The Sun.
London, England, 1834-03-05 00:00:00

DISTRESS OF THE HANDLOOM WEAVERS.

Colonel TORRENS presented three petitions from Bolton,
in Lancashire and its vicinity, praying for the appointment of a
select committee to inquire into the distress that existed among
the hand loom weavers, and to adopt the most practicable mode
of relief. The first of those petitions was signed by 10,000
persons; the second by the magistrates, the boroughreeve, and
the clergy ; and the third by 45 of the manufacturers them.
selves. The prayer of the petition suggested the forming of
local boards, or any other mode which could afford the desired
relief. lie was glad- to find that his hon. friend (Mr. Max-
well) had given notice of a motion to a similar effect;
he begged of his Majesty's government to give assent to it, and
permit it to pass without any Opposition. No doubt great
benefit accrued to society from the introduction of power
looms; these superseded hand-weaving, and of course threw
the hand.weavers into great distress. It was seldom that a
general charge took place for the benefit of the public without
entailing partial distress on some particular class ; and it was
the duty of the public to relieve such classes as had suffered.
Whatever mode could be suggested ought to be done speedily;
perhaps a more efficient one might be found out than
what the petitioners suggested, but something should
be done to afford speedy relief to the great distress under
which they laboured. They felt that they were not directly
represented in that house; that seemingly aggravated their con-
dition, and impressed them more strongly with the notion that
the intention of that house should be more distinctly called to
their case.,

Mr, BOWLING bore testimony to the privations under
which the petitioners were suffering. He did not know wh ether a
Board of Trade was applicable. One was instituted, however,
at Glasgow, and was voluntarily adopted by the Masters them.
selves. He begged to call the particular attention of the house
to the consideration of appointing a setect committee to inquire
into the grievances of the petitioners, with a view of remedying
-them. - - • -

Mr. MAXWELL alluded to the notice which he had given
of a motion on that subject. He would remark that the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer had advised that the case of the peti-
tioners should• be merged in the general consideration of the
manufacturing interests; but the distress which existed amongst
them justified a particular inquiry in their favour.--(Hear,
hear.) The state of the markets at present con.
tributed much to increase that distress, and gave a power
to the manufacturers of deferring to any period almost the pay.
ment of better wages than they were giving; for those unscru-
pulous men knew that the starving tradesmen should work at
any rate of wages the matters pleased to give them, as the
market was so overstocked with goods that work would not be
required for a considerable period to come. They took advan.
tage of the poverty and embarrassment of the operatives, and
availed themselves in every possible way of their depressed
condition, to get their labour at the lowest possible rate.
The shopkeepers in the towns where the hand-loom weavers
resided found themselves surrounded by a distressed and dis-
contented population. Last year the house had the testimony
of the clergymen, magistrates, and those who were best quali-
fied to give information on the subject, that the churches and
schools were entirely deserted in consequence of the extraor-
dinary depression of the last class of persons; and when they
were asked the cause of it, the hand.loom weavers replied,
that they could not clothe themselves, or their children,
to enable them to go either to church or to school.—
(Hear, hear, hear.) The honourable member then read
an abstract of a letter which he had received from Glasgow, in
which it was stated, that such were the demoralizing effects
produced by the extreme want of labour among the manufac-
turing classes, that in the year ending August 1833, not less
than 1,532 persons had been committed to prison for offences,
of whom a great number were persons, of both sexes, under 17
years of age. He was confident that some regulation might be
adopted to remedy the evils complained of. Labour was pro-
perty ; and he trusted very shortly to see that fact recognised
by the house, for it was entitled to as much protection
as any other description of property. The petitioners were
suffering greatly from the effects of taxation; as a proof of which
they were paying a duty upon an article of food of 195,, the
price of which was but 18s. He alluded to oatpieal; which
was thus taxed at upwards of 1001. per cent., merely in order to
afford protection to other descriptions of property. The right
hon. member concluded by imploring the house to extend its
hand for the protection of the petitioners.
Mr. BA INES supported the prayer of the petition. There
was no description of persons in this country who laboured
under greater distress than the hand-loom weavers who had
suffered the.most extreme privations from the difficulty of ob.
taining the price of their labour. In so saying, he did not
wish to be considered as attacking the use of machinery, which
had extended itself to the great benefit of the country at large.
He thought the recommendation in the petition of the esta-
blishment of local boards of trade, deserved the serious con-
sideration of the house; he thought they would do much good,
for they would combine the masters and the workmen in one
common object, and prevent the institution of the trades'
unions, which brought the masters and workmen into collision.
He therefore supported the prayer of the petition, but without
pledging himself to all its details ; for with some of the infe-
rences to be drawn from it he could not canscientiously agree.

Mr. HARDY thought that in a short time the table of the
house would be loaded with petitions from the hand-loom
weavers, if the present system of exporting the raw material
to foreign countries were suffered to go on. In the year 1832
millions of pounds of wool and yarn had been exported, and
manufactured in foreign countries, and then these countries
imposed a duty upon the manufactured article On its return, so
that it was impossible for the manufacturer in England to com-
pete with them. The raw material, which was the support of
thousands of industrious persons, was sent abroad, and thus
the means of employment was taken from the hand-loom
weavers, either of cotton or woollen goods. If it was neces-
sary that the artisans of the country should be supported, the
house should at once interpose, and put a stop to the further
exportation of the raw material.—(Hear.)
Mr. FLEETWOOD said if any person should' stand up
upon the present occasion it was himself. As the hon. mem-
ber for Leeds had alluded to the political unions, he would
say that the handloom weavers had borne their distress with a
better grace than almost any other class. He thought the
house should at once institute an inquiry into the extent of
their distresses, if it were only to show that they were worthy
of the attention of Government as well as any other class, and
as a reward of the patience with which they had borne their
sufferings. He gave his cordial support to the prayer of the ,
petition.
Mr. GILLON having been--requested to support the prayer
of the petition, he would de-it; Cordially, on behalf of a very
large, intelligent, industrious, but distressed portion of the
community. Hon. members were perhaps not aware of the
vast number of persons who were totally dependant on that
species of manufacture. It appeared by the report of last
session, that a population of not less than 500,000 were de-
pendant on hand-loom weaving for subsistence. He begged to
allude to a statement made by the hon. member for Ipswich,
in seconding the address to his Majesty; his statement of the
manufacturing and commercial prosperity of the country
existed only in the brain cf that honourable member.
The hon. member had alluded to the hand-loom weavers,
and stated, by a letter which he had lately
received
d4om
the
Manufacturing districts, a rise had
taken place of 12 per cent , and that every branch of the
manufacture was in great activity. There never was a greater
fallacy stated in that house. In Glasgow, since the previous
year, a rise had taken place of 10 or 12 per cent. in the finer
articles of manufacture; but they should see what proportion
the rate of wages bore to that advance. The best workmen for
from fourteen to sixteen hours' labour per day did not earn
more than ss. 6c1., and a rise of 12 per cent. Ripon that
would only make the wages Os. per week for the sup-
port, clothing, and education of themselves andtheir families
That was not all ; the amount of wages, in some instances, did
not exceed more than 4s. or ss. a week ; and he believed the
rise, if such had taken place, which he did not believe was the ,
case, would not have the erect of giving any advantage to the

(PRICE 7D.)

workmen. Now, what was it that the petitioners demanded
Why, the appointment only of a Board of Trade; a security, in
fact, both for their life and property. What reason, he would
ask, existed, why such protection should not be afforded ? He
could not see why protection should be given to the aristocrat,
the warehouse of the merchant, the house of the artisan, and
not to the property of the labourer ?—(Hear, hear.) The ob-
ject of the Board of Trade was not to prop up the operative
against the manufacturer, but it was to protect them against
the insidious efforts of those individuals who had no means of
keeping up their trade except by the destruction of the property
of the manufacturer, and the existence of the operative. When
his hon. friend, the member for Lanark, brought forward his
motion for the appointment of a committee on the subject, he
should be prepared to show that the greatest necessity existed
for the amelioration of the hand.loom weavers. He was re-
joiced to see that the masters were joining with the workmen
in so laudable a work as that of establishing boards of trade.
The observation that had fallen from the honourable member
for Leeds was well worthy the consideration of the house, and if
put into force would have the effect of putting an end to those
trade unions which caused so much dissatisfaction and eruption
between the master manufacturer and his workman.—f Cries
of " Hear, hear.") He trusted, that in advocating this important
subject to the labouring classes of the community„-they would
not be met by the cold-blooded theory of the political econo-
mists. If such persons as the petitioners were not to be pro.
teeted there would be an end of those social bOnds which he
trusted existed at the present moment between them and the
state. The hon. member concluded by expressing his most
cordial support of the prayer of the petition.
Mr. MARK PHILLIPS considered that the tendency of
the discussion which had taken place only showed -that hon.
members were at variance as to the different nostrums that
were calculated to remove the difficulties under which the
petitioners laboured. Although he (Mr. Phillips) felt as
deeply interested for the interest of the petitioners as for
those of the manufacturer, he should consider . himself
as guilty of avowing a dishonest opinion if he held out
any hope to them of relief by the establishment of boards of
trade. If he was convinced that the adoption of such a course
would benefit the petitioners, he would give the petition his
most hearty support Should, however, a committee be ap-
pointed on the subject, and he had the honour of taking part in
that committee, no one would enter more zealously into the
service than himself. He, however, was of opinion that no be-
neficial results could arise, and he would therefore not foster
hopes and expectations that could not be realized.

Sir F. BURDETT considered it necessary, in conse-
quence of the course taken upon the presenting of the
petition, to draw the, attention of the house to the adop-
tion of some regulation for the government of its own
proceedings--(Hear.) If discussions like the present were to
take place upon the presentation of every petition, it would be
impossibW that the business of the country could be proceeded
in in that house. Numbers of hon. members were waiting to
present petitions, and if no limit was given to discussions
upon questions, perhaps that would never be brought before
the house—(Hear, hear)—if abstract principles of trade were
to be talked of for hours together, it would be impossible that
half the members of that house could present their petitions.
He was sure that every member would agree with him, that
the removal of the distresses of the country equally ani-
mated the breast of every member in that house, but unless
some different practice was adopted, it was impossible
that all the distresses of the country could be made known.
What, therefore, he should propose was, that the old practice
relative to presenting petitions should be renewed ; that hon.
members 'in presenting petitions should simply state their ob-
ject, the general opinion which they entertained with respect
to them; and to conclude by praying that they might be laid
upon the table. Too much valuable time was consumed in the
presentation of petitions and premature discussions. He hoped
hon. gentlemen would adhere to the former system of present-
ing petitions without enlarging on their contents before the due
time.

'Mr. H. BULWER• deprecated the remarks of the hon.
baronet.—(Hear, hear.) It was of importance that ris
Majesty's government and the country at large should be put
in possession of the feelings of the people, and be made to know
the particular wants of particular classes; surely that could not
be effected by any means except by presenting petitions and
describing their contents. The subject before the house was .a
very important one; he differed from a great au holity upon a
main point of it. He differed from the hon. gentleman on the
left, who considered the establishment of Boards of Trade im.
practicable. There were many instances to • prove the good
effects of Boards of Trade. Let them look at France, and the
continent in general, and they would find what had been ef-
fected by their institution. The corporations of France were
in a great measure destroyed at the period of the Revolution.
Theconsequence was that perpetual hostilities occurred between
different classes; and those hostilities were found to cease in
proportion as the old institutions were re.established. He
agreed with the general prayer of the petition, and should
strongly urge the adoption of some mode of redress for the
petitioners.
Lord LUMLEY considered that certainly the time of that
house might be occupied unfairly by some hon. members pre-
senting too many petitions from their own constituents to the
exclusion of others; but he would say that no petition deserved
the attention and time of the house more than the present
which had been submitted to it.
Mr. FIELDEN remarked that two hours and a-half had
been spent yesterday upon a subject not more important than
the one now under consideration. A numerous class was
suffering the greatest distress, and that arose as much
from bad remuneration as from scarcity of work. There were
a great many points to be considered on that subject, for
remedies should be sought for one cause of the distress as well
as for another. It was not the fault of those persons who were
suffering, nor yet was the distress to be attributed to power looms.
The hon. member read a statement, for the purpose of show-
ing the great and gradual depression in the price of labour of
the hand-loom weavers from 1795 to 1833, in the latter of
which years the price was ss. 6d. per piece—only one piece
being within a man's power to make in a week. Out of that
ss. 6d. he' had also to submit to a reduction of Is.
before be could provide himself or family with coals.—
(Cries of "Question.") Then 4s. lid. was all the poor man
got; and in Bolton there were not less than 23,500 men earning
but so much. According to a statement which had been made
upon inquiry, it was ascertained, that in Bolton and its neigh-
bourhOod there were not less than 70,000 hand-loom weavers;
and althOugh mills had been erected to a great extent, the per-
sons were in 11111 work, but they only received 4s. lid. a week
'each. would read to the house an extract from a report as
to' these poor toen:—(Here the house manifested symptoms of
impatience.) • He must make a statement to the house, and he
wouldmake it unless he was put down—(Hear, hear)—in order
to show ,what these poor men ,were suffering. One man who
was engaged in making musline—which were an article con.
sumed by the rich-.-was.asked whit he had for breakfast, and
he said two quarts of buttermilk, which he got for 3d.
An HON. MitsniEn (nanie unknoWn) asked if the hon. member
meant toi Conclude by a motion ?
Mr. FIELDEN Said he did. The man was there asked
what he ftad'fdr dinner, and he said two quarts of•buttermilk ;
and if he could procure them, he added potatoes, when they
were cheap ; when asked what he had the ,remainder of the
day, he answered, sometimes nothing, and sometimes two
quarts of, buttermilk again—at. times one pound of oatmeal.
The house had heard much of the Irish having been reduced'i
to buttermilk and oatmeal, but he could state for a fact,
that there were hundreds of thousands in 'England
who
were equally situated,—(Hear.) Ite conclUded by hoping
that the house' would listen to the prayer of the petitioners,

and grant the committee of inquiry.
Mr. METHUEN said the hon. member for Oldham had only
needlessly wasted the time of the house in going into details
which were only applicable for a committee of inquiry. As
he was on his legs he would take the liberty of making a sug.
gestiop which he trusted would be adopted by the house. If
hon. gentlemen who had petitions to present entirely on the same
subject would present them in a lump, and not one by one as they
did now, it would save much valuable time, and this could be
easily ascertained by hon. members consulting with each other.
If some plan were not adopted, it would be quite impossible for
hon. members to lay all the grievances of the country before
the house.

The SPEAKER said it was impossible for the human mind
to suggest any distinct or positive plan for such a purpose. It
must be left to the discretion of each individual member.
The subject matter of petition was of so very varied a nature,
some were of so slight, and some of so serious a character,
some were so intricate, and others so clear, that it must be
quite obvious, as they varied in their nature, the option
of dwelling upon them at greater length, or not, would
occur to different persons. As he had said before, that must
be left to the discretion of hon. members, who could have no
object in wasting the time of the house. Any thing not re-
ferable to the subject of the petition, was a waste of the time
of the house.—(Hear, hear.) He did believe, if persons pre-
senting petitions confined themselves to the subject matter of
such petitions, less time would be employed.
Mr. RUTHVEN would only make a few observations, and
Would confine himself strictly to the petition before the house.
It was the petition of persons who had not found so many ad-
vocates in that house as either the commercial or landed
interests, and who had not so many friends as the church
establishment or the tithes.—(Hear, hear, hear.) These
persons were destitute—they were reduced below what
many persons could, form an idea of. No person knew their
condition better than the hon. member for Oldham, and the
country should feel grateful to him for taking their case into
that house. It was difficult to say what should be done to
them—their wages were reduced so low, that they were un-
able to subsist. This had been caused by the vast increase of
the productive manufactures, which, although it had made
fortunes for many, had reduced thousands to misery and po-
verty. Much of this might be ascribed to the introduction of
steam machinery.—(Cries of " Oh, oh I" and '• Question.")
They could not hope for peace, comfort, or tranquillity, un.
less the distresses of these persona were relieved i and he 1

trusted that the hon. number who had presented the petition
would move for a committee of inquiry on the subject.—(Hear.)
The Hon. Mr. DUNCOMBE argued, that the best plan
would be to move for a committee of inquiry, where evidence
on both sides could be taken. He must say, that the length to
which these discussions ran far exceeded the bounds of mode-
ration ; and it was impossible that the business of the country
could go on while the time of the house was occupied in dis-
cussing the merits of petitions. There were many other subjects
which required the attention of that house, and thirteen or
fourteen lion. members were: waiting with petitions to present
upon various subjects, which it was impossible thy could do if
the present plan was persevered in. He hoped hot, gentlemen
in,future would abstain from consuming so much time in thes e
discussions.

Mr. COBBETT did not see that the house deserved the
lecture which the hon. gentleman had read to them. He was
told that the petition embraced 70,000 persons, and he' was
told by his lion. colleague that there were 600,000 persons in
the same state of distress, and therefore if that were not a
subject worthy of attention, then nothing was. He considered
that their constituents would be better contented with their
conduct in discussing that petition than if they had passed it
over without comment. He most cordially supported the
prayer of the petition.
Viscount LUMLEY (we understood) said that if hon. gen-
tlemen who had motions on various subjects before the house,
and had petitions to present upon those subjects, were to leave
the discussion of them till their motions came regularly before
the house, they would not only save the public time, but would
do more benefit to the subjects themselves. _ _

Sir G. STRICKLAND presented petitions from the Unitarian
dissenters of Thorne and Sittingbourne, complaining of the disa-
bilities under which ,they laboured, and praying for their re-
moval.

The Hon. Mr. DUNCOMBE presentrd petitions from the
Agricultural Associations of Boroughbridge, Aldborough, and
other places in Yorkshire, complaining of distress, and praying
that no alteration might be made in the corn laws or commuta.
tion of tithes; and that poor laws might be introduced Into
Ireland.

Mr. E. S. CAYLEY supported the prayers of the petitions.

Sir I'. FREMANTLE presented a petition signed by 668
burgesses of Staffbrd. A great deal had been heard that day of
distress. The petitioners also were in great distress, as they
were afraid that they would be disfranchised. they prayed
that the borough might not be disfranchised, or if so, that
the measure would not be a partial one, but embrace the
whole of the present constituency.
Mr. CHETWYND said that he would not occupy the house
at present upon the subject, as he should have an opportunity
of speaking in the evening upon the bill.
Mr. FITZSIMON presented two petitions from parishes in
the County of Dublin for a repeal of the union, and one from
St. George's parish, Dublin, praying for a new valuation oethe
property in that city. The latter petition was supported by
Mr. Ruthven.

•
CORN LAWS—DISTRESS.
Mr. R. WALLACE said he had two petitions to present,
and in obedience to the feelings of the house, he would be as
short as possible upon them ; and though they were of very air.
ferent natures, he would speak to both of them at the same time.
The first was from the Political Union of the city of Glasgow,
praying for the total abolition of the corn laws ; the second was
from the handloom weavers of a large district of the county of
Renfrew, complaining of distress, and praying for the institu-
tion of a board of trade. Being convinced that the miseries
of the weavers arose entirely out of the corn law monopoly, he
most cordially supported the prayer of both petitions. He,
along with the petitioners, had learned with very great regret
and indignation, that it was the intention of government to
leave these laws alone during the present sessicn. From
what had transpired during the present, as well as
during the last session, he was very much inclirud
to believe that there was a sort of tacit compact between the
agricultural interest and the Government, that if the corn
law monopoly was let alone, Government might keep on every
other tax which pressed upon the great body of the people, in
which they would be supported by that interest. All the dis.
tress of the country arose out of the monopoly enjoyed by the
landed interest—it was the cause of the rise of the trades'
unions in the present day; and until it was abolished they obght
to exist. In hiaxtPinion those trade unions would exist, and ought
to exist, if they could do any good, until that great monopoly
should be removed. He did not say that it should be re-
moved all at once ; he should wish to see the subject discpssed„
and a protecting duty descending at different periods conceded
to the landed interests, but if the matter -went on in the
present session as it did in the last, 2nd if ministers added their
influence in keeping it up, he had no hesitation in - saying that
the most universal dissatisfaction would take place. With re-
spect to the petition of the bandloom weavers, there had been a
long discussion that day as to whether or not a Board
of Trade should be appointed. If such a subject was
brought forward,• it should have his most hearty support.
What, he would ask, was the corn law monopoly but a board
of trade ? It originated in a similar system, wherein a set of
men combined together for the protection of their interests,
and it was by those means, and those alone, that the imposts
now existed. The 'hdn. inember concluded by moving for
leave to bring up the petition. •

Mr. OSWALD supported the prayer of the petition for the
abolition of the corn laws, believing those laws' to have been
productive not only of a great deal of mischief to the agricultu-
ral, but to the commercial interests of the country. With re-
spect to the petition of the handloom weavers, praying for
the establishment of a board of trade, he begged to say
that no man was more anxious than himself to ameliorate the
condition of those persons, believing that no class of men sus-
tained more hardships than they did, but he considered he
should be adopting a most erroneous course if he encouraged
them in their views that the establishment of a board of trade
would be beneficial. If he did, he firmly believed that their
hopes would end in disappointment, as they had began in delu.
sion.

Mr. GREEN presented a petition from the inhabitants of
High.street, Lancaster, praying for a removal of those saisabi.
lities which affected Dissenters from the EstablishettChurch.
He was bound to express his dissent from one part of the
petition, which deprecated the connexion between church
and state. He would bear testimony to the respects.
bility of the individuals who signed the petition, as well as
their attachment to their country.

Mr. STUART supported the petition, and also dissented
from that portion of it which wished for a separation between
church and state. He denied that any attacks were about
to be made on the established church, though such had been
asserted in another house the other night.
Mr. SHELL considered that it was rather anomalous that
Dissenters were admissible •to graduate in the University
Dublin, and were excludes' from English Universities.

• GRIEVANCES OF DISSENTERS,
Mr. BAINES presented petitions from certain dissenting
congregations of Long Preston (York), Huddersfield, Ramsden
St Chapel (Huddersfield), Bradford, 011erton parish (Bradford),
Houghton-lane Chapel (Bradford), Driffield, in the East Riding
of the county of York, and the parish of Giggleswick, all prayiA,kik
for relief from disabilities. With respect to the remark q the.
hon. member for Lancaster, that he did not agree with certain,
petitioners in requiring a separation of church and sta.terhe (My,
B.) apprehended that no class ofdissenters prayed for such a sopa-
ration.—(Hear.) They spoke of it as a conscientious ob-
jection on their part, but it formed no part of their
prayer; they only prayed for a removal of all those
practical grievances which thby experienced. When the
noble lord first mentioned the details of his proposed bill, there
was great dissatisfaction amongst the Dissenters, because they
understood that it was to be the ultimatum, and to contain all
the relief they had to expect; but since it was understood that
that bill was to be only one of a series of measures, they confined
themselves to praying for particular subjects of relief. In sup-
porting the prayer of the dissenters, he begged to observe that
there was no class of persons more attached to the government,
and more loyal than they were.
Mr. COBBETT begged to ask the hon. member opposite a
question: He perceived that the petitioners prayed to be *ie.,
lieved from the payment of church rates, and he begged tq now
if the hon. member for Leeds conkl inform him whether by
that they meant tithes ?

Mr. BAINES did not understand them tv man tithes ; they
wished to be relieved from payment of church rates, but he did
riLt by that understand them to mean tithes. The question had
not been generally. mooted at their meetings, . although it was
generally known that they were opposed to the payment of:
tithes.

Mr. JOHNSTONE presented a petition from Feriyfors,
in the county of Fife, signed by the minister and ciders of
the congregation, against church patronage ; also a petitioU
from the presbytery of St. Andrews, for the better ohservance
of the Sabbath. He would say that the country generally was
delighted with the measure about to be introduced by the bon.
member for Wigton.
Sir A. AGNEW said it was not right to acnetta
to what was occurring in some other place, but
he understood, that a bill, with a similar object, was apeut to,
be introduced there, he had no objection to let the. country
decide upon which was best fitted for the object in view.
Mr. O'DWYER begged to ask whether there was any penal
law in Scotland to prevent people ltom duly observing the
Sabbath Day.
Sir A. AGNEW made some reply, which we could not hear.
a petition from the merchants
county of Aberdeen, complaining
of the Reciprocity Duties Act, and praying
faor its ,
shipowners
operation
.i
on H
ofA
of Ikeh presentedt
eeriiea,l,
Mr. G. W. WOOD presented a petition from the dissenters
of Southport for removal of their grievances.
Sir R. FERGUSON presented a similar petition from.the
dissenters of Nottingham.
Lord DUNCANNON supported the prayer of the petition.
Sir R. FERGUSON presented a petition from Nottingham
for the repeal of the corn laws. Though the petitioners pra3 el
for their total repeal, they did not wish it to be accomplished in
a hurry.

Lord MINCANNON, in supporting the prayer of the peti-
tion, stated, that though he was not pressed to support the total
repeal of the corn laws, yet he would give his most cordial sup-
port to any inquiry on the subject which he thought might he
productive of great good.
Sir R. FERGUSON presented petitions from Nottingham,
praying for an alteration in the beer bid, and from Kenilworth,
praying that the elective franchise might be extended to tin in.
Mr. WOODTHORPE brought up an account of the average
price at which the quartern loaf had sold in the city of London
f..om 1780 to the present time.
Lord LUMLEY presented several Petitions from different
Dissenters in the county of Nottingham, praying fir a re-
moval of their gTieratiees.
The WAKtil lett the chair at three o'clock.

SECOND EDITION.
SUN OFFICE, Seven o'clock.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT,

THIS EVENING.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

- - - _
The house met to-day at half past twelve o'clock.
Prayers were read by the Bishop of HEREFORD.
The Duke of RICHMOND, in the absence of the Lord
Chancellor and the Earl of Shaftesbury, took his seat on
the Woolsack. .

_
The NOBLE Dutra presented a petition against the
Senleoates Small Tenements Bill.

No other business was brought before the house, and
their Lordships adjourned till to morrow.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

The Sexaxtart took the Chair at a quarter past fire.
Sir J. WROTTESLEY moved for an account of the
sums due to the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty by
John Paterson.—Ordered. The hon. member then moved
for a new writ for the borough of Paisley in the room of
Sir J. Maxwell, who had acceptrd the Chiltern Hundreds.
Mr. GILLON moved for an address to his Majesty,
praying th-A there be laid before the house a return of
the number of parishes in Scotland, in which fish tithes
were paid, with the amount paid in each of the years
1831, 1832, and 1833.
BOROUGH OF CARRICKFERGUS.

Mr. HALCOMB presented a petition from the freemen
of the borough of Carrickfergus, complaining in strong
terms of the report of the committee appointed to inquire
into the franchise of that borough. The petitioners un-
dertook to prove the falsity of the charge of bribery which
had been brought against certain parties, and prayed that
an opportunity might be afforded them of establishing their
case before the House.

Mr. O'CONNELL said be bad got very positive in-
formation that scarcely one of the persons whose names
were attached to the petition but had been bribed.
(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) He understood that one of
the persons who signed this petition was John Legg, the
High Sheriff of the borough of Carrickfergus. He was the
principal agent in bribing at the election, and they had
made him high sheriff as a reward fur his valuable
services.—(A laugh.):
Mr. GOULBURN said it would be scarcely fair to have
the claims of these persons prejudiced by an assertion with-
out proof, because an hon. and learned member had averted
the parties whose signatures were attached to the petition
had been bribed, the house should not place implicit reli-
ance upon such statements.
Mr. HALCOMB thought that enough bad been said
on the subject, and would not, therefore, provoke further
discussion. The petition was laid on the table.
Mr. LITTLETON presented a petition from the con-
gregation of an established church in Staffordshire, praying
that the religious liberty which they had enjoyed might
be preserved, and handed down unimpaired to their pos-
terity, in the prayer of which the right hon. gentleman
cordially concurred.
Mr. LITTLETON, in answer to a question put
to him in a low tone of voice by an honourable
member whose name we could not learn, said that the
returns adverted to by the hon. member, and which had
been moved for at the end of the last session, had been
made by the principal part of the diocese of Ireland, but
they were not complete, and therefore had not been laid
before the house.

Mr. W. ROCHE understood the right hon. Secretary
for 1 refand intended to propose some alterations in the
Irish Reform Bill, when the English Reform Bill came
to be amended ; and he wished to take the opportunity of
suggesting to the right hon. secretary the absolute ne-
cessity there was for introducing a clause to ob-
viate the necessity of Roman Catholics being compelled to
take the oath of allegiance upon registering themselves as
freeholders, a thing that was not imposed upon any other
class of his Majesty's subjects, and which often afforded a
great advantage to popu'ar candidates, because many Roman
Catholics would not take the oath on such an occasion.

Mr. O'CONNELL lose to move the second reading of
the Carrickfergus Disfranchisement Bill. In doing so, he
was exceedingly glad to congratulate the house on know.
ing that those who objected to some of the details of the
bill, did not object to the principle of the measure,
and, therefore, that this reading of the bill
would not be opposed. This obviated the necessity
of his tresp losing at any length on the attention of the house.
This much he desired to say, he had not volunteered this
task, as he bad not sought for it—on the contrary, he
had desired to avoid it, but it had been forced upon him
as an imperative duty, in consequence of his having been
the chairman of a commiteee which decided that Mr. Dobbs
had been returned as the representative of Carrickfergus
by bribery and corruption. In the course of this duty he
entertained not the slightest party feeling. The bill he
brought in was simply fur disfranchising the borough
of Carrickfergus, without proposing any substitu-
tion.—(Hear.) He did not, however, think it would
be doing Ireland justice to take away one of her small
portions of representatives without substituting another
in the place cf that abolition ; and, in his opinion,
if a substitution should take place, that substitution
ought to be given to another part of the province of
Ulster. He had understood it was the intention of the
hon. member for Donegal to nominate another part of that
province to which the franchise should be given ; should
that hon. member do so, he should feel it his duty to
support such proposition. At present his bill was purely
for disfranchisement without regard to any substitution.
In stating the grounds for his motion he should be very
brief. In that election to which he had alltided,it was proved
that the practice of bribery was rooted in that borough,
and that it had been of long standing. The contest
appealed to be between two noble families, who struggled
for the supremacy, and it appeared, that whoever suc-
ceeded, did so at an enormous expense. After the
passing of the Reform Bill, there was in most places a
strong contest between reformers and conservatives,
but in Carrickfergus there was nu struggle of that kind.
In Ireland there was generally a struggle of a different
kind, namely, upon the subject of religious differences ; but
at Carrickfergus there was neither a religious nor political
distinction, for it was generally a mere question of pounds,
shillings, and pence, and whoever had the longest purse
carried the election. He took this opportunity of totally
acquitting the electors of Carrickfergus of allowing any
political or religious opinions to influence their votes.
There was one family, in order to increase their interest,
made fifty-three tenements, with three potato grounds,
worth some:3/., 41., or ibl. a year, in fact as tenants at will,
but apparently in perpetuity, although it appeared that
at the last election only seventeen of those persons voted
for the person who gave them subsistence; therefore there
must have been a very strong reason for the others
voting against the interest of the person who gave
them bread to eat.—(Hear, bear, hear.) If the prac-
tice of bribery were confined to the poorer classes,
there might possibly be some amelioration of the crime,
but it extended itself to other classes. One man, it was
proved, took the bribe, and promised to vote a certain
way ; that promise was alive until the man went to
the poll, but when he was offered the bribery oath,
be refused to take it. Those who tendered the bribes were
men of rank and fortunes, and to what a condition did
they reduce a man when they brought him to the wretched
alternative of either not taking the bribe, or of sending
his soul to everlasting perdition ? To show how far
the public mind in Carrickfergus had been contami-
nated, he would appeal to the evidence of Mr.
Brierly (or Burley), a magistrate, an active partisan,
a,tad one of the committee of a candidate, who was
eeeirained before the committee appointed by the house.
e_-(Hear.) That gentleman denied every thing, but in
the course of the investigation a letter from Mr. Brierly
was read, dated from the election committee, referring an
elector to the agent, Mr. Legg, which agent offered the
mut a bribe of 6/., and it also appeared that Mr.
Brierly accompanied the agent to the elector.—(Hear.)
He was sorry to be obliged to mention the name of an
individual who was, through the nature of hi. education,
a gentleman—he meant the Rev. Mr. Cheyne of the esta-
blished church ; but the house could estimate what was
the state of the public mind in Carrickfergus, when
that reverend gentleman held in his bands a sum of money
which he knew was to be distributed in bribery; there was
no doubt that it was for such purposes. How contami-
nated must have been the public spirit when no species
of shame was attached to such proceedings, even in the
person of a clergyman ! The words of the witness
before the Commissioners proved that the only feeling
which existed was one of regret on the p art of those who
had not the means of being corrupted, because they had
not a franchise to sell. After the tirst examination that
took place before a commission of that house, in
which he (Mr. O'Connell) was Chairman, the
corporation demanded a re examination. That was
granted to them, and what was the evidence
after all ? Why, by the report of the committee, it was
pronounced to be a case of the most just disfranchise-
iment.—(Hear.) He would trouble the house sv.Dli one
fact more. The corporation of that town actually wanted
to take the franchise into their own hands ; and he (Mr.
O'C.) would prove that the sum of 450/. was subscribed

towards disfranchising their own freemen. Mr. David
Legg, who was the acting man at that moment
in London to prevent the disfranchisement of this
borough, was the agent of the corporation upon the
occasion he alluded to. The came Mr. Legg swore that
he only bribed five persons ; but Mr. James Legg, his
brother, concurred with a Mr. Cohen in the bribery of
214 persons. That gentleman, who was so active in the
work of corruption, instead of being tarnished for so doing,
was rewarded by being appointed to the office of High
Sheriff of the county of the town of Carrickfergus.
The same gentleman would probably he mayor in some few
years hence, and on a future occasion that house would
have the pleasure of seeing the gentleman take his seat
as member for the renovated constituency of Carrickfergus.
He (Mr. O'C.) had to apologise for having troubled the
house at such length, but he considered it his duty to put
a firm hand on bribery, and seek the only remedy that
was left to purify a corrupt constituency.
Mr. EMERSON TENNANT said the: so far from op-
posing the motion of the Lon. and learned member, he
should give it his most cordial support.—(Hear.)
He was prepared to visit, to the extremity of severity
which that house was authorised to exert, every and
any individual who might be convicted of violating or
abusing his elective franchise. He was as anxious as the
hon. and learned member could be to see every individual
who had been guilty of bribery at the late Carrickfergus
election disfranchised. It was for the purpose of carrying
that into effect he was willing to vote for the second reading
of this bill. But he did not hesitate to say that he
differed altogether with the hon. and learned gentleman, as
to the extent to which he wished to carry his propositions.
He was willing to admit that bribery had been carried on
to a certain extent by one class of the electors, but it did
not therefore follow, that that bribery had extended among
them all. He was prepared to show to the house,
on the committal of this bill, that the Carrickfergus con-
stituency was a constituency unimpeachable. The hon.
member for Dover had a motion, he believe d, with regard
to that business before the house. He hoped that the
hon. meml'er would see the propriety of withdrawing that
motion, as he (Mr. Tennant) should, for one, oppose
it, and he should oppose it on the same principle as be
voted for the second reading of the bill before the house.
Mr. HALCOMB, in rising to propose an amendment,
would only say, that with regard to whit had fallen from
the hon. member who had just sat down, and who was un-
known to him, it appeared to him (Mr. H.) that hon.
member had taken an extraordinary course in declaring
what his vote should be upon a proposition, the merits of
which he at present must be perfectly unacquainted with.
ft was inconsistent with his (Mr. H.'s) notions of legisla-
tion, that any hon. member should state that he should
give his vote against a proposition to be submitted
to the house,— before he bad condescended to
attend to a single observation, or before that
hon. member had had any opportunity of addressing the
house. With regard to the amendment he Lad now the
honour to propose, he could assure the house that
he made this proposition to them after much and
anxious consideration—after full examination of the
course which had hitherto been pursued by the
home in furtherance of just objects, when they were
sought to be enforced against boroughs alleged to be in
circumstances that entitled the house to deal with their
elective franchises.—(Hear, hear.) He would be per.
fectly satisfied if the house would allow him to
state to them the great and important steps which
was taken in reference to any borough accused of m;s-
aonduut in the exercise of its elective franchise.
By pursuing such a course, the parties would have an
opportunity of defending themselves at the bar of the
house, and he thought that the honse, and not the corn
mittee, or the chairman of the committee, or the council,
should decide on the merits of the borough to be disfranchised.
Where five or six committees were sitting at the same time
upon different boroughs, one might take one view, and
another another, and the proceedings of the house would
be involved in contradiction and absurdity. Looking at
the report of the committee on that borough, it was ad-
mitted that the parties bribed were the lowest class of voter,
and if the freemen wire disfranchised, there would still
be a sufficient and respectable constituency. There were
similar cases ; for instance, that of Liverpool, where the
house was proceeding by a distinct bill, not to disfranchise
the borough but the guilty parties. It was not for him to
say which would be the proper course. He had no
right to dictate to the house, but it was imperative
upon them to consider what was the course they ought to
pursue. He thought that when parties were accused they
should form themselves into a committee of the whole
house. They should_ hear the evidence, and give the
accused parties that which by law they were entitled to, an
opportunity of answering the charges brought against them.
Ile was sure the feeling of the house was with him in
this suggestion, and it was under this feeling he proposed
as an amendment that the house should give the parties
an opportunity of being heard at the bar, before they
proceeded to disfranchise them. It would be sh .ovn
that the charges against upwards of forty of the
freemen could be satisfactorily refuted.— (Hear, hear.)
Whether that was the case or not, was it not enough
that he was addressing those who were the conservatives
of English liberty and rights—was it not far enough
for him to say, that the parties said so? Oat of re-
spect to the house, he would not think of trespassing for
a moment upon it—(Heir, hear)—unless he had well
looked into any case which he brought before it, and
was satisfied of its justice.—(Hear.) In every bo-
rough that had been disfranchised before the great
measure of reform, the reason most relied upon
was that no party should be declared guilty without being
afforded an opportunity of proving their innocence. He
called upon the House to pause before it committed itself
to a step which would inevitably involve it in a
series of judicial inquiries—it was not with re-
spect to the five or six boroughs that were now
before the house, but with the fifty or sixty which
would unquestionably be soon in the same state. They
were now proposing to do that which bad never before
been done by any House of Commons before the Reform
Bill.—(Hear, hear, hear.) How stood the case?
Why, upon the petition of two or three individuals, a com-
mittee was appointed to inquire into the general charge
of bribery; a report was made, making serious charges upon
individuals that had never been before it, nor in the nature
of things could have bee n,yet theywere to be punished without
at all being heard in their defence. He then field in his
hand a bill introduced by the noble lord the Paymaster
of the Forces which would show the opinion of govern-
ment upon a question of such a nature, and to that
opinion they were bound to defer. He was glad to see that
-noble lord in his place, as, if he acted at all consiste-
ently, he (Mr. H.) might calculate upon his vote.
The house might not have perused this bill, they might
not be aware of the intention of his Alajes,y's ministers
and the noble lord, but be would tell them.—(Hear, and
laughter.) The bill allowed parties to come to the house for
the appointment of a committee, with a view to examine
winesses, and if the parties were not satisfied with that
examination, they bad the libersy of e arcing again. The
noble lord also proposed that the power of the house should
be delegrated to three barristers, to be paid three guineas
a day.—(Hear and laughter.) He was not to he deterred
in consequence of that—(hear, hear)—from offering ob-
servations to the house which he was sure were well
worthy the attention of a deliberate assembly.—(hear,
hear, and laughter.) No cheers or laughter would
prevent him from pursuing that course which he felt
it to be his duty to adopt.—(hear, hear.) He offered
no opinion upon the bill.—(Hear, bear.) If the house
would not take his caution, he thought they would
soon become a refuge for the destitute. The hon.
member, after adverting to the parliamentary history of
the country, mentioned the opinion of the late Mr. Can-
ning who had forewarned the house not to tamper with
the electoral franchise, lest they should be urged on
by party spirit to deal unjustly with it.—(Hear, hear.)
He conclhded by moving as an amendment, " That this
house will on the 19th day of March instane, resolve
itself into a committee of the whole house, for the pur-
pose of taking into consideration the reports and evidence
select committees respecting this borough, and, i❑ the mean
time, the further proceedings upon this bill be suspended."
The SPEAKER inquired who seconded the amend-
I ?

After the lapse of a short time, an Hoe. 1111MBEIL (we
believe Sir R. Vyvyan), seconded it.
A discussion ensued between tie STEAKER and Mr.
HALCOMB, in which the right hon. gentlemen intimated
his opinion that Mr. H. was irregular, and could not
make a motion so worded.

At length the amendment was thus formed :—'`That
this house will, on the 19th of March instant, resolve it-
self into a committee of the whole house, to take into its
consideration the reports and evidence of the two select
committees respecting the burough of Cat rickfergus.
Sir JOHN BYNG congratulated the hon. member
who had just sat down on becoming the legal champion of
boroughs that had been convicted of bribery and corrup-
tion.—Hear, hear, and cries of " chair, chair."
Mr. SPEAKER was quite sure that the right
hon. gentleman did not mean to address any thing either
personal or offensive to the hon. gentleman who had just
sat down, and he would, therefore, no doubt direct his
observations to the Chair.

Sir J. BYNG hoped the bon. member would excuse
him in not following him tbrough the speech he bad

made. It was impossible for him to support the amend-
ment which had been moved, but be felt bound to give
his unqualified support to the second reading of bill,
as a case more imperiously calling for such a measure
bad never before been brought before the notice of the
house.

Mr. TODD made a few ohservations which were per-
fectly inaudible.
Sir R.. PEEL felt the beuse was now called upon to
discharge an impartial duty, and for his part he could not
satiety his mind that be ought to concur at present in the
measure now proposed. He had no interert in Carrick-
fergus more than in any ether town that might be
named which ought to induce him to opposite its
disfranchisement.—(Hear.) He looked to the measure
simply as regarded its principles; and he had to ask
those who were about to pronounce an opinion upon the
prineip!e of the measure which was to destroy for ever the
right of voters in a respectable town—destroyed in them a
most valuable right. Had they that information before
them upon which they could satisfactorily decide this
judicial question? If it were a question of private
right would the house feel itself in a situation
to pronounce its judicial opinion? Here he
felt bound to remark, that if the hon, gentleman behind
him conscientiously felt be ought to call the attention of
the house to this question, he surely ought not to be
open to the sarcasm of being denominated the chain.
pion of corruption and bribery.—(bear, hear, hear.)
He was of ;opinion that if corruption prevailed to
such an extent as to render that borough incapable
of discharging its franchise, be would consent to
sacrifice it altogether, and mbke a public example
of that borough. Certainly there were aome of
unimpeachable character, and who weve entitled the more
to praise from being contiguous with corruption ; there
were those who would suffer a private wrong, yet he (Sir
R. Peel) would overlook the injury done them, in consi•
deration of the public good. He (Sir R. Peel) wished to
ascertain in what proportion, corruption and honesty
existed.

Mr. O'CONNELL—There were 885 freemen and 105
freeholders in that constituency. Of the freemen they
w. re universally to be allowed, with few exceptions, as all
corrup'.
Mr. EMERSON TENANT said there was evidence of
240 having been bribed out of 885 ; but of the rest, with
the exception of seven, there was not a tittle of evidence
against them. Thera were 140 householders, and, with
one exception, there was no evidence of corruption against
them.
Sir R. PEEL said that statement would guide them
in the course they were bound to pursue. The
house was called npon to affirm that gross and scan-
dalous bribery prevailed at the late election for the town
and county of Carrickfergus, and that a great part of the
constituency were Influenced by bribery in giving
their votes. That gross and scandalous bribery :did
prevail, he (Sir Robert Peel) couid with a safe
conscience affirm ; but with whom did it prevail? He
thought the parties who offered the bribes, and not those
who received them, would be the just objects of any pun •
ishment, and he for one did not object to any puishment
that could be inflicted upon them. Hut the house
was called upon :to dispossess the town of
its elective franchise. He should like to see the opinion
of the committee upon the whole of the facts of the case,
the extent to which the bribery prevailed, if the evidence
appeared to warrant the conclusion that it did prevail,
and there being two classes of constituency in that town,
whether the charge of bribery applied to both
equally, or whether any one portion of that constituency
was corrupt.

Mr. O'CUNNELL made an observation by way of ex-
planation.
Sir ROBERT PEEL—The house should pause before
it proceeded to make a great public example of a whole
community. An election committee had reported that
bt ibery bad prevailed at an election for that borough, but
that the members were not implicated in the corruption.
—(Hear.) The house then appointed another committee
and, withrut meaning to cast the slightest imi-
tation upon ti at committee, he thought they
bad taken a mistaken view of their duty. They had re-
ported, that after examining the whole of the evidence,
they had come to the conclusinn that the borough should
be disfranchised.

(LEFT SPEAKING).

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Aftsci 4,

Mr. F. O'CONNOR had had a great deal of expe-
rience on the subject. The noble lord, as well as the
right hon. secretary, admitted that the change which
the hon. and learned member introduced was important,
and yet, in the bid proposed by ministers, this improvement
was not to ba found. He (Mr. F. O'C.) had witnessed
such corruption and such perjury upon trials in Ireland as
was quite horrible, and which might. by a proper
measure, be all prevented for the future. He had
been counsel on the trial of Sir George Bingham ;
h;s learned and hon. friend led on that occasion, he, am
junior (and be hoped it would be the last time he should
ever be engaged by the Crown), was watching the
jury, and the learned judge thought proper to
accuse him of abusing the discretion vested in
him as counsel for the crown, but which be
had not been doing. He and his learned colleagues, how-
ever, bad succeeded in convicting the prisoner, but who
was fined 6d., and discharged—any thing but a specimen
of pure justice.—(Hear, hear.) Irish members had been
taunted with not bringing forward practical measures,
but why was it, when such measures were proposed, that
Government opposed them ? Why did they not permit
the hon. and learned gentleman to bring forward this
effective measure ? He implored the noble lord and the
right hon. Secretary to withdraw their objections and to
allow the bill to be introduced. Provided the measure
was brought in, there would be no clause in it, if
upon consideration i► was thought would not be useful
or ought not to remain, but which might be rejected.
Mr. O'REILLY said that both the right lion, Secre-
tary fur Ireland and all right hon. Secretaries had admit-
ted, which they could not avoid, that the state of the grand
juries in Ireland was in a state calling loudly for reforma-
tion. It was unnecessary to refer to particular instances,
because numberless instances must present themselves to any
hon. member, who had taken any interest in, or acquainted
himself at all with, the affairs of Ireland. The Roman
Catholics were rich and respectable. Surely, no hon.
member would maintain that a fair proportion of them
should not be selected for the discharge of those im-
portant functions that devolved on jurors?—(Hear.)
The law in Ireland was felt by the people to be strong
enough to punish them, but too weak to protect them.
It was a matter of indifference t) that house how the law
was enforced, but to preserve peace should be one of their
first considerations; and that could not be restored or in-
sured while an unequal selection took place in the forma-
tion of juries.
Mr. O'CONNELL begged leave to withdraw his mo-
tion, but be would take an opportunity, during the session,
of bringing it before the notice of the house Again.