Commons Sitting of 7 August 1843

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public.—1°. Special Sessions; Chelsea Hospital Out Pensioners; Public Notaries; Detached Parts of Counties; Grand Jury Presentments (Ireland, No 3).
2°. Sudbury Commission; Land Revenue Accounts; Foreign Jurisdiction.
Committed.—Poor Relief (Ireland); Applotment of Rates (Dublin); Attornies and Solicitors.
Reported.—West India Islands Relief; Episecopal Functions; Customs.
3°. and passed:—Theatres Regulation; Hackney and Stage Carriages.
Private.—3°. and passed:—Hambro's Naturalization; Fox's Estate; Liverpool Fire Prevention; Duchall Estate.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Colonel Rushbrooke, from Frederick Philips, against the Theatres Regulation Bill—From the Secretary of the St. John del Rey Mining Company, against the Slave Trade Suppression Bill.—From the Surrey and Sussex Trustees of Roads, against the Turnpike Acts Continuance Bill.—From Creditors of P.H. Abbot; an Official Assignee in Bankruptcy.

POOR RELIEF (IRELAND).
House in Committee on the Poor Relief (Ireland Bill.
On the question that clause 19 stain part of the bill, the committee divided:—Ayes 37; Noes 13: Majority 24.
Clause agreed to.
Mr. W. S. O'Brienmoved an additional clause, allowing guardians to send orphans out to nurse. The workhouse was the worst place for the education of children, and he believed that the plan he recommended would be found much more economical than keeping them in the workhouse.
Clause read a first time on the question that it be read a second time.
Mr. Shawobjected on the ground that it would be admitting the principle of outdoor relief. It would also entail an enormous expense on the country; these places where the children were located would be regarded as so many foundling establishments, and children from all parts would be brought and left in the unions.
Sir R. Fergusonadmitted the general inexpediency of the principle of out-door relief, but he thought that an exception should be made in favour of orphans.
Sir J. Grahamwas most decidedly opposed to the clause. He thought that the hon. Gentleman who had brought it forward must himself see what would be the consequences of adopting it. The hon. Gentleman by the very next clause of which he had given notice, and which he was about to propose to the committee, intended to give out-door relief to other classes of the poor in Ireland besides orphans, and if the principle was admitted in one instance, it certainly would be difficult to refuse to assent to it in the other. He was of opinion that it would open a door not only to claims of an enormous amount, but that it would be dangerous in the extreme to the landed interest in Ireland; he, therefore, felt it his duty to oppose the clause.
Mr. Wysesaid, he had always been opposed to the general principle of granting out-door relief, but he conceived it was highly desirable that the clause should be adopted, as it made a salutary provision for the maintenance and care of orphan children.
The committee divided:—Ayes 7; Noes 50: Majority 43.
Clause rejected.
Mr. S. O'Brienproposed a clause to regulate the law of parish settlements in Ireland. If it was not received he threw upon Ministers the whole responsibility attached to rejecting it.
Sir J. Grahamobjected to the introduction of such a clause at present. The time had not yet come for an alteration of

323
the law of settlement. In dealing with that law it would be necessary to do so on the general principles upon which the removals of paupers ought to take place. He objected to giving the commissioners the extended power contended for by the hon. Gentleman. If the hon. Gentleman thought that the simple remedy proposed by him was the right one, he ought to take the sense of the House upon it.
Sir R. Fergusonsaid that clause 3 had been inserted in the bill for the purpose of entitling the tenants in Ireland to deduct from their rents, whatever might be the distance at which they had fallen due, any advances for poor-rates made by them on behalf of their landlords. The object of this clause was to guard against a system which prevailed in Ireland. The Irish tenants were generally in the habit of paying their rents six mouths, a year, and sometimes a year-and-a-half after they became due, and their landlords did not allow them a deduction for the poor-rates advanced on their behalf, until the payment of the particular rent for the term for which the rates had been assessed. It was thus a long time before they got a return for their advance, and thus a feeling had sprung up among the lower classes that it was entirely withheld from them. Another question has arisen upon this clause in the Poor Law Bill, as to the deduction on tithes. The word "yearly" had been used in the Act, and this had led to the idea, that deductions on rates could not be made on half yearly or other payments. Though the law had been declared to be opposed to this, yet there existed an impression to the contrary, and he thought that after the word "rent," the word "tithe," should be introduced. The hon. Member moved a clause to enable a tenant to deduct his rates from the rent.
Clause read a first time.
On the question that it be read a second time,
Sir J. Grahamtook a practical view of the subject. The Irish tenant was generally in debt to his landlord for three half year's rent. If, while in arrear to this extent a moiety was paid up to the landlord, that (were the hon. Baronet's clause carried into effect) would enable the tenant by deducting the amount of poor-rates advanced by him, to sweep away the whole of that moiety.
Committee divided:—Ayes 17; Noes 54: Majority 37.
House resumed.
Bill to be reported.

IMPORT DUTIES.
On the question, that the Order of the Day for going into a committe of Supply be read,
Mr. Ewartsaid, that late as was the period of the Session, and much as he regretted the absence of many Members peculiarly qualified (and far more qualified than he was) to state and prove the necessity of further and more enlarged fiscal and commercial reforms, he yet could not allow the Session to expire without a parting glance at these important subjects. He considered, that a comprehensive, yet simple, system of reformation in our import duties, was indispensable for the country—such a system as was developed in the evidence taken before the Import Duty Committee, for originating and concluding which, the country was so much indebted to the views and the efforts of Mr. Deacon Hume. The conclusions of that committee had been adopted as the basis of his commercial system by the right hon. Baronet. But how far had he carried them? What had he accomplished? What result had he produced by their adoption for the country? He saw them adopted as a text, but with only a scanty commentary. It was free-trade in detail, protection in the gross—a mingled mass of professed commercial freedom, and practical commercial monopoly. Such had been the reform of the right hon. Baronet. One of the first principles which he had professed to borrow from the Import Duties Committee was, the free admission of the raw material of manufacture. Last Session the Government had adopted some of the detailed reforms of Mr. Deacon Hume on this principle—they had admitted colours, furniture-wood, gums; but what had they done in the present Session to sustain this great principle? They had made no preparation for removing the duty on the elementary materials of our woollen and cotton manufactures, raw cotton and raw wool. In the present competition which this country had to encounter, the repeal of these duties was indispensable. The necessity of repealing the wool duty, had been maintained and proved. An equal necessity, he believed existed for repealing the cotton duty. The reasons for repealing that duty were strong at all times. They were much stronger now. Those nations in which

325
the cotton plant grew, were themselves becoming extensive manufactures—the United States, for instance. To compete with them, we must reduce the raw material to as low a price as possible. The duty, too, now bore a higher proportion to the cost of the raw material than at any former time, The price of cotton had fallen gradually since 1838; Up land cotton, for instance, one-third. Yet the duty remained the same. It told, therefore much more severely on the present low-priced, than on the former high-priced article. One of the first objects of the Government should be the removal of the wool and cotton-wool duties. This was one of the points aimed at in his motion. But the Government had, with equal inconsistency, first adopted, and then neglected, another principle, established by the testimony given before the committee on Import Duties. The right hon. Baronet has professed doctrines as to buying and selling, too trite to quote—he had even mysteriously hinted at his own scepticism as to the utility of commercial treaties. So far, he had been a disciple of the free-trade committee. But had the right hon. Baronet practised the principle of buying in the cheapest and selling at the dearest market? Had he freed himself from the leading strings of one commercial treaty? Yet. what did the oracle of the Board of Trade, Mr. Deacon Hume, advise the right hon. Baronet to do? Mr. Deacon Hume plainly said,—
"I would take what I wanted from foreign nations. If we imported from any country any considerable quantity of goods, and the manufacturers of that country were protected, the producers of those goods would very soon find the difficulty they had in getting returns; and instead of our soliciting the Government of those countries to admit our goods, the advocates of that admission would be in the country itself."
Mr. D. Hume wisely recommended the principle of fostering in each country (in our own behalf) the most justifiable of all revolutions—a revolution in favour of free-trade. Why then, did we not freely import what we wanted? What country had flourished so largely as the United States? Yet what country had, till lately, been such free importers?
"If (says Franklin), the importation of foreign luxuries would ruin a people, we should have been ruined long ago. The British claimed a right of importing among us not
326
only their own products, but those of every nation under heaven. We bought and consumed them; yet we flourished and grew rich."
Why could not the right hon. Baronet who adopted the doctrine, try the experiment? Was the languishing commerce and the pining industry of this country to wait for commercial treaties? Was trade to be made subservient to diplomacy? Here again, the right hon. Baronet was at variance with himself. There was another principle which he thought ought to be called into action. You should make a bold reduction in your great articles of interchange. By a happy coincidence, these great articles of commerce were the articles most wanted for the subsistence of the people. He recommended the practical adoption of Mr. Pitt's paradox, "increase by reduction." Reduce your duties, and increase your trade. The best step (not towards a commercial treaty, which they probably could not get) but towards a commercial interchange with the United States, was to take their corn. Corn, indeed, (thanks to his hon. Friends Mr. Villiers and Mr. Cobden), had been made the great standard of free-trade, and it had, deservedly, a place and a position of its own. But were there no other articles to which the principle of Mr. Pitt—" Increase by reduction" could be applied? One of the first and most obvious subjects for the experiment was tea. There was no doubt that, by a bold reduction of the duty on tea, the consumption would be nearly doubled, and the revenue, after a short interval, replenished. The poor were grievously taxed in this article. The low-priced teas paid the same duty as the high-priced. It had been deemed impossible to tax the lower-priced teas of the poor with a lower duty than the high-priced teas of the rich. Both equally paid 2s. ld. per lb. The only alternative was to reduce the whole duty on tea in general. It might to be boldly reduced to ls. The consumption would vastly increase. They had two tests. In Australia, ten times as much tea was consumed by each individual as here. In our own union workhouses (where a free supply was allowed), five times as much was consumed as in the country generally. He had good commercial authority for saying that the experiment should be made. A memorial bad been presented to the Government

327
from the China Association at Glasgow, to this effect; and they added,
"That a reduction of the duty on black teas to 1s. per pound would be attended with no loss to the Exchequer."
But the same course was prescribed by a member of the Board of Trade. He meant by that valuable officer, Mr. Porter. In his new additional work on the "Progress of the Nation," Mr. Porter says,—
"If our commercial relations with China shall be placed on a secure footing, and a bold measure of reduction in the duty on tea is adopted, the Exchequer would soon find an advantage in it."
Mr. Porter showed that in 1746 the duty was reduced 2s. a pound; the consumption increased threefold. In 1768, the duty was reduced by ls.; the consumption increased 80 per cent. In 1785, the duty was reduced from 67 per cent ad valorem, to 12½ per cent; the consumption rose in two years from 11,000,000 to 17,000,000 lb s. It was important to our interchange with China that this duty should be reduced. You will have no sound export trade in manufactures to China till you establish a liberal import trade from that country. So much for tea. Next naturally came another great article—sugar. Since the last sugar debate, a new view of the question had presented itself. It seemed to be avowed by the Brazilian Government that, if we did not take their sugar, they would oppressively tax our manufactures, and endeavour to manufacture for themselves. He had before him an extract from the report of the Finance Minister of Brazil, Senor Vianna, to the Emperor (May 17, 1843):—
"Cotton," (says the minister), "is an article of raw material produced in Brazil…:If we had sufficient capital for the establishment of this branch of industry, we should be enabled to encourage German and Belgian manufactures and workmen, who would be glad to establish manufactures in Brazil: Impose therefore, (says the Brazilian minister,), a heavy duty of 60 per cent on all foreign cotton manufactures;"
He then proceeds to recommend restrictive navigation laws. These are the commercial blessings which we are invoking on our country by refusing to take the sugar and coffee of Brazil, and preferring, with strange perversity of public economy, the dearly-priced sugar and coffee of our
328
colonies. Nay, we even refuse to allow the poor to take the refuse of the foreign sugar, or the molasses, produced in our own refineries. The law ordered every particle of it to be exported. This was a great loss to the exporter, and a total loss to the public.
"Would the permission to use these molasses," (a witness was asked before the committee on import duties,) "be a relief to the poorer classes of this country?" "Undoubtedly," was the answer: "it is an article of food of very great consumption, particularly in Lancashire and Yorkshire."
So much for the relief granted to the poorer classes of the country. But had they ever relieved them, and extended trade, by reducing the duties on the household articles, butter and cheese? He always understood that this relief was to be given to the public. But no—principles were announced to that effect. No result followed. The public was relieved in theory, and starved in practice. But there was another class of articles on which reduction of duty was imperatively demanded, and this for the sake of public morality as well as fiscal economy. He meant those articles in which smuggling prevailed to an immense amount—smuggling, which, to use a phrase of a certain writer in a certain Review—he could not possibly mean his right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone)—was a "vindication by Providence of the bad legislation of man." It was well known that in the article of tobacco, the smuggling which took place was enormous. Mr. Dean, the Chairman of the Board of Customs, recommended, in 1834, that this evil should be met by its obvious remedy, reduction of duty;—
"The article, he said, would thus be brought within the means of the great body of the people, and a greatly extended consumption would take place."
Let the duty, now 3s. a lb., be reduced to 1s. The immorality of smuggling would be stopped; the poor would be relieved; a large trade in the manufacture of snuff would be opened to this country. The same remedy, reduction of duty, should be applied to the other largely-smuggled articles, silks, brandies, lace, and gloves. The absolute necessity of this reduction had received recent confirmation of the most remarkable description. He alluded to the exposure lately made of the frauds perpetrated (and many more remained to be investigated), in the Customs' depart-

329
ment. It was not only to guard against smuggling on the coast, but, still more perhaps, against smuggling on the quays, and smuggling in the warehouses. Mr. Porter, the eminent officer of the Board of Trade, showed, both before the Committee on Import Duties, and the Commission appointed to enquire into the frauds in the Customs, that one-half, or rather 60 per cent. on the Foreign silks used in this country was smuggled. Mr. Potter proved this by comparing the returns made by the government of France with the returns made by our own Custom-house. Respecting brandies, Mr. Porter entertained a similar conviction. Although the French accounts mystified the transaction, there was no doubt of the existence of an enormous contraband trade in brandies.
"Of lace," added the Commissioners, "we are assured that more than one-half has been introduced into this country without the payment of duty." "In gloves," they add, "the evidence goes far to show an almost unlimited extent of fraud." Nay, they add, that they "entertain the most serious apprehensions that the frauds have gone much further"
But at what practical conclusion do the Commissioners arrive? What is the remedy which they prescribe? These are their words:
"We may say," observe the Commissioners of Inquiry, "that it is of more importance, even with a view to the protection of our own manufactures, that duties should be low, but should be fairly and fully levied, than that there should be nominally high rates of duty acting as an encouragement to the fraudulent, and discouragement to the honourable merchant, but which are unequally exacted, and most irregularly and partially enforced."
Such was the conclusion at which the Government commission had arrived. He would condense his suggestions into four propositions, which explained distinctly his motion to the House: 1st, That the duties on raw materials ought generally, and especially those on wool and cotton wool, to be abolished. 2d, That our import duties ought to be reduced without waiting for treaties with Foreign nations. 3d, That the articles on which a reduction of duties is most imperatively demanded, are the principal articles of interchange, and of the consumption of the people; being (besides corn) tea, sugar, butter and cheese. 4th, That there should be a bold reduction of all duties when an article was found to be extensively smuggled. Lastly, That wherever the deficiency of revenue
330
caused by the reduction of duty would not be supplied by a probable extension of consumption, the deficiency ought to be supplied by a fair tax on property. This was the outline of the plan which he suggested. The Parliament ought not to have allowed the Session to elapse without suggesting at least some clear and comprehensive plan. Yet it was on the point of expiring without doing so. It died and made no sign. They were going to the country, leaving (by bad legislation) the fate of the people dependent On the coming harvest. It was derogatory from a great nation and a great Minister to do so. Hon. Members opposite talked of free trade making us dependent on Foreign nations. He (Mr. Ewart) maintained that it was a far worse dependency for a nation to depend on the weather; to let its prosperity fluctuate with the barometer; and for a Minister to tremble for his power and for his country as the atmosphere portended clouds or sunshine. Some outline of our future policy should be drawn. He ventured to think that such encouragement of our trade, as he suggested, was to be found in the best schemes of commercial policy which had been framed for this country; in the policy of Walpole, in that of Pitt, in the evidence given by the officers of Government before the committee on import duties. He therefore called on Gentlemen who were favourable to the development of our trade, and the cheaper subsistence of our people to support it; and he moved,
"That it is expedient that the principles and suggestions contained in the evidence taken before the Import Duties Committee of the Session of 1840, be carried into general effect, and that the trade and industry of the country require further and more effectual relief by the removal or reduction of duties which press on the raw material of manufacture, and encourage smuggling, and which press on articles of interchange with Foreign nations, as well as on the means of subsistence of the people,"
Mr. Milner Gibsonexpected some of her Majesty's Ministers to rise. He did not now wish to speak; his only wish was to prevent any misunderstanding. If any of her Majesty's Ministers were prepared to speak he was ready to give way. He was willing to give way to the President of the Board of Trade. He must confess that this appeared to him to be a most unusual course of proceeding. The state-

331
ments which had just been made demanded a reply from her Majesty's Government. Were they to suppose that the apathy which marked the opposite benches would contribute to allay the discontent that now prevailed, or could prevent that distress which was fast spreading over the country. Were they to suppose that the soft repose in which the Paymaster of the Forces had been buried, was an indication of the indifference of her Majesty's Government to the situation of the country? [Sir Edward Knatchbull: No, no!] He could tell the Paymaster of the forces that the people would not be satisfied with the maintenance of the corn-laws, by reason of any thing he had yet said. He could tell him that the people would not remain perfectly tranquil because he had assured them that a duty on bricks was to be supported by reason of the corn-law. He could tell him, that the people would not remain satisfied with his reasoning or his listlessness. He believed that discontent was increasing rapidly. He believed that there was no improvement in the condition of the people; even though the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel) might now assure them, in the same way that he did on other occasions, that there was indication of improvement in the national affairs, because there was an increase in the consumption of raw cotton. That was the right hon. Baronet's test of on improvement in the affairs of the country. He had no objection to it m one respect; for so far it was an admission that the prosperity of the cotton trade was an essential element to he taken into consideration when looking to the condition of the country. They alleged that the gaols were becoming crowded; they alleged that the numbers of paupers in the union workhouses were increasing; they alleged that there was discontent in every part of the kingdom; and the answer to all this by the right hon. Gentleman was, that there was more raw cotton consumed in the first six months of this year than in the first six months of a preceding year. It was not, be would say, a fair inference which the right hon. Gentleman attempted to draw. There might be more of raw cotton used this year than any other, yet a greater amount of distress might exist now than in any former year. It did not follow, that because a larger quantity of the raw material was purchased, that therefore
332
employment was remunerative, that more wages were given to the working people, or that their condition had been ameliorated. It had, too, been well explained on a former occasion by the hon. Member for Salford, that the very cheapness of raw cotton was an inducement to persons to invest their money in the article. But supposing that he was to admit that the purchase of the raw material was an indication of more trade, then there came the important consideration, was it in a ratio with the increase in their population? They might say, that trade was better this year than it had been last; but then, was it as good as it might be, as good as it would be, if the natural operations of commerce were unrestricted? and the question was, whether by these restrictive systems, they were keeping the population of the country out of employment, and adding to their distress? He wanted to hear what was likely now to fall from the President of the Board of Trade as to the commerce of this country. Assuredly the speech of his hon. Friend was deserving of reply. They ought to remember, that they were now about to separate, without one bill being proposed that could be of general advantage, without one good measure being enacted. What, he asked, had been the labours of the Session? What good had they done? The right hon. Baronet had indeed told them, that he had done nothing because they had had adjourned debates on the corn-laws and other questions. But what were these adjourned debates but distinct inquiries of her Majesty's government to do something. Did the right hon. Baronet mean to assert that he would have done more if he had not been asked to do anything? He believed that the adjourned debates made the charges stronger against the Government for not having attempted some of those practical reforms which they had been so often called upon to make. They could not, at least, say their attention had not been directed to this subject. They had been shown what were the operations on trade of the corn-laws. They had, in the able speech of the hon. Member for Sheffield, been called upon to discuss the special burthens upon the land, which had been alleged as an excuse for the corn-law. They now asked them what course they were prepared to pursue. There was but too much reason to believe that the Government of this country would

333
never do any thing for the people unless they were compelled. They would never do any thing from any conviction on their own part. The only thing that could move, or had ever moved them, was the discovery that they had no longer the means of resisting the demands of the public. This being the case, he maintained that those who sat on the opposition benches would be neglecting their duty if they did not repeatedly take up the time of the House by pressing these important subjects upon the attention of Government. It might be said, that there had been some reductions made in the custom duties last year, and that the corn-law had also been modified; but this was no reason why more should not be done. He and his Friends on the opposition side of the House, were not parties to either of those measures as a final settlement of the question. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, when he was urged to proceed further in the principles of free-trade, said, "Look at America; see how she has met our relaxations of commercial policy by her new and hostile tariff." But his answer to that was, that our new tariff had offered nothing of encouragement to America. The sliding scale was still fatal against the introduction of her great staple of exchange, corn; and that being the case, what right had we to expect that she would relax anything in our favour? We began now to see the folly of our former policy. It was our old commercial restrictions, all established for the purpose of keeping up the value of land in this country, that had stimulated the manufactures in America, to the detriment of our commercial prospects. The commercial distress which existed too generally at present, could not be allowed to go on without some attempt at mitigation. The Government were bound by every principle of justice and humanity to take some steps to provide the means of subsistence for the great body of our industrial population. There was no alternative for them but to put on a bold front, and open the ports of the United Kingdom to the corn and provisions of the rest of the world. Let anybody look round upon our condition with respect to the commercial world, and the most unpromising prospects stared him in the face on all sides. The Brazils, in particular, had met us with a most unfavour-
334
able tariff; and they told us that they had done so in consequence of the continuance of our prohibition duty on sugar. Now, he should like very much to know what were the instructions which Mr. Ellis had received in proceeding upon his mission, which had ended so unsatisfactorily? He would appeal to the right hon. Baronet at the bead of Her Majesty's Government, who had let the House into the secrets of the Brazilian Government in this matter, to let them into those of our own. He should like to know what were the demands which we bad put forward in answer to those of the Brazilian government, which had led to this unsatisfactory termination of the negotiation? The plea of discouraging the slave trade was put forward in justification of the exclusion of the Brazilian sugars; but he could not help thinking that the interests of the landed proprietors, rather than considerations of humanity, were the real motives to this policy. He would wish to ask her Majesty's Government, also, whether they had made any inquiries as to the probable prospects of the approaching harvest. He was the more anxious on this point as he believed that the unfavourable weather which had prevailed during great part of this summer, had led to an apprehension that the crop would not prove a very abundant one. Yet he was not aware that Her Majesty's Government had taken any steps to inquire into this matter. The people, he feared, had too ninth ground to complain of the apathy of Her Majesty's Government, and of the aristocracy of this country. The middle classes had the impression that the aristocracy despised them, and hated them. Why, those who spoke of the ascendancy of the lauded interest must know the meaning of the very term they used. In ascendancy one must be above and the other below. The middle classes felt that they were a secondary class in the state, and were allowed only just so much of enjoyment as was consistent with the wishes and convenience of the aristocracy. If that impression was erroneous, it was incumbent upon the representatives of the aristocracy to remove it from the public mind, by passing measures which, whilst they entailed a self-sacrifice, would benefit the community. Nothing would do without self-sacrifice. The House must show the people that they no longer wished solely to keep up their own rents, and their marriage-settlements,

335
and other family arrangements, but that they had the interests of the community at large, at heart.
Mr. Gladstonecould assure the hon. Gentleman who brought forward this motion, that in remaining silent on its being put, he had intended no disrespect to him or the subject which he had taken up. The subject was one which involved the most important considerations; and he could assure his hon. Friend that he had listened to his speech with very great attention. But, at the same time, he was not of opinion that any advantage could be obtained by a discussion of the subject of this motion, at any rate by Members of Her Majesty's Government at the present moment; indeed, he was not certain that any good would result from the discussion of it by any Gentleman at the present state of the session. He thought even that positive mischief might result from the discussion of questions of this kind at the present moment. The hon. Gentleman said that there was great distress prevailing throughout the country; but he would ask him whether he thought that if the present motion were adopted it would afford any alleviation of this distress of which he complained? Why, the state of the House during the present discussion showed not that they were indifferent to subjects of this kind, but that from exhaustion, physical and mental, they had not the power to give proper attention to questions which had already been largely discussed during the present session. He could not help remarking, also, that the hon. Gentleman's own side of the House showed, judging by its numbers, even less inclination than the ministerial side to entertain this discussion; for, few members as there were on this side, there were at one period of the discussion, three or four times the number on the ministerial than on the opposition benches. The hon. Gentleman who had last spoken said it was only by repeated pressure from the opposition that that the Government of this country could be made to move in any direction of improvement. He did not think the assertion borne out by the experience of Parliament. If they could go back to the period of Mr. Huskisson, who was in the same Government with his right hon. Friend at the head of the present Government, they would find that the commercial policy then adopted was not undertaken in consequence of any such preference for the op-
336
position as the hon. Gentleman described; but that it was decided upon by the Government, and promulgated, though much against the general voice of a large portion of the public. With regard to the present motion, he seriously and conscientiously thought that it would lead to mischievous results if Her Majesty's Government, by anything which it said or did, should give grounds for the apprehension that they entertained doubts at the present moment as to the continuance of our commercial regulations. The hon. Gentleman who made the present motion had suggested reductions in the import duties upon various articles, which, if carried into effect, would, according to a rough calculation which he (Mr. Gladstone) had made, take six or seven millions from the revenue. The hon. Gentleman said, and said with truth perhaps, in a limited sense, that the increased consumption resulting from the reduction of these duties would gradually counteract the immediate deficiency in the revenue. But, in the meantime, it would become necessary to adopt some new fiscal arrangements in order to supply a deficiency of some four or five millions. The hon. Gentleman complained of the Government for not having, in the present Session, made any further fiscal changes in the same direction as those adopted last year. He (Mr. Gladstone) thought it would be an act of folly for a Government to be year after year altering their financial policy, and to be introducing great and sweeping changes in the year immediately following that in which a new and extensive scheme had been adopted. Everybody would recollect the inconvenience and anxiety which the discussion of these questions last year occasioned to those engaged in commercial interests, which were in any way affected by the tariff duties; and he thought it would be the height of folly to reawaken a similar state of feeling, by renewing discussions upon the same subject, within so short a period. The hon. Gentleman called upon Her Majesty's Government, if they did not make any changes at present, at least to announce their views for some future period. But here again he thought that even greater inconvenience would be occasioned by such an announcement, than by a measure which was to be forthwith adopted. The hon. Gentleman had enumerated several articles in reference to which he would wish to hear the Govern-

337
ment propound their views, as tea, sugar, coffee, butter, cheese, wool, and cotton. Now to take one of these as an instance, could any period be more ill-timed for a Government to throw out its notions on the subject of the duty on wool than this very period of the year. Why, if any step on the part of Government would tend to create distress, and to fill the workhouses, it would be throwing out of any views tending to the idea of an alteration in the duty on wool at the present moment. In conclusion, upon all the grounds he had stated to the House, he should respectfully oppose the hon. Gentleman's motion.
Mr. Humeobserved that the Government came boldly forward last year with free trade principles, and avowed a determination to stand by them; but their conduct during the Session that was now on the point of closing had induced him to believe they had altogether abandoned their recent professions, and reverted to the old and favourite system of monopoly. Otherwise the right hon. Gentleman would not have opposed the resolution of his hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries, which merely embodied a recapitulation of those principles. What he wished to hear from the right hon. Baronet was a declaration that his sentiments on the question of free trade were not changed. But, as far as could be judged by what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, both on the present and on former occasions, he had reverted back to his old track, and had given symptoms of his backsliding by introducing several monopoly measures during the present Session. The Government, at all events, was bound to make some declaration upon the motion of his hon. Friend. Let the right hon. Baronet opposite look at the resolution, and he would find no such danger in it as there was said to be. It merely stated that—
"The trade and industry of the country require further and more effectual relief, by the removal or reduction of duties which press upon the raw material of manufacture and on articles of interchange with foreign nations, as well as on the means of subsistence of the people."
Could the right hon. Baronet deny the truth of those propositions? Were not the trade, the manufactures, the commerce of the kingdom in danger? And did not the great masses of the people every now and then endure the greatest privations,
338
both with respect to food and clothing? If these dangers were not averted by a liberal course of policy in regard to the Import duties, the most frightful consequences would ensue, and England would be reduced to a desperate condition. If trade, manufactures, and commerce were to fail, what would pay the interest of the national debt? Would the landed interests pay it? They never had done so, and were less likely now than ever. The suffering and declining state of the great interests of the nation demanded serious investigation, and a motion which had for its object such an inquiry ought not to have been met in the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman had treated the resolution of his hon. Friend.
Mr. Brightsaid: I feel great reluctance to take up any of the time of the House, especially so soon after having taken my seat here, but the strong interest I feel on this question, and the duty I owe to my constituents, call upon me for an expression of opinion. It appears to me that the country has a right to know whether the Government continue friendly to the principles of free trade which on former occasions they have admitted to be true. A large portion of my constituents are of the working class—men who have no property but their labour, and no income but their wages. These men have too few representatives in this House; the rich here are attended to—the poor are too frequently neglected. There can be no doubt that the state of the country is such as to call for immediate attention; and the conduct of the Ministry and the House during this Session is such as to reflect the deepest disgrace upon them. I do not speak this from any hostility to the present occupants of the Treasury Benches—I have no strong wish to see any change of men at present. On both sides of the House there has been far too much reliance upon the miserable system of protection. From the conspicuous part I have taken out of doors on the question of the Corn Law, and being here not only as one of the representatives of the city of Durham, but also as one of the representatives of that great and benevolent organization, the Anti-Corn League, I think it right now to avow my opinions, and to plead for the total abolition of the Corn Law, and for the adoption of the principle of perfect freedom of trade. The Corn Law is the main pillar in the system of

339
monopoly. I put it to a Lincolnshire farmer recently, what course would he take with the sugar monopoly if the Corn Law were abolished to-day? He replied, "I would abolish it to-morrow of course." Crime has often veiled itself under the name of virtue, but of all the crimes against the laws of God and the true interests of man, none has ever existed more odious and more destructive than that which has assumed the amiable term of "Protection." The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government has acknowledged the soundness of the policy of buying in the cheapest and selling in the dearest market. The Secretary for the Horne Department says our principles are the principles of common sense; the President of the Board of Trade has written and spoken free trade doctrines; the opinions of the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, and Secretary for the Colonies, I should not value highly when I remember the profound ignorance on this question he manifested when last before his constituents: but of all the Members of the Government the one for whom I feel an especial affection is the right hon. the Paymaster of the Forces. Unlike his Colleague at the head of the Government, his words seem to have been given him for the purpose of expressing his ideas, and he has advanced the only tangible argument that has been uttered in this House in favour of the protection system. The House cannot, I am sure, have forgotten the argument of the right hon. Baronet, that the Corn Law is necessary to enable the landowners to discharge or maintain the settlements made on the marriages of their daughters. I have, since this declaration was made, attended many large meetings of agriculturists, and I confess I have never found a single farmer who seemed to be aware that this House had ever bestowed any attention on the means of providing portions for farmers daughters. And no labourer has ever asserted that Parliament has taken steps to enable him to give a sum of ten or twenty pounds to his daughters to provide furniture for their cottages on entering the marriage state. I protest against the injustice of a law which enriches the rich and cares nothing for the poor; and if during the period I may have a seat in this House, I should ever directly or indirectly give any support to a system so manifestly contrary to sound policy, and
340
so destructive of the welfare of the great body of the people, I should be ashamed to hold up my head in any assembly of my countrymen. The question is really and simply one of rent: there is little difference of opinion out of doors, and I believe in this House the matter is pretty well understood. But is rent a property more sacred than any other? To me the property in labour is a more sacred property than any right to the soil can ever be. The produce of the loom, the anvil, and the forge, is as much entitled to consideration as the property in land. I reside amongst men who live by weaving flannels. Before the passing of the American Tariff one half of their manufacture was exported to the United States. The Corn Law begot the American Tariff—that Tariff destroyed the trade in these goods. A weaver sends a piece of flannel to America and receives in return American flour. When the flour enters the Mersey, each barrel has charged upon it the enormous duty of 12 s. Why have you put that duty upon it? Not for purposes of revenue—but that you may prevent the weaver from buying his flour in America; and, by making it unprofitable to him, force him to purchase all from you, and give you a higher price for your corn than it is worth. And for this injustice you have never given the working-man one particle of compensation. In the recent debate on the state of the country, the right hon. Baronet admitted, that "four years of deficient harvests had greatly increased the difficulties of the country." This is precisely what the League has been saying for years past. Why is it that these four years have been years of suffering? Because the protection given to one description of property prevented the application of another description of property to the relief of the wants of the country. Has Providence only given us the surface of the soil for our subsistence? Have we not a right to what is beneath the surface? If the coal and iron, now in the bowels of the earth, had been permitted to be brought up, and worked up into machinery and manufactured goods and exported, and if the merchant who exported them had been permitted to bring back the produce of other countries in exchange for them, they would not have confined their trade with America to cotton and rice and tobacco, they would have brought back also wheat, and when we had bad seasons here, would have

341
mitigated the calamity, and, instead of corn being at 80 s. the quarter, as it was in 1839, it would have been at some price which the country could have more easily borne. You have heard of the discontent of the country, but I am afraid hon. Members are not at all aware of the extreme discontent existing among the great body of the labouring classes. I put it to any Gentleman enamoured of the Corn Law, to what is it that we are hastening? A Committee of this House, or a Commission, has reported that the increase of our population is every year so great as to require for its support an annual increase of food equal to the whole produce of the county of Warwick. The Government has no power to add a county of Warwick every year to the country, neither has it power to arrest the increase of population. The consequences can neither be doubtful nor distant, and they are such as I fear to dwell upon. In discussing the Irish question, the Church and other points were much dwelt upon, but the great difficulty is how to give employment and wages and food to the two millions of paupers in Ireland. It is no petty legislation that can do this,—no bringing in bills for the recovery of small debts, and making a boast of measures such as that. Land-owners have been our law-makers, and yet everywhere there is suffering, and the landowners are everywhere charged with the mischief. In Wales, toll-bars were the grievance, and after toll-bars come tithes and rents. England is approaching the same state of things. Twenty thousand pitmen in the North have lately met to fix the lowest price for which they will work, and the highest price they will pay for their food. This may be wrong, but it is more tolerable than that several hundred land-owners should sit here to fix the lowest price they will take for the produce of their estates. You have been sowing curses, and you now wonder that curses have grown. I am surprised at the course pursued by the right hon. Baronet. I should be glad to see him, not the Minister of the Queen merely, but the Minister of the people also. I should rejoice to see him disconnect himself from the party whose principles he declares to be unsound. I should be glad to see him bearing in mind the source from which he has sprung, the source of his power and wealth, as it is the source of much of the power and wealth, and greatness of this empire.
342
He may have a laudable ambition—he may seek renown, but no man can be truly great who is content to serve an oligarchy, who regard no interest but their own; and whose legislation proves they have no sympathy with the wants of the great body of their countrymen. I live in the manufacturing districts, I am well acquainted with the wishes and feelings of the population, and I do not hesitate to say, when I view the utter disregard with which they are treated by this House, that the dangers which impend are greater than those which now surround us. I can assure the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade, that his flimsy excuses will not avail him at the bar of public opinion. He knows what is right and he refuses to do it, and whether the Session be at the beginning or near its close, it is his duty to propose measures of relief to the commerce of the country. That this is not the time is an excuse which is untrue as it is insulting. When will the time come? Will monopoly resign its hold of the subsistence of the people? "Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots?" The Government knows what is right,—the people demand it to be done, and the ministry who refuse to act incur a fearful responsibility. It is not my interest that trade should be free any more than it is the interest of every land-owner. I want to make our paupers independent artizans—that they may consume by their own labour and not live on the labour of others; and be customers to the farmers instead of devouring them by increasing poors' rates. I have been anxious thus briefly to express my opinions—I grieve that the country should be thus trifled with, and that they should have grounds for despairing of relief from this House—nothing but danger can come from persisting in our present policy.
The House divided on the question that the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the question—Ayes 52; Noes 25: Majority 27.

List of the AYES.

Allix, J. P.

Cripps, W.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Denison, E. B.

Baillie, H. J.

Dickinson, F. H.

Blackhurne, J.

Eliot, Lord

Borthwick, P.

Escort, B.

Boyd, J.

Flower, Sir J.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Forman, T. S.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Gladstone, rt.hn.W.E.

343

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Peel, J.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Pollock, Sir F.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Richards, R.

Greene, T.

Rashleigh, W.

Grimston, Visct.

Smith, rt. hn. T. B. C.

Harcourt, G. G.

Somerset, Lord G.

Hardinge, rt.hn.SirH.

Stanley, Lord

Henley, J. W.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Herbert, hon. S.

Tennent, J. E.

Hodgson, R.

Toliemache, hon. F. J.

Hope, hon. C.

Tollemache, J.

Kemble, H.

Tomline, G.

Knatchbull,rt.hn.SirE

Vivian, J. E.

Mackenzie, T.

Wood, Col.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Young, J.

Manners, Lord J.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

TELLERS.

Northland, Visct.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Clerk, Sir G.

List of the NOES.

Aldam, W.

Marsland, H.

Barnard, E. G.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Blewitt, R. J.

O'Conor, DOn

Bowring, Dr.

Palmerston, Visct.

Bright, J.

Plumridge, Capt.

Brotherton, J.

Scholefield, J.

Cobden, R.

Scott, R.

Duke, Sir J.

Stuart, Lord J.

Forster, M.

Wawn, J. T.

Hawes, B.

Williams, W.

Hill, Lord M.

Wood, B.

Hume, J.

TELLERS.

Hutt, W.

Ewart W.

Ld. Mayor of London

Gibson, M.

Order of the Day read.
On the question that the Speaker do now leave the Chair,

DON CARLOS.
Mr. Borthwick, rose to move for copies or extracts of any correspondence which had taken place between the Government of Great Britain and France, relating to the detention of Don Carlos in France. His motion was one which appealed to the general humanities of our nature, which rested upon the broad principles of the law of nations and which had a direct and immediate influence on the policy of Britain, of France and of Spain. Two members of the Royal family of Spain were now in France—the Queen Dowager and Don Carlos. The one palaced, applauded, nobly entertained a Paris—the other guarded, closely watcher at Bourges—and yet which of the two had acted in a manner most calculated to disturh the peace of Spain and of Europe? Justice would answer the question in favour of Don Carlos. A little before the death, the actual not the rumoured death of Ferdinand 7th, the royalist volunteers
344
had been disarmed, and a new corps of militia established in their stead, with other feelings and prejudices to those of the old yeomanry who had guarded the Crown of Spain. At the same time there was a dispute with regard to the statute limiting the succession of the Crown to the male line, and Don Carlos, with more of ancient chivalry than modern prudence, retired, with the leave of his king and brother, into Portugal. During his absence there was a demise of the Crown, and the throne was assumed by Queen Christina on behalf of the Infante Isabella. He would not stop to examine the conduct of the Cortes, for it was a question affecting the Cortes of Spain, not the Commons of England, and it would have been well if the House had always remembered this. If they had done so that fair country would not now have been the scene of devastating warfare. But the House had thought fit to interfere. The treaty of the quadruple alliance for the safety of the Throne of Isabella, had been entered into. Don Carlos returned from Portugal, and the Duke of Victory—that Duke of Victory, who, having gained that title by his deeds, bravely and nobly won it by conquering his enemies, and not that Duke of Victory who had stolen it from fear, and was only entitled to the name by always giving victory to others—the great and brave Zumulacarregui had received him in the north of Spain. The House had then sent auxiliary troops into that country, and it had been said that, if Don Carlos were expelled from Spain, the Government at Madrid founded on his expulsion, must for all good be useless. Don Carlos had been expelled, and now where was the Government? Where was now the Regent? It was not for him to complain of the conduct of that man, but it was for him, it was for every Member of the British Parliament, to complain of the conduct of the English Government, who had attempted to force a religion—a Constitution—a Government upon Spain, which Spain was not willing to receive. It was for him to do all that in him lay to prevent the constant disruption of European peace. The Queen Dowager was at liberty and therefore bound in honour to abstain from all political intrigue against the Government of Spain and the peace of Europe; and Don Carlos was watched and exposed to all sorts of painful and degrading espionage, and therefore quite at liberty to intrigue as much as he could, and yet

345
the exactly opposite course had been pursued by these distinguished individuals; so, he asked, such having been their conduct, why was their present unfair position continued? Why did France, with or without England, still detain Don Carlos? For what purpose was it that his distinguished consort and son were detained with him? It had been said that it was to give liberalized institutions to Spain. Why, that was the very evil of which he complained—that the Government of England had attempted to do for Spain what Spain did not want. Let England withdraw from Spain her annoying friendship, and she would again assume her high position amongst nations. The hon. Member concluded by moving for the papers.
Mr. B. Cochrane, in rising to second the motion, said, that he should abstain from entering into the general question of the political circumstances which had led to the painful position in which Don Carlos was at present placed, and should simply confine himself to the manner in which that Prince of the Blood was treated in his captivity. When he was last in France he went to Bourges, and, in an interview which he had with Don Carlos, that Royal Prince assured him that the whole of his allowance for his entire family and establishment did not exceed 1,200 l. a year. This unfortunate Prince could not walk about the town without being watched and followed by a police agent in plain clothes. It was true, indeed, that he was told he might leave that town whenever he liked, but when he asked to have a passport given him for that purpose it was refused, and when he presented himself at the gates to go out without one he was asked for his passport, and told he could not be allowed out without it. Now, this he (Mr. Cochrane) looked upon as a specimen of moral torture unworthy of the French Government to practise towards any person in the unfortunate situation of Don Carlos, and more especially towards a Prince of Royal blood.
Sir R. Peel: Sir, with respect to the point to which the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken in seconding the motion has referred, namely, the treatment to which Don Carlos is subjected in his detention at Bourges, I can only say that it is the wish of the Government of this country that he should be treated with as much indulgence as it is possible consist-
346
ently with a due regard to the objects for which he is detained. In consequence of a communication in the course of the Session with the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, and who, as he has stated, had a personal opportunity of knowing the condition of Don Carlos at Bourges, the Government made a communication to the effect that we had no wish that any undue restraint should be placed upon that Prince, and I am enabled to say, from the answer that has been received, that the French Government are equally indisposed to unnecessary restraint: and I, therefore, have every reason to hope that it will be found by the hon. Gentleman that this ground of complaint has been removed. With respect to the precedents that have been referred to, I do not know what were the means of subsistence provided for those Royal Sovereigns to whom the hon. Gentleman has alluded, but I think it is probable they had private resources of their own, whereas Don Carlos is supported at the sole expense of France. As to the motion itself, I should not have the slightest objection to the production of the correspondence in question, if I felt that I could do so consistently with my public duty, but I do think were I to produce the correspondence that took place between the Government of this country at the time and the French Government, I should compromise my public duty. The House will recollect that Don Carlos left this country for France, and passing through that country made his way into Spain. He subsequently came back to France, and obtained an asylum there upon the express condition that he should abstain from any further attempt to foment discord in Spain, this evil being apprehended. In October, 1839, the Governments of England and France determined to put this restraint on Don Carlos that he should not return to Spain, and I must say that I think the Government of that day were perfectly justified in the course they took. An asylum was granted to Don Carlos in France on the terms of his being prevented from returning to Spain, and it had been intimated to him that if he would give sufficient security that he would not attempt to return to that country, the Government of of this country and of France would immediately grant his liberation. There was no wish to place undue restraint upon him, further than was necessary to prevent his disturbing the tranquillity of Spain;

347
and I hope, therefore, after this assurance, and as the hon. Gentleman who brought forward this motion has had an opportunity of stating his own views, that he will be contnet to have his motion negatived.
Dr. Bowringsaid, that in the policy which we had pursued towards Spain, we had evinced great ignorance of the habits and feelings of the people. What could be more absurd than the attempt to familiarise people with forms which had been the growth of centuries amongst us? There were two ways in which Spain might be regenerated; the first was by carrying into effect the system of local and provincial Government, as opposed to the system of centralization; and the other was by the establishment of a Government on the principle of universal suffrage like that of 1812. That Government worked more good for Spain than any which had succeeded it. The noble Lord below him (Lord Palmerston) was, he believed, anxious to do good; but he was led astray by the erroneous notion, that what suited this country must suit all others. He hoped to see a change in our policy, and that we should set about redressing grievances at home, instead of resolving those which were distant, and of which we were ignorant.
Lord J. Mannerssaid, that the speech of the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, in answer to the speech of his hon. Friend, was by no means satisfactory to him, and would not be considered satisfactory by the country. The present condition of Spain was not in any respect to be attributed to Don Carlos. His hon. Friend (Mr. Borthwick) had gone fully into the difference between the treatment of Don Carlos and that which Queen Christina had received from the French government, and it would not therefore be necessary for him to enlarge upon that point. He confessed he did not understand the principle on which that prince was now detained, and he knew not how his liberation at any future time could be justified more than at present. The detention of Don Carlos was opposed to all precedent, and appeared to him to be fraught with all possible evil. He was sure there was no one in that House who would say that Don Carlos or any other person ought to be detained, and deprived of liberty, without even the form or pretence of a trial. Whatever might be said of France or of England, it was generally
348
admitted that they treated fugitives with hospitality. Now, Don Carlos had a right to expect at the hands of France a free and honourable residence; he was unaccused and unsuspected of any hostility against France or any unfriendly feeling towards the reigning dynasty of that country. Was he to be told that Don Carlos had been prejudged by the quadruple alliance? He knew not whether that opinion were now entertained by persons in high authority, but he found that in the year 1837, Lord Aberdeen used these words in the House of Lords:—
"His noble Friend had very justly and correctly said, that when those two princes had returned from the Peninsula the object of the treaty had been accomplished; the designs and wishes of the contracting parties to that treaty were fully satisfied."
He was aware that additional articles had been entered into; but from an extract which he held in his hand, it was evident, that the same high authority, Lord Aberdeen, did not consider that those additional articles did in any respect contravene the other parts of the treaty. That noble Earl said—
"From the preamble—from the additional articles themselves, nothing could be more apparent than that the expulsion of the two princes from the Peninsula was the real object which the contracting parties had in view."
This was in the year 1837; but after the termination of the war in 1840, Lord Aberdeen again denied the permanence of the treaty, and Lord Melbourne who might be supposed to be a good authority on the subject, said that—
"This country was unquestionably bound to give her assistance to Spain as long as any of the hostilities arising out of the attempt by Don Carlos, to dethrone the Queen continued to exist. Beyond that the treaty did not bind the Government of England to any interference in the affairs of Spain."
This was the only just construction of the quadruple alliance, and, in his opinion, any other would be a most lax construction. But now anarchy prevailed at Madrid; and the two political gamblers who had made. Spain the stake for which they played, had nothing to fear from the unfortunate captive at Bourges; he should like to know what spectacles would enable a man so to read the treaty as to derive from it any justification for the imprisonment of Don Carlos. Could anything be said on the score of precedent? He was not

349
about to say that unfortunate princes should not, under some circumstances, be detained in custody. The case of Don Carlos and that of Charles Edward were in many respects similar. Then, as now, there was a quadruple alliance. France was the generous soil on which the royal fugitive took refuge. England then, as Spain does now, demanded that the unfortunate prince should not be allowed to disturb her domestic peace. But what did England do at the period to which he was referring? Did she insist, as Spain does at present, that the French King should become a gaoler? In compliance with the treaty of Aix-la-Chappelle, Louis Quatorze desired that Prince Charles Edward should quit the country. In former times there was some difficulty in making a fugitive quit the soil of France. In future there would be great difficulty in inducing any one to enter it. In those days the indignant population covered the walls with sham proclamations and pasquinades, some of them setting forth that there was an order from George King of England and France to Louis Bourbon, his viceroy, commanding him to seize and to tie, if necessary, the person of Charles Edward Stuart, and to conduct him out of the kingdom of France. If the detention of Don Carlos were not justified upon principle, what consideration of expediency could excuse it? Of what cause was Don Carlos the exponent? It was the cause of order, of religion, and legitimacy; the principles opposed to him were those of anarchy and revolution. The results of anarchical and revolutionary principle had left in ruins the ancient church and monarchy of Spain. Those alone were opposed to him, and looked with satisfaction on his imprisonment, who sympathised with the Canadian rebel, the Polish Refugee, the democrat, and the Chartist, who saw nothing to admire or respect in the character of a Spanish prince and a Christian cavalier, and who saw nothing worth cherishing in those feelings of loyalty and religion on which the institutions of the country depended. He had endeavoured to state to the House what he conscientiously felt upon the subject; and he would implore her Majesty's Government to do all that in them lay to remove that blot which the unjust imprisonment of Don Carlos impressed upon the escutcheon of all the parties concerned in it. It was not Don Carlos who had any cause to blush at his treatment.
350
"Stone walls do not a prison make,
"Nor iron bars a cage;
"Minds innocent and quiet take
"That for an hermitage."
Let them remember the disgrace which attached to all unjust deeds; and although some temporary end might be gained, that disgrace attached to the oppressor, not to the oppressed. He had performed a duty, and so long as the unjust captivity was continued he would omit no opportunity of protesting against the detention of Don Carlos.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, he was not now going to enter upon the question of the Quadruple Treaty, which had been sufficiently discussed in its time, and on which he had frequently expressed his opinions. Nor was he now disposed to enlarge on the present situation of Spain, which he admitted was a disagreeable topic. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, the First Lord of the Treasury, in his statement of what had passed on the original detention of Don Carlos. The Governments of England and France were agreed at the time that it would not be expedient to permit Don Carlos to return to Spain. So far, therefore, as the motion of the hon. Gentleman was intended to show that the British Government took a part in the detention of Don Carlos, he was quite ready on the part of the late Government to admit the fact. With regard to what had been said of the character and conduct of Don Carlos, he thought he was not called on to discuss the merits or demerits of that prince; still he thought it right to call on the House to bear in mind the facts that preceded that Prince's detention. When Don Carlos took shelter in Portugal from the pursuit of a Spanish army, it was by British interposition that he was saved—it was to British interference that he owed, perhaps, his life, and certainly his escape from a captivity and treatment far more severe than any he had experienced in France. Now, there was certainly a distinct understanding, when this interference had taken place, that, in coming to England, Don Carlos would not take advantage of his position here to return to Spain, and rekindle the flames of civil war in that country. By returning to Spain, in defiance of that understanding, Don Carlos was certainly virtually guilty of a breach of faith. The object of the present motion seemed to me to show the

351
expediency of calling on the British Government to urge that of France to allow Don Carlos now to return to Spain. It was difficult to imagine any motive for such a course, unless it be to suppose that in the scramble that was now going on there for power, those who thought well of Don Carlos and his cause, were anxious that their favourite should have a fair start with the rest. Almost every element of confusion was already at work in Spain, and certainly her Majesty's Government would not act a becoming part in yielding to the suggestion, to add the presence of Don Carlos to the other causes of mischief. In adverting to what had fallen from his hon. Friend (Dr. Bowring), he would only say, that his hon. Friend was very much mistaken in supposing that her Majesty's late Government had ever counselled Spain to adopt this or that form of Government. His hon. Friend said, that forms of Government very suitable to England and France might be very uncongenial to the local and historical associations of Spain, and ought not to be forced by us upon the acceptance of the Spanish people. Now, the fact was, that England had never attempted to force Spain to adopt any institution. What the late Government had endeavoured to do, and what they had succeeded in doing, was to secure for the Spanish people an opportunity of choosing for themselves the institutions under which they wished to live. At one time, the Spaniards preferred the Estatuto Real; at another time they preferred the constitution of 1837. On each occasion, the change that occurred was strictly a Spanish proceeding, and the British Government had not thought it any part of their duty to interfere. Their only policy had been to prevent that interference which might have enabled Don Carlos, supported as he was by aid from without, to prevent the people of Spain from receiving those institutions under which it was their evident wish to live. He did not see that the papers now moved for would, if produced, do more than establish the fact that the late Government were concerned in the detention of Don Carlos. That fact was not denied, and he therefore agreed with the right hon. Baronet that the production of the papers would not answer any good object.
The original question agreed to.

SUPPLY—PRIZE MONEY—CANADA, ETC.
House in committee of Supply.
Sir G. Clerk, in moving a vote of 821,020 l. for the expenses of the expedition to China, stated that the sum proposed was to reimburse the East-India Company for their advances.
Mr. Blewittwished to be informed respecting a certain 1,000,000 of dollars included in the Chinese prize-money appropriations, of which he had formerly been promised an explanation, but of which the neglect to give any satisfactory account seemed to fully justify him in moving the chairman to report progress. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had only evaded the explanation when originally asked for; and some information on the subject was due to the House.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerobserving that it was not very easy to understand the hon. Gentleman, said he had no wish to withhold information, and had already stated that the allowances had been by way of additional batta, six months to the men in one branch of the service, and three months to those in another, so that it was not an operation very easy to state the amount actually appropriated.
Mr. Blewittobserved, that there was certainly no authority in the Crown to dispose of any prize money without the approbation of Parliament.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the hon. Member was wrong in his idea of constitutional law, for when the Crown compounded for the surrender of so many of its ancient financial prerogatives, that of disposing of prize money was expressly reserved by Parliament.
Mr. Humehoped the question would be distinctly discussed one day, for he thought the reservation of the prize-money prerogative was only made in consideration of the then existing practice of the Crown's defraying the expences of wars, and, as now those expences were paid by Parliament, the prize-money should be under Parliamentary control.
Vote agreed to.
Sir G. Clerk, in moving "25,300 l. for the service in Canada, consequent upon the late insurrection," said, the force in that colony had been much reduceed; but a month's pay was required for the last year's establishment.
Mr. Humeasked why this country should pay a farthing for military force in a colony which had been for some

353
time at peace. No one in the Canadian Assembly knew how the money went.
Lord Stanleysaid, that in addition to the reductions in the troops which had already been made, the Government hoped to withdraw two battalions in the course of the present year.
The Committee divided. Ayes 90; Noes 18:—Majority 72.

List of the NOES.

Aldam, W.

Pechell, Capt.

Barnard, E. G.

Plumridge, Capt.

Blewitt, R. J.

Ross, D. R.

Brotherton, J.

Smith, B.

Collett, J.

Wawn, J. T.

Crawford, W. S.

Williams, W.

Duncan, G.

Wood, B.

Elphinstone, H.

Forster, M.

TELLERS.

Layard, Capt.

Hume. J.

Marsland, H.

Bowring, Dr.

Vote agreed to.
The next vote was for 5,000 l. on account of works towards carrying on the caledonian Canal.
Mr. Williamssaid, that the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had given a distinct assurance that the whole amount of the works should not exceed 150,000 l. The very next year there had been an increase of 53,000 l. in the estimate over the sum stated. Mr. Telford's original estimate for the canal was 350,000 l., but before he commenced the works he found it would cost 470,000 l., or one-third more than his first estimate. Precisely the same thing he (Mr. Williams) was convinced, would be the case with the present estimate of Mr. Walker. The income of the canal had only been 2,700 l. a-year, on an average of seven years. Government ought to abandon so worthless an undertaking. The estimate now amounted to 203,000 l., being an increase of one-third on the estimate of last year.
Sir G. Clerkcontended, that the completion of the canal would be attended with great benefit to the people of Ireland as well as to those of Scotland. The whole of the engineering works were now undertaken by substantial contractors, some hundreds of pounds within the estimate given by Mr. Walker; and the Government had, therefore, redeemed the pledge they gave last year, that they would not expend a shilling on the undertaking till tenders had been obtained for the full extent of the works. If the
354
works were now abandoned a loss of 50,000 l. would be incurred, and as they had so nearly approached completion he would put it to the House whether they would consent to the abandonment.
Mr. Humesaid, if it could be shown that this canal would be beneficial, he would not object to the vote. They had already expended 1,000,000 l upon this undertaking, and they were now about to expend 200,000 l. more; and when the canal was completed, would the traffic be so extensive as to produce funds which would maintain the works? He thought the undertaking was wholly valueless, as far as the commerce of this country was concerned, and he would recommend its immediate abandonment. He had last year suggested that any public company willing to take the canal under their management should be allowed to do so, and he had seen a letter from a gentleman in Edinburgh, in which it was stated, that a company had offered to take the canal out of the hands of the Government, and he wished to know why their proposal was not acceded to? [Sir G. Clerk; "The company was not formed."] That fact afforded an additional proof of the inutility of the undertaking. The canal would be utterly valueless, and it would cost 8,000 l. or 10,000 l. a-year to keep up the works. He considered that the best course would be to abandon the undertaking at once, and to sacrifice a sum of 40,000 l. or 50,000 l. rather than incur a loss to the public of an additional 150,000 l.
The committee divided:—Ayes 137; Noes 13; Majority 124.

List of the NOES.

Blewitt, R. J.

Pechell, Capt.

Bowring, Dr.

Plumridge, Capt.

Brotherton, J.

Scholefield, J.

Christie, W. D.

Wawn, J. T.

Collett, J.

Wood, B.

Elphinstone, H.

TELLERS

Forster, M.

Hume, J.

Layard, Capt.

Williams. W.

[It seems only necessary to preserve the lists of the Noes in these two divisions.]
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY.—MONUMENTS TO EMINENT ADMIRALS.
On the vote that 1,500 l. be granted to her Majesty towards defraying the expenses of erecting statues to the memory of Admirals Viscount Exmouth, Lord de Saumerez, and Sir Sydney Smith.
Mr. Hawestook the opportunity of repeating the suggestion that these public honours should be extended to persons who had rendered memorable services to the country in other departments, beside those of the naval and military professions. However willing he might be to recognize and commemorate the merits of men who, either in the field, or on the ocean, had done gallant deeds, by which the honour or the safety of the country was sustained, still, to those who served mankind in the arts of peace, public gratitude was due. In his opinion, to such men as Newton, Herschel, Davy, and others, who in science bad contributed to the happiness and renown of England, some testimonial of public esteem should be erected. He would therefore submit to the right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury whether the question, as to the practicability of erecting monuments or statues to men eminent in science and literature, might not with propriety be referred to the commission that was now in existence for considering the decoration of the new Houses of Parliament? As to expense, he thought the competition among artists, and the fame to be acquired, would materially diminish the cost.
Sir Robert Peelcould not see the slightest objection to the measure which the hon. Gentleman proposed—namely, the erecting statues, or in some other mark of public respect for men of eminence in science.—He, for one, could see no reason why, a testimonial of public esteem should not be conferred on any great and eminent mathematician, who had done honour to his country, as on any military or naval hero whose services the country, was proud to acknowledge. The knowledge that such a public record of their merits would exist to perpetuate their memory, would, he had no doubt, operate as an incentive to exertion among scientific men. But the difficulty which occurred to him was, as to the place where these monuments should be erected. There was a growing objection to placing them in ecclesiastical buildings. Some of those objections were on religious grounds. It was not deemed right to make sacred buildings places of public exhibition; but unless the public could have free access to them, he confessed that his opinion was that no great public monument ought to be erected within them. But then, if such monuments were not to be erected in sacred
356
edifices, where were they to be placed? If they were to erect them out of doors the statues must be in bronze, for neither stone nor marble would bear exposure to the atmosphere. The few statues that were placed out of doors in this metropolis so soon became discoloured by smoke and other substances that were floating in the air, that they failed to be any great ornaments to the locality; but the expense of bronze statues would be enormous. This difficulty as to the site, therefore, was one which presented itself very forcibly to his mind. He agreed with the hon. Gentleman that the cost of the statues might be very materially diminished by open competition among the rising artists who would readily take the chance of future fame in part payment for their labour. Thus, two objects might be accomplished if the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman were to be aopted—not only would there be the raising of a national memorial in honour of men of eminence in science, but encouragement would he given to the rising artists of the country. He had given considerable attention to this subject, and he had always hoped that some portion of the great building, which was designed for the two Houses of Parliament, might be devoted to the reception of statues of eminent men—not merely statesmen, or men of a political character; but men distinguished in the annals of literature and science. If he were sure that any portion of the new Houses of Parliament could be so appropriated, he should not have the slightest difficulty in putting the matter to the consideration of the commission to which the hon. Gentleman had referred, and which commission he thought had discharged its duty with the greatest credit to itself and service to the public. But that commission was confined in its object—namely, to consider the proper mode of decorating the new Houses of Parliament. If the House were to extend its duty beyond that point, it might become a general roving commission upon the fine arts of the country. He was not, therefore, prepared at once to recommend that commission to undertake other duties than were originally assigned to them; unless he had reason to believe that there would be some portion of the building in which statues of eminent civilians and men of science could be placed, he should like to reserve to himself the opportunity of con-

357
sidering whether that commission or some other should be engaged in the inquiry. He owned he did not see any thing very difficult in the matter; nor was he at all adverse to the object which the hon. Gentleman had in view. The site constituted the chief thing. He did not think Westminster Abbey or St. Paul's would be a proper place. The hall at Greenwich Hospital was perfectly appropriate for the reception of the statues of eminent commanders. It was a very great ornament, and was exactly suited to the genius loci. He did not know of any actual building existing at present where he could place statues of men of science; he would therefore ask the hon. Gentleman not to press the matter further at present. Agreeing, as he did, in the principle of the suggestions, and glad as he should be to have an opportunity of erecting monuments to the memory of men of science, such as Newton, Davy, and Herschel, still, before taking any step, he should wish to be satisfied as to the place where such monuments could be erected.
Mr. V. Smithsaid, if the right hon. Baronet had that good faith in the opinion of the commission which he believed all persons entertained, why should not the right hon. Baronet refer to them that particular point, whether there were any portion of the new Houses of Parliament which would be proper for such statues as had been suggested by the hon. Member for Lambeth? He understood that Westminster Hall was to form one of the means of access to the Houses of Parliament; and he did not see why Westminster Hall should not he one of the means for accomplishing the object desired.
Sir Robert Peeldid not wish that the commissioners should go beyond their original line of duty. At the same time, if' it should be within the original design to afford means of receiving statues within the new building, he should not have the slightest objection to suggest the point to the commissioners.
Mr. Humewas pleased at hearing the opinions expressed by the right hon. Baronet as to the desirableness of some suitable place being found for the erection of public monuments. He would ask the right hon. Baronet why all the public statutes now standing in Westminster Abbey and St. Paul's Cathedral should not be removed. If it were proposed to erect a building for the express purpose of afford-
358
ing a place where the statues of eminent men, whether in he naval and military professions, or whether of eminence in literature, science, and art, could be placed, he should be prepared to support such a proposal. He believed that whatever sum might be requisite for such a purpose would be readily accorded by the House and the public. Was it not a great scandal to this country that a statue of one of our most illustrious poets (Lord Byron), the work of one of the most eminent sculptors in Europe (Thorwaldsen), should have been consigned, for the last ten years, to the vaults of the Custom-house, because it pleased the Dean and Chapter of Westminster to refuse a site for its erection in Westminster Abbey, and there being no other place in which it could be erected.
Mr. M. Milnesthought it was extremely creditable to the hon. Member for Montrose that, with all his economical propensities, he had always shown himself extremely generous with respect to matters of art. He believed there were great difficulties in the way of opening the Cathedral to the public, and from conversations he had had, he could state, that their guardians were as anxious to open all to public, and in every respect to accomplish the wishes which, from time to time, had been expressed.
The vote agreed to.
House resumed. Resolutions to be reported.

RELIEF TO THE WEST INDIA ISLANDS.
On the bringing up the report on the West India Islands Relief Bill,
Mr. Mackinnon roseto remonstrate against the measure. The bill went to advance 150,000 l., of which 100,000 l. was to go to Antigua, and 50,000 l. to St. Kitt's and to Nevis. The principle was an unjust one. It was as if a fire took place in Windsor or Reading, and a considerable sum of money were voted by Parliament for the relief of the sufferers, which was to be repaid by a tax levied upon the whole of the inhabitants of the place. On behalf of the proprietors of Antigua he was instructed to make a strong remonstrance, as the advance would benefit a few individuals only, while the rest of the community would derive no benefit whatever from it. He submitted that a clause should be introduced to make the recipients responsible for the re-

359
payment of the money. Money had never been advanced in this manner before; and he trusted that the noble Lord at the head of the colonies would reconsider the matter.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid that both public buildings and private property had suffered, particularly the former; and the Government in this country would find it difficult to undertake the distribution of the money. It was, therefore, deemed expedient to intrust that business to the Colonial Legislature; but there was no hardship in the measure.
The report received.

BOROUGH OF SUDBURy—COMMISSION.
On Mr. Blackstone moving the order of the day for the second reading of this bill,
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that without in any way dissenting from the principle of the bill, he wished to call attention to a point affecting the privileges of the House. This bill delegated to the Crown the power of appointing a commission, which commission might directly interfere with the might of returning Members to Parliament. He could state on the highest legal authority that there was no precedent whatever for a commission so appointed; and as this was a matter of great importance, he thought that when the bill was in committee, it would be worth consideration whether, instead of leaving the appointment of a commission to the Crown, they should not themselves name, say two persons, barristers of eminence, to constitute the court of enquiry? In that case the other House would either agree at once to the bill, or, if they made any alteration in it, then it would be open to the Commons to object to such amendments thereby preventing any control of other parties over so important a matter as a question affecting their privileges.
Mr. Blackstonewas quite ready to adopt the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
Bill read a second time.

CHELSEA OUT-PENSIONERS.
Sir H. Hardingesaid that, in asking permission to introduce a bill "to render more effective the service of such out-pensioners of Chelsea Hospital as may be called upon to assist in preserving the public peace," he would remind the House that last session a measure was passed authorizing certain half-pay officers living
360
in the manufacturing districts to pay the out-pensioners resident in the same parts of the country: That bill had been perfectly successful. The bill which he purposed to introduce had for its object placing these out-pensioners so situated under the management of these half-pay officers, in order to render them an efficient corps, and useful, whenever it would be necessary to employ them, in the preservation of the public peace. It was considered that it would be advantageous to retain the services of the half-pay officers to whom he had referred. The Government had no intention to place these out-pensioners in garrison.
Leave given; bill brought in and read a first time.
House adjourned at a quarter-psst one o'clock.