ordered, the noble earl proceeded to appoint a day for the second reading. His Catholic fellow-subjects having, he said, long done him the honour to place their petitions in his hands, and make him the medium for communicating their grievances to their lordships, he could but feel the greatest satisfaction at welcoming from the other House of parliament a bill which was a signal pledge of justice, and of a spirit of conciliation. With a measure of such importance, it was necessary that their lordships should have as long a time as possible for consideration. At the same time, under the circumstances of the House, and the near approach of the holidays, he found it necessary to propose that the second reading should take place on Tuesday next.-Ordered. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Wednesday, May 11. VOTES OF MEMBERS IN PRIVATE COMMITTEES.] Sir G. Clerk having brought up the report of the Leith Docks Bill, Mr. Kennedy objected to the measure, as being uncalled for in its present state. He was not, however, indisposed to entertain a compromise on the subject. Mr. Abercromby strongly condemned a practice, too prevalent in private committees; namely, that gentlemen should conceive themselves qualified to decide on the right of parties, without listening either to the counsel employed, or the evidence adduced on the respective subjects. Such a practice, as it affected members of that House, was scandalous, and as it regarded the interests of the persons whose rights were under the deliberation of the committee, was fraught with gross injustice. Mr. Brougham agreed with his hon. and learned friend in reprobating the practice of voting in committees up stairs, without attending to the evidence requisite to form a correct opinion of the merits of the case. He did not wish to use harsh expressions; but he must designate such a practice as careless; aye, and even corrupt too [hear, hear!]. The fact being indisputable, it was high time that the opinion of the House should so decidedly stigmatise such scandalous conduct of private committees, as to terminate a mode of proceeding so disgraceful to the House, and so unjust to the public. Sir G. Clerk agreed with the hon. and learned gentleman; and he thought also, that nothing could be more improper than for honourable members to come down to the House and indulge in general reflections upon a subject, with the facts of which they were not fully acquainted. The members of the committee in question had been pretty regular in their attendance. At the final division, there were twenty-five in favour of the bill, and five against it. Sir R. Fergusson said, that some of the members of this committee were gentlemen from the sister kingdom; others from the centre of England, who had no knowledge of the sea-ports, nor the interests connected with them. Of these gentlemen fourteen or fifteen came into the committee-room just before the division, and voted without having heard the evidence. It was, in his opinion, as unfair a committee as he had ever known. Mr. Wynn thought that every person acquainted with any unfair practices did their duty in coming to the House and openly stating them. There could be no doubt that the House had the power, when it saw reason for doing so, to send back a report to another committee. In the present instance, however, it appeared that the majority of the gentlemen who had voted had heard the evidence. He therefore saw no reason why such a course should now be adopted. He thought that members for Ireland were as competent as any others to decide upon a question of policy, like that of the bill before the House. Sir J. Marjoribanks said, he could assure the House, that there was no jobbing in the committee; if there were, he might be considered the chief jobber, as he had a great property embarked in the Leith Dock. Mr. J. P. Grant, as one of the committee, thanked his hon. and learned friend for his notice of the subject, not merely in reference to this particular case, but as it regarded the general regulation of private committees; the abuses in which imperatively required some effectual alteration. Mr. Croker said, that from the fact of the committee having adjourned for two days, in order to obtain the attendance of a member of the committee who was opposed to the bill, and that of many of the members having heard the whole of the evidence, the report before the House was freed from the imputation which had been attempted to be cast upon it. Mr. Stuart Wortley said, he was glad that this subject had been brought before the House. The prevalence of such practices could only be checked by an appeal to the feelings of hon. gentlemen; and there was no method of making that appeal more effective than by a statement of the facts to the House. The report was then agreed to. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Thursday, May 12. ELECTIVE FRANCHISE IN IRELAND BILL.] Mr. Grattan rose to present a petition from the freeholders of the county of Monaghan, against the bill brought in by the hon. member for Staffordshire, which would have the effect of disfranchising the 40s. freeholders of Ireland. The petitioners considered this bill to be contrary to justice, and to involve a direct violation of the constitution. In their sentiments he entirely concurred. Mr. Spring Rice said, that the opinion of the petitioners was founded on an entire misapprehension of the question. If what the petitioners stated were fact, he would at once agree with them: he would say, that the 40s. freeholder ought not to be interfered with. But, this bill did not affect the 40s. freeholder. What he, and those who approved of the measure, objected to was the number of electors who were brought into the constituency, not as freeholders, but as leaseholders. So far from diminishing any right which existed at present in England, or which was valuable to the constituency of England, those who approved of this bill took a course which rather blended the rights of the real constituency of the two countries, by striking at a practice known unfortunately in Ireland, but not at all known on this side of the water. No desire existed to limit the exercise of the elective franchise. The great object was to introduce a better and more independent description of voters than was known in Ireland at present. Mr. Grattan contended, that the petition spoke facts, and nothing but facts. When they raised the qualification of voters above 40s., it was clearly a limitation of that right; and, he would say, one of the most enormous that was ever proposed. It was said, that the friends of this measure were anxious to assimilate the law of Ireland to the law of England on this subject: but, he would maintain that, at present, the practice in England and in Wales was the same as the practice in Ireland. Mr. Hume wished his hon. friend, the member for Limerick, to show how it was possible to pass this bill, without depriving individuals, at a future period, of rights which they now expected to enjoy ultimately. By the practice of Ireland, every holder of a lease of 40s. was entitled to a vote; and in all time to come, unless the law was altered, those who succeeded him in his property would be entitled to the same privilege. Now, it was intended by the bill of the hon. member for Stafford to take away from all future holders of leases the power to vote for members of parliament. This was the admitted object; and, if this was not taking away from the popular part of the community a right which they had long enjoyed, he knew not what to call it. If the practice was mischievous, let them put an end to it in some other way: let them introduce a measure by which the evil would be corrected. But, let them not, by one sweeping measure, deprive four millions of people of an established right. It had been reported, that because he was hostile to this bill, he had declined to vote on the Roman Catholic Relief bill; but it was perfectly well known to gentlemen around him, that he had formed one of the majority on that occasion; and sorry he was, that that majority was not ten times greater [hear]. Lord Althorp said, that the opponents of this bill objected to it because, in their opinion, the extent of popular election in Ireland would, if it were carried, be more limited than it was at present. Now, he would vote for it, because he thought it would give the popular interest greater force and power than it could now command. At the present moment, gentlemen of large property, by subdividing their estates, were enabled to overpower the middling and better-informed classes. But, by the operation of the bill now before the House, the weight of the independent freeholders would be greatly increased; and instead of lowering the right of popular election, it would place the counties of Ireland, which were now nothing but close boroughs, in the same free situation which they held in England. Mr. Littleton said, that by the bill which Mr. W. Becher spoke in favour of the bill, because he thought its tendency was to remedy existing evils in Ireland. he had introduced, there was not one in- | elective franchise-there was another very dividual in Ireland, who at present had a powerful argument in support of the bill. right to vote, to whom that right would It was admitted, that amongst the evils not be preserved. He really thought that which oppressed Ireland, the subdivision the hon. member for Aberdeen, and the of land was one of the greatest. It was reformers in general, ought to be first and impossible directly to interfere with proforemost, in supporting this measure. perty; and, while a motive existed for For the very same reason which induced the subdivision of property, that subdithe hon. member for Aberdeen to call vision would take place. Now, when the for an increase of the elective franchise motive which led to that system was in Scotland, his object being to destroy known, it was the duty of parliament to corrupt influence-for that very reason remove it and its accompanying evil tothe hon. member was bound to vote for a gether. Surely the increase of leasedecrease of the elective franchise in Ire- holders-at rack-rent, in most instances, land; because, in that country, the ficti- be it remembered-ought not to be contious voters overwhelmed the real free- tinued, when it was clearly the means of holders. He could not conceive on what perpetuating a generally admitted evil. principle those who supported parliamentary reform could oppose this measure. He was astonished, how gentlemen who came into that House by the voluntary vote of independent English electors, could support a system under which, by dividing four or five estates into shreds and patches, the power of the real freecompletely overwhelmed! They ought to support a measure which would put an end to a system so vicious. Sooner or later, when the principle of the bill was understood by the public at large -when the opinions, so strongly and generally expressed in that House, were properly weighed-the measure would be successful. The misunderstanding which prevailed; the misrepresentation which had most unfairly been made in that House; and the inconsistency which he had observed in the conduct of various parties, with respect to this measure, would ultimately be corrected; and he had no doubt but that it would be eventually carried. holder was Sir J. Newport said, that as the practice now stood, men of real substance, of bona fide property, refused to attend at elections. In many instances, individuals of respectability would not qualify themselves to act as electors. They knew that they would be completely overpowered by those fictitious freeholders; and therefore they viewed the elective franchise as a privilege not worth having. It was to him most extraordinary, that any man who had looked into the evidence given before the committee, or who was personally acquainted with the practice, could oppose a measure which would put down an evil of such magnitude. Mr. S. Bourne said, that besides the strong ground-that of purifying the Mr. Monck said, he considered the 40s. freeholds a great evil; but he did not like the remedy. The argument for the present bill was, that in consequence of the numbers of electors, the real sense of the county could not be taken, and that the independent voters were thereby nullified. Was it forgotten that in this country there were hundreds of boroughs? Could gentlemen discharge from their minds the pot-walloping boroughs? Could they forget the places where the mechanics, being freemen, destroyed by their numbers, all the independent voters? In England, boroughs and votes were sold openly and notoriously to the highest bidder; and yet the Irishman was to be deprived of his vote, on account of evils which were not of his own creating. At Southampton, the right of voting was in the inhabitants paying scot and lot, and individuals who purchased the right of the corporation. When George Rose stood for Southampton, and was hard run, and likely to lose his election, he was favoured by the corporation, and at one stroke, no less than sixty of these voters, all strangers to the town, were created; and he thereby succeeded in getting his election. If the evil was to be put down, let it be a general measure. The hon. member for Galway had given instances in which the 40s. freeholders had acted with the greatest independence. He believed the present bill to be a contrivance, on the part of the Irish members, to secure their return to parliament. These members had created votes, which they expected to find dependent, but which they now discovered were too often indepen dent. They found the voters in a state | Catholic claims, which opinion he saw no of mutiny. They would not go with the reason to retract. He particularly relandlord, as it was intended and expected commended the passing a measure of they should; and they often went wth general conciliation; and he looked upon the priest, in direct opposition to the land- the bill which had been alluded to as a lord. This was their real fault. It was component part of that measure. The not their general dependence, but occa- concession of the Roman Catholic claims, sional independence, which was struck at the increase of the qualification of elecby this bill. For these reasons, though as tors, and the provision for the Roman yet he had voted for it, he should vote Catholic clergy were called for by the against its further progress. present situation of Ireland. If any of these measures were not to be carried, still he should not regret the vote he had given. He was deeply anxious that the bill should be carried; but to its present postponement he could have no objection. Sir George Rose said, that the occurrence alluded to by the hon. member, could not have taken place at Southampton, as the voters must at least be made a year before the election. Mr. Monck said, he would not vouch for the statement. He had read it in a newspaper: it might have been inserted for election purposes. Lord Milton admitted that the bill deprived certain persons of a right to vote, but he was so fully convinced that that right gave rise to great evils, that he should vote in favour of the bill. He took that opportunity of asking the hon. member for Staffordshire whether it was his intention to proceed with this bill, or to postpone it until the final determination of another measure, on the success of which its operations must ultimately depend. Mr. Littleton said, he was quite ready to comply with whatever might be the wish of the House on the subject. He would either wait the decision which might be come to in the House of Lords, or he would proceed that evening; but he was particularly desirous to avoid doing any thing which might be construed into a breach of faith. He was willing that the wishes of the members for Down and Armagh, both of whom he saw in the House, should be complied with relative to the postponement. Colonel Forde said, he was indifferent whether the elective franchise bill should be disposed of now, or postponed to a future day, provided it was distinctly understood, that if the great measure of Catholic emancipation should be carried in another place, this bill should be persevered in and pressed forward as rapidly as was consistent with the forms of the House. Mr. Brownlow rose to address the House, but was for some time wholly inaudible, owing to the subdued tone in which he spoke. He alluded to the opinion he had recently given on the subject of Mr. Littleton said, that it was his intention, if the Catholic Relief bill should be carried in another place, to proceed with all possible alacrity to press on the elective franchise bill. On the contrary, if the former bill should be lost, he would certainly abandon the latter. Sir F. Burdett said, that he rose principally to express his admiration of the manly and candid course taken by the hon. member for Armagh. What that hon. gentleman had stated had had a considerable influence on his mind. In looking at the question of Catholic emancipation with a view to conciliate the minds of the people of Ireland, he could not put out of view, that a portion of that people was Protestant; and on their behalf he also felt a strong interest. It was fit, therefore, in conceding the claims, to grant them in such a way as would be acceptable to the Protestant mind; or the House would, in fact, be doing little more than changing the sides of the difficulty. The great object was, to consolidate the whole power of the empire; and that could not be attained without conciliation. With reference to the elective franchise bill, he should be prepared to defend it upon every principle-upon a principle of reform. He should be able to show that the same principle applied to particular parts of the elective franchise in this country would be beneficial, and tend much to the independence of parliament and the liberty of the subject. Having, however, accepted the support of several members on the great question, which support had been most honourably given, he should feel bound to support the minor bill, which had for its object to increase the qualification of voters in Ireland, even if he could not find reasons for it in all respects satisfactory to his own mind. natural state, the bachelor stood better off He looked at the bill for the provision of than the married man: his gains might the Catholic clergy in the same light. be equal, and his burthens were less; and He was bound to support it; for on that this comparative ease of condition formed condition the support to the great ques- the true and legitimate check to improtion, which was not less than that of re-vident unions. But our law now neutraligious liberty in the country generally, lized that check entirely; or rather, inhad been given. He should, therefore, deed, gave a bounty to a man for producfeel warranted in making even greater ing children which he could not maintain. sacrifices on that subject, than he was in The law said now, that a single man fact called upon to make. Standing as should not earn so much by his daily the measure did, he felt obliged to several labour as a married man. While he was hon. members for their assistance and votes a bachelor, he must labour at so low a in favour of a bill which seemed to him rate, that all hope of making any proof paramount importance to the welfare vision for matrimony was out of the quesof the empire. tion; but he had only to marry at once, without thinking of consequences and the parish would at once increase his wages, and give a pauper's support, as fast as they were born, to his children. The hon. member, after commenting generally upon the oppressiveness as well as the impolicy of the existing system, sat down by moving for leave to bring in his bill. Colonel Trench was desirous of expressing his regret, that by the loss of the present bill, Ireland would be deprived of the benefit of a measure of great importance [cries of" no, no”]. Mr. R. Martin thought that this bill would be one of the greatest visitations ever inflicted on Ireland, if it should pass into a law, without being accompanied by Catholic emancipation. He had no doubt that it would produce a commotion, perhaps a rebellion, in Ireland; and this he was ready to prove on a proper occasion. Ordered to lie on the table.-The further consideration of the Elective Franchise bill was deferred till the 27th. WAGES OF LABOURERS OUT OF THE POOR RATES.] Mr. Monck moved for leave to bring in a bill to prohibit in certain cases, the payment of any part of the Wages of Labourers out of the Poor Rates. The hon. gentleman observed, that this practice of rendering every agricultural labourer partially a pauper, went not only to annihilate all independency of principle among the lower classes, but to incumber the country with a population which it had no means of providing for. The law, as it stood, amounted absolutely to a bounty upon idleness. A labourer who, by day-work, earned, say 8s. a-week, was unable, if he had a family, to live on this, and received, perhaps, 6s. therefore in aid from the parish. If he was a man industriously inclined, and by task-work or other extra exertion, raised his 8s. earnings to 12s., what was the consequence? He had his toil for his pains: for then the parish gave him 2s. And even this was a slighter evil than the encouragement which this practice gave to early marriages. In his Mr. J. Benett was not disposed to oppose the bringing in of this bill, though he doubted much whether the good results would follow which the hon. member predicated of it. He always viewed with alarm any approach towards an alteration in the poor laws; as hitherto such alterations had been but rarely for the better. The complaint was not so much against the law as its administration; and the governors of the poor were charged with too much liberality in applying the funds destined for the use of the poor. But surely, when the agricultural people were themselves the largest contributors to the poor rates, nobody could quarrel with them for dispensing their own money too generously. The shop-keepers might contribute a portion; but they also gained by the better condition of the poor, in an increased sale of their goods. No man was more anxious than he was to see the poor of this country comfortably provided for; but, in his conscience, he believed it was not in the power of this House to legislate effectually upon the subject. Sir George Chetwynd undertook to affirm that it was not legal to pay labourers' wages out of the poor's rates. He was aware that such a practice existed in some places; but he had never heard it justified by a lawyer in that House. It appeared to him, therefore, unnecessary to pronounce, by a new bill, upon the illegality of that which had never been defended. |