NEWS OF THE WEEK.
THE Ministers were last night outvoted, by 236 to 190, on the question of the Timbereluties,—notwithstanding an attempt to reeder the change more palatable to the parties interested in maintaining the enormous duties on Baltic timber, by a plan of' gradual reduction. This defeat the Ministers have provoked, and in some measure deserved, by their vacillation. The first propo- sition of Lard ALTHORP was one'of principle ; the second was a de- parture from principle, to conciliate men with whom conciliation is impossible—who must be met and put down boldly and resolutely. If Ministers desire an ample revenge—a dear revenge, indeed, to the country—they will come down oriMond ay and withdraw the bills respecting the duties on coal and candles, reimpose the printed calico duties, redintegrate all that has been changed, and thus bring the question at once to issue between the people and a faction the most ignorant, selfish, and desperate, that ever sought to delay justice. The position laid down last nightby the Shipmongers, and carried by the ll8oroughmongers—that for the encouragement of partial, petty interests, the people of England shall to the end of time be obliged to fetch a bad article from a country three thousand miles off, while a good one Within the one-sixth of the distance solicits their acceptance—is but another proof of a million, of the stern necessity of cleansing from its inpurities the Commons House of England. The other debates of the week have been of little interest ; and even the debate of last night was interesting only in its issue, and in the barefaced impudence with which it was carried on. It will be hardly credited, that while four individuals in succession were permitted to address the House in favour of the faction,—and while Mr. HERMES, the friend of Mr. ROTHSCHILD (the friend of Mr. BROCKMAN and others), Was patiently listened to while in- sinuating a charge of disingenuity and unfairness against Lord Aienioep.—;-Mr. WARBURTON, a man who has more intellect than a hundred HERRIESES, was absolutely clamoured down while attempting to speak in behalf of the people. The very division was a packed one ; no such result was anticipated, and the friends of Ministers had in consequence retired. All the Colonial interests stuck together ; and, proh pudor ! we have heard that they were actually supported by some who call themselves friends of Reform! Lord BROUGHAM has been subjected to two attacks in the House of Lords. On Monday, Lord WYNFORD made a sly, but -eminently unsuccessful attempt to defeat the Bankruptcy Bill. His Lordship's select band was headed by the Duke of Cum- 93ERLAND j for whom, it would appear, the singular felicity is reserved of reversing the proverb of the Vicar of Bray—of being always in the Opposition, whatever be the measure or the Minister. The other attack was made by the Marquis of LONDONDERRY; who seemed to wish that the Lord Chancellor should be repri- manded at the bar, because his coachman drove through the gate at the Horse Guards on Thursday last week. Even the House of Lords thought this "too bad ;" and the Marquis's oratory went for nothing. Mr. HORACE TWISS has explained himself, and reported his ex- planation to the Times—why not to the Chronicle rather ?—re- specting his allusion to the " middle classes:" he says he meant the lower classes,—with which he is no doubt better acquainted. Sir CHARLES WETHERELL repeated on Wednesday his charge of perjury against the corporators who have petitioned in favour of the Reform Bill, and his assertiqp about the Nottingham proces- sion. We may say of Sir CHARLES, as SHERIDA.N said of Lord Miu.vieeE,—he draws on his memory for his arguments and his imagination for his facts. The story of the procession is without a particle of truth; and the corporation-oath argument is a stale imitation of the worn-out coronation-oath argument. We can estimate the strength of the Anti-Reformers, when we see them driven to the most miserable position ever taken up by the Anti- Catholics.
Lord TENTERDEN, in the Lords, has intrceluCed his very import- ant bill for limiting the period of legal prescriptions. Last night,
ILord MELBOURNE introduced a bill to repeal the Subletting Act, and to substitute other provisions in lieu of it. The present act has been interpreted as having a retrospective ' operation, and this is what is chiefly complained of respecting it : the new bill is purely prospective. In the Commons, Mr. STANLEY has introduced a bill to amend the Irish Vestry Act. Mr. O'CONNELL deems the bill in- efficient ; but it is supposed that it will be so modified in committee as to meet the views of all who are desirous of seeing the vestries placed on a rational footing. Two other measures have been carried in the Commons, which are of no small intrinsic import- ance,—Sir JOHN NEWPORT'S often-repeated motion respectieg Irish first-fruits, which has been carried in principle ; and Colonel DAVIES'S for an inquiry .into the best means of giving effect to secondary punisliments.
The House of Commons sits to-day, but merely for the purpose of receiving petitions on Reform.
The Anti-Reformers are grown bold on the result of last night's debate ; and are now determined to try a division on Tuesday.
I. REemiai BELL. The Reform Bill for England was intro- duced by Lord JOHN RUSSELL 011 Monday night, and read a first lime. There are some slight variations from the sketch of the
bill given in the opening statement. Bewdley, which, by mistake, was numbered in the list of reduced boroughs, returns but one member at present ; this gives only 167 disposable seats, instead of 168. Devonport and Stonehouse are to be joined, and to return to members. The other changes are—the annexation of Chatham and Stroud to Rochester, Sculcoates to Hull, Portsea to Portsmouth, and the parish and suburbs of Halifax to that town, and to give it two members instead of one, as formerly proposed. These changes leave 58 seats undisposed of instead of 62. The Scotch Reform Bill was introduced by Lord AdVocate JEFFREY on' Tuesday; he fixed Friday next for the - second reading. .
2. REFORM PETITIONS. Among the petitions presented on Monday night, was one from Liverpool, signed by 12,000 -indivi- duals, including every name of respectability in that great and wealthy city. General GASCONNE, in introducing it to the notice of the House, acknowledged the weight and value of the document (it was signed before the bill was promulgated), and also the pro- priety of giving members to lam unrepresented towns ; but he objected to the extension of the franchise, because it would give a vote to many Scotch and Irish persons settled at Liverpool ; and he also objected to the disfranchisement of the sixty rottert boroughs.
Mr. EWART expressed his cordial concurrence in the whole bill. Mr. CHARLES CALVERT on the same night presented a petitiort from Southwark in favour of the bill. The petitioners observed,. that the franchise about to be introduced was the same which had always prevailed in Southwark ; which circumstance they consi- dered to be a sufficient answer to those whose fears the proposed extension had alarmed.
Sir ROBERT WILSON expressed his warm approbation of the object of the petition. In the House of Lords, Baron DURHAM, on the same evening, on presenting a petition from Sunderland and the Wearmouths, expressed himself in similar terms. The Duke of DEVONSHIRE, who nominates to five seats—one for Dungarvon, one for Derby, one for Youghall, and two for Knaresborough—in presenting a petition from Catnbenvell, spoke strongly in favour of a measure which went to relieve tile" here- ditary proprietors of boroughs from using objectionable means in securing the election of their friends and dependents as members of the House of Commons." The noble Duke also presented a petition from the Corporation of Poole, which attracted not unde- served attention in favour of the Bill. A petition from Coventry (where, by the operation of the new Bill, the suffrage will be considerably narrowed) was presented on Tuesday by Mr. ELLICE ; it received between 5,000 and 6,000 , signatures in a few hours. Mr. Hiner stated, that a few weeks ago, all the people of Coventry were advocates for universal suffrage and vote by ballot —a petition to that effect had even been prepared and signed ; but - no sooner had the Ministers' Bill appeared, than they declared for it as one man.
A petition, equally honourable to the parties With that from Poole, was presented on Tuesday night, by the Marquis of LANS- . DOWNE, from Caine; it was signed by the steward and the whole of the corporation. A petition from St. George's, Westminster, presented by Mr. HOBHOUSE on the same evenuig, attracted as much attention, front the character of one of the petitioners, as did those from Poole and Calne because of the station of the persons that signed them, The St. Oecuge's petition bore the signature of the far-famed . -I Jeremy Bentham ;" a name which, Sir FRANCIS BURDETT said, ought to satisfy every Reformer in the kingdom that the measure of Ministers was worthy of all acceptance.
3. CORPORATION OATHS. Among !the petitions presented 'on Wednesday night, in favour of the Reform Bill, several were from corporations. Sir CHARLES WETHERELL asked, whether the petitioners had not taken an oath to defend those corporate rights which they besought the House to abolish ? General Sir R. C. FERGUSON, who had presented a petition from the hammermen of Dundee, replied—" I do not know what oaths they have taken ; but if they have taken such oaths, the sooner they break them the better." (Loud cries of" Hear 1" from both sides of Me House.) Mr. O'CONNELL observed, that they could not have taken any Oath binding them to oppose the law : when that which they swore to defend was removed by law, the oath ceased of course to operate. Sir CHARLES WETHERELL denounced this as a most jesuitical definition of the obligation of an oath—he could not allow such a demoralizing principle to go forth. Mr. Alderman Woon said, Sir Charles did not know any thing about the oaths : corporators swore to defend municipal rights— the right to elect magistrates, &c.; no other oath was taken.
Sir RONALD FERGUSON believed, the only oath taken was to defend the public good. He must take this opportunity of noticing another misrepresentation of Sir Charles Wetherell, about the ex- hibition of a female at Nottingham, in 1800: no such thing ever took place. Sir CHARLES WETHERELL reiterated the assertion, that a fe- male had been carried about the town as the Goddess of Reason— he had sat in the chair that she was carried round in. (A loud _laugh.) Sir THOMAS DENMAN also denied that any such exhibition had ever taken place—it was a mere fabrication of the day. Sir CHARLES WETHERELL rejoined, that the chair, ornamented 'with ribands, &c. had been produced before an election com- mittee.
Mr. O'CONNELL said, his definition had been called jesuitical- -the observation he would denominate bigoted. He was too much accustomed to such libellous expressions to be much moved by them.
4. CHANCERY REFORM. Lord WYNFORD interposed, on Mon- day night, to put back the Bankruptcy Bill for a month. His principal argument against the bill was—its sweeping nature—the number of its provisions—the desire of Lord Eldon, who is at present incapable of attendance from indisposition, to examine and discuss its details—the rapidity with which it had passed through the previous stages, the printed bills having only been de- livered on Saturday. Lord Wynford was not prepared to say that the bill would not do much good, but he conceived that several of its parts required modification ; though to what extent, or of what nature, he was not inclined to state. Instead of diminishing the expenses of the Bankruptcy Court, he thought the bill would in- crease them—the 70 Commissioners cost only 21,0001., whereas the 10 new Judges, including the Registrar, Clerks, and Assignees, 'would not cost less than 35,000/. Lord Wynford objected to the payment of the ten Judges out of the suitors' fund, on the ground that the two courts were wholly distinct, and it would he most unfair to tax litigants in one to support judges in the other. If the sititors' fund did.not belong to the suitors, it must in that case belong to the public; and thus the salaries of the new court would be in reality a tax on the public. Lord Wynford also objected to the number of judges, and even to their designations. The terms Elder and Younger Brothers sounded strange on the bench, though they might do well enough in the Trinity House. He had no doubt five judges would be fully equal to all the duties of the proposed court ; and in this way, a savino•b might be effected of at least 10,000/. a year. The Court of Appeal he looked on as spe- cially objectionable : if there were an appeal at all, it ought not to be to the Lord Chancellor, but to their Lordships. Lord Wynford remarked, that no debate had taken place on the second reading ; and, indeed, it had sofnehow happened that no notification of the second reading had been given. For all these reasons, Lord Wynford called on the House to recommit the bill for the 15th of .April. Lord BROUGHAM said, he had listened with special wonderment to the statement of Lord Wynford.
It was so artful—so cunningly (he used the term in its ancient sense as synonymous with knowingly) skilful for its object, and was, besides, so timed, as to take him completely off his guard. But what, after all, was the gravamen of the charge ? Why, that the advocates of the bill were hurrying it too rapidly through its stages; and that, by so doing, they should be depriving themselves of the advantages of the observations which a noble and learned Lord was prevented by indisposition from of- fering on the present occasion, and another noble and learned Lord by his judicial attendance on circuit.
And yet neither Lord Eldon nor Lord Lyndhurst had once ob- jected to the principle of the bill, long as it had been before the House. It was impossible to say where the objection of Lord Wynford lay, for he had carefully avoided specifying it. Lord Brougham could only suppose that it had reference to what was termed the wholesale sweepingaway of the seventy commissioners. His noble and learned friend was, perhaps unintentionally, the advocate -of these seventy gentlemen, interested in preserving what the bill went to remove altogether. The seventy—the Septuagint of the Bankrupt Corn- mission—had evinced an activity of opposition to the present measure which their Lordships were little aware of : they were the assiduous com- mentators—the translators, much more laborious than faithful—of its tendency and provisions ; and had employed every means in their power out of doors, and as far as they went, peradventure in the House, to have it thrown out altogether. Hence the present motion of his noble and learned friend to have the bill delayed for four weeks; his force, he sup- posed, not being equal to the more open and decided negative of a motion that it be recommitted that day three months,—all in obedience to the unremitting exertions of the seventy bankrupt commissioners,—he should correct himself, not all of them, but the large majority, who were per- sonally interested in the existing machinery, with all its abuses and im- perfections. He was himself actually besieged by these gentlemen, hourly beset, either by letter or in conference with themselves, or some friend, counsel, judge, attorney, wife, cousin, aunt, or relation. (Laughter.) The Lord Chancellor was no captious stickler for a day—he was not at all averse from granting a reasonable delay ; but such a delay as that sought by Lord Wynford, would affix a stigma on the bill—it was in fact, although not in form, equivalent to the customary vote by which bills were got rid of altogether by mov- ing that they should be read that day three months ; and such a motion would have been more manly and less injurious to the measure than this side-winded motion.
The insinuated objections to the bill were a strange compound of oblivion and fiction, in which advantages were passed over and defects imagined. Lord Wynford had dwelt at much length on the additional charge which would accrue from the new court—a topic to which the public were ever greedy to listen. What answer was to be made to this charge of augmenting the burdens of the state at this peculiar crisis by 15,0001. a year ? Why, simply this—that his noble -a.nd learned friend's statement was without the shadow of a foundation—that it was, in fact, from beginning to the end, pure fiction. He would not then fatigue the House with a twice-told tale of his former calculations on this point ; for he was confi- dent that if his noble and learned friend had forgotten them for the occa- sion, many of their Lordships had not. (Cheers.) He had, when ex- plaining the features and details of the bill, shown their Lordships, that so far fro% his plan adding 15,000/. a year to the public burdens, it would actually legten them by more than that amount—that the saving would be somewhere about 20,000/. per annum. (Cheers.) Then, again, strongly as the public felt on any proposal of aug- mented burden, they felt yet more acutely on any attempt of Go- vernment to interfere with the funds of suitors in Chancery.
Hence his noble and learned friend, with all that advocate one-sided adroitness—all that nisi prius astuteness which be had often admired in Westminster Hall—charges the framers of the bill with designing to pay the ten new judges out of the suitors'.fund. From the beginning to the end there did not exist the shadow of a foundation for this assertion,—the pure creation of his noble and learned friend's fruitful, and, in this in- stance, most cunning fancy. Lord Brougham never said that the new judges/were to be paid out of the suitors' fund ; on the contrary, he most distinctly stated that they were not to be so paid ; and this explicit dis- claimer of such a proposition was the only shadow of a foundation for his noble and learned friend's artful statement.
The observations of Lord Wynford on the suitors' fund, showed that he knew as much of its nature as he did of the bill he sought to oppose. It had nothing in it analogous to the nature of un- claimed dividends. .He was equally ignorant of its application when he said no part of it was used to remunerate the officers in Chan- cery. In point of fact, ever since 1798, the Masters in Chancery had each drawn 600/. a year from it ; and all that the Bankruptcy Bill was intended to effect, was to give back the 6,5001. thus ab- stracted, to the fund.
The objection to the number of Judges, Lord Brougham said, had struck him also ; but he was now convinced that the number was not too great,—it had been fixed on a calculation of the hours at present devoted to bankrupt cases by the seventy Commission- ers, and a careful estimate of the value and amount of the busi- ness which must come before the new Judges. The Lord Chan- cellor concluded by expressing his determination to take the sense of the House on the motion for postponement.
Lord WYNFORD repeated his opinion, that the delay was abso- lutely necessary. He could not perceive that any of his argu- ments had been answered, unless by mere counter-assertions.
Lord BROUGHAM was surprised, after his disclaimer, that it should be still insinuated that the Judges were to be paid out of the suitors' fund. If his measure were carried, the public would save 8000/. a year, and the suitors' fund would not suffer the smallest loss.
The Peers divided on Lord Wynford's motion ; which was re- jected by 34 to 19. When the result was announced, Lord BROUGHAM said he had no objection to a postponement of a week. The Duke of WELLINGTON observed, that Lord Lyndhurst would be still on circuit.
Lord BROUGHAM thought the House would hardly consent to put its legislative power in abeyance for such a reason.
He personally desired the presence of his noble and learned friend; who professed, indeed, to be interested in the Lunacy Bill, and also in the third legal bill which he meant to introduce, and which he had abstained from pressing forward with the others in compliance with the Chief Baron's own wish ; but his noble and learned friend had not yet ex- pressed, to his knowledge, any opinion, either in public or private, against the measure now proposed ; nor did he believe that the noble and learned Baron did intend to object to it.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH had understood Lord Lyndhurst to say he had considerable doubts of the bill—that there was in it very little that was good, and that good was not new, and that which was new was quite the reverse of good, and ought not to be adopted. Lord BROUGHAM said, Lord Ellenborouigh had entirely misun- derstood Lord Lyndhurst—the bill on which he stated himself to be interested was the third bill, not that under discussion. He would, however, inquire when the circuit would end, aral if possi- ble delay the last stage of the bill, so as to give him an opportu- nity of discussing it. The bill was ultimately ordered to be recommitted for Monday next. The Peers who divided against the bill were the following, —Cumberland, Wellington, Aberdeen, Resslyn, Ellenboroug-h, 33eresford, Monson, Manners, Clanwilliam, Wicklow, Bute, De- lawarr, Strangford, Rolle, Redesdale, Farnham, Salisbury, Ken. yon, Wynford.
5. PRESCRIPTION LIMITATION BILL. On Tuesday, Lord TEN• TERDEN introduced a bill for the limiting of prescriptions. The bill provides, that a possession of thirty years shall create a pre- sumption, in the absence of proof to the contrary, that the posses- sion has been lawfully obtained ; and that a possession of sixty years shall not be defeasible but on evidence of an agreement, hy words or writing, rest ricting the nature and period of the tenure by whichpos- session had been originally obtained. In respect of easements, sub- ject always to a similar exception, the proposed periods are twenty and forty years, for presumption and indefeasible right. Right of access to buildings and of light are to be indefeasible under the bill in twenty years. Moduses may be established by presumption or indefeasibly on proof of thirty or sixty years' custom ; and simi- larly, entire exemption from tithes may be established; but when the modus has been paid, or the tithes not rendered to to chbishop, bishop, clean, &c., then the indefeasible prescription will not be deemed absolute, unless it have run through the incumbency of Iwo incumbents and for six years of a third, the three periods to- gether amounting in all cases to not less than sixty years. In these, as in the cases first mentioned, no presumed or indefeasible prescription will stand against a positive agreement. Such are the principal heads of this very important bill ; which is, however, rather meant for the profession than the public. It was read a first time, after a few observations from the Spiritual Bench, and ordered to be printed.
6. THE LORD CHANCELLOR AND THE HORSE GUARDS. On Thursday, on the occasion of Lieutenant Woodstock being repri- manded for writing a threatening letter to Lord Farnham for a speech in Parliament, the Marquis of LONDONDERRY said, that while reprimanding a military man for offending against the civil power, their Lordships were equally called on to reprimand a civil officer who should offend against military power. He had seen a statement in several journals of the Lord Chancellor hav- ing, on the occasion of the last drawing-room, forced his way through the Horse Guards, contrary to the express injunctions of the authorities there. The Marquis asked Lord Hill whether this were the ease?
Lord HILL said, a short statement of the real facts would form the best answer to the question.
In 1815, by the command of his late Majesty, an order was issued, for- bidding, on the Queen's birthday drawing-room, the passage of any car- riage into the park through the Horse Guards. That order had been repeated by the officer in command at the Horse Guards on the last drawing-room. When the carriage of the Lord Chancellor approached for the purpose of passing through those gates, the corporal waved his hand to the coachman ; but the coachman went on till the sentinel on duty cauzlit one of the horses by the reins. The Lord Chancellor feeling himself thus stopped, inquired the cause of the delay ; and was told by the corporal, that he had orders not to permit any carriage to pass through that day, hut the Speaker of the House of Commons in his state carriage, and the Earl of Shaftesbury. The Lord Chancellor said, "This must be a mistake ; let me see the officer on guard." The officer appeared, and explained the order, as stated by the corporal. " Oh, then I suppose I must go back. Do you know who I am ?" replied the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack. The officer said heknew he was the Lord Chancellor; but that his orders were not to admit any carriages but the two just men- tioned to pass through, and that his lordship's carriage must therefore turn back. He then waved his hand to the sentinel, who held the reins of one of the horses, to let them go, The sentinel did so ; but the coach- man, mistaking the result of the conference, immediately gave his horses the whip, and was through the archway into the Park in a moment. No blame attached to the officer on guard, or his subalterns ; the transaction was a mere accident arising from the misconception of the coachman, in which the noble and learned lord on the woolsack had no share whatever. (Hear !) Lord BROUGHAM said he was obliged to the Marquis of Lon- donderry, for giving him an opportunity of contradicting the mis- statement.
All that he had to complain of was, that the noble Marquis should have brought fcrward the matter on that day and moment of all others, just after he had, in obedience to their Lordships' order, reprimanded a military gentleman for a breach of privilege,—as if his alleged violation of the rules in force at the Horse Guards was a converse case to that just under their notice,—as if, as a set-off to the breach of civil privilege by a military officer, his offence might be construed as a breach of military privilege by a civil officer ; and, as a consequence, that he should receive a proper reprimand,—not, it was true, at the bar, but on the woolsack.
Lord Brougham continued his explanation.
No one in the world cared less than he did for the state and dignity of the office he had the honour to fill. The observances cast upon him by the dignity of his station were the most oppressive part of his public duty, It was therefore not on the ground of a foolish wish to pass through the Horse Guards, in place of going round by Piccadilly and down Constitution Hill—which latter course indeed, if he had had time, he should have preferred, on account of the air and exercise—but the fact was, he had been sitting in the House the whole day, having made a great effort to bring to a conclusion the hearing of a cause which had been long protracted, in which one of the parties was in great distress, and in which it was material, therefore, to that party to save expense. He had prolonged his sitting for one hour, thereby saving the expense of 801. or 901.; calculating that he should greatly shorten his road to the drawing-roora by going through the Horse Guards. He had been through upon the King's birthday ; and when he was stopped the other day, he thought it must be a mistake. Having been told that the Speaker of the House of Commons had permission to go through, he said that surely the Speaker of the House of Lords must be entitled to the same privilege. He was told, however, that Lord Shaftesbury was entitled to go through, but no one else belonging to the Lords. When he beard this, he was confirmed in his original belief that there was some mistake ; for it was to be observed that Lord Shaftesbury was only Chairman of their Lord- ships' Committees,whereas the Lord Chancellor was Speaker of the House.
Lord Brougham then, in a vein of pleasantry, excused himself from the charge of " forcing the King's Guard."
The fact was, he found himself quite through and in the Park before he had time to pull string ; and he thought it would be ridiculous to turn back, the mischief once done and he in a violent hurry. (Hear ! and laughter.) As to forcing the King's Guard, he really knew not what to %answer, for he did not himself see how he well could do it single-handed, even with the aid of his mace and purse. (Continued laughter.) All, therefore, he could say was, that he had not, and could not have, the re- motest intention of even questioning the regulations laid down by the military authorities on that or any other occasion ; he knew too well the importance of strict military discipline to the very existence of the civil government. (Hear !) Ile had only to add that the conduct of the commanding officer and of the soldiers on duty was most meritorious.
(Cheers.) 7. MR. HORACE TWISS AND THE MIDDLE CLASSES. The pre- sentation of a petition on Reform, by Mr. LAW HODGES, gave occasion, on Thursday, to Mr. Twiss to deliver a speech in expla- nation of his allusion to the " small attornies and shopkeepers," in his speech against Lord John Russell's Bill. Mr. Twiss, who has had practice in the Gallery as well as in the House, has re- ported himself in the Times ; he says- " The classes in whose hands I said, and still say, not that all franchise would be dangerous, for they have much already, but that it would be dangerous to place this monopoly of franchise, were not those who, even in the largest phraseology, could be termed the middle classes of this country. Of the middle classes I never spoke at all—the phrase `middle classes ' never passed my lips. The idea of the middle classes was not even in my mind, for my argument related to a totally different order of persons. It was to the predominance of a body far below the middle class, both in property and intelligence, that I objected ; and even of this body, as a body, I spoke in no terms of disrespect ; on the con- trary, though I objected to place the overbearing majority of votes throughout all the town elections of England in the hands of a single class, and that the lowest in property and intelligence, and comprising, together with many whose respectability is unquestionable, many other very dangerous politicians, yet I distinctly and more than once repeated, that I meant no sort of disparagement to the general bulk even of the lowest rate of voters."
Mr. Twiss denies that he made. merriinent of the ten-pound voters- " Neither did it enter into my thoughts to attempt what has been called making merry at their expense. The absurdity which I endea- voured to expose, and that in no strain of merriment or levity, was the absurdity chargeable, not upon the voters, but upon the bill itself, in making the whole government of this country, italegislation, its finance, its foreign policy, responsible to a majority, composed of the uninformed, however respectable, householders of the manufacturing towns."
8. FIRST FRUITS, IRELAND. On Monday, Sir JOHN NEWPORT introduced a motion connected with the first fruits in Ireland, similar to an annual motion which he has made, though hereto- fore to little purpose, for a great many years. The first year's income of every benefice, on the change of the incumbent, was originally appropriated to various pious purpose, among which the building and repairing of churches and chapels was one. Par- ticular benefices have been by statute exempted from this burden; and, by what is deemed an evasion of the law, those which are still subject to it have hitherto contributed a very small portion of the sum fairly due. The number of parishes where changes in the incumbency have taken place, in the four archiepiscopates Of Armagh, Dublin, Cashel, and Tuam, during the last twenty years, is 2,000; of these, 1,200 have been valued, under the lithe Composition Act, at 300,0001.; which gives on an average 2501. per annum to each. The glebe and other lands of 1000 parishes amount to 600,000 Irish acres, whose valise has not been officially ascertained, but which probably does not fall short of,g00/. or 1501., on an average, for each of the benefices where promotion has taken place. Out of the 2000 promotions, 600 have been taxed to first fruits ; and, at the average of 400/. each, would have produced 240,0001.; while the actual sum collected has been only 9,740/. 16s. 20. The rest of the parishes are either exempt by sta- tute, or by some neglect have been allowed to escape taxation. The difference between the sum received and the sum due is partly owing to the valuation by which the collection is made being a very old one ; and the immediate object of the motion of Monday was for an address to the Crown to submit, as a case to the Law Officers, whether the Crown was net legally entitled to order a new valua- tion to be made. The motion was seconded by Mr. STANLEY.
Mr. Gout.suitzr thought the motion unconstitutional, because any one might submit such a case to the Crown officers, without such an address ; and he could see in it as little advantage or jus- tice as law. Mr. Goulburn thought it would be a great hardship if the first year's income of every benefice were taken from the clergy. Mr. LEADER supported the motion at length ; and read a curious and minute statement on the subject, the substance of which had been adverted to in the speech of, the honourable mover. Mr. T. LEFROY saw no reason why clergymen should be taxed to repair churches, any more than Government servants to repair the public offices. As to building of new places of worship, there had been more built within the last twenty-five years than during the previous three hundred. Mr. STANLEY said, he bad no doubt that the ultimate result of the motion would be highly advantageous to the Irish Church ; it -.would greatly assist it in the maintenance of its rights, and relieve it from much odium.
Sir ROBERT PEEL was disposed to agree with the motion ; but 'Deflected to certain resolutions of fact that accompanied it—they assumed the very legality which it was the object of the address :•!'..o ascertain.
Mr. O'CoemEte supported the motion.
i The address was ultimately agreed to, without a division.
V. UNION OF WICKLOW. This subject was introduced to the -1_!.‘immons on Tuesday, by Mr. GRATTAN. The several livings of Wicklow, Drumkey, and Kilpoole, had been declared worth 2,250/. -by Archdeacon Magee, the pluralist incumbent ; though, in theG :Memorial to the Irish Privy Council, they were estimated at only 1091.
. Mr. GRA'TTAN'S motion for a copy of the Archbishop's memorial
was agreed to. •
10. SECONDARY PUNISHMENTS. Colonel DaviEs, in moving on 'Thursday for a committee to inquire into the best means of giving .efficacy to secondary punishments, stated that the criminal con- sdctions, which in 1811 were 3,163, and in 1812 were 3,913, had :in 1827 increased to the enormous number of 12,564. In France, eitlia population nearly tn ice as large, the convictions in 1827 -picric -only 6,988; while in England, during the same year, the -number of convictions alone was 11,095. He went on to argue, -that the best way to repress crime, was not to make prisoners labour hard and to feed them well, but to make their diet spare and their confinement solitary. Colonel Davies said he had no lioubt that two months of solitary confinement on bread and :water would be found more effectual than twelve months under the present system. The saving to the public by the adoption of such a system would be as great as the benefit to the criminal.
Mr. LAMB did not object to the committee, nor did he under- Ivalue the great importance of its object; at the same time, the question was beset with no small difficulties.
Mr. HUNT illustrated the efficacy of solitary confinement, and -spoke again of his own imprisonment in Ilchester Gaol "for two yews and six months."
The present discussion was attended by judges, barristers, and other earned persons ; but none of them knew the inside of a prison so well -as he did ; and, in his opinion, no punishment was so proper and effec- teal fur hardened offenders as solitary confinement. (A laugh.) The honourable gentleman might laugh, but if he knew as much ahout solitary confinement as Mr. Hunt did, perhaps he would laugh at the other side :of his mouth. (Laughter.) He believed that solitary confinement for Iwo months would effect more good than ordinary confinement for two years. What, he asked, was the object of government ? Was it, or was it riot, the prevention of crime ? Certainly it ought to be so ; but it was quite clear that the present system did not prevent crime, which Appeared to be daily increasing. Was it not right, then, to try some new ,experiment for the achievement of that object ? He conceived that they ,ought; and no punishment was more likely to reform and deter prisoners than that of solitary confinement, if not carried to an extreme.
Mr. Hunt having alluded to the case of two men named Reilly, confined for political crimes in 1817, one of whom committed sui- cide, and the other was thrust into the cell yet foul with his brother's
Sir EDWARD SUGDEN entered into a long argument to prove that Mr. Hunt's facts must be untrue. Sir Edward particularly 4objeeted to the phrase ruffian gaolers—" these persons might have relations [in the House ?] who might be deeply hurt by such language." It appeared, when Sir Edward had finished, that ha was arguing about one gaol, and Mr. Hunt was describing :another.
After some further observations from Mr. HOLME SUMNER and Mr. ALDERMAN WOOD, whose speech was interrupted by a cry of -" Make haste"—a new cry of impatience in the House—the mo- tice for a select committee was agreed to.
11. DIPLOMATIC PENSIONS. Mr. GISBORNE brought forward, -.on Tuesday, his notice for a return of diplomatic and consular Tensions. He stated that there were no less than twelve persons on this pension list with allowances of more than 2,000/. per an- ennm each.
Lord ALTHORP did not oppose the motion ; but observed, that the retiring allowances constituted a sort of half-pay; the parties -Who received it being always ready, when occasion required, to be ealled into active service.
Mr. HumE thought but small advantage was likely to accrue Trom such a half-pay corps. The Americans gave no retiring :allowance, and yet they had always abundance of diplomatists, rand what was more, of able diplomatists. The rule of England -was, not to intrust diplomacy to men of talent, but to persons ewhose support the Government was desirous to purchase.
12. THE ARMY ESTIMATES. The miscellaneous service and .,recruiting estimates were voted in Committee on Monday night, :after a lone. but not very interesting debate; in which Colonel Lord GEORGE LENOX, SIT HENRY HARDINGE, Mr. :HUME, Mr. WARBURTON, and others, took part. Mr. HUME .particularly condemned the extravagant- scale of the military ap- ,pointments in Canada ; the Commander-in-Chief there received :mine guineas a day (3,350/. per annum),—as large a sum as that ....vaceived by the Commander-in-Chief of the forces of England. biOn the grant of 33,855/. for charges on garrisons at home and :Abroad, most of which Mr. Hums described as useless sinecures, a division took place ; when there appeared for the grant 95; against it 18.
13. TIMBER TRADE. On Tuesday, in presenting a petition aeakinst the proposed new duties, Mr. Alderman THOMPSON entered into
some calculations respecting the trade to the Canadas. Mr. Per- ceval, he observed, was the first Minister that encouraged the Ca;- nada timber trade ; for, while he imposed a tax of 3/. on Baltic timber, he imposed only a tax of 3s. 6d. on that of America. Last
year, 600,000 loads were imported; and the exports during the same period amounted to 2,000,0001., while our exports to the
Baltic amounted to only 400,000/. The shipping engaged in the Canada trade amounted to 44,000 tons; and the canal embarked in it did not fall short of a million and a half. The emigration, an important portion of the traffic with Canada, was not less than
30,000 persons a year. By the calculations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the revenue was to be benefited by 600,000!.; which supposed a total import of 750,000 leads, with, however, a diminution on imports from Canada of 330,000 loads. It was true, Canadian timber was inferior to Baltic ; but then, the cost was not above half as much—the former sold for `21.11.1s., while the latter sold at Si. per load.
Lord ALTHORP declined entering on a question which was to be fully discussed on Friday. Sir M. W. RIDLEY agreed with the petitioners. Mr. ATTWOOD said, a pledge, expressed or implied, was given to the Ca.nadas in 1809, when we had recourse to them for the ma- terials of ship-building, from which a combination of our enemies had cut us off in Europe. It was not so much a question of policy, as of justice. Mr. SYKES not only denied that a pledge had been given, but it had been repeatedly refused. The true way of benefiting our ship- ping, was to remove all unnecessary burdens on it, and allow it to expand itself in whatever direction was most beneficial. Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN said, the Canticles took two millions worth of goods, while Norway took almost nothing; and yet it was proposed to sacrifice Canada to Norway ! Mr. WARBURTON did not think the trade could be so important as it was described. Canada, it was true, took two millions worth of goods, but it only paid for one-fourth of them in timber. Mr. ROBINSON said, in one year-1829-1,611 ships were em- ployed in the Canada trade : the proposed duties would sweep away 10,000 out of the 20,000 seamen employed by these 1,611 vessels. In 1818, there were in the port of Liverpool alone, 218 ships, and in 1831 there were 321, amounting to 106,000 tons, employed in the Canada trade.
Mr. WHITMORE said, the ship-owners were a class who never thought of looking to the advantage of the community. He was an advocate for cheap .sugar and cheap corn, and, for a similar reason, for cheap timber. The proper question was not, would Canada suffer a little, or would the ship. owners suffer a little, by the proposed change,—but would the people of England suffer a great deal by foregoing the change ? Lord LOUGHBOROUGH said, his constituents complained that, if the measure passed, they would be totally ruined. Lord Lough- borough said the new.duties had been held out (by Mr. Poulett Thomson) as a boon to the landed interest.
He knew little of the landed interest of England, if he believed that that interest wished to derive any exclusive benefit or advantage (and he did not think it would be an advantage) from any measure that would have a contrary effect with respect to other interests.
Mr. P. THOHSON—" There was nothing farther, not only from my meaning, but from the expression which I used, than that Go- vernment had any intention of holding out this measure as a boon
to the landed interest." •
Mr. HUME said, the measure was not one, but two. The whole of the people, but especially the poor, were burdened by the coal- tax : that tax it was proposed to remove; but to enable the Ministry to effect this, it was essential to impose other taxes, and the timber- tax was one of them.
Lord W. PAULETT thought, that, having already expended six millions on Canada, we were bound to continue our protection.
Sir FRANCIS BURDETT said, this was a most extraordinary rea- son for continuing in the old course. Because they had expended six millions to encourage the colonists of Canada, they ought still to support a system which was injurious to the general interest of the country! Mr. KEITH DOUGLAS protested against the doctrine of getting cheap sugar wherever it could be purchased. Mr. S. WORTLEY thought the measure just, hut perhaps it might have been better-timed. It seemed hard to impose an additional duty on Canada timber imported into England, while we were opening to competition the West India timber trade, which Canada had for years enjoyed without a rival. Mr. Hiner thought the present a fair specimen of the ordinary current of House of Commons business. A number of hours had been devoted to the consideration of a solitary petition from one small interest ; while thousands of petitions from the people, intreating attention to the general interests of the nation, could hardly be heard at all. The tax on coals affected the poorest Of the community—the tax on timber the wealthiest ; he therefore rejoiced at the Chancellor of the Exchequer's purposed sUbsti- ttition..
The question of the Timber-duties was finally discussed last night. The House having gone into Committee, the debate was opened
by toM ALtitoRp, WI ) defended the principle of the measure. The eneouragement of the Canada trade in timber was not only the en- couragement ofa partial interest at the'expense•of the whole corn- muney,—for while the shipping interest profited, the people of England suffered,—but the encouragement of a bad article at the expense of a good, it being notorious that it was made a condition in all well- considered ontracts into which timberentered, that only Bal- tic timber shoold he used. It was also unwise as respected the means of the countries whence the timber was procured : Canada was rich in many articles of export, and its timber was the least valuable it pos- sessed: Norway had nothing else to give in exchange for our mer- chandise. With respect to the colonial capital employed in the trade, it was exceedingly small : the only fixed part of it was in the shape of a few saw-milk ; the rest was wholly floating, and could be at once directed into any channel that was more rational and productive. To the emigrant the timber trade offered few advantages : in felling the trees, he was superseded by the Americans from the United States— the only labour he could perform, was in getting down the rafts to the coast, and that labour might be much more beneficially for the coin. nies and himself directed to the cultivation. of the land which formed a permanent source of revenue. Lord Althorp went into some calculations respecting the revenue ; but from the rapidity of his Lordship's utterance, and the low tone in which he spoke, the items were in a great measure inaudible—from what could be un- derstood of the result, it appeared that calculating from the in- crease in the Customs that had already taken place, Ministers esti- mate the surplus of 1831-2 at 1,135,0001. Under this improved view of the resources of the country, the immediate removal of the pro- tecting timber-duties might be dispensed with, for a gradual re- moval. His Lordship concluded by stating that Government in- tended,to proceed on this gradual plan. The duty on Canada timber was now 10s. per load, on Baltic timber 45s.; he proposed to re- duce the latter by 6s. in 1832 (1st January), 6s. in 1833, and 3s. in 1834,—leaving the permanent duties 10s. and 30s. respectively.
Mr. ATTWOOD said, the question for the Committee was, the right of the colonies to protection, and the policy of granting it ; and that question had been decided by the act of 1809. The object of the act was neither to procure cheap timber nor to in- crease the revenue—it was wholly and solely protective. On the faith of that act, mills had been erected, warehouses had been built, large capital in the colonies and at home had been embarked, which it was now the object of Government to destroy. There Could be no safety, no wisdom, either proximate or ultimate, in measures where there was no justice. He was far from saying that protective measures ought never to have been adopted, though some were af that opinion ; but, supposing it decided that they ought not, there yet remained the question of how far it was wise, protective measures having been adopted, to change them, and above all, whether it were wise to change them at the present period. The experiment, at all times hazardous, was doubly so at the present. When open foes and concealed enemies were eagerly seeking where to plant a blow against the prosperity of Great Britain, it was not the time to attempt carrying into effect the wild theories of a crude philosophy.
Mr. I'. Tuoatsoat expressed his gratification that the measures of Ministers did not meet the approbation of Mr. Attwood—he should be sorry that plans intended to advantage the community at large should rest for acceptance on the colonists and ship- owners of the country. It was a most shortsighted mode of legis- lating, to bolster up particular interests at the expense of the people at large. With respect to the alleged breach of faith in the repeal of the act of 1809, it was only necessary to refer to the speeches of the Minister of the Crown, Earl Bathurst, who ex- pressly stated, that the act would be subject to revision, not in twenty years, but in three or four years. It was sufficient to jus- tify the present proposal from the charge of rashness and theory,
that it proposed to do that gradually which the Lords' Report of 1820 proposed to do at once ; and the balance of protection which it would leave to the Colonies exceeded by one half what that
report recommended. -Mr. Thomson went into a long calculation, to show that the trade, as hitherto manaved, had been eminently injurious ,o the coun`ry ; and that even if half the ships employed in it were to be rendered useless, it would be a much cheaper and wiser plan to buy them up than to keep them navigating at so great a loss to the country. Mr. Thomson concluded by stating, that the real question was, whether the House would continue to sanction a system which even Lord Liverpool had condemned, and which cost the country 120,0001. a year,—in order that they might get a bad article from a great distance, while a good one at their doors was held out to their acceptance.
Sir GELRGE MURRAY supported the views of Mr. Attwood ; and was followed on the same side by Mr. KEITH DOUGLAS, Mr. ROBINSON, and Mr. HERRIES.
Mr. WaasuaroN attempted to obtain a hearing, but was drowned with cries of" Question !"
Lord ALTHORP repelled an insinuation of Mr. Herries, that his conduct in respect of these duties had been marked by disinge- nuity.. He had received deputations of the different trades of the country, and he had changed his mind and modified his plans ac- cordingly; and had he not been prepared to do so, why should he have insulted these gentlemen by listening to them ?
Mr, Arrwoon moved that the Chairman should report pro- gress.
Mr. WARBURTON again attempted to address the Committee;
but the ship-owners were determined to hear nobody bUt them:, selves, and he was again clamoured down, with loud and repeated; cries of" Question!"
The House was engaged in the division for nearly an houra.,Atite utmost confusion appearing to prevail on both sides, and repeatAnk calls being made of "Tell again." At last the result was announnetiA —for Mr. Attwood's amendment, 236; against it, 190; majority) against Ministers, 46.
15. RESIGNATION OF MINISTERS. After the triumph of. Me: Opposition on the division had ceased to manifest itself in inarti- culate sounds, Sir CHARLE FORBES, on the presentation of" se Reform petition, took occasion to ask Mr. Hobhouse, Whether; after such a decided expression of the sense of the House; ke would not counsel the Ministry to resign, as he had done, Olt thee Civil List division ?
Mr. HOBHOUSE trusted the House would not be gulled by the trick and shuffle of the division that had just occurred. It Wti:_4 no longer a question of parties, but a question between the friend& of corruption and the people of England. He felt, that under. present circumstances, the resignation of Min;sters would be the worst and most disastrous calamity for the country that imagimr- tion could picture. Were the expectations of the people to he balked by a paltry, sneaking vote like this ? What were- Sir Charles Forbes's principles, he would fain know, since be- was now answering the honourable baronet's apt cal to Lm- What kind of Reform . did he advocate ? He had always resisted individual attempts at disfranchisement, on the pleat that a general measure only was the proper one ; and now that. a general measure was brought forward, he denounced it also; Sir CHARLES FORBES said, he would vote for reform, not. rest.- lution—the present plan was revolutionary.
