Commons Sitting of 23 May 1848

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1°. Reproductive Loan Fund (Ireland).
Reported.—Collectors of Cess (Ireland).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Sir Charles Douglas, from Warwick, against the Diplomatic Relations, Court of Rome, Bill.— By Mr. George Hamilton, from Cashell, and several other Places, for Encouragement to Schools in Connexion with the Church Education Society (Ireland).—By Mr. Cocks, from several Lodges of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, Manchester Unity, for an Extension of the Benefit Societies Act.—By Mr. Henry Baillie, from Inverness, in favour of the Law of Entail (Scotland) Bill.—By Mr. William Miles, from the Board of Guardians of the Bath Union, for Altering the Law respecting Mendicants.—By Mr. Lockhart, from Parish Schoolmasters in the Presbytery of Glasgow, for Ameliorating their Condition.—By Lord Ashley, from a Meeting assembled at the Western Institution, Leicester Square, for Alteration of the Poor Law.

SPANISH AFFAIRS.
MR. BANKES: Sir, I wish to put a question to the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. The noble Lord, in answer to a question I put yesterday, stated that there had passed since the correspondence already upon the table of the House, between the Minister of Spain and the Minister in England, some notes which I understood the noble Lord to say were of a private and confidential nature. Now, this morning, in two at least of the public newspapers, there appears a very long letter from the Duke de Sotomayor to Sir H. Bulwer; and I beg to know whether that is one of the notes of which the noble Lord spoke, and if it be, whether he would have any objection to produce that note, and also any other correspondence that may have passed?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I stated yesterday that I was in daily expectation of having a messenger from Madrid, and that messenger arrived this morning. I find from the despatches that Sir Henry Bulwer, on the 17th, was about to leave Madrid, and had received his passports from the Spanish Government. I certainly think it my duty to lay further papers on the table of the House, and I hope to present them on Thursday next.

THE IONIAN ISLANDS.
MR. HUME wished to inquire of the Under Colonial Secretary, whether the restrictions of the liberty of the press, and the importation of books into the Ionian Islands, had been withdrawn; and whether the circulation of lists of individuals to be elected to the House of Representatives was still in use by the Governor?
MR. HAWES: There is a law still in force with regard to the exclusion of books, which gives the Governor, certainly, very considerable power. But, practically, it has no operation; because, in the year 1844, I think, Lord Seaton introduced a local ordinance, giving a general permission for the importation of books; and Lord Stanley fully concurred in that ordinance. With regard tot he liberty of the press, that has been fully and fairly conceded to the Ionians, in consequence of the representations made by the Lord High Commissioner. With regard to the last subject to which my hon. Friend has referred, the lists, it is quite true that it was part and parcel of the constitution that was framed when we took possession of those islands; but that point, and several others connected with the original constitution, I know are under the consideration of the Lord High Commissioner, and I have reason to believe will shortly be brought under the consideration of the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Office.

MR. VERNON'S GIFT.
MR. VERNON SMITH Sir, there was a Committee named on the 11th of February, to consider the best mode of providing additional room for works of art given to the public, or purchased by means of Parliamentary grants. As one person named on that Committee, I have never been summoned, and I suppose the Committee have never been summoned. The House must be aware of the very magnificent gift made by Mr. Vernon of the principal part of his modern pictures; and I understand that Mr. Vernon has been re-

1261
quested to exhibit it in his own house his own gift. Now, as this Committee has never sat, and as I have heard no other means have been provided for the accommodation of these pictures, I wish to ask, whether it be still intended to call that Committee together to provide additional room; or whether the Government have taken any steps to remove what I must call a national disgrace?
SIR R. H. INGLIS: May I be permitted, before my noble Friend answers that question, to put another immediately in connection with it. By his permission, I gave notice of my intention to move for copies of communications between this same gentleman, Richard Vernon, Esq., and the Government, relative to the magnificent donation of his collection of paintings. If my noble Friend will state to the House that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to pay any mark of honour to that Gentleman, or notice in any way such donation on his part, I will not say one word more now, as a time will come when I can more properly do so.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: There have been various causes preventing me from calling this Committee together; but certainly it is my intention to call the Committee together at an early period. When Mr. Vernon first made this munificent gift to the public, I requested my noble Friend as the head of he Woods and Forests to find some place for the pictures. I believe some correspondence took place, which ended in Mr. Vernon offering his house to be used for the purpose.
VISCOUNT MORPETH: In justice to Mr. Vernon's spirit of accommodation, as well as his munificence, I should say that when there appeared some difficulty in providing a room suitable, in point of light, for the commodious position of the pictures, the offer to give his own house proceeded from Mr. Vernon himself.
SIR R. PEEL: Perhaps I may be permitted, as a trustee of the National Gallery, and very much in communication with Mr. Vernon and his representative, to bear my testimony in the strongest manner, not only to the munificence of Mr. Vernon, but to his extreme delicacy throughout. Mr. Vernon had several pictures which he thought might possibly be considered as hardly worthy of being placed in the National Gallery, and he left it to the trustees of the National Gallery to make a selection. They thought that that selection on their part would be invidious, and they submitted it to his own opinion to say what
1262
pictures should be withheld. In order that there should be no difficulty whatever, he consented. He made his selection, and it was scarcely dissented from in a single particular. He had, however, excluded one or two pictures which we thought were fully entitled to be admitted to the Gallery, and in those cases we departed from his recommendation. Now, it must be remembered that this is a gift not for a future period, but it is the gift of a gentleman whose Chief delight has been the cultivation of the arts, of which he has shown himself a great judge, and he has consented to part with his collection during the remainder of his life, and to place it absolutely at the disposal of the country. There has been every disposition shown to find a suitable place for the pictures; but it is not every building, however large, that has a suitable light for pictures. Several places were examined by the noble Lord; and the moment Mr. Vernon heard that we were selecting a place, he said, "I place my house, as well as the pictures, at the disposal of the country, and I beg that the public may have free admission to it."

RECALL OF SIR H. BULWER FROM MADRID.
MR. ANSTEY: Sir, I wish to know from the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, whether the departure of Sir H. Bulwer from Madrid is rightly explained in some of the foreign journals that have been received this week, that that gentleman is removed from the post of Madrid to another and a better one in the same service—the post of Ambassador at Constantinople; or whether the departure of Sir H. Bulwer from Madrid is to be taken as indicative of an entire rupture of friendly relations between this country and Spain?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: The departure of Sir H. Bulwer does not arise from his having been appointed to any other post, and it does not proceed from any rupture of the relations between the two countries.

ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE—THE DERBY.
LORD GEORGE BENTINCK: Sir, I am sure that my Motion, that the House at its rising do adjourn to Thursday, will have the ready concurrence of the House. I need not say that to-morrow is the Derby day, and as that is recognised as a holiday in the metropolis, I have obtained the

1263
sanction of the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown to my Motion.
MR. HUME hoped the House would not agree to the Motion, as there was a very important Bill on the Paper for Wednesday—the Law of Entail (Scotland) Bill.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: If I found that the Members for Scotland were anxious to discuss in the course of to-morrow the Law of Entail in Scotland, I should be quite ready to agree with my hon.. Friend who has just sat down, that the House ought to meet for that purpose; but I find that several Scotch Members are of opinion that this very important subject would not receive due discussion to-morrow, and that the clerks would have to sit for some time at the table, waiting to make a House; and as it seems the practice to look upon to-morrow as a national fâte, I have acquiesced in the Motion.
MR. FOX MAULE was not aware, when be fixed the Law of Entail in Scotland Bill for to-morrow, that it was the Derby day; but even had he been aware of it, that would not have prevented him naming the Bill for that day. It was of great importance that the Bill should be proceeded with as early as possible; and he believed that if the House sat to-morrow, there would be a sufficient number of Members present to enter into the consideration of the Bill, notwithstanding the Derby. It was absolutely necessary that the Bill should go into the other House of Parliament sufficiently early to enable that House to give the subject full consideration. However, if the House should adjourn over to-morrow, he only hoped that his noble Friend would give to Scotland half a day at an early period to discuss this important subject.
MR. BRIGHT thought it was desirable that they should sometimes have a holiday, and he had not the slightest objection to to-morrow being made one; but he thought it was below the dignity of that House to make the fact of certain races being held within a few miles of the metropolis a pretext for a holiday. If they were to have a holiday for the Derby, why not have one for the Oaks? An hon. Gentleman near him informed him that there were other races at which certain Members had more business than in that House. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had made one or two pathetic speeches against delay, and now he was going to throw away a day. It would not elevate them in the eyes of the country to forego a day's business for the sake of
1264
recreation. He was persuaded that a sufficient number of Members to form a House would remain in town, notwithstanding the races. He understood that the noble Lord opposite (Lord G. Bentinck) was not so great an authority on the turf as he was formerly, having given up racing to become a politician. He had no objection to a holiday on rational grounds, but not on the undignified and unsenatorial ground of a great horse-race.
The House divided on the question that the House on its rising adjourn till Thursday next:—Ayes 103; Noes 90: Majority 13.

List of the AYES.

Archdall, Capt.

Howard, P. H.

Arkwright, G.

Ingestre, Visct.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Jocelyn, Visct.

Bankes, G.

Jones, Sir W.

Barnard, E. G.

Knox, Col.

Beckett, W.

Lemon, Sir C.

Benett, J.

Leslie, C. P.

Bennet, P.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Bentinck, Lord H.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Beresford, W.

Machamara, Maj.

Blackstone, W. S.

Masterman, J.

Boldero, H. G.

Matheson, Col.

Bourke, R. S.

Meux, Sir H.

Bramston, T. W.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Buck, L. W.

Neeld, J.

Butler, P. S.

Newdegate, C. N.

Callaghan, D.

Norreys, Lord

Carew, W. H. P.

Nugent, Sir P.

Christopher, R. A.

O'Connell, M. J.

Christy, S.

Ossulston, Lord

Cochrane, A. D. R. W. B.

Palmerston, Visct.

Cockburn, A. J. E.

Patten, J. W.

Codrington, Sir W.

Peel, right hon. Sir R.

Cole, hon. H. A.

Prime, R.

Conolly, Col.

Pusey, P.

Corbally, M. E.

Renton, J. C.

Cubitt, W.

Russell, Lord J.

Dalrymple, Capt.

Rutherfurd, A.

Deedes, W.

Scott, hon. F.

Denison, W. J.

Seymer, H. K.

Dick, Q.

Sibthorp, Col.

Disraeli, B.

Smith, M. T.

Drumlanrig, Visct.

Smyth, Sir H.

Dundas, G.

Stafford, A.

Edwards, H.

Stanley, E.

Estcourt, J. B. B.

Stanton, W. H.

Euston, Earl of

Stickland, Sir G.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Taylor, T. E.

Filmer, Sir. E.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Fuller, A. E.

Thompson, Ald.

Galway, Visct.

Towneley, C.

Goddard, A. L.

Vane. Lord H.

Grace, O. D. J.

Verner, Sir W.

Hallyburton, Lord J. F.

Villiers, Visct.

Halsey, T. P.

Waddington, D.

Hammer, Sir J.

Wall, C. B.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Walsh, Sir J. B.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Watkins, Col.

Henley, J. W.

Wood, right hon. Sir C.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.

Hildyard, R. C.

TELLERS.

Houldsworth, T.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Howard, hon. E. G. G.

Hudson, G.

1265

List of the NOES.

Abdy, T. N.

King, hon. P. J. L.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Adair, H. E.

Langston, J. H.

Adair, R. A. S.

Lincoln, Earl of

Anderson, A.

Loch, J.

Armstrong, R. B.

Lushington, C.

Baillie, H. J.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Baines, M. T.

Maitland, T.

Blewitt, R. J.

Mandeville, Visct.

Bowles, Adm.

Marshall, J. G.

Bowring, Dr.

Martin, J.

Bright, J.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Brockman, E. D.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Brown, W.

Morgan, H. K. G.

Bunbury, W. M.

Morris, D.

Bunbury, E. H.

Mowatt, F.

Campbell, hon. W. K.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Clay, J.

Nugent, Sir P.

Clay, Sir W.

O'Brien, T.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G

Ogle, S. C. H.

Cobbold, J. C.

Oswald, A.

Cobden, R.

Pearson, C.

Courtenay, Lord

Pechell, Capt.

Craig, W. G.

Peto, S. M.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C T.

Pinney, W.

Drummond, H.

Plowden, W. H. C.

Drummond, H. H.

Raphael, A.

Duncan, G.

Rawdon, Col.

Duncuft, J.

Smith, J. B.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Smollett, A.

Evans, Sir De L.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Evans, J.

Talfourd, Serj.

Ewart, W.

Tancred, H. W.

Fergus, J.

Thompson, Col.

Fordyce, A. D.

Thompson, G.

Fox, W. J.

Thornely, T.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Turner, E.

Gwyn, H.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Hardcastle, J. A.

Wawn, J. T.

Hastie, A.

Willcox, B. M.

Headlam, T. E.

Williams, J.

Henry, A.

Wood, W. P.

Herbert, right hon. S.

TELLERS.

Hood, Sir A.

Hume, J.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Crawford, W. S.

Motion agreed to.

COMMERCIAL POLICY.
LORD G. BENTINCK said: Sir, in moving for the returns of which I have given notice, I trust the House will pardon me if I ask for its attention for a short time. There is no one in this House who has more frequently arraigned the statements of others than I have done—there is no one who has inquired more into the correctness or incorrectness of official returns than I have done—and, I will venture to say, there is no man in this House who deems it of greater importance, for the purposes a just and wise legislation, that the How e should not be deceived by incorrect statements or statistics, whether made by official or by private indivi
1266
duals. I have therefore, Sir, to make a Motion for returns that will clear up certain statements of my own, which have been doubted, as regards the effects of the recent legislation in respect to timber and to silk; and at this time, when the great question before the country is, what mode of taxation is that which bears most lightly on the people—when a great commercial experiment is being tried—it becomes of the utmost importance that we should be correctly informed as regards the working of our late alterations in the commercial tariff of the country. I am one of those who hold the opinion that direct taxation is not the mode by which the revenue can be raised at the least burden to the people. I am one of those who believe that the principle adopted by the United States of America, of raising revenue from customs duties, bears more lightly on the people than raising a revenue by direct taxation, or by the taxation of excise duties. On a former occasion, with reference to this subject, I made a statement in this House, to the effect that the removal of a large portion of the duties on timber had been accompanied, not only by distress among the Canadian timber-growers, but that a large portion of the remitted tax had gone into the pockets of the foreigner; and I argued from these results that the removal of taxes on articles of foreign produce was not a relief, to the full extent of the tax remitted, to the people of this country. On that occasion I showed that the short price of Baltic timber had risen 11 s. per load since 1842, when the duty was reduced; and I alleged that, on the other hand, the price of Canadian timber—that timber being grown by our own colonists—was so reduced as to occasion the greatest distress to our colonial fellow-subjects. That statement of mine was then doubted. It was alleged that I "was grossly misinformed," and that, so far from "the alteration having had the effect of cruelly grinding down our colonies," or of producing any efforts which could justify the doleful tale with which it was said I was endeavouring to touch the sympathies of this House, "the Canadians had been receiving 7s. a load, short price, more for their timber than they received in 1842. before the alteration of the duty." The right hon. Gentleman who made that statement in answer to me was one who had held such high offices—successively the offices of Vice-President and President of the Board of Trade, and afterwards Secre-

1267
tary of State—that when he made that statement, after four days' deliberation, and after having fortified himself by many authorities, it was not surprising that the House should be carried away with the impression "that I was grossly misinformed." But, Sir, it is not only on public grounds that I think it due to the House that the truth should be placed before it on this subject; but I feel personally, that after the great indulgence and toleration I have so often, and sometimes undeservedly, I fear, received at the hands of the House, I should be guilty of the most unpardonable ingratitude if I at any time attempted to excite the House by statements lightly made, or which there was a possibility might afterwards turn out to be gross mis-statements. I therefore propose to ask the House for such returns as will, I think, set this matter at rest. Sir, I believe that I was justified in the statement which I formerly made. It was said, in contradiction to me, that the price of red pine Canadian timber, on which the duty had been reduced 10 s. 6d., had only fallen in price from 95 s. to 92 s. a load duty paid. On the very day that the right hon. Gentleman made that assertion, there was a great sale of timber at the Hall of Commerce, Threadneedle-street. I have the catalogue of that sale, from which it appears that there were 31,900 feet of white timber and 12,000 of red timber sold on that day; and by a return which I hold in my hand, and which I take leave to pass to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), it will be seen that red timber fetched 65 s. 5d. per load, and not 92 s. I have also a letter from Messrs. Gilmore and Co., the largest importers of timber into Glasgow, expressing the utmost astonishment at the contradiction made by the right hon. Gentleman; and after sending me an account of all the sales which have taken place from the 1st of January to that day, they say that if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford, who sets a due value upon timber for Cornish mines, and I apprehend for iron mines too, has any desire to make a purchase, "they authorise me to make him the offer of a large cargo of prime red pine Canadian timber now lying at Hull, for 65 s." I think the right hon. Gentleman, if he believes in the correctness of his own statement, in which he charged me with being grossly misinformed—if, I say, he can confide in his own information—he will look on this as a perfect windfall, and accept the offer

1268
now made him by the Messrs. Gilmore. But the right hon. Gentleman will probably to-night rise and s my, "Well, if the duty is gone into the pockets of the Baltic merchants, what matter is it? The trade is carried on by good Englishmen as the noble Lord the Member for Lynn, or any other hon. Member." But if the continuation of the return of 1846 to the present time, for which I have moved, be granted, it will be found that in 1842 the trade was carried on equally by British ships and British seamen, and foreign ships and foreign seamen. But the case is terribly altered now. In 1839 the trade was carried on by 667 British ships. manned by 6,438 British seamen, and 663 foreign ships manned by 6,863 foreign seamen. But see how the alteration which has taken place in the law affects us. In 1845 the number of British ships had fallen from 667 to 602, and the seamen from 6,438 to 5,937; while the foreigner has increased from 663 ships to 1,893, and the foreign seamen engaged in that trade from 6,863 to 17,441. These may be as good Englishmen as I am; but if these Englishmen invest their money for the employment of foreign seamen and foreign ships, they do not come up to my notion of a good Englishman. And although I am well aware that great political writers—such, for example, as Mr.
Senior —lay it down as a matter of little consequence whether rent from Ireland, for instance, be spent in Ireland or in England, in Paris or in Rome, that is a principle which I have never been able to understand. With respect to the Canadian trade, I have some reason for thinking that there must be distress in Canada, for I find that there are this year, wintering in Canada, 20,500,000 feet of timber against 16,750,000 feet last year, and against 6,250,000 feet, the average of the seven years antecedent. That is a great contrast, and a strong proof, when I show at the same time that the price has fallen to the extent I have named, that the Canadian merchant must be suffering. I believe that it is a clear a id convincing proof of the validity of the views I have taken; and that the effect of the change, reducing the differential duty beyond the point at which the Canadian can safely compete with the Baltic grower, is to put into the pocket of the foreigner a considerable portion of the duty remitted, while it has brought great distress upon the Canadian timber grower and merchant. Last year

1269
the freight and charges were 46 s. between Quebec and London; and by the return which I have put into the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford it will be seen that the price of yellow pine is not at this time above 55 s. per load. I leave the House to judge whether that is a sort of trade that can be profitable to the colonist under such circumstances as these.
I come next to the second branch of the returns for which I am moving—that relating to the silk trade. On the occasion to which I have so often alluded, I spoke of the distress existing among the Spitalfields weavers between the years 1842 and 1846; but I was answered then "that I had committed a great chronological error," and that I was totally mistaken in ascribing the distress, which commenced in 1842 and was going on up to 1896, to any alteration in the law; for that the law was not altered till after the distress had taken place; and, consequently, as effect could not precede cause, it was utterly impossible that any alteration in the law could have operated upon the distress in Spitalfields. Of course the House at the time cheered this reply, which appeared conclusive, coming from the father of the measure itself. Perhaps I should have said, that the right hon. Gentleman was the father by adoption; for we certainly were told that those alterations were an emanation from the master minds of Mr. M'Gregor and Mr. Laing; but when that statement was made by a right hon. Gentleman lately at the head of the Board of Trade, it was listened to by the House with great attention, and went forth to the country stamped with the impress of his late official charracter—it was taken as an undoubted truth. Now, Sir, I ask in this return for a statement to be laid before the House of the alterations that took place in the laws relating to the silk trade in 1842. I think it will be found that this alteration which took place in 1842—and which had my hearty concurrence, because it was consistent with all the principles which I have advocated—was an alteration which admitted silk from British transmarine possessions on easy terms into this country. That was an alteration acknowledging the principle which I have unceasingly advocated, that the colonies and British possessions ought to be regarded as though no sea divided us. But by this alteration made in the law in 1842, silks and ban
1270
danas from the British possessions in India had the duty reduced from 20 l. to 5l. per cent on the value; and the result was, that from 41,000 pieces in 1842, the importations increased in 1845 to 178,000 pieces; and in 1846, to 187,000 pieces. Now, Sir, the expression which I took the liberty of using was, "the silk trade had been dabbled with," and that this had had the effect of injuring the manufactures of Spitalfields and of Bethnal-green. But the right hon. Gentleman, in his answer, said, "The noble Lord told doleful tales of the ruin and distress of the Spitalfields and Bethnal-green weavers, but that it was not to the competition of the foreigner that that this distress was to be ascribed, but to that of Manchester." The right hon. Gentleman said Manchester; but, on looking back, I do not find any such great increase since 1842 in the number of silk mills established in Manchester. From the returns now before the House, which, however, are not very clear, it seems that in 1842 there were eight or nine silk mills in Manchester. I find that there are in full employment at this time in that town but seven silk mills. I find, also, that all the persons now engaged in the silk trade, in the United Kingdom, do not exceed 53,000. But when I turn my eyes from Manchester to foreign countries, and look at the importations from abroad — of which I have moved for a return—I find that there will be a very different statement with regard to the increasing importations from abroad. I have asked to-night that a return may be laid before the House of the importations, amongst other things, of silk to the port of London alone—not to Southampton, not to Liverpool, not to the United Kingdom, but to the port of London alone. Having looked at the official paper of the Custom House, I find that, in the four months ending the 5th of May last, the silk manufactured goods imported into London alone —reckoning them at 3l. sterling, which is the value put upon them by the trade, for each pound weight—amounts to 500,577 l. Assuming that rate to be continued, the sum, at the end of the year, would amount to more than 1,500,000 l. If we take the average wages of the weavers of Spitalfields and Bethnal-green at 9s. per week, we shall find that into the port of London alone there have been imported goods which would, after deducting one-third for the material consumed, have afforded employment and wages, at 9s. per week the year through, to upwards of 64,000 persons.

1271
When I show the House, therefore, that there are but 53,000 persons engaged in the silk trade in the United Kingdom—when I show that there has been such an immense quantity of silk goods imported in the last four months at duties such as 5s., 6s., 7s., or 8s., to the pound weight, being not more than 10 l. to 15 l. ad valorem if charged upon the invoice price—when I show that this importation of goods of foreign manufacture into the port of London alone is equivalent to the wages for the employment of 64,000 persons and upwards—do I not more than prove the case I stated before, that it is foreign competition, and not the competition of eight mills at Manchester, that has destroyed the living of the weavers of Spitalfields and Bethnal-green? And when an argument is attempted to be used against me, drawn from figures for which people go ten years back—striking out the year 1844, and averaging the importations of ten selected years, 1833 to 1843, and then comparing that average with the importations of the last two years—I answer such arguments, so got up, by showing the too well-known distress and misery now existing in Spitalfields, and Bethnal-green, and by showing the amount of wages enough to have supported the weavers in comfort and happiness, had the trade not been surrendered by free trade to foreign manufacturers. But, Sir, when we are told that the average importation of raw silk of these ten years is so much, and that, although it is true that 200,000 lbs. of foreign silk goods have been imported into this country, there is to set against that import 630,000 lbs. weight of raw material additional which has been worked up, the House is led to believe that that is consumed at home. But I ask, also, for a return of that which has been exported; and if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford will take the trouble to look at the return, and deduct the exports from the imports, he will find the result very different to that which he perhaps expects. He will find that the consumption of raw, thrown, and waste silk at home, in the two years of 1846 and 1847, was less than in 1844 and 1845, by something like 200,000 lbs. The return will show that there was a decrease in the home consumption of silk in 1846 and 1847, as compared with the years 1844 and 1845, namely, of thrown silk, 246,000 lbs.; of raw silk, 99,000 lbs.; and of waste silk, 1,143,538 lbs. But when the right hon. Gentleman treats lightly the distress of the poor people
1272
of Spitalfields and Bethnal-green—when he tries to argue away those distresses with his figures—I think he cannot know the dreadful state of distress into which those poor weavers are plunged. I will, therefore, take the liberty of reading an extract of a letter addressed to the noble Lord at the head of the Government by the rector of Bethnal-green—a gentleman who, from his position, is better able than others to describe the wretched state of his unfortunate parishioners. The rector writes as follows:—
"I am now in the seventh year of my residence in this parish, and, from my position, am cognisant of the poorest and most populous district of the parish. I have seen the weaving population, year after year, become worse, and more destitute of food and clothing; and I find that their wages have been continually reduced, and that, in addition to the reduction of wages, there has been a sad and great diminution in the quantity of work; so that, during the past winter, a far greater number than ever before known have been obliged to become inmates of the workhouse."
This is the statement of the incumbent, who has resided there for seven years, that is, since 1841. I think the right hon. Gentlemen who scoffed and jeered at me will scarcely be hardy enough now to scoff and jeer at those honest people, or endeavour to persuade them that they are in a state of happiness and prosperity. I rind the rev. gentleman then goes on to say—
"And if your Lordship knew to what an extremity they will submit before they will resort to the alternative of the workhouse, you will be better able to judge of the extent of destitution which prevails; for it is not till every piece of available furniture has been disposed of—it is not until they have no longer a bed to lie down on, or a chair to sit upon, that these poor people can be induced to break up their little homes, and consent to be classed as paupers; and yet, during the past winter, nearly the whole of the weaving population has been reduced to this extremity."
This is the result of your competition with foreigners—your comparatively free competition—which has brought into the port of London alone within the last four months half a million sterling worth of foreign silk manufactures, which would have given employment to 64,000 persons. But, Sir, it is some consolation that I can turn from this miserable picture to a somewhat better state of things. I am well aware that trade has improved a little of late, and that there has been a spurt among the operatives of Spitalfields and Bethnal-green. This has arisen, I believe, in great part in consequence of those disturbances on the Continent of Europe—in consequence of those organic and democratic changes which

1273
have impeded the circulation of capital, prostrated trade, and checked the manufacturing energies of foreign countries, but more especially of France. Those revolutionary changes abroad, however, if the people of this country do but continue to preserve peace and order at home, will, I trust, have the effect of bringing grist to their mill—will bring back capital to the silk manufacturers in England —will restore to them the trade of which they have been so unwisely and inhumanly deprived by free trade, and will enable them to rise to comfort and prosperity on the ruin of their rivals.
But when I say this, I am bound in truth and justice to say, that there are other causes which have had the effect of reviving the depression which has hung so heavily over our Spitalfields manufactures. The admission that other causes exist is not the mere statement of some wild protectionist. I find it in a weekly newspaper, a consistent advocate of free-trade opinions. In that paper I find "the healthy excitement" now springing up in Spitalfields attributed to other causes. It is gratifying to our feelings of loyalty to find it attributed to an order recently given by Her Majesty—an order which, according to a fiction, I must admit to have been given in pursuance of the advice of Her Minister—by the advice of the Lord Grand Chamberlain (I do not mean Her Majesty's hereditary Lord Chamberlain, Lord Willoughby D'Eresby), but Earl Spencer—given also in contravention of the advice of Her Majesty's Ministers, holding seats in the Cabinet. I find that this free-trade paper says—
"We are much gratified in finding that the considerate act of the Queen with respect to dress at the approaching drawing-room, already promises to accomplish the purpose for which it is intended. A healthful excitement has been produced in Spitalfields. Stocks that hung heavily on hand have been disposed of; orders are following; and, in most sanguine hopes of a revival taking place, the gloom and despondency are dispelled which have hitherto prevailed."
The paper further goes on to say—
"Added to the direct influence of Her Majesty in drawing-rooms is the example of a number of ladies of rank and influence who have engaged to patronise the industry and skill of their countrymen, and whose example will not fail to be felt, first upon their own immediate circle, and then, in a descending scale, on the various classes which never to copy their betters in taste and fashion."
So here we have the ruin and the remedy in prominent contrast. The ruin of beds and chairs taken away on the one hand,
1274
while on the other we contemplate the gracious act of Her Majesty, not undertaken (for so we are given to understand by the noble Lord at the head of the Government) by the advice of Her responsible Ministers of the Cabinet, but acting upon
"Nature's impulse, all unchecked by art, And feelings fine that float about the heart."
By this act Her Majesty has done much to counteract the mischief inflicted by those free-trade measures which have brought into the port of London, within the last four months,,500,000 l. worth of silk manufactures, the produce of the looms of France, Belgium, and Germany.
In making this Motion, I do not mean to narrow my views on this great question of protection to native industry, by merely applying for such returns as have reference exclusively to the silk trade. I find, bearding the cotton spinners in their own dominions, there have been imported altogether, free of duty, into the port of London, during the same four months, cotton goods to the value of 137,974 l. sterling, which, at the same rate of wages—9s. a week (and I fear the operatives do not receive so much in Manchester)—would give employment to between 11,000 and 12,000 operatives engaged in that trade. This has been permitted at a period when, according to the statement of Captain Willis, there are 14,000 operatives out of employment, or employed at short time, in Manchester alone, of whom 6,000 are altogether out of employment.
We have been told, however, by the hon. and gallant Member for Bradford (Colonel Thompson), that all this foreign trade is very good for Bradford, and that if silks from France are imported into England, pantaloons from Bradford will be exported to pay for them; but I find that within the same period of four months the woollen importations free of duty from foreign countries to London amount in value to 98,831 l., and those charged with a duty of 10 per cent to 29,904 l. Those sums taken together would pay the wages of 11,000 of our operatives engaged in the woollen manufacture at Bradford. The woollen importations from abroad cannot have benefited the trade of Bradford much, for I am informed that there are now 15,000 persons receiving relief in that town.
But, Sir, it is not only cotton and woollen of foreign manufacture, and boots and shoes and boot fronts that are imported, to the prejudice of our native industry;

1275
but there are other branches of trade which suffer materially from the same cause. As a native of Nottinghamshire, let me draw the attention of the House to the state of the lace manufactures, the chief seat of which in England is the town of Nottingham. Within the last four months, there have been imported at the port of London alone lace manufactures to the value of 30,793 l., equal to 90,000 l. worth in the course of a year—90,000 l. divided in wages would have given employment to 7,000 of our own operatives. Hon. Members have probably seen a letter from Mr. Wright, a banker in Nottingham, containing the reports of different clergymen of that town on the present state of Nottingham. But to begin with the lacemakers. It appears in a letter of a lacemaker that—
"The business of pawnbroking was pressed by unusual efforts to get advances. Sales of second-hand furniture were of every-day occurrence. It resulted that one-fourth of the manufacturing workpeople were bordering on destitution, many being without any means of subsistence whatsoever."
But this is almost exceeded by the description given by the clergyman. Mr. Brooks, vicar of St. Mary's, ascribes to the distress of the people the spirit of Chartism which prevails, and states, that he had heard men say, when warned of the probable evil consequences of sedition and rebellion—
"A man can only die once, and I would die as soon in that way as by starvation."
Mr. Brooks said—
"They would not go into the union workhouse, they would rather starve."
Mr. Brooks believed—
"A large portion of the working classes were in a state of semi-starvation. Numbers who, when he came to the place in April, 1844, were in different circumstances, he now recognised going about dirty, in rags, and emaciated. One of my curates," he added, "who was in Ireland last year, and who was on one of the relief committees, declares that he saw no destitution in that country worse than what he saw in Nottingham."
He was surprised at the patience with which it was borne. Dr. Williams said—
"God knows, distress is very general. The women, I believe, suffer the most, for they will give to their husbands and their children all they can. Hundreds, if not thousands, are barely existing."
Another clergyman, the Rev. Mr. Davies, the incumbent of Trinity Church, said—
"I firmly believe that for the space of eighteen months not one half of the mechanics' families have had more than just enough to keep them from actual starvation."
1276
The Rev. Mr. Howard, the incumbent of the district of St. John the Baptist, observed—
"The distress existing among the lower classes is more general and more severe than it has ever been my painful lot to witness."
The Rev. Mr. Butler, of St. Nicholas, also bears testimony to the prevalence of the most appalling destitution. Re tested it by the poor-rate returns, by which it seemed that in 1845–6 the rate was 4s. 2d. in the pound, and that the union had 1,387 l. in the bank, and rates uncollected to the amount of 3,880 l.; but that in April, 1846, the rate was made to the proportion of 5s. 10 d. in the pound; that there was only a balance of 197 l. in the bank, and that the uncollected rates were 7,400 l. He observed that they always expected improvement from winter to summer, but he feared there was but partial work for the operatives. He added, however, that "the change was simultaneous with the changes in our commercial policy." The Rev. Mr. Milton, of Radford, remarked—
"That in the streets he had to pass through, going to his parish church, five houses out of seven were empty, while in the west row of houses four in succession were without a tenant; that the poorer sort of persons had been turned into the union-house; and that those a little better off were unable to pay the rates, which amounted to 12 s. 6d. in the pound."
I think, therefore, when it is used as an argument that Ireland is to be excluded from direct taxation because the rates amount to 2s. in the pound, that Nottingham has a right to put in its claim. Such, Sir, is a picture of the lace trade, which is competed with by the lace manufacturers of foreign countries.
I now come to another class of the people who feel most keenly this competition with the foreigner. I allude to the poor needlework women of this country. 1 regret that I do not see in his place my noble Friend the Member for Bath (Lord Ashley), who has taken so deep an interest in the affairs of those poor people. But, Sir, if the needlework women of this country are starving, it is not to be wondered at, when we reflect that within four months there has been imported into London needlework (nine-tenths of which consists of labour as distinguished from material) to the value of 30,000 l. I am sure I am not under-estimating the earnings of the needlewomen of this country when I take the average at 5s. per week, and, according to this calculation, 30,000 l. of needlework would give employment to six or seven thousand nee-

1277
dlewomen. Such are the results which I am prepared to prove upon the production of these returns for which I have moved.
And here, Sir, I may be permitted to ask Her Majesty's Government why it is that in Mr. Porter's Trade and Navigation Returns, those entries amounting to 395,000 l. in the first four months of the year, and being at the rate of 1,185,000 l., are omitted? You are willing enough to make returns of the weight of eels and of turtle imported from foreign countries; but when the manufactures of foreign looms, to the value of 1,185,000 l. per annum are imported into the port of London, the returns concerning them are altogether suppressed. Let it not be said that the value cannot be ascertained. I found no difficulty in ascertaining the value.
Will the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer tell me that the value of the silks imported into this country cannot be ascertained? Here we have, exclusive of the importations of silk, an amount of manufactures competing with the manufactures of this country, which goes far to account for the distress which prevails; and yet no notice whatever is taken of it in the returns furnished by the Board of Trade. I have always imagined that the value of these returns lay in their being a guide to the deliberations of Parliament, and that they are intended to supply the House with facts which might be relied upon; but what do we find? Why, that these returns are furnished in such a lax and incomplete form, that the person referring to them becomes more ignorant of the true state of things than before he consulted them. They are doctored and medicated in such a way that the House of Commons cannot arrive at a just conclusion upon the matters to which they are supposed to relate. I have now spoken of various importations and manufactures; but I must add that, exclusively of watches, boots, shoes, baskets, boxes, and other articles not rated, amounting in value to 190,000 l. a year, the articles of cotton, woollens lace, and needlework imported annually into this country, if manufactured at home, would give employment to 100,000 persons.
But, Sir, to countervail the distress which prevails among the manufacturing classes, can we derive any consolation in the general prosperity of other portions of the community? I hold in
1278
my hand a statement of the number of bankruptcies which occurred in the first nineteen weeks of the present year, and I find that I must look back to the year 1826 for anything like a parallel to the distress which has prevailed in England in the present year. I find that in the first nineteen weeks of the present year there were 848 bankruptcies in England; and yet my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, were he present, would probably tell us that bankruptcies are now getting quite out of fashion, these matters being arranged by friendly inspection.
I now come to Scotland.
"Stands Scotland were it did?
Alas! poor country, almost afraid to know itself."
There were in Scotland within the first nineteen weeks of the present year 292 sequestrations, or 170 more than in the year 1842, the year of such great distress in Paisley and Glasgow: in that year the number of Scotch sequestrations was 122. I have in my hand, too, statements which I have taken from the Economist of last Saturday, and it may, therefore, be presumed that there is good authority for them. It is there stated that the manufacturers of Paisley had given notice of their intention to turn 1,000 families out of their houses; and that 3,000 other families had also received notice of discharge. Of fifty-one mills in Paisley, eighteen have stopped altogether, and seven are only working short time, which shows that Scotland is very little better off than England. But it is not the manufacturers, the merchants, the planters, or the brokers, who alone suffer by this system of commerce; you cannot injure them without making their ruin be sensibly felt by their servants and the persons in their employment. I hold in my hand a statement showing the number of advertisements for servants' places inserted in the Times in the first twelve days of the present month; and I have compared it with a like return for the first twelve days of the same month in antecedent years. The statement embraces the entire class of persons dependent for employment on the gentleman, the merchant, the manufacturer, and others of the wealthier classes. It includes governesses, nurserymaids, ladies' maids, cooks, housekeepers, housemaids, butlers, footmen, coachmen, grooms, gardeners, and others. I find that in the first twelve days of May, 1845, the number of advertisements from the various descriptions of persons wanting places was 1,455—in the first twelve

1279
days of May, 1846, 1,828—in the first twelve days of May, 1847, 2,066—and in the first twelve days of May, 1848, 2,440. So let not the governesses, nurserymaids, ladies' maids, cooks, housekeepers, housemaids, butlers, footmen, coachmen, grooms, gardeners, and others, imagine that they do not share the fortunes of those above them, who are ruined by competition with foreigners.
Now, let me refer to the advertisements inserted by persons wanting servants. I have taken the same periods in this calculation, and I find that in 1845 the number was 99—in 1846, 143 —in 1847, 117—and in 1848, only one-half of what they were in 1846, 73. I think this must convince the House that all classes of the community feel the distress and ruin occasioned by this competition. I do not mean to ascribe it all to free trade, for there are other measures as well—for example the Bank Charter Act—and there have been calamities which could not be foreseen; but I contend that I have shown good grounds for attributing much of the distress to the important changes which have taken place in the commercial policy of the country, and that I have established sufficient foundation for asking for these returns. Some of them may occasion trouble; but they will throw inure light upon the subject than the Board of Trade has ever yet vouchsafed, either to the House or to the country. The noble Lord concluded by moving for the following returns:—
"Returns showing the quantities and prices, duty paid, of Canadian timber sold by public sale in London, on Friday, the 10th day of March, distinguishing red from yellow timber, and giving an abstract, showing the average price of each description of timber, together with the highest and lowest price in each case. Showing any reductions of duties on thrown silks and on Indian silks which may have been made in 1842; together with a return showing the importations of such silks in the years 1842, 1845, and 1846, respectively, on which such reductions may have been made. Likewise showing the quantities, in pounds, of raw and waste silk imported, exported, and consumed at home, in the years 1844 and 1845, as compared with the two years 1846 and 1847, giving the average annual quantity consumed at home in each period. Similar returns in regard to thrown silk; and showing the quantities and value of all articles of cotton, woollen, and silk, of needlework, and watches of foreign manufacture, boots and shoes, and boot fronts, and all other articles not enumerated in the trade and navigation returns, imported into the port of London in the four months ending the 5th day of May, 1848, as compared with the corresponding three months of 1845, 1846, and 1847. Continuation of so much of return No. 175, ordered the
1280
6th day of February, 1846, to the first week in January, 1848, as relates to the prices and importation of foreign and colonial timber, and the nationality of the ships in which the same was imported, and the crews by which they were manned. Also, a continuation of return No. 109 down to the 5th day of April, 1848, with an additional account showing any increase or decrease in the numbers and cost of the Customs Department, and percentage cost of collection consequent upon a reduction of Customs duties in 1846."
MR. GLADSTONE fully concurred with the noble Lord in thinking that he had sufficiently shown to the House that a very great degree of distress existed in the country, though it might perhaps be questioned whether any statement was requisite for that purpose; but he entirely differed from the noble Lord in thinking that the noble Lord had not raised the very slightest, the most insignificant, presumption to show that the distress which the noble Lord had described, and which they all, in common with the noble Lord, lamented, was in any degree to be referred to the legislation on which the noble Lord thought to fix it. He must say that he thought nothing could be more slender—he would not say than the noble Lord's proofs, but his attempts to prove a connexion between the two. To take an instance. The noble Lord had referred to the lace trade of Nottingham and its vicinity, and he had quoted the Rev. Mr. Brook, who had given a description of what he doubtless well knew, the distress of the people of his own neighbourhood. But the Rev. Mr. Brook also expressed it as his opinion, that this distress was to be attributed to the changes which had taken place in the law; and that opinion of Mr. Brook—who he felt no doubt had something else to do besides studying the commercial system of the country—was the foundation on which they were asked to find the verdict ''guilty of folly" against the legislation of that House. [Mr. STUART: No, no!] The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Newark said "No, no;" but there was not another word in the speech of the noble Lord to show the connexion between the distress of the lace-makers and the free-trade legislation. Now he would not follow the noble Lord into the details of his statements, except with regard to those two important cases in which the noble Lord had impugned the statement which he (Mr. Gladstone) had himself made. This, however, he must say, that if the noble Lord were correct in ascribing the distress of the country to

1281
legislation in favour of free trade, then undoubtedly was he rendering a great public service, in again and again calling the attention of the House to the
subject, in order to induce the Legislature, if he could, to retrace its steps. But if, on the other hand, the noble Lord was altogether erroneous in supposing that the distress was thus to be accounted for, then he must tell the noble Lord, that, instead of conferring a great service on the country, he was inflicting a serious injury upon the public interest, and most of all was he inflicting an injury upon the interests of the labouring class, and of those who were connected with the industry of the country, if, when be drew these pictures of their distress, he taught them, with all the weight of Ids authority, to refer it to sources from which it did not proceed, and to seek remedies in changes of legislation which, first of all, it was impossible for the noble Lord to bring about, and which, if he could bring them about, would do nothing but aggravate the distress which existed. Now, in briefly addressing the House, he should deal with the cases of the timber trade and the silk trade, on which the noble Lord impugned what he had stated on a former occasion. With regard to the timber trade, lengthened as was the noble Lord's address, he could not distinctly gather from it what was the charge or assertion which he intended to make. Would the noble Lord commit himself to a definite proposition? Would instead of indulging in vain presumptions, or instead of stating facts which, although true in themselves, were drawn from narrow and inadequate sources, boldly commit himself to a proposition on the subject of the changes in the law with respect to timber? So far as he could understand the noble Lord, he had carefully avoided thus committing himself; but at the same time be supposed, from the commiserating terms in which he had spoken of the condition of the colonists, that the noble Lord meant to say, and to have it believed, that the colonial timber trade had fallen into a state of something like ruin in consequence of the legislation to which that House had been led by his right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth and himself? Now, was that what the noble Lord meant? If so, his position was intelligible. The noble Lord had found fault with him for having said that he was grossly misinformed in the prices of timber which he had quoted. The noble Lord was perfectly correct, he believed, in the
1282
prices which the noble Lord had quoted; and he was also correct in those which he had brought forward. He had spoken of the year 1847, while the noble Lord had referred to the year 1848, and a material change had, he granted, taken place in the interval. He regretted, therefore, having said that the noble Lord was grossly misinformed. But the House must not judge of the effect of the changes which had taken place by the state of the case at a particular moment. The country having laboured under a fever of excitement, unexampled almost in the history of commerce, and attended with the most outrageous imprudence in many departments of enterprise, had afterwards undergone the most awful visitations of Providence, and fallen into a state of collapse; and the noble Lord doubtless derived a great advantage from seizing particular circumstances which had attended this collapse. He contended, however, that in order to judge of the effect of these changes, they must look at them in connexion with a series of years. Never in his life had he experienced greater astonishment than when the noble Lord found fault with him because, in comparing the state of the silk trade before the changes in the law, and after those changes, instead of contenting himself by referring to a single year, be had taken an average of ten years. He took from a Parliamentary return the average from 1834 to 1843, and the noble Lord called the results which he drew from that average " Ids theories." [Lord G. BENTINCK: No!] The noble Lord had really used that expression. Against his (Mr. Gladstone's) theories the noble Lord set his facts, which be selected from periods of great depression; and that was the evidence, the production of which he dignified with the name of a fair opposition to what he had branded with the name of "theories." But he (Mr. Gladstone) was convinced that the House would concur in the statement that the fair way of dealing with the matter was to take a series of years. Now, take the timber trade before and after the changes in the law. The noble Lord held, if Ids arguments meant anything, that the timber trade had fallen into a state of ruin in consequence of the changes which had been made in it. That view, he would test, first, by the average price; and, secondly, by the quantity imported. He would take the average price from the greatest market for colonial timber, namely,

1283
the Liverpool market. He would first take the three years before the change—the prices on the 1st of February, 1840, 1841, and 1842. In those three years the average prices were 2s. O½d. In the last year duty to the amount of 2½d. was repealed; therefore, as compared with the former years, the average price was 1s. 10 d. Now he would compare with that statement the average price of the six years following, including 1848. It was, in fact, ls. 9d. as against 1s. 10 d. Therefore, the entire reduction of price through which, according to the noble Lord, the timber trade of the colonies had fallen into a state of ruin, amounted to one penny per foot out of 1s. 10 d. He was very glad that that declension of price had taken place. He believed there was no trade in the country in a more unhealthy or unsatisfactory condition before that change than the colonial timber trade. Under the influence of an enormous protection an inferior article from the colonies was pressing very hard on a superior from the Baltic. It was necessary that colonial monopoly should be checked, and the result of checking it had been a moderate diminution in the price of colonial timber. But had the trade been reduced to a state of ruin? If so, where were the proofs? Had the former importations been greatly diminished? With what face could the House be told that the colonies were in a state of ruin if it could be shown that there had been a large and tolerably steady increase in the importations of their produce? Now he had a circular issued by an eminent house in Liverpool—that of Messrs. Houghton—showing the importation of British American timber for six years before the change, and six years after it, for he must still offend the noble Lord by referring to an average of years. The tonnage of the ships employed in bringing timber from the British American colonies to the port of Liverpool, the great centre of the colonial timber trade, in the six years before the change in the law was 152,000 tons annually; in the six years after the change the average was 181,000. He asked the noble Lord what reply the noble Lord could make to that? Was the colonial timber trade ruined by the change in the law, or was it not? Was it injured by the change in the law, or was it not? If it were still worth the while of the colonial merchant to send an increased quantity of wood, although it might be at a diminished price, had he any right to complain? and on the
1284
other hand were not the British public greatly benefited? He would not follow the noble Lord at any great length in what he had said with respect to the foreigner; for he did not seem much disposed to dwell on that point. The noble Lord said, however, that there had been an increase of 11 s. per load in the price of foreign wood; and complained that foreigners derived benefit at the expense of the British subject. He really would recommend the noble Lord to inquire how much of that 11 s. was accounted for by the simple fact of the rise which had taken place in freights in consequence of the increased demand for shipping within the last six or seven years. It appeared from the evidence of the Committee on the navigation laws—on authority no less unsuspected and philosophical than that of Mr. George Frederick Young—that the increase in freights from the Baltic bad been no less than 7s. 6d. per load. If that were true, the small premium of 3s. 6d. per load was all that the foreigner had managed to appropriate to himself out of a reduction of duty amounting to 40 s. per load. That premium was surely little enough. If they wished to increase the supply, they must give the foreigner some premium, and they could not well give less. There had been before a tendency to beat him out of the market, through the disadvantages under which he was placed; and their object having been to increase the supplies, those supplies had been augmented to an enormous extent. In the year 1841, from 130,000 to 140,000 loads of foreign timber were brought into this country. In the year 1847 the quantity was from 420,000 to 440,000 loads; and, notwithstanding that enormous importation, nine-tenths of the advantages had been realised by the British public. Now, having said that, he had great difficulty in detecting anything like a broad or tangible statement with respect to the timber trade in the speech of the noble Lord: and having vainly endeavoured to draw from the noble Lord, since he sat down, the affirmation of any distinct proposition by which he might be put, as it were, on his trial, he should leave that subject. He thought he. had shown that the noble Lord was not entitled to assume that the colonial timber trade was in a state of ruin in consequence of the change in the law; on the contrary, he was entitled to assume, from the increase which had taken place in the colonial timber trade, that the measure on that

1285
subject was just towards the colonies, while it had moreover secured to this country the advantage of a great increase in the supply of a superior article. He passed now to the silk trade; and here again he was at a loss to understand what the noble Lord had designed to impress on the House. On a former occasion the noble Lord had spoken of the distress which existed in Spitalfields in 1845, whereupon he had remarked that that was before the change in the laws relating to silk. The noble Lord found fault with that statement, and observed that the laws relating to silk were changed in 1842, by the alteration of 1s. per hundred in the duties on thrown silk, and a reduction of 2s. in the duties on Indian silk goods. Now did the noble Lord mean to find fault with the change made in 1842, or did he not? Was that one of the experiments of free trade on which he wished to bestow his censure? [Lord G. BENTINCK had only mentioned a matter of fact.] Yes, but the noble Lord had that night been very busy in drawing inferences from matters of fact which were far too slight and trivial for his purpose. He wanted to know, therefore, whether the noble Lord connected the distress in question with the changes made in the silk trade in 1842? The noble Lord had no right to avail himself of both sides of the argument. When he (Mr. Gladstone) told the noble Lord, in replying to him, that he ought not to speak of the distress of the silk trade in 1845, because the change had not then taken place, the noble Lord rejoined by saying, "Oh yes, but you reduced the duty on thrown silk in 1845, and at the same time you lowered the duty on Indian silk goods." That evening, however, in endeavouring to show that there had been a decay in the silk trade, he had taken the years 1846 and 1847 as the criterion. But what was the period when the prosperity of the silk trade reached its climax? Why, the period of the greatest prosperity was the years 1844 and 1845, which in his former speech the noble Lord had selected, in order to show what distress prevailed in Spitalfields— distress which the noble Lord said he was justified in referring to, because the law relating to the silk trade was changed in 1842. [Lord G. BENTINCK: The right hon. Gentleman misrepresents everything I have said.] He had not misrepresented the noble Lord's words, however he might have misunderstood his meaning. It was impossible. With regard to the case of
1286
the silk trade, he thought no person could make a fairer statement of the noble Lord's words than he had made. As regarded the distress in Spitalfields, it appeared to him a very great question how far that distress was to be ascribed to the competition of machinery in Manchester, or how far it was attributable to the competition of the rural silk trade in the neighbourhood of London; for example, in Essex and in Hertfordshire. That was a question which he was anxious to avoid, as it was open to great difference of opinion; as was, also, whether the distress in Spitalfields was greater at that moment than it had been formerly in the palmy days of protection. But, after all, that House had not to legislate for Spitalfields alone, but for the United Kingdom. He had, therefore, referred to the entire trade of the country, and he had shown what was the state of the silk trade by figures, which the noble Lord had not succeeded in impugning in the slightest degree. Taking the years 1846 and 1847, he had compared those years with the average of the ten years 1834—1843, because he found them prepared for him in a Parliamentary return; and if he had included 1844 and 1845, it would not have altered the general result. He would confess that the noble Lord had shown that there had been a smaller importation of raw silk in 1846 and 1847, than in 1844 and 1845. But did the noble Lord really think that he had achieved any great triumph by that? Did he really suppose that there were no reverses in human affairs except those arising from free trade and protection? Was not 1844 a year of great prosperity, and 1845 a year of similar prosperity maddened into fever? Did the noble Lord imagine that those years exhibited a fair sample of the state of the silk trade? Again, was not 1846 a year of almost unexampled calamities; and 1847 a year of langour and depression, constantly increasing from one end of the kingdom to the other? What did the noble Lord do? He took two years of unexampled prosperity and excitement, and then two of unparalleled langour and depression—admitted to have been such without any reference to free trade or protection—and between these years he drew a comparison. Undoubtedly if the object were a just comparison, the two years which had elapsed since the change must be compared with the average of a more extended period; and on that average be was prepared to stand, while lie showed

1287
by statements, all the elements of which were at the command of the noble Lord just as much as they were at his own command, that in every point of view the silk trade was satisfactory, not as compared with years of extraordinary excitement, but with a fair average of years. The importation of raw silk from abroad, on an average of ten years, was 3,742,000 lbs., while the mean of 1846–47 was 426,500 lbs. —showing an increase of no less than 523,000 lbs., or something like one-seventh. It was perfectly true that at the same time the thrown silk imported from abroad increased from 265,000 lbs. to 371,000 lbs. There was a further addition made to the stock and material on which British labour had been employed; because, while they received a much larger quantity of raw silk to throw themselves, they also received a much larger quantity of raw silk to convert into goods. The average importation of silk goods in ten years was 219,000 lbs. per annum as compared with 408,000 lbs., the mean of 1846 and 1847. Was that increase to be regarded as an evil? What did the noble Lord wish the House to understand? They heard him speaking with a kind of instinctive horror of the arrival of commodities from abroad, as if army, navy, and ordnance ought to be put in action against them. Except the noble Lord intended to recommend such a course, he (Mr. Gladstone) could not understand on what ground he manifested such an universal antipathy to commercial intercourse with the whole world. But along with this there had been an increase in the introduction, within the last few years, of raw and skein silk for the employment of our manufacturing population to the extent of 600,000 lbs. It might be supposed, as the noble Lord said with respect to another part of the subject, that this was a frightful calamity. There was, however, surely some consolation when they found that for every pound of manufactured silk imported, there had been an increase of three or four pounds in the raw material for the home manufactures. Then the noble Lord complained with respect to the exports. No doubt the noble Lord did not recollect accurately what he had said on a former occasion; but he had no doubt himself on the subject, as he happened to have before him the notes from which he had spoken on that occasion. It was quite true that there had been an increase in the export of raw and thrown silk during these
1288
two years, amounting to 100.000 lbs. weight, or perhaps he might say to 150,000 lbs. out of this 600,000 lbs. of raw silk, which had come into the country for the employment of British labour; he did not know whether the noble Lord meant to refer to this as a proof of the injurious working of the system. Did the noble Lord object to the British silk manufacturers obtaining an increased commercial intercourse in some foreign markets; or did he assume that they were beyond competition? He, therefore, could not understand how this part of the case could be adduced as an argument for the proposition of the noble Lord. On the contrary, he conceived it to be a powerful argument as to the successful working of our recent commercial legislation. They had had an increase in the quantity of the raw material; therefore any man who employed British labour in the silk manufactures must look to an increased consumption by the British people, or an increase of exports of that article; and this, therefore, must ensure an increase in the comforts of the people by this additional employment. Lastly, they might add, that from this source there had been an increase, although a small one, in the revenue, for the amount received in the years 1842 and 1843 averaged 227,000 l., while for 1846 and 1847 it amounted to 233,000 l. It was, however, for the reasons he had already stated, not fair to take these two years; but to get a proper return they should take a longer series of years. He felt that it was not necessary for him further to trouble the House. He recollected, however, that there was one other feature in the speech of the noble Lord to which he could not help referring. When the noble Lord alluded to the importation of foreign goods into this country, he was accustomed to compute the number of individuals to whom the manufacture of such goods would give employment in this country. The noble Lord laid great stress and emphasis on this announcement, and would have a portion of the House believe that if foreign goods were not imported, some additional thousands of British persons would be employed in the manufacture of such articles. For instance, to adopt an illustration of the noble Lord, he said, if the half-million in value of foreign silk goods which had been imported into this country since the commencement of the year had not been received, upwards of 64,000 persons would have been employed,

1289
but he did not say for how long. [Lord GEORGE BENTINCK: For a year.] He thought it was rather dangerous to adopt such an estimate. It was rather hard to say that half a million sterling would support wages 64,000 persons for the year. He could not doubt for one moment but that he could expose the fallacy as to the advantage of all goods being produced at home; for what had been said with respect to silk goods would apply to all kinds goods. He would take, for instance, the wines of France; no one could doubt that they could be obtained from grapes produced in a multiplicity of hothouses. So again sugar, which we now obtain from the tropics, might be produced by means of stoves and furnaces; and how many millions of persons would be employed by resorting to such a course? The fallacy was so gross that it was hardly possible to deal with it in a serious manner. Why, they could not go along the river or the streets without the absurdity of such a notion being forcibly impressed on their minds. He did not know whether the noble Lord in the course of his commercial peregrinations ever passed up or down the river, for if he had he must have seen the number of steamers which were constantly conveying large number of the labouring classes at the lowest fares from the City to Lambeth. One of these steamers probably afforded employment to five or six persons, and it might convey 1,000 passengers in the course of an afternoon. The noble Lord would, according to his own statement, have good ground for considering how many watermen it would require to convey this number of passengers, and who might thus be employed. He might say that each such boat would give employment to a hundred watermen, and might add, this was the way in which they robbed Englishmen of the produce of their labour. He hoped the noble Lord, for the future, would be cautious as to adopting this mode of argument. He did not anticipate any great mischief would result from what had fallen from the noble Lord. He thought that there was a bit in the mouth of the noble Lord, if he might use such an expression without offence; and of course he only applied the expression to the noble Lord's opinions on commercial subjects. He did not think that the opinions of the noble Lord would make way; but if unhappily they should make way, and the Houses of Parliament should be induced to listen to the plans of the noble Lord, he
1290
feared the proceedings would not receive a check until they had brought disgrace and ruin on the country.
MR. NEWDEGATE did not think that the right hon. Gentleman had made out any case in reply to the speech of the noble Lord; and certainly the statement of the right hon. Gentleman did not sustain his high reputation. His powers of connecting times and circumstances, causes and effects, if judged by his speech that night, were not of that lucid nature which might have been expected from the right hon. Gentleman's high attainments. He (Mr. Newdegate) complained that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Westbury had inflicted great injury on the country by the statements they had made. The people were suffering quietly; but it was an insult to tell them that their trade was prosperous, when the truth was, that their trade was broken down by the combined effects of monetary pressure and foreign competition, and that they were starving. If there were any truth in circumstantial evidence, it would require a still more skilful special pleader than the right hon. Member for Oxford to prove an alibi in favour of the financial measure of 1844, and the commercial measures of 1846, when the distress which had for some time existed was charged against them. He, as well as his noble Friend, complained that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford, had taken a period of two years against the average of ten years, and had falsified the comparison, which was between the effects of the former protective and the present reduced duties, by omitting the two last years of the higher duty from the average of the ten years, which the right hon. Gentleman compared with the average of the last two years, at the commencement of which the duty on the importation of silk goods had been reduced one-half. He (Mr. Newdegate) would read that unfair statement to the House. The right hon. Gentleman, on the 11th of March, had been contradicting the statement made by the noble Member for King's Lynn, which was, that both the silk trade and the revenue had suffered from the reduction of the duty on silk goods, and went on to say—
"We must look partly to the bearing of these measures on the revenue, partly to their bearing on trade, but most of all to their bearing on the employment of the people. how does the question stand with respect to the employment of the people? I will endeavour to take a criterion which

1291
the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn will not think unfair; I will take the years 1846 and 1847, which are the only two years of the reduced duty, and I will compare them with the average of the ten years from 1834 to 1843, which I find printed in a recent Parliamentary return. Let the House observe whether the figures given by this return do not make out the most complete case on every point for this very reduction of duty, in respect to the silk trade, which has always been chosen as the most vulnerable point of the system adopted of late years, by those who are devoted to the restrictive system in commerce. The importation of raw silk on an average of ten years, from 1834 to 1843, was 3,742,000 lb., and the average importation during the two years of the reduced duty, 1846–47, was 4,265,000 lb., being an increase of 523,000 lb. The average importation of thrown silk for the first period was 265,000 lb., and for the latter 371,000 lb., being an increase of 106,000 lb. The silk goods imported on the average of the first period amounted to 219,000 lb., and on the average of the latter period to 408,000 lb., being an increase of 189,000lb. This last item certainly shows that we have imported more foreign silk goods in the latter period than in the former period on the average, by about 200,000 lb.; but, at the same time, we have imported 630,000 lb. additional raw material to work up in our country, adding so much thereby to the domestic labour of this country. Therefore, when the noble Lord speaks of a diminution of the looms in Spitalfields, that may as much be referrible to competition between Spitalfields and Manchester as between Spitalfields and France. I must not omit to state also, that the revenue from silk on the average of ten years, from 1834 to 1843, was 220,000 l., while in the very first year of reduction it was 233,000 l."
Now, he (Mr. Newdegate) wished to show the House how it had been misled by this statement. The quantity of raw silk imported in 1842 was 3,951,773 lbs.; in 1843, 3,476,313 lbs.; in 1844, 4,149,932 lbs.; and in 1845, 4,354,000 lbs. The average importations of the two years 1844 and 1845, under the high duty omitted by the right hon. Gentleman from his calculation, were 4,250,909 lbs., or only 4,000 lbs. below the average importations for the years 1846 and 1847, which the right hon. Gentleman selected as favourable illustrations of his own case; the average of which amounted to 4,256,909 lbs. But the right hon. Gentleman ought to have deducted from the importations the exports of raw silk from this country, and to have given the home consumption, to have made his statement a fair one; and if he had, he would have found that the raw silk retained for home consumption in 1847, was less than that retained in 1845 by 371,041 lbs. The noble Member for Lynn had called attention to the distress which existed in many of the manufacturing districts; and he (Mr. Newde-
1292
gate) would ask the House to consider the distress which prevailed among the operatives in the part of the country in which he resided. The persons engaged in the silk and riband trades in that district, had been reduced to live upon charity. If they had been entirely dependent on the relief they obtained under the poor-law, they must have died of starvation. In Coventry alone 1,000 l. was subscribed to save the people from starvation, in addition to a great increase in the poor-rates; and, within a period of seven weeks, 40,000 loaves were distributed among the destitute poor. In one parish in his district, 300 l. were subscribed for the same purpose; and he might take this opportunity of stating, that a most liberal contribution had been made to that fund by the right hon. Baronet near him (Sir R. Peel). In his own district, the poor-rates had increased one-fourth within the last year; and if the pressure continued, he did not know bow the people could live. He could confirm the statement of his noble Friend as to the prevalence of distress; and nothing could convince him that this was not occasioned by the experiments which had been made' on our commercial and financial legislation. It might be very well for the right hon. Gentleman to tell his noble Friend that legislation had nothing to do with the distress; but he (Mr. Newdegate) could tell the House in all sober earnestness, that if they did not take steps to relieve the people, they might expect some violent convulsions. The hon. Members for Yorkshire and Montrose wished to offer them reform in Parliament by way of a palliative; but he (Mr. Newdegate) considered this merely as a tub to the whale—as an abortive device of the free-traders to distract attention from the evils their measures had created: after all, what were the measures they proposed, but subverting the institutions of the country? He would ask the House to consider whether it were right or safe to persevere obstinately till the free-traders seemed to obtain a satisfactory average of distress, by setting each interest in turn to cut its neighbour's throat, because it suffered itself, before they consented to pause in the downward course of legislation upon which they had entered? In order to how the House the extent to which the trade of his district had been affected by foreign importations, he might state that the importations of silk manufactures in 1844 were 316,053 lbs.; in 1845, 341,441 lbs.;

1293
in 1846, 440,188 lbs; and in 1847, 446,296 lbs.—being an increase in 1846 over 1845 of 98,747 lbs., and in 1847 over 1845 of 104,855 lbs. The increased importation of ribands in 1847, the first year of the reduced duty, over 1846, the last year of the old duty, was 118,085 lbs., or 50 per cent, while the exportation had fallen off 14 per cent. He found also that between the 1st of March and the 29th of April last, the quantity of silk manufactures entered at the port of London alone was 152,834 lbs. Now, if the imports went on at the same rate during the year, the total importations for the year would be 917,004 lbs., equal to 470,708 lbs., or 105 per cent beyond the large importations of the last year. Was such a fact as this not more potent than the competition between Spitalfields and Manchester, of which the right hon. Member for Oxford talked? He would take this opportunity of expressing the grateful sense he entertained of Her Majesty's benevolence, in endeavouring to assist those who were labouring under the distress he had described, by the commands she had issued to the ladies of England in favour of English manufactures. He knew it might be said that it was absurd to talk of these importations as an invasion; but he would tell the House that it was such an invasion of the market as could not fail to plunge all those engaged in the silk trade in this country into the deepest distress. He found from official documents that the recent depreciation in 'the whole exports of this country had been 17 per cent; while in the silk trade the depreciation in 1847, as compared with 1841, was 34 per cent. He hoped these facts would lead the House to pause before they pursued that system of legislation which was so highly lauded by the right hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. Gladstone), and that they would see that it was their duty, in legislating for the people of this country, to pay tome regard to their circumstances.
MR. GLADSTONE wished to state, in explanation, that since he had sat down he found he had overstated the amount of the imports of raw silk retained for home consumption in the years 1846 and 1847. He found that he had not deducted the quantity of raw and foreign silk exported. Still, however. the return showed a considerable increase in the quantity of raw silk retained for the employment of the silk manufacturers at home.
SIR G. CLERK hoped, as-he had been
1294
alluded to, he might be
allowed to say that he was most anxious that all the information which could possibly be afforded to satisfy the noble Lord would be supplied, for he was satisfied that all the returns made would prove the wisdom of the policy pursued by his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel) when he was at the head of the Government. He sympathised as to the distress of persons engaged in the silk manufacture in some parts of the country, as described by the noble Lord and the hon. Gentleman; but they must bear in mind that in Spitalfields and other places, where the silk trade was carried on, many instances of general distress had occurred long before there had been any relaxation in our commercial policy. The noble Lord had stated that a greater number of sequestrations had taken place in Scotland during the past year than at any former period, except in 1841; but in 1841 no change had been made in our commercial code. It must be remembered that previously both to 1841 and 1847 there had been a succession of bad harvests; to which might be added the partial failure of every description of grain in the year 1847. Nothing could be more obvious to his mind than that the dearness of provisions led to the diminished employment of persons engaged in manufactures; and it was equally obvious that the evils now made the subject of complaint were more to be attributed to the operation of famine, than to any effects resulting from our commercial code. In the year 1847 we had double difficulties to contend against; not only was the home market affected by the dearness of provisions, but the foreign markets were also greatly circumscribed by precisely the same causes: those causes extended over the whole of Europe, and in that manner were the evils of the high prices of food in this country grievously aggravated. During the whole of the period to which he was now referring, the manufacturers of this country were left without their usual demand from foreign countries; and if the noble Lord would only consult the newspapers of the day, he would find, though there might not have been any great special improvement, yet, at the present moment, that trade was brisk in almost every department, and more particularly was this true with regard to the silk trade. Of these truths the hon. Member for Warwick demanded some specific proof. Now, he would refer that hon. Member to an authority cited by the

1295
noble Lord near him—he meant the weekly reports of Mr. Willis; that gentleman stated, whereas some time ago some silk mills were working short time, and some were working long, that at present almost all the silk mills were working full time, and that that trade was never known to be more brisk than at the present moment. [Mr. NEWDEGATE: That is the effect of the notice issued from the Lord Chamberlain's Office.] For some time before the notice brought from the Lord Chamberlain's Office the noble Lord would find that the silk trade never had been brisker; and at the time it was issued there was only one factory working short time, and it was a small one, employing but twenty-two hands. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire had objected to the decennial period only before the year 1844 being taken, and he had required the returns of the years 1844 and 1845 to be added. But what was the fact? The average total imports of raw silk retained for home consumption in the ten years ending with 1843, was 7,400,000 lbs.; the average for the years 1844 and 1845 was 8,080,000 lbs., which would give an average for the twelve years of 3,792,000 lbs. Now, the average of silk retained for home consumption in the years 1846 and 1847 was 3,888,000 lbs., being a larger average than that for the twelve preceding years. But further it should be observed, that in 1846 there were 4,400,000 lbs. of raw silk imported, whilst the quantity retained for home consumption in 1844 was 4,021,000 lbs., and in 1845 it was 4,058,000 lbs., giving an average of 4,040,000 lbs.; whilst in 1846 the quantity retained for home consumption was 4,090,000 lbs., being a greater quantity than had ever before been so retained. In 1847, he was willing to admit there was a great falling-off in the importation, the quantity having been 3,687,000 lbs.; but they gave an average for the two years 1846 and 1847 of 3,888,000 lbs. But there was nothing surprising in the fact of the falling-off in 1847, for although our imports of foreign produce were greater in that year than they had ever been before, they consisted chiefly of articles of prime necessity, such as corn and flour. Again, it was to be remembered that the year 1839 was one of our greatest importing years; yet in the last year the quantity of food brought into this country from abroad exceeded in value all the imports of the year 1839; at least there could be no doubt of this, that the importation of
1296
food in 1847 greatly exceeded the importation of food in 1839. In the course of the present discussion some reliance seemed to have been placed upon the increased entries of foreign goods at the Customhouse, especially silk goods; but it would be a great error to suppose that that fact afforded any proof that the consumption of foreign goods in this country was in any course of diminution; the increase of entries in the Custom-house was by no means a proof of non-consumption; it was a proof of that which every one knew to be a fact —at least every one who paid attention to these subjects—namely, that smuggling had been very materially checked. He would also mention the case of foreign watches. The import of foreign watches had greatly increased, but without that circumstance occasioning any important injury to the home trade. The duty upon foreign watches had been reduced from 25 to 10 per cent., and watches had been imported to the extent of 80,000 l. or 90,000 l. value; but still that fell short of the estimate formed by the watchmakers themselves: it did not produce that ruin to the watchmaking trade which some persons predicted—on the contrary, there was not the least complaint on the subject. Then, as to the importation of cotton goods, and woollen goods, and silk goods. though much stress seemed to have been laid upon that feature in our commercial system, yet it appeared to him to contain no argument whatever having a tendency to support the positions taken up by the hon. Member for Warwickshire and the noble Member for Lynn. The exclusion of foreign manufactures would never put an end to any causes that had a tendency to reduce the consumption of our own. Let the House only for a moment look at the state this country would be in if the principles of those who contended for exclusive dealing were to be fully carried out. If England proceeded in that spirit, and were met by a similar feeling on the part of foreign countries, what would become of the 60,000,000 l. of declared value which this country every year exported? He (Sir G. Clerk) was unable to understand the argument the noble Lord would draw respecting the timber trade. The price of colonial timber was actually higher in June, 1847, than it was in 1842, though the duty had been reduced. Then, with regard to the effect of the disturbances in France, the noble Lord would find, that whereas there was an increase in our exports in January and Fe-

1297
bruary, 1848, as compared with January and February, 1847, there was such a lamentable falling-off in March, 1848, when there was a total want of confidence in markets, that it made the exports of the whole of the first three months of this year lower than those of the first three months of last year. So far from foreign disturbances benefiting us, they had deprived us of our market; and it ought to be the earnest wish and prayer of every man in this country who desired its welfare that peace and tranquillity might be restored throughout the whole of Europe. We were now blessed with low prices and abundance of food; and if we could have the foreign markets open to us, we should find, instead of want of employment at home, that the trade and manufactures of this country would attain a degree of prosperity unexampled hitherto.
MR. LABOUCHERE said, that the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn, in moving for some simple returns, had taken an opportunity of arraigning the entire commercial policy of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth; and had endeavoured to connect the commercial policy of that right hon. Baronet with the distress which had lately prevailed, the existence of which they must all admit and deplore. The defence of that policy and of those measures had been naturally undertaken by the Members of the Government of that time. He (Mr. Labouchere), as an independent Member of that House, had given his support to the measures of the right hon. Baronet, and nothing that had since happened had caused him to regret the course which he had then adopted; on the contrary, when he reflected upon the trying time which the country had since had to go through, he felt convinced that the alteration in the laws then effected, and especially the alteration in the corn laws, had had the most beneficial effects, both politically and socially, and that they had enabled this country to ride through her difficulties, and surmount them, as he hoped she finally would. Whilst this country had social suffering and commercial depression to contend against, which she was suffering only with the rest of the world, he still was sure they would surmount all those difficulties, and come out of them with increased energy. He could not, therefore, but sympathise with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Dover; and he was so satisfied with
1298
having heard their defence of the principles of which he had been an humble supporter, that he should not have thought it necessary on his own part to address the House on the present occasion, were it not that he could not accede to the Motion of the noble Lord without offering some few observations on what had fallen from him. He (Mr. Labouchere) agreed with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) that there was one opinion entertained by the noble Lord upon the subject, which made it impossible for others who might share some of his opinions to agree with him. The noble Lord seemed to think that the foreign goods imported imported into this country were of themselves an evil. He thought that all foreign goods imported displaced the goods of the country, and threw out of employment a certain number of Englishmen. He (Mr. Labouchere) could not think that that was true, unless it were true that foreign countries made a present of their goods to the people of tins country; and until it were so, he should think that foreign goods must be paid for by the produce of the industry of the people of this country. Commerce was not a boon to one country only, but to all that were engaged in it. And so far was it from being necessary for one country to view with jealousy the progress of another, that all ought to feel that they had a common interest in the well-being of those countries with which they traded. With regard to the silk trade, he believed, taking it as a whole, upon a series of years, it might be stated with truth that both in the import and export trade it had increased. The increase in the two was perfectly consistent. He did not believe that the import at all interfered with the manufacture of silk. They could go on together very well. But it was quite true, as the right hon. Baronet (Sir G. Clerk) had observed, that nothing could be more fallacious than the notion that this country had been recently deluged with silk goods from France. He knew there was an impression abroad that the silk goods of France had been thrown into this country in large quantities; but the facts of the case really did not bear out the assertion. The returns of silk goods imported from Europe generally, in the three months ending 5th April, 1847, and the corresponding three months ending 5th April, 1848, showed that in the first three months of 1847 there were imported 144,856 pounds, whilst in the corresponding three months

1299
of 1848 there were imported only 141,425 pounds, showing an actual diminution of between three and four thousand pounds. That proved that it was not the fact that the manufactures in Spitalfields or Warwickshire were injured by the country being deluged with silk goods from the Continent. As he had before stated, he really was unwilling to go over again the grounds which had been so well argued by those who had preceded him. The noble Lord had referred to the returns that were laid periodically on the table of the House from the Board of Trade. He knew that the noble Lord looked with great suspicion on all returns emanating from the Board of Trade; and he was fully aware that anything which he might say would have but little effect in dispelling the opinion from the mind of the noble Lord that these returns were framed with a particular purpose. But with regard to these returns he could only say that, if they were open to the complaint which the noble Lord had urged against them, the abuse was of a very old standing—he believed ever since 1832. For some time after they were first made, the returns were compiled for the use of the Government; and yet even at that time they were arranged on precisely the same principle and in exactly the same manner as at present. That was the case ever since 1832. It was afterwards thought right to lay them before Parliament; and no change was made, or nothing added to them, except when something important happened to be introduced. It was thought proper not to make the returns too numerous in order to guard against having them confused; but if any hon. Member wanted for more information than they contained, he could find it in the annual finance accounts, where every article that paid more than 1,000 l. duty into the Exchequer was set forth in detail. He believed that more than a hundred heads were comprised in. that account; and it was only necessary for any hon. Member who had doubts on the subject to turn to these returns, and any delusion that the Board of Trade might practise could be discovered by comparing the returns of the Board of Trade with the finance returns annually laid on the table of the House. He had no wish to detain the House any longer, and the few additional remarks that he would venture to offer would refer to the returns for which the noble Lord had asked. He did not wish to seem to offer any opposition, or to raise any diffi-
1300
culties to any Motion made by the noble Lord. He was aware that the noble Lord thought that it was the object of the Board of Trade to give only garbled returns in all these cases, and he should not, therefore, offer any obstruction to the returns which the noble Lord sought for; but if it were otherwise, he thought that he could point out to the noble Lord that there were very considerable objections to some parts of his Motion. The noble Lord asked in the first place for the prices of various articles sold in the city of London; but the noble Lord must know that the Government had no means of obtaining precise information on such a subject. The Government could—just as the noble Lord himself could—go into the city, and obtain the best information that they could get, and on many occasions they had done so, and laid the most accurate information that they were able to obtain before the House; but to require that they should do so generally, would be most objectionable. In the present instance, he could only say that what the noble Lord required should be done, and that the Government would obtain the best information that they could on the subject; but at the same time he begged to say that it was impossible for any Government department to be answerable for the correctness of the information so obtained. The return required was an account of sales effected at different times, and the most trustworthy sources of information would be consulted; but farther than that he could not be answerable for the accuracy of the accounts. With this understanding, he certainly should offer no objection to the returns required by the noble Lord, and therefore it was not necessary for him to offer any further remarks or to enter into any details on the present occasion.
MR. MILNER GIBSON said, that it might perhaps not be quite becoming in him to comment on the course of proceeding which the House thought proper to sanction in the conduct of public business; but if he might venture to offer a remark on such a subject, he should say that he thought the course taken that night was rather a peculiar one. The first part of the evening was devoted to the question whether or not they were to throw away to-morrow, and having wasted a good portion of the night in deciding that the morrow should be given up, they had now wasted the greater portion of the remainder of the night in making speeches on unop-

1301
posed returns. The practice was, he admitted, one that was quite open to hon. Members to pursue; but still, he would venture to say, that the practice was not exactly in accordance with the usual course pursued by the House. The effect of the operation had been to defer the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, or at least to postpone it for some time. He would not say for what time, as he was not going to act the oracle on the occasion, but the effect had been clearly to postpone that Motion for some time. He should say that if there were one question more than another on which it was desirable that the opinion of the House generally should go before the country, it was the Motion of his hon. Friend. He really thought, therefore, that they had to complain of the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn, for having deprived them of two days, and that too in a Session of Parliament in which business was very pressing, and in which it had been pleaded that it was impossible to proceed with Bills that even had not met with much opposition. And yet at such a time the noble Lord had really deprived them of two days. He might be excused for saying a word about the resolution of the House not to do any business to-morrow, on account of the Derby. He thought that the fact of the House coming to a solemn vote, that because horse-races were to take place in the neighbourhood of London, Parliament was not to meet on that day, did not show any pressing state of public business; and he would add, that lie did not think the resolution was very complimentary to the Members for Scotland, as the Bill on the Scottish law of entail, which stood in a good place for to morrow, would be put off probably for three weeks, and it might be that the Bill would be lost for the whole Session. With regard to the policy of free trade, which had been attacked by the noble Lord, it had been so ably vindicated by the right Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover, as well as by his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, that it was unnecessary for him to detain the House by any further observations on the subject. He would only remark that if hon. Members opposite had any doubt as to the policy of Parliament on this matter, why did they not bring forward a distinct Motion? Why did they not bring forward a substantial resolution for reimposing those protective
1302
duties, and take the sense of the House upon it, and then have done with it? As to all that the noble Lord had said about the distress which prevailed among the manufacturing classes, he really feared that, considering that one part of the noble Lord's policy would be to re-enact the corn laws, the noble Lord would scarcely get credit for that desire which he expressed for the interests of the working classes, seeing that his object was again to tax their loaf. He really feared that under such circumstances the working people would call the tears which the noble Lord shed over their sufferings something like crocodiles' tears. As to what had been said about the Order in Council having the effect of putting the mills in Manchester in more active employment, he hardly thought that it could have been put forward seriously. In the first place, the silks referred to in that order were not made in Manchester, so that there was an end at once of the argument as far as Manchester was concerned. [Lord G. BENTINCK: Don't talk of Manchester in particular.] If the argument were correctly founded, why should not every increase in the importation of foreign silk be accompanied by a corresponding falling-off in the home manufacture? But he would not trespass on the House on a question that had been already so fully discussed. As the noble Lord had, however, moved for elaborate returns, and returns that would cause great expense to the country, and great trouble in furnishing them, he might be permitted to say that he very much doubted whether they would be found to be of any practical utility when obtained. He would remind the noble Lord that a distinguished Friend of his in another place had complained of economists making applications for long returns, and thus incurring great expense to the public, with a view to becoming popular with their constituents. The noble Lord would, he supposed, repudiate the title of economist; but, at all events, it was not an economist who moved for the returns now asked for. He did not think that the noble Lord, in his attempt to restore indirect taxation, and thus to add to the prices of the poor man's sugar, and of the poor man's tea, and of every article of consumption upon all classes in this country, could at all events lay claim to the title of being the poor man's friend. The noble Lord should recollect that having let the corn law slip through his fingers, he could not be regarded as the farmer's

1303
friend either, while he would expose them to pay protecting duties on other articles, unless he could also restore them the benefits of protection in corn. He did not think that the farmer would be disposed to regard the noble Lord as his Friend, if while the noble Lord could not re-enact the corn law, he added to the price which the farmer had to pay for his clothing, and for the different articles of colonial and foreign produce which he was obliged to consume. As there was no opposition to the returns which the noble Lord applied for, he would not occupy the time of the House by any further remarks.
MR. HENLEY congratulated the House and the right hon. Gentleman upon the change which bad recently taken place in his position; for he was now going back to his old style, and giving them a taste of that which he used to indulge in a few years ago. He was surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman talk so much about waste of time, remembering how often the hon. Gentleman and his Friends had discussed and forced upon the House the same subject Session after Session, and night after night—again, and again, and again. Now that they had got what they wanted, they wished to stifle the voice of hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House, and had the face to tell them that discussion was useless, and only a waste of public time, which ought to be more usefully occupied. In season and out of season, the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends brought on this topic; and why should not his noble Friend follow their example?—why should they not be at liberty to express their opinion freely upon a system of legislation which they believed most firmly had brought about the present distressed condition of a great portion of the working classes of this country? Hon. Gentlemen opposite had, in fact, no sympathy with the working classes, although they were eternally affecting the utmost sympathy for their sufferings. The right hon. Gentleman complained that the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose had been postponed in consequence of this discussion. This was, to say the least of it, mere twaddle. Would any men of common sense say that the discussion of mere abstract and political theories, impossible, or unlikely to be carried, and, if carried, injurious in their effects, was of more consequence to the working classes than the consideration of questions which directly affected their position, which bad to do with employment,
1304
with the amount of their wages, and, in fact, with their daily bread? But there was a design in all this. If those hon. Gentlemen could get the working classes, whilst in a mood likely to be excited, to take up those wild notions and run after those absurd fancies, it would be just what they desired, for then they would be diverted from the real causes of their depression. He, for one, would freely offer his opinion upon this subject, and would not allow hon. Gentlemen opposite to stop his mouth. The right hon. Gentleman attempted to excite the indignation of the Scotch Members about the Scotch Entail Bill, and the adjournment of the House over to-morrow; but the fact was that this Bill was a Government Bill, brought in by the Lord Advocate of Scotland, and Wednesday was not a Government day. The right hon. Gentleman had net attempted to speak to the question at all. neither did the right Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. They relied upon the speeches of the right hon. Gentlemen the Members for Dover and for the University of Oxford. It reminded him of the story of the sailors—" What you say, Jack, I'll swear to." The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade spoke of the moral effect of free-trade measures; but the question which they had now to consider was a commercial and not a moral question. Whilst the corn law existed, it was the common custom for hon. Gentlemen opposite, when the distress of the labouring classes was alluded to, to say, "Distress—of course there is distress; there are the corn laws." But, now, there were no corn laws, and there was still distress. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dover had spoken of the prices of timber, and had attempted to ground an argument in favour of free trade by comparing the prices of timber in the years 1846 and 1847 with the year 1842. But this was by no means fair, for everybody knew, and none better than the right hon. Baronet, that the price of timber received an unnatural stimulus from the great consumption of it on railways, and the still greater consumption which was anticipated. It was not enough that the people should be employed, but they must earn a certain amount of wages before they could be said to be in a prosperous state; and that Gentlemen on the other side always left out of the account. They always assumed that because there was a large importation of the raw material, and a corresponding exportation

1305
of manufactured goods, therefore the country was in a state of prosperity. But the argument was not a sound one; it was like reckoning that the horses in a stage-coach must be well off because the coach went along the road fast and frequent. The coach might go fast and frequent enough, and yet the horses might all the time be going to the devil. That, however, was the fallacy which pervaded all the figures and all the arguments that were used on the other side. Unless the condition of the people were improved, it was no argument that the manufactures of the country were increasing; for that might well be, and yet the working people may be all the time in a state of great distress.
LORD G. BENTINCK: I crave the indulgence of the House while I make a few observations in reply to the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford. I shall now explain my own meaning, and show that the right hon. Gentleman has grossly misrepresented my arguments. My charge against the right hon. Gentleman is this: that on a former occasion, while holding in his hand a return with the name of Sir Robert Peel on the back of it, which gave him the consumption of silk in this country for a considerable number of years, ending with the, year 1844—the right hon. Gentleman, in order to found an argument upon it, had recourse to this device, which I think is calculated to mystify the House.. With these figures before him, the right hon. Gentleman left out the last year of the return, because in that year there was the largest consumption of silk; and instead of taking the last ten years, from 1834 to 1844 inclusive, he condescended to take the ten years from 1833 to 1843 inclusive, choosing to stop at the year 1843, because in that year there was a very small home consumption of silk. That is the charge which I made before against the right hon. Gentleman—that is the charge which I gave him notice I would repeat; and I hope the House will allow him to explain it away if he is able to do so. But that is not the only charge I have to bring against the right hon. Gentleman. My charge against him is this, that in order to make it appear that there was a great increase in the years 1846 and 1847, compared with the more extended period before quoted, he condescended to take the entire importation of silk during that period, though he must have known that there was large exportation of raw,
1306
thrown, and waste silk during that period, amounting to 858,706 lbs. That was not a frank and candid statement to make to the House, and is one of that description of statements which I complain are made by Gentlemen who fill situations at the Board of Trade; and are calculated to mystify and mislead the House of Commons, and ought not to be made to it. I have also to contradict the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, that in the former discussion he referred to the year 1847, when he was speaking of the prices of timber. I can contradict that statement, Sir, as I heard him with my own ears refer to 1848; and all the public reports of his speech bear me out. The whole of the argument turned upon 1848 —I answered him then with regard to the prices of 1848; and now the right hon. Gentleman would have it believed that he was all along discussing the prices of 1847.
I shall not delay the House much longer; but I cannot help offering some comment upon the observations of my right hon. Friend the late Vice-President of the Board of Trade. I did not expect to hear these observations from my right hon. Friend. He says, I want to make sugar dear. Why, Sir, I thought it was the reverse of that—I thought it was perfectly well known that I wanted to make sugar cheap, and that it was my right hon. Friend who prevented me from doing so. I thought it was well known that, in the Committee upstairs, I wanted to take off 4s. a cwt. from the duty on colonial sugar—to reduce colonial sugar ½d. per lb.; and then the right hon. Gentleman, having prevented my success, has the effrontery to come down to the House and accuse me of wishing to make sugar dear. Again, the right hon. Gentleman accuses me of wasting the time of the House by a speech on a Motion for unopposed returns. Why, Sir, for some time it was doubtful whether my Motion for these returns was to be opposed or not. It was only since I made my speech that the right hon. the President of the Board of Trade came to me across the floor of the House, and objected to furnish me with part of the returns—the prices of timber—and it was not till I had satisfied him that the late First Minister of the Crown had granted me similar returns that he consented to give them. But the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. Gibson) rose in his place after the opposition was withdrawn, and then he it was who wasted the time of the House, not by discussing

1307
the question before it, but a question we had already decided early in the evening, whether it was right we should have a holiday on the Derby day. I am at a loss to understand why my right hon. Friend should have such an abhorrence of Epsom downs. Can it possibly be because he was once proposed by Sir Thomas Gooch to represent the county of Suffolk as "the most promising Protectionist colt in all the county;" and that he
knows there is a choking hill at Epsom, the bane of all colts that are disposed to "run jadish?"
Then the right hon. Gentleman complains of the expense and trouble that will be entailed by these returns, and he says that they only relate to minor articles. Sir, the value of one of these articles—cotton— imported in the last four months, is 135,000 l. That is not a small article—that is a very considerable article. Then the right hon. Gentleman charges me and my friends around me with looking upon the importation of foreign goods as an evil. We certainly do look upon it as an evil that highly-taxed Englishmen should see the produce of foreign manufacturers imported duty free into this country. We think it a great evil, for example, that British sugar thould pay a duty, varying from 60 to 127 per cent ad valorem; and that these articles of French and German manufacture come in free of duty; indeed the right hon. Gentleman knows that so high a duty is charged on certain low qualities of colonial sugar that owners have consented rather to sacrifice it altogether than pay the duty charged upon it. Then, what right has the right hon. Gentleman to say that we think the importation of all foreign goods an evil, because we claim that the produce of all foreign industry—be it manufacturing or be it agricultural—should pay a tax on its importation into this country equal to the taxes paid by the people of England? The right hon. Gentleman apprehends there may be a difficulty in furnishing the returns; but my friends in the City have no difficulty in furnishing me with them. I ask nothing which I am not ready to supply the Government with, if their own people are incapable of procuring it.
Motion agreed to.

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM.
MR. HUME, having been called upon by the Speaker to bring on the Motion of which he had given notice, for extending the elective franchise to householders, &c.,
1308
said, he was very sorry that at that late hour (past eleven o'clock)— [Mr. O'CONNOR: Go, on, go on.] He hoped his hon. Friend would allow him to speak and judge for himself. He knew the duty he had undertaken, and also knew that, in the time that was before him, he should not be able to state what, on so important a question, ought to be stated. He had been in his place the whole evening, and was most anxious to bring his Motion forward; but the previous discussion had disappointed him, and he now felt obliged to postpone his Motion to the first open day. The only open day which he found on the book was the 20th of June; on that day his Motion would stand first, when he trusted he should be able to bring it forward without meeting with any difficulty.
MR. F. O'CONNOR would move the adjournment of the House, for the purpose of having an opportunity to offer a few observations on the course adopted by the hon. Member for Montrose. He quite agreed with that hon. Member, that he ought to be allowed to speak for himself; and he hoped that in future he would only speak for himself, and not venture to speak for the people of this country On a former occasion he came a groat distance, and at much inconvenience, to support the hon. Member on a Motion which he was to have brought forward, but which the hon. Member thought it fit to postpone. He then told the hon. Member, that he had deceived him the first time, but that if he deceived him a second time it should be his (Mr. F. O'Connor's) own fault. There was no question of more importance than the question which the hon. Member was to have brought forward to-night. There had been many questions of importance brought on at as late an hour; and, had the debate been commenced, he would have remained until its close. The hon. Member for Montrose had invited the working classes to fraternise with the middle classes; and he had himself come to the conclusion, that for the sake of gaining the points which the hon. Member sought to establish, it would be advisable to abate a great portion of those principles which he had always earnestly advocated. Having adopted this course, and given this advice to the people, he did not think he had been well treated by the hon. Member for Montrose. If he had not been assured by that hon. Member that he would persevere in his Motion, he (Mr. F. O'Connor) would have proceeded with the measure which he

1309
had himself intended to bring forward. The working classes had been before deluded by the middle classes; and he would now ask them whether they believed that the people would any longer confide in them? He lad told the hon. Member for Montrose, and he had told the party with whom that hon. Member acted, that if they hoped to obtain the confidence of the people, they must make a determined stand upon those principles which they had recently professed; but what was the fact? Why, they had completely juggled the people. It was now proposed by the hon. Member to postpone his Motion for a month; whereas the proper course for the hon. Member to have pursued would have been to have brought forward his Motion, even though the debate should have been adjourned. Had the hon. Member done this, the people would have believed that he was in earnest. He considered he had a right to complain of the contrary course taken by the hon. Member, seeing that it was by his advice that the people had tolerated this movement on the part of the middle classes. The people made a great sacrifice by having even for a moment abandoned their own great principle for the purpose of testing the feelings of the House upon a minor principle. He did not wonder that hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches conceived that they had achieved a great triumph, when, in the present state of the country, they saw the false position in which the working classes had been placed; or that they should look with derision upon the position into which the hon. Member had brought his own followers. He (Mr. F. O'Connor) would not be a consenting party to any such "mockery, delusion, and snare." He could no longer place confidence in men who, upon his soul and conscience, he believed only intended to use the people for their own purposes. He never had been a party to any delusion, either in the House or out of it. Had the hon. Member brought the Motion forward, and it had been proposed that he should withdraw it, he (Mr. F. O'Connor) would have opposed the proposition. He would again tell the hon. Member that the country would not be satisfied at his having at eleven o'clock postponed his Motion.
MR. COBDEN: My conviction is, that there can be but one opinion on the part of every sincere, honest, and intelligent man in the country, that the hon. Member for Montrose is entirely blameless for the de-
1310
lay which has taken place in the discussion of his Motion. I think that no reasonable man would suppose that any one having to conduct so important a question would bring it before the House at a quarter-past eleven o'clock. The object of my hon. Friend is, that this question may be fully discussed; and, if it had begun at five o'clock, I doubt whether one evening would have sufficed for a full discussion of it. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has undertaken to give advice, in no very courteous or complimentary terms, to my hon. Friend; but, if I were to venture to give my hon. Friend advice, it would be this—that in conducting this important question, he should not follow the advice, still less the example, of the hon. Member, who calls himself the leader of the working classes of this country, but who, after undertaking for nine years to lead them in the advocacy of what is called "the People's Charter"—[Mr. F. O'CONNOR: Fifteen years]—who, as the hon. Gentleman stated the other day at a meeting of his Convention, had after, as he now says, fifteen years of leadership and advocacy of the People's Charter, met with but one man in the House of Commons upon whom in his absence he could depend for the advocacy of his principles. ["Name!"] I cannot name the hon. Member; but I think that is sufficient to warn the hon. Member for Montrose to beware how he conforms himself to the tactics and advice coming from the hon. Member for Nottingham. I think, if anything could open the eyes of the working classes of the country to a just sense of the value of the hon. Member for Nottingham's services, it is the position in which he has been placed by every hon. Member, except one, in this House, after fifteen years of leadership. I have had long experience of that hon. Member, and perhaps he will not accuse me of being actuated by any feelings of hostility towards him—for certainly no hon. Member has lavished so many compliments upon me as he has done—but I say, that my experience of the conduct of the hon. Member out of this House, and of the spirit and manner in which he has tried to array the working classes against every man who could effectually assist them in carrying forward the objects in which the hon. Member himself professed to wish them success, convinces me that he has done more to retard the political progress of the working classes of England than any other public man that ever lived

1311
in this country. I speak from long experience of that hon. Member; and no man has more right than I have to speak of him upon that subject. For seven years I had the direct and relentless hostility of that hon. Member, upon what, I believe, was strictly a question affecting the interests of the working classes of this country—I mean the abolition of the tax upon their food. That hon. Gentleman did all he could to array the working classes against me, and against those who acted with me. I had more hostility to encounter from that hon. Member than from the Duke of Buckingham and all his party, And what is the resu1lt? I never fraternised with the hon. Gentleman or his myrmidons. No one can for a moment charge me with ever having done so. I always treated the hon. Member as the leader of a small, insignificant, and powerless party. I never identified him or his party with the working class of this country. I ever treated him, as I do now, not as the leader of the working classes, but as the leader of a small and organised faction. I have set the hon. Gentleman publicly at defiance, and all his followers; and I never failed to beat them by votes whenever I met them at public meetings in the open air in any county in England. In any advocacy I may enter upon for the working classes, as I never have, so I never will offer to fraternise with the hon. Member and his organised followers; and if he says, as he has said, that he is preparing his followers to go along with us, I say to him again, that with him and his Chartists, as an organised body, I never will fraternise. I have set them at defiance before, and I set them at defiance now. I would advise my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose not to be deluded by anything which may fall from the hon. Member as to the power he has over the working classes of this country. He was weak before, he is harmless now; and whatever he may threaten or promise will be equally powerless and uninfluential. Ferocious as was his attack upon my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, there is no one who will not be as well disposed as ever to continue to my hon. Friend that confidence which he has always enjoyed from the great mass of the people of this country.
LORD J. RUSSELL: I suppose that the hon. Member for Nottingham proposed his Motion for adjournment merely for the purpose of making his observations upon the postponement of the Motion of the
1312
hon. Member for Montrose; and as the hon. Gentleman has effected that object, I presume he has no inducement to retard the business of the evening by pressing, and will withdraw, his proposition. I cannot myself see that there is anything objectionable or unusual in the hon. Member for Montrose, finding he had not been able to bring forward his Motion at a earlier hour, taking the course of postponing it. But with respect to the other questions that have been alluded to—making no comment upon the personal observations that have passed—the hon. Member for Nottingham saying that no confidence ought to be placed in the hon. Member for Montrose, and the lion. Member for the West Riding saying that no confidence ought to be placed in the hon. Member for Nottingham—avoiding remarks upon these questions of personal confidence—I must say my belief is that the middle and working classes of this county, speaking generally, wish for neither the one great reform nor the other—that they are anxious for neither the People's Charter, as proposed by the hon. Member for Nottingham, nor the great plan of reform, which comes somewhat near the People's Charter, as proposed by the hon. Member for Montrose. I do not think that they at present desire either the one or the other. My belief is that the middle and working classes desire that there should be a gradual progress in reform; that this House should give its attention to the questions that are before it; and that in securing the peace and quiet of the country rest their true interest and prosperity.
Motion for adjournment withdrawn.

POOR LAWS (IRELAND).
MR. FRENCH rose to move according to notice for a Committee to inquire into the allegations of a petition from the county of Roscommon, as to the working of the Irish poor-law.
SIR GEORGE GREY suggested that the hon. Member should postpone his Motion to a future day.
MR. FRENCH could not accede to the request of his right hon. Friend for the withdrawal of his Motion. He felt that by frequent discussion alone could the attention of Parliament be drawn to the impolicy and great injustice of the manner in which the interests of Ireland were treated; and he regretted to gather from the request that had been made that Her Majesty's Government were about to meet

1313
this Motion in the same way they had, unfortunately for themselves and for Ireland, met that of the hon. Member for Portarlington, by refusing any inquiry into the working of a system, not alone vicious in itself, but rendered more objectionable by the arbitrary and offensive manner in which the Commissioners had exercised the unconstitutional powers vested in them. He assured them that this course would not tend to allay the discontent and dissatisfaction now universally prevalent in Ireland, or reconcile the people to English legislation. He, however, trusted, when the House would take into consideration the manner in which this law had been forced upon Ireland, the total neglect of all the pledges given by Government on its introduction, the ruinous effects that had followed from it, and the universal odium in which it was held, they would not consider the demand that he was about to make for inquiry an unreasonable one. Owing to the discontent and representations of the English Members on the immigration of Irish labourers into England, a Commission was appointed to inquire into the state of the poor in Ireland. The inquiry was intrusted to the Archbishop of Dublin, an Englishman, conversant with the working of the poor-law in this country; the Chief Remembrancer, Mr. Blake, a gentleman of great ability, possessing the confidence of Her Majesty's Government; the late Member for Kildare, Mr. O'Ferrall, resident all his life in Ireland—well acquainted with the condition of the people, who filled some of the most important situations under Her Majesty's present advisers. Their report was conclusive against the introduction of the English poor-law into Ireland. This, however, did not suit the preconceived views of Her Majesty's Government; and Mr. Nicholls was ordered to make his six weeks' tour to Ireland. On his hasty conclusions and inaccurate calculations, a Bill was introduced and passed through the House, in defiance of the majority of the Irish representatives—in defiance of the warning of one who knew Ireland and her interests well—the late Mr. O'Connell —who told them that his deliberate judgment was, that their Bill would not succeed in mitigating the evils to be found in the existing state of the poor in Ireland, but its tendency would be to aggravate them much. Mr. Nicholls stated that the expense of the workhouses, if fully occupied, and the support of the poor, would not ex-
1314
ceed 312,000 l. a year. He says in the 64th page of his first report—
"Our experience of workhouse administration in England would warrant the adoption of the sum of 208,000 l. a year; but to be safe and to approximate to the truth, say 260,000 l."
The accuracy of this calculation may be tested by the fact, that in the last year a levy nearly to the amount of two millions sterling has been made for that purpose. This has been on property rated at thirteen millions, while in England there is but five millions levied on property rated at sixty-two millions. The noble Lord by whom the Bill was introduced estimated the number that would seek for relief under it at a hundred and twenty-one thousand. A hundred and forty odd thousand are now in the workhouses, and ten times that number are receiving outdoor relief. The noble Lord declared that this experimental operation of his could not have a successful result, without some collateral measures for easing the country of her superabundant population. He promised to assist immigration, and to afford means to employ the people. He said in his speech—
"As to the nature of the public works to be engaged in, that is a point I will not discuss now. It appears still to me there are various means open for the application of the labour of the poorer classes, which might lead to the happiest result. I think with care and attention we may find materials for public works of such a nature, that while they serve the temporary purpose of employing the indigent, may be the means of opening new sources of industry, and for the profitable investment of capital in Ireland—opening improved communication between different districts, for instance, the improvement of bogs, are questions well worthy the application of labour and investment of capital."
Neither of these pledges have been redeemed; in place of which the Act, by the amendments of the late Parliament, has been rendered more oppressive and more destructive to the interests of Ireland. Its powers are now so arbitrary and so unconstitutional that a noble Lord, in another place, well declared that no Ministry that ever occupied the Treasury benches dared to propose such a measure for the people of England. Under it the property of the country has been confiscated without any effect on the destitution of the people, who are perishing daily by thousands. The mortality among the hundred and forty-six thousand confined in the workhouses is weekly equal to the mortality of this metropolis, with its two millions of inhabitants. Those objectionable powers were a conces-

1315
sion to English impatience at Irish immigration—they are not alone unjust, but insufficient. The tide of immigration proceeding from Irish wretchedness and Irish misery will continue to flow. As water finds its level, the current of human beings urged onward by the pressure of their physical wants, must ever rush towards the point where their wants will find alleviation. In place of checking that current of Irish destitution towards England, you have, by the destruction of property in Ireland, taken from us the means of employment at home, and materially increased the evil of which you complain. He (Mr. French), however, did not wish to be considered opposed to the principle of a poor-law. On the contrary, he was prepared to show that if Her Majesty's Ministers were disposed to take a manly and statesmanlike view of the case, in making the entire property of the country liable to the support of the poor, on the principle of an income-tax, they would have a fund not alone sufficient for that purpose, but available for the development of the resources of Ireland. Why should mortgagees, annuitants and fundholders be exempted? Why should the burden of supporting the poverty of Ireland be thrown on what was manifestly unequal to bear it—the land alone? According to the plan he proposed, twenty millions worth 4 property would be available for this rate, Which would not, in any case, exceed a shilling in the pound. Economy of administration could be secured by rendering each union liable to a separated rate for any excess of expenditure of the sum appropriated to them out of the general fund by the central authority. The present system could not be continued—the loss of life was frightful; but little relief was given to destitution; and, from one end of the country to the other, the cry was universal that they could not, and would not, bear this state of things any longer. The object of the law appeared to be to regulate paupers and not to remove pauperism. It might be applicable to a country where poverty was an exception; it was inapplicable to a country where poverty was the general rule. It was not essential that this law, in both countries, should be the same; the poor-law was one of a domestic character—it formed no part of a comprehensive scheme of imperial policy—it professed to be for the benefit of Ireland. The people of that country were universally opposed to it—neither the bayonets nor the wealth of England could secure its con-
1316
tinuance. The province of Connaught contained 4,392,000 acres; its rated value was 1,465,642 l.; its population, 1,418,857; it was divided into 155,000 tenements, 100,000 of which were under five acres in extent: 90 per cent of the population lived in cabins of but one room: the rents were unpaid, the county rates could not be collected—there was a debt of between, 1,000,000 l., and 2,000,000 l. owing to Government for temporary advances. In several districts the land was untilled, and people who formerly possessed 100 l. to 200 l. a year seeking relief. Did Her Majesty's Government think that the poor-law could be upheld in this district? It would require double the value of the land to relieve the wretchedness of its population. The petition from the county of Roscommon was adopted at a public meeting: it was signed by all parties, from the Peer to the peasant, and it represented every shade of political opinion. If a Committee were granted, he would undertake to substantiate every allegation contained in it. The Government might possibly raise the objection that this Motion was but a repetition of one which had been previously made, and which had been resisted on the ground that the Government officers connected with the administration of the poor-law in Ireland would be taken away from their duties to give evidence before the Committee. He pledged him. self he would not bring over a single officer of the board—their opinions might be communicated to Government in blue books. Before he sat down, he would warn his noble and right hon. Friends below him that the people would not tamely submit to the destruction of life and confiscation of property that was going on. Strafford, by his attempts to confiscate the property of the west, by his inquiries into defective titles, brought about the bloody outbreak of 1641. Human nature is the same—similar causes will bring about similar effects. The hon. Member concluded by moving the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into and report on the allegations contained in the petition of the ceunty of Roscommon, as to the working of the Irish poor-law.
MR. GRACE seconded the Motion.
SIR GEORGE GREY was sorry that his hon. Friend had not listened to the appeal which had been made to him to postpone his Motion, and bring it forward on a future day, because it was impossible at that late hour of the night (nearly twelve

1317
o'clock) to bestow upon the question that consideration which it deserved. He confessed he had not thought it probable, looking at the place which his hon. Friend's Motion occupied on the Paper, that it could have been brought on at all that evening, but he was prepared to state in a few words the reasons why he could not advise the House to agree to the appointment of a Committee. It had been suggested that this was a renewal of the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Portarlington (Colonel Dunne), which was brought forward at an earlier period of the Session, and which was then fully discussed. He could not say, however, that he thought the present Motion was merely a repetition of the Motion of the hon. Member for Portarlington. He considered that the working of the Irish poor-law would be a very fit subject for inquiry when the witnesses could be brought over from Ireland to this country without interfering with the operation of those measures which had been under taken to relieve the distress which prevailed in the sister country. This Motion, however, was for a Committee to inquire into the allegations of a petition presented by the proprietors and occupiers of land in the county of Roscommon. There were very few allegations in the petition which would admit of inquiry by a Select Committee of that House. With respect to the area of electoral districts, a Commission had been already appointed, which was prosecuting its inquiries in the north of Ireland, and was about to extend its labours to the south and west. The most ample materials would be afforded for legislative enactment when that Commission reported; and would the hon. Member propose to nominate a Select Committee now to take the subject out of the hands of the Commission? The petitioners next adverted to the appointment of paid guardians, who had been nominated in a greater number of cases than he could have wished; but in no cases had they been appointed where the necessity did not fairly arise, or where the Commissioners were not bound to exercise the powers intrusted to them on that behalf. He hoped the paid guardians would be everywhere replaced by elected guardians before long, for he admitted that, as a matter of principle, the administration of the poor-law ought to be in the hands of those who were locally interested. The question of rating was a large one, into which he would not follow the hon. Member. The subject had been discussed
1318
at various times in that House; and it was not one on which it was necessary that a Select Committee should be appointed. Important amendments might probably be made in the working of the Irish poor-law; but he hoped the hon. Member would not persist in his Motion, and that the House would negative it if the hon. Member pressed the Motion to a division. The amount paid in poor-rates by the county of Roscommon was not so great as to justify the complaint of the petitioners; and he believed there were twenty or thirty unions in Ireland, Roscommon being one, in which the expenditure from the funds of the British Relief Association for the week ending the 5th of May last was 9,764 l. The poor-law had been the means of relieving a mass of destitution in Ireland, and of saving the lives of many of the poor. He trusted, therefore, that the House would not listen to complaints of the heavy burden of the poor-rates from parties who were paying 1s. 6d. in the pound, or deprive the Irish poor of the benefit which they were now enjoying from the operation of the poor-law in that country.
COLONEL CONOLLY objected exceedingly to the administration of the poor-law in Ireland, which was both capricious and arbitrary. He did not attribute the fault to the Government, but to the persons who were under their authority. Still he did not go the length of desiring the subversion of the whole system, in the propriety of which he could not at all agree. He was not prepared at that moment to point out any very patent defect in the law; but that which was the evil of it arose out of the administration of the law by the Board of Commissioners in Dublin, in placing paid guardians in charge of it. By such a course they lost the confidence of the country; and in proportion to any increase in the numbers of those paid guardians would be the increase in the evils of the system.
SIR W. SOMERVILLE said, that the hon. and gallant Colonel the Member for Donegal (Colonel Conolly) seemed to think that it was the object of the Poor Law Commissioners to dissolve as many boards of guardians as possible; whereas, of all the duties devolved by law upon the Commission, that of taking the step in question was the most unpleasant and the most painful. The fact appeared, however, to be that the hon. and gallant Member was too apt to judge, from the state of matters in his own neighbourhood, of that existing

1319
generally over Ireland. He believed, indeed, that the hon. and gallant Colonel, in his remarks, had the Ballyshannon union in his eye. The fact was, that the Commissioners had interfered with the union in question, and had by doing so interfered with the system of economy urged by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, who wished to procure the services of a schoolmaster for six, and those of a porter for four pounds a year. In some of the unions, the guardians had refused to appoint relieving officers, although the law was quite clear and distinct on the subject. He hoped the Irish Members would not think the law was carried out in any harsh manner, and that the hon. Member would not insist on a division. From what he heard from the bon. Member, he thought he should not bring the Motion forward that night. [Mr. FRENCH: I scarcely could have thought that possible.] He could assure the hon. Gentleman it was the wish of the Government to carry out the law in the best manner possible, and with every regard to the feelings and wishes of the board of guardians.
COLONEL DUNNE objected to considering a subject of such great importance to Ireland at that late hour of the evening. It was impossible to give it due justice at such a period; and, for himself, he believed that half the Irish Members had neither read nor seen the Roscommon petition. This he could say, that an inquiry into the administration and effects of the poor-law was absolutely necessary for the tranquillity of Ireland. He was quite misrepresented when it was stated that he opposed the law. He could not agree with the right hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Somerville) that the dismissal of the board of guardians was just or necessary, or that they had been dismissed for any fault of their own, or for any corrupt practices. The fact was, that the constitution of these boards rendered it impossible for them to carry out the law. Let them look to the way in which the paid guardians had failed in executing those duties which devolved on them. In Castlebar and Mohill the paid guardians had been unable to carry out the law; and in the former union the effects at the workhouse had been sold at the suit of the creditors.
MR. F. FRENCH replied: He thought the right hon. Baronet (Sir W. Somerville) must have been quite mistaken if he thought he (Mr. French) had given him any promise not to bring the Motion for-
1320
ward. He considered that the way in which the poor-rate had been levied was most harsh. The potatoes bought for seed by the poor man, on the return of which he depended for the food of his family, had in many instances been seized and sold to defray the rates. He was aware of many such cases, and of one where the whole stock of the farm, consisting of but one animal, which was employed in the tillage of the land, had been seized and sold for the same purpose. Considering the severe method in which the poor-rate was collected, he was of opinion that a very considerable sum of money had been levied since the return which had been furnished to the House. He had no wish to divide the House, as he saw no prospect of a successful issue; so he would therefore place himself in the hands of the House.
Motion
withdrawn.

STATE TRIALS (IRELAND).
MR. KEOGH moved for the following returns:—
"Returns of the names and description of the forty-eight special jurors, drawn by ballot, to serve on the trial of the cause the Queen against William Smith O'Brien, esquire, M. P., in the Queen's Bench in Ireland; and of the twenty-four who were afterwards, on the reduction of the list, struck off the number, distinguishing those struck off by the Crown and by the traverser; and also specifying which of the forty-eight were members of the Roman Catholic religion. And a like return in the case of the Queen against Thomas Meagher."
The hon. Member said that, notwithstanding the lateness of the hour, he had been recommended to bring forward this Motion, as it was not probable that any more favourable opportunity would offer itself; and he was very anxious to bring under the notice of the House the wholesale exclusion of Roman Catholics from the jury panel selected for the trials—a practice which was highly insulting to the Roman Catholics of that country. Now, he begged to state that he neither felt nor expressed any sympathy with the opinions of those gentlemen who had been put upon their trial. So far as their exertions were directed to obtain a repeal of the Union, he had always expressed his decided opposition to their object; but he could conceive no stronger argument for those who advocated that repeal than the practice of which he now complained—that of striking off from the special jury panel the names of many of the most respectable Roman Catholics in Ireland. He would now state briefly the circumstances under which this

1321
arose. In the cases of both gentlemen a special jury had been moved for by the Attorney General, and it happened that this year there were on the special jury panel 680 names; of those names forty-eight jurors were chosen by ballot, and then a time was fixed for striking off twenty-four of the forty-eight, twelve being struck off by the Crown, and twelve by the traverser. In Mr. Meagher's case, out of the forty-eight there were twelve Roman Catholics on the panel; and he might refer to the two hon. Members for Dublin, to confirm him in saying that number included some of the most respectable traders and influential merchants in Dublin; that there were amongst them five or six respectable Roman Catholics, who were not connected in any manner with political agitation is Ireland; and more particularly he should state, that amongst those twelve Roman Catholics there was not a single person directly or indirectly connected with the Repeal Confederation; but of those twelve the Crown officer struck off eleven, leaving as the only representative of Roman Catholic opinions upon the jury one gentleman, who was stated publicly in the office by both parties to be dead. He would not trouble the House by reading the names of all those gentlemen, but he would refer to two or three only; and every one acquainted with the principal persons in Dublin would be inclined to ask, when he mentioned the names of the Messrs. Campbell, and of Mr. Powell, a gentleman of large fortune and high position in the city, whose political opinions were of the most moderate character, what justifiable grounds could there be for striking off the names of parties so highly respectable? How could such a process of exclusion be regarded by the Roman Catholic population without feelings of deep exasperation at the conduct of the Government which practised it? He felt that as a Roman Catholic Member of that House he was entitled to ask the Government by whose authority it had taken place? Was it by the authority of the Secretary for Ireland? Was it by the authority of Her Majesty's Attorney General, himself a Roman Catholic? Was it with the sanction of the noble Lord the First Lord of the Treasury? When similar practices were, in 1844, put in force by the Government to which the noble Lord stood opposed in that House, no one more eloquently condemned them than the noble Lord. The people of Ireland could not have expected that the Go-
1322
vernment of the noble Lord would itself have pursued such practices. On the present occasion, however, when Mr. Meagher was to be tried, they struck off men of the highest respectability, connected in no degree with party politics, while they had retained men of low degree, whose only qualification appeared to be the fact that they were the declared and bitter opponents of the parties they were to try. There was no stronger opponent of the opinions of the traversers than he (Mr. Keogh); but he must say that, if it was the object of the Government to put down those opinions, and put an end to the dangerous course they were pursuing, a more futile mode of obtaining that object could not have been devised. If it were to be obtained by a verdict of jurymen, what would the country say but that it was a verdict obtained by packing the jury? We might be told that it was perfectly accidental, or that it was done without the knowledge of the Attorney General, as it had been stated in a Government organ in Dublin, that it was altogether the work of an old established officer, the Crown Solicitor in Ireland. He, however, happened to know the Crown Solicitor to be a most respectable person, one totally incapable of travelling out of his duty unless acting under the directions of his superior. He could not see the slightest reason why the Crown Solicitor should thus act unless in obedience to orders; and without he saw convincing proof that it was that individual's work, he should be very slow to fix it upon him. Besides, Mr. Kemmis would not have been likely to take such a responsibility upon himself without special orders, as under a Roman Catholic Attorney General, whose duty it was to prevent any such unfairness, he might have been sure of his dismissal. What, however, became of the plea of it being accidentally done, when immediately afterwards, in the case of Mr. W. Smith O'Brien, the same thing was repeated? [Mr. M. J. O'CONNELL: Mr. Smith O'Brien was the first.] It did not make the slightest difference which was first to the argument. Two panels were thus struck; but again, on the trial of Mr. Mitchel, two more panels were struck in a similar manner. He had not the smallest sympathy with the opinions and conduct of Mr. Mitchel; but he was strongly of opinion that if that or any other individual were to be tried, the jury ought to be a fair one. No jury in Ireland could be fair unless it were a mixed jury. If they were to im-

1323
pannel all the political and religious opponents of a defendant, and thus obtain a verdict, that would not be a due administration of the law. The people of Ireland could have no confidence in such an administration of the law. What ought to be the practice? The noble Lord at the head of the Government, when, in 1844, similar practices were put in force by the late Government, in referring in that House to the state of Ireland, used some most remarkable expressions. The noble Lord said that " the Government of Ireland was maintained by force and not by opinion. Why had they no reason here to fear any Government? Because the verdict of a jury stood betwixt every man and tyranny —because trial by jury' secured to every Englishman his just rights." The noble Lord then went on to condemn the Government, because in a panel of forty-eight persons, ten of whom were Roman Catholics, the whole of those ten were struck off by the solicitors for the Crown; and the noble Lord added, that that "deprived those proceedings of any weight or value." Those were the opinions of the noble Lord in 1844; and he (Mr. Keogh) must ask whether similar conduct in the present case did not deprive the proceedings of which he complained "of any weight or value?" If there had been a conviction, what weight or value would that conviction have? But the circumstances were somewhat different in these two cases; but the comparison, in his opinion, was against the more recent. The noble Lord had held that, in 1844, the Government were quite justified in their proceedings in the case of eight Roman Catholics out of the ten struck off the panel, because they were active members of the Repeal Association. ["No, no!"] So it was stated by the noble Lord himself, in his speech already quoted. The present Secretary for Ireland, when examined before a Committee of the House of Lords, attributed all the improvements that had taken place in the state of Ireland to the practice, under the Whig Government, of not excluding Roman Catholics from juries. On that same occasion the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Sheil) had said, that as far as trial by jury was concerned the Catholic Emancipation Act was a nonentity; and no sooner was the panel of 1844 struck, then away went the hon. Member for Dungarvan and others to Dublin, to hold an aggregate meeting to protest against the conduct of the Crown Solicitor. [The hon. Mem-
1324
ber here quoted the requisition calling that meeting.] That requisition was signed by the present Under Secretary of State for Ireland, the present Attorney General for Ireland, by Thomas Wyse, and by Richard Lalor Sheil, now Master of the Mint. His object in bringing forward this subject was to obtain an explanation from Her Majesty's Government; and he also desired to call the attention of Parliament to the facts of the case, in the hope that that might put an end to the practice for the future. Ireland was not likely to make any progress if there were not a just administration of the law—if the people had no confidence in the juries by which they were to be tried. He believed that the general opinion in the House and out of it was, that there had been a good deal of blundering in the late proceedings on the part of the law officers of the Crown. Amongst other mistakes, nothing could have been more unfortunate than the selection of this jury. If the law officers of the Crown had not struck off the Roman Catholics whom they did strike off, and had struck off the Roman Catholics whom they left on, they would certainly have obtained a verdict. Who was the person they left on? Why, he had been chairman of a Repeal Association just four days before the jury was struck; and no sooner was the verdict of acquittal pronounced, than he went down to the Repeal Association to boast of what he had done. He was a person of no note or standing; and the reason he was left on was because he was a vestry clerk at St. Mark's Church; and it was thought that he was necessarily a Protestant. But in Ireland singular contradictions often happened. The Protestant vestry clerk turned out a very excellent Roman Catholic. He had discharged his duty in bringing the facts under the notice of the House. Great interest was felt on the subject in Ireland; and, unless Her Majesty's Government were able to give a satisfactory explanation, the Roman Catholics of Ireland would feel that a gross insult had been offered them. But whether the Government could explain or not, he trusted that, having called the attention of Parliament to the subject, that would be sufficient to prevent a repetition of such disgraceful practices.
MR. ANSTEY seconded the Motion. He considered that the conduct of the law officers of the Crown in Ireland had been marked by a most unhappy and fatal course

1325
of error, and that the Government ought to direct their serious attention to the reformation of the proceedings of which his hon. Friend complained. He also considered that the Ministers were bound to afford the most fill and ample explanation of the conduct of their subalterns with regard to this matter; and, if they could not defend that conduct, it was their duty to punish it.
LORD J. RUSSELL: I could have wished that the hon. Gentleman had postponed his Motion till we could have made more particular inquiries in Ireland with regard to the circumstances connected with the striking of these juries. What I have to say on the subject at present will only comprehend that which is known personally to myself, and the information I have received from the Lord Lieutenant. I certainly did not expect that any charge of partiality could have been made against Her Majesty's Ministers on the ground of the exclusion of Roman Catholics. I entertain now the same opinions I held in 1844—that the exclusion of Roman Catholics, as such, unless they were members of Repeal Associations, and had distinguished themselves by the violence of their conduct in such associations, would be an extremely wrong and unjustifiable proceeding. I certainly did not expect that the present Government would be accused of partiality on that ground, it being notorious that among the appointments they have made, Roman Catholics have received as much of the favour of the Crown as Protestants, according to their fitness for the different offices for which they have been selected. The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the Attorney General. It happens that the Attorney General for Ireland is a Roman Catholic, and the Under Secretary of State for Ireland is also a Roman Catholic. My right hon. Friend the Master of the Mint, and one of the Secretaries of the Board of Control, are also Roman Catholics; and many other Roman Catholics might be mentioned who have received appointments under the present Government. These facts show at least that Her Majesty's Ministers entertain no distrust with regard to Roman Catholics on account of their religion; and I certainly did not anticipate that any charge of this nature was likely to be made. When I first received from my noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland an intimation that it was the determination of the Government to prosecute several persons for sedition, 1 wrote to
1326
him immediately to say, that I trusted no ground would be afforded for any charge with respect to unfairness in the composition of the jury, and that I would much rather see the persons acquitted than that any unfairness should be practised. My noble Friend expressed the same opinions; and when it was first said in Dublin that Roman Catholics of respectability, against whom it could not be charged that they had been violent in favour of repeal, had been left out of the jury, my noble Friend wrote to me stating that it was entirely a surprise to him, and was altogether contrary to his wishes and directions. Having said thus much, I cannot, I confess, pursue the question into its details. I can only state that the Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Monahan, assured the Lord Lieutenant that there had not been—at least by his direction—any Roman Catholic left out of the jury merely on the ground of his being a Roman Catholic. The hon. Gentleman has alluded to the conduct of the Crown Solicitor, Mr. Kemmis, and he has paid a tribute to that gentleman of which I believe he is deserving. I believe he is a most respectable gentleman; but, with regard to the grounds upon which he proceeded in the striking of the jury, I have not received any information which would enable me to make a statement to the House. I have certainly, more than once, written upon this subject; and I think it would be only fair that the House should suspend its judgment till we know what statement Mr. Kemmis has to make. All I can say is, that neither I, at the head of the Government, nor the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, nor the Attorney General for Ireland, had any wish or desire that any person should be left out of the jury on the ground of his religion, or that the jury should be composed exclusively of Protestants. That the juries were not well selected or packed—if the purpose was to pack them—I think the hon. Gentleman has himself shown; for it is notorious that there was upon one of the juries a person who had been chairman either of a Repeal Committee or of a Repeal Association, and who, according to the hon. Gentleman, was not only opposed in opinion to the majority of his fellow jurors, but who considered that it was not a matter in which he was bound by any oath, but one in which he was solely bound to regard the interests of the faction to which he belonged. With respect to the Motion, I believe it will be impossible to

1327
comply with the latter part of it, as there is no formal record of the religion of the parties. I think that part of the Motion ought properly to be left out; but I have no objection to the other returns. I can only say, in conclusion, that when I receive any further information of what actually took place with regard to the striking off of these names, and the reason for striking them off, I will immediately state that information to the House for its satisfaction. I again repeat that, whatever example may be given by others of disregarding their obligations, and making the part which they have in the administration of justice a matter of politics and not of duty, the Government will be the last persons who will either set or follow an example of that kind. Their desire is to have respectable persons upon juries, and to leave the administration of justice in their hands, quite irrespective of the religion of the different parties of whom such juries may be composed.
MR. M. J. O'CONNELL expressed his satisfaction at the declaration of the noble Lord, which he was sure had been most gratifying to the House—that he was anxious that the law should be administered in Ireland in a spirit of fairness and justice. On the occasion of a somewhat similar trial a few years ago, Roman Catholics were totally excluded from the jury; and the hon. Gentleman who brought forward this Motion had said that that exclusion was strongly protested against by Mr. Wyse, his right hon. Friend the Master of the Mint (Mr. Sheil), and the Attorney General for Ireland. But there was one distinguished Roman Catholic name which he (Mr. M. J. O'Connell) did not remember seeing among the protesters—that of William Keogh, a Roman Catholic member of the Irish bar. He would contend, notwithstanding all that had been said to the contrary, that the blundering to which reference had been made, ought not in any respect to be attributed to his right hon. Friend Mr. Monahan. It was too much the fashion to accuse that learned Gentleman of committing mistakes; but he must take the liberty of saying that in Ireland, amongst Conservatives of the highest character, Mr. Monahan received, and had earned, the greatest approbation for the temperate and judicious tone of the statements which on recent occasions lie made to juries whom in the discharge of his duty he was called on to address. He was convinced that if there was any blundering, it
1328
would be traced to Mr. Kemmis, and not to the Attorney General.
MR. REYNOLDS remarked, that there was nothing new in the packing of juries in Ireland. Even the hon. Member (Mr. Keogh) had himself been perfectly silent under the packing of former Administrations. He hoped that a searching investigation would take place, with a view of placing the saddle on the right horse; for nothing had occurred in Dublin for the last twenty years which had occasioned more dissatisfaction and indignation in persons of all creeds than the exclusion of Roman Catholics from the recent juries.
SIR G. GREY would not have risen, were it not that he feared by his silence to be held as acquiescing in the imputations which had been thrown out against Mr. Kemmis. He would ask hon. Members to suspend their judgments on this point until they were put in possession of further information on the subject. From the information he had received, he could not believe that Mr. Kemmis was liable to the charge which had been made against him. He should deeply regret if it should turn. out that, in striking the jury, any insult had been offered to Roman Catholics, or any general distrust exhibited towards them as jurymen. He had hoped that the religion of the Attorney General would of itself have protected him from such a charge; and he felt it due to that right hon. and learned Gentleman to say, that throughout the trials of the special commission, which he conducted with great judgment, forbearance, and ability, in no single instance did he exercise the right of setting aside a juryman on account of his religion or otherwise. He allowed the juries to be struck without interference, the majority of them being Roman Catholics. It ought to be remembered, however, that they were bound to set aside some jurors; and that although instances could easily be adduced of persons being set aside who were perfectly competent, that was no proof that any wrong had been done. The original panel consisted, of course, of forty-eight; and as each party had the right to strike off twelve, leaving twenty-four to choose from, it was obvious that there might be many gentlemen of great respectability among those so struck off.
Motion, with the Amendment suggested by Lord J. Russell, agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter to Two o'clock.