CUSTOMS ACTS—THE TARIFF.

HC Deb 07 June 1842 vol 63 cc1364-85

House in committee on the Customs Acts.

Schedule 11, relating to manufactures of leather, under consideration.

On the question that the women's boots and calashes the dozen pair be 12s.,

Mr. G. Palmer

moved, that it should be 20s.

Mr. Ward

believed, that the tariff would he of advantage to trade, and upon that ground he should support the proposition of the Government. If, however, that object were not attained, the working classes would next Session have a right to demand from that House cheap food.

Mr. B. Wood

thought, that the whole difference between the present duty and the one now proposed would be taken out of the pockets of the working boot and shoemakers, and he should therefore support the proposition of the hon. Member for Essex.

Mr. Gladstone

said, no case had been made out for departing from the proposition of the Government, and as he believed the general effect of it would be the improvement of our own trade, he must oppose the motion of the hon. Member for Essex.,

Mr. Cobden

said, as he supported a free-trade in corn he would carry out his principles and vote against the amendment.

Mr. S. Wortley

maintained, that the duty on corn had been reduced more than any other article in the tariff.

Mr. Cobden

said, that he had the recorded words of the right hon. Baronet that he (Sir R. Peel) made sugar and corn as exceptions to the general principles of free-trade adopted in the tariff.

Mr. Williams

thought it necessary first, to take the taxes off the necessaries of life before the English labourer would be able to compete with the foreigner. Until that was done, a great injustice would be inflicted upon the people of this country.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, that under the present duty not more than 190l. was received on women's shoes imported from France. He thought that it would be for the interest of the shoemakers to have a duty which would operate as an effectual protection to the native manufacturer. A duty of 20 per cent. would effect that object.

The committee divided on the question, that the blank be filled with 12s.:—Ayes 148; Noes 36;—Majority 112.

List of the AYES.
Acton, Col.	Egerton, W. T.
Ainsworth P.	Egerton, Sir P.
Aldam, W.	Estcourt, T. G. B.
Bailey J., jun.	Evans, W.
Baldwin, B.	Farnham, E. B.
Baring, hon. W. B.	Filmer, Sir E.
Baring, rt. hon. F. T.	Fitzroy, Capt.
Bernard, Visct.	Fitzroy, hon. H.
Blackburne, J. I.	Flower, Sir J.
Boldero, H. G.	Follett. Sir W. W.
Botfield B.	Ffolliott, J.
Bowring, Dr.	Forbes, M.
Bramston, T. W.	Forster, M.
Brotherton, J.	Fuller, A. E.
Buckley, E.	Gibson, T. M.
Buller, Sir J. Y.	Gill, T.
Bunbury, T.	Gladstone, rt. hn. W.E.
Busfeild, W.	Gladstone, T.
Cardwell, E.	Gordon, hon. Capt.
Cavendish, hon. G. H.	Gore, M.
Chapman, B.	Goulburn, rt. hon. H.
Chelsea, Visct.	Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.
Christie, W. D.	Granger, T. C.
Clayton, R. R.	Greenall, P.
Clerk, Sir G.	Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.
Cobden, R.	Hamilton, J. H.
Cockburn, rt. hn. SirG.	Hamilton, W. J.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E.	Hampden, R.
Coote, Sir C. H.	Harcourt, G. G.
Corry, rt. hon. H.	Hardinge, rt. hn. sir H.
Crawford, W. S.	Hepburn, Sir T. B.
Damer, hon. Col.	Hervey, Lord A.
Dawnay, hon. W. H.	Hill, Sir R.
Dickinson, F. H.	Hodgson, R.
Douglas, Sir H.	Hope, hon. C.
Douglas, Sir C. E.	Hornby, J.
Dowdeswell, W.	Howick, Visct.
Duncan, G.	Hume, J.
Eaton, R. J.	Hussey, T.

Hutt, W.	Richards, R.
Inglis, Sir R. H.	Rose, rt. hn. Sir G.
Irton, S.	Round, J.
Jackson, J. D.	Russell, J. D. W.
James, Sir W. C.	Ryder, hon. G. D.
Jermyn, Earl	Sandon, Visct.
Johnstone, A.	Scott, hon. F.
Johnstone, H.	Seymour, Lord
Jones, Capt.	Seymour, Sir H. B.
Knatchbull, rt. hn. SirE.	Sheppard, T.
Lambton, H.	Shirley, E. J.
Langston; J. H.	Shirley, E. P.
Lascelles, hon. W. S.	Smith, A.
Lefroy, A.	Smyth, Sir H.
Legh G. C.	Somerset, Lord G.
Lincoln, Earl of	Sotheron, T.H.S.
Litton, E.	Stanley, Lord
Lockhart, W.	Stansfield, W. R. C.
Lyall, G.	Stanton, W. H.
Macaulay, rt. hn. T.B.	Stewart, J.
Mackenzie, W. F.	Sutton, hon. H. M.
M'Geachy, F. A.	Thornely, T.
Marshall, W.	Turnor, C.
Marsham, Visct.	Verner, Colonel
Marsland, H.	Ward, H. G.
Martin, J.	Wawn. J. T.
Martin, C. W.	White, H.
Newry, Visct.	Wilbraham, hn. R. B.
Pakington, J. S.	Wodehouse, E.
Philips, M.	Wood, C.
Plumridge, Capt.	Wortley, hon. J. S.
Plumptre, J. P.	Wrightson, W. B.
Polhill, F.	Young, John
Pollington, Visct.
Pollock, Sir F.	TELLERS.
Pringle, A.	Baring, H.
Protheroe, E.	Fremantle, Sir T.

List of the NOES.
Allix, J. P	Kemhle, H.
Baird, W.	Lawson, A.
Broadley, H.	Long, W.
Brocklehurst, J.	Mitcalfe, H.
Brodie, W. B.	Mitchell, T. A.
Chapman, A.	O'Brien, J.
Chetwode, Sir J.	O'Brien, W. S.
Cripps, W.	Ogle, S. C. H.
Esmonde, Sir T.	Pechell, Capt.
Fielden, J.	Pryse, P.
Greenaway, C.	Scholefield, J.
Grimsditch, T.	Trotter, J.
Grogan, E.	Turner, E.
Halford, H.	Vivian, J.
Heathcote, J.	Walker, R.
Henley, J. W.	Williams, W.
Hinde, J. H.
Hollond, R.	TELLERS.
Humphery, Mr. Ald.	Palmer, G.
Ingestre, Viscount	Wood, B.

On the question that there should be a duty of 10 per cent, ad valorem chargeable on the import of all cotton manufactured goods.

Mr. M. Gibson

was at a loss to understand upon what principle it was that there should be a duty of 10 per cent charged upon the importation of foreign cottons. The cotton trade of Great Britain did not need any such protection; the cotton manufacturers sought for no protection. All that the cotton manufacturer wanted, was to be allowed freely to exchange his productions with foreigners for the food which those whom he was in the habit of employing so urgently required, and the same freedom which the cotton manufacturer demanded for himself he was willing that the agriculturist should fully enjoy.

Mr. Gladstone

said, that her Majesty's Government had not fallen into the mistake of supposing that the duty to which the hon. Member who spoke last alluded, had contributed in any degree to raise our cotton manufacture to its present height. He thought he could best explain the principle upon which the duty was imposed by a reference to the duty on bar iron. There was a close analogy between the two cases. The interests of the iron trade generally were no more advanced by the duty on the import of foreign bar iron then the interests of the cotton trade at large were promoted by the existence of the duty now under consideration. But there were branches of the iron trade which felt the benefit of the existing duty, and a limited branch of the cotton trade was in a similar situation, though the provision to which he referred was valueless to the great body of the trade. It was quite true, that the cotton trade was not liable to be affected in this country by anything like foreign competition, yet as respected one branch of the trade, the sort of protection which this duty gave was considered not unimportant.

Dr, Bowring

said, that a very general impression prevailed on the continent that the success of British manufactures was owing to protection; he therefore thought that as an example this duty ought to be removed. Cotton never had received any protection, and never required any, he should therefore vote for the rejection of the proposed impost.

Mr. M. Gibson

protested against the existence of this duty being made a pretext for continuing a protection to agriculture, which had long been a great injury to the commercial and manufacturing interests of this country. Much error prevailed upon this subject, and many efforts were made to induce the public to think that the cotton-trade enjoyed a protection similar to that possessed by the agriculturists.

Mr. Cobden

said, that the cotton-trade needed no protection, and was incapable of receiving any. The benevolence of those who sought to protect the cotton-trade would be altogether futile, if they did not set free the importation of food upon the possession of which the prosperity of all manufactures depended. The English agriculturists enjoyed an exclusive market, while the English manufacturer was exposed to unlimited competition. The pamphlet written by Mr. D. Hume, signed "H. B. T." and published by Hooper, ought to convince any man of the gross injustice which was perpetrated for the sake of the agriculturist.

Viscount Sandon

observed, that there were articles imported to which this duty would advantageously apply, and he should therefore support it.

Dr. Bowring

begged to call the attention of the noble Lord to one fact. When the Corn-laws were under discussion, several hundreds of delegates from the various manufacturing districts in the country assembled together, and the first resolution which they passed was, that they were in favour of free-trade in the articles they consumed themselves, whilst, at the same time, they were perfectly willing to submit to free-trade in the articles which they produced.

Mr. M. Attwood

wished to remind hon. Gentlemen of another fact,—namely, that Mr. Huskisson, in March, 1825, in a speech then delivered by him, stated, that the duties on manufactured cotton goods stood as follows: 75 per cent on one particular description of articles, 67½ per cent on another kind, and 50 per cent on a third class of cotton goods; that graduated scale Mr. Huskisson described as monstrous, and proposed that a protection of 10 per cent should be levied.

Mr. Brocklehurst

was not a free trader, except so far as he was compelled to be one by the conduct of the Government. He complained, that while many interests came to that House and cried out for protection, there were others which could do without protection, apparently determined to sweep down and sacrifice others to their own principles. The number of persons employed in the cotton-trade was small, compared with those engaged in other branches. If other trades were not protected, the persons employed in them must go into union workhouses. What had Mr. Forward, the American states- man, said? He had declared, that the time had arrived when they must protect the manufacturing classes, and in doing that, they would also protect the landed and agricultural classes. He should be ready when the proper time came to re- turn to a sound and fair mode of protection to all branches of trade, exactly equal to that given to land. He was a practical man rather than a theorist. He had watched the progress of the chamber of commerce at Manchester, a body '.which had allowed its tongue to outrun its judgment. Facts were decidedly against that body, because the consumption of raw silk and the people's wages had considerably diminished since the reduction of the duties on foreign silks, although there had been plenty of husks, rough-stuff, and devil's dust used. Foreigners of every country had told British manufacturers not to send out any more of their silks, for they were a disgrace to them. The Anti-Corn-law League had so bewildered the public mind, that it was perfectly vain to try at present to stem the torrent of error until the people returned to their senses; he was of the same opinion as an hon. Friend near him-—that the better way was to let them go on at the greatest speed, because they would be the sooner likely to come back to right principles.

Mr. Mangles

wished to call upon the House to do justice to the cotton manufactures of British India. The Government proposed an ad valorem duty of 5l. per cent upon the importation of cotton goods from British India, which was the only place from which they could come, and he was decidedly of opinion that the proposition was unfair. They had already nearly destroyed the cotton manufacture of India by the superior skill, science, and capital of this country — so much so, that whereas in former times there was a population of 300,000 employed in the city of Candahar in the cotton- trade, there were not 30,000 so employed. now. In order further to show what they had already done, he would merely say, that in 1814, India exported to this country 1,266,000 pieces of cotton goods, while, in 1837, she exported only 414,000 pieces. The value in the five years ending in 1814 was 1,400,000l., while the value of the exports in the five years end- in 1838, was only 94,000.l., showing a falling off of no less than 1,306,000l., and during the same period the increase in the imports from England had increased accordingly. They had almost destroyed the cotton trade of India, but as a free-trader, he was bound to say, that although they had no doubt infused distress amongst the portion of the people of India, engaged in the cotton trade, they had conferred an immense benefit upon the great bulk of the people of that country. He did not, however, think it was fair that they should now by their measures further distress that body which had already suffered so much.

Mr. Cobden

said, hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to fancy, that the cotton trade enjoyed a protection of 10 per cent., because they saw it in the tariff; but suppose the hon. Member for Whitehaven, for instance, were to look a little further into the tariff, he would see that it proposed a duty of 40s. a-ton on coals imported into Newcastle. Let him go and ask his constituents whether that was any protection to the coal trade or not. If hon. Gentlemen liked to be taken in by the tariff, that was no reason why those who were in favour of free-trade should be. In reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Macclesfield, he would only say, that because the manufacturers of silk refused to improve upon their old system, was no reason why the cotton manufacturers, who had greatly improved, should be kept in shackles. The people of Macclesfield seemed to be in great doubt upon many things, as well as upon the question of free-trade—they were represented by one Gentleman on each side of the House, and neither of them appeared to have made up his mind on any subject.

Mr. Grimsditch

said, at all events, the people of Macclesfield were of one mind respecting the doctrines of free-trade— they were universally opposed to them. He had never seen so much distress in his life as he witnessed in Macclesfield on the introduction of the foreign silk upon free- trade principles in 1825, and he felt certain, that if those principles were carried out to the extent advocated by the hon. Member for Montrose, it would bring in- evitable ruin on the country—it would destroy manufactures, the colonies, and the greatness of this country; therefore, he trusted the Government whom he now saw upon those Benches below him, would not be led away by such doctrines. He had just had the satisfaction of giving a vote in favour of the shoemakers, and he would always support the industry of the country.

Mr. Ferrand

only rose for a moment to protest against the hon. and learned Member for Bolton being received as an authority upon free-trade by that House. The House was well aware, that the hon. and learned Gentleman, commissioned by the late Government, had visited the continent for the purpose of getting information on matters of trade and commerce. He had been informed by a Swiss manufacturer of respectability that the hon. and learned Gentleman would only take evidence which suited his own views and purposes. The hon. Member for Montrose seems to think, the hon. Member continued, that if he is not aware of a fact, no one else can be. I rise to protest against a fact stated by the hon. and learned Member for Bolton, that the delegates sent to London by the Anti-Corn-law League represent the whole manufacturing interest of the country; and that when they state they are willing to carry out the principles of free-trade, all the gentlemen connected with the manufacturing interests are prepared to carry out those principles. I beg leave to say, that there are gentlemen connected with the different trades of this country, who could buy up the Anti-Corn-law League a thousand times over, who pro- test against the principles of free-trade, and who declare, that it is impossible for this country long to exist if those principles were carried out. Where are the gentlemen of the Anti-Corn-law League now? They had disappeared from the face of day—from the face of the public. The working classes had cast them off and told them that they had tried to be- tray them. The placard he had showed in the House the other night could only have been used in the absence of all argument. Would any one with truth on their side, have used such a placard? Durst they deny that it was theirs? He had shown it himself to a leading man of the Anti-Corn-law League, and he durst not deny it. Where was it published? It was published at Manchester, by a printer of the name of Gadsby, and over that man's door was painted in large characters, "The depot of the papers of the Anti-Corn-law League." Don't let them charge the Government to the working classes with murder, but use common sense, plain arguments, and plain honest dealing with the working classes; and if a poor wayfaring man could not be deceived by their arguments, don't let them try to rouse him against the Government by falsehood.

Dr. Bowring

I beg to call for an explanation. When the hon. Member states, that I was sent abroad by her Majesty's Government to collect evidence on commercial matters, and that I either suppressed or refused to adhere to certain evidence, he is called on to state his authority. He has more than once in this House refused to state the authority for accusations of the most grave and serious import. I call on him again to state the authority on which he has ventured to state that I have either suppressed what is true, or introduced what is false. If I may be allowed to differ from the opinion of individual Swiss, I may state, and the hon. Member would have found, if he had consulted the history of Switzer- land, that the Swiss have, from beginning to end, recognised the principles of free- trade, and their happiness is to be attributed to those principles.

Mr. Ferrand

I never stated, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had sup- pressed what was true, or stated what was false. But what I said was, that I was told by a Swiss manufacturer of great respectability, that the hon. and learned Member would only hear parties who coincided with him.

An interruption occurred—there was a call for a division—'the gallery was cleared, but no division took place. On returning to the gallery,

Mr. Ferrand

was on his legs, endeavouring to make himself heard, amidst considerable tumult. The hon. Member was understood to say, that he was pre- pared to prove what he had said. I have brought, he added, no charge against the hon. and learned Member. I say, I state it on the authority of two Swiss manufacturers of the highest respectability. One of them, the mayor of a town, told me, that he had the honour of having the hon. and learned Member as a guest at his table; and it was their opinion, that the hon. and learned Member did not take the evidence of the Swiss manufacturers impartially.

Viscount Howick

could not help ex- pressing his astonishment at what he had heard in the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down. The hon. Member said, he had made no charge against the hon. Member for Bolton. He would ask the House to remember what it was that in the opinion of the hon. Member was no charge. The hon. Member told them that the hon. and learned Member being in a responsible public situation, being charged by the Government of the day fairly to collect evidence upon an important point, had deliberately suppressed evidence. [No, no.] He would give the hon. Gentleman the benefit of the incorrectness into which he had fallen. The hon. Member did not use the word "suppress," but was there a great distinction between sup- pressing evidence and refusing to take it? He asked the House whether, in the plainest and most distinct terms, the hon. Member had not stated that the hon. Member for Bolton (Dr. Bowring) had re-fused to take evidence which he thought made against himself? He appealed to the recollection of the House of what had passed but a few minutes ago, whether that was not the substance of the charge. The hon. Member might think that to make such a statement was not to make a charge against the character of a public officer. If such was the hon. Member's opinion, he (Viscount Howick) begged to tell him that he held a different opinion of the duty not only of a person holding a public situation, but of an honest and an honourable man, and he further told the hon. Member, that if he wished him to believe the correctness of his statement, he must give him every minute particular, so as to enable him to test the accuracy of his judgment. That would be the fair mode of proceeding. The hon. Member for Knaresborough had been pleased to allude to him as one of the great number who had called on the hon. Member to name the person on whose authority the hon. Member had made what he considered to be a very grave charge against the hon. Member for Bolton. He admitted that he did call on the hon. Gentleman to name. When a charge of this kind was made, it was the duty of the hon. Gentleman to give his authority. An hon. Member could in such a case do one of two things —he could either abstain from making charges of this sort, founded, perhaps, on some vague statements which he may have casually collected in his travels, or, if he was prepared to make the charge, he ought also to be prepared, if called upon, to substantiate the charge. It would not do for the person making such a charge to turn round to the House, and to say "Won't you believe me?" thus making the question personal to himself. No doubt he was bound to believe what every gentleman stated he believed to be true, but he must inform the hon. Member for Knaresborough that he had not that confidence in his judgment, nor that reliance on his impartiality, which he would like to have in questions of this kind. The hon. Member was bound to state the authority for his statement and the particulars, for, unless he did so, it would be out of the power of the hon. Member for Bolton to disprove the charge. He (Viscount Howick) felt that the hon. Member was the more bound to do this because this was not the first time that the hon. Member had made vague charges of this kind, and had shrunk from substantiating them. He alluded to the vague charges which the hon. Member made on a former evening in that House without ever, as far as he was aware, having put it in the power of the parties charged to repel those charges. These charges the hon. Member had repeated to-night, although he had never made them in such a shape as would enable the parties to repel them. That was a practice which ought not to be encouraged by the House, and he would never be deterred by any notice which the hon. Member might take of what he said from expressing his opinion of the extreme and gross impropriety of this manner of bringing forward accusations which were neither properly substantiated, nor yet made in such a way as to enable the par- ties accused to repel them.

Lord Stanley

said, that the discussion was exceedingly profitless, and much more time bad already been wasted than was necessary on an expression which had been casually dropped. The hon. Member for Knaresborough begged the hon. Member for Bolton might not be taken as an authority on free-trade, because the hon. Member for Knaresborough had been told that the hon. Member had taken evidence only on one side. Taking the statement as they pleased, he admitted that it did convey a charge against the hon. Member for Bolton, which it was proper that he should deny. Then the hon. Member for Bolton got up in his place, and utterly denied the charge, which, therefore, resting as it did solely on anonymous authority, fell to the ground. If, when statements of this kind were made, it was to be said to the hon. Member who made them, 'Now, tell me whom you heard this from?" it would only lead to profitless discussions, and to a waste of the time of the House. He must beg the committee to consider, that from the moment that the hon. Member for Bolton made his denial, that charge fell to the ground, and there was an end of it, and he hoped the committee would allow the subject to drop. They had now for a long time been discussing this tariff which every man allowed ought to be pressed forward with all possible expedition. But it was impossible that this should be done if discussions were allowed to arise on every article, not as to the merits, but on collateral or irrelevant topics. He entreated the committee to give full credit to the denial of the hon. Member for Bolton, and to stop the pre- sent discussion.

Mr. Baring

said, that being a Member of the Government which commissioned the hon. Member against whom this most unjust and unfair charge had been made, he could not help rising to express his opinion that the charge was wholly un- founded. He said that if the charge were true, the hon. Member for Bolton had acted most disgracefully; he said, without cavilling about words, for the charge had been made in three different shapes, the hon Member (Mr. Ferrand) having in each of his three speeches differed from himself,— that whichever charge was taken, and proved to be true, the hon. Member for Bolton had acted most disgracefully. He said, moreover, that if a charge was brought against an hon, Member in the discharge of a public duty. it was right, whether the hon. Member sat on that or the other side of the House, that he should have that specification of the charge which might enable him to disprove it. A public servant had been charged with a failure of duty, and when the hon. Member who made the charge was asked for his authorities, he refused to name them. If he had stated that he had heard that any hon. Gentleman opposite had acted dishonestly and disgracefully in the discharge of those public duties which it might be incumbent upon him to perform, and if when he had been called upon to name the party from whom he received the information, in order to afford the person accused an opportunity of meeting the charge, he said, "No; I made the statement myself, but I will give you no opportunity to repel the accusation," what opinion would be entertained of such conduct on the opposite side of the House? The noble Lord opposite had fairly said, that he gave full credence to the denial which the hon. Member for Bolton had given to the charge brought against him; and the noble Lord had justly observed that the statement of that hon. Member ought to receive entire credit from the House. That was, in fact, the usual course which, in common courtesy, was pursued in that House. What had been the case in this instance 1 A denial was given; the charge was restated; again it was denied in the most unreserved manner; yet a third time was the accusation repeated. It was not now his duty to defend public servants, but if charges of this nature were brought against them—if their characters were aspersed without any opportunity being afforded them of explaining or refuting the charge —he must say they were most unfairly dealt with, on whichever side of the House they might happen to sit. He agreed with his noble Friend that the time of the House was most unprofitably spent in discussing such personal matters as this; but it was, he conceived, most unfair that such an attack should be made on his hon. Friend by the hon. Member opposite.

Mr. Ferrand

would ask that House, and through them the country, whether it was not notorious, at the time the hon. and learned Member for Bolton was sent on his mission, that the hon. and learned Member was a violent advocate of the principles of free-trade? He begged also to ask the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, whether it was not also notorious throughout the country, that the hon. and learned Member for Bolton was sent abroad by the Government for the purpose of getting rid of him. It was at least asserted throughout the country, that the late Government sent the hon. and learned Member for Bolton abroad for the purpose of getting rid of him, on account of his advocacy of those principles, which he did not hesitate to say the hon. and learned Member supported in a straight- forward and honourable manner. But would it be contended that he was not justified in canvassing the conduct of that hon. and learned Member as a public servant? Was he to be told, in that House, that he had no right, as an individual Member, to express his opinion as to the manner in which the evidence obtained by the hon. and learned Member had been got up? For his own part, he was not satisfied with the conduct of that hon. and learned Gentleman while he was abroad. He thought the evidence obtained by the hon. Member did not show that he was anxious to obtain a fair report on both sides of the question. He begged to inform the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that he had not to-night altered three times the nature of his assertions with respect to the hon. Member for Bolton It was true that he had three times repeated his statement, and he would now repeat it again. He asserted that the hon. and learned Member for Bolton was more inclined to hear evidence in favour of free-trade than receive evidence on the other side. That was the statement he had made before. He wished to say one word with regard to the observations of the noble Lord the Member for Sunder-land (Viscount Howick.) That noble Viscount had stated he had uttered language which was grossly improper to use in that House. If he had used grossly improper language, he had no doubt the Chairman would have felt it his duty to call him to order.

Mr. Brotherton

moved that the Chairman do report progress.

Mr. Wallace

said, in the whole course of his experience, and he had sat in four Parliaments, he never witnessed such a scene in the House of Commons. He was very much astonished to see that so many hon. Members of great experience on the other side of the House could not assist the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, in an attempt to put an end to the scene. No man ought to come there who was not possessed of firmness of mind and constitution. He held that if a man were not possessed of these requisites, he was unfit to have a seat in the House. But he would on that occasion second the proposal of adjournment, but he did so with great reluctance, and it was on the ground of the absence of the right hon. Baronet, who was the leader of the House, and the accredited organ of the Crown; and as he saw no one there who seemed to have that authority on the Ministerial side of the House which the right hon. Gentleman possessed. There was another matter to which he would shortly advert, and he begged particularly to address himself to the noble Lord. When the noble Lord introduced the Coercion Bill —[Lord Stanley; I did not introduce it.] No; the noble Lord did not introduce it, but still it ought to be called the noble Lord's bill. [" Question."] He was speaking to the question, for the question was the adjournment of the House; and if less cheering, and more—[" Order, order."] He must say, that the foremost in the cheering was one of the nearest relations of the right hon. Baronet, who was absent. [" Order, order."] He said so again; he was not to be bullied by him, or by any one else. [" Chair, chair."]

Lord Stanley

said, he was sure that the hon. Gentleman was anxious to maintain order; but he must perceive that he him- self was not setting a very good example, as, by applying the word "bullying" to any hon. Member, he would at once see that he was exceeding the rules of the House.

Mr. Wallace

was obliged to the noble Lord, but he was not aware of what had fallen from him, but he would at once acknowledge that the word "bullying" exceeded the rules of Parliament. With respect to the proposal before the House, he thought they should at once accede to it. He begged pardon of the House for having spoken in the strong terms which he had used, but he asked pardon of no individual; it was of the House alone he asked it.

Colonel Peel

said, the hon. Gentleman was understood as retracting the words made use of as far as the House was concerned, but that he would make no apology to individuals.

Mr. Wallace

I have retracted the word "bullying."

Colonel Peel

I can only say that there is no Gentleman whose good opinion I would less wish to have than the hon. Gentleman's.

Mr. C. Buller

was not sorry in one respect that the discussion had assumed for some time past a personal character, because he considered that it was high time the House should understand on what ground and in what manner such personal charges as they had been too much in the habit of entering into lately were to be tolerated. The noble Lord (Lord Stanley) who had endeavoured to cast oil upon the waters, had done so rather at the expense of the real question before the House. It was not that they on that side of the House complained of general allegations being made upon matters not connected with the subject of debate, but that they complained of a charge of a specific character having been made, which it after- wards turned out the hon. Member refused to support. What they on that side of the House complained of was, that on the present occasion, as on others, the hon. Gentleman had come forward with, not a quantity of vague charges, but with a specific charge, involving individuals— that he stated he could name individuals, and that when called on to name them he refused. There was this clear distinction to be drawn, however, with regard to the hon. Member to whom he referred—that he never made a charge of this kind, that he did not discredit himself; he never made a charge without stating that he possessed the materials of proof; and when challenged to produce those materials, he never failed to refuse. There-fore, he thought hon. Members might rest calmly under the imputations of the hon. Member, satisfied that the more specifically he made them, the less able and willing would he be to prove them. He was not at all impugning the hon. Member's veracity, which would be out of order; but he would caution the hon. Member not to make assertions which only had the effect of leading him into awkward predicaments, and of leading that House into scenes which were not very creditable or consonant to its dignity. He could not help remarking, too, on the absence of attempts on the other side to restrain this sort of disposition. But it was unfortunately so—" when the cat was away the mice would play." He must say that the spirit of the supporters of the right hon. Baronet had to-night been of a character more uproarious and outrageous than they had been in the habit of indulging in. He had observed a certain bold- ness in hon. Gentlemen opposite, who had indulged in tirades against the general principles of the right hon. Baronet's Government, of a nature which he had never heard before. The Friends of the right hon. Baronet looked very indignant, but Gentlemen had been getting up one after another tearing at the whole principle of free-trade, and at the tariff to an extent which would certainly have shocked the right hon. Baronet if he had been present. And really be must say, that if any ground for the adjournment were required, it would be best found in the absence of the right hon. Baronet, and even had the motion to report progress been made while the right hon. Baronet himself was present, it would have been a seasonable proposal, to which the right hon. Baronet would not have objected. But, as it was, the proposal was unreasonable, and he thought that they had much better get rid of the subject of cotton this evening. On the subject of India muslin, he certainly must say, that he thought there was much in the argument of his hon. Friend the Member for Guildford. By the operation of the duty, the native manufacturers of India were thrown upon their own market, and when they found their industry ruined, they had a right to call on this country to admit their raw material or slightly manufactured articles on terms that would not place them in an unfair position. Therefore, whether his hon. Friend proposed to divide or not, he should be pre- pared generally to accede to his views, though perhaps he might think that he had not put the question in the most adviseable form.

Mr. Hume

said, there appeared to him to be good reasons for the. adjournment. The first was, they had an unsatisfactory debate, which did not seem likely to end; and the second, that the proposal of the hon. Member for Guildford was one the justice of which the right hon. Baronet would be very likely to see were he pre sent. He had a better opinion of the right hon. Baronet and of his good sense, than to believe that he would oppose it, and as it was now half-past 12 o'clock, he hoped the House would allow the Chairman to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, many hon. Gentlemen opposite had accused those who sat on the Ministerial side of not having taking part in the discussion, and the hon. Member for Liskeard had, in his usual way, been very witty at their expense. He had come down to the House, after having been occupied all day, in the expectation that the tariff would be discussed; and when he found that a discussion had arisen unconnected with the immediate subject, he did not like to interpose, lest fresh fuel should be added. With regard to the proposition of the hon, Member for Guildford, he would only observe that if this claim were allowed other colonies (Jamaica, for instance) would consider themselves entitled to a similar benefit.

Mr. Cobden

deprecated the practice of turning the attention of the House from the real subject of debate to these personal discussions. On all future occasions, on which the practice might in the same manner be resorted to, he, for one, if he could find half a dozen Members to support him, would assert the power of moving the adjournment, which he understood hon. Members possessed for the protection of the public—for it was on public grounds that he acted. As a young Member, perhaps, the House would give him leave to state the result of his observation of their proceedings, and he did hope, that what he said might go forth to the public, in order that they might be able to form their own opinion. He found, that from half-past four o'clock in the afternoon till about half-past five there were Members dropping in, when personal questions might be put and personal matters could be discussed. From that time until half-past seven Members stayed, growing more and more impatient, interrupting the speeches, and shouting for divisions, till about eight o'clock. Then hon. Members all at once disappeared, leaving; some forty or fifty Members to discuss the most important subjects connected with the affairs of the country till about half-past ten or half-past eleven. At about that hour he generally saw some fifty Members or so enter and take their seats, wearing their white cravats and their white waistcoats, having either come from dinner parties, or being prepared to go off to balls; and then from about half-past eleven to half-past twelve o'clock, there was renewed the same interruption, the same shouts for divisions, and the same inattention to the real business of the country, as was experienced at an earlier period of the evening. He hoped the public might be made acquainted with these facts, as it would help them to form a just opinion of that House. If, however, the kind of interruptions of which he had just complained were repealed, and he could get half a dozen Members to join him, he would move an adjournment until hon. Members learned to conduct the business of the country in a proper mode.

Major Vivian

agreed with the hon. Member for Stockport in his remarks upon personal discussions; but at the same time, while he was deprecating personal discussions, he thought he ought to be careful how he made allusions that might apply to both sides of the House. He did not think the hon. Member's allusions to white cravats and white waistcoats were likely to lead to any public benefit in the discussion.

Mr. Cobden

said, that when he had mentioned white cravats and white waistcoats, he had not for a moment intended to throw off any invidious imputation on hon. Members on the opposite side. He had referred to both sides indifferently.

Mr. F. T. Baring

wished that the hon. Member for Stockport would allow them at once to take a vote upon this subject.

Mr. Cobden

would certainly divide. He thought they were in anything but a temper to come to a fair decision.

The committee divided on the motion, that the Chairman do report progress, and ask leave to sit again.—Ayes 36; Noes 156:—Majority 120.

List of the Ayes.
Aglionby, H. A.	Morris, D.
Aldam, W.	O'Brien, J.
Armstrong, Sir A.	O'Brien, W. S.
Bowes, J.	O'Connell, D.
Bowring, Dr.	Philips, M.
Brodie, W, B.	Plumridge, Capt.
Busfeild, W	Protheroe, E.
Chapman, B.	Pryse, P.
Childers, J. W.	Rundle, J.
Christie, W. D.	Scott, R.
Ebrington, Visct.	Stansfield, W. R. C.
Ellis, W.	Strutt, E.
Evans, W.	Wallace, R.
Forster, M.	Wawn, J. T.
Gibson, T. M.	Wood, B.
Gill, T.	Wood G. W.
Hume, J.
Marshall, W.	TELLERS.
Marsland, H.	Brotherton, J.
Martin, J.	Cobden, R.

List of the Noes.
A'Court, Capt.	Botfield, B.
Acton, Col.	Buckley, E.
Ainsworth, P.	Buller, C.
Allix, J. P.	Burrell, Sir C. M.
Antrobus, E.	Campbell, A.
Bailey, J., jun.	Cardwell, E.
Baldwin, B.	Charteris, hon. F.
Baring, hon. W. B.	Chelsea, Visct.
Baring, rt. hn. F. T.	Clayton, R. R.
Bateson, R.	Clerk, Sir G.
Bernard, Visct.	Cockburn, rt. hn. SirG.
Blackburne, J. I.	Colville, C. R.
Blackstone, W, S,	Corry. right hon. H.

Courtenay, Lord	Lemon, Sir C.
Crawford, W. S.	Lincoln, Earl of
Cripps, W.	Litton, E.
Damer, hon. Col.	Lockhart, W.
Darby, G.	Lowther, J.H.
Dawnay, hon. W. H.	Lowther, hon. Col.
Denison, E. B.	Mackenzie, W. F.
Dickinson, F. H.	M'Geachy, F. A.
Dodd, G.	Mahon, Visct.
Douglas, Sir C. E.	Mangles, R. D.
Duncan, G.	Martin, C. W.
Dundas, D.	Master, T. W. C.
East, J. B.	Mitcalfe, H.
Eastnor, Visct.	Mitchell, T. A.
Egerton, Sir P.	Morgan, O.
Eliot, Lord	Morgan, C.
Escott, B.	Mundy, E. M.
Estcourt, T. G. B.	Murray, A.
Farnham, E. B.	Newry, Visct.
Fellowes, E.	Nicholl, rt. hon. J.
Ferrand, W. B.	Norreys, Sir D. J.
Filmer, Sir E.	Ogle, S. C. H.
Flower, Sir J.	Packe, C. W.
Ffolliott, J.	Pakington, J. S.
Forbes,, W.	Parker, J.
Fuller, A. E.	Patten, J. W.
Gaskell, J. M.	Peel, J.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W.E.	Pigot, Sir R.
Gladstone, T.	Plumptre, J. P.
Godson, R.	Pollock, Sir F.
Gordon, hon. Capt.	Pringle, A.
Gore, M.	Rashleigh, W.
Gore, W. R. O.	Rice, E. R.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H.	Richards, R.
Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.	Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.
Granger, T. C.	Round, J.
Greenall, P.	Rushbrooke, Col.
Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.	Ryder, hon. G. D.
Grimsditch, T.	Sandon, Visct.
Grogan, E.	Scholefield, J.
Halford, H.	Sheppard T.
Hardinge, rt. hn. SirH.	Shirley, E. J.
Heathcote, G. J.	Shirley, E. P.
Henley, J. W.	Somerville, Sir W. M.
Hepburn, Sir T. B.	Stanley, Lord
Herbert, hon. S.	Stanton, W. H.
Hervey, Lord A.	Stewart, J.
Hodgson, R.	Sutton, hon. H. M.
Hollond, R.	Taylor, J. A.
Holmes, hon. W. A'Ct.	Trench, Sir F. W.
Howard, hon. C.W.G.	Trotter, J.
Howard, Sir R.	Tyrrell, Sir J. T.
Hughes, W. B.	Vane, Lord H.
Hussey, T.	Vivian, J. H.
Hutt, W.	Vivian, J. E.
Ingestre, Visct.	Vivian, Hon. Capt.
Irton, S.	Waddington, H. S.
Jackson, J. D.	Whitmore, T. C.
Jermyn, Earl	Wilbraham, hon. R.B.
Johnston, A.	Wodehouse, E.
Jones, Capt.	Wortley, hon. J. S.
Kemble, H.	Yorke, hon. E. T.
Knatchbull rt. hn. SirE.	Young, J.
Knight, F. W.
Lambton, H.	TELLERS.
Lefroy, A.	Baring, H.
Legh, G. C.	Fremantle, Sir T.

On the question being again put,

Mr. Hume

moved, that the Chairman leave the Chair.

Lord Stanley

observed, that the division which had just taken place was not a party one, as both sides of the House had concurred in the propriety of settling the question before it for consideration. It was, he knew, in the power of the hon. Member for Montrose, and any half-dozen Gentlemen who chose to support him to prevent, if they thought fit, the further progress of the public business, and to compel an adjournment. Therefore, if the hon. Member intended to persist, not- withstanding the marked sense of the House against adjournment, he would not be a party to the wasting of the time of the House by repeated discussions, which could only lead to the one result. But he hoped the House and the country at large would observe, that it was not to the House of Commons, but to a very small section of the House, that the Government owed their inability, after so long a discussion, to make greater progress in the business of the country. If the hon. Member should persist in moving an adjournment, he would not put the House to the trouble of dividing, but he wished the House and the country to know upon what grounds it was, that her Majesty's Government were obliged to relinquish the hope of proceeding more rapidly with the public business.

Mr. W. S. O'Brien

asked whether the desire for adjournment had not arisen out of a most abhorrent and unfounded attack made by an hon. Member on the other side of the House upon a Gentleman who had held an official situation? He felt that the time was come when they should decide whether these individual attacks should be tolerated—attacks which were founded on anonymous information, and which he therefore conceived to be totally at variance with the practice of the House. For this reason was it that he had voted for the adjournment.

Mr. Forster

was anxious for the passing of the tariff, but he did feel, if such scenes as he had witnessed that night were to be persevered in, that not only would the public business be retarded, but the character of the House be materially injured, and he gave his vote in favour of the motion for adjournment, solely for the purpose of marking his sense of that con- duct, of which, as a Member of the House, he felt utterly ashamed.

Mr. Hume

said, in answer to the noble Lord, that it was his intention to persevere. He was as anxious as the noble Lord to see this measure forwarded. He could tell the noble Lord, that no one in the House was more attentive to the tariff than he was, and if the noble Lord's side of the House continued to countenance such a proceeding as had taken place that night, he was not to be blamed for endeavouring to put an end to it by the mode he now adopted. If any individual was to be blamed, it was the Chairman, who ought to have stopped the attack of the hon. Member for Knaresborough. If one Member of the Government had risen in his place to check the course which was adopted, he should be the last man in the House to check the progress of business, but that not being the case, he should press his motion.

Lord Stanley

I am sure, Mr. Chairman, you need to have no apology made for you as to the course you have pursued. It was impossible for you to have interfered when you were aware, that there was no breach of order in violation of the rules of the House. In my judgment there was nothing disorderly or unparliamentary in what took place; and if the hon. Member for Montrose thought otherwise at the time it was quite competent to him to rise in his place to the question of order.

After a few words from Mr. Aglionby and Lord Stanley in reply, the House resumed, the Chairman reported progress and obtained leave to sit again.

House adjourned at half-past one o'clock.