§ On the Motion that the House resolve itself into Committee on this Bill,
§ Mr. Humemoved, that the Bill be read a second time that day three months. This Bill was founded upon principles opposed to all those on which the manufactures of this country were founded. The more free the manufactures were left from such restrictions and regulations as those contained in this Bill, the better for the manufacturers and those whom they employed.
Colonel Connollywas surprised that the hon. Member for Middlesex should oppose the Bill in the face of those who had had 274 much experience of the beneficial working of a similar measure. He would support the Bill, on the ground that the regulations embraced in it were required.
§ Lord Morpethsaid that though the provisions of the Bill might not in strict theory be all perfectly justifiable, yet as it had received the general assent of both manufacturers and operatives in Ireland, he would give it his support.
§ Mr. Warburtonwas sorry that the noble Lord supported a Bill of this kind. Let him look at the marginal notes and see the yard-and-sevenths sort of legislation of which the Bill consisted, and he must surely be ashamed of supporting such minute and ridiculous legislation.
§ Colonel Percevalsaid, Mr. Hume and his Friends took an entirely false view of the case. They did not understand the linen trade, and were incompetent to pronounce upon it. If the Bill passed, any one might go to the market and buy his commodity without the risk of being cheated.
§ Mr. Emerson Tennentsaid the proposition was merely to revive for three years longer a Bill passed three years ago, and which was about to expire. The Bill did not interfere between the manufacturer and the weaver. It was a protection to them and the buyer. If there were not some certificate of the width of the linen there might be fraud. The Bill merely referred to the article exposed to sale in open market. The experience of those engaged in the trade was of higher authority for the Bill than the fanciful theories of Gentlemen opposite against it.
§ Sir Robert Bateson,as a representative of a large section of the linen manufacturers and weavers of the north, would say that they were all unanimous in favour of the Bill. Public meetings had been held in all parts of Ulster on the subject, and not one voice was raised against it, but, on the contrary, numerous petitions were presented in its favour. That surely was strong evidence of its utility. The trade was prospering under the Bill—it was almost the staple trade of the country—and he hoped that the good sense and justice of Parliament would not now destroy it, in deference to the quack doctrines of modern philosophers.
§ Mr. Grotecertainly could not believe that the sort of legislation which had been found so injurious to England and Scotland, could be beneficial to Ireland.
§ Mr. Humethought it but justice to Ireland to place her upon the same footing as 275 England and Scotland, and allow her none of those protections and restrictions. They were only injurious to the trade they were meant to benefit. But if Irish Members chose to wear halters round their own necks—if they chose to go to the—Well, he would just only say, let them go on their own way, and they would be sorry for it.
§ The House divided on the Amendment: Ayes 26; Noes 124; Majority 98.
| List of the AYES. | |
| Aglionby, H. A. | Marsland, Henry |
| Attwood, Thomas | Ponsonby, Hon. J. |
| Barry, G. S. | Power, James |
| Baldwin, Dr. | Scholefield, J. |
| Blamire, W. | Speirs, A. G. |
| Bowring, Dr. | Thornely, Thomas |
| Brownrigg, T. S. | Tooke, W. |
| Buller Charles | Thompson, Colonel |
| Callaghan, D. | Turner, William |
| Chapman, M. L. | Villiers, C. |
| Chalmers, P. | Wallace, Robert |
| Elphinstone, H. | TELLERS. |
| Ferguson, Sir R. C. | |
| Grote, George | Hume, Joseph |
| Hutt, W. | Warburton, Henry |
§ House in Committee on the Bill.
§ Mr. Humeexpressed his deep regret that his Majesty's Government should leave all the principles of free trade unsupported on the present occasion.
§ Mr. Callaghanwas astonished that Ministers should renew so objectionable a system for three years. It was a Bill of pains and penalties for the linen manufacturers of Ireland. No case whatever had been made out for the measure.
§ Sir Robert Peelwas disposed to defer to the opinion of the majority of the House on the subject. It was inexpedient to force even right principles on those who were engaged in the manufacture in question. If it could be proved to him that the measure would permanently promote that manufacture, the benefit to morality which must then ensue would leave him without hesitation on the subject. But he confessed he had some doubts respecting it, and could not clearly see that that must be good for Ireland which was not considered good for other countries. In his opinion a committee ought to be appointed in the course of the next session to investigate the subject. In the mean while, as the time for which the Bill was to be renewed was only three years, he thought it would be better not to force upon the manufacturers principles Which they were not disposed to approve of.
§ Lord Morpethsaid that Ministers rested their justification on their having been assured that if they refused to renew the Act for a limited period, they would inflict a serious injury on the present flourishing state of the manufacture in question.
§ The Bill went through the Committee, and the House resumed.