Commons Sitting of 31 March 1843

MINUTES.
BILLS. Public—1°. Admiralty Lands.
2°. Attornies and Solicitors; Drainage of Lands.
Private—2°.Paisley Municipal Affairs; Liskeard and Caradon Railway; Merthyr Tydvil Stipendiary Magistrate; Great North of England Railway.
Reported.—Brighton and Hove Gas; Hungerford and Lambeth Suspension Foot Bridge; Trentham Roads.
3°. and passed:—Imperial Continental Gas; Bolton Gas.

MAKING WATCHES BY MACHINERY.
Mr. Wardsaid, that in moving the second reading of a private bill, it was seldom necessary for the mover to occupy the time of the House at any length; but the bill to incorporate the British Watch and Clockmakers' Company had met with so much fierceness of opposition, that it was necessary for him, in moving this Order of the day, to say something to the House, for the purpose of removing the prejudices which might have been created by the
274
strong allegations made to the House against the objects of the bill, and the motives of its promoters. He had no personal interest whatever in the bill. He would not pretend to deny that it proposed to do by machinery, what was at present effected by manual labour, neither would he pretend to deny, that the introduction of machinery in a trade in which it had not previously been employed, was at first productive of hardship to those who were engaged in such trade; but in the result the effect of the introduction of machinery had always proved beneficial to those engaged in the trade, as well as to the rest of the community. There was no trade to which machinery could be so usefully applied as that of watchmaking. In that trade the subdivision of labour had been carried perhaps to the greatest possible extent, for there were no less than 102 branches of watchmaking. At the close of the last century this country had, in some branches of the trade, such at case making, almost a monopoly; but now a great portion of the watches sold England were made in Geneva and other parts of Switzerland, which country was now our greatest rival in this department. So that the English artisan was obliged to keep down the quality of his work, in order to meet the competition of the Swiss, He believed, that in the trade of watchmaking, the principle of the division of labour, of which they had heard so much, was carried too far. Something like concentration of labour, he believed, was now necessary to produce those improvements which had been made elsewhere. Here was a new principle, which had been discovered, and which was now in operation. He was aware, that the invention was that of a Swiss mechanic, of the name of Ingold, who had been run down in the most unsparing terms. When it was said, that watches could not be made by machinery, he (Mr. Ward) denied if. Nothing was impossible to machinery in the present day. When they saw what had been accomplished by steam, how could it be asserted that anything was impossible to be affected by the ingenuity of man. He did not think it ought to be said, that they would not be able to fly in some years hence. His hon. Friend, who opposed this bill, had given his sanction to an Aeriel Transit Company. It was only by the adoption and application of new principles and improvements, that

275
they could hope to maintain the pre-eminence of England. When the hon. Member for Finsbury talked of disturbing existing, interests, and interfering with his constituents of Clerkenwell, his hon. Friend would allow him as a director and proprietor of railroads, to turn round upon him and complain of the Aerial Transit Bill. Many hon. Members had seen the machinery for making watches. He had seen it with an unbiassed mind, or if he was biassed at all, it was against the scheme. But he saw what the machinery could do, and he compared its results with what could be accomplished by the hand. Two hundred watches could be made by this machinery for every thirty-six that could be made by the hand. The barrel could be turned in one minute by machinery, while it now took two hours. The lower plate a principal part of the watch, could be finished in twenty minutes, it took two days by the hand. That was declared to be impossible at the meeting from which the petition presented by the hon. Member for Finsbury, emanated. The wheel and balances could be made by hundreds, where by the hand they can only be made by dozens. The pivots, which now took a week, could be made by machinery in a quarter of an hour, with the most beautiful accuracy. Mr. Hewit, a gentleman who possessed the most accurate knowledge on the subject, which no one could dispute, and who carried off all the Admiralty prizes, stated, that so powerful was the machinery, that one set of machines would perform as much work per day as 300 men. The hon. Member for Finsbury would say, if the machinery was so effective, why was it not put into operation; but the fact was that the machinery was extremely extensive. The undertaking required, accordingly, a very large capital, and by the present law the patent could not be held by more than twelve persons. All they asked for was, to transfer the power of the patent to more than twelve persons. The object of the projector of this patent was, of course, the substitution of a cheaper process in watch-making, for that which now existed, to combine greater accuracy, greater dispatch, and greater cheapness, in the production of the article, than had hitherto been exhibited. He (Mr. Ward) for his part wished to see the trade in watches restored to this country, and the English artisan in possession of the foreign market. The principle which he was
276
seeking to establish, was already partially in use in Switzerland; and the projector of this design, had brought the very highest testimonials from Paris, as to his uniform probity. If the House should think fit to refer the bill to a committee, they might modify the clauses in any way they pleased, all he entreated now was, that they could not without inquiry reject a proposal which he believed to be of great importance to a great branch of our national industry.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, he could assure his hon. Friend that the opposition which he was about to offer to the bill did not proceed, on the part of his constituents living in Clerkenwell, from any such ground as his hon. Friend had stated. They did not object to the bill on account of any injury which it might cause to their own separate interests. If it could be shown that the bill would be beneficial to the country at large, they would be quite ready to forego their opposition. He thought, however, that he should make it clear to the House that of all the bubbles this was the greatest. His hon. Friend had made some omissions in his statement, which he would endeavour to supply from the prospectuses put forth by the promoters of the bill. They began with a scheme for raising a sum of 250,000 l.—it was not to exceed 500,000 l. In the first prospectus they stated:—
"That, by means of the plan now submitted to the public, and with the assistance of numerous artificers, every part of a watch may be manufactured in the same place, and under the same superintendence, and consequently cannot fail to be incomparably superior to any produced under the existing system. A first-rate watch may be completed in one week, which at present cannot be accomplished under six."
It was in October or November that this prospectus was issued. But, notwithstanding- this great bait to the public, not a single share was applied for. Under these circumstances, the directors put forth another statement, to the effect that Mr. Ingold having devoted his attention for more than twenty years to the manufacture of watches, had succeeded in discovering an invention, by which an incredible number of watches, of every variety of size might be made in a day. Yet, notwithstanding that announcement, they were unable to persuade the public to take one of their shares. They then came to Parliament, and said that the public will

277
surely buy parliamentary watches. There was no part of this bill more remarkable than the preamble—it was unlike the preamble of any any other bill that bad ever been Introduced. The preamble set forth that—
"Whereas the parties hereinafter named ware satisfied of the advantages to be derived from the application of this invention."
The preamble of all other private bills set forth that the adoption of the proposed plan would be of great national advantage, and the country looked to the House to ascertain that such inventions would be of national advantage. The preamble then set forth that the machinery of Mr. Ingold was of so extensive and costly a nature that it would require a large capital to put it into operation. That meant that they were too poor to carry the scheme into effect. Their poverty was their misfortune, and certainly they had done all in their power to remedy that misfortune. The capital of the company was to be 500,000 l. In the first prospectus it was stated that the deposit per snare was to be 5l. and in the bill it had been reduced to 2l. 10 s.; and Mr. Ingold was to be one of the managing directors of the company. He was also to have 2,400 shares in the company, without paying any contribution, and also to have one-fifth of the net profits of the concern, in addition to being one of the managing directors of the company. In a previous printed prospectus it had been stated that the capital employed would be turned three or four times in the course of the year at least, with a certain profit of thirty pet cent., and if the capital were turned three times over in the course of a year, that would give a profit of ninety per cent. Now, the profits of Mr. Ingold, the simple-minded man, on his 2,400 shares would be 60,000 l.; his fifth of the net profits would be 75,000 l., which, added to his emoluments as one of the managing directors, and the other advantages secured to him by the bill, would give to Mr. Ingold, the simple-minded man, an annual income from this company of 129,000 l. Now, was it possible, under these circumstances, that they could come before this Home and ask for its sanction? How they could have possibly deluded and deceived his hon. Friend he could not imagine. The specifications of the Aerial Transit Company were published and known to the world; but Mr. Ingold's
278
specifications were not out, and were not to be out till next May and who could tell whether there would be a patent, or any thing like a patent? Why not enrol his specifications, and let the public known at once what they were, before applying to Parliament for a Bill? He might rest his opposition to the measure upon that ground alone. This company, this cabinet council of Mr. Ingold's, had refused to give their names to a deputation of respectable and scientific men engaged in the watch-making trade, or to show them this new machinery. Nothing was proposed to be done by the company that could not be better done by a common partnership. This they might do at any time, but the fact was there was nothing in it. It was a mere scheme to raise a certain sum of money. The scheme was tried at Versailles in 1815, and failed, and was tried again in Paris, in 1840, when the French government was imposed upon in the same way as his hon. Friend. In Paris, too, it failed, and alt the people who subscribed lost their money, and it would fail if it were tried here. Let these parties have the benefit of working their invention, if it were one, but let them carry on the work at their own expense. He intreated the House of Commons not to lend their sanction to that which, they might depend upon it, was one of the greatest bubbles that ever sought to he palmed upon Parliament. That we could undersell the Swiss was utterly impossible. Supposing there was anything in the invention, there was nothing to prevent the Swiss from copying it, and using the same machinery as we used. The Swiss were quite as ingenious as we, and the price of labour was so much lower with them that it was impossible for us to undersell them in commodities of this kind. He did not rest his opposition to the bill on the ground that it disturbed the interests of a portion of his constituency; but practically scientific men told them that this scheme was a delusion. He should, therefore, move that the bill be read this day six months.
Mr. Gladstoneexpressed his reluctance to approach a question involving a discussion on a private bill. The question, however, was so peculiar, and bore so directly on an important branch of our national industry, and such urgent application had been made to the Board of Trade respecting it, that it bad been considered at that board, and he certainly had formed an

279
opinion upon the question now before the House, namely, whether or not the bill ought to be read a second time; and it appeared to him to rest upon grounds so clear and decided that he felt it an obligation to state that opinion to the House for its consideration and judgment. He was sure the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down did not require to make any apology to the House upon the score that he was supposed to advocate the interest of his constituents. He admitted that the interests of those constituents, and of all parties engaged in the watchmaking trade, formed a most important element in the consideration of that question. At the same time, the hon. Gentleman would admit that it was scarcely possible to conceive anything more deplorable than the situation of the watchmaking trade at the present moment. ["Hear, hear."] It might be well to raise cheers at the mention of displacing labour by machinery, but was it not true that our watchmakers were driven out of every foreign market in the world—that they were totally unable to maintain the interest of the trade, or secure the possession of the home markets; and that the protective duty was no better than a mockery. The effect of the reduction of the duty on the importation of foreign watches to five per cent, had been the means of causing an increase in the legal importation, but the evil of smuggling was not stopped by it, and now, having lost the foreign market, our watchmakers were day by day losing the home market. He did not say that was an argument for the passing of the bill, but it was one for giving serious attention to any scheme which bore upon its aspect a probability of improving that state of things. The question was not whether the expectations of the company were extravagant, or their prospectus ridiculous, but whether the scheme bore a sufficient appearance and probability to warrant the House, not in adopting it, but in sending it to a committee up stairs. It had been said by the opponents of the measure that no advantage could arise from the formation of the joint stock company. But it was alleged by a number of gentlemen that they required no less a sum than 40,000 l to purchase one complete set of machinery, in order to make watches upon their principle, and that that sum of 40,000 l. was to be sunk in machinery alone, irrespective of the capital required for the establishment, and
280
of the floating capital required to support the business. Was that an amount which could be fairly held to be within private means? He thought not. They should remember that individuals who had capital would not be disposed to embark it all in an undertaking of that kind. It was said that much larger sums than 40,000 l. were often sunk in business by private individuals; and that persons in the cotton-twist trade, for instance, had never come to Parliament for a bill because they required such a sum as 40,000 l. for machinery. But let them look to the immense sums engaged, and to the immense profits made, in the cotton trade, and they would find a reason for the difference in the two cases. The watchmaking business was for the most part carried on by persons of small capital; and it might be very difficult to raise a sum of 40,000 l. for machinery alone in that trade. The general rule adopted by the Legislature with respect to private undertakings was, that they should not incorporate a company for carrying on a business that might be carried on by individuals. But the House had in various instances adopted a contrary course, where that course might be supposed to be justified by peculiar circumstances. They had, for instances, incorporated the Ship Propeller Company, the White Lead Company, and the Patent Rolling and Compressing Iron Company, although large capitals had been already embarked in the business followed by some of those companies. It was said, however, that the present company had kept their specification a secret. If the parties applying for the bill succeeded in obtaining the assistance of the Legislature, there might be good reason for their keeping the specification secret. The great rival of this country in the manufacture of watches was Switzerland, in which country there was no such protection to inventions as existed in other countries, and there the invention might be pirated. It was also objected to the bill that the company did not pretend to make watches except upon a new construction. That was true. All they claimed was, that they had invented a better manner of making the parts of watches than that at present practised. That was expressly stated in their patent, which the hon. Member for Finsbury described as the greatest bubble in the world. Another objection to the bill was,

281
that the scheme would never come to any good—that the intention of the promoters was only to apply an enormous capital to the trade, and to overpower individual competition. But there was one way in which the House could guard against that abuse, and that was to insert a clause to prevent the company from making watches in the ordinary manner. Another objection was that the project would injure the existing trade without any national benefit. Now, for his part, in supporting the bill, he had no motive whatever, except a wish for the national good; and, therefore, in looking at the number of persons and the extent of the trade which would be affected by it, he was of opinion that the bill ought to have a more exact, laborious, and accurate investigation, than was ordinarily given to private bills. For this reason, if the bill should obtain a second reading, he would recommend that it should not be referred to an ordinary private bill committee but to a select committee appointed by the House.
Mr. Laboucherethought the House ought to be very careful, lest, by the course proposed, they should break through the common course pursued by Parliament. If they wanted no special privilege, no bill was required. He was not one who looked with unqualified admiration at the present law of partnership in this country. That law ought to operate equally and fairly upon all parties. The general principle which ought to be adopted was not to give any exclusive or particular advantages to any party conducting any ordinary branch of trade, unless that branch could not otherwise be conducted. It was not any important improvement in machinery which should call for that exclusive privilege. Suppose an important improvement should be made in machinery, and they were asked to give an exclusive privilege to the cotton trade or the silk trade, would they not scout the proposal? Would they not say that there was intelligence and capital enough in the country to carry out the improvement without giving any special advantage to a certain party or a certain trade? He had great doubts as to the propriety of referring this bill to a select committee. It would be going from an established rule, and if they did so in this case they would be unable to refuse doing so in any other. He should therefore oppose the second reading of the bill.
Mr. Wakleyhad heard with surprise and deep regret, the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-president of the Board of Trade. It had involved the right hon. Gentleman in the charge of inconsistency of conduct. Could the right hon. Gentleman ever in future vote against going into committee to inquire into the operation of the Corn-laws? Could he refuse to inquire into the effect that law had on the manufacturers of this country? Although so meagre, shabby, and paltry, a case had been made out, yet the right hon. Gentleman said it was a case of investigation before a committee. Why the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten his own principles. It was only during the present Session that the right hon. Gentleman had said that it would be impolitic to make any change in the corn-laws, after so recent a change. Why the right hon. Gentleman dealt with, the watchmakers last year. There had been a reduction in the protection to the watchmakers of 15 per cent. The watch makers did not complain of this, on the contrary, they approved it. They said, "let the right hon. Gentleman do us justice with respect to food, and we will not ask for one farthing of protection." Look to the nature of the bill. It was set forth that 40,000 l. would be required to carry oat the objects of the company. It was a mere bagatelle. The money market was glutted with capital, and money could be got for 2 per cent. A banker, a Member of that House, told him that he would discount good bills at 1½ per cent. And what was the statement put forward? Why, that there would be a profit on the speculation equal to 90 per cent. No person could believe that this was a sound, valid, just, and judicious proposition, or one that ought to be sanctioned by the House. They staled it to be impossible to make watches without manufactories, and that it would require great capital. The hon. Member for Sheffield said he had seen the thing with his own eyes. It would be rather curious if he had seen it with another person's eyes. But he said the thing was clear, that it was demonstrated, that it was done. Then, if watches had been made without machinery, and without all this capital, why not proceed in the same way? What was the necessity of coming to Parliament, for, according to their own showing, machinery and capital were not necessary

283
for the purpose? The object of the company was to grant licenses to others to carry on the trade; but how were others to get the ponderous machinery that was required? If their statement was true, they had no case before the House; if false, how could they trust them at all? Reference had been made to the Aerial Transit Company. He hoped the parties making this proposition would be the first to make an experiment in that invention—and make a trip to the moon, for such persons were not wanted here. Considering how trade would be disturbed if the bill passed, he hoped and trusted that the energy of the House would be brought to bear on the question, and that it would decide honestly and justly between those parties.
Mr. Williamssaid, that he had heard the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, with the deepest regret, and if her Majesty's Government sustained the doctrine he had laid down, it would strike terror and dismay into all the manufacturers of the kingdom. His principle was, that every schemer who came forward with a new invention was to have a joint-stock company to carry out their schemes, in opposition to the law which guided the commerce and manufactures of this country.How different was the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman in reference to free-trade? The right hon. Gentleman was entirely inconsistent. How differently Mr. Poulett Thomson acted when he was connected with the Board of Trade. A bill had been brought in to establish a company for the sale of medicines, on the ground—and a clear case was made out—that the medicines sold in the shops were impure; but Mr. P. Thomson said, on that occasion, that it was the policy and principle of the trade and commerce of the country not to establish monopolies which would be destructive of a large trade already existing in this country. This company said they wanted 40,000 l. By the law of patents, twelve persons were joined together to carry out their objects. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that twelve gentlemen connected with the watch trade were not capable of appreciating the merits of the invention, and of giving 40,000 l. to promote it? He knew that they could advance a million of money if it were necessary; but he knew that the whole scheme was a perfect delusion,
284
and it could only be successful by having a bill passed through that House, and annihilating the watchmaking trade of this country, and by throwing out of employment tens of thousands of industrious persons, and by depriving them of subsistence to carry out the plan of a Swiss adventurer. The whole of the trade was in confusion and uncertainty in consequence of the agitation of this bill. The hon. Member for Sheffield had said, that the effect of the measure would be to give employment to all the watchmakers of England who were now unemployed. There never was a greater fallacy than this. He could hardly believe that the hon. Member for Sheffield was in earnest when he said it. The scheme was tried in Paris seven years ago and failed, and now this Swiss came over here in the hope that he would be more successful in imposing the delusion upon the people of this country.
Dr. Bowringsaid, he would give his support to the motion, because he was confident that it would be found upon examination, that there was in reality no invention peculiar to the promoter of this bill; but that the whole machinery had been for centuries in use upon both sides of Mount Jura. Some years ago, an inquiry was made in Paris into the causes of the depression of the watchmaking trade in that city, and it was then found that the real cause was the superior accuracy and cheapness with which all the parts of a watch could be made by means of the machinery in use in Switzerland, and which he believed to be the very same as that proposed to be protected by the bill. He was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Coventry speak contemptuously of the inventor, because he was a Swiss. Did not the hon. Member know, that it was to Frenchmen and Swiss this country owed the introduction of the silk trade?—and it was to the enterprise of those foreigners we owed the foundation of the manufacturing prosperity of this country.
Viscount Sandonsaid, that his attention was turned to this subject because the town which he had the honour to represent was one of the three principally engaged in the watchmaking trade. He would not object to a commission of scientific men to inquire into the merits of the supposed invention, and the expediency of the bill, but he should oppose the present motion.
Mr. Muntzhoped the Hous would

285
allow an old manufactures to any a few words. He would only ask how could the House judge of the merits of an invention, or pretended invention, when there was no specification? He should oppose the bill.
Mr. C. Bullersaid, that as this was a question of some importance, be wished to say a few words. He admired the straightforward and candid course taken by the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Board of Trade, and he was determined to give the bill his support. The Company only sought a fair protection from the House, and no monopoly or restrictive privilege whatsoever. On this subject a patent already existed, and all they sought was that the patent should be transferred to a larger number of persons.
Mr. Ward,in reply, said, that even if the Some refused to accede to the motion, the invention would not fall to the ground, for that, as the machinery had been completed, others would be found to perfect the invention.
The House divided on the question that the word "now" stand part of the question;——Ayes 77; Noes 154; Majority 77.

List of the AYES.

A'Court, Capt.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Aglionby, H. A.

Gladstone, Capt.

Aldam, W.

Goring, C.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Greene, T.

Grissston, Visct.

Balley, J.

Hamilton, W.J.

Baillie, Col.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Baring, H. B.

Hardy, J.

Beresford, Major

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Barnard, Visct.

Herbert, hon. S.

Borthwick, P.

Hinde, J. H.

Bowes, John

Hope, hon. C.

Bowring, Dr.

Howard, hon. C.W.G.

Broadwood, H.

Hutt, W.

Brotherton, J.

James, Sir W. C.

Browne, hon. W. Jermyn,

Earl

Brace, Lord E.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir F

Buller, E.

Lambton, H.

Cavendish, hon. G.H.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Chelsea, Visct.

Lemon, Sir C.

Clark, Sir G.

Loch, J.

Colvile, C. R.

Mc. Geaehy, F. A.

Denison, W. J.

Mainwaring, T.

Denison, E. B.

Martin, C. W.

Dickinson, F. H.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Ord, W.

Douro, Marquess of

Paget, Col.

Eliot, Lord

Polliagton, Visct.

Fitzmaurice, hon. W.

Ponsonby, hon. C. F. A. C.

Flower, Sir J.

Freemantle, Sir T.

Ricardo, J. L.

Gibson, T. M.

Shaw, rt. hn. F.

Gill, T.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V

286

Smith, rt. hon. T. R. C.

Tomline, G.

Smythe, hon. G.

Vernon, G.H.

Somerset, Lord G.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Sotheren, T. H. S.

Worsley, Lord

Stanley, E.

Wrightson, W. B.

Stuart, Lord J.

TELLERS.

Strutt, E.

Ward, W.

Taylor, T. E.

Buller, C

List of the NOES.

Adderley, C. B.

Fox, C. H.

Ainsworth, P.

Fuller, A. E.

Allix, J. P.

Gore, hon. R.

Antrobus, E.

Greenall, P.

Arkwright, G.

Gregory, W. H.

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Grimsditch, T.

Barnard, E. G.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Barrington, Visct.

Guest, Sir J.

Beckett, W.

Halford, H.

Berkeley, hon. Capt. F. G.

Hallyburton, Lord.

Blake, Sir V.

Bodkin, W. H.

Hampden, R.

Broadley, H.

Hastie, A.

Brocklehurst, J.

Hawes, B.

Buck, L. W.

Henley, J. W.

Buckley, E.

Heron, Sir R.

Busfeild, W.

Hindley, C.

Byng, G.

Hodgson, J.

Byng, rt. hn. G. S.

Hodgson, R.

Cartwright, W. R.

Hornby, J.

Charteris, hon. F.

Howard, Sir R.

Chute, W. L. W.

Hughes, W. B.

Clay, Sir W.

Hume, J.

Clive, Visct.

Hussey, T.

Clive, E. B.

Ingestrie, Visct,

Cochrane, A.

Irton, S.

Colborne. hn. W. N. R,

Irving, J.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Johnson, Gen.

Copeland, Mr. Ald.

Johnston, A.

Craig, W. G.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Crawford, W. S.

Kelly, F. R.

Cripps, W.

Kemble, H.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Knight, H. G.

Divett, E.

Labouchere, rt hn. H.

Dodd, G.

Langston, J. H.

Douglas, Sir H.

Layard, Capt.

Duff, J.

Leader, J. T.

Dugdale, W. S.

Legh, G. C.

Duncan, Visct.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Duncan, G.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Mahon. Visct.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Manners, Lord I.

East, J. B.

Marton, G.

Eaton, R. J.

Mildmay, H. St. J.

Egerton, W. T.

Mitchell, T. A.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

Mundy, E. M.

Ellice, E.

Muntz, G, F.

Ellis, W.

Murray, C. R. S.

Elphinstone, H.

Napier, Sir C.

Escott, B.

Newdegate, C. N.

Farnham, E. B.

Newport, Visct.

Feilden, W.

Norreys, Lord

Fielden, J.

Oswald, J,

Ferguson, Col.

Paget, Lord A.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Palmer, R.

Ferrand, W. B.

Pechell, Capt.

Forster, M.

Peel, J.

287

Philips, G. R.

Towneley, J.

Flumptre, J. P.

Trelawny, J. S.

Plumridge, Capt.

Trollope, Sir J.

Ponsonby, hon. J. G.

Trotter, J.

Repton, G. W. J,

Tufnell, H.

Richards, R.

Turner, E.

Rolleston, Col.

Turnor, C.

Ross, D. R.

Vane, Lord H.

Round, C. G.

Verner, Col.

Russell, Lord J.

Wakley, T.

Russell, Lord E.

Walker, R.

Sandon, Visct.

Wall, C. B.

Scholefield, J.

Wawn, J. T.

Sheppard, T.

Wood, Col.

Sibthorp, Col.

Wood, Col. T.

Smith, A.

Wood, G. W.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Wyndham, Col. C.

Stock, Mr. Serjt.

Wynn, Sir W. W.

Strickland, Sir G.

Yorke, H. R.

Thompson, Mr. Ald.

TELLERS.

Thornely, T.

Duncombe, T.

Tollemache, J.

Williams, W.

Bill put off for six months.

CUSTOM-HOUSE FRAUDS.
Mr. Brocklehurstwished to ask the noble Lord who was at the head of the commission to inquire into the Custom-house Frauds, when it was probable that the report of the commissioners would be furnished.
Lord G. Somersetreplied, that the commissioners were extremely anxious to furnish the report with as little delay as possible, and he had every confidence that in the course of the Easter recess they should be enabled to present to the Treasury a report on part of the subject, and they would furnish as much of it as they could. Since the subject was last mentioned, a great mass of additional evidence had been furnished to the commissioners, and many new matters had been brought under their consideration, so that it was impossible to prepare a report on the whole subject at present, and he feared that if new evidence continued to accumulate in this way, that they should not be able to report on the whole subject during the present Session.

NAVAL DISCIPLINE.
An Hon. Memberwished to ask a question of some Member of the Board of Admiralty, relative to a circumstance which he had seen described in some of the newspapers. It was stated, that on the conclusion of the trial of Captain Elliot before a courtmartial, by which he was sentenced to be severely reprimanded on his return to his ship, he was received by the crew with such enthusiastic cheering, that the har-
288
bour of Port Royal re-echoed with it. He wished to know whether the Admiralty had received any information on this subject, and also, if it was true, whether it was not considered a most irregular proceeding, and contrary to all discipline.
Captain Gordonreplied, that the Admiralty had received no information on the subject, but if the statement of the hon. Member were correct, no doubt the proceeding was objectionable, and not in accordance with the rules of the service. Still, perhaps, some excuse might be made, as the proceeding no doubt arose from the attachment of the crew to the captain of the ship.

OATHS TAKEN BY ROMAN CATHOLICS.
Mr. Rosswished to know whether it were the intention of the Government in the Irish Registration Bill, which it was understood they intended to introduce, to insert any clause to continue or to do away with the oath which Roman Catholics had to take at elections, that they would not make use of any power, right, or privilege given to them by the bill to injure the Established Church.
Sir J. Grahamreplied, that the hon. Member had given notice of his intention to introduce a bill on the subject; he, therefore, should on the part of the Government abstain from giving an opinion on the principle of it until he heard the arguments which the hon. Gentleman would no doubt urge in his motion to introduce the measure. Her Majesty's Government had no intention to introduce any clause, or take any other proceeding on the subject.

UNITARIAN BIBLE.
Lord J. Russellsaid, that he had been requested by a number of most respectable members of the body of Unitarians to correct an error which he had committed a few nights ago. He had stated, that that respectable body did not use the authorised version of the Scriptures; he found that he had wounded the feelings of several parties by this observation, and he was assured, that he was misinformed on the subject. At the same time, he found that the version of the Scriptures by Archbishop Newcome had been introduced into some schools and places of worship.

SUPPLY POOR-LAW COMMISSION.
House in Committee of Supply. On the

289
question, that the sum of 56,508 l,, be granted to her Majesty, to defray the charge of salaries and expenses of the Commissioners for carrying into execution the Act for the Amendment of the Laws relating to the Poor in England and Wales, and the Act for the Relief of the Destitute Poor in Ireland.
Colonel Sibthorprose to oppose the vote. It was not a sum that was already due, being for salaries, &c, payable on the 31st of March, 1844, and he did not see why they should vote prospectively so large a sum of money, after they had been told, that the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, meant to bring in a Poor-law Bill upon a new principle, which he expected would reduce by a very considerable sum the expenses of the commission. Now, if that were to be the case, although he hoped the right hon. Baronet would not succeed in carrying his measure through the House, he thought it would be much more satisfactory to the country, before they agreed to this vote, if the right hon. Baronet would inform them in what state that bill now was whether it were the right hon. Baronet's intention to press it forward in the present Session, and, if so, at what period of the Session? Whenever the right hon. Baronet brought it forward, it should receive his humble opposition, He was not at all willing to allow the vote to pass unquestioned, and he should propose a reduction, though, indeed, not a reduction which would satisfy him, for he would wish to annihilate the whole commission. The charge for the assistant-commissioners was 5,000 l. He thought this a useless and unfair charge on the public, for the system took away all power from the local authorities, and was opposed to the public benefit as well as the Benefit of the poor. With regard to Ireland, he thought some system of Poor-laws should be adopted in that country, but he should not wish to see established there the same cruel system as existed in England. He moved, that the vote be reduced to 20,385 l.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, in answer to the question of the hon. and gallant Officer, that it was the intention of the Government to introduce the Poor-law Amendment Bill in the course of the present Session, but it was not intended to alter the provisions of the act of last year, with reference to the continuance of the com-
290
mission for five years. The pledge he had given with regard to the reduction of the expense of the commission, was fulfilled in the present estimate; for whereas in 1839, the cost of the commission for England and Ireland was 69,364 l., the vote now proposed did not exceed 56,000 l. He had given an assurance last year, that the number of assistant-commissioners should be reduced as far as convenient; and this pledge had also been fulfilled, for the number of assistant-commissioners was now reduced by three. He had given a similar assurance with respect to the number of assistant-commissioners in Ireland; and this assurance had likewise been fulfilled, for already one assistant-commissioner had been reduced, and he expected that in the course of the present year, a further reduction might be made. He should be sorry that the committee should come to a decision on this vote under a misapprehension as to the continuance of the commission. The hon. and gallant Officer was most desirous, that the commission should be abolished. This question had been discussed in principle and detail in the course of the last Session; and the House decided in favour of the continuance of the commission; and now the committee had to decide whether they were prepared to provide for the support of the commission, which a large majority of the House had declared to be absolutely necessary. He had stated his opinion so often on the subject, that he was almost ashamed to repeat it. The practical working of the Poor-law measure was, in his opinion, impossible, without the aid of the central committee in London, and of the assistant-commissioners throughout the country. It was expected that the executive Government should be ready to answer questions with respect to the operation of the measure in various parts of the United Kingdom, and the Government could only obtain the necessary knowledge, and exercise a general superintendence and control, over the operation of the measure, through the instrumentality of the assistant-commissioners. He had formerly used an expression, which he now deliberately repeated, that the assistant-commissioners were the eyes and hands of the Executive Government, in respect to the operation of this measure. He was anxious, nevertheless, to reduce the expense as far as possible of this branch of

291
the system, and not needlessly to multiply the number of the assistant-commissioners. The complaints against these commissioners had varied very much in their nature. It had been sometimes said of them, that they exercised too much control, but in the course of the present Session the general objection made was of an opposite nature; for whenever it represented that there had been any improper labour enforced in any workhouse, or that the health of the inmates was affected, or that there was anything wrong in the system of education in the schools, or in the details of the administration of the Poor-law, it was complained that the assistant-commissioner had not performed his duty with sufficient strictness. He could not believe, that what had been adopted by a large majority of the House last year, would now be reversed in a committee, where none but arguments which had been repeated usque ad nauseam were brought forward.
Captain Pechellsaid, he had been compelled by the manner in which the Poor-law was administered to offer to it every opposition in his power. The whole system had been one of interference with every arrangement which had been left untouched at the passing of the Poor-law Bill. Towns governed by boards of guardians, and incorporated parishes under the Gilbert unions, had been molested in every way; and this annoyance had been effected by the Poor-law commission through the agency of the assistant-commissioners.
When he saw the improper manner in which they introduced themselves into the workhouses, he felt bound to express his disapprobation of the administration of the law, by supporting the motion of the hon. and gallant Officer. The amount of the salaries of the assistant Poor-law commissioners was 6,300 l., and their travelling expenses 8,200 l. This, he supposed, included the expenses of the assistant-commissioner, who visited Sussex, and introduced himself in a smuggling manner into one of the Gilbert Union workhouses, not being known as an assistant-commissioner, and who obtained evidence from the governor of the workhouse in an improper way. A vote of censure was passed on him by the board, as well as on the individual who introduced him without any notice being given to the principal authority of the workhouse—the visitor. The object of all this interference with the
292
Gilbert-unions was to effect their dissolution, and bring them under the paternal sway of the Poor-law commission. The conduct of the assistant-commissioners had, with only one exception, created nothing but dissatisfaction. The right hon. Baronet had said the other night that be was labouring under a malady. If this were so, he trusted the malady would not visit him in such a manner as to occasion on his part any abandonment or desertion of his political principles.
Mr. Humeunderstood that the hon. and gallant Officer (Colonel Sibthorp) wished to abolish the Poor-law commission; but he did not think that any rational man could desire to return to the system which existed before the establishment of the commission. The time would come when the hostility raised against the commission would cease, and then it might be considered possible greatly to reduce the expense of the commission; but he could not contemplate the time when the country could do without some central board to carry out the details of the measure and exercise a general superintendence. The right hon. Baronet had promised to reduce the number of assistant-commissioners, and as the number did not exceed nine there was a saving under that head. He was satisfied that until the system was entirely established in England and Ireland this commission could not be done away with. He wished to know whether the report of the commissioners appointed to inquire into the state of the agricultural districts would soon be laid on the Table of the House; and whether, with respect to the school at Norwood, which was conducted on a most excellent principle, the sum of 500 l., which appeared on the estimates, was all the expense connected with that establishment?
Sir J. Grahamstated that last year, when the Poor-law Commission Continuance Act passed, the number of assistant-commissioners was twelve. He then said he thought that number might be reduced; and he had fulfilled the assurance given to the House, for the number was now only nine—not too large a number to perform the duties connected with the various unions in England and Wales. The commissioners of the inquiry into the state of the agricultural districts had made their report, and it would shortly be laid before the House. With respect to the Norwood school, which was conducted on the best prin-

293
ciples, portion of the expense was contributed by the different parishes that seat children there, and the whole expense falling en the public was 500 l.
Mr. W. Williamsobserved, that though the expediency of abolishing the Poor-law commission might be doubted, still he thought the vast expense for England and Wales, where the unions were now formed, might be considerably reduced. At present, though the unions had been formed, there were precisely the same salaries paid, the same number of commissioner and assistant-commissioners, as when the heavy work was being done. He could not understand how the travelling expenses, which were at the rate of 3l. per day, could be justified. This, as well as the amount paid to clerks, was, in his judgment, a complete waste of the public money. He should like to know what now were the duties of a secretary at 1,200 l., and two assistant-secretaries at 750 l. par annum, besides twenty-seven clerks, now that the unions had all been formed. This was an establishment totally uncalled for, and was only upheld for the purpose of furnishing places for individuals. If, therefore, the motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Lincoln was to keep the establishment to the limit to which it might be reduced, be should vote for it.
Mr. J. Fieldenwas convinced the country would be much better satisfied to return to the state of things which existed under the old system than to continue the unconstitutional machinery of the present Poor-law—a measure which had been introduced and carried for the purpose of reducing the wages of the labouring population. The right hon. Baronet, the Secretary for the Home Department, the other night had said, that a deep debt of gratitude was be to the labouring population for the patience they bad manifested under most trying circumstances, and how was that debt of gratitude paid? Why, by now keeping up a law and a set of commissioners, who had been mainly instrumental in reducing the wages of labour, and in bringing about that state of thins which occurred in the latter end of last summer. If the Legislature persevered with the law and this commission, be was convinced it would pursue a course which ere long would involve the country in bloodshed. The right hon. Baronet bad told the House, that if the committee
294
withheld this grant, the commission would be abolished. Then he contended, that every Member who voted in favour of the grant would take upon himself the responsibility of continuing the commission, and the state of things which flowed from its operation, and which placed the country in danger. The New Poor-law was intended to reduce the people to coarse food. It could not be denied, that it had had that effect, and that a serious reduction in wages had taken place. If hon. Members, then, would persevere in supporting the machinery from which so much evil had arisen, upon them would rest the responsibility, and not upon him, who had warned them of its consequences.
Sir J. Guestremarked, that it was arrant nonsense to ascribe the reduction of the wages of labour to the operation of the New Poor-law.
Mr. Wakleysaid, the hon. Baronet who had just sat down had been in the enjoyment of a flourishing trade for the last few years; but in a few years hence he would see a difference in his own district from the working of this measure. His opinion on the subject remained unchanged; he was still for the abolition of the commission. The hon. and learned Member for Bradford, who had always voted against the commission, was, in effect going to vote for it by agreeing to this money grant for its support. If the hon. and learned Member wished to give a useful and practical vote, now was the time, by voting against the salaries of the commissioners. He might rest assured there was no patriotism in the commissioners—they would not work without pay, and, therefore, by denying them the grant of their salaries, the commission might be wholly abolished. He wanted to ask the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. Graham), if he did not thing extraordinary, that the sum required for postage in the office of the Poor-law commissioners should be so great as compared with the amount required in the right hon. Baronet's own office. The sum required for the Home-office, which was in constant communication with magistrates and other authorities, was 1,300 l., while the Poor-law Commission—a subordinate office to that of the right hon. Baronet, required 4,900 l. for postage. It would appear from that estimate, that the clerks—the number of whom the hon. Member for Coventry complained of—had something to do.

295
He was very glad he had not to read all the correspondence which led to such an amount of postage, but he could not understand how that amount should so far exceed that required for the Home Department.
Sir J. Grahamsaid the correspondence at the office of the Poor-law Commissioners increased every year, and when it was remembered, that it applied to no less than 580 unions in England and Wales, it was not remarkable that the cost of postage at the Home Office was insignificant when compared with that of the Poor-law office.
The Committee divided on the question that the sum be 20.385Z.:—Ayes 14; Noes 93: Majority 79.

List of the AYES.

Blackstone, W. S.

Muntz, G. F.

Blake, Sir V.

Napier, Sir C.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Wakley, T.

Duncombe, T.

Williams, W.

Fielden, J.

Yorke, H. R.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

TELLERS.

Grimsditch, T.

Sibthorp, Col.

Hodgson, F.

Pechell, Capt.

List of the NOES.

Acland, T. D.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

A'Court, Capt.

Gladstone, Capt.

Acton, Col.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Arkwright, G.

Gore, W. R. O.

Baillie, Col.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H. I

Baring, hon. W. B.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Greenall, P.

Barnard, E. G.

Guest, Sir J.

Barrington, Visct.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Hampden, R.

Bernard, Visct.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H

Boldero, H. G.

Hardy, J.

Botfield, B.

Hatton, Capt. V.

Browne, hon. W.

Hawes, B.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Buckley, E.

Herbert, hon. S.

Busfeild, W.

Hodgson, R.

Charteris, hon. F.

Hope, hon. C.

Chelsea, Visct.

Hope, G. W.

Clerk, Sir G.

Horsman, E.

Colquhoun, J, C.

Hughes, W. B.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Hume, J.

Corry, rt. hn. H.

Humphrey, Ald.

Cripps, W.

Jermyn, Earl

Darby, G.

Johnstone, H.

Denison, E. B.

Jones, Capt.

Dickinson, F. H.

Kemble, H.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Eliot, Lord

Langston, J. H.

Escott, B.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Esmonde, Sir T.

Lemon, Sir C.

Evans, W.

Lincoln, Earl of

Flower, Sir J.

Mainwaring, T.

Fuller, A. E.

Manners, Lord J.

296

Marsham, Visct.

Somerset, Lord G.

Mitchell, T. A.

Stanley, Lord

Mundy, E. M.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Neeld, J.

Tennent, J. E.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Thornely, T.

Peel, J.

Tollemache, J.

Plumptre, J. P.

Towneley, J.

Pringle, A.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Protheroe, E.

Trotter, J.

Richards, R.

Vernon, G. H.

Ryder, hon. G. D.

Young, J.

Scrope, G. P.

TELLERS

Shaw, rt. hn. F.

Fremantle, Sir T.

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

Baring, H.

Original proposition again put.
Captain Pechellobjected to the travelling expenses of the assistant commissioners. Now that the machinery of the unions was established, he did not know what mischief could arise from abolishing the commissioners altogether; they were now employed in endeavouring to corrupt the Poor-law guardians. If the House were averse to doing away with the commissioners and assistant-commissioners, he thought, at all events, that their number might be reduced. He should move that their number be reduced by one commissioner and two assistant commissioners, which would be a reduction from the vote of 4,100 l.
Colonel Sibthorpthought the minority in the last division a most respectable one; and as many of the opponents of the New Poor-law had since the division gone to dinner, he would put it to the hon. and gallant Member, whether it were prudent to risk a reduction of the numbers of the minority by another division?
Captain Pechellwould not divide the committee upon it.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—PUBLIC RECORDS.
On the question that a sum not exceeding 11,775 l. be granted to her Majesty to pay the salaries of persons employed in the care and arrangement of the public records, &c.
Colonel Sibthorpbegged to ask what was the condition of the records? If he mistook not, there should be an annual report from the deputy keeper of records, of the state in which they were laid before the House. He did not wish to oppose the vote, but he wished to know if there were any probability of the public records being collected together in some one place of security, as well as to be informed of the condition they were in.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid,

297
in the plan for the building of the new Houses of Parliament, it was intended that arrangements should be made in that building for placing the records there. He had not since heard of anything to alter that arrangement.
Mr. H. Hindesuggested, that this vote should be postponed till the report of the deputy-keeper of the records had been presented to the House for its information.
Mr. Protheroealso thought it desirable to have this report before the House before this vote was granted. The records were being gradually classified and removed from their old repositories preparatory to their final removal. A part of them were now deposited in what was termed the Carlton Ride, the old riding-house of Carlton House, which was a most unfit place for the public records. He had observed, that on the contemplated removal of the courts from Westminster-hall to Lincoln's-inn-fields, Mr. Barry proposed to deposit all the records of the kingdom on the basement story of the present courts of law. He thought a more fitting place might be found for the records than a cellar. When cellars had been used at Somerset-house for this purpose, though with excellent arrangements, they were found not to preserve the records. Nothing could be better for this purpose than the tower proposed, or a large building like a college or library, where they might be safe from the effects of fire. Only the other day he observed a large fire near a place in which some records were deposited, but he believed that fire was now discontinued. He urged upon the Government the necessity of having a proper depository for the public records.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, he had not heard of the project of placing the records in the cellars of the new courts of law which it was intended, as was said, to erect in Lincoln's-inn-fields. At present the Government were much pressed to provide all the accommodations necessary for the various departments in public buildings; but, the present state of finances would not justify them in incurring fresh expenses. He thought that the Victoria Tower would afford ample room for the deposit of the records, and that there need be no apprehension of their destruction by fire.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—QUEEN'S PRINTER (SCOTLAND).
On the question that, 1,815 l. be granted to pay the salaries of certain officers in Scotland, and other charges formerly paid out of the hereditary revenue.
Mr. W. Williamssaid, there were, some items of the amount, the expulsion of which he should move. He referred to the sums charged for the Queen's plate to be run for at Edinburgh and at the Caledonian bunt. He also objected to the payment of a salary of 600 l. to the secretary of the Queen's printers in Scotland.
Sir G. Clerkreminded the hon. Member that some few years ago, upon the expiration of the patent of the Queen's printer in Scotland, it was proposed that the office should be abolished entirely, but it was thought necessary that some control should be exercised over the printing of the sacred Scriptures by booksellers and publishers there, and a commission was appointed, with a secretary, to whom 600 l. a year was allowed, and the duty of that board was to collate the editions of the Scriptures published by private persons with the authorized version, in order to see that no erroneous copies were issued. Besides the salary of the secretary there were certain law and printing expenses which also amounted to 600 l.
Mr. Humethought it was quite inconsistent with the present state of the public finances to pay these charges out of the taxes. They were originally paid out of the Royal purse, but when the civil list got in arrear they became chargeable to the country, and had remained so. He had thought the commission would have been entirely an honorary one. He could not conceive how 5l. could have been expended in printing.
Mr. W. Williamsthought it hard that the people of England should be taxed for horse-racing in Scotland. He knew very well that the people of Coventry would scorn to have a Queen's plate sent to them in this way.
Mr. Humethought the House ought not to consent to this vote for the Queen's plate. Indeed, though it was called the "Queen's plate" it might be more justly termed the "people's plate," for it was paid for by the people. He wished to have some more precise information as to the disposition of the sum of 1,200 l. charged for the salary of the secretary to

299
her Majesty's printers for Scotland and for printing.
Mr. F. Baringsaid, that when the printing of the Bible was thrown open it was deemed necessary, to meet objections which were urged against such a step, to adopt means for ascertaining that the editions of the Scriptures were accurately printed according to the authorized version. In order to effect this object an unpaid commission was appointed, and they had a secretary whose duty it was to ascertain the correctness of the editions. This duty was necessarily a laborious one, and it was for the payment of the salary of this officer that the sum of 600 l., included in this vote, was required. The hon. Member for Montrose objected to the vote for the Queen's plate at the Edinburgh and other races. He might observe that the expenses of similar plates in England were defrayed by her Majesty out of the civil list; but in Scotland these charges had been defrayed from the hereditary revenue of the Crown This country had taken the hereditary revenue of Scotland, subject to these charges, and if the House refused to vote them they would be thrown upon the civil list.
Mr. Williamswould not divide the House on the motion.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY — SECRET SERVICE.
On the question, that a sum not exceeding 39,200 l. be granted, to defray the charge of her Majesty's foreign and other secret services.
Mr. Williamssaid, he must object to any vote of the public money under the term of "other secret services." He admitted that it might be necessary to appropriate a sum of money for defraying the charge of foreign secret services, but he considered that no money ought to be voted for such purposes in this country. Such a vote could only be applied for the employment of spies, who were frequently the instigators and promoters of riots and disturbances. Three or four years since a return was made to the House of sums of money expended for foreign and home secret services respectively, and it appeared from that return that, the amount appropriated to purposes of this nature at home exceeded that which was expended for secret services abroad. He would move that the vote be reduced by 20,000 l. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor
300
of the Exchequer, would postpone the vote, and would lay before t e House a statement of the amount expended respectively by the three Secretaries of State, he would not divide the House.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdeclined to accede to the proposition of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member laboured under some misapprehension on this subject, for he could inform him that the secret service money required by the Home and Colonial Secretaries was just one-sixteenth of the amount required by the Foreign Department.
Mr. Humeobserved that it was a singular circumstance that for several years past the same sum, 39,200 l., had been required for this purpose.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the Government asked for the amount which they conceived would be needed, and if the whole of the amount voted was not required it went t the credit of the public.
Lord Stanleysaid, this was practically a question of confidence in the Government. The whole of this money was expended by the Secretaries of State for particular purposes, which purposes were specified— such as the discovery of treasonable conspiracies, or for obtaining information with respect to foreign states. A comparatively small portion was required for the current service of the current year. What was required for each year was precisely what Government could not communicate to the House.
The committee divided on the question that the sum be 19,200 l.—Ayes 13; Noes 100: Majority 87.

List of the AYES.

Barnard, E. G.

Pechell, Capt.

Brotherton, J.

Plumridge, Capt.

Crawford, W. S.

Strickland, Sir G.

Ewart, W.

Trelawny, J. S.

Fielden, J.

Turner, E.

Hatton, Capt. V.

TELLERS.

Hume, J.

Williams, W.

Morris, D.

Bowring, Dr.

List of the NOES.

Allix, J. P.

Broadley, H.

Arkwright, G.

Browne, hon. W.

Bailey, J.

Buckley, E.

Baillie, Col.

Chapman, A.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Charteris, hon. F.

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Clerk, Sir G.

Bernard, Visct.

Colquhoun, J. C.

Blakemore, R.

Colvile, C. R.

Boldero, H. G.

Coote, Sir C. H.

Botfield, B.

Copeland, Mr. Ald.

301

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Knight, H. G.

Cripps, W.

Lawson, A.

Darby, G.

Lefroy, A.

Dick, Quin.

Lincoln, Earl of

Dickinson, F. H.

Lockhart, W.

Douglas, Sir H.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Mainwaring, T.

Douglas, J. D. S.

Manners, Lord J.

Eliot, Lord

Marsham, Visct.

Escott, B.

Martin, C. W.

Evans, W.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Mitchell, T. A.

Flower, Sir J.

Mundy, E. M.

Fuller, A. E.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Norreys, Sir D.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Pakington, J. S.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Peel, J.

Goring, C.

Plumptre, J. P.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Pringle, A.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Protheroe, E.

Greenall, P.

Rice, E. R.

Grimsditch, T.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Halford, H.

Round, J.

Hampden, R.

Sibthorpe, Col.

Harcourt, G. G.

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

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Stanley, Lord

Hardy, J.

Stuart, H.

Henley, J. W.

Strutt, E.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Sutton, hon. H. M.

Hervey, Lord A.

Tennent, J. E.

Hodgson, R.

Tollemache, J.

Hope, hon. C.

Towneley, J.

Hope, G. W.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Horsman, E.

Trotter, J.

Hughes, W B.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Humphery, Mr. Ald.

Yorke, H. R.

Hussey, T.

Young, J.

Jermyn, Earl

Jocelyn, Visct.

TELLERS.

Kemble, H.

Freemantle, Sir T.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E

Baring, H.

Original vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—STATIONERY.
On the next vote of 232,533 l., for stationery, printing, and binding, for the several departments of Government in England, Scotland, Ireland, and the colonies, and for providing stationery, binding, printing, and paper for printing for the two Houses of Parliament, and including also the establishment of the Stationery-office,
Dr. Bowringsaid, be saw a credit of 4,000 l. was taken as expected to be raised from the sale of Parliamentary papers. It had been intended by the committee which recommended the sale of these papers, that the sate should cover the expense. He wished to know whether it was so?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer: By no means.
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, he should like to see a return of the expense of printing
302
returns moved for by individual Members of Parliament.
Mr. Humethought he could satisfy the hon. Member. A single slavery return, containing the names of slaves, and a peat many unnecessary details, had cost more for printing than all the expenses of his motions. He wished he had a percentage on the reductions that his motions bad caused. He had never moved for a return without either founding a motion on it, or using it for some further inquiry, and that within the Session.
Dr. Bowringsaid, that having had the good fortune to attract the favourable notice of the late Government, he had been employed by them, and had been offered the secret-service money to aid him in prosecuting his researches, but he always repudiated it; he had never laid out a penny of that fund, being of opinion, that it was best ail that was done for the public should be done above board.
Captain Pechellwished to know whether the new boroughs were to have the statutes sent down to them as the old ones had, and whether such magistrates as were likely to attend to their magisterial duties might have copies sent to them. He objected to the present mode of distributing the statutes.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that it was formerly the practice to send copies of the statutes to all the magistrates. This had been thought an unnecessary expense, and Parliament bad determined that the system should be reformed, and that one copy should be sent to each petty sessions. He was not disposed to return to the old practice.
Mr. F. Baringwished to press on the Government the necessity of a revision of the present mode of distributing the statutes. The new boroughs must want copies, and be thought all of them ought to have copies sent to them.
Mr. Humewas of opinion, that the system of distributing the statutes ought to be revised. Some counties through the activity of a Member had twenty copies, whilst others had but four.
Mr. Ewartsuggested, that there should be an improvement in the composition of the statutes, which was a disgrace to any country. They were composed of parenthesis within parenthesis, forming a complexity of style which contrasted most unfavourably with the simplicity which characterised the laws of other countries,

303
and rendered it necessary that each should have an interpretation clause.
Vote agreed to.

SUPPLY—LAW CHARGES.
On the question that 38,000 l. be granted to defray the expenses and law charges incurred by the Treasury,
Mr. Humeobjected to the estimate. He found, that there was an expense of 15,000 l. set down for the expenses of the late special commission. This sum, he considered too much. If the public money which was now wasted on such matters, were expended in giving the people employment it was probable that the riots would not have occurred.
Mr. T. Duncombethought this vote demanded explanation. The sum required on the face of it was 47,000 l., and the sum asked for was only 38,000 l., the expenses of the special commissions(15,000 l.) being included in the former sum.
Sir G. Clerksaid, that the sum disbursed on the average of the last three years, added to the heavy expenses incurred by the late special commissions, made a total of 47,000 l., but that the whole sum which would probably be required to cover those charges in addition to the fixed charges would be 38,000 l.
Mr. T. Duncombecalled attention to the note which said, that
"The two items in the account for fees and expenses incurred for prosecutions, &c, were formed on an average of the last three years' expenditure, ending March, 1842, which, owing to the state of the country, was of an unusually large amount, and therefore it was hoped that 38,000 l. would be sufficient to cover the expenses of the late special commissions and of the coming year."
As the total amount of the law expenses of 1841 was 28,000 l.; of 1842, 22,000 l.; and of 1843, 38,000 l., he did not see how they made this 38,000 l. on an average of the last three years. He should wish the vote postponed until they had the items of this 15,000 l. before them for special commissions to Chester, Stafford, and Liverpool. He wished to see how those Gentlemen were paid who afterwards came down to support their views in that House.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that there was a difference between an estimate and an account. This 47,000 l. was not the estimate for the ensuing year, but an account of the expenditure of the past year. The
304
estimate of 38,000 l. was explained in the note by Mr. Maule; and was expected to cover not only the ordinary current expenditure, but any outstanding debts on account of the special commission, the expenses of which formed an arrear of 15,000 l. not taken in last year's estimates.
Mr. F. Baringsaid, it was true that the 15,000 l. was an arrear for last year, but the fees to counsel and expenses of the prosecutions were said to have been framed on the average of the last three years' expenditure. If that were so, the figures did not tally. That sum was beyond the estimate of 28,000 l. and 22,000 l. for the years 1841 and 1842. If the last year was very expensive, as it was said, where did the Government get their money? The right hon. Gentleman took only 22,000 l., and yet the average expended appeared to be 32,000 l.
Sir G. Clerksaid, that the average of the last three years only applied to the two items, for fees to counsel and expense of prosecutions; that the expenses of last year were 22,000 l., that the sum proposed this year in the estimates was 23,000 l., which being added to the 15,000 l. arrear for the special commissions made up the sum of 38,000 l. The right hon. Gentleman was mistaken in thinking that the average was 32,000 l. The real comparison was between the ordinary expenses of this year with those of last. He admitted that the estimate might have been formed more clearly, but he would give any requisite explanation in reference to it.
Mr. T. Duncombecontended, that the House and the public had a right to know how the 15,000 l. had been expended, more particularly as it seemed that there was a sum of 6,000 l. more to be added to it. He could not believe that the legitimate expenses of the special commission would amount to 21,000 l., and he therefore moved that the vote be postponed.
Mr. Lambtonhoped, as the vote was quite unintelligible, that the hon. Member's motion would be agreed to. He ventured to say that not a Member in the House could explain it.
Lord Stanleysaid, it partook of the character of an estimate and account. The two items for fees to counsel and carrying on prosecutions, and which had been taken on the average of the years 1840, 1841, and 1842, amounted to 26,000 l., which, with the salaries, made 32,000 l., but it was expected that not more than a

305
sum of 23,000 l. would be required for the ordinary expenses of the year ending March, 1844, to which it was necessary to add 15,000 l., not provided for last year, for the special commissions, making 38,000 l., the amount of the vote now proposed.
Mr. F. Baringdeclared, he was stupid enough not to understand it, and unless her Majesty's Ministers were prepared to say that it would be inconvenient to the public service to postpone the vote, he should support the motion of his hon. Friend.
The Chancellor of the Exchequercould not consent to the postponement of the vote, but would give every information which could be desired respecting it on bringing up the report.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, he should divide the committee, as the Government would not give the explanation he required.
The committee divided on the question that the vote be postponed.—Ayes 43; Noes 115:—Majority 72.

List of the AYES.

Aldam, W.

Napier, Sir C.

Baring, rt. hon. F.T.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Barnard, E. G.

Ord, W.

Blake, Sir V.

Paget, Col.

Bowring, Dr.

Paget, Lord A.

Brotherton, J.

Plumridge, Capt.

Browne, hon. W.

Ponsonby, hn. C. F. A. C

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Rice. E. R.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Ross, D. R.

Crawford, W. S.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Duncan, G.

Strickland, Sir G.

Ellice, E.

Strutt, E.

Ewart, W.

Thorneley, T.

Fergusson, Sir R. A.

Trelawny, J. S.

Forster, M.

Turner, E.

Gill, T.

Vane, Lord H.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Wawn, J. T.

Hindley, C.

Williams, W.

Horsham, E.

Wood, G. W.

Hume, J.

Wrightson, W. B.

Lambton, H.

TELLERS.

Morris, D.

Duncombe, T.

Muntz, G. F.

Pechell, Capt.

List of the NOES.

Acton, Col.

Boldero, H. G.

Allix, J. P.

Borthwick, P.

Antrobus, E.

Botfield, B.

Arkwright, G.

Bradshaw, J.

Bailey, J.

Broadley, H.

Baillie, Col.

Bruce, C. L. C.

Balfour, J. M.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Baring, hon. W. B.

Charteris, hon. F.

Barrington, Visct.

Chelsea, Visct.

Bernard, Visct.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Blakemore, R.

Clayton, R. R.

306

Clerk, Sir G.

Knatchbull, rt. hn. Sir E.

Colvile, C. R.

Knight, H. G.

Copeland, Mr. Ald.

Lefroy, A.

Corry, rt. hon. H.

Leicester, Earl of

Cripps, W.

Lincoln, Earl of

Darby, G.

Lockhart, W.

Dickinson, F. H.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Douglas, Sir H.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Manners, Lord J.

Douglas, J. D. S.

Marsham, Visct.

East, J. B.

Martin, C. W.

Eliot, Lord

Master, T. W. C.

Escott, B.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Mundy, E. M.

Fellowes, E.

Murray, C. R. S.

Fitzmaurice, hon. W.

Neeld, J.

Flower, Sir J.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Forrester. hn. G. C.W.

Pakington, J. S.

Fuller, A. E.

Peel, J.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Plumptre, J. P.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Praed, W. T.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Pringle, A.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Pusey, P.

Goring, C.

Rose, rt. hon. Sir G.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Round, J.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J,

Ryder, hon. G. D.

Greenall, P.

Sandon, Visct.

Grimsditch, T.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Grimston, Visct.

Sibthorp, Col.

Grogan, E.

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

Hamilton, W. J.

Somerset, Lord G.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Stanley, Lord

Hardinge. rt. hn. Sir H.

Stuart, H.

Hardy, J.

Sutton, hn. H. M.

Henley, J. W.

Tennent, J. E.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Thompson, Ald.

Herbert, hon. S.

Tollemache, J.

Hervey, Lord A.

Trench, Sir F. W.

Hodgson, R.

Trollope, Sir J.

Hope, hon. C.

Trotter, J.

Hope, G. W.

Vernor, Col.

Hughes, W. B.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Whitmore, T. C.

Jermyn, Earl

Wortley, hn. J. S.

Jocelyn, Visct.

Young, J.

Johnstone, H.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

TELLERS.

Jones, Capt.

Freemantle, Sir T.

Kemble, H.

Baring, H.

Original question again put.
Mr. Humesaid, that if they were not to have the details of the expenditure of the sum of 15,000 l. required to defray the expenses of the late special commission, he should propose that the committee adjourn.
Sir J. Grahamthought be was not asking too much, when he proposed that the hon. Member for Finsbury should give notice of a motion for the information he required, and allow the Government twenty-four hours to consider what course they would pursue.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, the committee

307
ought not to be called on to vote the estimate without having the details of the expenditure first communicated to them. They were told to vote the money first, and ask for details after. This would be shutting the stable door after the horse was stolen. The right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) asked for time to consider whether the Government would give the details; but the contemptuous manner in which the right hon. Baronet had answered the hon. Member who proposed that the details should be given, or that the committee should adjourn, left very little hope in his mind that these details would be given. Under these circumstances, he should move that the committee report progress.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the estimate had been laid on the Table on the 14th of March, and the House had had seventeen days to consider it and to call for any information that might be required; but the hon. Member for Finsbury had waited until the last moment, and now proposed to stop the progress of public business. He put it to the committee whether the Government ought not to have twenty-four hours allowed, in order to consider whether the return intended to be moved for by the hon. Member should be granted?
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was in error in supposing he had not asked for information till the present moment. He had the other day shown to the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department a written statement of the information he wanted, adopting in that statement the precise words which appeared at the foot of this page in the estimates, and which were supposed to be explanatory of the vote. The paper, however, was returned to him, and he was informed that the Government could not understand it;—that was to say they could not understand their own words. Was there, then, anything unreasonable in his proposition to have the details of this expepditure? He should certainly move that the Chairman report progress.
Lord Stanleysaid, the sum of I5,000 l. in this estimate was required to cover bygone expenses incurred by the late special commissions; and if the hon. Gentleman required the details of that expenditure, he could give notice of a motion on the subject, and it would be competent for the Government to decide whether they would
308
accede to the motion. Let the hon. Gentleman specify what it was he required, and not now refuse to pass a vote which it was confessedly necessary for the public service to pass.
Mr. F. Baringsaid, that the postponement of the vote for two or three days would occasion no inconvenience; they had not yet come to the end of the financial year, and, with the exception of the sum of 15,000 l., not 6d. of the money proposed to be voted could be spent until next quarter. He was ready to give her Majesty's Government time to consider whether or not they would give the information asked, but still hon. Members on his side of the House had an equal right to ask for twenty-four hours' delay to consider whether the sum asked for by the Government in this instance was correct or not. If his memory served him, he believed that information in detail as to criminal prosecutions had on former occasions been given. The Government was bound, in his opinion, to give such information as, without inconvenience to the public service, might justify the vote; and he must say, that to ask now for the grant of this money without the slightest detail whatsoever, was a course of proceeding which the committee ought to meet by postponing the vote until the right hon. Baronet was prepared to give some answer to the questions put to him.
Sir J. Grahamsaid he was extremely sorry that any hon. Member should think his conduct had been contemptuous to the House; if it had seemed so, it was more from his manner than from any intention on his part. Before the Government could make up its mind as to whether the information sought should be granted or not, it was necessary to know what was the precise information asked. He was by no means disposed to say on the part of the Government that the information should not be given, but still it was indispensably necessary he should know the precise details of the information required. This could be done by a notice of motion when the House resumed. He felt the force of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. F. T. Baring), and he would therefore accede to the proposition that this vote should be postponed.
Vote postponed.

SUPPLY—THE MODEL PRISON.
On

309
the vote for a sum not exceeding 25,850 l. for the expenses of the Pentonville Prison,
Mr. Williamssaid, he did not think that too attempt now made in this prison would be successful. The cost of the prisoners was about 33 l. each per annum—more than would be expended for the best labour. He saw amongst the items a charge of 100 l. for cleaning windows, and surety that labour might have been performed by the convicts.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, that the estimates had been framed on the the report of the inspectors, and with a due attention to economy.
Mr. T. Duncombewished to ask a question with respect to this prison. The separate and solitary system had been adopted. [No, no.] He believed there was not much difference between the two. The solitary system was being confined in a dark cell; and the separate system was being confined in a light one. [No, no.] Well, then, he would call it the separate system. Now, from the report of the Superintendent of the General Penitentiary, where this system had been adopted, he found a great relaxation had taken place in the discipline in consequence of the number of cases of insanity. He wanted to know whether this separate system, which during the last eighteen months had driven fifteen persons insane in the Millbank Penitentiary, was to be pursued in the New Model Prison. A more beautifully arranged prison than the New Model Prison could not be found; but he believed, that a more rigid system even than that pursued in the Penitentiary was to be pursued there. He also understood that the turnkeys and gaolers were sworn or obliged to make some declaration as to secrecy with regard to everything that happened within the walls of the prison; and if twenty or thirty individual were driven mad, or died, or were starved to death, they were sworn to secrecy, and that it was as much as their place was worth to say anything about it. It was right that the committee should know some little of the system to be parsued there.
Sir J. Grahamsaid, it was quite evident that the hon. Gentleman was not aware of the difference between the solitary and the separate systems. No two systems could be more unlike. In the separate system each prisoner, though confined in
310
a separate cell, was daily visited by various individuals, by the chaplain, the surgeon, the officers of the prison, and by an instructor; and not only was regard paid to the prisoner's learning reading and writing, but he was visited by a task-master, who taught him some skilled labour; and so far from silence being pursued, conversation took place with all these parties, and, so far from the mind being excluded from occupation, a very large portion of the prisoner's time was actively employed. The hon. Member asked whether the system pursued was the same as that which had been pursued in the Penitentiary, and spoke of the evil results which had there taken place. With reference to the experiment in progress, be could only remind the committee that Sir B. Brodie and Dr. Ferguson were two of the governors of the institution. He was aware that melancholy results had been produced by the experiments at Mill-bank Penitentiary, and that the experiment of solitary confinement required to be closely watched; but every precaution was taken. A medical officer of the highest character had been especially chosen by the two gentlemen he had named, who resided in the institution, and saw each prisoner every day, and Sir B. Brodie and Dr. Ferguson attended as governors very frequently. To them the medical officer made reports with reference to the bodily health and mental discipline of the prisoners; reports were also made to the other governors, persons well worthy of trust, who were superadded to these. He admitted that this was a great experiment, which required to be carefully watched, but at the same time he was very sanguine as to its results.
Mr. Humeagreed in commending the excellent arrangements of the New Model Prison; but it was intended as a model. All its officers were paid; and if this were to be the plan pursued they ought to look to the expenditure and consider whether the counties could afford to introduce the principle. He did not object to the trial, but remembering how completely the Penitentiary had failed as a trial, he would caution the right hon. Baronet not to be too sanguine in his expectations. He was informed that very few of the prisoners who had undergone the discipline, and on whom so much expense had been laid out, could be cal-

311
culated on afterwards to pursue an honest life.
Vote agreed to.
The House resumed.

DRAINAGE OF LANDS.
Mr. Pusey Mr. Pusey moved the second reading of the Drainage of Lands Bill, with the view of referring it to a committee upstairs.
Colonel Sibthorpobjected to the further progress of the bill, and declared that he would divide the House.
The House divided on the question that the Bill be read a second time.—Ayes 59; Noes 4: Majority 55.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Allix, J. P.

Greene, T.

Antrobus, E.

Hamilton, W. J.

Baring, H. B.

Hardy, J.

Barrington, Visct.

Henley, J. W.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Herbert, hon. S.

Bowring, Dr.

Hodgson, R.

Brotherton, J.

Hope, G. W.

Bruce, C. L.

Hume, J.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Irton, S.

Chetwode, Sir J.

Jermyn, Earl

Clayton, R. R.

Leicester, Earl of

Clerk, Sir G.

Lincoln, Earl of

Colborne, hn. W. N. R.

Lockhart, W.

Colvile, C. R.

McGeachy, F. A.

Corry, rt. hon. H

Martin, C. W.

Cripps, W.

Morris, D.

Darby, G.

Plumptre, J. P.

Denison, E. B.

Repton, G. W.

Dickinson, F. H.

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

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Stanley, Lord

Eliot, Lord

Sutton, hon. H.

Escott, B.

Trelawny, J. S.

Farnham, E. B.

Trollope, Sir J.

Fellowes, E.

Wawn, J. T.

Flower, Sir J.

Wood, G. W.

Fremantle, Sir T.

Worsley, Lord

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Wynn, Sir W. W.

Gill, T.

TELLERS.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Pusey, P.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Palmer, R.

List of the NOES.

Ackers, J.

Borthwick, P.

TELLERS.

Ingestre, Visct.

Sibthorp, Col.

Stuart, H.

Mackenzie, W. F.

The Bill read a second time, and referred to a select committee.
Adjourned at a quarter before one o'clock.