Commons Sitting of 8 May 1840

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Pilots.—Read a third time:—Prisons; Exchequer Bills.
Petitions presented. By Messrs. J. Neeld, Lister, and R. B. Wilbraham, Sir R. H. Inglis, Viscount Barrington, and Sir H. Hill, from a number of places, for, and by Messrs. Fort, Strutt, Warburton, Ellis, Brotherton, Hume, Baines, Hodges, R. Currie, Clive, Langdale, J. Parker, Williams, Hawes, Sir C. Styles, Captain Winnington, Sir G. Staunton, and Sir R. Vivian, from a great number of places, against, Church Extension.—By Messrs. Wallace, Pattison, Greg, T. Dundas, Warburton, Sir B. Hall, and Sit R. Ferguson, from a number of places, for the Repeal of the Com-laws.—By Sir M. Wood, from one place, against the Poor-law Commissioners.— By Captain Win-
1314
nington, from several places, against Church Rates, and against the Ecclesiastical Courts.—By Sir E. Filmer, from Gravesend, against the Corporation Act.—By Mr. Brotherton, from Salford, against the Constabulary Bill. —By Sir E. Wilmot, from Lichfleld, in favour of the Grammar School Bill By Mr. Ewart, from Liverpool, Sir C. Skyle, from several places, and Sergeant Currie, from Armagh, against the Irish Registration Bill.—By Colonel Bailey, from the Isle of Skrye, for a General system of Emigration.—By Mr. Curry, and Sir C. Coote, from Cavan, and another place, in favour of the Irish Registration Bill.

THE BUDGET.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that, perhaps, it would be for the convenience of the House if he were to state that, in consequence of the same cause which had interrupted the progress of the business of the House, he proposed postponing his financial statement from Monday next till the Friday following.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that no one could more deeply regret than he did the necessity that had arisen for postponing public business; at the same time, he thought that the financial statement might have been made in the absence of the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, as it did not often meet with controversial discussion, and it put the House and the country in possession of the financial views of the Government. If it were impossible for the right hon. Gentleman to change his determination, he wished to understand whether the right hon. Gentleman could calculate upon bringing on the subject on Friday next. On Thursday the hon. Member for Wolverhampton had given notice, that it was his intention to bring forward the question of the Corn-laws. That question had already occupied the House three nights, and it was possible that the discussion would not close in one night. The right hon. Gentleman must also bear in mind that his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) had fixed Monday for his Irish Registration Bill, and the consequence might be, that Friday fortnight would be the earliest day on which the right hon. Gentleman could make his financial statement. He must again express his regret that the right hon. Gentleman had felt the necessity of postponing his financial statement.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that he considered it necessary to postpone his financial statement, as, feeling that that statement might lead to a debate of considerable importance to the permanent interests of the country, he did not think that he should be justified

1315
in bringing it forward in the absence of his noble Friend. He was prepared to bring forward that statement on the very first day that his noble Friend was able to attend, but he begged to state, that he certainly was not prepared to postpone the budget, if the debate on the Corn-laws should be adjourned. On Friday he should propose that the financial statement take precedence, whatever might be the result.
Mr. Humesaid, that that was not a very fair mode of treating a question which had already occupied three nights. The House had come to no decision upon the subject, and if they now thought- fit to hurry over it, they might as well come to a division without any move discussion. If there were to be any discussion, he hoped it would be a fair discussion, in order that the country might see what was really the opinion of the House. He submitted that the right hon. Gentleman was not acting very fairly towards this question, and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would postpone his budget a few days, rather than interfere with the question of Corn-laws, in which the country felt so deep an interest.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that under the circumstances, perhaps, his hon. Friend, the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. Villiers) would deem it advisable to postpone his motion.

BUENOS AYRES.
In reply to a question from Mr. Colquhoun,
Viscount Palmerstonsaid that the hon. Member must be aware there was no question about the acquiescence of one power in a blockade established by another, unless the Government of the other country meant to prevent the blockade by force. It was erroneous to suppose that when any foreign power imposed a blockade upon another, this country or any other was called upon to acknowledge or object to the blockade. The establishment of a blockade was a fact which arose out of the right of an independent Government, and all that the Government of this country or any other had to do was to warn its own subjects that the blockade was established, and to warn them not to incur any danger in consequence of its existence. Now as to Buenos Ayres, to which the question particularly referred, in June, 1838, the French admiral had notified to our ambassador there the fact of
1316
the blockade which had since been enforced. The French Admiral had declared the port of Buenos Ayres in a state of strict blockade. That was a fact which had been made the subject of frequent discussion between the French and English Governments, and although in the first instance the notification came from the French Admiral on the station, yet the discussions afterwards showed that it was either done in consequence of previous orders from the Government, or that the Government adopted the acts of the admiral. With regard to a declaration of war, he believed that there had been no formal declaration, but the fact was that the state of the two countries was one of war; there had been hostilities on both sides; but the very blockade established a state of war even if there had been none before, and the blockade could not be binding on other countries if it were not on the principle that it was a measure of war.
Mr. Colquhounreminded the noble Lord of his promise to render the blockade less severe, and asked whether he had not been informed that it had been made more stringent as to communications between British merchants und their agents at Buenos Ayres?
Viscount Palmerstonhad heard that it had been made so, with respect to particular individuals. He was not sure whether there had been any relaxation with regard to them, but speaking generally, there had been no relaxation of the degree in which the blockade had been enforced. Hon. Members were aware that communications had passed between the French admiral and the authorities at Monte Video, with respect to impediments in the river navigation, but though these were executed by the French force, they were in fact done by the direction of the officials at Monte Video.

POST OFFICE COVERS AND STAMPS.
Mr. Barnebywished to nut a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with respect to the postage stamps and covers. The orders in council with respect to them stated that the stamps would be sold to the public at a penny each, and the covers at a penny farthing. Now the fact was, that the stamp distributors at the west-end of the town were charging one shilling and twopence a dozen for the stamps, and they refused to sell covers under three-

1317
half-pence. Was the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware of this, and if not, was it his intention to make inquiries on the subject? as he thought that the system to which he had adverted was an imposition on the public.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought the hon. Member must be under some mistake when he stated that this course was pursued by stamp distributors. He thought that he had confounded them with persons who had taken out a license to sell stamps.
Mr. Barnebystated that he considered the subject of so ranch importance, that he had written to the commissioners of stamps on the subject.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that it rested with the public, as to whether they would purchase the stamps from the proper distributors, or from those only who were licensed to sell stamps.
Mr. Barnebywanted to know whether those persons who were authorized by the Stamp-office to sell stamps, were permitted to charge eight or sixteen per cent, profit?
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwould answer that question at once. The officers of the stamp department sold at a certain fixed price, but other parties who had the power of sale by licence, sold at any price they could get, or the public were unwise or foolish enough to give.
Sir R. Peelwished to ask whether it were intended to retain permanently that ornamental engraving which appeared on the outside of the covers. He had the highest respect for the talents of the artist by whom it had been produced, and it was not his intention at all to call in question its merits as a work of art. It was a different question, however, whether it was convenient, and he therefore wished to know whether the multiplication of figures was any security against forgery? for if not, he thought it would be for the convenience of the public that the engraving should be curtailed so as to afford more space for the address. He certainly thought it would be better to select a portion of the engraving; but, in saying this, he begged again to state, that he did not call into question its merit as a work of art, although he very much doubted its utility.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerlikewise would not go into a discussion of the merit of the covers as a work of art. Hon.
1318
Members in the House seemed decided in opinion upon that point. He begged, however, to state, that whatever opinion the House might have formed, those persons who had been appointed to give a judgment upon the design, had come to a different conclusion from that which appeared to be the general opinion. It might be desirable to make some alteration in the engraving, and he certainly thought too much space was occupied with the figures. There would be scarcely any expense in changing it, but of course the object of the engraving on the cover was to afford as much check as possible against forgery.

SUPPLY — MISCELLANEOUS ESTIMATES—SUPERANNUATION.
House in Committee of Supply.
A vote of 90,950 l. was moved for allowances and compensation to persons formerly employed in public offices.
Mr. Humecomplained of the power of the Government to superannuate officers upon mere changes or reductions, at their own will, when the same officers were still fit for service. There was an increase of 681 persons in offices this year, of whom 484 were connected with the post-office alone, and there were also many new ones in the Customs and Excise. It was impossible this increase could take place without an increase in the salaries, and they had increased 38,000 l. this year. This was not consistent with economy, and he hoped to make the House agree with him in putting a stop to this increase. He would like to know why the services of some of those superannuated could not be made available; and before he would vote one sum, he would require an explanation why George Lead bitter should have a superannuation of 150 l. a-year for fifteen years' service, and of 78 l. to Thomas Capes for twelve years' services?
Mr. Robert Gordonsaid, that the increase arose in some measure from changes to Ireland and the superannuation to Sir Alexander Spearman and others. With respect to the police-officers, Leadbitter and Capes, they were paid out of the old police-fund. They were appointed specially to be in attendance on the court, and when it was thought desirable that the new police-force should be extended to Windsor, they being no longer necessary, were granted a retiring allowance.
Mr. Humecould not see why they

1319
should not be still employed in some branch of the public service.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerstated that he considered the two persons objected to were superannuated too soon, and on the first opportunity they ought to be reinstated in the public employment.
Mr. Humestated he would move that 13,077 l. 12 s. 3d. should be granted instead of the vote proposed—that which he intended to do was, that they should first take the vote for the Treasury. He would afterwards proceed with the votes for the Home, the Foreign, and the Colonial offices.
The Chairmancould not take the vote in the manner proposed by the hon. Member. It was for the Government to withdraw that vote, or for the hon. Member to move for its rejection.
Sir R. Peelconsidered, that if persons were capable of employment they ought to be employed, and not superannuated. The police officers objected to might be capable of being employed in the Government or country police; and if they were they ought not to be superannuated. But then, although they were good officers at the palace, they might not make proper superintendents of the police. Inquiry ought, then, to be made into the circumstances. The vote ought to be postponed until the House was put in possession of the explanation of the circumstances of the case.
The sum of 80,000 l, was voted on account.

SUPPLY—LONDON UNIVERSITY.
On the sum of 5,418 l. having been proposed to defray the expenses of the University of London.
Mr. S. O'Briencomplained of the amount of the salaries allowed to the examiners.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, the salaries given to the examiners at this University were 200 l. a year each, while the examiners at Oxford and Cambridge received only 20 l. with the exception of a few, such as the examiners on political economy, who received 30 l. He doubted the expediency of allowing such large salaries to the examiners of the London University.
Mr. Laboucherethought it necessary to advert to the difference of circumstances between the examiners at Oxford and Cambridge, and these at the London University, to show that what was sufficient for the former could by no means be
1320
sufficient for the latter. Let him ask the hon. Gentleman who were those examiners at Oxford and Cambridge? They were persons, who, as the tutors of their colleges, were receiving considerable incomes from the young men whom they were attending, who derived a large interest from their fellowships, and who moreover enjoyed their share of all the emoluments and advantages attaching to those ancient and well-endowed universities. It was, therefore, unfair to say that the examiners of the London University should receive no greater salary than those of Oxford or Cambridge, when they derived no other emolument from their connexion with that institution.
Mr. Goulburnwould not deny that there were certain circumstances connected with the former universities which gave the examiners there considerable advantage over those of the London University, but he must at the same time say that the tutors were not always examiners. The tutors gave instructions, and at the examinations, young men, eminent in their several departments, were chosen to judge the merits and progress of the students, so that there should be no collusion between the examiners and tutors. Even if they added the emoluments of the fellowships to the sum they received for the examinations, they would not make up 200 l. a-year. It should not be forgotten that the examiners in surgery, medicine, and anatomy in the London University, enjoyed a large hospital practice, and derived far greater emoluments from their connection with that university than the examiners in Oxford or Cambridge did from their fellowships. There were also in London many men who for the mere honour of a connection with that university would be willing to accept the office of examiners. In many respects this university had advantages which did not belong to those of Oxford or Cambridge.
Mr. Prymeobserved, that the examiners in Oxford and Cambridge had only to walk from their residences and their colleges to the senate house, to earn their 20 l, while those of the London University had to go from, perhaps, the remotest part of the metropolis, and to interrupt for days, the ordinary course of their business.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that as far as regarded the total amount, he thought it ought to be considered there was a claim

1321
on the Government of supporting an additional establishment in London, which ought not to be lost sight of. A large college was founded by Sir Thomas Gresham, on the plan of Oxford and Cambridge; but, by most scandalous jobbing between the City and the Government of that day, the college was disposed of, and on the scite was built an Excise-office. The professors received a pittance of 200 l. a-year, which had since become a sinecure, and all the great property was abandoned. It would be unjust that they should complain of the amount, but when they came to canvass the details it was right that they should see that the sums were well founded. He thought some of the sums were too large. He thought so in the case of the medical examiner, who had 250 l. a-year. It arose from the professors having nominated themselves. He had no doubt whatever, that 100 l. a-year would really be considered an ample allowance to give to a medical examiner of this university.
Mr. S. O'Briensaid, that he should be the last person in the House to cavil at a grant for the purposes of education. He must say, however, that it would be easy to obtain gentlemen who, for the sake of the honour of being connected with the University, would, for a nominal consideration, give their services.
Mr. Godsonobserved, that taking the fees which were exacted as a criterion for the number of pupils, it was almost 50 l. a-head. 3,340 l. was paid for examining pupils, the whole number of whom, according to the amount of fees paid by them, could not be 100. It would appear that there were twenty-five examiners.
Mr. Wakleyshould be glad to know how to characterise the conduct of the university, and the proposal of the vote in terms which could not give offence to any parties connected with the University, but he was compelled to state that the entire proceeding had given offence to a large number of persons. He considered the university to be objectionable in principle and most obnoxious in practice. The university was in the hands of the minister. Was that the way to encourage talent? Was that consistent with the liberal times in which we lived? He said fearlessly that Oxford and Cambridge were republics of letters compared with this institution in London. He said that it was not right to vote away money to support a
1322
particular college in London. The fees for a bachelor of medicine were 125 l. The amount of fees showed the estimation in which this new shop was held. They had no honour to dispose of they could not confer a single right. A person who paid the fee was liable to a penalty of 20 l, if he mixed in a mortar the drugs which he prescribed for a patient; yet the Mouse was called upon to vote 6,000 l. for the maintenance of that university. He did not like to say it was a humbug. Should he say it was a fraud? In point of fact many people believed it was both one and the other: and he must say that his opinions were in accordance with the opinions which they entertained. Men had been appointed to this institution whom the public did not prize. Ministers lent an ear to their Friends, whilst they turned a deaf ear on those who did not support them in politics. If they were men whose signatures were of importance to a diploma there would not be such a miserable account of receipts as was exhibited in this paper. These persons first selected themselves to be examiners, and then named the sums they should receive for their services. He believed that they voted themselves more than the public would receive in return. He asserted that the university ought to be made available for the public generally, and that particular schools ought not to be selected. A friend of his, who wished to have his pupils matriculated, was ill-used by the minister, and his application almost torn up before his face, or something of that sort. It was a monstrous and most iniquitous injustice.
Mr. Warburtonhoped that this institution might be open to candidates where-ever they were educated, and trusted that such would be the case before this time next year. The senate of the university had applied to Government to know, whether, if certain changes were made, Government would be favourable to them. One of the proposed changes was, that the institution should be open to candidates wherever they were educated. At present the schools from which candidates were admitted were determined by the Secretary of State—the senate had no discretion. The friend of the hon. Member for Finsbury had only to read the charter to see that his application must be made to the Secretary of State. His hon. Friend remarked on the small number of

1323
the medical students; but this arose from the course of examination, which was much more difficult than the ' curriculum' laid down in other universities. What was the consequence? As long as there were places where medical degrees could be obtained on easier terms, those places would have the priority. The novelty of the institution, and the difficulty of the examination, was sufficient to account for the small number of students. In the university of Durham, the electoral body as at Oxford and Cambridge, were all graduates of the university. As soon as there should be a sufficient body of graduates in whom to repose the power now exercised by the Government, that power would be transferred to the electoral body.
Mr. Humemaintained that the House was not sufficiently informed of the proceedings of the university to agree to so large a vote. Every public establishment receiving the public money, ought to give a regular account of their proceedings during the whole year. If the House agreed to the vote now, he hoped that there would be some inquiry before the report was brought up. He was of opinion that the salaries were a great deal too high. He hoped, before the House disposed of this vote, they would have a report from the senate, in vindication of these charges, and of the necessity of having twenty-five examiners.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhad no objection to accede to the hon. Gentleman's request, and to postpone the vote; because he trusted that, from the high character of the university, further examination would only tend to remove an unfavourable impression. He was not disposed to say that the Salaries were, in any way, unreasonable, when he recollected that the examiners were deprived of the means of carrying on their business for three months. When it was considered that revising barristers received five guineas a-day, 3l. a-day did not appear to him to be too large a sum.
Mr. Goulburnsuggested, that the information should comprise such particulars as would enable the House to see how many professors and officers in the establishment held two or three different lectureships and situations.
Mr. Wakleywas surprised that the right hon. Gentleman, being an experienced and practical man, should not in-
1324
sist upon the production of the whole of the minutes of the proceedings of the senate. It would be useless to attempt to detect abuses or mismanagement by requiring the members of the college to make a report on their own condition, which would, of course, if made by them, be favourable to the management of those who made it a pretext to apply in this way for a portion of the public money. To postpone the vote would be of no possible advantage, unless it were for the purpose of procuring, through the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, information which he seemed not inclined to give.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, all he could consent to give in the way of details, would be the names of the parties employed in offices, the offices or posts in which they were so employed in the university, and the parties examining the students.
Mr. Humesaid, that to refuse to produce the proceedings of the senate, would be such a sinister concealment of the course pursued, in respect to education in this seminary, as must excessively prejudice, and possibly ruin, at its commencement, this great national institution. He was given to understand, that the proceedings were already in print, and could be furnished to the House, if the right hon. Gentleman consented, without any delay or trouble.
The Chancellor of the Exchequercould not see any material advantage to be derived by hon. Members from the printing of such a voluminous work as the whole details of the minutes of the senate during the past year.
Vote postponed.

SUPPLY—SCHOOL OF DESIGNS.
The next vote was 1,300 l. for the school of design at Somerset-house.
Mr. W. Williamssaid, he had understood when this school of design was established, that its object was to promote the art of designing among the manufacturers of this country. He had, however, made inquiries upon the subject, and he had found that the school was not of the least use whatever. He believed that this was the only country in which manufactures were carried on to any extent in which schools of design had not long been established. In Lyons there was a school of design maintained and supported by the Govern-

1325
ment, in which were placed men who not only understood the art of design scientifically, but were also competent to teach its application to articles of manufacture. The superiority of the manufactures of that town were entirely to be attributed to that school of design. In the town, however, which he had the honour to represent, there was no school of design at all until recently. A class of that nature had been attached to the mechanic's institute, from which great advantages were expected. Now, he was quite sure that if a sum so small as even 1001. could be voted to that school, it would be productive of the greatest benefit. IF a few hundred pounds a-year were given for the support of schools in the different manufacturing towns, for the purpose of encouraging the art of design, it would be productive of the greatest service, and would do infinitely more good than ever could be expected from the present school.
Mr. Humethought that the Government had begun well in establishing a school of design at Somerset-house, and that this institution might be productive of benefit, but, at the same time, he thought that in great manufacturing towns, and even in London, much might be done by assisting individuals with a room for this purpose.
Mr. Labouchereentirely agreed with the hon. Member, in thinking that nothing could be more important than for a manufacturing country like this, to encourage the art of design, and it was much to be regretted that the subject had not been taken up at an earlier period. He, however, begged to remind the hon. Member of the very short period of time during which the school had been established— only three years. In France and Germany, the instruction given was not of a light or superficial character, and they must not expect in this country that the seed which had been so recently sown, should already produce its fruits. He had received a report from the council, in which they said, that although the institution had not answered the sanguine anticipations of many, yet it had still been productive of much good. The number of pupils had very considerably increased. As to what had been said about the assistance to be given to different manufacturing towns, that important object had not been lost sight of. It was the intention of the Council to publish cheap elementary works
1326
of design, as was done in Prussia, and circulate them in the country. It was also their intention to circulate moulds, and give them away, or sell them at a low price.
Viscount Sandonhoped the right hon. Gentleman would be able to carry out his intentions.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—COUNTY RATE.
On the question, that 98,000 l. be granted to defray certain charges heretofore paid out of the County-rate,
Mr. Humeopposed the vote, on the ground that the expenses of prosecutions ought to be borne by the counties, and ought not to be thrown upon the country at large. He had opposed the vote for three years, and he would oppose it as often as it was brought forward. It was shameful truckling on the part of the Government to the country gentlemen, to relieve the land of this burthen. He believed that the country gentlemen would get rid of every burthen if they could, and before long would throw the expense of the highways upon the Consolidated Fund. He would take the sense of the Committee on the vote.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersupported the vote, and said, that the principle of it had been recommended by a committee. It was not a relief to the landed interests only, but to the country generally.
Mr. Wakleyobserved, that this expense was increasing every year. He should not object to that increase, if the expenditure were properly applied; but he did not think that prosecutions would be well conducted until there was a public prosecutor.
The Attorney Generalwished to allude to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Finsbury, with respect to a public prosecutor. He acknowledged that a great improvement would be effected in the administration of justice in the country, by the establishment of such an officer; but, at the same time, as he had frequently turned the subject in his mind, he would tell the hon. Gentleman why he refrained from proposing anything of the kind to Parliament. His not having done so arose from his apprehension of the great expenditure which he felt would follow from the establishment of the officer in question. They must, in that case,

1327
have a public prosecutor in every county, in every city and borough of England, and in every Court of Quarter Sessions. That was one of his reasons for not making the proposal in question. Another objection to it was, the great amount of patronage which it would bestow upon the Crown, and which patronage would, he believed, be attended with great inconvenience and embarrassment. He had been deterred by these reasons from bringing forward a measure which would otherwise be a great improvement in the administration of justice in the country.
The Committee divided. — Ayes 84; Noes 15: Majority 69.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Admiral

Knight, H. G.

Aglionby, H. A.

Langdale, hon. C.

Aglionby, Major

Macaulay, rt. hon. T. B.

Bailey, J. jun.

Mackenzie, T.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Marsland, H.

Beamish, F. B.

Marsland, T.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Maule, hon. F.

Blair, J.

Melgund, Lord

Blake, M. J.

Morpeth, Visct.

Bodkin, J. J.

Morris, D.

Broadley, H.

Muntz, G. F.

Brocklehurst, J.

O'Brien, C.

Bruce, C. L. C.

O'Brien, W. S.

Bruges, W. H. L.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Buller, E.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Campbell, Sir J.

Patten, W. J.

Canning, rt. hn. Sir S.

Pease, J.

Chester, H.

Pechell, Capt.

Clay, W.

Pigot, D. R.

Clerk, Sir G.

Ponsonby, C. F. A. C.

Cripps, J.

Price, Sir R.

Darby, G.

Pryme, G.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Rice, E. R.

Dundas, D.

Roche, W.

Eastnor, Vise.

Round, C. G.

Egerton, W. T.

Rumbold, C.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Rundle, J.

Finch, F.

Rushout, G.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Godson, R.

Sandon, Vise.

Gordon, R.

Sinclair, Sir. G.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Smith, R. V.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Somerset, Lord G.

Handley, C.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Steuart, R.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Welby, G. E.

Hodgson, E.

Wood, G. W.

Johnson, General

Worsley, Lord

Johnstone, H.

Wyndham, W.

Jones, J.

Yates, J. A.

Kemble, H.

TELLERS.

Knatchbull, rt. hon. Sir E.

Parker, J.

Tufnell, H.

List of the NOES.

Baines, E.

Brotherton, J.

1328

Gisborne, T.

Warburton, H.

Hawes, H.

White, A.

Horsman, E.

White, L.

Philips, M.

Williams, W.

Salwey, Colonel

Wood, B.

Style, Sir C.

TELLERS.

Vigors, N. A.

Hume, J.

Wallace, R.

Wakley, T.

Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—FOURDRINIER'S PATENT.—
On the question that a sum of 7,000 l. be granted as a compensation to the Messrs. Fourdrinier,
Mr. Humewould not oppose the vole, but he felt that the sum was too scanty.
Mr. Mackinnonconcurred in the opinion of the hon. Member for Kilkenny. He had himself been a Member of the committee which had investigated the claims of the Messrs. Fourdrinier, and that committee had been unanimously of opinion that 20,000 l. should be awarded to those gentlemen for the services they had rendered to the country. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer had expressed his intention of granting them the sum of 15,000 l and under those circumstances, he (Mr. Mackinnon) felt surprised at the smallness of the present vote.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhad felt great hesitation in proposing the vote at all, as he thought it might tend to encourage individuals to look for compensation to the public funds, which he thought would be a very serious evil.
Mr. G. Knightwas astonished that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should not think it just to reward those whose inventions, as in this instance, had added greatly to the revenue. There had been a breach of good faith here. The late Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, that "if this matter was left to him he would see to it," and now, after the Messrs. Fourdrinier had expended 40,000 l. on the invention, and it saved 25 per cent, in the manufacture of paper, and nearly 40,000 l. a-year to the Government, they only offered them 7,000 l
Mr. M. Philipssaid, no man could be more opposed than he was to undue grants of public money, but the gentlemen in question had conferred great benefit on the public, and had been deprived by the merest technicality of law, of that advantage which they would otherwise have derived from their ingenuity and skill. They had saved 10 s. a ream in paper, which, in the quantity used by the House

1329
alone, for the printing of Parliamentary documents, 20,000 reams, would save 10,000 l. a year. Was he not justified in asking that the vote should be at least 10,000 l, especially when the son of Mr. Fourdrinier had expended 3,000 l. in urging his father's claims on Parliament with the most creditable anxiety for his interest? Having presented numerous petitions from the public in favour of a large grant, he felt himself on every principle justified in urging the augmentation of the grant to 10,000 l
Lord Sandoncould add nothing to the concise yet powerful statement of his hon. Friend, the Member for Manchester. He would only say, that the Messrs. Fourdrinier had literally ruined themselves, and lost a large fortune by their valuable invention, which had altered the character of the whole paper manufacture, and thereby conferred also the greatest benefits on every branch of trade. These gentlemen had not only benefitted the public generally, but the Government in particular, and therefore he thought they were entitled to more than the miserable pittance proposed to be given to them. He would appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider his decision.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the cases of Messrs. Fourdrinier and that of Mr. Brunei were different. Mr. Brunei had given up a positive right. He drew his information with regard to the Messrs. Fourdrinier from the papers before the House, and from those it appeared that they were not the original inventors, nor even the original patentees. Mr. Gamble was the original patentee, and had sold his patent to Messrs. Fourdrinier. He did not wish to deteriorate from the merits of those gentlemen, but they were neither the inventors nor the introducers of the invention into England. To neither belonged the merit of having perfected the invention, but all the arguments he had heard, convinced him of the difficulty of laying down a principle that any inventor benefiting the public should be entitled to a certain rate per cent, on the saving effected by the invention. Was it intended to lay down, as a principle, that every patentee, who, by a decision of a court of law, should be deprived of the profits of his invention, in consequence of the mistake of his own lawyer, should be entitled to claim compensation from the public. He found that Mr. Carmichael Smith,
1330
Captain Manby, and others, had received rewards from the public. Mr. Crompton, the inventor of the spinning mule, had only received 5,000 l. for his invention, and he thought that 7,000 l. was sufficient for the improvers of a patent. If his noble Friend thought it insufficient, he had it in his power to propose to the House to address the Crown to grant a further reward. As for himself he was not at present prepared to go further. If there were persons who had derived such great benefit from this invention, it was not very generous in them to press upon the public, instead of making some remuneration themselves to these gentlemen from whose labours they had derived such advantages.
Mr. Bainessaid that the revenue had derived a benefit of 20,000 l. from this invention, and therefore the Messrs. Fourdrinier had a claim upon the Government at least for the amount of one year's saving, as they had expended their fortune in bringing this invention to perfection, and had ruined themselves in consequence.
Mr. Godsonsaid, the Government offices alone saved a sum of 60.000 l by the invention of Messrs. Fourdrinier, and he thought the remuneration of 10,000 l. was by no means too large; in fact, they should receive at the very least 20,000 l. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would postpone the vote in order to its being brought forward on a future occasion in an enlarged form.
Mr. Gally Knightsaid, these gentlemen had been ruined by the use of the word "machine," for "machines," the singular for the plural, in their patent, and after the forbearance exercised by the House on a former occasion, in not pressing a motion in their favour, he had hoped the right hon. Gentleman would have complied with the general wish.
Mr. George William Woodsupported an increased vote, on the grounds of the benefit afforded to the public in general.
Mr. Finchsaid, that the doctrine laid down by the hon. Gentleman would extend remuneration to every person who had conferred any benefit on the public by any invention. And if the vote were placed on the ground of the saving to the Government, he thought that a vote ought, upon the same ground, to be given to those who had brought the steam-engine to perfection.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—COMMUNICATION WITH INDIA.
On the question that 50,000 l. be granted to defray the expenses of steam communication with India by way of the Red Sea.
Mr. Humewished to know how this money had been expended, and how much the East India Company had paid?
Sir J. C. Hobhousesaid, that the East India Company had spent much more than the 50,000 l. And when the House considered that the mail which came in to-day arrived in thirty-eight days, and the former mail in thirty-six days, and the one before that in thirty-nine days, arid when they recollected that, under an amended arrangement, the mails did not previously reach England under forty-eight, fifty-two, or fifty-six days, and that under the old system they had to wait for four or five months, there could be no ground of complaint. If there were any, it was by the merchants, who thought that their bills came back too soon, and that India was brought rather too near to us.
Mr. Humeonly wanted to know what the arrangement with the East India Company was, for up to this moment the public were completely ignorant of it. It was only when they were spurred on by the merchants, that the East India Company undertook this mode of conveyance, and he well recollected that when he stated, on the authority of Mr. Waghorn, that letters could arrive from India in thirty-five days, he was laughed at. It was of importance, therefore, to know what were the terms fixed with the Company, and what caused the irregularities in the time of transit that now occurred.
Sir J. C. Hobhousedid not know what the hon. Member wanted. Did he want to know the number of steam vessels employed?
Mr. Humewould say that inefficient vessels were employed, which were not able to stand the ordinary monsoons. He had received two months' packets together.
Sir J. C. Hobhousesaid, that what the hon. Gentleman had alluded to had only occurred once. The East India Company had done all in their power, and displayed as much anxiety to keep up the communication as the Government itself.
Mr. Mark Philipswished to ask whether the speedy delivery of the mails, that had been alluded to by the right hon.
1332
Gentleman, had been caused by any increased power applied lately to the steamboats, and whether it might be anticipated that the mails would be sent by vessels of equal power, so as to ensure regularity of communication.
Sir J. C. Hobhousesaid, he would be happy to lay upon the table any returns which the House might think necessary to inform them of what means the East India Company now employed in order to carry out their part of the bargain. When they saw those returns, and compared the number of steam-vessels now employed by the East India Company with those in their service five years ago, he would say that neither the company nor the board over which he had the honour to preside, would have cause to be ashamed of the part they had acted.
Vote agreed to, the House resumed.