Commons Sitting of 17 April 1848

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN.—For Rye, Herbert
Mascall Curteis, Esq.; for Sligo, Charles TowneIey, Esq.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Collectors of Cess (Ireland).
2° Indemnity.
Reported.—Crown and Government Security; Exchequer Bills (17,946,500 l); Public Works Completion (Ireland).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Archibald Hastie, from Paisley, for Repeal of the Union with Ireland.—By Colonel Thompson, from Sunderland, for Adoption of Universal Suffrage.—By Mr. Horsman, from Newcastle-on-Tyne, for Alteration of the Law respecting the Church of England Clergy.—By Sir R. Ferguson, from the Presbytery of Kirkcaldy, against the Jewish Disabilities Bill.—By Mr. Archibald Hastie, from Paisley, for Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Mr. Hardcastle, from the Rector of the Parish of Saint James, Colchester, for Alteration of the Marriage Law.—By Lord Hotham, from Freeholders of the East Riding of Yorkshire, against the Roman Catholic Relief Bill.—By Mr. Cowan, from Members of the Free Church Congregation of Temple and Carrington, Mid-Lothian, for Alteration of the Law of Sites for Churches (Scotland).—By Mr. Farnham, from Ashby de la Zouch, and by Captain Somerset, from Abergavenny, for Repeal of the Duty on Attorneys' Certificates.—By Mr. Bramston, from the Board of Guardians of the Hoxne Union (Suffolk), against the Exemption of Small Tenements from Rating Bill.—By Sir R. Ferguson, from Inhabitants of Kirkaldy, and its Neighbourhood, for Exemption of Charitable Bequests from Legacy Duties.—By Sir Edmund Hayes, from Donegal, respecting Depredations committed by Killing Cattle and Sheep.—By Dr. Bowring, from Members of the City of London Mechanics' Institute, 3, Gould Square, Crutched Friars, and by several Hon. Members, from various Places, against the Crown and Government Security Bill. —By Mr. Cowan, from Blackwater, Glenshee, and Glenistar, in the Counties of Perth and Forfar, and other Hon. Members, from several Places, against the Diplomatic Relations, Court of Rome, Bill.—By Mr. George Hamilton, from Ballyhuly, King's County, and several other Places, for Encouragement to Schools, in Connexion with the Church Education Society (Ireland).—By Sir De Lacy Evans, from Engineers, Engine Drivers, and other Workmen, complaining of the Expulsion and consequent Loss of Property of English Workmen in France.—By Sir J. Yarde Buller, from Torquay, Devon, for a Free Pardon for Frost, Williams, and Jones.—By Mr. Bright, from Perth, and by Mr. Hardcastle, from Colchester, for Repeal of the Game Laws.—By Sir De Lacy Evans, from a number of Working People, whose Families are suffering from Sickness, in Favour of Sanitary Regulations.—By Mr. Bramston, from Guardians of the Billericay Union, Essex, complaining of the Increase of Illegitimate Children.—By Mr. Gibson Craig, from Edinburgh, and by Mr. Hume, from Arbroath, in favour of the Law of Entail (Scotland) Bill.—By Mr. Horsman, from Cocker-mouth, for Retrenchment in the Naval and Military Expenditure.—By Mr. Parker, from Sheffield, and by Mr. Brotherton, from Salford, for Alteration of the Public Health Bill.—By Mr. Hardcastle, from Bocking and Baintree, Essex, and by Viscount Mahon, from Hertford, and its Neighbourhood, for an Alteration of the Law as regards Promiscuous Intercourse.—By Colonel Mure, from the Presbytery of Paisley, against the Schoolmasters (Scotland) Bill.

NEW WRIT FOR DERBY.
MR. W. EVANS, pursuant to notice, moved that a new writ be issued for Derby, in the room of the right hon. E. Strutt and the hon. F. L. Gower, whose election had been determined to be void.
MR. E. ELLICE, jun., wished the House to understand the position in which it would be placed should this new writ be issued. The Committee upon the Derby

403
election had reported that the most corrupt practices had prevailed in the borough, and had recommended that the freemen should be disfranchised previous to granting a new writ. The evidence taken in relation to the late election foe Derby pointed out a case precisely parallel with that of Yarmouth, and he hoped that the House would act upon the same principle in both instances. The evidence in the one case was nearly a repetition of that in the other, and the House would be guilty of the grossest injustice if it disfranchised Yarmouth and not Derby.
SIR J. HANMER admitted that no town was more entitled to be represented in Parliament than Derby. It was an ancient town; it stood on one of the great lines of railway communication; it was a very industrious and populous town; it had a great many manufactories, and stood within a large manufacturing district. After the case of Bewdley, he was not going to oppose the issue of a new writ for Derby; but he could not suffer the Motion to pass without calling the attention of the House to what he had stated on a former occasion. As the law now stood, if the House should persist in issuing writs to places tainted with corruption, and visited all the sins of the corrupt electors upon the heads of the gentlemen returned by them, and inflicted no punishment at all upon the electors themselves, the House would never get rid of that corruption which was a source of substantial danger to them at that moment. Mr. Strutt had declared in the most emphatic manner before the late election that it was his earnest desire and full intention, as far as he could, to obey the law of 1842, and to set himself against all corrupt and illegal practices; and no one in that House could doubt the sincerity of that right hon. Gentleman. What was the result? He was petitioned against, a Committee sat, and his election was declared void, on the ground of bribery. He called upon the House and the Government to turn their attention to this state of things. Derby contained many Chartists, and nothing was more likely to turn men to Chartism than seeing drunken electors rolling in the gutter.
MR. HUME considered it to be the duty of the Government of the day to endeavour to obtain as much purity as possible in the constituencies. There were standing orders of the House against corrupt practices at elections; and it was as much the duty of Her Majesty's Govern-
404
ment as of any individual Member to maintain the rules and orders of the House. He had upon a former occasion submitted that, in all these cases, the writ should be suspended, and a Committee be appointed to inquire and report to the House. The right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department had agreed with him in the principle, but did not wish to make it a general rule. This led to a different practice, and boroughs equally guilty were treated in different ways. The case of Derby was almost a parallel case with that of Yarmouth. The Derby Committee had reported that—
"A practice has existed in the borough of Derby, at the last as well as former elections, of placing freemen as Members on a nominal committee, and paying them for pretended services; and they believe that this practice has obtained very extensively in the said borough, and they consider it their duty to report it to the House."
Why did they report it to the House? He considered that it was done in order that the House might visit the conduct of the parties in some manner, and mark its disapprobation of such practices by suspending the writ, and, he hoped, by disfranchising the borough. Yet a motion was now made to issue a new writ for Derby; and he asked the House to include all the offending boroughs in the same condition. The question was, whether the boroughs should be represented by men who bribed the electors? He should vote against the issse of the writ until inquiry took place.
The EARL of LINCOLN agreed with the observations made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Flint (Sir J. Hanmer) on this as on a former occasion, and he should, with the hon. Member for Montrose, oppose the issue of the writ. He acknowledged that it was unconstitutional to suspend a writ without having some specific object in view; but he supported the suspension of this writ, because he hoped the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) would devise some mode by which justice could be done in this case. It would be doing gross injustice to pass a Bill to disfranchise Yarmouth, and take no notice of the long-continued practices at Derby. He admitted that there had been some appearance of caprice in their legislation upon this subject; and he hoped that whenever there was a report from a Committee stating that corruption had been found in a borough, and it was put prominently forward, measures would be taken to secure an uniformity of practice. If the House pursued a vacillating

405
policy with regard to these cases, it would do more harm than good. Could they ever expect that any benefit would result from a policy which subjected a Member to punishment, and rewarded the guilty electors? The names of four candidates for Derby were published at this moment, and all of them were determined to abstain from illegal practices; but he dared say the individuals in that borough who had caused the avoidance of the election were rejoicing in their misdeeds, and that a report of a Committee of that House had given them an opportunity of renewing their practices. Numbers of witnesses examined before the Committee of the House testified to their own corruption; and one witness, who admitted that he had been paid, testified that he saw bags of money carried into the committee room, and as many as sixty-three persons go into that room; and the number of persons proved to have gone into the room was at least 200. In the case of Sudbury, the noble Lord had, previous to introducing a Bill, proposed an inquiry into the practices in the borough, and the result was a confirmation of the report of the Committee, and the borough was disfranchised; and he considered that the noble Lord would do a great public service if he would deal with this case in the same way. As he was locally connected with the county and borough of Derby, it was, perhaps, right that he should state that, in expressing an opinion on this subject, he was acting entirely on his own responsibility: no request had been made to him by any person in the borough of Derby that he would adopt the course he had felt it right to pursue; but he had been informed that it was the anxious desire of both political parties in that borough that the writ should be issued.
MR. CHILDERS (Chairman of the Committee on the Derby Election) was understood to say that nine cases of bribery were distinctly proved before the Committee, and there was reason to believe that nearly 400 out of 500 freemen had been bribed. There were, however, 1,500 10 l. householders in the borough upon whom no imputation of bribery had been thrown; and, though the Committee were unanimously of opinion that the freemen ought to be disfranchised, they considered that it would be unjust to subject the householders to the same penalty.
MR. AGLIONBY conceived that, in such a case as the present, the House should support its Committee; and that by
406
a measure of such severity as the facts might warrant, they ought to endeavour to secure for the House that respect which he thought it had lost of late years, in consequence of its conduct with regard to questions of this kind. It was evident that gross corruption had prevailed among the freemen of the borough of Derby; and, in his opinion, they ought no longer to be intrusted with the franchise. He believed it would invariably be found that the freemen were much more corrupt than the 10 l. householders; and at some of the elections in the county of Cumberland he had seen them rolling about in a disgusting state of intoxication, and scarcely able to say for whom they would vote. He considered that the prosecution of these cases ought not to be left to accident or caprice, but that the House ought to appoint an officer whose duty it should be, when a primâ facie case of corruption was made out against any borough, to inquire into the facts, and ascertain whether there were grounds for proposing the disfranchisement of the electors. He thought that a searching inquiry ought to be substituted into the proceedings at the last election for Derby, and that—if the evidence justified such a course—the freemen should be disfranchised. He was ready to vote for the suspension of the writ, provided that the Government or any Member of the House would undertake to propose a further inquiry into the proceedings at the late election.
LORD J. RUSSELL said, it appeared, in this particular case, that several allegations of bribery were proved before the Committee, and that from the evidence given before them, they were led to believe that extensive bribery had prevailed among the freemen at the last election for Derby. It also appeared, that Mr. Strutt and the other Member for the borough were not themselves cognisant of this bribery; and that, finding that bribery had been committed by their agents, they very properly determined that they ought not to retain their seats. He could not agree with the noble Lord that such reports as that presented by the Committee on the Derby election would produce no effect upon the country, and that in the event of a new election the parties who had bribed at the late election would resort to the same practices again. He thought, that a very obvious and certain result of the reports made by Election Committees this year would be, that agents who wished

407
to promote the interests of candidates would see that if they had recourse to bribery, instead of promoting the interests of those whom they wished to serve, they would only procure a return which would be set aside, and would thus defeat their own objects. He considered that the unseating of Members, under such circumstances, was a measure of great public importance, and would be attended with great public advantage. In this case it appeared to the Committee that very extensive bribery had existed among the freemen. He understood the hon. Gentleman who was Chairman of the Committee to state that they had reason to believe that a very considerable proportion of the 500 freemen of the borough had been bribed, but that there were 1,500 10 l. householders in the borough with regard to whom no taint had been proved before the Committee. Of course, if two or three cases of bribery had occurred among the householders, that would not be a reason for refusing the issue of a writ to a constituency of 1,500 persons. He thought, that as so much had been stated in the report of the Committee, and as they had very properly considered that it was not their duty to go into any further inquiry, it was fitting that some investigation should be instituted by the House with respect to the corruption of the freemen of Derby. In this view he was supported by the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby), who had referred to the general corruption of that class of voters. He must confess that he did not entertain a very favourable opinion of them, and both in the Reform Bill and in the Municipal Corporations Bill he had endeavoured to get rid of that class of electors. He could not, however, agree with the hon. Member for Montrose, or with the noble Member for Falkirk, that it was part of the duty of the Government to take up cases of this nature. In 1819, he, as a Member of that House, unconnected with office, took up a case of this kind—that of Grampound—which occupied a great deal of his time and attention. At a subsequent period he was enabled to devote some attention to the cases of other boroughs; but, with the weighty business of the Government upon his hands, if he were to engage to read through the whole of the evidence in the Derby case, with a view to ascertain what degree of criminality attached to the electors, he should undertake a duty he would not have time to perform. He considered that, if the noble Lord, or
408
any other Member of the House, would take up this case, it would be far preferable to interference on the part of the Government. It was true that, a few days ago, he had brought in a Bill for disfranchising the freemen of Yarmouth, because it seemed to be the general wish of the House that such a measure should be proposed; but it had not been his intention, when he had previously spoken of the corruption which had existed in that borough, to take up the case himself. He thought that, until the House determined what course should be pursued in this particular case, it was advisable that the issue of the writ should be suspended; but, at the same time, it was a question for subsequent consideration for how long a time writs should be suspended under such circumstances. It might happen, that Bills for disfranchising portions of constituencies might go on till nearly the end of the Session, when they could not pass through the House of Lords; and it would be a public wrong, if, under such circumstances, the whole of the writs were to be suspended. He thought there was not the same reason in the case of Derby as in the case of Yarmouth for the immediate disfranchisement of the freemen; but he agreed with the noble Lord opposite that cause had been shown for further inquiry.
SIR R. PEEL had heard with much satisfaction the speech of the noble Lord, which confirmed the conclusion at which he had himself arrived. It appeared to him that it would be impossible for the House to consent to the issue of the writ for Derby without the opportunity of further consideration. He did not wish now to give an opinion with respect to the disfranchisement of that borough, or even as to the disfranchisement of the freemen. He considered that those freemen who had resisted temptation ought not to be visited with punishment; but he thought there were grounds for instituting an inquiry into this case, and he rejoiced that there was an opportunity of teaching this large constituency that the plan of dealing with small constituencies would be extended to it. If large constituencies relied upon their importance, and upon the difficulty there was in refusing the issue of a writ to large bodies of electors, he rejoiced that an opportunity was afforded the House of teaching them that if they were guilty of corruption, the writs would in their case be suspended until an investigation had been instituted. The Committee which had re-

409
cently inquired into the Derby election had reported that a practice had existed in that borough, at the last as well as at former elections, of placing freemen on nominal committees, and paying them for pretended services; and the Committee expressed their belief that this practice had obtained very extensively in the said borough. Now, in 1842 there was a general impression that these practices—which were very ancient, which everybody was very unwilling to break through, and which there was great difficulty in breaking through—did not partake of the character of bribery. It was said, with regard to many boroughs he could name, "It has always been the custom to give a dinner to the electors, or to give them certain payments, called head-money; these are taken by respectable people; they are not regarded as bribery; and it is very hard to disfranchise men who yield to a practice which has been established and observed for a long period." But at the instance of the noble Lord opposite an Act was passed to abolish these practices. That Act provided that—
"Whereas a practice has prevailed in certain boroughs and places of making payments by or on behalf of candidates to the voters, in such manner that doubts have been entertained whether such payments are to be deemed bribery; be it declared and enacted that the payment or gift of any sum of money, or other valuable consideration whatsoever, to any voter, before, during, or after any election, or to any person on his behalf, or to any person related to him by kindred or affinity, and which shall be so paid or given on account of such voter having voted, or having refrained from voting, or being about to vote, or refrained from voting, at the said election, whether the same shall have been paid or given under the name of head-money or any other name whatsoever, and whether such payment shall have been in compliance with any usage or practice, or not, shall be deemed bribery."
In the case of Derby it appeared to have been the practice to pay 5s. a head to the voters for sitting on a nominal committee, such payments extending over a period of five or six days, so that 25 s. or 30 s. were put into the pocket of each voter. That practice was very ancient, but the Committee considered that it partook very much of the character of bribery, and that it ought to be declared bribery. He placed great confidence in the view taken by that Committee. He might also state, that he had felt great satisfaction at the decisions of every Election Committee which had sat during the Session, and he could not help taking this opportunity to congratulate the House on the course which had been pur-
410
sued by those Committees. He knew nothing more calculated to raise the House in general estimation than the manner in which the Committees on elections had done their duty, totally regardless of all party considerations. The Committee in this particular case had stated their belief that the practice to which he had referred had prevailed very extensively at the last election for Derby. It was true that this had not been actually proved, because, when the two hon. Gentlemen who had been returned found that, contrary to their express injunctions, they were liable to lose their seats for bribery, they felt no interest in vindicating the general character of the freemen; they at once retired, and the direct evidence proving that 200 or more freemen had been bribed was not brought before the Committee. He would give no opinion as to the course it might be advisable to adopt; but, for his own part, he would not vote for the disfranchisement of any elector until the House was in possession of further evidence on the subject. He was, however, ready to vote for the appointment by Bill of a Commission to go down to Derby and make inquiries; and if it should appear from their report that a very large proportion of the freemen had been bribed in pursuance of the ancient custom he had mentioned, he would consent that the same punishment which had been inflicted on smaller boroughs should be imposed on a portion of this larger constituency, and that they should be taught that they would not be allowed to violate the law with impunity on account of their numbers and supposed importance. He knew how overwhelmed the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) must be by public business, and he therefore did not wish to impose upon him the duty of wading through all the details of this subject; but he hoped, if the noble Lord felt a case had been established for further inquiry, that he would consent to the appointment of a local commission, such as was appointed in the Sudbury case, and that he would lend the authority of the Government to such legislative proceedings as might be necessary.
SIR R. INGLIS thought that the question was, whether the number found guilty of bribery in this borough formed such a large proportion of the constituency that not only the guilty, but the remainder also, ought to be disfranchised? He understood, that whatever might be the belief as to the amount guilty of bribery, the number really proved to be so was only eighteen. Under

411
these circumstances he maintained that little ground existed for inculpating the great body of freemen in the borough, and still less for inculpating the great body of electors. He hoped, therefore, the House would concur in the Motion for the issue of the writ.
MR. STANTON, as a Member of the Election Committee, begged to say, with respect to the borough of Derby, that if the House disfranchised the freemen, the rest of the constituency would, in his opinion, be found to be such as the country might be proud of. Mr. Strutt's expenses were only 450 l., and there were few Members standing a contest, where the constituency was numerous, who got off so easily.
MR. COLVILE wished to impress on the House the gross injustice they would perpetrate, if they any longer deprived the borough of Derby of the privilege of being represented in Parliament. He wished to call to their recollection the fact, that though the late Members had been unseated for bribery, out of a constituency of 2,000, the report of the Election Committee only showed that nine electors had been bribed. He would submit the offence they had committed was as little culpable as offences of this nature could possibly be; they had been bribed by being employed as messengers, in which it was possible they might not be aware they were doing any wrong. Great stress had been laid during the debate, on the injustice of punishing the Members by expelling them from the House, and at the same time allowing the offending constituency to go free. He did not see the force of that remark; he considered the person who, through his agents paid the bribe, more likely to know the law, and consequently much more culpable, than the ignorant elector who received it. He hoped, therefore, the House would not commit the great injustice of disfranchising so important a constituency for the sins of nine of the more ignorant of their body; for though the Chairman of the Derby Election Committee stated the Committee suspected extensive bribery had been committed in Derby, he begged to remind the House they ought not to act on suspicion, but on the report that Committee had laid on the table. Though he would be the last to encourage corrupt practices, he would not be a party to the attempt he saw hon. Members opposite were anxious to make to disfranchise all freemen; nor could he
412
understand the meaning of hon. Members, for while on the one hand they clamoured for an extension of the suffrage, on the other they proposed to contract the suffrage by disfranchising that class which especially represented the working classes, and were the most ancient of all electors; but his chief object in rising was to ascertain from the hon. Member for Leamington (Mr. Mackinnon), what were the motives which induced him to withdraw the notice he some time since gave for issuing a new writ for Derby. It had been stated that the hon. Member had been actuated by sinister motives; he therefore thought it was due to the hon. Member and the borough, that he should offer some explanation.
DR. BOWRING said, that though, according to the hon. Member, only nine persons were bribed, yet upwards of 200 were proved to have been in attendance for the purpose of receiving the usual daily allowance.
MR. STAFFORD observed, that notwithstanding the House had heard from various Members many magniloquent declarations to the effect that corruption was a much worse thing than purity, yet almost every hon. Member had manifested a hesitation to take up the question himself and to deal with it practically. He could understand why the hon. Member for Montrose should decline this office, because, according to public report, he must have a great deal on his hands just now, being engaged in the formation of a party; and, considering the distracted opinions expressed by that party last Session, he could readily believe that the hon. Member must be greatly occupied in bringing it under any sort of discipline. However, the position of the right hon. Member for Tamworth was one of peculiar leisure, and therefore he hoped that that right hon. Gentleman would occupy some portion of his time in bringing forward a measure for purifying the corrupt but ancient borough of Derby. He should vote for the issue of the writ, believing that its issue would not prevent the House from hereafter punishing those guilty of bribery.
SIR G. GREY agreed with the hon. Gentleman, that any hon. Member having leisure (which the Government had not) would perform a useful duty in reading through the evidence given before the Election Committee, and in bringing a substantive proposition before the House on the subject. In now opposing the issue

413
of the writ, he did so only in order to give time to those who were opposed to the issue of the writ, to read the evidence and come forward with some substantive Motion; and he wished to be understood as being not prepared to sanction an indefinite suspension of the writ.
The House divided on the Motion:—Ayes 43; Noes 199: Majority 156.

List of the AYES.

Alexander, N.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Anson, Visct.

Mundy, E. M.

Boldero, H. G.

O'Connell, M. J.

Bremridge, R.

O'Connor, F.

Coke, hon. E. K.

Ossulston, Lord

Collins, W.

Reid, Col.

Disraeli, B.

Repton, G. W. J.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Rufford, F.

Duncombe, hon. O.

Rushout, Capt.

Du Pre, C. G.

Seaham, Visct.

Farnham, E. B.

Smyth, J. G.

Forester, hon. G. C. W.

Somerset, Capt.

Fox, S. W. L.

Stafford, A.

Fuller, A. E.

Sturt, H. G.

Gardner, R.

Thompson, Ald.

Hamilton, G. A.

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

Henley, J. W.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Urquhart, D.

Hildyard, R. C.

Wall, C. B.

Ingestre, Visct.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

TELLERS.

Knox, Col.

Colvile, C. R.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Evans, W.

List of the NOES.

Abdy, T. N.

Clay, Sir W.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Adair, R. A. S.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Adderley, C. B.

Clifford, H. M.

Aglionby, H. A.

Cockburn, A. J. E.

Alcock, T.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Armstrong, R. B.

Corry, rt. hon. H. L.

Arundel and Surrey,

Courtenay, Lord

Earl of

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Baines, M. T.

Crawford, W. S.

Barnard, E. G.

Currie, H.

Beckett, W.

Davies, D. A. S.

Benett, J.

Deedes, W.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Denison, W. J.

Bernal, R.

Devereux, J. T.

Birch, Sir T. B.

Dick, Q.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Dodd, G.

Bowles, Adm.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Bowring, Dr.

Drumlanrig, Visct.

Bramston, T. W.

Drummond, H.

Broadley, H.

Duff, G. S.

Brotherton, J.

Duncan, G.

Brown, W.

Dundas, Adm.

Bruce, Lord E.

Dundas, Sir D.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Dunne, F. P.

Buller, C.

East, Sir J. B.

Busfeild, W.

Ebrington, Visct.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

Edwards, H.

Cardwell, E.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Carew, W. H. P.

Evans, Sir De L.

Carter, J. B.

Evans, J.

Charteris, hon. F.

Ewart, W.

Childers, J. W.

Fellowes, E.

Clay, J.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

414

Foley, J. H. H.

Ord, W.

Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

Oswald, A.

Glyn, G. C.

Packe, C. W.

Goddard, A. L.

Palmerston, Visct.

Gore, W. R. O.

Parker, J.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Patten, J. W.

Granger, T. C.

Pattison, J.

Greene, J.

Pearson, C.

Grenfell, C. W.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Perfect, R.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Pilkington, J.

Guest, Sir J.

Plowden, W. H. C.

Hall, Sir B.

Pugh, D.

Hallyburton, Lord J. F.

Rawdon, Col.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Ricardo, J. L.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Ricardo, O.

Hastie, A.

Rich, H.

Hastie, A.

Richards, R.

Hawes, B.

Romilly, J.

Hay, Lord J.

Russell, Lord J.

Hayes, Sir E.

Russell, hon. E. S.

Heald, J.

Rutherford, A.

Heathcote, J.

Salwey, Col.

Heneage, E.

Sandars, G.

Henry, A.

Seymer, H. K.

Heywood, J.

Shafto, R. D.

Hildyard, T. B. T.

Sheridan, R. B.

Hindley, C.

Simeon, J.

Hollond, R.

Smith, M. T.

Hood, Sir A.

Somerville, rt.hn. Sir W.

Hope, H. T.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Horsman, E.

Spearman, H. J.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Humphery, Ald.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Jervis, Sir J.

Stanton, W. H.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Kershaw, J.

Sullivan, M.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Tancred, H. W.

Langston, J. H.

Tenison, E. K.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Lemon, Sir C.

Thompson, Col.

Lewis, G. C.

Thornely, T.

Lincoln, Earl of

Towneley, J.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Townley, C.

Littleton, hon. E. R.

Trelawny, J. S.

Lockhart, A. E.

Tufnell, H.

Lushington, C.

Turner, E.

Macnaghten, Sir E.

Vane, Lord H.

Macnamara, Maj.

Villiers, hon. C.

M'Gregor, J.

Vivian, J. H.

Magan, W. H

Wakley, T.

Marshall, W.

Watkins, Col.

Martin, J.

Westhead, J. P.

Martin, S.

Williams, J.

Matheson, Col.

Williamson, Sir H.

Melgund, Visct.

Wilson, J.

Meux, Sir H.

Wilson, M.

Milnes, R. M.

Wood, W. P.

Mitchell, T. A.

Wrightson, W. B.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Wyld, J.

Morgan, O.

Wyvill, M.

Morpeth, Visct.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Morris, D.

Yorke, H. G. R.

Mowatt, F.

Young, Sir J.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Muntz, G. F.

TELLERS.

Norreys, Lord

Hume, J.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Ellice, E.

DENMARK AND THE DUCHIES.
MR. J. WILSON rose, pursuant to notice, to put the following questions to the

415
Secretary for Foreign Affairs:—"Whether any communication had been received from the Danish Government on the subject of the entry of the Prussian troops into Holstein, and with the object of soliciting the interference of this country by mediation or otherwise; and whether any information had been received by the Government of the expected blockade of the Elbe, should the Germanic Confederation continue their interference between the King of Denmark and his subjects in Holstein; and whether any steps had been taken, and what, by this Government, to secure an amicable settlement of the existing disputes between Holstein-Schleswig and the Government in Copenhagen?" He would add, that he hoped the noble Lord would be able to remove the great anxiety felt in consequence of letters received that morning; for it appeared that the Prussian troops had already crossed the Eider into the Duchy of Schleswig, which did not belong to the Germanic Confederation, and that the troops of Hanover and Brunswick were crossing the Elbe to co-operate with the Prussian troops.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Her Majesty's Government have received several communications from both the Danish Government and the Prussian Government upon these matters; in point of fact, we have been in communication with both Governments. The desire of Her Majesty's Government has naturally been to employ its good offices, if possible, in bringing these differences to an amicable, a friendly termination; and we have intimated both to the Danish Government and the Prussian, that if our good offices can be useful for that purpose, we shall be most happy so to employ them. I should hope, from the disposition which has been expressed by both parties, that that overture may be accepted. Nothing certainly could be more deplorable than that the peace of Europe should be disturbed on account of a dispute of such a nature as this. With regard to an intimation from the Danish Government of naval operations, undoubtedly if the hostilities were to continue, I should think it would be probable that the Danish Government, being strong at sea, would resort to measures of interruption to the maritime commerce of Prussia, and possibly of Hamburgh, if Hamburgh were to take an active part; but if, on the other hand, these matters should become the subject of peaceful negotiation, one should hope that any interruption of that sort
416
would not take place. I have not received official information of the crossing of the Holstein frontier by Prussian troops; but, at the same time, from information I have received, I think it not at all improbable that it may have taken place.
MR. DISRAELI inquired whether the Court of Denmark had called upon the Court of St. James's to fulfil its guarantee of the Duchy of Schleswig to the Crown of Denmark, under the Treaty of 1720?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: The Court of Denmark has undoubtedly appealed to the guarantee given by the Treaty of 1720. I should observe that the interference of the Germanic Confederation in these matters does not profess to be an interference with a view of conquering; it is an interference with reference to internal questions which have arisen between the Danish Government and the inhabitants of Holstein-Schleswig.

MR. COCHRANE'S PROCESSION.
SIR J. Y. BULLER asked whether the Home Secretary had received information that a procession of 150,000 persons was to come down to him at the Home Office on Easter Monday with a petition to be laid before Majesty on the subject of the Poor Laws, and that circulars had been sent to the inmates of the union workhouses throughout the country calling upon them to do all in their power to swell the procession?
SIR G. GREY had received an intimation from Mr. Charles Cochrane, about three weeks ago, that such a petition was to be presented, and that it was the wish of the parties to proceed to the Home Office on Easter Monday to place it in his hands. He (Sir G. Grey) informed Mr. Cochrane, in reply, that any address properly worded, placed in his hands either by the usual mode of transmission, or by a small deputation, should be laid before Her Majesty, but that if brought by a large number of people, it could not be received. But he added, that it would not be convenient to him to receive a deputation in the Easter week. Within the last few days, however, he had received from boards of guardians in several parts of the country letters stating that printed circulars, signed by Mr. Charles Cochrane, had been forwarded to the workhouses addressed to "Mr. Smith," or, in some cases, "Mr. Jones" taking for granted that there might be some person of that name in a workhouse, informing them of the intended

417
procession, stating that he hoped 150,000 persons would attend, and endeavouring to induce them to persuade their friends to come up to London for the purpose. He (Sir G. Grey) had received no information which led him to suppose that the canvass had been very successful, and he believed that Mr. Cochrane and his intended deputation might very safely be left in the hands of the police.

COMMUNICATION BETWEEN LONDON AND DUBLIN.
MR. G. HAMILTON rose to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer the question of which he had given notice. Members connected with Ireland were aware that letters intended to be sent to Ireland by the morning mail have to be put into the post-offices before eight o'clock, and the letters from Ireland are delivered soon after that hour. This being the case, if the communication were accelerated by a few hours, there would be time in London to answer letters received from Dublin in the morning. He need not say how great an advantage that would be to all parties connected with Ireland. The question of which he had given notice was this—whether it is the intention of Government, in consequence of the acceleration of railway conveyance between London and Dublin, to make any arrangement for the transmission of letters for Dublin by any afternoon train, so as to afford persons in London, who receive letters from Dublin in the morning, the opportunity of answering them, and of the answers reaching Dublin the following morning; or of otherwise accelerating the transmission of letters between London and Dublin?
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER answered that the suggestion had been, and still was, under the consideration of the Government. When it was first proposed, the charge for railway conveyance seemed to be so exorbitant as to throw a difficulty in the way; but he hoped some arrangement would be made.

CROWN AND GOVERNMENT SECURITY BILL.
Order of the Day read for receiving the Report on the Crown and Government Security Bill.
MR. AGLIONBY, in proposing the clause of which he had given notice, begged he might not be understood as at all wishing to embarrass the Government, or to refuse any power which they might think
418
necessary for the preservation of the public peace and safety of the country. His object was to take away the power of transportation; making the offence not bailable, and leaving parties convicted of having transgressed the law by "open and advised speaking" liable to imprisonment for two years, with or without hard labour. The hon. Member proposed a clause to that effect.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL could not accede to the proposition. This question had been discussed on several occasions. The great object of the Bill was not so much to take the offence out of the class of bailable misdemeanours, as to insure its immediate punishment. Under this clause the offender might traverse until the following term. His hon. Friend also proposed to mitigate the punishment of sedition by relieving the offender from any fine. It was not expedient to make the punishment of sedition less than at present.
The House divided on the question that the Clause be read a second time:—Ayes 50; Noes 117: Majority 67.

List of the AYES.

Armstrong, R. B.

Muntz, G. F.

Baines, M. T.

O'Connor, F.

Barnard, E. G.

Osborne, R.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Pearson, C.

Bright, J.

Pechell, Capt.

Brotherton, J.

Pilkington, J.

Clay, J.

Reynolds, J.

Clay, Sir W.

Robartes, T. J. A.

Crawford, W. S.

Salwey, Col.

Devereux, J. T.

Scholefield, W.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T

Scrope, G. P.

Duncan, G.

Smith, J. B.

Evans, Sir De L.

Stuart, Lord D.

Evans, J.

Sullivan, M.

Gardner, R.

Thompson, Col.

Greene, J.

Thompson, G.

Hall, Sir B.

Thornely, T.

Henry, A.

Villiers, hon. C.

Hodges, T. L.

Wakley, T.

Humphery, Ald.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Keating, R.

Westhead, J. P.

Kershaw, J.

Williams, J.

Lushington, C.

Wood, W. P.

Martin, S.

Milnes, R. M.

TELLERS.

Moffatt, G.

Aglionby, H. A.

Mowatt, F.

Hume, J.

List of the NOES.

Abdy, T. N.

Birch, Sir T. B.

Adair, R. A. S.

Bourke, R. S.

Adderley, C. B.

Bremridge, R.

Anstey, T. C.

Buller, C.

Arundel and Surrey,

Bunbury, E. H.

Earl of

Busfeild, W.

Bateson, T.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

Benett, J.

Carter, J. B.

Bennet, P.

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Charteris, hon. F.

Melgund, Visct.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Mitchell, T. A.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Morison, Gen.

Colvile, C. R.

Mundy, E. M.

Countenay, Lord

Napier, J.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Norreys, Lord

Denison, W. J.

O'Connell, M. J.

Disraeli, B.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Drumlanrig, Visct.

Ossulston, Lord

Drummond, H.

Oswald, A.

Dunne, F. P.

Owen, Sir J.

Elliott, hon. J. E.

Palmerston, Visct.

Farnham, E. B.

Parker, J.

Gaskell, J. M.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Gladstone, rt, hn. W. E.

Perfect, R.

Grace, O. D. J.

Pigot, Sir R.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Plowden, W. H. C.

Granger, T. C.

Pugh, D.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Rawdon, Col.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Richards, R.

Guest, Sir J.

Romilly, J.

Haggitt, F. R.

Russell, Lord J.

Hamilton, G. A.

Rutherford, A.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Sandars, G.

Hastie, A.

Seymer, H. K.

Hawes, B.

Seymour, Lord

Hayter, W. G.

Shelburne, Earl of

Headlam, T. E.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Heathcoat, J.

Stafford, A.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Hanley, J. W.

Stanton, W. H.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Staunton, Sir G. T.

Hildyard, R. C.

Stuart, J.

Hogg, Sir J. W.

Sturt, H. G.

Hood, Sir A.

Tancred, H. W.

Hope, A.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Hotham, Lord

Thompson, Ald.

Hutt, W.

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

Jervis, Sir J.

Townshend, Capt.

Johnstone, Sir J.

Urquhart, D.

Jones, Capt.

Vivian, J. H.

Keppel, hon. G. T.

Walpole, S. H.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Ward, H. G.

Langston, J. H.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Lemon, Sir C.

Williamson, Sir H.

Lennard, T. B.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Lewis, G. C.

Yorke, hon. E. T.

Lockhart, A. E.

Young, Sir J.

Macnaghten, Sir E.

Mahon, The O'Gorman

TELLERS.

Martin, C. W.

Tufnell, H.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Craig, W. G.

SIR W. CLAY moved in Clause 3, line 16, to omit after the word "writing" the following words, "or by open and advised speaking," and to add the following Clause to the Bill in lieu of the words so omitted:—
"And be it Enacted, That if any person shall, at any time after the passing of this Act, have been held to bail for a misdemeanour in respect of seditious words or speaking, and shall be again charged with a second or subsequent offence of a like kind, it shall be lawful for the Justice or other Magistrate before whom he shall be so charged, to refuse to admit such person to bail on such second or subsequent charge."
He would leave the law as at present; but, in order to prevent any person charged before a magistrate with seditious speaking
420
being out on bail pursuing his seditious courses, he thought it would be sufficient to make the offence not bailable on the second charge. He had no sympathy with that class of offenders this Bill was intended to put down; but he was anxious that no false patriot or vulgar trader in sedition should be elevated into a martyr by the severity of his punishment.
SIR G. GREY said, the House had already decided the principle of this clause. They had rejected the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Cockermouth, and this clause did not go so far. He could not consent to any relaxation of this provision of the Bill.
MR. BRIGHT thought the clause proposed by the hon. Baronet the Member for the Tower Hamlets sufficient to meet the case. If such had been the law six weeks ago the persons charged in Dublin with sedition would have been admitted to bail; but if a second charge had been made against them they would have been committed to prison to await their trial when the ordinary courts assembled. Such a proceeding would, in his view, have gained every object the Government had in view. He would vote for every modification of the Bill which might be proposed, because it was evidently the object of the Government to make the law more stringent than was necessary.
The House divided, on the question that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the clause:—Ayes 39; Noes 83: Majority 44.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

O'Connor, F.

Baines, M. T.

Osborne, R.

Barnard, E. G.

Pearson, C.

Clay, J.

Peehell, Capt.

Crawford, W. S.

Pilkington, J.

Devereux, J. T.

Reynolds, J.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hon. C.T.

Salwey, Col.

Duncan, G.

Scholefield, W.

Evans, Sir De L.

Smith, J. B.

Evans, J.

Stuart, Lord D.

Gardner, R.

Sullivan, M.

Greene, J.

Thompson, Col.

Hall, Sir B.

Thompson, G.

Hodges, T. L.

Wakley, T.

Hume, J.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Keating, R.

Williams, J.

Kershaw, J.

Wood, W. P.

Lushington, C.

Wyld, J.

Martin, S.

TELLERS.

Mowatt, F.

Clay, Sir W.

Muntz, G. F.

Bright, J.

List of the NOES.

Abdy, T. N.

Arundel and Surrey,

Adair, R. A. S.

Earl of

Adderley, C. B.

Benbow, J.

Benett, J.

Lennard, T. B.

Birch, Sir T. B.

Lewis, G. C.

Bourke, R. S.

Lockhart, A. E.

Bremridge, R.

Macnaghten, Sir E.

Bunbury, E. H.

Martin, C. W.

Busfeild, W.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Carter, J. B.

Mitchell, T. A.

Charteris, hon. F.

Morpeth, Visct.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Napier, J.

Clive, H. B.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Cockburn, A. J. E.

Owen, Sir J.

Courtenay, Lord

Palmerston, Visct.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Parker, J.

Denison, W. J.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Drumlanrig, Visct.

Plowden, W. H. C.

Dundas, G.

Pugh, D.

Dunne, F. P.

Richards, R.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Robinson, G. R.

Gaskell, J. M.

Romilly, J.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Russell, Lord J.

Granger, T. C.

Rutherfurd, A.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Sandars, G.

Guest, Sir J.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Haggitt, F. R.

Shelburne, Earl of

Hamilton, G. A.

Somerville,rt. hn. Sir W.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Stafford, A.

Hawes, B.

Stanton, W. H.

Hayter, W. G.

Stuart, J.

Headlam, T. E.

Talfourd, Serj.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Tancred, H. W.

Henley, J. W.

Turner, G. J.

Hildyard, R. C.

Walpole, S. H.

Hodges, T. T.

Ward, H. G.

Hood, Sir A.

Wellesley, Lord C.

Hope, A.

Williamson, Sir H.

Hotham, Lord

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Jervis, Sir J.

Young, Sir J.

Jones, Capt.

Keogh, W.

TELLERS.

Keppel, hon. G. T.

Tufnell, H.

Langston, J. H.

Craig, W. G.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL then moved that the following proviso be added to Clause 3:—
"Provided always, and be it Enacted, That no person shall be prosecuted for any felony by virtue of this Act in respect of such compassings, imaginations, inventions, devices, or intentions as aforesaid, in so far as the same are expressed, uttered, or declared by open and advised speaking, unless information of such compassings, imaginations, inventions, devices, and intentions, and of the words by which the same were expressed, uttered, or declared, shall be given upon oath to one or more Justice or Justices of the peace, or to any Sheriff or Steward, or Sheriff Substitute or Steward Substitute in Scotland, within six days after such words shall have been spoken, and unless a warrant for the apprehension of the person by whom such words shall have been spoken shall be issued within ten days next after such information shall have been given as aforesaid, and unless such warrant shall be issued within two years next after the passing of this Act; and that no person shall be convicted of any such compassings, imaginations, inventions, devices, or intentions as aforesaid, in so far as the same are expressed, uttered, or declared by open or advised speaking as aforesaid, except upon his own confession, or unless the words so spoken shall be proved by two credible witnesses."
MR. O'CONNOR complained that the Government had now extended the time within which informations might be sworn. Another objectionable part of the proviso was, that it did not make the issuing of the warrant simultaneous with the swearing of the information. An individual would not know that he was charged with uttering seditious language until sixteen days after the alleged offence, at which time those persons who might be called as witnesses to rebut the accusation would have but an imperfect recollection of what he had said. He could undertake to report a six hours' debate in that House, giving to each speaker almost the very words he used, provided he made the report on the day following the debate; but at the end of six days he should be able to give only a very imperfect account of what had taken place. The Government might depend upon it that by the 1st of May they would hear the national voice resounding against the Bill. When the noble Lord now at the head of the Government should sit on the Opposition side of the House, and a Tory Administration should be in office, what violation of the constitution could he in conscience oppose; for what violation of the constitution could there be greater than this Bill? The Government had boasted of the professions of loyalty they had received—of the vast number of special constables that had volunteered for enrolment; and in Ireland the Lord Lieutenant had said he was surrounded by all the loyalty of the kingdom—and, moreover, he was surrounded by troops. What, then, had the Government to fear? Yet, under these circumstances, and when the country was groaning under difficulties, the House was asked to pass a measure of this kind. But the Government would be overwhelmed that should dare to carry such a Bill into execution.
MR. AGLIONBY agreed with the hon. Member for Nottingham in one part of his objection to this clause, namely, the number of days given for the operation of the process. He thought so long a period as sixteen days was not in accordance with the understanding of the House as to the effect of the proviso; and he wished to know why the time had been extended from six days to sixteen. He was willing to give sufficient time to lay the information before the Home Secretary or the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; but, at the same time, thought no delay should take place, but that proceedings should be taken

423
at the earliest moment after the report of the spoken words had been received.
MR. REYNOLDS objected to the extension of the time for laying the information, but still more strongly to allowing the magistrate to hold over the information for ten days. He could not understand why the magistrate should be vested by this Bill with power to do that which under the present law he was not permitted to do. He was now compelled to return his warrant instanter. Unless some satisfactory explanation of the reason for this enlarged time were given, he should oppose it.
Clause read a first time.
On the question that it be read a second time,
The word "only" at the suggestion of Mr. WALPOLE was inserted after the words "advisedly speaking."
The ATTORNEY GENERAL said, that as the clause originally stood, there was to be no prosecution in respect of words spoken, unless the words were deposed to within three days, and a prosecution instituted within three months. The intent of the information before the magistrate was, that the words should be recorded upon which the prosecution was to be founded. But the hon. and learned Member for Abingdon had urged that an accused party might thus be kept in ignorance and suspense for three months, and, feeling that there might be some foundation for such a complaint, he (the Attorney General) had endeavoured to meet the objection by proposing this proviso, which contained much that operated in favour of the accused. It was plain that some time must be given for the communication with the proper authorities, and the six days proposed were not too much for communicating from the provincial parts of England or Ireland with the Government in London or Dublin; for charges of this kind should not be lightly
preferred. With respect to the ten days for the magistrate to issue his warrant, he might observe, that by the common law the magistrate was not now bound to do so immediately. He might withhold his warrant for a given time. He apprehended that a magistrate was not bound to issue his warrant immediately, but might withhold it from time to time. But in this case the Bill took away the right of deferring the issue of the warrant, and enacted that it must be issued within a certain time—a circumstance which was in favour of the accused. He was, there-
424
fore, surprised at the opposition to this part of the proviso.
MR. REYNOLDS said, the hon. and learned Attorney General might have given a satisfactory reason for the substitution of six days for three with regard to the information, but certainly not for the ten days during which the magistrate might hold the warrant in his hands without notice to the defendant. He believed the present law compelled the magistrate in all cases of felony to return the warrant forthwith; and he should therefore move that the word "forthwith" be substituted for the words "ten days."
MR. HUME was of opinion that the moment the charge was made the magistrate should issue his warrant.
MR. HENLEY thought that the words "ten days" were exceedingly in favour of the subject. If a complaint on oath were made out satisfactorily to a magistrate, it was his duty immediately to issue his warrant. But there were also doubtful cases in which the magistrate might doubt whether the offence amounted to felony; and the Bill provided that in a matter so uncertain that the magistrates could not make up his mind within ten days to issue his warrant, the parties should not be answerable for the works spoken. If the words spoken clearly made out the charge, the magistrate would immediately issue his warrant, but if, on the contrary, he had a doubt which he could not resolve within the ten days, cadit quœstio, and the party was free from all consequences of those words. The limitation to ten days was, in fact, a safeguard to the subject, and he should be sorry to see any alteration.
MR. BRIGHT thought that the delay of ten days would be found highly inexpedient. The warrant, the information being before the magistrates, should be issued at once, as in the case of any other felony. The object of the Government, it might be taken for granted, was not to tempt to the commission of the offence, but to punish the offender as speedily as possible; and though he thought it probable that this law would seldom, if ever, be enforced, he hoped that the Government would not consent to frame it upon a principle unjust and impolitic.
MR. REYNOLDS would so far modify the Amendment he had proposed as to substitute "two days" instead of "forthwith," as he had before suggested, for "ten days."
MR. WAKLEY would, in that case,

425
move the introduction of the word "forthwith." The magistrate, he considered, ought to be required at once to furnish the accused party with the accusation against him, and to proceed to issue the warrant. He regretted that a Government calling itself Liberal should ever have brought forward such a Bill, and, ere long, he prophesied they would most heartily repent that they had taken a course so inconsistent with their former protestations.
MR. MOORE did not see why the usual practice when an information was laid before the magistrate should be departed from. The prolongation of time proposed would enable a Government to exercise gross treachery towards the party accused. The House was to consider not only how to do justice to the accused, but how to protect tho ignorant people who might be seduced into breaches of order; and that protection, it seemed to him, would be afforded by taking care that there was as little delay as possible in pointing out when a speaker had violated the law.
MR. COCKBURN wished it to be distinctly understood what was the object which the House now had in view. Her Majesty's Government were probably as desirous as hon. Gentlemen to secure protection to the subject. The question now was, should a magistrate to whom a case of this kind was referred, have a discretionary power greater than that which he possessed in the exercise of his ordinary functions? Was the magistrate to be compelled to delay until it was intimated to him whether or not Her Majesty's Government approved of the prosecution? Under the ordinary law a magistrate had no alternative; he would be bound to issue his warrant without any delay whatever. Would that House then vest such an authority in the magistrate as would permit him, as on ordinary occasions, to act irrespectively of the wishes of the Government? He (Mr. Cockburn) hoped not; it appeared to him that, as offences of this kind were confessedly against the Government, the Government alone ought to decide upon the expediency of prosecution. If it was the intention of the Government to invest the magistrate with such authority, this clause would seem to be unnecessary; but if they wished to reserve to themselves the power of preventing or of proceeding with a prosecution, as circumstances might direct, and so obviate the effects of private malice, this proviso was of the greatest importance; and, so far from being an in-
426
fringement on the liberty of the subject, it would operate as a direct safeguard in the prevention of trivial individual prosecutions.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL reminded his hon. and learned Friend, that though under the present law an individual might prosecute for treason, such an instance very seldom occurred; and it was not supposed that if this Bill came into operation there would be found any necessity of taking precautions for the purpose of defeating private malice. It was desirable, however, that the magistrate should not be compelled to issue his warrant immediately, both on the ground of security to the Government, and protection to the individual.
MR. S. MARTIN objected to the proviso, because it would afford the opportunity of trying a man, not for one speech, in reference to which the information might be first laid, but for a series of speeches; and the Government not communicating at once with the accused, would be enabled by the delay of ten days to collect evidence treacherously.
The SOLICITOR GENERAL apprehended that a series of speeches was to be considered as one scheme—a scheme to overset the Government; and he could not, therefore, see that any injustice would accrue from taking advantage of the delay.
The House divided on the question that the word "forthwith" be inserted:—Ayes 142; Noes 30: Majority 112.

List of the AYES.

Abdy, T. N.

Carter, J. B.

Adair, R. A. S.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Adderley, C. B.

Clifford, H. M.

Aglionby, H. A.

Clive, H. B.

Arkwright, G.

Cockburn, A. J. E.

Armstrong, R. B.

Cocks, T. S.

Arundel and Surrey,

Courtenay, Lord

Earl of

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Baines, M. T.

Craig, W. G.

Baldock, E. H.

Davies, D. A. S.

Barkly, H.

Denison, W. J.

Barnard, E. G.

Disraeli, B.

Bellew, R. M.

Drummond, H.

Benbow, J.

Duff, G. S.

Benett, J.

Duncan, G.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Dundas, Adm.

Blakemore, R.

Dundas, G.

Boldero, H. G.

Ebrington, Visct.

Bourke, R. S.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Bowles, Adm.

FitzPatrick, rt. hn. J. W.

Broadley, H.

Forster, M.

Brockman, E. D.

Gaskell, J. M.

Brotherton, J.

Glyn, G. C.

Buller, C.

Grace, O. D. J.

Bunbury, E. H.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Busfeild, W.

Granger, T. C.

Carew, W. H. P.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Guest, Sir J.

Mundy, E. M.

Haggitt, F. R.

Napier, J.

Hamilton, G. A.

Nugent, Sir P.

Hanmer, Sir J.

O'Brien, Sir L.

Harris, hon. Capt.

O'Connell, M. J.

Hawes, B.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Hay, Lord J.

Owen, Sir J.

Hayter, W. G.

Packe, C. W.

Headlam, T. E.

Parker, J.

Heathcoat, J.

Perfect, R.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Plowden, W. H. C.

Henley, J. W.

Prime, R.

Heywood, J.

Pugh, D.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Rich, H.

Hodges, T. L.

Robinson, G. R.

Hodges, T. T.

Romilly, J.

Hood, Sir A.

Russell, Lord J.

Hope, A.

Russell, F. C. H.

Hotham, Lord

Rutherfurd, A.

Humphery, Ald.

Sandars, G.

Jervis, Sir J.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Jones, Capt.

Shelburne, Earl of

Keogh, W.

Smith, J. A.

Keppel, hon. G. T.

Somerville,rt. hn. Sir W.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Spooner, R.

Langston, J. H.

Stafford, A.

Law, hon. C. E.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Lemon, Sir C.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Lennard, T. B.

Stanton, W. H.

Lewis, G. C.

Stuart, J.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Talfourd, Serj.

Lockhart, A. E.

Tancred, H. W.

Lockhart, W.

Thornely, T.

Long, W.

Towneley, C.

M'Naghten, Sir E

Trelawny, J. S.

Macnamara, Maj

Turner, G. J.

Mahon, Visct.

Vivian, J. E.

Martin, C. W.

Ward, H. G.

Martin, S.

Westhead, J. P.

Matheson, A.

Willcox, B. M.

Matheson, Col.

Williamson, Sir H.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Maunsell, T. P.

Young, Sir J.

Mitchell, T. A.

TELLERS.

Morgan, O.

Tufnell, H.

Morison, Gen.

Hill, Lord M.

List of the NOES.

Bowring, Dr.

O'Connor, F.

Bright, J.

Osborne, R.

Clay, J.

Pearson, C.

Devereux, J. T.

Pechell, Capt.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T.

Pilkington, J.

Fox, W. J.

Reynolds, J.

Gardner, R.

Salwey, Col.

Greene, J.

Scholefield, W.

Henry, A.

Sullivan, M.

Hume, J.

Thompson, Col.

Keating, R.

Thompson, G.

Kershaw, J.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Lushington, C.

Williams, J.

Magan, W. H.

Moore, G. H.

TELLERS.

Mowatt, F.

Crawford, W. S.

Muntz, G. F.

Wakley, T.

Clause read a second time and added to the Bill.
On the following Clause being proposed—
"And be it Enacted, That it shall not be lawful for any Court before which any person shall be
428
prosecuted or tried for any felony under this Act, to order payment to the prosecutor or the witnesses of any costs which shall be incurred in preferring or prosecuting any such indictment;"—
MR. BRIGHT moved the introduction of a proviso at the end of the clause, that no prosecution under this Act should take place except from the authority of the Attorney General in England and Ireland, and the Lord Advocate in Scotland. He hoped that the powers of this Act would never be put in force in any part of the country by any private individual without respect to the opinion of the law officers of the Crown.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL could not concur in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Durham. Except in very urgent cases, it was not very likely that any private party, with the penalty of paying the costs before him, would institute a prosecution. He did not understand the hon. Member to propose that no information or warrant should issue without the authority of the Government; and it would be a very dangerous task to impose upon the Government, after a prosecution was commenced, that they should either take it up or decline to do so, as it might subject them to the charge of partiality.
LORD J. RUSSELL said, it might be very right that there should be a public prosecutor, and he thought there was a very good reason in favour of that course; but he did not think it desirable that whilst it was allowed to private individuals to prosecute generally, yet with respect to high treason and sedition there should be a public prosecutor. If such an alteration were made, it should be general. He believed, however, that the practice would be, excepting in some very few cases of emergency, that there would always be an application to the Government before a prosecution was commenced, and that private parties would not be found to volunteer. There were many arguments for having an institution similar to that which they had in Scotland, but he did not think they ought to introduce it for these particular cases.
MR. BROTHERTON said, during the French war articles had been written in a newspaper published at Manchester, to which the notice of the law officers of the Crown had been called, who considered that a prosecution could not be supported; but he knew that a meeting was held at Manchester to prosecute the party, notwithstanding that the Government had refused.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL said, whilst he had the honour to hold the office he now filled, he should consider it to be his duty in such a case to enter a nolle prosequi.
The House divided on the question that the proviso be inserted:—Ayes 49; Noes 170: Majority 121.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Moore, G. H.

Barkly, H.

Mowatt, F.

Blake, M. J.

Muntz, G. F.

Bowring, Dr.

Nugent, Sir P.

Clay, J.

O'Connor, F.

Cockburn, A. J. E.

Ossulston, Lord

Crawford, W. S.

Pechell, Capt.

Devereux, J. T.

Pilkington, J.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C. T.

Reynolds, J.

Duff, G. S.

Salwey, Col.

Duncan, G.

Scholefield, W.

Evans, Sir D. L.

Scully, F.

Ewart, W.

Stanton, W. H.

Fox, W. J.

Sullivan, M.

Gardner, R.

Thompson, Col.

Greene, J.

Thompson, G.

Hardcastle, J. A.

Thornely, T.

Henry, A.

Trelawny, J. S.

Hindley, C.

Wakley, T.

Hume, J.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Jackson, W.

Willcox, B. M.

Keating, R.

Williams, J.

Kershaw, J.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Lushington, C.

TELLERS.

Magan, W. H.

Bright, J.

Martin, S.

Brotherton, J.

List of the NOES.

Abdy, T. N.

Christy, S.

Adair, R. A. S.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Adderley, C. B.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Arkwright, G.

Clifford, H. M.

Armstrong, R. B.

Clive, H. B.

Arundel and Surrey,

Cocks, T. S.

Earl of

Coles, H. B.

Bagshaw, J.

Colvile, C. R.

Baldock, E. H.

Compton, H. C.

Barnard, E. G.

Courtenay, Lord

Bellew, R. M.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Benbow, J.

Craig, W. G.

Benett, J.

Currie, H.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Currie, R.

Bernard, Visct.

Davies, D. A. S.

Birch, Sir T. B.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Blackstone, W. S.

Denison, W. J.

Blakemore, R.

Disraeli, B.

Boldero, H. G.

Dod, J. W.

Bolling, W.

Drummond, H.

Bourke, R. S.

Dundas, Adm.

Bowles, Adm.

Dundas, Sir D.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Dundas, G.

Broadley, H.

Dunne, F. P.

Brockman, E. D.

Ebrington, Visct.

Buller, C.

FitzPatrick, rt. hn. J. W

Bunbury, E. H.

Foley, J. H. H.

Busfeild, W.

Fortescue, C.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

Gaskell, J. M.

Carew, W. H. P.

Glyn, G. C.

Carter, J. B.

Goddard, A. L.

Chichester, Lord J. L.

Gordon, Adm.

430

Grace, O. D. J.

Norreys, Lord

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

O'Brien, Sir L.

Granger, T. C.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Greene, T.

Ord, W.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Owen, Sir J.

Grosvenor, Lord R.

Packe, C. W.

Guest, Sir J.

Parker, J.

Haggitt, F. R.

Patten, J. W.

Hamilton, G. A.

Pennant, hon. Col.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Perfect, R.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Peto, S. M.

Hawes, B.

Philips, Sir G. R.

Hay, Lord J.

Pigott, F.

Hayter, W. G.

Pinney, W.

Headlam, T. E.

Plowden, W. H. C.

Heathcoat, J.

Prime, R.

Henley, J. W.

Pugh, D.

Heywood, J.

Rich, H.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Robartes, T. J. A.

Hodges, T. L.

Romilly, J.

Hood, Sir A.

Rushout, Capt.

Hope, A.

Russell, Lord J.

Hotham, Lord

Russell, F. C. H.

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Rutherfurd, A.

Jervis, Sir J.

Seymer, H. K.

Jones, Capt.

Seymour, Lord

Keogh, W.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Keppel, hon. G. T.

Shelburne, Earl of

Knox, Col.

Simeon, J.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Smith, J. A.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Smith, M. T.

Law, hon. C. E.

Somerset, Capt.

Lemon, Sir C.

Somerton, Visct.

Lennard, T. B.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Lewis, G. C.

Spooner, R.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Stafford, A.

Littleton, hon. E. R.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Lockhart, A. E.

Stuart, J.

Long, W.

Talfourd, Serj.

M'Naghten, Sir E.

Tancred, H. W.

Macnamara, Maj.

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

M'Neill, D.

Towneley, J.

Mahon, Visct.

Townley, R. G.

Martin, C. W.

Turner, G. J.

Matheson, A.

Tynte, Col. C. J. K.

Matheson, Col.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Ward, H. G.

Maunsell, T. P.

Williamson, Sir H.

Mitchell, T. A.

Wilson, J.

Morgan, O.

Wood, rt hon. Sir C.

Morpeth, Visct.

Wyvill, M.

Morris, D.

Young, Sir J.

Mulgrave, Earl of

TELLERS.

Mundy, E. M.

Tufnell, H.

Napier, J.

Hill, Lord M.

MR. HUME said, that he had intended to move that the House should strike out the obnoxious words in the third clause; but, thinking that he and his Friends had sufficiently manifested their opposition to the principle of the Bill for that night, he reserved his further opposition till the third reading. Nothing that had passed had tended in any way to lessen his dislike to the unconstitutional character of the measure; but he would not then put the House to the trouble of dividing again.
MR. DISRAELI was not at all surprised at the excitement of the hon. Mem-

431
ber for Montrose, for he was at the present moment in a peculiar situation. He begged to assure the hon. Member, that, knowing he was at the head of an army, numerous he believed, but not too well disciplined, he (Mr. Disraeli) and his Friends were anxious to give the hon. Member the fullest opportunity of bringing forward every amendment and every Motion he could devise, so that, at least, he should have no reason to complain that from any interference on the part of those who sat on the Opposition benches he had not had a fair field for all his strategetical manœuvres. His hon. Friend had consequently had every opportunity of marshalling his forces, of drilling and marching and manœuvring them; and he thought the hon. Member should now be content to repose upon the remembrance of his first field day, which was fraught with no mean reminiscences. The hon. Gentleman, however, turned round and seemed to accuse the hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House with having given a support to the Government which was not founded on reason. He could tell the hon. Member that they were satisfied with the measures of the Government on the whole—offering, where it was necessary, a proper criticism, but not giving the House the trouble of dividing upon amendments which they had no chance of carrying. We (continued the hon. Member) reposed on the recollections of a great party—at present, I admit, under a cloud, but which in the course of its day has done something. The difference between the hon. Member and us is that he is now in his political youth. He is full of the vigour and inspiration of his new birth, and nothing will serve him but to make speeches and divide. We, on the contrary, are content with the calm, although not altogether satisfactory march of affairs, and we leave to him the more active career in which he has given promise of so much ability, and in which, with a little practice, he may ultimately, though after a considerable interval, find some success.
Report agreed to.
Bill to be read a third time.

COPPER ORE DUTIES BILL.
On the question that the House do resolve itself into a Committee on the Copper Ore Duties Bill,
SIR C. LEMON moved as an Amendment—
432
"That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the effect of the existing Duties on the importation and production of Copper Ores."
He said that the theory of free trade did not condemn duties imposed for revenue when they were not injurious to trade; and if a Committee were granted, he should be able to prove that the duty on copper ore was not injurious, while it brought in a large sum yearly to the revenue of the country. This was not the time to stand up for protection of any class to the injury of the community at large; but he should be able to maintain that these duties were not in any way injurious. He understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other night to say that this Bill was partly founded upon the statements made to the Board of Trade; but these he should be able to prove were greatly exaggerated. He knew his right hon. Friend chiefly relied on the public and official documents; but he should not shrink from meeting the facts which they disclosed. They showed that there had been since the year 1844 a considerable falling off in the quantity of ore imported into this country from Chili, and a corresponding diminution in the amount of revenue—that there had been a falling-off in the quantity of copper sent from this country to France, and a considerable export of coal sent to Chili to be employed in the reduction of copper ores. He admitted all these facts, but he denied that they proceeded from the small duty now levied upon the import of copper ores. It was imprudent to give up a revenue of 50,000 l. or 60,000 l. a year, when the object which they had in view was to be obtained by other means. The whole amount of copper ores smelted in France, including the French provinces and Algiers, and its importations from all parts of the world, amounted to only 1,000 tons a year, which were capable of yielding 250 tons of copper; whilst the ordinary importation of copper into France had been 8,000 or 9,000 tons annually. It was said that we were losing our markets abroad because we were undersold there; but, if that were so, price became an important element in the consideration of this question, and that element a Committee of the House would be the fittest to consider and decide upon. He hoped the Government would accede to his Motion, as he felt satisfied that the labours of the Committee would put the House in possession of much valuable information, and enable it to le-

433
gislate with advantage upon this important department of our trade.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER would remind the House of the state of the law on the subject previously to the Tariff of 1842. Before that year all foreign copper ore was excluded from home consumption in this country, but it was allowed to be brought home and smelted in bond. The result was, that it was brought into this country, smelted in bond, and exported to foreign countries. The importation of copper ore under that law showed a constant and progressive increase. In 1838, the quantity of copper ore imported was 26,900 tons; in 1839, 30,000 tons; in 1840, 41,000 tons; in 1841, 48,000 tons; in 1842, 49,000 tons; in 1843, 55,000 tons; in 1844, 58,000 tons. The increase after the Tariff of 1842 was attributable to the fact that the new law had not, until 1845, actually come into operation in consequence of the arrangements which existed between the capitalists in this country and the producers of copper ore in Chili. The state of things in Chili was that the people of that country found it much more advantageous to send copper ore to this country to be smelted; and evidence was given before the Committee which had been appointed to inquire into this subject, that the Chili houses which had attempted to smelt the ore in Chili had been brought to ruin; and; in point of fact, smelting at the time the Tariff of 1842 came into operation was at an end there. He need not state to the House the advantages which accrued to the manufacturers of this country from the smelting of this foreign copper ore, the employment it afforded, the profits it yielded, and the stimulus which it gave to the importation of our cotton and woollen goods. By the Act of 1842 foreign copper ore was admitted for use in this country; but a duty was imposed on all copper ore brought hither. No copper ore could be smelted in bond free of duty, and again exported. No copper ore could be imported into this county from America except in British vessels. Th consequence was rise of freight, and a sensible diminution in the imports of copper ore. The smelting houses in Chili were restored, and in many European towns it was found more convenient to establish smelting houses than to come here for smelted copper; and accordingly such place were erected in Hamburgh and other cities He did not mean to say, that the smelting
434
of copper ore was carried to any great extent in Europe; but the increased amount of copper ore imported by Hamburgh, within the last two years, was very extraordinary. In 1846, the amount of this ore imported there was 60,000 tons—in 1847, 477,000 tons; and a proportionate increase took place in the United States. He would read to the House a letter addressed to him by Her Majesty's Consul at Philadelphia (Mr. William Peter), who had been formerly a Member of that House. He was a Cornishman, and he was sure his hon. Friend (Sir C. Lemon) would place confidence in his statement. Mr. Peter said that—
"Philadelphia, Sept. 13, 1847.
"Already have two large companies been formed in this country, namely, "The Incorporated Baltimore Company,' and 'the Revere Boston Company,' who have erected furnaces, and are smelting considerable quantities of American and Cuba ores, which ores, but for our high duties, would have been all smelted in England and Wales. Other smelting companies are also talked of—in New York, New Jersey, Philadelphia, and Richmond, more particularly at the latter place, which, from its situation at the head of the Tidewater Navigation, on the James River, and from its vicinity to the coal mines, is well adapted to the purpose."
The copper exported to France from this country had considerably fallen off; and from Chili the French imports of this article had considerably increased. He did not mean to say that there had been a falling-off in the gross; but there was this change—that, instead of France importing smelted copper from England, she imported it from Chili. But taking a period of three years, the quantity of smelted copper imported from England into France had considerably diminished, while the quantity imported from Chili into France had considerably increased. The quantities imported from England were, in 1845, 7,000 tons; in 1846, 4,485 tons; in 1847, 3,786 tons; from Chili, in 1845, 200 tons; in 1846, 711 tons; in 1847, 1,101 tons; from other countries, 2,257 tons; in 1846, 2,249 tons; in 1847, 2,793 tons. The necessary effect on the importation of copper ore had followed, as appeared from its rapid decrease since 1844. The quantity imported in 1844 was 58,406 tons; in 1845, 56,697 tons; in 1846, 51,637 tons; in 1847, 41,521 tons; showing, on the last of those years, a falling-off of 10,000 tons, as compared with the previous year. The duty had fallen off in the same proportion; and he felt that if he did not make a voluntary sa-

435
crifice for the good of the trade, the loss of the trade would be risked altogether. The duty received on copper ore in 1844 was 75,200 l.; in 1845, 58,646 l.; in 1846, 54,056 l.; in 1847, 40,964 l. His hon. Friend had argued
the question very much as a matter of protection. His (the Chancellor of the Exchequer's) own real belief was, that this was a parallel case to that which, on a former occasion, he brought forward with regard to the duties on the importation of foreign wool. He believed that the quantity of metal produced from the fusion of foreign copper with English copper was larger than the quantity would be if they were fused separately. So that, under the present system, the English producer was a considerable gainer in point of quantity. He believed his hon. Friend would admit that. And, in the next place, he believed that the mixture of the two metals was exceedingly advantageous in point of quality. His hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz) would be better able to explain that question; but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had been informed that the fusion of the two metals led to such an improvement in the manufactured copper articles that the sale was materially increased. The price, too, was affected in this country by the price obtained in foreign countries. Taking the four years before 1842, and the four years subsequent to 1842, he found that the quantity of copper exported had increased from 57,549 tons in the first period, to 70,103 tons in the second period. Though an increase had taken place in the export of unwrought copper from 33,052 tons in the former period of four years, to 34,260 tons in the latter period of four years, the great increase had been in the export of wrought copper, which in the four years from 1838 to 1841 amounted to 24,497 tons, and which rose in the four years from 1843 to 1846 to 35,843 tons; so that the capitalists and artisans of England engaged in this department of manufacture had been materially benefited. He really thought that he hardly need trouble the House with any further statement upon this subject. He had refrained from entering upon those points on which his hon. Friend had himself admitted that there would be considerable dispute. His firm belief was, that, without entering into the question of free trade or protection, the manufacturers and workmen of this country had a direct interest in the increased importation of the raw material. He be-
436
lieved that the English producer would be benefited by the introduction of a larger quantity of foreign copper. All these statements were made on the authority of documents of indisputable accuracy. His hon. Friend had not made out the slightest case for a Committee of Inquiry. He would not now enter into the question of the amount of the duty, as that could be better discussed when the House went into Committee. There would certainly be a slight sacrifice to the revenue; but it really was so very small that he hoped the House would not assent to any Amendment on the proposition of the Government.
MR. CAREW had never been a high protectionist; neither did he consider the rules of free trade universally applicable, and the present, he thought, an exceptional case. His confidence in free-trade doctrines had not been increased by events which had occurred in other countries; for while they were here throwing their ports open to foreign produce, their neighbours were following an opposite course. The arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer tended rather to lead the House back to the system which had prevailed before 1842, than to induce them to carry out the application of the principles then introduced. He hoped the House would agree to the Motion of his hon. Friend, for the labouring classes in the mining districts were peculiarly interested in this question. The House might not be aware that those classes were themselves speculators in mines to a considerable extent, and that they would be directly affected by any measure which would have a tendency to lower the value of the ore. He was sure that hon. Gentlemen would be most anxious to consider the case of these labourers, and that they would not afford any ground for the notion that those classes were not represented in that House, and that their interests were therefore neglected. He trusted, especially as an alteration of the Navigation Laws was contemplated, which would have a material effect upon the rate of freights, that the House would not hastily adopt the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but that they would be anxious to take measures to secure from injury an important branch of the trade of this country.
MR. LABOUCHERE would feel the deepest regret if the classes referred to by the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and especially the Cornish miners,

437
who had always been distinguished by their good conduct as much as by their industry and perseverance, sustained any injury from the measure proposed by his right hon. Friend; but be believed that, when the House came to consider the effects of that measure, they would feel that no apprehension of such a result need be entertained. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them that, in this case, he was not giving up revenue, but that revenue was leaving him; for, while the present tax ruined the trade, it dried up that source from which alone any revenue could accrue. But this was not the greatest objection which he (Mr. Labouchere) entertained to the continuance of the duties upon copper ore in their present shape. He objected to the maintenance of those duties on the ground that they were fast leading to the utter destruction of one of the most valuable and important trades of this country. When an alteration in the rate of duties on copper was proposed by the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), he expressed his fears lest that measure might produce the results which bad since followed; and he implored the right hon. Gentleman not to put a stop to the power of smelting copper in bond, unless he was certain that such a measure would not divert that important branch of trade from this country. He believed that if that right hon. Gentleman were now superintending the commerce of the nation, he would be convinced that it was necessary to take one of two courses—either to revive the power of smelting copper in bond, or to admit copper ore at merely nominal duties. He considered that, of those two courses, the one taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the best. He did not blame the right hon. Gentleman opposite for the experiment he had made; but he thought it was clear that they could not continue to impose the duties now levied upon foreign ore without destroying one of the most valuable branches of trade in this country. Some stress had been laid upon the burdens to which the copper miners of this country were subjected, and apprehensions had been expressed lest foreign copper ore might be introduced to a great extent, to the injury of the poor miners of Cornwall. He begged the House to remember what protection the English miners enjoyed, and which they naturally possessed from the cost of freight necessary to bring foreign ore to this country. He believed that the
438
purest ores imported into this country from Cuba contained only ten per cent of copper; and, taking the freight at 3l. per ton, there was a protection of no less than 30 l. upon every ton imported. In the case of Chilian the freight was 5l. per ton, and there was a protection of 50 l. per ton in the case of ores containing ten per cent of copper; 60 l. in the case of ores having seven and a half per cent of copper, and 100 l. where there was five per cent of copper. This showed the large amount of protection given to this description of ore; and, unless it was meant that they should apply the principle of protection in its most extreme and aggravated form, there was no ground for maintaining it in the case of copper ore. He hoped the House would not consent to the Committee, for the appointment of which no valid reason had been given. The facts of the case were before the House; and if they should not consent to the reduction of the duties in this instance, he should despair of ever seeing any proposal to free the commercial code of this country proposed with any chance of success.
MR. ROBARTES was averse to all duties that were imposed for purposes of protection, and considered them opposed to the policy that had recently received the sanction of that House.
MR. CARDWELL wished to say a few words just to express how extremely glad he was that the time had arrived when this duty, which had been condemned by successive Governments, was at length to be abolished. It was proposed that they should send the subject to a Committee; but if they did, he would ask what possible question was to come before them? Were they to inquire whether there was likely to be a falling-off in the revenue? Why, they had had a successive, and uniform, and rapid falling-off in this branch of the revenue; and it was plainly and clearly declining from under the Chancellor of the Exchequer's feet. Were they to inquire into the import and export trade? Information on these points was already on the table of the House. What, then, could be the object of the Committee? If there was a single branch of trade in which we were snaking greater progress than another, it was the metal trade; and why was equal progress, as regarded our exports, not made in copper? It was this impolitic duty, which was a duty on the raw material. It was a duty, therefore, which pressed with peculiar aggravation; and it

439
was one which ought especially to be done away with, because the increased consumption of that raw material led to an increased consumption of other raw materials used in the manufacture—the use of the one causing the increased consumption of the other. Had they not printed evidence to the effect that by the imposition of a duty on raw copper, they promoted smelting manufactories in Chili, in Hamburgh, and in America? But what was the interest of the Cornish miners? Why, that all the smelting establishments should be in Great Britain; because then they would become decidedly the greatest gainers. He did not remember a single commercial case in which there was so uniform an expression of opinion from all sides of the House, or in which there was so remarkable a concurrence of facts and agreement of interests. He thought, therefore, that, without a single fact to inquire into, nothing would be gained by the proposed Committee but delay. Successive Governments had admitted that it was only a question of revenue; and now, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared to be able to spare the amount, he thought the sooner they consented to the abolition of the duty the better.
MR. MUNTZ agreed with the hon. Member for Liverpool, that no advantage could come of the proposed Committee, and that all that would be obtained would be a delay that must prove injurious.
MR. WYLD said, the House should bear in mind that the manufacture of copper ore was in the hands of six companies in this country, who had the most perfect monopoly that could exist in any country. They had heard of copper smitheries being established in different parts of the world, but at Swansea there were the greatest smitheries for the manufacturing of copper in the world. The hon. Member for Birmingham was greatly mistaken if he thought he should reap any advantage by the proposed reduction of duty; it would merely benefit the Swansea establishments. It might seem strange that he (Mr. Wyld), a free-trader upon general principles, should take the view he did; but in this instance his constituents thought they had a special case. There was a population of 100,000 dependent on this trade. It was said that Chili had ceased to consume a large portion of our manufactures; but that was only because the Americans had interposed to compete with us.
MR. GLADSTONE thought the hon.
440
Member for Bodmin (Mr. Wyld) need not anticipate that the House would be surprised at his claiming protection for copper ores while he professed the general principles of free trade. There was no phenomenon more common. There were scores of gentlemen of that interesting class devoted to the principles of free trade, but supplied always with a "special case" where their constituents were concerned—always devoutly convinced that there were peculiar circumstances entitling their case to be dealt with upon principles of its own. But when it was found that nearly all these "special cases," on the test of experience being applied to them, fell under general rules, one became very incredulous as to the particular circumstances on which such cases were alleged to rest; and, in the present debate, scarcely a serious attempt had been made to establish such circumstances. The hon. Member said that there was a monopoly of smelting in this country; then everything should be done to encourage the access of the material. Another hon. Member (Mr. Carew) referred to the labourers in Cornwall interested in the mines; but he omitted to show that this proposition would be detrimental to them. It did not follow from agreeing to this measure that the average price of Cornish ores would be depreciated. The Cornish ores stood in the position of a material auxiliary to the use of foreign ores; to a considerable extent, at least, the Cornish miner was dependent upon the introduction of foreign ores, inasmuch as his own, except for the power of combining them with foreign, would not pay for the labour of raising them. The hon. Baronet (Sir C. Lemon) confined himself to an endeavour to rebut the arguments of those who contended that the smelting trade was suffering under the present system; he did not show that the proposition would be injurious to the Cornish miner. If there was any description of trade for which the English had a peculiar genius, and which was properly and specially a national trade, it was the trade in metals—a trade which every effort should be used to encourage, and in which it might be expected that the freedom which legislation might give would be turned to the best account. With respect to smelting in bond, he (Mr. Gladstone) did not at all repent having been an instrument in putting an end to that system; he should have resisted any return to it; it went to supply the foreigner, in the foreign market, with manufactured copper upon

441
more reasonable terms than the British. He was convinced that any dispassionate person who had listened to the course of this debate, must be satisfied that the interests of the Cornish miners would not suffer under the proposed change in the law; and therefore he could not doubt that it was their duty to adopt at once the proposition of Her Majesty's Government.
LORD G. BENTINCK said, that the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had observed that the hon. Member for Bodmin was one of the most common phenomenon of the present day. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman was himself quite a phenomenon, though certainly not a common one. He apprehended that it was a new axiom in political economy that the greater the supply the better would be the price, and the greater the demand. He did not, like the hon. Member for Bodmin, treat this as an exceptional case. He opposed the measure of Her Majesty's Government, not because the case was an exception per se, but because it was one of a bad gang of measures of free trade. It was a measure by which it was proposed to introduce the produce of foreign industry, almost untaxed, into this country; and if ever there was a time when it was unjustifiable in Her Majesty's Ministers to make such a proposition as this, it was when the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down to the House and announced a deficiency of nearly 3,000,000 l., and when he was obliged to call upon the country to submit for three years longer to the odious income-tax. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to cast away at this juncture a revenue of 40,000 l. raised from foreign industry, thereby giving great encouragement and protection to the slaveowners of Cuba against the copper workers of Cornwall. But when the right hon. Gentleman would make it out that this was rather a benefit than an injury to the miners of Cornwall; and when the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade alleged that the ore of Cuba produced from 5 to 10 per cent of metal, these statements stood in utter contradiction with those which he had received from Cornwall. [Mr. LABOUCHERE had stated that some of the ores of Cuba produced from 5 to 10 per cent of metal, but not that there were not richer ores there.] If he had not got up to set the right hon. Gentleman right, the House would have gone away with the impression that the ores of foreign countries averaged from 5 to 10 per cent of metal,
442
for the right hon. Gentleman entered into a long calculation to show that every ton of foreign copper would give a certain amount of additional employment. Now the fact was, that on the average the ore produced in foreign countries contained 21 per cent of metal, while the ores of Cornwall averaged under eight per cent; so that the ores of Cuba and Chili were nearly threefold as rich as the ores of Cornwall. Therefore, 52,000 tons of foreign ore would furnish as much pure copper as would be produced by the annual amount of ore raised in Cornwall. He was informed that, on the average, about 150,000 tons of copper ore were annually raised in Cornwall, and these 52,000 tons of foreign ore would consequently displace the labour of all the miners of Cornwall, consisting of 21,000 families. Well, but then a piteous tale had been told about the smelting trade. Since 1842, however, the price of copper ore had fallen 12 l. 5s. per ton, while the price of smelted ore had risen 6l. per ton, so that the great monopoly of Swansea smelters, out of the diminished profits of the miners of Cornwall, had cleared 18 l. per ton more than they did in 1842. These were the monopolists to whose rescue they were told to come tonight, and it was to put 40,000 l. a year more in the pockets of these monopolists, or at least to divide that sum among them and the foreign owners of mines in Cuba and Chili, that the House was called upon to fling to the winds 40,000 l. of revenue, which the Chancellor of the Exchequer ought well to know was sufficiently needed for other purposes. For these reasons, though he needed no Committee of Inquiry, and though he was prepared to oppose the proposal of the Government whenever it came before the House, on the ground that no article of foreign produce ought to come into this country untaxed, so long as England laboured under a higher amount of taxation than she could well bear, he should vote for a Select Committee. He would prefer to meet the proposition of the Government boldly in front; but, as he presumed that the effect of defeating them, by obtaining a Select Committee, would be utterly to overthrow their scheme, he cared not whether he assailed them in front, flank, or rear, and be should therefore give his cordial support to the Motion of the hon. Baronet (Sir C. Lemon).
MR. E. TURNER said, that the Cornish miners were in favour of free trade in copper ore, because they wanted the fine

443
foreign ore to smelt with their own inferior ore.
MR. RICARDO said, that in 1839 copper ore was allowed to be imported free of duty, and yet the produce of the Cornish mines was greater in that year than it had been since—a fact which seemed to bear out the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that Cornish ore to be made available, required to be mixed with foreign ore. The produce of the Cornish mines was 12,468 tons in 1839, 11,259 tons in 1842, 11,593 tons in 1845, and 11,820 tons in 1846. The same arguments which were now directed against the importation of foreign ore were formerly employed against the admission of foreign wool; but admitting it free of duty had had the effect of greatly increasing the consumption of British wool.
MR. HENLEY said, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer's proposition was supported by the most contradictory arguments. He thought a good case had been made out for inquiry, and he should vote for it if the House went to a division.
MR. JAMES WILSON said, that the statements made by the noble Lord himself were sufficient to induce the House to concur with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The noble Lord had said that the average quality of the ore imported was 21 per cent of pure copper, while that of the native ore was only 8 per cent. That fact was of itself sufficient to show the impossibility of our miners competing with those of foreign countries. The noble Lord had spoken of the labourers engaged in the manufacture of copper utensils for the foreign markets; but surely if he wished to encourage native industry, he ought to allow the importation of the raw material for the employment of those persons. The noble Lord had also alluded to the monopoly which the smelters possessed; and he should have borne in mind that the proposition of the Government was to reduce the price of the very article which those smelters used. Upon these grounds he (Mr. Wilson) would support the proposition of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The House divided on the question, that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question:—Ayes 102; Noes 35: Majority 67.

List of the AYES.

Abdy, T. N.

Barkly, H.

Anson, hon. Col.

Bellew, R. M.

Anstey, T. C.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

444

Bernal, R.

Palmerston, Visct.

Birch, Sir T. B.

Parker, J.

Bowring, Dr.

Patten, J. W.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Pechell, Capt.

Brotherton, J.

Peel, Col.

Brown, W.

Pigott, F.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

Pinney, W.

Cardwell, E.

Power, N.

Carter, J. B.

Rawdon, Col.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Ricardo, J. L.

Clifford, H. M.

Rich, H.

Cowan, C.

Russell, hon. E. S.

Craig, W. G.

Russell, F. C. H.

Cripps, W.

Rutherford, A.

Devereux, J. T.

Scholefield, W.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Seymour, Lord

Dundas, Adm.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Ebrington, Visct.

Shelburne, Earl of

Filmer, Sir E.

Simeon, J.

Forster, M.

Smith, J. A.

Fortescue, hon. J. W.

Smith, J. B.

Gladstone, rt. hon. W. E.

Somerville,rt. hon. Sir W.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Spearman, H. J.

Greene, J.

Spooner, R.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Grey, R. W.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Hawes, B.

Stanton, W. H.

Heneage, E.

Strickland, Sir G.

Henry, A.

Stuart, H.

Hindley, C.

Sullivan, M.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Thompson, Col.

Hodges, T. L.

Thornely, T.

Jackson, W.

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

Keppel, hon. G. T.

Townshend, Capt.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Towneley, C.

Lewis, G. C.

Trelawny, J. S.

Lincoln, Earl of

Turner, E.

Lockhart, A. E.

Urquhart, D.

Macnamara, Maj.

Villiers, hon. C.

M'Neil, D.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Martin, C. W.

Ward, H. G.

Matheson, A.

Willcox, B. M.

Melgund, Visct.

Williams, J.

Moffatt, G.

Wilson, J.

Morpeth, Visct.

Wilson, M.

Morris, D.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Muntz, G. F.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

TELLERS.

O'Connell, M. J.

Hill, Lord M.

Palmer, R.

Tufnell, H.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Henley, J. W.

Adderley, C. B.

Hood, Sir A.

Baldock, E. H.

Ingestre, Visct.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Keating, R.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Meux, Sir H.

Cabbell, B. B.

Miles, P. W. S.

Christy, S.

Napier, J.

Clive, H. B.

Nugent, Sir P.

Cocks, T. S.

Reynolds, J.

Coles, H. B.

Robartes, T. J. A.

Colvile, C. R.

Seymer, H. K.

Deedes, W.

Stafford, A.

Dod, J. W.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Dodd, G.

Tenison, E. K.

Dunne, F. P.

Vivian, J. E.

Forbes, W.

Wyld, J.

Fox, R. M.

TELLERS.

Fuller, A. E.

Lemon, Sir C.

Galway, Visct.

Carew, W. H. P.

House in Committee.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved—
"That, in lieu and instead of the Duties of Customs now payable in respect of the articles enumerated in the Schedule hereunto annexed, upon their importation into the United Kingdom, there shall be levied, collected, and paid, the rates of duty specified in the said Schedule:—Copper ore, 1s. per ton; regulus of copper, 1s per ton; old copper, fit only to be manufactured, 2s. 6d. per ton; unwrought copper, viz., in bricks or pigs, rose copper; and all cast copper, 2s. 6d. per ton; copper part wrought, viz. bars, rods, or ingots, hammered or raised, 2s. 6d. per ton; copper in plates, and copper coin, 2s. 6d. per ton; pig and sheet lead, 2s. 6d. per ton."
The Committee divided on a Motion to report progress:—Ayes 13; Noes 77: Majority 64.

List of the AYES.

Baldock, E. H.

Fox, R. M.

Brotherton, J.

Hood, Sir A.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Miles, P. W. S.

Carew, W. H. P.

Napier, J.

Dod, J. W.

Wyld, J.

Dodd, G.

TELLERS.

Dunne, F. P.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Forbes, W.

Henley, J. W.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

O'Connell, M. J.

Anstey, T. C.

Palmer, R.

Barkly, W.

Palmerston, Visct.

Bellew, R. M.

Parker, J.

Berkeley, hon. H F.

Patten, J. W.

Birch, Sir T. B.

Pechell, Capt.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Pigott, F.

Brown, W.

Power, N.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

Reynolds, J.

Cardwell, E.

Ricardo, J. L.

Christy, S.

Robartes, T. J. A.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Russell, F. C. H.

Cowan, C.

Rutherfurd, A.

Craig, W. G.

Scholefield, W.

Cripps, W.

Seymer, H. K.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Dundas, Adm.

Smith, J. B.

Ebrington, Visct.

Somerville,rt. hon. Sir W.

Fortescue, hon. J. W.

Spearman, H. J.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Spooner, R.

Greene, J.

Stuart, H.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Sullivan, M.

Grey, R. W.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Hawes, B.

Tenison, E. K.

Henry, A.

Thompson, Col.

Hindley, C.

Thornely, T.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Towneley, C.

Hodges, T. L.

Townshend, Capt.

Jackson, W.

Turner, E.

Keppel, hon. G. T.

Urquhart, D.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Lincoln, Earl of

Ward, H. G.

Lockhart, A. E.

Wilcox, B. M.

M'Neill, D.

Williams, J.

Melgund, Visct.

Wilson, J.

Morpeth, Visct.

Wilson, M.

Morris, D.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Muntz, G. F.

TELLERS.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Tufnell, H.

Nugent, Sir P.

Hill, Lord M.

Resolutions agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at One o'clock.