said, that he had a petition of great importance to present to the House from John Savage, a parishioner of Marylebone, complaining of the conduct of the Select Vestry of that parish. The petitioner had refused to pay the rates illegally imposed by the Vestry, and in consequence of that refusal, certain Magistrates had issued a warrant, without any summons, under which his goods had been seized, and were consequently to be put up to sale. He must explain to the House, that a very large portion of the parish had refused to pay these rates; and to enforce the payment of these rates, two individuals had been selected whose goods had been seized. The goods had been removed out of the parish, and taken to a sale-room in Marl-borough-street. He was not aware, until this circumstance occurred, that a Vestry had the power of taking the goods out of the parish for sale. If they could take the goods one mile, they might take them fifty miles, and such a condition of the law ought not to be suffered to exist for another day. The circumstance had caused so much commotion in the parish of Marylebone, that he had felt it his duty to give notice to the Secretary of State, that it would be necessary to increase the police force to-morrow, which was the day fixed for the sale, in order to preserve the peace. He must say, that he thought the Government ought to have taken up this subject, and not have allowed a parish of 120,000 inhabitants to be taxed and governed for so long a period, by a self-elected body of persons. He was one of the parishioners who had refused to pay rates, which they had been advised were illegal, and he was, therefore, liable to have his goods seized; but he should, nevertheless, persist in his refusal.

said, that if the Magistrates had issued the warrant without a summons to the petitioner, they had done what was notoriously illegal, and had subjected themselves to an action, which he hoped the petitioner would institute against them, as well for his own sake, as in consideration of the duty which he owed to the public.

had also a Petition to present, to which he must entreat the attention of his Majesty's Ministers. It was the petition of William Carpenter, who was a prisoner in the Court of King's Bench prison, and whose case was a strong illustration of the injustice and oppression of the Act 60 George 3rd, c. 9., which was one of the Six Acts. He held in his hand a list of the minority on the passing of that Act, and among the names in the list he found those of five of the present Cabinet Ministers, and of upwards of thirty of the supporters of the existing Government. The minority included all the principal persons of intelligence and liberality who were Members of the House of Commons which passed the Act. The present First Lord of the Admiralty, the Attorney General, and other members of the Administration, had spoken against the Act, when it was in progress through the House, under which the prisoner had been committed; and having before him the conduct and opinions of the present Ministers and their supporters, on the occasion of the passing of the Act, he could not allow himself to doubt that the law would be altered at no very distant period. He did not look at the question as one of revenue. He could not allow himself so to look at it when he was sensible that it involved much higher considerations. He considered this law as a check upon the diffusion of knowledge, and he could view it in no other light. Ignorance was the bane of the lower orders of this country, who could be drawn from paths of drunkenness and other vices by no other means than imparting knowledge to them. He must say, that he deeply regretted that a Whig Administration should have been the first to put men into prison under this Act. Let him assure the noble Lord (Althorp) and his colleagues, that nothing was so calculated to withdraw from them the confidence of the country, as finding that principles which they advocated, and conduct which they pursued while on that (the Opposition) side of the House, were lost sight of and abandoned as soon as they crossed over to the other side. The petitioner said, he was prepared to prove, that not only had there been nothing of an objectionable tendency published in his Political Letter, but that the good advice contained in that letter had actually prevented the commission of many acts of violence which were contemplated during the turns-out in the manufacturing districts. The petitioner also stated, that his confinement had reduced him, he believed, to his death-bed, while his wife and family at home were without the means of supporting themselves. The prayer of the petitioner was, that the penalties of 244l. 15s. which had been imposed upon him, might be remitted—since, if they were enforced, it would amount to perpetual imprisonment, and he had already been three months in confinement.

would not have troubled the House on this occasion, but that he had been requested by the petitioner—who was on a bed of sickness, and whose health had been ruined by confinement—to support the prayer of the petition. He entreated hon. Members and the Government to recollect that the petitioner had not been guilty of publishing blasphemous or seditious doctrines; but that his offence was a mere violation of a law which he did not know that he was violating. Mr. Carpenter thought that the law was in his favour, but he had been guilty of no contumacy, and as soon as the point had been decided against him by a competent tribunal, he at once stopped the publication. This conduct, and the unobjectionable nature of the publication, were surely very strong circumstances in favour of the petitioner, in whose case the law had been vindicated, who had undergone already no slight punishment for his mistake, and who, therefore, he (Mr. O'Connell) must take the liberty of saying, was a person in all respects most deserving of having the royal prerogative extended for his relief. He would only add, that his hon. friend was, he believed, mistaken upon one point; for this was a prosecution under the Stamp Act, and not under the Act which his hon. friend had so justly reprobated.

concurred in all that had fallen from the hon. member for Middlesex, and the hon. and learned member for Kerry. It was impossible to deny, that the present state of the law was most mischievous, in stopping the publication of information which ought to be accessible to every one, and particularly to the lower classes. He was sure that the present Government would take the earliest opportunity of altering this part of the law; and he was equally confident, that the distressing case of the petitioner would be taken into the consideration of the Ministers. It had always been his desire—a desire which, instead of being abated by time, had increased with his years and his experience—it had always, he said, been his ardent desire to see the Press of this country placed in a state of perfect and unrestricted freedom.

said, that it could not be too strongly impressed upon the Government, that Mr. Carpenter had not been guilty of publishing blasphemous or seditious matter. The fact was, that Mr. Carpenter thought that his Political Letter was not within the meaning of the Act, and he determined to try the question. The object of the publication was, in all respects, most laudable, and Gentlemen would search it in vain for any doctrines of an objectionable tendency. These were the grounds upon which he earnestly entreated his Majesty's Ministers to take the case of Mr. Carpenter into their consideration. He would only observe, that among other mischievous consequences of the present law, it allowed the poison to be circulated, and stopped the antidote. The blasphemous and seditious publications which were now circulated at a penny and two pence each, would be met by successful refutation, and superseded by the communication of sound and useful knowledge, which plenty of persons were willing to publish, if the law would allow them.

was not aware of the intention of his hon. friend to present this petition to-day; and it was only by accident that he was in his place. Sorry, indeed, should he be to interpose one word between the merciful exercise of royal prerogative and a person who was in so unfortunate a situation as that into which the petitioner had fallen. He had not the least doubt that the circumstances which had been now stated would be taken into consideration by the Government, who would neither neglect to do justice to the public, nor be backward in advising the extension of lenity to a deserving object. But after what had been said upon this case, he felt it his duty to make one or two observations upon it. The fact was, that he did not institute this prosecution, though he had carried it on. He found the prosecution instituted when he came into office. After the institution of the prosecution, and while he was in office, Mr. Carpenter published a prospectus, in which he declared that he could and would evade the law. This was a tolerably bold declaration of war, and if Mr. Carpenter had proved successful in it, others would have followed his example, and a very serious loss to the revenue would have been the result. He had, therefore, thought it right to carry on the prosecution as a matter materially affecting the revenue. The subpœna which had been served upon Mr. Carpenter ran in the name of George 4th, and not of William 4th, and this technical defect rendered it necessary that other proceedings should be taken. During the time which thus elapsed, Mr. Carpenter went on publishing his Political Letter. He believed that no Gentleman who was at all conversant with the law on this subject, and who had seen Mr. Carpenter's publication, could doubt for a moment that that publication came under the description of a newspaper. In this prosecution it was necessary to proceed against Mr. Carpenter for two offences against the statute: the first was, for not using the regular stamp, and the other for not making the prescribed affidavit at the office. By the decision which was given against him, Mr. Carpenter incurred penalties to the amount of many thousand pounds, but he had called for only one penalty, because the decision of the question, and not the punishment of the individual, was his object; and he did not, until this moment, know that Mr. Carpenter was not in a situation to pay the penalty. It was true that he had opposed the law of which his hon. friend, the member for Middlesex, had complained, and he begged to assure his hon. friend, that he looked back with pride and satisfaction to that opposition. But as long as that law remained in force, while he filled the situation which he had the honour to hold, and when the question became one purely of revenue regulations, his hon. friend must surely see that there was but one course open to him. Besides, his hon. friend would not surely have had Mr. Carpenter placed in a situation which gave him great advantages over all other publishers. Let the question of an alteration of the law be brought forward, and his hon. friend might rest assured, that he would do his duty upon it as independently, and with as much ardour, as any other Member of that House, and that the circumstance of his filling the office of Attorney General would not cause him to take a part in the discussion which should be inconsistent with the views and principles which he had advocated when he resisted the passing of the law.

begged to inform the hon. and learned Gentleman that the petitioner supported the Reform Bill, and denounced him (Mr. Hunt), and had asserted the most extraordinary libels against him, one of which was, that he had sold himself to the Tories. He had, however, the satisfaction of knowing that he had materially curtailed the sale of his papers in Preston.

was highly pleased at what had fallen from the Attorney General, and trusted that the case of the petitioner would be taken into favourable consideration without delay.

said, my hon. friend, the member for Middlesex, has mixed up the state and effects of the law with the peculiar circumstances attending the case of the petitioner. With regard to Mr. Carpenter's case, all I can say of it at present is, that if the circumstances which have been now stated turn out to be correct, I have no doubt that it will be taken into consideration. With regard to the law, it was my intention, but for the course which the public business has taken, to have brought under the consideration of the House, in the present Session, the subject of the consolidation of the Stamp Laws. In dealing with that subject, I should have adverted to the amount and effect of the stamps at present imposed upon all organs of intelligence, and I should have proposed to make certain changes in the law with regard to those stamps. I need hardly observe, that, for the present, I am prevented from executing this intention. My hon. friend, the member for Middlesex, has said, that I opposed the Six Acts. No doubt I did, as eagerly as any other Member, and perhaps more eagerly; for I believe that I was the only Member who made a distinct motion in opposition to those Acts. My hon. friend does me injustice, if he supposes either that I have myself forgotten the part I took upon that occasion, or that I am desirous that others should not bear it in mind. I am now, as I was then, most anxious that the liberty of the Press should be protected to the utmost possible extent that is consistent with the prevention of the dissemination of immorality, and the circulation of private scandal, or attacks upon the characters of private individuals. As to public men, I think that, as far as they are concerned, the Press ought to be perfectly free and unrestricted. They take their situation in the face of the public, and put themselves forward to undertake the regulation of public matters; and if, in the discharge of the offices which they thus voluntarily assume, attacks are made upon their public conduct, I do not think that they have any right to complain. Of course, in making these observations, I do not forget that I am a public man myself; but it is very seldom that I read any attacks that are made on me, because I do not wish to read them. I do not think it a very agreeable occupation to read attacks upon oneself; and therefore, when I heard that there were attacks upon me, I avoided reading them. I have now very little time for reading newspapers, so little, indeed, that I am not aware whether I am attacked in them or not; but if I am, and if those attacks should come under my observation, I hope I should not mind them much. Sure I am, however, that my being attacked would not induce me to alter my opinion, that the Press ought not to be restrained from censuring the public conduct of public men. I admit that private individuals ought to be protected by the law from being dragged into public notice, and having their characters assailed in a newspaper; but the prominent position which we assume before the public, and the forward line which we pursue in public affairs, ought, I think, to prevent our complaining, if our public conduct is visited with criticisms, and very severe criticisms too.

said, that it was with the greatest delight that he had heard the manly and sensible observations which had fallen from the noble Lord. From the speech of the noble Lord he was led to hope, that after the attainment of the great blessing of Parliamentary Reform, they should have no great difficulty in attaining also that further and greater blessing—the removal of all restraints upon the circulation of political opinions, by which removal, and by which removal alone, it was, that all permanent Reform could be effected. But he had risen only for the purpose of suggesting, in favour of the unhappy petitioner, the moderate tone and the good tendency of his writings. If Gentlemen would look over the publication that had been alluded to, they would see that it repeatedly exhorted the people never to act or speak otherwise than in a constitutional manner; and, above all things, to abstain from violence.

inquired whether the Scotch Reform Bill, now before the House, might be relied upon as the Bill to be read a second time next week, or whether any alterations were contemplated which would render it desirable that the Bill should be reprinted before it came under discussion?

said, that according to the forms of the House, the only bill which could be read a second time was that which had been read a first time. The alterations made as to the general qualification of voters in the English Bill would be transferred to the Scotch Bill, and some other alterations might be made, calculated to obviate objections.

said, he should move, that the names of certain places included in schedules A and B should be omitted, in order to record his sentiments on the subject; but, after the decisions the House had already come to, he should not think it necessary to enter into any argument on the subject. He had found what he thought unanswerable arguments wholly unavailing; he had seen the majority voting on the same evening propositions absolutely contradictory, and therefore he had no hope that any good could be done by repeating arguments which had never been answered, and multiplying divisions, of which every body could foresee the result. The places on which he should ask the question to be put were only those on which, as he considered, the principle of the Bill had been deviated from.

said, that as the right hon. Gentleman intended merely to record his sentiments on the insertion of particular boroughs, and did not enter into the grounds on which his opinion rested, he hoped that he (Lord J. Russell) might be excused if he declined stating again the reasons on which he thought these boroughs ought to be retained in schedules A and B.

said, he had not found the noble Lord so ready to answer his arguments, when he had used any, that he should expect an answer now, when no arguments were used. The right hon. Gentleman then moved seriatim, "That the boroughs of Fowey, Minehead, New Romney, Plympton, St. Germain's, Wareham, and Woodstock, should be omitted from schedule A; and the boroughs of Chippenham, Clitheroe, and Cockermouth omitted from schedule B."

was anxious to take the last opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the claims of the three county towns of Guildford, Dorchester, and Huntingdon, which the Bill partially disfranchised, by placing in schedule B. He thought it would be found, that, in all the three cases, if the population of the suburbs was added, these towns might be said to have more than 4,000 inhabitants, and upwards of 300 10l. houses. The counties in which these towns were situated were also hardly dealt with. Surrey was mulcted of seven Members, Dorset shire of nine, and Huntingdon had only three left. No less than sixteen towns, which retain the right to return two Members, have fewer 10l. houses than Dorchester; and the other places he had mentioned had not a much less proportion in their favour. Again, if they looked at the assessed taxes, a number of towns, which were to be fully represented, contributed a smaller amount than the three towns he had enumerated. These towns were places of considerable business, both public and private. He begged, therefore, to move, "That the towns of Dorchester, Guildford, and Huntingdon, being county towns, be taken out of schedule B, and continue to return two Members to Parliament."

seconded the Motion which he himself should have made, if his hon. friend had not anticipated him, but having so frequently and recently troubled the House on this topic, he would reserve what he had to say until a future occasion.

said, that though he had supported the Bill in every stage, and advocated its principles, he was of opinion that the three towns which were the subject of the Motion, and which were wealthy and respectable, ought to be allowed to continue to return two Members. With respect to a remark made by the hon. Gentleman who had introduced the Motion, where in he said, Surrey had been mulcted of seven Members, the accuracy of this he must beg leave to dispute. The noble persons who held borough property might be mulcted, but most certainly the county had nothing to do in electing the Members who were to be taken away.

said, that having voted for the town he represented (Bridport) losing one of its Members, he hoped Ministers would not accede to the proposition to give two Members to the towns which were the subject of the Motion.

thought it inconsistent with the principle of the Bill that towns having 500 electors, and which were not nomination boroughs, should be disfranchised. He entered his protest, for the last time, against disfranchising these ancient and respectable towns.

said, that if Guildford, Dorchester, and Huntingdon were taken out of schedule B, because they were county towns, Appleby and Ilchester must be omitted from schedule A on the same principle. Under all the circumstances, it was impossible for his Majesty's Ministers to accede to the proposition.

said, there was no part of the Bill the injustice of which was more strongly felt than that which went to disfranchise the county towns. He was well acquainted with Guildford, and knew it to be a thriving and flourishing place, in which the whole of the county business was transacted. If the whole population of continuous houses which formed the town were taken in, it would amount to upwards of 4,000, and the town contributed more to the assessed taxes than thirty-two towns which were to hold their full franchise. It was an arbitrary violation of the principle of the Bill.

said, he had yet heard no reason why, in some cases, districts were added to boroughs to make up the requisite amount of population; whilst, in other cases, the population of the suburbs was severed from the towns, to bring the population under the amount.

said, his Majesty's Ministers would have been very glad to have allowed those county towns to retain two Representatives, if the population amounted to 4,000; but neither Guildford, Dorchester, nor Huntingdon, had 4,000.

thought Guildford had not been fairly dealt with. By the population returns of 1821, it contained a population of 4,112. Under those circumstances, he felt disposed to divide the House on the question, that Guildford should be omitted from schedule B.

said, that as the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) and the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Denison) were at issue on a question of fact, as far as it related to Guildford, it was better not to divide the House at present, but to allow the fact to be ascertained before the third reading.

could not indulge in the hope that any new information could be produced on this subject. The account to which the hon. member for Surrey had referred, included the population of a small hamlet adjoining Guildford.

then moved, that Helston, Grimsby, Lymington, and Sudbury, should be omitted from schedule B.—Negatived without a division.

, as one of the Representatives of Great Marlow, wished to place its actual state distinctly before the House. He understood the principle of the Bill to be, to disfranchise decayed and decaying boroughs; Great Marlow could not be classed under either head; it was in a state of progressive improvement; the population, according to the census of 1831, nearly doubled that of 1821. If it was compared with the neighbouring borough of Wycombe, which was to return two Members, it would be found very little inferior in numbers or respectability. In 1831 its population was 4,237. Let them look, too, at the constituency. The Marlow franchise was scot and lot, and the number of its voters was 444; in Wycombe, the franchise was vested in the Mayor and Burgesses, and their numbers were only 170. There were only two points to consider in this case; either that the Government were ignorant of the actual circumstances of the borough, or that they were acting partially in favour of Wycombe; he begged, therefore, to move, that Great Marlow be removed from schedule B, and be allowed, as at present, to return two Members.

said, that many towns which did not possess so many electors, or 10l. houses, as Great Grimsby, were, by this Bill, to continue to return two Representatives. The measure had been called final, but he assured the noble Lord, and the House, if he should happen to be a Member of the next, or a Reformed Parliament, he would endeavour to re-open the whole question, for it was most unjust, in his mind, that boroughs, which did not contain so great a population, or pay so large an amount of taxation, as some which were to be disfranchised, should still retain their privileges to return two Representatives.

fully agreed with his hon. friend, that this question would be re-opened in a Reformed Parliament. As to himself, he must say, that he did not expect to have a seat in the Reformed Parliament, even if one could be chosen under this Bill, which he very much doubted, for he would never condescend to offer delusive promises on the hustings, to become a delegate, instead of being, what he now considered himself, an independent representative of the people.

said, he must again mention the name of Calne. He knew that place well, and he asserted, without fear of contradiction, that it was a wretched and contemptible place, when compared with Dorchester, Guildford, or Huntingdon, and yet it was to retain its two Members, while the other towns were to be deprived of one: this was one beautiful proof of the consistency of the Bill.

said, at a more convenient opportunity he should be prepared to enter into details, by which he hoped fully to prove, not that the noble Lords and the Ministers had acted partially, but that the Bill which they had introduced was flagrantly partial.

was ready to admit, that, if population was the only ground of the Bill, with respect to certain towns which were to lose part of their Members, while others were to retain theirs, there would be found some inconsistency; but they were prepared to justify it upon higher principle. If, however, the hon. Gentleman meant to charge them with having selected particular places, with party views or private affections, he would meet such an imputation as one reflecting on their personal characters, which he should be prepared to repel with indignation.

said, he would name such places as Calne, Horsham, Westbury, and Morpeth, which he thought had been partially exempted, and he would leave the, House and the public to judge between the Ministers and him.

wished to know on what principle these places were to be selected for Representatives, while Chelsea, and many other far more important and populous places, were obliged to do without Members? He also should like to know how the pledged men on the Ministerial benches—the men who were pledged and bound neck and heels to "the Bill, the whole Bill, and nothing but the Bill," would reconcile it to their consciences to sanction a measure which, as the present clause in itself showed, differed in every letter from that to which they were sworn? How, he repeated, could they, after having pledged themselves to a specific Bill, explain it to their constituents that they had, nevertheless, agreed to a measure wholly different in every feature? Pledged they were—ay, sworn to obey the mandate—jurare in verba magistri—that master being, it was true, not Ministers, but their constituents, the people [hear], Hon. Members might cry "hear," but an impartial public knew very well, that as thus pledged, they were bound to act at the bidding of their constituents, without the permission of the faintest exercise of the deliberative and judicial functions of any constitutional Member of Parliament.

, in answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman's question, had simply to state, that the reason why Chelsea had not been inserted in schedules C or D was, that it was not deemed expedient to add to the metropolitan Representation more than had been under the Bill; and that it was thought right, that the constituency of Chelsea should belong to the county of Middlesex at large. The two places to which he then proposed to bestow the right of franchise, were large and populous manufacturing towns, which, otherwise, would not be as efficiently represented as the framers of the Bill contemplated. With respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman's taunt of the supporters of the Bill not possessing the freedom of their own judgment on its provisions, it was, perhaps, enough to remind the House of the fact, that whereas many of those very pledged supporters of the Bill divided, on more than one occasion, against Ministers, while the—he supposed he must say—unpledged Gentlemen opposite moved in such close party alliance, that they never, by accident, voted with Ministers in any of the numerous divisions which had taken place during the progress of the Bill.

was one of those who had pledged themselves to their constituents to support the principle of the Bill, but not therefore its every detail, and who had redeemed that pledge, because it was consonant with his own opinions and convictions. But was it, therefore, he asked, to be borne, that for thus acting consonantly with their own opinions, and in furtherance of the wishes of their constituents and the general weal, they should be taunted, as if so doing were a crime, and that, too, by an hon. and learned Gentleman who had himself no constituents to pledge himself to, who was notoriously the mere nominee of a Peer, and who, as such, was as much, indeed more, fettered and tied down to a particular line of conduct, than were, as the hon. and learned Member would fain insinuate, the pledged supporters of the Bill.

did not think the warm rebuke of the noble Lord called for by what had fallen from his hon. and learned friend. It was true that his hon. and learned friend did sit for a small corporation; but a sneer for so doing came with a very ill grace from the noble Lord, who for years was himself the nominee of a Peer, and who had not till very recently the honour of a more extended constituency.

said, that was true, but he had never ventured to censure those who had pledged themselves on the hustings to a free electing constituency.

protested against the imputation thrown out by the hon. and learned Gentleman, as to Members on the Ministerial side of the House being pledged to support the Bill, and that they could not therefore possess a right of judgment upon the matter. In a former debate the hon. and learned Member had thought proper to make a similar charge against him; he had at the time replied to it, and certainly would never hear it said that he was pledged to support a particular measure whether he approved of it or not, without indignantly repelling the charge.

said, if his memory was correct, the hon. member for Yorkshire had attacked him, and drew a comparison as to the greater importance of being a county Member, with a large constituency, than being a member for a borough in the county of York.

said, he could not sit silent and hear the hon. and learned Gentleman declare Members on that side of the House to be pledged to support the Bill, without being able to exercise their own judgment in the matter; and as long as he heard those taunts thrown out, so long would he say "No, no," to the hon. and learned Member's assertions. He had sworn allegiance to the Bill—the country had sworn allegiance to it; and he would tell the hon. and learned Gentleman, that, so far from the country viewing it as a farce, the people looked upon the opposition to it as a farce.

denied, that Members who had supported the principle of the Bill were blindly pledged to do so.

said, he found in the county which he had the honour of representing (Kent) that the people were universally in favour of the Bill.

addressed the House as follows:—I do not often trouble the House with any observations of mine, but I feel it quite impossible to refrain from replying to the remarks made by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I will therefore tell that hon. and learned Gentleman, that I am sent to this House by a very numerous body of constituents, nearly 2,000 in number, who had too much good sense to require any pledge from me, and, relying upon my integrity, they left me to follow my own judgment. I am not bound to say "ay, ay," or "no, no," at the will of any Minister. I have at all times endeavoured to discharge my duty honestly and conscientiously, perfectly regardless from which side of the House the question emanated; and so long as my constituents think fit to repose their confidence in me, I shall steadily pursue the same independent line of conduct.

denied, that the country had sworn allegiance to the Bill. He had been sent into that House pledged to oppose the Bill; he gloried in having given that pledge, and he gloried still more in having redeemed it.

put it to the House whether this kind of desultory discussion could be at all conductive to its character.

had risen to make the same suggestion to the House, because, as they were all agreed to be very angry on the third reading of the Bill, it might be as well if they were good-humoured at present. The Motion agreed to, and Ashton-under-Lyne added to schedule C. It was then moved that Stroud with Minchinhampton be added to the schedule.—Agreed to. Several verbal additions were made, chiefly to include towns instead of townships within the limits of new boroughs,

said, the addition of Workington to Whitehaven was such a dereliction of the principle of this Bill, that he felt himself obliged to move to disjoin these two places. The town of White haven contained a population of 16,000 souls, and the town of Workington was distant eight miles from it. It was therefore unnecessary to introduce contributory boroughs into the northern part of England, by adding the town of Workington to the town of Whitehaven, which already contained 16,000 inhabitants. He therefore moved that the town of Workington be struck out of the schedule.

said, as it was intended to take the poll at both the towns, there could be no contributory boroughs, as supposed by the right hon. Gentleman.

said, if they acted on this principle in the north they ought to follow it up in the south. Had they pursued this method generally they would have had no occasion to disfranchise so many boroughs.

seconded the Motion. He was aware that those who advocated the total repeal of the Corn-laws plunged themselves into a hornet's nest. At the risk, however, of being stung, he would do his duty. He thought it not probable that such a measure should be carried in this Parliament. In his opinion, therefore, the hon. member for Preston would have done better to have postponed his Motion till the House was reformed—till Schedule A and Schedule B were become the law of the land. The first act of a reformed Parliament would be, he believed, to abolish the Corn-laws. He thought no circumstances could justify impeding the people in obtaining a supply of food, but particularly in a country like ours, in which the climate compelled us to have recourse to importation. He must apologise for his own imperfections in addressing the House on so important a question, but he would not split hairs with those who professed to be political economists. He meant to do his duty to his constituents. He could never believe, that dear was better for the people than cheap bread. All laws prohibiting the importation of corn deprived the industrious classes of a market for the produce of their labour, and so raised the price of food, that labourers could not procure a sufficiency of food without intolerable toil. It also made it the object of foreigners to encourage native manufactures, depriving us of the trade of supplying them, making them our rivals, and injuring the shipping interest. He had heard a gentleman say corn was bought with gold, not manufactures; but, in fact, the gold was bought by our manufactured goods in South America. It was said, that the agriculturists were so heavily taxed, that they would be ruined if foreign corn were imported. Corn-laws were established, therefore, to protect the landed interest, but it was notorious, that these laws had not protected that interest. When it was said, that agriculturists were exposed to heavy taxes, he wished to remind them, that the Property Tax, the Tax on Farm Servants, on Salt, and many other Taxes, had been repealed or abolished. He did not believe, that the repeal could affect the agricultural interest injuriously. It could not ruin the farmers. Our manufactures would then be demanded to a greater extent abroad, and the manufacturers would then be able to buy animal food, and be much better customers than at present to the farmers. They would pay for the cultivating bad lands as pasturage. He might take an erroneous view, but he had no wish to injure the agricultural interests. He spoke from no self-interest. He was in the same boat with the landed-proprietors; for whatever property he had was in land. But he agreed with the hon. member for Preston, that some concession must be made by all classes for the relief of the labouring poor. Those who saw only the metropolis, were not aware of the miserable condition of the labourers. Let the landlords, then, reduce their rents, and those who drove four horses drive only two, and those who drove two drive only one, and those who drove one go on foot. The vain distinctions of the few, sank, in his estimation, in to nothing, in comparison with the comfort of millions. He had visited the dwellings of the poor, and he was of opinion, that no picture of their miseries could be too highly coloured. Those people were without furniture, without clothes, and he had seen children crying for bread, which their parents could not give them. They were worse off than the negro slaves. A negro never died for want of food—a negro never ate sour sorrel or nettles for food like the Irish. Detesting hypocrisy, he utterly repudiated the humanity of those who could only feel for the negroes. The House would readily perceive that he alluded to a class of persons called the "Saints." He hoped that the "Saints," who were so ready to exert themselves in favour of the black slaves of the West Indies, would at least extend some portion of their benevolence to the free people of this country. He was the more anxious for their co-operation in the present instance, seeing that without it he and the other supporters of the Motion could scarcely muster a dozen votes. In the year 1826, shortly before he had ceased to be a Member of this House, he brought forward a motion for the total disfranchisement of all rotten boroughs, and he then found not more than a dozen persons to agree with him. A very great change, however, had since taken place, and he hoped, before the end of six years, to find as large a majority in favour of repealing the Corn-laws, as he now found in favour of a measure for reforming the Parliament.

did not rise to enter into the discussion of this question, for which the time and occasion were not suited; but having been alluded to personally by the hon. member for Preston, he must say a few words. That hon. Member had stated, in order to show that the high rent of land was kept up by the landowners, that he (Mr. Benett) had racked up the rent of a farm from 600l. a-year, at which it was let forty-five years ago, to 1,800l. a-year, which it produced at present. The hon. Member had made the same charge against him fifteen years ago, and he (Mr. Benett) on that occasion went to no small expense in publishing a refutation of the charge in several papers. The fact was, that he gave 10,000l. for the great tithes of that property, which he added to the estate. He also exchanged an estate of 500l. a-year for the vicarial tithes, which were also added to the estate; so that, taking the whole of what had been thus expended, it did not bring in, in its improved condition, more than about twelve per cent on this large outlay. The hon. Member did not at the time attempt to contradict any of these statements, because he could not, yet he repeated the charge about four years ago, in an address to the Livery of London; though on that occasion, as on the present, he made no mention of the answer which he (Mr. Benett) had given to him years before. On that occasion also he felt it necessary to re-publish his former refutation, to which the hon. Member did not venture a reply. The hon. Member knew the whole particulars, and had never contradicted them. The hon. Member, however, had stated over and over again, that he had racked up his rent from 600l. to 1,800l. and never once stated, though he knew them, any one of the facts on which that rise of rent was justified. He stated the rise of the rent, but nothing of his having purchased the tithes and attached them to the farm. He was surprised that the hon. Member should attempt to delude the House in that manner. He was glad, however, that the hon. Member had brought forward the charge here, for here he could refute him, but he had no opportunity of answering him when he made the same unfounded assertions—assertions which he must have known, after reading his answer, were wholly unfounded-at Spafields, or before the Livery of London. Having stated thus much, he would not enter into the question before the House, not because he could not give a satisfactory answer to the hon. Member's statements, but because he did not think that the present period of the Session, occupied as it was with the more important question of Reform, was the proper time for discussing the question of the Corn-laws. Indeed, he had no doubt that the question was now brought forward for the purpose of diverting public attention from the Reform Bill, or with the still more sinister view of endeavouring to persuade the farmers into the belief, that a Reformed Parliament would repeal the Corn-laws. Attempts of this kind were industriously made in the country, to excite either indifference or opposition to the Reform Bill amongst the farmers; but the attempt would fail, as other insidious attacks upon that measure had failed. The farmers knew very well that a Reformed Parliament would attend to their interests as well as to those of the other classes of the community.

regretted, that on a question of such importance, the hon. member for Wiltshire should have alluded to any personal matters. He contended, that it was not the landlord who fixed the value of a farm, any more than the farmers fixed the value of their stock. Why should the landowner be different in this respect from the grocer? He did not fix the price of his article. The price of land was fixed by the general demand. It was a gross fallacy to say, that landlords fixed the rent of farms. The hon. Member said the landlords must reduce their rents. [Mr. Hunt said, he had not stated that they must, but that they should reduce the rents.] He might have misunderstood the hon. Member, but he did not know the difference in this point between should and must. The hon. Member might have chosen another time to bring forward such an important Motion, rather than at a time when the House was occupied with a matter of so much more importance. He would put it to the constituents of the hon. Member, and of the hon. member for Carlisle, of whose sincerity he was well assured—he would put it to their constituency, if this were the proper time to interpose with such a question, when the House was engaged in carrying Reform into all the institutions of the State? The House was fatigued with the discussion on a most important subject, and this was not a time to introduce such a matter as the Corn-laws, which demanded the most mature consideration. The House ought not to be captivated by a motion which would effect, he believed, so much ruin as would a total and sudden repeal of the Corn-laws. He was sure that the constituents of the hon. member would agree with him, and that they would like a gradual and proper change, instead of jumping to a total repeal at once. The hon. member for Preston had not brought forward any arguments to justify that change. He had referred merely to the prices of corn in the markets of Hamburgh and London for a few years, which were inaccurate and fallacious, as the only ground for the proposed change. He should take a larger view, and extend his inquiries over longer periods. The hon. Member had overstated the loss too, for if the ports were opened, prices would rise in the markets of the Continent, and there would not be that difference on which the hon. member had calculated the loss to the country. The hon. Member stated, too, that the landlords should be compelled to reduce their rents, but why not leave them to let their lands as they could? The landlords, in fact, had come down one-third with their rents already. If the hon. Member had kept up his rents he must be a fortunate man. Was it fair to attribute to the landlords all the distress of the country? Those who hired land would not hire it unless they made a profit by it. The price of land was regulated by competition, and it was unfair in the hon. Member to attribute the distress to the high rents. Taxes were, undoubtedly, a cause of poverty, but a want of prudence was also a cause, the hon. Member took no notice of there being a surplus of hands in the country. The competition in the market for labour was too great, and it was no longer worth while to bring that commodity to the market. He wished the hon. Member to consider the influence which the increase of population had on the prosperity of the people. He must complain of the hon. Member having introduced several extraneous matters into the discussion, which had no relation to the Motion before the House. He was satisfied that the Corn-laws had injured the agriculturists by throwing the idle on them for support, who would otherwise have found employment in our manufactures. At the same time, he was not prepared to contend for so sudden and material a change as the total abolition of the Corn-laws. He had wished that a tax should be levied on the importation, but that the importation should be left free. That was the extent to which he wished at first to go. Every change in legislation did harm. The greater the change the greater the evils. Though he was a Reformer, he would inflict no unnecessary evil. The present Motion would be productive of great evil. He admitted, that it was the duty of the Legislature to provide food for the people at the lowest possible rate; but he must assert, that this Motion was ill-timed and injudicious. He regretted that the question should have been damaged by such a premature discussion; and he felt himself under the necessity, as he could not negative such a Motion, to move the previous question on it. The hon. Member concluded by moving the previous question, though he wished it to be understood that he was a sincere friend to the gradual abolition of the Corn-laws, if brought forward at a proper time, and on a proper occasion.

regretted that a question of so much importance, and one requiring so much consideration, should have been brought forward at such a period. He did not blame the hon. Member for not having brought it forward earlier; but at no period of the present Session could it have received that attention which its importance demanded. If the hon. Member had brought forward a Motion for a total repeal, he should have met it with a direct negative; but as it was only for a Committee to inquire, he thought his hon. friend the member for Middlesex was right in meeting it with the previous question, for in that way it could be rejected without that discussion which, under other circumstances, it would require. He did hope, that under these circumstances, hon. Members would abstain from entering upon a discussion which could have no practical result. He certainly should not enter into the discussion of the subject, nor follow the arguments of the hon. Member who seconded the Motion. He only rose for the purpose of stating, that he did not think the present a desirable occasion to enter upon the discussion of the question.

was of opinion that the present was a most inconvenient period for the discussion of the question, though he was of the same opinion that he had ever entertained of the Corn-laws, and thought, undoubtedly, that they ought to be repealed.

thought that the Motion of the hon. member for Preston, being for the immediate and total repeal of the Corn-laws, ought to have been met by a direct negative.

said, that if the Motion of the hon. Member went to the immediate repeal of the Corn-laws, he should certainly have met it by a direct negative. The Motion, however, was to refer the subject to the investigation of a Committee, and that was not a Motion which ought to be met by a direct negative, without having first received that fair consideration, which at the present moment it was impossible to bestow on it. In saying this, he wished not to be understood as holding out any expectation that the question would be brought forward at a future period by the Government.

said, that he should push his Motion to a division, in order to let the people see whether their Representatives were faithful to their pledges. He knew that the hon. member for Lancashire had given a pledge to support the repeal of the Corn-laws; and it was in consideration of that pledge that the working classes of that county subscribed 400l. to defray part of his expenses at the late election.

admitted, that he felt strongly with respect to the impropriety of continuing the present restrictions on the import of corn, but he thought that the hon. member for Preston had chosen a most unfortunate period for discussing the question. He felt grateful for the support offered him at his election by the working-classes of Lancashire, but he was happy to say that their pecuniary assistance was not needed, and that all the money which they had subscribed had been returned to them.

said, that this was a question of primary importance, not only in a commercial, but also in a political point of view. It was intended by this measure to change altogether the political and mercantile relations between this country and our most ancient and faithful ally Portugal, in reference to its staple trade with this country, and as a necessary consequence, our export trade with that country. Even upon the statement of the noble Lord himself, no man could know in what way his Majesty's Ministers were justified in passing a Bill, the only effect of which seemed to be, to place additional taxes to the amount of 180,000l. upon the people. It was not as a question of finance alone that he considered it important; nor was it so important commercially as politically. As to the Methuen Treaty, he would ask the noble Lord whether a continuance of 130 years was not enough to make it so binding upon both parties, that neither could abrogate it without notice or explanation to the other? Was it to be considered so little binding upon England, that it could be terminated by a vote of that House, without even any ground of necessity having been alleged to excuse the violation? Was that done, then, merely to show our disregard of Treaties, and to give warning to other nations never to rely upon our friendship, or to expect from us an observance of our obligations? As the case now stood, the conclusion was inevitable, that there was some political motive for that proceeding which was not disclosed. His Majesty's Ministers ought to have pursued a course, not merely consistent with what we owe to Portugal, but also with what Britain owed to her own dignity. From the unusual and almost unaccountable delay in the production of those papers which had been called for respecting our relations with Portugal—from the reluctance which was manifested to supply information upon that subject—the only conclusion which could be arrived at was, that his Majesty's Ministers had determined upon some new course of policy. It would seem from their conduct, that they thought it better for the interest of England, that the Peninsula should be left entirely in the hands of France, than that any part of it should be connected with England, or dependent upon her friendship. The object of this Bill was to transfer the advantages given heretofore to Portuguese wine to the wines of its wealthy and powerful rival in this article. The effect would not be confined to Portugal: it would, as a consequence reach our return trade thither in woollen, cotton, and hardware goods, as well as all British investments of a mercantile nature in the country of our ancient ally. As a commercial measure he deprecated it, because he felt, that in their eagerness to carry into effect the general principle of free trade, in the hope that all things would shortly find their level between this and other manufacturing countries, such as France, the noble Lord had altogether left out of his calculation the inevitable distress and particular failures which must be the consequences of the interruption of our long established trade, in respect to exporting houses trading principally to Portugal. They were abandoning a connexion with a nation which could not be a rival, for the sake of a connexion with one which was in all respects a rival. He thought, that the consequences to British commerce would be such, as no man would more regret than the noble Lord himself. He had heard, indeed, that the measure would be advantageous to British commerce; but in what way he had not been told. No arrangement had been made, that France should receive British manufactures in return for the advantages which the Bill would give that nation. He could see nothing in the measure that was commercially advantageous; and, politically, he thought it most ill-advised. He protested against the passing of a measure so ill-timed, ill-advised, and ill-digested.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman had entered into the different points of this question, politically, commercially, and financially considered, and it was, therefore, necessary for him to touch upon those three points. With respect to the remarks he had made upon his Budget, although on some questions he had not been so fortunate as to meet the concurrence of the House, yet he might claim the merit of having relieved the country by the reduction of the duties on coals and printed calicoes, and a future reduction of the duty on candles. The taxes he had proposed to substitute for them, had not all met the approbation of the House; and this tax was a part of them. As to the returns of revenue leading to the presumption that this tax was not necessary, he could only say, that having lost several taxes, it was not possible for the Government to afford to give it up. The objection of the right hon. Gentleman, that there had been no warning given of the abandonment of the Treaty had been disposed of on a former occasion. It was clear, that we had the right to abandon the Methuen Treaty if we pleased, and nothing, in his opinion, could be better adapted to promote the political interests of England, than drawing closer the bonds of amity between this country and France, if it could be done without offence to Portugal. If we were justified by the spirit of the Methuen Treaty, in abandoning the advantages afforded us by Portugal, by the admission of our woollens, there was no ground to expect that the general ties of amity with Portugal would thereby be dissolved. It was the policy of England, for the sake of our general relations with the Continent, of Europe, to be on terms of political friendship with France. As a measure of commercial policy, the right hon. Gentleman had admitted the general principle, that it was desirable to trade with a rich country as much as we could; but it so happened, that whenever a general principle was stated, it was always sure to be followed up by saying, that the case under consideration was not proper for its application. When he saw a general principle, the application of which was unobjectionable, he always wished to carry it into effect as speedily as possible. The right hon. Gentleman had not made out any ground of exception in respect to this case. The only ground he had alleged was, that the trade of Spain and Portugal were to be considered as one, and that our manufactures were favoured by them above those of any other country. In respect to Portugal he admitted this to be correct; but as to Spain, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman had surprised him, since our linens were almost prohibited in Spain. He had no reason to expect, that the effect of the alteration contemplated would diminish the exportation of British manufactures to Portugal, for this simple reason—because we were able to supply them cheaper than any other country. The right hon. Member had also looked at the measure in a financial point of view, and said, that the former reduction of wine duties was productive of good effects. This was true, but he did not consider that he was departing from the principle of the former reduction by the present Bill. He reduced the duties on French wines, and the increase he made in the duties on other wines was so small, that it was very improbable that it would diminish consumption. The only effect it was likely to have was, to diminish the consumption of the one class of wines while it increased the consumption of French wines. The scale of this Bill made the higher-priced wines of France dearer, but then it made the lower-priced wines of that country cheaper than the wines of Portugal. In a word, the wine would be procured at a cheaper rate under this measure than under the present law, and while it imposed no burthen on the country it would give an increase of revenue to the amount of 180,000l. a year. He had long thought, that the Governments of this country had pursued a wrong policy with regard to duties on wine, and he had, therefore, taken an early opportunity of introducing this measure.

was happy to hear from the noble Lord, that a general financial statement would be submitted to the House. He would reserve himself until that statement was made; but in the mean time he must observe, that the noble Lord had no reason to congratulate himself upon having selected the duty on coals as the duty which it was most advisable to take off when he was making a reduction of taxation. It now turned out—as he always expected it would—that while 6s. a chaldron was taken from the revenue, the consumer was benefitted only to the amount of 2s. per chaldron. The noble Lord, therefore, had no reason to congratulate himself upon the reduction of taxation which he had made when he took off the coal-duty, neither did he think that the noble Lord had sufficiently considered the consumer when he laid on the present tax; for while the noble Lord got 180,000l., he imposed a tax upon the consumer of at least double the amount which he received in the Treasury. This was all he should at present state upon our financial condition. As to the question now before them, the noble Lord had abstained, in his answer to his noble friend, from all allusion to our treaties with Portugal, and the result which was likely to follow from the abandonment of those treaties. The noble Lord had said, that Portugal had by this time had full notice of the measure; but he must be allowed to observe, that a measure lying for six months on the Table of that House was not what ought to be considered as a notice to Portugal. The noble Lord had said, that this measure would draw closer the ties between this country and France. Now, he was one of those who admitted that it was sound policy to draw close those ties, and he should be most happy to see them drawn close; but the noble Lord had not shown to the House either that those ties might not be preserved without this measure, or that the measure had been required or even asked for by France. When were the ties between this country and France closer than in the reign of George 2nd; and did not Mr. Pitt subsequently make a commercial treaty with France without committing any infraction of the Methuen Treaty? The noble Lord had also asked, what advantage this country had to thank Spain for; but the answer to that question was to be found in the fact, that we stood upon the same footing as other countries with regard to Spain, and in the amount of British produce which found its way into the Peninsula; for whether that produce went to Spain, or was consumed in Portugal, did not matter. He objected to this measure as destroying those ties which bound Portugal to this country, and which had made Portugal, in fact, almost a province of this country. He heartily trusted, that the gloomy anticipations which he entertained with regard to the results of the measure might not be realized.

alluded to the disappointment which had taken place with regard to the expected relief from removing the duty on coals—a relief which it was particularly hoped would be a great benefit to the poorer classes. The cause of this disappointment was to be found in the fact, that there was a monopoly of the article, and he thought that the public had great reason to complain of the conduct of the individuals who enjoyed that monopoly. If these individuals pursued the same conduct, and the price of coal continued as high as it was at present, he should move, in the next Session, that the duty be reimposed, and that some other taxes be taken off in its stead.

must contend, that we had no right to depart from the Methuen Treaty without the consent of Portugal, unless in consequence of injuries committed by Portugal against us, and satisfaction for those injuries being refused. It was evident that Portugal had not consented; and the other point could only be ascertained by papers for which he had some time since moved, and the propriety of producing which, at the earliest possible opportunity, he took this opportunity of again urging upon the noble Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

should be sorry to lend his assistance to the engrafting upon a debate upon the wine duties a discussion upon the coal duties, but he felt it necessary to make one observation upon the latter subject, in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. member for Surrey. Tire coal-owners had derived no more benefit from the reduction of the duty than the hon. member for Surrey had. The fact was, that immediately on the remission of the duty, there was a great reduction in the price of that supply of coals which was then in the London market; but as soon as the news of the remission of the duty reached the pit-men, they stood out for higher wages; and this was the reason of the subsequent rise in the price of coals. He assured the hon. member for Surrey, that the coal-owners had not the means of making that combination which the hon. Member evidently supposed they had entered into.

begged to state, with regard to the papers to which the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Courtenay) had alluded, that no time had been or would be lost, in producing them. He could not state the precise day on which he should be able to lay them on the Table; but some of them were already printed, and others were in the course of being copied out with all possible expedition. He begged to set the right hon. Gentleman right upon one point on which the right hon. Gentleman seemed to be in error. This measure had not been rested by his noble friend, neither had their right to depart from the Methuen Treaty been rested by his noble friend, upon any grievances or injuries which we had received from the hands of Portugal, but simply upon the nature of the stipulations of that treaty itself. He was ready to demonstrate, in opposition to the right hon. Gentleman, or to any one else who advanced a contrary doctrine, that we had a perfect right to depart, whenever we pleased, from that treaty, both without giving any notice to Portugal of our intention so to do, and also without our having experienced grievances or injuries from that country. At the same time, let him tell the right hon. Gentleman, that if there were any necessity to show it, there would be no difficulty at all in showing that Portugal had violated over and over again, even in regard to this very wine trade, the stipulations of treaties which existed between this country and Portugal. This, however, was not, he repeated, a ground upon which his noble friend based the measure now under consideration.

had understood the noble Lord (Althorp) to state injuries we had experienced from Portugal as one of the grounds of the measure.

Then I have been very much misunderstood by the hon. Gentleman, for I certainly never stated any thing of the kind.