committee, to move an amendment to a clause in the hill, which he was surprised should have passed the House of Commons, as it conferred upon the King the power of appointing an unlimited num- ber of officers at unlimited salaries. This objectionable clause was pointed out by Lord ELLENBOROUGIL
4. SLAVERY BILL. 'The Duke of WELLINGTON, on Monday, pre- sented a petition from certain annuitants on West India property re- siding at Bristol, praying to be heard by counsel against the Slavery Bill. He moved that the prayer of the petition be acceded to.
The Earl of RIPON and Lord SUFFIELD opposed the motion; which would only create unnecessary delay. The Duke of WELLINGTON, Lord WYNFORD, and the Earl of Rosssvx, strongly urged, that, in common justice the petitioners, whose property was so seriously affected by the measure, had at all events a right to be heard in opposi- tion to it.
The motion, however, was negatived without a division.
The Earl of RIPON then moved that the Slavery Bill be read a second time.
The Earl of BELMORE asked, whether this important bill was to be submitted to their Lordships without a single observation ?
The Earl of RIPON saw no necessity for opening up a discussion on this measure; for it had been sufficiently debated when the resolutions on which it was founded were agreed to.
The Duke of WELLINGTON contended, that the bill was materially different from that which the resolutions gave reason to anticipate. He considered the conduct of Ministers as highly disrespectful to the House.
Earl GREY reiterated Lord Ripon's arguments ; and maintained, that the conduct of Ministers was according to. precedent.
Lord COLVILLE and the Earl of BELMORE argued against the bill. They maintained it was impracticable, especially that part of it which related to the apprenticeships. With respect to a successful rebellion of the Negroes, Lord Belmore said, that the supposition was a mon- strous absurdity ; for it was well known that a people more imbecile and helpless than the Negro slaves never existed.. Lord SUFFIELD objected to many part of the bill; and said that he should propose some amendments in Committee, but would support the second reading.
The Earl of RIPON spoke in defence of the plan; and contended that there was no reason to fear that the apprentices and free Blacks Would refuse to work for their own maintenance.
The Duke of WELLINGTON admitted, that a settlement of the ques- tion on some terms or other, had become necessary ; but thought Mi- nisters had gone about it with little judgment. The apprenticeship part of the plan he particularly objected to. He was confident that it never would work, if the power of punishment were taken out of the bands of the master.
In this country, masters possessed the power of inflicting punishment on their apprentices, as well as dismissing them from their service; but the masters in the West Indies were not to be allowed either to punish or dismiss their ap- prentices, though they might be perfectly useless and unable to do any work. The number of stipendiary magistrates proposed to be sent out for the whole of the Colonies was one hundred : but he was sure that that number would not be found sufficient even for the Island of Jamaica alone.
The bill was moreover a direct infraction of the acts 18th and 52d George III. ; which not only relinquished, on the part of the Imperial Parliament, the right to tax the Colonies, but also secured to the Co- lonial Legislatures the right to legislate exclusively for the internal af- fairs of the Colonies.
Lord BROUGHAM defended the bill.
With respect to the Duke of Wellington's remarks as to the improbability of free Negroes working, if it were the nature of the Negro, under existing cir- cumstances, to find a delight in cultivating his ground, after his day's work for his master, surely he would not so alter his nature as to refuse voluntary work when this new arrangement came into operation. The Duke had taken objec- tion-to the apprenticeship clause; but power was given to the Local Legisla- tures to enact regulations for the government of apprentices ; and it was better left to the Local Legislatures to provide for the details, which required local knowledge. With respect to the change of plan between the resolutions and the bill, although he denied that there was any real discrepancy between the re- solutions and the bill, but between the statements that accompanied the resolu- tions and the plan in the bill, the change was effected by the House of Com- mons, who thought it expedient to reduce the term of twelve years to seven, when they were increasing the amount of the gift from 15,000,0001. to 20,000,0001. If they had reduced it to five years, be should not liave broken his heart, either on account of the masters, the Parliament, or himself. To suppose that the apprenticeship would last seven years, was out of all reason. He did not think it would last five. The first persons to desire an alteration were the Local Legislatures, who would reduce the seven years to a shorter period.
It was said, that owing to the diminished production of sugar, which would be one of the results of this bill, the revenue would suffer— But we were obliged at present, in order to keep out East India sugar, to give a protecting duty to West India sugar. We had only, therefore, to let in East India sugar, and the damage would be repaired; we should raise a revenue of 9,000,0004 from West India sugar, and 3,000,0004 from East India. The Chancellor of the Exchequer would care no more whether the revenue came from East India or West India sugar, than ancient Tyre did as to the source from whence her wealth came.
Objections bad also been taken to the licensing of sectarian preach- ers who were charged with fomenting disturbances among the Negroes : now he had read all the evidence on this subject, and bad not met with one tittle to prove that charge.
If he was asked for a,re4ison why sectarian preachers should be permitted, he answered, that the only chance, the only possibility of teaching the slaves, was to be found in the zeal and congenial habits of .those sectarian preachers. Send a man from Oxford or Cambridge to a Colonial parish—why, they might as well be sent to st workshop in Birmingham or a spinning-manufactory at Man- chester • they would be just as fit fur one,as for the other. It was from the zeal habits of these sectaries• that we.were to look fora progress in this great work.
Lord Brougham concluded with saying, that after the exertions of more than a quarter of a century, it was no little gratification sallies, and no little consolation for many disappointments and disquietudes, to have lived to see this great and good work brought so near to &MP- summation.
Lord WYNFOSD and Earl ST. VINCENT, the latter of whom aaitidae had that day travelled a hundred and fifty miles in order to be peempt at that discussion, strongly opposed the measure.
After a few words from Lord CLIFFORD, the 'bill was read a woad time, without a division.
The House went into Committee on the bill on Wednesday.
On the first clause being read, which provides,
" That all persons who, on the 1st of June 1834, shall have been registered as slaves, and shall appear on the registry to be six years old or upwards, 4" from that day, become apprenticed labourers,"
The Duke of WELLINGTON, after remarking upon the numerous im- portant alterations which had been made in the bill since its first intro- duction, moved an amendment.
That the commencement of the apprenticeship should not take till the 1st af January 1835, and that it should not continue after the 1st of January 1840; instead of commencing on the 1st of June 1834, and• terminating on the letof June 1840.
This would give an apprenticeship of five, instead of six years.
Lord BROLGIIAM opposed the amendment.
After a few words from Lords Rrross WvNeorto, Sx. VD:evils aid SUFFIELD, the Duke of WELLINGTON withdrew it, and the clause. taps agreed to. Clause 2c1 was agreed to.
Clause 3d was then read. It provides, " That all slaves brought at any time previously to the passing of the act„ with the consent of their possessors, into the United Kingdom, and all appren- ticed labourers hereafter with the like consent brought, should, after the passing of the act, be free."
The Duke of WELLINGTON feared the clause would have a retro- spective effect, He therefore moved an amendment, providing thatit should apply to such persons only as were in England, or the free British dominions, with consent of their owners at the time of, or after the passing of the act.
Lord BROUGHAM approved of the clause as it stood.
The object of the clause was to make the Black, from the moment he arrivedion the shores of this country, a free man in all respects—to make him eligibleite sit in Parliament, either in this House or in any other. It was to give to the man of colour as clear a right (if it should be his Majesty's pleasure to give him a title to a seat) to sit in that House as either of the illustrious Dukes, wbether the noble duke (Wellington) who was illustrious by his deeds, or the illustrines Duke (Cumberland), who was so by the courtesy of the house.
The Duke of CUMBERLAND rose to order. He had said nothing to warrant such an attack upon him.
Lord BROUGHAM—" The illustrious Duke is entirely out of order in calling me to order."
The Duke of CUMBERLAND—" Not at all."
Lord BROUGHAM—" The illustrious Duke is entirely out of order." The Duke of CUMBERLAND had never said a word that could war- rant this attack upon him.
Lord BROUGHAM said, the Duke of Cumberland was again out, of order, in interrupting him. What he said was, that a Negro, if a Ewe subject of the King, had as good a right to sit in that lio,use, if created a Peer, or in the other House, if elected, as Lord Wynford„ ox tbeils lustrious Duke, or any other noble Duke could have.
The Duke of Wellington's amendment was rejected; on a division, by 23 to 12. The other clauses, to the 21st inclusive, passed, after a brief dismis- sion.
On the 22d clause being read, On the 22d clause being read, The Earl of RIPON moved to add a proviso to it, in order to prevent Negro apprentices from having arms, or serving in the Militia.
The Duke of WELLINGTON, Earl ST. VINCENT, and Lord WYNFORD objected to the clause altogether, and divided the House upon the ques- tion that it stand part of the bill: for the clause, 31; against it, 11; majority, 20.
The House then adjourned.
Their Lordships resumed the consideration of this Wain Committee, on Thursday. The clauses, from 24th to 32d, were agreed to after some brief dis- cussion.
On the 33d clause being read, The Duke of WELLINGTON proposed to expunge it, and several clauses relative to the mode in which the twenty millions should he ap- portioned among the slave holders of the different colonies; and to in- sert instead thereof, two other clauses, which would establish a differ- ent method of apportionment.
Lord WYNFORD, Lord ELLENBOROUGH, and Lord ST. VINCENT, sup-
Bported the amendment ; but it was opposed by Lords RIPON and rioneirasi, and finally withdrawn. The clauses from 33d to 54th were then passed.
On the 55th clause being read, The Marquis of SALISBURY made some observations ; in the midst of which he stopped to ask what Lord Brougham was saying in so loud a tone? He wished it might be repeated to the House.
Lord BROUGHAM said, with warmth, that it was not usual to ask what one noble Lord said to another.
The Marquis of &annual, said, that he thought the observation was addressed to him.
Lord BROUGHAM replied, that it was an observation made to himself by Lord Ripon. Lord RIPON said, be had merely remarked that he did not: understand the Marquis of Salisbury's objection.
The Marquis of SALISBURY remarked, that Lord Brougham, whose duty it was to keep order, was not always orderly himself. The chum was then agreed to, as were also the five following. The Puke of VirFusoxoross to strike out the Gist clause, which relates to the assembling for religious worshipin the Cddiudts.
The House divided on this motion ; which was rejected by 31 to 15. The remainder of the clauses were then agreed to, and the report was ordered to be taken into consideration on Monday next.
5. SUGAR REFINIMA BILL. On Tuesday, this bill went through the Committee of the House of Lords. On Wednesday, the report having been received, it was read a third time and passed.
6. SCOTCH ROYAL BURGHS BILL. Lord BROUGHAM moved the se- cond reading of the bill on Tuesday. He detailed at some length the his-
tory and constitution of the Scotch Burghs, as far as it is known, in
early times. It appeared that, previously to the year 1469, the Bur- gesses at large elected from year to year a Council, which Council
elected their Magistrates, including the Provost and the Bailies ; but in 1469, the Legislature of Scotland thought fit to make a material alte- ration in their constitution.
An act was passed, the preamble of which stated,—that " in consequence of the great contentions which had arisen out of the election of officers in burghs,
through the multitude and clamour of the commons, simple persons, they ought
henceforward to be excluded from the election." The enacting part of the act was as clear and simple as the preamble ; it was to the following effect--" It is
thought expedient that the Old Council should choose the New, and the New and Old Council together should choose all the officers, and ilk craft (that meant, every different trade in each corporate burgh) should choose a person who should have a vote in the election of its officers." It appeared from this act, that the different Incorporated trades, such as Butchers, Weavers, and Goldsmiths, bad the right reserved them of choosing one representative, who
went by the title of Deacon ; but in the course of time, a kind of compromise took place between certain Trades and the Council, the consequence of which was a sort of mixed election, the Council and the Trades uniting in the choice of the Council Deacons.
This was the general condition of the burghs of Scotland ; but there were about twenty-four which were differently situated. For instance,
In Edinburgh, the Council consisted of thirty-three members, including the Pro- vost, four Bellies, Dean of Guild, who was the representative of the body of general merchants, and eight Council Deacons, who were the representatives of the diffe- rent crafts. Setting aside these eight Deacons, there remained twenty-five members of Council, who, ever since the year 1469, had been absolutely and exclusively chosen by themselves. But how stood the case with respect to these eight Dea- cons ? It was true that their election had something more of the appearance of
freedom, but was it in reality more free than that of the other members of the Council ? The whole of the different Trades in Edinburgh elected fourteen Deacons, and in this election the Council did not interfere. But eight of these Deacons were Council Deacons • and therefore, if the act of 1469 was applied
to the matter, the Trades would have the power of electing one of them, be-
cause the first part of that act gave the Council the power of self-election. It appeared to have been a matter of doubt at first, whether the Council did not possess as absolute a right to elect the Deacons as the other members of Coun- cil ; but in process of time, as he had already stated, it happened that the Coun- cil and Trades shared in the election. The present custom was, when the time
of election for the Deacons arrived, that the Council sent down a list of six persons to each Trade, which that Trade was permitted to reduce to three ; and
that list of three was sent back to the Council, who then elected one, so that the present practice did not materially interfere with the spirit of the act of 1469.
This was the state of twenty-four burghs, including Edinburgh and Glasgow ; but there were eleven in which the Council, Magistrates, Dean of Guild, and the Deacons, were all self-elected ; and there were twenty-five others still lower in the scale of political existence, in which not the least semblance of a mixed election was seen. These had nei- ther Dean of Guild nor Deacons.
But it so happened, that as nature had established a gradation in the scale of beings, from the highest to the lowest—front man down to the polypus which
grew on the rock, scarcely less inanimate than the rock itself—so in the inven- tions of art nature had to a certain extent been imitated, and an infinite grada- tion was to be discovered in the scale of political existence. Imperfect as was the condition of these twenty-four burghs, there were four other burghs which showed even still less signs of political animation, in which there were not only no Dean of Guild, no Deacons of craft, but not even burgesses ; yet the Councils in these burghs elected themselves, and exercised all the powers and performed
all the functions which belonged to the Council of the most perfect burgh—he meant Edinburgh—if he might be permitted to talk of perfection where all was imperfection. Compared with the best of Scotch burghs, the worst of the English boroughs (every one of which, however, he did not hesitate to say ought to be unsparingly visited by reform) might be held up as prodigies of purity and freedom.
He then showed, that in consequence of this system of self-election the public funds were squandered, or were applied to the purposes of
jobbing. In order to remedy these abuses, the bill proposed that the elective constituency for officers in the burghs should be the same as that for members of Parliament, the qualification being the 101. franchise.
He had ever felt that the admission of freemen and free Burgesses, without reference to household qualification, was the most objectionable part of the Re- ferm Bill, and therefore should lament if it was extended to the present mea- sure. Fortunately, however, 3,000 out of 5,000 of the Burgesses, which the bill would admit, would be 10/. householders; indeed, in Edinburgh the pro- portion would be as six out of seven, or seven out of eight; though in some places the free Burgesses would exceed the householders in the proportion of 650 to 150 10/. householders.
The people of Scotland took a deep interest in the success of this measure, and he trusted that their hopes would not be frustrated.
The Earl of ROSSLYN admitted that the system of self-election must be put an end to ; but wished to restore the ancient free consti- tution of the burghs, by restoring the Burgesses to their ancient rights, instead of conferring the burgh franchise on the 101. constituency.
The Earl of HADDINGTON also said, that he could not now stand up for the principle of self-election, since Parliamentary Reform had been
conceded; but he considered the measure a very dangerous one. In Edinburgh and Glasgow, the Town-Councils, among other privileges, enjoyed the power of electing Ministers to the Established Churches and Professors of the Universities.
There was some risk, therefore, that both the Church and the University might be damaged by the proposed change ; for it was evident that popular feel- ing and excitement were not always the best qualifications to enable an indivi- dual to pronounce on the merits of a Professor or a Minister. The Magis- tracy, the Incorporated Trades, and the Burgesses, were all loud in their com- plaints against this bill. The Scotch were a people that did not like to take a leap in the dark.
He concluded by moving an amendment, that the bill be read a second time that day six months.
The Marquis of BUTE supported the amendment.
Lord BROUGHAM replied.
The bill was then read a second time, without a division.
[The number of Peers present during this discussion was about
SIXTEEN.]
On Friday, it went through the Committee, and the report was ordered to be received on Monday.
7. SCOTCH BURGHS BILL. This bill also (a pendant of the pre- ceding) was read a second time in the House of Lords on Tuesday : it went through the Committee on Friday, and the report is ordered to be received on Monday.
8. CHURCH PATRONAGE IN SCOTLAND. Mr. WALLACE, at the morning sitting on Thursday, presented a petition from Sir W T. Elliott, complaining of the appointment of Mr. Ewing to the living of Ogdar in Roxburghshire ; although his opponent, Mr. Scott, had been supported by 72 out of 100 inhabitants of the parish. The petitioner said, that the appointment had been obtained for Mr. Ewing by Cap. thin Elliott, to reward him for his exertions at the last election.
Captain ELLIOTT warmly denied this imputation. Mr. Ewing had the support of six out of nine heritors in the parish ; so that the balance of property, though not of numbers, was in his favour. He was sorry so trivial a matter should have occupied the attention of Pal liainent.
Mr. HUME said the matter was not trivial ; and contended that the wishes of the parishioners should have been consulted in the choice of their clergyman.
Mr. WALLACE replied : and the petition was laid on the table.
9. SEPARATISTS AFFIRMATION BILL. On the motion of Lord GoSFODD, this bill went through a Committee of the Lords on Tues- day. On Wednesday the report was received.
' 10. hum TITHE BILL. Mr. LITTLETON moved the Order of the Day, on Monday, for the second reading of this bill.
Mr. WILKS wished to have some correct estimates before the House, before voting away so large a sum as a million to pay the Irish tithes.
Mr. WARBURTON said, There were two points in which this grant was to be looked at,—first, one of regret that a sum of this amount was to be screwed out of the pockets of the
people; and next, of satisfaction that the people of England must now see, that if the Government would force a religious establishment upon the majority of the people of Ireland, they, the English people, would have to pay for it. We had before to pay for this Establishment directly and indirectly ; but the mea- sure now before the House asked for direct payment from this country ; and for his own part, in order to spare the shedding of blood, if the Establishment were to be kept up at all, he preferred the direct mode of paying ; but he hoped the people of England would consider well that this was the effect of continuing to force a religion upon a people which they did not like.
Mr. LITTLETON hoped that, as the question was only whether the Order of the Day should be read, there would be no discussion on that point. Though the sum asked for was a million, he hoped that be should be able to convince the House that only about half that sum would really be wanted.
Mr. HOME objected even to allowing the Order of the Day to be read. The proposition which the bill involved was most monstrous.
A grant of 1,000,0001.—for he could not view it in any other light—was to be made from the pockets of the people of England, to keep up an establish- ment which the majority of the people of Ireland did not want, but which was even far greater than was necessary for those for whom it was more immediately intended. If such a measure as this was now necessary, he would say that Mi- nisters ought to be impeached for their conduct in the last session, in bringing forward a grant of a large sum to be paid in lieu of tithes. What bad they done ? They stated that if that sum were advanced, and if the claims of the Clergy were transferred to the King and collected in his name, there could be no difficulty about the collection, and that the money then advanced would be easily repaid. The King was thus made a sort of general tithe-proctor, and to use the military force of the land in the collection of those transferred arrears. He knew, and he stated at the time, that the project would not succeed ; and how, he would ask, had it turned out, after this advance of 100,000/. ? The Government proceeded to the collection; and out of the sum of 100,0001. they collected only 12,000/., at an expense of 28,000/. To get even that sum, they were obliged to increase the military force of Ireland to a considerable extent.
If Ministers bad acted independently of the Tories, they would have been enabled to offer a security for this million.
If they had appropriated the revenue which would accrue from the proposed change with respect to the Irish Bishops to the purpose of making good any deficiency in the tithe, the case would be different. He should have no objec- tion to the bill, and he was sure the public would have no objection to it,pro- vided the money thus advanced were to be secured upon the property of the Irish Church. He should like to have a lien upon that property. He thought they ought not to advance one step until such security was given. He hoped that his right honourable friend would- allow twenty-four hours at least for the better consideration of the bill.
Mr. LrrTLETON defended the bill.
The House would fall into a great error if it supposed that this was only an advance of a sum to the Church of Ireland. The property of the lay impro- priatora was equally attacked. But whether the property was that of the Church or the State, it was clearly not that of the landlords, who had unjustly and cruelly attacked it ; and the queuisn was, whether such property should be left wholly without protection. If it were, then what property could be consi- dered safe from attack? There was now a systematic attack on- this property by the refusal and evasion in every possible way of paying the tithe. He had documents to show the extent to which the resistance to the payment had been made even since the passing of the Coercion Bill. From the document to which he referred, it appeared that since the commencement of this year up to the present time, there had been 310 applications to the Government of Ireland for military aid to enforce the collection of tithe. He expected that the amount actually wanted would be three or four hundred thousand pounds short of a million ; as the whole of the tithes for the present year were included in the advance ; and it was probable that in parishes unencumbered with arrear, a considerable portion of the tithe of the current year would be paid. In conclusion he must observe, that if this bill was not carried during the pre- sent session, it would become absolutely necessary that the whole powers of the Government should be exerted, at whatever risk of blood or life, to enforce the existing laws. In such an event, which no man deprecated more than himini, he should not shrink from his duty. He bad only to add, that if some measure like-the present were not adopted, a servile war must rage in Ireland from the rising to the reassembling of Parliament. Mr. flanvEv considered the grant a direct premium to insubordi- nation and resistance. It was a proposition which could never have been made except by aGovernment which professed to reform the Church by maintaining its abuses. A revenue of 1,500,0001. was provided for ever for a church whose communicants scarcely exceeded 500,000. Why (lid not the Irish Clergy go to their own body for relief? The Church had ample revenues, which might be employed on behalf of the more necessitous among her sons. There was a fund in this country called Queen Anne's Bounty, the Trustees of which held in their hands more than 1,500,000/. sterling. Let it not be said that the fund in question was mealy applicable to a particular purpose from which it could not be diverted. It was not more than two sessions since an act had pissed through Parliament for the application of 60,0001. from this fund to overawe that House with the battle- ments and turrets of Lambeth. The sum in question was to be repaid by the Bishop. Let the Irish clergy go to the same fund, and then there would be some chance of any advance that might be made being repaid : the Trustees would probably take care of that. He objected to the proposed grant of 3,000,000/., which was to come from the pockets of an overburdened people in payment of the arrears of a clergy the most richly endowed and the greatest paupers in labour in the world. Mr. Littleton appeared to bare screwed his courage up to the point of vindicating Christianity by depopulating mankind : but if be continued long in office, he would see the tithe-payers of England imi- tating the non tithe-payers of Ireland, and the latter imitating and extending their own example by resistance to rents. ("Hear!") Mr. O'FEitaaLL supported the grant ; because the Protestant Church of Ireland was imposed on that country by England, and it was only fair that England, on that account, should pay for its support. Lord EBRINGTON supported, and Mr. WARRE and Mr. AGLIONeY opposed the bill.
Lord ALTHORP repeated several of Mr. Littleton's arguments in fa- vour of the grant ; and strongly maintained the necessity of paying the present incumbents what was due to them, whatever prospective ar- rangement might be made regarding the Church Establishment.
Mr. SHAW and Sir ROBERT INGLIS defended the Irish Church Establishment. They admitted that the principle on which the pre- sent grant was made was a bud one ; but considered that it was the only remedy which the House could apply, under the present circumstances, to the distressed state of the Clergy.
Mr. POULETT THOMSON supported the second reading of the bill, on the full conviction that the money would be repaid. Be grounded his vote upon Lord Althorp's assurance that the money should nut be taken from the people of England without means being resorted to for the collection of the debt owing to the Irish Church from those from whom it was due.
Colonel TORItENS and Mr. O'REILLY supported the grant. Sir S. WHALLEY decidedly opposed it.
Mr. E. J. STANLEY would not vote for the grant without security for its repayment.
If some easy means were not provided for the insuring the recovery of these advances, he would himself move the introduction of a clause into the bill, to the effect that the first deductions from the sale of Church lands should be appropriated to the repayment of the present proposed loan of one million. After a few words from Mr. D. BROWNE and Mr. P. HOWARD,
The Order of the Day for the second reading of the bill was al- lowed to be read.
Mr. LITTLETON then moved that the bill be read a second time.
Mr. HumE moved that it be read that day three months.
Mr. COBBETT supported the amendment.
Mr. Sergeant PERRIN would vote for the bill.
Mr. HALCOaIB rose, amidst loud cries of " Question!" He re- gretted that, though a young and humble member, he should now be met, as on all former occasions, by such cries as were raised against him, amidst which he recognized the voice of the Member for North Wiltshire.
Mr. METHUEN rose to order. He had aright to call " Hear, hear! " to any observations which were made; and should do so unless the Speaker declared him to be out of order.
Mr. HaLcome made the remark in good humour, but Mr. Methuen's voice was perfectly familiar to him on these occasions.
The House divided: for the second reading, 109; for the amend- ment, 53; Ministerial majority, 56.
11. IRISH GRAND JURY BILL. This bill was read a third time in the House of Commons on Saturday last, and passed. It was carried up to the House of Lords on Monday, where it was read a first time ; and on Thursday, on the motion of Lord MELBOURNE, it passed the second reading, and was ordered to be committed on Friday.
On that day, it passed through the Committee, and the report is to be received on Monday.
12. TITHE PROSECUTIONS. Previously to the House going into a Committee of Supply on Wednesday, Mr. BLAMIRE asked Sir John Campbell, whether he had any measure to propose for the purpose of staying the further progress of actions for tithe, until the Composition Act was passed; or whether it was intended to mitigate those proceed- ings, by allowing only two or three suits to be entered instead of two or three thousand,—the decision on those cases to determine all the rest?
Sir Jour/ CAMPBELL said, that he had heard with the greatest pain that the prosecutions in question were still proceeding. The act of Lord Tenterden, passed last session, had for its object to abolish the non-limitation of claims with regard to ecclesiastical propeity—to get rid of the principle that nullum tempos occurrit ecelesim. The act had originated in the report of the Real Property Commissioners, which he had assisted in fram- ing. It was never contemplated that after the passing of this act, any of those vexatious proceedings would be instituted ; but in the progress of the bill through the other House of Parliament, a clause was inserted to defer the operation of the bill for three years. He strongly opposed this clause; and -when the bill ulti- mately passed, it was agreed that it should come into operation on the 15th day of August 1833. The suits, therefore, now alluded to, had been entered under the old arrangement. He regretted that such bad been the fact, and believed that it would be for the interest of the Church to forego the prosecutions. lie could, indeed, consider it nothing less than infatuation to institute them. (." Hear !") What was now to be done, he did not know : he was not autho- rized to introduce any bill on the subject ; but he would recommend, that in any measure for the commutation of tithes which should be instituted, a clause should be inserted to limit the claims to such cases only where there had been an absolute enjoyment for the last sixty years, and where the uti possidedis could be clearly established. Mr. COBBETT recommended the House to follow a precedent esta- blished in 1800.
There were then six hundred and two actions against the Clergy for non-resi- dence. At the first the Legislature did not know what to tie; but afterwards, though it was a direct violation of the law, they passed an act to stay the pro- ceedings. As that had been done in favour of the Clergy, there could be no ob- jection now to do it in favour of the People, especially when they should be at the same time doing a real service to the Church.
Mr. Waitanitrox said, that Lord Tenterden's act had encouraged parties to bring their actions.
At the present moment, from 5,000 to 6,000 actions were entered for trial on tithe causes. In fact, the whole country was in a flame in consequence of these vexations suits. Ile saw but two courses to adopt,—either to bring in a bill to suspend the actions ; or to adopt the suggestion of the Solicitor-General with this qualification, that it should be ante-dated a year, so that all the Clergy might now recover should go for nothing. AIr. HCME said, it was important that Lord Althorp should know, that a meeting of certain Bishops had taken place early this year, at which it was resolved that these proceedings should be instituted for the alleged purpose of protecting the Church.
Lord ALTHORP had heard of no such meeting.
Mr. BLAMIRE gave notice of his intention to bring in a bill upon the subject, which he should do his utmost to press through the House. In the House of Lords, on Thursday, some remarks were made upon this subject by the Bishop of CHICHESTER; who thought that the num- ber of actions brought must have been greatly overstated. He had at- tended every meeting of the Bishops since he had a scat among them, and could contradict the rumour that these actions were brought by their recommendation.
The Bishop of LONDON also contradicted this report; and ac- counted for the great number of the actions brought, by supposing, that in order to meet legal difficulties, it might be necessary in some in- stances to raise suits against every tithe-payer. In consequence of the net which did away with the principle of natant tempts oecurrit eedesize, if a modus were proved for sixty years, the clergyman could not nn- peach its validity. They were therefore driven to bring these actions to establish their own rights, or those of their successors or patrons. On the Caine day, in the Commons, Mr. BLAMIRE moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend the act in question. Lord ALTHORP believed the actions brought for tithes amounted to several thousands. He was surprised, considering the spirit which was now abroad, that the Clergy should have pursued this course ; from the irritation it had created, might endanger the existence of the Church itself. He would not pledge himself to support the bill, but would net object to its introduction.
The bill was then brought in, read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Monday.
13. STAMP OFFICE PROSECUTIONS. On the Order of the Day being read, on Tuesday, for the House to resolve itself into a Committee on the Factory Bill, Mr. COBBETT took that opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the oppression which had been practised by the Stamp-office, in reference to prosecutions, and the enforcement of penalties for the sale of unstamped newspapers. An individual, whose case came within his knowledge, had been fined 20/. ; had been sent to the common gaol; had been driven in amongst felons ; had been kept to hard labour; had his hair cut off, and had been kept upon the gaol allowance. There had been three hundred of these prosecutions during the present Ad- ministration.
Lord ALTHORP—" No, no !"
Mr. COBBETT--" I will call them fifty. ("No, no!") Lord Althorp is much deceived."
Sir JOHN CAMPBELL, the ( Solicitor-General), said that the prosecu- tions were not the work of Government, but of common informers.
With respect to the case mentioned by Mr. Cobbett, he thought the honour- able gentleman must be misinformed. He could not believe that the person had been either sentenced or put to hard labour; neither did lie imagine it possible that the other acts of severity complained Of should have been committed. If the honourable member could make out such a case of oppression, he pledged himself to do his utmost to redress it.
Mr. HUME said, the prosecutions arose out of the Stamp Acts, the severity of which Ministers should have mitigated, especially after the opposition made by Lord Brougham, Lord Althorp, and Sir Thomas Denman to the Six Acts, under one of which some of these convictions had occurred.
The conversation was then discontinued.
On Wednesday, the question being put, that the House should go into a Committee of Supply,
Mr. HUME again called the attention of Lord Althorp to the num- ber of persons imprisoned for selling cheap publications.
It appeared that within the last two years, no less than four hundred persore had been thrown into prison under these circumstances. When this subject was alluded to on Tuesday, the Solicitor-General stated that he did not believe that Government had been insseumental in prosecuting persons for selling cheap pub- lications. He was inclined to think that, generally speaking, that statement was correct; but it was certain that in some instances the Stamp-office had insti- tuted prosecutions. Why, however, did Lord Althorp suffer the law to con- tinue, under which Magistrates were authorized, or rather compelled, to act as they had done? From 1819 up to the time Ministers entered office, there were not half as many prosecutions against the press as there had been since that pe- riod. Was that not a matter of disgrace to a Liberal Ministry? If he. were one of them, he should positively feel ashamed to look back to the professions Which they made whilst they occupied the benches on his side of the House. Lord ALTHORP said, that the great majority of prosecutions were in- stituted by common informers, under an act passed in the reign of George the Second, not under one of the Six Acts. The only mode in which the prosecutions could be stopped, was by repealing that statute. He regretted the number of prosecutions; and that was a circum- stanee which induced him to wish to reduce the duty on newspapers, if he could here done so consistently with other measures. It would be recollected, that he and his friends did not oVect to th it part of the 60th George III. which re- ferred to stamps, but only that which related to recognizances and the infliction of the punishment of banishment.
Mr. Cosarrr said, the 60th of George III., which restrained the publication of cheap periodical works containing news, was the great cause of complaint. He was of opinion that the repeal of the act would put an end to all complaints. This, which was calculated to giirrso much satisfaction to the people, might be run through the louse in two hours' time, and consequently completed before the ses- sion was yet up.
Sit JOHN CAMPBELL said, the Stamp-office had nothing to do with the prosecutions : the penalties were awarded to the common in- formers.
Mr. HUME said, most of the informers were retainers of the Stamp- office; and he was assured of the fact by some Magistrates.
The House then proceeded with other business.
14. THE Srx Aces. Mr. HUME moved, on Friday, for leave to bring in a bill to repeal the 60th Geo. III. chapter 10, commonly called "the Six Acts."
Lord ALTHORP opposed the motion. " At that late period of the session," it was impossible that any bill on this subject could pass into a law. He would consider the subject in the recess, and would bring in a bill at the commencement of the next session to amend the act. He said that he had ascertained, from the returns, that there had been only twenty-one prosecutions by the Stamp Commissioners since 1831, and that only one person was now in prison at their suit.
Mr. HUME—" How does it happen, then, that there are four hundred persons in prison ?"
Lord ALTHORP said, it was at the instance of private prosecutions: An informer received a guinea on conviction of every offender; which of course multiplied prosecutions.
Mr. HUME then withdrew his motion.
15. FACTORY BILL. At the morning sittino.° of the House of Commons on Monday, the consideration of the bill was resumed in Committee.
The 5th clause was agreed to.
On the 6th clause being read, which proydes that one hour and a half be allowed for meal-time to persons working twelve hours, Mr. GORING proposed, that the hour and a half should be deducted from the twelve hours. A conversation then took place between Mr. POULETT THOMSON Mr. STiturr, Mr. CORBETT, Mr. FIELDEN, Sir E. CODRINGTON, BILOTHERTON, and other Members ; and the amendment was finally rejected, by 53 to 17.
Clause 7th was agreed to.
On clause 8th, which establishes the relay system, being put,
Sir H. Wirrouoinly said, that the suggestion, framed in the report of the Central Commissioners, was in the teeth of the great mass.of evidence collected by the travelling Commissioners.
Commissioners, masters of mills, managers, impartial witnesses, parents, and operatives, all wonderfully coincided iu declaring such a t.ysteto ineffectual and impracticable. He proceeded to point out camas errors and discre- pancies in the Report of the Central Cominissionta.::; anti ssid, that perhaps in the whole range. of Parliamentary inquiry, there it.ter was au enactment framed more clearly and more decidedly against the et ilence to support it than that of the relays. The great objection to relays was the ecileiency of supply, and the necessary fall in wages; what they gained in time being- lost in diet and clothing. The clause would operate greatly to the prejudice of the children, and have a tendency to drive the factories into crowded amt unhealthy places.
Lord Aurnoaa said, he had always entertained doubts whether the bill would increase the comforts of the labourers. The country had decided that they ought to protect the children from overwork; and on that ground he Lad taken up the bill when it was abandoned by Lord Ashley. He agreed.with Sir H. WilloughLy that a great difficulty- existed with respect to the relays, and that tiny would nut be benefi- cial to the children ; but he. had always thought die House could not legislate on this subject without producing mischief.
Sir HENRY PARNELL was of opinion that time ought to be taken to reconsider the subject, and that the clause ought not to go into opera- tion until it could be brought again before the House next session. With this view, he should move an amendment, to insert instead of the words " 1st of January 1834," the " 1st of July 1834."
Mr. POULETT THOMSON objected to the amendment ; but declared his intention to move that the operation of that clause should not com- mence till six months after the passing of the bill, instead of the 1st of January.
If the object of Sir H. Parnell was to defeat the clause altogether, it would be much better to propose it directly. He considered the measure to be an evil
forced on the Government and the House, and he looked upon its operation as very doubtful ; but tI.a public and the operatives themselves had declared in favour of a legislative interfence on the subject of a restriction on the hours of
Want labour in the factories ; and leaving the question open for agitation till another session of Parliament, he thought would be productive of the greatest possible evil to the trade itself and the public.
The House divided, and Sir Henry Parnell's amendment was re- jected, by 64 to 18. Mr. 0. W. Woon then moved, that the words " within the facto- ries or mills " be left out.
The object of the clause was, that the children should not take their meals upon the premises, in order that fraud might he avoided ; but be did not think it was to be apprehended. Mr. POULETT THOMSON opposed the motion, because it would lead to an evasion of the law ; as it would be impossible to say, while the children were in the mills, whether they were.at work or not.
A division took place on this amendment; and it was rejected by 4410 42.
The Chairman reported progress.
At the morning sitting on Tuesday, the House being again in 'Com- mittee, clause 8th, which prohibits the employment of children under
eleven, twelve, and thirteen years of age for more than eight hours a day, was put.
Mr. G. W. Woo": moved an amendment, to the effect that at the expi- ration of six months after the passing of the act, no child under eleven years of age should be permitted to work more than eight hours a day ; that no child under the age of twelve years should be permitted, after the expiration of eighteen months from the passing of the bill, to work for more than eight hours a day ; and that after the expiration of two years from the passing of the bill, no child under the age of thirteen years should be permitted to work more than eight hours a day. The object of this amendment was to make the operation of the bill more gra- dual.
Lord ALTHORP opposed it, on the ground that it would postpone the operation of the measure.
After a short conversation, the first proposition in the amendment was put and carried.
Lord ALTHORP proposed that, in the second, twelve months should be adopted in the place of eighteen.
The House divided, and Mr. Wood's amendment was carried, by 34 to 23.
Mr. BROTHERTON then proposed, that children under thirteen should be employed ten hours, instead of eight.
Mr. HYATT, Mr. BOLLING, Colonel TORRENS, Mr. J. FIELDEN, Sir H. Wirrounoar, and Mr. CAYLEY, supported the amendment. It was opposed by Mr. E. STANLEY and Lord .A.I.Toone, and rejected by 40 to 16.
The 9th, 10th, Ilth, 12th, 13th, and 14th clauses were then agreed to, with verbal amendments.
In the evening sitting, the discussion recommenced.
The 15th clause was agreed to.
The 16th clause, which fixes the powers and duties of inspectors, being read, Mr. EGERTON moved an amendment, to reduce those powers ; but it was rejected, by 46 to 18. A conversation of some length then took place on the clause; which was filially carried without amendment.
Clause 17th was agreed to.
Clause 18th, which refers to the education of the children, was then proposed.
Mr. T. ATTWOOD and Mr. P. HOWARD objected to legislative inter- ference in the education of the children. Mr. .ATTWCOD observed, that in fact, the children, who were to be two hours daily iri school and eight hours in the factory, would be worked for ten hours.
Mr. P. TII03ISON, Lord AIORPETH, Mr. ROBINSON, Mr. CORBETT, and Mr. HUME, supported the clause ; and it was carried.
Mr. P. HOWARD then moved that the children should pay a penny a week, instead of a penny in every shilling they earned, for their schooling. This amendment was rejected, by 55 to 40.
The clauses from the 18th to the end were agreed to, except the 32d, which was expunged, and the 42d, which was postponed.
The preamble passed, with an amendment proposed by :Ir. G. Woos.
On Friday, the report was received and the bill was read a third time, and passed.
16. MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES ; BUCKINGHAM PAI..*.CE, THE NA- TIONAL GALLERY, &c. Lord DUNCANNON stated, on Monday, in reply to questions from Mr. Hums and other members, that a new story would be added to Buckingham Palace, which would 'cost 75,00W., the sum Parliament had voted for that purpose; and that the expt use of the marble arch before the Palace was about 70,0001. and that it had all been paid for. He also said that the plan for building a National Gallery on the open space near Charing Cross was abandoned, at least for the pre.- sent ; and that it was in contemplation to fit up the Banqueting-room. at Whitehall fur that purpose, which arrangement would only require an expenditure of about 26,000/.
In the Committee of Supply on Wednesday, Mr. SPRING RICE moved, that 2,189,772/. be granted to his Majesty for the Miscellaneous Estimates. They had been reduced this year by 115,6001., the largest reduction ever made in one year. He also wished the House to mark, that he should call for no vote for Army Extraordinaries, the Govern- ment having sufficient in hand to carry on the service without asking for a farthing. The sums voted for these Extraordinaries were—in 1829, 700,000/. ; in 1830, 550,000/. ; in 1831, 550,100/. ; in 1832, 240,000/. ; and in the present year, nothing.
Several sums were voted without opposition. The sum of 46.0507. was then proposed for the repairs of public buildings, and of the Royal Palaces, the cure of the gardens, &c.
A long discussion took place on this motion. Mr. HUME, Mr. BRISCOE, and Mr. COBBETP, in the strongest terms denounced the grant as extravagant.
Mr. Rrce and Lord DUNCANNON defended it ; and the former stated, that it had been reduced during the last three years from 66,6751. to the present sum asked for, 46;050/. The amount was finally reduced to 43,370/. ; and the vote was agreed to.
Mr. .RICE moved that 24,0001. be granted to defray the expense of the new buildings at the British Museum.
Mr. COBBETT earnestly opposed this vote. He would tell the House disagreeable truths if no one else did. The Museum was supported by extorting money from the poor for the gratification of the rich ; the poor never saw the Museum. The management of that concern was as bad as bad could be ; and the expenditure upon it was as profligate as profligate could be.
Mr. SPRING RICE said, that the Museum was managed by trustees, not by Government. He denied that the people took no interest in the Museum, on public days it was crowded by numbers of the poorer classes.
Sir C. &Tonn a. had seen five hundred persons, of the poorer classes, at the Museum that day.
Sir JOHN CAMPBELL maintained that it was extremely well managed. Mr. Comm admitted that he might be wrong in saying that no poor persons went to see the Museum: those who resided in or near the Metropolis might go there sometimes ; but the man who worked in the fields, or at a distance from London, had no opportunity of seeing it. If be had the returns, he could show that 16,0001. a year were spent in that Museum in a way which no man could justify.
The vote was then agreed to.
A sum of 40,0001. was voted for the repairs of Windsor Castle. Mr. COBBETT strongly denounced it as extravagant and abominable to vote so large a sum, while ten thousand persons were in gaol, owing to their inability to pay the taxes.
Mr. SPRING RICE utterly denied the truth of Mr. Cobbett's asser- tion; and Mr. HUME said, that three years ago there were only 5,300 persons in the gaols of England, Scotland, and Ireland, for nonpayment of fiscal exactions.
On account of the new State Paper Office, 1,800/. was granted.
On account of the expense of erecting a National Gallery, 10,0001. was granted.
A conversation then arose respecting the site of the new Galler7, many members contending that it ought to be erected in Trafalgar Square.
Lord DUNCANNON said, that, if Whitehall Chapel should be found not to answer the purposes of the National Gallery, the ground in Tra- falgar Square would remain nnbuilt upon till the next session of Par- liament. He also stated, that Government were pledged to employ Mr. Wilkins to erect the new Gallery, should it be finally resolved upon to have one. If his estimates hadnot exceeded 62,0001., his plan would have been acted upon, and the building by this time would have been partly executed.
Last night, the House again went into a Committee of Supply; when a vast number of sums were voted for different purposes. Among them was the sum of 8,581/. 5s. for the Milbank Penitentiary.
Mr. HUME objected to the salary paid to the Secretary of thiis nsti. tution. He received 4001. a year, and the Governor's Clerk had 1251. " What the Deuce did they do for it ?"
Mr. RICE promised that the estimate should be reduced next year.
The sum of 13,1501. was voted for the expenses of the Commis- sioners of Public Charities, after some strong remarks from Mr. HUME, Mr. TOOKE, Mr. HARVEY, and others, respecting the great sums paid and the little labour done by those Commissioners* Lord ALTHORP thought the discussion would do good, by letting the Commissioners see what the House thought upon the subject.
The Record Commission had a vote of 8,000/. Mr. HUME said that this vote required explanation. Mr. RICE stated the particulars of which the gross sum was made up ; from which it appeared that the money was paid for collecting, repairing, and preserving various public re- cords, and other matters, such as collections of materials for a Nati- onal History! Mr. HUME thought that this explanation should be put upon record, that the public might know what was going on.
For he establishments of Fernando Po, Sierra Leone, the river Gambia, and the Slave Coast, 17,3931. were voted. Mr. STANLEY, in answer to a question from Mr. HOME, said that Fernando Po was about to be abandoned.
A vote of 6,2911. for the expenses of the Colony of Western Aus- tralia was passed, after some opposition. Mr. STANLEY said that aid would only be continued to the colony for two years.
Lord ALTHORP proposed that 20,000/. should be granted for building school-houses. The recommendation of the Lancasterian and Na- tional School Societies would be followed in the distribution of this sum. Mr. YOUNG could not allow the Lancasterian Schools to be mentioned, without reminding the House, that Joseph Lancaster was pininn.° in exile and poverty. Surely something would be done for his relief. Mr. HOME did not like this piecemeal way of setting about national education, and objected to the grant. Lord MoilpETH sup- ported it ; and it was finally agreed to.
The House then resumed ; the Committee to sit again this day.
17. SINECURES. Mr. HUME moved, on Thursday, 4, That, in accordance with the resolutions of that-House, an humble address be presented to his Majesty, that he will be pleased to direct an inquiry o he made into every existing Sinecure Office, or Office executed by deputy wholly or in part, by whatever tenure held, with the view of aboli.hing the salaries and emoluments of all those where public services have not been performed to de- serve the same, and warrant their continuance or modification."
He instanced several cases where unmerited sinecures had been be- stowed, and allowances granted, by Lord Mansfield and others, who had no legal right to make them. Government had reduced the in- comes of sinecurists,—for instance, Lord Ellenborough's clerk had 7,000/. one year and 6,0001. another : why, then, had they not the power to abolish them ? The sinecures called the two Chief Justiceships in Eyre had cost the country 49,000/.
There were two other sinecures that deserved particular notice; the first was the Storekeeper of Dublin, 4,115/. a year ; and the second the Craner and Wharfinger of the same city, Lord G. Seymour, who had 1,200/. a year, with- out any patent showing how or wherefore. Then there was the Keeper of the Great Seal, formerly 2,000/. a year, but now reduced to 991/. ; and the Keeper of the Privy Seal, Lord Melville, formerly about 4,0001. a year, but now re- duced to 3,0001. This last appointment was made by his late Majesty when Prince Regent; and he doubted whether he could make that appointment—at any rate he could not extend it beyond his natural life.
He referred to several sinecurists—the Keeper of the Signet, Clerk of the Hanaper, Governor of the Mint in Scotland, and others—who in the aggregate had cost the country such an immense sum, that he thought no one could object to his motion for this address, Mr. WARBURTON seconded the motion.
Lord ALTHORP opposed it, on the ground that it involved the prin- ciple of interfering with vested rights. Nothing could justify the taking away of places from the present possessors of them. With re- gard to Lord Melville's sinecure, he had earned it by services under a former Administration, and would have been entitled to a pension of some sort, if he had not got this place. He would not meet the motion by a direct negative, but would move as an amendment.
" That an humble address be made to his Majesty, that it might please him :to direct that there be pryared, for the purpose of being laid before the House, a return, explaining the nature and extent of all emoluments derivable fibfl sinecure officeS in the United Kingdom." Mr. COBBETT wished sinecures to be done away with at once, by the House, without waiting the roundabout operation of an address to the King. Now was the time to test the sincerity of the Members : at least half of the 638 had pledged themselves to the entire abolition of sine.. cures. It was absurd to say that the House had not the power to abolish sinecures—.
They had had power to thrust no less than 1,000 persons into gaols, within a very short period, for offences against their Excise-laws; they had had power enough to incarcerate one poor wretch, and fine him 100/. for s muggling a gallon of brandy ; they had the power of collecting fifty-four millions of sove- reigns every year out of the pockets of the people ; they had power to do all this, yet some of them talked of having no power to cut off George Rose's sine- cures, a man who, with his family, had touched no less than 300,0001. principal money—public money. Talk of having no power ! They had had power enough to do a vast deal of evil, and he hoped that they would soon begin UP excercise their power another way—it was time.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, there was no doubt of their power, but it would not be fair to exercise it.
Mr. RUTHVEN, Mr. W1LKS, Mr. AGLIONBY, and Mr. SINCLATS made a few remarks ; and Mr. HUME withdrew his motion, in favour of Lord Althorp's amendment.
18. FOREIGN OCCUPATION OF THE. ROMAN TERRITORY. In reply to questions by Mr. H. L. BuLWER, Lord PALMERST01; stated on Friday, that since the Roman territory had been occupied by the Austrian, troops, the popular discontent had very much increased; and that there existed no law which prohibited the King of England from sending an. accredited Minister to the Court of Rome.
19. FOREIGN ENLISTMENT ACT. The bill to repeal this act war read a third time in the House of Commons on Thursday, and passed.
20. THE PRUSSIAN TARIFF; PROTECTING DUTIES. Mr. ROBINSON called the attention of the House of Commons, on Thursday, to the efforts which were making by the Prussian Government to form such commercial treaties with the States of Germany as would effectually exclude our manufactures from gaining admission into them. He observed, that notwithstanding we had reduced our duties on Prussians commodities, her duties on our hardware, cottons, and woollens, were as high as ever. It was now contemplated in Prussia, to impose sat heavy a tax on the importation of wool as to prohibit it entirely. Certainly our manufactures would suffer greatly from such a proceeding He wished that our Government would imitate the sagacious policy of America, who never admitted the products of foreign countries except upon fair terms of reciprocity. Notwithstanding what had been said about France relaxing her prohibitory system, it appeared that she had taken a very short step indeed towards doing so. He trusted that the opportunity of making favourable commercial treaties with Belgium and Portugal would not be suffered to pass away unimproved. He concluded by moving for- " A copy of the Prussian tariff of duties payable in that kingdom on the principal articles of importation from this country ; and specifying the altera- tions which had taken place in those duties during the last ten years."
Lord PALMERsToN would not object to the motion ; and assured. Mr. Robinson, that he was perfectly aware of the negotiations which Prussia had been carrying on for the last year and half, in order to in- duce the German States to join in her scheme of commercial policy Were she to succeed in this attempt, unquestionably, great incon- venience would be felt in this country ; but lie was not aware that we had any right to interfere for the purpose of preventing independent states from forming what commercial treaties they liked. Any re- laxation of the Prussiun tariff could only be obtained by some conces- sions on our part. It was unjust to censure foreign states for persever- ing in the mistaken line of commercial policy which we ourselves had only so recently abandoned. He was utterly opposed to prohibitory duties, and also to catering upon a fiscal war, in order to induce other
countries to relax their duties on our goods. It would be wiser to wait and let them find out their mistake. They would soon find, that if they would not take our manufactures, we could not purchase their produce; and in time, by setting a good example, a better state of things would. be brought about.
Colonel TORRF.NS and Alderman Titomesom spoke a few words, and the motion was agreed to.
21. IMPRESsmENT OF SEAMEN. Mr. BUCKINGHAM, on Thursday, moved the following resolution- " That the forcible impressment of seamen for his Majesty's Navy is unjust, cruel, inefficient, and unnecessary ; and that it is the duty of the House to avail itself of the present period of profound peace to provide some means of manning the ships of his Majesty in time of war, without a violation of the liberties of any class of his Majesty's subjects."
In support of his resolution, he entered into a history of the prac- tice of impressment ; which he maintained to be contrary to the law of the land ; as was in fact proved by several decisions of Lord Mans- field and others. Resistance to a press-gang was lawful, and a man who killed another attempting to press him was justified in so doing- The system was extremely expensive and inefficient, and was the great cause of desertion. Each impressed sailor cost the country 600/. More than fifteen thousand men had deserted from the Navy in the short space of two years. The system of impressment also acted as ra tax upon the merchant service. Collingwood, Penrose, St. Vincent, and many other distinguished officers, had been strongly opposed to it. Impressment reduced seamen to the condition of slaves, and made the horrid practice of flogging necessary. He denied altogether that it was necessary to the maintenance of the Navy ; and proposed that there should be a general registry of the whole naval population, out of which, at certain periods, the seamen wanted should be chosen by ballot. He would pay the Navy better than at present, and offer every inducement to respectable men to enter it ; and then we should no longer be obliged to have recourse to felons, smugglers, and jail-birds, to man our fleet.
Mr. G. F. YOUNG seconded the motion.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM opposed it. He was at a loss to perceive the propriety of bringing forward such a motion on the 15th August, what the -ease had more really pressing busines before it than it could well get through.
In endeavouring to discover a reason for the course which Mr. Buckingham had adopted, lie could not help bringing to mind what had been so justly said on a former occasion by a learn td civilian, that in the sixth session of a Parliament there was always a rush for 13tipularity, and that members were then most anxi- ous, in some way or other, to associate their names with some popular questions. The day, however, had not yet arrived of the consummation of the wishes of the Member for Middlesex, and the Political Unions, the days of the annual Parlia- ments and universal suffrage, when every member who was anxious to protract an ephemeral political existence would be rushing forward with all sorts of mo- tions that might seem to him calculated in any respect to attain such a desirable object.
He denied most distinctly that the practice of impressment was ille- gal; and referred to the treatise of Mr. Justice Foster, to prove that the King was invested with the right of pressing sailors for the public service. Impressment was no hardship to seafaring men, for they knew what they would be liable to when they chose the life of sailors ; and to impress landsmen was contrary to law. In Russia, whole regiments of men, who had never been on board of a ship before, were often marched down to the sea and made to serve as sailors. The registration system, which Mn. Buckingham proposed, was much the same as that adopted in France, and was in fact but an- other name for impressment. He was aware of the great importance of a well-regulated merchant service, and pledged himself to be pre- pared next session with a bill for the consolidation and improvement of the acts relating to that service. He was not arguing for impressment as if it were a good; it was a great evil, lie admitted, but it was a ne- cessary one. He entered into a detail of the rewards and inducements to men to enter into the Naval service; and observed,: that since the new regulations respecting flogging had been introduced, the number of such punishments had been reduced one third. The disparity in the pay of men on board of King's ships and merchant vessels had been greatly lessened since the alteration in the value of money ; and the good rations, regular pay, and other comforts which were provided for men in the Navy, more than made up for the disparity which at present existed. Sir James Graham, after alluding to the opinions expressed by Lord Nelson and Lord Exmouth in favour of impressment, concluded by reading an extract from a speech delivered by Lord Chatham in 1770, in which it was said, that without impressment, it would be impossible to equip a respectable fleet upon an emergency.
Mr. HOME spoke in favour of Mr. Buckingham's motion, and an alteration in the present cruel, oppressive, and inefficient system. He thought that the motion might be so modified as to meet the general concurrence of the House.
Sir E. CODRINGTON greatly admired Mr. Buckingham's speech, and concurred in its object : but be also wished it to be couched in different terms. He was prepared to give many instances of persons not sea- men being pressed, under circumstances of great cruelty and hardship.
Amongst those cases, was one of a tradesman, the last of his family, being carried off by a cutter from Douglas, in the Isle of Man, and being carried away into foreign service, from which he returned in a consumption, and died in Hasler Hospital. Again, the effects of impressment were prejudicial to the service, because it brought among the well-conducted seamen a set of rogues and vagabonds, who were sent on hoard the fleet under pretence of impressment. He well remembered to have had the crew of a seventy-four gun ship made up of such odds and ends ; and amongst them no less than twenty-seven had been taken out of irons to be brought on board as part of the ship's company. He had examined the hands of this party, and found them like those of a lady, in- asmuch as they had never been employed but in picking pockets. (" Hear! " and laughter.) Such men could not by possibility be of any use, but, on the contrary, their presence was materially calculated to demoralize the valuable part of the crew. Again, it was the practice, under the pretence of impressment- laws, to send poachers on board men-of-war, and they were totally unaccustomed to maritime life.
Alderman THOMPSON and Mr. ROBINSON spoke in favour of the motion.
Captain ELLIOTT defended impressment, on the ground of its absolute necessity ; and maintained, that the comforts of seamen on board men-of-war were much superior to those which were to be had in merchant vessels, and that their work was infinitely less.
After some conversation, in which Colonel Wiwams, Mr. LA- BOUCHERE, Colonel TORRENS, and Mr. COBBETT took part, Mr. BUCK- INGIIAM agreed, in place of the resolution lie moved at first, to submit the following one.
" That it is the duty of this House to avail itself of the present period of pro- found peace, to institute an inquiry whether some means may not be devised of manning his Majesty's ships in time of war, without having recourse to the practice of forcible impressment."
Lord ALTHORP was decidedly opposed to the resolution. He would venture to say, that on the day on which the King of England was de- prived of his prerogative of impressment, the naval superiority of the country would be at an end. He concluded with moving the previous question.
Mr. COBBETT would have voted against Mr. Buckingham's first re- solution, because he would not give his sanction to any expression that might seem to take away his Majesty's prerogative. He would vote, however, for the modified resolution.
The House then divided : for the resolution, .54; against it, .59; Ministerial majority, 5.
FINES AND RECOVERIES BILL. On the motion of Lord Baouonast, this bill was read a second time on Friday, and ordered to be committed this day.
23 SALE OF BEER ACT. Mr. SPRING RICE, on Tuesday, stated, that in the proposed amendment of the Beer Act, Ministers did not in- tend to adopt the recommendation of the Beer Act Committee. He proposed to raise the character of the beer-shops, by raising the price of the licence ; and then moved the following resolution ; which was carried without a division.
" That for every licence to be granted to any person to sell beer, or ale, or porter, by retail in any part of Great Britain, shall be paid the sum of 5/. ; and for every licence to be granted to any person to sell cider by retail in any part of Great Britain, shall be paid the sum of 50s., in lien of the present duties pay- able thereon."' 24. LONDON SCAVAGE AND PACKAGE BILL. On Wednesday thii bill was read a third time in the House of Commons, and passed.
25. MR. D. W. HARVEY; ADMISSION TO THE BAR. A long cons versation took place on Tuesday, on the subject of the refusal of the Benchers of the Inner Temple to call Mr. Harvey to the bar. Mr. Harvey stated the circumstances which attended his application, and the refusal of it. He mentioned his having been returned six times for Colchester, merely on the strength of his character, as he did not pos- sess a single acre of ground or any influence of a personal kind in the place. He had taken every possible pains to have the charges brought against him investigated. Fourteen gentlemen of different politics, members of the House, who were not individually connected with him, had done him the favour to listen to his statement ; and came to an unanimous resolution, that his conduct was satisfactory throughout the whole business in question. He had applied to the judges to revise the decision of the Benchers against him ; but they had declined to ins. vestigate the facts of the case, and said they could not interfere with the decision of the Benchers.
He had formerly offered, that the whole matter should be referred to any number of the members of that House, small or great, and chosen from all sides ; and if they did not come to an unanimous resolution that he had been treated with great injustice and oppression, he would the next night move for a new writ for the borough of Colchester. In the same manner, lie offered to attend before the Speaker, assisted by the Attorney-General and Mr. Cutlar Fergusson, or any other gentleman ; and if their resolution was not unanimous that he had been treated with injustice and oppression, he would not suffer twenty-four hours to elapse before he moved for a new writ for the borough which he had the honour to represent.
Sir .1/isms SCARLETT said, that the decision of the Benchers had been confirmed by the twelve Judges. He was one of the Benchers; and if there was any injustice in their decision, he begged that the Judges might take their share of the blame attached to it.
Mr. Haavev repeated, that the Judges had not decided the matter, and what Sir James Scarlett had stated was not true.
The conversation here dropped; Sir F. VINCENT and Mr. H. HUGHES having withdrawn their motions on the subject.
26. MR. PRYME ; BANKRUPT COMMISSIONERS. Sir T. FREMANTLE, on Wednesday, moved for a new writ for Cambridge, in the room of Mr. George Pryme, who, since his election, had been appointed a Commissioner of Bankrupts under the new act. He supported- his motion in a long speech, in which he endeavoured to prove that Mn Pryme had at first accepted, although he had since resigned the office in question, and that his seat was therefore vacated.
Mr. PRYME denied that be had ever accepted the office ; and denied that, even in case he had done so, his seat would have been thereby vacated under the terms of the act. He had never received any fees, taken the oath of office, or performed any act as a Commissioner.
The ATTORNEY- GENERAL and SOLICITOR-GENERAL, Mr. AGLIONBY, Mr. HARDY, Mr. Hisi.cosin, and Mr. D. W. HARVEY, took the same view of the question as Mr. Pryme. Mr. HERMES supported Sir T. Fremantle's motion. It was negatived without a division.
27. THE DUDLEY MAGISTRATES. Mr. LITTLETON presented a petition, on Monday, from Mr. C. H. Molineux, a magistrate of the
counties of Stafford and Worcester, and a banker at Dudley, com- plaining of a handbill that had been circulated widely through Dudley, containing these words, which purported to be extracted from a speech delivered by Sir John Campbell, in reference to the Magistrates of Dudley.
" They are not such as I should like to describe; justice is not administered by them to the satisfaction of the inhabitants, and the greatest discontent in consequence prevails there."
Mr. Littleton then eulogized the character of the Dudley Magis. trates with whom he was on terms of intimacy.
Sir JOHN CAMPBELL said that he imputed no misconduct to the Dudley Magistrates. He had merely said, that a change in the ad-
ministration of the law by the Magistracy was absolutely necessary in a great part of England. He had written a letter to the Magistrates of Dudley, in reply to one which he received from them, disclaiming all wish or intent to give personal offence in the speech from which the extract was taken. Heimputed no personal misconduct.
Sir HENRY HARDINGE and Sir OSWALD MOSELY defended the Magistrates. Such men should not have been assailed by Sir John Campbell.
Sir F. BURDETT did not wish to make any imputation on the re- spectability of the Magistracy of the country, but it was well known that Magistrates were, like other men; liable to partialities, and to
strong political feelings ; and that though they might not act wrong in- tentionally, they were liable to act, on some occasions, erroneously. He thought that the whole system of the ordinary administration of justice by the ordinary Magistrates_ of the country, who, in certain cir- cumstances, were not responsible to the higher authorities, to which others of their fellow-subjects were, deserved the immediate considera- tion of Parliament.
Sir Joins CAMPBELL said, the Dudley Magistrates were zealous, ac- tive, political partisans.
Sir H. HARDINGE thought that, after the high character that had been given these gentlemen, Sir John Campbell should have acknows ledged that his words were misapplied.
Sir JOHN CAMPBELL said, he had every reason to believe, that before he entered Dudley, and since he had left it, the Magistrates of that town had been active and zealous political partisans.
He begged Sir H. Hardinge to understand that he did not impute any mis- conduct to those Magistrates ; but he would not retract his assertion, that they were zealous, active, political partisans. ("Hear, hear !") The conversation then dropped.
28. MR. WOOD'S APPOINTMENT ; BOARD OF STAMPS AND TARES.- Upon the motion that the House should go into a Committee of Sup- ply at the morning sitting on Friday, Lord GRANVII.LE SOMERSET called the attention of the House to the. superannuation of two old and faithful officers, and the appointment in thew stead of Mr. John Wood. He particularly referred to the ease
Of Mr. Mitford, who had been thirty-six years in the public serviee, and was a very able man ; yet he had been superannuated on a salary of 8401. per annum.
Lord ALTIIORP justified the appointment of Mr. Wood, on the ground that it was necessary for Government to have a Chairman of the Consolidated Board of Stamps and Taxes, with whom they could hold confidential intercourse ; and this they could not do with Mr. Mitford. A great saving of expense had likewise accrued from the new arrange- ment. Mr. HUME, Mr. HARVEY, Mr. WARBURTON, Mr. AGLIONBY, Mr. PaymE, Mr. BROTHERTON, and Colonel EVANS, strongly approved of Mr. Wood's appointment; which was censured by Sir H. VERNEY ; and the conversation dropped.
29. DISRESPECTFUL PETITIONS. Mr. Hum.E, on Thursday, pre- sented a petition signed by 1,400 persons, principally members of the Aberdeen Political Union.
The Petitioners, after stating the abuses that existed under the old system, and in Unreformed Parliaments, went on to express their opinion that the Re- formed Parliament had not deserved the confidence of the people, by its tergiver- sation on the subject of the Malt-tax; and prayed, therefore, that the House would take measures for granting Universal Suffrage, Vote by Ballot, and An- nual Parliaments. They further stated, that those who had seats in the House of Commons "never let their voices be heard, save in responding to the propo- sitions which emanated from the Treasury bench; and that, instead of regard- ing the interests of the people, they only regarded the interests of their own coffers."
Lord Aurnoar and the SPEAKER objected to receiving this petition, en account of its grossly disrespectful language to the House.
Colonel LErrit HAY was not surprised that such petitions emanated from a quarter to which such letters were sent as one which he would read to the House. It was dated 3d August 1833, from Bryanstone Square—(Loud laughter)—and was in these words.
I shall have much pleasure in presenting the petition intrusted to my charge. and I shall also have pleasure in supporting its prayer ; but the petitioners may depend on it that this Parliament, if I judge by their proceedings heretofore, will do little to meet the just expectations of the people. There appears on the part or the Ministers a determination to do as little as they can in the way of reform, and the Whigs and Tories seem with that view to act a very appropriate part. The one party, to keep some sem- blance of reforming the institutions, make some propositions, as in the bill for Church Reform, and the Tories partly terrify them, and partly resist every thing that is worth having. The whole, in fact, is humbug and mockery, and will so continue until the people show that they are iu earnest, and determined to have reform."
This letter, extraordinary as it might appear to the House, was signed by no other name than that of " Joseph Hume." ( Cheers and laughter.) Colonel Hay then asked Mr. Hume, in order (as he said) that his constituents might know what to think of him, whether he was really the author of that letter?
Mr. Hu3tE—" Certainly I am. It is probably of my inditing. I kept no copy of it ; but I avow the sentiments, and might have adopted the language of the letter."
The SPEAKER—" But what is to be done with the petition ?"
Mr. HUME said, if it were thought improperly disrespectful to the House, he would withdraw it.
30. STATIONERY OFFICE. The report of the Select Committee ap- pointed to inquire into the stationery contract (Sir John Key's affair) was brought up last night, by Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET, and laid on the table.
Previous page
