Commons Sitting of 19 March 1840

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a first time:—Tithe Composition (Ireland).—Read a third time:—Mutiny; Marine Mutiny.
Petitions presented. By Sir De Lacy Evans, from Officers

1221
of the British Legion, far Arrears of Pay from the Spanish Government.—By Messrs. Stansfield, Freshfield, Hume, Sanford, Baines, Colonel Rushbrooke, Sir Harry Vivian, and the Attorney-general, from a number of places, for, and by Lord Worsley, Sir Charles Lennox, and Messrs. Pusey, and Chute, from several other places, against, the Immediate Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Mr. R. Currie, and Mr. Hume, from four places, for the Release of John Thorogood, and the Abolition of Church Rates, and of the Jurisdiction of Ecclesiastical Courts.—By Sir R. H. Inglis, and Messrs. Hope, and Mackinnon, from several places, for Church Extension.—By Messrs. Fielden, and Hume, from a number of places, for Universal Suffrage, and Vote by Ballot.—By Lord Teignmouth, from the Bakers of London, against Sunday Trading.—By Sir G. Staunton, and Mr. L. Bruges, against the Opium Trade, and the War with China.—By Mr. F. Maule, from one place, for Church Extension in the Colonies.—By Admiral Adam, Colonel T. Wood, and Mr. F. Maule, from several places, In favour of the Principle of Non-Intrusion.—By Sir R. H. Inglis, from one place, against Socialism.

CHINA.
Sir James Graham, seeing the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in his place, wished to ask him two questions. The first question was, with respect to Opium. It appeared that a certain quantity of opium had been delivered up by the Superintendent at Canton, under certificate. There was reason to believe that a further quantity of opium had been purchased by the superintendent, and had been delivered up to the Chinese authorities, in order to make up the quantity mentioned in the certificate; no such transaction appeared from the papers which had been laid upon the table. He wished to ask the noble Lord whether such a transaction had taken place, and if there would be any objection to produce the papers relating to it? The second question he wished to ask related to the supposed destruction of the opium surrendered to and destroyed by the Chinese authorities. From those papers it did of appear that the destruction of the opium ad taken place; the only mention made of it seemed to show that it had been transmitted to Pekin for the use of the Chinese Government He asked the noble Lord whether he had any other information upon the subject, showing that it had been destroyed or so sent to Pekin, and if so, whether there would be any objection to its production?
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, with respect to the first question, what happened was this—the parties in Canton having agreed to deliver up the opium in their or their agents' hands, each house made out a statement of the quantity they had in China, and the aggregate amount was given to the Chinese commissioner. One of the ships containing the opium disobeyed the orders of the superintendent, and sailed away;
1222
the consequence was, that there was a deficiency to the amount that ship contained. Captain Elliott purchased a quantity which had subsequently arrived, in order to make up the aggregate quantity. He was not aware that there were any other papers in the office, but if there were, of course they would be produced. With regard to the destruction of the opium, he had no other accounts than those contained in the papers which had been presented. Of course he had seen accounts in the newspapers, but he knew nothing farther officially than that contained in the papers.
Sir James Grahamsaw by the instructions to the superintendent in 1833, reference was made to an order in council for regulating the trade with the port of China. He wished to ask the noble Lord if he had any objection to the production of that order in council? His second question was, whether the noble Lord had received and was ready to produce the remonstrance said to have been made by certain American merchants at Canton against the blockade?
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, with respect to these papers, he produced every thing that appeared to him necessary to elucidate the matter, and he had not the least objection to the production of those to which the right hon. Baronet alluded. With regard to the second question, he had not received any report of the remonstrance said to have have been made by the American merchants at Canton.
Mr. J. A. Smithobserved, that the warlike preparations going on in India being now a matter of public notoriety, and as great anxiety existed on the subject, he wished to ask the noble Lord whether he had any objection to state the object of the expedition, and when it was likely to take place?
Lord J. Russellsaid, in answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, he begged to refer him to the answer he had given on a former occasion to a question put to him by a noble Lord on the other side of the House. He had then been asked whether a declaration of war had not been made by the Governor-general of India against China, and his reply was, that the Government had received no official information on the subject, and could not believe, that report to be well founded, but that it probably arose from the order sent out by the Government to make certain preparations. What he had then stated had turned out to be the fact, as had been proved by the recent arrival of official despatches. The orders

1223
sent out were to make preparations to have a certain naval and military force in readiness. The hon. Gentleman now asked him what was the object of these preparations, and he could only state very generally what they were. In the first place, they were to obtain reparation for the insults and injuries offered to her Majesty's superintendent, and her Majesty's subjects by the Chinese government; and, in the second place, they were to obtain for the merchants trading with China an indemnification for the loss of their property, incurred by threats of violence offered by persons under the direction of the Chinese government; and, in the last place, they were to obtain security that the persons and property of those trading with China, should in future be protected from insult or injury.

STADE DUTIES.
Mr. Huttsaid, * the House will have perceived, from the number of petitions which have been laid on the Table in the course of this Session relative to the Stade Duties, that the subject occupies a considerable share of public attention. So fixed, indeed, do I know that attention to be among a large number of persons in this country, and their expectation of the result of this night's debate to be so earnest, that I confess I wish the question had been brought under the notice of Parliament by some one, who, from his station and personal qualities, as well as from his habits of addressing this House, was more calculated to do it satisfactorily than I am. Upon me, Sir, this responsible task has devolved, as the representative of a great commercial community deeply interested in the question. I shall execute it to the best of my power. I only trust, that in the course of the statement (necessarily of some length), which I must submit to the House, I shall have the good fortune to obtain from the House a degree of attention on account of the importance of the subject, which on my own account I have no pretensions either to solicit or to expect. The subject, Sir, is assuredly of some importance. It relates to questions of trade and manufactures, and thereby involves the welfare of thousands of our fellow-subjects; but it relates also to that moral influence and authority of our flag among foreign nations, without the maintenance of which neither our commerce nor our manufactures could long preserve
* From a corrected Report published by Ridgeway.
1224
their pre-eminence. I have come to the House this evening, for the purpose of complaining that the King of Hanover is in the practice of levying on British ships and cargoes navigating the Elbe, certain tolls and charges, called Stade Duties, to which he is neither by law nor treaty entitled, and that he compels the payment of these unjust demands, by means very arbitrary and oppressive, and wholly incompatible with our national dignity. Let me be clearly understood; I do not deny that the King of Hanover has a right to collect a toll on shipping at Stade—un-happily for the interests of commerce, I am constrained to admit, that he has such a right, I only contend that the King pushes his pretensions to a most illegal and unwarrantable extent—that the amount he levies is excessive, and that he enforces obedience to his will in a manner, which neither our interests, as a commercial people, nor our rank, among the nations of the world, can allow us longer to endure. I am not going to make any personal attack on the reigning King of Hanover. Whatever opinions I may entertain of that Prince, his individual conduct and character are in no wise mixed up with the Stade Duties. It is not my intention to confound them. Nay, more, I will plainly admit, that in collecting the present Stade Tolls, I can easily believe the King of Hanover imagines he is only exercising his unquestionable rights, inasmuch as he is only continuing a practice handed down to him by his three immediate predecessors. The manner in which the Stade Tolls became the property of the Hanoverian family is, on many accounts, remarkable. I will briefly explain it to the House. The tolls at Stade originally grew up under the permission, and, in some degree, under the sanction of the early emperors of Germany, to whom that town was subject. In the year 1648, at the treaty of Westphalia, Stade, together with the rest of the Bremen territory, was ceded to the King of Sweden, who exercised as a customary right the practice of levying these tolls on all vessels navigating the Elbe, those of Hamburg excepted, for Hamburg had been declared exempt from the tolls by a special rescript of the Emperor Frederic Barba-rossa. Some disputesarising between Sweden and the city of Hamburg as to the extent of the tolls legally authorized, a convention was appointed by these two states in 1691, and a treaty executed by them for the final settlement of the question. In that

1225
treaty the Hamburg exemption being first recited, the mode in which the vessels of other nations were to pay the required dues was clearly laid down. In the following year a scale of dues, or tariff, was drawn up, under the sanction of both parties, and was formally annexed to the treaty. These two documents were officially published, in the year 1692, and styled "the permanent settlement of the Stade Tax." The tariff was framed on this general principle: most articles of commerce were rated at one-sixteenth of their value, and charged on that basis. In certain cases the maximum charge appointed, was one-sixteenth per cent. on the real value. In all others, the duty was to be paid according to either system, as the merchant himself might direct. The election was with the merchant, not with the collecting officer. Other provisions for the favour and protection of trade were added, and Sweden formally renounced all idea of augmenting or altering the tariff. In the year 1715, the duchy of Bremen, which includes the town of Stade, was ceded by the King of Denmark (who had wrested it from Sweden) to George the First, as part of his Electoral dominions, in consideration of the sum of 150,000 l., which the British Government undertook to pay for it, and in further consideration of certain hostile operations undertaken by this country against Sweden. The British Minister justified this bargain, by declaring that the sacrifice was necessary to secure the interests of our trade with Hamburg, which, even at that period, were of considerable importance. The Elector of Hanover, of course, took possession of his new territories with all their existing rights and obligations, among which was the Stade Tax. It is not pretended that George the First protested against the insufficiency of the Stade Tolls when he obtained them. The transfer could not, therefore, of itself, afford any pretext for altering the agreement of 1692, or for making that agreement binding upon one party only. The Stade Tolls, thus became—not the property of the state of Hanover, but the private perquisite of the King, and George the Second, in consideration of his obligations to the British people, in regard to this territory, relaxed in 1736 the mode of collecting the tolls; and, in 1740, renounced them altogether as far as related to British and Irish commerce. In "Anderson's History of Commerce," I find the following statement;—
1226
"A. D. 1740. In this same year his Majesty King George 2nd, of Great Britain, and Sovereign of the town of Staden in the Duchy of Bremen, was graciously pleased to remit to all British and Irish ships the ancient toll payable at Staden by the ships of all nations in sailing up the river Elbe. For which bounty his said Majesty received an humble address of thanks from the British Company of Merchant-adventurers trading to Hamburg."
These taxes were, however, resumed by George 3rd. In the year 1804, Hanover was occupied by the French, and the Stade Duties ceased till the year 1814, when they were compelled to retire. When the ancient government of Hanover was reestablished in 1814, it revived the Stade Duties, with many aggravations. This proceeding on the part of the Hanoverian authorities, gave rise to much irritation and remonstrance; but as the Congress of Vienna was then about to assemble, no formal protest was made against them, it being generally believed, that at the meeting of this important Congress, everything which was then crooked would be made straight. One of the first subjects which occupied the attention of the Congress of Vienna was the regulation of the international river navigation of Europe. With a view to the settlement of this matter, so important to every state of Germany, the plenipotentiaries at Vienna agreed that certain general principles should be applied to all the rivers of that country, and should form the basis of all further regulation by the Germanic states. Now, Sir, although I should be very unwilling to pronounce any panegyric on the general conduct of the Congress of Vienna, I am bound to say, that the views it adopted for regulating intercourse on the great rivers of Europe were wise, liberal, and comprehensive. They became the most illustrious body of statesmen that perhaps ever assembled; and they were explained in language as simple and unambiguous as that in which legislation ever unfolded its ordinances to man. The publication of these principles was received throughout Europe with sentiments of the utmost satisfaction. To reflecting men in every part of Germany, they suggested the most pleasing expectations of extensive commercial intercourse. The day, in their apprehension, had at last arrived when the noble rivers of their country, the arteries of her trade, and the instruments of her civilization, should no longer be obstructed by every petty, sordid, and grasping authority; but declared, by the universal voice of Europe, the natural and organic right of

1227
all her States, should be irrevocably thrown open to the trading enterprise of the world. In regard to the Elbe, this brilliant dream, like most others, ended in disappointment. The Congress having laid down the principles on which all measures for regulating the rivers should in future he framed, deputed to the States bordering on each river the duty of settling all details relating to its navigation. Commissioners appointed to re-organize the regulations of the Elbe met at Dresden in June 1819. They consisted of the representatives of Austria, Prussia, Hanover, Saxony, of Denmark for Lunenburgh and Holstein, Mecklenburg, Anholt, and the city of Hamburg. Now, Sir, as no papers relating to this Convention of Dresden have ever been formally communicated to this country, I have no power of quoting any recognised account of its proceedings; but as a report of them has lately been published, by a lawyer of great talents, and high reputation on the Continent, who had access to the original minutes preserved at Dresden, perhaps I may be permitted by the noble Lord (Palmerston) and by the House to refer to that publication as an authority. The Convention assembled on the 3rd of June 1819, and in the outset everything seemed to accord with the liberal intention of the Congress of Vienna. On the 19th of June, however, the Hanoverian minister astonished the meeting by objections to any interference with the Stade Toll, asserting that it did not come within the sphere of their duties, it being not a river, but a sea tax, and levied only on ultra marine vessels and produce. The president of the assembly, with the concurrence of the other ministers, stated in reply, that their duty, as expressed in their commission, was "to inquire into everything relating to the navigation of the river;" and therefore that the Stade Tax fell obviously within the province of their duty. The quibble, however, of the Stade Tax being a sea tax was renewed by the Hanoverian commissioner, whenever reference was made to that subject; and though he at last gave it up, and promised to submit his tariff to the inspection of the commissioners, nearly three years passed away without that pledge being redeemed. Both Denmark and Hamburg were dissatisfied at this, and strongly protested against the withholding of a document so important to the general navigation of the river. But the commissioners, being at last wearied out by the
1228
repeated evasions of Hanover, and the fruitless discussions to which they gave rise, came to this formal resolution which was afterwards incorporated in their proceedings as the fifteenth article of the Convention of Dresden.
"Without prejudice to the general principles expressed by the Congress act respecting river navigation, it is agreed with respect to the Stade Tax to waive and renounce all further discussion, in consideration that Hanover engages to supply the Commission with the Tax tariff for their information, and further binds itself not to raise or vary the said tariff without the concurrence of the other states interested therein. His Majesty the king of Denmark, and the free city of Hamburg, reserve to themselves their own rights on ground of existing customs and contracts, and therefore, with regard to the said King and Seuate, the question of the Stade Tax remains a resintegra."
As related, therefore, to Denmark and Hamburg, the question of the Stade Duties was left untouched by the convention of Dresden. As related to the other states appointed by the Congress to settle every thing that related to the navigation of the Elbe, the Stade Duties were to remain unconsidered, on condition that the general principles laid down by the congress should be respected in the tariff, that a copy of it should be laid before the commission, and that Hanover should introduce no alteration into it without the concurrence of the other states interested therein. The Hanoverian minister, when all the labours of the convention had terminated, and when the commissioners assembled for the last time, to exchange the ratifications of the several courts, produced his tariff, which, of course, passed without discussion or revision. Thus, although the convention successfully resisted the claim of the king of Hanover to consider the Stade Duties as sea taxes, the real object which his majesty had in view—that of preventing any interference with his system of collecting taxes at Stade—was completely attained. And thus, notwithstanding all that was concerted and enacted at Vienna, this system of exaction was left untouched by the convention, both in principle and in detail. I have already stated to the House the nature of the tariff established by the Swedish treaty. Merchants were ordered to pay, as a maximum, what amounted to rather less than twopence per bale; or if they preferred the ad valorem tax, they were to produce their invoices (to prove what the value of their goods really was),

1229
and on that value they paid one sixteenth per cent. This, with a small toll on the ship, constituted the whole of the Stade Duties. Many provisions were made in the tariff for the safeguard of commerce, and the crown of Sweden, as the lord of Stade, specially abjured all design of altering or augmenting the charges thereafter. Such, then, was the Stade tariff up to the year 1715, when it fell into the hands of the elector of Hanover. What was it now? By singular good fortune, I am enabled to answer that question on authority; for last year the crown of Hanover condescended, for the first time, to apprize our government of the nature of that tariff, by which it was collecting taxes on our commerce. Up to the year 1839, the Stade tariff was an unacknowledged, if not a secret document. Neither our manufacturers, our merchants, nor our ship-owners knew anything of this impost, except that it was very extortionate, and very rigorously enforced. The Board of Trade was in profound ignorance of every thing relating to it. The noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department made repeated applications to the court of Hanover to ascertain the scale of charges which it was applying to our ships and cargoes in the Elbe; and the answer of the court of Hanover was practically this:—"Ah, you don't know, and we won't tell you." However, last year it was formally produced, and placed in the hands of Mr. Bligh, the representative of the Foreign Office at the court of Hanover. I have examined it. It is the same tariff as that brought forward at the convention of Dresden, and if it can be said to bear any resemblance to the only legal tariff that of 1692, it is the resemblance of a hideous caricature. In the first place, it is more than ten times as long; again, all the stipulations favourable to commerce in the legal tariff, are struck out; in the third place, in regard to the rates laid down, such a latitude of construction is assigned to the collecting officer, that the whole character of the tariff, as a table of fixed charges, is effectually and entirely nullified. Among other capricious anomalies, the rate of taxes is made to depend, in many instances, not on the nature of a commodity, but on the name—on whether it is entered in the ship's papers in the English or German language! Thus, bales are charged twice the amount levied on ballen, though the only difference consists in the one word being English and the other German. In the same way, English
1230
horses are made to pay sixteen times as much as any other horses. Then capricious distinctions are made as to the description given of merchandise in the cockets made up at the port of departure. Among other documents, which have passed through my hands, I find an application made to the noble Lord for redress by a most respectable London firm, because having, in accordance with the regulations of the British customhouse, entered a quantity of ale as "British manufactures," they were compelled to pay a toll at Stade ten times as high as if they had entered it as ale. There are a multitude of similar enormities, but I pass them over. All these absurd distinctions, though they appear in the tariff acknowledged by Hanover, are pure innovations, resting on no intelligible authority, and contravening in the directest manner the most valuable provisions of the Swedish compact. In short, the tariff which Hanover admitted to Mr. Bligh to be that in practical use, has little in common with that which was handed over on the cession of the duchy of Bremen to George 1st. It can derive, therefore, no pretence to legality from the treaty of 1692. It is a heap of miscellaneous exactions, with no apparent force or validity but what they gather from usurpation. This is not my opinion merely—my opinion is, I know, entitled to very little weight with this House. Nor do I give this merely as the opinion of the petitioners; they, unhappily, are too deeply interested in the question to pass for the most impartial judges of any portion of it. But I beg the House to listen to the language used on the subject by the states of Denmark and Hamburg in 1824. The language of Hamburg is deserving of the utmost attention, because had the senate of that illustrious city taken a narrow and short-sighted view of this question, they would have considered themselves interested in keeping up Hanoverian exactions on British commerce since their own enjoys the privilege of exemption.
"With regard to the tariff," said the representatives of these states, "we have carefully considered that which was produced at Dresden. It is impossible that we should be satisfied with the pretensions of a state to levy such taxes on no other grounds than its own will and pleasure. A tax, without a fixed scale of amount, would be perfectly monstrous, and nothing less than a revival of the club law of our ancestors in the dark ages. There is no document in which a rule of taxation can be found, except in the tariffs drawn up by

1231
mutual agreement between Hamburg and the crown of Sweden, dated 15th August, 1692, which is to be found in the Bremen and Verden Corpus Constitutionum."
The Danish commissioner also remarked that looking at the tariff put forward by the King of Hanover, it seemed as if his Majesty had renounced all notion of being confined by any fixed standard of dues; and that in such a proceeding Denmark would never concur. The tariff of 1821 was, therefore, objected to by Denmark; first, because the principle on which it turned was erroneous, as it brought into application all varieties of measures, values, numbers, casks, and cases, without any attempt at definite regulation of duties. Secondly, because it proceeded on an arbitrary departure from the old lawful standard, established in 1692, and was, therefore, without any foundation in right. Thirdly, because the new scale having no legal foundation, it could afford no security against further infringement in future. Such was the statement of Denmark in 1824—Hamburg remarked, in addition to this, that the maximum of State taxation, established by treaty was one sixteenth per cent.; while most of the charges were below this rate; but according to the new tariff, one-sixteenth had become the minimum, and the more important articles of commerce were subject to a charge of one-half, two and a half, and even five per cent., and that this together with the complexity and confusion introduced into the mode of collection, placed the whole trade of the Elbe at the mercy of the customs officers of Hanover. Nothing can be plainer than this language. If I err, therefore, in denouncing the tariff of the King of Hanover as illegal and intolerable, it will be seen that I err with the states of Denmark and Hamburg—of Hamburg, who is an auxiliary without exception, for she is a witness against her own cause. I will return, however, to speak on the question of legality—at present, I must pursue another part of my subject. It used to be the fashion in this country some years ago, to jest a good deal at the ingenuity with which the Government of the day had made every object in the whole circle of material nature, the subject of taxation. It was said, that all the things on the earth, and in the waters under the earth, were the objects of fiscal assessment—and that the Finance Minister seemed to consider them as created by Providence for no other purpose. Against any ingenuity of
1232
this sort which the most acute Chancellor of the Exchequer ever displayed, I will place that now arrayed by the Hanoverian authorities against British commerce in the Elbe. Without going into details, I will recite the different classes of taxes which a vessel bound to Hamburg is required to pay to the King of Hanover on passing the town of Stade. They consist of eight kinds. Taxes on the ships; which on a ship of 250 tons is about 200 l. Taxes on the cargo, every article being charged in detail after the fashion I have described. These taxes frequently amount to five per cent, on the value of the commodities, and they sometimes largely exceed the customs duty levied at Hamburg on importation. Mr. M'Culloch quotes instances in which it is five and six times as much. The next tax is commission of six and a quarter per cent. on the two former taxes, it is paid to the collecting officers. Then come "ship's expenses," these are a kind of forced harbour dues. The fifth tax is commission on the fourth tax, to the collecting officers of Hanover. Eventualiter interim certificate is the sixth. The seventh certificate of return. Tax the last is—tax on passing Stade outward bound. The vessel is then permitted to escape without further exaction on her voyage. From these various imposts the King of Hanover obtains for his private revenue 70,000 l. or 80,000 l. per annum; and, large as the amount may seem, it is absolutely as nothing in comparison with the cost and trouble thrown upon merchants and shipowners by the penalties which menace them should they offend in any manner against the mandates of the Hanoverian custom-house, or against the caprice of the officers placed in charge of it. On the slightest inaccuracy in any of the ship's papers, no matter how trivial, how obviously accidental, or how absolutely unavoidable (and both the ship and cargo are scrutinized with the most vigilant search after inaccuracies), the vessel and her commodities are seized and confiscated; a penalty sometimes commuted for heavy fines, long detention, and ruinous expenses. I will mention one or two cases of this species of oppression; for I doubt if without some such illustrations the House will give credit to the full extent of the grievance I refer to. Some time ago, Messrs. Gee, Loft, and Co., of Hull, merchants of great wealth, and of the highest integrity, shipped for Hamburg, by the Fairy, Captain Gell, a vessel which was loaded by

1233
them with a general cargo, "three bales of cottons or merchandise." In the bill of lading, the articles were inadvertently entered "bales of cotton twist," the difference of the Stade duty was about 7s. only. All the ship's other papers described the goods with technical correctness, and in no other respect was there any informality. For this error alone in the bills of lading, the Fairy was seized by order of the Hanoverian Custom-house, to be released only on Messrs. Gee, Loft, and Co., paying to the King of Hanover the sum of 215 l. 17 s. 6d. This enormous fine was paid, and all applications for re-consideration were unavailing—not a farthing was ever restored! I mentioned to the House last Session a case very analogous to this, in which, during the year 1839, one of the most respectable merchants in Hull, Mr. Richard Tottie, was similarly plundered. I pass it over now for other matter. My second illustration is, however, of very recent occurrence. It is a case in which the Stade authorities seem to have been actuated by the mere gratification of wanton power, and it appears to me urgently to demand the interference of the noble Lord, on grounds very different to those called in question by the last I have mentioned. In the course of the year 1838, as the Severn steam-ship, Captain Knocker (which plies between Hamburg and Hull), was proceeding on her homeward voyage, she stopped, as usual, off the guard ship at Stade, to render the certificate of return. A gun was fired at the Severn by the Hanoverian guard-ship, and a boat sent alongside. It then appeared that the officers of the guard-ship had been pleased to determine, that, on her last voyage, the steam-vessel did not stop soon enough. They demanded, in consequence, as a fine for the offence, the sum of eight marks, and prepared to detain the packet, because the captain, knowing there was no foundation for such complaint, hesitated to comply with their arbitrary exaction. At last, to avoid the detention of his ship, the captain paid the money, but did so under protest, and made application to Mr. Canning, the British Consul-general at Hamburg, for its restoration. For this act of contumacy towards the authorities of Stade, I entreat the House to notice this fact,—the Severn was condemned to an additional fine of fifty dollars on her return to Hamburg! As in the former case, remonstrance was fruitless. There was no redress. The fine
1234
was paid. Is it astonishing that English-men complain? Is it very wonderful that, fleeced, insulted, and oppressed, by a petty German state, they besiege the Foreign-office and the Board of Trade with petitions and remonstrances? Hitherto they have petitioned in vain—all redress has been refused them. I have not been able to learn of a single case, however aggravated, in which satisfaction has been obtained by the authorities at home for the British merchant. I doubt if an instance can be cited in which it has ever been firmly or honestly demanded for him by the Secretary for Foreign affairs. I do not complain particularly of the noble Lord, (Palmerston) nor of the present government, nor of the past government, nor of any government in particular—I complain of every successive government which, during the last five-and-twenty years, has swayed the destinies of England—one and all have exhibited, in regard to British interests involved in the Stade question, a most reprehensible dereliction of their first duties. Well, so long as the King of Hanover was, also, King of England, I dare say it was a delicate matter to undertake the regulation of the Stade Duties, which formed the private perquisite of the monarch. I can believe it would have been an affair of great difficulty to any minister. But that difficulty exists no longer. That excuse—a bad one at best for past supineness—cannot justify your doing nothing now. Is this abuse to last for ever? What answer does the House mean to give to the petitioners, whose complaints, expressed in respectful but vehement language, now lie upon the table? They assert that the King of Hanover is levying unjust demands on their property,—is enforcing payment, With every circumstance of injury and insult, and that the meteor flag of England, which in every other portion of the globe has ensured to them honour and respect, is powerless to protect them in the river Elbe from the marauding violence of Hanover. The noble Lord is bound either to vindicate the conduct of the king—to prove that he has a right to behave as I have described, or else to put a period at once and for ever to his outrages on our people. Has the King of Hanover law and justice on his side, when he burdens our commerce and oppresses our mariners? He has not! Then I trust that this House will, by supporting my motion to-night, announce to the King of Hanover, in the face of Europe, that he shall not do these things with impunity.

1235
I protest that I cannot approach the subject in proper temper—it drives me to a passion to think of it, that any Prince or authority in this world shall presume to plunder and oppress the maritime navy of England, and that our merchants shall not only be denied all redress for past injuries, but denied even a guarantee for better treatment in future. Is it asserted that the King of Hanover has a right to act in this manner? The King of Hanover can have no inherent right to levy taxes on the Elbe. His right to do so, if he have any, must rest upon some clear and intelligible basis. All general presumption bears against such a right; and the title to it, like all other titles, ought to be established by the party claiming to act under it, by competent and unquestionable evidence. What evidence is adduced? I presume that the circumstance of the tolls having been enforced since the peace of 1814, will not establish the title, since, against the enforcement of them, various European states have constantly, and vehemently, and formally protested; and the King of Hanover is no more entitled than another to derive advantage from his own wrong. What pretence then is set up? The Congress of Vienna! What said the general act of the Congress of Vienna? What said the sixteenth act of the Congress? Listen;—The navigation of the German rivers, along their whole course, shall be free.—The duties collected shall be as nearly as possible the same; along the whole course of the river.—They shall be regulated in an uniform and fixed manner, with as little reference as possible to the different qualities of merchandize.—The duties shall, in no way, exceed those now paid.—They shall never be increased without the consent of the co-riverans states.—The Tariff shall be so framed as to encourage navigation.—There shall be no port or forced harbour dues; even those now existing shall not be permitted, unless all the states deem them necessary for general commerce.—Regulations shall be established to prevent customs' officers throwing impediments in the way of navigation. Why, in regard to every British ship that passes Stade, the King of Hanover breaks every day some one or more of these regulations. Well, then, the King of Hanover can draw very little help from the articles of the Congress of Vienna. The Convention of Dresden can just as little be brought forward to support his proceedings. I remember the noble Lord contended last year that the 15th article of the Convention of
1236
Dresden bore a construction favourable to the practices now going on at Stade. But, surely, the plain meaning of that article, (which I have once read to the House,) is this; that the Convention would consent to abandon all further discussion respecting the Stade Tax, provided that the Tariff was not repugnant to the general principles laid down by the Congress Act respecting navigation. To contend from the words of this article that the Commissioners engaged to sanction the tariff, whether it was or was not in harmony with the navigation law announced at Vienna, is to contend that they had agreed to assume functions altogether at variance with their commission, for they were specially appointed to carry the Vienna principles into effect, and they had no power delegated to them to authorize regulations prejudicial to those important principles. Now I have shown, that the system assumed by Hanover, at Stade, is in defiance of them all. The Hanoverian tariff, therefore, receives no sanction or authority from the Convention of Dresden. That point is settled past controversy. If, then, neither this Convention, nor the Congress of Vienna, nor some years persistance in wrong, nor the treaty between Sweden and Hamburg, afford any justification of these proceedings, I must infer—having' carefully examined every source from which legality could be derived—I must infer, that the taxes levied at Stade have no foundation whatever in right or justice, and that they differ in no assignable respect from the depredations formerly carried on by the Dey of Algiers, except that they have not yet roused the civilized world to repress them—[Sir Frederick Trench: "Hear, hear!"]—The gallant Officer opposite is displeased at that expression. Sir, I should be very unwilling to apply any terms to the conduct of the King of Hanover which the facts before us do not amply justify, and even demand. If I believed that there existed any custom, any treaty, or engagement, which could shelter the King of Hanover in the course he is pursuing towards this country—ruinous as it is to our interests—degrading as it is to our honour—against him, as the lawful collector of established tolls, I would wish to use no harshness of expression whatever. There would, in such a case, be many grounds for regret, but none whatever for censure or resentment. In such a case, I should lament, indeed, over a necessity which placed the King of Hanover in a situation by right, where, by exacting

1237
money for which he rendered back no equivalent, he contradicted all our natural ideas of justice and propriety; I should deplore his unquestionable power to obstruct the passage of our manufactures to the most valuable market on the continent, where they are already so much let and hindered by the rising manufactures of rival nations, as well as by the prohibitions of the Berlin confederacy. I should bewail the destiny by which that flag which has "braved a thousand years the battle and the breeze," had been compelled to yield supremacy to the might of prescription or the entanglements of diplomacy. But since this is not so, since the system established at Stade has no justification in custom or in treaty, I denounce it, without hesitation, as a system of outrage and of robbery. Its existence is a national reproach and dishonour. I complain in the name of thousands engaged in manufacturing industry—in the name of thousands dependant on commerce and on shipping—in the name of all to whom the honour and dignity of the country are dear—not of the King of Hanover merely, but of those who, from their official stations, might have put down his aggressions if they would, and who have not done so. I have a very high respect for the noble Lord (Palmerston)—I admire his talents and assiduity—I feel grateful to him for the fields which he has so successfully laid open to the operations of British industry. No former minister, as far as I am aware, ever paid so much attention to the general interests of our commerce; but the noble Lord must excuse me if I tell him plainly that, in regard to the Stade exactions, he has neither kept faith with his country nor with his own well-deserved reputation. Sir, the parties of whose cause I have this night been the feeble advocate, are wearied of fruitless applications for redress to official boards and government offices. They have resolved, after five-and-twenty years of patience and disappointment, that if reparation and protection are to be obtained at all, it is from other quarters they must derive them; and, therefore, strong in the conviction of right—strong in the belief of their country's sympathy—to this House, as the parens palriœ, which has so often redressed the wrongs of the injured, they now offer their respectful, earnest, and last appeal. I conclude by moving—
"That it is the opinion of this House that the tolls now levied upon British ships and cargoes in the river Elbe, by the authority of
1238
the King of Hanover, under the name of Stade duties, are of doubtful legality, oppressive in amount, and highly vexatious in the mode of exaction; and that it is, therefore, incumbent upon Her Majesty's Government to take the steps necessary for procuring relief from imposts so injurious to the general interests of the country."
Mr. Hawes, in seconding the motion, said, that after the very minute and luminous statement made by his hon. Friend, he should not enter into any further details upon the subject. He thought the enforcement of the decision come to by the congress of Vienna with respect to the navigation of rivers, was an object particularly deserving of the attention of the noble Viscount, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. He did not say the noble Viscount was to blame in this case, but there certainly appeared to have been an unjustifiable obstruction to the navigation of the Elbe by the regulations now under discussion. He thought that the noble Viscount now had both the will and the power to remove the grievances which were complained of, and that nothing was wanted but an expression of the opinion of the House upon the subject. Too little attention had been paid by the House to the state of our foreign trade, although at the present time it was a subject particularly entitled to consideration.
Viscount Palmerstonconsidered the question brought forward by the hon. Member for Hull to be undoubtedly one of great importance and interest to the commerce of the country, and so far he agreed in the view which the hon. Member took of the subject. He was afraid, however, that the question was not quite so simple in its elements as the hon. Member appeared to think. It was complicated with the arrangements made by old treaties, with the transfer of territories, and with the provisions which had been agreed to at the congress of Vienna, referring to plenipotentiaries from the states through which the rivers of Germany passed the regulation of matters connected with their navigation. The subject had not been allowed to sleep since the discussion that had taken place upon it last year; her Majesty's Government had pressed the government of Hanover to place the Stade tolls on a more rational foundation, and one more consistent with what we were entitled to expect. It was only, however, within the last few weeks that he had received the answer of the Hanoverian government to

1239
the representation made by our minister at that court. The answer was under the consideration of his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and her Majesty's Government were proceeding to determine what steps should now be taken. Such being the state of this matter, being the subject of negotiation between the two governments, he presumed his hon. Friend and the House would feel that it would, perhaps, be premature to come to the particular resolution proposed, and he would therefore suggest the propriety of postponing, at all events for the present, to call on the House to enforce the opinion contained in the resolution, leaving her Majesty's Government, of whose sincerity and good intentions he was sure his hon. Friend entertained no doubt whatever, the opportunity of trying by negotiation with the government of Hanover to place these duties on a footing more satisfactory to the hon. Member, the House, and the commercial interests of the country. For the same reason, the subject being now matter of negotiation between the two governments, he thought his hon. Friend would feel, that it would not be expedient or advantageous that he should enter at present into a discussion of those various questions which had been started with regard to the right of Hanover either to levy a toll at all, or the particular tolls of which complaint was made; at the same time he was quite prepared to say it was the opinion of her Majesty's Government that the tariff under which these duties were now levied was not one which Hanover was entitled to enforce; and upon that footing it was that their negotiations with Hanover had hitherto been placed. This was a question in which England was not alone concerned. Negotiations had been going on with Hanover, on the part of Hamburg and Denmark, on this very subject. He would not, therefore, go into an investigation of the particular grounds on which this motion had been brought forward, but would only submit to the consideration of the Member for Hull whether it would not be better, even with a view to the objects which both his hon. Friend and himself contemplated, not to call upon the House at present to pronounce an opinion which he maintained they were not, in a Parliamentary sense, in possession of sufficient grounds to justify. The latter part of the motion was, of course, unnecessary, her Majesty's Government being actively and sedulously employed in endeavouring to
1240
relieve British commerce from those vexatious imposts of which his hon. Friend complained. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the motion stated what was undoubtedly true, that the navigation of the great rivers of Europe was a matter of the utmost interest to all commercial countries; and perhaps it might also be true, that the different powers who, by the treaty of Vienna, were deputed to arrange these matters, had not, with respect to all those rivers, been as active in carrying the stipulations of that treaty into effect as one might have expected, even from a regard to their own interests; because, although with regard to the Rhine a convention had been held and regulations established, yet there were many other large rivers in reference to which no such proceedings had hitherto taken place. There was at this moment an unsettled question between Spain and Portugal with respect to the navigation of the Douro, which came within the stipulations of that treaty. The Danube also was a most important river, to which, unquestionably, the stipulations of the treaty of Vienna must now be considered as applicable, because Russia, having by the treaty of Adrianople acquired possession of the banks of the lower part of the Danube, and the upper part belonging to Austria, both powers being parties to the treaty of Vienna, he apprehended its stipulations must now be considered as applicable to that river, whatever question might formerly have arisen with regard to Austria, which was, and Turkey, which was not, a party to that treaty. With respect to the accumulation of deposits at the Soulineh mouth of the Danube, he begged to state that the matter had not escaped the attention of Government. They were in communication with the parties interested for the purpose of effecting the removal of the obstructions to navigation in that quarter, and means were about to be taken for clearing the channel to its original depth, so as to admit vessels of from thirteen to fourteen feet draught. He must again assure the hon. Member and the House, that Government was duly impressed with the extreme importance of the commercial interests of the country. Every one who took the shallowest and most superficial view of the subject must see that our political importance, if not our existence as an independent country, must depend on the resources which our commerce affords, and therefore any Government which was

1241
inattentive to what constituted the fundamental support of the political influence of England must be extremely unfit to manage those interests which were committed to their care. Her Majesty's present Government had done much, although he would not say as much as they wished to accomplish; it was not for any Government, in matters where other nations were concerned, to be able to do all they wished or attempted; and the House must be aware, that although in this country public opinion in general was so enlightened in matters of commerce that there were fewer difficulties than in former times in carrying points for the enlargement of commercial enterprise and intercourse, yet in other countries there were difficulties to be encountered, arising, first of all, from the want of that information which had been diffused in this country, and also perhaps—he must not disguise it—from some degree of jealousy of our political power, and a wish in other quarters to reduce those sources whence our political power derived so materially its strength. He assured his hon. Friend, that not only with regard to this particular matter, but all those other questions in which the commerce of the country was concerned, her Majesty's Government would not only endeavour to do their utmost to increase commercial facilities, but would feel obliged to any hon. Gentleman to point out measures which might not suggest themselves to their minds, thereby assisting and strengthening their exertions to carry such objects, by showing that when the British Government talked to other governments on these matters, they were not merely speaking the opinion of the executive, but responding to the deep feeling of the country, and that they would be backed by the country in any measures it might be necessary to take in order to protect the interests and enlarge the sphere of our commercial intercourse.
Mr. A. Chapmansupported the motion. He considered the Stade duties both oppressive and odious, no return to our commerce being derived in any shape whatever.
Sir W. Jamessaid, a large sum of money had been paid in the reign of George 1st, with the view of securing a preference of British interests for the town of Stade, but it now turned out that this very town for which so much British money had been paid, had been turned into an instrument of oppression upon British commerce. He did not wish to throw any unnecessary censure on the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston)
1242
but had the noble Duke in the other House been at the head of foreign affairs, the present question would have been settled long ago.
Mr. Laboucherehoped that after the discussion that had occurred, his hon. Friend would not press his motion. He should feel extremely sorry if the House came to any vote on the subject, or should express any opinion as to the right of imposing tolls being well founded or otherwise. He had listened with much attention to what had taken place, and he felt the question was one of great difficulty. The right was so complicated; it rested on so many treaties passed such a long time ago, that it was extremely difficult for Government to come to any decision at present. The states bordering on the Elbe had found the question one of much difficulty; and, putting aside the abstract right, they had endeavoured to come to some practical and satisfactory conclusion without determining the question of right, and to get the King of Hanover to consent to the abolition of those vexatious regulations by which the imposition of tolls were accompanied. It was the determination of Government to put an end to the question; and even the King of Hanover himself admitted that the regulations, as they at present existed, were indefensible. It would be impolitic, in the present situation of matters, to enter into the question. As to the abstract right of the King of Hanover to levy the tolls, that had better not be at present entertained. The wiser course would be to separate the two parts of the subject. To give the House an opportunity of avoiding an expression of opinion on the motion, he should move, by way of amendment, the previous question.
Mr. Humedid not see how the noble Lord could consistently oppose a vote of the House, which would strengthen his hands, by showing that the House was unanimous in condemning the conduct of the Hanoverian authorities as oppressive and vexatious. It was said by an hon. Baronet who spoke opposite, that if the Duke of Wellington had been in office, these oppressive proceedings would have been checked long ago. Why, the same oppressive proceedings had gone on while that noble Duke was in office, from 1824 to 1830, and why had he not then interfered? The Foreign Office and the Board of Trade had been memorialized, year after year, by the merchants who were oppressed, and they had only been trifled with. Let the noble

1243
Lord only send a 74-gun ship to a position alongside the Stade vessel; he need not declare war, but only open a friendly communication through the medium of an officer commanding a 74, and he would soon see an end of the exactions that were complained of. If his hon. Friend thought proper to divide the House, he would, with much pleasure, vote with him.
Viscount Palmerston Viscount Palmerston moved the previous question.
Mr. Hull, though with great unwillingness, consented to the proposed course, and consequently the original motion was not put.

CASE OF MR. MILLS.
Lord Teignmouthrose to call the attention of the House to the case of Mr. Benjamin Mills. This gentleman had, for upwards of a period of thirty years, filled the situation of surveyor of taxes. His income during the war was 500 l. a year, which was reduced in time of peace to 300 l. a year, being made up partly of salary and partly of emoluments. His salary amounted to only 90 l. a year, but on being removed from his situation he conceived that under the provisions the 4th and 5th William 4th., cap. 94, he was entitled to the enjoyment, in the shape of retiring allowance, of three-fourths of his income, as made up of salary and emoluments, and an opinion given by Sir W. Follett on a similar case, entirely confirmed his opinion. However, instead of this sum being awarded him, he had only obtained 52 l. a year. So strongly did he feel the justice of this case, that if he went out with only half a dozen he should divide the House. The noble Lord then moved that the petition of Benjamin Mills be referred to a select committee.
The Chancellor of the Exchequsaid, that the situation in which this gentleman was placed was not attributable to the present Treasury Board, but was the effect of an old established rule. The Old Superannuation Act laid down a general rule that a certain deduction should be made from the salaries of certain officers therein specified, who, when they retired, should be in consequence of such deductions entitled to a proportional amount of retiring allowance. Since the passing of that statute, every case similarly circumstanced with that of Mr. Mills, had been decided by the Lords of the Treasury in the same way as his; and to every application of the kind, in which it was sought to put forward the amount of emoluments of which the officer;
1244
had been in the receipt as a ground of augmenting their retiring allowance, the Lords had uniformly replied, "If you had calculated the emoluments when the annual deductions were to be made, you would be entitled to have them considered now as a ground of claim, but you cannot cut both ways and be allowed to reckon them as part of your salary for the purpose of increasing your allowance." He thought it would be extremely inconvenient that gentlemen should be encouraged to apply to the House of Commons in cases of this kind, instead of applying to those whom they served. It would have a very bad effect on the public service if the House allowed any interference with the retired allowances of public officers, and he must therefore resist the appointment of this committee.
Mr. Freshfieldthought that the claim of Mr. Mills was so precise, and so fully supported by the Act introduced by the hon. Member for Pembroke, that it could not be set aside by any allegation of an old arrangement of a remission of taxation in his favour. The amount of salary which the surveyor received was uncertain, because it depended upon his own vigilance. There was a small amount of fixed allowance; but the rest was made to depend upon the vigilance with which he discharged the duties of his office. If any doubt existed as to the claim of this gentleman, he admitted that the matter ought to be left to the discretion of the Treasury; but where the words of the Act of Parliament were distinct, the individual ought to have the benefit of them. Now, though in this case the general words of the Act referred to salary only, the sense in which that word was used was explained by the particular clause, which provided any office clerk or other person who had served above ten years, and under fifteen, should be entitled to an annual allowance not exceeding a certain proportion of the salary and emoluments of his office; so that the word salary clearly meant salary and emolument. Yet here was the case of an officer who, after thirty-five years' service, came for compensation under that Act, and he was told that his fixed salary was only 90 l. a year, and though the income of his office had been 400 l., the compensation must be only the regular proportion with reference to that sum. The House must remember that these surveyors were men of the highest respectability, and men of education; and yet, he understood that the allowance granted to this gentleman was

1245
just 1l. per week. He begged to ask whether it were politic to have it said that nobody in the world deserved so little to be well served as the public, because nobody in the world seemed so niggardly as the public in compensating its servants when they retired after a long period of service.
Mr. Humesaid, that if the motion were for a committee to inquire how far the burdens thrown upon the public by the superannuation system could be got rid of, he should vote for it, because he considered that in the institution of that system, successive governments, instead of being niggardly, had been too liberal; but in the present case, as he fully approved of the course taken by the Treasury, he should oppose the motion.
The House divided:—Ayes 17; Noes 42; Majority 25.

List of the AYES.

Bramston, T. W.

Plumtre, J. P.

Chapman, A.

Round, C.G.

Chute, W. L. W.

Rushbrooke, Col:

Dick, Q.

Turner, E.

Ellis, W.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Farnham, E. B.

Wodehouse, E.

Halford, H.

Wood, B.

Mackinnon, W. A.

TELLERS.

Maunsell, T. P.

Teignmouth, Lord

Packe, C. W.

Freshfield, J. W.

List of the NOES

Aglionby, H. A.

Hutton, R.

Baring, F. T.

Langdale, hon. C.

Barnard, E. G.

Lister, E, C.

Barry, G. S.

Lynch, A. H.

Bewes, T.

Macaulay, T. B.

Bridgeman, H.

M'Taggart, J.

Briscoe, J. I.

Morpeth, Lord

Brodie, W. B.

Morris, D.

Brotherton, J.

O'Connell, M. J.

Campbell, Sir J.

Palmerston, Lord

Clay, W.

Parnell, Sir H.

Clive, E. B.

Pechell. Capt.

Collier, J.

Pigott, D. R.

Currie, R.

Richards, R.

Fielden, J.

Rundle, J.

Gisborne, T.

Style, Sir C.

Gordon, R.

Thornely, T.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Vigors, N. A.

Hodges, T. L.

Warburton, H.

Hodgson, R.

TELLERS.

Hughes, W. B.

Steuart, R.

Hume, J.

Parker, J.

COMMITTEE ON THE ISSUE OF NOTES.
On the motion for nominating the Committee to inquire into the effects on the currency of the issue of Bank Notes payable on demand,
Mr. Wodehouserose to put a question to
1246
the Chancellor of the Exchequer prior to his nomination of the Banking Committee. His question related to a petition which appeared in the 9th report of public petitions. It was a petition from bankers, traders, and merchants, from Manchester, showing that great losses had of late been incurred by the manufacturers and traders, in consequence of the fluctuations in the value of money; and that similar fluctuations, producing similar calamitous results, had been, in the memory of the petitioners, of frequent occurrence. The petitioners, therefore, prayed the hon. House to appoint a committee on the earliest possible day to ascertain how far the present laws which regulated the currency had caused this, and to provide a remedy. His question was—did the Chancellor of the Exchequer mean to refer this petition to the consideration of the committee, or did he not? If referred, was it with a view to provide a remedy for the evil whereof the petitioners complained? If excluded, on what grounds; and, lastly, whether, in that case, such a petition, of such a nature, coming from such a quarter, and at such a moment, ought to be excluded from the consideration of that committee, which, if he, (Mr. Wodehouse) rightly understood him, was about to be specifically appointed for entering into a preliminary consideration of the principles on which the paper circulation of the country was to be regulated for the time to come?
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, it certainly was his intention to refer that petition to the consideration of the committee, and it was therefore, unnecessary for him to say more about it.
Mr. Wodehousewished to know if in giving that answer, the right hon. Gentleman was aware of the evidence offered in 1826, by Mr. Lloyd, before the House of Lords, showing that nine parts out of ten of the monetary circulation of Manchester consisted of internal bills of exchange.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer: If the House thinks it right that I should submit to a preliminary cross examination, I shall be happy to answer any of the questions the hon. Gentleman may think it fit to put to me, but I feel that I cannot do so without entering into a statement of a more general nature than would, perhaps, be quite convenient at this moment.
Mr. Wodehouse: Then I throw myself on the mercy of the Speaker. I repeat, that it is on record from the evidence given before this House, as well as the House of Lords, that at Manchester the greater part

1247
of the circulation for many years has consisted of bills of exchange.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved that the following Members be nominated to constitute the Committee:—Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir R. Peel, Mr. Hume, Mr. Labouchere, Mr. Goulburn, Mr. M. Philips, Mr. O'Connell, Sir J. Graham, Mr. Clay, Mr. Gisborne, Sir J. R. Reid, Mr. Oswald, Mr. C. Wood, Mr. Rickford, Mr. J. Parker, Mr. Pattison, Mr. Herries, Mr. Ellice, Mr. Sergeant Jackson, Mr. Hector, Mr. Grote, Sir T. Fremantle, Mr. J. A. Smith, Mr. Strutt. Mr. Matthias Attwood, and Mr. Morrison.
On the names being read,

LOSING A TURN.
Sir Edward Sugdenrose to express a hope, that the circumstance of his being absent from the House at the instant that his name was called by the Speaker, would not deprive him of the opportunity of submitting the motion of which he had given notice, relative to the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords. His temporary absence from the House was occasioned simply by his desire to escape from a division upon a question which he did not understand.
Mr. Humethought, that the rule of the House was imperative. The right hon. Gentleman's name had been called not once, but twice. If he were not present to reply to it, he must endure the consequence.
Sir Edward Sugdenagain explained the cause of his absence, declaring that he had again entered the House as soon as possible after the division.
The Speaker observed that the invariable rule of the House was, that if a Member were not present to respond to his name, when it was called from the chair, his turn for submitting any motion he might have placed upon the paper was lost. In the present instance he was sure the House would bear witness that the right hon. Gentleman's name had not been called with any haste. After the numbers of the division had been declared, he had called upon the right hon. Gentleman twice. If the right hon. Gentleman were not in his place to answer to the call, he was afraid, that according to the rule of the House, the right hon. Gentleman had lost his turn.
This incidental discussion dropped.

COMMITTEE ON THE ISSUE OF NOTES.
The question as to the nomination of the committee was then again put from the Chair.
Sir Robert Peeldid not intend to object to the names of any of the Members whom the right hon. Gentleman proposed to place upon the committee; but seeing, that those names were so unusually numerous, he was afraid that the inquiry would be a very protracted one. For his own part, he thought it would be found very advantageous if the inquiry were divided into separate branches; and the separate committee, consisting of not more than from twelve to thirteen Members, should be appointed for the consideration of each branch.
Mr. Hume Mr. Hume moved to add the names of Sir Henry Parnell and Mr. Thornley.
Sir Robert Peelobjected to this addition as aggravating the evil of which he had previously complained. He begged to remind the hon. Gentleman that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had already departed from the ordinary rules of the House, which was to limit the numbers of committees to fifteen.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer, as far as he was personally concerned, had not the slightest objection to either of the names suggested by the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Hume), but he felt that the efficiency of the committee would be impaired, if its numbers were increased. The committee, as he had proposed it, he thought was fairly constituted, and he hoped the House would not consent to increase it.
Mr. Hume'smotion negatived.
Mr. Raikes Currie Mr. Raikes Currie moved to add the name of Mr. Warburton. The great and distinguished exertions made by that hon. Gentleman upon Lord Althorp's committee in 1832 entitled the hon. Member to be on the committee, and his services would be most valuable.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwould not object to the addition of this name, if he were assured that no other would be pressed upon him.
Sir R. Peel: If the right hon. Gentleman assents to the addition of Mr. Warburton, how is he to escape from the addition of Sir Henry Parnell.
Mr. R. Curriewould take the sense of the House upon the question.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid that he did not desire to put the House to a division upon this point. If Mr. Warburton's name were insisted upon, he would not object to it; his only reason for not proposing it himself was, that he thought the Government was sufficiently represented

1249
by the names he had previously placed upon the committee.
Mr. Shawthought that it seemed improper for the right hon. Gentleman, after he had well considered the names of the persons to be nominated, now to alter the decision.
Sir R. Peelwould resist the addition. He would not give way, and would vote against the right hon. Gentleman, not out of any disrespect to Mr. Warburton, but because the committee was already quite numerous enough.
Mr. Smith O'Briensuggested that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should substitute Mr. Warburton and Sir H. Parnell for some names already named on the committee.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought it not impossible that some gentleman named on the committee would not attend, and, under such circumstances, he would certainly substitute the name of the hon. Member for Bridport.
Motion withdrawn.
Mr. Edmund Turner Mr. Edmund Turner moved to add Mr. Blewitt's name to the committee. That hon. Member was well acquainted with, and had taken an active part in, the management of joint-stock banks, and because on the committee, as named, there was not one person acquainted with joint-stock banks of issue. There were on the committee three members of private banks of issue—the chairman and a governor of the Bank of England, Mr. Sergeant Jackson, connected with the Bank of Ireland, and two members of private banking firms in London; and he must therefore make an appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer (although Sir T. Fremantle was on the committee, who was a director of a joint-stock bank, not being, however, a bank of issue) in favour of the hon. Member for Newport, that the inquiry should be fair and not partial, and that the report should be such as to carry weight with the country.
Mr. Wodehouseobjected to add the name.
Mr. Gisbornesaid, that any joint-stock bank in the country could, if it pleased, become a bank of issue, and he could not, therefore, see any distinction between the two; still he thought that there was not a sufficient number of persons on the committee connected with these banks.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwould read the names of the parties connected with joint-stock banks; Mr. Gisborne, Sir Thomas Fremantle, Mr. Matthias Attwood, Mr. O'Connell, and Mr. Hector, who were
1250
on the committee; and as it did not seem to him necessary that persons intimately and personally connected with every branch of the banking business should be on the committee, he must therefore oppose the motion.
Motion withdrawn.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer The Chancellor of the Exchequer moved that the committee be secret.>
Mr. Humewished to know why a committee, which was very interesting to the whole community, should be secret?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreminded the House that, in all cases in which the Bank charter had been inquired into, the committees were secret, and had been secret with the greatest advantage, as the House thereby obtained much valuable information which would not otherwise be gained. He did not see any reason in the present case for departing from the former practice.
Mr. Smith O'Brientrusted, that the decision was not final; and if Mr. Hume would press his objection to a division, he certainly should divide with him.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that if by a secret committee was meant a committee of secrecy, it would be objectionable; but he did not so understand it: for the committee on joint-stock banks was a secret committee, and yet it obtained very valuable private information, the results of which were published to the world, although the particulars could not have been obtained if the whole had been published to the injury of the parties. All that was required was, that the committee should be at liberty, if it thought proper, not to publish the whole of every portion of the evidence.
The House divided—Ayes 33; Noes 23—Majority 10.

List of the AYES.

Baines, E.

Mildmay, P. St. J.

Baring, F. T.

Morpeth, Lord

Barry, G. S.

Palmerston, Lord

Bowes, J.

Peel, Sir R.

Bramston, T. W.

Pigott, D. R.

Brodie, W. B.

Rae, Sir W.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Round, C. G.

Chetwynd, Major

Rundle, J.

Dick, Q.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Style, Sir C.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Tufnell, H.

Freshfield, J. W.

Wodehouse, E.

Goulburn, H.

Wood, G. W.

Graham, Sir J.

Yates, J. A.

Hobhouse, Sir J.

Hodges, T. L.

TELLERS.

Hodgson, R.

Clay, W.

Hughes, W. B.

Gordon, R.

Lynch, A. H.

1251

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

M'Taggart, J.

Bainbridge, E. T.

Morris, D.

Beamish, F. B

O'Connell, M. J.

Blewitt, R. J.

Pechell, Captain

Brotherton, J.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Duke, Sir J.

Salwey, Colonel

Dundas, C. W. D.

Turner, E.

Ellis, W.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Fielden, J.

Vigors, N. A.

Gisborne, T.

Hindley, C.

TELLERS.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Hume, J.

Langdale, hon. C.

O'Brien, W. S.

Lister, E. C.

Mr. Humewould like to know how far the secrecy was meant to extend; if he wished to contradict any statements that were made, could he communicate the evidence to the person who could contradict it?
The Speakersaid, that as the House had decided that this was a committee of secrecy, the hon. Member would not be at liberty to furnish to any person the evidence which might be brought before it.
Mr. Humecould only say, then, that the committee would be of no use.

MENDICITY (IRELAND).
Viscount Morpethsaid, that in pursuance of the understanding when the poor-law passed, that the mendicity clauses should be embodied in a separate bill—in pursuance of the reports of the Poor-law Commissioners, and particularly of the resident commigsioners—and, lastly, in pursuance of the suggestions of many large bodies, and many boards of guardians already formed in Ireland—he now rose to ask for leave to bring in a bill for the suppression of mendicancy in Ireland. The present laws upon this subject in Ireland were liable to these objections and to these practical defects, that their definitions were obsolete and uncertain, or that they subjected the parties to such severe penalties as to defeat their own object; they gave the extreme punishment of transportation for vagrancy; and such was their severity, that, being repugnant to the feelings of the people, they could not be enforced. In the present bill, he had adopted so much of the vagrancy law of England as related to the suppression of mendicancy, without incorporating that portion of the English law which related rather to matters fit for a police code, than to the subject of the Poor-laws, He had endeavoured to make the law as simple, and the penalties as mild and as consistent as the difficulties of
1252
the subject would allow. His object wag to relieve the proprietors, and the most poor of the proprietors, from the double charge of those to which they were now, for the first time, subject under the Poor-law Act, and those to which, at all times past and now, they were subject under a regular and organised system of mendicity, acting partly on an appeal to their benevolent feelings, and partly on the fear of mischief or injury from persons refused, or the dread of divine vengeance from a refusal to give alms. The bill which he proposed, would not apply so strongly to the wealthy class, or to the absentee proprietors; their lawns, and parks, and avenues, were sufficiently guarded against the intrusion of the mendicant's footstep: but it was in the cabin, that was most open to the winds of heaven, that was most open also to the mendicant's prayer. It was the meal that was composed of potatoes, that was, as he feared, the oftenest shared by the wandering stranger. Was it his wish to prevent these acts of charity and of benevolence? He had no such wish, the House had no power so to act; the current of charity was too deep, too universal, and too strong to be stopped by human law; but he wished to put under some control, and some check of the central body in Dublin, or of the resident magistracy, the regular and unprincipled trade of mendicancy, which too extensively prevailed in several parts of Ireland, where the most destitute were brought to contribute largely to the support of regular mendicants. He knew, that there were many difficulties to contend with; he was aware, that much might be said on both sides; he did not disguise from himself the difficulty of making alms-begging liable to punishment, in a country where the law gave no absolute right to relief; he proposed, however, to make it punishable only when the workhouses in a district should be built, and so long as the workhouses were able to contain all those whom the guardians should deem proper objects of relief; and on balancing the whole of the arguments on both sides, it did appear to him, that the balance leaned towards an Act putting under control professional mendicancy. He allowed, that there were doubts upon the minds of many persons; he did not wish to hurry the bill through the House; he would lay it upon the Table; and before he proceeded further with it, he would give full time for its being attentively considered by all, and especially by the Irish

1253
community; and with this intention he trusted there would be no opposition made to his obtaining leave to bring in the bill.
Sir R. Peelasked whether it was proposed under this bill, to tolerate a system of mendicancy when the workhouses were full, which was forbidden when there was accommodation for the poor in those workhouses?
Viscount Morpethreplied, that the penalties under this bill, only applied to parties taken up in the act of begging in districts where the workhouses were capable of receiving them.
Sir R. Peel: But supposing the workhouse in any particular district to be full, and that it would be impossible to receive any more inmates, would mendicancy be in that case tolerated in that district?
Viscount Morpethsaid, that in such a case, no alteration was made in the law as it at present existed. There would be no penalties where the workhouses were incapable of receiving inmates.
Sir R. Peelobserved, that it would be extremely difficult to fix the parties with a knowledge of the workhouse being capable of receiving inmates. The noble Lord had used the word "disorderly." Did he mean by this, the act of demanding alms accompanied by violence? If nothing more than this was meant, then the bill would afford no relief to the smaller proprietors—those who were now exposed to affecting appeals to their benevolence—appeals which they were always very ready to give ear to.
Viscount Morpethsaid, that in using the word "disorderly," he referred to the asking of alms in any manner prohibited by the enactments of this bill.
Mr. Shawwas glad to hear from the noble Lord, that he meant to give full time for the consideration of this bill, upon which such great doubts existed. In reference to what the noble Lord had said, however, as to the understanding, with regard to this measure, at the time of the passing of the Irish Poor-law Act, he begged to remind the noble Lord, that the object of those who advocated the postponement of any enactment on the subject of mendicancy, was not merely to obtain separate bills, but to afford time for a full observation of the operation of the Poor-law in Ireland, before any attempt was made directly to suppress mendicancy.
Mr. Lynchsupported the motion, It was impossible that there could exist two sorts of relief in Ireland—one in-door relief, according to law and the other out-
1254
door relief, according to the established custom of the country. Yet such would be the case, unless some such measure as this was passed.
Mr. M. J. O'Cannellsaid, that the great objection to the Irish Poor-law was, that while it took away what had been truly described by the hon. Member for Galway as out-door relief, according to the custom of the country, it did not substitute outdoor relief according to law. The object of postponing this question had been to afford time for observing the operation of the Poor-law in Ireland, yet three weeks had scarcely elapsed since the establishment of the first union workhouse in that country. With so short an experience of the operation of that law, this bill was very premature. It would be much better to let the present system continue in operation a year longer before introducing such a measure as this.
Leave given.