Commons Sitting of 6 July 1840

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Parliamentary Boroughs; New South Wales; Friendly Societies; Newgate Gaol; Dublin; West India Relief.—Read a second time:—Caledonian Canal.—Read a third time:—Vaccination; Grammar Schools.

WEAVER CHURCHES.
Sir P. Egerton Sir P. Egerton moved the Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned debate on the Weaver Churches Bill.
Mr. J. Jervisproposed a clause, the object of which was the introduction into the number of trustees of ten practical men of those who paid 19–20ths of the funds raised by the tolls.
Clause read a first time. On the question that it be read a second time.
Sir P. Egertonopposed the clause. It would be unprecedented to introduce into
452
a bill for building new churches, a clause re-modelling the constitution of the trust.
Mr. E. J. Stanleycontended that the amendment was just and reasonable, and one which the House might grant, as it in no way affected the general principle of the bill. Surely, nothing could be more reasonable than that those whose interests were greatly affected by the tolls should be represented in the trustees.
The House divided on the clause: Ayes 72; Noes 140: Majority 68,
On the question that the bill do pass,
Lord R. Grosvenoropposed it, on the ground that it was wholly unprecedented to take funds for the erection of churches of the Protestant worship from tolls collected from persons of all religious denominations. If this principle were adopted, the trustees of other rivers, canals, or docks, might claim a right to apply the funds of the trusts for the purpose of building churches. He also objected to the bill as sanctioning a complete misapplication of the property of the trust from its original intended objects.
Sir C. Lemondid not think that the relief of the religious destitution of the district would be a departure from the original intentions of the trust, but he would vote against the bill in the hope of having a better bill on the subject next year.
The House divided: Ayes 181; Noes 93: Majority 88.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Bramston, T. W.

A'Court, Captain

Broadley, H.

Ainsworth, P.

Broadwood, H.

Alford, Viscount

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Alsager, Captain

Brownrigg, S.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Ashley, Lord

Bruges, W. H. L.

Attwood, W.

Buller, Sir J.Y.

Attwood, M.

Burroughes, H. N.

Bagge, W.

Calcraft, J. H.

Bagot, hon. W,

Campbell, Sir H.

Bailey, J. jun.

Canning, rt. hn. Sir S.

Baker, E.

Cantilupe, Viscount

Baldwin, C. B.

Cartwright, W. R.

Baring, hon. F.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Baring, H. B.

Chapman, A.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Cholmondeley, hn. H.

Barneby, J.

Christopher, R. A.

Barrington, Viscount

Chute, W. L. W.

Bethell, R.

Clerk, Sir G.

Blackburne, I.

Codrington, C. W.

Blackstone, W. S.

Colquhoun, J. C.

Blair, J.

Corry, hon. H.

Boldero, H. G.

Courtenay, P.

Botfield, B.

Cresswell, C.

Bradshaw, J.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

453

Damer, hon. D.

Lowther, Viscount

Darby, G.

Lowther, J. H.

Darlington, Earl of

Lygon, hon. General

De Horsey, S. H.

Mackenzie, T.

D'Israeli, B.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Dottin, A. R.

Manners, Lord C, S.

Dowdeswell, W.

Miles, P. W. S.

Drummond, H. H.

Miller, W. H.

Dugdale, W. S.

Milnes, R. M.

Du Pre, G.

Mordaunt, Sir J.

East, J. B.

Neeld, J.

Eaton, R. J.

Nicholl, J.

Eliot, Lord

Noel, hon. C. G.

Estcourt, T.

Norreys, Lord

Farnham, E. B.

Northland, Lord

Feilden, W.

Packe, C. W.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Pakington, J. S.

Forester, hon. G.

Palmer, R.

Fox, S. L.

Parker, M.

Freshfield, J. W.

Parker, R.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Fallen, J. W.

Gladstone, W. E.

Perceval, Colonel

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Pigot, R.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Planta, rt. hon. J.

Gore, O. J. R.

Polhill, F.

Gore, O. W

Pollen, Sir J. W.

Goring, H. D.

Praed, W. T.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Pringle, A.

Granby, Marquess of

Pusey, P.

Grant, Sir A. C.

Richards, R.

Greene, T.

Rickford, W.

Grimsditch, T.

Rolleslon, L.

Grimston, Viscount

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Grimston, hon. E. H.

Rushout, G.

Hale, R. B.

Sanderson, R.

Halford, H.

Sandon, Viscount

Hawkes, T.

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Heathcoat, G. J.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Herbert, hon. S.

Sheppard, T.

Herries, rt hon. J. C.

Shirley, E. J.

Hillsborough, Earl of

Sibthorp, Colonel

Hodgson, F.

Smith, A.

Hodgson, R.

Somerset, Lord G.

Holmes, W.

Stanley, E.

Hope, hon. C.

Stanley, Lord G.

Hope, H. T.

Stuart, W. V.

Hope, G. W.

Sturt, H. C.

Hotham, Lord

Teignmouth, Lord

Houldsworth, T.

Thesiger, F.

Houstoun, G.

Thompson, Mr. Ald.

Hughes, W. B.

Thornhill, C.

Hurt, F.

Tollemache, F. J.

Ingestrie, Viscount

Trevor, hon. G. R.

Irton, S.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Jenkins, Sir R.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Jones, Captain

Verner, Colonel

Kemble, H.

Villiers, Viscount

Knatchbull, right hon. Sir E.

Vivian, J. E.

Williams, R.

Knight, H. G.

Wodehouse, E.

Knightley, Sir C.

Wood, Colonel

Lennox, Lord A.

Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.

Lincoln, Earl of

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Litton, E.

Lockhart, A.

TELLERS.

Long, W.

Egerton, Sir P.

Lowther, hon. Colonel

Egerton, Mr. T.

454

List of the NOES.

Abercromby, hn. G. R.

Lushington, rt. hon. S.

Alston, R.

Lynch, A. H.

Archbold, R.

Muntz, G. F.

Barnard, E. G.

O'Connell, D.

Barry, G. S.

Ord, W.

Berkeley, hon. H.

Oswald, J.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Parker, J.

Bewes, T.

Parnell, rt. hon. Sir H.

Blackelt, C.

Pattison, J.

Bodkin, J. J.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Brocklehurst, J.

Philips, M.

Brodie, W. B.

Ramsbottom, J.

Brotherton, J.

Redington, T. N.

Busfeild, W.

Rice, E. R.

Clive, E. B.

Rippon, C.

Collins, W.

Rundle, J.

Denison, W. J.

Salwey, Colonel

Divelt, E.

Sandford, E. A.

Duff, J.

Scrope, G. P.

Duncombe, T.

Smith, B.

Easthope,

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Ellice, E.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Ellis, W.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Evans, G.

Steuart, R.

Evans, W.

Stock, Dr.

Ewart, W.

Strickland, Sir G.

Fielden, J.

Strutt, E.

Fleetwood, Sir P.

Stuart, Lord J.

Guest, Sir J.

Style, Sir C.

Hall, Sir B.

Thornely, T.

Handley, H.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Hastie, A.

Vigors, N. A.

Hawkins, J. H.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Hill, Lord A. M.

Vivian, rt. hn. Sir R. H.

Hindley, C.

Wakley, T.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Walker, R.

Hodges, T. L.

Wallace, R.

Hollond, R.

Warburton, H.

Hoskins, K.

White, A.

Hume, J.

Williams, W.

Hutt, W.

Wilshere, W.

Hutton, R.

Wood, Sir M.

James, W.

Wood, B.

Jervis, J.

Wrightson, W. B.

Jervis, S.

Yates, J. A.

Langdale, hon. C.

TELLERS.

Lang ton, W. G.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Lemon, Sir C.

Wilbraham, Mr. G.

Bill passed.

THANKS TO THE ARMY IN INDIA.
The Speaker informed the House that he had received, from Lord Auckland, the following letter, in return to the thanks of this House, communicated to his Lordship by Mr. Speaker, in obedience to their order of the 6th day of February 1840:
"Calcutta, May 4, 1840.
"Sir,—I received your letter of the 6th of February last, transmitting to me the resolutions of the House of Commons upon the late military operations to the westward of the Indus. Your letter, and the resolutions of the

455
House of Commons, have been published in general orders, and the separate resolutions have been communicated to the several officers who have been particularly named for this high honour. I am confident that this unanimous approbation of the House of Commons will be received with a sense of grateful exultation by all to whom it has been directed; and I request that you will submit to the House the warmth of feeling with which I would acknowledge my share of this distinction. In conclusion, I have particularly to thank you, Sir, for the honourable and obliging terms with which you have communicated to me the resolutions of the House. I am your faithful and obedient servant,
"AUCKLAND."
The right hon. the Speaker of the House of Commons.

CHINA.
Sir R. Peelsaid, since he had last put a question to the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs on the subject of China, the order in council of the 3rd of April last had appeared in the Gazette. He understood from the noble Lord, that it was through a mere inadvertence that it had not been published before. In looking at every instance in which an order in council authorising the detention and holding in custody of ships and cargoes had been issued since the year 1792, as far as he had been able to examine them, such orders had been uniformly published in the Gazette. He only referred to this, that it might not hereafter be transformed into a precedent. The general rule appeared to be, that when an order in council authorising the detention and holding in custody of ships was issued, it was officially announced in the Gazette; and the departure, in this instance, was not a departure for any reason, but a mere inadvertence. He wished to ask the noble Lord, what were our present relations with the government of China, and he put that question on account of the nature of the order in council which had been issued, that order in council authorising the detention and holding in custody of vessels, ships, and cargoes belonging to the Emperor of China or to his subjects, or to other parties resident in China. If there had been only a simple order in council to that effect, he apprehended that no question could have arisen. In that case, the order in council would not be tantamount to a declaration of hostilities; it would merely be an equivocal state, the character of which would afterwards be impressed by some subse-
456
quent event. For instance, if peace ensued, that equivocal state would be a condition of peace; if it should be followed by a declaration of hostilities, that declaration would have rather a retro-active operation, and that equivocal state would be converted into a state of warfare. But that order was not a simple order authorising detention. The order appeared to him to be a departure from the practice ordinarily pursued in such cases. In the first place, it authorised detention in custody; but, in the second place, the same order departed from its simple character, and became a conditional order, directing forcible seizure, and authorizing: a forfeiture of ship and cargo. But this order again received a character of contingency, for it made its execution to depend upon due reparation and satisfaction being made to her Majesty. The order was unconditional in so far as it was addressed to Courts of Admiralty in all parts of the world, directing them to proceed, and deal conditionally with all seizures which might be brought before them. Now, the question which he wished to put to the noble Lord was this—whether the nature of the present order, being also a conditional order, made any difference in our relations with China? He wished to know, did this country remain in the same equivocal state with reference to China, or whether the effect of the order was to place us in a state of peace or war.
Viscount Palmerstonconceived the nature of the order determined the nature of our relations with China. As far as his opinion respecting the effect of the expedition recently sent out went, he could only say that it would be impossible, on account of the distance, and on account of delays attendant upon communications with that part of the world, for any one to form an opinion as to the effect which that expedition was likely to produce upon our relations with China. What our relations with China actually were at the present moment was known to all the world. With respect to the order in council, to which the right hon. Baronet had just adverted, it was perfectly true, that the order in council went much further as to provisions than was usual in such cases, but it was occasioned by a necessity which arose out of the peculiarity of the case. If the proceedings in question related to a country within a short distance of Great Britain, so that our communications could reach

457
the government of that country within a reasonable time, we might have contented ourselves with making simple reprisals and keeping in safe custody the vessels or cargoes captured, in order to allow time for the moral effect of such a proceeding, postponing any ulterior steps until the effect of such preliminary measures became obvious. Under such circumstances, and by adopting such precautions, a final rupture might be eventually avoided. To take such a course in our intercourse with China would clearly be now impossible. Suppose a certain number of vessels were to be now detained by our officers on the coast of China, if the Chinese government gave us satisfaction for the injuries we had sustained, there need be no departure from the simplicity of the first order; but let the House suppose a different result to ensue, it was obvious that the ships so detained must be made prizes of war. If, then her Majesty's Government had neglected beforehand to empower the Courts of Admiralty to deal with such cases, those courts must wait first until there was a total failure of all attempts at amicable arrangement; and, secondly, until, in consequence of that failure, powers sufficient for the emergency were forwarded from this country to the east. Such a delay, he need hardly observe, would amount to no less than eight or ten months, during which time it was clear there would be great difficulty of taking care of ships. Therefore, it was, that in this case they gave a contingent power to the Courts of Vice-Admiralty to adjudicate upon such ships as were sent before them by the detaining officer.
Sir R. Peel—I am not entitled to enter into any argument upon the question, but the relations of this country with foreign nations is a most important one to our merchants, and it is necessary that they should have every possible information upon such a subject. I understand the purport of the answer of the noble Lord to be, that, although the Orders in Council were different from former orders, still they in no respect altered the position of our relations with China any more than had they been simple orders in council. The next question I have to ask is, when a vessel is seised and sent to a court, will it depend upon whether or no the Emperor of China gives satisfactory explanations that it is to be adjudicated upon; and if so, what is the authority that is to
458
decide on the sufficiency of the satisfaction? Is there to be any legal authority —any power given to any one on the spot to determine whether the reparation offered is sufficient or not?
Viscount Palmerston—For the same reason before stated, viz. distance, full powers had been given to an authority to determine on the behalf of the Government, whether the reparation offered was sufficient or not.
Sir R. Peel—In what position will the foreign merchant resident in China be placed? Is the noble Lord aware that there is an important variance between the recital of the orders in council, and the directory part of them? The directory had ordered all our vessels to detain and hold in custody all vessels belonging to the Emperor of China, and all persons inhabiting that country. Under this direction, our vessels must detain the vessels of all persons residing in China, whose case is not mentioned in the recital. I wish to know, if the noble Lord has no objection to make the statement, what he considers would be the situation of foreign merchants, Americans for instance, who belonged to the factories, because, in the East, a merchant is considered to belong to the country to which the factory belonged; but, in this country, a Dutchman carrying on business in an American factory, would be considered a Dutchman.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that in that respect the order in council had been copied from the previous orders in council. The course usually pursued under such orders in council, he believed, was to detain the vessels of those that were neutral, and also those with whom the country was at war; and then, if the matter in dispute was brought to an amicable conclusion, both the ships and the cargoes were released; but if war ensued, then the ships of the enemy were condemned, and the neutral cargo was restored by the sentence of a court of Admiralty, duly commissioned for the purpose; and if, after hostilities had commenced, any neutral who chose to fix his residence in the State which was at war, assumed the character of a common enemy, he would be treated as such.

REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND).
Lord Stanleyrose and said, that

459
although he might not be strictly in order, he was anxious to take an opportunity of stating to the House the course he intended to pursue with respect to the Irish Registration Bill, which was fixed for Thursday next. He had introduced that bill at an early period of the Session, but not so early as perhaps he ought, seeing the opposition, and the nature of that opposition that had been opposed to its progress. The bill was read a second time on the 25th of March, and from circumstances over which he had no control, the Committee stood over until after the Easter recess. On the 18th of April the discussion on going into Committee commenced, and lasted three days. He was then obliged to postpone the further proceedings with the measure until after the Whitsuntide holidays, when the Bill underwent three days more discussion, from the 11th of June to the 14th. Ten divisions had taken place upon the bill, and on five of those divisions the whole power of the Government was directed to throw it out. Of those ten divisions the Government only succeeded in one, nine being in favour of the bill, which to the present moment remained untouched. In the remaining nine divisions the bill stood the test, and remained untouched. If the bill encountered an opposition rather unusual, he must say, and he said it with feelings of gratitude, that it had been supported with a degree of cordiality and enthusiasm unprecedented in the history of any country. He repeated it—it was supported by a degree of enthusiasm hardly precedented in the annals of Parliament. He knew of no instance in which, week after week, Gentlemen would be found coming down to their places in that House, as had been the case on the present occasion, at the sacrifice of great personal convenience, which he was most unwilling to put them to. He knew no occasion on which, for three successive weeks, 300 Gentlemen, without a single defaulter, recorded their support of a measure brought forward by an individual against the declared determination of opposition by any Government whatsoever. So long as he felt a chance of carrying the bill this Session, he did not scruple to tax the kindness of hon. Friends; but, looking to what had occurred, he felt himself obliged to say, that he would abstain from calling for their further exertions in favour of his bill. The more cordial
460
their support, the more unwilling was he to tax that support, as it was impossible that it could be ultimately successful. What was the position of the bill? They had now occupied nine days in discussing this measure; five or six of those days they had been in Committee; in five days they had passed five clauses out of a bill which contained forty-six; and if the remaining clauses—one of which was a money clause, and required their peculiar consideration—took a like time, it was absolutely impossible that the bill could pass in the present Session. He could not anticipate, either, that the opposition to the bill would be relaxed, or the enmity to it diminished. The last day they went into Committee, after they had given five days to its discussion, instead of making any progress, the whole evening was occupied in the discussion of an instruction which had been previously negatived by the House. He had every reason to believe, that the same degree of opposition would be persisted in during the Session, and that it would be ultitimately successful. He feared, then, even had the opposition been fair and candid, that it would occupy too much time to allow of the bill passing this Session. But he wished to notify to the House that the exertions he and his Friends had made this Session were not altogether fruitless. They had established by majorities—certainly not by large majorities, but sufficiently so to command the respect of Government—the fact that evils existed in the system of voting in Ireland so glaring as to require an effectual remedy. The House had decided in favour of his bill against that of her Majesty's Government. They had four times affirmed the principle of his bill. They had approved of annual registration in opposition to the quarterly registrations supported by Government. He might go on carrying the other clauses, and achieving barren triumphs; but as he would, by doing this, stand in the way of much public business, and not having the least hope of being able to carry the bill in the present Session, he did not, for the mere sake of harassing Government or defeating their measures, think it proper to take this course. They had other very important measures before them, which it would not be expedient to postpone, and he should feel exceedingly sorry if any act of his should be productive of incon-

461
venience to the public business. Upon that principle he was prepared to rest, and if he abstained from pressing this bill in the present Session, he would distinctly state, that profiting by the experience of this Session, and knowing the opposition he was likely to encounter, he should take the earliest opportunity in the next Session of again inviting the consideration of the House to this measure, and should bring it forward at so early a period of that Session, that he trusted the act would be brought into operation at no later a period than that which he had proposed for the measure in this Session. He should, therefore, move the Order of the Day for going into Committee on this bill for the purpose of its being discharged.
Lord John Russellsaid, there was one part of the noble Lord's statement, and one part only, to which he thought himself bound to advert. Upon the reasons which the noble Lord had given for not pressing this bill in the present Session, on the grounds of public convenience, he had nothing to say; but with regard to what seemed to be imputed with respect to the opposition to this bill, he thought it his duty, after what the noble Lord had stated, to say, that fair, candid, and open had been the character of that opposition. There might be a question certainly whether, after the House had agreed to go into Committee on the bill, any motion should be made to prefer any other bill to the bill of the noble Lord. He felt he was fully entitled to have made such a motion; but, in order that there might be no excuse for alleging that he endeavoured to prevent the progress of this bill, it had not been his intention to do so. The hon. Member for Halifax had however, proposed such a motion to the House. That hon. Member had voted for going into Committee, at the same time giving reasons, which, as he thought, should have induced him to vote against it. But he did not think the noble Lord could say, that his hon. Friend had been actuated by motives of unfair and un-candid opposition. There had been another occasion to which the noble Lord adverted when they were about to go into Committee, when the hon. and learned Member for Dublin moved an instruction; but under what circumstances did he move it, and what was the debate that then took place? It was under these circum-
462
stances:—The hon. Member for Bridport had wished to move it on a previous occasion, but was prevented from doing so by some technical form of the House, and it was a form upon which at that time, seeing the excitement of the House upon this subject, he did not like to express any opinion contrary to that which had been given by the Chair. But if the question should occur again, he should with great deference, state his own opinion to be at variance with that of the Chair. Being prevented, then, from moving the clauses at that time, the House went into Committee. There was a desultory discussion, but the motion was never made until it was made by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. But what was the debate that then took place? He was blamed in the course of that debate for not stopping it; but the fact was, that four hon. and learned Gentlemen on the other side carried on that debate, arguing the whole subject with great diffuseness. Every argument that could possibly be urged was urged against that motion. Was he to prevent that? He should certainly have thought that the noble Lord opposite ought to have prevented that discussion, and while they were going into arguments which appeared so prolix, he could not help observing to his noble Friend beside him (Lord Morpeth), that by their carrying on their arguments at such great length, it could not be the intention of the other side to proceed with this measure in the present Session. With regard to the measure itself, as the noble Lord declared his intention of abandoning it, it was not his intention to say anything. But in the next Session, if any measure were brought forward with regard to registration in Ireland, whether on the Government side of the House or the Opposition, he should certainly be ready to discuss it; but always with this view, that if it was intended fairly to allow persons who by law were entitled to vote easily to register themselves, and without exorbitant expense or needless delay, to place their votes on the list, by which they might be enabled to go to the poll at the time of an election, everything that could forward that object should have his earnest support. But whatever proposition was introduced under the name of registration to obstruct and destroy the franchise

463
which was given by the Reform Act, he having been concerned in the passing of that Act, should feel it his duty to give the strongest opposition to that measure. He was looking the other day at what had been the course of the discussion in the progress of the Reform Act, and he found that for forty days his noble Friend (Lord Spencer,) and himself had argued in the Committee in favour of that measure, and that bill being thrown out of the House of Lords in the next Session, they argued for twenty-two days more in favour of it in Committee. That was besides all the discussion upon going into the Committee, and on the third reading of that bill; but long as that time was, sixty-two days altogether in Committee, besides various other days of discussion, he was ready to encounter, either for that or a longer period of time, a discussion in this House rather than submit to an effectual and virtual repeal of an important part of that Act.
Order for the Committee on Thursday read and discharged, sine die.
Sir C. Douglaswished to know whether it was the intention of the noble Lord to proceed with the Rights of Voting Bill this Session?
Lord J. Russellwas understood to answer in the negative.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that as this was about the time for clearing off bills, he wished to know whether the Government intended to go on now with the Treating and Bribery Bill?
Lord J. Russellsaid, there were some points connected with that measure which required consideration before it could be further proceeded with. He had, however, been anxious to introduce it to the House, but he did not intend to go on with it this Session.
Sir R. Peel: I presume, then, that the English Registration Bill will also be postponed?
Lord J. Russell: Yes.
Sir R. Peel: And the same, I suppose, with regard to the Ireland Registration Bill (No. 2), so that we shall have got rid of these five bills at once.

CANADA CLERGY RESERVES.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that before the House proceeded to the business of the day, he wished to explain what course he meant to pursue with regard to the Clergy Reserves Bill. He felt the course was such
464
as required not only that he should state it to the House at once, but that, if possible, he should have means on some future day of inserting provisions in this bill, in order to enable the House to discuss the proposition he was about to state. He had stated the other evening, in answer to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Newark, that a proposition had been made by the Archbishop of Canterbury on this subject, but it was one to which he felt himself unable to accede. He had now to state to the House, that another proposition had been made to him, the full particulars of which he had not yet seen, but which he was told was likely to obtain the assent of those who had the most right to represent the Church of England in Parliament, and who had communicated with some members of the Colonial Committee of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and he understood that they considered it perfectly fair and just towards the Church of Scotland. The proposition was to this effect:—It was founded on the opinion of the judges, which had been given in the other House of Parliament with respect to the clergy reserves. That opinion recognised the right on the part of the Church of England, and also recognised the right on the part of the Church of Scotland, to share in those reserves; and, by words which he need not quote, virtually admitted the term of Christians of other denominations, as entitling them likewise to share according to the Act of Parliament of 1791, in the proceeds of such reserves. The opinion went on to state that the Legislature of Upper Canada was incompetent to deal with the clergy reserves in the manner in which they had done, and the judges also stated their opinion with regard to the lands already appropriated. Now, this proposition proposed to deal differently with those lands that were sold under the Act of 1827, the 7th and 8th Geo. 4th, from the manner in which it was proposed to deal with the other parts of the clergy reserves. It was proposed that one-fourth, or rather the proceeds of that one-fourth which was already sold, should be given absolutely to the Church of England and the Church of Scotland, in the proportion of two to one; that is, being divided into three equal parts, two of those parts should be given to the Church of England, and one to the Church of Scotland. It was proposed

465
further, with regard to the remaining three-fourths of the clergy reserves, that they should be divided into equal parts, of which one should be given to the Church of England and Church of Scotland, and the other part should be left to the Governor and Executive Council of Canada generally for the purpose of religious worship and instruction. With respect to that part which was to be left to the Churches of England and Scotland it was proposed that a similar division, should take place as was proposed with regard to the one-fourth that was already sold—namely, two-thirds to the Church of England, and one-third to the Church of Scotland. That division did not rest on any ground of superiority of the Church of England over that of Scotland, but if they took the number of Presbyterians of the Church of Scotland alone, and the number of members of the Church of England in Canada, they would find, that the latter amounted in round numbers to about 80,000, and the former only to about 40,000. There was this further proposition, that such being the general division of the proceeds of the clergy reserves, with respect to the one-fourth which was already sold, and the proceeds of which were already partly invested in the funds of this country, and standing in the names of trustees, it was proposed, reverting to the principle which used to be adopted, and was agreed to by Parliament, but which was changed in 1833, when some modification was made by the noble Lord opposite, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, that the whole of the proceeds now payable to the Church of England and Church of Scotland out of the revenue of Upper Canada should be guaranteed permanently to the Church of England and the Church of Scotland. The amount now paid to the Church of England was 7,700 l., and to the Church of Scotland 1,580 l. It was now proposed to guarantee the payment permanently, It seemed to him, that if that payment were to be guaranteed at all, it ought to be done out of the funds of this country; because the funds of Canada, being already, by the Union Bill, burdened to a considerable extent for the civil list, he thought it would be unfair to burden them still further for this purpose. Now, such being the proposition that had been made to him, as one likely to secure the assent of those to whom he had before alluded,
466
it was for the Government to consider whether it were such a proposition as they could adopt. He would not argue at present the general reasons that might be urged against it or in its favour, either as to its claim being founded on the opinion of the judges, or as to its general expediency as regarded Canada: but there was another view in which it appeared to him that however deeply responsible he should become in proposing to Parliament the adoption of a proposition different from that which had been made by the Assembly and Legislative Council of Canada, yet, upon the whole, it was advisable to adopt this proposition, with reference not merely to this question of the clergy reserves, but with reference to the whole question of Canadian Government. He could not but remember the manner in which the measure which had been proposed to the Government respecting Canada— he meant the great measure of the union—had been treated both in Canada and in this House. The present Governor-general was sent out to Canada with instructions to propose a measure for the union of the provinces, but, at the same time, with full power, if he should find that the measure of the union was either impracticable or wholly inexpedient, to propose some other measure in its place, giving, at the same time, such reasons as he should think proper for such proposal. Far, however, from making any such proposition, he found the measure of the union, both in Lower and Upper Canada, met with the assent of all the authorities of either province. When this measure was introduced to this House, it was introduced without the likelihood of any other measure being more acceptable, and it was the question with the House, whether or not it was incumbent upon it to accept the measure of the Government. Such had been the alternative—and it was generally accepted by both sides of the House. Upon this ground, the union of the Canadas has had the concurrence, first, of all her Majesty's confidential servants; secondly, of the noble Lord, the Member for Northumberland, who took a profound interest in the question; it has had the concurrence of the hon. Member for Coventry, than whom there is no one better qualified to form an opinion, from his personal experience as to the practical working of the measure in Canada; it has had the active and able.

467
support of the hon. Member for Newark; it has had the support of the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, it has had, lastly, the able support, founded upon reasons, which, in my opinion, could not be answered, and which certainly were not answered in the debate, of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, who, in addition to his own individual merits, had filled the highest station in the councils of his Sovereign. In this House, it has been carried by almost unanimous consent, there being one hundred and fifty-six in its favour, and but six opposed to it. He could not but refer to these circumstances, and he would be most unwilling, when another question was introduced relative to Canada, not to endeavour to obtain for it something of the same general assent. He should be anxious to send to the Canadas the measures of the union and of the clergy reserves, not only by the authority of the Government, but with the general consent of the whole House. He could not persuade himself that any person deeply and extensively considering the whole interests of Canada would disappoint the hopes which were entertained, that in the present Session we shall be able to settle the affairs of Canada. Though one measure may be preferred to another — though he was not prepared to say, that another measure might not be better than the union of the Canadas—yet it would be most dangerous to induce in Canada a belief, that the Legislature were not acting upon any settled plan with respect to that province, but with capricious and party views. Believing this to be the case, and feeling that he should be responsible if in Canada parties should make it an excuse, that one Church had been treated with undue favour rather than another, yet, feeling the greater responsibility if he opposed any obstacle, on his part, to the settlement of a question on which the welfare of Canada depended, he should move, on Thursday next, in the form of an amendment, the propositions which he had detailed. Though they were not the propositions which he might think the best, yet, considering that those who had made them had conceded much of their own opinions as to what they think due to the Church of England in making these propositions, he should willingly accept them in the way he proposed, and offer them to the consider-
468
ation of the House. The noble Lord concluded by moving the postponement of the question of the clergy reserves to Thursday next.
Sir R. Peel: I think it necessary to state, that the opinions which I have on different occasions delivered upon the subject of Canada, remain entirely unchanged. With respect to the clergy reserves, I hope this measure will be discussed in the same spirit as the union of the Canadas—and I would appeal to the House if it could be asserted, of the propositions made to the noble Lord, and by him to the House, that the Church of England had been governed by a rigid adherence to his own interests. I think that the proposition made by the Archbishop of Canterbury, distinguished as well for his high station as for his moderation, comes recommended by justice as well as forbearance. On the part of the Church of England, all obstacles are removed from the disposal of the whole of the reserve lands. The Church seeks not to reserve to herself any of these lands. After the decision of the judges, the Church of Scotland is admitted to the same right as the Church of England; and the only difference which exists is, the difference arising from the number of adherents which belong to each. With this proposition, acquiesced in by the two churches, permitting the sale of the whole of the reserve lands, with the guarantee in perpetuity of the present amount with one-third of the proceeds of the future sale, that is a proposal recommended by its intrinsic importance, as well as by its justice and moderation. It would be unfortunate, indeed, if this question should remain unsettled. It is to me a source of the greatest satisfaction, that the noble Lord acquiesces in the proposal made by the Church of England. In acceding to that proposal, I think the noble Lord has acted wisely; and I sincerely hope that this measure will be discussed in the same spirit as the question of the union, and I trust that the two measures will pass into a law with the general concurrence of the House, and by doing so, be the foundation of a happy relation between this country and Canada.
In answer to Mr. C. Buller,
Lord J. Russellreplied, it is proposed to leave one-half of the three-fourths to the disposal of the Governor-general and the executive council, for the purposes

469
of religious worship, and for education. This was done to promote unanimity in the House, because there were Opposition hon. Members who would object to any portion being grauted to the Roman Catholics.

AUSTRIAN TREATY OF COMMERCE.
Mr. Laboucherebrought up the report of the committee on commerce and navigation, as follows—
"That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a bill, to enable her Majesty to carry into effect certain stipulations contained in a treaty of commerce and navigation between her Majesty and the Emperor of Austria, and to empower her Majesty to declare, by Order in Council, that ports which are the most natural and convenient shipping ports of States, within whose dominions they are not situated, may in certain cases be considered, for all purposes of trade with her Majesty's dominions, as the national ports of such States."
The right hon. Gentleman moved, that the resolution be agreed to.
Mr. Herriesthought that some explanation would have been given by the right hon. Gentleman for such an extraordinary motion, especially as he had given notice of motion of certain resolutions, the effect of which would be some such measure as that which the right hon. Gentleman now professed his desire to bring forward. The immediate effect of the present motion would be, to interpose between his motion, which was for an address to her Majesty, praying her to take some steps to put an end to the state of things now existing. He had thought, that the right hon. Gentleman would have explained under what circumstances and for what purposes he came forward in the year 1840, and asked for a power to be placed in the hands of Government, enabling them at their discretion to set aside the Navigation Act, for the purpose of carrying into effect a treaty with Austria made two years ago. He would venture to say, that it was an unexampled circumstance for a member of the Government to come down and propose a measure of such an extraordinary character, without saying a word in its support. Was it for hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House to explain why this extraordinary power was requisite? Yet it was necessary that he should state to the House that which the right hon. Gentleman was unwilling to stale. Two years
470
ago a treaty was concluded between this country and the government of Austria, having for its object that which all persons who took a just view of the interests of the two countries must concur in facilitating to the utmost of their power. No individual felt more than he did the importance of drawing closer the ties of friendship, and of intercourse between this country and Austria. There was no state with which at all times and under all circumstances it was more important or more desirable that this country should be united; but in the present state of the continent, and in relation to passing and future events, the importance of this connexion was still further increased. In 1838, her Majesty's Government took great praise to themselves for having surpassed all their predecessors, and for having, by their superior skill, effected a commercial treaty with Austria, and thereby opened a new way for the extension of our trade. He concurred in the object, but with others he lamented that they had taken unskilful means to carry their intentions into effect. Instead of the treaty being an improvement on the treaty negociated by the Earl of Aberdeen, it had been the subject of continued difficulty; and, instead of producing a better understanding between the two countries, it had led to long protracted and hitherto unfinished negotiations. There were two articles in the new treaty which differed from the previous treaty, and embodied, or were intended to embody, one of the great principles of the commercial treaties with other countries, and which was called "reciprocity." This principle was embodied in Articles 4 and 5, and to them he would call the particular attention of the House. Each of these articles was in contravention of the laws of this land. The first was a direct violation and contravention of the navigation laws; the second was also at variance and deviation from that same law. He mentioned both together, because it was necessary that the House should bear in mind that with respect to the 5th Article the difficulties which the navigation laws threw in the way of the execution of that article had' been removed by a special application to Parliament. At the end of the Customs Bill of last year, and on the third reading, a clause was introduced enabling the Government, notwithstanding the Naviga-

471
tion Act, to give effect to the 5th Article of the Austrian treaty, which provided,
"In consideration of British vessels arriving from other countries than those belonging to the high contracting parties being admitted with their cargoes into Austrian ports, without paying any other duties whatever than those paid by Austrian vessels, so also the productions of the soil and industry of the parts of Asia or Africa situated within the Straits of Gibraltar, which shall have been brought into the ports of Austria, may be re-exported from thence in Austrian vessels directly into British ports, in the same manner and with the same privileges as to all manner of duties and immunities, as if these productions were imported from Austrian ports in British vessels,"
The clause enabling the treaty to be carried into effect was smuggled through Parliament; if he had been present, and the purport of the clause had been mentioned, he would have made no objection. The 5th Article being thus disposed of, they came now to the 4th Article, and if it had not before that time been made the subject of particular observation in that House by any independent Member, the neglect might well be excused, because if any one read the article alone, it was impossible to be understood to construe at first into a contravention of the Navigation Act. It had not, however, escaped the notice of the Earl of Aberdeen, who called the attention of the public to the latter part of the clause which required much explanation. It was so ambiguous that it could not be understood by any person not aware of the spirit with which it was framed. But an instance had occurred since, which gave a practical illustration of what was intended, and showed that it was a direct violation of the navigation laws. An Austrian ship had arrived, and attempted to do that which this article professed to give it the right to do. In consequence of this, the parties making the attempt were guilty of a violation of our navigation law, the ship and cargo were seized, and after much negotiation with the public departments they were released, on the payment of a small fine, such small fine being expressly imposed to prevent the assumption that the importation was authorized by the existing law. Now, though the Austrian ship had acted against the navigation law, it had acted according to the treaty of commerce. By the 4th Article of that treaty it was declared, that
472
"All Austrian vessels arriving from the ports of the Danube, as far as Galacz inclusively, shall, together with their cargoes, be admitted into the ports of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and of all the possessions of her Britannic Majesty, exactly in the same manner as if Such vessels came direct from Austrian ports, with all the privileges and immunities stipulated by the present treaty of navigation and commerce."
It then went on to say,
"In like manner, all British vessels, with their cargoes, shall continue to be placed upon the same footing as Austrian vessels, whenever such British vessels shall enter into or depart from the same ports."
Here was an authority given to the English to go with equal advantages to the Austrians, and enter ports in which Austria had not one foot of land. The reciprocity which Austria gave was the right of English vessels to go into Turkish ports in the same manner as Austrian ships. This most extraordinary provision did not fail to attract attention. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Tamworth, had endeavoured to obtain an explanation, and that explanation he certainly did not obtain. The same question being asked in two different places, it was said in one place "it is true, there certainly does appear to be a difficulty on this account, but a treaty will very soon be made with Turkey, by which effect will be given to this article, and undoubtedly something must be done before the Austrian treaty that has been ratified can be executed. But in that House, when the same question was asked, the reply was, that no such treaty with Turkey was necessary. The noble Lord, at the head of the Government, had said in another place, that a treaty would be formed, and in that House, the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department said, that a treaty was not necessary. No doubt it was not necessary, unless some effect were intended to be given to the stipulations of the treaty. The fifth article of the treaty contravened the Navigation Act, and needed a legislative measure to give it effect; and it now appeared by events which had since disclosed the fact, that the fourth article was even more at variance with the Navigation Act. Why had not the Government, in fairness and justice, asked the House at the same time that the fifth article was remedied, for an authority by which the fourth could be carried into effect? That was what he expected the right hon.

473
Gentleman to explain, and not merely to put a paper into the hands of the Speaker in the careless way in which he had just done. The right hon. Gentleman had not only to explain why he did now ask for this power, but also why he had not asked for it long ago? Lord Melbourne had said, that he might be asked why this had not been done before, and that his reply was that the right hon. Gentleman formerly at the head of the Board of Trade, knowing that a treaty with Turkey was on foot, had thought it better not to come twice to Parliament. But the Government had already come once, and by the course they were now taking they had come twice. He had a right to ask those who applied to the House for powers to enable the Government at their own will and pleasure to set aside the navigation laws to state the grounds for the application. He had himself given his notice of motion because it was a matter of notoriety in the commercial world; and if this motion had not intervened, he had intended to move resolutions declaring that what had been done had been in contravention of the law, that the Government officers had interfered to mitigate the effect of the law, that such a state of things in respect to a treaty with a foreign power was unbecoming us as a nation, and that, therefore, the House would address the Crown, praying it to take such steps as were necessary to put an end to a state of things which was alike unsuited to the regular administration of the law, and to the punctual fulfilment of her Majesty's engagements with foreign powers. He was not prepared to say, that lie would oppose the bill; but he doubted whether this was the best course for applying a remedy to the evil to which the want of flue caution on the part of those who had had the care of our foreign and commercial affairs had exposed this country. The reason why the attention of this country had not been so much directed to these articles was, that it was possible to conceive that the vessels might arrive with an Austrian cargo, and if so, it would be consistent with the Navigation Act, because Austrian ships might bring an Austrian cargo from any port; it was not necessary that it should come from an Austrian port. It might have been thought that the Government never would have given a power to any state to bring into our ports the produce of any
474
other state, The navigation laws were passed for the very purpose of preventing such a power, and it would have been deemed almost incredible that without submitting any measure to Parliament, and without any apology or explanation, the Government should have entered into and allowed a treaty to remain on the Table of the House without any notice, which was impracticable to give the concession which was intended to be made, except by a repetition of those favours, which the court of Vienna seemed to think would be granted to each succeeding vessel. The Government, however, incredible as it appeared, took no pains to reconcile the two things, either by altering the treaty so as to fit the law of the land, or by altering the law of the land to fit the treaty. How long the present state of things might have continued, if no notice had been taken of it on that side of the House, he could not say. It was clear, from the correspondence which had been laid on the Table of the House, that up to September, 1839, there was no intention to take any steps. That was ten months after the treaty was framed, and up to the first intimation of its violation. Here was a vessel, alleging that she came on the principle of the treaty, seized by us. The Treasury had referred the matter to the Board of Trade, and the Board of Trade gave this reply: —
"Board of Trade, Whitehall, 12th Sept., 1839.
Sir—The Lords of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade have considered the application of Mr. John Routh, of the 2nd instant, transmitted by you, on the subject of a cargo of Turkish corn, imported from a Turkish port in the Danube in an Austrian ship; and their Lordships having adverted to the language of the 4th article of the Austrian treaty, referred to in your letter, have directed me to state their opinion, that although there may be no concurrent law for carrying that article into effect, according to the construction put upon it by the shippers at Galacz, it would be pro-per to give some relief in this and in similar cases. I am, therefore, to request that you will inform the Lords Commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury, of the opinion of the Lords of this Committee, that such cargoes should, for the present, be admitted to entry for home consumption, upon the payment of a moderate fine, which they think should be demanded, in order to prevent the assumption that the importation is authorised by the existing law."
There was no recommendation for altering the law to make it fit this state

475
of things. There was no "concurrent" law, said the Board of Trade. It was rather an ingenious way of putting it. There was no "concurrent" law. No; there was a distinct law against it. That was what ought to have been stated. Yet this did not cause the Government to alter the treaty that had been negociated, or to come down to the House for means to carry it out. They did neither one nor the other. He asked, then, who was responsible for this act? Was it the noble Lord opposite, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who had framed this treaty in direct violation of the law of the land? Was it the Board of Trade? Because there were many particulars in relation to these treaties on which the Board of Trade used to be consulted, and he presumed still was. Did the Board of Trade advise the passing of the 4th article, and its being ratified without any means existing for carrying it into effect? Suppose the Foreign-office had forgotten, as commercial matters sometimes escaped diplomatic characters of the highest character, could not the Board of Trade recollect the state of the laws? The year 1838 passed. The year 1839 passed over without any step being taken by the Board of Trade. Then, again, were the law officers forgotten? The custom used to be, and he presumed it was the same now, to submit all treaties before they were ratified, to the law officers of the Crown; these legal functionaries were conversant with the law of the land. Did they not know the extent to which the treaty went in consequence of its ambiguous wording? Did they think it was no concession? Did they think, that there was no harm in a treaty, by which we gave Austria what we could not do by laws, and Austria conceded to us what she had no power to concede? Perhaps, under these circumstances, the law-officers considered the article of little or no value, and so gave no opinion upon it. Still, all those three departments were responsible for an article, which was a direct violation of the law, and which could only be acted on by an alteration of the law, or, as was now proposed, by giving the Government the power to dispense with the law. He objected to the latter mode, and he thought that the objection was good, unless the treaty was admitted by the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman to be of no avail. The
476
measure which was proposed was, to give a power to the Government to deal with ports which were not within the power of other countries, with which the treaties were negociated, but which might be convenient, and to declare them to be deemed material ports. It was giving to the Government the power to become the judge of any alteration in the navigation law. He thought, that their object might be answered without giving any such power. It might be right to stretch the Navigation Act in favour of Austria, in consideration of something being conceded. But what he feared was, that if we gave Austria this exemption, other nations which by treaty were entitled to be put on the same footing as the most favoured, might claim similar exemption. The noble Lord should have been anxious to show that if Austria, by the concluding part of the 4th article, did give something substantial in return, then there was an end to that objection. If it was a concession on the part of Austria to enable English vessels to enter Turkish ports on the same terms as Austrian vessels, then it might be right to give Austria this exemption from our navigation laws. But supposing that this offer was something that Austria had not the power to fulfil, then the right hon. Gentleman felt the difficulty, and made this application to Parliament to give to the Government a general authority to fortify them against the claims that might be made upon them by other countries. He trusted that he had said enough to show that the course which he had taken was not altogether unnecessary. In all respects this treaty was inferior in its framework to that which preceded it. He admitted that it contained much which was new, and much which was good; but unfortunately, the new was not good, and the good was not new.
Mr. Laboucheresaid, that he had made no exposition of the grounds upon which he had made this motion, because he had thought that it would be better to wait until he saw the nature of the accusations brought against the Government before he attempted to make any explanation of his conduct, or of the conduct of those with whom he had had the honour to act. With regard to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, he must say, that he had never heard more fallacious observations addressed to the House, or observations founded on more unstable grounds, and

477
he could well conceive that the right hon. Gentleman was averse to have those fallacies exposed. The right hon. Gentleman began by making an assertion similar to one which had been made in another place by a very high authority, that there was no difference between this treaty and that of the Earl of Aberdeen, except in the single article which was now under the consideration of the House; and that there were no advantages gained by this treaty to the commerce of the country beyond those which had been obtained by the treaty of the noble Earl. It became his duty, in answer to that observation, to show the advantages which in reality, were derived from the treaty, together with the particulars in which it differed from that formerly made, and to lay before the House those proofs which he possessed of the recent increase of trade and commerce, and he was soothed, under the sufferings produced by the hard words which the right hon. Gentleman had applied to him, by the certain prospect that a very great and almost indefinite extension of the trade of this country would take place in consequence of the provisions which had been made. He had been astonished to hear the right hon. Gentleman declare, that there was no important distinction between this treaty and that of the Earl of Aberdeen. With regard to the important points of this treaty, and in respect to this subject, he rejoiced to say, that we had gained no additional advantages but upon terms of mutual reciprocity, which were best calculated to maintain the friendly relation of nations, he could himself claim no share of the merit due to those by whom it had been framed. The advantages derived under its provisions were obtained through the exertions and the zeal of his noble Friend who sat near him, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and of his right hon. Friend Mr. Poulett Thomson, whose situation he now so unworthily occupied, and he must say, also, that they were considerably owing to the zeal and ability of Mr. M'Gregor, by whom it had been negociated. To proceed, however, to the provisions of the treaty. The first important advantage which it obtained for this country had been granted by no other European state. It was that of a free admission for all British ships with cargoes carried direct from all parts of the world into the Austrian ports. This was a
478
most important stipulation, and one which had been most anxiously looked for by our trade and commerce. It was true, that it was practically enjoyed before, but those who were acquainted with the subject well knew, that unless this security were afforded, that direct trade, which was so important, could not be secured, and those who were engaged in this species of trade would have no hesitation in assuring the House, that the advantage which was obtained was one of no ordinary importance. In this provision, alone, therefore, there was a wide distinction between the treaty signed by Mr. M'Gregor and that of the Earl of Aberdeen, and although he did not mean to deny, that the treaty of the noble Earl was one of undoubted merit, he thought that it was exceedingly improper to assert that the other was identical with it, except with respect to a few breaches of the navigation laws. But there was another point of still greater importance to which the right hon. Gentleman had not referred at all. Was there nothing obtained at the same time with the treaty? There was. For there had been a most important alteration in the tariff of Austria, which operated most advantageously to the trade of this country, and which had produced a vast augmentation of our exports to Austria. This did not apply to the treaty it was true, but it was effected at the same time. The late tariff of Austria was one of the most prohibitory in the world, but he was happy that that enlightened statesman, Prince Metternich, had seen the importance—the necessity of some alteration and revision being made. The principle of prohibition had now been entirely removed, and that of duty had been substituted for it. Those duties still remained very high, but in many instances changes had been made of a most liberal description, materially affecting the commerce of the country. The following, among other articles of British growth and manufacture, which are now exported by the Adriatic, Genoa, and the Rhine, and Elbe, into the Austrian dominions were, until those changes, prohibited, viz. woven and printed cottons, linens and woollens, hats of all kinds, manufactures of brass, copper, iron, steel, pewter, and tin, painters' colours, Cape wines, ale and porter, &c. &c. The duties at which these were now admitted varied from 5 to 10, 15, 20, and in some instances, as on cotton woven goods, to 50 per cent., ad valorem.

479
Cotton twist paid formerly 60 to 80 per cent.; it was now admitted at 15 florins the centner of 123lbs., or from 5 to 8 per cent. On linen yarns the duty was reduced to 10d. per centner—from 5 to 8 per cent. On leather manufactures, the duties were reduced to 20 per cent. Fish, such as cod-fish and herrings, to 2 florins the centner. Fish oils and train oils to about 7d. the centner. Muscovado and refined sugars had both been reduced, the former from 21 florins to 15 florins, and for the use of refineries to 7½ florins. Numerous other reductions had also been made. He contended that the House must look at this treaty, together with the reduction which had been obtained in the tariff at the same period, and he believed that it would be found that no proceeding had ever been presented to the House of the same character, which produced more practical benefit, or which better deserved its support and assent. A great increase of British trade to Austria had been the effect of this stipulation. A great portion of the exports of this country to Austria found its way through the Elbe and other northern rivers, and he was not at present possessed of the means of showing what the increase had been in that respect; but with regard to the commerce of this country and its dependencies, carried on through the medium of British ships entering Austrian ports, he could make a statement to the House of the most gratifying description. The year before this treaty was made, (1837) the number of British ships which arrived with British cargoes in Austrian ports was 97, measuring 17,338 tons; in 1838, the number of ships was 164, measuring 28,669 tons. In the year 1839, the number of vessels was 147, measuring 27,066 tons. A great increase of trade, therefore, had taken place since the signing of the treaty, and he thought that commerce mutually advantageous would spring up; and he believed that there could be no interest more binding or more likely to encourage a friendly feeling than that produced by a system of mutual trade, carried on upon terms of reciprocal advantage. He would now come to the subject more immediately under the notice of the House. The right hon. Gentleman had said, that there was nothing new in the treaty which was good, and nothing good which was new. He thought that he should be able to shew, that there were
480
things both good and new, as well in principle as in effect, in the treaty. He should now proceed to show what concessions had been made by this country to Austria in return for these advantages, and he was prepared to maintain, that they were either beneficial to England, or, at all events, that they did not produce any injury to this country. These concessions amounted to two, contained in two articles numbered 4 and 5; and these were undoubtedly in contravention of the strict letter of the navigation law. The fifth article went to allow Austrian vessels to import into this country cargoes of the produce of Asia and Africa within the Straits of Gibraltar, provided those cargoes had been previously landed in Austria. He should have been prepared to show how reasonable it was, that such a concession should be made; but, as the right hon. Gentleman had admitted its propriety, he thought it would be wasting the time of the House to detain them with its consideration. He should, therefore, go at once to the fourth article, which was more properly before the House. He would frankly admit, that there had been some difference with regard to this part of the subject. Discussions had taken place between the Austrian and the English Government; but they had been carried on with feelings of the most amicable and conciliatory description. He was not able to speak with confidence upon this subject, as the arrangement had been made by Mr. Poulett Thomson before he (Mr. Labouchere) had the honour of holding the station which he now filled, and he believed that it was in consequence of the discussions which were then pending, and of the difficulty of forming an opinion upon the subject, that that right hon. Gentleman was unwilling to bring the subject before the House at that time. On the 12th of September, just one week after he had had the honour of receiving his appointment, it so happened that an Austrian vessel containing Turkish corn arrived in this country. That, having come from Galacz, he thought that we were not bound to admit that cargo; but it having been made clear to him that they were bound under treaty to admit it, without a moment's hesitation, he recommended to the Treasury that the Government ought to interfere, and to direct the cargo to be received. The right hon. Gentleman said, what a state of things was this, where an

481
act being done in contravention of the navigation laws, the authority of Parliament was not sought upon the general subject ! The House must suppose, upon this observation, that this was not an isolated case, but that there was a constant stream of commerce between the ports of the Danube and this country. This, however, was the only cargo which had arrived under these circumstances, and he thought that the right hon. Gentleman need not have been in such a violent hurry to make a complaint to the House. The right hon. Gentleman was mistaken if he supposed that he had intended to allow this Session to pass over, without obtaining from it its opinion as to the construction of this treaty. The subject had been discussed by him with his noble Friend, and it was agreed that this question should be brought before the House before the conclusion of the Session. He apprehended that the meaning of the treaty was, that ships coming from all ports of the Danube, down to Galacz, should be admitted, just as if they came from Austria, and that British vessels should, upon terms of reciprocity, be admitted to all ports on the Danube, within the same district. It might be said, however, that these were Turkish ports: but he apprehended that the first and second parts of the article were dependent on each other, and if Turkey prohibited the admission of English vessels into her ports, it would be a question whether England would not, in return, prohibit the entry of Turkish vessels into her ports. But the House would observe the principle which had been acted upon. He held, that this country had the deepest interest in extending its commercial relations, and in giving every facility to a continual intercourse between the merchants of this empire and those of the vast continental powers, which, from their situation, could never be considered maritime powers, which occupied the centre of Europe, but which, from the introduction of steam navigation, had, by means of large rivers, obtained all the advantages of sea-ports; and he held, that, if the expediency of relaxing our navigation laws were shown, it became our duty to adopt that course. Austria had no ports within its own dominions into which sea-going ships could procure admission, and it was necessary to favour all those ports to which access could be obtained, in order, as far as possible, to extend our commercial relations with that country;
482
and he had heard, with much satisfaction, that although the right hon. Gentleman, had objected to the precise words of the treaty, he had been unable to point out any practical evil as resulting from it. He believed that nothing but practical good could be produced by the treaty, and he believed, that in adopting the course which had been taken, we were producing material advantages to Europe. Then the right hon. Gentleman suggested, that under the fourth article of the treaty, this country must be placed in a position of great difficulty with other great powers, with which we had reciprocal treaties. He was satisfied, however, that no such result could be produced, for no other country but Austria had a river placed in a position so peculiar as that of the Danube. He hoped he had said enough to show, in the first place, that this treaty, taken as a whole, was highly advantageous to this country; that it was founded upon just principles; that, although in the two instances pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman, it departed from the strict letter of the navigation laws, yet that it adhered to the spirit of those laws, and that while we had sacrificed what was no loss to us, we had obtained, in return, most valuable privileges to our own merchants.
Mr. Herries,in explanation, said, that the right hon. Gentleman had mistaken him. What he objected to was, that the right hon. Gentleman, having made his motion, had not thought right to support it with any statement. He would thus have been afforded an opportunity to reply. But, instead of doing that, the right hon. Gentleman had put him in the condition of making a statement, whilst he had himself the opportunity of reply. With respect to making general provisions to enable the Government to grant similar advantages to other states, he thought that no more powers ought to be given than were shown to be necessary. If it was shown that those powers were more than were necessary, they ought not to be asked for by the Crown, nor conceded by the House of Commons.
Mr. Colquhounsaid, that he felt ready to offer the meed of his congratulation to her Majesty's Government for the general scope of this treaty, which he thought calculated to increase the trade of this country. When so much had been said of reciprocal advantages, be was anxious to

483
call the attention of the House to a point which had not been adverted to with sufficient clearness by the right hon. Gentleman. When this country had to contend with a country which possessed cheap timber and low wages, it was impossible that this country could succeed in the competition. In stating this fact, which was of great importance, he would be able to prove it by returns which he held in his hand. Mr. Huskisson considered, that the increase of shipping between this and other countries with which we had reciprocal treaties would be in our favour, but the contrary was proved to be the fact. With respect to the eight countries of Europe, with which we have treaties of reciprocity, taking the three years from 1821 to 1824, before the passing of these treaties, and the three years from 1836 to 1839, since the signing of these treaties, it appeared that in the three former years there were 910,000 tons of British shipping employed in her trade with those countries, and 771,000 tons of foreign shipping. In the three latter years, ending 1839, the amount of British tonnage had increased to 1,588,000 tons, whilst the foreign shipping had increased to 1,168,000 tons. There were, on the other hand, six countries with which we had no reciprocity treaties, in contrast with which our tonnage was rapidly increasing. He thought that these facts demonstrated most clearly, that this country, when competing with countries which possessed cheap timber and low-priced labour, could not possibly succeed. That was, however, no reason why reciprocity treaties should not be adopted. If they did not exist, what Mr. Huskisson had called conflicting duties would be the consequence; and their fruit would cause incalculable injury to trade. He contended that no reciprocity treaty was useful in which care was not taken to obtain advantages for our manufacturers; and, certainly, that point had been attended to in the Austrian treaty, for in that manufacturers were included. With respect to the 4th article in the treaty, which was the principal subject in discussion, he thought that Government had left it very imperfect, they not having secured the trade of the Danube by a treaty with Turkey. While we were without a treaty with Turkey, the fourth article of the Austrian treaty was of little or no use. The objection urged by his right hon. Friend (Mr.
484
Herries) had been two, and he did not think the answers of the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade at all satisfactory. The first was, that Government, having by the treaty violated the Navigation Act, had afterwards taken no steps towards getting the consent of Parliament to that measure. There was no personal blame to be attached to the present President of the Board of Trade for the omission, but certainly Government, as a body, were responsible. The right hon. Gentleman had stated, that no great inconvenience had arisen from the conflict between the treaty and the law. He could tell him that he knew a gentleman who, on the promulgation of the treaty, was most anxious to open a trade with Austria, but who, on the seizure of the vessel at Gloucester, immediately abandoned the idea. The fact was, that the imperfect state of the treaty precluded all attempts at increasing the trade. The other objection of his right hon. Friend was, that in consequence of neglecting to include Turkey in the arrangement, our trade would be left at the mercy of any foreign power who could successfully intrigue at the Turkish court for the closing of the ports of the Danube. He trusted, that the right hon. Gentleman would use his best endeavours to remove those imperfections from a treaty which, generally speaking, was likely to prove beneficial to the trade of this country.
Mr. Hawessaid, that the object of the framers of the fourth article in this treaty had been to interest Great Britain in maintaining the free navigation of the mouth of the Danube and the Black Sea, and the ports there. It was observable, that since this treaty had been concluded there had been an increased activity in the trade between this country and Austria. It was highly desirable, therefore, that the Government should be empowered to enter into similar treaties with other powers, and so far to relax the strictness of the navigation laws. He rejoiced to find that this bill had received such a degree of attention, and that there was a prospect of some relaxation of those laws.
Mr. A. Chapmanobjected to the principle of the treaty. He was old enough to remember when reciprocity treaties first came before the House, and, at that time, had stated that their effect would

485
be to increase the tonnage of other countries, and to diminish our own. The returns produced by his hon. Friend, the Member for Kilmarnock, proved that his (Mr. Chapman's) prophecy had been correct, because now if it were not for our colonial trade our tonnage would be small indeed. Now, we carried no coffee from Batavia to Holland, nor was there any trade from the Baltic to this country, except in foreign ships. The hon. Member for Lambeth had made a comparison between our trade at the present time, and that of 1814, alleging, that in 1814 this country was carrier to all the world. The hon. Member had forgotten, that in 1814, the Berlin and Milan decrees were promulgated, and consequently that then we had no trade in Europe from the North Cape to Gibraltar. The most flourishing period of our trade was from 1816 to 1822, the last being the year in which the unfortunate reciprocal treaties were introduced. He trusted, that the noble Lord would not proceed with any more of those treaties, but would preserve those laws which had created nurseries for our seamen, and had led to the victories of a Howe and a Nelson.
Mr. Sheil: There was this advantage gained from the treaty, which distinguished it from that of Lord Aberdeen—that at present British ships could go from any part of the world to Austria. Formerly they were confined to Great Britain. This was a change essentially distinct, which the hon. Member for Harwich must admit, on consideration, to be a change for the better. What was the result? In 1837, the number of British ships which went into Austria were 95; in 1838, the year of the treaty, they increased to 164; and in 1839, there were 144. It was a curious circumstance, that of the latter there were 59 which came not direct from Britain, but from various foreign ports, and this in virtue of the present treaty. Another advantage from the present change was the alteration of the tariff and the shortening of the period of quarantine.
Sir E. Sugdensaid, the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten the 5lh Clause, which gave to Austria great advantages. The complaint of his hon. Friend was, that the Government had not come earlier to the House for the power to carry the treaty into execution, inasmuch as the treaty was in violation of the Navigation Laws. As to the allegation that fifty-nine
486
of our ships had taken advantage of the clause and only one Austrian vessel, that was an additional reason why the Government should have come down to the House earlier, as it looked like a breach of faith with the Powers with whom we had entered into a treaty. The construction of the treaty according to its terms was very doubtful. Under all the circumstances, what the House was bound to do was to ascertain that Austria had the power to give that entry to the Turkish ports which she professed, and that the Queen's Government should not be authorised to infringe the Navigation Laws until it was satisfactorily ascertained that Austria had the power to give that which they professed to give.
Mr. A. Whitetrusted Government would not relax the Navigation Laws.
Mr. Hindleyobserved, that the advocates of free trade in that House did not at all relish the principles of the bill when they affected their own constituents. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last was in favour of the repeal of the Corn-laws, but was strenuously opposed to any change in the Navigation Laws. He was favourable to the principles of free trade, and should, therefore, support the motion.
Sir S. Canning: The framers of this treaty were certainly, in his opinion, entitled to credit for the spirit which prevailed in it. At the same time he must say, that in the encomiums bestowed on it sufficient attention had not been paid to that which preceded it. He certainly could not bestow unequivocal praise on the distinctions of a treaty which resting on the ground of mutual advantages refused to allow the entrance of the ships of the foreign power. The discussion, however, would be advantageous.
Viscount Palmerstonfelt great gratification at perceiving that the opinions of almost everybody who had taken part in this subject were in accordance with the principles upon which this treaty was framed. He thought that it would prove exceedingly useful to the commercial interests and relations of this country for it to go forth that all parties were agreed in favour of the liberal principles on which this treaty was framed. It had been objected that some of the articles of the treaty were not so clearly drawn as they might have been. He did not admit this objection to the extent it had been made,

487
and be thought that the right hon. Member who urged it showed that he fully understood the article to which he referred. He would admit, that the 4th Article was not quite so clearly worded as it might have been. The fact was, that during the negotiations at Vienna on this subject this article was frequently altered and copied, and it was in the course of these proceedings that this slight obscurity crept in. When the treaty came to this country to be ratified the question was, whether it should be sent back again for verbal amendment, or signed at once; and the latter course was adopted, as it was not considered that a trifling obscurity in one or two expressions would be a sufficient ground to postpone the adoption of so important a principle as the treaty involved. With respect to the objection that the advantages conferred upon Austria by this treaty were clear and evident, but that those intended for England were absolutely nugatory, he did not think that it was borne out by the fact. The right hon. Member would bear in mind that by the terms of this treaty, Austria was precluded, not only from asking, but also from accepting if offered, any greater advantages in the ports of Turkey than were enjoyed by England. With respect to the objection, that fully to realize the advantages contemplated by this connexion, a subsequent treaty with Turkey would be necessary in order to prevent that power from excluding us altogether from the Danube, he would only remark, that by virtue of existing treaties, English ships had a right of trading in any Turkish ports, and therefore to all parts of the Danube comprehended within the Turkish territory, whilst the freedom of the remainder was guaranteed by the treaty with Austria. He agreed that it was of vast importance to give every possible development to the commercial energies of Turkey and Austria, and the opening of the navigation of the Danube, by affording a water communication with those great and productive countries, could not but afford very great facilities for that mercantile intercourse with Great Britain, which on every account was so desirable.
Mr. Herrieshad not intended to say anything against the general scope and principle of this treaty.
Report agreed to.

ECCLESIASTICAL DUTIES AND REVENUES.
House in Committee on the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill.
On Clause 35,
Colonel Rolleston Colonel Rolleston moved to omit the proviso "that the benefices in the patronage of the prebendaries of the collegiate church of South well, shall be vested partly in the Bishop of Ripon, and partly in the Bishop of Manchester."
The Committee divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out stand:—Ayes 77; Noes 17; Majority 60

List of the Ayes.

Abercromby, hn. G. R.

Morris, D.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Muntz, G. F.

Adam, Admiral

Muskett, G. A.

Ainsworth, P.

Nicholl, J.

Baines, E.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Parker, J.

Barry, G. S.

Pemberton, T.

Basset, J.

Pigot, D. R.

Blackett, C.

Power, J.

Bridgeman, H.

Rawdon, Colonel

Brotherton, J.

Redington, T. N.

Bruges, W.H.L.

Rice, E. R.

Busfeild, W.

Rundle, J.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Russell, Lord J.

Chalmers, P.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Clay, W.

Salwey, Colonel

Courtenay, P.

Sanford, E. A.

Dalmeny, Lord

Scholefield, J.

Dundas, D.

Smith, J. A.

Elliot, hon. J. K.

Smith, R. V.

Erie, W.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Euston, Earl of

Stuart, W. V.

Evans, W.

Stock, Dr.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Style, Sir C.

Greene, T.

Sugden, rt. hn. Sir E.

Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Hector, C. J.

Teignmouth, Lord

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Thornely, T.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Verney, Sir H.

Hodges, T. L.

Vigors, N. A.

Hodgson, R.

Vivian, J. H.

Horsman, E.

White, A.

Hoskins, K.

Williams, W.

Howard, hn. E. G. G.

Williams, W. A.

Hutt, W.

Wood, G. W.

James, W.

Wood, B.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Wyse, T.

Loch, J.

TELLERS.

Lushington, rt. hn. S.

Gordon, R.

Morpeth, Viscount

Tufnell, H.

List of the NOES.

Ackland.T. D.

Holmes, W.

Bowes, J.

Hope, G. W.

Broadley, H.

Hughes, W. B.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Knight, H. G.

Darby, G.

Lambton, H.

Eliott, Lord

Manners, Lord C. S.

Estcourt, T.

Pakingtop, J. S,

489

Parker, R. T.

TELLERS.

Pryme, G.

Lincoln, Earl of

Pusey, P.

Rolleston, R.

Clause agreed to.
Other clauses agreed to.
House resumed. Committee to sit again.