Commons Sitting of 3 July 1832

MINUTES.
Paper ordered. On the Motion of Mr. SPRING RICK, a Copy of Dr. Bowring's Report on the Military Expenditure of France.
Bills. Read a second time:—Tithe Prescription.—Read a third time:—Additional Churches.
Petitions presented. By Mr. SHAW, from the Orange Lodge, 1,690,—against the Party Processions Bill; and against the Ministerial Plan of Education (Ireland)—By Lord ROBERT GROSVENOR, from Chester;—by Lord MORPETH, from Halifax; and by Mr. CHARLES CALVERT, from the Parish of St. Clave, Southwark,—against the Vagrant (Scotland and Ireland) Removal Bill.—By Sir ANDREW AGNEW, from Watford, and two other Places; and by Mr. DUDLEY RYDER, from Hemel Hempstead, Walton, and Stapleford,—for the better Observance of the Sabbath. By Mr. WESTENRA, from Monaghan, for a more efficient Reform for Ireland; and against the Ministerial Plan of Education (Ireland)—By Mr. JAMES E. GORDON, from Falkirk, and two other Places, against the Grant to Maynooth College; from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, for the Abolition of Slavery; and from Irvine and Achonry, against the New Plan of Education (Ireland).—By Mr. CHARLES CALVERT, from the Parish of St. Olave, Southwark, forgiving Poor Laws to Ireland.—By Mr. LEFROV, from the Protestant Conservative Society (Ireland), and from Ardbraccan, against the Reforrn of Parliament (Ierland) Bill.

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS.
Mr. Alderman Waithmanrose for the purpose of submitting to the House certain Resolutions connected with the trade and commerce of the country, and founded on parliamentary documents, which he conceived to be of the highest importance. On a former occasion, when
2
he introduced this subject to the notice of the House, his arguments were met by a preposterous statement of Mr. Huskisson, about the increase of our exports, to the amount of several millions per annum; but, happening to know that a great depreciation in the real value had taken place, he felt it his duty to contradict that statement. Unfortunately, Mr. Huskisson's authority in the House was so great, that his assertion passed current with it, and no attention was paid to the contradiction. The House was aware that he had, for several years, moved for returns connected with this subject; and he had endeavoured so to simplify those returns, that any one who would take the trouble might comprehend them. According to his view, the state of England was never so bad as it was at present. He had heard it said, that there was now less poverty among the working-classes than some years back; but he had not been able to make that discovery; and, if he had, there would be no reason for not submitting his Resolutions to the House. They were drawn up by him for the purpose of exposing at one view those general results which were connected with this subject. He had not pretended to give any opinions of his own in addition to the data which he had drawn from parliamentary documents.

3
He had confined himself entirely to incontrovertible facts, in order that the House might have no hesitation in giving its sanction to his propositions. He knew that the House objected to the reading of long documents; but he, nevertheless, trusted that it would indulge him while he brought before it the contents of the Resolutions to which he had already referred. His Resolutions, then, were these:—
1. That the trade, manufactures, and commerce of the country are so essentially connected with the interests and prosperity of the British empire, that a retrospect of their state, progress, and fluctuation is at all times highly important, but more particularly at the present moment, when various classes of the community are suffering embarrassment, distress, and privation.
2. That it appears by a return made to this House on the 5th of April, 1830, that since the year 1798, the time when the declaration of the real value of goods exported was first required, great changes and fluctuations have taken place in the amount of Exports, and in the relative value of our produce and manufactures, as compared with the official value denoted by rates established at the Custom-house.
3. That it should be borne in mind, that the official valuation is an estimate founded upon a rate of prices in the Custom-house books, formed at a remote period, and which, although corresponding with the actual value at the time they were formed, afford no criterion whatever of present value; but they are nevertheless highly useful, inasmuch as they serve to show the increase or decrease, as the same may he, in the quantity of goods exported, and the appreciation or depreciation in price, as compared with the real value.
4. That it is material to observe, that not only do these official rates distinctly mark out the alteration and fluctuation in the value of goods exported, but they are of still higher importance, as they equally exhibit the alteration and fluctuation in price, and the appreciation and depreciation in the value of our produce and manufactures for home consumption, and afford means of accounting for national prosperity or depression, and the increase or decrease of the revenue.
5. That it appears by the said Parliamentary Return, that in the year ending the 5th January, 1799, the amount of our Exports in real value, exceeded the official value by more than 12,500,000 l. per annum; and in the year ending 5th January, 1803, the excess had increased to nearly 20,000,000 l. in that one year, being as follows:—

Year, Ending.

Official Value.

Real Values;

Excess of Real over Official.

£.

£.

£.

5th Jan. 1799

18,556,891

31,252,836

12,695,945

— 1803

25,195,893

45,102,330

19,906,437

6. That from the above period a rapid depreciation in the real compared with the official value of our manufactures took place, as will be seen by the yearly average amount of the following averages of five years:—
4

Average of Five Years from

Yearly Average Official Value.

Yearly Average Real Value.

Yearly Excess of Real.

Yearly Excess of Official.

£.

£.

£.

£.

Jan. 5,

1799

22,674,252

37,193,736

15,019,482

—

—

1803

—

1808

22,662,530

37,327,790

14,665,260

—

—

1813

28,113,513

39,908,466

11,794,933

—

—

1819

38,176,325

43,971,788

5,615,563

—

—

1824

39,554,638

35,282,152

—

4,262,486

—

1830

48,929,230

35,713,824

—

13,215,406

7. Whereby it appears, that up to the year 1819, comprising a space of twenty years, during which time most of our inventions and improvements in machinery were in full operation, and had had, as well as the revulsion from war to peace, their full effect upon prices, the real, as compared with the official value, had depreciated, upon the average of the five latter years, to the amount of 9,403,919 l. per annum; but it should be remarked, that notwithstanding such depreciation, the amount in real value, as compared with the real value of the Exports of the preceding years, had increased 6,778,052 l. per annum on the same average.
8. That from the 5th of January, 1819, to the 5th of January, 1830, the real value as compared with the official had depreciated, upon the average of the five latter years, to the further enormous amount of 18,830,968 l. per annum, while the Exports in real value, compared with the real value up to 1819 had, as will subsequently appear, decreased several millions per annum.

£.

£.

1803.—Exports in real value

45,105,330

—official value.

25,195,893

19,906,437

1830.—Exports in official value

55,465,723

—real value.

35,212,873

20,252,850

Being a depreciation per annum of

40,159,287

9. That it appears by a subsequent return, that the Exports for the two last years were—

Year Ending.

Official Value.

Real Value.

Excess of Official over Real Value.

£.

£.

£.

5th Jan. 1831

60,492,637

37,691,302

22,801,335

—1832

60,090,123

36,652,694

23,437,429

Whereby it appears, that a further depreciation has taken place in the two last years, amounting to 3,184,579 l. per annum; and although there has been an increase on the exportation of British produce, there has been a decrease in the report of foreign or colonial.
10. That at the commencement of the Session of 1830, this House was assured by the Government, in the Speech from the Throne, "that the Exports had exceeded those of any former year, and afforded indications of active commerce;" although it was admitted "that distress existed in some of the agricultural and manufacturing districts." It appeared, however, by papers subsequently laid before this House, that although the Exports had exceeded those of the former year in quantity, as denoted by official valuation, to the

5

amount of

£ 3,445,955

Yet in real value they were below those of the former year by

937,506

Being a depreciation in that one year of

4,383,461

11. That the above is, therefore, a depreciation of about eight per cent upon the value of our manufactures in that year alone, and instead of being "an indication of active commerce," it shows that nearly four and a half millions of the labour of this country has not only been given to foreigners without any equivalent, but it also appears, that we received back in the way of Imports one million and a quarter less than those of the former year; which facts sufficiently account for existing distress, independently of other causes.

EXPORTS AT REAL, VALUE.
12. That putting entirely out of view the official valuation, by a comparison with which has been shown the immense and alarming depreciation in the value of manufacturing and other property not of a fixed nature, and the consequent and ruinous pressure upon the productive and industrious classes of the community, it becomes a matter of importance to inquire, whether, during the same period, our Export trade has, in actual or real value, increased or diminished, by comparing the amount of the real value of latter years with that of former.
13. That it will appear, by the same parliamentary document, that the following is the annual amount upon the respective stated averages:—

Yearly Exports in Real Value.

Average of Ten Years ending

Yearly Amount.

Yearly Increase.

Yearly Decrease.

£.

£.

£.

5th Jan.

1808

37,135,763

—

—

—

1819

41,850,117

4,514,354

—

—

1830

35,517,609

—

6,532,500

14. Whereby it appears, that upon an average of ten years, up to 1819, that notwithstanding the depreciation in prices before stated, the Ex-ports had increased in real amount above those of the previous ten years, above 4,500,000 l. per annum, which may be considered a fair ratio with increased population. But it appears, that upon an average of the eleven subsequent years, ending on the 5th of January, 1830, compared with the previous ten years, they had decreased to the alarming extent of more than 6,250,000 l. per annum, notwithstanding our greatly increased population.
15. That although, for want of the returns of the two last years, they are not included, and upon which there appears to have been an increase of Exports, yet, had they been included, they would not have materially altered the average, but the decrease would have exceeded 6,000,000 l. per annum.
16. That the decrease of the Exports in actual amount of real value to so great an extent, as well also as an immense depreciation in value, is become the more serious, and affects more deeply the interests of the country, when it appears by parliamentary documents, that above 5,500,000 l. of those Exports are in cotton yarns, and upon which amount there has been a depreciation of 3,000,000 l. sterling.

IMPORTS AND EXPORTS COMPARED.
17. That it might be said, that the giving of increased quantities for a lower money nomination of value, would not affect the nation, provided increased quantities were received in exchange at equally diminished prices. But it must be perceived, that if this were the case, that giving increased quantities for increased quantities of foreign wines or luxuries at diminished prices, however advantageous to the consumers of those wines and luxuries, would be quite otherwise to those who by their labour, and with reduced wages, produce those increased quantities. It will be seen, however, that no such equivalent has been obtained, comparing the Imports with the Exports; in doing which, both must be taken at official value, as the real value of the Imports is not stated.
18. That our whole Exports, including foreign and colonial produce, and taking the whole period from 1798 to 1830, have increased from 27,000,000 l. to 66,000,000 l., being an increase of 39,000,000 l.; while, during the same period, the Imports have increased from 25,000,000 l. to 42,000,000 l., being an advance of only 17,000,000 l.

Yearly Exports and Imports upon the following Averages.

Ten Years, ending

Yearly Exports.

Yearly Imports.

Relative Decrease.

£

£

£

5th Jan.

1808

31,723,626

26,596,449

5,127,177

—

1819

44,441,502

30,013,295

14,423,207

—

1830

54,532,517

36,296,055

18,236,462

Exports and Imports of the Year 1829–1830.

Years ending

Exports.

Imports.

Difference.

£.

£.

£.

5th Jan.

1829

61,948,383

43,536,187

18,412,196

—

1830

66,072,164

42,311,649

23,760,515

19. That the deficiency of the Imports, compared with the Exports for the last year, is to the enormous amount of nearly 24,000,000 l.

£

20. That it appears a most inexplicable circumstance, that the Exports of the last year should have exceeded the Exports of the preceding year

4,123,378

And that the Imports should have been less than those of the previous year

1,225,539

Being a relative deficiency in one year of

5,349,317

21. That it is a further inexplicable circumstance, that of those decreased Imports there should have been less retained for home consumption, by

1,902,324

22. That the above facts seem still more extraordinary, when it is known, that the importations of corn alone amounted that year to 3,500,000 l. sterling, and to above 9,000,000 l. in the three last years; and when also the importations of wines, silks, &c. from France exceeded 2,000,000 l. per annum.
23. That it is, however, obvious, that a large portion of our Exports go to the payment of our establishments abroad, for which there are no

7
returns, but the payments are made by bills upon the Treasury at home, but which can go but a small way to account for an excess of 42,000,000 l. in the Exports over the Imports in the last two years only.
24. That it does, therefore, upon the whole, appear, that whatever causes may have influenced prices and depreciated value previous to the year 1819, that depreciation had been less rapid in its progress, and the Export trade had increased in actual amount of real value up to that period.
25. That since 1819 an unexampled depreciation has, with accelerated movement, taken place in the value of all property not of a fixed and durable nature, to the extent of forty per cent, or more; the effect of which has been, to destroy all the then existing relative proportions of property; and, while it has thereby depressed the home trade, and deeply affected all the productive classes of the community, our foreign trade has, in actual amount, fallen off several millions a year.

PERIODS OF FLUCTUATION.
26. That without attempting to draw conclusions from such co-incidental circumstances, certain it is, that periods of the greatest fluctuation, depression, and distress, have occurred at times when certain legislative measures have been under consideration or in operation, of which the following are instances.

£

27. That in the three years up to 1818, there was great distress and embarrassment; the reasons assigned for which were, a revulsion from war to peace, and the preparations made for the resumption of cash payments; and the depreciation in the real value of the Exports, compared with the official, was

9,130,825

That, in 1817, a bill passed to prolong the Bank restriction two years, and in 1818 the depreciation became less than that of the former year by

2,103,827

28. That in 1819, measures were adopted relative to the currency: prices declined, great distress followed, and, in 1824, the depre ciation had fallen below that of 1818 to the amount of

13,644,526

That in 1822, the Small Note Bill passed; and in 1825 prices had advanced, and the depreciation had lessened, compared with the previous year, by

2,049,239

29. That in 1826, measures relative to the currency, and other measures said to be for the improvement of trade, increase of manufactures, and extension of commerce, and the removal of public distress, came into operation; but, not withstanding the confident assurances held out, distress and embarrassment followed, and continued with more or less severity; and the year ending 5th January, 1830, compared with 1825, the depreciation further in creased to the amount of

11,887,158

30. That from that period the depreciation has further increased to the amount of several millions, and a consequent depression of trade, and distress among the labouring classes.
31. That under such changes and fluctuations, and the alarming depression of the trade and manufactures of the country, affecting so deeply all its productive interests, it is become imperiously necessary to devise the most efficacious means of remedying these evils.
32. That without at present giving any opinion as to the causes or remedies, this House cannot but express its confidence that his Majesty's Government will satisfy the just expectations of the country, by devising such measures as may be best calculated for the removal of the existing distress and embarrassment.
It was a remarkable thing that the attention of the House had not been called to the extraordinary fluctuations pointed out by these Resolutions. If it were said that lowness of price was an advantage, he replied that it produced lowness of wages and distress among the working classes. It produced, too, privation among their employers, which involved them in still greater distress. A depreciation of price, full 50 per cent, had taken place since 1819, and the effect of that was, to depreciate all stock in trade half its value. How was it possible with that, that the country could be prosperous. In proportion, too, as the value of their property was decreased, the value of all fixed incomes rose; so that the suffering traders were actually ruined, that the public servants might live in comfort and splendour. Those who formerly bought into the funds at 60 l. or 70 l., were now able to sell at 80 l. or 90 l.; and those who were engaged in trade had to make up the difference. Often as he had brought forward this subject, he must take the liberty of saying, that though he had been replied to, he had never been answered. No one had ever ventured to say, that this depreciation did not affect the industrious classes, or that it was not attended with a great sacrifice on their parts. And he challenged any one to get up and make such ail assertion. He had been accused, too, of not holding our export trade in sufficient esteem; but there was no man more desirous than he was of promoting the interests of that trade. The great mistake of the theorists was, that they thought they could force it—an attempt which had always ended in ruin and destruction. If they wanted an instance of this, they need only refer to the attempt to supply Buenos Ayres, and other places, with our manufactures; the result of which was a most ruinous failure. He had always understood, that the most beneficial intercourse which could be carried on with

9
foreigners was, to exchange our surplus commodities for their surplus commodities; the great advantage lying in the barter of dissimilar productions. But this had not been the aim of the theorists; on the contrary, what they had recommended was, to receive from foreign countries those very things which our own manufacturers were able to produce in great abundance. He did not know with what arguments he should be met on the present occasion; but, when this subject was last under discussion in that House, the Vice-President of the Board of Trade took upon himself to say, that the labouring poor of this country were in a better condition than they had been formerly; and he was sorry to observe, that Gentlemen who ought to have known better, seemed inclined to adopt that opinion. The right hon. Gentleman appealed to the poor-rates of 1819, 1820, and 1821, and stated, that the average of those years amounted to 7,500,000 l.; while the amount of the rates for the year 1831, was only 6,800,000 l. That was but a trifling difference. Before he proceeded, however, he must take the liberty of complaining of official Gentlemen quoting documents which they refused to lay on the Table, by which means they were able to make partial extracts; while the whole, if regularly before the public, would probably afford a very different result. With respect to the quotation of the right hon. Gentleman, he either advanced what he knew was not correct, or he betrayed very great ignorance. It must be remembered that the year 1819 was the dearest year known in our times; for corn sold from 80 s. to 100 s. per quarter. This, however, was the year to suit the right hon. Gentleman; and he, therefore, jumped over all the intermediate space between 1831 and 1819. Was that a fair way of dealing with the House of Commons? A correct result could only be obtained by taking the average of several years. He had done that; and he found, that the average for the poor-rates, for the seven years previous to 1824, was 6,900,000 l.; and the average from 1824 to 1831, was 7,700,000 l.; so that there had been an increase, in the latter period, of 788,000 l. But that was not all. In the price of things there had been a depreciation of fifty per cent; and by taking this into the account, 8,000,000 l. now was equal to 12,000,000 l. formerly. In many places, the rates, on this account,
10
had been lowered from 3s. to 1s. 6d., because there were many poor now employed, under the Highway Act, in breaking stones at 1s. a day. If he wanted further proof of the general distress of the empire, he need only turn to Ireland. There the people were almost starving, on potatoes purchased by subscription; and yet that country sent a large supply of corn to the English market: so that Ireland was unnaturally wretched; its unfortunate people were not even allowed to consume that which nature had given for their support. Another proof of the distress of the country was the frightful increase of crime; and it ever was the case, that misery and crime had gone hand in hand together. He knew that speculative gentlemen extolled the cheapness of our manufactures, as the means of increasing-our exports; but he challenged any one to show that a trade so conducted could be beneficial to the real interests of the country; on the contrary, it was most detrimental to those interests: any loss produced by it fell on the industry of the country. From a document in his possession it appeared, that 26,000,000 l. of money was probably taken out of circulation by the want of employment which was felt in the country, and which amount was thereby prevented from getting into the hands of the farmer, the merchant, and the manufacturer. He did not wish to go into the question of free trade, but he must say, that it was evident that, if they reduced the circulating medium one-third, they reduced the activity of trade to the same extent. The intercourse of money transactions in this country had been calculated to amount to 800,000,000 l. per annum, which, it was supposed, was performed by 60,000,000 l. of circulating medium: if, therefore, one-third were taken away from this circulating medium, it was clear that the efficiency of commercial operations must be impeded to that extent, and distress inflicted on the great mass of the people dependent on those operations. He did not pretend to attribute the present distress to any one cause; it was owing to a complication of circum-stances, such as the introduction of foreign goods, the reduction of the circulating-medium, the mode of administering the poor-rates, and the allowing foreign labour to compete with our own in the markets of this country. So, in remedying this evil, he did not believe that any one mea-

11
sure would be sufficient. Even if they could entirely do away with poor-rates, or take off all taxes, he did not apprehend that adequate relief would be afforded. He might be told, that what we took from France was taken back again in cotton twist, and in colonial produce. But that was not a beneficial exchange; because the effect was roundabout and doubtful, Mr. Pitt, in one of his speeches, exposed this argument, and yet this was the sort of free trade the House was now called upon to support. He had sufficiently elucidated his resolutions relative to official and real value; and he would proceed to compare the imports and the exports. He might be told, that the price of the goods did not signify one farthing provided we got a proportionable increase in return. That might be true, to a certain extent; but he must remind the House of what he stated in the 17th Resolution;—" That it might be said, that the giving of increased quantities for a lower money nomination of value would not affect the nation, provided increased quantities were received in exchange, at equally diminished prices. But it must be perceived, that if this were the case, that giving increased quantities for increased quantities of foreign wines or luxuries at diminished prices, however advantageous to the consumers of those wines and luxuries, would be quite otherwise to those who, by their labour, and with reduced wages, produced those increased quantities. It would be seen, however, that no such equivalent had been obtained, comparing the imports with the exports. In doing which, both must be taken at official value, as the real value of the import was not stated." His argument was this—suppose that, instead of 100 bales of cotton, we had to give 150 bales, and got back as before 150 casks of wine; then it was the wine-drinker that got the benefit of a depreciation of price, while the cotton-dealer suffered by it to the like extent; so that here was a want of all reciprocity. Another point to which he must call the attention of the House was, the mode in which we received payment for our exports. Goods sent to New South Wales were paid for by Government bills, which, being payable in this country, gave us no external value for our manufactures. And so with respect to France, the amount of our invoices was paid by orders on this country. He had, at the conclusion of his Resolutions, shown the particular periods at
12
which the great depreciation of value in this country had taken place; and he, therefore, contended, that he had sufficiently proved a depreciation in value, a falling off in trade, and no adequate substitute in the shape of returns; and he, therefore, was justified in saying, that these were adequate causes for much of the distress of the country. He was satisfied that something must be done with respect to the currency. He did not, however, ask the House to come to any immediate determination on the subject. All that he wished was, that the facts should be fully before the Members, in order that they might be able to form a correct judgment. Reference had been frequently made to the petition presented to Parliament in 1820, in which he found the following passage:—'That a policy founded on those principles would render the commerce of the world an interchange of mutual advantages, and diffuse an increase of wealth and enjoyments among the inhabitants of each state.' * * * * 'Revision of the restrictive system was, then, peculiarly called for, as it may, in the opinion of your petitioners, lead to a strong presumption, that the distress which now so generally prevails is considerably aggravated by that system, and that some relief may be obtained by the earliest practicable removal of such of the restraints as may be shown to be most injurious to the capital and industry of the country.' * And in the Report of the Committee granted on that petition, was the following statement;—' Your Committee are, however, sensible that at once to abandon the prohibitory system would be of ail things the most visionary and the most dangerous. It has long continued—it is the law, not only of this kingdom but of the rest of the European world, and any sudden departure from it is forbidden by every consideration of prudence, safety, and justice. No sudden change is in the contemplation of your Committee, nor indeed the adoption of any change without the utmost circumspection and caution.' Again, in the debate on the Treaty of Commerce with France, in 1787, the then Marquess of Lansdown—a profound statesman, and particularly conversant with all matters relating to trade and commerce—said, What floated in his
* Hansard (new series) vol. i. pp. 179,181,

13
mind was, to give article for article of all manufactures where the first materials were equally attainable—any momentary superiority being of no account. Some unreciprocal articles remained on both sides; wine, brandy, vinegar, and oil, on the side of France; and coals, lead, and tin, on ours. Theirs are luxuries 'which we can get elsewhere; ours are necessaries which they cannot get else where to equal advantage. We had, consequently, a right to expect an equivalent for both.'* We were wrong, in the first setting out, in suffering our supposed superiority in certain manufactures to be set for a moment against the solid, permanent advantages of France. France had, in her produce, four extensive articles of commerce—against which we had nothing to reciprocate, for it was ridiculous to listen to any argument in regard to our manufactures; they were transitory and fleeting. Nothing could be more precarious than an estimate founded on our present real or pretended superiority in this respect. Our boasted cottons were the growth of a day: we saw manufactures rise up almost instantaneously.' * * * To talk, therefore, of the excellence of our manufactures, and of their superiority, was ridiculous, but the advantage in the produce of France was positive and eternal; as long as the earth endured it remained to France. Ought not the Ministers, then, to have claimed something in exchange? * * * What had we done? We had stipulated for no one thing.' † In Dr. Brewster's Encyclopædia also, under the head Political Economy, he found the following-admirable passage:—' If Government should propose, as an object, the advantage of any class in the nation at the expense of the rest, this class ought precisely to be the day labourers. They are more numerous than any other class, and to secure their happiness is to make the great portion of the nation happy. They have fewer enjoyments than any other, from the construction of society: they produce wealth, and themselves scarcely obtain any share of it—obliged to struggle for subsistence with their employers, they are not a match for them in strength. Hence the riots and combinations among workmen for ob-
* Hansard's Parl. Hist. vol. xxvi. p. 561.
† Ibid. p. 576.
14
taining increase of wages. Their conduct is often violent and tumultuous, and often merits the chastisement which it never fails to receive; but scarcely an instance occurs where justice has not been on their side. It is become necessary for every State to think first, not of the comforts, but of the existence of its subjects; and to maintain those barriers which have been so imprudently erected; an important part of the population might otherwise be cut oft' by penury. The discovery of mechanical arts has always the remote result of concentrating industry within the hands of a smaller number of rich merchants. Thus—small merchants—small manufacturers—disappear; and one great undertaker supplies the place of hundreds, who, altogether, were as rich as he. His expensive luxury gives far less encouragement to industry than the honest plenty of a hundred households, of which his house-hold supplies the place. The trade or manufactures of a country are not to be called prosperous because a small number of merchants have amassed immense fortunes in it: on the contrary, their extraordinary profits almost always testify against the general prosperity of the country. When the low price of workmanship arises from the poverty of the day labourers, forced by competition to content themselves with what is necessary, or less than necessary, for life though commerce may profit by the circumstance, it is nothing better than a national calamity. Surely none will maintain, that it can be advantageous to I substitute a machine for a man, if this I man cannot find work elsewhere, or that it is not better to have a population composed of citizens than of steam-engines, even should the cotton cloth be some-I what dearer. When the savage hunter dies for want of finding game, he yields to a necessity which nature itself presents; and to which he knew, from the beginning, he must submit, as to sickness or old age. But the artizan, dismissed from his workshop with his wife and children, has beforehand lost the strength of his soul and body. He is still surrounded with riches—he still sees beside him, at every step, the food which he requires; and if society refuses him the labour by which he offers, to his last moment, to purchase bread, it is men and not nature that he blames.

15
Even when persons do not actually die of hunger—even when the aids of charity are eagerly administered—discouragement and suffering produce their evil effects—the diseases of the soul are communicated to the body—epidemics are multiplied—children die in a few months after birth—and the suppression of labour causes more cruel ravages than the cruellest war. Another course is given to trade—another direction to fashion—and, even after death has cleared the ranks of workmen, those who remain are no longer in a condition to support the competition of foreigners.'This extract seemed to him to be founded in good feeling; but, he must repeat, that the removal of taxation would not be sufficient—labour must find its proper support; and unless they could put the labouring classes in a different position, they would do no good. The money that had been taken out of circulation would be sufficient to give them food and comfort. Formerly the labourer used to earn 15 s. a week; at present, even when employed, he could only get 10 s. Let him not be told that 10 s. now are as much as 15 s. were formerly; the man of 1,500 l. a year would think it very hard if, on the same principle, his income was to be cut down to 1,000 l. a year; and why, therefore, were they to deprive the poor man of all chance of the comforts of life? He had only, in conclusion, to apologize for the length at which he had addressed the House, and move the several Resolutions which he had already read to the House.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonthought, that it would best suit the convenience of the House if he declined following the worthy Alderman through his lengthened statement. He presumed that the chief anxiety of the worthy Alderman was, to put his Resolutions on the Journals of the House, and so to give them circulation, though that was not the first, the second, or the third time, that he had brought this subject before the House. The worthy Alderman said, that he had been replied to, but not answered. He was satisfied that the general opinion of the House was against the hon. Alderman. The worthy Alderman had also said, that his Resolutions contained nothing but facts, and that he had abstained from all opinions; but though, in the Resolutions, there were many figures from official documents, yet there was also a series of opinions, pro-
16
fessing to be founded on those figures, and in which, he thought the House would hardly agree; for instance, he would ask whether there was any means of arriving at the value of our exports, as stated by the worthy Alderman in his 7th Resolution? In his 18th Resolution, also, he stated that the deficiency of our imports, as compared with our exports, was 22,000,000 l. How was that calculation made? Was it on the official value? [Mr. Alderman Waithman: Yes.] Then there lay the worthy Alderman's mistake, for it was a mistake to think that the official value showed, in any degree, the money value of the exports; and, consequently, the whole of his theory was founded in error, if he had taken the official value for anything that had to do with the real value. He, therefore, put it to the House, whether they could receive this document, and solemnly record their approbation of it? Whoever looked to the official rates, even as evidence of quantity, would not be perfectly accurate, because different rates were taken for different commodities. Another objection also was, that things came into this country paying no duty, and, being re-exported, immediately acquired a different value. The worthy Alderman might say that this applied only to his official value; but his actual value was no safeguard whatever. In comparing the year 1819 with 1830, the worthy Alderman had forgotten that our chief exports consisted of manufactures which had been previously imported, as raw material; and had he taken into consideration the difference of the price of that raw material? For instance, the price of cotton was, in 1815, 2s. a pound: it was now only 6d. or 7d., and did not that show that the relative value of the manufactures might have materially diminished? He did not, however, consider it worth while to argue this question over and over again. He was sure that the House, while giving due credit to the worthy Alderman for the pains he had taken in preparing these Resolutions, would be satisfied that it was not advisable to give their sanction to the document. One word as to the question of poor-rates. In the first place, he had to say, that the documents from which he had quoted were on the Table of the House. And further, if any one would take the trouble of examining these documents, he would find that his statement respecting them was perfectly correct. Under these cir-
17
cumstances, he should content himself with moving the previous question.
Colonel Torrenswas iuclined to attribute the confusion in the hon. Alderman's views and statements to his not having formed to himself any distinct conception of what was meant by official value and real value. Official value was only another name for quantity; real value was only another name for price. Since the year 1808 the quantity of British goods exported had more than doubled, while the price of this double quantity was now less than the price of half the quantity formerly had been. This was the simple fact, as shown by the official returns upon the Table of the House; and this fact, perfectly intelligible in itself, was rendered perplexed by the maze of figures in which the worthy Alderman had involved it. The value of the precious metals in relation to the commodities we exported had doubled since the year 1819, or in other words the prices of British goods exported had fallen fifty per cent. This was the fact, and it was not difficult to explain the manner in which it had been brought about. In 1819 the difference between paper and gold was about five per cent., and consequently, when the paper was brought to par with gold, the currency rose in value from this cause to the extent of five per cent. But many other and more potent causes were brought into operation. By the return to cash payments, a new demand for gold, to the amount of from 25,000,000 to 30,000,000 was created, while the contemporaneous changes from paper to metallic currency, which were effected in Russia, Austria, Denmark, and the United States, occasioned a still further demand for the precious metals to the amount of 25,000,000 l. The whole of the increased demand for gold could have scarcely been less than 50,000,000 l. sterling. But all the gold supposed to exist in the commercial world was only 500,000,000 l.; while the annual supply, before it was reduced by the troubles in South America, was stated by Humboldt to be 1,600,000 l. Now, if there had been no diminution in the annual supply of the metals, the increased demand for them for coin, would have materially enhanced their value. But, while the demand increased, the supply diminished. The civil wars in South America suspended the working of the mines, and by the dispersion of the miners,
18
and the destruction of machinery and other fixed capital, rendered many of them wholly unproductive. Instead of obtaining supplies of the precious metals from South America, we for some time actually exported specie thither. From these cooperating causes the value of gold throughout the commercial world had advanced, or, in other words, the prices of commodities had fallen. Mr. Tooke, in his able work on high and low prices, has shown that a great proportion of the fall in the price of commodities has been occasioned by the increased facilities of production, and the larger quantities in which commodities have been brought to market. But this fact does not disprove a rise in the value of currency; on the contrary, it shows another cause of that rise. Value is relative, and a rise in the value of gold, as compared with other articles, may be occasioned either by increasing the cost of obtaining the metals, or by diminishing the cost of obtaining other articles. The facts brought forward by Mr. Tooke in his elaborate and very able work, go to establish this, that the value of the precious metals has been enhanced by a twofold cause. These causes of the rise in the value of the precious metals were common to the whole commercial world; but other causes, peculiar to this country, had contributed to reduce the price of British goods. Whatever might be the advantages of free trade, and of reducing the duties of Customs on the importation of foreign goods, these advantages were in some degree counterbalanced by an enhancement in the value of money, and a general fail in the prices not merely of the goods imported, but also of British goods. On this principle the reduction of taxation should commence with the duties of Excise and not with the duties of Customs, except with respect to the necessaries of life, upon which no duty should be permitted to exist, and gold and silver were, to alt intents and purposes, admitted duty-free; therefore, in proportion as they reduced the import duties on other commodities, the more they changed that relation between gold and silver and other commodities, which might be expressed by saying that the untaxed (gold) could procure less of the taxed (other imports) in proportion to the amount of the tax—in other words, gold could obtain more of the commodity, and by that additional quantity the price of the commodity might be said to fall;

19
or, if they preferred the correlative, by so much might the standard of the currency be said to rise. And yet this important fact, like the other, the increased value of the currency, owing to the causes he had specified, had been wholly overlooked by the advocates of free trade principles, though it was obvious they had only to be stated to be at once recognised. There were other errors which he would take an early opportunity of exposing with respect to free trade principles. He need not say that he was an advocate of free trade, but he denied that its official promulgators had seen or even now saw the whole of the question. They said, for example, it mattered nothing whether another country took from us our commodities for theirs or our money, because, say they, we must send our commodities somewhere else in order to procure that money. Now the error in this case sprang out of another of still more universal acceptation; namely, that great maxim of the Ricardo school of economists, that as the value of a commodity in the home market depended on the cost—the labour—of production, so must it be in a foreign market. He would maintain, that though this principle was true of domestic policy, yet that it was not it that regulated the exchangeable value in a foreign market. What we received in return for our goods in foreign markets did not depend on the cost of producing those foreign articles, but on the demand that existed in the foreign market for our commodities. To the extent of that demand every country supplied itself, but it could not be increased but on one condition, which involved the whole question of our advantage; namely, that we gave them our goods at a diminished price. If they applied this principle to the case of our trading, say with France, they would see that all the advantages which the advocates of free trade had predicted could not be realized but on terms of perfect reciprocity. If France required our money instead of our goods for her commodity, we could only obtain that money by giving our goods to—say the South Americans, at a reduced price;—for otherwise, on the principle of supply and demand, which he was contending for. South America could not take a greater quantity of British goods unless they were offered at a reduced price. Suppose that France takes from us 1,000 bales of muslin in exchange for wine, while America takes 1,000
20
bales in exchange for gold, then we get our supply of wine and gold for 2,000 bales. But should France, as is the fact, refuse to take our muslin and require gold, then we must send 2,000 bales to America instead of 1,000. This would necessarily reduce the price of the British manufacture in the American market, and 2,000 bales would no longer procure us the same supply of wine and of gold as before. On these principles, he contended that it was an error in our commercial policy to encourage the import of wine from France, which would not take our goods in return, and to discourage the wine trade with Portugal, which opened her markets to British fabrics. Such of our financial and commercial policy required not merely to be reformed, but to be reversed.
Mr. Robinsondid not agree with the worthy Alderman as to his Resolutions, for it was impossible that the House should pledge itself, by adopting those Resolutions to many doubtful points requiring much patient inquiry. He was glad that the opponents of the free trade policy of Mr. Huskisson and his successors, could count the hon. member for Ashburton (Colonel Torrens) among their allies. That policy had been pushed to a ruinous exten, andt though Ministers had refused inquiry, he was sure that a Reformed Parliament, would not sit for many weeks, before it resolved to investigate the subject.
Mr. Hume, in opposition to the hon. Member, would contend, that Mr. Huskisson's policy was the best that could be pursued, so far as it went; the just complaint was, that it did not go far enough. He differed from the hon. member for Ashburton as to the disadvantages of a circuitous trade with a country which would not take our goods in return; for it was all the same to us to whom we sent our goods, so as we obtained what we wanted—the produce of other countries.
Mr. Courtenaywould merely observe, that the supposition that Mr. Huskisson and his followers had always referred to the official value of commodities, as a test of prosperity, was a mistake. The increase in that value had been referred to, even in the King's Speech, as a proof of the activity of our commerce, but not as indicating its prosperity. The worthy Alderman was quite mistaken in assuming that value as any thing but a test of quantity. It was taken considerably higher than the real value on several

21
articles, such as cottons and woollens of large consumption, and the difference was sufficiently great to account for the excess of official over actual value, last year, to the amount of 13,000,000 l. He would not then hazard an exposition of the fallacy of the hon. member for Ash-burton's reasoning, but should take advantage of the first convenient opportunity, to show that he was in error as to his premises, and consequently, as to his conclusions.
Sir Richard Vyvyansaid, the hon. member for Middlesex now argued against the arguments he had used in 1828 respecting India. Upon that occasion the hon. Member contended, that to place India under such restrictions as to oblige her to give bullion for our produce was most injurious to that country, and yet the hon. Member now said that it was no injury to this country to compel it to pay bullion for the produce of France. He was decidedly of opinion that the late Parliament had looked rather to the interests of the capitalists than of the laborious and industrious classes. They were told that they were about to enter upon a new system, but he could not but remark, that those who were now in the full stream of popularity had been the greatest opponents of all inquiry into the state of the country. Many who had opposed the Reform Bill, because they thought it injurious to the country, and had lost their seats for so doing, had been among the most active and zealous in endeavouring to forward the interests of the people. He mentioned those circumstances because it was right that the country should know what were the facts, and who were truly its friends. The people had been led to believe that the supporters of the Reform Bill were their best friends, although many of those hon. Members had opposed all inquiry, and advocated the cause of the capitalist against that of the people. He hoped those remarks would go forth to the country, for it was but right that Members, who, like the hon. member for Aldborough (Mr. Sadler), had laboured for the amelioration of the labouring classes, should have their conduct justly appreciated.
Mr. Humedefended what he had said on a former occasion, by observing, that India was not like France, an independent country, but was one of our possessions, and suffered considerably by being obliged
22
to send us bullion, not in exchange for our goods, but as tribute—a circumstance which completely rendered consistent the observations he had before made and those which he made now. With respect to France, he should take that opportunity of saying, that every shilling's worth of French goods that came into the country took out a shilling's worth of English goods, either directly or indirectly, and so far was a benefit to the country.
Mr. Huntsaid, there never would be any good done to the country till the Corn was were removed, and rents and taxes were reduced. It was cruel to admit a free trade in the luxuries of life, when a free trade in the necessaries of life was refused.
Mr. Attwoodwondered how the hon. member for Middlesex could ask for any particular favour to be shown to India, at least if he had any sincere belief in the doctrines that he sometimes professed in that House. The hon. Member often told them, that England sent out her manufactures all over the world to seek for bullion: and having bought it by her manufactures, she then sent it to France to purchase the produce of that country; so that it was the same thing in the end, as if she had sent her manufactures to France in exchange for French produce. Now, if that argument was true with respect to England trading with France, it must be true with respect to India trading with England; and consequently, if England was not injured in the one case, India could not be injured in the other', and no change could be required. He (Mr. Attwood), however, did not agree that it was true with respect to France and England; and he insisted, that the state of things was such now as to require immediate attention from the Legislature.
Lord Althorpmust say, that he thought the hon. member for Middlesex had sufficiently defended himself from the charge of inconsistency, by referring them to the fact that India was tributary to this country, and was not an independent nation trading with us, but a country paying a large part of her bullion to us in the shape of tribute. The hon. Member opposite then raised the question of sending our manufactures all over the world to get bullion, and afterwards paying that bullion to a neighbouring country for her goods. Now, if the expense of procuring the precious metals ultimately fell upon the

23
country selling the goods that these metals purchased, and not on the country that procured the metals and bought the goods, it was evident that the latter would be carrying on the more advantageous trade. The question, therefore, came round to this—Which of the two countries did in the end pay for the expense of procuring these precious metals? If that question were fully examined, he rather thought it would appear, that the expense did not fall as a loss upon the country procuring the metals in the way he had mentioned. He gave the hon. Alderman great credit for the attention he had shown to this subject, but could not agree with that hon. Member as to all his conclusions. If two hon. Members, starting from exactly opposite principles, yet arrived at the same conclusion, that fact would show, that what they both agreed on was worthy of the consideration of the House; but he much suspected, that the hon. Member and the hon. and gallant Member would not be found to agree together. Indeed, he believed the results to which they came would be seen to be quite different from each other. What, then, did the hon. Alderman require? He required the House to give a sanction to certain opinions embodied in the Resolutions he had produced. Now, there was, perhaps, hardly one Gentleman in that House who would wish to pledge the House to all those opinions; and, under all those circumstances, there seemed to be no course left but that of supporting the previous question.
Sir Charles Forbestook that opportunity of complaining that India was not well treated. She was too highly taxed. Her produce ought to be admitted here almost free of duty, and ours ought to go out to India equally free from taxation, India had long been drained of her bullion for the use of this country, and she could stand the drain no longer. Within the two last years, no less than three millions sterling had been sent here from India. That system could not continue. In every part of the country that was under our Government, the situation of the native Indians was worse than it had been under that of their native princes. They, in fact, Were longing to be back under their ancient princes. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Poulett Thomson) for the reduction of duties he had made on certain Indian commodities; that would do a great deal of good; and
24
he only regretted it did not go further. By reducing the duties still more, he was sure no injury would be done to the West-Indian property. He should, in conclusion say, that the praise bestowed by Mr. Canning on the gallant Officer (Colonel Torrens) on entering the House, had that night been proved to have been well bestowed; and he must express his belief, that it would be well for the country if the doctrines the gallant Officer advanced were more attended to.
Mr. Gaily Knightsaid, that he perfectly concurred in the opinion expressed by the hon. Baronet who had just sat down, that, in all future measures with regard to India, they ought principally to direct their attention to the promotion of the happiness, the instruction, and the prosperity of the natives; but this was not the point to which he desired to advert. The only point relating to the vast subject which had been introduced by the worthy Alderman, upon which he should presume to say a word, was, the effect which the promulgation of such doctrines as had been promulgated by the worthy Alderman was likely to have upon the minds of the industrious classes; for it appeared to him that nothing could be more pernicious than to impress the industrious classes with erroneous ideas of the causes of the distress under which they laboured, and to impress them with the belief, that a vote of that House could set all to rights in a moment. He was far from meaning to say, that such was the design of the worthy Alderman; on the contrary, he gave him full credit for his disinterested motives and patriotic intentions, but such a mischievous delusion as the one to which he here alluded was, he feared, too likely to result from the course which the worthy Alderman had adopted this evening. What was the real end and aim of the worthy Alderman's statements and assertions? What, but that which he did not venture openly to proclaim—the depreciation of the standard, and the extinction of free trade? He would not deny that distress had existed since the new system was introduced, but there was no more common error than to assign as a cause, that which had only preceded. There might be a bad harvest next autumn, and it will have been preceded, but will it have been caused (though, if it should be so, he dared to say there would not be wanting persons who would say that it had been caused) by

25
Parliamentary Reform? and yet Parliamentary Reform would have as much to do ill the one ease, as free trade in the other. He was not going to enter into the general question. The principles of free trade had been sufficiently vindicated on former occasions. He recollected no occasion on which the opponents of the system have opened their fire, when their batteries had not been silenced by as provoking replies of facts, and figures, and documents, as ever overwhelmed incautious assailants. All he wished lo suggest was, a few of the various causes which might interfere with commercial prosperity, and might create commercial distress, though the commercial system itself be conducted, as he contended it was conducted at present, on the soundest principles. Could any system prevent the proverbial vicissitudes of trade? Could it prevent the fluctuations of foreign demand? the effects of home competition? Could it prevent the consequences of the increased power of production, or of the voluntary error of over-production? Was the system to be charged with the calamities which proceeded either from unwise speculations, or from the migration of capital? And yet any one of these causes might produce distress to a great amount. Even a change of fashion might throw towns and districts out of work; but could they prevent the changes of fashion? Should they prohibit the use of cotton gloves; and, if they did, would trade flourish the more? These were a few of the ruinous causes which were in continual operation; it was these which, under the very best system, might produce, and would ever produce, an abundance of individual, and of local and temporary distress. But where would be the advantage of continually altering general laws to meet particular cases? What would be the consequence of our saying to the capitalists, "You shall never remove from the scene where you first begin your operation; you shall remain in Spitalfields; you shall not go to Manchester or Leeds?" Would not such legislation be as futile, as it would be barbarous and absurd? Again, if to favour the silk mills of Macclesfield, they were to surround the island with the brazen wall of prohibition, should they be doing good or harm to the whole community? Would the loss of foreign trade be no detriment? Would the migration of British capital to other countries (and
26
such would be the inevitable consequence) be no evil? For the hundreds whom we might benefit, should we not injure hundreds of thousands? Would not the clamour which the alteration might allay, be succeeded by an outcry far more general, far more loud, and far more just? He was anxious to make these few observations, because he was aware that the Reform Bill would give a great increase of influence to the manufacturing towns; and, unless the people were rightly informed on these particulars, a formidable power might be directed to promote objects which, eventually, would not be advantageous to the people themselves. The great towns might combine. "Assist us this time," it might be said, "and we will assist you next time;" and, by these means, it might happen, if the people were left in error, that one of the first exploits of the reformed Parliament would be an attempt to effect the destruction of the free trade; and this, he should regret to see, not only on account of the harm that would ensue, but also on account of the legitimate triumph it would afford to the opponents of Reform. He was also anxious to make these observations, because his belief was, that in a country so highly commercial and manufacturing as this, distress must necessarily exist somewhere, at all times. There would always be local distress, and general inconvenience at periodical intervals—this they must expect—cycles of prosperity, and cycles of depression; and, if the people were not rightly informed on these subjects, they would be constantly exposed to being made the gulls and tools of interested demagogues. Men who had words at command would at all times have the opportunity of exciting and inflaming a deluded multitude—or placing before them some frightful picture or other of local distress, which would occupy a larger space than it ought on the convex of imagination—which might morbidly excite the public mind, And what would be the result? Why, that the industrious classes would often believe that the fault lay in the Government—perhaps in the form of Government—when the grievance was, in fact, one which no Government, and no form of Government, could by possibility avert. And what would be the result of this continual dissatisfaction with the Government of the country? Why, the next step would be, desire of change—attempt at

27
change—yet in what manner would trade and commerce be relieved by this alteration? In what manner was the trade and commerce of France relieved by the first revolution? In what manner had they been affected by the second revolution—a just revolution—a bloodless revolution? Why, at that moment, trade was languishing in every part of France, and the chief employment of the National Guard was to keep down the operatives who were out of work, and whom they knew to be starving. He repeated, that there was nettling more pernicious or cruel, than to mislead the industrious classes on subjects so immediately connected with their interests. He repeated that, in so highly a manufacturing country as this was, there would always be local distress; and, under those circumstances, was it not their bounden duty, instead of misleading the people, to tell them the truth, and endeavour to make them perceive that all that any Government could do was, to put them in a good course, and that the rest must be done by themselves? It was not because he was insensible to the distress of the industrious classes, that he expressed these opinions. On the contrary, he would do anything in his power to assist them. But he said this, because he knew that it was only by their own prudence, by their own forethought, by habits of regularity, and by putting something aside against a rainy day, that they could ever be secured from, at least, the occasional pressure of want. It was because he thought that the adoption of the Resolutions proposed by the worthy Alderman, would rather tend to disturb and mislead the public mind than provide any relief, that he felt himself compelled to support the previous question.
Mr. Alderman Waithman, in reply, expressed his astonishment that observations like those of the hon. Member near him (Mr. Gally Knight) could have come from a Reformer. Reform would be useless, if its effects were not to remedy the grievances of the people. The hon. Member spoke of the Resolutions as mischievous; as if taking notice of the people's distress, and encouraging them to rely on the Legislature, were more likely to produce discontent, than the distress itself, and the refusal to make any inquiry into it. In his opinion, the great distress which existed among the labouring manufacturers of this country, made it incum-
28
bent upon Parliament to institute an inquiry into its causes.
Resolutions negatived.

BANK CHARTER.
Mr. Gisbornepresented a Petition from the City of York, respecting the state of the Currency. The hon. Member stated, that he had several similar Petitions in his possession, and the House was aware that he had also a motion on the subject of the Bank Charter and Currency, which stood for that night. With a view, however, of saving the time of the House, he begged to put a question to the noble Lord near him, as the answer which the noble Lord gave would determine whether he should, at the present moment, bring forward his Resolutions upon the subject. He wished to know from the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) whether it was probable that any measure, founded upon the labours of the Bank Charter Committee, would be submitted by Ministers during the present Session of Parliament?
Lord Althorpsaid, when he brought forward the proposition for the appointment of a Committee on the subject of the renewal of the Bank Charter, he certainly did so with a sanguine expectation that the question would decidedly be introduced during the present Session of Parliament; but the course that the examination of the evidence in the Committee had taken, had diminished the expectation which he had previously entertained. The subject was one of very great importance undoubtedly, and it was essential to have the question set at rest as early as possible; but, great as the inconvenience of delay in setting this question at rest might be, a much greater inconvenience would be felt were it to be terminated without a full inquiry into the whole subject.
Mr. Gisbornetrusted, that he should not be precluded from bringing forward his motion, should a measure be introduced by the noble Lord in the course of the Session.
Lord Althorpsaid, it was not very likely, at this advanced period of the Session, that he should submit a measure upon the subject to the House.
Mr. Gisborneobserved, that perhaps the noble Lord would afford him an opportunity of presenting his petitions upon the subject, and of submitting a motion relating to it, should hereafter any measure be submitted by Ministers.
Lord Althorpsaid, in that case, he certainly would acquaint the hon. Member in time with his intentions.
Mr. Gisborne, in that case, would not press the motion of which he had given notice; and would, with the permission of the House, withdraw it.
Motion withdrawn. (see Appendix).

CASE OF ALEXANDER SOMERVILLE.
Mr. Humesaid, the Motion which he had then to bring forward was upon a subject which appeared to him of very great importance. Ten days ago he presented a Petition to the House, complaining of the punishment inflicted upon a private in the Scotch Greys, of the name of Somerville, under circumstances, certainly, which were of a singular nature, and involving an important question, deserving the attention of the House; a question not less than this—whether an Englishman, becoming a soldier, was to be deprived of all his rights as a citizen? He had always considered that a soldier never lost his rights as a citizen by becoming a soldier. Now, it appeared to him, that had not Somerville written to the Editor of The Weekly Dispatch, a letter, stating certain opinions, he would never have met with the punishment which was inflicted upon him. Somerville was a gardener by trade, and about four months back, enlisted into the Scotch Greys. Up to the period to which he had been charged with improper conduct, no complaint had been urged against him. He had regularly attended drills, and had conducted himself so as to insure the same treatment which others of his comrades experienced. The hon. Member here read a passage from the letter, which appeared in The Weekly Dispatch, and said, that when the newspaper containing that letter reached Birmingham, some inquiry was made as to the author. Somerville, being questioned upon the subject, immediately acknowledged that he had sent the letter. He was desired, although only a recruit, to ride with a class which he had never been called upon to ride with before. The hon. Member read an extract of the account given by Somerville, of his conversation, with Major Wyndham, showing that the Major was very much displeased with the man for writing the letter. The horse upon which he mounted was raw, and required a skilful rider, and Somerville could not accomplish it. He disputed with
30
the person who was in the school at the time, and, on being desired again to mount, he would not. This certainly was a breach of duty, but not deserving the heavy punishment with which it was visited. The statement which he (Mr. Hume) made was authentic, and capable of being substantiated on oath. When the regiment was drawn up in the riding-school to witness the punishment of Somerville, Major Wyndham addressed them for upwards of a quarter of an hoar, on the heinous offence of writing such letters. Now, it was a usual course to address soldiers about to be punished, on the magnitude of the offence of which they had been convicted; but, in this instance. Major Wyndham harangued the regiment, for upwards of a quarter of an hour, upon the wicked libel which Somerville had written, and upon the impropriety of a soldier's expressing political opinions, and giving encouragement to the mob; but he said little or nothing about the heinousness of the offence which was nominally the cause of the punishment which the regiment was called out to witness. Now, when the House took into consideration, not only that the political offence, or what was said to be a political offence, was the theme of the commanding officer's address to the regiment; and that in a conversation, which that officer (Major Wyndham) held with Somerville, previous to the court-martial, related altogether to the "libel," excepting only the one allusion to the situation to which the soldier had got himself, and which also was connected with the political offence, by the Major's adding, "that it would make him repent of what he had done"—that is, of writing the letter. Prom all these facts, it was impossible not to see that the man was, in reality, punished for the expression of his political opinions, and not for the alleged breach of discipline. But there were still other facts, which proved beyond all question, that the breach of discipline was laid hold of as a pretence for punishing Somerville. On the very day after the flogging of that man, a private, called Andrew Scott, flatly refused to go to the school. Well, was he flogged? No such thing. The only punishment was confinement to the yard for twenty-fonr hours, and the being kept to the barracks for another day. He (Mr. Hume) begged the House to consider the difference between the two cases. Here was Scott refusing, in defiance of all dis-

31
cipline, to go to the school at all, or attempt to perform his regular exercise, on the day after Somerville had been flogged for refusing to do what he had vainly attempted to do; the latter being a recruit, and his removal into a higher class, and his being ordered to ride an untrained horse, having all taken place within a few hours after he acknowledged himself to be the writer of the letter to The Dispatch. If his refusal was so deserving of punishment, why was the more culpable refusal of the other man (who had the example of the previous day's punishment before him) passed over with comparatively no punishment? If Scott believed that the punishment of Somerville was really inflicted for his refusal to do what he had attempted to do, and found to be impossible, would he (Scott) venture to refuse making any attempt, or even going to the school? Assuredly not. It was plain from his conduct, that the regiment very well understood that the letter was the real offence. A strong corroboration of this was, that on a few days after the flogging, some officers of the regiment attended the theatre, and received some marks of disapprobation from a part of the audience; and, in the course of that evening, some of the privates got into a squabble with the towns-people, in consequence of what took place in the theatre. The soldiers, being intoxicated, returned at a late hour to the barracks, with their clothes torn, and in such a condition, as would in a strict, or at least in a very severely-disciplined regiment, subject them to punishment. However, although their conduct was much more disorderly than Somerville's, they were not punished. Yet such was the severity with which that man was flogged, that although the punishment was inflicted so long as seven weeks ago, and he had received only 100 lashes, he was still confined to the hospital, and was in a bad way. The treatment which he had experienced since the flogging, was a great aggravation of the punishment. His removal from Birmingham to Coventry, on account of the feeling which was expressed towards him in the former town, had retarded his recovery. Was such a case to be passed over by that House? Was it to be allowed that a man should be treated in such a way for the expression of his political opinions? He had always understood the constitutional doctrine to be, that a private soldier
32
was not only to think for himself on such questions, but that he was actually bound to know the law, and to refuse to obey his officer in doing an illegal act. He had known many instances in which privates were tried for their lives, for having acted upon the illegal orders of their officers. But it would be absurd to say, that a private could be responsible in such cases, if it was to be held that he should take his political opinions from his officers, and that he was liable to be punished for thinking for himself on matters in no way connected with military discipline. The hon. Member then read a passage from Blackstone, to show that, in free States, a man, so fur from losing the rights of citizenship by becoming a soldier, was to be considered as having become a soldier, "that he might continue to be a citizen," and protect the rights of himself and his fellow-citizens. But, he would ask, in what was the conduct of Major Wyndham to this soldier Somerville consistent with that doctrine? If such conduct was to be tolerated by the executive, and passed over by that House without reprobation, then the British soldier must henceforth be considered, not as a citizen, but a slave. What the consequence was to be, he should leave to the Secretary-at-War to consider. But if the doctrine was to be admitted in respect to privates, why should not the same rule be applied to officers? But he knew many Officers in that House, who were in the habit of expressing their political opinions very freely, and not only in that House, but in places where their privilege of Parliament could not be pleaded to protect them, and he would put it to the Secretary-at-War, whether, if it was to be the law that privates should be punished for political opinions, certain Officers—hon. and gallant Members of that House—should not be flogged for expressing their political opinions in the strong language in which they sometimes indulged. He wished some hon. Member connected with the law or the army, would inform him whether such was to be the law, or Blackstone was right? If Blackstone was wrong, then he would say, that it was most dangerous to the liberties of the British people, that there should be in this country so many thousands of armed men entirely subject lo the tyranny of their officers, and bound to obey their commands implicitly, and to take their political opinions from

33
them. That was a state of things which ought not to be allowed. [Sir Charles Wetherell: Hear, hear.] He would tell the hon. and learned Gentleman, upon the authority of Blackstone, that a standing-army, ruled under such doctrine, could only be suffered under a despotic Government; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman would assure him that such was the received doctrine at present, he (Mr. Hume) trusted that the next Parliament would place the law upon such a footing that, if there was to be a standing army, the soldier should not cease to be a citizen. When he last spoke in that House upon the case of Somerville, he abstained from pressing any motion at that time, because he understood that the right hon. the Secretary-at-War had not yet received any information; and he hoped that, by postponing the Motion, the right hon. Gentleman would be enabled to explain the circumstances, and to state what were the views of his Majesty's Government upon the whole transaction. There were now two courses open for him (Mr. Hume) to pursue. One was, to move for the appointment of a Committee of the whole House, to inquire respecting the legality of punishment inflicted upon a soldier by sentence of court-martial for the expression of a political opinion; and that evidence should be heard at the Bar of the House: for, although this was but a solitary case, yet it involved a question which concerned the rights of the whole people, and affected the liberties of every individual. But that was a course which it might not be necessary to adopt, and there was another which he thought might answer the purpose. He should move for a copy of the accusation against Somerville, of the minutes of the court-martial, and of the sentence; and the report of the commanding officer as to whether the whole sentence was carried into effect. This Motion would enable hon. Gentlemen opposite, connected with the War Department of his Majesty's Government, to explain the real nature of the circumstances connected with the punishment of Somerville, and to show whether or not that soldier's statement of his own case was correct. From this explanation he should be able to determine whether it might be necessary for him to found any other motion upon the papers for which he now moved. But he should reserve to himself to consider whether or not he
34
should take some ulterior step to ascertain what was the opinion of the Government respecting the interference of a soldier's military duties, with his political rights. He concluded by moving for the Return of Papers (which he had already described) relating to the Trial and Punishment of Private Somerville, of the 2nd Dragoons.
Mr. Hunt seconded the Motion.
Sir John Hobhousesaid, that he was never more taken by surprise in his life than on the present occasion, for he had not the least idea that such a motion as the one before the House would have been brought forward, and he could not help thinking that a regard for the courtesy which prevailed even among political opponents, to say nothing of those who, for many years, had been engaged in the same cause, should have induced the hon. member for Middlesex to give some intimation of the course he intended to pursue. But, it appeared, that the hon. Member himself hardly knew the course he should follow, having so recently decided on one of two modes of procedure which, he stated, were open to him. With respect to the first plan, it was unnecessary to touch upon it, as it had been abandoned. The hon. Member had contended, that a man by becoming a soldier did not lose his rights as a citizen. He did not know that any one had asserted an opposite opinion; the proposition, therefore, not having been laid down upon one side, he could not see the necessity of combatting it on the other. The difficulty he felt in replying to the statement lay altogether on its being-founded upon that of which they had no parliamentary cognizance. The hon. Member held a private document in his hand, which he described to be so authenticated as to justify their consent to the production of the documents for which he had moved. If this were assumed to be a correct mode of proceeding, the only thing any hon. Member would have to do would be, to make a number of charges, and say, "If you have anything to produce against these charges, you will agree to an inquiry." He had no hesitation in saying, in the case in question, he had felt it his duty to call for the proceedings of the Court Martial, and he had not found in them the slightest mention of what had been adduced by the hon. member for Middlesex. He should be greatly shocked if, at this or other times, a soldier, who

35
was alleged to be punished for one offence, was, in reality, punished for another. There was no man—no Member of Parliament—no Englishman, who would be found dishonest enough to defend such a proceeding. He looked, however, to the proceedings of the court martial upon the one hand, and he found not the slightest allusion to the speeches said to have been made by Major Wyndham, or of any offence relating to a newspaper; he looked, on the other hand, to the fact stated by his hon. friend, that speeches were made before, and at the time of the punishment, which showed that the real offence committed by this man was not the having been guilty of disobedience of orders, but the having participated in political opinions which his hon. friend said was not a disgrace, but was, in fact, an honour; and, looking at these circumstances, and seeing nothing of this kind upon the proceedings of the court-martial, how was it possible for him to give credence to the statement which had been communicated to the hon. Member? How could he on ex parte statement suppose—nay the supposition was not enough—take it for granted, that an officer high in command, a gentleman of rank and station, at the head of one of his Majesty's regiments, ordered a soldier to receive a punishment—as his hon. friend characterized it, an extremely severe one—for an alleged offence, when the real cause of his punishment was, the having delivered a political opinion? It was fortunate for him, at least, that his hon. friend had not, on this occasion, at all taken into consideration the question of punishment of this description. That left him quite at liberty to deal with the question entirely on its own merits, and he would appeal to any hon. Member whether he could be expected to accede to the Motion thus introduced, without any notice. Considering that, in his situation as Secretary at War, it was necessary for him to consult the military authorities with whom he acted, surely it would have been but fair in his hon. friend to have given him notice of his Motion ere he laid it before the House. He did not know whether there existed any particular objection to producing the proceedings of this regimental court-martial. He believed that a soldier had a right to call for the minutes of general Courts; but he was not aware that he had this right with regard to a regimental Court.
36
There was, he repeated, nothing whatever in the proceedings of the Court to justify any appeal on v/hat had been admitted to be an ex parte statement. As to the measure of punishment, whether it had been excessive or not, he was not called upon to deliver an opinion. The question was, whether sufficient grounds had been shown for laying the proceedings of the court-martial before the House. Had notice been given, he should have consulted with the usual authorities, and should have known the line it was proper to pursue. On the first glance, he did not think there was any precedent to authorize the production of the proceedings. He was not, at the same time, aware of any objection to bringing them forward, except that the House had hitherto been extremely chary of interfering in matters of military discipline. Of course, where there had been any excessive exercise of the prerogative vested in military officers, the House had a paramount authority, as it had in all cases the right to call for such inquiry as it might deem necessary. But his hon. friend had proceeded on one ground, and the court-martial on another, and he could not believe it possible that any colonel of a regiment would do such a thing as that which had been set forth to the House. He would ask, if any Gentleman who heard him had ever known of such transactions?
Mr. Hunt: Yes.
An Hon. Member: Several—many, many.
Sir John Hobhousesaid, that he did not recollect to have heard of such cases, and that the grounds upon which he had always opposed flogging in the army were quite independent of any oppression that might be committed on account of political opinions. He had only to repeat, that he could not accede to the Motion, as he had not had notice of his hon. friend's intention to make it.
Sir Charles Wetherellwould support the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary at War, in his opposition to the Motion. He thought that the hon. member for Middlesex had preached a most extraordinary and unconstitutional doctrine. He knew nothing of the case, but what he had picked up from the speech of the hon. Member himself The private, Somerville, had been tried for a military offence by the competent tribunal; and the complaint made was, that that tribunal was influenced

37
by the circumstance of his having previously done something which was supposed to amount to a political offence. But if there had been anything improper in the conduct of the court-martial, the proper mode of appealing against the decision of the Court was, by an application either to the King himself directly, or indirectly through the Commander-in-chief. But if that House were to constitute itself into a Court of Appeal from the military Courts, it would, in fact, place itself in the position which was taken by the House of Commons in the time of Charles 1st, when it assumed the command of the army. At the same time, no man would deny, that the House had the power of interfering, if a case of abuse should have been clearly established against a military Court, or against any other Court. But as no case had been made out by the hon. member for Middlesex, he hoped that Gentleman would see the propriety of withdrawing his Motion.
Mr. Tennysonhad not received any intimation of the course which his hon friend, the member for Middlesex was determined to pursue, until he heard him make the present Motion. He was not prepared, therefore, to say whether the course which he had adopted was or was not the best, by which he might have brought the case before Parliament. But he would say this, that he never heard a case which more urgently called for investigation in that House than that which had been made out in the statement of his hon. friend. His hon. and learned friend who had just sat down, had stated that the House would be authorised, only by a case of great abuse, in interfering with the proceedings of courts-martial, or of any other Courts. But that statement implied an admission that the hon. and learned Gentleman himself was opposing the Motion upon insufficient grounds; for surely there never could be a case of grosser abuse than that which his hon. friend had stated. Whether or not the statement could be substantiated, it was of such a nature that the House ought to institute some inquiry, although he could not say in what form the inquiry was to be made. The House ought to be informed by the right hon. the Secretary at War, whether or not he had examined into the circumstances. For, although his hon. friend (Mr. Hume) had not given notice of the precise form of the
38
Motion, yet he had already drawn the attention of the Government to the case, and the attention of the whole country had been drawn to it—nor had any case ever created a stronger feeling of surprise and indignation amongst the people. If the statement of the hon. member for Middlesex was correct, there could be no doubt that the man had really been flogged for his political opinion, and he (Mr. Tennyson) was glad to hear his right hon. friend deny that the statement was correct.
Sir John Hobhouse: What I said was, that there appeared nothing in the minutes of the court-martial to justify me in supposing that there was any truth in the statement that the man was punished for a political offence.
Mr. Tennysonwas glad that his right hon. friend (Sir John Hobhouse) had stated his opinion, that a soldier could not be punished by a court-martial for the expression of his opinion on a political question. If such a punishment as flogging was to be continued, he trusted that the House would at least take care that the power to inflict it could not be abused as in this case. He would support the Motion.
Lord Althorpsaid, he must complain, that the hon. Gentleman had not given notice of his intention to bring forward a Motion so unusual. It was said a man had been punished for an offence which did not subject him to a Military Court, under the pretence of his having committed a military offence. He (Lord Althorp) agreed, that, if that was true, the transaction was one which called for the severest reprehension. But this was a case in which the House ought not to proceed, unless very strong ground should have been made out; nor ought it to interfere with the proceedings of a court martial upon the unsupported statement which had been made by his hon. friend (Mr. Hume), on the authority of the individual himself who complained of being aggrieved. He entirely concurred with his hon. friend, that a soldier had a right, in common with every other Englishman, to express his opinions upon questions of politics. But there must be a line drawn, beyond which that, right should not be exercised; and he thought it a question of very great delicacy and difficulty, to determine where the line should be drawn in the case of a soldier. There was at present no reason for going into the discussion, and he put it to the House, whether the Motion

39
ought to be agreed to, notice not having been given of the hon. Gentleman's intention to make it.
Mr. O'Connellthought it but reasonable the House should acquiesce in the Motion, for it went only so far as the production of the minutes of the court-martial and the sentence pronounced. It was not the province of that House to take into its consideration the question of how far it was competent to a court-martial to punish for a breach of orders or of discipline. That was a subject of too much delicacy for the House to intermeddle with, but the House would never suffer that the sentence of a court-martial should be applied to the purpose of inflicting covertly a military punishment on a soldier, for something else which made no part of the accusation against him upon his trial on the court-martial. Surely this Government in particular would never shelter a proceeding of so grossly unjust a nature as this, if the facts were as had been stated. But the complaint now made was, that this soldier was not only punished disproportionably to his alleged offence, but that by regimental arrangement, a trap was laid for him so as to cause him to commit this act of insubordination, and thus afford an opportunity, under cover of this sentence, to inflict not punishment for this offence, but vengeance for something industriously kept out of sight, namely, the offence of a political kind committed by him in writing a letter to the Dispatch newspaper. This trap consisted in the man's being removed into a higher grade (for which, not an hour before, he had been pronounced unfit), in consequence of which he was appointed to ride an undisciplined horse which he could not master, and which caused the man's refusal to peril his life wantonly, having been but four months in the regiment. And yet it was alleged that this was made the pretext for inflicting on him a severe and brutal punishment, for that which was not in fact a military punishment cognizable by that Court. The right hon. Baronet, the Secretary-at-war had said, forsooth, that this part of the grievance complained of, did not appear upon the face of the proceedings of the court-martial. No one could expect that it should—or that the finding of the court-martial should specify, that the sentence was carried into execution, "because of this man's having written a letter to the
40
Editor of the Dispatch." He conceived it would have been highly becoming in the right hon. Baronet to have made personally the proper inquiry into these facts, whether they were true, as stated in the petition, before he had attempted to set up such a defence for the punishment inflicted. As no denial of the allegation in the petition was attempted, he must take those facts as so far proved, that the right hon. Baronet was bound to have instituted an inquiry officially into their truth; and the House, of course, in the absence of all such endeavour on the part of that right hon. Gentleman, was also bound to institute that preliminary inquiry, the first stage of which would not be accomplished without the production of these minutes. Five weeks had elapsed since that man had received these 100 lashes, with a severity which it appeared still confined him to the hospital; and yet the officers arraigned by this petition, had not thought it their duty, as he felt they should have done, to volunteer a statement in their own defence.
Mr. Robert Grantknew nothing of this case, except what was contained in the petition presented to the House. He agreed in the statement of the case made by the hon. and learned Gentleman; he admitted the superior power of that House, but he contended that the case, so stated, did not warrant the exercise of the delicate jurisdiction which was vested in the House of Commons. There were other ways of coming at the real nature of the case, which might, and should, have been resorted to before the hon. member for Middlesex applied to the House. The hon. Member might, for instance, have applied, in the proper quarter, for an inspection of the minutes of the court martial; and, after reading them, he could then have ascertained whether there was any just ground for the more solemn proceeding of an appeal to Parliament. With reference to what had been said of the conversation that took place between the commanding officer and the soldier, and to the assurance, that if the soldier expressed his contrition for the one offence, he should not be punished for the other, he was confident that the conversation had no effect on the minds of the five gentlemen who composed the court-martial, and that they decided purely on the evidence brought before them. Of this court-martial the

41
commanding officer, with whom the conversation was said to have taken place, was not one; and he was confident—relying, as he did, on the honour and probity of five gentlemen, bound to administer justice on their oaths; that the soldier was tried and sentenced for the military offence alleged against him, and not for any political offence which might have been known to the commanding officer. He said that common justice, common fairness, common consideration for men discharging a judicial duty upon their oaths, ought to be set against the conversation which was alleged to have taken place. He did not, in his conscience believe that the court-martial inflicted this punishment as a punishment for a political offence. Why did he think so? Because that was but justice to the judicial persons who stood between the soldier and the commission of his first offence. Those persons must receive that credit from the House which those holding high judicial stations always had, and justly claimed. Let the House suppose, however, that this was not the fact, but that the court-martial began with a feeling, and with a view of punishing an offence that was not charged. Did this individual, or did he not, commit an offence within the Articles of War, subjecting him to this punishment? Was the finding of the Court, that he had committed the offence right, and was the sentence just, that that offence should be so punished? Suppose this were not the case, were there not a hundred safeguards to prevent the improper exercise of this description of power? Did not this soldier stand before a court-martial to make his defence? He was a person, too, apparently, well able to express his opini-ions—indeed, that was stated to be his real fault. Had he any ground for denying the military offence? Was there no proof of its commission? Was there nothing which called for the pronouncing of this sentence, and the infliction of this punishment? If not—if these persons did punish this man, actuated by unjust and private motives of their own, were they not liable to the severest punishments, both civil and military? There were many good common lawyers in the House, who could answer that question much better than he could. Was it permitted in this country for a number of persons to conspire together in order to
42
abuse the judicial authority? Was there no remedy? Had application been made at head-quarters? After all, were the military officers, generally, so indifferent to the interests and the welfare of the soldiers, as to permit such an act of injustice to pass unnoticed? Was there no justice in any quarter, and was it a common occurrence, that a person oppressed by an unjust court-martial should cry in vain to the fountain of all justice? He said, that there was not now before the House a sufficient degree of evidence to justify it in taking that step, which he did not, however, say it might not be obliged to take hereafter. He admitted all the general principles that had been laid down in the course of this discussion. It was quite absurd to say, that every soldier was debarred from exercising his judgement on matters passing around him, so that he acted consistently with a proper observance of military discipline. He did not dispute the civil rights which belonged to the soldier, but, he said, that although the soldier possessed those rights, he might be wrong in the frequent exercise of them. His noble friend had very justly observed, that it was not fitting that soldiers should always assume the character of political disputants. There was another principle which he thought would not be controverted; namely, that they ought to look with jealousy on the deliberations of those who deliberated with arms in their hands; a principle, in his opinion, quite as important as civil liberty itself. When this question was before the House on a former occasion, this court-martial was represented to be a district court-martial. It did not appear to have been so, and all he could say with respect to it was, that even supposing, as he was very unwilling to suppose, that the commanding officer was influenced in acting as he did from political opinions, which he did not and could not believe—he said, even supposing that to have been the case, he could not believe that the members of the court-martial would lend themselves to such an atrocious act of oppression, nor did he see one allegation in the petition, or the letter produced by the hon. Gentleman, that connected the conversation of the commanding officer with the court-martial itself. He had no doubt that the gentlemen who composed the court-martial, not only acted in rigid observance of their oaths, but that they possessed feelings

43
which, he was sure, were not scarce in the hearts of British officers—lie meant, regret and commiseration for the private soldier against whom the offence was charged, and a determination not to find him guilty until it was clearly proved against him—above all, not to punish him for an offence not committed, or not proved against him. He would say in conclusion, as that court-martial was acknowledged to have been held with strict propriety, and the punishment awarded according to the Articles of War, he certainly did not see the use or necessity of producing at present the papers which were required.
Mr. Edmund Peelwas satisfied, from what he knew of the manner in which courts-martial were conducted, that the soldier had been fairly tried for the regimental offence alleged against him. He would venture to assert, that the allegations of the hon. Member were not founded in fact. He should, however, vote for the production of the minutes of the court-martial, in order to do justice to the character of Major Wyndham.
Sir FrancisBurdett would vote for the Motion, whether it was pressed now, or withdrawn, to be produced hereafter in an amended form, as a method of procuring a satisfactory elucidation of the case. The question at issue was important to every class, for there could be no doubt that the punishment awarded on this occasion greatly exceeded the measure of the offence. The hon. Member opposite said, that it would be attended with danger if the soldier were allowed to discuss political subjects. He did not think so; for, as Blackstone says, "a soldier puts not off the citizen when he enters the camp, but it is because he is a citizen, and would wish to remain so, that he makes himself for awhile a soldier." The bounds of military obedience had not been clearly defined; for there had been cases in which soldiers had been brought before Courts of Justice for obeying the orders of their offcers. It was perfectly clear that this matter was left in a vague condition, and it was the duty of the House, in a time of profound peace, to revise the law relative to military discipline. The power which was at present allowed by the Mutiny Act was much too great, and, as was said by Blackstone, "Perhaps, in some future revision of this Act, which was, in many respects, hastily penned, it may be thought worthy the wisdom of Parliament
44
to ascertain the limits of military subjection and to enact express Articles of War for the government of the army." Blackstone carried his doctrine to an extent which, in the present day, would be considered dangerous. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last but one, displayed a great deal of ingenuity in his mode of treating this question; but he must excuse him for saying, that he would perplex a plain case. When, therefore, he said, that there was no truth in the statement, and when charges were made, that the soldier was punished on other grounds than those upon which he was tried—there was sufficient reason to call for inquiry. Colonel Wyndham, from what he knew of him, was the very last man whom he would suppose likely to be guilty of anything approaching to cruelty or oppression. He admitted that; but it was necessary for the safety of the soldiery, the satisfaction of the public, and, still more, for the character of Major Wyndham, that the case should be fully understood. He should vote, therefore, for inquiry; for he believed, that if there was one duty of the House more important than another, it was, to watch over the courts of justice, and to see that they did not go beyond the limits marked out by the law. To prove that this had ever been the practice, he would refer to the circumstance of appointing a Committee of Justice at the commencement of every Session, to prevent irregular proceedings in military, as well as civil, courts. He regretted that he was not in the House the other night when the hon. member for Preston brought the general subject under the attention of the House, as he should have availed himself of the opportunity of going more at length into the subject. He had flattered himself that flogging was hardly ever practised in the army, but, unfortunately, the practice seemed of late to have been growing up from the comparative disuse into which it had sunk. He said, the practice had increased, for he was sure, that recently no person could have read the papers who must not have been shocked with the accounts of the punishments inflicted upon soldiers. The argument which had been urged, that all the officers in the army were men of honour, did not appear to him to be entitled to much weight, for men would do things under particular circumstances, which they would not do in a different situation. He be-

45
lieved, that men of higher honour and of greater humanity, did not exist than the officers of the British army; but supposing severe discipline necessary to secure the efficiency of the array, they reconciled themselves to practices of which their hearts and their better reason disapproved. He did not intend to impugn the proceedings of this court-martial, for he had not sufficient evidence to give an opinion on the subject; but he maintained that the state of the public mind rendered inquiry necessary. Within the last twelve months, general attention had been directed to this subject, and there was a feverish anxiety that the practice should be got rid of. He therefore implored and entreated his Majesty's Ministers to take the whole subject into their consideration, and look over the articles of war, with a view to correct such abuses as might exist under them. He thought that the present period was peculiarly adapted for the examination of the whole question, and he trusted that it would be proceeded in without delay. As to the power in question of subjecting men to this species of torture, the thing was monstrous, and the abuse of it intolerable. It had been said, that it would be most unsafe to abandon this power, but surely it could be much lessened without danger, and there could be no doubt that the crimes for which it was to be inflicted should be most accurately denned. There was no one—he would not say a humane man, but no man, however desirous of keeping up the discipline of the army, who would not say that the power of punishment should be exercised with the greatest forbearance. The hon. Baronet in conclusion praised Mr. Shipp, and again entreated the Ministers at once to revise the Mutiny Act, and take away the possibility of the recurrence of such offences.
Sir Robert Peelsaid, the charge was, that a soldier had been punished for one offence, having committed another; and that was a question totally distinct from the corporal punishment to which the hon. Baronet had endeavoured to direct the attention of the House. He, thought it would have been better if that question had been left untouched; but, convinced as he was, that if they constituted themselves a tribunal for the examination of the proceedings of this court-martial, on the mere statement of the offender, they would have a petition for the same purpose
46
from every person who might hereafter be tried, he should certainly vote against the Motion. By consenting to constitute themselves a tribunal on such grounds, for the investigation of the proceedings of a court-martial, they were withdrawing from the officers of the regiment, and from the Commander-in-chief, the whole of the authority delegated to them by Act of Parliament, and at the same time placing the matter under the worst possible jurisdiction which could be selected. He candidly admitted that nothing ought to be more severely condemned, than that an officer should accuse a soldier of one offence, and cause him to be punished for another. He would begin by stating this; but he must at the same time say, that it would be utterly impossible to maintain the discipline of the army, if soldiers were allowed to be political partizans, correspondents of newspapers, or members of political clubs. Then, indeed, a standing-army would be in truth a curse—then might they bid farewell to civil liberty. He thought, accordingly, that it was fully in the power of the officer in command to interdict a soldier's communication with the newspapers, and prevent him from being a member of a Political Union. He denied the truth of the doctrine, that a soldier continued to enjoy all the rights of a citizen. It was quite clear the soldier must forfeit that portion of his civic right which would interfere with the discipline of the army. But to address himself to the matter immediately before the House. The question simply was, had they sufficient prima facie evidence to induce them to believe that this individual had been punished for one offence while he had been accused of another? The expediency of corporal punishments had nothing to do with this charge; and it was most improper to appeal to men's passions on this topic. Now he did not think a prima facie case had been made out; he disbelieved the charge. He could not believe that Major Wyudham and the other officers on the court-martial could have violated their-oaths by trying a soldier on one charge and punishing him for another. He did not believe that Lord Hill and the other superior officers of the army would have suffered the proceeding to pass unnoticed, if anything appeared against this line of conduct pursued by Major Wyndham. Wishing, therefore, to leave the army to its natural protectors, desiring not to establish

47
a precedent for the interference of the House of Commons in such matters, which must be fatal to the discipline of the army—he would give his decided vote against the proposition of the hon. member for Middlesex, however it might be shaped.
Colonel O'Gradywas quite convinced, that it was impossible the charges brought against Major Wyndham and the other officers could be founded in fact. The charge against the prisoner was necessarily referred to one or more of the Articles of War, and this most strictly, and no verdict could be given except upon the charge. He was quite convinced that the court-martial had been properly conducted, and that the officers upon it had acted as became gentlemen and men of honour.
Mr. Huntdid not understand how Gentlemen could complain of having been taken by surprise, as the subject had been so long before the House. The hon. Baronet had denied that soldiers had a right to express their political opinions when not on duty. If that was so, every military Officer in that House should be restrained in the expression of his political opinions. It was said, there was no complaint against the Commander-in-chief. He complained of the conduct of the Commander-in-chief, because the charges had been published in all the public papers, and no inquiry had been instituted by that officer. It was most extraordinary that his Majesty's Ministers should resist the Motion. The man had been tried for one crime, and punished for another. After the soldier had written the letter to the editor of a paper, he was ordered to ride an untrained horse. When dismounted, he refused to mount again, and was tried by a court-martial. That was the charge, and his hope was, that the Motion of the hon. member for Middlesex would not be rejected. He thought the Secretary-at-War ought, at least, to discharge the man, and send him about his business, in order that they might have the benefit of his testimony at their bar.
Sir Ronald Fergusonthought it better that the matter should be left to the military authorities, who, he had no doubt, would do justice to the injured party, and who, he could take upon him to say, were uniformly disposed to act in the humanest manner, compatible with the efficiency of the service, towards the soldiery. Within his own period an immense progress had been made towards doing away altogether
48
with corporal punishment in the array; so much so, indeed, that he would say, that the time was arrived when the experiment might be tried, so far as the home service was concerned, though he feared that it would not be possible to preserve the discipline of the army in the colonies, unless the commanding officers possessed some discretionary power with respect to the infliction of bodily punishment.
Lord Oxmantown, if the statements made against Major Wyndham could be proved, there could be no doubt that he should no longer remain in the service. He must add, however, that he had known Major Wyndham for years, and he could say, that from all he could gather from the facts of the case, and even from the petition itself, there was not the least ground for the charge against him. Notwithstanding these circumstances he would vote for inquiry, because he was well aware that no individual could be more anxious for it than Major Wyndham himself, and he was sure he would come out of the inquiry with credit. The petition bore on the face of it three or four falsehoods. It stated, for instance, that the soldier had received 100 lashes, and had been sent back to prison to receive the rest at another time. This was contrary to law—it was contrary to fact—and, seeing such a falsehood stated, he had a right to doubt the rest.
Mr. Slaneygave great credit to the noble Lord who had just spoken, for the way in which he had argued the case. He would admit that it was a subject for inquiry, but, after the statement made by his Majesty's Ministers, he could not see how the hon. member for Middlesex could persevere in his Motion. He would, therefore, recommend him not to press his Motion. If it should turn out that there was any truth in the statements, he would be the first person to assist in bringing the offender to justice.
Mr. Fanethought, it would be time enough for the House to think of interfering, when it was seen that the military authorities had neglected to make the proper inquiry.
Sir John Hobhousesaid, in allusion to what had fallen from the hon. member for Middlesex, that he had been taken by surprise, for he did not know that the petition was to be brought up on that evening. He, therefore, had not made himself acquainted with the sentiments of the Com-

49
mander-in-chief; and it would be a want of courtesy to lay the papers moved for before the House without consulting; him. The only question, therefore, before the House was, whether, in the present state of the proceedings, it would be proper to accede to the Motion. He thought it would not, and should vote against the Motion.
Mr. Humesaid, that the right hon. Gentleman begged the question altogether. He said, there was nothing in the charge respecting a political offence. Of course there was none. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that a man became a soldier in order to defend his rights as a citizen. Well, then, when the man was off duty, surely there could be no great offence in his expressing his political sentiments. It was true that there were ex parte statements. His very object was, that the other party should be heard. It was a reflection on Lord Hill that he had not yet taken notice of the subject. There was, therefore, no means of appeal but to that House, and that was the reason why he brought forward this Motion. After the candid and manly observations of the noble Lord opposite, he did not wish to press the question in a manner to which the noble Lord might object. He was prepared, therefore, to withdraw the present Motion, and give notice of a Motion for this day week, to refer the petition to a Select Committee. He did this in order that no one might accuse him of taking the House unprepared.
Motion withdrawn.

SUFFOLK ASSIZES.
Mr. Rigby Wasonmoved for leave to bring in a Bill to remove the Summer Suffolk Assizes from Bury St. Edmund's to Ipswich. He did not wish them removed altogether from one town to the other—all he desired was, that the Assizes might be held, as they once had been, at each of the towns alternately.
The Earl of Jermynwas opposed to the proposed Bill, and should therefore take the sense of the House upon it at this early stage of the measure.
Mr. Rigby Wasonhoped, that the Bill would be allowed to be brought in, and that the opinion of the Magistrates of the county might then be taken on it before it came to a second reading.
Mr. Lambhad always been opposed to the introduction of measures of this sort, which he thought most inconvenient,
50
and not very proper to be discussed in that House. If they were to be brought before the House, it was proper that some evidence should be given that the opinion of the Magistrates, who were connected with the places to which such measures applied, was favourable to them. He, therefore, thought that it would be better if the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Motion until he could ascertain the opinion of the Magistrates assembled in Quarter Sessions.
Motion withdrawn.

OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH.
Sir Andrew Agnewpresented a Petition from certain Persons in the Cities of London and Westminster, praying that measures might be taken to ensure the better Observance of the Sabbath. The hon. Baronet then observed, that at the very late hour which had arrived, he would not detain the House by any observations, but merely move, that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the Laws and Practices relating to the Observance of the Lord's Day.
Mr. Evans supported the Motion.
Lord Althorpwould not object to the Motion, although the subject was one of difficulty to deal with. The law, he thought, required revision.
Mr. Courtenaydid not understand what was meant to be included under the word "practices," and he should recommend that the inquiry be limited to the state of the law on the subject.
Mr. Pringlethought the whole subject should be inquired into. He apprehended that the word "practices," was meant to apply to various dealings that were now carried on during the Lord's day, the due observance of which had been greatly infringed upon, especially by the Sunday markets.
Mr. Lambdid not expect much good from the Committee, but he had no objection to its appointment. He denied that there was any increase in immorality generally in the metropolis. The Sunday markets were in a great measure to be attributed to the payment of wages at a late hour on Saturday night. He objected also to the word "practices." He had no objection to the contradictions of the law being revised, but he did implore hon. Members not to do anything to take from the cheerfulness of the English Sabbath, and to give to it a character of puritanical

51
gloom. Hon. Members also should remember, that the restrictions must fall solely on the labouring classes.
Sir Andrew Agnewcould not consent to leave the word "practices" out, as that would render the inquiries of the Committee of little use.
Lord Sandonsaid, the word "practices" was essential to the Motion. If there were no Sunday markets the tradesmen would pay their men earlier than they did.
Mr. Humesaid, that if there were to be restrictions on the poor, there ought also to be restrictions on the rich. The higher classes ought to set the example. If Earl Grey gave a Cabinet dinner on Sunday, was he to be called before the Committee? He entirely agreed with the Under Secretary of State (Mr. Lamb). If a poor man was to be prevented from getting his piece of beef or greens, let the rich man be prevented from getting his ices and other luxuries.
Mr. Shawsupported the Motion, and thought the word "practices" necessary. The Sabbath ought to be a day of rest, not of amusement and riotous enjoyment, to the labourers.
Mr. Ewartwas sure, that if the poor were debarred of innocent sports they would be driven to what was bad. In his opinion, more liberty ought to be allowed to the poor.
Mr. Lefroythought the hon. Member had mistaken the object of the Motion, which was to secure the enjoyment of the poor on the Sabbath.
Mr. Wyseobjected to the appointment of the Committee proposed. It could have no other effect than to place additional restraints on the poor, and embitter still more their already embittered minds.
Committee appointed.