Commons Sitting of 28 June 1842

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1a Prisons.
Committed.—Stock in Trade; Districts Courts and Prisons Committed and Reported—Bribety at Elections (No. 2.) Reported.—New South Wales,
3a and passed:—Customs' Acts (The Tariff); British Possessions Abroad; Municipal Corporations (Ireland).
Private.—la Cambuslang and Muirkirk Roads (No. 2). 3° and passed:—Lesbazeille's Naturalization; Rouma's Naturalization; Duke of Argyll's Estate; Reading Cemetery.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Holywell, West Derby and Pocklington Unions, against the Poor-law Amendment Bill.—By Mr. Round, from Dunmow Union, for the Poor-law Amendment Bill.—By Mr. Shaw, from Fermagh, Templeshanbo, and East Schull, for Alteration of the Present System of Education (Ireland).—From Healaugh, against the Dissolution of Gilbert Unions.—From Several Individuals, for the Substitution of Affirmations for Oaths.—By Mr. Brotherton, from Liverpool, for the Discontiduance of the Wars In China and Affghanistan.—From Featherstone, Great Whitley, Huddersfield, Cawthorn, and Barnsley, against the Mines and Collieries Bill.—By Mr. Colville, from Matlock, for Inquiry into the System of Education pursued at Maynooth College.—From Taunton for the Selection of a Packet Station at some point on the Bristol Channel, for the Conveyance of Letters and Passengers to and from South Wales and the South of Ireland.—From Mevagissey, for Abolition of the Tithe of Fish.—From Grocers in Ireland, to repeal the Act which prohibits Grocers from Selling Spirits.—From the Bakers of Belfast, for an Act to Regulate their Working Hours.—From the Coalmines of Garthshang, and the Inhabitants of Holytown, for Alteration of the Mode of Weighing their Work—From J. H. Scudamore, to abolish the Tithe Commutation Act.

SOUTHAMPTON ELECTION.
Mr. S. Wortleybrought up a report from the Southampton Town Election Inquiry Committee. The report stated, that it having been deemed necessary that John Bennett Luce should give evidence before the said committee, he was yesterday, and again this morning, summoned for that purpose; but that he did not appear, in obedience to the summons. The committee, therefore, had been directed to report the facts to the House. He then moved—
"That John Bennett Luce be ordered to attend this House on Thursday next."
Motion agreed to.

DISTRESS (IRELAND).
Mr. D. Brownewished to know from the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, whether Government were aware of the distress that prevailed at the present moment in various parts of

701
Ireland, and especially in the counties of Mayo and Galway? And if so, whether it were the intention of the Executive to take measures for the relief of that distress?
Lord Eliotsaid, Government had received information that very considerable distress prevailed in Galway, Mayo, and other western parts of Ireland. Government had, in consequence of those representations, entered into communication with the local authorities on the subject, and they had determined to adopt such measures as appeared to them to be the most expedient for removing the distress complained of. What those measures were, it would not, however, be prudent to disclose. The people had borne their sufferings]with exemplary patience, and Government would neglect nothing that lay in their power to remove the distress. He had only to add, that those persons who were in a situation to afford aid had come forward in the most kind and generous manner with their assistance.

OUTRAGES (IRELAND).
Viscount Bernardwished to ask the noble Secretary for Ireland a question with respect to an outrage that was recently committed in Galway. It appeared that a party of Protestants were quietly enjoying themselves at a place on the sea-coast, when they were suddenly attacked by a number of people in boats, without any provocation, and were very much ill-treated. He begged to ask the noble Lord whether the stipendiary magistrate had made a report of the case? and, if so, whether that report proved that the attack was premeditated and unprovoked.
Lord Eliotanswered, that the matter was inquired into by Mr. Gore Jones, the stipendiary magistrate, and by Messrs. Trevor and Thomas, two other magistrates. They had instituted an immediate inquiry into the subject, and the result of the investigation had been that the attack was most wanton and unprovoked. The people thus assailed were proceeding on a party of pleasure, they were not playing party tunes, nor were they acting in any way offensively; and the Government was perfectly at a loss to discover any motive for the cruel and unprovoked attack that was made on them. The magistrates were making the most strenuous efforts to secure the offenders; and, though they were not yet taken, he hoped that they would speedily be in custody. He
702
regretted extremely that party feeling, which he hoped was almost extinct, should have shown itself on this occasion.

HALF-FARTHINGS.
Mr. Humesaid, he had seen a very extraordinary proclamation about the coinage and issue of half-farthings. He begged leave to ask of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, whether it were a hoax, or whether such a coinage was really about to be issued?
Mr. Gladstonesaid, the question of the hon. Member would have been more properly put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the Master of the Mint had nothing to do with issuing those proclamations. The coin in question was not intended exclusively for this country, though it was thought that in many instances it would be found useful. Such a coin was constantly circulated in some of our colonies, and if it were found useless or inconvenient here, it could be sent out to those colonies.

ELECTION PROCEEDINGS COMMITTEE— MR. WALTER.
Mr. Roebuckmoved the Order of the Day for calling Mr. Walter to the Bar of the House.
Mr. Waltercalled to the Bar.
The Speakersaid: Mr. Walter, you will now hear read the report which the Select Committee on Election Proceedings yesterday made to this House,
Report read. (See ante, p. 635.)
The Speakersaid; I have now to ask you whether you have any further statement to make respecting the matters set forth in the report of the Select Committee.
Mr. Walteraddressed the House in these words:—
"I beg to assure you, Sir, that in refusing to attend this committee I was far from intending any disrespect to the House. Neither was I reluctant to lay before a committee nominated by the House the fullest explanation in my power of all transactions in which I was personally concerned connected with the late election for Nottingham. On the contrary, it would pain me excessively to be prevented by what I conceived to be a paramount duty from rendering the fullest obedience to the House, and declaring all I know.
"I hope it will be considered as an additional proof of my respect for the House if I abstain from consuming the time of the House by any lengthened defence of the course which I have taken, which course was dictated by the deepest and most conscientious sense of the obligation imposed upon every subject of the British Crown to stand upon his constitutional rights, and to demand that he shall be tried by none but an impartial, tribunal, to

703
which personal prejudice and affection should be alike unknown.
"I received the summons of the committee at a quarter past three o'clock on Friday last, ordering my attendance forthwith, with an injunction that I should produce papers which I never even saw, especially the much talked-of compromise. The House must now be possessed of the grounds on which I hesitated to comply with such an order. I believe it would be very difficult to find in the records of a free nation any example, any precedent not already revoked with indignation by the public voice, for a proceeding by which a subject is to be arraigned before a court, the presiding Member of which has expressed himself in terms of so much personal hostility as the Member for Bath has used respecting me; and this, the House will be pleased to observe, not obscurely, not in a whisper, but loudly and openly in this very House—that is, in the superior court itself, from which the inferior court where he presides has emanated.
"I trust, therefore, that I may claim the indulgence and protection of the House, when placed, by no act of my own, in so embarrassing a position; and having, with all deference to the House, made these observations, which I hope, will be considered in the nature of a respectful protest, I shall submit myself to any order which you may be pleased to address to me."
Mr. Walterwas ordered to withdraw.
Mr. Roebuckconceived he should best perform the duty which devolved on him ministerially, as Chairman of the committee appointed to inquire into Election Proceedings, by simply moving, "That John Walter, Esq. do attend and give evidence before the select committee on Election Proceedings to-morrow at eleven o'clock.
Sir R. Inglis: I still retain, Sir, the opinions which I have already frequently expressed npon the subject of this committee. If on a former occasion I was guilty of any irregularity in the manner in which I referred to the hon. and learned Member for Bath as the originator of the committee, now, at least, I am sure I may be permitted, without rendering myself liable to be accused of violating the rules of courtesy or of this House, to address myself to him, for now, at any rate, he is the individual who moves for the attendance of Mr. Walter. I will not, Sir, enter into the question how far the Gentleman who has lately appeared at your Bar may or may not have had a right to complain of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, and of the language which he imputed to that hon. and learned Member. Strictly speaking, perhaps, he may be said, by a
704
fiction which we are all content to profit by, to have been irregular in alluding to that which has passed in this House, and which has not been printed in the minutes of its journals; and I admit that, technically speaking, if any person should think fit to avail himself of the subterfuge, Mr. Walter has been irregular in the reference he made to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Bath; but I am sure that no Member of this House is of opinion that Mr. Walter has violated its rules by having so referred to that speech. No hon. Member, at least, has thought right to rise in his place and denounce Mr. Walter as guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House for having referred to it; while the hon. and learned Member for Bath did not deny the use of the words attributed to him. That being the case, I own I cannot understand upon what principle it is that the one can sit as a judge, or the other be blamed for refusing to attend as a criminal. I think my right hon. Friend the Recorder of Dublin for correcting an error which his judicial mind has at once seized. He says that Mr. Walter is not a criminal, that he is only accused. But that distinction, though sufficiently clear to a legal mind, is not so clear in the construction at least of the great majority of this House—it is not so clear as to make it important whether I should use the one word or the other. Practically speaking, every individual called before that committee is, I understand by an acknowledgment which was made yesterday, called before an inquisition. I use the word deliberately, and not for the sake of making an accusation against the committee. The individual is called before an inquisition, where, without knowing who may have been heard before him, or who would be heard after him, he is to answer all questions that may be put to him, by or in the presence of a person who has himself proclaimed that he is not strictly impartial. The hon. and learned Member for Bath has not professed himself impartial, and yet the party accused is called upon to place himself in the room with nine Gentlemen, presided over by that hon. and learned Member, and there required to answer any such questions as the majority of the committee may think fit to put to him touching every matter connected with the last election, and possibly any other election, for the borough of Nottingham, and, without seeing any of his accusers, he is obliged to submit to

705
this inquisition. I understand that the committee have decided that whenever any allegation is made touching any particular individual, due notice should be given to such individual that such allegation has been made. I ask him would that be tolerated in any court of justice? Is there any place—I hope not in England—I would say almost out of England,—but is there any other place in England in which such a perversion—such a denial of law and justice would be for a moment tolerated? I do not look to one side of the House or the other in asking that question—I appeal to the House in general, and I ask them as English gentlemen, whether they will consent to the continuation of this system? It was my intention to have called the attention of the House to the subject, upon recently hearing that a Member of the House had been refused admittance to the committee-room as a party interested, though he was told that if he wished to claim admittance as a Member of the House his application would be granted. I had intended to raise the question how far this tribunal, giving them credit, if you please, for perfect impartiality and a sincere desire to seek for nothing but the truth—how far they did not owe it to themselves and their own character to conduct their proceedings on the same principles as those upon which every court in England, from the highest to the lowest, has from time immemorial, with one single exception, been constituted to carry on its proceedings? That single exception, Sir, was the Star Chamber. In another country the exception was the Inquisition. Let me not be told of the grand jury as a case in point. There the proceedings are not criminal; there the inquiry is merely preliminary, and you do not bring the accused party before you. That is the point of distinction between a grand jury and this tribunal which the House has so hastily—far too hastily, I must say—instituted. Before such a tribunal is it that the person accused is to appear and submit himself, if you please, to nine judges of the most impartial and unimpeachable characters; say, that they are absolutely unimpeachable—still, is it, I ask, fitting that an English subject on being acccused should be called before such a tribunal as that? If it were a jury, he might challenge a juryman. The hon. and learned Member for Bath would not, I am sure, contend that he could sit as a juryman; and if he could not sit as a juryman, ought
706
he, let me ask, to sit as a judge? But the hon. and learned Member for Bath is not the only person with whom the House has to deal. Mr. Walter has appeared at the Bar, made his protest, and expressed his willingness to submit to the Order of the House. With that Order of the House, I, for one, as Mr. Walter has thought it right to make that submission, shall not consider it my duty to interfere. Who have been Mr. Walter's advisers, or whether he has had any advisers, I know not; but of this I am sure, that if I had been his adviser, I would not have counselled him to take the course which he has taken. I certainly would not have dictated the letter which he has addressed to the committee. I think, that, first, by having written that letter, and that, secondly, by having stated his willingness to submit to the Order of the House, he has relinquished that high ground upon which he might have stood. At all events, I felt myself justified in calling the attention of the House to my own view of the case, because I stated on a former occasion that such a case might occur; and as this is, perhaps, not the only instance in which it may occur, I would ask the House to consider what will be its course in the event of another individual refusing to appear before the committee, and how far it is prepared to apply the process of the screw to such an individual? With the willing witness who has been at the Bar the House may deal as it seems fit; but suppose another individual to say, "I claim the protection, not of the laws of my country, but of the principle of the laws of my country: I claim to be tried before a jury to no one of whom I can fairly object: I claim to be tried before a tribunal the leading member of which has not pronounced an opinion personally unfavourable to me"—what, in that case, is the House prepared to do? I ask the House that question as much for the sake of the hon. and learned Member for Bath as for the sake of any such individual; because I can conceive no situation more painful than that of a judge sitting as the hon. and learned Member ha done—a situation which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Cork once described, in reference to his being placed upon the bench, as a situation in which he feared that his desire to administer justice in a just and impartial spirit towards those who were regarded as his opponents might be the very cause of leading him into acts of injustice and partiality the other way. For the sake, then, of the

707
hon. and learned Member for Bath, I deprecate his continuing chairman of a committee where he has almost prejudged the case, and where he has pronounced such an opinion, against the leading person implicated as would, in any other tribunal but a committee of the House of Commons, cause a man to shrink from acting as a judge. It is not my intention to interpose between the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bath, that Mr. Walter do attend the committee at eleven o'clock to-morrow, and the pleasure of the House. If the House is pleased to concur in such a motion, I shall not divide the House against it, Mr. Walter having expressed at your own Bar his willingness to attend.
Colonel Sibthorpcordially concurred in all that had fallen from the hon. Baronet; but regretted the hon. Baronet had not concluded with an amendment to the effect that Mr. Walter should not be required to attend the committee. He knew not, and he hoped in saying so that he was not out of order, whether to admire more the constitutional views and the able speech of the hon. Baronet, or the manly, straightforward, and respectful conduct of the hon. gentleman who had lately appeared at the Bar of the House. He repeated, that he could not but admire the firm and candid, yet perfectly respectful manner, in which Mr. Walter had expressed his readiness to obey the Orders of the House on the one hand, and on the other his manly bearing and chivalrous demonstration in resisting the order of the committee. Yes, he gloried in the conduct of that hon. Gentleman, and if it were the pleasure of the House to visit him with those pains and penalties which it was in the power of the House to inflict, he hoped he should be one of the first men to pay his respects to that hon. Gentleman in whatever situation he might be placed. He should be delighted to see this body of arbitrary gentlemen defeated; for so unconstitutional and disgraceful a proceeding had never emanated from a British House of Commons, He would not trespass further on the time of the House. He had thus openly expressed his opinion, and he would conclude by observing, that he should not be at all sorry to be placed in a similar situation to that of the hon. Gentleman who had been so recently at the Bar.
Sir G. Greysaid, that although he did not object to the motion, he thought the House ought not to be satisfied with its adoption alone. He thought, that the
708
authority of the House was called in question by the conduct of the Gentleman who had lately appeared at the Bar. The House had appointed a committee, and expressly delegated to it the power of sending for persons, papers, and records. He could make every allowance for the feelings of a gentleman who had been attacked in that House, where he was not able to defend himself, and he therefore did not wish to propose anything like a harsh proceeding towards that Gentleman; but it was impossible to read that Gentleman's letter, or to have heard the speech which he had recently addressed to the House, without feeling that he drew a distinction, which it would be most dangerous to sanction, between the direct authority of the House, and the authority delegated by the House to a committee of the House to send for papers, persons, and records. If he understood that speech rightly, what the Gentleman who delivered it meant to say, amounted to this:—"I will not submit to this committee, because I conceive it to be a partial committee; but if the House chooses to appoint another committee, I will submit to it; to the authority of the superior tribunal I bow, but to that of the inferior tribunal I demur," He thought, that the House should not sanction any such distinction as that; and he hoped, it was prepared to support the authority of the committee. He rather threw out for the consideration of the House, than with the view of making any distinct proposition on the subject, whether the present motion should not be followed up by an admonition from the Speaker to Mr. Walter? He was decidedly of opinion, that the House ought to express itself upon this occasion, and that the Gentleman who had appeared at the Bar of the House ought to be informed, that it was the bounden duty of every person receiving a summons from the committee of the House, to which the House had delegated the power of sending for papers, persons, and records, to obey that summons, as much as if it were a direct order of the House,
Sir R. Peelsaid, I am quite prepared to support the authority of the tribunal that has been constituted by this House for the purpose of conducting an important inquiry. The responsibility of appointing that committee rests not with the committee but with the House, and this House is bound to support that tribunal in the exercise of its proper authority.

709
Without such support, the powers of the committee must necessarily prove insufficient and fail. But, considering the language of the Gentlemen who has appeared at the Bar, considering that he has said, that he felt it to be a paramount obligation upon him to give such testimony as it was in his power to give for the purpose of elucidating the truth of the matter under investigation, and considering also, that he has expressed his readiness to submit to the order of the House, I do think, upon the whole, that the best course, and the most dignified course for the House to pursue, would be to signify to Mr. Walter, through your chairman, that it is his bounden duty to attend the committee and give evidence. I think, the best course to pursue would be, that which was adopted in the case of Mr. Fleming, which was this:—
"It having been reported to the House that Mr. Fleming had refused to answer a question which he deemed inconsistent with his character as a man of honour before the Southampton Election Committee, it was ordered by the House, that John Fleming, Esq., do attend In his place forthwith, and be informed by Mr. Speaker, that the legal tribunal to decide upon his obligation to answer questions, is the select committee appointed under the act of Parliament to try the matter of the petition; and that Mr. Speaker do also inform him. that any objection he has to urge must be submitted to the committee, and determined by them."
Mr. Fleming attended accordingly, and the Speaker communicated to him the said order. Upon the whole, I think, that is the best course for the House to take. I do not at all agree that the case is one which calls for a reprimand. My opinion is, that the Speaker, as in the case of Mr. Fleming, ought to notify to Mr. Walter that it is his duty to attend the committee and give evidence.
Sir G. Grey: That was not a precedent in point, as Mr. Fleming made no allegation that the tribunal was an improper one.
Sir R. Inglissaid, that the motion now was, that Mr. Walter do attend the committee, and give evidence to-morrow at eleven o'clock.
The Speakerput the question, which was received by a loud cry of "No," from several hon. Members.
Viscount Howickunderstood, that the right hon. Baronet was going to move, that the same course be adopted as in the case of Mr, Fleming.
Sir R. Peel: What I meant to state was, that the course pursued by the hon. and learned Member for Bath is in conformity with that which was adopted in Mr. Fleming's case. There Mr. Fleming appeared before the committee, and stated his reason for refusing to give evidence; and upon that being reported to the House he was ordered to attend and give evidence, with which order he complied. It would be impossible to adopt precisely the same words. Here Mr. Walter has expressed his readiness to attend before the committee and give evidence, and I still think it only remains for the House to inform him that it is his duty to do so.
Viscount Hotwick: But the vote we are about to come to is not to desire the Speaker to inform Mr. Walter that it is his duty to obey the summons of the committee. According to the words of the motion the House is about to adopt a new order, which order is that Mr. Walter shall attend to the direction of the committee. This is the distinction drawn by my right hon. Friend, and it is a distinction of very Considerable importance. If we recognise the principle that the authority of the committee is not sufficient, we necessarily, and to a great extent, weaken its proceedings. I think, therefore, that the motion as it now stands should be amended, and that the House should direct that the Speaker inform Mr. Walter that it is his bounden duty to obey the summons of the committee. The motion as now put is not in accordance with the precedent quoted by the right hon. Baronet.
Sir R. Peel: I conceived that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Grey) had pro-posed something in the way of a censure on Mr. Walter, which I regarded as uncalled for. Mr. Walter said that he felt himself under an obligation to facilitate the inquiry, and that he was ready to submit to the House. All I thought necessary in that case was that the Speaker should notify to him that it was the pleasure of the House that he should facilitate the inquiry by attending the committee and giving evidence.
Sir R. Inglis: I wish, Sir, you would state whether the question has not been already put by you. I believe it has.
The Speaker: If the noble Lord the Member for Sunderland rose before the voice was given in the negative, of course he had a right to speak upon the question. If not, he has no right to speak. My im-

711
pression is that the noble Lord rose after the question had received a negative.
Lord J. Russell: I only wish to know whether the Ayes or the Noes have it.
The Speaker: The Noes have it.
The House divided:—Ayes 223; Noes 77: Majority 146.

List of the AYES.

Acheson, Visct.

Ellis, W.

A'Court, Capt.

Eliot, Lord

Ainsworth, P.

Elphinstone, H.

Bailey, J.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Bannerman, A.

Etwall, R.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Evans, W.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Ferguson, Col.

Barnard, E. G.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Barrington, Visct.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Barron, Sir H. W.

Flower, Sir J.

Beckett, W.

Follett, Sir W. W.

Bell, J.

Ffolliott, J.

Bellew, R. M.

Forster, M.

Benett, J.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Gibson, T. M.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Gill, T.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Bernard, Visct.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Blackburne, J. I.

Gordon, Lord F.

Blake, M. J.

Gore, hon. R.

Bodkin, W. H.

Goulburn, rt. hn. H.

Bowes, J.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Bramston, T. W.

Greenall, P.

Broadley, H.

Greene, T.

Brotherton, J.

Gregory, W. H.

Browne, hon. W.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Bryan, G.

Guest, Sir J.

Bulkeley, Sir R. B. W.

Hale, R. B.

Buller, E.

Hamilton, W. J.

Busfeild, W.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Butler, hon. Col.

Harcourt, G. G.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Campbell, A.

Harris, J. Q.

Cavendish, hn. G. H.

Hastie, A.

Chapman, B.

Hawes, B.

Childers, J. W.

Heathcoat, J.

Clayton, R. R.

Hill, Lord M.

Clive, E. B.

Hodgson, R.

Cobden, R.

Houldsworth, T.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Holland, R.

Collins, W.

Howard, hn. C. W. G.

Connolly, Col.

Howard, hon. J. K.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Howard, Lord

Craig, W. G.

Howard, hon. H.

Cripps, W.

Hughes, W. B.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Hume, J.

Damer, hon. Col.

Humphery, Aid.

Denison, E. B.

Hutt, W.

Dennistoun, J.

James, W.

Dickinson, F. H.

Jervis, J.

Douglas, Sir H.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Duncan, Visct.

Johnstone, H.

Duncan, G.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Duncombe, T.

Lambton, H.

Dundas, D.

Langston, W. G.

East, J. B.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Egerton, Sir P.

Lawson, A.

712

Layard, Capt.

Rundle, J.

Legh, G. C.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Lennox, Lord A.

Russell, Lord J.

Lincoln, Earl of

Russell, Lord E.

Lindsay, H. H.

Sanderson, R.

Litton, E.

Scarlett, hon. R. C.

Loch, J.

Seale, Sir J. H.

Lowther, J. H.

Seymour, Lord

Lyall, G.

Shaw, right hon. F.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Sheil, rt. hn. R. L.

Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.

Smith, A.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Smith, B.

M'Taggart, Sir J.

smith, rt. hn. R. V.

Mangles, R. D.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Stanley, Lord

Marshall, W.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Marsland, H.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Martin, C. W.

Stewart, P. M.

Martin, T. B.

Stock, Serj.

Masterman, J.

Strutt, E.

Miles, P. W. S.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Morris, D.

Tancred, H. W.

Morison, Gen.

Taylor, T. E.

Morrison, J.

Taylor, J. A.

Mundy, E. M.

Thesiger, F.

Murphy, F. S.

Thornely, T.

Murray, C. R. S.

Thornhill, G.

Napier, Sir C.

Towneley, J.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Trevor, hon. G. R.

O'Connell, Dan.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

O'Connell, M.

Tufnell, H.

O'Connell, M. J.

Turner, E.

O'Connell, J.

Vane, Lord H.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Paget, Col.

Vernon, G. H.

Palmer, R.

Vesey, hon. T.

Palmerston, Visct.

Villiers, hon. C.

Parker, J.

Vivian, hon. Capt,

Patten, J. W.

Waddington, H. S.

Pechell, Capt.

Walker, R.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Wall, C. B.

Peel, J.

Wallace, R.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Wawn, J. T

Philips, G. R.

White, H.

Pigot, Sir R.

Whitmore, T. C.

Planta, rt. hon. J.

Wood, B.

Plumridge, Capt.

Wood, Col.

Plumptre, J. P.

Wood, Col. T.

Powell, Col.

Worsley, Lord

Protheroe, E.

Wrightson, W. B.

Pusey, P.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Ramsbottom, J.

Yorke, H. R.

Rashleigh, W.

Young, J.

Redington, T. N.

Ricardo, J. L.

TELLERS.

Richards, R.

Roebuck, J. A.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Wood, C.

List of the NOES.

Allix, J. P.

Baird, W.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Bateson, R.

Archdall, Capt.

Blackstone, W. S.

Arkwright, G.

Bradshaw, J.

Ashley, Lord

Broadwood, H.

Attwood, M.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Baillie, Col.

Bunbury, T.

Baillie, H. J.

Burdett, Sir F.

713

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Howick, V.

Carnegie, hon. Capt.

Hussey, T.

Cartwright, W. R.

Irving, J.

Christopher, R. A.

Jackson, J.

Chute, W. L. W,

Jones, Capt.

Cochrane, A.

Kemble, H.

Colville, C. R.

Knightly, Sir C.

Dick, Q.

Lefroy, A.

Disraeli, B.

Lockhart, W.

Dodd, G.

Mackenzie, T.

Douglas, J. D. S,

Maclean, D.

Ellice, E.

M'Geachy, F. A.

Escott, B.

Manners, Lord J.

Farnham, E. B.

Marton, G.

Feilden, W.

Maunsell, T. P.

Fielden, J.

Neeld, J.

Ferrand, W. B.

Neville, R.

Filmer, Sir E,

O'Brien, A. S.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Polhill, F.

Fleming, J. W.

Pollington, Visct.

Forbes, W.

Praed, W. T.

Fuller, A. E.

Round, C. G.

Godson, R.

Stewart, J.

Gore, M.

Sturt, H. C.

Gore, W. O.

Trollope, Sir T.

Grant, Sir A. C.

Tyrell, Sir J. F.

Grimsditch, T.

Verner, Col.

Halford, H.

Vyvyan, Sir R. R.

Hampden, R.

Wakley, T

Henley, J. W.

TELLERS.

Hodgson, F.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Hornby, J.

Sibthorp, Col.

On the question that John Walter esq. be called to the Bar, and that the resolution be communicated to him by Mr. Speaker,
Sir G. Greysaid, that although he was desirous not to put the House to the trouble of again coming to a division, yet he thought it very desirable that they should adopt a resolution in the terms he had before mentioned, because he considered that it ought to be clearly understood that every individual who received a summons from a committee of that House, duly signed and authenticated by its chairman, was bound to make no exception to obeying the mandate it conveyed on such grounds as those of a supposed partiality among its Members. He hoped and believed that the House generally assented to this doctrine, and that it was a common understanding that such summonses ought to' be attended to. It was the more important that the sentiments of the House should clearly be made known on the point, because this was not a solitary case. They had, in the course of that evening, already received a report from the Southampton committee to the effect that a witness had neglected to attend before it in obedience to the summons of the chairman. That individual had been
714
ordered to appear at their Bar. He might be brought up to-morrow, and might plead a similar excuse, and so they might be constantly involved in discussions as to the partiality or impartiality of particular Members—discussions which he thought would tend little to enhance the dignity of that assembly. He thought that when Mr. Walter was called to the Bar, he should be informed that it was his duty to attend before a committee of that House when summoned.
Lord J. Russellshould not have risen before the division, had he understood that the negative voice of the House had been expressed. He now only wished to say that he entirely agreed in the course proposed to be pursued by his right hon. Friend. He thought he was quite right in saying that the committee possessed sufficient authority to summon witnesses before them, and also that witnesses so summoned ought to attend to the summons. The course proposed was the course they had pursued in Mr. Fleming's case, and he supposed that it was not desired to treat Mr. Walter in any other manner than they treated a Member of their own House. The resolution they had just carried should therefore, he conceived, be communicated to Mr. Walter; but at the same time he did not wish it to be thereby inferred that the House did not give such powers to its committees as enabled them to issue summonses which should be binding upon persons to attend, without their receiving any intimation from the House itself that compliance with that summons was essential.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that as far as his own experience went, he must say that the committees appointed by that House had the power of summoning witnesses, not in consequence of any inherent right in the committees themselves, but by a devolution of the power of that House in the resolution authorizing and empowering the committee to send for persons, papers, and records. They had already resolved "that Mr. Walter do attend the committee and give evidence at eleven o'clock to-morrow." That was the resolution they had come to, and it certainly appeared to him that the ends of justice would be answered, and no danger of establishing a bad precedent would be incurred, in calling Mr. Walter to the Bar, and authorizing the Speaker to notify to him the resolution of the House. He said this, however, with the distinct declaration of his opinion that the com-

715
mittee did not require the authority of that House to summon witnesses in each case, but that they already possessed that authority distinctly and specifically delegated to them by the House's resolution, empowering them to send for persons, papers, and records.
Viscount Howickdid not at all object to the view taken by his right hon. Friend the Member for Devonport, and if he had just now voted in the minority, it was simply on the ground that the means taken to arrive at the end were irregular and unsatisfactory. He had considered before the division, and he still thought, that the resolution ought to have been passed in the form suggested by his right hon. Friend. It was with that view that, finding it was too late to amend the resolution, he had voted against it, with a view to throw it out, and substitute another more regular in its shape. As, however, the House had decided in favour of that motion, he thought they could not now do better than support the motion just submitted to them.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, nobody understood the motion to convey any censure on Mr. Walter. It only carried out the view that it was better at once to check what might be made a very bad precedent, that of witnesses summoned before a committee stopping to canvass its composition. Nobody would say that any witness had a right to do that. But there were other steps which might be taken in such cases. If, for instance, a witness objected to the appointment of a certain person to serve on a committee before which he was summoned to appear, he might come before the House and say that the person in question was not neutral enough, and so submit himself and his case to the House's pleasure. But without making out such a case, no witness had any right to quarrel with the orders of the House; and he submitted that nothing could be more irregular than the commencement of such quarrels, solely with a view to that sort of, what he would call, bye-battle, of which they had already had a specimen.
Lord J. Mannerscould not but think that Mr. Walter bad entirely submitted himself to the House in the manner the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to consider necessary. He had appeared at their bar in conformity to their order, and had stated very calmly and respectfully his objections to be examined before a committee presided over by the Member for
716
Bath. Those objections also stood on record; they appeared on the paper of the House; and nobody up to that time had denied that they were true.
Mr. Wakleycontended that the proposition of the right hon. Baronet conveyed a censure on Mr. Walter, for the right hon. Baronet laid it down as a principle, that a witness was obliged to submit himself, in the most passive way imaginable, to the mandate of the committee, and that, no matter whether he was summoned as a witness merely, or was made to appear before the world as a criminal engaged in the transactions objected to, he was at once passively to submit to whatever that committee might exact. He at once and decidedly protested against any such doctrine. He said that it exhibited the very essence of tyrannical despotism, and that if it were acted on a practice would grow out of it which must be attended with danger to every individual in that House. He entirely agreed with what the hon. Member for Oxford University had said upon this subject, and it seemed to him that the House had been startled into one of the most ridiculous and unconstitutional proceedings that were ever taken by that assembly. He should never forget when the hon. Member for Bath got up and put his string of interrogations to so many Members, who all so ridiculously appeared in their places and gave answers to questions referring to perfectly private transactions. He said these transactions were perfectly private. They were transactions of which the law did not take cognizance. The law had not hitherto held parties to be criminal who had engaged in such transactions, and yet there they were requiring Members to get up in their places and in the face of the House to create convictions for themselves. In his opinion the sooner they got out of the scrape the better. The sooner they extricated themselves from the dilemma the better for that House and for the country, because, as he had heard, an impression existed out of doors that there had been unfair dealing, that the inquiry was not conducted with impartiality, and that equal justice was not dealt out to all. It was his belief too that the hon. Member for Bath, with all his acuteness, would not be able to tell them anything new. He believed he would not tell them a word which was not already well known to the country, and which had not been known for years. The only possible effect that could result would be to fasten a general

717
practice upon a few individual Members. Such a proceeding might gratify a few gentlemen, but he for one did not participate in their feelings. He thought the whole proceeding unfair, and he entered his protest against it from beginning to end.
Mr. Escottobjected to the proceedings which had taken place against the gentle. man who had appeared at the Bar. It was alleged that the hon. Member for Bath had for some time passed assumed a hostile attitude towards Mr. Walter, and this allegation the hon. Member for Bath had not denied. Therefore it was that Mr. Walter had declined to attend, and not from any disposition to question the authority of the tribunal. Furthermore, the hon. Member for Bath had last night made a statement to the House, the substance of which was, that the Committee on Election Proceedings had come to the resolution of adopting the extraordinary system of excluding all those against whom any accusation existed from hearing the evidence given before the committee. This was a proceeding calculated to defeat the substantial ends of justice, and he had voted against the order for Mr. Walter's attendance being made, as he was of opinion that the proceedings of the committee, as conducted by the hon. and learned Member for Bath, were not likely to conduce to the ends of justice. When he said this, however, he did not mean to dispute the power of the committee, but every lover of truth and justice must be opposed to the course of proceeding adopted in the case.
Lord Stanleysaid, it should be remembered, that the persons examined before the select committee were called upon, not as accused parties, but merely for the purpose of giving evidence, so as to assist in an important inquiry. The object of the committee was not to inculpate any person, but to elicit certain facts relative to the subject into which they were appointed to inquire; and if Mr. Walter had any well-founded objection to appearing before that committee, the objection should have been made to the House. That would have been the proper mode to make the objection. If the question had been raised when the committee was appointed, and if it had been stated that there were reasons to suppose that any person named on the committee entertained hostile dispositions against any of the persons likely to be called before it, and that therefore a fair trial could not be expected, that might
718
furnish a good ground why the House should take the subject into consideration. No objection, however, was taken to the formation of the committee at the time that the power was delegated to it. The House appointed a committee to inquire into the alleged corrupt compromises. That was the avowed object for which the committee was appointed, and not for any purposes of a criminatory nature. Mr. Walter was summoned to give evidence before that committee, not as one criminally charged, but as a witness, and in that character he had no right to object to appear on the ground of personal feeling on the part of any of those by whom the committee was constituted. This appeared to him to be the proper view to take of the matter, and the result of his experience was, that when the House delegated to a committee the power to examine persons, papers, and records, the parties were bound to attend and produce the documents. If there were any reasons why it would be inexpedient to intrust the committee with. such power, the time to take the objection was that at which the power was proposed to be delegated.
Sir R. H. Inglisdid not see the question quite in the light of the noble Lord. There were some facts omitted which it would be necessary to be kept in view. The hon. Member for Bath moved for a committee of inquiry, which was, amongst other things, to take into consideration certain alleged corrupt compromises. Amongst other cases to be inquired into was that of Nottingham, for which Mr Walter had been a candidate. Two gentlemen had been declared the sitting Members for that borough by a committee of the House. The alleged compromise, it was said, led to the retirement of one of those members for the purpose of allowing another candidate to come forward, and rumour had it that Mr. Walter would be seated in that gentleman's place. If there was any charge, then, Mr. Walter was the person accused of the compromise, together with the gentleman who was said to have vacated in his favour. Not only, then, was Mr. Walter personally interested but he was accused of a crime, and of a crime now made so for the first time. The hon. Member for Finsbury had truly observed, that cases of as gross a nature as the present had frequently taken place before without exciting the indignant virtue of the House; and whether Mr. Walter was right or wrong in the course which he

719
had pursued, it was clear that he was a party interested in the issue, and might very fairly protest against the tribunal before which, under such circumstances, he was called upon to appear. The noble Lord said, that the objection should have been taken when the committee was about to be instituted, and when the power was proposed to be delegated to them; but how could Mr. Walter know beforehand the course which the committee would adopt, or how could he interfere to prevent it?
Mr. Ferrandrose merely to ask one question. The noble Lord said Mr. Walter was called upon to attend the committee, not as a criminal, but as a witness. If, however, Mr. Walter should find that in the course of inquiry he was likely to criminate himself, would he be allowed to retire from the examination? If not, the investigation could not be considered in any other light than that of a criminal inquiry.
Captain Polhillwished to say a few words on the subject before the House. The motion was, that Mr. Walter be summoned to the Bar, and commanded to attend before the committee and give his evidence. As far as he understood Mr. Walter's objections to appearing, the chief one related to the chairman of the committee, in consequence of some private quarrel or misunderstanding. That he apprehended was the main objection. According to the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Cork, it was competent to Mr. Walter to petition the House on this ground; and it would be but fair to give him time to do so. He would therefore move, as a substantive resolution, that Mr. Walter be ordered to attend the committee on Thursday, so as to allow the intervening day for the presentation of a petition.
The Speaker: The House having already decided that Mr. Walter should attend to-morrow, it would be irregular to re-open that question.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Waltersummoned to the Bar.
The Speaker: I have to inform you that the House has come to the following resolution:—That you be directed to attend and give evidence before the select committee on Election Proceedings at eleven o'clock to-morrow.
Mr. Walterwithdrew.

MR. COCHRANE.
Mr. Roebuckbrought up a report from the select committee on Election Proceedings, staling that having
720
found it necessary to examine Alexander Baillie Cochrane, Esq., the chairman was directed to write to that Gentleman to desire his attendance on Wednesday, the 29th, and to produce all papers and records relating to the Bridport election. An answer dated the 27th of June, had been received that day from Mr. Cochrane, acknowledging the receipt of the letter from the chairman of the committee, requiring his attendance, with all papers and records relating to Bridport. The letter concluded by declining to comply with the requisition.
Mr. Roebuckgave notice that he would to-morrow move that Mr. Cochrane be ordered to attend on Thursday at eleven o'clock.

CUSTOMS' ACTS—THE TARIFF.
The Customs Bill was then read a third time.
Mr. Jervisrose to move an additional clause, of which he had given notice on a former day. He now saw how inconvenient it was to engraft a new substantive clause into a bill at that stage; but the matter to which his proposition had reference was a very important one. The object of his motion was to prevent any additional tax on the coals consumed by British steam-ships, and thereby deteriorating the interests of this class of vessels. While foreign countries were getting up companies for the encouragement of steam-shipping, we should carefully avoid doing anything which would inflict injury upon our own vessels of that class. His proposition contained a proviso permitting the commissioners of her Majesty's Treasury to allow a drawback upon the duty paid upon coals by all our commercial steam-vessels. This was the more necessary, as it was to be remarked that many of these persons had contracted for public works previous to the duty being imposed, and it would be unfair and unjust, if no drawback were allowed, to demand the fulfil ment of such contracts. There were now 1,020 steam-vessels in this country, and the number had increased rapidly under the present law. It was for the public interest to induce parties to undertake the longer voyages, because the vessels engaged in them would be most effective in time of war. The effect of imposing a duty on coals exported would be to oblige all steam companies trading to foreign countries to pay an increased price at the foreign stations, or to carry coals with them for the voyage home as well as the voyage out, and to take up a much greater

721
portion of their space in unprofitable stowage. Distant voyages did not yield so large returns as to encourage private companies to continue their undertakings in the face of additional taxation and prohibition. The Great Western Company had paid only one dividend, and the British and American Company had been unsuccessful. The hon. Gentleman read the memorial of the chairman and committee of the Steam-ship Owners' Association, representing 80,000 tons of British steam shipping. It stated, that the proposed tax would be extremely injurious to the interests of British steam navigation. The amount of revenue likely to accrue from coals consumed by British steamers was very trifling, while the increased charge would be most heavily felt by the proprietors. It would be 25 per cent, on the first cost of the coal, and 10 per cent, on the average cost at foreign ports. The memorialists, therefore, prayed, that the House would grant to proprietors of British steamers an exemption from the tax, which might be accomplished without subjecting the Treasury to fraud. It would be, the hon. Member continued, highly impolitic to lay increased burdens on our steam shipping at a moment when foreign countries were subsidizing companies for the purpose of creating a steam navy which would compete with our vessels. The mode of proving that the coals were destined for the consumption of British steamers, it was proposed to leave to the discretion of the Commissioners of the Treasury. He begged the House to recollect the advantage that would be given to sailing vessels by the alterations of duties in the tariff, and which would render it very unjust to visit steamers with additional taxation. The hon. Member concluded by moving a clause to the effect, that At was expedient that a drawback should be allowed on coals exported for the use of British steam-vessels, on proof to the satisfaction of the Treasury that the coal was exported only to be consumed on board such steam-vessels, the mode of proving being determined by the Treasury.
Mr. Wallaceseconded the motion. He could not allow himself to think, that the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to concede so reasonable a proposition. If there was any intention on the part of the right hon. Gentleman to give way, it would be better for him to do so at once, and save the time of the House. It was the duty of the Government to give encouragement
722
to steam navigation, which was not so profitable as it used to be. He, therefore, had great pleasure in giving his support to this motion.
Clause brought up and read a first time. On the question, that it be read a second time,
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that as the hon. and learned Gentleman had read the letter which the Government had addressed to the gentlemen interested in steam navigation, and as that letter generally stated the grounds which had induced the Government not to accede to the representations made to them, it would not be necessary for him to go at any length into the subject. The hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that the Government was disposed to afford every possible facility to the extension of steam navigation. With respect to this particular measure, when it was proposed to impose a duty of 4s. a ton on coals, he had interviews with several persons connected with steam navigation, and was desirous to relieve them from the pressure of this duty. He stated at the time that he saw great difficulties in the way of effecting the object in view, without leading the way to great fraud and loss of revenue. He stated to them at the time, that he would make inquiries of experienced officers of the Customs, with a view of ascertaining whether there were any means by which this indulgence could be granted them. In consequence of these communications, he had had an interview with experienced officers of the Customs, and suggested to them various modes by which it appeared to him that the object could be effected. But these gentlemen—officers of great experience—satisfied him not only that the proposed exemption would lead to great fraud, but that the means which he had suggested for preventing those frauds would be totally inoperative. This circumstance induced the Government to reduce the proposed duty on coals to one-half the amount that had been originally proposed. In all these questions of revenue they were not only to consider the inconvenience that might be caused, but they were also to consider the opening that might be given to fraud by the attempt to get rid of those inconveniences. If there was any system more than another calculated to open the door to fraud it was a system of drawbacks, carried on—not under their own eyes, and in their own ports—but carried on in the ports of foreign countries, at

723
a great distance from our own, and where we had no adequate protection against fraud. The proprietors of steam -vessels, in their letter to the Government, stated that the whole amount of drawback would not exceed 5,000 l. That was their estimate of the total amount, at the time the duty proposed was 4s. per ton. Now, when they came to calculate the extent of the pressure when the duty was reduced to 2s. a ton, they found that the whole amount would be only 2,500 l., and this would be divided amongst a number of steam companies trading to eighteen different countries. It must be recollected, that all coals which were placed in depots in any of the British possessions, would be (as we understood) duty free; and the inconvenience of this duty would only be felt with respect to coals that were deposited in foreign countries. Now, he was told, that by an alteration in the places of deposit, the quantity of coals kept in foreign countries might be considerably reduced. The hon. Gentleman had said, that there ought to be a drawback on coals shipped in foreign ports as well as if it was shipped in the Thames or at Ramsgate. But he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thought the case was quite different. Here they had their own officers, and if the officer was an honest man, no fraud could be committed. But let him take the case of a cargo of coals shipped at Bahia or any foreign port, who had they there to take an account of the amount taken on board? It was the opinion of Mr. Deacon Hume, who was a great authority on those matters, and was himself an experienced officer of customs, that nothing led to so great frauds as depending on consular certificates from foreign ports as to acts which had been performed at those ports. The consuls might not hare the power to secure proper information as to the facts, and if the Government were to be paying away money upon consular certificates, it was quite plain that it would lead to a great loss of revenue. Seeing, therefore, that a loss of 2,500 l. only would be incurred, which loss would be shared amongst companies trading to eighteen different countries, and seeing, on the other hand, a great prospect of fraud from allowing a drawback on coals taken on board in foreign ports, they felt compelled to adhere to the original resolution which they had come to on this subject. For these reasons he felt compelled to oppose the clause now proposed by the ton. Gentleman.
Mr. Humesaid, that in France and other countries they were voting money to assist the extension of steam navigation. Though steam navigation had done much for this country, the country had done nothing for it. He thought it a most important branch of our commercial industry, that everything should be done to promote it. As the amount of duty now in question was so small, he did not think it worth for the Government to throw any difficulty in the way of its remission. He thought it would be very easy to prevent fraud by requiring a certificate of the length of the voyage, the amount of tonnage, and the quantity of coals consumed.
Sir C. Napierthought, that it would be easy to ascertain the amount of coals consumed during a voyage. He agreed with the hon. Member for Montrose, that it was necessary to give the utmost encouragement to the steam navigation. He asked the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, how could our steam-vessels compete with French steam-vessels in the Mediterranean, when those vessels would be able to get their coals cheaper. He had been a steam proprietor himself, and had been so at a loss. He knew how difficult it was for steam proprietors to get the interest of their money. He thought, therefore, that every fair encouragement ought to be given to steam navigation.
Mr. M. Attwoodsaid, that there was no branch of the industry of the country which was suffering greater depression than that connected with steam navigation. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the burden of the proposed duty would be borne by several companies. But in this the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken. It would only be borne by the small portion of steam navigation engaged in trading to foreign ports, and would not be borne by the steam vessels engaged in the coasting trade. As the tax on coal affected a branch of commerce and industry which entered into direct competition with those of foreigners, the arguments in favour of it would equally apply to taxes on other branches of native industry. Had the Government taken the precaution of sufficiently consulting persons connected with steam navigation, as well as experienced Custom-house officers, they would have convinced them of the policy of making a relaxation in favour of the steam navigation of this country. There was much more fear of fraud expressed than the circumstances of the case warranted.
Mr. Gladstoneremarked, that Gentlemen seemed to make light of the danger of fraud. It was easy, doubtless, to say, that it would not take place; but his tight hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having carefully examined the subject, had come to the deliberate conclusion, that under the system of drawbacks proposed fraud would occur. Consular certificates were talked of, but any one who knew how little authority was possessed by consuls, could not suppose that their certificates would put a slop to fraud. An hon. Member had suggested, that the quantity of coals the steamer would consume on the voyage should be calculated, but that of course must depend on the number of hours spent in the voyage, of which there could be no certainty. [Mr. Hume: It might be ascertained by the log.] On an arrangement such as that suggested by the hon. Member for Montrose, consultations had been held with officers of the public revenue, who thought it impracticable. It was said, that a drawback, arranged from returns made from depots abroad, would not be a relief to the steam-shipping interests of more than 5,000 l., but it did not follow that the loss to the revenue, by fraud or otherwise, might not be five, or even ten times that amount. If the proposition for exemption in the present case were listened to the same claim might be raised on behalf of other articles. They should not look at this matter with a view merely to minute circumstances; for if the cost of navigation were increased by this tax, did not the question arise whether that cost would not be diminished by the alterations in other articles in the tariff. It should be considered whether the cost of other articles required in navigation, such as provisions for sailors, were not likely to be reduced to an amount, at least, equal to the increase which this duty might cause. Gentlemen were mistaken if they thought the loss to steam navigation caused by the proposition of Government, with respect to coal, would be greater than the benefits it would receive from the reduction of other taxes. The imposition of the tax on the exportation of coal had not been decided on as a tax which was abstractedly desirable, but for the purpose of revenue, and the Government would resist the alterations proposed on the ground that they would defeat the very view with which the duty was [sought to be imposed—namely,
726
that of obtaining a certain amount of revenue from that source.
Mr. P. M. Stewartwould vote for the amendment of his hon. Friend, on the ground that the duty would prove injurious to the British industry in the race of competition it had to run with that of foreigners. He felt that if this tax were adopted, the shipping interests of this country would suffer materially, and what the interests of steam navigation would lose sailing vessels would not gain. We were already hard run in the race of competition for the supply of coals, and the 2s. duty would embarrass the English interests still more. Besides, the duty would have a great disturbing effect on the steam navigation of this country. What he would ask the Government to do was, to take the certificate of respectable companies that vessels were bondâfide proceeding to particular ports, and that no fraud would be committed in the returns. The Government had shown itself favourable to consideration on this question, and he hoped they would listen to the representations which had been made.
Sir R. Peelsaid, the hon. Gentlemen who had just sat down, having admitted that the Government were not prejudiced, but favourably disposed to consideration, it would be further allowed that if they arrived at a different conclusion from that of the hon. Gentleman, such conclusion would be come to, not from prejudiced feelings, but from the conviction that danger would arise from the adoption of any other course. It would be admitted that one of the most satisfactory modes in which the public money could be disbursed would be the payment of money from the Treasury for drawbacks where no direct claim existed, and where fraud might occur. There were two views to be taken of the question. One was, as to the burden to be laid upon steam navigation. No one would deny that such a burden was in the abstract bad. He held in his hand a communication forwarded to Government on the 10th of June from the committee of the Steam-ship Owner's Association, signed by Mr. Wolverley Attwood, a gentleman whose knowledge and acquirements all would admit. That document, after other statements, called on the Government to consider that the gain to steam navigation by the drawback would be no more than 5,000 l. This was the whole gain which, according to the Steamship Owner's Association, would be ob-

727
tained by that interest from the drawback, even with a duty of 4s. [Mr. Attwood: The calculation was made on the supposition of a 2s. duty.] He understood it to be with a 4s. duty. While, however, the gain to the steam shipping interest would be small, the loss to the revenue would be great. In the course of this debate, three propositions had been made; one Gentleman was for a system of drawbacks founded on consular certificates. The hon. Member for Montrose made another proposition, which certainly was of a most alarming nature. The hon. Member's plan amounted to this—that an estimate of the tonnage of steam ships should be taken, and of the hours employed on the passage, and that each vessel should be entitled to claim a certain sum from Government for every hour of its passage. Would 5,000 l. or 10,000 l. be the limit by which the claims thus arising would be calculated? Some vessels were said to consume one and a-half tons per hour. Vessels of this kind would have a demand of 3s. an hour for every hour of their passage, which, multiplied by twenty-four, would be 3l. 12 s. a day. Then came the inquiry, how long would the vessel be on her voyage? Suppose her to be 100 days, the demand would be near 400 1. [Mr. Hume: Suppose she goes to the moon?] The hon. Gentleman, in reply to my arguments, merely draws on his lively imagination. This is the first time, I believe, he has become amenable to the charge of indulging in poetical flights. But I have a right to put the supposition of the passage lasting 100 days. [Mr. M. Attwood: Fifteen days is the average duration of the voyages across the Atlantic?] Suppose the voyage were to India. Let us take the medium between the voyage to the moon, and the fifteen days across the Atlantic; and suppose the case of a vessel going to India by the passage round the Cape. It is known that steam-vessels often take advantage of a favourable wind, and progress with the assistance of their sails, in order to save coal. Now, according to the hon. Member's proposition, there is this absolute, unqualified demand of 3l. 12 s. a day, even for the time when there was no consumption of coals. Suppose, again, the case of a vessel off Nova Scotia, taking in coals at Halifax, would she have a right to demand this allowance? I can assure the House that the determination come to by the Government was not adopted without consider-
728
ation, as well as consultation with officers of the revenue. We cannot reconcile with what we have ascertained, to think that the drawback could be granted without evasion and fraud; and, as I before remarked, the House should remember, that one of the worst possible modes of disbursement of the public money is in the payment of drawbacks under such circumstances.
Viscount Sandonmust take the liberty of observing, that the views expressed by Government looked more like the nicety of the custom-house than the views of the Board of Trade. The fact was, that such frauds as were spoken of, could only be apprehended from obscure individuals; but here they had to deal with great, extensive, and respectable companies, who were above the suspicion of such frauds. Indeed, it would not be worth their while to commit them. They were now about taxing the raw material of the steam navigation of this country, a course opposed to sound commercial principle. The trifling loss of revenue should be submitted to this year, at all events; and if it was then found that frauds were practised, they could say, "You are not worthy of receiving the exemption," and withdraw it. By trusting to the returns of the respectable companies engaged in steam navigation, they would be only doing what had already been done in the case of railways.
The House divided on the question that the clause be read a second time:—Ayes 42; Noes 80: Majority 38.

List of the AYES.

Aldam, W.

Pechell, Capt.

Attwood, M.

Pendarves, E, W. W.

Barnard, E. G.

Rundle, J.

Bowring, Dr.

Russell, Lord J.

Browne, hon. W.

Sandon, Visct.

Carnegie, hn. Capt.

Sibthorp, Col.

Chapman, B.

Smith, B.

Crawford, W. S.

Stewart, P. M.

Duncan, G.

Stuart, Lord J.

Duncombe, T.

Strutt, E.

Ewart, W.

Tancred, H. W.

Fielden, J.

Thornely, T.

Forster, M.

Tuffnell, H.

Heathcoat, J.

Vane, Lord H.

Henley, J. W.

Wakley, T.

Howard, P. H.

Wallace, R.

Hume, J.

Williams, W.

Humphery, Ald.

Wood, B.

Hutt, W.

Yorke, H. R.

Lambton, H.

Marsland, H.

TELLERS.

O'Coonell, D.

Jervis, J.

O'Connell, M. J.

Napier, Sir C.

729

List of the NOES.

Allix, J. P.

Kemble, H.

Antrobus, E.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Arbutbnott, hon. H.

Lefroy, A.

Baillie, Col.

Litton, E.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Lockhart, W.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Borthwick, P.

Mackenzie, T,

Botfield, B.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Brotherton, J.

Mainwaring, T.

Bruce, Lord E.

Marsham, Visct.

Campbell, A.

Martin, C. W.

Clerk, Sir G.

Mitchell, T. A.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Newport, Visct.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Nicholl, rt. hn. J.

Cripps, W.

Northland, Visct.

Darner, hon. Col.

Patten, J. W.

Denison, E. B.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Dickinson, F. H.

Peel, J.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Plumptre, J. P.

Egerton, W. T.

Polhill, F.

Escott, B.

Pollock, Sir F.

Flower, Sir J.

Pringle, A.

Forbes, W.

Rose, rt. hn. Sir G.

Fuller, A. E.

Round, C. G.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Rushbrooke, Col.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Smyth, Sir H.

Gladstone, T.

Smythe, hon. G.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Stanley, Lord

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Stewart, J.

Greenall, P.

Stuart, H.

Greene, T.

Sturt, H. C.

Grimsditch, T.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Hamilton, W. J.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Trotter, J.

Hawkes, T.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Hervey, Lord A.

Vesey, hon. T.

Hodgson, R.

Wood, Col.

Hope, hon. C.

Wood, Sir M.

Hughes, W. C.

Hussey, T.

TELLERS.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Baring, H.

Jermyn, Earl

Fremantle, Sir T.

Mr. T. Duncombecalled the attention of the House to the change effected by the new tariff in the article of onion seed. He did not say that the seedsmen of this metropolis would take advantage of the state of the law for the purpose of introducing onion seed as leek seed, though they might do so, and by that means pay a much smaller duty than if a genuine article were imported under its proper designation. He hoped it would be clearly understood that the right hon. Gentleman opposite had assented to the position that the duties on those descriptions of seeds should be assimilated. It had been urged in favour of the postponement that the onion was a biennial. Now, he had a list of biennials furnished by horticulturists; and it appeared that clover as well as onions was a biennial—that was to say, they were of 18 months' growth: whereas
730
leeks, the duty on which could not be postponed on account of some matter of form, was of twenty months' growth. The Lisbon onion seed was a seed that could not be saved in this country. It was much sown in the neighbourhood of manufacturing towns. Last year two tons were sown near Manchester, ten cwt. near Leeds, two tons at Wakefield, and one ton near and about Liverpool. He had samples of leek seed and onion seed before him, and he declared that it was impossible for any one to distinguish one from the other; so that one might be passed for the other. The new duty on both ought to come into operation immediately. He therefore moved, that the words which went to postpone the duty on onion seed until after the 6th of July, 1843, be struck out.
Mr. Gladstonethought, the hon. Member for Finsbury had drawn rather largely upon his imagination in his descripton of what he supposed to have taken place between the Board of Trade and certain parties in relation to this question. No communication had been made to any such parties of the intention of Government to postpone the duty on onion seed. [Mr. T. Duncombe: They made application to you.] Yes, they made application, but no communication was made to certain parties to the injury of others; and as to speculations, the most extraordinary speculations had frequently arisen in mens' minds, but the Government could not be held responsible for them. The hon. Gentleman had said, that the general appearance of the two seeds was very like; no doubt; but it was impossible, according to the forms of the House, to assimilate the duty on onions and leeks; precautions, however, would be taken by the Government against the improper introduction of onion seed before July, 1843. A similar indulgence to that which this proposition extended to the growers of onions, had been granted to three other classes of persons, the provision merchants, the whale fishers, and the cork cutters. Why should not the same principle be adopted in this case as well as in the other cases? Surely, the hon. Gentleman who had complained that small classes were neglected, would not oppose this proposition, because the onion growers formed only a small class. The change to which these parties were to be subjected, was as sweeping and serious a one as any in the tariff, and that was another reason why

731
they should meet with some consideration. The duty had heretofore been enormously high—eight guineas per cwt. But as the Government saw that it was an article of such consequence to the poor, they refused to maintain a higher duty than 20 s. The grower of onions would pay ½d. per bushel on the onions he might grow, on account of the duty on seed in this country; but against that, there was a protection of 6d. a bushel on onions imported, so that, though the diminution of the duty was great, there would be a protection of above 5d., which he thought would be quite sufficient. He was of opinion, that a lower duty should be placed upon the importation of the seed, which were a sort of raw material, than upon the product of those seeds, wherever that could be done with safety. He was sensible of the advantages derivable from making an immediate change, but it became the Government to have a due regard to the balance of evils in this case, and lake that course which seemed to be most advantageous.
Mr. Humpherybelieved, that the officers at the Custom-house would be perfectly unable to distinguish onion from leek seed, and great frauds would be perpetrated, because onion seed would be introduced as leek seed.
Mr. Humethought, that his hon. Friend had made out a case in favour of the alteration. He thought that the Government had been cajoled on the subject. The reduction of the duty ought to take place immediately.
Mr. Baringsupported the amendment. He thought the difference of duty would be a source of constant fraud.
Mr. T. Duncombereplied.—He denied that the growers of the onion seed required a postponement of the duty. This postponement was only supported by a few holders of onion seed. The Government had been imposed upon. Was it right that the Government should thus promote the views of a few dishonest persons?
The House divided on the question proposed to be left out stand part of the bill:—Ayes 93; Noes 63:—Majority 30.

List of the AYES.

A'Court, Capt.

Barrington, Visct.

Allix, J. P.

Blakemore, R.

Antrobus, E.

Botfield, B.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Bramston, T. W.

Baillie, Col.

Broadley, H.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Broadwood, H.

732

Bruce, Lord E.

Jermyn, Earl

Buck, L. W.

Jones, Capt.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Kemble, H.

Burroughes, H. N.

Knight, H. G.

Campbell, A.

Lincoln, Earl of

Cardwell, E.

Lindsay, H. H.

Cartwright, W. R.

Mackenzie, T.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Clayton, R. R.

Maclean, D.

Clerk, Sir G.

Mahon, Visct.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Mainwaring, T.

Colvile, C. R.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Cresswell, B.

Marsham, Visct.

Cripps, W.

Martin, C.W.

Dawnay, hon. W. H.

Masterman, J.

Denison, E. B.

Mundy, E. M.

Dickinson, F. H.

Nicholl, right hon. J.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Peel, right hon. Sir R.

Eliot, Lord

Peel, J.

Escolt, B.

Pigot, Sir R.

Flower, Sir J.

Plumptre, J. P.

Ffolliott, J.

Polhill, F.

Fuller, A. E.

Praed, W. T.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Pringle, A.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Repton, G. W. J.

Gore, M.

Round, C. G.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Rushbrooke, Cot.

Greenall, P.

Russell, J. D. W.

Greene, T.

Shaw, right hon. F.

Grimsditch, T.

Smith, A.

Hamilton, W. J.

Smyth, Sir H.

Hampden, R.

Stanley, Lord

Henley, J. W.

Stewart, J.

Hervey, Lord A.

Sutton, hon. H.M.

Hodgson, F.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Hodgson, R.

trotter, J.

Hope, hon. C.

Wilbraham, hn. R. B.

Howard, P. H,

Young, J.

Hughes, W. B.

TELLERS.

Hussey, T.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Baring, H.

List of the NOES.

Aldam, W.

Hill, Lord M.

Attwood, M.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Banner man, A.

Howick, Visct.

Barclay, D,

Hume, J.

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Hutt, W.

Barnard, E. G.

Jervis, J.

Bowring, Dr.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H

Brotherton, J.

Lambton, H.

Browne, hon. W.

Layard, Capt.

Chapman, B.

Marsland, H.

Childers, J. W,

Mitchells T. A.

Clive, E. B.

Morris, D.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Napier, Sir C.

Craig, W. G.

O'Connell, D.

Crawford, W. S.

O'Connell, M. J.

Duncan, G.

O'Connell, J.

Evans, W.

Pechell, Capt.

Fielden, J.

Pendarves, E. W. W.

Forster, M.

Plumridge, Capt.

Gibson, T. M.

Power, J.

Gill, T.

Pulsford, R.

Gray, rt. hn. Sir G.

Russell, Lord J.

Heathcoat, J.

Scholefield, J.

733

Smith, J. A.

Wakley, T.

Smith, rt. hn. R. V.

Wall, C. B.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Wallace, R.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Wawn, J. T.

Stewart, P. M.

Williams, W.

Stock, Mr. Serj.

Wood, B.

Strutt, E.

Yorke, H. R.

Tancred, H. W.

TELLERS.

Thornely, T.

Humphery, Aid.

Villiers, hon. C.

Duncombe, T.

Mr. T. Duncombethen moved, that the duty on corks squared for rounding be reduced from 16 s. the cwt. to 4s.
Mr. Gladstonewas not at all prepared to accede to the proposition of the hon. Member. Since the last discussion upon the subject, he had been even more convinced that the proposition of the Government would be infinitely more to the advantage of the journeymen cork-cutters than that of the hon. Member.
The House divided on the question, that 16 s. stand part of the bill:—Ayes 110; Noes 74: Majority 36.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Ffolliott, J.

A'Court, Capt.

Forbes, W,

Alford, Visct.

Fuller, A. E.

Antrobus, E.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Baillie, Col.

Gladstone, T.

Harrington, Visct.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Barron, Sir H. W.

Gore, M.

Bateson, R.

Gore, W. R. O.

Beresford, Major

Goring, C.

Blakemore, R.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Botfield, B.

Greenall, P.

Bramston, T. W.

Greene, T.

Brocklehurst, J.

Grimsditch, T.

Bruce, Lord E.

Hamilton, W. J.

Buck, L. W.

Hampden, R.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Burroughes, H. N.

Hervey, Lord A.

Campbell, A.

Hogg, J. W.

Cardwell, E.

Hope, hon. C.

Cartwright, W. R.

Howard, P. H.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Hughes, W. B.

Clerk, Sir G.

Hussey, T.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Cresswell, B.

Jackson, J. D.

Cripps, W.

Jermyn, Earl

Dawnay, hon. W. H.

Jones, Capt.

Denison, E. B.

Kemble, H.

Dickinson, F. H.

Lincoln, Earl of

Donglas, Sir C. E.

Lindsay, H. H.

East, J. B.

Litton, E.

Eastnor, Visct.

Mackenzie, T.

Egerton, W. T.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Eliot, Lord

Mahon, Visct.

Escott, B.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Marsham, Visct.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Martin, C. W.

Fleming, J. W.

Mundy, F, M.

Flower, Sir J.

Neeld, J.

734

Neville, R.

Smyth, Sir H.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Stanley, Lord

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Stewart, J.

Peel, J.

Stuart, H.

Pigot, Sir R.

Sturt, H. C.

Plumptre, J. P.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Polhill, F.

Trench, Sir F. W

Pollock, Sir F.

Trotter, J

Pringle, A.

Vane, Lord H

Reid, Sir J. R.

Vesey, hon. T

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Wall, C. B

Round, C. G.

Walsh, Sir J. B

Rous, hon. Capt.

Welby, G. E

Rushbrooke, Col.

Wood, Col

Russell, J. D. W.

Young, J

Ryder, hon. G. D.

TELLERS

Shaw, rt. hn. F.

Fremantle, Sir T

Smith, A.

Baring, H

List of the NOES.

Aldam, W.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H

Barclay, D.

Layard, Capt.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Marsland, H.

Barnard, E. G.

Mitchell, T. A.

Blake, M. J.

Morris, D.

Bowring, Dr.

Napier, Sir C.

Broadley, H.

O'Connell, D.

Brotherton, J.

O'Connell, M. J.

Browne, R. D.

O'Connell, J.

Browne, hon. W.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Busfeild, W.

Pechell, Capt.

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Plumridge, Capt.

Chapman, B.

Power, J.

Childers, J. W.

Pulsford, R.

Clayton, R. R.

Rundle, J.

Clive, E. B.

Russell, Lord J.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Scholefield, J.

Colvile, C. R.

Seymour, Lord

Craig, W. G.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Crawford, W. S.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Duncan, G.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Evans, W.

Stewart, P. M.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Strutt, E.

Forster, M.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Gibson, T. M.

Tancred, H. W.

Gill, T.

Thornely, T.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Villiers, hon. C.

Grogan, E.

Wakley, T.

Halford, H.

Wallace, R.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Wawn, J. T.

Heathcoat, J.

Wilbraham, hon. R. B.

Henley, J. W.

Williams, W.

Hill, Lord M.

Wood, B.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Worsley, Lord

Hodgson, R.

Wrightson, W. B.

Howick, Visct.

Hume, J.

TELLERS.

Hutt, W.

Duncombe, T. S.

Jervis, J.

Humphrey, Aid.

On the question that the bill do pass,
Lord J. Russellsaid, that he could not allow the bill to pass without making a few remarks on the general provisions of a measure which made alterations of duties of various kinds, of duties altogether prohibitory, of duties too high, and of other

735
duties, founded on no principle whatever; all of which alterations, he admitted, were calculated to effect a great improvement in the commercial system of the country. He rejoiced that the bill now about to pass was founded on principles which the right hon. Gentleman who introduced the tariff, and the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Board of Trade had admitted to be sound, on which the late Ministers had proceeded last year, and which, they contended, ought to be established as the general commercial principles of the country. In the application, however, of those principles, there had been a great and lamentable deficiency, in so far as they had not been applied to the most important articles of foreign produce. It was impossible not to see that, to some of the most important articles relating to the subsistence and consumption of the people, there had been an utter refusal to apply those principles at the present moment. Certainly there had been reasons stated for that refusal;—it had been said that a duty of 25 to 30 per cent, was maintained on butter and cheese, on the ground of revenue, and that they could not afford any reduction of the high differential duty, as between foreign and colonial coffee. On sugar, a duty almost prohibitory was retained, on grounds relating to slavery. But there was another article which, though not included in the tariff, was more important than any of the articles in the tariff, and to which the same principles would apply, although Government had not thought fit to apply them—he meant the great article of corn. It had been said, in regard to fish, that if fish could be obtained cheaper, they ought to allow the cheaper fish to come in, and so to enable the people to have better food: and it was said in regard to potatoes, that if the price was high this year, it was in consequence of the bad condition of the potatoes, and that that was no reason why potatoes should not be admitted from foreign countries for the benefit of the people. These were cogent arguments; but why they were not applied to corn, as they were to fish and potatoes, it would be difficult to say. Therefore, though admitting that the principles on which the tariff was founded were, generally speaking, sound, yet he could not say that they would obtain all the benefits which they ought to obtain for the people, as long as those great articles of consumption were
736
omitted, and others, of much less importance, admitted into the tariff. It might be said, that by establishing sound principles,—that by passing a tariff containing a reduction of duty on 750 articles, they were establishing a case for the future, and that they would find, in time, that the duty on sugar, coffee, on the other articles of provision, and, above all, that the duty on corn would be altered according to the principles they had previously established. This might be the case in common times, but the present year was not an ordinary year with respect to the industry and trade of the country. According to the view which he took, it was most essential to adopt some means for reviving that industry, and for improving that trade. He did not think they could wait for one, two, or three years without very great suffering on the part of the community, and therefore, though he was glad that any measure like the present was about to pass, he yet regretted that the great power of the present Government had not been applied to the reduction of the duty on the great articles of consumption of the people. It was in their power, this year, to obtain that great advantage, and nobody would dispute that, if they had made propositions in regard to these articles, in conformity with the general principles of the tariff, that these propositions would have been adopted. What might occur in future years it was impossible to say. The Members in favour of restriction and monopoly had always formed a powerful party, and in a few years it might not be in the power of the Government to pass the law which the present Government might think essential to the welfare of the people. He, therefore, regretted that they had thrown away an opportunity, and that, while effecting important reductions in the duties on a great many articles, they had left out of the tariff articles of the greatest importance, which still remained subject to a duty of 30 or 40 per cent. He thought that, when they considered the present distressed state of the country, they would regret that the opportunity had not been taken of making reductions in the duty on the great articles of subsistence, according to those principles which the Government and the great majority of the House thought the only sound principles on which to proceed.
Sir R. Peelshould be sorry, at the close of the final discussion on the tariff to in-

737
troduce anything of a political or party feeling into the discussion. Speaking generally, he was perfectly ready to acknowledge the support which the measure had received, not only from his friends, but from those politically opposed to him; and notwithstanding the temptation which the speech of the noble Lord offered for entering into a discussion of another character, he would, on the present occasion, confine himself to making one or two observations on what had fallen from the noble Lord. In respect to the general principles upon which the tariff was founded, the noble Lord remarked, that the present Government had borrowed the principles of the late Government. The noble Lord was not quite justified in saying so. In 1825, he cordially co-operated with Mr. Huskisson in the general principles which were then brought forward in reference to the commerce of the country. These principles he had uniformly held, and he had, to the best of his power, applied them to the tariff. The noble Lord said, that they had not applied those principles to corn. But he must ask the House and the country to judge of the tariff as a whole, and to say, whether any Government could have made such great changes in the commercial system of the country with more general approbation. The noble Lord said, that the Government had not gone far enough, and he alluded to the article of coffee. The proposal of the present Government with respect to coffee was, however, better than the proposal made by the noble Lord, and gave less advantage to our own colonies than the proposal of the noble Lord. Notwithstanding the free-trade principles professed by the late Government, he believed the articles of cheese and butter had never been once mentioned by them. Then, to take the article of meat. For years, there had been a weekly publication of the prices of foreign meat, compared to the price of meat in the home market; and the attempt was made to show, that while foreign meat was only 3d. per lb., English meat was 7d., and that there was thus a complete monopoly in meat. The present Government proposed a duty of 1d. per lb. on foreign meat, and yet it was said, that no advantage would be gained from the alteration. With regard to sugar, they were not certainly prepared to alter the duty, and they had rested their unwillingness to to do so on specific grounds, which they
738
thought, exempted sugar from being dealt with in the same way as other articles in the tariff. The House had fully discussed this subject, and the sugar duties remained for the present untouched. He had no wish to revive the discussion with respect to corn, but he could not help thinking that the alterations which had been made in the duty were—though they might not go so far as the noble Lord wished—still very important alterations. He very much feared that the distress in Ireland had been aggravated by the proposal in respect to spring corn; that there had been a waste of spring corn from an expectation of the introduction of foreign corn. When they came to legislate on questions of this kind, they were met by many conflicting circumstances; but, looking to the whole changes that had been made, and to the complicated interests involved, he could not help thinking, that the reflecting body of the community would be of an opinion different from that of the noble Lord, and that they would think, that Government had exercised its influence for wise purposes, and that they had effected as great changes as was possible, without violently disturbing the various interests involved; and which, on account of the long time which they had existed, could only be approached with great caution. If the noble Lord had considered the great changes which had been made, the noble Lord ought to have come to a different conclusion. For his own part, he was unwilling to disturb by political feeling or party recrimination that general assent which, greatly to the credit of the House, had prevailed during the discussion of this measure, and he now bade adieu to it, with an earnest hope that the object of the present Government would be answered, and that, doing as little individual injury as possible, the ultimate result would be to promote the commerce of the country, and to give new openings for its domestic industry. Such was his earnest hope, and if that end should be attained, he felt, that all their labour would be more than recompensed by such a desirable result.
Lord J. Russellbegged leave to explain. He had made no appeal to party feeling, neither had he maintained that the right hon. Baronet had borrowed his principles from the late Government. He merely said, that the right hon. Gentleman had proceeded on the same principles as the

739
late Government, but he did not say, that the right hon. Baronet had not acted on those principles in 1836. With regard to the tariff, he lamented that a more liberal course had not been taken with regard to several important articles of subsistence. He hoped, the right hon. Baronet would be justified in his expectations of a revival of trade in consequence of his measures, as he would much rather be mistaken, than that the country should suffer. As the measure they were about to pass was of the deepest importance to the country, he had thought it right to state his opinions on the subject, but he had not done so with any party or factious feeling.
Mr. V. Smithwished to state the effect which the tariff would have upon one particular interest—he alluded to the shoemakers. In his opinion, the Government, by omitting from the tariff the two important articles of corn and sugar, had inflicted great hardship on the class of persons to which he referred. He would, whenever an opportunity was afforded him of doing so, vote for a considerable reduction of the duties on corn and sugar.
Mr. Gladstonesaid, in consequence of what bad fallen from the right hon. Gentleman, he wished to state that the tanners had complained of the reduction of duty upon tanned leather from 6d. to 2d., which they contended would afford great benefit to the shoemakers.
Viscount Howickthought the advantage of the tariff was this,—not that it effected a great improvement in our commercial system, but that it showed that the Government had commenced a course in which he was persuaded the House would, in future years, be compelled to proceed. He was convinced that eventually they must grapple with the master monopoly,—that they must get rid of the system of a sliding-scale of duties upon corn in defence of the maintenance of which hardly one argument had been advanced during the whole course of the debate. The whole tone of the argument of the right hon. Baronet with regard to meat and provisions was utterly inconsistent with the course he had adopted with regard to corn. He hoped they would speedily see corn dealt with on the same principles which had been applied to other articles.
Mr. Humesaid, this measure effected great and important changes, such as could not have been attempted by any
740
one but a Minister as powerful as the right hon. Baronet, At the same time he deplored that those changes had not been carried further; but he could not allow the bill to pass without expressing his opinion that it effected great and important changes, which would lay the foundation for extensive improvements in our commercial system at a future period. This was the last of three important bills which the right hon. Baronet had proposed, the other two being the Income-tax Bill and the Corn-law Bill. Now he wished to put it to the right hon. Baronet whether all that he had done would pro duce any immediate benefit to the community at large,—whether this bill would have any immediate or speedy effect in relieving the prevalent distress, which was rather on the increase than on the decrease? He was satisfied they could not come to the conclusion that any of these measures would have such an effect; and he hoped the right hon. Baronet was prepared to submit to Parliament some other remedy for that distress. He saw no hope of relief—no chance that the year would be passed in peace—unless extensive and important changes were made; indeed, he did not think it possible this country could be maintained in peace, unless the Government consented to the free admission of corn and of provisions. His great objection to this measure was that it did not create a trade in corn. While he felt bound to thank the right hon. Baronet for having done so much in the revision of the commercial system, he must say that unless he went still further he would not succeed in restoring the country to peace and prosperity.
Mr. G. Berkeleybegged to ask the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury whether her Majesty's Government had received any intimation relative to a statement which had appeared in the public prints, that the French government had raised the duty on English linen and yarn 20 per cent.; and whether the Prussian League had raised the duty on woollen manufactures from thirty dollars to fifty dollars.
Sir R. Peeldeeply regretted, not merely for its commercial effects, that the French government had adopted the course to which the hon. Gentleman had referred. The accounts received by her Majesty's Government were exceedingly brief, but they confirmed the statements which he

741
was informed had appeared in the public journals. It was not true that the Prussian League had raised the duty on cotton wool. He earnestly hoped that the reports on that subject were without foundation; but certainly it was not true that any such act had been passed.
Lord Worsleywas satisfied that if the measures brought forward by her Majesty's present Government had been proposed by the late Government, hon. Gentlemen opposite would have complained loudly of the free-trade principles involved in those measures. Many hon. Members who supported the measure of the late Government for the imposition of a fixed duty of 8s. upon corn were told at the last, election that they advocated free-trade principles; but many persons who then taunted them with adopting such principles would now be ready to accept a fixed duty of 8s. in preference to the rate of duty proposed by the present Government. He would not say that the tariff was founded altogether upon free-trade principles, but he considered that that measure was more likely to lead to the eventual adoption of a system of free-trade than any measure heretofore submitted to Parliament.
Mr. M. Gibsonsaid, the right hon. Baronet, in stating the principle on which he acted in introducing this tariff, said it was that we should buy in the cheapest market, that whether other countries were disposed to restrict commerce or not, still we should consult our own interests, and buy in the cheapest market. That was the doctrine which the Anti-Corn-law League sought to impress upon the people of this country, that they should be allowed to buy corn in the cheapest market. He believed that, if the right hon. Baronet was allowed to carry out those principles of free-trade to which he had given his assent, he would allow them to buy corn in the cheapest market, and import it into this country free of duty. He had found, from intercourse with commercial men, that a great change had taken place in public opinion with regard to free-trade. He believed that, by the assistance of lecturers they would be able to be sent into distant parts of the country, to impress upon the people the truth of those principles upon which the right hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government had stated that trade and commerce ought to be conducted. They had the authority of the
742
Executive that they were teaching what was sound and correct; and if he were called on to subscribe his money to charities and missionaries, he should consider that he did not subscribe it to so good and to so humane a purpose as in subscribing it for Anti-Corn-law lectures. These lectures were attended when no other lectures were. Let them try a meeting on Church Extension, and they (the Anti-Corn-law advocates) would try one on Corn-laws, and the result would prove which excited the greatest interest. The events of the last few months had given the greatest possible encouragement to the Anti-Corn-law League, and they could not have a greater proof of the success of their endeavours than in the movement of the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government.
Bill read a third time and passed.

BRITISH POSSESSIONS ABROAD—(COLONIAL CUSTOMS.)
The British Possessions Abroad Bill was read a third time.
Mr. Labouchere, in rising to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice, said he should trouble the House for but a very few moments. By the law, as it now stood, almost every article was imported duty free across the border of the United States of America into Canada. It was proposed to alter this system, and to impose duties upon two of the most important articles of trade—namely, wheat flour and cured provisions. It was the opinion of Lord Sydenham and other authorities on this question, that nothing could be more unwise than to establish a line of custom-houses on the extensive border which separated Canada from America. He was much surprised, after the passing of a bill of relaxation, of which he very much approved, to find that this should be the time taken in order to introduce a new principle, and to reverse the decision which Parliament came to in 1831, and which had been worked beneficially without any complaint up to the present moment. The House was aware that it had been the policy of this country to allow flour, the growth of Canada, to be imported into this country at a reduced duty. He did not believe that American flour came here as Canadian, to induce this alteration in the law. But when the harvest in Canada was such that it would he advantageous for the Canadians to send their flour here, he believed they did send

743
it in considerable quantities, and they consumed the flour of America. There was no cause for apprehension on the part of the landed interest from any great extension of this trade; and he was sure that the protection of the corn grower of this country would not be urged as a reason for abrogating that exemption. He thought that this alteration of duty might have been intended to protect some Canadian interest. But he had the satisfaction of hearing the right hon. Gentleman opposite state, that if any interest in Canada required protection, it was for the Canadian Legislature itself to provide it—that we had no business with it. But a principal argument on the other side was, that the revenue of Newfoundland might lose to the extent of 2s. a quarter on wheat unless this bill were adopted, whilst there was no corresponding advantage arising to the consumer. Now it did seem to him strange that for such a fine-drawn argument as this they should think it necessary to alter a state of things which had existed for a considerable number of years. It was very desirable that their legislation on subjects of this sort should not be capricious. The colonies were differently circumstanced to the mother country, in being unable to make an appeal through representatives against alterations in which they did not concur; and really he did think that unless some better reasons were adduced than the visionary ones to which he had referred, they would be legislating with much levity, and in a very mistaken spirit, if they consented to adopt such alterations on such reasoning. But he feared it would not be the effect of mere alteration alone which would operate injuriously if this bill were passed. A great flour trade had sprung up between America and Canada, attended with much advantage to the latter, and with still more advantage to the manufacturing interests in Great Britain. His hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield had stated on a former occasion, that at a time when Sheffield was in great distress the wants of the people were much alleviated by a sudden demand for their manufactured articles to pay for the flour thus imported. And when the House remembered that every barrel of flour thus brought across the border had to be paid for in the manufactured articles of Great Britain, surely they would not attempt to take a step so calculated at this to put an end to that trade.
744
He did not ask them to make any alteration more favourable to the United States, but he did ask, and with confidence, that they should not take any step on the side of restriction. Sure he was, if they considered all the inconveniences of the case—if they consented to weigh the evils of change against the futile reasons adduced in favour of it, they would not think of altering a law which had now existed for ten years, which was attended with very beneficial consequences to British interests, and which no one pretended for a moment to say was the cause or occasion of a single practical evil. On these grounds he should, in conformity with the motion on the paper, move a clause to continue the exemption from duty on American wheat flour imported into Canada.
Clause brought up and read a first time.
On the motion that the clause be read a second time,
Mr. Gladstonesaid, that he, of course, had no objection to offer to the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman, although he must say that he thought this was a subject entirely exhausted by previous debates. Practically speaking, he must say, that he estimated the importance as well as the consequences of this measure much lower than the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had said, that it was not desirable to keep up our line of Customs' establishments on the Canadian frontier. Now, that argument went, not against the duties proposed to be levied by this bill, but against all duties whatsoever. Then the right hon. Gentleman urged that this American flour entered into consumption in Canada as a substitute for the Canadian flour sent to this country. But he had great doubts of that, for he had been informed, that while the mode of transmission under bond given to the Custom-house officers, as provided by the law, afforded the means of sending American produce by those routes without any impediments, it was perfectly adequate to prevent the consumption of that produce in the colony. He could state on the information given him by Sir Allan M'Nab, that this was now the case. He believed the principle on which they ought to legislate in these cases, was, that if they imposed a duty upon articles entering into importing colonies, they should also do so in those which entered into exporting colonies. It would be a hardship not

745
only on Newfoundland, as the right hon. Gentleman said, but on other importing colonies in the West Indies and North America, if this was not the case; and, he must add, if the Canadians wished to remain- under our colonial system, then they must submit to the application of that system fairly and properly. On the whole, he saw nothing in what had been said to induce him to alter his views, and he should, therefore, oppose the clause.
Mr. Huttsaid, this measure was a more important one than the right hon. Gentleman seemed to consider it to be. It was nothing less than the establishment of a Corn-law in Canada, and a Corn-law, not for the purposes of revenue, but solely to prevent the importation of flour into the colony. The establishment of a Corn-law in Canada would be followed by attempts to establish a similar law in other colonies. The next thing we should hear of would be a proposition for a Corn-law in New South Wales. The question had already been powerfully mooted there, and it only wanted the advocacy of such opinions as the right hon. Gentleman had urged in support of the present measure to be successful. In Canada we had for ten years acted on a different system, without there having been any allegation that evils had arisen from it, and he was greatly surprised that the Government, after having just passed the tariff, should have introduced a principle as regarded Canada so opposed to all the general principles which they had contended for in supporting that measure.
The House divided:—Ayes 83; Noes 160: Majority 77.

List of the AYES.

Ainsworth, P.

Colebrook, Sir T. E.

Aldam, W.

Craig, W. G.

Barley, D.

Crawford, W. S.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Denison, J. E.

Barnard, E.G.

Dennistoun, J.

Barron, sir H. W.

Divett, E.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Duncan, G.

Berkeley, hon. F.

Duncombe, T.

Blake, M. J.

Ellis, W.

Bowring, Dr.

Evans, W.

Brotherton, J.

Ewart, W.

Buller, C.

Fielden, J.

Busfeild, W.

Forster, M.

Cavendish, hn. G. H.

Gibson, T. M.

Chapman, B

Gill, T.

Childers, J. W.

Gordon, Lord F.

Clay, sir W.

Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.

Clive, E. B

Guest, Sir J.

Cobden, R.

Hill, Lord M,

746

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Russell, Lord E.

Howick, Visct.

Scholefield, J.

Hume, J.

Seymour, Lord

Hutt, W.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Jervis, J.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Stewart, P.M.

Lambton, H.

Stuart, Lord J.

Layard, Capt.

Strutt, E.

Marshall, W.

Tancred, H. W.

Marsland, H.

Thornely, T.

Mitchell, T. A;

Vane, Lord H.

Morris, D.

Villiers, hon. C.

Murphy, F. S:

Walker, R.

Napier, Sir C.

Wallace, R.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Watson, W. H.

O'Brien, J.

Wawn, J. T.

O'Connell, M. J.

Williams, W.

O'Connell, J.

Wood, B.

Ogle, S, C. H.

Worsley, Lord

Parker, J.

Wrightson, W. B.

Pechell, Capt.

Yorke, H. R.

Plumridge, Capt.

TELLERS.

Rundle, J.

Smith, V.

Russell, Lord J.

Tufnell, PL

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Eaton, R. J.

Acland, T. D.

Egerton, W. T.

A'Court, Capt.

Eliot, Lord

Alford, Visct.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Allix, J. P.

Farnham, E. B.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Fellowes, E.

Arkwright, G.

Ferguson, Sir R, A.

Baillie, Col.

Feilden, W.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Filmer, Sir E.

Barrington, Visct.

Fitzroy, lion. H.

Bateson, R.

Fleming, J. W.

Beckett, W.

Flower, Sir J.

Bodkin, W. H.

Ffolliott, J.

Botfield, B.

Fuller, A. E.

Bramston, T. W.

Gaskell, J. M.

Broadley, H.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Brownrigg, J. S.

Gladstone, T.

Bruce, Lord E.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Buck, L. W.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Gore, M.

Bunbury, T.

Goring, C.

Burroughes, H. N.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Campbell, A.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Card well, E.

Granby, Marq. of

Chetwode, Sir J.

Greenall, P.

Christopher, R. A.

Greene, T.

Clayton, R. R.

Grimsditch, T.

Clerk, Sir G.

Grimston, Visct.

Clive, hon. R. H.

Grogan, E.

Colvile, C.R.

Hale, R. B.

Compton, H. C.

Hamilton, W. J.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Hampden, R.

Cresswell, B.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Cripps, W.

Heathcote, G. J.

Darby, G.

Henley, J. W.

Dawnay, hon. W. H.

Hepburn, Sir T. B

Denison, E. B.

Hervey, Lord A.

Dick, Q.

Hodgson, R.

Douglas, Sir H.

Hogg, J. W.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Hope, hon. C.

Eastnor, Visct.

Hornby, J,

747

Hughes, W. B.

Plumptre, J. P.

Hussey, T.

Polhill, F.

Ingestre, Visct.

Pollock, Sir F.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Pringle, A.

Jackson, J. D.

Pusey, P.

Jermyn, Earl

Rashleigh, W.

Jones, Capt.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Kemble, H.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Kerr, D. S.

Round, C. G.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E

Rous, hon. Capt.

Knight, H. G.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Lawson, A.

Russell, J, D. W.

Legh, G. C.

Ryder, hon. G. D.

Liddell, hon. II T.

Scarlett, hon. It. C.

Lincoln, Earl of

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Litton, E.

Sheppard, T.

Lockhart, W.

Smith, A.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Stanley, Lord

Lyall, G.

Ttewart, J.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Stuart, H.

Mackenzie, T.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Talbot, C. R. M.

M'Geachy, F. A.

Taylor, T. E.

Mahon, Visct.

Taylor, J. A.

Mainwaring, T.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Trollope, Sir J.

Manners, Lord J.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

March, Earl of

Verner, Col.

Marsham, Visct.

Vesey, hon. T.

Martin, C. W.

Vivian, J. E.

Masterman, J.

Waddington, H. S.

Miles, W.

Wilbraham, hon. R. B.

Mundy, E. M.

Wodebouse, E.

Neeld, J.

Wood, Col.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Wortley, hon J. S.

Norreys, Lord

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Palmer, K.

Young, J.

Patten, J. W.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

TELLERS.

Peel, J.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Philipps, Sir R. B. P.

Baring, H.

Mr. Milner Gibsonmoved the omission of part of the 9th clause, imposing a 10 per cent, ad valorem duty on foreign sugar, refined in bond, and exported from England to any of our colonial possessions. The right hon. Gentleman had distinctly stated that it was not his intention to place any duty on articles imported into the colonies, into the produce of which British labour entered. The British Parliament bad no right to lay duties on articles imported into the colonies for the purposes of revenue, but merely for the purpose of regulating commerce. The right hon. Gentleman had laid down that principle, and acting on it, he had repealed all the acts imposing duties on articles of British manufactures imported into the colonies. Now, sugar refined in bond in this country was undoubtedly an article of British manufacture. The imposing this duty was
748
acting contrary to the spirit of the Declaratory Act. It would, besides, be prejudicial to the West-India planters, who would not be able to replace the sugar sent to this country at so low a cost as he did at present. It would, moreover, be very injurious to the sugar refiners of this country; for these reasons he should move that the clause be struck out of the bill.
Mr. Gladstoneregretted that the hon. Gentleman had brought forward his motion without notice, because from its complex nature it would be difficult to discuss it in detail, or to explain the practical effect of its clauses. The hon. Gentleman was quite right in his supposition that this clause would impose 10 per cent, duty on this article on its importation into the colonies; but the reason why this article was dealt with in a peculiar mariner, was, that it connected itself with the sugar question at home; and the same circumstances which made the Government think the present an unfit period for the settlement of the sugar duties at home, applied the duties on the same article when imported into the colonies.
Mr. Humethought the objection of the hon. Member for Manchester perfectly good.
Mr. Laboucherewas aware this was a complicated question. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman could satisfy the House that no addition would be made to the price of refined sugar in the colonial markets by the clause.
Mr. Villiersdeclared he could not understand the clause.
Mr. Gladstonesaid, it was not at all strange that Gentlemen should not understand it who had not become in any degree acquainted with it. The best proof of the justice of the measure was this, that the sugar refiners did not oppose it.
Lord Stanleysaid, those who understood the measure agreed in its propriety.
The House divided, on the question that the words proposed to be left out stood part of the question:—Ayes 105; Noes 36: Majority 69.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Baring, hon. W. B.

A'Court, Capt.

Barrington, Visct.

Allix, J. P.

Beckett, W.

Arkwright, G.

Bodkin, W. H.

Attwood, M.

Bramston, T. W.

Baillie, Col.

Broadley, H.

749

Brownrigg, J. S.

Ker, D. S.

Bruce, Lord E.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Lawson, A.

Bunbury, T.

Legh, G. C.

Burroughes, II. N.

Liddell, hn. II. T.

Campbell, A.

Lincoln, Earl of

Clayton, R. R.

Lockhart, W;

Clerk, Sir G.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Clive, hn. R. H.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Colvile, C. R.

M'Geachy, F. A.

Corapton, H. C.

Mahon, Visct.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Mainwaring, T.

Cripps, W.

Manners, Lord J.

Denison, E. B.

Marsham, Visct.

Dickinson, F. H.

Martin, C. W.

Douglas, Sir H.

Masterman, J.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Mundy, E. M.

Eastnor, Visct.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Egerton, W. T.

Ogle, S. C. E I.

Eliot, Lord

Palmer, R.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Patten, J. W.

Farnham, E. B.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Fleming, J. W.

Peel, J.

Ffolliolt, J.

Pigot, Sir U.

Fuller, A. E.

Plumptre, J. P.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Pollock, Sir F.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W.E.

Rashleigh, W.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Gore, M.

Ryder, hon. G. D.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Scarlett, hon. R. C.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Greene, T.

Stanley, Lord

Grimsditch, T.

Stuart, H.

Grimston, Visct.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Grogan, E.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Hale, R. B.

Taylor, J. A.

Hamilton, W. J.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Tyrell, Sir J.T.

Henley, J. W.

Verner, Col.

Hogg, J. W.

Vesey, hon. T.

Hughes, W. B.

Waddington, H. S.

Hussey, T.

Wilbraham, hon. R. B,

Ingestre, Visct.

Yorke, hon E. T.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Young, J.

Jackson, J. D.

TELLERS.

Jermyn, Earl

Fremantle, Sir T.

Johnstone, H.

Pringle, A.

List of the NOES.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Marshall, W.

Blake, M. J.

Marsland, H.

Bowring, Dr.

Morris, D.

Brotherton, J.

Napier, Sir C.

Busfeild, W.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Cavendish, hn. C. C.

O'Connell, M. J.

Chapman, B.

Parker, J.

Childers, J.W.

Pechell, Capt.

Cobden, R.

Redington, T. N.

Crawford, W. S.

Rice, E. R.

Duncan, G.

Russell, Lord E.

Duncombe, T.

Scholefield, J.

Etwall, R.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Ewart, W.

Thornly, T.

Fielden, J.

Villiers, hon. C.

Forster, M.

Wallace, R.

Gill, T.

Watson, W. H.

750

TELLERS.

Wawn, J. T.

Gibson, T. M.

Wood, B.

Hume J.

Bill passed.
House adjourned at one o'clock.