Commons Sitting of 26 February 1841

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Medical Profession. —Read a second time:—Lease and Release.
Petitions presented. By Lord A. Lennox, and Mr. T. Duncombe. from Chichester, Hadnet, and Worthing, against the Poor-law Amendment Bill.—By Mr. Hamilton, from Buckingham, for Church Extension.—By Mr. Hindley, from Ashton-under-Lyne, for an entire revision of the Commercial Tariff.—By Colonel Rawdon, Mr. Hume, Mr. O'Connell, Mr. French, and the O'Connor Don, from Carlow, Roscommon, Donegal, and other places, for the Government Irish Registration Bill.—By Lord Dalmeny, from Stirling, in favour of the Medical Reform Bill.—By Mr. Hume, from Workmen at Kilmarnock, for Extension of the Suffrage.

TURNPIKE TRUSTS.
Mr. Barnebybegged to ask whether the Government intended to introduce any measure founded upon the Report made by the Commission of Inquiry into the state of Turnpike Trusts?
Mr. Fox Maulesaid, the Report was still under the consideration of the Secretary for the Home Department.

COUNTY COURTS.
The Earl of Lin- colnbegged leave to suggest that the Government ought to propose a resolution suspending further proceedings in the numerous Small Debt Bills that were before; the House, as they were likely to be superseded by the County Courts Bill. It would save much trouble and expense to the parties concerned.
Sir R. Peelsaid, on a former occasion the noble Lord had benefited from a Tithe Commutation Bill prepared by him (Sir R. Peel). In the year 1837, he brought in a bill for the introduction of County Courts. He did not mean to introduce that bill in opposition to the noble Lord's; but if there was no objection in point of form, he would move that the bill be printed, in order to see if any thing could be got from it.
Lord John Russellhad no objection.

LORD KEANE'S ANNUITY.
On the motion of Lord John Russell the House then went into Committee, on Lord Keane's Annuity Bill.
On the first clause,
Mr. Ewartmoved that all the words after "Lieutenant-general Lord John Keane," be left our. The object of his motion was, that the pension of 2,000 l. should be granted only for the life of Lord Keane, and not be extended to his two next surviving heirs. He begged the House to understand that in the first place he quite agreed with the noble Lord on the bench below, as to the brilliant services which had been performed by Lord Keane. The motion which he made reflected neither upon his gallantry as a soldier nor his character as a man. In the next place he coincided with the noble Lord on the general principle that the Peerage might be the reward of merit. He remembered well, and the historical memory of the noble Lord would enable him to remember better the words of Sir Robert Walpole, (in his well-known speech on limiting the Peerage) that such honours were better derived from merit, than "through the winding-sheet of some decrepid Lord, or the grave of an extinct noble family." And this was done, Sir Robert Walpole proceed to add—
"Patere honoris scirent ut cuncti viam."
But he would remind the noble Lord that Sir Robert Walpole added afterwards, that the independence of the
1134
Peerage was best preserved by withholding pensions. It might be said, that there were three ways in which the Peerage was bestowed. It might be bestowed on men of vast property, and, in that case, it went to create the most colossal aristocracy, which had ever (as some thought), adorned, or (as others, unjustly in his opinion, thought) encumbered a country. It might also be conferred as the reward of great and eminent services, especially in the army and navy; and accompanied by a perpetual pension, as in the case of the Duke of Marlborough and the Duke of Wellington; lastly it might be conferred in cases like this, with a temporary not a perpetual pension. This course sooner or later produced a poor Peerage. A poor Peerage was apt to degenerate into a dependent Peerage, and then it assumed the character of the French peerage before the Revolution. It appeared to him that the bill combined many disadvantages under the shape in which it was then presented to the House. It gave to the descendants of Lord Keane enough to make them idle, and not enough to make them independent; it made them dependent for two generations, and paupers ever after. It bestowed on them a dignity without giving them the means of maintaining it. He confessed that he thought the bestowal of Peerages for life would be found a beneficial measure in modern times, and he was persuaded that that they were fully constitutional. But be that as it might, the grant was one which the House should not be called upon to sanction. It would be much better to give Lord Keane a large sum of money as compensation for his services, than give his posterity that false support. But he felt sure that the subject ought to be looked at in two points of view. First, what was their duty to their country? It appeared to him that as they were called upon to reward simply the personal exertions of Lord Keane, the reward should be purely personal. The next question was, what was their duty to Lord Keane. He should be rewarded; but his children, instead of being brought up in a state of splendid dependence, should be taught to depend upon their own exertions. For these reasons he felt it his duty to submit this motion to the House.
Captain Hamiltonsaid, that although he could not agree with all that the hon.

1135
Member (Mr. Ewart) had said, he arrived at the same conclusion. If the question were, whether any pension at all should be granted to the noble Lord who was the subject of debate, he should feel considerable difficulty to say no to it, because it might appear ungracious in the House to refuse pecuniary recompense to the gallant Officer who had received so distinguished a mark of her Majesty's approbation. Yet when the question was the amount of that recompense, he thought every Member should give his vote according to his own opinion. He regretted that he was called upon as an individual Member to give any vote at all upon this motion; and he considered it a question that did not raise the character of that most important branch of the service to which Lord Keane belonged, because although he did not for a moment question the right of the Sovereign to create any number of Peers, yet he did question the policy of pursuing that course which allowed the people out of doors, and the public generally, to suppose that the creation of a peerage, and the granting of a pension, must go hand in hand. Feeling as he did upon the subject, he should give his vole in favour of the shorter period.
Sir John Hobhousecould not say that either the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, or the hon. Member for Wigan. had done anything more than exercise their undoubted right in questioning the propriety of the vote, and taking the sense of the House upon it. With respect to the argument urged by his hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Ewart), he must take the liberty of saying that a good deal of what he had addressed to the House was rather a complaint that more was not given, because the hon. Member seemed to say that if the pension were granted in perpetuity there would be something like common sense in it, seeing that the Peerage was granted in perpetuity. He had also understood his hon. Friend to say the amount was not sufficient. [Mr. Ewart, No, no.] What his hon. Friend said was, that it was either too much or not enough. Her Majesty's Government in proposing a grant of this nature could only be regulated by precedent as to the amount. If his hon Friend contended that nothing at all ought to be granted beyond the life of Lord Keane, he could then understand him; but if he said that the pension ought to be granted in perpetuity, because the Peerage
1136
was in perpetuity, his (Sir John Hobhouse's) answer to that was, that her Majesty's Government had not thought it necessary to follow that course in the present case, but had preferred doing that which had been done in the last instance, namely, in the case of Lord Seaton. A good deal that had been addressed to the House by his hon. Friend had reference to peerages themselves, and he had stated that peerages ought only to be granted for life; but as the present peerage was granted to Lord Keane and his successors, the principle laid down by his hon. Friend could not apply. He would, with the permission of the House, mention three or four instances in which provision had been made for the successors of Peers to whom pensions had been granted. In the case of Lord Beresford, 2,000 l. a-year was granted to him, and to his heirs male for ever. Lord Combermere had 2,000 l. a-year granted to him and the two next successors to the family: 2,000 l. a-year was granted to Lord Hill and his heirs for ever. In the case of Lord Lyndoch, 2,000 l. a-year was granted to him and the holder of the title for ever; and in the case of Lord Seaton last year, 2,000 l. a-year was granted to his Lordship and the two succeeding inheritors of the title. After mentioning those instances he thought his hon. Friend would say that, instead of making an extravagant demand, they were only asking the House to comply with an ordinary custom, and were, in fact, asking less for Lord Keane than had been granted in several former instances. The hon. Member for Kilkenny shakes his head as if denying that the services of Lord Keane ought to be compared to those of Lord Seaton, but last year, when the services of Lord Seaton were to be rewarded, he said they were nothing as compared to the services of Lord Keane and the other heroes of Guznee, now when Lord Keane was to be rewarded, his services were said to be not of so important a nature as to entitle him to the usual distinctions of such merits. If his hon. Friend conceived that even previous to the late events, Lord Keane's services had not been of the most extensive and brilliant description, he had been greatly misinformed. Since he entered the army in 1793 there was not a part of the globe in which the British arms had distinguished themselves where Lord Keane had not served. He had fought in all the great actions in Egypt. He had assisted in the taking of Martinique. He had commanded in the last American war. He

1137
joined the Duke of Wellington just after the battle of Salamanca, and was engaged in every general action from that time, and commanded a brigade, till the close of the war at the victory of Toulouse. His long career of nearly half a century, had been crowned by the Affghan campaign. As the course now proposed had always been the usual mode of rewarding services, he considered it would be an injustice to Lord Keane not to adopt it, and unless he heard more than his hon. Friend the Member for Wigan had stated, he thought the House of Commons would not hesitate to grant to a gallant officer that which had been conceded to others under similar circumstances.
Lord Worsleycould not say that the usual mode was the best possible way of rewarding public services. He thought it would be advisable to have a change, but as the grant of 2,000 l. a year, with reversion to the two next heirs, had been proposed, he should be sorry to offer any opposition to it. It would be better, however, if it were understood, that when a grant of public money was proposed to be given to any individual, instead of continuing a pension to the heirs, to give the party so rewarded a larger sum. The only difficulty in this course was, that it would tend to create pauper Peers, but, as this would be known, the party would have the option of refusing the peerage if he pleased.
Mr. Wallacesaid, that the people out of doors did not care how often the Crown exercised its undoubted privilege of making Peers, but they objected strongly to the practice of conferring it upon those who could not support the peerage without putting their hands into the pockets of the people. On these grounds he should support the amendment. He was not led away by what had been said by the right hon. Baronet the President of the Board of Control. He had alluded to the services of Lord Keane. He (Mr. Wallace) did not object to Lord Keane, but he did object to his progeny; he did object to conferring this pension upon his sons. They had fought no battles for the people of England. If any Gentleman would get up and show him that these young gentlemen had fought any battles for the country, then he would reconsider the matter; but he would not consent to give the people's money to those who had done nothing for
1138
it. He should therefore vote for the amendment, and he would see if he could not frame a resolution, upon the third reading of the bill, to recommend the present advisers of the Crown, in all time to come, to beware of giving the peerage to those who could not do without pensions also.
Mr. Humesaid, the right hon. Baronet had put a construction upon what fell from him on a former occasion which could not be maintained, when he alluded to his comparison between Sir John Colborne and Lord Keane. The House was aware that at that time it was decided that Lord Keane should have no reward—that was perfectly well known. He spoke then from what was the current report. He had asked the right hon. Baronet the other evening, why this reward was conferred so long after the conferring the honour. No answer was given; but thereby hung a tale. It had been usual to reward officers connected with the East-India service—as in the case of the Marquess of Wellesley and the Marquess of Hastings—out of the revenues of India, and not out of the pockets of the people. When Ministers proposed to grant a pension to Lord Seaton, he (Mr. Hume) objected altogether to the proposed reward. He considered that his service did not entitle him to anything of the kind; that they were the most objectionable services that had ever been performed. He ought to have been brought to trial instead of receiving a reward. He allowed that the services of Lord Keane were more valuable than those of Lord Seaton, because he had served British interests in India. The Government, however, should have laid before the House the correspondence which had taken place between them and the East India House so that Parliament might be made acquainted with the negotiations on the subject. An hon. Gentleman opposite had said, that the East India Directors had expressed an opinion that it would be more to the honour of the country that Lord Keane should be paid out of the public revenue. He (Mr. Hume) did not, however, think so; because it was the East India Company that had principally benefited by Lord Keane's services. And, after all, had not those services been greatly exaggerated? It was well known that Lord Keane had attempted to take Ghuznee without battering guns, and if it had not been taken by surprise, the expedition would have been a failure. Besides, Colonel Denny was the person who had led the

1139
storming party, and to him the greatest merit was due; and yet his claims passed unnoticed. He could produce a number of Indian newspapers containing complaints on that subject. Such publications might be treated as the right hon. Baronet had treated them, but public opinion in India was not to be so treated. All the army knew that when a retreat was sounded by mistake, Colonel Denny had rallied them and carried the fortress. And what reward was offered to Colonel Denny? The person who stood aloof had no more to do with the capture of Ghuznee, than any person in a distant country. But suppose he had, let them look to the capture of Seringapatam, to the battle of Assaye, and the achievments in Bengal. The deeds of Lord Wellesley had been ten times more brillant than those of Lord Keane, and was there any Peerage offered or pension proposed for him? He thought, therefore, they were making a disproportionate reward altogether for such an ordinary transaction as the capture of Ghuznee. He thought it the duty of the Government to apportion rewards for military services according to their merit, and not to select the individual of all others the least desirous of them. In the second place, he objected to the system altogether of making Peers who had not the means of maintaining their dignity; but, above all, he objected to doing so when so much distress prevailed in the country. How many persons, almost in a state of destitution, would be called upon to contribute to this pension? He believed the Government had not thought Lord Keane's service worthy of this reward, or they would not have suffered so much delay to have taken place. With respect to India, he knew of no person who was raised to the Peerage for his services in that part of the world but Lord Lake; but there was no comparison between the brilliant exploits of that commander, and those of Lord Keane. Lord Lake's pension was, he believed, from the Crown. He (Mr, Hume) thought that the House, in the course it was pursuing in the subject at present under discussion, would outrage, and had outraged, the feelings of the whole Bengal army. He cared not who might state to the contrary, he knew it that feelings of dissatisfaction were manifested, both privately and publicly, in India, with respect to the proposal by Government of rewards so disproportionately great to the services of Lord Keane. That general officer would have remained Sir J. Keane
1140
but for the capture of the fort of Ghuznee; and he had shown how little Lord Keane was entitled to the glory of that capture. There were not many rewards given for such services, and hon. Members should therefore use some discrimination in them. The present was a most inopportune period "or making pecuniary grants, When their finances were in so distressed a state. They were also inverting the nature of things in this country. They ought to have a rich, independent aristocracy, and not a poor, pauper, and dependent one. It was on that principle that he offered any opposition to the present measure, and he trusted that on the third reading the House would reject the bill altogether.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that he would give his support to a grant of 2,000 l. a year to Lord Keane, and he thought it was hardly fair to take exceptions to the brilliant services the noble Lord had performed. The peerage had been granted by the Crown, and ought not to be questioned, but it was not quite so clear that the East India Company ought not to pay out of the revenues of India the reward of Lord Keane's services. If the company refused to do so, then he thought that an exception ought not to be taken in this case, and, after so brilliant an affair, that Lord Keane's claim to reward ought not to be defeated. He wished, however, that Government had said to the company, that as the Crown had granted the peerage the company ought to bear the expense. That, he thought, would have been a proper and fair arrangement. It was said, that it was usual to grant these rewards from the public funds. Now, the precedents might be in favour of such a proceeding, and it might be customary to provide rewards for military service in India out of the funds of this country; but if that were so, he for one, attached as he was to ancient usage, would not object to break through those precedents, when the service had been done for the advantage of the company. He thought it was right that the Crown should grant a peerage; but, had the company insisted on the honour, which they now seemed to throw upon the country generally, he would have been equally ready, and with equal magnanimity, to yield to their wishes. In saying so, he certainly had no intention of detracting from the merits of Lord Keane's services. In viewing the services of the noble Lord, they ought not to consider merely the

1141
taking of a particular fortress, but to bear in mind also the important consequences which attached to and followed his success. He thought the determination of Lord Keane to advance under the peculiar circumstances in which he was placed did him as much, if not more credit, than the capture of Ghuznee. When the hon. Gentleman, the Member for Kilkenny, last year thought the Government had no intention to reward Lord Keane, he had detracted from the merits of Lord Seaton, and held up Lord Keane as far more entitled to a pension. The moment, however, that it was proposed to reward Lord Keane, then he said "a certain secret, which was known to the whole of India, ought to prevent a reward from being granted, as Lord Keane had no credit in the capture of Ghuznee, and that all the credit was due to Colonel Denny." The facts, however, remained the same, and how the hon. Gentleman could reconcile his statement last year with his present statement, he was certainly at a loss to know. Last year he had praised the brilliant services of Lord Keane, and now he said that all India would be indignant if a reward were granted to that noble Lord. For himself, had Lord Keane performed no other services than those which he performed in India, he should have been prepared to agree to this reward. The hon. Gentleman had moved for certain papers relative to the services of Lord Keane; and if it appeared from those documents that he had been long and actively engaged in the service of his country—that he had run through a brilliant career during forty years, he thought that it would be rather hard for the hon. Gentleman to say, that Lord Keane's services were not entitled to consideration. Rewards, he acknowledged, of this description, ought to be granted sparingly; but he should be sorry in the present instance to see an exception made to the general practice. He thought, however, as he had at first stated, that the company ought to have paid the reward; and he hoped it might not yet be too late for them to participate in the honour which his country was disposed to bestow upon Lord Keane.
Sir J. Hobhousesaid, in reference to the complaint of Major Denny and Colonel Thompson having been passed unnoticed, it did so happen that Lord Keane, in his despatches, did mention in express
1142
terms the gallantry of Major Denny; add, with respect to Colonel Thompson, he himself had had the honour of recommending that gallant Officer for promotion to the dignity of a knight companion of the Bath.
Mr. Humeexplained, that if he had known all the circumstances at the time he extolled Lord Keane, he would not have done so.
Mr. Hoggwas not surprised that the right hon. Baronets suggestion should have met with a favourable reception from the House. It was very easy, and very agreeable too, to be liberal with other peoples money, but that was a description of generosity to which the directors of the East India Company made no pretension. They admitted as freely as the right hon. Baronet the distinguished services of Lord Keane, and that he had well merited the peerage which had been bestowed upon him; but they did not admit that the pension for the due maintenance of that dignity should be paid from their resources. They were bound to administer with liberality, but at the same time with becoming frugality the revenues derived from the people of India, and he maintained that if they consented to pay this pension, they would be extracting from the pockets of the people of that country money, which they were not in any point of view bound to pay. He would be able to prove this both from principle and precedent. He did not consider that the honor of the peerage had been conferred on Lord Keane solely for the capture of Ghuznee. That noble Lord had rendered great and distinguished services to his country in Egypt, in the West Indies, in America, on the peninsula, and in every quarter of the globe, and the capture of Ghuznee was only the consummation of his military glory. The only case he recollected in which a peerage had been bestowed for services performed in India, was that of Lord Lake. There the services performed were peculiarly Indian, and their locality was strongly marked by the grant of the pension having been made retrospective and payable from the date of the battle at Delhi. That pension was granted by Parliament, and no one contended that it ought to have been paid from the resources of India. Was there any man, however, in this House, who would say that the capture of Guhznee and the campaign in Afghanistan were purely Indian? What,

1143
had they no reference to, and no bearing upon European policy? Have they not notoriously mixed up with our Persian relations and our apprehensions of Russian intrigue and aggression? With these considerations present to his mind, he contended that instead of the East India Company being called upon to pay this pension, they might fairly call upon this House to defray half the expenses of the campaign in Afghanistan. He begged further to remind the House, that while our civil and military establishments in every other British possession and colony had been maintained at great expense to the mother country, every such establishment in India had been paid for by the people of that country. He did not say it was unjust that such expences should be borne by them, he thought it was fit and proper that it should be so; but it was carrying the matter rather too far to require them to pay the pension of a distinguished military officer who had served his country throughout the world for nearly half a century because he had consummated his military glory by the capture of Ghuznee, an exploit as much mixed up with European politics, as if the battle had been fought within the confines of Europe. He disclaimed the imputation of illiberality cast upon the East India Company by the right hon. Baronet and believed it was novel. He had heard that body charged with imprudence and extravagance, but this was the first time he had ever heard them charged with illiberality. He did not, however, complain; on the contrary, he felt pleased and gratified, and could not resume his seat without expressing his thanks to the right hon. Baronet for throwing upon the directors of the East India Company an imputation so likely to render them popular, and which could not fail to be construed as only evincing on their part due discretion and proper frugality, in administering the revenues of the Indian empire.
Mr. Aglionbyfelt himself bound, as one of those who had the care of the public money, not to be too generous in giving it away. He hoped the Government would withdraw this clause for the present, for the purpose of seeing whether the East-India Company would adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth. The course the Government had taken was neither justified by liberality nor economy, He should
1144
vote against the grant to the next two in succession to Lord Keane.
Sir Charles Burrellsupported the vote. Those who objected to it did not consider the importance of the East India possessions to this country. He thought this reward was well merited, and he should, therefore vote in favour of it.
Mr. Muntzobjected to the grant. He thought if they had done wrong on one occasion it was no reason why they should continue to do so. He would never vote to tax future generations. He should vote for the amendment, because he could not do better.
The Committee divided on the question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause:—Ayes 177; Noes 74:—Majority 103.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Gladstone, J. N.

Adam, Admiral

Gordon, R.

Alston, R.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Archbold, R.

Grattan, J.

Bailey, J. jun.

Grattan, H.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Blackburne, I.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Blair, J.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Blake, W. J.

Herries, rt. hn. J. C.

Botfield, B.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Bramston, T. W.

Hodgson, R.

Broadwood, H.

Hogg, J. W.

Buck, L. W.

Holmes, hon. W. A.

Buller, E.

Holmes, W.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Hope, hon. C.

Burrell, Sir C.

Howard, hon. C.W.G.

Campbell, Sir H.

Hughes, W. B.

Chetwynd, Major

Ingestrie, Viscount

Chichester, Sir B.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Clay, W.

Jackson, Mr. Serjeant

Clerk, Sir G.

Jenkins, Sir R.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Kirk, P.

Cochrane, Sir T. J.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Cole, hon. A. H.

Lennox, Lord G.

Compton, H. C.

Lennox, Lord A.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Lincoln, Earl of

Crawford, W.

Listowell, Earl of

Dalmeny, Lord

Lockhart, A. M.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Lowther, J. H.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Mackenzie, T.

Douro, Marquess of

Mackenzie, W. F.

Dunbar G.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Egerton, W. T.

Maunsell, T. P.

Eliot, Lord

Mordaunt, Sir J.

Estcourt, T.

Morgan, O.

Evans, Sir De L.

Morpeth, Viscount

Fielden, W.

Neeld, J.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Pakington, J. S.

Fitzalan, Lord

Palmer, G.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Parker, M.

Fleming, J.

Parnell, rt. hon Sir H.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Gladstone, W. E.

Perceval, Colonel

1145

Polhill, F.

Style, Sir C.

Protheroe, E.

Sugden, rt. hon. Sir E.

Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.

Tufnell, H.

Roche, W.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Vivian, rt. hn.SirR.H.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

White, H.

Rushout, G.

Whitmore, T.C.

Russell, Lord J.

Wood, Colonel

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

Wood, Col. T.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Worsley, Lord

Shirley, E. J.

Wyndham, W.

Smith, R. V.

Yates, J. A.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Young, J.

Stanley, Lord

Young, Sir W.

Stuart, Lord J.

TELLERS.

Stuart, W. V.

Seymour, Lord

Stock, Mr. Serjeant

Parker, J.

List of the NOES.

Acheson, Viscount

Marsland, H.

Aglionby, H. A.

Melgund, Viscount

Ainsworth, P.

Morris, D.

Baines, E.

Muntz, G. F.

Barneby, J.

Parker, R. T.

Beamish, F. B.

Pattison, J.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Pease, J.

Bewes, T.

Pechell, Captain

Bowes, J.

Philips, M.

Bridgman, H.

Redington, T.

Brodie, W. B.

Richards, R.

Brotherton, J.

Rundle, J.

Brownrigg, S.

Salwey, Colonel

Bruges, W.H.L.

Scholefield, J.

Chalmers, P.

Sheppard, T.

Collier, J.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Currie, R.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Dennistoun, J.

Steuart, R.

Duncombe, T.

Stewart, J.

Ellis, W.

Strickland, Sir G.

Evans, W.

Strutt, E.

Fielden, J.

Thornely, T.

Ferguson, Colonel

Tollemache, F. J.

Gillon, W. D.

Turner, E.

Gisborne, T.

Turner, W.

Hall, Sir B.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Hawes, B.

Wakley, T.

Hector, C. J.

Wall, C. B.

Hindley, C.

Wallace, R.

Howard, P. H.

Warburton, H.

Hume, J.

White, A.

Hutt, W.

Wilbraham, hon. B.

Johnson, General

Williams, W.

Jones, J.

Winnington, Sir T. E.

Langdale, hon. C.

Wood, B.

Leader, J. T.

Lister, E. C.

TELLERS.

Lushington, C.

Ewart, W.

Marshall, W.

Hamilton, C. J.

Other clauses agreed to.
House resumed.

EAST-INDIA RUM.
On the motion of Mr. Labouchere, the House went into Committee on the East-India Rum Duties' Bill.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, that it was not his
1146
intention to offer any remarks upon the bill in its present stage. He would reserve what he had to say until he had seen all the papers upon the subject.
Mr. Laboucherewished the House to understand that although it was intended to put rum, the produce of the sugarcane in the East Indies, upon the same footing as that produced in the West Indies, it was not intended to apply the principle to spirits generally. Upon clause 3, he proposed to add words, giving to the Governor-general the power of making regulations for the purpose of preventing frauds. He had considered the matter very attentively, and found it impossible to undertake to constitute a machinery for that purpose, at least until they had seen what regulations were adopted by the Governor-general, and how far they were successful.
Mr. Humequite agreed with the hon. Gentleman on that subject. He thought that every colony should be left to make its own regulations on these subjects. But he could not help regretting that the Government were higgling about the spirits to which the proposed equalization should be extended. Why not admit all spirits? He had hoped that a more liberal policy would be pursued, and that they would be prepared to take from India every article which they required for home consumption. It appeared to him a very insane restriction. The people of India were as much the subjects of her Majesty as we were, or those in the West Indies, and there ought to be no restriction on the intercourse or the free interchange of produce between all. The talk of East-India interests and West-India interests had been the bane of this country. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would introduce a clause opening the trade to all spirits made in India.
Mr. Laboucherehoped the House would confine itself to the question then before the House. He had introduced the bill as one affecting rum only, and he would think he was committing a breach of faith were he to agree to the suggestion of the hon. Member. He had the question of free intercourse as much at heart as the hon. Gentleman, but he thought the present was not the time to go into the large questions that would be opened up were he to consider the question of India spirits generally.
Mr. Goulburnsuggested that some clause

1147
ought to be introduced, in order to secure that no turn but that the produce of the sugar cane was introduced under this bill. He had prepared clauses for that purpose, and if the bill should go through Committee, he would communicate them to the right hon. Gentleman, and move them at a future stage.
Mr. Laboucheredid not think there was any necessity for the introduction of such provisions. The Customs were of that opinion, and he thought it would be better to leave all the regulations on the subject to the Indian Government. Everybody knew that rum was exported from England to the Continent, and that three-fourths of that was British spirit. Now, all he desired was, that that superintendence should be exercised over the manufacture of rum, which would effectually guard against those abuses which they professed to guard against.
Mr. Hawesprotested against the whole line of argument adopted in the present discussion. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Goulburn) looked to his own especial interest, and not to that of the public. Because, if it was the interest of the public to, have the right hon. Gentleman's rum, it was also their interest to have it cheap. He considered that what was now proposed was a most useful step. The excise regulations were more stringent in the East Indies than in the West, and he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, that they should be put on an equal footing. He was told the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the Tower Hamlets, meant to bring a motion before the House with respect to the subject of slavery; when that motion was brought forward it would be seen, that free labour was a far greater source of profit than slave labour. He found in the clause the words "British protection." Now, were not all those places to which the bill referred to be considered as dependencies of the British empire? Were they not all governed by officers of the British Crown, and why should the people there not have the benefit of their protection.
Mr. Goulburndenied his advocating the interest of the West Indies further than it coincided with the interest of the public generally.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerthought they might meet all the objects proposed to be gained by the clause without adopt
1148
ing the very words of it. He certainly had some objection to the right hon. Gentleman's clause being adopted in its present state. He thought, that whatever should be done agreeably to what was suggested in the clause should be done in India. He was satisfied that a discretionary power should be vested in the Privy Council in this country, which could occasionally be brought into action. He could not consent to any words limiting the mode in which their objects were to be carried into effect, and consequently to the words proposed, he had a strong objection.
Mr. Warburtonhoped no words would be introduced into the bill, subjecting the produce of the sugar cane to any other restrictions than those on West India produce. He thought that any prescription as to the mode in which the Governor-general of India should carry these objects into effect would be injurious to the East India interests; and he thought this would be the effect of the words proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. All be (Mr. Warburton) wished was, that the restrictions on the produce of both countries should be precisely the same.
Mr. Palmerthought, that if this equalization of duty took place, the West-Indies were in justice entitled to the removal of certain restrictions under which, they laboured, such as the prohibitory duties on timber and provisions.
Mr. Sheilsaid, their object was to introduce East India rum at the same duty as the rum of the West-Indies, but to have security that it should be the produce of the sugar cane. The question was, how could they obtain that object? It appeared to him that the means must be left with those who were most conversant with the country.
Mr. Hoggagreed in all that had been said respecting the understanding that the duty on sugar being equalised, the duty should be also equalised on rum, being the produce of the sugar cane.
Mr. Laboucheresaid, that he would endeavour to meet the views of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Clause agreed to with amendments.
Bill reported, with amendments. House resumed.

HULL DOCKS.
Mr. Huttmoved, that the minutes of the evidence taken during the last Session of Parliament before the

1149
committee of the Hull Docks be laid before the House and printed. The subject was more of a public than a private nature; and he, therefore, hoped the House would not refuse his motion.
Mr. Sheilthought it would be of much use to the public to have the evidence in question printed, because it involved a saving, perhaps of 6,000 l. or 7,000 l. a year to the State.
Mr. Goulburndeprecated the practice of printing evidence before private bill committees, except in special and particular cases. It was fraught with evil consequences.
Motion agreed to.

MUNICIPAL COUNCILS.
Mr. J. A. Smithmoved for leave to bring in a bill to enable Municipal Councils to raise money by granting annuities, and to apply the same in payment of old debts.
Mr. Goulburnopposed the motion, which, after a few words from
Captain Pechell, was withdrawn.