Commons Sitting of 20 March 1838

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Sir R. PEEL, from the Clergy of Down, for additional Church Accommodation; from Evesham, against the Municipal Boundaries Bill; and from a place in the county of Cork, for some arrangement as to tithes.—By Colonel SALWAY, from Ludlow, and by Mr. PEASE, Mr. VERNON SMITH, and Mr. BARNARD, from several places, for the abolition of Negro Slavery.—By Mr. HUME, from Worthing, in favour of the Ballot, and from Dissenters in Scotland, against the King's Printer's monopoly of printing the Bible.

COUNTY CORONERS BILL.
Mr. Pakington, in rising to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice, on the subject of county coroners, entreated the indulgence of the House, of which he stood in great need. He was about to propose very considerable alterations in one of the most ancient and important of their institutions; and he felt diffidence in approaching the subject when he considered that one of the oldest and most experienced Members of that House, his hon. Friend, the Member for Cirencester, had been baffled in his many endeavours to bring about that alteration. He regretted that the subject had not been brought forward by her Majesty's Government, as it was one well worthy of their consideration. The object of this Bill was principally to put an end to the vexatious and harassing contested elections by which many counties in the kingdom have been at various times disturbed. He wished to see men capable of filling the situation obtain it without the ruinous expense it had hitherto entailed upon them, and he wished to increase the compensation which had hitherto been awarded to these functionaries. It was not necessary to detain the House by pointing out the anomalies and inconveniences of the present system. Three modes had suggested themselves which have all been made the subjects of enactments submitted to that House. One was, to restrict the franchise by disfranchising all below the value of forty shillings, and confining it to those who had a right to vote for Members of Parliament for counties. Another mode
1074
that had been thought of, was to disfranchise the freeholders altogether, and give the power to the Crown. The third mode was to disfranchise the freeholders, and transfer the choice to the magistrates at quarter sessions. With regard to the first he thought there was a great and insuperable objection, for although the franchise would be restricted, the great evil which had hitherto existed would not be removed. The contests in these elections were almost exclusively of a political character, and were trials of party strength. If the franchise was restricted to the voters for counties he thought the same evils would go on, and the expense attending elections would be but very little lessened. With respect to the second mode, he did not think it would be productive of good; and as to the third, the transfer to the magistrates at quarter sessions, there were certainly objections, but of the three modes it was decidedly the best. One objection which might be made to the Bill was, that it would introduce party spirit on the bench, and disturb the unanimity amongst the magistracy. He could not subscribe to that opinion. He believed, that the magistrates generally—he knew that the county which he had the honour to belong to—in the discharge of their public duties were as free from party bias as it was possible for human nature to be. He might be told also, that by his Bill he was taking away a right which had been exercised by the freeholders from time immemorial. He could, however, cite instances where tile Houses of Parliament had for the public benefit taken away individual rights. He would instance the case of the forty-shilling freeholders in Ireland, whose rights were abolished for what was considered a great public benefit. He would also instance the case of the Municipal Reform Act, which in many instances had a disfranchising power. He would instance under that Bill the case of Macclesfield, which, previously to the passing of that Act, possessed a coroner for the town separate from the county, and he was elected by the freemen of the town. By the Municipal Reform Act that office was abolished, and the rights of the freemen were taken away. The present mode of electing the coroner by the freeholders at large was an antiquated custom, and not in accordance with the present distribution of property. He thought it was right, that some mode of selecting the

1075
person who was to discharge the judicial duties of coroner should be adopted, by which the public would be assured, that the fittest person would be appointed to that office. He thought it would be also right, that parties who might have the honourable ambition of wishing to fill the office of county coroner should not be exposed to the ruinous expense that was at present entailed on them. He was desirous of assimilating, so far as he could, the election of county coroner to the mode in which the coroners for cities were chosen under the Municipal Reform Act. The Municipal Corporation Act gave the appointment of the city and borough coroners to the town councils; and although he did not think they offered the best precedent, because they were elective bodies, yet there was some analogy between them and those bodies to which his Bill proposed to give the appointment, namely, the magistrates in quarter sessions. Another provision of his Bill was, to divide counties into coroner's districts—another to give coroners the power of resigning their office, which, at present, they had not, without incurring much expense and trouble, by application to the Lord Chancellor. Another provision was, to attach to the jurisdiction of the nearest district coroner detached portions of counties, which in some cases were at considerable distances from the counties to which they belonged. He also proposed to increase the fees and allowances to coroners. He believed he was right in stating, that Parliament had, in all cases where it was shown that the remuneration of these officers was inadequate as compared with the duties which they had to perform, readily assented to every proposition that had been made to increase it. Where there was a number of candidates for the office, and they did not object to the amount of the remuneration, it was thought by some, that that was sufficient evidence that it was equal to the nature of the duties to be performed by them. He did not think this, however, a fair way of looking at the question. He thought they ought to look more to the respectability of the office and to the importance of the duties appertaining to it; and if they did so they would find, that the present rate of remuneration was anything but adequate to them. He would not detain the House by going into calculations with respect to the changes which he
1076
proposed in the amount of fees. He would just state generally, that he would limit himself to the same additions that had been made by the Bill brought in by his hon. Friend near him (Mr. Cripps)last year, viz., that to the increase of 1l. 6s. 8d. given by that Bill, there be a further increase to 30 s.; and that, instead of receiving 9d. on the way, they should receive 9d. each way, and be compensated for all travelling expenses. There was another point to which he would beg to call the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (her Majesty's Attorney-General); but at the same time he begged to state, that he intended it rather as a suggestion than as a point material to the objects of this Bill. By the Bill which had been brought in on a former occasion by the hon. and learned Gentleman directions had been given to the Courts of Quarter Sessions to prepare a scale of fees, the consequence of which was, that in no two counties were the fees equal. Now he would wish to know whether in proceeding with a Bill of this kind it would not be desirable to take the opportunity of equalising the fees all over the country? There only remained one other subject to which he requested the attention of the House, and on which he begged to address himself to the hon. Member for Bridport, who had for many years originated a motion on the subject he was about to mention—he meant the important question whether or not, in a Bill of this kind, it was necessary that a declaratory or enacting clause should be introduced that the courts of coroners are of necessity open. An attempt to introduce such a clause into the present Bill would have the effect of preventing its passing in another place. After what had passed last year he thought it would be better to bring in a special Bill for this purpose than to endanger the present by taking such a step. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to alter and amend the laws relating to the office of county coroner.
Mr. Crippsseconded the motion for leave to bring in the Bill. The subject was one that he had brought forward three different times most thanklessly for the last two years; but he trusted the difficulties he had met with would not beset the hon. Member who now brought it forward. He objected to giving the whole of the power of appointing coroners to the magistrates at quarter sessions, but still he

1077
agreed with his hon. Friend that some change was absolutely necessary. He was in favour of giving to the country constituency in this respect all the advantages which they could derive from their franchise under the Reform Act. He wished the hon. Member success with his Bill, and he hoped that his own objections would be removed.
Mr. Warburton, although he would not then absolutely object to the bringing in of the Bill, would, when in Committee, give to some of its clauses his most decided opposition. The hon. Member for Droitwich professed to base his Bill upon the Municipal Reform Act, which gave the appointment of coroner to the town councils; but there was no analogy between the town councils and the magistrates in quarter sessions. The town councils were elective bodies; and, although the election was not quite popular, yet it was nearly so, whereas the magistrates in quarter sessions were not at all elective. It would be subversive altogether of the objects of the institution of coroner to give the appointment to the magistrates, whose conduct it would be the duty of the coroners to investigate. For instance, in a case where lives had been lost in a riot the question for the coroner might be whether there had been sufficient cause to justify the magistrates in ordering the Riot Act to be read. It was important that the judicial officer who had that inquiry to conduct should be properly chosen, and not appointed by the magistrates. The office was one which, above all others, ought to be held by popular election; but he had no objection to a better regulation as to the mode of election. Unless it was declared that coroners' courts were to be open he thought that in the instances where the conduct of the Government or the magistrates was to be investigated the public would be excluded. Such being his opinion, he should, in Committee, move the insertion of a clause that the courts of all coroners should be open.
Mr. Wakleyhoped the House would not sanction the introduction of this Bill, which he considered in many points much more objectionable than that which had been introduced so often, and at last abandoned, by the hon. Member for Cirencester. One of the objects of the proposed Bill was greatly to increase the pay of county coroners, and double the mileage they received under the Act of last Session. In
1078
the next place, it proposed to disfranchise nearly a million of votes, without imputing to them any corruption or misconduct, and transfer the election of an officer who was peculiarly their judge, appointed to protect their privileges and watch over their interests, to the almost irresponsible power of the magistrates at quarter sessions. He thought that a most objectionable proposition, and one which he hoped would never be sanctioned. The office of coroner was one in which the people took the deepest interest, being one of the few which had not been interfered with by any of the modern innovations called improvements. It seemed to be the determination of the House to maintain the Poor-law Amendment Act; if, then, any alteration were to be made in the mode of electing coroners, he thought the most desirable class of persons to be fixed on for appointing those officers would be the boards of guardians in the unions. At all events, he hoped the House would at once, without ceremony, reject this Bill, and urge the executive Government to take so important a matter into their own hands.
Sir G. Stricklandwas most anxious to concur in any measure which would have the effect of increasing the respectability and efficiency of the office of county coroner; but anything that seemed good in this measure was much more than counterbalanced by its objectionable features. He altogether repudiated the principle of depriving the freeholders of the right of electing the coroner, and giving it to the magistrates; nor could he regard the proposition of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. Wakley) as in the slightest degree less objectionable.
Sir E. Knatchbullhad great respect for the office and functions of county coroners; at the same time he thought it would be much better, if, instead of there being only three or four persons who could exercise those functions within large counties, every considerable town had an officer of its own. He could not give his consent to the introduction of this Bill, because, in the first place, it would take from the freeholders the right they now possessed of electing and appointing coroners—a right which he never would invade, while, at the same time, it would impose a very heavy additional expense on the counties.
Lord J. Russellconsidered the main principle of the bill to be to transfer the appointment of coroners from the free-

1079
holders of counties to the magistrates at quarter sessions, an innovation which he thought it would not be at all advisable to introduce. He should have had no objection to a bill being brought in to regulate many details connected with the office of coroner, which certainly were not on a very satisfactory footing. But for the amount of important business already before the House, it would have been fit that some bill on this subject should have been introduced by a Member of the Government, and seriously considered by the House; but at present the only question being whether leave should be given to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Pakington) to introduce a bill which contained that novel principle, acting on the conviction that no amendment could be proposed in detail that should induce the House to agree to so great an alteration in principle, he should give his negative to the motion.
Motion withdrawn.

GRINDING FOREIGN CORN IN BOND.
Colonel Sealerose to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice—namely, for leave to bring in a bill to admit, under certain regulations, foreign corn bonded in this country to be ground in certain mills and manufactured for exportation only. He understood that it was necessary in point of form that he should commence with the preliminary motion, that the House do now resolve itself into a Committee of the whole House, to consider the regulations under which foreign corn was admitted to be bonded in this country. If he succeeded in that motion, he would move a resolution in the Committee with a view to introduce a bill, the provisions of which he would proceed to explain. The first would be a provision to empower the Commissioners of Customs to approve of the erection of certain buildings of a peculiar construction, for the bonding of foreign corn manufactured into flour. The second would be a provision to enable the Commissioners to deliver foreign corn bonded in this country to persons hiring or occupying such premises as he had already described, on the condition that within a certain time—say two months—the corn so manufactured into flour should be exported from this country, or else should be delivered back into bonded warehouses under the Queen's locks for exportation. The third would be a provision requiring further securities
1080
than those now required by law. The other provisions would contain penalties on persons who might be guilty of irregularities, or who might deviate from the law. The object of the bill, which he asked leave to bring in, was to enable our merchants trading to foreign countries, and particularly to our colonies, to lay in their supplies in the ports of the United Kingdom to a greater extent than they did at present, instead of being driven, as they were under the existing law, for their supplies to Copenhagen, to Hamburgh, to Dantsic, and to any ports in the Baltic which might be open to them, at very great inconvenience and loss of time. If his measure should be carried, it would open a very great and profitable trade to our merchants. It was said, however, in some quarters, that his motion was nothing else but a motion to repeal the present system of Corn-laws by a side wind. He disclaimed all such intentions in bringing it forward, and he furthermore denied that it would have any such effect. For his own part, he could not find out any connexion between the two questions. On the contrary, he thought that his bill would have a tendency to strengthen the Corn-laws, as it would weaken the opposition to them now felt by the mercantile community. He also denied that his bill would have any tendency either to introduce or to promote smuggling in foreign corn, for, as he had before stated, all foreign corn manufactured into flour on those premises was either to be exported within a given time, or to be returned back to the Queen's lock. He called upon the noble Marquess (Chandos), who, to his own honour, took such a prominent part in promoting the agricultural interests, to consider whether this bill was not eminently calculated to promote those interests. As the propounder of this measure, he had no wish but for inquiry; in point of fact be was most anxious that it should undergo the fullest discussion. If he should obtain leave to bring in his bill, he should hope that it would be read a first time without opposition. He would not move the second reading of it till after Easter. In the mean time it could be printed, in order that the agriculturists might have time to consider the securities which they might deem necessary to the protection of their interests. He begged to assure the House that in bringing forward this motion he was actuated by no

1081
wish to depreciate the value of landed property, or to injure the interests of agriculture. He depended on agriculture for his income; and he believed that this measure would benefit instead of injure the farmers. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by moving that the House resolve itself into Committee for the purpose above mentioned.
Mr. Collierseconded the motion. He did not support this measure, as a step to the repeal of the Corn-laws, and he would not do so if he thought it would prove injurious to the landed interest.
The Marquess of Chandosthought, the proposition of the hon. and gallant Member was neither more nor less than a second edition of the motion for a repeal of the Corn-laws lately made. He was persuaded that extensive frauds would be committed during the process of removing the corn from the Queen's warehouses, and that a great alteration in the price of corn throughout the country would take place. The hon. Member's bill would, in fact, if carried, go far to repeal the Corn-laws, and he therefore thought it fair to state, that he should give it all the opposition in his power in its passage through the House. He was aware that her Majesty's Ministers took a different view of the question, and intended to support the hon. and gallant Member's motion. He regretted this extremely, remembering the course they had taken a few nights since on the question of the repeal of the Corn-laws, and he certainly could not have expected that they would so soon support an extensive alteration in those laws.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, it appeared to him that the present question differed totally from the question of a repeal of the Corn-laws which had been lately before the House. The question they had discussed a few nights since was, whether they would allow corn to be imported for the consumption of the inhabitants of this country; that which they were now considering was, whether they would allow it to be ground at home, not for home consumption, but for exportation. The mercantile and manufacturing interests would be greatly benefitted if the House should determine to grant that permission, for a new branch of trade to the colonies and foreign countries would be opened, which would afford room for the investment of a large amount of capital, and give employment to a great number of labourers, while
1082
he held it to be wholly impossible that the agricultural interest should suffer in the smallest degree. The country Gentlemen opposed this motion because they professed to think that corn could not be kept safely under the Queen's lock, and that the duty on it would be evaded; but the Queen's lock was trusted in all other cases of imported goods, some of them articles of far greater value in proportion to their bulk. The resistance to this motion was, in fact, a pure case of selfishness on the part of the agriculturists; who, because they chose groundlessly to fancy that this partial relaxation of the present Corn-laws would lead to their total repeal, insisted on excluding the other classes of the community from an important and lucrative branch of commerce. It would be easy, by exacting ample security, to take effectual precautions that not a single grain of corn should be exported less than the amount previously imported. The benefits conferred on the shipowners and the inhabitants of seaport-towns, if the hon. and gallant Member succeeded in his object, would be considerable. He hoped, therefore, that all hon. Members connected with the shipping interest would support the motion.
Sir E. Knatchbulldenied the charge of selfishness, brought against the agriculturists by the hon. Member for Bridport. If corn could be kept with security under the Queen's locks to be ground and then exported, without the risk of fraudulent tricks, he would not object to a motion for the purpose; but he understood this question to be essentially different. He understood the hon. and gallant Member's proposition to be substantially this—let corn be ground in the Custom-house while under lock, but as soon as it is ground into flour, let the person whose property it is take it out to the markets of this country and sell it. He understood it so undoubtedly, and if such were the nature of the proposition, there would be no security for the British grower, in the event of its being carried. If the corn, however, were not to be brought into the British market, but to be exported again, he should not entertain any great objection to the motion, though he hardly expected that it would be productive of much good. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, who was perfectly cognizant of, and well versed in, the details of this subject, would

1083
state his opinion to the House, and he (Sir E. Knatchbull) begged to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in case he thought that this measure could be of use to the mercantile interest without injuring the landed interests, he did not think that it ought to be taken by Government into its own hands? This, he felt sure, the Government had no intention of doing.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonrose, with great pleasure, to answer the call that had been made upon him by the right hon. Baronet. He could assure the right hon. Baronet that he was glad to find, from what he had stated, that they entirely understood each other. As the right hon. Baronet had done him the honour to appeal to him for his opinion he would give it, and, in doing so, he thought he might safely refer to his conduct on a former occasion when this subject was under discussion, for the purpose of showing that he was not disposed to do anything by a side wind, which would, in the slightest degree, defeat the Corn-laws, or anything by which the landed interest could be deprived in the least degree of the benefit, if one it were, which the present state of the laws afforded them. Last year, it would be in the recollection of the House, a bill was introduced by Mr. Robinson, the Member for Worcester, for grinding bonded corn, the plan of which was proportional, or in other words, that a certain amount of foreign corn should be taken out of bond, and introduced into the consumption of this country, and that a certain quantity of English corn should be exported in lieu of the foreign corn thus introduced. To this proposition he had refused his acquiescence, because he was of opinion, that it would give rise to fraud. But the proposition of the hon. Member for Dartmouth (Colonel Seale) was of an entirely different nature. That hon. Member seemed scarcely to have done justice to his case, but as the hon. Member had been good enough to show him the bill which he had prepared, he would speak of the bill rather more than of the explanation of the hon. Member. The bill which the hon. Member proposed to introduce, as he read it, went simply to this extent, that corn which was in bond in this country might be ground under the Queen's locks, and that the whole produce, whatever that produce might be, should be exported, security being given for the exportation of the whole. The right hon. Baronet appealed to him, and asked him whether he could get up in his place and
1084
conscientiously say, that he believed that it was impossible that any fraud could, under security of this kind, be carried into effect upon the custom laws of this country? He had no hesitation, as far as his own information went—and he could certainly give a most decided opinion on the subject—in saying that no fraud could, by possibility, take place. The noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Chandos) said, that he considered that fraud would take place. He begged leave to remind the noble Marquess what was the present state of the law and the practice with regard to every article which was imported into this country. But first of all, with regard to the security of the Queen's locks, the whole preservation of the revenue of the country depended upon the security of the Queen's locks. Take, for instance, the article of tobacco. There was a duty upon tobacco of a thousand per cent., and they had no security whatever that tobacco would not be smuggled out of the docks except that which was given by the Queen's locks. Then, again, sugar paid a duty of one hundred per cent., and there was no security that it would not he smuggled but for these locks. On coffee the duty was also high, and yet they had no security but the Queen's locks. If these locks were liable to frauds, if they could be picked (to make use of the expression of the other side), he begged leave to ask, what would be the folly, the insanity of those persons who, having the power which the picking of the Queen's locks gave, should apply that power to corn, which paid a duty of twenty-five or thirty per cent., and did not rather apply it to tobacco or sugar, which were paying, the one one thousand and the other one hundred per cent. He might mention other instances in corroboration of his opinion that it was utterly impossible to doubt the security afforded by what was called the system of lock. He would, however, come to the second point, namely, whether, in the process of the transmission of the corn from one warehouse to another for the purpose of grinding it under lock, the lock being equally applied to the first and second warehouse, some fraud might not take place? It had been a constant practice, recommended by himself, and enforced by the Treasury, to allow persons to manufacture certain articles under lock. They did so with regard to metals, and with sundry other articles, and yet, by no possibility, could fraud be committed. In the process proposed by the present bill, he did not conceive that any

1085
fraud could possibly take place. He did not state this as an advocate for the measure, for he did not concur with the hon. Member who moved it as to the extent of the benefit that was likely to be derived from it. It was not, therefore, as an advocate for this measure that he gave it as his conscientious opinion that he could not see the possibility of fraud being committed under the regulations that would necessarily be introduced. He would even go so far as to say, that the bran of the corn that was ground should also be exported as well as the corn; and, indeed, unless this were the case, he would not agree to the bill. He must say, that the view taken of this subject by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Kent (Sir E. Knatchbull) was honourable. As he (Mr. P. Thomson) stated before, he did not anticipate from this bill the great benefits stated by the hon. Mover of it. They had been told that this measure would be of little or no use, unless they consented to the measure of last year. His answer was, that if this measure was of no use, the other could be only serviceable for fraud. But he was inclined to think that the present bill would be of some practical utility. He believed that a very considerable change had taken place in the last three or four years in the state of corn and flour in the markets of the United States and the West Indies. Formerly the United States supplied not only themselves with corn and flour, but they exported largely. Of late years, either from the increase of population or from inferior crops, instead, of largely exporting, the United States had been considerable importers of corn. It might then be said, why not take corn out of bond here and transport it to the United States for consumption? Now, it was this consideration which made him think there would be some advantages to be gained in this quarter. It was not corn which was brought down from the higher parts of the country in the United States to the seaboard, but flour, all their means of grinding corn being confined to the upper parts of the country. There were no mills on the seaboard. If, therefore, we were to send them corn to the seaport towns in a time of scarcity, it would not be worth their while to erect mills on the seaboard, nor could they afford to send it up the country to be ground. Consequently, he begged to represent to the noble Marquess opposite, who he knew did not much like to see large quantities of corn accumulated in bond, that we could not send supplies to the people of the United
1086
States, nor get our warehouses emptied of the bonded corn. Very nearly the same thing took place in the West India islands, where there was no convenience for grinding, and where they had always been supplied with flour, and where in the course of the last year and the year before, he knew perfectly well that they had been paying a much higher price for flour from the United States than they need have paid, if they could have got flour from England. If they could get bonded corn in England ground so as to make it serviceable, they could supply themselves in the West Indies at a much cheaper rate; but in consequence of there being no facility here of grinding the bonded corn, the West Indians were obliged to pay a high price. These circumstances certainly were not of a permanent nature, but they might become so; and, at all events, fluctuations of the seasons were constantly occurring, from which considerable benefit might be derived, if the opportunity were allowed. These were, it was true, not permanent circumstances at present, but they might easily become such; therefore, he was of opinion, that some advantages might arise from giving the power to grind. But his fair and honest opinion was, that not so much advantage could be expected from the measure on the whole as its advocates anticipated. But with regard to the opinions entertained by others on the point, there arose a consideration of a moral nature, which he begged to press on the attention of hon. Gentlemen opposite. That the benefits which might arise from the measure would be large, he did not think, but this was the firm conviction of a very large body of merchants and manufacturers, and he begged to ask hon. Gentlemen opposite was it worth their while to stand in the way of the expectations of those parties, the merchants and manufacturers of the country, for the sake of what must and would prove imaginary? With regard to himself, he did not believe that the landed proprietors of England wished to stand in the way of the manufacturing interests, and he should be extremely glad if the event was to allow his hon. Friend to bring in his bill, subject, of course, to all the checks and restrictions which could be devised for security against smuggling; but if the measure had any thing to do with the Corn-laws, he should say to hon. Members opposite "Stand out, stand out," because he thought by so doing they would further his own views on the subject of the Corn-laws; for let them do this, and they would soon raise such a feeling in this

1087
country against those laws as they would not find it easy to master. If the merchant and manufacturer were told that a request like this of the hon. Member, to bring in a bill which could not by possibility affect the Corn-laws, had been rejected, then they would begin to think, "Why now, then, is the time to press forward our particular views on the Corn-laws." Entertaining these opinions, and having, he trusted, answered the question of the right hon. Baron opposite, he would only say, that he hoped most sincerely that the bill might pass, with proper safeguards and securities against fraud, and if any more efficient securities and safeguards against every species of fraud could be devised, he should be most happy to give them his best support.
Sir J. R. Reidbegged to return thanks to the right hon. Baronet, and the President of the Board of Trade, for the manner in which the question of the right hon. Baronet had been put, and the manner in which it had been answered. If the measure militated in any way against the agricultural interest, he would not give it his support; but, the contrary, as far as he could judge, being its probable effect, he should vote for the motion of the hon. Member for Dartmouth.
Mr. Liddellsaid, that he had brought his mind to the consideration of this subject, free from the influence of any bias towards one side or the other; and after the assurance of the right hon. President of the Board of Trade, that no risk was to be apprehended to the agricultural interest from this measure, if there were found sufficient securities provided in the Bill against smuggling, such securities, in fact, as were promised, being persuaded, that so far from an injury or disadvantage resulting from the measure, the landed interest would find it opening to them another resource, he should vote for the motion.
Mr. M. Philipssaid, that as ample security as was possible had been offered for the honest intentions, with respect to the Corn-laws, of the hon. Member for Dartmouth, and, indeed, of every hon. Member on that side of the House who supported the motion. The question was one of great importance to the shipping interest. He believed that it was of great importance to let corn come into this country to be ground, and again exported at certain times of the year, when the ports of the Baltic were shut up. Another
1088
consideration was, that on occasion of the scarcities in the United States, and West Indies, to which allusion had been made, considerable investments were made on the Continent, in order to procure a supply of flour to send thither. He wished to see this field for investment opened to the British capitalist. He denied that it was the intention of his hon Friends, in supporting the present proposition; to trench upon the Corn-laws. Hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House disliked the principle and enactments of the Reform Bill; but yet, as it had passed into a law, they held themselves bound by its provisions. In the same way, hon. Members at his side of the House, though they disliked the Corn-laws as much as hon. Members at the opposite side disliked the Reform Bill, yet they held themselves bound to submit to the Corn-laws as long as they were law, and they would not, by a side wind, or indirect method of proceeding, countenance any proposition which would trench upon them, whether they were good or bad. With respect to the objection, that the grinding of corn in bond might be made a handle for fraud, he contended that it was not so liable to fraud as many other valuable articles, which were constantly and regularly laid up in bond. Let them take the case of cigars for instance, and many other articles which would readily suggest themselves to hon. Members. Fraud, in the case of corn, a bulky and unwieldy commodity, would be much easier detected than in any other article in bond. Indeed, it was not likely that it would be attempted. He entreated the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Chandos) and his supporters, to disabuse themselves of the idea that there was any indirect or covert object meditated in the passing of the proposed Bill. There was one point to which he wished to direct the attention of the House, though it would be more properly and conveniently discussed in Committee. He alluded to the allowing the bran which remained to be sent into the country, and sold for agricultural purposes. He did not believe, that the agricultural interests of the country would at all suffer from allowing the bran of the bonded corn to be applied in this country to agricultural purposes. The disposal of that article appeared to him (Mr. Philips) to be almost the only question upon which any doubt could be entertained. The matter might

1089
be fully discussed in Committee. By allowing the proposed measure to pass into a law, he thought they would be materially benefitting the mercantile interests of the country, and securing for it a trade which it did not heretofore possess.
Mr. A. Chapmanagreed with the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the President of the Board of Trade, that it was altogether impossible that fraud could take place, by allowing foreign corn, in bond, to be converted into flour. He spoke from his own knowledge of such matters, and upon twenty years experience of the London Docks, during which period he had never known of even the least abstraction of valuable property, or of any neglect which could bring bonded warehouses into disrepute. He thought they might as well allow captains of vessels to take out flour with them, as to take it in at Hamburgh. By allowing foreign flower to be exported, they would give employment to a great number of industrious persons, and no detriment could arise to the agricultural interests.
Colonel Sibthorpwas disposed to give the hon. Member credit for sincerity in what he had stated to the House, though he could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman in his opinion as to the harmless nature of the Bill. He objected to it, because he thought it was a direct encouragement to the importation of foreign corn, an evil which the Corn-laws were passed to guard against. He cautioned the House against putting any confidence in the right hon. Gentleman opposite (the President of the Board of Trade) or his supporters, in this or any other matter. He had a very great respect for the Queen, but the Queen's locks were very different things. Of the security or integrity of these he did not entertain a very high opinion. He wished to God that her Majesty's Ministers would take his advice. If they did they would walk out of the House on the present occasion, and allow the two parties to fight the battle fairly without their interference. That, however, they would not be allowed to do, in consequence, no doubt, of some Downing-street arrangement.
Colonel Wood, notwithstanding the alarm which had been expressed by the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln, could not help regretting that the noble Marquess should have felt it his duty to
1090
take the sense of the House upon the present question. If he thought for a moment that the Bill would, in the slightest degree, invade the principle of the Corn-laws, he should vote against it. He believed, on the contrary, that it was in strict accordance with the spirit and principle of the Corn-laws, and of the resolutions upon which the Corn-laws were founded. When the Corn-laws were changed in 1815, and new laws were passed to regulate the importation of foreign corn, certain resolutions had been agreed to by the House, the first of which was that all corn from foreign countries might be imported into this country and placed in warehouses duty free. The second was, that such corn, so imported and warehoused, might, if desired be exported duty free. The third resolution stated the circumstances under which such foreign corn in bond might be taken out and used for home consumption, namely, when such an advance in the price of wheat took place that there came a scarcity, and the country needed an additional supply. He was of opinion that the proposed plan would merely carry into effect the two first of these resolutions, and facilitate the exportation of corn. He would never support the Corn-laws, if they were passed only for the base and paltry purpose of propping up one of the great interests of the country at the expense of the other. Those great men who advocated the Corn-laws in their speeches in 1815 distinctly denied any such intention, their object being to unite all the great interests of the state. He thought it would be better that Government should take the matter into their own hands. The occurrence of fraud was unlikely, as it was not a very easy thing to smuggle a load of corn or a bag of flour. All that the agricultural interest was entitled to was protection against the importation of foreign corn, as long as they had a sufficient home-grown supply. For these reasons he trusted that the noble Marquess would not persist in his intention of dividing the House.
Mr. G. Palmerwas of opinion that if the Bill was passed, not a single atom of flour, bread, or biscuit, of British produce would be taken out by captains of ships. They would be wholly supplied and victualled with the foreign corn in bond, which would be had upon cheaper terms than the home produce.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonsaid, that this measure would be beneficial to the merchant, inasmuch as it would convert an unmerchantable into a merchantable commodity, and let loose a large amount of British capital invested in foreign wheat. Immense capital had been employed in other countries in mills for manufacturing flour. Though he was no friend to the Corn-laws, he would not be a party to any indirect measure against them; but he was satisfied that alarm was felt at a shadow.
Lord Worsleycould not give his vote against the measure when he saw interests that would be benefited by it, and could not conscientiously say, that the agricultural interests would be injured. He should, therefore, support the first reading of the Bill. He had come down to the House intending to oppose the Bill; but he could not do so after what he had heard in its favour.
Mr. Plumptresaid, he could not conscientiously give his support to the introduction of this measure. He should, however, name the particulars of the grounds of his opposition on another opportunity, should it occur. He candidly acknowledged that if he supported this proposition he could not face his constituents. He regarded this measure with distrust when he considered it on its own merits: but if he had a doubt on the point, the fact that this motion was supported by her Majesty's Ministers would be with him decisive; for he considered them incapable of originating or supporting any measure for the public good.
Lord Sandonwas inclined to give the parties who were in favour of the present application the benefit of an experiment. He perfectly agreed with the hon. Member for Essex, that the offal was unfit for exportation, and it ought therefore to be turned to the best advantage of which it was capable.
Mr. W. Rochefelt compelled to state the views of his constituents as urged in several petitions presented to that House. They were of opinion that this experiment could not be made without fraudulent practices, and that mercantile men should not be compelled to adapt their course of business to a state of things different from that on which they had originally speculated.
Mr. Philip Howardsaid, that the hon. Baronet, the Member for Northampton-
1092
shire, formed a low estimate of the capacity of his constituents, when he stated his intention to oppose the Bill because the securities offered for the protection of the agricultural interest would be unintelligible to them. To the shipowner, as well as to many classes of industry, to bakers, coopers, and millers—the Bill, which withdrew no fair protection from the British corn growers, would be a considerable gain. As the law at present stood, owing to flour and bread manufactured in a foreign country, and used for ship stores, not being liable to duty, provided the ship be bound to a foreign port, it is the practice to import large quantities both of flour and bread from Dantzic, Hamburgh, and America, which is entered here in bond and sold for victualling ships. If the Bill before the House were allowed to pass, all these articles would be prepared in England—would benefit the artisan without injury to the British farmer. To prevent fraud it might be desirable to license mills on the same principle as the present bonded warehouses. British vessels going to Hamburgh and other ports of Europe, take in bread sufficient for several voyages. Newfoundland and many of our colonies are now supplied with corn from America, which, though a small duty may be paid, is manufactured in the United States; but should the Bill pass, that flour would be made in England. There is now a large amount of capital locked up in bonded corn, a great part of which would get into circulation should the measure become law, and greatly assist the commerce of the country. Indiamen, for instance, and all ships going long voyages, buy nothing but flour and bread prepared in foreign ports. The vigilant and enterprising monarch who now rules the destinies of France, had established at Ville D'eu, in Normandy, large magazines for supplying all ships touching there with flour and bread; and although he might be quite right in profiting by our oversight, there was no reason why the British merchant and manufacturer should be debarred from competition. His hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Seale) had stated his willingness to submit his motion to the consideration of a Select Committee; but now that the Bill was not likely to encounter so formidable an opposition as he anticipated, he trusted his hon. Friend would abandon a project so likely to retard the progress of the measure to which

1093
Colonel Seale signified his assent. He had risen to second the motion of the hon. and gallant Member, and should have great satisfaction in giving it his support.
Mr. Milesasked the noble Marquess to allow the Bill to be introduced, and to watch its provisions, taking care that sufficient guards were provided. If, on the second reading, the Bill was proper to be adopted it could be adopted; and it would show that those who supported the agricultural interests in that House could feel for others who were bound by the same link. But if the guards were insufficient, then it could be rejected, for the agricultural interest leagued together, formed a body which no Administration could successfully resist.
Colonel Rushbrookesaid, he was afraid of rogues in grain, and that it would be impossible to guard against evasion. More, he thought, in this measure was meant than met the ear.
Mr. Milesasked his noble Friend (the Marquess of Chandos) to allow the Bill to be brought in, with the view of seeing whether it could be supported on the second reading. By this proceeding, those who supported the landed interest in that House would prove that they considered themselves bound, by the principles of a common fraternity, to promote the general interest of the community.
Mr. Villierssaid, that there was one sentiment uttered by the hon. Member who had just spoken, that he so entirely agreed with, that he could not forbear rising to express his concurrence in it; namely, that there were so many rogues in grain in this House, that it was difficult to know what course to take on this measure, and if he wanted any illustration of that, he should refer to the debate last night, which was highly instructive as to the spirit and object of our legislation; for he observed that the debate opened to-night with a speech from the noble Marquess in that sturdy and exclusive spirit with which he was used to advocate the interest of the landed class, and disregard the interest of any other class, and which doubtless was consistent with his notions of what was right; but as the debate advanced, new lights were shed upon the subject; first, by one Member who rose and assured the House, that it would be of little advantage to the country at large; and he was followed by
1094
the hon. Member for Manchester, who said it would be of little use to the trade, and that seemed to alter the view taken of the measure; and the Gentlemen of the landed interest began to pause and think that this could not be such a bad measure. A Bill that provided nothing for the people, but did little for the trade; why, that cannot be so dangerous: and from that moment an altered tone was observed throughout the debate, and he was happy to see, as one Member after the other rose, and said, that he could not understand how, without adequate securities against the people obtaining the advantage they sought in procuring, there could be any objection to the measure; and the Bill gained ground. Now, he was free to confess, it was because he agreed with those hon. Gentlemen that little benefit was to be expected from the measure that he felt indifferent about its being carried, because if it was an important measure, and could be deemed a concession, why, when he moved for the repeal of the Corn-law next year, which he intended most certainly to do, he might be met by the argument that it was unreasonable, after the important concession made last year, that great things had been done for the miller and the merchant; that it was ungrateful in the people, after a great measure of this kind had been passed, to urge other claims; that it had always been understood to be final; and then might follow all kinds of explanations as to what had been the understanding and stipulations amongst different Members of Lord Melbourne's cabinet. But now it was agreed on all hands that the Bill was in no way connected with the Corn-law, that it would never forward in the least degree the purpose which the hon. Member for Bridport had said, was that of the repeal of those laws, namely, to give cheap food to the people of this country. He was, therefore, not afraid of it on that account, though certainly if the measure was rejected, it would be somewhat illustrative of that extreme unreasonableness of the landowners which he alleged against them the other night. He wished success to the measure, because it appeared to him productive of some good, and incapable of any evil. It was in fact nibbling at a great principle, that ought at once to be insisted upon with spirit, and claimed as matter of right.
The House divided:—Ayes 127; Noes 92; Majority 35.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

James, W.

Aglionby, Major

James, Sir W. C.

Ainsworth, P.

Kinnaird, hon. A. F.

Bailey, J.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Bannerman, A.

Langdale, hon. C.

Baring, F. T.

Liddell, hon. T.

Barnard, E. G.

Lister, E. C.

Barron, H. W.

Lushington, C.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Lynch, A. H.

Bernal, R.

Macleod, R.

Bewes, T.

Marsland, H.

Blake, W. J.

Miles, W.

Blakemore, R.

Miles, P. W. S.

Bridgeman, H.

Murray, rt. hon. J. A.

Briscoe, J. I.

O'Brien, W. S.

Brocklehurst, J.

O'Connell, D.

Brotherton, J.

Palmer, C. F.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Parker, J.

Bryan, G.

Pechell, Captain

Buller, E.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Busfield, W.

Phillips, M.

Butler, hon. Colonel

Roche, D.

Campbell, Sir J.

Rundle, J.

Chalmers, P.

Russell, Lord J.

Chapman, A.

Salwey, Colonel

Childers, J. W.

Sandon, Viscount

Clay, W.

Scarlett, hon. R.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Seymour, Lord

Codrington, Admiral

Smith, hon. R.

Collier, J.

Smith, R. V.

Courtenay, P.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Curry, W.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Dalmeny, Lord

Steuart, R.

Davies, Colonel

Stewart, J.

Divett, E.

Stewart, J.

Duckworth, S.

Stuart, V.

Duke, Sir J.

Strutt, E.

Dundas, C. W. D.

Talbot, J. H.

Dundas, hon. J. C.

Teignmouth, Lord

Eliot, Lord

Thomson, rt. hon. C. P.

Evans, W.

Thompson, Alderman

Fielden, J.

Thornley, T.

Fenton, J.

Vigors, N. A.

Finch, F.

Villiers, C. P.

Gillon, W. D.

Wakley, T.

Gladstone, W. E.

Walker, R.

Grattan, H.

Wallace, R.

Grey, Sir G.

Warburton, H.

Grimsditch, T.

Ward, H. G.

Hall, B.

White, A.

Hastie, A.

White, L.

Hawes, B.

White, S.

Hobhouse, Sir John

Whitmore, T. C.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Williams, W.

Horsman, E.

Williams, W. A.

Hoskins, K.

Winnington, T. E.

Howard, P. H.

Wood, C.

Hume, J.

Wood, Colonel T.

Humphery John

Wood, G. W.

Hutton, R.

Wood, T.

Ingham, R.

Woulfe, Sergeant

Irton, S.

Worsley, Lord

1096

Wynne, rt. hon. C. W.

TELLERS.

Wyse, T.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Yates, J. A.

Seale, Colonel

List of the NOES.

Alston, R.

Kemble, H.

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Kirk, P.

Bagge, W.

Knatchbull, rt. hon. Sir E.

Bailey, J.

Baker, E.

Knightley, Sir C.

Barneby, J.

Litton, E.

Barry, G. S.

Logan, H.

Bell, M.

Lygon, hon. General

Blair, J.

Mackenzie, T.

Brabazon, Sir W.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Bramston, T. W.

Master, T. W. C.

Broadley, H.

Maunsell, T. P.

Browne, R. D.

Milnes, R. M.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Moneypenny, T. G.

Burroughes, H. N.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Chute, W. L.

Nicholl, J.

Codrington, C. W.

Norreys, Lord

Cole, Viscount

Packe, C. W.

Conolly, E.

Pakington, J. S

Craig, W. G.

Palmer, G.

Cripps, J.

Parker, M.

De Horsey, S. H.

Parker, R. T.

Dick, Q.

Perceval, hon. G. J.

Dowdeswell, W.

Polhill, F.

Duncombe, hon. W.

Poulter, J. S.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Praed, W. M.

Eaton, R. J.

Richards, R.

Egerton, W. T.

Rickford, W.

Egerton, Sir P.

Rolleston, L.

Fellowes, E.

Round, C. G.

Filmer, Sir E.

Round, J.

Fleming, J.

Sanderson, R.

Forbes, W.

Sheppard, T.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Shirley, E. J.

French, F.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Smith, A.

Gore, O. J. R.

Smyth, Sir G. H.

Gore, O. W.

Stanley, E. J.

Grimston, Viscount

Stuart, H.

Harcourt, G. S.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Heathcoat, Sir W.

Vivian, J. E.

Henniker, Lord

Winnington, H. J.

Hillsborough, Earl of

Wodehouse, E.

Hodgson, R.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Holmes, hon. W. A'C.

Young, Sir W.

Hughes, W. B.

Hurt, F.

TELLERS.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Chandos, Marquess of

Jones, T.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

House went into Committee and resolution agreed to. The House resumed.

INTERNATIONAL COPYRIGHT.
Mr. Poulett Thomsonrose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to establish a system of international copyright, and said, that in introducing this measure to the House he thought it right to say something with regard to the objects which he proposed to effect. It was not his intention in this Bill to

1097
enter at all into the question of copyright at home, an hon. and learned Friend of his having already obtained leave to bring in a Bill upon that subject. Whether it might be, in the opinion of the House, advisable to extend copyright to the number of years which his hon. Friend suggested, was a proposition to which he desired to be understood as giving then neither assent nor dissent. He would leave that question altogether untouched; his present object being simply to give to foreigners for their works in this country that protection with regard to copyright which English authors in return might be enabled to obtain for their works in foreign countries. He did not think that there was a single individual who would be inclined to dispute that this was a just and an equitable principle. He did not think that any man was disposed to deny, that literary works of genius ought to meet with a similar protection in this country to that which was extended to works of genius of another class. He alluded to the works of individuals engaged in industrious or mechanical pursuits, which in this country were already protected by our laws. It was clearly desirable to obtain for our authors that protection abroad which could already be obtained for works of a different description. Nothing appeared to him to be more urgent than the circumstances in which authors were placed, considered as British subjects, compared with those who were engaged in other pursuits demanding the exercise of the inventive faculty. If any man turned his attention to any department of mechanical science, and by the force of genius and intelligence succeeded in inventing a machine capable of being beneficially applied to the purposes of trade or manufactures, to the promotion of industry, or the diminution of manual labour, it was in the power of such an individual, in whatever part of the world he might have made the discovery, to come to this country and take advantage of our patent laws, to secure to himself the exclusive privilege of profiting by that invention for a certain number of years. In the same way, if a native of this country, by the exertion of talent and industry, succeeded in inventing a machine, or making any useful discovery, it was in his power to go abroad and there reap the fruits of his discovery, all the advantages of which would be secured to him by the concession of a similar patent. But this was not the case with those who, devoting their time to literature, laboured alike for our amuse-
1098
ment and instruction, with those who conferred by their works the greatest benefit on mankind. This was, he contended, a state of things which it behoved them to remedy as speedily as possible, and it was with this view that he proposed the present measure. It was not his intention to weary the House by dwelling on the practical inconveniences to which authors were subjected by the present state of the law. But, at the same time, in introducing this measure there were one or two examples which he was desirous to state to the House, first to show the injustice to which the existing state of the law subjected authors in this country; and next to show how injuriously it affected the interests of literature generally. It was matter of notoriety that works were pirated abroad as soon as they made their appearance at home: that no sooner were productions sent to the press in this country, than the utmost efforts were exerted to purloin proof-sheets for the purpose of sending them to America, France, Belgium, or Germany. Pirated editions were published at once in those countries and circulated over those countries forthwith, by which means the authors were deprived of the fair fruits of their labour—of those legitimate pecuniary rewards for which they were reasonably entitled to look. It was equally well known that the same system of piracy existed with regard to the works of authors in foreign countries; and that a work was no sooner published in France than proof-sheets were despatched to Belgium, where a pirated edition was immediately brought out, with which the English and foreign markets were at once inundated; and thus the foreign author was equally deprived of his fair and legitimate expectations of remuneration. He would take an instance of a work of light reading. He found upon inquiry that of the work of Travels in America, by Mrs. Trollope, no less than 15,000 copies had been printed in Paris, without the slightest benefit to the author, either in their sale or in that of the copyright. He might cite instances of the same description in the works of Mr. Bulwer; but he would turn to works of greater importance—those of science, in reference to which this Bill was particularly necessary. There was Dr. Arnott's Elements of Physical Science, a work of the greatest labour and pains, and for which everybody would admit the author was entitled to all the advantages the sale of copyright could bring him; and yet he (Mr. P. Thomson)

1099
had been informed, that there was not a, village of 2,000 inhabitants in the United States in which several copies of a pirated edition were not to be found, for which the author never received one farthing, simply because there was no way of protecting the copyright. He might also instance Dr. Webster's Dictionary, which was published in the United States, and immediately pirated in England, for which editions the author received no remuneration whatever, although a vast number of it was sold; and Dr. Richardson's Dictionary, published in England and pirated in the United States, both works of great labour, merit, and expense, a single number costing, he believed, three or four guineas. Thus, in one case, the American work was sold so cheap here, that it was superseded by the English edition, and in the other the English work was sold so cheap in the United States, that it was entirely superseded by the American edition. The principal cause of this evil was, that no sooner were works in the press, than attempts were made through the means of bribery, sometimes to a considerable amount, to obtain copies of them from persons engaged in the printing department, for the purpose of having them pirated in another country. One of the last of Sir Walter Scott's works had actually been purloined in sheets here, and published in the United States before it was published in London. It was pirated and sent to France in the same way, and published there also before the London edition appeared. These were facts which showed that it was absolutely necessary, in justice to our own authors and to those of foreign countries, that some check should be put to the present system. Why should they afford protection to works of industry and art, and refuse it to works of genius, devoted to literary and scientific pursuits? Their doing so would not be only unjust towards the authors, but directly against our own interest. America, and many of the European States, had turned their attention to the subject of late. In France and Germany commissioners had been appointed upon the law of copyright, and in the United States a committee of inquiry. The commissioners in France and Germany said, that they felt the inconvenience arising from the publication of their works in other countries, but that while they sought to protect their own authors, they should also afford protection to foreign
1100
authors. Therefore, in order to obtain protection for ourselves abroad, it was necessary to hold out the prospect of protection in this country to the authors of other countries. The mode of doing this was not very simple. It would not do, in his opinion, to pass one general law, based upon the principle of our own law of copyright, because the law of copyright varied so much in different countries. In France, for instance, it was limited for a certain period; in Germany it was also limited, and for different periods; at Frankfort to ten years, and in Prussia to thirty: and in the United States it was limited to a much less period. What he proposed then by this Bill was to empower the Crown, by treaty with foreign states, to grant to foreign authors the same degree of protection and for the same number of years, that those states were willing to afford by treaty to our authors. That was to say, supposing a treaty to be made with France, by which mutual protection to copyright was afforded for a period of twenty years, it would be competent for the Crown, acting of course by the Privy Council, to take steps against the surreptitious introduction of editions of foreign works published in violation of the copyright. After consulting the opinions of many competent judges, that appeared to him to be the best principle upon which to proceed. The moment the Bill passed, they would endeavour, by convention with other countries, to adopt the principle of reciprocal copyright. Communications were already being made on the subject, and he thought, when they should have the power of carrying the machinery of this Bill into effect, they would not find much difficulty in concluding arrangements under it with foreign states. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to provide for international copyright.
Mr. Milnesthought the measure of the right hon. Gentleman might be easily carried into operation with countries with which our relations were very clear and simple—such as America; but he doubted the possibility of its operation with European countries, because, by any such agreement as it proposed, we should be greatly the gainers, and it would consequently be very difficult, if indeed possible, to induce them to submit to the terms of the proposal. Everybody knew that the circulation of English books in France

1101
was much more extensive than that of French books in England, and it was very unlikely, therefore, that any such agreement, an agreement which, would, undoubtedly be most unpopular with the book trade in Paris, would be entered into by the French government. He was of opinion that the experiment should be first made with some such country as America, because there, there would be comparatively no difficulty to contend with.
Sir R. Inglissaid, that whatever might be the relative claims for protection of mechanical and literary pursuits, he was of opinion that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues would find it extremely difficult to carry this measure into effect. He thought the more obvious course would have been to have asked other countries to pass in their respective legislatures, bills of an analogous nature before they proceeded upon a general principle, which left the reciprocity all on one side. The cases of piracy mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman might have been provided against by a course which Sir Walter Scott had himself adopted with his Life of Napoleon. He sent it over himself in sheets to Germany and France, and thus protected the copyright of the work in this country. That course was still open to authors. Nothing but an interest, which the right hon. Gentleman had not shown, would induce the governments of France, Germany, and the United States, to concur in the arrangement proposed by this bill. He readily admitted that the subject was a good one, and that they ought, as far as possible, to afford that protection to indigenous authors which for many years they were deprived of by foreign countries; but he was of opinion that the right hon. Gentleman by this bill would involve himself in a series of difficulties from which it would be no easy matter to get free. The right hon. Gentleman should have first represented, by the ordinary course of communication with foreign states, the feelings of her Majesty's Government on the subject.
Lord John Russellthought, that the hon. Gentleman opposite had taken a mistaken view of the question. Surely France would be greatly benefitted, if the introduction into this country of the works of her authors, printed in Brussels, were prohibited; while, on the other hand, it would be a very great advantage to us, to have a stop put to the publishing in France of
1102
pirated editions of English works. His hon. Friend (Sir R. Inglis) objected to the introduction of this measure, without having first negociated on the subject with other countries; but until they adopted some such measure, they would have nothing to offer, and it was much more probable, that their negotiations would be attended with success if they were enabled to show that they had something to give in return. This bill, he trusted, would have the effect of preventting piracy, at all events in France, Germany, and America. It had been stated that Sir Walter Scott took measures to prevent his privilege of copyright from being interfered with in France, and that the same means of precaution were open to every other author; but what were the means that that celebrated individual had adopted? He was merely in the habit of sending over proof sheets, so as to secure the sale of one impression at all events; thus his edition entered the French market sooner than that of a publisher, who had to wait till a perfect copy could be procured from England. He need scarcely observe, that this was an advantage so trifling as not materially to affect the argument. Sir Walter Scott possessed no other advantage.
Lord Mahonsaid, he was very glad to find that the attention of her Majesty's Government had been drawn to the subject, for it was one of very great importance, not only as regarded the interests of authors, but those of the public. One example he would mention to illustrate the extent to which the feelings, reputation, and property, of authors were affected by the present state of the law. There was, as probably many Members knew, a continuation of Sir James Mackintosh's historical work, which proved very inferior to the original both in style and sentiment. The whole work, or rather the two works, commencement and continuation, were published in France, the fact being suppressed that the latter part was by another and an inferior hand. The practical question, however, now before the House was this—how could redress be obtained? It appeared to him that the difficulty lay much more in negotiation with foreign states, than in legislation in that House; he regretted, therefore, that the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, was not then in his place, in order that the House might be informed if any

1103
negotiations respecting this subject had taken place with the United States of America. He repeated his apprehension that there would be great difficulty in negociating with foreign powers on a matter of this nature. How, for example, did they propose to manage with Switzerland? If upon the principle of a quid pro quo, it must fail, for the simple reason, that there were no Swiss books published in England, and therefore we had nothing from which to abstain that could make our abstinence a compensation to the Swiss. The fact was, that Switzerland was a country peculiarly barren in literature, and let hon. Members recollect, that in proportion as they diminished piracy at Paris and Brussels, they gave it encouragement at Geneva or at Berne, unless previous negotiations with Switzerland gave protection to English books, and of this he hardly entertained a hope. He apprehended, also, that with Germany the difficulty would be considerable, much greater than the right hon. Gentleman opposite; expected. He believed, that amongst the German States themselves there was no international copyright; they had no agreement amongst themselves, and how could they be expected to enter into conventions with other countries? If Austria, Bavaria, and Prussia had each a law of copyright different from the others—if they felt so slight an interest in the matter that they could come to no agreement with each other, what chance was there that they would make a sacrifice to protect themselves from so distant a danger as that some German works might be published in England? These, he observed, were a few of the practical difficulties which suggested themselves to his mind, but he did not state them with any feeling of hostility towards the bill; quite the contrary; he should be most happy to give it his support if, on perusal, he could consistently do so; in the meanwhile, he wished to obtain all the information he could as to the state of the negotiations on the subject.
Mr. Warburtonobserved, that though he had heard so much about the interests of authors, he still could not help recollecting that there was a reading public, and that the diffusion of cheap editions of good books was one of the greatest public benefits that could be conferred. The effect of smuggling was to prevent the manufacturer from setting too high a price upon his goods. By these measures of
1104
extreme protection the publisher would be tempted to set too high a price upon his books; he thought, therefore, that so serious an interference with the interests of the public ought not to be hazarded without a very minute and ample inquiry. He confessed he saw as many practical difficulties in the proposed arrangement as did the noble Lord opposite. He would ask, how did they propose to look after all the pirated editions? Would they search the baggage of every traveller to see what books he was bringing home for his own use or that of his friends? He was by no means clear that the House had a right to pass such a bill, at the same time that he was not then prepared to oppose its mere introduction. In the absence of the hon. and learned Member for Reading, he should wish to avoid making any observations upon his intended measure, but he understood that he proposed to carry the rights of authorship far beyond anything that had ever before been known. Supposing that measure carried, surely it would not be just to give to foreign publishers increased advantages not previously enjoyed by our own authors. According to his understanding of the measure now before the House, it would give to foreigners rights not yet enjoyed by Englishmen. It was his deliberate opinion, that if advantages of that sort were extended to French books, it would be a great injury to the reading public of England.
Mr. Goulburnconfessed, that he felt considerable difficulty as to the mode in which the objects of the bill were to be carried out; and one of the points which struck him the most forcibly was the question whether, in the event of England binding itself by means of a convention with France, that country was to be bound not to receive books from Belgium, the copyrights of which belonged to England, but which had been improperly printed elsewhere, and also whether England was to bind itself to receive no French books, unless from France itself. That was one of the greatest difficulties which suggested itself to his mind, for those who, for the benefit of their own trade, pirated the works of others, would take care to mark the work which they published with the name of the country from which it originally proceeded, so that the whole work would bear the strongest resemblance to the originals and the greatest difficulty would

1105
be found in distinguishing the spurious from the genuine editions. With respect to the United States, he felt that a question would arise as to how far the Government of that country would feel itself empowered to introduce any law by which a custom which had existed so long would be restrained or removed. In this country the Acts of Parliament were necessarily binding on all parties, but how far Congress could pass a law which should bind all the states, was a matter which must be considered. It would be unjust that this country should bind itself to adopt and carry out any principle of this kind, except on a system of reciprocity, and that system must therefore he established to the fullest extent before any engagement was entered into. Another point presented itself to his mind, and on which the right hon. Gentleman had not explained his views—he meant that of the publication of translations of works which should appear in either country. Now, he apprehended that the law would not include cases of this description. The translator having expended his time and his labour, and his talents in the work of translation, it would be unjust that he should not be paid; but, at the same time, to permit the publication of translations would be unjust to the original inventor of the work, and it was apparent that his interests would be materially affected by means of the translation. He had paid some attention to these few points, and he confessed that he was of opinion, that some difficulty would be found in giving effect to the law. He begged, however, to suggest, that care should be taken in attempting to get rid of these difficulties, that no provision should be made dangerous to authors, and which might turn out to be inoperative.
Mr. Wakleywas of opinion, that such a measure as the present should be preceded by the fullest and most ample inquiry before it was adopted. He should like to learn what literary man had ever lost anything, or had complained that his interests had suffered, by his works having been pirated. When any person wrote a book, he wrote it for the English people, and for the purposes of his country, and he never reflected on what might be effected by its being published in a foreign country. Dr. Arnott was a man who had written many excellent works which had been widely read through England, Ireland, and Scotland, and which had since found their way
1106
into the United States. He should like to have him before a Committee, in order that he might be asked in what light he regarded the publication of his works in America, and he knew that he was the last man who would make any complaint upon the subject; for he was sure that the additional fame which he obtained by his works being widely known would do much in favour of any which he might subsequently publish, and would, therefore, increase his profit and reward. The same rule would apply to all cases; and he would ask, from what circumstances did the necessity for the present measure proceed at all? He must repeat his anxious desire that the right hon. Gentleman would not object to the subject being thoroughly investigated by a Committee before the bill was adopted by the House.
Mr. Wynnwould offer a few observations to the House upon the subject of this bill. With regard to the suggestions which had fallen from the hon. Member for Bridport, that all the labour of the author, and the expense of the original publication of a work ought not to be considered, but that the advantage of the public was alone to be regarded, he must say, that if that were acted upon, all copyright would be at an end. No reward would be afforded to the author, and all books which were published might be obtained after a short delay, at a price giving a fair profit on the expense of printing and paper. However favourable he might be to the principle of the bill of the right hon. Gentleman, he could not but think that the difficulties which would present themselves to its being carried fairly into execution would be very great. Whatever treaty might be entered into between England and France, Belgium might print the books so like the originals as to defy all attempts to discover the difference, and he hardly knew how this was to be remedied. It was true this precise species of imitation was not now carried on; but then the necessity for it did not exist, for there was no international copyright. As an instance of the success with which the practice might be adopted, he would mention the case of The Edinburgh Review, which was now printed at Paris, by Messrs. Galignani, who, however, it was true, attached his own name to it, and so strongly resembled the original, that except on reference to the title-page, the distinction would not

1107
be discovered. At the same time he was most ready and willing to vote the experiment be tried, hoping for a successful result. At the same time he must repeat that he was afraid the scheme would prove impracticable or at least fruitless. With regard to the question of the translation of works, he must confess that he should not like to see any law introduced which would fetter the transmission of literature and of discoveries in science from one country to another; but of course some specific regulation on this subject would form one of the details of the bill.
Mr. Humeagreed with the hon. Member for Bridport in the arguments which he had advanced, that the interests of the public should be considered rather than those of one individual. The public had already benefitted much by the introduction of cheap copies of various works in recent years, and he would ask the House how these cheap publications had been produced? Formerly whenever a person went to the Continent he was in the habit of bringing home with him a number of their piracies upon English works, but it was now found that those copies were incorrect; and, in consequence, publications equally cheap had been introduced into England. Added to this, however, there were certain matters in the book trade and in the mode in which it was conducted which must be inquired into before any means could be adopted to remedy the defects in the law of international copyright. He should be happy to see a bill passed which would give individuals everything to which they were entitled: but the injustice which might be done to society at large must be considered before any such bill was agreed to. Difficulties had been stated which, he thought, it would be impossible to remedy. He should be glad if means could be taken to remove them, but he had no idea that it was possible.
Mr. Poulelt Thomson, in reply, admitted, that the subject was attended with great difficulties, but he had felt it his duty to endeavour to grapple with them. If those difficulties were found to be insuperable, his Bill would not possibly do any harm, for it would only become a dead letter; but it was only by a bill of this kind, that we could be put in a position to endeavour to overcome the difficulties in question. He confessed that he anticipated more difficulty from the United States than from any other country; but with reference to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman,
1108
the Member for the University of Cambridge, that the Government could not make any regulation as to copyrights which would extend to all the states, he would state that the power was specially reserved to the Government, and was not left in the hands of the states. Therefore, if the United States pleased to enter into any arrangement on the subject, it was perfectly competent for them to do so. With regard to the difficulties suggested in the case of Germany, he would state that last autumn, at a Diet held at Frankfort, the subject was referred to, and a law was passed for the Government of the German states, by which a law of general copyright was adopted, and articles were passed in order to enable the Governments to enter into a treaty with foreign powers, and especially with England, on the subject of international copyright. There was reason to believe, therefore, that in France and Germany the plan proposed would be successful. It would be exceedingly desirable that arrangements should first be made with two or three states, in order that others might then view the advantages to be derived from the measure.
Leave given.

POOR-LAW-FREEDOM OF WORSHIP.
Mr. Langdale, in rising to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice, assured the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, that he was not actuated by the slightest hostility to the New Poor-laws, his object simply being that the 19th clause should be carried into effect, so as to secure religious freedom in the workhouse by allowing the poor, who had the means within their reach, to attend their own places of worship on the Sabbath day. It was chiefly with respect to those who agreed with him in religious opinions, who could not conscientiously join in the worship of those of another communion, being bound under pain of incurring moral guilt to attend mass on Sunday,—it was chiefly with reference to Roman Catholics that he had been induced to bring the matter forward. In most cases he was ready to admit, especially in the metropolis, and generally in large towns, no ground for objection existed—Dissenters being allowed to attend their own places of worship. But some exceptions existed, and he feared they might be drawn into cases of persecution. In St. Martin's parish, Westminster, he believed full permission was given to the

1109
Members of different religious persuasions to attend what place of worship they pleased; but the same permission was not extended to Cheltenham. The Roman Catholic inmates of the workhouse there, had repeatedly made application to be allowed to attend their own chapel, but their application had continually been refused although the chapel was situate within five minutes' walk of the workhouse. He could not conceive what possible reason there could be for imposing such a restriction on the poor of that well-conducted town. There was another case he would mention amounting to direct religious persecution. In the town of Hull the children were separated from their parents; indeed they were confined in two different houses. Two Catholic children were taken to their own place of worship; the Poor-law Commissioners objected, declaring it to be a direct violation of the law. A respectable wine merchant offered to conduct them to mass and take them back to the workhouse in the afternoon; but the governor refused, stating that he himself took the children in the morning to the Established Church, in the afternoon to the Methodist chapel, and those who did not choose to go there must stay within the walls. Thus the poor Catholic children, while their companions were at church, had been subjected to a species of solitary confinement. This was a direct instance of religious persecution. He did not object to the adoption of rules to insure regularity in the workhouse, but he hoped they were not prepared to add this most severe of all conceivable tests, that a man on entering the workhouse must sacrifice the practice of his religion. With a view of obtaining some practical recommendation on this subject he begged to move, "That it be an instruction to the Poor-law Committee to inquire how far the regulations of the Poor-law Commissioners have been compatible with the inmates of workhouses attending their respective places of worship on the Sabbath-day, and to inquire and report how provision may be made for securing to all such inmates the power of attending divine service according to their respective creeds."
Mr. C. Lushingtonseconded the motion.
Lord John Russellsaid, that this was a question which had been partially inquired
1110
into by the Committee which sat last year for the purpose of examining into the operation of the new Poor-law, and which occupied the attention of the Committee now sitting on the same subject. He believed that in the last Session of Parliament there were laid on the table the rules issued by the Poor-law Commissioners to the guardians of the different unions, stating, that persons should be allowed to leave the workhouse on Sundays for the purpose of going to their respective places of religious worship, and he further believed, that those rules still continued in operation in all cases, except where the paupers, having been guilty of misconduct, had been deprived of that privilege. He had no hesitation in declaring it to be his opinion that there ought to be no difficulty thrown in the way of individuals actually intending to go to a place of religious worship, no matter whether that place be a church, a Dissenting chapel, or a Roman Catholic chapel. He was aware, however, that there were many cases in which the inmates of workhouses having been let out, under the pretence that they were going to chapel, had gone to public-houses and beer-houses, where they had got drunk, and had entered the plantations of gentlemen for the purpose of destroying or purloining the young trees they found in them. In consequence of the frequent recurrence of these disorders, the indulgence, which was at first granted to those individuals, was afterwards refused. Such was the sort of rule on which the Poor-law Commissioners had acted in several unions. He thought that the rule which they had laid down should be made more general, so that no instance of any abuse of power should hereafter occur. With respect to the motion of the hon. Member, he had only to submit to the House that the question which it involved was one of the questions referred to the consideration of the Poor-law Committee in their general instructions. There was no more necessity for making it an instruction to that Committee to take into consideration this question, than there was to make it an instruction to them to take into consideration the workhouse dietaries, or any other restriction to which the inmates of workhouses were of necessity obliged to submit. He suggested to the hon. Member, therefore, the propriety of withdrawing his motion, as unnecessary.
Mr. O'Connellthought, that every person who was unfortunately obliged to become the inmate of a workhouse ought to be entitled as a matter of right to attend at the place of religious worship of the sect to which he belonged. If the pauper abused that right, then it might be taken away from him; but if he did not, he ought to have the right clearly and distinctly defined. He considered it to be a matter of great importance, that among the inmates of our workhouses a religious feeling should be encouraged. He submitted to the House whether it would not be advisable, if this instruction were unnecessary, to add the name of Mr. Langdale to the Poor-law Committee, in order that this subject be fully investigated.
Lord John Russellsaid, that there were at present three Gentlemen on the Poor-law Committee who never attended any of its sittings. If the hon. Member for Knaresborough would consent to serve, he should readily propose to put his name upon the Committee.
Mr. G. Knightsaid, that from his experience of a very large workhouse, he believed that the noble Lord was perfectly justified in apprehending that mischief would arise from granting a general permission to the inmates of workhouses to leave them on Sundays, under the pretence that they wished to go to their different places of religious worship.
Mr. Langdale, in reply, stated, that the instances which he had cited had been given to him by Roman Catholic clergymen, and he had no doubt that they were correct. He had looked through the reports of the Poor-law Committee, and he did not find that this subject had been much inquired into until the last report. In that report, he found that the hon. Member for Leeds had asked Mr. Power, the Assistant-Commissioner, "Do you let the paupers go out of the workhouse on Sundays, to their respective places of worship?" And the answer was, "Sometimes we do; sometimes we do not." He was then specifically asked, "Do you let the Roman Catholic paupers leave the workhouse on a Sunday, to go to their chapels?" and the answer was, "I have always thought that this question, as to the Roman Catholics, was a difficult question, and that it would some time or other arise." He (Mr. Langdale) said, "the sooner it arose the better." All that he wanted was, that it should not be left in
1112
the breast of any workhouse governor, or of any guardian, to debar the paupers from going to their respective places of religious worship. He was perfectly satisfied with what had fallen from the noble Secretary for the Home Department; and he would, with the permission of the House, withdraw his motion.
Motion withdrawn.

ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS.
Mr. Barronmoved for leave to bring in a Bill to consolidate the jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts in Ireland.
Mr. Goulburnavailed himself of the opportunity to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Home Department what had become of the Bill, which had been introduced some time ago by her Majesty's Ministers for the purpose of regulating and consolidating the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts in England. If her Majesty's Ministers were not prepared to bring in such a Bill for England, what probable chance of success was there for such a Bill affecting Ireland? How could the noble Lord give his assent to the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Waterford, when he was not prepared to introduce a similar Bill for England? But perhaps the noble Lord was prepared to take up the subject so far as regarded England?
Lord John Russellrose for the purpose of answering the question which had just been put to him by the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The Bill respecting the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts in England, had certainly occupied the attention of her Majesty's Ministers for a considerable time, and when last noticed in Parliament, was under the consideration of the House of Lords. The Bill was much considered in that House; various suggestions were offered for its improvement; and beyond a doubt it was amended in many parts. Still, it was the general opinion in that House, that the Bill ought not to be proceeded with, except a Bill for the better discipline of the clergy could be carried at the same time. The frame of such a Bill had been drawn out, but he must candidly confess that he was not entirely satisfied with the measure proposed, and the Bill for the better discipline of the clergy was, in consequence, postponed. There were other bills under the consideration of Government relating to ecclesiastical jurisdictions

1113
one of which he intended immediately to bring forward. When those bills were disposed of, the Government would proceed to the consideration of a Bill for regulating and consolidating the various ecclesiastical jurisdictions of the country, and would introduce a Bill for the better discipline of the clergy. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, that it was not likely that either House of Parliament would pass this Bill for Ireland without knowing what was intended as to the two Bills respecting the ecclesiastical jurisdictions and the better discipline of the clergy in England.
Leave given.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
Lord John Russellmoved for leave to bring in a Bill to carry into effect, with certain modifications, the fourth report of the Church Commissioners.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, the noble Lord could not surely be intending, at a period of the night within a quarter of an hour of the usual time of adjournment, twelve o'clock, to introduce a measure designed to effect various extensive and important changes in the constitution of the Church.
Lord John Russellthought, there was no necessity for being so delicate as his hon. Friend opposite seemed to think proper, since the measure he proposed to introduce was originally recommended by a church commission appointed by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, and of which the right hon. Gentleman and other Members of his administration were Members. After the right hon. Baronet retired from office, several Members of the present Government sat on the Commission, the clerical Members of which continued the same. On the report made by that Commission, a bill formerly introduced into the House was founded; and he now proposed to bring in a measure nearly similar in its provisions. He did not think it too much to ask leave, even if the time were an hour later, to introduce a bill founded on such authority, because he did not think that the House could at any time refuse to entertain such a bill, and allow it to be printed, in order that its principle might be fairly considered. The measure was founded on the fourth report of the Church Commissioners, the whole of which he proposed to recite in the preamble. Some alterations had been made
1114
in a further draft of the report, which he proposed to embody in the Bill; but these had been chiefly adopted at the request of the deans and chapters; and therefore he did not think they could be fairly objected to by the House. He was not now about to repeat the statements he had made to the House, when the former Bill was brought in, which had now been nearly three years before the public. The chief alteration made by the Commissioners on reconsideration was, to recommend that patronage, instead of being taken from the deans and chapters, and given to the bishops at once, should be reserved to the deans and chapters, so long as any person belonging to the chapter remained alive. This alteration had been made in compliance with the desire of the deans and chapters, and no objection, he thought, could fairly be made to the Bill on that account. The draft of this further report to which he alluded was prepared, when, in consequence of circumstances which he need not mention, the meetings of the Commission were broken off, and at last the Commission came to an end in consequence of the demise of the Crown. He did not now intend to bring in a bill containing word for word, or letter for letter, the propositions of the Church Commissioners. There were two points on which he proposed to add to those recommendations. The first regarded the persons who were to carry the act into effect. According to the act regulating the incomes of the bishops, persons holding certain official stations, together with those archbishops and bishops originally named, were appointed Commissioners for that purpose. As this Bill would confer great power over the administration of the property of the Church, it seemed to him right, that the number of Commissioners should be increased. A complaint had been made to him, that the number of laymen was too great, which he proposed, in some respect, to remedy. He proposed, that the Crown should have power to nominate five persons to sit on the Commission, of whom three should be Members of the Church of England. This was a power which might be, but need not necessarily be exercised. He proposed, likewise, that there should be some limit to the incomes of the deans, and other members of the chapters, as there was now by Act of Parliament a limit to those of the archbishops and bishops. In the very

1115
few cases in which the incomes of deans exceeded 2,000 l., he proposed that the surplus should be set apart to the augmentation of small livings, and in the few instances where that of a canon or prebendary exceeded 1,000 l., that the surplus should be devoted to the same object. These were the only modifications of any consequence affecting the recommendations of the Commissioners which he should propose; the rest of the Bill was to carry into effect the original proposals of those Commissioners, which, in their opinion, would tend very much to the augmentation of small livings, and the increase of religious instruction in populous places, where there was now a very great deficiency. When the Bill came to be read a second time, he would go more generally into the subject of the reforms proposed or effected by this, and other measures in the constitution of the Church; and he would then be happy to meet his hon. Friend, the Member for the University of Oxford, in considering the whole question. The noble Lord moved for leave to bring in the Bill as above.
Sir Robert Inglisthought, his noble Friend was almost the only Minister who would not, under the circumstances, have either made a fuller statement to the House, or made it at a more seasonable hour. The objections he entertained against the Bill, announced by the noble Lord, were, perhaps, stronger than those he had felt against the Bill he had brought in last year. He could never be reconciled to a bill, hostile to the constitution, perhaps to the existence of the Church, by any acquiescence in the spoliation of ecclesiastical property, which might be obtained by any boon offered in the measure to a particular class of proprietors. He felt it his duty to declare, as strongly as he could, his decided and unalterable aversion to the Bill. It was, in itself, injurious, and was one of a series of measures opposed to the best interests of the Church.
Mr. Gladstonehoped, that before the second reading of this Bill, ample time would be given for consideration, as the question involved was one of daily increasing interest, and required the most mature deliberation.
Leave given.