that an adequate number of 10. Lords that the charge made by some hon. Memwas to be created to effect that object. Hebers against this measure was its greatest had heard, that when twelve Peers were recommendation—he meant that it effected made at once, during the reign of Queen Anne, a certain Duchess had observed, that one could not spit out of a window without its falling upon a Lord. What the Duchesses of the present day would say he could not anticipate; but certainly Lords would be common enough if the contemplated creation was to take place. He moreover asserted, that Ireland would be dissatisfied, and that Ministers must be aware, that do what they would, they could not give satisfaction to certain parties there. Unless they gave a place of some sort to the hon. and learned member for Kerry they must have a separation. As for himself, he had always been for separation, and was convinced they would have it if they did not give something to the hon. and learned member for Kerry. a total change in the system of Scotch Representation. He said so, because he thought that nothing could be worse than that system. He was always aware that the Bill would not satisfy all parties in Scotland, but it satisfied the majority, and he fully believed its operation would be most beneficial to the country. The question was, whether it would effect such a change in the present system as to give to the mass of the people a voice and an interest in the Representation of their country in that House? He thought it would have that effect fully, and, therefore, it should have his most cordial support. However, he must beg leave to make one observation on the speech of the right hon. Baronet (Sir George Murray) who had remarked that the Bill could not be defended on general principles; and that the Reform measure differed in such principles when appli Mr. Kennedy denied the assertion of the hon. Member for Preston, that the people of Scotland were dissatisfied and disap-ed to the three distinct divisions of the empointed with this Bill. On the contrary he could assure the House, that the people of Scotland not only were satisfied with the Bill, but that they were impatient, if he might so say, for the enactment of it. Those who said, that the people of Scotland were dissatisfied with the Bill, were those who would be dissatisfied with any bill of Reform, and who were opposed to Reform altogether. He should like to know, if an augmentation of Members was granted equal to meet their wishes, whether they would undertake to support the Bill. He fully believed they would not, and therefore he looked with distrust, and he might almost say, with indignation, at the clamour that had been raised by hon. Gentlemen on the other side for an additional number of Members for Scotland. He cautioned the supporters of the Bill against this cry, for he was sure that those who raised it would not pledge themselves to vote for the Bill, if the additional Members were given. Indeed, he was certain that the giving of these additional Members would only be made the means for embarrassing the Ministers, as there must then be a remodelling of the proposed system. The measure was calculated to produce great advantages, and he, therefore, most heartily wished to see it passed into a law, and would give it his support without quarrelling with the minor details because they might not be absolutely perfect. Mr. Hume said, that it appeared to him pire. The question he wished to put boroughs, and to have given thirty or forty additional Members to Ireland and Scotland. He knew, however, that in carrying such a measure, they would meet with the greatest difficulties. He urged the Ministers to press the Bill through the House, and he was sure it would give general satisfaction; it would indeed give dissatisfaction to the proprietors, and to those who had hitherto held the election in their own hands, but to the great body of the people it would be most acceptable. Sir George Murray explained. He was not a friend to the application of general principles in legislation, in the manner supposed by the hon. member for Middlesex. What he had said was, that as general principles had been applied to England, they ought to be applied to Scot land. Leave given, and the Bill brought in. ASSESSED TAXES.] Mr. Goulburn took that opportunity of asking the noble Lord opposite, whether he had prepared any bill to consolidate the laws relating to the Assessed Taxes, and to the composition for Assessed Taxes? It had been the intention of the late Government to introduce such a bill, for, as the laws now stood, they were often excessively severe in their operation, especially upon innocent persons, and the delay in effecting the consolidation and amendment of the laws had exposed many persons to inconvenience and unnecessary expense from the system of surcharges, which, though justified by the letter of the law, was decidedly against the spirit of it. He wished to ask the noble Lord whether, in the present Session, he should be prepared to introduce a bill to consolidate those laws? It would be a great advantage. Lord Althorp agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, that it would be of great advantage to consolidate those laws. He was not aware that a bill of the kind had been prepared by the late Government. He had found no such bill in his office. With respect to the question put to him, he could only say, that he should be very glad to see a bill of the description spoken of brought forward; but he could not promise, at the moment, to give so much attention to the subject as was required to originate a Bill, although he should be happy to support one if introduced by others. Mr. Goulburn said, a draft of such a bill had been prepared when he was in office, and forwarded to the Tax Commissioners in Scotland for their consideration. BUCKINGHAM PALACE.] Lord Duncannon brought up the report of the Land Revenue Bill. On the question that it be considered, Mr. Herries said, the principle on which the Bill proceeded was a novel one, and it ought not, therefore, to be passed without some observation. Lord Duncannon assured the right hon. Gentleman, the principle had been previously acted upon. Crown lands had been several times sold. Upon one occasion, a sale to the extent of 66,000l. had taken place. By the 7thGeo. 4th, the produce of the sale of Crown lands was directed to be applied to carry on the improvements in the Strand, which amounted to nearly 1,000,000l. He must further mention, that part of the Waterloo bridge estate was disposed of to purchase the Marquis of Exeter's property in Exeter Change; and this had been acceded to by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn). Every one of these transactions were alienations of the Crown lands. Mr. Goulburn thought the noble Lord did not seem to understand the distinction between the life tenant wholly alienating a property, and disposing of it for a time to provide means for a temporary expenditure. With respect to the purchase of Lord Exeter's property, the case was simply an exchange of one portion of real property for another. Lord Duncannon said, he only meant to assert, that the estate purchased would not produce any income to the Crown; the whole of the revenue would be absorbed in the improvement of the street. Mr. Hume said, all the transactions relating to the Crown land property, and the palaces, seemed to be attended with the same fatality. Large outlays and expenses were incurred, for which there was a most inadequate return. He had hoped that a part of the enormous expense of the building of this palace was to have been defrayed by the sale of Crown lands, and that the remainder, amounting to about 250,000l. was to be paid by the country; but he feared he had acted under a delusion, and that the whole expense must ultimately, come out of the public purse. He did hope however, that the time was coming when some alteration would take place. Report agreed to. Returns ordered. On the Motion of Mr. WILKES, of the number of Freeholders rated to the Land Tax within the Petitions presented. By Sir GEORGE MURRAY, from the Freeholders of Perth, against the sweeping measure of Reform which it was proposed to substitute in lieu of the present Representative system of Scotland. By Mr. respective divisions of Kesteven and Holland, Lincoln. SPENCE, from Kirby Leatham, Yorkshire, in favour of Reform. By Mr. SANFORD, from the Landowners and Inhabitants of Ilminster and Bishops Lydeard, against the LAND, from Porlington, Yorkshire; and by Mr. SANFORD, from the Inhabitants of Wellington, in favour of Reform. By Sir EDWARD SUGDEN, from certain Householders of Galway, for a Provision in the Irish Reform Bill for the the Members of the Marylebone Society for the prevention peculiar Franchise of that place. By Mr. M'KINNON, from of Cruelty to Animals, for an additional enactment. proportioned to the risk, of from six to ten per cent, whereas if he imported them in the regular manner, the duty would be thirty per cent, which, however, if really paid, was not a sufficient protection to the home producer. So long, therefore, as such a system was tolerated, it was utterly impossible the condition of the silk-trade could be improved. It was, therefore, high time to adopt some means by which the nefarious practices, which were now carried on by certain silk merchants, to their own very great advantage, should be put an end to, and the fair trader have the protection given him which he deserved. Mr. Alderman Venables had great pleasure in informing the hon. Member, that the subject had engaged the serious attention of Government, and that he understood the Ministers proposed to add imprisonment with hard labour, in addition to pecuniary penalties, as the punishment of persons who were convicted in the nefarious offence of smuggling silks. He was no friend to prohibition, but he must say, that the manufacturers of this country were entitled to the full enjoyment of the protection the Legislature had bestowed for their security against foreign competition, which protection they had been most ungenerously deprived of by these smuggling transactions. Mr. Alderman Waithman said, this was a matter of considerable importance, and would be brought before the House in a He had had many communications with various parties on the subject, from the result of which he was firmly persuaded, the evil was to be attributed more to the unsuccessful competition of the goods of this country with those of foreign manufacture, than to smuggling. He hoped that the Legislature would speedily take the whole question into its most serious consideration. SILK TRADE-PETITION.] Mr. Sanford presented a Petition from an individual re-regular way. siding in Somersetshire, complaining of the distress of the Silk Trade, and against the importation of foreign manufactured silks. The petitioner stated, that the Silk-trade of the country was rapidly improving previous to the prohibitory duties being taken off, but that since then it had continued to decline; that many mercantile houses were largely engaged in smuggling silks; he therefore prayed for an increase of duty on foreign silks, and for the re-enactment of the prohibitory laws. An Hon. Member said, there could be no doubt that the present duties on imported silks, were evaded to a great degree. He knew that many merchants engaged in the silk business, were compelled to resort to means of which they were ashamed, such was the ruinous depression in the trade. The scale of duties on the foreign article was so low, as not to give the English manufacturer a tolerably fair competition. By the evasion of the duty, the manufacturer procured a foreign article upon which he willingly paid the seller an advanced price, Petition to lie on the Table. APPLEBY-PETITION.] Lord Maitland presented a Petition from the Inhabitants of Appleby, praying for an inquiry into the state of that borough; praying that it might be removed from schedule A, and be allowed to return one Member to Parliament in future. Mr. Croker said, this petition deserved the most serious attention of the House. It fully confirmed the statements he had made during the last Session upon the subject of the relative importance of the borough of Appleby. Of some of the allegations contained in the petition it was impossible to doubt, and the truth of the remainder might with great ease be ascertained. He, therefore, thought, Ministers ought to grant an inquiry, that full justice might be done to the borough before it was disfranchised. Petition to be printed. 6 alleged, under the advice of a solicitor, again entered upon the land, and proceeded to perform some labour on a wall which belonged to the estate. An application was then made to the Court for their committal for a breach of the injunction, and on the 10th of March, 1830, they were committed DUTY ON BRICKS.] Mr. Spence pre- to the Fleet Prison for contempt of Court. sented a Petition from certain Tile and In November, 1830, Lord Henley made Brick makers in the county of York, pray- his report to the Lord Chancellor, under ing for a repeal of the duties on Bricks. the provisions of the Act 1st William 4th, The petitioners stated the extreme hard- and it was as follows: There are two poor ships under which they laboured; that in illiterate day labourers committed for a 1824 nearly all the bricks in the county of breach of an injunction, having, as they York were spoiled after the duty had been state, acted under the advice of the sopaid upon them; and that in 1828 and 'licitor in the cause. Having been between 1829, nearly the same case occurred. The eight and nine months in prison I beg to duty was payable every six weeks, which'submit to your Lordship, that however was a shorter time than was allowed for the great their offence might have been, they collection of any other tax. 'have fully expiated it, and I humbly sugMr. Hume supported the prayer of thegest that they may be forthwith lipetition; the allegations contained in which berated.' Upon this Report, application he had no doubt were correct, from the was made for their release, and the paycommunications he had had with the brick-ment of their costs out of the Suitors' Fund, makers of Middlesex. The duties on bricks were imposed at the same time with the duties on slates. The duties on slates had been repealed, and the duties on bricks ought to be repealed also. The whole amo unt of the duties which were drained from the pockets of these poor men did not exceed 30,000. He, therefore, trusted, their case would meet with the merciful consideration of Government. Mr. Briscoe corroborated the statements of the hon. member for Middlesex, and supported the prayer of the petition. Petition to be printed. under the Act introduced by the late Solicitor-General (Sir Edward Sugden) for the relief of persons in prison for Contempt of the Court of Chancery. This, however, was found to be impracticable, as the Act did not extend to cases of this description. This application had been made to the late Lord Chancellor: upon the present Chancellor coming into office a motion had been made to release the prisoners, so far as respected their contempt, leaving them in prison for the costs only, from which it was hoped they might be freed by the provisions of the Insolvent Act, but the Lord Chancellor had decided, after much consideration, that he had no power to make such an order, and that he could not set them at liberty without the consent of the plaintiff, or until his costs were paid; and these persons were, therefore, kept in prison because he would not consent to abandon his costs. The petition further stated, that the father was in a most infirm state of presented the petition, with an intention to found some further measures on the subject. CONTEMPT OF COURT-PETITION.] Mr. William Brougham presented a Petition from two individuals, father and son, of the names of Stephen and Leonard England, now in confinement in the Fleet Prison, under an order from the Court of Chancery, for having committed a Contempt of one of the Orders of that Court. This was one of those cases arising out of con-health; under these circumstances, he had tempts in the Court of Chancery, which was not reached by the late Statute, 1st William 4th. The petitioners stated, that they entered into certain lands situated at Hoo, in Kent, under an idea that by so doing they should raise the question as to their right to the said lands. The property had previously become the subject of a suit in the Court of Chancery, and an injunction had issued in February, 1830, to restrain them from committing waste or trespassing upon the land. Shortly afterwards, however, the petitioners acting, as they Mr. Paget expressed a strong hope that the House would take a summary method of relieving these poor men. It was disgraceful to the country to have such instances of cruelty brought before them, as those inflicted by the operations of the Court of Chancery for contempts of that Court. If the elaborate process of passing a Bill through the two Houses of Legislature was necessary for their liberation, he hoped the Standing Orders would be suspended, so as to allow such a Bill to be passed in the shortest possible time. Mr. William Brougham begged leave to assure the House, that nothing could have given more satisfaction to the Lord Chancellor than to have ordered the release of these two unfortunate men, but in the present state of the law he found it impossible to do so, unless the costs were previously paid. He should, for his part, therefore, be most happy to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, and he trusted the House would consent to postpone the Standing Orders in order to allow a Bill to pass for the liberation of these men without delay. There was no other mode which the House could adopt to afford them relief, unless some hon. Member were to defray the costs for which they were detained. Mr. Hunt said, that the enactments of the proposed Anatomy Bill, would bring the body of the elder petitioner under its operation, in case he died in prison in debt, which was represented as likely to happen, in which case the keeper of the prison and the son would be authorized to sell his body. This was what the hon. member for Bridport, who brought in that Bill, called equal justice; this was the sort of treatment the poor were to receive under the provisions of that Bill, which, however, he trusted the House would never sanction. Petition to lie on the Table, and be printed. PARLIAMENTARY REFORM-BILL FOR ENGLAND-COMMITTEE.] Lord John Russell moved the Order of the Day for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House on the Reform of Parliament (England) Bill. Lord Milton said, he rose to ask a question of his noble friend. Some Members, and in particular the noble Marquis, the member for Buckinghamshire, had expressed an intention to propose, that the Amendment respecting the admission to the elective franchise of the yearly tenants of 50l. should be continued in the present Bill; and the noble Marquis had accordingly given notice of his intention to move in Committee that such a clause be introduced into the Bill. By giving this notice the noble Member had raised a doubt in the minds of many of the people of England that such a clause did not exist in the present Bill, and that it did not form any part of its provisions; but, as he himself had read it, he certainly considered the yearly tenants to the amount of 50l. a year would be enfranchised by its operation. He was therefore most anxious to learn from his noble friend (Lord John Russell) whether his reading of the new Bill was the correct one, and he begged that his noble friend would state distinctly whether that franchise did form part of the present Bill. Lord John Russell said, that the noble Lord, the member for Northamptonshire, was perfectly right in the construction which he had put on the present Reform Bill, for it was the intention of Ministers to accord a franchise to yearly tenants of the amount of 50l. In framing the new Bill, the Government was of opinion that the approval of the noble Marquis's amendment in the Committee was so strong an intimation of the wishes of a majority of the House, that it was their duty to accede to so undisguised and so undeniable a proof of their wishes. In case his noble friend, therefore, or any other hon. Member, had any amendment to offer upon that point, he would have an opportunity of doing so during the progress of the Bill in Committee. On the Motion that the Speaker do leave the Chair, Mr. Croker expressed his extreme surprise that the noble Lord should have moved the Order of the Day for the Committee on the Reform Bill. He had hoped, after the debate which occurred on the noble Lord giving notice of his intention to move for the Committee on this day, that the noble Lord should have permitted the House to go to the discussion in Committee in the spirit of fairness and impartiality. very much regretted, therefore, that Ministers still adhered to their determination of forcing on the Bill, before the House had been supplied with the documents necessary for the elucidation of its most important details. He assured the House sincerely, that, however opposed he was to the principles of the Bill itself, and however much he regretted its disastrous introduction to that House, yet there was no one on the other side, not even the noble Lords opposite, themselves, more desirous that its discussion should be brought to as speedy a termination as might be consistent with justice and a full and deliberative consideration. He now rose for the purpose of imploring his Majesty's Ministers not to force the House to-night into a premature consideration of the measure. The noble Lord who had just moved that the House go into a Committee, had himself acknowledged that the papers necessary for |