The Sun.
London, England, 1831-03-11 00:00:00

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.

Mr. BAYLEY presented a petition from the city of
Bristol upon the subject of Parliamentary Reform. As
his constituents were exceedingly sensitive anal anxious
upo❑ this great question of Reform, he hoped the got !
humour of the House would he extended towards him in
affording him an opportunity of stating to what extent he
concurred in the player of the petition, and with his Ma-
jesty's proposed measure of Reform. He was extremely
glad to have this opportunity, as he had not spoken in
the course of the important debate that had al-
ready taken place, and his constituents were
no doubt desirous of knowing to what extent
he concurred with the measure. The petition he now pre-
sented was only signed by the chairman on behalf
of the whole of the meeting, as the persons com-
posing the meeting were desirous that their sense of the
measure should be conveyed to the Legislature with the
least possible delay. He was aware that the petition cools]
only he received as the petition of the individual signing it,
but he wished the House to understand and believe that it
was signed by that individual on behalf of a most nume-
mos, mist respectable, and very numerous meeting._
He perfectly agreed, he must say, with the principle of
the Bill—(Hear, hear, from the Ministerial side)—as
• far as the disfranchisement of a large number of com-
pletely rotten boroughs went. He completely concurred
with it as far as regarded giving to the close corporations of
large towns votes, such as Bath. He likewise agreed with it
in the endowing. as it were, of great and new communi-
ties—such as Birmingham and Manchester. He
could not agree with the proposed Bill in respect to
its giving an addition to the county Members. If the Bill
was passed, as it stood in this respect, the county Members
would carry every thing their own way; and he should
have hereafter to call on Hon. Members who had raised
their voices against the corn laws to support him in his'
most unqualified opposition to this part of the Bill, inasmuch
as if it were passed in the shape in which it now was, it
would be impossible to obtain an alteration in the corn laws.
He had had communications with his constituents, and he
found that by the proposed measure no less than between
3,000 and 4,000 of them would be disfranchised, and the
part of the Bill which went to the taking away of their
votes he should therefore use every possible means in his
power to oppose.

Mr. H.bAVIES said he bad had the honour of pre-
senting a petition from a very large portion of the inha-
tants of Bristol, expressing sentiments directly opposed to
the proposed measure. There was one part of the Hon.
Gentleman's statement who had just addressed the House,
in which he cordially agreed, that was the rat in which
he had expressed his surprise, in which a large body of
voters was proposed to be disfranchised. He knew that
the three great brancLes of the Legislature might de-
prive every subject of the realm of his rights, but that
was not the principle on which the present measure had
been brought forward. He had stated his opinions at
length upon the Bill, therefore he should not go over
the arguments now again ; but whenever the Bill should
come to be read a second time be should give it his oppo-
sition. At the Caine time he was far from saying there
were not parts of the representation requiring amendment,
and whenever what he should consider a proper measure was
brought forward in that House for that purpose it should
have his support, but he was directly opposed to the
sweeping and revolutionary Bill that had been introduced
by the Noble Lord.

The petition was ordered to be brought up an.l laid on
the table. It coldially approved of the measure of Re•
form proposed by his Majesty's Ministers.
On the motion of Lord A I.THORP, the Calico Duties,
Bill was read a third time.

Mr. WARBURTON, in support of his Rill to prohibit
the growth of tobacco in Ireland, needed only to re-
fer to the circumstances attending the measure in order
to induce the House to support it. Previous to
Easter last year, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer
gave notice of a Bill for promoting the growth of to-
bacco, the duty on foreign imported tobacco con,
tinning as it was at ss. a pound, and the cultivation
of it in the United Kingdom to be permitted on paying
the duty of Is. Bd. per pound. But certain Members, of
whom he (Mr. W.) wag one, having expressed tbei:
opposition, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was indv„, d to
reconcile the matter, and proposed that a Select Committee
should be appointe 1 to take the suilic;:t into their conside.
ration. After a minute investigation of the subject that
Committee had come to the following conclusion
it Was expedient to extrid to Ireland the prellig-
tion which already existed as to England and
Scotland. Indeed the cultivation of such au article
could only be effected, according to the representations
of the witnesses, by a protecting duty of 600 or 700
per cent. The proposition, therefore, was too mon-
strous and absurd for a moment to be enter-
tained by the House. The revenue now collected
en tobacco was nearly three mill lib sterling, while
the whole quantity imported was abomt 20,000,000 lbs.
The House
ount of d not,
easily, he was sure, endanger so large
an ace
collected, by permitting
the grow:1; of that commodity in Ireland, under a protect.,
jag duty so monstrous, while the cultivation of it would
wroeuvleni
at the same time cause a great extension of Excise officers.
Lord ALTHORP said that .he cultivation of tobacco
in Ireland was one Which could not exist without extra-
ordkary picAection, and that it was in other respects un-
suited to these countries. He had intended to reduce the
dui', on imported tobacco lo .111+,10.4 as to rwier its growth

unprofitable in Great Britain or Ireland. But when he
found himself unable to effect that reduction, be saw the
necessity of prohibiting altogether the home cultivation of
tobacco. However, under .the circumstances of the pre-
sent times, he thought the prohibition unadvisable,
although the revenue might suffer considerably by per-
mitting tobacco to be grown in Ireland. He would be
much more willing to sacrifice the revenue than to add to
the distress or increase the discontent of that country,
Mr. FRANKLAND LEWIS said that the present wes
the time for passing the Jaw. If it were delayed,
culties in its way would have increased, in consequence of
the additional capital that would be employed in the cul-
tivation that it would be impossible to enact the prohibi-
t tion. The revenue derived from the duty upon foreign
tobacco was upwards of three millions sterling, whereas
the prime cost of all the tobacco consumed in Great Bri-
tain and Ireland was no more than 350,000/. ; so that it
it were all grown at home, three millions of revenue would
he sacrificed, and the country would gain only the profits
of 350,000/. invested in an altered cultivation. He could
' not admit that the prohibition would create discontent in
Ireland. The whole of the land employed there in the
growth of tobacco was only 450 or 500 acres ; and they
must have very shallow views of the causes of distress and
discontent in that country who supposed that either would
be increased by changing the cultivation of that small
quantity of land.
Mr. RUTHVEN had scarcely expected that a measure
so ungenerous as the Bill introduced by the Hon. Gentle-
man opposite, could have some from so liberal a quarter.
If it were passed, it would create at least suspicion in Ire-
land that the interests of that country were but lightly at-
tentie Ito by the House. Neither did hi', nor any gentle-
man representing Ireland, wish anything to be done for the
adVantage of Ireland, inconsistently with the general in-
terests of the empire. All, therefore, that he could desire
was, that the cultivation of tobacco in Ireland should -be
tolerated for the present season, as the Noble Lord had in-
timated to be his intention, on. account of the distress now
prevailing in that country.—(Hear.)
Mr. A. LEFROY said, that the cultivation was not so
confined as the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lewis) supposed.
In the county of 'Wexford a considerable portion of the po-
pulation was employed in the cultivation of tobacco.
Mr. JAMES GHAT! AN expressed his approbation of
the intentions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who
had acted like a man of feeling and good sense.
Mr. HART DAVIS supported the Bill, and regretted
that the Noble Lord opposite had signified his intention of
opposing it on the second reading.
Mr. JEPHSON was favourable to the Bill, for he
thought, if the intention was ultimately to get rid of the
growth of tobacco in Ireland, the sooner it was done the
better, as every year the difficulty of putting a stop to it
would be increased.
Mr. CALLAGHAN thought that Ireland should not be
allowed to grow so long as England and Scotland were
denied permission to do so; he should, therefore, vote for
the Bil', adding, however, this observation, that he thought
the present duty c iuld not be maintained is Ireland.
Mr. LEADER said, that the declaration of the Noble
Lord against the Bill did him infinite credit. He should
certainly object to the Bill of the Hon. Member• for fluid-
port, as contrary to the 6th Article of the Irish Union.
Mr. CURTEIS saw no reason why England and Scot-
land as well as Ireland should not be permitted to grow
tobacco; and as to the Bill of the Hon. Member for hritl-
port, it should certainly have his support; for if Gormn-
went even intended to do away with the growth of to-
bacco in that country, the immediate prohibition of it
would be advantageous instead of prejudicial.
Lord OXMANTOWN also thought it would be better
to enact a prohibition at once.

Lord VALENTIA was of opinion, that if the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, as the Finance Minister of the
Crown, thought the growth of tobacco might continue 14,r
another year, the Hon. Member for Bridport might per-
mit things to remain as they were. For his part, he
should, by every means in his power, oppose the Bill ; for
he considered that the cultivation of tobacco had prevented
much distress in Ireland, and he thought that such a pro-
hibition, enacted at a time when the agitation of the
Union question was going forward, was improper.
Lord LOWTHER was strongly in favour of encouraging
the growth cf tobacco, both in England and Scotland.
Sir R. BATESON protested against the motion, for,
in a country possessing a redundant population, to prohibit
the cultivation of what gave employment to a number of
working classes, was impolitic.
Mr. BROW.NLOW submitted that really matters of
revenue and excise ought to be left to the Chancellor of
the Exchequer ; but he should oppose the Bill on other
grounds, one of which was, that the report of the COM,
mittee was conclusive against it.
Mr. GOULBURN was ready to admit that the ques-
tion of the growth of tobacco in Ireland was one of con-
siderable difficulty. In 1828 he brought forward a Bill
to prohibit its growth ; but owing to circumstances which
were then stated, he withdrew the Bill for that Session,
with the understanding that either the growth should be
prohibited next year, or a duty be paid on what was
grown. He afterwards gave his consideration to the
point, whether tobacco might not be allowed to be grown
in any part of the United kingdom on payment of a duty.
It was, however, subsequently arranged that the growth
should be prohibited ; notice was given to that effect, and
had it not been for the death of his late Majesty, a Bill
to that effect would have passed last Session. .1 he ques-
tion was, whether tobacco should be prohibited, or
general duty imposed ; and now that notice was given,
would it not be better to take advantage of the present
opportunity to prohibit it altngether.—(Hear.)
Lord ALTHORP explained. He agreed that they
ought either to prohibit the growth altogether, or intro-
duce a duty. But in his opinion the Government ought
not to run the risk of creating discontent in Leland by
prohibiting the growth at present.
Lord KILLEEN said a few words which did not reach
the gallery.
Mr. WARBURTON replied. He did not see 'why he
should give up his present motion because the Chancellor
of the Exchequer had pledged himself virtually to pro-
hibit the growth of tobacco by a proposition in his next
Budget. He would, therefore, persist in the Bill.
The House then went into a Committee on the Bill
after which the House resumed, and the Report was 4
received.

CHARITIES, ,s.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved for leave to bring
in a Bill to appoint Commissioners to continue their in-
quiries into the Charities. of England and Wales.
Mr. Alderman WINCHESTER begged leave to sug-
gest to his Hon. and Learned Friend (the Attorney Gene-
ral) the propriety of introducing a clause into his Bill, in
order to prevent unauthorized individuals instituting
proceedings against the Trusters of Charities in the Court
of Chancery, pending the inquiry which would take place
under that Commission, as it was notorious that trustees
had been subject to great and unnecessary espences, in de-
fending themselves against such ex parte proceedings,
whereby the funds of the charities were much impaired.
Mr. HUME thought that they had been going upon a
wrong principle hitherto. He thought that two Com-
missioners were sufficient to adopt a much more effective
mode. Ho therefore hoped that the Attorney-General
would oonsent to the Bill going to a Committee up stairs,
in order that the matter might be fully investigated.
The ATTORNEY-CiENERAL apprehended, that the
first object of the inquiry ought to be, of what the Cha-
r ities consisted ; and he did not doubt that those gentle-
men, who had already pursued that inquiry to a great ex-
tent, were the person% most capable of pursuing the in-
quiry- to a successful conclusion. After that was done,
it would he in the power of soy Hon. Member to propose
a new course, as to the mode in which those charities
should be disposed of to the greatest advantage of the public.
Sir C. WETHERELL thought that he used not re-
mind the Han. Member for Middlesex, that when any
surn was recovered under a charity it was directed to be ap-
plied pursuant to the directions of the original donor.
After a few wordy from Mr. HUNT, leave was given
to bring is the Bill.
TOWER HAMLETS MILITIA.
Mr. LAMB moved for leave to bring in a Bill to alter
the regulations for snaking the ballot for the Tower Ham-
lets Militia.

aconsolidatinge
the
Middlesex. He recommended that a tax should be raised
severityt h
eli a.wiaslnUrdeMliarEtrievgesuultagorgitethyset suggested
.porpoeplirraei
operation
n 6
noolfpf
there
laws
in
to pay the Militia, and that the regiments should be raise,:
by bert. of drum.
iilr. Alderman WOOD supported the view of Mr..'ll.4me,
and enforced his suggestion.
Mr. Honeys and Mr. Lama said a few words, and the
latter admitted the propriety of Mr. Hume'si. suggestion.
Leave given and the Bill brought in.
Lord ALTHORP gave notice ;hat be should to-mor-
row, in a Committee of Ways alai Means, move the annual
sugar duties.
Mr. WATSON presented a petition from the Corpora-
,
tion of Canterbury, in favour of the Reform. Bill. aj
•
Sir J. WROTTESLEY presented• a similar petition th
from Wolverhampton.
Op.t,
Mr, HODGES presented a s!niilar petition from Woof- I,je,
with, and from Greenwich, praying for a ,estonown o, f
•
their Members. tie/01,
the House p
The other Ordt:ra of tthi:lDE..aymtwl‘erieiwthoe,nciod
,i,kposed of, Bra