noble Lord concluded by moving, "that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the state of agriculture, and of the persons employed in it."

Motion agreed to, and Committee appointed.

Lord Althorp moved the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the state of the Trade, Manufactures, and Shipping of the United Kingdom.

Mr. George F. Young said, that the laws relating to the shipping of the country were of such a nature, as to prevent the interests of ships from being mixed up with either the manufactures or the commerce of the country. Although he admitted that the commerce and the shipping of the country were in some degree connected, yet still there were points in which they differed most materially. He could assure the noble Lord that the proposed inquiry, as far as it related to the shipping of the country, would be perfectly unsatisfactory to those connected with that branch of industry.

Lord Althorp said, that, if the business were not fairly conducted in the Committee, it would be then well to have a separate one for the shipping interest alone; but he thought the inquiry would be properly conducted.

Motion agreed to, and Committee appointed.

HOUSE OF LORDS,

Monday, May 6, 1833.

MINUTES.] Petitions presented. By the Earls of LONSDALE, HARROWBY, and RODEN, by the Bishop of GLOUCESTER,

and by Lord BEXLEY, from several Places,-for a Better Observance of the Sabbath.-By the Dukes of WELLINGTON, RICHMOND, and NORFOLK, by the Marquess of SLIGO, by the Earls of RODEN, ROSEBERY, and CARLISLE, by Lord SUFFIELD, and by the Bishop of LONDON, from a great many Places,-against Slavery.-By the Duke of WELLINGTON, from Bath, for a further Inquiry into

the State of the Slaves.-By the Bishops of GLOU

CESTER and LONDON, by the Earl of RADNOR, and by Lord WHARNCLIFFE, from Gloucester, Shepperton,

Tonbridge, and Yeole, for a Revision and Amendment of the Sale of Beer Act.-By the Bishops of CHICHESTER,

and LONDON, and by the Duke of SOMERSET, from several

Places,-against a Clause in the Local Jurisdiction Bill.

By the Duke of GORDON, from Forque and its Vicinity,

for an Inquiry into the Agricultural Distress, and for Relief. By the Earl of HARROWBY, from the Coach Proprietors, on the Lines of Road between London, Worcester, Hereford, and Gloucester, against granting Acts for the making of Rail-roads.-By the Earl of ROSEBERY, from Dumfries, against the Exclusive Rights and

Privileges enjoyed at present by the Royal Burghs in

Scotland. By the Bishop of GLOUCESTER, from the Clergy of the Diocese of Gloucester, and from the

Deanery of Stow; and by the Earl of RODEN, from three Places in Ireland,—against the proposed Measure of

Church Reform for Ireland.-By the Earl of RODEN,

from Kilkenny, for an Alteration in the present System of

Church Patronage in Scotland; and from Limerick, to give Poor Laws to Ireland.-By the Duke of HAMILTON, from the Political Union of Glasgow, for the Extension of Trial by Jury to the Inferior Courts in Scotland.

WIMBLEDON RECTORY.] Lord Lyndhurst presented a Petition from the inhabitants of Wimbledon, complaining that the Tithes of their parish belonged to the Dean and Chapter of Worcester; that the Curacy, which was a very old one, was worth only 401. a-year; and that it had never been increased, though the tithes. had gone on increasing till they were of a very considerable amount. The petitioners also stated that the Dean and Chapter had suffered the Rectory House to go to ruin, and the Curate was obliged to hire lodg ings at a considerable expense. The noble Lord said, he had no knowledge of these circumstances himself, but the petition was signed by some very respectable men, and, therefore, he thought it his duty to present it.

The Bishop of Rochester was not aware that the noble and learned Lord meant to present the petition to-day, or he would have come fully prepared to state the particulars of the case. However, what he knew on the subject would, he hoped, satisfy their Lordships, that the Dean and Chapter were not to blame in this matter. The fact was, they did not get a farthing of the tithes in question. They were, it was true, the property of the Chapter, but they had been let to a noble Lord, a Member of that House (Earl Spencer) and his family for upwards of a 100 years. All that the Dean and Chapter got was a quit rent of 401. a-year. At the same

time it was not correct to say, that there was one curate with 401. a-vear; there were two curates, and each had 401. ayear. He had been a member of the Chapter of Worcester for five years and had never received one farthing from the tithes of Wimbledon; whatever money was received was expended on the repairs of the Cathedral. The property was let on a lease of lives, and till the lives fell in, the Dean and Chapter could make no alteration.

Petition laid on the Table.

POOR LAWS (IRELAND).] The Duke of Sussex presented a Petition from the Freemen and Electors of the City of London, praying for some legislative provision for the poor of Ireland. It was signed by the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and ten citizens,

according to an old custom of the City of London, and he mentioned this to show that there was no irregularity in the Petition. Had he received this petition a few days before, he should have felt himself called upon to enter at some length into this important subject, but the Motion which had lately been made in another place, and the Commission of Inquiry which was to be issued made him think that it would be very unadvisable then to raise any discussion on the question. In many points he agreed with the petitioners-on some he had doubts; but on the importance of the subject, as it concerned the tranquillity and best interests of both countries, he had none. It was chiefly in the interest of Ireland that the improvement was demanded, but also in the interest of England, and he certainly was convinced that what benefitted one part of the empire must be advantageous to the other part. He would not say any more than to move that the petition be read at length.

Petition read accordingly. His Royal Highness moved that it be laid on the Table.

The Duke of Hamilton thought some measure was necessary, and if it was required for England, it was required tenfold for Scotland. Scotland had borne long and patiently the burthen of supporting a numerous body of the Irish poor, and it was high time that something should be done. He believed that in the county of Lanark alone there were 40,000 destitute Irish; and he believed, to make out the whole number which were in Scotland, he might add another cipher. He did not wish to wound the feelings of any Irish nobleman, but he must say, the Irish who emigrated, were the most destitute, the most degraded set of people he had ever beheld. The influx of so many Irish into Scotland, lowered wages, and augmented all the burthens on the land. Let it not be supposed that there was no Poor rate in Scotland. In the West of Scotland they had Poor-rates, and Poor-rates that were felt to be burthensome. Besides the Irish who came over to Scotland only to beg, there came many who had been commercially employed, and many of them had to be supported.

The Earl of Wicklow had not intended to trouble the House with any observations, if the noble Duke had not set him the example. He was, however, not very sorry VOL. XVII. {Series Third

that the subject should have been started, for as the operations of Commissioners were generally rather tardy, it was not very likely that the Commission mentioned by the illustrious Duke would bring forward any facts or lay any information before the House in time for the House to act upon this Session; and it was, therefore, as well that this important subject should be touched upon now. It was a question which had begun to excite a very great sensation, amounting almost to clamour among the people, for whose information the periodical Press was continually trumping up lamentable accounts of the state of Ireland, of nightly and daily outrages. This state of things in a country so intimately connected with this, governed by almost the same laws, and partly inhabited by descendants from Englishmen, naturally excited very great surprise in the minds of the people in general, and they were, therefore, ready to believe any account that might be given them in explanation, and therefore, accepted as such the assertions, that all these calamities were caused by the absence of Poor-rates in that country. There seemed to be a very great complaint of the influx of the Irish poor into this country; but they never heard any of these complaints in harvest time, when the English farmers derived much benefit from the service and labour of the Irish emigrant. However, great and manifold as were the evils of the system of Poor-laws in this country, yet, if it could be shown that the introduction of this system, bad and vicious as it was, into Ireland, would bring the Irish labourer into a similar condition with the English labourer, he would decidedly support it, but he was perfectly convinced that it would have a directly contrary effect. The evils which would result from it it was impossible to foresee. If the petitioners wished to do good to Ireland, who so capable of doing it as themselves, possessing, as the various companies of the City of London did, enormous property in the north of Ireland?

The Earl of Haddington fully concurred in what had fallen from the noble Duke. He was well acquainted with the west of Scotland, and he knew that all the populous and great towns, there complained precisely in the terms made use of by the noble Duke. There was no complaint made against the Irish labourers-it was against the paupers who came over and 2 I

were wholly dependant upon the Scotch and English for their support.

Lord Ellenborough said, the Irish who came over to Scotland, although they might lower the price of labour, contributed by their labour, to the wealth of the country. They were as fully entitled to relief as any Scotchman born.

The Duke of Hamilton did not complain of the Irish poor who visited Scotland to assist in getting in the harvest, or for the purpose of giving their labour otherwise; what he complained of was, that numbers of the poorer classes were sent over from Ireland, their passage paid, and rewards received by them from a Committee to induce them to emigrate to Scotland. Such persons brought their wives, or those whom they called their wives, along with them, and whilst the men worked, the women begged, and finally the men went away, leaving the women and an increased population behind them.

Petition laid on the Table.

HOUSE OF COMMONS,

Monday, May 6, 1833.

MINUTES.] Papers ordered. On the Motion of Mr. DUNLOP, an Account of the Number of Gallons of Wine on which Duty has been paid for Home Consumption in the United Kingdom, in the year ending January 5th, 1833. -On the Motion of Lord SANDON, an Account of the Number of Pilots, and of the total Amount of Pilotage received by them for the Port of Liverpool, in the three years preceding the year 1796, and the same for the three years succeeding that year: the same for the years 1821, 1822, and 1823, before the general introduction of Steam Vessels, and the same for the years 1830, 1831, and 1832. Bills. Read a third time:-Tile Duties; Personal Estates; Cotton Duties.

Petitions presented. By Mr. FAITHFULL, from the Scotch Metropolitan Union, for Abrogating the Edinburgh Annuity Tax.-By Mr. A. PELHAM, from Lindsay, Lincoln, against any Alteration in the Corn Laws. -By Mr. M. A. TAYLOR, from Sible Hedingham, for a Repeal of the Assessed Taxes.-By General SHARPE, from Dumfries, for Removing the Restrictions upon the Jurisdiction of the Sheriffs of Counties (Scotland).-By Mr. PEASE, from Lisburn, for further Mitigation of the Criminal Law.-By Lord G. LENNOX, Sir EARDLEY WILMOT, and Messrs. W. DUNCOMBE, METHUEN, R. SHAWE, NICHOLL, and TALBOT, from several Places,-for the Repeal or Alteration of the Sale of Beer Act.-By Mr. DILLWYNN, from Glamorganshire; and by Sir RoWLAND HILL, and Lord HENNIKER, from the County of Salop, and from Hoxne,-for a Repeal of the Malt Tax.-By Mr. HALL, Mr. PINNEY, and Mr. PRASE, from Lyme Regis, St. Ives, and Ripon,-for the WOOD, from the City of London, for giving Poor Laws to Ireland; and by Mr. PEASE, from Mountmelic, to the same effect.—By General SHARPE, from Kirkmahoo; and

Correction of Corporation Abuses.-By Mr. Alderman

by Mr. R. STEWART, from Haddington,-for an Alteration in the present System of Church Patronage in Scotland. By Mr. PEASE, from Darlington, for Lessening the Duty

on Marine Insurances.-By Mr. Alderman WOOD, from

the Company of Vintners, against the Justices of the Peace Bill; and from the Salesmen and Venders in

Covent Garden Market, for Repealing the Restrictions imposed on Coffee-house Keepers.-By Mr. YELVERTON, Lord EASTNOR, Colonel MABERLEY, and Mr. GEORGE VERNON, from several Places,-for a Repeal of the House and Window Tax.-By Sir H. VERNEY, from Jedburgh and Borrowstourness, for a Repeal of the Duty on Stamped Receipts.-By Mr. Cutlar FERGUSSON, from the Procurators before the Sheriffs Court of Fife, for giving Jurisdiction to the Sheriffs for Counties for the Administration of Bankrupt Law.-By Mr. R. SHAWE, from Halesworth, for Amending the Law of Debtor and Creditor, and from the Fishermen of Lowestoft, against Legislative Enactments, for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.-By Colonel CONOLLY, and Lord LOWTHER, from three Places, against Church Temporalities (Ireland) Bill.-By Lord SANDON, from Liverpool, for giving Poor Laws to Ireland.-By Lord G. BENTINCE, and Mr. Alderman WOOD, from three Places, for Relief to the Dissenters in respect to Marriages, Burials, and Registration.-By Dr. NICHOLLS, and Mr. C. R. M. TALBOT, from Bridgend, Neath, and Glamorganshire, -against Removing the Glamorgan Assizes.-By Lord SANDON, from Liverpool, for Removing the Civil Disabilities of the Jews; and from the Proprietors of the Theatre Royal Liverpool, in favour of the Dramatic Performances Bill.-By Colonel CoNOLLY, and Mr. FITIGERALD, from Donegal and Dundalk, for an Alteration of the Grand Jury Laws.-By Mr. FITZGERALD, from Wexford, for Substituting Solemn Affirmations in lieu of Oaths. By Colonel CONOLLY, from the Officers of the Gaol of Lifford, for Enabling Grand Juries to grant Superannuations to Prison Officers in Ireland.-By Mr. DawSON, Lord GEORGB LENNOX, Sir EARDLEY WILMOT, Mr. ANDERSON PELHAM, Mr. FORT, Colonel TORRENS, Mr. Alderman Woop, Mr, BINGHAM BARING, Mr. YEL VERTON, Mr. PEASE, Mr. FAITHFULL, Sir A. AGNEW, Mr. W. DUNCOMBE, Mr. FoWELL BUXTON, Mr. LESTHE, Mr. METHUEN, Lord WATERPARK, Mr. R. SHAWB, Mr. KING, Mr. CHILDERS, Mr. BETHEL, Mr. HALL, Sir R. HILL, Sir R. SIMEON, Colonel FREDERICK HOWARD, Mr. SHEPPARD, Mr. W. A. WILLIAMS, Mr. FORESTER, Lord GEORGE BENTINCK, Mr. FENTON, Sir GEORGE GREY, Mr. LISTER, Mr. S. TRELAWNEY, Mr. E. J. STANLEY, Mr. CHAPMAN, Mr. Tooks, Mr. BROCKLEHURST, Mr. C. TALBOT, Sir H. WILLOUGHBY, Mr. THROCKMORTON, Mr. VERNON SMITH, Mr. VERNON, Sir T. B. LENNARD, Colonel CONOLLY, Lord Viscount LOWTHER, Mr. MADOCKS, and Mr. J. MARTIN, from a very great Number of Places,-against Slavery.-By Mr. DAWSON, Sir EARDLEY WILMOT, Mr. ANDERSON PELHAM, Colonel TORRENS, Mr. BINGHAM BARING, Lord Viscount MOLYNEUX, Mr. ANTHONY LEFROY, Mr. PHASH, Sir A. AGNEW, Mr. W. DUNCOMBE, Sir H. VERNEY, Mr. R. SHAWE, Sir R. SIMEON, Mr. ADDAMS WILLIAMS, Mr. FENTON, Captain JONES, Lord Viscount EASTNOR, Mr. PHILIP HOWARD, Lord Viscount SANDON, Lord Viscount CLIVE, Mr. VERNON, Colonel CONOLLY, and Mr. MADDOCKS, from a great Number of Places,-for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.-By Mr. O'CONNELL, from Horley, for the Repeal of the Duty on Malt and Hops.By Mr. HODGES, from Rolvenden, for Relief to the Agricultural Distress; and by Sir F. VINCENT, from two Parishes in St. Alban's, for Adopting such parts of the Lord's Day Observance Bill as may be deemed fit by the House.

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.] Mr. Faithfull presented a Petition from the electors and other inhabitants of Chichester, signed by between 3,000 and 4,000 individuals, complaining that the Reform Act contained no efficient clause for the prevention of bribery and undue influence at elections of Members to serve in Parliament. petitioners complained in particular of the system of bribery and treating at the last election, and that one of the candidates

The

Lord Althorp regretted, that this objection had not been raised at the time the former objection was raised to the mode of proceeding. He thought, however, that the passage in the Speech from the Throne at the commencement of the pressent Session, in which his Majesty observed, "your attention will also be directed to the state of the Church, more particularly as regards the temporalities and the maintenance of the clergy," was quite sufficient. His Majesty, in that passage, called upon the House to enter into the consideration of the subject.

Mr. Wynn said, that the Bill was printed on Tuesday morning, and proposed to be read a second time on Thursday, and in the cursory glance which he gave to it under those circumstances, it could not be expected that he could discover all the blunders in it. He discovered one error which was fatal. The error now brought to light certainly had not struck him, but it was not the less important.

Mr. Goulburn remarked, that this was no trifling question. It was, whether that House should enter into the consideration of the disposal of the hereditary revenues of the Crown without a previous message from the King, intimating that he placed those revenues at their disposal. The revenue derived in the case in question, was as much the hereditary revenue of the Crown as the revenue from the woods and forests. That the noble Lord was aware, that the House would not presume to interfere with the latter unless upon an express message, was evident from the fact that the noble Lord had himself, that very evening, delivered a message upon the subject. And be it recollected, that the message which the noble Lord had brought down respecting the woods and forests went only to inquire into their state and condition; how much more necessary was a message when the proposition was to destroy a part of the hereditary revenue of the Crown for ever? What part of the revenue of the Crown would be safe if such a course were permitted? Why should not any of the hon. Gentlemen behind him get up and propose a measure to dispose of some other part of the revenue of the Crown? The noble Lord, as ChanHor of the Exchequer, and as sworn to

Sir Robert Inglis expressed his concurrence in the sentiments of his right hon. friend. It was distinctly stated in the Bill, that his Majesty had placed the revenues in question at the disposal of the House; and how could they proceed to read the Bill a second time, and sanction that assertion, unless they had that assent formally signified?

Mr. Hume suggested, that some plan should be adopted of embodying the Rules and Orders of the House in a distinct and intelligible shape, so that every Member might be able, without difficulty, to make himself acquainted with them, instead of trusting to the research and experience of one or two particular Members. Certainly the rules of that House were not mere matters of form, and, by not following them, public business was continually delayed or risk was run of delaying it. Such a digest as he proposed had been made of the rules and orders of the Congress of the United States; and he must repeat, that it would be very convenient to have such a digest of the rules of that House.

Mr. Matthias Attwood said, that the Bill was based upon an assertion which was toally unfounded. The 32nd clause of the Bill stated, that his Majesty had been pleased to signify his intention to place at the disposal of Parliament his interest in the temporalities and custody of certain Archbishoprics and Bishoprics, whereas his Majesty had been graciously pleased to do no such thing. They ought not to proceed on an allegation void of truth.

Mr. Secretary Stanley said, it was true that there had been no specific message from his Majesty on this particular provision of the Bill which was now referred to; but it was equally manifest that in the Speech from the Throne, and in the subsequent recommendation to that House, a general sanction was given by his Majesty to the principle of the Bill. In the Speech from the Throne the attention of the House was called to the state of the Church, more particularly as regarded its temporalities and the maintenance of the clergy, and to the question whether the revenues of the