out any personal reference to the right hon. gentleman. The price of a writership was about 3,000l.; and could any one suppose that the gift of an office, with the disposal of a certain number of writerships was not a gift of profit? Could it be supposed that the influence in question would be exerted for any other purpose than that of strengthening the government? He hoped the House would not be satisfied with a denial that the office was a place of profit, merely because it was not attended with a direct salary. Mr. M. Fitzgerald contended, that the right hon. gentleman's appointment was an evident violation of the act of parliament. All his predecessors had vacated their seats on receiving it; and he could see no security against the object of the act being defeated, if so important an office as the one in question could be held without vacating a seat during the ses sion of parliament, on pretence that no salary was received during that period. Such a precedent might be extended to other offices, and the salaries taken whenever parliament was not sitting. But without reference to this possibility, the appointment in question was a constant source of influence. Many would be very glad to exchange the lucrative advantages of office for the enjoyment of extensive patronage. For his own part, he had no doubt he should materially increase his influence among his constituents, by distributing among them now and then a few writerships and cadetships, and he would do the right hon. gentleman the justice to believe that he would prefer the acquisition of influence to that of money. He should be sorry to accuse him of disingenuousness, when he said that no patronage was attached to his office, because it belonged, in the first instance, to another body, with whom the Board of Control maintained a civil understanding. The president of that board, he understood, had always in effect a greater portion of patronage than was annexed to any other office in the gift of the Crown. When lord Melville, a distinguished Scotchman, was at the head of the board, aspiring young Scotchmen were to be found in every corner of India. Under one of his successors, Ireland had sent forth her sons to the same quarter; and now he presumed the right hon. gentleman meant to give England her due share. At all events, he trusted VOL. IV. that the example of saving the salary would be carefully followed in future. Lord Althorp understood the act of Anne to have been passed, not so much for the purpose of depriving the Crown of any influence which it might derive from the offices which it held in its gift, as for the purpose of affording the constituents of any member who might accept office an opportunity of deciding whether they would re-elect him. Mr. T. Courtenay explained the routine of the business attached to the board to which the hon. member is secretary. There was no salary attached to the office; and as to the argument respecting patronage, he should not condescend to reply to it. There could certainly be no doubt that the patronage of the Crown created obligation; but the same argument would apply to ribbands and all other honours which emanated from the King. In short, if the argument could hold, there would be no point to which it might not be carried. Mr. Denman wished to know, if the right hon. gentleman did not receive the salary usually attached to his office, what became of it? It was rumoured, that the right hon. gentleman received no part of it himself, but reserved it for another right hon. gentleman who had lately held the office, and who was now absent from the country [Cries of "No, no"]. If that were the case, was it distributed amongst the other commissioners? Or was it saved to the public? Lord Binning would not have troubled the House on this question, had it not been for the allusion just made to his right hon. friend, the late president of the Board of Control. Where, in the name of God, had the hon. gentleman heard of this rumour? Why had he mentioned it? Was the character of public men to be thus loosely sported with? His right hon. friend would be the last man in the world to receive the emoluments of an office, the duties of which he did not perform. Mr. Denman stated, that he had made no insinuation. He had only alluded to that which was generally reported, and which had appeared in the newspapers. Mr. S. Bourne said, he could not envy the feelings of the learned gentleman who could impute to his right hon. friend, în his absence, a participation in so corrupt an arrangement. Where was his authority? Who had dared to state it? He 2 P had never, during the whole course of his political life, heard such an insinuation come from any political malignant. Mr. Denman said, he had made no insinuation against the character of the right hon. gentleman, but had put what he conceived to be a fair question. Political malignity to that right hon. gentleman's predecessor he felt none. The soreness which the two hon. members had exhibited was no very great compliment to their right hon. friend. Mr. Astell did not see any thing reprehensible in the manner in which the question had been put. He bore his testimony, as an East India director to the efficient and cordial manner in which the late president of the Board of Control had exercised the duties of his office. He had heard, with great satisfaction, that the company would be benefitted to the amount of the salary by the present appointment. Colonel Davies wished to know what was to be done with this salary. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Monday, February 12. MACHINERY-PETITION OF ROPE MAKERS.]-Sir R. Wilson rose to present a petition from the Journeyman Rope Makers of the metropolis, signed by 700 individuals. The petitioners stated the deep distress into which they were plunged in consequence of the application of machinery to certain branches of their profession. By the introduction of machinery into the trade, two-thirds of the workmen formerly employed were prevented from earning a livelihood. The machine of which they complained was called "The Devil," which, with the assistance of six or seven men, performed the same quantity of work, which previously occupied ninety-seven, The petitioners stated that the work so done, was extremely imperfect, and would of course injure the character of that manufacture in foreign countries. In conclusion, the petitioners expressed a wish to place this "devil" in more immediate connexion with the chancellor of the exchequer to whom they recommended the propriety of laying a tax on it. The question for the consideration of the House was, whether the present system of extreme taxation could be continued? whether a competition in trade and commerce could be hoped for, when the burdens of this kingdom were so great, while other countries were in a state of growing prosperity? If some efficient measures were not taken, the time must come when they would behold the greatest of all possible calamities, not only a suffering, but an idle people. Mr. Curwen observed, that on a former occasion, when a petition was presented remonstrating against the undue use of machinery, and praying for a restraint upon it, a long discussion had taken place, in the course of which, it appeared to be the unanimous opinion of all the most intelligent members of the House, that the discouragement of machinery would be highly injurious to the country; an opinion in which he believed the petitioners themselves afterwards concurred. Ordered to lie on the table. PETITIONS RELATIVE TO THE QUEEN.] Mr. Serjeant Onslow rose to present a petition from the inhabitants of Guilford, setting forth the deep alarm they felt at what they conceived to be a great infraction of the law of the land, namely, the erasure of the Queen's name from the Liturgy, which they viewed as likely to lead to other infractions. They called on the House, therefore, to interpose; and also, to take into consideration, the present distressed state of the country, and the necessity of effecting a reform of parliament. The striking of the Queen's name from the Liturgy was one of the most important circumstances that had occurred for years. After hearing all the arguments that had been adduced respecting it, he felt more and more confirmed in the opinion that it was an illegal act. Much reliance had been placed on the case of the queen of George 1st, but that case was not at all in point, as there had been a dissolution of the marriage in the Consistorial court. At that time also, there were two very strong factions in the country, one in favour of the house of Hanover, the other in favour of the house of Stuart, aud history plainly showed how powerful the influence of the latter was. In such a state of things, care was of course taken, not to do any act that seemed likely to increase that influence. Besides, the wife of George 1st, never was recognised as possessing any of the rights of the queen of 1 to reduce the interest of the debt, was a distinct proposition, in which he utterly disclaimed all participation or partnership. Without, of course, meaning to impute to the hon. member any intention of an unjust nature, he must say, that he thought the proposition to reduce the interests of the national debt highly dishonourable, and subversive of all those principles by which a great nation ought to be guided in the maintenance of its public faith. Great Britain, while her present majesty was admitted to be Queen consort, and was so spoken of. Now, if her right to have her name inserted in the Liturgy was denied, what was there to prevent the abstraction of her other rights? He called the attention of the House to the Act of Uniformity, as being decisive on the subject. What did that act say? It provided "that in all those prayers, litanies, and collects, which do in any way relate to the king, queen, or royal progeny, the names be altered, and changed from time to time, and fitted to the present occasion, according to the direction of lawful authority." On these grounds he conceived the omission to be illegal. With respect to parliamentary reform, he thought that a wholesome reform was necessary. Mr. Butterworth presented a petition from Dover, praying that her majesty's name might be restored to the Liturgy, that a reform of parliament might be effected, and that the House would turn its attention to the business of the country. He begged leave to correct a gross misrepresentation of a few words which he had used in that House a short time since. An hon. member for Yorkshire had stated, on the night to which he alluded, that many individuals had been actuated by party views in supporting the motion of a noble lord. On that occasion, he (Mr. B.) felt himself called on to state his motive for giving the vote he had done on the noble lord's motion; but, in doing so, he did not say one word respecting the restoration of her majesty's name to the Liturgy, although he had been represented as giving a very strong opinion on that subject. Mr. Littleton, as the hon. member had entered into some explanation of his own opinions, in consequence of a misapprehension which existed with respect to them, hoped he might also be permitted to explain a very general misrepresentation as to what had fallen from him on the night on which the petition from Birmingham was presented. What he had suggested on that occasion was, whether it might not be possible, with reference to the relief of the agriculturists and the poor manufacturer, to substitute for some of the existing taxes a tax on land and on the holders of the national debt, which should have the shape of a modified property tax? The proposition of the hon. member for Cumberland, Mr. Curwen said, that what he had stated on the occasion alluded to, resolved itself into two points. He had stated, that he conceived funded property to be equally liable, in reason, law, and principle, as any other species of property, to be applied to the exigencies of the state. He knew of no distinction of property that should exempt that of the fundholder; and if that House had thought proper to call on him to support the expenses of war, he did not think it was at all unfair to call on him to contribute towards the expenses of peace. The Bank Restriction act had raised the value of funded property, and depressed that of land at least 25 per cent. An hon. member had, some tiine since, observed, that the land ought not to be let at such high rents. If the hon. member had examined the subject, he would have found that the rents had been very much lowered. He thought it was nothing more than just that the funded proprietor should fare as other bodies did, and that they should share in that depreciation which every other species of property had suffered. Sir C. Burrell said, he would be one of the last men in the world to propose any thing that might appear to be a breach of the public credit. At the same time, he thought a remedy might be devised for the existing evil without any such breach. An intelligent individual had suggested to him that a considerable sum might be raised by imposing a tax, perhaps to the value of a shilling per cent, on the transfer of stock. It would assist in discouraging speculation, would afford some relief from the pressure of existing taxation, and would do no injury to public credit. Mr. Grenfell did hope his hon. friend, the member for Cumberland, had risen to explain some misapprehension of his meaning on a former night. To reduce the interest of the national debt would be a direct breach of public faith. For that Grampound ought to be disfranchishimself, he had never despaired of the ed. That point being conceded, was the national resources. He believed that the House to overlook all the great unreprecountry was in possession of resources, sented bodies of the country who were which, if properly managed, would carry most in need of that which this transfer us through all our difficulties. The would confer, and fix upon a part comgreatest evil that could befal the state, paratively of less importance in the nawould be, to violate its faith to the publictional scale? He was decidedly of opinion creditor. There were two courses, how-that Leeds was the more proper place ever, which he considered it indispensable to fix upon. As to the general question to pursue; the one was to restore public tranquillity; and he knew of no mode of doing that, but by the reinsertion of her majesty's name in the Liturgy: the other, to resort to every description of rigid retrenchment. Ordered to lie on the table. of parliamentary reform, he should reserve himself until a future opportunity; but he could not avoid stating, that the necessity which existed for promoting some reform became every day more apparent; and he trusted that, so far as this bill was involved in the principle of the general question, the House would see the necessity of adopting it as a safe, salutary, and practical measure. GRAMPOUND DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.] Lord John Russell, in rising to move the order of the day for the House Mr. Grenfell said, he was anxious to resolving itself into a committee upon this state that he concurred in all the opinious bill, said, he had little more to do than which had been expressed respecting this to repeat the sentiments he had expressed bill by his noble friend, and he was the when this question was last under the more anxious not to give a silent vote, consideration of the House. Upon the because he had on all previous occasions necessity of passing this bill of disfran- resisted all general, undefined, and, as chisement in the particular case of Gram- they appeared to him, visionary plans of pound, he thought there could be no what were called parliamentary reform. doubt-The only question, then, for con- The reason he approved of the present sideration was, to what place the transfer bill was, that it applied a proper punishof the elective franchise should be made. ment to an acknowledged abuse. Any For his part, he gave a decided preference plan of safe and practical reform, directto Leeds; he thought the elective fran-ed as this measure had been, and limited chise could not be better disposed of than to a proper object, should at all times by transferring it to a large town of that have his hearty concurrence. description. By that means the House Mr. Martin, of Galway, objected alwould at once punish the corruption together to the principle of this bill, and which prevailed at Grampound, and let declared his determination to resist it in into the representation of the country a every stage. It set out with reciting large class of respectable householders what was an untruth, namely, the prewho were at present without the enjoy-valence of bribery and corruption at the ment of the elective franchise. It was a fact which, on such an occasion as this, required great attention, that out of twelve of the largest towns in England, five were totally without representation in that House. The county of York contained, he believed, 6,000 square miles, and one million of inhabitants, and was represented by only 30 members, while the county of Cornwall, which was in every respect inferior, had 44 members in that House. With respect to a proposition already talked of, to move an instruction to the committee that the transfer of the elective franchise from Grampound should be to the hundreds of Pyder and Powder, that proposition he should oppose altogether. It was agreed last general election for Grampound. Now it was known that the two or three last elections which had intervened since, the acts of bribery were committed, were conducted in an unexceptionable man, ner. Whatever, therefore, might have been the former transgressions of any of the electors of Grampound, they had been since amply redeemed by their subsequent conduct. He was hostile to every species of reform, in the manner in which, it was called for by certain persons. In the particular instance of Grampound, before they tried this summary punishment, they should apply the remedy provided by the existing law, and administer the bribery oath. He could not consent to a disfranchisement for ever of the des cendants of the present voters, merely effect would be injurious to the mixed because some of the latter had, at a for- monarchical form of the British govern iner period, misconducted themselves, ment. The latter would be unable to reAs well might they take away the char- sist the inveterate pressure of the forter of the bank of England, or of the mer. The disfranchisement of GramEast India company, as deprive Gram- pound was a distinct question-it was a pound of its right. necessary measure, and an act of political justice. Mr, Serjeant Onslow contended, that the improvement in the purity of elec- Sir. J. Newport thought it singular tion, as evinced in the two late elec- that the hon. member who spoke last tions for Grampound, was to be attri- should not hesitate to pronounce for a buted to the fact of this bill having been disfranchisement which went at once to hanging over the heads of the electors. blot out two members from the represenThe bribery of Grampound was so noto-tation, and should hesitate to admit a rious, that he would, without hesitation, principle comparatively of minor impor cousent to the disfranchisement of that tance, namely, the settlement of the borough, He approved of transfering mode in which their places should be supthe right of voting to Leeds, in preference to the adjoining hundreds of Pyder and Powder, which were already fully repre sented. Mr. Wilson approved of the bill, because it went to remedy a practical evil. As to the comparison between Grampound and the Bank of England, he contended, that if a blot appeared on the charter of the Bank, it should not be held sacred, after the powers intrusted to it had been abused. He thought the only way in which parliamentary reform could safely take place was, that wherever an evil was proved to exist, a suitable remedy should be applied, plied. All arrangements upon that point he thought would come better in the committee than in the present stage of the bill. With reference to what had fallen from the hon. member for Galway, it was of course quite consistent in him, who resisted in limine every approach to parliamentary reform, to oppose this bill in every stage. But he thought his remedy of the bribery oath very extraor dinary; for, if acted upon, it could only have the effect of adding perjury to the other crimes of the electors. If the House refused to adopt this bill, he thought they would inflict a greater injury upon their own character, in the eyes of the people, than could be effected by any other means. Mr. Lockhart contended, that it had been proved that the king's writ for the return of members for the borough of Mr. Beaumont said, that he was not Grampound had been regularly con- sanguine enough to expect this bill would strued into a writ of venditioni exponas. satisfy the advocates of reform in geneHe did not object to the disfranchisement ral; but as he thought it would do a of that borough, but he did not wish great deal of good, he should give it his that the important principle of extending support. He differed in one respect the elective franchise to the payers of scot from the general advocates of parliamenaud lot should be mixed up with the pre-tary reform, for he thought that publie sent bill. He was not prepared to say to opinion had a greater influence upon what place the transfer should be made. their deliberations than was by many asOf the particular hundreds he knew no-cribed to it. Instead of Leeds, he should thing, and therefore could not tell whe- be for extending the right of voting to ther by making the transfer to them, he the West Riding of Yorkshire. should be virtually handing it over to the influence of a peer, or of a few individuals; so that, instead of effecting a reform, he might be perpetuating an abuse. He felt that the representation of this country stood upon too narrow a basis to shield the people, or support the just rights and dignity of the Crown; and he should support any plan which had a tendency to give greater effect to individual property. If the principle of scot and lot were extended, he thought the Mr. Davies Gilbert said, that upon the general question of parliamentary reform he had so often declared his sentiments, that it was unnecessary for him now to repeat them. Suffice it to say, that he entirely concurred upon that question in the sentiments of the right hon. member for Liverpool (Mr. Canning), whose ab sence he forcibly lamented, and who had soably and unanswerably reviewed the subject of Reform in his eloquent speech to his constituents. The practice of the represen |