Commons Sitting of 13 May 1847

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Loan Discount.
Reported.—Health of Towns; Towns Improvement Clauses.
3° and passed:—Poor Removal (England and Scotland); Service of Heirs (Scotland).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. S. Wortley, from a great many places, for Alteration of the Law of Marriage.—By Lord H. Vane, from Guardians of the Stockton Union, for Alteration of the Marriages Act.—By Mr. Chute, from Shropham, against the Roman Catholic Relief Bill.—By Mr. Villiers, from the Hundred of Seisdon, in the

733
County of Stafford, respecting Remuneration to Tax Assessors and Collectors.—By Mr. Dickinson and other hon. Members, from several places, in favour of the Agricultural Tenant-Right Bill.—By several hon. Members, from a great many places, for Regulating the Qualification of Chemists and Druggists.—By Sir W. Moles-worth, from Catholic Clegymen of the County of Northumberland, for Alteration of the proposed Plan of Education. —By Mr. Deedes and other hon. Members, from several places, for and against the Health of Towns Bill.—By several hon. Members, from a great number of places, in favour of the Medical Registration and Medical Law Amendment Bill.—By Mr. T. Duncombe, from Sheffield, for Inquiry into the conduct of Mr. Wilson Overend.—By Sir J. Duckworth, from Topsham, for Repeal or Alteration of the Poor Removal Act.—By Mr. Bouverie, from Port Glasgow, in favour of the Ports, Harbours, &c. Bill (1846).—By Mr. Buckley, from several Railway Companies, against the Railways Bill.—By Mr. Ord, from the Board of Directors of the Whittle Dean Water Company, against the Towns Improvement Clauses Bill.—By Dr. Bowring, from several places, for referring National Disputes to Arbitration.

POLICE CLAUSES BILL.
MR. BOUVERIEwished to know whether the Police Clauses Bill was a Government measure, as it contained many very harsh and objectionable clauses?
SIR G. GREYsaid, that he was glad that his hon. Friend had put the question, as it afforded him the opportunity of explaining to the House the position in which the Bill stood. That Bill was not, in the ordinary understanding of the word, a Government measure. It had not been prepared at the instance, nor was it introduced under the responsibility, of the Government; but it was one of a series of measures recommended by an Officer of that and the other House of Parliament, and by the Gentleman who was employed to prepare the drafts of Government measures; and it had been drawn up in pursuance of an order of the House, founded upon the report of the Committee on Private Business, over which the hon. Member for Montrose had presided last Session. It was one of the Consolidation Bills—the object of which was to include the usual clauses relating to police, inserted in local Bills in one general measure. He had, during the vacation, undertaken to direct that the draft of the Bill should be prepared; and the same course had been taken with it as with all the other Bills of a similar character—it had been referred to a Select Committee up stairs, in which each clause would be separately and fully considered. He had thought that some of the clauses inserted in the present Bill had been new clauses; but he had found out that that was not the case. If, however, they were as objectionable as they had been represented to be, they would receive every attention at the hands of the Com-
734
mittee, and be no doubt properly dealt with.

CAPTAIN WARNER.
MR. AGLIONBYasked Sir Howard Douglas whether it was his intention to call the attention of the House to Captain Warner's invention? He asked this question as the gallant Officer had already moved for certain returns of the experiments.
SIR H. DOUGLAS: In reply to the question put to me by the hon. Member for Cockermouth, I beg to say that the report and journal of the proceedings of the Commission appointed to examine Captain Warner's "long range," having proved by actual experiment, in the presence of officers of distinguished ability, at the time and place selected by him, and at the public expense, that Mr. Warner's alleged invention of an agent of stupendous power of range, over which he asserts he had acquired, by much study and expense, complete control, that he could guide with certainty—
MR. AGLIONBYrose to order. He simply asked a question: if the gallant Officer made an assertion he must be allowed to make a contrary assertion.
SIR R. PEELthought that the gallant Officer might proceed, as a simple answer might imply a favourable opinion. The question was an unusual one.
SIR H. DOUGLAS: This agent having turned out to be, as I always knew it would, one of the greatest impositions ever attempted to be palmed upon public credulity and gullibility, it is certainly not my intention so to offend the good sense of the House, and waste its time, as to call its attention (in any other form than to refer to these papers) to an absurdity which has already occupied too much of the valuable time of the House, and which I feel confident the House of Commons, the Government and the country, and all men of sound sense, science, and judgment, will now deem totally unworthy of any further consideration.

DUTY ON FOREIGN WINES.
DR. BOWRINGrose to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice—
"That this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee to consider of a reduction of the Duties on foreign Wines."
This country had already made great alterations in its import duties, and he consid-

735
ered that they should extend their liberal policy still further. The Lest method of carrying out the principles of free trade was by admitting the products of foreign countries on such terms as they should like the products of this country to be admitted abroad. By reforming our own tariffs, by encouraging imports, we should best secure the introduction of our articles abroad. We could only influence the legislation of other countries by associating their interests with our own, and giving the friends of extended trade with England additional means of action. It was a remarkable fact, that several hundred years ago the importation of wine into this country was greater than it was now. In the fourteenth century no less than 200 vessels, loaded with wine, brought cargoes from the Bordeaux district into England. If by a reduction of duty they increased the demand for foreign wines, the supply could be so increased that the price of the article would not be raised. This had been the case with regard to tea from China; and it would be so with wine, for wine was the fruit of every temperate clime; and in Europe, great as was its production, that production might be increased to an almost unlimited extent, and placed within the reach of the working classes. He believed that no limit could be placed to its importation. All wines from France paid 5s. 6d. a gallon, or about 1s. 1d. a bottle of duty. A change had taken place in the year 1831, when the duty on wine was lowered from 7s. 3d. to 5s. 6d., while Spanish and Portuguese wines were raised from 4s. 10 d. to 5s. 6d. per gallon. The consumption, singular to say, was less now than it had been twenty years ago. In 1803 and 1804, the revenue received was 2,500,000 l. for wine alone, the consumption being about 6,000,000 or 7,000,000 of gallons. In 1845 the consumption was 5,786,000 gallons, and the duty received was 1,900,000 l. In Prance, where wine was so cheap as to be within the reach of all classes, the wines which were above the common qualities paid a duty of 3,000,000 l. sterling. Wines afforded a curious history. They found that of the wines consumed in this country two centuries ago, two-fifths of the whole was the produce of France. From 1678 to 1744 it was one-twelfth of the whole consumption; from 1744 to 1785, the duties levied on French wines exceeded cent per cent the duty levied on the wines of other countries, and the importation did not approach within one-
736
twentieth of the whole demand. From 1786 to 1806 duties levied on French wines had not been one-seventeenth of the whole which had been collected, the duty having been about one third more than that levied on the wines of Spain and Portugal. Now he could not but feel great interest in our connexion with France, and he was happy to be instrumental in any legislation which promoted, either politically or commercially, our connexion with that country, and which might promote the consumption of French wines. Much had been done by the southern provinces of Franco in favour of the more enlightened commercial policy which this country was now following. He might instance the exertions of the Chamber of Commerce of Bordeaux, who had in their memorials repeatedly pressed upon the Government the necessity of taking some measures to promote free trade. More than six hundred commercial establishments had signed these representations; and be it remembered, that Bordeaux and its neighbourhood produced annually 250,000 tons of wine, of which l–50th was sent to Great Britain. It appeared, from the statement of the French Excise, by whom he had formerly been favoured with information, that upwards of 800,000,000 gallons of wine were annually produced in France, of which not more than one-thirtieth part was exported to foreign countries. Of the gross quantity thus produced, the greater quantity was sold in France, at about sevenpence per gallon, or rather more than three halfpence per quart; Count Chaptal calculated that 4,000,000 of acres were appropriated in France to the cultivation of the vine—that the produce was 900,000,000 of gallons, and the value 28,000,000 l. sterling—and he did therefore think that these were strong reasons for an alteration of the duties on the introduction of French wines. A considerable quantity of wine was produced in the Austrian dominions, as they found from the statements of Dr. Springer, who said that 3,200,000,000 gallons of wine were produced in those regions. In Hungary there were 2,000,000,000 gallons of wine produced; and in Transylvania 700,000,000 gallons per annum. No doubt, if they took the wines of these countries, the inhabitants would take their manufactures in return. Important statistics connected with the trade had been laid before the House. Wine might be obtained at 3l. per hogshead, which might be retailed at an equally low price. There

737
was no country in Southern Europe which had not the means of affording this country a great supply of wine. He had often advocated a closer commercial relationship with the countries which bordered the Danube. Those countries were now giving us corn at the time of our most disastrous need; and but for hostile tariff's they would give us drink also. Though they could not taste the ancient classical Scian and Falernian wines, still the land where these were produced existed, under the same sun, with the same soil, and the same capabilities, all of which might again be made availing. Why should not the vineyards of Mareotis, Meroe, and Tœnia, be again wakened to fertility? There were excellent wines to be obtained in Tenedos, in Cyprus, and in the islands of the Archipelago, provided the absurd regulations of hostile tariffs were broken through; and the re-introduction of the Saprian, Lesbian, Chian, and Thasian wines, might again revive the old associations of classical memory. Italy had her Montepulciano and Chianti to offer us; and he believed her ancient fame might be revived, and the Falernian, Sabine, and Cœcuban wines again appear on our tables. But in Italy the vine cultivation had been sadly neglected. He did not know any better mode by which friendly relations between those countries could be strengthened than by receiving the commodities which those countries could produce. In 1801 the consumption of foreign wines in this country had been half a gallon per head; in the present year it was not more than one-fourth of that amount. In France the consumption was stated to be eighteen gallons per head on the average of the whole population, or twenty-six gallons per head in the towns, and sixteen in the rural districts —others estimated the consumption at twenty-five per head. In a state of vassalage, the slaves of Rome were reported to have consumed sixty-eight gallons per annum; and the people are said by Cato to have consumed eight amphoræ, or about fifty-three gallons per head. If England consumed only one-fifth of the quantity of wine used in France, namely, five gallons per head, the sum which would be raised for revenue at 1s. per gallon of duty would amount to 7,000,000 l., a sum which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would surely be glad to receive. The wine duty in France produced 3,000,000 l. sterling, though it was estimated that nearly one-half escaped taxation. And, looking to
738
other countries, the diminished consumption of this country was made the more striking. In the Netherlands the consumption was twenty-four times greater per head than in England. In the Hanseatic towns it was five times greater. In Denmark, with a population of two millions, there was as much wine imported as into Great Britain, with twenty-eight millions. The facts to which he had drawn attention with regard to wine, that the increased consumption caused by a reduced duty, would enlarge the revenue to the Exchequer, was borne out by a reference to the consumption of other articles in this country. With regard to tea, it was a most remarkable thing that in 1821, when the price was 5s. 8d. per lb., the consumption per head was only 1lb.; and from 1831 to 1841, when the prices fell to 4s. 2d. and 4s. 4d. per pound, the consumption was increased to 1 lb. 4oz.; and in 1846, when, by a combination of circumstances, the price fell to 3s. 5d. per lb., the consumption increased to 1 lb. 10 oz. per head. Now, what was the effect of the reduction of duties on the revenue? In 1821, with a duty of 2s. 10 d., the revenue on this article amounted to 3,738,000 l.; in 1841, when the duty was reduced to 2s. 2½d. per lb., the revenue amounted to 3,978,000 l.; and in 1846 to 5,100,000 l. The results of this reduction of the duty were as strikingly apparent on the comforts of the people. In 1811, when the price was 5s. 11 d. per lb., the total consumption was 23,000,000 lbs.; in 1821, when the price was reduced to 5s. 2d., it was 27,600,000 lbs.; and when it was reduced to 4s. 3d., the consumption was 31,000,000 lbs. In 1841, when the price was 4s. 1d., the consumption was 36,800,000 lbs.; in 1843, at 3s. 4d., it was 39,900,000 lbs.; and the latest test which they had, viz., the year 1846, the price being lowered to 2s. 11 d. per lb., the consumption was 47,500,000 lbs. He could not but think that matters like those must make an impression on the House and the country. What, again, had been the case with brandy, on which the experiment of a large diminution of duty had been made, namely, from 22 s. 10 d. to 15 s. per gallon? In 1841, when the high duty was in operation, the consumption was 1,164,000 gallons, and the revenue receipt was 1,329,000 l.; in 1844, the consumption was 1,023,000 gallons, and the revenue 1,167,000 l.; in 1845, it was 1,058,000 gallons, and the revenue 1,200,000 l. It did not require a certain

739
number of years for the revenue to rise to the same condition it was in before the duty was reduced. One year was sufficient to reinstate the revenue; for in 1846 the quantity of brandy imported was 1,500,000 gallons, and the revenue now was as much as it had been when the duty was 22 s. 10 d., namely, 1,166,000 l. This gave them great encouragement to pursue the same course. The article of coffee bore out the same result. In the year 1841 the consumption was 28,300,000 lbs., and in 1846 it was 36,700,000 lbs., and the reduction of duty had been at one-third. The duties wore in 1841 6d. and 9d. a pound, but now they were 4d. and 6d. What, then, had been the effect of that reduction? In 1841 the revenue was 887,000 l.; and now, with so great a reduction, it was 757,000 l., a much greater amount than was returned in the year 1843, when the duties were 4d. and 8d. To take the result still later, as the months of the present year showed the amount. For the first three months of the year 1846, the sum was 186,000 l.; and for the corresponding months of the year 1847,213,000 l. So in the matter of brandy. For the first three months of this year the quantity entered was 362,000 gallons; in 1846 it was only 214,000 gallons; but in 1847 the consumption during these three months had been 271,000 gallons. Wine ought to be an article of universal consumption in this country; but the duty imposed on the article was so excessive that it was practically excluded from consumption in England. He wanted it to be accessible to the poor man. He wanted to enable him to purchase a bottle of wine at the same price he would give for a bottle of beer. Now, the Chamber of Bordeaux had stated that wine of good quality could be shipped at 3l. per hogshead, or 2½d. per bottle; at 51., or 4d. per bottle, a better wine; a still bettor at 8l., or 6½d. per bottle; and so on through various qualities, up to 4s. per bottle. At 2s. 6d. duty per gallon, these wines could be sold from 9d. to 5s. per bottle; and at 1s. duty, from 4½d. to 4s. 2d. per bottle. It appeared to him that he had made out his case. He thought he had proved to demonstration that if Government would only make the experiment upon a large and liberal scale, the article of wine might be in universal demand for home consumption. He believed it would improve the public health. It would augment popular enjoyment, increase the revenue, extend trade, and alto-
740
gether give general satisfaction. On those grounds, without troubling the House further, he would take the liberty of moving that the House should immediately resolve itself into a Committee for the purpose of reducing the duty on foreign wines.
MR. EWART,in seconding the resolution, expressed his conviction that a reduction of duty on foreign wines would give a most beneficial stimulus to the trade of this country. He considered that the questions of the reduction of the duties on wine, as well as of the duties on tea, tobaccco, and other articles, must eventually come under the consideration of Parliament as part of one great scheme. He believed that if this nation intended to do justice to its future commercial development, it would be necessary for Parliament to consider the general subject of taxation; and whenever that question came under the notice of the House, the policy of the wine duties must also be considered; but, though he took this general view of the subject, he would cordially support the more partial proposition of his hon. Friend. He did not think that the reduction of the duties on wine would in any degree impair the revenue, for he believed that the increased consumption would fully maintain the revenue at present derived from this source. He might observe that our export trade to France had very greatly increased since the reduction of our tariff; and he thought hon. Gentlemen would concur with him in opinion that it was most desirable to promote, so far as was possible, a friendly intercourse and the extension of commercial relations between this country and France.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERobserved, that the flattering results described by the hon. Member for Bolton as likely to follow the reduction of duty on foreign wines were not quite in accordance with experience; for the duty on French wines had been reduced in 1831, and it was not until 1844 that the revenue derived from duties on those wines reached the same amount which had been obtained from that source before the reduction took place. The hon. Gentleman who seconded the Motion had referred to the state of our export trade to France. He was ready to admit that it was most desirable to promote the free interchange of commerce between that country and our own; and the existence of such commercial relations would render it the mutual interest of both countries to maintain an amicable understanding. He must, how-

741
ever, remind the House that although on this side of the water the duties on most of the imports from France had been reduced, this example had not been followed by a similar liberal reduction by France of the duties imposed on the imports of our manufactures into that country. But it would be satisfactory to hon. Gentlemen to know that, though this had been the case, yet, in spite of the restrictions still maintained by France, the quantity of British manufactured goods exported to that country had increased to an extraordinary extent since the reduction of our import duties on French articles. This country had, therefore, obtained an advantage, though it had not been so extensive as it might have been if the French Government had reduced their excessive duties upon our manufactures. In 1830 the whole value of British manufactures exported to France was only 475,000 l.; in 1841 it was 3,610,000 l.; and in 1845, it was 2,791,000 l. It was clear, therefore, that this country had derived great advantage from reducing its import duties, although no similar concession had been made on the part of France. He was most desirous to promote, to the utmost of his power, the free interchange of commodities between the two countries; and for the sake of doing this he would willingly run some risk of loss to the revenue; but in the present state of our finances he did not think he should be justified in making the large sacrifice required by the hon. Member for Bolton; because experience had shown, that if the hon. Gentleman's suggestions were acceded to, there would be an immediate loss to the revenue, which could not be repaired until after the lapse of some years. Under these circumstances, therefore, he felt it his duty to oppose the Motion.
MR. P. BENNETthought that the Government ought not to be called upon to reduce duty on foreign wines until the duties on malt, soap, and other articles which were much more necessary for the comfort of the people, and for which there was a much more general demand, had been reduced. He considered that it would be much more advisable to repeal the malt tax, which pressed most heavily on the labouring classes of this country, than to reduce the duty on French wines.
MR. HUMEwas surprised that the hon. Gentleman should object to the Motion of the hon. Member for Bolton (Dr. Bowring); because, if that proposition were carried,
742
the yeomen of some counties might be enabled to drink claret, to which, he believed, they had formerly been accustomed. In 1839 a diplomatic agent was sent to Paris by the English Government to endeavour to conclude a treaty on this subject; and if that attempt had been successful, they would now have had claret in this country at 2s. 6d. instead of 5s. 6d. a bottle, and he believed the revenue would have been very considerably increased. He would put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was not possible to reduce the duty upon foreign wines without any serious loss to the revenue. He begged to refer the right hon. Gentleman to a despatch from Mr. Pakenham, which had been laid on the Table a few nights ago, referring to the result of the reduction of duties by the United States Government, from which it appeared that in the course of four months after the reduced duties came into operation, there had been an increase in the revenue of 1,000,000 dollars. They had reduced the duty on brandy; and why not now reduce the duty on wine? He had no doubt that individuals might be found ready to contract to pay the same to the revenue as was now paid in respect to the wine duty, if the duty were reduced one-half. The question was an important one, and the right hon. Gentleman ought to dispose of it in the way he had attempted.
MR. STAFFORD O'BRIENlooked upon the present Motion as a halt between free trade and protection. Free trade he took to be the abolition of all duty, and how that could increase the revenue he was at a loss to understand.
DR. BOWRINGreplied. He had heard nothing like an argument against his proposition. He thought he had laid a foundation for future reform, and, trusting that he might meet with more success at another period, he should for the present withdraw his Motion.

LAW OF MARRIAGE — PROHIBITED DEGREES.
MR. STUART WORTLEYhaving presented numerous petitions, praying for an alteration of the law of marriage as relating to the prohibited degrees of affinity, said, they were signed by 100 clergymen belonging to the Established Church, 141 Dissenting ministers, 126 solicitors, 6 mayors of boroughs, 68 magistrates, 94 town-councillors, 95 merchants and bankers, &c. He would then proceed to bring

743
under the consideration of the House the Motion of which he had given notice—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to appoint a Commission to inquire into the state and operation of the Law of Marriage, as relating to the prohibited degrees of affinity, and to Marriages solemnized abroad, or in the British Colonies."
He said that the numerous petitions which had been presented to the House on the subject of the law of marriage, proved distinctly that the question was one which excited the interest of a large portion of the educated community, and which demanded the attention of Parliament. He trusted that, in consequence of the number of those petitions which had been intrusted to his hands, he should be acquitted of presumption in undertaking to bring the subject before the House, notwithstanding its delicacy, difficulty, and deep importance. It was a subject on which much feeling existed, and with respect to which it might not be difficult perhaps to excite the sympathy of any assembly; but he wished to appeal to reason rather than to passion. His Motion was not the same as that which, on more than one occasion, had been made in reference to this subject in either House of Parliament. In 1841, a revered relation of his introduced the subject before the House of Lords, with, however, but little encouragement; and, it being near the end of the last Parliament, nothing more was done then. In 1842, this subject was again introduced in the House of Commons by one whom they would all regret not now to see amongst them, were they not aware that his absence was occasioned by elevation to a higher rank—he meant Lord Ellesmere. He was happy to find, by communications with that nobleman, that, so far from having altered his opinion, he thought the subject even more deserving investigation now than at that time. He (Mr. Wortley), however, was of opinion that it would be scarcely respectful towards the House, on his part, if he were now to renew the identical Motion of Lord Ellesmere, for the introduction of a specific measure; because, if Lord Ellesmere, with his ability and with the influence of his name, was unable to obtain the assent of the House to that specific measure, it would be great presumption in him (Mr. Wortley) to attempt to do so. But, since the measure of Lord Ellesmere was defeated (and only by a majority of 23 in a House of 223 Members)
744
—since that period five years had rolled on, and in that time there had accumulated a mass of inconvenience and hardship. He trusted, therefore, that there would be little objection to his present Motion. By it he did not seek to pledge the House to any opinion with respect to the law forbidding marriages within the prohibited degrees; but at the same time, he felt that he should not be dealing candidly by the House if he for one moment disguised the fact that his opinion was in favour of the relaxation of those prohibitions, and especially of that prohibition which forbad the marriage of a man with the sister of his deceased wife. He would undertake to show that the Act of 1835 had not only been totally inoperative in effecting the object which some of its supporters had in view, but that, instead of rendering the law more certain, it had rendered it far more uncertain, both in respect to marriages and to the questions of legitimacy and titles to property. The Act was professedly introduced to render the law certain. It was well known that, before the Act of 1835, marriages within the prohibited degrees, and among them marriages of men with sisters of their deceased wives, were not actually void, but merely voidable. In former times the ecclesiastical courts assumed the right to decide with respect to the validity of marriages; and the courts of common law so far allowed that assumption as to give effect to the judgments of the ecclesiastical courts on the subject. But, unless the ecclesiastical courts interfered, the principle of the common law of this country was, that such contracts of marriage as he had referred to were valid. But the ecclesiastical courts, trying to stretch their power, endeavoured to interfere with the question of the legitimacy of the children the offspring of these marriages; but the common law resisted this interference, assuming their legitimacy, if the marriage of the parents had not been rendered void. Hence arose the doctrine of "void" and "voidable," against which the Act of 1835 was directed. He wished here to correct an erroneous impression which had gone abroad. It was commonly supposed that the Act of 1835 was introduced to prevent marriages within the prohibited degrees, and that the noble and learned author of the Act had that object in view. This was not the case, the object of the Act introduced by Lord Lyndhurst being rather to quiet the suspense attaching to these marriages and to facilitate

745
such contracts; and the noble and learned Lord, in the inquiry respecting the Sussex Peerage, made use of the following observations:—
"With respect to the statute just mentioned, I wish to observe, that I am supposed to have brought in a Bill to prohibit a man from marrying his former wife's sister. I did no such thing. The statute simply says that such a marriage shall be void, not voidable. The statute was passed merely for the purpose of getting rid of the doubt which might for years leave two parties and their children in the belief that a valid marriage had taken place, subject, in fact, to have that marriage declared void by a suit instituted just before the death of one of the parties."
It was not Lord Lyndhurst's object to prevent marriages of this description. The Bill was brought into the House of Lords by Lord Lyndhurst, in June, 1835; and, as originally introduced by Lord Lyndhurst, provided that where such marriages had already taken place, they, instead of being voidable at any time during the lifetime of the contracting parties, should not be called in question after six months from the passing of the Act; and that with respect to all future marriages of the same description, they should not be called in question after two years from the date of the marriage. In the course of the progress of the measure, it was suggested that it would be better to make all these marriages which had taken place before the introduction of the Act, absolutely good; and at the same time it was also suggested that it would be advisable to make all such marriages thereafter contracted null and void. The first suggestion, and, unfortunately, the second also, were adopted; and in this shape the Bill passed. Now, let them consider the consequences. The object of those who introduced the clause into the Bill, rendering these marriages, in future, absolutely void, was to prevent the contract of marriages within the prohibited degrees of affinity, and absolutely to prohibit them. The prohibition had now existed for twelve years; but during that time, so far from these marriages having been prevented, numberless such marriages had taken place amongst all classes of society, from the humblest to the highest. On this point he was furnished with valuable information. There was an immense number of persons and families interested in this question, in every part of the kingdom, whose peace was disturbed by the existing state of the law. They agreed to ascertain, as far as they could, what had been the effect of the
746
statute. They employed a number of gentlemen, some of them personally known to him (Mr. S. Wortley), and with all of whom he had had personal communication, and who in the most careful and the best manner that unauthorized persons could, undertook to collect information upon this subject. They occupied themselves upon it for three months. They selected a number of towns, some with a manufacturing, some an agricultural, population; and, in short, representing the different classes of society. They went there in person, and upon the spot made inquiries; and though in three months they examined but a small portion of the country, they ascertained to their entire satisfaction the existence of no less than 1,648 cases, exclusive of those amongst the lower classes; for it was found impossible to ascertain the cases among the humbler classes; these last were not known, and for that very reason they were more numerous, such parties being able to get married when those in the higher classes could not. Of these 1,648 cases, only 196 took place before 1835, 1,364 were since; and in 88 marriage was prevented by the statute. 1,501 were marriages with the sister of a deceased wife; 147 were between parties in other prohibited degrees. In spite of the Act, therefore, an amazing number of these marriages took place. One of the highest authorities in the civil law, who was long an ornament to that House, as he was now one of the greatest ornaments of his department of the law, had stated that he had been consulted over and over again upon this subject, and that the question put to him always was how to evade the law; that he found the subject a most difficult one, and had in every instance endeavoured to dissuade the parties from contracting such a marriage, on account of the doubt which existed, and that he had even strained his own opinion of the real state of the law with that view, but that, having had hundreds of these cases before him, he had succeeded in preventing marriage in but one; a pregnant proof that this law was not consonant to the feelings of society. Among the cases ascertained, there were 5 of mayors of towns; 70 of magistrates and the upper classes, men of title and fortune, naval and military officers, barristers and physicians; 30 of clergymen and ministers of the gospel; 1,503 of the middle classes, including merchants, manufacturers, professional men and tradesmen; of labourers and mechanics only 40,

747
for the reason already stated. A more extensive collection of facts, to show the operation of the law, might undoubtedly be obtained if inquiry were made by authority of the Government, for the purpose of assisting the Legislature in dealing with so important and difficult a subject. It had been calculated by an ingenious gentleman who had given attention to this subject—and though such calculations could not approach very near to the real numbers, they were just as likely to be under the mark as above it—that there must have been some 6,000 of these marriages solemnized in England since 1835; so that the law upon the subject affected above 30,000 of the population. The real object of the authors of the Act of 1835 was to render the law certain, to quiet families, to quiet titles, to quiet consciences—in fact, to quiet society upon the subject; but, the introduction of the second clause, rendering such marriages void, had the effect of defeating that benevolent intention. First, with respect to marriages solemnized in this country. These included all the cases among the lower classes; and, in spite of the law, they were living in what was commonly supposed to be a state of concubinage. With regard to the middle classes, the great majority also married here; but some went abroad for the purpose, as also did numbers of persons of the highest station. Now, it was generally supposed that there could be but little doubt with respect to the marriages in this country; but such was the strength of feeling against this law, that every effort had been exerted to make out that these were not void; and, after much investigation, a case was laid before one of the most eminent men at the common law bar in 1844, very shortly before he was raised to the bench — Mr. Erie, whose elevation was hailed by the whole country as one of the best appointments that had been made for a number of years. The case raised the point plainly and clearly, and referred to a marriage solemnized in England; and while Mr. Erie's mind was full of the law upon the subject —for he had been counsel in the Sussex Peerage case—he deliberately wrote as his opinion, "I incline to think that the marriage with a sister of a deceased wife is valid." It was not necessary to convass that learned person's argument in detail; it was enough that a counsel of his standing should have given that opinion after the fullest consideration. Since that opinion, many other gentlemen of learning and in-
748
genuity had taken the same view; and, consequently, there hung a great doubt over the question of the validity of such marriages. The result had been, that persons interested in this subject were actually appealing to a court of error, as in the case of a man of the name of Chadwick, who was lately tried at Liverpool for bigamy, in marrying a third wife while his second was alive, the question being whether the second marriage was a valid one at all, since the woman was the sister of his first wife then deceased. The hon. and learned Member for Abingdon (Sir F. Thesiger) was also about to argue the question in a case of settlement under the Poor Law; and the validity of many titles might be dependent upon it. The law upon the matter, independent of the Act of 1835, rested on various statutes of Henry VIII., Mary, and Elizabeth; and the general opinion was, that if the Act of 1845 did not prohibit the marriages in question, they were not prohibited by any Statute, though there was one decision to the contrary, and that the canons of 1603, not having been ratified by Parliament, did not bind the laity. It must be under the ecclesiastical law, if at all, that these marriages could be avoided, independently of the Act of 1835; and the most that could be contended for in that view, under the statute or the canon law, was, that they were voidable, and not void. The doubt as to the law became infinitely greater in the case of marriages solemnized abroad. The law of this country recognised a marriage as valid if solemnized according to the law of the place where it occurred; and, consequently, unless the Statute of 1835 constituted a personal incapacity-—as some contended, but as, he thought, it did not —a marriage solemnized abroad might effectually evade the law. But upon this there was every shade of opinion. Some held that a marriage abroad was good, even if solemnized between parties who— as in the cases of resort to Scotland—went there for the purpose, and intending to come back immediately; others contended, that though that was not good, yet, if the parties were domiciled abroad, and intended to stay there, their marriage would be regulated by the law of the foreign country, and might be good notwithstanding our statute; and a third class, including eminent lawyers, as also did the two former classes, insisted that by this statute there was stamped upon the parties a personal incapacity, which accompanied them

749
wherever they went; and that, even though their domicile were established in a foreign country, they could not escape from the prohibition imposed by this Act. This point affected chiefly the richer class, who were best able to pass over to another country; and it must be remembered, that they were the owners of property, and their settlements and the title to their estates became liable to doubt in consequence of the state of the law. With regard to Scotland, it was stated in the text books that marriages there within the prohibited degrees were void; but he had in vain endeavoured to trace the authorities for the statement; and, though he found authorities for the position that such marriages were voidable, he was not able to satisfy himself even of that. He believed the law of Scotland on this subject to be dependent on the Levitical law; and the immense preponderance of opinion in this country, both among lawyers and divines, was, that the Levitical degrees did not include the relationship in question; and, if so, persons crossing the border might contract a legal marriage, notwithstanding the statute. A benevolent object of the Act was to relieve children from suspense during the lifetime of their parents, since the marriage might formerly be disputed during the joint lives of the parents; but where the effect of a marriage out of England was doubtful, the suspense was now perpetual, and at the distance of a century the question might have to be tried whether parties were domiciled in France, or in Holland, or Hanover — a question depending upon whether they intended to stay there or to come back—a question almost impossible to be ascertained after twenty years. Many titles must thus be rendered insecure for years and years, because of such marriages. That was an intolerable state of things; and it had been very widely felt. Several petitions had been presented with respect to it from solicitors, a most intelligent class, well acquainted with the subject, and speaking apparently against their interest; for difficulties and suits would be multiplied by the law being left in its present condition. In 1841 a petition was presented to the House of Lords, signed by seventy-seven leading firms of solicitors in London, well conversant with titles, and with the deeds and muniments of landed property; and they stated—
"That the effect of the existing law, which prohibits marriage within certain degrees of affinity,
750
admits of serious doubts as applied to such marriages solemnized abroad; that your petitioners have reason to believe that numerous marriages of this kind, especially between widowers and their deceased wives' sisters, have been solemnized abroad since the passing of the Act of the 5th and 6th of William IV.; that in the opinion of your petitioners such a state of the law is highly inexpedient, being calculated to create doubts as to the legitimacy of children, to promote litigation amongst the nearest relatives, and to place the titles to numerous estates upon an insecure footing."
There were also petitions from a great number of country solicitors. Since that time it had been ascertained that these marriages abroad had been continually taking place, and were increasing in number. Since he gave his notice of Motion, scarcely a day passed without some new case coming to his knowledge; within the last forty-eight hours he had heard of one which took place within a very recent period, between parties in the highest ranks of society, who went abroad to avoid the statute. He was not perhaps in a situation to state his facts in such a way that Parliament could legislate at once; but he apprehended he had made out a case for inquiry. He had been told it would be said, "Although you do not wish to pledge the House upon the question of marriage within prohibited degrees, the very granting this commission will raise a doubt whether they ought not to be allowed." But was it necessary, in order to raise that doubt, that this Motion should be carried? Was not the question being canvassed in every society? Was not the crying evil such as must, sooner or later, force itself upon the House? Was it not best to make inquiry at once, that the new Parliament might have the facts before it? If he could conceive that it could do any injury to society to alter or to investigate the law which was supposed to prohibit marriage with a wife's sister, he would be the last to propose it. But what was the case in other Christian and Protestant countries? Why, we were almost alone in this regulation, with the exception of some of the cantons of Switzerland, and those certainly not the most likely to be followed by us as legislators. When the same Sovereign ruled these dominions and Hanover, he was in the habit—George III. was in the constant habit—of granting dispensations to enable persons in Hanover to marry, notwithstanding a relationship which was supposed to make a marriage between them unlawful here—it was the custom and the law of Hanover. In France these

751
marriages were allowed by dispensation previous to the Revolution; at the Revolution there was no law upon the subject for a time. Subsequently a commission was issued, and their opinion was in favour of such marriages; but the ultimate result was, that they were prohibited, as the marriages of uncles and nieces were prohibited, though the extraordinary distinction was drawn, that a dispensation might be obtained in the latter case. In 1832, after the experience of a great many years, France returned to the law which existed prior to the Revolution; and nothing was so easy as to obtain the dispensation necessary for contracting such marriages. In that country provisions were introduced into the law which prevented the possibility of these marriages being turned to immoral purposes. The only objection to the Motion which on the present occasion he would venture to meet, was the objection that, in raising doubts upon the subject by instituting an inquiry, the peace of families would be disturbed. But it was disturbed as the law existed. No young woman, it might be alleged, could incur blame for taking charge of the family of her deceased sister under their own roof. He denied the validity of the argument— he denied the fact. Could a young woman with safety go to reside with her brother-in-law when he was a widower? Could she do so without bringing reflections on her own character? Among the middle classes, for example, the result of investigation showed that she could not. A correspondent, who had taken pains to make himself acquainted with the state of feeling on the subject, said—
"In regard to the position of a deceased wife's sister, who, as the law now stands, after her sister's death, resides in the house of the widower, I found it everywhere acknowledged that no woman could without provoking scandal live permanently with the husband of her deceased sister. In the middle classes, to whom, from various causes, the idea of marriage with a deceased wife's sister is perfectly familiar, the progress of scandal, where the parties live together, is rapid and decided; for if circumstances make a match of the kind feasible —the state of the law being put out of the question—it is generally looked upon by the neigh-hours as the best thing that could happen. As to the lower orders of society, they are quite incapable of comprehending the considerations of refined delicacy on which the law has been defended; and during an inquiry which lasted for more than two months I did not meet with one man or woman in humble life who considered marriage with a deceased wife's sister improper. You will draw your own conclusion from this fact."
Another correspondent said—
752
"I have been much struck with the frequent instances which I find of scandal being exceedingly busy where the wife's sister, being at all a young person, lives in the house of a widower. I have never met with a case of this sort without hearing, more or less, malicious remarks, and, in many cases, from the very persons who were professing opinions hostile to the marriage on the ground that they ought to be as brother and sister."
A young woman, then, could not live in the house of her brother-in-law, after the decease of her sister, without scandal; and that such was the case appeared further from the fact, that when young women who were willing to devote their care and attention to the children of a deceased sister had attempted to do so, they had not been able to remain in such a position; the parties had been forced to set the law at defiance, and endeavour to obtain elsewhere that sanction to their marriage which was refused in this country. And, further, could it be denied that the present law led to immoral consequences? Not long ago a most painful case came before the public at the assizes in one of the midland counties. It was the case of a young woman, who, up to that time, had borne a most irreproachable character, and been placed in a most respectable station; she resided with her brother-in-law, and assisted him in the post-office. They formed an attachment, and applied to two clergymen of the town with the view of being married. But both clergymen refused to celebrate the marriage. Not long after, that unfortunate young woman was tried as a common felon; and though the prosecution failed to bring home the charge on which she was arraigned, there was no doubt from the evidence that criminal intercourse had taken place between the parties. He thought he had shown how injuriously the great uncertainty of the law in its present state affected society; and the evils to which it had given rise established the necessity for instituting inquiry. He held in his hand a remarkable petition from the city of Lincoln, signed by all the clergy with the exception of the dean. The petition was as follows:—
"That, in the opinion of your petitioners, it is of the last importance that the law affecting the validity of marriages and the legitimacy of children should be clear and well-defined. That, as your petitioners are informed, the effect of the law as it now stands, admits of great doubt in cases of marriages with a deceased wife's sister, which are of the most common occurrence. That, although your petitioners are by no means advocates for such marriages, they humbly conceive, that as the uncertainty of the law may have tended to encour-

753
age the celebration of them between parties whose sentiments on the subject differ from their own, it is expedient that all marriages of that description which have been solemnized since the passing of the Act of 5th and 6th William IV., c. 54, should be declared valid, and that the law with reference to similar marriages in future should be clearly defined."
Their opinion was in favour of a relaxation of the law, so as to make existing marriages valid. On the other hand, there were many clergymen who not only thought the present uncertainty of the law a cruel grievance, but were satisfied from experience that the law ought to be relaxed. He could refer to the opinion of the late Dr. Tattershall, who had frequently shown his anxiety to facilitate such marriages; and he could refer also to the opinions of the Rev. Mr. Close, of Cheltenham; of the Rev. Mr. Hatchard, one of the clergymen of Plymouth; and of the Rev. Mr. Hill, Archdeacon of Derby, whose learned diocesan esteemed him as one of the best clergymen in the diocese. There was no division of opinion among them as to the necessity of a remedy for the present evil. If it was conceded that some inquiry ought to be granted, it only remained to decide what shape that inquiry should assume. He repeated that he thought it hardly respectful to the House to propose a Bill under existing circumstances. His first impression was in favour of a Committee; but, considering the period of the Session at which they had arrived, he had abandoned the idea, especially as he was not prepared to give up the whole of his time to the inquiry, which he should feel bound to do if he sat on such a Committee. He had, therefore, proposed a Commission, which possessed peculiar advantages, and by which the inquiry might be fully, liberally, and confidentially conducted; for it was desirable that the commission should have power to take evidence under seal of confidence. He had now stated the grounds on which he asked the assent of the House to his Motion. He had anxiously avoided saying aught to offend the feelings of any Gentleman whose views differed from his, or attempting to pledge the House to any specific opinion. But, if he had succeeded in showing that so great uncertainty existed as to the law on the subject, and that so great mischief was thereby wrought to society in regard to property, morals, and the intercourse of families, he did hope that Her Majesty's Government and the House would consent to his proposal, that an Address should be presented to Her Majesty praying for the appointment of a
754
Commission of Inquiry. When that Commission had reported, it would be for the House to consider whether measures should not be taken to relieve society from the embarrassment, excitement, and trouble attendant upon the present unsettled state of the law.
Sir G. GREYsaid, that it only remained for him to express on the part of Her Majesty's Government their concurrence in the Motion. The grounds which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had stated so clearly to the House in favour of his proposition, were amply sufficient to justify an inquiry into the existing state of the law. After the observations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, it was unnecessary to enter at any length into the reasons which induced Her Majesty's Government to think it advisable that an inquiry should be instituted. It was enough to say that the law was at present in a most unsatisfactory state; he was satisfied of this from his own knowledge; but it was, further, in accordance with the experience of others who had the fullest means of information, and whoso opinions were entitled to the greatest weight. Such an inquiry as it was now proposed to institute would enable them to see their way more clearly to a remedy. The law of 1835, instead of accomplishing the object it was intended to accomplish, removing the doubts previously existing on the subject, had increased the difficulties which attended marriages of this nature, and to a considerable extent had also led to immorality. It was but an act of charity and justice that the law should be cleared up in some way or other; and the course proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was the best which could, under the circumstances, be pursued. Persons might be appointed on a commission whoso opinions were entitled to the greatest weight, who were fully competent to conduct such an inquiry, and who could devote more of their time to it than Members of that House, in other respects perhaps qualified to take part in an investigation. In acceding to the Motion, he begged to state that he did not wish to express an opinion as to what the law ought to be. The uncertainty of the existing law had been proved to his own satisfaction; and, under these circumstances, he was certainly prepared to give his assent to the Motion.
SIR R. H. INGLISregretted that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had given

755
his consent to the Motion. It was true, indeed, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bute (Mr. S. Wortley), who might be called the hereditary friend of this Motion, had conducted the discussion in a manner so absolutely unexceptionable—evincing such laborious investigation, as well as attention to all the delicacies involved in the consideration of the question—that no fault could be imputed to him. But when the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department gave his consent to the Motion (without which consent it could not have a chance of being carried), it was for the House to say whether they were prepared to retract their decision of 1842, when by a considerable majority they refused to alter the law when leave was asked by the present Lord Ellesmere to bring in a Bill to that effect. When the House should pass an Address to the Crown praying Her Majesty to issue this Royal Commission, it would imply a desire and intention to make some change in the existing law. At all events, inquiry implied dissatisfaction. Then, as to the history of the existing law—what practical benefit did the right hon. and learned Member for Bute expect to derive from the statement in the earlier part of his speech as to the construction of the last Act passed in relation to this subject? Who cared whether the stories of the circumstances in which the Habeas Corpus Act was adopted, were correct or not? People took the law as they found it. And what mattered it whether Lord Brougham proposed a particular clause in the Act as to these marriages for a particular purpose? By that law the question ought now to be decided. The right hon. and learned Gentleman urged, in the first instance, the number of petitions presented in favour of an alteration. It was stated that 153 clergymen had petitioned to that effect; but what was the value of that 153 when compared with the 15,000 who silently opposed any alteration? His right hon. and learned Friend had also referred to the number of cases in which such marriages had been contracted—for the purpose of showing how large a proportion of the people of England were interested in this question. But that number embraced at the most only a fractional part of the whole kingdom. His right hon. and learned Friend had also said that England was the only country—the only Protestant country at least—in which such marriages were prohibited. He doubted exceedingly that
756
fact; but admitting it to be so, it did not follow that the law of England was necessarily wrong. Was his right hon. and learned Friend prepared to legalize, in this country, all the degrees of consanguinity permitted in foreign countries? At present, perhaps, there was no demand made for further relaxations beyond that now under consideration; but if that were agreed to, it would give encouragement to further demands in pursuance of the precedents of foreign countries. His right hon. and learned Friend's present Motion, it was true, did not include any further relaxations; but he gave a precedent, if he did not give any argument, for them; and his precedent would go further than an argument would carry him on the subject. He should have pre-eminently desired to have the benefit of the judgment of his right hon. Friend Dr. Lushington on the subject. That was not the only occasion on which he had regretted his absence from the House; that was not the first time he had regretted that Her Majesty's Judge Advocate (Mr. C. Buller), and another hon. Friend whom he did not then see in his place, had not been pleased to bring forward a Motion to which he thought, from what had fallen from them both, three years or four years ago, they were almost pledged—a Motion to repeal so much of a certain statute as prevented Dr. Lushington sitting in that House. He and that right hon. Gentleman (Dr. Lushington) had voted very seldom together in former times, and probably should vote as little together in future; but he certainly felt that his opinions in matters of this kind, and on questions of international law, were entitled to the highest respect. The opinion of Mr. Justice Erie had been quoted by his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. S. Wortley). Now, in the first place, his right hon. Friend had himself stated that this was the opinion of Mr. Justice Erie, when a barrister—of eminence, he admitted, but still a barrister—upon a case submitted to him. Now, every one knew that the value of a lawyer's opinion depended upon the case laid before him. He had not seen that opinion, and did not know that it was entitled to any particular respect, except as coming from such a man as Mr. Justice Erie; but still, let the House recollect that it was the opinion of a counsel on his brief, and not the decision of a Judge on the bench. His right hon. and learned Friend had likewise quoted a number of cases in which the existing law had been violated. Was not this, in a House

757
of lawmakers, a singular reason for altering the law, not that it was wrong, but that it had been broken? The opinion of a clergyman here, and a lawyer there, and a solicitor in some other place, who had aided in the invasion and infraction of the law, had been quoted; but for his (Sir R. Inglis's) part, he had always held that the opinions of those who kept the law, were entitled to far more respect than the opinions or the wishes of those who violated it. As it so happened that he was the individual who had first urged the House to refuse leave to Lord Francis Egerton to bring in such a Bill, he did not consider it was taking an undue liberty with the House when he in some degree repeated the arguments which the House had considered sufficient to justify such an unusual course as that of refusing leave to bring in a Bill, particularly when asked by an individual—he would not say so high in station, for he left that out of view altogether, but—of such high talent and personal character as Lord Francis Egerton. But still, not his talents, not his station, not his personal character, could induce the House to consent to bring in a Bill to make this alteration; and, therefore, without meaning any disrespect to his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. S. Wortley), he had been anxious to rise be-fore the Secretary of State rose, in order to make his appeal to the House, when it was less committed, to do that which they had done four years ago. On that occasion he had stated, in substance at least, that he regarded the practice to which the sanction of the law was now invoked as one which was contrary to the general interests of society, because hazardous to the peace and purity of families; that it was opposed to Scripture rule, and, although he did not lay undue stress upon the canons of the Church, either of our own Church or the Church of the earlier ages, still he did feel that the practice, which for a great many centuries had been enforced, was, at the same time, in accordance with the canons, and was directly contrary to what was now sought to be established. He apprehended that no real doubt existed, so far as the decisions of the law were concerned —he did not speak of the opinions of individual lawyers—that up to the present moment the one degree which was now sought to be blotted out of the list of prohibited degrees, was ipso facto prohibited. He saw no occasion then for appointing a commission to inquire into the state of the law. That point was conceded. The state of the
758
law was, that a marriage of this kind was within the prohibited degrees, and was not valid in law. If that were so then, and having no doubt that it was right to maintain the law in this state, he considered it inexpedient to appoint a commission to inquire into that matter. He believed that the existing state of the civil law only came in aid of the canon law—that it directly followed out the principle laid down in the Holy Scriptures, and the immemorial practice of the Church. He admitted that, totidem verbis, the marriages which it was now proposed to legalize were not prohibited by the Levitical law; but he asked if they were not by a parity of reasoning as completely prohibited as anything could be? Could any human being contend, for instance, that when the Levitical law prohibited the marriage of a man with his daughter's daughter, it did not also prohibit him from marrying his daughter? He therefore maintained that the absence of a direct prohibition against a man marrying two sisters in succession was no proof that such was not contrary to that law. It had been often held, as a deduction from the Levitical law, that the marriage of one woman to two brothers in succession was illegal; and did it not follow that the marriage of one man to two sisters in succession was equally so? He now came to a different branch of the subject, namely, the practical effects of the admissibility of the marriage of a man with two sisters in succession upon the habits of families. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had stated—and he had seen similar statements in a pamphlet by Mr. Campbell Foster—a most elaborate pamphlet on the subject, and probably comprising all that could be said in favour of this proposition—he found there statements similar to those which had been quoted by his right hon. and learned Friend, showing the hardships which were inflicted by prohibiting a man from taking his wife's sister to be a second mother to the orphan children. Now, on the other hand, he knew a case in which, if it had not been that the sister of the deceased wife felt that on entering the house of her brother-in-law she was as safe and as much above scandal as if she had really been his own sister, several children of a very tender age would have been deprived of the care which they had since enjoyed till they arrived at mature years. If then the right hon. and learned Gentleman could produce an instance in which great evils had arisen from this law, he could thus quote one in which great blessings had occurred—blessings which would

759
most certainly have been withheld if the young lady who succeeded to the charge of the orphan children had ever supposed it possible that she could have been the wife of their father. He believed that so long as a feeling of sanctity attached to that relation, no improper feelings were likely to exist between these parties, any more than between the nearest blood relations; but the moment they were placed in a different position, and allowed to occupy a place in each other's affections which the law at present refused, from that moment they were placed in a way of temptation from which they were at present exempted; and exactly in that proportion the law would deprive the orphan children of the benefit of that protection which they might otherwise enjoy. Under these circumstances, and retaining the opinions which he had expressed on the last occasion on which the subject had been brought forward—and believing from the general practice of the House in former cases that inquiry would lead to concession—he deprecated the inquiry which was now requested. It might be, that the concession would not be such as the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked for, or which the petitioners desired to obtain; but it would be such as would unsettle the minds of the people, and lead them to conclusions alike inconsistent with the law of nature and the practice of the Church; it would be such as would unsettle the minds of the people without conferring any corresponding benefit, inasmuch as the total number of persons who were affected by the existing law was exceedingly small in comparison with the mass of the people, and was not such as would justify any great change in the policy of the country, especially on a subject so important as the sanctity of marriage. For these reasons he opposed the Motion.
MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, he could not help accusing the hon. Baronet of having carried the House further into the subject than he was entitled to do from the speech of his right hon. Friend (Mr. S. Wortley). His right hon. Friend had abstained so carefully from entering into the real merits of the subject, as a question of discussion, and had confined himself so completely to the task of showing that the question was involved in doubt, that he thought the speech of the hon. Baronet, which had exhibited all that could be said on his side of the question, was rather inconvenient on the present occasion, because, the Government having agreed to the Commission, it was not desirable to
760
enter into the general question, which they would have an opportunity of discussing on a future occasion. He, therefore, would not have risen except for the purpose of offering his sincere thanks to his right hon. Friend for having brought the question before the House. On a former occasion he did not think it right to register his vote, as he did not feel it was one on which he could entirely make up his mind; but, as far as the present question was concerned, he felt that it was absolutely necessary that something should be done. He was confirmed in this by all he had seen about him in his little sphere, as he imagined what he had seen was not the exception, but the rule of what was going on in England generally. He was convinced that something was necessary to be done for the peace, not of the upper classes of society, who might be supposed in a great degree able to protect themselves, but for the sake of the lower classes, who could not. He pressed upon the hon. Baronet and the House this important fact, that on this question the public opinion of England did not generally support the law; and that where this was the case it was absolutely necessary some change should take place.
DR. NICHOLLsaid, that he retained the opinion which on the occasion of Lord Ellesmere moving for leave to bring in his Bill he recorded in common with a great majority of the House, in unison with the opinions expressed in the speech then delivered by his lamented Friend Sir W. Follett. His right hon. and learned Friend had not dealt quite fairly with that eminent individual when he referred to his opinion as being favourable to the object which he had in view; because, when he was called upon—on the occasion of Lord Ellesmere's Motion—to express an opinion on the question of the propriety of altering the law, he declared that he felt a decided objection to it. He wished that his right hon. and learned Friend had omitted from his Motion the words which called for inquiry into the operation of the law. It did not appear reasonable, that because certain persons thought proper to evade the operation of the law, that circumstance should be made the subject of inquiry by a commission. The circumstance which principally reconciled him to the appointment of the Commission was, that it would extend its inquiries to the effect of marriages abroad. It, however, appeared to be a matter of doubt, from the terms of the Motion, whether his right hon. and learned Friend in-

761
tended the inquiry of the Commission to apply to marriages within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity.
MR. STUART WORTLEYsaid, it was intended that the Commission should inquire into the operation of the marriage law, as related to the prohibited decrees of affinity in this country; and then—as a perfectly distinct question—into marriages solemnized abroad, whether within the prohibited degrees of affinity or not.
MR. WATSONsaid, that the present state of the law was unsatisfactory; and when it appeared that within the period of eight years no fewer than 1,600 instances of marriages within the prohibited degrees had occurred, that fact, of itself, rendered it incumbent on the House to institute an inquiry into the subject.
Motion agreed to.

IRISH FISHERIES.
SIR H. W.BARRONsaid, that the object of the Motion of which he had given notice, was to give profitable employment to a large body of the Irish people, amounting, according to his calculation, to 400,000 persons, including the families of the fishermen. Looking to the important measure which was about to be put into operation in Ireland—he referred to the Poor Relief Act—it was necessary to find employment for the people, otherwise the most disastrous consequences would ensue. It was notorious that the Irish fisheries were not in the same flourishing condition as those of Scotland; and that was attributable to the circumstance of the former not having obtained as much encouragement from Parliament as the latter. It appeared from a return which he moved for in 1835 that during the ten years preceding that date, Parliament voted 143,791 l. for the purpose of stimulating the Scotch fisheries, whilst, for the same period, only 12,000 l. were voted to effect a similar object in Ireland. In consequence of the fostering care which the Legislature had extended to them, the Scotch fisheries had become the most prosperous in Europe, not excepting even the Dutch. It was a melancholy fact, as regarded Ireland, that Scotch fish of the value of 50,000 l. were annually imported into that country, and purchased by the poor people; whilst, upon their own coast, within sight of the land, were myriads of fish, which were never caught. Scotch fish sold in the port of Dublin for 17 l. a ton, whilst Irish curers would be able to sell with a profit at 7l. per ton, if the fish were only caught. The six curing-
762
houses and two dep6ts which the Government recently established in Ireland, had been attended with signal success; and that should encourage them to proceed further in the same course. This was not an exclusively Irish question; it was one in which the people of England were intimately interested; for, if employment should be found for the Irish people at home, they would not be tempted to immigrate into this country, to deprive the labourers here of the employment which was their natural inheritance, and bring disease into the heart of the land. It was his wish that the number of curing-houses in Ireland should be extended to 100, and that inspectors should be established along the coast. He intended to move for the appointment of a Committee on this subject; but the inquiry which would be delegated to that Committee would not occupy much time, for he should be able to produce six witnesses of high character and great experience on the subject both in Scotland and Ireland, whose evidence would satisfy the House and the country of the necessity of adopting the measure which he recommended. No man could be more disposed than he was to acknowledge warmly the sympathy which the English people had displayed for the distress of the Irish nation; but it was necessary to go further, and find employment for the Irish. The accounts which he had recently received from Ireland were of the most distressing character. The farmers were discharging their labourers and the gentry their servants, whilst the shopkeepers in the towns had no business to transact. Mechanics, also, of every class, were unable to obtain employment, and were being placed on the relief lists. He assured the House that this was not an exaggerated picture of the present state of Ireland. It was not his intention in bringing forward this Motion to impute the slightest blame to the Government. On the contrary, he thought the present was the first Government which had taken a step in the right direction as regarded the Irish fisheries. He desired only that they should go further, and for that purpose it was desirable that the right hon. Secretary for Ireland should be fortified with the evidence which would be given before a Committee, and which he might make the groundwork of a comprehensive measure to be introduced during the present or in the next Session of Parliament. He moved that—

763
"A Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the means of improving the Fisheries in Ireland, and thereby affording profitable employment."
MR. LABOUCHEREadmitted the great importance of the subject brought under the notice of the House by his hon. Friend. There existed on the coasts of Ireland a mine of wealth, of which it was almost impossible to over-estimate the value, which would not only yield supplies of food and give employment to the people, but rear up a hardy race of seamen as fit to defend their country in time of war, as to supply her with the means of subsistence in time of peace. This question had occupied much of the attention of the present and of preceding Governments. Several Committees and Commissions had been appointed, and there were abundant means on the Table of acquiring information. A series of measures, founded on the information that had been obtained, had been proposed by the Government, and which were in progress; and, judging from the experience that had been had, very important and beneficial results might be expected. His hon. Friend had referred to the Scotch fisheries; but he believed that the growth of those fisheries was more to be attributed to the energy of private enterprise in that country than to anything derived from the fostering care of the Government in the shape of bounties—a system persevered in at a great expense—or in the establishing a large staff of commissioners. At the same time he did not deny that there might be modes in which the assistance of Government or of Parliament might be extended to these fisheries, without unduly interfering with that private enterprise which he looked to as the only safe foundation for ameliorative measures in Ireland. One of those methods was the constructing of fishery piers on the coast of Ireland, at many parts of which they were much wanted, for although there were good fisheries, there were no harbours for the fishermen to resort to in stress of weather. Parliament had already devoted large sums to this purpose. The late Government had very properly proposed a sum of 50,000 l. by way of free gift towards erecting these piers; and, the present Government had, during the present Session, proposed a sum of 40,000 l. for the same purpose. He trusted Parliament, in its liberality, would enable the Government to devote yet further sums in the same manner, which, as not interfering with private enterprise, he viewed as a perfectly legitimate way of ex-
764
tending assistance. Another mode which the Government had recently adopted in Ireland, and which had produced most beneficial results as far as it had gone, was to a certain degree liable to the objection of interference with private enterprise; but at the same time, so far from that having been practically the case, it would, he believed, stimulate enterprise by showing the successful and profitable results to be obtained from following the plan which the Government had adopted. He alluded to the curing stations established on different parts of the coast, the operation of which he had most anxiously watched during the short time they had been in existence. The results had given him the most lively satisfaction, and encouraged him to hope that, little as was the cost, and working as they did in a most unostentatious manner, most important benefits would arise in regard to the fisheries of Ireland. The Government had established six of these curing stations on different parts of the coast, selecting those spots where the fisheries were known to be good, and yet where there was no private trade to interfere with. In those six places, out of a sum of 5,000 l., which was not voted by Parliament, but taken from the Reproductive Loan Fund—with these small means the Government had been enabled to establish those six stations, upon the simple principle of appointing at each of those stations an agent, in whom they could confide. They also appointed experienced Scotch curers, who could cure the fish in the best manner, and gave out that they would buy, at a fair price, all the fish that should be brought to them for sale. They had thus established regular markets for those fishermen who chose to bring in their fish for sale. By doing this, and by establishing depots for salt, which salt they sold in small quantities, at cost price, to any parties who wished to buy it to cure their fish; and by applying sums of money in the purchase of tackle and hooks, and things of that description, which they also retailed at cost price to such fishermen as would purchase them; by these simple means, without an expensive machinery, or large staff of inspectors, and without interfering with private enterprise, the results, as they appeared from the stations which he had established, were sufficient to show that they were in the right track in following this plan; they might hope in the most beneficial manner to promote the fisheries of Ireland by this means, to an extent they could scarcely anticipate when the scheme

765
was proposed. The system was under the superintendence of a gentleman, whose name he could not mention without stating how much the country was indebted to him for the care and attention he had devoted to it; he referred to Mr. Mulvany, of the Board of Works, the superintendent of the curing stations, who had been able to produce the most gratifying results by the way in which the fish had been cured. His hon. Friend (Sir H. W. Barron), in bringing forward his Motion, said it was a grievous thing that the Scotch fishermen and curers should be able to catch and cure their fish on the coasts of Scotland, and entirely monopolize the fish market with the fish so caught, while the Irish neglect to fish upon their own coasts. He was not, he hoped, addressing any Scotch Gentlemen who might take alarm at what he was about to state; but the result of the system to which he had been adverting was this, the fish thus cured was driving out of the Irish market the Scotch fishermen, and the Irish fishermen were enabled to undersell the Scotch fishermen in the markets of Ireland. Some other incidental advantages had occurred from the establishment of those fishing stations, which as yet, he should observe, were only in their infancy, and there had not yet been time to develop their resources. It had turned out that the establishment of the Government stations, and the example which they had set, were already beginning to attract the observation of private speculators, who seeing the Government success were imitating the example. And that was just what he wanted to see, for nothing would be more absurd than for the Government to undertake on a great scale to catch and cure the fish on the coasts of Ireland, or embark in a great commercial occupation of that description. That was not the province of Government, By embarking in such transactions they might only do mischief; they would of course drive out of the market all private speculators; and great fisheries could only be conducted in Ireland, as in other countries, by private enterprise, and by that activity which the stimulus of self-interest always applies to the commercial pursuits of any branch of the community. It would appear that speculators in England were turning their attention to this subject, and sending off boats to the fishing stations on the Irish coast. He held that to be desirable, and had got a letter that day respecting a vessel that had arrived on the west coast of Ireland, from Graves-end, sent there by a gentleman connected
766
with fisheries in England, for the purpose of trying the experiment whether he could there successfully practise this branch of trade. The following is the letter to which he referred:—
"Shortly after posting ray letters yesterday, there arrived in this bay a fishing-smack from Gravesend. I spoke to the captain, who knows but little more than that he has been sent by a Mr. Dicers, from Pimlico, London, to fish in this neighbourhood. I went on board this morning, and found her fitted out in first-rate order, lines, hooks, trawls, and new nets, plentiful and strong; 50 ton vessel, name Pacific, Captain J. Negus. She has a fine well, boxes, salt, and every other requisite on board."
Now this showed that the result which they were desirous of producing, was, by means of this system, actually taking place, namely, that private speculators were turning their attention to this branch of industry. He hoped they would be induced by the example of the Government to embark more largely in it; and if that were the case the most important advantages would be conferred on the most valuable branch of national industry in Ireland. Another excellent effect produced by those curing stations was, that they supplied a sort of education for the fishermen of the coast where they were established. Several circumstances had been communicated to him to show that this was the fact, and that the fishermen were beginning to come for instruction and advice to the persons connected with those establishments. He held in his hand a letter on this subject from Kinsale, from the individual who was the Commissioner for fisheries on that coast. He stated—
"The Baltimore station, where just enough fish has been purchased to show what a contrast there is between things done well and ill, has become a regular training school. Yesterday I was exhorted by a respectable man residing on the coast, nearly twenty miles from the station, to permit him to send two sons to lodge in Baltimore, and to be trained by our curer."
They had adopted a better mode of curing fish than that which had previously been practised on the Irish coast, and that led to important results with regard to the curing of fish, which of course were absolutely requisite, if it were to be expected that there would be a demand for it in the market. The principle on which they had acted was so well laid down in the report of Mr. Mulvany, which had been recently laid on the Table of the House, on the subject, that he should read a short extract from that report, as comprising, in a compendious form and most clear language, the principle on which Government had acted.

767
[The right hon. Gentleman read an extract, from which it appeared that the writer was favourable to the establishment of curing stores, and markets to ensure a steady demand in the neighbourhood of the fisheries.] Those were the principles on which those curing stations had been established; and he trusted, from what he had stated to the House, that the House would be of the same opinion he was, namely, that those establishments had been productive of the best results, and that they might fairly expect from those sources a great stimulus to this branch of industry on the coast of Ireland. With regard to what the hon. Gentleman (Sir H. W. Barron) had said, as to the different manner in which Parliament had treated Scotland and Ireland with regard to the encouragement of their fisheries, he had only to say that if he thought it would be really beneficial to the Irish fisheries to resort to that mode of encouragement which Parliament had adopted towards Scotland in former years, but which was now abandoned— namely, to give bounties—he should recommend it; but he believed it had failed notoriously in Scotland. He believed it would equally fail in Ireland; and he could not advise the House to adopt any such plan. But as to the other mode adverted to, namely, the advancing of money for the construction of small fishing piers, he admitted that up to the last two years, any Irish Member might justly say, "You gave money to Scotland for this purpose, but not to Ireland." But during the last two years, that could not be said. The late Government gave 50,000 l. last year, and a sum of 40,000 l. was given in the present Session at the instance of the present Government. They had also advanced money on loan to those proprietors who were willing to establish fishing piers in connexion with their properties; and he felt that his hon. Friend could no longer say that Parliament had shown any want of the desire to establish fisheries in Ireland, when they had thus liberally given money—which he thought had been beneficial—for the purpose; and he trusted those sums would be augmented at future periods, for the same purpose. On this point he was anxious to call the attention of the House to a passage in a very able historical sketch by the late Sir Charles Morgan, and to the results of his knowledge and experience, and the doctrine that was laid down very clearly and fully in this extract:—
"In retracing the facts spread through a pe-
768
riod of more than two centuries, the reader cannot but be struck with the repeated failures of successive efforts to create a domestic fishery both in Great Britain and in Ireland. By some these are attributed to errors of management, and to a premature abandonment of the measures of encouragement; and the averment perhaps may be partly true; but it is impossible to overlook the fact, that, amidst all the efforts of Government, and the popular enthusiasm in favour of fisheries, they have not been a favourite speculation "with capitalists; so that mercantile enterprise has been far from going hand in hand with administrative liberality. To this statement the Scotch fishery alone affords an exception; what inference should be drawn either from the rule or from its exception, the reader will determine for himself; but it does not seem too much to affirm, on experience of the past, that, whatever value to individuals may be set on any assistance which Government may hereafter think fit to afford the fishermen, through any better-directed system of encouragement, the trade must still eventually stand or fall by the spontaneous efforts of the parties interested, and the stimulus of remunerative markets."
It was to remunerative markets he looked for the development of the Irish fisheries; and the example which, on a very limited scale, the Government had given, would, he hoped, be productive of beneficial results. He believed that the construction of railways in Ireland would afford a very great means of stimulating Irish fisheries. He had no hesitation in saying that a railway across the country to Galway, and another to the great fishing stations in the south of Ireland, would have that effect, by enabling persons to bring the fish from those places to Dublin, and even to England. He had no hesitation in saying that he concurred in what the noble Lord opposite (Lord George Bentinck) had said in that respect; although he did not concur with the noble Lord as to the exact manner in which the construction of railways should be encouraged in Ireland; he concurred with the noble Lord in thinking that a railway connecting those coasts with Dublin, would afford a great stimulus to fisheries in Ireland. He did not think he need trouble the House at any greater length on this subject. With regard to the Motion of his hon. Friend for a Committee of Inquiry, he confessed he did entertain very great doubts whether it would be advisable to agree to the appointment of a Committee at the present moment. He put it to his hon. Friend, whether he would advance the objects he had in view by asking the House to grant this Committee. What had the Committee to inquire into that was not already known to the House? Abundant information on the subject was in their possession; and if ever there was a subject which had been tho-

769
roughly and ably investigated by commissions over and over again, it was the subject of the Irish fisheries. He really believed that on every question relating to it they had the most ample information; they had the evidence of men of great information before the House. However, if that were his only objection to the Motion, he would not, on a question thus brought forward by an Irish Member, offer any resistance to it; but there was another objection of a practical nature which had been thrust on him, and he could not help calling the attention of the House to it; and it was this. At this moment the result of a Committee of Inquiry on Irish fisheries would necessarily call away from the duties in which they were actively engaged those whose time was most valuable, and whose absence from their duties would be most unfortunate. It was most important that the proceedings of the persons who were prosecuting the fishing operations should not be interrupted; and he did not think any advantage would be derived from any inquiry that was instituted on the subject, commensurate to the evil which would be done by taking them from their occupations. Before the Session was closed, he hoped to be able to lay before the House some information regarding those fishing stations. He was not able to say whether, before the Session closed, there would be that complete information—information so complete as to enable the House to judge of the degree of success that had attended it; but if he could afford more complete information, he should feel great pleasure in laying it before the House. However, at the present time, it would, he conceived, be premature to give information respecting those curing stations when they were scarcely established, and when the officers had scarcely brought them into operation. He entirely agreed as to the importance of the question brought forward by the hon. Member; and he was anxious to contribute in every way, by legitimate means, to stimulate and encourage the fisheries of Ireland. With these observations he would conclude, by stating to the hon. Gentleman that if he (Mr. Labouchere) declined to accede to the proposition to grant a Committee, it was because abundant information on the subject was already on the Table of the House; because, also, he did not think any practical advantage would result from the inquiry; and he did not wish at the present
770
time to take away those persons to whom he had already referred, from their duties in Ireland for the purpose of giving evidence before the Committee.
LORD G. BENTINCK: Sir, I really must say I think the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down has given the weakest reasons I ever heard for refusing a Committee to inquire into the state of the fisheries of Ireland, with a view to their encouragement. The right hon. Gentleman says, he thinks there are already before the House the most abundant and complete materials for coming to a just conclusion on this subject; yet I apprehend there is not any information that was not in its possession prior to last Session; and, if I remember right, in the report of the Commissioners of Public Works in Ireland, we are informed by Sir Randolph Routh that the Act of Parliament passed last Session for the improvement of the fisheries was so cumbersome in its provisions, and so impracticable in its operation, that the intentions of Parliament were likely to be defeated. Now, this proves that up to the conclusion of last Session the House had not such materials before it as could enable it to arrive at a just conclusion. But if one reason more than another could be adduced why we should have an inquiry by a Committee and a report, it is this—that the right hon. Gentleman himself has stated that it is only necessary to supply a market for the produce of the Irish fisheries to induce the fishermen to undertake the catching of the fish. Thus it is proved, on the authority of the right hon. Gentleman, that that which has passed as a just charge against the Irish nation is a calumny, and that the Irish fishermen are not an idle, indolent, and unenterprising class who cannot be tempted by any inducement to go upon the deep seas and catch the fish which are to be found in those inexhaustible mines of wealth that abound upon the coast of Ireland. I think, therefore, that if this proposed inquiry he productive of nothing else, enough will be gained to justify it if by it the prejudices of the English nation, which have been so studiously roused against the Irish people during the last six months, be removed. I think that such an inquiry will also prove the facts stated by the right hon. Gentleman, and also the statements so ably made on a former night by the hon. Member for Barn-staple (Mr. M. Gore), who told us that a loan

771
of 100 l. had induced the fishermen of Claddagh to man sixty-four boats, by the aid of which they had brought home fish to the value of 100 l. If such things are proved before a Committee, I think there will be abundant grounds established for encouraging the fisheries of Ireland. But when the right hon. Gentleman tells us that the establishment of six small curing stations has effected so much good; and when he tells us that the deep-sea fisheries of Ireland can supply an inexhaustible amount of food and of wealth, I apprehend it would be well for us to inquire whether an increased number of cheap curing stations would not tend to the promotion of both. I rejoiced to hear the right hon. Gentleman express his horror at the employment of a large staff of officials; and I am glad that no large staff has been appointed in connexion with the Irish fisheries; but I think, when we have still a staff which costs the country 18,000 l. a-week for the public works in Ireland, it is a sufficient reason for inquiry. Another reason for inquiry is, that the right hon. Gentleman, when it is rather too late in the day, tells us that all that is required for the encouragement of those fisheries is the construction of railways in Ireland. I really wish the Chief Secretary for Ireland, three months ago, when he opposed the construction of those railways, had told us what possible advantage it would be to have a railway across the county of Gal-way. Nevertheless, all the acts of the Government have been to prevent the county of Galway having the benefits of such a railway to carry the fish to a profitable market. I confess I have never heard so many reasons for a Committee; and the only reason which I have heard against it is, that the right hon. Gentleman fears that it would call away from the large staff of officers in Ireland a portion who are better employed. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: The small staff employed in the fisheries.] Well, if the right hon. Gentleman will spare some of the 11,587 gentlemen and others employed in the supervision of the public works in Ireland, there will be quite sufficient to attend to the fisheries, though I do not know why it should be necessary to call them away from Ireland at all. The question for the Committee is to inquire how the fisheries can be encouraged; and I think by calling some of the most experienced fishermen from Devonshire and Cornwall, we could gain information enough to di-
772
rect us in our inquiry into the Irish fisheries, and I think ten days would suffice for such inquiry. If the right hon. Gentleman refuses the Committee, and the hon. Member presses his Motion to a division, I will cordially support him.
MR. HUMEthought, when they looked to the state of the supply of food in this country, that it was lamentable to see how much the important matter of the fisheries had been neglected in Ireland. The people were most anxious for the erection of piers and landing places; and, above all, on the exposed parts of the western ocean. He had hoped, after what had taken place, that the Government would have brought forward some Bill for promoting that great object—the erection of safe fishing harbours. He did not know that it was necessary to have a Committee; but it was most important to Ireland and this country that the fisheries should be promoted. It was not by employing the secretary of a commission that they could do this; but by sending down some officer of practical knowledge and experience, with a naval officer, to investigate and superintend the matter. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it would not do for the Government to become traders in fish or any other article; but still, by a very simple proceeding, much might be done to encourage the fisheries. If some of the country gentlemen on the coast of Ireland would set a number of boats on the fisheries, their example would soon be followed.
MR. MONTAGUE GOREsaid, that he had been requested to read a statement to the House respecting the fisheries in the neighbourhood of Waterford. The writer of this paper assured him that a most valuable bank of fish immediately off the coast of that place had never been properly fished; and it was not until 1844 that anything had been done with respect to it. On that occasion one boat made a profit of 595 1., one half of which was shared among the crew, consisting of six men and two boys. If such cases were made known by means of a Committee, much would be done for the encouragement of those fisheries. With respect to the fisheries in England, speaking of railways to Hull, this gentleman (his correspondent) said that before those railways were made, only four fishing vessels used to go from Hull; and the great improvement which had since taken

773
place was entirely attributable to the railways.
MR. WATSONsaid, that the great object was to give to the Irish fishermen the advantage of internal communication through the country. He represented a town (Kin-sale), an admirable fishing station, which was fast going to decay from the want of internal communication, which would give the fishermen a good market. The fishermen of that town took 30,000 l. worth of fish in the year at present, yet they were miserably poor; and if they had the opportunity of sending their fish to markets throughout the country, that 30,000 l. might be increased to 400,000 l. or 500,000 l. per annum. If the Motion of the noble Lord (Lord G. Bentinck) regarding railways in Ireland had been brought forward with the definite object of giving facility to the fisheries, there would have been few found in the House to object to it. He himself had for one voted against that measure as a general one; but had it been connected with a definite object, there would not have been five Members in the House who would have opposed it. He would vote for the Motion if it went to a division; but still he much feared that it was too late in the Session to expect much good to be done by a Committee.
MR. F. FRENCHhad opposed the Bill which had been brought in by the noble Lord the Member for Lynn, because he felt satisfied that had that measure passed, not a penny of the 16,000,000 l. would have gone to the relief of the poor in the counties of Galway or Roscommon.
MR. HUDSONrose in consequence of the observation of the hon. Member for Roscommon, that had his noble Friend's (Lord G. Bentinck's) Bill passed, none of the 16,000,000 l. would have gone in aid of the Dublin and Galway Railway, or to the relief of the poor in Galway or Roscommon. If the hon. Gentleman would have only taken the trouble to read the preamble and the first clause of that Bill, he would have found that it included any future railway to be projected in Ireland, as well as those already in progress. The Bill was indiscriminate in its provisions for the giving of aid to every Irish railway which should be shown to be in compliance with the rules laid down. It provided that there should be a careful investigation of the public merits of each line by the Railway Commissioners. It was fenced about most carefully to prevent assistance from being improperly afforded under it; but all un-
774
dertakings which should be able to pass the examination required, would have been entitled to aid. With regard to what had been said respecting the advantages derived both to fishing stations and railway companies by the establishment of railway communication, he would beg to state one fact, that on the small line, the York and North Midland, the carriage of fish had brought the company an income of 300,000 l. in one year. He thought that investigations such as the one proposed, were always productive of benefit. He should, therefore, vote for the appointment of the Committee, which should lead to some useful result, and he thought it would be wise in the Government to accede to the proposition.
SIR H. W. BARRONwas happy to see that the House was almost unanimous in its approval of the objects which he had in view by his Motion. All hon. Members hart concurred in acknowledging that the Irish fisheries had been neglected by every Government, and every one who ought to have given their assistance. But seeing that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland was about to take a bold and decided step, a more important one than even he had suggested, and feeling that the right hon. Gentleman was bound to him and to the Irish fisheries to adopt fully the principles which he (Sir H. W. Barron) had laid down regarding them, he felt that he would be doing an injury to the cause he advocated if he were to press his Motion for a Committee. ["Oh, oh!"] He begged to know if hon. Gentleman could controvert anything he had said? Did they not see that the Government was bound to carry out the very principles he had laid down? Surely no man could assert that they had not been acknowledged. [An Hon. MEMBER: No one denies those principles.] No one did, of course. He should be glad to hear any one deny them; because he felt that their arguments could be instantly demolished. He felt, then, that he should do the best for the Irish fisheries, and the Irish fishermen, by leaving the question in the hands of the Government. He should, therefore, withdraw his Motion. ["No, no!"] He begged leave to withdraw the Motion.
MR. SPEAKERasked if it was the wish of the House to refuse permission to the hon. Member for Waterford to withdraw his Motion. ["Yes, yes!" "No, no!" and great laughter.]
MR. SPEAKER: Did hon. Members press for a division? ["Yes, yes!"]

775
[The galleries were cleared, and the de-hate was continued with closed doors. On their being opened]
MR. AGLIONBYwas addressing the House, and deprecating the pressing of a division against the will of the mover of the Motion. Hon. Members opposite seemed to treat the affair too much as a jest. Two hours previously there had been only one and twenty Members in the House, and he trusted they would not go to a division with the large number then in it who could not have heard one half of the de-hate. He put it to hon. Members, whether it would not he better to let the Motion be withdrawn. But with regard to the latter portion of the hon. Baronet's speech, in reply, he should say, that he (Mr. Aglionby) did not understand the right hon. Gentleman to have pledged himself to do everything that the hon. Baronet required.
MR. DISRAELIwas much surprised that the hon. Member for Cockermouth should have alleged that a Motion respecting the interests of Ireland had been treated in a jocose manner by hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House. Before the hon. Member made such an allegation he should certainly have made himself a little better acquainted with the circumstances of the case. The noble Lord the Member for Lynn, and other hon. Members, had attended the House that evening with reference to an important subject of a very different character; but the hon. Baronet the Member for Waterford having this Motion on the Paper—a Motion which he would have been very glad not to have seen on the Paper, for he did not like to see other subjects of much more importance arrested by it—the hon. Baronet told the noble Lord of this Motion, and, knowing the peculiar interest the noble Lord took in such questions, asked him, as a personal favour, to support it. The noble Lord having attended, at some personal inconvenience to himself, in reference to another question which the hon. Baronet's Motion prevented from being brought forward, acceded to the request, and supported the proposition with his characteristic sincerity and frankness. Had it not been for him there would not have been a House kept. ["No, no!"] No! Did the Government keep a House? Did the Government think it an important measure, and could they not command the presence of twenty-one Members? There might have been at least discipline enough to secure the pre-
776
sence of their subordinates and subalterns. It was strange that on questions of the greatest importance and interest the present existing Government of this country could not secure a House. And now hon. Gentlemen were told that they insulted Ireland, and received a Motion in favour of Ireland in a jocose spirit. It was really intolerable, after the great inconvenience which the noble Lord the Member for Lynn had put himself to in order to hear a discussion on Irish fisheries, that the hon. Member for Cockermouth, in his felicitous position of amicus curiœ, should say the question had been received in a jocose, if not in an insulting spirit. The hon. Baronet the Member for Waterford having made a decided speech—having told the House and the country that he required so much, and would not take less than he required, and Her Majesty's Government not having offered any terms whatever to the hon. Gentleman—he did not see how, with any decency, the hon. Gentleman could ask leave to withdraw his Motion.
MR. AGLIONBYbegged to explain. It would be far from him to cast any such imputation upon hon. Gentlemen opposite as that they had treated a question relating to Ireland in a jesting or insulting spirit. What he had said was, that they treated the attempted withdrawal of the Motion by the hon. Baronet jocosely.
COLONEL RAWDONthought that the hon. Member for Shrewsbury had treated the hon. Member for Cockermouth unfairly in the construction he had put upon his words. He (Colonel Rawdon) certainly did think that the question of withdrawal had been treated rather jocosely; but as regarded the question of division, and of keeping a House, there were so few Members present when the hon. Member for Waterford began to speak, that he (Colonel Rawdon) had put down their names. He would not deny that there might not have been two or three more; but he had only twenty-three hon. Members down on that list. As to the private communication between the hon. Baronet and the noble Lord the Member for Lynn, it was nothing to the House; and if the matter went to a division, he trusted his vote would not be misconstrued; but whether it might be or not, he would vote with Her Majesty's Ministers and the hon. Member for Waterford, upon whom it would be very hard to cast the onus of compelling him to vote against his own Motion.
MR. THE LAWNYsaid, that if the

777
question were to be sent to a division, he should move that the words "and Cornwall" should be inserted after the word "Ireland."
MR. HUMEsaid, he would second the Motion; but he would much rather see the South Sea Whale Fishery and the North Sea Fishery added, than the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERthought that, after the debate of the last ten minutes, his noble Friend opposite would admit that it was better not to press the question to a division. If but twenty-three Members were present, as stated by his hon. Friend, at the early part of the discussion, it was clear that the very great importance was not attached to the Motion which was now contended for; and he really did not think that the argument of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury for pressing for a division—namely, that the hon. Gentleman who brought forward the subject had asked the noble Lord the Member for Lynn to support it—was in itself sufficient to induce them to divide. Surely their proceedings in that House ought to be influenced by far higher motives than any of that kind. It was not true that no encouragement had been given to the fisheries of Ireland. He had himself moved a vote of 40,000 l. for the promotion of Irish fisheries only a few days since; and during the past year the Government had constructed curing houses for fish in various parts of the coast of Ireland. If they were, however, now to enter into a discussion on the question of the fisheries of the United Kingdom generally, it must evidently prove to be a mere waste of the time of the House. It must be evident to all that any attempt at an inquiry at the present moment would be only defeating the object which those who advocated the Motion had in view. He hoped, therefore, that under these circumstances, and considering that the hon. Member was willing to withdraw his Motion, no further effort would be made to press it to a division.
MR. DISRAELIdid not think the right hon. Gentleman had much reason to lament his absence during the debate; nor was he (Mr. Disraeli) certain that by being absent he should have lost much himself. It was his misfortune to be present, and to hear every speech that had been made; but if he had to express regret for having heard the proëmium, he was to be consoled for the loss of the evening by the expecta-
778
tion that the catastrophe was to be omitted. He had not stated that the noble Lord the Member for Lynn recommended the House to divide on this question, because he had attended the House for the purpose of discussing another subject, and had been disappointed. What he (Mr. Disraeli) did say to the House, and what he would now repeat, was, that his noble Friend was present because the hon. Baronet had communicated to him that the subject to be brought forward was one of great interest, and that, therefore, he had applied to the noble Lord for his support. It was not fair, therefore, to say that his noble Friend and those who sat around him had received the subject in a jocose spirit. They came prepared to receive it in a very earnest one. But there was a more serious moral to be drawn from those proceedings which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to deprecate. When a question looked to with great interest by the nation generally was set aside that hon. Gentlemen opposite might make speeches in order to secure a flashy demonstration, he thought it was high time to ask whether those Irish Members who wished to make sham Motions, might not go to the Treasury and ask as much as they desired, and accept as little as they pleased? That was a question which he wished the people out of the House to understand. He had always voted with a view to the development of the industry of Ireland. He wished, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer know he spoke sincerely on the subject, that the public business should be advanced. But when he found those ad captandum Motions brought forward, he merely asked that a debate should at least be a real debate, and that it should lead to a real result. That was the sentiment that influenced him. He did not seek to inconvenience a Government which might call for opposition. He admitted that they (the hon. Member and his Friends) were not free from that weakness; but the present Government was one which they were not particularly anxious to inconvenience. They had lost an opportunity of entertaining an important question, and then they had been told, with a coolness which he thought was most unexampled, that they had treated an Irish question in a jocose spirit. Notwithstanding the explanations afforded, no one could deny that those words were used; and if they were not addressed to them, he was totally at a loss to know to

779
whom they were addressed, except it were the Speaker. If there were an Irish Member in the House who believed that the development of the fisheries of Ireland was of vast importance to that country, which they (on the Opposition side) really believed, he thought that Member was scarcely justified in bringing forward the subject and occupying the time of the House, whilst there were other matters of great public importance before it, unless he meant to press his Motion to a division. It might be said that the Government had very probably no more than twenty Members on either side of the House on that occasion; but was that the fault of the hon. Gentlemen who occupied the Opposition side of the House? Were they responsible for the ridiculous position in which certain persons might place themselves? He (Mr. Disraeli) thought that the best thing which the Government could do would be to grant a Committee. He was told that a dissolution of Parliament was intended; and if they wanted to expedite public business, they might depend upon it the best thing they could do was not to provoke discussions, but to let every man nave a Committee upon every imaginable subject. Let them grant them everything they desired, and they might depend upon it that they would go to the country with a much more popular claim to public confidence, for the people of England would feel that they were men with a certain knowledge of human nature—that they could and would deal with troublesome and wearisome people. The people of England would then say to themselves, "These men will make good business men for us in Parliament—they will grant measures, because every man has a project in his head as to the necessity of having a Committee upon his peculiar scheme, and we shall at last have a House of Commons who can carry on the business of the nation."
MR. LABOUCHERE,after the observations which had fallen in the course of this debate, and especially from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, felt it necessary to say a few words. He readily acknowledged that the hon. Gentlemen opposite, of whom the hon. Member for Shrewsbury was so distinguished an ornament, had offered a very fair and candid opposition to the course recommended by the Government on different occasions during the present Session, whilst they had handsomely supported the Government on various occasions in a very disinterested manner; and he had no reason whatever
780
to speak of that party in any other tone than that of courtesy. But he could not help saying that he thought the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and his Friends about him, had on this occasion showed themselves over-anxious to avail themselves of the opportunity which the empty state of the Ministerial benches afforded them of annoying the Government, although he admitted that in so doing they were but following the example set by every Opposition whose conduct he had witnessed in that House. They appeared somewhat disappointed at the hon. Baronet the Member for Waterford consenting to withdraw his Motion, in accordance with the wish of the Government, because they had anticipated placing the Government in a minority on this occasion. Now, he believed that his hon. Friend the Member for Waterford came down with this single object in view, viz., the promotion and advancement of Irish fisheries; and with that view he moved for the appointment of a Committee; and after he had made his statement, the Government expressed their intentions on the subject. With that expression the hon. Baronet stated that he was satisfied, and that after what had fallen from the Government he believed that his object would not be furthered by the appointment of a Committee; that it was, in fact, better to leave the whole of the matter in the hands of the Government. The hon. Baronet had clearly no party object in view in coming down to the House to make this Motion; and he (Mr. Labouchere) must say that he thought it was a most unusual course for the House, after an hon. Member had expressed himself satisfied with the explanation of the Government and his willingness to withdraw his Motion, to insist on pressing the question to a division. He considered that the hon. Baronet had not deserved the language which hon. Gentlemen opposite had chosen to adopt towards him on this occasion. He hoped that the hon. Baronet would not accede to the proposition which had been made to him to insist upon a division on his Motion. He (Mr. Labouchere) had in a very thin House stated the reasons which induced him to object to this Motion. He had stated, in the first place, that he believed the fullest information upon all questions relating to Irish fisheries was already upon the Table of the House. He stated also, that he had been assured by the Gentleman who presided over the Irish Fisheries Commission, Mr. Mulvany, that it would

781
cause the greatest inconvenience at this moment to the officers appointed to those fisheries if they were compelled to absent themselves from that business for the purpose of giving evidence before a Committee of the House of Commons; that it would throw that department into great confusion; and Mr. Mulvany, therefore, requested him to do all in his power to dissuade the hon. Baronet the Member for Waterford from persisting in his Motion. He acknowledged, with the hon. Member for Shrewsbury, that nothing was easier than to grant Committees. That hon. Gentleman had told them that that would be a popular as well as an easy course. He (Mr. Labouchere) knew that it was so; but after he had been told by those who were best informed on the subject, that the granting of this Committee would lead to public inconvenience, he felt it to be his duty to request his hon. Friend not to persist in his Motion for a Committee. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury himself, by the tone which he had adopted with reference to the granting of a Committee, had clearly admitted that but little good could he gained by the passing of this Motion.
LORD G. BENTINCK: Sir, my right Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has insinuated that my hon. Friends on this side of the House were not here during the greater portion of this debate; but he may not be aware that out of the twenty-three Members that the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Armagh says he took down as being present when the debate commenced, an hon. Friend of mine, the Member for East Sussex, was the seconder of the Motion—and that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, and my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury, and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple, as well as myself, were present—so that, at all events, of those who actually supported the Motion by their presence, there were five English Members on this side of the House—who remained here, as I remained, at the request of the hon. Baronet the Member for Waterford, who expressed to me a wish that, as I was especially looked upon as the friend of Ireland, I would stay and say a word in favour of this Motion. Now, I think that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Armagh gave us a list of these twenty-three names—[An Hon. MEMBER: There were twenty-six]—I believe that we should not find one single Cabinet Minister. [Sir G. GREY: I have
782
been here during the whole of the debate.] As to the charge brought against us of meeting the Motion or proposition in a jocose manner, we did think there was something jocose in the hon. Baronet the mover of this Committee getting up and stating that his ground for withdrawing his Motion was that he assumed that the Ministers were prepared to grant him all the things that he asked for, He states that he will persist in withdrawing the Motion, though no affirmative answer could be drawn from them, or has been drawn either from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, from the Chief Secretary for Ireland, or from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as to whether or not they would grant what the hon. Member asked for. Therefore I think we are justified in saying that the grounds on which this Motion is withdrawn, are not those which are stated. We have had no promise whatever that anything—that any attempt—that any single effort more—is to be made with regard to the Irish fisheries, than that which was known to have been made before the Motion was brought forward. And therefore it will be understood by those in Ireland interested in fisheries, that nothing whatever has been obtained by this sham attempt to obtain a Committee of Inquiry into the various modes in which the fisheries of Ireland may be advanced; and if, contrary to the usual custom of this House, we persist in going to a division, and refuse to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Waterford leave to withdraw his Motion, do not let it be understood by the Irish nation that it is from any want of desire or good will, on our part, to support her interests, and to take every method in our power to develop her resources. The responsibility rests upon those Gentlemen who bring forward those Motions, asking for assistance to Ireland, and then abandon them, that all the good wishes which we entertain towards Ireland are not fulfilled.
SIR H. W. BARRON,after the somewhat personal tone which had been addressed towards him, particularly by the hon. Member for Shrewsbury, might be expected to make some explanation. In the first place, he begged leave to inform that hon. Gentleman that he had not come down to the House for the purpose of making a sham Motion—that, on the contrary, he had made his Motion with the most sincere intention to see it adopted

783
and carried out in such a manner as might prove most conducive to the object which he had in view, viz., the good of his country. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Shrewsbury had expatiated at some length upon the time which this discussion had wasted, whilst there were other matters of infinitely greater importance yet remaining to be discussed; but the hon. Gentleman had himself contributed, in an eminent degree, to that waste, for he had addressed the House no less than three times on this question. In spite of what the hon. Gentleman had said, it was his intention to fall in with the views of the Government by withdrawing his Motion.
MR. BANKESdid not rise to object to the course the hon. Baronet wished to pursue; but his last remark gave a new complexion to the matter, and rendered it difficult to allow the Motion to be withdrawn. By whom had this been made a party question? He, for one, was surprised at being accused of having made this a party question in the present state of Ireland; but he objected to these Motions brought forward by the friends of the Government without any intention of pressing them. The very next Motion related to waste lands in Ireland. Was this to be a sham Motion also? These Motions were interposed by the friends of the Government; and if those who supported them were to be accused of making them party questions, it would be the way, not of making Ireland a laughing-stock, but of insulting her, and of showing that her interests were neglected by those who must appear to the public as false friends.
MR. POULETT SCROPEassured the hon. and learned Gentleman that he had entertained no intention of putting off his Motion relative to waste lands, if he could have obtained the attention of the House to the discussion; but, at eleven o'clock at night, it was not likely he could obtain that attention, and he must put off his Motion on account of the hour of the night, and not because it was a sham Motion.
MR. HUDSONcomplained of the imputations which had been cast by the hon. Baronet upon Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House, who were quite as honourable as the hon. Baronet himself. For his own part, he thought the inquiry was a very proper one to be instituted, and that the hon. Baronet had acted unwisely in asking for its withdrawal. The reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland for not calling before
784
the Committee the men proposed to be examined, appeared to him to be perfectly idle.
The House divided:-Ayes 22; Noes 73: Majority 51.

List of the AYES.

Arkwright, G.

Gore, M.

Bailey, J. Jun.

Halford, Sir H.

Bankes, G.

Hudson, G.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Knightley, Sir C.

Beresford, Maj.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Borthwick, P.

Manners, Lord J.

Brisco, M.

Packe, C. W.

Disraeli, B.

Pechell, Capt.

Farnham, E. B,

Stuart, J.

Finch, G.

Floyer, J.

TELLERS.

Forbes, W.

Barron, Sir H. W.

Frewen, C. H.

Blackstone, W. S.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hughes, W. B.

Aldam, W.

Hume, J.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Jervis, Sir J.

Baine, W.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Barkly, H.

Leader, J. T.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Bellow, R. M.

M'Carthy, A.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Maitland, T.

Bowring, Dr.

Masterman, J.

Brotherton, J.

Mitcalfe, H.

Browne, R. D.

Monahan, J. H.

Browne, hon. W.

Morris, D.

Buller, E.

Newry, Visct.

Butler, P. S.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Cayley, E. S.

O'Conor Don

Clayton, R. R.

Parker, J.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Perfect, R.

Courtenay, Lord

Philips, M.

Dennistoun, J.

Rawdon, Col.

Duncan, G.

Rice, E. R.

Duncombe, T.

Romilly, J.

Ellis, W.

Scrope, G. P.

Escott, B.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Spooner, R.

Fox, C. R.

Strutt, rt. hon. E.

French, F.

Thornely, T.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Trelawny, J. S.

Gisborne, T.

Vyvyan, Sir R. R.

Granger, T. C.

Wakley, T.

Grey, rt. hon, Sir G.

Ward, H. G.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Watson, W. H.

Harcourt, G. G.

Wodehouse, E.

Hawes, B.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Heathcoat, J.

Wood, Col. T.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Wyse, T.

Hope, Sir J.

TELLERS.

Hope, G. W.

Hill, Lord M.

Howard, Sir R.

Tufnell, H.

BRITISH WEST INDIA POSSESSIONS.
MR. HUMEwished to call the attention of the House to the petition from Jamaica, signed by 4,000 persons, praying for free trade for that colony, and for an additional supply of labour, as requisite for the prosperity of that island. Since the petition had been presented some parts of the

785
prayer had been granted, and he hoped that the Government would soon comply with the rest. The great object which the petitioners sought was, that the colonies should be supplied with abundance of labour; and he conceived that there was no more effectual mode of putting an end to the slave trade than by removing those temptations which induced men to carry on that traffic. The slave trade was like smuggling. Let the temptation to introduce contraband goods be once taken away, and the necessity for maintaining a preventive service would altogether cease. To restrain smuggling upon the coasts of England we kept a force of sixty or seventy cruisers, and we incurred an expense of 800,000 l. a year; yet tons of tobacco were unlawfully imported. The only way to put down smuggling was to reduce import duties; the only mode of abolishing the slave trade would be to supply our colonies with abundance of free labour. It cost the country 1,000,000 l. sterling per annum to repress the slave trade, and after all the object was not accomplished. From a return laid before Parliament, it appeared that the number of ships of war of all classes employed for the suppression of the slave trade was fifty-six, mounting 886 guns, and manned by 9,289 men. In that force the mortality and casualties were well known to be great. It was stated, and he believed that the statement rested upon very just grounds, that the colonists could not much longer continue the cultivation of sugar if restriction were continued upon their obtaining labour from Africa and elsewhere, as, while labour from its scarcity was becoming dear in the colonies, the slave population of the countries with which those colonies were called on to compete was daily increasing by means of the slave trade. The views of this important subject which he was thus endeavouring to press upon the House were entertained, not only by the colonists, but he was enabled to state that the Anti-Slavery Society had addressed a letter to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, entreating the adoption of new measures. If the million now expended in attempting to repress the slave trade could be saved, the advantage was too obvious to be overlooked; he sincerely hoped that the Government and the country would see the necessity of losing no more time, and that they would at once agree in adopting the only measures calculated to put clown the slave trade. The redemption of slaves was a practice which
786
had received the sanction of the most eminent philanthropists, and he thought there could be no possible objection to allowing colonists to proceed to the coasts of Africa, there to procure slaves, and the moment they reached the shores of a British colony, set them free, and employ them as free labourers. The petitioners prayed, and he hoped the House would favourably consider their prayer, that all restrictions upon the transit and use of British produce should be removed, and that all restrictions upon the free introduction of labour should also be removed. The grievance which formed the subject of this complaint was a great grievance, and one in the removal of which the mother country and the colonies were deeply interested. All the colonies joined in praying for its removal. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving—
"That it is the opinion of this House, that all restrictions in the use and transit of the produce of the British West India Possessions should be removed, and all impediments to the free introduction of labourers into those Possessions, should also be discontined."
MR. BARKLYbelieved every one in the colonies was agreed on the question of free trade, that if it were applied in the relations between the mother country and the colonies, it ought to be fairly applied, and all the productions of the colonies ought to be freely received. That, hitherto, had not been the case, as evidenced more especially in the articles of rum and molasses. He was also of opinion that the second prayer of the petition—relative to the employment of tree labour in the colonies—should be complied with. Long as this question had been talked of, he was surprised that it had not before this been carried into effect. Before he sat down, he wished to inquire of the Under Secretary for the Colonies, what had become of the vessel, the Growler, which it was proposed should be employed in conveying labourers to the West Indies?.
MR. HAWESsaid, that the petition in question had been agreed to in Jamaica before the measure introduced by Her Majesty's Government for the relief of the colonies had arrived there, and consequently much of its prayer had been already accomplished. With regard to the encouragement of emigration, there was no power which the Government possessed which had not been exerted for that purpose; and, in fact, a large importation of labour had taken place. The subject was one of great difficulty and expense,

787
and therefore what had been done must be treated as an experiment only; but a large supply of labour had been given by the measures of Lord Stanley when at the head of the Colonial Office; and altogether from the time of the abolition of slavery there had been imported into Jamaica 8,000 labourers, into British Guiana 33,000, and into Trinidad 17,000 odd; the total number imported being upwards of 60,000 labourers. With regard to the vessels between the Kroo coast and that of Africa, alluded to by the hon. Member opposite, some delay had occurred; but he had the satisfaction of informing him that a vessel would soon be ready to proceed to that destination. He was not sanguine in expecting much good from that expedition, nor did he believe that by the importation of labour at all they could do anything but improve the condition of the colonies by lowering the rate of wages there. He did not entertain the least idea that any amount of labour which could possibly be procured, would in the least degree lead to a termination of the slave trade. With regard to sugar, the petition prayed that it might be admitted into distilleries and breweries—a prayer which had been already granted under some restrictions, rendered necessary by the state of the revenue; and with regard to duties, though they might be higher than was pleasing to the hon. Member, it could not be denied that considerable benefit to the producers of sugar and molasses in the colonies, must result from the measures which had been adopted. He would give no opinion at all upon the question of the Navigation Laws, because that subject was before a Committee of that House at the present time. He perhaps felt disposed to agree with the hon. Member opposite, that the principles of free trade had not been sufficiently carried out; but powers had been given last Session to the colonies to act upon those principles; and whilst they had continued to the grower of sugar in the colonies a certain amount of protection, it had been considerably reduced, and other restrictions upon the trade had been removed. The prayer of the petitioners, therefore, upon all its points had already been anticipated to a very great extent; and he was happy to say that, judging by the recent accounts, the general trade of our colonies was materially extending and improving, and that great amelioration was taking place, in their social and domestic condition. He was
788
therefore not without hope that the severe struggles of our colonies, through a fierce competition, would, by the increased application of science and the improvement of agriculture, which it must occasion, result in the advantage of the colonies themselves. He hoped, therefore, that his hon. Friend would not press his Motion.
MR. HUMEsaid, that he would not divide the House upon his Motion; but he considered that he had received no satisfactory answer as to the redemption and importation of African slaves.
SIR T. D. ACLANDsaid, that the difficulty of the exportation of slaves on the coast of Africa was so great, that he had been credibly informed that a legitimate trade was superseding the unlawful traffic in slaves.
Motion negatived.

SEDUCTION AND PROSTITUTION.
MR. SPOONER MR. SPOONER moved for leave to introduce a Bill for the more effectual suppression of trading in Seduction and Prostitution, and for the better protection of females. In compliance with the suggestions of the right hon. Gentleman (Sir G. Grey), his present measure was principally directed towards two objects. In the first place, any person trading in seduction would be liable to be indicted, and might be subjected to imprisonment. he proposed, in the next place, that if any brothel keeper should be convicted of keeping a brothel, it should be within the discretion of the court to make void any term he might have in the house. No one could reasonably object to such provisions; and he would now simply move for leave to bring in a Bill.
MR. HUMEobjected to the Motion. Too much of the time of the House had already been taken up with that subject during the Session. He believed that in mooting the subject, the hon. Member had done much injury by directing the attention of people towards it, when many might otherwise never have heard of it. The hon. Gentleman had much to answer for in this respect, for every discussion on this subject was injurious. He was sorry that the Government should allow this Bill to be brought in— a Bill in which the term "trading" in seduction had not been defined by the hon. Member; he did not know how to define it; and, he would add, that the Bill tended to excite discussion after discussion, and increased the evil which it proposed to suppress. He regretted that

789
an hon. Member, like the hon. Member for Birmingham, should bring before the House his experience in such matters. [Laughter.] Yes! the hon. Member could not have grown grey without being acquainted with those matters; and although the hon. Member's experience might induce him to come forward in such a cause, he could not agree in the opinion that such discussions were not injurious. Let his hon. Friend, if he wished to put an end to vice, set the example himself—let him form a league for the promotion of virtue and its reward; and let him, by his own example, do that which would not be effected by legislation. He would oppose the Motion; and it was his intention to take the sense of the House upon it.
SIR G. GREYhad yesterday explained the grounds upon which he objected to the Bill previously introduced by the hon. Member for Birmingham with reference to this subject, and the hon. Gentleman acquiesced in the justice of his objections. He had stated, however, that he was prepared to agree to a Bill limited to one object, which, he believed, this Bill was intended to effect. He did not think that there would be any difficulty in accomplishing that object; the existing law was, as he had before stated, defective in some points; and he hoped, therefore, that the hon. Member for Montrose would not persevere in his opposition.
MR. HUMEwas not present when the discussion on this subject took place yesterday; but he could be no party to the concern, and he felt it his duty to divide the House.
The House divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 11; Majority 46.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Aglionby, H. A.

Halford, Sir H.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Hawes, B.

Bailey, J. Jun.

Heathcoat, J.

Bankes, G.

Hill, Lord M.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Hobhouse rt. hon. Sir J.

Bennet, P.

Hudson, G.

Bentink, Lord G.

Hughes, W. B.

Beresford, Maj.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Brotherton, J.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Clayton, R. R.

M'Carthy, A.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Maitland, T.

Dodd, G.

Masterman, J.

Ellis, W.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Farnham, E. B.

Mildmay, H. St. J.

Finch, G.

Monahan, J. H.

Forbes, W.

Morpeth, Visct.

Frewen, C. H.

Morris, D.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Newry, Visct.

Gisborne, T.

Packe, C. W.

Greene, T.

Parker, J.

790

Perfect, R.

Tufnell, H.

Rashleigh, W.

Vyvyan, Sir R. R.

Romilly, J.

Wakley, T.

Rutherfurd, rt. hon. A.

Ward, H. G.

Scrope, G. P.

Wodehouse, E.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Stanton, W. H.

TELLERS.

Tancred, H. W.

Spooner, R.

Thornely, T.

Borthwick, P.

List of the NOES.

Bowring, Dr.

Talbot, C. R, M.

Duncombe, T.

Trelawny, J. S.

Escott, B.

Waddington, H. S.

Leader, J. T.

Wood, Col. T.

Napier, Sir C.

TELLERS.

Pechell, Capt.

Hume, J.

Sibthorp, Col.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Leave given.

REGISTRATION OF MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS.
MR. WAKLEYrose to move—
"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the Registration of legally qualified Practitioners in Medicine and Surgery; and into the Laws and Charters relating to the practice of Medicine and Surgery in Great Britain and Ireland; and to report the Evidence, with their opinion thereon, to the House."
At that late hour he would not detain the House by entering into the subject beyond stating that the qualified members of the profession wore desirous that a law should be passed which might enable them to be distinguished from quacks and impostors. There were at present so many laws in existence with reference to the profession, and so many powers were exercised by the various colleges, that it was most desirable that a law should be enacted for the purpose of registering duly qualified medical practitioners; but the subject was involved in so many difficulties, that it had not been found possible to lay down any rule or plan which should govern the House with reference to any enactment. It had, however, been suggested—and he believed the suggestion met the concurrence of Her Majesty's Ministers—that the governing bodies connected with the profession should be brought together before a Committee of that House; that they should have an opportunity of expressing their views, and of stating their objections to the plan of registration which had been proposed; and it was exceedingly desirable, both for the profession and for the public, that some measure, founded upon the information obtained by the Committee, should be adopted. He believed that the inquiry would occupy but a very short time; for the corporations and the medical practitioners

791
generally had already formed their opinions on the subject: they would merely have to state those opinions before the Committee; and he hoped that, as the result of the opinions thus expressed, some well-devised measure might be adopted which would be satisfactory alike to the profession and the public. The hon. Member concluded by making his Motion.
SIR G. GREYobserved, that, although he did not think the objections which had been urged against many parts of the Bill of the hon. Member for Finsbury ought to prevail, he was convinced, if that measure had been pressed, satisfactory legislation on the subject during the present Session would have been hopeless. He considered that the hon. Gentleman was taking the more judicious course in asking for the appointment of a Committee, before whom the various conflicting opinions which existed on this question might be expressed; and he believed that such an inquiry would tend to lead to satisfactory results. He was willing to accede to the Motion, on the understanding that the hon. Member for Finsbury would not proceed with his Bill until after the Committee had made their report.
Motion agreed to.

HOSIERY MANUFACTURE BILL.
On the Order of the Day being read for resuming the Adjourned Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill,
SIR H. HALFORDstated, that he would not press the Bill at that late hour of the evening (12 o'clock); but he thought the House would agree with him that a full consideration of the subject to which it referred could not be evaded.
MR. W. ELLISobserved, that this Bill had occasioned great excitement in the counties of Leicester and Nottingham, where the price of food was very high, and trade was in a most depressed condition. If the House should determine to send the Bill before a Committee, its adoption or rejection would probably not be decided upon until the meeting of a new Parliament, and the manufacturers would, in the meantime, be kept in a state of suspense. He considered that this was a most unfortunate time for the proposal of such a measure, when there was great probability that the hosiery trade in this country might be still further depressed by the introduction of foreign manufactures. He gave the hon. Gentleman who had
792
brought in the Bill the fullest credit for humane and disinterested motives; but he was convinced that if the Bill were kept hanging over the trade, it would have a most prejudicial effect upon the interests of the operatives. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman would consent to abandon the measure.
SIR J. C. HOBHOUSEconcurred in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. W. Ellis). He had received a petition signed by all the master hosiers of Nottingham against this Bill; and the more he had looked into the subject, the more he was convinced that the mode of legislation proposed by the hon. Member for Leicester would involve him in difficulties of which he had little idea, and would be injurious to the very parties whom he intended to benefit. He would mention one fact of importance. There were 40,000 frames employed in this trade in the three counties, 10,000 of which were independent frames; and the immediate effect of the operation of the Bill would be to confiscate the whole of the latter, as well as the property embarked in them. There was one parish about three miles from the town of Nottingham, in which there were 1,700 of these frames; and there was not a single person connected with those frames who would not be utterly destitute to-morrow if the Bill passed. He had spoken to several parties, who were inclined to allow the hon. Gentleman to go into Committee with his Bill, though they were not disposed to support a single clause of it in Committee; all they wished being inquiry. They thought that there was a sort of case made out as to the distress of these operatives, and they wished to see any way in which that distress could possibly be alleviated. But the Bill of the hon. Gentleman was really a Bill to raise wages by Act of Parliament. The hon. Gentleman himself would confess that.
SIR H. HALFORD: No; its object is to prevent them from being unfairly lowered.
SIR J. HOBHOUSE: Did not that amount to the same thing? The Bill was, in reality, a Bill to raise wages, and that was a principle which was not supported in these days.
MR. PACKEwas surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have entered into any argument on this Bill, when it was postponed to a future day. He did not think that the Bill would be injurious to the operatives, which was framed in ac-

793
cordance with the report of the Commissioner appointed in 1844.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Hobhouse) might have presented petitions against the Bill from the manufacturers of Nottingham, and perhaps from Leicester also. He had likewise presented petitions signed by several thousands of operatives, who had great reason to complain of those very hosiery manufacturers, in whose behalf the right hon. Gentleman had presented petitions. This was a question, the discussion of which could not be avoided, though it might be very convenient to endeavour to get rid of it by throwing the Bill over till another Parliament. He hoped that the hon. Gentleman would go on with his Bill, and that it would be submitted to a Committee up stairs. He did approve of all the provisions of the Bill; but the details were subjects for consideration in Committee, and he would be ready to prove, when the discussion came on, that the labour and wages of the working classes were confiscated, and that they were subject to gross robbery. He believed that it was impossible that their condition could be worse than it was at present, and he was informed that 500 of the framework-knitters were now in the workhouse at Hinckley. There was not a more ill-used class than the framework-knitters in the three counties.
Adjourned debate farther adjourned till the 9th of June.

SEDUCTION AND PROSTITUTION.
MR. SPOONERbrought up his Bill for the suppression of trading in Prostitution, and moved that it be read a first time.
MR. CRAVEN BERKELEYobjected to the Motion.
The House divided:—Ayes 17; Noes 4: Majority 13.

List of the AYES.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Brotherton, J.

Monahan, J. H.

Colville, C. R.

Morpeth, Visct.

Dodd, G.

Parker, J.

Forbes, W.

Stanton, W. H.

Greene, T.

Vyvyan, Sir R.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Hawes, B.

TELLERS.

Hudson, G.

Spooner, R.

Masterman, J.

Mackenzie, W. F.

List of the NOES.

Escott, B.

TELLERS.

Pechell, Capt.

Duncombe, T.

Sibthorp, Col.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Talbot, C. R. M.

There not being forty Members present, the House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.