Commons Sitting of 14 February 1840

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a third time:—Transfer of Aids. Petitions presented. By Lord G. Bentinck, from the Corporation of York, and Mr. T. Hope, from Gloucester, for the Liberation of the Sheriffs of London and Middle sex.—By Messrs. Leader, Duncombe, Ewart, and Williams, from several places, for a Free Pardon to Frost, Jones, and Williams.—By Mr. Ewart, from Birmingham, Mr. Hume, from Horsham, and Mr. T. Duncombe, from St. Pancras, to the same effect.—By Messrs. Baines, Brotherton, Sanford, and Hawes, from a number of places, for the Release of John Thorogood, the Abolition of Church Hates, and of the Jurisdiction of Ecclesiastical Courts.—By Messrs. Bridgeman, V. Stuart, Sir William Brabazon, Sir William Somerville, and the O'Connor Don, from a number of places, for Corporate Reform, and an Extension of the Franchise in Ireland.—By Sir William Molesworth, from County Tyrone, in favour of, and by Mr. Labouchere, from Belfast, against the Importation of Flour into Ireland.—By Messrs. Pryme, Parke, Miles, Palmer, Pakington, Sir R. H. Inglis, and Lord Stanley, from a number of places, for Church Ex tension By Mr. F. Maule, from Perth, and Forfar, against the ssme.—By the Chancellor of the Exchequer, from Portsmouth, and by Sir G. Strickland, from a place in Yorkshire, for the Total and Immediate Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Mr. Hume, from Rochester, and Mr. Hawes, from a Lady, for an Inquiry into the Principles of Socialism.—By Mr. Wynn Ellis, from Leicester, in favour of the Privileges of the House being maintained.—By Messrs. Duff, and F. Maule, and Sir G. Sinclair, from a number of places, against the Intrusion of Ministers into Parishes without the consent of the Inhabitants.—By Mr. Hodges, from a place in Kent, for an Alteration of the Poor-laws—By Mr. Miles, from one place, against any further Grant to Maynooth College; and from another place, against the Beer Bill.

UNION OF THE CANADAS.
Mr. Pakingtoninquired of the noble Lord the Secretary for die Colonies, whether any intention existed on the part of the Government to bring in a bill for the union of the two Canadas? He also desired to know whether the returns relating to the various religious denominations in Upper Canada, a part of which were sent home by Governor Arthur last year, would be soon completed, and whether, when they were sent home, there would be any objection to their being laid before the House? He further begged to ask whether Sir George Arthur had been superseded, or whether he had resigned?
Lord John Russellfirst begged to state, that the Governor-general on her Majesty's North American provinces had obtained the consent of the legislative councils to take measures for the union of the two provinces of Upper and Lower Canada, By the last accounts which had
248
been received from the Governor-general, he informed the Government that he was then occupied in the details of a bill, that the Chief Justice of Lower Canada was expected in Upper Canada every day, and that he hoped to send the draft of the bill home by the packet, which would leave New York on the 1st of February. This, of course, had not yet arrived; but as soon as the communication was received, it would be taken into the consideration of her Majesty's Government; and he expected, in the course of the ensuing month, to be able to produce a measure upon the subject of the union of the two provinces. With regard to the returns which had been directed to be made, he found that they were not entirely to be depended upon; and he had great doubts whether any means could at present be taken to make them more perfect. He had, however, given instructions to Sir George Arthur to take all the pains in his power to render them as complete as possible. As to the retirement of Sir George Arthur, he had not the least reason to suppose that he was about to relinquish the government of Upper Canada. He had received no intimation from Sir George to that effect, and all the dispatches which had been forwarded to him room the Governor-general expressed the highest approbation of the conduct of the Lieutenant-governor of Upper Canada. The state of his health might possibly afford a reason for his resignation, but no notice to that effect had been received.

THE QUEEN'S MARRIAGE—CONGRATULATORY ADDRESS.
Lord John Russell: I rise, Sir, in pursuance of a notice which stands upon the votes of the House, to move an address to her Majesty, on the occasion of her Majesty's marriage with Prince Albert of Saxe Coburg and Gotha. It will not require any arguments from me, I am persuaded, to induce the House to consent, most willingly, to this address, for I am sure that the House will feel as anxious as I do, to render its congratulations, upon an occasion not only interesting to Parliament, and conducive to the comfort and happiness of her Majesty, but of great importance to the welfare of the State. And allow me, with regard to this subject to observe, that it must be a source of the greatest satisfaction to the country, to think that her Majesty has been more fortunate, with respect to her

249
Majesty's marriage, than many of those who have been placed in such an exalted station, because it has been too often the case that the necessity for political alliances has made it requisite to contract marriages entirely based on political considerations, and in which the affections of the heart, have been in no wise concerned. It must be a matter of great satisfaction to the people of this country to know, that they have not demanded any such sacrifice on the part of her Majesty, and that while the political interests of the country are consulted, this country has not been obliged to ask her Majesty to contract marriage with any person other than one whom her own affections would have led her to select. With these few words, I shall at once propose the address to her Majesty, expressing my most sincere prayer, that the union so lately formed may last for many years, and that the blessing of Almighty God may rest upon it. The noble Lord then proposed,—
"That an humble Address be presented to her Majesty, to congratulate her Majesty on the auspicious occasion of her Majesty's marriage, and to assure her Majesty of the cordial joy and satisfaction which this House feels at an event which is a fresh instance of her Majesty's regard for the interests of her people, and of so much importance to her Majesty's domestic happiness, and to the welfare of the country."
Sir R. Peelsaid, I trust I may be permitted to perform the satisfactory duty of seconding the motion proposed by the noble Lord. I feel that the ordinary phrases of congratulation are so trifling and so exhausted by repetition, that it is perfectly consistent with good taste and with my own sentiments to express my feelings in a very few words. I beg, therefore, on my own part, and on that of the great party with which I have the honour to be connected, to express our most cordial congratulations to her Majesty, and the sense of great satisfaction which we entertain, that her Majesty has been able to perform a public duty in such a manner as to render it grateful to her own feelings; and to join in the prayer offered by the noble Lord, that not only the public happiness of the country, but the personal happiness and comfort of our Sovereign may be ensured by this union.
Motion carried nem. con.; and address ordered to be presented by the whole House.

MESSAGE TO PRINCE ALBERT.
Lord John Russellthen moved,
"That a congratulatory Message be sent to His Royal Highness Prince Albert of Saxe Coburg and Gotha, to congratulate his Royal Highness upon his marriage, and to express the joy and satisfaction which this House feels upon seeing the ardent wishes of a faithful people fulfilled by her Majesty's wise and happy choice, and by her Majesty's union to a prince distinguished by a descent so illustrious, and by a character formed to support and adorn his exalted station."
Mr. W. Duncombesaid, that perhaps the noble Lord would allow him to take this opportunity of putting a question to him, upon a subject which had excited great interest both in and out of that House. He desired to be informed whether it was intended that the name of his Royal Highness Prince Albert should be inserted in the Liturgy.
Lord John Russellhad no intimation to make to the House upon the subject.
Motion carried.

MESSAGE TO THE DUCHESS OF KENT.
Lord John Russellsaid, that there was one other motion which he proposed to make, of which he had given no notice, but it was for another congratulatory Message, to which he thought that the House would not object. The noble Lord moved,—
"That a congratulatory Message be sent to Her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent, to congratulate Her Royal Highness upon the marriage of her Majesty; an event so deeply interesting to the maternal feelings of Her Royal Highness, and so conducive to the happiness of Her Majesty.'"
Motion carried.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS—(IRELAND).
Viscount Morpeth Viscount Morpeth moved the second reading of the Municipal Corporations, (Ireland) bill.
Sir R. Inglissaid, that the Bill having been already so much discussed, he would not occupy the attention of the House by entering into its details, but he would declare his conviction that if that Bill ever passed into a law it would be a heavy blow and a great discouragement to the Protestant religion in Ireland; and for that reason he could not permit such a bill to be passed through that House, without giving it his decided opposition. There were many authorities of high name and high characters to sanction that opposition

251
to the bill; but there was one of paramount weight with hon. Gentlemen opposite, he meant the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, who furnished ample reasons for resisting that bill. That hon. and learned Gentleman by his speeches out of doors, for he was cautious of committing himself within the walls of parliament, furnished the best reasons why a municipal Corporation Bill should not be extended to Ireland, which would transfer corporate power from the Protestants to the Roman Catholics of that country. It will be recollected that it was stated that a compact had been entered into between the hon. Members with whom he (Sir R. Inglis) generally acted and the hon. Gentlemen opposite, that, on the condition of a Tithe Bill passing which would secure to the Irish Church its revenues, no impediment by his hon. Friends would be thrown in the way of a Municipal Bill being introduced. Now to that compact he (Sir R. Inglis) never had been, and never would be a party. Of its existence he had never been informed until when this bill was last year before Parliament, he came into the House, and for that reason he was not liable to any charge of inconsistency by opposing the present bill. If such a compact had been entered into, the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had by his conduct violated the condition, and for that reason the contract or compact was at an end. That hon. Gentleman had told his supporters that it was his grand object to transfer the rent charge from the present recipients to a new class of persons, for new objects. If by that declaration the hon. and learned Member intended, as no doubt he did, to sweep away the maintenance of the clergy of the Established Church, then the ground was cut from under the feet of the friends of the Established Church. They were induced to support the present bill on the ground that the interest of the church had been secured by the Tithe Bill. The individual who possessed more power than any other man had ever possessed in Ireland, told them that this interest of the church should not be secure. If ever, then, such a compact were made, surely when violated on one side, it could not be binding on the other. Again, he would ask, had the Municipal Corporations Act of England proved so beneficial to the people of this country that that House should extend its operations to the sister kingdom, not by the desire or at the option of the
252
people of Ireland? The bill went to the destruction of the existing corporations in Ireland. That House had no right to destroy those corporations, or to take away from them the power and influence which they possessed. If abused, there was law still in the country to redress the wrong. There was not any justice which could extend to an individual which could not equally extend to a corporate body. But the House at a single blow destroyed ten, twenty, or thirty corporations at once, transferred their powers and functions to a different class, and this they were about to do when they would not attempt a similar act of injustice upon an individual. That the bill would eventually pass he believed, and he also felt, that it would be useless to resist it in that House. He would not factiously oppose the sense of the House; but the duty he owed himself prompted him to express his opinions upon the bill, and not allow it to pass by any connivance upon his part. The bill being a virtual transfer of the power then possessed by the Protestants into the hands of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, he would move as an amendment that the bill be read a second time that day six months.
Mr. Littonbegged leave to second the amendment. He had never denied, that, by what he called reform, the advantages attendant upon the existence of municipal corporations in Ireland might be greatly increased; but when it was intended by this bill to transfer the exclusive patronage and ascendancy of the corporations into different hands, he said that this was an unfair bill, and that it was an effort on the part of the Government to make the bill a political engine by which they might increase their influence in that country. That was the main ground upon which he opposed this bill. But he had another objection to it—namely, that from the nature of this bill, and the character of many of its clauses, it would throw the patronage into the hands of a class of men who were not by any other statutes or institutions of the country intrusted with it, and who, by reason of their education, and their situation in society, were not likely, properly and justly, to administer the pecuniary concerns of these corporations. It was generally believed that a compact, either implied or understood, had existed between the Government and the Conservative party, the

253
object of winch was, to bring about a satisfactory settlement of those Irish questions, the continued agitation of which was fraught with so much mischief. He would not pretend to say whether such a compact had or had not existed. But how had the Government acted? Had they kept faith? Was it not promised that a fair bonâ fide Tithe Bill for Ireland should be brought in by the Government? Although he was satisfied with the Irish Tithe Bill as it now stood, he would ask whether the Conservative party owed that bill to the adherence of the Government to the compact which was spoken of, or to their own exertions, which left the Government in a minority? The Government, to the very last, contended for the deprivation of the Irish Church of thirty percent, of its income, but a majority of the House, created by the strength of the Conservative party, voting against the Government, preserved seventy-five per cent, to the Irish Church, and even to the present hour a kind of threat was held out, that if the English feeling in this country would admit of it, an attempt would again be made to enforce the appropriation clause. So far, then, as the alleged compact was concerned, the Government had broken it, for it could not be called a fair way of keeping it, to take all and give nothing. Her Majesty's Government had twice broken that compact, in reference to the very question now before the House, by bringing in corporation bills for Ireland, which they knew the Conservative party could not support, and which were ultimately rejected by Parliament. What he would ask the House was, first, whether such a compact ever existed, and if such a compact was in existence, whether it had not been broken by Government; and whether, therefore, the Conservative party were not, in honour and justice, relieved from the observation of its conditions any longer? If his right hon. and hon. Friends thought otherwise, he was the last man to ask them, for any purpose or object whatever, to break one iota of that compact. If they considered that compact to be still binding upon them, he would not presume to call upon them to disregard it. As for the bill now proposed by the noble Lord, it might be said, why not let it go into committee, and then it can be improved and amended as it may require? His answer to that was, that he thought it altogether so defective and objectionable, that it was
254
not worth while to trouble a committee with it, for it would be easier to draw a new one than to amend this one. Upon these grounds he seconded the amendment.
Mr. Shawsaid, he would state at once, that, without pledging himself to any of the details of this measure, he intended to vote for the second reading. He felt bound, both by consistency and good faith, to lake that course, because he saw the good effects of the Irish Tithe Bill, in the increased security of the Irish Church, and the improved condition of society in Ireland. When the hon. Baronet, the Member for the University of Oxford reasoned, that his party was altogether free from every compact with regard to the Irish Church, because he saw that the hostility of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin to that Church was not diminished, his answer to that reasoning was, that the hon. and learned Member was no party to the compact, and that one great advantage had been gained for the Church—namely, an Act of Parliament, by which the Church could be protected against the hostility of that hon. and learned Member. The Poor-law was, he believed, notwithstanding some drawbacks and difficulties, coming into useful operation; at all events, it supplied a safe criterion of franchise. But if he was even free from these obligations, he would call upon those hon. Friends of his who opposed the principle of the present measure, to state what was their own, and to propose some substitute of which he could approve, before he could lend them his support. He had not heard any one of his hon. Friends contend that the Irish Corporations could be retained in their present form; for his own part, considering the altered laws and circumstances of Ireland, he thought that object was not possible or desirable, and, from first to last, in all the discussions of the subject, he had never either there or elsewhere, given a different opinion. He had advocated the abolition of those corporations, and still would do so, were it practicable, maintaining, as he did, his former opinion, that their abolition would be the measure most conducive to the good government of the towns, and to the general peace and prosperity of the country, by preventing the recurrence of elections, and the irritation of party contentions for ascendancy; and that the public funds would be applied for the real benefit of

255
the inhabitants, and not to purposes of useless pageantry and show. But, after long perseverance, he, and those with whom he acted, had failed in that measure of abolition, and in no small degree on account of those hon. Friends who now opposed the present bill, refusing their support to that mode of settlement, conscientiously, he freely admitted, but nevertheless preventing the settlement. What, then, was to be done? Corporations in Ireland could not continue as they were; abolition had been tried and failed; and to his mind the only alternative which presented itself was either to settle the question upon the principle that had been now agreed to by both Houses of Parliament, or else to leave it in its present unsettled and unsatisfactory condition, a festering sore inflaming the feelings of the most violent of both parties in Ireland, and the subject of constant and angry party contention in that House, to the exclusion of all useful practical legislation for that part of the kingdom to which it related. He was quite aware, from past experience, that he should bring odium on himself by the part which he was now taking, the more so, by contrast with those hon. Friends of his with whom he generally acted, but who on that occasion thought it their duty to take a different course. But that would not deter him from doing what he sincerely believed to be his duty. He thought that exaggerated notions of the political importance of the measure were formed on both sides, and by their reaction on each other. His greatest apprehension was, that wise and moderate men belonging to both would keep aloof from these new corporations, from a dread of that strife and animosity which their presence might greatly tend to prevent. He did not apprehend that with a bonâ fide 10 l. franchise, what was termed Conservative opinions would eventually be overborne in those new bodies as was alleged by many of his Friends, provided only, that instead of indulging in unavailing regrets and bitter resentments at the past, those who held them would exert themselves to assert that just influence to which their wealth, intelligence, and character entitled them. Nay, he would say, that it was his positive conviction, that the continuance of the Irish corporations in their present decayed and declining state was rather an injury than a service to that great Conservative party
256
to which he was proud to belong, and whose principles were a firm but a temperate maintenance of the civil and sacred institutions of the country and above all, at the present moment, a determination, without giving offence to, or deriving civil superiority over, those of any class or creed, to support by any or every sacrifice the union of the Protestant Church with the state in every portion of the United Kingdom. With these views, he would vote for the second reading of the bill, and endeavour in the committee to make considerable amendments in the details, to many of which in their present shape he objected.
Mr. Sergeant Jacksonfelt with his right hon. Friend, the importance of having this long vexatious question settled. But he did not think the House had had sufficent time to consider the present measure. It was only yesterday morning, that he had been put in possession of this very voluminous bill. It was impossible that the people of Ireland could have had any opportunity of considering it. Nevertheless, the House was called upon to decide thus hastily upon it. It was said by a noble Duke, the leader of his party, in the House of Lords, that if the Poor-law Bill and the Irish Tithe Bill were passed in a satisfactory shape, he should feel himself bound to vote for the principle of a bill for the remodelling the Irish Municipal Corporations. These two measures had been passed; and, in conformity with that pledge, the party with whom he acted were prepared to vote for the second reading of this measure. He was, however, bound to say, that he was well aware of the probable effects of it if it were carried in its present shape; and, with the view to obviate them, he should pursue such a course in Committee as duty dictated, and at all risks would follow it. He would, therefore, tell the noble Lord that he would vote for the second reading of this bill, but in doing so, he should take care to support or propose such modifications of it in Committee as would prevent the most mischievous results arising. When the Government first brought forward the Irish Municipal Bill, the Members of it in that House distinctly denied, that it was intended by it to lake the power in the corporations from one exclusive party and transfer it to another, and his right hon. Friend, the present Master of the Rolls in Ireland, who was the law officer of the

257
Irish Government in that House, made some powerful observations on this subject. On the second reading of that bill in 1836, his right hon. and learned Friend said:—
" I know that it has been said, that the inevitable effect of this measure would be to take the power out of the hands of one party and give it to another. I am aware that this has repeatedly been said, but whatever credit may be attached to my assertion, I have no hesitation in saying, that if I thought that this measure would take power from one exclusive and violent party, and give it to another equally so—if such a party could be found—it would not have a more determined opponent than myself. But I deny that such would be the effect of the measure."
But he maintained that the present measure, if it passed as it now stood, would have the effect of transferring all the power and influence in the corporations of Ireland from the Protestants to the Catholics. He, therefore, as the Irish Master of the Rolls did on a former occasion, protested against being a party to such a proceeding, and should, therefore, in committee propose a number of alterations to counteract the evils that would otherwise arise. Was the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, aware of the relative number of houses giving voters belonging to Catholics and Protestants in the Municipal Corporations in Ireland. With all possible respect to the noble Lord, he felt that the noble Lord could not be aware of the proportion the number bore to each other, and that the effect of the bill would be to deprive the Protestants of all share of power in those towns. Was it not the bounden duty of the noble Lord to inquire into the subject, and to inform the House whether this measure would produce such an effect in any town in Ireland? He had taken some trouble on the subject, and he would tell the noble Lord, that if he would look into the report of the commissioners of public instruction, and the commissioners of municipal boundaries, he would perceive that in nearly all those places there would be an overwhelming proportion of voting houses in the hands of Catholics. What was the chief objection to the present corporations in Ireland? It was, that they were exclusively in the hands of Protestants. This was the ground urged for the abolition of them; but would it not be most monstrous—would it not be most unjust, because
258
they are now exclusively on our side, that you should produce such a change as to make them almost exclusive to the opposite party? This would not only be grossly and manifestly unjust, but most impolitic. Was not this a Protestant State? Was there any man in that House who contemplated that this country would cease to be a Protestant one? He, at least, never would be a party to any measure which was likely to produce such a result. The noble Lord who introduced this measure stated, that it was like the bill sent down from the House of Lords last year, but in point of fact it was toto cœto different. The noble Lord, in his bill, proposed one qualification for the first three years, and that after that time it should be entirely different, and what was this latter propopal? Why, that after three years every person who occupied a rated house in a municipal borough should have a vote at the election of town councillors. Was not this an essential difference from the qualification laid down in the bill sent from the House of Lords last year? There was also no clause to continue to the freemen and burgesses in those towns the powers and privileges which they now enjoyed. The freemen had had continued to them the right of voting for Members of Parliament, but he could not conceive why they should not also have the right of voting for members of the town-council. This also would tend to lower the Protestant influence in many towns. It was his intention when the bill got into Committee to propose some amendments, with the view of counteracting the exclusion of Protestants. For instance, one amendment which he should propose would be to this effect—suppose that in a town there were two Roman Catholic voters for one Protestant voter; to prevent the overwhelming effect of such a majority he should propose that each elector should only have the power of voting for a number equal to one moiety of the town-council. This was by no means a new principle, but had been acted upon under the English Municipal Act in the election of assessors and auditors in a borough. The application of this principle also in connexion with Irish municipal boroughs had been recommended by a distinguished statesman in another place, of whom he wished to speak in terms of the utmost respect—he meant Earl Grey. That noble Earl, in a speech which he

259
made the 27th of June, 1836, said on this subject,
"There is one suggestion which I will venture to offer to your Lordships, for which suggestion I alone am responsible, not having communicated to my noble Friend my intention of making it, and not having any reason, except the conviction of its expediency, to believe that it will be acceptable to either side of your Lordships' House. In the bill, as it last left your Lordships' House, and as it now stands, there is a clause regulating the voting for auditors and assessors. Now, in another hill ordered to be brought into the Mouse of Commons by Lord John Russell, the Attorney-general and Mr. Vernon Smith, a bill for regulating charitable trusts, there is a clause providing that every person entitled to vote shall vote for only half the number of trustees. I wish your Lordships would consider if it might not be practicable to add clauses to this bill of a similar character, but bearing on the election of town councillors, which would in a great degree remove the objections to the measure, which some of your Lordships entertain. Suppose, for instance, that every voter was restricted to voting for only half the number of town-councillors. The consequence would be, that there could be no exclusive party established, but that a minority in any corporation, of whatever persuasion they might be, could retain their due share of influence. My Lords, I believe it is an overstatement to say, that even if the bill were carried in its present shape its effects would be exclusive, because it would be only a transfer of authority from one party to another. Many of the corporations in Ireland are divided into wards, and in many of those wards the Protestants would have the preponderance. I am told, that even in Waterford, where the Catholics are most numerous, the elections would not be of that exclusive character apprehended. But even if that were the case, the proposition which I have ventured to throw out would remedy the evil. It. is obvious, that if a voter were restricted to vote for only half the town-councillors, unless the majority of one opinion could be swelled to two to one, no principle of exclusion could be established."
This was the suggestion of the noble Earl, and these were the reasons on which it was supported—and nothing could be more just or reasonable than the ground which he took. The noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, also supported the same principle in reference to the election of charity trustees in corporations, and this was done with the view of affording a counterbalance to the members of the Church of England against the Dissenters. He thought also that it would be most unjust to force on the people of
260
the Irish towns these corporations, whether they would have them or not. It was notorious that in some boroughs the majority of the voters, in respectability, wealth, and intelligence, were unwilling to have these corporations, but this bill was to force it on them whether they would or not. This, he thought, was most unjust, and he, therefore, should propose that they should leave it to the option of the inhabitants of any place to say whether they would have a corporation or not. On this point he should refer the House to the petition which he presented a few nights ago from Clonmel, respecting the alteration proposed to be made in corporations in Ireland, and praying the House to exclude that town from the operation of the bill. These petitioners state—
"Should the plan which was last year proposed to Parliament have passed into a law, your petitioners would have found themselves burdened with a very heavy annual expense for the payment of municipal officers, who have hitherto been found quite unnecessary for the management of the corporate affairs of the town: they would have found that the public income of the town, amounting to about 600 l. per annum, instead of being applicable, as it now mostly is, to the improvement of the town, would not, according to reasonable calculations, have more than sufficed for half the payment of the salaried officers, leaving the deficiency of salaries, &c. to be provided for by a tax, before a single farthing could be had for expenditure on the town itself, and that must have been raised by a further tax on the inhabitants. Your petitioners submit that, in framing a new scheme for the government of these towns, by which it is understood to be the intention of the Legislature to supersede the ancient privileges of the inhabitants, reference should be made to the circumstances of each town, and care taken that the new system shall combine the benefits of self-regulation with the smallest possible expense to the inhabitants, and the least possible temptation to corruption or underhand practices. Besides the burdensome taxation to which the contemplated arrangement would make them subject, the establishment of a long list of places, for salaried officers, would render their town a scene of intrigue and corruption, to an extent far exceeding any even imputed to the old corporate bodies."
They therefore went on to pray the House not to force the Irish Municipal Bill down their throats. This petition, he had reason to believe, was signed by three-fourths of the inhabitants of the rated houses of the town. He would ap-

261
peal to the hon. Members for Waterford and Dungarvon as to the respectability of the signatures attached to this petition. They were well acquainted with the names, and he was sure that they would admit that it was signed by the most respectable inhabitants of the town, and comprised a body of persons who were rated to the amount of 10,000 l. a year in the town of Clonmel; that was to two-thirds of the rated value of the town. There was also another important town, the inhabitants of which entertained nearly the same opinion on the subject. He alluded to Belfast, the inhabitants of which had presented a petition against this compulsory clause in the bill, and gave the strongest reasons against having a corporation forced on them. They said
"That they could not, without serious alarm, regard many of the clauses of the bill, and they most earnestly entreated the House not to force a corporation on them which would only have the effect of engendering bitter animosities; whereas the local affairs of that place had hitherto been managed in a most satisfactory manner under the provision of the 9th of Geo. 4th, and that the effect of the change would only be to exasperate political differences and excite private dissensions. That the affairs of the town of Belfast had hitherto been conducted in a most satisfactory and peaceful manner, but this would no longer be the case if this bill passed with its compulsory clauses."
This petition was from a town of very great importance, the inhabitants of which felt, that the peace and tranquillity of that place would be disturbed by the introduction of a corporate body such as was proposed in this bill, and that the effect of it would only be to interrupt their present prosperous career. He need hardly allude to the commercial importance of this place, which numbered upwards of eighty-five thousand inhabitants; and this petition, presented by his hon. Friend, was signed by a large proportion of the inhabitants, including the chief merchants, bankers, and traders of Belfast. Was such a petition to be disregarded, when all that was required in it was, that they should not force a corporation upon them, as they had hitherto been enabled to manage their own affairs with perfect satisfaction to themselves, under the provisions of the 9th Geo. 4th, c. 84. There also was an important petition on the subject of a portion of this bill, presented last year to the House of Lords. This petition
262
was from the town of Galway, and they strongly objected to many parts of it, and more particularly to the clauses which related to the rural districts surrounding those places that were counties of cities. In the bill of last year, it was provided, that in all counties of cities the rural districts should be cut off and thrown into the adjoining counties, as far as regarded the payment of rates, and that they should be created distinct baronies, and provision should be made for judicial and financial purposes respecting them. The inhabitants of Galway complained, that immense burdens would be thrown upon them by this arrangement, as many charges which were provided for by the surrounding rural districts would fall directly on the town. But this evil would not merely be felt in this place, for in addition to Galway, the inhabitants of Cork, L merick, and other places which were counties of cities, and had large rural districts connected with them, made similar complaints. All that he required from the noble Lord was, that it should not be compulsory in those places to have corporations, but that it should be left to them to be governed by the provisions of the 9th of George 4th, if they thought proper. He called therefore upon his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Galway, to lend him his aid in opposing this tyrannical provision of this bill, against which his constituents entertained the strongest feelings. It should be recollected also, that in Galway the corporation was open to Catholics, and a very large proportion of the freemen belonged to that class, and they had petitioned against this bill. The bill as it stood at present, then, was objectionable to the great body of the inhabitants of that town, and he was also convinced that it would be found equally objectionable to the inhabitants of other large places being counties of cities having extensive rural districts under their jurisdiction. For instance, the district of the county of the city of Cork was from six to seven miles in diameter, and contained upwards of 45,000 acres. There were seventy square miles in these rural districts, while there were only four square miles covered with buildings such as would give the franchise under this bill. In the districts surrounding Cork, there were not less than 700 persons who could not write their own names, and who were obliged to put their marks to the affidavits

263
for the purpose of registering their votes. Most of them were evidently fictitious votes, and the operation of the principle now proposed in this bill would not at all tend to diminish the number. He should redeem his pledge by voting for the second reading, but he should oppose the bill in every subsequent stage unless it were so altered as to satisfy him that it would not convert the municipal corporations in Ireland from Protestant communities into exclusively Roman Catholic institutions.
Mr. O'Connellcould not conceal from himself, nor did he desire to conceal from the House, the delight he felt in finding himself voting on the same side with the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He did take the liberty of making a suggestion across the House to the hon. and learned Sergeant, and if that had been acted upon, the learned Member might have been spared the trouble, and the House the pleasure of one half hour of his speech, which might have been reserved for another occasion. The hon. Member declared his intention of voting for the bill, and he afterwards adduced the towns of Cork, and Clonmel, and Galway, as arguments against the bill. The arguments might have been very good if they had agreed with his vote, but as it was, he was better pleased to get the learned Sergeant's vote than his arguments. He hoped the hon. and learned Sergeant would give the House credit when the bill was in Committee for the instalment of the debate which they had received from him, and allow them to escape so much on a future occasion. He was of opinion that the bill would place those who called themselves Conservatives in a better position than they were in at present. Many of those Gentlemen who, for political purposes, now appealed to the angry feelings and passions of certain parties would no longer feel a necessity for making such appeals, but would consult the voice of the people of the cities and towns; and by pursuing that course they would be better friends with their neighbours than ever they had been before. The hon. and learned Member objected to the bill, that it would take away the power from the Protestants and give it to the Roman Catholics. Now, if the meaning of the bill were to take power from a Protestant because he was a Protestant, and to give that power to a Catho-
264
lic because he was a Catholic, he (Mr. O'Connell) would oppose it most strenuously; but the complaint under the present system was, that the Roman Catholic did not get that power and privilege which he was justly entitled to. He would instance the city of Dublin, where, for forty-seven years, Roman Catholics were eligible to be admitted to the corporation, and notwithstanding that the law permitted their admission, and that there were numbers of Roman Catholics amongst the gentry, and merchants, and the shopocracy, as they were called, and persons connected with the law, yet during those forty-seven years not one of them had been admitted. He hoped the learned Sergeant would excuse him when he said they had been excluded by Protestant prejudice. He should be heartily ashamed, and he should deplore it bitterly, if a Catholic corporation succeeded in excluding Protestant wealth and respectability from civil rights because they were Protestant. Yet he had shown that the Catholics had been equally admissible for forty-seven years, and none of them had been admitted because they were Catholics. Let him be shown any provision in that bill which gave a preference in civil rights to a man because he was a Catholic, and no one could be more ready to expunge it. The principle in the bill was, that a certain degree of property gave a title to the franchise, and, whether the possessor of that property was a Protestant or a Catholic, he was equally entitled to the franchise under the bill; and on the same principle, no matter what was his religion, that he should not have the franchise if he did not possess the property. No matter what religion a man was of, whether a Protestant, or a Catholic, or a Socialist, he might enjoy the franchise if he enjoyed the property. If the greater proportion of the property were in the hands of the Protestants, why should they not have their full share of the government of the town. And if, on the contrary, the greater portion of the property were in the hands of the Catholics, why should they not have it? The right hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford might differ from him in that opinion, and might believe that the State ought to give a superiority to the man who was of the State religion, and he would admit that the bill was a bad bill to every one who held such opinions; but it was a good bill in the eyes of those who

265
thought that the possessors of property in the towns ought to have the regulation of the municipal affairs of the towns, and that no one ought to inquire what religion they were, or if any one was impertinent enough to ask such a question, that no one should be bound to answer him. He was ready to take the bill if it should pass in its present shape, though he believed there were many who might be dissatisfied with the franchise; but he felt that persons were bound to sacrifice their opinions in order to secure a permanent and substantial good. He was, however, bound to say, that, if it did not pass in its present shape, if it should be altered, it would not give satisfaction; and he thought it was the interest of the House to give its acquiescence to the just and reasonable demands of the people of Ireland. The people of Ireland demanded the same municipal rights as the people of England; but they would take the bill, although there was a restriction in it. They agreed to that restriction, as it was to last only for three years. He hoped the time would soon come when they should put an end to those restrictions. The hon. and learned Member concluded by repeating his intention to support the bill.
Sir Robert Peel: Sir, I do not intend to enter into any discussion of the details of the bill on the present occasion. I shall reserve that for another stage. With respect to an admission I made on a former year, I must say that I do not now see any cause to induce me to retract that admission. With respect to the newly-inserted provisions, now at the end of three years, I will not enter into that point; but I reserve to myself the complete power of acting hereafter, with respect to the details, as I may think fit. The main question which we have now to decide is, shall this bill be read a second time or shall it not? Shall an attempt be made in the present session to bring this long agitated question to a conclusion? I have a better ground for assenting to this attempt to settle the question, for I hold that we are consulting no interest in Ireland by keeping the question unsettled, if we can settle it in a proper and satisfactory manner. With respect to the first point, concerning the fulfilment of the pledge which I made, for I will not say compact, as I do not consider that I entered into any compact On any occasion with the hon. Gentle-
266
man opposite; but I made a declaration of the course I intended to pursue, and that declaration it may be thought might have a material bearing on the course which was adopted by others. I said that if there had been a satisfactory Tithe Bill passed, and a franchise established on the rating of the Poor-law Bill, in that case we could apply ourselves to the settlement of the corporation question in a form which would be satisfactory. I have no disposition to say, that the agitation with respect to the Tithe Bill releases me from that. I doubt the policy of making the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite of so much importance, and so far as the operation of the Tithe Bill is concerned, I will not so far compliment the hon. Gentleman as to say, that he has such power over the Catholics of Ireland that they would consent to unsettle the Tithe Bill at his suggestion. I believe that he has not that power over the Catholics of Ireland, the majority of whom have so much good sense, and so great a desire to consult the tranquillity of their country that little is to be apprehended on that point; and I do not believe that if he was inclined to do so by agitation, that he has the power. I do not think any conduct of his with regard to the Tithe Bill releases me from any promise I made on a former occasion. As many of my friends may vote against me, and as some of them have come into Parliament since that period, it is necessary that I should inform those who came into Parliament since that transaction took place, why I adopted a different course with respect to the Corporation Bill from that which I pursued on a former occasion. I entertained the opinion that it would be better for Ireland if the people of that country would generally consent to the abolition of the corporations. When I found that course was not satisfactory, and that it was felt as a humiliation and a degradation that there should be any difference between the mode of treating the corporations in Ireland from that which had been adopted in England, I saw that those feelings of dissatisfaction entered as an important element into the question. I wished to state my opinion that upon the whole there would be a greater prospect of religious peace and social concord in Ireland if an arrangement was made to provide for the local government of the towns without any municipal corporations. We tried that principle, I proposed that

267
the existing corporations should be abolished in Ireland, and further that no other similar bodies should be established in lieu of them, for I conceive it impossible to proceed with the principle of self-election in Ireland after the corporations had been abolished. My right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford calls upon us to retain the principle of self-election in Ireland, although it has been abolished in England; but as far as my experience goes, I do not think it consistent with the Protestant interests of that country to maintain self-election in Ireland, after it has beer, given up in England. In cases for instance, where the great preponderance of property is in the hands of the Roman Catholics, would it conduce to the Protestant interests of that town if the principle of self-election were retained, and that Protestant selected each other to the exclusion of the Roman Catholics? That would provoke so strong a feeling of dissatisfaction that any good which might result from a municipal reform would be perfectly overwhelmed and overpowered by the general discontent it would produce. Take the case of Dublin, I do not believe that it would conduce to the Protestant interests in that great city if the principle of self-election were retained, and that the Catholics were practically excluded. We tried that principle when we were in a powerful minority, within twenty or twenty-five of the Government; and, on the motion for the abolition of the corporations in 1836, we were in a minority of 64. We repeated it in 1837, and we were then in a minority of 88. Although men are in opposition they are obliged to look to the interests of the country; and the question then remaining to be considered was, whether it was for the Protestant interests, seeing that the public mind in England and Ireland was against the abolition of the corporations, that we should endeavour to carry this principle and could hope to fight the battle successfully against increasing opposition in this House and with a decreasing minority. I did not act suddenly. I took every opportunity of consulting the opinions of that great party with whom I have the honour to act. I asked them whether they thought they could rely, under the circumstances of the case, on the permanent opposition of the House of Lords in maintaining this principle, and whether it was on any ground desirable
268
that the two Houses of Parliament should be thus kept in perpetual conflict with each other. I cannot say that all agreed for some differed; but there was almost an universal opinion amongst us that the ground was not tenable, and that the public interests and the Protestant interests of Ireland would not be advanced by it. That gave force to the declarations I made, not as a personal declaration, but on behalf of a great majority of that party. If the noble Lord was influenced by that in any measure which he proposed, I should be sorry indeed to be liable to the imputation that, having got the provisions I required, I did not fulfil my part. At the same time, if I were convinced that the public interests could be injuriously affected by the course which I am taking, I should feel myself placed in a painful dilemma; and, as a public man, should have to decide whether I should fulfil my engagement, and, in doing so, act contrary to the interests of the public service. But I am not in this dilemma, for the declaration which I made is consistent with my conviction that I am better consulting the public interests and the Protestant interests of Ireland by assenting to this Bill, than if I were to refuse concession to any attempt to settle this question. I confess that I will enter into the consideration of the details of this Bill with an earnest desire to bring the question to a satisfactory settlement. I do not deny, that the Roman Catholic influence must prevail to a great extent in these corporations on account of their numbers and property, but I do not anticipate any of the extreme danger that some appear to apprehend in this respect. I am sorry that the Protestant interest should not have more influence in those corporations; but I doubt whether the establishment of municipal corporations will add much to the political influence of the Catholics. That power will not materially add to their political weight. See how the case stands at present. With the corporations in the hands of Protestants, can we congratulate ourselves much upon the political results? I am convinced more advantage would be produced by depriving those who wish to agitate of a topic of agitation, and I am satisfied to run the risk of the elective principle in order that a great body whom I am desirous to look upon in the light of a great body of my fellow-countrymen, may not

269
feel a sense of degradation at having withheld from them this concession. We have now the corporations in our own hands, and can we congratulate ourselves very much on the political results? Now to argue the matter in a more narrow point of view. The system of self-election prevails; but in many instances Roman Catholics form the corporations, and can we boast any great success in our Parliamentary or political influence? I will take the eleven towns mentioned in schedule A, which have corporations; they are Belfast, Clonmel, Cork, Drogheda, Dublin, Galway, Kilkenny, Limerick, Londonderry, Sligo, and Waterford, and of those eleven towns there is only one that returns a Conservative Member, namely, the town of Belfast. My hon. and learned Friend says, that many of these towns protest against corporations, and that a great portion of the property and wealth of these towns is opposed to corporations. Well, be it so. Supposing that a great portion of the property is against the introduction of the corporations, is it not to be supposed that the influence of that property will be exerted, and that it will strive for a fair portion of the corporate officers? Take the case of Belfast, for instance: there they will have no funds to administer, and consequently will be obliged to resort to a new taxation; and, as soon as they commence to exercise their taxing power, you will then see that they will at once become unpopular. Many of these corporations will have to decide between two courses: they will neglect their duty, and leave the lamps unlighted and the pavement unrepaired; they will neglect to attend to the comfort of the inhabitants, and then there will be comparisons made between them and the former corporation. They would then meet and determine to establish a borough rate, expecting that they would recover their popularity by this means; but when the rate came to be levied, they would find that the imposition of the new rate had rendered them more unpopular than before. I apprehend that when we consider the disunion that may arise to a certain extent amongst parties now united—the feelings of dissatisfaction that will be excited amongst one party, feeling that the corporation has not come up to their expectations—the discontent that will be excited towards those whose party prevailed in the choice of the governing
270
body—I think, considering all these grounds, that the danger has been exaggerated with respect to these new corporations. I think, considering also the dissatisfaction that will be excited amongst the neglected candidates and their friends—the feelings of humiliation arising from having pretensions disregarded—the unpopularity arising from new taxation—I think that, considering all these causes, our political influence will be rather increased than abated by the circumstances to which I have adverted. Now, I will take all the boroughs which at present return Members to Parliament. There are altogether thirty-three borough towns, having corporations, which at present return Members to this House. Now, out of these thirty-three towns, there are only nine which return Conservative Members. I apprehend, however, that this result arises, not so much from the existence of these corporations, as from the extent to which, in many of those places, the political franchise is in the hands of the Roman Catholics. I am certain that it would be inexpedient to make a provision to say that the elected body should be of a particular persuasion, so long as the elective body are of a different persuasion. I do not think that there will be any risk to be encountered on account of religion. The election will always be sure to go in favour of those who profess a certain line of politics; and there will always be found men in whom the spirit of party will so overrule all other feelings, and these men, representing in the corporations the feelings of the elective body, would be found quite as mischievous as any who might be debarred on account of their religious persuasion. I have already stated, that in schedule A there is only one town which returns a Conservative Member to this House, and that, out of the thirty-three borough towns having corporations, we have only nine Conservative Members. I know very well that it is impossible to deny, that the Roman Catholics will at first exercise material influence in these municipal corporations, but I very much doubt whether their political influence, as distinguished from their municipal influence, will be increased by the grant of municipal corporations, when I consider that in many towns how small a proportion of the municipal functions remain to be exercised. In the city of Dublin, for instance, the corporation will have very

271
few corporate functions to discharge. You have already established there a paving board and a lighting board, and you have established a street police with which you have decided that the corporation shall not meddle. In fact, in Dublin you have excluded the corporation from the exercise of all municipal functions. In fact, in every thing which respects the interests of the corporation, the corporation will have scarcely any interference. We might by refusing to read this bill a second time give encouragement to agitation; but I think that we ought to consent to the second reading of the Bill, as we have failed to persuade the people of Ireland that it would be for their interest, for a time at least, that they should be free from those municipal election contests, which would go far to interfere with social harmony, and interfere with good fellowship amongst the inhabitants of many towns in Ireland. For though elections may be considered as a safety-valve for the expression of opinion, still they interfere very much with the harmony of social feeling, which they very much tend to interrupt. On these grounds, then, first of all, from a desire to promote the interests of the Protestants of Ireland, and also to promote the general interests of the country, I think that this question should be brought to a final conclusion, unless there could be shown a strong necessity to the contrary. I have already stated that I did not enter into any compact with respect to this question; but this I feel, that no one could know what to depend on if on such occasions the public declarations of public men were not to be adhered to. It would be a painful course if I were called upon to adhere to a declaration which I felt to be wrong, but I feel that the declaration which I made is one in conformity with my own convictions, and that I consent to nothing in this bill which I think ought not to be conceded. My own opinion is, that it is for the public interest, for the interest of Ireland, and for the interest of the Protestant party in that country, that we should seize the opportunity of settling this question, and that we should gain no object by postponing it to another year, when we may have fresh difficulties to encounter, and a diminished chance, perhaps, of effecting a satisfactory and amicable settlement. I shall, therefore, vote for the second reading of this bill, and shall enter into the
272
committee with the same feelings with which I give my vote to-night, and with a disposition to use my best exertions to bring this long-agitated question to an amicable, a satisfactory, and a final settlement.
Lord J. Russellsaid: Were it not for some remarks that fell from the hon. and learned Member for Bandon, and the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Dublin, I should not have thought it necessary to offer any observations to the House on the present occasion. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, has stated, that, with respect to this question, he entered into no compact with this side of the House, but that he made a public declaration of what his intentions were. He has stated with perfect correctness what was the declaration which he made, and I must say, that what the right hon. Baronet has now stated agrees, on the whole, with the declaration which he formerly made. However, the right hon. Baronet is mistaken if he supposes that I am prepared to agree to all the propositions with respect to this bill which were pressed last year. There are some things which were contained in the bill, and added by the House of Lords last year, and some propositions which we have this evening been led to expect will be proposed in the Committee, to which I cannot give my assent. The hon. Member for Bandon proposed a plan, by which he would provide, that half the governing body should be elected by one class of religionists, and the other half by the other, and that only half the members of the governing body should be elected by one class of the inhabitants; but, though I assisted in introducing and preparing a bill with respect to charitable trusts, in which a principle something similar was admitted, I do not think that it would be advisable to introduce that principle into the municipal bill for Ireland. I shall, therefore, object to the introduction of this principle into the bill, for I think that in operation it would be found to be mischievous. There could be no way more certain of perpetuating religious dissension, than that one party, being a minority, and another party a majority, should each elect an equal number of town councillors, and that one set of these town councillors should belong to the Protestant party exclusively, and the other exclusively to the Roman Catholic

273
party. In agreeing to the proposition of establishing a higher rate of franchise I certainly do so against my own opinion, for I think that we have made the franchise higher than was necessary as a security for the constituency who would have to elect the governing body. However, there is nothing in that franchise which can give advantage to one party beyond another. It is merely a money value, and the franchise may be equally enjoyed by all who possess the qualification without reference to whether the individual be a Whig or a Tory, a Protestant or Roman Catholic, a Churchman or a Dissenter. I think this franchise will combine all interests. I think, therefore, that, having decided in abolishing the principle of self-election and putting an end to religious differences, we should avoid any thing that would tend to perpetuate those differences, and that would for one evil substitute another. I hope, in conclusion, that the right hon. Member for Tamworth will not content himself with supporting the principle of the measure. I hope that we may be able to bring this question to a satisfactory settlement in the course of the present Session. Having passed a similar measure with respect to other parts of the United Kingdom, it could not fail to be a constant source of dissatisfaction to the people of Ireland if we were to refuse to place them in the same condition, and to concede to that country a measure founded upon a similar principle.
The House divided on the original question—Ayes 149; Noes 14; Majority 135.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Admiral

Bodkin, J. J.

Aglionby, H. A.

Brabazon, Sir W.

Aglionby, Major

Bridgeman, H.

Anson, hon. Colonel

Briscoe, J. I.

Archbold, R.

Brodie, W. B.

Attwood, M.

Brotherton, J.

Bainbridge, E. T.

Busfield, W.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Butler, hon. Colonel

Barnard, E. G.

Callaghan, D.

Barrington, Lord

Campbell, Sir J.

Barry, G. S.

Cave, R. O.

Beamish, F. B.

Chapman, Sir M.L.C.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Clive, E. B.

Bernal, R.

Collier, J.

Bewes, T.

Conolly, E.

Blair, J.

Corbally, M. E.

Blake, M. J.

Corry, hon. H.

Blake, W.J.

Cowper, hon. W, F.

274

Craig, W. G.

O'Connell, J.

Curry, Mr. Sergeant

O'Connell, M. J.

Dalmeny, Lord

O'Connell, M.

Divett, E.

O'Conor, Don

Duke, Sir J.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Dunbar, G.

Parker, J.

Dundas, Sir R.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Eaton, R. J.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Ellis, W.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Perceval, Colonel

Filmer, Sir E.

Perceval, hon. G. J.

Fitzalan, Lord

Pigot, D.R.

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

Pryme, G.

Fort, J.

Pusey, P.

French, F.

Ramsbottom, J.

Freshfield, J. W.

Redington, T. N.

Gillon, W. D.

Richards, R.

Godson, R.

Roche, E. B.

Gore, O. W.

Roche, W.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Russell, Lord J.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Scholefield, J.

Greene, T.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Greg, R. H.

Sheppard, T.

Greig, D.

Smith, B.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Harcourt, G. G.

Stanley, Lord

Hawes, B.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Hector, C. J.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Hinde, J. H.

Stuart, W. V.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Stock, Dr.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Strickland, Sir G.

Hodges, T. L.

Strutt, E.

Howard, F. J.

Style, Sir C.

Howard, P. H.

Tancred, H. W.

Humphery, J.

Teignmouth, Lord

Hutton, R.

Tennent, J. E.

Jackson, Mr. Sergt.

Thompson, Alderman

James, W.

Thornley, T.

Jermyn, Earl

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Jervis, J.

Tufnell, H.

Kemble, H.

Turner, E.

Knatchbull, rt. hon. Sir E.

Verney, Sir H.

Vigors, N. A.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Langdale, hon. C.

Vivian, J. H.

Leader, J. T.

Walker, R.

Lowther, J. H.

Warburton, H.

Lynch, A. H.

Westenra, hon. J. C.

Macleod, R.

White, A.

Marshall, W.

Williams, W. A.

Morpeth, Viscount

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Morris, D.

Wood, B.

Muntz, G. F.

Wyse, T.

Muskett, G. A.

Yates, J. A.

Nagle, Sir R.

Young, J.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

O'Brien, W. S.

TELLERS.

O'Callaghan, hon. C.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

O'Connell, D.

Sheil rt. hn. R. L.

List of the NOES.

Archdall, M.

Kirk, P.

Bagge, W.

Polhill, F.

Blackstone, W. S.

Pringle, A.

Cooper, E. J.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Fector, J. M.

Smyth, Sir G. H.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Tollemache, F.J.

275

TELLERS.

Verner, Colonel

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Williams, R.

Litton, E.

Bill read a second time.

IMPORTATION OF FLOUR—(IRELAND).
Mr. Labouchere Mr. Labouchere moved the second reading of the Importation of Flour (Ireland) bill.
Mr. E. Tennenthad stated, on a former stage of the bill, his determination to oppose it, and not, as had been suggested, merely on the narrow ground that it was a measure affecting the interests of the millers only, but on the broader principle, and the more important one, that it would materially interrupt the career of agricultural improvement in Ireland; and so far from benefitting either of those classes for whose advantage it purported to be introduced—the manufacturers and the poor—that it would be a direct and serious injury to both. And when hon. Members spoke of the propriety of assimilating the laws of England and of Ireland in this respect, he would remind them that it was out of the very dissimilar circumstances of the two countries that the present dissimilarity in the law had arisen. This was not an act of a recent date, or a measure of the British Parliament, which they were about to annul and to repeal; it was an Act passed by the Parliament of Ireland long before the Union took place, which had been recognized by the Act of Union, and which had been continued and perpetuated by every Corn Act passed by the Imperial Parliament since. The House was aware that down to a very recent period, Ireland was almost entirely destitute of a home manufacture of flour, but was totally dependent upon England, and that even within the last thirty years her wheat and oats, even for her own consumption, were sent to Bristol, to Liverpool, and to Glasgow, to be ground, and were thence returned to her in the shape of flour and oatmeal. It was to remedy this serious want that the present law was enacted. To show the peculiar circumstances of Ireland which led to this enactment, so far back as 1757, an Act of the Irish Parliament "for supplying Dublin with flour," recites in its preamble, that the inhabitants "had frequently been reduced to great distress," from the difficulty in procuring flour; and in order to encourage a steady supply at home, the Act affixes a bounty to every hundred-
276
weight of Irish flour grown and manufactured in the country and brought inland to Dublin. In 1763, this bounty was increased by another Act of the Irish Parliament, and in 1777 it was extended to sea-borne flour, the produce of the country. Between this period and the Union various other advantages and inducements were held out to capitalists to incline them to invest their property in mills, and powers were granted to bishops, corporations, and incapacited persons, to enable them to demise lands, on long leases for the building of flour mills. Public money was advanced to erect mills in districts where private capital could not be found, and at length, in an Act passed in the year 1783, entitled, "An Act for regulating the Corn Trade, Promoting Agriculture, and providing a regular supply of Corn," the present law, prohibiting the importation of foreign flour, was, for the first time introduced. It would seem as if the previous policy, and its encouragement to the millers had been found successful, and that the trade was so increasing as to hold out a prospect of its being adequate to the entire supply of the home market, and in consequence of the 18th clause, prohibiting foreign flour, was inserted in these words:—
"And be it enacted, for the further encouragement of corn mills in this country (Ireland), that no corn or grain ground into meal or flour, or made into bread or biscuit, shall at any time be imported into this kingdom, except from Great Britain, and of British growth and manufacture, under penalty of the forfeiture of all such meal, flour, &c, and a sum of 5l. for every hundred-weight thereof.
In 1792, the penalty was still further increased by the forfeiture of the vessel; and such continued to be the law till the period of the Union, in 1800. In every Act and proceeding of the Legislature, since, the same policy has been recommended and continued. In 1801 and 1802, a committee of the House of Commons, which sat upon the question of the corn intercourse with Ireland, especially reported the existence of this enactment, and recommended its continuance; and in the corn law passed in that year, as well as in those of 1804, 1806, 1815, 1822, and 1828, the prohibition was recognized and perpetuated; and in the discussion upon the latter bill, in the House of Commons, the right of Ireland to this protection was strenuously insisted upon by Sir

277
John Newport and Mr. Spring Rice; and in the House of Lords, a motion of Earl Stanhope, by way of amendment, to exclude Foreign meal and flour, even from England, also was supported by Lord Ellenborough, the Marquess of Salisbury, and others, on the specific grounds of the duty incumbent on the Legislature to protect and encourage the agriculture of Ireland through the promotion of its milling trade.—The natural effect of the confidence thus inspired into the Irish capitalist, by the assurance given him of steady protection, was the building of a vast number of mills, and so striking is the contrast exhibited in this particular now, as compared with the condition of Ireland at the Union, when there was scarcely such a thing as a flour mill to be found, that by a return of 1835 it appears that there were no less a number than 1,882 corn and flour mills then registered in that country (that return was imperfect even then, and the number has been since increased), and that Ireland, which at the lime of the union was an importing country, exported to England, in 1825, 599,124 cwt. of flour and meal, and, in 1835, 1,984,480 cwt., being an increase of 1,390,356 cwt. within ten years, and within the same period an increase in the tonnage of shipping employed in that trade alone of no less than 69,267 tons, being the difference between 29,956 tons in 1825, and 99,224 tons in 1835. Subsequent returns, to which he would presently allude, show the present import to be upwards of 2,000,000 l. He did hope that the House would weigh well the consequences, not only to the miller, but to the country in general, before they proceeded to unsettle and weaken a branch of trade so new and so prolific, and the ramifications of which extended equally to the merchant, the manufacturer, and the agriculturist. But then he was to be told that this was a groundless alarm created on the part of the miller—that this was a measure, the effects of which would only be felt, if at all, in seasons of great scarcity, and that he would be so protected by the existing duties of England, which it was proposed to apply to the new trade in Ireland, and the difference and cost of freight, that the Irish flour would still have a preference in ordinary seasons. Why, if this were really the case, and that the whole matter was
278
such a bagatelle, he would concur that a sufficient ground had been established against the bill of the right hon. Gentleman. Why would the House, for such a temporary trifle, such an abstract and comfortless theory, overthrow the existing law, and strip the property embarked in mills in Ireland of that permanent security and protection which it had enjoyed for years before the union, and which gave it its present value? But the fact was not so, and he was prepared to show that the existing duties would not be a protection against the American miller, and that, so far from the freight being a security, the balance of the freight between a cargo of flour and one of unwrought wheat was considerably in favour of the former; so that the practical result would be this, that in years of scarcity or of crops of inferior quality, such as the present, in which (as he would presently show) the Irish miller imported foreign wheat to make up the deficiency or improve the quality of his own, the American farmer and the Dantzic miller would send us their meal and flour instead of their corn and wheat, thus depriving the Irish miller of the profits of manufacture, and the Irish poor of the supply of cheap food for the coarser produce of the mill. And first, the object proposed by the bill before the House was to permit the importation of foreign flour into Ireland at the same duties as were now paid on its introduction into England; that is to say, on every 196 lbs. of flour, a duty equivalent to five bushels of wheat. Now, experience had shown that this would be just no protection at all, as this duty was calculated on the extreme quantity of flour which five bushels of wheat might produce, thus giving the whole profit of manufacture, not to the native, but to the foreign miller. This result would be readily exhibited thus. The produce of five bushels of good Irish wheat at 60 lbs. the bushel, would be as nearly as possible as follows:—

lbs.

Of Fine Flour

180

Seconds

30

Third

15

Bran

45

Waste

30

300

And as the duty on 196 lbs. of ready-ground flour when imported into Ireland

279
would be the same as on 300 lbs. of unground wheat, it followed that the direct advantage to the foreign miller would amount to 16 lbs. of fine flour in every 196 lbs., in addition to the value of the bran and the quantity of flour too coarse to be worth exporting, but consumable by the artisan, when it was retained at home. But the official evidence, in the words of the House, went to show that even this was a calculation much too favourable for the miller, and that, in order to afford him a fair protection, 196 lbs. of flour, instead of paying a duty equivalent to five bushels of wheat, should be chargeable with at least one third more. In the report of Mr. Jacob, on the corn trade of the Baltic, he states that one last of Dantzic wheat (a measure equal to 10¾ quarters), produced twelve barrels of flour fit for exportation, of 196 lbs. a barrel. In other figures, that 5,160 lbs. of Dantzic wheat would yield 2,808 lbs. of fine flour, the proportion of which, instead of being 196 lbs., produceable from five bushels of wheat, would make that quantity to return but 136 or 137 lbs. So that to protect the Irish miller at all, the duty should be calculated on seven bushels of wheat instead of five, as was proposed. It was clear, therefore, that it would be a complete delusion to rely upon the present scale of duty as any adequate protection to the Irish miller against the continental one. But then the difference of freight, it is argued, will still give the Irish miller an adequate protection. Certainly not in seasons like the present, when he is obliged to import foreign wheat for his own grinding, on which a freight will still be chargeable. And in addition to this, so marked is the difference of freight and charges between a cargo of raw wheat and one of manufactured flour, that the advantage will be manifestly on the side of the latter. A vessel of 300 tons burden will carry 1,500 quarters of wheat, and about 2,800 to 3,000 barrels of flour, and taking the relative freight of the latter at 8s. a quarter, and of the former at 4s. a barrel—the difference of freight always in favour of the flour would, in most instances, be so great as to ensure it an instant preference. But the disproportion does not end there. The case of the charges on the two articles respectively was widely different. The flour being ready for consumption would pass
280
at once into the hands of the merchant or the baker; it would go from the ship to the consumer direct, whilst the wheat, to await the process necessary to fit it for consumption, must be stored for a longer or shorter period, and must be turned in store to keep it fresh and sound, and, in addition to this deduction for warehousing, must be sold to the miller at such a price as to bear the cost of carriage to and from the mill to be ground, exclusive of broker's commission on the sale, and of the loss to which wheat was always more liable than flour, from shrinkage and loss of weight. All these circumstances gave a decided preference to the importation of flour over that of wheat; and, besides, the Americans who manufactured the flour in the western states could much more readily transport it to the coast for shipment in that compact form than in the more bulky condition of unground wheat, and it frequently happened that the ship-owner who would decline a cargo of wheat, always a troublesome freight across the Atlantic, would be glad to accept of 400 or 500 barrels of flour, which he could readily stow, in order to complete his lading. Every incident in fact concurred to give the preference to the flour which would now come into direct and powerful competition in the same markets with the Irish miller. He was perfectly apprised of the answer with which this argument would be met. He was perfectly prepared to be asked how it came that if it was so manifestly advantageous to import flour instead of importing wheat, that England imported every year so many quarters of foreign corn, and barely any quantity of foreign flour in comparison? It was true that England did import but a trifling quantity of foreign flour, but why? Because she drew her supply of that article from the very source which it was now proposed by the bill to destroy—from the mills of Ireland. The entire import of foreign flour into England during the last twelve years had amounted only to 2,215,037 cwt., or about 100,000 cwt. per annum, whilst from Ireland her supply during a great part of the same period of manufactured corn amounted to upwards of 1,000,000 cwt. per annum, as would appear by the following calculation of the quantities of wheat, meal, or flour, and of oatmeal, brought into consumption in Great Britain from Ireland;—

281

In the Years

Wheat meal or Flour.

Oatmeal.

Total

cwt.

qr.

lb.

cwt.

qr.

lb

cwt.

qr.

lb.

1857

341,630

0

8

224,510

0

6

566,140

0

14

1838

621,568

3

22

424,748

3

12

1,046,317

3

6

1829

626,268

0

14

402,127

1

12

1,028,395

1

27

1830

672,264

3

7

400,347

0

24

1,072,840

1

7

1831

524,242

1

26

581,371

1

0

1,105,613

2

26

1832

831,434

0

16

611,412

1

22

1,442,846

2

10

1833

1,059,587

2

16

642,692

3

8

1,702,280

1

24

1834

1,110,463

3

25

772,991

0

0

1,883,457

3

24

1835

1,124,343

1

16

566,006

3

20

1,690,350

1

9

1836

1,236,498

0

0

808,522

0

0

2,045,020

0

0

1837

983,733

0

0

910,475

0

0

1,894,208

0

0

1838

1,260,253

0

0

1,119,087

0

0

3,379,340

0

0

The importation from Ireland in 1815 was but 139,230 cwt.; and this amazing increase shows at once the beneficial operation of the law which it is now proposed to repeal, and accounts for Great Britain drawing so small a supply from the mills of foreigners, whilst she had so abundant a resource within her own dominions. But before dismissing the case as confined peculiarly to the miller, there is another point of extreme hardship in the present proposition. Let the House turn its attention to its ruinous effects upon the stocks of wheat at present in the hands of the Irish millers. The design of the bill professes to be to make amends for the bad quality of home-grown wheat in seasons like the present, by permitting the import of foreign flour, with which to mix or supersede our own. But admitting fully the necessity for some such importation, the Irish miller has hitherto met the emergency by importing, not the manufactured article, but the raw material, by importing not the flour, but the wheat, with which to mix and amend the quality of his own grain. And it is a matter well known to practical men, that the quality of flour can most effectually be improved, not by attempting to mix the two flours, which it is almost impracticable to incorporate, but by mixing the two wheats in the hopper, or by dressing them off together in the final process of grinding. With a view to this process the millers of Ireland are at the present moment large holders of foreign wheat. One gentleman in his neighbourhood had this year imported 6,500 quarters, others in Belfast are similarly situated, and he had heard of one miller in the south of Ireland who held not less than 100,000 l. worth of unground corn. By this means, even in defective harvests, the supply maintained in Ireland is not only abundant, but of superior quality. He had been
282
given to understand that in a memorial forwarded to the board of trade from one baking establishment in Belfast, this measure, now under consideration, had been pressed upon the attention of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) on the ground that flour of good quality could not now be procured in Belfast. A petition from the same town had likewise been presented to the House, but it, with more caution, abstained from making so absurd an assertion. As to that memorial from the one baking house, in order to meet it, he held in his hand a memorial signed by twenty of the first bakers in Belfast, all of whom state, that having learned that such an allegation bad been made as that a supply of sound flour could not be had in Belfast, they felt it their duty to give it an instant and direct contradiction, as not only in this season, but in others of similarly defective harvests, they had an abundant supply of the best flour, ground from foreign wheat, imported specially by the millers around them. The argument for the bill, therefore, from the necessity of importing flour to amend the quality of Irish wheat fails entirely, inasmuch as it cannot be advantageously mixed when ground, whilst wheat can most readily be imported for that purpose, and all the profit of the manufacture into flour retained at home, instead of given to foreigners. The import has been large in the present year. But in the event of the admission of foreign flour, what is to compensate the miller for his inevitable loss upon the stock of wheat so laid up for the season's demand? And observe, too, that the stock must to a great extent be provided before hand in almost every year, whatsoever be the harvest, inasmuch as Ireland being an exporting country, the stock of home-grown grain in the hands of the farmer is generally exhausted about February in each year, or earlier; and the miller cannot, in Ireland, as he could in England, which thus becomes the great depository of grain, purchase from week to week the quantities required for temporary demand, without incurring the risk of keeping a heavy stock on hand. An evil which had been imputed to the corn laws was the amount of speculation which it necessarily entailed upon the dealers in grain by the present system. But if the trade were now to be compelled to speculate in stocks of flour instead of stocks of wheat, the evil would be multi-

283
plied an hundred fold, because wheat was an article which, with proper care, would keep sound for years, whilst flour was liable to heat, to sour, and to encounter numerous capricious changes which it was impossible to guard against, and on the least symptom of which the entire stock must be forced into the market, at any sacrifice, to ensure immediate sale, and thus an inevitable deterioration in prices must result even to the sound stocks in the hands of other holders. And is it any answer to a statement of facts such as these to say, that the opposition to the bill is altogether a miller's question, and that they alone are interested in resisting it. This might be a sufficient retort were the trade assailed a comparatively insignificant one, and were its petty protection pleaded in opposition to higher and more important national interests. But let the House remember, that the trade in flour was now the staple manufacture of Ireland, of equal, if not greater value than the linen trade, and even if the influence of the bill before the House was to extend no further than to the millers themselves, surely a trade which exported annually to this country close upon 2,000,000 cwt. of the chief article of food was well entitled to consideration and protection. But it was incorrect to say that the millers alone were interested; the farmer and the landowner were equally assailed through this measure. The cultivation and the growth of wheat had been found in every instance to be promoted by the establishment of mills. Lands, which before were in pasture or potatoes, are immediately prepared for wheat wherever the establishment of a flour mill holds out the inducement of a ready market. This has been eminently the case in the counties of Tyrone and Armagh, in the midst of which the mills erected on the estates of Lord Caledon have given a powerful impulse to the cultivation of wheat; and a remarkable instance had occurred on the estate of his hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Donegal, where a flour mill had recently been built, in a district in which not a blade of wheat had been grown before; and such was the instant change, that in one week in this year no less a sum than 1,500 l. had been paid at the mill for wheat grown in the district immediately surrounding it. It was quite clear that any discouragement given to the prosperity or the increase of mills, such as was threatened by this bill,
284
must put an immediate check to all such instances of agricultural advancement. Such was the opinion of Mr. Spring Rice, who in the debate on the Corn Bill of 1827, declared that—
"The establishment of mills in Ireland had been a great means of promoting the culture of wheat; and the substitution of that grain for the potato, as a general article of food, was considered, on all hands, to be a great step towards raising the moral character of the Irish peasantry. But by any encouragement given to foreign flour, in his opinion, the milling interest of Ireland would be wholly ruined."
Fortified by such an authority as this, he was quite prepared to meet any assertion from the opposite side of the House, that this was not an agricultural but a miller's question. But there is another and most important class whom this measure ostensibly professed to serve, but on whom he was prepared to show that it would inflict a serious injury—namely, the operatives and the labouring classes in Ireland. The great outcry against the Corn-laws in England was based upon the assumption that they tended to render the food of the artisans of that country more expensive than that of the operatives of foreign countries with whom they had to compete. Now, he was prepared to show that such would be precisely the effect of this measure upon the operatives of Ireland. The mere cost of converting wheat into flour, the miller's profits, in short, in Ireland, and in the countries from whom Ireland, would be likely to import flour, would, so far as he could ascertain, be pretty nearly equal; but the country in which the corn was ground for export would always have this advantage, that, whilst the fine sorts alone were worth exporting, the coarse and the secondary flour went to increase the quantity, and consequently to diminish the cost of the food of the operatives and middle classes. In addition to which, the employment afforded by the mills themselves supplied great numbers, perhaps from 40,000 to 50,000 persons in Ireland, with a ready means to purchase them, so that the native mills always combined these three recommendations—steady wages, and increased quantity of food at lower prices. In any country the fair proportion of value between fine and coarse flour can only be maintained where the entire produce of the wheat is taken into consumption. But there being but one scale of duty on all

285
flour proposed to be imported, it follows that the first and finest only will become a matter of import in this country, thereby augmenting the quantity, and of course diminishing the cost of the food of the rich, whilst the foreigner, producing beyond his own consumption, and exporting only the finest qualities, reduces the value of the coarse kinds, which he retains at home. In exact proportion as he increases their relative quantity, and thereby gives a direct advantage to his own operatives over ours. At the same time the import into Great Britain producing an excess of fine flour over coarse, destroys the relative quantity of the latter, and augments its cost to the British operative. Besides, it follows from that, that every pound of fine flour imported into Ireland will prevent the growth of a corresponding quantity of wheat in that country, and of course exclude a proportionate amount of coarse flour from entering the market. The effectual method to release the operative and the poor is to diminish the price by increasing the quantity of the food they consume, and by far the most obvious expedient is the encouragement of the native mills, which afford not only the food to be bought, but the wages wherewith to buy it. If from any adverse circumstances of defective harvests, or of unsound native grain, it becomes necessary to import at all, that import should be the raw material, and not the manufactured article. We should import not the flour but the wheat, the grinding of which secures the profits of the process to our own capitalists instead of foreigners; gives employment to our own operatives in stead of theirs, and augments the quantity whilst it diminishes the cost of the food of the middle classes, whilst every barrel of foreign ground flour we import takes away not only a proportion of food, but a proportion of employment from our own mechanics. Such were the views of this question taken in 1827, by Sir John Newport. If we must be driven to import at all, let it be grain and not flour:—
"If grain were imported," he said, "the worst and the middlings went to support the poor; but where flour was imported it was the best sort, and was consumed exclusively by the rich. In the first instance, our own poor derived the benefit; in the latter it went to the poor of other countries; and he was convinced the House would not consent to give away that benefit to foreigners."
286
But he had already shown that the scale of duties and of freights upon wheat and flour respectively exhibited the balance so strongly in favour of the importation of the latter that it could not fail to be preferred, and he would beg the attention of the House for a very few minutes to permit him to point out the injury which would result not only to the operative in the cost of provisions, but to the agriculturist and the farmer by the loss of the pollard and bran for feeding cattle, a resource which in towns also was a matter of the utmost importance. According to the calculation he had already read to the House it appeared, that from every five bushels of wheat manufactured in the country the poor derived forty pounds of coarse flour, and the farmer fifty pounds of bran, exclusive of less valuable offal for fodder, both which items must, as a matter of course, be lost, if the flour were imported in place of the wheat. And if such be the loss upon five bushels, apply the same scale, and look at the loss upon an entire cargo. A ship of 300 tons burden would carry as he had stated, about 2,800 barrels of flour, or 1,500 quarters of wheat, and, in the event of the owner preferring to freight her with the latter, the produce, as consumed in England, would be as follows:—

1,500 qrs. at 480 lbs. the qrs. amount to 720,000 lbs. or 6,428 cwt. 2 lbs. 8 oz. will produce—

lbs.

c.

qrs.

lbs.

Fine flour fit for export

432,000

being

3,857

6

16

Second flour fit for export

72,000

being

642

3

12

Coarse flour fit for export

36,000

being

221

1

20

Bran and Pollard

108,000

being

946

1

4

Waste

72,000

being

642

3

12

720,000

6,428

2

8

He had shown, that on the balance of freight and costs, it would always be more profitable for a speculator, should this law pass, to import flour than unground corn; and, in that event, the positive loss even on a single cargo would be no less than forty-eight tons of food for the operative, and forty-seven tons of bran to the farmer—a loss which would be avoided by allowing the law to remain as it is, and thus securing the manufacture to ourselves. He did feel that the more fully the question was investigated and scrutinized, of the more extensive importance would it prove, and the more clearly would it be discovered to be not only a

287
miller's, but a manufacturer's and an agriculturist's question. He bad to apologise to the House for the length at which he had ventured to address them upon this question, but the importance which he attached to it, would, he hoped, plead his best excuse. He saw in it, not merely the immediate injury of the miller, by the depreciation of his heavy stock on hand, but the permanent depreciation of his property, embarked and invested in buildings and machinery. He saw in it double injury to the operative, by at once augmenting the value of his food, and diminishing the amount of his employment; and, above all, he saw in it, an inevitable blow inflicted upon the agricultural advancement of Ireland. The principle of assimilation between the laws of England and Ireland failed as an argument in this case. The measure might be a good one as regarded England, which was already an importing country in the article of flour, but it was preposterous as regarded Ireland. It was carrying coals to Newcastle, to provide for importing flour into a country, which already exported nearly 2,000,000 cwt. of it every year, unless it was meant to supplant that export. But, if not in intention, it would, at least, prove in operation a heavy blow and a great discouragement to the agriculture, which was the sole reliance and support of that country. It was on this ground that he relied on the assistance of those who represented the English Agriculturists in that House to resist it. Their security in this country lay in making common cause with the agriculturists of Ireland. So long as England had Ireland at her back, as her granary, as a second Sicily, to supply all her wants, she had an unanswerable argument in reply to those who sought to supply her with food from the continent; that she could draw that supply from home, and from an integral part of her own empire. This answer she could have so long as Ireland was in a situation to meet her demands, but if England allowed the agriculturist prohibition of Ireland to be invaded or weakened in the least degree. Every step by which Ireland was incapacitated from supplying her, was an approach towards a dependency on other countries for her food. The present measure was an attack upon the security hitherto enjoyed by the Irish agriculturist. It was so in Ireland, and he did firmly hope that he
288
would have the co-operation of the English agriculturists in resisting it. The right hon. Gentleman who introduced the bill (Mr. Labouchere), seemed to consider it a measure of limited practical importance, and operative only in peculiar seasons. He had laboured to show that the contrary was the fact, and that it would prove instantly and actively detrimental. He had endeavoured to show that it would be a violation of public faith, relying upon acts of Parliament unrepealed for nearly half a century—that it would cause the immediate destruction of the miller's stock in Ireland, and the ultimate deterioration of his vested property—that neither the duty proposed, nor the ordinary checks of freight and costs, would be any protection to him—and that both to the operative in the price of provisions, and to the agriculturist in the growth of wheat, it would be a serious and instant injury. And if in any one of these points he had succeeded in establishing his case, he had just grounds for calling on the House to support the motion that the bill be read a second time this day six months.
Colonel Conolly, in seconding the motion, begged to impress on the House, as had been stated by some Gentlemen, that this was merely a miller's question. In Ireland the position of the miller was totally different from that of the same person in England. In Ireland the increase of mills had most materially advanced the interests of agriculture, because it had substituted the cultivation of wheat for that of oats and barley, and had thus greatly diminished the temptation to illicit distillation. The miller would certainly be the first person who would be injured by this law, because he had considerable capital invested in his mill, and also in his stock of British and foreign corn. There was now enough of foreign corn in Ireland to supply the momentary deficiency, and, he trusted that advantage would not be taken of the momentary scarcity which had existed, to effect a permanent injury on the country. If the House passed this act, they would be breaking faith with those parties who had built eighteen hundred mills on the security of the present law. In the next place they would be injuring all the millers who had lately embarked their capital in foreign corn to mix with the damaged corn of the last harvest. On the whole, he could see nothing but injury in

289
introducing foreign flour into an exporting country, injury to the millers as capitalists, who had been stimulating agriculture by finding a market for surplus produce, and injury to the poor, in fact to the entire interests of Ireland. He was satisfied that nothing was wanting but to let this matter be known in Ireland, to have it universally condemned. He said this from his own positive knowledge, and he felt that the bill, by introducing foreign flour, would destroy the agricultural interests of Ireland. He could not think that Government would persist in the measure, seeing that the applications in its favour had been very few, and that it was calculated to effect such general injury. The only argument which had been urged in its favour was, that it would assimilate the law in Ireland to the English law. His highest wish had always been, to assimilate everything in Ireland to English manners and habits, but in this particular point the assimilation could only be injurious. He would merely further remind the House, that the introduction of mills into Ireland, had materially improved the diet of the lower orders, as it had been the means of substituting very generally, the use of seconds and thirds flour for the inferior food of oatmeal and potatoes. In conclusion, he would beg the right hon. Gentleman the president of the Board of Trade, to pause before he insisted on a measure which must greatly depress a country now making great exertions to raise itself.
Mr. Laboucheresaid, that he gave the gallant Gentleman most entire credit for the sincerity of the alarm and apprehension he had expressed for the consequence of the bill, at the same time he must say, that he believed never was so much alarm and apprehension expressed on such very slender grounds. He never did, in his intercourse with the Irish landlords, attempt to exaggerate the importance of the measure; but this he said, that believing it to be founded on just and fair principles—utterly denying it would prove injurious to any of those great interests in Ireland, which he should be as sorry to inflict a wound upon as any Member of the House—having received memorials from Ireland from parties complaining of the state of the law—believing the law to be absurd in principle—that whatever practical effect it might have, must be impolitic and iniurious—under these cir-
290
cumstances, he felt it his duty to bring forward the measure himself. At that time he did not expect to encounter so strong and determined an opposition on the part of the Irish Members; but, although that was the case, he could not say that he repented of having undertaken the task. On the contrary, he was glad of the opportunity of discussing this question. He was prepared to rest his support of this bill on two principles. In the first place, he said, that the alteration of the law could not possibly have any practical effect whatever under ordinary circumstances, and he also said, that so far from this doing harm to any interest in Ireland, it, in reality, would have no operation at all. The idea that Ireland was to be deluged with foreign corn was an absurdity. If there was a disposition lo send foreign flour into this country, it would, of course, flow to that port which received flour from the others. Ireland being the granary of this country, and exporting flour, foreign flour would not go there, and therefore the bill would be totally inoperative. But if circumstances should arise under which foreign flour would go there, paying the same duty as it would pay in England, then it ought to be allowed to go. Allusion had been made to Ireland being an exporting country, and he wished to direct the attention of the House to a return of the quantity of the grain, meal, oats, &c, brought into Great Britain from Ireland, in each year, from 1818 to 1839. The right hon. Gentleman read the following return:—

Years.

Quarters.

Years.

Quarters.

1819

967,680

1830

2,215,521

1820

1,415,723

1831

2,429,182

1821

1,822,816

1832

2,990,767

1822

1,063,089

1833

2,737,441

1823

1,528,153

1834

2,792,658

1824

1,634,000

1835

2,679,438

1825

2,203,962

1836

2,958,272

1826

1,693,392

1837

3,030,293

1827

1,828,460

1838

3,474,302

1828

2,826,590

1839

2,240,250

1829

2,307,244

Now a country the right hon. Gentleman continued, which could export its produce on so large a scale, might rest assured, that not only its agricultural but its commercial prosperity did not rest on such flimsy and fallacious grounds, as the hon. Gentleman who preceded him had endeavoured to represent. It rested on

291
the general fact, of Ireland being a great grain-growing country, and having the markets of England to bring that flour and grain to. The hon. Member for Belfast had said, that the bill was like a bill to permit coals to be carried to Newcastle, and certainly he (Mr. Labouchere) should have thought it just as reasonable for the hon. Member for Newcastle to rise to oppose such a bill, as it was for the hon. Member for Belfast to oppose this bill. Except under special circumstances, the bill would not only produce no bad effects, but it would produce no effects at all. He could not help calling the attention of the House, to the circumstance how little foreign wheat was directly imported into Ireland—he meant directly from foreign countries. In 1835, not a single quarter of foreign wheat was imported into Ireland. There were imported

Quarters.

In l836

551

1837

2,587

1838

7,980

1839

37,559

the demand being of course great in the latter year. There was nothing at present to prevent the English miller at Liverpool from grinding flour and importing it into Ireland. He had heard it stated, that serious apprehensions were entertained, that a smuggling trade in corn would be organized from Liverpool to Ireland, and that foreign corn warehoused in Liverpool, would be thus transported into Ireland. There was, therefore, a positive call for the present bill under the circumstances of the corn trade. It was generally known, that a short crop of Irish corn had been gathered in the last and in the preceding harvest. The quality of the corn of last harvest, was extremely inferior, and it was required, therefore, that in order to render the bread proper and wholesome for use, that there should be obtained a supply of other than Irish flour; namely, flour of a finer description to mix with the Irish flour. So far it was a question of convenience, and the consuming population had a right to have the staple commodity of life of a wholesome quality, and also to have it supplied in the manner most convenient for use. If the public did not require the foreign flour, it would not go there. And it was unreasonable to answer the demand of the miller in Ireland, that he ought to
292
be content with having the same protection for his trade, that the English miller possessed. The question was not one of very extensive enactment, and its operation was but circumscribed. Still it was one so grounded and supported in justice, that he could not doubt the House would see the necessity of giving the support which it merited.
Mr. Shawremarked, that although the speech of the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade, might be an answer to the statement made by his hon. Friend, that right hon. Gentleman had, strange to say, made out no case for his own bill. Since the right hon. Gentleman sought to effect a change in the Corn-law of that country, he ought to show the necessity that existed for the change, and that it was sought by some influential parties. The landed interest, the landlords and the millers, were all alarmed, yet the right hon. Gentleman had not condescended to say, at whose suggestion or solicitation the bill had been brought into Parliament, and only one petition had been presented in favour of the measure. It was acknowledged, that the production of the bill had created an immense panic in Ireland, in consequence of the large capital that had been embarked in bonded foreign corn, for the purpose of admixture, relying upon the faith of the existing protection.
Sir D. Norreyssupported the measure. He heard no reason alleged against it, except that the millers were alarmed, a class of men who greatly overrated their own importance. They substituted cause for effect. It was not the building of mills that had made agriculture prosperous, but the prosperity of agriculture that had caused the increase of mills.
Mr. Huttonsupported the bill, because he believed that it would be a great advantage to the community to remove the prohibitory law which created a difference between England and Ireland in respect of the subject of that measure. He supported it likewise because he was convinced that, whilst it would not in the slightest degree injure the agricultural interests of Ireland, it would very much tend to benefit that country.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, his constituents were anxious to have the bill, and that was his answer to the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Dublin. It was, he considered, a great

293
advantage to abolish all restriction as between England and Ireland; and he, for one, was for putting the Corn-law in the One country on the same footing as in the other. For the last three years, the corn crop in Ireland had been not alone deficient in quantity, but also inferior in quality; and it was an established fact, that not one-third of the usual amount of corn in the years preceding had been exported from that country in 1839. One of the advantages proposed by the bill in question would be to secure a quantity of good dry flour to mix with the bad damp flour, now the only kind to be had in Ireland. It was quite idle to say that this measure would injure the agricultural interest of that country. Year after year the exportation of corn and flour had gone on increasing, and it would still go on in the same manner when the temporary circumstances of the present season was over. In fact the great ground of the bill was its necessity, and never had he heard such unfounded opposition as had been made to it—that fact being left altogether out of the question by its opponents. The importation of flour into Ireland, then, could never become a permanent thing, and consequently no injury could accrue to any interest at present connected with the trade in that commodity. Wheat was allowed into Ireland from abroad, why deny flour? But the cause was obvious; it was that millers should make a profit. That was the real ground for opposition to the bill, and that was only a robbery of Peter to pay Paul, after all. The question was solely a miller's question. The Irish millers wanted to grind the middle classes of that country as the landlords ground the poorer classes. They wanted to reap double profit. Would the House abet them in that design? But there was another ground of support, not less powerful for the bill. Bad flour, as all men knew, generated a disease in the consumer, or at all events, predisposed the body for its reception. At the present moment typhus fever raged to a fearful extent in Ireland—in Belfast, it was as severe as it could be. Did the hon. Gentleman who opposed the bill mean to poison the middle and upper classes with bad flour, and thereby either produce or predispose to that dreadful disease among them? That would be the inevitable consequence of rejecting that bill, for, after all, the question was one of
294
life and death for Ireland. It might be a subject of merriment to hon. Gentlemen, but it would be otherwise were they compelled to consume that damaged flour, and risk the loss of their health and lives by means of typhus fever. Under these circumstances, he should support the bill.
Mr. Littonsaid, that, if ever there was a bill to benefit the rich at the expense of the poor, it was the bill in question. No one in Ireland could gain anything by it except the upper classes, who alone, of all the population, used fine flour, and the bakers. The bill besides would do a positive injury to the labouring classes; for it would tend to the direct destruction of the only manufacture now left in that country—the manufacture of flour. There was no reason for the bill—there were no petitions in its favour; there were many against it. The millers had sunk a large capital in the manufacture of flour, on the faith of the restriction sought to be repealed, and he considered that they were fully and fairly entitled to protection. On those grounds, he would oppose the bill.
Mr. O. Goresaid, that it was only right that some hon. Member connected with the agriculture of England should express an opinion on the subject, as it was not wholly an Irish question, but in some wise connected with the English Corn-laws; and deprecating, as he did, the slightest infraction of those laws—he could not let the subject pass over in silence on account of the agricultural interest of this country. Would not the facility of importing foreign flour into Ireland increase the facility of importing it into England also? Yet that was the object of the bill. The right hon. President of the Board of Trade had adduced no arguments in support of the bill, he had only replied to the objections to it. It was in his (Mr. O. Gore's) opinion going far too fast for the Government to bring in a bill to repeal a law which had worked well from 1783, which had been passed in an Irish Parliament, which had been discussed in committees from 1774 to the period of its passing, and which had been found in no way to injure the interests of the country. He saw no reason for the change, and on that ground, if there existed no other, he would set his face against it. But there were other grounds. What benefit would it be to the poor of Ireland? It was not a poor man's question, but a rich man's

295
question. The bakers of Dublin and some others were interested in it. Besides which, as had been already alleged, it would bear hard upon the only manufacture Ireland now possessed. In his opinion, the House should leave well alone; and unless the right hon. Gentleman consented to postpone it, he would give it his opposition.
Lord J. Russell: The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Shaw) has said, that my right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Trade, has done no more than remove the objections to the bill; and the hon. Gentleman who succeeded him almost admitted in terms that my right hon. Friend had silenced the alarms felt on its introduction. Now I maintain that, if the objections are removed, the reasons given in support of the measure are quite sufficient. It is proposed by the bill to remove a restriction—a restriction, be it remembered, which there exists no ground of danger, of policy, or otherwise, to continue any longer. Now I contend, that such a restriction in itself is a positive evil; and the objection to its removal being satisfied, I contend that its removal is a positive good. The objections once removed, afford a sufficient reason for the removal of the restriction. If the people of Ireland wish to import foreign flour under the conditions of the bill, I think that they should be permitted to import it. It is a question of self-interest, which each man must be left to decide for himself. You cannot teach people upon that point by legislation. As to any danger in respect to the bill, the hon. Member for Belfast has completely proved its impossibility, from the statistical documents that he read to the House. The interest of the people of England and Ireland coincide in this case, as the hon. Member clearly showed too. The reasons he alleged against it were two-fold—the duty on foreign flour, and the near neighbourhood of Ireland. Now neither of these are affected by the bill; for my right hon. Friend does not propose to increase the duty on flour coming into England; and I know that it is not his intention to remove Ireland any further off than it now is from this country. The bill, however, rests for its support on the general principle that there should be no restriction or prohibition without strong reasons. Mere restriction or prohibition for its own sake, either imposed or kept up is wanton, useless, and mischievous in legislation,
296
and it is nothing to me in its favour whether it is legislation of a year since or of sixty. I feel that the Irish millers have nothing to fear from this measure, and I cannot, on any side, see any sufficient grounds why the House should not support it.
Mr. F. B. Beamishsaid, that as a person interested in milling, and having a large capital invested in that trade, he considered the existing prohibition against the importation of foreign flour wholly unavailing. He thought the Irish millers were frightened by an imaginary evil into opposition of the bill before the House; for in all the petitions presented against it, he saw nothing like a substantial argument. He admitted that there were not sufficient grounds to bring forward the measure at the present moment; but he held that a restrictive law on trade was better repealed at any time than permitted to remain on the statute-books. He hoped, however, that the right hon. Gentleman would so modify his bill as to postpone its operation to a later period than he intended.
Mr. SergeantJackson was happy to bear testimony to the kindness and consideration exhibited by the hon. the President of the Board of Trade yesterday in the reception of the deputation. He had received many communications from various parts of Ireland, and one petition to present from sixty millers in the county of Cork, deprecating the hasty enactment of this bill—a bill which he believed was not called for by any class of men in Ireland. He thought that they ought not to pass a bill in such a shape as to have an ex post facto effect on vested property in Ireland. The hon. Gentleman opposite, who had advocated the repeal upon principle, had nevertheless candidly admitted, that its operation ought not to be suffered to have a deteriorating effect on the large stock of flour already on hand. He quite agreed with that hon. Gentleman, that the millers of Ireland ought to be allowed time to work off that stock, and also that they should be permitted time to collect and express their opinions on the effects of the measure.
Mr. W. Rochesaid, that the milling interest of Ireland had been taken unexpectedly and abruptly by this proposition. He had always advocated such a change in the Corn-laws towards Ireland, but he considered this question only a fragment

297
of the subject, and one which might justifiably be postponed in the present posture of affairs.
Mr. Callaghansaid, that he also had been requested to support the prayer of the petition of the sixty millers. The hon. Member for Belfast had urged three reasons against the proposed measure; first, that it was not called for by the petitions of any large portion of the community: that might be a good reason in a doubtful matter, but none in one of practical enlightened state policy like the present; second, that the duty on foreign flour was calculated on too favourable a scale for foreigners compared with our wheat, but that was a point settled and regulated long ago; third, that a great injury would be done to the millers, who had laid in a stock and had it on hand. He was not a miller himself, but he owned several mills, and he was not afraid of the effects of this measure. He recollected when Irish flour had been rejected in the North of England, but the wants of Cheshire and Lancashire had caused it to be sought after, and thus it would, if freely permitted, work its way according to its value and the growing wants of the country. He was hot afraid that any importation of foreign flour into Ireland could injure the Irish millers. The foreigner would not send it to the country where it brought a low price, but to that where it would bring a high price. There was a great general call for this permission to import from the merchants of Belfast and other ports in the North of Ireland. At present, they could not get back flour in exchange for their manufactured goods from America without sending it into an English warehouse at great inconvenience. The House might feel assured, that the merchant would not attempt to send this return flour into Ireland in ordinary years, for he could get no remunerating price for it. There was a growing degree of intelligence in Ireland springing out of the absence of political distinctions that led men to look comprehensively at national questions like the present. For his part, he was satisfied with the laws that were found good for England—but he agreed with his hon. Colleague that, as there were sixty millers who declared that this measure would injure them, it would be only fair to postpone it to give them the time they asked for. He thought that the millers ought to have the power of grind-
298
ing foreign corn in Ireland for export to the colonies, as foreigners notoriously did at present by mills expressly built on the continent for grinding corn to be introduced there by smuggling or otherwise.
Mr. Brothertonsaid, he was against any postponement of the measure. This was the time to pass it with any advantage to the people of Ireland. It was a miller's question, and they obviously intended to grind the face of the poor, but he would stand up for the consumer. He was reminded of the fact of the existence of a mill in Manchester, some eighty or ninety years ago, by which a couple of millers monopolised the grinding of corn for all the town at such extravagant prices that an epigram was made to keep the fact in remembrance:—
"Bone and Skin,
Two millers thin,
Would starve us all, or near it;
But be it known
To Skin and Bone,
That flesh and blood can't bear it!"
Mr. Laboucheresaid, that he felt rather disinclined to agree to a long postponement. If the Irish Members were to agree to the second reading of the bill as it stood, he would not press any further proceedings till after Easter.
Mr. Wakleyrose among cries of "Question." He said, he had never manifested any impatience at all to the nonsense and twaddle uttered by others, and they must show a little similar patience towards him, otherwise he would give them cause to exhibit a great deal of impatience. He asked if it were true that the bill was necessary for the health of the people of Ireland? Was it true that the quality of the wheat was so bad as it was represented? Was it calculated to produce disease there? Every Member who had risen from thence, had stated, or admitted, that it was. Therefore, this bill ought to be passed as early as possible, and it would be better that the two Irish gentlemen, who complained of its probable effects on their property in flour, should be compensated, than that any delay should be caused on that account. The hon. Gentlemen on the other side were afraid that this measure would introduce more food into this country. The conduct of the landlords was creating daily more indignation and disgust. It was impossible that the Corn-laws could stand, the national feeling was so strong against it,

299
He agreed to this measure only that it might be passed quickly. If the effect of the opposition to this measure would be the creation of disease in Ireland by limiting the population to the use of bad corn, then every Member who joined in the opposition would be auxiliary to the infliction of typhus fever on that unfortunate country.
The House divided on the original motion:—Ayesl54; Noesl02: Majority for the bill 52.

List of the AYES.

Abercromby, hn. G.R.

Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.

Adam, Admiral

Guest, Sir J.

Aglionby, H. A.

Harcourt, G. G.

Aglionby, Major

Hastie, A.

Anson, hon. Colonel

Hawes, B.

Bailey, J.

Hawkins, J. H.

Baines, E.

Hayter, W. G.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Hector, C. J.

Barnard, E. G.

Hobhouse, right hn. Sir. J.

Beamish, F. B.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Hothouse, T. B.

Bernal, R.

Hodges, T. L.

Bewes, T.

Horsman, E.

Blake, W. J.

Howard, F. J.

Briscoe, J. I.

Howard, P. H.

Brocklehurst, J.

Howick, Viscount

Brodie, W. B.

Humphrey, J.

Brotherton, J.

Hutton, R.

Browne, R. D.

James, W.

Buller, E.

Jervis, J.

Busfeild, W.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Callaghan, D.

Lambton, H.

Campbell, Sir J.

Langdale, hon. C.

Chapman, Sir M.L.C.

Lemon, Sir C.

Clayton, Sir W. R.

Lennox, Lord G.

Clive, E. B.

Loch, J.

Collier, J.

Lushington, C.

Corbally, M. E.

Lushington, right hn. S.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Macaulay, right hon. T.B.

Craig, W. G.

Dalmeny, Lord

Mackenzie, T.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C.

M'Leod, R.

Divett, E.

Marshall, W.

Donkin, Sir R. S.

Martin, J.

Duff, J.

Maule, hon. F.

Duncombe, T.

Melgund, Viscount

Dundas, F.

Morpeth, Viscount

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Muntz, G F.

Ellis, W.

Murray, A.

Evans, W.

Muskett, G. A.

Ewart, W.

Nagle, Sir R.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Noel, hon. C. G.

Fitzalan, Lord

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Fitzroy, Lord G.

O'Brien, W. S.

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

O'Connell, D.

Fort, J.

O'Connell, J.

Gordon, R.

O'Connell, M. J.

Greene, T.

O'Connell, M.

Greg, R. H.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Greig, D.

Oswald, J.

Grey, rt. hn. Sir C.

Paget, Lord A.

300

Palmerston, Lord

Tancred, H. W.

Parker, J.

Teignmouth, Lord

Parnell, right hon. Sir H.

Thompson, Alderman

Thornley, T.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Tollemache, F. J.

Pigot, D. R.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Pinney, W.

Tufnell, H.

Pryme, G.

Verney, Sir H.

Ramsbottom, J.

Vigors, N. A.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Roche, E. B.

Vivian, J. H.

Russell, Lord J.

Vivian, rt. hn. Sir R.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Wakley, T.

Salwey, Colonel

Wallace, R.

Sanford, E. A.

Warburton, H.

Scholefield, J.

White, A.

Seymour, Lord

Williams, W.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Williams, W. A.

Shelburne, Earl of

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Smith, B.

Winnington, H. J.

Smith, R. V.

Wood, C.

Somerville, Sir W.M.

Wood, Sir M.

Standish, C.

Wood, B.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Wyse, T.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Yates, J. A.

Stuart, Lord J.

Stuart, W. V.

TELLERS.

Strickland, Sir G.

Stanley, E. J.

Strutt, E.

Steuart, R.

Talfourd, Sergeant

List of the NOES.

Alston, R.

Eaton, R. J.

Archbold, R.

Ellis, J.

Archdall, M.

Fellowes, E.

Attwood, M.

Filmer, Sir E.

Bagge, W.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Barrington, Viscount

Follett, Sir W.

Barry, G. S.

French, F.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Gladstone, W. E.

Blackburne, I.

Gore, O. J. R.

Blackstone, W. S.

Gore, O. W.

Blair, J.

Grimsditch, T.

Blake, M. J.

Halford, H.

Blennerhassett, A.

Holmes, W.

Bodkin, J. J.

Hope, G. W.

Boldero, H. G.

Hope, hon. C.

Brabason, Sir W.

Jackson, Sergeant

Bramston, T. W.

Johnstone, H.

Bridgeman, H.

Jones, Captain

Broadly, H.

Kelly, F.

Butler, hon. Colonel

Kemble, H.

Cantilupe, Viscount

Kirk, P.

Cochrane, Sir T. J.

Knatchbull, right hon. Sir C.

Cole, Lord

Cooper, E. J.

Knightley, Sir C.

Corry, hon. H.

Knox, hon. T.

Courtenay, P.

Litton, E.

Cresswell, C.

Lowther, J. H.

Darby, G.

Lygon, hon. General

Dick, Q.

Lynch, A. H.

D'Israeli, B.

Mahon, Viscount

Dowdeswell, W.

Meynell, Captain

Dunbar, G.

Miles, P. W. S.

Duncombe, hon. W.

Neeld, J.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Norreys, Lord

Du Pre, G.

Ossuhton, Lord

301

Packe, C. W.

Shirley, E. J.

Pakington, J. S.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Palmer, R.

Smyth, Sir G. H.

Parker, R. T.

Somers, J. P.

Perceval, Colonel

Somerset, Lord G.

Perceval hon. G. J.

Spry, Sir S. T.

Pigot, R.

Stanley, E.

Polhill, F.

Sutton, hon. J. T. M.

Praed, W. T.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Redington, T. N.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Richards, R.

Verner, Colonel

Roche, W.

Waddington, H. S.

Rolleston, L.

Welby, G. E.

Round, J.

Westenra, hon. J, C.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Young, Sir W.

Rushout, G.

TELLERS.

Sandon, Viscount

Conolly, Colonel

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Tennent, J. E.

PRIVILEGE. STOCKDALE V. HANSARD— THE SHERIFFS.
Mr. Alderman Thompsoncalled the attention of the House to the case of Mr. W. Evans, whose health had materially suffered from his imprisonment from close confinement, and from the nature of the room in which he was placed. If his imprisonment were continued much longer, it was impossible to say what serious consequences might follow. The privileges of the House had been fully satisfied, inasmuch as the Court of Queen's Bench had decided that the return to the writ of habeas corpus was sufficient. Another ground of his motion was the admission of the great defect of the law of Parliament on this question, and of the necessity for a declaratory bill. It was impossible that the present state of things could be allowed to continue—that the sheriffs must be punished either by that House for the discharge of an ordinary official duty, or by the Court of Queen's Bench for omitting to discharge it. They had been led to expect that a declaratory bill would be introduced into that or the other House; if not, what was the consequence? A writ of inquiry had been left with the sheriffs, ordering them to summon a jury to assess the damages, which were laid at 50,000 l., by Thursday next. If they did not execute that writ, they would be committed for contempt by the Court of Queen's Bench; or, if they did, the same fate would await them from that House. It had been said out of doors that one purpose for which the sheriff was continued in confinement was to ascertain the feeling of the other House. He did not believe it; but there was a strong expression abroad to that effect. The sheriffs had been charged as contumacious in pre-
302
senting a petition to the House of Lords; but their only object was to make the House of Lords acquainted with the circumstances, in order that that might lead to a conference between the two Houses, and that some bill might be brought in declaratory of the state of the law. The hon. Member concluded by moving "that the authority of this House having been vindicated, it is the opinion of this House that its privileges may be best maintained by the present discharge of Mr. Sheriff Evans from the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms."
Mr. Darbyseconded the motion. On what grounds did they detain that Gentleman? Did they keep him as a sort of hostage for the safe custody of their declaratory bill? The law officers of the Crown, knowing that actions were going on, ought to have been prepared the other night to state the course which they proposed to pursue. In what a situation were the sheriffs placed by that want of decision. If they intended to carry out their principle, they ought to stop the action at every stage—certainly before it reached the sheriffs. When the noble Lord had said that it was impossible to stop these actions, and that it was necessary that a declaratory bill should be passed, from that moment they ought to have discontinued their proceedings against individuals. Did the noble Lord still propose to introduce a measure? If so, there was no reason for detaining this gentleman. They had no right to treat him as a hostage; and the noble Lord having stated that it was impossible to vindicate the privileges of the House through the sheriffs, their imprisonment ought now to cease. The Solicitor-general had stated, that if the Government did not carry out his course, he would vote for the instant relief of the sheriffs. Was he not as strictly bound by that declaration as any pledge could bind him? But the hon. and learned Gentleman had not redeemed his pledge; and he (Mr. Darby) was glad that he had now the opportunity of redeeming it.
Lord John Russellhad nothing to say on this motion, except with reference to what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had spoken last. He conceived the state of the case to be this: they were endeavouring to vindicate the power of printing and publishing their proceedings; that power wag interfered with by what bad

303
taken place, and in consequence of that interference, the House had voted the sheriffs guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House. How, then, could it be said, that their privilege had been vindicated without the power of maintaining the publication and the printing. He could not see the force of the argument of the hon. Alderman, that the privilege had been now established, and that if the question again came before the Court of Queen's Bench, that court would not now interfere. He had stated, on former occasions, that the power of the House was sufficient to vindicate its privileges; he had always said that the House had the power, but it was a power of such a nature, that its exercise would create public inconvenience, and therefore it was, that he had said also that other measures might be desirable. He had not said so from any want of power in the House, or from any doubt of the justice of their proceedings, but on account of the public injury and inconvenience which might follow from the exercise of their powers, because, as the powers of the House had been exercised in former times, when there was less clashing of interests, they had been found ample. As to the point which had been urged of compassion, the question was, whether they could maintain, by their own power and authority, their own privileges, without committal. If they could maintain them without, they might consistently indulge their feelings of compassion. But they had no right otherwise to indulge their compassion. He would put the case the other way. If the judges should issue an order, and if the persons to whom such order was directed should disobey it, would the judges yield to any sentiment of compassion? Would they not issue an attachment, or make a rule absolute, or take some other steps out of any compassion? No; they would state what was their power and authority, but they would not admit that what was necessary to maintain their power as a court of justice, should be given up out of any such feeling; and if the courts of law would not do this, he did not see why the House of Commons, when its privileges of great importance were at stake, should give up those privileges from a feeling of compassion. He would give the present motion his decided opposition.
Sir Edward Sugdensaid, that if the noble Lord intended to keep the sheriff
304
till the House should be able to exercise its privileges free and undisturbed, he would uproot the law of the country; for if the noble Lord were prepared to keep the sheriff in custody till the privileges of the House should be free and undisturbed, he was prepared to go as far as the Solicitor-general, and as far as the power of the House would extend, to make the imprisonment perpetual. The noble Lord said, that no mercy was shown by the courts of law, but those courts could show no mercy; those courts were bound to administer the law, and to exercise their power under an oath. Here, however, the sheriffs were placed in a conflict which they had not sought, and the House would commit them if they did a particular act, and the courts of law would commit them if they did not. He had himself a motion which he intended to bring before the House when the present motion should be disposed of, and as he must divide upon his motion, he would now state the grounds why they ought to rescind the resolution to which they had come, ordering the sheriffs to repay the money to Messrs. Hansard. The first ground was the illegality of the original order, upon this clear and manifest ground, that what the House had done, in ordering the sheriffs to pay the money, was, in truth, imposing a fine upon the sheriffs. They had no power directly to impose a fine, and they ought not to do indirectly that for which they had no direct power. The money had been already paid to Mr. Stockdale, to whom the Chief Justice stated most justly, that it belonged as much as the estate of any Gentleman in that House belonged to him; and if the House of Commons enforced the order to which it had come, the sheriffs would have to pay the money out of their own pockets, because they had already paid it, and they would have to pay it again to Messrs. Hansard. They would thus, in fact, fine the sheriffs, and break one of the main principles of the constitution. This ground would probably be disregarded, but the next which he would submit would be, that the circumstances had changed, and he was sure that the House would feel the justice of this reason. When they ordered the two persons, who were in fact one officer, to pay the money, they had both in custody, and the money would come from the pockets of each, probably in equal proportions; the House had since discharged one of

305
those persons, and the order could be enforced against him only by taking him again into custody; they might incarcerate the discharged sheriff, but if they did so, the noble Lord would only place himself and the House in a ten times more painful situation than at present. Having then discharged the one sheriff, could they equitably retain the other, and make him pay the whole 640 l.? On these grounds he should have thought that the noble Lord would have considered, that the proper time had arrived for the release of the second sheriff. The difficulties were only accumulating. The sheriffs were asking the noble Lord how to act, one under-sheriff had received the writ of enquiry, and he would be compelled to execute it unless he was saved from the power of the Court of Queen's Bench. Punished by one or the other he must be. The House had not the power to defend him, and imprisoned he must be; and his only choice was, by which authority it was to be. The under-sheriff, then, would sit to execute the writ of inquiry. Would they commit the jury? Would the English people approve of such a step? Counsel were, as he understood, retained on the writ of inquiry. If they were retained, they would attend; and would the House again shrink from committing them? Was the House prepared to commit the counsel? If they took the under-sheriff, who sat as judge, they would find it impossible not to go on to the Court of Queen's Bench. If they did this, how were they to enforce their orders—would they call out the posse comitatus? In fact, any further steps would lead to serious results. But there was yet time for the noble Lord, on sufficient grounds, to retrace his steps, and to save all further inconvenience. If the noble Lord persisted, he would not be able to establish the power of the House to print and publish, because the courts of law had denied that power; but the House had vindicated its power, because it had shown that it had the power to commit. He had always admitted, that the House was the judge of its own privileges; it had that power, and yet it could only take into custody and commit. It had not the power to declare its own privileges, or any privilege against the rights of British subjects in any court of law.
Mr. Godsonsaid, the question was whether twenty-three days' imprisonment of
306
a fellow creature was not sufficient punishment for the offence which had been committed. For his own part, he thought, that their privileges had been sufficiently vindicated. The great law authorities in that House, the Attorney-general, the Solicitor-general, the Lord-Advocate of Scotland, and the Solicitor-general for Ireland, together with the Leader of the Liberals and the Head of the Conservative Party—indeed, all the great men and good men of all parties had told them, that they had the privilege, and was not that sufficient? Would the further imprisonment of the sheriffs have any influence on the judges of the Court of Queen's Bench? It had been admitted, that they must have an Act of Parliament to change the law, and everything concurred in pointing out to the House, that they ought to fix the term of the imprisonment. The sheriffs had brought the combatants face to face in the Court of Queen's Bench, and having done so, the House had run away. The House, he conceived, was now doing great injustice, for it was punishing one man for the offences of another.
The House divided:—Ayes 76; Noes 149: Majority 73.

List of the AYES.

Archdall, M.

Hope, G. W.

Attwood, M.

Hotham, Lord

Bagge, W.

Ingham, R.

Barrington, Viscount

Irton, S.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Jackson, Sergeant

Blackburne, I.

Kemble, H.

Blackstone, W. S.

Kirk, P.

Boldero, H. G.

Knatchbull, right hon. Sir E.

Bramston, T. W.

Broadley, H.

Knightley, Sir C.

Conolly, E.

Knox, hon. T.

Cooper, E, J.

Law, hon. C. E.

Cresswell, C.

Lowther, J. H.

Darby, G.

Lygon, hon. General

Dowdeswell, W.

Mackenzie, T.

Duke, Sir J.

Mahon, Viscount

Dunbar, G.

Miles, W.

Duncombe, T.

Neeld, J.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Norreys, Lord

Duncombe, hon. W.

Ossulston, Lord

Eaton, R. J.

Packe, C. W.

Egerton, W. T.

Pakington, J. S.

Eliot, Lord

Palmer, R.

Fellowes, E.

Perceval, Colonel

Filmer, Sir E.

Perceval, hon. G. J.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Polhill, F.

Follett, Sir W.

Praed, W. T.

Freshfield, J. W.

Pusey, P.

Gladstone, W. E.

Richards, R.

Greene, T.

Round, J.

Grimsditch, T.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Halford, H.

Shaw, right hoc, F.

307

Sheppard, T.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Verner, Colonel

Smyth, Sir G. H.

Wood, Sir M.

Somerset, Lord G.

Wood, Colonel T.

Stanley, E.

Young, Sir W.

Sugden, rt. hon. Sir E.

TELLERS.

Talfourd, Sergeant

Kelly, F.

Thompson, Alderman

Godson, R.

List of the NOES.

Abercromby, hn. G. R.

Hayter, W. G.

Adam, Admiral

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Aglionby, Major

Hodges, T. L.

Alston, R.

Hodgson, R.

Baines, E.

Hope, hon. C.

Baling, rt. hon. F. T.

Howard, P. H.

Barnard, E. G.

Howard, Sir R.

Barry, G. S.

Howick, Viscount

Beamish, F. B.

Hutton, R.

Berkeley, hon. C.

James, W.

Bewes, T.

Lambton, H.

Blake, M. J.

Langdale, hon. C.

Blake, W. J.

Lemon, Sir C.

Blennerhasset, A.

Lennox, Lord G.

Bodkin, J. J.

Loch, J.

Brabazon, Sir W.

Lushington, C.

Bridgeman, H.

Lushington, rt. hn. S.

Briscoe, J. I.

Lynch, A. H.

Brocklehurst, J.

Macaulay, rt. hn. T.B.

Brodie, W. B.

Macleod, R.

Brotherton, J.

Marshall, W.

Browne, R. D.

Martin, J.

Busfeild, W.

Maule, hon. F.

Callaghan, D.

Melgund, Visct.

Campbell, Sir J.

Morris, D.

Clerk, Sir G.

Muntz, G. F.

Clive, E. B.

Murray, A.

Corbally, M. E.

Muskett, G. A.

Courtenay, P.

Noel, hon. C. G.

Craig, W. G.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Curry, Sergeant

O'Brien, W. S.

Dalmeney, Lord

O'Callaghan, hon. C.

Divett, E.

O'Connell, D.

Duff, J.

O'Connell, J.

Dundas, F.

O'Connell, M. J.

Du Pre, G.

O'Connell, M.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

O'Connor, Don

Ellis, J.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Ellis, W.

Oswald, J.

Evans, W.

Paget, Lord A.

Ewart, W.

Palmerston, Viscount

Fitzalan, Lord

Parker, J.

Fleetwood, Sir P. H.

Parker, R. T.

Fort, J.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Gillon, W. D.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Gordon, R.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Gore, O. J. R.

Pigot, D. R.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Pinney, W.

Greig, D.

Pryme, G.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir C

Ramsbottom, J.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Redington, T. N.

Handley, H.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Harcourt, G. G.

Roche, W.

Hastie, A.

Russell, Lord J.

Hawes, B.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Hawkins, J. H.

Salwey, Colonel

308

Sandon, Viscount

Vigors, N. A.

Scholefield, J.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Seymour, Lord

Wakley, T.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Wallace, R.

Smith, B.

Warburton, H.

Somers, J. P.

Westenra, hon. J. C.

Somerville, Sir W.M.

White, A.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Wilde, Sergeant

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Williams, W.

Stewart, J.

Williams, W. A.

Stuart, Lord J.

Winnington, H. J.

Strickland, Sir G.

Wood, B.

Strutt, E.

Wood, C.

Tancred, H. W.

Wyse, T.

Teignmouth, Lord

Yates, J. A.

Thornley, T.

Tollemache, F. J.

TELLERS.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Stanley, E. J.

Tufnell, H.

Seuart, R.

Sir E. B. Sugdenthen moved a resolution, that the order directing the sheriffs to pay over 640 l. levied by them, to Messrs. Hansard, be rescinded.
Motion negatived.