Commons Sitting of 3 August 1848

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Criminal Law Administration Amendment; Registers of Sasines, &c., (Scotland).
2° Churches; Militia Ballots Suspension.
Reported.—London (City) Small Debts; Farmers' Estate Society (Ireland); Paymaster's Offices Consolidation: Highway Rates; Distilling from Sugar.
3° and passed:—Loan Societies.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Ashley, from Inhabitants of Burton Bradstock, Dorsetshire, in favour of an Extension of the Elective Franchise.—By Sir R. Peel, from the Rector of Waterstock, Oxford, for the Prevention of Simoniacal Practices in the Church of England.—By Lord Ashley, from the Congregation of Wesleyan Methodists of Fawcett Street Chapel, in the Borough of Sunderland, for a Better Observance of the Lord's Day.—By Sir James Graham, from the Parochial Board of the United Parishes of Liff and Benvie, against the Marriage (Scotland) Bill—By Lord Ashley, from the Inhabitants of Leamington, in favour of the Places of Worship Sites (Scotland) Bill.—By Mr. Osborne, from Walter Gilchrist Whicker, of Portesham, Dorset, respecting the Waste Lands in New South Wales.—By Lord Ashley, from Edward Samuel Byam, for an Investigation of his Services.—By Mr. Bankes, from the Protestant Inhabitants of Bridport, against the Diplomatic Relations, Court of Rome, Bill.—By Lord Ashley, from Reading, for Encouragement to Schools in Connexion with the Church Education Society for Ireland.—By Mr. G. J. Turner, from John Webb, of Coventry, Enameller, for Inquiry respecting the Management of Guy's Hospital.—By Mr. packe, from the Grand Jury of the County of Liecester, for the Establishment of Industrial and Reformatory institutions for Juvenile Offenders.—By Mr. Clay, from the Bonded Creditors of the St. Marylebone and Finchley Turnpike Trust, for Continuing the Marylebone and Finchley Road Acts.—By Lord George Bentinek, from the Inhabitants of the City of St. John, New Brunswick, against a Repeal of the Navigation Laws.—By Mr. Jackson, from the Guardians and Overseers of the Poor of the Town of Tranmere, Chester, in favour of the Poor Law Union Charges Bill.—By Lord Ashley, from a Number of Working People of Stepney, in favour of the Public Health Bill.—By Mr. Duncan, from the Parochial Board of Dundee, against the Registering Births, &c. (Scotland) Bill.—By Lord Ashley, from the Rural Deanery of North Meols, in the County of Lancaster, for a Repeal of the Sale of Beer Acts.—By Mr. Duncan, from the Directors of the Aberdeen Mechanics' Institution, against the Scientific Societies Bill.—By Mr. Clay, from Ratepayers of the Town of Kings-ton-upon-Hull, for an Alteration of the Law of Settlement.

SUGAR DUTIES BILL.
The House went into Committee on the question that the duty on white clayed, or sugar equal to white clayed not being refined, he for every cwt. 15 s. 2d.
LORD G. BENTINCKsaid, that the duty of 15 s. 2d. as now proposed by the hon. Baronet, was not in due proportion to the duty on refined sugar, as regulated by the old scale of duties. The duty in the second amended scale was proposed to be 18 s. on double refined sugar, and 16 s. on single refined, that being a reduction of 1s. 6d. for the higher class sugars, and 1s. 4d. for the lower class. By that rule, white clayed sugar was charged half as between muscovado and single refined
1114
sugar, which made the duty 15 s. 2d. So long as the duty on single refined sugar was 17 s. 4d., that might have been a fair distinction; but when they had reduced it to 16 s., the proper rate would be 14 s. 6d. The Chancellor of the Exchequer might say that the 16 s. duty was an amalgamation of the duties of 18 s. and of 17 s. 4d.; but that was no answer, for it was perfectly clear that the duty should have been reduced from 15 s. 2d. to 14 s. 6d. for the years 1848 and 1849; that then it should be reduced to 13 s. 4d., and in 1859 to 12 s. 5d. To show the absurdity of the present rate as it stood, it was only necessary to compare the difference between the muscovado British, and the foreign brown clayed, which was 7s. Then let them compare the duty on white clayed British, which was reduced to 6s. 5d. So in proportion as they had a superior classed article, the less was it charged. It was 9s. 4d. on double refined sugar, it was 7s. on muscovado. He should therefore move the substitution of 14 s. 6d. for 15 s. 2d.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhad imposed a higher rate of duty on the white clayed sugar, as the article imported from the East Indies was of a finer description that that which was imported from the West Indies, He did propose to maintain the same relative differences between white clayed sugar and muscovado, he was not prepared to take from the West Indies the advantages thus obtained from them.
The Committee divided on the Amendment:—Ayes 29; Noes 99: Majority 70.

List of the AYES.

Barkly, H.

Hornby, J.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Lennox, Lord H. G.

Christy, S.

Manners, Lord G.

Dick, Q.

Newdegate, C. N.

East, Sir J. B.

Packe, C. W.

Edwards, H.

Robinson, G. R.

Floyer, J.

Sandars, G.

Fuller, A. E.

Somerset, Capt.

Gwyn, H.

Spooner, R.

Halford, Sir H.

Stuart, J.

Hamilton, G. A.

Urquhart, D.

Henley, J. W.

Verner, Sir W.

Hildyard, T. B. T.

TELLERS.

Hodgson, W. N.

Hudson, G.

Hood, Sir A.

Anstey, T. C.

List of the NOES.

Abdy, T. N.

Barron, Sir H. W.

Anderson, A.

Bellew, R. M.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Baillie, H., J.

Bowles, Adm.

Baring, rt. hon. Sir F.

Bowring, Dr.

1115

Brotherton, J.

Lewis, G. C.

Brown, W.

Locke, J.

Bunbury, E. H.

Lushington, C.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Cardwell, E.

M'Gregor, J.

Chaplin, W. J.

Marshall, J. G.

Cholmeley, Sir M.

Matheson, Col.

Clay, Sir W.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Meux, Sir H.

Denison, J. E.

Morpeth, Visct.

Divett, E.

Morris, D.

Dodd, G.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Duncan, G.

O'Connell, M. J.

Dundas, Adm.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Ebrington, Visct.

Palmer, R.

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

Palmerston, Visct.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Parker, J.

Evans, Sir D. L.

Pechell, Capt.

Fagan, W.

Pinney, W.

Ferguson, Col.

Power, Dr.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Rendlesham, Lord

Forster, M.

Rich, H.

Fortescue, C.

Russell, Lord J.

Fortescue, hon. J. W.

Rutherfurd, A.

Freestun, Col.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Gordon, Adm.

Smith, J. A.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Smith, J. B.

Grenfell, C. W.

Stanton, W. H.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Stuart, Lord D.

Grey, R. W.

Tancred, H. W.

Grosvenor, Earl

Thompson, Col.

Halliburton, Lord J. F.

Thornely, T.

Hastie, A.

Townshend, Capt.

Hastie, A.

Turner, G. J.

Hay, Lord J.

Vyvian, Sir R. R.

Hayter, W. G.

Willcox, B. M.

Headlam, T. E.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Henry, A.

Wilson, J.

Heywood, J.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Wood, W. P.

Hodges, T. L.

Wrightson, W. B.

Howard, P. H.

Jervis, Sir J.

TELLERS.

Keppel, hon. G. T.

Tufnell, H.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Hill, Lord M.

On the second division of the Schedule,
LORD G. BENTINCKobserved, that in this division of the schedule there were six fresh blunders; but as they were blunders in favour of the West India planters, he had nothing to say against them. The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Wilson) shook his head. So he had to the other quarter of a hundred blunders in the scheme; and it was only when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer became convinced of the mistakes, that the hon. Gentleman became suddenly convinced of them also. The duty, as it was proposed for 1848–1849, was 17 s.; it ought to be 16 s. 6d. The duty for 1849–50 was 15 s. 8d., it ought to be 15 s. 3d. The duty for 1850–51 was 14 s. 4d., it ought to be 14 s. The duty for 1851–52 was 13 s., it ought to be 13 s. 3d The duty for 1852–53 was
1116
12 s. 5d., it ought to be 12 s. 3d. The duty for 1853–54 was 11 s. 10 d., it ought to be 11 s. 6d. It was not until 1854–55 that the proposed duty became correct. The right hon. Gentleman had taken a wrong datum line for his calculations. There was another trifling blunder of little importance, except as a blunder. The drawback on refined sugar was intended to be 1s. 4d. more than on bastard sugars. The duty ought in that case to have been 16 s. 3d., not as it was proposed to be, 16 s. 4d.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUERwas understood to say that the noble Lord was not correct in the grounds of calculation which he had advanced. The schedule was of very little importance; but with the view of obtaining for the West India body a greater degree of protection than they now enjoyed, the duty on British brown clayed sugar was fixed in the same proportion above that on muscovado sugar, as was the duty on foreign brown clayed above that on foreign muscovado.
LORD GEORGE BENTINCK LORD GEORGE BENTINCK moved the restoration of Clause 6 of the Act 9 and 10 Vic., c. 63, namely, "sugar not to be entered, bonâ fide the growth and produce of the foreign country from which it is imported." The effect of this clause would be to protect the refiner of this country from the refined sugar of the Continent; and the warehouseman of this country from the sugar warehoused in Antwerp, Amsterdam, and Hamburg.
Clause brought up and read a first time. On the question that it be read a second time,
The Committee divided:—Ayes 31; Noes 78: Majority 47.

List of the AYES.

Anstey, T. C.

Hudson, G.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Lockhart, W.

Brisco, M.

Meux, Sir H.

Christy, S.

Mullings, J. R.

Dodd, G.

Newdegate, C. N.

East, Sir J. B.

Packe, C. W.

Floyer, J.

Repton, G. W. J.

Fuller, A. E.

Robinson, G. R.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Seymer, H. K.

Grogan, E.

Sibthorp, Col.

Gwyn, H.

Spooner, R.

Halford, Sir H.

Stuart, J.

Hamilton, G. A.

Urquhart, D.

Henley, J. W.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Hodgson, W. N.

TELLERS.

Hood, Sir A.

Barkly, H.

Hornby, J.

Baillie, H.

List of the NOES.

Abdy, T. N.

Anderson, A.

Adair, R. A. S.

Anson, hon. Col.

1117

Armstrong, R. B.

Mitchell, T. A.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Morpeth, Visct.

Morison, Sir W.

Barnard, E. G.

Morris, D.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Mowatt, F.

Blackall, S. W.

Muntz, G. F.

Bowring, Dr.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Buller, C.

Paget, Lord C.

Bunbury, E. H.

Parker, J.

Callaghan, D.

Peehell, Capt.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

Pinney, W.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Power, Dr.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Ricardo, O.

Denison, J. E.

Rich, H.

Divett, E.

Romilly, Sir J.

Duncan, G.

Russell, Lord J.

Dundas, Adm.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Ebrington, Visct.

Shelburne, Earl of

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Smith, J. A.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Smith, J. B.

Forster, M.

Stanton, W. H.

Fox, R. M.

Stuart, Lord D.

Freestun, Col.

Tancred, H. W.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Thompson, Col.

Greene, J.

Thompson, G.

Grenfell, C. W.

Thornely, T.

Grey, R. W.

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

Hallyburton, Lord J. F.

Townshend, Capt.

Hastie, A.

Villiers, hon. C.

Hay, Lord J.

Ward, H. G.

Hayter, W. G.

Westhead, J. P.

Hoy wood, J.

Willcox, B. M.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir. J.

Williams, J.

Hodges, T. L.

Wilson, J.

Howard, P. H.

Wilson, M.

Jervis, Sir J.

Wood, rt. hn. Sir C.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

TELLERS.

Lewis, G. C.

Tufnell, H.

M'Gregor, J.

Craig, G.

LORD GEORGE BENTINCK LORD GEORGE BENTINCK moved a, clause to permit the British refiner to enter his sugar refined in bond for homo consumption on the same terms as foreign refined sugars. All the British refiner asked was, that he should he placed on an equality with the Dutch refiner, leaving to the Dutch refiner all the advantages he obtained from the bounty in Holland.
Clause brought up.
On the question that it be read a second time,
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERopposed it. The noble Lord was first the friend and then the opponent of the West Indian interest. Such a clause as this would not be palatable to the West Indian interest. Under this clause it would be impossible to prevent fraud. He was, however, willing to consider this question before next Session; but if any measure were introduced it must be far more general than that proposed by the noble Lord. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had lately been waited upon by several refiners, and they expressed themselves as opposed to the proposition of the noble Lord.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 41; Noes 73: Majority 32.

List of the AYES

Anstey, T. C.

Hudson, G.

Barkly, H.

Lockhart, A. E.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Lockhart, W.

Brisco, M.

Mitchell, T. A.

Brown, W.

Mullings, J. R.

Christy, S.

Muntz, G. F.

Disraeli, B.

Newdegate, C. N.

Divett, E.

Osborne, R.

Dodd, G.

Packe, G. W.

Duneuft, J.

Sandars, G.

Floyer, J.

Sibthorp, Col.

Fox, W. J.

Sidney, Ald.

Fuller, A. E.

Somerset, Capt.

Greene, J.

Spooner, R.

Grogan, E.

Stafford, A.

Gwyn, H.

Stuart, J.

Halford, Sir H.

Thompson, Col.

Hamilton, G. A.

Urquhart, D.

Hastie, A.

Williams, J.

Heuley, J. W.

Hodgson, W. N.

TELLERS.

Hood, Sir. A.

Thompson, G.

Hornby, J.

Smith, J. B.

List of the NOES.

Abdy, T. N.

Howard, P. H.

Adair, R. A. S.

Jervis, Sir J.

Anderson, A.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Anson, hon. Col.

Lacy, H. C.

Armstrong, R. B.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Lewis, G. C.

M'Gregor, J.

Baillie, H. J.

Morpeth, Visct.

Barnard, E. G.

Morison, Sir W.

Bellew, R. M.

Morris, D.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

O'Connell, M. J.

Blackall, S. W.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Paget, Lord C.

Brotherton, J.

Parker, J.

Buller, C.

Pinney, W.

Bunbury, E. H.

Power, Dr.

Callaghan, D.

Ricardo, O.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

Rich, H.

Cholmeley, Sir M.

Romilly, Sir J.

Cnlcbrooke, Sir T. E.

Russell, Lord. J.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Craig, W. G.

Shelburne, Earl of

Duncan, G.

Smith, J. A.

Dundas, Adm.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Ebrington, Visct.

Stanton, W. H.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Tancred, H. W.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Thornely, T.

Forster, M.

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

Fox, R. M.

Villiers, hon. C.

Freestun, Col.

Ward, H. G.

Grenfell, C. W.

Westhead, J. P.

Grey, R. W.

Willcox, B. M.

Hay, Lord, J.

Wilson, J.

Hayter, W. G.

Wilson, M.

Henry, A.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Heywood, J.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir. J.

TELLERS.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Tufnell, H.

Hodges, T. L.

Hill, Lord. M.

House resumed.
Report to be received.

CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL.
House in Committee.
On the 2nd Clause,
MR. ANSTEYreiterated his objections to the Bill. It was an ex post facto measure, violating the great principle of jurisprudence, which declared that no man should be tried twice for the same offence. He moved the omission of the words "made on the spot by the Commissioners."
The Committee divided on the question that the words stand:—Ayes 79; Noes 16: Maiority 63.

List of the NOES.

Arkwright, G.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Bennet, P.

Mullings, J. R.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Newdegate, C. N.

Dick, Q.

Rushout, Capt.

Gwyn, H.

Sibthorp, Col.

Henley, J. W.

Spooner, R.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Hodgson, W. N.

TELLERS.

Hood, Sir A.

Anstey, T. C.

Hornby, J.

Urquhart, D.

Clause agreed to.
On the 3rd Clause being submitted for consideration.
After two more divisions on Amendments proposed by Mr. ANSTEY,
The House resumed.
Committee to sit again.

THE URQUHART CORRESPONDENCE.
LORD J. RUSSELL LORD J. RUSSELL moved to discharge the order for an address respecting Mr. Urquhart's correspondence, and to substitute an amended order. An order for an ad-dross was made on the 3rd April, and, after a few words from his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, the House consented to the order being made. Afterwards an address was moved which his noble Friend thought was in accordance with what had been agreed to between him and the hon. Gentleman, and the Motion accordingly passed without opposition, being at once agreed to; but on looking afterwards at the address, it appeared that the address was for the correspondence of a particular year—that of 1837, which was not the year for which his noble Friend had wished to give the correspondence. The correspondence which his noble Friend proposed to give was the correspondence between Mr. Backhouse and Mr. Urquhart, of the years 1838 and 1839, relating to the Portfolio. The address which was moved was for papers of the year 1837,
1120
relating to the recall of Mr. Urquhart from Constantinople. His noble Friend said that if his attention had been called to the date, he should not have consented to its production; therefore it was by mistake, and through misunderstanding, that that address was ever carried as an unopposed address. If it had been assented to by his noble Friend, and agreed to by the House, there would have been no reason for rescinding the order; but as it had been carried as au unopposed address, he moved that the order be rescinded, for the purpose of substituting a Motion for an address for copies of correspondence between Mr. Urquhart and Mr. Backhouse of the years 1838 and 1839, instead of the year-1837.
MR. URQUHART: The case lies in a nutshell. It is a question merely of veracity. I must first beg the House to observe the extraordinary character of the Motion before it. You are required to rescind an order to adapt it to a false return which has been made, and papers are to be given to me which I never asked for and will not take. The noble Lord now says that he never concurred in the Address. His words are on record, as I shall presently show. I now assert, upon my honour, that the understanding on his part and mine was complete. There was no kind of doubt. He knew the papers I meant, assented to the demand I made, and now he comes down to call upon you to rescind that order upon the plea that it was in ignorance he acceded to it. Then comes the second plea, in reference to the amended order of April the 19th. He says he had allowed it to pass in inadvertence, and that I had not submitted the order in the form to which he had assented to it. I again declare, upon my honour, that the noble Lord assented to the amended order, and that if not in his handwriting, as I believe it was, it passed through his hands. You are called upon to rescind your order upon grounds that are not true. If the facts were as they are now sought to be represented, would not the noble Lord have corrected the error when he perceived it? Would he have waited for two or three months, and then, and at my repeated solicitations only, make a return to the order of papers which the order did not specify? Is not this subterfuge incompatible with the pretext? Surely the case is self-evident. There is deception in its very face. I acquit the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) of any in-

1121
tentional part in it. He is now put for-Ward as he has been on many other occasions. He is the tame elephant on which the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) is to ride over this as he has ridden over so I many other fords. What that noble Lord: has said to-night has been merely put in his mouth. He has repeated what on the 30th June was stated by the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) himself, to which I gave the most direct and emphatic contradiction, and to which the noble Lord had then not a word to reply. It might suffice for me now to say, as I then said, that there is not a word of it true; but I will recall the circumstances.
It will be in the recollection of the House that on the 6th March I called upon the noble Lord, in consequence of his having imputed to me corrupt motives—that is, that in consequence of being recalled I had made charges against him—to retract his imputations or to bring forward the proofs. I said that the correspondence with reference to that recall would prove that there was no personal quarrel between the noble Lord and myself, and that the noble Lord falsely pretended a personal quarrel, thereby to meet the charges which I brought against him. My reason for bringing forward this case was not private—it was public. Despite the contempt with which this House may receive the assertion, I say that the whole range of these important interests which are connected with or belong to our foreign affairs, have been followed and understood only by the noble Lord and myself; that, therefore, by casting upon mc the imputation of personal motives, he shuts out my testimony and throws contempt upon my conclusions. Therefore, on the 6th of March I demanded the production of that correspondence, and I will read the words I then used, from Hansard:—
"He (Mr. Urquhart) called upon the noble Lord to Lay that correspondence on the table of the House. The noble Lord could not pretend any injury to the public service, since it had been already printed. The noble Lord could not complain of being taken unawares, for every line of it on his side bad been written for publication.
He now called upon the noble Lord either to retract the insinuations to which he had given utterance on Wednesday last, or to lay upon the table of the House the correspondence to which he had referred."
To which the noble Lord replied—I quote again from Hansard:—
"I shall have no objection to lay on the table the letters to which the hon. Gentleman alludes;
1122
almost all of them, I believe, were published in the newspapers."
Now, I bog the House to observe that this occurred on the 6th March, and I referred to imputations the noble Lord had cast upon me, not upon that day, but upon the 1st March; and that the correspondence I asked for was not that referring to the Portfolio, but that referring to my recall. The correspondence which the noble Lord has produced to the House is not that referring to my recall, but to the Portfolio. The excuse which the noble Lord has given for substituting the one set of papers for the other is, that he gave the whole of the correspondence which he held in his hands on the 1st March when he himself referred to the Portfolio, whereas the promise he made to me was on the 6tb March, in reference to the papers which I then demanded, and which had reference to my recall.
The House being thus in possession of the material facts, I will now read the statement made by the noble Lord on the 31st. Tune, when I last brought this matter before the House:—
"When he found that the Motion had been made, he sent a message by his right hen. Friend the Under Secretary for the Foreign Department, that he should by no means have consented to the return, and that if the hen. Member had given him an opportunity for doing so he should have felt it his duty to object to it, and for this reason, that he did not consider it conformable to the spirit of the constitution, and that he thought, &c. The return for which the hen. Member moved was the correspondence between himself and Mr. Backhouse, in the years 1837 and 1838, whilst the correspondence he (Lord palmerston) had pledged himself to produce began in 1839; but the engagement he had made was to produce the papers he hold in his hand when he was replying to the hon. Member for Youghal, and from which he read an extract, and which, in fact, was the correspondence with Mr. Backhouse as to the publication of the Portfolio. He never did agree to the presentation of the correspondence relating to the recall of the hon. Member, and it was not his intention to produce it, unless the House should require him to do so; and if the hon. Member thought it necessary to move that he (Lord Palmerston) should produce it, he should call upon the House to consider the expediency of not complying with the Motion."
The order was amended expressly to exclude a private letter of the noble Lord to myself of the 10th March, 1837. The terms of the agreement were distinctly announced across the House by me to the noble Lord, and assented to by him. The terms of that agreement I subsequently addressed in writing to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, without

1123
having been controverted, and these terms were—
"All the letters which had appeared in the newspapers, and also two or three subsequently addressed by me to Lord Palmerston in 1837, which had not so appeared."
The noble Lord continued—
"It did not enter into his imagination that when the hen. Member had consented to rescind the Address for the papers to which he objected, he should substitute a second Address calling for the same thing. He imagined that the hon. Member had altered the terms of his Address, and that he was content to take the other correspondence which he said he was ready to give. It was, perhaps, his fault that he had not looked more narrowly into the matter."
I have already said that when the noble Lord made these statements I contradicted them, and my contradiction remained unquestioned. I now again contradict them. I again declare, upon my honour, that those allegations are not true. It is a case in which both cannot be true, and in which misrepresentation must be wilful. Besides the recollection of hon. Members, there are the newspapers. Correspondence with reference to the Portfolio! What did I want with correspondence relating to the Portfolio? The question was whether or not my charges against the noble Lord arose, as he stated, out of a quarrel: what I said was this, there was no quarrel with reference to my recall—I dare you to produce the correspondence, which will show it if there was any. The alternative was, "Retract your imputation, or prove it by publishing the correspondence;" and you say, "No, I will not retract, I will publish;" and then this correspondence appears, and what is it? Correspondence about the Portfolio, and not about my recall.
I have now only to remark that on the 30th June the noble Lord alleged a reason for not giving the papers, namely, the impropriety of giving papers connected with the recall of diplomatic servants. Why did he not allege this reason on the 6th March? The reason had to be alleged then if it was a reason at all; and when he subsequently, on the 30th June, alleges that as a reason, it is not wanted. Surely nothing could be clearer than the mere statement that he had not agreed to the papers, if that was the fact. It required nothing more. But the absurdity of the subterfuge appears in this, that these papers had been already published. The noble Lord raised the laughter of the House against me on the 6th March, saying,
1124
"You will take little by your Motion, for the letters have been nearly all in the newspapers." But this is not the first time these papers have been asked for. In 1838 they were asked for by Sir Stratford Canning. What was the noble Lord's answer then? Not that it was improper to publish letters connected with the recall of a diplomatic servant—not, in fact, that they were public documents at all. He refused them upon grounds that they were private. More than that, he then alleged that they contained falsehoods—that they were filled with falsities. Surely the noble Lord would not hesitate to publish them if they were of such a character. One day they are refused because they are public—another day they are refused because they are private—and both reasons are equally good for this House.
Having thus, for the third time, exposed these subterfuges, I shall trouble myself no further in this matter. I have gained now all I wished for. I have made it clear that it is the noble Lord who shrinks from the investigation. I will not take the papers you will foist upon me. I will be no party to the playing of such a farce, and I shall mark best the sense which I entertain of such proceedings by now quitting the House.
The hon. Member bowed to the Speaker and retired.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONobserved that the case was a very simple one. In replying, on the 6th of March, to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Youghal, who had impugned his foreign policy, he quoted one or two extracts from a correspondence which had taken place in the years 1838–39 between Mr. Backhouse and the hon. Member for Stafford, with respect to the Portfolio. The hon. Member for Stafford subsequently made what he believed at the time to be an application that the whole of the correspondence thus partially cited from should be laid upon the table; and in that application, regarding it as a fair one, he at once acquiesced. He was all along under the impression that what the hon. Member moved for was nothing more or less than that the entire of the correspondence relating to the Portfolio, from which a few passages only had been read in the course of the debate, should he laid upon the table. That impression was not disturbed until, on looking at the Votes a few days since, he found, to his surprise, that the address that had been moved for and agreed to, was,

1125
in point of fact, an address for the whole of the correspondence which had passed between himself, Mr. Backhouse, and the hon. Member for Stafford, respecting the recall of the latter. The hon. Member might have acted under a misconception; but it was certain that his (Viscount Palmerston's) nitention, from first to last, had been merely to agree to the production of the entire of that particular correspondence relating to the Portfolio, from which he had quoted extracts. To the production of any correspondence connected with the recall of the hon. Gentleman he had the strongest objections on constitutional grounds, for he did not think that such a subject was a fit matter for discussion in that House.
MR. ANSTEYthought the noble Lord's explanation far from satisfactory. He (Mr. Anstey) called attention to the report which appeared in Hansard of the noble Lord's observations on the occasion referred to, and submitted that that report plainly showed that the question before the House related not to the Portfolio, but to the removal of his hon. Friend; and when the noble Lord said he had no objection to lay the letters on the table, he must have meant the letters relating to the recall. However, after several applications were made at the Foreign Office, it was said the papers to be given did not relate to the recall at all, but to a different question, namely, the Portfolio. Although his hon. Friend (Mr. Urquhart) had left the House, he (Mr. Anstey) should, for the interest of the country, resist what he thought would be a bad and mischievous precedent, and oppose the Motion of the noble Lord the Member for the city of London.
Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at ten minutes to Two o'clock.