Commons Sitting of 10 August 1843

MINUTES.
ELECTION PETITION.—By Mr. G. A Hamilton, from Durham, against the Election of J. Bright esq.
BILLS. Public.—1o. Exchequer Bills; Consolidated Fund; Sessions of the Peace Dublin.
2o. Militia Pay; Public Notaries; Machinery Exportation; Special Session; Chelsea Hospital Out Pensioners.
Committed.—Municipal Corporations (Ireland); Sudbury Commission; Grand Jury Presentments (Ireland) (No. 3).
Reported.—Holyrood Park; Church of Scotland Benefices.
3o. and passed:—Designs Copyright; Foreign Jurisdiction; Law of Evidence.
Private.—1o. Morgan's Divorce.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord John Manners, from Leicester, in favour of the Allotment System.—By Mr. E. B. Roche, from Fermoy Union, against the Irish Poor Law.—By Mr. T. Duncombe, from the Pitmen of Durham, and Northumberland, for some measure to prevent Accidents.—By Colonel Acton, from Wexford, against the Repeal of the Union.—By Mr. Shiel, from Dissenters in Pembrokeshire, for a system of Education consistent with religious Liberty.—By Mr. Ward, from the Brazilian Mining Company, from Belfast, and another Association, against the Slave Trade Suppression Bill,—By Mr. Hume, from certain India Stock Proprietors, for Inquiry into the case of the Rajah of Sattara.—By Mr. Bright, from Great Torrington, and Shaftesbury, for the Total and Immediate Repeal of the Corn Laws.—And from Alnmurth, for the Abolition of the Church of Ireland.—By Mr. Gregory, from Galway and Tralee, against the Repeaf Agitation.—From Dublin, against the Applotment of Rates (Dublin) Bill.—From Rochdale, for the Removal to the Queen's Bench Prison, of T. Cooper and other Chartists,—From Bantry, for the Better regulation of Irish Fisheries.—From the Charitable Loan Society of Limerick, against the Charitable Loan Fund Bill.—From Kirkwall, against the Factories Bill.—From Fraserburgh, for Amending the Law relative to the Merchant Seamen's Fund.—From the Middlesex Magistrates, against the Prison Discipline Bill.—From Cullen, against the Prisons (Scotland) Bill.—From John Attwood, and Thomas Baker, against the British Iron Company Bill.

HOLYROOD PARK BILL.
On the motion of Sir G. Clerk, the report on the Holyrood Bill was brought up.
On the question that the amendment made by the committee be read a second time,
Mr. W. Williamsstated, that the 30,674 l. to be paid to the Earl of Haddington for his right of pasturage of the park would be equal to thirty-nine years' purchase, while only thirty years' purchase was asked. It appeared by returns that the average net rental of the pasturage for ten years, from 1830 to 1839, was 780 l. 9s. 2d. at twenty-five years' purchase, which he thought too much, as it was admitted that it had of late years been gradually declining in value, and for that reason, no doubt, the rental of the last three years had not been given; the amount would be 19,500 l., being 11,170 l. less than the sum to be paid by the bill before the House. Would any one dispute this to be a gross job? It was pretended the money was to be paid out of the Crown property; but the Crown surrendered all its property to the public in consideration of receiving the civil list and provision for the royal family. The payment in fact would come out of the taxes paid by the distressed people of this country, and for what object?—to make a park for the people of Edinburgh. From the Crown Lands, the rental of the last three years was, on an average, 426,200 l. and the expenditure was 201,400 l., nearly one-half. He contended that Lord Haddington had forfeited the grant by turning the contents of the sewers of Edinburgh into the Royal Park, to increase the rental for the pasturage; quarrying stone, and selling water to the brewers, for which he had received large sums of money which it was admitted he was not entitled to. There were already thirteen royal parks to maintain, which, with ten royal palaces, gardens, stables, dogs, and kennels, had cost the country during the last five years, according to returns for which he had moved, a sum of not less than 686,990 l., or annually, on an average, 137,380 l. He thought the Government ought to be satisfied with this enormous waste of public money, especially when seven millions of the people were said to rejoice in potatoes and oatmeal. The increase of the expenditure on those objects year after year was quite astounding. The expenditure of 1838, 89,800 l.; 1839, 98,800 l.; 1840, 135,000 l.; 1841, 143,200 l.; 1842, 151,000 l.; making a total of 617,900 l.

489
The Earl of Haddington had already received 30,000 l. of the public money, and after laying out another large sum in turning this park into a free public place of resort, which would require some 3,000 l. or 4,000 l. per annum to keep up, the Earl of Haddington would in all probability resume the post of ranger with all the advantages attending it. The honourable Member concluded by moving that the report be received that day six months.
The Earl of Lincolnsaid, that the amount stated by the hon. Member as the cost of the public parks was swollen by the unwarrantable introduction of sums which in no way belonged to the permanent expenditure. With reference to the arrangement under discussion—although, in his opinion, it was one of great public utility—it had not originated with the present Government, but with Lord Duncannon, by whom it was advanced so far that even had it not been so desirable in itself as it was, it would have been difficult to break it off. As to the suggestion that when the park was laid out as a place of public resort, Lord Haddington, or some other favoured person, would be named ranger, with a salary and other advantages, the possibility of any such arrangement was precluded by words which he had introduced into the bill, in committee, which provided that no person should be appointed ranger of this park, or, at least, that no salary should be paid to such ranger if appointed. The Earl of Haddington had as clear a right to the property in this park as any gentleman in the House had to his property. The greatest pains had been taken by the Government throughout the transaction to ascertain the exact claim that Lord Haddington had to this property; and although, no doubt, his right to it was of an anomalous kind, yet some of the highest legal authorities in Scotland, to whom the case in all its bearings had been submitted, as the case of a disputed title, were unanimous in declaring that the noble Earl's right to this park was as clear and indisputable as that of any person in the country to his private estate. The amount which was to be paid to the noble Lord was only twenty-seven years' purchase. This arrangement would involve no sacrifice of public money, while it would effect a great public advantage, by throwing open to general use a park which had been hitherto monopolized by a few graziers.
The House divided on the question, that the words proposed to be left out
490
stand part of the question. Ayes 45; Noes 5: Majority 40.

List of the AYES.

Allix, J. P.

Hamilton, G. A.

Baring, H. B.

Henley, J. W.

Blackburne, J. I.

Hope, G. W.

Blake, M. J.

Howard, P. H.

Bodkin, W. H.

Kirk, P.

Boldero, H. G.

Lincoln, Earl of

Borthwick, P.

Lockhart, W.

Damer, hon. Col.

Lowther, J. H.

Darby, G.

Mackenzie, T.

Denison, E. B.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Douglas, Sir H.

Marsham, Visct.

Duncan, G.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Eliot, Lord

O'Conor Don

Flower, Sir J.

Palmer, G.

Forester, hn. G. C. W.

Polhill, F.

Forman, T. S.

Ross, D. R.

Fuller, A. E.

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

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Trotter, J.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Wood, B.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Yorke, H. R.

Greene, T.

TELLERS.

Gregory, W. H.

Clerk, Sir G.

Grogan, E.

Pringle, A.

List of the NOES.

Brotherton, J.

Plumridge, Capt.

Crawford, W. S.

TELLERS.

Hindley, C.

Williams, W.

Peel, J.

Wawn, J. T.

Main question agreed to.
Bill to be read a third time.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND.)
House in committee on Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill.
On clause 2.
Mr. W. J. O'Briencomplained of the manner in which the exercise of the municipal franchise in Dublin was impeded. No fewer than sixteen rates were required to be paid before the elector could give his vote; he moved, therefore, that instead of the words, "payment of the several cesses, rates, and taxes," the words, "poor-rate and "borough-rate," be inserted."
Lord Eliotsaid that the object of the bill before the House was not to alter the fundamental principle of the former measures, but merely to correct certain technical errors and defects. At the present period of the Session, it would be quite impossible to go into so important a question as that brought forward by the hon. Member.
Mr. Wysesupported the amendment. It was not a proposition for altering fundamental principles, but for removing

491
defects in detail, which impeded the franchise in Ireland, and placed the electors there in a most unfair position as compared with electors in England.
Mr. Rosssaid that this measure was a direct violation of the pledge which had been repeatedly given by Ministers to assimilate the government of Ireland in every respect to that of England.
Sir J. Grahamsaid that the bill had been brought in by her Majesty's servants, on the clear understanding that it was a measure of regulation, and not one bearing upon the principle of the franchise. It was, no doubt, competent to the hon. Member for Limerick, or any other hon. Gentlemen to raise the whole question of the franchise, but if he persevered, it would be the duty of Government, at this period of the Session to withdraw the bill.
Sir D. Norreyssaid, that it was really lamentable to see the present Government, this strong Government, that were to do so much practical good, leaving everything of any practical value to the end of the Session, and then throwing it overboard because it was the end of the Session and there was no time for attending to it.
Mr. G. A. Hamiltonsaid, the question for the committee to decide was simply this—whether or not the bill was to be regarded as a party measure, opening up the whole subject of municipal corporations in Ireland. He had regarded it as a measure brought in with the consent of all parties, for the purpose of remedying certain admitted defects in the existing law. That certainly was the understanding of the Government, and he thought was also the understanding of the House. In proof of this, he would mention that his right hon. Friend and Colleague had given notice of certain amendments, in reference to the boundaries of corporate towns, which appeared to him very important; but feeling that they might be considered as opening the general question, he had abandoned them. It was, no doubt, competent for any hon. Member to propose any amendment; but considering the great inconvenience of discussing the municipal franchise at this period of the Session, he would be prepared, for one, to move or support a motion that they report progress, and thus postpone the bill till the next Session.
Amendment withdrawn.
The remaining clauses were agreed to. Bill to be reported.
The House resumed.

QUEEN POMARE—TAHITI.
Mr. Hindleywished to know from the right hon. Baronet whether there was any disposition shown by Queen Pomare to be connected with France. And he also wished to be informed what course the Government was prepared to take in case the Queen was not disposed to yield.
Sir Robert Peelreplied, that he understood her Majesty had declared that she had signed a certain paper, of which she did not understand the import. There had been some British ships of war at the islands of her Majesty; but whatever course their commanders might have taken, was entirely their own voluntary act, and not under the authority of the Government. He must decline, however, saying, in case the Queen of Tahiti should adopt a certain line of proceeding, what course her Majesty's Government might be disposed to take.

THE OREGON TERRITORY.
Mr. Sheilwished to ask the right hon. Baronet whether any proposition had been made as to the settlement of the Oregon territory question by the United States? He wished to know if there had been any official correspondence on the subject, and if there had been, he desired to be informed whether it would be laid on the Table of the House now, or in a future Session?
Sir Robert Peelreplied, that he was not in a position to lay the correspondence on the Table of the House; but he was prepared to state how the Oregon territory question stood. The right hon. Gentleman might recollect that in the message of the President, which had been delivered, he thought, on the 6th of December last year, a reference was made to the question of the Oregon territory. The President then felt that it would be very desirable to have, if it were possible, this matter adjusted in the treaty, which was then concluded by Lord Ashburton. The President, however, said—
"It became manifest at an early hour of the late negotiations, that any attempt for the time being satisfactorily to determine those rights, would lead to a protracted discussion, which might embrace in its failure other more pressing matters, and the executive did not regard it as proper to waive all the advantages of an honourable adjustment of other difficulties of great magnitude and importance, because this, not so immediately pressing, stood in the way. Although the difficulty referred to may not, for several years to come, involve the peace of the two countries, yet I shall not

493
deny to urge upon Great Britain the importance of its early settlement."
A communication had been received by the British Government from the American Secretary of State. The American government concurred with our Majesty's Government, in thinking that it would be advisable to enter into immediate negotiations on the subject. Since that communication Mr. Webster had retired from office, but there was no reason to suppose that a communication would not soon be made, containing some proposal to her Majesty's Government, and they had every expectation, from the disposition manifested, that it would be of a friendly nature.

EXPORTATION OF MACHINERY.
The Order of the Day for the second reading of Exportation of Machinery Bill having been read,
Mr. Gladstonesaid that, in moving the second reading of the bill, assured the House that he had never approached any question with a more clear and entire conviction of the policy and justice of the course that he recommended. He was aware that some gentlemen took a different view of this question, but at the same time there were many who were prepared to give their hearty approbation to the proposition which he was now about to make. He entreated of the House to look at this question in a practical point of view. For his part, he should only look upon the question as bearing upon the trade and labour of this country. He called upon them to consider the results likely to occur from a perseverance in the law, and, on the other hand, the results to be expected from an abrogation of the law. The object of the present bill was to do that openly and legally, which was now attained by indirect means. Those who objected to the exportation of machinery did so, saying that the question was, whether certain manufactured goods should be made in this or in other countries. If they kept the machinery here, they considered the goods would be made at home, and, therefore, they would increase labour and employment at home. If they allowed the machinery to go abroad, then those goods would be manufactured abroad, and they considered it desirable to prevent that. Now, he was prepared to contend that a removal of all restrictions on the exportation of machinery was, under the existing circumstances of trade, the best course that could be pursued by Par-
494
liament for the promotion of the commercial interests of this country. The first position which he had to press upon the attention of the House was this, that the existing law, so far as it prohibited certain machinery from being exported, was, nominally, prohibitory, but in practice it was nugatory. This was the conviction of the officers of the Customs. So long ago as 1824 it was stated by Mr. Deane that the law was evaded in numberless instances—that the law was inefficient; and after a lapse of seventeen years, Mr. Deane, upon being further examined, declared that his opinion had undergone no change as to the inefficiency of the law. Through the facilities afforded by the coasting trade, there were abundant means afforded of carrying out the prohibited machinery, and of taking out the different parts of that machinery. New and valuable articles of machinery were not included in the prohibition; it was directed against old and clumsy articles. A seizure of the parts of a machine afforded no adequate remedy for the smuggling carried on. The Custom-house officers could only seize certain parts; those parts were valueless without the whole, and in one case out of a hundred there was no one to buy these parts, or the original owners bought them for a nominal sum, and they were then exported. The committee, in the 5th page of their report, remarked, that
"Much more had been stated in the evidence, to show the inefficiency of the law prohibiting the exportation of machinery and tools. The law could not be executed, and, therefore, it became necessary to have it amended or totally repealed."
So far, as the amendment of the law was concerned, he conceived that to be altogether impossible. Then, as to the other alternative, it was that he thought which common sense and political judgment required. The enforcing of customs prohibitions outwards, was very different from enforcing prohibitions inwards. In the one case, it would be according to the system carried on in this country impossible to enforce them. In the other it was not so, because even after the prohibited article passed the customs it was not safe. It was still liable to seisure. If, indeed, there were a general system of collecting export duties, if they had officers to examine every parcel going abroad, then there might be adequate provisions made for enforcing the existing law; but the House knew that the idea of a tax upon exports

495
was abhorrent to this country, and if it were attempted, it could only be done by an enormous increase to their customs establishment, and at an expense which the country would never endure. It was the opinion of practical custom-house officers, and had been since 1824, that was for nearly twenty years—it was their judgment that this was a law incapable of execution. For twenty years, too, this law had been labouring under a stigma, inflicted on it by those whose duty it was to administer it. The law was not what it professed to be—prohibitory of the exportation of machinery abroad. What, then, was its effect? The difference in the cost between machinery made in this country and in other countries was a small one. He admitted this principle that they ought not to sacrifice their trade in manufactures for the sake of their trade in machinery; they ought not to sacrifice a great trade for the sake of a small one. It was quite true that their trade in machinery was a small trade, while their trade in manufactures was great. He said, however, that the cost of the machinery was small, compared with the value of the goods turned out by that machinery. It would be difficult to make a statement as to the amount of difference between the machinery in this country and abroad. The price of the foreign machine-maker was about 20 to 30 percent. more, as compared with the price of the machine-maker in England. Before machine making was established abroad, the foreign manufacturer laboured under greater disadvantages than at present; for then he had to depend upon the smuggling of machinery from England; he then had to pay 50 per cent. more than the British manufacturer on the cost of machinery. The House need not be informed that it was no longer a question as to whether foreigners should have machinery of their own; but the question was whether this country should not have the machine making of the world? A considerable portion had passed from their hands, and they had now to see, whether, by a vigorous effort, they might not recover it, or acquiesce in the loss. He believed, that since the foundation of machinery establishments in Belgium, that for machines equal in execution to those of this country, the foreigner paid 20 per cent. or 30 per cent. more than the British manufacturer paid. Suppose, then, the law were repealed, the foreigner would have to pay on British machinery the cost
496
of carriage, 10 per cent. The import duty then was from 10 to 15 per cent., so that the whole of the gain must be 5 to 10 per cent. In 1841, some of the parties who were opposed to the exportation of machinery calculated that the value of the machinery could not be more than 5 per cent. on the goods when produced; if that were so, then all that would be done by the removal of the prohibition on machinery, taking into calculation the cost of the machine, the time it would last, &c., would only amount to a quarter per cent., or a half at the most, on the goods produced. To maintain a prohibitory law for this, and to prevent their foreign rivals from having so slight an advantage, was most invidious. They had a certain advantage themselves, and because a benefit might be done to another they refused it. He was not one to justify smuggling, nor did he think it was a matter to be spoken of lightly. He did not say that a bad law afforded a justification for breaking it. He thought that persons were obliged to obey the law as long as it subsisted, but then when a law was said to be, by those acquainted with its working, impracticable; when it was shown that there were the strongest inducements to break it, then it became the duty of Parliament to amend that law, or, if it were consistent in its policy, to repeal it. Let them compare the case of smuggling in this article with smuggling in other articles. He would take the case of brandies or of tobacco. No one denied that smuggling was a very great evil, that smuggling in these articles was carried on to a great extent. In the latter case, however, an immense revenue was at stake. Whether rightly or wrongly a great national interest obliged them to maintain the existing laws, even though they involved the evil of smuggling. There was no such national plea in this case. There was no question of revenue, and he contended that there was no matter of national policy. Let them see, then, the situation of the machine maker with reference to this law. They were not to justify the machine maker for smuggling; but they gave him an excuse which no other smuggler possessed. He was not aware that there was any other of the productive classes, except the machine maker with whom the law interfered to prevent the sale of the article he produced. The law relating to machine makers in this country was such as no other branch of manufacturing industry in the country was subject to. And why? Was

497
it because being a trade in which we particularly excelled above all other countries—being a manufacture in which the hands and minds of our artificers were peculiarly and most happily turned, that we should inflict on them a prohibitory law, which was not only a hardship in itself, but which our own Custom-house officers told us it was impossible to carry into execution? He thought that he had a right to call upon any Gentleman who opposed the present bill for repealing a law so peculiar in its nature, to offer some peculiar grounds in support of its continuance. When this law was first enacted, the ground alleged was to place the foreign manufacturer of articles involving the use of machinery at a great disadvantage in respect to British manufacturers, who possessed, by reason of their machinery, an amazing pre-eminence. The notion then was that machine making was a kind of secret, a sort of mystery, the enjoyment of which we could keep to ourselves if we took the necessary precautions. Indeed, the wording of the act of 1696 distinctly recognised this view of the matter, by using the word "mystery'' in reference to the making of machines and tools. The substance of the preamble to that act stated:
"That whereas a very useful and profitable invention, craft, or mystery existed in this country for the making of silk stockings and other articles; and that, whereas, some machines had been exported out of England, whereby the said commodities in foreign parts, which heretofore had been only made in this country, much to the detriment of the manufacturers of this country, and that, therefore, be it enacted, that such exportation of the machinery be prohibited."
It was the belief at that period, that, by prohibitive enactments, they could ensure to the people of this country the exclusive enjoyment of certain branches of manufacture, and for some time, undoubtedly, experience seemed to confirm us in this monopoly. But now the case was different. These branches of manufacture had found their way abroad; other countries are determined to manufacture for themselves instead of taking them from us, and the only question now was, whether we should inflict the small additional charge upon the prosecution of foreign manufacturing enterprise which the prohibition of the exportation of our machinery seemed to enable us to do. He must say, that if the principle upon which this prohibition was founded—namely, that of preventing foreign manufacturers from ob-
498
taining the means of carrying on their trades—if this principle were to be carried out to the limits it was susceptible of, it would be fatal to almost every branch of our commerce. After all machine makers were manufacturers, and they had a right to claim to be put upon the same footing in regard to the exercise of their trade as all other manufacturers. Had not the machine maker, then, a good ground to say, "If you prohibit the exportation of my machinery, which is cheaper and better than can be made abroad, I call upon you to prohibit in like manner the exportation of cheap iron; I call upon you to prohibit the exportation of models of machines; I call upon you to prohibit the exportation of cheap coal—which are all made use of by foreign machine makers for the purpose of rivalling this country in her machinery and implements of manufacture:" Nay, more, he would have a right to ask for the prohibition of the emigration of our artisans, without whom foreign machine makers could do nothing. Until the year 1824, the law actually did prohibit the emigration of artisans; and he must say, he thought that the arguments by which that prohibition was supported were quite as strong as those which were now alleged in support of the prohibition of the exportation of machinery. But that law was an impracticability, and it was repealed. With regard to the prohibition upon machinery, experience showed that it could not be carried into effect; that in spite of it our machinery did find its way abroad; and, therefore, he thought he had a right to call upon the House to abrogate a law which, unjust in itself, exhibited a constant proof of the inability of the Legislature to carry its intentions into effect. He would tell the hon. Member for Ashton, whom he saw opposite, and whose constituents were so largely interested in spinning, that if the principle of this prohibition upon machinery were a fair one, it ought to be made to apply to the exportation of yarns and twist; for the possession of these yarns enabled the foreign manufacturer to rival us in our finer fabrics. It was permitting our yarns and twist to be exported which enabled the German Customs League. by putting a duty of only 6 per cent. upon them, to exclude our more finished articles of manufacture, in which those articles were involved, from their markets. Many strong complaints had been made upon this very ground, and it could not be denied that, in

499
all that had been said and written in support of the law of which he now complained in regard to machinery, if the word "twist" was substituted for "machinery," the argument would hold equally good. The argument in both cases was, that by the exportation of certain articles of manufacture, as machinery in the one case, and twist in the other, the foreign manufacturer was enabled to produce the finer and more finished fabrics cheaper than we could sell them to him under the heavy duties imposed abroad upon them. The fact was, that this was not merely a proposition of his own, nor of the Government to which he belonged, but one which had received an amount of sanction from competent authorities, which would be overwhelming—if any amount of authority could be overwhelming—independent of the discussion of the merits of the question. He would refer, in the first instance, to the report of the committee of 1825; at a time when there was scarcely any machinery made abroad. The report of this committee stated, that the committee were of opinion that the law relating to the exportation of tools and machinery should be regulated upon the same principle as that applied to other articles of manufacture, and concluded by
"Recommending that, until some alteration was made in the law on this subject, the Privy Council should exercise a discretion to permit the exportation of tools and machinery in those cases where it appeared not to be prejudicial to the trade of the British empire."
Mr. Huskisson, he would add, entirely concurred in the above opinions, and was for revoking this illiberal prohibition. He came now to the committee of 1841, which had also decided in favour of the above liberal views. An impression had got abroad that this committee had not been unanimous in favour of a repeal of the law. It was even said, that the principle of repeal was carried by a bare majority of six against five. This, however, was a mistake. It was true, that the general proposition for the total and unconditional repeal of the prohibition having been moved, and being met by an amendment recommending an immediate change, but proposing to leave the nature and extent of that change to the consideration of Government and this House, the original proposition was carried against this amendment by a majority of six to five only. But at the same time it was evident by another division, which took place on the same
500
day (the 3rd of June), the hon. Member for Manchester being in the chair, that the committee were almost unanimous against the continuance of the present law; for on the hon. Member for Montrose moving,
"That the law prohibiting the export of machinery should be repealed, and the trade of machine-making be placed upon the same footing as other departments of British industry."
The hon. Member for Tiverton moved as an amendment, that
"The committee could not recommend an immediate and unconditional repeal of the laws prohibiting the exportation of machinery."
For this amendment only one vote was given, that of the hon. Gentleman who proposed it, and against it were the votes of all the other eight Members of the committee present. He thought, therefore, that he stood on strong grounds of authority for the course which he was now proposing to the House. He apprehended, indeed, that if the late Government had remained in office, they would have considered it their duty to have brought in a measure to repeal the law on this subject, in accordance with the recommendation of that committee. But as the House was aware, that Parliament was prorogued almost immediately after that report was presented, and that in the Session which succeeded, namely, last year, the attention of Parliament was deeply occupied with other commercial questions of greater magnitude, so that it had hardly been possible to bring a measure upon this subject forward at an earlier period. At the same time he would say, that if there was any fault to be found with this measure, he thought that it was on account that it came not too soon, but too late. He did not wish to cast any censure upon those who imposed this prohibition, but he thought that Parliament would have done more wisely, and have better consulted the real interests of the trade of this country, if they had repealed it some time ago. It was in consequence of this prohibition that Belgium was now making machinery upon an extensive scale, which was sent into other countries, and this branch of manufacture was not only important in amount, but was largely on the increase there. In 1834 the Belgian machine-makers exported machinery to the value of 69,000 l., and in 1838 to the amount of 236,000 l.

501
The latter year, it was true, was one of extraordinary speculation, but the average exportation of Belgian machinery for the five years last past was 146,000 l. Within the last three days he had seen a gentleman, an Italian, at the office of the Board of Trade, who afforded him some strong corroborative evidence of the impolicy of the present law. This gentleman, he would observe, he had previously seen in the course of last autumn. Upon that occasion he said, that he was going to Sardinia to get orders for machinery, and told him, that if he could undertake to remove the prohibition upon the exportation of machinery from this country, he would get the machinery he wanted from England. He was not, however, in a condition to make any such promise, and the consequence was, that upon the last occasion, three days ago, when he saw that gentleman on his return from Turin, he informed him that he had sent his orders for machinery to Belgium, instead of to this country, in consequence of our prohibitory law. He had also recently had an interview with a deputation of machine-makers headed by Mr. Hetherington, at the office of the Board of Trade. The memorial presented by that deputation declared—
"The conviction of the memorialists that a relaxation of the law would occasion orders to be sent to Lancashire to the amount of not less than 300,000 l.; whilst otherwise the orders would not exceed one-tenth of that amount, great part of which would be for models of machines."
The memorial went on to state, that a foreign gentleman connected with manufactures stated, that at Zurich making cotton machinery had been given up since the prohibition to export it from her had been relaxed, in consequence of the competition of the machine makers of Lancashire; and that, in respect to flax machinery, which was still subject to prohibition, the Zurichers were ready to give extensive orders to the machine-makers of Leeds, provided they could export it without risk; but that, if not, they would send their orders to France and Belgium. This memorial was signed by Messrs. Taylor, Wordsworth, and Co., Messrs. Murray and Jackson, and Mr. Fairbairn. He had also received a communication from the Belgian minister, stating that the machine makers of Belgium had sent to him a deputation, who stated, that in consequence of the relaxation of the prohibition upon the exportation of some descriptions of machinery
502
from England, they were being superseded in the manufacture of such machines in their own country. All these authorities were strong evidence of the fact, that the making of machinery was a branch of productive industry which this country might carry on under peculiar advantages, and to a large extent, if the law permitted it. The value of this branch of trade consisted very much in this—that in all its features it was, as it were, indigenous to this country. He thought, as a general principle, that it was far better to cultivate a trade whereof we commanded all the elements within our own soil, than one for which we depended for the staple raw matreial upon another country. For instance, to take the cotton trade; he would not say that there was any probability that we should ever be deprived of our supply of raw cotton from the United States; but still, was it not a striking advantage in the manufacture of machinery, over that of cotton even, that all the materials were of native produce, and that, through this circumstance, full 80 or 90 per cent. of the value of the manufactured article went direct into our own pockets. But there was another ground upon which he was most anxious that this law should be repealed. He had a great aversion, on principle, to vesting a discretion in the Board of Trade, as to whether the prohibition against the exportation of machinery should or should not be relaxed in particular cases. One object of all laws should be to limit, as far as possible, all such discretionary power on the part of the Executive, and to lay down a clear principle, which should be applicable alike to all. He would not say, that there had ever been any grounds to suspect that the Board of Trade, in the exercise of this discretion, had afforded any fair grounds for complaint; he knew that in the country some impression of the kind had sometimes prevailed; so much so, that persons labouring under the expectation that to obtain a relaxation of the prohibition from the Board of Trade was a matter of great favour, or, at least, of much difficulty, had thought it advisable to appoint some trusty friend to manage the matter for them. Another objection which he had to the present system was, that it offered peculiar opportunities and inducements for smuggling. Orders were obtained for the exportation of a large quantity of machines. It was very difficult, in the first place, to lay down and define the exact quantity which should be exported,

503
and the consequence was, that the parties obtaining the order, exported portions of the whole quantity from time to time, keeping a debtor and creditor account of the quantity which the order authorised the exportation of, and the quantities so from time to time exported; and by separating the parts of machines, it was rendered extremely difficult to identify and ascertain that the machinery exported was precisely of the kind for which the order has been granted. It appeared, then, that the prohibition had been gradually relaxed—that, in fact, it could not be maintained, and that the mode in which it had been relaxed and evaded, had led to great vexation and frauds. Some descriptions of machinery being prohibited, and others not, and the principle of relaxation being applied from time to time to different descriptions of machinery, so that parties did not know what they might expect, and what they might not. Looking at the principle involved, he should be prepared to say that the system, under the present law, was in its nature unconstitutional. He thought that it was too much to lay restrictions upon the manufacturing and commercial enterprise of the country, and then to leave the enforcing of those restrictions at the discretion of the executive department. It was true the First Lord of the Treasury had a dispensing power in cases of revenue; but it could not be pretended that the prohibition upon machinery was a question of revenue. This prohibition could not be defended upon considerations of finance. What, too, was its effect upon the minds of foreign countries? Why this—that when we endeavoured to persuade them to adopt our notions of freeer trade, they cast it back in our teeth that we ourselves in this most important article in industrial enterprise, were in the highest degree restrictive, our object being to prevent them from having the means of competing with us in certain branches of manufacture. He had before him some observations on this subject by a Belgian gentleman, which were to the following effect—That Great Britain offered surrounding nations the principles of reciprocity, but violated them herself in the article of machinery—preventing them from having the use of the means of competing with herself in her own manufactures—her object being to insure herself a monopoly in the mechanical arts. The proposed relaxations would have the certainty of securing a steady and
504
valuable trade—most valuable as ministering to the subsistence of the labourer, and the materials of which were entirely native and indigenous to our soil. So far, therefore, he could hardly conceive that any gentleman would be disposed to say that the time had not arrived for opening up this trade. By doing so the British manufacturer would not be deprived of his peculiar advantages. It was not in the power of laws to deprive him of these. So long as the country was the great seat of manufactures, so long would it be the great seat of machine making. Machine making always followed manufactures. Why was it that machine making was not principally carried on in the iron, but in the manufacturing districts? Wherever great manufactures took up their seats, there would machine making take up its seat also. To be removed from the seat of the manufacture was a very great disadvantage to the machine maker. The course of improvement in machinery was rapid. Every change which took place in its construction lessened labour, and consequently expense. In 1841 and 1842, years of great commercial and manufacturing depression, great improvements in machinery took place. Indeed, he might mention that in Bolton, in the very depth of the depression, a new factory was opened, because it could command the advantages of a slight improvement made in machinery. So valuable then were improvements, that, while other factories which possessed machines made a short time before were unable to keep open, it was found worth while to go to the expense of setting up and opening a new factory, merely because it possessed more improved machinery. If the present system should be permitted to continue he was impressed with the conviction that inventors of improvements in machinery would be driven from the country, and foreign inventors would be prevented from carrying out their improvements here. Inventors would naturally go to the country which gave them the greatest facilities both of construction and as regarded markets. Admitting that this country could offer these advantages to inventors, and that they were to be so offered, then British manufacturers would have the advantage of being free from the cost of carriage for improvements, by these improvements being made at the seat of their own manufacturing industry. They would likewise have the first access and the most entire command of new inventions and im-

505
provements in a trade in which such facilities were of the most inestimable importance. But while they had this advantage—it was no unfair advantage—they had no secret—no monopoly. They had the means of producing the best and the cheapest machines, just as they had of producing the best and cheapest cotton cloth. With respect to the present feelings of the manufacturers as regarded the export of machinery, no person of that class had remonstrated with the Government on the course which they had pursued last year of granting licences for exportation. That course would not have been adopted had the cotton and woollen manufacturers, as a body objected to it. With respect to flax and linen machinery, however, he must make a reservation. The parties interested in that came before the committee sitting in 1841, to oppose the abolition of the prohibition to export machinery to make articles of flax and linen, upon account of peculiar circumstances connected with the trade. That machinery, had, therefore not been included in the licensing system, Many of the linen and flax manufactures of France, however, were carried on by English-made machinery. He proposed now to abolish all the restrictions upon the exportation of machinery. The prohibitions, at present existing, furnished a strong argument against them in foreign states, when we applied for reductions of their import duties; and yet the system had been found quite ineffectual, it had caused England to be mocked at all over the world, on account of the inefficiency of the prohibitory arrangement; and all this was endured, not to carry out a great and comprehensive principle of policy, but for the miserable purpose of inflicting some small and scarcely perceptible disadvantage upon the foreign manufacturer. He did not propose to substitute any export dues in its place of the abolition, for if they did they would run a great risk of losing what they aimed at—a steady and considerable trade in the manufacture and exportation of machinery. He had shown to the House the authorities by which, in making his proposal, he was supported—he had shown that the existing law was stultified by the licensing system, and he did think, that he had said enough to induce the House to assent to the second reading of the bill. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the second reading of the bill.
Mr. Hindleyregretted that he was obliged to offer any opposition, or to impose
506
any impediment, to the recognition of the principle of the bill. It was sound in principle, and, believing that it was a part and parcel of the great system of free-trade, he would like to see that principle carried out in the proper time and place. But what was the conduct of the Government? After having turned out the late Ministry for their proposal to take some steps towards the principle of free-trade, after leaving the manufacturers thus saddled with the difficulties which, after the defeat of their projects, remained upon them, Government now came down with the very extreme of free-trade notions, and said that the result of the ingenuity and industry of the manufacturers should be entirely given away. This was most inconsistent conduct, and he opposed the second reading of the bill before the House, on account of the time at which it was brought forward, and of the circumstances under which the manufacturers were placed. The principle of free-trade should always be carried out with a due regard for the interests of all the members of society. In 1841, a committee sat upon the subject, but, from the constitution of that committee, it was impossible that they could have come to any conclusion other than that which they did arrive at, even although it should not have examined a witness at all. The late Vice-President of the Board of Trade, he would observe, was the only Member of the late Government who attended the committee; and his authority upon mercantile subjects could not be expected to be very great. It had been established by the committee of 1841, that the English were superior to the foreign machine makers, and an attempt was made to prove that it was impossible to put a stop to the smuggling of machinery out of the country. That, he contended, was a great fallacy. They could prevent exportation, not, perhaps, by the medium of Custom-houses; but by causing the machine manufacturers to give in a regular list of the machines made by them. When machinery was made for exportation, the fact was well known to the workmen employed upon it, and to the district generally. To say, indeed, that they could not stop the exportation of machinery, if they had a mind to do so, was to assert something widely inconsistent with fact. The advantages gained by exclusively possessing the best machinery were so great, that the House should pause before consenting to part with them. The

507
committee of 1841 had established several points; but it had not established, that the advantages of allowing exportation would not be overbalanced by the increase of competition in those manufactures to which it would give rise. The relaxation of the law would certainly produce a better trade in machine making; and so trade would be also benefited by relaxation of the Corn-laws. Improvements in machinery were invented as well by those who were concerned in working it as those whose occupation was to frame it. And thus, when manufacturers gave to machine makers the benefit of their experience and ingenuity, they were to allow the latter to dispose of the fruits of that experience and ingenuity where they best could find a market for them. The manufacturers were not free and unencumbered. They had to contend with a duty upon cotton. Why did not the Government do away with that? They had to contend with a duty upon flour, not merely as an article of food, but as an article entering into the fabric of the goods which they produced. They put three-quarters of a million of exclusive taxes on manufacture, and then told them to enter into competition with nations which possessed food at half the price which, in this country, the manufacturers were obliged to pay for it. If the Government would but repeal the Corn-laws, then he would be very glad to unite with it in supporting and carrying through this bill. Let the manufacturers of England enter into competition upon fair grounds, and he had no fears for the result. The right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, had said that a discretion was vested in the Privy Council as to the exportation of machinery, which was unconstitutional. He had intended to have put a question to the Attorney-General on that point, if the hon. and learned Gentleman had been in his place. He believed, however, that if the manufacturers had been inclined, they might have objected to its exercise. But when they considered the want of employment which then existed, they did not think it right to oppose this means of supplying a livelihood to many individuals. But this reason for abstaining from remonstrance existed no longer. He had had a letter from a manufacturer that day, who said that a machine-maker could not execute an order of his, he was so engaged; and his belief was, that in Manchester they were in full employment.
508
The right hon. Gentlemen must know, that for the last four years the manufacturers had been in such a state, that they could not avail themselves of improvements in machinery. But if there was any hope of their obtaining profitable remuneration, the machine-makers would find full employment at home. Was it right that the most important bill of the Session (so far as consequences to our mandfacturing powers were concerned) should be proposed for a second reading on the 10th of August? He saw by the papers, that the noble Leader of the Opposition had paired off that morning, and the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Heathcote), who would no doubt have opposed the bill, had also left town. Before he concluded he wished to call the attention of the House to two answers from Mr. Marshall, the extensive manufacturer. He was asked:—
"Would it not be unwise to try any experiments which would have the effect of disturbing a prosperous manufacture in our own country?—Certainly; unless there was a reasonable expectation of deriving a greater benefit than the loss in amount received."
"But is not the obvious policy to be content with a prosperous trade, when once established?—I should say so, unless there were good reasons for making a change."
"And without strong reasons, you would not make any change?—Certainly not."
The right hon. the President of the Board of Trade had given no reasons whatever as to the effect of this bill in admitting of foreign competition. He should move, therefore, as an amendment, that a select committee be appointed to examine into the laws relating to the exportation of machinery.
Mr. S. Wortleymust take leave to say, that on a subject involving interests of an extensive and important nature, it would have been more becoming to have laid this bill on the Table—he should not say on the first, but on an early day of the Session—in order to give Members a fair opportunity of considering the subject, and also to enable the country to take some opportunity of noticing its provisions. He did not, however, think this a sufficient reason for giving a decided opposition to the bill. Supposing we had a decided advantage in the manufacture of any article, he did not hold the doctrine that we were not perfectly justified in retaining it. Nations, like individuals; were justified in taking advantage of peculiar circumstances or natural advantages. The question now was, whether under existing

509
circumstances, there was any ground for maintaining these laws. Having given the best consideration to the facts stated by his right hon. Friend, and coupling them with the course taken by the department over which he presided, he thought there was really little worth fighting for, and that it was not worth while to maintain the enactments which it was the object of this bill to repeal. For a long time past steam-engines had been exported. And tools were also allowed to be exported, which gave foreigners the power of manufacturing on their own premises several articles which were here supposed to be confined to this country. There was a letter issued some time ago by the Board of Trade, which was intended to give free permission to those employed in cotton and woollen manufactures to emigrate. What restrictions were left then but the small residue, which, securing no advantage to us, it was the object of this bill to abolish? His hon. Friend (Mr. Hindley) had made a powerful appeal on the assumption that we really possessed advantages which it was the object of this bill to forego, whereas his belief was, that whatever advantages we might have possessed, we had allowed them to slip from our hands, and we had no further power to retain them. He was inclined to reimpose obstructions which the executive had abolished. He must say, too, that those interested in the manufacture of machinery had a right to protest against any interference with a trade which the Government had allowed to grow up within its cognizance. He saw it stated before the committee that foreigners being allowed to export machinery, an inducement would arise for our best artizans to emigrate, in order to make in their adopted country the machines which they now supplied at home. But he did not believe that this allowance would increase emigration, for it was clear that even now when a foreigner wished to establish a manufacture on an extensive scale, he did not rely on the assistance of persons totally unacquainted with machinery, but availed himself of the services of those who had a practical knowledge of his business. He did not think, at all events, that the question of emigration was any longer open to discussion, the artizan having a perfect right to transfer his services to any country he chose.
Mr. Laboucherewould give his support to a bill for abolishing the last prohibition
510
which deformed the statute-book. He was sure that by doing so he should promote the interests of the British manufacturer, and also the lasting and well considered interests of the great body of the people generally. The only objection of any weight he had heard against the bill was, that it ought to have been brought forward at an earlier period of the Session. He, however, knew the difficulty that a Minister had to contend with in finding time for trade measures in this House. At the same time, knowing how strongly the manufacturers of this country felt on the subject, he thought the question should have been submitted to the House before the Members whose opinions were of consequence had left town. He could not, however, refuse his assent to the bill on that ground. He must say that the proposal of the hon. Member for Ashton was the most extraordinary he had ever heard. If the hon. Member had said he should resist this bill from the facts declared before the committee, there would be reason in such course, but to say that this subject should be examined again by a committee after having been discussed again and again, was a course which he was sure the right hon. Gentleman could not possibly accede to. The hon. Gentleman had made a sort of personal attack on him because he bad not taken the chair of the committee. He found he was not able to attend so sedulously as so important a question required, and he had, therefore, requested his right hon. Friend and colleague (Mr. Sheil) to take his place. He was astonished to hear the sort of sneer in which the hon. Gentleman indulged as to his right hon. Friend's commercial knowledge. The hon. Gentleman shared in what was a very common mistake, that it was impossible for one of the great and extraordinary abilities, and brilliant eloquence of his right hon. Friend, to apply his mind with advantage to practical subjects. If he (Mr. Labouchere) had ever entertained such a notion, his intercourse with his right hon. Friend would have dispelled it; for he knew his right hon. Friend applied his mind, not only with the greatest willingness, but with the greatest success, to many commercial questions. He admitted that it was a matter of regret that ministers had not included corn and sugar in the changes of last Session; but that they had not done so was no reason for resisting such a bill as the present. It was much more advantageous to have the

511
manufacture of machinery here than to deprive foreign countries of the opportunity of procuring it from us. He remembered when he was one of a commission to treat with the French, one of the commissioners whom he met, said there was no one thing it was so difficult to persuade the people of France of as that we desired fair terms of commercial intercourse, when we kept up this prohibitive law as to machinery. And he must say with good grounds, for how could we ask the law as to silk manufacture to be changed and put on a footing of fair interchange, when this anti-social, anti-commercial prohibition was staring them in the face. He quite agreed with Mr. Deacon Hume that whatever duties were levied for revenue on imports our exports should be left as free as possible. We should make England the workshop of the world, and every one should be free to take away our manufactures without let or hindrance. It would be, perhaps, ungracious to ask why the principle announced to-night by the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Trade, was not acted upon in the tariff, and why such a wretched duty as that on China clay was retained? He was glad that the Government had not proposed a duty on the exportation of machinery; the only wise course was the complete abolition of restriction. The choice which, under existing circumstances, we had to make was whether we should export machinery, or the ingenious mechanics who made machinery. For many years past large numbers of our most skilful mechanics had been taken abroad to manufacture machinery there. It was not yet too late for England to become the machine mart for the world, and that he trusted would be the result of the measure.
Mr. Brothertoncould not support the amendment proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Ashton. It was impossible to prevent the exportation of machinery. During the past year 500,000 l. worth of machinery was exported through the Custom-house, and it might fairly be assumed that twice as much was smuggled out of the country. This being the case, it was advisable to legalise the export, and he was satisfied that the interest of our manufactures would not suffer by it. The manner in which manufacturers had come forward to support this measure ought to convince the Government that they were sincere in advocating the removal of all restrictions on commerce.
Mr. Humewas delighted in comtemplating the proceedings of the House that evening, involving as they did the recognition of a great principle for which he had long contended in spite of much opposition, and the ultimate triumph of which he now witnessed. The law respecting the exportation of machinery had hitherto been a dead letter; it would now he placed upon a proper footing. He would mention a fact which would show the injurious effect upon the employment of labour which resulted from the absurd restrictions in the exportation of machinery which at present existed. Last autumn a gentleman whom he knew, received an order to make a 100,000 l. worth of machinery for a foreign country. He said he could not undertake the order until he knew whether he could have a licence for exportation, and as the matter was pressing, and no delay could be allowed, the order was sent to be executed abroad. As soon as the new system came into operation, this country would have the benefit of every new invention from abroad; all would be brought to this country to be manufactured. He hoped the present measure would prove the harbinger of future changes in the direction of free trade. He thanked the Government for what they had done, and gave full credit to the right hon. President of the Board of Trade for the able statement which he had made.
Mr. Rosssaid that a general desire prevailed amongst all parties interested in the flax manufacture in the north of Ireland that the bill should not immediately become the law of the land. The flax manufacturers of Ireland were at present labouring under difficulties which had resulted from the restictions imposed by France on the importation of linen yarn. He knew that some manufacturers had carried on their business during the winter at a very small profit, whilst many had suffered severe losses. On this occasion, he spoke the sentiments of his constituents for himself was a free-trader, and thought that the arguments of the right hon. President of the Board of Trade were unanswerable. His constituents, also, were free-traders, and, with them, the passing of this bill was only a question of time.
Mr. Duncansaid, that he had not heard a single individual engaged in the flax manufacture express any objection to the bill.
Mr. Cobdenexpressed regret, that any

513
amendment should have been moved to the motion for the second reading of this bill, by a gentleman holding free-trade opinions. He was acquainted with many of the constituents of the hon. Member for Ashton, and he firmly believed that very few of them would be found to agree with that hon. Gentleman. He should be wanting in justice if, on the present occasion, he were to withhold his support from the Government; at the same time, though he approved of the bill, he could not approve of the arguments by which the right hon. Gentleman opposite had recommended the measure. He gave his support to the bill because he was opposed to every description of monopoly, and he believed, moreover, that the measure might easily be justified with reference to the interests of the manufacturers themselves. A few years ago they would have arisen as one man to oppose any proposal for allowing the exportation of machinery. At that time there was a restriction, not only on the exportation of machinery, but also on the exportation of artizans. Neither restriction had, however, been of any real avail. In every large town on the continent there had long been an abundance of English spinners, weavers, and other artizans, all helping to teach the natives to rival us in our machinery, and instead of our having a monopoly, there might be said to be schools all over the continent for teaching the latest improvements in machinery. He should not mix up the question of corn, or other matters with the present discussion; but he could not help saying, that he saw the time fast coming when the farmers, for whose benefit, it was said, the Corn-laws had been passed, would become as warm advocates for the repeal of those laws, as many of the manufacturers now were for the abandonment of all restrictions on the exportation of machinery.
Mr. Williamssaid, that if the working classes of this country were in the same position with respect to the prices of food as the working classes of foreign countries, there could be no objection to the proposed measure: but one-half the wages of the English artizan were taken from him by the laws which regulated the prices of corn, and other articles. He wished Government not to deal thus with parts, but to bring forward rather a great and comprehensive measure embracing the whole of our commercial policy. Let Government do this, and he would have no ap-
514
prehension as to the result. But there was great danger in taking the system piecemeal. In proof of this, he might instance the effect which the change introduced last year into the watch making trade. The reduction had had the effect of throwing a very large number of workmen out of employ. With respect to the argument that we ought to set an example of liberality to foreign nations, he would ask, after what they had seen, what chance there was that foreign nations would follow the example we set them? By a comprehensive measure the Government would be enabled to relieve the industry of the country from the pressure that now weighed it down. They must come to it at last, and the sooner they did so the better. He did not say that a measure like this ought not to pass, but he thought there ought first to be some further inquiry.
Dr. Bowringsaid, that there could be no danger to our manufacturers in allowing the exportation of machinery, for, of course, machinery would continue cheaper in the country whence it was exported, than in those to which it would be carried.
Sir R. Peelsaid, there was one argument of the hon. Member for Coventry on which he was desirous to make a few observations. The hon. Gentleman alluded to the proceedings of some foreign governments, which, notwithstanding the reduction that had taken place in this country in the duties on their produce, had nevertheless, increased the restraint on the introduction of British manufactures. No doubt some foreign countries had acted in such a spirit, but he (Sir R. Peel) wished that those who directed public opinion in those foreign countries could hear some of the complaints that had been made in this country with respect to that course. He wished they could hear the statement of a Gentleman of great judgment and experience, Mr. Herdman, of Belfast, whose evidence on the subject now before the House had been more than once referred to that evening. Mr. Herdman was an opponent of the measure under discussion, and complained much of the recent restrictions imposed by France and Belgium on the introduction of linen yarn. He called those countries our commercial enemies; but he wished that the manufacturers of those countries could hear what, according to Mr. Herdman, had been the effects, on time linen manufacturer of those restrictions. Mr. Herdman said:—

515
"The policy of France in this case has been most injurious to her own interests. Under the system of admitting English linen yarn, she had increased her native manufactures, was becoming almost independent of Belgium, and was beginning to compete with us in foreign markets. On the reduction in the price of linen yarn here, caused by the French tariff, the price of the manufacture has been enhanced to the French consumer, and a great part of her own people have been thrown out of employment; at the same time the reduction in price of yarn has enabled us so effectually to compete with French linen that we have completely driven it out of the foreign market. The Belgian manufacturers, in consequence of the enhanced price, have lost nearly every foreign market, except France.
It was at the instance of France, be it remembered, that Belgium imposed this increased duty on yarn. Mr. Herdman went on:—
"As matters stand, I consider that by the hostile tariffs of France and Belgium those countries have lost much more than we have lost."
He did not despair, notwithstanding these hostile tariffs, that in a short time the effects of those tariffs on the countries that had imposed them would become so apparent as to lead to a relaxation of the system of which those tariffs formed a part. He had himself been a Member of the committee which sat in 1841 for the purpose of inquiring into this subject, and he thought there had never been an inquiry more creditable to the mercantile intelligence of this country. The whole question was exhausted in the course of that inquiry, and it would be a complete farce now to renew it.
Sir R. Fergusonsaid he would not have risen, but that the right hon. Gentleman, in reading the statement of Mr. Herdman, had stopped in the middle of a sentence, and he (Sir R. Ferguson) was anxious to complete it. Mr. Herdman went on to say:—
"But if we give them the weapons by which we have obtained the commercial victory, without any corresponding concessions on their part, we shall only deserve what in a few years must take place—the total annihilation of the mutual trade between the two countries."
That was the opinion of Mr. Herdman, and if machinery was allowed to be transferred to the Continent, he must join him in thinking that such a policy would be likely to inflict a severe injury on our trade.
The House divided on the question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of question." Ayes 96; Noes 18: Majority 78.

List of the AYES.

Aldam, W.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E

Bannerman, A.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Barclay, D.

Lincoln, Earl of

Baring, hon W. B.

Lyall, G.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Barnard, E. G.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Beckett, W.

Marsham, Vict.

Blackburne, J. I.

Masterman, J.

Boldero, H. G.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Borthwick, P.

Morison, Gen.

Bowring, Dr.

Napier, Sir C.

Boyd, J.

Newport, Visct.

Broadley, H.

Nicholl. rt. hn. J.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Brotherton, J.

O'Brien, A. S.

Bruce, Lord E.

Oswald, A.

Buller, C.

Palmerston, Visct.

Clerk, Sir G.

Pechell, Capt.

Cobden, R.

Peel, rt. hn. Sir R.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Peel, J.

Collett, J.

Plumridge, Capt.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Protheroe, E.

Cripps, W.

Rose, rt. hn. Sir G.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Round, J.

Duncan, G.

Scott, R.

Dundas, Adm.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Eliot, Lord

Smith, B.

Elphinstone, H.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Escott, B.

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

Ewart, W.

Stanley, Lord

Forster, M.

Stewart, P. M.

Fuller, A. E.

Stuart, Lord J.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Stuart, H.

Gibson, T. M.

Sutton, hn. H. M.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Tennent, J. E.

Gordon, hn. Capt.

Tomline, G.

Gore, M.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Wakley, T.

Greene, T.

Ward, H. G.

Hale, R. B.

Wawn, J. T.

Harcourt, G. G.

Wood, B.

Hardinge, rt. hon. Sir H.

Wood, Col.

Hawes, B.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Hill, Lord M.

Wyse, T.

Hope, hon. C.

Yorke, H. R.

Hope, G. W.

Young, J.

Howard, hn. C. W. G.

Hume, J.

TELLERS.

Hutt, W.

Baring, H.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Pringle, A.

List of the NOES.

Acton, Col.

Forman, T. S.

Allix, J. P.

Grogan, E.

Archbold, R.

Henley, J. W.

Broadwood, H.

Ingestre, Visct.

Darby, G.

Mitchell, T. A.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Morris, D.

Flower, Sir J.

O'Conor Don

517

Ross, D. R.

Rushbrooke, Col

TELLERS.

Sheppard, T.

Hindley, C.

Sibthorp, Col.

Williams, W.

Main question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND—BENEFICES
Sir James Grahammoved the order of the day for a committee of the whole House on the Church of Scotland Benefices Bill.
On the question that the Speaker do leave the Chair.
Mr. P. M. Stewartsaid, nothing but a knowledge of the importance of this subject to the country with which he was connected, would induce him to add even a few minutes to the length of this expiring session, by any remarks on this ill-timed and ill-advised bill. The dilatoriness of the Government in introducing this bill was only to be equalled by the precipitancy with which they were now hurrying it through, at a moment when the Commission of the General Assembly had met to judge of the merits and demerits of the measure, all tending to raise suspicion against the measure. The Church of Scotland had been allowed no time to take the measure into consideration, and pronounce an opinion on it, as she had undoubtedly a constitutional right to do. Coming down from the other House, denounced by all the great authorities of the law, and only upheld in that House by a political majority of eighteen, if he looked on the bill as a party measure, he would be content to leave it where it was. If the sentiments of the representatives of Scotland who were most interested in the question, and best able to appreciate its bearings, were to have any weight with the House, he begged to remark that the bill had been opposed by a majority of two to one of the Members from that country; and such had been the preponderating majority of Scotch Members on every occasion, when this subject was discussed; but the indifference with which Scottish affairs were viewed here, induced a disregard of the consequences which the course pursued in settling them might produce. He did not complain of any unkindness of feeling towards Scotland on the part of the representatives of England, but this indifference had always prevailed, even so long ago as the time of Lord Clarendon, who remarked that, at the commencement or the troubles of 1638,
518
although the people of England had manitested the greatest anxiety to learn what was passing every week in countries so remote as Germany, Poland, and Turkey, they were utterly incurious respecting what was passing in Scotland. Lord Clarendon's words are, "no men ever inquired what was doing in Scotland, nor had that kingdom a place, or mention, in one page of any gazette;" and yet we all know the important part which Scotland took in the period alluded to. No event of a domestic character had taken place within the memory of living men, so important to Scotland and to the whole Christian world, at the late sad destruction of the Scottish Church. It might well be asked why, in this case, involving as it did the most momentous interests of the people of Scotland, they had been turned over to the Noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. If they had had the benefit of the masterhand of the Premier, from his experience, and from the impartiality he had shown in the destribution of Church patronage in Scotland, they might have expected a better result. The associations connected with the Gordons of Haddo, in the minds of Scotch Presbyterians, were not of the most national or patriotic character. He spoke in the presence of his hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Aberdeenshire, and near relative of the noble Foreign Secretary, and his hon. Friend would correct him, if he was wrong in saying, that every title which that family had received, they had gained by unremitting opposition to the Presbyterian interest. In Charles I.'s time, John Gordon of Haddo was second in command to Huntley, of the forces raised to oppose the Covenanters, and he was made a Nova Scotia Baronet for his conduct at the Battle of Turriff. "Haddo's Hole," so well known in Edinburgh, was his prison, whence he was led to trial and execution by the Covenanters whom he had persecuted, and his estates were forfeited, and not restored until the restoration of Charles II.; and the Noble Lord's ancestor, when Lord Chancellor of Scotland, had been distinguished for his hostility to Covenanters and Presbyterians, down to his retirement from the Privy Council, as the history of Bishop Burnet fully showed. He was the first Earl who received that honour for his persecution of the Covenanters; and, quarrelling with his brethren of the Privy Council, he resigned office,

519
and retired to the country, to avoid taking the oaths of allegiance to William III. The people of Scotland would as soon expect to gather figs from their native thistles, as expect any pure Presbyterian measure from the hands of a Gordon of Haddo. The bill came down, marked with the disapprobation of the most eminent Judges of the other House, as declaring that to be law which was not law, and overturning the authority of the judgment pronounced in the highest judicatory of the realm. Lords Brougham, Cottenham, Langdale, Campbell, had all strenuously opposed it; and, if report spoke true, even the highest law officer of the kingdom privately condemned the measure, which, out of deference to his colleagues, he supported in his place in the House of Lords. The most distinguished men who remained in the Church of Scotland, the Moderator of the General Assembly, Dr, Cook, Dr. Bryce, and others, so far as their individual opinions were known, all denounced the bill. For what purpose, then, was this bill brought in, but to increase the dissensions which prevailed, and shut the door for ever against the possibility of any future conciliation of those who had quitted the Church. Who asked for it? Who wished for it? Who supported it? None but one or two individuals—the noble author of the bill, who cherished a sort of paternal attachment to it, and an individual in Edinburgh, who had much to answer for, distinguished as he was in the evils which had vexed the Church. If the Commission of the Assembly which just met should oppose the bill, as he believed they would, he hoped that Government, notwithstanding the disregard which they had shown to the wishes of the Church, would at least act on the constitutional principle of not forcing on the measure against the declared opinions of the General Assembly. They had only the solitary opinion of the Solicitor-General in favour of the bill, and he would like to ask his right hon. and learned Friend whether that opinion was merely official or a real one? Did the Attorney-General agree in it? If so, where was that distinguished lawyer in all those discussions? Had he said anything in reply to the able arguments of the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Rutherfurd)? Was not his opinion the same as that of the majority of the lawyers in the other House, that this was an unjust measure? The pre-
520
amble of the bill was enough to condemn it in the judgment of every Scotsman. It professed to narrate those statutes on which the Presbyterian rights are founded, and having quoted the acts 1567 and 1592, it jumped over the most important of all,—the Revolution Settlement of 1690, with the Claim of Right, and the Union Settlement, with the Act of Security—and embraced its sister in principle, the Act of Bolingbroke 1712. The doctrine of non-intrusion of ministers against the will of the people was established by the provisions of the act of 1592, and that of 1690 confirmed the system of Church government erected by the former. The authority of the Second Book of Discipline, notwithstanding what had been alleged to the contrary, was ratified by the Acts of 1592 and 1690, for they expressly confirmed the "discipline" of the Church as then established; and the Second Book of Discipline states, that
"An election is the choosing of such persons as are most able for the office of minister, by the judgment of the eldership and the consent of the congregation."
There was another authority of eminence which had not been quoted on this subject, which was strongly in favour of the same view. He alluded to the opinion of William Grant, Lord Prestongrange, who says that
"Patronage, though not abolished at the Reformation, was subjected to the strict control of the Church judicatories, which invariably required the concurrence of the parishes."
This regulation was established by the acts of 1567 and 1592. It would not go down either with the Scotch lawyers, who best knew their own law, or with the people of Scotland, that there was no statutory settlement of the principle for which the Church of Scotland had been contending. They had it from the Judges who had decided the Auchterarder case—the bitter and fertile source of all these discussions—that if Parliament persisted in enacting this measure, and in declaring that to be law which was not law, there ought to be a re-hearing of that case, and on re-hearing it, they declared they would reverse their judgment. This was a confirmation of the views of the brilliant minority of the Court of Session, who had taken a different view of the case from that of the House of Lords, and among whom were Lords Jeffrey and Cockburn, and Fuller-

521
ton, and Ivory; and last, not least, Lord Moncrieff. He said, therefore, that there was a cruel hardship in the fate which had fallen on the Church and people of Scotland, which, though beyond redemption, ought to excite the deepest sympathy for those who, like himself, had been forced to leave the Church of their fathers, for striving for that which now appeared to be the rights of the Church of Scotland. The provisions of the bill showed the confusion which must have existed in the minds of its framers. It enacted that, on objections being made by any one or more of the congregation, the Presbytery might reject the candidate for reasons assigned; while another clause directed that the Presbytery should have regard to the number and weight of the objectors. What was this but "show me the man and I will tell you the law." Being thrust out from the Church of his fathers by the late dissensions,—being a member of the Free Church of Scotland,—he thanked God he was out of the reach of legislation such as this. But still there was an invasion of the constitutional rights of the remaining Church, and of the people of Scotland, by this bill, which it became every Member of Parliament of that country to oppose. There was a pertinacity on the part of the right hon. Baronet in pressing forward this bill, not by strength of reason, but by reason of strength, which he could not account for. A majority of the Scotch members were against it when discussed in full House; and the whole weight of legal authority in this country was against it, with the exception, indeed, of the hon. and learned Solicitor-general, who had acknowledged, in trying in vain to answer the speech of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rutherfurd), that he was not so well conversant with Scotch law as that right hon. Gentleman; and the Lord Chancellor, who, he believed, had expressed opinions adverse to the present bill. He believed that that noble and learned Lord had, in writing to an hon. Member, condemned the bill. However that might be, and they were welcome to the last edition of his Lordship's opinion, the Government had, by a denial of the rights of the Scottish Church, split that Church into two, and divided families and those who had been heretofore friends. The gentlemen of England who were about to visit Scotland would find Scotch-
522
men in thousands and tens of thousands, on the sides of their mountains and in the depths of their valleys, cheerfully worshipping their God; and where such cheerfulness may be dimmed by the tears of humanity, the source of those tears would be easily traceable to the Claverhouse cruelty of that unrighteous Legislation which had driven them from the graves of our fathers and brethren. Throughout this dreary Session, he had abstained from addressing the House, and from troubling a too-troubled Government. He had left it to the Representatives of Ireland to thank the Government for the continued prosperity of their fine but ill-governed country, and to the Representatives of England's best interests—her agricultural, manufacturing, commercial, and shipping, for the full measure of prosperity with which these were blessed, and also to the men of Wales, to offer their gratitude for the peace and quiet which brooded over their shores and mountains. But now, when Government, in the exercise of its only virtue—he meant that impartiality with which it confers, not its favours, but its disfavours, on every portion of our land, and on every one of our great national interests—now that it pounces with venomed beak upon Scotland, he must be forgiven for making this effort to avert and void off the blow. When at the close of this long and worse than useless Session, he found a Government with a commanding majority at its back, and too much at its beck, struggling day and night, wasting alike the light of the noontide sun and of the midnight oil, in forcing through Parliament such measures as the Coal-whippers' Bill, and the Irish Arms Bill, and this wretched attempt at useless legislation for Scotland. He must be forgiven for reminding the Government of that celebrated couplet, by which Windham once enumerated the faults of a Government not worse than the present—
——"Your faults—they are but two; There nothing good you say, there's nothing right you do."
This bill was not right, it was not just, it was neither a lawful nor a constitutional act. A distinguished writer had said, that—
"Every struggle for liberty in Scotland since the Reformation has been by Presbyterians. Under an administration favourable to liberty they have been cherished, while under

523
Governments of an opposite stamp the utmost pains have been taken to oppress and destroy them."
The present bill was one of oppression to the remaining liberties of the Church of Scotland, and an act denounced by every great law authority, deprecated as he believed it would be, by the few eminent men now left in the Established Church of Scotland, as giving dangerous power to the clergy of that Church at the cost of the people, and as containing that monstrous principle, "Show me the man and I will tell you the law." He called on the Government to desist from their unwise course, and on hon. Gentlemen opposite to refuse to aid and abet in such a deed of monstrous injustice to Scotland and to the Christian world at large, and with confidence he turned for support to every friend of civil and religious liberty, on whichever side of party politics he might be ranged. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving that the House do on this day three months resolve itself into the said committee.
Mr. Humeseconded the motion, because it affected Scotland in a particular degree, and it came before them with powers to alter the constitution of the Church of Scotland. The Church of Scotland was a popular body; the bill would place in the bands of an oligarchy a power which would destroy that constitution. He wished, then, for a little time. What purpose could it answer to force on the measure? No man demanded it. The Government incurred a great responsibility in taking this course to hasten a measure altering the constitution of the Church of Scotland, which ought not to be done without great deliberation.
Dr. Boydknew nothing of late years which had so much agitated the Presbyterians of Ireland as the state of the Church of Scotland, as well as the question of Presbyterian marriages, which he should not then go into. The Presbyterians who settled in Ireland upwards of two centuries ago, had persevered against the greatest difficulties in introducing peace and order into the province of Ulster, and had raised it to the position it now occupied. The question of Repeal of the Union, had been attempted to be urged and advocated in Ulster, but the Presbyterians of the north would not listen to those attempts. The Presbyterians of the north of Ireland had since their settlement
524
there enjoyed the right of selecting their own clergymen—they had greatly increased in numbers and importance. When they first settled there, their numbers were so few that their clergy consisted only of five individuals. They had now 500 clergymen, and the numbers of the Presbyterians had increased to nearly a million. The Presbyterians of the north of Ireland warmly sympathised with their brethren in Scotland—a fact which the House could form a judgment upon when he assured them that in Belfast the sum of 3,000 l. was subscribed in one evening for the assistance of their brethren in Scotland. He hoped the bill would be postponed, and that the Government would at a future period bring in a measure of a more liberal kind.
Mr. Pringletrusted, that a measure which was now so near its final stage, and which was calculated to set at rest the excitement which had for some time prevailed in Scotland, would not be postponed, but that, on the contrary, the House would lose no time in passing it. It was said that the Church of Scotland had had no time to take the measure into consideration; but no question had been more discussed than this of the Church of Scotland. If the General Assembly wished to discuss the question, they might have long ago called the meeting which was held yesterday; but the fact was, that that meeting was only the usual quarterly one. If there was any one legislative measure more desirable than another, since the Auchterarder decision, it was the one then before the House. An ample opportunity had been afforded parties in the Church who were opposed to this bill of expressing their opinion upon it; and if two Presbyteries had petitioned against the bill, all other Presbyteries had had an opportunity of following their example if they had chosen to do so. It had been said that this measure was opposed to the wishes of the Church of Scotland, but such was not the fact. It was the most anxious desire of the Church that this bill should be adopted. He believed that if this bill was passed into a law, and fully carried out by the patrons, the Church would continue to embrace as large a proportion of the Inhabitants of Scotland as were in connection with her before the recent secession. It was, however, true that many individuals in the Church of Scotland were opposed to this measure.

525
He, and those who entertained similar opinions, believed that it would not alter in any degree the constitution of the Church, and he hoped it would receive the the assent of the Legislature.
Mr. Bannermanasked the House to reject the bill. He had expected, after the lengthened discussion which this measure under went on its second reading and after the very small majority on that occasion in favour of the bill, that her Majesty's Government would have withdrawn it, and not have pressed forward so uncalled for a measure at this late period of the Session. He confessed he was surprised to see the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department supporting this bill. It could only operate as a salve to the consciences of some sixteen clergymen who were anxious to remain in the Church of Scotland and receive their stipends, and one of whom had lately declared in the Presbytery of Edinburgh that Ministers were solemnly pledged to carry this bill, without the slightest alteration or amendment. It professed to remove doubts existing as to the right of presentation and of rejection of ministers to the Church of Scotland. And what was it that the right hon. Gentleman had himself been doing for the last four months? He had been filling up livings for Scotland without entertaining any doubt at all as to the right of the Crown to make the appointments. Had the right hon. Gentleman been giving the congregations the opportunity of rejecting the presentees, or of making objections to be considered by the Presbytery? No such thing. The right hon. Gentleman had been acting according to the law of Scotland; and now he came down to Parliament and asked diem to stultify himself by passing an act to remove doubts, while he himself had been acting without entertaining any doubts at all upon the subject. He could not conceive what possible object the Government could have in passing such a bill. But the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government it seemed, was determined to carry this bill, and declared the other evening that he would summon the whole forces of the Government, in order to enable him to pass it. There was a pretty strong muster to-night; and, perhaps, the right hon. Baronet would even condescend to solicit Young England to unite with Old England, in passing the measure. He hoped, how-
526
ever, he would not succeed. The only object he could see the Government could gain by passing this bill would be to enable them to put something ecclesiastical into the Queen's speech; but, after the fate of the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, he hoped he would at least have the vote of the Judge-advocate against this bill. He called on the House to reject the bill.
Sir J. Grahamcould assure the House he would not trespass many minutes on their attention, and if he wanted any additional reason for that assurance, it would be found in the fact that of the last thirty-six hours he believed he had spent twenty-six within the walls of that House. Nothing, he could assure the House, but a sense of duty could induce him to address them on the present occasion. The hon. Member for Montrose had reminded the Government that a heavy responsibility rested upon them for the present measure. He (Sir J. Graham) was conscious of the full weight of that responsibility, and feeling most anxious to consolidate the strength and to secure the permanent safety of the Church of Scotland, with a view to promote the interests of that Church and of the people of Scotland—he implored the House to allow this Bill to proceed. The hon. Member who just sat down had stated that he (Sir J. Graham) in the discharge of his official duty, had nominated, or advised the Crown to nominate, ministers to the livings become vacant by the late secession from the Church. The fact was, he believed, that he had nominated fifty ministers, and he believed that nearly forty livings still remained to be filled up, and it was with regard to this state of things that he felt most anxious that the Bill should pass. He believed that the admission of the ministers so nominated was not yet complete, and that not one of them had been as yet inducted into his living, and this Bill would impose a salutary check on the patronage of the Crown, and would give to the people a full opportunity of stating their objections to each presentee. With respect to the present Bill, he believed that it was strictly consonant with the Presbyterian principles of Church discipline, and that it was calculated to give effect to non-intrusion, and that in each parish the congregations would have the largest right to object, and the Church Courts the most ample right of adjudicating. The hon. Member opposite (Mr. P. M. Stewart), who, on a former occasion,

527
had sounded a such note of anticipated triumph, had talked of the present as a lawless Bill. Now he (Sir J. Graham) confessed that he was at a loss to conceive what was the meaning of that term so applied. This Bill had come down from the other House of Parliament, the seat and fountain of authority in matters of law, yet the hon. Gentleman termed the measure lawless; and the hon. Member must well know, that any law, even with respect to the Church of Scotland, might be made or unmade, might be modified or repealed, by the authority of Parliament. The hon. Member had alluded to the protest of the Law Lords against the declaratory part of this Bill. He (Sir J. Graham) was disposed to treat those Law Lords with all proper respect, but it must be recollected that the doubts which it was the object of this Bill to remove, bad been produced by the dicta of the Law Lords with respect to points not immediately before them, and these doubts had been created by certain declarations of these very Law Lords who had protested. Now, he begged to observe there had come down from the other House a Bill for the more effectual suppression of the slave-trade, which Bill had been introduced with the concurrence of all those Law Lords who had entered into the protest alluded to by the hon. Member. This Bill which had for its object the removal of doubts, and which recited that, certain doubts having arisen as to the true construction and meaning of an Act of Parliament specified, it was expedient that the true intent and meaning of the said Act of Parliament should be explained, nevertheless assumed the shape of an enacting measure. There could be no question that it was the usual course of Parliament to have doubts removed by an enacting as well as by a declaratory form of Bill. He thought that the Bill with which the House was now asked to proceed would have the effect of removing doubts with respect to the right of the people of Scotland on the one hand to object, and with respect to the right of the Church Courts on the other to adjudicate. It was necessary for the interests of the Established Church of Scotland, and the peace of that country, that those doubts should be removed, more especially with respect to the peculiar circumstance now existing, to which he bad already adverted, namely, the large number of livings suddenly become vacant, and the number of ministers who had been nominated to fill
528
up those vacancies. He was also convinced, that this measure was necessary to arrest the progress of secession, and to stay a schism which he considered dangerous. He (Sir J. Graham) thought that the hon. Member who moved the amendment before the House had dealt rather harshly with his noble Friend (Lord Aberdeen), who had introduced this bill; and he was surprised, that that hon. Member, who knew what the feelings of his fellow-countrymen were with respect to that nobleman, had thought fit to speak of him in a disparaging manner. The hon. Member had spoken of circumstances connected with the family of Lord Aberdeen. Now, his noble Friend had no reason to be ashamed of those circumstances—he was of ancient descent—of noble birth—deeply attached to his country—zealous in its service, and that attachment and those services were repaid by the respect of the Scottish people. He was a member of the Presbyterian Church, and had evinced a constant desire to secure its peace by the early settlement of this question on which he had bestowed his most anxious care. Notwithstanding the failure of former efforts, Lord Aberdeen had persevered from an honest desire to overcome this difficulty. However, this measure was not to be treated as the measure of Lord Aberdeen alone. It was the measure of the united Cabinet, on which they had bestowed the greatest pains and attention. The hon. Member for Montrose had called it an ill-advised measure, but he ( Sir J. Graham) appealed to his Colleagues whether there was any measure on which they had deliberated with greater caution or more constant solicitude; and as to the complaint of the hon. Member for Montrose, that the measure had not been brought forward by his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government, he (Sir J. Graham) would say that he had had the benefit of the advice of his right hon. Friend, and there was no measure which his right hon. Friend had laboured more assiduously to bring to a safe and satisfactory completion. The hon. Member had stated, that in framing this measure, the Government had not the co-operation of any lawyer of eminence. In the absence of the Lord Advocate of Scotland, he (Sir J. Graham) might appeal to any one acquainted with that part of the kingdom whether there was any lawyer practising at the bar in Scotland, or he might even say upon the bench, whose opinion was entitled to more respect in matters of

529
law than that of the Lord Advocate. Now this Bill had been drawn by the Lord Advocate and had received the entire sanction of the Solicitor-general. The hon. Member opposite had talked of the splendid talent and profound learning by which the minority of the Scotch judges who had differed on this question were distinguished but they (the Government) had the opinion of the majority of the Scotch judges with them, and he might confidently say that the balance of authority rested on their side. The necessity for this bill was most urgent, for he believed that, unless it should pass the secession, which they all so deeply deplored, would be much extended; and, considering all the circumstances connected with the present state of Scotland, he never felt a more deep or decided conviction of the policy of any measure, and now for the second time he strongly urged the adoption of this bill. Something had been said about the absence of the support of the General Assembly. He (Sir J. Graham) relied on the declaration made in answer to her Majesty's letter to the General Assembly—that letter in which the principles of the present bill were clearly enunciated. He did not now allude to the Commission of the General Assembly but to the body itself, who, in terms, distinctly declared their confidence in her Majesty's Government, and in the principles of this measure, after it had been announced to them—nay, the very draft of the bill itself was perfectly well known to them at the time; it had been frequently considered by them; in substance it was the Bill of Lord Aberdeen in 1840, to which the majority of the remaining members of the Church had subscribed adheranee; and their confidence having been fully expressed, on their support the Government could confidently rely. The hon. Member who had just sat down had relied on two stray petitions, which had been presented from two different places in Scotland, against this bill, and in one of which he stated that Doctor Cook had concurred. Now, Doctor Cook could not have been a party to the petition from St. Andrews; and it was impossible that Doctor Cook could object to the present bill, for a resolution, moved by him in the General Assembly, in 1833, was the groundwork of Lord Aberdeen's original bill. He (Sir J. Graham) felt a strong desire that this measure should not be impeded, for he was satisfied that if passed it would be conducive to the stability of the Church
530
established by the law in Scotland, and to the best interests of that people, whose happiness had been disturbed so unfortunately by religious strife and by fanatical contention.
Mr. Collett; Before proceeding to a division, I wish, Sir, to say a few words, and I can assure Gentlemen opposite, that if favoured with a moderate degree of attention, I shall not only not occupy the House for ten minutes as promised by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, but I shall not trespass on its patience for upwards of one minute. The same reason which induced me, Sir, to support the measure last under our consideration, will oblige me to vote against the present. I voted, Sir, for the second reading of the Machinery Exportation Bill, because, like the Canada Corn Bill, I considered it a step in the right direction—a little step it is true—but still a step in favour of free-trade, and I vote against the Church of Scotland Benefices Bill, because, I consider it a step in the wrong direction. I am, Sir, for free-trade in corn, I am for free-trade in machinery, and I am for free-trade in parsons. And it is because I consider this bill to militate against this principle of free-trade in parsons, that I shall give my humble but determined opposition to it.
The House then divided on the question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question:—Ayes 85; Noes 54: Majority 31.

List of the AYES.

A'Court, Capt.

Darby, G.

Allix, J. P.

Denison, E. B.

Antrobus, E.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Bailie, H. J.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Balldwin, B.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Baring, hn. W. B.

Eliot, Lord

Beckett, W.

Escott, B.

Blackburne, J. I.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Bodkin, W. H.

Flower, Sir J.

Boldero, H. G.

Fuller, A. E.

Borthwick, P.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Botfield, B.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Bramston, T. W.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Broadley, H.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Broad wood, H.

Greene, T.

Bruce, Lord E.

Hale, R. B.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Hamilton, G. A.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Cardwell, E.

Herbert, hn. S.

Clerk, Sir G.

Hope, hn. C.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Hope, G. W.

Cripps, W.

Hornby, J.

Damer, Col.

Ingestre, Visct.

531

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Jones, Capt.

Sandon, Vist.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Scott, hn. F.

Lincoln, Earl of

Sibthorp, Col.

Lockhart, W.

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

Lygon, hn. Gen.

Smollett, A.

Mackenzie, T.

Smoerset, Lord G.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Stanley, Lord

Manners, Lord C. S.

Stanley, E.

Marsham, Visct.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Mildmay, H. St. J

Tomline, G.

Newport, Visct.

Trench, G.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Vivian, J. E.

Oswald, A.

Waddington, H. S.

Palmer, G.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Wood, Col. T.

Peel, J.

Wortley, J. S.

Pollington, Visct.

Young, J.

Rashleigh, W.

TELLERS.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Baring, H.

Round, J.

Pringle, A.

List of the NOES.

Archbold, R.

Hutt, W.

Barclay, D.

Layard, Capt.

Baring, rt. hn. F. T

Leveson, Lord

Barnard, E. G.

Morris, D.

Bowring, Dr.

Morrison, Gen.

Boyd, J.

Napier, Sir C.

Brotherton, J.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Buller, C.

O'Brien, W. S.

Byng, rt. hn. G. S.

O'Connell, M. J.

Clements, Visct.

Palmerston, Visct.

Cobden, R.

Pechell, Capt.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E

Plumridge, Capt.

Collett, J.

Ross, D. R.

Duncan, G.

Russell, Lord E.

Duncombe, T.

Scott, R.

Dundas, Adm.

Sheil, rt. hn. R. L.

Easthope, Sir J.

Smith, B.

Elphinstone, H

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Ewart, W.

Stuart, Lord, J.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Ward, H. G.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Wawn, J. T.

Forster, M.

Wood, B.

Gibson, T. M.

Wood, G. W.

Gore, hon. R.

Wyse, T.

Hawes, B.

Yorke, H. R.

Hill, Lord M.

Hindley, C.

TELLERS.

Howard, hn. C. W. G.

Bannerman, A.

Hume, J.

Stewart, P. M.

Bill passed through committee, and was reported.

MOVEABLES (SCOTLAND).
Mr. Elphinstonemoved, that the Moveables (Scotland) Bill be committed.
Mr. Mackenzieobjected to the bill, and moved, that it be committed in three months.
Sir J Grahaminformed the House, that the Lord Advocate of Scotland, whom he had consulted, was opposed to to the bill. The learned Lord described
532
the bill as partial, and likely to create confusion, while the principle, were it properly carried out, was not objectionable.
Bill withdrawn.

CHELSEA OUT-PENSIONERS.
On the motion, that the Chelsea Hospital Out-Pensioners Bill be read a second time,
Mr. T. Duncombewished to know what was the object of this bill, as it appeared to him, that it was of a dangerous character. Was it a bill for increasing the army, or was it intended by it, to make a new constabulary force in England and Ireland, as the Home Secretary might think fit. He should be glad if the gallant Secretary-at-War would furnish some explanation as to the intentions of the Government with respect to this bill.
Sir H. Hardingereplied, that when he introduced this bill, he explained the object of it, and stated, that last year he introduced a measure, which received the sanction of Parliament, by which it was enacted, that the out-pensioners of Chelsea Hospital should be paid for the future, by half-pay officers named by the proper authorities. These men, when under proper control, might be found to be a most fit force to assist the civil power, and they might be called out tinder the command of the half-pay officers who paid them their allowances, and might be armed in case of emergency, for the maintenance of the peace. Last year it was found necessary to call out bodies of these men in various parts of the north of England, and they could only be armed with staves. The men when thus called upon to serve, had no option as they were old soldiers in receipt of pensions from the Crown. He conceived, that it was not just, that they should be placed in such a position, that they could hardly defend themselves when called out to maintain the law against those who were breaking it. There was no constitutional ground to object to such a body, for objection might be raised on the same ground to any yeomanry or volunteer force. This body could only be called out and armed on the responsibility of the Government, and when the Secretary for the Home Department declared that it was necessary for the maintenance of the public peace. At present, the men could only be summoned by the magistrates to act as special constables, whereas, it was

533
proposed by this bill, that they might, under certain emergencies, be called upon to serve as soldiers under the officers of the district who paid them. The hon, Gentleman wished to know what new necessity there was for this. He would reply, that last year, during the disturbances at Manchester, upwards of 300 of these men armed with constables' staves, were obliged to fly before the mob; and, he believed, that if they had been properly armed, that they would have produced a great moral effect. When he recollected what occurred last year in the manufacturing districts, he thought that this was a proper precautionary measure, which ought not to excite jealousy, as the men could not be called out until the necessity arose.
Lord Clementswas satisfied, that this bill was of a most objectionable tendency, to enable the Government to bring out these men as an aid to the army. He thought also, that the measure was a great hardship to these men, who might be called away from their families at a moment's warning to perform their duties.
Sir Henry Hardingeobserved, that the Crown could now at any time compel the service of these men, and this certainly might at particular times be attended with hardship. In 1819 he felt this, when ten veteran battalions were formed from these men. All that was now proposed, was, that these men should act as it were as leaders of armed special constables, and not in veteran battalions or in garrison, as they might be called to do at present. The bill, therefore, as far as it went, was an exemption for this class of men, and could not operate against them.
Mr. T. Duncombedid not see why these men should be placed in a better situation as regarded their being armed, than special constables. It appeared, that this measure was to follow up the act of last year, by which these men were placed under the orders of half-pay officers. From what had fallen from the right hon. and gallant officer, it almost appeared as if it were intended, that the half-starved people were to be put down by the bayonets of these men. The right hon. Gentleman did not mention Ireland, but it was obvious, that this bill was introduced in reference to that country. He understood, that 500 of these pensioners were to be found in Liverpool,
534
and if the same proportion was to be met with in other places, a large addition to the standing army could soon be made. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of these pensioners as if they were all old men, whereas, a large proportion of them were in the prime of life. It was an underhand and indirect way of extending the standing army, or of establishing an armed police. He begged to move, that the bill be read a second time on that day three months.
Sir R. Peel: Sir, there must be some Gentleman on that side of the House connected with the manufacturing districts, who knows what was the state of those districts last year, and what pressing applications were made to the Government for the despatch of military force to preserve the public peace. And what was the consequence? In order to fulfil that paramount duty, we had to send a battalion of guards to Manchester, thus making an unpleasant display of military force throughout the country. Whatever may be the distresses of the people (and which we are most anxious to alleviate), they can afford no justification for any breach of the public peace, and do not exempt the Government from the responsibility of that which, indeed, is the first duty of a Ministry—protection of property, and the preservation of the peace. It is really for the interests of the people themselves that those who are disposed to disturb the public peace should be curbed at the outset. This is a force which will lay dormant till actually required, and then will only be used on the responsibility of one of the chief Ministers of the Crown. With men accustomed to military discipline, it is far better that their old habits of obedience and order should be maintained; rather than that they should be allowed to act in small isolated independent bodies, with none of the organization to which they are habituated, exposed on the one hand to the likelihood of inefficiency, and on the other to the probability of abuse. Those who know what was the responsibility of the Government last year, will not only deem them justified in bringing forward this measure, but bound to do so by their duty to the public, and I hope the House will see how serious are the dangers against which it will guard, and how great the advantages which it will secure.
Mr. G. Woodsaid, undoubtedly the people of the north owed gratitude to the Government for their prompt energy on

535
the occasion of the unhappy disturbances last year; and he thought this a very desirable measure, calculated to render the pensioners efficient, by bringing them into service under that discipline to which they were accustomed, and for want of which they had not been so effective as they might otherwise have been on the occasions adverted to, when they were called upon by the civil authorities. He hoped he was not indifferent to public liberty; but he felt the value of public peace, and should support the measure as certain to favour the one without endangering the other, and as presenting no ground for reasonable suspicion.
Mr. Hawesthought the effect would be an addition to our standing army, but if the Government believed it required that addition for the public peace, he would not resist the measure.
Lord Ingestredeeply felt the importance of such a measure from his experience of the evils attending the intimidation practised by immense mobs such as those which disturbed the northern counties last year. He thought a less objectionable mode of strengthening the hands of Government could not have been devised. And every one admitted the measure would be justified by the necessity suggested, he would ask, how could the exigency be met unless provided for before it actually arose?
Mr. Collettasked, as the measure was to apply to Ireland, where the arms were to be deposited?
Sir H. Hardingereplied, that there would be a depot in the barracks of each town, and they would only be issued when required.
The House divided on the question, that the word "now" stand part of the question:—Ayes 53; Noes 4: Majority 49.

List of the AYES.

Allix, J. P.

Forster, M.

Bodkin, W. H.

Fuller, A. E.

Boldero, H. G.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Bramston, T. W.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Brotherton, J.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Bruce, Lord E.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Greene, T.

Cripps, W.

Henley, J. W.

Darby, G.

Hale, R. B.

Denison, E. B.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Hawes, B.

Eliot, Lord

Henley, J. W.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Ingestrie, Visct.

Flower, Sir J.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

536

Lincoln, Earl of

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

Lockhart, W.

Smollett, A.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Masterman, J.

Stanley, Lord

Morris, D.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Waddington, H. S.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Wawn, J. T.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Wood, B.

Peel, J.

Wood, G. W.

Rashleigh, W.

Wortley, hon. J. S.

Ross, D. R.

Young, J.

Rushbrooke, Col.

Sandon, Visct.

TELLERS.

Scott, R.

Clerk, Sir G,

Scott, hon. F.

Pringle, A.

List of the NOES.

Clements, Visct.

Collett, J.

TELLERS.

O'Connell, M. J.

Duncombe, T.

Pechell, Capt.

Elphinstone, H.

Main question agreed to.
Bill read a second time.

LAW OF EVIDENCE.
Sir J. Grahammoved, the third reading of the Law of Evidence Bill.
Bill read a third time.
On the question, that it do pass,
Mr. Crippsopposed the motion, which he thought ought not to be pressed at that late hour of the night in the absence of the Attorney-General.
Mr. Darbysaid, that the Attorney-General had given him an assurance, that there should be a discussion on this measure upon the third reading.
Motion withdrawn.
Further proceedings postponed.
House adjourned at two o'clock.